Joined
·
3,013 Posts
I wonder how much is because people have more disease as compared to better diagnostics.People with chronic disease
1930: 7.5% of people
2000: 45% of people
2020: 65% of people
I wonder how much is because people have more disease as compared to better diagnostics.People with chronic disease
1930: 7.5% of people
2000: 45% of people
2020: 65% of people
Not much. It's not all genetic either.I wonder how much is because people have more disease as compared to better diagnostics.
I got cows tongue sandwiches in a brown bag.It may seem like one generation, but more than one generation got fatter in the last 40 years... Being older really isn't an excuse, either. Y'all could take your arses outside for a long walk once or twice a day unless you're disabled. Everyone is fatter. It was inevitable, and my grandparents called it way back in the 1980s. I'm over 40, and my whole generation woke up every day and ate a bowl of sugar loaded cereal because it was quick and convenient for their distracted parents. The kids got Fruity Pebbles, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Lucky Charms....right out the gates in the morning. Then they sugar crashed at about 9am and couldn't pay attention. Then they ate junk food the school sold them as "lunch". Then they went home and ate more junk food because they were only ones home, and the junk food and the Nintendo was enough to keep them from complaining too much once their parents got home.
So my question is... What the hell were the Baby Boomers expecting their kids to look like in 2023, and did they really expect these nasty habits they taught their children to go away? Did they think their kids would raise their grandkids any better?
But hey, at least that government subsidized sugar and corn syrup industries got rich.
Might also be that we have made it desirable to be diagnosed with a chronic problem. Dr's, and big pharma are highly motivated to find "chronic ailments" and push drugs on people.People with chronic disease
1930: 7.5% of people
2000: 45% of people
2020: 65% of people
in 1930 if you had one you just diedPeople with chronic disease
1930: 7.5% of people
2000: 45% of people
2020: 65% of people
For the most part, yes.Are West Virginia and Kentucky poor states?
.
No. They're mostly the same where chronic disease is concerned. Cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes. By comparison, a greater percentage of the population has them now. But yes, we can keep people with these diseases alive much longer these days. And that's the goal, not making people healthy. It's more profitable to keep people sick...longer.in 1930 if you had one you just died
by 2020 we can keep you alive with all sorts of issues , Issues they didn't even know existed in 1930.
No. There's only one definition. It's a condition that lasts a year or longer (often life long) that requires ongoing medical treatment and/or limits activities of daily living.also the definition of chronic disease may be different
Yep.And yet...I think people are forgetting alternative factors besides the big one - nutrition.
It's the main reason. It's also the one people can do something about right now. It's the easiest and most important factor for any of us to control.While I do believe nutrition is one of the heaviest reasons that obesity rates have gone up, I don't believe it's the only reason or even close to being the only reason. There are so many factors.
Not pointing fingers but statistically it seemed like a switch was flipped by one generation.It's honestly sad that the obesity rates are increasing so rapidly. Whether one generation was really to blame, I can't totally agree.
it used to last a year or longer then you were dead before it went a lot longer people with a chronic illness in 1930 may have lived to 40 not 80No. They're mostly the same where chronic disease is concerned. Cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes. By comparison, a greater percentage of the population has them now. But yes, we can keep people with these diseases alive much longer these days. And that's the goal, not making people healthy. It's more profitable to keep people sick...longer.
No. There's only one definition. It's a condition that lasts a year or longer (often life long) that requires ongoing medical treatment and/or limits activities of daily living.
There's another big component to that.as for diabetes , you only get to abuse your pancreas so long before you don't proccess the sever excess of sugar well any more , and are declared type 2
While I agree in theory, there's a major problem with that. The average SNAP benefit here (WV) is $214.00 per month... for a family of two. It's pretty much the same in most states. Kinda difficult to have a heathy diet on that no matter how many nutrition classes you take.I think everyone on an EBT card needs to take a class in nutrition and cooking if they want a card.
Those fines against tobacco and oxycotin were a start... now? Go after the soda industry, hit the breakfast cereal people... white bread & cupcakes... and everybody else producing a product that can be shown to be addictive and negative nutrient value...
SNAP is supposed to be supplemental not a grocery budget for a month. But I see what you're saying. Still, healthy food can actually be very cheap. Frozen fruits and veggies are cheap. Dry grains are cheap. For a family of two, $214 can actually go pretty far.While I agree in theory, there's a major problem with that. The average SNAP benefit here (WV) is $214.00 per month... for a family of two. It's pretty much the same in most states. Kinda difficult to have a heathy diet on that no matter how many nutrition classes you take.
Unfortunately true.I think the answer is pretty simple. At least in large part. The reason why unhealthy junk is so cheap and healthy produce, local and otherwise, tends to be more expensive is because the junk is heavily subsidized.
But it's OK as a social worker to walk into a home to see SNAP money spent on soda pop, chips and frozen pizza?While I agree in theory, there's a major problem with that. The average SNAP benefit here (WV) is $214.00 per month... for a family of two. It's pretty much the same in most states. Kinda difficult to have a heathy diet on that no matter how many nutrition classes you take.
Then we need higher minimum wage I guess so they can supplement the WIC and SNAP. Oh wait if they make more, they lose the food subsidies and still not able to afford healthy. Just cant win on low end unless you get lucky with that lottery ticket. Not everybody is white collar and yuppie and shopping at Whole Paycheck while rent multiplies multiple times. Some have to live on what they get, not pretend they have more money than they do.SNAP is supposed to be supplemental not a grocery budget for a month. But I see what you're saying. Still, healthy food can actually be very cheap. Frozen fruits and veggies are cheap. Dry grains are cheap. For a family of two, $214 can actually go pretty far.
I think the answer is pretty simple. At least in large part. The reason why unhealthy junk is so cheap and healthy produce, local and otherwise, tends to be more expensive is because the junk is heavily subsidized. Instead of all the farming subsidies going to these few multibillion dollar agribusinesses for corn, soy, rice and wheat...which mostly goes toward the production of all the foods causing chronic illness, why not divert at least a large sum of that for growing healthy produce? Maybe support and incentivize small local farms in producing fruits and vegetables? If we are going to subsidize food, it should be for something healthier.