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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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?

[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.

Huh

[Cwix]

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

nonsense

[Bobtree]

Does reading books also cause obesity?

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

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: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:Huge Idiot

[DarkKnightRadick]

Corporatism.

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!

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.