[adventured]

Ah, the radical majority of Americans can't control their likelihood of getting diabetes? That's obviously false, easily proven by countless other nations that don't have the same problems the US does with diabetes (or by going back in time a few decades, when Americans also did not).

Let's you and I both smoke six packs of cigarettes per day for 20 years as an experiment and see whether we can control getting lung cancer and or emphysema to a very large degree.

Is it complete control? No, it's very near that.

Obesity? (which causes numerous other diseases) Yep, we can control that too.

[TeMPOraL]

If you mean control as in choice between "little less likely" and "little more likely" then yes, everyone can control diabetes and obesity. But in fact, you can control your risk of dying in a terror attack much more than risk of getting diabetes! Just never visit big malls, never attend mass events, never use public transport. Better yet, move to a village far away from city and always travel by your car. There, you've reduced your risk of dying in a terror attack to pretty much zero.

> Is it complete control? No, it's very near that.

It's definitely nowhere near that, especially in terms of things like diabetes (partially genetically determined) or heart attacks. You'd have to go to absurd lengths to control those near-completely. For instance, we know of one good way of controlling obesity, and that is to lock everyone in Nazi-style death camps. You won't get obese if you're fed 1500 kcal a day. You also won't be very happy.

The widespread belief that we have so much personal control over those diseases is probably one of the biggest reasons why they haven't been solved yet.

[eagsalazar2]

Man your last comment blows my mind. The idea that obesity is a disease people are afflicted by and is not, largely, a function of their eating choices, that widespread delusion (thankfully fading), is actually why obesity and diabetes are so widespread.

I personally know several obese people with diabetes who still regularly drink coke (not diet! 40g of sugar per can!) and their doctor has never told them to stop because they've been told it is genetics and their only option is to cut fat intake which does not work.

Everyone dies of something one day but the number of people in the US who die young of heart disease or suffer from diabetes is completely absurd and definitely (for the most part) avoidable.

[TeMPOraL]

I think you're putting way too much faith in "free will".

The idea isn't that obesity is 100% caused by bacteria, or genes, or unicorns. Of course it's a function of your eating choices - you can choose not to eat and you won't die a fat man. The problem is that people arguing obesity is "just a choice" and overweight people are "just lazy" are missing the point that some "choices" aren't practical. If obesity was "just a choice", we wouldn't have this problem after decades of massive shaming of overweight people and massive push for fitness and everything-fit. Instead, the more we shame people for being obese, the more population stays obese. Interesting, isn't it?

Anyway, Yvain discusses this and related topics better than I ever could:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_que...

Also:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/10/society-is-fixed-biolog...

[bko]

> If obesity was "just a choice", we wouldn't have this problem after decades of massive shaming of overweight people and massive push for fitness and everything-fit. Instead, the more we shame people for being obese, the more population stays obese. Interesting, isn't it?

Is it inconceivable that some people just value the pleasure they get from eating more than that of adding a few years to the end of their lives? They're not necessarily lazy or stupid, they just may have different values that you. You can ask someone why they're obese and due to societal pressures they may tell you a story about how they can't stop or its genetics, but actions speak louder than words.

Most people have behaviors that is not beneficial to their health (drinking, living in a polluted city, not exercising the optimal amount). Longevity isn't the point of life.

[simplify]

After a certain point, it isn't a question of valuing one thing over another, but instead a question of addiction. People who are addicted to cigarettes smoke them because their body feels the need to. Once hooked, it's _very_ difficult to force yourself to stop.

[StavrosK]

The problem is clearly one of lack of self-control, as with drugs and everything else. The question is why we don't treat obese people as addicts, and try to mitigate easy access to food. If you're obese and your pantry is always full of food, how much weight do you think you're going to lose?

[richmarr]

> The problem is clearly one of lack of self-control...

I'm not aware of enough evidence to say that it's clearly anything... if you have references on this I'd be keen to hear them.

Short of some actual studies in this area, I'm skeptical.

Baumeister's work on ego depletion showed that self-control isn't a constant trait, it varies with other factors, so to show that self-control was the problem you'd have to show that there are no more hidden variables.

[StavrosK]

"Clearly" may have been too strong a word, but what I meant was that lack of self-control is a large component in addiction and we're failing to account for it adequately in obesity.

[TeMPOraL]

Which, to circle back to my original comment in this subthread, only shows that indeed people only have an illusion they can, personally for themselves, control (this particular item of) items on the CDC list. "Lack of self-control" as a widespread problem is exactly that.

[saiya-jin]

guys, are you aware there are 2 types of diabetes, to simplify it one is genetic and you can get it even if you are doing marathons regularly and have a healthy life, and the other is self-caused by bad eating/lifestyle habits? With first you are screwed, with second you can get out of it if you go into very strict diet, probably for rest of your life.