Being obese causes cancer but...

Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
5,759
Location
Midlands
You can't tax your way out of an obesity crisis, nor can you educate or exercise your way out of it, the problem is far too large.

Taxation didn't work with cigarettes, there's no evidence it would work for food, (or work more than a drop in the ocean)
Education is mostly moot, because 99% of people eating a big-mac or a mars bar know it's bad for them
Exercise - we've never in history had as many people attending gyms and doing exercise, yet obesity rates go up - so that's ineffective (you can't outrun a bad diet)

You have to legislate, legislation and law is the only way, people won't like it - they'll say "I don't want the nanny state telling me what to do" and they'll keep on saying that as they're being wheeled into the hospital to have treatment for obesity related disease.

Legislation should target two ares, quantity and quality.

If you have a town, that's already rammed with fast food and junk food outlets (like all towns) we should change planning legislation to restrict the amount of outlets within a certain distance. Because how many do we need? Is it really necessary to have, Mcdonalds, Burger King, KFC, Dominos, Papa Johns, and god knows how many indian/chinese/kebab places, within a certain area. I find it inconceivable, how we can be in the midst of an obesity crisis - and we're not taking steps to examine 'how much is enough'?

In terms of quality, we need to heavily restrict the food industry from engineering products that are designed to provide insane amounts of energy and flavour, which are mostly targeted at children, which simultaneously provide absolutely no useful nutrition at all (no fibre, no vitamins, no roughage) mostly just saturated fat, sugar and salt (especially in processed food). These products are essentially the root cause behind the excess intake of food, which drives the obesity and the disease. (because it's the growing rates of obesity in children which is the ticking time bomb)

There's no other way. the problem will get worse and worse (as it has been) but then again, I have little to no faith in the current, or any government's ability to enact sensible rules and regulations.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2016
Posts
8,757
Location
Oldham
Maybe investigate the junk foods people eat and increase regulation. Get rid of the E numbers and all that stuff.

If people are fat because of eating then yes they would be more likely to get cancer because they are eating more junk foods. Thin people get cancer too.. how is that explained.

It would be interesting to see cancer rates between the socio-economic classes. Are people of a lower socio-economic classes more likey to get cancers?
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
Maybe we should tax the fatties like we tax the smokers ? or would that be fat discrimination also despite their immense drain on the NHS simply because they lack any discipline when it comes to diet ?

"Immense drain on the NHS", so basically you support forcing obese people to pay tax for the NHS and then effectively pay a penalty charge for actually using it? How is that ethical?

Tax the crap and give new companies creating healthy fast food snacks a chance.

I prefer to live in a capitalist society than a communist one personally.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Jul 2003
Posts
9,595
Maybe investigate the junk foods people eat and increase regulation. Get rid of the E numbers and all that stuff.

If people are fat because of eating then yes they would be more likely to get cancer because they are eating more junk foods. Thin people get cancer too.. how is that explained.

It would be interesting to see cancer rates between the socio-economic classes. Are people of a lower socio-economic classes more likey to get cancers?

You can look thin and still be unhealthy, visceral fat is one of the more dangerous places to hold excess weight (literally wraps itself around your organs) and you don't need to look overweight to have it, just eat rubbish.

The problem is quality, companies are just putting rubbish in to food that our bodies naturally crave and they won't stop until either public demand forces them, it becomes too expensive or legislation limits what they can put in.

We already have healthier alternatives such as fibre based sugars that with proper funding could be used to make sweet treats less unhealthy but there is no economic incentive for the big players to shift when they have such cheap sources of sugar.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2016
Posts
8,757
Location
Oldham
I was having a conversation with an American last night, and it got on to the subject of where she was going to eat. She was going to this Mongolian Grill place, that apart from rice and pasta noodles, everything else sold was protein.

I know the stereotype of Americans that they are fat and eating junk food. But the Americans I saw when I was there ate more proteins and salad than I've ever seen here. Even if we go out to eat here and order a salad its never given full honours, its always an after thought.

It made me think how heavy and stodgy the British diet is. I know this as evolved because of the lack of affordability of food back in the day, that you ate stodgy food so it would digest slow and you could last longer without feeling hungry. We, as a nation, haven't fully evolved past those days. I think to improve food consumption it needs a different way of life mentality. Also more simplistic recipe books that don't require 10+ ingredients and little dips and grains that nobody happens to have in. A simple recipe book would be a good start. I think once people get in to the habit of making their own food it will also give them a sense of achivement too.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
19,325
Location
Somewhere in the middle.
Surely we just have more fat people due to lives centred around our phone and computer screens. We are the first generations of people who basically sit on their arse, don't work in pits /factories or ship yards and don't do exercise in case a paedophile kidnaps them or a chav stabs them.

Junk food has been around decades. But we are way lazier than ever.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
You can't tax your way out of an obesity crisis, nor can you educate or exercise your way out of it, the problem is far too large.

Yes, obesity is a big problem.... :D

Taxation didn't work with cigarettes, there's no evidence it would work for food, (or work more than a drop in the ocean)
Education is mostly moot, because 99% of people eating a big-mac or a mars bar know it's bad for them
Exercise - we've never in history had as many people attending gyms and doing exercise, yet obesity rates go up - so that's ineffective (you can't outrun a bad diet)

You have to legislate, legislation and law is the only way, people won't like it - they'll say "I don't want the nanny state telling me what to do" and they'll keep on saying that as they're being wheeled into the hospital to have treatment for obesity related disease.

I don't agree that education is mostly moot, especially in this case for example and also give that there is a body positive movement trying to put out a counter message about how people can be healthy at every size.

Yes most people know that junk food is bad, getting fat isn't good for you etc.. but not necessarily how bad or the extent of the issue. Also, specific to this campaign, plenty of people aren't necessarily aware of say the link between obesity and cancer - plenty might just be under the impression that it's just say a bigger risk of a heart attack when they're much older etc.. I suspect taxation does have some effect though I'm sort of in line with you there as I suspect it is small.

I'd agree with legislation, McDonalds and Coca Cola don't spend billions on advertising just for fun, we're all well aware of who Coca Cola are and who McDonald's are and what they sell... but still they're continually advertising and spending huge amounts doing. Sadiq Khan had the right idea with the junk food advertising ban on the tube... though defining junk food isn't actually quite so easy. You can't just arbitrarily ban say "McDonalds" etc... you have to give some quantitative definition for example define what you're banning by the nutritional content of the food etc.. and this can then lead to some unexpected consequences, for example the farm drop incident - some hipster, "natural" food company... advert is banned because it contained butter and bacon, which are both obviously prone to failing anti-junk food legislation tests:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47444107

4oZjHCm.jpg

BBC said:
An advert designed to run on the London Underground was rejected because it contained bacon, butter, eggs and jam, an online supermarket said.

Farmdrop submitted a photograph which included images of the meat, dairy products and spread.

Transport for London (TfL) said it was up to advertisers to make sure any items featured were "high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS)-compliant".

Last month TfL issued a ban on all junk food advertising.

Foods found to be high in fat, sugar and salt are now not allowed to feature in advertisements on public transport.

Interestingly also, some McDonald's products like Happy Meals are actually compliant with the anti junk food regulations!
 
Last edited:
Soldato
OP
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,444
"Immense drain on the NHS", so basically you support forcing obese people to pay tax for the NHS and then effectively pay a penalty charge for actually using it? How is that ethical?

Nobody is forcing the overweight to eat so much food, just like nobody forces smokers to smoke, it's a lifestyle choice

Smokers pay a silly amount of tax on their life choice, why shouldn't there be a fat tax ?
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
5,759
Location
Midlands
Yes, obesity is a big problem.... :D

:D

I don't agree that education is mostly moot, especially in this case for example and also give that there is a body positive movement trying to put out a counter message about how people can be healthy at every size.

Yes most people know that junk food is bad, getting fat isn't good for you etc.. but not necessarily how bad or the extent of the issue. Also, specific to this campaign, plenty of people aren't necessarily aware of say the link between obesity and cancer - plenty might just be under the impression that it's just say a bigger risk of a heart attack when they're much older etc.. I suspect taxation does have some effect though I'm sort of in line with you there as I suspect it is small.

Yeah that's fair, I think I was speaking broadly in the sense that on average people know what's bad for them, but you're right - they on average aren't aware about the risks for cancer, or things like heart disease. It also gets a lot more complex with processed food, particularly low fat foods which can be very bad (cheap spreads which contain trans fats)

I'd also agree that normalising gigantic body sizes and 'fit at any size' is particularly dangerous, "I'm 30 stone because I am who I am, and I'm beautiful and healthy and perfect" whilst hauling their fat-apron down the street, is no good to anybody... That said - I also think fat shaming is very bad and should never be encouraged.

I'd agree with legislation, McDonalds and Coca Cola don't spend billions on advertising just for fun, we're all well aware of who Coca Cola are and who McDonald's are and what they sell... but still they're continually advertising and spending huge amounts doing. Sadiq Khan had the right idea with the junk food advertising ban on the tube... though defining junk food isn't actually quite so easy. You can't just arbitrarily ban say "McDonalds" etc... you have to give some quantitative definition for example define what you're banning by the nutritional content of the food etc.. and this can then lead to some unexpected consequences, for example the farm drop incident - some hipster, "natural" food company... advert is banned because it contained butter and bacon, which are both obviously prone to failing anti-junk food legislation tests:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47444107

4oZjHCm.jpg



Interestingly also, some McDonald's products like Happy Meals are actually compliant with the anti junk food regulations!

I think it's stupid that they banned that advert for that reason, it's a table of ingredients - there's a good balanced diet right there, if everybody ate the things on that table in moderation there would be absolutely no obesity crisis whatsoever. Ok bacon is probably the worst thing there, but it's like 5% of the total, - butter = no problem, eggs = one of the best things you can eat, then there's all the fruit and veg... Madness that it was banned. I'd understand if it was an advert for the latest burger or chocolate bar.... But all I see is a table full of healthy wholesome real food..

It is frustrating, as in the far as the definition of junk food goes. My person opinion on what constitutes junk food (based on what I've read) would look like;
  • Snacks and sweets - (chocolate, crisps, Haribo etc) almost all are processed, in the sense they're filled with huge amounts of sugar - in some cases they can become addictive.
  • Cheap processed foods - cheap pies, cheap sausage rolls, pastry that contains trans fat (because it's cheap to make, 99p sausage rolls etc)
  • Takeaway - Most of it is junk but not all, probably the hardest category to define, but you could start with stuff like pizza etc (a medium Dominos pizza weighs in at 1800-2500 cal of mostly fat and carbohydrates combined)
  • Cereals - one of the most ridiculous ones, but most brekfast cereals you get from the supermarket - below the neckline you may as well be eating a mars bar, the vast majority of them are trash.
  • "Coffee" - I've noticed that Starbucks have taken over literally every former Little Chef ever, then I learnt that some of their drinks provide as much as 600-700 calories (4-5 cans of coke) basically they make milkshakes
But on top of all of this, I don't actually want all of the above things to be banned outright (with the exception of trans fats which are poison) I don't want to live in a sterile world where there's nothing nice or sweet to eat. When I used to be a competitive swimmer, every weekend I'd have a Mcdonalds and a chocolate bar - once a week, so did the rest of the team and it was fine.

I can't put the blame on the individuals, because when you look at other studies and hypothetically - if you take healthy individuals from other societies with healthy diets and traditions, then you place them in an environment rich in junk/processed food, they almost always become overweight/obese - because on average the majority can't hold out in the insane environment we live in now.

In the final analysis, I don't want to live in a world where we ban coke, crisps and chocolate - because you need pleasures in life, sometimes there's nothing better than kicking back with a can of coke or watching a movie with a tub of Pringles - I get it...

However, the environment we live in, in my opinion has gone off the rails in terms of food, totally off the rails and it'll continue to go off the rails until someone starts to look at the problem as an environmental issue, rather than a personal responsibility problem, it's insane to blame the individuals when we have school children with type-2 diabetes, babies with type-2 diabetes, when all the advertising is engineered to target them, and even the food being produced is engineered for the sweetness threshold of a 5 year old.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Apr 2004
Posts
4,365
Location
Oxford
Maybe investigate the junk foods people eat and increase regulation. Get rid of the E numbers and all that stuff.

If people are fat because of eating then yes they would be more likely to get cancer because they are eating more junk foods. Thin people get cancer too.. how is that explained.

It would be interesting to see cancer rates between the socio-economic classes. Are people of a lower socio-economic classes more likey to get cancers?

You know a lot of E numbers are natural substances
 
Associate
Joined
17 Apr 2018
Posts
898
Starting to see "obese is a cause of cancer too" billboards on bus stops as well now.
There are a lot of things society can do to help reduce the numbers of obesity but the problem is we have grown in a society where people can't accept cold hard truth/blunt response.
You will have people that will accept it and will do everything in their power to lose weight and maintain a balanced lifestyle(I used to be fat now I get called a skinny boy) and then you have those that will get offended.
You will have people that will learn and exercise 2-4 times a week and eat "smartly" throughout the week, by smartly I mean for example if you know you're going to eat out and have a dessert then you reduce your daily consumption throughout the week or alternate something you regularly eat daily for something you fancy. This for me without going into calorie counting can work for a lot people in my opinion.
You can still enjoy eating your favourite bakery, ice cream, puddings, mcdonalds,takeouts, your favourite carbs etc, we shouldn't take those away from people but educate them you can have those at moderate level.
You will then have people nowadays just expect results in few days or weeks and if they don't see results they quit or people think they don't have time to exercise 1-2 hours a day but will happily sit and watch crappy soap TV for 1-2 hours a day to me have no excuse or people think you have to exercise 3+hrs a day to notice results.
It's not the matter of just eating too much junk or lack of exercise or overeating, people need to understand there needs to be balance of everything and once you reach your target..by then I'm hoping people will know how to maintain it otherwise it will pile back.
The more simplicity and appropriate information provided the better people will follow a routine.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,494
Location
Gloucestershire
You can't tax your way out of an obesity crisis, nor can you educate or exercise your way out of it, the problem is far too large
narf :p

But also:

Taxation didn't work with cigarettes, there's no evidence it would work for food
Did taxation really not work with cigarettes?
And is junk food a bit different, in that there's a decent substitute (healthy food) unlike cigarettes?

And hasn't the sugar tax already lowered sugar consumption?

I mean this seems to show it has:
https://www.ft.com/content/091b9a38-ecd2-11e8-8180-9cf212677a57
Britain’s sugar tax has raised well under half the originally forecast amount in its first seven months, reflecting a huge shift by drinks manufacturers to cut the amount of sugar in their products.
 
Permabanned
Joined
25 Jan 2013
Posts
4,277
It always comes down to the same thing. You can be obese and happy, you can even be reasonably fit and obese, but you can't be obese and healthy.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Sep 2012
Posts
11,696
Location
Surrey
To be fair you can also be skinny and unhealthy. :p

To be honest, what works to reduce obesity is just to give people less options to make stupid decisions. It wont rid us of it but if we put more restrictions on junk food chains, taxed them to reduce profitability and basically work towards reducing their popularity - it would do a lot towards obesity in the younger generation and working class.

Italy has always had fairly low obesity rates. Fast food was available but not everywhere simply because it wasn't popular enough to set up tons takeaway franchises. People preferred proper food and often would go home to eat at lunch.

Now we are seeing the attitude change with the younger generation.

Give fast food businesses the chance to boom and they will, give people more chances to make the wrong choice and they will.

Whether it is right to reduce the convenience of fast food or make it less profitable through restrictions, that is another discussion entirely.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
14,359
Location
5 degrees starboard
Just dont go large.......

Now that is out of my system, :D, moderation in everything is key to a good diet. A little bit of fat is good for you as long as you also exercise to burn it off.
 
Back
Top Bottom