Can the US really improve without tackling its weight problem

[specific_name]

We can't solve the problem of health care costs without dealing with unhealthy lifestyle, diet etc. Even if you are young and healthy, affording private insurance is not easy unless you have money to begin with. There must be a public option. Nonetheless, diet is a personal decision influenced by family and the larger society. So children must be reached at a young age before they're already on a bad track.

Our government takes an overbearing counter productive stance on drug use/abuse, why not treat addiction and life threatening obesity as public health problems and stop with the pretense of criminally for the former issue. The resources freed up from the drug war could be used to better regulate the content and safety of food products.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You guys act like this is only a problem* in the US.



*and that's assuming it really is a problem, and I'm not buying that.

34% of the population is obese. Not fat, which isn't necessarily bad for you depending on circumstances... Obese. That's pretty crazy.

Look into the CDC change of the definition of obesity in 1997.  Added millions of Americans alone to the "Obese list".  Of course, this still doesn't refute the fact that among countries, we have the highest rate.  This is in large part because of our wealth, technology, and desk jobs I would imagine. 

I'd say more like car culture, refusal to just walk around, the insane amount of processed food we eat, and the insane amount of stress put on us by working way too much for too little money.

If people had 6 weeks of mandated paid vacation per year, and our government manipulated the food market to lower produce prices, and people had the time and the wherewithal to find an active hobby... we'd be a lot better off.

Yeah, it's a disgrace that just walking around town is considered "weird" or "for poor people" in suburbs and smaller cities and towns. The only people that walk or bike places in my town are young teens who can't drive and obviously very low income poors.

Also: it's very inconvenient to bike in many cities because of poor planning. Most roads in my town don't have bike lanes, there's only sidewalk and the road. Of course I just bike on the sidewalk anyways but that shouldn't happen. There should be wide bike lanes by every major arterial in towns with over 10,000 people.

Well.. people walk around all the time here... whether for exercise or enjoyment or to get business done.  Many will drive downtown, park, and then walk everywhere all day.
In fact when I looked at the ACS commuting statistics, my city had a much higher percentage of walkers/bikers than average even while public transit use was very low (we only have dial-a-ride buses).  But it still is frowned upon in the more sprawly parts of town where sidewalks are narrow and hug the road (no space for street trees). 

Many communities are pushing to enable walking and biking.  I've definitely seen it here with more and more bike lanes being installed... not to mention Minnesota is king when it comes to paved, well maintained long distance trails.  We have Jim Oberstar to thank for that.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

You guys act like this is only a problem* in the US.



*and that's assuming it really is a problem, and I'm not buying that.

34% of the population is obese. Not fat, which isn't necessarily bad for you depending on circumstances... Obese. That's pretty crazy.

Look into the CDC change of the definition of obesity in 1997.  Added millions of Americans alone to the "Obese list".  Of course, this still doesn't refute the fact that among countries, we have the highest rate.  This is in large part because of our wealth, technology, and desk jobs I would imagine. 

I'd say more like car culture, refusal to just walk around, the insane amount of processed food we eat, and the insane amount of stress put on us by working way too much for too little money.

If people had 6 weeks of mandated paid vacation per year, and our government manipulated the food market to lower produce prices, and people had the time and the wherewithal to find an active hobby... we'd be a lot better off.

Yeah, it's a disgrace that just walking around town is considered "weird" or "for poor people" in suburbs and smaller cities and towns. The only people that walk or bike places in my town are young teens who can't drive and obviously very low income poors.

Also: it's very inconvenient to bike in many cities because of poor planning. Most roads in my town don't have bike lanes, there's only sidewalk and the road. Of course I just bike on the sidewalk anyways but that shouldn't happen. There should be wide bike lanes by every major arterial in towns with over 10,000 people.

Well.. people walk around all the time here... whether for exercise or enjoyment or to get business done.  Many will drive downtown, park, and then walk everywhere all day.
In fact when I looked at the ACS commuting statistics, my city had a much higher percentage of walkers/bikers than average even while public transit use was very low (we only have dial-a-ride buses).  But it still is frowned upon in the more sprawly parts of town where sidewalks are narrow and hug the road (no space for street trees). 

Many communities are pushing to enable walking and biking.  I've definitely seen it here with more and more bike lanes being installed... not to mention Minnesota is king when it comes to paved, well maintained long distance trails.  We have Jim Oberstar to thank for that.

I think it's more an issue of poor urban planning than a cultural difference but I've noticed that there is a divide in my city between the fairly dense/gridded core of the city where there's lots of pedestrian traffic and the pseudo suburbs which were built in the 90s and 2000s where there is no pedestrian activity. If cities were built more densely and there were commercial venues located close by every residential area, and there were adequate side walks and bike paths, I think there would be far more walkers. I'm going to guess that Bemidji is fairly old so it has a tight core and gridded streets so that's probably why there's a lot of walkers. Here I see people drive to their mailboxes all the time.

[opebo]

In fairness one must admit that walking around is very unpleasant in most places outside of Europe (and bad enough there) - for example in Thailand and most of the US it is usually much too hot for walking about.

I'm afraid that the only solution to the obesity epidemic will have to be 'in kind' - some sort of hi-tech or genetic solution, whether through drugs or some other altering technology, which will allow humans to be both sedentary and thin. 

I will not be particularly surprised if there is 'success' in this area one day, though it should be noted that we may fall into mass starvation and stone age again due to running out of oil before that anyway.

[emailking]

pasta (converts to fat), white bread (converts to sugar then fat)

That doesn't matter. Your weight is determined by the average number of calories you take in and the average amount of calories you burn. The specifics of the bio-chemical processes that make use of those calories is irrelevant. If you eat nothing but pasta and white bread, but only 1000 calories a day, you are going to lose fat, not gain it. Maybe everything you eat gets converted to fat (I don't think that's right but it's beside the point), but then that fat is burned right off. So from the perspective of weight management, it's irrelevant.

Simply put, it's not a matter of what you eat, but how much of it you eat.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

pasta (converts to fat), white bread (converts to sugar then fat)

That doesn't matter. Your weight is determined by the average number of calories you take in and the average amount of calories you burn. The specifics of the bio-chemical processes that make use of those calories is irrelevant. If you eat nothing but pasta and white bread, but only 1000 calories a day, you are going to lose fat, not gain it. Maybe everything you eat gets converted to fat (I don't think that's right but it's beside the point), but then that fat is burned right off. So from the perspective of weight management, it's irrelevant.

Simply put, it's not a matter of what you eat, but how much of it you eat.

Too simplistic to the point of being incorrect. What you eat and when you eat it does have an impact on how your body metabolizes food, and as such, how many calories you require in a day.

Fat is created by an energy surplus. The challenge is this -- foods that release their energy content too quickly are much more likely to cause you a short-term energy surplus, which leads to the storing of fat. When you later have a short-term energy deficit, the body does not necessarily go to the fat stores first -- our bodies are surprisingly willing to eat away at muscle instead of fat.

Successful weight management requires an effort to keep your blood sugar regulated and to spread your energy intake across the day as much as you possibly can. Some peoples' bodies are better equipped to do this than others, which is why, I think, some people are far more disposed to gaining -- and keeping -- weight.

[memphis]

Obesity is a huge strain on our healthcare system, and by corollary, our economy. I think it's pretty clear by now that it's not going to be fixed by bright-eyed discipline. Much as I would love to see it, I feel pretty certain that the cure is not going to be all the walking/new urbanism stuff either. Fats just aren't going to go for it. Plus, our suburban infrastructure is already in place. I do believe, however, we'll see some kind of medical fix in coming decades. Bariatric surgery is still an ugly, risky procedure, but methods will almost certainly improve, perhaps, to the point where it will be like laser vision surgery today. In and out. No big deal. I'm very surprised big pharma hasn't dropped a pill on us yet. Given how effective stimulants are at supressing appetite, I think it's odd that they haven't been promoted as a therapy for obesity. Yes, they have risks but they're very common treatment for ADHD, a much less serious condition than chronic obesity. And then there's also the off-chance we'll see some sort of genetic engineering solve the puzzle. I see that as the least likely option because people get all freaked out over it, but you never know.

[dead0man]

But don't fat people die younger?  Don't thin, fit people that live to 95, sucking on Social Security for 3 plus decades, cost a lot too?  Sure, they might not cost as much in their 40s and 50s compared to the chubby, but if the chubby are dying at 62 doesn't it follow that they are, if not costing less than the fit, at least going a long way towards evening out the imbalance created earlier in life?  Same with smokers.

Basically, this doesn't seem to be as huge of a problem as some of you are making it out to be.  The US...errrr...the west as a whole* have much bigger problems facing us in the coming decades.


*again, this isn't just a problem for the US

[King]

But don't fat people die younger?

Nope.  Because we have the healthcare you mentioned in the rest of your posts, these obese diabetic olds live to be way too old for someone of their condition.

[dead0man]

But fatties are often poor and as everyone knows, poor people can't get medical care in the US.  They just die.  In the streets.  In droves.  It's happening now!


(my apologies if I got the color for sarcasm wrong again)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'm very surprised big pharma hasn't dropped a pill on us yet.

They have. Remember Phen-Fen? Killed some people.

Given how effective stimulants are at supressing appetite, I think it's odd that they haven't been promoted as a therapy for obesity.

They have. Remember ephedra? Killed some people.

[King]

But fatties are often poor and as everyone knows, poor people can't get medical care in the US.  They just die.  In the streets.  In droves.  It's happening now!


(my apologies if I got the color for sarcasm wrong again)

Normally, yes, but when they are old and get Medicare they live forevs' srsly.

[Ban my account ffs!]

But fatties are often poor and as everyone knows, poor people can't get medical care in the US.  They just die.  In the streets.  In droves.  It's happening now!


(my apologies if I got the color for sarcasm wrong again)

No.  They die in the emergency room and drive up your insurance premiums because you won't just f**king insure them to begin with and make them have a checkup at least once a year... or subsidize healthy food instead of fatty processed sh**t.

It's "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" not the "butter dredged cinnamon apple natural flavored™ stuffed pastry a day..." you get the point.

[opebo]

The death of nearly all poors (and some rich) by horrific, humiliating, and painful ways is just a normal part of life - it is a panacea to try to blame this ugly aspect of the human condition upon an unhealthful pastry or something like that.

Face it gentlemen, our connection with this world is tenuous, and the breaking of it will usually cause terrible suffering.  There's no way out of this, so stop trying to comfort yourselves with your jogging and healthy diet.  The only real comfort it probably an overdose of laudanum.

[emailking]

pasta (converts to fat), white bread (converts to sugar then fat)

That doesn't matter. Your weight is determined by the average number of calories you take in and the average amount of calories you burn. The specifics of the bio-chemical processes that make use of those calories is irrelevant. If you eat nothing but pasta and white bread, but only 1000 calories a day, you are going to lose fat, not gain it. Maybe everything you eat gets converted to fat (I don't think that's right but it's beside the point), but then that fat is burned right off. So from the perspective of weight management, it's irrelevant.

Simply put, it's not a matter of what you eat, but how much of it you eat.

Too simplistic to the point of being incorrect. What you eat and when you eat it does have an impact on how your body metabolizes food, and as such, how many calories you require in a day.

No it doesn't. This is a great myth, often repeated, very convincing, but completely untrue.

Fat is created by an energy surplus. The challenge is this -- foods that release their energy content too quickly are much more likely to cause you a short-term energy surplus, which leads to the storing of fat.

It doesn't matter. You're focusing on the swings when it is the average level that matters. Sure you might have a short term storage of fat, which is then burned off when you don't eat anything later on.

When you later have a short-term energy deficit, the body does not necessarily go to the fat stores first -- our bodies are surprisingly willing to eat away at muscle instead of fat.

Again, false. This is another great myth that your body start cannibalizing your muscle if you go hungry. You need to be in full on starvation mode (think Africa) before your body starts catabolizing  muscle.

Successful weight management requires an effort to keep your blood sugar regulated and to spread your energy intake across the day as much as you possibly can.  Some peoples' bodies are better equipped to do this than others, which is why, I think, some people are far more disposed to gaining -- and keeping -- weight.

This is only the case if you lack the will power to eat a set number of calories. Sure, there is some truth in what you say, in the sense that a lot of people have a tendancy to eat less overall if they spread their food out. But if you eat one big 2000 calorie meal every day, you will be the same weight as if you ate a bunch of small meals that total 2000 calories. How does it even make sense for it to work otherwise? Energy is energy. Most of our energy is spent making heat, running the brain, and moving your bodyparts. Not pushing food around on the inside. Yeah that takes *some* energy. Not much in comparison, and any variations based on 'when how much food is being moved where' are small.