What, pray tell, do you find evasive and rhetorical about describing a mindset tied to socioeconomic status and class attitudes that explains why poor people in American fast food culture tend to become obese?
I mean if “lazy” and “undisciplined” work for you, fine. Excuse me for looking deeper.
I do not think you looked deeper. I think you did fine in describing a mindset; we just disagree on what it implies. I believe it just happens to be the mindset of making excuses. It appeared to me as though you threw a variant of the same pity party that has been thrown elsewhere in this thread.
Calories consumed must be less than or equal to calories expended. Being poor typically means you cannot acquire sufficient levels of things. If you are fat, then by default, you are clearly able to acquire more calories than you burn off in a day. If you are poor and needed to buy the Snickers bar to get change for the bus, then: (a) you made the wrong choice and bought the wrong thing; (b) you should have thought ahead of time with respect to carrying change for the bus; (c) good for you, you ate the Snickers bar, you have consumed enough calories and no longer need to buy the bag of Cheetos and Large Mountain Dew to wash it down.
I feel bad for people in poverty who are gaunt because they miss meals and can not afford food. Not the ones who use their foodstamps on Doritos. I do not care about the supposed reasons; I do not buy them. I have seen too many family members “break” foodstamps to buy worthless shit that they do not need (e.g. junk food or other foods that they could not otherwise purchase with foodstamps) because they, “Deserve some comfort food.” They then wondered why they were overweight.
P.S. When we lived on squirrel, rabbit, and other such animals we hunted ourselves, we found it somewhat difficult to become obese.
P.P.S. Self, the other, hegemonic power, social-economic indicators of class versus interself in context of global identity.
I lived in a homeless shelter for eight years (personal decision to greatly reduce expenses while paying off debt). The men in the shelter had one obvious thing in common: they were all very poor. But their weights varied greatly, from rail thin to morbidly obese.
For the purposes of this discussion, I refer only to the men who actually lived in the shelter; I’m leaving out those who just came in for meals. The men I knew best were the ones who lived there with me for long periods of time. I got to know them and observe their behavior. And I got to see a clear correlation between weight and physical activity.
The men with thin-to-average builds were the same men who would volunteer to perform physical labor around the shelter These same men were always the first to sign up when somebody called about hiring day laborers. These were the men who were hoping to pull themselves up and eventually stop being homeless.
The overweight men were the ones who preferred to perform the minimum amount of work that was required of them, who never volunteered, and who never went out to perform day labor. These were typically the men who ended up living more or less permanently in the shelter.
When meals were served, it was “all you can eat until it runs out”. There was no shortage of food in the shelter. There was no way for somebody to go hungry while living there. The first group of men would take what they could eat, and when they were full they would stop eating. The second group of men were always the first to get in line for seconds. If there was still food left after seconds, they would get in line for thirds. They didn’t stop when they were full; they would only stop when there was no more food.
It was an interesting contrast to see a thin man come into the shelter who had been on the road for a few weeks (I speak of an example “thin man”, not a specific person I saw), and had had very little to eat in that time. He would arrive very very very hungry. You would think this guy was an ideal candidate for hoarding food. Surprise! He would eat ravenously for the first few days. But after a few days, his great hunger would be sated. From then on, he would eat only what he needed. His weight would not dramatically increase over time.
By contrast, some men would arrive at the shelter perhaps noticeably overweight, but not obese. Like the thin man above, they would stuff themselves for the first few days. But they wouldn’t stop after the first few days. They would continue to stuff themselves at every meal. It was as if, no matter how long they stayed at the shelter (some of them for years) they just couldn’t get it through their heads that there would be another meal in a few hours. They had to eat as much as possible at this meal. And then eat as much as possible at the next meal. And the next. And the next. There were always desserts (cake, pie, donuts or candy donated by local grocery stores) left out on a table between meals. These men would take entire pies back to their rooms and eat them in one sitting. These men would just get bigger and bigger. I used to watch one man – who must have weighed close to six hundred pounds – regularly go to the dessert table and shovel handfuls of candy into his backpack.
What I’m getting at is that there is a lot of personal choice involved. The thin man and the fat man in the shelter have identical available options about what to eat. One man chooses to eat what he needs and maintains a healthy weight. The other man eats more than what he needs, and gains weight.
SlyFrog says, “I do not care about the supposed reasons; I do not buy them.” You’re also not seriously considering them in the context of how cultures, even socioeconmoc ones, embrace certain attitudes, be they about patriotism, taboos, traditions or whatever. Perhaps you should think it over and get back to me.
Also, poverty in America is not the same as in underdeveloped countries. Poverty in America means you cannot afford any of the six key features of the middle class: your own (or any) shelter, adequate clothing, a car, health care, higher education and to invest in home computer technology/skills. Access to affordable, rich, fattening food is not out of reach for the masses in America and hasn’t been for decades now.
I agree weight gain is harmful and not smart. I disagree somewhat vehemently it can be characterized as “lazy” or “undisciplined.”
Now failed weight loss might be due to laziness and a lack of discipline, but not the obese gain. There are many other factors that tend to explain that including depression, mental illness, eating for comfort and satisfaction, coming a family that overeats, being conditioned to clean your plate, not being self-actualized.
(On Preview.) EXACTLY, Phase42. Choice is key. It takes work to eat, go back and eat some more. It takes work to buy, cook and eat the kinds of food it takes to be hundreds of pounds overweight. It takes a huge amount of energy to move 600 pounds to a buffet and go back and eat seconds and thirds. It takes a certain unease and desperation to know you’ll have food available in the shelter every meal for free and still hoard food and desserts. You cannot call that kind of steady, regular, planned overindulgence being undisciplined. There’s just a different kind of discipline going on.
You’re just throwing the (totally misleading) energy balance equation in there to irritate me aren’t you? 
It takes work to say “Two quarterpounders with cheese,” twice a day, six days a week? It takes “a different kind of discipline” to say, “Two buckets of chicken and three orders of mashed potatoes and gravy”? I don’t recall that it took a whole lot of work, beyond hauling out my wallet at the end, to say “Yes, I would like a fourth plate of spaghetti.”
It doesn’t take a lot of work to put a frozen pizza in the oven, and eat the whole thing yourself. It doesn’t take a lot of work to eat half-a-package of Oreo cookies with a tall glass of 2% milk. It doesn’t take a lot of work to down a bag of Doritos and a two-liter of Mountain Dew while sitting on your ass in front of the internet or television. I’ve done all those. It doesn’t take work or even a “different kind of discipline.” Just a personal choice.
Hehe. Mea culpa, I have (unintentionally, I forgot) broken the uneasy truce. I admit to being the North Korea of weight loss discussions. 
It doesn’t take a lot of work to maintain obesity… just eat too much, be still and and sleep to store fat reserves. Repeat. Month after month. Year after year. But by doing that, you’re defying thousands of years of genetic programming that would normally compel you to “walk far” “climb that” “run fast” “bend over and get that” and “jump!” It takes a lot of work, a lot of single-minded obsessiveness and religiously followed patterns of behavior to gain and store hundreds of pounds of body fat beyond “normal” limits.
Now eating out doesn’t require a lot of work or effort, just money-- true. But most obese people I know can cook well and do so often. Earning money through work, eating out all the time, shopping for food, hunting for food, cooking food, storing food, washing up after cooking food, and eating yourself to obesity and then sitting on your fat ass takes work, just as regular intense exercise is work.
When you ignore the signals your body gives you to “stop” to satisfy your appetite to eat to fullness, that takes work. When you allow your appetite to be governed by your cravings instead of hunger, that’s a choice, but it’s a choice you work at. When you’re morbidly obese and connive, lie, steal, hoard and/or manipulate people into giving you food, that takes a single-mindedness few can reach.
Again – obesity may result in lethargy, fatigue and pain that may be described as “laziness,” but the actual journey to becoming obese is NOT lazy or undisciplined behavior. It’s just not the behavior you need to become muscular. It is perfect if you want to make sure you eat. It takes money, time, effort and consistency to become fat, just as it takes all that to become muscular and energetic.
Now if you’re unhappy with obesity then the journey from being fat to becoming slender and physically fit will require you to stop many, and sometimes reverse some other, long-standing habits and previously consistent behaviors by becoming active eating less and exercising. You will have to re-learn to pay attention to your hunger instead of your cravings and eat less, commit to regular moderate exercise and a far less sedetary lifestyle. That’s very hard, for some people impossible, just as many people who are physically active all their lives find it just as impossible to commit to the steady eating it would take to become three times their current body weight.
So you’re saying these people hear signals that they’re full, but keep eating anyway? That’s about the diametric opposite of what the apologists usually say: “They don’t have the same signals telling them when to stop as those who are naturally thin.” Have you considered that they may not?
I think at least some of them have been culturally conditioned not to stop eating until they “clean their plates”.
What **Anne Neville ** said, including the caveat that many of the “some” are socioeconomically conditioned, not just culturally.
I’ll go one further: I suspect many formerly poor people, i.e. – poor people who have managed to pull themselves up from generational poverty – pass on (former) class values regarding food to their kids: “Is this enough food? You want some more? Eat up! Don’t waste it, clean your plate!” while simultaneously indulging in middle class values regarding its quality: expensive leans of meat, ethnic foods, exotic restaurants, imported beers, etc.
It is pretty clear to me that the present weltenschaung of the underclass has led to a dynamic conclusion of obesity that contradicts the paradigm of the neomodern indigent originally predicted by 20th century Jungio-Marxist theory. That conclusion does not exculpate the present oil oligarchy for the oppression caused by excessive Snickers intake, but instead represents an insidious new offshoot of constant “pseudo-struggle” among the Snickers eating masses.
and only you. 
None of what I said is an excuse for personal responsibility or absolves choice: I’m suggesting there much more to obesity than so-called laziness and a lack of self-discipline. A lack of abstinence, sure. Irresponsibility? To a large extent, sure, especially with teenagers and adults who choose to remain obese. Willful ignorance explains a lot, too. None of those precisely equate to being lazy or lacking self-discipline. It is a problem of changing one’s motivation why they eat.
Again I don’t argue that eating less, eating healthy and getting exercise is effective, it’s just that for the obese it isn’t enough. The obese have to learn to satisfy – not satiate – hunger, not their appetite, and to either subliminate, ignore or quell (without eating) junk food cravings.
You’re overcomplicating things and talking in circles.
By definition, eating less, eating healthy and getting exercise is “enough.” It works 100% of the time. For anyone who is fat. It is nonsensical to argue whether or not eating less, eating healthy, and getting exercise will make you lose weight; everyone agrees it will.
If you have tried to lose weight, and you have been unsuccessful, then it is because you do not have the strength and discipline to do it. I do not know of a formula for acquiring strength and discipline. You might try reading a self-help book, or you might try counseling. But these techniques usually don’t work. A better idea may be to simply resign to the fact that you do not possess the strength and discipline to lose weight, and that you’ll be fat for the rest of your life.
This brings back nightmares from a sociology class I once took.
Yea, it has nothing to do with diet and exercise! And it is not the fault of the fat person that they’re fat! No, it’s because… they don’t have access to the right food! Yea, that’s it! :rolleyes: And… they’ve never been taught how to eat right! Yea, that’s it! :rolleyes: And…
Or y’know. Ignore horrible advice like yours.
Crater_Man. You cut off part two of a very simple two part train of thought. My full quote – not taken out of context – is this: *“Again I don’t argue that eating less, eating healthy and getting exercise is effective, it’s just that for the obese it isn’t enough. The obese have to learn to satisfy – not satiate – hunger, not their appetite, and to either subliminate, ignore or quell (without eating) junk food cravings.” *
This is awareness of the fact they’re feeding cravings and not actual hunger is where I believe new habits and new discipline can be learned.
Good GOD, you’re a really shitty motivator. You don’t offer advice and then turn right back around say, but hey! That probrably won’t work!
What percentage of obese people have lost weight to the point where their BMI is in the normal range, and have kept the weight off? I don’t know, but my guess is less than 5%.
First-and-foremost I am a realist. So in light of what I said in the paragraph above, I have this to say to fat people:
It is your fault you are fat.
Don’t lie to yourself - you already know how to lose weight.
Your success in losing weight is completely dependent on the amount of strength and discipline you possess.
If you are a weak person, and thus do not possess much in the way of strength and discipline, consider reading a self-help book, or talking with a therapist.
Chances are, reading a self-help book or talking with a therapist will not give you strength and discipline. This means there is a very good chance you will remain fat the rest of your life.
If you’re like 95% of other obese people, and you remain fat the rest of your life, please do the rest of us a favor: stop whining about being fat, and stop inventing diseases and medical conditions in a pathetic attempt at absolving yourself of personal responsibility. You’ll be more at peace with yourself and others once you resign to the fact that you have chosen to be fat.
A simple answer:
When a countries media is taken over by liberals, hammering day and night into the minds of many millions that certain groups are owed the world, then (many in) those groups that think they’re victims, take it to heart and exploit the generosity of those that BUILT THE WORLD!!!
You could also ask, Why is it that the one group that whines the most about things being so horribly bad for them (because of “racism”), also happens to be the group that is crapping out babies at a far greater rate than those that supposedly are oppressing them. It doesn’t make sense!
I’d expect a realist to come up with more accurate-sounding statistics than pulled out the ass alarmist assertions like 95% of all fat people will remain obese for the rest of their lives.
You may have a point describing failed weight loss in terms of strength and weakness if you’re describing will – but it’s only marginally more accurate than blaming them on laziness and self-discipline. I’d loooooove to see you call Suge Knight or Arnold Schwartzeneggar “a weak person.” It goes without saying I do not share your dismissive attitude toward self-help books or therapy.
Everything in life is the person’s fault then. Mental illness, crime, poverty, disease, relationship problems because no matter what a person’s problems are they can avoid them in whole or in part if they try hard enough. If you are going to take a minor amount of control and parlay that into total control you should do it for all areas of life. Most cancer deaths could be avoided with willpower and planning. so could most victimizations of crime if people just planned ahead. But who wants to live in a society so heartless and uptight?
Again, you don’t seem like a success story even though you’ve lost weight and kept it off. If 95% of people fail to lose weight and keep it off and the remaining 5% have to engage in intense double standards and intolerance to keep their motivation high then that is not a success by any means.
weight loss violates billions of years of evolution, there is no real difference between dieting and famine. Both are examples of a short period of time where food is scarce, followed by a period of refeeding to prepare for the next famine. The fact that people aren’t willing to admit that humans and our ape and reptile ancestors have had millions of years to develop evolutionary methods to deal with this simple fact is confusing. Humans did not evolve biochemical processes to cope with excess food. They developed ways to deal with short term food shortages. They lose weight then when the food comes back they gain it back to deal with the next famine. If they didn’t gain it back they’d die in the next famine.