More on obesity... (long, but I forget how to cut, and for this one, I dn't care)
Blame Starfall - she encouraged me, and brought along a friend to encourage me, too!
;-) (She oughta know better than to toss me a bone like that! lol)
Why do things regarding obesity seldom change, and only slowly, at that? I'll postulate that people (including scientists!) are inclined to be mentally lazy. Following that, research tends to go where the money points them, IMO. Set a scientist to researching a 'cure' for red hair, (so to speak), and he will keep looking for one, for as long as you send hm more money. Granted that my example might be a bit extreme, in that said scientist might well be chuckling as she counts the grant money, but she'll also be planning to research the /nature/ of red hair, and on the look-out for useful data that are only related to such, because she knows from social programming that red hair isn't a disease.
Obesity (easier to type than fat-ness, BTW), however, has long been "known" to have a cause: being a lazy slob. Think about that. It is easy to write the preconditions off as 'prejudice', but consider the human animal. We are mentally built to make snap judgements from limited data, most especially the visual data. Part IFF(Identification: Friend or Foe) in high-stress encounters with dangerous animals (including other humans), and part for hunting. Those needs haven't changed in a very, very long time. Even today, we use visual cues to associate groups and such.
Where does this go? Obesity is a /very/ visual cue. Not so very long ago, it was attractive, an indicator of wealth, luxury, and freedom from the back-breaking of common living. Still is in some places, I expect, but here in the USA, at least, it now carries a different bias. Fatness has come to be a way to "judge" the moral fiber of a person, too. It means that the person has no self-restraint, no willpower, and no personal drive. It means someone who has Failed at life. The 'connections' are too obvious to ignore, right?
So, what of it? Well, left-handedness was once thought to indicate things of a similar nature, and 'cures' for that were also sought. So was masturbation, IIRC. Thing is, left-handedness wasn't really viably linked to health, whereas, it's easy to draw obvious, albeit unproven, links between obesity and health, and ignore as noise anything contrary. Fat people are fat because they don't exercise. Easy conclusion to draw. But what about the converse? That fat people don't exercise because they are fat? In many cases that I have known, this is very much the case. It's /hard/ to drag around extra weight briskly enough to burn calories well, and it gets harder as we get older.
The former is tempting. It allows the non-fat to look about, and feel better than the fat - and feeling better than another, or another group is always tempting. That is a common human behavior, after all, and some people make a life out of belittling others to enhance their own sense of status. Unfortunately, the latter prospect carries no such emotional pay-off, now, does it?
So, there you have a possibility of an emotional pay-off when seeing a fatty, versus a null payback. Doing something that feels good, versus doing something that has no emotional weight. Which way do you think that people will go? For that matter, why should scientist be any different? They are /not/ unbiased observers, after all. They are humans who /attempt/ to be unbiased observers, on certain things. There's a real difference there.
So, what motivations do scientists have to question not only the assumptions of society at large, let alone their own conditioning? Money? Come, now. Admiration? From a society that they slapped across the face with a dead fish, and told that all their moral judging was dead wrong? Puh-leeeese, sistah! Governemnt funding? Yeah, right! You think that awards and accolades are going to shower down on the person who proves that obesity is mostly genetic, a tiny bit behavioral, and significantly driven by /dieting/ for the remainder? Yes, I said dieting. Diets are short-term solutions, mostly. At best. It is well-known that yo-yo dieting causes weight gain. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the Diet Industry doesn't market sustainable products.
Thinking on it, how would the money flow? The money-men ain't stupid: they probably know that getting scientists to prove that their products produce long-term results is a mug's game. Shoot, they don't often show /real/ successstories. From what I have read, the pople in those commercials are generally committed active-lifestyle folks who have, through injury or other circumstance, become temporarily unable to do the things they normally do. They go on a program, lose the weight, and keep it off. Success! Well, sorta.
So, where's the logical place to put the money? Directly, or indirectly (via buying the right lobbyists), the place to put it is in the health dangers of being obese, of course. I rather doubt they are in cahoots with the Insurance industry, though. Insurers like obesity studies, too. Obesity is easy to "diagnose", and as a health risk, easy to discriminate with, as well - especially in a climate where it is seen as a moral failing rather than a genetic or psychological one.
For both groups, the payoff is in "get thin, or else!" Social pressure is a handy tool, and helps the cause of both of them. And the conditioning goes so deep that the majority of "obese" people AGREE with it, moral judgement and all! I suspect that a fair portion of both groups' discretionary income goes to funding science to keep finding ways that "prove" that obesity is bad for one's health. In this day and age, you might as well equate "unhealthy" with "immoral", as well. Can't prove the money trail, but I'd love to read the reports from a team of forensic accountants following that money around.
So, when the Egg Industry finds research going against it, they get studies done to fight back. Likewise other industries, like chocolate, I guess. Well enough - both are profit-driven, and they defend themselves.
Who stands to gain by coming out and saying that fat people are naturally fat, and there ain't much that can be reasonably (or cheaply) done about it? Who can profit from that? The diet industry would die, and I'll betcha that the Insurance types would see a reduction in profits as well, since they wouldn't have a basis to charge more. Doctors would have to work harder, and not just brush things off with "better lose some wieght", and politicians would lose an easy stump to stand one - and maybe more that I can't think of.
No, the pay-offs are almost all against the obese. There's little to gain from fighting the trend. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Before you take on a bigger army, you'd best know what all they have available to fight you with, and what the terrain looks like. Until and unless folks realize that, then all they will be is a few voces howling against the wind. Don't hurt, and does some good - but it won't much change the outcome. Americans are sheep to be shorn on this issue unless and until they get some money and organization, and press for some root-level research.
Until then, we are gonna keep letting our shame and our wallets vote us fatter, and fatter.
(Don't look now, but I just thought of another driver for the Med. Insurance industry to drive this: Highly-active things that burn calories carry some risks to their profits, but boring stuff, like gyms and running have far fewer risks. Count in the liability groups on this - how many are the same? Follow the moeny - but the path isn't always straight. Common interests don't prove a conspiracy, but they can simulate one, not so?)
;-) (She oughta know better than to toss me a bone like that! lol)
Why do things regarding obesity seldom change, and only slowly, at that? I'll postulate that people (including scientists!) are inclined to be mentally lazy. Following that, research tends to go where the money points them, IMO. Set a scientist to researching a 'cure' for red hair, (so to speak), and he will keep looking for one, for as long as you send hm more money. Granted that my example might be a bit extreme, in that said scientist might well be chuckling as she counts the grant money, but she'll also be planning to research the /nature/ of red hair, and on the look-out for useful data that are only related to such, because she knows from social programming that red hair isn't a disease.
Obesity (easier to type than fat-ness, BTW), however, has long been "known" to have a cause: being a lazy slob. Think about that. It is easy to write the preconditions off as 'prejudice', but consider the human animal. We are mentally built to make snap judgements from limited data, most especially the visual data. Part IFF(Identification: Friend or Foe) in high-stress encounters with dangerous animals (including other humans), and part for hunting. Those needs haven't changed in a very, very long time. Even today, we use visual cues to associate groups and such.
Where does this go? Obesity is a /very/ visual cue. Not so very long ago, it was attractive, an indicator of wealth, luxury, and freedom from the back-breaking of common living. Still is in some places, I expect, but here in the USA, at least, it now carries a different bias. Fatness has come to be a way to "judge" the moral fiber of a person, too. It means that the person has no self-restraint, no willpower, and no personal drive. It means someone who has Failed at life. The 'connections' are too obvious to ignore, right?
So, what of it? Well, left-handedness was once thought to indicate things of a similar nature, and 'cures' for that were also sought. So was masturbation, IIRC. Thing is, left-handedness wasn't really viably linked to health, whereas, it's easy to draw obvious, albeit unproven, links between obesity and health, and ignore as noise anything contrary. Fat people are fat because they don't exercise. Easy conclusion to draw. But what about the converse? That fat people don't exercise because they are fat? In many cases that I have known, this is very much the case. It's /hard/ to drag around extra weight briskly enough to burn calories well, and it gets harder as we get older.
The former is tempting. It allows the non-fat to look about, and feel better than the fat - and feeling better than another, or another group is always tempting. That is a common human behavior, after all, and some people make a life out of belittling others to enhance their own sense of status. Unfortunately, the latter prospect carries no such emotional pay-off, now, does it?
So, there you have a possibility of an emotional pay-off when seeing a fatty, versus a null payback. Doing something that feels good, versus doing something that has no emotional weight. Which way do you think that people will go? For that matter, why should scientist be any different? They are /not/ unbiased observers, after all. They are humans who /attempt/ to be unbiased observers, on certain things. There's a real difference there.
So, what motivations do scientists have to question not only the assumptions of society at large, let alone their own conditioning? Money? Come, now. Admiration? From a society that they slapped across the face with a dead fish, and told that all their moral judging was dead wrong? Puh-leeeese, sistah! Governemnt funding? Yeah, right! You think that awards and accolades are going to shower down on the person who proves that obesity is mostly genetic, a tiny bit behavioral, and significantly driven by /dieting/ for the remainder? Yes, I said dieting. Diets are short-term solutions, mostly. At best. It is well-known that yo-yo dieting causes weight gain. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the Diet Industry doesn't market sustainable products.
Thinking on it, how would the money flow? The money-men ain't stupid: they probably know that getting scientists to prove that their products produce long-term results is a mug's game. Shoot, they don't often show /real/ successstories. From what I have read, the pople in those commercials are generally committed active-lifestyle folks who have, through injury or other circumstance, become temporarily unable to do the things they normally do. They go on a program, lose the weight, and keep it off. Success! Well, sorta.
So, where's the logical place to put the money? Directly, or indirectly (via buying the right lobbyists), the place to put it is in the health dangers of being obese, of course. I rather doubt they are in cahoots with the Insurance industry, though. Insurers like obesity studies, too. Obesity is easy to "diagnose", and as a health risk, easy to discriminate with, as well - especially in a climate where it is seen as a moral failing rather than a genetic or psychological one.
For both groups, the payoff is in "get thin, or else!" Social pressure is a handy tool, and helps the cause of both of them. And the conditioning goes so deep that the majority of "obese" people AGREE with it, moral judgement and all! I suspect that a fair portion of both groups' discretionary income goes to funding science to keep finding ways that "prove" that obesity is bad for one's health. In this day and age, you might as well equate "unhealthy" with "immoral", as well. Can't prove the money trail, but I'd love to read the reports from a team of forensic accountants following that money around.
So, when the Egg Industry finds research going against it, they get studies done to fight back. Likewise other industries, like chocolate, I guess. Well enough - both are profit-driven, and they defend themselves.
Who stands to gain by coming out and saying that fat people are naturally fat, and there ain't much that can be reasonably (or cheaply) done about it? Who can profit from that? The diet industry would die, and I'll betcha that the Insurance types would see a reduction in profits as well, since they wouldn't have a basis to charge more. Doctors would have to work harder, and not just brush things off with "better lose some wieght", and politicians would lose an easy stump to stand one - and maybe more that I can't think of.
No, the pay-offs are almost all against the obese. There's little to gain from fighting the trend. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Before you take on a bigger army, you'd best know what all they have available to fight you with, and what the terrain looks like. Until and unless folks realize that, then all they will be is a few voces howling against the wind. Don't hurt, and does some good - but it won't much change the outcome. Americans are sheep to be shorn on this issue unless and until they get some money and organization, and press for some root-level research.
Until then, we are gonna keep letting our shame and our wallets vote us fatter, and fatter.
(Don't look now, but I just thought of another driver for the Med. Insurance industry to drive this: Highly-active things that burn calories carry some risks to their profits, but boring stuff, like gyms and running have far fewer risks. Count in the liability groups on this - how many are the same? Follow the moeny - but the path isn't always straight. Common interests don't prove a conspiracy, but they can simulate one, not so?)