Think about this - what's the difference between obesity and smoking?

Why have we put all sorts of warning labels on cigarettes, yet we don't put a warning on a cheeseburger that's 1500 calories?

This post makes so much sense. I started dieting at age 11 and at age 36 I have morbid obesity to thank for it. I never understood the idea of a healthy lifestyle or positive changes. It was all temporary, just until I could be hot. I get depressed about my weight, but in my heart, I know the true answer for me is to love the woman I am. I'm telling myself to make a goal to not gain another pound. Yes, I want to lose 100 pounds, but I'm healthier if I refuse to gain another.

And, I need to stay off the merry-go-round of weight loss. A friend encouraged me to join WW (again), and I did because I'm too afraid to see the number on the scale. How silly is that? I'm essentially paying someone to weigh me because I don't want to see the number myself. I didn't lose any weight my first week and a half, and yes, it saddened me. But it didn't destroy me like it normally would. I realized that I wasn't gaining. And that is an accomplishment. I was eating much better, and that is a great thing. I'd had more fresh fruits and veggies in that week and a half than I'd had in the last 3 months! And, isn't that wonderful?

The real truth is we don't care about health, we care about looks in this society. And how dare some fat woman actually hold her head up and do things that only the thin are allowed to do.

I want to be that fat woman. Well, I don't want to be fat, but I am. I want it to change, but until it does, I sure wish I could be the fat chick that jobs and eats salads and isn't ashamed.

I just want to add one more thing. Those of you that are saying "it's wrong to accept that you're fat and decide to live with it" are quite interesting to me. Let's be honest here, most people, like 95%, who lose weight regain it (and then some). So, is it so far-fetched to say you accept your fat because chances are you'll always be fat (or get fat again)? Let's get honest about it. We hate fat because it's unattractive. But maybe the fat acceptance folks are on to something we just don't want to accept.

This is in the works, California I believe.

As far as the rest of this thread I'm not touching it with a 10' pole. Have fun.

Please know that I'm not attacking you, just the statistic

I want to know where the heck that number comes from because it's so generic. 95% of people who lose weight regain it, but we know nothing about the 95% of people who supposedly regain weight. For example:

In the case of the first point, I think a lot of regaining can be attributed to our diet culture. There is always some new fad diet out there promising fast results with minimal effort. Everything is NOW NOW NOW in our culture that the thought of changing one's life in order to lose and maintain weight loss is very foreign. But still, does the statistic say, separate people who go on a specific diet and then go off from people who choose to incorporate healthy habits instead? If the statistic only counts diet plans, then what happens to people who lose weight without the aid of a diet?

In regards to my second point and third points, we are just told that "95% of people regain the weight." What is THE weight? Is it all of it? Is it some? How much did the person lose? What kind of weight did they regain? None of this is answered. For example, a person straddling the healthy and overweight ranges who keeps losing and regaining the same 30lbs is very different than someone who loses 200lbs and regains 30. I'm sure in the case of the second person that we would not consider them a failure in any sense should we known them personally, but despite the fact that they have maintained a 170lb loss, they are a failure because they regained weight. What about folks who gain muscle weight rather than fat? According to the scale they are failures, but certainly not when we consider their health.

There's so much about that statistic that we aren't told that I'm inclined to say that it's faulty. A lot of people DO regain weight, we all know that, but I'm having trouble believing that the percentage is that high unless someone regaining 1lb is considered a failure of a maintainer.

That is awesome about the calorie warning. I wonder if other states/countries will follow. If you do not understand nutrition/calorie importance (which is not taught in public schools, so how could you?) then it is very easy to eat the wrong foods. Programs to teach more of the population on nutrition importance is vital!

I also had to laugh out loud to the not touching it with a ten foot pole. Even though I created, I am hesitant to respond!

It was always well beyond not looking as attractive to me. It was the health problems that it put me at risk for that broke my denial that I wouldn't live as long (or as well) if I kept the weight on. It wasn't worth my health to eat mindlessly, vanity was something I could work around, hence letting myself live in denial so long. Once it has started to affect your general health, it's out of hand and you've got to start fighting for your health. Health is one of those things you have to hold onto tightly b/c if not it can easily slip away.

I think it's a good idea to include warnings about high-calorie items, but I think it's much more difficult to do so. When it comes to food there is so much more to the equation then smoking.

Smoking kills, we know this. Unless you're one of the few genetically lucky people who can smoke a pack a day and make it to old age, chances are you will suffer health consequences for your habit.

Eating a 1500 calorie burger will not kill you or cause you to gain weight. Eating it a lot may not kill you or cause you to gain weight—depending on your individual circumstances. If you are like my fiance for example, a 6'3" 24 year old man, you can probably eat that burger quite a number of times and never gain a pound. If you are a 5 foot tall woman and 40 years old then probably you shouldn't be eating it.

Rather than warnings in place, I think education is probably the better bet. Like you said, most people probably have NO IDEA how many calories they should be eating, which is why I think that while it's been very convenient to me as a calorie counter to live in an area where calorie counts are mandated to appear on menus, it does very little to help people regulate their weights. We see on nutrition facts that its based on a 2000 calorie a day diet and many people assume that's how much they should be eating. Well, depending on a number of factors it can be more or less than that.

I think if people learned how many calories were in foods, what a portion size consisted of and how much they should be eating a day, then we might be better off than slapping a warning label on a high calorie food item.

I once said to my now ex husband after having our 4th kid and struggling to keep a healthy lifestyle, "What if I just gave up all the time exercising and got fat for a while and when I regained time for myself, just do the weight loss thing?" He looked at me as if I had three eyes. Thank GOD he did and I quickly maintained my healthy weight. It would have been so much harder to give up and catch up later and at the time, I was looking for an easy way out.

That said, at some point, I remember a conversation with my kid's pediatrician. We both acknowledged that we were slim but a skinny unhealthy. I was watching calories, but hadn't figured out a way to exercise enough with 4 kids under 5 years old.

That kicked my butt into gear. From the very next day on, I re-began my exercise regemine as it were before I had kids. Yes, I was feeling a bit ego-centric when I took time for me and my kids complained (like when I biked with them in the Burley trailer for 2 hours and they were done at 30 minutes), but I found ways to mostly do my self-help when it didn't impede on my duty as a mom.

I'm so glad I did. Now, ten years later, I'm way ahead of the game instead of playing catch up.

I don't know if this answers the OP's question, but from my experience, if you don't accept society's tendancy to just accept non activity and over eating, the only person it hurts is you. If YOU don't care for you, clearly, society won't care for you. Sad, because in the US, our society does care indirectly by providing health care for obesity related illnesses, but the back hand to that is that those that don't care for themselves are shunned in the various ways previous posters described.

It IS like the smokers. We all pay more for smoker related illnesses, too. Does that mean we should embrace and coddle the smokers? No, in fact, we now have laws that make public smoking illegal.

Same with alcohol use! We take away licenses for DUI. Yet there is nothing in place to put exessive caloric consumption in any way illegal. I'm not saying that we should. At ALL. I'm just pointing out what someone had previously mentioned as an analogy.

Food for thought. Sorry for the pun.

It doesn't need to be like "WARNING!" but I'd appreciate having nutrition info in restaurant menu items. A few years back I used to have to CALL people about ONE item to gauge it's diabetes friendliness. These days I stick to eating out at places that have it online which makes it a lot easier to get and plan.

The ones that do not? Give me a break. The excuse that it's expensive to do it crock. Got a recipe? Slam it through software, dude. Even fit day will do. It's not like ANY of it is 100% accurate. It's just a reasonable estimate so people can be informed consumers. I think that the high cal places just don't want to put it on there because they worry about sales dropping.

With a young child, VERY few places I go to involve a chef doing the goodies at short notice from things bought that day. MOST of it is chain family-friendly places that serve the same things over and over.

I just don't think they will voluntarily put it on there. Til the state makes 'em do it, they won't.

And think about ads. When was the last time you saw an ad for just apples? Simple, whole foods? Nope. Most of the time it's processed foods.

Most adults don't understand basic nutrition -- never mind going off into special nutrition for diabetes, PCOS, hypothyroid, cancer, whatever. People with extra needs.

I laughed when we got the myplate thing. That's been around for AGES, even Mom knew that in the 70's and 80's. Dietitian's have known the plate method for a long time. That we had to cruise through "the four food groups" and pals in the 80's and then on to the "food pyramid" in the 90's -- that more food lobby than real health need.

Most people don't stop to think that milk is an OPTIONAL food. Yes, we can have it but seriously? Adults all wean. We don't actually NEED to have cow breastmilk products but the way the dairy industry goes on about it you'd think we'd all fall over from lack of calcium or something. So why is an optional food on there like it is implied at every meal?

Food politics is big, and when you have that going on I don't think the general public is going to get with it unless they make it their business to find out and know. And even then -- it's hard to find.

A.

Yes and no, but mostly no. I'm talking very overweight/obese, not just a couple extra pounds.

I think everyone should try being fat and being a "healthy" weight. I don't think many people would choose fat.

In a word, No.

It is absolutely OK and necessary to love yourself, no matter what. That means caring for your health!!!!

I do know the specific statistics for Weight Watchers (which I consider a "lifestyle" type plan, not a "diet" type plan) - these results were published in the International Journal of Obesity. http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v2.../0801521a.html

So at 5 years maintenance, roughly 2/3 of people are below their starting weight, but the vast majority are maintaining a loss of 5-10% of their starting weight, and only 1/5 are within 5 lbs of goal weight. Those numbers ARE better than the general 95% statistic. The sample group was lifetime members of WW - so, those that GOT to goal weight, and then stayed there for a defined period of time...that definitely plays a role.

I agree with you. Love your health. Don't sabotage it.

The National Weight Loss Control Registry also has better stats than the 95%. There again, you have to maintain a 30lb+ loss for a year first before even joining.

I think the moral of the story is that you can maintain initially for awhile the easier it gets to maintain your loss. The NWLCR's finding on it can be seen here
and how weight loss maintenance becomes easier over time.