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

[DeborahB]

Doesn't smoking factor into this somewhere? 50's and 60's were huge smoking times. "Have a Lucky instead of a sweet."

I don't think it is simple as one item. There's a combination of many things converging on this obesity epidemic.

Nothing's simple in obesity. But this guy talks about marathon runners who have to watch their weight...

I just discovered if I'm 5'2" I'm obese and if I'm 5'3" I'm "overweight" per BMI - no way to enter 5'2 1/2" which is what I am. I shrank.

 

[Chuckanut]

Thanks to a glance at books at Costco, I'm reading "Wheat Belly". The thing that really struck me was this:

"... women of that era [1950s and 1960s] typically weighed in at 110 to 115 pounds, men at 150 or 165 pounds..." "The women of that world didn't exercise much at all." "...the increased consumption of....this genetically altered thing called modern wheat - explains the contrast between slender, sedentary people of the fifties and overweight twenty-first century people, triathletes included."

Is there any scientific proof of these claims?

Correlation is not Causation. Often people who have a desire to prove something make the mistake of assuming Correlation is Causation.

 

[DeborahB]

Is there any scientific proof of these claims?

Correlation is not Causation. Often people who have a desire to prove something make the mistake of assuming Correlation is Causation.

There is a lot of scientific data in the book. I'm not a biochemist and have no idea what it means. But the author is an MD. It's pretty convincing.

 

[ERD50]

Is there any scientific proof of these claims?

Correlation is not Causation. Often people who have a desire to prove something make the mistake of assuming Correlation is Causation.

There is a lot of scientific data in the book. I'm not a biochemist and have no idea what it means. But the author is an MD. It's pretty convincing.

Gotta agree with Chuckanut here. There may be a lot of data, but that doesn't mean that the data leads to any firm conclusions. I've found that many of these books like to present a LOT of data, seems that it impresses a lot of people. But does it mean anything?

It smells very fishy to me. OK, so the wheat has been bred to be shorter/sturdier for a bigger crop. Did the grain itself change in any measurable way? Can we measure a change in the digestion of this wheat in humans?

If it is responsible for a measurable weight gain, there ought to be something we can measure in the grain itself. And how many calories worth of wheat do I eat in a day? An adult might take in 2000 calories, and I'll guess I eat the equiv of ~ 3 slices of bread a day (sometimes at breakfast, sometimes a sandwich at lunch, sometimes pasta or bread with dinner - but not every time or every meal). So maybe 300 calories out of 2000 from wheat? That would have to have some big effect. Doesn't make sense to me.

Dean Ornish is an MD too. Does he say to cut out wheat? Other MDs promote a low carb diet. I don't think being an MD is 'proof' that one approach is better than another.

-ERD50

 

[DeborahB]

Please don't shoot the messenger! But the book is interesting. Try it. As I said, I've only read 1/3 or so of it.

I saw a PBS special recently on the women's movement and there was old footage - and we were THIN then. It was really apparent. Not just the young college kids.

Of course, I grew up with a mom who stayed her college weight her whole life (don't you hate people like that?). I got my dad's genes and easy weight gain.

 

[braumeister]

"... women of that era [1950s and 1960s] typically weighed in at 110 to 115 pounds, men at 150 or 165 pounds..." "The women of that world didn't exercise much at all."

So what has changed since then?

Again, the answer is obvious if you look at published photographs in any newspaper or magazine. Back then, nearly everyone wore a hat whenever they went outdoors. That changed completely, as any glance along a busy street will show.

Put your hat back on and the weight will quickly melt away. Surely that's obvious?

 

[ERD50]

Please don't shoot the messenger! But the book is interesting. Try it. As I said, I've only read 1/3 or so of it.

I saw a PBS special recently on the women's movement and there was old footage - and we were THIN then. It was really apparent. Not just the young college kids.

Who is 'shooting the messenger'? It pays to be skeptical. There are all sorts of claims being made on all sides.

As was said - "Correlation is not Causation". You seem to make a lot of the supposed correlations.

There is a lot of scientific data in the book. I'm not a biochemist and have no idea what it means. But the author is an MD. It's pretty convincing.

This confuses me. If you have no idea what it means (you are not alone - most of us are not capable of understanding a lot of this), how can it be convincing?

-ERD50

 

[Notmuchlonger]

I might have thrown a "refined" in front of it, but yeah.


Things that ARE poison are hydrogenated fats. My personal (unsubstantiated) theory as to why the low fat thing got such traction (and made so many people obese and diabetic) is that dietary fat WAS making people sick and killing them! But in order to keep it simple, and to keep food producers happy, the message became "all dietary fat is bad", even though just the hydrodenated transfats were what was killing people.

I agree. Its incredible to me. I was on a high eat whatever diet. I got obese and out of shape. Then I switched to low fat and lost a great deal of it but it was a struggle. I always craved a fat of some sort. Once I switched to more fats and proteins along with green vegetables. I have done amazing. I have more energy and never feel the need that I need a carb like snack.

But to each to their own. Took me awhile to figure out what worked for me.

 

[Amethyst]

So did my Mother, but she worked at it. She was very petite, so she was careful about what she ate, and weighed herself often. She willed me her "beauty books" from the mid-20th century and they are full of diet and exercise tips. The main difference between her books and what women are told today? Back then, women were instructed to exercise, put on makeup, do hair, etc. in SECRET so that your man would think it was all effortless. (And remember in Gone with the Wind, Scarlett O'hara's Mammy feeding her a big dinner BEFORE the barbecue, so Scarlett would not be tempted to eat in front of men?)

Oh, and mom also smoked. She told me she took up the habit to control her appetite.

I continue to think that a big factor in today's obesity is that people no longer care if they are fat, and they have Internet support groups telling them they're right.

Amethyst

Of course, I grew up with a mom who stayed her college weight her whole life (don't you hate people like that?). I got my dad's genes and easy weight gain.

 

[haha]

I continue to think that a big factor in today's obesity is that people no longer care if they are fat, and they have Internet support groups telling them they're right.

Amethyst

There are probably internet support groups supporting cannibalism. However weird someone is, the internet can show them how to become even weirder.

Ha

 

[sengsational]

There are probably internet support groups supporting cannibalism. However weird someone is, the internet can show them how to become even weirder.

What do they call it? The "long tail"?

 

[haha]

What do they call it? The "long tail"?

That would be weird. A support group for those with long tails, or who imagine or are afraid that they may have long tails.

Whew! Glad I don't have that problem.

Ha

 

[DeborahB]

Who is 'shooting the messenger'? It pays to be skeptical. There are all sorts of claims being made on all sides.

As was said - "Correlation is not Causation". You seem to make a lot of the supposed correlations.

This confuses me. If you have no idea what it means (you are not alone - most of us are not capable of understanding a lot of this), how can it be convincing?

-ERD50

I'm not making correlations. I'm quoting. I'm not even making claims.

I can't explain the biochemistry to anyone but it is making sense to me, as far as I can understand it. So instead of this - "skepticism"? - read the book and draw your own conclusions. Or don't.

You're telling me it can't be true because I have not included a book here. I'm just sharing something I'm reading. I haven't said it's true. I've said I'm reading a book and this is what it says.

SHEESH!!!!!

And yes, I do feel somewhat attacked.

 

[JoeWras]

There are probably internet support groups supporting cannibalism. However weird someone is, the internet can show them how to become even weirder.

Ha

You guys are scaring me. I hope we're not a group of a bunch of weirdos.

 

[ERD50]

I'm not making correlations. I'm quoting. I'm not even making claims.

I can't explain the biochemistry to anyone but it is making sense to me, as far as I can understand it. So instead of this - "skepticism"? - read the book and draw your own conclusions. Or don't.

You're telling me it can't be true because I have not included a book here. I'm just sharing something I'm reading. I haven't said it's true. I've said I'm reading a book and this is what it says.

SHEESH!!!!!

And yes, I do feel somewhat attacked.

You said: "It's pretty convincing." I was going by that. What else does that mean?

And I never said " it can't be true", I said I was skeptical. I'm the one who should feel 'attacked' - you are putting words in my mouth.

-ERD50

 

[haha]

I think I see what you are each saying. Thinker is saying that she feels that perhaps she might learn from what is being said in this book. That it does not seem completely off the wall, that the author has some good credentials, and that if someone is struggling with weight, it might offer a valuable thing to try.

Erd50 is saying that he does not see the scientific evidence sufficient to support the assertion that the book seems pretty convincing.

Yet saying that something seems convincing, or pretty convincing, is not as assertion that it is correct. It's just a self reflexive statement of approval, and may reflect that the speaker feels some interest in it, does not reject it out of hand, and may be willing to look deeper.

Personally, if I had required scientific proof for everything that I have ever accepted or acted on I would likely never have done anything or accepted much.

If I had a weight problem, I would not be demanding scientific proof that something is effective, only good evidence that it is not dangerous, and that it's cost is not huge. We lean people often cannot realize how hard some who are not lean can struggle with trying to lose weight. Particularly a woman. Look at all the negative social messages they receive on account of nothing more than their weight.

Ha

 

[Aruba50]

The fact is that his diet has been shown to reverse heart disease in some people. I would call that success.

After hearing an interview with him I concluded that Ornish would be the last person to recommend the low-fat, high sugar, junk food that we have been sold. His diet is rich in real food minimally processed, yes that includes carbs.

Whether most people can maintain an Ornish diet is another question. I doubt if most of us could. But, the diet does work.

Natural foods tend to be hi-fat or hi-carb. I can't think of natural food that is both high in fat and high in carbs.

This is not religion. N=1. If low-fat works for some people great! If low-carbs work for others, great! If one can eat triple bacon burgers, ice cream sundaes, potato chips and chocolate coated sugar bombs and still be healthy, great!

Dean Ornish shows anecdotal results of small groups of his own patients. His approach is very stringent and includes a great many more changes than their diet. Principal among them is the complete cessation of smoking and inclusion of yoga and other exercise regimens. Despite all this, he insists on concluding that his ultra low fat diet is the answer. He may or may not be right but no one else has demonstrated this and his own studies are far too narrow and uncontrolled to be anything like conclusive. Other more rigorously controlled studies on low fat regimens have not shown any real longevity enhancements.

 

[M Paquette]

There are probably internet support groups supporting cannibalism. However weird someone is, the internet can show them how to become even weirder.

Ha

Yup. Rule 34 weird at least, and of course Rule 28.

http://xkcd.com/305/

 

[Amethyst]

Ha, are you saying it's harder for a woman than a man to maintain a healthy weight, or that society disapproves more of fat women's appearance? The second argument probably deserves a separate thread, IMHO.

I believe social concern about the rise in overweight - as reflected in this thread - is connected to the presumed health issues connected to overweight, and its presumed cost to society for treating those health issues. Women and men both would seem to have a stake in this concern.

Amethyst

people often cannot realize how hard some who are not lean can struggle with trying to lose weight. Particularly a woman. Look at all the negative social messages they receive on account of nothing more than their weight.

Ha

 

[Amethyst]

True, if irrelevant. The Internet was not generally available in 1985, when the "fatter" trend seems to have started. Also, I would hardly equate people who (like my good and decent relative) use the Web as a social network to help them feel good about being fat, with cannibals.

Amethyst

There are probably internet support groups supporting cannibalism. However weird someone is, the internet can show them how to become even weirder.

Ha

 

[Chuckanut]

Weight used to be a personal issue. But the extreme overweight we are seeing has made it a societal issue. Example; if I am 14 pounds overweight that usually does not affect others around me, but if I am 50+ pounds overweight and sitting next to you on PuddleJumper airline, you might object to me taking up 20% of your already small seat.

Ha is right about thinner people not understanding what the overweight are dealing with, IMHO.

 

[Amethyst]

I am a more-than-normally empathetic person, and I hear this "you don't understand what fat people are dealing with" all the time (especially from my relative). Empathy, in the larger sense, usually does help society get along better. None of us can really know what the guy next to us is dealing with, or how hard it is for him to get along, do the right thing, etc. Therefore, we cut each other breaks.

However, I don't see how "understanding" what fat people are dealing with helps fat people solve their problems, or solves the general issue of society paying for the increase in overweight (that is, if it really is costing society more; I have heard arguments on both sides, and don't want to come down on either side, or cause that argument to blow up on this thread either ).

I don't think my posts are going anywhere, so I will just leave the thread alone. I perceive that my love of my morbidly obese, stubbornly self-destructive relative is coloring my feelings toward the weight issue generally.

Amethyst

Weight used to be a personal issue. But the extreme overweight we are seeing has made it a societal issue. Example; if I am 14 pounds overweight that usually does not affect others around me, but if I am 50+ pounds overweight and sitting next to you on PuddleJumper airline, you might object to me taking up 20% of your already small seat.

Ha is right about thinner people not understanding what the overweight are dealing with, IMHO.

 

[haha]

True, if irrelevant.

If irrelevance were a disqualification from posting, this entire board would disappear.

Ha

 

[sengsational]

If irrelevance were a disqualification from posting, this entire board would disappear.

Petty bickering - YouTube

Not really a critique of those in this interesting discussion here, but just came to mind from Mr. Ha's comment. Please, don't take this too seriously!!

 

[someguy]

Weight used to be a personal issue. But the extreme overweight we are seeing has made it a societal issue. Example; if I am 14 pounds overweight that usually does not affect others around me, but if I am 50+ pounds overweight and sitting next to you on PuddleJumper airline, you might object to me taking up 20% of your already small seat.

Being 14 lbs overweight might still affect me and everyone else if it increases your healthcare costs and you are not paying for all those increases out of pocket.