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

[Heartofice]

Really it just depends on your goals as to whether the gym is right for you. If it’s just general fitness so that you don’t die early then play sports and eat better. 

Lets be honest the gym is really about aesthetics, people want to look better, almost everyone would prefer to look somewhat athletic. Lifting weights and a controlled diet is the quickest and best way to do that. You can do body weight stuff of course at home but it’s definfely harder to progress to something more advanced and gain better results.

I get why people don’t like gyms though. My gym can be quite loud and has been over taken by a group of guys who are loud and take up a bunch of space. If I was new to working out it would put me off. But there are lots of options, finding a gym that’s right for you, go at the right time ( mine is 24 hours), get a PT to help you out.

Back on the main topic though, I think companies should give real incentives and bonuses to employees for using gyms. Lots of companies have gyms in their offices and I think it should be encouraged far more.

[Jo498]

The thread is about obesity and avoiding it in the first place or losing weight. My point was that paying for a gym and/or getting judgemental (what's Fatso doing here?) stares or hating "gym types" or generally dislinking interacting with people (all of which I am quite sympathetic with) can all be easily accommodated by not going to a gym because this is in no way necessary for losing weight.

[drawkcabi]

"I wanna quit the gym!"

 

[baxus]

On 3/15/2019 at 7:01 PM, DMC said:

There's a fundamental difference between not liking being "at the bottom of any social ladder" - which I'm totally fine with expressing my ignorance in most other such cases - and having an aversion to going to any type of public gym because of the people that tend to frequent gyms.  I don't think whether you know how to work out or not - which is something that's really fucking easy to learn - is a relevant part of why people avoid gyms.

We can all agree that there are some douchebags in gyms. We've all had contact with them, we've all seen them.

But there's a way to avoid those people and still get some exercise. We can all agree (I hope) that different sports attract different sorts of people. Try out different sports, see which crowd suits you the most. For example, a pretty obvious first choice can be joining a street runner's team/club. Those usually have different groups based on fitness levels and goals and you can find some people who are going through the same stuff. If you don't like that crowd (my experience says they're ok at first but can get tiresome after a while, but YMMV), you can move on to another sport. It's also important to mention that, just like in any other relatively large social group, you are likely to find some really great people, some real douchebags and most of the people will fall in between those. Find the ones you like and hang out with them, if you want to hang out with anyone in the first place.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

4 hours ago, Triskele said:

So if one accepts that changes can work on an individual level but not on a population level would it not follow that a very powerful nanny state would be the only possible solution?  Ergo will never happen?  

It's going to be fascinating and potentially horrifying to see the extent to which there may be an epigenetic ticking time bomb on the way with parents passing on the obesigenetic environment on to their offspring.  

This is, of course, the core of the problem.

Personally I've come to accept that some "nanny state" regulations are beneficial. I live in Sweden which is probably one of the worst nanny states in the world. We can only buy alcoholic beverages at the state monopoly stores, there are heavy taxes on cigarettes and so on. Some 15 years ago we even passed a law prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants. The result? A resounding success. Very few people miss it. Even the smokers appreciate coming home after a night out without all their clothes smelling of smoke.

Also I'm not so sure about the slippery slope argument. We used to have a drug store monopoly too. That was abolished, so now you can buy an aspirin at the local supermarket, which is also widely appreciated. This proves that even if you do implement some "nanny state" policies, you're not automatically on a path towards ever increasing restrictions. 

Some policies should be easier than others to pass. Maybe a soda tax isn't the way to go, but rather stuff like creating a junk food free environment in schools, or stopping junk food advertisements aimed towards children? 

[Jo498]

It's not that one needs a powerful "nanny state" throughout. E.g. Germany has (and especially used to have) a much stronger welfare state than the US but as far as restriction of alcohol and smoking are concerned it is far behind (and even more clearly was in the 1990s). So the US can be a strict nanny in some fields and laissez-faire in others and so can other countries. I find it somewhat ironic that people from the country with the strongest tradition of prohibition keep ranting about European nanny states. So I think most people in most countries recognize that some restrictions are not overly paternalizing. For some, like drugs they have been in place a long time, for others like smoking one had a much stronger handle because of secondhand smoke.

The problem is that one HAS to eat (unlike smoke) and the industry will be fighting that some (or most) of their products will be declared unhealthy in the sense booze or tobacco are. I would in be in favor or some restrictions, especially in ads or stuff directed at children but I fear it will be fairly hard to do this. Tax sweets and sodas, maybe. But I was under the probably wrong impression that everyone has known for 50 years that sweets and soda are not healthy (although in my childhood the warnings concerned more bad teeth than obesity). The problem is stuff like some cereals and fruit juices (and countless other processed food stuffs) that are basically as bad as sweets but in these cases people don't get it and some is even marketed as "healthy" (like certain sugary cereals and yoghurts).

What I think more likely is that within a decade or two we will be "nudged" towards self-monitoring with smart devices on pain of not getting (or paying considerably more for)  health insurances, both in "nanny states" and elsewhere. Not sure if this will be of any help for the obesity problem or if such monitoring would usually be too late anyway, i.e. only recognize the problems, not avoid them.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Also, for all you jumping through such hoops to point out that individual responsibility is a factor, remember that this often starts in childhood.  All this shit about gyms is smoke and mirrors from where obesity can be addressed as a societal issue.  More inclusive gyms or more people lifting in front of mirrors isn't going to fix anything.

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Also, for all you jumping through such hoops to point out that individual responsibility is a factor, remember that this often starts in childhood.  All this shit about gyms is smoke and mirrors from where obesity can be addressed as a societal issue.  More inclusive gyms or more people lifting in front of mirrors isn't going to fix anything.

The food industry does like to pivot the conversation towards exercise. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/business/media/mcdonalds-says-its-time-to-exercise.html

Its not their food that’s thriving the epidemic; it’s people not excercising. So why restrict them?

[whorasgayrell]

Big ass corporations need more regulating on what goes into their foods in my opinion.