I have recently been thinking about the parallels between climate change and the obesity epidemic facing the United States and other industrialized countries. Both are the result of our society's desire to consume, and there are similarities in how we might respond.
There are basically three ways to respond to obesity, and each has an analog for climate change. First, you can try to reduce caloric intake. Bob Park calls this the thermodynamic diet: take in fewer calories than you expend and you'll lose weight. For the climate change problem, the parallel is reducing carbon-dioxide emissions.
The problem with this approach, of course, is that it is hard. No one likes to diet, and many find it impossible to lose and keep off weight this way. Similarly, our society is not going to find it easy to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. That does not mean, of course, that it can't be done, or that we won't be happy with the results. I've never met someone who's lost a lot of weight that isn't ecstatically happy with the results, and I think there are many benefits for our society that come along with reducing CO2 emissions.
Second, you can simply say, "I'm overweight and I'm going to stay overweight. If I have any health problems, I'll let the doctors solve them for me." So if your weight causes hip problems, just have the hip replaced. If your cardiovascular system goes on the fritz, utilize the latest in cardiovascular care to get the problematic arteries unblocked or a pacemaker installed. If the risk of stroke rises, take the appropriate medication to bring the risk down.
A recent news report said that obesity is now a lifestyle choice for Americans. In other words, many overweight people have simply given up trying to lose weight by taking in fewer calories, mainly because they just can't do it. They are now relying on the health care system to deal with the impacts of their obesity:
"But the nasty side-effects of obesity aren't as nasty as they used to be," Finkelstein said.
"When you have a first-rate medical system that can cure the diseases that obesity promotes, you no longer need to worry so much about being obese," he told AFP.
That does not mean, however, that these people want to be obese:
"There are studies in which people have said they would rather lose a limb or be blind than obese. Being obese is not a desire," she said.
"For many, this is a problem they have struggled with for many years ... it gets discouraging after a while," she said.
"I would not doubt that if you asked obese people if they could push a button and not be obese, close to 100 percent would say they would push the button."
For the climate change problem, if we cannot reduce our emissions, we'll have to adapt to the impacts. If sea level rises, we'll build the a sea wall. If rainfall patterns change and we begin to run out of fresh water, we'll build a pipeline to bring it in from another region.
My worry is that our society will choose to deal with climate change the same way so many are dealing with obesity: by choosing to live with the consequences. This approach is intrinsically risky because it assumes that we can effectively deal with the climate impacts. For obesity, there are some problems, such as massive heart attacks or strokes, that medical science simply cannot deal with. For climate change, there are some impacts that are simply too much for us to deal with. If we do go down the road of relying on adaptation, we had better hope that climate change is not too serious.
When the health effects of obesity are simply too big to live with, some opt to reconfigure their digestive system in order to lose weight -- for example, an operation to reduce the stomach's volume in order to prevent eating too many calories. For the climate change problem, the parallel to this approach is geoengineering: active and large-scale manipulation of the climate system. An example of a geoengineering approach is spreading sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere, which reflect sunlight and thereby cool the planet.
Much like the gastric bypass operation, geoengineering is a risky approach. There are many uncertainties in climate science, and in light of that, it seems like a bad idea for us to be "twiddling the knobs on the climate" -- we don't really know what the unintended consequences will be. We might end up with a bigger environmental problem than we started with.
It seems to me that best way to address the obesity epidemic is to convince people to consume fewer calories. Similarly, the best way to address climate change is by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Let's hope that, as a society, we are able to do both of these.
Lawsuit accuses Virginia power company of poisoning Dominican community with toxic coal ash
While scientists fight over BPA studies, Congress could just act
Seventh Generation launches anti-toxics campaign with wee gimmick
Comments
View as Threaded
elbarto Posted 8:32 am
22 Jan 2008
I don't think even the most rampant deniers will argue that obesity is not bad for peoples health and significantly reduces quality and length of life.
It is clear that people won't change to save their own lives in the face of unequivocal evidence that their behaviour is leading them to an early death or at least ongoing misery of heart operations and realiance on drug cocktails to stay alive.
So how likely is that people will change to protect themselves (or little brown people in a country which they've never heard of) from something that is generally perceived to be uncertain and of little actual threat to their own personal wellbeing?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 9:04 am
22 Jan 2008
Permalink
Mark Hadfield Posted 9:58 am
22 Jan 2008
How many anorexics do you know?
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 10:28 am
22 Jan 2008
There are certain things built into the system that promote obesity and obstruct efforts to prevent it -- like high fructose corn syrup as a top five ingredient in virtually every processed food from crackers to peanut butter which adds nothing but cheap empty (high) calories to the diet. And there's evidence that high fructose corn syrup may actually slow down the brain's "I'm full" response so you eat even more. How about the high level of fat in most processed foods and the work-a-holic, fast paced life so many Americans lead the makes processed foods a "necessity". How about the unavailability of affordable fresh fruits and vegetables in many urban low-income areas?
Similarly, high energy consumption is practically forced upon us in the form of infra-structure and zoning laws. If you don't want to live in a low-income, grimy, slumy, high-crime inner city, you move to the suburbs where there may not be public transportation and nothing is within walking or biking distance. Very few homes were built or are built with energy efficiency or renewable energy or environmental impact in mind. Driving is the easiest way to get anywhere -- just as eating high fat processed foods is easier.
Just as sustained weight loss requires profound life-style changes, sustainable environmental impact changes require significant infra-structure and legal changes. Life-style changes don't have to be a "sacrifice". They might even be life enriching/enhancing. But they must be attainable whether we're discussing weight or foot print.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 11:52 am
22 Jan 2008
Permalink
RachelR Posted 12:04 pm
22 Jan 2008
As well, the assumption that fat people are fat because they over consume food, resources, health care, etc... only reveals the depths and limits of your own bigotry. Do we assume all single black mothers are welfare queens? Studies have shown that fat people, as a group, eat no differently than their thin counterparts. Obviously something vastly more complex is at play here than a simplified and rather elementary case of calories in/calories out. And if fatness were a lifestyle choice, we'd be a nation full of thin people.
Americans are getting larger, even though I highly dispute the rates and numbers used in obesity fearmongering. But what came first? Obesity or dieting? The case can also be made that the health hazards commonly and often erroneously attributed to obesity are often due to the effects of dieting, instead. Often, policies set in place that encourage people to engage in what becomes a cycle of dieting only serve to hurt the very people it purports to help.
And Andrew: Put your money where your mouth is. I'm willing to bet that I, as a overweight vegetarian who shuns processed and commercial food and who eats locally, am doing much more to alleviate climate change than any of my thin meat-eating counterparts - including those who drive a hybrid vehicle.
So, where's the national call for vegetarianism? Oh, right. For much of the same reasons animal rights folk attack women in fur coats and not bikers in leather jackets. It's much safer to attack middle-aged society women than it is to try to splash red paint on a bunch of menacing-looking men sporting chains and tattoos.
And it's much easier to make fat people - an already socially, economically and politically marginalized group - the target of our attacks than it is to change ourselves.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 1:24 pm
22 Jan 2008
I was a bit worried when I wrote this that people would view this as a judgment on the overweight. I assure you that's not the case. Rather, the point I was trying to make was this: while obesity may be becoming a lifestyle choice for some individuals, it is my sincere hope that climate change never becomes a lifestyle lifestyle choice for human society. While an individual can can make and take risks whatever risks they deem reasonable, as a society we need to be quite risk averse. Living with climate change is an unacceptable risk (in my personal opinion).
Thanks.
Permalink
BlckWallaby Posted 7:41 pm
22 Jan 2008
I really like your analogy, but like most analogies, I think it is incomplete. We also need to assess many other issues in this world, in terms of their current and potential impacts. Breaking that down a bit, we need to know comparative levels of human suffering, risk, and cost effectiveness to fix or prevent.
The worst thing that could happen to Earth's biology is if a big chunk of rock came our way, and, for humans, the worst would be an unstoppable pandemic disease. However, the risk levels are not advertised to be high, so there does not seem to be much activity in this area, or any deliberate attempts to scare the pants off the public, including their little kids.
There are MILLIONS of people CURRENTLY experiencing appalling suffering in Africa, and the NGO's simply cannot cope. Meanwhile, trillions of dollars are spent on a bogus war in that other small country with large oil reserves. (and resulting in yet more increased human suffering and wanting for revenge etc!). Just a fraction of this expenditure could be spent on providing AIDS medication and clean drinking water in Africa. (and also reducing resentment of the "West") The "West's" governmental neglect is just......well, I can't find the word. (it is also stupidly short-sighted!)
In an earlier blog of yours, you expressed sympathy with part of this issue to Max Manacker
Of course, one of the greatest threats to our comforts in the developed world is "peak oil", and some of the measures proposed for CO2 reduction are helpful there, but they are currently not a solution.
My other area of concern in your analogy is that human obesity has a testable cause beyond that of the "addiction" itself. It can be proved...reduce the food intake and obesity is reduced. However, the assumption of disastrous AGW, is only an un-testable intuitively assessed risk. Whilst many of us skeptics agree that there may well be a small CO2 contribution in AGW, we also believe that the MWP was warmer than it is today. We also know that regional civilization collapses over recent millennia, and even as little as ~500 years ago, have been entirely or partially associated with regional climate change.
Finally, to reiterate, we believe that the real priorities lie elsewhere.
Permalink
Tubarc Posted 8:59 pm
22 Jan 2008
Fruits are low in calories and highly nutritional already grown on public places at increasing ratios to face obesity trends. Tree climbing also can be a body exercise for kids harvesting fruits.
Fruits have around four times more water content than cookies and easily satisfy hunger taking less energy. Refrigerators full of fruits easily beat junkies.
In Brazil we are increasing fruit trees in the public areas changing the country to a large tropical orchard. Then, sidewalks, squares, parks, roadsides will be plenty of free fruits bearing appropriate food to fight spreading obesity. Free fruits are protected from the power of the economic system pursuing profitability.
Other countries are invited to join us on a fight against global obesity toward a Public Fructification. Brazil intends to become a developed country without common problems of a superpower.
Planting fruit trees is easy!.
http://revver.com/watch/225528
http://revver.com/watch/529604
Carnivores?
http://revver.com/watch/218695
Permalink
javaearth Posted 12:31 am
23 Jan 2008
The over eating can of course a big tax on the person themselves and the planet. The key is for people to look at what their individual bodies need and like. There needs to be a education on the part of each person as to what they need to eat to be healthy and strong.
However I protein obsessed and fast food chains - and processed foods - have had such as strong hold on the countries eating patterns that no wonder people are fat!
Permalink
amc89 Posted 5:19 am
23 Jan 2008
Just a few decades ago, meat was still pretty expensive and thus most middle class people only had it occasionally. And most meat products weren't from animals raised on factory farms, but from small farms in which animals were kept out of doors and had room to move. Cows ate grass, instead of huge amounts of corn that were produced using obscene amounts of pesticides and fertilizers. A recent UN study found that 18% of greenhouse gas emmissions comes from livestock. Corn-fed cows release more emissions than grass-fed cows raised in a more natural environment. Many health studies have connected high meat consumption with obesity, along with high cancer rates, diabetes, heart disease and other ailments. Vegetarians, according to a number of studies, experience lower rates of these negative health conditions.
Unfortunately, diet and transportation choices are aspects of our lives that few people are willing to change. But I'm hopeful that as the connections between animal agriculture and automobile dependency with climate change become more widely known and accepted, we'll make an effort to eat more vegetarian foods and plan our communities to be more friendly to pedestrians and bikers and less friendly to cars.
Consumers can make a difference but we also need our politicians to change agricultural policies. They need to end cheap corn subsidies and subsidies to factory farms and cattle ranchers. They need more require manufacturers to produce more efficient cars and earmark more funds to investment in public transit and bike infrastructure, which would also go a long way in improving public health.
Permalink
Mark Hadfield Posted 5:31 am
23 Jan 2008
Unlike several other commenters, I really hate your analogy, because the differences between the analogy and the thing being analogised (?) are significant and this can lead the discussion down irrelevant directions (like this one).
All the people you know who have lost large amounts of weight may be ecstatically happy, Andrew, but at least one person I know is lucky to have escaped alive. Your later statement that people who decide to live with obesity rather than struggle against it are making a lifestyle choice is...well...it's not exactly wrong, but to my mind it's rather dismissive. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Permalink
4hummingbirds Posted 9:59 am
23 Jan 2008
I agree with others that you can only take the analogy so far. For instance, obesity is not always the result of a 'desire to consume.' People become obese not just due to lack of self disciple, but also due to a number of other factors. For instance, poverty is commonly a contributing factor to obesity. Ever compared the cost of junk food to fresh produce, or tried to find a store that sells fresh foods in a poor urban or rural community, or tried not to overeat after not having had dinner the day before? Though poverty is certainly contributing to global warming worldwide, the persons who are most likely to be of healthy weight in America tend to be more affluent, and they are also the ones who are most likely to drive long distances often, have larger houses, and consume more natural resources in general.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:14 am
23 Jan 2008
How are thin people like environmentalists??
Most thin people don't know why they are thin, they just are. In fact, many of them can eat lots and lots of food and still stay thin. They attribute this to their being superior people, whether biologically, morally or intellectually. They often think that only the thin are really intelligent and capable of understanding the world.
Being thin and superior, they seek to tell the world how it can become thin (it can never be superior, that position on the totem pole is already taken, thank you!!).
They often tell people who are struggling with a lot of issues "just eat less" (though they themselves often eat quite a bit, but never mind, that superior metabolism makes it okay for them).
When people don't seem to be listening, they raise their voices "EAT LESS I SAY", then sit back and wonder why everyone hasn't lost weight yet.
If some people suggest that obesity may be more complicated than merely a matter of eating and will power, they pooh pooh it. They know, after all the proof is in their thinness!!
So, they nag and nag, but nothing changes. Well, at least they feel superior.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
gogreener Posted 10:52 am
23 Jan 2008
Talking about the marginalisation of overweight people or anorexia is missing the point of the post, which was to look at general reactions people have to an old problem with input/outputs to a system, to see if we can learn something about how people are reacting to a new problem about inputs/outputs. Do we take the simple yet difficult solution, look for technological fixes, or shrug our shoulders and give up?
---- ---- ----
Go Greener, Australia - you know you want to.
Permalink
Mark Hadfield Posted 11:08 am
23 Jan 2008
"It seems to me that best way to address the obesity epidemic is to convince people to consume fewer calories. Similarly, the best way to address climate change is by reducing carbon dioxide emissions."
Er, how do you plan to convince people to consume fewer calories? By nagging?
Er, how do you plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Nagging again?
It won't work in either case, but it makes the nagger feel superior to the naggee.
Permalink
willa Posted 11:08 am
23 Jan 2008
Temporarily.
You ignorant, arrogant, bigoted piece of.....!
Not only are you taking advantage of the last group it's socially acceptable to be prejudiced against to prove a point that didn't need proving, you're WRONG about the facts.
Much of the "obesity epidemic" is attributable to the switch from height-weight charts to BMI, because the calcultions and therefore the results are different. Then in 1998, the NIH changed the threshold for overweight from a BMI of 27 to 25, making almost 30 million Americans instantly fat.
A lot of the rest of it can be linked to the overall increase in size Americans have experienced over the last century+ thanks to better nutrition and medical care.
We are living longer than ever. We are also fatter than ever. How can that possibly be? It turns out being overweight is actually correlated with living slightly longer than thinner people, and living quite a lot longer than underweight people.
And, as Rachel so rightly points out, it's been fairly conclusively shown that fat people don't eat all that differently than thin people.
Certain diseases are correlated with being overweight, but correlation doesn't equal causation. Insulin problems cause weight gain, not the other way around. Same with things like sleep apnea.
And being overweight actually protects against osteoporosis, so it can't be all that awful for your skeletal structure. Being overweight also increases your odds of surviving the physical depletion of a major illness or cancer treatment. If you're "normal weight" and you lose 50 lbs in cancer treatments, you may end up emaciated and weak. If you're very thin and you lose 50 lbs, you may very well die.
Oh well, I guess you'll at least die thin.
People are so afraid of teh contagious fatz that they are willing to go to what seem to me to be outrageous lengths to link fatness to just about any other bad thing they can think of.
The real problem is that it becomes an excuse for gender and socioeconomic discrimination, it becomes an excuse for discrimination in medical treatment (and it can and has cost lives when doctors tell fat patients to lose weight instead of providing the same treatment options a thin person would have), etc, etc, etc. But hey, at least it gives you something else to feel smug about.
I guess fat environmentalists are not invited to join your club, huh?
Permalink
willa Posted 11:15 am
23 Jan 2008
And I would go further and say that, while nagging is clearly not the answer in either case, one can also say that the answer to the problem isn't really known in either case. Of course, the analogy breaks down when you get to the part where global warming is an actual, serious problem that is likely to actively kill lots and lots and lots of people, but still.
The people who think that they can "fix" the problem by "encouraging" us fatties (or people with eating disorders) to simply eat healthily and exercise a reasonable amount...don't live in the same reality as any fat person I know. I eat just about the healthiest diet of anyone I know, I exercise daily, I am healthier and stronger and more fit than most thin people I know, but I guess none of it matters because I'm still fat. Eating my steamed veggies and having low blood pressure and cholesterol must all be figments of my imagination, because if I really ate that way and really had health stats like that, I'd be thin, EVERYONE knows THAT!
Permalink
Danneeness Posted 12:24 pm
23 Jan 2008
This is just offensive and reeks of ignorance about "obesity" (which has no real definition, which is why I put it in quotation marks).
Willa, those are my thoughts exactly.
Permalink
Danneeness Posted 12:32 pm
23 Jan 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:51 pm
23 Jan 2008
grist.org
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:44 pm
23 Jan 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
odograph Posted 2:49 pm
23 Jan 2008
It's hard to put the cookie down.
That really is like driving less, or eating less tuna, or etc., in hope of a better world later on.
(For health, personal or planetary, it is really lifestyle change that's needed. "Patterns" seem easier for humans than deciding every time.)
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:53 pm
23 Jan 2008
There have been extensive studies made of this problem. These are based on actual controlled clinical trials, in other words hard scientific evidence.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar2005/nia-16.htm
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/1/24
In one of these studies, researchers analyzed the medical records of over 3,400 middle-aged adults in the USA from 1948 to 1990.
Large decreases in life expectancy were associated with overweight and obesity. Forty-year-old female nonsmokers lost 3.3 years and 40-year-old male nonsmokers lost 3.1 years of life expectancy because of overweight. Forty-year-old female nonsmokers lost 7.1 years and 40-year-old male nonsmokers lost 5.8 years because of obesity. Obese female smokers lost 7.2 years and obese male smokers lost 6.7 years of life expectancy compared with normal-weight smokers. Obese female smokers lost 13.3 years and obese male smokers lost 13.7 years compared with normal-weight nonsmokers. Body mass index at ages 30 to 49 years predicted mortality after ages 50 to 69 years, even after adjustment for body mass index at age 50 to 69 years.
This is "hard data". We have scientific evidence in the form of clinical trials that clearly demonstrate a cause and effect relationship.
If we now move from the local USA study to a global perspective, the picture becomes somewhat less convincing.
A worldwide comparison shows that the USA ranks #1 in obesity as defined as % of the population that has a Body Mass Index (BMI) >30 kg/sq. meter (weight in kg divided by the square of height in meters). This study showed that 30.6% of all Americans are obese.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity
A list of life expectancy by countries is given in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_ex ...
As can be seen, Andorra has the highest life expectancy at 83.5 years, but ranks #12 from the top (ranked with Spain) out of 29 countries in obesity. The USA ranks #1 in obesity and #45 out of 196 countries in life expectancy. Japan is fairly consistent, ranking #2 in life expectancy and #29 (out of 29 countries surveyed) on obesity, yet South Korea (#28 in obesity, just ahead of Japan) ranked well below the USA in life expectancy.
So, apparently, there are other factors at play when making a global comparison.
For example: consumption of wine.
The term, the "French Paradox", became famous in 1991 when CBS's 60 Minutes reported an inconsistency in the lifestyles and rates of heart disease among people in France.
In spite of a diet of rich foods--including more butter, cheeses, eggs and sauces, an estimated 15 percent of their daily calories obtained from saturated fats and less exercise--the rate of heart disease for French people is only 40 percent of that of Americans.
The original study (1991) by Dr. Serge Renaud, from the French national health agency showed that the moderate consumption of wine (4 to 5 dl per day), in particular, red wine, reduced the risk of heart disease.
Leading researcher and physician, R. Curtis Ellison, M.D., Chief of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology at Boston University School of Medicine, was interviewed by 60 Minutes for its report on the French Paradox.
A follow-up report was made in 1995 with additional case study data. Following this, over a dozen studies reported that moderate consumption not only reduces the risk of coronary heart disease but also of premature death from all causes, contributing to increased life expectancy.
Let's look at global per capita wine consumption.
http://www.wineinstitute.org/files/PerCapitaWinaConsumpti ...
And then let's compare it with the life expectancy chart above.
On a world-wide basis USA ranks #29 in life expectancy and #41 in per capita wine consumption.
Of those countries with a higher life expectancy than the USA
· 5 had a lower pc wine consumption (Japan, Singapore, Israel, Jordan and Bosnia (3 of these have a significant Moslem community which does not allow alcohol)
· 23 had a higher pc wine consumption than the USA
·
The highest life expectancy was in Andorra, which also has the highest pc wine consumption.
The third highest life expectancy was in San Marino, which was ranked with Italy at #4 in pc wine consumption.
The sixth highest life expectancy was in Switzerland, which was ranked at #9 in pc wine consumption.
The top 14 countries in life expectancy include 8 of the top 10 in pc wine consumption.
So, looking at only two out of hundreds of variables, it seems to be a bit more complicated than just comparing obesity with life expectancy.
Now we come to the analogy with climate that becomes more controversial. Andrew writes, "Take in fewer calories than you expend and you'll lose weight. For the climate change problem, the parallel is reducing carbon-dioxide emissions."
The problem with this analogy is the following.
There is absolutely no doubt that reducing calorific intake below the level of calories burned eventually will result in loss of weight. The laws of conservation of energy as well as many thousands of case studies have proven this beyond any doubt. It has also been demonstrated that if one cuts the calories too much starvation and eventual death will be the result.
Reducing CO2 emissions to reduce global warming does not follow quite as clear a cause and effect relationship. The thousands of case studies are not there. There are computer models but the scientific evidence based on actual experimental data (or "case studies") is missing. The reaction of the climate system to a change in CO2 emissions is not as clear as the reaction of the human body to a change in calorific intake. It is more a matter of "faith" than of scientific evidence.
Andrew's worry is "that our society will choose to deal with climate change the same way so many are dealing with obesity: by choosing to live with the consequences. This approach is intrinsically risky because it assumes that we can effectively deal with the climate impacts."
The facts are that obesity occurs from taking in too many calories and obesity has been clinically and scientifically proven to decrease life expectancy, all other things being equal.
This clear cause and effect correlation has not been scientifically proven for the relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming (and even less for the projected effects of global warming, such as increased tropical storms, increased droughts, floods and other extreme weather events, etc. as projected by the IPCC); it is more a matter of "faith" and computer studies than it is of scientific evidence.
So we may reduce the CO2 emissions and have no effect whatsoever on climate. The scientific evidence just isn't there yet.
But drinking a glass or two of wine certainly can't hurt.
Max
Permalink
willa Posted 3:10 pm
23 Jan 2008
Why use potentially hurtful and either bigoted or "misunderstood" analogies when there is so much out there to choose from when we go to express ourselves?
I feel pretty strongly that supporters of progressive causes need to stick together; justice is justice, and we're going to have a hard time getting the rich, polluting parts of the world to give a rat's ass about the poor, starving, flooding parts if we can't even give a damn about biased and unfair attitudes against people in our own country who don't look the way we want them to. It's all connected.
That said, the environmental movement is generously supplied with privileged straight white men who don't agree with me, so I realize I'm fighting a losing battle here. Doesn't stop it from mattering, though.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:22 pm
23 Jan 2008
Shhh, we are ingcognito here on the internet. Don't blow our cover.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:29 pm
23 Jan 2008
Finally a rational way to be prejudiced! "I just don't get along with Aerobians."
Or, "Those Sedentarians drive me nuts!"
A better bigotry for a better, more correct..political correctness! Excellent.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
mtvyfan Posted 2:57 am
24 Jan 2008
Obesity is largely a preventable disease. Yes I know some people can eat very little and still gain weight, but that is not what Andrew is talking about.
I know you have seen the person with the piled up plate that is very heavy. They are obviously not expending the calories they are consuming. I was bulimic in high school and struggled with it for many years. The media and societal pressure are who I blame for my poor self image at that time. I no longer binge and purge now because frankly I have matured and realized that I am truly happy how I am and I must exercise and honor my body if I want it to slim down and I realize that may be difficult for some people, but come on! take baby steps. Everyone should be able to walk, unless they physically are unable to do so. Few obese people fall into this category.
I really enjoyed the article Andrew. I hope you realize that obesity is a very touchy subject with some people and those easily offended by being obese are going to see criticism however you try to put it.
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:07 am
24 Jan 2008
The overly simplistic analogy between obesity and climate change has obviously backfired for Andrew, based on the comments so far. It was a "stretch" to start with and has irritated some people as being insensitive.
But let's look at Andrew's arguments on "mitigation versus adaptation" in the climate discussion.
Below are some quotes by Andrew and some comments.
"I think there are many benefits for our society that come along with reducing CO2 emissions."
That's nice, Andrew. Can you name a few of these "benefits"? We all know that getting away from a dwindling supply of imported oil is a good thing. We all know that conserving energy and reducing waste are good things. These things are intrinsically good. A side benefit could be that CO2 emissions are reduced (under the dubious premise that these could be harmful). But the reduction of the CO2 emission is the RESULT of the lower energy consumption, NOT the CAUSE of "many benefits". (Sort of like Al Gore's "chicken and egg" goof-up: the paleoclimate chart linking CO2 with temperature.)
"For the climate change problem, if we cannot reduce our emissions, we'll have to adapt to the impacts. If sea level rises, we'll build a sea wall. If rainfall patterns change and we begin to run out of fresh water, we'll build a pipeline to bring it in from another region."
Building or strengthening a sea wall to protect populated areas that lie at or below sea level makes real good sense. If I lived in such a place, that's the solution I would choose.
Water pipelines also make sense, with or without changing rainfall patterns. Ask the millions who live in the LA region.
"My worry is that our society will choose to deal with climate change the same way so many are dealing with obesity: by choosing to live with the consequences. This approach is intrinsically risky because it assumes that we can effectively deal with the climate impacts."
If I lived in New Orleans, I would consider it much more risky to rely on Andrew's computer-generated (maybe) "solution" to the hurricane problem (i.e. reduce CO2 emissions) than to build a better sea wall system. It is Andrew's approach of attempted mitigation that is intrinsically risky, because it is based on the hopeful (but naïve) assumption that we can effectively mitigate climate impacts. Mitigation has a very high risk of being ineffective; a properly designed and constructed seawall, on the other hand, will work.
"For climate change, there are some impacts that are simply too much for us to deal with. If we do go down the road of relying on adaptation, we had better hope that climate change is not too serious."
Andrew has hinted ominously at "impacts that are simply too much for us to deal with" without getting specific. What are these massive impacts? What scientific evidence (not computer model studies) does Andrew have that these will occur? Climate will change (as it always has) no matter what we do, and we had better make sure we are able to cope with the changes that occur. The Dutch have been "relying on adaptation" by building dikes for centuries. Sure has worked for them.
The mitigation argument assumes that we know exactly what has caused and will cause climate to change, what these changes will be and what we can do now to stop these changes from occurring.
It is based on the extremely arrogant and obviously flawed premise that there are no naturally occurring factors over which we have no control, which can and will cause climate to change in directions and magnitudes that we cannot foresee.
The Corps of Engineers is currently "armoring" levees that failed during Katrina, a worthwhile exercise in "adaptation" that will work, if properly executed.
At the same time there is talk of shutting down and relocating major portions of New Orleans. This practical exercise in "mitigation", although it might be painful for many, could also work to save lives and property loss when the next storm hits.
Changing your light bulbs or swapping your SUV for a Prius so you can reduce your "carbon footprint" in the hope of stopping the next storm from occurring is a futile exercise in "mitigation", despite what Andrew says.
Max
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 8:13 am
24 Jan 2008
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 9:52 am
24 Jan 2008
Well, I suppose when you have to spend lots of hours sitting in front of a computer all the time. . .
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
willa Posted 10:40 am
24 Jan 2008
The fact that someone may look a certain way doesn't give you the right to make assumptions about what that person is entitled to eat. As someone with a history of diordered eating, I would think you of all people would understand that.
I am truly happy how I am and I must exercise and honor my body if I want it to slim down and I realize that may be difficult for some people, but come on! take baby steps. Everyone should be able to walk, unless they physically are unable to do so. Few obese people fall into this category. You're happy how you are, but you must honor your body because it's still so vital that you change it? Hmm.
And yeah, all us fat people eat and eat and eat and never exercise. I just came from riding my ex-racehorse, who tried several times to launch me ten feet in the air, and tried several more times to pull me over his head and send me flying. While it's true that some of the reason I get through that kind of adventure every day is because of learned skill and finesse, a good deal of it is sheer physical strength and balance. I assure you I do not sit on the couch eating bonbons. Most of the fat people I know are similarly active and fit, although since they're still fat I understand that it "doesn't count".
Try this analogy on for size: Being fat is like having a comfortable lifestyle, like living in a house that's warm in the winter and cool in the summer. There are many ways of achieving such a state, from mindless consumption of fossil fuels all the way to careful siting and use of passive solar or geothermal technologies. The end result is the same; some houses are always comfortable and some are always the wrong temperature, but without actually considering the individual situation, the climate in the house tells you little to nothing about how it got that way.
Being thin is no more virtuous than living in a frigid, uninsulated house in Minnesota in the winter and thinking you're environmentally friendly because you don't crank the oil heat up to 75 degrees.
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:59 pm
24 Jan 2008
Like many other blog articles before, this one by Andrew Dessler not only missed the point, but was arrogant and insensitive as well.
Attempts by many people on this and other blog sites to get Andrew to discuss scientific facts and evidence have fallen on a deaf ear.
He prefers to make outrageous and silly analogies or discredit individuals rather than discuss facts.
It's a shame for his cause, because as a recognized expert in his scientific field he could be much more effective discussing scientific facts rather than trashing individuals or making pointless analogies.
Max
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 5:00 pm
24 Jan 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:44 am
25 Jan 2008
You wrote, "Looks to me like Dr Dessler is pushing all the right buttons..."
If he is trying to get a whole bunch of people p....d off, you're right.
But his analogy sucks. The logic is weak.
Max
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:15 am
25 Jan 2008
I get it, and I've made it in the past. I am sensitive though to the injury it might cause. Which is why I would try now not to emphasize any minority, but rather to remind (as I did above with "human nature") that there are universal human drives at work here.
All of us do what makes sense for a more privative world, one with fewer sugars and fewer labor saving devices. When we rely on both those sugars and those machines we risk upsetting our bodies and our planet.
Interestingly though, the balance might be more about giving up the machines:
The average daily energy expenditure, as physical activity, of Stone Age humans is estimated at approximately 5.2 MJ (1240 kcal) and their total caloric intake at approximately 12.1 MJ (2900 kcal) (Cordain et al., 1998). Their subsistence efficiency was thus approximately 2.25 kJ (kcal) acquired for each kilojoule (kilocalorie) expended in physical activity. In contrast, sedentary humans in contemporary affluent societies commonly consume perhaps 8.5 MJ (2030 kcal) with expenditure, as physical activity, of approximately 2.3 MJ (555 kcal) (Cordain et al., 1998), a subsistence efficiency of 3.66 to 1.
Sadly, since I wrote that I've lost the time for daily activity. I hope I'm not still eating 2900 calories ... but I am getting a gut.
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:08 pm
25 Jan 2008
Despite our "guts", we do have a higher life expectancy than these early ancestors did, though. Guess we can credit modern sanitation, advances in medicine as well as the benefits that came from industrialization for part of that.
Nevertheless, Andrew is certainly right that clinical studies have linked obesity with lower life expectancy.
The studies I've seen say that around 60-70% of the body's energy goes just to support the ongoing metabolic work of the body, such as heart beat, respiration and maintaining body temperature. The study also says that about 10% of the calorific value of food is used by the body just to digest it. What's left is used for physical activity. So this checks with your "subsistence efficiency" numbers.
And you can control your intake by counting and limiting calories (2,900 is definitely on the high side!).
But my main problem with Andrew's analogy is this:
There is absolutely no doubt that reducing calorific intake sufficiently will result in weight loss or the reversal of weight gain. (Too much will result in starvation and death, as we have sadly witnessed in parts of Africa and Asia that are either in the middle of some sort of a war, under the boot of an oppressive dictatorship or not blessed with our high industrialized standard of living.) For each individual this may require a different level, but the facts are the facts and these are indisputable.
Assuming the many clinical studies in the USA are correct, there is no doubt that obesity results in a shorter life expectancy, all other things being equal. This is based on hard scientific data.
Therefore, there are hard scientific data that show that a reduction of calorific intake for obese individuals will result in an increase in life expectancy.
In the case of CO2 reduction the case is not so clear. There are computer models but the hard scientific data are just not there to show that a reduction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions will result in a reversal of global warming.
And, secondly, there are no hard scientific data that link global warming to increased tropical storms or other severe weather events, despite what the IPCC report postulates.
Therefore, the scientific evidence is not there to tell us conclusively that a reduction in human CO2 emissions will cause an end to rising sea levels or a reduction in hurricanes and other severe weather events.
Andrew is comparing clinically proven, undisputed facts with the virtual reality of computer models.
In other words, Andrew's analogy is weak because it is not a comparison of "apples with apples".
Regards,
Max
Permalink
willa Posted 2:52 pm
25 Jan 2008
And reducing caloric intake doesn't necessarily lead to reduced weight, at least not within nutritionally sound, non-disordered-eating parameters. Plenty of fat people have tried dieting, I assure you, and the reason we're all still fat is not that we cheated on our diets or were somehow too dumb to make them work--it's that, short of creating an eating disorder, short of cutting down to fewer calories than were given to concentration camp victims, it is well-nigh impossible to get and stay much below your natural set point. I personally can eat 2K calories/day or 1K and maintain the same (fairly high) activity level and not gain or lose an ounce.
Incidentally, there's some evidence that mothers who try to lose weight before becoming pregnant just end up slowing their metabolisms, since their bodies are trying to fight back against the withdrawal of resources by conserving more aggressively, and that this slowed metabolism is then passed on to the fetus, leading to a higher set point for the resulting child throughout life. I'm pretty sure the environment doesn't have any mechanism to be more efficient with heat or CO2, thus making our efforts at conservation hopeless, although it certainly did have a setpoint before we screwed with it. I think the analogy here is more to binge eating (which can screw up a person's set point) than to being fat.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:55 pm
25 Jan 2008
If these clinical studies are not correct (or have been skewed to prove a point), then that proves your statement that obesity is not necessarily correlated with a shorter life span, as Andrew claimed. As I mentioned to Andrew, the global life expectancy statistics certainly do not show any straight inverse correlation between obesity and life expectancy.
I have seen reports that confirm what you say about slowed metabolism resulting from lowering calorie intake. This is apparently a primeval defense mechanism against starvation when there is no food around.
I'm just saying that Andrew's analogy is flawed, since there is no scientific evidence that increased human CO2 emissions are correlated with more hurricanes and severe weather events plus higher sea levels, which would prove that reducing man-made CO2 emissions will cause these symptoms to reverse, as Andrew has claimed.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
katakanadian Posted 10:07 am
26 Jan 2008
I am fat myself but I find Andrew is closer to the mark than most commenters here when he talks about the problem of people deciding acceptance is easier than change. We see this problem elsewhere when we decide to lower educational standards rather than properly support the schools and especially when we ignore contributing factors such as kids who have poor attention spans due to environmental chemicals, lack of exercise, and overschedued lives pulling them in all directions.
Obesity rates became a major problem around the same time that food became a distracting form of entertainment. Your typical North American has been able to afford (and had access to) excessive amounts of food for most of the last century but just in the last couple of decades the bombardment of food as entertainment has overwhelmed our natural hunger and satiety signals.
We shouldn't be focusing on giving up food or giving up our standard of living because that isn't the solution and it's so psychologically negative. We need to stop pushing Twinkies and electronic trinkets. We have to stop taking the easy way out (cars and fast food) in the pursuit of ever more distraction and accumulation. We need to recognize when we've had 'enough' and focus on all the benefits of a healthy life and planet.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:04 am
26 Jan 2008
Everyone blames obesity on food and individual will. Why not look at cars? Most Americans have given up walking, and especially those in the suburbs, walk very little. At one time (many years ago!), I changed jobs. The only difference in my lifestyle was that in one job, I drove to work, in the other I took the bus, then walked about a mile each way. In a month I gained 20 pounds.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061101151156 ...
This is the link to the red wine obesity article.
In truth, we know less about fat than we think we do. Much of how we look at the issue is through biased eyes.
People who are thin believe that they have accrued virtue from it. They then believe that those who are fat are not virtuous. (Americans have the same peculiar beliefs around wealth and poverty!).
Andrews analogy is bad for one simple reason.
Many people who are fat have tried to lose weight and failed (millions of Americans). If they read Andrew's message, they will not draw the conclusion that stopping global warming is easy. They will conclude that it is next to impossible (based on their weight loss experiences!).
So, Andrew is really telling people that making changes is very difficult, maybe almost impossible.
Is that really his intended message?
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
ids Posted 11:05 am
26 Jan 2008
It'd be better to qualify the societal obesity Andrew refers to as environmentally-caused obesity, as opposed to other causes, and it wouldn't appear so ignorant.
By environmental caused, referring to environmental factors ("food environments") Where the evidence from the psychology, marketing, consumer economics and public health disciplines on the role of environments in shaping consumer food choices. Psychology literature has shown that the home and office environments affect what we eat. Subtle differences in the difficulty of obtaining food can affect the amount consumed. Marketing literature has revealed that manipulation of supermarket environments affects consumer purchases. Shelf space and location as well as special displays have independent and positive effects on sales of particular food items. Price reduction strategies have often been used to promote product sales. http://thestar.com.my/health/story.asp?file=/2008/1/27/he ...
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:39 am
27 Jan 2008
That is "guilt".
People who are overweight are being made to feel "guilty". They are pummeled by medical reports linking obesity to shortened life spans, by finger-wagging professors that are talking about the evils of our over-consuming society, etc. And they are being told that it is their fault that they are overweight, because they are consuming too many calories, in particular too many industrially processed (and therefore unhealthy) foods.
Another group is trying to make us feel guilty for living in an industrialized society, for consuming too much energy. We are being told that our sins will even bring about the end of civilization due to rampant global warming caused by our sinful over-consuming. We are being told that something horrible is going to happen to our world, and what's more, that we are to blame.
This anthropocentric feeling of guilt for everything that happens is common to humanity and is the basis for most religions.
In checking out the history of alpine glaciers during the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, I came across some interesting background information.
It is generally known and reported that the alpine glaciers were smaller during the Middle Ages than they are today.
http://alpen.sac-cas.ch/html_d/archiv/2004/200406/ad_2004 ...
It is also general knowledge that some time in the 16th to 17th century there was a sudden drop in temperature and a rapid growth of the glaciers, which reached its high point in 1850, and that the temperatures then were around 1 degree Celsius lower than today.
The study showed that the maximum extension of the Swiss alpine glaciers in the past 10,000 years was around the year 1850, at the end of the Little Ice Age.
As the glaciers recede today, they provide evidence of periods when they were smaller in the past. This evidence is in the form of remains of trees, other vegetation and insects, which lived at an earlier time, as well as, more rarely, of evidence of early medieval civilization (remnants of huts, mine shafts, etc.) before they were covered by the advancing ice.
In an interview, Reid Bryson, the now-retired climate professor from the University of Wisconsin, makes mention of one of these finds from a few years ago, where in addition to remains of a mature forest the remnants of an old silver mine were found.
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
Such physical evidence is rare but old local records of alpine gold and silver mines shutting down due to advancing ice can be found.
In describing the advance of the glaciers during the Little Ice Age, one report states (translation from German):
http://www.tk-logo.de/lexikon/g/rmenue.php3?li=./gletsche ...
"In the eastern Alps the glaciers advanced deep into the forests. In the higher valleys alpine mines were covered up by ice."
In one record of an alpine mine that was shut down due to advancing ice it was reported (translation from German) that:
"The people could not believe that this was all happening due to natural causes, and began to worry that this was a punishment by higher powers for the sometimes godless living of both the miners and the lords."
"The punishment of the Lord came quickly. From one day to the next the green landscape disappeared underneath snow and ice, which extended down into the valley." http://sagen.at/texte/sagen/oesterreich/salzburg/pongau/g ...
So even back then, as indeed thousands of years earlier with the Great Flood (as recorded by the Sumerians and the ancient Jews), people held the anthropocentric guilt driven view that climate disaster "is caused by the evils of man."
In those days we only had oracles, prophets and recorded legends, but today we have sophisticated computer models to "prove" the culpability of man in causing (an anticipated future) "climate disaster".
Should we all feel guilty?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
ids Posted 11:42 am
27 Jan 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:32 pm
27 Jan 2008
Max
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 3:31 am
28 Jan 2008
Permalink
odograph Posted 4:44 am
28 Jan 2008
Isn't this really about selecting the best items from column "A" and from column "B"?
Why not eat and exercise like a stone age person, and still see the doctor for your tests, and if necessary, your prescriptions?
In other words the idea that you've got to accept society's "bundle" is false.
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:48 am
28 Jan 2008
You're right when you say: "Isn't this really about selecting the best items from column "A" and from column "B"?"
I'll pick the red wine from column "B", but will pass on the granola.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
marilynwann Posted 5:30 am
29 Jan 2008
I had never heard of this website until someone in fat pride community posted a link to it, as an example of the extremes of weight-based prejudice currently popular.
I have been an activist working to end weight-based prejudice since the mid-90s, so here I am, pointing out what should be obvious to conscious, liberal, thinking, well-intentioned people who allegedly lead examined lives...
The existence of fat people is not negotiable.
Talking and acting as if fat people could (or should!) be eliminated from existence is hateful. It is not beneficial.
Fat pride community makes the crucial distinction between behavior and BMI. People of all sizes can enjoy their own optimal health by enjoying good nutrition (in response to internal cues of hunger and satiety) and by enjoying regular physical activity (done joyfully, not dutifully or as a punishment). People of all sizes can also improve health for all of us by opposing weight-based prejudice. This prejudice has a very real and potentially deadly impact on the lives of fat people. This approach is called Health At Every Size. HAES proponents come from every field in healthcare, psychology, fitness, nutrition, and epidemiology.
I invite you, Andrew, and people who participate here to reconsider the weight prejudice that this society has trained you to believe in as true or necessary or beneficial. It is none of those things. It is untrue, unnecessary, and harmful. It is prejudice. It's harming people of all sizes, right now.
For more information, Google "fat acceptance" or "Health At Every Size."
Global warming sucks. So does the left's tendency to advance every unrelated agenda on the backs of fat people. Want to criticize monopolistic food industries? Use some fat hate to get traction on that issue. Want to condemn environmental abuses? Do it on the backs of fat people. Want to encourage eating of locally grown, organic vegetables? Use fat people as the bogeyman for your fear tactics. (My fat vegan friends will be soooo impressed.) There are plenty of good reasons available to convince people of these wrongs without vilifying, ridiculing, medicalizing, and dehumanizing fat people.
Permalink
Elfcat Posted 9:14 am
29 Jan 2008
I have in my travels come across the following: a woman whose weight loss surgery was followed by travelling pains which limit her mobility more than her weight ever did; a cancer survivor who grits her teeth and winces any time someone tells her how good she looks and says she would give anything to have her fat back; a woman who, compelled to examine which parts of her body needed reducing, decided she liked those parts and began gaining weight intentionally; and a woman who wrote that her blood pressure rose after an illness reduced her weight and dropped again after the weight returned. A physician treating the latter, given this report by that woman, closed the door and whispered to her that that was not the first such case he'd seen, because heaven forbid anyone hear something which challenges the dominant narrative.
How much fuel has been expended fabricating and shipping proposed final solutions to "the obese problem"?
I saw a news report once. It said that the rise in obesity between 1975 and 2000 accounted for a 1 billion dollar increase in the cost of fuel consumed in cars per year. Sounds like a huge number, until you divide it by even 1/3 of the US population, a hundred million. This means, on average, obesity has cost every driver on average $10 per year, or 3.33 gallons. So cut your driving for the year by 100 miles, or get an incrementally more efficient vehicle, and the entire effect of fatness according to this report is nullified.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 9:18 am
29 Jan 2008
Their existance may not be negotiable, but the number of fat people in existence is negotiable.
There are obviously people who can't avoid bein' overweight due to medical conditions, metabolism, and to a lesser extent, genetics.
However, there are plenty of overweight people to which those resons don't apply. Those people are overweight mostly due to excessive inactivity and overeating.
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:41 am
30 Jan 2008
I think it would be ideal (for health and environment) if kids could learn to eat simple healthy food and to get enough exercise for health and vigor.
It's not weight or BMI, it's health and vigor.
It might be easy for a future kid to eat too much fast food, and to accept too many SUV rides, and to play those killer future video games ... but I don't think that is healthy.
Permalink
singpretty Posted 4:35 am
31 Jan 2008
"I'm thin and I'm going to stay thin. If I have any health problems, I'll let the doctors solve them for me." What's wrong with that? Nothing...
Excuse me, your discrimination is showing.
There is no disease that affects only fat people. NONE. Everything you mention is "associative" not "causitive." Example: Heart attacks are highly associated with balding, middle-aged men. Will giving them hairplugs, prevent heart attacks? Of course not. Inform yourself. Read "Fat Politics" and "Big Fat Lies" and look up Dave Alexander, FAT tri-athlete to see why thermodynamic diets are too simplistic a solution to losing weight.
Take it from me 25 years of dieting experience gives a Prius engine in an Escalade body despite my high level of activity
Permalink
singpretty Posted 5:57 am
31 Jan 2008
University of Virginia exercise physiologist Glenn Gaesser, Ph.D.
I suggest you read it!
Permalink
singpretty Posted 6:01 am
31 Jan 2008
Still grew up fat, despite being on a diet from age 7 on...
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 6:01 am
31 Jan 2008
That's correct, but bein' overweight can significantly increase your chances of bein' diagnosed with certain medical conditions.
There's also no disease that affects only smokers. Lung cancer can affect non-smokers too, but that doesn't mean that it affects 'em at the same rate. You're much more likely to get lung cancer as a smoker than as a non-smoker. But to continue to smoke and say "I might get lung cancer even if I didn't smoke, so I'll smoke anyways" does not make much sense.
Likewise, the same goes for medical conditions related to bein' overweight. Yes, ya can get the conditions even at a healthy weight...but your chances of gettin' 'em increase with weight gain.
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:06 pm
31 Jan 2008
I am certainly not trying to fault anyone who lives a healthy lifestyle, no matter what their personal outcome.
On the other hand I worry that we, broadly in industrial countries, are taking a poor approach to health, diet and exercise.
I mean to look at one environmental hobby-horse, why do so many people drive to the gym and then get on stationary bicycles? If it was a little more acceptable (and safe) for adults to get on bikes maybe we'd save in more ways than one.
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:48 pm
31 Jan 2008
WORCESTER, Mass.--More than 13 million Americans have survived a heart attack or have been diagnosed with coronary heart disease (CHD), the number one cause of death in the United States. In addition to medications, lifestyle changes, such as a healthy diet and exercise, are known to reduce the risk for subsequent cardiac events. Despite this evidence, a high proportion of heart attack survivors do not follow their doctor's advice to adhere to a healthy diet, according to researchers at the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS).
via FuturePundit
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:09 am
01 Feb 2008
Odograph wrote:"If it was a little more acceptable (and safe) for adults to get on bikes maybe we'd save in more ways than one."
Looks like safety may be an issue here. Out of 42,600 traffic related deaths in 2004 in USA, around 700 were bicycle-related.
This compares to a combined average annual death rate since 1970 from severe weather events in the USA (lightning, floods, hurricanes and tornados) of just under 300.
This does not include cold weather deaths from traffic accidents (which are included above), heart attacks from shoveling snow (which are included below) or other deaths related to extreme cold weather (680) or extreme heat (360).
But all of these numbers pale when compared to the 450,000 annual deaths from coronary heart disease (CHD), the leading cause of death in the USA.
In China there are an estimated 400 million bicycles used for transportation and there were around 35,000 bicycle-related traffic deaths, out of a total of 107,000 traffic deaths. This is expected to rise as more Chinese start driving automobiles. If you have spent any time in China, you will know just how dangerous these new drivers can be.
But, despite around 800 "McDonalds" restaurants in China today and another 120 new ones planned for this year (including some "drive-throughs"), the "obesity rate" in China is still extremely low.
Deaths from CHD in China were around 700,000 (20 times the rate from bicycle accidents), but only around one-third the US rate when adjusted for population.
So odograph is right: if you can keep from getting run over, it looks like bicycling is a good thing. But watch out in China.
Max
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:27 am
01 Feb 2008
Dear Manacker,
As a lifelong cyclist who has cycled in many major cities in the US, Canada and China, I will tell you that cycling in China is much safer. While the absolute number of deaths is higher, the number of deaths in proportion to the number of miles ridden would show a different story.
And from the ground, I gave up bike commuting in San Francisco because too many (NOT most) drivers were homicidal maniacs who thought that trying to injure me or kill me was a cute idea.
In Beijing, if a car hits a cyclist, it is the drivers fault. ALWAYS, 100%!!! By law!!! In America, the driver merely says "Oh, I didn't see him/her" and the police go "Okay, that's all right then."
The worst drivers I ever saw in America were in Boston, with New York a close second (too fast, too little regard for others). But liberal San Franciscans weren't much better!!
BTW, there are many fat cyclists.
Fat is as much an aesthetic issue as any thing else. Health should be the issue, we should study health, not appearance.
And finally, the basic problem with Andrew's analogy is that it turns into arguments about appearance and not substance (well, beyond the fact that it's poor and insulting (smile)).
How about substituting rich people for fat people in the analogy? Would that work better?
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:07 pm
01 Feb 2008
It may be right that measured in total "bicycle miles" there are less bike fatalities in China than in the USA.
I am not a bicyclist (except occasionally on country roads) and I do not live in the USA, but I did witness one minor bike accident in Taiping (Guangdong Province), where an old woman was hit by a black limousine and knocked over. She was apparently not hurt seriously, but the policeman came and berated her for not paying better attention before waving off both the limousine and the old woman on the bike.
Maybe the guy in the black car was a "hot shot" of some sort.
BTW I truly loved the time I lived in southern China and Hong Kong.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:25 pm
01 Feb 2008
Have seen CNN and other telecasts showing hundreds of thousands of stranded Chinese, trying to get back from southern China (where they work, probably in factories supplying WalMart plus the US garment and small electronics industry) to the provinces further north, where their families live, for the lunar new year holiday.
They are apparently stranded because of heavy snows and unusually cold weather in the otherwise sub-tropical region.
We need an expert like Andrew Dessler to explain to us whether or not this strange weather is due to anthropogenic greenhouse warming or is just a fluke.
What do you think?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:35 pm
01 Feb 2008
You suggested:
"How about substituting rich people for fat people in the analogy? Would that work better?"
Well, let's take some of the world's richest people, who are also top contributors to charities.
The short list below has contributed a total of over 75 billion US$ to all sorts of charities, ranging from fighting poverty in Africa, fighting AIDS and cancer, developing renewable energy sources, furthering education in poor countries, etc.
Warren Buffett
Bill and Melinda Gates
George Soros
Steve Case
Jon Huntsman
Sergey Brin
Richard Branson
William Hilton
Larry Page
Yu Pengnian
Eli Broad
Chuck Feeney
Lui Che Woo
The Tata family
Zhu Mengyi
Let's don't put all these philanthropists on some kind of a "bad guy" list, just because they happen to be rich.
Just like Andrew's analogy isn't true that "obese = bad", we also cannot say that "rich = bad" (nor that "slim = good" or "poor = good").
I believe any analogy like this misses the point because it generalizes individuals.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:50 pm
01 Feb 2008
Hello Max,
The snow coverage is extensive here (I don't get CNN, some rich folk do, but I am not rich). Most people believe it is part of the ongoing series of weather crises caused by global warming. If you are not in the US, then you are probably clear that outside of the US, the number of people who DON'T believe in global warming is small.
As to any particular event? Who can say? I don't think anyone can be sure. (Although a group of American scientists have just issued a report saying they see a clear connection between global warming and the increasing water shortages in the Western United States).
I'm glad the old woman wasn't hurt. Bicycle accidents are never a good thing (smile). But I still prefer my chances in Beijing!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:56 pm
01 Feb 2008
Dear Max,
I am not much of an admirer of rich people, fwiw. I don't know all of the names on your list. I will note that studies have shown that rich people give very little money towards eliminating poverty, and not very much towards educating the poor. Most of their donations goes towards museums, universities and sometimes health.
Generally charity is nice, but it keeps the power and choice in the hands of the rich. This is different from, say, taxation (which removes the choice of payment) and re-distribution of wealth (which potentially can remove the power to decide on the recipients).
In terms of global need, $75 billion is not something to be sneezed at, but hardly enough.
What makes more sense is to tax the rich, then spend the money of solving all of our global problems. Of course, this includes corporations as well as individuals.
We could do it, if we wished.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:48 am
02 Feb 2008
"If you are not in the US, then you are probably clear that outside of the US, the number of people who DON'T believe in global warming is small."
I think everyone who reads the newspapers knows it has gotten warmer over the past several decades, even if the rate of increase may have slowed down the past 10 years compared to the 20 years before. So you are right, people believe in global warming.
Where many people, also in Europe, where I live, do not necessarily agree is that human CO2 emissions are the principal root cause for these real observed changes.
And where even more also do not agree is that we can change any weather (or climate) trends by putting in carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes.
But most people do agree that we need to conserve energy, reduce waste and pollution, reduce dependence on a dwindling supply of oil and gas, develop alternate energy sources, etc.
Is that different from the way people see it where you live?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:02 pm
02 Feb 2008
Dear Max,
My impression from reading the world press (and talking to people) is that outside the US, the vast majority of people (if they think about it at all), think that human CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming, and that we'd better do something about it.
So, I'm not sure who you're talking to. BTW, I saw the BBC4 documentary attacking global warming, and I also read some of the debates. The deniers are not really very convincing.
Having said that, no ones knows the cause of much of anything (does smoking "cause" cancer). If we adopt that line of thought, we often end up paralyzed, doing nothing.
We don't know what will happen if we do something, but most people believe if we do nothing, things will get worse.
It seems to me that the reason so many nations gather together in Bali and argue and argue and negotiate and negotiate, is because they all believe that human CO2 emissions are the cause, and that human actions can have an impact.
Of course, all of the solutions you suggest are welcome. I am not sure either about cap and trade or carbon taxes as solutions. (I tend to cynically suspect that either one will have a nice label on it, and some dirty underpinnings.)
For any Europeans who advocate doing nothing, I hope you are at least adding extra room to your abodes for all the refugees from Africa and the middle sure to be heading your way!!
Good luck!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:16 pm
02 Feb 2008
Here I am doing my laundry while composing a note and i Type "middle" in the last part, when I meant to type "Middle East". My fingers are often faster, but less accurate than my brain. Or is it the other way around?? Hmmmm...
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:13 pm
02 Feb 2008
Thanks for your response.
"No ones knows the cause of much of anything (does smoking "cause" cancer)".
I believe there have been extensive clinical trials over several decades that have provided scientific evidence to conclusively show that smoking causes cancer. This scientific evidence is missing in the case of CO2 causing the climate changes we have experienced over the last half of the 20th century and (to a lesser extent) during the first years of the 21st century. There are model studies but the "cause and effect" evidence is just not there.
"For any Europeans who advocate doing nothing, I hope you are at least adding extra room to your abodes for all the refugees from Africa and the middle [east] sure to be heading your way!"
They already are, Patrick. But not because of climate. Some are coming to escape despotic governments back home and others are seeking a better economic future than they have at home. Like many immigrants who went to America.
It's the European tourists that are headed south for "climate" reasons (among others), rather than the other way around.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:23 pm
02 Feb 2008
Dear Max,
At this point in time, it seems to me that our understanding of global weather systems is to imperfect to really be sure of cause and effect. Maybe in another two hundred years the science will catch up. And I have no idea what it will say.
From my point of view (non-scientist, admittedly), this means we have to go with our best guess or hunch. And there is a pretty huge consensus that points us in this direction. Are there maybe flaws or things we don't understand? You bet!!! Who knows what we'll discover in the next two hundred years.
If we're around to discover it. Frankly, it has always seemed to me that the IPCC downplays the possible consequences. I suspect that this is for political reasons, and I understand, they would never get America to sign off on anything if they said that 500 million or even a billion people will begin to migrate around the world.
My guess is massive northward migrations into currently temperate countries by those who are living within striking distance of the equator. Massive meaning hundreds of millions. It will be very interesting, no?
When it gets really really hot, no one will fly South, because no one will be there who can move.
We live in interesting times. It may even be that we cannot stop the process from going forward, but can we mitigate it? And shouldn't we at least try?
It is true that the smoking models are better and further along. But we began to put warnings on labels (in the US) back when the evidence was merely statistical, with no proven causal link. It turned out to be a good thing!!
take care,
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:52 am
03 Feb 2008
Nice talking to you.
Lots of luck in Beijing. If you are there for the Olympics, enjoy!
Max
Permalink