All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 6, 2013 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
31:46
2318 Toxic America: Obesity, Depression and Domestication

Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, on why we are all getting so fat.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Moeller from Freedom Aid Radio.
This is a presentation on obesity entitled Toxic America, Domestication and Obesity.
I hope you find it interesting.
The usual caveats, I'm just a guy on the internet, so please don't take anything I say with any medical or nutritional seriousness, but I hope to present the data And make a case as to why we're having such problems with our waistlines.
So, in particular among the young, but in all sectors of society throughout the West, but particularly in America, we have, well, a significant problem in people becoming fatter.
Here's a graph from 1963 to 2003, 2004, of child and adolescents being overweight, as you can see, from less than 5% to almost 20% in some categories.
Well, that's fourfold.
That's not good.
Growth of obesity in different BMI categories.
If you take 1986 as 100, then by 2000 we've gone up to 600.
That really is quite astonishing in such a short period of time.
High fructose corn syrup.
One of the possible government-introduced and supported and subsidized devils in the mix.
This is something which we'll talk about a little more in the presentation, but you can see as We consume more high fructose corn syrup.
We get bigger.
And, I know, correlation is not causation, but we'll talk a little bit more about this.
Percentage of children with a body mass index of 30 or higher, 7% and 5% to 15.3% and 15.5% from ages 6 to 11 to 12 to 19.
That was just in 20, 25 years.
From 1974 to 2004, going from 4 to 6 to 18, 19 years.
Age group 2 to 5, 6 to 11, and 12 to 19.
This is not just an American problem, though America number one leads the pack.
Here we can see England, Canada, Spain, Austria, Australia, France, Italy, and Korea all heading upwards.
This really is a huge medical epidemic with massive costs in terms of dollars and quality of life and even down to things like sperm count.
It's not good.
In the 60s and 70s, only 13% of U.S. adults, 5-7% of U.S. children were obese.
Now it's 17% of children, 32% of adult males, and 36% of adult females are obese.
In particular communities, it's absolutely catastrophic.
I mean, if you're an African-American woman in the United States, you have a 50% chance of being diagnosed with diabetes over the course of your life.
Following the great Ella Fitzgerald into a wheelchair, in total the number of obese American adults has more than doubled in the past 30 years to about 78 million.
Whenever you get a change of this magnitude, it's really, really important to look at the money supply, at regulations, at government, at subsidies.
Anything which changes something to this broad a level, you have to look at the regulatory framework because it's the only thing that can affect things so greatly.
It's not like there's been a change in genetics.
It's not like there's been a change in humans' capacity for willpower over just a decade or two.
So let's look at the economics.
I remember years ago, this is before I was a vegetarian, You know, somebody said to me, oh, well, take seven pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat.
So, you know, my analytical brain said, well, wait a second, then why isn't meat at least seven times more expensive than grain?
Aha!
Enter the coercive power of the state.
Federal subsidies for food production from 1995 to 2005.
Vegetables and fruits got the princely sum of 0.37% of subsidies.
Nuts and legumes, 1.91%.
Sugar, oil, starch, and alcohol...
Or, as we call it, a good party.
10.69% of grains, got 13.23% of federal subsidies.
Meat and dairy.
73.8%.
And this is why it's so cheap to buy meat.
This is why meat is destructive, of course, to animals, to the environment.
I know the paleo people are going to write to me, but I'm having a great time as a vegetarian.
Federal nutrition requirements are kind of inverted, right?
So we can look at those over here, but a massive amount of money goes to subsidizing meat and dairy production, and that has really distorted the amount of calories that we get and their source.
U.S. agricultural subsidies 1995 to 2010, so expanded by five years.
Corn has got the most.
Corn is, of course, the basis of high fructose corn syrup.
And ethanol and all that kind of stuff.
So corn gets a massive amount of subsidies.
This, of course, has a disastrous impact on the third world.
We subsidize our agriculture up here.
Then the farmers go and dump all of their products on the third world, thus destroying the capacity for local farmers in the third world to make a living.
And this is, of course, just horrible for the third world.
So good stuff gets more expensive and bad stuff gets cheaper.
Now, I know in nutrition there's no good and bad and so on, but, you know, in general.
So, things like cookies and all of that kind of stuff is getting cheaper.
Sodas are getting cheaper and all that, but, you know, fresh fruits, vegetables and so on are getting more expensive.
All the stuff that's in the center, the soft, noogity, creamy, doughy muffin top middle of the supermarket is getting cheaper.
All the stuff around the outside that helps you live longer gets more expensive, right?
And it's almost doubled in real terms, some of the stuff that's good for you, fresh fruits, fruits and vegetables and so on.
And this is, of course, a result of subsidies and controls and taxes and tariffs and all that kind of stuff.
Cost of fruits and veggies increased by 118% from 85 to 2000.
The cost of fats and oils increased by only 35% during this period.
While the costs of sugars and fats have become cheaper, healthier options like fruits and vegetables become more expensive, rising nearly 40% over the past 20 years.
Corn and soybean costs decreased 32 and 21% respectively since the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill.
According to a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a dollar could purchase 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of soda, but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh fruit.
The ability of fast food restaurants to put hamburgers on the 99-cent value menu also links to cheap commodities.
These foods, which are artificially low in cost, are used as feed grains by the meat industry as a way to rid the system of overproduced, subsidized crops.
So you produce too much stuff and you turn it into food for cows, which makes the price of delivering cow innards cheaper.
Ah, head cheese.
60% of corn and 47% of soybeans grown in the U.S. are used to produce grain feed for livestock and methane to make Al Gore's head explode.
Soda is cheap and staying cheap.
The price of carbonated drinks in the U.S. has crept up, but more slowly than overall prices.
So it's much more expensive relative to look at something like fruits and vegetables.
Carbonated drinks from 82 to 2010 have just gone up a tiny bit, but fresh fruits and vegetables have gone up 200 percent, consumer price index 100 percent, and carbonated drinks are way lower.
So these are economic things, and there's reasons for that which we'll get into.
Subsidized food favors the expansion of fast food.
Change in food prices, 1985 to 2000.
Fruits and veggies went up the most.
Fresh fruit and vegetables went up the most.
Cereal and bakery went up.
And red meats, poultry, sugar and sweets, fats and oils and soft drinks all declined significantly, which people respond to incentive, basic principle of economics.
U.S. consumption of sugars and fats, deteriorating diet from 1970 to 2000.
You can see that they go up pounds per capita per year with a 50 base to 250, going up quite considerably.
And this is not because everybody became a triathlete.
Bad food in the hands of kids.
Adolescent milk consumption between 65 and 96 decreased by 36%.
Soft drink consumption increased by 287% in boys and 224%.
In girls, between 1985 and 2010, the price of beverages sweetened with high fructose corn syrup dropped 24% by 2006.
American children consumed an extra 130 calories a day from these beverages.
One-third of teenage boys drink at least three cans of soda a day.
Is it diet soda?
Well, the price of fresh fruits and vegetables in this time period rose 39%.
And so from 1980 to 2010, obesity rate of 6 to 11-year-olds went from 6.5% to 2008 and tripled to 19.6%.
Toddlers and preschools, obesity levels have risen from 5% to 12.4%.
As we've talked about in other presentations, status policies, government policies have directly driven the growth and rise of single-parent households.
Children of single-parent households are significantly more overweight than children of dual-parent households.
The total calorie and saturated fatty acid intakes are higher among the children of single-parent households than dual parents.
Children who lived with significant, sorry, lived with single mothers were significantly more likely to develop obesity in a six-year follow-up study compared to those with married parents.
And of course, 40 years ago, only about 11% of children lived in single-parent homes.
Divorce has been shown to significantly increase TV viewing time, which is just astounding.
I mean, we have this cold-ass electric eye raising our kids for the most part.
So from 11% of kids 40 years ago in a single-parent home in 2009, 40% of American children were born to single parents.
More than 50% of children will live sometime in their childhood with only a single parent, while 25 end up living with one biological parent and a step-parent, which is highly correlated with potential for abuse.
So, fat and family.
Findings indicate an unhealthy BMI gain and an increased risk of becoming overweight or obese among children living with a mother who recently dissolved a union or had been living without a partner for at least two years, compared with those in stable married parent families.
The reasons why, I mean, open to conjecture, single parents have less time, they tend to park their kids in front of the TV, not because they're bad people, it's just the reality of time constraints.
And they tend to have less conflicts with their kids because they're tired and stressed.
They have conflicts with their kids saying, eat this, don't eat that.
Children with single mothers who entered a new union had significantly healthier BMI trajectories than those whose mothers remained single or who recently became single.
So two-parent families are very important for children's healthy physical development and that single mothers may need additional support to better manage children's BMI. Toxic America, as a friend of mine once said, she was flying to the south and she said, I could feel the people getting heavier as we went south.
You pass the borders and the pounds attack you like jackals.
A group of Indians from Mexico gained nearly 10 pounds within five weeks of adopting the typical American diet.
Young Asians from China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and Korea gained five pounds soon after arriving in the U.S. About 46% of adults added sugar intake comes from sugary drinks, which basically means high-fructose corn syrup drinks.
90% of parents who have obese children do not seek medical help.
Between 1987 and 2010, Americans diagnosed with diabetes almost tripled to 20.9 million.
Don't believe that the population tripled.
In 2010, almost 63% of Americans are overweight or obese, and 40% of every dollar spent on food is spent on food prepared outside the home.
And this, again, coincides with the rise of single-parent families that just don't have enough time to go from scratch.
And children consume over 7.5 hours of media every day.
And by that, I think they watch this presentation about seven and a half times every day.
Listen up, kids.
It's for your own good.
Let's look at what's happened to portions.
This is to some degree as a result of subsidies.
But in 1983, a bagel was 3 inches.
In 2003, it was 6 inches.
It went from 140 calories to 350 calories.
A muffin in 1984 was 1.5 ounces, 210 calories.
It's now gone up 3.3 times to 5 ounces and 500 calories.
A muffin is just cake.
It's nice, but it's just cake.
1983, 2.4 ounces of fries, 210 calories.
2003 went to 6.9 ounces of fries, or 610 calories.
Chocolate chip cookie, 1.5 inches in 1984, 55 calories.
It went up almost two and a half times in 2004 to three and a half inches, 275 calories.
I mean, were you all hobbits in 1983?
Trends in portions, sizes in children's foods from age 2 to 18 in calories, 94 to 98.
Hamburgers went from 379 to 0306 to 418 calories.
Pizzas 368 to 446.
Mexican or fast food went from 450 to 512.
And you get Mexican food in Mexico.
It's not this heart-stopping death machine that you get in fast food Mexican in the United States.
High fructose corn syrup eruption in the U.S., So corn and soybeans are used to make a wide variety of processed foods, many in the form of sugars and fats, such as high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated vegetable oil.
Not just good for honeymoons.
The consumption of HFCS increased by 1,000% between 1970 and 1990, far exceeding the changes in intake of any other food or food group.
I mean, there was an anti-fat revolution, so they took the fat out and replaced it with this creepy Dracula sugar stuff.
High-fructose corn syrup now represents more than 40% of caloric sweeteners added to food and beverages and is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the United States.
So when you're getting more soft drinks, you're getting more of this stuff.
It also started replacing sugar around 1980 because it's cheaper.
It's almost half the price of sugar for reasons that are not exactly market-driven.
There are sugar tariffs, which obviously raise the price of sugar enormously.
It cost U.S. citizens $2.5 billion in 2009 alone.
This doesn't count the health costs of switching from sugar to high fructose corn syrup.
So Joe Vittoria, chief executive of Pez Candy, Inc., popped his head out of a tube to say, I am now paying between 55 and 58 cents a pound for refined sugar.
Pretty amazing when you look at the pricing in Europe at approximately 40 to 50 percent less.
These are the wholesale sugar prices in the world versus the US. And again, this is because the sugar growers have a very powerful lobby in Congress and enjoy significant tariffs and protection from foreign competition.
So, okay, why is high-fructose corn syrup considered bad compared to sugar?
So, fructose, a sweetener found in many food labels, may contribute to weight gain and obesity because it has minimal effect on brain regions that control appetite, says a study by Yale University.
So, of course, the brain requires glucose as a fuel.
Schoen said, this is the researcher, when there isn't enough in the body, it turns on cells to try and get a person to eat more.
Once glucose levels rise, the brain turns those cells off.
Fructose doesn't have the ability to operate that off switch.
So if you eat something with sugar or glucose, then you get full.
But if you eat this high fructose corn syrup, your brain doesn't really recognize it as something that fills you up.
And so this is why you're kind of always hungry, always want more, and never quite feel satiated.
This is a biological basis.
We're really not designed to eat this stuff.
In a study conducted by University of California researchers, 16 volunteers were given a strictly controlled diet including very high levels of fructose.
Another group was given the same diet but with high levels of glucose, regular sugar, replacing the fructose.
Over 10 weeks, the volunteers that were given fructose produced new fat cells around their heart, liver, and other digestive organs.
They also showed signs of food processing abnormalities linked to diabetes and heart disease.
The group of volunteers who are on the same diet, but with glucose sugar replacing fructose, did not have these problems.
So you subsidize corn, you get high fructose corn syrup, you raise tariffs on sugar, and you block that off, and violence produces all this terrible stuff.
Another study found that when people were given high fructose corn syrup sweetened beverages, they gained significantly more weight than when they consumed the sugar in the form of jelly beans.
In a study by Princeton researchers last year, psychology professor Bart Hobel noticed a disturbing trend in HFCS consumption.
Quote, when rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese, every single one across the board.
Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this.
They don't all gain the same weight.
So, I mean, look for this stuff on the label.
It seems to, again, one can't give anyone any nutrition advice, but this is what the data seems.
It seems to be pretty nasty stuff.
So when lab rats eat rat food, they put on weight normally.
But when they eat processed food from a supermarket, they balloon out in a matter of days.
Their appetite for sugary foods was insatiable.
They just carried on eating.
The gut, like your belly, is not just an inert set of organs.
It's like a second brain.
It's a complex nervous system.
And when you condition this second brain, this second nervous system, to wanting more sugar, it keeps sending you back more and more messages to get more and more sugar.
It's hard to fight those things.
So, as high fructose consumption increases, traditional sugar decreases, and this again is an important correlation.
This is all related significantly to the growth in obesity.
You can see this high fructose corn syrup really came in in the 70s, mid-70s, and spiked up.
This is just up to 2002.
And this coincided with the rise in obesity.
Alright, so let's look at mental health.
Okay, so depression is another one of these epidemics, and I'd recommend Robert Whitaker's book.
He's been on this show, Anatomy of an Epidemic.
Ten times more people suffer from major depression now than in 1945.
Antidepressant prescribing has risen nearly 400% since 1988.
More than one in ten of Americans over the age of 12 now takes an antidepressant.
Yet two-thirds of those with severe symptoms of depression do not take antidepressants at all.
Nearly 1 in 10 Americans suffers from a clinical depression, and 3% have major depression.
CDC marked an uptick in rates of the mood disorder.
A similar study conducted in 2001 to 2002 reported 6.6% of the population as depressed.
So...
The argument for this I would put forward is that we don't do well in captivity.
We are the great white sharks of the modern state.
We are not penguins.
We are not dolphins.
We don't do well in captivity.
And as government power grows and restrictions grow and people's dreams and futures are crushed by the increasing weight of regulation and taxation, we get kind of depressed.
So as the cage gets smaller, the bear gets depressed.
One in four American women are on psych meds.
And just for the record, I personally think that they're dangerous and medically useless.
But again, it's just my opinion.
The rate of antidepressant use in the U.S. increased nearly four, 100% over the last two decades, 11% of Americans over the age of 12, as we said.
Take an antidepressant with about 14% taking the medication for more than 10 years.
Psychiatrists will sell it to you like, ooh, there's a brain imbalance and a chemical imbalance, and it's like insulin for diabetes.
And you can, of course, ask them what the medical test is for this brain imbalance.
It is the most frequently used medication, antidepressants, between the ages of 18 and 44 by people.
Women are two and a half times more likely to take antidepressant medication, while 23% of women ages 40 to 59 take the antidepressants more than in any other age or sex group.
8% of people ages 12 and over with no current symptoms of depression took antidepressant medication.
So we've got a huge increase in antidepressant use and 25% of the population who use antidepressants gain weight.
When enough serotonin is made, the happy joy juice in your brain, eating stops.
So drugs such as the SSRIs may prevent the activity of the class of serotonin that enhances satiety.
So again, like high fructose cancer, these antidepressants contribute to possibly never helping you to feel full.
The explosion in the rate of obesity in the U.S. occurred after the mid-1970s when the introduction of antidepressants and mood stabilizers became widely used.
Obesity increased 100% in men and 50% in women.
Antidepressant sales have risen 800% or did rise 800% from 1995 to 2005.
40% of the American public has taken an antidepressant.
This does not include antipsychotics, anti-anxiety drugs like sleeping pills and so on.
Drugged Americans are in the tens of millions.
This contributes to obesity along with a lot of other things.
All antidepressants slow the metabolism.
And inhibit specific enzymes in the liver that allow the drug to function correctly.
Many antidepressants are also known to increase appetite and the craving of carbohydrates.
Additionally, many antidepressants are also shown to cause hormonal changes, which can lead to weight gain.
Long-term use of antidepressants, at least moderate daily doses, is associated with an increased risk of diabetes.
Association is observed for both tricyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the SSRIs.
Patients undergoing bypass surgery would increase risk for death and complication if they took antidepressants.
So depression is correlated with obesity and depression plus antidepressants is significantly correlated.
Obesity increases the risk of depression in initially non-depressed individuals by 55%.
Mood disorders generally and major depression in particular increase the risk of future obesity more than two-fold.
Depressed males had a six-fold increased risk for obesity.
One study found an overall odds ratio of 1.18, confirming that depression is associated with an 18% increased risk of being obese.
Another found that in a sample of young adults during a 15-year period, those who started out reporting high levels of depression gained weight at a faster rate than others in the study.
And this is all very significant.
The government, of course, subsidizes these SSRIs.
They are prescribed through psychiatry and other doctors, and they're usually subsidized.
And, of course, you get them if you're poor through Medicare and Medicaid, and this is not a market phenomenon.
So why my people have become so depressed in the U.S.? Well, it's a huge decrease in economic freedom.
This is very significant.
This is your life.
This is your dreams.
This is your entrepreneurship.
This is moving ahead in the world.
This is getting ahead in the world.
This is feeling like you have control over your own destiny.
This is being able to provide for your family.
This is being able to plan for your old age.
The chaos of economic uncertainty is paralyzing for many people.
According to the Cato Institute's latest Economic Freedom of the World report, Which incorporates more than 40 objective components related to each country's government size, property, freedom, monetary policy, trade policy, and regulatory climate.
The U.S. has seen its economic freedom plunge, quote, precipitously a lot in recent years.
From ranking third in 1980, America slipped to number eight in 2005, and as of 2010, the latest year for which we have data, the U.S. has fallen all the way to number 18 in economic freedom.
When you are getting more and more heavily in debt, you have, of course, significant problems with staying happy.
So total consumer debt in the U.S. has risen by 1,700% since 1971.
In 1983, the bottom 95% of all income earners had 62 cents of debt for every dollar that they earned.
By 2007, that figure went to 1.48%.
I mean, people are drowning.
In the 1970s, about 1 out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps.
Now, about 1 out of every 6.5 Americans is on food stamps.
Food stamps is correlated to obesity as well, which we'll get to.
To get the same purchasing power that you got out of a $20 bill back in 1970, you'd have to have more than $116 today.
And if we look at the monetary base from 1917 to 2009, from the beginning of the introduction to the Fed, this drives, of course, this is inflation.
The inflation of the money supply is inflation, and it drives inflation in prices.
And so this is a hidden tax.
And not just a hidden tax, and particularly on those who are poor on fixed incomes, it's a hidden tax on entrepreneurship and opportunity and growth, because when this kind of crazy money printing is going on, the regime uncertainty is...
It's paralyzing for most businesses.
So this rises, I think, quite a bit when you look at...
If you look in the 70s, it starts to rise.
And that's when you see depression and so on start to rise.
And obesity.
This is some of the horrible kinds of quantitative easing.
This is the amount of money that's printed.
This is just astounding, the amount of money that's being printed and what that does to people's sense of a future and of possibility.
I mean, how predictable do you feel the economy is going to be in two, three, or five years?
What impact does that have on your capacity to plan, to train, to take risks, to start companies, to improve your skills, to feel secure?
It's horrible.
Each one of these squares is $100 million worth of stacked $100 bells.
This is how much per month has been pumped into the economy.
And of course, unemployment and depression.
Unemployment is a government program which results from jigging with money supply and interest rates.
According to a recent study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, unemployment is a major risk factor for depression, even in people without previous vulnerability.
A study in Lithuania had results which indicated that depression is a severe problem in the unemployed population and that it's more elevated among the long-term unemployed.
About 6% of people with jobs reported symptoms of depression compared with 21% of unemployed people.
It's almost four times.
In the 1950s, 85% of all working-age men had a job, much more so in the private sector because the government was less than a fifth of the size that it is now.
Now it's below 65% of people have a job, and not having a job, not having a productive value to add to society, I believe, would be associated with depression.
The civilian employment population ratio has, you know, been going up and down.
It increased, of course, in the 80s up until the early mid-2000 fires now.
It's dropped precipitously.
It's unable to regain itself.
And this, of course, would be associated with increases in problems, depression, medication, and so on.
Grocers have told Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science and the Public Interest that around 6% or $4 billion a year of SNAP benefits goes towards buying sodas.
A study published last August linked these two striking statistics.
People never receiving food stamps had lower rates of obesity than those who had been on them at some point in their lives, even after accounting for differences in socioeconomic status.
You get junk money, you buy junk food.
Participants in the U.S. food stamp program have, on average, a body mass index more than one point higher than non-users.
This difference was especially high for women.
Those buying food stamps carried around an average of almost six pounds more in body weight.
And this came from an analysis of almost 4,000 enrollees in the federal food stamp program and compared with 6,000 people not using food stamps.
And they controlled for variables of race and other socioeconomic factors.
The number of people on food stamps has grown in a fashion that is similar to the rate of obesity.
The food stamp boom, average annual participation in the federal SNAP program, 1969 to 2011, goes from 1, 2, 3 million to 45 million plus.
It's gone even higher than that since.
This is, of course, just catastrophic if food stamps are associated with obesity, growth in food stamps, growth in obesity, etc.
Again, this is all government stuff.
This is not helpful charity.
This is sending people checks.
Helpful charity is where you actually roll up your sleeves and get involved in people's lives so that you can distinguish the people who really need charity because some bad stuff accidentally happened to them.
You know, if some guy drove over my foot and I can't walk, help me, help me, help me, as opposed to people who just blew all their money at the track and so on and You want to help people who are the deserving poor, and you don't want to enable people who are the undeserving poor.
You want to find other ways to get them help other than giving them money, which just contributes to their bad habits.
The government can't do that.
The government is too anonymous.
Charity needs to be local.
The moment you centralize it, particularly at a federal level, you create catastrophes where you enable and pollute the poor's worst habits and don't help them, which is why government charity results in a permanent underclass.
So food stamp use on the rise, average participants in millions, total spending in billions from almost nothing in 1970 to 53.6 billion in 2009.
And those are the major issues that I really wanted to talk about.
Thank you, of course, so much for your attention.
I hope that this stimulates some thought.
I certainly don't claim that this is the entirety of the picture, but I think these are factors underreported in the media, and so many of these factors can be traced back to government power.
The growth of government power is not a statistic.
It is something that worms its way into our very livers, our very bones, our very muscles, our very habits.
And the growth of the fear culture, which makes parents afraid to send their kids outside, the growth of single-parent households, which means that people feel safer with kids indoors and kids have less capacity for exercise.
All of this is driven by state policies, growth in antidepressants.
You know, you drug animals that you're not going to set free.
And this, of course, is occurring at earlier and earlier times.
And this is all significant.
And this is all going to get much worse because so much of all of this dysfunction has been funded by debt and inflation, the bills of which are still coming due and are imminent.
And it's really tough to build a future when you have this sort of Damocles hanging over your head, when you feel like you're racing in a brakeless truck towards a cliff edge, Alethelma and Louise.
It's really hard to get enthusiastic about your life when you feel a catastrophe approaching.
Indiana Jones running from the big giant ball is not planning his retirement.
And that's where we are.
So thank you much for watching and listening.
This is Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy show, dare I say, in the world, dare I say, throughout history.
There are over 50 million downloads now.
You can go to freedomainradio.com for more.
And the sources here will be at fdurl.com forward slash obesity.
Thank you so much for your time, and I hope that this helps, particularly if you have these weight issues.
Of course, please consult a doctor and look at the information that's available to help you control this stuff.
▲
Export Selection