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

[someguy]

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.

Are you suggesting that this metabolic divide has only recently emerged?

 

[sengsational]

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.

No arguement from me on those points. It's just that the South African study was the one that popped up when I googled, hehe. I would have preferred a north american example.

But the reason I came back to this thread was, as I was closing old browser windows, I came across this bit of the article:

Meanwhile, 74% of South Africans think their fellow citizens are overweight and only 34% consider themselves as overweight or obese.

So in the earlier post I figured that about half the people that "should" diet, never dieted (32% of the total population). Those that "should" diet and have tried dieting is 29% of the population. If the 32% that have never tried dieting are in the 34% (a good bet), that would mean that it's a perception or definition issue. Glaxo is using the medical definition of "overweight" based on BMI or something, and the general public doesn't think a little roll in the middle is "overweight".

The bottom line for me is that I would be highly surprised to find an obese person (not just an overweight person, but someone who's crossed the obese line), in the US or other developed country, as never having tried to change their diet to lose weight.

 

[Aruba50]

Some Guy,

Everyone is different but most people that try the low-cab diet report the opposite. They are not hungry and lose weight. The diet does not require you to count calories at all. Just steer clear of carbohydrates and you will lose weight. Almost guaranteed.

 

[someguy]

One other thing I thought of. I have repeatedly read that women's clothing sizes have been distorted over the past few decades. Today's size 10 is technically a size 14. But marketers discovered that clothing lines that are "generous" in their nominal sizes sell more than those that are strict.

Although men's sizes are supposedly in inches, I have found that the actual waist size varies considerably between and even within brands.

 

[someguy]

Some Guy,

Everyone is different but most people that try the low-cab diet report the opposite. They are not hungry and lose weight. The diet does not require you to count calories at all. Just steer clear of carbohydrates and you will lose weight. Almost guaranteed.

Most people aren't as active as I am.

If you take the average person's regular food diet and cut out everything containing carbs, you will have cut a significant chunk of calories out. So of course they will lose weight. To me, it is like people who have to set an alarm setting their clock ahead 20 minutes, so they feel like they are getting up later and/or getting more sleep. I guess if it works for you, then who cares?

 

[sengsational]

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.

But if you ignore the metabolic bully (and the associated appetite effects), the "consume fewer calories" becomes close to impossible for some people. Appetite is a knife edge that most people don't appreciate. If you had two M&M's in addition to each meal (presuming those two candies did not change your appetite), you'd go from lean at 20 to obese at 35.

 

[Aruba50]

Are you suggesting that this metabolic divide has only recently emerged?

No. It has always been true. Energetic people are almost never obese. They are often high achievers though and with that comes wealth.

What has changed is that the average "Joe" has easier and cheaper access to carbohydrate laden foods and their governments and even their doctors are telling them to eat it.

I am not poor and so I have spent the time and energy required to investigate this whole diet issue and I now know what has gone wrong. I have never been obese but I was overweight. Since I can afford what is an expensive low-carb diet and I know it is healthier than what I had been eating I discarded carbs a few years ago. I am now at a healthy weight, my blood work is vastly better than it ever was and my hypertension is gone.

 

[Aruba50]

Most people aren't as active as I am.

If you take the average person's regular food diet and cut out everything containing carbs, you will have cut a significant chunk of calories out. So of course they will lose weight. To me, it is like people who have to set an alarm setting their clock ahead 20 minutes, so they feel like they are getting up later and/or getting more sleep. I guess if it works for you, then who cares?

That is not how it works at all. You eat all the protein and fat that you want. in other words, you replace the carbs with protein and fat turning back the clock to the first half of this century before the government and bad researchers decided that we should replace fat with carbs.

People that embrace this diet do not count calories. They eat when they are hungry. They just don't eat carbs. They do lose weight. It is almost certain.

 

[someguy]

But if you ignore the metabolic bully (and the associated appetite effects), the "consume fewer calories" becomes close to impossible for some people. Appetite is a knife edge that most people don't appreciate. If you had two M&M's in addition to each meal (presuming those two candies did not change your appetite), you'd go from lean at 20 to obese at 35.

One area that I cede may not be initially obvious is that if you eat until you feel full, you've almost surely overeaten.

I'm not sure I follow or buy your M&M example. If you use a 5'11" man, a BMI of 20 is 144lbs. To get to a BMI of 35, that same man would have to put on 106 lbs (or nearly 75% weight increase) and weigh 250lbs. Assuming 3 meals a day and that this took place over ten years, that's 30 extra calories a meal for every single meal of every single day. I don't eat candy but I doubt 2 M&Ms contain 30 calories.

But, using your M&M example, if you are at BMI 20 and add M&Ms, when you get up to around 22 or so, wouldn't you think "Hey, maybe those M&Ms are making me put on weight?" Either cut out the M&Ms, or cut back a little on something else?

 

[cantlogin]

I think 20 and 35 were meant to relate to ages and the intervening 15 years, not BMI.
Just trying to help. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Chuckanut]

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.

The choice between a salad and coffee versus a Big Mac, fries and chocolate shake is not one I would like to have to make.

I would like to add a third choice - A big plate of steamed vegetables with about one TBS of butter (or perhaps a squeeze of lemon and a TBL of olive oil) to add flavor, a quarter pound of meat or fish prepared with some good seasonings, and a small bowl of yogurt with some berries on top. Coffee, milk or water for a beverage, no sugary drinks.

IMHO, my third option will provide good nutrition and satiate our hunger for many hours. That is the key. The BigMac, fries and shake meal is far to many calories that will not provide good nutrition, and will leave one hungry again in only few hours as blood sugar bounces up and down. The salad and coffee meal will leave one hungry again in an hour a so and thus open to snacking on any available junk food.

 

[sengsational]

I'm not sure I follow or buy your M&M example. If you use a 5'11" man, a BMI of 20 is 144lbs. To get to a BMI of 35, that same man would have to put on 106 lbs

The way I read the BMI chart, a 5'11 man could go from the normal zone to the obese zone in 50 lbs.

when you get up to around 22 or so, wouldn't you think "Hey, maybe those M&Ms are making me put on weight?" Either cut out the M&Ms, or cut back a little on something else?

That's why I said "presuming those two candies did not change your appetite". The point of the post was that exclusive focus on the "calories in / calories out", and ignoring the influence of metabolic influences that a high carbohydrate diet as on appetite, is missing a big part of the equation.

50lb human fat equates to about 175,000 calories. Spread those calories over 15 years (I said age 20 to 35), you get 11,667 calories per year. At 3 meals a day, that's 10.6 calories per meal. So if an M&M was 5 calories, I'd be in the ballpark. Again, the point is that appetite is EVERYTHING! If you ignore the metabolic bully, you're leaving a lot on the table.

 

[Chuckanut]

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.

+1

 

[obgyn65]

Indeed. And this is where effort, dedication and commitment to one's diet come in. No one said losing weight would be effortless .

The salad and coffee meal will leave one hungry again in an hour a so and thus open to snacking on any available junk food.

 

[Chuckanut]

Some Guy,

Everyone is different but most people that try the low-cab diet report the opposite. They are not hungry and lose weight. The diet does not require you to count calories at all. Just steer clear of carbohydrates and you will lose weight. Almost guaranteed.

I think you missed his point. I understood him to say he finds a no-carb or very low carb diet to difficult to maintain. I have the same problem. Whether it is ultra low carb or ultra low fat, I can't do it. My body rebels. I get hungry soon after eating, I don't feel good. Adding a bit more carbs or fat of the healthy variety keeps my body working well and allows me to avoid snacking on junk food, over eating between meals, etc.

N=1. Do what works right for you.

 

[JoeWras]

I would like to add a third choice - A big plate of steamed vegetables with about one TBS of butter to add flavor, a quarter pound of meat or fish prepared with some good seasonings, and a small bowl of yogurt with some berries on top. Coffee, milk or water for a beverage, no sugary drinks.

We have a winner! I agree so much with this. And Chuckanut, to your name's sake, I'd add in a few nuts for a snack later on.

THIS is what has gotten me by. I get my carbs. I don't do no carb. I don't go around eating pork skins. That works, but I'd hate it. I get my carbs from veggies, yogurt, nuts, whole fruit that kind of thing. And I add in meats, eggs and cheeses for the protein.

There is no friggin' decent fast food place to get that big plate of steamed vegetables with or without meat. Fortunately, I have a nice Chinese take out place near work that gets me by. And they let me substitute sauteed cabbage in place of rice.

 

[Chuckanut]

Indeed. And this is where effort, dedication and commitment to one's diet come in. No one said losing weight would be effortless .

Effortless? - I did not meant to say my third choice was effortless, only that it worked better for me than the other two presented.

But, speaking of effort....

It takes effort to eat good wholesome food rather than junk food and other prefabricated stuff. But I put my effort, dedication and commitment into proper eating so I don't have to put effort into surviving while suffering from a diet that does not work well for me. Hey, if somebody can function well at work and at home on a lunch of coffee and a salad, go for it! And I certainly won't argue against exercise, I do it almost every day.


Alas, diet and food are almost a religious issue with many people (no referring to anybody in particular here) . Ultra low-carb people don't accept that some of us don't need to cut back carbs that much. Vegetarians don't understand that some of us do fine eating meat. The low-fat crowd doesn't understand that many people respond poorly to not having sufficient fat in the diet. Paleo people don't understand just about everybody else.

This isn't religion. It's about N=1, doing what works for you.

 

[Letj]

[QUOTE="Aruba50;1308779"

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.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I don't go to a lot of restaurants. I prefer to do it the way my mom did - farm to table and everything prepared from scratch. I eat everything, just not a lot, and from all the food groups. It is a way of life for me passed on from my immigrant family. I never have to diet or watch what I eat because I am active and consume food in proportions appropriate for my frame and age. Diet is the biggest money making gimmick in this country.

 

[haha]

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

I am absolutely sure you are correct. Look at the approving word substantial, it is taken to signify wealth, power, importance in the world, having weightiness of opinions and attitudes.

At base, it means having or being of substance. Basically, a 160# women has more substance than a 100# pound one, and people might be less likely to shove her around, figuratively or physically.

Ha

 

[Aruba50]

We have a winner! I agree so much with this. And Chuckanut, to your name's sake, I'd add in a few nuts for a snack later on.

THIS is what has gotten me by. I get my carbs. I don't do no carb. I don't go around eating pork skins. That works, but I'd hate it. I get my carbs from veggies, yogurt, nuts, whole fruit that kind of thing. And I add in meats, eggs and cheeses for the protein..

This is exactly what a low carb diet looks like. It is what works for me. I am not into no-carb where the side dish is pork rinds. I eat lots of salads and vegetables but very little fruit. Fruit is not so good because of the fructose most of them contain.

Basically, if you can keep below 30g of carbs, you will do just fine.

 

[eridanus]

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.

Finally. Calories are units of energy. Maybe it'd be better if we referred to food energy as "joules" so we can avoid the dietary baggage of the (kilo)calorie.

There's no doubt some metabolic vitamin absorption issue involved but the hard reality is that calories in < calories out = loss of weight.

I eat a high carb diet myself. I maintain weight because I consume the same calories that I expend. There's no bacon-fat-egg-protein magic about it.

 

[jollystomper]

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

I have no idea who Dean Ornish is. I do know that, growing up in a lower middle class, barely above the poverty line immigrant family, my sibling and I were all talk how to cook and to cook healthy. This was done by my parents, who did not have great "book" knowledge but had a lot of common sense knowledge. I do feel that the lack of basic cooking skills contributes to obesity. At least you have some control over exactly what goes into the food.

 

[Khufu]

+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.

Doesn't mean that at all. It means the cause is environmental. In this case it's the increased in processed foods with added sugar, fat and salt along with advertising changes, increased portion size in restaurants and probably a lot of other social changes as well.

If one person's behavior changes or that of a small number of people changes, then it can be explained by individual choice. But if a large number change like fish in a school, the individual explanation is not adequate--it must be a change at the system level. Since genetics is unlikely to be that change it must be something else.

The belief that large scale social problems can best be understood as the result of individual choices beggars belief. Certainly the advertising industry in America doesn't believe it for a minute. Want to have X million people smoke your brand? Here's the price tag.

 

[sengsational]

I have no idea who Dean Ornish is. I do know that, growing up in a lower middle class, barely above the poverty line immigrant family, my sibling and I were all talk how to cook and to cook healthy. This was done by my parents, who did not have great "book" knowledge but had a lot of common sense knowledge. I do feel that the lack of basic cooking skills contributes to obesity. At least you have some control over exactly what goes into the food.

Dean Ornish is the god father of low fat dieting. He was the last one to admit that adding fish oil to the diet was a good thing. He's a real no fat zealot. Since protein is pretty much the same across diets, that means Dr. Ornish is the high carb diet king. People like him, that refuse to see the more recent science, would probably be the ones who write the curriculum and would go low fat again, plunging us into continued obesity.

A to your comment about cooking, I'm in agreement. If you really cook like your parents, and maybe they learned from folks from the old country, I'm not surprised that you cook healthy food. That is, unless they were swayed by the low fat dogma, and quit cooking like your granny did. My granny was from Wisconsin, ate lots of butter, cooked with butter and lard, never crisco transfat, never margarine. She always served whole milk (yum)! She lived to be 102. My mom, on the other hand, fell just a little bit for the manufactured food hype, but at least she still always bought real butter!

 

[someguy]

That's why I said *ultimate* cause is behavior. Perhaps the environment influenced the behavior. But that is like saying I take no blame for going bankrupt through spending more than I earn for years on end and instead blaming it on the banks who lent me too much money (i.e., nearly free money and lax underwriting) or my next door neighbor who drives a 7-series BMW.

All the money in the world spent on advertising won't get me to smoke. Or most of my healthy friends, either.

But we're quickly heading into worldview and personal philosophy here, so let's just agree to disagree.

Doesn't mean that at all. It means the cause is environmental. In this case it's the increased in processed foods with added sugar, fat and salt along with advertising changes, increased portion size in restaurants and probably a lot of other social changes as well.

If one person's behavior changes or that of a small number of people changes, then it can be explained by individual choice. But if a large number change like fish in a school, the individual explanation is not adequate--it must be a change at the system level. Since genetics is unlikely to be that change it must be something else.

The belief that large scale social problems can best be understood as the result of individual choices beggars belief. Certainly the advertising industry in America doesn't believe it for a minute. Want to have X million people smoke your brand? Here's the price tag.