huge topic:Americans keep getting fatter

[briansd1]

[quote=afx114]I would argue that genes play a larger role than given credit. For example, Pacific Islanders evolved to survive on a minimal diet of plants and fish — not a lot of red meat available on small islands. After millions of years evolving their systems to handle mostly fish as their source of meat, they now have easy access to red and white meat in the form of McDonalds and KFC. Their bodies don’t metabolize these meats as well as they do fish,[/quote]

Samoan/Pacific Islander cultures (and many other cultures) equate being fat to high social status and wealth.

I betcha the calorie count of the meat diet is much higher than the fish diet.

I believe that there are 3 elements to diet as it relates to health.

1) People can only gain weight if they consume the calories.

2) Aside from the calories, there’s the nutritional value of the food which contribute to health and longevity.

3) The amount of exercise. The more low-impact exercise, the better.

[afx114]

Another anecdote showing that “just eat less/exercise more” isn’t the silver bullet and that genetics gives people various advantages/disadvantages to controlling weight. My brother (2 years younger) grew up with the same parents, in the same household, playing the same sports, and eating the same food as myself. Yet I was always the “skinny” one and he was always the “big” one. We grew up with virtually the exact same environmental variables, yet our body types were always so different. This is further evidence that genetics play a large role and what works for one person may not work for another when it comes to weight loss/gain. So if your diet works for you, great… just don’t assume that the same diet or eating habits will work for everyone else.

Shifting gears a bit, the USDA just completed a study on the estimated effect that a sugar tax would have on obesity:

A tax-induced 20-percent price increase on caloric sweetened beverages could cause an average reduction of 37 calories per day, or 3.8 pounds of body weight over a year, for adults and an average of 43 calories per day, or 4.5 pounds over a year, for children. Given these reductions in calorie consumption, results show an estimated decline in adult overweight prevalence (66.9 to 62.4 percent) and obesity prevalence (33.4 to 30.4 percent), as well as the child at-risk-for-overweight prevalence (32.3 to 27.0 percent) and the overweight prevalence (16.6 to 13.7 percent).

(via tpm)

I wonder if the public would support a tax increase like this, or would we see a “keep your damn hands off my soda” revolt?

[afx114]

Another anecdote showing that “just eat less/exercise more” isn’t the silver bullet and that genetics gives people various advantages/disadvantages to controlling weight. My brother (2 years younger) grew up with the same parents, in the same household, playing the same sports, and eating the same food as myself. Yet I was always the “skinny” one and he was always the “big” one. We grew up with virtually the exact same environmental variables, yet our body types were always so different. This is further evidence that genetics play a large role and what works for one person may not work for another when it comes to weight loss/gain. So if your diet works for you, great… just don’t assume that the same diet or eating habits will work for everyone else.

Shifting gears a bit, the USDA just completed a study on the estimated effect that a sugar tax would have on obesity:

A tax-induced 20-percent price increase on caloric sweetened beverages could cause an average reduction of 37 calories per day, or 3.8 pounds of body weight over a year, for adults and an average of 43 calories per day, or 4.5 pounds over a year, for children. Given these reductions in calorie consumption, results show an estimated decline in adult overweight prevalence (66.9 to 62.4 percent) and obesity prevalence (33.4 to 30.4 percent), as well as the child at-risk-for-overweight prevalence (32.3 to 27.0 percent) and the overweight prevalence (16.6 to 13.7 percent).

(via tpm)

I wonder if the public would support a tax increase like this, or would we see a “keep your damn hands off my soda” revolt?

[afx114]

Another anecdote showing that “just eat less/exercise more” isn’t the silver bullet and that genetics gives people various advantages/disadvantages to controlling weight. My brother (2 years younger) grew up with the same parents, in the same household, playing the same sports, and eating the same food as myself. Yet I was always the “skinny” one and he was always the “big” one. We grew up with virtually the exact same environmental variables, yet our body types were always so different. This is further evidence that genetics play a large role and what works for one person may not work for another when it comes to weight loss/gain. So if your diet works for you, great… just don’t assume that the same diet or eating habits will work for everyone else.

Shifting gears a bit, the USDA just completed a study on the estimated effect that a sugar tax would have on obesity:

A tax-induced 20-percent price increase on caloric sweetened beverages could cause an average reduction of 37 calories per day, or 3.8 pounds of body weight over a year, for adults and an average of 43 calories per day, or 4.5 pounds over a year, for children. Given these reductions in calorie consumption, results show an estimated decline in adult overweight prevalence (66.9 to 62.4 percent) and obesity prevalence (33.4 to 30.4 percent), as well as the child at-risk-for-overweight prevalence (32.3 to 27.0 percent) and the overweight prevalence (16.6 to 13.7 percent).

(via tpm)

I wonder if the public would support a tax increase like this, or would we see a “keep your damn hands off my soda” revolt?

[afx114]

Another anecdote showing that “just eat less/exercise more” isn’t the silver bullet and that genetics gives people various advantages/disadvantages to controlling weight. My brother (2 years younger) grew up with the same parents, in the same household, playing the same sports, and eating the same food as myself. Yet I was always the “skinny” one and he was always the “big” one. We grew up with virtually the exact same environmental variables, yet our body types were always so different. This is further evidence that genetics play a large role and what works for one person may not work for another when it comes to weight loss/gain. So if your diet works for you, great… just don’t assume that the same diet or eating habits will work for everyone else.

Shifting gears a bit, the USDA just completed a study on the estimated effect that a sugar tax would have on obesity:

A tax-induced 20-percent price increase on caloric sweetened beverages could cause an average reduction of 37 calories per day, or 3.8 pounds of body weight over a year, for adults and an average of 43 calories per day, or 4.5 pounds over a year, for children. Given these reductions in calorie consumption, results show an estimated decline in adult overweight prevalence (66.9 to 62.4 percent) and obesity prevalence (33.4 to 30.4 percent), as well as the child at-risk-for-overweight prevalence (32.3 to 27.0 percent) and the overweight prevalence (16.6 to 13.7 percent).

(via tpm)

I wonder if the public would support a tax increase like this, or would we see a “keep your damn hands off my soda” revolt?

[afx114]

Another anecdote showing that “just eat less/exercise more” isn’t the silver bullet and that genetics gives people various advantages/disadvantages to controlling weight. My brother (2 years younger) grew up with the same parents, in the same household, playing the same sports, and eating the same food as myself. Yet I was always the “skinny” one and he was always the “big” one. We grew up with virtually the exact same environmental variables, yet our body types were always so different. This is further evidence that genetics play a large role and what works for one person may not work for another when it comes to weight loss/gain. So if your diet works for you, great… just don’t assume that the same diet or eating habits will work for everyone else.

Shifting gears a bit, the USDA just completed a study on the estimated effect that a sugar tax would have on obesity:

A tax-induced 20-percent price increase on caloric sweetened beverages could cause an average reduction of 37 calories per day, or 3.8 pounds of body weight over a year, for adults and an average of 43 calories per day, or 4.5 pounds over a year, for children. Given these reductions in calorie consumption, results show an estimated decline in adult overweight prevalence (66.9 to 62.4 percent) and obesity prevalence (33.4 to 30.4 percent), as well as the child at-risk-for-overweight prevalence (32.3 to 27.0 percent) and the overweight prevalence (16.6 to 13.7 percent).

(via tpm)

I wonder if the public would support a tax increase like this, or would we see a “keep your damn hands off my soda” revolt?

[ocrenter]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if the public would support a tax increase like this, or would we see a “keep your damn hands off my soda” revolt?[/quote]

I think the American public will see this as an extension of Big Government and fight hard against it.

Like I said before, we have to get to 50% obesity rate and when large numbers of us are dying off or becoming disabled in our 50-60’s before public opinion shift to allow the government to tax soda. (in the process, probably bankrupt the country)

[ocrenter]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if the public would support a tax increase like this, or would we see a “keep your damn hands off my soda” revolt?[/quote]

I think the American public will see this as an extension of Big Government and fight hard against it.

Like I said before, we have to get to 50% obesity rate and when large numbers of us are dying off or becoming disabled in our 50-60’s before public opinion shift to allow the government to tax soda. (in the process, probably bankrupt the country)

[ocrenter]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if the public would support a tax increase like this, or would we see a “keep your damn hands off my soda” revolt?[/quote]

I think the American public will see this as an extension of Big Government and fight hard against it.

Like I said before, we have to get to 50% obesity rate and when large numbers of us are dying off or becoming disabled in our 50-60’s before public opinion shift to allow the government to tax soda. (in the process, probably bankrupt the country)

[ocrenter]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if the public would support a tax increase like this, or would we see a “keep your damn hands off my soda” revolt?[/quote]

I think the American public will see this as an extension of Big Government and fight hard against it.

Like I said before, we have to get to 50% obesity rate and when large numbers of us are dying off or becoming disabled in our 50-60’s before public opinion shift to allow the government to tax soda. (in the process, probably bankrupt the country)

[ocrenter]

[quote=afx114]I wonder if the public would support a tax increase like this, or would we see a “keep your damn hands off my soda” revolt?[/quote]

I think the American public will see this as an extension of Big Government and fight hard against it.

Like I said before, we have to get to 50% obesity rate and when large numbers of us are dying off or becoming disabled in our 50-60’s before public opinion shift to allow the government to tax soda. (in the process, probably bankrupt the country)

[CA renter]

[quote=afx114]Another anecdote showing that “just eat less/exercise more” isn’t the silver bullet and that genetics gives people various advantages/disadvantages to controlling weight. My brother (2 years younger) grew up with the same parents, in the same household, playing the same sports, and eating the same food as myself. Yet I was always the “skinny” one and he was always the “big” one. We grew up with virtually the exact same environmental variables, yet our body types were always so different. This is further evidence that genetics play a large role and what works for one person may not work for another when it comes to weight loss/gain. So if your diet works for you, great… just don’t assume that the same diet or eating habits will work for everyone else.

[/quote]

Totally agree with this, and have seen the same thing in my family. My sister weighed over 11 lbs. at birth, I was 6 1/2 lbs. She had the stereotypical endomorphic body, and was always overweight, even though she ate less food (and better food) than I did. Back in the day, I was very skinny.

We also see this with our kids. Our eldest is also endomorphic (like my sister and my husband), our middle is “normal” and our youngest is very muscular and athletic-looking with absolutely no fat anywhere on her body. Our biggest eater? The youngest — the lean one.

There is no question in my mind that peoples’ bodies use food differently. Some store calories as fat, while others convert it immediately into energy/movement (like my “hyperactive” youngest who eats us out of house and home). While some would suggest that it’s the movement that causes food to be burned up more quickly, I think it’s the opposite: the *type of body* that converts food to energy (as opposed to fat) will make that person much more active. It’s the metabolism that makes one active/inactive, and the inactive people have less energy because their body doesn’t convert their food into energy (it’s stored as fat), so it’s a catch-22.

Not scientific, but just based on what I’ve seen in real life. Everyone is built differently, and it’s interesting when the “naturally skinny” types — who don’t have to work as hard at it — look down on those who are naturally heavier. I’ll bet you can take two different body types, feed them the same, exercise them the same, and you’ll end up with two totally different outcomes.

That being said, not every overweight person has metabolic problems, and we all need to be more mindful of the quantity and quality of food we eat. I also think that our lifestyle is much more sendentary than it used to be. Remember when all of us kids would spend our days outdoors riding bikes, hiking around, building forts, etc.? It seems those days are long gone.

Another thing…I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the rise in obesity corresponds with the decline in smoking rates.

[CA renter]

[quote=afx114]Another anecdote showing that “just eat less/exercise more” isn’t the silver bullet and that genetics gives people various advantages/disadvantages to controlling weight. My brother (2 years younger) grew up with the same parents, in the same household, playing the same sports, and eating the same food as myself. Yet I was always the “skinny” one and he was always the “big” one. We grew up with virtually the exact same environmental variables, yet our body types were always so different. This is further evidence that genetics play a large role and what works for one person may not work for another when it comes to weight loss/gain. So if your diet works for you, great… just don’t assume that the same diet or eating habits will work for everyone else.

[/quote]

Totally agree with this, and have seen the same thing in my family. My sister weighed over 11 lbs. at birth, I was 6 1/2 lbs. She had the stereotypical endomorphic body, and was always overweight, even though she ate less food (and better food) than I did. Back in the day, I was very skinny.

We also see this with our kids. Our eldest is also endomorphic (like my sister and my husband), our middle is “normal” and our youngest is very muscular and athletic-looking with absolutely no fat anywhere on her body. Our biggest eater? The youngest — the lean one.

There is no question in my mind that peoples’ bodies use food differently. Some store calories as fat, while others convert it immediately into energy/movement (like my “hyperactive” youngest who eats us out of house and home). While some would suggest that it’s the movement that causes food to be burned up more quickly, I think it’s the opposite: the *type of body* that converts food to energy (as opposed to fat) will make that person much more active. It’s the metabolism that makes one active/inactive, and the inactive people have less energy because their body doesn’t convert their food into energy (it’s stored as fat), so it’s a catch-22.

Not scientific, but just based on what I’ve seen in real life. Everyone is built differently, and it’s interesting when the “naturally skinny” types — who don’t have to work as hard at it — look down on those who are naturally heavier. I’ll bet you can take two different body types, feed them the same, exercise them the same, and you’ll end up with two totally different outcomes.

That being said, not every overweight person has metabolic problems, and we all need to be more mindful of the quantity and quality of food we eat. I also think that our lifestyle is much more sendentary than it used to be. Remember when all of us kids would spend our days outdoors riding bikes, hiking around, building forts, etc.? It seems those days are long gone.

Another thing…I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the rise in obesity corresponds with the decline in smoking rates.

[CA renter]

[quote=afx114]Another anecdote showing that “just eat less/exercise more” isn’t the silver bullet and that genetics gives people various advantages/disadvantages to controlling weight. My brother (2 years younger) grew up with the same parents, in the same household, playing the same sports, and eating the same food as myself. Yet I was always the “skinny” one and he was always the “big” one. We grew up with virtually the exact same environmental variables, yet our body types were always so different. This is further evidence that genetics play a large role and what works for one person may not work for another when it comes to weight loss/gain. So if your diet works for you, great… just don’t assume that the same diet or eating habits will work for everyone else.

[/quote]

Totally agree with this, and have seen the same thing in my family. My sister weighed over 11 lbs. at birth, I was 6 1/2 lbs. She had the stereotypical endomorphic body, and was always overweight, even though she ate less food (and better food) than I did. Back in the day, I was very skinny.

We also see this with our kids. Our eldest is also endomorphic (like my sister and my husband), our middle is “normal” and our youngest is very muscular and athletic-looking with absolutely no fat anywhere on her body. Our biggest eater? The youngest — the lean one.

There is no question in my mind that peoples’ bodies use food differently. Some store calories as fat, while others convert it immediately into energy/movement (like my “hyperactive” youngest who eats us out of house and home). While some would suggest that it’s the movement that causes food to be burned up more quickly, I think it’s the opposite: the *type of body* that converts food to energy (as opposed to fat) will make that person much more active. It’s the metabolism that makes one active/inactive, and the inactive people have less energy because their body doesn’t convert their food into energy (it’s stored as fat), so it’s a catch-22.

Not scientific, but just based on what I’ve seen in real life. Everyone is built differently, and it’s interesting when the “naturally skinny” types — who don’t have to work as hard at it — look down on those who are naturally heavier. I’ll bet you can take two different body types, feed them the same, exercise them the same, and you’ll end up with two totally different outcomes.

That being said, not every overweight person has metabolic problems, and we all need to be more mindful of the quantity and quality of food we eat. I also think that our lifestyle is much more sendentary than it used to be. Remember when all of us kids would spend our days outdoors riding bikes, hiking around, building forts, etc.? It seems those days are long gone.

Another thing…I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the rise in obesity corresponds with the decline in smoking rates.

[CA renter]

[quote=afx114]Another anecdote showing that “just eat less/exercise more” isn’t the silver bullet and that genetics gives people various advantages/disadvantages to controlling weight. My brother (2 years younger) grew up with the same parents, in the same household, playing the same sports, and eating the same food as myself. Yet I was always the “skinny” one and he was always the “big” one. We grew up with virtually the exact same environmental variables, yet our body types were always so different. This is further evidence that genetics play a large role and what works for one person may not work for another when it comes to weight loss/gain. So if your diet works for you, great… just don’t assume that the same diet or eating habits will work for everyone else.

[/quote]

Totally agree with this, and have seen the same thing in my family. My sister weighed over 11 lbs. at birth, I was 6 1/2 lbs. She had the stereotypical endomorphic body, and was always overweight, even though she ate less food (and better food) than I did. Back in the day, I was very skinny.

We also see this with our kids. Our eldest is also endomorphic (like my sister and my husband), our middle is “normal” and our youngest is very muscular and athletic-looking with absolutely no fat anywhere on her body. Our biggest eater? The youngest — the lean one.

There is no question in my mind that peoples’ bodies use food differently. Some store calories as fat, while others convert it immediately into energy/movement (like my “hyperactive” youngest who eats us out of house and home). While some would suggest that it’s the movement that causes food to be burned up more quickly, I think it’s the opposite: the *type of body* that converts food to energy (as opposed to fat) will make that person much more active. It’s the metabolism that makes one active/inactive, and the inactive people have less energy because their body doesn’t convert their food into energy (it’s stored as fat), so it’s a catch-22.

Not scientific, but just based on what I’ve seen in real life. Everyone is built differently, and it’s interesting when the “naturally skinny” types — who don’t have to work as hard at it — look down on those who are naturally heavier. I’ll bet you can take two different body types, feed them the same, exercise them the same, and you’ll end up with two totally different outcomes.

That being said, not every overweight person has metabolic problems, and we all need to be more mindful of the quantity and quality of food we eat. I also think that our lifestyle is much more sendentary than it used to be. Remember when all of us kids would spend our days outdoors riding bikes, hiking around, building forts, etc.? It seems those days are long gone.

Another thing…I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the rise in obesity corresponds with the decline in smoking rates.

[Author]

Posts