Mood: The current mood of cluefairy at www.imood.com

« tucker carlson | Main | someone's not happy »

August 15, 2006

mmm......donuts.......

First it was Sally Struthers telling us to donate money to feed the hungry and poor. Now the call for help is for Sally Struthers.

"There are more overweight people than hungry in the world".

Posted by jennj at August 15, 2006 09:18 AM

Clue-ments:

Contrary to the "South Park" episode, she isn't in the Jabba the Hut category yet. Yeah she's got some extra pounds on her but nowhere near the morbidly obese stage.

(I worked with her last year on an episode of (GACK!) "Gilmore Girls" (GACK!) It was 95 degrees in the Warner backlot and we were all bundled up like it was fall in Connecticut. We were working inside the grocery store set and she was dying in the heat. I helped to fan her to cool her down before our scene. She was really suffering.)

I do find the report about there being more overweight people than undernourished ones kinda questionable, given that the world population has increased but the amount of arable land has decreased and the fact that the productivity of the land in many parts of the world hasn't improved by all that much over the past several years. Personally, I'd like to see their data sometime.

Posted by: steveb at August 16, 2006 04:56 AM

Steve - Oh yeah, I'm sure that she's not morbidly obese, but she is overweight and that is what the study contends, hence my use of her as an example. The south park pic was because it amused me.

I do find myself a bit skeptical. On the other hand, I'm not finding it hard to believe especially with the rise of McDonald's (high calorie crap) and other high calorie, processed crap that people can get all over the world now, cheaply (e.g. Wal-Mart is now in China). But in the end, I think that all this hand wringing and alarm about an "obesity epidemic", especially about children disturbing. When you actually read the CDC reports we find that 16 percent of children between the ages of 6-19 years are overweight (but the word everyone wants to use is obese) in the U.S. They don't use the term obese for children due to contributing factors on how to measure BMI. You gotta wonder, is that really an epidemic? Well, probably. And it seems especially true when you look at how fast the percentage is increasing. And obviously, we all want that number to be lower, it's better for the kids, don't get me wrong. I think we should all be eating healthy and moving our bodies through exercise or other athletic pursuits. I struggle with this every single day. But it's also a socioeconomic issue. It is cheap to get McDonald's. But I argue that a huge factor is the speed that lures the parents to McDonald's, not the money. And the speed is a by product of our fast-moving society (which is a whole 'nother argument). Cause in the end, we all know that it is cheaper to cook a meal than to eat out. Even at McDonald's. I think that the parents are responsible for their kid. Stop feeding them crap. But if you, as a parent, eat crap, how can you teach your kid to eat healthy? But I've now gone away from the original article that spawned this post. :-)

I too would be interested in his numbers.

CDC definitions for overweight, obese, etc. for adults and children here:
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/defining.htm

CDC trend information/data:
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/index.htm

Posted by: cf at August 16, 2006 10:05 AM

While I'll agree that there's a serious problem here in the U.S., I'm not sure that its necessarily a worldwide phenomenon. One thing that really jumped out at me when we took our vacation in the UK last year was the very small number of overweight people we saw there. This included the many tourists from quite a few countries that we saw in London and Edinburgh at the Arts Festival.

Even at Worldcon, where you've got a lot of fans who are oftentimes prone to sedentary habits, there was a fairly small percentage of significantly overweight folks and most of those seemed to be from the U.S.

Admittedly, this is a far-from-scientific sampling and only covered one outside country. So perhaps I'm missing a lot of examples of worldwide obesity.

We noticed two other things while we were there that may very well have contributed to the lower weight among the population: 1) people tended to walk a lot more there than they seem to do in the U.S., and 2) the food there was both more expensive and in smaller serving portions than you typically see here. (Also, the variety and quality of the foods available there seemed to be lower. But that's the UK.)

Posted by: steveb at August 16, 2006 08:34 PM

My BMI is about 21. That puts it about dead center of the "normal" range. Does that sound right to you?

Posted by: Jay at August 16, 2006 09:25 PM

Having traveled to several countries in europe, central america, and africa, I can say that the biggest difference that I have noticed is portion size in the us is much bigger. Conversations wiht friends of mine have lead me to this beleife. Americas like "value", but we define "value" as more for the money, not better for the money. As a result, we tend to flock to restraunts that give us a lot of food over restraunts that give us good food. I have noticed, particulary in Paris, that quality is more important than quantity.

Posted by: mess at August 16, 2006 09:53 PM

Steve - Yeah, I have seen that also when traveling outside of the country (even in asia). And I definitely think walking (or biking, even) everywhere is a huge part of it. I would also say that portion size is different than what I find here. But yes, these are merely my observations also. Nothing empirical.

However, I can be swayed that the world may be getting fatter due to what I've mentioned earlier (cheaper food, mcdonald's, wal-mart, etc.). I wonder what the chart would look like for a country pre-mcdonald's invasion and post-invasion with regards to people's weight....hmm....

I'm not saying that there should be litigation against McDonald's. Not even sure there's causation there. I just think it would be interesting to see.....

Posted by: cf at August 17, 2006 06:59 AM

Jay - I'm surprised your BMI is so high. But that is the problem with these "measurements", they don't take the individual into the factor. Too normalized. For me and being overweight, all that matters when it comes to how "healthy" I am is watching my cholesterol and blood pressure to make sure it doesn't get to the point where I'd have to take pills (would really like to not have to take pills - and my biological parents had to), preventing type II diabetes (both biological parents developed it), being able to ski and lose some of this weight. BMI? Interesting number that decreases as you lose weight, but not really a motivator.

Posted by: cf at August 17, 2006 07:05 AM

mess - agreed. I would add that the other thing people in the US do but I haven't seen elsewhere: eat too fast. If you talk to a nutritionist, they recommend eating slowly, savoring the food that way your stomach and brain have a chance to talk to each other and communicate when you're _truly_ full. And definitely eating is a whole longer festivity elsewhere than in the US.

Posted by: cf at August 17, 2006 07:16 AM

The overweight aren't malnutritioned because they eat too fast. It is because they eat crap and lots of it... crap with no nutritional value: french fries, pizza, hamburgers, ice cream, et cet er a. Americans tend to eat a lot of heavily proccessed foods that have been stripped of nutritional value (white rice, white flour, white sugar, high fructose corn syrup).

Ask an obese person when they last ate swiss chard or whether they even know what it is. Ok, fine, start with something easier like fresh broccoli or spinach. How about lentils?

No. Most Americans just eat crap.

Posted by: Kristin at August 17, 2006 09:33 PM