Why do evangelicals like obesity?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Evangelicals tend to be conservatives. Conservatives generally do not think government should be micro-managing people's lives. That includes the issue of childhood obesity.
I can guarantee they didn't classify "libertarians" as a group in their survey, but if they had, you could guess what the outcome would have been.
Just another way to take something and make it political.
The government isn't making eating the wrong foods illegal. It's only advising people to fight childhood obesity, as even the military sees this as a future problem in recruiting fit soldiers.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
He was athletic and a jogger in great form ( he won foot races) , but was a bit rotund and had a wieght that was (according to those wieght-height charts) too heavy. But it worked for him. It probably wouldve hurt his health to be thinner. He was a bit round but also had muscle tone.
He was an obese athlete.
The point being made was that with fat there is no one size fits all correct wieght.
He is probably an extreme case who isnt really a good role model for most people. But on the other hand anorexia is a common health threat. So saying "obesity is sometimes good" was porbably a bit of an overstatement. But one can go overboard with thiness.
The "fat and healthy" people are a very small portion of the population, and I would bet that that jogger would not have actually been classified as "obese" (BMI>30) but rather just overweight. Plenty of athletes (especially taller male athletes) will be labeled as overweight because of their greater muscle mass, and because the formula for BMI tends to overestimate the value for taller people.
It's pretty clear that America has a significant weight problem. According to Wolfram Alpha, my mid-range healthy BMI of 21 is among the 5.6% lowest BMI values among American men. Now, that seems pretty ridiculous if only 5.6% of American men are skinnier than me. I'm a pretty average build, and 21 is only slightly below the very middle of the healthy range (21.75). I certainly could lose a couple pounds and still be completely healthy. The great majority of Americans are heavier than they need to be.
As far as going overboard with thinness- with the exception of people struggling with anorexia, that simply is not an issue. I've seen multiple media reports talking about how some overweight people are still healthy, and some skinny people are unhealthy. This seems to me like they just want to stir up views with some counter-consensus piece, especially since fat readers don't like a moralistic lecture on how they need to lose weight.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Evangelicals tend to be conservatives. Conservatives generally do not think government should be micro-managing people's lives. That includes the issue of childhood obesity.
I can guarantee they didn't classify "libertarians" as a group in their survey, but if they had, you could guess what the outcome would have been.
Just another way to take something and make it political.
The government isn't making eating the wrong foods illegal. It's only advising people to fight childhood obesity, as even the military sees this as a future problem in recruiting fit soldiers.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Last edited by AceOfSpades on 25 Mar 2011, 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As Kraichgauer said, this isn't about making some foods illegal, but it is a prominent public figure advocating for positive changes in society. There are important social and economic costs to obesity, and as long as it stops well short of government-mandated diet and exercise programs, I do not object to efforts to solve these problems.
For the record, conservatives have often been in favor of censorship, and I have seen conservatives arguing that American parents and families have a right to call on the aid of their government in protecting their children from dirty song lyrics. Nothing that has been proposed to combat obesity rises to nearly that level of government interference. If you're going to complain about government doing the parenting, it is necessary to look at the right wing just as closely. (And yes, Ace, I know you are not one of those pro-censorship right-wingers, that wasn't directed at you personally)
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Obesity is an economic issue for a country. This is not different to governments sponsoring sex education or telling people why they should not get more credit than they can pay. All very obvious things that for some reason most people don't get.
EDIT: Wonderful, you deleted your post. Do you always bail out like this?
As Kraichgauer said, this isn't about making some foods illegal, but it is a prominent public figure advocating for positive changes in society. There are important social and economic costs to obesity, and as long as it stops well short of government-mandated diet and exercise programs, I do not object to efforts to solve these problems.
For the record, conservatives have often been in favor of censorship, and I have seen conservatives arguing that American parents and families have a right to call on the aid of their government in protecting their children from dirty song lyrics. Nothing that has been proposed to combat obesity rises to nearly that level of government interference. If you're going to complain about government doing the parenting, it is necessary to look at the right wing just as closely. (And yes, Ace, I know you are not one of those pro-censorship right-wingers, that wasn't directed at you personally)
I still object to this. There's enough info out there to know that obesity is bad, and plus all our foods are labeled these days so nothing is stopping you from making an informed decision about what you and your kids eat. Yes it is the Government that labels my food with the ingredients and such, and I have nothing against the FDA labeling food.
Last edited by AceOfSpades on 25 Mar 2011, 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Once again... this is not about government mandating what you can and can't eat. There is not going to be a law banning donuts and twinkies. Anyone who wants to be a fat lazy slob is still entirely free to do so. As part of their public health efforts, the government can promote healthy lifestyles and provide information to citizens. I really don't see the objection to that.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Right. At 18 I was 180 lbs and 6 feet. I was bony and thin, and yet according to BMI, I was borderline overweight. I wasnt even muscular. My sister is searching for a picture. Its pretty clear that I was skinny as a rake.
_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.
Once again... this is not about government mandating what you can and can't eat. There is not going to be a law banning donuts and twinkies. Anyone who wants to be a fat lazy slob is still entirely free to do so. As part of their public health efforts, the government can promote healthy lifestyles and provide information to citizens. I really don't see the objection to that.
Here are some simple rules to not being fat.
1) Eat 6 small meals instead of 3 big ones (Back then eating wasn't as convenient as going down to the grocery store so your body is designed to hoard fat if you eat a lot at once)
2) Exercise up to 45 mins since catabolic hormones are released after that
3) Have a lot of protein in your diet since it boosts metabolism
4) Exercise Mon-Wed-Fri
5) Drink cold water since maintaining homeostasis takes energy which requires burning calories
Easier said than done right? Well that's the point, what the Government says isn't gonna motivate you any more than what I'm saying, hence its futility.
Right. At 18 I was 180 lbs and 6 feet. I was bony and thin, and yet according to BMI, I was borderline overweight. I wasnt even muscular. My sister is searching for a picture. Its pretty clear that I was skinny as a rake.
That's out of the ordinary, but there's obviously always a range. Depending on build (and ethnic background, to some extent) 180lbs isn't really that high for someone 6' tall. On the other hand, roommate is 6'1" and just over 120lbs- now that is skinny.
One thing to consider is that BMI loses accuracy as you move away from median heights. The formula is mass/height^2 (in kg and m), but mass in humans doesn't actually scale by the square of the height, unless you imagine that tall people are just stretched-up versions of short people, which would look very bizarre (the typical 6'2" person is almost certainly broader-shouldered than someone at 5'3"). If tall people were just scaled-up versions of short people in all dimensions, the correct formula would be mass/height^3, but that's not right either- taller people on average have a slightly slimmer build (relatively speaking) than short people. Look at a typical basketball player to see what I mean- they look somewhat lanky and thin relative to their height. The "real" formula should have an exponent somewhere between 2 and 3. I think one study estimated 2.6 as being most accurate for America, and Canada would likely be similar. You might have a build that is closer to just looking like a scaled-up short person, rather than a vertically-stretched short person, which would throw off the BMI calculation.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
The government can do a lot to help, though, and it really isn't that expensive. Seriously, there is a lot of wasteful spending to look at before anti-obesity programs even register on the scale at all.
1) Eat 6 small meals instead of 3 big ones (Back then eating wasn't as convenient as going down to the grocery store so your body is designed to hoard fat if you eat a lot at once)
That's not such great advice unless coupled with more specific recommendations on portion control. I probably eat 2 meals a day on average, and when I eat it's usually fairly large amounts.
Daunting for most sedentary people. Small amounts of exercise here and there are easier to manage and not as strenuous, and make a good first step towards getting in shape.
High-protein foods are often high-fat, high-calorie, and high-cholesterol as well.
The government has much more of a bully pulpit than you do. And things such as what public schools feed their students at lunch time are legitimate policy questions. Cut out the fries and tater tots and give them fruits and veggies. Phys Ed classes could be expanded in some cases. Health classes that are already mandatory could spend a little more class time talking about healthy diet and exercise choices.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Schools could go a long way by emphasizing calisthenics, weight training, and running/jogging in gym class, rather than team sports in which only a few of the students (jocks) excel in. I can speak from personal experience - back in school, when we were told to play football, basketball, baseball, etc., most of us didn't have the skill or inclination to participate to the extent in which we would have gained any significant exercise from.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
The government can do a lot to help, though, and it really isn't that expensive. Seriously, there is a lot of wasteful spending to look at before anti-obesity programs even register on the scale at all.
That's not such great advice unless coupled with more specific recommendations on portion control. I probably eat 2 meals a day on average, and when I eat it's usually fairly large amounts.
Daunting for most sedentary people. Small amounts of exercise here and there are easier to manage and not as strenuous, and make a good first step towards getting in shape.
High-protein foods are often high-fat, high-calorie, and high-cholesterol as well.
The government has much more of a bully pulpit than you do. And things such as what public schools feed their students at lunch time are legitimate policy questions. Cut out the fries and tater tots and give them fruits and veggies. Phys Ed classes could be expanded in some cases. Health classes that are already mandatory could spend a little more class time talking about healthy diet and exercise choices.
_________________
.
Look, these programs would not even be a drop in the bucket. They're perhaps one water molecule in the dolphin tank at Sea World. And they have significant benefits. If you're worrying about the costs from the government promoting healthy lifestyles, you have been misdirected away from the real sources of government waste.
I'm not disputing that it is true, but it has to be accompanied by much more specific information on what is a "small" meal, or it will be too easy to overeat.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Bethie
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster
I stop menstruating south of 160 or so. I'm 5'.
I have to starve myself to get down to that weight, even.
It occurs to me that if the government was that concerned about obesity and overweight,
they would subsidize produce as opposed to meat and dairy,
and enact policies whereby everyone could afford to eat healthfully-
this is a major socio-economic class issue (and, accordingly, also a race issue).
At my grocery, a huge bag of Cheetos costs less than a single bell pepper,
and if I wanted to get all the ingredients to make a salad,
I'd spend an amount that could buy a week's worth of fast food-
that's in addition to the fact that many parts of the country don't HAVE produce at all,
merely fast food and convenience store/gas station type foods- "Food Deserts".
_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.