Obesity

[Dravin]

I even posted an article a while back in the health section that said that it's better to eat fruit than drink juice all the time as even freshly squeezed juice is mostly sugar. Moderation in all things also applies to fruit juice, as it's fine as an occasional treat.

I like a cup (and by cup I mean 8 fluid ounces) of extra pulp OJ with breakfast. Though I do realize that eating an orange (heck a couple oranges) would be better.

[marts1]

Pulp is better for sure.

[talisyn]

I think my comment was maybe too subtle.

For the record, I disagree with the Government (and our schools) being involved with anything like this. Because of subsedized and publicly funded lunches, some might feel that the government is justified in dictating the eating habits of those dependent on public assistance. But not every one is. Of course, if we embrace socialized healthcare, then we are basically inviting the government to dictate things of this nature for all of us, for the purpose of keeping healthcare costs down. It's not their role to begin with. I think it is diabolical for Americans to hand over the raising of their children and the regulation of their eating habits to the government.

What is next after that? I think we see a general trend with this President and govenrment to want to usurpt further authority over us than the Constitution allows them, because they think people are too dumb to make the right choices on their own, and they have to step in. That's not the American way. Americans want to be free, and quite honestly, I'd rather be dead than have someone regulate my every day choices.

Yes, staying fit is the right thing to do, and smoking is bad for you, we should all eat healthy, etc... But all that does not justify what amounts to more government regulation of our lives. It really is not the President's problem. I think it begins a slippery slope to an infringement of the freedom of our conscience (D&C 134:4-5). The President's duties are outlined in Article II Section 2 of the U.S. constitution. Basically he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed services, has the power to grant reprieves and pardons, has the power to make treaties with Senate approval, appoints Ambassadors, Supreme Court judges, and all other Officers of the United States, appoints vacancies that may occur during the recess of the Senate, receives Ambassadors and other public Ministers, and takes care that the laws are faithfully executed (see FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article II).

We need to stop looking at the government to solve all the problems of society.

Regards,

Vanhin

Ummm people were getting pretty hefty before our current communist regime.

[SMG]

Not every single fat kid was spoiled rotten with junk food or neglected by parents. I am one of those people who were just simply "born fat." I didn't find out until I was an adult that my thyroid wasn't working as well as it should have been.

Probably off topic, but I felt the need to put in my 2 pennies.

[marts1]

Also there are many medications that cause wieght gain.

[Tyler90AZ]

I am on the fence I think kids need to get in shape and not be fat. I agree this program would definitely help initiate a new trend in eating habits. The only part I don't like is that America is the land of the free and that program is taking away freedom from the people.

[marts1]

I would rather live in a country that has laws that promote good myself and the more the better. I would like adultry to be punishable and lieing as well. These laws don't take away freedom at all.

[Guest]

I would rather live in a country that has laws that promote good myself and the more the better. I would like adultry to be punishable and lieing as well. These laws don't take away freedom at all.

So... why not just put a ban on non-nutritious food? How about putting a ban on anything that would cause poor health - smoking, alcohol, candies.

If you're going to make the government be responsible for its citizens to take care of themselves, then that's the fast track to it.

Me, personally, I'd rather live in a country where I decide what is good for me beyond the basic human rights.

[Bini]

I know that last year in our elementary school, there was a push to stop serving the carton citrus drink and to only serve 2% milk at lunch. It never happened. Anyway, I certainly enjoy all the freedoms that I have here in the US. But having said that, I also appreciate the regulations and laws enforced in Singapore, making it an exceptionally clean and safe place when I lived there.

[zippy_do46]

A thought hit me as I was reading the last post. Sounds like another choice that was " No Choice". Where is the lesson learned?

[john doe]

I would rather live in a country that has laws that promote good myself and the more the better. I would like adultry to be punishable and lieing as well. These laws don't take away freedom at all.

They don't? Are you sure? Really? Really?

[marts1]

lol you think the laws we live under now are strict or provide a lack of freedom, wait to see what the millenium will be like..what I said earlier dosen't take away freedom whatsoever if thats what you implying

[john doe]

By definition, restrictions take away freedoms. Freedom to sin is still a freedom. Freedom to fail is still a freedom. The problem we run into these days with all these safety nets that the government keeps tossing out is that nobody ever grows if they never have a chance to fail at anything in life.

And I disagree with you on the Millenium. God wants us to choose the right, not force the right upon others. There is a great sermon in 2 Nephi that talks about the need for opposition, and why it is important to have choices.

Growth, real growth, comes from failing and then picking yourself back up and trying again. Some of the greatest succcess stories on earth have come after spectacular failures. Making restrictions so tight that nobody can possibly fail stunts our progression, as a society, as individuals, and spirtually.

[bcguy]

Let see,

The medical system. If everyone was eating healthy and exercising on a regular basis it would put alot less stress on the medical system.

Flying on aircraft. Less weight means less fuel consumes means less carbon footprint. That goes the same for automobiles. Imagine, us fat people are making the arabs all the more richer because we are not near our BMI.

Workplace. IF you are lean, you are more alert, more energy and get more things done at work. you become more productive.

Then there is the all important will you live long enough to your 65th birthday? Obesity is out of control in the US. Put the blame on our sedentary lifestyle and the FAT food we eat at the fast food restaurants.

BTW, I had a chicken teriacki submarine sandwitch with only water. It was good and filling with none of the ugly side effects of fast food. I am also EATING LESS then I did twenty years ago.

Now, I have thought about being a cirtified trainer for older folks Good way to help people shed the pounds and loose weight. The end test would mean having a car drop us off 10-20 miles in the middle of no where and hike back to civilization :)

[marts1]

I don't recall saying the government should make laws to create a perfect society and even if it were so, it would in reality cause more freedom and happiness to take place. It dosen't matter what laws we live under, no one is being forced to obey them and that is where freedom come in. I hope we are discussing here and not anything else. I'm sorry if I'm sounding harsh or like a know it all. I find all your opinions highly intellectual and thought provoking which is why I post at all in the manner I do. To me, you are much more important then whats right or wrong. In many discussions there is no right and wrong, just opinions.

[Guest]

I don't recall saying the government should make laws to create a perfect society and even if it were so, it would in reality cause more freedom and happiness to take place. It dosen't matter what laws we live under, no one is being forced to obey them and that is where freedom come in. I hope we are discussing here and not anything else. I'm sorry if I'm sounding harsh or like a know it all. I find all your opinions highly intellectual and thought provoking which is why I post at all in the manner I do. To me, you are much more important then whats right or wrong. In many discussions there is no right and wrong, just opinions.

You might want to rethink that bolded statement. The government are the only entity in this country that has the legal ability to put a gun to your head to force you to do something. Yep. That's what laws are for - to force you to abide by them one way or the other. Of course, if you think jail is freedom, then I recant this statement.

[sensibility]

I'm very confused. Are we still talking about Obama's obesity program? Because all I've been able to find is that he's ordered a review of the existing government obesity programs, earmarked some funds to improve the free meals given to low-income children, and there seems to be some change in food labelling proceedures. And Michelle Obama is heading what appears to be essentially a (very large!) public-awareness campaign.

I'm not a particular fan of Obama, but I'm really struggling to see how any of those infringe on anyone's civil rights. What have I missed?

Edited February 12, 2010 by sensibility

[marts1]

I'm not a particular fan of Obama, but I'm really struggling to see how any of those infringe on anyone's civil rights. What have I missed?

I could be wrong but I agree with you totally. I think discussions are a great benefit for increasing knowledge. When the debate starts getting a little heated I have no problem in giving anyone the last word.

[Guest]

I'm very confused. Are we still talking about Obama's obesity program? Because all I've been able to find is that he's ordered a review of the existing government obesity programs, earmarked some funds to improve the free meals given to low-income children, and there seems to be some change in food labelling proceedures. And Michelle Obama is heading what appears to be essentially a (very large!) public-awareness campaign.

I'm not a particular fan of Obama, but I'm really struggling to see how any of those infringe on anyone's civil rights. What have I missed?

Obama's obesity program was just the opening statement. The thread meandered to government's role in dictating what people should and should not eat.

Therefore, the discussion on freedoms was not in direct response to the Obesity Program but to the issue of people leaving the decision of what their children are eating to the government because, (somebody mentioned this in this thread) a lot of kids' main source of nutrition is the public school cafeteria (implying that the parents don't give them proper nutrition at home).

Note: These are not a statement of my opinion. This is just a summary of the thread to answer your question.