In an apparent bit of self-serving research, an anti-nanny stater surveyed 800 Americans and shocker, found that 80% “said individuals were primarily to blame for the rise in obesity.” Next after individuals were parents at 59%:
Stephan Guyenet, who tweeted the study had an interesting conversation with a follower that pretty much sums up my thoughts:
Interestingly, Michael Prager just tweeted a link to a researcher who holds a very different view:
The socioeconomic dimension of the obesity epidemic becomes apparent once you start looking at maps where the obese people live … obesity rates in Seattle can vary by a factor of five depending on address.
It reminds me a bit of Gibson’s quote on the future: it’s here, it’s just not very evenly distributed. Apparently there’s a lot more personal responsibility in those wealthy white neighborhoods, eh?
I’ve gone on record before as not being optimistic about nanny statism (and I don’t use that term pejoratively) as a solution. But I do think it’s ludicrous to look at the rise in obesity as a global failure in personal responsibility.
Weight Maven is written by Beth Mazur. Beth believes that obesity is more symptom than cause and that the real problem is our Western diet -- especially sugar, refined grains, and industrial oils. Beth writes about nutrition, ancestral health, & food policy. And cats! 
So, if you are rich you display more personal responsibility? I have some wealthy relatives (unfortunately I’m not one of them). No one held a job or earned any money. They seem to hold their social image as their utmost priority. Proper manners, perfect clothes, private schooling, owning expensive autos never over 2 years old, only eating at expensive restaurants and yes, being thin was part of it. They had the money and time to live this lifestyle. I did notice they always ate quality expensive foods, and not a lot (small portons). The wealthier people are exposed to and live a different culture. No crap in a box for them.
“They seem to hold their social image as their utmost priority.” I’m sure that plays a very important role!
I think re the economic status thing, people mired in despair just aren’t going to put as big a priority on eating healthy, on account of life is just one long hellish ordeal for them. So they eat nothing but fried foods, smoke cigarettes and drink too much soda and food. I don’t think it is a lack of responsibility so much as the realization that they are hosed.
I would hesitate to describe it as “mired in despair” … I think it’s more typical than not that people are stressed about their lives and their future. And for many (most?), ubiquitous cheap, tasty food can easily take the place of a distraction or coping mechanism or worse.
I don’t know, the ones I see at the Walmart Supercenter look pretty mired to me.
Also, the less ideal your circumstances, the less energy you have to make the ‘right’ choices. Or even the energy to sit down and distinguish between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ choices. A single mother working three jobs understandably probably does not have the inclination to think about the actual value of the McValue meal she is bringing home for her family. Telling her that she is ignorant or irresponsible or KILLING her kids or whatnot doesn’t exactly advance the dialogue.
I also think it’s unfortunate that it’s only the heavy people or families that get painted with this brush. There are those whose health habits and/or diet may be predisposing them to all the same lifestyle diseases, but their so-called “normal” weight is not triggering the same kind of scrutiny. Skinny people who smoke, are eating disordered, do coke, exercise excessively etc aren’t paragons of health, they just pass for it.
It’s interesting for me to think about that map. That stark gap between rich and poor in this matter. I come from a family where the income gap is very wide, particularly on one side. Some people in this part of my family are very poor, and die young, almost always from lifestyle-related diseases. There really isn’t much in the middle, though even the more prosperous among us seem to have some of the same struggles, just somehow we are able to get through them. My cousin once told me the difference between the two types is that in our family “you either become a little bit of a puritan, or you fall into misfortune.”
It requires that kind of pretension to resist your original environment, particularly when it’s looked down upon and derided by so many. “Pretentious” is usually a derogatory word. I think of one particular older relative who consciously adopted what she felt were the characteristics of people who did well, including their food (she even went to speech therapy to remove her Southern accent) . You’ll never see the food like they ate in her hometown on her table (even if I feel demonizing a lot of that food is misguided). I remember one of my first “fancy” meals was a restaurant she took me to. It made a big impression on me. But this is a lonely endeavor. I look at both of us and we have no hometown, no sense of place, no particular culture except a magpie one that no one ever really belongs to. Plus we’ve had good luck. Not everyone who tries can get out. You can’t expect this kind of thing to save the world.
And looking at the kind of culture she left, it was originally not one that was so self-destructive as it is now. It has been systematically destroyed through forces ranging from the government to corporations to economics. And people are supposed to just “abandon ship” I guess, which isn’t particularly realistic.
I have a similar story on my father’s side of the family. Although the extent to how this plays out in the next generation is not black and white. As far as lonely endeavor, I think you’re spot on. I think there’s something very much to the role connection plays and will be key in if this is ever turned around.
And yep, abandoning ship is not particularly realistic, which is why I believe that obesity and related chronic disease (which I think have the same cause) will get worse before it gets better.
while I only half agree it is the responsiblity of the individual for their obesity (I am obese so I am not some thinny person who doesn’t understand it) the other half is the medical community and the society at large who demonize people for their weight whether based on solid science or not, who pressure people to do something about their weight so when they do something about it folloiwng medical advice or dietary advice from “experts” it doesn’t work the patient is blamed for the failure not the advice. it seems society as a whole is becoming more victim blaming in alot of other areas of life too but that is another story) obesity is not a moral problem it is a physiological problem I finally realize that now, I have done every diet and exercise regime I read about that was supposed to be good for you, only to get bigger and bigger as the decades go by, many of my friends too, same efforts same boat same end result, obesity not thinness or healthier either. there is a reason there is a 95 plus percent failure rate in curing obesity and it is they have the paradigm on what causes it wrong, they are on the wrong path and all they have done is created a myriad of misery and death as people keep going down this same path only to fall of the cliff and try again instead of going a different path which many do not understand what that is as the medical community is already convinced the problem is you, not the diet, not the science not the ideology. if you already have your suspect why continue to look for the real criminal?
I have no science to back me up on this one, but I firmly believe that really restrictive dieting (the type most of us fatties have done more than once in our lives) does more harm than good both psychology-wise and physiology-wise.
I think a tipping point was passed quite some time ago, where the consumption of crapinabag went from being the exception to being the norm. We can thank Edward Bernays for that. Thank goodness for Ad-blocking plug-ins!
Now it’s considered “weird”, “cave-personish” or “middle to upper-class” to want to base your diet on Real Food.
Tipping point on diet yes. But my comment re it getting worse is more about what will happen in other areas like health care. We haven’t yet hit the tipping point on penalties for the overweight/obese there yet! For now, those are occasional enough to make the news when they happen.
I’m not familiar with this region in the US, it looks like obesity is very high in middle income areas. These folks would not be poor at all. So I wonder what differentiates the middle class from the upper class in this case? And I imagine that depending on where you live, the cost of a house can be very high, so it’s not clear that people in more expensive houses are actually wealthy. Where I live, middle income areas are full of houses that are worth over half a million, because of the cost of housing in the city.
Nigel,
” where the consumption of crapinabag went from being the exception to being the norm.”
People were living on lard and bread (or in my family’s case, margarine or chicken fat) on bread during the Depression. Not many fatties during the Depression.
I just think the OE is due to two overwhelming realities: exercise is dear, calories are cheap. Reverse that, and you “cure” the OE. That’s not going to happen so the OE is here to stay unless….you inculcate personal responsibility. Which brings me to…..
Beth….I know you are not gonna like this but I do think that personal responsibility plays a huge role in this.
Also - maybe some populations like fat people, particularly fat women?
In my city, I note that certain kinds of Latinos favor fat, very hippy women. They delight in their exuberant fleshiness, wearing clingy and revealing clothing on 200 pounds distributed over 5’2″ of height. At first this embarrassed me - now I say, why not? If that’s what they like, be fat and happy.
Dominicans, interestingly, do not seem to favor this fat. (From my outsider perspective.) They tend to be normal-weight to slender people. Young Dominican men are VERY fit, the women, slender hourglass figures.
The Upper East Side is skinny because it’s a crime to be fat there.
The dose makes the poison. During the Depression, were people “pigging out” on lard and bread (or in your family’s case, margarine or chicken fat)? I suspect that they were on starvation rations.
You keep mentioning “personal responsibility”. I made the point (elsewhere) that if Edward Bernays was clever enough to break the taboo on women smoking in public, getting people to eat crapinabag en-mass would be easy by comparison.
Nige,
Dunno about that. I keep looking for a reliable site that will tell me how many calories Americans were eating 1929-1939 and I can’t find one.
Let’s just say they were low normal weight stable. Lipogenesis = lipolysis. They were waaaaay more active than we are. But wasn’t their diet crap? I’m simply saying their consumption of crap was the norm, not the exception.
Side note: google “Dorothea Lange” or “Arnold Rothstein” - two iconic photographers of the US Depression, and you’ll see that no one was fat but no one was starving either. Lean yes, starving no.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/6654?size=_original#caption
I never quite understood that. So I’ve concluded that there were adequate calories. Barely adequate, no more. None of it very good. Lots of bread.
Maybe starving people NEED carbs and fats, as this combination is great for inhibiting lipolysis and is calorie dense. Imagine that, a situation where people shovel the calories in without guilt!
P2ZR, I think that the fleshy Latinas I am referring to do not get fat as a result of crapinabag, but eating lots of rice and beans. Not that there’s anything wrong with rice & beans. Just saying I don’t think their diet and the reason for their fleshiness is crap in a bag. It’s food.
Are you comparing limited amounts of bread & lard to unlimited amounts of Maccy D’s etc? Technically, they’re both “crap”.
The first was eaten out of necessity, whereas the second is eaten out of invented wanting.
Diana, those are interesting observations. I wonder if we can speak of different social ‘weight equilibria’. In the case where crapinabag is not so easily accessible, either not so available or not so cheap, people simply stay un-fat, without there necessarily being a social taboo against being fat. Whereas in places where crapinabag takes nearly no effort or cost to obtain, the ‘default’ push towards fattening must be countered by an opposing and equally strong push towards staying slim, and that must be some cultural push. Such as the ostracizing of those who do not meet some standard of svelteness.
Probably the former type of equilibrium is more desirable. LA, at least according to public perception, certainly has thin people, but also a high prevalence of ED. I’d say it’s better to have people who expend little deliberate effort to be un-fat, due to limited crapinabag access and an environment that discourages sedentary behavior, than to have people who must glory in special diets and detoxes and deluxe gym memberships because the default is fat and there is some social cachet associated with being un-fat. There is enough work in the world to do, without people’s neurotically expending energy to staying un-fat.
Though I still do think everyone should spend the effort to figure out what they can and are willing to do, given their environment. People deserve better than unhelpful environments. But they also have the responsibility to adapt their behavior as best they can to the places/circumstances in which they find themselves. My best may not be your best due to our personal idiosyncrasies, genetic or inculcated or otherwise. And of course, that applies to many other things besides weight…cheers for diversity.
Social ‘weight equilibria’ … I love it!
Re everyone spending effort, I agree. But I think there’s a meaningful difference in the application. One potential difference is that people may eventually realize they are in this together and help shift the equilibrium!