The Real Solution to Childhood Obesity

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

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.

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.

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.

I think there is also the conflict between making the choices you described above and "supporting the economy." If everyone cut back on fast food, what would happen to that industry? And the low-wage jobs in that industry? If everyone bought healthy, non-processed food, what would happen to that industry? And those jobs? If everyone decided to drive less, what would happen to the oil industry? And the jobs associated? Cutting out junk snack foods? same thing.

If everyone developed the amount of self-discipline and self-control needed to actually impact the obesity (childhood and adult) problem, there are entire sectors of our economy that would go under.

I think an unfortunate fact we have continue to avoid to grapple with is that much of our economy is built upon constant, large-scale consumption of everything from twinkies to televisions, to mobile phones, to computers, to cars, to whatever. If we don't continue to consume, we are toast.

If we really intend to develop the capacity to control ourselves, become healthier and be better stewards of the world's resources, we are going to have to really move away from consumerism and truly fashion an entirely new basis for our economy.

The tension between the call of Christianity and the siren song of consumerism is real, and, in our nation, consumerism is winning, and we've built our economic house of cards upon that consuming foundation.

My two boys are healthy and play lots of sports. Even with all that is said we still live longer than at any time since the days of Noah.

One thing not mentioned above is how many of the fat kids are from homes that are getting assistance from the goverment. Perhaps when it is free people consume more.

No - when trying to feed a family on an extremely limited budget, like Food Stamps, one quickly discovers the food one can afford is the highest calorie, highest fat, most highly processed, lowest nutritional value food out there.

Try it sometime - perhaps if you have to exist on the people who are getting it "free" exist on, you'll have a little more compassion and become a little less judgmental-sounding.

That would be a problem only in the short run. If consumers switched to healthier foods, new jobs would be created in the companies that supply healthier foods.

If people consume less now, future generations will consume more. The reason is that less consumption means greater savings. Businesses borrow those savings and invest in better equipment and new plants. The new equipment and plants produce more consumer goods of the same quality at lower prices. In the end, consumers can consume more for the same amount of money spent. This same process is how we have reduced poverty in this country to historical lows, and how much of the rest of the world, such as China, have dramatically reduced poverty.

We form our eating habits at very young ages and Americans tend to prefer fat babies and toddlers. Most Chinese immigrants that I have met are appalled at the amount of sweets that Americans eat. Chinese tend to eat fruit for sweets. Those habits are established before kids attend school. Once set, they are very difficult to break.

Sadly, the cheapest, most convenient and most easily available food- if you are on a budget and in a rush- is also often the most unhealthy. Anyone who's been a broke college student can probably attest to that. Sure, it's not an excuse- we have to make the effort to be responsible and make healthier choices- but we also need to recognise and understand why they easier option for many, many people who need to pick their battles, is to throw healthier eating under the bus.

If that happened, costs would increase because a certain scale of production source is needed to produce at a low enough cost to make a profit, and so prices would also increase. Kind of like how it's great that some farmer's markets are beginning to accept food stamps, but when the choice is a $4 bunch of radishes or a giant loaf of processed white bread, most people are going to opt for the bread.

You create a straw man. Mankind will still be sinful and commit all kinds of crime. All I was pointing out was that less consumerism will not harm the economy in the longer run and in fact will improve it as well as reduce poverty. Mainstream econ worships consumerism. I follow a school of economics called Austrian which emphasizes savings as the path to alleviating poverty, no consumer spending.

As someone from said background, I can testify to that. Dessert in the US tend to contain much more sugar than dessert in China. Of course, sometimes maybe the healthiest thing to do is skipping dessert all together.

In terms of solutions, I would like to propose two of them.

First, end the subsidies on corn. I have yet to hear of a legitimate reason why said subsidies exist. Take the money, and use it partially to subsidize vegetables instead, and give a subsidy to inner-city grocers to stock fresh fruits and vegetables.

Second, have a nationwide push for complete streets, at least in urban areas. Currently in many areas riding in a car is de facto necessary to go anywhere and everywhere. Not only is such unhealthy, but it's a huge drain on the economy and environment in terms of fuel consumed, air quality, costs of vehicles, etc. etc. Build sidewalks and bike lanes on heavily traveled roads. The money spent will be indirectly recouped from healthier (and hence more productive) populations and less money spent on transportation.

I hear that obesity costs about $140 billion a year directly and indirectly in health-care costs. If a modest 10% reduction can be obtained, then it would be worth $14 billion/yr. Assuming a pricey $0.5 million/mi for complete streets, we would be able to build 28,000 mi of complete streets. Split among the largest 100 urban areas, we'd have near Portland,OR (currently one of the best) levels of facilities in every large urban area in a year!

(Of course, I've been told that the 10% reduction may well be exaggerated - if the number is like 1%, then things look much worse but is still far from hopeless.) That being said, yes personal responsibility is a huge thing that yes, often has been left out.

A couple people have made the decent point here that some of the cheapest foods at the store are also the most unhealthy (e.g. Cup O' Noodles, frozen processed junk). This is true. The implication is that someone on a limited budget must therefore purchase this food. They don't have to though. It is completely untrue that in order to eat healthily you have to spend a lot of money or or even more money than you would have on unhealthy food.

Staples like rice, beans, pasta, good bread, potatoes and other root vegetables, greens, eggs, cheese, frozen veggies, etc can all be bought relatively inexpensively. The questions here though are: is the person purchasing this food willing to put the time into cooking them and are they readily available for purchase (i.e. you can't this stuff cheaply at a 7-11)?

Salma Hayek?

Not necessarily so. Noodles, beans, rice and vegetables are quite cheap per pound. Fruits and low fat meats, not so much. But if you really wanted to eat healthy on a low budget, you could.

I don't think it's judgmental to say that the poor, generally speaking, choose to not take care of themselves as the rest of the population.

Might...

[

"choose to" carries some strong implications. One of the luxuries of the affluent, or even middle class, is time. If you don't have a lot of time because you are working several jobs to make ends meet to support a family on a meager income, you don't have a lot of time to "choose" a healthy lifestyle.

I recently heard a report on TV that not eating after 7:00 p.m. is also beneficial and it gives the liver a break and a chance to renew itseld while sleeping, which is how it is supposed to work. This is of course if one has a "normal" 1st shift work schedule. Peoplle who work other types of hours would have to adjust so they do not eat say three to four hours before going to bed.

There is a lovely young woman I occasionally chat with at the grocery store I frequent the most who has lost some weight recently. I asked her how she did it and she said, "I don't eat anything after 7:00 p.m." Apparently it works for her.

Requring children not eat junk before they go to bed would probably help tremendously in the fight against obesity.

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.

I think there is also the conflict between making the choices you described above and "supporting the economy." If everyone cut back on fast food, what would happen to that industry? And the low-wage jobs in that industry? If everyone bought healthy, non-processed food, what would happen to that industry? And those jobs? If everyone decided to drive less, what would happen to the oil industry? And the jobs associated? Cutting out junk snack foods? same thing.

If everyone developed the amount of self-discipline and self-control needed to actually impact the obesity (childhood and adult) problem, there are entire sectors of our economy that would go under.

I think an unfortunate fact we have continue to avoid to grapple with is that much of our economy is built upon constant, large-scale consumption of everything from twinkies to televisions, to mobile phones, to computers, to cars, to whatever. If we don't continue to consume, we are toast.

If we really intend to develop the capacity to control ourselves, become healthier and be better stewards of the world's resources, we are going to have to really move away from consumerism and truly fashion an entirely new basis for our economy.

The tension between the call of Christianity and the siren song of consumerism is real, and, in our nation, consumerism is winning, and we've built our economic house of cards upon that consuming foundation.

Agree with everything- except it's not how many meals you eat, it's how much you eat. From a purely nutritional perspective, three square meals a day goes a longer way than two- it's often recommended to those looking to lose weight that several small meals throughout the day helps-- too much time in between meals can have the unintended effect of decreasing metabolism. I don't think people need to deprive themselves- I would not send my kids to school hungry. It's all about balance and not living a life of excess.

Agreed. It's not about the number of meals; it's about the quantity and quality of food. And it's also about where that food is consumed. The more times we eat food prepared outside our homes, whether it's a restaurant, cafeteria or pre-packaged/prepared food from the store, the more food we're going to end up eating and the less healthy it's probably going to be.

One other thing to consider, which is a point Michael Pollen makes in his books, is that we should eat less meat. We'll save money and plants don't strain the environment as much as meat production does.