Addiction; misinformation of health, well being lifestyle management
- Thread starter Asclepius
- Start date
thujone
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 11,964
The problem is that the rot is not just top-down but bottom-up too. Maybe doctors are in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry, but whose fault is the overprescribing of medications when it's the patients that go to their doctors expecting them to provide quick-fix solutions to major health problems that years and years of dietary and exercise neglect have ultimately caused?
The internet/web has been hugely useful to me over the past decade in searching out facts (and myths) about foods and nutrition to help steer me in the right direction towards sustainable health, so even though there are a lot of misleading "facts" the truth is that the knowledge is out there and it is freely available to anyone and yet ... people are fatter and sicker than ever, because they aren't availing themselves of the knowledge.
I just don't have faith left in this problem being solved at the current rate of social progress. The temptation to overeat (specifically in terms of caloric intake) is intensified by the high-stress pace of post-industrial society, and it's incredibly difficult to not be fat when caloric intake is *so high* that it's literally impossible to burn it all off even with HIIT exercises and metabolic hacks. So many people end up in a vicious cycle where they are defeated before they even step on the treadmill.
I also don't have faith this problem is going to be solved in the U.S., where most people are forced to run in the rat race on a "work to live" lifestyle or else they will not have healthcare and that's a pretty damn big sword of Damocles to have over everyone's head. Health takes time, diet takes time, time is a luxury.
The internet/web has been hugely useful to me over the past decade in searching out facts (and myths) about foods and nutrition to help steer me in the right direction towards sustainable health, so even though there are a lot of misleading "facts" the truth is that the knowledge is out there and it is freely available to anyone and yet ... people are fatter and sicker than ever, because they aren't availing themselves of the knowledge.
I just don't have faith left in this problem being solved at the current rate of social progress. The temptation to overeat (specifically in terms of caloric intake) is intensified by the high-stress pace of post-industrial society, and it's incredibly difficult to not be fat when caloric intake is *so high* that it's literally impossible to burn it all off even with HIIT exercises and metabolic hacks. So many people end up in a vicious cycle where they are defeated before they even step on the treadmill.
I also don't have faith this problem is going to be solved in the U.S., where most people are forced to run in the rat race on a "work to live" lifestyle or else they will not have healthcare and that's a pretty damn big sword of Damocles to have over everyone's head. Health takes time, diet takes time, time is a luxury.
Asclepius
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 8,696
...I agree with you on the deductive and inductive sources of the problem, but also, disagree. When you have a financial force (aka corporate political) that has greater scope to reach targets, via various specific media-propoganda and cultural assimilation - then the onus is on regulation of/combating that. However, I also agree that, in tandem, it is us as individuals and societal groups that need to take responsibility and address these issues. The main issue is who we submit ourselves to, to create our culture and our values and why do we let this happen?
The internet has enabled us to access much information but the channels of information that people choose to access are based mostly on their/our own set of knowledge; so it is discriminative. Therefore, despite the seeming choice of internet searches of resources it exhasberates people, illiciting confusion and fear and therefore, supplying market need/consumers- this funnels individuals toward their own specific bias. Models like these are deductive; they are purposefully designed to enlighten a specific issue; the result to society is the neglect of the of more pertinent, overall issue - which to the individual remains illusive. Keeping the individual in the dark is problematic for us; is profit for industry. Having breadcrumbs of information can give one a false sense of empowerment and simultaneously, gives the reward of having discovered information that should not be covert in the first place and also, which solely understood in isolation of context, is not factual. There have been many articles published on this - this is not a foreign concept.
If you noticed the nuance of the talk/video, it mentioned the difference between visceral fat and subcutaneous fat. The former being much more malignant.
It is issues like these that are ignored in popular discourse and mostly, discarded with a focus on how the extraneous body looks, or how much BMI or muscle-fat ratio one has. This again, is feeding into a paradigm which elevates healthy looking attractiveness or, a sense of superficial empowerment over actual factual information; again cultural norms fuelled by industry. This is a huge problem and keeps people paying exorbitant gym membership fees ( speaking of the rat-race; the treadmill was never a better metaphor) and buying into the 'heath industry' nonsense. An alternative to this is going outside and exploring the environment and valuing the natural environment. You only have to observe the ubiquitousness of protein laced food; with a shelf-life of eternity to deduce what marketing forces are feeding our culture and lining their pockets. Such propoganda excludes the concept of health as a multi-dynamic system, i.e. focusing on the physical while neglecting the physiological, mental and emotional (also social) factors that all work together.
Obviously, that is not to say that exercise in any form is not good BUT it is a ruse to focus solely on this- especially equating it with the gym - this goes to show how limited our collective perception of health and well-being is and how we have been collectively primed to be senstivie to industry marketing over actual valid health information and self-actualization toward our own health needs.
I agree with you that it is disheartening but disheartening doesn't mean that it can not be challenged.
I've seen people under 22, with knee injuries and worse, from running marathons. Also, obese individuals who cannot walk to the toilet - these are different sides of the same problematic, coin imho.
Biological systems are not deductive, this has been proved over and over. The elitist ignorance that is apparent and success of corporate control of these related areas, has more to do with a cultural veil of, health to the wealthy/middle class wannabes/successful/educated/compliant/winners ( those who 'deserve it') and crumbs to those who are left out of the knowledge equation. Keeps our sociaty ill and unequal. I think it is pretty obvious and it is an illusory trap of fiscal origin.
The internet has enabled us to access much information but the channels of information that people choose to access are based mostly on their/our own set of knowledge; so it is discriminative. Therefore, despite the seeming choice of internet searches of resources it exhasberates people, illiciting confusion and fear and therefore, supplying market need/consumers- this funnels individuals toward their own specific bias. Models like these are deductive; they are purposefully designed to enlighten a specific issue; the result to society is the neglect of the of more pertinent, overall issue - which to the individual remains illusive. Keeping the individual in the dark is problematic for us; is profit for industry. Having breadcrumbs of information can give one a false sense of empowerment and simultaneously, gives the reward of having discovered information that should not be covert in the first place and also, which solely understood in isolation of context, is not factual. There have been many articles published on this - this is not a foreign concept.
If you noticed the nuance of the talk/video, it mentioned the difference between visceral fat and subcutaneous fat. The former being much more malignant.
It is issues like these that are ignored in popular discourse and mostly, discarded with a focus on how the extraneous body looks, or how much BMI or muscle-fat ratio one has. This again, is feeding into a paradigm which elevates healthy looking attractiveness or, a sense of superficial empowerment over actual factual information; again cultural norms fuelled by industry. This is a huge problem and keeps people paying exorbitant gym membership fees ( speaking of the rat-race; the treadmill was never a better metaphor) and buying into the 'heath industry' nonsense. An alternative to this is going outside and exploring the environment and valuing the natural environment. You only have to observe the ubiquitousness of protein laced food; with a shelf-life of eternity to deduce what marketing forces are feeding our culture and lining their pockets. Such propoganda excludes the concept of health as a multi-dynamic system, i.e. focusing on the physical while neglecting the physiological, mental and emotional (also social) factors that all work together.
Obviously, that is not to say that exercise in any form is not good BUT it is a ruse to focus solely on this- especially equating it with the gym - this goes to show how limited our collective perception of health and well-being is and how we have been collectively primed to be senstivie to industry marketing over actual valid health information and self-actualization toward our own health needs.
I agree with you that it is disheartening but disheartening doesn't mean that it can not be challenged.
I've seen people under 22, with knee injuries and worse, from running marathons. Also, obese individuals who cannot walk to the toilet - these are different sides of the same problematic, coin imho.
Biological systems are not deductive, this has been proved over and over. The elitist ignorance that is apparent and success of corporate control of these related areas, has more to do with a cultural veil of, health to the wealthy/middle class wannabes/successful/educated/compliant/winners ( those who 'deserve it') and crumbs to those who are left out of the knowledge equation. Keeps our sociaty ill and unequal. I think it is pretty obvious and it is an illusory trap of fiscal origin.
Last edited:
thujone
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 11,964
yes, much of our ill health can be attributed to the commodification of everything. the commodification of labour induces stress, the commodification of relationships increases rates of STIs, the commodification of nutrition gives rise to the quick-fix products like fad superfoods that happen to contain large amounts of a hitherto-underrated micronutrient that is promoted as if though it had magical properties. even the healthy living industry is not above shilling goji berries and manuka honey.
maybe the right type of regulation can help fix the issue, but what is the right type of regulation? even simple and sensible efforts, like fast-food calorie labeling, seem to have negligible impact on the unhealthy behavior of people.
maybe the right type of regulation can help fix the issue, but what is the right type of regulation? even simple and sensible efforts, like fast-food calorie labeling, seem to have negligible impact on the unhealthy behavior of people.
Asclepius
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 8,696
Sorry for late reply to this, thujone.
I'm with you on the first paragraph; as am sure, many are.
See, the labelling is limited and homes-in on calories alone - not enough in terms of nutritional info. Again, we are given breadcrumbs. We need to be receiving a full picture of what is in our produce in terms of nutritional value and of course this is not and probably will not, happen as there is only change when someone produces some documentary on the health hazards of 'whatever'. It's a surruptitious market and we are undemanding of what is concealed - unless there is a crisis. In terms of regulation; I mean that article is limited - that was exactly what I was specifying in my initial/second post - the regulation is industry invested; minimal in terms of data or, oriented to cover-ass of the latest public awareness/policy issues; therefore it isnt imapartial and there is a propoganda to it, that appears to psychologically induce passivity and uncritical response - not good enough imo!
I'm with you on the first paragraph; as am sure, many are.
See, the labelling is limited and homes-in on calories alone - not enough in terms of nutritional info. Again, we are given breadcrumbs. We need to be receiving a full picture of what is in our produce in terms of nutritional value and of course this is not and probably will not, happen as there is only change when someone produces some documentary on the health hazards of 'whatever'. It's a surruptitious market and we are undemanding of what is concealed - unless there is a crisis. In terms of regulation; I mean that article is limited - that was exactly what I was specifying in my initial/second post - the regulation is industry invested; minimal in terms of data or, oriented to cover-ass of the latest public awareness/policy issues; therefore it isnt imapartial and there is a propoganda to it, that appears to psychologically induce passivity and uncritical response - not good enough imo!