Look How Quickly the US Got Fat? (1985-2010)

[jollystomper]

In my opinion the best approach would be for the govt to restrict levels of sugar and fat in processed foods, restrict or eliminate food and restaurant advertising, impose a national tax on the caloric content of restaurant meals , increase physical education in the school system and launch public awareness campaigns to stigmatize overeating in the way that smoking has been. The alternative is that by mid-century as many as a third of Americans could suffer from preventable diabetes, a treatment load that would be likely to swamp the health-care system.

Of course, such a comprehensive approach to the leading public health issue of the day might offend those who believe in a individual's Right to Diabetes.

The problem with a lot of this that is doesn't address the source and you still have the government playing both sides - they are still subsidizing those who are producing the very substances that are bad, under the guise of "creating jobs". So the more this is done, the more we get more laws of unintended consequences (look at what happened to corn prices when the government decided to promote ethanol as a "cleaner" energy source).

While the above are noble goals, there is always the matter of bureaucracy. You are going after the folks at the end of the food chain, instead of where it starts, which would be more efficient. I can see some many ways things would be exploited by the above, just as other massive programs have been.

The approach that would work best would be to teach healthy food skills (like teaching folks how to cook healthy), exercise (this I agree with the above, I remember having to take and pass fitness tests in grade school as part of advancing to the next grade) and discipline. I would even accept tax credits for fitness - if you are healthy and therefore less likely to have health issues that will cost everyone, why not be rewarded for it. Of course no one has time to cook (but somehow we have lots of time for Facebook and Angry Birds). Discipline these days is a bad word, we might hurt someones feelings. And tax credits for accomplishing something just reeks of unfairness.

 

[samclem]

Maybe we'll get some help with behavioral issues that hurt our health. The ACA prohibits charging people higher insurance rates if they are sick, but allows higher rates for those who choose to smoke. If the insurance rates are higher for those who choose to eat improperly and are therefore obese (which, like smoking, clearly contributes to higher health care costs), then that might help. To the degree we all pay for each other's health care (subsidies, Medicaid, Medicare), we all have a right to expect people to behave in ways that won't waste (waist?) our money.

I think I saw somebody running with scissors yesterday, too. And a guy standing in the sun without a hat.

 

[Amethyst]

People's brain wiring differs. We all must eat, but some folks simply cannot resist eating more than they need. They pretty much can't help it, I suspect.

In a world where huge amounts of food are not readily available, these folks would have to live with constant frustration; but in our world, they can eat all they want, so they do. To ask them to eat less is to ask them to be even more miserable than the weight makes them. I have a morbidly obese close relative who is slowly dying of metabolic illnesses, and has thrown so many psychological barriers in the way of recovery that there really is no hope for her. Constantly posts to web sites promoting "fat acceptance," "curvy is beautiful, and anyone who isn't fat must be anorexic," etc. In every other way a kind, generous woman, but try to get between her and food...and beware.

Amethyst

 

[Hamlet]

I think that before I'd get behind a big intrusive government push, I'd start by just having the government stop being a part of the problem.

Our farm subsidy programs have made corn syrup so cheap that we've added it to almost everything we eat.

It's money we're spending that isn't just inefficient-- it is actually doing us harm.

The leave-it-to-the-individual approach has already been tried and has failed spectacularly. The trouble is that an advertiser can easily and consistently manipulate a viewer into behaving against his self-interest, even to the point of smoking cigarettes, for instance. The individual, on the average, has no chance against the onslaught of saturation advertising. The fact that some people manage to avoid obesity does not change the fact that obesity can and has been sold effectively to the public as a whole.

The only possible solution is for the govt to deal with it. After all, the anti-smoking campaign by the govt beginning with the Surgeon General's report in 1964 has met with success in that smoking rates have been declining ever since. Had advertising for cigarette smoking not been restricted and public education campaigns not been launched, the rate of smoking would have increased as it has in places like Korea and China. As far as I am aware there is no example of a reduction in smoking in any country that was not the result of a govt program against it. The fact is there is no other agent with the capacity and the stake in the public good to run such a campaign except the govt.

In my opinion the best approach would be for the govt to restrict levels of sugar and fat in processed foods, restrict or eliminate food and restaurant advertising, impose a national tax on the caloric content of restaurant meals , increase physical education in the school system and launch public awareness campaigns to stigmatize overeating in the way that smoking has been. The alternative is that by mid-century as many as a third of Americans could suffer from preventable diabetes, a treatment load that would be likely to swamp the health-care system.

Of course, such a comprehensive approach to the leading public health issue of the day might offend those who believe in a individual's Right to Diabetes.

 

[Aruba50]

If the insurance rates are higher for those who choose to eat improperly and are therefore obese (which, like smoking, clearly contributes to higher health care costs), then that might help. To the degree we all pay for each other's health care (subsidies, Medicaid, Medicare), we all have a right to expect people to behave in ways that won't waste (waist?) our money. .

A disproportionate number of fat people are poor. This is not because they are careless eaters. It is because they have a metabolic disorder caused by poor quality high carbohydrate diet. They eat this garbage because it is cheap. They can not afford a quality diet.

I don't think it is humane to add insult to injury by making them pay extra for the privilege of being ill. Obesity is not a choice people make.

 

[obgyn65]

Agreed, for those with disorders. However, everyone can get a salad at McDonald's with coffee instead of a Big Mac, large fries, and large chocolate shake.

By the way the new MdDonald's wraps look great. And they are about 400 calories only. You can make two meals with that, plus exercise, and I promise you will lose weight.

I don't think it is humane to add insult to injury by making them pay extra for the privilege of being ill. Obesity is not a choice people make.

 

[Aruba50]

Agreed, for those with disorders. However, everyone can get a salad at McDonald's with coffee instead of a Big Mac, large fries, and large chocolate shake.

Every single person you see that is morbidly obese has a disorder. They have all tried dieting, you can be sure. They fail because they don't know how to eat properly and their bodies are malfunctioning.

P.S. A wrap is primarily wheat. Wheat is as much a problem as sugar is. It causes metabolic disorders.

 

[sengsational]

My top reasons for the obesity epidemic:

• "Everybody" bought into the wrong idea that "dietary fat is bad"
• Refined carbohydrates are cheap and have a long shelf life (manufacturers love them)
• The metabolism of a human animal that is fed on a high carbohydrate diet will tend towards over consumption.

The west is getting increasingly fat and suffering all sorts of metabolic disorders including diabetes. This, in spite of the mantra that has been drilled into us regarding fat in our diets.

Not "in spite of" but "because of". The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) came about a couple of years after the animated chart in the OP (so the "low fat" mis-information started a few years before that).

Why? Carbohydrates. When people shunned fat in their diet they replaced it with carbs and we were told that was the right thing to do.

Absolutely agree. Protien is expensive and every calorie less of fat got replaced with a carbohydrate calorie that caused the metabolism of hunger.

The approach that would work best would be to teach healthy food skills (like teaching folks how to cook healthy), exercise....

Who would write the curriculum? Dean Ornish? We'd have another 30 years of obesity, hehe.

It is because they have a metabolic disorder caused by poor quality high carbohydrate diet. They eat this garbage because it is cheap.

So true.

 

[obgyn65]

Well I would not be so "sure". But I don't want to argue, it's Saturday, life is good

They have all tried dieting, you can be sure.

 

[HawkeyeNFO]

Obesity is not a choice people make.

Yes it is. People make and repeat bad choices all the time.

Ever been to France? Obesity and even just a fat person are very uncommon.

Here in the US, they're everywhere. It's an effect of lifestyle primarily, with numerous secondary factors.

 

[Aruba50]

Yes it is. People make and repeat bad choices all the time.

Ever been to France? Obesity and even just a fat person are very uncommon.

Here in the US, they're everywhere. It's an effect of lifestyle primarily, with numerous secondary factors.

Obesity in France is less common, yes. Why? They never bought into the insane "fat is bad" religion. They do not eat anything like the high carb diet North Americans do. They eat a lot of cheeses, whole milk and cream and meat. They have not messed up their metabolisms like we have.

 

[JoeWras]

I noticed this trend in the late 90's. All my friends were packing it on. I assumed it was because we were hitting 40, and midlife set in. That may be part of it, but there's more.

The government changed to the "pyramid" at that time. Fat was totally evil. People felt entitled to no-fat sugary cereals and similar foods.

Me too. I gained weight, even though I had done the low carb thing as a teenager in the 70s during its first fad.

3 years ago, it hit me like a hammer. Enough is Enough! Lost 30 lbs using a southbeach approach. I love my daily salad, with plenty of feta and olive oil. Hello eggs, glad to have you back! I do have some carbs, but try to keep it to beans and occasional whole wheat as a treat. And I do have a thing for greek yogurt.

I struggle, though. I am a simple carb addict. I fell down over the holidays and was away from home. I gained some which I am now working on again. I just finished a nice turkey-egg-cheese stacker for breakfast.

After my most recent "conversion" to again watch the carbs, I am astounded by TV advertising (mentioned above). They are just hitting us constantly with sugary foods. There is this one series of ads aimed at women about "sinning", showing a nice thin model eating some no-fat, high carb treat. No, no, no! She probably pukes daily and chain smokes to look like that!

 

[Letj]

I don't think it is humane to add insult to injury by making them pay extra for the privilege of being ill. Obesity is not a choice people make.

I beg to differ. While it is hard to change habits formed in childhood (yes, it's often the parents' fault), it's certainly doable. So unless you have a medical condition that propels you to eat, it's certainly a choice you make.

 

[someguy]

I beg to differ. While it is hard to change habits formed in childhood (yes, it's often the parents' fault), it's certainly doable. So unless you have a medical condition that propels you to eat, it's certainly a choice you make.

+1

The obesity in the US has come on quite suddenly in the grand scheme of time. It's unlikely that our genetics have changed that quickly, so that means the cause is ultimately behavioral.

I love certain foods like pasta and also rich, cream-based desserts and delicacies. I have the means and the ability to eat enormous amounts of these. I *want* to eat lots of these, but I choose to eat them in moderation because I want to be thin and healthy MORE.

Likewise, I could afford to live in a much nicer home or drive a much more expensive car. I want both of these things, but I choose my more modest house and older-but-fine-car because I want FI/RE MORE.

The key word above being "choice". I realize individuals' means vary and a small portion of the US population truly doesn't have a choice. But there is a bigger and significant portion of the population in both scenarios who have enough means to have a real choice, but make the "wrong" choice and then bitch the result.

 

[braumeister]

Just a random observation:

I've lost count of the number of people who have commented that "you put on about a pound a year after you reach adulthood."

That does seem to be generally true (on average, for most Americans), so it has become a generally accepted rule of thumb.

Since it is so generally accepted, many of us consider it "normal" and don't get concerned when we see it happening to us.

I'm personally convinced that this psychological factor plays a significant role in the current overweight/obesity "epidemic."

 

[JoeWras]

Just a random observation:

I've lost count of the number of people who have commented that "you put on about a pound a year after you reach adulthood."

That does seem to be generally true (on average, for most Americans), so it has become a generally accepted rule of thumb.

Since it is so generally accepted, many of us consider it "normal" and don't get concerned when we see it happening to us.

I'm personally convinced that this psychological factor plays a significant role in the current overweight/obesity "epidemic."

I agree. It got to me. Like I said, I noticed my friends going up and was more or less accepting it as my fate too. We were all in the same "club". And after all, every time I tried, it was 'impossible' to lose.

Wrong. Very possible. But it takes a real mind shift and discipline. It is not normal. I see only a handful of overweight people in my dad's senior living center. That says something.

 

[sengsational]

Well I would not be so "sure". But I don't want to argue, it's Saturday, life is good

They have all tried dieting, you can be sure.

This got me curious. I read that idea in Taubes' books and, not that this article is definitive, but it suggests that there are some fat people out there that, when surveyed by a big pharma company, SAID they never dieted. How they ask the question would make a big difference in how they answered, though. I think the common impression that most every fat person just consumes a lot of calories without thinking is probably not a fair representation of the facts.

according to the drug and healthcare company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), which says 61% of South Africans are overweight, obese or morbidly obese.Despite the country's sporty reputation and the prevalence of gyms in cities such as Johannesburg, the research found that ... 71% have never dieted.

South Africans among world's fattest people, survey finds | World news | The Guardian

So if my math and logic hold, that's saying that of the people who might need to consider a diet, about half of them said they never tried to diet. It would be interesting to get these figures with only the obese people, since I assume many of the half haven't tried dieting are the "overweight", not "obese". But this survey should be taken with a large grain of salt since we do not know the context of the survey. For instance maybe the survey taker thought they would get consideration from the company for answering the survey one way or the other (call me cynical, but usually big companies have a trick up their sleeve for spending money on surveys).

 

[Aruba50]

There may be significant cultural reasons why so many in South Africa are obese and never diet. While this sounds racist many African cultures prefer women with very large behinds. There are also cultures that admire obesity because many years ago it was the mark of wealth.

These studies have to be considered in the context of the culture. You cannot necessarily apply them to all cultures. Here in North America the last thing people want is an enormous behind. For one thing, judgmental people will assume you are a glutton that doesn't care about how you look.

 

[Amethyst]

I have a theory that some smaller men and women pack on pounds so they can occupy more space in the world, and therefore avoid being run over in crowds, shoved off benches, etc. You may laugh, but my petite, 100-pound mother was routinely shoved, bumped into and almost knocked down by others. I used to act as her "bodyguard" (almost literally) when my dad wasn't with her. Mom was not frail, she was just small. I suspect if my mother had been fatter, she would not have been treated like a spot on the floor to be walked over.

Amethyst

 

[Letj]

+1

The obesity in the US has come on quite suddenly in the grand scheme of time. It's unlikely that our genetics have changed that quickly, so that means the cause is ultimately behavioral.

I love certain foods like pasta and also rich, cream-based desserts and delicacies. I have the means and the ability to eat enormous amounts of these. I *want* to eat lots of these, but I choose to eat them in moderation because I want to be thin and healthy MORE.

Likewise, I could afford to live in a much nicer home or drive a much more expensive car. I want both of these things, but I choose my more modest house and older-but-fine-car because I want FI/RE MORE.

The key word above being "choice". I realize individuals' means vary and a small portion of the US population truly doesn't have a choice. But there is a bigger and significant portion of the population in both scenarios who have enough means to have a real choice, but make the "wrong" choice and then bitch the result.

Agreed. Isn't it curious that the wealthier and more educated in the US are 'magically' thinner and healthier. It does imply that they make better choices. Maybe the poor need educating on how to eat in moderation and excercise regularly. I don't think a high fat diet is the problem. The problem is the quantity of food they eat. Many places around the world have high fat diet but they're not overweight because they are active and don't have as much food to eat. I have first hand knowledge of this because I see weight problems among my low -income tenants. They eat large quantities of food and spend a lot of time sleeping and watching TV, a perfect recipe for health issues. Some of them don't even cook or do chores but they surely buy and eat a lot of processed/pre-cooked and fast food.

 

[Aruba50]

+1

But there is a bigger and significant portion of the population in both scenarios who have enough means to have a real choice, but make the "wrong" choice and then bitch the result.

You need to understand that most people don't know enough to make the right choices even if they have the means. Even in these few comments on this subject I see people referring to how dietary fat is bad and wraps are good. This is simply not supported by the science. It does explain the fact that people today have a very hard time maintaining a healthy weight. They are getting bad advice even from their doctors.

Carbohydrates are addictive and harmful. Wraps are great if you discard the refined flour based wrap itself.

 

[HFWR]

In my decidely pseudo-scientific opinion, modern lifestyles have much to do with the "epidemic":

1. Sedentary lifestyles involving sitting - in meetings, at a computer, in a car or mass transit, in front of the TV, etc. A corollary to this is the I believe mistaken impression that you can counteract all this with some time on a treadmill or elliptical...
2. Too many calories for our activity level. A corollary to this is the wrong-headed "food pyramid", promoting high intake of carbs, especially grains, and demonizing "fat". I'm always amazed at the ads on TV and elsewhere that tells us a sugary cereal is "low in fat", and therefore presumably healthy.
3. Speaking of wrong-headed, the ads for junky POS exercise equipment, which show some buff, 20-something actor/actress, with zero body fat and muscles galore, implying that 30 minutes a day on the "pie master" (apologies to Suzanne Somers) will result in you looking like that "model". A corollary to this is the "fat burning" substances, aka "speed", that will magically melt away the fat, with no effort!
4. Too many empty calories in the form of soda, alcohol, donuts, etc.
5. All this confusion about what to eat has turned us into a nation of neurotic dieters. Eat real food, not too much...

 

[Aruba50]

Agreed. Isn't it curious that the wealthier and more educated in the US are 'magically' thinner and healthier.

This is only partly true but it must also be acknowledged that it may well be a chicken and egg thing. People with highly functioning metabolisms are generally more active and have more energy that the average Joe. This enables them to be achievers and achievers get wealthy.

You probably go out and have a nice steak in a restaurant while your tenants are chowing down on french fries or pasta. Something they can afford to feed their larger families.

 

[obgyn65]

I did not simply say "wraps are good". Read my post again.

Even in these few comments on this subject I see people referring to how dietary fat is bad and wraps are good. This is simply not supported by the science. It does explain the fact that people today have a very hard time maintaining a healthy weight. They are getting bad advice even from their doctors.

Carbohydrates are addictive and harmful. Wraps are great if you discard the refined flour based wrap itself.

 

[someguy]

You need to understand that most people don't know enough to make the right choices even if they have the means. Even in these few comments on this subject I see people referring to how dietary fat is bad and wraps are good. This is simply not supported by the science. It does explain the fact that people today have a very hard time maintaining a healthy weight. They are getting bad advice even from their doctors.

Carbohydrates are addictive and harmful. Wraps are great if you discard the refined flour based wrap itself.

I realize there are nuances to different foods and that nutrition is constantly evolving. However, the ultimate equation is that if you consume more calories than you use, you put on weight. If you consume fewer calories, you lose weight. If you match evenly, you stay steady.

Just like if you spend more than you make, you go into the red and will eventually have a disaster. If you spend less than you make, you are "getting ahead".

I'm sorry, but it doesn't take any special education to make the correlation between eating and putting on weight, just like it doesn't take anything more than common sense to realize that if you spend more than you make, you're getting into trouble.

Now, there may be easier and harder ways to accomplish the above, in terms of both food and money. And, one has to listen to oneself and adjust. For me, a no-carb diet just doesn't work. I'm too hungry all the time. So I ignore some of the current "wisdom" and do what makes my body happy and consume a moderate amount of carbs. And even so, I maintain a BMI in the high 17's or low 18's. Likewise, if I (we) don't spend money on travel, we go nuts. The amount we spend on travel would probably stagger some of the really thrifty types on here, but it works for us and we still live well below our means.

My point being that the basic tenants of obesity or financial ruin are obvious. Some of the specifics of how to apply those basic tenants are individual.