Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - The Food Police are after us Clydes!

Today I opened the paper to the headline "Obese residents costing county millions!" A story followed by some "expert" citing statistics that everyone over a target BMI were costing the county healthcare system millions of dollars. The solution of course is to institute tax on soda and junk food in order to "repay the county for excessive healthcare costs".

I get pretty sick of this lame thinking about healthcare and especially the "holier than thou" attitutude from the self appointed food police that everyone who is "obese" is unfit, sitting on the couch, eating greasy potato chips and downing liters of soda.

I have been "large" for years and yet I am quite active and "eat right" by most standards (but admittedly, I can slim down). It fire's me up that these latter day "Carrie Nation", prohibitionist, pea-brained, leftists want to attack every last freedom we have.

Be warned. If Obamacare passes, us Clydes will have a target on our back.


Enough said.

P.S. Fit is better than unfit. Strong and lean is much better than strong and fat. Freedom to choose is the American way.

Be warned. If Obamacare passes, us Clydes will have a target on our back.

This would be a ridiculous statement if it didn't look like "health care reform" was going to result in preserving 99% of the existing train wreck of health care system. Don't worry, nothing will change except we'll see another double-digit rise in the cost of care next year. Just like last year, and the year before that...

The government spends more than it takes in. Instead of cutting its spending its looking for ways to increase revenues. "Obese" people are just the latest target of their greed. Even though being underweight is usually just as much, if not more, of a healthcare problem.
During the Clinton administration the government defined down the weight at which one is considered obese. Its now low enough that most people you see on the street in the U.S. are now considered obese. Note; I am only using Clinton as I a time reference, I don't know if he was part of this decision or not. I'm thinking not since he isn't exactly skinny.
This is just another example of taxes being used for social engineering. Some pansy little do-gooder thinks they know better than everyone else so they are "helping" us "little people" by telling us how to live.
The Lifestyle Nazis are alive and well and they're taking over. We should be vigilant of those who are trying to use laws to tell others how to live. Even when they are attacking a lifestyle choice we don't make for ourselves.

It doesn't matter if the government or insurance companies run healthcare. We will have targets on our backs either way. Its not PC to be overweight so we will be the scapegoats for healthcare expenses.

Let's keep this apolitical, as I don't want to move it to PR.

Thanks....

We don't have to discuss the merits of Obamacare. It doesn't matter who is in charge, the fat are the next target. It is just in the lust for finding new tax dollars, a few have come up with the idea to tax certain foods because, "you know, fat, obese people are just so gross and cost us millions". The idea of such control comes from one side of the political spectrum so I guess the discussion becomes a bit political.

The main thing is that Clydes in this group are generally healthy (or getting there) by all standards of health. In general, we exercise regularly, eat right, have healthy aerobic capacity, strength, low blood pressure, etc. I think it is outrageous that the self-annointed "do gooders" attack all of our freedoms on grounds of their moral superiority.

Triple taxation for TOFU!!!

This would be a ridiculous statement if it didn't look like "health care reform" was going to result in preserving 99% of the existing train wreck of health care system. Don't worry, nothing will change except we'll see another double-digit rise in the cost of care next year. Just like last year, and the year before that...

I don't know if the US can reform health care, the only solution may be to toss the whole mess and start again. The key is to look at the advantages and disadvantages of different systems used in different countries, and then pick and choose features to try to preserve the advantages, but not the disadvantages. The problem, of course is that it requires the political will, to limit what health care providers can charge the system for various services. Even though it means that some political campaign donations from those same providers will go away.

The government overpaid itself and is now desperate for tax revenue.

The best kind of tax is the kind people are 'asking' for. Traffic congestion pricing. Tobacco taxes. and similar schemes. Taxing soda is funny as the price of the sugar ingredients is completely manipulated by the government.

Maybe they should allow the interstate sale of milk without all the crazy rules.

They can take our lives, but they'll never take our CHEEETOOOOOOS!

I'm a guy who's been told by his doctor that I'm 'pre-diabetic'. Totally controllable by diet and exercise now, but if I don't do something, in 5 years, look out. So I'm doing something about it.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with higher taxes, co-pays or deductibles for those of us who engage in risky behavior that results in preventable diseases. Whether its drinking, smoking or obesity, all are a choice the individual makes. Why should society pay for individual stupidity?

Do what you want. Just pay for it.

...snip..
Frankly, i don't have a problem with higher taxes, co-pays or deductibles for those of us who engage in risky behavior that results in preventable diseases. Whether its drinking, smoking or obesity, all are a choice the individual makes. Why should society pay for individual stupidity?

Do what you want. Just pay for it.

+1000

I'm a guy who's been told by his doctor that I'm 'pre-diabetic'. Totally controllable by diet and exercise now, but if I don't do something, in 5 years, look out. So I'm doing something about it.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with higher taxes, co-pays or deductibles for those of us who engage in risky behavior that results in preventable diseases. Whether its drinking, smoking or obesity, all are a choice the individual makes. Why should society pay for individual stupidity?

Do what you want. Just pay for it.

Absolutely agree! Blame the government for everything, take no personal responsibility. What a sad frame of mind.

Geary

they will have to pry that soda from my cold dead hands. :)

gw

+1 for BCAC's comment.

I think only taxing sugary foods and candy is silly, and only a fraction of the problem. Foods high in fat are just as bad. I doubt we'll see beef, peanut butter, cheeses, etc. being taxed as well though.

As long as it's done via a voluntary means, I won't mind. If they start forced testing (The Island style) that's another story.

You want a wake up call, try being 32 and having a doctor tell you that you won't see 50. I lost a great deal of weight through a program put in place by my state's public employees insurance. The program was designed to save the state money because in the long run the cost of the conditions I would have developed being extremely overweight would have cost them a great deal of money. So I went into the program, lost weight, am healthier, cost them less money and it is a win win.

In my opinion if you are overweight and are happy with yourself and with your situation, more power to you. But you need to realize that you will end up costing yourself and whoever else is contributing to your future health care costs a great deal of money. It is only fair for you to shoulder the fair share of that burden. It has been the same way for smokers with most health insurance for years.

Instead of taxing food and blaming "obese" people why not try "NOT" giving health care to all the illegal immigrants that sneak into the country and rob the tax payers of there hard earned money, obese or not ...

I saw a T-shirt the other day. It said " If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it's free".

going with the OP post "The Food Police are after us Clydes!" there lies a problem in that. how in the world are they going after C&A's specifically. i understand that a large majority of us C&A's don't actually consume all that stuff like it cures cancer. the rest of the lazy, fat or skinny people do. much of the "on the way to fit", or are "fit" people up here or otherwise have ok to good diets and don't consider fast food and Doritos as food groups. they are going after these people that do.

i had lunch at Mc D's the other day and i never had any idea of how much calories and junk were in the food. 2 Mc doubles and a large fry had 1420 calories :eek:. my dinner of rice, chicken, broccli, OJ, and a banana barley came out to that. at least i was full. when i went to Mc D's, i was still hungry and got something else. i ate almost 2k calories just for lunch off the value menu. that is insane. i was still so hungry when i got home i had a dinner in the 1500 calorie range. what felt like a normal day was actually over 4k calories. this is why people might be getting out of control with themselves.

my buddie does this often. he has a breakfast of coffee and a bowl of cereal. 400 calories. lunch he gets 4 Mc doubles and a large fry with water. 2300 calories. he is still not full. i would not be either. then dinner he gets a Wendy's baconator meal. the meal i believe is in the 2200 calorie range.

so that's about 4200 calories a day. so how many people do this 3+ times a week. then how many of these people get more exercise than walking from their driveway to their front door at any given time. that's why there are web sites like http://thisiswhyyourefat.com/. everything is good in moderation. just most people don't require anywhere near 4-5k calories. but of course we are supplied the ammo, we choose to shoot our selves with it.

that web site is making me damn hungry. mmmmmmmmm bacon.

Instead of taxing food and blaming "obese" people why not try "NOT" giving health care to all the illegal immigrants that sneak into the country and rob the tax payers of there hard earned money, obese or not ...

Again, please keep politics out of this, or it will wind up in P&R. None of us want that.

DUDE....!!!!!... I eat 1500 calories total in a day ......not in a meal WOW!!!!

rice, chicken& broccli is equal to a MiCky D's meal REALLY?????

SORRY TOM
I will watch myself in the future
not trying to start some S#*T
Sorry all

Again, please keep politics out of this, or it will wind up in P&R. None of us want that.

Least of all me, since I haven't responded yet. :)

Anyone who wants to read conservative positions on the so-called 'obesity epidemic' - a phrase that's been used since at least the 1920s - please visit www.fumento.com and National Review Online, and search for "Obesity" in the archives. While I agree with some of the posts in this thread, I also agree with Tom that political discussions or debate over alleged health care 'reform' are out of place here. Fat folks could be the target of ANY administration.

- Neil, who has been fat since Ford was in the White House. :(

SORRY TOM
I will watch myself in the future
not trying to start some S#*T
Sorry all

If you want to argue politics, go here:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=9406237#post9406237

SORRY TOM
I will watch myself in the future
not trying to start some S#*T
Sorry all

No problem. I'm not mad, just trying to keep the thread in here instead of off to the slums is all. :p

No problem. I'm not mad, just trying to keep the thread in here instead of off to the slums is all. :p

It began to slum when I showed up. :thumb:

Invariably, politics will enter this discussion, because it is the "political class" that is proposing this nonsense. I agree this doesn't have to go outside the narrow focus of "obesity politics" and into the realm of party politics.

The point that I was trying to make is that simply because you are technically obese it does not mean that you are "unhealthy" as measured by many commonly accepted standards of health.

With a gigantic cattle call, all "obese" people are herded and branded "social misfits" and "healthcare liabilities" because some self appointed "health czar" deems it so.

What happened to freedom?

P.S. I'd still rather be fit and lean but I'll take a little freedom and fatness any day over Soviet style central planning over my health.:mad::mad:

P.P.S. If you still feel guilty for being obese, send me $100 for your "obesity offset credit" for each pound you are overweight. The money will go to feed malnurished people around the world just as soon as I get around to writing a check.

The insurance industry already discriminates against large people. If you ever go to get a life insurance policy, most require a physical. During mine they measured my height and weight. The problem is that they used the infamous BMI chart to measure my fitness. By the chart I am rated as overweight, even though my current body fat level is 17.4 percent which by most all accounts is a fitness level rating. So, it stands to reason that any program from the government or insurance companies would follow suit and use the BMI as the indicator for fitness. This would not be a good thing for Clyde' s who are often just bigger folks. The other issues ,as mentioned, is which foods would be taxed, mostly it come down to who has the best lobbying group to keep their product off whatever tax list. In the the end though, it won't change anything, tobacco and alcohol are both taxed heavily, yet that has not stopped people from buying them. In the end it just ends up being another source of revenue for the government.

Please define "obese" and "commonly accepted standard of health".

If you define obese by the BMI, you need to look at the information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index

BMI is nothing more than a stat based on height/weight that does not account for individual variations. e.g. a person of thin build is that same as broad build. Most football players are obese by this definition.

Health is not measured by the height and weight against a chart. A persons activity and cardiovascular health is not discussed.

There are better measures, without doing a true BMI, you could look at a persons structure from the tips of the clavicle, and look at the chest to waist ratio, if you wanted to get a better measure.

That said the health of an individual is related to their activity. Me, I dropped 40 points of colesterol when I got back on the bike. The doctor said, the exercise help burn through the stuff.

There is enough science to support the claims that obese people have greater health problems. We can discuss if it is diet, or the lack of exercise, but can probably agree that it is the combination of the 2 that poses a problem.

I sense the Dude has issues and is searching out for others to blame.. While little less than a full blown Clyde. I'd not blame the national health service, I'd blame one for not having a padlock on the refrig door... My solution. Why don't they have bike training camps for amateurs; for several weeks on end with a nutritionist on board. I might stay a month if it's reasonable.

Please define "obese" and "commonly accepted standard of health".

If you define obese by the BMI, you need to look at the information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index

BMI is nothing more than a stat based on height/weight that does not account for individual variations. e.g. a person of thin build is that same as broad build. Most football players are obese by this definition.

Health is not measured by the height and weight against a chart. A persons activity and cardiovascular health is not discussed.

There are better measures, without doing a true BMI, you could look at a persons structure from the tips of the clavicle, and look at the chest to waist ratio, if you wanted to get a better measure.

That said the health of an individual is related to their activity. Me, I dropped 40 points of colesterol when I got back on the bike. The doctor said, the exercise help burn through the stuff.

There is enough science to support the claims that obese people have greater health problems. We can discuss if it is diet, or the lack of exercise, but can probably agree that it is the combination of the 2 that poses a problem.

Please lets not :deadhorse: BMI again. BMI was intended as a statistical tool dealing with large populations, for example:

The average BMI for the USA is higher then the average BMI of Bangladesh, therefore Americans are fatter then Bangladeshis. It's probably true, because in large general populations the outliers are few enough that they become statistically insignificant. It was not intended as an individual tool, for example Joe has a higher BMI then Fred, so Joe is fatter then Fred, because there are people who have a higher then normal BMI for other reasons. Although out of 100 people with a higher then normal BMI, don't kid yourself, the number of exceptions is quite small.

People get fat for one reason, too many calories in, and too few calories out. The problem in North America is that too many foods are highly processed, processing that removes the nutrients, and replaces them with trans-fats and high fructose corn syrup. This combined with the fact that most people go from sitting on their fat a** behind a desk to sitting on their fat a** in the car, to sitting on their fat a** in front of the idiot box, means high caloric input, low caloric output.

If people ate fresh foods that were grown locally, did physical labour all day, and rode the bike to get around, then obesity wouldn't be the pandemic it is today.

I sense an opportunity here. "Well, this one time at Bike camp"........... Briliant CZ, simply brilliant!

Invariably, politics will enter this discussion, because it is the "political class" that is proposing this nonsense. I agree this doesn't have to go outside the narrow focus of "obesity politics" and into the realm of party politics.

The point that I was trying to make is that simply because you are technically obese it does not mean that you are "unhealthy" as measured by many commonly accepted standards of health.

With a gigantic cattle call, all "obese" people are herded and branded "social misfits" and "healthcare liabilities" because some self appointed "health czar" deems it so.

What happened to freedom?

P.S. I'd still rather be fit and lean but I'll take a little freedom and fatness any day over Soviet style central planning over my health.:mad::mad:

P.P.S. If you still feel guilty for being obese, send me $100 for your "obesity offset credit" for each pound you are overweight. The money will go to feed malnurished people around the world just as soon as I get around to writing a check.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If you fit all the criteria for being obese then you ARE going to be at higher risks for all sorts of health problems. This isn't a political opinion this is scientific fact. If you are happy with that fact fine, but don't expect people who took responsibility for their own health to have to shoulder the burden for you.

You mention in a previous thread as suffering from sleep apnea, which is almost exclusively related to obesity (over 95% of sleep apnea sufferers are obese), now are you prepared to pay 100% of the medical costs for the sleep apnea treatment? If not then why should the guy who lost weight instead of getting a cpap have to pay for yours?

[The Lifestyle Nazis are alive and well and they're taking over. We should be vigilant of those who are trying to use laws to tell others how to live. Even when they are attacking a lifestyle choice we don't make for ourselves.[/QUOTE]

You mean like orgainizied religion??

I sense an opportunity here. "Well, this one time at Bike camp"........... Briliant CZ, simply brilliant!

Ever hear of a bike camp, please see that it gets advertised. A month at bike camp and a nutritionist making our meals. I expect miracles.

The insurance industry already against large people. If you ever go to get a life insurance policy, most require a physical.

The difference between the government and insurance companies discriminating against fat people is the marketplace.

An insurance company can discriminate against people over a certain BMI. Another insurance company may see an opportunity to differentiate between big people who are active and meet certain health criteria and inactive, unhealthy people.

The government uses its all pervasive power to impose whatever rule or tax it can get away with. If you don't like it, you'll have to move to another country.

So the government makes you fat by infusing everything with HFCS and rBGH and then censoring anyone who would like to inform the general public about the dangers of said ingredients, and then wants to punish you for getting fat and unhealthy.

Sounds pretty much par for the course...

So the government makes you fat by infusing everything with HFCS and rBGH and then censoring anyone who would like to inform the general public about the dangers of said ingredients, and then wants to punish you for getting fat and unhealthy.

Sounds pretty much par for the course...

Lol you get fat by taking in more calories than you use. There is no secret conspiracy going on.

Lol you get fat by taking in more calories than you use. There is no secret conspiracy going on.

Up to a point. Companies spend big money lobbying products they know aren't really safe - tobacco and meds especially.

Posted this a while ago - "fat police" in Japan:
NY Times - Asia Pacific
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
Published: June 13, 2008

Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?_r=2&no_interstitial&oref=slogin)
Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.

Those exceeding government limits — 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, which are identical to thresholds established in 2005 for Japan by the International Diabetes Federation as an easy guideline for identifying health risks — and having a weight-related ailment will be given dieting guidance if after three months they do not lose weight. If necessary, those people will be steered toward further re-education after six more months.

To reach its goals of shrinking the overweight population by 10 percent over the next four years and 25 percent over the next seven years, the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments that fail to meet specific targets. The country’s Ministry of Health argues that the campaign will keep the spread of diseases like diabetes and strokes in check.
Other links:
Japanese Law Blog (http://japaneselaw.blogspot.com/2009/02/waistline-law-and-monitoring-of-society.html)

I'm a guy who's been told by his doctor that I'm 'pre-diabetic'. Totally controllable by diet and exercise now, but if I don't do something, in 5 years, look out. So I'm doing something about it.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with higher taxes, co-pays or deductibles for those of us who engage in risky behavior that results in preventable diseases. Whether its drinking, smoking or obesity, all are a choice the individual makes. Why should society pay for individual stupidity?

Do what you want. Just pay for it.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Lol you get fat by taking in more calories than you use. There is no secret conspiracy going on.

Oh... so that's why girls are developing breasts at age 10 these days, when only 10-15 years ago they weren't developing them until the late teens. And that's why when someone speaks out about the cattle industry (telling only the documented truth) they are prosecuted as a terrorist. And, that's why there have been many many studies done on HFCS and its negative side effects (especially that it suppresses enzymes that tell your brain that your stomach is full). So many, in fact, that the industry felt the need to launch a multi-million dollar ad campaign to defend themselves.

Gotcha. It's only calories that are causing obesity these days...

Oh... so that's why girls are developing breasts at age 10 these days, when only 10-15 years ago they weren't developing them until the late teens. And that's why when someone speaks out about the cattle industry (telling only the documented truth) they are prosecuted as a terrorist. And, that's why there have been many many studies done on HFCS and its negative side effects (especially that it suppresses enzymes that tell your brain that your stomach is full). So many, in fact, that the industry felt the need to launch a multi-million dollar ad campaign to defend themselves.

Gotcha. It's only calories that are causing obesity these days...

No one is forcing that kind of food down your throat. Fact is the only person responsible for a person's poor health is themselves, not the food industry, not the government. Trust me I made a lot of excuses for myself when I was overweight, but when it came down to it, the only person whose was at fault was me. I think that is the biggest problem with our country now adays, everybody is a victim, no one takes responsibility for their own lives and actions.

True, nobody is forcing anything down anyone's throat. However, many people eat things that they think are safe for them but aren't. They do so unknowingly because the information about what's in their food is not made available.

I am fat because I ate like crap growing up. I realize that. However, trying to feed my daughters now and keep them safe causes a whole new set of problems. We try to eat as natural as possible, but as everyone knows that is expensive and unfortunately I can't always afford to make food from scratch with all natural ingredients. So there are times when I have to feed them store-bought food. I hate feeding my children genetically engineered food, but stuff like that is so hard to avoid that it's not always possible when on a limited budget.

True, nobody is forcing anything down anyone's throat. However, many people eat things that they think are safe for them but aren't. They do so unknowingly because the information about what's in their food is not made available.

Once again it is a person's responsibility to educate themselves and the information is not very hard to find, the hardest thing is sifting through all the crap and fads of people trying to hock bs at you, things like atkins and stuff like that. Hell one of the best places to start is http://www.mypyramid.gov/ great site put up by the so called "evil government" to help people live a more healthy lifestyle.

As far as costs goes there is a good middle ground. I don't buy 100% organic, or 100% all natural, fact is half those people are trying to make money off you to. I buy local when I can, I buy a lot of non-organic produce, lots of brown rice, lean meats, etc. etc. Some of the best advice I ever got was when you go to the grocery store is to stick to the outside edge of the store. In most stores that's where you find produce, unprocessed meats, dairy etc. etc. when you get to the middle of the store is where you get all the highly processed foods.

Ahh... the beloved food pyramid.

I'm a vegan, so I won't even comment on that...

Ahh... the beloved food pyramid.

I'm a vegan, so I won't even comment on that...

Your personal choice, fact is you educated yourself and made an informed decision, as have I. However I refuse to believe that people can blame the food industry, the government, lack of education, or anything else on their poor health. You need to tell yourself the buck stops here.

So the government makes you fat by infusing everything with HFCS and rBGH and then censoring anyone who would like to inform the general public about the dangers of said ingredients, and then wants to punish you for getting fat and unhealthy.

Sounds pretty much par for the course...

What is the "government's" motive? None that I can see. I don't believe the "government" is making us fat or censoring information. It's all about $$$$ in a free market economy. Large corporations doing whatever they can to increase yields/reduce costs and thereby increasing shareholder value. (BTW most of us are shareholders either directly or indirectly.) Their efforts results food supply that is plentiful, and relatively inexpensive. Perfect? Perhaps not. As consumer's, if you don't like a product, let your feelings/opinions be known with your wallet.
I'm of the opinion that the "government" is neither bright enough or united enough to pull this one off......

Does anyone see the parallel between the tobacco use and being overweight? IMHO, being overweight is a choice, just like smoking.

Just like tobacco use, there's no doubt about the link between being overweight and long term health issues. Heart, diabities, etc, etc.

Just like smoking, being overweight cost lots of $$. It's not just health care (although there's no doubt the extra health care cost are very high with both habits). The food people eat to get fat is very expensive, just like tobacco use. Quitting tobacco saves money, so does quitting food that makes you fat.

Smoking is considered anti-social, it effects the entire family. So does being overweight. If a spouse is overweight, they limit the activites of the entire family. They can't go on family hikes, sight seeing walks, etc. Ever see a skinny spouse pushing a fat spouse in a wheel chair?

personal history: I was fat because I ate like crap and didn't exercise (6'3" and 270lbs). I decided I had to kick the fat habit just like a smoker kicks the tobacco habit. Now we eat really well, I did have to force my family to give up bad food (just like quiting smoking, you gotta make the spouse/family do it too). We save lots of money (no take out, just good meat, frozen veggies, salad, Costco). Also, I started exercising 5-7 days per week, mostly biking 70~100 miles per week or walking 18 holes of golf (no health club fees). Since last Xmas, I've lost 50lbs.

It doesn't cost extra $$ to lose weight and get healthy. I never counted a single calorie or denied myself nourishment. I did deny myself ice cream, cookies, take out food, beer, etc (that stuff cost $$$).

What is the "government's" motive? None that I can see. I don't believe the "government" is making us fat or censoring information. It's all about $$$$ in a free market economy. Large corporations doing whatever they can to increase yields/reduce costs and thereby increasing shareholder value. (BTW most of us are shareholders either directly or indirectly.) Their efforts results food supply that is plentiful, and relatively inexpensive. Perfect? Perhaps not. As consumer's, if you don't like a product, let your feelings/opinions be known with your wallet.
I'm of the opinion that the "government" is neither bright enough or united enough to pull this one off......

The cattle industry is one of the industries that the government makes the most money off of. They also have the most powerful lobbyists (even more powerful than the tobacco lobbyists). The government does whatever the cattle industry wants them to do.

But, I guess I just need to wear a tin foil hat or something...

Does anyone see the parallel between the tobacco use and being overweight? IMHO, being overweight is a choice, just like smoking.


not entirely true. there are times when circumstances beyond one's control (physical injury) that prevents someone from staying fit. Fitness is a process, not a destination. it is constantly evolving and the even the fittest of people will become unfit if they don't maintain themselves.

that being said, if the government really wanted to solve the problem, foods that were the culprrit (fried foods, those containing excess sodium, carbs or calories) would be outlawed, like anything else (drugs) that is proven to be a problem. But that would restrict personal freedoms. same reason cars don't have regulators to limit speed. it's not the governments job to save us from ourselves. it's their job to protect citizens from each other.

I'm in the 'obese' category, it's by the choices I made. I'm the only one to blame for each stupid (delicious) chip and soda I put in my mouth. I'm also the only one resposonsible for fixing it.

Oh... so that's why girls are developing breasts at age 10 these days, when only 10-15 years ago they weren't developing them until the late teens. And that's why when someone speaks out about the cattle industry (telling only the documented truth) they are prosecuted as a terrorist. And, that's why there have been many many studies done on HFCS and its negative side effects (especially that it suppresses enzymes that tell your brain that your stomach is full). So many, in fact, that the industry felt the need to launch a multi-million dollar ad campaign to defend themselves.

Gotcha. It's only calories that are causing obesity these days...

Dunno where you've been, pal, but girls have been 'budding' by age 12 since the late 60's. Hyperbole helps no one.

Fact is, I agree -- too many chemicals and not enough food in our food. Processing at every step has taken us from a vigorous, healthy nation of 'can-do's' to a nation of wheezing couch potatoes. Convenience is killing us as a whole.

It's a sad old story -- people (or businesses) will spend more time/energy defending a wrong position than they will just TAKING the right one.