Study Finds 'Mind-Boggling' Rise in Morbid Obesity

[SludgeFactory]

There are a number of studies on genetics & obesity, some involving twins, and the rough consensus seems to be that genetics is anywhere from 40-70% responsible. Obviously the environment is implicated in obesity too, and has changed tremendously since 1975 or 1980 or wherever you want to draw the arbitrary line.

And losing weight with diet alone is certainly possible, but there's a lot less margin for error, and when it comes to maintaining a reduced weight, people without exercise are more likely to fail. The National Weight Control Registry (database of people who've lost weight) shows a substantial majority of people who manage to keep weight off are also regular exercisers.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory
There are a number of studies on genetics & obesity, some involving twins, and the rough consensus seems to be that genetics is anywhere from 40-70% responsible. Obviously the environment is implicated in obesity too, and has changed tremendously since 1975 or 1980 or wherever you want to draw the arbitrary line.

And losing weight with diet alone is certainly possible, but there's a lot less margin for error, and when it comes to maintaining a reduced weight, people without exercise are more likely to fail. The National Weight Control Registry (database of people who've lost weight) shows a substantial majority of people who manage to keep weight off are also regular exercisers.

/thread

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory
There are a number of studies on genetics & obesity, some involving twins, and the rough consensus seems to be that genetics is anywhere from 40-70% responsible. Obviously the environment is implicated in obesity too, and has changed tremendously since 1975 or 1980 or wherever you want to draw the arbitrary line.

And losing weight with diet alone is certainly possible, but there's a lot less margin for error, and when it comes to maintaining a reduced weight, people without exercise are more likely to fail. The National Weight Control Registry (database of people who've lost weight) shows a substantial majority of people who manage to keep weight off are also regular exercisers.

Thank you.

Yep, our environment changed drastically between the early 80s and late 90s. I think there is no doubt the largest contributors to the loss of physical pastime activities are the advent of cable/sat TV, then home video games and the final straw was the internet. The explosion in the snack food industry was in direct response to the growing demand of people sitting around far more than they used to. People couldn't munch when they were out moving around. But when they're home just sitting around, munching is way too easy, and comforting. And the extra 300 calories increase each American averages per day since 1980 is mostly grains followed by sugars. This means the common munchie.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: purbeast0
meh if everyone just ate did the whole "eat smaller meals more often" diet it would work wonders.

i've been doing it on my cutting phase right now, and I eat 5-6 meals a day. one of my meals consist of one of the following:

- Protein Shake
- Turkey Sandwich on 100% whole wheat bread
- Roast Beef sandwich on 100% whole wheat bread
- Tuna sandwich
- Bowl of cereal (either some yogurt frosted cheerios or this maple brown sugar oatmeal)
- Chicken + rice meal prepared by me or my girlfriend

Typically I'll eat 5 or 6 of those combinations over a day, sometimes having a protein shake twice a day. It's definitely more than 2000 calories, but I'm active and what not and I don't want to lose any of my size, just as much fat as possible.

And with this type of diet, the beauty of it is that I'm never "starving" for food. I'm always "just right" and I'll tend to get hungry and I'll go have one of my meals. I just never let myself get to that point that I want to eat a horse.

On the weekends however I'm not nearly as strict and will have one cheat day, sometimes 2.

The problem is that does not work long term. Study after study shows the near total failure in long term success of calorie restrictive dieting.

Heh it's far from calorie restricting. I probably eat around 3K - 4K calories a day.

Yes, and again, a body builder diet is impossible for the average person. Our bodies burn FAR more calories both in the gym, and especially at rest.

Put the average person on even one of our cutting diets and they'd continue to gain weight. Trim that cutting diet down until they lose weight and they would fail long term, just like the vast majority do.

A cutting diet is just a cross between Atkins and South Beach. Both of which fail in long term success, just like every other weight loss diet.

Ah true that, true that. I never thought about it that way as I've been lifting for like 4 years or so and it is just part of my lifestyle that I don't realize how it would be if I wasn't lifting (although when I broke my ankle and was out of the gym for a few months, I didn't really gain more than 5lbs or so).

Yeah, I don't gain much weight when I spend weeks, especially months out of the gym either, BUT my body composition does change. I begin to lose muscle and gain fat.

Our bodies will maintain their weight, but continue to lose muscle and gain fat until we revert to a non-body builder fitness level. That takes over a year or more.

Then we wont be built, we'll just be obese.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: Amused
Yep, our environment changed drastically between the early 80s and late 90s. I think there is o doubt the largest contributors to the loss of physical pastime activities are the advent of cable/sat TV, then home video games and the final straw was the internet.

That's a lot of it. Video games are a big time-waster, but with me it stops me from snacking. The game is so engrossing that I don't even think about food.

One thing I noticed is... when did everybody stop walking? I drive by two elementary schools in my morning commute. I always see a huge line of cars dropping off kids and almost nobody walking. My neighborhood is pretty dense, so it's not like the distance to school is huge. Is it lazyness and convenience? Is it parents being paranoid about protecting their kids and letting them walk?

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: Amused
But when they're home just sitting around, munching is way too easy, and comforting. And the extra 300 calories increase each American averages per day since 1980 is mostly grains followed by sugars. This means the common munchie.

It's almost perverse how well those two activities (sitting in front an electronic screen while shoveling food into your mouth) go together.

The change in family structure was also mentioned here, and I'd say it's the whole modern suburban lifestyle. The "dream" of living 30 miles away from your work, losing hundreds of hours in traffic, both parents working full time (in a lot of cases mostly to keep up with the neighbors), long hours away from home, ferrying your kids around to fulfill their ridiculous social calendar instead of having them go outside and play, nobody cooking meals, everybody in the family staying up too late cause they're vegetating in front of electronic screens, which makes you more exhausted and craving comfort food to make up for how crappy you feel.

Yeah, that whole description reads like a whiny stereotype, but living a life with enough of those elements seems to be a recipe for becoming a fat hog.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: Amused
Yep, our environment changed drastically between the early 80s and late 90s. I think there is o doubt the largest contributors to the loss of physical pastime activities are the advent of cable/sat TV, then home video games and the final straw was the internet.

That's a lot of it. Video games are a big time-waster, but with me it stops me from snacking. The game is so engrossing that I don't even think about food.

I thing I noticed is... when did everybody stop walking? I drive by two elementary schools in my morning commute. I always see a huge line of cars dropping off kids and almost nobody walking. My neighborhood is pretty dense, so it's not like the distance to school is huge. Is it lazyness and convenience? Is it parents being paranoid about protecting their kids and letting them walk?

It's the paranoia over kidnappings and child molesters. Even though the rate has hardly changed, media attention has made parents shelter their children to the point of obsession. When we were kids, you couldn't keep us in the house on a nice day. Now parents practically lock their kids in the house all day.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: Amused
Yep, our environment changed drastically between the early 80s and late 90s. I think there is o doubt the largest contributors to the loss of physical pastime activities are the advent of cable/sat TV, then home video games and the final straw was the internet.

That's a lot of it. Video games are a big time-waster, but with me it stops me from snacking. The game is so engrossing that I don't even think about food.

I thing I noticed is... when did everybody stop walking? I drive by two elementary schools in my morning commute. I always see a huge line of cars dropping off kids and almost nobody walking. My neighborhood is pretty dense, so it's not like the distance to school is huge. Is it lazyness and convenience? Is it parents being paranoid about protecting their kids and letting them walk?

IMO it's paranoia. When I was a kid, I always walked to school and biked to practice. Then suddenly, no one does that anymore. But it's no surprise, just watch the news. Every single night, it's "child predator" this and "child predator" that. People are so pumped up on fear and adrenaline... well, that's another issue. I could go on and on about the role that stress plays in causing obesity, especially in adults who don't exercise. Triggering the "fight or flight" response in one's body without any resulting physical activity is very bad.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory

Originally posted by: Amused
But when they're home just sitting around, munching is way too easy, and comforting. And the extra 300 calories increase each American averages per day since 1980 is mostly grains followed by sugars. This means the common munchie.

It's almost perverse how well those two activities (sitting in front an electronic screen while shoveling food into your mouth) go together.

The change in family structure was also mentioned here, and I'd say it's the whole modern suburban lifestyle. The "dream" of living 30 miles away from your work, losing hundreds of hours in traffic, both parents working full time (in a lot of cases mostly to keep up with the neighbors), long hours away from home, ferrying your kids around to fulfill their ridiculous social calendar instead of having them go outside and play, nobody cooking meals, everybody in the family staying up too late cause they're vegetating in front of electronic screens, which makes you more exhausted and craving comfort food to make up for how crappy you feel.

Yeah, that whole description reads like a whiny stereotype, but living a life with enough of those elements seems to be a recipe for becoming a fat hog.

To be fair, I grew up in 70s suburbia and while my father did commute 40+ miles a day, us kids were outside almost every day. Suburbs started in the 50s. So that doesn't quite correlate. Everything else does, though.

 

[Bryophyte]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=2032845&enterthread=y

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: Amused
To be fair, I grew up in 70s suburbia and while my father did commute 40+ miles a day, us kids were outside almost every day. Suburbs started in the 50s. So that doesn't quite correlate. Everything else does, though.

The suburbs have been around for awhile, it just took time for the traffic to catch up with us. There are more people and a lot more cars on the roads, most cities have sprawled out even more, some really badly. Maybe you're talking about southern CA with a 40 mile commute all the way back in the 70's. Everything I've heard and read indicates that their traffic is exponentially worse now than 20-30 years ago. Time lost to traffic seems to be up everywhere. It doesn't seem like a positive thing to me.

Another part of the stereotype is that we're all becoming more isolated, that's part of the "dream," to buy a mini-mansion that requires dual incomes to finance, with all the creature comforts known to man, and then hole up in it. Not necessarily a very healthy way to live, physically or otherwise.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: dwcal
That's a lot of it. Video games are a big time-waster, but with me it stops me from snacking. The game is so engrossing that I don't even think about food.

I thing I noticed is... when did everybody stop walking? I drive by two elementary schools in my morning commute. I always see a huge line of cars dropping off kids and almost nobody walking. My neighborhood is pretty dense, so it's not like the distance to school is huge. Is it lazyness and convenience? Is it parents being paranoid about protecting their kids and letting them walk?

Some of it's paranoia, some of it's legitimate safety issues with all the traffic out there. Commuting on foot or bike is simply not very safe in way too many places in this country. And some of it is the natural human reaction to wax nostalgic, "things were better in my day." But yeah, I'm not quite sure how it evolved to where we have all the moms driving their 1.3 kids a handful of blocks in their armored personnel carriers and blocking the school driveway and surrounding public roads on a daily basis.

Walking doesn't get enough credit. The health benefits this country would see if most of us had to commute a few miles a day under our power would be enormous.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory

Originally posted by: Amused
To be fair, I grew up in 70s suburbia and while my father did commute 40+ miles a day, us kids were outside almost every day. Suburbs started in the 50s. So that doesn't quite correlate. Everything else does, though.

The suburbs have been around for awhile, it just took time for the traffic to catch up with us. There are more people and a lot more cars on the roads, most cities have sprawled out even more, some really badly. Maybe you're talking about southern CA with a 40 mile commute all the way back in the 70's. Everything I've heard and read indicates that their traffic is exponentially worse now than 20-30 years ago. Time lost to traffic seems to be up everywhere. It doesn't seem like a positive thing to me.

Another part of the stereotype is that we're all becoming more isolated, that's part of the "dream," to buy a mini-mansion that requires dual incomes to finance, with all the creature comforts known to man, and then hole up in it. Not necessarily a very healthy way to live, physically or otherwise.

Yeah, it was SoCal. We lived in Granada Hills and my father worked in Redondo Beach at TRW.

Interesting side note: An episode of the orginal Star Trek (Operation: Annihilate!) was filmed among the buildings of TRW's former headquarters in Redondo Beach.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory

Originally posted by: Amused
To be fair, I grew up in 70s suburbia and while my father did commute 40+ miles a day, us kids were outside almost every day. Suburbs started in the 50s. So that doesn't quite correlate. Everything else does, though.

The suburbs have been around for awhile, it just took time for the traffic to catch up with us. There are more people and a lot more cars on the roads, most cities have sprawled out even more, some really badly. Maybe you're talking about southern CA with a 40 mile commute all the way back in the 70's. Everything I've heard and read indicates that their traffic is exponentially worse now than 20-30 years ago. Time lost to traffic seems to be up everywhere. It doesn't seem like a positive thing to me.

Another part of the stereotype is that we're all becoming more isolated, that's part of the "dream," to buy a mini-mansion that requires dual incomes to finance, with all the creature comforts known to man, and then hole up in it. Not necessarily a very healthy way to live, physically or otherwise.

Yeah, it was SoCal. We lived in Granada Hills and my father worked in Redondo Beach at TRW.

Well, the traffic in The Valley is total sh!t these days. Not sure if you still live here or not.

 

[ForumMaster]

the worst thing is going to the pool. if anybody remembers fat bastard from the austin powers movies... it's just sick seeing a male teenager that has bigger breasts then some pron stars.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory

Originally posted by: Amused
To be fair, I grew up in 70s suburbia and while my father did commute 40+ miles a day, us kids were outside almost every day. Suburbs started in the 50s. So that doesn't quite correlate. Everything else does, though.

The suburbs have been around for awhile, it just took time for the traffic to catch up with us. There are more people and a lot more cars on the roads, most cities have sprawled out even more, some really badly. Maybe you're talking about southern CA with a 40 mile commute all the way back in the 70's. Everything I've heard and read indicates that their traffic is exponentially worse now than 20-30 years ago. Time lost to traffic seems to be up everywhere. It doesn't seem like a positive thing to me.

Another part of the stereotype is that we're all becoming more isolated, that's part of the "dream," to buy a mini-mansion that requires dual incomes to finance, with all the creature comforts known to man, and then hole up in it. Not necessarily a very healthy way to live, physically or otherwise.

Yeah, it was SoCal. We lived in Granada Hills and my father worked in Redondo Beach at TRW.

Well, the traffic in The Valley is total sh!t these days. Not sure if you still live here or not.

Nope, don't live there anymore. But I do visit a couple times a year and yeah... it is a lot worse. The 405 is CONSTANTLY congested between the airport and Ventura Blvd 24/7 now.

Thankfully my mom lives in the north valley and the rest of my family live in the Thousand Oaks area. So I just go the back way through Simi Valley and miss the worst traffic when I go back and forth.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: Amused
Nope, don't live there anymore. But I do visit a couple times a year and yeah... it is a lot worse. The 405 is CONSTANTLY congested between the airport and Ventura Blvd 24/7 now.

Thankfully my mom lives in the north valley and the rest of my family live in the Thousand Oaks area. So I just go the back way through Simi Valley and miss the worst traffic when I go back and forth.

Yeah, thank God for the 118. I'm out of here for good in a few months (woot)!

 

[voodoodrul]

I have an idea.. I sit on my ass all day for the most part.. and guess what? I usually only eat once a day or less.. I eat when I'm hungry, nothing more. When I do eat, I eat enough to kill the hunger and that's about it.. Isn't this how the body is supposed to work?

When you are "hungry", drink water.. The vast majority of people have confused thirst for hunger. Drink water and listen to your hunger - it's a complex system that even tells you what kinds of nutrients you need, like craving olives if you need more iron.

It would be impossible to get fat eating one simple meal per day, which is what humanity has been lucky to have for the majority of time.. So get used to it. And keep drinking that water when you need to shed pounds.

 

[RallyMaster]

Originally posted by: voodoodrul
I have an idea.. I sit on my ass all day for the most part.. and guess what? I usually only eat once a day or less.. I eat when I'm hungry, nothing more. When I do eat, I eat enough to kill the hunger and that's about it.. Isn't this how the body is supposed to work?

When you are "hungry", drink water.. The vast majority of people have confused thirst for hunger. Drink water and listen to your hunger - it's a complex system that even tells you what kinds of nutrients you need, like craving olives if you need more iron.

It would be impossible to get fat eating one simple meal per day, which is what humanity has been lucky to have for the majority of time.. So get used to it. And keep drinking that water when you need to shed pounds.

Why is one not dead yet?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: voodoodrul
I have an idea.. I sit on my ass all day for the most part.. and guess what? I usually only eat once a day or less.. I eat when I'm hungry, nothing more. When I do eat, I eat enough to kill the hunger and that's about it.. Isn't this how the body is supposed to work?

When you are "hungry", drink water.. The vast majority of people have confused thirst for hunger. Drink water and listen to your hunger - it's a complex system that even tells you what kinds of nutrients you need, like craving olives if you need more iron.

It would be impossible to get fat eating one simple meal per day, which is what humanity has been lucky to have for the majority of time.. So get used to it. And keep drinking that water when you need to shed pounds.

This post is an excellent example of the problem and why most naturally skinny people will never understand people with the genetic propensity for obesity.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: voodoodrul
I have an idea.. I sit on my ass all day for the most part.. and guess what? I usually only eat once a day or less.. I eat when I'm hungry, nothing more. When I do eat, I eat enough to kill the hunger and that's about it.. Isn't this how the body is supposed to work?

When you are "hungry", drink water.. The vast majority of people have confused thirst for hunger. Drink water and listen to your hunger - it's a complex system that even tells you what kinds of nutrients you need, like craving olives if you need more iron.

It would be impossible to get fat eating one simple meal per day, which is what humanity has been lucky to have for the majority of time.. So get used to it. And keep drinking that water when you need to shed pounds.

This post is an excellent example of the problem and why most naturally skinny people will never understand people with the genetic propensity for obesity.

not to mention, eating one meal a day isn't even healthy for you.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Amused
Topic Title: Study Finds 'Mind-Boggling' Rise in Morbid Obesity
Topic Summary: The prevalence of American adults who are 100 or more pounds over a healthy weight has risen dramatically since 2000

High Frutose Corn Syrup HFCS

It's hard to not buy something with this corn farmer subsidy in it.

Look at every label of everything you buy.

For example, there is only one Cranberry drink on the shelf without this crap in it.

Hopefully now that corn is become in such short supply because of the ethanol corn subsidy maybe it will force food manufacturers to not put HFCS in the food anymore.

Americans should be pissied off about all these things:

The corn farmer subsidy

The Food manufacturers paid off to pout the Corn Syrup in.

Our Government for causing it all because they are paid by lobbyists for all this.

The health care industry loves everyone overweight and having to visit them for this.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Amused
Topic Title: Study Finds 'Mind-Boggling' Rise in Morbid Obesity
Topic Summary: The prevalence of American adults who are 100 or more pounds over a healthy weight has risen dramatically since 2000

High Frutose Corn Syrup HFCS

It's hard to not buy something with this corn farmer subsidy in it.

Look at every label of everything you buy.

For example, there is only one Cranberry drink on the shelf without this crap in it.

Hopefully now that corn is become in such short supply because of the ethanol corn subsidy maybe it will force food manufacturers to not put HFCS in the food anymore.

Americans should be pissied off about all these things:

The corn farmer subsidy

The Food manufacturers paid off to pout the Corn Syrup in.

Our Government for causing it all because they are paid by lobbyists for all this.

The health care industry loves everyone overweight and having to visit them for this.

Dave, you should probably read the thread before posting such nonsense.

First, HFCS reacts the exact same way table sugar does in the body. The studies that found problems were flawed because they used straight Fructose. Not HFCS which is half fructose and half glucose; the exact same thing table sugar breaks down to in the body.

Secondly, your conspiracy theory is incorrect. HFCS came into use because of sugar tariffs creating an artificially high price for sugar in the US. These tariffs were passed to protect US sugar growers, NOT corn farmers.

There is no government or corporate conspiracy causing people to become obese Dave. Obesity is merely a sign of our own success. Now we have abundant food and never have to do any physical activity for work, or play. For many people's genes, that spells obesity.

 

[voodoodrul]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: voodoodrul
I have an idea.. I sit on my ass all day for the most part.. and guess what? I usually only eat once a day or less.. I eat when I'm hungry, nothing more. When I do eat, I eat enough to kill the hunger and that's about it.. Isn't this how the body is supposed to work?

When you are "hungry", drink water.. The vast majority of people have confused thirst for hunger. Drink water and listen to your hunger - it's a complex system that even tells you what kinds of nutrients you need, like craving olives if you need more iron.

It would be impossible to get fat eating one simple meal per day, which is what humanity has been lucky to have for the majority of time.. So get used to it. And keep drinking that water when you need to shed pounds.

This post is an excellent example of the problem and why most naturally skinny people will never understand people with the genetic propensity for obesity.

not to mention, eating one meal a day isn't even healthy for you.

It's not? Even though humans have spent the majority of their past focusing on one meal per day with only light grazing in between? We are genetically wired to eat this way. Do your research.

I burn 2000 calories sitting on my ass every day and sleeping at night. If I average 2000 calories input, it is a *violation of laws of physics* to say I will gain weight. Sorry, input vs. output is the answer. If you have uncontrollable urges to eat, then focus on that problem rather than convince people you somehow magically gain weight yet you aren't eating..

You can argue it all you want. Whatever the cause for that urge to put food in your mouth is, the food is the direct source of the weight gain.

And it's a commonly accepted fact that people confuse thirst for hunger. Drink water.

Eat only enough to feel sated. Leave some food on the plate. You don't have to eat it just because it is there. You'd be surprised at how efficient your body can become. We haven't had the luxury of eating multi-thousand calorie meals 3 times a day in our past.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Amused
First, HFCS reacts the exact same way table sugar does in the body.

The studies that found problems were flawed because they used straight Fructose.

Not HFCS which is half fructose and half glucose; the exact same thing table sugar breaks down to in the body.

Secondly, your conspiracy theory is incorrect. HFCS came into use because of sugar tariffs creating an artificially high price for sugar in the US. These tariffs were passed to protect US sugar growers, NOT corn farmers.

Oh of course the studies are flawed to you. So how much are you getting paid?

Excuses and spin.

We don't grow sugar in mass anymore. There is still some being grown in what used to be Florida Everglades but it's a drop in the bucket now.