100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.(modeledbehavior.com)
modeledbehavior.com
100 years ago, people paid money to see a fat man in a circus sideshow.
http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/04/15/americas-obesity-epidemic-bringing-sideshow-freaks-into-the-discussion/
139 comments
Now that's one creepy livejournal community.
I don't think it's creepy, at least not after giving it a brief read. It's interesting, and everyone is being very polite and well spoken with one another, and talking about what they're interested in. We should do as well. (I upmodded you anyway because your comment made me go look.)
I always find it interesting that sci-fi depictions of "evolved" humans (i.e. many years in the future) usually depict very tall, thin - even willowy - figures. That seems to fly in the face of general trend :)
One thing that's always bemused me about scifi is future superhumans adapted for ultimate survival (e.g. the Nietzscheans in Andromeda) are tall, muscular, lean, brave, intelligent, etc.
Whereas for survival, you want humans that are small (so they need less food), weak because they have slow metabolisms, hairy to keep the heat in, fat because they are good at storing food in case of famine, cowardly so they avoid risk at any cost, dumb so they just repeat procedures that are known to work, and so on.
Whereas for survival, you want humans that are small (so they need less food), weak because they have slow metabolisms, hairy to keep the heat in, fat because they are good at storing food in case of famine, cowardly so they avoid risk at any cost, dumb so they just repeat procedures that are known to work, and so on.
You're at least partially confusing individual survivability with group survivability. Absolute cowardice, while beneficial to an individual, is ultimately so problematic for the group that it will result in everyone's death.
Dumbly repeating procedures that are known to work without analysis will not only cause stagnation, but also likely cause industrial and environmental collapse unless a system is so tightly controlled that it is impossible for any procedure to lose effectiveness. And unless technological improvement is impossible, this is clearly a suboptimal survival strategy, as survivability may not be improved.
Dumbly repeating procedures that are known to work without analysis will not only cause stagnation, but also likely cause industrial and environmental collapse unless a system is so tightly controlled that it is impossible for any procedure to lose effectiveness. And unless technological improvement is impossible, this is clearly a suboptimal survival strategy, as survivability may not be improved.
"Absolute cowardice, while beneficial to an individual"
If this were actually true then evolution would go ahead and make everyone absolutely cowardly. Evolution works because traits that are helpful to an individual become more common; because the individuals with those traits reproduce more. Nothing stops evolution going down paths that are bad for the species.
(Of course, if it gets so bad that the species goes extinct then we simply won't see that species any more. But nothing prevents this from happening.)
It isn't actually true though: risks have their rewards.
If this were actually true then evolution would go ahead and make everyone absolutely cowardly. Evolution works because traits that are helpful to an individual become more common; because the individuals with those traits reproduce more. Nothing stops evolution going down paths that are bad for the species.
(Of course, if it gets so bad that the species goes extinct then we simply won't see that species any more. But nothing prevents this from happening.)
It isn't actually true though: risks have their rewards.
You need to spend some more time with evolutionary theory. Populations do indeed evolve along with individuals. You own message explains why; there are selection pressures at the population level as well. See also animals that are always found in communities, like ants or humans. It's not either/or. It never is with evolutionary theory.
"Populations do indeed evolve along with individuals"
Individuals don't evolve at all. Evolution is changes in gene frequency over time.
What I think you're trying to talk about is macroevolution, where species that happen to have certain traits survive longer than other species. Sure, this sort of thing happens. But I was responding to the claim that "absolute cowardice [is] beneficial to an individual" and noting what would happen to the level of cowardice in a population if that were actually true.
Individuals don't evolve at all. Evolution is changes in gene frequency over time.
What I think you're trying to talk about is macroevolution, where species that happen to have certain traits survive longer than other species. Sure, this sort of thing happens. But I was responding to the claim that "absolute cowardice [is] beneficial to an individual" and noting what would happen to the level of cowardice in a population if that were actually true.
What it looks like you're not paying sufficient attention to is that selection happens at the level of the gene, not the level of the individual.
It is absolutely not beneficial to the individual to put energy out to try to have sex, put energy into offspring, or to take risks for others. However all of those behaviors have tended to be beneficial for the genes that the individual has because the others who are helped are likely to have the genes producing that behavior. Therefore all of those behaviors have evolved notwithstanding the fact that they are inconvenient for individuals with those genes.
It is absolutely not beneficial to the individual to put energy out to try to have sex, put energy into offspring, or to take risks for others. However all of those behaviors have tended to be beneficial for the genes that the individual has because the others who are helped are likely to have the genes producing that behavior. Therefore all of those behaviors have evolved notwithstanding the fact that they are inconvenient for individuals with those genes.
The truth is that the truth you allude to is only one of many truths, and I consider it my duty as a mansplainer to point out that there are other truths you failed to incorporate into your paragraph in such a way that makes me feel as if I have a bigger and more complete collection of truths because then I won't feel so bad that my pants make me feel ugly.
What you refer to as macroevolutionary effects are equally problematic for a small village. It will quickly be destroyed and any wealth it has taken by a neighboring village whose warriors are not afraid to give their lives in service of their chief.
Last I heard there was still some ongoing debate among ev biologists about whether group selection was an important effect or not; I think the general consensus tends to be that it's a pretty small effect except in certain special cases.
The existence of traits like courage is far better explained by sexual selection. Women throughout history have always strongly preferred courageous men to cowardly ones. This is only partially cancelled out by the fact that courageous men tend to die more often.
As civilization continues to advance, and fewer and fewer people die before childbearing age, I'd expect the balance between sexual selection and survival selection to tip even more strongly in favour of sexual selection, so it's quite likely that (even absent widespread genetic modification) the people of the future will indeed tend to be "sexier" than the people of the present.
(Partially cancelling this out is the idiocracy effect whereby poor dumb folks have more children; I can't estimate which is more powerful.)
The existence of traits like courage is far better explained by sexual selection. Women throughout history have always strongly preferred courageous men to cowardly ones. This is only partially cancelled out by the fact that courageous men tend to die more often.
As civilization continues to advance, and fewer and fewer people die before childbearing age, I'd expect the balance between sexual selection and survival selection to tip even more strongly in favour of sexual selection, so it's quite likely that (even absent widespread genetic modification) the people of the future will indeed tend to be "sexier" than the people of the present.
(Partially cancelling this out is the idiocracy effect whereby poor dumb folks have more children; I can't estimate which is more powerful.)
>The existence of traits like courage is far better explained by sexual selection. Women throughout history have always strongly preferred courageous men to cowardly ones.
That's not an explanation. Why do women prefer courageous men?
Do you mean to imply that courage is like a Peacock's tail? It doesn't help a man survive, but it signals that he must be really good at surviving in other ways.
That's not an explanation. Why do women prefer courageous men?
Do you mean to imply that courage is like a Peacock's tail? It doesn't help a man survive, but it signals that he must be really good at surviving in other ways.
Courageous men are more likely to protect their own women and children.
Evolution works because traits that are helpful to an individual become more common; because the individuals with those traits reproduce more.
It depends on what you mean by helpful. If you mean helpful in helping them live longer, then it is patently false. Look at peacocks feathers as one famous example.
In any species which require two to reproduce, you also have to be able to attract a mate (generally mostly on the male side), and that may require bravery, willingness to make expensive displays of power, and all kinds of other things that may go against the best way for the individual to survive.
Similarly, in a species that produces few off spring, those members also need to help ensure the off spring survive. This may involve charging into fights you could have run from so your off spring can run, searching for far more food then you need for yourself possibly at great risk, etc. In short again other traits that may go against the individuals personal survival.
(edit: spelling)
It depends on what you mean by helpful. If you mean helpful in helping them live longer, then it is patently false. Look at peacocks feathers as one famous example.
In any species which require two to reproduce, you also have to be able to attract a mate (generally mostly on the male side), and that may require bravery, willingness to make expensive displays of power, and all kinds of other things that may go against the best way for the individual to survive.
Similarly, in a species that produces few off spring, those members also need to help ensure the off spring survive. This may involve charging into fights you could have run from so your off spring can run, searching for far more food then you need for yourself possibly at great risk, etc. In short again other traits that may go against the individuals personal survival.
(edit: spelling)
You're conflating "beneficial to an individual" and "reproduce more." Reproducing and successfully raising young requires time and energy that an individual could use towards personal survival.
Evolution is a game of balance. On the face of it, a predator being faster and stronger so that it can catch more prey seems like an obvious benefit that would catch on. But the time, energy and resources to do that might draw from what's needed to reproduce and raise young.
Evolution is a game of balance. On the face of it, a predator being faster and stronger so that it can catch more prey seems like an obvious benefit that would catch on. But the time, energy and resources to do that might draw from what's needed to reproduce and raise young.
No, it does not. To understand why lets compare it to another situation. Cancer cells vs normal cells. Cancer cells are "selfish" so if you wait long enough every cell on earth would become a cancer cell, right?
It isn't about survival. It is about procreation. If you survive to 100 years old and have no kids, you "failed to survive" in an evolutionary sense compared to a guy who died at 30 but has 3 kids.
So if the tall, muscular, lean, brave, intelligent guys can have more kids than the short, fat, hairy guys, those guys will have a greater influence on the future species than the survival in the face of catastrophy.
So if the tall, muscular, lean, brave, intelligent guys can have more kids than the short, fat, hairy guys, those guys will have a greater influence on the future species than the survival in the face of catastrophy.
Short of a disaster that pushes humankind to the brink of extinction, natural selection is likely to be based on traits of people who mate and reproduce. The more likely you are to mate and reproduce, the more likely the traits you have get passed on. It might be a logical leap but perhaps because of this, humans might evolve towards whatever is more attractive to other humans.
In that case evolution favours those too stupid to use a condom and too lazy to work.
See "Rich men do have more kids" (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/rich-men-do-have-...)
Fewer rich men than other types, though.
You don't want them dumb: adaptability is paramount for evolution. Smart people are more adaptable.
Except that humans don't (or will not) need these qualities anymore. Humans will evolve to be desirable to the other sex, i.e. "tall, muscular, lean, brave, intelligent".
Some of Alistair Reynolds' books feature Neotonic Infantry - genetically engineered super-soldiers that look like children. They take up less space, eat less and being forced to kill a small child causes serious psychological damage to the enemy.
Except in Wall-e
They got a lot of shit for it at the time, too.
Every time I see everyone in a train or line looking down at their phones, I also can't help but think of Wall-e.
Every time I see everyone in a train or line looking down at their phones, I also can't help but think of Wall-e.
> "They got a lot of shit for it at the time, too."
A good deal of it very well-deserved. For a movie exposing the blind-alley of rampant consumerism, it was being sold via a dizzying array of Cheap Plastic Crap, much of it bundled with the very junk food the movie skewered.
A good deal of it very well-deserved. For a movie exposing the blind-alley of rampant consumerism, it was being sold via a dizzying array of Cheap Plastic Crap, much of it bundled with the very junk food the movie skewered.
Isn't that for the best, though? If you want to communicate a moral message, you should target it so the people most in need of it will consume it as part of their daily routine, instead of having to go out of their way to find it.
Do as I say, not as I do?
Is that still a popular way to communicate moral messages?
Even coming from Disney in the first place the message came across as the old argument of a priest-of-past-sins being preferable to a priest-of-purity.
Even coming from Disney in the first place the message came across as the old argument of a priest-of-past-sins being preferable to a priest-of-purity.
What, exactly, are you implying is the "as I do" part here?
Are you saying that the employees that make up Pixar are, on the whole, frequent and regular customers of the fast food industry?
I would expect that living in/near the bay area would give them good odds of being in a different demographic.
Are you saying that the employees that make up Pixar are, on the whole, frequent and regular customers of the fast food industry?
I would expect that living in/near the bay area would give them good odds of being in a different demographic.
I was running with derefr's suggestion that it was intentional targeting.
Intentionally try to send a message to a demographic by placing Wall-E in their natural path would be a decision made by the corporation well above the level of Pixar's animators. That body would almost certainly be the same one that green-lit the avalanche of Cheap Plastic Crap.
So, even if they believed Pixar's message, and were intentionally trying to preach to those at-risk, they were saying "you should learn from Wall-E" (do as I say) while simultaneously saying "also, buy this plastic crap" (not as I do).
Intentionally try to send a message to a demographic by placing Wall-E in their natural path would be a decision made by the corporation well above the level of Pixar's animators. That body would almost certainly be the same one that green-lit the avalanche of Cheap Plastic Crap.
So, even if they believed Pixar's message, and were intentionally trying to preach to those at-risk, they were saying "you should learn from Wall-E" (do as I say) while simultaneously saying "also, buy this plastic crap" (not as I do).
Nonsense, this was just Pixar's way of helping kids learn the proper definition of irony.
I believe that the Pixar happy meal deal w/ McDonalds was over by the time Wall-E was released.
http://www.buynlarge.com/disclaimer/disclaimer.html
(For those that can't work out, Buy N Large is the corporation from WALL-E... this is a parody done by pixar)
(For those that can't work out, Buy N Large is the corporation from WALL-E... this is a parody done by pixar)
And Idiocracy.
Am I the only one that immediately thought of Wall-E when Steve Jobs unveiled the iPad?
and Idiocracy
Interestingly, WALL-E really nails the reality of western man's search for perfected convenience.
...the reality of western man's...
What do you mean "western"? What do you mean "man"?
Edit: Sometimes it seems that "too terse" comments are disliked or misunderstood. So let me explain: it seems that people in the USA, as others have already said in other comments, don't really realise that you're a special case in this matter. Of course there are fat people here in Europe, but not in the same proportion and magnitude. I don't think it's related just to habits. Something bad is in the food additives for sure.
The other question is just evil, so I'm guilty :-) While the more politically correct "person" is often more and more used to refer to both men and women, you (with a "mom" nick) used "men" to restrict, at the same time you were using "western" to expand.
What do you mean "western"? What do you mean "man"?
Edit: Sometimes it seems that "too terse" comments are disliked or misunderstood. So let me explain: it seems that people in the USA, as others have already said in other comments, don't really realise that you're a special case in this matter. Of course there are fat people here in Europe, but not in the same proportion and magnitude. I don't think it's related just to habits. Something bad is in the food additives for sure.
The other question is just evil, so I'm guilty :-) While the more politically correct "person" is often more and more used to refer to both men and women, you (with a "mom" nick) used "men" to restrict, at the same time you were using "western" to expand.
Don't let the existence of worse problems elsewhere blind you.
From the WHO:
Obesity is one of the greatest public health challenges of the 21st century. Its prevalence has tripled in many countries in the WHO European Region since the 1980s, and the numbers of those affected continue to rise at an alarming rate, particularly among children. Obesity is already responsible for 2-8% of health costs and 10-13% of deaths in different parts of the Region.
From the WHO:
Obesity is one of the greatest public health challenges of the 21st century. Its prevalence has tripled in many countries in the WHO European Region since the 1980s, and the numbers of those affected continue to rise at an alarming rate, particularly among children. Obesity is already responsible for 2-8% of health costs and 10-13% of deaths in different parts of the Region.
I'm not blind to this problem myself. I'm afraid whatever happens to the USA could come soon to us. That's why this issue interests me so much and that's why I've changed my habits about food, losing 15 kg since last summer. I also keep a lot of attention over my son in this matter.
It's true that now we see morbidly obese persons more often than twenty years ago. But it's not common... yet.
It's true that now we see morbidly obese persons more often than twenty years ago. But it's not common... yet.
> you (with a "mom" nick) used "men" to restrict
man is a historically recognised contraction of human. I think your analysing it too deeply ;) (I also doubt you will find many people here who abide by the idea of political correctness)
(and your comparison doesn't work too well; is Europe on a par with the East in terms of obesity problems? If not then the original statement is, surely, correct).
man is a historically recognised contraction of human. I think your analysing it too deeply ;) (I also doubt you will find many people here who abide by the idea of political correctness)
(and your comparison doesn't work too well; is Europe on a par with the East in terms of obesity problems? If not then the original statement is, surely, correct).
I implicitly acknowledged that "man" is such a contraction by explaining that that rule is recently broken.
About for my comparison of USA and Europe, I trust some friends that have visited the states and returned really scared. I also see some videos of music (and other kind) stars that I admire that have got terribly fat, people that were thin when young. People over here also get fat when older, but not that kind of fat. Really.
The most revealing sign for me is that this question seems to get quick downvotes and troll accusations. I don't see it as an "american decadence" trend. I think it's more of a poisoning thing. Even if our lifestyle is probably very similar, the effects are not by far the same. That's why comparing us with the East is not a good measure.
About for my comparison of USA and Europe, I trust some friends that have visited the states and returned really scared. I also see some videos of music (and other kind) stars that I admire that have got terribly fat, people that were thin when young. People over here also get fat when older, but not that kind of fat. Really.
The most revealing sign for me is that this question seems to get quick downvotes and troll accusations. I don't see it as an "american decadence" trend. I think it's more of a poisoning thing. Even if our lifestyle is probably very similar, the effects are not by far the same. That's why comparing us with the East is not a good measure.
It really should have been billed as "Not a fun kids movie" IMHO. Still surprises me that people liked that movie.
It's still the only movie my 3-yr-old daughter will sit through. The first 30 minutes is some of the best storytelling ever put to film, IMHO. So much told with so little.
Other Pixar movies like Monsters, Inc. or Cars are either too scary or too talky. Wall-E is the perfect balance, and such a well told story that I never tire of it, either.
Other Pixar movies like Monsters, Inc. or Cars are either too scary or too talky. Wall-E is the perfect balance, and such a well told story that I never tire of it, either.
My friends kid can only watch the beginning. When the humans show up, he starts crying. To scary.
What do mean? Movies that have points are not to be enjoyed? A movie cannot be entertaining and insightful?
It's just more of an adult / documentary thing IMHO. They spent way too much trying to make some principled point rather than entertain. Same with 'Up'. I think perhaps they were catering to people who nominate Oscars or something.
My kids were bored. Gimmie Princess and the frog, Hercules, Aladdin, Little Mermaid etc etc any day.
My kids were bored. Gimmie Princess and the frog, Hercules, Aladdin, Little Mermaid etc etc any day.
i fell asleep
If humans survive long enough to become highly advanced technologically, we'll almost certainly have a high degree of control over our bodies. Tall, thin and handsome is probably to be expected.
See Iain M. Banks's Culture novels for a fictional depiction of this pushed to the extreme (people there can even chose to switch from one sex to the other whenever they feel like it).
See Iain M. Banks's Culture novels for a fictional depiction of this pushed to the extreme (people there can even chose to switch from one sex to the other whenever they feel like it).
That's always been the dream, hasn't it? Eventually technology will become good enough that we won't have to worry about being responsible.
One thing I've become annoyed with lately is how little planning anyone does. Who needs to make solid plans when you can can just call someone via cell phones and make the plans as you go? It makes coordinating more than a few people very hard.
One thing I've become annoyed with lately is how little planning anyone does. Who needs to make solid plans when you can can just call someone via cell phones and make the plans as you go? It makes coordinating more than a few people very hard.
if we can manipulate neurological details like gender, why not lock ourselves into a happy-loop and be done with history?
A wirehead future is possible (and scary to me).
We can do better, though. Check out Yudkowsky's Fun Theory sequence for more on this:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/xy/the_fun_theory_sequence/
We can do better, though. Check out Yudkowsky's Fun Theory sequence for more on this:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/xy/the_fun_theory_sequence/
I'm not sure I agree with that.
I think the fast food industry gives a false impression because they started out with fattening food. But all the current fast food places were founded a relatively short time ago (McDonalds: '55, Burger King: '53, KFC: '52, Taco Bell: '62, Pizza Hut: '58) and as they've evolved their menus have become healthier.
Beyond that technology is paving the way for a less fattening diet. Diet soft drinks, soy burgers, and other low calorie foods have gotten dramatically better tasting in just the last 20 years or so (It's actually getting to the point where those Diet Dr. Pepper ads are almost true). At the same time we've developed Appetite Suppressants (the most popular of which, Hoodia gordonii, wasn't even patented until 1996) and other prescription drugs to fight obesity.
So really the trend seems to be towards healthier, less fattening food. We're just at the beginning of the curve.
I think the fast food industry gives a false impression because they started out with fattening food. But all the current fast food places were founded a relatively short time ago (McDonalds: '55, Burger King: '53, KFC: '52, Taco Bell: '62, Pizza Hut: '58) and as they've evolved their menus have become healthier.
Beyond that technology is paving the way for a less fattening diet. Diet soft drinks, soy burgers, and other low calorie foods have gotten dramatically better tasting in just the last 20 years or so (It's actually getting to the point where those Diet Dr. Pepper ads are almost true). At the same time we've developed Appetite Suppressants (the most popular of which, Hoodia gordonii, wasn't even patented until 1996) and other prescription drugs to fight obesity.
So really the trend seems to be towards healthier, less fattening food. We're just at the beginning of the curve.
* they've evolved their menus have become healthier.*
Have you looked at the nutrition facts lately? Or seen the new commercials for KFC heart attack of two pieces of fried chicken with bacon and cheese in between?
I wasn't around when the fast food places you mention were founded, but if this is the trend towards healthier then I am amazed people survived for any length of time after they emerged.
(Granted, many have added healthier options lately, but that is in addition to pushing junk food to even greater extremes.)
Have you looked at the nutrition facts lately? Or seen the new commercials for KFC heart attack of two pieces of fried chicken with bacon and cheese in between?
I wasn't around when the fast food places you mention were founded, but if this is the trend towards healthier then I am amazed people survived for any length of time after they emerged.
(Granted, many have added healthier options lately, but that is in addition to pushing junk food to even greater extremes.)
I had a Double Down the other day. It was unspectacular; not tasty enough to be good, not disgusting enough to be an adventure.
Anyway, it only has 540 calories, which is actually pretty modest.
Anyway, it only has 540 calories, which is actually pretty modest.
Given the healthy options didn't exist up until a few years ago I'd call that moving towards healthier menu items. Of course they're going to try to appeal to already existing audience that wants junk food but in the end we've gone from "no healthy options" to "a variety of healthy options" in less than a decade while the junk food items have declined (McDonalds doing away with Super Sizing as just one example)
Adding healthy options is progress, but I think adding health options is very different from the overall menu becoming healthier.
The junk food items have grown not declined though. And McDonald's no longer advertises supersizing, but they will ask if you medium or large and I think large is the same as supersizing was. That is a change in marketing, not in offerings in any way.
The junk food items have grown not declined though. And McDonald's no longer advertises supersizing, but they will ask if you medium or large and I think large is the same as supersizing was. That is a change in marketing, not in offerings in any way.
What used to be called super size is now just large.
Quarter Double Pounder with Cheese is is worse than the KFC Double Down, believe it or not!
I can walk into any McDonals in america, order a grilled chicken sandwich with no mayo, a bottle of water, and have a legitametly healthy meal any time I want.
You couldn't do that in in previous decades because they only had fried chicken.
So the tools are out there, people just choose to continue ordering the triple quarter pounder.
You couldn't do that in in previous decades because they only had fried chicken.
So the tools are out there, people just choose to continue ordering the triple quarter pounder.
Since when has corn-fed chicken slapped between white bread buns been "legitimately healthy"?
Do people in N. America somehow not need fruits or vegetables as long as they get meat every single time they saddle up to the table?
Do people in N. America somehow not need fruits or vegetables as long as they get meat every single time they saddle up to the table?
The double down isn't that bad. The grilled one would be the perfect sandwich to have after lifting weights.
None of the things you mention are actually healthy though. It's terribly unfortunate that they're going in the wrong direction.
Naturally. We wish for things that we don't have. It's the same as flying cars- there sure as heck isn't a trend indicating we will have such a thing, let alone cars at all.
It's the same as how everyone in the movies is beautiful, nobody in the future will go hungry, and even aspirations to 'the good ol days', even though everyone back then was too busy dying of dysentery, cholera, starvation, or drowning in caulked wagons to realize just how great they had it.
It's the same as how everyone in the movies is beautiful, nobody in the future will go hungry, and even aspirations to 'the good ol days', even though everyone back then was too busy dying of dysentery, cholera, starvation, or drowning in caulked wagons to realize just how great they had it.
I think the general trend is a social one. I suspect that the naturally thin people are having more children on average than the obese people, so the evolutionary trend will be towards faster metabolisms.
[deleted]
Some clarifying comments on the link to the same story at marginalrevolution (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/04...):
"It says in the linked page that Morgan weighed as much as 875 pounds. I think that's still a bit unusual even today."
Apparently the photo is him at a younger, slimmer point.
"It says in the linked page that Morgan weighed as much as 875 pounds. I think that's still a bit unusual even today."
Apparently the photo is him at a younger, slimmer point.
I imagine that number was a generous estimate given by the guys selling tickets.
I don't doubt it. But the guy in the photo doesn't look to even be half that.
So, 100 years ago, this kind of weight was sideshow-worthy (and remember the other things one would see in a circus sideshow...); today, it wouldn't turn heads on a subway.
However: the US has become _more_ health-conscious in the past 100 years, not less. We must have something wrong, if concern for exercise and good nutrition goes hand-in-hand with this kind of obesity.
I think this is due, at least in part, to the drastic reduction of fat consumption relative to carbohydrates; but changes in lifestyle and in modes of entertainment must have something to do with it, too. No one mindlessly eats high-carbohydrate foods while playing poker, after all...
The increase in number of sedentary jobs relative to others probably has a role, too, but it must not be a very major factor on its own; otherwise, there would have been as much obesity among white-collar workers then as there is among everyone today.
There are things that man was not meant to know: not the coordinates of Cthulhu's tomb in the watery depths and the nature of spells to manipulate the Great Old Ones, but the unholy and arcane arts of transistors, CRTs, and low-fat yogurt.
[Edit: typo.]
However: the US has become _more_ health-conscious in the past 100 years, not less. We must have something wrong, if concern for exercise and good nutrition goes hand-in-hand with this kind of obesity.
I think this is due, at least in part, to the drastic reduction of fat consumption relative to carbohydrates; but changes in lifestyle and in modes of entertainment must have something to do with it, too. No one mindlessly eats high-carbohydrate foods while playing poker, after all...
The increase in number of sedentary jobs relative to others probably has a role, too, but it must not be a very major factor on its own; otherwise, there would have been as much obesity among white-collar workers then as there is among everyone today.
There are things that man was not meant to know: not the coordinates of Cthulhu's tomb in the watery depths and the nature of spells to manipulate the Great Old Ones, but the unholy and arcane arts of transistors, CRTs, and low-fat yogurt.
[Edit: typo.]
The US has become more health-conscious but also, in the last 50 years, has began to be exploited by manufacturers. Note, this person would be shocking still in Europe.
Chemicals and corn by-products are stuffed everywhere in American products. Even in crazy places like maple syrup and ketchup. I went back to the States at Christmas and we went to an upscale grocery store, yet my wife couldn't find almost anything (yogurt, etc.) that wasn't processed and littered with crap to make it "taste better" and save the producers money. I'm sorry but there is nothing in yogurt that needs corn.
The Heinz ketchup here in the Czech Republic tastes identical to the one in the States, but without any serious additives and no corn products at all. People don't eat fast food and they use natural ingredients. You can't sell GM foods here; it's not allowed.
The obesity in the U.S. is staggering, and what's worse, no one cares enough to force the companies producing it to shape up and stop getting their profit from poisoning their fellow man.
Chemicals and corn by-products are stuffed everywhere in American products. Even in crazy places like maple syrup and ketchup. I went back to the States at Christmas and we went to an upscale grocery store, yet my wife couldn't find almost anything (yogurt, etc.) that wasn't processed and littered with crap to make it "taste better" and save the producers money. I'm sorry but there is nothing in yogurt that needs corn.
The Heinz ketchup here in the Czech Republic tastes identical to the one in the States, but without any serious additives and no corn products at all. People don't eat fast food and they use natural ingredients. You can't sell GM foods here; it's not allowed.
The obesity in the U.S. is staggering, and what's worse, no one cares enough to force the companies producing it to shape up and stop getting their profit from poisoning their fellow man.
You're confusing a few separate issues:
1) Cheap, high-yield corn. Upside: cheap carbs. Downside: Probably unsustainable. Crops require crazy chemical fertizilers to support the increased yields. Because it's cheap, people want to use corn for all kinds of crap it's not really suitable for, such as feeding livestock despite it being outside of their normal diet, which has ballooning negative effects (antibiotics, animal suffering)
2) High-fat, high-sugar foods becoming cheaper. Upside: Tastes good. Downside: Not good for you. Higher health costs, greater human suffering.
3) GM crops. Upside: all kinds of stuff. Downside: mostly unfounded FUD.
4) Chemical additives. Upside: longer shelf life, ergo cheaper products. Downside: certain additives are downright scary in doses far greater than normal presence in foods; AFAICT there's not enough research on the long-term effects of the normal doses.
1) Cheap, high-yield corn. Upside: cheap carbs. Downside: Probably unsustainable. Crops require crazy chemical fertizilers to support the increased yields. Because it's cheap, people want to use corn for all kinds of crap it's not really suitable for, such as feeding livestock despite it being outside of their normal diet, which has ballooning negative effects (antibiotics, animal suffering)
2) High-fat, high-sugar foods becoming cheaper. Upside: Tastes good. Downside: Not good for you. Higher health costs, greater human suffering.
3) GM crops. Upside: all kinds of stuff. Downside: mostly unfounded FUD.
4) Chemical additives. Upside: longer shelf life, ergo cheaper products. Downside: certain additives are downright scary in doses far greater than normal presence in foods; AFAICT there's not enough research on the long-term effects of the normal doses.
I'd say 2 and 4 are derivatives of 1. 4, not so much because a lot of petroleum and coal derivatives are used in those chemicals too, but more sugar in stuff is almost always because it is HFCS.
A friend of mine has a theory that the rise of depression over the past 20 years has a lot to do with the low-fat diet kick the country has been on, even though low-fat diets have never been proven to prevent obesity or to reduce it. Since our brains are mostly made of fat, maybe low-fat diets aren't the best ideas? I personally eat less fat than most people I know, yet I'm still fat.
This makes sense with the link between good fats, like Omega 3s, and elevated moods I keep hearing about.
It's really important to recognize the difference between good fats (salmon, avocado, olive oil etc) and bad fats (fries, butter etc). Same is true for good and bad carbs.
It's really important to recognize the difference between good fats (salmon, avocado, olive oil etc) and bad fats (fries, butter etc). Same is true for good and bad carbs.
Corn products are stuffed into maple syrup? I think you got that backwards: we stuff a little flavoring into corn syrup and then call it maple!
While I share your sentiment about too much processed foot, may I ask what's there to say against genetic engineering?
Right: how GM foods affect health is an entirely separate question from how processing affects health, yet the two are conflated all the time. I'm sure it doesn't help that the most common wrong reasons for opposing processing (e.g. "getting back to nature") also oppose genetic engineering.
(But processed foot is actually quite delicious.)
(But processed foot is actually quite delicious.)
I couldn't agree more. However, even if you were to find yogurt without corn odds are that the cows were fed corn their entire lives. It takes serious effort and commitment to find high quality food in the US, though it is possible.
"However: the US has become _more_ health-conscious in the past 100 years, not less. We must have something wrong, if concern for exercise and good nutrition goes hand-in-hand with this kind of obesity."
Naturally--as health and fitness became more of a problem, people became more concerned about it.
Anyway, it's not like fatness was totally unheard of: this guy even got himself elected President in 1908, and I don't think anyone with his shape could accomplish the feat today, over 100 years later: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/William_H...
Naturally--as health and fitness became more of a problem, people became more concerned about it.
Anyway, it's not like fatness was totally unheard of: this guy even got himself elected President in 1908, and I don't think anyone with his shape could accomplish the feat today, over 100 years later: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/William_H...
People here are exaggerating the fatness of the average American. Yes, obesity is an unsightly problem, but the man in that photo would still be a stand-out today-- just less of one. Instead of being someone we'd only see in a circus, he's the noticeably obese fat guy in the line at McDonalds.
He's definitely not sideshow-freak material today, but he'd definitely be the fattest person on an average subway car. I'd eyeball him at 350-400 pounds.
Also, one thing to keep in mind regarding the rightward tail is that, once you cross into the 400+ pound range, you're at constant risk of weight-related death, regardless of age. We can now keep people at that weight alive into their 50s and 60s at 500+ pounds. A hundred years ago, most of them would have died long before getting to the "circus-worthy" range (700+) today.
He's definitely not sideshow-freak material today, but he'd definitely be the fattest person on an average subway car. I'd eyeball him at 350-400 pounds.
Also, one thing to keep in mind regarding the rightward tail is that, once you cross into the 400+ pound range, you're at constant risk of weight-related death, regardless of age. We can now keep people at that weight alive into their 50s and 60s at 500+ pounds. A hundred years ago, most of them would have died long before getting to the "circus-worthy" range (700+) today.
You also have to remember that the guidelines for what is considered obese was changed in 1998. It changed 30 million people from being considered normal weight to obese.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/guideposts/fitnes...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/guideposts/fitnes...
Those 30 million people were reclassified from normal to overweight. People with BMIs between 30 and 31.9 would've been reclassified from overweight to obese, but I see no indication that there were 30 million of them.
He's definitely not sideshow-freak material today, but he'd definitely be the fattest person on an average subway car.
I don't get your point. He might be the fattest in a subway car, but the point is that there's another like him in just about every subway car.
One hundred years ago the fat guy was (say) 1 in a 100_000; nowadays it is 1 in 100.
I don't get your point. He might be the fattest in a subway car, but the point is that there's another like him in just about every subway car.
One hundred years ago the fat guy was (say) 1 in a 100_000; nowadays it is 1 in 100.
"Imagine, if you will, what society would look like if 100 years from now if what passed as spectacularly obese today would not even turn heads at the mall."
I don't have to imagine it -- I saw WALL-E
I don't have to imagine it -- I saw WALL-E
100 years ago you had to visit the traveling circus to see a fat person.
Now we just turn on the television and turn to TLC or Discovery Channel to see the same thing.
What exactly has changed besides the technology? Any good circus promoter or television producer will find a fatter guy than the last fat guy.
I get it, we're all fatter today, but I don't believe this example proves anything.
Now we just turn on the television and turn to TLC or Discovery Channel to see the same thing.
What exactly has changed besides the technology? Any good circus promoter or television producer will find a fatter guy than the last fat guy.
I get it, we're all fatter today, but I don't believe this example proves anything.
You don't need technology to see what was then considered "freakishly" obese, today. You can just go to any public place. Technology has nothing to do with it.
I think the point was that people tune in in massive numbers for say Biggest Loser just to play look at the fat guy. Ditto with anything about the enormously obese on random Discovery channel shows. The money comes from advertisements instead of ticket sales but people are still making money by showing us fat people.
At least one implication is that just because people were willing to pay money to see a show that included fat people in 1910 doesn't mean it was actually considered freakish any more than it is today.
At least one implication is that just because people were willing to pay money to see a show that included fat people in 1910 doesn't mean it was actually considered freakish any more than it is today.
Stop people working behind desks and get them back out in the fields, then stop people taking advantage of national and global markets for food and put them back at the mercy of regional farm production, and you will see far fewer obese people.
Mind, that's ignoring the huge pretense of the linked post that the pictured level of obesity is "normal" or "unremarkable" anywhere. Obesity is a medical definition, and most people who meet it look far thinner than that.
Mind, that's ignoring the huge pretense of the linked post that the pictured level of obesity is "normal" or "unremarkable" anywhere. Obesity is a medical definition, and most people who meet it look far thinner than that.
They probably would have paid to see someone over 60 too.
Old people weren't that rare. Over 80 would been more of a show, I guess. (But we should find some data, before we speculate.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joice_Heth
P. T. Barnum traveled with this person, whom he claimed was 161 years old.
She was, in fact, about 80 when she died.
P. T. Barnum traveled with this person, whom he claimed was 161 years old.
She was, in fact, about 80 when she died.
Even 80 wasn't that exceptional.
In 1910 there were over 200,000 people in England & Wales aged over 80; about 1 in 170 of the population.
(Calculations based on data from http://www.mortality.org/)
In 1910 there were over 200,000 people in England & Wales aged over 80; about 1 in 170 of the population.
(Calculations based on data from http://www.mortality.org/)
The way that life expectancy works is that it was low because so many people died of disease in their youth that it dragged the average down. But people who lived to old age still lived to what we would consider an old age today. There would just be fewer people who lived that long, but not dramatically fewer.
Not likely. Average life-expectancy at the time was about that, so there were plenty of people over 60.
I had to call the US last night for webhost support (this host needed a call to cancel a domain from being hosted, and an email to add a new one - a paper trail), and as she had to pause between sentences for labored breath, it was then that I felt a little bit sorry for her, but at least she was employed. That was my trip to the circus.
She could have asthma or emphysema. No reason to assume breathing issues are weight related.
There's another article on obesity at the site that I like:
http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/04/16/hoisted-from-the-comme...
Particularly this line:
> In order to stay within one pound of your current weight > over a year, calories-in have to match calorie-out with > 99.7% accuracy. The calorie testing equipment that > determines what goes on food labels is not even that > accurate, so it seems implausible that people are > achieving this through conscious equation of calories-in > with calories-out.
http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/04/16/hoisted-from-the-comme...
Particularly this line:
> In order to stay within one pound of your current weight > over a year, calories-in have to match calorie-out with > 99.7% accuracy. The calorie testing equipment that > determines what goes on food labels is not even that > accurate, so it seems implausible that people are > achieving this through conscious equation of calories-in > with calories-out.
People of Walmart. http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?p=12413
I like Walmart, and I've noticed this phenomenon.... though much of my experience may just be noting geographic differences in obesity, as the Walmarts I visit tend to be in the less-urban areas of California, Nevada, or central Texas.
I'd love to see guerrilla-installation of some sort of weight-strain gauge under the entrances/exits of major eatery chains, so as to collect and publish data on the average weight of their customers.
I'd love to see guerrilla-installation of some sort of weight-strain gauge under the entrances/exits of major eatery chains, so as to collect and publish data on the average weight of their customers.
I don't live near a Walmart, but this kind of physique is no stranger in NYC. Just yesterday at a supermarket I saw a pre-teen child about 4-ft high, who was bursting just like that.
sociological images recently wrote about this. here's their article, which provides some interesting information omitted by the parent link: http://contexts.org/socimages/2010/02/08/the-last-sideshow-f...
the most interesting omitted point is this: the last Fat Man actually retired as late as 2003
the most interesting omitted point is this: the last Fat Man actually retired as late as 2003
Sadly hes probably just over normal now.
Not in Africa, South America, Asia or even Europe hes not.
Average maybe but definitely not normal.
If you think that's anything remotely close to average, you have to get out of your country more often.
My mother really loved moving to Canada, because of that... over there she's not thought of as fat (heck, not even as overweight).
I weigh 175 lbs (80 kg) and for my height (5 foot 10 / 175 cm) I'm considered on the fat side for my country (Uruguay).
Whenever a fat consultant from the US comes, he is gaped at (much like the fat man on the freak show).. a TV figure from Argentina is famous precisely for being fat (Daniel "Tota" Santillán)
Edit: 3 other people made the point so far too.
My mother really loved moving to Canada, because of that... over there she's not thought of as fat (heck, not even as overweight).
I weigh 175 lbs (80 kg) and for my height (5 foot 10 / 175 cm) I'm considered on the fat side for my country (Uruguay).
Whenever a fat consultant from the US comes, he is gaped at (much like the fat man on the freak show).. a TV figure from Argentina is famous precisely for being fat (Daniel "Tota" Santillán)
Edit: 3 other people made the point so far too.
[deleted]
so, Botticelli ladies were the photoshoped playmates of the time?
I think I heard mentioned on art classes that fat equaled wealth, and so fat ladies might be desirable.
But you have a point.
But you have a point.
I had a Bangladeshi friend explain to me ~8 years ago that all the female Bangladeshi movie stars (not to be confused with Bollywood stars) were fat. For most of the population, being thin was a sign of not being able to afford much food, so fat women were the ideal. Just goes to show how subjective certain kinds of beauty are.
Ditto, a couple of hundred years ago being pale was fashionable - it meant you were rich enough to not work outside. Nowadays of course, we mostly work indoors - so being tanned is fashionable.
Still the same in parts of asia (China, India).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/skinwhitening-a...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/skinwhitening-a...
It depends on where you are. I spent 6 months in Jakarta, and due to cultural arbitrage, was able to date incredibly attractive women there because I was pale and fat, and I tend to go for women with darker complexions, who are considered ugly due to the same "working outside" cultural bias.
It's true in a lot of cultures. I know in pre-colonial Hawai'i, being huge was attractive. I hear it was true in parts of Africa, too. It's not true in the states just because the bar isn't that high to get 2-3k calories per day. I think it's generally true that standards of beauty follow whatever implies a higher standard of living. Look at America today: facial and hair complexion to show quality, not just quantity, of food; muscle tone and tan to show spare time out of a desk job doing exercise; and of course flamboyant displays of money, the ultimate objective measure of success.
Or at least of resources.
But, they were not obese.
It is amazing what people are willing to pay for.
(Don't focus on the circus stunt. Instead, pay attention to the business lesson :)
(Don't focus on the circus stunt. Instead, pay attention to the business lesson :)
In this day and age of cheap video games, movies, and pornography... there is not much of a market for this anymore.
All those "500 lb mom", "the 1000 pound man" show on the discover channel (and similar), not to mention the Biggest Loser tell me otherwise.
Based on that trend, we'll be expected to see 'the 2000 pound man' next.
The image was taken by a photographer probably during the 1890s-1910 era. The cabinet photo measures approx. 4" x 6". It pictures a super view of a young man and woman, but both of a very large size! The back of the photo read "Chauncey Morlan, Age 25, Wt 602, Wife age 22, Wt 526". A quick "google" search revealed that they were a circus side show attraction of some type. The photographer turned out to be famous circus / sideshow / freak photographer Wendt of Boonton NJ. He was famous for his rare images of midgets, giants, fatmen, sword swallowers, jugglers and bearded ladies!
Chauncy Royse Morlan and Annie Bell were married in 1892 at Huber's Museum in New York. Afterward the couple toured with the Barnum & Bailey Circus in Europe. Upon returning to the US, they continued to travel as the fattest married couple in the world "with a combined weight of 912 pounds". During the off season the Morlans returned to their home in Indianapolis, Indiana - Chauncy's home state. Annie would die at age 31, and Chauncey at age 43.