Americas weight issue

[Celtic.]

Are people getting to big
or are peoples perception of fat FKed up.

I think its a little of both. if people consider size 6 to be fat(which ive heard) then we've got a serious issue

[Harry Smith]

America issue isn't about dress sizes or public perception/ they've simply got too many obese adults and children which leads to diabetes, cancer and heart disease. I take a kinda libertarian view in that the government shouldn't go overboard apart from educating children about the dangers

[britishboy]

I think America does have terrible obesity levels, although I can't be certain it is as bad as the stereotype.

Maybe tax unhealthy foods.

[workingatperfect]

Maybe tax unhealthy foods.

First of all, this would be incredibly hard for many reasons. For example, for some people soy milk can make them gain weight, while for others it's a much better alternative to dairy milk. And red meat... healthy because of the protein, or unhealthy because of the possible risk of heart disease. Second, it's just stupid, seven cents isn't going to stop people from buying it. And third, fast food is already taxed.

I think it's a bit of both too. While yes, there is an obesity problem, perceptions on what is "fat" are also getting out of control. There was one store a while back that stopped selling clothes over a size 10, because their clothes weren't made for fat girls. FYI, 10 isn't that big. My mom wears a 9, and she only weighs 115lbs.

[britishboy]

First of all, this would be incredibly hard for many reasons. For example, for some people soy milk can make them gain weight, while for others it's a much better alternative to dairy milk. And red meat... healthy because of the protein, or unhealthy because of the possible risk of heart disease. Second, it's just stupid, seven cents isn't going to stop people from buying it. And third, fast food is already taxed.

Not pacific foods but maybe anything where the food contains over 15% fat? And if it's already taxed clearly it isn't stupid and should be raised. Look at most over weight people, they struggle for money and so taxing the unhealthy foods they eat will help.



I think it's a bit of both too. While yes, there is an obesity problem, perceptions on what is "fat" are also getting out of control. There was one store a while back that stopped selling clothes over a size 10, because their clothes weren't made for fat girls. FYI, 10 isn't that big. My mom wears a 9, and she only weighs 115lbs.

I don't know US sizes but over here 10 is fat, don't hate their designer either, they just dont think the clothes streched out on fat people look good.

[Celtic.]

10 is fat......10?!?!?

[Vlerchan]

I don't know US sizes but over here 10 is fat, don't hate their designer either, they just dont think the clothes streched out on fat people look good.
Are you seriously trying to call size 10 (see below) fat?:/

http://neoneocon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/crystal-renn-300x400.jpg
Caption Reads: "Take a look at Ms. Renn, who is 5'9″ and wears a size 10"

[workingatperfect]

Not pacific foods but maybe anything where the food contains over 15% fat? And if it's already taxed clearly it isn't stupid and should be raised. Look at most over weight people, they struggle for money and so taxing the unhealthy foods they eat will help.

*Specific, jesus christ. And it's a service tax I believe, not because it's fattening. And I don't even know how to respond to your assumption that obese people are poor.

I don't know US sizes but over here 10 is fat, don't hate their designer either, they just dont think the clothes streched out on fat people look good.

I looked it up, for you a US size 10 is your 14.

For those of who didn't bother to look it up, he's calling an American size 6 fat.. SIX.

[Celtic.]

*Specific, jesus christ. And it's a service tax I believe, not because it's fattening. And I don't even know how to respond to your assumption that obese people are poor.



I looked it up, for you a US size 10 is your 14.

For those of who didn't bother to look it up, he's calling an American size 6 fat.. SIX.

who me?

14 is thick....nice size IMO

[CharlieHorse]

People take advantage of cheap unhealthy food for survival.
As a result, people get fat.

I'm chubby because I'm depressed and have no motivation to do anything other than eat and cry.
Yes I'm that pathetic.

[workingatperfect]

who me?

14 is thick....nice size IMO

Not really specifically, although I do think you're missing the size conversions. I was informing him that in my original post, I was referring to what would be a UK size 14.

But what he called fat? Is a US 6.

[Vlerchan]

And it's a service tax I believe, not because it's fattening.[2] And I don't even know how to respond to your assumption that obese people are poor.[1]
[1]: He's actually right in his assumption that lower-income families are more likely to be obese than higher-income families. (SOURCE) (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/23/health-minister-poor-families-obesity) He just managed to phrase it incredibly badly. A lot of 'low-quality' foods - i.e., foods containing excess amounts of sugar, salt and fat - tend to be a lot more inexpensive than their 'higher-quality' counterparts. This leads to a higher consumption of these 'lower-quality' foods amongst less-affluent families.

[2]: A service tax is also entirely different to a 'fat' tax - that's how we label the tex in Ireland, anyway. A 'fat' tax specifically targets food products with excess levels of salt, sugar and fat and would be a lot more than 7c. It's not actually a bad idea. It leads to (hopefully - we haven't actually implemented it yet) lower-income families shifting their demand to 'higher-quality' - i.e., untaxed - substitute goods or cut-backs on consumption of newly-taxed 'low-quality' goods which will in turn force producers of 'low-quality' foods to change to healthier formulas and hence avoid the tax - causing a subsequent drop in prices and a return of previous demand.

[ksdnfkfr]

I bet most of it is fast food.
And fast food is more expensive then home cooked.
People get off work and hit the fast food drive through.
And probably most have fast food for lunch too.

[workingatperfect]

[1]: He's actually right in his assumption that lower-income families are more likely to be obese than higher-income families. (SOURCE) (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/23/health-minister-poor-families-obesity) He just managed to phrase it incredibly badly. A lot of 'low-quality' foods - i.e., foods containing excess amounts of sugar, salt and fat - tend to be a lot more inexpensive than their 'higher-quality' counterparts. This leads to a higher consumption of these 'lower-quality' foods amongst less-affluent families.

Fair enough. He has a tendency to degrade low income people, which is why I responded to him the way I did.

[2]: A service tax is also entirely different to a 'fat' tax - that's how we label the tex in Ireland, anyway. A 'fat' tax specifically targets food products with excess levels of salt, sugar and fat and would be a lot more than 7c. It's not actually a bad idea. It leads to (hopefully - we haven't actually implemented it yet) lower-income families shifting their demand to 'higher-quality' - i.e., untaxed - substitute goods or cut-backs on consumption of newly-taxed 'low-quality' goods which will in turn force producers of 'low-quality' foods to change to healthier formulas and hence avoid the tax - causing a subsequent drop in prices and a return of previous demand.

That's what I was pointing out to him, in case you misunderstood. When he said it wasn't stupid if we already did, I pointed out that it had nothing to do with the health levels of the food.

I do agree that maybe doing it by fat content is a bit more sensible than just healthy vs not, since that's so subjective. But fat can also vary, as there's such a thing as healthy fats. It would have to be broken down even more into, what is it? Trans fats? As opposed to saturated? (Not sure if that's right or backwards or what)

[Sir Suomi]

People are obese. Deal with it. There is no debate here.

[britishboy]

*Specific, jesus christ. And it's a service tax I believe, not because it's fattening. And I don't even know how to respond to your assumption that obese people are poor.


Sorry fast typing on a mobile device is never good:P Poor people eat cheap horrible food, that food is unhealthy making them fat.
www.huffpost.com/us/entry/4262089/

I looked it up, for you a US size 10 is your 14.

For those of who didn't bother to look it up, he's calling an American size 6 fat.. SIX.

EDIT: that is fat I was looking at shoe sizes and I found a brilliant page we should all use as it has a table converting sizes to all major world countries.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com/cloth-sizing-d_221.html

Fair enough. He has a tendency to degrade low income people, which is why I responded to him the way I did.

So I was right :rolleyes: so now we're on the same page.

I do agree that maybe doing it by fat content is a bit more sensible than just healthy vs not, since that's so subjective. But fat can also vary, as there's such a thing as healthy fats. It would have to be broken down even more into, what is it? Trans fats? As opposed to saturated? (Not sure if that's right or backwards or what)
Saturated fats are the bad ones so maybe tax that? Like how it is done with tobacco make it a bit more expensive and people stop buying it. I suggest 50-60%.I think your going to tell me that wont make a difference so maybe 250-260% more expensive?

[Harry Smith]

Not pacific foods but maybe anything where the food contains over 15% fat? And if it's already taxed clearly it isn't stupid and should be raised. Look at most over weight people, they struggle for money and so taxing the unhealthy foods they eat will help.


So I was right :rolleyes: so now we're on the same page.

Saturated fats are the bad ones so maybe tax that? Like how it is done with tobacco make it a bit more expensive and people stop buying it. I suggest 50-60%.I think your going to tell me that wont make a difference so maybe 250-260% more expensive?

Wait, your suggesting a 250% tax rise on unhealthy foods in the United States? 250%? So if a chocolate bar costs $1 you wold make someone pay 3.50- that's not acceptable even for a socialist country

This is a country which not only has very low taxes rates to begin with but is extremely opposed to any tax rises- groups like Americans for Tax reforms and the tea party aren't going to be accepting this very easily. This a country that went to war because of Taxes

The answer isn't about taxation at all- you can tax alcohol and cigarettes and people will continue to buy them- heck people spend nearly £8 on a packet now, fast food often costs more than a cheap home cooked meal- it's simply because people want food instantly and don't have the skills/education to cook healthy food- it's all about education, education, education to quote Tony Blair.

It's also pretty sickening to call dress size 10 fat, literally dress size 10 isn't fat- you don't measure fatness by dress size you use something called BMI. People like you 'attacking' girls for being size 10 leads to this fucking messed up society where girls are killing them-self because they're being labelled as fat by society.

I don't think that it's the governments Job to use a tax as some sort punishment to stop getting unhealthy food, they should use the 'carrot' method of educating people and teaching them how to shop on a budget and cook cheap, healthy meals

[Vlerchan]

The answer isn't about taxation at all- you can tax alcohol and cigarettes and people will continue to buy them- heck people spend nearly £8 on a packet now [...]
There's a huge difference between taxing 'low-quality' food items - and I'm talking more than just chocolate bars and take-away here - and cigarettes and alcohol. With excise duty on cigarettes and alcohol you're taxing everything in the range - because lessening consumption of the product as a whole is what you're trying to achieve - whilst with a 'fat' tax on 'low-quality' foods you're still leaving a huge range of substitute goods - i.e., 'higher-quality' foods' - for the consumer to switch their demand to - because lessening the consumption of a subset of the product is what you're trying to achieve.

Though I'll add that despite their low elasticity of demand cigarettes and alcohol do both see a drop in consumption when excise duty on them is raised.

fast food often costs more than a cheap home cooked meal- it's simply because people want food instantly and don't have the skills/education to cook healthy food- it's all about education, education, education to quote Tony Blair.
It's nothing to do with skills or education. You hit the nail on the head with 'instantly', though. The idea behind fast food is that it's not inexpensive, but rather convenient. Many low-income workers simply don't work the hours that allow them to prepare a nutritious meal - though it would be a lie to say that all home-cooked meals are nutritious in the first place, which is also a major part of the problem. Whilst education will certainly help it's not going to end the problem by itself, or even have a huge impact on it, I believe.

EDIT: I'm leaving out childhood obesity entirely here. Whilst that can be tackled to an extent with education, it's still going to be that low-income parents or guardians purchasing the 'low-quality' foods.

I don't think that it's the governments Job to use a tax as some sort punishment to stop getting unhealthy food, they should use the 'carrot' method of educating people and teaching them how to shop on a budget and cook cheap, healthy meals
The point of a 'fat' tax isn't to punish individuals who prefer to choose the more fattening alternative. The point of a 'fat' tax is to put pressure on the companies producing fattening foods to change their formulas and recipes to healthier alternatives and thus avoid the taxes and demand drops.

Though, I believe the government has every right to tax unhealthy foods. The cost of treating individuals for obesity-related diseases in the US is around $147 billion dollars in 2008 (http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html) and whilst I'm sure it doesn't cost as much in Ireland I'd rather we pumped our hard-earned tax-payers money into problems that are not so easily-preventable - Note: we've a publicly-funded healthcare system here.

EDIT: that is fat
Just stop. You're not going to get anywhere with this. I'm genuinely confused how you can look at the picture I posted and label the woman fat:/

[Sph2015]

Alright, for some reason I'm getting involved.

1. Fat tax ain't happenin'. You want to bring up new taxes to any level of American government, be my guest. Good luck with that

2. I think we can agree that the issue lies with lower income families. Now, beyond that you guys have gotten borderline offensive. At least for someone who lives in a small Midwest community and lives right with stereotypical "fat" American families. The reason cheap junk food is so popular and causing obesity isn't convenience. It's cheap! They're LOW INCOME for goodness sake! They can't afford healthy homemade meals. There's no education factor. They know what a healthy low fat nutritious meal is. They aren't idiots who need there hands held! The point is, they can choose between a full week of crap food, or a few nice meals and then not eating.

3. That's why taxing won't work. If you make the food expensive, they will buy the now "cheap" healthy foods. There also going to not be eating several nights a week. But hey, they'll still be losing weight, right?

4. Nothing can be done. That's where I stand. I don't think factory wages can be raised, but that also keeps people at the poverty level. We're screwed in that aspect.

My final point is that they aren't a bunch of McDonalds munching idiots. They're simply making the choices that will keep their stomachs full and allow them to function.

[workingatperfect]

3. That's why taxing won't work. If you make the food expensive, they will buy the now "cheap" healthy foods. There also going to not be eating several nights a week. But hey, they'll still be losing weight, right?

4. Nothing can be done. That's where I stand. I don't think factory wages can be raised, but that also keeps people at the poverty level. We're screwed in that aspect.


These two points. These right here... You got it. I don't know why this didn't occur to me before you said it, since it's something I think about a lot. When I started dieting over a year ago, the first thing I noticed was "Wow, why are healthy foods so damn expensive? Shouldn't it be the other way around?" Instead of punishing people for eating crappy by charging them more... why aren't we rewarding them for being healthy by charging less for that?

And the second one reminds of something I've been seeing a LOT on tumblr, which is the issue with minimum wage. Not sure that's quite what you were getting at with the factory wages, but it's on the same track. People making minimum wage are NOT supposed to be below the poverty line, that's the whole point of it. And yet, we've got people making more than $7.85 and STILL well under that line. That would also help with this "buying cheap quick food" issue.

[Korashk]

Women's clothing sizes aren't standardized, so arguing about what size is fat is pointless.

[Celtic.]

People are obese. Deal with it. There is no debate here.

well that was harsh

[tovaris]

People are seriously getting fat all over the "developed" world, especaly in the USA.

Idk what a size 6 is

[Celtic.]

People are seriously getting fat all over the "developed" world, especaly in the USA.

Idk what a size 6 is

I believe this is a size 6
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8CkE_o3Mk1s/T-28j2KW-zI/AAAAAAAACCQ/UUB7j4rimWY/s1600/size+6.jpg
Some say this is fat...

[tovaris]

I believe this is a size 6
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8CkE_o3Mk1s/T-28j2KW-zI/AAAAAAAACCQ/UUB7j4rimWY/s1600/size+6.jpg
Some say this is fat...

She fat? Lol who said that do they own a television you have people that takw up entire rooms over there in the states....

[Celtic.]

ikr? shes attractive. Personally I do like thick women like Size 12-16 (size 14 is perfect) but size 6 is fat???? come on.
This is size 14 I think
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/45/78/c7/4578c7a3797a1b0139d8ce10376aefeb.jpg

[Sir Suomi]

well that was harsh

I'm being realistic. People are going to be overweight, whether it being due to genetics or lifestyles. It's bad, and I wish it wasn't like that. But there really is no debate.

[Celtic.]

I'm being realistic. People are going to be overweight, whether it being due to genetics or lifestyles. It's bad, and I wish it wasn't like that. But there really is no debate.

well what size for a woman do you think is fat?

[teen.jpg]

I'm really skinny and I barely get off my ass. I guess its because my parents were really skinny and I have a fast metabolism.

I dunno I think if we tried we could fix the problem but nobody even bothers anymore.

[Sir Suomi]

well what size for a woman do you think is fat?

Personally 12 is pushing it, and 16 is there.

[Celtic.]

12 is pushing it?
16 is there??!?!!??!
well that's you lol

[Sir Suomi]

12 is pushing it?
16 is there??!?!!??!
well that's you lol

That's why this isn't a debate. It is purely a personal decision. It's the same as music choices, hobbies, sports, etc.

[StoppingTime]

I don't know US sizes but over here 10 is fat, don't hate their designer either, they just dont think the clothes streched out on fat people look good.



14 is thick....nice size IMO

ikr? shes attractive. Personally I do like thick women like Size 12-16 (size 14 is perfect) but size 6 is fat????

Personally 12 is pushing it, and 16 is there.

12 is pushing it?
16 is there??!?!!??!
well that's you lol

ITT: People discussing what they consider fat and what they don't like to look at.

This "weight issue" doesn't have an easy solution like most things, and also like most things, isn't confined to a simple, easily defined region. Sure, American's are stereotypically the "fat country" and sure there's truth to it, but to say that's the only place where the problem exists and must be fixed doesn't make any sense.

[Sugaree]

People are obese. Deal with it. There is no debate here.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on this thread. I don't even know why you started this thread OP. Some people are just fat fucks. Deal with it and move on.

well that was harsh

http://i.imgur.com/BxElqSE.jpg

[Sir Suomi]

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on this thread. I don't even know why you started this thread OP. Some people are just fat fucks. Deal with it and move on.



image (http://i.imgur.com/BxElqSE.jpg)

^^^This^^^

[Canadian Dream]

It's defenetly a balance of both. What I mean is first of all Fast Food has revolutionized the industry in which people are no longer taking the pleasure of eating. Now it's just like you can go pick up something at MacDonald's. So America has a weight problem, and there have been studies on this (the movie Supersize Me for example). But then it gets re-enforced by America's perspective on what is the ideal model, which is actually 5% and less of the world's population. The people on the magazines are photoshoped ALOT to make others believe that this is what you're supposed to look like, and we want you to mess up your body as much as you want to try to make yoursrlf look that way.

[britishboy]

Simple tax unhealthy foods and change the culture towards healthy eatting through example and education.

[cherylcherylX2]

I think it's not fat we should look into, it's individual health. If someone is fat and healthy, then hey, let them be fat. If someone is fat and unhealthy, then there's a problem.

[Abyssal Echo]

I have to agree with Ezra it probably has a lot to do with people eating a lot of fast food.

I have lost a lot of weight since I pretty much stopped eating fast food. If we eat out its usually at a local diner its about the same price and the food is a lot better.