How long can we wait while flattening the curve?

[StashingAway]

They might also mention that water is wet and the sky is blue. It’s not a helpful or relevant fact right now.

Right? It would be like telling a housewife with two young kids whose husband just walked out that her finances would be so much better if she saved 20% of her income in a Vanguard index fund. It may be true, but it's neither kind nor helpful.

Is the only focus to get through this next day or week or month? Or is it to become a better species able manage ourselves and the environment in the future? This thing will be with us for awhile. 6 months, a year, two years. That's PLENTY of time to be well on your way to a healthier lifestyle. Much less, say, 20 years when the next one hits. Part of managing something like this is having the optimism to see ourselves on the other end. Collectively we (should) want to see a better life in the future and see a way toward that.

Saying that your BMI affects your health doesn't help someone who catches COVID today. But it definitely could have some effect for someone who catches it next month or a year from now. And the best time to plant that seed of motivation is now.

[Travis]

Which is something their general practitioner has probably been telling them for years. Clearly Americans don't listen to their doctors. What effect would a complete stranger have telling them the same thing

I dunno. We managed to greatly reduce the rate of smoking across the West. What measures achieved that? Copy that.

Social stigma, basically. Over time. And huge taxes on cigarettes.

And laws about smoking in public places.

Putting a label on the package that said "This will kill you" did squat.  Public service announcements on TV and radio did squat. Smoking didn't decline in any significant numbers until it was made progressively more expensive and restricting where people could smoke. 

Michael Bloomberg tried to make sodas just as restrictive/illegal in NYC.  He was made the laughing stock of the nation for that one.  The public has fought tooth and nail over the last century against the government for trying to take away its vices. Banning alcohol didn't work. The best we could do with tobacco was to make it difficult to use. Marijuana is on the edge of becoming mainstream. Good luck banning fatty foods.

[Bloop Bloop]

I've always thought that instead of putting labels like "Smoking kills" it would be more effective to put labels saying "Smoking disfigures your teeth and leads to permanent bad breath" or "Smoking makes your penis smaller." I'm not sure if it's true or not but it would still be a great warning label.

[OtherJen]

I've always thought that instead of putting labels like "Smoking kills" it would be more effective to put labels saying "Smoking disfigures your teeth and leads to permanent bad breath" or "Smoking makes your penis smaller." I'm not sure if it's true or not but it would still be a great warning label.

In the 1980s, there was a whole slew of anti-smoking ads aimed at kids that attempted to do just that. I attended high school in the mid 1990s, and every single school bathroom was a cigarette smoke bomb. Don't underestimate peer pressure. The only things that seemed to make any difference were 1) laws against indoor smoking (which made it difficult to be a social smoker) and 2) jacking up the taxes (which made cigarettes prohibitively expensive for many young teens).

[MudPuppy]

Being in a healthy weight range doesn’t prevent infection, which is the huge difference here. Washing hands, staying home, wearing masks, etc are all interventions aimed at preventing people from contracting (and spreading) the disease in the first place.

[jambongris]

I've always thought that instead of putting labels like "Smoking kills" it would be more effective to put labels saying "Smoking disfigures your teeth and leads to permanent bad breath" or "Smoking makes your penis smaller." I'm not sure if it's true or not but it would still be a great warning label.

That's essentially what they say in Canada:

Tobacco use can make you impotent.

When you smoke. It shows.

https://tobaccolabels.ca/countries/canada/

[Shane]

The Bill Maher clip resonated with me, because my wife and I had just been talking, during dinner, about ways we could realistically hope to improve our health, so that, if and when we get covid, we'll have better chances of surviving. One idea we agreed on was to substitute water for juice with meals. The only "cost" will be listening to some, hopefully temporary, grumbling from our tween daughter. Maher points out, correctly I think, that it would be a good thing if doctors and politicians who are regularly reminding the public to wash our hands and maintain social distance also mentioned the simple fact that small steps towards a healthier lifestyle can improve all of our chances of surviving, not only covid, but many other health challenges, as well. A systemic change that might help a lot would be for the USDA to prohibit poor people from using SNAP benefits to purchase candy and soda. Duh! Seems like a no brainer, but as someone mentioned above, when Mike Bloomberg tried to restrict sodas in NYC, he got attacked. When Michelle Obama suggested Americans grow a garden and, maybe, eat vegetables and fruit, once in a while, she got labeled an extremist. A governor of our former state of Hawaii lost his bid for a second term, partly due to his support for a bill that would've taxed sodas at something like 10 cents a can. People went nuts over that simple, common sense proposal, which eventually failed, due to heavy lobbying by the HFCS industry.

[StashingAway]

Being in a healthy weight range doesn’t prevent infection, which is the huge difference here. Washing hands, staying home, wearing masks, etc are all interventions aimed at preventing people from contracting (and spreading) the disease in the first place.

Again, that's a solution for now. And I agree with all of it. But the problem with not addressing health concerns is that it's always a "future" problem.

In 6 months, we are likely going to be still managing this disease. In 6 months, many people will be saying that, sure, health is important but we need measures to prevent and cure disease NOW. But the time to do that was 6 months ago (the current present)

The whole inertia of the MMM forum is pushing for making personal lifestyle changes that help the present self and the future self be more productive and worthwhile. And if it's a good message, is should presumably be shared with everyone that wants to hear it. So recommending that people use this pandemic to kick start a healthier life is, in my book, one of the MOST important things to do. Becoming healthy will immediately make our collective lives better. It will make individual daily life better regardless of whether or not we get covid. Heart disease is still the leading cause of death in the US. It outpaces covid by a large margin.

We need to address the current issues, yes. There are many of them. But recommending people try to become more healthy alongside of that is hardly a cardinal sin.

[bloodaxe]

People went nuts over that simple, common sense proposal, which eventually failed, due to heavy lobbying by the HFCS industry.

There might have been heavy lobbying. But if you ask the average american if they want to pay extra for soda to reduce obesity they will say no.

[Shane]

People went nuts over that simple, common sense proposal, which eventually failed, due to heavy lobbying by the HFCS industry.

There might have been heavy lobbying. But if you ask the average american if they want to pay extra for soda to reduce obesity they will say no.

Sure, people didn't need much encouragement from the HFCS industry to get behind voting Governor Abercrombie out of office. His outspoken support of the same-sex marriage bill also made him a favorite target of many Evangelical Christians. Pretty sure there was a good bit of overlap between the group who opposed Abercrombie because his support for same-sex marriage and those who wanted to see him lose because of his support for the soda tax bill.

[Shane]

In 6 months, we are likely going to be still managing this disease. In 6 months, many people will be saying that, sure, health is important but we need measures to prevent and cure disease NOW. But the time to do that was 6 months ago (the current present)

The whole inertia of the MMM forum is pushing for making personal lifestyle changes that help the present self and the future self be more productive and worthwhile. And if it's a good message, is should presumably be shared with everyone that wants to hear it. So recommending that people use this pandemic to kick start a healthier life is, in my book, one of the MOST important things to do. Becoming healthy will immediately make our collective lives better. It will make individual daily life better regardless of whether or not we get covid. Heart disease is still the leading cause of death in the US. It outpaces covid by a large margin.

We need to address the current issues, yes. There are many of them. But recommending people try to become more healthy alongside of that is hardly a cardinal sin.

Agreed, we don't know how long this thing is going to continue. It might last for years. Encouraging people to do simple things like: take the stairs, instead of the elevator; walk or ride a bike to work or school, instead of driving everywhere; drink water, instead of soda or juice; etc., seems like it wouldn't hurt. Pretty sure Maher is right. The reason public health leaders like Fauci, Birx, Redfield, etal., aren't encouraging Americans to do what they can to improve their general health is because they know the response would be negative. Some of the comments in this thread seem to confirm that. Not saying people who are morbidly obese have much hope of slimming down to become thin in just a few months, but every little bit helps, IMHO.

[Shane]

Reading a really good book, right now, that is relevant to this thread. David Quammen is the author. I remember reading articles by Quammen in National Geographic years ago. Quammen's book is called Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic. TL/DR: Overpopulation and over-development by humans is causing more and more spillover of diseases from wild animals to humans. Seems like moving towards lower, or at least stable, human population might be a good way to move forward. Unfortunately, suggesting that fewer humans might be a good thing usually meets with a lot of resistance...

[wenchsenior]

Reading a really good book, right now, that is relevant to this thread. David Quammen is the author. I remember reading articles by Quammen in National Geographic years ago. Quammen's book is called Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic. TL/DR: Overpopulation and over-development by humans is causing more and more spillover of diseases from wild animals to humans. Seems like moving towards lower, or at least stable, human population might be a good way to move forward. Unfortunately, suggesting that fewer humans might be a good thing usually meets with a lot of resistance...

Husband and I were JUST talking about this book at dinner last night. We've been on the 'drastically reduce the human population to solve most of our completely intractable long-term problems' train since decades before that book was a gleam in Quammen's eye.  Unfortunately, it is an unpopular notion.  I remember decades ago, one of my natural resource management professors (a silviculturalist) couldn't wait to get tenure so he could finally start doing lectures on human overpopulation...it was that much of a third rail, which is, quite frankly, insane.  And the week he got tenure, he started doing that lecture.

[RetiredAt63]

Reading a really good book, right now, that is relevant to this thread. David Quammen is the author. I remember reading articles by Quammen in National Geographic years ago. Quammen's book is called Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic. TL/DR: Overpopulation and over-development by humans is causing more and more spillover of diseases from wild animals to humans. Seems like moving towards lower, or at least stable, human population might be a good way to move forward. Unfortunately, suggesting that fewer humans might be a good thing usually meets with a lot of resistance...

Husband and I were JUST talking about this book at dinner last night. We've been on the 'drastically reduce the human population to solve most of our completely intractable long-term problems' train since decades before that book was a gleam in Quammen's eye.  Unfortunately, it is an unpopular notion.  I remember decades ago, one of my natural resource management professors (a silviculturalist) couldn't wait to get tenure so he could finally start doing lectures on human overpopulation...it was that much of a third rail, which is, quite frankly, insane.  And the week he got tenure, he started doing that lecture.

ZPG was floating around in the 70s.  Not sure why/how it got torpedoed, but it sure did.

[wenchsenior]

Reading a really good book, right now, that is relevant to this thread. David Quammen is the author. I remember reading articles by Quammen in National Geographic years ago. Quammen's book is called Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic. TL/DR: Overpopulation and over-development by humans is causing more and more spillover of diseases from wild animals to humans. Seems like moving towards lower, or at least stable, human population might be a good way to move forward. Unfortunately, suggesting that fewer humans might be a good thing usually meets with a lot of resistance...

Husband and I were JUST talking about this book at dinner last night. We've been on the 'drastically reduce the human population to solve most of our completely intractable long-term problems' train since decades before that book was a gleam in Quammen's eye.  Unfortunately, it is an unpopular notion.  I remember decades ago, one of my natural resource management professors (a silviculturalist) couldn't wait to get tenure so he could finally start doing lectures on human overpopulation...it was that much of a third rail, which is, quite frankly, insane.  And the week he got tenure, he started doing that lecture.

ZPG was floating around in the 70s.  Not sure why/how it got torpedoed, but it sure did.

Here in the states, I suspect it was unpopular b/c it goes against 'God's Plan'.

[Shane]

Reading a really good book, right now, that is relevant to this thread. David Quammen is the author. I remember reading articles by Quammen in National Geographic years ago. Quammen's book is called Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic. TL/DR: Overpopulation and over-development by humans is causing more and more spillover of diseases from wild animals to humans. Seems like moving towards lower, or at least stable, human population might be a good way to move forward. Unfortunately, suggesting that fewer humans might be a good thing usually meets with a lot of resistance...

Husband and I were JUST talking about this book at dinner last night. We've been on the 'drastically reduce the human population to solve most of our completely intractable long-term problems' train since decades before that book was a gleam in Quammen's eye.  Unfortunately, it is an unpopular notion.  I remember decades ago, one of my natural resource management professors (a silviculturalist) couldn't wait to get tenure so he could finally start doing lectures on human overpopulation...it was that much of a third rail, which is, quite frankly, insane.  And the week he got tenure, he started doing that lecture.

ZPG was floating around in the 70s.  Not sure why/how it got torpedoed, but it sure did.

Here in the states, I suspect it was unpopular b/c it goes against 'God's Plan'.

When you combine the people who oppose reducing population, because it's "against God's Plan," with the people who oppose it, because it would be bad for business, with the people who oppose it, because it might negatively affect their future SS benefits, etc., chances for positive change start to look pretty slim.

[former player]

It also got a bad name because of the one child policy in China and the authoritarian tactics used to enforce it.

[rothwem]

The other problem with reducing population growth is the economy—the current population gets older and there’s nobody to support them and pay into the social system.  I’m pretty sure this is an issue in Italy and Japan, not sure about other countries.

[Shane]

Most rich countries already have a fertility rate well below replacement level. The only way we keep growing our populations is by encouraging immigration. If the US and most other rich countries stopped allowing immigration, population would immediately start falling, without the need for any draconian, One Child Policy type measures. In 2020, of course, anyone who opposes immigration is automatically assumed to be a racist. :(

[MudPuppy]

How does not allowing immigration affect the total human population? Sure, it might affect the population of the countries losing and receiving the people, but the net remains the same.

[rothwem]

Most rich countries already have a fertility rate well below replacement level. The only way we keep growing our populations is by encouraging immigration. If the US and most other rich countries stopped allowing immigration, population would immediately start falling, without the need for any draconian, One Child Policy type measures. In 2020, of course, anyone who opposes immigration is automatically assumed to be a racist. :(

It seems like that would be the worst of all scenarios. You would have poor countries with overcrowding, so you’d probably have even more animal-human contact, AND you’d have a shitty economy in the rich countries.

[Shane]

The other problem with reducing population growth is the economy—the current population gets older and there’s nobody to support them and pay into the social system.  I’m pretty sure this is an issue in Italy and Japan, not sure about other countries.

It's true that under our current system of funding government retirement programs, there is a need to have more people working than retired. Otherwise, the system breaks down and fails. Population growth can't go on forever, though. How we move out of our current system, which requires constant population growth, to a new paradigm in which human population first stabilizes, then begins to gradually start falling, is one of the most important questions we're going to need to answer in coming years...

[Shane]

How does not allowing immigration affect the total human population? Sure, it might affect the population of the countries losing and receiving the people, but the net remains the same.

People living in, say, Bangladesh consume a tiny fraction of world resources compared to the same person living in the US. Moving people from the 3rd World to the 1st is a net negative for the planet.

[MudPuppy]

I doubt that would be strictly true.

[Shane]

Looks like per capita energy consumption is about 35:1 between US and Bangladesh.

[gaja]

Our main problem in the world today is how much resources humans use. Reducing the number of children in rich countries is much more efficient than reducing the number in poorer countries. Luckily, most rich countries are solving this on their own, with negative birth rates in countries such as Japan and Germany. My main reason to oppose a focus on limiting population growth, is that I have never seen the argument contributing constructively to any discussion. The times I have seen it used IRL, it has either been a cover for racism, or as an excuse for doing less to reduce their own environmental impact.

With all debates that really are about traditions, values and feelings, there is no use in arguing pro or contra directly. There have never been as many people taking part in whaling in the Faroes, as in the years after Sea Shepherd ran their large campaigns against "the grind". "Pro life" and "pro choice" are landmines. If we all focused on the measures that really reduced abortions, we could make make big changes: high quality sex education, free contraceptives, anti rape measures that focus on teaching men not to rape, excellent financial and social support for mothers, free daycare, etc.

In addition to free contraceptives, if we really want to reduce reproduction rates, education and employment for women is alpha omega. (And light bulbs. There is a very clear negative correlation between number of light bulbs in a country, and the number of children per woman.)

[MudPuppy]

Looks like per capita energy consumption is about 35:1 between US and Bangladesh.

I don't doubt that, what I doubt is that someone coming from bangladesh automatically uses resources the same as a the american average.

[Shane]

Our main problem in the world today is how much resources humans use. Reducing the number of children in rich countries is much more efficient than reducing the number in poorer countries. Luckily, most rich countries are solving this on their own, with negative birth rates in countries such as Japan and Germany. My main reason to oppose a focus on limiting population growth, is that I have never seen the argument contributing constructively to any discussion. The times I have seen it used IRL, it has either been a cover for racism, or as an excuse for doing less to reduce their own environmental impact.

With all debates that really are about traditions, values and feelings, there is no use in arguing pro or contra directly. There have never been as many people taking part in whaling in the Faroes, as in the years after Sea Shepherd ran their large campaigns against "the grind". "Pro life" and "pro choice" are landmines. If we all focused on the measures that really reduced abortions, we could make make big changes: high quality sex education, free contraceptives, anti rape measures that focus on teaching men not to rape, excellent financial and social support for mothers, free daycare, etc.

In addition to free contraceptives, if we really want to reduce reproduction rates, education and employment for women is alpha omega. (And light bulbs. There is a very clear negative correlation between number of light bulbs in a country, and the number of children per woman.)

Since education and income correlate positively with lower birth rates, financial aid to the poorest countries seems like it would have a positive impact. Nobody needs to force people in Japan, US, Canada, Europe, Australia, NZ, etc., to have fewer children. As people get more educated and richer, they naturally start having fewer children.

[Shane]

Looks like per capita energy consumption is about 35:1 between US and Bangladesh.

I don't doubt that, what I doubt is that someone coming from bangladesh automatically uses resources the same as a the american average.

You're probably right that an average immigrant from a poor country like Bangladesh uses less resources than an average native-born American. The Bangladeshi immigrant is still going to use multiples more resources if she moves to the US than she would have if she stayed in her country of birth. Shuffling humans from poor countries to rich countries is a net negative for the planet. If we really wanted to make things better, we would help poor people to make their own countries better. As education levels and wealth in currently poor countries improved, population rates would start falling on their own, just like they have in all developed countries, already.

[MudPuppy]

My personal philosophy is that we can and should both allow immigration/migration and help other countries with infrastructure etc.

[MudPuppy]

You don’t get points for this? No shit Sherlock that generally speaking, a normal BMI is correlated with better health outcomes. Thumping this drum right now, however is useless.

Well, I've lost ~15 lbs. since the start of the pandemic in the US. I'd say that my survival chances have increased at least moderately.

I highly doubt that the pandemic is going to push people into being healthier, but it's certainly possible for people to improve their survival odds in a short period. So making the point isn't useless.

Congratulations on making progress toward your health goals!

[mm1970]

That public health officials might mention that fact, once in a while, along with their other recommendations.

It's not going to stop people from catching the virus, which is the primary issue right now.  I'm seeing testimonials on my military discussion groups from young 20-somethings in peak physical condition whose lungs are now useless after getting COVID.

Nobody's claiming that living healthier will keep people from catching covid. Maher was just pointing out that, "the number one thing you can do to improve your chances, in the event that you get covid, is to be in better general health, and the number one route to that is an improved diet." Maher suggested replacing sugary sodas with water. Seemed like good common sense advice that anyone could easily follow.

Which is something their general practitioner has probably been telling them for years. Clearly Americans don't listen to their doctors. What effect would a complete stranger have telling them the same thing when that doctor has been screaming for the last six months that they could have avoided the virus entirely by wearing a scrap of cloth over their faces?

So, there are many many complicated reasons for obesity in this country.  Just spouting off about it - it's kind of pointless.

- There's lack of education about nutrition (including in most doctors)
- There's decades of the food pyramid with a huge bottom full of grain
- There's sugar, sugar, fried foods, and more sugar
- There's food deserts and poverty.
- There's stress
- There's lack of health care

I've read a lot of interesting books over the years with various tidbits of information.  Do you know that the environment in the womb can increase the risk of obesity of more than one generation?  Right, if your grandmother was pregnant with your mother, THAT environment can affect whether YOU are obese, no matter what the environment in the womb was for YOU.

Most people probably realize that childhood and puberty is when  most of your fat cells come.  Being overweight or obese as a child can forever affect your ability to keep weight off.  Same thing with adults.  Once you have been fat, your body often forever is affected by what you eat.  "Formerly overweight" people and "never overweight" people do not metabolize food in the same way.

Have you ever seen pictures of third world countries with really skinny children and fat adult women?  Newsflash, the mothers aren't eating their kids' food.  Obesity is a feature of poverty, not a bug.

You want to do something about obesity, start with poverty and health care.

[boy_bye]

Eating healthier, exercising, quitting smoking, living as healthy a life as possible, lowers risk of negative outcomes from covid and everything else. Seems like common sense.

And none of these things reliably cause a person to lose weight.

There's a difference between advocating for folks to adopt healthier habits and telling them to change the size and shape of their bodies when there is no reliable medical protocol to do that.

Health <> weight

[boy_bye]

That public health officials might mention that fact, once in a while, along with their other recommendations.

It's not going to stop people from catching the virus, which is the primary issue right now.  I'm seeing testimonials on my military discussion groups from young 20-somethings in peak physical condition whose lungs are now useless after getting COVID.

Nobody's claiming that living healthier will keep people from catching covid. Maher was just pointing out that, "the number one thing you can do to improve your chances, in the event that you get covid, is to be in better general health, and the number one route to that is an improved diet." Maher suggested replacing sugary sodas with water. Seemed like good common sense advice that anyone could easily follow.

Which is something their general practitioner has probably been telling them for years. Clearly Americans don't listen to their doctors. What effect would a complete stranger have telling them the same thing when that doctor has been screaming for the last six months that they could have avoided the virus entirely by wearing a scrap of cloth over their faces?

So, there are many many complicated reasons for obesity in this country.  Just spouting off about it - it's kind of pointless.

- There's lack of education about nutrition (including in most doctors)
- There's decades of the food pyramid with a huge bottom full of grain
- There's sugar, sugar, fried foods, and more sugar
- There's food deserts and poverty.
- There's stress
- There's lack of health care

I've read a lot of interesting books over the years with various tidbits of information.  Do you know that the environment in the womb can increase the risk of obesity of more than one generation?  Right, if your grandmother was pregnant with your mother, THAT environment can affect whether YOU are obese, no matter what the environment in the womb was for YOU.

Most people probably realize that childhood and puberty is when  most of your fat cells come.  Being overweight or obese as a child can forever affect your ability to keep weight off.  Same thing with adults.  Once you have been fat, your body often forever is affected by what you eat.  "Formerly overweight" people and "never overweight" people do not metabolize food in the same way.

Have you ever seen pictures of third world countries with really skinny children and fat adult women?  Newsflash, the mothers aren't eating their kids' food.  Obesity is a feature of poverty, not a bug.

You want to do something about obesity to help people of all sizes have better health outcomes, start with poverty and health care.

Thanks for this post. Made one small correction because obesity in and of itself is not actually a health problem.

[boy_bye]

Lots of info out there that shows a huge portion of what we think of as obesity-related health problems, actually represent anti-fat bias playing out in medical care.

Covid-specific:
https://twitter.com/rfrosencrans/status/1289598476649525248
https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-does-not-discriminate-by-body-weight/

In general:
https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/everything-you-know-about-obesity-is-wrong/

[bloodaxe]

In my opinion, the obesity health problem in the US is mostly from people living in car-centric cities.

If everyone got out of their mother lovin' cars and onto a bike or walked we would drop a lot of weight.

[deborah]

The world is on course to reduce our population - it was widely reported recently, and max pop is expected in 2064, which isn’t that far away - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200715150444.htm

Your Bangladeshi coming to America WILL consume what Americans do of things that matter environmentally - for instance - https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/12199/volumes/sv08/SV-08

Most people appear to be putting on weight rather than taking it off due to covid19. There have been a number of newspaper articles about this, but I’m not sure of any studies. In the few years before covid19 I had managed to get my weight down quite a bit, but it’s currently going back up. I’m still doing healthy stuff - going for walks every day, eating five servings of vegetables every day... but there’s less to do apart from stuff around the house because every single one of my outside activities have shut down. I suspect this is also the case for older people who are living independently. Activities haven’t restarted because they are in the “at risk” group.

[boy_bye]

The Huffpost article, which you've shared multiple times in the forum, is about 95% fluff. It's difficult to take an article seriously when that article spends the vast majority of its time trying to make emotional arguments.

I'm sure that the many scientists who engage in qualitative research and journalists who interview actual people with actual experiences will be happy to change their vocations now that they know that a random dude on the internet believes their work to be "fluff."

I'm also not sure how that article, which is chock full not only of fluff actual peoples's stories but also tons of facts, figures, and historical context, could be read as fluff. My guess is you didn't bother to read it because Fat People Bad So Why Bother To Understand Anything About Them  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[boy_bye]

In my opinion, the obesity health problem in the US is mostly from people living in car-centric cities.

If everyone got out of their mother lovin' cars and onto a bike or walked we would drop a lot of weight.

That opinion is worth exactly the amount that I paid to read it.

[GuitarStv]

In my opinion, the obesity health problem in the US is mostly from people living in car-centric cities.

If everyone got out of their mother lovin' cars and onto a bike or walked we would drop a lot of weight.

That opinion is worth exactly the amount that I paid to read it.

Madgeylou, I realize from your comments every time that it cones up that obesity is an issue very close to your heart.  In some cases this leads to strangely aggressive posts directed towards others, like this one.  If you want, I can dig up multiple studies that show weight loss, stress reduction, and improved heart health of people who commute by bike rather than automobile.  On average, people do in fact drop weight when they become less sedentary.

[boy_bye]

In my opinion, the obesity health problem in the US is mostly from people living in car-centric cities.

If everyone got out of their mother lovin' cars and onto a bike or walked we would drop a lot of weight.

That opinion is worth exactly the amount that I paid to read it.

Madgeylou, I realize from your comments every time that it cones up that obesity is an issue very close to your heart.  In some cases this leads to strangely aggressive posts directed towards others, like this one.  If you want, I can dig up multiple studies that show weight loss, stress reduction, and improved heart health of people who commute by bike rather than automobile.  On average, people do in fact drop weight when they become less sedentary.

The question isn't whether some people lose weight when they commute by bike (I never did!) but why is weight loss always assumed to be a worthwhile and achievable goal for fat people.

As you state above, health outcomes can be improved by doing things like riding bikes and walking and getting other forms of exercise. This is true for the vast majority of people regardless of their weight. Most people of all sizes in the US especially would benefit from doing more exercise.

At the same time, we know that although exercise does correlate to healthier outcomes, it does not often correlate to long-term weight loss. Sometimes it even correlates to weight gain.

We also know that, quite often, when fat people do get out to exercise, we are subjected to abuse, ridicule, concern-trolling, people being like "keep going, you can do it!" and all kinds of condescending and hurtful shit.

So ... there's a health protocol called exercise, that everyone would benefit from, but only one category of people is shamed for NOT doing it, and that same category of people is also shamed when they DO do it. Who doesn't see how fucked up this is?

And none of it leads to weight loss for the vast majority of people. It may make them healthier, but by and large, it doesn't make them slimmer.

So if what we really care about is people being healthy and not just people not being fat, we should be encouraging everyone to have healthier habits, take a walk, keep trying to quit smoking, introduce more nutritious foods into their diets when they can ... but no, instead we just shit on fat people and talk about how lazy they are and how all the bad things that happen to them are their own damn fault. Sure. Because no one skinny has ever gotten sick and died.

THIS is the point I keep trying to make. You can't tell how healthy anyone is by simply looking at the size of their body. And to keep harping on fat people to sacrifice endlessly to change their body size when it's clear that this is not possible for the majority of us is simply cruel.

And yes, this is a topic close to my heart because I and most of the people I know have been discriminated against for my entire life. It's not "strangely aggressive" to stand up for myself and others when folks express ill-informed opinions that actually, materially hurt us.

When y'all stop saying uninformed, incorrect, and harmful shit, I will stop with my "strange aggression" that is actually rooted in just trying to survive in a world that has conditioned almost everyone to exclude me based on the size of my body.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled armchair epidemiology-ing.

[NorthernBlitz]

In my opinion, the obesity health problem in the US is mostly from people living in car-centric cities.

If everyone got out of their mother lovin' cars and onto a bike or walked we would drop a lot of weight.

I agree that people (including myself) are generally too sedentary (especially during covid).

But, losing weight is like ~ 90% about what you eat and ~ 10% exercise.

A marathon burns ~ 2,600 calories(1). It takes ~ 3,500 calories to burn about 1 pound of fat (2).

(1) https://www.theactivetimes.com/how-many-calories-does-running-marathon-burn#:~:text=Well%2C%20exact%20calorie%20burn%20will,calories%20for%20the%20entire%20race. Note: this says a marathon equivalent to ~ 8.6 slices of pizza.

(2) https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/calories/art-20048065#:~:text=Because%203%2C500%20calories%20equals%20about,to%202%20pounds%20a%20week.

[NorthernBlitz]

In my opinion, the obesity health problem in the US is mostly from people living in car-centric cities.

If everyone got out of their mother lovin' cars and onto a bike or walked we would drop a lot of weight.

That opinion is worth exactly the amount that I paid to read it.

Madgeylou, I realize from your comments every time that it cones up that obesity is an issue very close to your heart.  In some cases this leads to strangely aggressive posts directed towards others, like this one.  If you want, I can dig up multiple studies that show weight loss, stress reduction, and improved heart health of people who commute by bike rather than automobile.  On average, people do in fact drop weight when they become less sedentary.

The question isn't whether some people lose weight when they commute by bike (I never did!) but why is weight loss always assumed to be a worthwhile and achievable goal for fat people.

As you state above, health outcomes can be improved by doing things like riding bikes and walking and getting other forms of exercise. This is true for the vast majority of people regardless of their weight. Most people of all sizes in the US especially would benefit from doing more exercise.

At the same time, we know that although exercise does correlate to healthier outcomes, it does not often correlate to long-term weight loss. Sometimes it even correlates to weight gain.

We also know that, quite often, when fat people do get out to exercise, we are subjected to abuse, ridicule, concern-trolling, people being like "keep going, you can do it!" and all kinds of condescending and hurtful shit.

So ... there's a health protocol called exercise, that everyone would benefit from, but only one category of people is shamed for NOT doing it, and that same category of people is also shamed when they DO do it. Who doesn't see how fucked up this is?

And none of it leads to weight loss for the vast majority of people. It may make them healthier, but by and large, it doesn't make them slimmer.

So if what we really care about is people being healthy and not just people not being fat, we should be encouraging everyone to have healthier habits, take a walk, keep trying to quit smoking, introduce more nutritious foods into their diets when they can ... but no, instead we just shit on fat people and talk about how lazy they are and how all the bad things that happen to them are their own damn fault. Sure. Because no one skinny has ever gotten sick and died.

THIS is the point I keep trying to make. You can't tell how healthy anyone is by simply looking at the size of their body. And to keep harping on fat people to sacrifice endlessly to change their body size when it's clear that this is not possible for the majority of us is simply cruel.

And yes, this is a topic close to my heart because I and most of the people I know have been discriminated against for my entire life. It's not "strangely aggressive" to stand up for myself and others when folks express ill-informed opinions that actually, materially hurt us.

When y'all stop saying uninformed, incorrect, and harmful shit, I will stop with my "strange aggression" that is actually rooted in just trying to survive in a world that has conditioned almost everyone to exclude me based on the size of my body.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled armchair epidemiology-ing.

It's probably because weight alone isn't a great measure of health...kind of like how income alone isn't a great measure of financial health.

But weight is easy (and cheap) to measure.

Better measurements of health are probably: BF%, waist circumference, BP, triglycerides, etc.

[Kris]

In my opinion, the obesity health problem in the US is mostly from people living in car-centric cities.

If everyone got out of their mother lovin' cars and onto a bike or walked we would drop a lot of weight.

I agree that people (including myself) are generally too sedentary (especially during covid).

But, losing weight is like ~ 90% about what you eat and ~ 10% exercise.

A marathon burns ~ 2,600 calories(1). It takes ~ 3,500 calories to burn about 1 pound of fat (2).

(1) https://www.theactivetimes.com/how-many-calories-does-running-marathon-burn#:~:text=Well%2C%20exact%20calorie%20burn%20will,calories%20for%20the%20entire%20race. Note: this says a marathon equivalent to ~ 8.6 slices of pizza.

(2) https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/calories/art-20048065#:~:text=Because%203%2C500%20calories%20equals%20about,to%202%20pounds%20a%20week.

Yes, this is very true. It’s almost impossible to out-run a bad diet. Obesity is mostly about food intake, not exercise level.

[StashingAway]

Lots of info out there that shows a huge portion of what we think of as obesity-related health problems, actually represent anti-fat bias playing out in medical care.

In general:
https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/everything-you-know-about-obesity-is-wrong/

I'm trying but failing to see where the controversy lies here. It seems that this article is fully compatible with the science that obesity is heavily correlated to health problems. It's just that we as a culture have addressed it wrong (apparent in the fact that more people get obese every year).

[GuitarStv]

In my opinion, the obesity health problem in the US is mostly from people living in car-centric cities.

If everyone got out of their mother lovin' cars and onto a bike or walked we would drop a lot of weight.

That opinion is worth exactly the amount that I paid to read it.

Madgeylou, I realize from your comments every time that it cones up that obesity is an issue very close to your heart.  In some cases this leads to strangely aggressive posts directed towards others, like this one.  If you want, I can dig up multiple studies that show weight loss, stress reduction, and improved heart health of people who commute by bike rather than automobile.  On average, people do in fact drop weight when they become less sedentary.

The question isn't whether some people lose weight when they commute by bike (I never did!) but why is weight loss always assumed to be a worthwhile and achievable goal for fat people.

As you state above, health outcomes can be improved by doing things like riding bikes and walking and getting other forms of exercise. This is true for the vast majority of people regardless of their weight. Most people of all sizes in the US especially would benefit from doing more exercise.

At the same time, we know that although exercise does correlate to healthier outcomes, it does not often correlate to long-term weight loss. Sometimes it even correlates to weight gain.

We also know that, quite often, when fat people do get out to exercise, we are subjected to abuse, ridicule, concern-trolling, people being like "keep going, you can do it!" and all kinds of condescending and hurtful shit.

So ... there's a health protocol called exercise, that everyone would benefit from, but only one category of people is shamed for NOT doing it, and that same category of people is also shamed when they DO do it. Who doesn't see how fucked up this is?

And none of it leads to weight loss for the vast majority of people. It may make them healthier, but by and large, it doesn't make them slimmer.

So if what we really care about is people being healthy and not just people not being fat, we should be encouraging everyone to have healthier habits, take a walk, keep trying to quit smoking, introduce more nutritious foods into their diets when they can ... but no, instead we just shit on fat people and talk about how lazy they are and how all the bad things that happen to them are their own damn fault. Sure. Because no one skinny has ever gotten sick and died.

THIS is the point I keep trying to make. You can't tell how healthy anyone is by simply looking at the size of their body. And to keep harping on fat people to sacrifice endlessly to change their body size when it's clear that this is not possible for the majority of us is simply cruel.

And yes, this is a topic close to my heart because I and most of the people I know have been discriminated against for my entire life. It's not "strangely aggressive" to stand up for myself and others when folks express ill-informed opinions that actually, materially hurt us.

When y'all stop saying uninformed, incorrect, and harmful shit, I will stop with my "strange aggression" that is actually rooted in just trying to survive in a world that has conditioned almost everyone to exclude me based on the size of my body.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled armchair epidemiology-ing.

The post you responded to was talking about dropping weight and attempting to address obesity - not about general unhealthiness.  And what was said in that post was factually accurate (hence the 'strangely aggressive' comment) in that weight loss is achieved my many who become less automobile dependent, but also in that people who use their cars less tend to become physically healthier.

FWIW I agree with you.  People can be kinda porky and be perfectly healthy (and there are many people with a low BMI who are woefully unhealthy).  I've never shamed anyone for trying to improve their health, and am sorry that you've run into folks who would do that.

In my opinion, the obesity health problem in the US is mostly from people living in car-centric cities.

If everyone got out of their mother lovin' cars and onto a bike or walked we would drop a lot of weight.

I agree that people (including myself) are generally too sedentary (especially during covid).

But, losing weight is like ~ 90% about what you eat and ~ 10% exercise.

A marathon burns ~ 2,600 calories(1). It takes ~ 3,500 calories to burn about 1 pound of fat (2).

(1) https://www.theactivetimes.com/how-many-calories-does-running-marathon-burn#:~:text=Well%2C%20exact%20calorie%20burn%20will,calories%20for%20the%20entire%20race. Note: this says a marathon equivalent to ~ 8.6 slices of pizza.

(2) https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/calories/art-20048065#:~:text=Because%203%2C500%20calories%20equals%20about,to%202%20pounds%20a%20week.

The numbers being used in the marathon example seem a little odd.

I'm a 200 lb guy.  On Saturdays most of the year I go on a 100 - 160 km bike ride.  According to my heart rate monitor, this ends up burning between 3500 and 5500 calories.  Typically I drop 5 - 10 lbs on a bike ride, and gain back 7-8 lbs by the next day . . . so I'm assuming that's water weight.  Then I need to increase my caloric intake by 7000 for the next week in order to get back to where I started.

My understanding is that running a marathon is typically more taxing than a recreational bike ride.  So I double checked the numbers from here (https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1350959101).

For a 6 ft tall, 200 lb man aged 39 . . . who runs at average marathon speed of 5.8 mph (https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/training/marathon/a27787958/average-marathon-finish-time/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20RunRepeat%20data,or%20an%2011.55%20minute%20mile.).  Which puts the calories burned at over 3600.  So that marathon number that was given seems off by about a third.  If you run faster than average, this number will also go up.  And of course, this is only the calories burned during activity - it doesn't count the extended calorie burn that goes on for several hours after you have ramped up your metabolism by being active. 

Diet is of primary importance if your only goal is to lose weight.  Exercise plays a bigger part than many realize though.  And as madgeylou pointed out, losing weight doesn't mean you're healthy.  If your goal is to be a healthy human being you should exercise frequently and make good eating choices.

[StashingAway]

The Huffpost article, which you've shared multiple times in the forum, is about 95% fluff. It's difficult to take an article seriously when that article spends the vast majority of its time trying to make emotional arguments.

I'm sure that the many scientists who engage in qualitative research and journalists who interview actual people with actual experiences will be happy to change their vocations now that they know that a random dude on the internet believes their work to be "fluff."

I'm also not sure how that article, which is chock full not only of fluff actual peoples's stories but also tons of facts, figures, and historical context, could be read as fluff. My guess is you didn't bother to read it because Fat People Bad So Why Bother To Understand Anything About Them  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ok, so I'm going to try to approach this as best one can over the internet. That piece has some heartwrenching anecdotes. It plays out in real terms the trials of trying to live a fulfilling human life but feeling like society is rejecting you. In many ways, it feels unfair... we are all bound by luck. Where we were born, what decade we were born in, our ancestors... none of these things were chosen by us. They all have significant impact on our lives and are largely unrecognized as such.

Clearly this is a broad human phenomenon because so many people are getting obese. We are not significantly different people than we were two generations ago. We are genetically the same. A person is not worse than their grandparents because they are heavier. We could say something if this were individual, but this is happening on a national and global scale.

We are living in a society that has typically been focused on personal autonomy and actions. It is ingrained in our forming that decisions are yours alone and you sink or swim based on them. Everyone is equal, no one is royalty, and the dream is having the opportunity to rise to the top. So when someone is overweight, we default to this line of thinking. It seems like it is a personal decision. But taken a step back it is clear that this is some external factor brought upon us. There's no statistical possibility that we are collectively way worse at eating than our parents and grandparents. And that is something that should be recognized. Everyone has merit by being a human and trying their hardest. We are all in this together.

And on a personal level, comparison is the thief of joy. There are definite issues with feeling like you are not worthy and turning that into a spiral of de-motivation. Looking in a mirror and feeling that you are so far away from some cultural line that has been drawn can be completely defeating. So it seems best to re-frame it to feel at peace with your current situation and find a way to be a good person to yourself and those around you.

With all of that said, there is significant issues with embracing "obesity" as an identity in and of itself. It is not healthy. Sure, there are some "healthy obese" data points, but by enlarge it is an overall signal health problem. Being at peace with oneself does not invalidate huge swaths of science saying that, in general, obesity is not good. It may be a messy data point, but if it's the only one we are working with, then it has a pretty good shot of predicting many other things. That's not making any claims about someones value as a human, or their will power or morality. But the only way to make meaningful sense of the world is to hold some level of truth about it.

Most people who "fat shame" (I use that term loosely, as the article does) and whatnot are not doing so out of malice. They are either trying to do so out of compassion or ignorance. Ignorance in the idea that they don't have a full idea of the external factors that lead to someone's obesity. And compassion in that they genuinely want the person to know that obesity is limiting the amount of value that they can get out of their life. That doesn't excuse the practice. It is aweful and shows a very shallow view of the world. But for the most part people don't wake up and decide that they're going to ruin someone's day.

Take that all for what you will; I do not mean to be overbearing, but I do want to share that being active, fit, and not obese is genuinely a good goal for a myriad of lifestyle and psychological reasons. It should be desired not out of envy, but a goal to feeling better.

[Villanelle]

I realize that we all have experienced Covid on a huge spectrum of situations.  For me, it has given me much more time and has made working out so much easier.  I'm down about 8 pounds since March.  We purchased an elliptical machine at the beginning of the shutdown, a purchase we'd been researching but accelerated by probably a few months or weeks.  I use it nearly every day.

In addition to weight loss, my overall cardio is markedly better.  No getting winded if I have to go up and down our two flights of stairs a few times.  Much better stamina on the elliptical.  Some of that is probably because I'm not carrying quite as much weight up and down those stairs, but clearly I'm more fit and healthier. 

(I've also been eating much better and somewhat less.  And of course it's all related so there's no way to tell what caused what, in what order.  I was losing weight--slowly, pre Covid. Down about 20 pounds over the last year and a half, but I think the last 10 were a much bigger improvement to my health that the first, because of how I did them.  It wasn't just eating less--it was adding exercise and eating *better* foods, not just less of mostly the same.  I've started adding in more weight training so I expect the loss to slow temporarily, which is fine.  Because I'll still be healthier.)

[anni]

I miss going to the climbing gym but not enough to go back. It was the only "exercise" routine that ever got me totally hooked. The gym is open again, but it seems like one of the grossest places I could go right now, what with everyone touching the EXACT same surfaces, and all the ~fluids~ that come out (I've touched other people's blood on the walls before...). You have to wear a mask to go, but even then, I just really don't want to risk getting sick (or getting anyone else sick). I can appreciate that economies are in dire straits right now and I feel exceptionally lucky to still have my job and some stability, but I really wish things would stay closed and that unemployed people could keep getting public support as needed (from taxpayers like me) until a vaccine or cure is available. Maybe I haven't reached Peak Frustration yet or I'm too spoiled by my current lockdown life.

[Kyle Schuant]

"The very places where we are seeing outbreaks, the very places where we are seeing transmission, are the places that would remain open if we went to a stage four. We shouldn't pretend that a really broad shutdown of industry will address where we are seeing the transmission."
- Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton, July 25th

the state went to stage 4 a week later. It's not just about the expert advice, unfortunately.