I am being cereal here.

Obesity is a growing problem, it not only costs a fortune in health care, but it looks esthetically bad...let's be honest. Michelangelo's David was not 500 lbs with a triple chin.

Some measures to be considered:

1) Supermarkets should ban the use of full size trolleys except for say...Mother's with small kids, and very old people.

Everyone else must use the old fashioned baskets.

This means that obese people will think twice about buying huge quantities of food, and also they will get a good workout carting a heavy basket around. It will hopefully push them away from say...whole chickens to...say...rice-cakes. Lighter food is generally lower in calories. It may also help cut down on bottled water consumption, which is an environmental issue with so much waste plastic.

Those mini/shallow trolleys should be outlawed in totality. They get in the way and are just sheer laziness. Too many people wandering randomly down the isles, and jamming up the junctions, with no more that a prawn-sandwich and a few bananas in the blasted things. I feel the same way about the rise of these entities in recent years, as to the rise of carry-on-luggage with stupid wheels on the bottom and those handles which pull out: they bizarrely seems to have risen to power in parallel.

2) Supermarket car parks must be at least 1km away from the supermarket entrance. This will enable people to get in a 2km walk for each visit, with the walk back being especially beneficial having to carry the shopping. Pre-historic man had to drag 200 lb animal carcasses km's over ice sheets; it is only fair we should lug our oven chips the equivalent of two and half times around a running track.

Pregnant women, old people, and families with very small kids can take a free bus.

Places to lock bikes right out side of the entrance of course.

Seeing too many Brit fatties, I take it?

In free societies draconian measures will not be implemented. Even the issue of taking away people's right to smoke isn't on the table in any place that I'm aware of.

The best we can do is provide the oppurtunities and education so that people can choose to live a healthier lifestyle. For example, I can not cycle to work (~6 miles across a small southern city) without having to travel at least a couple of miles on roads that are entirely unsafe.

I order my groceries on the interweb and have them delivered to my doorstep when I want them. :wink:

You don't really think the problem is people buying too much food at once, do you? It's not how much we buy (which is really just a measure of how often we shop), but rather what we buy and how much we eat, and how much we exercise.

I think there's at least as much difficulty in the fact that most people don't live in a situation where it's possible to get to the supermarket without driving, or where they can shop regularly. So they shop infrequently, make significantly greater use of the freezer section (danger, fatties ahead) and preservative-laden prepared foods, and they have to drive to the market instead of walking.

Your solution will only work in situations where people have plenty of free time (walking 1k to shop after driving over there?) and are convenient to shopping so they can go frequently and buy less.

Perhaps it's better in the UK, but in the US, Girlygirl and I are keenly aware that it's a HUGE advantage that we are able to walk just a couple of blocks to get to work or either of two supermarkets. We don't commute, so we have loads of free time. We can buy a lot more fresh food because we can shop two or three times a week with no inconvenience. We almost never buy frozen food or other prepared food with a long shelf-life, and we walk most everywhere we go. We are also fortunate in that we can afford to shop at our local supermarkets (one of which is pretty spendy) so we don't have to haul our butts across town to the super saver or warehouse club. And we have just ourselves and the cat to look after, no kids.

This probably puts us in line with maybe 1% of the US population. The rest are the ones you'd see in the supermarket once a week on Saturday or Sunday when they actually have time to get over to the market they can afford, pushing huge carts filled all the way up with frozen junk to feed their family of four that lives at least 1 pedestrian-unfriendly mile away, maybe more.

Obviously, a lot of people will still eat crap food in huge amounts and never exercise, but even for those, the amount of food they buy at one time is neither a function nor cause of their obesity.

Chicken is healthy, rice cakes aren't.

The last thing that I want is to have the govenment force me to eat certain foods or in certain amounts.

Chicken is healthy, rice cakes aren't.
That's a DAMN good point.

If I should be able to drive as fast as I want, why shouldn't I be able to eat as much as I want?

In the US, the neighborhoods in which obesity is highest are neighborhoods where there are few or no supermarkets and people shop at convenienc stores or eat at fast-food restaurants because it's too expensive to buy healthful food (vegetables, etc.).

So making it harder to shop for groceries would only push them farther toward eating all their meals

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112200670.html
One study shows that low-income Americans now would have to spend up to 70 percent of their food budget on fruits and vegetables to meet new national dietary guidelines for healthy eating.
And a second study found that in rural areas, convenience stores far outnumber supermarkets and grocery stores -- even though the latter carry a much wider choice of affordable, healthy foods.
...
Healthy foods were more available at supermarkets and grocery stores. Low-fat/nonfat milk, apples, high-fiber bread, eggs and smoked turkey were available in 75 percent to 100 percent of supermarkets and grocery stores versus 4 percent to 29 percent of convenience stores. Just 28 percent of all stores sold any of the fruits or vegetables included in the survey -- apples, cucumbers, oranges and tomatoes. Convenience stores tended to charge more for items than did supermarkets.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/14/AR2006101400859.html
Healthful food is scarce in many inner-city neighborhoods, where much of the food comes from corner markets and greasy takeout places. Instead of subsidizing shoppers, the projects shift the emphasis to the private sector, offering coaching and financial inducements for grocers to go into areas they shunned for decades.
...
A study in Chicago, released three months ago, measured the distance from every city block to the nearest grocery store and fast-food restaurant. It found that people in what it called Chicago's "food deserts" died early in greater numbers and had more diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure.

I order my groceries on the interweb and have them delivered to my doorstep when I want them. :wink:
oh man, I did that when I lived in san diego! Except they brought it straight into the kitchen. It sounds totally lazy - but I HATE the grocery store, absolutely hate it.

OTOH - we have a local veggie place that's not much more than a roadside stand at home that I LOVE. Bought a lb of real butter - ingredients = cream + salt. Did all my holiday cooking and baking with it. It was amazing. Plus tons of fresh fresh food and super nice family that owns it. I would go to a place like that everyday if I had one nearby at school. It's not full of crap and i don't have to deal with all the bad stuff to get to the good stuff. In Ga I do live a block away from the grocery store, but its produce section is a disappointment every time. I rarely go because of that. Dining hall food is even worse. :(

You said "shopping trolley" and "car park." ;)

That was definitely something I noticed when I went to Europe this summer: "super"markets were much smaller, carts (trolleys?) far less common, and everyone bought much smaller quantities, especially since many were walking / cycling / taking the bus or train back home.

Fredke's right, though, in the US any grocery-store purchase is likely to be a step up from what you can get at 7-11 or a drive-through fastfood "restaurant."

Its interesting... I think this would be the first time in history that the rich(er) are the only ones who can afford to eat "healthy". Generally it was only the rich who could afford meat, and sweets and such... now its mainly what the poor survive on.

Maybe we should just Ban all non-emergency related car rides that are <5miles?

nK

Even the issue of taking away people's right to smoke isn't on the table in any place that I'm aware of.

It is illegal to smoke in public in Calabasas CA, and in outdoor public places in Beverly Hills.

FYI. BTW.

nK

It is illegal to smoke in public in Calabasas CA, and in outdoor public places in Beverly Hills.
Yeah but I think he means that it's not illegal due to health reasons for a person to smoke in private.

In so many suburbs, though, banning car rides under 5 miles is problematic, because there are no sidewalks and all of the roads are multi-lane with high speed limits. There was an article in the Washington Post several years ago about the difficulty of walking in many of the DC suburbs. A woman in Gaithersburg talked about the irony of having to drive to her Weight Watchers meetings a mile from her home, because there was no way to walk there without walking in the drainage ditches, which was really problematic in the dark. There's a whole infrastructure problem that is enhancing our obesity problem.

Yeah but I think he means that it's not illegal due to health reasons for a person to smoke in private.

It is also illegal to smoke in cars carrying children, in Cali. I believe inside your car would be considered private.

nK

In so many suburbs, though, banning car rides under 5 miles is problematic, because there are no sidewalks and all of the roads are multi-lane with high speed limits. There was an article in the Washington Post several years ago about the difficulty of walking in many of the DC suburbs. A woman in Gaithersburg talked about the irony of having to drive to her Weight Watchers meetings a mile from her home, because there was no way to walk there without walking in the drainage ditches, which was really problematic in the dark. There's a whole infrastructure problem that is enhancing our obesity problem.

Well, what I said was a bit tounge in cheek... but here goes an explanation anyways...

I would hazard to guess that most drives are <10ish miles anways... So by banning the <5 mile crowd would substantially decrease the amount of cars on the road. Thus freeing an entire lane for cyclists(walkers too?)

Anyways, its practically unenforceable. And judging by the way people treat there cars here in LA, there would be riots and insanity. I believe the general thinking is that large projects for cycling related commuting is considered a poor investment.

nK

You said "shopping trolley" and "car park." ;)

That was definitely something I noticed when I went to Europe this summer: "super"markets were much smaller, carts (trolleys?) far less common, and everyone bought much smaller quantities, especially since many were walking / cycling / taking the bus or train back home.

Fredke's right, though, in the US any grocery-store purchase is likely to be a step up from what you can get at 7-11 or a drive-through fastfood "restaurant."

Yes I would agree in general, although in the UK we have seen supermarkets get 'super-sized' to almost US Walmart proportions.

I have noticed in the US...whenever I have been there...that supermarket portions are bigger. If in the UK...say...a supermarket sells 4 donuts in a pack, in the US it is 8. That goes for loads of foods, especially convenience and processed stuff.

In the US, the neighborhoods in which obesity is highest are neighborhoods where there are few or no supermarkets and people shop at convenienc stores or eat at fast-food restaurants because it's too expensive to buy healthful food (vegetables, etc.).

Interesting and kind of makes sense.

...but is it chicken or egg?

Chicken is healthy, rice cakes aren't.

Rice cakes contain less calories per unit volume, that is my point. As part of a balanced diet, rice cakes would be better for trying to lose weight.

In free societies draconian measures will not be implemented. Even the issue of taking away people's right to smoke isn't on the table in any place that I'm aware of.

I would argue that 'health and safety' is a tool available which enables the government to be as authoritarian as it wants on certain issues.

Smoking will never be banned...one will just never find anywhere where one is allowed to smoke...except one's own house...maybe...so long as one has no kids/cats/snakes, and no school is down wind. :D

Why do you hate us fat people?

give them plastic surgery.

give them plastic surgery.


or

Let them eat cake.

I don't think making laws about such things would work. We need a whole cultural shift. Physical education has to go back into schools. Somehow we have to get the kids off of video games and into sports and other activities. And the North American dream of the big house in the suburbs has to be re-thought. Living where there are no sidewalks, where the nearest grocery story is the Wal-Mart 5 miles away and the elementary school is on the other side of a freeway is a sure way to discourage physical activity.

I don't think making laws about such things would work. We need a whole cultural shift. Physical education has to go back into schools. Somehow we have to get the kids off of video games and into sports and other activities. And the North American dream of the big house in the suburbs has to be re-thought. Living where there are no sidewalks, where the nearest grocery story is the Wal-Mart 5 miles away and the elementary school is on the other side of a freeway is a sure way to discourage physical activity.

How about a BMI or a body fat% tax? I mean King William III imposed a Window Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax) on England 1696, and over time in had an effect of reducing the size of windows in buildings. So we have historical evidence that this kind of tax would work:) . It is not so different.

How about a BMI or a body fat% tax? I mean King William III imposed a Window Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax) on England 1696, and over time in had an effect of reducing the size of windows in buildings. So we have historical evidence that this kind of tax would work:) . It is not so different.

HAHAHA, i think this is a great idea, implemented correctly. First BMI is a stupid way of measurement. They could base it on, say... body fat %... shoulder width, hip width.. to account for different body types..

oh god, how the fatties would complain (yes i would, but id also get my ass on a bike much faster if i had to pay to stay heavy(

nK

The thread title is the ultimate in irony.......

I just love simple solutions to complex problems.

ROFLMAO

Len

I don't think making laws about such things would work. We need a whole cultural shift. Physical education has to go back into schools. Somehow we have to get the kids off of video games and into sports and other activities. And the North American dream of the big house in the suburbs has to be re-thought. Living where there are no sidewalks, where the nearest grocery story is the Wal-Mart 5 miles away and the elementary school is on the other side of a freeway is a sure way to discourage physical activity.


Agreed, and personally, IMO, it is even worse among children, the numbers of children who are considered morbidly obese is growing exponentially, WE are seeing diseases of 60 year olds in 9-11 year old children. Thirty years ago to diagnose a child with type 2 diabetes, or hypertension, would have been a publishable finding, now it is becoming very common. We are going to see some explosions in healthcare expenditures in the next 2 decades due to this. WHICH is one of a myriad of reasons why I argue against nationalized healthcare lowering or improving mortality and morbidity statistics. I am FOR a nationalized health plan, two tiered of course, similar to the UK's, but I have absolutely ZERO confidence that it will improve health in this country. IN FACT, with expenditures rising rapidly, I would say that it will be the NEXT economic crisis for this country. I cannot even tell you how sad it makes me to see a 10 or 11 year old boy who is morbidly obese and diabetic.............for I know how his story goes......He won't believe me, and neither will the parents. But I have seen it TOO many times.:(

So, something as common sensical as "don't eat so damn much garbage" won't do it, I take it.

Poverty and obesity (ironically) have a lot to do with each other. Turns out the worst calories for you are also the cheapest. Thank you US Government with all the agri-subsidies, especially corn.

So, something as common sensical as "don't eat so damn much garbage" won't do it, I take it.

If only... same with: get your *ss off the couch and walk a couple of blocks every day

I order my groceries on the interweb and have them delivered to my doorstep when I want them. :wink:

I tried that once and will never do that again.

Bananas were black and bruised. The grapes were squished. The Milk was 4 days from expiring.

I think it would be easy to show that you do not right to smoke in any car transoprting your own or any others minor children.

It is also illegal to smoke in cars carrying children, in Cali. I believe inside your car would be considered private.

nK

Obese kids = not enough sport + lazy parents

When I was a kid all we did after school was meet up with all the kids in the street and play sport. We rode our bikes everywhere and McDonalds was a treat which we had maybe twice a month. Now the XBOX has taken over the football and the family meal is usually at a McDonalds restaurant, much easier than spending an hour preparing a healthy homecooked meal. One way to try and fix the situation is to reward 'healthy' families. Every year everyone does an obesity test. If your in the healthy weight range then you get some form of rebate off your health premiums.

But we're also far more cautious now about letting our children run free. And children are so much more programmed as to be approaching work. (Obviously not in the same league as sweatshops and coal mines, but no time in which they're told, "go outside and find something to do.") Partly because of the fear of predators, and partly because the cultural fear that if we don't use every learning tool possible and have enough extra curricular activities on our kids' rosters, they won't get into Harvard/med school/law school/whatever. So we over protect them, over schedule them, overfeed them, and everything somehow goes awry. While teh get out there and move/don't eat junk mantra is a seemingly obvious one, there are so many other factors at play, largely cultural and economic, that it's going to take a long time to turn this particular train around.

Simple solution...don't tell high sugar products and fast food to fat people.

Realistic solution: Obesity will take more than 2 generations to fix. Poor parenting, poor education about nutrition, and easy access to highly processed foods are what I think are the key contributors to obesity. True there are genetics involved and some people are more prone to produce fat cells when bombarded with certain foods, and some who can pile on the MickyDs and still look slim but 50 years ago everyone fit in the average size.

Key to fix this:

Government needs to step in and provide $ for food nutirition for the young kids as well as the parents. School systems need to realize they need to provide healthy and slightly more expensive foods to their students/kids instead of the easy cheap processed garbage. Parents need to be educated on how to eat. Fast food commercials need to be banned and their numbers per city block regulated.

Then when all this is done we might see some progress towards this disease.

Simple solution...don't tell high sugar products and fast food to fat people.

Realistic solution: Obesity will take more than 2 generations to fix. Poor parenting, poor education about nutrition, and easy access to highly processed foods are what I think are the key contributors to obesity. True there are genetics involved and some people are more prone to produce fat cells when bombarded with certain foods, and some who can pile on the MickyDs and still look slim but 50 years ago everyone fit in the average size.

Key to fix this:

Government needs to step in and provide $ for food nutirition for the young kids as well as the parents. School systems need to realize they need to provide healthy and slightly more expensive foods to their students/kids instead of the easy cheap processed garbage. Parents need to be educated on how to eat. Fast food commercials need to be banned and their numbers per city block regulated.

Then when all this is done we might see some progress towards this disease.

When did what I put on the table become the government's business? We can't ban pictures of naked people but we can keep a Big Mac out of the public eye?

When did what I put on the table become the government's business? We can't ban pictures of naked people but we can keep a Big Mac out of the public eye?


I think he's thinking of the General Welfare clause.

I think he's thinking of the General Welfare clause.

Which has what to do with our diet?

Which has what to do with our diet?


Isn't the looking after the health of the population looking after its general welfare? If obesity is a health crisis, it would follow that it's in the government's scope to do something.

I'm not saying I agree with that course of action but it is the argument that will be put forth when the government takes action.

Isn't the looking after the health of the population looking after its general welfare? If obesity is a health crisis, it would follow that it's in the government's scope to do something.

I'm not saying I agree with that course of action but it is the argument that will be put forth when the government takes action.

To promote the general welfare, not to determine it. We have determined that a woman has the right to take the life of an unborn child, surely the rest of us can eat a hamburger with cheese on it without interference?

To promote the general welfare, not to determine it. We have determined that a woman has the right to take the life of an unborn child, surely the rest of us can eat a hamburger with cheese on it without interference?


Promote/determine.... it's so much hair splitting. Whatever the outcome, it will be as the voters decide, no?

I think he's thinking of the General Welfare clause.

Good point, but:

May we say this allows the government to say...fund kids sport programs and subside healthy foods, rather that say...ban fat people from fast food restaurants?

Good point, but:

May we say this allows the government to say...fund kids sport programs and subside healthy foods, rather that say...ban fat people from fast food restaurants?

The problem comes from two ends:

#1 Too much food. I believe largely because we live in a society of convenience and that is unlikely to change. We can get food whenever we want it, and we want good tasting food which at the most basic level means sweets and high fat because not surprisingly like any species that for 99.9999...% of its evoluntionary history faced intermittent starvation we like things that are calorie dense. Many families live on fast-food dinners.

So what can the govt. do? Ban 7-11s and fast-food joints? Not likely, so really very little. Local school groups can get the food (good or bad, in my opinion) out of the schools except at lunch time and then provide relatively low-cal meals. Govt. could run education campaigns. What else, in a free society, could they realistically enact?

#2 Too little activity. We have decided or historical contigency has led to the fact that today, just by going about our business we burn far fewer calories. Relatively few engage in manual labor, we live and work in places that require use of a vehicle, etc. And on top that, the suburbia that we have adopted as our standard of living is not conducive to exercising unless the thought of doing endless laps of cul-de-sac's is appealing to you.

Despite the fact that after stoping smoking, the next risk-minimizing step is regular exercise how many insurance companies are willing to pay for people to go to the gym? Is this someplace the government could intervene? Could the govt. provide tax incentives (they do for everything else) for gym use and/or lowering/maintaining BMI. Another area is stopping the suburban sprawl, or at least redesigning it, but that will likely drive up home prices so probably unlikely.

Good point, but:

May we say this allows the government to say...fund kids sport programs and subside healthy foods, rather that say...ban fat people from fast food restaurants?


Sure. And that's how *I* think it should be. We have, however, already seen the government, at the City/State level, step in and bad certain food items. It's only a matter of time before certain restaurant types are banned. To be safe, they won't just stop fat people from eating there, they'll stop all people from eating there.

The precedents for this are well established.

Despite the fact that after stoping smoking, the next risk-minimizing step is regular exercise how many insurance companies are willing to pay for people to go to the gym? Is this someplace the government could intervene? Could the govt. provide tax incentives (they do for everything else) for gym use and/or lowering/maintaining BMI. Another area is stopping the suburban sprawl, or at least redesigning it, but that will likely drive up home prices so probably unlikely.

Do health premiums cost more for obese people?

They should do.

Do health premiums cost more for obese people?

They should do.


I agree here as well but it's a slippery slope. Do that and soon enough, the insurance companies will start price discriminating for all sorts of things and we won't see overall rates decrease, regardless.

I agree here as well but it's a slippery slope. Do that and soon enough, the insurance companies will start price discriminating for all sorts of things and we won't see overall rates decrease, regardless.

Car insurance descriminates on age and sex...that is considered acceptable.

Do health premiums cost more for obese people?

They should do.

Not that I'm aware of. IMO based on the research literature I read it would not be justified based on BMI alone as an obese person who exercises regularly has roughly the same health risk as a sedentary normal weight person. So unless they charge higher premiums to sedentary/normal weight people over exercising/normal weight as well it wouldn't be fair.

Sure. And that's how *I* think it should be. We have, however, already seen the government, at the City/State level, step in and bad certain food items. It's only a matter of time before certain restaurant types are banned. To be safe, they won't just stop fat people from eating there, they'll stop all people from eating there.

The precedents for this are well established.

IMO, this is wrong and really misses the big picture anyway. What you eat is largely irrelevant compared to how much you eat (i.e. energy balance).

Unfortunately the discussion in this country is overly driven by the "Diet" industry and people seeking the magic elixer that is going to lead to improved health rather than the simple fact that largely regardless of what you eat, losing weight if you're overweight/obese or maintaining a normal weight takes care of minimizing health issues for most people.

Sure. And that's how *I* think it should be. We have, however, already seen the government, at the City/State level, step in and bad certain food items. It's only a matter of time before certain restaurant types are banned. To be safe, they won't just stop fat people from eating there, they'll stop all people from eating there.

The precedents for this are well established.

So, do I need some kind of a license to buy ice cream? Seriously- last week, I rode in snow and rain all week and ran twice. So on sunday, I felt pretty justified in getting some frozen custard to celebrate my daughter turning 3 months old.

Ban Foods? How? My dad grew up on twinkies as snacks, and he was a skinny little dude. Twinkies don't cause you to get fat, Just eating too @#$%ing many twinkies. Frozen custard has been around for hundreds of years. It's no less healthy today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It really isn't the foods- it's the portions that people are eating.

When you get into banning foods, where do you stop? Am I allowed to make a creme brule for my wife for valentine's day, or is that forbidden? Do you have DEA-style squads raiding church bake sales?

So, do I need some kind of a license to buy ice cream? Seriously- last week, I rode in snow and rain all week and ran twice. So on sunday, I felt pretty justified in getting some frozen custard to celebrate my daughter turning 3 months old.

Ban Foods? How? My dad grew up on twinkies as snacks, and he was a skinny little dude. Twinkies don't cause you to get fat, Just eating too @#$%ing many twinkies. Frozen custard has been around for hundreds of years. It's no less healthy today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It really isn't the foods- it's the portions that people are eating.

When you get into banning foods, where do you stop? Am I allowed to make a creme brule for my wife for valentine's day, or is that forbidden? Do you have DEA-style squads raiding church bake sales?

Chili dogs with cheeze will get you 5 to 10 years and when the shady guy on the corner asks if you wanta buy some coke, he'll be talking about The Real Thing. :)

The diet industry and the fast food industry is one symbiotic racket IMHO.

The diet industry and the fast food industry is one symbiotic racket IMHO.

It's amazing how much can be squeezed out of what is essentially a very simple equation-

eat less+increased activity=lose weight.

That it takes some of these weight loss gurus over 300 pages to say that if you take in fewer calories than you burn over the course of a day, you will lose weight is obscene.

Ya don't need special food. you just need less of the food yer eating right now. If you eat special diet food, yer gonna fail hard when you go back on regular food when you reach your goal.

You don't need a special lo-cal beer. you just need fewer beers.

What we need is education, not legislation.

The diet industry and the fast food industry is one symbiotic racket IMHO.

There is no racket in the fast-food industry. They are giving the consumer exactly what they want. Relatively good tasting, inexpensive food. They've also figured out that the cost of giving somebody twice as many fries isn't twice as much, it's a pittance more, and is more than offset because people will come back because more is better.

The diet industry on the other hand might be considered a racket to a degree as they often make unsubstantiated claims or are driven by hype and hyperbole rather than any kind of evidence.

It's amazing how much can be squeezed out of what is essentially a very simple equation-

eat less+increased activity=lose weight.

That it takes some of these weight loss gurus over 300 pages to say that if you take in fewer calories than you burn over the course of a day, you will lose weight is obscene.

Ya don't need special food. you just need less of the food yer eating right now. If you eat special diet food, yer gonna fail hard when you go back on regular food when you reach your goal.

You don't need a special lo-cal beer. you just need fewer beers.

What we need is education, not legislation.

It is more profitable for the diet industry if the consumer yo-yo's from binge to diet, back to binge again and then onto another type of diet...and buy this or that diet book, plan, special shake, motivational CD etc etc

A good dieter is bad business.

It would not surprise me if the same financial concerns owned diet companies and fast food?

Perfect racket: advertise and seductively promote calorie laden junk food, then when the consumer had gorged his or herself full, sell them expensive diet products...and after the inevitable FAIL, sell them junk food again and the money-spinning cycle continues.

There is no racket in the fast-food industry.

Without the atonement of a diet always on the horizon, would consumers eat fast food with such abandon?

Without the atonement of a diet always on the horizon, would consumers eat fast food with such abandon?

Yes, it tastes good and it is inexpensive.

Yes, it tastes good and it is inexpensive.

That is not what I asked.