> I wonder why, when we talk about obesity, there is this tendency to use language that removes responsibility from the person, or at least move it from their mind to their "body", as if they were different entities.

I wonder why, when we talk about obesity, "responsibility" even enters the discussion. Obesity is a nationwide phenomenon, which means for "responsibility" to be the root cause, we have to posit that people as a whole are "just less responsible" than previous generations. It's ridiculous to posit that a basic biological process such as the ability to regulate food intake has changed so dramatically in just one generation.

"Personal responsibility" as the root cause of obesity also leads to questionable conclusions. 20% of black children are obese versus 14% of white children. Are black people just "less responsible" than white people? I think that conclusion requires a special level of justification for obvious reasons.

I'm just wondering why there seems to be more empathy towards people with eating habits problems, than when it comes to other addicts.

Maybe because they cause less damage to other people?

I don't think humans are less responsible, on a society scale obviously the problem is deeper. I'm just wondering why for other problems we blame people, but not for that one.

Maybe it has to do with addictions moving away from some common substances (alcohol, tobacco) and the food industry picking up the slack? And maybe in an evolving world, the number of addicts is bound to increase, as we adapt to the rise of new forms of pressure. Like the ever increasing lemon-squeeze dept system, or in-app purchases??

> I'm just wondering why there seems to be more empathy towards people with eating habits problems, than when it comes to other addicts.

Because 75% of the country doesn't have a moderate to severe coke addiction. "Addiction" is what we call behavior that falls outside the "normal range" on the bell curve. What the majority of people do is by definition "normal" and so when you have a problem that afflicts the majority of the population, the problem is considered structural rather than aberrational.

> "Addiction" is what we call behavior that falls outside the "normal range" on the bell curve.

I don't think the definition of addiction has to do with how many people are addicted. Seems uncontroversial to me that the majority of the population in the early part of the 20th century were addicted to tobacco smoking, for example.

Google brings up this definition of addiction: "physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects." How widespread it is doesn't enter into it.

That may be factually true. But only now that everyone has stopped smoking do we actually talk about "smoking addiction." Back when everyone did it, it wasn't treated as an addiction with us blaming individual smokers for smoking. It was treated as a public health problem, and ultimately the blame was laid at the feet of the tobacco industry.

I think that was more of a linguistic change than anything. If the word "addiction" had been commonplace during the lead up to Prohibition, I bet you that the prohibitionist movement would have constantly used the term "alcohol addiction", despite alcohol use being ubiquitous. Nowadays, for example, you see articles talking about "caffeine addiction", despite the fact that the majority of the population drinks coffee.

I think you're absolutely right that "addiction" has a negative connotation, and all things considered most people are less likely to pass judgment on things that the majority does. But people do criticize popular things all the time too.

> But only now that everyone has stopped smoking do we actually talk about "smoking addiction."

Er, no, we started talking about nicotine addiction long before that.

> Back when everyone did it, it wasn't treated as an addiction with us blaming individual smokers for smoking.

Actually, treating it as an addiction has been exactly the opposite of "blaming individual smokers for smoking" -- while certainly the fact that it has become rarer has coincided with an increase in stigmatization (there's a two-way causal relationship there, in a positive feedback loop), that's separate entirely from treating it as an addiction (that's treating it as something people don't like around them.)

Treating it as an addiction is providing medical and counseling support for people to deal with the addiction, and placing blame on the tobacco companies for deceptively and knowingly marketing an addictive substance for many years.

> It was treated as a public health problem, and ultimately the blame was laid at the feet of the tobacco industry.

You seem to use "as an addiction" and "as a public health problem" as if they were opposites, which is odd, because actual addiction is (and is treated as) a fairly significant public health problems.

By that definition we are addicted to water, oxygen, and calories.

> "Addiction" is what we call behavior that falls outside the "normal range" on the bell curve.

I've never seen a definition of addiction that uses "most people don't do it".

Addiction tends to require:

i) Tolerance

ii) Pre-occupation

iii) Seeking

iv) Continuing when you know it's harmful.

Obesity tends to lack the tolerance and the seeking behaviours.

Everybody eats food. They die if they don't.

Heroin is not a required nutrient.

I have a coworker with a problem maintaining insulin hormone levels. He needs to work harder, pull himself up by his bootstraps like the rest of us, and stop blaming his body. He needs to recognize the need to change, IV insulin addiction is no joke. I can just wave my hand and say he needs to change his diet or lifestyle or something and it'll all go away and he won't need those nasty needles anymore.

Its pretty much the same isituation with people having leptin level problems, or dopamine and serotonin level problems for that matter. Or epinephrine levels. Or testosterone/estrogen balance level problems. Or cholesterol problems. In fact this is quite a long list...

> I wonder why...

My guess is -- correct me if I'm wrong -- it's because you're not a doctor or researcher who works in any of these areas (nutrition, obesity, addiction), and haven't read much research on the intersection of these topics.

> I think obese people fit the definition of addicts.

I'm curious how you have arrived at this conclusion.

You'd probably be surprised how much time I've spent learning about those subjects, from many different sources.

I'm an engineer. I want to understand stuff. Obesity is a perspective that I thin can give a ton of insight about human nature, society, evolution, progress, globalization, advertisement, medias, etc.

As for the definition, feel free to pull the definition from anywhere and see if there are any contradictions when applied to obese people.

http://www.asam.org/quality-practice/definition-of-addiction

Some additional reading, from a friend: https://medium.com/@paulgrewal/is-there-really-no-hope-for-t...

This attitude is tiresome for precisely the reasons outlined in the article. That one guy in the article has to consume 800 calories a day fewer than a normal person his size to maintain his weight which likely means dealing with constant hunger. It's not exactly surprising that few people manage to succeed under those circumstances.

I also, frankly, think the opposite is true -- most material about obesity spends a lot of time vilifying fat people.

I don't think that's how hunger works. Do you think hunger is triggered by an absolute number?

Isn't hunger the sensation you feel when your body starts dipping into your fat reserves because the content of your stomach / blood is not sufficient?

No... I said no such thing. However, if you lose weight you will generally feel hungry until you start eating at levels that would restore your weight, as detailed in the linked article and also this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/opinion/diet-advice-that-i...

> That one guy in the article has to consume 800 calories a day fewer than a normal person his size to maintain his weight which likely means dealing with constant hunger.

And the recovering alcoholic has to consume more alcohol than the average person, at first, to make it through their days. Same effects, different substance.

Alcoholics don't have to keep drinking a beer or two a day to live; the analogy is obviously flawed. Also, this study, it says, took place years after the weight loss.

> I think obese people fit the definition of addicts.

Most, in fact, do not.

> Most of the time, other addictions are fought by pushing awareness on the person, forcing them to recognize they have a problem and that they need to change.

That's not particularly true. Some addictions are managed through medical interventions, and those that are addressed through counseling usually start with the addict coming to the realization and seeking treatment, not "pushing awareness" on the addict.

> I don't hear much "you were born this way" or "that's just what your body wants" for other drugs.

Actually, recognition that problems with substance use (whether or not they end up in actual addiction) often originate in clumsy attempts at self-medicating real conditions and that finding alternate means of addressing those underlying conditions is important in enabling people to manage substance use problems is, as I understand it, quite important in modern substance use disorder treatment.

> Is it because other drugs are always viewed negatively, whereas food is a pillar of life under normal circumstances?

Plenty of drugs to which one can be addicted are not "always viewed negatively". That's really only true (and only loosely in that case) of illegal drugs, which overlap with potentially addictive drugs.

It seems like the piece actually takes away some of the responsibility of the person. If your resting metabolism burns 400 calories per day less, you can eat exactly the same as someone else and slowly gain a lot of weight. I really don't think there is anyone to blame in that case.

That doesn't explain it though, as how much you weight and how happy you are with it should influence how you eat.

Obviously a kid and an adult, a sedentary female and an international athletes have different needs.

When you have tooth problems, you go through a lot to have it fixed. When your hair looks bad you get a haircut.

Some obese people change their lifestyle and lose that weight. So what about those who can't? Is it too hard because of whatever predisposition (or, as other comments point out, having a huge industry putting tasty things in front of them), or do they just feel better being big?

> how much you weight and how happy you are with it should influence how you eat.

I'm pretty sure constant hunger would trump those considerations for you and most people.

I've experimented quite a bit with how I eat, and gone through extended periods of fasting. To me, the "real" hunger, the debilitating one, only lasts so long. It feels like once your body is entirely relying on itself for food, it just goes away.

The "other" hunger seems to come with boredom or other emotional variations though.

Unfortunately I have never done those thing more than a couple weeks at a time, but I can talk about the opposite. My "natural" weight (where I end up if I only eat when I'm hungry) is too low, and even if I'm super lean at that weight I don't have enough muscle, and end up having back / knee problems.

I have to pay attention every day to eat a little bit more than I feel like. It is a big effort, and sometimes I'm just not up to it, but I'm not sure how it compares to dealing with hunger.

I think a big difference with obesity is that the obese may not exhibit any external behavioral difference. That is an obese person may eat the same amount of food (and same foods) as a non-obese person.

Being obese is probably more like not being good at math, than a heroine addiction. People who aren't good at math could probably use more work at math. Yet, just because they read the same books as Terrence Tao -- don't expect the same result.

>I wonder why, when we talk about obesity, there is this tendency to use language that removes responsibility from the person

Whether they are right or wrong, there is a significant community dedicated to promoting the view that personal responsibility has nothing to do with weight gain/loss.