What do you think needs to be done to combat the obesity epidemic?

[lokisnow]

32 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And then, when they inevitably fail (which they almost all do) uses that as a moral salve to ourselves to say 'see? Told ya they were dumb and lazy and greedy'. 

Not only is the moral salve used as a hammer on the victims, the moral salve is also used as a virtue signal of the inherent superiority of those employing it, like Tywin, and becomes a core part of ones rationalization as to why one is not also a victim of the epidemic (I did it with all my dedicated immense effort of good behaviors).

 

[Conflicting Thought]

https://www.sciencealert.com/sugar-is-controlling-our-brains-more-than-we-even-realised-study-finds?utm_content=buffer410c5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[drawkcabi]

@Kalbear

I wholeheartedly agree with and applaud many of the things you've said in this thread. However, the most dangerous thing we can do with the obesity epidemic is let people think they are not responsible for their weight. That takes away the biggest weapon we have right now. The food companies are manipulating us and making us into addicts for their products, the government has not devoted much to making obesity rehab a thing like it has with other addicts, and many doctors are still taught to shame us.

Yes, we need to make noise. Make it understood that food companies need to be regulated better and there needs to be better products at reasonable prices, government needs to be more active in regulation and along with private institutions better sponsoring of rehab programs and medical research, there needs to be more effort to combat fat shaming. Yes to all of that.

But the thing is, we don't have any of that yet. The only thing we really have is our own personal willpower. No, it's really not enough, and no, most of us really are not at fault for how we are, but taking responsibility for ourselves is all we've got. We need to understand that it's perfectly fine and even necessary for us to demand changes, but at the end of the day obese adults are the ones responsible if they want to change their lifestyle. Asking for help and for things to change is good, we just can't feel entitled to it though. We can not take away the idea that we are unhealthy and that it is unacceptable to be that way. Fat shaming - No! But also fat acceptance - No! We are in a predicament, and however unfair the cards dealt to us were, and no matter how very, very, very, difficult it is, at the end of the day we are the ones responsible for our own bodies.

[Kalbear]

That's all good points. Thanks.

I think the important part is this:

Quote

Fat shaming - No! But also fat acceptance - No!

We need to make it clear that being obese is largely not about personal failures, choices, or decisions on their part. But losing that weight IS something that you can potentially achieve. It's not going to be easy, and if you do it - and keep it off - that's amazing. We don't need to be cool with people overweight (though honestly, one can be overweight and really, really healthy in all the ways that actually matter), but we need to understand that it isn't weakness on their part. 

I think that's another thing that needs to be lauded more - and it's something that my dietician said to me. Anyone can make changes for a week, or a month, or even a few months. But that's not what long-term weight loss looks like. Long term loss looks like keeping up those changes for years, and long term changes are very, very difficult, with lapses and relapses and failures, and this is part of the process too. 

And I think promoting political and social changes is the best thing you can do right now, but if you're advocating individual changes the best thing you can do is keep telling people the following:

• Exercise sucks for weight loss. It's awesome for a whole lot of things, but not weight loss. And it'll especially suck if you think of exercise as punishment for eating too much. 
• CICO matters, but some things are better for reducing satiety - veggies, fruit, fiber, protein, and some fat. 
• The single best tool for losing weight is keeping track of what you eat. Even without focusing on a specific calorie goal. 
• The next best thing is to ensure you're doing it with other people. People who help, who are supportive, who are either on board with you improving or are on the same path. 

These are all things that are scientifically backed, are not fad based, and have been proven to work and keep working. 

[.H.]

12 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, let's say that's all true. Let's say that adults can in theory do this (despite this being increasingly obvious that they can't), and they can make the choices. And let's say that they have all the education and information about what food is and isn't good (despite, again, all the evidence that most of the information available is also misleading, full of fad diets and bad science and backed by the government, which itself was largely lobbied into pushing bad food ideas and systems). Let's say ALL of those things are somehow able to be beaten by taking responsibility for their 'situation'.

I'm pretty sure you both are just arguing about Locus of Control.  If you are certain that external factors are what determines behavior, of course that will become a fact, generally.  If you imagine that you can control yourself, even in the face of external influences, so then that will be a fact, generally.

Unless we imagine we are in a wholly determinate world, where we never make any choices ever in reality.

[Fragile Bird]

I don’t think any of the suggestions will work to create widespread change. Motivated people will try to lose weight, some will succeed, many will fail. Citizens of every country in the world, almost, are getting fatter.

What I suspect will finally bring lifestyle modification powerful enough to cause overall change will be Climate Change. When not just shipping food gets expensive, when growing foods gets expensive, when public opinion shuts down fast food outlets, when there are fewer cars and people have to walk more. When we go back to the conditions of the 50s, before people started putting on 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I don’t think any of the suggestions will work to create widespread change. Motivated people will try to lose weight, some will succeed, many will fail. Citizens of every country in the world, almost, are getting fatter.

What I suspect will finally bring lifestyle modification powerful enough to cause overall change will be Climate Change. When not just shipping food gets expensive, when growing foods gets expensive, when public opinion shuts down fast food outlets, when there are fewer cars and people have to walk more. When we go back to the conditions of the 50s, before people started putting on 

Then we're hosed.

Because climate change will, if anything, promote more processed foods which come from further away, with fewer fresh foods, fewer lean proteins, and more things that keep well (such as sugar and fat). They'll have more preservatives and more additives that can be manufactured, not grown. 

There's a reason supermarkets have largely processed foods - because they can survive for months at a time, are cheap, and have good margins. 

Shipping is also pretty cheap compared to the cost of transporting fresh foods. And it'll likely stay cheap, as things like trains and boats will still be very cheap to do. What gets bit in the butt are things like local farms, interstate fresh shipping and the like. 

I guess the silver lining is that beef production will likely be difficult and expensive, so that'll help some - but beef isn't the problem.

[lokisnow]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Then we're hosed.

Because climate change will, if anything, promote more processed foods which come from further away, with fewer fresh foods, fewer lean proteins, and more things that keep well (such as sugar and fat). They'll have more preservatives and more additives that can be manufactured, not grown. 

There's a reason supermarkets have largely processed foods - because they can survive for months at a time, are cheap, and have good margins. 

Shipping is also pretty cheap compared to the cost of transporting fresh foods. And it'll likely stay cheap, as things like trains and boats will still be very cheap to do. What gets bit in the butt are things like local farms, interstate fresh shipping and the like. 

I guess the silver lining is that beef production will likely be difficult and expensive, so that'll help some - but beef isn't the problem.

Climate change may very well lead to food rationing which in WWII led to the creation of victory gardens, we saw the Great Recession caused a revival in Great Depression canning practices, I think climate change induced rationing May well cause a similar effect (victory gardens for example) 

and what is rationed will be largely dependent on region and the cost of carbon. If we’re in a rationing environment because of global famine events, that’s one thing, but if we’re in a rationing environment because we declared war on climate change and are in the middle of a ten year carbon crash out to try to go carbon negative as fast as possible (including transforming agricultural land to extremely high paying carbon sink forests) that’s another thing. Both would result in different rationing  Environments where the carbon negative scenario would reduce refrigeration and shipping, while the famine scenario would ration shelf stable products.

[lokisnow]

Anecdotal comment on satiety, homemade smoked salmon onigiri is the thing that keeps me sated  more than any other foodstuff. I think it has to be something in the nori (seaweed), because god knows I can eat enormously larger quantities of plain rice, and the 1 ounce of salmon inside is a joke on its own, but make a rice ball out of three ingredients? I can eat two and skip dinner, eat one and never have a single food thought the rest of the workday. Completely bonkers indivual satiety result I just stumbled on out of nowhere.

[baxus]

On 3/7/2019 at 10:17 PM, Kalbear said:

It totally sounds like you're trying to deny it, speaking of individual effort.

It seems to me that you are trying to shift 100% of the responsibility to food industry and completely remove it from an individual. You can do that, but that's not going to work.

Individual effort is a REQUIREMENT when combating obesity. We can regulate the shit out of the food industry and you know what's going to happen? A junk food black market. The same happened with prohibition, the same is happening with drugs, you can't ignore a pattern when you try to stop people from consuming what they love.

On 3/7/2019 at 10:17 PM, Kalbear said:

I also mentioned the cultural and social aspects of addiction and behaviors in patterns, and how hard it is to go it alone and solve things based on personal free will. At the same  time, you can't simply ignore the pleasure receptors in the brain and how they interact with sugar and fat, or the way that eating sugar causes you to get tired after a reasonably short time and causes people to actually want to consume more food. You can't ignore how food scientists have designed food to make you want to eat more of it based on its texture and flavor. These things aren't an environmental factor.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just not as ready to count people as helpless entities at food industry's mercy. If someone choses to wait for the whole world to change to help solve their problems then they're welcome to do it. 

On 3/7/2019 at 10:17 PM, Kalbear said:

It's going to be exceptionally difficult though, and ignoring that and telling people to just deal instead of telling them that yes, it is very hard, and yes, it sucks, and understanding that it sucks and supporting said suckage is important. 

Because the alternative is to tell them that they're weak for giving in, that it's entirely on them and nothing else will matter, and if they can't do it they are lazy, greedy and dumb, as @Tywin et al. implied. Which of those methods do you think is going to work? Hint: the latter has already been shown not to work.

Where have I said that it wasn't hard? It is hard. It's hard for me too, and I do fail to stick with healthy food every so often. Still, I'm not blaming food industry and rather chose to accept my responsibility in the matter.

On 3/7/2019 at 10:17 PM, Kalbear said:

It can, however, be encouraged.

I don't think it can be encouraged any more than it already is. It definitely can't be encouraged by the government. As I said, it comes down to a personal choice.

Also, packed lunches aren't the only way to eat a (reasonably) healthy meal at work. You can always find a place with healthier meal options than burgers or pizza.

On 3/7/2019 at 10:17 PM, Kalbear said:

Honestly, for most obese people it is already too late. That sucks to say, but obesity is not something that is easily or quickly reversible.

Well, I don't buy that. I'm not cool with just writing off a whole generation of people with a serious health problem. If some of them choose to write themselves off, that's their choice but it needs to be said that there is a way out. It's a long and difficult journey and it will take massive effort and willpower but it is there.

On 3/7/2019 at 10:19 PM, Kalbear said:

Dude, codeine is an opiate. It's sold over the counter in most European countries as well as Canada and Japan. 

I'm not well versed in pharmacy (don't know what codeine even is) but I'm pretty sure you need a doctor's prescription for that, at the very least.

Either way, pharma companies are a whole other can of worms that we probably should avoid opening.

[baxus]

On 3/8/2019 at 12:24 AM, Tywin et al. said:

It's not to tell them they're weak and that it's entirely on them. There are obviously other factors which I laid out. But I don't know how anyone can deny that personal responsibility is the biggest factor at play.

I'm not sure if personal responsibility is the biggest factor at play or not but it definitely is one of the factors and it shouldn't just be dismissed.

[Jo498]

As often, one should distinguish between what the biggest factors are and which ones can be changed comparably easily and "locally". Certainly the alienation of late capitalism is a factor. But we cannot easily change the whole economical and societal system. Similarly with the food industry. But one can work at changing personal habits. They obviously are important otherwise almost all of us would be obese.

There might also be things that are overlooked easily. The whole field and its history of the last ca. 60 years abound with paradoxes. Some have been resolved to some extent (insulin response etc. not making all calories equal, corn syrup worse than sugar etc.) but I suspect that there are more subtle things we hardly know about. Not only concerning nutrition in the narrowest sense but also exercise or more general moving our body. E.g. if one counts the calories needed for short everyday walks and two flights of stairs, this is not much. But it does seem to matter insofar that regions where people walk that little bit have considerably lower obesity rates etc. Another important point is how children grow up and which habits develop. When I grew up in the late 70s and 80s fizzy sweet soda was usually restricted for special occasions, but we drank lots of fruit juice (basically as much sugar as soda) and chocolate milk. Sweets and snacks were restricted most of the time but we gorged ourselves on Xmas and Easter sweets because during those holidays the normal rules did not apply. If a kid had a birthday in primary school it was customary to bring sweets for everyone. Special desserts or ice cream were also often prizes or rewards (I think the latter is something frowned upon by today's educators). So "in theory" this was not all that great as far as nutritional habits go.

One very probable difference is that we were far more physically active. My primary school was almost 1 km away and I usally ran most of the way (not the way back, though because this was uphill). At least in summer almost al leisure activities were physical, even before or besides sports: cycling, playing outside, walking dogs, climbing trees. Later the way to the bus stop was shorter but I still walked quite a bit, later as a teenager cycled ca. 6-7 km to school everyday except in winter. Schoolbooks warned of overweight children even then but apparently it was paradise compared to 30-40 years later.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 3/11/2019 at 6:34 AM, baxus said:

I'm not sure if personal responsibility is the biggest factor at play or not but it definitely is one of the factors and it shouldn't just be dismissed.

From my perspective it's what's required most to solve the problem. We could end food deserts and provide healthier food for cheaper prices, but it doesn't matter if people won't eat it. We could put a gym on every corner, but it doesn't matter if people don't go. Etc. There are a lot of things we can do, but it won't matter if people won't be accountable and change. 

[Week]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

From my perspective it's what's required most to solve the problem. We could end food deserts and provide healthier food for cheaper prices, but it doesn't matter if people won't eat it. We could put a gym on every corner, but it doesn't matter if people don't go. Etc. There are a lot of things we can do, but it won't matter if people won't be accountable and change. 

$$$$ and access too.

[Heartofice]

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

From my perspective it's what's required most to solve the problem. We could end food deserts and provide healthier food for cheaper prices, but it doesn't matter if people won't eat it. We could put a gym on every corner, but it doesn't matter if people don't go. Etc. There are a lot of things we can do, but it won't matter if people won't be accountable and change. 

Totally, there are already plenty of healthy eating options, plus you can stay thin by simply eating less, even if it’s just junk food. Just eat less food and you lose weight. Choose diet drinks.. it all might be unhealthy but you’ll be thin.

Losing weight and staying in shape takes effort and constant control, and that is what most people do not have. 

This isn’t about money.

[Kalbear]

On 3/11/2019 at 4:30 AM, baxus said:

It seems to me that you are trying to shift 100% of the responsibility to food industry and completely remove it from an individual. You can do that, but that's not going to work. 

Okay, I'm not. I'm trying to shift most of the responsibility. Smoking in the US didn't seriously reduce until the industry started getting called to task. Until that happens, we will not see particularly large improvements. 

On 3/11/2019 at 4:30 AM, baxus said:

Individual effort is a REQUIREMENT when combating obesity. We can regulate the shit out of the food industry and you know what's going to happen? A junk food black market. The same happened with prohibition, the same is happening with drugs, you can't ignore a pattern when you try to stop people from consuming what they love. 

Sorry, this is bullshit of the highest order. We don't just regulate drugs - we regulate and prohibit them, and prosecute them. We regulate tobacco, and there is not some bizarre black market of cigarettes with extra nicotine and sulfur in them. We tax the shit out of them, and while there are some criminals who get around the taxing, for the most part people buy them from stores with the tax - or they don't. 

I am not calling for a prohibition of anything. I am calling for regulation of an industry that in your own words will not remotely regulate itself. 

Finally, individual effort is a requirement, but there's a difference between having an individual effort where the entire rest of society is basically against what you're doing and regularly tells you the wrong things, and when you're doing something that is typical or normal and people understand what you're up against. 

On 3/11/2019 at 4:30 AM, baxus said:

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just not as ready to count people as helpless entities at food industry's mercy. If someone choses to wait for the whole world to change to help solve their problems then they're welcome to do it. 

Again, we've tried your way for 50 years, and it hasn't worked.

On 3/11/2019 at 4:30 AM, baxus said:

Where have I said that it wasn't hard? It is hard. It's hard for me too, and I do fail to stick with healthy food every so often. Still, I'm not blaming food industry and rather chose to accept my responsibility in the matter. 

Why aren't you blaming the food industry? Why is it hard? Why are you accepting that it SHOULD be hard to eat healthily and keep weight off? Why is this something that should be any difficulty? 

On 3/11/2019 at 4:30 AM, baxus said:

I don't think it can be encouraged any more than it already is. It definitely can't be encouraged by the government. As I said, it comes down to a personal choice. 

Why can't it be encouraged by the government?

On 3/11/2019 at 4:30 AM, baxus said:

Also, packed lunches aren't the only way to eat a (reasonably) healthy meal at work. You can always find a place with healthier meal options than burgers or pizza. 

Depends a lot on where you are, but it's certainly not the case for a lot of people, and it's also not the case when you're one person who is going out with a group. 

On 3/11/2019 at 4:30 AM, baxus said:

Well, I don't buy that. I'm not cool with just writing off a whole generation of people with a serious health problem. If some of them choose to write themselves off, that's their choice but it needs to be said that there is a way out. It's a long and difficult journey and it will take massive effort and willpower but it is there. 

Then you're writing them off. As soon as it becomes long and difficult and you're not willing to make it easier for them, you might as well have condemned them yourself. And if you're solely focused on them making a herculean effort to change without giving them any of the structural support, you're going to fail. Which we've done, over and over and over again. 

On 3/11/2019 at 4:30 AM, baxus said:

I'm not well versed in pharmacy (don't know what codeine even is) but I'm pretty sure you need a doctor's prescription for that, at the very least. 

You do not. 

On 3/11/2019 at 4:30 AM, baxus said:

Either way, pharma companies are a whole other can of worms that we probably should avoid opening.

I don't see why. Pharma and food industries are pretty similar in their goals, and similar in their hiding of dangerous things that hurt their bottom line. The big difference, amusingly, is that the food industry is well-regulated for food safety, but incredibly poorly regulated for actual food consumption guidelines and risks. Pharma is regulated heavily for both. Pharma still is fucked up in the US, but the idea that you are willing to blame Pharma for pushing known addictive things but not doing the same for the food industry is insane to me. 

 

On 3/11/2019 at 6:51 AM, Jo498 said:

One very probable difference is that we were far more physically active. My primary school was almost 1 km away and I usally ran most of the way (not the way back, though because this was uphill). At least in summer almost al leisure activities were physical, even before or besides sports: cycling, playing outside, walking dogs, climbing trees. Later the way to the bus stop was shorter but I still walked quite a bit, later as a teenager cycled ca. 6-7 km to school everyday except in winter. Schoolbooks warned of overweight children even then but apparently it was paradise compared to 30-40 years later.

From what I've read this doesn't appear to be the main explanation. It helps some, but it's only a little bit. 

The best correlation, by far, is processed food and obesity. Nothing else tracks as well. Not TV, not videogames, not the internet. The more processed food in our diet, the more sales from processed food, the higher the obesity rate goes. Currently the standard American diet is about 2/3rds processed food. Ignoring that as an issue is silly. And thinking that the way that people can just be fine - by cutting out 2/3rds of what they eat and replace it - is also silly. It's equivalent to promoting abstinence-only sex ed as the solution to sexual issues.

[Jo498]

You may be right because apart from some sweets the only processed food I regularly ate as a kid were certain sausages (I guess), condiments like ketchup (not much and not frequently), readymade yoghurt with fruit and plain cornflakes. Almost everything else was home-cooked almost from scratch (some canned and frozen food, sure, but no ready-made meals, they were not really common then and my mom would have been ashamed or would actually be shamed by grandma if she had used such stuff regularly).

But there seem to be two different meanings of "working" here. As both abstinence and eating almost no processed foods (say keeping to Pollan's rule of not more than about 5 ingredients on the package) are possible (because one can still buy basic, (almost) unprocessed food like rice, potatoes, vegetables, eggs etc) and both do work in avoiding STD and obesity, this is a perfectly understandable and correct sense of "work".

But they also "don't work" because the environment makes it hard for people, i.e. culture is oversexed and full of processed food and people are horny and lazy.

[baxus]

38 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why aren't you blaming the food industry? Why is it hard? Why are you accepting that it SHOULD be hard to eat healthily and keep weight off? Why is this something that should be any difficulty?

I'm not blaming the food industry because the food industry is doing it's job there - it's trying to make money. It's what industry does - creates a product and sells it. It will not make sure their product is healthy and good for you unless forced to do so by government or something.y

EDIT:

It's not a matter of how things SHOULD BE, but how things ARE. There's not a single person in the world who wouldn't want eating healthy and keeping weight off to be easier, myself included, but if you expect it to be easy you're just going to get your bubble burst.

38 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why can't it be encouraged by the government?

Because it doesn't work and it will not work until we turn our society into some 1984 rip-off.

38 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Depends a lot on where you are, but it's certainly not the case for a lot of people, and it's also not the case when you're one person who is going out with a group.

Here's the thing - if you want to eat healthy and the rest of the group doesn't you don't have to go out with the group. If you can't trust yourself to eat healthy when going out with a group you need to make a choice - do the healthy thing or go out with the group that's not going to eat healthy. It's YOUR choice, it's YOUR responsibility. Other members of the group are under no obligation to make it easier for you and there's zero need for government to get involved.

38 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Finally, individual effort is a requirement, but there's a difference between having an individual effort where the entire rest of society is basically against what you're doing and regularly tells you the wrong things, and when you're doing something that is typical or normal and people understand what you're up against.

First of all, where do you come up with the whole "entire rest of society is against what you're doing"? There has been no time in human history up until now when it was easier to get support for trying to lose weight and eat healthier and there are many ways to get support on your way to healthier self. Not everyone is going to be supportive but guess what? That will be the case no matter what you are trying to do. Don't hold your breath until EVERYONE applauds you and change their lives to suit your weight loss.

38 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Then you're writing them off. As soon as it becomes long and difficult and you're not willing to make it easier for them, you might as well have condemned them yourself. And if you're solely focused on them making a herculean effort to change without giving them any of the structural support, you're going to fail. Which we've done, over and over and over again. 

It's not my job to make anything easier on anyone nor am I obligated to give anyone structural support for anything. No one has given any of that to people who avoid getting obese by eating healthy and exercising and yet they manage.

And I call bullshit on that being the same as condemning them myself. I have no influence on what you eat and how much you exercise. Stop shifting responsibility to other people.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, baxus said:

I'm not blaming the food industry because the food industry is doing it's job there - it's trying to make money. It's what industry does - creates a product and sells it. It will not make sure their product is healthy and good for you unless forced to do so by government or something. 

 

But you're also saying that you don't find them at fault for this. How does that make sense?

2 minutes ago, baxus said:

Because it doesn't work and it will not work until we turn our society into some 1984 rip-off.

Here's the thing - if you want to eat healthy and the rest of the group doesn't you don't have to go out with the group. If you can't trust yourself to eat healthy when going out with a group you need to make a choice - do the healthy thing or go out with the group that's not going to eat healthy. It's YOUR choice, it's YOUR responsibility. Other members of the group are under no obligation to make it easier for you and there's zero need for government to get involved. 

And we've seen that this doesn't work and fails as a rule. Like, you get that we have examples of this failing over and over again, right? I like the idea, but it doesn't work in practice at all. It doesn't work with smoking, it doesn't work with drinking, it doesn't work with anything really. 

Again, if your choices are 'eat healthy and be ostracized' or 'eat badly and be social' humans will choose the latter almost every time, and they'll be miserable when they don't. There's another good example here, about how some people only smoked socially because they wanted to not stand out. Or they only drank socially for the same reason. You can't just ignore social dynamics and wave them away. Humans aren't perfect spheres. 

2 minutes ago, baxus said:

First of all, where do you come up with the whole "entire rest of society is against what you're doing"? There has been no time in human history up until now when it was easier to get support for trying to lose weight and eat healthier and there are many ways to get support on your way to healthier self. Not everyone is going to be supportive but guess what? That will be the case no matter what you are trying to do. Don't hold your breath until EVERYONE applauds you and change their lives to suit your weight loss. 

I get that because of what society is like.

Society expects you to commute two hours a day. They expect you to go to lunch with co-workers. They expect you to shop at supermarkets, buy the food that you can afford and buy the food you advertise. If you don't do that, you're considered weird, or doing some special diet thing that's out of the ordinary. 

By comparison, it was FAR easier to eat healthy 100 years ago. There were no massive food conglomerates with massive advertising budgets, most food was reasonably local, most food was not particularly processed and what was processed was largely with preserves and the like. It was effortless to eat healthy, because you had to go out of your way to eat particularly unhealthily. It's not about people being supportive - it's about the society you live in. 

2 minutes ago, baxus said:

It's not my job to make anything easier on anyone nor am I obligated to give anyone structural support for anything. No one has given any of that to people who avoid getting obese by eating healthy and exercising and yet they manage. 

Yep, blaming the people. Again, this doesn't work, and will continue not to work, and this is exactly the same argument made about people who get addicted. Just let them suffer and die, or they can dig themselves out. 

This doesn't work. 

2 minutes ago, baxus said:

And I call bullshit on that being the same as condemning them myself. I have no influence on what you eat and how much you exercise. Stop shifting responsibility to other people.

If you're saying that you are unwilling to support regulating the industries, treating it like an addiction, treating the issue like a societal issue and not just an individual one - then yes, you might as well be condemning them. If your only solution is 'be more responsible like I am' then you are defacto blaming them for where they are, saying that the reason that they are in this mess is because they are irresponsible (or as @Tywin et al. says, Lazy, stupid), and then yelling at them to get their act together.

And then you expect them to do this? 

How on earth do you think that's going to work? 

[Varysblackfyre321]

29 minutes ago, baxus said:

I'm not blaming the food industry because the food industry is doing it's job there - it's trying to make money. It's what industry does - creates a product and sells it. It will not make sure their product is healthy and good for you unless forced to do so by government or something.y

 

Yes, I agree people are too hard on big Tobacco. The regulations that have been placed on industry these last fifty years are abominable. Let’s let them advertise their product that causes cancer on TV and magazines again.  Oh and frame their products as healthy.

Poor Big tobacco. Just because they sell products that gives people cancer they’re maligned so much here in the US. 

So what if they marketed/continue market tobacco to children? They’re doing it for money. They’re just doing their job by maximizing their profits at the expense of a few million lives here or there.