Capitalizing Obesity

For a general discussion of topics relating broadly to power and political economy (e.g., capital-as-power, Marxism, neo-classical economics, institutionalism).

Moderator: sanha926

Re: Capitalizing Obesity

Postby Scott » Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:47 pm

@DT Cochrane

studies have found that some people's resting metabolic rate drastically drops off when they are put into a caloric deficit http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v36/n ... 2114a.html


If that is what the study claims it is misleading. Hippocrates remains basically correct.

The mainstream, weight-loss industry is, generally, ignorant. For example, reducing calories drastically will cause problems. Starving off weight may well lead to metabolic damage, which is very difficult to recover from. The absolute worst thing to do is reduce calories drastically and do "cardio" - eg long, slow bouts on treadmill.

The best thing, as Hippocrates was on to thousands of years ago, is to eat moderately less and exercise moderately more (exercise that builds muscle). Muscle is expensive nutrient-wise. Influencing the body to maintain muscle therefore will maintain a healthy metabolism.

You'd be astonished at how simple it is to lose fat, get in shape and feel great.

But this is not a forum on weight-loss.

As CasP points out, this society fetishizes technology and, by extension, technique is en vogue. If one is not critical of society it is because she expects to benefit through her compliance. It is what her life has taught her. I suggest that the confusion over how to lose weight began long before she subscribed to that quack weight-loss guru. As it did with the guru.
Scott
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:31 pm

Re: Capitalizing Obesity

Postby Scott » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:00 pm

@DT Cochrane
It was suggested that obesity is a byproduct of the accumulatory effort, rather than an intended consequence. I'd actually suggest that good health is contrary to accumulation. The moderation, the movement practices, the eating practices that constitute a healthy lifestyle are likely of little accumulatory potential. Unhealthy lifestyles, on the other hand, offer much possibility for gain. The actual topology of how ill-health contributes to the power (re)distribution among capital is ripe for exploration and the hunger-obesity dialectic are just the starting point.



Yes, well said. Was reading quite recently the thoughts of an apparently well monetarily-rewarded copywriter of successful advertizing, all things marketing. He also happens to be a vocal born again Christian, and is not shy to bring his religious beliefs and interpretations into his discussions on his work and business practices.

He expressed concern over whether his trade - convincing people to buy - was meritorious. Having read his blueprint for sales writing I know I have seen it in action on many sales pages for crappy, unscientific exercise products. His take away was that it could be used for evil or good - to manipulate people into doing things that may harm them or to introduce people to worthy products/services and convince people to make decisions that are good for them, though they may not realize it until they read his copy.

Capitalists I am sure get quite excited about combining potential profit with creating something the world needs. And when not, like our superprocess food manufacturers, they get quite excited about potential profit. But, wait, people enjoy the processed snacks, so it's win-win afterall. The perennial sunshine of the capitalist mind. :)

It seems the buy-ins occur on other levels though, besides capital (where people have the choice to buy-in, vs the depressed, inner-city or food deserts). When you break it down to people's choices and expectations it begins to take on a perhaps slightly different form than simply capitalists/marketers driving the herds into the slaughter pens.

On the topic of obesity, or basically, general lack of physical health - ever observe some of the nonsense that typically occurs in a commercial gym? Or read the promises that attract buyers? This common-sense-shaving that capitalists are involved in to marry seamlessly enough their profit motives with their "solutions" seems to occur at the other end of the bargain, in order for the bargain to exist.

The peri-obesity issues occurring in food deserts - do they occur for the same reasons as the obesity elsewhere? Which is more important, politically?

The multi-billion $ sports supplement industry in the US is not being supported by the inner-cities or food deserts. The foils of capitalism and their legions of marketers should not be underestimated. They work. But only in tandem with the consumer. Once a person shuts that off the part I bolded above is likely true - capital loses influence, at least in that area. It is powerless to prevent that crack from forming.

It reminds of the quote CreOrder opens with, about finding the light every day and not letting it go out.
Scott
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:31 pm

Re: Capitalizing Obesity

Postby Jonathan Nitzan » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:48 pm

The OECD projects obesity levels till 2030. If these projections prove correct, US obesity will triple to 45% (!), up from less than 15% in the 1970s. Obesity in other OECD countries, although less severe, is growing at faster rates.

Are there other examples of a species overfeeding/over-medicating/incapacitating itself to death?

20170726_capitalizing_obesity_oecd_projections.png
20170726_capitalizing_obesity_oecd_projections.png (75.64 KiB) Viewed 926 times
Jonathan Nitzan
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: Capitalizing Obesity

Postby jmc » Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:55 am

Interesting but very concerning figure, Jonathan.

I have not had the chance to play with the data myself, but the WHO has a database on obesity and other risk factors.

http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.A867?lang=en
jmc
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:33 pm

Re: Capitalizing Obesity

Postby blairfix » Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:22 am

For those who have not seen it, here is an eye-opening presentation given by endocrinologist Robert Lustig about the metabolic effects of sugar:

Sugar: The Bitter Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Lustig argues that the obesity epidemic is a direct byproduct of the consumption of high sugar, low fibre processed food. Sugar (fructose) triggers fat production, does not trigger satiation (actually increases appetite), and damages the liver (among other things).
blairfix
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Capitalizing Obesity

Postby Jonathan Nitzan » Sat Jul 29, 2017 2:54 pm

blairfix wrote:. . . the obesity epidemic is a direct byproduct of the consumption of high sugar, low fibre processed food.


I would perhaps rephrase this statement by saying that "the obesity epidemic is a direct byproduct of systematically imposing and capitalizing the consumption of high sugar, low fibre processed food".

Just to make sure that we don't attribute this epidemic to the free market and its rational consumers.
Jonathan Nitzan
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:39 pm

Previous

Return to Political Economy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron