Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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
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.
Does reading books also cause obesity?
America is sugar addicted and everything we eat has corn syrup and corn starch.
> 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
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.
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......
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.
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."