Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Germans are now the FATTEST people in Europe [JPG]

Germans are now the FATTEST people in Europe [JPG]
Thread Tools
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 08:08 AM
 


Germans are now the fattest people in Europe. 58.9 % of German women and 75.4 % of German men are overweight!


New Obesity Rankings: Germans Are Fattest People in Europe, Study Shows - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

I say we need to do something about this politically. Some politicians demand a ban on advertising for sweets, but I don't think this goes far enough (and I don't like bans). What we need is a tax on food with high caloric density. And since there is a correlation between beer and obesity we also need to increase the tax on alcohol. The only exception should be unbottled beer that is consumed in Bavaria. This can be except from the tax increase.

Americans are still fatter even. How do they fight obesity? It puts a high burden on any health-care system, so it's obvious that something has to be done.
     
Sherman Homan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 08:27 AM
 
Yikes! The top picture is all I need to stay on my diet...
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 08:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Sherman Homan View Post
Yikes! The top picture is all I need to stay on my diet...
That's only a very very small chair!!

(where's the throwup smilie when you need it?)
***
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 11:51 AM
 
@TETENAL:

The picture is misleading. Germany has the most overweight people, but not the most obese people. That would be Greece, if I heard the report correctly.

PB.
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
TETENAL  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 12:04 PM
 
The picture is from the SPIEGEL-article. It mentions that there are countries with slightly higher obesity rate (dark area in the graph above), but Germany is certainly in the top 3 or so even for the clinically fat people.

I was kind of shocked to hear that ¾ of all German men are overweight. I can hardly believe that. I even calculated my own BMI to see whether I count as overweight. I don't, but I also don't see that much people who are much fatter than me. Certainly not ¾. Maybe it's an age thing, maybe it's unevenly distributed in the city/land?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
Germans are now the fattest people in Europe.
Sounds like a challenge.

Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
I say we need to do something about this politically.
I say we don't. I'm fed up of politicians banning this and that.

Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
What we need is a tax on food with high caloric density.
Screw that. Why should my favourite foods be taxed just because some fatty can't control themselves?

Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
And since there is a correlation between beer and obesity we also need to increase the tax on alcohol. The only exception should be unbottled beer that is consumed in Bavaria. This can be except from the tax increase.
Screw that. Why should my beer be taxed just because some fatty can't control themselves?

Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
It puts a high burden on any health-care system, so it's obvious that something has to be done.
Easy. Tax the fatties twice as much as everyone else (unless it's through no fault of their own - say, a gland problem). Once they get back to normal weight their tax drops.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
I say we need to do something about this politically.
Why?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 12:39 PM
 
Honestly, with the typical German diet what it is, I can't imagine how there are any skinny people there at all. You just can't eat that much Wurst and Kuchen with Bier to wash it down and not get fat.
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 12:52 PM
 
GIS for "fat german":

"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
TETENAL  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 02:29 PM
 
[QUOTE=Doofy;3360820Why should my favourite foods be taxed just because some fatty can't control themselves?[/QUOTE]
Because obesity increases the costs of the health-care system, i. e. it increases the costs for you too even when you are not fat. So better tax food with high-caloric density and alcohol which a) motivates people to lose weight b) charges the group of people who produce the increased costs. So since you are not obese you pay less in the end. Sounds like a win-win situation to me. And it's better than an absolute ban on something.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 03:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
Because obesity increases the costs of the health-care system, i. e. it increases the costs for you too even when you are not fat.
That's only because the government is forcing me to pay for the fatties' health care. Let 'em get their own.

And we appear to have hit something really quite political there. Does socialised healthcare result in a larger number of the population (let's say, those not intelligent enough to own Macs) not caring about their health because they subconsciously known that the system will sort them out with a gastric staple later?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 03:36 PM
 
I think in current society there is a mindset that it is always someone else's fault - if someone is fat, it is obviously because the evil food companies are selling them sweeties and fatty foods. Some people expect the gov't to sort it all out, or science, or someone else. Anyone but them. It's not hard to eat healthily, every other program on the telly is about cooking or dieting, the food in the shops has got labels and diagrams all over them telling you whats good for you. But some people will ignore it. Obviously this isn't the only reason. Cost, fast pace of modern life etc etc all have their part to play, but ultimately individuals have to take responsibility for what they put into themselves.
     
Sherman Homan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 03:48 PM
 

Who is going to decide if a beverage is a carbo-loaded sports drink for a healthy athlete or an evil calorie filled drink for a fat person? Will a plate of spaghetti be taxed as junk food if a fat person eats it and not taxed if your BMI is under 25?
     
Monique
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 05:03 PM
 
The size of the woman or man in the top picture is not the norm.

So what it is going to cost the health care system some money, isn't it the job of doctors to take care of us no matter what. I know they are getting lasier and lasier and we should not ask too much out of them. And who is the judge of who should be taken care of. Only worthy anorexic people are allowed to get sick and use the health care system.

And as for overweight for you young guys on this board, if a woman is 6 feet tall and weight 120 pounds she is overweight, if you do not see her ribs she is repulsive to you. Believe it or not overweight people would prefer to be anorexic looking, better job, the only way you can attract a man, etc.

Take the little witch that is working with me, Diana, she is skinny and now because of her looks, she is able to steal a job away from me by sleeping with my boss, Richard. She is very unpleasant and stab people in the back all the time. But, according to you guys she is healthy looking. Anyway, what makes you think that she will not developed cancer or diabetes...
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 05:16 PM
 
How about issue every citizen with a calorie card. Once they max out their food intake per day they wouldn't legally be able to buy any more food. Of course, there is the problem of monitoring the food in people's fridges. This would necessitate installing sensors in fridges and a network connection to a remote database. Exercise, body fat, blood pressure, and cholesterol could easily be monitored by skin implants, with government observers performing monthly scans of individuals to assess their targets. Fines and taxes could be levied appropriately and fairly.

It could all be done with todays technology.

Of course, just banning junkfood would be easier.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko View Post
How about issue every citizen with a calorie card. Once they max out their food intake per day they wouldn't legally be able to buy any more food. Of course, there is the problem of monitoring the food in people's fridges. This would necessitate installing sensors in fridges and a network connection to a remote database. Exercise, body fat, blood pressure, and cholesterol could easily be monitored by skin implants, with government observers performing monthly scans of individuals to assess their targets. Fines and taxes could be levied appropriately and fairly.

It could all be done with todays technology.
It's a shame you weren't around when Orwell wrote 1984. He could have nicked some ideas off you.

Originally Posted by Nicko View Post
Of course, just banning junkfood would be easier.
So, you're going to ban me from eating a pack of crisps because some fatties can't control themselves?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 05:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by moodymonster View Post
I think in current society there is a mindset that it is always someone else's fault - if someone is fat, it is obviously because the evil food companies are selling them sweeties and fatty foods. Some people expect the gov't to sort it all out, or science, or someone else. Anyone but them. It's not hard to eat healthily, every other program on the telly is about cooking or dieting, the food in the shops has got labels and diagrams all over them telling you whats good for you. But some people will ignore it. Obviously this isn't the only reason. Cost, fast pace of modern life etc etc all have their part to play, but ultimately individuals have to take responsibility for what they put into themselves.
I think it's exactly the opposite. There's a mindset that cultural and social forces have no impact on people, and it's all "individual responsibility." The level of obesity in Americans has skyrocketed in the past several decades. That hasn't happened because we have out of the blue lost self-control, it's happened because of the inundation of cheap, high-calorie food, as well as other external pressures. I'm not saying we should ban anything, or tax anything, or do anything at all via government. But I think people often reason as follows - "we have a free society that doesn't ban things, therefore those things have no effect on people." That's backward reasoning. There's just no question that, if you change the external pressures and incentives in a society, you're going to see effects. That's true whether you think we should go around banning/taxing all those things or not.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post

So, you're going to ban me from eating a pack of crisps because some fatties can't control themselves?
FYI your chocolate rations have been reduced to 20 grams per week.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
I think it's exactly the opposite. There's a mindset that cultural and social forces have no impact on people, and it's all "individual responsibility." The level of obesity in Americans has skyrocketed in the past several decades. That hasn't happened because we have out of the blue lost self-control, it's happened because of the inundation of cheap, high-calorie food, as well as other external pressures. I'm not saying we should ban anything, or tax anything, or do anything at all via government. But I think people often reason as follows - "we have a free society that doesn't ban things, therefore those things have no effect on people." That's backward reasoning. There's just no question that, if you change the external pressures and incentives in a society, you're going to see effects. That's true whether you think we should go around banning/taxing all those things or not.
I would argue that far from having 'free choice' in what people are eating, it is being dictated by the multinationals. Most people are obese because their diet consists of:

- meat
- sugar (especially high fructose corn syrup)
- grains, mostly refined flour

Most people have deficiencies in basic vitamins (such as zinc, among other things). What about eating nuts? Whole grain foods? Fresh fruit and vegetables? Fish?

Cooking methods also have a lot to do with health. Fast food is either fried or deep fried. When food is cooked at such high temperatures it produces carcinogens and destroys alot of the nutrients. But go to most cities around the world and just try to eat healthy, its very difficult. It doesn't help that when you go into a supermarket that 90% of the food on the shelves is garbage.

Then look at the environmental impact. In Asia, Africa, and South America they clear cut the rain forests for cattle ranching, soy, and sugar cane. The products of these vast agricultural enterprises shorten the life span and make people obese in western countries. Meanwhile, droughts, flooding, landslides, water shortages, and soil erosion, all increase exponentially in developing countries.

So you end up having man-made food shortages in some parts of the world, meanwhile there is a surplus of food in other areas. I saw a statistic once that stated 40% of food in supermarkets is thrown out because it expires before it is sold, its a pathetic and purely man-made situation..
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Monique View Post
...

And as for overweight for you young guys on this board, if a woman is 6 feet tall and weight 120 pounds she is overweight, if you do not see her ribs she is repulsive to you. Believe it or not overweight people would prefer to be anorexic looking, better job, the only way you can attract a man, etc.
...
maybe you're drawing conclusions from assumptions
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 08:19 PM
 
[FAKE]Anyone can see that's really three people in one pair of pants.[/FAKE]

     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 08:22 PM
 
I'd hit it.
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
[FAKE]Anyone can see that's really three people in one pair of pants.[/FAKE]

I'd hate to be behind that if a seem blew out.
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 09:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
[FAKE]Anyone can see that's really three people in one pair of pants.[/FAKE]

BFRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTT



cough cough cough cough
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 10:09 PM
 
It amazes me that so many of you are willing to throw away your rights and ban foods, impose draconian taxes or complicated schemes in order to force people to live the way someone else dictates.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 10:11 PM
 
Of course I see the level of maturity we're dealing with here.

"Let's all make fun of the fat person 'cuz were all perfect!"
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 11:58 PM
 
My impression is that they were just joking, but otherwise I'd agree with you.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 04:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
It amazes me that so many of you are willing to throw away your rights and ban foods, impose draconian taxes or complicated schemes in order to force people to live the way someone else dictates.
Consider that for the first time in recent history, due to obesity rates, life expectancy is actually FALLING in developed economies. Even taking into account developments in medicine, a majority of people are overeating themselves to an early death.

I guess it's a matter of trust. Do you trust food that has been produced as cheaply as possible and which passes the slimmest of quality standards, or do you trust a much wider variety of locally produced organic food?

I guess you would disagree with the banning of hydroginated vegetable which is basically a poison (our bodies can't digest it)?
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 07:03 AM
 
It is Western "civilisation" itself that is responsible for turning human beings into lardbags.

The unnatural metastasis of the middle classes has produced a generation of purposeless and unfit desk monkeys who spend ninety per cent of their lives sitting on their obese arses, failing to perspire and burn calories while they're at their pseudo-work, oppressing the seats in their horseless carriages, and stuffing their hideous faces with deliberately oversugared happy food whilst sitting on their worthless fat arses retardedly staring at meaningless prolefeed on their television sets.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko View Post
I guess it's a matter of trust. Do you trust food that has been produced as cheaply as possible and which passes the slimmest of quality standards, or do you trust a much wider variety of locally produced organic food?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255

Nutrition. No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food. And the USDA — even though it certifies organic food — doesn't claim that these products are safer or more nutritious.

Pesticides. Conventional growers use pesticides to protect their crops from molds, insects and diseases. When farmers spray pesticides, this can leave residue on produce. Some people buy organic food to limit their exposure to these residues. Most experts agree, however, that the amount of pesticides found on fruits and vegetables poses a very small health risk.

Cost. Most organic food costs more than conventional food products. Higher prices are due to more expensive farming practices, tighter government regulations and lower crop yields. Because organic farmers don't use herbicides or pesticides, many management tools that control weeds and pests are labor intensive. For example, organic growers may hand weed vegetables to control weeds, and you may end up paying more for these vegetables.

-----------

So, to sum up:

No nutritional benefit.
Higher cost.
Higher cost due to governmental regulation and more labor intensive pest management.
More labor intensive work means, more likely that workers will cut corners and slack off.
Cut corners and slacking off again means lower quality.

So, no nutritional benefit, more expensive, for lower quality.
Huzzah!
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 02:19 PM
 
I for one praise our german friends for their superior chair engineering. That thing is a marvel of modern engineering!

I have no doubt that the type of food and the quantities are to blame, but I also think a lot of it, at least in the US, is that we lead a much more sedentary lifestyle than in years past. Kids aren't out playing with their friends like they did when I was a kid, they are sitting in front of a computer or an xbox. Hell, kids aren't even allowed to go out and play anymore without an adult keeping a watchful eye. When I was a child, we got out of school, went out and played until dinner, then we went out and played until the street lights came on. We were active. And McDonald's was a once a month treat, not a primary supplier of sustenance.

You know what was a real eye-opener for me? I was watching a Dirty Harry movie the other day and about half way through, I thought to myself "people wee really skinny in the 70's". My how things change...
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
HackManDan
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: The Capital of Silicon Valley
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 04:50 PM
 
I don't think food, or anything else for that matter should be banned unless there is clear evidence that it is dangerous in any amount, which is not the case for food. High calorie/fatty food won't kill you if you only have it every now and then; its habitual use that leads to problems. Given this, I think what consumers need is more information and more choices.

For instance, as more and more families go out more often, and cook less at home, the more important having nutritional information available at restaurants will be. In order for consumers to make reasonable and responsible dietary choices, they must be informed. And no, its not common sense. Restaurants should be mandated to provide nutritional information just like food manufactures are. Additionally, nutritional information must be presented in a much simpler and easier to read form.

But at the end of the day, social and structural forces do influence are diets to a great extent. Fast food is cheap and quick, and many people don’t have a lot of time or money. Those with money can afford to buy nutritious foods, which is often more expensive (look at Whole Foods). Our food production system is set up to provide us with low cost crap, and the result is predicable.

Public policy must be designed to ensure that nutritious food is accessible and more affordable.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 05:46 PM
 
Time to go get a Big Mac with fries, super sized of course, but to balance it out, I'll have a diet coke.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko View Post
How about issue every citizen with a calorie card. Once they max out their food intake per day they wouldn't legally be able to buy any more food. Of course, there is the problem of monitoring the food in people's fridges. This would necessitate installing sensors in fridges and a network connection to a remote database. Exercise, body fat, blood pressure, and cholesterol could easily be monitored by skin implants, with government observers performing monthly scans of individuals to assess their targets. Fines and taxes could be levied appropriately and fairly.

It could all be done with todays technology.

Of course, just banning junkfood would be easier.
Scary thing is... I think you're serious.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 09:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Monique View Post
The size of the woman or man in the top picture is not the norm.
I wish people would stop including it in their replies. I feel like I'm getting vertigo.

So what it is going to cost the health care system some money, isn't it the job of doctors to take care of us no matter what.
No matter what? You mean like going door to door to ensure everyone is going to be okay, all the time? That would be 'no matter what'. "I'm a doctor Jim, not a magician!!!"

I know they are getting lasier and lasier and we should not ask too much out of them. And who is the judge of who should be taken care of. Only worthy anorexic people are allowed to get sick and use the health care system.
egadz. Are they pulling in 90% productivity/98% efficiency where you work or something?

And as for overweight for you young guys on this board, if a woman is 6 feet tall and weight 120 pounds she is overweight,
... some guys call this 'Amazon'. I don't like the term because I think it is offensive.

if you do not see her ribs...
I offer her a cookie or a set of prosthetic ribs.

she is repulsive to you.
... 5'9" tall women with ribs showing, perdy lips, and a decent personality aren't the norm either. You can't see most women's ribs and yet... they've managed to find happiness. Why can't you?

Believe it or not overweight people would prefer to be anorexic looking, better job, the only way you can attract a man, etc.
Is this how you feel? I grant you many would like to be anorexic looking, but their problem is binging in, not purging out.

Take the little witch that is working with me, Diana, she is skinny and now because of her looks, she is able to steal a job away from me by sleeping with my boss, Richard. She is very unpleasant and stab people in the back all the time. But, according to you guys she is healthy looking. Anyway, what makes you think that she will not developed cancer or diabetes...
Bitter much?

With your view of men, be glad it wasn't a man who took your job. Then, you'd be working with... TWO OF 'EM!!!
ebuddy
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 06:13 AM
 
If you start banning foods, issuing 'calorie cards' and installing sensors in their fridges, at what point do you stop? (you aren't part of a think tank for the UK gov't are you btw, 'cause if you're not, get in there, they'll love you and pay you a fortune)

If people want to exercise, they can - if they want to eat healthier foods, they can. It's their choice if they don't. If people want to know what food is healthy, they can use the internet, walk into a bookstore etc

The fast foods exist because there is a market, if people's eating habits changed, Micky Ds and co would have to adapt or die. McDs already do salad meals, but how popular they are, I don't know - also I've read they're actually more fattening than a Big Mac.

From my limited experience of Germany, they eat a lot of cakes and chocolate. That could have something to do with them being fat.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 06:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Monique View Post
The size of the woman or man in the top picture is not the norm.
That size is called "obese" in English. It is not the norm, but as you can see in the graphic posted in the first post, it is shockingly common - the darker ends of the bars represent obese rather than simply overweight people.

Obesity is a serious condition that basically amounts to a whole slew of chronic illnesses. It can be at least in part genetically caused, but modern living conditions make it far more likely to manifest itself than was the case thirty and more years ago.

Originally Posted by Monique View Post
So what it is going to cost the health care system some money, isn't it the job of doctors to take care of us no matter what. I know they are getting lasier and lasier and we should not ask too much out of them. And who is the judge of who should be taken care of. Only worthy anorexic people are allowed to get sick and use the health care system.
Idiotic hyperbole.

People who are killing themselves are a problem. Not just because they need to be stopped from killing themselves.

As mentioned above, obese people are chronically ill and need FAR more medical attention than others.

The real problem, as some health-political experts here in Germany pointed out shortly after that study was published: SOMEBODY has to PAY for that medical attention.

Health care here is at a critical point already (and under constant pressure of reform) because of the shift in age demographic: Fewer young people paying health insurance out of their wages for ever increasing numbers of elderly, who can only pay little insurance out of their small pensions, but require lots of medical attention.

Add to that already critical strain increasing numbers of clinically obese people, and there WON'T BE A HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

Yes, it's a doctor's JOB to take care of us no matter what. But even a doctor can't DO his job if nobody can pay him for it.

And lets not even start on medication.

And you see, the thing about obesity is: IT'S CURABLE. AND PREVENTABLE.


Originally Posted by Monique View Post
And as for overweight for you young guys on this board, if a woman is 6 feet tall and weight 120 pounds she is overweight, if you do not see her ribs she is repulsive to you. Believe it or not overweight people would prefer to be anorexic looking, better job, the only way you can attract a man, etc.

Take the little witch that is working with me, Diana, she is skinny and now because of her looks, she is able to steal a job away from me by sleeping with my boss, Richard. She is very unpleasant and stab people in the back all the time. But, according to you guys she is healthy looking. Anyway, what makes you think that she will not developed cancer or diabetes...
All the men you know must be real assholes.

I feel sorry for you, really.
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 08:47 AM
 
isn't 120lb: ~55Kg, that's not heavy. To be honest, a woman @ 6ft/55kg, would be very skinny, I think. I'm more used to stones. I think it depends on the person, their natural frame. Some people are just bigger than others. I'm not little (5' 10" 15st), but there are people I stand next too and feel like a midget.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 10:39 AM
 
It's also worth noting that the values used to deem those individuals in the study above (both men and women) "overweight" or "obese" weren't set by the FHM or Vanity Fair editorial staff, but by doctors and health experts.

You know, those evil people whose job it is to take care of us no matter what.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 11:36 PM
 
My only comment: the government has no place in trying to adjust our diet. I can take care of myself, and just because other people can't control their weight doesn't mean that the government has the right to try to adjust our eating habits. I can't believe what I hear in some threads...

KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT!

Dear god...I'm not 8, and the government isn't my parents.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 11:57 PM
 
I know this one girl who has the weirdest diet ever. She subsists entirely on a diet of M&Ms and cookies. That's not an exaggeration: she actually brings a bucket of M&Ms with her when she goes on trips.

She's been eating this way for ages because she wants to lose weight, and she claims this diet works. Needless to say she looks very sickly and is a bit overweight.

To top it all off, she has a BA in nutrition!
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 12:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
I know this one girl who has the weirdest diet ever. She subsists entirely on a diet of M&Ms and cookies. That's not an exaggeration: she actually brings a bucket of M&Ms with her when she goes on trips.

She's been eating this way for ages because she wants to lose weight, and she claims this diet works. Needless to say she looks very sickly and is a bit overweight.

To top it all off, she has a BA in nutrition!
Yeah, but are they sugar free M&Ms?
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 01:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko View Post
Consider that for the first time in recent history, due to obesity rates, life expectancy is actually FALLING in developed economies. Even taking into account developments in medicine, a majority of people are overeating themselves to an early death.
In developed countries people are more educated about what is going into their bodies than ever before, yet they still choose to eat junk. I'm not in favor of using the iron hand of government to force people to take care of themselves.

I guess it's a matter of trust. Do you trust food that has been produced as cheaply as possible and which passes the slimmest of quality standards, or do you trust a much wider variety of locally produced organic food?
I think that the government should be making sure that the food producers, marketers etc. are not suppressing any information about the products they are selling and letting us decide for ourselves, not deciding for us what we are and are not allowed to eat.

I guess you would disagree with the banning of hydrogenated vegetable which is basically a poison (our bodies can't digest it)?
I don't know enough about them to say at this time. From what I have read I'd say no. Calling something that is detrimental if consumed in greater than moderate quantities, consistently, and over years and years "toxic" seems like hyperbole to me. That definition of toxic would fit quite a lot of different types of food. Beside that, It's MY body. If I want to ingest "toxic" goo on a daily basis then why shouldn't I be allowed to? I'm an adult, it's my decision. Should I have the "right to choose"?

Studies show that those who eat a mostly vegetarian diet with fish added in live longer and are healthier than just about everyone. Perhaps we can REALLY do everyone a FAVOR and force them to eat this way?

It's not WHAT we are eating it's HOW MUCH of it. All of those evil foods would add up to DICK if they were just eaten in moderation.

but this "problem" is also more complicated than just diet.

What about stress? Stress is a huge factor in the proliferation of obesity and CVD. Shall we mandate stress reducing activities too?

Many recent studies are shedding new light onto the obesity problem. There is evidence that being fat BY ITSELF may not actually contribute much to CVD. It's the SEDENTARY lifestyle that is. While most obese people are sedentary, those that are active (they're out there I know a few) don't have an elevated risk of CVD while thin people who are sedentary DO. Shall we mandate exercise too?

You know, for our own good. Because it's much better to let scientists and bureaucrats decide for us how to live?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
nbnz
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 08:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Monique View Post
The size of the woman or man in the top picture is not the norm.
Originally Posted by Monique View Post
And as for overweight for you young guys on this board, if a woman is 6 feet tall and weight 120 pounds she is overweight, if you do not see her ribs she is repulsive to you. Believe it or not overweight people would prefer to be anorexic looking, better job, the only way you can attract a man, etc.
Complaining about the generalisation - and following up with a four generalisations of your own in one paragraph? I for one (and I'll assume I'm not alone) do find anorexic looking women attractive.

Originally Posted by Monique View Post
Take the little witch that is working with me, Diana, she is skinny and now because of her looks, she is able to steal a job away from me by sleeping with my boss, Richard. She is very unpleasant and stab people in the back all the time. But, according to you guys she is healthy looking. Anyway, what makes you think that she will not developed cancer or diabetes...
OK so she's skinny, and apparently good looking - and happens to be very unpleasant - although you're stating it like it's related. Like a skinny woman couldn't be pleasant (my best friend is extreemly skinny, some would say anorexic looking, and she's also the nicest person I've ever met) - or a "fat" women couldn't be a witch - both of which is complete nonsense.
iMac, Intel Core-Duo 2GHz, 2GB, 250GB, OS X 10.4
PowerBook 12", 867MHz, 640MB, 60GB, OS X 10.4
iMac G3, 333MHz, 288MB, 6GB, OS X 10.3
iPods: 3G iPod, 1G mini, 1G shuffle, 2G nano
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 08:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by ThinkInsane View Post
You know what was a real eye-opener for me? I was watching a Dirty Harry movie the other day and about half way through, I thought to myself "people wee really skinny in the 70's". My how things change...
A steady diet of cocaine will do that.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by ThinkInsane View Post
I have no doubt that the type of food and the quantities are to blame, but I also think a lot of it, at least in the US, is that we lead a much more sedentary lifestyle than in years past. Kids aren't out playing with their friends like they did when I was a kid, they are sitting in front of a computer or an xbox. Hell, kids aren't even allowed to go out and play anymore without an adult keeping a watchful eye. When I was a child, we got out of school, went out and played until dinner, then we went out and played until the street lights came on. We were active. And McDonald's was a once a month treat, not a primary supplier of sustenance.
Man, so true. I'm amazed at the differences in activity between kids of today, and kids when I was growing up. Just like you, my friends and I were outside as much as possible. I can recall a few overweight kids among my classmates, but it wasn't that high a percentage. Now I'm simply amazed at how many obese kids I see. Rather than the once a month McDonalds, it's practically DAILY, and even their school lunches aren't any healthier. The schools even have snack vending machines- those weren't allowed when I was in school. (70's to late 80's).

Rather than neighborhoods full of kids playing outside, these days far too many of them are sitting on their asses for hours in front of video screens.

On this subject in general, banning food isn't going to change anything, it's an even dumber idea than trying to ban alcohol was. (Tried it, it was stupid, the government gave up on it). When there's demand for something, people will manage to get it one way or another, and it'd be impossible to enforce "junk food" contraband laws.

The problem is deeper than just the junk food itself anyway- the core problem is that people aren't active, and lead a sedentary lifestyle from the earliest ages. And yes, it's also that there's much less personal responsibility for anything. Heck, it won't surprise me when later on, the fat kids of today have learned from their parents, and will be blaming Bush (or whoever else) for the heath problems they'll have.

And adding an even worse socialized heath care system on top of it, where people will get the message- be a lazy as you want with your health, someone else will pay for the problems you develop later- will only make the core problem grow even more.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 03:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
My only comment: the government has no place in trying to adjust our diet. I can take care of myself, and just because other people can't control their weight doesn't mean that the government has the right to try to adjust our eating habits. I can't believe what I hear in some threads...

KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT!

Dear god...I'm not 8, and the government isn't my parents.
Go to your room and I don't want to hear you playing with your Wii either.

For your protection,
Uncle Sam
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 03:49 PM
 
Well I guess people can eat garbage if they want, but its in everyone's interest to educate themselves isn't it?

Crisco was the first hydrogenated oil, from wiki:

Crisco, a popular brand of shortening, was first produced in 1911 by Procter & Gamble and was the first shortening to be made entirely of vegetable oil. When William Procter and James Gamble started the company Procter & Gamble, they hired chemist E. C. Kayser and developed the process to hydrogenate cottonseed oil, which ensures the shortening remains solid at normal storage temperatures. The initial purpose was to create a cheaper substance to make candles than the expensive animal fats in use at the time. Electricity began to diminish the candle market, and since the product looked like lard, they began selling it as a food. This product became known as Crisco, with the name deriving from the initial sounds of the expression "crystallized cottonseed oil".

Candles went out of fashion so they stuck a new label on it and told people it was edible --- yum.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 10:19 PM
 
I hate to say this, but I'm with Doofy on this one. Politician regulation has gone far enough. Education is what's needed.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2007, 07:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by nbnz View Post
Complaining about the generalisation - and following up with a four generalisations of your own in one paragraph? I for one (and I'll assume I'm not alone) do find anorexic looking women attractive.
... another hit and run by Monique. She's been doing this as long as I can remember. She won't be back to respond to any one because that's not what's fun for her. What's fun for her is to see her embittered words in front of her. You could say she's on a crusade of sorts against men.

Oh well, as long as she remains barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, I'll be satisfied that it's still a man's world.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:02 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,