Obesity and Ozempic and more (2 Viewers)

[RCon]

That's fine, but it still leaves the question outstanding. Addressed to all who continue to espouse personal responsibility as a solution at the individual level:

What solution, of any kind, will have a positive impact on nationwide obesity rates?

Assuming no outside health complications like insulin issues or physical immobility, do you think personal responsibility in eating healthy and exercise is a solution at the individual level?

Yes, it definitely can be.

 

[Oracle]

Interesting data on percentage population that smokes.

USA 15.5% https://globalactiontoendsmoking.org/research/tobacco-around-the-world/united-states/

Japan 16.2% https://globalactiontoendsmoking.org/research/tobacco-around-the-world/japan/

Interesting data on percentage population that smokes.

USA 15.5% https://globalactiontoendsmoking.org/research/tobacco-around-the-world/united-states/

Japan 16.2% https://globalactiontoendsmoking.org/research/tobacco-around-the-world/japan/

Man it seemed that everyone was smoking in Tokyo when I was there a few months ago.

You’re correct, I’m wondering if vaping is not considered smoking. Japan (and maybe a lot of other countries) determine how they define issues and then report their numbers based upon their definition of the problem.

I would have guessed that we were easily in the 40% to 50% range. I also think that smoking/vaping has been on the decline since I initially got here.

 

[Max Power]

I found this article interesting. Japan educates kids in school about proper diet. This is government mandated.

Japan educates their people about proper diet. That lean protein and vegetables and non fast food is good for you, right?

That's not a secret.

I think American people also know this.

Yeah, we need more than education. We really need indoctrination.

Please don't misunderstand my post. I certainly am not for government involvement into my or anyone's life. I was just sharing the information in the article.

I think government involvement in battling the obesity crisis should pretty much be a given. Aside from national defense, I can’t think of a more important priority than national health. At a minimum, we should be improving health and nutrition curriculum in public schools starting at a very early age to combat the marketing children are bombarded with every day.

I agree, but like I said earlier, I don't think the government cares enough.

They could overhaul the food stamp program tomorrow if they wanted to. A person could spend their SNAP benefits on 100% sugar and the government is fine with it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

That's fine, but it still leaves the question outstanding. Addressed to all who continue to espouse personal responsibility as a solution at the individual level:

What solution, of any kind, will have a positive impact on nationwide obesity rates?

My worldview is it starts at the personal level with personal responsibility. And yes, for some, there are extenuating circumstances like present health limitations or economic issues and more. But for many, we don't have those and we do have the ability to make choices that affect our outcomes. So for me, I do espouse personal responsibility as a solution at the individual level.

With a 36% obesity rate in the US, clearly we have a problem. It's especially troubling to see how the obesity rates have sky rocketed. I don't know the validity of this site but it claims obesity rates have more than tripled since the 1960s. That feels accurate. Beach photos from the 60s are shockingly different than what we see today.

I don't know the solution at the national level. That's the reason I started this thread.

Though, I do believe it starts at the individual level and with people accepting responsibility for themselves. And I don't think anything will work until we do first accept responsibility. I think they're connected. I realize others disagree. But clearly more is needed.

The author Johann Hari I referenced in the original post, has looked to Japan to see how they are doing what we'd like to do. Some of the things he talks about in the article seem like they would never work in the US. But maybe some would.

 

[Joe Bryant]

That's fine, but it still leaves the question outstanding. Addressed to all who continue to espouse personal responsibility as a solution at the individual level:

What solution, of any kind, will have a positive impact on nationwide obesity rates?

What solution do you thnk would be effective at a national level? And please make it as clear and direct as possible.

 

[odin33]

In the short-term, I get it. Many people won't change their lifestyles and these drugs can improve their lives.

Long-term, we continue to foster this “just take a pill” approach in lieu of natural remedies. As medical “advances” continue, we will see this more and more. Where will it end? Will there be a point of no return?

Japan’s approach is far superior but we don’t have the culture to deal with the problem as effectively.

Probably more so the Contrave than the Ozempic.... if I did not take this pill, I really don't think I could change my lifestyle. I had tried... over and over.... trying all the different tricks and best practices and failure every time. I take an anti-addiction pill and suddenly I am free to make choices consistently that are building a healthy lifestyle. I was thinking about this driving home after dropping my daughter off at camp this morning. Never in a million years would I have said "I have a food addiction". That just would sound laughable and a crutch. A way to make me feel better about just being weak willed. As I outlined before, the only diet I had that worked for me worked because it addressed my addiction cravings in a way that still fit the diet. Even then, I had no idea that was the key for me. It wasn't until finally being defeated and going to the Doctor to talk about the ONE THING I NEVER wanted to do, which was surgery, and talking through all the various failed attempts.... then talking about the success on the low carb. It still didn't dawn on my that this might be an addiction even when my Doctor was talking to me about a pill that they give recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. At that point, all my barriers were broken and I said "sure, give it to me" and when I took it and felt the massive difference of no longer having this overwhelming urge, craving, drive that I needed to fill.... that I saw it was an addiction. This has really helped me understand what alcoholics and drug addicts go through and why it is so hard for them to quit in a way I never understood before.

If anyone takes Ozempic or any other drug to fix their weight problem then they are doomed to end up packing the weight all back on again just like when people go on restrictive diets... whatever the fad is at the time.... and then gain the weight back when they go off of it.

I am using these drugs to make progress now, get healthy and my goal is along that journey build into my life consistent lifestyle choices that are healthy. Without the drugs, I would not be able to do it other than perhaps surgery which I can now avoid thanks to this. But I wonder, with the surgery, the addiction would still be there. Over time you can 'overcome' what the surgery did for you. So.... that seems like it would have failed too for me.

There is hope that those that stay at a lower bodyweight for ~2 years eventually can stay there and get a new hormone set point without that intervention. Long term studies haven't nailed down exactly that timeline but oz is going to help in that area.

I have until the end of the year on Ozempic. Then the family deductible resets and it will cost $950 for 5 weeks. Nope. The bigger aid to me has been the Contrave. I am hoping that after time, coming off the Contrave the cravings will be gone.... or the very least more manageable and then in the meantime building healthy lifestyle choices that reinforce not falling to old habits.

You may want to look into Mounjaro once it resets. Same class of drug. Ozembic was running me >$400 a pop, Mounjaro is only $25 through my insurance. If insurance will cover, it should be easier since you've already 'tried' ozembic which is often a requirement.

Mounjaro (Zepbound as a weight loss drug) is actually a different class than Ozempic (Wegovy). The former bonds two different receptors involved in appetite/satiety/weight regulation, and is more potent, but has less long term data.

If I were obese, I’d gladly choose the more effective drug, especially at 1/8 the cost.

Thanks for the clarification, I must have mistaken the doctor saying it essentially does the same thing as same classification.

 

[RCon]

That's fine, but it still leaves the question outstanding. Addressed to all who continue to espouse personal responsibility as a solution at the individual level:

What solution, of any kind, will have a positive impact on nationwide obesity rates?

What solution do you thnk would be effective at a national level? And please make it as clear and direct as possible.

The only thing I can come up with is Ozempic, et.al. We know that personal responsibility doesn't work. It seems pretty likely that the American public won't stand for government intervention, given that all prior attempts have been met with national outrage. Education seems to have largely failed. Not sure what else there is.

 

[RCon]

Though, I do believe it starts at the individual level and with people accepting responsibility for themselves. And I don't think anything will work until we do first accept responsibility. I think they're connected. I realize others disagree. But clearly more is needed.

This is the bit I don't understand. What does this mean? How does a society accept responsibility at an individual level? Seems like a contradiction.

 

[acarey50]

Spend any amount of time in nutrition based forums with people actually looking for help and trying to make better choices, and I think you would be absolutely floored by how few people actually do understand this, though to be a bit "more" correct, it's an excess of sugar, and added sugar, that is bad for you, not just a blanket sugar is bad otherwise you will have people demonizing foods like fruits and vegetables because they have sugar in them.

The general lack of knowledge about caloric intake, what macro nutrients are, sources of calories, etc. is astounding.

Thanks. That’s interesting.

I may well be giving people too much credit.

But for instance here, I feel like just about every single person here understands the basics of nutrition. Sure, we’re not indicative of the general public in everything but it seems like this is basic stuff.

It would be interesting to start a nutrition thread, where people delineated what constitutes a healthy diet. While I’m sure we’d agree on a few things, I bet overall nutritional knowledge is all over the map.

Possible. But I think most everyone knows what basic healthy eating is.

I don’t mean how many calories in a gram of fat or defining ketosis. I mean all you practically need:

• Avoid fast food.
• Avoid sodas.
• Avoid sugar
• Avoid fried foods.
• Keep calories around 2000 (printed on every food label)
• Eat lean protein
• Eat lots of vegetables

I think almost every person in this thread knows more than enough to eat healthy.

I think you are giving the general population way too much credit.

Even some of your guidelines above are not really correct.

• Avoid sugars - mentioned before, but it is blanket statements like this that lead people to not consume fruits and vegetables because of the naturally occurring sugars. It truly is mind boggling how prevalent this actually is. Just recently I had a coworker say that they had cut out grapes because they had sugar in them. This is a highly educated, professional woman. Someone that you would think "knows" what basic healthy eating is.
• Calories at 2000 - this is way to general even as a "broad" statement. Way too many factors go into this such as sex, weight, height, activity level, age that for a fair amount of the population, they would be gaining significant weight at 2000 calories, and for another significant portion of the population, they would be near malnourished.

That 2000 calorie number came about for the purposes of simplifying nutrition labels and was based on self reported data, and then rounded down about 20% to make it a nice clean number.

St. Vincents.org Article

The 2,000-calorie diet was invented to simplify nutrition labels.​

The history goes like this: In the 1990s, when the FDA was standardizing nutrition labels for U.S. food, they wanted to include a benchmark number for daily calories. Unfortunately, no such number existed. So they turned to data from public surveys, in which people had self-reported how many calories they ate per day. (Were these accurate reports? Fingers crossed.)

They got a wide range of answers, from 1,600 to 3,000 calories. But nutrition labels can only fit so much information! Ultimately, the committee decided to keep it simple, if not exactly accurate. They wanted just one number.

Technically, the survey average was about 2,400 daily calories — but 2,000 won the day. It was easier to remember, and proponents argued that it was better for people to eat too little than too much.

“It was essentially a compromise number that is nice and rounded,” says Dr. St. Pierre. “Which puts into perspective how badly we have managed calories and serving sizes as a society.”

 

[Doug B]

The older generations are still using unhealthy habits (smoking) to curb hunger sensation. I was surprised with the Times article as semiglutide injections/ oral drops are promoted everywhere in Japan and it’s inexpensive due to being subsidized by the government.

You don't say?

Slight tangent: Semiglutide is available as oral drops? Wonder if the US will get those soon, and if they'd ever become an over-the-counter item (maybe like pseudoephedrine where you have to sign for it at the pharmacy counter).

 

[matttyl]

If the reason people taking responsibility for their own diet and exercise isn’t societal because too many people won’t take responsibility and won’t do what’s necessary, seems like you’re conflating “societal” with “effective “.

Do you mean it needs to be a government solution?

You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. My entire point is that society is looking for an effective solution at a macro level. I am specifically NOT conflating societal with effective. That is, we know that personal responsibility is effective, but only at an individual level and not at a societal level.

The point others, and I, are making is that "personal responsibility" isn't a macro (or societal) solution precisely because it isn't effective at a macro level.

I'll make this as clear and direct as I can: @Joe Bryant - What "thing", and define thing however you like, will help lead to a significant decrease in nationwide obesity level?

To me, it seems like you are both on the same page actually. Societal = broadly effective.

That's fine, but it still leaves the question outstanding. Addressed to all who continue to espouse personal responsibility as a solution at the individual level:

What solution, of any kind, will have a positive impact on nationwide obesity rates?

Likely won’t be overly popular here, (and I’m not overly familiar with the legalities of them) but I’ve generally been in favor of “sin taxes”.

There is a federal tax of just over $1 on each pack of cigarettes, and then state excise tax on top of that.

It’s generally recognized that a 1% increase in cigarette prices results in an overall decrease in consumption ranging from .3 to .7% - half of which is attributed to fewer overall smokers, and the other half to reduced number of cigarettes consumed per smoker.

That’s why personally I’d be in favor of a “sin tax” for obesity in the form of increased health insurance premiums. Washington DC has a soda tax, but it’s only been around for a few years so not sure of any concrete data on it yet. Philly collects about $75M a year from its soda tax. I do understand, though, that many of these taxes are regressive in nature.

 

[Doug B]

Though, I do believe it starts at the individual level and with people accepting responsibility for themselves. And I don't think anything will work until we do first accept responsibility.

This is true of any proposed solution at the individual level.

• Starting a diet and exercise routine is accepting responsibility.
• Consenting to bariatric surgery is accepting responsibility.
• Starting a course of Ozempic is accepting responsibility.

"Addressing the problem" = "Accepting responsibility".

 

[Joe Bryant]

Though, I do believe it starts at the individual level and with people accepting responsibility for themselves. And I don't think anything will work until we do first accept responsibility. I think they're connected. I realize others disagree. But clearly more is needed.

How does a society accept responsibility at an individual level? Seems like a contradiction.

I think society follows the individual. I think they're connected. In other words, I don't think you have societal change on a large scale without individual change.

It's why I put a high value on individual personal responsibility.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Even some of your guidelines above are not really correct.

• Avoid sugars - mentioned before, but it is blanket statements like this that lead people to not consume fruits and vegetables because of the naturally occurring sugars. It truly is mind boggling how prevalent this actually is. Just recently I had a coworker say that they had cut out grapes because they had sugar in them. This is a highly educated, professional woman. Someone that you would think "knows" what basic healthy eating is.
• Calories at 2000 - this is way to general even as a "broad" statement. Way too many factors go into this such as sex, weight, height, activity level, age that for a fair amount of the population, they would be gaining significant weight at 2000 calories, and for another significant portion of the population, they would be near malnourished.

Sorry. Was answering quickly.

Avoid processed sugars.
Calories roughly at 2,000. Of course this varies widely based on size, age, activity level etc.

I'm obviously open to being wrong, but I don't think I'm expecting too much of the public.

Free apps like myfitnesspal and loseit are hugely popular. https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/weight-loss/best-weight-loss-apps

 

[Sparky Polastri]

They could overhaul the food stamp program tomorrow if they wanted to. A person could spend their SNAP benefits on 100% sugar and the government is fine with it.

This is a massively important step. From the "personal responsibility" angle, we need to remember it's SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper for a poor person on food stamps (or in general) to buy pop tarts than it is to buy whole fruits (apples, oranges, whatever). You can preach personal responsibility and personal choice, but that's really smoke/mirrors for a great number of people in this country. In this context you are basically making a similar argument as those who say that a person with a gun being pointed at them still has the choice between doing what the person pointing the gun is saying or not. If not for the problems these "foods" pose, I wouldn't have a job doing the research I do.

 

[RCon]

I think society follows the individual. I think they're connected. In other words, I don't think you have societal change on a large scale without individual change.

It's why I put a high value on individual personal responsibility.

This seems like a cop-out to me. Societal change is, by definition, a whole lot of individuals changing. But we know, from decades of experience, that hoping enough individuals will change to create a societal level change won't work. That's why I continue to ask what solutions will create a societal level change. Beyond the drugs, I think only government has to wherewithal to create such a large scale change, but all attempts by government to date have been met with fierce resistance by the public.

 

[AAABatteries]

Avoid sugars - mentioned before, but it is blanket statements like this that lead people to not consume fruits and vegetables because of the naturally occurring sugars. It truly is mind boggling how prevalent this actually is. Just recently I had a coworker say that they had cut out grapes because they had sugar in them. This is a highly educated, professional woman. Someone that you would think "knows" what basic healthy eating is.

I agree with your broader point of people not being educated on food and health but depending on how the conversation went and this persons individual health it’s actually perfectly valid to say they cut out grapes due to the sugar or carbohydrate content. Grapes definitely wouldn’t go on a list of “bad” foods like soda, candy, etc. but you also can’t just assume it’s healthy for some individuals to consume them depending on the rest of their diets.

FTR, I love grapes and try to eat some each week.

 

[Mister CIA]

That's fine, but it still leaves the question outstanding. Addressed to all who continue to espouse personal responsibility as a solution at the individual level:

What solution, of any kind, will have a positive impact on nationwide obesity rates?

What solution do you thnk would be effective at a national level? And please make it as clear and direct as possible.

Should we begin by looking at unhealthy diet choices being incentivized by your tax dollars? Or put advertising restrictions on unhealthy food? We're okay blocking cigarette ads on TV, maybe we should do the same for pop tarts.

Whatever good intentions are present in this discussion are countered by the selfish interests of lobbyists, and as long as it's so, I doubt much will change.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Curious, would you be for or against allowing health insurance companies to charge those with a lower BMI less (so by extension charging those with a higher BMI more)?

Same idea with charging smokers more than non smokers.

Not BMI, it's a flawed metric.

For the average person (not competitive athletes), why is BMI a flawed metric, at least as a quick diagnostic? Serious question, not taking a position.

These are competitive athletes that I'll use as an example.

5'9" 136lbs (weigh in weight). In the normal range

https://dmxg5wxfqgb4u.cloudfront.net/styles/athlete_bio_full_body/s3/2024-02/TURCIOS_RICKY_L_02-24.png

5'11" 185lbs (weigh in weight). Used to fight at 205, likely walks around well over 190. Overweight according to BMI.

https://dmxg5wxfqgb4u.cloudfront.net/styles/athlete_bio_full_body/s3/2022-07/c94750b2-8c3a-4dd7-840c-7bfa0293c244%252FCANNONIER_JARED_L_07-02.png

There are plenty of "average" guys who are not competitive athletes who have considerable muscle mass and BMI does not take that into account.

But you’re admittedly using competitive athletes as examples. Is it a flawed metric for you?

Yes, as it is for a huge number of people. Don't want to make this an "I lift bro" thing but I used to lift hard and I got "big". And there's plenty of people just like me at gyms all over the country. See the link I posted above. From that: "And a third of those who were identified as overweight by their BMI had normal amounts of body fat."

ETA: I'm definitely in need of losing more weight. I hit 60 and cut loose for a while. Getting back but without losing some muscle I'll never be in the "normal" range using BMI as the metric.

This is me. While I didn’t get big, I’m muscular. 5’11 185# 33” waist 26.5 bmi. Overweight. I’m going to see if I can drop 8-10#s. If only for my knees.

One reason people don’t like bmi is that they don’t like what it says about them. I know that’s true for me.

 

[AAABatteries]

I think society follows the individual. I think they're connected. In other words, I don't think you have societal change on a large scale without individual change.

It's why I put a high value on individual personal responsibility.

This seems like a cop-out to me. Societal change is, by definition, a whole lot of individuals changing. But we know, from decades of experience, that hoping enough individuals will change to create a societal level change won't work. That's why I continue to ask what solutions will create a societal level change. Beyond the drugs, I think only government has to wherewithal to create such a large scale change, but all attempts by government to date have been met with fierce resistance by the public.

I haven’t gotten involved in the what can we do discussion much but because we have tied health insurance in to employment many companies could bring about change - they same way they can about inclusion, climate and some others areas - if they really want to.

Give discounts based on health metrics - like many already do with smoking. Not saying it will happen or would be well received by many but it COULD happen.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I think society follows the individual. I think they're connected. In other words, I don't think you have societal change on a large scale without individual change.

It's why I put a high value on individual personal responsibility.

This seems like a cop-out to me. Societal change is, by definition, a whole lot of individuals changing. But we know, from decades of experience, that hoping enough individuals will change to create a societal level change won't work. That's why I continue to ask what solutions will create a societal level change. Beyond the drugs, I think only government has to wherewithal to create such a large scale change, but all attempts by government to date have been met with fierce resistance by the public.

I haven’t gotten involved in the what can we do discussion much but because we have tied health insurance in to employment many companies could bring about change - they same way they can about inclusion, climate and some others areas - if they really want to.

Give discounts based on health metrics - like many already do with smoking. Not saying it will happen or would be well received by many but it COULD happen.

You can tie it to the social programs too. "if you want our help, he need to stay within these guidelines" and making buying processed foods significantly more expensive in that system or ban them completely.

 

[culdeus]

Spend any amount of time in nutrition based forums with people actually looking for help and trying to make better choices, and I think you would be absolutely floored by how few people actually do understand this, though to be a bit "more" correct, it's an excess of sugar, and added sugar, that is bad for you, not just a blanket sugar is bad otherwise you will have people demonizing foods like fruits and vegetables because they have sugar in them.

The general lack of knowledge about caloric intake, what macro nutrients are, sources of calories, etc. is astounding.

Thanks. That’s interesting.

I may well be giving people too much credit.

But for instance here, I feel like just about every single person here understands the basics of nutrition. Sure, we’re not indicative of the general public in everything but it seems like this is basic stuff.

It would be interesting to start a nutrition thread, where people delineated what constitutes a healthy diet. While I’m sure we’d agree on a few things, I bet overall nutritional knowledge is all over the map.

Possible. But I think most everyone knows what basic healthy eating is.

I don’t mean how many calories in a gram of fat or defining ketosis. I mean all you practically need:

• Avoid fast food.
• Avoid sodas.
• Avoid sugar
• Avoid fried foods.
• Keep calories around 2000 (printed on every food label)
• Eat lean protein
• Eat lots of vegetables

I think almost every person in this thread knows more than enough to eat healthy.

I think you are giving the general population way too much credit.

Even some of your guidelines above are not really correct.

• Avoid sugars - mentioned before, but it is blanket statements like this that lead people to not consume fruits and vegetables because of the naturally occurring sugars. It truly is mind boggling how prevalent this actually is. Just recently I had a coworker say that they had cut out grapes because they had sugar in them. This is a highly educated, professional woman. Someone that you would think "knows" what basic healthy eating is.
• Calories at 2000 - this is way to general even as a "broad" statement. Way too many factors go into this such as sex, weight, height, activity level, age that for a fair amount of the population, they would be gaining significant weight at 2000 calories, and for another significant portion of the population, they would be near malnourished.

That 2000 calorie number came about for the purposes of simplifying nutrition labels and was based on self reported data, and then rounded down about 20% to make it a nice clean number.

St. Vincents.org Article

The 2,000-calorie diet was invented to simplify nutrition labels.​

The history goes like this: In the 1990s, when the FDA was standardizing nutrition labels for U.S. food, they wanted to include a benchmark number for daily calories. Unfortunately, no such number existed. So they turned to data from public surveys, in which people had self-reported how many calories they ate per day. (Were these accurate reports? Fingers crossed.)

They got a wide range of answers, from 1,600 to 3,000 calories. But nutrition labels can only fit so much information! Ultimately, the committee decided to keep it simple, if not exactly accurate. They wanted just one number.

Technically, the survey average was about 2,400 daily calories — but 2,000 won the day. It was easier to remember, and proponents argued that it was better for people to eat too little than too much.

“It was essentially a compromise number that is nice and rounded,” says Dr. St. Pierre. “Which puts into perspective how badly we have managed calories and serving sizes as a society.”

So was the calorie count per gram of macro. The errors do eventually stack up.

 

[massraider]

You can tie it to the social programs too. "if you want our help, he need to stay within these guidelines" and making buying processed foods significantly more expensive in that system or ban them completely

There we go, let's make the poor people eat correctly, even tho no one else does.

 

[3C's]

Re: sugar. You'd think healthy sounding cereals like Raisin Bran and Cracklin Oat Bran would be decent but both are loaded with sugar. Might as well eat Cap'n Crunch. My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think society follows the individual. I think they're connected. In other words, I don't think you have societal change on a large scale without individual change.

It's why I put a high value on individual personal responsibility.

This seems like a cop-out to me. Societal change is, by definition, a whole lot of individuals changing. But we know, from decades of experience, that hoping enough individuals will change to create a societal level change won't work. That's why I continue to ask what solutions will create a societal level change. Beyond the drugs, I think only government has to wherewithal to create such a large scale change, but all attempts by government to date have been met with fierce resistance by the public.

Sorry you feel it's a "cop out". We can disagree there. I think personal responsibility is connected to societal change.

But clearly it seems more is needed. That's why I started the thread and I assume it's why we're all talking about it.

 

[Peggy]

I think society follows the individual. I think they're connected. In other words, I don't think you have societal change on a large scale without individual change.

It's why I put a high value on individual personal responsibility.

This seems like a cop-out to me. Societal change is, by definition, a whole lot of individuals changing. But we know, from decades of experience, that hoping enough individuals will change to create a societal level change won't work. That's why I continue to ask what solutions will create a societal level change. Beyond the drugs, I think only government has to wherewithal to create such a large scale change, but all attempts by government to date have been met with fierce resistance by the public.

I haven’t gotten involved in the what can we do discussion much but because we have tied health insurance in to employment many companies could bring about change - they same way they can about inclusion, climate and some others areas - if they really want to.

Give discounts based on health metrics - like many already do with smoking. Not saying it will happen or would be well received by many but it COULD happen.

Just getting caught up, and in line with some of @matttyl 's posts. Anecdotal, but we are a large company with top tier benefits. We went this route with our health care about a decade ago. At it's peak of implementation:

1 - Mandatory screenings, blood work and questionnaire. If you didn't do these the rates were significantly increased, doubled.
2 - If you failed certain screenings you had to complete additional "homework". ie. training, courses, make life style changes etc.
3 - There were incentives too, gym memberships, gift cards etcetera for doing above and beyond activities that weren't required by #1 and #2.

That said it all slowly faded away. I don't think it was popular for the majority of people. First the disincentives went away, then the screenings, then the program altogether.

 

[belljr]

Re: sugar. You'd think healthy sounding cereals like Raisin Bran and Cracklin Oat Bran would be decent but both are loaded with sugar. Might as well eat Cap'n Crunch. My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Holy smokes, I just checked my raisin bran I just figured the sugar was from raisins since they are high in sugar. No idea they added more. No wonder I love it lol

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think society follows the individual. I think they're connected. In other words, I don't think you have societal change on a large scale without individual change.

It's why I put a high value on individual personal responsibility.

This seems like a cop-out to me. Societal change is, by definition, a whole lot of individuals changing. But we know, from decades of experience, that hoping enough individuals will change to create a societal level change won't work. That's why I continue to ask what solutions will create a societal level change. Beyond the drugs, I think only government has to wherewithal to create such a large scale change, but all attempts by government to date have been met with fierce resistance by the public.

I haven’t gotten involved in the what can we do discussion much but because we have tied health insurance in to employment many companies could bring about change - they same way they can about inclusion, climate and some others areas - if they really want to.

Give discounts based on health metrics - like many already do with smoking. Not saying it will happen or would be well received by many but it COULD happen.

Just getting caught up, and in line with some of @matttyl 's posts. Anecdotal, but we are a large company with top tier benefits. We went this route with our health care about a decade ago. At it's peak of implementation:

1 - Mandatory screenings, blood work and questionnaire. If you didn't do these the rates were significantly increased, doubled.
2 - If you failed certain screenings you had to complete additional "homework". ie. training, courses, make life style changes etc.
3 - There were incentives too, gym memberships, gift cards etcetera for doing above and beyond activities that weren't required by #1 and #2.

That said it all slowly faded away. I don't think it was popular for the majority of people. First the disincentives went away, then the screenings, then the program altogether.

Thank you for sharing. That's super helpful to have real world examples.

What kind of pushback did you get? I'm guessing that it was said you were "fat shaming" or discriminating against people.

I wonder how the companies in Japan who do this handle objections?

 

[bigbottom]

You can tie it to the social programs too. "if you want our help, he need to stay within these guidelines" and making buying processed foods significantly more expensive in that system or ban them completely

There we go, let's make the poor people eat correctly, even tho no one else does.

Or, put another way, let’s not subsidize unhealthy foods with our tax dollars.

 

[RCon]

Or, put another way, let’s not subsidize unhealthy foods with our tax dollars.

This really should be step one in any solution. Of course, the corporations and lobbyists currently benefiting from those subsidies will ensure that it doesn't happen.

 

[Max Power]

My command offers civilians 3 hours a week for physical fitness during the scheduled workday. Its supposed to be broken into three 1-hour sessions, but they are ok if someone wants to do two 90 minute sessions. The time is also supposed to include post workout cleanup to come back in to work. Most of us tend to do it the last hour of the work day, check back in to work and go home. The workout has to be on base and we're required to check back in after.

All that to say only about 20% of employees use this perk on the regular. Maybe another 20-30% use it from time to time. 50% won't do it at all. This is paid time off to workout at a gym with no membership fees and still half the people won't do it.

 

[bigbottom]

I think society follows the individual. I think they're connected. In other words, I don't think you have societal change on a large scale without individual change.

It's why I put a high value on individual personal responsibility.

This seems like a cop-out to me. Societal change is, by definition, a whole lot of individuals changing. But we know, from decades of experience, that hoping enough individuals will change to create a societal level change won't work. That's why I continue to ask what solutions will create a societal level change. Beyond the drugs, I think only government has to wherewithal to create such a large scale change, but all attempts by government to date have been met with fierce resistance by the public.

I haven’t gotten involved in the what can we do discussion much but because we have tied health insurance in to employment many companies could bring about change - they same way they can about inclusion, climate and some others areas - if they really want to.

Give discounts based on health metrics - like many already do with smoking. Not saying it will happen or would be well received by many but it COULD happen.

Just getting caught up, and in line with some of @matttyl 's posts. Anecdotal, but we are a large company with top tier benefits. We went this route with our health care about a decade ago. At it's peak of implementation:

1 - Mandatory screenings, blood work and questionnaire. If you didn't do these the rates were significantly increased, doubled.
2 - If you failed certain screenings you had to complete additional "homework". ie. training, courses, make life style changes etc.
3 - There were incentives too, gym memberships, gift cards etcetera for doing above and beyond activities that weren't required by #1 and #2.

That said it all slowly faded away. I don't think it was popular for the majority of people. First the disincentives went away, then the screenings, then the program altogether.

re the “homework”, how did they require you to make lifestyle changes?

 

[Spartans Rule]

Re: sugar. You'd think healthy sounding cereals like Raisin Bran and Cracklin Oat Bran would be decent but both are loaded with sugar. Might as well eat Cap'n Crunch. My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

The one that blew my mind was the little Quaker Instant Oatmeal packets. They're like half sugar, half oatmeal. Eat two packets and you've basically had a candy bar.

I started buying the plain unsweetened flavor and adding my own fruit/sugar. You can make feel like you're making a dessert and still only have about half the sugar of the pre-flavored stuff.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

You can tie it to the social programs too. "if you want our help, he need to stay within these guidelines" and making buying processed foods significantly more expensive in that system or ban them completely

There we go, let's make the poor people eat correctly, even tho no one else does.

This is a rather good illustration of exactly what Rich Conway guy above was saying. So, thanks for that. I'd love to "make" everyone eat healthy, but that's not how this country works. I'd love to get rid of boxed/processed foods completely, but we know that's not going to happen. At the very least, I think it's perfectly acceptable to put qualifications on the money I provide someone in my efforts to help them out. You disagree...cool.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Re: sugar. You'd think healthy sounding cereals like Raisin Bran and Cracklin Oat Bran would be decent but both are loaded with sugar. Might as well eat Cap'n Crunch. My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

The one that blew my mind was the little Quaker Instant Oatmeal packets. They're like half sugar, half oatmeal. Eat two packets and you've basically had a candy bar.

I started buying the plain unsweetened flavor and adding my own fruit/sugar. You can make feel like you're making a dessert and still only have about half the sugar of the pre-flavored stuff.

Yes.

1. Read the labels. That's a pretty huge thing that they're there.
2. Assume almost anything in a wrapper is full of not good stuff (which by law is described on the label)

That feels like a good thing the government is doing to require full disclosure there.

But people do have to care enough to read the label.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Re: sugar. You'd think healthy sounding cereals like Raisin Bran and Cracklin Oat Bran would be decent but both are loaded with sugar. Might as well eat Cap'n Crunch. My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

The one that blew my mind was the little Quaker Instant Oatmeal packets. They're like half sugar, half oatmeal. Eat two packets and you've basically had a candy bar.

I started buying the plain unsweetened flavor and adding my own fruit/sugar. You can make feel like you're making a dessert and still only have about half the sugar of the pre-flavored stuff.

two slices of white bread have about 1/6 the recommended amount of sugar a man should eat in a day. people are woefully ignorant on the prominence of sugar in our everyday lives.

 

[Mister CIA]

Re: sugar. You'd think healthy sounding cereals like Raisin Bran and Cracklin Oat Bran would be decent but both are loaded with sugar. Might as well eat Cap'n Crunch. My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

The one that blew my mind was the little Quaker Instant Oatmeal packets. They're like half sugar, half oatmeal. Eat two packets and you've basically had a candy bar.

I started buying the plain unsweetened flavor and adding my own fruit/sugar. You can make feel like you're making a dessert and still only have about half the sugar of the pre-flavored stuff.

two slices of white bread have about 1/6 the recommended amount of sugar a man should eat in a day. people are woefully ignorant on the prominence of sugar in our everyday lives.

Growing up, I thought saltines were healthy, because hey, food pyramid says so.

 

[Joe Bryant]

https://www.myplate.gov/ is the new version of the Food Pyramid.

 

[notoriousbill]

Re: sugar. You'd think healthy sounding cereals like Raisin Bran and Cracklin Oat Bran would be decent but both are loaded with sugar. Might as well eat Cap'n Crunch. My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

If you would be so kind as to provide the name of the cereal it would be greatly appreciated!

Interested! My wife is T2 diabetic and a cereal nut and anything I can do to help, I try.... She likes Chex and Honey Nut Cheerios...

 

[notoriousbill]

My command offers civilians 3 hours a week for physical fitness during the scheduled workday. Its supposed to be broken into three 1-hour sessions, but they are ok if someone wants to do two 90 minute sessions. The time is also supposed to include post workout cleanup to come back in to work. Most of us tend to do it the last hour of the work day, check back in to work and go home. The workout has to be on base and we're required to check back in after.

All that to say only about 20% of employees use this perk on the regular. Maybe another 20-30% use it from time to time. 50% won't do it at all. This is paid time off to workout at a gym with no membership fees and still half the people won't do it.

I wish my company did that! Wow!!!

 

[RCon]

Re: sugar. You'd think healthy sounding cereals like Raisin Bran and Cracklin Oat Bran would be decent but both are loaded with sugar. Might as well eat Cap'n Crunch. My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

If you would be so kind as to provide the name of the cereal it would be greatly appreciated!

Interested! My wife is T2 diabetic and a cereal nut and anything I can do to help, I try.... She likes Chex and Honey Nut Cheerios...

Oof. Honey Nut Cheerios are loaded with added sugar. So are the Multi Grain Cheerios, despite the packaging make it sound like they are super-healthy.

Multi Grain Cheerios | Gluten Free Multi Grain Cereal

Looking for a cereal packed with nutrients? Multi Grain Cheerios offer a combination of nutrition and taste with three whole grains filled with flavor.

www.cheerios.com

 

[notoriousbill]

Re: sugar. You'd think healthy sounding cereals like Raisin Bran and Cracklin Oat Bran would be decent but both are loaded with sugar. Might as well eat Cap'n Crunch. My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

If you would be so kind as to provide the name of the cereal it would be greatly appreciated!

Interested! My wife is T2 diabetic and a cereal nut and anything I can do to help, I try.... She likes Chex and Honey Nut Cheerios...

Oof. Honey Nut Cheerios are loaded with added sugar. So are the Multi Grain Cheerios, despite the packaging make it sound like they are super-healthy.

Multi Grain Cheerios | Gluten Free Multi Grain Cereal

Looking for a cereal packed with nutrients? Multi Grain Cheerios offer a combination of nutrition and taste with three whole grains filled with flavor.

www.cheerios.com

I keep telling her.... It's like talking to the wall lol

 

[3C's]

Re: sugar. You'd think healthy sounding cereals like Raisin Bran and Cracklin Oat Bran would be decent but both are loaded with sugar. Might as well eat Cap'n Crunch. My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

If you would be so kind as to provide the name of the cereal it would be greatly appreciated!

Interested! My wife is T2 diabetic and a cereal nut and anything I can do to help, I try.... She likes Chex and Honey Nut Cheerios...

Pic from 2021 so the price is lower than now.

link

No Added Sugar Mixed Berry Cereal • Cascadian Farm Organic

Crispy flake cereal with organic strawberries and blueberries.

www.cascadianfarm.com

 

[3C's]

Re: sugar. You'd think healthy sounding cereals like Raisin Bran and Cracklin Oat Bran would be decent but both are loaded with sugar. Might as well eat Cap'n Crunch. My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

If you would be so kind as to provide the name of the cereal it would be greatly appreciated!

Interested! My wife is T2 diabetic and a cereal nut and anything I can do to help, I try.... She likes Chex and Honey Nut Cheerios...

Oof. Honey Nut Cheerios are loaded with added sugar. So are the Multi Grain Cheerios, despite the packaging make it sound like they are super-healthy.

Multi Grain Cheerios | Gluten Free Multi Grain Cereal

Looking for a cereal packed with nutrients? Multi Grain Cheerios offer a combination of nutrition and taste with three whole grains filled with flavor.

www.cheerios.com

Yeah, those are in the pantry as well. And some "apple fritter" cereal which is all sugar but might as well eat that.

 

[Peggy]

I think society follows the individual. I think they're connected. In other words, I don't think you have societal change on a large scale without individual change.

It's why I put a high value on individual personal responsibility.

This seems like a cop-out to me. Societal change is, by definition, a whole lot of individuals changing. But we know, from decades of experience, that hoping enough individuals will change to create a societal level change won't work. That's why I continue to ask what solutions will create a societal level change. Beyond the drugs, I think only government has to wherewithal to create such a large scale change, but all attempts by government to date have been met with fierce resistance by the public.

I haven’t gotten involved in the what can we do discussion much but because we have tied health insurance in to employment many companies could bring about change - they same way they can about inclusion, climate and some others areas - if they really want to.

Give discounts based on health metrics - like many already do with smoking. Not saying it will happen or would be well received by many but it COULD happen.

Just getting caught up, and in line with some of @matttyl 's posts. Anecdotal, but we are a large company with top tier benefits. We went this route with our health care about a decade ago. At it's peak of implementation:

1 - Mandatory screenings, blood work and questionnaire. If you didn't do these the rates were significantly increased, doubled.
2 - If you failed certain screenings you had to complete additional "homework". ie. training, courses, make life style changes etc.
3 - There were incentives too, gym memberships, gift cards etcetera for doing above and beyond activities that weren't required by #1 and #2.

That said it all slowly faded away. I don't think it was popular for the majority of people. First the disincentives went away, then the screenings, then the program altogether.

Thank you for sharing. That's super helpful to have real world examples.

What kind of pushback did you get? I'm guessing that it was said you were "fat shaming" or discriminating against people.

I wonder how the companies in Japan who do this handle objections?

I'm not sure if there were any formal complaints or whatnot, I just know that a lot of people saw it as another thing they had to schedule and do. Hoops to jump through for busy people that thought maybe the company shouldn't be part of their healthcare.

My biggest complaint was that people were signing up for the spot "clinics" they provided for people to get their blood drawn and have their weight taken. It always seemed counter productive to me versus seeing a real family doctor regularly. I see a doctor regularly and I could use the measurements and blood tests he provided, but I still had to provide them and if my good cholesterol was too low I took a hit in the program even though my doctor wasn't concerned about it at all (bad cholesterol is really low too). For example.

I always thought you should be able to opt out of the program if you're regularly meeting with your own real doctor. And conversely I could see the program giving people the false sense of security to not regularly see a real doctor.

 

[Peggy]

I think society follows the individual. I think they're connected. In other words, I don't think you have societal change on a large scale without individual change.

It's why I put a high value on individual personal responsibility.

This seems like a cop-out to me. Societal change is, by definition, a whole lot of individuals changing. But we know, from decades of experience, that hoping enough individuals will change to create a societal level change won't work. That's why I continue to ask what solutions will create a societal level change. Beyond the drugs, I think only government has to wherewithal to create such a large scale change, but all attempts by government to date have been met with fierce resistance by the public.

I haven’t gotten involved in the what can we do discussion much but because we have tied health insurance in to employment many companies could bring about change - they same way they can about inclusion, climate and some others areas - if they really want to.

Give discounts based on health metrics - like many already do with smoking. Not saying it will happen or would be well received by many but it COULD happen.

Just getting caught up, and in line with some of @matttyl 's posts. Anecdotal, but we are a large company with top tier benefits. We went this route with our health care about a decade ago. At it's peak of implementation:

1 - Mandatory screenings, blood work and questionnaire. If you didn't do these the rates were significantly increased, doubled.
2 - If you failed certain screenings you had to complete additional "homework". ie. training, courses, make life style changes etc.
3 - There were incentives too, gym memberships, gift cards etcetera for doing above and beyond activities that weren't required by #1 and #2.

That said it all slowly faded away. I don't think it was popular for the majority of people. First the disincentives went away, then the screenings, then the program altogether.

re the “homework”, how did they require you to make lifestyle changes?

I don't remember the real specifics, but, that was the goal of the program. But yeah, if you slept through the training or cheated on your diet then of course they can't force you to do anything.

 

[belljr]

Anyone try these

High Protein, Keto-Friendly, 0g Sugar Cereal | Magic Spoon Cereal

Magic Spoon is high-protein, keto-friendly, gluten-free cereal with 0g of sugar. Available in Cocoa, Frosted, Blueberry, Peanut Butter and Cinnamon.

magicspoon.com

 

[Doug B]

My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?

 

[beer 30]

You can tie it to the social programs too. "if you want our help, he need to stay within these guidelines" and making buying processed foods significantly more expensive in that system or ban them completely.

That's part of the rub too, processed unhealthy food is dirt cheap compared to unprocessed, whole foods. Flip the script on that and I bet you see a change. And I'm not saying the growers of whole foods should get priced out, I'm fine paying for good, healthy food. I just don't want the alternative to be half price or less. Double it, triple it, slap a sin tax on it, I don't care how you package it but make it a little more painful.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think society follows the individual. I think they're connected. In other words, I don't think you have societal change on a large scale without individual change.

It's why I put a high value on individual personal responsibility.

This seems like a cop-out to me. Societal change is, by definition, a whole lot of individuals changing. But we know, from decades of experience, that hoping enough individuals will change to create a societal level change won't work. That's why I continue to ask what solutions will create a societal level change. Beyond the drugs, I think only government has to wherewithal to create such a large scale change, but all attempts by government to date have been met with fierce resistance by the public.

I haven’t gotten involved in the what can we do discussion much but because we have tied health insurance in to employment many companies could bring about change - they same way they can about inclusion, climate and some others areas - if they really want to.

Give discounts based on health metrics - like many already do with smoking. Not saying it will happen or would be well received by many but it COULD happen.

Just getting caught up, and in line with some of @matttyl 's posts. Anecdotal, but we are a large company with top tier benefits. We went this route with our health care about a decade ago. At it's peak of implementation:

1 - Mandatory screenings, blood work and questionnaire. If you didn't do these the rates were significantly increased, doubled.
2 - If you failed certain screenings you had to complete additional "homework". ie. training, courses, make life style changes etc.
3 - There were incentives too, gym memberships, gift cards etcetera for doing above and beyond activities that weren't required by #1 and #2.

That said it all slowly faded away. I don't think it was popular for the majority of people. First the disincentives went away, then the screenings, then the program altogether.

Thank you for sharing. That's super helpful to have real world examples.

What kind of pushback did you get? I'm guessing that it was said you were "fat shaming" or discriminating against people.

I wonder how the companies in Japan who do this handle objections?

I'm not sure if there were any formal complaints or whatnot, I just know that a lot of people saw it as another thing they had to schedule and do. Hoops to jump through for busy people that thought maybe the company shouldn't be part of their healthcare.

My biggest complaint was that people were signing up for the spot "clinics" they provided for people to get their blood drawn and have their weight taken. It always seemed counter productive to me versus seeing a real family doctor regularly. I see a doctor regularly and I could use the measurements and blood tests he provided, but I still had to provide them and if my good cholesterol was too low I took a hit in the program even though my doctor wasn't concerned about it at all (bad cholesterol is really low too). For example.

I always thought you should be able to opt out of the program if you're regularly meeting with your own real doctor. And conversely I could see the program giving people the false sense of security to not regularly see a real doctor.

Thank you @Peggy Super interesting.