RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

The Real Solution to Childhood Obesity

by Johann Christoph Arnold 02-10-2010

With more than a third of our children now overweight and many already diabetic, Americans of all political colors should commend the First Lady for her recently-announced campaign against childhood obesity. But taking on such an enormous problem is going to require a lot more than praise. And it will require more than heart-healthy choices, limited TV, and “opportunities for exercise” — buzzwords that public health experts have been tossing around for years with no apparent effect.

This will require something very old-fashioned and very unpopular: self-discipline and self-control.

There are many factors which contribute to our current epidemic of obesity: the near-elimination of physical labor by technology; the disappearance of playgrounds and neighborhood ballgames; too few miles walked, and far too many driven. All of these things add up to a soft, comfortable life, which is hazardous to our health. One rather obvious fact seems to be repeatedly ignored: we Americans simply eat way too much food, while millions of other people are starving.

We eat not only once or twice a day, but three or four times a day. And despite what we may think or say, we adults are very bad examples. And so as noble as our intentions to help children may be, they will continue to fail if we do not recognize that we ourselves are the problem. If we want our children to change, then we have to start with ourselves, and start to eliminate our bad eating habits.

I have recognized these bad habits in my own life, and have decided — along with other friends — to change them. This starts with daily exercise. Also, since the recent tragedy in Haiti, we have decided to only eat two meals a day, and quite often skip dinner as well. With the money we’ve saved, we are sending checks to local people who are involved in grass-roots relief efforts: a local obstetrician who is traveling to Haiti this spring, or a couple who support four orphanages.

There is much more we can all do, simply by saying “no” to some of the many pleasures that we take for granted. Then we can give away the money we’ve saved to people who are suffering. Many little steps can make a big difference.

School districts should keep on ripping out vending machines and buying fresh local produce instead of processed foods. But these efforts must be accompanied by a serious debate about the role of personal responsibility. Let’s talk not only about calories and diets and exercise regimens, but about self-discipline, self-control, and self-denial. And then we need to turn that talk into action, starting with ourselves.

When we start with ourselves, our children will catch on very fast. We will be surprised how happily they will follow our example.

Johann Christoph Arnold is the author of ten books, which are available as free e-books at www.plough.com.

Categories: Health
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • JoelleHart
    I appreciate the commenters who are emphasizing cheap, healthful staples, and eating lower on the food chain. I feel uncomfortable with the way the article concentrates solely on the number of meals eaten, and seems to imply that eating more than once a day is self-indulgent and morally weak.

    I was in a church that emphasized fasting as a spiritual discipline, with the same implication that I am getting from this article -- if you ate when you were hungry, you were unspiritual and and had to discipline your sinful flesh. Skipping meals made me obsessed with food, which led me to feel more sinful and feel more need to fast -- I was 102 lbs (at 5'6") when I was finally told to stop (by a doctor, not by the church).

    I know that is not the intention here -- the culture of excess in America is ridiculous, and needs reform. But surely there could have been more dimension here -- demonizing the act of eating itself is one-sided and can be dangerous for some people.
  • mindymama
    Brent, have you re-read your posts? You assign motives very freely, to people who are completely unknown to you. "Fulfill their need for significance and purpose by making other people feel guilty for lower class ills"? How could you possibly know this? Statements like this one are why several people have said you come off as being judgmental.

    Have you read Christ's frequent commands (not suggestions) to take care of the poor? He didn't qualify these commands by indicating we should help those who are deserving or who work hard or anything. The commands are simple and straightforward: Feed the poor. And Jesus didn't tell the multitudes to go out and find something to eat (although the apostles told him to), or chastise them for not bringing food with them, or even insist that they follow Him to earn their meal. He saw their need, and He met it.

    Do you understand the gospel? When we understand how much we have been given by a loving and infinitely generous Father, even though we are utterly undeserving, even though there is nothing we could possibly do to earn this amazing gift, we find it much easier to give to others. We deserve death and hell. Every single one of us. I know this is a very un-American ideal, but it is the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" or "try harder to do better". We are utterly without merit on our own; it is only the work of Christ that saves us! What a beautiful gift! And when we really grasp the enormity of this gift, we have no choice but to be generous with others, at all times, sacrificially, whether they deserve it or not.
  • mcscott
    Jamie Oliver has had quite a profound impact on meals provided in schools in the UK. His challenge to the USA on accepting his recent TED award is worth taking on board http://www.ted.com/talks/jamie_oliver.html
  • ckgmailOTscholar
    We will probably never eliminate childhood obesity just as we will never eliminate smoking or other unhealthy habits and/or addictions. But smoking has been dramatically reduced through a combination of public education and restricting advertising.

    Certainly personal responsibility plays a huge role, but getting people to accept personal responsibility is an ongoing task, and will not be accomplished overnight.

    I think its a shame that school systems have vending machines for candy and soft drinks in their schools. The imagined profits from those machines are a form of tax on the parents who provide the money to feed the machines. (Like money from gambling is a "stupid tax" on gamblers.)

    I applaud the first lady in taking on this issue, and in having a vegetable garden on WH grounds as a symbolic support for good nutrition.
  • ckgmailOTscholar
    Ross Perot--remember him?--advocated years ago that the best thing Texas schools could do would be to deemphasize interscholastic sports. Of course Shazam is right about the chances of that happening, especially in Texas. Interscholastic sports emphasize the win-lose mentality. We need win-win, and all too often win-lose morphs into lose-lose.
  • 1jsm5
    Consumerism (including food consumerism) is what happens when we take advertising seriously or subconsciously. Placing the blame on merchants who may only want to get their product in your consideration isn't enough to merit regulation--except for children, who cannot make mature decisions. After all we regulate advertising cigarettes designed to recruit adolescents.

    As for the economic fallout--industries which cannot adapt to new needs--hey, that's what capitalism is all about--accepting some failures to permit greater successes.

    Begin with educating young people to understand and regulate for themselves the torrent of advertising they will face in a lifetime.
  • ShazamMan
    During the last several years of my time as a public high school teacher,we had vending machines in the school. Though teachers
    asked for them to be removed, the principal said that the machines
    were generating more profit for the school in one year's time than the school board was giving him to run the building. Speaking of schools,
    a suggestion I might make (though it has a snowball's chance in Hades of ever being adopted) is to de-emphasize interscholastic team sports, in which only the elite can participate, and instead -- or in addition -- institute an intramural program (beyond just required P.E. classes) in which all able-bodied kids could join. Not an ideal
    solution, by any means, but better than what we have now.
  • arachne646
    Childhood obesity is directly related to low family income. But the huge difference in the number of fast food places in the inner city and grocery stores with fresh fruit and vegetables in suburban communities is not the story of childhood obesity. TV ads designed to make us feel hungry now, sugar-water that promises to make us athletes, neighborhoods that aren't safe for children to play in, and fast food that's all we have time for. We don't have any more violence against children than we did in the 1960's or 1970's, but parents are told not to let their children play out of their sight until they're teenagers. The culture of fear that is promoted by TV and other media to excite the audience has parents afraid to let children play naturally. And the "common sense" knowledge about dieting that has been tested scientifically is not so clear, especially in the long run. It is a complicated question--but so urgent that each of us has a role we are responsible for.
  • merbert
    Work full time (1st shift) + exercise + cook own meals = dinner after 7pm. That's a fact of life for a lot of people. Part of the obesity problem is that I think so many people are busy working that it becomes extremely difficult to put all the pieces together: cooking your own dinner, shopping for healthy foods, sleeping enough, and exercise. It's hard to focus on the long term effects when dealing with these short-term challenges. It's human nature and should be considered when discussing obesity.
  • squeaky
    I'm not sure what you are saying about the real cause of the problem. I'm not sure what problem we are talking about anymore--poverty or obesity. But if we are still talking about obesity, the real cause of obesity is not poverty, which was what prk was trying to say in the first place, and was what I was objecting to, and what got us off track =).

    The problem with prk's statement is it makes us ignore the wider range this issue has. If we say it is only a problem among the poor, then we don't have to look at the issue in society at large and the tremendous impact it is having.

    The causes of obesity are not free government food, as prk implied. The causes are far more complex than that for all classes of people, and I suspect different from person to person.

    In any case, thanks for your ministry to the poor.
  • squeaky
    'ight. Thanks.
  • squeaky
    In light of our previous recent exchange, let me qualify these statements a bit. I realize what I said seems a bit harsh, and for that I apologize. I should have edited to soften the blow a bit.

    However, I'm assessing what you sound like to me. I'm telling you what I hear you are saying. I've heard this "poor people are lazy" argument before. And I've heard this idea that "if poor people just made smarter choices they wouldn't be poor" argument before, too. And usually the argument comes from people who have no idea what it is like to be poor (a good friend of mine being one of those people).

    And maybe that is what you are saying, maybe it's not, and maybe I'm projecting on your statements from previous experiences, and if so, if that isn't what you mean to say, I am sorry. Either way, I'm sorry for being so harsh.

    But I would ask you to consider who it was in your life that taught you to make good choices. And I would also ask if those people weren't there, would you have been able to be the person you are now? Moreover, if you didn't have positive influences in your life, and you grew up in a community with a high crime rate, inadequate schools, and the peer pressure from those around you to be promiscuous, how do you think you would fare? And even if you did have positive influences in your life, would that be enough to stand against that kind of environment? Especially when the likelihood is that you would only have one parent raising you, and maybe not even that?
  • Apology accepted. :-)
  • "Instead of me hearing your heart breaking for those kids or wondering what makes them that way and what you might do to help, I hear you blaming and judging them."

    Squeaky, I have donated both time and treasure to helping those people. Maybe not a staggering amount (as I have other ministry passions and gifts). But more than a token amount. The topic that was under discussion was obesity and what causes it. I truly want to see people liberated from these behavioral traps.

    But what's truly heartbreaking is that many fulfill their need for significance and purpose by making other people feel guilty for lower class ills. So when someone points out that the facts don't lead to that conclusion, the messenger must have his character assassinated, even though he has delivered the correct diagnosis, while the attacker reveals themselves to not be interested in the real cause of the problem. Thus, not truly interested in the solution, either, but in maintaining the facade of moral superiority. Now, THAT is heartbreaking.
  • squeaky
    That is why I said this:

    "Please clarify if I am misunderstanding you."

    I merely told you how you sounded to me. I'm sorry if I misread you.
  • "Provided you have easy access to a good grocery store. This isn't always the case in an inner city."

    Perhaps in some places. But Spanish-oriented grocery stores, very prevalent in low-income areas, carry these things in abundance.

    "You really are coming off as judgmental against the impoverished and seem to be saying the problem of obesity is only in that class of people."

    Squeaky, I've interacted with you before and thought of you as a nice person. But you really seem to be easily ready here to misrepresent and impugn the kindness of those who merely disagree with you. I never said that, and no one who actually read what I had written with even the slightest attention to detail whatsoever would interpret me as saying that. This is the second time you've made that accusation against someone.

    OF COURSE there are middle class and upper class people who are obese. And in their cases, yes, laziness and poor food choices are largely responsible. But it is less prevalent in them. Your anecdotal observations are no match for every official survey ever done.

    I will state the facts as I see them and when I can back them up. I will not bow, be intimidated, or deterred by accusations that I am being mean, judgmental, or un-Christlike, as I see them for what they are - attempts to obfuscate, misdirect, and avoid dealing with the cognitive dissonance one does not wish to face.

    Now, no hard feelings. :-)
  • squeaky
    You make me sad, Brent. You really do.

    Why do you make me sad?

    Because when you say stuff like this:

    "Lower income communities have higher crime. Lower class kids spend less time studying on their schoolwork. Lower class kids are far more likely to be promiscuous. "

    Instead of me hearing your heart breaking for those kids or wondering what makes them that way and what you might do to help, I hear you blaming and judging them. Instead of love, I hear disgust because you perceive your tax money is going to support lazy people who deserve what they get in this life. May God break your heart for people, even those you think are a drain on society and resources.
  • squeaky
    "t takes just as much time to buy the foods in the store that I mentioned than it does unhealthy ones. "

    Provided you have easy access to a good grocery store. This isn't always the case in an inner city. Someone wrote about that on this very thread. Check it out.

    You really are coming off as judgmental against the impoverished and seem to be saying the problem of obesity is only in that class of people. Furthermore, you seem to be saying the reason for their obesity is laziness. That is what I hear you saying. Please clarify if I am misunderstanding you.
  • Patricia, correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sure sounds like you grew up in an earlier time (1940-60 or so?), when hunger in America was a lot more prevalent than it is now, and has a much different face.

    Now, it's not uncommon to find "poor" families (far more often than not without two parents) with more than one car, cable or satellite TV, DVD players, and cell phones. I took a look at Department of Labor numbers, calculated the the expenditure per person spent on entertainment by members of the bottom fifth incomewise, figured out how much fun I could have with that money, and it was probably double what I got to enjoy as a middle class kid growing up in the 70s.

    "Some poor people are irresponsible. They are no different in that aspect from middle and upper class people. Singling them out and demanding that they, who have the least, somehow be held to a higher standard than the rest of us more than unfair - it is un-Christ-like."

    Yes, generalizations need to be qualified. There are certainly people who have low incomes but are wonderful, kind, and solid. But it is not un-Christlike to state the truth. It is wrong to deny it because (and I'm not saying this about you, but it is true of many that roam these boards) one has a faith-commitment to the idea that America is a brutal, cruel oppressive place and society is to blame for the ills of the lower class. Sticking to this idea causes the problems to be misdiagnosed.

    Lower income communities have higher crime. Lower class kids spend less time studying on their schoolwork. Lower class kids are far more likely to be promiscuous. The middle class is not "just as irresponsible." You have to maintain a certain level of responsibility or you won't stick in the middle class for long.
  • irodle
    True, but but it seems unlikely that within a generation the explosion of cases of obesity that have appeared would be due food addiction and compulsive overeating. It may be psychological (lack of self-esteem or filling a void...) or boredom or the preponderance of electronics that give us mind-numbing, sedentary "entertainment". I just think the difference between my parents' generation and my kids' generation in the numbers of over-weight people is staggering. The first issue may have been there for my parents, but I guarantee the second two were not. I will acknowledge that OA may be an problem for some, but I think not for most. Offering that as a cause (excuse) for the majority allows them to adopt a victim mentality and the situation will never get better.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008