Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Cognitive dissonance and one effort to fight it

Past a certain point (say, beyond the genetic predisposition idea), I am not willing to concede that obesity is out of the control of the individual. Yes its causes are complex and interrelated, yes you can get addicted to sugar/fat/comfort foods. But for God's sake take some ownership for your own health. Morford, as usual, puts it best:
know, it's not a simple problem. I know obesity is a terribly complicated issue, crosses myriad sociocultural lines, is more than merely too much unhealthy food coupled with too much laziness coupled with too much I'm-a-victim thinking coupled with lack of self-control coupled with lack of exercise coupled with lack of decent health education coupled with lousy upbringing coupled with sinister garbage-food corporate marketing coupled with increasingly sedentary TV-addicted lifestyles coupled with pain-avoidance mechanisms coupled with believing it's all up to the Big Pharmcos to merely invent a magic bullet to cure it all. Oh wait, check that, it's not more than that at all. That's exactly what it is.

That is exactly what it is. And most of those factors can be either completely controlled by the individual or strongly mitigated.

On a more promising front: The Center for Science in the Public Interest is going after the big soda manufacturers in order to get them to stop suckering schools into exclusive vending contracts that 1) end up not generating that much revenue for the individual school and 2) amount to unfair and deceptive marketing practices. I say: go get 'em.

1 Comments:

At Fri Dec 09, 01:29:00 AM, Simon said...

Well that's certainly glib. I don't know anyone that would say that obesity is out of the control of the individual, but take that individual and put them in a different environment and their weight may well be different.
Let me put the math this way, two 18 years old candidates find themselves at 150% of the weight at which you would hire them. They both put in the same effort of exercise and calorie reductiona and after three months A has met your threshold but B is still at 120%, is it fair to hire A but not B?
Let's flip the timeframe around. Imagine at your annual checkup the doctor reveals that you have a 25% greater risk that average of your liver crapping out before you die. Are you ethically obliged to your fellow premium payers never to let another drop of Wild Turkey or pale ale pass your lips? Should your employer force you to teetotal?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home