Drop and Give Uncle Sam 20

The U.S. government created the obesity epidemic that it's now trying to fix.

At a “Harvard Thinks Big” confab earlier this year, evolutionary biologist Daniel Lieberman offered his own bright idea for tackling the nation’s obesity epidemic. Merely medicating it won’t do, he said, and education is well-meaning but ineffective. His answer? “Coercion. … We should start telling corporations what to do.” But not just corporations. He also advocated – “to hearty applause,” the Harvard Gazette noted – “requiring people to exercise.”

Lieberman’s idea sounds radical. For now. But in fact, he is (pardon the term) only slightly ahead of the curve. Yale’s Kelly Brownell has long advocated taxes on Twinkies, soda, and other high-sugar snacks. That idea has gained support from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the mayors of Philadelphia, Baltimore, and state lawmakers in numerous states.  The New York Times’ Mark Bittman likens foods with added sugar to tobacco, and asks “How do we regulate the consumption of dangerous foods? … We need the government on our side. It must acknowledge the dangers caused by the most unhealthy aspects of our diet and figure out how to help us cope with them.” Bittman’s colleague, Frank Bruni, agrees. In a column lamenting America’s spreading waistline, he concludes that “we need to rethink and remake our environment much more thoroughly.”

Well. Like the cavalry riding to the rescue, the Institute of Medicine has just unleashed a report – 478 pages, corpulent in its own right – addressing the topic. It advances the notion that obesity is not an individual shortcoming requiring voluntary personal reformation, but a societal problem requiring compulsory systemic change. So in addition to exposing what it calls “obesogenic environmental forces,” the IOM proposes a wide range of government policies to combat them, from the sensible (provide healthy food in the public schools) to the seriously alarming (let government dictate the recipes for commercial foods).

Conspicuously absent from the recommendations? Any significant redress for those government policies that have contributed to the problem in the first place. Take dietary advice. According to the Harvard Gazette, “Our ancient ancestors’ diet was heavy on tubers, fruits, and vegetables, and lean meat from game animals. In fact, Lieberman said, if you look at what our ancient ancestors likely ate, you’d wind up with something like the dietary advice coming out of [the Harvard School for Public Health].” You certainly would not wind up with a recommendation that you carbo-load by eating, oh, six to 11 servings of bread, cereal, rice, and pasta every day. Yet that is precisely what the federal government’s food pyramid advised from 1992 to 2005. By remarkable coincidence, that time frame happens to overlap the period of the greatest growth in obesity rates.

The IOM report does mention building more sidewalks and scrutinizing  federal agricultural policy. But Dan Glickman – a former agriculture secretary who chaired the panel producing the IOM report – rejects the idea of ending government subsidies for the makers of high-fructose corn syrup. “There is no evidence subsidies contribute to obesity,” he says. Yet the IOM evidently thinks more subsidies could help reduce obesity, because it recommends subsidizing fruit and vegetable crops. In the event of a government failure, apply more government directly to the wound.

All this sturm und drang seems odd, or at least oddly timed – because the obesity epidemic has actually leveled off. Rates of obesity in men have remained largely stable for the past eight years. Among white women, obesity has not risen for the past 12 years. And among black and Latino women, obesity has risen only slightly – and “that increase mostly occurred early in that 12-year period,” reports The Washington Post.

So if obesity rates have not changed significantly, what has? Government’s share of total spending on health care – which was 41 percent in 2007 –is expected to exceed 52 percent by 2019, whether the Supreme Court upholds the Affordable Care Act or not. And the government says obesity costs a lot of money: more than $150 billion a year, by some estimates.

Those estimates are wildly inflated by the inclusion of factors such as “the value of income from decreased productivity” and “the value of future income lost by premature death.”  Yet there are genuine costs induced by illnesses resulting from obesity, such as diabetes. And the government does spend billions of dollars – principally through Medicaid and Medicare – to treat them. Since Jones is being forced to pay for Smith’s medical care, goes the argument, Smith should be forced to stay fit and trim, lest he become a burden on Jones. And since he cannot be expected to do so on his own – owing to “obesogenic” factors and whatnot – he should be made to. Even through compulsory exercise, if that is what it takes.

Of course the coercionaries could leave Smith alone, if they simply left Jones alone too. But this solution never seems to occur to them, does it? And why should it? It would require a certain degree of humility and restraint. Besides, they already know the solution: In the event of any government failure, apply more government directly to the wound.

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, where this article originally appeared.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    alt-text "John would fuck her"

  • John||

    Wow never saw that one coming.

  • Randian||

    He's very clever, isn't he? A regular WC Fields in our midst.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're old.

  • Brandon||

    A regular David Sedaris?

  • Loki||

    I find him to be more Dane Cook than WC Fields.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, just gets funnier every time, doesn't it.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's funny because it's true!

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    It's true because it's FUNNY!

  • ||

    You certainly would not wind up with a recommendation that you carbo-load by eating, oh, six to 11 servings of bread, cereal, rice, and pasta every day. Yet that is precisely what the federal government’s food pyramid advised from 1992 to 2005.

    Oooo, low-carb thread?

    Excellent.

  • Brandon||

    Maybe even a Lew Rockwell primitivism thread!

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Darn tootin'! I'm a big GCBC fan. Just about worn my copy out. I stumbled onto low carb soon after Hurricane Isabel painted a bullseye on my house, but I never really understood the science of it until Taubes' book.

    Funny thing is, I lost more than a third of my body weight on LCHF, but I still have friends and relatives telling me I'll gain weight eating the way I do. Soon... it'll show up soon...

  • Randian||

    Yet that is precisely what the federal government’s food pyramid advised from 1992 to 2005. By remarkable coincidence, that time frame happens to overlap the period of the greatest growth in obesity rates.

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Blaming government almost entirely here, which it sounds like Hinkle is wont to do, is totally ridiculous.

    I find all of the screeching about obesity hilarious. What a societal problem to have - we have too much food and everyone has too much to eat!

    The plain and simple truth is that gyms publish five-page enewsletters every week, there are books about "Eat this Not That" and Atkins and South Beach and Weight Watchers and blah blah blah. There is one equation you have to know:

    If Calories In (CI) is greater than Calories Out = Weight Gain. If CI less than CO = Weight Loss. It's that simple.

  • ||

    It's that simple.

    No. You're completely wrong.

  • Randian||

    It's math. I'll look up Taubes' work at some point, but if the root of it is not "this is what makes you eat more than you need to eat" then I don't have much use for it. If you managed to eat 5,000 calories a day of "good" calories, you would still get fat without a whole lot of exercise.

  • ||

    No. You wouldn't.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    I'm proof you're right Warty. I should gain weight when I eat 3000 calories/day. But I don't, if I eat fatty meat and high fiber vegetables.

    Calories In/Calories Out is like having a bunch of scientists looking at the water flowing across you bathroom floor saying "obviously the problem with your toilet is too much water coming in and not enough going out." OK, great, but that isn't helpful. Did the drain clog? Did the flap valve stick open? Did the water line come lose? Or did your drunken kid and his jackass buddies smash the toilet again?

  • KimInGA||

    Don't even bother ... it's too complicated a concept for a lot of people. They just can't get past the calories in/calories out theory and the idea that the "calories out" is static as long as physical activity remains the same. In reality, the calories you take in CHANGE the calories that go out, independent of other variables. I'll admit I didn't believe it either until I proved it in my own N=1 experiment. It's pretty cool stuff and makes perfect sense in light of human evolution.

  • JoshSN||

    Wow! Your argument was so profound, I'm convinced!

    I'm convinced you are a bit stupid.

    And as for low-carb diets, all the studies I've read show that after about 6 months, weight loss from any sort of diet evens out.

    It's calories in - calories out, end of fucking story.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Are you thin, dear?

  • JoshSN||

    At 6'2", 190 pounds is not thin, love.

    That said, I wouldn't want to be rail thin, like I was back in college, 6'2", 150 pounds.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    It's calories in - calories out, end of fucking story.

    Nice.
    Never mind actual biological mechanisms.
    Never mind excess insulin in the insulin resistant sends glucose straight to fat, without giving them the chance to burn it.
    Never mind fat requires no insulin to burn instead.
    Never mind that I used to weight 53% more than now.
    Never mind that I have kept it off for 7 years this way.

  • JoshSN||

    Never mind the first law of thermodynamics, eh?

  • perlhaqr||

    That come back might have some meaning to it if nutritional absorption was as straightforward as burning gasoline. Here's a hint: it's not.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I suggest a read of Taube's "Why We Get Fat" - it's a nice compact version of the effects of insulin.

    Also, I've lost ~20 pounds since I've gone low carb. All without working out or worrying about calorie intake. I haven't been this thin since college.

    The last time my wife was this thin was when she taught ballroom dancing, back when she was essentially getting a 4-5 hour workout everyday.

  • Silver Fox||

    Also, I've lost ~20 pounds since I've gone low carb. All without working out or worrying about calorie intake. I haven't been this thin since college.

    Sounds like my decision to go low-carb next month should yield some good results, even with the swim membership.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Remember not to go low fat with it. Protein to protect the muscles, fat to feed the body without raising insulin.

  • Kroneborge||

    I've also been cutting out the sugar and carbs, and loosing weight.

  • Silver Fox||

    Remember not to go low fat with it. Protein to protect the muscles, fat to feed the body without raising insulin.

    I'll keep that in mind.

    Thank goodness I love things like cheese.

  • Brett L||

    No, dude. You're wrong. Its not math because your body doesn't have just 1 metabolism. In essence, your fat cells are more efficient at storing carbs as fat than your other cells are at utilizing them. This varies from person to person, but eating more carbs exacerbates the effect. Carbs make you fat. Read Taubes. The amount of research he has put together is stunning.

  • niobiumstudio||

    You are right that it is math, but it is not simple math or anything that you can totally account for. It is a infinitely complex system. You can't simply think of it as calories in vs calories out. Just sitting on your ass, not moving a muscle, you are burning calories. If the temperature of the room your are sitting in is 65 degrees, you will be using a lot more calories than if the room is 75 degrees. Thinking, breathing, just existing you are burning significant calories.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Also, your brain itself uses quite a lot of calories.

  • ||

    As far as I know, that is exactly the root of his work. The insulin roller coaster that refined carbohydrates sends many people on causes them to be hungrier than a low carbohydrate diet. Strangely enough, most people eat more when they are hungry than when they are not. Throw in the fact that foods high in carbohydrate induce less satiety than foods high in fat, and again the tendency is to eat more calories when on a high carbohydrate diet.

  • ||

    I don't really feel like having the same HR argument about this for like the 8th time, so just watch the video I posted if you feel like arguing.

  • fried wylie||

    so just watch the video I posted if you feel like arguing.

    "Ok, pause the video now and argue at the screen. Press play when you're done to hear my rebuttal."

  • ||

    Elegant!

  • fried wylie||

    The crazy part is how the rebuttal will accurately rebut what the viewer argued as often as 95% of the time.

  • Brandon||

    Not if the viewer is White Indian. I bet that video has never even read Jason Godesky.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I am still "maintaining" my new (as in almost three years ago) weight, 40 lbs less, by not exercising, eating (no lie) about two pounds of bacon a week, 3 packages of sausages (jalapeño cheese are the bomb), and three dozen eggs. And those are just my usual breakfasts and snacks. I would eat more steak but shit, that gets expensive.

    When I went in for my last check-up my doctor actually said the following after hearing what i eat regularly and I quote here (it was burned into my memory)

    So I like what you are eating but make sure to cook the eggs in the bacon fat. Add butter if you like. Good cheese is fine if you want to put that on the eggs too. And if you like it feel free to pour the rest of the fat on your eggs once they are on your plate.


    My response:

    Can I hug you?


    My current incarnation of the breakfast default is two eggs over easy with cheese on top cooked in the fat of 4 pieces of bacon with two jalepeno cheese bratwurst and a water. Sometimes i go all out and make hollandaise just to smother everything in it.

    CICO is fucking stupid. Let me tell you what isn't, Taubes book and my Doctor...and Warty, sometimes.

  • John||

    Merely medicating it won’t do, he said, and education is well-meaning but ineffective. His answer? "Coercion. … We should start telling corporations what to do." But not just corporations. He also advocated – "to hearty applause," the Harvard Gazette noted – "requiring people to exercise."

    How can someone be that profoundly stupid? He doesn't think people wouldn't just ignore the government? How does he plan to require people to exercise? What an utter fool.

  • sarcasmic||

    I figure that at some point all medical professionals will be government employees, and refusing to take their advice will be a punishable offense.
    Punishment will range from fines to boot camp.

  • John||

    It ends in people going to prison for being fat. Yet, I guarantee you this guy would deny that. That is how big of a fool he is.

  • ||

    Fattor's prison?

  • Shirley Temple of Doom||

    Not "prison"-- sentenced fat camps.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's not the intention, so there's no way it could be the result.

  • CockGobbla||

    Listen, I'm in the process of applying for medical school.

    Let me tell you, it seems that the majority of high-ranking medical authorities fucking LOVE the idea of giving them police powers to enforce their preferred lifestyles on people.

    It's scary and depressing for people like me. I hope I never get sucked into medical academia.

  • sarcasmic||

    the majority of high-ranking medical authorities fucking LOVE the idea of giving them police powers

    Why doesn't that surprise me?

  • CockGobbla||

    One of my three interviewers was the head of the "Institute for Tobacco or whatever" at the school I was applying to.

    I couldn't help noticing the pressing clippings he had posted to the walls in his office which claimed "Dr. So-and-so Lobbies for Increased Restrictions on Tobacco Products in the State."

  • ||

    You Groovus The Canadian should start a libertarian doctors' organization. Probably would just be the two of you, though.

  • anon||

    Meh, most doctors that I've been to just say "Hey, do what you want, but this is what's gonna happen to you."

  • sarcasmic||

    doctors != high-ranking medical authorities

  • Anacreon||

    Hey! Forgot about me. And I finished med school many years ago.

  • R C Dean||

    If you were to tell these medical eminences that, if they want to act like cops, they will get paid like cops, I suspect their enthusiasm would diminish.

  • anon||

    If you were to tell these medical eminences that, if they want to act like cops, they will get paid like cops, I suspect their enthusiasm would diminish.

    Depends. In California/NY I'd bet the cops get paid more than some medical professions.

  • Zeb||

    I never occurs that maybe this is not his problem to fix.

  • Brett L||

    Its like a mashup of 1984 and Gung-Ho.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Gung-Ho! *falls on barbed wire fence*

  • perlhaqr||

    Through the telescreen, of course.

  • BarryD||

    I have another question about government policies, BTW.

    If, on average, the poor in our society are the fattest among us, how in hell can we justify the Food Stamp program with 46 million recipients and an average "benefit" of $133?

    Seriously, $133/month will buy a membership at a good gym, some training, and nutritional counseling from a competent practitioner, if we are concerned about obesity and growing public health problems as a result.

    But instead, we're subsidizing the purchase of more food, by people who would likely benefit from other things?

    If you look at pictures from the early-to-mid 20th Century, poor people were thin. The Army saw malnutrition of young recruits as a serious problem. These things are no longer true. Why are we still spending $65 Billion on them?

  • WTF||

    Why do you hate the poor and want them to starve?

  • BarryD||

    Because they're fat!

  • anon||

    This is actually a great rationale.

  • Lord Humungus||

    My company is now doing a "feed the poor thing" where we are trying to raise money for the hungry.

    I tried to point that the poorest in the states are often the most obese. And the unknown factor - eg, how many people are actually using the food banks as their primary source of nutrition versus as a way to stretch their budget so they can afford alcohol, cigarettes, etc. Case in point: drive by the food bank and you will see plenty of nice cars and a line of guys outside smoking cigarettes. Are we subsiding their food or their lifestyle choices?

  • sarcasmic||

    Are we subsiding their food or their lifestyle choices?

    yes

  • ||

    When I worked in downtown DC, some nuns would stop by McPherson Square with free hot soup bread and such. Pretty much everyone in line for a meal was a bike messenger. So yeah, the nuns were subsidizing the messengers' drug habits, without a doubt.

  • Doctor Whom||

    “There is no evidence subsidies contribute to obesity,” he says. Yet the IOM evidently thinks more subsidies could help reduce obesity, because it recommends subsidizing fruit and vegetable crops.

    It's the government ratchet effect: Government involvement can only make things better, not worse.

  • DarrenM||

    Government involvement can only make things better, not worse.

    If the "more government" proponents had to admit government policies had screwed anything up, it would undermine their goal of ever more control over the lives of the masses.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    No it wouldn't.

    It wouldn't have been government that was the problem, but the wrong people planning/implementing the law that were the problem.

    To state worshippers, government is never the problem, merely those who run it.

  • NotSure||

    Force people to exercise ??? Sorry for the Godwin, but I doubt even Soviets or Nazis forced their population to excercise.

  • sarcasmic||

    Methinks that guy would be right at home in North Korea.
    Nobody's fat and everyone exercises.
    Heaven on Earth!

  • JoshSN||

    Traditional sexual roles, the military being raised to the ultimate value, obedience and patriotism from one and all.

    North Korea, the Republican Party ideal.

  • ||

    Even if true, you'd probably get a better rise at a site where there were more than 3 Republicans. Trolling is a art.

  • JoshSN||

    Hey, it's the nitwit who thinks limited liability is in any way limited to anything but the value of the shares!

    And you kept repeating that nonsense, too.

    Welcome back to the fray.

  • ||

    Lol. You really do suck at this whole trolling thing. I like you a lot better when you're actually seriously trying to create alternate histories where Jefferson is a Marxist labor racketeer. It's at least funny.

    Speaking of nonsense, let me know when you finally learn the fundamental accounting equation and discover tort law. Maybe then you can explain to my business law professors and the last century's worth of judges and prosecutors how a chemical company can torch a neighborhood with napalm and escape with no financial liability for the corporation or personal liability for the executives. Some of those nitwits might be a little bit surprised to learn that their entire careers never existed.

  • ||

  • ||

    Goddamn squirrels. What I meant was:

    Please

  • ||

    Goddamn squirrels. What I meant was:

    Help

    us

  • ||

    Goddamn squirrels. I guess 11 links is too many.

  • ||

    Maybe just one will work?

  • ||

    I'll try leaving one last link and hope the rest get fished out of the spam filter at some point

    http://minnesotaattorney.com/w.....i-need-it/

    Let me know if that's too complex for you

  • ||

    Okay, Reason spam squirrels

    Happy now?

  • JoshSN||

    I have it in print, archived on reason, you saying that corporate limited liability was very limited. Don't act like you knew it all along. I have the quote at home, with a link. It's down forever in history, you looking like a complete asshat.

    You are still doing it.

    I never even came close to saying Jefferson was a Marxist labor racketeer, I stated, as is perfectly true, he was a proponent of laissez-faire economics, as was the Democratic-Republican Party, all the way through the end of the 1800s, and, consequently, he was against the regulation of commerce or the existence of corporations.

  • ||

    I have it in print, archived on reason, you saying that corporate limited liability was very limited. Don't act like you knew it all along.

    Ummm, yes, that's what I said alright. And it's exactly the same thing I said here. I have never said anything to you before that contradicts anything I've said in this discussion. That's why I provided some external links, so you can explain to those attorneys, businesspeople, encyclopedia writers and other assorted asshats how wrong they are.

    The limited liability protection provided by the corporate structure is, in fact, very limited. It has a clear and well understood legal definition. Limited liability means that your liability from creditors is limited to your equity stake (in a corporation, that's expressed as the value of your shares). It doesn't mean that you get to negligently or intentionally burn down a neighborhood with toxic chemicals without any personal or financial repercussions, which was the example you chose to illustrate your total and complete ignorance of the law when we discussed it previously.

    You are still doing it. I'm bored with repeating myself though, so I'm afraid you're on your own from here.

    There's a chance I may have been using sarcastic hyperbole to characterize your other positions ;)

  • ||

    Sure they did.

  • fried wylie||

    Forced Labor has the unintended side-benefit of exercise.

  • BarryD||

    The fact remains, we would probably do people with very limited means more of a favor by spending that Food Stamp money on giving them access to Gold's Gym and nutritional counseling, not more food.

    Now as a libertarian, I don't support forcing people to exercise, nor forcing people to pay for others' gym memberships, but IF we are going to spend the money...

  • anon||

    Now as a libertarian, I don't support forcing people to exercise, nor forcing people to pay for others' gym memberships, but IF we are going to spend the money...

    See, it's this shit that perpetuates the growth of government.

    How about we just turn around and say "Fuck you, no money, I don't give a shit if you're poor?"

  • BarryD||

    Because it's an important national that we have enough able-bodied poor people, so we can send them off to war?

  • Pi Guy||

    ^Yerp^

  • Hell's Librarian||

    That idea has gained support from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the mayors of Philadelphia, Baltimore...

    I know, it's Maryland and there really is no reason at all for any optimism, but I would have hoped that the mayor of Baltimore would have been embarrassed to be in favor of pretty much anything endorsed by Bloomberg.

  • Pi Guy||

    Well, at least we still have the Balto Grand Prix. That was such a boon last yer that it had to be done again.

    :D

  • cw||

    Freedom?

  • sarcasmic||

    Freedom means taking orders and asking permission.

  • cw||

    My God, these busybodies are so self-unaware.

  • fried wylie||

    They're busybodies precisely because constantly meddling in the lives of other allows them to avoid the awareness-of-self that would inevitably drive them to substance abuse or suicide.

  • BarryD||

    If it leads them to suicide, I'd fully support using tax dollars to help them learn to be self-aware.

  • Loki||

    I'm sure they're very self aware of the nanny-boners that meddling with other people gives them.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    POON tang

  • ||

    "Smith!" screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. "6079 Smith W!"

    We're getting closer and closer to that passage not being hyperbole.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I was thinking about posting that reference, and the quote about how 1984 is a cautionary tale not a how-to manual, but it seems kinda pointless anymore.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I'm surprised Obama hasn't set up mandatory liposuction camps. It would make fatties thin, and then they could use the fat for biodiesel.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    There's an app for that

  • Loki||

    Stop giving him ideas.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    That's a REALLY gross picture of Mary Stack, reason. Thanks

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    And right on schedule, the food nannies have finally gotten around to including fruit juice in the war on personal freedome -- er, I mean obsesity. So now a can of Coke = can of 100% apple juice in their world.

    http://www.news-journalonline......esity.html

  • ||

    I'm at a loss to find a reason why apple juice is supposed to be any less bad than Coke. Maybe because it has less salt?

  • Brett L||

    12 oz Coke = 150 kcal
    12 oz apple juice = 180 kcal

    All sugar

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    An apple has about 80 calries. So eat two (not a big meal or even a large snack) and you've equalled the calories in a Coke.

    The solution is obvious: ban everything.

  • Kroneborge||

    You're forgetting the fiber difference. Eating two apples won't spike your insulin/blood sugar like drinking a coke will or apple juice will.

  • JoshSN||

    I doubt he's forgetting, he simply doesn't know.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    Or perhaps neither of them are bad to begin with. But note how the war on soda began with the usual targets -- soda was bad b/c Coke spends billions on advertising, packaging that attracts kids, etc. Pure fruit juice does not get nearly the same sort of ad focus as high-margin Coke and Pepsi. Plus it does not have HFCS, another favorite target of the food police. So it is "less bad" on those grounds alone, which, predictably, will make no difference to the people who are desperate to control what others consume and do with their lives.

  • niobiumstudio||

    HFCS is baaaad, mkay...5% more fructose than glucose, compared to sucrose, is deadly! That extra 5% more fructose is what causes 100% of the obesity... God, why can't you just accept the facts?

  • BarryD||

    Not only that, but the other day I had some Mountain Dew Throwback for the first time. That stuff is GOOD!

    It's sticky sweet, not my thing usually, but it's so much better than the new stuff.

  • fried wylie||

    I think the argument got flipped around at some point.

    It's not that apple juice is "less bad", but rather that it might actually contain something nutritious in addition to all that evil sugar. In comparison, Coke brings nothing beneficial to the party at all.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Except for the feeling one gets when all they really want to drink is a fucking can of coke.

    The less other people talk about what everyone else is eating/drinking the better we all are.

  • NotSure||

    So the only thing left to drink is herbal teas and spring water.

  • ||

    I can't say I'm even interested in RTFA. Do we really need to look for the government boogeyman in every corner?

  • NotSure||

    I don't know, perhaps its because the government is creating a bogeyman in every corner, in this case being food and obesity.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Your momThe government boogeyman is so fat that she's actually in every corner.

  • Brandon||

    When a problem is directly attributable to government intervention, dismissing it as libertarian paranoia doesn't really enhance your credibility.

  • ||

    Hey, where's our sock puppet cacomorphobic friend from Kentucky?

  • ||

    SugarFree?

  • SugarFree||

    I'm here, I'm just busy stuffing myself with food.

  • PapayaSF||

    Instead of forcing people to exercise, why not just legalize discrimination against fat people? Imagine "No Fatties" signs appearing outside bars. Airlines that had a weight limit. Amusing to think of what could happen and the cries of outrage.

  • fried wylie||

    Amusing to think of the oceans of saltyham tears.

  • Brett L||

    "Imagine "No Fatties" signs appearing outside bars."

    I, on the other hand, will immediately start a bar that holds a skinny night. Where thin, attractive people drink free but fatties are welcome to come and buy drinks.

  • ||

    "In fact, Lieberman said, if you look at what our ancient ancestors likely ate, you’d wind up with something like the dietary advice coming out of [the Harvard School for Public Health].”"

    You mean like when life expectancy was 25 years?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I find it disgusting that Harvard has an entire school devoted to be a fucking nanny.

    Fuck Harvard.

  • Edwin||

    part of the "problem" is that the "obesity" cut-off is super-low. Even Michael Jordan is technically "obese". Furthermore, the recommendations of being leaner than that are harmful; some people just naturally aren't that lean, even when they get really fit. I work out like a maniac, and I've never been fitter since I started doing some serious sports training, hockey and boxing, but I'm still 25% body fat and 170 lbs. This hasn't changed. And I really do not eat that much. My body isn't meant to have less fat than this. As a matter of fact, to get as lean as i'd like so that I can do a bulk-up routine, I'm going to have to over-diet. That's the only way I've ever gotten leaner, I used to crash-diet, and my first foray into "bodybuilding" I only got down to 150 lbs by eating only 3 packets of oatmeal and 2 protein shakes a day plus a not-big dinner at the cafeteria, all the while running like 45 mins a day. To lose the weight now I'm going to have to spend a few weekends walking around all day, avoiding food (walking is the only way I can stay awake when I have that little food, I guess it's a weird latent survival mechanism). But these things are technically really inadvusable and kinda bad for you.

  • Brandon||

    Obviously, you'll be an early candidate for culling.

  • Brett L||

    Seriously, try getting yourself below 100 grams of carbs a day. High fat, high protein. See if you don't drop down below 15% in two months. I didn't have much to lose, but it fell off when I did this.

  • Brett L||

    And keep your total caloric intake over 2000 kcal if you're that active.

  • Brandon||

    What's kcal mean? Is that calories/kilogram? Because that's a lot of steak.

  • Ted S.||

    I think he means kilocalories, or food calories.

  • fried wylie||

    don't prevaricate. call brandon out for not paying attention in highschool chem, question his parentage, then explain about the thermodynamic calorie.

  • JoshSN||

    Well, the costly way to do things is put on some muscle mass. Do squats instead of running. Carrying around all that extra muscle burns calories.

  • culdesachero||

    You are probably addicted to carbs. I thought I was the same until I went high fat - low carb. I've never been more fit. While people on my hockey team gained weight as they played more, I lost body fat and gained muscle.

    No sense in starving yourself on calorie restricted diets. 3 eggs for breakfast with side o'bacon or sausage and cheese or high fat yoghurt. No grains, no spuds. A bit of fruit lots of veggies and salad. Give it a try.

  • JoshSN||

    Listen to this guy!

    He has a diet that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, and that makes him uber-cool.

    kCal in - kCal out = weight gain

  • ||

    I wonder how obvious it is to most what the end goal is here: criminalizing pleasure. That C.S. Lewis quote also comes to mind about the person tyrannizing you for your own good never stopping.

  • JoshSN||

    Being morbidly obese is pleasurable?

    I think we are talking about the long term consequences of short term greediness.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Since Jones is being forced to pay for Smith’s medical care, goes the argument, Smith should be forced to stay fit and trim, lest he become a burden on Jones. And since he cannot be expected to do so on his own – owing to “obesogenic” factors and whatnot – he should be made to. Even through compulsory exercise, if that is what it takes.

    To the statist, not paying for everyone's health care isn't even on the fucking table. If you're not paying, you haven't a "need" to tell others how to care for themselves.

    It occurs to me that "universal health care" isn't an end, but a means to be able to pull shit like this in the name of "public health."

  • culdesachero||

    'According to the Harvard Gazette, “Our ancient ancestors’ diet was heavy on tubers, fruits, and vegetables, and lean meat from game animals.'

    I guess that's why Neolithic man invented stone cutting tools - to trim the fat off his strip loin and prime rib roasts.

    Our ancestors actually preferred fatty fat and fattier fat animal fat. You should eat pork bellies, beef tallow, chicken skin and fish oil. Yummmmmy.

  • sweeterjan||

    he said, and education is well-meaning but ineffective. His answer? “Coercion. … We http://www.lunettesporto.com/ should start telling corporations what to do.” But not just corporations. He also advocated – “to hearty applause,” the Harvard Gazette noted – “requiring people to exercise.”

  • Epicdelusion||

    Obesity is clearly the adverse affects of not being allowed to show women in their hottest, skinniest states. See what happens when we encourage people to be themselves? yeah, they end up being fat fucks.

  • JoshSN||

    That is an epic delusion, to be sure.

    People were skinnier 100 years ago, and they were much more modest. Men wore bathing suits that covered their chests and bellies, often enough.

  • joy||

    the IOM proposes a wide range of government policies to combat them, from the sensible (provide healthy food in the public schools) http://www.riemeninnl.com/riem.....n-c-9.html to the seriously alarming (let government dictate the recipes for commercial foods).

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    According to the Harvard Gazette, “Our ancient ancestors’ diet was heavy on tubers, fruits, and vegetables, and lean meat from game animals.

    Lean meat from game animals. Uh, nope. "our ancient ancestors" preferentially went after the fattiest parts. They heavily ate bone marrow, fatty organ meats and the fattiest cuts of muscle meat.

    For example: PREHISTORIC BBQ LEFTOVERS FOUND
    "Around 8,000 years ago, prehistoric hunters killed an aurochs and their grilling techniques were frozen in time."
    "The hunters appear to have cooked the meat over an open fire, eating the bone marrow first and then the ribs."

  • JoshSN||

    The meat of an aurochs would have had far less fat than of a modern food animal.

    Going after the marrow (which is still eaten today, of course, when I make my killer Osso Bucco) might not have changed it that much.

    Plus, they had no Pringles or other sources of trivial-to-access fat.

  • zamoracarl711||

    as Patricia explained I'm alarmed that you able to make $7823 in a few weeks on the computer. have you seen this site makecash16Com

  • allguffedup||

    how many calories are in a face?

  • Dev518||

    Anyone slightly serious about nutrition knows how ridiculous the food pyramid is. It doesn't differentiate between healthy and unhealthy fats or red meat with poultry and fish. It doesn't take different dietary needs into account. As a Rugby player I eat far more diary and meat than the pyramid recommends. Worst of all it holds whole and refined grains in the same esteem and advocates eating far too many. Following these guidelines is certainly part of what has made Americans fat.

  • sara||

    I think that your perspective is deep, its just well thought out and really fantastic to see someone who knows how to put these thoughts down so well. Great job on this
    your blog is very good.It was very well authored and easy to understand. Unlike additional blogs I have read which are really not good. I also found your posts very interesting nike free run men

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement