White House Fingers PlayStation As Obesity Culprit

theodp writes "The winners of the childhood obesity infographic design contest sponsored by GOOD and First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move! initiative are in, and the overall winner calls out Sony's PlayStation as a major milestone on its timeline of childhood obesity (together with Coke, Pepsi, mall food courts, fructose and high sugar tariffs, TV, McDonald's, and other fast food). Somewhat ironically, the First Lady's other anti-childhood obesity efforts include a $60,000 video game contest."

Comments

Hmmph.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Calling out specific systems(without research: "did the NES/SNES keep more asses in more seats for longer than the Playstation" is a perfectly valid empirical question) seems counterproductive at best, libelous at worst.

The basic fact that consuming more energy than you use makes you fat, though, seems too obvious to even bother arguing about anymore. This is conservation of energy, not subtle epidemiology.

Re:Hmmph.

[Ethanol-fueled]

I agree with you, but it makes sense that the later-generation consoles would be more easily blamed as more and more parents became afraid to let their kids play outside unsupervised and decided it was okay to pass increasing amounts of parenting onto the systems. As somebody below you pointed out, the XBoxes should also share the blame.

Re:Hmmph.

[blueg3]

To be fair, the basic laws behind statistical mechanics are equally simple, yet thermodynamic behaviors can be complex and non-obvious.

The epidemiology is:
Why are people using less energy?
Why are people consuming more energy?
What subtle biochemical and metabolic effects might be involved?

There are a lot more subtle biochemical effects than one might initially suspect.

Re:Hmmph.

[DarkKnightRadick]

The Xboxes, our society giving more rights to criminals, gun control laws that embolden said criminals, lack of police power. There is enough blame to go around but it starts out with parents not wanting to at least keep an eye on their kids and send them outside.

Yes, there is a lot of work to running a house, no one has to tell me this, but don't blame the XBox or Playstation or Wii when your kid gets fat from sitting in the house all day.

Re:Hmmph.

[foobsr]

To be fair, the basic laws behind statistical mechanics are equally simple, yet thermodynamic behaviors can be complex and non-obvious.

The epidemiology is: Why are people using less energy? Why are people consuming more energy? What subtle biochemical and metabolic effects might be involved?

There are a lot more subtle biochemical effects than one might initially suspect.

I rather suspect that a sociological/psychological approach to the first two questions is more appropriate if you want a cure.

CC.

Re:Hmmph.

[B4light]

Can you give me the answers?

Re:Hmmph.

[buddyglass]

Ah, but it is epidemiology. Sure, we know why a given person gets fat. Too much energy in; too little energy out. But why is the population as a whole getting fatter? Is it a general trend towards sedentary lifestyles (i.e. energy out)? Is it a general trend towards higher calorie diets (i.e. energy in)? Is it a combination of the two? If these trends are behind the rise in obesity, what are the drivers behind these trends?

I think you understate the complexity of the issue when you reduce it to a mere question of "conservation of energy".

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

i think it's because it's hard to blame the wii and xbox is a US product why is every politicians wife anti some media?

Re:Hmmph.

[TheLink]

> The basic fact that consuming more energy than you use makes you fat
> seems too obvious to even bother arguing about anymore.

Obvious but wrong. Clearly it's not so simple. You like many other people miss out the amount excreted. Unless you consider excretion of calories to be using those calories, which would be stupid.

I don't see many diet researchers measuring the amount of calories in the feces or other excretion. And there certainly are differences.

Also people are now noticing the differences in digestive systems: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100526141845.htm

Many obese people have bacteria and digestive systems that are more efficient and/or converts food into stuff that makes them fat.

Some probably have cultivated those bacteria through poor diets (poor at least from a modern day "plenty of food" sedentary lifestyle perspective), others might just be unfortunate.

So I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that in some unfortunate people the food becomes changed by their bacteria so that they need to eat more or feel like eating more.

For example:
a) Say you need a minimum of 10 x A, 10 x B, and the food is 10 x A and 10 x B, but the bacteria keep converting half of the A to B, so you need to consume 20 x A and 20 x B, and end up with 10 x A and 30 x B. You meat the "A" requirement but you get fat and unhealthy.

b) Alternatively your bacteria might just do better on a fattening diet and so they have evolved to make sure (by various means) that you feel like eating a fattening diet suitable for them. After all who's the boss? You (10 trillion cells) or the 100 trillion bacteria in your gut? If it's a democracy you lose ;).

It's certainly not all due to bacteria either, but just pointing out it's not so simple when you get to the details :).

FWIW, I'm not fat (puny and skinny actually), but I'm not one of those who place the blame for obesity completely on the obese. Or think they are lesser beings than I am (they most certainly are greater in some ways ;) ).

Re:Hmmph.

[hsthompson69]

This is conservation of energy, not subtle epidemiology.

Except the human body is not a simple mechanical engine - using a naive conception of conservation of energy just doesn't apply.

A solid with one end placed in a vat of hot water will eventually conduct this heat to its other end - this is basic physics, dependent on the conductivity of the material. Use a human instead of a solid, with their feet in hot water, and you won't see this heat conduct to the forehead.

Obesity is a side effect of high insulin levels coupled with insulin resistance (which differs over time and between individuals), and insulin levels are primarily governed by dietary carbohydrate intake.

I eat easily 5000 calories a day, sit on my ass, and don't gain a pound. My body knows well enough to excrete any excess calories, and doesn't accumulate fat because I'm not eating carbs and my insulin levels are kept low.

I used to believe this was a simply conservation of energy thing, with more exercise and less food being the answer, but I was wrong.

Watch the following lecture before replying: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216

Re:Hmmph.

[poetmatt]

its not hard to tie together the prevalence of HFCS in foods and a major increase in obesity.

good luck buying any convenience food without hfcs anymore.

Re:Hmmph.

[Yvan256]

what are the drivers behind these trends?

I guess it's your usual regular joes, driving their 18-wheelers and carrying high fructose corn syrup products from the manufacturers to the grocery stores.

Re:Hmmph.

[gruntspeak]

Of course they were specific. Sony probably got them to do it. Now when people evaluate gaming systems, they'll say "The xbox is great, but the government went after the PlayStation for being TOO awesome....I know which one I want."

Re:Hmmph.

[jedidiah]

> its not hard to tie together the prevalence of HFCS in foods and a major increase in obesity.
>
> good luck buying any convenience food without hfcs anymore.

        Ever consider that it's your fixation on "convenience food" that's the problem?

No. The "fatness" problem is due to the USDA suddenly telling everyone they should have an inherently UNBALANCED diet that favors BREAD.

Re:Hmmph.

[buddyglass]

Is this new? Did people eat less bread in, say, the 1950s?

Re:Hmmph.

[buddyglass]

Are you saying that HFCS is uniquely responsible in a way "sugar" isn't? Sugary candies and sodas have been around since...oh...forever. Or is it just that the rate of consumption has increased? If so, why? Do people drink more Coca Cola (or eat more Twinkies) than they did 10 years ago? 20? 60?

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

i think it's because it's hard to blame the wii and xbox is a US product why is every politicians wife anti some media?

For one, they tend to be wealthy or have access to wealth so they don't have to work for a living. Compare to the retirees who run homeowner's associations and take people to court over the difference between white and off-white paint.

Then, well, their only claim to fame is that they are sleeping with a man who has become famous through his own hard work. Any fame they as wives have is completely vicarious. That makes them either really insecure or really arrogant, enough to pretend they'd have been famous if they weren't sleeping with a famous man. Sure, lots of women achieve fame, wealth, and celebrity all on their own, but they have claims to fame greater than marrying into wealth and/or political power. They actually achieved something on their own and that's what politicians' wives usually cannot say. So right from the get-go they feel like they need to compensate for something.

Throw these ingredients together and you wind up with a busybody who has to go on a crusade of some kind. It makes them feel relevant. It makes them feel like they might even deserve all of the attention they get. Personally I don't give a damn about their feelings because their crusades always seem to involve telling adults what they should do with their lives, telling parents how to be parents, and other nanny-state we-know-what's-good-for-you bullshit. They never seem to want to balance the budget, investigate abuses of government power, or anything like that. So fuck them.

Re:Hmmph.

[causality]

The Xboxes, our society giving more rights to criminals, gun control laws that embolden said criminals, lack of police power. There is enough blame to go around but it starts out with parents not wanting to at least keep an eye on their kids and send them outside.

Yes, there is a lot of work to running a house, no one has to tell me this, but don't blame the XBox or Playstation or Wii when your kid gets fat from sitting in the house all day.

If they *really* want the government to take an active role in dealing with this problem, it's simple enough. It should happen on the state level and the feds should stay the hell out of it. All the states would have to do is charge parents of obese and morbidly obese children with negligence and/or child abuse.

It makes perfect sense. Obesity really does pose a threat to their health, so material harm can be observed. The parent really does have complete control over what they feed the child, so responsibility can be established. The only remainder would be to ensure that the school-provided lunches are reasonably healthy but most states already have such programs (if anything they tend to go overboard).

Assuming that last condition is true, it would be entirely logical and self-consistent to start arresting parents who manifestly don't care about the health of their children. That's if you want the government to be involved in this problem. Unlike placing blame on inanimate objects like gaming consoles, this would actually be effective.

Re:Hmmph.

[WrongMonkey]

Normal sugar is the disaccharide, sucrose, which is a combination of fructose and sucrose. These two are separated by hydrolysis and metabolized separately. But many of the biochemical regulatory mechanisms only apply to glucose and the body just "assumes" that there's one fructose for every glucose. So a diet with a significant unbalance of fructose will bypass many of the body's natural regulation mechanisms, leading to things like child diabetics and obesity.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

"What subtle biochemical and metabolic effects might be involved?

There are a lot more subtle biochemical effects than one might initially suspect."

Obviously zero point fat is at work.

Re:Hmmph.

[MrCrassic]

Let's not forget the fact that sensationalism always sells. Facts are always convenient to put aside; facts like:

• Televisions and computers having always been highly desirable, but prohibitively expensive for most middle-class families up until the downsizing of electronics in the late 60s-70s (families crowded around the radio and visited movie theaters for the same content, you know)
• The effects of the Internet on information sharing and demand, which, amongst other factors, created the hustling and bustling modern-day workforce and made homemade cooking much harder to do
• The proliferation of women in the workforce, which left homes without housewives and made outside food super attractive

Now, I'm not saying that these changes EXCUSE the detrimental effects they had on other areas of society (obesity and mass weight gain being one of them). I'm just saying that the real problem is much, much bigger and more complex than people watching more TV and eating McD's. It's not so much about energy in > energy out, though that's the basis for why obesity happens; it's about why that statement is true in the first place.

Basically, the "good" old days are gone.

Re:Hmmph.

[sjames]

You stopped tracing it back a bit too soon. Try an economic system that forces two parents to be full time employees outside of the home resulting in neighborhoods devoid of responsible adults in the afternoons so that kids aren't safe playing outside. Make part time employment and single income more viable and the problem can begin reversing itself. The 8 hour day was reasonable when the basic assumption was that a family had another adult that wasn't in the workforce at all.

Given our current unemployment rate, it's obvious that society has no pressing need for people to put in that many hours. Salaries have plummeted compared to the GDP/capita.

Re:Hmmph.

[zippthorne]

I fail to see how any of that makes the White House comments seem any less irresponsible...

Re:Hmmph.

[Qantravon]

Perhaps it would be logical, but there's a number of down-the-road issues that would make such a thing particularly unfeasible. If you start arresting the parents, you have to do something with the kids. In many of the cases, I'm sure that they'd have to go into the state foster care system. Then there's all the legal back-and-forth with the parents not wanting their kids to be taken away (for any number of reasons). Then, you'd have to prove to a jury that these parents are incompetent, bad for the child's health, etc. It would be very hard to show a typical jury that letting a kid eat what they want instead of making them eat healthy is detrimental enough to the kid's health that they should be taken away from the parents. Especially if the alternative is state foster care, which (whether true or not) many people feel is a very poor place for a child to be.

The point is, in holding the parents responsible to the point of calling it child abuse or negligence, and to have any real effect, the state's expenses would go up quite a bit. And, somehow, I don't think they'd be willing to spend the money.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was once an astrophysicist, but then I underwent a career change to the molecular biology field, where I am now involved in the characterization of the proteomic mechanisms responsible for regulating skeletal muscle metabolism in response to available nutrition.

I can assure you, the simple laws of thermodynamics do NOT adequately describe the metabolic complexities of biological systems. Of course there is a fundamental energy balance involved, but this does not imply that the human body will simply burn the energy available to it. Biological systems tend to be conservative, which is evolutionarily advantageous to avoid starvation.

Your typical muscle cell has a host of surface receptors to receive global insulin signals from your pancreas. These signals are then conveyed to a very complicated and hardly understood network of intracellular kinases, which then control numerous cellular functions, particularly those related to energy expenditure and metabolism. Unfortunately, in many obese patients, we notice failures in these underlying cellular mechanisms to produce the desired outcomes. In some cases, we see that many genes related to metabolism simply fail to become activated. In others, we find that cells simply refuse to take in glucose from the bloodstream.

In some patients, we observe that extremely intense exercise will yield some benefits regarding these abnormal cellular functions, so yes, exercise is still a valid treatment for this condition. The more obese you get however, the more difficult it becomes to fight the inherent instabilities of your biological self. Many people in this world do not have to try as hard to remain fit, due to either genetic, environmental, or behavioral reasons.

Nonetheless, I urge my fellow overweight comrades to do whatever it takes to get healthy. Do NOT pay attention to clueless people who tell you it is entirely your fault. At the same time, do NOT pay attention to people like me, who point at clear underlying biological causes for your illness. Instead, accept the reality that maintaining a healthy weight is clearly more difficult for you, but you must accomplish it regardless. Exercise more, cut the soda pop, and read diabetes and obesity-related scientific literature. In the end, fighting a tougher battle will make you much stronger and wiser.

You should NOT wait around for modern molecular biology to make it as easy for you as skinny people. I can assure you, it will take years to fully understand the obesity epidemic.

Now off I go to centrifuge some bacteria..... on a saturday......

Re:Hmmph.

[Temposs]

The French and Italians heavily favor of bread/pasta products in their diets, yet they have much lower obesity than in the US.

Re:Hmmph.

[Zerth]

But the only way to achieve that is to cut out half the work force so labor prices go up.

We can't force women back in the home because "they've got rights", but, while I'm sure lots of the guys would love to be house husbands, women won't let men "be lazy".

I don't know any other way to arbitrarily reduce the workforce. Although I suppose we could develop some crippling/disfiguring but non-lethal disease with a 40% infection rate.

Re:Hmmph.

[aztracker1]

I agree, but why not just stop subsidizing corn, instead of taxing HFCS based products? This would make other sugars more compelling... the main reason HFCS is used over say sugar cane is that it's cheaper and it's cheaper because of the subsidies... That, and Pepsi throwback tastes better (imnsho). Of course, I'm diabetic so tend to avoid all processed sugars, which isn't so easy. Beyond this, to the GGP post, other than the sodas, chocolate milk and ice cream what has HFCS in it? Since the items mentioned are known *bad for you* wouldn't it be the parents' fault?

Re:Hmmph.

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Why are people using less energy?

There trying to be green?

Re:Hmmph.

[Totenglocke]

I'm going to skip using my mod points to respond to your BS. There's nothing about our economic system that "forces" both parents to have a job - if that was true, then when we were much more capitalist, it would've been common for women to work instead of staying at home. What changed is that people wanted a much higher standard of living (bigger houses, more / nicer cars, fancy clothes, 60" tv's, etc) and in order to pay for all of that, both people need a job. It's also why there are plenty of homes that still have one parent who stays home and in exchange they don't have a massive house and 3 brand new cars.

Given our current unemployment rate, it's obvious that society has no pressing need for people to put in that many hours. Salaries have plummeted compared to the GDP/capita.

It's called "increased productivity" and it's the driving force behind all wage increases and economic recoveries. Companies cut labor to save money and then require the remaining employees to be more productive - this allows them to cut costs at a higher rate than production falls. It's also why hiring is the LAST thing that happens during an economic recovery, because companies rely on the increased productivity until they have no choice for increasing production but to hire more workers, since they don't want to hire new workers and then the economy dips again and they're stuck holding the bill.

But what would I know, I'm only in grad school for Economics......

Re:Hmmph.

[sjames]

We could start by putting a stop to offshoring.

Milton Friedman and others have suggested the "basic income" where each person would receive enough to cover basic costs without regard to need. This will become necessary at some point anyway if we are ever to achieve a goal of fully automated production. A nice side effect is that it will produce a desirable inflation that will change the economic balance to favor bringing manufacturing back in country.

Incentives to employers for telecommuting (not just "offering" it, but for actual documented telecommuters) would help. Mandatory overtime pay (even for salaried workers) would help. Make it kick in at 35 hours/week. Scale it over time until it kicks in at 20 hours/week.

Or we can just wait and the crippling disease you mention will come about all by itself, but it'll hit a lot more than 40% of the population.

Re:Hmmph.

[farnsworth]

What a shitty post.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

My gut (no pun intended) reaction was that that's just today's "my metabolism is different!" which was last decade's equivalent of the old "I'm big boned". So I read the article hoping to be shown otherwise. ...That's a weird article. Are they seriously suggesting that the answer to obesity is, as at the end of the article, that you need a gut bacteria swap to make your digestion worse so that you can eat more? Shouldn't it really be the other way around? Get the more efficient culture and just eat less?

That, and the fact that it seems to only correlate to "obesity genes" and only one of the studies even found a link at all, and that it's about gut diversity rather than the specific strains, leads me to think maybe they haven't really found anything not already explained by the genetics. Only the (already very rare) people with genetic issues can truthfully try to point at this and claim it as a reason for their weight. For the rest, it'll just be another convenient poor-behavior-enabling excuse (like the ones who claim it's genetics when it isn't).

Re:Hmmph.

[sjames]

So the natural outcome of achieving the dream of 100% automation of all work is that everybody starves?

It seems that the benefits of increased productivity have accrued to only a small segment of the population. Most of the people whose productivity has increased are stuck with stagnant wages.

It seems you have made it all the way into grad school without realizing that when the economy only serves a small portion of the population, things eventually get quite ugly.

But what would I know? I'm just an engineer that knows that systems (mechanical or economic) that harm the people they're supposed to serve are bad and must be revised until they work right.

Re:Hmmph.

[ohiovr]

We are not cows. We don' t need bacteria to allow us to receive caloric benefit from the diet we choose.

Re:Hmmph.

[emh203]

>>Milton Friedman and others have suggested the "basic income" where each person would receive enough to cover basic costs without regard to need

Sorry but that idea is dumb. You would have a large amount of the population do the absolute minimum because they have a big sugary tit to latch on to.
Humans are like sharks. The want to swim around, eat things, and then make baby sharks.

Just imagine if sharks had their food given to them. We would end up with way to many baby sharks.

Believe it or not, it is not bad thing to work a good portion of the day to earn what you need to survive. Stealing from others on a large scale simply doesn't work long term.

Re:Hmmph.

[Totenglocke]

So the natural outcome of achieving the dream of 100% automation of all work is that everybody starves?

All manual work may be automated, and that's a major reason for the decline of manufacturing in the US - because it's too expensive to pay people in a high-wage country to do menial labor like that. However, work in general (math, engineering, research, etc) can never be automated and replace humans.

It seems that the benefits of increased productivity have accrued to only a small segment of the population. Most of the people whose productivity has increased are stuck with stagnant wages.

Wrong. Economic data has shown that everyone's productivity has grown, though some more than others. Even the low-wage mechanics are much more productive now due to improved tools and computers for tracking everything and ordering parts. Yes, some people have a larger increase in productivity than others, but that's simply a matter of how technology can improve your work. You can't do nearly as much to increase the productivity of someone making sandwiches as you can an engineer designing a car.

It seems you have made it all the way into grad school without realizing that when the economy only serves a small portion of the population, things eventually get quite ugly.

The economy serves everybody, or are you so truly delusional that you think only a small portion of the population eats, works, and purchases goods and services?

But what would I know? I'm just an engineer that knows that systems (mechanical or economic) that harm the people they're supposed to serve are bad and must be revised until they work right.

Exactly - what would you know about Economics - you're an Engineer. I'm not arrogant enough to think I know how to build a car / building / bridge better than you, yet because you hear someone say "people who make money are evil" once, you're arrogant enough to think you know more about my field than I do.

That's actually been openly acknowledged by Economists many times for why governments follow horrible economic policies so often - because every idiot thinks that they know the best way to run the economy instead of listening to the experts in the field.

You've made no actual points in your "argument". All you've done is spread the typical FUD that "capitalism is evil because some people work harder / have better paying fields of specialization".

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would just like to point out that the Moebius pancake has only one side.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

michelle obama is a cunt

Re:Hmmph.

[PrimaryConsult]

What else? Try:
Most condiments like ketchup, sweet and sour sauce, honey mustard sauce, tartar sauce. Not always cheap store brand either.
Powerade and fruit drinks (interestingly enough, Gatorade doesn't). Anything with less than 100% juice probably has it.
Medicines like Nyquil.
Cheap store brand breads and buns.
Store brand versions of Yogurt and Ice Cream (interesting you mentioned it, but some name brands like Friendly's use sugar).
Canned fruit (likely the liquid it floats in).

There's probably a list out there, but you get my point. I tried to cut out HFCS entirely (as an experiment) and found it everywhere, gave up a day later. It's easier to become a vegetarian. And yes, some cheap sandwich meats even have it!

Re:Hmmph.

[Bahamut_Omega]

Only one problem. Why do we keep on electing the morbidly obtuse?

Re:Hmmph.

[Spugglefink]

Do people drink more Coca Cola (or eat more Twinkies) than they did 10 years ago?

When I was a kid in the '70s, soft drinks came in those six-packs of 16-oz. bottles that you could turn back in to collect your deposit. We'd get a couple six-packs every other week or so, and drinking one really was a treat.

The 16-oz. bottles became plastic, and they evolved into 20-oz. bottles. Two-liter bottles became common and cheap. By the time I was in high school, I was probably drinking a good 2 L of soda a day, but I managed to stay fairly thin until after college. Now I'm fat, and I'm definitely drinking vastly more soda than I did 30 years ago. It's delicious, and cheap. Hell, if you want to grab a portable drink to take with you at the gas station, it's a lot cheaper to buy soda than plain water.

I'd say this phenomenon has almost certainly contributed to the obesity problem. These drinks are a staple instead of a treat, and we're drinking a lot more of them than we used to.

Re:Hmmph.

[sjames]

Actually, Free Software is a great counterexample. Most people WANT to do something useful and if freed from economic necessity, will do so.

Stealing from others on a large scale simply doesn't work long term.

Exactly, so those at the top who keep trashing the economy and screwing the country over for their massive personal gains well out of proportion to their personal effort need to be stopped. They need to start carrying their own weight like everyone else.

Re:Hmmph.

[koreaman]

However, work in general (math, engineering, research, etc) can never be automated and replace humans.

How do you know this is true? You seem to be assuming without any argument that true AI will never be created: a huge leap of faith if you ask me.

Re:Hmmph.

[sjames]

All manual work may be automated, and that's a major reason for the decline of manufacturing in the US - because it's too expensive to pay people in a high-wage country to do menial labor like that. However, work in general (math, engineering, research, etc) can never be automated and replace humans.

At one time people were sure that manual work would never be automated either. Automating intellectual work is harder and we're nowhere near as far along with it, but keep in mind that a century ago, we were "sure" that those rooms full of accountants with their adding machines would never be replaced (by a spreadsheet no less).

Yes, everyone's productivity has gone up. Most people's productivity has gone up much more than their real income. For the top 5 or 10 percent though, their income has gone up a lot more than their productivity has. That's exactly the problem. Everyone is getting more done, only a few have actually benefitted from that.

The economy serves everybody, or are you so truly delusional that you think only a small portion of the population eats, works, and purchases goods and services?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It serves some people caviar and campaign and others a glass of tepid water and a stale cracker, but yes, technically it serves everyone. MOST people would have understood that.

If an engineer's designs are in the habit of failing, they are soon forced out of the field (and sometimes prosecuted). If engineer's designs in general harmed people as often as screwed up economics, perhaps economists would be well justified in trying their hand at it.

I actually have made a number of points, but you don't seem to want to hear them. You claim it's not the economists but the politicians screwing it up, but also seem to think things are just fine as they are. Which is it? What would YOU do differently?

And, BTW, nowhere at all did I say the problem was capitalism itself. You seem to have brought some baggage into the discussion. I suggested that the current balance within the capitalism is screwed up and needs correction. I further suggested that societies that fail to make those corrections tend to end in violence.

Re:Hmmph.

[drsmithy]

The Xboxes, our society giving more rights to criminals, gun control laws that embolden said criminals [...]

Wow. How do you walk around with that chip on your shoulder ?

Re:Hmmph.

[dcavanaugh]

With all due respect to engineers and economists, I enter this discussion as someone who has very complicated taxes and has spent some time analyzing the system.

You would be surprised how many dual-income families could drop to one job with negligible loss of real income. Why? The marginal tax rate on that second job is sky high. Ever hear of the "marriage penalty"? My wife CAN'T work because we would end up getting hammered with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)! Personally, I would prefer she stay home and raise the kids. This is good, because the government doesn't offer us any choice.

Many of the "luxuries" found in dual-income households are in fact necessities triggered by the second wage earner. By this, I mean things like another car, additional clothing, convenience foods, eating out, daycare, etc. Most of this gets paid for with after-tax income. There are many things that would either cost less or nothing at all if the wife stayed home. When dual-income couples buy a snazzy car or a huge TV, it's not really the second job that pays for the upgrade. We already know these second jobs don't bring in much after taxes and expenses. The second job merely enables a higher debt burden. Most of the true luxuries are purchased on credit.

I can understand married women having a right to work, but I wonder how many of them realize they are working very hard for a salary that amounts to less than minimum wage! The marriage penalty is not something you see as a payroll deduction. It's a hidden cost that is only visible when filing a tax return -- and even then most people don't figure it out.

I saw a TV show where Dateline NBC was helping some families determine if Mom could quit her job and stay home to raise the kids. They had some accountants analyzing the families' tax returns, checking accounts and credit card statements. In most cases, the couples were shocked at how little it would cost them to have Mom stay home. In one case, they found a family where the mother was earning NEGATIVE income from her job! She said to the accountant, "This is great news! Does this mean I can quit in a few months?" The accountant says, "You should quit TOMORROW. In fact, the sooner you quit the less money you will lose."

Re:Hmmph.

[drsmithy]

No. The "fatness" problem is due to the USDA suddenly telling everyone they should have an inherently UNBALANCED diet that favors BREAD.

Bread (in its numerous forms) has been a staple of the human diet since the freakin' Neolithic period, and is far more commonly and frequently eaten in many cultures outside the USA, that do not have the same problems with obesity.

The real problem - from an "energy in" perspective - is that portion sizes in the US are huge (because food is so incredibly cheap here) and humans are genetically programmed not to waste food since we've spent the majority of our existence living barely above a starvation level.

Re:Hmmph.

[DarkKnightRadick]

What chip? Just listing reasons why kids don't get out anymore as they once did.

My own up-bringing wasn't much different then today (I lived in the center of a gang-infested, drug ridden ghetto). If it wasn't for having a backyard or grandparents and an uncle who lived in a near by suburban city, I would have been indoors from the time I got home from school until I went back to school.

Re:Hmmph.

[Merls the Sneaky]

Government wouldn't like that either. That would equal less people paying taxes.

Re:Hmmph.

[DarkKnightRadick]

Most school lunch programs aren't as healthy as you think they are.

Re:Hmmph.

[Merls the Sneaky]

So fuck them.

The president already does that. One would assume they must enjoy it. The president supposedly works for the people. So in a way your already doing that.

Blame the media for focusing attention on them and giving them a platform to launch their tirades of bullshit.

Re:Hmmph.

[DarkKnightRadick]

A huge leap of faith to assume that true machine intelligence will be created.

Re:Hmmph.

[Merls the Sneaky]

For me it was a simple change. I couldn't work out why after I left home I had gained weight over a number of years. At age 39 I was diagnosed with diabetes. I narrowed it down with a discussion with my parents that my extra intake was due to sugary cola drinks.

As I don't drink coffee yet I enjoy caffeine to help start my day. Since cutting out the sugared cola and gone to a diet brand I can handle (I really don't want to have to kick the caffeine habit) I have had to make minor changes. Including keeping down the simple carbs as much as possible (even though all my favourite foods are loaded with them). I am losing the extra pounds at the rate I had gained them. I have also been able to get off the injections and pills.

For those of us who gain after leaving home it could be a simple change that is required. My parents used to regulate the cola use as they bought it only rarely. Once I left home it was my own money and I bought what I liked. The gain happened over a long period of time and I didn't notice it.

Re:Hmmph.

[sjames]

Certainly those cases exist and few will argue that the tax code isn't over-complex and even Kafkaesque, but you might be surprised how many families aspire to one day make enough money to have your problem.

Re:Hmmph.

[DigiShaman]

True AI will raise the standard of living, but never replace human labor.

There was adage decades ago that stated something of the effect of "Computers will allow people to do the same work in less time". Turns out that was false. Because everyone uses them, computers make so we perform more work in the same amount of time. That's because everyone uses them to keep that competitive edge. So regardless of the technology used, there will always human beings as a supplemental resource if not the primary resource.

Re:Hmmph.

[BlackBloq]

I don't understand stats. Like all the 10-13 year old kids I know including my son are way skinny and they play A LOT of games. Garry's mod is my favorite that he plays. On his ps3 he plays a lot as well. It's hard to get him to eat regardless of whats going on unless there is a lot of raw physical exertion. He is an OK height. His friend who eats nothing and stays up all night is skinny like my son but shorter. I would love it if those kids ate more friggin food. Food is not a priority and snacking doesn't happen that much at all and I swear they barley go to the can. I think if you are an eater you are supposed to burn that shit off running and stuff. Those kids who are fat may actually do well in sports (before a huge chunk out) and may have the body of a Ferrari needing a lot of fuel for their 8 liter engine. Problem is if they don't run it it turns to fat, then they get lazy and turn all the potential growth into girth. Respect in athletics is about looks at first and looks get you in the door. If a kid looks fat why make him the center? He/she may play better then the whole team but who would know?

Re:Hmmph.

[drsmithy]

What chip?

That would be the part where you try and conflate children not getting out of the house with gun control and "more rights to criminals" (whatever that's supposed to mean, but I assume you're implying that crime is higher now that it used to be when everyone was wandering around with a six-shooter on his hip).

Crime - particularly violent crime - is at pretty much the lowest point in recorded history, despite what Fox News might be telling you. Even ignoring that, all those other countries out there with much, much stronger gun laws and "criminal rights" have nothing close to the obesity problems the US does, *and* their children get outside more (generally walking/riding/bussing/taking public transport to school, rather than being dropped off by mum driving her small tank).

This is changing, however, as the sensationalist news reporting pioneered in the US becomes common everywhere, and helicopter parenting starting to take hold across the world[0].

Just listing reasons why kids don't get out anymore as they once did.

Your reasons are bogus, as even a moment's thought demonstrates. Further, if you think the typical parent would be _more_ likely to let their kids out of their sight if every random Joe was walking around with a gun on him, you're delusional.

Re:Hmmph.

[electrosoccertux]

lot of engineers seem to enjoy macro economics.

I've come to the same conclusions as you.
To play devils advocate, while they're subject to stagnant wages, their wages buy new toys (cheap digital cameras, smart phones, 32" LCD 720p TVs) that did not exist before.

But yes, the productivity benefits are mostly going to the upper echelon in corporations, and the stock holders. You have to have a company run from the ground up for the benefits of the employee (and not the employer) if you want a stable society where people benefit from their work. Good luck finding a reason for corporations to do that. Under certain worldviews a logical reason can be found to run a company like this.

Re:Hmmph.

[electrosoccertux]

You know I've been noticing this too. I crap more when I've eaten more. UNLESS it's me consuming calories that are simple to digest-- sugar, starches, etc. Those get converted no matter what. The proteins/fibers that I don't need pass through. I think you give the bacteria too much credit. Most fat people I know eat sugars and starches like nobody's business.

Re:Hmmph.

[dcavanaugh]

Ditching that second job is not just for wealthy families. You don't have to be earning all that much to encounter the marriage penalty. The surprise is how many couples don't know about it. After all, this is never shown on a pay stub. If Form 1040 could talk, it would say things like:

"Your refund is $X, but it would be $X+5000 if you and your spouse were single and filed separately."

"We are taxing that second job at an extraordinarily high rate by adding both incomes together. This enables us to collect tax at a rate that neither spouse would ever have to pay as an individual."

The tax code was originally designed to favor married couples, and up until the 1970's it did. For families with only one income, it still does. When it became common for both spouses to work, problems emerged.

Back to your point about an economic system that requires both parents to work. People think we have this problem, but the tax code does everything it possibly can to encourage families to rely on a single salary.

Re:Hmmph.

[tyrione]

How they concluded that playing massive hours of games where you're focus in on the game and not shoveling crap in your mouth is the problem is rather myopic. How about the end of grade school recess, mandatory exercises during school and the crappy food you eat there and the even crappier fast food you eat at home?

Re:Hmmph.

[Monchanger]

Then wouldn't it make more sense to find a way to for people to just drink tap water, or as a perhaps psychologically easier alternative, tap water run through an unnecessary filter at home to feel good about it?

Economic, healthier, environmental.

As for thinking soda is cheap, that's just wrong. We're already paying for perfectly good water, so spending more to quench one's thirst doesn't require much, even if you want to spend a tiny bit more to add a little flavor. Coke and Pepsi 2-liter bottles have jumped from $1.15 to $1.50 in just a few years around here, and it takes people with too much money and too little sense to think that's a bargain for even twice as much water. For the cost of twenty bottles of water you can get a damn nice sports bottle which is hardly less convenient unless completely careless about wasting money.

And half the comments on this thread say we don't need government to tell us we're doing it wrong. Of course not...

Re:Hmmph.

[Monchanger]

And this long generalizing rant has what to do with the current discussion and Michelle Obama? She's got nothing in common with this "rich busybody wife" stereotype you conjured up. Laura Bush was a working woman too before she did the same kind of work as First Lady.

But hey, what's truth worth, when we find a chance to complain about Obama or politicians in general.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the energy you "consume" is not the same as the number of calories you eat, and the energy that you "use" varies depending on what and how much you eat independent of your activity level. These make the whole "energy in - energy out" line of thinking less than useful for weight control.

Re:Hmmph.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Wow, I never seen a post unintentionally support its opening statement so incredibly well, even on slashdot. That's impressive. I think we should name an award after you.

Re:Hmmph.

[arose]

But the only way to achieve that is to cut out half the work force so labor prices go up.

Not higher then before women entered the workforce. Those 8 ours had to pay for the whole family back then, if 4 can pay for half...

However there is no way that can happen with the way that globalization is orchestrated.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are people using less energy?

They're lazy.

Why are people consuming more energy?

They're greedy.

What subtle biochemical and metabolic effects might be involved?

None.

Re:Hmmph.

[Hal_Porter]

The Xboxes, our society giving more rights to criminals, gun control laws that embolden said criminals, lack of police power.

As a heartless libertarian I'd suggest the following - liberalize concealed carry, offer cash bounties for killing criminals and abolish the police. That would probably solve the obesity problem too.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

Beyond this, to the GGP post, other than the sodas, chocolate milk and ice cream what has HFCS in it?

Are you serious? Do you ever read the label of anything you eat? What other foods have HFCS? Try every single other food. I live in Europe so it's sugar in everything instead of HFCS but it still has the has affect on the body of messing up your insulin response and other hormones. I've stopped eating foods with any added sugar (In the US it would be added HFCS) which means that I can't eat 99.99999% of the foods in the grocery store.
The food industry adds sugar/HFCS to every single food on the shelf. Every single one. The only way to avoid it is to always make your foods from scratch using fresh, raw meat, fresh fruit and fresh vegetables (and only milk and cheese from dairy, all yogurts have massive amounts of sugar - especially those that claim to be healthy). You'll find added sugar in every soup, every bread, every cracker, every juice, every sauce, every processed meat, every cereal... basically everything that has been anything but immediately packaged after being harvested.

Re:Hmmph.

[BasilBrush]

Humans are like sharks. The want to swim around, eat things, and then make baby sharks.

Moving around, eating things and making babies describes the entire animal kingdom, not just sharks. Fluffy bunny rabbits would fit the bill quite well, but wouldn't perhaps have the same evil connotations you desire.

But uniquely in the animal kingdom, humans have a much wider range of interests than that. There's not many sharks of fluffy bunny rabbits posting to Slashdot we may presume. Not many sharks creating art.

Just imagine if sharks had their food given to them. We would end up with way to many baby sharks.

Well, welfare as currently practiced does provide an incentive to single young women to get pregnant. But the Basic Income idea does not. It's an amount of money paid to every single adult citizen regardless. As such it provides no incentive to get pregnant, not does it create a poverty trap where people on welfare don't bother taking on low pay work, because it'd reduce their welfare payments.

For sure, with a basic income, there would be a proportion of people who choose to live a basic lifestyle, and not work. But that's not different to how things are now, nor how things were before welfare existed. There has never been 100% employment. And with all the automation of the last 50 years, there's even less reason for there to be 100% employment now.

Believe it or not, it is not bad thing to work a good portion of the day to earn what you need to survive. Stealing from others on a large scale simply doesn't work long term.

Doing some job you hate in order to have the money to just survive? Actually, that IS a bad thing. You actually need religion to put together the convoluted argument that that is a good thing. The "Protestant Work Ethic." It may be necessary to do a job you hate in order to survive, but that doesn't make it good.

There are certainly jobs that no one enjoys, but that need doing regardless. As things stand, perversely, they also tend to be the lowest paid. Why should a derivatives trader earn many times more than a sewage worker? The world doesn't need people to trade derivatives. But we do need the excrement to be taken away from our homes. Given a Basic Income, one could see that a good proportion of those doing unpleasant jobs would quit. But if they REALLY need doing, the market would respond by raising wages on those jobs, till some more people find it worthwhile doing them in addition to getting the Basic Income. Imagine that, unpleasant jobs getting paid more!

Relabelling taxation and welfare as "theft" doesn't actually make a point, it's just abuse of the language. And actually, of all the many criticisms you can make of it, sustainability isn't one of them. There's absolutely no reason why taxation and welfare can't continue to exist ad infinitum.

Re:Hmmph.

[DarkKnightRadick]

That wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list.

Re:Hmmph.

[DarkKnightRadick]

There's a lot of words being put in my mouth here.

"More rights to criminals" means civil tort law that gives a criminal a right to sue his/her victim for defending themselves. It's happened before, and will continue to happen. Why should the crook worry about the criminal courts when he can make a mint in civil court?

Crime is at its lowest point in recorded history? I wonder which recorded history you are looking at (also, I don't watch Fox News, very rarely use their stories as a source, and when I do it's only in passing reference).

I mentioned going to school being the exception.

I think it reasonable that if criminals weren't as bold as they are today (or even as bold as they were in my neighborhood, which had crack needles every where and a police bust at least once a weekend), parents would feel safer with telling little Timmy and Susie to go out and ride their bikes all day. Even in my area (small-ish rural county) I can't feel safe letting my nephew out unattended (so someone goes out with him, no big deal when you have a few extra people in the home who are family) because of the fear of kidnappings (which have happened in the county) and other crimes (drugs mostly).

Your refutations are bogus because they are based on assumptions as well as ignoring the rest of my statement which put most of the blame squarely on parents being too lazy to go out with their kids (which is the case many times). Even living in the ghetto, I wasn't too far from a park or something I could go to to play while one of my parents watched.

Re:Hmmph.

[BasilBrush]

What changed is that people wanted a much higher standard of living (bigger houses, more / nicer cars, fancy clothes, 60" tv's, etc) and in order to pay for all of that, both people need a job.

1) The average size of a home hasn't gone up.
2) The trend to more/nicer cars is driven by more automation. Factories designed on CAD systems, built by robots, produce far more/better/cheaper cars. That's why more people have them.
3) Clothes are cheaper than ever, because of globalisation.
4) 60" TVs are in peoples homes again because technology and automation has created them.

None of these things are because of two incomes rather than one in a family. They are simply to do with a world with cheap energy, globalisation and rapidly advancing technology.

It's called "increased productivity" and it's the driving force behind all wage increases and economic recoveries.

"Increased productivity" can result in all the things above that you claimed came from dual-incomes. But all too often it is employers code for putting people out of work. As such it causes less demand for labour, and thus lower salaries, not higher ones. The financial benefits of such productivity increases go to the owners of the business, not to the employees. It's one of the drivers of the ever increasing gap between the rich and the working class.

Re:Hmmph.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Crime - particularly violent crime - is at pretty much the lowest point in recorded history...

The decline has been accelerating recently too. My google foo is broken so i can't find the link. However it is still true that the US has quite a high violent crime rate compared to a lot (not all) of the EU countries and places like Canada.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you see the British cook in US Schools where children get fried stuff and pizzas day , coupled with sugar flavored milk. The most obese state in USA.

All these rules, but nothing in it about calories or %fat consumed - so no wonder where bad habits are starting from. FDA has a formula that ignores the elephant in the room.

Score fast food 10, healthy stuff 0.

The best 'Cure' would be vitamin laced drinks, with a pinch of cocaine to suppress appetite for those with excessive BMI's, with some mechanism to stop evil dudes from distilling the active ingredient.

Re:Hmmph.

[xaxa]

Most of what you mention would have sugar (sucrose) in it in the UK, but we have an obesity problem too. I'm not sure swapping HCFS for sucrose would make that much difference.

(It's probably easier to buy cans of fruit in natural juice than in sugar syrup, but both exist.)

Re:Hmmph.

[BitZtream]

Yea, you could also blame salt the same way.

Its fairly ignorant to blame HFCS like most, youself included, do

There are plenty of things that are in EVERY THING WE EAT that weren't there just a few years back.

If you blame HFCS for the problem then you're just in denial. People are fat because they consume more calories than they are burning. Stop.

Re:Hmmph.

[emh203]

protestant work ethic

Being an atheist I can't comment on a "protestant" work ethic. You do things you hate to surivive because most of us do not want to starve and die. Its as simple as that.

Why should a derivatives trader earn many times more than a sewage worker?

Its not because sewage work is not important. You don't understand the markets if you make this statement. The sewage worker gets paid less because it requires little brain power and there are plenty of people that could do it. There are far fewer that can do derivatives trading. Its more than need that drive price. The reason I get paid alot to design IC's is not because it is more important than the guy cleans the toilet. Its because there are alot less people that can do this skilled labor and I spent 20 years of my life training my self to do it. I can learn to clean a toilet in about 10 minutes.

There's absolutely no reason why taxation and welfare can't continue to exist ad infinitum.

Because you can't consume more than you produce. Period. Sure, you can get away with for awhile when the group is large enough but over long timescales it doesn't work. Sure, it sounds nice to pay people to sit around and b e arts-fartsy if they want to. That is the land of rainbows and unicorns. It the world where you die when you don't eat, these people need to figure how to fund their own interests.

Why should I have to work 60 hours a week making sure a supply chain is in order so that someone can do nothing and simply consume? Sorry, the idea is still dumb. You have to go to work, even if you hate it, to keep your belly full and a roof over your head. Sure, I feel we need basic arbitration in society (i.e. traffic lights, law enforcement, etc) and am more than willing to pay for this service. I do not think we need to contribute to fund to people who do not wish to work.

Re:Hmmph.

[TheLink]

I was mainly pointing out that it's clearly not as simple as: calories in - calories used, which the OP was claiming as _obvious_. This "obvious" but stupidly wrong claim is popularly waved about every time the topic of obesity comes up.

More accurate is: calories in - (calories used + calories excreted).

If you are right in your claim, your example already proves the "calorie in - calorie used" claim wrong. Since you eating the 3000 calories of protein or fibre would be different from you eating 3000 calories of sugar and starch. One has you gaining very little weight and certainly less fat. The other has you gaining more weight.

Most humans could eat lots of calories in the form of grass, but not gain much weight since their digestive systems won't be able to digest much of it, and most of it would just be excreted. In contrast cows are more efficient at converting grass to body mass (not that efficient but better than us).

Similarly the giant panda normally has a diet that consists mainly of bamboo, but it is not efficient at digesting it, so they have to eat quite a lot of bamboo.

I find it annoying that so many people (even many dietitians) don't take excretion into account and think it's simply calories in vs calories used. Worse is when they claim they are obviously right when they are so obviously wrong.

p.s. the bacteria is part of the reason why, not the sole reason. I was just giving examples of what people are working on, when it's past the "calories in - calories used" inanity.

p.p.s. Sometimes I wonder whether those dietitians etc are really helping given the sort of crappy advice they give that's backed by zero scientific research. Heck the "getting animals to put on weight fast" industry is probably knows more about what they doing. Whether the results are actually good for the humans eating the animals is a different matter. It's clear that a free range chicken is a very different from one cooped up in a cage, so I wouldn't be surprised if eating one instead of the other has a different impact on your health.

Re:Hmmph.

[BlackBloq]

Troll you say nothing and are even less. You don't even address what I say. And what I say is my personal experience counters the statistics. You sir are a moron of low class.

Re:Hmmph.

[BasilBrush]

Being an atheist I can't comment on a "protestant" work ethic. You do things you hate to surivive because most of us do not want to starve and die. Its as simple as that.

And it doesn't have to be like that. In fact it isn't like that in the first world. Rather you can do what brings you satisfaction to do, and sometimes people want to pay you to do that, sometimes you can be subsidized to do it, and sometimes you can do it and welfare will step in to stop you starving and dying.

Its not because sewage work is not important. You don't understand the markets if you make this statement.

If only you'd read on a a little before snipping and responding. I understand markets perfectly well. As I point out the basic income idea changes the balance of the market such that the supply of potential sewage workers goes down, and thus sewage workers salaries go up (in addition to the basic income). That's markets in action.

Because you can't consume more than you produce. Period. Sure, you can get away with for awhile when the group is large enough but over long timescales it doesn't work.

As a world we can't. As individuals, of course we can. Factories produce vast amounts of goods with a small number of people due to automation and robots. Meanwhile vast numbers of professions don't produce anything tangible at all. And if it's not tangible, it's got nothing to do with survival.

Re:Hmmph.

[Hal_Porter]

If people are running around killing each other for money in a Somalia like utopia they won't worry about their other problems.

Re:Hmmph.

[xaxa]

Do people drink more Coca Cola (or eat more Twinkies) than they did 10 years ago?

When I was a kid in the '70s, soft drinks came in those six-packs of 16-oz. bottles that you could turn back in to collect your deposit. We'd get a couple six-packs every other week or so, and drinking one really was a treat.

When I was a kid in the 90s my parents simply didn't buy carbonated soft drinks -- the only time I remember having them was at birthday parties, or at Christmas (mixed 50-50 with wine;-). The more-usual "treat" was fruit juice, they might buy 1L every Saturday.

They did buy squash, concentrated fruit juice in sugar syrup which you dilute, but we always diluted it much more than the manufacturer's suggest. My flatmate has a bottle, it says "dilute 1 part with 4 parts water", but I just made myself a glass the way I like it, and used 40ml:300ml, i.e. 1:7½. 340ml is about one standard drink can. My drink still contains 17g of sugar (sucrose), but that's much less than the ~40g in a can of lemonade or cola.

Hell, if you want to grab a portable drink to take with you at the gas station, it's a lot cheaper to buy soda than plain water.

Round here it's usually cheaper to buy a bottle of water.

I don't drink tea or coffee -- I don't like the taste, or the caffeine. Most of the time I drink tap water, but I do have a bottle of luxury ("adult") squash at work for when I feel like something sweet.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you make shit up about being in grad school for economics or economics being your field? You might have read a book or two but it is quite clear that you do not understand the nature of economics and do not present arguments like an economist does.

If you wish to convince people of anything within a particular field, you shouldn't start by asserting that you have more knowledge than you actually do.

Re:Hmmph.

[DarkKnightRadick]

I also don't endorse what the "heartless libertarian" suggested. Bad ideas are a bad idea no matter how you dress it up.

Re:Hmmph.

[eiMichael]

Yeah. And all people hate each other and never help anyone without making turning a profit. And all cultures are the same because all humans have not only the same impulses but no impulse control. Just because you say humans are dumb beasts that just want to eat, sleep and fuck indiscriminately doesn't make it true.

Plenty of people are convinced to volunteer and give away their resources. Some even believe that procreating is something that should only happen under certain situations and abstain from it otherwise. Others are even capable of going on hunger strikes for long periods of time.

People that were already lazy to begin with likely keep being lazy when they're provided for. People who already work hard will likely keep being productive and busy when they are provided for. Personally I'd rather have the lazy people provided for so they don't become destitute and desperate, which leads to crimes like assault and robberies.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding the post by TheLink(130905) Just thought I'd point out that, in your example a) you would not need to eat 20 x A and 20 x B to meet your requirements, you'd just need to eat 20 x A, as half this amount would be converted to B leaving you with the ratio 10 x A and 10 x B, as per your suggested initial requirements.

That would be a boring diet though! ;o)

Apologies if somone else has already mentioned it.

Re:Hmmph.

[Ploum]

Am I the only one shocked by the fact that the whole rhetoric here cannot even imagine that the husband would stay at home and the wife would work?

What the hell, people ? It's XXIst century !

Re:Hmmph.

[emh203]

Plenty of people are convinced to volunteer and give away their resources.

I am no quarrel with anyone willfully giving what they have earned to charity, etc. It is just evil when an invisible hand forces you because some faceless entity decides what is good and what is bad. That is as evil as any religous entity telling you that you are going to hell because you don't share in their faith.

Providing a monthly check for simply doing nothing is a disaster waiting to happen. You always have to ask the question how much and where does it come from? Then you realize that your utopian system has herpes.

You may choose to call me evil for having the audacity to say that everyone needs goto work to create some value in the world. I say its more evil to create a system that encourages people to because hopelessly dependent on a few "enlightned" leaders to provide them their daily gruel.

It's funny how people put all this faith in "economists" who claim to have create ideas about to run an economy but I have yet to see said economists run any business any better then us "groundlings".

Re:Hmmph.

[Golddess]

If a married couple earning $40k/yr individually (for an $80k/yr household income) is really currently paying more in taxes than a married couple with only one working spouse earning $80k/yr, I'm sure the government could adjust the tax laws such that they still rake in the same amount.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why do you make shit up about being in grad school for economics or economics
> being your field?

Same reason you make shit up that you're not a nigger.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure who the rhetoric are, so it's pretty difficult to work out what their opinion, assumong they share one, is. Perhaps you'd like to repost - in English this time?

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

The French and Italians heavily favor of bread/pasta products in their diets, yet they have much lower obesity than in the US.

Mostly because they eat bread which is not packed full of preservatives. Their bread stays fresh for 1-2 days, not 2 weeks.

Re:Hmmph.

[koreaman]

Right, so the correct thing to do is say "I don't know" since it's a leap of faith to assume either answer.

Re:Hmmph.

[Hognoxious]

Make part time employment and single income more viable and the problem can begin reversing itself.

[He made several points but I assume this is what you're replying to. If it isn't, learn to use quotations]

But the only way to achieve that is to cut out half the work force so labor prices go up.

Incorrect. Another way would be for people to live within their means. This doesn't mean going all Amish or living under a bush. Drive a five year old station wagon instead of a new SUV - or two. Watch a three year old 30" TV instead of a new 50" one. Fix stuff when it breaks. Learn to cook.

Re:Hmmph.

[Hognoxious]

We could start by putting a stop to offshoring.

Protectionism? Yes, that certainly has a long and glorious history!

Re:Hmmph.

[poetmatt]

who said convenience foods are the only things that have HFCS? Where do you make that up?

Yogurt has HFCS, bread has HFCS.

If you think you're going to bake your bread, make your own yogurt, and never eat at a restaurant, good luck with that.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you add your wife's salary to yours and you get oh lets say 1.8x salary then you are saying that your new tax rate will be 44% so that the final number is 44% taxes? What the heck is going on in your "very complicated taxes" that would cause this?

Re:Hmmph.

[sjames]

You say that as if it's a well accepted truth. However, even the link you posted suggests there is a great deal of disagreement as to what if any effect it had on the economy.

Another possability that would moderate the effect would be to force U.S. companies to make sure 3rd world employees make a reasonable minimum wage. That would develop their economies faster (turning them into potential customers) while somewhat reducing the attractiveness of outsourcing.

Re:Hmmph.

[DarkKnightRadick]

No, I say it's pretty reasonable to not assume that machine intelligence, even if created, will ever eliminate the human factor.

Re:Hmmph.

[Hognoxious]

I understand markets perfectly well. As I point out the basic income idea changes the balance of the market such that the supply of potential sewage workers goes down, and thus sewage workers salaries go up (in addition to the basic income). That's markets in action.

It sounds like markets being messed around with to me. If your goal is to raise the income of sewage workers just legislate a minimum wage for them.

Tell me, this basic income that everyone gets, where does it come from? I guess it comes from taxation, right? So you take it from everybody and give it back to them. Sounds wonderfully productive.

Because you can't consume more than you produce.

As a world we can't. As individuals, of course we can.

A few individuals can, as long as the rest will put up with it. It'd fall to pieces if everyone did it.

Factories produce vast amounts of goods with a small number of people due to automation and robots.

Robots and factories don't design, build and maintain themselves. There are still plenty of tasks that can't be automated.

Meanwhile vast numbers of professions don't produce anything tangible at all. And if it's not tangible, it's got nothing to do with survival.

Organization is intangible. One aspect of organization would be making sure that food gets transported in a timely manner to people who are hungry. Merely producing it is not enough.

Another intangible is advice. How is advice - say in medical matters - not related to survival?

Re:Hmmph.

[Hognoxious]

More accurate is: calories in - (calories used + calories excreted).

Fine. If you have a hyper efficient digestion that doesn't excrete many calories, you need to either reduce calories_in or increase calories_used to balance the equation.

If you gain weight it's because you're taking in too many calories for you. The phrase "too many calories" was never meant to be a universal absolute.

Re:Hmmph.

[BasilBrush]

It sounds like markets being messed around with to me. If your goal is to raise the income of sewage workers just legislate a minimum wage for them.

Markets always exist within whatever legislative and tax framework governments have put in place. For example sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco artificially inflate the prices, yet there's still a very active market in those goods. Of course the recent crash in the equity markets show that sometimes there too little government interference in the markets. There should have been far stronger regulation.

The goal of a basic income isn't to raise the income of sewage workers. It's far bigger than that. It's to eliminate poverty (at whatever level you choose to define that) whilst not having a poverty trap. It's redistribution of wealth.

Why redistribute wealth? Here's a couple of reasons:

1) The myth, particularly in America, is that wealth comes to those that work hard for it. The reality is that how wealthy your parents are is a far stronger determinant of how wealthy you are than how hard you work. So wealth is mostly an accident of birth. It's unreasonable that such a lottery should have such a strong influence on outcome.

2) The measure of gaps in wealth between the richest and poorest is measured by the Gini coefficient. Studies show that countries and communities with lower gini coefficients are more cohesive, have less crime, and have a higher sum total of happiness.

The trick is to redistribute wealth whilst still leaving enough incentive for people to do the work that needs to be done. Some redistribution is good. Total redistribution is bad. The Basic Income idea delivers that. It's just a matter of setting the appropriate level.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

I make shit up about not being a nigger since I'm gay. So you try to pass of as an economist to hide any affiliation with the GNAA?

Re:Hmmph.

[koreaman]

"not assume" and "assume not" mean different things.

Re:Hmmph.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people WANT to do something useful and if freed from economic necessity, will do so.

When you say 'freed from economic necessity', you actually mean 'leeching off somebody else.'

Re:Hmmph.

[sjames]

There are many ways to be freed from economic necessity. If they then do something useful, it's not leeching, it's just not extorted from them.

Something is missing

[mhh91]

Xbox360 isn't on this list?

Re:Something is missing

[Low Ranked Craig]

Of course not. Xbox is Microsoft, an American company and a big lobbyist / campaign contributor...

Re:Something is missing

[Anonymous Coward]

Xbox is a subsidiary of Microsoft, an American company and a big lobbyist / but a surprisingly small campaign contributor.

Which says it all! If you haven't noticed yet, this is just another political "think of the children" ploy. Don't be fooled because it includes multiple liberal pet peeves of freedom, along the lines of "We will tell you what you can eat and do, when and where" bullcrap. But they are still required to play by the fancy political rules, which is what gives it away as dishonest by only mentioning a foreign brand. Come on people, encourage more exercise, but do not try to demonize inanimate objects because of your own choices.
  IT IS CALLED PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
Hope you didn't mind me fixing your quote.

Re:Something is missing

[sznupi]

Older folks (you know, a large part of electorate) are traditionaly sceptical of new fangled toys; don't search for your deamons in what is simply categring to preexisting sentiments of many voters.

Re:Something is missing

[causality]

Older folks (you know, a large part of electorate) are traditionaly sceptical of new fangled toys; don't search for your deamons in what is simply categring to preexisting sentiments of many voters.

I believe you missed the point. There are lots of "new fangled toys" produced by a number of manufacturers. Yet of all those toys produced by all of those manufacturers, it's the foreign manufacturer that is targeted.

To the people you described an XBoX360 would be just as "new fangled".

Incidentally this is a reason why collecting Social Security should mean you surrender your right to vote. Perhaps then Social Security would be something other than a Ponzi scheme doomed to collapse under its own weight since it would no longer be political suicide to fix it. As a bonus, the tendency you have highlighted would be irrelevant and no longer an input towards decision-making.

Re:Something is missing

[eulernet]

No, because you have to return your console several times before getting one that works.
This provides some physical exercize !

Re:Something is missing

[Anonymous Coward]

if you think that the right to vote is something that anyone, anytime should ever have to surrender then you've missed the point of democracy.

Re:Something is missing

[Anonymous Coward]

You also missed the point that this new charade is just another Think Of The Children ploy. That was the main point. The fact they only mentioned a foreign brand is what gave it away as mere political manipulation.

if you think that the right to vote is something that anyone, anytime should ever have to surrender then you've missed the point of democracy.

America isn't really striving for a Democracy, but rather a Republic. This requires you to interact with your representative or vote in someone that better represents your values. Don't fool yourself that your vote alone makes a difference.

wheres the story?

[metalmaster]

"lets throw in a gaming console amongst other big culprits that help fatten up kids" If your fat its because you didnt exercise enough as a kid and you probably ate shit. More so, its probably the fact that you ate shit. Oh, and your parents probably didnt push activity and exercise on you. "LETS BLAME SONY!" I call it a witch hunt

Re:wheres the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, there is a pretty sad disconnect between the time line and the graph. The events might as well be totally random, most of the events aren't even events, just milestones, might as well have started with the moon landing. I'm also highly suspicious of the 2% blip around 2004 which is implied is due to McDonalds stopping supersize. As big as they are, I'm doubtful that it could have such a large impact. The timing doesn't really match either. More likely, somebody thought "ugh, gonna find something good that happened that year".

Re:wheres the story?

[blueg3]

I don't see where they're blaming Sony. They're calling out video games as a contributing factor in childhood obesity, which is probably true. Maybe instead of blaming Sony they could educate parents or something. I wonder how they might educate parents? I don't know, maybe some kind of graphic that shows the rise of childhood obesity and points out a lot of contributing factors that parents could work on avoiding? Something like that?

Re:wheres the story?

[cheekyjohnson]

"Oh, and your parents probably didnt push activity and exercise on you"

Which they shouldn't. It should be a recommended, but optional thing. If you don't want to be healthy, that's your choice. But, if you're going to force people to try to be healthy, well, there's plenty of adults that need "help," too.

Re:wheres the story?

[KibibyteBrain]

Yeah, look at any fat kid and you will notice one constant among them: fat parents. Its not genetics, but overall lifestyle.
I play video games more than ever now and have attained a below-average BMI and am well past what my doctor calls "clinical fitness" since ditching a car and biking to work every day. Singling out any one factor of lifestyle is missing the point; its overall lifestyle composition that matters.

Re:wheres the story?

[Mashiki]

Personally I blame, in no particular order. Government for telling people that the world is coming to an end, and keep your kids inside. I blame 'think of the children' idiots, for telling everyone that their kids are at risk from *random thing here*, and they should be coddled from birth until they leave. I blame psychologists for repeatedly saying the same things as the 'think of the children' idiots, along with telling parents that males should be quiet and demure. While prescribing drugs to keep them 'under control' aka ADHD.

I blame the media for doing the same thing and reinforcing it. And I blame parents for not being well informed, and following what the media presented, and what the 'school psychologists' told them. Along with being told that games like cops n' robbers(or variations like cowboys n' indians), or war, or any supper-happy-stupid childhood games are bad for them because it 'reinforces negative stereotypes'.

Pretty sure that covers it, I know I'm missing a few like school boards, and such. I don't however blame the kids, but I pity them. Because of all that, they never had a childhood where they could actually go out and enjoy themselves.

Re:wheres the story?

[Niris]

While I agree that overall lifestyle does play a huge part in a lot of peoples weight and physical condition, there's a good chunk of it that simply is genetic. I've seen people who eat incredibly well and do very physical work put on a lot of weight, and there's a good amount of people out there (myself and a lot of my family included) who eat like shit and are thin as a rail. If anything though, lifestyle does tend to make you feel overall better physically, which I've noticed since I started volunteering at a zoo doing a lot of physical work after years as just doing computer tech work.

Re:wheres the story?

[Richy_T]

Excusemewhat? It's the parent's job to educate and train their children. Encouraging activity and exercise falls within the purview of parental influence.

Re:wheres the story?

[msclrhd]

The more I think about it, the more I think that civilisation is not going to end through war or asteroids or whatever else -- it is going to implode on ourselves because of all the scare stories we create.

Hell, breathing and the metabolic process produce free electrons that destroy DNA and cause cancer, so breathing is bad for you and you mustn't do it! Exercising just speeds up the metabolic rate and damages your bones and other parts of the body. Therefore, exercising is bad for you! But if you don't exercise, you will get fat and die as well, so not exercising is bad for you!

If you go out and buy groceries, you may get hit by a car and die! If you don't go out and get some food you will starve to death!

Re:wheres the story?

[Vintermann]

Government for telling people that the world is coming to an end, and keep your kids inside.

I don't get it. Do the government own the entire media only where you live? Because newspaper headline scares outnumber government information campaigns about keeping your child indoors about ten to... zero.

Re:wheres the story?

[jedidiah]

Genetics helps. However, the main underlying issue here is piss poor lifestyle choices.

Children as always end up paying for the poor choices of their parents. They are stuck with whatever choices their parents make.

Actually look at that graph and pay attention to all of the little details. There's more than just the playstation on there.

Re:wheres the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's probably more of a product that maybe in the 80's and early 90's "Nintendo" was synonymous with "video games" and then with the PS2, it become "Playstation".

Depending on the generation, one is more likely going to blame "video games" by calling out Sony or Nintendo, and Nintendo, due to the Wii and it's Wii Fit / Sports lines, kind of makes people think "oh, it's a 'good' video game system'".

Just speculating since I didn't RTFA, but if they call out Sony they're probably in that Sony video game generation opposed to the Nintendo generation or the soon to be labeled Warcraft generation.

Re:wheres the story?

[cheekyjohnson]

"Excusemewhat? It's the parent's job to educate and train their children. Encouraging activity and exercise falls within the purview of parental influence."

If the child wants to be healthy, then it is their own job to try to be healthy. Having someone force you to do everything will turn up bad results. I don't care about being strong or fit, and frankly, that's my own choice. The parents may be supporting the child, but that doesn't mean they own them (no matter what the law says), and it certainly doesn't mean that they should be forcing them to do physical things that they don't want to do. If they don't make the choice to become healthy on their own, their unhealthy lifestyle will continue, and they'll just be wasting their own time by being forced to try to become healthy.

Re:wheres the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the child wants to be healthy, then it is their own job to try to be healthy. Having someone force you to do everything will turn up bad results.

I'm sorry but you're fucking wrong. Left on their own the MAJORITY of kids will only do what they want, regardless of the consequences for the future. They will not study, they will not clean their rooms until the mold tries to eat them, they will eat nothing but chocolate, hot dogs, and ice cream, and the list goes on.

Most of those kids will understand that the things their parents tried to "force" on them when they were young were for their own good - but only after they're finally out on their own and they realize that if they don't do these things, nobody will. (And there will be consequences for them if they don't start doing them at that point if it isn't already too late.)

There are gripes I have with parental types even now as an adult, but I'm GLAD they gave more of a shit about my own health than I did.

Re:wheres the story?

[sjames]

I'm not sure where you licve, but here in the U.S. our Department of Homeland Security has created a color code to tell us how terrified to be. It has never in it's history been set below yellow ("elevated"). Then there's the endless stream of soundbites cheerfully provided by our government to the press about how various things are needed because our children are in danger.

You are right though that the media in general likes to terrify people.

Re:wheres the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I blame, in no particular order. Government for telling people that the world is coming to an end, and keep your kids inside. I blame 'think of the children' idiots, for telling everyone that their kids are at risk from *random thing here*, and they should be coddled from birth until they leave. I blame psychologists for repeatedly saying the same things as the 'think of the children' idiots, along with telling parents that males should be quiet and demure. While prescribing drugs to keep them 'under control' aka ADHD.

I blame the media for doing the same thing and reinforcing it. And I blame parents for not being well informed, and following what the media presented, and what the 'school psychologists' told them. Along with being told that games like cops n' robbers(or variations like cowboys n' indians), or war, or any supper-happy-stupid childhood games are bad for them because it 'reinforces negative stereotypes'.

Pretty sure that covers it, I know I'm missing a few like school boards, and such. I don't however blame the kids, but I pity them. Because of all that, they never had a childhood where they could actually go out and enjoy themselves.

You're absolutely right. If you further read between the lines, what you will see is that these things have been set into motion about three generations ago and required careful, interlocking, concerted efforts in order to unfold. They're all part of what you could call a war on masculinity. That's why it's so important for this agenda to demonize men and feminize boys (funny how girls are not told that playing with dolls and having tea parties reinforces negative stereotypes), using drugs if necessary, to teach them to be passive and obedient. Any remaining masculinity is directed at useless wheel-spinning like professional sports where it can be nice and safely drained without altering anything.

The school psychologists and other "experts" are an integral part of this. You need impressive titles, a large consensus, repetition in media, and a wall full of credentials to convince parents that they should doubt what they know is right. That's how you convince them that the problem is the child who is bored with the school and not the school for failing to challenge the child and win his/her respect by actually being respectable (which would include no more "zero tolerance" idiocy, no more hypocrisy, no more remote spying on students, no more turning a blind eye to bullies, etc.).

Incidentally, Communism is usually described as an economic system. Senator McCarthy was a son of a bitch who conducted destructive witch-hunts, but he didn't do that for no reason. It wasn't an economic system that he was afraid of. It was a movement to take over first the universities, then the schools, then the media, then politics that made him so scared. To see that you have to appreciate how interdependent these things are, and how these things put together define the reality most people know. If you can co-opt the universities then you can teach the next generation of teachers, psychologists, journalists. They then define what is "normal" according to what they were taught. That in turn defines the political climate and what kind of leaders are electable and what kind of issues people think are the province of government.

What you describe is more like what Communism actually is. You weaken a society from within so that the people welcome and embrace the totalitarian state. That's the "soft" or "Leftist" version of fascism. The "hard" or "Rightist" version of fascism is more like what Hitler and Mussolini did, where some jack-booted thug waves a gun in your face and pulls the trigger if you don't submit. They accomplish the same goal in the end.

Re:wheres the story?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who pays attention to that threat level thing. Even places where they do care - like DoD contractors which tend to keep it posted somewhere around their front desks, nobody even looks at it and the paper its printed on has long faded from UV exposure. That's what happens when it hardly ever changes.

Re:wheres the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

itt everyone's at fault but Mashiki

Re:wheres the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if Jenny and Johnny didn't sit on their asses in a bus or mommy & daddy's minivan, and actually walked the four blocks to school that'd be a great start right there. But too often the infrastructure was very poorly thought out, and lacks sidewalks or any other reasonable pedestrian right of way. Or perhaps the city can't afford to hire crossing guards. Reasonably, most parents get a little worried when their kids have to deal with a lot of heavy vehicular traffic. Not to mention that many schools discourage bicycling, either by policy or as defacto by not having any racks or security in regards to students property. (Many people wouldn't like it at work, if all the parked cars were considered outright open season for thieves and burglars.)

So yes, the government really does have a role in this problem. Though they'd rather blame the kid's hobbies or diet first.

Re:wheres the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because before the Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002, there was no obesity problem in the US.

Re:wheres the story?

[Nidi62]

I'm 5'10, and at my heaviest weighed 280lbs. That is considered obese. And that was while playing football at a Division II university. I played sports for 15 years, and for roughly 10 of those years I was playing either 2 or 3 sports during the year. So, it's not always about the fact that you didn't just move around a lot.

Re:wheres the story?

[sjames]

Nor were there any politicians screeching about doing things to protect children. OH! wait!

Re:wheres the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that. As a kid in the 60's, my parents didn't want us hanging around the house. During the summer my 7 year old butt was out the door in the morning, playing til Mom called for lunch, then playing until dark. Of course we were safe. Neighborhood mothers had an almost telepathic method of communicating misbehavior to each other. Forts, bikes, skates, you name it. Intense physical activity.

Now we have government agencies dictating almost every aspect of our lives. No more sandlot baseball because the owner of the sandlot is afraid of a lawsuit should a kid catch a line drive in the nose (it happened, we lived through it). Pedophiles now have their own organizations with legal departments to protect their "rights" And should your 10 year old get a moment of of your sight, CPS is there to intimately involve themselves in your family.

So now Michelle has problems with Playstation? Please. It was government involment that got in this this mess in the first place. If they would do the job they are supposed to do rather than playing nanny we would raise healthier, more active kids. Video games have their place. I raised 2 with an original NES in the house. Both did fine with outside play and Double Dragon.

As to the appropriatness of video games? That's the parent's call. Not the government's.

Re:wheres the story?

[mjwalshe]

50 years ago it would have been comic books

Re:wheres the story?

[flowwolf]

I will only give my child a choice when i am trying to teach them a lesson about responsible choices. For the most part, children are fucking stupid. Give them a choice of ice cream and vegetables every night, and they will never choose vegetables. You have to give them an easier choice to begin. From that first one I will begin dealing out more responsible choices, advising and guiding them through wrong decisions and right ones. Giving them 100% freedom from the get go is a retarded notion of patriotism. It's my job to make sure my child is healthy. They have no say in the matter. If you're not going to take the reigns on your child's development, then the 1000 voices that they hear from TV and their peers will do the job for you.

Re:wheres the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Senator McCarthy was a son of a bitch who conducted destructive witch-hunts, but he didn't do that for no reason. It wasn't an economic system that he was afraid of. It was a movement to take over first the universities, then the schools, then the media, then politics that made him so scared.

Did you just *defend* McCarthyism by retroactively moving the goalposts and granting him secret new honorable motives? Fuck you?

Re:wheres the story?

[dangitman]

Personally I blame, in no particular order. Government for telling people that the world is coming to an end, and keep your kids inside.

Uhh, what governments are saying that? Most governments I know of have health programs that encourage children to go outside and exercise, along with funding things like National Parks.

The "keep your children inside because there are pedophiles everywhere" is more a byproduct of tabloid journalism and trashy TV news.

Re:wheres the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO, the legal liabilities were highly localized things. Rare, overall. (Anecdotal, but good, evidence of local differences: my town and several neighboring towns, of a wide range of economic level, have open public parks today that were open public parks all through the last few decades. Kids play baseball and basketball there, or just run around. The local cities have public areas too, even in the kinda shabby looking areas).

I think the bigger things were:

One, the highly publicized drug/crime/both problems of the late 70s and early 80s. That was national news stuff, high profile political campaign stuff, from which a lot of think-of-the-children-ism came. But its immediate impact was city parents keeping the kids indoors (and staying indoors themselves too), yeah. And then there was flight to the suburbs after that, and now those kids started having their own kids around 2000, and these young parents haven't entirely shaken the fear that was impressed on them in their youth. Oh, and going to the burbs means the distances get too long to walk vs the city, too, so the adults are getting less exercise. Some of the kids being born *now*, in a historically low-crime era (the crime rate has been dropping for decades), have a chance to be more outdoorsy.

Two, decades of very rapid increases in housing and college costs have driven families into being dual income. (Some families are single-parent, but I think the two-parent-two-income families still vastly outnumber the singletons, if only because the divorcees remarry). If neither parent has any free time left, or does but is exhausted from work, they won't be taking the kids out to play much; they WILL veg out in front of the TV more, though. The housing bubble burst, but the education cost bubble looks to be nowhere near ending (predictions are that by 2020, some 60% of *entry level* jobs will require a college degree), and there's no easy fix for the dual earner scenario. Wages certainly aren't going to go up the 25% they'd have to to let one full time parent go back to part time, or the 50-60% increase required for one parent to stay home. Employers have grown rather dependent on increasing productivity per wage dollar (which partly means keep wage raises slow). We may also be at the popping of a pension bubble, too, with all the anti-union rhetoric and the insistence that social security programs won't last; that means that, at the same old wage but minus benefits, parents will need to work a lot more to keep up. Arguably, we've already pushed so far to the extreme that it's pushing the average birth rate down; people neither have the time to raise a lot of kids, nor the money for the extra housing square footage to house them, nor the money for daycare, nor the money to pay for more kids' education (this can be private school too, not just college; /. threads on education are full of comments about that). Oh, and unstable job markets over the past decade means people may have to relocate more often, which makes putting down the sort of roots that involve having lots of fun outdoors harder to do.

A weak third that you CAN blame on the government is that homework loads at all level of public school have gone way up, and this has been driven at a nationwide level by federal rules; in some areas this has also lengthened the formal school day too. And obviously the good parents don't let the kids run loose if their homework isn't done yet, right? Oh, but then due to the autumn/winter/spring seasons, most of the school year it's already too dark out by the time the kids ARE done the homework, especially in the northern half of the US. That leaves the summer free, but you've had non-outdoor habits reinforced for 3/4 of every year already...

Re:wheres the story?

[metalmaster]

I'll cite an example from a recent movie.

In Adam Sandler's "Grown Ups" the family goes to a lake house for the weekend. The kids were ,of course, glued to their cell phones and video games. Adam sandler's character tries to convince them that doing outdoor stuff could be more fun and better for them than playing the games

Re:wheres the story?

[llamapater]

you see she bought a lot of beta max and hddvd's then got her computer rooted by a music cd then got her linux disabled on her ps3 so if she can add a line to piss in there coffee

Re:wheres the story?

[SteeldrivingJon]

"While prescribing drugs to keep them 'under control' aka ADHD."

Yes, youth obesity is due to the prescribing of appetite-suppressing stimulant drugs for ADHD.

Your logic is flawless.

Re:wheres the story?

[cheekyjohnson]

"In Adam Sandler's "Grown Ups" the family goes to a lake house for the weekend. The kids were ,of course, glued to their cell phones and video games. Adam sandler's character tries to convince them that doing outdoor stuff could be more fun and better for them than playing the games"

It's only more fun if they like going outside, and while it technically is better for them, it's still their choice. Better than trying to force it, however.

Re:wheres the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

I got some pitch forks, we need to find some torches.

Re:wheres the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Senator McCarthy was a son of a bitch who conducted destructive witch-hunts, but he didn't do that for no reason. It wasn't an economic system that he was afraid of. It was a movement to take over first the universities, then the schools, then the media, then politics that made him so scared.

Did you just *defend* McCarthyism by retroactively moving the goalposts and granting him secret new honorable motives? Fuck you?

I said he was a son of a bitch who conducted destructive witch-hunts. Does that sound like a defense to you? What the fuck happened to basic reading comprehension on Slashdot? Did the short bus stop at a library with public Internet terminals? In case you're unclear, those last two sentences are not intended to defend your stupidity.

The point, you slow-to-understand quick-to-accuse jackass, is that McCarthy was like a frightened animal in fight-or-flight mode. The question then is what could frighten him so much. The answer is that Communism is more than just an economic system.

Re:wheres the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using your logic, knowledge should be a choice too. And cleanliness. Hygience. Respect. Manners. Speech. ... All choices that could be "optional".

Re:wheres the story?

[cheekyjohnson]

"I'm sorry but you're fucking wrong."

It appears that you misunderstood me. If the child doesn't understand the consequences of their actions, they're probably not going to understand why cleaning their rooms, studying (at least in the current horrible public education system), and exercising are important. If it is explained to them, they will understand, and from then on, it's their own choice. The key is to be blunt, and not lie about the consequences or butter them up, but to tell them if they fuck it up, they're screwed. Don't force them to do shit like exercise after they already understand the consequences. They likely won't do it purely *because* you're forcing them to.

"Most of those kids will understand that the things their parents tried to "force" on them when they were young were for their own good - but only after they're finally out on their own and they realize that if they don't do these things, nobody will."

Too much room for abuse, sorry. "For your own good" could mean just about anything. Brainwashing them into believing a set of religious beliefs, or lack thereof, etc. This is a giant excuse to indoctrinate someone with your own beliefs.

Wheat and grains

[nattt]

Actually, it's all down to heavy consumption of wheat and grains, and starches too, high fructose corn syrup, and the demonization of saturated fat.

Re:Wheat and grains

[blueg3]

Bread and grains have been an enormous component of staple diets for ages. Even today, in a lot of third-world countries, people eat primarily starch. It's only recently that this has contributed to widespread obesity. I'm going to have to say that it's not as simple as people eating grains and other starches.

Maybe part of the problem is demonizing things that are the unpopular food item of the moment. Like saturated fat. Or starch.

Re:Wheat and grains

[ndlxs]

Actually, it's all down to heavy consumption of wheat and grains, and starches too, high fructose corn syrup, and the demonization of saturated fat.

I have always thought that perhaps federal corn price supports have lead to overproduction of corn, thus artificially cheap high fructose corn syrup, thus artificially cheap sodas/crap foods, thus obesity.

Re:Wheat and grains

[nattt]

And for vastly longer than "ages", grains were not part of our diet at all. The recently obesity epidemic has coincided with the (incorrect) assumption that eating fat makes you fat, that eating cholesterol is bad etc. What's the life expectancy of a 3rd world grain eater?

Now that wheat consumption is linked to heart disease (whereas we now see saturated fat is not) and how starches and sugars interact with our metabolism through insulin, and low cholesterol is associated with increase cancer risk, you really have to think that the diet of grains needs serious consideration, and the advice to base our diets on grains (advice given by grain producers and their lobbies) and that such recommendations are very suspect.

Re:Wheat and grains

[Anonymous Coward]

Saturated fats do not cause heart disease? OK, now I know you're just a quack.

Re:Wheat and grains

[LordVader717]

It's all down to heavy consumption. Period. Fat people eat too much. Starch and sugar is obviously a major part, but that doesn't change the simple equation.

Starch is a staple food which humans have always lived on. It's absolute consensus by nutritionists that starch is the major part of healthy diet. Why is it so fashionable to question this with no evidence or reasoning whatsoever?

Re:Wheat and grains

[hsthompson69]

Historical evidence shows that the transition to agriculture, while allowing for a stratification of society, specialization, and higher population densities, was quite deleterious to human health:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/nutrition-and-health-in-agriculturalists-and-hunter-gatherers/

Fat accumulation is driven by insulin, insulin is driven by blood sugar, and blood sugar is driven by carbohydrate intake. The actual, physical cycle of energy here is very well defined. The myth of obesity being a matter of calories and calories out has no such biomechanical model to point to - the naive view that fat cells only accumulate fat when there is an excess of calories in the bloodstream has been falsified by every study ever done on both animal models and humans.

Re:Wheat and grains

[Vintermann]

Well hello Mr. Atkins, I wondered when you would show up.

This is a geek website, so I assume you can show us the broad, epidemiological consumption that overweight is strongly related to carbohydrate intake and not related to saturated fat intake.

Re:Wheat and grains

[Vintermann]

What's the life expectancy of a 3rd world grain eater?

Depends on a lot of things. But they don't usually die of obesity-related diseases, despite your theory. Strange, that.

Re:Wheat and grains

[Anonymous Coward]

every study ever done on both animal models and humans.

[Citation needed.]

Re:Wheat and grains

[Anonymous Coward]

Ancel Keys cherry-picked the countries for analysis in his (in)famous study, look it up.

"Keys postulated a correlation between cholesterol levels and CVD and initiated a study of Minnesota businessmen (the first prospective study of CVD),[3] culminating in what came to be known as the Seven Countries Study.[4] These studies found strong associations between the CVD rate of a population and average serum cholesterol and per capita intake of saturated fatty acids. Then, as now, critics have rightfully pointed out that this "strong association" becomes weaker when data from other countries are added to the mix and there have been allegations that Keys "cherry picked" the data to support his hypothesis." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys)

"Ancel Keys, an economist and nutritionist, was the first to "theorize" that consumption of saturated fat, the fat found in meat, dairy products and eggs, increased blood cholesterol levels and rates of coronary heart disease. Not only did Keys come up with the saturated fat theory of heart disease, he also played a major role in the process of convincing the medical community and government health authorities to adopt the dietary recommendation to limit consumption of dietary saturated fat as a means to reduce rates of coronary heart disease. It took decades for Keys to accomplish this mission. When he first introduced his theory, scientists ridiculed him. For more than ten years the National Institute of Health, the American Heart Association, the American Medical Association, and The Food and Drug Administration sided with scientists who pointed out that there was no evidence to support Mr. Keys' theory. In 1952, Mr. Keys published his Six Country Study. Instead of randomly selecting countries or selecting data from all countries to determine whether or not eating more saturated fat caused an increase in coronary heart disease, Mr. Keys cherry picked six countries so he could draw a neat little graph he claimed 'proves' saturated fat causes coronary heart disease." (http://www.perfecthealthinstitute.com/aANCELKEYS.html)

Re:Wheat and grains

[wiredlogic]

Or salt.

There's no reason why healthy people can't consume near limitless amounts of salt (up to the point of over saturation) without harm. Yet, it is demonized to the point that we're forced to make do with food that is sub-par to satisfy some ignorant fools. Our bodies run on salt. It's the second most important agent after water for keeping our biological machinery running. Properly functioning kidneys will get rid of any excess without any ill effects. Popular opinion, however, has come up with the false idea that salt is a causative agent in heart disease so the nannies can stick their noses where it doesn't belong.

Re:Wheat and grains

[FiloEleven]

There are bound to be multiple causes--in real life there always are--but high fructose corn syrup is undoubtedly one of the primaries. The cost factor may come into play, indeed it's only sugar tariffs and corn subsidies that make it viable, but the bigger issue with HFCS is that, unlike real sugar, it doesn't trigger the body's "full" feeling. Were other food items containing real sugar cost-equivalent, we would still see people who chose HFCS eating more.

Re:Wheat and grains

[nattt]

What matters of course, is the diet that effects you in your environment. In USA / Canada / UK where we're told to base our diets on grains, and avoid saturated fat we see correlations between wheat consumption and heart disease, and low cholesterol correlating with cancer.

Re:Wheat and grains

[nattt]

Starch has not always been our staple diet. The "absolute consensus" is not absolute. The reasoning is based around how starches interact with insulin, and the evidence is vast if you bother to look.

Re:Wheat and grains

[Monchanger]

Salt is what is used when fructose cannot to make processed food taste better (refer to those comments about proliferation of the practice). For that reason the average diet contains loads of it already. Considering salt was a luxury for most of human history, I don't know why anyone would think we're lacking. Then when you consider nobody is actually concerned about something minor possibly affecting the healthy, and that this discussion is about national policy which has to take into consideration the fact that we have millions of *very* unhealthy people, yes we're going to hear about salt being bad.

Why is it that every time the government issues a suggestion, the crazies misinterpret it as a requirement? Where is this you live where you can't legally get a frozen dinner with over 3000mg of sodium?

Re:Wheat and grains

[TheTurtlesMoves]

And for vastly longer than "ages", grains were not part of our diet at all.

Grains have been the bulk of Europeans diet for longer than 5000 years, and at least an important component for more than 10000 years. Its longer than ages and much longer than the "obesity" problem.

Re:Wheat and grains

[LordVader717]

Yes it has. There are a few fringe diet-authors who like to point blame at cereals after the neolithic revolution.
But the fact is that any plant-rich diet has a very significant amount of starch and sugars.

The reasoning is based around how starches interact with insulin, and the evidence is vast if you bother to look.

LOL. Apart from being a very mushy statement, they don't interact at all. When digested starch contributes to blood sugar which has an effect on insulin. That's it.

Re:Wheat and grains

[blueg3]

I've seen some varying reports. There are at least a reasonable fraction of the population whose blood pressure is modified by sodium levels. (The rest of the population, their blood pressure may be sodium-independent.)

The problem is that the salt quantity difference between processed food and non-processed is dramatic. You can eat a ton of salt with non-processed food. It's tough to get up to the recommended sodium maximum if you're salting real food and using no processed food (without making everything taste super salty).

Oddly, after spending a while using no processed foods, my salt tolerance has changed and I can no longer eat many processed foods -- they're much too salty.

Huh

[Cwix]

It barely even mentions the playstation. It seems to be more pissed off at soda then anything else.

Re:Huh

[electrosoccertux]

so stop giving them orange soda, and make them drink water, like I had to. Or, let them drink diet (blah blah cancer blah blah...aside: ever read one of those studies? You have to drink like 7-8 diets/day to develop a 5% greater risk of cancer. If you drank that much in normal soda you'd have diabetes before you can say "these are my testing supplies").

Re:Huh

[toddestan]

Actually, that's not a bad idea. Kids tend to not like diet soda - most would probably pick water.

Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue angry nerds who miss the point that is is pointing out that kids should eat sensibly and exercise more.

Huge Idiot

[erroneus]

Anyone who thinks it's not the food we eat here in the U.S. is completely missing what is going on. Carbohydrates are a nearly direct path to building body fat. Nearly everything on store shelves have breads, sugars and starches in them. Many other countries have successful laws and regulation against the types of foods we eat in the U.S. every day. It's as if other nations know and understand about nutrition and the U.S. somehow doesn't. Okay... so that doesn't seem too likely that our experts don't know about it while the rest of the world does. So what could it be?

Re:Huge Idiot

[DarkKnightRadick]

Corporatism.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Low Ranked Craig]

So what could it be?

Feel-good, pointless, politics as usual?

Re:Huge Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

What could it be? Industry lobbying to not restrict such foods. I mean, the food pyramid was negotiated with the various affected industries for crying out loud. Follow the money. It's the answer to everything, sadly.

Re:Huge Idiot

[erroneus]

Wasn't that clever of me? I ask the question and lead the answer but I don't answer it directly? Now I can avoid being a conspiracy theorist. It's interesting that we, the general public can accept that lobbying (which always means donation of money and typically lots of it) results in all sorts of bad legislation and the prevention of good legislation. We accept this much and because it's accepted, it's not "conspiracy." Seriously? How is lobbying and what I consider to be legal bribery NOT conspiracy?

And when unthinkable, unimaginable or horrific things happen, it's "conspiracy theory" and could never possibly be true because we KNOW that while the leaders of other governments and business will do terrible and horrific things, OUR government and the people who run it would never do such things. And anyone who thinks such things are "conspiracy theorist nuts!" Amazing duality of standards.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Vahokif]

Do you know what the leading cause of obesity is?

Eating too much.

Blaming it on the food you eat isn't going to help anyone. You could lose weight eating only bacon, cholesterol notwithstanding, if you limit your intake. The only way to lose weight is to consciously make an effort to eat fewer calories than you burn.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Brett Buck]

Because we are not going to accept the loss of independence created by a government nanny state. Regulating food is not a legitimate government function.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Carbohydrates are necessary for having glucose in your body. Your brain needs glucose. Maybe this is why you're an idiot claiming you "cured" your type II diabetes. See how cured it is when you drink a 12 pack of Mountain Dew in a day. People that aren't diabetic can do that. You can't. You're still on a diet to maintain your condition. So am I, and I sure as hell don't call that a cure, it's a workaround at best. If you dietitian says all carbs are bad, you need to find a new dietitian.

Re:Huge Idiot

[longhairedgnome]

This comment brought to you by Corporatism, a subsidiary of Capitalism.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, please, PLEASE stop perpetuating the myth that "all calories are created equal" they are not.

An example: which is healthier: 1000 Calories from brown rice or 1000 Calories from Jagermesiter? That might seem absurd to you, but it isn't. Fructose and alcohol place nearly the same stress on the liver. It's just one crosses the blood-brain barrier (and gets ya drunk) while the other doesn't. A high calorie diet with the appropriate amount of dietary fiber is MUCH better than a high calorie diet without. Fiber limits the rate at which calories get metabolized and keeps things moving through your system.

I suggest everyone take 1.5hrs and watch "Sugar: The Bitter Truth"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Re:Huge Idiot

[Kozz]

See Michael Pollan's writings, such as "In Defense of Food": http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Food-Eaters-Manifesto/dp/0143114964/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3

I heard Pollan while listening to a podcast this past week. I like his guideline that you should avoid anything at the grocery store that your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Richy_T]

Bastard child of capitalism and socialism more like. Worst of all worlds.

Re:Huge Idiot

[hsthompson69]

Carbohydrates are not necessary for glucose in your body - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

Re:Huge Idiot

[Charliemopps]

Or we could just stay out of peoples lives and let the fat people be fat in peace.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Nemyst]

A calorie is a measurement of energy, just like Joules. 1000 calories is the same no matter where you take it from. If you eat 1000 calories but burn 1500, then you will lose weight.

What you're saying is that there are other factors to being healthy than just calorie intake, which is true, but that wasn't the point of the GP.

Re:Huge Idiot

[lavagolemking]

if you limit your intake. The only way to lose weight is to consciously make an effort to eat fewer calories than you burn.

Taking in fewer calories than you burn (aka "starving yourself") is what leads to eating disorders. It's generally the types of food people eat, more than the amount, that makes people obese.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Vintermann]

Hey, no one disagrees that excessive sugar, alcohol and HFCS is bad for you. Nor that carbohydrates rich in fibre and "slower" starches are comparatively better. The problem is that you stone-age people want to give fat a free pass. You are useful idiots for the meat industry when you do that.

Especially when it comes to overweight (as opposed to all the other health trouble you can get from eating too much of the wrong food), fats are every inch as bad as carbohydrates.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Vintermann]

You have died of dysentery.

Re:Huge Idiot

[erroneus]

So, no FDA? What do you think would happen to the quality of food without it? We have a hard enough time trying to get business to follow the rules that exist today. If there were no rules, I shutter to think what might happen. Food is a health and safety concern and I might argue that if falls neatly within the constitution's assertion that the government should maintain the general welfare of the nation.

Re:Huge Idiot

[jedidiah]

> Please, please, PLEASE stop perpetuating the myth that "all calories are created equal" they are not.

Except they are. What different types of food do to different types of people is make it either easier or harder to maintain your "special diet".

Starving one type of person of fat will drive them feral. Doing the same with carbs to another sort of person will drive them feral.

Any diet or longterm change needs to be sustainable for the INDIVIDUAL.

We're not all quite the sort of factory stamped machines that western society likes to make us out to be.

Thus, Jager will not be a problem for some of us (or white bread even).

Once you figure this out, everyone has to accomodate everyone else. THIS is something that's a problem. Whole families need to adjust behavior and quite often many family members refuse to be bothered. It's like white trash with their smoking and drinking habits.

Re:Huge Idiot

[jedidiah]

> Carbohydrates are necessary

Some carbohydrates are necessary.

A gluttony of poor quality carbohydrates as encouraged by the USDA food pyramid is not.

Radical vegans are running amok at the USDA and feeding the rest of us a line of bad propaganda.

Re:Huge Idiot

[erroneus]

I wish that were possible, but the fact is, we exist as a society and things one or a group of people do, can and does have affect on others. And, if we were able to let fat people be fat in peace, then I don't suppose you would mind cutting off medical insurance and government support of healthcare for obesity related disorders? Because if so, then I am 100% with you. It would save us all shit-tons of money in taxes and health insurance.

Re:Huge Idiot

[instagib]

Of course it's a conspiracy - but an inevitable one: it is not possible to feed billions of people with animal derived products rich in fat/protein and low in carbohydrates, as it would be natural for us. Feeding and sedating them with lots of sugar works though. Throw in "scientifically proven" food pyramids - and 10 billion on this planet are easy to maintain! The side effects will be managed: food and pharma industries will sort it out together.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

What if your food inhibits your ability to determine when you have eaten enough ?
Because that's what fructose does, the replacement for sugar, otherwise known as high-fructose corn syrup is highly prevalent.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. All calories are equal at about 4.18 joules. If all calories were not equal, they wouldn't be very useful as a unit of energy, now would they? Or are you referring to absorption rates and the cost to metabolize certain fuels like protein, carbohydrates or alcohol? As far as I know they are already accounted for in the figures shown on packaging and in most published reference. At least here in the EU. So yeah, as far as pure energy is concerned, it doesn't matter if you drink 1000 kcal worth of Jagermeister or eat 1000 kcal worth of brown rice, your body will get approximately the same amount of energy out of it.

Re:Huge Idiot

[rotide]

Portion control is _not_ starving yourself. I don't care how healthy you eat. If you have a habit of eating too much all the time you're still going to be fat.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's consider this:
"Many other countries have successful laws and regulation against the types of foods we eat in the U.S. every day"
"other nations know and understand about nutrition and the U.S. somehow doesn't"
"So what could it be"

You sir seem to be suggesting that the US government enact laws telling me what I can and cannot eat because I may unable to regulate my own diet as an individual or I do so poorly. This is a terrible idea; it's a good way to end up regulating and illegalizing intoxicants and my right to the pursuit of happiness, self-defense and the right to preserve my own right to life, and what foods I can buy which limits my right to personal liberty.

Also you are assuming that politicians better individuals than me that should be more deserving of the right to choose my food for me, however:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I highlighted the word "Creator" because that is not the same as "God" and I wanted to make that point so that someone doesn't come on here and call me a christian conservative extremist (or more properly, a reactionary). I am agnostic.

Re:Huge Idiot

[ZombieRoboNinja]

>>you could lose weight eating only bacon, cholesterol notwithstanding

And you could program Call of Duty in QuickBASIC, performance notwithstanding.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Vahokif]

If you ate the right amount of bacon each day you could lose exactly as much weight as you wanted. It'd be terrible for the rest of your body though.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Vahokif]

It's still your responsibility to watch what you put in your mouth, high-fructose corn syrup included. And even if your intuition is screwed you can (and should) watch your weight with an objective method, like scales.

Re:Huge Idiot

[erroneus]

Actually, no. I am saying that the stuff that food manufacturers put in the foods we buy in the U.S. are often outlawed or tightly restricted in other nations. For example, foods with aspartame are restricted from consumption by children. It doesn't mean adults can't choose diet coke if they want to, but it does mean that children shouldn't be made or allowed to drink it... the same is true of smoking.

It's not so much about choice of individuals to eat whatever they like. It's more about what food industrialists make available to the general population because in the city, we really don't have a significant amount of choice. Let's put it this way: Look at your grocery store. Look at the ratio of healthy foods to those that contain large amounts of carbohydrates. You will find, as many other have found, that more than 90% of what is on the shelves are not appropriate to those who seek to limit their carb intake. Now if EVERYONE made the same choice to limit carbs for themselves, what we would see in the short to mid term is a food shortage crisis because that roughly 10% of food on the shelves is not enough to feed EVERYONE. In the long term, we would just see higher prices.

Perhaps I am going off-topic, but it helps to understand why food industrialists seek to put so much crap in our foods. SHELF LIFE is among the top concerns for food makers. I think the reason for that is self evident. Additionally, the more processed cereal fillers they can put into foods, the cheaper it is to manufacture. And let's not go into HFCS... high fructose corn syrup is just bad from every angle.

I seriously hope you just misunderstood what I wrote earlier. The FDA and similar agencies in other countries are there to regulate the industries that the populations depend on. They regulate to ensure that they do not endanger the health and safety of the population at large. Without such agencies, we would have power lines everywhere, cancer clusters all over the place, more children of thalidomide and more.

Re:Huge Idiot

[amaupin]

If only more people were as wise as you!

Then I could finally unload the domain bacondiet.com that I bought a while back and have been unable to sell! (True story...)

Re:Huge Idiot

[FiloEleven]

Because we are not going to accept the loss of independence created by a government nanny state.

Er...you know the FDA and USDA already exist, right?

The fact that they're staffed almost entirely, at the higher levels, with former executives and affiliates from Monsanto, however, shows that it's not worked out very well in practice.

Re:Huge Idiot

[wwwillem]

You're so right, but it is even worse. There is lots of unnecessarily added stuff (like glucose) in our food, but it happens even more in cheap food (read: processed food) than fresh food (read: expensive food). And therefore the part of the population that could really need a "health boost" simply can't afford it. Hey, a single cucumber in my supermarket is more expensive than a burger in the fast food chain around the corner. Which should be completely the opposite. How tough is it to grow a cucumber and put it on a truck, while even a simple burger involves tens of ingredients and processing steps.

The worst is that this is all a matter of politics. Because Ohio has been a swing state for years and years, every president in the last decades has been pushing money to subsidize the production of corn. Sometimes with the argument that Americans need methanol (which recently caused a severe "tortilla problem" in Mexico), but most of it ends up unnecessarily in our food. As an example, glucose gets added to meat products like burgers. Mind you, even "0% fat yoghurt", made for the health fanatics among us, still has sugar products added. Check it yourself, read those damn "ingredients" small print on the labels. And BTW, I prefer the full-fat stuff, but still I want to decide myself if I like to add sugar or not.

The food industry is really, really sick. Lack of diversity, full of political lobbyism. 100% about money.

When it comes to how to cure this problem, first of all I agree with a former poster who said simply "let capitalism do it, and stop subsidies". That would absolutely be a good first step. Still I think that with something as important as food (which is the underlying foundation for health care) I wouldn't like to keep "the market" without control. Better have some stricter rules. Like banning hormones in beef, which currently results in you eating testosterone in your BigMagic. They are also in your daughter's burger, who - because of that - is now having her first period two years younger than the generation before her.

Re:Huge Idiot

[nattt]

But the question is "why do people eat too much?" Could it be because sugar and starchy carbohydrates are addictive? Could it be because fat people eat too much because they're starving at a cellular level because all that insulin running around in their blood is turning the carbohydrate they eat into fat and storing it away before the cells that need the energy can get at it? People eat too much because they're fat, not the other way around, and it all comes back to the food pyramid and utterly bogus (but good for agribusiness income) diet advice from your ever so friendly government.

Re:Huge Idiot

[nattt]

So, if carbohydrates are so utterly necessary, why can we live perfectly happily without them, but if you tried doing the same thing with fat, you'd be dead before you know it. Fat is necessary, carbohydrates are not. Anyone who proscribes that a diabetic eat diets rich in carbohydrates is the idiot.

Re:Huge Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporatism

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

Re:Huge Idiot

[electrosoccertux]

> Please, please, PLEASE stop perpetuating the myth that "all calories are created equal" they are not.

Except they are. What different types of food do to different types of people is make it either easier or harder to maintain your "special diet".

Starving one type of person of fat will drive them feral. Doing the same with carbs to another sort of person will drive them feral.

Any diet or longterm change needs to be sustainable for the INDIVIDUAL.

We're not all quite the sort of factory stamped machines that western society likes to make us out to be.

Thus, Jager will not be a problem for some of us (or white bread even).

Once you figure this out, everyone has to accomodate everyone else. THIS is something that's a problem. Whole families need to adjust behavior and quite often many family members refuse to be bothered. It's like white trash with their smoking and drinking habits.

starches aren't filling, that's why people who eat them get fat, because they eat more of them. If you eat meat and fiber (hint: you can eat as many veggies as you want and not get fat) you get full and stop eating. All calories are not created equal.

Re:Huge Idiot

[BitZtream]

Uhm, our diet has consisted of primarily of grains (which would be what you refered to as 'breads' and 'starches') for pretty much our entire recorded history and longer from what we've discovered.

I'm fairly sure you don't understand nutrition if you think foods we've been eating for the last 100k years are now in the last 20, a problem.

I don't think so.

What about the cutting of recess at schools

[Joe The Dragon]

What about the cutting of recess at schools and short lunch times at some of them.

Some schools even have a recess / lunch where you have to eat fast to get some recess time!

also what is point of a 30min lunch when you have to use half of just waiting in line to get / pay for the food?

Re:What about the cutting of recess at schools

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the cutting of recess at schools and short lunch times at some of them.

Some schools even have a recess / lunch where you have to eat fast to get some recess time!

also what is point of a 30min lunch when you have to use half of just waiting in line to get / pay for the food?

In what strange place do you live? Normal people bring lunch.

Re:What about the cutting of recess at schools

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of "normal" people who rely on free school lunch programs.

Re:What about the cutting of recess at schools

[denbesten]

what is point of a 30min lunch when you have to use half of just waiting in line to get / pay for the food?

My kids avoid that line by packing their own lunch. I am actually pretty proud of them because they do a good job of balancing their choices without much need for adult guidance anymore.

nonsense

[Bobtree]

Does reading books also cause obesity?

America is sugar addicted and everything we eat has corn syrup and corn starch.

Re:nonsense

[tyroney]

Yup. Being active might make you healthier, but I wish everyone would stop equating exercise with weight loss. I wouldn't focus entirely on corn, (though it's a big stupid problem here in the US,) regardless of content people simply eat too much for the kind of lifestyle we live. (lumberjacks have an excuse. I don't.)

Re:nonsense

[thedarkone64]

Sorry to pedantic, but this is Slashdot after all.

Corn syrup is not sugar, and many people believe that it is actually worse than sugar [yeah, I know, citation needed]. If this is the case, it is very bad, since thanks to the corn lobby influencing our tariffs, a lot of our products that used to use sugar as a sweetener now use corn syrup as a cheaper alternative.

Your statement should have read "America is corn addicted and everything we eat has corn syrup and corn starch."

Re:nonsense

[Comatose51]

It can but the difference here is that most Americans don't read so it's not an issue. The point of the graph isn't about being categorical; it's not saying that if you play on a PlayStation you'll be fat. It's saying if you spend most of you non-sleep time in front of a TV and not moving about while eating a ton of high calorie food, you will be fat. This is why they have numbers associated with each category.

Re:nonsense

[jedidiah]

> Corn syrup is not sugar

Yes it is. It's a form of sugar. Note the "fructose" bit that usually accompanies the industrial version.

This notion that Corn Syrup isn't sugar is the sort of grossly ignorant nonsense that's helping cause this obesity epidemic.

Sugar comes in many forms and all of the variants of Corn Syrup are included.

[shakes head]

Re:nonsense

[digitig]

Sorry to pedantic, but this is Slashdot after all.

Corn syrup is not sugar

Are you sure? Last time I checked, glucose and fructose were both sugars. Or did you just mean that it's not pure sugar (just like Demerara/turbinado sugar isn't)?

Re:nonsense

[aztracker1]

Simple solution... stop federal corn subsidies...

Re:nonsense

[llamapater]

it's what they should do, but they won't whenever corn wants a subsidy they toot ethanol green energy and small farmers. It's just not a very good fuel solution better to put more into carbon nanotube mass production and capacitor research for EVs even hydrogen is better. and small farmers represent an incredibly small portion of the population they just make good pr for some reason the majority of our food comes from large factory farms

Re:Nonsense

[llamapater]

it's a matter of people with a lot of regrets going if only i had done more of some X video games aren't on the list of some X for a large portion of the population they weren't even around for most people over 30ish when they were kids books fall under if only i had read more then I'd be all smart and not be in a such a shitty job now or if only i had run around outside and socialized more i might have friends. It's getting tagged onto obesity because tv's were around when they were young so they don't want to blame that as much and computers are easily accepted as some new age book. but dem vidia games can't put that on a resume beet da devil outa dat boi :O

Re:nonsense

[electrosoccertux]

Yup. Being active might make you healthier, but I wish everyone would stop equating exercise with weight loss. I wouldn't focus entirely on corn, (though it's a big stupid problem here in the US,) regardless of content people simply eat too much for the kind of lifestyle we live. (lumberjacks have an excuse. I don't.)

I've found exercise to help keep me from gaining weight, but it doesn't really help me lose anything if I keep eating as usual. I have to switch to healthier foods and smaller portions and lots of veggies to notice any weight loss.

Re:Nonsense

[electrosoccertux]

If kids spent all day reading books instead of playing games would they get equal blame? In both cases a kid is just sitting there doing nothing.

Probably. You've got to remember that our politicians don't want us educated and thinking critically. They don't want us picking apart their speeches and asking them why the new king is running things the same way as the old king.

Re:nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

If you weight 150kg, no amount of exercise is going to take that fortress down. However, if you are only a few kg above the obesity mark, exercise will make you loose weight.

Overeating is certainly a major factor when it comes to obesity, but for most people, it's simply the lack of even basic energy energy expenditure over body temperatures that our bodies expect when they direct us how much to eat.

Why not create a solution

[BionicSniper]

Instead of pointing blame at people why not create a solution. They already have the mechanism in place. Gym during school should not be just some time for kids to play basketball and dodge ball. Make them run, do calisthenics, and other real exercise. Make them run for 20+ minutes and do push ups, sit ups, jumping jacks, flutter kicks, etc. If they are too fat to do everything make them do as much as they can. If the have asthma then work them up to running longer distances.

Re:Why not create a solution

[Anonymous Coward]

The gym teachers will need to be careful. The first Asthmatic kid they put in the Hospital will cost the school PLENTY $$$$ in lawsuit settlements!!!

Re:Why not create a solution

[Cwix]

Make them run for 20+ minutes and do push ups, sit ups, jumping jacks, flutter kicks, etc.

Sounds like the military...

2 mile run in less then 15 min..
45 situps in 2 min
45 push ups in 2 min

when do we start the BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship)?

These are kids... give them a fucking game to play.
Make gym be an hour and a half.. have them play flag football, basketball, soccer or something that can be FUN.
If they cant hang because of asthma.. have them get a doctors note on what exercise they CAN do.
Perhaps we can even put a swimming pool back in the schools. Swimming is a great exercise, and the kids will love it.

You cant make an asthmatic person a great runner.

Ohh and flutter kicks? Fuck that.

Re:Why not create a solution

[BionicSniper]

The reason we have gym in school is to keep the population in good health and shape for the draft.... It should basically be a boot camp

Re:Why not create a solution

[cheekyjohnson]

"Gym during school should not be just some time for kids to play basketball and dodge ball."

Physical education should always be a choice. A few hours a week isn't going to help someone at all. If they want to be healthy, they'll be health. If they don't, they won't be healthy. Very simple. You can't force choices such as this on people. Mandatory gym classes (and many other classes) are absolutely idiotic to begin with.

Re:Why not create a solution

[cheekyjohnson]

"The reason we have gym in school is to keep the population in good health"

Well, then, it fails. Miserably. Again, a few hours a week isn't going to change someone with an unhealthy lifestyle. If they don't want to be healthy, that is their own choice.

Re:Why not create a solution

[SerpentMage]

Want to know something here. I hated GYM! I truly despised GYM, and I always got a C. Except one semester I got an A. In that semester instead of focusing on football, basketball, and so on, we did track and field. I happened to be one of the fastest long distance runners in our class and my grades showed it. Yet did the Gym teach support me and say, "hey you are pretty fast why not do track and field?" No they ignored me because I was a geek. An out of place cog...

I would have preferred a 2 mile run, 45 situps, and 45 pushups over the football games where I did nothing anyways. That's the rub. Those that are not good are moved to the side ignored... I would prefer if they matched the Gym class to what people wanted to do...

Re:Why not create a solution

[Anonymous Coward]

You cant make an asthmatic person a great runner.

Not entirely true. Paul Scholes and David Beckham are both professional athletes and asthmatics. Being midfielders they run pretty much twice the length a forward or defender will run during a game. It's not uncommon to run 9 - 10 miles during a game. Considering the usual Premiership schedule, where it's not at all uncommon to play 3 games a week, and consider that Scholes has around 650 official games played for Man U., probably over 800 games counting non league appearences -- friendles, reserves and pre-season matches -- plus 66 caps for England (plus a boatload more at Schooolboy level, and youth national teams like U-21, etc), he probably has over 1000 games to his tally.

Re:Why not create a solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet did the Gym teach support me and say, "hey you are pretty fast why not do track and field?"

So why didn't you get into it yourself... why dont you get into it now on your own?
You had a crappy gym teacher... what do you want an apology?

Re:Why not create a solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Also Frank Lampard, another professional footballer with hundreds upon hundreds of professional games at the highest level, and he's had asthma since the age of 8, I think.

Paula Radcliffe, marathoner, multiple gold medalist in dozens of events including World and European Championships, also asthmatic.

Sebastian Coe, two olympic gold medals (plus silvers and bronzes), also asthmatic.

Re:Why not create a solution

[hsthompson69]

You cant make an asthmatic person a great runner.

Well, I wasn't great, but I was good - don't underestimate the willingness of people to do things that are very hard :)

That being said, true "exercise" is strength training, pure and simple. The myth of "cardio" is silly on its face - no matter how many laps you run around the track, your lungs don't grow additional alveoli, and your heart doesn't hypertrophy. The only things we have control over are our consciously controlled muscles, and as we improve their strength, they process O2 more efficiently and place less load on the lungs and heart. Running, aerobics, and other "cardio" exercises can help improve your muscle strength, but they're very inefficient.

The trick to strength training is 30 minutes a week of Slow Burn Fitness. It's a shame that they don't just publish a pamphlet on it (obviously the guy wants to make money, so he sells a $17 book), but truthfully, if you exercise efficiently, 30 minutes is all you need.

Re:Why not create a solution

[pseudofrog]

(not sure where I stand so I'll play Devil's advocate)

Why should it be a choice?

Learning math isn't a choice. History and writing are required. Why shouldn't fitness (and, increasingly, nutrition) be required as well?

Re:Why not create a solution

[jedidiah]

> Physical education should always be a choice.

What next? Are we going to make Math and English "optional"?

This sort of nonsense approach to education is part of the problem. It's a
complex world out there and we do students any benefit by continuing to cut
corners with the curriculum.

PE should not be goof-off time. That's what recess is for.

If there are asthmatics in the class then all the better. Someone that
is supposed to have a degree in physical education should be in a very
good position to help a kid deal with their condition and still be fit
and active.

Re:Why not create a solution

[cheekyjohnson]

"What next? Are we going to make Math and English "optional"?"

What does that have to do with being given the choice to make healthy lifestyle choices?

"PE should not be goof-off time. That's what recess is for."

No, you're right, it shouldn't be mandatory. If you're so concerned that other people may be making unhealthy choices, then why don't you work on getting a bill passed that will make it mandatory for *everyone* to run a few miles a day, or visit a gym? See how that works out. It certainly won't help them, because ultimately, they're the only ones that can change themselves.

"If there are asthmatics in the class then all the better. Someone that
is supposed to have a degree in physical education should be in a very
good position to help a kid deal with their condition and still be fit
and active."

When did I say otherwise? I just said that it should be a choice. If someone isn't physically fit, then no, they shouldn't be able to be a gym teacher. Forcing students to take 50,000 useless classes that don't apply specifically to the job that they wish to possess isn't going to make them more 'intelligent', it's likely going to make them fail at the classes that actually do matter to them, or at the very least, waste their time.

Re:Why not create a solution

[cheekyjohnson]

"Learning math isn't a choice. History and writing are required. Why shouldn't fitness (and, increasingly, nutrition) be required as well?"

It's about mental education, not physical. Do you truly believe that someone will become healthy because they have to go to a gym for a few hours a week? The correct answer is no, and it's because in order for them to become healthy, they have to make the choice themselves. Forcing people who don't care about sports or being strong to humiliate themselves in a gym will only make them loath public schools even more than they would normally, as they can likely handle the other pointless classes (not math, the native language(s) of their country, or history) that they are forced to take because it isn't physical. Give them classes that apply to *them* and the job they wish to possess, otherwise it will likely make them fail an entire year of school because of a single pointless class that they were forced to take because of shortsighted people that believe that giving students more work and pointless classes will somehow make them more 'intelligent'.

Re:Why not create a solution

[KingAlanI]

As mentioned in my post above (http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1777224&cid=33476934), some sports engender a higher activity level than others. Considering what you said, the challenge seems to be making a good selection of game activity [perhaps one outside of the standard team sports]

Re:Why not create a solution

[zippthorne]

A fitness class isn't, or shouldn't be, about a drill instructor pushing students through a grueling regimen of sit-ups and jogging.

It should be instruction in the things we, as a society, have learned about fitness. Which means that there should be book-time and practical instruction. You shouldn't be forcing kids to pump iron all day, but you should teach them how to do it without injuring themselves and to the maximum benefit.

Similarly, a brief introduction to the various modes of exercise (e.g. sports, aerobics, martial arts, etc), and what kinds of expectations to have and how to evaluate their progress ought to be part of any physical education curriculum.

School is for learning how to be an adult, not just how to man the dials at the workotron, and physical health is just as much an important part of our modern lifestyle as anything else.

Re:Why not create a solution

[cheekyjohnson]

"Similarly, a brief introduction to the various modes of exercise (e.g. sports, aerobics, martial arts, etc), and what kinds of expectations to have and how to evaluate their progress ought to be part of any physical education curriculum."

If they chose to take a gym class, yes.

"School is for learning how to be an adult, not just how to man the dials at the workotron, and physical health is just as much an important part of our modern lifestyle as anything else."

That's odd because many adults don't lead a healthy lifestyle. Why? Not because they weren't taught in school, as such information is *freely available* with a simple google search. It's because people don't care. They shouldn't be forced into it. Physical 'education' is much, much more simple than other forms of 'education', and far less important for many reasons. Certainly not something that should be forced.

Re:Why not create a solution

[zippthorne]

A similar argument could be made against any subject currently taught..

Re:Why not create a solution

[drsmithy]

That being said, true "exercise" is strength training, pure and simple. The myth of "cardio" is silly on its face - no matter how many laps you run around the track, your lungs don't grow additional alveoli, and your heart doesn't hypertrophy. The only things we have control over are our consciously controlled muscles, and as we improve their strength, they process O2 more efficiently and place less load on the lungs and heart. Running, aerobics, and other "cardio" exercises can help improve your muscle strength, but they're very inefficient.

Right. I guess that's why all the best runners spend most of their time in the gym and not on the track.

Re:Why not create a solution

[cheekyjohnson]

Even ones that the student would actually use? If they want to be physically fit, let them. If they don't, leave them alone. Mental education is more important than physical in so many cases.

Re:Why not create a solution

[hsthompson69]

The trick here is that running is a skill - having good cardiovascular health may be trainable by slow strength training, but the skills of running require practice, not just muscle.

Now, if you like running, by all means, keep on running. But as all real runners know, it's a dangerous sport - injury is not just common, it is expected. If you want exercise with less risk and greater reward, there really isn't anything better than slow burn training.

Re:Why not create a solution

[zippthorne]

If they want to add numbers, let them. If they don't, leave them alone. If they want to know about the past, let them. If they don't, leave them alone. If they want to do science experiments, let them. If they don't, leave them alone.

If they want to read books and poetry, let them. If they don't, leave them alone. If they want to appreciate or create art, let them. If they don't, leave them alone.

There's a point at which you're not advocating for liberty any more, but ignorance. And ignorance is a powerful tool of enslavement.

The public school system was established on the notion that it is beneficial to society for everyone to learn something of certain subjects regardless of the ability of their parents to provide for that instruction. If we're going to say, "if they're not interested, don't teach it" about them all, then why are we bothering with the public expense? Let people take care of their own kids, then.

Re:Why not create a solution

[drsmithy]

The trick here is that running is a skill - having good cardiovascular health may be trainable by slow strength training, but the skills of running require practice, not just muscle.

Running was an example. The point is that people who excel in sports that require excellent cardiovascular fitness (eg: swimming, cycling, soccer, to pick a few more) aren't spending the bulk of their training time in a gym lifting weights

Re:Why not create a solution

[hsthompson69]

Well, for starters, we're not just talking about lifting weights - we're really talking about a specific, safe way to lift weights in order to have the most efficient exercise.

Second, just because people who excel in sports don't necessarily go about training in the most efficient way isn't a point against finding an efficient way to exercise.

Third, for all your other examples, swimming, cycling, and soccer, you'll note that they spend the bulk of their training time *doing their sport*. Swimmers don't improve their cardio by doing aerobics classes, and cyclists aren't out there running marathons, and soccer players aren't just spending hours on treadmills. There is a difference between *sport* and *exercise*.

Here's an article that might help better explain what I'm trying to get across:
http://www.enotalone.com/article/24633.html

Re:Why not create a solution

[drsmithy]

Well, for starters, we're not just talking about lifting weights - we're really talking about a specific, safe way to lift weights in order to have the most efficient exercise.

You are explicitly ruling out "cardio". That doesn't leave much else other than strength training, which ultimately boils down to either lifting (/pulling/whatever) weights, or some substitution for weights, be it an immovable object or your own body.

Second, just because people who excel in sports don't necessarily go about training in the most efficient way isn't a point against finding an efficient way to exercise.

I feel reasonably confident that people whose entire lives revolve around some form of physical activity, are training for said activity in the most efficient manner possible, and have whole teams of other people making sure of that.

Third, for all your other examples, swimming, cycling, and soccer, you'll note that they spend the bulk of their training time *doing their sport*. Swimmers don't improve their cardio by doing aerobics classes, and cyclists aren't out there running marathons, and soccer players aren't just spending hours on treadmills. There is a difference between *sport* and *exercise*.

Whoa there, tiger. You can't argue that "cardio" doesn't matter, then turn around and argue that people *doing exactly that* are somehow doing something different. No, a cyclist doesn't train by running marathons - but he does improve by cycling, which is almost entirely a cardiovascular workout. Similarly for swimming, running, and pretty much ever other cardio-intensive sport. You can't argue they're not doing cardio because they're doing their sport, when their sport is, itself, a cardio.

Re:Why not create a solution

[bingoUV]

It's about mental education, not physical.

What's about mental education, not physical? In this entire thread, you have not mentioned what is this "it" that you are talking about.

Re:Why not create a solution

[cheekyjohnson]

Education.

Re:Why not create a solution

[cheekyjohnson]

"Mental education is more important than physical in so many cases."

The difference being that physical education is almost worthless in nearly every case.

"If they want to add numbers, let them. If they don't, leave them alone."

I know not a single person that doesn't use basic math. That's the difference.

"If they want to do science experiments, let them. If they don't, leave them alone."

Actually, this one could really apply to many people. Making them take useless classes for the job that they wish to possess will just waste their time and possibly make them 'fail' an entire year of school because of a single worthless class. This includes physical education. The difference between these classes and basic math is that the chance of you *not* using it is so low that it should definitely be mandatory. The same thing applies to classes that teach the native language(s) of your country, and history, too.

"If they want to appreciate or create art, let them. If they don't, leave them alone."

I agree with this one, too.

"There's a point at which you're not advocating for liberty any more, but ignorance. And ignorance is a powerful tool of enslavement."

I've seen nothing *but* indoctrination from public schools. Always obey authority even when they're incorrect, always follow the system even if it is horrible thought up (republics), pretend that public education is the *only* form of education and that worthless degrees are extremely important (what matters is actual knowledge, not paper, despite how you learned that knowledge), brainwash students into believing that since they *could* use any of the classes that they're teaching they're all worth their time (even though using that logic, they'd have to be at school constantly in order to teach them every available subject in existence. Besides, that's really the fault of the student), brainwash students into believing that there's actually such a thing as forbidden words (even though every word is just a string of letters with a meaning), etc.

"The public school system was established on the notion that it is beneficial to society for everyone to learn something of certain subjects regardless of the ability of their parents to provide for that instruction."

The public school system is failing *miserably*, for some of the reasons I mentioned above. It's highly inefficient due to how much time you waste 'learning' (memorizing) useless information that you know you won't use for your job, and forcing you to memorize such information could even make you fail the entire year. Shortsighted politicians think that by focusing more on worthless letter grades, jamming more useless work down their throats, and making more useless classes mandatory, that students will somehow become more 'intelligent', even though their risk of failing is much higher even in classes that they need and are doing good in. What it needs is some actual choice, with a few mandatory classes that everyone will likely need (basic math, health, history, the native language(s) of their country, etc). They also need to put more emphasis on education instead of worthless grades, complete conformity, and repetitive work. They could actually allow the students to choose classes that would be important to them in the job they wish to possess (probably not immediately). They could actually let the students take their education into their own hands (sort of, there would still be adults to guide them and a curriculum for the classes). Their motivation would come from wanting to get a job, their love of the subjects that they are being taught, and the fact that if they didn't learn what they were supposed to, no one would hire them (which would be clearly explained). Stuffing work down their throat and making them taking useless subjects isn't working and never will work.

   

Re:Why not create a solution

[bingoUV]

You mean "Education is about mental education, not physical" ? It's like saying cars are about black cars, not red. Murder is about murder by stabbing with a knife, not by strangling with one's bare hands.

Cars are about all kinds of cars. Education is about all kinds of education. Why do you believe otherwise?

Re:Why not create a solution

[cheekyjohnson]

It's because I believe in choice.

"The public school system is failing *miserably*, for some of the reasons I mentioned above. It's highly inefficient due to how much time you waste 'learning' (memorizing) useless information that you know you won't use for your job, and forcing you to memorize such information could even make you fail the entire year. Shortsighted politicians think that by focusing more on worthless letter grades, jamming more useless work down their throats, and making more useless classes mandatory, that students will somehow become more 'intelligent', even though their risk of failing is much higher even in classes that they need and are doing good in. What it needs is some actual choice, with a few mandatory classes that everyone will likely need (basic math, health, history, the native language(s) of their country, etc). They also need to put more emphasis on education instead of worthless grades, complete conformity, and repetitive work. They could actually allow the students to choose classes that would be important to them in the job they wish to possess (probably not immediately). They could actually let the students take their education into their own hands (sort of, there would still be adults to guide them and a curriculum for the classes). Their motivation would come from wanting to get a job, their love of the subjects that they are being taught, and the fact that if they didn't learn what they were supposed to, no one would hire them (which would be clearly explained). Stuffing work down their throat and making them taking useless subjects isn't working and never will work."

Re:Why not create a solution

[hsthompson69]

You are explicitly ruling out "cardio". That doesn't leave much else other than strength training, which ultimately boils down to either lifting (/pulling/whatever) weights, or some substitution for weights, be it an immovable object or your own body.

That's true, but the point being made is that "cardio" is simply inefficient strength training. We're not talking about lifting weights for reps, or weight maximums, we're talking about using weights to exhaust your slow, medium and fast twitch muscles within about 60-90 seconds.

I feel reasonably confident that people whose entire lives revolve around some form of physical activity, are training for said activity in the most efficient manner possible, and have whole teams of other people making sure of that.

There are lots of areas where our "experts" have gotten it wrong, and continue to get it wrong due to plain old social inertia. Although you're entitled to your confidence, I think it's misplaced. If anything, the best sports trainers have found the most "efficient" path to be doping and other performance enhancing drugs, and you know, that might be even better than what I'm advocating, but I don't see sports team trainers as particularly dedicated to the proposition that they should be using the scientific method to critically examine their hypotheses.

No, a cyclist doesn't train by running marathons - but he does improve by cycling, which is almost entirely a cardiovascular workout.

My point here is that his training by cycling is training a skill, and that the improvement to his cardiovascular health as a result of it is not an efficient result. It takes more time, involves more danger, and in the end, improves physical condition by the same mechanism as strength training.

The point to take away here is that a cyclist is a good cyclist because he cycles, not because he has done a cardiovascular workout. Similarly with the other sports you mentioned. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not "cardio" is a singular skill which can be trained on that crosses over to skill in those multiple sports - can a cyclist be a great runner simply because they cycle? Can a runner be a great soccer player simply because they run?

Now, I agree, you can get some strength benefit, and therefore some health benefit, from the classic "cardio" routine of cycling, soccer, running, etc. However, this strength benefit also comes with significant risk, and is less strength benefit than can be found with slow strength training.

Re:Why not create a solution

[bingoUV]

It's because I believe in choice.

Can't be. Ultimately its about deciding a few subjects - if one stays the other has to get kicked out. Actually, saying that "cars are about black cars" is an enemy of choice.

You support compulsory math and history education in violation of your principle of choice. A lot of school level trigonometry, geometry etc. are never going to be used by a vast majority of the students. No student is ever going to meet a military general of the civil war. Yet they study these things.

On the other hand - every student has a body. Which works much much better if taken care of. So learning a few aspects of taking care of it help them live life better and learn the other subjects by keeping them out of sick-bed more often.

Education is about mental education, not physical

You don't say "Education is about mental education, not historical education." It is because in history lessons - mind is the only thing that is being educated, but about history. Similarly, in gym classes, physical fitness classes etc. - mind is the only thing that is being educated, but about one's own body.

And finally - without specific classes to get them off their asses, students would be sitting in a single place for 2-3 consecutive hours twice a day. It cannot be good for them. So even if you forget about the future physical fitness of the students, gym classes and the like are still helpful.

PS - your rant has nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

Re:Why not create a solution

[cheekyjohnson]

"Can't be."

Well, I am.

"You support compulsory math and history education in violation of your principle of choice."

Only subjects in which the chances of you not using them is so slim that they may as well be mandatory. Who doesn't use basic math? Who doesn't speak the language(s) of their own country? Who shouldn't learn about history?

"A lot of school level trigonometry, geometry etc. are never going to be used by a vast majority of the students."

I said basic math. Even though I'll use those, I agree with you there. Those shouldn't be mandatory.

"No student is ever going to meet a military general of the civil war."

History is studied so we don't repeat past mistakes. Not all of it is particularly useful, but a lot of it actually is.

"So learning a few aspects of taking care of it help them live life better and learn the other subjects by keeping them out of sick-bed more often."

By... throwing/hitting random objects around on fields, pretending sports are important, and running around for a few hours a week? I know that wasn't the case for me, and it isn't the case for anyone else. Again, it's not going to do any good until *you* take the initiative to be healthy.

"PS - your rant has nothing to do with the topic being discussed."

It has plenty to do with what is being discussed. I don't feel enough people will actually *use* physical education for it to be mandatory. Not to mention the fact that what a gym class teaches can be learned with a simple Google search if need be. It is far easier than any other subject and it doesn't really warrant being a mandatory class.

Re:Why not create a solution

[drsmithy]

That's true, but the point being made is that "cardio" is simply inefficient strength training. We're not talking about lifting weights for reps, or weight maximums, we're talking about using weights to exhaust your slow, medium and fast twitch muscles within about 60-90 seconds.

Ie: strength training. You're basically arguing that someone who does nothing more than strength training (ie: practically never gets onto a bike, into the pool, onto the soccer field, etc) could compete with an athlete who does so regularly.

Do you have any examples of this being true ?

There are lots of areas where our "experts" have gotten it wrong, and continue to get it wrong due to plain old social inertia. Although you're entitled to your confidence, I think it's misplaced. If anything, the best sports trainers have found the most "efficient" path to be doping and other performance enhancing drugs, and you know, that might be even better than what I'm advocating, but I don't see sports team trainers as particularly dedicated to the proposition that they should be using the scientific method to critically examine their hypotheses.

Given the vast amounts of money involved in many sports, I'm sure that trainers and players would be chomping at the bit if there were dramatically better methods they could use.

Not to mention the Olympics, which may not involve such large amounts of money (at least for the athletes and trainers) but is certainly all about being the best. Do you have some examples of medal-winning athletes (in cardio-heavy events, obviously) who only do strength training and never do cardio ?

My point here is that his training by cycling is training a skill, and that the improvement to his cardiovascular health as a result of it is not an efficient result. It takes more time, involves more danger, and in the end, improves physical condition by the same mechanism as strength training.

And I'm asking for some proof of that. Examples of athletes competing at a high level in these sorts of fields who basically only use weights a gym would be a good start.

The point to take away here is that a cyclist is a good cyclist because he cycles, not because he has done a cardiovascular workout. Similarly with the other sports you mentioned. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not "cardio" is a singular skill which can be trained on that crosses over to skill in those multiple sports - can a cyclist be a great runner simply because they cycle? Can a runner be a great soccer player simply because they run?

I'm sure a good swimmer would be a much better runner than, say, a bodybuilder would be. Though an example to the contrary would go a long way to supporting your argument.

Re:Why not create a solution

[hsthompson69]

You're basically arguing that someone who does nothing more than strength training (ie: practically never gets onto a bike, into the pool, onto the soccer field, etc) could compete with an athlete who does so regularly.

Not at all - I'm specifically saying that sports require practice of the *sport* itself, and that someone who does not actually practice the *sport*, whether or not their regular exercise routine is a typically "cardio" or typically "strength" training.

What I am saying is the following:

a) typically "cardio" workouts give you health benefits through the same mechanism that slow strength training does
b) typically "cardio" workouts give you these health benefits much less efficiently;
c) typically "cardio" workouts as well as typical high-speed strength training come along with a certain amount of injury risk that is not as present during slow strength training.

Given the vast amounts of money involved in many sports, I'm sure that trainers and players would be chomping at the bit if there were dramatically better methods they could use.

To a certain extent, I agree, however, since slow strength training is probably never going to be as "efficient" as doping and performance enhancing drugs, they probably leapfrogged over that :)

Do you have some examples of medal-winning athletes (in cardio-heavy events, obviously) who only do strength training and never do cardio ?

Let me understand the question - would this include medal winning athletes of cardio-heavy events, who practice their "cardio-heavy" sport regularly, but on the side don't do *additional* cardio, but instead do *additional* strength training?

Examples of athletes competing at a high level in these sorts of fields who basically only use weights a gym would be a good start.

Again, just to clarify - this is in *addition* to doing their actual sport, right? So if I find a swimmer that practices swimming 8 hours a day, and when in the gym only does weight lifting but not a treadmill, that would be sufficient?

An article on Phelps indicates that he does strength training out of the pool, but doesn't put a number on his cardio (although he mentions the dangers of running):

http://munfitnessblog.com/how-michael-phelps-managed-to-break-so-many-swimming-world-records-one-after-another/

"Phelps does other typical strength trainings, 3 times a week with 1 hour each session, but those trainings focus in building his muscle endurance and flexibility in addition to improving his stroke power. With such a powerful and long stroke, when others have to take 12 strokes, he probably cover the same distance with only 8 strokes.

As for cardiovascular exercise, Micheal Phelps relies on stationary bike because running is too much hazard for his knees. Believe it or not, Phelps often tripped and fell often when he run. Rumor said his flexibility in his knees and ankles, though enhanced his performance in pool, results in some loss of stability on land."

Here's another cite from an olympic swimmer:

http://www.ihavenet.com/olympics-5-Lessons-for-Over-35-Athletes-From-Olympic-Swimmer-Dara-Torres.html

"Do strength-training

It's often neglected by time-crunched athletes in favor of their primary activity, but it's essential -- not only for performance but to build strong bones, says Torres. She's moved away from heavy weights to workouts that rely on her own body weight, but those can be just as tough. One of her favorite variations on a pushup is to do it with her hands on a bar at hip height and her legs on an inflatable Swiss ball. Yowza."

I

Playstation?

[TheLink]

Is there really a strong correlation between the playstation and obesity?

I see a stronger correlation between the portion/serving sizes.

When parents keep programming their children from young to finish everything on their plate and don't waste, think of the starving in Africa etc, they sure are going to find it difficult to not try to finish a super sized meal/drink.

And the businesses are sure happy to sell larger sizes. You can more easily sell larger portions for higher revenue and profits. Only a few snobs like going to expensive restaurants to get very expensive food in tiny portions.

As for "food preparation time", I eat out very often and thus spend nearly zero food preparation time and I'm not obese. It's just a matter of what you choose to eat and drink.

Here's a tip, cut out the sugar water and fries. Only have them as a treat once in a long while. Do fast food establishments in the USA make it easy and convenient to just order water with their burgers? Or is it more expensive to do so than to order it with sugar water?

Re:Playstation?

[Blackhalo]

"Is there really a strong correlation between the playstation and obesity?" Based on my anecdotal observation, there is a hight correlation, with fast food, Wal*Mart and Fox News.

Re:Playstation?

[Vintermann]

You're right that portion/serving sizes are hugely important.

But it's a bit of a mystery to me why they have grown so much in the US. A meal is bought as a unit, like toothpaste. That toothpaste tubes get imperceptibly smaller and smaller I can understand, it makes perverse business sense. But why do serving sizes go the other way?

Whatever it is, I think we must accept that serving sizes is a consequence of something else, not a direct driver of obesity in itself. (This is not to say it wouldn't be effective to reduce serving sizes, if it could be done somehow)

Re:Playstation?

[LambdaWolf]

But it's a bit of a mystery to me why they have grown so much in the US. A meal is bought as a unit, like toothpaste. That toothpaste tubes get imperceptibly smaller and smaller I can understand, it makes perverse business sense. But why do serving sizes go the other way?

Food is really cheap in the industrialized world. The relatively expensive part of producing a fast food meal to sell is the labor. So if you're already paying for a human being to take the order and prepare the food, not to mention the infrastructure and overhead of the business, it costs only a pittance to increase the serving size. And by spending a few extra cents that way, you can offer a more attractive deal than your competitors and/or justify a price increase of a dollar or two. So it's no wonder these restaurants pile on as much food as their customers will eat.

This is just my understanding; I could be wrong or missing something.

Re:Playstation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do fast food establishments in the USA make it easy and convenient to just order water with their burgers?

I was recently refused a cup of water with my meal at a Virginia McDonald's. I bought a couple of cheeseburgers and fries, and was refused a complimentary cup of water because I had not bought a "meal deal" that came with a soft drink.

(I have not returned since.)

Re:Playstation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Serving sizes are absolutely too big. I don't think it even has anything to do with the starving kids in Africa, either - that was a "finish your veggies" goad, anyway, wasn't it?

I can confirm that different parts of the US have different serving size / doggy bag / clean your plate / eat out every damn night cultures, and that it correlates to which regions are heavier than others. Basically I live in an area with smaller portions, where eating out is a weekly or monthly thing instead of daily and taking home leftovers is normal (for the mid-tier places. it may look strange at the really fancy places). But I know a few people who traveled to various places for business and were dragged out to eat every night and were shocked at the hugeness of the meals (and the hugeness of the eaters sitting there and eating the whole thing).

> Do fast food establishments in the USA make it easy and convenient to just order water with their burgers?

Not at places like McDonalds, but every real sit-down place I've ever been to will give you water if you ask. They used to all automatically give everyone water before taking orders. They used to also automatically have a basket of bread at every table, but that's been going away over the last decade or so. Of course at a take-out place, you don't have to order a drink at all, but McDonalds and similar places like to do bundled meals that come with the oversized fizzy drink. I get the diet drink in those cases (fast food places in the US have been good about always having diet soda varieties since at least the 1980s), and since I rarely go to them and drink the zero-calorie stuff at home, I can absorb a few extra calories. Their hugeness is also ever-so-slightly mitigated by being 20-50% ice cubes.

As for gamer weight ratio, let me consider those I know... hmm. Maybe 20% of them are heavy, only one was obese. That's a healthier ratio than the general population. Highly anecdotal, though - where would I meet the fatties who never leave the house? :)

Re:Playstation?

[TheLink]

> Highly anecdotal, though - where would I meet the fatties who never leave the house? :)

It'll be hard to meet those who are too fat to fit the doorway of their own house.

There have been a few who were so fat, that people had to bust a hole in their house to get them out...

I find it amazing how those can get so fat and not die - perhaps those that survive to that point have special genes (the rest die off at the usual "way too obese stage" and don't get to this "world record challenger stage").

Secret formula to fight obesity

[Anonymous Coward]

Exercise more, eat less.

And she left out one thing:

[DurendalMac]

What about the fucking PARENTS, Michelle? I'd point at the parents as the single biggest reason for childhood obesity. It's supposed to be their job to make sure their kids remain healthy and active. Instead, a lot of them are just fine grabbing McDonald's and letting the kids stare at the TV for hours on end. It all boils down to people. Politicians just love pointing the finger at everything but people, because people vote. Playstations don't.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[blueg3]

You didn't bother looking at the graphic or the Let's Move website, did you?

Re:And she left out one thing:

[DurendalMac]

Agh, serves me right for hastily posting toward the top. Misleading summary, but the point still stands, and I find it really sad that some sort of campaign for this is necessary. Are parents really so stupid that they don't realize this?

However, I also question the validity of many claims made by the winner. 7.5hrs average daily screentime for kids? How in the hell does that happen? You'd have to sit in front of the TV the moment you get home from school and go to bed past 10PM! And who the hell gives an infant soda? My kid is over 2 and the only soda he's had are little sips of non-caffeinated soft drinks that myself or my wife were having. We do not give him soda at home. He gets juice.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[Anonymous Coward]

It is wrong too to condemn this without actually investigating it. Any attempt at gathering information is just that, gathering information.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians just love pointing the finger at everything but people, because people vote. Playstations don't.

So you're basically saying that Washington does what Sonydon't?

Re:And she left out one thing:

[Jeremi]

7.5hrs average daily screentime for kids? How in the hell does that happen? You'd have to sit in front of the TV the moment you get home from school and go to bed past 10PM!

Don't forget weekends -- two days a week of watching 12 hours of TV can really boost your average.

My kid is over 2 and the only soda he's had are little sips of non-caffeinated soft drinks that myself or my wife were having. We do not give him soda at home. He gets juice.

Note that from an obesity perspective, fruit juice isn't much better than soda. Fruit juice is also full of sugar.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[cheekyjohnson]

"What about the fucking PARENTS, Michelle? I'd point at the parents as the single biggest reason for childhood obesity."

Really? I'd point at the kids, since ultimately it is their doing. If they don't want to be healthy, that's their own choice, and no one should try to force them to be healthy unless they want to be. Unless the parents are forcing them to eat or giving them only unhealthy food to eat, as you said in your comment. Or, if you are trying to force people to be healthy, well, there's plenty of adults that need "help," too.

"and letting the kids stare at the TV for hours on end."

Again, this is a choice. If they want to do that, fine.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[ewe2]

Make good food more affordable then, make time to prepare good food a priority. Don't blame the working poor for taking the easy way out in their 2-job-a-day lives to feed their families. I hear this particular justification from better off people all the time who have no idea how most people are getting by today. Next time, look at the checkout chick and ask yourself how they're feeding themselves on minimum wage. Then get off your sanctimonious high horse.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the fucking PARENTS, Michelle? I'd point at the parents as the single biggest reason for childhood obesity. It's supposed to be their job to make sure their kids remain healthy and active. Instead, a lot of them are just fine grabbing McDonald's and letting the kids stare at the TV for hours on end. It all boils down to people. Politicians just love pointing the finger at everything but people, because people vote. Playstations don't.

But then we won't have the nanny-state government leading the way.

Remember, Hopenchange knows what's best for you!

Re:And she left out one thing:

[SerpentMage]

I am going to be cynical here...

"He gets juice:" Oh now that's MUCH better... Ever seen the calories in juice?

http://www.hookedonjuice.com/

The proper answer should have been... http://www.volvic.ch/

These volvic drinks have a slight taste of something, but very little calories... Or just plain water.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[DurendalMac]

Yes, fruit juice is sugary, but not nearly as much, and it's more than just sugar water. Also, 12 hours a day is ludicrous, even on a weekend. That's your entire day in front of a screen. I just don't buy that number.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[DurendalMac]

Um, yes, juice is better than soda. You actually get some nutrition out of juice instead of just empty calories from sugar water. Also, I usually get lite juice that has about half the calories of the 100% stuff. I think orange juice is the only stuff I regularly get that isn't diluted.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[Vintermann]

What about the fucking PARENTS, Michelle? I'd point at the parents as the single biggest reason for childhood obesity.

Customs and tradition change much, as time passes, and the faith of men changes and they think differently of many things. But the hearts of men never change, in all times.
-- Sigrid Undset (Nobel prize in literature,1928)

If the parents are the problem, you need to tell me why today's parents are so much worse than yesterday's. Like Undset, I refuse to believe that any generation inherently has better moral character than another.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[jedidiah]

> Then get off your sanctimonious high horse.

I think the Hillbilly Housewife would be prone to chime in with some contrary facts here.

The cheapest food is what you make yourself. You can still keep tabs on what you are eating and still be moderate about the whole thing.

If this were just about being poor, this wouldn't just be a recent trend.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[DurendalMac]

Except that kids don't always grasp the consequences of their actions. If it was a 14 year old, you'd have a point, but now we have a lot of fat kids under the age of 8, and how can you blame them? They don't fully comprehend nutritional consequences at that age! Are you honestly saying that kids should be able to do whatever they want? I hope you're not a parent.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[DurendalMac]

This is such utter BULLSHIT. How much does a pound of produce cost? I see a lot of stuff for less than $1 a pound. How much for a bag of flour? How much for a bag of rice? Good food IS affordable. It just often isn't as suited to the taste buds of people raised on fried, sugary crap.

Preparation? How much time does it take to put a salad with low/nonfat dressing together? How much time does it take to peel a banana or bite into an Apple? Rice takes only a few minutes to whip up. A baked potato can be nuked in a few minutes. Hell, even a lot of canned goods would be an improvement, and how long does it take to open a can and possibly heat up the contents? Peaches with cottage cheese (even nonfat) is scrumptious. Yogurt isn't terribly expensive.

I hear this particular justification from people who obviously haven't put more than five goddamned seconds of thought into it. Sorry, but if poor people are fat, then it isn't because of bad food being cheap and easy, because good or at least decent food can be cheap and easy, too. I work 40 hours a week and I still have time to not eat crap all the time.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[digitig]

Are parents really so stupid that they don't realize this?

Some British parents are.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[sjames]

The parents? They're busy working overtime to pay the mortgage and health care costs.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[cheekyjohnson]

"Except that kids don't always grasp the consequences of their actions. If it was a 14 year old, you'd have a point, but now we have a lot of fat kids under the age of 8, and how can you blame them? They don't fully comprehend nutritional consequences at that age!"

Then they should be warned of the consequences of their actions, not forced. That will do no good.

"Are you honestly saying that kids should be able to do whatever they want? I hope you're not a parent."

No, but instead of just mindlessly forcing them to do things, a real parent would explain to them, in a logical fashion, why it is beneficial to take a certain course of action.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[Anonymous Coward]

... a real parent would explain to them, in a logical fashion, why ...

He he ha ha snort giggle; pull the other one, Oh Unknowledgeable One!

Re:And she left out one thing:

[cheekyjohnson]

Thanks?

Re:And she left out one thing:

[FiloEleven]

This is true. Parents of the last 50 years and today face greater changes in what we eat than had taken place in the previous, oh, four thousand years.

You used to look for the ripest, juiciest-looking tomato on the vine. Now they're all engineered to look that way, and damn the nutritional consequences. Antibiotics and hormones, all invisible and undocumented, pervade the entire meat supply. HFCS and other chemicals from corn are present in almost everything and affect our bodies differently than the natural components they replace.

It isn't the parents who are worse, it's the food supply.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[DurendalMac]

Hol-ee SHIT. You definitely don't have kids. You think a 6 year old is going to listen to adult logic, much less understand it? They don't. Kids do not think like adults. You DO have to force some things. Would you just let your kids do anything so long as you've already told them of the consequences? Good luck with that.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[Culture20]

No, but instead of just mindlessly forcing them to do things, a real parent would explain to them, in a logical fashion, why it is beneficial to take a certain course of action.

"If you cross the street right now, you'll die. Wait until traffic stops."
*Screech! Whump* "OH MY GOD! She just walked out in front of my car! Why didn't you stop her?!"
"Tsk tsk tsk, I warned her. It was her informed decision. Her brain was obviously flawed. Well folks, I'm going to go home and make another one with the wife. Hopefully this one is born with a doctorate in physics."

Re:And she left out one thing:

[cheekyjohnson]

That's odd, I certainly didn't say anything about not stopping them from doing something that could immediately threaten their lives. Just because you do that, it doesn't mean you have to force them to do everything instead of giving a logical explanation. Two very different things.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[drsmithy]

Then they should be warned of the consequences of their actions, not forced. That will do no good.

One day, when you have to actually interact with children, you'll discover that a) they have very little capacity to plan for a future more than an hour or two away and b) their grasp of reason is usually flawed (in no small part due to (a)).

Re:And she left out one thing:

[FauxPasIII]

> I work 40 hours a week

That would put you in the bottom 10 percent of people in my circle of acquaintance. 60 would be the median, 80 with spikes to 100 is not uncommon.
If you're able to make enough money to pay your bills and still have enough waking time to cook for yourself, count your blessings.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[cheekyjohnson]

"a) they have very little capacity to plan for a future more than an hour or two away"

Which is why you'd explain it to them in a very clear fashion. I'm sorry, but if no explanation is given, of course they're not going to understand! I, along with many others, was able to understand things when they were actually *explained* to me when I was a kid.

"b) their grasp of reason is usually flawed (in no small part due to (a))."

Same as above.

Re:And she left out one thing:

[DurendalMac]

Cooking isn't even necessary much of the time. You don't have to cook a piece of fruit.

Use of 'Chubby Typeface' Applauded by Judges

[theodp]

Other awards were given for Best Design ('We also like how the chubby typeface is evocative of obesity') and Best Information ('Bonus points for the great smaller serving of spaghetti').

Re:Use of 'Chubby Typeface' Applauded by Judges

[Brett Buck]

Both of those are about as crappy as it gets. Looks like the graphics on a playschool "computer". Your tax dollars at work!

Re:Use of 'Chubby Typeface' Applauded by Judges

[MasaMuneCyrus]

This makes me wonder if we could then start referring to overweight people as not fat, but "bold."

Re:Use of 'Chubby Typeface' Applauded by Judges

[Cwix]

You're RIGHT!! The government should employ some top notch graphics artist and buy some new Macs to make sure the graphics are up to your standard. That's where I want MY tax dollars to go. /endsarcasm

Id rather they just had the intern do it, its cheaper.

Re:Use of 'Chubby Typeface' Applauded by Judges

[glennpratt]

Oh, so many tax dollars...

"Winners will be announced on July 20, featured on our homepage, the homepage of LetsMove.gov, the White House blog, and also printed in the next issue of GOOD. We’ll send GOOD and Let’s Move! T-shirts and a free subscription (or gift subscription) to the winners."

That's some astonishingly lazy finger pointing. Where do you normally get the news spoon fed to you?

Re:Use of 'Chubby Typeface' Applauded by Judges

[Hognoxious]

Small black text on a dark blue background. Always a great readability choice!

Lol?

[tycoex]

Ya, because we all know playstation was the FIRST video game console EVAR RITE?

Oh look more hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

They also forgot to mention the Xbox360, PC's, how about excessive sugared/salty/high fat callorie junk food they fail to properly regulate, oh and maybe all desk office jobs such as politicians sitting their ass's fatned by their corporate lobbyiests while pretending to be working in the name and for benefit of the general people/society.

Meanwhile distractions such as these are what matters in the white house, hell would freeze if they looked at all the "obesity" in wall street, it sure is fatter than ever, yet no one bothers to tax them propperly, its preferable for them to once in a while just drop some pocket change in the public media as a gesture of good will in the name of the children and poverty.

Re:Oh look more hypocrisy

[Cwix]

You didnt RTFA. They call out inactivity, fast food, and soda.

"Somewhat ironically"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only "somewhat"?

Playing video games to reduce the obesity-inducing effects of video-game playing is, to borrow an old quote, like screwing for virginity.

Madam First Lady, what about all those kids who'll grow obese while practicing for this tournament?

Value meal

[tepples]

Do fast food establishments in the USA make it easy and convenient to just order water with their burgers? Or is it more expensive to do so than to order it with sugar water?

The "value meal" gimmick at U.S. quick-service "workaurants" is roughly buy a burger and fries and get a free Coke.

Re:Value meal

[TheLink]

Yeah same here, but can you get free water instead of the free coke?

If you still get the free coke, because of "parent programming" as I mentioned, you'd be tempted to finish it, on behalf of the starving kids in Africa. Even though your drinking it or not has zero effect on whether those kids starve or not (mass starvation is mostly due to bad politicians/leaders).

Of course if people consume and spend more and only die soon after their most productive ages, then overall it is actually better for the country in economic terms.

The young ones cost the country and produce little, so it's a loss if they die. Most only start being a net gain after their 30s. But past 50+ most stop being such a great contributor and start costing again.

So it's good economically if people conveniently died (due to obesity related diseases or smoking or whatever) sometime after the net gain period and before the "cost" age.

Most people will eventually die. Thus if you're obese (but not so obese that you can't be productive) or a smoker, thanks for your sacrifice. :)

Re:Value meal

[TubeSteak]

The "value meal" gimmick at U.S. quick-service "workaurants" is roughly buy a burger and fries and get a free Coke.

That Coke costs them roughly a nickle, and maybe a few more pennies if you include transport & the cup.
You'd be hard pressed to find a higher margin item in the food industry than fountain sodas.
It's almost impossible for them to give it away because it already costs them next to nothing.

Re:Value meal

[digitig]

(mass starvation is mostly due to bad politicians/leaders)

True, but not always the leaders of the ones who are starving.

Re:Value meal

[KingAlanI]

At many fast-food restaurants, they give you a drink cup and you head over to the machine yourself. That makes it real easy to get water (as well as free refills of the sugary stuff)

Haven't tried asking for water at a place with a behind-the-counter soda machine, but I don't see why not.

('Extra ice' as a cold replacement/workaround? I normally order my drinks with no or little ice so I get more actual beverage rather than something diluted)

not going to get into artificial-sweetener arguments, BTW

Re:Value meal

[tepples]

but can you get free water instead of the free coke?

Yes, but I get Coke Zero instead when I go to Chick-fil-A because I use caffeine to treat a medical condition.

Re:Value meal

[Anonymous Coward]

Every fast food restaurant that I've been to in the US offers a bottled water in lieu of the soft drink for either no cost or a nominal one (like $.10), so yes, it is an option offered to everyone here. Also, a few fast food restaurants will offer different sides as opposed to the fries, but the other choices aren't always healthier.

Re:Wheat and grains and MEAT, too!

[Niophant]

I'd throw subsidies for meat production into that ring as well. Subsidizing meat leads to overproduction of meat, which in turn leads to cheap processed low-quality meats, which is what fuels McDonald's and all the other fast food chains out there. I think the real irony is that the government is paying these companies (vicariously) to make us fat with one hand and then dishing out all these bucks to fight obesity on the other hand. If the government would just stop mucking up the system in the first place we would all be a lot healthier mentally and physically!

That's why...

[Extremus]

... I started eating Wees, which are by far more dietetic than ps's.

Re:That's why...

[Hognoxious]

You don't eat wee, you drink it. Especially if you're Kofi Annan.

Corn Subsidies

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we point the finger back at our government for its corn subsidies and sugar import tariff.

It's fairly simple people.

[Anonymous Coward]

No soft drinks, no pre-packaged boxed snack foods (seldom cereal), no chips (well, chips and salsa occasionally). Seldom eat out at fried food joints (maybe once a week). Stick to wheat breads, fruits and vegetables, yogurt, meats, sushi and rice.

Essentially if you cut out all the 'americanized' boxed and packaged foods that are mainstream, as well as soft drinks, your overall feeling of health increases rapidly. Did I also mention coffee and beer/wine are essential? And no, I don't miss ANY of that crap processed and preserved food I've cut out.

If you listen to and feel out your body just a little, and think about the history of mans food consumption, its all pretty clear what the body CAN effectively use for food.

Re:It's fairly simple people.

[Renraku]

Mod parent up. Cutting 50% of the carbs out of your diet will make most anyone lose weight. Even if you keep them ALL but use less refined carbs (wheat bread as opposed to white bread), you'll probably still lose weight if you get any kind of exercise. Carbs are the kind of energy that can turn into fat, and the more processed they are, the easier it is for the body to turn them into fat. At one end you have unprocessed whole grains like people used to eat in the middle ages, and at the other end you have pure sugar. Slower burning carbs will make you feel full for longer, since it physically takes longer for the body to process. Sugar is fully processed within an hour, so you get a 'sugar high' and then crash. Slow burning carbs will be with you for several hours, and there won't be any high or any crash. You'll just notice that you're hungry again in a few hours, instead of being sleepy/starving.

Re:It's fairly simple people.

[Anonymous Coward]

grrrrr, sushi IS rice.

Thanks, that is all.

Re:It's fairly simple people.

[electrosoccertux]

Cut yogurt and rice (mainly white) please.
Especially yogurt. They remove the fat (which makes you feel full) and pump it with sugar. Result is something entirely unfilling and far too sweet.

Also, you can eat as many fibrous/non-starchy veggies as you want and you'll never get fat. They're very filling too when coupled with meat.

Re:It's fairly simple people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cooking is so goddamned easy, I can't understand people who eat out constantly.

Stir fry: soy sauce (low sodium) + ginger + cornstarch + boiling water = sauce; cook meat in a wok at high; put meat in bowl; cook vegetables in the wok on high; add sauce; add back meat; serve. Takes less than an hour to chop, cook, and serve.

Re:It's fairly simple people.

[KozmoStevnNaut]

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." is a good mantra, people need to eat real food instead of pre-made crap. My rule of thumb is that if a great-grandma wouldn't be able to recognize a meal or an ingredient, you should think very hard about whether you really want to eat it. Note that I said a great-grandma, not my great-grandma. There are loads of great foods that us westerners have only been exposed to in the last couple of decades that have been known elsewhere for centuries.

I decided long ago to cut out snacks, soft drinks, fast food, pre-cooked packaged foods (they're way too salty, anyway. And bearnaise sauce power, just add milk? WTF does that have to do with real bearnaise?) and the like, with slight allowances on special occasions, such as birthdays.

I cook every meal myself and I use real ingredients. Crunchy fresh vegetables, real butter, real whole grains, good quality meat (my local supermarket employs a great butcher), fragrant olive oil, all the good stuff that people seem to have forgotten in their quest to make meals easy and forgettable. Yesterday I made chicken paprikash from an old Hungarian recipe and I was in heaven for every single mouthful. Sure, it took longer than popping a frozen meat pie in the microwave, but it's worth it every single taste, every single time.

I tried losing weight by exercising, but it didn't do a thing until I started cooking everything myself and cut the crap out of my diet. I don't cook completely old-school with full-fat cream, whole milk and the like, there are some good lower-fat products available that are every bit as tasty. But I do use butter in my cooking and deep fry stuff from time and probably a lot of things that people have told us never to do unless we want to gain 40 pounds. Yet, I'm losing weight. Old-school real food is much more filling, I eat much less these days than when ate crap foods.

Cooking is fun and it's an activity you can share with your loved ones. Why are people so afraid of it?

Re:It's fairly simple people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cooking is so goddamned easy, I can't understand people who eat out constantly.

Seriously, get off your high horse. Cooking takes time. Time that I'd rather spend doing other things. Food prep scales incredibly well, cooking for 10 isn't much more work than cooking for 1. It's economically inefficient to waste time cooking for just myself or one other person.

American cuisine is not the problem. I eat takeout, processed food, nuked food, junk food, etc all the time. But I eat sensible portions, avoid egregious choices like bacon-wrapped fried chicken smothered in cheez whiz, and exercise moderately a few times a week. Voila, no problems. I'm fit, I'm trim, and I'm healthy in middle age. What's more, (1) I actually enjoy eating, and (2) I can go out with anyone anywhere anytime without making a nuisance of myself with arbitrary non-standard dietary restrictions.

Could I eat a bit healthier? Sure. But I wouldn't enjoy life nearly as much. One night of cheesecake beats a lifetime of rice cakes.

This is just another example of counterculture nonsense. "Society wants me to do X, but Y is so much better." Eating out vs cooking, tv vs reading, sports vs videogames. Drop the air of superiority, you're no better than anyone else. Everyone makes their own choices. Different strokes for different folks.

Re:It's fairly simple people.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Stick to wheat breads, fruits and vegetables, yogurt, meats, sushi and rice.

Sounds like the diet of a Sumo wrestler.

Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[Spazntwich]

If pointing a few fat fingers at videogames is the best our fearful leaders can do to address the obesity epidemic, it's already over.

America is laboriously waddling itself into an early grave rife with gout, diabetes, pancreatitis, and countless other chronic ailments that turn the phrase "quality of life" into a cruel joke.

The problems come from every direction: Subconscious feeding instincts that don't translate well to calorie abundance, marketing honed to razor sharpness that capitalizes on these instincts, food designed to do the same, and a general lack of accountability from top to bottom all combine to create a horrifying socioeconomic problem that I don't see us pulling out of.

Nobody cares. About themselves. About what the things they sell others do to those people.

Just give everyone that wants it some meth. Keep the daily doses reasonable and people's brains would take longer to turn to mush from the drugs than their current sedentary lifestyles.

Re:Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[Black Gold Alchemist]

That's because we are going for the real solution to obesity: just get over it. Stop caring about how other people live there lives. The reality is that people choose to be obese and don't care. So what gives you the right to intrude in to their lives and demand them not to be? The real obesity crisis is the laws and regulations that will be employed in an attempt to stop the obesity "crisis".

Re:Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[Spazed]

At the very least it makes my insurance go up. If we continue down the path of socialized medicine, then I am forced to pay for their fat related illnesses.

Those are pretty direct ways their being obese harms me. That's without going into the environmental or social impacts of it, which are a bit more indirect but still noticeable.

Re:Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[Spazntwich]

Where did I demand anyone not be obese?

All I ask is they take personal responsibility for their choices and not expect society to shoulder the cost of diabetes maintenance, gastric bypasses, knee and hip replacements, and the host of other known consequences of obesity.

I appreciate your sympathy, but somewhere along the way we have to recognize enabling for what it is.

Re:Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[Black Gold Alchemist]

At the very least it makes my insurance go up. If we continue down the path of socialized medicine, then I am forced to pay for their fat related illnesses.

You have just discovered one of the problems with socialzed medicine. In a free society, people need to be free to take risks with their body. For example, athletes and construction workers need to take risks while they do their jobs (some sports are more likely to hurt people than others) and construction is and always will be dangerous. In a socialized system, we subsidize all this, but don't keep the profits (the endorsements and buildings). Therefore we suffer.

That's without going into the environmental or social impacts of it, which are a bit more indirect but still noticeable.

The environmental impacts of obesity are a whole different ball game. Do fat people consume more food than normal people, all that much even? Fat people add weight to cars increasing their gas consumption even, if you want to get pedantic. I don't see the social impacts, other than that people dislike fat people.

Re:Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[Spatial]

The reality is that people choose to be obese

I laughed out loud at this. Who do you think you're fooling?

Attempting to validate a mistake by pretending it was intentional is one of the most pathetic and transparent excuses out there. It reeks of poor self-esteem.

It's actually sad to see an adult use it. It didn't work on the playground when you were ten, it doesn't work now.

Re:Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[hsthompson69]

Part of the problem here is that our government recommends a particularly unhealthy diet, which causes people who attempt to do the "responsible" thing to suffer from obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and other chronic diseases.

When our authorities are recommending 6-8 servings of cereals and grains, which nearly instantly turn into blood sugar after digestion, which drives up insulin levels, and causes the "diseases of civilization", how can you blame fat people who follow those guidelines when they get sick?

Somewhere along the way, government is going to have to fess up to causing the 40 year epidemic of heart disease, diabetes, obesity and cancer in this country...or people have to learn to do the truly "responsible" thing and ignore the government.

Re:Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[Brett Buck]

Well, the easy solution is to *not have socialized medicine*. It is absolutely NOT my, your, or anyone else's responsibility to treat someone for their own mistakes - or in fact, random accidents that are no one's fault. I might very well *choose* to do it as a humanitarian act, but it is certainly not my *duty* to pay for it.

       

Re:Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[Black Gold Alchemist]

I laughed out loud at this. Who do you think you're fooling?

No one because I'm not lying about my views. You're the one I've fooled. The fact is that if there is a way for people to become non-obese, and people don't bother to do it, then they don't care about being obese. Otherwise, why wouldn't they do it?

Re:Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[Black Gold Alchemist]

To all the people that modded me down, why? I am honestly expressing a dissenting opinion and not trolling. This opinion is, as far as I know, not posted above, so can't be redundant.

Re:Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[Monchanger]

Duh... Because it was redundant.

You conservative idiots have been parroting this for years. We don't need to hear the same old crap e-v-e-r-y s-i-n-g-l-e t-i-m-e. We got it. And we don't care. You can't tell the difference between opinion and truth. You don't like democracy or can't get that you L-O-S-T the election and the liberals get to do what they want for a change.

So just try saying something ACTUALLY new, even better- try out "interesting" for a change. God knows we've not it heard from you guys in a very long time.

Re:Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Duh... Because it was redundant.

Then all the posts about how fat people are evil are redundant too. Because I've heard em' more.

You can't tell the difference between opinion and truth.

You apparently can't tell the difference between truth and opinions about how to deal with truth. The GGGP posted a list of facts and a few opinions about those facts. I replied with a set of not well-liked opinions.

You don't like democracy or can't get that you L-O-S-T the election and the liberals get to do what they want for a change.

I do like democracy and I have opinions contrary to those of the majority. I'm asking the majority why they have those opinions so they can figure it out. And even though the liberals one the election, they did not get change. They got a corporatist president. Just like all we Hillary supporters warned em'.

So just try saying something ACTUALLY new, even better- try out "interesting" for a change. God knows we've not it heard from you guys in a very long time.

Same from you please.

Re:Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Just introduce regulation. Government regulation. Of food and food additives. It works, and it doesn't lead to a totalitarian nightmare.

However it will affect corporate profits in the short term. There's your problem right there.

Re:Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[Hognoxious]

When our authorities are recommending 6-8 servings of cereals and grains, which nearly instantly turn into blood sugar after digestion

Bullshit. Complex carbs take time to break down.

Re:Cliffs: We Are Fucked.

[hsthompson69]

http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm

Well, I said *after* digestion, but to be perfectly technical, it's not nearly as much time as you think. Besides barley, your grains and cereals all have GI values over 50 if not higher. Some "complex" carbs are even worse than plain table sugar, which clocks in at 65+/-4! Compare that to whole wheat/whole meal bread at 75+/-2, or brown rice at 68+/-4.

Nonsense

[LingNoi]

If kids spent all day reading books instead of playing games would they get equal blame? In both cases a kid is just sitting there doing nothing.

Two birds with one stone

[spleen_blender]

Less obesity and less national debt from underpaid idiots using credit to buy this crap for their kids.

Entertainment did it

[cheekyjohnson]

Blame entertainment for everything! Violence, obesity, and whatever else you can find! Never blame the actual people themselves, and instead conclude that people can't differentiate between what we know as reality and what we know as fiction. If people don't want to do anything but play video games, that's their choice, let them. If they do want to do more, that's their choice, let them. It's their fault, period.

DDR

[Mongoose Disciple]

But what about Dance Dance Revolution?

Re:DDR

[Culture20]

DDR? I don't think East Germany had an obesity problem. Maybe we should institute bread lines here.

Re:DDR

[penguinchris]

Sure, but very few people play that anymore once Guitar Hero type games came out - because you can do those relaxing on the couch (not to mention they have songs people in the US actually know).

Re:DDR

[Anonymous Coward]

DDR? I don't think East Germany had an obesity problem. Maybe we should institute bread lines here.

That would be the GDR.

I think this would be less of a problem

[Grapplebeam]

If we all fingered the Playstation less. Then again, they were the first sex bots. (Posted from the future.)

A side-note to starches..

[SuperCharlie]

First off, starches will make you a lard-ass, young or not as many posters have mentioned. What goes hand-in-hand with this is that as our purchasing power decreases because of economy, lost job, shrinking value of the dollar, whatever, starches are the only affordable choice. You can feed your family for a month on rice and ramen, or have a few meals with meat and/or vegetables. It is almost a forced issue that in order to even survive many have to eat unhealthy amounts of starch.

Re:A side-note to starches..

[hsthompson69]

Mod parent up. Obesity is a sign of malnutrition, not overnutrition.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Brett Buck]

Absolutely correct

Video games make people fat.

[MasaMuneCyrus]

That's why Japan, motherland of modern gaming, and Korea, land of professional gaming and gaming addiction, are the fattest countries in the world!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Obesity_country_comparison_-_path.svg

...oh, wait.

Re:Video games make people fat.

[masmullin]

Wow... the two countries that amaze me on that graph are
1) Canada - I would have figured proximity to US and sharing of many US cultural (McDicks and similar food dishes... + the Quebec extreme calorie cultural dishes ... eg poutine, maple sugar shacks) values would cause Canada to have a obesity rate closer to the US.
2) Mexico - Different language, very different culture, different food from the US... i would have thought their obesity rates to be much lower.

Re:Video games make people fat.

[instagib]

If you would visit those countries, you'd see that the result is no surprise at all:
1) Canada: a sane "pickiness" concerning food, imported from France (not from England ;-)
2) Mexico: most people switched from their typical culture food to US style products (either imported or manufactured locally), or at least added plenty of soda to every meal.
Number 2 happens in all "3rd world" countries - very poor people being very fat. Previous posters already wrote it: it's the processed carbohydrates, and them being ubiquitous and cheap.

Re:Video games make people fat.

[Yvan256]

I'm from Quebec. Poutine may be extreme on the calories, but it's not something most people would eat every day. Maple sugar is mostly a seasonal thing though some people prefer to use that instead of sugar or honey, but not in excess. Younger people tend to check what they eat a lot more than the older ones. Another thing is that food in Canada is not overloaded with high-fructose corn syrup. We do have a lot of the same fast-food chains, however the portions in Canada are much smaller.

I visited Plattsburgh a few years ago. I had to order the children size for my soft drink as the other sizes were way too big. I think their medium size was as big as the extra large ones we have up north. Same thing for the french fries, too.

Another thing I saw that was a bit of a shock was to see a clothing store divided in two sides: "regular" and "strong", which is a polite way of saying "fatties, get your clothes on that side". Some of the people on the "regular" side were almost as fat as me and I'm considered fat where I live. As for the people on the "strong" side, well... cue the song "Fat" from "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Stop subsidizing corn

[Dunderflute]

Corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, etc, etc.

Stop subsidizing corn. Instead subsidize wheat and healthy fruits, and vegetables. Make it illegal for advertisers to target young children with food ads, most of which are unhealthy.

"A system of sugar tariffs and sugar quotas imposed in 1977 in the United States significantly increased the cost of imported sugar and U.S. producers sought cheaper sources. High-fructose corn syrup, derived from corn, is more economical because the domestic U.S. and Canadian prices of sugar are twice the global price and the price of corn is kept low through government subsidies paid to growers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup

HFCS has been linked to obesity, liver disease, and one study in 2005 found "measurable amounts" of mercury in 9/20 samples tested within the US.

http://ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2

If I remember correctly, I read somewhere that it's more economical for some farmers to grow corn even during a surplus because of government subsidies. I don't have a citation for it though.

Re:Stop subsidizing corn

[hsthompson69]

You got it almost right. Both HFCS and wheat, sugary fruits and starchy vegetables turn into blood sugar almost immediately after digestion. The problem is not just one particular brand of glucose/fructose is to blame - all of them are.

If you wanted to subsidize something healthy, subsidize bacon.

Question for those who Blame Lifestyle

[Black Gold Alchemist]

I am a late teenaged person, I eat only fast and junk food, don't exercise, and drink at least 3 cans of regular soda a day. I am underweight, and have several friends with similar operating scenarios. Please explain.

Re:Question for those who Blame Lifestyle

[longhairedgnome]

Give it a few years... add beer and a lowered metabolism and you're set ;)

Re:Question for those who Blame Lifestyle

[ScottCooperDotNet]

The way your body handles food (burn/save) now is different than it will in ten years. Keep up the bad habits and most likely you will be overweight rather than under.

WebMD's article on testosterone is interesting. Basically, your testosterone levels peak at around 25 and decline gradually until death.

Re:Question for those who Blame Lifestyle

[Black Gold Alchemist]

We will see then.

Re:Question for those who Blame Lifestyle

[Yvan256]

You don't even need to add the beer.

Re:Question for those who Blame Lifestyle

[Stupendoussteve]

You're an adolescent who happens to have that body type. Keep it up and it will catch up with you as your metabolism slows down through your 20s.

Re:Question for those who Blame Lifestyle

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter what you eat, for this purpose. It's all about how much, and when. The body doesn't care whether a MJ of energy is from McDonalds or the Whole Food store. If you stay busy (and playing WoW keeps you busy) you won't eat until you're hungry, and (in most people) that only happens when you've just about burned though the last meal's worth of energy. The fat (unless you're near death you will have some fat) is emergency storage, set aside in case you aren't able to respond to hunger by eating.

So what happens is that you eat a Big Mac and fries, and then you spend six hours watching all of Star Wars, and then you have a Coke, and a pizza and sit around talking. And that is healthy. I mean, not "Look at me I'm a freak of nature" healthy, but it won't wipe years off your life.

The way people end up as fat slobs often involves boredom. Eating is something to do. So where you buy a Big Mac, eat it, feel full and then play Mario Kart with a friend, they eat a Big Mac, feel bored, order extra onion rings, eat those, then a bag of Haribo, still bored, watch TV while munching Pringles, still bored, popcorn and a movie... at the end of the day they've done the same exercise as you (ie almost none, just baseline activity) but they ate maybe 3 times as much, and that extra energy is stored as fat, making them a big blubbery mess.

If your life stays exciting, you may never need to explicitly control your diet, because you'll be too busy to stuff snacks down your throat all the time.

Re:Question for those who Blame Lifestyle

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a late teenaged person, I eat only fast and junk food, don't exercise, and drink at least 3 cans of regular soda a day. I am underweight, and have several friends with similar operating scenarios. Please explain.

Simple. Your metabolism is a lot higher in your teen years. However, it WILL catch up to you.

Case in point, my brother. All through HS he ate junk food, drank TONS of soda, and was generally a pretty scrawny guy (5'7" ish, 130lbs). Now he's 25, his metabolism has slowed, and he's pushing 180.

Re:Question for those who Blame Lifestyle

[h4rr4r]

I am a decade older, and drink lots of beer(2-3 on the average day, more on weekends). I am actually losing weight as my gf does the same. I am 15lbs lighter than I was in highschool.

Re:Question for those who Blame Lifestyle

[drsmithy]

I am a late teenaged person, I eat only fast and junk food, don't exercise, and drink at least 3 cans of regular soda a day. I am underweight, and have several friends with similar operating scenarios. Please explain.

I was like that as well. A decade and a half later I struggle to stay under "obese" (6'2", 250lb) even though I ride ~9 miles to and from work every day, plus another 20-40 each weekend, only eat out maybe once a week and avoid processed food as much as possible.

In short, your age and possibly genetics are on your side. If it's just your age, you'll be obese by your early 20s. If it's genetics, you're exceptionally lucky and will probably be skinny your whole life - though you'll never be fit and healthy with those habits.

Re:Question for those who Blame Lifestyle

[bledri]

I am a late teenaged person, I eat only fast and junk food, don't exercise, and drink at least 3 cans of regular soda a day. I am underweight, and have several friends with similar operating scenarios. Please explain.

As many have said, you are young and your metabolism and pancreas can deal with it for the moment. Not everyone's genetics are as robust, even when they are young. What you are doing seems to be working, but chances are that you are putting your pancreas under constant stress to deliver insulin fast enough. It is likely that you are setting yourself up for insulin resistance, mid-life obesity and type 2 diabetes, though you may be lucky and be just fine.

Sorry if I sound preachy. As a teen, I ate the same diet as you and got away with it. I considered myself virtually indestructible. I couldn't really even put on weight until I was in my early 30s. By 35 I was having serious blood sugar issues. I'm 45 now and though I'm not diabetic, the writing is on the wall. If I want to avoid becoming insulin dependent, I have to really watch what I eat - and even then there are no guarantees. By US standards I'm still thin, but I can seriously affect my BMI (and belly) by consuming fairly small amounts of liquid calories. breads and other simple carbohydrates.

You'd be doing your future-self a major favor by skipping the daily sugar-water and eating less processed, more "real" food.

Re:Question for those who Blame Lifestyle

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Exactly. There have been many times when I have forgotten to eat because of the excitement. So I say that I am a low energy human. It's green.

Mixed message

[Anonymous Coward]

"Somewhat ironically, the First Lady's other anti-childhood obesity efforts include a $60,000 video game contest."

According to her isn't that like promoting healthy eating by having a pie eating contest?

Irony

[longhairedgnome]

Somewhat ironically, the First Lady's other anti-childhood obesity efforts include a $60,000 video game contest."

Can anything really be ironic when the government is involved?

Sorry Sony

[stms]

I just can't risk becoming obese from now on only Xbox for me.

Stop ALL farming subsidies

[mangu]

Capitalism has the answers to that. Let food prices rise, farming subsidies are Evil.

Marketing

[Spewns]

The main target in marketing and advertisements of fast food is children. Happy Meals, toys, clowns, cartoons, McDonald's PlayPlace, etc. - the list goes on.

Marlboro can't market their harmful product to children anymore with Joe Camel, so why should McDonald's and others be able to?

Re:Marketing

[Spatial]

I suspect the biggest problem is shitty parents. Children don't decide what they eat, their parents do. If a child is eating junkfood like a Hungry Hungry Hippo, who's to blame? The pair of idiots who fed it to them.
 

Re:Marketing

[whoop]

I never caught on that cigarettes were marketing to me all through the 80s. I didn't care about Joe Camel, Marlboro man, or whatever other mascots they had. I didn't ever think, "I gots to get me some cigs, that camel is radical!" through my teens. I guess I was missing something there...

Google: "C is for Lettuce" lyrics

[Crash Culligan]

(I'd post the lyrics themselves, but Tim Crist, a.k.a. "Worm Quartet" packs a lot of lyrics into one song.)

On top of everything he sings/raps/screams about, another cause comes to mind and it's the parents' own damn fault for this, because they won't stop thinking about the childhood injuries. To prevent boo-boos at school, athletics programs get pared down to sub-Special-Olympics levels. Playgrounds get dismantled because someone could get hurt on them. Public ball fields and open spaces are either infested with drug dealers or more profitably developed into McMansions.

If the thought of sending children out into that cold, cruel world to get some exercise makes you at all pale, clammy, or weak-kneed, then congratulations, you may be part of the problem. If you've ever voiced those concerns and made other parents afraid, then damnit you are the problem.

Re:Google: "C is for Lettuce" lyrics

[Culture20]

Public ball fields and open spaces are either infested with drug dealers [...] If the thought of sending children out into that cold, cruel world to get some exercise makes you at all pale, clammy, or weak-kneed, then congratulations, you may be part of the problem.

I'm not sending my kids out to play ball where drug dealers ply their trade.

It's the carbs, not the kids.

[hsthompson69]

The science behind fat accumulation (http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216) is pretty clear - fat cells accumulate fat under the influence of insulin (insulin resistance varying between individuals and over time). Insulin is excreted by the body in response to blood sugar levels. And blood sugar levels are spiked with the consumption of carbohydrates.

Turning a hormonal problem into some sort of behavior problem misses the boat. Obesity is not about being lazy, or overeating - those statements give us no insight as to the cause, and serve as tautology. A skinny person who plays playstation all day, and eats nothing but krispy kreme without gaining a pound isn't labeled as "lazy" or "overeating" because the label goes with the *effect* not the action.

Until the government admits that their low-fat, high-grain dietary advice for the past 40 years has been the cause of the epidemics of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and other chronic diseases, we're simply shooting ourselves in the collective foot.

Stop eating carbohydrates. Its simple.

This is startling

[IGnatius T Foobar]

I must say I am quite surprised that they are blaming the PlayStation. I would have bet money that they'd blame the obesity epidemic on George W. Bush.

Iowa Baby Iowa!

[ScottCooperDotNet]

Let's not forget the importance the state of Iowa plays in American Presidential primary process. Being the first poll, each politician courts the state months or even years in advance. A few will skip the state, but most will make sure they do not vote against anything the voters there will be concerned with, and that includes corn.

Let them eat organic herbal-infused mocha latte

[Jodka]

Michelle Obama has adapted a worthwhile initiative to reduce childhood obesity into a platform for broadcasting her snide disdain for the plebeian tastes of the common people. Her chart also indicts "The first successful shipping mall FOOD COURT [emphasis hers]". Mrs. Obama has deigned to enlighten the masses, disabusing us of our philistine taste in Playstations and food courts at the mall. Once imbued with her own degree of elegance and sophistication, we shall live as healthfully she, dining casually in bistros on the Spanish coast and in elegance upon the healthful hors d'oeuvres at White House receptions.

Re:Let them eat organic herbal-infused mocha latte

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least she's proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. Because, you know, simply being black apparently qualifies you to be the President.

For someone who supposedly studied the Constitution extensively in law school, Barack Obama sure has an appalling lack of knowledge about and hatred of this document. Why would any sane person actually LAMENT the fact that this document places restraints on what the government can do to you? I guess he was too busy being bitter and clinging to his Progressive ideals to study world history. His true colors were on display looong before he ran for President.

Re:Let them eat organic herbal-infused mocha latte

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Exactly. I love watching all the hippies drink the local, sustainable Odwalla juice. . Soda contains less sugar than many types of juice by volume, and it is made from local filter tap water (less transportation weight). Ever notice how the left's social vices are only things that poor people do? SUV's are bad, don't worry about my trip to Europe. But, one trip to Europe per year is worse than owning a Hummer H3 for a year. Soda is bad for you, starbucks is good. Playstations cause a sedentary lifestyle, school doesn't. That's why I have left the Obama wing of the democratic party.

Re:Let them eat organic herbal-infused mocha latte

[KingAlanI]

the way I've thought about this before: "fried chicken deserves fat taxes, but fettucine alfredo doesn't?"

Re:Let them eat organic herbal-infused mocha latte

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

Re:Let them eat organic herbal-infused mocha latte

[Monchanger]

You're no liberal. You're obviously lying about your position because Obama is a centrist, and no hippie either. It takes a partisan Republican to make the claims you do.

Re:Let them eat organic herbal-infused mocha latte

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm currently reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. This comment reminds me of something he said while discussing the validity of the toxic-environment hypothesis to explain the increase in obesity :

"That the toxic environment hypothesis is deeply immersed in moral and class judgements is evidenced by the observation that few or none of the condemnations of fast food restaurants include a coffee chain such as Starbucks, despite the copious excess calories it peddles. A 'grande' (sixteen ounces) Tazo Chai Creme Frappuccino, for instance, with whipped cream has roughly 510 calories, equivalent to a quarter pounder with cheese at McDonalds. The same judgements are made when discussing physical activity : If we sit around all day watching television, we're condemned as couch potatoes, and our obesity is only a matter of time. If we sit around studying or reading books, this same accusation is rarely voiced."

Re:Let them eat organic herbal-infused mocha latte

[Black Gold Alchemist]

You're right that Obama's not a liberal. He's a wall-street issue corporatist, only he set up his campaign to get liberal votes, not conservative ones. All his supporters have been duped. His supporters are still liberal though. And I'm not a partisan repug. I'm unaligned. Used to be a democrat, though.

Which model though so I can avoid it

[Anonymous Coward]

...which hardware configuration leads to obesity, because I'd rather get the one that leads to chick magnetism or macho supreme.

What about personal responsibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere in that list did I see personal responsibility listed. Call me old-fashioned, but it's ultimately up to you to unplug, get up off of your fat ass, and take care of your own body. It's not my job, or Sony's job, or Coca Cola's job, to make sure that you don't look like a fucking fat slob.

Fat people in general are pretty disgusting. They can drag out whatever excuse they wish, but ultimately their fatness is a cause of their own laziness and lack of discipline. Like I said: disgusting.

Balance between eating and activity

[grandpa-geek]

The problem is the balance between eating and activity. A person can eat 5000 calories per day if they burn 5000 calories per day. If all you do is sit around, you can become obese on much less food.

So the culprits are empty junk foods, oversize portions, AND anything that attracts people to limit their physical activity. If PlayStation attracts kids to limit their active play AND they don't eat less to compensate, then PlayStation may rightly be named one of the culprits. But so can other things.

The problem is getting out of proper balance, and that is what needs to be addressed.

Re:Balance between eating and activity

[KingAlanI]

reminded of reading about Michael Phelps' 11000-calorie diet or something. He and those like him in activity level can burn it off....in his case, might also be munchies form the weed he was pictured smoking. :)

The real culprits?

[dcavanaugh]

1. Corn. A lot of food is loaded with high-fructose corn syrup because it's cheap. Modern meat has a higher percentage of fat because subsidized corn is a cheap way to fatten livestock and increase the quantity of meat. The surplus fat ends up in all kinds of products as a cheap way to provide flavor that consumers have developed a preference for. And of course, corn products of all types end up in high-carb foods that are cheap and supported by relentless marketing. Corn doesn't just fatten livestock, it fattens humans too. Healthy food is more expensive than junk food. All of this happens because corn is sold for less than the cost of production (thanks to the government).

2. Fear. When I was a kid, we would go to a nearby forest and play outside all day. Or we would play unsupervised baseball, football, etc. from dawn to dusk. Today, we don't let kids play without a boatload of supervision, protective equipment, etc. Therefore, outside play is infrequent. Walking through the woods is now out of the question, thanks to lenient sentencing of violent criminals and paranoia that we get from watching crime dramas on TV.

3. Homework. Teachers are pressured into assigning homework far beyond what is needed to support academic progress. Administrators seem to think that keeping kids busy will keep them out of trouble (by keeping them seated and indoors, of course). This has a number of side effects, none of which help the kids.

Re:The real culprits?

[Alarindris]

Walking through the woods is now out of the question, thanks to lenient sentencing of violent criminals and paranoia that we get from watching crime dramas on TV.

That is the paranoia. The woods are still as safe as they always were.

Re:The real culprits?

[PitaBred]

We get lenient sentencing on violent criminals because we have asinine minimum sentences for drug possession and other non-violent crimes. We're filling our prisons up with potheads and letting murderers and rapists go.

Re:The real culprits?

[KozmoStevnNaut]

The preference for fat is not new. Since the very first humans, calorie-rich foods were essential for survival and no food has higher energy density than fat. I know I prefer my pork chops and steaks with good marbling and a nice ½cm of fat on the edge. Why? Because it tastes better, it's that simple. It's not brainwashing or sinister corporate influence, it's basic human preferences that we're all born with.

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that modern meat is more fatty than the meats of yesteryear. Have you seen meat from an old-fashioned hog? We're talking upwards of 3cm of pure fat and thorough marbling and don't even get me started on the lard hogs. Today, hogs have been bred to have the leanest meat possible to compete with chicken and it's getting harder and harder to find a steak with proper marbling without ordering it specifically.

Excessive calories are making people fat. Sure, fat has the highest energy content, but have you tried eating more than one big pork chop with the fat intact? You can't or at least it's extremely hard, because your body's reaction to too much fat is making you feel stuffed and making you sweat. With carbs you can basically pile on the calories and you'll have more quick-release energy to use. I think we both can agree that if you don't burn this energy it goes straight to your fat deposits.

The US is fucked up when it comes to corn, the lobbyists have had too much power for too long.

Re:The real culprits?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've taught in 5 states and always find it strange when people complain about too much homework. They must live in very different areas than I've taught in, 'cos I've always been discouraged from assigning any homework at all (by the schools) and only encouraged by the parents. (Usually the parents say, "Why don't you assign homework?" and I say, "I do; your kid doesn't do it." "OOOOH! He tells me he doesn't HAVE any homework!")

gym needs to be pass / fail and no written tests

[Joe The Dragon]

gym needs to be pass / fail and no written tests.

IF you can't pass the fitness test YOU FAIL!

Is "Congress" on that list?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I get a little furious every time I hear from Michelle Obama about childhood obesity, given that her husband is in charge of a government that gives billions of dollars in subsidies to corn farmers so that they can produce more high-fructose corn syrup to ensure that Twinkies remain cheaper than carrots.

Want to end childhood obesity? Fix farm subsidies so that healthy foods like fruits and vegetables become more affordable. But I guess that's a political impossibility, like 95% of the other change our government desperately needs.

Some sports are higher-activity than others...

[KingAlanI]

I actually played a lot of dodgeball this summer, and most of the time I did spend running around the court. However, everyone in the group was motivated. [The lazy people would dodge (pun intended) the activity] (Also, we played under a ruleset where people who got knocked out generally got put back in quickly, so there wasn't a whole lot of sideline time.)

Basketball and soccer are similarly tooled towards running around the field of play.

Baseball, softball, kickball and cricket are more of a problem if raw physical activity is what you want, as their design mainly seems to entail short bursts of activity.

Volleyball, football and ultimate frisbee seem somewhere in the middle in this regard, IMHO.

Bicycle-riding to and from the gym was more exercise though. :)

dodgeball rules

[KingAlanI]

fast re-entry:
we were playing in a gym with a basketball court; bouncing a shot off the backboard brought someone back in as well as a catch.

also, we often used time limits or other methods (such as relaxing the midcourt-line rule) to keep the game from being dragged out when there were only a few people left.

Fingering PS?

[daemonenwind]

What's with these Democrats and fingering?

The last one did it with an intern, this one's doing it with a console.

Technological progress I guess....still, can't these guys just leave well enough alone?

Re:Fingering PS?

[Culture20]

What's with these Democrats and fingering?
The last one did it with an intern, this one's doing it with a console.

To be fair, it would be difficult for Mrs. Obama to use her penis.

you know why people eat too much?

[roman_mir]

people eat too much because government pushed the agenda of stabilizing food prices during Nixon actually and it carried on, and due to prices being fixed, the ingredients became worse and worse for human consumption, including the gov't not even mentioning that fiber needs to be in the food 'pyramid'. Watch this Sugar - the bitter truth. An explanation on why people are obese.

The answer is fructose, which is a form of alcohol without the buzz, and which is not regulated by the FDA because its bad effects are not immediate and happen over time.

Re:you know why people eat too much?

[Vahokif]

Or, they could watch what they put in their mouths. Which is harder.

Re:you know why people eat too much?

[roman_mir]

it's harder when all preprocessed and prepackaged food, including breads and juices contain fructose. It's very hard indeed.

Re:you know why people eat too much?

[Vahokif]

How do you think thin people do it?

Re:you know why people eat too much?

[roman_mir]

There are more and more obese and fewer and fewer thin people in US, UK etc.

Re:you know why people eat too much?

[Vahokif]

And yet some are thin. How do you think they do it?

Re:you know why people eat too much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wizards.

Re:you know why people eat too much?

[Late Adopter]

By succeeding at something hard, either through genetics or upbringing. The fact that fructose (may) play a role doesn't mean it's impossible to find skinny people, but it is sufficient to explain geographical differences in the ratio of skinny to non-skinny people.

Of course, I'm tempted to blame American culture as well, but I have no scientific evidence to back that up.

Re:you know why people eat too much?

[Vahokif]

Or maybe it's because in the West food, and especially bad food, is easily available and cheap, and people don't have the willpower to take control of their diet, instead blaming it on the government, genetics and their upbringing.

Re:you know why people eat too much?

[roman_mir]

they eat less fructose and also some people metabolize alcohol better than others.

Also they may be wizards.

Re:you know why people eat too much?

[FiloEleven]

Or maybe it's because in the West food, and especially bad food, is easily available and cheap, and people don't have the money to take control of their diet

FTFY.

Government really does share a lot of the blame, since much of the subsidies it creates are made at the behest of food corporations.

Watch Food, Inc.

Re:you know why people eat too much?

[bledri]

By being younger, having better functioning pancreases, higher than average metabolisms, exercising to the point of obsession and/or having eating habits that are counter to the society in which they live (assuming they live in the US.) It's not a simple matter of watching the scale - do you really think you are eating exactly the right amount of food? If you are, you are spending a lot of time and energy to do so. More likely, your body's self-regulating mechanisms are still functioning better than average. Maybe because you've avoided the crappy food that eventually wears out the pancreas, your age or lucky genetics.

Humans are hard wired to be somewhat gluttonous, especially when sugar, fat and salt are involved because these nutrients and calories in general were scarce for the majority of human history. Modern processed food is the perfect storm. On top of that, humans are social animals and eating together is a social activity. Good luck getting your average pre-teen or teenager to not join their friends for a burger, fries and liter of sugar water. If you look into behavioral economics, it turns out it's really hard to turn down the "better deal". For example, it takes a lot of will power to pay $2.55 for a "short" (8 oz.) latte at, when a "tall" latte (12 oz.) is $2.65. And the short isn't even listed on menu.

The entire agribusiness model is predicated on cheap carbs consumed in massive quantities. Restaurants have to compete with portion size because people want a "good deal." The food that average people eat is processed to the point of barely requiring chewing. This rant could go on and on, but what I'm trying to say is that it is hard for people to get good information, it's not just how much but what you eat, it's a hassle to get good food, and there are biological, economic and social pressures to eat too much of the wrong stuff.

We either address the lack of information, the marketing lies and insane incentives that are feeding the feeding frenzy, or we spend a fortune on the medical and other costs of becoming a nation of type-2 diabetics.

Re:you know why people eat too much?

[Late Adopter]

The availability of bad food is a function of government intervention on the food market, though perhaps not wholly so.

Furthermore the "willpower" argument is a complete dodge of the issue. Yes, many people have the willpower to avoid obesity. Many don't, and you could say that they own a component of the blame. But if you think obesity is a problem and you want to fix it, you have to be willing to tackle ALL the components, including the policy reasons that enhance the difference between the US and the rest of the world in this arena.

whitehouse is the cuplrit

[roman_mir]

and scientists finger the White house as the culprit of obesity: Sugar - the bitter truth. An explanation on why people are obese.

Short version:

1. Nixon pushed to stabilize food prices to help him in elections, he succeeded in doing that to food.
2. Various gov't programs included providing 'juices' to the poor.
3. Fixed food prices caused corporations to start looking for other ways of taking care of price fluctuations, namely using cheaper and more cost effective ingredients.

The food that causes obesity is...

fructose.

The video above explains that fructose is a form of alcohol without the buzz and how it does damage by not allowing the body to understand that it doesn't need to consume more food, while causing obesity, liver damage, and various other illnesses normally associated with alcoholism.

BTW FDA doesn't control substances that even though harmful to you, do not cause acute poisoning, and fructose does not cause acute poisoning, it makes you sick over time.

White house is the culprit.

Re:whitehouse is the cuplrit

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Nixon pushed to stabilize food prices to help him in elections, he succeeded in doing that to food.

Can you provide citations for this? I don't doubt you for a second, I'd just like to learn more about this.

Re:whitehouse is the cuplrit

[roman_mir]

it's in the link, you may to watch it.

Re:whitehouse is the cuplrit

[Anonymous Coward]

Bleh to pseudoscience. It's the quantity that makes the difference, not the source. The corn stuff, cane stuff, and beet stuff are the same chemicals in a very slightly different ratio. Eat the same calorie-tastic levels of cane sugar and you'll get just as fat. The other side effects you attribute to fructose are side effects of the obesity, not the fructose (get obese by other means and you'll get the same problems).

Re:whitehouse is the cuplrit

[roman_mir]

you are ignorant of the facts, you may want to watch the video in question.

Re:whitehouse is the cuplrit

[bingoUV]

The corn stuff, cane stuff, and beet stuff are the same chemicals in a very slightly different ratio

A live human body and a dead human body are the same chemicals in a very slightly different ratio.

A healthy human body and an unhealthy human body are the same chemicals in a very slightly different ratio.

It's a vicious cycle...

[KingAlanI]

...or should I say delicious cycle?
Obligatory XKCD: http://www.xkcd.com/140/

Re:It's a vicious cycle...

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Whenever fast food and soda is brought up in these stories, I always get hungry!

Re:It's a vicious cycle...

[Hognoxious]

I wonder if he actually updates the alt text to reflect his current status?

Re:It's a vicious cycle...

[KingAlanI]

It's always said "I Have Cheese", as far as I know...

Re:It's a vicious cycle...

[Anonymous Coward]

You check?

Bias and control

[Anonymous Coward]

That chart has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the personal bias of particular individuals and their need to impose control on others.

People are deciding that certain things are "bad" based on completely unsupported "facts" that may bear no relevance whatsoever.
So, since we're tossing science out the window, here's a boatload of my own competely unsupported bias.
1. The rise in childhood obesity in the US is in direct correlation to the decline in basic moral values and abandonment of organized religion.
2. The passing of Roe vs Wade and subsequent support for abortion has made it ok to kill your unborn children. The new tool to kill off the children that have already been born is obesity.
3. Government social programs and welfare cause childhood obesity. Just look at how many of the people on the programs are obese. When they had to work for a living they weren't so fat.
4. Democrats held the majority of the senior federal government positions. They were fat and lazy and set a bad example for the children. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Ted Kennedy led our children to be fat while they were in office.
5. Being a liberal makes you fat.

Now that the fun is over, here is the science behind human weight.

If you consume and retain more calories than you burn, you gain wieght.
If you burn more calories than you consume and retain, you lose wieght.
Combinations of changes in diet and exercise are EXTREMELY effective in allowing you to retain the specific amount of body fat you desire. Having "excessive" body fat puts you at serious risk for various diseases, illness, and death. Having "insufficient" body fat also puts you at serious risk for various diseases, illness, and death.

I've lost more weight with PS2 than with Wii

[Anonymous Coward]

... playing DDR. There are far more DDR releases on PS2 than on Wii and they are even more challenging. I started at 81kg and now my weight is 72kg.

Just mentioning it, because the statements make me laugh. It's always nice to have a simple culprit.

Re:Wheat and grains and MEAT, too!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the real irony is that the government is paying these companies (vicariously) to make us fat with one hand and then dishing out all these bucks to fight obesity on the other hand.

And then shutting down the new drugs that could potentially help. The ones that work well get shut down because they're perceived as too dangerous. The ones that are safe will get shut down because they're perceived as not working well enough.

The only winner is the bureaucracy.

I doubt HFCS in soda is worse than sucrose

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Mostly because the acid in the soda catalyzes the hydrolysis of sucrose anyway. (IE the acid causes sucrose to combine with water to get fructose/glucose which is what makes up HFCS.)

Re:I doubt HFCS in soda is worse than sucrose

[ravenshrike]

You're still getting 1:1 F:G though, and the body monitors the intake of G and balances accordingly.

I agree ;)

[DragonTHC]

It most definitely could not be the endless supply of cheap fatty foods laced with High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Yep, definitely the Playstation.

Dependacy on Automobiles

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll probably be labeled "troll" for this, but I'm pretty sure the USA's (and other countries') obsession and/or dependency on automobiles has a fair amount to do with rising obesity levels. Of course, I have no scientific proof of this, but let's face it, these days most people won't even walk a couple of blocks to the local convenience store.

Super

[nurb432]

Expect more taxes and even more government influence.

Blame technology!

[DrugCheese]

I grew up with an Atari 2600 and I could engross myself in that just as easily as kids engrossing themselves with todays gaming systems. The real difference are the parents. I wasn't allowed to sit in front of the tv all day. I had to spend the majority of daylight outside running with other neighborhood kids. I'm sure there are parents of yesteryear that allowed their gaming systems to babysit their kids, any of you big honed slashdotter care to comment? Was it the video games fault, or your parents for allowing you to sit around your childhood.

Why stop there?

[DesScorp]

"I agree, but why not just stop subsidizing corn, instead of taxing HFCS based products?"

Why not cease subsidizing all foods? I'm sure these subsidy programs started with the best of intentions, but the obesity epidemic is yet another example of the path to hell being paved by good intentions. Not to mention the sheer insanity of paying a farmer not to grow food. Your boss would never say "Hey, you're coding too much. I'll pay you to code less". Our whole subsidized agriculture policy is pure Kafka-esque madness.

Re:Why stop there?

[PrimaryConsult]

A good solution would be to subsidize (or tax break) based on size of farm or amount of output. A mom & pop farm should get some subsidy while monolithic corporate-sized farms should not. Otherwise all we will have are the giant corporate farms and we end up with massive recalls whenever a new virus spreads through them. There needs to be variety and competition in food source, even if it is forced.

Infurating topic...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not gonna read through this whole thread. Simply stated: It's the parents fault.

I wholeheartedly support putting something to cause sterility in all fast food and junk food products, where if you eat them more than twice a week, you just can't have kids.
If people don't care enough about themselves or their children to make smart decisions about food, then they shouldn't be able to force us to pay to keep them alive later down the line when Wilford Brimley's "deliverin' your dia-beetus meds right to yer door" and sending the bill to the rest of us via Medicare. It's the height of absurdity. People in America seem to find it OK to live a life of excess with no consequences and zero responsibility. It's SO-SCI-UH-TEE's fault that you're fat, right? Ohwait, maybe it's genetic... That's the new hot excuse for being fat. /rolleyes

Don't even get me started with how hideously unappealing most Americans are to look at nowadays. Humans are supposed to have less chins than fingers. Men aren't supposed to have tits. And ladies, if you have stretch marks AND rolls on your back, please, stay off the beach or cover your mess of a body. The rest of us are seriously repulsed. Otherwise, I'll be inclined to call 30 people over to help push your blubbery, beached self back into the water.

Also, enough already with the excuses people give, too. It's not the fault of Sony, or Pepsi, or Coke. It's just pure laziness, or unwillingness to [i]force[/i] yourself and kids to do the right thing.

I'm sure the pale fatty basement dwellers here on /. will mark this post as troll-bait and/or respond (probably with orange cheetoh dust on their fingers) with a slew of excuses why they're fat. Regardless of that, I stand by everything I said above.

True and we can compare that to HFCS

[NotSoHeavyD3]

So for example apparently the kind in soda is HFCS 55 which 55/45 split of F/G or 1.25:1 .(So a little more fructose but not a huge amount.)

I'm gonna follow her example...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and eat more lobster ... drenched in butter.

Playstation is not the problem

[ohiovr]

Its the people walking around looking at fat people and not realizing: holy shit I'm one of them!

I think parents are to blame...

[incognito84]

I was talking to my folks recently about whats going on in my hometown.

I grew up on a dead end street where lots of kids live. Lots of kids still live there. There is hardly any through traffic. When I was a kid, we'd play games on the street pretty regularly. Anything from street hockey, to improvised soccer, to water gun fights... you name it.

Recently a new generation of kids on that street started doing some of the same things. The police were called, parents fought and eventually it was decided that it was beyond inappropriate for the kids to play there. One of the main reasons that seemed to be cited was a large fear of child abductors and the fact that they couldn't always be supervised.

So thanks to years and years of pampering and isolating our children from fears both real and manufactured, a new generation of kids won't have any memories of the street I grew up on. Instead they'll all stay inside and get fat in front of their Playstations and we'll blame the Playstations for all their problems. Might as well put them on Ritalin to keep them from using all that pent up energy, too.

Politics versus Science

[schlameel]

I remember reading about a study in the UK that said it wasn't what the kid did, but what the kid ate. This summer my son started playing football, improved his diet (cut out crap, limited snacks) and lost a bunch of extra weight. I cannot say one or the other did the trick, but he plays as much or more XBox 360 (resting for two or three hours of football practice five days a week) than he did before. I guess the answer is get rid of the Playstation and get an XBox.

Ok, so we know what the problem is...

[jonwil]

But will anyone actually bother to try and implement any solutions?

Answers to childhood obesity:
1.Let the children get more excercise.
Kids dont get excercise because all the things kids used to do (and want to do) that would get them more excercise are no longer options. Parents wont let their kids go down to the park anymore (there might be a pedophile hanging around). Parents wont let their kids play organized sport (parents have no time to take the kids to practice in the modern 2-income household). Schools wont let their kids run around and play during breaks (too much risk of the kids injuring themselves and the parents suing the school for $$$).

Gym/PE classes still exist but there is less time devoted to them (and more time devoted to studying for useless standardized tests) Kids WANT to get more excercise by riding skateboards, scooters and the like but everyone has a negative images of skateboarders as "skate punks" (the popular media doesn't help here BTW) and so kids who want to skateboard and have fun have nowhere they can do it without getting in trouble. Kids used to walk to school (or ride bikes) but these days even when they live close to the school, the parents would rather drive them in their car or have them take the school bus.

Back in my day when I was in Primary School, we had mandatory physical excercise every day before school started (the exact form of the excercise varied from day to day). I also walked/rode my bike to school. Thats part of why my generation didnt get fat as kids.

2.Stop feeding the kids junk. There is no reason healthy food has to be hard to buy/make, expensive or "yucky" (as the kids would put it). There are plenty of ways to make cheap healthy food that kids will eat. And it doesn't have to be things that take forever to prepare either.

Around here you can get McDonalds for a family of 4 (burgers, fries, drinks, nuggets) for around AU$20. I can get pasta, mince and sauce for 4 big servings of Spaghetti Bolognese (easy to make, healthier than the McDonalds and something kids are likely to eat) for around AU$15. And there are other options for healthy food that the kids will eat that are even cheaper than that.

3.Ditch the corn (i.e. HFCS). It seems to be almost impossible to live in the US these days and not eat corn products. Corn is in everything. Its in sodas. Its in bread. Its in breakfast cereals. Its in sauces. Heck, its even in various forms of processed meat (so that Hot Dog would contain corn in the bun, corn in the sauce AND corn in the sausage. Plus corn in the XXL soda that goes with it).

There is a lot of evidence from various studies that the use of HFCS has a bigger impact on obesity than the use of sugar (but like the tobacco lobby and tobacco studies, the corn lobby tries to suppress such studies or counter them with FUD)

They're missing some pretty big ones....

[rdean400]

Here are some other stats they should be tracking

% of schools requiring physical activity (via P.E. or recess) on a daily basis.
Nutritional composition of the average school lunch.
% of kids eating school lunches vs. bringing their own.
% of households where all parents work (either single-parent, or two-parent, two-income)

Speaking of William Shatner...

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're not even afraid of the youth! Will your scheme bring you that much power, so quickly? And what about me? How does Obama girl fit in?"

Playstations, but not Xboxes

[Erikderzweite]

Noticed how they blame Sony's Playstation (Japanese company), but fail to mention Microsoft's Xbox (US' company)? Or even using "game console" as a more general term?

Don't worry be happy!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the side effect of the American Way of Life. It's supposed that all the world must do that! Wheeeeee! XD

You underestimate laziness

[sjbe]

Most people WANT to do something useful and if freed from economic necessity, will do so.

You have clearly never managed employees. What you say is true of some people but it is demonstrably not true of a great multitude.

Re:You underestimate laziness

[sjames]

The employees are not freed of economic necessity. In fact they're there because of it.

Re:You underestimate laziness

[BasilBrush]

There's no contradiction. He said they want to do something useful. That doesn't mean they want to do the same thing that that particular employer wants them to do. It also doesn't mean they want to do the same useful thing every day according to a timetable set by others.

I'd add to the OPs comment that the enthusiasm to go and do something useful for the pleasure of doing it is all too often killed by an educational system that's geared to the industrial revolution's imperative to produce worker bees. See:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

No evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no scientific evidence to suggest video game play causes obesity. In fact there are scientific studies which suggest it does not. But hey, lets not let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.

Re:Wheat and grains and MEAT, too!

[electrosoccertux]

Even fatty proteins are far healthier in moderate quantities than starches. People are getting fat because of the fried fries and the bleached-flour buns, not because of the meat. The meat makes you feel full. The starches do not.

move

[Anonymous Coward]

Study after study has shown that the average person will eat 200 more calories per day than they need, if the food is available and appetizing. That's about 10 pounds a year of weight gain. The solution is simple. Move more, and eat until you are full, not until you feel "satisfied". Satisfied is overeating. I lost 50 pounds by counting calories and running, and have kept it off for 5 years. It wasn't that complicated.

total bullshit

[jsepeta]

a game doesn't make you fat. eating shitty food and then not exercising makes you fat. but not exercising = any activity that keeps you in your seat. for instance, attending my daughter's public school where they banned recess because 1) it's in a shitty neighborhood and 2) overcrowding in the school means not enough teachers in the budget to watch the kids if they go out to play. also only having gym 1 day a week is kind of dumb.

if they're going to go after games, they should also go after confectioners and any company that makes yummy snacks like doritos. i could eat a whole box of little debbies or a whole bag of popcorn in a sitting, neither of which are healthy. and i'd likely do it while watching cable tv waiting for something good to come on - man, they should sue those guys too.

Re:Wheat and grains and MEAT, too!

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Care to back that up with a proper study citation?

I detect a flaw in their reasoning

[pedantic bore]

I've never even touched a playstation.

Sure it's the playstation...

[argStyopa]

...because only KIDS are getting fat, right?

There's no ADULT obesity problem, is there?

Re:Wheat and grains and MEAT, too!

[electrosoccertux]

Sorry, not really. I found them when I was reading about NOT eating them, and found the evidence to be conclusive so I didn't bother bookmarking them. You can read more about the general idea if you google for paleological (I think?) diet. Basically, eating like we would if we were hunting/gathering.

Also look into how we didn't start developing diabetes until we adopted the food pyramid and started eating so many carbohydrates, which put your body on an insulin rollercoaster (carbs convert to glucuse very quickly), which leads to insulin resistance (diabetes). Far healthier is maintaining a low blood glucose level, which you do by avoiding sweets and carbs. If you try this yourself you'll notice once you've gotten used to it (took about 3 days for me) you'll stop craving sweets like crazy when you're hungry-- glucose is your brains fuel, and when the relative fuel level drops your brain thinks it's running on empty. This is why you have a sugar crash after eating lots of sweets, or carbs like potatoes, corn, etc.

Re:Wheat and grains and MEAT, too!

[electrosoccertux]

some of this stuff like carbs converting to glucose quickly you can find just by reading wikipedia. Similarly facts such as fiber passes through your digestive system, so fibrous vegetables are ok to gorge yourself on, but corn/potates are bad, etc. The idea is to avoid "empty" carbs, carbs without protein or fiber. Try it sometime for a week and see how you feel. I found that I could eat less and felt full longer. Didn't have bouts of extreme hunger at about 4pm. They stay with you longer (harder to process), and the resting blood glucose level isn't as far from what it was when you were full, so your body didn't produce tons of insulin (your brain also uses this as an indicator of whether you're full or not), so when you came down off that insulin you don't start feeling hungry.

There's something about fat in your bloodstream that tells your brain you're full-- you'll have to google for it I don't recall the name or what it is, just the fact-- showing us that cutting all the fat from foods is a terrible idea.

I suggest you read these.

[The Creator]

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson
Story: http://www.apinchofhealth.com/resources/lowcarb/stefansson-adventures-in-diet-part-one.html
Study: http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf

Vitamin D deficiency also is a big part...

[Paul Fernhout]

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/researchObesity.shtml
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
Though food plays a big part, too:
http://www.alternativeratreatments.com/eat-to-live.html

Cause/effect mixup

[inventorM]

The problem is not with the Playstations, but with the children who sit in front of those consoles and the parents who allow their children to sit in front of a console for most of the day. Playstations make children obese the same way that snack foods make children obese. If a child is allowed to eat too much snack food without exercising, then that child, unless he has a very fast metabolism, will become obese. The problem is that the parents do not make the children exercise.

predictable...

[Anonymous Coward]

...another week, another shakedown of a successful franchise...

Alas...

[Dominus Suus]

I miss the days when everything wrong with children was Marilyn Manson's fault. Those were simpler times.

Food volume to blame.

[gullevek]

From my personal experience, if I play video games I eat nothing, and smoke nothing.

Watching TV on the other hand is dangerous, idle hands make a good eating tool.

Without having much insight into the american social life, I would just blame the volume of food that is eaten there, sold there and consumed. If I make a strong contrast to Japan, all packages you buy here are way smaller. This might be traced back to the fact, that japanese people go shopping every day. Back in my home country (in Europe) I went shopping once a week, but here in Japan I buy on demand. I buy what I cook on that day.

But back to the volume of food. The biggest cup at McDonalds here is probably the smallest cup you could get in America. There is not so much soda consumed here anyway. Most people drink tea or water at home.

If you go out eating, food is shared between all people and you end up eating less.