If someone has a terrible diet and doesn't exercise, it probably doesn't mean that they don't value their health, but that neuroses and overwhelming temptations have resulted in behaviour that has an adverse effect on their own wellbeing.
Conversely, they could spend a lot of money on fitness gadgets and instructors but never have the genuine motivation to get healthy and therefore fail despite the spending.
Does the same not apply to the things that individuals in society are collectively willing to spend money on? From this perspective you might describe Scandinavian countries as less neurotic, in that they willingly part with larger chunks of their income to go towards state-funded education and public services, and at the same time have a genuine conviction for the most part that this is healthy for society.
In my experience, society pressures many bad decisions on people out of social conformity or expectations. For instance, it’s pretty hard to live a genuinely healthy lifestyle in the US. Most jobs are sedentary. Diet options tend to be heavily animal based and fatty or otherwise nutrient poor and calorie rich. Everybody loves tailgating the car going the speed limit, etc. simply opting out of those things will probably result in better health outcomes.
what might also add to the difference is the focus on a healthy lifestyle and assistance on maintaining it for the less fortunate in society.
For instance, giving someone who is poor benefits so they can afford healthy food (or even better, taxing unhealthy foods and using that money to subsidize healthy food) will actually reduce healthcare costs down the line. A healthy lifestyle goes a long way in regards to sick preventions.
I wonder if physical activity also has to do with this? the U.S is a very car oriented nations, which means people walk less?
Our culture has acquired a lot of poor health habits that are seemingly inescapable, depending on your socioeconomic background:
* Most industrial food products are adulterated with dairy, sugar, or both
* Industrial food is also cheap and widespread. It takes dedication to avoid it or restrict its impact: At parties, the default non-alcoholic beverage is sugar water, and the default food is pizza
* "Sleep is for the weak" is an oft-repeated, sometimes praised meme
* Driving everywhere is expected in many cities. In some neighborhoods, "taking a walk" is looked upon with suspicion
* Most jobs now are low on physical intensity, while work hours and work-related stress remain high
* The most popular recreations involve "screen time"
* Fitness is polluted with snake oil, "bro science" superstition, and image-driven advice; exercise and training itself as a form of character-building is viewed derisively
* Diet advice is similarly polluted with snake oil and superstition. Commerce drives the market, leading to quick-fix bandaids that promise a temporary change followed by a return to the original (unhealthy) habit
Lots of people are stuck in this scenario, because it takes uncommon dedication and some financial freedom to break with the culture and build a lifestyle of your own design. When their health fails we all pay the price.
You don't need a participation medal in taking care of yourself. Right now you aren't earning more money or being directly rewarded by being healthy but this is a personal investment in your own future, why should anyone else show any form of recognition to a very personal life choice?
I do the same, I'm healthy, I go to the gym, I bike to work, my reward is getting older fit while I see people on my age group having more and more issues.
Yup, you might be more productive than someone that is unhealthy and taking sick days, etc., at the same time you don't use your paid time off (or have days discounted from your salary, such as here in Sweden) for when you got sick.
Lots of people consider feeling good to be valuable. Risk to health is part of the cost that people are willing to pay. Same for alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, skydiving.
But - costs from disease are not the only cost of being unhealthy!
For instance, healthy sleep makes people perform better at problem solving tasks and avoid depression. These effects are realized extremely quickly. Exercise has similar benefits.
How fast people can solve problems? Do they pick fights with their colleagues? These things hit the employer's bottom line too, whether or not you measure them.
You get what you measure. RAND needs to measure ROI better.
"People (myself included) are very limited and imperfect. The body requires a lot of maintenance and has limited energy. Money is really nice."
I used to really push myself with a million projects, coding and otherwise. But I was eating like crap and sitting down all day, and felt awful as a result. I can't live that sort of hyper-driven life if I'm going to exercise and eat right (which for me tends to mean time spent cooking).
People can get a good standard
of
living
by
exercising more but habit forming is hard and people
can be very short
termist and sheep like. Sheep like can be a positive thing too though (in a more health obsessed city you might encourage others).
The causation arguably goes in the other direction too. You can't make money if you're unhealthy at baseline. Nor can you as easily acquire more education or new skills.
what if they're actually much healthier than average (because of other personal choices)? and what about all the other bad decisions people do wrt. their health (which is what causes the vast majority of healthcare expenditures)?
This is not just about personal choices though but also about how society is structured. E.g. when I lived in the US I found it hard to be healthy other than going to the gym because there was little opportunity for natural exercise as all of society is built around car usage and consumption of fast-food.
In contrast when I lived in the Netherlands I found it VERY easy to be healthy. Life is organized around biking there: it is safe, easy and convenient to do. I probably biked around 1 hour every day, just from doing errands, meeting friends, going to university etc.
If I wanted to grab some food, there was usually a lot more healthy options available. E.g. even in tiny stores in the Netherlands they have great vegetarian options.
A lot of this is not stuff as an individual you can decide on. It depends on zoning laws, building of bike lanes and a multitude of policies and traditions you cannon easily change without collective action.
This. We have created a society where healthy eating, quality sleep and sufficient exercise are all considered luxuries rather than the default.
The cheapest food options are the unhealthiest. Hours of overtime and long commutes prevent sufficient sleep. And exercise is considered a leisure activity.
I don't find this very convincing.
The causal effect could also be the other way around: people whose mental health or well-being was better for other reasons (less stressed, wealthier) had more free time or resources to think about and plan healthier dietary choices and the budget to afford better food options.
Although the correlation may be due to a factor not accounted for, it is not overall health or welfare. As people already mentioned, sauna use is not exactly a luxury in Finland and people who use saunas commit to unhealthy behaviour too.
Aha, but that's not true. We're an in environment that exerts more real and perceived selective pressures than ever before, and influenced by orders of magnitude more people than we were even a hundred years ago.
Health and fitness, physically, are indicators that (A) somebody has time to invest in their wellbeing, (B) actively invests that time (C) is more likely to survive illness, injury, etc. (D) is more likely to be successful due to social implications halo effect, yadda yadda.
I'm not going to argue that there aren't maladaptive traits related to health and beauty that pop up all over the place: physical ones like eating disorders, behavioral ones like narcissism.
But, "train regularly -- three to five times a week -- plus eat a high-protein low-processed sugar diet, like celebrities do when they're training for roles" is nowhere close to unhealthy excess. A lot of people just find it very difficult to do.
Conversely, they could spend a lot of money on fitness gadgets and instructors but never have the genuine motivation to get healthy and therefore fail despite the spending.
Does the same not apply to the things that individuals in society are collectively willing to spend money on? From this perspective you might describe Scandinavian countries as less neurotic, in that they willingly part with larger chunks of their income to go towards state-funded education and public services, and at the same time have a genuine conviction for the most part that this is healthy for society.
reply