Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Trolldor]

Condescending or not is irrelevant. It's true, the rising level of obesity can only be attributed to an unhealthy lifestyle, and a significant contributor to unhealthy lifestyle are poor food choices - of which the fast food industry and thus McDonald's are a significant contributor.
There are plenty of ways, plenty of options, and yet we see oebsity rising. Clearly 'making the right decisions' is something which is bcoming decreasingly prevalent.

Quite simply, if they were capable of making the right decisions they would. They would if they understood the importance of making the right decisions then they would be capable of it.
Stop assuming that everyone is as capable as you are.

[Tigger]

Or is a middle-aged lady who is making a bit of fun of you

Oh, you're saying it was intended to be humor! Humor is another thing that nonnative speakers don't do well, by the way. You might want to study English idiom (not a misspelling) more first.

I actually thought it was funny without being told. Maybe a bit of introspection is worth a thought?

[Ronja]

Or is a middle-aged lady who is making a bit of fun of you

Oh, you're saying it was intended to be humor!

Keywords: wit, invective, irony.

Concepts found in written English since the 16th century. Today recognized as forms of verbal humor chiefly by intellectuals and liberals - though on the British Isles often used in rural settings, too, especially in Cornwall, Wales, Yorkshire, and the more remote parts of Scotland and Ireland. Together with understatement, mandatory oratory styles to master for Lords Temporal. Fluency also expected at Westminster, though there sarcasm, puns and innuendo tend to dominate.

You know how to search, don't you, Warren? You just put your fingers to the keyboard and type.

[Coito ergo sum]

Condescending or not is irrelevant. It's true, the rising level of obesity can only be attributed to an unhealthy lifestyle,

Euphemism for "eating too much."

and a significant contributor to unhealthy lifestyle are poor food choices -

"poor food choices" - choosing to eat too much.

of which the fast food industry and thus McDonald's are a significant contributor.

Only if one eats too much.

Like Hershey's chocolates and pizza, ice cream and cake. If you don't eat too much, it's just fine, yet they are "significant contributors" because people must eat. Anyone selling food is a "significant contributor," including Chilis, Ruby Tuesday, A&P Supermarkets, Wall Mart, and the corner grocery - 7Eleven is a "significant contributor."

There are plenty of ways, plenty of options, and yet we see oebsity rising.

Because people eat about 20-30% more than they did 40 years ago, and watch 4 times as much television, all the while getting significantly less exercise as well.

Clearly 'making the right decisions' is something which is bcoming decreasingly prevalent.

It's up to the individual how much they want to eat. But, it is the quantity of eating that causes weight gain.

Quite simply, if they were capable of making the right decisions they would.

I'm not judging the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the decision. It is for you to control your body weight, and me to control mine. I'm merely stating the scientific fact that eating more than you need, consistently, over time will mean you get fat. On my side is about every single physician, nutritionist and personal trainer on the planet - it's the "scientific consensus."

They would if they understood the importance of making the right decisions then they would be capable of it.

I'm not suggesting I know what "right" is. That's a subjective value judgment, and a healthy weight for you might not be what someone else wants. It's not for me (or you) -- or the majority of people in the jurisdictions - to dictate what someone weighs or what they eat. The reality is, the body stores food as fat when it can't use it for its functioning, so if you eat too much (relative to what your body needs), then you get fat.

Stop assuming that everyone is as capable as you are.

If the standard was that we would structure food laws to fit the least "capable" among us, then we would have government issue menus to everyone delineating what we must have for breakfast lunch and dinner, and preventing us from overeating.

Nobody making the "right" decision would ever eat a "Bloomin' Onion" appetizer from Outback Steakhouse, or enter the pie eating contest at the county fair, but it sure would be a sucky-ass world if cities started prohibiting Outback from selling Bloomin Onions to people where the total meal ordered had "too many calories and fat", or require pie eating contests to stop at 600 calories.

[Warren Dew]

Condescending or not is irrelevant. It's true, the rising level of obesity can only be attributed to an unhealthy lifestyle, and a significant contributor to unhealthy lifestyle are poor food choices - of which the fast food industry and thus McDonald's are a significant contributor.

What percentage of children's meals are eaten at fast food places? I wouldn't think it would be very high before the teenage years.

I think it's more likely the bad choices are being made at home or at school. People blame McDonald's because they don't want to admit that their own choices are bad.

[Warren Dew]

Because people eat about 20-30% more than they did 40 years ago, and watch 4 times as much television, all the while getting significantly less exercise as well.

I remember hearing a statistic 40 years ago that people watched about 30 hours of television a week. Do they really watch 120 hours a week today?

[Coito ergo sum]

Because people eat about 20-30% more than they did 40 years ago, and watch 4 times as much television, all the while getting significantly less exercise as well.

I remember hearing a statistic 40 years ago that people watched about 30 hours of television a week. Do they really watch 120 hours a week today?

One rapid social change has been the increase in television viewing, which has risen from an average of 16 h/week in 1970 to 25 h/week in 1996 (Central Statistical Office, 1970; Office for National Statistics, 1998). That's a 36% increase from 1970 to 1996 http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v57/ ... 1648a.html and according to Neilson in 2009, it has risen even higher: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-24/ente ... PM:SHOWBIZ

Correlates quite well with the rise in obesity, don't it?

Television Viewing as a Cause of Increasing Obesity Among Children in the United States, 1986-1990
Steven L. Gortmaker, PhD; Aviva Must, PhD; Arthur M. Sobol, AM; Karen Peterson, RD, ScD; Graham A. Colditz, MD, DrPH; William H. Dietz, MD, PhD
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150(4):356-362.

We observed a strong dose-response relationship between the prevalence of overweight in 1990 and hours of television viewed. The odds of being overweight were 4.6 (95% confidence interval, 2.2 to 9.6) times greater for youth watching more than 5 hours of television per day compared with those watching for 0 to 2 hours. When adjustments were made for previous overweight (in 1986), baseline maternal overweight, socioeconomic status, household structure, ethnicity, and maternal and child aptitude test scores, results were similar (odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 12.1). We also found significant relations between television viewing and increased incidence and decreased remission of overweight during this 4-year period, adjusted for baseline covariates. The adjusted odds of incidence were 8.3 (95% confidence interval, 2.6 to 26.5) times greater for youth watching more than 5 hours of television per day compared with those watching for 0 to 2 hours. Estimates of attributable risk indicate that more 60% of overweight incidence in this population can be linked to excess television viewing time.

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... /150/4/356

Study showing t.v. watching among young children correllates with increased levels of obesity/overweight, and even stronger correlation occurs with those who have televisions in the bedroom.

Outcome Measures. Cross-sectional relationships between the amount of time the child spends viewing TV/video and the presence of a TV set in the child’s bedroom, with the prevalence of overweight children (body mass index [BMI] >85th percentile) after adjustment for potential confounders.

Results. Mean TV/video viewing times were higher among black children and Hispanic children than white children and increased with the child’s age. In multiple logistic regression, the odds ratio of children having a BMI >85th percentile was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.004–1.11) for each additional hour per day of TV/video viewed, independent of child age, child sex, parental educational attainment, and race/ethnicity. Almost 40% of children had a TV set in their bedroom; they were more likely to be overweight and spent more time (4.6 hours per week) watching TV/video than children without a TV in their bedroom. In multiple logistic regression, the odds ratio of having a BMI >85th percentile was 1.31 (95% CI: 1.01–1.69) among those with a TV in their bedroom versus those without a TV, after statistical adjustment for child age, child sex, child TV/video viewing hours per week, maternal BMI, maternal education, and race/ethnicity.

Conclusions. This study extends the association between TV viewing and risk of being overweight to younger, preschool-aged children. A TV in the child’s bedroom is an even stronger marker of increased risk of being overweight. Because most children watch TV by age 2, educational efforts about limiting child TV/video viewing and keeping the TV out of the child’s bedroom need to begin before then.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 109/6/1028

Do We Fatten Our Children at the Television Set? Obesity and Television Viewing in Children and Adolescents

William H. Dietz Jr MD, PhD1, Steven L. Gortmaker PhD1
1 From the Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, New England Medical Center, and Department of Behavioral Sciences, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston
The association of television viewing and obesity in data collected during cycles II and III of the National Health Examination Survey was examined. Cycle II examined 6,965 children aged 6 to 11 years and cycle III examined 6,671 children aged 12 to 17 years. Included in the cycle III sample were 2,153 subjects previously studied during cycle II. These surveys, therefore, provided two cross-sectional samples and one prospective sample. In all three samples, significant associations of the time spent watching television and the prevalence of obesity were observed. In 12- to 17-year-old adolescents, the prevalence of obesity increased by 2% for each additional hour of television viewed. The associations persisted when controlled for prior obesity, region, season, population density, race, socioeconomic class, and a variety of other family variables. The consistency, temporal sequence, strength, and specificity of the associations suggest that television viewing may cause obesity in at least some children and adolescents. The potential effects of obesity on activity and the consumption of calorically dense foods are consistent with this hypothesis.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... t/75/5/807

Conclusion - if you want to improve your kids' likelihood of not being fat, take the t.v. out of the bedroom, and don't let them watch more than an hour a day, max, giving them the opportunity to move around a bit more.

It's also common sense - television is a sedentary activity. You burn more calories reading than you do watching t.v. While watching t.v., people do not move around. When you don't move around, you burn fewer calories than when you do move around. And, television is linked to snacking. Like popcorn in a movie theater, it is very common for people to eat while watching t.v. All those lead to increased calories, and decreased burning of calories. F.A.T. - Q.E.D.

Maybe San Francisco should impose an ordinance that children should be permitted to only watch 30 minutes of t.v. on average per day until the age of 13, and fine parents who allow their kids to watch more. That would, at least, have an evidentiary basis.

[Warren Dew]

One rapid social change has been the increase in television viewing, which has risen from an average of 16 h/week in 1970 to 25 h/week in 1996 (Central Statistical Office, 1970; Office for National Statistics, 1998). That's a 36% increase from 1970 to 1996 http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v57/ ... 1648a.html and according to Neilson in 2009, it has risen even higher: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-24/ente ... PM:SHOWBIZ

Correlates quite well with the rise in obesity, don't it?

Not necessarily. Was television watching flat before 1980, during the period before the obesity epidemic? If it was already increasing before obesity started growing, then the fact that it was still increasing afterwards indicates little.

Your other sources are better, though I'm still unconvinced the correlations reflect a direct causation. I think it's more likely that parents who spend more time with their kids instead of sitting them in front of a TV are more likely to take better care of them in other ways as well - ways which might help prevent obesity.

[Coito ergo sum]

One rapid social change has been the increase in television viewing, which has risen from an average of 16 h/week in 1970 to 25 h/week in 1996 (Central Statistical Office, 1970; Office for National Statistics, 1998). That's a 36% increase from 1970 to 1996 http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v57/ ... 1648a.html and according to Neilson in 2009, it has risen even higher: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-24/ente ... PM:SHOWBIZ

Correlates quite well with the rise in obesity, don't it?

Not necessarily. Was television watching flat before 1980, during the period before the obesity epidemic? If it was already increasing before obesity started growing, then the fact that it was still increasing afterwards indicates little.

Your other sources are better, though I'm still unconvinced the correlations reflect a direct causation. I think it's more likely that parents who spend more time with their kids instead of sitting them in front of a TV are more likely to take better care of them in other ways as well - ways which might help prevent obesity.

The data seems to be that obesity rates increase markedly at about 5 hours a day t.v. watching -- it's the really big t.v. watchers that get obese. And, it's after the early to mid 1980s that that level of t.v. started to become more prevalent and per my previous statistics, between 4 and 5 hours is about the AVERAGE right now, meaning many kids watch even more than that. The data - every bit I've looked at, and that's a lot, is staggeringly consistent.











Once again, the moral of the story is - shut the damn t.v. off, and remove all t.v.'s and computer games from a child's room. Teach your kids to play (play that involves movement).

[Warren Dew]

Once again, the moral of the story is - shut the damn t.v. off, and remove all t.v.'s and computer games from a child's room.

How did computer games get swept into this?

Again, you're jumping to conclusions about the mechanism behind the correlation. Here's an article that suggests that television and DVD viewing is fine, as long as it's commercial free:

The findings showed that the amount of television a child watched wasn’t a predictor of obesity risk. Instead, risk for being overweight increased the more television commercials a child was exposed to. There was no association with television viewing and obesity for those who watched videos or commercial-free programming.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/0 ... sity-link/

Unfortunately you have to pay to get the full study, but it does indicate that even if television is a problem, it isn't because it causes lack of exercise.

[Coito ergo sum]

Once again, the moral of the story is - shut the damn t.v. off, and remove all t.v.'s and computer games from a child's room.

How did computer games get swept into this?

You're right - I didn't need to do that - but, it's pretty clear that since particles of fat don't fly from a t.v. screen to a person to make them bigger, it's a property of the t.v. watching that is an indirect cause of the weight gain. That is, increased t.v. hours means more sedentary time (less calorie burning), plus more eating (common during television watching). My hypothesis is that computer gaming is not materially different than t.v. watching in that regard.

Again, you're jumping to conclusions about the mechanism behind the correlation.

I'm jumping to conclusions? What did San Francisco do then? Leap across the grand canyon? LOL

Here's an article that suggests that television and DVD viewing is fine, as long as it's commercial free:

The findings showed that the amount of television a child watched wasn’t a predictor of obesity risk. Instead, risk for being overweight increased the more television commercials a child was exposed to. There was no association with television viewing and obesity for those who watched videos or commercial-free programming.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/0 ... sity-link/

Unfortunately you have to pay to get the full study, but it does indicate that even if television is a problem, it isn't because it causes lack of exercise.

Interesting. I'd love to see that study.

[Tigger]

Along with the poll, it'd be interesting to record the BMIs of the contributors to this thread. I wonder if people are more vocal one way or another due to some sort of subjectivity. I say this because overweight people are more likely (in my experience of several) to think that someone of a normal weight is in fact underweight. Dietary opinions and the interpretation of data (for that is what's going in in here) might be similar.

[Coito ergo sum]

Along with the poll, it'd be interesting to record the BMIs of the contributors to this thread. I wonder if people are more vocal one way or another due to some sort of subjectivity. I say this because overweight people are more likely (in my experience of several) to think that someone of a normal weight is in fact underweight. Dietary opinions and the interpretation of data (for that is what's going in in here) might be similar.

Anecdotally, I have had the same experience. I have found folks call people "skinny" who are plainly of "normal" BMI.

I am willing to be most people who are "obese" would not consider themselves to be that.

A 6 foot (1.83 meters) tall man who weighs 200 pounds (90.9 Kg) is, on the BMI chart, clearly "overweight."

At 225lbs (102.3 Kg), he is "obese."

[Warren Dew]

You're right - I didn't need to do that - but, it's pretty clear that since particles of fat don't fly from a t.v. screen to a person to make them bigger, it's a property of the t.v. watching that is an indirect cause of the weight gain.

That's not clear at all. For example, the causation could be the reverse: maybe kids who are fat for other reasons end up watching more TV because they can't keep up on the playground. Or it could be a third factor causing both.

I'm jumping to conclusions? What did San Francisco do then? Leap across the grand canyon?

Yes, pretty much.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're right - I didn't need to do that - but, it's pretty clear that since particles of fat don't fly from a t.v. screen to a person to make them bigger, it's a property of the t.v. watching that is an indirect cause of the weight gain.

That's not clear at all. For example, the causation could be the reverse: maybe kids who are fat for other reasons end up watching more TV because they can't keep up on the playground. Or it could be a third factor causing both.

Quite possible, I admit. However, given the number of studies - and given how the numbers are quite consistent, it seems a good bet, and certainly accounts for the increased fatness. There is certainly more reason to think it's television than toys in happy meal boxes, that's for sure.

Moreover, we know that all else being equal, a group of kids who goes out and plays tag or other similar games for 5 hours, is going to be less likely to be fat than an equivalent group of kids who sit inside watching cartoons and eating Doritos during that time.

I'm jumping to conclusions? What did San Francisco do then? Leap across the grand canyon?

Yes, pretty much.

Well, at least we agree there.