OT – F as in Fat

[Arraya]

This is actually becoming well understood through many studies over the years in mature economies.

Happiness and life satisfaction rise steeply as one moves from subsistence-level poverty to a modest level of economic security and then levels off.

After that it’s starts to manifest in social pathologies.

During the last 50 years the US has doubled it’s per capita consumption. During the same time, obesity and a host of other mental disorders have skyrocketed.

So you start to get a correlation with economic growth, beyond a certain point, and epidemics of different illnesses in a society.

Now, a culture is an outgrowth of a political/economic system and patterns of behavior are encouraged to support that system.

Yes, the housing bubble was a similar dynamic – which if you pay attention, was in multiple countries.

We seem to confuse powerful cultural stressors for personal and social benefits. Among those stressors is a constant culturally-induced striving for perennially unsatisfiable desires that often conflict with basic bio-social needs – which manifests in all these increasing epidemics.

But, it is good for the economy in the short term.

[CA renter]

[quote=Ren]I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.

We now have three kids of our own. Our eldest is endomorphic, just like her dad and my sister. Our middle is “average.” Our youngest is more ectomorphic/mesomorphic. They all eat the same foods, and generally get the same level of exercise, but they have totally different bodies — and have had these totally different physiques, from birth. What I have noticed is that they metabolize food differently. The skinny one is what some might call “hyperactive,” while the heavy one is what some might call “lazy.” But neither of them is trying to be active or inactive; it’s innate.

I firmly believe that some people’s bodies are born to store food/energy, while other people have bodies that immediately convert food to kinetic energy.

It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.

[CA renter]

[quote=Ren]I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.

We now have three kids of our own. Our eldest is endomorphic, just like her dad and my sister. Our middle is “average.” Our youngest is more ectomorphic/mesomorphic. They all eat the same foods, and generally get the same level of exercise, but they have totally different bodies — and have had these totally different physiques, from birth. What I have noticed is that they metabolize food differently. The skinny one is what some might call “hyperactive,” while the heavy one is what some might call “lazy.” But neither of them is trying to be active or inactive; it’s innate.

I firmly believe that some people’s bodies are born to store food/energy, while other people have bodies that immediately convert food to kinetic energy.

It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.

[CA renter]

[quote=Ren]I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.

We now have three kids of our own. Our eldest is endomorphic, just like her dad and my sister. Our middle is “average.” Our youngest is more ectomorphic/mesomorphic. They all eat the same foods, and generally get the same level of exercise, but they have totally different bodies — and have had these totally different physiques, from birth. What I have noticed is that they metabolize food differently. The skinny one is what some might call “hyperactive,” while the heavy one is what some might call “lazy.” But neither of them is trying to be active or inactive; it’s innate.

I firmly believe that some people’s bodies are born to store food/energy, while other people have bodies that immediately convert food to kinetic energy.

It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.

[CA renter]

[quote=Ren]I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.

We now have three kids of our own. Our eldest is endomorphic, just like her dad and my sister. Our middle is “average.” Our youngest is more ectomorphic/mesomorphic. They all eat the same foods, and generally get the same level of exercise, but they have totally different bodies — and have had these totally different physiques, from birth. What I have noticed is that they metabolize food differently. The skinny one is what some might call “hyperactive,” while the heavy one is what some might call “lazy.” But neither of them is trying to be active or inactive; it’s innate.

I firmly believe that some people’s bodies are born to store food/energy, while other people have bodies that immediately convert food to kinetic energy.

It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.

[CA renter]

[quote=Ren]I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.

We now have three kids of our own. Our eldest is endomorphic, just like her dad and my sister. Our middle is “average.” Our youngest is more ectomorphic/mesomorphic. They all eat the same foods, and generally get the same level of exercise, but they have totally different bodies — and have had these totally different physiques, from birth. What I have noticed is that they metabolize food differently. The skinny one is what some might call “hyperactive,” while the heavy one is what some might call “lazy.” But neither of them is trying to be active or inactive; it’s innate.

I firmly believe that some people’s bodies are born to store food/energy, while other people have bodies that immediately convert food to kinetic energy.

It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.

[CA renter]

One more thing…

I wonder if the obesity epidemic is related to the fact that far fewer people are smoking cigarettes these days.
…….

More specifically, in three of the past four Gallup smoking measurements (conducted between July 2007 and today), only 20% or 21% of American adults have said they smoked cigarettes in the past week. Compared with the average of 25% who said they smoked from 2000 through 2006, this suggests a recent decline in U.S. smoking. (For the full trend, see the table elsewhere in this report.)

The latest result comes from Gallup’s annual Consumption Habits survey, conducted July 10-13, 2008.

Self-reported adult smoking peaked in 1954 at 45%, and remained at 40% or more through the early 1970s, but has since gradually declined. The average rate of smoking across the decades fell from 40% in the 1970s to 32% in the 1980s, 26% in the 1990s, and 24% since 2000.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-smoking-rate-still-coming-down.aspx
——————-

Obesity was relatively stable in the U.S. between 1960 and 1980 when about 15% of people fell into the category, and then it increased dramatically in the ’80s and ’90s.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-01-13-obesity-rates_N.htm

[Look at the chart on this site — one could easily say there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates.]

[CA renter]

One more thing…

I wonder if the obesity epidemic is related to the fact that far fewer people are smoking cigarettes these days.
…….

More specifically, in three of the past four Gallup smoking measurements (conducted between July 2007 and today), only 20% or 21% of American adults have said they smoked cigarettes in the past week. Compared with the average of 25% who said they smoked from 2000 through 2006, this suggests a recent decline in U.S. smoking. (For the full trend, see the table elsewhere in this report.)

The latest result comes from Gallup’s annual Consumption Habits survey, conducted July 10-13, 2008.

Self-reported adult smoking peaked in 1954 at 45%, and remained at 40% or more through the early 1970s, but has since gradually declined. The average rate of smoking across the decades fell from 40% in the 1970s to 32% in the 1980s, 26% in the 1990s, and 24% since 2000.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-smoking-rate-still-coming-down.aspx
——————-

Obesity was relatively stable in the U.S. between 1960 and 1980 when about 15% of people fell into the category, and then it increased dramatically in the ’80s and ’90s.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-01-13-obesity-rates_N.htm

[Look at the chart on this site — one could easily say there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates.]

[CA renter]

One more thing…

I wonder if the obesity epidemic is related to the fact that far fewer people are smoking cigarettes these days.
…….

More specifically, in three of the past four Gallup smoking measurements (conducted between July 2007 and today), only 20% or 21% of American adults have said they smoked cigarettes in the past week. Compared with the average of 25% who said they smoked from 2000 through 2006, this suggests a recent decline in U.S. smoking. (For the full trend, see the table elsewhere in this report.)

The latest result comes from Gallup’s annual Consumption Habits survey, conducted July 10-13, 2008.

Self-reported adult smoking peaked in 1954 at 45%, and remained at 40% or more through the early 1970s, but has since gradually declined. The average rate of smoking across the decades fell from 40% in the 1970s to 32% in the 1980s, 26% in the 1990s, and 24% since 2000.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-smoking-rate-still-coming-down.aspx
——————-

Obesity was relatively stable in the U.S. between 1960 and 1980 when about 15% of people fell into the category, and then it increased dramatically in the ’80s and ’90s.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-01-13-obesity-rates_N.htm

[Look at the chart on this site — one could easily say there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates.]

[CA renter]

One more thing…

I wonder if the obesity epidemic is related to the fact that far fewer people are smoking cigarettes these days.
…….

More specifically, in three of the past four Gallup smoking measurements (conducted between July 2007 and today), only 20% or 21% of American adults have said they smoked cigarettes in the past week. Compared with the average of 25% who said they smoked from 2000 through 2006, this suggests a recent decline in U.S. smoking. (For the full trend, see the table elsewhere in this report.)

The latest result comes from Gallup’s annual Consumption Habits survey, conducted July 10-13, 2008.

Self-reported adult smoking peaked in 1954 at 45%, and remained at 40% or more through the early 1970s, but has since gradually declined. The average rate of smoking across the decades fell from 40% in the 1970s to 32% in the 1980s, 26% in the 1990s, and 24% since 2000.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-smoking-rate-still-coming-down.aspx
——————-

Obesity was relatively stable in the U.S. between 1960 and 1980 when about 15% of people fell into the category, and then it increased dramatically in the ’80s and ’90s.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-01-13-obesity-rates_N.htm

[Look at the chart on this site — one could easily say there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates.]

[CA renter]

One more thing…

I wonder if the obesity epidemic is related to the fact that far fewer people are smoking cigarettes these days.
…….

More specifically, in three of the past four Gallup smoking measurements (conducted between July 2007 and today), only 20% or 21% of American adults have said they smoked cigarettes in the past week. Compared with the average of 25% who said they smoked from 2000 through 2006, this suggests a recent decline in U.S. smoking. (For the full trend, see the table elsewhere in this report.)

The latest result comes from Gallup’s annual Consumption Habits survey, conducted July 10-13, 2008.

Self-reported adult smoking peaked in 1954 at 45%, and remained at 40% or more through the early 1970s, but has since gradually declined. The average rate of smoking across the decades fell from 40% in the 1970s to 32% in the 1980s, 26% in the 1990s, and 24% since 2000.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-smoking-rate-still-coming-down.aspx
——————-

Obesity was relatively stable in the U.S. between 1960 and 1980 when about 15% of people fell into the category, and then it increased dramatically in the ’80s and ’90s.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-01-13-obesity-rates_N.htm

[Look at the chart on this site — one could easily say there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates.]

[Arraya]

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/252.full

The cultures of societies are underestimated determinants of their population health and well-being. This is as true of modern Western culture, including its defining qualities of materialism and individualism, as it is of other cultures. This paper draws on evidence from a range of disciplines to argue that materialism and individualism are detrimental to health and well-being through their impacts on psychosocial factors such as personal control and social support

snip

The psychological and sociological literatures suggest powerful effects of culture on psychological well-being. Take materialism, by which I mean attaching importance or priority to money and possessions (and so broadly equate here with consumerism), and which underpins consumption-based economies. Many psychological studies have shown that materialism is associated, not with happiness, but with dissatisfaction, depression, anxiety, anger, isolation, and alienation.13,20 Human needs for security and safety, competence and self-worth, connectedness to others, and autonomy and authenticity are relatively unsatisfied when materialistic values predominate.

People for whom ‘extrinsic goals’ such as fame, fortune, and glamour are a priority in life experience more anxiety and depression and lower overall well-being than people oriented towards ‘intrinsic goals’ of close relationships, self-knowledge and personal growth, and contributing to the community.13,20 People with extrinsic goals tend to have shorter relationships with friends and lovers, and relationships characterized more by jealousy and less by trust and caring.

As materialism reaches increasingly beyond the acquisition of things to the enhancement of the person, the goal of marketing becomes not only to make us dissatisfied with what we have, but also with who we are. As it seeks evermore ways to colonize our consciousness, the market both fosters and exploits the restless, insatiable expectation that there must be more to life. In short, the more materialistic we are, the poorer our quality of life.

snip

Cultural factors, especially materialism or consumerism, are also implicated in adverse social trends such as growing obesity and inactivity, which, in turn, are linked to a wide range of physical health problems including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.41

[Arraya]

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/252.full

The cultures of societies are underestimated determinants of their population health and well-being. This is as true of modern Western culture, including its defining qualities of materialism and individualism, as it is of other cultures. This paper draws on evidence from a range of disciplines to argue that materialism and individualism are detrimental to health and well-being through their impacts on psychosocial factors such as personal control and social support

snip

The psychological and sociological literatures suggest powerful effects of culture on psychological well-being. Take materialism, by which I mean attaching importance or priority to money and possessions (and so broadly equate here with consumerism), and which underpins consumption-based economies. Many psychological studies have shown that materialism is associated, not with happiness, but with dissatisfaction, depression, anxiety, anger, isolation, and alienation.13,20 Human needs for security and safety, competence and self-worth, connectedness to others, and autonomy and authenticity are relatively unsatisfied when materialistic values predominate.

People for whom ‘extrinsic goals’ such as fame, fortune, and glamour are a priority in life experience more anxiety and depression and lower overall well-being than people oriented towards ‘intrinsic goals’ of close relationships, self-knowledge and personal growth, and contributing to the community.13,20 People with extrinsic goals tend to have shorter relationships with friends and lovers, and relationships characterized more by jealousy and less by trust and caring.

As materialism reaches increasingly beyond the acquisition of things to the enhancement of the person, the goal of marketing becomes not only to make us dissatisfied with what we have, but also with who we are. As it seeks evermore ways to colonize our consciousness, the market both fosters and exploits the restless, insatiable expectation that there must be more to life. In short, the more materialistic we are, the poorer our quality of life.

snip

Cultural factors, especially materialism or consumerism, are also implicated in adverse social trends such as growing obesity and inactivity, which, in turn, are linked to a wide range of physical health problems including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.41

[Arraya]

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/252.full

The cultures of societies are underestimated determinants of their population health and well-being. This is as true of modern Western culture, including its defining qualities of materialism and individualism, as it is of other cultures. This paper draws on evidence from a range of disciplines to argue that materialism and individualism are detrimental to health and well-being through their impacts on psychosocial factors such as personal control and social support

snip

The psychological and sociological literatures suggest powerful effects of culture on psychological well-being. Take materialism, by which I mean attaching importance or priority to money and possessions (and so broadly equate here with consumerism), and which underpins consumption-based economies. Many psychological studies have shown that materialism is associated, not with happiness, but with dissatisfaction, depression, anxiety, anger, isolation, and alienation.13,20 Human needs for security and safety, competence and self-worth, connectedness to others, and autonomy and authenticity are relatively unsatisfied when materialistic values predominate.

People for whom ‘extrinsic goals’ such as fame, fortune, and glamour are a priority in life experience more anxiety and depression and lower overall well-being than people oriented towards ‘intrinsic goals’ of close relationships, self-knowledge and personal growth, and contributing to the community.13,20 People with extrinsic goals tend to have shorter relationships with friends and lovers, and relationships characterized more by jealousy and less by trust and caring.

As materialism reaches increasingly beyond the acquisition of things to the enhancement of the person, the goal of marketing becomes not only to make us dissatisfied with what we have, but also with who we are. As it seeks evermore ways to colonize our consciousness, the market both fosters and exploits the restless, insatiable expectation that there must be more to life. In short, the more materialistic we are, the poorer our quality of life.

snip

Cultural factors, especially materialism or consumerism, are also implicated in adverse social trends such as growing obesity and inactivity, which, in turn, are linked to a wide range of physical health problems including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.41

[Arraya]

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/252.full

The cultures of societies are underestimated determinants of their population health and well-being. This is as true of modern Western culture, including its defining qualities of materialism and individualism, as it is of other cultures. This paper draws on evidence from a range of disciplines to argue that materialism and individualism are detrimental to health and well-being through their impacts on psychosocial factors such as personal control and social support

snip

The psychological and sociological literatures suggest powerful effects of culture on psychological well-being. Take materialism, by which I mean attaching importance or priority to money and possessions (and so broadly equate here with consumerism), and which underpins consumption-based economies. Many psychological studies have shown that materialism is associated, not with happiness, but with dissatisfaction, depression, anxiety, anger, isolation, and alienation.13,20 Human needs for security and safety, competence and self-worth, connectedness to others, and autonomy and authenticity are relatively unsatisfied when materialistic values predominate.

People for whom ‘extrinsic goals’ such as fame, fortune, and glamour are a priority in life experience more anxiety and depression and lower overall well-being than people oriented towards ‘intrinsic goals’ of close relationships, self-knowledge and personal growth, and contributing to the community.13,20 People with extrinsic goals tend to have shorter relationships with friends and lovers, and relationships characterized more by jealousy and less by trust and caring.

As materialism reaches increasingly beyond the acquisition of things to the enhancement of the person, the goal of marketing becomes not only to make us dissatisfied with what we have, but also with who we are. As it seeks evermore ways to colonize our consciousness, the market both fosters and exploits the restless, insatiable expectation that there must be more to life. In short, the more materialistic we are, the poorer our quality of life.

snip

Cultural factors, especially materialism or consumerism, are also implicated in adverse social trends such as growing obesity and inactivity, which, in turn, are linked to a wide range of physical health problems including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.41

[Author]

Posts