“There is no childhood obesity epidemic,” writes Paul Campos in an article in the New Republic. Campos bases this on a recently published study that found that obesity rates have not increased in the last decade, and in some age classes they’ve actually declined.
This is vindication for Campos, whose 2004 book, The Obesity Myth, argued that claims of an obesity epidemic were not only overblown but could lead to policies that were hazardous to people’s health. Campos points to a more recent book, End of the Obesity Epidemic, by Michael Gard, that uses worldwide data to show that obesity rates are leveling off.
This doesn’t mean obesity isn’t a problem. But, Campos states, “No one knows why the average weight of Americans was relatively stable in the 1960s and 1970s, or why it went up significantly in the 1980s and 1990s.” If no one knows why these things happened, then any policies aimed at reducing obesity are no more than shots in the dark. Unfortunately, the collateral damage from the shots is likely to be far greater than any possible benefits.
According to a survey where people of various age groups used it, most of them are now free from constipation, gastric issues, acidity, and other bad habits will turn the healthy body into a sub-health situation,finally various kinds of disease appear.So we must pay more attentions to harm of the bad habits and do something to get away from it. generic viagra no prescription I had a couple of fifty year old women friends who I used to take out but I certainly wasn’t getting excited about canada in levitra them. Now this may sound like an over simplification, but imagine this: A podiatrist’s treatment generic cialis 5mg doesn’t correct your back pain, and you walk around believing that podiatry doesn’t work. As soon as a man notices generico viagra on line https://regencygrandenursing.com/ himself losing erections for more than a week, he should visit a health professional for the consultation and asking about the right kind of contraceptives to use.
The so-called epidemic was fabricated by public health officials who sought larger budgets. It was supported by leftists, who used it to bash corporations, not to mention urban sprawl. This is a predictable result of giving government power to do good things (such as create a central clearinghouse to monitor disease): that power will inevitably be twisted to do bad things.
I find this an interesting thought provoking post with good references. However I would recommend not using name calling such as the term “leftists” in as they simply provide a reason for some to dismiss the article.
I disagree with the logic here. Just because the increase has slowed, or even stopped, doesn’t mean it’s not an epidemic (although yeah, “epidemic” is a squishy word to begin with). And while the tone of your entire piece is obesity isn’t a big deal, then you have the throwaway line that this doesn’t mean that obesity isn’t a problem. Until it goes down substantially, I’m going to keep considering it a major problem and be looking for government interference that’s making it worse to eliminate.
It’s not that there is no obesity epidemic. It’s that the increase in the rate of obese kids has slowed. Hasty generalization. Again.
DS
What happened after the 60’s for the American waistline to increase. The computer. The shift from the blue collar economy to the white collar economy, the proliferation of television, namely cable TV. The proliferation of the drive thru restaurant, how about the realization that the food just tastes good. Take your pick. The popularity of Southern Comfort Food whose prime ingredient is pig lard; the Redneckification of America. None of these things is inherently responsible per se, it’s a matter of personal choice. We’ve subsidized poor decision making for decades. Subsidizing corn growers to turn corn into liquid sugar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T53ea2NoWDk
Have a look at figure 4 at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40545.pdf
The percentage of real U.S. disposable personal income spent on food fell from 20% in 1940 to 10% today, with the steepest fall from about 1948 to about 1970.
Surely the result is obvious.
Unfortunately, it sure is on my belly, but I’m working on it.
The use of “epidemic” for a non-infectious public health concern is misleading and just political spin to evoke the emotions.
There are many potential reasons for the increase in childhood obesity. In addition to those listed above, the parenting norms have changed such that kids are not allowed to walk or bike to school very much, school play is very non-physical to prevent minor injuries, and there is far less unorganized sports playing. Organized sports are up, but there is far less exercise involved because the games are fewer and half the kids are not even playing at any one point.
Also the price of food has drastically fallen as a portion of the family budget. In 1900, food was 40% of the family budget. In 1950, it dropped to about 30%, and by 2000 it was only 12%. No wonder people ate more and higher calorie food as it was less and less a cost of daily life.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-america-spends-money-100-years-in-the-life-of-the-family-budget/255475/
One factor being ignored is what groups have the most childhood obesity?
In the not so distant past, you could tell rich from poor because poor were thinner and less well fed. Gout and similar conditions were rich people’s diseases. That standard was true for centuries – maybe since the dawn of humankind.
Now, at least in the US, it has reversed. Go into any grocery store and you will see a lot of poorer people buying tons of food – and their bodies are such that the food is not needed. In today’s USA, most of the fitter, trimmer people are wealthier.
This will sound cruel, but do an obesity study eliminating food stamp recipients and you will find that the obesity rate has not gone up signifcantly. Food stamps are needed by a small percentage of people. But when you see entire families being able to get obese on food stamps, that indicates that way too much has been given out.
No one is making people get fat. But each day the government says people are poor and starving and gives them more food stamps – and then spends billions on programs to try to ease their obesity. Set requirements: If people are obese, cut back (don’t eliminate) on food stamps and the epidemic will cure itself quite quickly.
What if the decline in obesity rates is partly a result of the evil government’s efforts to fight obesity? Could it be that these policies weren’t just a cover to advance some sort of liberal agenda and actually, you know, worked?
This is the classic, “because we don’t know everything, we don’t know anything,” argument. While scientists might not know the causes of obesity on a macro level, there are lots of small common-sense policy changes that are better than doing nothing, like making school lunches healthier, for example, or building bike/ped paths to encourage people to get more exercise.
“Now, at least in the US, it has reversed. Go into any grocery store and you will see a lot of poorer people buying tons of food – and their bodies are such that the food is not needed. In today’s USA, most of the fitter, trimmer people are wealthier.”
The evidence does not support your anecdote. Of course, it which grocery store you pick to sample would affect the results of even anecdote.
You’ve oversimplified a complex situation. Here’s what empirical evidence shows:
Obesity rates increased 62% among the poor and 155% among the non-poor from 1971 to 2006. From Overweight and Poor? On the Relationship between Income and the Body Mass Index:
One should be cautious about using informal anecdote as evidence.
“like making school lunches healthier”
What’s unhealthy about this?
And now I’m using an anecdote. 😉
Here’s some empirical evidence:
My apologies if anyone, especially anyone in Seattle’s City Hall, is offended by my posting the term brown bag.
The problem with reforming school lunch is that government schools are an iron clad bureaucracy in bed with moneyed interests who don’t want to give up their coerced dollars.
However I would recommend not using name calling such as the term “leftists” in as they simply provide a reason for some to dismiss the article.
Would you prefer the term “statists”? If the shoe fits…
It’s not that there is no obesity epidemic. It’s that the increase in the rate of obese kids has slowed. Hasty generalization. Again.
That’s not what the post or the articles it links to says. To wit:
Campos bases this on a recently published study that found that obesity rates have not increased in the last decade, and in some age classes they’ve actually declined. That’s a different result. And it relates directly to the definition of “epidemic”, which you might want to review.
This is the classic, “because we don’t know everything, we don’t know anything,” argument. While scientists might not know the causes of obesity on a macro level, there are lots of small common-sense policy changes that are better than doing nothing, like making school lunches healthier, for example, or building bike/ped paths to encourage people to get more exercise.
Actually, Harvard’s David Cutler has done a cross-country, time-series study of determinants of obesity changes. The macro causes are known, and are not surprising: rising incomes and falling food prices account for the bulk of the growth. These are mostly outside the scope of government. Yes, you can undertake policies to try to reduce obesity, but none should be assumed to be “common sense” unless they are proven. Frank cites a study on school lunch nutrition, but the reported size of the treatment effect is relatively small (2 to 4 centiles). This pales in comparison to the effect of economic determinants. And there is not compelling evidence that building bike paths affects obesity rates, so I don’t consider this “common sense”.
That’s a different result. And it relates directly to the definition of “epidemic”, which you might want to review.
In context, the meta in Randal’s argumentation is that there is no epidemic at all.
Not that there was one but now there isn’t. Or there was one but it is on hold. Or there was one but with no significant changes in obesity prevalence in youth or adults between 2003-2004 and 2011-2012. Obesity prevalence remains high and thus it is important to continue surveillance so all is good.
See, Randal was using a change in rate to prop up his argumentation around ‘no epidemic, them scientists exaggerating for money again!!!!’. Which is not what the data show.
DS
If you are trying for an intelligent discussion, then “epidemic” refers to “a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time.”
If you are trying to just be a political hack, then use “epidemic” for everything the liberal public health hacks want to talk about, like an “epidemic” of boys not using condoms or an “epidemic” of weathermen claiming global warming caused snow to fall.
Kids are getting fatter. There are a hundred reasons that is so. The government programs have a small chance of changing that by 20% or so.
But society changes regardless of government. Michelle Obama’s efforts, even if well-intentioned, won’t make a 1% difference. There could and probably will be societal changes that will swing the pendulum back, and forth, and back again. But planners won’t figure them out in advance and intervention will be costly and probably be as negative as positive.
Evolution and free economics work because they try a million different things and a few work out, things that nobody could have “figured out” ahead of time. A planned economy just projects bigotry and conventional wisdom of planners far beyond real data.
To heck with statistically significant studies. Let’s hear anecdotes from readers. My 58-year-old male BMI is 24.4.
What’s yours?