How much of the obesity epidemic can we attribute to personal decision-making?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Almost none of it. 

-Food lobbies that spend millions and millions, while any national program directed at healthy eating gets a meager budget that does not approach 1% of what the lobbies spend.

-School districts that outsource their lunches to the lowest bidder, filtering processed crap down the throats of children.

-Restaurants that up portion sizes to force buying in bulk. 

-Wal-Mart

I could go on and on and on, but it's quite obvious that eating trash is the ONLY option for so many of us.  These processed foodstuffs have been proven to act on the same dopamine receptors that hard drugs do. 

It's a sick system with a predictable outcome.  Lots and lots of fats. 

[traininthedistance]

As is so often the case, I blame cars.

It is no coincidence that the trend, begun in the post-war years and reaching its full destructive flower in the 80s and 90s, of planning for car-dependent sprawl where walking or other forms of active transportation are discouraged and no longer let you do anything useful or necessary, has coincided with increased obesity rates.

Obviously I don't blame them 100 percent, that would be rather more hyperbolic hedgehog-ish than is really warranted.  But if we're going to look at structural factors- and the shape of the data indicates that we must- our built environment shouldn't be ignored in favor of solely focusing on the food industry.

I don't drive. I walk most everywhere within the city. I don't bother to take public transportation because the buses in this city are horrible.

I'm over 300lbs.

Though my weight is down compared to this time last year.

Obviously I'm speaking in the aggregate and there are many, many people for whom this isn't true.  There are people who eat nothing but junk food and walk absolutely nowhere who have the lucky genes and get to be skinny.  And it sounds like you're doing everything right and still end up the other way.  Which is an important and true point that the HAES folks make- there is plenty of genetic variation between people and healthy habits are more important than an out-of-context number on the scale.

My point is simply that an active lifestyle is healthier, and generally correlated with lower weight, and most people do realize that. But not everyone takes it a step further and understands that our built environment has an important effect on whether people are able to have that active lifestyle or not (without making it a chore/luxury good available primarily to those with free time and the money for gym memberships).

[Maxwell]

80%. I'd say the rest of the 20% is divided between the sheer availability of food now, which is really a good thing rather than a bad thing, the way cooking food has changed, how much advertising there is, agriculture subsidies.

[KCDem]

100%. The fats are just weak-willed.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm going to be generous and say 60%. As a kid, some of the factors of obesity are uncontrollable. Your parents get the power on what to eat and how much, however kids to control their exercise. As an adult, the only thing holding someone back from not being fat is genetics.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The idea that an epidemic can suddenly appear based 100% on personal choices is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

For the record, while individual cases of obesity (including my own) can be partially attributed to personal choices, the massive rise in obesity in the past couple of decades is a combination of increased car usage, a lessened need for physical activity both inside and outside the workplace, the corporatization of agricultural production and distribution, and government subsidies that benefit dairy and corn rather than vegetables, thus making the latter more expensive in relation to the former--it's not like people suddenly lost the ability to make healthier choices.

[GaussLaw]

100%. The fats are just weak-willed.

You and Cory are two of the most interesting Dems on this forum.  

IMO, about 70%.  I think social, environmental, transportation, and governmental policies account for the other 30%.  Personal responsibility is important, but for many, it's an uphill climb when one lives in a food desert and must work constantly to get by, thus being stressed out and "eating" their emotions. 

Not everyone lives in a yuppie portion of a city or an opulent suburb.

[TNF]

ITT assholes

[bedstuy]

I have another theory, the decline of stay-at-home moms has contributed significantly to obesity. 

The percent of mothers who aren't employed is about half what it was in the 1960s.  When you have a stay-at-home mom, you're more likely to have home-cooked meals which are far healthier than restaurant or prepared meals.  When nobody in your family has time to cook, you're more likely to get your calories from snacking as well.  So, you go from an omelette to pop tarts, from a homemade sandwich to McDonalds, from a nice dinner to a frozen pizza.  This transition has also led to fewer people knowing how to cook well which means people resort to unhealthy storebought crap because they can't make healthy, tasty meals themselves.

Also, again, how do you attribute a social trend to individuals?  Why is obesity the one thing we feel the need to blame people for more than anything?  Would you also attribute the decline in crime in the same period to Americans gaining self-control when it came to committing crimes? 

[KCDem]

100%. The fats are just weak-willed.

You and Cory are two of the most interesting Dems on this forum.  

IMO, about 70%.  I think social, environmental, transportation, and governmental policies account for the other 30%.  Personal responsibility is important, but for many, it's an uphill climb when one lives in a food desert and must work constantly to get by, thus being stressed out and "eating" their emotions. 

Not everyone lives in a yuppie portion of a city or an opulent suburb.

Unfortunately

[Lurker]

As is so often the case, I blame cars.

It is no coincidence that the trend, begun in the post-war years and reaching its full destructive flower in the 80s and 90s, of planning for car-dependent sprawl where walking or other forms of active transportation are discouraged and no longer let you do anything useful or necessary, has coincided with increased obesity rates.

Obviously I don't blame them 100 percent, that would be rather more hyperbolic hedgehog-ish than is really warranted.  But if we're going to look at structural factors- and the shape of the data indicates that we must- our built environment shouldn't be ignored in favor of solely focusing on the food industry.

I don't drive. I walk most everywhere within the city. I don't bother to take public transportation because the buses in this city are horrible.

I'm over 300lbs.

Though my weight is down compared to this time last year.

Obviously I'm speaking in the aggregate and there are many, many people for whom this isn't true.  There are people who eat nothing but junk food and walk absolutely nowhere who have the lucky genes and get to be skinny. And it sounds like you're doing everything right and still end up the other way.  Which is an important and true point that the HAES folks make- there is plenty of genetic variation between people and healthy habits are more important than an out-of-context number on the scale.

My point is simply that an active lifestyle is healthier, and generally correlated with lower weight, and most people do realize that. But not everyone takes it a step further and understands that our built environment has an important effect on whether people are able to have that active lifestyle or not (without making it a chore/luxury good available primarily to those with free time and the money for gym memberships).

Well, we know nothing about the amount of calories he consumes. I know a guy who's pretty active, goes skiing in the weekends, etc. Yet he is still very much overweight, because he eats a heck of a lot. Being physcally active won't keep you from being overweight by itself, though it obviously helps.
And of course, those who eat a lot of junk food but still stay skinny generally consume less calories from other sources.

[ingemann]

As is so often the case, I blame cars.

It is no coincidence that the trend, begun in the post-war years and reaching its full destructive flower in the 80s and 90s, of planning for car-dependent sprawl where walking or other forms of active transportation are discouraged and no longer let you do anything useful or necessary, has coincided with increased obesity rates.

Obviously I don't blame them 100 percent, that would be rather more hyperbolic hedgehog-ish than is really warranted.  But if we're going to look at structural factors- and the shape of the data indicates that we must- our built environment shouldn't be ignored in favor of solely focusing on the food industry.

I don't drive. I walk most everywhere within the city. I don't bother to take public transportation because the buses in this city are horrible.

I'm over 300lbs.

Though my weight is down compared to this time last year.

Obviously I'm speaking in the aggregate and there are many, many people for whom this isn't true.  There are people who eat nothing but junk food and walk absolutely nowhere who have the lucky genes and get to be skinny. And it sounds like you're doing everything right and still end up the other way.  Which is an important and true point that the HAES folks make- there is plenty of genetic variation between people and healthy habits are more important than an out-of-context number on the scale.

My point is simply that an active lifestyle is healthier, and generally correlated with lower weight, and most people do realize that. But not everyone takes it a step further and understands that our built environment has an important effect on whether people are able to have that active lifestyle or not (without making it a chore/luxury good available primarily to those with free time and the money for gym memberships).

Well, we know nothing about the amount of calories he consumes. I know a guy who's pretty active, goes skiing in the weekends, etc. Yet he is still very much overweight, because he eats a heck of a lot. Being physcally active won't keep you from being overweight by itself, though it obviously helps.
And of course, those who eat a lot of junk food but still stay skinny generally consume less calories from other sources.

It also depend on a few other factors, thin people eating a lot of junk food is also usual rather young, most of them develop a beer gut when they become older. Other factor are how you body is build, some people can carry extra weight and it's hard to see. Of course at last there the last factor people can be obese on a BMI scale and in reality just having extra muscles. Other people who get little excessise can have a correct BMI and look overweight.

[DemPGH]

The thing is, the vast majority of people can lose weight well through their forties at which point it starts to get more difficult, but it is possible. To lose weight, especially a lot of weight, you have to burn off what's already there plus what you consume on a daily basis, and that's why it's hard. Exercise and starving yourself as it were is really just the way to do it. Not everyone has the discipline to do it.

Now I do think advertising plays a part in it (although junk food seems directed at younger people), but it comes down to choice. When you're in your twenties you're not a child anymore and you can lose weight and make better choices. I voted 90%.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

0-50%.  The other half can be blamed on genes and the junk science that CSPI, George McGovern, and the federal government has peddled on us over the past few decades:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/how-americans-used-to-eat/371895/
http://www.menshealth.com/health/saturated-fat
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/22/debunking-the-science-behind-lowering-cholesterol-levels.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pue5qVW5k8A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UecRn09mF5U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEaI_8pXW_c

[Liftwieghts34]

WTF

100%.

THE REASON WHY YOUR  FAT JELLY BELLY LOSER WHO CANT WALK A MILE WITHOUT GETTING A HEART ATTACK IS BECAUSE YOU

1.DON'T LIFT.
2.EAT CHEAT MEALS.
3.ARE LAZY AND FILTHY
4.DON'T LIFT. YOU HAVE TO DO AT LEAST 100PUSH UPS A DAY.

YOUR FAT BECAUSE YOUR A LOSER. LOOK AT ME. IM 250, IM ING RIPPED BRO. I WILL DESTROY ANYONE OR ANYTHING.

YOU WANT TO BE RIPPED?. YOU GOTA PUT IN THE TIME AND PUT DOWN THE BIG MAC. GO LIFT A WEIGHT.

[politicallefty]

I'd say about 50%. The remainder is most definitely due to what the food industry has done to food. The adoption of high-fructose corn syrup has no doubt played a significant role. (Personally, it's about the only ingredient I make an active point of avoiding.)