The Obesity Era?

[Winemaker]

In high school, I was a skinny kid trying to gain weight. For 3 years, I routinely ate 9 glazed donuts daily, and drank a quart of half and half during the summers while w*rking at a hardware store. The manager and 2 cashiers ate the other 3, had the bakery next door was pleased. When I w*rking the evening shift, I stuck a deal with the Baskin Robbins owner to buy and eat a half gallon of French Vanilla ice cream very cheap..


I never gained a pound, at 6'5" and 185 lbs, but at 61, I'm 230 lbs.

 

[Amethyst]

One thing I do know: advertisers are paying attention. Just brought in an armload of clothing catalogues. Every single one has overweight models on the cover. Including the underwear catalogues.

 

[someguy]

Vanity sizing of clothing also doesn't help. A conversation about how brand A's size 6 was comparable to brand B's size 4 and how guys have it so good with absolute (eg, 32" waist pants) led to some research that surprised me. Women's sizes were originally absolute as well but that has diverged tremendously in the direction you'd expect. A size 10 was a 23" waist; now that can be a size 00, or even smaller. I've noticed this is creeping into men's supposedly-absolute sizing as well!

 

[Chuckanut]

Women's sizes were originally absolute as well but that has diverged tremendously in the direction you'd expect. A size 10 was a 23" waist; now that can be a size 00, or even smaller. I've noticed this is creeping into men's supposedly-absolute sizing as well!

Yup. We have the young man's cut, the regular cut, and the comfort cut.

The sad thing is I see a lot of young men in their 30's who already need the comfort cut.

 

[H2ODude]

I've always believed in the CICO until last few years. Couple of times I went for 6-8 weeks RIGOROUSLY using the fitness site by UnderArmour, to the point of weighing portions. I exercise a lot (~1-1/2 hours 3-5 times a week) and when you plugged all that in the calcs predicted I'd lose 2 lbs a week or more. Nothing even close. And, while we enjoy rice, potatoes, and pasta occasionally I wouldn't call us carb heavy. So while I believe CICO is a pretty good indicator it's not precise. FWIW we both stay well under BMI overweight. DW probably only 5# over high school weight, but she's at the gym 5 days a week. It's more of a battle for me, but one thing I stand by. I used to be able to manage weight by exercise alone; eat what I want and if add pounds just exercise more. Now, at 68 even burning 700-800 active calories according to my watch I can barely allow myself an occasional cookie or ice cream.

Oh, and as for the dogs, have always had Bassetts. Fairly laid back and tend towards inactivity so have to restrict food. All previous have loved a good walk but current one wants to turn around after two houses unless I take her to the woods! I try but she's just a true couch potato. I'm old enough to remember as a kid the first hound dog we had (who'd be allowed to run off in the woods for days at a time) ate nothing but Hill's frozen horsemen! Kibble? What was THAT?

 

[pj.mask]

CICO: you can measure ingredients or packaged food with precision. Remember that guy who ate nothing but twinkies to prove it?

So what assumptions did you make on your calories burned by exercise and your resting metabolic rate?

It doesn’t make much error to be plus or minus a few pounds.

As I said earlier, same activity level and I eat half as much food to maintain the same weight. My physicals showed fat % was going up so I made a change. My base metabolic rate was going down with age, more drastically than any index table on the Internet would suggest.

CICO absolutely works if you know all the details. You may store and process sugar and fructose differently but if you burn the same calories you will end up in the same place. The difference would be how full/hungry did you feel during the process and did you cave in and have a snack? If you eat quality foods high in natural fiber you are less likely to have this issue.

 

[mpeirce]

CICO absolutely works if you know all the details.

ALL the details. There is much most people don't even consider.

Recall that in certain parts of the world, people burn dung for it's energy content...

Just one example.

 

[Amethyst]

I knew hunting dogs had no mercy, but gee! (How did you get them to ride into the freezer?)

I'm old enough to remember as a kid the first hound dog we had (who'd be allowed to run off in the woods for days at a time) ate nothing but Hill's frozen horsemen!

 

[NW-Bound]

I have been blaming the high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) used in commercially prepared food for people's obesity.

But I just searched on the Web, and there are scientific studies showing that it may not be the case. It is not that replacing sucrose with fructose causes the problem, but the fact that more sweet is consumed now compared to the old days.

Cane and beet sugars have been used as the major sweetener in food manufacturing for centuries. However, with the development of HFCS, a significant shift occurred in the type of sweetener consumption in certain countries, particularly the United States. Contrary to the popular belief, however, with the increase of HFCS consumption, the total fructose intake relative to the total glucose intake has not dramatically changed. Granulated sugar is 99.9%-pure sucrose, which means that it has equal ratio of fructose to glucose. The most commonly used forms of HFCS, HFCS-42, and HFCS-55, have a roughly equal ratio of fructose to glucose, with minor differences. HFCS has simply replaced sucrose as a sweetener. Therefore, despite the changes in the sweetener consumption, the ratio of glucose to fructose intake has remained relatively constant.

Another study reaffirms CICO.

In a meta-analysis of clinical trials with controlled feeding — where test subjects were fed a fixed amount of energy rather than being allowed to choose the amount they ate — fructose was not an independent factor for weight gain; however, fructose consumption was associated with weight gain when the fructose provided excess calories.

And surprisingly, fructose has a lower glycemic index than glucose and sucrose.

An expert panel of the European Food Safety Authority concluded that fructose is preferred in food and beverage manufacturing to replace sucrose and glucose due to the lower effect of fructose on blood glucose levels following a meal. However, as a common sweetening agent for foods and beverages, fructose has been associated with increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disorders that are part of metabolic syndrome. Clinical research has provided no or only limited direct evidence that fructose itself is associated with elevated LDL cholesterol and triglycerides leading to metabolic syndrome, but rather indicates that excessive consumption of sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, and the concurrent increase in calorie intake, underlies metabolic syndrome. Similarly, increased consumption of sweetened foods and beverages raises risk of cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, but there is no direct cause and effect relationship in humans showing that fructose is the causative factor.

 

[someguy]

Unless the laws of physics have been suspended, CICO has to work if you are getting the inputs right. Two things I've found that are significant (and fixable) in that regard and a half thing that isn't easily fixable:

1) Many packaged foods' weight and therefore calorie count are higher than listed on the package. For example, a bar I eat regularly has a listed serving size of 35g and one serving per package. I weighed them for a couple weeks (15+ samples) and every single one was over 35g. I believe the average was 41g or 17% more.

1b) The same general issue applies to made-on-the-fly foods for places that publish nutrition info. A Blaze pizza might show 750 calories online, but if the guy making it puts on a bunch of extra cheese that could easily go up by 100 calories. Most places want to show the lowest calories possible and want to minimize ingredients used, so any variance is likely to be up.

2) At least some of the calorie tracking apps set your baseline too high. For example, for my age, sex, height and weight, LoseIt sets my baseline 200-250 cal/day too high. This is based on both more detailed formulas and tables and on my long-standing experience. I have body fat in the 6-8% range and am very active -- both factors which would tend to push up my actual baseline. If I were more average in BF and activity, I imagine it would be 300+ cal/day too high.

I've always believed in the CICO until last few years. Couple of times I went for 6-8 weeks RIGOROUSLY using the fitness site by UnderArmour, to the point of weighing portions. I exercise a lot (~1-1/2 hours 3-5 times a week) and when you plugged all that in the calcs predicted I'd lose 2 lbs a week or more. Nothing even close. And, while we enjoy rice, potatoes, and pasta occasionally I wouldn't call us carb heavy. So while I believe CICO is a pretty good indicator it's not precise. FWIW we both stay well under BMI overweight. DW probably only 5# over high school weight, but she's at the gym 5 days a week. It's more of a battle for me, but one thing I stand by. I used to be able to manage weight by exercise alone; eat what I want and if add pounds just exercise more. Now, at 68 even burning 700-800 active calories according to my watch I can barely allow myself an occasional cookie or ice cream.
?

 

[RetiredGypsy]

1) Many packaged foods' weight and therefore calorie count are higher than listed on the package. For example, a bar I eat regularly has a listed serving size of 35g and one serving per package. I weighed them for a couple weeks (15+ samples) and every single one was over 35g. I believe the average was 41g or 17% more.

1b) The same general issue applies to made-on-the-fly foods for places that publish nutrition info. A Blaze pizza might show 750 calories online, but if the guy making it puts on a bunch of extra cheese that could easily go up by 100 calories. Most places want to show the lowest calories possible and want to minimize ingredients used, so any variance is likely to be up.

Compound that with the nutritional info only having to be within xx% right, servings listed below X calories can be listed as 0 calories, and other loopholes, it makes a very accurate count difficult.

 

[MRG]

Compound that with the nutritional info only having to be within xx% right, servings listed below X calories can be listed as 0 calories, and other loopholes, it makes a very accurate count difficult.

DW and I dropped a combined 110 pounds with myfitnesspal. We found it to be accurate when we invested the time and effort to get the best results. We were cooking our own food from scratch and weighing everything we ate. For consistency we also used the USDA entries for anything we could. The data is key, I still remember a 600 calorie garlic clove in the DB.

As with any estimator the more consistent the inputs are the closer you can get to reality.

 

[Bir48die]

Yup. We have the young man's cut, the regular cut, and the comfort cut.

The sad thing is I see a lot of young men in their 30's who already need the comfort cut.

Yeah, well let's not forget expandable waist bands. Can go 2" bigger without having to change sizes. Clothing manufacturers have figured out that people don't want to be "body shamed". Well, your waist goes out two more inches and then boom you're 25 pounds heavier. Back to the earlier discussion about belt loops discouraging over indulgence.

I've been fortunate in having hard built in exercise routines that helped me at least maintain my weight. I do feel compassion for those who have "bulked up" a bit because it is so hard to get weight off. That being said, I made sure my kids knew what was healthy and what was not. So, one is in amazing shape and one is 75 lbs bigger than his mid 20's.

Again it's a hard thing to commit to cooking healthy meals. Both time consuming and they don't have the flavor bombs of quick food.

 

[SunBlueSky]

One of my relatives (aged 86) is slightly obese. The new doctor did not scold about the weight this time. Said that the extra cushion would help protect the bones in case of a fall.

 

[someguy]

I don't know if this has been discussed here before, but I see a lot of similarities between weight and finances. Most people know what they need to do to stay a healthy weight or have healthy finances, but not all do it. That said, one's early mentors or models can make it easier or harder to be successful in both. Both can be hard to get started and stick with but, for those who do, both often become easy habits. Both have lots of "experts" selling shortcuts to success and flavors of the day. Both have lots of complex theories but ultimately boil down to inflow vs outflow.

 

[braumeister]

One of my relatives (aged 86) is slightly obese. The new doctor did not scold about the weight this time. Said that the extra cushion would help protect the bones in case of a fall.

There is quite a bit of good data showing a strong correlation between overweight (not sure about obese) and lower risk of heart attacks in older (over 65) folks.

 

[mpeirce]

One of my relatives (aged 86) is slightly obese. The new doctor did not scold about the weight this time. Said that the extra cushion would help protect the bones in case of a fall.

At a certain age, extra weight (not obesity) is protective. You live longer being slightly over weight rather than too skinny. I forget the crossover age.

Not directly related to "health" but I get really annoyed at certain of my relatives giving really older relatives a hard time. My rule of thumb is that once you're in your 80's or above, you should be allowed to eat whatever without getting yelled at. Come on, how many of life's pleasures are left when you are 90? Let them eat all that ice cream!

That's certainly my plan.

 

[Amethyst]

See "Eat Below Your Means," or EBYM.

I don't know if this has been discussed here before, but I see a lot of similarities between weight and finances. Most people know what they need to do to stay a healthy weight or have healthy finances, but not all do it. That said, one's early mentors or models can make it easier or harder to be successful in both. Both can be hard to get started and stick with but, for those who do, both often become easy habits. Both have lots of "experts" selling shortcuts to success and flavors of the day. Both have lots of complex theories but ultimately boil down to inflow vs outflow.

 

[someguy]

See "Eat Below Your Means," or EBYM.

I always wondered what leanFIRE and fatFIRE meant!

 

[Dtail]

There is quite a bit of good data showing a strong correlation between overweight (not sure about obese) and lower risk of heart attacks in older (over 65) folks.

Perhaps.
However, I don't recall really ever seeing an obese person who appears to be 80+ y.o.

 

[Walt34]

My rule of thumb is that once you're in your 80's or above, you should be allowed to eat whatever without getting yelled at. Come on, how many of life's pleasures are left when you are 90? Let them eat all that ice cream!

That's certainly my plan.

Very well put, and that's my plan as well. For younger people chocolate mint ice cream should probably be Schedule 1 but once past 80 I have every intention of consuming all that I can get my hands on.

 

[Music Lover]

Perhaps.
However, I don't recall really ever seeing an obese person who appears to be 80+ y.o.

Technically obese is 20% over ideal bodyweight. So if you should weigh 180 and you weigh 216 that's considered obese. I would think that applies to at least half of the population and a good percentage of 80+ people.

That being said, I had to look it up and had no idea that obese was only 20% over ideal...I would have thought it was much higher than that, perhaps 40% or 50%.

 

[harley]

On our recent 15 day cruise, the table next to us was a fellow who probably weighed 600 lbs. He ate appetizers and 3 main plates every night.

He always skipped desert, as he probably was watching his weight

Or he could be like me. I would always prefer additional main course (including vegetables) over a dessert. Not being a sweets eater didn't stop me from becoming obese even though I was skinny as a rail as a teen (6'1", 140 lbs). I didn't change my eating, but my metabolism and activity level changed and I gained over 120 lbs over the years. And cutting calories significantly didn't help me permanently lose weight, because I couldn't maintain it over time. Only cutting carbs (bread/pasta/grains, I still don't particularly like sweets) combined with intermittent fasting has resulted in significant weight loss that I've been able to maintain so far. And the IF is more for diabetes control (pretty much reversal) than weight loss. I still eat plenty of calories, but not the ones my body doesn't tolerate well.

Those who just prate CICO remind me of Nancy Reagan's solution to drug addiction. It's easy as long as you don't have the problem.

 

[Freedom56]

After watching a documentary today on the obesity problem in Texas, in particular Houston, I'm now convinced that obesity is part of human evolution. In a few generations the bones in the lower body will become more stubby to support the extra mass. Heal and ankle bones will become larger. This and many other articles are discussing this theory:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...-crisis-or-just-the-latest-stage-of-evolution

 

[MRG]

Or he could be like me. I would always prefer additional main course (including vegetables) over a dessert. Not being a sweets eater didn't stop me from becoming obese even though I was skinny as a rail as a teen (6'1", 140 lbs). I didn't change my eating, but my metabolism and activity level changed and I gained over 120 lbs over the years. And cutting calories significantly didn't help me permanently lose weight, because I couldn't maintain it over time. Only cutting carbs (bread/pasta/grains, I still don't particularly like sweets) combined with intermittent fasting has resulted in significant weight loss that I've been able to maintain so far. And the IF is more for diabetes control (pretty much reversal) than weight loss. I still eat plenty of calories, but not the ones my body doesn't tolerate well.

Those who just prate CICO remind me of Nancy Reagan's solution to drug addiction. It's easy as long as you don't have the problem.

My apologies. It's easy to want to lump everyone together but it's not right. It's a "Some not all" can do CICO. Perhaps the correct way for everyone to eat is how you do? Can CICO people lose/maintain healthy weight on lower carb? Maybe they were looking at this incorrectly for years?[emoji41]