Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Science

What's Causing the Rise In Obesity? Everything. 926

Posted by Soulskill
from the i-blame-vegetarians dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What's Causing the Rise In Obesity? Everything.

Comments Filter:
  • Sugar (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EEPROMS (889169) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @05:21AM (#44628207)
    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.
    • Re:Sugar (Score:5, Informative)

      by EEPROMS (889169) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @05:34AM (#44628259)
      to back up my above statement there is a good short scientific article regarding sugar that can be found here [abc.net.au]
      • Re:Sugar (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dwarfsoft (461760) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @07:01AM (#44628617) Homepage

        I watched this lecture recently about Fructose (and high fructose corn syrup). https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dBnniua6-oM [youtube.com]

        It was quite long (1.5 hours) but very informative in how bad HFCS is to us, and why low fat has caused this.

        • Re:Sugar (Score:5, Informative)

          by demonlapin (527802) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @07:42AM (#44628791) Homepage Journal
          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.
          • Re:Sugar (Score:5, Informative)

            by dwarfsoft (461760) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @08:21AM (#44629087) Homepage

            Really. So you think it is chemically the same as glucose? The difference is that sucrose provides half sucrose half fructose. The fructose gets metabolized in an entirely different way to the glucose.

            The two main issues are that fructose by itself provides energy in such a way that it does not make the body feel "full", and that unlike the normal sugar we would expect (sucrose) we get no glucose from using it as an alternative.

            Normal consumption of fructose in a natural setting also would include fibre which helps signal the body about satiation. This has been a major contributing factor in the whole "processed foods" vs "weight gain" issue. HCFS is a major component of most of the processed products that we rely on for our bulk energy needs. Really, do take a look at the lecture. The biochemistry component on how fructose gets metabolized in the liver is very interesting.

            • Re:Sugar (Score:5, Informative)

              by Immerman (2627577) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @09:26AM (#44629809)

              Yes, large quantites of fructose are toxic - supposedly has something to do with a pre-human mutation that let us scarf down fruit and efficiently store the fructose as fat in our liver against the lean times. Causes some problems if the lean times never come.

              As far as high-fructose corn syrup is concerned:
              table sugar: 50% sucrose, 50% fructose
              HFCS: 45% sucrose, 55% fructose
              It's not really a big deal. Yes, you'll increase your fructose intake 10% if you eat the same quantity as "sugar", but HFCS tends to be considerably sweeter, so you'll probably be using less and at least partially offset the difference. As long as you're not gorging yourself on sugars it's a non-issue, and if you *are* gorging yourself on enough sugars for the slight increase in fructose to be a problem, you're already doing much worse things to your body, it's just not designed to handle that kind of sugar intake. The only way it could be a significant issue is if the sucrose somehow stimulated fructose to be digested in safer manner, but I've never heard anything to suggest such a thing, and IIRC they follow rather different metabolic pathways.

              The purported appetite-stimulation effects of HFCS are another thing altogether, and certainly a problem if real. As could be any interesting chemicals created as a side effect of the processing and deemed ""nonhazardous". Honestly I stopped paying close attention. Most of the sugar in my normal diet comes from fresh fruit these days, the easiest way I could think of to keep my sweet-tooth from turning me into a fat diabetic.

            • Re:Sugar (Score:5, Informative)

              by LordLimecat (1103839) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @10:27AM (#44630615)

              Really. So you think it is chemically the same as glucose?

              No, but cane sugar isnt glucose; its a disaccharide composed of a glucose linked to a fructose, ie roughly 50% of each.

              Guess what the most common forumations of HFCS are?
              55 fructose - 42 glucose
              42 fructose - 53 glucose

              Oh look, one of those has a higher glucose:fructose ratio than "healthy" sucrose.

              Its been said a million times: HFCS is a bogeyman. Sometimes, in some situations, it can be less healthy, but the problem is one of quantity consumed, not what particular type of sugar youre eating. I would suggest that one of the causes of obesity is these stupid food fads that promise that X is the miracle cure to weight, and you can do whatever you want as long as you eliminate X. Guess what, cutting off HFCS does you no good if you replace it with cane sugar or lard or tons of carbs or...

    • Re:Sugar (Score:5, Funny)

      by Thanshin (1188877) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @05:41AM (#44628291)

      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.

      And, as we all know, marmosets are among the greatest consumers of manufactured foods.

      • Re:Sugar (Score:5, Insightful)

        by silentcoder (1241496) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @05:58AM (#44628373) Homepage

        >And, as we all know, marmosets are among the greatest consumers of manufactured foods.

        These are laboratory marmosets which are, if anything, fed MORE on manufactured foods than even pet marmosets (since nobody gives a lab animal treats).
        These are all animals that eat foods made in large scale commercial operations and poured out of a tin or cardboard box.

        There is NO evidence of an obesity rise in WILD stocks of ANY of these animals.
        What do humans and lab animals have in common ? Diets filled with processed and manufactured foods.

        Now I am not saying that this is the cause or even that the GP is right- I am saying your reason for claiming he is wrong is outright idiotic.

        • Re:Sugar (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Salgak1 (20136) <salgak&speakeasy,net> on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @07:31AM (#44628737) Homepage

          The question is, WHICH processes are to blame? Obviously, the dropping of fat levels and the rise of HFCS look to be LIKELY causes, but it would be nice to see if this is confirmed by double-blind testing.

          Notionally, take 10,000 rodents, and a basic food stock. Process some of the food for low-fat only, some for HFCS-only, and some for both. And, of course, the unprocessed as control. Other variables to explore would be physical portion size (based on 100% need and the raw food stock), caloric size (again, baselined to the control), and unlimited portions, for each food type. And run for a few generations. That should provide a decent statistical universe for drawing conclusions.

          Rinse and repeat for other suspect methods/additives. We can't make rational decisions without good data. . .

        • by Thanshin (1188877)

          "Marmosets are usually fed a basic commercial ration and provided with a variety of supplements such as fruit, vegetables, nuts, eggs, jelly, cheese, cat chow and yoghurt." - The common marmoset [adelaide.edu.au]

          From which of those do you suggest fat was removed in the 70 and "replaced with huge amounts of sugar"?

          • Re:Sugar (Score:5, Informative)

            by pla (258480) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @08:36AM (#44629225) Journal
            From which of those do you suggest fat was removed in the 70 and "replaced with huge amounts of sugar"?

            Cat chow, for one. Cat count as obligate carnivores. They have zero need for sugar in their diet - They can't taste it [scientificamerican.com]), they can't even properly metabolize it. Bad for them. They do, however, have a high need for fat and protein.

            And it pisses me off every time I go shopping for cat chow that I have to pay literally twice as much to get cat food that doesn't have 15-25% added carbs in it. Cat food should not have any carbs, except what comes incidental to whatever kind of horse they use as the basic ingredient. And you think you can't go wrong buying tinned more-or-less fresh meat for fluffy? Nope. Many brands even add sugar to that.

            That said, I have to agree with you that wild marmosets probably don't eat a lot of doughnuts. ;)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @05:44AM (#44628311)

      The article is so much more in depth than "it's sugar" or "it's excess calories", and reasons away these as just one of the growing body of hundreds of possible causes and proven links to obesity. Hence why this article is titled "What's Causing the Rise In Obesity? Everything." Any pithy "It's this one thing [someone] did [somewhere]" comment is highly ignorant.

    • Re:Sugar (Score:4, Funny)

      by MMC Monster (602931) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @05:56AM (#44628369)

      You must be outside the U.S.

      In the U.S. we've been using High Fructose Corn Syrup as our sweetener for a couple decades now. Why import something natural when you can synthesize something much worse locally?

      • Re:Sugar (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mrclisdue (1321513) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @06:08AM (#44628417)

        ....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:Sugar (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Mike Frett (2811077) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @06:34AM (#44628527)

      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.

      • This is probably the best comment I've read here. I've successfully lost weight by controlling my carb intake, and so have some of my friends. But another friend just didn't lose any weight at all until I gave her some iodine supplements to help her thyroid. Her metabolism sped up (as evidenced by her hair growing much faster), and she started to lose weight.

        Sucralose contains chlorine, which can block iodine reception in your thyroid. So at least one artificial sweetener is bad to ingest if you want to los

        • I always think that artificial sweeteners are very bad for dieters as they train the body to expect sweet food all the time. They also train the body to not expect many calories from sweet food, so they tend to make the consumer hungry as the body searches for calories.

          It can be surprising how quickly your tastes can adapt to reducing (or increasing) the sweetness in your diet.
      • Re:Sugar (Score:4, Informative)

        by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @09:39AM (#44629979) Homepage

        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.

        The only way you could possibly gain 100 pounds in a week is if you eat >14 pounds of food per day. Even if my body suddenly had a 100% food to energy conversion rate and spent no calories at all I doubt I could add more than 3 to 4 pounds a day as that's the gross weight of my food, so the only way that could happen is on an extremely high calorie eating binge. It's exactly this kind of ridiculous exaggeration that leads to people not taking you seriously.

    • by evilviper (135110)

      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.

      There are survival foods which are mostly sugar, yet people eating them don't get the sensation of starving to death.

      And what "food manufacturers" do shouldn't affect EVERYONE. I'm sure there are lots of people who rarely or never eat processed food, yet they're getting fa

  • by Tekoneiric (590239) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @05:22AM (#44628211) Journal
    Aliens are fattening us up for the slaughter...
  • There's a solution. (Score:3, Informative)

    by mybeat (1516477) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @05:26AM (#44628221) Homepage
    I heard something called 'mehth' can make you slim!
  • by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @05:41AM (#44628287) Homepage

    That title goes to Mexico. [calgaryherald.com] So cheer on, someone else has you beat on this.

  • by ciderbrew (1860166) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @05:48AM (#44628331)
    Late late nights, Games, Beer and doing fuck all about it for years. But they are symptoms of depression and wanting escapism. A knee injury doesn't help. Also, a dumb sense of being able to lose a few KG with magic when I finally get the motivation to put the effort in. But Skyrim and Arkham Asylum have to take some blame, they should have sucked more so I could put them down.
    Thanks for asking.
  • by nimbius (983462) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @05:51AM (#44628343) Homepage
    more data should be required before we make such a broad spectrum 'everything is getting fat because of everything' claim, which is absolutely as absurd as it sounds. In the cases of laboratory controlled animals, im willing to venture a sedentary and stressful lifestyle has accumulated their girth.
    in the case of people, we've stopped eating real food entirely for both convenience and lack of nutritional education. Some of us work odd hours or multiple jobs and just dont have time to cook. places like wendys offer a reasonable facimile of food but the ingredients list for even a hamburger bun starts to look more like the back pages of an organic chemistry lab book. Most 30somethings like myself havent the slightest idea, nor care, about how to cook their own food outside of a cardboard box and boil-point water. And packaged food companies agree this is the way it should be. There is no more home economics, we emerge from primary education with no more than an understanding of hunger and satiation.

    I also think its a cultural thing. Jamie Oliver, for all the work hes done in targeting childhood obesity and healthy eating, still cooks an alarming number of recipes that youd never think to serve the majority of a populus thats overweight. This holds true for most chefs, celebrity or not. Browned butter and whole cream are still entirely acceptable additions to most semi-casual and upscale dining experiences despite the well proven fact theyre killing us. There are only four meats we readily consume on a daily basis yet theyve replaced hundreds of vegetables in nearly every meal of the day. Many adults simply avoid healthy vegetables like onions, tomatoes or broccoli alltogether, picking from their meal and instead focusing on pasta or meat.

    articles like this that just throw in the proverbial towel arent helping. We need competent nutritional education and responsible industry to start offering food that is both nutritious and healthy. Yet as with most industries the change often comes from the consumer, and its often met half-hearted and begrudgingly.
    • by thegarbz (1787294)

      This holds true for most chefs, celebrity or not. Browned butter and whole cream are still entirely acceptable additions to most semi-casual and upscale dining experiences despite the well proven fact theyre killing us.

      While it's irrefutable that these are unhealthy I disagree that this can be considered a cause of the current problem. Up-scale restaurants generally have a tendency to cook the old school way, a beautiful meal often seasoned with it's own fat, and a wonderful array of tasty vegetables on the side. Yes butter and cream are killing us, but they were also killing my great grandma who's recipe book would drive a health advocate to sudden cardiac arrest. Even my still alive 97 year old grandma loves cooking roa

    • by m00sh (2538182) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @10:02AM (#44630283)

      Browned butter and whole cream are still entirely acceptable additions to most semi-casual and upscale dining experiences despite the well proven fact theyre killing us.

      They are not proven or if you think they are proven, the proof is under a lot of dispute. The major papers and studies that constitute "proof" have been found to have major statistical and analytical problems. One such problem was that all correlations to saturated fats to heart disease did not control for sugars and carbs. People who were eating high saturated fats were also eating higher sugars and carbs but it was not controlled because the researcher believed sugars/carbs to be harmless.

      Because of attitude like yours, butter and cream are replaced with canola/corn/soyabean oil because it is unsaturated fat/plant oil. These oils are industrial products going through high temperatures, chemicals and storage processes and even though they are unsaturated and "good", they are unstable and full of impurities.

      Many adults simply avoid healthy vegetables like onions, tomatoes or broccoli alltogether, picking from their meal and instead focusing on pasta or meat.

      And, you know why? Because, vegetables need fat to make them tasty and bring out their flavor. If you start throwing out the fat, vegetables start tasting like grass. If they are cooked properly with fat and seasonings, they are great. Even seafood like shrimps and crabs legs were once considered food that didn't taste good. Only by cooking them with butter, it has reached its status as it has now.

      So, stop believing saturated fats are bad for you. It's just a product of the 80s advertising campaign that hammered the point that fats are bad for you by showing saturated fats in semi-solid form in lower temperatures clogging drains and making the connection that your arteries are the drain and saturated fats clogs both.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @05:55AM (#44628363)

    The problem isn't that obesity runs in the family; it's rather nobody runs in the family!

  • by AbRASiON (589899) * on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @05:59AM (#44628381) Journal

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM [youtube.com] Sugar, the bitter truth.

    Also
    http://www.wnyc.org/shows/heresthething/2012/jul/02/ [wnyc.org]
    (transcript)
    http://www.wnyc.org/shows/heresthething/2012/jul/02/transcript/ [wnyc.org]

    Just try, for 2 weeks - see just how hard it is.

  • by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @06:02AM (#44628395) Homepage

    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.

    • by N1AK (864906) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @06:56AM (#44628597) Homepage

      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.

      Not my favourite part of his article but you're splitting hairs if you only accept statements that are universal. Your own post says "The locals freaking love McDs" WTF man? but by your own criteria-> No they don't. Maybe it does for that ONE, perhaps for SOME.. can you see how that kind of nitpicking doesn't add anything as it's obviously not meant literally.

      There is a well researched correlation between stress, over-eating and unhealthy-eating.

      You're right that personal responsibility and control are important and some people tend to ignore these, however it is also true that factors outside individual control (brain hacking as you call it for example) play a massive part and masses of people ignore those. A common opinion of fat people is that they're fat because they're lazy, weak etc with no recognition that yes they played a part but so did food manufacturers, governments etc and we should be dealing with both.

    • The cheapest food available is actually going to the store and cooking your own food. Most people are too lazy to do this, or to exercise, so we get articles like this telling them its not their fault. I have seen someone say their doctor was fat shaming them, because whenever they went he told them to lose weight as it was affecting their health. This is the society we live in now.
    • by evilviper (135110)

      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

      This makes NO SENSE. Most people don't eat out more than once a week, yet they're overweight. Some people don't EVER eat at McDonalds or similar fast-food places, and yet they're

  • Lazyness (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dadelbunts (1727498) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @07:02AM (#44628623)
    God i hate articles like this. Everything isnt causing obesity, lazyness is. Want to know why im fucking fat? Cus im fucking lazy and like to eat pizza while watching 4 episodes of TNG on Netflix. From people too lazy to go buy groceries ( i had someone tell me it was virtually impossible to buy groceries because they didnt have a car) to people being too fucking lazy to cook, or exercise even the slightest bit. You can eat whatever food you want, as many calories you want, if you burn it off you wont be fat, you might have other health complications but thats another story alltogether. Combined with people telling them that "its ok", "not your fault" and "out of your control" that make it worse. Obese people just go "oh its not my fault fuck it", stuff their faces with food, dont work out, baloon up, then shrug like they had no control over it. Its bullshit. People need to start accepting some personal responsibility for their actions.
    • Re:Lazyness (Score:5, Insightful)

      by evilviper (135110) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @07:26AM (#44628695) Journal

      Want to know why im fucking fat? Cus im fucking lazy and like to eat pizza while watching 4 episodes of TNG on Netflix

      Exercise is absolutely insignificant next to the baseline caloric intake. Any dietician will tell you the same. You have to get as much exercise as a marathon runner to lose substantial weight without changing your diet. It's almost ALL about diet.

      • Re:Lazyness (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Overzeetop (214511) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @10:32AM (#44630669) Journal

        It's only about diet if you make it about diet.

        Let me ask - if you got a $10000 check in the mail - say you won a small lotto prize - that would make a significant difference in what you could buy in entertainment over the next year, yes? More meals out, more movies, more shows - probably a 2-5 fold increase over normal? And yet, that's probably only 15-25% of your salary.

        Same thing with food. 1600-2200 calories a day for a full grown male would be a low-moderate activity bench mark rate. Add just 500 calories average of exercise a day and you go from counting every goddamned cornflake to draining a Big Gulp at lunch, or doubling your primary meal size a couple times a week.

        Put me on 1800 calories a day and I'll start looking for ways to cheat. Put me on 2300 calories a day and I don't even have to count.

        That 500 calories a day? 45 minutes running or swimming or cycling will burn that off. I get more than that walking 9 holes of golf. Heck, I probably burn more than that just working around the house on the weekends - no organized exercise required.

    • Re:Lazyness (Score:4, Insightful)

      by davide marney (231845) <davide DOT marney AT netmedia DOT org> on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @08:05AM (#44628981) Journal

      Those lazy Marmosets, lab rats, mice, and chimps! No wonder they're getting fat.

  • Eating too much (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @07:17AM (#44628667)

    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!

    • Re:Eating too much (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dcnjoe60 (682885) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @07:35AM (#44628763)

      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.

      And the animals that are gaining weight, too? For instance, did we all of a sudden start overfeeding lab rats and lab mice? Did ferral dogs and cats all of a sudden start ignoring nature and quit eating when full? It's one thing for humans, it's another thing for the animals mentioned in the article.

      • Same cause. They're eating too much. Over abundance of food and they have no concept of obesity or early death. There have been studies that have shown links between abundance of food, Obesity, early death and advanced genetic mutation. In short, in the wild, if you've got lots of food, you get fat and live even if you have a mild mutation. You have a better chance of passing on your mutated genes but as a trade off you die early which extends the abundance of food situation for your offspring.

  • by LoRdTAW (99712) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @08:58AM (#44629459)

    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.

  • by 1s44c (552956) on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @09:00AM (#44629491)

    I'm losing fat actually. Get some exercise and cut out the high fructose corn syrup.

    Screw going to a gym, just buy this book:
    http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Your-Own-Gym/dp/0345528581 [amazon.com]

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...