Adult Obesity Facts(cdc.gov)
cdc.gov
Adult Obesity Facts
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
235 comments
> we should try to fix the societal problems generating the poor outcome
What would this look like policywise?
What would this look like policywise?
Michael Pollan (in his cooked netflix show) has pointed out that the cost of "junk food" has been heavily subsidized (eg corn subsidy), but fresh produce has not. Subsequently the consumer price of each has fallen, or risen a lot, respectively.
One policy choice (amongst many required) could be to stop subsidizing the inputs to junk food.
Another policy I've heard talked about by Joel Salatin is that a lot of low processed foods are getting crushed by regulation because the cost/barriers are very high and demand scale/volume. For example poultry processing is only feasible on a massive scale because of regulation policies like (paraphrased) "there must be a dedicated washroom onsite for the inspector to use". That makes no sense if you only process 10000 birds a year (something like $100k of gross market value).
One policy choice (amongst many required) could be to stop subsidizing the inputs to junk food.
Another policy I've heard talked about by Joel Salatin is that a lot of low processed foods are getting crushed by regulation because the cost/barriers are very high and demand scale/volume. For example poultry processing is only feasible on a massive scale because of regulation policies like (paraphrased) "there must be a dedicated washroom onsite for the inspector to use". That makes no sense if you only process 10000 birds a year (something like $100k of gross market value).
That's precisely the point of much of this legislation as it favors the big players who are in bed with the regulators.
Walkable and bikable cities and suburbs. Increased transit. Reduced working hours so that people don't feel the need to choose between health and survival and stress. Getting the garbage out of our supermarkets. Not subsidizing massive amounts of corn syrup and sugar.
I really could go on.
I really could go on.
But who is going to lobby for any of those things?
20 years ago, who is going to lobby for electrical cars or solar power? They aren't financially profitable.
It's far easier to make technological progress than it is to fight in politics.
We already are. At the national level, there is a High Speed Rail lobby group http://www.ushsr.com/
At the local level, it is up to you. In my city of Pittsburgh, we are removing parking and expanding transit access and bike lane coverage. But there is still a lot to be done, so I am advocating for change by participating in groups and contacting my city councilman.
At the local level, it is up to you. In my city of Pittsburgh, we are removing parking and expanding transit access and bike lane coverage. But there is still a lot to be done, so I am advocating for change by participating in groups and contacting my city councilman.
The so-called "garbage" in our supermarkets is there because people want to buy it. What gives somebody else the right to say that they should not do so?
If you're a cycling enthusiast you'll always find a way. As you develop as a cyclist areas which once intimidated you may feel safer. It is like any other skill in that way.
I know many would prefer bike lanes, but bicycle infrastructure isn't always safer for cyclists. Often city planners have no concept of what actually goes on, so even when token lines are painted on the street - it does nothing to increase cycling.
It may be best to put aside the issues of investment and which top-down solution is the best. There may be a time and place for that, but in the near term individuals with an interest can develop their skills incrementally.
Disclaimer: I am a self admitted cycling extremist
I know many would prefer bike lanes, but bicycle infrastructure isn't always safer for cyclists. Often city planners have no concept of what actually goes on, so even when token lines are painted on the street - it does nothing to increase cycling.
It may be best to put aside the issues of investment and which top-down solution is the best. There may be a time and place for that, but in the near term individuals with an interest can develop their skills incrementally.
Disclaimer: I am a self admitted cycling extremist
Cities shouldn't be made for cyclists anymore than they should be made for cars.
Most people do not care what form of transportation they take. They do not identify as cyclists, drivers, or anything else. Transportation is an inconvenience in their lives as they travel from A to B. They will do whatever is cheap, fast, and convenient.
Cities need to be built to a human scale and not a car scale. Cities should be designed so that riding a comfortable, durable, upright bicycle is a fast and convenient option for people. That means bicycle paths that are physically separated from other forms of traffic. It means constructing different kinds of buildings and businesses so that bicycle routes are short and convenient.
Most people are never going to risk their lives to ride bicycles on roads where cars, driven by people on their phone, are travelling at speeds exceeding 30 mph. They won't ride their bicycles for an hour over the vast distances that are convenient for cars to travel in a few minutes. And they won't take their bicycle to a big box store with car-parks larger than the store so that they can clumsily chain their bicycle to a street light pole.
If you want normal people to ride bicycles as transportation, you need extensive bicycle infrastructure.
Most people do not care what form of transportation they take. They do not identify as cyclists, drivers, or anything else. Transportation is an inconvenience in their lives as they travel from A to B. They will do whatever is cheap, fast, and convenient.
Cities need to be built to a human scale and not a car scale. Cities should be designed so that riding a comfortable, durable, upright bicycle is a fast and convenient option for people. That means bicycle paths that are physically separated from other forms of traffic. It means constructing different kinds of buildings and businesses so that bicycle routes are short and convenient.
Most people are never going to risk their lives to ride bicycles on roads where cars, driven by people on their phone, are travelling at speeds exceeding 30 mph. They won't ride their bicycles for an hour over the vast distances that are convenient for cars to travel in a few minutes. And they won't take their bicycle to a big box store with car-parks larger than the store so that they can clumsily chain their bicycle to a street light pole.
If you want normal people to ride bicycles as transportation, you need extensive bicycle infrastructure.
If cycling is abnormal, then by definition 'normal' people will never cycle.
>Most people are never going to risk their lives to ride bicycles on roads where cars, driven by people on their phone, are travelling at speeds exceeding 30 mph
From my admittedly biased or perhaps experienced perspective it really isn't as dangerous as people imagine.
What is clear to me is that no matter what happens, there will always be a contingent of individuals who will never ride a bicycle. Whether that is because of imagined safety reasons or because of infrastructure fantasies, I can't say. I can say with certainty that if you eliminated both of these objections, another excuse would be raised. That's fine. People should choose the lifestyle that suits them and brings them happiness.
>Most people are never going to risk their lives to ride bicycles on roads where cars, driven by people on their phone, are travelling at speeds exceeding 30 mph
From my admittedly biased or perhaps experienced perspective it really isn't as dangerous as people imagine.
What is clear to me is that no matter what happens, there will always be a contingent of individuals who will never ride a bicycle. Whether that is because of imagined safety reasons or because of infrastructure fantasies, I can't say. I can say with certainty that if you eliminated both of these objections, another excuse would be raised. That's fine. People should choose the lifestyle that suits them and brings them happiness.
Stop tariffs on sugar and end subsidies to corn that lead to high fructose corn syrup.
I get that cane sugar is more natural than high fructose corn syrup, and I myself would choose the former over the latter, but aren't these basically the same in terms of causing obesity?
I’m talking out of my ass here but wouldn’t raising the price floor of sugar lower the incentive for companies to make high sugar foods?
At a minimum, make it more costly to eat unhealthy foods by taxing added sugar and subsidizing healthy foods.
IMO we dont need more late (consumer) applied taxes, first we need to remove the negative taxes (subsidies) from the input.
Taxes won’t work. People want autonomy. If you provide healthy meats and unprocessed foods, people will choose it. It’s a problem of access and convenience not necessarily choice.
That's just clearly not true with current incentives. Healthy options are more available now than any time in the past.
[deleted]
Legislation banning overly processed foods. Better school lunches. etc.
Pick a "first world" country with much better BMI. Copy all of their regulations surrounding food and agriculture.
Pick a "first world" country with much better BMI. Copy all of their regulations surrounding food and agriculture.
Every "processed food" definition is incredibly arbitrary, and not necessarily correlated to health.
What about rolled oats or steel cut oats? They're clearly "processed", oats don't look like that when they come off the plant.
Potato chips + fries are just cut potatoes dropping into a vat of oil. Oil itself isn't very much processed either. But we all know that potato chips / fries are unhealthy and shouldn't be eaten all the time.
Cheese or butter require incredible amounts of processing to get done. But when properly portioned, they are part of a healthy diet (more so than potato chips anyway).
--------
Is honey any healthier than sugar? Is juice healthier than soda? From an obesity perspective, not really. You really want to be cutting back on these empty calories. (Sure, juice is __slightly__ better than soda cause juice has vitamins in it. But... its actually not that good for you)
What about rolled oats or steel cut oats? They're clearly "processed", oats don't look like that when they come off the plant.
Potato chips + fries are just cut potatoes dropping into a vat of oil. Oil itself isn't very much processed either. But we all know that potato chips / fries are unhealthy and shouldn't be eaten all the time.
Cheese or butter require incredible amounts of processing to get done. But when properly portioned, they are part of a healthy diet (more so than potato chips anyway).
--------
Is honey any healthier than sugar? Is juice healthier than soda? From an obesity perspective, not really. You really want to be cutting back on these empty calories. (Sure, juice is __slightly__ better than soda cause juice has vitamins in it. But... its actually not that good for you)
Do you really think we can't come up with some definitions that at least push in the right direction? They don't have to be perfect, but just start somewhere and keep evolving in the right direction. Let's not pretend we have to get it perfect before we try anything.
Instead of banning (or discouraging) "processed foods", lets start with banning/discouraging "unhealthy foods".
Because "unhealthy" is a better starting point than the arbitrary metric "processed".
-------
You're going to do more for your health by cutting back on your rice portions, rather than worrying about what is or isn't processed. (And rice is barely "processed" at all... but its incredibly calorie dense with high glycemic index).
Switching out bread portions (since bread is highly processed) for rice portions won't do you jack diddly squat. Both are high calorie / high glycemic index foods.
Because "unhealthy" is a better starting point than the arbitrary metric "processed".
-------
You're going to do more for your health by cutting back on your rice portions, rather than worrying about what is or isn't processed. (And rice is barely "processed" at all... but its incredibly calorie dense with high glycemic index).
Switching out bread portions (since bread is highly processed) for rice portions won't do you jack diddly squat. Both are high calorie / high glycemic index foods.
> You're going to do more for your health by cutting back on your rice portions, rather than worrying about what is or isn't processed. (And rice is barely "processed" at all... but its incredibly calorie dense with high glycemic index).
And yet Asia has basically no obesity problem. We clearly need better nutrition science.
And yet Asia has basically no obesity problem. We clearly need better nutrition science.
Portion sizes in Asia are smaller.
Citation: I'm Asian-American. Also, Filipino. We're not obese, but erm... Americans might be healthier, no joke. The amount of lechon we consume (incredibly fatty pig) + other fatty foods is a big problem to heart health, despite the fact that it doesn't cause obesity.
Oh, and Filipinos generally eat fresh foods. Fresh fish, fresh pork, fresh chicken. Relatively low processed foods (our Halo-Halo is similar to your "ice cream", except Halo-Halo is just milk poured over shaved ice + fruits + ube mixed in. "Low processing", but we all know its a desert and unhealthy).
That's the thing. Being Filipino gives me more insight into this "processed food" craze going on. Halo-halo has almost no processing involved and is made out of fresh ingredients. That doesn't make Halo-halo any healthier.
> And yet Asia has basically no obesity problem. We clearly need better nutrition science.
We all know beer and soda is bad for us, and yet we drink it all the time as a society. I'm not sure what nutrition science is beneficial when so many people choose to ignore it.
Cut back on high calorie foods. Watch your portion sizes. Count calories. Eat more fibrous meals to fill up your stomach ("tricking" your brain into thinking you're more full). Avoid non-fibrous foods (such as soda) because they miss out on the stomach/brain psychology.
---------
Its hard in America because of stupid little things. Plates are bigger in America, so when you're in America you trick yourself into putting more food into your plates.
Plates are literally smaller in the Philippines. So you end up eating less. Stupid cultural differences like that make a big difference.
Because American culture subtly forces you to overeat (bigger plates, bigger glasses, bigger drinks), you need to explicitly count calories. That's just the facts, if you aren't counting calories in America, you're going to overeat.
Citation: I'm Asian-American. Also, Filipino. We're not obese, but erm... Americans might be healthier, no joke. The amount of lechon we consume (incredibly fatty pig) + other fatty foods is a big problem to heart health, despite the fact that it doesn't cause obesity.
Oh, and Filipinos generally eat fresh foods. Fresh fish, fresh pork, fresh chicken. Relatively low processed foods (our Halo-Halo is similar to your "ice cream", except Halo-Halo is just milk poured over shaved ice + fruits + ube mixed in. "Low processing", but we all know its a desert and unhealthy).
That's the thing. Being Filipino gives me more insight into this "processed food" craze going on. Halo-halo has almost no processing involved and is made out of fresh ingredients. That doesn't make Halo-halo any healthier.
> And yet Asia has basically no obesity problem. We clearly need better nutrition science.
We all know beer and soda is bad for us, and yet we drink it all the time as a society. I'm not sure what nutrition science is beneficial when so many people choose to ignore it.
Cut back on high calorie foods. Watch your portion sizes. Count calories. Eat more fibrous meals to fill up your stomach ("tricking" your brain into thinking you're more full). Avoid non-fibrous foods (such as soda) because they miss out on the stomach/brain psychology.
---------
Its hard in America because of stupid little things. Plates are bigger in America, so when you're in America you trick yourself into putting more food into your plates.
Plates are literally smaller in the Philippines. So you end up eating less. Stupid cultural differences like that make a big difference.
Because American culture subtly forces you to overeat (bigger plates, bigger glasses, bigger drinks), you need to explicitly count calories. That's just the facts, if you aren't counting calories in America, you're going to overeat.
We can probably look at large cities for appropriate policy here: increased investment in pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, localized access to fresh groceries (eliminating food deserts), and investment in public parks and other facilities.
NYC's obesity rate is half of the nation's; we could still do better, but it's a starting point.
NYC's obesity rate is half of the nation's; we could still do better, but it's a starting point.
> NYC's obesity rate is half of the nation's
This is a function of density. We walk more. Look at the boroughs that drive and they're closer to the national average.
Replicating this in e.g. San Francisco would require overcoming the anti-development NIMBYs. That's a hard problem.
This is a function of density. We walk more. Look at the boroughs that drive and they're closer to the national average.
Replicating this in e.g. San Francisco would require overcoming the anti-development NIMBYs. That's a hard problem.
Very true. When it's easier to drive across the street or down the block than walk, you will be less healthy.
Part of what I loved about living in Asia (Taipei, Tokyo, et al.) was that public transit required walking to, between and from stations/stops. It's not much but it's just enough.
Part of what I loved about living in Asia (Taipei, Tokyo, et al.) was that public transit required walking to, between and from stations/stops. It's not much but it's just enough.
People love to rail on suburbs, but I'd be willing to bet that sugar is the real problem.
Sugar is in everything. Snacks, restaurant food, drinks, sauces. It puts the metabolism into a bad state and desensitizes the body to its deleterious effects. Before you know it you're overweight, mentally foggy, and pre-diabetic. Not a good place to start working out or going for outdoor activities.
People exercise and walk more when they have energy to do so. Sugar saps that away.
Look at people in other "confined" spaces: submarines, ships, the space station. These people are not overweight for lack of walking.
It's diet.
America is pumped full of sugar.
edit to respond to comments (since I'm flagged / rate limited) :
Someone with a healthy body and mind won't "sit on their ass 23 hours a day". They won't consume too many calories, either.
Sugar pushes the body into more lethargy and higher sugar consumption.
Sugar is in everything. Snacks, restaurant food, drinks, sauces. It puts the metabolism into a bad state and desensitizes the body to its deleterious effects. Before you know it you're overweight, mentally foggy, and pre-diabetic. Not a good place to start working out or going for outdoor activities.
People exercise and walk more when they have energy to do so. Sugar saps that away.
Look at people in other "confined" spaces: submarines, ships, the space station. These people are not overweight for lack of walking.
It's diet.
America is pumped full of sugar.
edit to respond to comments (since I'm flagged / rate limited) :
Someone with a healthy body and mind won't "sit on their ass 23 hours a day". They won't consume too many calories, either.
Sugar pushes the body into more lethargy and higher sugar consumption.
[deleted]
I follow Layne Norton on youtube, and he has a lot of great videos where he talks about how sugar(nor fat, insulin) are the real issue at hand. He does a great job of reading, and synthesizing lots of research into recommendations. Both for himself as a competition bodybuilder and power lifter, but also as a PhD. Ok, appeal to expertise aside. And yes, many will find him obnoxious in his demeanor, but that's not a rebuttal of his point.
His point basically is that Sugar is not in any way except for how it contributes to excess caloric intake. The key here is that sugar contains calories and can attribute to hyper-caloric state. But you can also eat lots of sugar and be in a hypo-caloric state. Therefore sugar has nothing to do with it. Total consumption is everything here (and body fat percent).
Have a watch of these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JrT84PeTgw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eq8VObUFsk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3WN4zrEENY
His point basically is that Sugar is not in any way except for how it contributes to excess caloric intake. The key here is that sugar contains calories and can attribute to hyper-caloric state. But you can also eat lots of sugar and be in a hypo-caloric state. Therefore sugar has nothing to do with it. Total consumption is everything here (and body fat percent).
Have a watch of these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JrT84PeTgw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eq8VObUFsk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3WN4zrEENY
It's probably both.
It's true that countries where they don't put sugar in everything—or don't use HFCS at all—don't have this problem.
It's also true that between 1950 and 2000 portion sizes went up. For everything. If you travel in France and Italy, known for butter and pasta heavy cooking, respectively, their servings are half the size of the typical American restaurant.
At the same time, if you go from a walking city in the US to a suburb where it's all cars all the time, the visible difference if you just look around at people is jarring. Sure, cities might eat differently, but not that differently.
I'm not anti-car, but in some places the 100% sedentary lifestyle is a big part of the problem.
It's true that countries where they don't put sugar in everything—or don't use HFCS at all—don't have this problem.
It's also true that between 1950 and 2000 portion sizes went up. For everything. If you travel in France and Italy, known for butter and pasta heavy cooking, respectively, their servings are half the size of the typical American restaurant.
At the same time, if you go from a walking city in the US to a suburb where it's all cars all the time, the visible difference if you just look around at people is jarring. Sure, cities might eat differently, but not that differently.
I'm not anti-car, but in some places the 100% sedentary lifestyle is a big part of the problem.
City design and the food industry haven't changed substantially in the last 40 years. If anything, there has been increasing emphasis on walkability in communities and health in foods. And yet the obesity rate was 15% in 1980 and 42% now.
Isn't that expected? People born since 1980 grew up with those sticky habits/culture around food and exercise, and are a growing proportion of the population.
The problem with "policy solutions" is that they don't account for individual preferences.
Do people want walkable cities? Or do they want single-family dwellings and yards?
Do people want to be healthy? Or do they want sugary foods and television programs?
Fortunately, the U.S. has plenty of each, to accommodate multiple preferences.
Life is trade-offs. It's the conceit of policy makers to force their trade-off preferences on people.
Do people want walkable cities? Or do they want single-family dwellings and yards?
Do people want to be healthy? Or do they want sugary foods and television programs?
Fortunately, the U.S. has plenty of each, to accommodate multiple preferences.
Life is trade-offs. It's the conceit of policy makers to force their trade-off preferences on people.
> Fortunately, the U.S. has plenty of each, to accommodate multiple preferences.
As of 2010, close to 24 million Americans lived in a "food desert"[1], i.e. an area without adequate access to healthy eating choices. These areas are disproportionately lower SES areas, and the people in them don't get to have a "preference"; the decision is being made for them.
Edit: Here's a paper explaining the correlation and absence of choice in detail[2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
[2]: https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/66/4/216/1...
As of 2010, close to 24 million Americans lived in a "food desert"[1], i.e. an area without adequate access to healthy eating choices. These areas are disproportionately lower SES areas, and the people in them don't get to have a "preference"; the decision is being made for them.
Edit: Here's a paper explaining the correlation and absence of choice in detail[2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
[2]: https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/66/4/216/1...
My point was the the U.S. has plenty of each place.
So, yeah, that's exactly my point.
So, yeah, that's exactly my point.
Your point is that food deserts are evidence of preference? That doesn’t make a lot of sense: privation is defined by the absence of actual choice.
An alternative approach is to encourage people to make more effective decisions by actually including the negative impacts of their decisions as actual, dollar costs. If we included the higher healthcare costs of obesity into the cost of soda, it might not be as enticing.
This isn't forcing people to make a decision, it's including all of the costs in the dollar value of the product on the shelf.
This isn't forcing people to make a decision, it's including all of the costs in the dollar value of the product on the shelf.
Indeed. To the extent that healthcare or other costs are carried by society, society must own the sources of those costs.
But the trade-offs are already affected by policy. Do people want oil policies that make driving cheap? Do people want subsidized corn leading to cheap sugary foods? It's worth questioning what led to policies existing in their current form.
Something decisions require all-or-nothing social consensus.
But as much as possible, it's best to reduce decisions to the individual level.
But as much as possible, it's best to reduce decisions to the individual level.
Urban design catering almost exclusively to single family detached housing commuting exclusively by cars was not driven by individual preferences. It is the result of intentional choices made by urban planners in the 1950s and onward. Effectively, these lifestyles are highly subsidized. Only today are we seeing market forces and individual preferences take over as oppressive car-centric zoning policies are relaxed and urban cores revitalize.
Average rents indicate that Manhattan is once again the most highly desired place to live in the country, and for good reason.
Average rents indicate that Manhattan is once again the most highly desired place to live in the country, and for good reason.
> It is the result of intentional choices made by urban planners in the 1950s and onward.
(A) Emphasis on "onward." There's a massive amount of development since 70 years ago; if it were a fluke there's been ample opportunity for it to change.
(B) Who chooses urban planners?
(C) A large number of people want to live in dense population centers. Also, a large number of people don't.
(A) Emphasis on "onward." There's a massive amount of development since 70 years ago; if it were a fluke there's been ample opportunity for it to change.
(B) Who chooses urban planners?
(C) A large number of people want to live in dense population centers. Also, a large number of people don't.
City design hasn’t helped; however, even in places where walkability and public transit are good, Mexico City, Paris, China, etc., people are becoming obese.
Something else is a major contributor to this.
Something else is a major contributor to this.
Yes, exercise is good for you, and should be taken, but diet seems to be the most important factor.
Research had came out indicating that exercise doesn't really do much good in losing weight. Might help in maintaining weight.
Research had came out indicating that exercise doesn't really do much good in losing weight. Might help in maintaining weight.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Indeed it's a heck of a lot easier to not eat 500 calories than to burn off 500 calories.
Running a 5k doesn't even burn 500 calories for most people, but you can eat that much in snacks without a second thought. To really make a difference in weight the much more important side of the equation is intake.
Running a 5k doesn't even burn 500 calories for most people, but you can eat that much in snacks without a second thought. To really make a difference in weight the much more important side of the equation is intake.
It get worse. Apparently, your body adjust its basal metabolism over the long term in response to daily physical activity.
While I am not completely convinced that it works to greatly improve fitness, I can attest that the low heart rate running approach (google Maffetone:180 - age) approach does not seem to increase appetite at all.
I realize that this discussion is focused on obesity, but the above response comes out every time weight loss is discussed. It may well be accurate in many cases, but I don't think it encompasses the full picture of health. For example, smoking has shown to aid weight loss, but the outcome of taking up smoking is a skinnier person with a new set of comorbidities.
If the desired outcome is an improved quality of life, exercise has a plethora of mental-health benefits [0], cardiovascular and energy improvements[1], and has negative correlations with some of the risk-factors of obesity, like type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and some cancers [1][2].
I would hate for someone to read the common response and conclude that since obesity is causing their problems and weight loss seems more affected by diet changes, that exercise doesn't matter and can be safely skipped. To have a different life a lifestyle change is needed.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470658/ [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172294/ [2] https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/fitness/in-dept...
If the desired outcome is an improved quality of life, exercise has a plethora of mental-health benefits [0], cardiovascular and energy improvements[1], and has negative correlations with some of the risk-factors of obesity, like type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and some cancers [1][2].
I would hate for someone to read the common response and conclude that since obesity is causing their problems and weight loss seems more affected by diet changes, that exercise doesn't matter and can be safely skipped. To have a different life a lifestyle change is needed.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470658/ [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172294/ [2] https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/fitness/in-dept...
Yes, exercise is good for you, and you should do it. But we should be realistic about what exercise can do and can't do.
Unpopular opinion: It's both a personal and societal failing, but personal choice is dominant. You can choose to eat rice and beans and drink water. You don't have to eat hamburgers and fries and drink sugar.
Not everyone has the time to prepare healthy meals, that's why convenience foods are so popular in our overworked society. If the average person spent less time working, they would have more time to shop for and prepare healthy meals.
The average person in this country has time to binge watch Netflix and social media. Have you seen the stats? We do have the time.
Of course there are exceptions, but we're a long long way from only having the exceptions left.
Of course there are exceptions, but we're a long long way from only having the exceptions left.
We may have the time, but we may not have the skills. It's also work to cook food.
People also don't know tricks like meal preps, sous vide, and slow cooking.
People also don't know tricks like meal preps, sous vide, and slow cooking.
Hamburgers aren't necessarily more obesogenic than rice and beans, depending on the specific type of bun and condiments.
Rice has a fairly high glycemic index. Nothing wrong with eating some rice in moderation, but getting the majority of your calories from rice isn't healthy.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/a-good-guide-to-go...
Rice has a fairly high glycemic index. Nothing wrong with eating some rice in moderation, but getting the majority of your calories from rice isn't healthy.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/a-good-guide-to-go...
They are, if they're designed to be addictively delicious.
McDonalds and their ilk, have created taste formulas that are nearly irresistable. I've seen people from foreign countries come to america who've never tasted anything other than their local cuisines who can't imagine eating anything else. but the second they sink their teeth into a McDon hamburger, they are hooked.
MSG has been shown as a super reliable way to make mice obese: there's even a scientific procedure named after it: "MSG induced Obestity". It's a standard procedure used as a precurser to obesity experiments on rats. If it's that reliable on rats, just imagine what it would do to humans.
McDonalds and their ilk, have created taste formulas that are nearly irresistable. I've seen people from foreign countries come to america who've never tasted anything other than their local cuisines who can't imagine eating anything else. but the second they sink their teeth into a McDon hamburger, they are hooked.
MSG has been shown as a super reliable way to make mice obese: there's even a scientific procedure named after it: "MSG induced Obestity". It's a standard procedure used as a precurser to obesity experiments on rats. If it's that reliable on rats, just imagine what it would do to humans.
Nonsense. McDonald's hamburgers don't taste any better than hamburgers cooked at home. They're just more convenient. And they don't contain MSG.
https://www.mcdonalds.com/ae/en-ae/your-right-to-know.3807.d...
https://www.mcdonalds.com/ae/en-ae/your-right-to-know.3807.d...
I love my hamburgers I made at home more than the hamburgers you get at McDonald. Not sure if it's healthy or whatever, but I don't add sugars other than the buns I get from the grocery store.
I don't think fast food restaurant necessarily create delicious superpalatable food.
I don't think fast food restaurant necessarily create delicious superpalatable food.
The myth of MSG being terrible for one's health has been debunked.
I recently learned about the real danger of fast food - the hidden sugar content. Not only does it mean hidden calories, but apparently the stomach also has neurons that can "sense" the sugar, causing dopamine spikes (and consequently increasing sugar cravings.)
I disagree with you because this view considers people in a vacuum as if they are receiving unbiased information to make choices from.
In reality, from a very young age people are bombarded with advertisements and other marketing materials that promote foods packed with sugar, carbs, and salt.
Cinnamon Toast Crunch is "part of this complete breakfast." In reality, it should never be a part of any breakfast.
Unhealthy foods are sold as healthy, e.g., the Nutella scandal: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/04/26/151454929/nu...
Another example: sugary, calorie-laden "vitamin" drinks and other "healthy" trends like flavored/sugared Kombucha, juices, etc.
I remember seeing advertisements from Coca-Cola "debunking" the idea that soda doesn't have hydration benefits.
Then you start realizing that doctors and other experts are receiving free materials from food and drug manufacturers. The food pyramid is influenced by food industry lobbyists.
So you're talking about it as if it's all "choice" but that becomes a very complex subject once you start following the money. The nutrition scientist at your local university or the dietician on main street doesn't have a marketing budget, but PepsiCo sure does.
In reality, from a very young age people are bombarded with advertisements and other marketing materials that promote foods packed with sugar, carbs, and salt.
Cinnamon Toast Crunch is "part of this complete breakfast." In reality, it should never be a part of any breakfast.
Unhealthy foods are sold as healthy, e.g., the Nutella scandal: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/04/26/151454929/nu...
Another example: sugary, calorie-laden "vitamin" drinks and other "healthy" trends like flavored/sugared Kombucha, juices, etc.
I remember seeing advertisements from Coca-Cola "debunking" the idea that soda doesn't have hydration benefits.
Then you start realizing that doctors and other experts are receiving free materials from food and drug manufacturers. The food pyramid is influenced by food industry lobbyists.
So you're talking about it as if it's all "choice" but that becomes a very complex subject once you start following the money. The nutrition scientist at your local university or the dietician on main street doesn't have a marketing budget, but PepsiCo sure does.
That's all true and why I included social failing. We are fighting against an industry that's trying to convince us to eat their junk food. They are making it as addictive as possible. They are trying to present it as healthier than it is. It is hard to resist. So yes, it's absolutely a factor and a significant one.
However, despite that, I have a hard time believing that most people think eating at McDonalds is healthy, or that drinking Coca-Cola is healthy, or eating a bag of chips is healthy. They know it's not. Don't they? Am I wrong about that?
However, despite that, I have a hard time believing that most people think eating at McDonalds is healthy, or that drinking Coca-Cola is healthy, or eating a bag of chips is healthy. They know it's not. Don't they? Am I wrong about that?
You're not wrong about that! People for the most part do know that soda and burgers aren't healthy.
But there are a lot of products out there with more grey area than the typical McDonald's menu item.
For example, the Dunkin' "Power Breakfast Sandwich." The marketing sounds healthy without saying the words "healthy:" https://www.dunkindonuts.com/en/menu/sandwiches-and-more/pow...
Notice how this item has almost half your daily value of saturated fat! High cholesterol, high sodium!
A lot of people would see this menu and think "this is a good alternative to McDonald's."
Same deal with Subway. Jared was selling us on weight loss via eating sandwiches, but he himself didn't eat the Sweet Onion Chicken Teryaki – a.k.a. Chicken on Bread with Sugar Sauce. Subway was promoting footlongs (five...five dollar...five dollar footlongs!) specifically, a portion size that is objectively too large for a single meal unless you're skipping a meal or eating with basically no condiments. Everything about Subway is healthy-ish until you get to the end of the line and you have a spread of caloric sauces to choose from (all free) along with a translucent case of cookies, addictive chips, and unlimited-refill soda.
Another example: products labeled "no added sugar" that are largely sugar, such as orange juice. Sure, it's slightly better than added refined sugar, but it's still sugar and it's still calories.
I once dated someone who thought their daily Dunkin' Donuts coffee was a low-calorie menu item. Nope! It's 300+ calories, because it was a latte in a large portion size with sweetener. But it looks really similar to low-calorie items.
Portions are a huge issue, too. A lot of those fast food chains make larger drink and side sizes in the USA compared to the exact same menu items overseas. Why this is, I'm not actually 100% sure – maybe a more competitive fast food market in America where these companies are trying to beat competing restaurants in value?
All of this is to say:
1. We can't assume the average person's nutritional knowledge is very good. It's barely taught in school and the schools themselves are doing basically nothing to promote healthy eating. My public school provided meals like pizza, smiley-face french fries, Little Debbie desserts, and an entire cookie and slushie stand. They actually helped get me addicted to bad food!
2. We can't assume that the general population has any idea what rational portion sizes look like. This has been distorted beyond belief.
3. We can't even assume that the general population knows what a healthy-weight person looks like anymore! I had family members concerned about one family member who lost weight down to a healthy weight. They thought that this person was starving or something like that, even though they were basically the only person in the family who had reached ideal weight.
I know I ranted for a long bit here but I think the USA in particular is long-overdue for some really major reforms surrounding the food industry. There need to be serious restrictions on advertising, portions, and macronutrient transparency. Bad food should be treated a lot more like cigarettes. For example, if I could make all the decisions I'd make it illegal to mass-advertise any food item that exceeded certain daily value macro-nutrients like saturated fat, sugar, calories, etc. Sure, you can sell them, but you can't put them on TV.
But there are a lot of products out there with more grey area than the typical McDonald's menu item.
For example, the Dunkin' "Power Breakfast Sandwich." The marketing sounds healthy without saying the words "healthy:" https://www.dunkindonuts.com/en/menu/sandwiches-and-more/pow...
Notice how this item has almost half your daily value of saturated fat! High cholesterol, high sodium!
A lot of people would see this menu and think "this is a good alternative to McDonald's."
Same deal with Subway. Jared was selling us on weight loss via eating sandwiches, but he himself didn't eat the Sweet Onion Chicken Teryaki – a.k.a. Chicken on Bread with Sugar Sauce. Subway was promoting footlongs (five...five dollar...five dollar footlongs!) specifically, a portion size that is objectively too large for a single meal unless you're skipping a meal or eating with basically no condiments. Everything about Subway is healthy-ish until you get to the end of the line and you have a spread of caloric sauces to choose from (all free) along with a translucent case of cookies, addictive chips, and unlimited-refill soda.
Another example: products labeled "no added sugar" that are largely sugar, such as orange juice. Sure, it's slightly better than added refined sugar, but it's still sugar and it's still calories.
I once dated someone who thought their daily Dunkin' Donuts coffee was a low-calorie menu item. Nope! It's 300+ calories, because it was a latte in a large portion size with sweetener. But it looks really similar to low-calorie items.
Portions are a huge issue, too. A lot of those fast food chains make larger drink and side sizes in the USA compared to the exact same menu items overseas. Why this is, I'm not actually 100% sure – maybe a more competitive fast food market in America where these companies are trying to beat competing restaurants in value?
All of this is to say:
1. We can't assume the average person's nutritional knowledge is very good. It's barely taught in school and the schools themselves are doing basically nothing to promote healthy eating. My public school provided meals like pizza, smiley-face french fries, Little Debbie desserts, and an entire cookie and slushie stand. They actually helped get me addicted to bad food!
2. We can't assume that the general population has any idea what rational portion sizes look like. This has been distorted beyond belief.
3. We can't even assume that the general population knows what a healthy-weight person looks like anymore! I had family members concerned about one family member who lost weight down to a healthy weight. They thought that this person was starving or something like that, even though they were basically the only person in the family who had reached ideal weight.
I know I ranted for a long bit here but I think the USA in particular is long-overdue for some really major reforms surrounding the food industry. There need to be serious restrictions on advertising, portions, and macronutrient transparency. Bad food should be treated a lot more like cigarettes. For example, if I could make all the decisions I'd make it illegal to mass-advertise any food item that exceeded certain daily value macro-nutrients like saturated fat, sugar, calories, etc. Sure, you can sell them, but you can't put them on TV.
You shouldn't rely on a person estimating meal size and figuring out proper portions or looking up calories.
That's not our ancestors eat, and that's not how I eat either. Though I did quit drinking half and half after realizing that it's supposed to be a food item rather than something to drink.
That's not our ancestors eat, and that's not how I eat either. Though I did quit drinking half and half after realizing that it's supposed to be a food item rather than something to drink.
Your first sentence is exactly why everything I talked about is so important!
A lot of “default” portion sizes are too large.
A lot of companies heavily imply unhealthy products are healthy or beneficial.
A lot of high-calorie items are marketed as something that is okay to eat regularly and not just as an occasional treat.
That’s why in my mind advertising and packaging regulations are being underutilized.
Think of how cigarettes warn you about their unhealthy properties, and aren’t allowed to be advertised on TV. A lot of food products should really have similar restrictions.
E.g.:
“Caution: a full portion of this product provides an elevated level of sodium, increasing risk of heart attack and stroke.”
“This menu item exceeds recommended calorie levels for a single meal, and may cause weight gain and obesity with regular consumption.”
“This item is a high sugar item, increasing the risk of diabetes. Complications of diabetes can include nerve damage and glaucoma.”
A lot of “default” portion sizes are too large.
A lot of companies heavily imply unhealthy products are healthy or beneficial.
A lot of high-calorie items are marketed as something that is okay to eat regularly and not just as an occasional treat.
That’s why in my mind advertising and packaging regulations are being underutilized.
Think of how cigarettes warn you about their unhealthy properties, and aren’t allowed to be advertised on TV. A lot of food products should really have similar restrictions.
E.g.:
“Caution: a full portion of this product provides an elevated level of sodium, increasing risk of heart attack and stroke.”
“This menu item exceeds recommended calorie levels for a single meal, and may cause weight gain and obesity with regular consumption.”
“This item is a high sugar item, increasing the risk of diabetes. Complications of diabetes can include nerve damage and glaucoma.”
I think most people know it's bad for them, but don't realize how bad it actually is, and how much it compounds with other choices throughout an extended amount of time
You are right that it's about personal choice. But, so is Drugs. but they are highly adictive. Once you are addicted, it's much harder to quit.
No, I don't think this hypothesises agrees with observable evidence https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-p...
If personal choice was dominant, or rather, if personal choices were not determined by society, there is no way the Japanese obesity rates would be so low.
That’s because it’s profitable and it’s very difficult to make systemic changes. Here’s a few points:
- In the documentary Fed Up, it showed how Michelle Obama had to back down to the big food companies over her push for healthier food.
- I worked with bariatric surgeons and some incredibly cited papers stating that people can’t lose weight by diet and exercise alone. The surgeons I knew were incredibly narrow-minded and uninterested in any counter arguments.
- Sleeve gastrectomies are the most effective technology to fight obesity. If someone can’t change on their own in 10 years, then it is a good option. It removes 90% of the stomach including the hunger hormone ghrelin.
- The surgeon I worked with had a sleeve procedure, stretched his stomach out, and had a 2nd sleeve.
- Long term, the food environment has to change. Living expenses are high, work demands are high, people are stressed and all the easy options are terrible for you.
- We should distribute good meats, foods, vegetables and essentials in an entirely new way.
- Our business leaders like Buffett and Gates need to realize the absurdity of respectively owning Coca Cola and selling potatoes to the fast food industry. Buffet also owns DaVita, a dialysis company. Gates promotes global health but earns money from french fries being sold at McDonalds.
- In the documentary Fed Up, it showed how Michelle Obama had to back down to the big food companies over her push for healthier food.
- I worked with bariatric surgeons and some incredibly cited papers stating that people can’t lose weight by diet and exercise alone. The surgeons I knew were incredibly narrow-minded and uninterested in any counter arguments.
- Sleeve gastrectomies are the most effective technology to fight obesity. If someone can’t change on their own in 10 years, then it is a good option. It removes 90% of the stomach including the hunger hormone ghrelin.
- The surgeon I worked with had a sleeve procedure, stretched his stomach out, and had a 2nd sleeve.
- Long term, the food environment has to change. Living expenses are high, work demands are high, people are stressed and all the easy options are terrible for you.
- We should distribute good meats, foods, vegetables and essentials in an entirely new way.
- Our business leaders like Buffett and Gates need to realize the absurdity of respectively owning Coca Cola and selling potatoes to the fast food industry. Buffet also owns DaVita, a dialysis company. Gates promotes global health but earns money from french fries being sold at McDonalds.
> Living expenses are high, work demands are high, people are stressed and all the easy options are terrible for you.
It's not obvious, but there are some ways to trade relatively small amounts of inconvenience for food that's healthier and often cheaper.
Some people will cook enough food on a weekend to last the rest of a week with refrigeration, optionally dividing it up into single-serving containers. Since a lot of recipes scale up well, this ends up taking much less cooking time than doing one meal at a time, and the labor is shifted to weekends when you might have more energy. A quality-of-life variation on this idea is to do ingredient preparation for a week on the weekend -- chop the vegetables, measure things out, etc. -- and cook meals for four days, then do a second (much quicker) batch of cooking mid-week so the food doesn't spend too long in the fridge. Googling for "once a week meal prep" will turn up a lot more information on this.
The big problem with the approach above, of course, is the monotony: having only a handful of meal choices each week can get old after a few days. For people who are willing to cook more often but would still like to economize on time, this guide from last year on quarantine meal-planning for people who normally don't make most of their food at home is very good:
https://www.seriouseats.com/our-tips-for-meal-planning-durin...
In particular, the big thing to take from it is the idea of making larger batches of meal components that you can quickly put together in various combinations with different flavors, which lets you save on cooking time (and shift it to when it's more convenient) while also giving more variety in your diet.
It's not obvious, but there are some ways to trade relatively small amounts of inconvenience for food that's healthier and often cheaper.
Some people will cook enough food on a weekend to last the rest of a week with refrigeration, optionally dividing it up into single-serving containers. Since a lot of recipes scale up well, this ends up taking much less cooking time than doing one meal at a time, and the labor is shifted to weekends when you might have more energy. A quality-of-life variation on this idea is to do ingredient preparation for a week on the weekend -- chop the vegetables, measure things out, etc. -- and cook meals for four days, then do a second (much quicker) batch of cooking mid-week so the food doesn't spend too long in the fridge. Googling for "once a week meal prep" will turn up a lot more information on this.
The big problem with the approach above, of course, is the monotony: having only a handful of meal choices each week can get old after a few days. For people who are willing to cook more often but would still like to economize on time, this guide from last year on quarantine meal-planning for people who normally don't make most of their food at home is very good:
https://www.seriouseats.com/our-tips-for-meal-planning-durin...
In particular, the big thing to take from it is the idea of making larger batches of meal components that you can quickly put together in various combinations with different flavors, which lets you save on cooking time (and shift it to when it's more convenient) while also giving more variety in your diet.
My pet hypothesis is that widespread use of endocrine disruptor chemicals such as phthalates (plastic softeners) is one of several key causes for increasing obesity. There isn't real proof of that yet. But exposure is correlated with lower testosterone levels, and we know that low T can cause growth of adipose tissue.
https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2014/r...
https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2014/r...
Being sedentary is also associated with lower testosterone.
People are less active in their work and lives, and not just a little bit.
People are less active in their work and lives, and not just a little bit.
There have been many suggestions in this thread about the root cause of obesity. While I'm sure these things do contribute to the issue, they are not the main cause - the main cause is that being fat is socially acceptable. I don't believe that if the average person placed great importance on being healthy - as great as making more money, getting a better job etc., they would be unable to afford the extra cost of healthy food, fit a couple of hours of exercise per week into their routines, or do whatever it takes to maintain a healthy physique.
[deleted]
I don't think healthy food has to be expensive. It can be if one decides to go the "superfood" route, also if one decides to eat beef / fish with every other meal.
The fact is that multigrain bread, oats, beans, lentils and peanuts are all cheap, filling good sources of fiber and protein. Large animal protein portions are rarely truly needed.
Combine that with some vegetables, a bit of oil, some spices, a modest portion of pork/chicken protein, and you end up with an inexpensive healthy meal. I understand that eating well has other costs (namely, the time and effort it takes to make it and clean up afterwards). For people who value their health, this cost is usually acceptable.
The fact is that multigrain bread, oats, beans, lentils and peanuts are all cheap, filling good sources of fiber and protein. Large animal protein portions are rarely truly needed.
Combine that with some vegetables, a bit of oil, some spices, a modest portion of pork/chicken protein, and you end up with an inexpensive healthy meal. I understand that eating well has other costs (namely, the time and effort it takes to make it and clean up afterwards). For people who value their health, this cost is usually acceptable.
There's even a helpful subreddit r/EatCheapAndHealthy
Seems to be a form of victim blaming.
If people tried to follow normal dieting advice, and they failed, do we keep telling them to try harder?
I am speaking as someone who had lost a lot of weight and achieved near normal BMI and had prioritized health. I found intermittent fasting to be much easier and less willpower taxing than counting calories, which was way too much work.
People do want to be healthier and a lot of people really tried hard. Problem is, in other societies, it's effortless.
If people tried to follow normal dieting advice, and they failed, do we keep telling them to try harder?
I am speaking as someone who had lost a lot of weight and achieved near normal BMI and had prioritized health. I found intermittent fasting to be much easier and less willpower taxing than counting calories, which was way too much work.
People do want to be healthier and a lot of people really tried hard. Problem is, in other societies, it's effortless.
Your last line really resonates with me. I was born and raised in a country with a very high obesity rate these days. I am currently living in Amsterdam.
The Dutch attitude towards walking, cycling, food and sports makes it extremely easy to manage one's weight, if you buy into it. When I visit my home country, no one in my family / friends circle enjoys walking. Most don't enjoy exercise, but they are truly fond of barbecues, beer, soft drinks and other such hyper palatable foods.
Had I remained in my home country, I would just be one more data point toward the obesity statistic, just by virtue of putting some effort to fit in.
The Dutch attitude towards walking, cycling, food and sports makes it extremely easy to manage one's weight, if you buy into it. When I visit my home country, no one in my family / friends circle enjoys walking. Most don't enjoy exercise, but they are truly fond of barbecues, beer, soft drinks and other such hyper palatable foods.
Had I remained in my home country, I would just be one more data point toward the obesity statistic, just by virtue of putting some effort to fit in.
I disagree - I think it's a matter of perspective. Many people see the task of getting in shape as some herculean effort requiring inhuman willpower, subconsciously setting themselves up for failure.
Consider this - most people spend 40+ hours at work, 5+ hours in commute, only to go home and spend most of the rest of the waking hours doing house chores or attending to family needs - this is a truly epic investment of human effort, yet almost every adult does it without thinking and nobody thinks it's exceptional, thing is, it's kind of expected of people. Compared to that, the amount of sacrifice needed to get healthy is miniscule - only the lack of boring routine and social expectations make it seem otherwise.
Consider this - most people spend 40+ hours at work, 5+ hours in commute, only to go home and spend most of the rest of the waking hours doing house chores or attending to family needs - this is a truly epic investment of human effort, yet almost every adult does it without thinking and nobody thinks it's exceptional, thing is, it's kind of expected of people. Compared to that, the amount of sacrifice needed to get healthy is miniscule - only the lack of boring routine and social expectations make it seem otherwise.
I disagree - I think it's a matter of perspective. Many people see the task of getting in shape as some herculean effort requiring inhuman willpower, subconsciously setting themselves up for failure.
It's much easier to do something you have to do. Much harder to do something that isn't required of you.
It's much easier to do something you have to do. Much harder to do something that isn't required of you.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Seems to be a form of victim blaming.
Sorry, but no. The person you're replying to made some spot on points.
If a person wants to maintain some semblance of physical fitness then they are going to have to work for it. It's astounding that this concept gets lost on so many people, as if having a normal-sized physique should come naturally to someone who lives a sedentary yet gluttonous lifestyle.
Also, to their point about being fat having become socially acceptable. Yes, it is true, at least as far as women are concerned. So much that euphemisms are being used all the time: plus size, curvy, thicc, voluptuous, and so on. I've heard people even use the term "athletic" to describe a thicker person's physique.
> If people tried to follow normal dieting advice, and they failed, do we keep telling them to try harder?
Really depends on how hard they "tried". If a person is actually determined to maintain a good physique, then yes they have to work at it AND they need to be honest with themselves about how much food (as well as the type of foods) that they consume. If someone gives up after a week of dieting and exercise because they don't see significant results or because it's just too hard for them to maintain then that's entirely on them. If they want to then view themselves as a victim, then that just shows a lack of accountability.
Sorry, but no. The person you're replying to made some spot on points.
If a person wants to maintain some semblance of physical fitness then they are going to have to work for it. It's astounding that this concept gets lost on so many people, as if having a normal-sized physique should come naturally to someone who lives a sedentary yet gluttonous lifestyle.
Also, to their point about being fat having become socially acceptable. Yes, it is true, at least as far as women are concerned. So much that euphemisms are being used all the time: plus size, curvy, thicc, voluptuous, and so on. I've heard people even use the term "athletic" to describe a thicker person's physique.
> If people tried to follow normal dieting advice, and they failed, do we keep telling them to try harder?
Really depends on how hard they "tried". If a person is actually determined to maintain a good physique, then yes they have to work at it AND they need to be honest with themselves about how much food (as well as the type of foods) that they consume. If someone gives up after a week of dieting and exercise because they don't see significant results or because it's just too hard for them to maintain then that's entirely on them. If they want to then view themselves as a victim, then that just shows a lack of accountability.
If a person wants to maintain some semblance of physical fitness then they are going to have to work for it. It's astounding that this concept gets lost on so many people, as if having a normal-sized physique should come naturally to someone who lives a sedentary yet gluttonous lifestyle.
I am mostly concerned about health, rather than physical fitness.
Really depends on how hard they "tried". If a person is actually determined to maintain a good physique, then yes they have to work at it AND they need to be honest with themselves about how much food (as well as the type of foods) that they consume. If someone gives up after a week of dieting and exercise because they don't see significant results or because it's just too hard for them to maintain then that's entirely on them. If they want to then view themselves as a victim, then that just shows a lack of accountability.
Trust me, I am the first to sign up for accountability and looking over your health. I exercised fairly consistently and lost 30-40 pounds to the point of being almost normal BMI. Just need to lose like 5 more than I'll be happy.
People really do want to get healthy, and they spent prodigious amount of effort, and failed anyway. Maybe it's something wrong with our strategies/approach then it is something's wrong with the victim.
In the end, I don't really think it's an issue of gluttony either. I love food. I still eat a lot when I can, maybe even too much. However, I basically don't drink soda, or even artificially sweet soda, and excluded most sweets thing. Trying to make sure I eat veggies.
I am mostly concerned about health, rather than physical fitness.
Really depends on how hard they "tried". If a person is actually determined to maintain a good physique, then yes they have to work at it AND they need to be honest with themselves about how much food (as well as the type of foods) that they consume. If someone gives up after a week of dieting and exercise because they don't see significant results or because it's just too hard for them to maintain then that's entirely on them. If they want to then view themselves as a victim, then that just shows a lack of accountability.
Trust me, I am the first to sign up for accountability and looking over your health. I exercised fairly consistently and lost 30-40 pounds to the point of being almost normal BMI. Just need to lose like 5 more than I'll be happy.
People really do want to get healthy, and they spent prodigious amount of effort, and failed anyway. Maybe it's something wrong with our strategies/approach then it is something's wrong with the victim.
In the end, I don't really think it's an issue of gluttony either. I love food. I still eat a lot when I can, maybe even too much. However, I basically don't drink soda, or even artificially sweet soda, and excluded most sweets thing. Trying to make sure I eat veggies.
> they are not the main cause
Well, perhaps. If multiple different factors (say: car culture, ease of food delivery, prevalence of tasty-if-unhealthy food, peer prestige via excess, and targeted advertising) -- or perhaps more -- combine, they can actually create an overriding sense of social acceptability that you then cite.
In that sense, the social acceptability becomes a defensive moat for all of the problematic practices that have created the obesity problem in the first place; and rational people will join in defending the moat rather than questioning what is behind it.
Well, perhaps. If multiple different factors (say: car culture, ease of food delivery, prevalence of tasty-if-unhealthy food, peer prestige via excess, and targeted advertising) -- or perhaps more -- combine, they can actually create an overriding sense of social acceptability that you then cite.
In that sense, the social acceptability becomes a defensive moat for all of the problematic practices that have created the obesity problem in the first place; and rational people will join in defending the moat rather than questioning what is behind it.
Healthy foods (e.g. fresh fruit and vegetables) being more expensive than unhealthy ones (e.g. McDonald's) is one of the structural incentives causing increased obesity in the US. In most countries - including Europe - it's the opposite way around. You're quite right to say that people should take care of their own health, but if you live in a place where cycle lanes will get you everywhere you need to go, there are plentiful public green spaces and healthy food is cheap and available everywhere (as I do in Germany), then staying healthy is a lot easier than if you live in, say, the suburbs of Houston.
Well if it's pet theory time, mine is that it's all the sauces, dressings, ketchups, breadcrumbs, and other additions, and indirectly salt and spices. My exhibit #1 are 800-calories salads at Cheesecake Factory. My exhibit #2 is an American dude in Munich telling me the (wonderful, tasty) local pork is "flavorless" and they needs to add some crap to it, or at least give him some ketchup.
You can eat anything - vegetables, meat, fish, potatoes, pasta, bread - and be pretty thin. If you add 500 calories of dressing to a salad, then no matter what you eat, you are doomed... also, that and spices would bomb out your taste buds, so you wouldn't even be able to enjoy "purer" food anymore.
You can eat anything - vegetables, meat, fish, potatoes, pasta, bread - and be pretty thin. If you add 500 calories of dressing to a salad, then no matter what you eat, you are doomed... also, that and spices would bomb out your taste buds, so you wouldn't even be able to enjoy "purer" food anymore.
Nitpicking is pointless here, but the phrasing was immediately confusing to me.
"US Adults are 42.4% obese" leads me to believe that all US adults are 42.4% of the way to becoming obese, where as in actuality it appears that 42.4% of US adults are obese.
"US Adults are 42.4% obese" leads me to believe that all US adults are 42.4% of the way to becoming obese, where as in actuality it appears that 42.4% of US adults are obese.
the first line on the link is a little more clear
> The US obesity prevalence was 42.4% in 2017 – 2018.
> The US obesity prevalence was 42.4% in 2017 – 2018.
I'm medically "obese", but nobody looking at me would say that. Whenever I tell people that I'm dieting, they're surprised and often tell me that I look good.
So with the medical definition of obese not matching what peoples' eyes tell them, I'm not surprised that 42% are "obese".
So with the medical definition of obese not matching what peoples' eyes tell them, I'm not surprised that 42% are "obese".
In this age of normalised obesity, the idea of what an obese person looks like has also shifted. Plenty of overweight and slightly obese people would consider themselves as normal weight in countries where obesity is prevalent.
And normal they are, but it's just a bad reference point.
And normal they are, but it's just a bad reference point.
My point was more about what other people perceive than what a person perceives about themselves.
I agree that the perception of "normal weight" has probably changed over the years, but I think "obese" has always meant something more extreme to the layman than it has to a medical professional.
I agree that the perception of "normal weight" has probably changed over the years, but I think "obese" has always meant something more extreme to the layman than it has to a medical professional.
Do you really think anyone reading this is going to think you're anything other than an obese person with polite friends and a mild case of self-delusion?
Of course, there are many nuances. Your musculature (though surely if you were a bodybuilder you'd have said so). Your sex, both for where fat sits on your body and for social expectations. The clothes you wear. Normal human variation - if your femurs just happen to be -2 standard deviations in length, your BMI will always be higher than it would be otherwise.
Someone with a BMI just into the thirties can still have a good level of walking-around fitness, look good in a shirt, etc. They wouldn't stand out in today's society. But the medical risks are still increased in a statistical sense. It being normalised may make people feel better but doesn't solve the medical issue.
Of course, there are many nuances. Your musculature (though surely if you were a bodybuilder you'd have said so). Your sex, both for where fat sits on your body and for social expectations. The clothes you wear. Normal human variation - if your femurs just happen to be -2 standard deviations in length, your BMI will always be higher than it would be otherwise.
Someone with a BMI just into the thirties can still have a good level of walking-around fitness, look good in a shirt, etc. They wouldn't stand out in today's society. But the medical risks are still increased in a statistical sense. It being normalised may make people feel better but doesn't solve the medical issue.
I'm sure some people will just say "Yeah, he's a fatty that's lying to himself." Others will believe me, possibly because I can't think of any reason to lie about it.
And I happen to think my legs are short for my height, and my arms are a bit long. It's worked out quite well for me.
But my point was simply that the number will seem hard to believe for many people if they don't realize that the layman word "obese" means something slightly different than the medical term.
And I happen to think my legs are short for my height, and my arms are a bit long. It's worked out quite well for me.
But my point was simply that the number will seem hard to believe for many people if they don't realize that the layman word "obese" means something slightly different than the medical term.
Yep, "42.4% of US Adults are obese" would have been a better title.
We need to outlaw sugar and restrict simple carbs in made to order foods.
Outlaw sugar? What about those of us that can use sugar on moderation? Sugar passports might be better - you have to get a physical from a doctor and if your BMI and biometrics are ok you can get a sugar passport allowing you to order soft drinks and purchase candy.
Haha, right. Good luck trying to propose that.
But I agree with you on your first point: there's nothing wrong with sugar in moderation. But it seems that it's just too hard to keep it in moderation for a lot of people. And that's understandable: high calorie, highly palatable foods are often packed with sugar and fat (hence "highly palatable") but don't contain enough fiber to fill you up and -more importantly- keep you full for a long time. So you're gonna be hungry again soon, despite having just consumed a shit load of calories.
It's too easy to consume more calories than you actually burn, especially since we hardly move anymore compared to previous generations. Our life style is sitting down.
But I agree with you on your first point: there's nothing wrong with sugar in moderation. But it seems that it's just too hard to keep it in moderation for a lot of people. And that's understandable: high calorie, highly palatable foods are often packed with sugar and fat (hence "highly palatable") but don't contain enough fiber to fill you up and -more importantly- keep you full for a long time. So you're gonna be hungry again soon, despite having just consumed a shit load of calories.
It's too easy to consume more calories than you actually burn, especially since we hardly move anymore compared to previous generations. Our life style is sitting down.
Outlaw sugar? You must be joking. No thanks, I don't want to live in your nanny state.
I hear Prohibition was such a great deterrent to alcoholism and related debauchery. Seems like something we should try again.
(/sarcasm)
(/sarcasm)
Processed sugar definitely. At least cap & trade sugar if possible.
I would not saw 'outlaw', but a lot of food has sugar added to it, especially bread type items. I even heard meat products have added sugar.
I would say if a food item that people would think should not have added sugar, a very large label would be required on the package that states "SUGAR/CORN SYRUP ADDED".
I heard corn syrup is even worse and that is used instead of Sugar in a lot of places.
I would say if a food item that people would think should not have added sugar, a very large label would be required on the package that states "SUGAR/CORN SYRUP ADDED".
I heard corn syrup is even worse and that is used instead of Sugar in a lot of places.
> I would say if a food item that people would think should not have added sugar, a very large label would be required on the package that states "SUGAR/CORN SYRUP ADDED".
I see a strong parallel between this idea and the now-ubiquitous GDPR consent banners.
I see a strong parallel between this idea and the now-ubiquitous GDPR consent banners.
Just tax it like we do cigarettes.
We need to stop putting sugar in everything. That's the root cause of most of our problems.
It's not just industrialized preprocessed and prepackaged food, because restaurants are guilty of this too.
I don't buy the "cars and suburbs" as a root cause argument. People would be less sedentary if they felt healthier and more energetic.
Sugar is the problem.
It's not just industrialized preprocessed and prepackaged food, because restaurants are guilty of this too.
I don't buy the "cars and suburbs" as a root cause argument. People would be less sedentary if they felt healthier and more energetic.
Sugar is the problem.
I disagree. I live in NYC, where automobiles are the least-convenient way to get around. People don't really eat much better here than anywhere else, but they walk around almost constantly. Everyone is hela fit.
Until you drift out to the outer boroughs where cars are more convenient, that is.
Also I think that the assertion that "people would be less sedentary if they felt healthier" requires evidence. Some people who feel healthy and energetic would still rather sit down and play videogames.
Any fitness system that requires carving time out of the day is doomed to failure; what works is fitness that is built into the things people already do. In other words, if you walk or bike everywhere, you don't have to make time to work out.
Until you drift out to the outer boroughs where cars are more convenient, that is.
Also I think that the assertion that "people would be less sedentary if they felt healthier" requires evidence. Some people who feel healthy and energetic would still rather sit down and play videogames.
Any fitness system that requires carving time out of the day is doomed to failure; what works is fitness that is built into the things people already do. In other words, if you walk or bike everywhere, you don't have to make time to work out.
I can't stand sugar in savory foods. I had a friend tell me a handy tip at Thai restaurants is to ask for your food made with no sugar, so I tried it at my favorite place. The college student waiter got a wide eyed look on his face and lowered his voice to say "can't do that, and it's in _everything_."
It sucks that this is as commonplace as it is.
It sucks that this is as commonplace as it is.
That's a key part of Thai cuisine though, isn't it?
I imagine you'd have an easier time at the nearest German restaurant. Not sure what they even could put sugar into and have any positive impact.
I imagine you'd have an easier time at the nearest German restaurant. Not sure what they even could put sugar into and have any positive impact.
> I don't buy the "cars and suburbs" as a root cause argument
Why? I didn’t think the connection between infrastructure and transportation was particularly controversial. Also, real world problems often have multiple causes…
Why? I didn’t think the connection between infrastructure and transportation was particularly controversial. Also, real world problems often have multiple causes…
ahem Subway
Is this solely done based on BMI? Some of you may know that BMI can be wildly inaccurate. (this guy is technically obese on BMI scale - https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=153207891)
I wonder if we would find better connections between disease and "weight" with body fat % or similar measure.
I wonder if we would find better connections between disease and "weight" with body fat % or similar measure.
I've read in a few places that BMI can be inaccurate too. Wondering if anyone has any good articles or perspective that dig into this some more:
1. Is it a "good enough" metric? 2. Is it "wildly inaccurate" for most, or just some outliers?
1. Is it a "good enough" metric? 2. Is it "wildly inaccurate" for most, or just some outliers?
If you are ripped af and most of your body mass is muscles then yes your high BMI can be safely ignored. For everyone else, it's definitely a "good enough" reflection of their bad habits.
BMI can be inaccurate for an individual. That's because it was never designed as a metric to be applied to individuals, but rather to populations. This page is an example of BMI being used appropriately.
> I've read in a few places that BMI can be inaccurate too
BMI can't be inaccurate, though conclusions drawn naively from it can be.
BMI can't be inaccurate, though conclusions drawn naively from it can be.
Yes, BMI overestimates obesity in bodybuilders, but there aren't many bodybuilders, so that has roughly no impact on population statistics.
On a population level, BMI actually underestimates obesity https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/bmi-underestimates-pr... so the real obesity percentage is probably even worse than 42.4%
On a population level, BMI actually underestimates obesity https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/bmi-underestimates-pr... so the real obesity percentage is probably even worse than 42.4%
The way I've heard it, BMI can be inaccurate on the individual level, but it was created to analyze populations more broadly, where it can be a somewhat useful heuristic. I would guess athletes with obese BMIs are a small enough portion of the population to not make too much of a change to the population-wide statistics.
Yeah I doubt the obesity pandemic in the U.S. is really just a bunch of bros have had sick gains.
Most likely done based on BMI because most methods of measuring body fat are not easy to access and have significant variability. I agree with you that BMI is not the best method, but it's probably the best default because it's easy to measure.
Beat to the reply by a few other people on the accuracy across populations. The only thing I'll add is that BMI is a much more accessible measure. The more accuracy we want, the more invasive and expensive it is to collect. Just about anyone who's ever been seen by a healthcare provider has their height and weight taken so it's a very easy metric to capture across an entire population.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Non-Hispanic Black adults (49.6%) had the highest age-adjusted prevalence of obesity, followed by Hispanic adults (44.8%), non-Hispanic White adults (42.2%) and non-Hispanic Asian adults (17.4%).
This made me say "whoa!" How are asian adults so much lower probable obese?
Also can we please have a COVID-19 sized response to this issue? > was $147 billion in 2008.
And I've heard elsewhere the _economic_ impact is even greater in the long tail of small but numerous costs of obesity. For example the fuel cost on a flight is greater, or premature mortality meaning that education investment has a lower ROI.
This made me say "whoa!" How are asian adults so much lower probable obese?
Also can we please have a COVID-19 sized response to this issue? > was $147 billion in 2008.
And I've heard elsewhere the _economic_ impact is even greater in the long tail of small but numerous costs of obesity. For example the fuel cost on a flight is greater, or premature mortality meaning that education investment has a lower ROI.
Diet. Higher proportion of Asians being first generation could be a confounding factor. I am sure Nigerians and other first generation are the same.
Then the second and third generations pick up bad eating habits, namely alcohol and eating out.
But from my trips back to my parents’ country, I see a lot of fat rich people and fat kids who have rich parents. In the US, I feel like I hardly ever see rich and fat people.
So it is probably a pendulum where you go from being poor and having to eat home cooked food and not having access to excess calories, and then you might pass on some of those good habits to your kids, but the grandkids will not have them. But then if you are in a social circle that is all relatively rich where being fit is valued, then you might start focusing on being fit rather than enjoying all the wealth you have.
Then the second and third generations pick up bad eating habits, namely alcohol and eating out.
But from my trips back to my parents’ country, I see a lot of fat rich people and fat kids who have rich parents. In the US, I feel like I hardly ever see rich and fat people.
So it is probably a pendulum where you go from being poor and having to eat home cooked food and not having access to excess calories, and then you might pass on some of those good habits to your kids, but the grandkids will not have them. But then if you are in a social circle that is all relatively rich where being fit is valued, then you might start focusing on being fit rather than enjoying all the wealth you have.
I'd venture to guess that a key difference is that most Black adults grew up in America while most Asian adults immigrated here, maintaining their previous culture's eating and exercise habits.
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/obesity-and-covid-19.html
Obesity is also highly correlated to covid19 hospitalizations and deaths.
-----------
IIRC, slightly overweight (ex: BMI 26 or so) might be better for certain diseases... as having a layer of "emergency fat" for your body to consume during a sickness / illness is beneficial... with respect to a disease. Its worse for long-term health however.
However, "Slightly overweight" is also a condition for strong athletes, as muscle is far more dense than fat. So many strong and healthy athletes are technically overweight (but incredibly healthy). So IIRC, there's a bit of confounding going on in the overweight category.
Once we start getting to the obese category (BMI 30+), the number of muscular people in that group diminishes, and the vast majority of Americans in that group are in fact, unhealthy and sedentary individuals. (I'm sure there's some healthy boxers or wrestlers who are BMI 30+, but they'd be in the gross minority of BMI 30+ individuals in this country)
Obesity is also highly correlated to covid19 hospitalizations and deaths.
-----------
IIRC, slightly overweight (ex: BMI 26 or so) might be better for certain diseases... as having a layer of "emergency fat" for your body to consume during a sickness / illness is beneficial... with respect to a disease. Its worse for long-term health however.
However, "Slightly overweight" is also a condition for strong athletes, as muscle is far more dense than fat. So many strong and healthy athletes are technically overweight (but incredibly healthy). So IIRC, there's a bit of confounding going on in the overweight category.
Once we start getting to the obese category (BMI 30+), the number of muscular people in that group diminishes, and the vast majority of Americans in that group are in fact, unhealthy and sedentary individuals. (I'm sure there's some healthy boxers or wrestlers who are BMI 30+, but they'd be in the gross minority of BMI 30+ individuals in this country)
Sugar and its synthetic brothers are addictive. Sugar addiction should be classified as an addiction and given the same sort of attention and funding that alcohol and drug addictions receive.
What harm is there from artificial sweeteners? Or rather, how much consumption of artificial sweeteners is harmful?
They may mess with your sense of taste, making you crave even sweeter foods.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/artificial-sweeteners-su...
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/artificial-sweeteners-su...
I feel like I have seen a lot of BS peddled about artificial sweeteners over the years, but it seems like they would certainly be a better alternative to the sugar people have been eating.
Despite their widespread consumption, I have yet to see any reports of people being directly affected by them, at least in the amounts currently consumed.
Despite their widespread consumption, I have yet to see any reports of people being directly affected by them, at least in the amounts currently consumed.
One issue with artificial sweeteners is that they can make a person feel hungry an hour or two after consumption. Thus causing a person to consume more calories than they normally would.
Being against artificial sweeteners is like being against vaping. Even if they cause some harm, the alternative is a massive danger, so we should still encourage people to switch.
Artificial sweeteners haven't had the effect of making people thinner in the real world because it affects your sense of taste and the microbiome in your digestive system.
> Dr. Robert Lustig, an obesity expert and professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco, said that artificial sweeteners confuse the body: Their sweet flavors send a signal to the brain and the digestive system to brace for a flood of sugar. But when those calories never arrive, it can send hormones like insulin out of whack, over time leading to metabolic dysfunction, he said. > “The short answer is that artificial sweeteners are probably better than sugar, but not by much,” Dr. Lustig said.
NYT: https://archive.ph/MoRg7#selection-887.0-891.114
The difference between smoking and vaping is far more vast than the difference between sugar and artificial sugar
> Dr. Robert Lustig, an obesity expert and professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco, said that artificial sweeteners confuse the body: Their sweet flavors send a signal to the brain and the digestive system to brace for a flood of sugar. But when those calories never arrive, it can send hormones like insulin out of whack, over time leading to metabolic dysfunction, he said. > “The short answer is that artificial sweeteners are probably better than sugar, but not by much,” Dr. Lustig said.
NYT: https://archive.ph/MoRg7#selection-887.0-891.114
The difference between smoking and vaping is far more vast than the difference between sugar and artificial sugar
One major contributor to growing obesity is the US diet. It is terrible IMO. I believe we need massive corporate responsibility to solving this issue. Without some form of intervention we are going to see rising costs to our healthcare system to sustain high levels of obesity among the populous.
we now have requirements in most places that nutrition must be on the label or accessible. this hasn’t slowed down the obesity rates.
people don’t care what they’re eating and don’t try to figure it out. this is a personal responsibility and it’s cultural, not universal. from this link not every demographic has the same obesity rates
people don’t care what they’re eating and don’t try to figure it out. this is a personal responsibility and it’s cultural, not universal. from this link not every demographic has the same obesity rates
Nutrition facts don't matter if all your choices are unhealthy.
If you visit any chain restaurant, nearly every meal (even the healthy looking ones) has added sugars and simple carbs.
If you visit any chain restaurant, nearly every meal (even the healthy looking ones) has added sugars and simple carbs.
This is so true. Here in Mexico, we've got a new law requiring large "Warning Labels" [1] warning of excess sugar, fat and calories. However, now when you go to the supermarket to buy say, cereal or tomato paste all the available options have all the same seals.
If you limited your purchases to the "healthy" options, you would basically had to buy fruit, vegetables and raw poultry, meat and fish.
[1] https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/new-warning-labels-now-requ...
If you limited your purchases to the "healthy" options, you would basically had to buy fruit, vegetables and raw poultry, meat and fish.
[1] https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/new-warning-labels-now-requ...
Every time I comment on one of these threads, I mention how most people don't know about the most fundamental component of weight control: Calories-in calories-out.
And then I get a mass of people complaining that "it's not that simple! x y and z also impact weight!"
I think so much has to do with these two points:
1. Most don't know about CICO.
2. Many who do throw it away as not useful.
We should be teaching this in school health classes. I'm not sure if we are, as I'm from the food-pyramid era which was not even close to useful.
Edit: I went from +7 to 0 in a very short period of time. This isn't me complaining, this is me making my point. People downvote the most fundamental component of weight control, even among a likely more educated than average group of people.
And then I get a mass of people complaining that "it's not that simple! x y and z also impact weight!"
I think so much has to do with these two points:
1. Most don't know about CICO.
2. Many who do throw it away as not useful.
We should be teaching this in school health classes. I'm not sure if we are, as I'm from the food-pyramid era which was not even close to useful.
Edit: I went from +7 to 0 in a very short period of time. This isn't me complaining, this is me making my point. People downvote the most fundamental component of weight control, even among a likely more educated than average group of people.
Exactly. If you operate at caloric deficit (which can be achieved via caloric subsidies such as diet or exercise) you will lose weight. Even if your caloric deficit is achieved through processed junk, you'll still lose weight. Not a recommendation to do that, but, if you're simply optimizing for losing weight, it would technically work.
And also if you're gonna be tracking your calories, be liberal with the caloric value of what you're eating. There's some really messed up entries for caloric value of things in MyFitnessPal that extremely underestimate how many calories are in certain foods. Like an entry for a full-sized cinnamon bun that says it's 150 calories (just making up an example, but I've seen things that absurd)
Too many people complain about tracking calories not working for them, and I guarantee it's that they weren't tracking properly.
Edit: Oh another thing: with stuff like protein powder measuring itself in scoops, they tend to be way off in how many grams are in a scoop. I don't know how they get away with it, but if you measure with a scale how many grams are in a scoop, it can be like 25% more than what it says on the tub
Too many people complain about tracking calories not working for them, and I guarantee it's that they weren't tracking properly.
Edit: Oh another thing: with stuff like protein powder measuring itself in scoops, they tend to be way off in how many grams are in a scoop. I don't know how they get away with it, but if you measure with a scale how many grams are in a scoop, it can be like 25% more than what it says on the tub
We (Americans) didn't understand CICO any better in the past. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the way we get our food has changed dramatically. For the most part, we know what we're supposed to eat. It's just so much easier to eat poorly now. We need to change incentives to make it more costly to eat unhealthy food.
Absolutely! There are a ton of cheap and easy ways to get calories these days. In the past we didn't need to worry so much about people understanding CICO.
However, now we have two options:
1. Education
2. Banning a ton of food-types.
Both seem hard at scale, but #1 can be achieved on an individual level, at least.
However, now we have two options:
1. Education
2. Banning a ton of food-types.
Both seem hard at scale, but #1 can be achieved on an individual level, at least.
Portion size is very cultural. People from the 50s would be horrified by how large meals have gotten.
I think a third major thing is that people often have very skewed ideas of how many calories things have, like you decide to have a salad instead of a burger at a restaurant because it's the "healthy" choice, but often, because of the dressing, the salad will have as many calories as the burger, and then you feel like you were "good" so you have dessert!
Or people will try to do something like cutting the 30 calories of cream from their coffee, while leaving their 1,400 calorie lunch untouched, trading big expenditures in effort and habit changing for tiny calorie improvements.
Or people will try to do something like cutting the 30 calories of cream from their coffee, while leaving their 1,400 calorie lunch untouched, trading big expenditures in effort and habit changing for tiny calorie improvements.
Related: a common mistake is treating foods as binary “healthy” or not. Nuts, for example, can be “healthy” but ten handfuls is probably excessive.
People like to say that it's something else, in my experience, because they do, in fact, know what CICO is, and have tried it, and have failed when they tried it.
With broad strokes, those failures can be lumped into 2 categories: 1) lack of willpower (pretty self-explanatory) and 2) hoodwinked, bamboozled, and otherwise tricked by food package nutrition labels.
It is genuinely hard to discern real calories consumed using just food labels, and not 3rd party sources and at-home food scales.
That's the part that people don't understand, I think.
Source: I was fat, now I'm a little less fat because of CICO. Still kinda fat, but getting less fat slowly. I learned early that nutrition labels are your enemy and are just another marketing tool used by savvy companies.
With broad strokes, those failures can be lumped into 2 categories: 1) lack of willpower (pretty self-explanatory) and 2) hoodwinked, bamboozled, and otherwise tricked by food package nutrition labels.
It is genuinely hard to discern real calories consumed using just food labels, and not 3rd party sources and at-home food scales.
That's the part that people don't understand, I think.
Source: I was fat, now I'm a little less fat because of CICO. Still kinda fat, but getting less fat slowly. I learned early that nutrition labels are your enemy and are just another marketing tool used by savvy companies.
What do you mean by your distain for food package nutrition labels?
In the US it's tightly controlled. The only thing I can think of (calories wise) is that people only look at the per-serving calories and not the per-package calories. This has gotten better over the past 5-10 years but still requires people to actually read it.
In the US it's tightly controlled. The only thing I can think of (calories wise) is that people only look at the per-serving calories and not the per-package calories. This has gotten better over the past 5-10 years but still requires people to actually read it.
I had lost weight without counting calories. CICO works, but it didn't work in the long term for me.
My method of losing weight and eventual weight maintenance, is intermittent fasting.
It just means that I don't eat for long periods of time. Every week, I undergo a 48 hours fast and for the rest of time, I effectively only eat one meal a day.
My method of losing weight and eventual weight maintenance, is intermittent fasting.
It just means that I don't eat for long periods of time. Every week, I undergo a 48 hours fast and for the rest of time, I effectively only eat one meal a day.
IF is CICO.
CICO does not mean counting calories. Counting calories is just the most direct diet. IF and Keto end up doing the same thing, just differently (and it's potentially easier for some).
CICO does not mean counting calories. Counting calories is just the most direct diet. IF and Keto end up doing the same thing, just differently (and it's potentially easier for some).
[deleted]
I used to believe in that, and I felt my problem was I was eating too much and not moving around enough, however, I recently started a "lazy keto" diet and am currently down 30 pounds (back to a normal BMI - and I didn't even change how much I exercise). I don't watch my calories at all, nor do I starve myself. I just watch my carbs. It's been really eye opening.
There's a lot of talk online about how processed foods are making us fat and I think there's something to that. The CICO model doesn't factor in how our body processes macronutrients. We didn't evolve to eat the diet we're currently eating (ex: sugary drinks). I think there's something to eating a diet that's more in-tune with how the body works.
There's a lot of talk online about how processed foods are making us fat and I think there's something to that. The CICO model doesn't factor in how our body processes macronutrients. We didn't evolve to eat the diet we're currently eating (ex: sugary drinks). I think there's something to eating a diet that's more in-tune with how the body works.
> I don't watch my calories at all, nor do I starve myself.
The key question though is not whether you are paying attention, but whether they are down or not. It is possible that you are getting full on fewer calories.
The key question though is not whether you are paying attention, but whether they are down or not. It is possible that you are getting full on fewer calories.
It's possible, but if I am, it means protein and fat are better at keeping me satiated. The standard American diet is high in carbs, and it could be that processed carbs aren't very good at keeping someone full.
> it means protein and fat are better at keeping me satiated.
That's the whole point, and a key component of any CICO diet: finding foods that make you feel full with fewer calories.
That's the whole point, and a key component of any CICO diet: finding foods that make you feel full with fewer calories.
CICO doesn't mean that every diet that works counts calories. It means that all diets require the calories you consume to be lower than the calories you burn. Including keto.
Can some diets impact how many calories you burn? Sure. Not really to the extent that you need to worry about it, though.
Can some diets be effective but unhealthy? Of course. You can follow CICO and lose weight by eating nothing but twinkies[1]. That doesn't mean it's healthy.
At the end of the day, your lazy keto diet allowed you to consume fewer calories than you burned. You just didn't have to keep track.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/...
Can some diets impact how many calories you burn? Sure. Not really to the extent that you need to worry about it, though.
Can some diets be effective but unhealthy? Of course. You can follow CICO and lose weight by eating nothing but twinkies[1]. That doesn't mean it's healthy.
At the end of the day, your lazy keto diet allowed you to consume fewer calories than you burned. You just didn't have to keep track.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/...
Great job on losing 30 pounds!
CICO still applies to Keto, the macronutrient breakdown is just more satiating for many people. It's important for people doing keto to understand this as
1) Keto has a dramatic water weight effect, so people can overindex on their early results "I lost 10 pounds in 5 days!"
2) If you go off track with carbs it becomes a terrible diet, you fall out of ketosis for multiple days and need equivalent carbs to feel ok, boosting your total calories very high.
CICO still applies to Keto, the macronutrient breakdown is just more satiating for many people. It's important for people doing keto to understand this as
1) Keto has a dramatic water weight effect, so people can overindex on their early results "I lost 10 pounds in 5 days!"
2) If you go off track with carbs it becomes a terrible diet, you fall out of ketosis for multiple days and need equivalent carbs to feel ok, boosting your total calories very high.
The food-pyramid is honestly creepy. First, the order of foods is determined by invested corporations. Second, it’s arranged in a convenient shape (triangle) like some poser illuminati cult. Third, it’s taught to kids when they don’t know any better. Also, it’s even less readable than a pie-chart (angles are now replaced with surface area calculations), further giving it more mystical properties than quantitative guidance. It’s an appeal to psuedo-science.
I agree we should be teaching food fundamentals in schools, but it’s pretty hard when cereal and soda are so normalized. Normal food just tastes worse in comparison (I’ve lost count of the number of people who limit their food to chicken tenders). If you have parents who don’t cook, it’s pretty hard to break the cycle and your food preferences will likely shift to what’s readily available.
I think it’d at least be enlightening to show people how the food is made, so they could see for themselves. Perhaps they could have a lab where you make soda out of cups of sugar (or fry food)?
I agree we should be teaching food fundamentals in schools, but it’s pretty hard when cereal and soda are so normalized. Normal food just tastes worse in comparison (I’ve lost count of the number of people who limit their food to chicken tenders). If you have parents who don’t cook, it’s pretty hard to break the cycle and your food preferences will likely shift to what’s readily available.
I think it’d at least be enlightening to show people how the food is made, so they could see for themselves. Perhaps they could have a lab where you make soda out of cups of sugar (or fry food)?
[deleted]
Everyone knows the principle of calories in calories out. That’s not the issue. The issue is the huge array of factors - including economic, social, physiological (particularly hormonal) and emotional (particularly subconscious emotional) that influence the volume of calories in and out. If it was just a case of making conscious choices to consume fewer calories and expend more, there would not be the widespread problem there is. Clearly there is more to it, which is why people are downvoting you. You’re not making a point that everyone hasn’t heard before a thousand times.
CICO is probably valid but it's easy to misinterpret. For example, in the presence of insulin, fat and muscle cells take in calories, regardless of the energy state of the rest of the body, resulting in hunger and probably more calories-in. While insulin is elevated, the calories stored wIthin fat cells is inaccessible to the rest of the body … would those calories be considered "in" or "out" according to CICO?
> fat and muscle cells take in calories,
They can only do so acutely until the blood sugar drops. It will not matter in the long run if there is a calorie deficit. I like to summarize it like 24 hour calorie balance is far more important than short term acute effects.
They can only do so acutely until the blood sugar drops. It will not matter in the long run if there is a calorie deficit. I like to summarize it like 24 hour calorie balance is far more important than short term acute effects.
I think that's right, but it's worth noting that "until the blood sugar drops" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. That varies a lot by person. E.g. I wear a CGM, as does a friend. We can eat the same thing, and my friend's CGM reading drops back to his baseline in less than an hour while mine stays elevated for several hours.
I eat low-carb foods and intermittently fast to compensate, but if I ate a "mainstream heatlhy" diet (3 meals a day, grain bowls, etc), my blood sugar would be moderately elevated for most of the time.
I eat low-carb foods and intermittently fast to compensate, but if I ate a "mainstream heatlhy" diet (3 meals a day, grain bowls, etc), my blood sugar would be moderately elevated for most of the time.
You're the one making it easy to misinterpret by making it massively more complicated than it needs to be. Copy pasting from a previous post of mine:
How to lose weight, by me, someone who has lost 30 pounds and kept it off:
Step 1: Count every calorie you consume. If you don't know the exact amount of a dish, do your best. Apps like MyFitnessPal make this easier.
Step 2: Limit that amount to 1500 calories per day.
Step 3: Weigh yourself everyday first thing in the morning, and only look at 7 day averages at least. Daily fluctuations don't matter.
Step 4: After 2 weeks, see how much you've lost (if any). If you've lost more than 1% of your body weight per week, raise that 1500 number. If you've lost less than 1% per week, lower that 1500 number.
Repeat until satisfied!
How can you make this easier?
1. Eat things that are filling with fewer calories. Think vegetables and protein. Stay away from things that aren't filling and have a lot of calories. Think candy bars. Water helps too.
2. Walk/run. This will burn calories efficiently and if you attach a fit bit to it, you can incorporate the calories burned into your 1500 number above. Weight lifting doesn't burn many calories, though it's nice for your overall health of course.
You're stuck on how fat cells are stored or insulin levels? How is that at all approachable.
How to lose weight, by me, someone who has lost 30 pounds and kept it off:
Step 1: Count every calorie you consume. If you don't know the exact amount of a dish, do your best. Apps like MyFitnessPal make this easier.
Step 2: Limit that amount to 1500 calories per day.
Step 3: Weigh yourself everyday first thing in the morning, and only look at 7 day averages at least. Daily fluctuations don't matter.
Step 4: After 2 weeks, see how much you've lost (if any). If you've lost more than 1% of your body weight per week, raise that 1500 number. If you've lost less than 1% per week, lower that 1500 number.
Repeat until satisfied!
How can you make this easier?
1. Eat things that are filling with fewer calories. Think vegetables and protein. Stay away from things that aren't filling and have a lot of calories. Think candy bars. Water helps too.
2. Walk/run. This will burn calories efficiently and if you attach a fit bit to it, you can incorporate the calories burned into your 1500 number above. Weight lifting doesn't burn many calories, though it's nice for your overall health of course.
You're stuck on how fat cells are stored or insulin levels? How is that at all approachable.
Oh I know, I've done basically the same thing and dropped/kept off ~20 pounds. My point is that physiologically it's hard, and by reducing it to just-a-number or just-willpower, it's ignoring very real aspects of life for many people (myself included when I did that).
In technical terms, CICO is a very leaky abstraction.
In technical terms, CICO is a very leaky abstraction.
> In technical terms, CICO is a very leaky abstraction.
I'd call everything else an abstraction. Intermittent fasting and Keto all conform to CICO as an abstraction.
Which is fine and you're right. Calorie counting is the most direct diet but is not for everyone.
I'd call everything else an abstraction. Intermittent fasting and Keto all conform to CICO as an abstraction.
Which is fine and you're right. Calorie counting is the most direct diet but is not for everyone.
> I think so much has to do with these two points:
I think it entirely has to do with impatience and desire for a "tip" or "shortcut" to get where they want to go. Why diet (aka suffer) for 2 years to lose 100 lbs, when someone else is promising you can lose 10lbs a week for 10 weeks?
We want to believe there is a cheap, easy, fast, solution to all our problems.
I think it entirely has to do with impatience and desire for a "tip" or "shortcut" to get where they want to go. Why diet (aka suffer) for 2 years to lose 100 lbs, when someone else is promising you can lose 10lbs a week for 10 weeks?
We want to believe there is a cheap, easy, fast, solution to all our problems.
We should be teaching CICO and that being fat is not healthy and not ok! This body positivity movement is BS and harmful. More personal responsibility and less excuses.
I think the major problem with CICO is that advocates for it present it as if it is a diet when it's actually just an explanation for why diets work (or fail).
I've seen a lot of threads with people asking for advice on losing weight and inevitably someone chimes in with "Calories in, calories out." Great, but that doesn't provide any strategy or guidelines for actually losing weight. Calorie counting and tracking is a strategy (and so are many other things, like intermittent fasting, the potato diet, etc. As long as at the end of the day you are at a calorie deficit).
Additionally CICO ignores the reasons why people overeat in the first place. There are a lot of physiological and psychological reasons for that. Maybe someone is overweight because they eat to cope with trauma. Maybe they have a hormonal imbalance that doesn't properly regulate how full they feel. Dealing with those underlying issues is often more beneficial in the long run.
I've seen a lot of threads with people asking for advice on losing weight and inevitably someone chimes in with "Calories in, calories out." Great, but that doesn't provide any strategy or guidelines for actually losing weight. Calorie counting and tracking is a strategy (and so are many other things, like intermittent fasting, the potato diet, etc. As long as at the end of the day you are at a calorie deficit).
Additionally CICO ignores the reasons why people overeat in the first place. There are a lot of physiological and psychological reasons for that. Maybe someone is overweight because they eat to cope with trauma. Maybe they have a hormonal imbalance that doesn't properly regulate how full they feel. Dealing with those underlying issues is often more beneficial in the long run.
This is why I want it to be taught in schools. It's not a topic that can be fully covered in a 100 word post. People get mad at me for bringing it up and not covering everything.
Like duh, if you eat burgers and fries you're going to be hungry when you hit your calorie limit, and then cheat on the diet. Then it won't work. That must mean CICO is useless! Why bother teaching it!
Like duh, if you eat burgers and fries you're going to be hungry when you hit your calorie limit, and then cheat on the diet. Then it won't work. That must mean CICO is useless! Why bother teaching it!
Knowing calories matter doesn't solve a thing.
You pointing it out like it's a revelation indicates you don't understand the difficulty of what you expect.
Let's say you are now 120 lbs over weight. You know CICO. How long will it take you to get skinny, assuming you ate nothing at all until you hit your goal weight? A pound of fat is 454g. A gram of fat contains 9 kcal. Being 120 lbs over weight means you have to burn 9x454x120. Let's say your basal metabolic rate is 2000 kcal/day 9x454x120/2000 => 245 days of not eating a single thing. Is this a reasonable thing to expect society to adopt en masse? Do you think you could starve for that long? Could you instead only eat 700 calories a day for 3-4 years?
It's a privilege of both time and wealth in the US to be able to tightly control your diet and eat healthy, most American's can't afford the luxury. A more reasonable position is to just accept that some people are going to remain fat and focus on positive health outcomes for those people. 'Educating' them about simple arithmetic that doesn't change the fact that losing 100+lbs of weight is a multi-year commitment you cannot break if you wish a modicum of success.
I say this as a person who did lose 80lbs when I reached adulthood and successfully kept it off.
Edit re your edit: "Downvotes mean I'm onto something" is not a wise stance to take almost ever. I didn't downvote. but I'd wager the reason folks are downvoting you isn't because they hate trivially obvious facts, it's more to do with your analysis being shallow compared to the scale and complexity of the actual problem.
Let's say you are now 120 lbs over weight. You know CICO. How long will it take you to get skinny, assuming you ate nothing at all until you hit your goal weight? A pound of fat is 454g. A gram of fat contains 9 kcal. Being 120 lbs over weight means you have to burn 9x454x120. Let's say your basal metabolic rate is 2000 kcal/day 9x454x120/2000 => 245 days of not eating a single thing. Is this a reasonable thing to expect society to adopt en masse? Do you think you could starve for that long? Could you instead only eat 700 calories a day for 3-4 years?
It's a privilege of both time and wealth in the US to be able to tightly control your diet and eat healthy, most American's can't afford the luxury. A more reasonable position is to just accept that some people are going to remain fat and focus on positive health outcomes for those people. 'Educating' them about simple arithmetic that doesn't change the fact that losing 100+lbs of weight is a multi-year commitment you cannot break if you wish a modicum of success.
I say this as a person who did lose 80lbs when I reached adulthood and successfully kept it off.
Edit re your edit: "Downvotes mean I'm onto something" is not a wise stance to take almost ever. I didn't downvote. but I'd wager the reason folks are downvoting you isn't because they hate trivially obvious facts, it's more to do with your analysis being shallow compared to the scale and complexity of the actual problem.
Not only is this post wildly incorrect, you also seem to have just given up with the populous?
I lose around 2 lbs per week at 1500 calories/day. This is pretty normal. 120lbs would be 60 weeks of that. Little over a year. You are completely off with 700 calories for 3-4 years. It's irresponsible to spout that nonsense.
> A more reasonable position is to just accept that some people are going to remain fat and focus on positive health outcomes for those people.
Unbelievable. You've given up.
Edit:
> but I'd wager the reason folks are downvoting you isn't because they hate trivially obvious facts, it's more to do with your analysis being shallow compared to the scale and complexity of the actual problem.
I'd believe you if a ton of responses weren't people claiming that insulin levels or how fat is stored is actually what matters.
I lose around 2 lbs per week at 1500 calories/day. This is pretty normal. 120lbs would be 60 weeks of that. Little over a year. You are completely off with 700 calories for 3-4 years. It's irresponsible to spout that nonsense.
> A more reasonable position is to just accept that some people are going to remain fat and focus on positive health outcomes for those people.
Unbelievable. You've given up.
Edit:
> but I'd wager the reason folks are downvoting you isn't because they hate trivially obvious facts, it's more to do with your analysis being shallow compared to the scale and complexity of the actual problem.
I'd believe you if a ton of responses weren't people claiming that insulin levels or how fat is stored is actually what matters.
"Given up" is an interesting way of putting it.
Given up on what or whom? Do fat people want me to save and educate them?
You're acting like I should be doing something personally about other people being fat.
I think it should be treated just like any other chronic condition, you try to be as healthy as possible within the paradigm. If you want to lose weight, great, but people starting to lose weight need to understand that the habits they are using will likely have to be permanent fixtures for the rest of their life. Returning to a "normal" lifestyle is how the weight was gained in the first place after all.
Irresponsible to whom? You are the one advocating for this exact kind of analysis, not me, I merely obliged you.
Your stated solutions below are 'ban food' and 'education'.
If you know anything about how fat people are treated at doctor's offices, 'stop being fat, eat less' is probably the first and last thing they hear at any checkup.
It's not working. ' Ban food' is intriguing, but I don't believe it's practical for, I hope, obvious reasons.
- I lose around 2 lbs per week at 1500 calories/day. I don't care about your anecdotal data. Show me your CICO analysis.
Do you control for water and glycogen loss?
What about exercise, what's your basal metabolic rate? etc...
I think it should be treated just like any other chronic condition, you try to be as healthy as possible within the paradigm. If you want to lose weight, great, but people starting to lose weight need to understand that the habits they are using will likely have to be permanent fixtures for the rest of their life. Returning to a "normal" lifestyle is how the weight was gained in the first place after all.
Irresponsible to whom? You are the one advocating for this exact kind of analysis, not me, I merely obliged you.
Your stated solutions below are 'ban food' and 'education'.
If you know anything about how fat people are treated at doctor's offices, 'stop being fat, eat less' is probably the first and last thing they hear at any checkup.
It's not working. ' Ban food' is intriguing, but I don't believe it's practical for, I hope, obvious reasons.
- I lose around 2 lbs per week at 1500 calories/day. I don't care about your anecdotal data. Show me your CICO analysis.
Do you control for water and glycogen loss?
What about exercise, what's your basal metabolic rate? etc...
> Irresponsible to whom? You are the one advocating for this exact kind of analysis, not me, I merely obliged you.
It's irresponsible to say that you need to be on a 700 calorie diet for 3-4 years to lose 120 pounds. That's so far from reality that it's irresponsible.
> Do you control for water and glycogen loss?
I lose more in the first week or so to what I assume is water retention. After that it settles into 2lbs/week.
> What about exercise, what's your basal metabolic rate? etc...
I wear a fitbit and allow myself more calories if I run (based on what it tells me). None of this needs to be perfect. If you're off by 100-200 calories a day, you'll still lose weight.
None of that matters, though. I have my number: 1500 calories. If I'm not losing enough, I'll lower it 100 at a time. Or if I'm losing too much, I'll raise it 100 at a time. That adjusts for BMR and mistakes in my calorie counting. Finding my exact BMR is wasted effort.
It's irresponsible to say that you need to be on a 700 calorie diet for 3-4 years to lose 120 pounds. That's so far from reality that it's irresponsible.
> Do you control for water and glycogen loss?
I lose more in the first week or so to what I assume is water retention. After that it settles into 2lbs/week.
> What about exercise, what's your basal metabolic rate? etc...
I wear a fitbit and allow myself more calories if I run (based on what it tells me). None of this needs to be perfect. If you're off by 100-200 calories a day, you'll still lose weight.
None of that matters, though. I have my number: 1500 calories. If I'm not losing enough, I'll lower it 100 at a time. Or if I'm losing too much, I'll raise it 100 at a time. That adjusts for BMR and mistakes in my calorie counting. Finding my exact BMR is wasted effort.
"That's so far from reality that it's irresponsible."
I think your "larger male that can still safely run every week" perspective is skewing your understanding of this problem. It is perfectly reasonable to expect weight loss of that magnitude to take that long for people that are older, sicker, or just not male. Moreover, you starting BMR often is significantly higher than it will be when you finish a crash diet, so if you tabulated 2000 a day at the start, that can be as low 1400 by the end coming out of starvation.
I'm happy you've found a method of weight loss that works for you. The way I lost weight was more extreme, but similar. However, you shouldn't universalize your personal experience as hidden wisdom. The are people who are born fat and will die fat. If they are otherwise healthy and happy for the duration, I see no reason for society to 'educate' or intervene on their lives.
And make no mistake, it is possible to be fat and healthy. Your heart, cholesterol, and diabetic markers can all be normal if you are eating healthy and exercising at (within reason) any weight.
I'm happy you've found a method of weight loss that works for you. The way I lost weight was more extreme, but similar. However, you shouldn't universalize your personal experience as hidden wisdom. The are people who are born fat and will die fat. If they are otherwise healthy and happy for the duration, I see no reason for society to 'educate' or intervene on their lives.
And make no mistake, it is possible to be fat and healthy. Your heart, cholesterol, and diabetic markers can all be normal if you are eating healthy and exercising at (within reason) any weight.
If you're calling 1500 a day a crash diet, making up numbers, and think education is a pointless endeavor, then I can't continue this conversation.
Edit:
"If you're calling 1500 a day a crash diet, making up numbers, and think education is a pointless endeavor, then I can't continue this conversation."
I said previously, I don't care about your personal diet, as it has little to do with how the CDC should dictate policy. The diet I described was a crash diet.
'education is a pointless endeavor'. You are putting words in my mouth, my point, of course, was that knowing about CICO doesn't change the fact that weight loss takes a long time, is hard, and requires resources that many don't have access to. A word of warning, keeping it off is also hard when you've been fat, so prepare for that.
Since we won't speak again, I want you to interrogate why you are emotionally engaged with this topic. I had similar thoughts about how other people should behave when I discovered how to lose the weight, but realized only later that those thoughts made me view all fat people in a dim light, that it was ok to assume bad things about them, to view them as in need of 'education' like you advocate for.
If you ignore everything else I've said, please think about the perspective of a person who has lost 120 lbs, but is still 280lbs, and are receiving their 100th unsolicited lecture about CICO from someone like you. Most fat people go through that, from elementary school to adulthood in the US. It's pointless, they definitely don't want to hear about that from a stranger.
I said previously, I don't care about your personal diet, as it has little to do with how the CDC should dictate policy. The diet I described was a crash diet.
'education is a pointless endeavor'. You are putting words in my mouth, my point, of course, was that knowing about CICO doesn't change the fact that weight loss takes a long time, is hard, and requires resources that many don't have access to. A word of warning, keeping it off is also hard when you've been fat, so prepare for that.
Since we won't speak again, I want you to interrogate why you are emotionally engaged with this topic. I had similar thoughts about how other people should behave when I discovered how to lose the weight, but realized only later that those thoughts made me view all fat people in a dim light, that it was ok to assume bad things about them, to view them as in need of 'education' like you advocate for.
If you ignore everything else I've said, please think about the perspective of a person who has lost 120 lbs, but is still 280lbs, and are receiving their 100th unsolicited lecture about CICO from someone like you. Most fat people go through that, from elementary school to adulthood in the US. It's pointless, they definitely don't want to hear about that from a stranger.
People who are 120 pounds overweight didn't gain it all overnight. It's completely unreasonable to expect to lose it all overnight either, and that fact has nothing to do with CICO.
Your basal metabolism can flucutate based on physical activity, and probably nutrition too.
Also, fasting had shown to me that we can have an empty stomach and yet not be hungry. Yet, the state of not being feed seems to be a foreign idea to most people.
I lost weight by mostly intermittent fasting, without needing to count calories. Sometime, I even eat way too much food in one sitting. Over the long term, I did lose weight.
Also, fasting had shown to me that we can have an empty stomach and yet not be hungry. Yet, the state of not being feed seems to be a foreign idea to most people.
I lost weight by mostly intermittent fasting, without needing to count calories. Sometime, I even eat way too much food in one sitting. Over the long term, I did lose weight.
The nice thing about calories in minus calories out is, IF you maintain a calorie deficit, the laws of physics of the universe guarantee you must lose weight. The laws of physics are a pretty powerful thing to have on your side.
But that doesn't make it necessarily the most useful model for a complex animal to modify its own behaviour. We are dynamic systems that can voluntarily and involuntarily vary the amount of energy we expend. Our bodies send appetite signals to our consciousness, which can be pretty hard to ignore.
The only times I've consistently lost weight has been via a calorie deficit. But it's totally understandable that people want another model, either something like keto which purportedly produces weight loss without a calorie deficit by messing with the body's fat-storage mechanics in some way, or some behaviour+diet which produces a calorie deficit but with minimum lethargy and hunger. There's a lot of nonsense around dieting but the basic desire is understandable.
But that doesn't make it necessarily the most useful model for a complex animal to modify its own behaviour. We are dynamic systems that can voluntarily and involuntarily vary the amount of energy we expend. Our bodies send appetite signals to our consciousness, which can be pretty hard to ignore.
The only times I've consistently lost weight has been via a calorie deficit. But it's totally understandable that people want another model, either something like keto which purportedly produces weight loss without a calorie deficit by messing with the body's fat-storage mechanics in some way, or some behaviour+diet which produces a calorie deficit but with minimum lethargy and hunger. There's a lot of nonsense around dieting but the basic desire is understandable.
Your body can adjust basal metabolism to be lower or higher, based on physical activity level. IIRC, it can also adjust based on how much you're eating.
There are plenty of people who consume highly processed foods and stay skinny. There are plenty of people who eat greasy, sugary, fattening foods who stay skinny.
The problem is not car culture, sugar, and processed foods. The problem is overeating. America, and the rest of the first world has major issues with food addiction and a culture associated with "eating until the plate is clean"
The problem is not car culture, sugar, and processed foods. The problem is overeating. America, and the rest of the first world has major issues with food addiction and a culture associated with "eating until the plate is clean"
>The problem is overeating.
We've had a food surplus for a long time, why is obesity a relatively recent problem?
We've had a food surplus for a long time, why is obesity a relatively recent problem?
You don't get addicted to 2 lbs of turnips and some bacon fat. You get addicted to three 1500 calorie McDonalds meals per day
Doesn't that mean the cause is related to car culture (drive-thru) and processed foods, not just overeating?
I think you are reading too far into my McDonalds example. There are plenty of McDonalds without a drive through, who still overserve their customers. There are also plenty of people who are overweight just because they love to cook and eat tasty food (soul food!).
Why are chefs nearly always overweight? They work incredibly hard and tax their bodies for 10 hours a day. They aren't sitting in drive throughs. Maybe it has to do with the fact that they are around food all day and consume large quantities of it
Why are chefs nearly always overweight? They work incredibly hard and tax their bodies for 10 hours a day. They aren't sitting in drive throughs. Maybe it has to do with the fact that they are around food all day and consume large quantities of it
It's mostly about the drive through. Is it impossible to make drive through with food that isn't grossly terrible for you?
> There are plenty of people who consume highly processed foods and stay skinny. There are plenty of people who eat greasy, sugary, fattening foods who stay skinny.
These people must burn at the stake.
These people must burn at the stake.
I better start researching fat suits.
The problem is that there is no the problem.
Our foods are unhealthy (low nutritional value, even if they provide the calorie content necessary to live; vitamin and mineral deficiencies lead to poor health outcomes).
Our foods are often too high in calories (portion sizing, sugary drinks, "coffee" that's 90% sugar).
Our culture is increasingly sedentary (cars versus walking and biking, television and computers that are engaging and help people lose track of time idling away on the couch).
And plenty of other factors I'm not thinking of right now. You can't point to any one of these and say this is the problem. They're all problems and all need to be addressed. Educating people on the impact of food choices and health (not even obesity, all the other health impacts). Reconstructing cities without the need for a 30+ minute commute to work or a grocery store. Emphasizing community activities that get people out of their homes and away from their televisions and computers (harder right now with COVID restrictions). Discouraging (by some measure) restaurants from serving grossly unhealthy serving sizes.
Some of these are more feasible than others. We aren't going to rebuild cities any time soon. Public transportation is a political third rail. People in some regions enjoy aiming their trucks at cyclists (too many close encounters in GA for me to even want to use a bike lane in that state again). Others are more feasibly addressed though.
Our foods are unhealthy (low nutritional value, even if they provide the calorie content necessary to live; vitamin and mineral deficiencies lead to poor health outcomes).
Our foods are often too high in calories (portion sizing, sugary drinks, "coffee" that's 90% sugar).
Our culture is increasingly sedentary (cars versus walking and biking, television and computers that are engaging and help people lose track of time idling away on the couch).
And plenty of other factors I'm not thinking of right now. You can't point to any one of these and say this is the problem. They're all problems and all need to be addressed. Educating people on the impact of food choices and health (not even obesity, all the other health impacts). Reconstructing cities without the need for a 30+ minute commute to work or a grocery store. Emphasizing community activities that get people out of their homes and away from their televisions and computers (harder right now with COVID restrictions). Discouraging (by some measure) restaurants from serving grossly unhealthy serving sizes.
Some of these are more feasible than others. We aren't going to rebuild cities any time soon. Public transportation is a political third rail. People in some regions enjoy aiming their trucks at cyclists (too many close encounters in GA for me to even want to use a bike lane in that state again). Others are more feasibly addressed though.
Great points, but I fundamentally disagree that overeating is not the single biggest component contributing to the first worlds dietary issues. You know what is the single defining feature of skinny people? Outside of Olympic athletes and manual laborers? They eat substantially less than everyone else.
You aren't going to "walk off" a 1500 calorie burger, unless that's the only thing you eat that day
You aren't going to "walk off" a 1500 calorie burger, unless that's the only thing you eat that day
It may be the single biggest component, but it's not the only component which means it is not the problem. And the definition of overeating has changed because of these other factors.
Sugary sodas and drinks are not eaten, consequently what was a healthy and satiating meal is now overeating because people are getting 250-2000 extra calories a day (250/bottle of soda approximately). Drop the sodas and many people won't be overeating (or overeating to the same extreme) as they are now without changing their diet.
Poor nutritional quality of foods can be disruptive to metabolism and health in general. Which again can mean that what was an objectively healthy portion for them becomes an unhealthy portion. As an example, low iron (anemia) decreases a person's ability to engage in physical activity and leads to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. So that a 2000 kcal a day diet that may have been healthy is now overeating.
The general sedentary nature of people also means that what was a perfectly reasonable diet for our grandparents and great-grandparents is now overeating. When people spend 1-2 hours a day sitting so that they can go from one place where they sit for 8-10 hours to another place where they'll sit in front of a computer or tv for another 4-5 hours and then sleep, their calorie needs are barely above that of someone who is bedridden for illness or injury.
Restaurant portion sizes are outrageous (though, anecdotally, the last few times I've been to a restaurant they seem to have toned it down). That is a problem. But these other issues cannot be neglected because it's a system, they all interact with each other.
Sugary sodas and drinks are not eaten, consequently what was a healthy and satiating meal is now overeating because people are getting 250-2000 extra calories a day (250/bottle of soda approximately). Drop the sodas and many people won't be overeating (or overeating to the same extreme) as they are now without changing their diet.
Poor nutritional quality of foods can be disruptive to metabolism and health in general. Which again can mean that what was an objectively healthy portion for them becomes an unhealthy portion. As an example, low iron (anemia) decreases a person's ability to engage in physical activity and leads to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. So that a 2000 kcal a day diet that may have been healthy is now overeating.
The general sedentary nature of people also means that what was a perfectly reasonable diet for our grandparents and great-grandparents is now overeating. When people spend 1-2 hours a day sitting so that they can go from one place where they sit for 8-10 hours to another place where they'll sit in front of a computer or tv for another 4-5 hours and then sleep, their calorie needs are barely above that of someone who is bedridden for illness or injury.
Restaurant portion sizes are outrageous (though, anecdotally, the last few times I've been to a restaurant they seem to have toned it down). That is a problem. But these other issues cannot be neglected because it's a system, they all interact with each other.
Definitely agree with all you said, and I especially agree with the implication that overeating is directly correlated with other aspects of your diet and lifestyle (sedation, anemia, etc.). I view weight as a function of calories-in-calories-out, and if you change the parameters to that equation, you're going to see weight-loss/gain. That's the reason why I call it 'the' problem, you can always change the input to that equation to maintain a healthy weight. But your view is also great, the reason the parameters changed in the first place is also a huge part of the issue
If we start with the premise that the cause of obesity is overeating then we have to ask the question why is a significant portion of the population suddenly overeating? Convenience foods are older than the "obesity epidemic" and every year there's more and more obese people than the year before.
I wouldn't generalize to the whole first world, obesity is mainly a problem in English speaking countries and in northern and eastern Europe, ie places with a subpar (eg Germany) or non-existent (eg UK, US) cuisine.
I have been theorizing that the reason the US has had the most deaths from COVID has been because our population is mostly obese. Of course there are other failings, such as people being uninsured and as a result not wanting to go to hospitals. Or people not wanting to wear masks or take vaccines. But when obesity triples the likelihood of being hospitalized, it's no wonder that the US suffered the greatest death toll from COVID. [1]
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/obesity-and-covid-19.html
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/obesity-and-covid-19.html
The numbers start in 1999 because the previous year the CDC arbitrarily changed its criteria for healthy weight, by dictat rendering swaths of the population overweight[1] For the elderly at least, being somewhat overweight is actually healthier.[2] I appreciate that the authors of the article are trying to be helpful but too much useful information is left on the cutting room floor here.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9806/17/weight.guidelines/
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182070/
[1] http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9806/17/weight.guidelines/
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182070/
[deleted]
This series of articles proposes that environmental contaminants are the only possible cause of obesity that fits with all the available data. Can someone with a biology/medical background weigh in on whether this is legit? https://slimemoldtimemold.com/author/slimemoldtimemold/
BMI is a deeply flawed measure.
It caters to a very specific body-type.
Highly muscular people are usually classified as "obese" according to BMI.
That such a deeply flawed measure achieved mainstream acceptance is quite the achievement.
It caters to a very specific body-type.
Highly muscular people are usually classified as "obese" according to BMI.
That such a deeply flawed measure achieved mainstream acceptance is quite the achievement.
this affects such a small amount of people in practice and is not related to the obesity problem. yes if you are less than 10% BF your BMI might be overweight. this isn’t why obesity rates are high. for almost everyone BMI is an excellent starting point
While your point is true, I'm confident in saying that vast majority of the 42.4% of Americans who have an obese BMI are not highly muscular.
I wish that article talked about the geographical distribution of obesity.
I saw a fascinating pre-print paper here a while ago: A Contamination Theory of the Obesity Epidemic. via: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27936016
I also read an interesting book lately called "The Dorito Effect" in which the author makes the case that we have a finely developed ability to associate the flavour of food with the nutrients we get from it (and, when we need nutrients, we'll crave the foods that offer it), but, 1) food's flavour and nutritional value has become diluted as we've bread for larger yields, and 2) we add synthetic flavourings to everything, messing with the ability to crave and eat the foods we need.
I saw a fascinating pre-print paper here a while ago: A Contamination Theory of the Obesity Epidemic. via: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27936016
I also read an interesting book lately called "The Dorito Effect" in which the author makes the case that we have a finely developed ability to associate the flavour of food with the nutrients we get from it (and, when we need nutrients, we'll crave the foods that offer it), but, 1) food's flavour and nutritional value has become diluted as we've bread for larger yields, and 2) we add synthetic flavourings to everything, messing with the ability to crave and eat the foods we need.
anecdotally, fasting can help restore this sensitivity. Ever noticed "healthy" foods like say broccoli taste amazing after fasting >= 24 hrs?
Sadly, I haven't been able to ascertain these food as tastier despite fasting for 48 hours or more.
They're probably more delicious though.
They're probably more delicious though.
The key is to not reintroduce competing foods. To pick a cliche thing, if you reintroduce oreos then yeah, the broccoli will pale.
The key is to break the flavor dependence, then to only have healthy foods.
The key is to break the flavor dependence, then to only have healthy foods.
No, and I fast between 23-25 hours six days a week and occasionally have longer fasts. My longest fast was five days.
Broccoli always tastes the exact same.
Broccoli always tastes the exact same.
I'm curious: what do people here think of the whole "body positive" idea?
It’s important to recognize *why* the body positivity movement has proponents - it’s a natural reaction to a lot of the moral judgements and prejudices that get passed on people for how their body appears. This can lead to a lot of depression and anxiety, and one way to combat that is with radical self-love. Of course, there’s been a bit of a swing too far and you see people endorsing unhealthy and harmful lifestyles.
I’ve seen people exposing “body neutrality” lately - the idea that you should detach your sense of self worth from your body entirely, and simply view it as a functional thing. For example: “I’m not a bad or failed person because I’m overweight. I appreciate that my body allows me to live my life. However, my weight is negatively affecting the functionality of my body, and so I would like to change that”. Personally I think this is a much healthier mentality.
I’ve seen people exposing “body neutrality” lately - the idea that you should detach your sense of self worth from your body entirely, and simply view it as a functional thing. For example: “I’m not a bad or failed person because I’m overweight. I appreciate that my body allows me to live my life. However, my weight is negatively affecting the functionality of my body, and so I would like to change that”. Personally I think this is a much healthier mentality.
Purely from my own viewpoint, the general size of U.S. restaurant portions in comparison with those in any other country I've visited is noticeably larger. Dishes are more likely to contain processed food products, less likely to contain fresh vegetables, and more likely to contain higher levels of sugars and salt. Again, just my own take. I found when working in Texas and the deep south that booking a room with a kitchen and then shopping for suitable groceries was essential in order to try to eat more sensibly. I'm not flaming anyone, just making an observation. A simple anecdote from a work stay in the Dallas area: several of us "foreigners" went out for dinner and had great difficulty finding a vegetable side dish on the menu. We ordered the broccoli for sharing, so were bemused that it arrived smothered in processed cheese.
Well, Texas is home to some of most overweight cities in the US. However, I agree on all points. Portions are way too big at the majority of places around the US. I get portion anxiety when portions are too large, I feel like I have to eat it all and end up over eating and feeling ill. Places that don't supersize their portions are generally more expensive. Better off making food at home.
People still complain about portions being too small at places with massive portions, restaurant owners feel pressure to keep them large.
People still complain about portions being too small at places with massive portions, restaurant owners feel pressure to keep them large.
Demand and supply.
Most Americans concept of "value" is not quality, it's quantity. Being unable to otherwise judge a thing on its merits, they take the bigger one. Not the one that is healthier, or more nutrient-dense. This, IMO, stems from the industrialization of our food supply.
America came of age in post-WWII industrialization. Our food industry originally "began" because it was scaling to cheaply meet the food and logistics needs of a massive war.
So Baby boomers (and therefore subsequent generations) learned to buy shitty, processed food "For America". Buying a box of mac and cheese isn't like picking out the best vegetables. All things being equal, you just get the biggest one for the price.
Most Americans concept of "value" is not quality, it's quantity. Being unable to otherwise judge a thing on its merits, they take the bigger one. Not the one that is healthier, or more nutrient-dense. This, IMO, stems from the industrialization of our food supply.
America came of age in post-WWII industrialization. Our food industry originally "began" because it was scaling to cheaply meet the food and logistics needs of a massive war.
So Baby boomers (and therefore subsequent generations) learned to buy shitty, processed food "For America". Buying a box of mac and cheese isn't like picking out the best vegetables. All things being equal, you just get the biggest one for the price.
One of my colleagues is a vegetarian. During a business trip to Dallas his associates took him out for dinner at a steakhouse. After reading through the menu he asked the waitress whether they had anything without meat and she cheerfully replied, "We have chicken!"
At 5'10 230lb the CDC would say I'm "obese" (BMI 32.1).
I also deadlift 400lb and bench 300. My blood pressure, resting heart rate, blood sugar and HDL/LDL are perfect.
I don't know what the body fat percentage is but I'm visibly muscular everywhere except for some stomach fat.
My point is that measuring obesity purely by weight is naive and leads to massive overcounting.
My point is that measuring obesity purely by weight is naive and leads to massive overcounting.
There are two classes of people you can validly look to for advice on how to avoid Problem X (x = obesity / insomnia / constipation / badly-behaved children):
1) Those who had X but overcame it, or 2) Those who've never had it.
Almost everyone, AFAICT, looks to Class #1. Indeed that's useful.
However, Class #2 also can instruct. Asians are much less obese than non-Asians. What do they eat that you can learn from?
1) Those who had X but overcame it, or 2) Those who've never had it.
Almost everyone, AFAICT, looks to Class #1. Indeed that's useful.
However, Class #2 also can instruct. Asians are much less obese than non-Asians. What do they eat that you can learn from?
People are less active these days compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago. Accessibility to food, not necessarily good food has increased and the combination of the two leads the average person down a pretty bad path.
This could be helped if the average person took more responsibility for their own health and wellbeing, easier said than done as there are many pressures on people now that weren't present 10, 20, 30 years ago.
While exercise is an important aspect of weight management, the single biggest factor is nutrition. So while I'd love to see more people getting off the couch, for no other reason than they'll feel better for it - addressing the food component is critical.
To make big strides in addressing this epidemic around the world, governments would need to start making sugar and fast food unattractive by imposing significant taxes. In parallel, they'd need to make high quality, nutrient dense foods cheaper so it is the obvious choice 6 out of 7 days.
At face value, that seems might seem daunting or unachievable but many governments have incrementally increased taxes on cigarettes as an example. As they get progressively more expensive, it gets harder for the average person to justify spending that money and coupled with education programs in schools and so forth it changes peoples behaviour over time.
This could be helped if the average person took more responsibility for their own health and wellbeing, easier said than done as there are many pressures on people now that weren't present 10, 20, 30 years ago.
While exercise is an important aspect of weight management, the single biggest factor is nutrition. So while I'd love to see more people getting off the couch, for no other reason than they'll feel better for it - addressing the food component is critical.
To make big strides in addressing this epidemic around the world, governments would need to start making sugar and fast food unattractive by imposing significant taxes. In parallel, they'd need to make high quality, nutrient dense foods cheaper so it is the obvious choice 6 out of 7 days.
At face value, that seems might seem daunting or unachievable but many governments have incrementally increased taxes on cigarettes as an example. As they get progressively more expensive, it gets harder for the average person to justify spending that money and coupled with education programs in schools and so forth it changes peoples behaviour over time.
> Overall, men and women with college degrees had lower obesity prevalence compared with those with less education.
Makes sense.
> Although the difference was not statistically significant among non-Hispanic Black men, obesity prevalence increased with educational attainment.
That's unexpected. So every other demographic gets less fat as they get more money/education, but Non-Hispanic Black Men get more fat as they get more money/education. I wonder why.
Makes sense.
> Although the difference was not statistically significant among non-Hispanic Black men, obesity prevalence increased with educational attainment.
That's unexpected. So every other demographic gets less fat as they get more money/education, but Non-Hispanic Black Men get more fat as they get more money/education. I wonder why.
Obesity is a problem, but we need a better measurement than OBI. I'm 6'1, 245 pounds which would make me obese, but I come in at 8-9% body fat.
Plugging in a few test numbers in the following CDC calculator yields interesting results.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/en...
Luckily I fall into the "normal" category, but trying a few variations suggests to me that clinically obese is not necessarily the same as what I think most people would consider "classically" obese. Certainly some very fit/muscular people and even elite athletes such as Alex Ovechkin are (very nearly) clinically obese.
Perhaps it is time to add a few more parameters to the obesity calculator.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/en...
Luckily I fall into the "normal" category, but trying a few variations suggests to me that clinically obese is not necessarily the same as what I think most people would consider "classically" obese. Certainly some very fit/muscular people and even elite athletes such as Alex Ovechkin are (very nearly) clinically obese.
Perhaps it is time to add a few more parameters to the obesity calculator.
Every top comment here tries to distill the problem into this or that based on hunches or links to books or blog posts.
"It's cities"
"It's society"
"It's portions"
"It's plastics"
"It's activity"
"It's overeating"
"It's contaminates"
"It's education"
"It's just calories"
This is a complex problem, and you are not experts. It could be some or all of those things, but this kind of pet-theory reductivism doesn't get us anywhere.
"It's society"
"It's portions"
"It's plastics"
"It's activity"
"It's overeating"
"It's contaminates"
"It's education"
"It's just calories"
This is a complex problem, and you are not experts. It could be some or all of those things, but this kind of pet-theory reductivism doesn't get us anywhere.
That's about as wet a blanket as you could throw on an HN comment thread. This kind of judgementalism doesn't get us anywhere.
Where is it that we can go in a free-wheeling conversation that amounts to 'what do you think about obesity in America?'.
Hacker News talking about technology is usually able to engage with a topic or article with some manner of substance, or at the very least, informed by professional familiarity. In this case, as far as I can tell, no one even read the site's information beyond glancing at the troubling stats.
Taking a quote from the same area of the CDC's site, which articulates a clearer thesis and goal than here in the comments:
"Obesity is a complex disease with many contributing factors. Neighborhood design, access to healthy, affordable foods and beverages, and access to safe and convenient places for physical activity can all impact obesity. The racial and ethnic disparities in obesity underscore the need to address social determinants of health such as poverty, education, and housing to remove barriers to health. This will take action at the policy and systems level to ensure that obesity prevention and management starts early, and that everyone has access to good nutrition and safe places to be physically active. Policy makers and community leaders must work to ensure that their communities, environments, and systems support a healthy, active lifestyle for all."
Hacker News talking about technology is usually able to engage with a topic or article with some manner of substance, or at the very least, informed by professional familiarity. In this case, as far as I can tell, no one even read the site's information beyond glancing at the troubling stats.
Taking a quote from the same area of the CDC's site, which articulates a clearer thesis and goal than here in the comments:
"Obesity is a complex disease with many contributing factors. Neighborhood design, access to healthy, affordable foods and beverages, and access to safe and convenient places for physical activity can all impact obesity. The racial and ethnic disparities in obesity underscore the need to address social determinants of health such as poverty, education, and housing to remove barriers to health. This will take action at the policy and systems level to ensure that obesity prevention and management starts early, and that everyone has access to good nutrition and safe places to be physically active. Policy makers and community leaders must work to ensure that their communities, environments, and systems support a healthy, active lifestyle for all."
My siblings are not morbidly obese, but they have been overweight most of their adult lives. The people they hang out with personally and professionally are also overweight and many have the typical health problems that accompany the overweight demographic.
My wife and myself are not overweight and have never been. She was a tom-boy and a jock during high school and did intramural stuff in college. I was on high school track team and either walked or rode my bicycle - no car. While in the military, most of the people in my shop had to eat 4x per day to maintain our weight. Afterwards, during college, I lived on cheap beans and pasta or rice, and the occasional can of cheap tuna, and peanut butter sandwiches until I met my wife. She taught me how to cook and introduced me to much better stuff. So I did not eat 'correctly' until my early 30s.
Until the last two years, we had remained physically active and were never overweight. We have gained some weight but are not overweight and, other than the incident that severely curbed our physical activity, have had no significant health problems.
The pattern of life-long activity and a physical mind-set seems to be a common factor when you look at older healthy people (over 55) that were never overweight, regardless of food quantity and type consumption.
You either are lucky enough to have decent genetics and the willingness to start an active life well, or you go through life increasingly overweight with chronic health problems.
My wife and myself are not overweight and have never been. She was a tom-boy and a jock during high school and did intramural stuff in college. I was on high school track team and either walked or rode my bicycle - no car. While in the military, most of the people in my shop had to eat 4x per day to maintain our weight. Afterwards, during college, I lived on cheap beans and pasta or rice, and the occasional can of cheap tuna, and peanut butter sandwiches until I met my wife. She taught me how to cook and introduced me to much better stuff. So I did not eat 'correctly' until my early 30s.
Until the last two years, we had remained physically active and were never overweight. We have gained some weight but are not overweight and, other than the incident that severely curbed our physical activity, have had no significant health problems.
The pattern of life-long activity and a physical mind-set seems to be a common factor when you look at older healthy people (over 55) that were never overweight, regardless of food quantity and type consumption.
You either are lucky enough to have decent genetics and the willingness to start an active life well, or you go through life increasingly overweight with chronic health problems.
If the average person suffers from what should be an anomaly, perhaps it is less a personal failing than a societal failing and we should try to fix the societal problems generating the poor outcome.