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."

29 of 477 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmph. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hmmph. by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Hmmph. by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    3. Re:Hmmph. by TheLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > 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 ;) ).

      --
    4. Re:Hmmph. by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Hmmph. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Hmmph. by WrongMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:Hmmph. by sjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Hmmph. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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......

    9. Re:Hmmph. by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Hmmph. by dcavanaugh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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."

    11. Re:Hmmph. by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  2. wheres the story? by metalmaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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

    1. Re:wheres the story? by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:wheres the story? by Richy_T · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  3. Huh by Cwix · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    --
    You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  4. What about the cutting of recess at schools by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  5. nonsense by Bobtree · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does reading books also cause obesity?

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

    1. Re:nonsense by tyroney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.)

  6. And she left out one thing: by DurendalMac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Wheat and grains by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Wheat and grains by ndlxs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Andy Alexis Buy my CD: http://www.pineycreekweasels.net/cds.html Sacramento, CA. "The Pearl of the Central Valley"
  9. Re:Huge Idiot by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Corporatism.

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  10. Re:Wheat and grains and MEAT, too! by Niophant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  11. It's fairly simple people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Cliffs: We Are Fucked. by Spazntwich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Oh look more hypocrisy by Cwix · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  14. Nonsense by LingNoi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  15. I think parents are to blame... by incognito84 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.