Will the majority of Americans be obese by 2030?

[leekohler]

This is kind of scary. Even the conservative estimate is not good. Will the people of the US look like the humans in Wall-e someday?

Monday morning researchers revealed the findings of a new study challenging linear time trend forecasts on American obesity that predict 51% of the U.S. population or more will be obese by 2030.

The good news is, that using non-linear regression models and other data, the researchers modified predictions to obesity levels of a mere 42 percent in the U.S. population by 2030, with 11 percent of the population being severely obese. Current U.S. obesity levels are about 35 percent.

The bad news is that those increases in obesity could result in $549.5 billion in health care costs over 2010 levels.

“Keeping obesity rates level could yield a savings of nearly $550 billion in medical
expenditures over the next two decades,” said lead author Eric Finkelstein, associate research professor in the Duke Global Health Institute in a statement.

The study was released Monday for the CDC's "Weight of the Nation" conference in Washington D.C. and appears in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. The results were based on data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and state level data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other organizations that researchers believe enhance the accuracy of predictions for future obesity levels.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-american-obesity-levels-to-rise-but-how-high-20120507,0,3598126.story

[MorphingDragon]

This is kind of scary. Even the conservative estimate is not good. Will the people of the US look like the humans in Wall-e someday?



http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-american-obesity-levels-to-rise-but-how-high-20120507,0,3598126.story

Sadly, doing substantial changes to treat cultural issues would be anti-capitalistic. So nothing is going to happen...

[leekohler]

Sadly, doing substantial changes to treat cultural issues would be anti-capitalistic. So nothing is going to happen...

Do you mean that with regard to health care costs?

[Zombie Acorn]

This is kind of scary. Even the conservative estimate is not good. Will the people of the US look like the humans in Wall-e someday?



http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-american-obesity-levels-to-rise-but-how-high-20120507,0,3598126.story

I think the better question is if people really like living/eating this way or if its the marketing that is tricking them into eating processed garbage? Yes, we have nutritional labels, but most people won't read, let alone comprehend what they mean. Has there been any attempts to make a simple and intuitive system of labelling that allows people to evaluate their choices in one glance?

You have all the glitz and flashiness of marketing campaigns telling people about how you can eat **** in a box as part of a balanced diet, I think its time that the government enforces a proper labelling system. Even something as stupid as coloured dots to tell people how ****** this food is for you evaluated by an independent third party.

[nuckinfutz]

I hope so

I'm ripped like a UFC fighter and the less competition I have for the ladies the better.

[leekohler]

I think the better question is if people really like living/eating this way or if its the marketing that is tricking them into eating processed garbage? Yes, we have nutritional labels, but most people won't read, let alone comprehend what they mean. Has there been any attempts to make a simple and intuitive system of labelling that allows people to evaluate their choices in one glance?

You have all the glitz and flashiness of marketing campaigns telling people about how you can eat **** in a box as part of a balanced diet, I think its time that the government enforces a proper labelling system. Even something as stupid as coloured dots to tell people how ****** this food is for you evaluated by an independent third party.

Why sir! I am surprised you would advocate for such nanny-state liberalism! I've marked this date in my calendar, BTW. ;)

Seriously though, a big part of the problem is also getting people to get off their butts and move. My mom and my aunt have both developed diabetes in their 60s (definitely lifestyle related). That's ridiculous. This kind of ting should not be happening.

[Starfighter]

If it's one thing I have learned, it's that it doesn't matter how simply put something is. People eat what they like, not what they should.

Label: This product will probably give you cancer! Consumer: But is it good?

Label: This product killed several animals! Consumer: But is it good?

Label: This will make you obese and significantly shorten your life! Consumer: But is it good?

Label: This will kill you in three seconds, do not eat this. Just go home already. Consumer: It's my right to consume what I want, wraaaaah!

[Zombie Acorn]

I hope so

I'm ripped like a UFC fighter and the less competition I have for the ladies the better.

You realize the ladies are included in this statistic so it will just be harder for you to find one who didn't just knock down 4 double cheeseburgers for a midnight snack.

[leekohler]

You realize the ladies are included in this statistic so it will just be harder for you to find one who didn't just knock down 4 double cheeseburgers for a midnight snack.

I'm still shocked at the current rate- 35%. That's already really bad.

[nuckinfutz]

You realize the ladies are included in this statistic so it will just be harder for you to find one who didn't just knock down 4 double cheeseburgers for a midnight snack.

Zombie ...your logic is beginnning to damage my calm (http://youtu.be/z9-LXN2Q5GM). :p

[Ugg]

I always laugh when people obsess about terrorism being the biggest danger to America. It's not, obesity is.

[Zombie Acorn]

I always laugh when people obsess about terrorism being the biggest danger to America. It's not, obesity is.

Maybe the fear of terrorism causes them to eat more. :o the terrorists have won.

[Mac'nCheese]

Maybe this will help with our SS problem. If people stop living to 100, maybe they'll be some money left for me when I retire.

[iJohnHenry]

If it's one thing I have learned, it's that it doesn't matter how simply put something is. People eat what they like, not what they should.

Label: This product will probably give you cancer! Consumer: But is it good?

Label: This product killed several animals! Consumer: But is it good?

Label: This will make you obese and significantly shorten your life! Consumer: But is it good?

Label: This will kill you in three seconds, do not eat this. Just go home already. Consumer: It's my right to consume what I want, wraaaaah!

As an advocate of Survival of the Fittest, I see nothing wrong with this approach.

Just try to catch them before they reproduce.

:rolleyes:

[niuniu]

I always laugh when people obsess about terrorism being the biggest danger to America. It's not, obesity is.

Google fight tells me religion is :D

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Religion+USA&word2=Obesity+USA

[NickZac]

The prediction that I helped with when working on a State public health board on childhood obesity was 1 in 3 children born in 2000 will have Type 2 Diabetes (which is almost always weight-related) by age 35-40, if current trends continue. Diabetes accounts for more amputations than any other cause, combined. Our prediction was largely based on the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), which are both solid predictors of risk factors and health trends thanks to a few decades of continuous data 'flow'. We also came to a unanimous agreement that the traditional class 1-3 obesity is no longer substantial in recording how 'extreme' an obesity case is. Since then, class 4 and class 5 obesity have become more commonly used. The increasing rate of young children with class 3+ obesity is absolutely alarming. There are many children under 5 feet tall that weigh over 250 pounds. This is a huge risk factor.

Obesity is the single biggest barrier to good universal care IMO. Why? Because the cost of fighting obesity and the conditions that come from it is astronomical. The conditions that come out of all, all chronic and long-term or life-long, are among the worst you could have. If you are very obese then you are probably going to die early from at least one of the many diseases from obesity. Chronic diseases now account for about ninety percent of healthcare dollars spent. While the solution to obesity on paper is simple as consume fewer calories than your burn, the actual means to achieve this requires a substantial life change for many.

[MorphingDragon]

Do you mean that with regard to health care costs?

In lots of way really. Market regulation, Fast Food/Sweets/Candy taxing, "Healthy Food" subsidy, Education reform, Health Care changes.

Obesity is a cultural problem which literally takes a generation to change, I just don't see with America's violent political swings happening anytime soon. Especially one with a government who wanted to declare pizza a vegetable.

[Zombie Acorn]

If it's one thing I have learned, it's that it doesn't matter how simply put something is. People eat what they like, not what they should.

Label: This product will probably give you cancer! Consumer: But is it good?

Label: This product killed several animals! Consumer: But is it good?

Label: This will make you obese and significantly shorten your life! Consumer: But is it good?

Label: This will kill you in three seconds, do not eat this. Just go home already. Consumer: It's my right to consume what I want, wraaaaah!

For some or perhaps the majority this may be the case, but I find that marketing is particularly misleading these days and I don't have the time to be a nutritional expert on top of my other jobs. It would be nice to be able to look at a label and know either "this is healthy" or "this is complete ****" with one glance. Added to the fact that if food producers had to put a label that basically said their food was ****** for you they might even change their content.

Unlike say cigarettes there are more healthy alternatives to most foods that taste comparably good, companies currently just go by whatever is cheapest. A proper labelling system may stop this.

[IntelliUser]

I think around 65% of Americans are already overweight, so this is not that surprising. But it sure is disgusting and unsustainable in the long run. I don't know how the millions of Americans that are obese can look in the mirror every day and not think: "Maybe I'm doing something wrong..."

[mrsir2009]

New Zealand isn't far behind - 28% of kiwis are obese!

[anjinha]

I think the better question is if people really like living/eating this way or if its the marketing that is tricking them into eating processed garbage? Yes, we have nutritional labels, but most people won't read, let alone comprehend what they mean. Has there been any attempts to make a simple and intuitive system of labelling that allows people to evaluate their choices in one glance?

You have all the glitz and flashiness of marketing campaigns telling people about how you can eat **** in a box as part of a balanced diet, I think its time that the government enforces a proper labelling system. Even something as stupid as coloured dots to tell people how ****** this food is for you evaluated by an independent third party.

While I think that would probably help I think there are a lot of factors that cause this.

There's a few things I notice, not being from the U.S. but spending a few months every year there:

- Portion sizes: I remember going to a restaurant in the U.S. where the meal I ordered was so big that I ate until I was very full, my boyfriend ate part of it as well, we took the leftovers home and still had a meal for the both of us. That's insane! That being said, most restaurants in Portugal have very big portions as well. But there the portions are meant to be split. Usually one portion is split by two or even three people, and then there's half portions for individuals. I don't know if it's just my impression but I don't think I ever see people in the U.S. splitting portions, I don't know if it's a cultural thing.

- A lot of the flavour in food comes from fat: I've eaten mashed potatoes in the U.S. where all I could taste was the cream and butter, not even a hint of actual potato flavour. Salads come with incredibly fatty dressings. Simple tomato sauces are often super greasy. I think a lot of people in the U.S. don't even know what a lot of food and ingredients actually taste like. If you really want some extra flavour in food why not some lemon, garlic, herbs, spices?

[swingerofbirch]

I think there are a lot of known factors contributing to obesity and also some unknown ones (possibly environmental toxins? changing genetics?). But one factor that I don't see mentioned too often is that a substantial portion of us are on psychiatric drugs, many of which cause weight gain and diabetes. I went on Zyprexa, at a low dose, about ten years ago and I gained 50 lbs at least in the course of a few months. I'm now on different drugs which also cause weight gain but to a lesser extent, but I have developed type II diabetes and I am obese. I have been a vegetarian my entire life and do not eat processed foods. My main issue is with the medication I take at night called Seroquel. After you take it, it is a hunger like no other. I have tried to force myself to lie in bed and not get up and my body actually goes into what I can only describe as being like a seizure if I don't eat. And if I do manage to fall asleep without eating I will wake up a half hour later needing to eat (which is no fall small feat given how sedating Seroquel is). I am currently tapering off of Seroquel, which took quite a long time to muster the courage to do.

What I have learned from my experience is that it is possible for the *brain* to be hungry in a way that does not at all relate to your need for food, and it is not just a matter of willpower. I don't know what about Seroquel causes a feeling of torture if you don't give in and eat, but I have to wonder whether people who are very obese feel the same thing. It's opened my mind up to the possibility that there are variations that cause overeating and hunger that are more complicated than just being bored. Because I couldn't force myself to eat in the day what I feel I have to eat at night.

For now I am one of the 35% (I'm 6'2" and 235 lbs) but I hope to be rejoining the overweight and hopefully one day the "normal" weight masses. I am exercising, eating as well as I can (except for late night--where it's not that I eat bad, but I eat high volume), and cutting down on the drugs as I am able to.

I guess my point in starting this is that there are a lot of people on these drugs. They're not great stuff.

EDIT: I wanted to add my most successful weight loss tip so far: journal everything you eat. It helps a lot.

[hulugu]

...Portion sizes: I remember going to a restaurant in the U.S. where the meal I ordered was so big that I ate until I was very full, my boyfriend ate part of it as well, we took the leftovers home and still had a meal for the both of us. That's insane! That being said, most restaurants in Portugal have very big portions as well. But there the portions are meant to be split. Usually one portion is split by two or even three people, and then there's half portions for individuals. I don't know if it's just my impression but I don't think I ever see people in the U.S. splitting portions, I don't know if it's a cultural thing.

Totally. American portion sizes are ridiculous, especially in the large chain restaurants. Couple this with a tendency to eat foods high in fat and sugar (such as some of Starbucks' drinks) and it's easy to see how this has happened.

A lot of the flavour in food comes from fat: I've eaten mashed potatoes in the U.S. where all I could taste was the cream and butter, not even a hint of actual potato flavour. Salads come with incredibly fatty dressings. Simple tomato sauces are often super greasy. I think a lot of people in the U.S. don't even know what a lot of food and ingredients actually taste like. If you really want some extra flavour in food why not some lemon, garlic, herbs, spices?

I'd say there are many Americans who think salt and pepper are the only spices available.

I also think it's the increased consumption of heavily processed foods. Americans eat bagel bites and hot pockets, and if you spend anytime reviewing the nutritional facts on the back of one of those things you immediately begin to recognize that these things only resemble food.

[Eraserhead]

I'm still shocked at the current rate- 35%. That's already really bad.

Lee, given you are well muscled are you not technically obese under body mass index or at least overweight?

[hulugu]

Lee, given you are well muscled are you not technically obese under body mass index or at least overweight?

That's an interesting point about the limitations of BMI, however, I'm not sure that the lion's share of people fall into the well-muscled, but "overweight" category.

[Happybunny]

Here in Europe we have known for quite some time that Americans are obese.
But what shocked me are the British, I was on a short trip to the UK, and the numbers astonished me. :eek:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/08August/Pages/half-of-uk-predicted-to-be-obese-by-2030.aspx

The numbers here in the Netherlands are also creeping up, diet and lack of exercise, are again the main problems.

[Starfighter]

For some or perhaps the majority this may be the case, but I find that marketing is particularly misleading these days and I don't have the time to be a nutritional expert on top of my other jobs. It would be nice to be able to look at a label and know either "this is healthy" or "this is complete ****" with one glance. Added to the fact that if food producers had to put a label that basically said their food was ****** for you they might even change their content.

Unlike say cigarettes there are more healthy alternatives to most foods that taste comparably good, companies currently just go by whatever is cheapest. A proper labelling system may stop this.

I agree that easier identification of how healthy something is would be nice, even if it isn't that hard to figure out most of the food choises (for example: vegetables > white bread.. ;)). But! Enter the variables. What is healthy for some people is dangerous for others. Some need to eat fat food, some need to eat certain diets and so on and so on. So, to be correct, the first glance label would have to look something like this, am I right?

"This is healthy. If you're not pregnant, allergic to gluten, overweight, underweight, a child and if you exercise regularly. If you live where it's really cold then you need something with more fat, unless you already have purchased something fat before picking this item up."

:D

[Kilamite]

Obesity is such a complex issue that it isn't as simple as people just enjoying food.

If I were to become PM of the UK, I'd start a motion to ban all McDonalds, Burger King, KFC and other fast-food chains. Food served to customers would have to meet strict guidelines on the amount of fat, especially in sauces.

It's unacceptable to just point the finger at fat people and say "you brought it on yourself". Eating fatty foods that taste good is addictive. It's like having heroine sold easily on the streets and pointing the finger at junkies saying "you brought it on yourself".

We need to get rid of all the highly processed crap and fast-food chains. Portion sizes need to get reduced to a realistic amount. Strict government rules could make that happen.

If not for ourselves, for future generations..

[KnightWRX]

Obesity is such a complex issue that it isn't as simple as people just enjoying food.

If I were to become PM of the UK, I'd start a motion to ban all McDonalds, Burger King, KFC and other fast-food chains. Food served to customers would have to meet strict guidelines on the amount of fat, especially in sauces.

It's unacceptable to just point the finger at fat people and say "you brought it on yourself". Eating fatty foods that taste good is addictive. It's like having heroine sold easily on the streets and pointing the finger at junkies saying "you brought it on yourself".

We need to get rid of all the highly processed crap and fast-food chains. Portion sizes need to get reduced to a realistic amount. Strict government rules could make that happen.

If not for ourselves, for future generations..

Ridiculous. I for one enjoy the freedom of being able to eat fatty meats and carb heavy treats sometimes. Banning them completely is the wrong approach, and is what all failed diets amount to. A "diet" that succeeds is one that teaches people how to maintain/lose weight not based on some selection of food, it's one that shows them how to do it with anything available to them. No cheating possible, hence, no failing.

Same for easier labels. Obese or not is a simple function of calories (it won't make you healthy as there is more to a proper diet than that. Everything can make you fat and you can lose weight eating anything. If we stick strictly to a "obese or not obese" theme, then all that matters on the damn label is the number of calories in a portion and how easy it is to measure out such a portion (some labels make it very hard. A 591 ml bottle of coke, and the label lists nutrional values for 250 ml. Why must it be hard to do the math in my head ?)

Basically, all the tools are there. If you really have a problem with your weight, the problem is not the industry or restaurants or whatever, it's you. Grab a scale, learn to read the nutrional label, learn what your metabolism requires and start measuring what your body won't tell you anymore : When you've had enough to eat.

We don't need simpler labels, and we certainly don't need the government telling us what we can and cannot eat. Stop giving fat people excuses, start telling them how to change their lives.

The US CDC has some nice data on this :

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

Unless everyone in the US is becoming a body builder making BMI a bad scale, this map is very telling of where the US is heading as far as obesity goes.

[Zombie Acorn]

Ridiculous. I for one enjoy the freedom of being able to eat fatty meats and carb heavy treats sometimes. Banning them completely is the wrong approach, and is what all failed diets amount to. A "diet" that succeeds is one that teaches people how to maintain/lose weight not based on some selection of food, it's one that shows them how to do it with anything available to them. No cheating possible, hence, no failing.

Same for easier labels. Obese or not is a simple function of calories (it won't make you healthy as there is more to a proper diet than that. Everything can make you fat and you can lose weight eating anything. If we stick strictly to a "obese or not obese" theme, then all that matters on the damn label is the number of calories in a portion and how easy it is to measure out such a portion (some labels make it very hard. A 591 ml bottle of coke, and the label lists nutrional values for 250 ml. Why must it be hard to do the math in my head ?)

Basically, all the tools are there. If you really have a problem with your weight, the problem is not the industry or restaurants or whatever, it's you. Grab a scale, learn to read the nutrional label, learn what your metabolism requires and start measuring what your body won't tell you anymore : When you've had enough to eat.

We don't need simpler labels, and we certainly don't need the government telling us what we can and cannot eat. Stop giving fat people excuses, start telling them how to change their lives.

The US CDC has some nice data on this :

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

Unless everyone in the US is becoming a body builder making BMI a bad scale, this map is very telling of where the US is heading as far as obesity goes.

Your insurance rates are going to go up due to the costs of carrying these people, not only that but the hospitals will charge more because they had to do a few quadruple bypass surgeries for free because the poor are the least likely to have insurance and also the most likely to eat a poor diet.

Its in the government and your best interest to educate and help others make better choices because you are going to be paying for it whether you are fit or not.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Lee, given you are well muscled are you not technically obese under body mass index or at least overweight?

That's an interesting point about the limitations of BMI, however, I'm not sure that the lion's share of people fall into the well-muscled, but "overweight" category.

According to:

Schneider et al, "The Predictive Value of Different Measures of Obesity for Incident Cardiovascular Events and Mortality", The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism April 1, 2010 vol. 95 no. 4 1777-1785

A simple measure that is a better predictor than BMI, for the very reason just mentioned, is the very simple Waist-to-Height Ratio (WHtR - to distinguish from Waist-to-Hip ratio, also used and referred to as WHR).

In short, looking at mortality from all causes, WHtR < 0.5 (may be OK to rise a little with age) is a better predictor than BMI < 25. Presumably because BMI doesn't account as well for "physical activity" and "muscle mass". In other words, all you had to do all along was notice whether your pants still fit. If they don't, maybe it is time to get up and go for walk ;-)

[KnightWRX]

Your insurance rates are going to go up due to the costs of carrying these people, not only that but the hospitals will charge more because they had to do a few quadruple bypass surgeries for free because the poor are the least likely to have insurance and also the most likely to eat a poor diet.

Its in the government and your best interest to educate and help others make better choices because you are going to be paying for it whether you are fit or not.

And contrary to your "better labels!" which serve no purpose if people just don't read them or "banning!" as Kilamite prones, which is utterly ridiculous (no seriously, food and sugar are not heroine), I did prone better education.

That's how I know most success stories go as far as weight loss : education. Not banning, not better labels (the labels are already easy enough to read and have all the pertinent information, and with the Internet, there's plenty of ressources around to explain how they work).

[IntelliUser]

And contrary to your "better labels!" which serve no purpose if people just don't read them or "banning!" as Kilamite prones, which is utterly ridiculous (no seriously, food and sugar are not heroine), I did prone better education.

That's how I know most success stories go as far as weight loss : education. Not banning, not better labels (the labels are already easy enough to read and have all the pertinent information, and with the Internet, there's plenty of ressources around to explain how they work).


There's no need to ban, just tax. Make it impossible for someone to buy a hamburger for less than, say, $10 at McDonalds. Tax fast food like Europeans tax gas. Cut the meat subsidies and start subsidizing produce. Use the tax revenues to make healthy food cheap.

http://www.mariasfarmcountrykitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/pyramid.jpg

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

And contrary to your "better labels!" which serve no purpose if people just don't read them or "banning!" as Kilamite prones, which is utterly ridiculous (no seriously, food and sugar are not heroine), I did prone better education.

I have to disagree with you-- label improvements are important. Diabetics, for example, need to know how much sugar specifically, and other carbs in general, there are in packaged foods. One thing in particular that labels make apparent is how much sugar in various forms is being poured into so many prepared/packaged foods.



That's how I know most success stories go as far as weight loss : education. Not banning, not better labels (the labels are already easy enough to read and have all the pertinent information, and with the Internet, there's plenty of ressources around to explain how they work).



Agree somewhat -- education, and, social change. As has been cited previously, community-based nutritional improvement change works better than one person going it alone -- we tend to eat as the people around us eat.

[KnightWRX]

There's no need to ban, just tax. Make it impossible for someone to buy a hamburger for less than, say, $10 at McDonalds. Tax fast food like Europeans tax gas. Cut the meat subsidies and start subsidizing produce. Use the tax revenues to make healthy food cheap.


Again, why ? There's nothing wrong with a burger per se. It's meat and bread, carbs and protein. Sure there's sugar, salt and the high calories to consider, but then again, that's the whole point : Consider them. That's what people aren't doing.

It's not the burger that's the problem, it's the people eating the burger and not knowing what they should adjust in the rest of their food intake to compensate.

----------

I have to disagree with you-- label improvements are important. Diabetics, for example, need to know how much sugar specifically, and other carbs in general, there are in packaged foods. One thing in particular that labels make apparent is how much sugar in various forms is being poured into so many prepared/packaged foods.

The labels already contain that information though. Carbs are broken down into starch/sugar/fiber categories. That's my whole point. The problem isn't the labels and making them "simpler" won't help (especially in your example, the labels would need to be broken down further to help, be more complicated!).

Agree somewhat -- education, and, social change. As has been cited previously, community-based nutritional improvement change works better than one person going it alone -- we tend to eat as the people around us eat.

I wouldn't go so far as say "community". I don't eat what the strangers in my town eat. I eat what I want to eat and the people in my home tend to imitate or follow me (my GF is stuck eating whatever I cook, no matter how much she doesn't want to eat healthy haha!).

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

There's no need to ban, just tax. Make it impossible for someone to buy a hamburger for less than, say, $10 at McDonalds. Tax fast food like Europeans tax gas. Cut the meat subsidies and start subsidizing produce. Use the tax revenues to make healthy food cheap.

Image (http://www.mariasfarmcountrykitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/pyramid.jpg)

I'm not a big fan of hamburgers, and, I don't think eating more hamburgers will make you live longer. However, if you look at the statistics, the big thing that jumps out at you is the correlation between increased sugar consumption and increased obesity over the last three decades. And, sugared drinks in particular. So, if you want to tax something, tax sugar (includes HFCS of course).

[anjinha]

I agree that easier identification of how healthy something is would be nice, even if it isn't that hard to figure out most of the food choises (for example: vegetables > white bread.. ;)).

I honestly think white bread and similar carbs have a much worse reputation than they need to. Japanese people eat a ton of white rice, Italian people eat a ton of white bread and pasta and always have and they don't seem to be as unhealthy as you would expect, considering how bad those carbs are supposed to be. I don't know the obesity rates in those countries but I bet any raise in their obesity rates in the last years is related to the availability of junk food, since bread, pizza and pasta have always been in the Italians' diets.

Similarly, my mom eats white bread, rice and pasta and she's incredibly healthy and fit. What she doesn't eat is foods that are too fatty.

That being said, white bread in the U.S. is crap! I couldn't believe how much of it has a ton of sugar added!

[KnightWRX]

I'm not a big fan of hamburgers, and, I don't think eating more hamburgers will make you live longer. However, if you look at the statistics, the big thing that jumps out at you is the correlation between increased sugar consumption and increased obesity over the last three decades. And, sugared drinks in particular. So, if you want to tax something, tax sugar (includes HFCS of course).

So you want to tax fruits ? It's more complicated than that. Sugar is such a big, all encompassing category. I'd just go with HFCS, since its use has demonstrated increased obesity for the same quantity of calories consumed in rats (due to other factors, like increased apetite making the rats ingest more of other foods after consuming the HFCS vs regular refined sugar).

----------

Similarly, my mom eats white bread, rice and pasta and she's incredibly healthy and fit. What she doesn't eat is foods that are too fatty.

And yet greek people eat a lot of olives and cheese. Foods that are fatty. And they are healthy and fit too. Same for the french who eat a lot of "pate" and cheese.

Again, it's not what you eat, it's how much of it you.

Fatty, carb heavy, it doesn't matter. As long as you know how much to eat of it. Heck, fats and sugar are good and healthy in the proper foods and are needed by the body.

[anjinha]

And yet greek people eat a lot of olives and cheese. Foods that are fatty. And they are healthy and fit too. Same for the french who eat a lot of "pate" and cheese.

Again, it's not what you eat, it's how much of it you.

Fatty, carb heavy, it doesn't matter. As long as you know how much to eat of it. Heck, fats and sugar are good and healthy in the proper foods and are needed by the body.

I only brought up carbs because they're the current "evil food". And have you been to Italy? Those people don't eat carbs in moderation. The difference is that a smaller amount of fat is much more calorie dense than the same amount of carbs, so you should eat less fat than carbs.

Also, in the U.S. people don't even notice how much fat is hidden in what they think is healthier food. It doesn't happen that much with carbs, usually what a meal is full of carbs you know just by looking at it. It's much easier to hide fat in your food than carbs.

It's what I was talking about before, a lot of Americans are used to the flavour in food coming from fat, as opposed to the actual ingredients.

Yes, you can be healthy by eating everything, as long as it's in moderation. But depending on how you do it that can be harder or easier to achieve.

[hafr]

Dutch people are skinny. Ever seen what their kids eat? White bread with Nutella and sprinkles is a proper breakfast for them... Clearly, there is something else than WHAT people are eating at play here. Namely, how MUCH they're eating.

Banning McDonald's or taxing fatty/sugary foods is like putting a band aid on a flesh wound...

[anjinha]

Dutch people are skinny. Ever seen what their kids eat? White bread with Nutella and sprinkles is a proper breakfast for them... Clearly, there is something else than WHAT people are eating at play here. Namely, how MUCH they're eating.

Banning McDonald's or taxing fatty/sugary foods is like putting a band aid on a flesh wound...

Dutch people bike everywhere.

[leekohler]

Dutch people are skinny. Ever seen what their kids eat? White bread with Nutella and sprinkles is a proper breakfast for them... Clearly, there is something else than WHAT people are eating at play here. Namely, how MUCH they're eating.

And the fact that many Americans won't get off their butts and exercise.

[hafr]

Dutch people bike everywhere.

And the fact that many Americans won't get off their butts and exercise.

Granted, people who move around a lot and burn lots of energy doing so will have to eat more than someone who never exercise before becoming obese, but it's still about the amount and not the content :)

[Huntn]

Regarding the OP, to me it looks like right now, 50% are overweight or obese so, the premise seems likely unless something drastic happens.

As far as why?
Less active. We are eating less at home and portion sizes have become astronomical.

[anjinha]

Granted, people who move around a lot and burn lots of energy doing so will have to eat more than someone who never exercise before becoming obese, but it's still about the amount and not the content :)

Well, having Nutella for breakfast is not a whole representation of what Dutch people eat. I've personally not even seen that there and I spend a lot of time visiting family there.

[MorphingDragon]

Banning McDonald's or taxing fatty/sugary foods is like putting a band aid on a flesh wound...

Taxing "Fast Food" while using the taxes for organics subsidies would make healthier food more appealing but still maintaining your right to stick utter garbage down your gullet.

[hafr]

Well, having Nutella for breakfast is not a whole representation of what Dutch people eat. I've personally not even seen that there and I spend a lot of time visiting family there.

Not people, kids. Of course it's not completely representative to what Dutch kids eat, they also eat loads of vegetables for instance. But if you've seriously missed the licorice breakfast cereals and sandwich sprinkles (amongst other things), I'm guessing there aren't that many kids in your Dutch family and that you haven't really been grocery shopping with them ;)

And I must say, I have never seen anyone from another country put butter (or nutella, or anything else) on both sides of a sandwich...

[KnightWRX]

Also, in the U.S. people don't even notice how much fat is hidden in what they think is healthier food. It doesn't happen that much with carbs, usually what a meal is full of carbs you know just by looking at it. It's much easier to hide fat in your food than carbs.

I don't agree about the hidding the fat part. Fat just shows, it tastes, it textures the food. Carbs ? Heck, I can pour refined sugar in mass quantities in food, and just add salt to balance it out and you'd never know.

I think it's more that people don't really know any better or particularly care about it. And frankly, for Obesity and weight, it's all about the calories. Where they come from matters little :

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1822118,00.html

One point I need to make about my position in all of this : what is missing however is government intervention for restaurants. Too many just don't list nutrional information for their menu. It makes making informed decisions hard as you never know what is in the recipe. It becomes a big guessing game.

That would probably be an area of improvement for education. Not simpler labels for grocery bought stuff, not taxes or bans. Just force everyone selling food to actually tell you what they are feeding you.

[hafr]

Taxing "Fast Food" while using the taxes for organics subsidies would make healthier food more appealing but still maintaining your right to stick utter garbage down your gullet.

Where I live, it's less expensive to buy "proper food" and make it yourself than going to fast food places, so it's not because it's cheaper that people eat loads of that crap. Maybe it's different where you live and it would actually be a good idea there, I don't know.

[KnightWRX]

Taxing "Fast Food" while using the taxes for organics subsidies would make healthier food more appealing but still maintaining your right to stick utter garbage down your gullet.

What do you label as fast food then ? Is a grilled chicken sandwich with light mayo, some lettuce and a tomato slice fast food ? Because that's basically a chicken burger.

Is a hamburger made from extra-lean beef, with homestyle ketchup (diced and boiled fruits and tomatoes) fast food ?

Is the local fast food joint that serves up salads with light italian dressing unhealthy ?

That's the problem with taxing "fast food", there's just no strict definition of what is and isn't healthy. And none of it relates to obesity and weight gain/loss.

----------

Where I live, it's less expensive to buy "proper food" and make it yourself than going to fast food places, so it's not because it's cheaper that people eat loads of that crap. Maybe it's different where you live and it would actually be a good idea there, I don't know.

It's because it's more convenient. "Fast food" is fast.

[barkomatic]

I don't agree about the hidding the fat part. Fat just shows, it tastes, it textures the food. Carbs ? Heck, I can pour refined sugar in mass quantities in food, and just add salt to balance it out and you'd never know.

I think it's more that people don't really know any better or particularly care about it. And frankly, for Obesity and weight, it's all about the calories. Where they come from matters little :

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1822118,00.html

One point I need to make about my position in all of this : what is missing however is government intervention for restaurants. Too many just don't list nutrional information for their menu. It makes making informed decisions hard as you never know what is in the recipe. It becomes a big guessing game.

That would probably be an area of improvement for education. Not simpler labels for grocery bought stuff, not taxes or bans. Just force everyone selling food to actually tell you what they are feeding you.

Nutritional information at restaurants has little value in my opinion because it is so often inaccurate--and by a large degree. It also gets more complex when people substitute ingredients. You can make a salad that has more calories, carbs and fat than a burger and fries.

[MorphingDragon]

What do you label as fast food then ? Is a grilled chicken sandwich with light mayo, some lettuce and a tomato slice fast food ? Because that's basically a chicken burger.

Is a hamburger made from extra-lean beef, with homestyle ketchup (diced and boiled fruits and tomatoes) fast food ?

Is the local fast food joint that serves up salads with light italian dressing unhealthy ?

That's the problem with taxing "fast food", there's just no strict definition of what is and isn't healthy. And none of it relates to obesity and weight gain/loss.

Luckily for us the government already has criterion for whats considered fast food or not. Much like Britain, most food is classified for easy taxation. ;)

----------

Where I live, it's less expensive to buy "proper food" and make it yourself than going to fast food places, so it's not because it's cheaper that people eat loads of that crap. Maybe it's different where you live and it would actually be a good idea there, I don't know.

New Zealand's export markets is dairy, beef, lamb and various types of fruits and vegetables. We get charged extra to subsidize the international market while at the same time getting the seconds not worthy of export. :mad:

[hafr]

It's because it's more convenient. "Fast food" is fast.

Exactly, I just don't see the point in taxing fast food to make people eat less of it. If anything should be taxed, it's sugary soft drinks (I would love to include diet variants here), candy, cakes and so on.

[Happybunny]

Dutch people are skinny. Ever seen what their kids eat? White bread with Nutella and sprinkles is a proper breakfast for them... Clearly, there is something else than WHAT people are eating at play here. Namely, how MUCH they're eating.

There are always people who eat to much, but on the whole obese people are still relatively rare here.

When I look at the British, we in the Netherlands look quite slim.;)



Dutch people bike everywhere.

Especially the children, more than 65% of cycle to their school, all year round. The school run as you call it has not really made an entrance here. Of course there are fantastic cycle paths on nearly every street here that helps.

Granted, people who move around a lot and burn lots of energy doing so will have to eat more than someone who never exercise before becoming obese, but it's still about the amount and not the content :)

Sports are very important here, every city, town and village has sports clubs for hockey, football, swimming, athletics, we even have a few baseball clubs. These are all subsidised by the government for those who cannot pay the full enrollment.

Not people, kids. Of course it's not completely representative to what Dutch kids eat, they also eat loads of vegetables for instance. But if you've seriously missed the licorice breakfast cereals and sandwich sprinkles (amongst other things), I'm guessing there aren't that many kids in your Dutch family and that you haven't really been grocery shopping with them ;)

And I must say, I have never seen anyone from another country put butter (or nutella, or anything else) on both sides of a sandwich...

The chocolate sprinkles are called 'hagelslag' and quite common for breakfast. The licorice sprinkles are 'muisjes' these however are mainly used in pink and light blue on a bisquit, to celebrate the birth of a baby.

One other thing we do is put strawberries on slices of buttered bread.

The buttering on both sides of a slice of bread, is something I personal have never seen in my 64 yrs, but it takes all sorts to make a world.

[nospleen]

I am worried at how this will increase my health insurance costs. I say, charge the 35% more. I shouldn't have to pay an increased monthly cost because others choose to not eat well or exercise regularly.

[leekohler]

Sports are very important here, every city, town and village has sports clubs for hockey, football, swimming, athletics, we even have a few baseball clubs. These are all subsidised by the government for those who cannot pay the full enrollment.

Communists! :eek:;)

Dammit- that would never happen here, and that is a shame. You people obviously have your priorities in order. :(

[NickZac]

So we are going to ban fast food? That really worked well with drugs and alcohol :rolleyes:

[Mac'nCheese]

I am worried at how this will increase my health insurance costs. I say, charge the 35% more. I shouldn't have to pay an increased monthly cost because others choose to not eat well or exercise regularly.

Who enforces this? Where do we draw the line? What if a person exercises but just is a big guy? Does he pay extra? I know naturally skinny people who eat crap, should we charge them for not eating 5 fruits a day? Etc Etc. Its a slippery slope is what I'm trying to say.

[Ugg]

Who enforces this? Where do we draw the line? What if a person exercises but just is a big guy? Does he pay extra? I know naturally skinny people who eat crap, should we charge them for not eating 5 fruits a day? Etc Etc. Its a slippery slope is what I'm trying to say.

I call BS. We already heavily subsidize wheat, barley, corn, beef, pork and chickens. Shouldn't we at least level the playing field? I'd like to see twice the subsidy given to fruits and vegetables as is currently given to commodities. Sure, the midwest will start crying crocodile tears, but the US is currently somewhat responsible for the current obesity crisis for its subsidies for high fat, high protein foods. It doesn't make sense in this day and age.

[Mac'nCheese]

I call BS. We already heavily subsidize wheat, barley, corn, beef, pork and chickens. Shouldn't we at least level the playing field? I'd like to see twice the subsidy given to fruits and vegetables as is currently given to commodities. Sure, the midwest will start crying crocodile tears, but the US is currently somewhat responsible for the current obesity crisis for its subsidies for high fat, high protein foods. It doesn't make sense in this day and age.

Im pretty sure we aren't talking about the same thing.

[CorvusCamenarum]

I call BS. We already heavily subsidize wheat, barley, corn, beef, pork and chickens. Shouldn't we at least level the playing field? I'd like to see twice the subsidy given to fruits and vegetables as is currently given to commodities. Sure, the midwest will start crying crocodile tears, but the US is currently somewhat responsible for the current obesity crisis for its subsidies for high fat, high protein foods. It doesn't make sense in this day and age.

Fat isn't really the enemy, and never has been. The real culprit is refined carbs (bleached non-while wheat flour, sugar, and the like) that unfortunately seem to find their way into almost all processed foods. Some dietary plans like Atkins take this to an extreme end, but the proof is in the pudding. You cut out the carbs and drop weight like crazy. The problem with those, though, is that you're told to avoid naturally occurring, unprocessed carbs, so under Atkins, no carrots for you (who has ever gotten fat on carrot sticks?).

As to subsidies, the smarter play would be to shift them from massive amounts of grains to fruits and vegetables instead, rather than just piling on more. When the price of Doritos rises to $6 a bag, expect a subsequent drop in demand.

[hafr]

When the price of Doritos rises to $6 a bag, expect a subsequent drop in demand.

It will makes fatsos poor and non-fatties will eat less crisps. That's about it. Maybe we'll even see a black market for crisps. The overall demand is quite irrelevant when looking at it from a health perspective, since it's the individual demand that counts.

Look at countries which have very high taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Those smoking three packs a day or drinking their way to an early grave don't really change their habits...

[hulugu]

...As to subsidies, the smarter play would be to shift them from massive amounts of grains to fruits and vegetables instead, rather than just piling on more. When the price of Doritos rises to $6 a bag, expect a subsequent drop in demand.

I agree.

It will makes fatsos poor and non-fatties will eat less crisps. That's about it. Maybe we'll even see a black market for crisps. The overall demand is quite irrelevant when looking at it from a health perspective, since it's the individual demand that counts.

Look at countries which have very high taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Those smoking three packs a day or drinking their way to an early grave don't really change their habits...

If the price is set by the cost of production rather than a tax, there's no room for a black market to form, however, if the cost of Doritos is higher than organic carrots (for the same caloric equivalent) then people are making direct choices to eat unhealthy. However, at this point, a larger segment of the population will eat healthier by default. A large number of poor people eat lousy food because it's so cheap, this will change.

[hafr]

If the price is set by the cost of production rather than a tax, there's no room for a black market to form
Of course there is, illegal/grey import for instance.

however, if the cost of Doritos is higher than organic carrots (for the same caloric equivalent) then people are making direct choices to eat unhealthy. However, at this point, a larger segment of the population will eat healthier by default. A large number of poor people eat lousy food because it's so cheap, this will change.
As I said before, where I live this is just not true. "Unhealthy" food isn't cheaper than "healthy" food. So I don't get the argument, and since we still have obese people there has to be more to it than just the price argument.

[\-V-/]

I'm sorry but the eating healthier costs more is a load of crap. It's a lot more affordable to simply eat less in general than it is to eat to maintain obesity. The amount of food you eat is a choice. You can blame delicious commercials or portion sizes but nobody is making you eat anything. That requires your brain and you making the decision to lift that food to your face. Being obese is a lifestyle choice and although there are many underlying factors for obesity, no diet will ever work because diets are temporary. It takes a lifestyle to be obese so it takes a genuine change in lifestyle to become healthy. If you go out and you get a big portion of food, eat half of it and eat the other half for leftovers the next day, or throw it away. Just because food is in front of you doesn't mean you have to eat it. Don't blame the portions, blame your lack of self control. If you burn more calories than you are consuming, you will lose weight. If you consume more calories than you are expending, you will gain weight. This is the first law of thermodynamics. Like someone said earlier, their medication made them ungodly hungry, and that led to weight gain because it caused an uncontrollable hunger. But if you are a normal human being with no factors such as medication screwing with biological functions, you have nobody but yourself to blame. Go outside and be active. Move more and eat less. Get healthy and don't make excuses. The one thing I can't stand is when overweight people complain about having access to too much food. Oh boohoo. Meanwhile 800 million people are starving to death. There are now more overweight people on the planet (like 1.5 billion) than there are starving. Fun stuff. If you can't resist buying ten times more food than you need, maybe send half your food to an impoverished family or something.

People are more sedentary these days than ever before and most people don't even get the required minimum of 30 minutes of physical activity a day. It all starts with you, with me, with everyone. People need to just get up and start improving their health. It's getting out of hand. Obesity is the leading cause of diseases and is the most preventable... and in many cases can reverse problems like Type II Diabetes, or are least lessen its symptoms. As in the case of Drew Carey who lost 100 pounds and eliminated his Diabetes.

Even just walking 30 minutes a day can have profound health benefits for a sedentary individual. The body only degrades with age, but it's also very resilient to exercise. Anyway I'm done ranting.

[senseless]

Before you knock lazy Americans... The US has a much lower smoking rate than Europe and Asia. Figure out how we did that and apply the same method to bad eating habits.

[\-V-/]

Before you knock lazy Americans... The US has a much lower smoking rate than Europe and Asia. Figure out how we did that and apply the same method to bad eating habits.

Laziness is statistically the leading cause of obesity, unfortunately. The two are not correlated.

[hafr]

Before you knock lazy Americans... The US has a much lower smoking rate than Europe and Asia. Figure out how we did that and apply the same method to bad eating habits.

Considering it's quite common to gain weight when giving up smoking, and the americans smoking rate went down at the same time as obesity rose... Well, yeah ;)

On a more serious note: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12124

[CalBoy]

Of course there is, illegal/grey import for instance.


A grey market can only materialize when an external source of cheaper inputs exists. Corn and wheat, the two biggest bases of calorie rich junk food, are only so cheap in the US and only so because of the massive subsidy they receive. Eliminate it, and the price rise dramatically while simultaneously allowing money to be freed up for lowering the price of vegetables. Even if a surtax were added, a grey market based on imported snacks would have to contend with the cost of importing, raising the average price compared to what it is now.

[hafr]

A grey market can only materialize when an external source of cheaper inputs exists. Corn and wheat, the two biggest bases of calorie rich junk food, are only so cheap in the US and only so because of the massive subsidy they receive. Eliminate it, and the price rise dramatically while simultaneously allowing money to be freed up for lowering the price of vegetables. Even if a surtax were added, a grey market based on imported snacks would have to contend with the cost of importing, raising the average price compared to what it is now.

If you've looked into it and say that there in no way is possible to import cheaper base products to produce Doritos or import Doritos than it would be manufacturing them in the states with unsubsidized crops, then I guess you're correct. I was just making the point that letting cost of production in country A decide the price of the good in that country doesn't eliminate a black market for it, and used an example where it would be imported from country B.

But as I said earlier, and I noticed someone else saying it as well, the price argument isn't valid everywhere. As where I'm from for instance, vegetables are already cheaper than crisps and so on, but we still have obese people. It's not about people eating crisps instead of carrots because carrots are more expensive, it's not even about people eating crisps, it's about the AMOUNT they're eating.

Just look at the price elasticity of crap like alcohol, cigarettes and candy...

That being said, subsidizing crisps instead of vegetables seems like a bad idea. I just don't think that the opposite would be a solution.

[KnightWRX]

Fat isn't really the enemy, and never has been. The real culprit is refined carbs (bleached non-while wheat flour, sugar, and the like) that unfortunately seem to find their way into almost all processed foods. Some dietary plans like Atkins take this to an extreme end, but the proof is in the pudding. You cut out the carbs and drop weight like crazy. The problem with those, though, is that you're told to avoid naturally occurring, unprocessed carbs, so under Atkins, no carrots for you (who has ever gotten fat on carrot sticks?).

Atkins has you shed weight because they cut out the calories, not the carbs. Carbs are just a source of high density calories (high calories per g consumed) usually.

But what about fiber ? Fiber is a carb and it's very needed by your body's digestion mecanisms. You can't cut all carbs.

The fact is there is no ennemy. There are calories. No matter if they are from fat, carbs or proteins, they are all the same basically. Balance out the calories to your energitic needs and you won't get fat, no matter what you eat.

I don't know why even in 2012, this is still such a big mystery. It doesn't help that all these diets (Atkins, WW) just don't plainly state this fact. No, let's do fad diets (cut carbs, low fat, no fruits, no meats, no dairies) instead of attacking the issue : over-consumption of calories. No need to even get off your butt. Lower. Your. Calories.

Eating healthy will be a big side effect. When you lower your calories, you will naturally gravitate towards lower calorie dense foods in order to feel full. Vegetables and fruits will be your best friend. You can really pack them on in the plate in the same space 50g of chips take for the same calorie count in the end (you can eat 630g of carrots to get the same 260 calories as in 50g of Tostitos tortilla chips...).

Everyone I've known that has shed weight and kept it off used this simple method. It's easy, it changes your habits without you realising it, and you even start to like it. And when you go by the assumption that all calories are equal, there is no cheating. You can eat that Pizza pocket, as long as you adjust the rest of your caloric intake to match.

Want more calories ? Start exercising.

----------

As I said before, where I live this is just not true. "Unhealthy" food isn't cheaper than "healthy" food. So I don't get the argument, and since we still have obese people there has to be more to it than just the price argument.

Convenience. A bag of carrots here is darn cheap, celery goes for under 2$ per lbs, yet chips are at a whooping 5-6$ per pound. Guess which people go to ? The chips.

Open bag, eat. Far easier than clean, peel, cut for 10 minutes before grabbing a snack. Sure you can prepare the celery ahead of time, but that's still time invested. The bag of chips takes 2 seconds to open and close up.

----------

A grey market can only materialize when an external source of cheaper inputs exists. Corn and wheat, the two biggest bases of calorie rich junk food, are only so cheap in the US and only so because of the massive subsidy they receive. Eliminate it, and the price rise dramatically while simultaneously allowing money to be freed up for lowering the price of vegetables. Even if a surtax were added, a grey market based on imported snacks would have to contend with the cost of importing, raising the average price compared to what it is now.

Yet, there's nothing unhealthy about wheat and corn. If you don't subscribe to the whole "Gluten is bad! :eek:" panic going on, wheat is actually quite healthy and required.

By removing subsidy, you're removing a very good source of energy for people who do eat wheat and corn under healthy circumstances.

Again people : There's no evil food.

----------

Before you knock lazy Americans... The US has a much lower smoking rate than Europe and Asia. Figure out how we did that and apply the same method to bad eating habits.

People are too lazy to walk to the convenience store to buy cigarettes. ;) And they'd rather spend the money on a bag of Doritos.

[MorphingDragon]

Again people : There's no evil food.


High Fructose Corn Syrup candy and Lard.

[Happybunny]

I also think that your chances of being obese are greatly increased if you are from a poor family. I have seen many articles that in poorer areas there is less choice for healthy foods, either via shops, fast food or take-out menus. :(

[KnightWRX]

I also think that your chances of being obese are greatly increased if you are from a poor family. I have seen many articles that in poorer areas there is less choice for healthy foods, either via shops, fast food or take-out menus. :(

Actually, it has probably has to do more with working hours. Poorer families tend to have both parents working, and sometimes working longer hours. Thus food preparation takes a hit at home, and they go for convenience.

Produce and fresh ingredients are the cheapest things you can buy. Anything in a sealed bag or box that is processed is usually more expensive by the lbs. The thing is, it's also more convenient (microwave it, open it, drop it on a plate. Less than 10 minutes).

I really don't think availability is the problem. It's both education (learning to read the labels, learning about metabolic requirements, adjusting calorie intake to fit those) and a convenience problem.

----------

High Fructose Corn Syrup candy and Lard.

There's nothing evil about lard (it's just fat, litterally. Your body needs some fat intake, especially for brain growth, it's a great ingredient for recipes that use high protein beans) and HFCS is not food by itself. And there's nothing wrong with candy either. Nothing evil about all of that. Just adjust the rest of your caloric/nutrional intake to compensate the occasional candy.

I don't know why people try to find "evil" in food. There is none. The only evil is the lack of education about food.

[\-V-/]

Actually, it has probably has to do more with working hours. Poorer families tend to have both parents working, and sometimes working longer hours. Thus food preparation takes a hit at home, and they go for convenience.

Produce and fresh ingredients are the cheapest things you can buy. Anything in a sealed bag or box that is processed is usually more expensive by the lbs. The thing is, it's also more convenient (microwave it, open it, drop it on a plate. Less than 10 minutes).

I really don't think availability is the problem. It's both education (learning to read the labels, learning about metabolic requirements, adjusting calorie intake to fit those) and a convenience problem.

----------



There's nothing evil about lard (it's just fat, litterally. Your body needs some fat intake, especially for brain growth, it's a great ingredient for recipes that use high protein beans) and HFCS is not food by itself. And there's nothing wrong with candy either. Nothing evil about all of that. Just adjust the rest of your caloric/nutrional intake to compensate the occasional candy.

I don't know why people try to find "evil" in food. There is none. The only evil is the lack of education about food.

This. Fat doesn't make you you fat, carbs don't make you fat, and protein doesn't make you fat. Eating more calories than your body needs makes you fat. There is no magic "diet". The one thing that every diet has in common that causes weight loss is that they all have you eating less calories. That's it. There's no secret.

[Daffodil]

So many interesting things to respond to! I hardly know where to start... :p

I think the better question is if people really like living/eating this way or if its the marketing that is tricking them into eating processed garbage? Yes, we have nutritional labels, but most people won't read, let alone comprehend what they mean. Has there been any attempts to make a simple and intuitive system of labelling that allows people to evaluate their choices in one glance?

You have all the glitz and flashiness of marketing campaigns telling people about how you can eat **** in a box as part of a balanced diet, I think its time that the government enforces a proper labelling system. Even something as stupid as coloured dots to tell people how ****** this food is for you evaluated by an independent third party.

I think this is a great point. I attended the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation's conference last week, which coincided with the release of the new ESC CVD guidelines, and a lot of the experts in epidemiology were clear that we really need to induce change on the population level in addition to helping the individual change bad habits.

While the "obesogenic society" may or may not be an actual thing, the appalling nutritional quality of many food products should be completely unacceptable to us. For example, the ridiculously high salt (sodium) content in many foods causes hypertension. This is completely unnecessary and could be avoided by simple regulation; wean the public off a high-salt diet. The myth that all tasty food is unhealthy has got to go -- you can thoroughly enjoy food that doesn't dispose you to a coronary provided the ingredients are high-quality and the chef knows what s/he is doing..

Use the same strategies that worked with tobacco (manipulate product, pricing, placement, promotion), and junk food sales will go down. If you can get the food industry on board with voluntary nutrition requirements (such as a trans fat ban) that's wonderful, but in the longer term, I don't believe self-regulation by the industry will be enough. It ultimately isn't in their economic interest, and we need to recognize that more fully. Brave government players will have to go up against big industry, and voters will have to make it clear that this is what we want and support.

While I think that would probably help I think there are a lot of factors that cause this.

There's a few things I notice, not being from the U.S. but spending a few months every year there: [snip]
- Portion sizes:
- A lot of the flavour in food comes from fat:

I think this is an oversimplification/misrepresentation. Obesity is on the rise everywhere, not just in the U.S.. While it may take us Europeans and the rest of the world a little longer to catch up, we surely will get there, short of a very effective global intervention... :(

-----
When BMI was invented, it was intended for use at the population level, not the level of the individual, so naturally it is more useful when you're talking about public as opposed to personal health. Just wanted to put that out there...

And finally, just to shift the spotlight to exercise (cause that's my personal passion :D), I also think a fascinating topic to throw into the mix is the fat-but-fit paradox, by which a regularly exercising overweight person has a lower mortality rate during follow-up than a sedentary slender person. Additionally, being slightly overweight can give a better long-term prognosis during disease. (Steven Blair is a fantastic resource for this topic if you want to learn more about various obesity paradoxes -- there are a few different ones...)

From this perspective, the societal decline in cardiorespiratory fitness due to a sedentary lifestyle is an equally, if not more important threat to public health than the obesity epidemic. Moreover, while we've learned a lot about effective prevention through limitation of a negative behavior through the battle with tobacco companies, how do you encourage *more* of a desired, but (to many) unappealing behavior? Figure that one out, and we'll be in a much better place for the future...

[hafr]

Use the same strategies that worked with tobacco (manipulate product, pricing, placement, promotion), and junk food sales will go down. If you can get the food industry on board with voluntary nutrition requirements (such as a trans fat ban) that's wonderful, but in the longer term, I don't believe self-regulation by the industry will be enough. It ultimately isn't in their economic interest, and we need to recognize that more fully. Brave government players will have to go up against big industry, and voters will have to make it clear that this is what we want and support.

When reading this, I saw a world where all fast food menus had points on them. Say the RDI of salt, trans fats and kcal. How many people wouldn't be turned off from buying a large cheesy crust pizza at Pizza Hut if they had to look at three icons telling them this pizza is enough for two days total kcal intake, has enough salt to last you a week and so on? It's one thing knowing this and choosing to ignore it, a completely other thing being forced to be aware of it when making the purchase.

[jeremy h]

I think there's more to all this than meets the eye. Sure, if you eat loads of fast food and don't exercise you're going to get pretty fat and that is a really bad idea etc (And I agree - go to a shopping mall and you certainly can see lot's of overweight people)

However, the NHS maintains that something like a third of year 6 children are already overweight or obese. If I stand in my kids playground (not exactly posh school - plenty of kids of free school meals etc) I certainly wouldn't have said that a third of the kids are overweight. There are a few kids who I'd say are obese but they're in a small minority.

There was a very interesting thing on the radio here a while ago. They were discussing dress sizes etc and the presenter said the usual stuff about woman getting much bigger etc since the 50's and 60's.

However the clothing expert they had on made the point that a lot was to do with how people were measured. Apparently nowadays - clothing companies 3d scan people to get a range of sizes sorted. The people are often naked or have modern skimpy underwear on and everything well - sort of just hangs out! In previous years - people were measured by hand and so obviously kept as much underwear on as they could - which in those days was much more 'substantial' and body shaping.

I'm not saying we don't have a developing problem but I'm learning to distrust government stats that don't accord with my experience.

[Daffodil]

When reading this, I saw a world where all fast food menus had points on them. Say the RDI of salt, trans fats and kcal. How many people wouldn't be turned off from buying a large cheesy crust pizza at Pizza Hut if they had to look at three icons telling them this pizza is enough for two days total kcal intake, has enough salt to last you a week and so on? It's one thing knowing this and choosing to ignore it, a completely other thing being forced to be aware of it when making the purchase.

Yeah, I've met a fair amount of proponents of a traffic-light system (red-orange-green) because it's so simple and understandable to everyone, compared to lots of little numbers (%DV, /100g, /serving, etc.). Food packaging could come a long, long way from where it is now (from a health perspective).

[Daffodil]

I think there's more to all this than meets the eye. Sure, if you eat loads of fast food and don't exercise you're going to get pretty fat and that is a really bad idea etc (And I agree - go to a shopping mall and you certainly can see lot's of overweight people)

However, the NHS maintains that something like a third of year 6 children are already overweight or obese. If I stand in my kids playground (not exactly posh school - plenty of kids of free school meals etc) I certainly wouldn't have said that a third of the kids are overweight. There are a few kids who I'd say are obese but they're in a small minority.

There was a very interesting thing on the radio here a while ago. They were discussing dress sizes etc and the presenter said the usual stuff about woman getting much bigger etc since the 50's and 60's.

However the clothing expert they had on made the point that a lot was to do with how people were measured. Apparently nowadays - clothing companies 3d scan people to get a range of sizes sorted. The people are often naked or have modern skimpy underwear on and everything well - sort of just hangs out! In previous years - people were measured by hand and so obviously kept as much underwear on as they could - which in those days was much more 'substantial' and body shaping.

I'm not saying we don't have a developing problem but I'm learning to distrust government stats that don't accord with my experience.

I don't mean this as an insult, so please don't take it as a personal attack, but may I inquire what your educational background is? Anecdote/personal experience =/= scientific evidence. With an entire society getting fatter, I think there's increased social acceptance for being on the chubby side. I remember some TED talk about networks, where they showed that obesity spread in friend groups sort of similarly to the flu, meaning if your friends are overweight, you become at risk for overweight too.

I definitely don't mean that we should shame or shun obese people (heavens knows there's enough fat prejudice as there is!), but making people realize that the actually are obese/overweight is actually pretty important. Additionally, a 2012 study on obesity (http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/oby2011402a.html) showed that physicians with a high BMI are much less likely to talk to their patients about being overweight, so if we as a whole are getting fatter, it stands to reason that many doctors will too. Which in turn may translate to even less talking to the people at high risk for metabolic syndrome, etc...

So to conclude my little ramble :o, I think there's plenty of reliable data out there to support a global obesity epidemic (WHO report (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/)), and it's important that we don't ignore obesity as a topic on an individual level.

[jeremy h]

I don't mean this as an insult, so please don't take it as a personal attack, but may I inquire what your educational background is? Anecdote/personal experience =/= scientific evidence.

I am not a scientist.

I am not suggesting there isn't a problem and I am certainly not arguing that there isn't one.

I just think there's more to this than meets the eye and I'm going to continue to use common sense.

For example - When my first daughter was born we had a big run in with the district nurse over her weight. No matter what we did she was always 'underweight' according to the charts. It stressed my partner, and led to issues. Our observations of healthy happy girl contradicted the nurse's charts and led to a few 'discussions' with her... Several years ago there was a news item here in the UK that the charts were wrong and were withdrawn.

[Daffodil]

I am not a scientist.

I am not suggesting there isn't a problem and I am certainly not arguing that there isn't one.

I just think there's more to this than meets the eye and I'm going to continue to use common sense.

For example - When my first daughter was born we had a big run in with the district nurse over her weight. No matter what we did she was always 'underweight' according to the charts. It stressed my partner, and led to issues. Our observations of healthy happy girl contradicted the nurse's charts and led to a few 'discussions' with her... Several years ago there was a news item here in the UK that the charts were wrong and were withdrawn.

Fair enough. I agree that guidelines are imperfect, and should repeatedly be audited and updated as more evidence comes through. Incidentally, that was another theme at my conference last week: research => guidelines => implementation => audit => back to further research, and so on. :)

Sorry that you had a bit of a run-in with an overzealous "enforcer." I think (and this is more my personal opinion than a reasoned, well-supported one) that standardization is only useful up to a point, after which the unique/ individual aspect can no longer be ignored.

[anjinha]

I think this is an oversimplification/misrepresentation. Obesity is on the rise everywhere, not just in the U.S.. While it may take us Europeans and the rest of the world a little longer to catch up, we surely will get there, short of a very effective global intervention... :(

I didn't say that those two things are what causes obesity. I mentioned a couple of factors that contribute to it, there's no oversimplification/misrepresentation.

[Daffodil]

I didn't say that those two things are what causes obesity. I mentioned a couple of factors that contribute to it, there's no oversimplification/misrepresentation.

Apologies if I misread your post, or came across as unintentionally harsh. I interpreted it as being about U.S. exceptionalism (which, sadly for the rest of the world, seems not to be the case), but it appears that wasn't your intention.

My reaction is more to the America-is-so-terrible aspect than the specific factors/causes, which I agree with. First of all, there's nothing unique with humongous portion sizes, which are found just as readily in Norway and other European countries as in the U.S.. Although perhaps we can foist some blame on Americans for starting it..? ;)

Secondly, I think we need to move away from looking at obesity from a purely individual or national level, to an international or global one. It's not enough that Denmark has a ban on trans fats. We need it throughout all of Europe. Just like there's the FCTC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_Framework_Convention_on_Tobacco_Control) for tobacco, it would be great to see a similar legally binding international convention for unhealthy food.

Okay, I'm going to try to get off my soap box, now... :o

[iJohnHenry]

Okay, I'm going to try to get off my soap box, now... :o

When the rope is tight enough, I'll kick it out from under you. ;)

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/dead.gif

[Daffodil]

When the rope is tight enough, I'll kick it out from under you. ;)

Image (http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/dead.gif)

Delightful. Be sure to guesstimate my weight right, or the rope won't work as it should, and I'll just slowly suffocate... But perhaps you consider that just retribution for such long-winded posts? :p

[Eraserhead]

First of all, there's nothing unique with humongous portion sizes, which are found just as readily in Norway and other European countries as in the U.S..

I have to admit the biggest portions I've ever seen are in the US, and those seemed to be much bigger than elsewhere in the world.

That said it didn't seem to be particularly difficult to get sensible portions, and typically the portion size isn't much different in the UK and US.

[KnightWRX]

Yeah, I've met a fair amount of proponents of a traffic-light system (red-orange-green) because it's so simple and understandable to everyone, compared to lots of little numbers (%DV, /100g, /serving, etc.). Food packaging could come a long, long way from where it is now (from a health perspective).

But traffic lights again don't help you make an informed decision. What does red mean ? How many kcals in green ? What's a red + green + green equivalent to in comparison to my metabolic needs ? What if I need 3000 kcals/day ? What if my wife needs only 2000 ? Can we still share 2 yellow meals with a red ?

Soooooo confusing.

No seriously folks, it's sooooo dead simple : calories = weight. Figure out your daily requirements in calories, don't go over them. They're listed on the packaging or on the restaurant's website. If they aren't, there's a good chance you shouldn't be eating there.

Food packaging is also dead simple. X g or X ml = Y calories. Just get a scale or measuring cup if you can size up a portion yourself.

[CalBoy]

Yet, there's nothing unhealthy about wheat and corn. If you don't subscribe to the whole "Gluten is bad! :eek:" panic going on, wheat is actually quite healthy and required.

By removing subsidy, you're removing a very good source of energy for people who do eat wheat and corn under healthy circumstances.

Again people : There's no evil food.

I love gluten (and it is a protein so...) but what's making us (as a society) unhealthy is that the cost of these foods is distorted. Pure sugar is too cheap when it's in the form of HFCS. It's become a cheap additive that extends shelf life and improves the texture of overly processed foods at the cost of hidden calories that most people aren't aware of.

Removing the subsidy provides a level playing field for other agricultural products that have superior nutritional merit and can't as easily be turned into calorie-rich additives in household items.

Now don't get me wrong, I love my fat and sugar just like the next man, and I control my intake so I don't gain weight, but most people aren't equipped to do this. Removing the subsidy would just increase the price; I would still be able to eat chips, cake, lard (mmmmm), etc. I would just be paying a fair price for it rather than asking the tax payer to pitch in. At the same time those who don't do as much mental math over food will have more options before them as healthier foods become more cost effective relative to the subsidized wheat and corn products they see.

[\-V-/]

But traffic lights again don't help you make an informed decision. What does red mean ? How many kcals in green ? What's a red + green + green equivalent to in comparison to my metabolic needs ? What if I need 3000 kcals/day ? What if my wife needs only 2000 ? Can we still share 2 yellow meals with a red ?

Soooooo confusing.

No seriously folks, it's sooooo dead simple : calories = weight. Figure out your daily requirements in calories, don't go over them. They're listed on the packaging or on the restaurant's website. If they aren't, there's a good chance you shouldn't be eating there.

Food packaging is also dead simple. X g or X ml = Y calories. Just get a scale or measuring cup if you can size up a portion yourself.

I'm glad someone in here understands this basic principle.

[KnightWRX]

I love gluten (and it is a protein so...) but what's making us (as a society) unhealthy is that the cost of these foods is distorted. Pure sugar is too cheap when it's in the form of HFCS. It's become a cheap additive that extends shelf life and improves the texture of overly processed foods at the cost of hidden calories that most people aren't aware of.

What hidden calories ? It's on the label. :confused:

And there's no HFCS up here. None. Nada. We don't have a corn lobby. ;)

HFCS though is another issue all-together. First, it's not food, it's an sweetener, one that happens to have some now documented adverse effect on the brain's capacity to inhibit hunger (study of 1 group of rats eating the same calories as HFCS as another group did in plain cane sugar, the rats from the HFCS group got fatter after a while, over-eating food).

Removing the subsidy provides a level playing field for other agricultural products that have superior nutritional merit and can't as easily be turned into calorie-rich additives in household items.

I really doubt so since again, produce and fresh ingredients are cheaper than boxed/processed food.

It's not the price, it really isn't. We need to get over this, it's convenience. Preparing fresh produce/meats takes time.

Now don't get me wrong, I love my fat and sugar just like the next man, and I control my intake so I don't gain weight, but most people aren't equipped to do this.

When equipping them is a matter of education, there's no excuse. We should be educating, not over regulating.

[CalBoy]

What hidden calories ? It's on the label. :confused:

Not every calorie is enumerated. A lot of people buy fast-food or grab a soda (that comes with refills very often) with lunch and misremember what they got or underestimate how much they drank. Still others (or the same ones) will get a salad (or other similar item) and not account for the calories in the dressing, which is frequently not listed with the label on the salad itself.

Even when calories are listed, people don't automatically take note of every calorie piece by piece. It takes a fairly high level of dedication to count calories accurately, and it isn't realistic for everyone do it that way (I say this as someone who DOES pay attention to every piece of information).


HFCS though is another issue all-together. First, it's not food, it's an sweetener, one that happens to have some now documented adverse effect on the brain's capacity to inhibit hunger (study of 1 group of rats eating the same calories as HFCS as another group did in plain cane sugar, the rats from the HFCS group got fatter after a while, over-eating food).

It is THE issue if we're talking about ending corn subsidies. HFCS is only possible because of the subsidy. It would become drastically more expensive without the artificial support.

I really doubt so since again, produce and fresh ingredients are cheaper than boxed/processed food.
It's not the price, it really isn't. We need to get over this, it's convenience. Preparing fresh produce/meats takes time.

Not everywhere. In many rural areas, vegetables are ridiculously expensive. I wasn't aware of this (having grown up in a very urban area my whole life) until recently. Buying a single pound of veggies (which still need to be complemented by a protein and/or starch to make a meal) can cost a lot more than an equivalent amount of fast food or prepackaged processed food.

And, since rural areas have the worst obesity rates, there does seem to be evidence to support this. Convenience is a factor, yes, but price is still part of the equation for some people and the artificial supports for unhealthy food definitely should not exist.

When equipping them is a matter of education, there's no excuse. We should be educating, not over regulating.

I don't consider eliminating a subsidy regulation. I have no interest in telling people how much of what they should be eating, but I don't think prices should be distorted to favor unhealthy choices.

[KnightWRX]

Not every calorie is enumerated. A lot of people buy fast-food or grab a soda (that comes with refills very often) with lunch and misremember what they got or underestimate how much they drank. Still others (or the same ones) will get a salad (or other similar item) and not account for the calories in the dressing, which is frequently not listed with the label on the salad itself.

That's not a problem of the label though, that's a problem of the people's education. Sorry, but that doesn't mean that calories aren't listed. They are (unless you're in a restaurant that doesn't happen to have nutrionnal information).

Even when calories are listed, people don't automatically take note of every calorie piece by piece. It takes a fairly high level of dedication to count calories accurately, and it isn't realistic for everyone do it that way (I say this as someone who DOES pay attention to every piece of information).

That again is not a problem with labeling though. You claimed "hidden calories". I claimed they aren't hidden. You're now claiming they are "hidden in plain sight by people's lack of education about nutrition" essentially (if I'm getting your argument here right).



It is THE issue if we're talking about ending corn subsidies. HFCS is only possible because of the subsidy. It would become drastically more expensive without the artificial support.

Or we could do the rational thing. Corn isn't bad, HFCS. Just have the FDA regulate HFCS, not corn itself. Corn is good, I like sheppard pie. It's just important to note that corn is a carb, not a vegetable as far as proper nutrition and portion control goes. Education rather than regulation.

Corn is not evil.


Not everywhere. In many rural areas, vegetables are ridiculously expensive. I wasn't aware of this (having grown up in a very urban area my whole life) until recently. Buying a single pound of veggies (which still need to be complemented by a protein and/or starch to make a meal) can cost a lot more than an equivalent amount of fast food or prepackaged processed food.

I live in a rural area and really have found quite the opposite still holds true. And in rural areas, the best part of it this : You can buy straight from the farmers, at very discounted prices. In my area, we have a lot of corn production (which we don't turn into HFCS) and Apple/Raspberries. I get those for darn cheap.

And, since rural areas have the worst obesity rates, there does seem to be evidence to support this. Convenience is a factor, yes, but price is still part of the equation for some people and the artificial supports for unhealthy food definitely should not exist.

Again, convenience. Rural areas = people having to travel for a longer period of the day (personnal experience, my commute is much longer than my collegue's commute who lives in a condo downtown next to the office).

I don't consider eliminating a subsidy regulation. I have no interest in telling people how much of what they should be eating, but I don't think prices should be distorted to favor unhealthy choices.

And again, I don't think ending the subsidies attain the goal you want it to. Price doesn't trump convenience. Education does. Once you know you're doing yourself harm, you take charge and just go for the proper solution (and you find out that peeling those veggies and steaming/boiling them isn't that bad).

[mrsir2009]

But traffic lights again don't help you make an informed decision. What does red mean ? How many kcals in green ? What's a red + green + green equivalent to in comparison to my metabolic needs ? What if I need 3000 kcals/day ? What if my wife needs only 2000 ? Can we still share 2 yellow meals with a red ?

Soooooo confusing.

No seriously folks, it's sooooo dead simple : calories = weight. Figure out your daily requirements in calories, don't go over them. They're listed on the packaging or on the restaurant's website. If they aren't, there's a good chance you shouldn't be eating there.

Food packaging is also dead simple. X g or X ml = Y calories. Just get a scale or measuring cup if you can size up a portion yourself.

I don't think it's that simple. What about those real skinny people with a fast metabolism? They eat all the calories they want but they never put on weight.

[CalBoy]

That's not a problem of the label though, that's a problem of the people's education. Sorry, but that doesn't mean that calories aren't listed. They are (unless you're in a restaurant that doesn't happen to have nutrionnal information).

That again is not a problem with labeling though. You claimed "hidden calories". I claimed they aren't hidden. You're now claiming they are "hidden in plain sight by people's lack of education about nutrition" essentially (if I'm getting your argument here right).

Take a practical example. A person goes to McDonalds and orders a small soda.
The board displays that the calorie range is from 0-120 for a small soda, which is technically accurate because diet drinks are dispensed by the fountain. Now what if this person fills the cup with ice but refills their soda three different times? How much have they drunk? Are you seriously proposing that there's a practical way to count how many calories they had based on the immediately available data? What if they had Coke the first time, Dr. Pepper the second time and Lipton Iced Tea the third time? Each of these has a different calorie figure per ounce. Even if they only filled the cup once with ice, how much did they have? How do they know the calorie density of Coke, let alone how much Coke they filled in their small cup after ice?

Just because the information exists doesn't mean it's readily accessible. These calories effectively become "hidden" from the consumer because their inability to count them makes them underestimate what they've had.

And a lot of places don't have to have calorie information posted. When I order a gourmet burger I'm not necessarily expecting sugar to be a listed ingredient in the bun, but sure enough it's a major ingredient. The same might be true of the dressing on my side salad or the aioli I dip my fries into. This allows people to vastly underestimate their intake in aggregate.

Or we could do the rational thing. Corn isn't bad, HFCS. Just have the FDA regulate HFCS, not corn itself. Corn is good, I like sheppard pie. It's just important to note that corn is a carb, not a vegetable as far as proper nutrition and portion control goes. Education rather than regulation.

Corn is not evil.

No food is evil, just marginally better or worse nutritionally. But that doesn't mean corn deserves an artificial government support. You can still eat shepherd's pie, it might just cost 20% more. Right now taxpayers are making it possible for those low prices in the US, and maybe Canada if it imports American corn.

Whether or not HFCS needs further regulation is a different issue. The first step is to remove the artificial support for a food that doesn't need it.


I live in a rural area and really have found quite the opposite still holds true. And in rural areas, the best part of it this : You can buy straight from the farmers, at very discounted prices. In my area, we have a lot of corn production (which we don't turn into HFCS) and Apple/Raspberries. I get those for darn cheap.

Again, convenience. Rural areas = people having to travel for a longer period of the day (personnal experience, my commute is much longer than my collegue's commute who lives in a condo downtown next to the office).

That's the exact opposite experience of rural Americans. For the most part they lack substantial access to cheap vegetables and this has been documented as part of the long term gap between the eating habits of wealthier urbanites and poorer rural denizens.

And again, I don't think ending the subsidies attain the goal you want it to. Price doesn't trump convenience. Education does. Once you know you're doing yourself harm, you take charge and just go for the proper solution (and you find out that peeling those veggies and steaming/boiling them isn't that bad).

Not on its own, but it's the first step towards changing the schema about food we have as a country. Convenience is always going to be an advantage of processed food, but that doesn't mean we have to make it cheaper too. I'm not against further education; I think it's probably the only realistic way to permanently alter eating habits. But, along with that the subsidies must end. They make no logical sense in an era of abundant grains and absurdly abundant sugars.

[\-V-/]

I don't think it's that simple. What about those real skinny people with a fast metabolism? They eat all the calories they want but they never put on weight.

The same law still applies. That's why it's a law. Their metabolism is causing them to burn more calories than they are consuming. There's nothing complicated about it. If they ate enough they would gain weight.

Just FYI people, you can lose weight eating nothing but junk food, as long as you are hitting your weight loss calories. That is obviously not healthy, but it's a glaring point. You just need to stop stuffing your face.

To the above poster regarding soda. How about... don't drink soda? Or better yet, only eat/drink things you can measure? Again nobody forces people to eat or drink anything and society isn't forcing them to make bad choices. The sooner people take the blame off everyone else and start taking action for the betterment of their own lives the better. There's nobody to blame but ourselves. I agree that there is a serious problem with the fast food industry and food in general, but that's not an excuse to not care. It just takes some willpower and dedication.

It doesn't help that everyone is fed bad information from a thousand sources. Education is really the key here... but ultimately even with education people still do their own thing in spite of their health. You can't change people, they can only change themselves.

[hafr]

I don't think it's that simple. What about those real skinny people with a fast metabolism? They eat all the calories they want but they never put on weight.

Yes, people have different BMR (basal metabolic rate), but the unexplained difference between two "identical" people with the same body composition and exercise level is no more than a few hundred kcal per day. So it's not really true that some people can eat all they want without gaining weight and others eat "almost nothing" and still get fat.

A far more prominent difference in these two groups is a defect in the MC4R gene. To keep it simple: two people eat a meal, they're both full and want no more food. Now cookies are placed on the table. The person with a defect in the MC4R gene will be able to eat cookies because the "I'm full" signal is overridden when it comes to goodies, the person without the defect will not be able to eat because he's full.

Another thing that has to be remembered is that the BMR increases with weight, meaning you'll have to eat more and more to be able to gain additional weight. Also, BMR increases the more muscle you have, meaning a fit person will be able to eat more than an unfit person at the same weight.

Looking at muscle being more dense than fat, a fit person will look like he weighs less than someone who is a lot bigger but fat.

So a guy can weigh 85 kg, look smaller than another guy at 75 kg, but still need a lot more food in order to keep his weight. If we add that this person moves around more and the higher BMR, we can easily see why it's easy for someone to think that guy A can eat "whatever he likes" without gaining weight when guy B would gain weight with the same calorie intake. And if we throw in a defect MC4R gene for the fatty, he won't even be conscious of the fact that he eats more than he should since he doesn't feel the same "I'm full" feeling.

So yeah, just having a higher BMR won't really affect too much, but it can be a factor amongst others.

[Happybunny]

Well it looks like the British are not far behind. Maybe it's that special relationship that they are always talking about :D

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142064/Half-men-obese-2040--cost-treating-related-illnesses-reach-320bn.html

I know it's the daily mail but still.;)

[hafr]

Well it looks like the British are not far behind. Maybe it's that special relationship that they are always talking about :D

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142064/Half-men-obese-2040--cost-treating-related-illnesses-reach-320bn.html

I know it's the daily mail but still.;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

;)

[Zombie Acorn]

But traffic lights again don't help you make an informed decision. What does red mean ? How many kcals in green ? What's a red + green + green equivalent to in comparison to my metabolic needs ? What if I need 3000 kcals/day ? What if my wife needs only 2000 ? Can we still share 2 yellow meals with a red ?

Soooooo confusing.

No seriously folks, it's sooooo dead simple : calories = weight. Figure out your daily requirements in calories, don't go over them. They're listed on the packaging or on the restaurant's website. If they aren't, there's a good chance you shouldn't be eating there.

Food packaging is also dead simple. X g or X ml = Y calories. Just get a scale or measuring cup if you can size up a portion yourself.

I dont think anyone is proposing that they have all of the answers here, a new labeling system would have to be thoroughly researched for ease of use. I dont entirely agree with your calorie assessment though, unless losing weight is the only goal. I can imagine you could still lose weight eating greasy burgers everyday if you expend enough calories, but your arteries are still going to harden up.

[KnightWRX]

I don't think it's that simple. What about those real skinny people with a fast metabolism? They eat all the calories they want but they never put on weight.

They have fast metabolism. Hence they need more calories. Metabolism = amount of calories you burn at idle, doing nothing. What's so complicated about that ?

The body burns X calories in a day, X being a simple formula of Y (metabolism) + Z (any physical effort). To maintain X, you have to balance it with the amount of calories you consume in a day, which is let's say N. X = N, weight is maintained. X > N, you lose weight. X < N, get off your ass fatso (or feel the burn Mr. nice Body Builder).

And frankly, what about them ? I don't think those guys are worried about gaining weight and being obese now are they ?

----------

I dont think anyone is proposing that they have all of the answers here, a new labeling system would have to be thoroughly researched for ease of use. I dont entirely agree with your calorie assessment though, unless losing weight is the only goal. I can imagine you could still lose weight eating greasy burgers everyday if you expend enough calories, but your arteries are still going to harden up.

Are we talking about Obese people and weight problems or just plain health ? Let's not confuse things further. Get people to first understand how to control their weight, then you can bore them to all hell with the proper balance of nutrients/vitamins and explain to them how to lower their sugars and starchs and fats in favor of protein and fiber.

I think a lot of the problem with trying to educate folks about proper weight control is the people trying to ram it up with tons of other health concerns. The label is fine. Gotta start small :

Weight control 101. Calories in/Calories out. Balance them.
Weight control 201. Calories balancing, understanding other nutriment requirements.
Weight control 301. Ok, still here ? Let's talk micromanaging vitamins and nutrients.

Let's face it, someone at least not being obese is going to be much healthier understand how to keep their weight in check even if they don't have "100% proper, healthy nutrition".

[jeremy h]

From this perspective, the societal decline in cardiorespiratory fitness due to a sedentary lifestyle is an equally, if not more important threat to public health than the obesity epidemic.

I think this is a very important point. As I've already said I treat a lot of the BMI scare stories with a degree of scepticism. In the end aren't we trying to measure health? For example, where I go swimming there's a guy who's an endomorph (big lad!) but I know he swims for at least an hour a day. He also cycles to the pool and has done a fair few triathlons...

I'm pretty certain that he'd be classed as at least overweight (possibly worse) in a BMI test.

[Happybunny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

;)
If it was only the daily mail. :D


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/community/4033321/Is-the-UK-losing-the-fight-against-flab.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/healthyeating/9254668/Were-all-feckless-losers-in-the-fight-on-fat.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/11/obesity-epidemic-uk-poorest?INTCMP=SRCH

[KnightWRX]

Take a practical example. A person goes to McDonalds and orders a small soda.
The board displays that the calorie range is from 0-120 for a small soda, which is technically accurate because diet drinks are dispensed by the fountain. Now what if this person fills the cup with ice but refills their soda three different times? How much have they drunk? Are you seriously proposing that there's a practical way to count how many calories they had based on the immediately available data?

Yes. I am. Coca-cola lists their calories by ml. If you refill your cup, you're drinking more and more ml. Just calculate it. If you can't gage mls by eyeballing them, get a measuring cup if you really need to count calories. McDonald's lists Coca-cola values in Fl. Oz. :

http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/getnutrition/nutritionfacts.pdf

They have the same charts in store.

Get a diet soda. 0 calories, no matter how many times you refill the cup. And frankly, you shouldn't be drinking calories anymore, poor example ;)

What if they had Coke the first time, Dr. Pepper the second time and Lipton Iced Tea the third time? Each of these has a different calorie figure per ounce. Even if they only filled the cup once with ice, how much did they have? How do they know the calorie density of Coke, let alone how much Coke they filled in their small cup after ice?

Again, if you need to control your weight, why are you not measuring your portions and why are you drinking sugared drinks ?

Why do you refill your cup 3 times ?

Anyhow, again, the information is there. It's not hidden as you claimed. It's just obscured by your hypothetical person's lack of understanding and education about nutrional values. Let's educate him rather than change the labeling to "Red, Yellow, Green" which means nothing at all.

Just because the information exists doesn't mean it's readily accessible. These calories effectively become "hidden" from the consumer because their inability to count them makes them underestimate what they've had.

That's not hidden though. Hidden would mean a small cafe that doesn't list ingredients, quantities or proper nutrional information. Plenty of those around, since they can't afford to properly create nutrional information which requires lab testing of controlled portions and recipes. Bigger chains don't have this issue and usually have the information on their websites and in store.

No need for 100% exact data, the margin of error is small enough that you'll still manage your diet.

And a lot of places don't have to have calorie information posted. When I order a gourmet burger I'm not necessarily expecting sugar to be a listed ingredient in the bun, but sure enough it's a major ingredient. The same might be true of the dressing on my side salad or the aioli I dip my fries into. This allows people to vastly underestimate their intake in aggregate.

Look at the McDonald's chart. Sugar, Protein, Fat, it's all there. Again, if you're having a hard time controlling your weight and need to consult the nutrional information to do so, maybe you shouldn't be eating out at restaurants that don't list it ?



No food is evil, just marginally better or worse nutritionally. But that doesn't mean corn deserves an artificial government support. You can still eat shepherd's pie, it might just cost 20% more. Right now taxpayers are making it possible for those low prices in the US, and maybe Canada if it imports American corn.

Whether or not HFCS needs further regulation is a different issue. The first step is to remove the artificial support for a food that doesn't need it.

I'd say all agricultural production facilities should get subsidies. Corn and vegetables and fruits and meat.

All are required for proper nutrition. Now if you want to cut out subsidies to those who take these raw, nutritious sources of food and extract only the sugars and fat to make processed food, I won't mind.

I just don't think it's going to make a difference. People don't buy fresh produce, even when it's cheaper. Lack of convenience.

That's the exact opposite experience of rural Americans. For the most part they lack substantial access to cheap vegetables and this has been documented as part of the long term gap between the eating habits of wealthier urbanites and poorer rural denizens.

No farms that sell locally grown produce in rural America ? Well sorry to hear that, sucks for you folks down there.

Not on its own, but it's the first step towards changing the schema about food we have as a country. Convenience is always going to be an advantage of processed food, but that doesn't mean we have to make it cheaper too. I'm not against further education; I think it's probably the only realistic way to permanently alter eating habits. But, along with that the subsidies must end. They make no logical sense in an era of abundant grains and absurdly abundant sugars.

We're having grain shortages actually :

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704905004575405381319151528.html

----------

I think this is a very important point. As I've already said I treat a lot of the BMI scare stories with a degree of scepticism. In the end aren't we trying to measure health? For example, where I go swimming there's a guy who's an endomorph (big lad!) but I know he swims for at least an hour a day. He also cycles to the pool and has done a fair few triathlons...

I'm pretty certain that he'd be classed as at least overweight (possibly worse) in a BMI test.

BMI doesn't apply to athletes and body builders. BMI doesn't fail because it doesn't apply to 1-2% of the population. It's a mass indicator that applies to normal people.

When you're training and you're fit, you don't even pay attention to BMI, you don't need it to tell you you're not obese. You pay attention to things like body fat %, lean mass vs water mass vs fat mass.

There's nothing wrong with evaluating a growing BMI on a population level. Are you saying that, considering let's say 10% of Idaho residents being over 30 BMI in 1990, that now in 2012 that that percentage is 25%, that that 15% of the population suddenly all became body builders and top notch athletes ? That before, the 10% was the percentages of athletes and body builders in Idaho ?

Of course not. People have been getting fatter, not fitter. It's apparent to anyone that walks in a crowd.

[hafr]

I dont think anyone is proposing that they have all of the answers here, a new labeling system would have to be thoroughly researched for ease of use. I dont entirely agree with your calorie assessment though, unless losing weight is the only goal. I can imagine you could still lose weight eating greasy burgers everyday if you expend enough calories, but your arteries are still going to harden up.

Where I'm from, everything needs to have a nutrition label on it. Even bread. You'll get the weight, net weight (like for olives, after having poured out the water), kcal per 100 grams, kcal per serving, the size of a serving in grams, the division of macro nutrients and a complete list of ingredients starting with the one making up the highest content. Most products also have vitamin content listed.

Still we have obese people. You can't really make it any more clear without dumbing it down to a kid's level or basically having the teller tell you what it says...

[KnightWRX]

Still we have obese people. You can't really make it any more clear without dumbing it down to a kid's level or basically having the teller tell you what it says...

People don't bother reading the label or understanding what metabolic needs even are. Some don't care, some just don't know where to go for information on how to read and apply it.

[IntelliUser]

People don't bother reading the label or understanding what metabolic needs even are. Some don't care, some just don't know where to go for information on how to read and apply it.

Which is why unhealthy food should be taxed. People either don't care or they are too stupid to watch their own health. Hell, 20% of people still smoke today.

I don't want to bear the costs of their stupidity/laziness, so all unhealthy food should be taxed.

[KnightWRX]

Which is why unhealthy food should be taxed. People either don't care or they are too stupid to watch their own health. Hell, 20% of people still smoke today.

I don't want to bear the costs of their stupidity/laziness, so all unhealthy food should be taxed.

And again, you're not addressing the convenience issue and what to tax. What exactly is unhealthy ? How do you define healthy/unhealthy ?

Again, there are no evil foods and adding costs to "unhealthy" options (processed foods let's say) doesn't remove the convenience factor that people pay for (1 lbs of carrots = 2$ usually around here. 1 lbs of chips = 4-5$).

[Daffodil]

But traffic lights again don't help you make an informed decision. What does red mean ? How many kcals in green ? What's a red + green + green equivalent to in comparison to my metabolic needs ? What if I need 3000 kcals/day ? What if my wife needs only 2000 ? Can we still share 2 yellow meals with a red ?

Soooooo confusing.

No seriously folks, it's sooooo dead simple : calories = weight. Figure out your daily requirements in calories, don't go over them. They're listed on the packaging or on the restaurant's website. If they aren't, there's a good chance you shouldn't be eating there.

Food packaging is also dead simple. X g or X ml = Y calories. Just get a scale or measuring cup if you can size up a portion yourself.

As far as I can see, we're not in disagreement about calories, or useful steps on an individual level. If I recall correctly, we've even agreed on this in a thread in the past... While I agree that there are limitations to the implementation of a traffic light system relative to definitions of "healthy" and "unhealthy," your calorie argument only addresses how much you consume in total, not the relative amounts of macronutrients in a food.

Presumably, if you define the relative amounts of macronutrients that a good diet should have (i.e. percentages) and traffic light accordingly, that should scale just fine, and the bodybuilder can consume larger portions, and the kids consume small portions, and everyone's getting better relative amounts of what they should get or not. You could have a thorough scientific debate about what the relative percentages should be, and revisit the guidelines every so often as new evidence emerges. To quote your post: "seriously folks, it's sooooo dead simple." ;) :p

But all of that is secondary to my greater argument.

What we perhaps *do* disagree on, is the need for societal change *in addition to* (not instead of) change at the individual level. Moreover, improving public health should be the ultimate goal here. Not just weight loss... (Refer to previous comments about cardiorespiratory health and note that inactivity is an equally important risk factor for CVD as smoking, etc.).

I think the assumption that it's an either/or discussion is misguided. Pursue both avenues. Educate people to get them engaged in their own health. But simultaneously pursue systemic changes. Yes, the obese individual is responsible for his/her own weight. But physicians, health professionals, politicians and other policymakers also have a moral responsibility to induce change. Ban junk food marketing, especially to kids. Set and enforce nutritional standards for the food served in schools. Set upper limits for saturated fat and sodium levels (by weight) for food products, etc. Learn from tobacco.

Easy access to healthy food should be a right, not a privilege for those with high education, wealth, or ample leisure time. While I'm not suggesting that we take away the choice entirely and ban all burgers, I think we need to reset the "default" choice to be a healthier one. The food industry has managed to get cheap and unhealthy to be the default, and have absolutely no economic incentive for changing this. We need the simple, healthy choice to be ubiquitous and default. And that's why intervention at the population level is necessary.

[KnightWRX]

your calorie argument only addresses how much you consume in total, not the relative amounts of macronutrients in a food.

Which is fine, since we're talking obesity, and not healthy nutrition or lack of it if you prefer.

Like I said, if trying to educate people on "healthy" nutrition when they don't even know about proper weight control, you'll bore them to death and will just lose them.

I think that's the problem, people want to address too much at the same time. Just go easy. Let's solve it issue by issue. Obesity is the issue we want to deal with first ? Let's deal with that. Calories. Teach them that. Once they have that down and we start seeing decreases in BMI throughout the population, then we can start talking about other nutrients.

Thin people eating not quite 100% healthy is already better than fat people. Even if they aren't eating healthy, they'll still have less health issues than the fat people.

It's like a wise nutritionist once said when talking about vegetables consumption and getting asked about not recommending Iceberg lettuce : "Look, Iceberg lettuce is worth nothing or close to, but I'm not about diss it. Why ? Because people eating Iceberg lettuce are already 1 step ahead of all those who don't eat any vegetables at all".

People at least minding their calories and getting their BMI down may not be "healthy", but they're "healthier".

[Daffodil]

Which is fine, since we're talking obesity, and not healthy nutrition or lack of it if you prefer.

Like I said, if trying to educate people on "healthy" nutrition when they don't even know about proper weight control, you'll bore them to death and will just lose them.

I think that's the problem, people want to address too much at the same time. Just go easy. Let's solve it issue by issue. Obesity is the issue we want to deal with first ? Let's deal with that. Calories. Teach them that. Once they have that down and we start seeing decreases in BMI throughout the population, then we can start talking about other nutrients.

Thin people eating not quite 100% healthy is already better than fat people. Even if they aren't eating healthy, they'll still have less health issues than the fat people.

It's like a wise nutritionist once said when talking about vegetables consumption and getting asked about not recommending Iceberg lettuce : "Look, Iceberg lettuce is worth nothing or close to, but I'm not about diss it. Why ? Because people eating Iceberg lettuce are already 1 step ahead of all those who don't eat any vegetables at all".

People at least minding their calories and getting their BMI down may not be "healthy", but they're "healthier".

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

To me, obesity isn't the (primary) issue, public health is. This means nuance:
- If being fat but fit gives you a better prognosis/reduced mortality, then exercise is more important than weight loss
- If visceral fat gives you a higher risk of adipose dysfunction and negative health outcome than subcutaneous fat, then focus on the behaviors that will target that specifically.
- If the consumption of cured meat products, or a high fat intake, or a high sodium content can be linked to an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease, then focus on reducing that.

And so on...

But if teaching people about calorie balance actually succeeds in bringing average BMI down, and consequently cardiovascular disease, I'm all for it.

[KnightWRX]

- If being fat but fit gives you a better prognosis/reduced mortality, then exercise is more important than weight loss

The thing is, I know very few fat people that are fit. Very, very few indeed.

[mrsir2009]

The thing is, I know very few fat people that are fit. Very, very few indeed.

This real fat german maths teacher at my school is fit. He bikes dozens of k's at once, which is much more than can be said for others his size. He's the only really fat person I know of who's fit though.

[MorphingDragon]

This real fat german maths teacher at my school is fit. He bikes dozens of k's at once, which is much more than can be said for others his size. He's the only really fat person I know of who's fit though.

Another exception is professional Sumo Wrestlers.

Grasping at straws here.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

The body burns X calories in a day, X being a simple formula of Y (metabolism) + Z (any physical effort). To maintain X, you have to balance it with the amount of calories you consume in a day, which is let's say N. X = N, weight is maintained. X > N, you lose weight. X < N, get off your ass fatso (or feel the burn Mr. nice Body Builder).


I think a lot of the problem with trying to educate folks about proper weight control is the people trying to ram it up with tons of other health concerns. The label is fine. Gotta start small :

Weight control 101. Calories in/Calories out. Balance them.
Weight control 201. Calories balancing, understanding other nutriment requirements.
Weight control 301. Ok, still here ? Let's talk micromanaging vitamins and nutrients.



And again, you're not addressing the convenience issue and what to tax. What exactly is unhealthy ? How do you define healthy/unhealthy ?

Again, there are no evil foods and adding costs to "unhealthy" options (processed foods let's say) doesn't remove the convenience factor that people pay for (1 lbs of carrots = 2$ usually around here. 1 lbs of chips = 4-5$).


I think that's the problem, people want to address too much at the same time. Just go easy. Let's solve it issue by issue. Obesity is the issue we want to deal with first ? Let's deal with that. Calories. Teach them that. Once they have that down and we start seeing decreases in BMI throughout the population, then we can start talking about other nutrients.

:

People at least minding their calories and getting their BMI down may not be "healthy", but they're "healthier".

I've posted many references before. This time I would like you to spend a couple of minutes on Google Scholar. Search Biology and Medicine from 2007-2012, and search on the following terms: "soft drinks weight gain insulin". There should be about 2000+ articles to read. Start reading a few of them.

There are evil foods after all, and soft drinks are evil food number one.

Read some articles, then let's talk.

[KnightWRX]

I've posted many references before. This time I would like you to spend a couple of minutes on Google Scholar. Search Biology and Medicine from 2007-2012, and search on the following terms: "soft drinks weight gain insulin". There should be about 2000+ articles to read. Start reading a few of them.

There are evil foods after all, and soft drinks are evil food number one.

Read some articles, then let's talk.

There's no evil food. It's all calories. Even your "articles" state this clearly :

http://www.ajcn.org/content/76/5/911.full
Changes in diet have been studied as contributing factors to the development of obesity. Along with an increase in total energy consumption over the past few decades (19), there has been a shift in the types of nutrients consumed in the American diet.

[...]

Calculated on a daily basis, the per capita use of added fructose, obtained by combining the disappearance data for the fructose contained in sucrose and in HFCS, increased by 26%, from 64 g/d in 1970 to 81 g/d in 1997. This represents an average daily energy intake from added fructose of ≈1356 kJ (324 kcal).

It's not limited to soft drinks either. Gazified water or non-gazefied makes no difference. Fruit "juices" (which are just sugared water), HFCS/added sweeteners in process foods, etc.. etc.. all add up to energy that wouldn't have been consumed and shouldn't be consumed because it's not needed or used by the body. Poor sugar on a fruit. It won't fill you up more than just the fruit by itself, but it'll sure make you fatter.

And insulin resistance does not equal weight gain by itself. You're mixing up issues, making it more complex than it is. That is why people don't lose weight or get educated on how, because others make it a big complex issue right from the get go.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

There's no evil food. It's all calories. Even your "articles" state this clearly :

http://www.ajcn.org/content/76/5/911.full


It's not limited to soft drinks either. Gazified water or non-gazefied makes no difference. Fruit "juices" (which are just sugared water), HFCS/added sweeteners in process foods, etc.. etc.. all add up to energy that wouldn't have been consumed and shouldn't be consumed because it's not needed or used by the body. Poor sugar on a fruit. It won't fill you up more than just the fruit by itself, but it'll sure make you fatter.

And insulin resistance does not equal weight gain by itself. You're mixing up issues, making it more complex than it is. That is why people don't lose weight or get educated on how, because others make it a big complex issue right from the get go.

Read this one:

Maria Maersk, Anita Belza, Hans Stødkilde-Jørgensen, Steffen Ringgaard, Elizaveta Chabanova, Henrik Thomsen, Steen B Pedersen, Arne Astrup, and Bjørn Richelsen, Sucrose-sweetened beverages increase fat storage in the liver, muscle, and visceral fat depot: a 6-mo randomized intervention study, ajcn.111.022533v1 95/2/283

http://www.ajcn.org/content/95/2/283.short

From the introduction:


Sugar-sweetened beverages have been associated with obesity, cardiovascular disease, and the metabolic syndrome and recently with increased ectopic fat accumulation, independently of other lifestyle factors.



Our main aim was to test the hypothesis that sucrose-sweetened cola increases ectopic fat including VAT4, total body fat accumulation, and metabolic risk factors in a 6-mo controlled trial compared with 3 alternative beverages: isocaloric semiskim milk, aspartame-sweetened cola, and water.


From the conclusion:


In conclusion we found that daily intake of regular cola increases ectopic fat accumulation and concentrations of triglycerides and total cholesterol compared with other drinks. To improve the health of the population, the intake of SSSDs should be reduced considerably.


Many studies have shown the correlation between weight gain and soft drink consumption. But, existing long-term randomized controlled trials generally were not directly testing the effects of soft drink consumption. This study does.

The "complexity" comes from all the nagging questions: what makes people hungry, why people overeat, how "satiety" really works, what controls fat deposition, etc. Lots of people think the answers are simple, but the simple answers don't add up. However, in the last five years or so, there has been a new interest in looking at this scientifically rather than "moralistically", and eventually, we may understand the science better.

[\-V-/]

Read this one:

Maria Maersk, Anita Belza, Hans St&#248;dkilde-J&#248;rgensen, Steffen Ringgaard, Elizaveta Chabanova, Henrik Thomsen, Steen B Pedersen, Arne Astrup, and Bj&#248;rn Richelsen, Sucrose-sweetened beverages increase fat storage in the liver, muscle, and visceral fat depot: a 6-mo randomized intervention study, ajcn.111.022533v1 95/2/283

http://www.ajcn.org/content/95/2/283.short

From the introduction:





From the conclusion:



Many studies have shown the correlation between weight gain and soft drink consumption. But, existing long-term randomized controlled trials generally were not directly testing the effects of soft drink consumption. This study does.

The "complexity" comes from all the nagging questions: what makes people hungry, why people overeat, how "satiety" really works, what controls fat deposition, etc. Lots of people think the answers are simple, but the simple answers don't add up. However, in the last five years or so, there has been a new interest in looking at this scientifically rather than "moralistically", and eventually, we may understand the science better.

You're really not getting it. Sugar or sugary soft drinks or anything else for that matter will not make you gain weight if you are in a caloric deficit. The fat deposit issue only applies to those eating excess calories than their body requires. The conclusion of your study is that eating too much makes you fat.

Sugar does in fact increase appetite, so taking as much of that crap out of your diet as possible definitely helps. Another helpful tip is to consume the majority of your simple sugars for the day before and after a workout, with the remaining carbs for the day being complex or starchy. It also helps stave hunger by eating protein with every meal... something as simple as a handful of nuts can help satiate the appetite caused by sugar.

It really isn't as complex as you seemingly want it to be. Weight gain = calories. That is all. There is nothing more to it.

[KnightWRX]

Many studies have shown the correlation between weight gain and soft drink consumption. But, existing long-term randomized controlled trials generally were not directly testing the effects of soft drink consumption. This study does.

Where's facepalm...

Look, if you eat 2000 calories a day, and drink water with your meals, you ate 2000 calories. If that is what your body required, you maintained your weight. Are you following me ? Yes ? Simple enough ?

2000 calories intake, 2000 calories burned = 0 lbs gained.

Good.

Now let's do a study on soft drinks. A typical can of coke is 160 calories. Let's take the aforementionned people eating 2000 calories a day with water and replace the water served with lunch and diner with a can of coke for each meal. So, 2000 calories eaten during the day, 320 calories drank instead of the water.

2320 calories intake, 2000 calories burned = ~0.1 lbs gained.

Now, what does the body do with that extra 0.1 lbs ? Well, if you've been sitting around, there's just no need for it. So it gets stored as fat.

That's what your studies find and conclude! That people just don't need the extra calories from soft drinks, not that calories from soft drinks make you fatter than calories from fruits, vegetables, meat or whatever else.

How hard is it to understand this simple concept ? Again, people like you making this more complicated than it is is why most people don't get educated and don't lose their extra weight.

Weight is the simple balancing act of calories in vs calories out. No harder, no more complex than that. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It's a friggin unit of measurement for energy. Just like a watt is a watt is a watt or a meter is a meter is a meter.

[Mac'nCheese]

I've posted many references before. This time I would like you to spend a couple of minutes on Google Scholar. Search Biology and Medicine from 2007-2012, and search on the following terms: "soft drinks weight gain insulin". There should be about 2000+ articles to read. Start reading a few of them.

There are evil foods after all, and soft drinks are evil food number one.

Read some articles, then let's talk.

I think I am literally addicted to soda. I need one a day, minimum, or I get a head ache and very tired. It's like coffee to me and I can't quit it.

[KnightWRX]

I think I am literally addicted to soda. I need one a day, minimum, or I get a head ache and very tired. It's like coffee to me and I can't quit it.

There's caffeine in those sodas, just like in Coffee.

[hafr]

I think I am literally addicted to soda. I need one a day, minimum, or I get a head ache and very tired. It's like coffee to me and I can't quit it.

If you can't fight the urge to have a soda you really should go see someone about it. If you want to drink a soda a day, go ahead, it's your choice. But if you do it because you feel you have to, it's not only bad for your body but could also be an indicator of having psychological problems that need to be taken care of - as all addictions are.

Best case scenario you're just craving it and some simple "mind over matter" exercises should help you get rid of it. If you can't afford a shrink or don't want to spend the money, there should be loads of helpful guides online.

There's caffeine in those sodas, just like in Coffee.

Although it's more likely Mac'nCheese is feeling the effects of the sugar, not the caffeine. If you want to try the theory, try giving someone addicted to soda black coffee with no sugar instead. They won't be satisfied... They might switch addictions quite fast though ;)

[KnightWRX]

Although it's more likely Mac'nCheese is feeling the effects of the sugar, not the caffeine. If you want to try the theory, try giving someone addicted to soda black coffee with no sugar instead. They won't be satisfied... They might switch addictions quite fast though ;)

I had a similar issue with soda. I switched to diet without sugar with no effects at all. I had the effects with I switched to decaf diet soda. Hence why I point to caffeine addiction rather than sugar.

Though it's probably more psychological than physical in the case of caffeinated, sugared water.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

As I have said before, I am happy that the study of nutrition has gone beyond the moralistic interpretation of thermodynamics, and, is actually beginning to study scientifically what actually works. Besides not drinking soft drinks (sugar-sweetened if you prefer), here's something new:

htthttp://in.reuters.com/article/2012/04/26/us-fruit-veggies-tied-to-lower-diabetes-idINBRE83P14620120426p://

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/30/dc11-2388.short

bit.ly/Hcmynw

This is interesting reading for the motivated.

The novelty is this:

CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that a diet characterized by a greater quantity of vegetables and a greater variety of both F&V intake is associated with a reduced risk of T2D.

F&V is Fruits and Vegetables, T2D is Type II Diabetes.

As President Obama said, "Eat your peas!" [in a different context ;) ] But, the message is, eat your peas, carrots, celery, bell peppers, tomatoes, squash, .... (goal: 16 different fruits and vegetables per week, but, go easy on the high-sugar fruit).

As always, this isn't medical advice, see your doctor, YMMV, etc., etc., etc.

[charlituna]

Obesity is such a complex issue that it isn't as simple as people just enjoying food.

If I were to become PM of the UK, I'd start a motion to ban all McDonalds, Burger King, KFC and other fast-food chains. Food served to customers would have to meet strict guidelines on the amount of fat, especially in sauces.



Just ban portion sizes big enough to feed 4 people. At all restaurants. 'single serve' sodas, candy etc that arent actually singles as well

[MorphingDragon]

Holy Threadmancy Batman

http://www.2epix.com/pictures/13384ffc9d8bdb21c53c6f72d46f7866.jpg

[leekohler]

Just ban portion sizes big enough to feed 4 people. At all restaurants. 'single serve' sodas, candy etc that arent actually singles as well

That's silly. Certain people need larger portion sizes due to their activity level. As a hockey player and weight lifter, I consume enough food daily to feed three people. Yet, I'm in very good shape. When I get to work in the morning, I go to our cafeteria and get a huge breakfast- yogurt and fruit, 6 slices of bacon, orange juice, whole milk, and eggs. Lunch is usually vegetables, organic local meats, and more fruit. For dinner I usually do light snacks of trail mix and that kind of thing.

It's not the eating, it's the fact that most people are lazy and don't live active lives like they should. Get off your butt and move, people!

[MorphingDragon]

That's silly. Certain people need larger portion sizes due to their activity level. As a hockey player and weight lifter, I consume enough food daily to feed three people. Yet, I'm in very good shape. When I get to work in the morning, I go to our cafeteria and get a huge breakfast- yogurt and fruit, 6 slices of bacon, orange juice, whole milk, and eggs. Lunch is usually vegetables, organic local meats, and more fruit. For dinner I usually do light snacks of trail mix and that kind of thing.

A very Irish way of eating. Their main meals are at Breakfast and Lunch. i would probably eat the same but I can't afford it. I use Protein Powder because I can't get the extra calories as real food. :(

It's not the eating, it's the fact that most people are lazy and don't live active lives like they should. Get off your butt and move, people!

It's hard for people to form the habit. I've had many friends Ive tried to convert to lifters but they mostly give up. Apparently an hour per day to invest in your health is too much effort. :confused:

[AP_piano295]

That's silly. Certain people need larger portion sizes due to their activity level. As a hockey player and weight lifter, I consume enough food daily to feed three people. Yet, I'm in very good shape. When I get to work in the morning, I go to our cafeteria and get a huge breakfast- yogurt and fruit, 6 slices of bacon, orange juice, whole milk, and eggs. Lunch is usually vegetables, organic local meats, and more fruit. For dinner I usually do light snacks of trail mix and that kind of thing.

It's not the eating, it's the fact that most people are lazy and don't live active lives like they should. Get off your butt and move, people!

I'm a pretty small guy (5' 10" , 163lbs), but I lift every day so as a poor student it's a consistent struggle for me to eat enough. I should be eating about 160 g/protein per day around 400 g/carbs and 45 g/fat (totals to about 2600 calories p/day). I'm also a vegetarian which makes hitting those numbers even more of a pain in the ass (especially protein).

The point I'm making is that you're absolutely right smaller portion sizes would be less than helpful for my diet and activity levels.

What's really frustrating is the price of eating healthy, everything about the U.S. food culture encourages me to buy and eat massive amounts of heavily processed carbohydrates. Fruits, vegetables, high quality grains etc. are all very expensive.

In America it's expensive to eat right and we're surprised that everyone is overweight?

[leekohler]

A very Irish way of eating. Their main meals are at Breakfast and Lunch. i would probably eat the same but I can't afford it. I use Protein Powder because I can't get the extra calories as real food. :(



It's hard for people to form the habit. I've had many friends Ive tried to convert to lifters but they mostly give up. Apparently an hour per day to invest in your health is too much effort. :confused:

Iscariot, who is a member here and one of my good friends, became a trainer after we first met IRL. He was really sick for a while, but when he got better, got into lifting and training (I take credit for inspiring him ;)). Lifting is probably the best thing anyone can do to lose weight, because you burn calories long after you're done with your session.

Is it boring? YEAH! But I've learned to look at it this way- it's my alone time away from everything else. It's my time that I give myself to let my mind rest and sort through things (hockey, work- what did I do right? What can I do better? etc). I think Iscariot would say the same. It's almost like meditation.

[MorphingDragon]

In America it's expensive to eat right and we're surprised that everyone is overweight?

Not just the US, western society in general.

Hell in NZ, it's a case of using the local market to subsidize the international market. Our Dairy, Meat and Fruit/Veg is expensive here just so we can compete with your subsidized crap full of hormones...

...and its the stuff NOT suitable for export that we get. So enjoy that Golden Kiwifruit, because I don't even know what Good ones taste like.


Iscariot, who is a member here and one of my good friends, became a trainer after we first met IRL. He was really sick for a while, but when he got better, got into lifting and training (I take credit for inspiring him ;)). Lifting is probably the best thing anyone can do to lose weight, because you burn calories long after you're done with your session.

Is it boring? YEAH! But I've learned to look at it this way- it's my alone time away from everything else. It's my time that I give myself to let my mind rest and sort through things. I think Iscariot would say the same. It's almost like meditation.

I just prod my own ego for motivation. Plus the endorphin high helps. <3<3<3

[AP_piano295]

A very Irish way of eating. Their main meals are at Breakfast and Lunch. i would probably eat the same but I can't afford it. I use Protein Powder because I can't get the extra calories as real food. :(


Yep, shakes are probably how I get half of my calories. Unfortunately I react really badly to weigh protein, so again I'm stuck with more expensive soy and rice proteins.

I've read that getting calories/protein from powders is really a very poor substitute for eating more though :(.

[MorphingDragon]

Yep, shakes are probably how I get half of my calories. Unfortunately I react really badly to weigh protein, so again I'm stuck with more expensive soy and rice proteins.

I've read that getting calories/protein from powders is really a very poor substitute for eating more though :(.

Whey and Caesin is usually extracted from dairy sources, and the powder may contain some of the other ingredients in Milk. You could always source stuff derived from Egg Whites.

[AP_piano295]

Not just the US, western society in general.

My room mate is a German and he always tells me that food there is relatively in-expensive luxury items (tv's, ipods, computers etc.) cost a-lot but the necessities are quite in-expensive.

And of course people are on average paid much better.

[leekohler]

Yep, shakes are probably how I get half of my calories. Unfortunately I react really badly to weigh protein, so again I'm stuck with more expensive soy and rice proteins.

I've read that getting calories/protein from powders is really a very poor substitute for eating more though :(.

Do NOT do soy, it's processed garbage by the time it gets to market. Edamame- soy in it's raw form is great though. Let me recommend this to you. This is a diet I follow as much as I can. It's tailored to hockey players, but I think beneficial to most people in smaller portions.

- Full-fat yogurt, pressed cottage cheese, goat’s milk (3.5% MF), organic cream cheese, raw or cured parmigiano

- Organic steak, natural sausage, organic chicken, wild-caught canned tuna, wild salmon

- Kale, baby greens (Asian mix, root mix, mache), sprouts (sunflower, pea, arugula), avocado, chickpeas, mung beans, lentils

- Quinoa, brown rice, brown-rice pasta, salba, chia, hemp, sunflower seeds

- Brazil nuts, walnuts, almonds, coconut

- Extra-virgin olive oil (and coconut oil)

- Variety of other fresh fruits (including goji berries) and vegetables

- Stay away from processed and unhealthy packaged foods

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/scary-gary-roberts-becomes-diet-guru-for-young-nhlers/article600255/

Is this expensive? Not necessarily. If you go to your local butcher or Trader Joe's, you can get all this stuff relatively cheap. Can you do this all the time? No. But do it as much as you can.

[MorphingDragon]

Do NOT do soy, it's processed garbage by the time it gets to market. Edamame- soy in it's raw form is great though.


A lot of Soy isn't Soy at all. Especially cheap Soya sauce. It's in the same class as plastic cheese.

[leekohler]

A lot of Soy isn't Soy at all. Especially cheap Soya sauce. It's in the same class as plastic cheese.

Exactly. We've been sold on something that was originally good, but it's become not so good.

Tomorrow, I plan on pan searing a good hangar steak ($4 from my local butcher) some good organic greens with balsamic and olive oil, along with some nice organic whole milk. :) Total cost- $6.

That's cheaper than McDonald's. But of course, you have to get off your ass and make it yourself.

[AP_piano295]

Exactly. We've been sold on something that was originally good, but it's become not so good.

Tomorrow, I plan on pan searing a good hangar steak ($4 from my local butcher) some good organic greens with balsamic and olive oil, along with some nice organic whole milk. :) Total cost- $6.

That's cheaper than McDonald's. But of course, you have to get off your ass and make it yourself.

A-lot of the soy I eat is high protein tofu from Trader-Joes (which I assume is good quality stuff).

(Vegetarian :p)

I also eat a-lot of beans/lentils/chick peas in combination with brown rice.

[MorphingDragon]

Exactly. We've been sold on something that was originally good, but it's become not so good.

Tomorrow, I plan on pan searing a good hangar steak ($4 from my local butcher) some good organic greens with balsamic and olive oil, along with some nice organic whole milk. :) Total cost- $6.

That's cheaper than McDonald's. But of course, you have to get off your ass and make it yourself.

Uh, whatever's in the Cupboard, and if the coupbard is empty I go fill the cupboard, then eat whatevers in the cupboard. :D

[leekohler]

A-lot of the soy I eat is high protein tofu from Trader-Joes (which I assume is good quality stuff).

(Vegetarian :p)

I also eat a-lot of beans/lentils/chick peas in combination with brown rice.

I have never been, and never will be a follower of a vegan diet. If you're a vegetarian, I would more recommend eggs and cheese as protein sources. Soy is way too processed no matter who produces it. Again, if you want protein from soy, eat it raw (edamame). I'm also big on not eating wheat- the body turns it into sugar almost immediately.

Beans/lentils/chick peas- really good stuff.

[k995]

My room mate is a German and he always tells me that food there is relatively in-expensive luxury items (tv's, ipods, computers etc.) cost a-lot but the necessities are quite in-expensive.

And of course people are on average paid much better.

Food is actually a bit more expensive in most/all west/northern european countries . In southern or eastern its cheaper but the average wage is less so the comparison is difficult.

Of course part of offsett by quality but on foods thats very hard to compare, I would say in europe in general its better quality but a bit more expensive.


And no, luxury items cost about the same.

----------

Not just the US, western society in general.

Not really eating healthy doesnt cost more in most of europe, just like it doesnt cost more in the most of the USA.

People being obese are usualy because they simply eat to much and excercise too little, but in the USA it gets pandemic proportions mainly because of the USA culture itself.



Hell in NZ, it's a case of using the local market to subsidize the international market. Our Dairy, Meat and Fruit/Veg is expensive here just so we can compete with your subsidized crap full of hormones...

...and its the stuff NOT suitable for export that we get. So enjoy that Golden Kiwifruit, because I don't even know what Good ones taste like.


Its expensive because it labor intensive and because it gets less subsidized.

[Mord]

I find it difficult to believe that'll be the case, I mean it's really not that difficult to be thin if you genuinely want to be for those with typical metabolisms and I can't believe that the majority of americans will be ok with being obese.

In my position as a european who hasn't set foot in the states for 20 odd years my perception from talking with friends who have traveled there more recently is that it's really quite tough to eat healthily, everything is filled with HFCS, and if you care about your body you either shop at whole foods or you put up with the crap. I suspect though that this is just if you're adverse to cooking food from scratch. I'd hope you could still get decent basic ingredients/staples from supermarkets?

How far off the truth is this? Can you eat healthily on a budget?



...and its the stuff NOT suitable for export that we get. So enjoy that Golden Kiwifruit, because I don't even know what Good ones taste like.

Kinda sickly sweet, they can be ok if they're properly fresh but all too often they just taste like they've not traveled well. I prefer regular kiwi fruit.

[MorphingDragon]

Kinda sickly sweet, they can be ok if they're properly fresh but all too often they just taste like they've not traveled well. I prefer regular kiwi fruit.

Well just wait for the Red ones they're trying to breed.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

In my position as a european who hasn't set foot in the states for 20 odd years my perception from talking with friends who have traveled there more recently is that it's really quite tough to eat healthily, everything is filled with HFCS, and if you care about your body you either shop at whole foods or you put up with the crap. I suspect though that this is just if you're adverse to cooking food from scratch. I'd hope you could still get decent basic ingredients/staples from supermarkets?

How far off the truth is this? Can you eat healthily on a budget?



It is not that bad really as far as grocery stores are concerned. You just have to look in the right places, and, buy the right food. The real problem is that so many people are used to fast food, either from McDonald's or microwaved at home, that meals prepared from scratch have all but disappeared in many households. And most fast food is basically starch with sugar on top. Also, inexpensive sit-down restaurant chains are mostly the same prepared food anyway. Restaurants with quality ingredients are very expensive, so, that may be what your friends are reporting. Many Americans are so used to massive sugar in their diets that they don't realize there is any other way.

Lifting

A number of you are into lifting frequently it seems, some even every day. What is a typical program? I assume that you cycle through particular sets of muscles so that it takes 3-4 days before you do the same things again?

[barkomatic]

At this point, I think most people know what they need to do to get their weight down. If they choose not to take these actions, then its on them.

[Iscariot]

Yep, shakes are probably how I get half of my calories. Unfortunately I react really badly to weigh protein, so again I'm stuck with more expensive soy and rice proteins.

I've read that getting calories/protein from powders is really a very poor substitute for eating more though :(.

If you get even 80% of what's on the label in a powder consider yourself lucky. As a vegetarian your money food is going to be milk, because it contains bio available protein, healthy fat, and it's far easier to drink your calories. A shake with full fat milk, peanut butter and egg whites will net you upwards of 800 good calories and a very decent amount of protein.

Stay away from soy milks and almond milks -- unless you're getting the unsweetened kind they're packed with sugar.

[Huntn]

Sadly, doing substantial changes to treat cultural issues would be anti-capitalistic. So nothing is going to happen...

I see that. This is a good opportunity to get into a philosophical discussion about the role of government. Do we need a big brother? It looks like the people are not smart enough or don't care enough to stay healthy. Should it just be accepted in the name of "liberty" or is it time for government education or intervention? Now, we can argue exactly what that intervention should be. :):)

I think the better question is if people really like living/eating this way or if its the marketing that is tricking them into eating processed garbage? Yes, we have nutritional labels, but most people won't read, let alone comprehend what they mean. Has there been any attempts to make a simple and intuitive system of labelling that allows people to evaluate their choices in one glance?

You have all the glitz and flashiness of marketing campaigns telling people about how you can eat **** in a box as part of a balanced diet, I think its time that the government enforces a proper labelling system. Even something as stupid as coloured dots to tell people how ****** this food is for you evaluated by an independent third party.

There are many issues going on here- people eating out, portion sizes that have skyrocketed in the last 50 years, general unawareness of calories contained in food, fast food being the most economic, kids spending much more time with electronic devices instead of staying active.

I like the idea of enforced labeling on packaging and at restaurants. When I see a menu full of choices and one slice of pizza has 600 calories while another has 1500 calories, it effects my choice. Restaurants hate it, but tough s***.

[Iscariot]

Lifting

A number of you are into lifting frequently it seems, some even every day. What is a typical program? I assume that you cycle through particular sets of muscles so that it takes 3-4 days before you do the same things again?

Thinking about lifting in terms of muscles is a mistake. Think of lifting instead in terms of evolution and movement; what movements most closely resemble the demands that the human body adapted to? I submit that the human body evolved to perform six basic movements, and around 18 basic skills.

The essential:
Squat
Dead lift
Overhead press
Lunge
Pull up
Row

The good:
Push ups
Leg press
Wood Chop variations
Sprints

The ok (IMO these are rewards for taking care of your movements):
Bench press
Distance running
Isolation exercises for aesthetics (bicep curl)

Take care of the essential movements first, because they are central to your long term health.

[ericrwalker]

People of walmart 2030?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/files/2012/05/wall-e.png

[thekev]

That's silly. Certain people need larger portion sizes due to their activity level. As a hockey player and weight lifter, I consume enough food daily to feed three people. Yet, I'm in very good shape. When I get to work in the morning, I go to our cafeteria and get a huge breakfast- yogurt and fruit, 6 slices of bacon, orange juice, whole milk, and eggs. Lunch is usually vegetables, organic local meats, and more fruit. For dinner I usually do light snacks of trail mix and that kind of thing.

It's not the eating, it's the fact that most people are lazy and don't live active lives like they should. Get off your butt and move, people!

I thought a lot of athletes and weightlifters spaced their meals out quite a bit more, although I can see how a typical job would make that difficult. That breakdown still seems a bit high in areas like cholesterol.

[Huntn]

People of walmart 2030?

Image (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/files/2012/05/wall-e.png)

When I saw Walle at the theater I imagined there were many uncomfortable people squeezed in their seats, watching this portrayal of the human race. If you take draw a line tracing human weight from 1960 to today to 200 years in the future, this movie could be the precursor. However there was hope at the end...

I wonder if Pixar caught any criticism over it?

[leekohler]

I thought a lot of athletes and weightlifters spaced their meals out quite a bit more, although I can see how a typical job would make that difficult. That breakdown still seems a bit high in areas like cholesterol.

It doesn't matter if you burn it off. I will agree most people can't eat like that.

[ericrwalker]

I am heavier than I want to be, gained about 25 pounds in just over a year after leaving the Army. I started losing weight again by jogging a few days a week, but it's going to take longer to take off than it did to put on.

I think people try to compare themselves to others and when they see other people fatter than they are, they settle with it. I've done it myself and said at least I am not as fat as Gilbert Grape's mother(not even close).

I am sure pixar received some criticism, but at the same time it was in a time where people don't even walk anymore. What percentage of American even own a segway? Won't belong before we have a sitting version of the segway, I can't wait. :D


When I saw Walle at the theater I imagined there were many uncomfortable people squeezed in their seats, watching this portrayal of the human race. If you take draw a line tracing human weight from 1960 to today to 200 years in the future, this movie could be the precursor. However there was hope at the end...

I wonder if Pixar caught any criticism over it?

[Huntn]

I am heavier than I want to be, gained about 25 pounds in just over a year after leaving the Army. I started losing weight again by jogging a few days a week, but it's going to take longer to take off than it did to put on.


The older you are the harder it gets. As 5'10" my ideal weight is probably 170-180. In my running prime I weighed 155-160. Now I weigh 220, I have a 38" waist as compared to a 30" waste when running. I am 59 years old. I'm definitely overweight, but not obese and I am fighting it. I can no longer run like I used to due to a bad back but I am walking/running every other day for 90 minutes and watching what I eat.

I believe that weight can be lost by dieting alone, however, the most effective method is by combining exercise with diet or your body might clamp down into the starvation save the weight mode...

[ericrwalker]

In my early to mid-twenties I could take off 20 pounds in a month easy if I wanted to. Now in my early thirties I find it hard to drop 5 pounds, and I jog anywhere from 10 to 20 miles a week. I do enjoy some sweets a little too much though.

The older you are the harder it gets. As 5'10" my ideal weight is probably 170-180. In my running prime I weighed 155-160. Now I weigh 220, I have a 38" waist as compared to a 30" waste when running. I am 59 years old. I'm definitely overweight, but not obese and I am fighting it. I can no longer run like I used to due to a bad back but I am walking/running every other day for 90 minutes and watching what I eat.

I believe that weight can be lost by dieting alone, however, the most effective method is by combining exercise with diet or your body might clamp down into the starvation save the weight mode...

[leekohler]

The older you are the harder it gets. As 5'10" my ideal weight is probably 170-180. In my running prime I weighed 155-160. Now I weigh 220, I have a 38" waist as compared to a 30" waste when running. I am 59 years old. I'm definitely overweight, but not obese and I am fighting it. I can no longer run like I used to due to a bad back but I am walking/running every other day for 90 minutes and watching what I eat.

I believe that weight can be lost by dieting alone, however, the most effective method is by combining exercise with diet or your body might clamp down into the starvation save the weight mode...

I would encourage you to start lifting and working your core. Working your core will help support your back. Also, right now, all you are doing is using your legs. You need to engage your whole body.

[Huntn]

I would encourage you to start lifting and working your core. Working your core will help support your back. Also, right now, all you are doing is using your legs. You need to engage your whole body.

Most of the weight I want to loose is around my waist. Running targets this area specifically. There was a time when running took care of everything and I could eat whatever I wanted to. When I hit my 40's I noticed that my weight was inching up. Then as my back started acting up (degenerative disk disease), that running was no longer enough and that hard core running could be making that worse. I went though a period of resignation as in "oh well, I'm gonna get fat". It does not help that I've worked in a job that requires long hours of sitting doing nothing physical. Many cases at the end of the day I go to collapse in my hotel room.

But I've recovered my resolve, and I believe you are right. I have an entire program of core exercises that can be accomplished at home. I need to get back to that. I'm thinking that when I don't run on alternate days I should be doing the core stuff. Thanks for the suggestion and reminder.. :)

[Iscariot]

I thought a lot of athletes and weightlifters spaced their meals out quite a bit more, although I can see how a typical job would make that difficult. That breakdown still seems a bit high in areas like cholesterol.

More and more research is showing that multiple small meals is counterproductive on a number of fronts. Unfortunately most of the conventional wisdom surrounding diet and exercise is proving to be both radically incorrect and ridiculously entrenched.

[leekohler]

Most of the weight I want to loose is around my waist. Running targets this area specifically. However, I believe you are right. I have an entire program of core exercises that can be accomplished at home. I need to get back to that. I'm thinking that when I don't run on alternate days I should be doing the core stuff. Thanks for the suggestion and reminder.. :)

Trust me on this stuff. :)

[Iscariot]

Most of the weight I want to loose is around my waist. Running targets this area specifically. However, I believe you are right. I have an entire program of core exercises that can be accomplished at home. I need to get back to that. I'm thinking that when I don't run on alternate days I should be doing the core stuff. Thanks for the suggestion and reminder.. :)

Incorrect. There is no such thing as spot reduction (with core exercises as well FWIW), and excessive cardio (>60 minutes) suppresses your metabolism, contributes to catabolism and does very real heart damage.

Running is not an exercise, it's a sport or performance activity. You should not be running to get into shape or lose weight; you should be losing weight and getting in shape to run.

Most of my older male clients (full disclosure, as a trainer I'm an older adult specialist/post rehab specialist) biggest physical limitation is mobility. Most men still maintain a healthy amount of strength into their 60s, but have lost most of the range of motion in their major joints. Resistance training with an emphasis on full range of motion is absolutely critical for any male over 40, and with the abysmal state of PE in school, I'm seeing men younger and younger and even boys who are already losing key mobility in their joints.

[Huntn]

Incorrect. There is no such thing as spot reduction (with core exercises as well FWIW), and excessive cardio (>60 minutes) suppresses your metabolism, contributes to catabolism and does very real heart damage.

Running is not an exercise, it's a sport or performance activity. You should not be running to get into shape or lose weight; you should be losing weight and getting in shape to run.

Most of my older male clients (full disclosure, as a trainer I'm an older adult specialist/post rehab specialist) biggest physical limitation is mobility. Most men still maintain a healthy amount of strength into their 60s, but have lost most of the range of motion in their major joints. Resistance training with an emphasis on full range of motion is absolutely critical for any male over 40, and with the abysmal state of PE in school, I'm seeing men younger and younger and even boys who are already losing key mobility in their joints.

Point me at some links, please. :)

[thekev]

More and more research is showing that multiple small meals is counterproductive on a number of fronts. Unfortunately most of the conventional wisdom surrounding diet and exercise is proving to be both radically incorrect and ridiculously entrenched.

If you remember any good articles on that, I'd like to read them out of interest in the topic. I was mainly referring to people who work out heavily. It's typical to eat something an hour or two before lifting, then within an hour after. If you work out really hard, it can be a drain. I used to have a piece of fruit immediately after heavy lifting (after the end of the workout), as I would get kind of shaky at times.

[leekohler]

Incorrect. There is no such thing as spot reduction (with core exercises as well FWIW), and excessive cardio (>60 minutes) suppresses your metabolism, contributes to catabolism and does very real heart damage.

Running is not an exercise, it's a sport or performance activity. You should not be running to get into shape or lose weight; you should be losing weight and getting in shape to run.

Most of my older male clients (full disclosure, as a trainer I'm an older adult specialist/post rehab specialist) biggest physical limitation is mobility. Most men still maintain a healthy amount of strength into their 60s, but have lost most of the range of motion in their major joints. Resistance training with an emphasis on full range of motion is absolutely critical for any male over 40, and with the abysmal state of PE in school, I'm seeing men younger and younger and even boys who are already losing key mobility in their joints.

Thank you. As a lifelong fitness freak myself, this advice can not be ignored. A lot of guys I play hockey with expect it to turn them into super hot guys. Not gonna happen. You have to get in shape first, then go play.

If you remember any good articles on that, I'd like to read them out of interest in the topic. I was mainly referring to people who work out heavily. It's typical to eat something an hour or two before lifting, then within an hour after. If you work out really hard, it can be a drain. I used to have a piece of fruit immediately after heavy lifting (after the end of the workout), as I would get kind of shaky at times.

Whoa! You need a lot more than a piece of fruit! Protein is the most important thing you should be consuming after lifting.

[MorphingDragon]

Thank you. As a lifelong fitness freak myself, this advice can not be ignored. A lot of guys I play hockey with expect it to turn them into super hot guys. Not gonna happen. You have to get in shape first, then go play.

I was always under the impression that Ice Hokey only increases your chance of disfigurement.

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Guess who I'm hunting first when a major food crisis hits :D.

And it'll be so easy cause obese people can barely run.

[charlituna]

That's silly. Certain people need larger portion sizes due to their activity level.

Those people are the exception, not the rule. And yet fast food places etc serve a small meal that is more than enough for pretty much everyone and then price the larger meals to be a better value to get foods to buy them. Which leads to folks eating enough in one meal as they need for the world day.

Sure folks need to exercise etc but a rethink on the 'value' of those meals is called for also

[Iscariot]

Point me at some links, please. :)

You can read this meta study by the Mayo Clinic of 68 endurance studies. (http://cardionutrition.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/too-much-exercise-can-be-a-bad-thing.pdf)

The key points:

Veteran endurance athletes have been noted to have a 5-fold increase in the prevalence of atrial fibrillation;
Intense endurance exercise efforts often cause elevation in biomarkers of myocardial injury which were correlated with transient reductions in right ventricular ejection fraction;
Intense exercise provides at least a 2:1 return on time investment and decreased mortality;
A huge Taiwanese study showed a marked diminishing return when approaching one hour of exercise; and
There's no real reliable risk assessment for endurance and the potentiality of heart damage


Another meta study comparing the benefits of strength training to aerobic training (http://spartascience.com/publishedresearch_assets/Power%20athletes%20and%20distance%20training%20physiological%20and%20biomechanical%20rationale%20for %20change.pdf) looked at power output* found a number of of detriments including:


Reduced power generation;
Decrease in type II muscle fibres;
Catabolism (loss of muscle tissue);
Increased cortisol;
Decreased testosterone; and
Dramatically less effective at bodyfat reduction


_______
*Power is the most important factor in reducing landing or falling impact, making it critical for older individuals who have decreased reaction time and bone density.

If you remember any good articles on that, I'd like to read them out of interest in the topic. I was mainly referring to people who work out heavily. It's typical to eat something an hour or two before lifting, then within an hour after. If you work out really hard, it can be a drain. I used to have a piece of fruit immediately after heavy lifting (after the end of the workout), as I would get kind of shaky at times.

I'm a huge fan of Lean Gains (http://www.leangains.com/).

[leekohler]

I was always under the impression that Ice Hokey only increases your chance of disfigurement.

It certainly does, as well as lots of other injuries. But my god, it's so much fun.

My injury list so far:

1. Broken foot
2. Mild concussion
3. Severely bruised ribs (gross- they turn green)
4. Sliced open shoulder from throwing a guy over me. On his way down, his skate cut through my jersey and my skin
5. Split open knee from a puck, also very common
6. Bloody forehead from a puck hitting my mask just right
7. Strained groin muscles (three times already, not fun and ruins your weekend ;))
8. Bruises- lots and lots of bruises, especially when skating with juniors, minor leaguers or NHL guys (have the privilege to play with all quite often at open skates or coaching sessions- Craig Anderson and Colin Greening from the Ottawa Senators will beat you to hell, as well as Blackhawks coach Kevin Delaney, who I train with as much as I can)
9. Tons of cuts- and you never even know how they happened, you find them in the locker room afterward.

BUT- I've never had so much fun in my whole life. And the friends I've made playing the game are some of the best friends I'll ever have. And it sure as hell beats sitting on the couch watching other people do things.

That said, I could not be doing this if I were not sticking to (as much as I can) a fitness and diet regimen that allows me to play at the age of 45. The human body is capable of amazing things at all ages, IF you treat it well in the first place. It's simple in writing, harder to do in reality- just depends on what you enjoy doing.

[MorphingDragon]

It certainly does, as well as lots of other injuries. But my god, it's so much fun.

...

BUT- I've never had so much fun in my whole life. And the friends I've made playing the game are some of the best friends I'll ever have. And it sure as hell beats sitting on the couch watching other people do things.

I'm taking up kicking people in the shins.

[Iscariot]

that allows me to play at the age of 45. The human body is capable of amazing things at all ages, IF you treat it well in the first place. It's simple in writing, harder to do in reality- just depends on what you enjoy doing.

If people get anything out of your posts, I hope it's this. The human body is amazing, and it's a wonderful gift to explore its potential. A sharp decline is neither an inevitability nor a natural part of the ageing process.