Yup, that’s what I get, for getting interrupted in the middle of a post! :smack:
Preview is my friend.
Preview is my friend.
Preview is my friend.
Preview is my friend.
Preview is my friend.
The urge to eat at all times is in service of a homeostatic drive. There are a number of ways this is regulated. Outright “hunger” is just one mechanism. But in all cases the quantity of food consumed over time is determined not by habit or by conscious choice, but by the hypothalamus – and with extreme precision, I might add, even in the very fat. These controls are generally stronger than addictions (though addictions tend to hijack some of the mechanisms so there are parallels). And with homeostasis the kicker is when you deviate from the set point (lose weight) they become stronger. Unlike addictions which become weaker within days or weeks after the drug is withdrawn. This is why pressure to stop smoking is highly sensible, whereas pressure to lose weight is a more questionable project.
I understand that you didn’t start the fire, but the whole construct is bogus. The only reason I picked on you over them was because you’re ordinarily sensible, and I had other issues with your post, so I figured I’d kill 3 birds with one stone.
The point of the desert island is a hypothetical place with only a “minimal diet” and water. The problem is there’s no such animal as a “minimal diet.” If calories are so restricted that no one can maintain their weight, then a large percentage of people on that island will starve to death. In turn, if you increase food supplies so that fewer people starve, more people will get or stay fat.
If you say, ok then, your hypothetical minimal diet will be designed specifically for a single person, then this construct is flawed for other reasons (different though mathematically related), but I won’t go into them in this post since it’s a bit of a hijack.
It means either sick or abnormal. But was defined solely by a mass threshold, not by actual illness. Anyway it’s irrelevant because the term is obsolete. The standard medical categorization is now to refer to them as “severely” obese, not morbidly.
Oh…I certainly didn’t mean to insinuate that you didn’t appreciate real food. After all, I don’t know you enough to make that judgement. Through that whole rant I was addressing people in general. How they tend to choose processed, quick, and cheap over natural, slower, and healthy. You just happened to bring up the point that lead to the rant.
I suppose I don’t have that particular gene. I always thought that McDonalds food was very purposely plain. There isn’t much spice to it beyond salt. You know what you can expect from McDonalds. People feel safer with predictable. The same could be said of almost all fast food places. This can be both a good and bad thing. I find adventure in either trying new foods (kangaroo meat, Thai food, Indian food) or improvising my own.
I tend to think of food as more of a fun experience than “X dollars can give me X calories”. I do realize that preferences differ, though.
I agree that some (most?) people find McDonalds food very tasty. I think it helps that they have a massive advertising budget, and that most children are taught at a young age that this constitutes “good” food.
I live in Southern Ontario. The Niagara Region. I understand the convenience factor, believe me. The company I work for only gives me 30 minutes for my lunch. This means I have to call ahead for my food, so it’ll be ready when I get there. If I just walk in, I wait about 10 minutes longer than I would standing in a line at McDonalds. To me, that extra 10 minute wait is worth it. I imagine to a lot of people it would not be.
That is definitely a problem to overcome. I do believe, however, that a lot of people think is a lot harder to eat healthy at a low cost, or quickly at a low cost, than it actually is. For me it is impossible to go home and cook dinner when I’m at work. So I make it ahead of time and eat it in the lunch room, or in the office if the boss isn’t around. So, going to the grocery store and cooking at home could work. It just isn’t very easy. I definitely agree with you that it would be a lot easier to get healthy food to where people actually are.
I suppose it could have a lot to do with geography, too. You mentioned living in Washington DC. I can only assume it’s a bigger city than the one I live in. Is there any farmers markets in the downtown area?
Okay, Hamadryad, let’s first try assuming you are wrong and that food is a physical addiction. Work with me here; I’ll assume you’re right later. 
Anecdotal point 1: In an effort to lose weight, I tried the Atkins diet for a week. It was torture. Some people say “Woohoo! Bacon and meat and fatty steak all the time! That’s the diet for me!” Yeah. By day four I was so desperate for some kind of starch that I wanted to lick a tortilla. Food tasted terrible to me, no matter what I did to it. I figured this was a fine way of getting people to lose weight, since eating was no longer pleasurable. I was perpetually exhausted and ill-tempered and physically weak. I believe part of the point of this first week, apart from going into ketosis, is to start breaking the “carbohydrate addiction”. Someone on the Dope will surely tell me if I’m wrong.
2: Sugar. White sugar. Cane sugar. Corn syrup. Non-fructose sweeteners. They’re fattening, they’re bad for you, and they’re addictive like crack. I know people who can’t get through the day without a soda, and it isn’t the caffeine that keeps sending them back – it’s the sugar rush. The one that gives them a splitting headache and other very unpleasant after-effects when it’s out of their system.
Given these, do you suppose it’s possible that obesity can be caused by physically addictive substances?
But let’s say it’s not. Let’s say that there’s no physical addiction whatever to any sort of food, and that it’s all due to brain chemistry. Isn’t unbalanced brain chemistry also the cause of, oh, depression and schizophrenia and all manner of mental dysfunctions? In fact, I know of a particular syndrome – can’t recall the name – where there is no ‘off’ button for hunger. The person eats and eats whatever’s edible around them and does not stop unless they are physically unable to continue.
Either way, isn’t it possible that some causes of obesity, even those beyond PCOS and thyroid disorders and the like, are not so much in a person’s control as one might think? Don’t you suppose that for a person who finds it exhausting to go up a few flights of stairs, just “going to work out at the gym” is an exercise in humiliation and physical torment? Would you find it nontrivial to run for thirty minutes with another person’s worth of weight strapped to your midsection?
The solution to depression is to cheer up and get over it.
The solution to obesity is to eat less and exercise more.
Oh – and people choose to be grossly overweight, because being overweight is so cool and so much fun. All the guys who come up to you because you look so awesome, all the people who compliment you on your looks. Fuck, y’all, it’s like choosing to be gay because you like getting beaten up.
…I keep thinking we’re hijacking this thread, but I’m honestly not sure what other direction it should go. 
Okay, here’s the thing that bugs me THE MOST about these debates. Can it please oh please be assumed that, when talking about someone who has a relationship with food as you described above, that I am NOT talking about the people who have an actual physical or mental problem? For every person who has a condition - physical or psychological - which promotes in them an unhealthy relationship with food, there are at least two who started off “normal” and ate their way into size 3x sweatshirts.
I’m not saying ANY of this because “I hate fatties” or “they should all shape up” or any of that utter bullshit. I’m just saying that I don’t think people who become addicted to food should be given any more sympathy than smokers. That’s really all my basic point was.
And for the most part, I agree. But here’s where it gets tricky.
A person who knows he or she is prone to addiction can usually avoid addictive situations. Gambling addicts can refrain from going to Vegas. Alcoholics can keep away from bars and avoid drinking. Even smokers can just quit cigarettes cold turkey.
Overeaters can’t quit eating. They will starve to death. It’s along the lines of telling an alcoholic that he’s required to drink exactly three beers every day, but he can’t have more.
Now admittedly, people who eat unhealthy food can buy healthier fare. This can work, to an extent, but even if they buy no other snack food than… mixed nuts, say, a person who gobbles a large can of nuts every day is still overeating. They’re still taking in more calories than they should. Their stomach has been stretched to larger than its usual size, so it takes longer for them to become full. Even if they’re getting exactly the right amount of food, they feel hungry all the time. A week, two weeks, a month… how long does it take a smoker to go cold turkey without having constant, painful urges?
*bolding mine.
For me it took months before headaches etc went away full time. I still have urges to smoke, but the pain is gone.
I am a wuss, and it hurt like hell to quit, and if I do not watch what I am doing I could easily pick up a cig in the bar and start all over again. Without even realizing it.
As Abbie Normal said above, even after years an ex-smoker will want a cigarette. My husband and I both quite in August 2002. My stupid ass took it back up in April of 2003 (I only smoke outdoors). After 3½ years, he STILL occasionally grits his teeth because he wants one so badly.
Maybe it evens out between the overeaters not being able to get away from food, and the nasty addictive properties of nicotine.
And that’s really all I’m saying. You (generic ‘you’) can’t revile one and give the other a pass.
I’ll concede that, then. I’ve never gotten addicted to cigarettes (thank goodness) so I don’t have that one to overcome as well. I do try to treat smokers the same way that I treat overeaters, with the slight exception that since I get pretty nauseous if I’m eating while someone’s smoking, I ask someone I’m sitting with to save their smoking for outside or after the meal.
Completely agreed. Unless I’m in an establishment IN the smoking section and no one at my table minds, I wouldn’t dream of lighting up. Impolite smokers annoy the shit out of me.
Here in Ireland, the smoking ban was imposed a couple of years ago. Pretty much every non-smoker thought it was a great idea, myself included. I stress; NON-smokers thought it was a good idea. Just like a lot of non-smokers on this board feel like the cigerette-tax is a good idea, or are not condoning it at the very least.
What would be interesting to see, though, is how we would react if something WE enjoyed was taxed or banned.
Now I agree with your programme 
Reality is shit though. Currently the NZ govt is sponsoring a quit programme. You ring the number and the govt subsidise nicotine patches. Smoking advertising is illegal here (and became illegal even after many sporting events bemoaned the loss of sponsorship). The tax on smoking rises with every single budget.
Could a govt “do” more to rid it’s populas of the evil that is smoking?
Yes it could. Fucking ban it. I’m a total addict but I am not someone fond of breaking the law. If it was illegal I would give up and go cranky-arse on my family and co-workers…then I would be a non smoker.
In the current situation I set fire to a considerable part of my income everyday BUT the govt benifits hugely from that. If I was a crimainal and I chose to snort coke, inject heroin (is that the injectable one?), smoke P or dope then I would be flung in jail.
I am equally addicted BUT the govt makes money on the deal, so the smoking continues.