- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
Summary
A new Lancet study reveals nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults are overweight or obese, a sharp rise from just over half in 1990.
Obesity among adults doubled to over 40%, while rates among girls and women aged 15–24 nearly tripled to 29%.
The study highlights significant health risks, including diabetes, heart disease, and shortened life expectancy, alongside projected medical costs of up to $9.1 trillion over the next decade.
Experts stress obesity’s complex causes—genetic, environmental, and social—and call for structural reforms like food subsidies, taxes on sugary drinks, and expanded treatment access.
That’s interesting. Germans certainly aren’t known for their healthy food when you look at the prevalence of cured meats and things like currywurst.
contrary to conventional wisdom, quality of food isn’t really considered a primary instigator of the obesity epidemic. rather, environmental factors such as poverty, failures in education/access to diet information, and car-centric urbanization are proven to be much bigger factors in the ongoing health crisis.
in other words, america could be totally healthy eating the exact same food if we built society around people living healthy lives, but that is far from the primary goal for a country living under capital.
I slightly disagree.
If I suddenly started eating 15000 kcal of mostly sugar and fat each day, it would have a detrimental impact on my health. Regardless of my education or income.
So to me it seems like the effect is in reverse. If we changed society to make it easier for people to make healthier choices, then the general health would improve. But the actual improvement would come from calorie intake, food quality and activity levels.
But I absolutely agree that having limited access to healthy food, and living in a area where walking could be unsafe makes it incredibly hard to be healthy.
that’s the difference between primary and secondary causes, individual cases and epidemics.
while you may be able to imagine an instance where food quality is a primary factor in an individual’s wellbeing doesn’t challenge the empirical evidence that overall the epidemic affecting massive swaths of people is borne primarily out of a context of low income, low education and urbanization.
Well, the smugness is impressive. I’ll have to give you that.
You specifically said: “in other words, america could be totally healthy eating the exact same food if we built society around people living healthy lives, but that is far from the primary goal for a country living under capital.”
I just disagree with this statement. I don’t think we could eat the exact same diet in a different society and expect food-related health issues to significantly improve.
So where on the list of causes would you place calorie intake, food quality and inactivity? Secondary? Tertiary? Completely unrelated?
notice the key difference in language. makes 100% of the difference. i choose my words with care.
So, I’m I to assume that you wanted to say that calories are more important than food quality?
Sure. I agree with that.
Regarding your careful choice of words. If you wanted to make a convoluted post in order to smugly debate some random person on the internet, then you have done an excellent job and I congratulate you sir.
If you are trying to actually communicate clearly then you have some improvements to make.
i’m sorry that you misunderstood my post. i’m blocking you because i don’t like to be told how to hang out and talk about topics when plenty of others got it without having to tell me how smug i am for correcting terminology errors.