What's Causing the Rise In Obesity? Everything. 926
Mr_Blank writes "We all know — because we are being constantly reminded — that we are getting fat. Americans are at the forefront of the trend, but it is a transnational one. Apparently, it is also trans-species: Over the past 20 years, as the American people were getting fatter, so were America's laboratory macaques, chimpanzees, vervet monkeys and mice, as well as domestic dogs, domestic cats, and domestic and feral rats from both rural and urban areas. Researchers examined records on those eight species and found that average weight for every one had increased. The marmosets gained an average of 9% per decade. Lab mice gained about 11% per decade. Chimps are doing especially badly: their average body weight had risen 35% per decade. What is causing the obesity era? Everything."
Sugar (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sugar (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem with sugar is the brain doesn't see it as nutrition thus it doesn't suppress your appetite when you eat sugar filled foods.
Are you sure about that? Empirical evidence does seem to point that candies and other sweets suppress appetite very well.
Well America isn't number 1 in being fat (Score:5, Interesting)
That title goes to Mexico. [calgaryherald.com] So cheer on, someone else has you beat on this.
People who can't stop (Score:5, Interesting)
The author obviously has his pet topic, which is that it's not anyone's fault that anyone is fat. Sorry, but I've lived around too many fat people. They eat. They eat a lot. Honestly the author goes on far too long about "it's not their fault" and doesn't spend too much time discussing "why".
I can buy that there's something in food these days that may cause people to become heavier than they otherwise would become. But I don't buy the fact that this mystery chemical has made a nation of blobs. It may be a contributory factor, but it's not why obesity happens.
Frankly, I think that companies like McDonald's have successfully hacked the human brain and created foods that people just can't say no to. It's not all of us, I get nauseous eating McD's more than once a week (the smell outside the restaurant is enough to drive me away) but there are plenty of us who are wholly unable to resist. And by "unable to resist" I mean exactly that - your conscious mind might know it's bad, but you just can't help yourself because the food is so delicious. That this "flavor" is a bunch of old, tired cows mixed with industrial chemicals is beside the point. You've been hacked - you could say no, but you really don't want to. The idea of living without McD's for the rest of your life is repellent, a life hardly worth living at all.
I live overseas, and I've seen this myself with the locals and foreigners alike. The locals freaking love McD's and KFC. There's nothing like it in their cuisine and some of them (not all) just can't stop going there. Especially kids. Then, there are foreigners who upon discovering the local (awesome) food spit it out and won't eat anything but Western food. Seriously, I've known people who have lived locally for years and who every day eat nothing but Subway, Starbucks, McD's, KFC, Papa John's, Pizza Hut, etc. If I suggest we go and get a bowl of noodles or other local stuff and I receive a wide-eyed, "You eat that shite, mate? It's garbage!"
Look no further than the closest thing he makes to a hypothesis: "being poor is stressful, and stress makes you eat, and the cheapest food available is the stuff with a lot of âempty caloriesâ(TM), therefore poorer people are fatter than the better-off." Stop right there at the "stress makes you eat" part. WTF man? No it doesn't. Maybe it does FOR YOU, perhaps FOR SOME, but it's hardly universal.
Conclusion: the guy wanted to write 4,700 words to get his name in print and support his pre-existing political views, not because he had something insightful to say.
Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, it sure it is all about excess calories. No, it isn't just about excess sugar, which is what:
Very simply food manufacturers removed the fat in the 70's and replaced it with huge amounts of sugar. The problem with sugar is the brain doesn't see it as nutrition thus it doesn't suppress your appetite when you eat sugar filled foods.
suggest, because:
The reason why your caloric intake is such as it is, why your burning efficiency is lower, or why you're less active and hence burn less are obviously quite a complex set of conditions
which isn't really reduced to food manufactures removing fat and replacing it with sugar (let alone the validity of this claim and it's applicability to the considered population). And this is what I believe was what AC was trying to point out and you reinforced.
Re:Sugar (Score:5, Interesting)
....and, Cuba has lots of sugar. But the land of the free is still mad at Cuba for actions 50+ years ago, so the country remains embargoed and impoverished. Russia, China, Vietnam? They're all good buddies now, lots of forgiveness to go around. Cuba? Fuckem.
Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (Score:5, Interesting)
Haha, go and read TFA. The entire article is about demonstrating that the "it's simple thermodynamics" answer is pure bullshit. I'll give you a hint as to part of why it's bullshit –humans are not closed systems. It's not true that the energy we use and the energy input as food are equal. We for example, poop.
The article even gives strong evidence that it's got nothing at all to do with simple thermodynamics, citing that lab animals, which are fed regulated diets with specific calorific values are gaining weight at the same rate as humans are.
The "it's basic thermodynamics" people would have you believe that if you consume 2030 calories, and gain 30 calories worth of fat a day, that you could eat 2000 calories and magically lose weight. As TFA points out, if this were true, losing weight would be a simple matter of not eating 3 peanuts a day. The reality is that it's much harder than that. The reality is that if you consume 2000 calories instead of 2030, many people's bodies biochemistry will simply decide to poop out 30 calories less fat.
At 2030 calories input, your body may well decide to do the following:
- Use 1500 calories on doing things
- store 30 calories
- poop 500 calories
At 2000 calories input, your body may well decide to do the following:
- Use 1500 calories on doing things
- store 30 calories
- poop 470 calories
At 1500 calories input, your body may well decide to do:
- Use only 1200 calories, make you feel tired and depressed
- store 30 calories
- poop 270 calories.
At a certain calorific intake, from certain foods, with certain genetics, certain viruses, certain chemical conditions, certain lighting and heating conditions ..., your body will decide to do all kinds of different things. So no, it's not simply a matter of telling overweight people "eat less, do more". It's not that simple.
Unfortunately, the kind of people who think it is that simple tend to be people who are thin because of all kinds of environmental factors. Because of that, they think it's trivial to be thin, and hence lambast the fatties for their "lack of willpower", when the reality is actually massively more complex than that.
Re:Sugar (Score:4, Interesting)
Depends who you are and what your metabolism is. My body is a Sugar factory, yet I'm considered underweight. Irrelevant to your comment and relevant to the article: you guys miss one thing, the Thyroid.
People with Thyroid issues usually have either weight gain or weight loss. And if your Thyroid has been removed, controlling your weight gain is damn near impossible. Since nobody outside of Thyroid problems understands that, it's easy to rationalize your hate and tell people to exercise and stop eating so much. It's not uncommon to gain 100 pounds in one week after a complete removal.
Let's face the facts, we have lots of Radiation in various forms around us now. I have no doubt about it's contributing factor to Metabolism. I'm missing half my Thyroid due to a nodule that grew and decided to take over. Thankfully for me, it wasn't Cancer and even thought I was suppose to gain about 10 pounds; I actually lost 10 -- the Doctors were stumped on that one since it went against their data.
ProTip: Don't let a General Surgeon remove your Thyroid, I ended up with a massive hematoma and damaged Parathyroids. Do yourself a favor and seek attention from a ENT. And make sure you're getting enough Iodine in your diets.
Disclaimer: These are NOT my opinions but the opinions of Doctors I've seen over many years of Thyroid issues that are ongoing.
Re:FP (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I hypothesize it's a link between the focus on a decrease in recess (unordered recreational time) and an increase in environmental stress (in other words, and contrary to official accounts, we might want to shorten the work day, but increase the efficiency of the work during that shorter period). Too much stress, not enough proper outlets (because they all cost too much now...and people aren't making enough to make use of them), results in a catastrophic / cascade failure scenario.
If we have a large die-off in the future, in a short period of time, then perhaps, if these comments survive, we will have an idea where to look next time.
Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (Score:5, Interesting)
And also, most of our energy is used in the base metabolic rate. The body can adjust that a little here, a little there.
Another little point, children overeat because they are growing. But they don't grow because they overeat. It is the body's control systems which regulate what the body is doing and thus, how much to eat.
Sugar / carbs, being available in unnatural quantities, flummox this system. It puts the body into a mode where its aim becomes to store fat, and it'll get the energy to store fat even by destroying muscle if it has to. Lab rats which died of heart failure because they were being underfed, starved, and they burned up their muscle tissue, whilst keeping their fat tissue -- they died obese and starved. (see Taubes for the ref.)
But instead of recognising the conventional energy-balance model has failed, "common sense" blames it on "lack of will power".
(Thermodynamics as a law hasn't failed, it is still true for bodies, but they reasoning that fat loss is just about calorie counting and exercise has failed.)
Eating too much (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I'm a bit tired of all of these media invented excuses. If you're overweight in almost all cases with very few exceptions it's YOUR fault.
You eat too much.
You eat crappy food.
And you likely have all sorts of psychological excuses to make the above two points plausibly not your fault in your own mind.
While going to college I worked as a cashier at a grocery store for a while and saw it all. Morbidly obese people coming in on Food Stamps or other government assistance because they were "Disabled" due to their weight, and using those funds to buy almost entirely junk food. And no small amount either. Cases upon cases of Soda, frozen chicken wings, etc... The ironic part was they seemed to feel he most guilty at the checkout and I, their cashier was their confessor. So they'd tell me all about how this was the "Diet" Swanson's family pack of salsbury steak yet they still couldn't lose any weight!!!
Too each their own, if you want to eat until you're 500lbs and die of a heart attack at an early age? If you think "Big is beautiful" or whatever the catch phrase is now... great! I'm cool with that. But lets not let people lie to themselves. Yes there may be a lot of environmental factors that make gaining weight easier now, and you may have some societal engrained habits that are hard to break, but the choice is still yours. There's no undiscovered bacteria that's going to make you obese even if eat salads all day (yes, I've had people tell me this was why they were over weight) It's a very simple process, eat less... a lot less, and you will lose weight. There is no such thing as big boned, you are not just a "big person" you can be as skinny as any person on TV if you want, although maybe not as attractive and successful, at least you wont die at 45.
Yes I realize that now every obese person with a Grande Mocha Cookie Crumble Frappuccino in their hand is going to mod me down this morning... but hey, I'll outlive you anyway, so mod away!
Processed food is NOT the same (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because nobody would ever say anything so ridiculous, since it's false. Processed and manufactured food bears almost no relationship at all to natural organic food except inasmuch as some of the pure chemicals that they both contain are identical.
The bulk of industrial processed food is completely different in structure, texture, in its overall nutritional balance, in its micro-nutrients, and in the many toxins it contains. And the bad processed food is accompanied by equally bad environmental byproducts of the industrial food and farming chemical industries, such as the widespread presence of glyphosate not only in our food but in our water and even air.
That we and animals in our environment are unavoidably being affected through ingesting a manufactured diet of chemicals is not an outlier theory, it would be a miracle if it were not happening. We know it is because our gut flora is a mess, and our lab animals show the same symptoms whereas in the wild they do not.
Re:Sugar (Score:5, Interesting)
Diets filled with processed and manufactured foods.
Pointless statement.
There is absolutely nothing that says that processed or manufactured food should be any different form other food.
That sounds like the defense the tobacco industry used for decades.
Even if the food is entirely synthetic doesn't mean that it is in any way less healthy than non-synthetic food. There could be something wrong with the processed food that obese people eat but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible to create processed / manufactured food that is healthier.
You're right. It doesn't have to be. Unfortunately, it's not like there is an incentive for these manufactures to do this. But there are considerable profits to be made in making the food as cheaply as possible. That's the problem.
Re:High Rise (Score:5, Interesting)
I was about 13 when I visited a Texan diner, on the first day of a holiday. My mum ordered a salad. "What dressing do you want?" There's a choice?! She asked for the normal one.
A large bowl of salad was provided, and a bowl of pink goop -- probably 75cl or so. My mum asked what the goop was. The waitress said, "that's your thousand island dressing, here, I'll show you" and tipped the whole lot over the salad.
At a fast food place in Texas the five of us chose what we wanted. My mum ordered it "one large hotdogs, one large cheeseburger... oh, is that the large hotdog? Wow, ok, nothing else". The two items fed my parents and three children.
Re:Sugar (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sugar (Score:5, Interesting)
> AFAIK HFCS is just as bad a sucrose
The makers of HFCS say that it's the "same as sugar" (i.e., table sugar, i.e., sucrose), but that's not strictly accurate. It really should be compared to *invert* sugar, in which the glucose and fructose molecules have been separated. Bakers have been using that for centuries: take sucrose and heat it with a mild acidic solution (such as lemon juice), and there you go.
The problem is it's hard to know whom to believe about HFCS. My wife and I have essentially cut out added sugar. We don't even have sugar in our house. And yet, we still both struggle to keep our A1C under 6-7. In our case, walking and mild exercise have made the biggest difference. (Ah, the joys of getting older.) :)
Now for the fine print: "we don't have sugar in our house ..." yeah, I know. Actually, we do. Someone did a comparison between cereals, cookies and breads from a couple of decades ago, and the manufacturers are adding considerably more sugar now, because that's what consumers want.
As for lab animals becoming fatter, I think that's simple: they're being fed processed foods as well. Think about it: do you throw your cat a slab of meat every evening, or do you open a can or pour some dry food? The latter are LOADED with added carbohydrates. Loaded. Cats are CARNIVORES.
My biggest complaint about HFCS isn't the syrup, per se, it's that Monsanto and ADM have ruined my corn. They've modified the corn to be sweeter, so that they can get more HFCS and ethanol from it. I used to love corn on the cob, but given that Sandy and I have tried to stop eating so much sugar, it's sickeningly sweet to us now. We buy locally-grown, unmodified corn whenever possible. Rarely from a supermarket.
Re:FP (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm blaming global warming. Everyone seems to blame it for everything else, may as well add this to the list.
Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps true, but if you where to watch the U.K. Channel 4 program Secret Eaters you would come to understand that overweight people don't eat ~2000 Calories they eat *MUCH* more than that. For really obese people they eat more than double that.
Not only that it clearly showed that obese people outright lie to themselves and others about how much food they consume.
The basic premise of the program is the people keep a food diary of what they eat for a week, and the programme makers engage in 24/7 surveillance over the same period to record what they actually eat.
The reality is that people are getting fatter because they are consuming more calories. You only need to look a Cuba to see it all playing out. The austerity brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union the calorie intake dropped and people lost weight across the board. The economy recovered, calorie intake surged as did waist lines. That's peer reviewed research in a high impact journal dumass.
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f1515#ref-40 [bmj.com]
In the end it *REALLY* is hard thermodynamics. If you are over weight unless you are suffering from a really really rare and invariably fatal genetic condition stop stuffing your face and exercise more and you WILL loose weight over the long term.
Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, no, in practice, that's not true at all. In practice, you can't simply eat 30 calories less per day and magically lose weight. In practice, people make "floaters", which are simply poops with lots of fat (and hence energy) in them.
The practice of the situation is that your body does a lot of very complex stuff to try and regulate the right level of energy, the right level of storage etc. It doesn't simply try to extract everything it can.
More so, many genetic and environmental factors can affect how your body choses to do that given any one set of circumstances.
What is making us fat? well ... DUH (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is what is making people fat: (tl/dr: Sugar, cheap & plentiful fatty foods, sedentary lifestyle, stress and distracting entertainment)
Sugar - Everything is pumped so full of sugar its almost unbearable. Soda, juices candies are big sources of sugar. And that was a result of cheaper high fructose corn syrup which is added to make the food item more appealing. Just think of how much sugar in in the 2 to 4 cups of coffee you drink per day when you order it with some sweetener or flavor. You can't even buy a supposedly healthy fruit juice without it being loaded with as much sugar as a soda. I drink fresh brewed iced tea, either green tea with a bit of honey added or regular black tea both with fresh lemon. Very refreshing, a thirst quencher and good for you. I cut out soda a few years back though I do enjoy a Coke every now and then as a treat.
Low quality food - Animal fats and carbs. Two things that our body can use for nutrition but eat in too large of quantities. Our brains are also wired to enjoy savory foods through evolution to ensure we ingest enough protein. But we are overexposed to such foods and are over indulging in them as as a result. Food is cheap and plentiful in developed nations and bad food is the cheapest food. We have restaurants serving up boatloads of fatty foods loaded with carbs. Fast food is notorious for this because most of them are burger joints serving up fatty meat on a carb bun and carb fries soaked in more fat. And to top it off its cheap and fast. when you're stressed out, running around all day, have a deadline, boss harping on you, it can become overwhelming and eating can help relieve stress. So you run to McBurgerdys and pick up a triple bypass bacon cheese burger with a side of fat fries and wash it down with a tub of sugar water. Its too easy to get a hold of this junk. I am guilty of this along with many many others. I try to cook but too often am I distracted by stress to deal with it.
Sedentary lifestyle - We have many jobs where a worker sits in a chair all day. Once they return home they are burnt out by stress (see below) and plop down on a couch in front of the TV. The only time they may have free time is on weekends providing they aren't burnt out from family or partying. Life is way too fast paced and full of stress and problems.
Stress - Work, trying to make ends meet family etc all contribute to mental stress which slows people down. You escape by watching TV, playing Video games, surfing the web or some other hobby. Some hobbies involve exercise but for a majority, it doesn't. rush rush rush! go go go! now now now! This is mentality killing us. Then throw in the shitty economy where the cost of living is outpacing many peoples income.
Entertainment - We are at a point where entertainment is on demand and interactive. People get lost for hours watching TV, playing video games or surfing the web. Its too easy to plop in front of the TV or computer and be immersed in an alternate world where we can escape the daily stress of our lives. The real world sucks but video games offer an alternate world where we play a hero or are at the top of the gaming food chain. BOOM headshot! Take that bitch! Feels good doesn't it? Better than typing up TPS reports, meeting deadlines, hunting down bugs etc. Fuck work. That is why you have people who lose jobs, spouses and even their lives. The virtual world is better than the real world. And TV is the same thing, we follow an immersive story or laugh at jokes and gags which take us away from our stressful lives. Before Radio, TV and video games many people drowned their stress in alcohol at local pubs. People are always looking to escape.
Re:Sugar (Score:2, Interesting)
HFCS is bad for you, but there's nothing special about it vis-a-vis cane sugar. Or agave nectar, or honey, for that matter.
Independent studies show that the body can process and digest natural sugars (honey, beet, cane) but can not process HFCS. Natural News [naturalnews.com] has reported on numerous studies on the subject. Additive producers "claim" that they are the same, but they obviously have self interest in making such claims.
Re:Sugar (Score:4, Interesting)
lol fructose is just a disaccharide, its technically a more complex carb chain than glucose (monosaccharide). do you mean high fructose corn syrup? you're sort of right. typically what you see is HFCS55 which is 55% fructose and 41% glucose. to put it in perspective, granulated sugar is 50/50 fructose/glucose. so HFCS is only marginally more fructose than regular sugar, so you're wrong. but you're also right, because sugar, hfcs and all the other high glycemic carbs are what's really causing this problem.
Sucrose is cleaved into fructose and glucose by enzymes in the saliva, but there is also an odd glitch in our metabolic pathways that tends to divert energy derived from free fructose directly into fat storage instead of converting it all to glucose. One theory is that since fruits ripen during the warm months and fruits often contain an abundance of fructose, that it once served as a trigger to start storing fat for Winter, but who knows. The problem boils down to more calories in than out, but it can make a difference how those calories are consumed.