huge topic:Americans keep getting fatter

[jpinpb]

[quote=UCGal]
Prozac for the masses. It’s an SRI – my (potentially wrong) understanding of it is that Prozac and other SRI’s prevent the re absorption of Serotonin… so you have it in your brain longer. But I could be way off base on that.[/quote]

So for the theory to be right, any studies out there that show people on Prozac are thinner than people who are not?

I personally don’t like taking drugs, so I’ll just have to deal w/my serotonin not rising. Maybe watch more comedies 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Washington DC is, for the most part, walkable and entirely available thru (cheaper) public transportation as well as thru numerous cabs and hired “cars.” This could account for it being on the list of thinnest places.[/quote]

I agree with your theory, bearishgurl.

I noticed that people in the city centers tend to be thinner. That’s true for San Diego, New York, Philly, etc…

Because DC is classified a separate “state”, it was included (whereas other large cities were not individually listed).

But if we could drill down to individual zips, we would see that people who live in the city are thinner than those who live in the suburbs or the exhurbs.

Also the 30% obese rate is one thing. OC renter said 67% is overweight and he’s predicting 90%. Of course, he’s right.

Just like the portions that we eat, the BMI is quite generous.

A 5-foot-4-inch woman is obese if she weighs 174 pounds, as is a 5-foot-10-inch man who weights 209 or more, according to the disease centers.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Washington DC is, for the most part, walkable and entirely available thru (cheaper) public transportation as well as thru numerous cabs and hired “cars.” This could account for it being on the list of thinnest places.[/quote]

I agree with your theory, bearishgurl.

I noticed that people in the city centers tend to be thinner. That’s true for San Diego, New York, Philly, etc…

Because DC is classified a separate “state”, it was included (whereas other large cities were not individually listed).

But if we could drill down to individual zips, we would see that people who live in the city are thinner than those who live in the suburbs or the exhurbs.

Also the 30% obese rate is one thing. OC renter said 67% is overweight and he’s predicting 90%. Of course, he’s right.

Just like the portions that we eat, the BMI is quite generous.

A 5-foot-4-inch woman is obese if she weighs 174 pounds, as is a 5-foot-10-inch man who weights 209 or more, according to the disease centers.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Washington DC is, for the most part, walkable and entirely available thru (cheaper) public transportation as well as thru numerous cabs and hired “cars.” This could account for it being on the list of thinnest places.[/quote]

I agree with your theory, bearishgurl.

I noticed that people in the city centers tend to be thinner. That’s true for San Diego, New York, Philly, etc…

Because DC is classified a separate “state”, it was included (whereas other large cities were not individually listed).

But if we could drill down to individual zips, we would see that people who live in the city are thinner than those who live in the suburbs or the exhurbs.

Also the 30% obese rate is one thing. OC renter said 67% is overweight and he’s predicting 90%. Of course, he’s right.

Just like the portions that we eat, the BMI is quite generous.

A 5-foot-4-inch woman is obese if she weighs 174 pounds, as is a 5-foot-10-inch man who weights 209 or more, according to the disease centers.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Washington DC is, for the most part, walkable and entirely available thru (cheaper) public transportation as well as thru numerous cabs and hired “cars.” This could account for it being on the list of thinnest places.[/quote]

I agree with your theory, bearishgurl.

I noticed that people in the city centers tend to be thinner. That’s true for San Diego, New York, Philly, etc…

Because DC is classified a separate “state”, it was included (whereas other large cities were not individually listed).

But if we could drill down to individual zips, we would see that people who live in the city are thinner than those who live in the suburbs or the exhurbs.

Also the 30% obese rate is one thing. OC renter said 67% is overweight and he’s predicting 90%. Of course, he’s right.

Just like the portions that we eat, the BMI is quite generous.

A 5-foot-4-inch woman is obese if she weighs 174 pounds, as is a 5-foot-10-inch man who weights 209 or more, according to the disease centers.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Washington DC is, for the most part, walkable and entirely available thru (cheaper) public transportation as well as thru numerous cabs and hired “cars.” This could account for it being on the list of thinnest places.[/quote]

I agree with your theory, bearishgurl.

I noticed that people in the city centers tend to be thinner. That’s true for San Diego, New York, Philly, etc…

Because DC is classified a separate “state”, it was included (whereas other large cities were not individually listed).

But if we could drill down to individual zips, we would see that people who live in the city are thinner than those who live in the suburbs or the exhurbs.

Also the 30% obese rate is one thing. OC renter said 67% is overweight and he’s predicting 90%. Of course, he’s right.

Just like the portions that we eat, the BMI is quite generous.

A 5-foot-4-inch woman is obese if she weighs 174 pounds, as is a 5-foot-10-inch man who weights 209 or more, according to the disease centers.

[ocrenter]

[quote=jpinpb]ocr – in effect, then, we can say Americans are getting fatter b/c they lack happiness and are seeking it through sugar and fat which are cheap, legal and readily available.

So maybe the solution would be to not only target diet and exercise, but to find other safer sources of happiness.

That will be a tricky one b/c the “happiness” derived from eating is the temporary rise in serotonin.

Are there other things that can raise serotonin that are safe? Music? Jogging? Bicycling? Hiking?

Here’s one for TG. Sex?

What are some things that people can engage in that will raise serotonin that are healthy?[/quote]

Americans are less happy because we are a lot more stressed.

This is what happens when you force a family to become a double income household in order to maintain a “middle class lifestyle.”

[ocrenter]

[quote=jpinpb]ocr – in effect, then, we can say Americans are getting fatter b/c they lack happiness and are seeking it through sugar and fat which are cheap, legal and readily available.

So maybe the solution would be to not only target diet and exercise, but to find other safer sources of happiness.

That will be a tricky one b/c the “happiness” derived from eating is the temporary rise in serotonin.

Are there other things that can raise serotonin that are safe? Music? Jogging? Bicycling? Hiking?

Here’s one for TG. Sex?

What are some things that people can engage in that will raise serotonin that are healthy?[/quote]

Americans are less happy because we are a lot more stressed.

This is what happens when you force a family to become a double income household in order to maintain a “middle class lifestyle.”

[ocrenter]

[quote=jpinpb]ocr – in effect, then, we can say Americans are getting fatter b/c they lack happiness and are seeking it through sugar and fat which are cheap, legal and readily available.

So maybe the solution would be to not only target diet and exercise, but to find other safer sources of happiness.

That will be a tricky one b/c the “happiness” derived from eating is the temporary rise in serotonin.

Are there other things that can raise serotonin that are safe? Music? Jogging? Bicycling? Hiking?

Here’s one for TG. Sex?

What are some things that people can engage in that will raise serotonin that are healthy?[/quote]

Americans are less happy because we are a lot more stressed.

This is what happens when you force a family to become a double income household in order to maintain a “middle class lifestyle.”

[ocrenter]

[quote=jpinpb]ocr – in effect, then, we can say Americans are getting fatter b/c they lack happiness and are seeking it through sugar and fat which are cheap, legal and readily available.

So maybe the solution would be to not only target diet and exercise, but to find other safer sources of happiness.

That will be a tricky one b/c the “happiness” derived from eating is the temporary rise in serotonin.

Are there other things that can raise serotonin that are safe? Music? Jogging? Bicycling? Hiking?

Here’s one for TG. Sex?

What are some things that people can engage in that will raise serotonin that are healthy?[/quote]

Americans are less happy because we are a lot more stressed.

This is what happens when you force a family to become a double income household in order to maintain a “middle class lifestyle.”

[ocrenter]

[quote=jpinpb]ocr – in effect, then, we can say Americans are getting fatter b/c they lack happiness and are seeking it through sugar and fat which are cheap, legal and readily available.

So maybe the solution would be to not only target diet and exercise, but to find other safer sources of happiness.

That will be a tricky one b/c the “happiness” derived from eating is the temporary rise in serotonin.

Are there other things that can raise serotonin that are safe? Music? Jogging? Bicycling? Hiking?

Here’s one for TG. Sex?

What are some things that people can engage in that will raise serotonin that are healthy?[/quote]

Americans are less happy because we are a lot more stressed.

This is what happens when you force a family to become a double income household in order to maintain a “middle class lifestyle.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]I noticed that people in the city centers tend to be thinner. That’s true for San Diego, New York, Philly, etc…

But if we could drill down to individual zips, we would see that people who live in the city are thinner than those who live in the suburbs or the exhurbs.[/quote]

Absolutely agree, brian. People who must commute to work spend valuable time (10-15 hrs. wk??) JUST SITTING in a vehicle, over and above the sitting they have to do at work. This time could be spent at the gym, jogging or at the park with their kids. These “commuters” arrive home late, hungry and often too exhausted to prepare a meal so just eat something quick (fast food or frozen fast food). For most of the year, the daylight is already gone by 7:00 p.m., anyway. It’s hard for them to even get any recreation on the weekends because EVERYTHING in their lives is left undone (chores, shopping, etc.) and has to be caught up so they can restart their grueling regime on Monday morning.

I have also noticed that many business people who fly frequently (travel for business 10-15 days or more per month) are obese or nearing obesity. Sitting in cramped airline cabins for hours on end, waiting in airports (where fast food is all that’s available), and eating most catered “convention-type” food is NOT conducive to one’s health. When the business traveler is finally home a for few days, they have to run back and forth to the cleaners and repack their bag/briefcase for the next trip/meeting, etc.

I’ve had friends and relatives who have lived this way for YEARS.

I have noticed that airlines are trying to remedy this problem by offering frequent flyer clubs in airports with gyms/showers/juice bars, etc. This is a great idea.

In the old days, I could call someone in my “connection city” to pick me up and take me to their place or lunch on a 3-hr. layover. Now a traveler can’t do that because there is no guarantee they will get back through the security checkpoints in time to make their connection :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]I noticed that people in the city centers tend to be thinner. That’s true for San Diego, New York, Philly, etc…

But if we could drill down to individual zips, we would see that people who live in the city are thinner than those who live in the suburbs or the exhurbs.[/quote]

Absolutely agree, brian. People who must commute to work spend valuable time (10-15 hrs. wk??) JUST SITTING in a vehicle, over and above the sitting they have to do at work. This time could be spent at the gym, jogging or at the park with their kids. These “commuters” arrive home late, hungry and often too exhausted to prepare a meal so just eat something quick (fast food or frozen fast food). For most of the year, the daylight is already gone by 7:00 p.m., anyway. It’s hard for them to even get any recreation on the weekends because EVERYTHING in their lives is left undone (chores, shopping, etc.) and has to be caught up so they can restart their grueling regime on Monday morning.

I have also noticed that many business people who fly frequently (travel for business 10-15 days or more per month) are obese or nearing obesity. Sitting in cramped airline cabins for hours on end, waiting in airports (where fast food is all that’s available), and eating most catered “convention-type” food is NOT conducive to one’s health. When the business traveler is finally home a for few days, they have to run back and forth to the cleaners and repack their bag/briefcase for the next trip/meeting, etc.

I’ve had friends and relatives who have lived this way for YEARS.

I have noticed that airlines are trying to remedy this problem by offering frequent flyer clubs in airports with gyms/showers/juice bars, etc. This is a great idea.

In the old days, I could call someone in my “connection city” to pick me up and take me to their place or lunch on a 3-hr. layover. Now a traveler can’t do that because there is no guarantee they will get back through the security checkpoints in time to make their connection :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]I noticed that people in the city centers tend to be thinner. That’s true for San Diego, New York, Philly, etc…

But if we could drill down to individual zips, we would see that people who live in the city are thinner than those who live in the suburbs or the exhurbs.[/quote]

Absolutely agree, brian. People who must commute to work spend valuable time (10-15 hrs. wk??) JUST SITTING in a vehicle, over and above the sitting they have to do at work. This time could be spent at the gym, jogging or at the park with their kids. These “commuters” arrive home late, hungry and often too exhausted to prepare a meal so just eat something quick (fast food or frozen fast food). For most of the year, the daylight is already gone by 7:00 p.m., anyway. It’s hard for them to even get any recreation on the weekends because EVERYTHING in their lives is left undone (chores, shopping, etc.) and has to be caught up so they can restart their grueling regime on Monday morning.

I have also noticed that many business people who fly frequently (travel for business 10-15 days or more per month) are obese or nearing obesity. Sitting in cramped airline cabins for hours on end, waiting in airports (where fast food is all that’s available), and eating most catered “convention-type” food is NOT conducive to one’s health. When the business traveler is finally home a for few days, they have to run back and forth to the cleaners and repack their bag/briefcase for the next trip/meeting, etc.

I’ve had friends and relatives who have lived this way for YEARS.

I have noticed that airlines are trying to remedy this problem by offering frequent flyer clubs in airports with gyms/showers/juice bars, etc. This is a great idea.

In the old days, I could call someone in my “connection city” to pick me up and take me to their place or lunch on a 3-hr. layover. Now a traveler can’t do that because there is no guarantee they will get back through the security checkpoints in time to make their connection :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]I noticed that people in the city centers tend to be thinner. That’s true for San Diego, New York, Philly, etc…

But if we could drill down to individual zips, we would see that people who live in the city are thinner than those who live in the suburbs or the exhurbs.[/quote]

Absolutely agree, brian. People who must commute to work spend valuable time (10-15 hrs. wk??) JUST SITTING in a vehicle, over and above the sitting they have to do at work. This time could be spent at the gym, jogging or at the park with their kids. These “commuters” arrive home late, hungry and often too exhausted to prepare a meal so just eat something quick (fast food or frozen fast food). For most of the year, the daylight is already gone by 7:00 p.m., anyway. It’s hard for them to even get any recreation on the weekends because EVERYTHING in their lives is left undone (chores, shopping, etc.) and has to be caught up so they can restart their grueling regime on Monday morning.

I have also noticed that many business people who fly frequently (travel for business 10-15 days or more per month) are obese or nearing obesity. Sitting in cramped airline cabins for hours on end, waiting in airports (where fast food is all that’s available), and eating most catered “convention-type” food is NOT conducive to one’s health. When the business traveler is finally home a for few days, they have to run back and forth to the cleaners and repack their bag/briefcase for the next trip/meeting, etc.

I’ve had friends and relatives who have lived this way for YEARS.

I have noticed that airlines are trying to remedy this problem by offering frequent flyer clubs in airports with gyms/showers/juice bars, etc. This is a great idea.

In the old days, I could call someone in my “connection city” to pick me up and take me to their place or lunch on a 3-hr. layover. Now a traveler can’t do that because there is no guarantee they will get back through the security checkpoints in time to make their connection :={

[Author]

Posts