Americans’ eating habits are catching up with them. A series in The New York Times last week looked at the growing diabetes epidemic in that city and across the nation. And a recent Lawrence Journal-World story affirmed that Kansas is part of this trend, with cases of the disease up 2.5 percent since 1992 and rising. That’s why it’s important for officials to implement policies that encourage healthy eating, as the Wichita school district did last week. It’s not only a quality-of-life issue but also a budgetary issue, seeing how health care costs rise as waistlines grow.
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
14 Comments
It’s a cultural problem. Rather than play outside, too many kids sit in front of the TV and computer (present company included), our lifstyle is too hectic so we rely more on high calorie fast food and eating out. We drive everywhere, even if the destination is only a few blocks away. We’re not forced to exercise, so we don’t. It would take real discipline to turn it all around, and that’s not one of our big strengths, either.When I see how many overweight kids there are nowadays, it just breaks my heart. Offering healthy snacks in school is just a small part of the massive lifestyle change that needs to take place in this country. I certainly don’t feel very hopeful that the problem is going to go away very soon, it’s just getting worse.
I agree with Damoon. Although I tend to eat healthy most of the time, but I do go out to eat more often than average, and I will gorge on Pizza and Taco Bell. But I stay pretty fit. That’s because I exercise regularly. That is the key.
A Marathon Runner can eat nothing by icecream sundays and never gain weight! Why? Because they move their bodies.
I knew a 32 yr old man who had a fatal heart attack. He wasn’t overweight and he exercised and played sports, but his diet was full of fat. Exercise is very important, but you still have to watch what you eat.I’m not really overweight and I try to stay physically active, but when I had my cholesterol checked 3 months ago, it was almost 300. Now I’m on medication and I’ve had to change my diet (no more real butter). My cholesterol is down now, but I’ll never be able to eat whatever I want if I want it to stay in the healthy parameters.
Budgetary issue, did you catch that or did the sounds of a sad violins drowned out that fact.(sob* people are over weight THEIRhealth is at risk (*PFFFT nose blowing)we must do something to keep the COST of this (PROPAGANDA)epidemic, and disease down. )Pardon the pun but if we could be fat and not cost he fat cats money they wouldn’t care.
Melissa Cooley, you need to see Crowson cartoon its the truth. 1/17/06.
Why is it…the same people that advocate seat belt laws (”it is all about saving lives”) will not endorse the idea of mandatory weight limits or government enforced cholesterol checks?
Why not? We are talking death and taxpayer expense for all those uninsured people. What is the difference between requiring seat belts (for our ‘own good’) and instituting a federal program of diet and exercise?
Do people want to be safe and alive if it only requires minimal inconvenience? C’mon, you “bigger government is good” people who chant “there outta be a law”. Now is your chance.. let’s create MORE laws for the “common good”.
Seriously..what is the difference? Is there a logical stopping place for a government that is going to protect us from ourselves, no matter what?
Some things are just common sense. If you want to argue extremes, then why not just do away with all the laws that “protect us from ourselves”, Ray? That would be good for creating some chaos. Some people are just ignorant or stupid and need a little extra protection. No one’s rights are violated becasue they get fined when caught not wearing a seatbelt. When you propose controling what adults eat and forcing them to get medical tests, then that’s invasive. There are apprpriate places to set boundries, encouraging people to be safe when operating a vehicle is not one of them.
Now can we get back to the subject? What are we willing to do about all these overweight kids?
Sorry, Damoon, I cannot agree on this. The idea of being fined, having points on your driver’s license (which can lead to revocation) because the state wants to protect you is also invasive.
If it all boils down to saving lives and limiting expense, then why draw the line? Common sense? Naw, that is something that is sadly uncommon. After all, an obese person with no insurance is going to cost the taxpayers just like an uninsured, unseatbelted car driver. Where is the separate justification?
With seat belt laws, the continuing justification is “saving lives” and “taxpayer cost”. It is not about invasive powers of the state, but the two issues only.
Let us apply those two issues uniformly. After all, the obese parents that are feeding their fat, lazy kids junk food aren’t going to do anything about it.
So what do you think the government is gaining by enforcing seat belt laws? Is it some secret plot to slowly erode our freedom? “First we take away their right to not wear a seatbelt, then we take their right to vote, HA! HA! HA!!!”
Not at all. I am just tired of ‘nanny’ laws that are continually justified by “saving lives and reducing costs”. Those are the continual rationalizations to enact more and more laws to “protect” us.
So…what is the differential? The exact same argument of reducing costs and saving lives could be applied to fining fat people.
I realize it will never happen. I am just trying to make a point that the government is getting far too involved in too many aspects of our lives. There are too many “nanny” laws.
What does the government have to gain? Lots of money for re-election from the insurance companies.
Just a reminder, driving is a priviledge, not a right. Roads are a service provided by the government, it has interest in maintaining safety.
What one shoves down his/her gullet really is beyond the control of the state. It can only giving suggestions…
Roo…good point. I will concede… but I still don’t like nanny laws!! (just had to get that in there one last time…)
Dont hate and smoldering anger have something to do with heart attack and stroke? Do ya think we could outlaw these too?
Are you kidding? Hate and smoldering anger is a God given right!!!!!!
Honestly, I dislike a few of those ‘nanny laws’ myself, especially when the cure is worse than the ailment, e.g., draconian drug laws for non-violent offenders; most of the Patriot Act; morality laws that often force the powerless to seek protection from the thugs, such as sex-oriented workers that must pay for pimps, etc.