Know someone that's a little heavy? Maybe more than just a little heavy? Do you think that person just needs a little willpower to avoid obesity?
You know...if you could tell the person to just knock off the 48-ounce Big Gulp in the morning, and those two bowls of ice cream at night, they'd be fine, right?
Well, an national study on obesity statistics released this week by the Institute of Medicine suggests "individuals and groups can't solve this complex problem alone."
"People have a very tough time achieving healthy weights when inactive lifestyles are the norm and inexpensive, high-calorie foods and drinks are readily available 24 hours a day," said committee chair Dan Glickman of the study.
The report has specific recommendations on how to make people's trips to their bathroom scale in the morning a little less frustrating:
- requiring at least 60 minutes per day of physical education and activity in schools
- industry-wide guidelines on which foods and beverages can be marketed to children and how
- expansion of workplace wellness programs
- taking full advantage of physicians' roles to advocate for obesity prevention with patients and in the community
- increasing the availability of lower-calorie, healthier children's meals in restaurants
What do you think? Is the sedentary lifestyle of many to blame for the obesity epidemic? Are high-fat and high-calorie foods, often cheaper than healthy alternatives, to blame? Or is it a matter of choice? Why can't people resist all the junk food if they really want to lose weight? Do we really need a societal change, at least here in America, before people take matters into their own hands?
Tell us your thoughts and share your comments. And take a moment to voice your opinion in the poll below.
********************* You gotta love the Legislative Analyst's take on Prop. 29 I think it also applies here too. And I quote " For example, the state and local governments would incur future costs for the provision of health care and social services that otherwise would not have occurred as a result of individuals who avoid tobacco-related diseases living longer" I would just subsitute the word Tobacco for obeisity and what do you get?
The design of our neighborhoods also affects obesity. Public transit is terrible in Silicon Valley (unless you live and work within walking distance of Caltrain stations). Most of the big employers are hard to walk to. Bicycle routes are poor in many areas. Grocery stores are not within walking distance of most homes. Countries that have much less of an obesity problem (many parts of Asia and Europe) generally have infrastructure that encourages a more active lifestyle.
The cost of health care depends a lot on how healthy people are. If people make good food and exercise choices, they reduce the chance of suffering from a wide range of diseases, including high blood pressure and diabetes. Health care is paid for through a combination of employer-provided insurance, individually-purchased insurance, government-funded programs, and out-of-pocket by individuals. In the end, we (The People) pay for it in one way or another. A healthier population enjoys lower health care costs, on average, per person. In San Francisco, obesity is less common that in a typical American city. Obesity-related diseases, such as diabetes, are also less common. Several studies have shown the connection between active transportation (walking, bicycling, transit) and reduced rates of obesity and obesity-related diseases.
Who are you? You always leave such informed and excellent comments on transportation-related issues. We should work together to help Menlo Park improve its transportation policies. There are many upcoming opportunities to do so, such as the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan and next year's update of the city's General Plan. There are many ways you could help out, even if you're only able to contribute a small amount of time. Contact me at nauboone@gmail.com if you're interested. Thanks.
Obesity is just the tip of the iceberg! It's not about will power or eating habits--we are all at great risk for not only obesity, but cancer, leukemia, "chronic fatigue", depression, insomnia, etc.
and even IF you live near mass transit, like i do, the schedules have never quite worked out for me...
if you have the luxury of living and working in the same city - like many residents of sf, ny and german cities which are much older and were built - organically - to suit a walking public (as in long before cars were invented) - then walking and biking are a realistic option. for someone who works in milpitas but lives in palo alto, not so much.
Exercise helps too. You don’t have to go to the gym 2 hours a day to lose weight and feel better, you just have to get up off the coach and stay out of the car some of the time. It would be nice if cities and towns were set up to make walking or biking a more attractive option than hopping into the car to get down town to shop or dine. It’s true that some of us are genetically challenged to gain weight than others, but we can all benefit from more exercise and healthy eating, and we’ll all benefit from the savings in health costs and the increase in productivity from a healthier work force that will come out if we can personally make better diet and exercise choices, and as a society we make it easier to make these choices.
Yes, in many older cities it's easier to get around without driving because most newer cities have been designed for cars, which usually means that other modes of transportation are less convenient. But it's not that complicated to direct urban development in such a way that reduces our reliance on automobiles and gives people more transportation choices. The percent of Menlo Park and Palo Alto residents who drive alone to work has dropped from about 75% to 65% over the last ten years. Why? Part of the reason is that walking, bicycling, and transit have all been made a little easier to do. Caltrain service is more frequent, and there are more shuttles, bike lanes, and sidewalks. The improvements have been modest, but every little bit helps. No, not everyone can be expected to walk, bike, or take transit. Some live too far from work or shopping, or may need a car to perform their job. Some have disabilities that prevent them from walking or bicycling. And some people just prefer driving. That's ok. But we can make it easier for more people to walk, bike, or take transit for more trips. How? By continuing to do what we're already doing - making small incremental improvements over time - a few more sidewalks and crosswalks this year, a few more bike lanes next year, another shuttle the next, etc. With more transportation choices, we'll have lower transportation and health care costs, less traffic congestion, cleaner air, and safer streets.
Just a little reality to aid the conversation.
http://vimeo.com/6016945
Unions were stronger because there was actual labor. Nothing is made in America anymore. People were proud to buy to buy made in the USA. Now everything we buy is crap from China. As for obesity, more families cooked at home... eating out wasn't an EVERYDAY affair... the prevalence of junk food wasn't as big.... high fructose corn syrup didn't exist... kids went outside to play... and we didn't work office jobs with sedentary lifestyles
Countries that have public transportation infrastructure do so out of necessity. Ever try driving a car in Hong Kong? It has nothing to do with obesity and encouraging a more active lifestyle. If you want any indication of the ineffectiveness of public transportation, just look at CalTrain. The daily ridership does not validate the existence of it.... and people want to spend MORE on public transportation. There's a $16 billion debt in Sacramento. There's bigger fish to fry people.
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Stats+and+Reports/Ridership/2011+Caltrain+Ridership+Counts+FINAL.pdf The weekday ridership is below 40,000. We'll say it's 40,000 for arguments sake on a daily basis. That's less than the population of one municipality like San Bruno. Factor in you have stops between San Francisco and San Jose, and you can see it's a piddling trivial amount of people. BART on an average this part April, serviced 373,973 people http://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership.aspx On some levels it's not fair to compare the two, but I just don't see CalTrain ridership high enough to devote pumping more money into. 50% of the costs are subsidized already. None of CalTrains stops were ever convenient for me. Infrequent servce. Stations a million miles from work. Anytime I ever had to sync up with the light rail in San Jose, I would get off my train........ only to miss the light rail connection because planning is awful. VTA and CalTrain are simply awful.
One other contributor is the irrational fear the media has instilled in parents that their kids can not go out and play at the park alone, or down the street at their friends house without risking their lives. Kids are kept so close at hand, that unless mom or dad has time to take them to the park, the kids stay in and play video games, watch TV, or do other indoor activities. There also needs to be changes in food manufacturing. Those ads about how high fructose corn syrup is not harmful - in moderation - are hysterical. The point is, the stuff is put in EVERYTHING, so there is not such thing as moderation. My husband and I once wrote to a company who made rice and bean packets that were super high in salt. They responded that taste tests proved that people like the high salt version better. This is ridiculous, just keep loading everything up with salt and HFCS and then wonder why people are unhealthy.