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 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!

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??

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 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...

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
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

I couldn't have said it better myself.

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.

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...

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.

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 $$ to lose weight and get healthy. I never counted a single calorie or denied myself nourishment. I did deny myself ice cream, cookies, take out food, beer, etc (that stuff cost $$$).

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...

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.

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.