Hacker News Reader

Comment by gozur88 | Hacker News Reader

People talk about obesity all the time. The problem is nobody knows what to do about it.

It's VERY clear what to do about. Change our diets and change our lifestyle. The problem is, "America you're fat" is as politically toxic as "Let's raise taxes." Add in Big Food and Big Pharma profits and we have most people believing we don't know what to do about.

We have the knowledge. What we lack is the will (and the leadership).

None of that is true except the fat part. Do you really think people don't know when they're fat. Do you think they don't realize other people are fat? And leadership to do what?

Eat less and be more active.

Spectacularly unhelpful as a policy prescription. People know what they need to do to lose weight. They just don't do it.

Yes and no.

I think what's missing is the general awareness about the connection between excess weight and other ills: diabetes, cancer, etc., etc.

Most people believe extra weight is natural, (socially) acceptable, and just a basic modern inconvenience. It's just not wise for established leaders to say "stop drinking soda or die young."

Not to get off topic but look at Obama and healthcare. He could have tied personal health to civic duty. Instead he let the healthcare system take the blame. "You're unhealthy and you're hurting all of us" just isn't a great campaign slogan.

>I think what's missing is the general awareness about the connection between excess weight and other ills: diabetes, cancer, etc., etc.

Really? I don't know anybody who doesn't realize that connection. It's hard to imagine you wouldn't if you had a television or an internet connection.

You need to get out more ;)

I was just at the local supermarket last night and nearly every cart seemed to have soda in it. And I'm not talking about fit ppl the cart.

Maybe they know? And they're just in denial? Perhaps. The ends is the same...given the choice ppl will blame anything but themselves.

Of course they know. It's not a question of knowledge.

The problem is evolution designed us to eat more than we need so we don't starve in lean times - for all of human history up to, what, 150 year ago or so the biggest threat to your life was starvation. Of course if you have the willpower you can avoid eating too much. But most people don't.

And I guess "Don't Do Drugs" will fix the opioid problem flat out?

I suspect the answer will turn out to be the same for food and alcohol: have periodic breaks from both to allow the body to recover. In the case of food this is now called intermittent fasting but it applies to both. In particular to allow the immune system, which captures many incipient cancer growths, to reset. One of the reasons that smoking is so harmful I think is that people do it continuously whereas most drinkers don't drink every day.

Gut bacteria is a big unknown at this point. That's likely the hope to save us from ourselves.

I think we know what to do but nobody has the courage to do something.

Oh? What should we do?

Stop subsidizing junk food. Stop advertising junk food to children (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food). Subsidize healthy foods. Tax sugary drinks. Do you want more?

Also stop normalising excessive portion sizes.

> (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food).

Those two things are pretty much completely unrelated. It is certainly bad for children to be exposed to deliberate behavior-mabipulation efforts pushing unhealthy food choices, but that's not in any way related to whether or not it's bad for them to hear words currently viewed as naughty.

I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads. Same thing. Nobody can talk about first amendment or other concerns.

> I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads.

That's even more wrong than the more literal version: restricting unpopular words takes zero political courage and has very little difficulty (and, in fact, provides political cover for advertiser-friendly actions commercial outlets would be inclined to take on their own.)

Banning advertisement that established moneyed interests engage in, OTOH, faces actual political difficulty.

Legally it's possible. The only thing that's missing is courage.

There's no evidence any of this actually works, and most people aren't interested in a government that tries to dictate what they should eat.

Corn is being subsidized right now. This means that the government is dictating already what to eat. At a minimum get rid of subsidies.

> There's no evidence any of this actually works,

There's plenty of evidence that taxing a product reduces demand for that product

> and most people aren't interested in a government that tries to dictate what they should eat.

That's true, but it just underscores the ancestor comment: Social acceptance can make most any evil the norm. People accept that the government should regulate what we drink and smoke, but not what we eat - this is partly due to cultural acceptance of obesity

People accept that the government should regulate what other people drink and smoke. The smoking prohibitions didn't come into effect until the number of smokers was small enough they couldn't stop them, and alcohol prohibition was always the cause of teetotalers and ex-alcoholics.

Yes. But as things are going it's going to be a long time before over weight ppl are the minority. It's also not politically correct to talk about such things.

Thanks Oprah.

Agreed. We've normalized the abnormal. Furthermore, it's not PC to mention, even in passing, that someone is hurting themselves, and in a social sense others as well.

Long to short...we want healthcare as a right, but zero responsibility related to that right (i.e., personal health). This isn't working out well.

Perhaps. But the irony of this statement is the gov's food pyramid is a direct contributor to the current obesity epidemic. It's too heavy on carbs, and too light on fats.

That's true.

calories in vs. calories out in around 99% of cases.

Eat less.

So much of it relates to consumption, and no one makes money from people eating less. People however make money from pushing gym memberships or active wear or supplements.

Everywhere from restaurants to supermarkets to chocolate bar companies to fast food all make more money if you eat more. There's no incentive to advertise eating less.

You don't see restaurants advertising smaller or even reasonable portions - it's always giant burgers or steaks or monstrous pizzas. In fact, it's a regular critique of fancy restaurants that they have tiny, considered portions. So, people instead eat until they're well-beyond sated. Day after day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com