The Mathematics of Obesity

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that Carson C. Chow, an MIT-trained mathematician and physicist, has taken a new look at America's obesity epidemic and found that a food glut is behind America's weight problem, with the national obesity rate jumping from 20 percent to over 30 percent since 1970. 'Beginning in the 1970s, there was a change in national agricultural policy. Instead of the government paying farmers not to engage in full production, as was the practice, they were encouraged to grow as much food as they could,' says Chow. 'With such a huge food supply, food marketing got better and restaurants got cheaper. The low cost of food fueled the growth of the fast-food industry. If food were expensive, you couldn't have fast food.' Chow and mathematical physiologist Kevin Hall created a mathematical model of a human with hundreds of equations, boiled it down to one simple equation, and then plugged in all the variables — height, weight, food intake, exercise. The slimmed-down equation proved to be a useful platform for answering a host of questions. For example, huge variations in your daily food intake will not cause variations in weight, as long as your average food intake over a year is about the same. Unfortunately, another finding is that weight change, up or down, takes a very, very long time. Chow has posted an interactive version of the model on the web where people can plug in their information and learn how much they'll need to reduce their intake and increase their activity to lose."

Comments

Fruit is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Fruit is the problem - it's full of sugar. I suppose low-sugar fruits are OK then.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[bazim2]

Fruit is also full of soluble fiber. The fiber prevents the digestive system from absorbing the sugar as effectively. Our current western diets contain nowhere near enough fiber.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Some fruits might be rich in fibre but not all. For instance, apples are low in fiber but high in sugars. (Apples are water and sugar and that's about it, the balance being some microscopic amount of minerals.)

That makes apples a poor dietary choice, but it doesn't stop the fruit-industrial complex's fruit-is-good-for-you propaganda. We should be eating less fruit and more vegetables.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Fruit is bad, but so is meat. I think we all know that. Veggies are also a problem with those carbs. Best just to eat water.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Fiber is good only if you smoke it.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Fruit IS a problem, I'm forever hearing obese people tell me they are healthy eaters, "but I eat lots of fruit"... Fruit is loaded with sugars, you spike your blood with sugar and your running of it for hours while your body could of been burning stored fats as fuel..

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Ihmhi]

No, being poor is the problem.

When you need to feed a family of four on a tight budget, well, you just can't do it healthy unless you grow stuff yourself - which requires a time investment and green space that you can use (and in the city, that doesn't exist for a lot of people).

Let me give you an example - I bought a few bananas yesterday. 3 1/4 pounds, cost me about $2.20. That same $2.20 can buy two boxes of Macaroni and Cheese (or three if you get the cheapo store brand), and each of those can basically be dinner for a family of four for a night. So if you have $50 for food for the week, which decision do you think most parents are going to make?

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Paul Jakma]

The sugar in fruit is bound together with fibre and cells from the fruit. It's harder to digest than fructose in more refined, low-fibre foods. Plus, all the fibre of the fruit will make you feel full quicker. It's very hard to get fat on raw fruit.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[FictionPimp]

If your going that route, then why not make your own noodles. You can make egg noodles cheaper than you can buy them. So you could feed your family on homemade noodles covered in some sauce which is probably just as health as mac and cheese.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Paul Jakma]

Obese people not infrequently are self-delusional about what they eat. They'll say "But I only eat fruit & veg", but if you observe them it can often be quite a different story.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[netsavior]

yeah cause somebody who works exhausting menial labor for 8-12 hours a day is comming home to extrude noodles in their combo bathroom/kitchen sink, using fresh eggs from a grocery store they had to hop 3 busses to get to.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Hognoxious]

That same $2.20 can buy two boxes of Macaroni and Cheese (or three if you get the cheapo store brand), and each of those can basically be dinner for a family of four for a night.

A kilo of dry pasta is going to cost close to that. We'd get maybe three meals for 2 big & 2 small people from that, so roughly the same coverage.

So consider the preparation, extra costs of packaging & logistics - plus the higher markup - that's in the price of the convenience meals & I dread to think what the ingredients are. Sawdust, cardboard pulp & wallpaper paste?

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"which decision do you think most parents are going to make?"

the wrong one....

Re:Fruit is the problem

[j00r0m4nc3r]

So if you have $50 for food for the week, which decision do you think most parents are going to make?

Ok, but making that decision is probably based on ignorance or laziness or some combination of both. Dry beans, rice, canned/frozen veggies, apples, etc.. all dirt cheap. Find a bottle of cheap multivitamins and you will be quite healthy. The problem is that people eat for pleasure now, instead of just eating to get nutrition and stay alive. I can feed myself for about $1/day, 2 meals (i usually skip breakfast) and get all my nutritional requirements... Sure, it's not decadent living, but I have better uses for the food money I save, and this is even more true if you're making $7/hr and have a family

Re:Fruit is the problem

[DrgnDancer]

And trace amount of arsenic. Don't forget the microscopic amounts of poison :-) That said, apples are fairly unusual, most fruits are pretty good sources of nutrition, though you're right that veggies are lower calorie choices with similar nutritional profiles. I'd rather people eat apples than Ho-Hos though, even if a carrot would be better still.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Belial6]

I have seen the opposite to be true. People who think "fruit and veg" are the answer to all of peoples weight issues just declare anyone who is obese and eats only "fruits and veg" to be lying irrelevant to the facts.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[jedidiah]

Apples are NOT low in fiber. Your own citation states that.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[jedidiah]

Cheese sauce is butter, flour, milk, cheese and 5 minutes of prep time. You will be done with the sauce before the water for the pasta has boiled.

Cheap cans of pasta sauce also do well and you are eating tomatoes rather than cheese.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Which also ignores the fact that they need a noodle maker that will cost well into the 3 digits. Let's see... feed family for a month, or buy a noodle maker. I suppose you could use a rolling pin and a knife to make each noodle individually, but most of us don't have 10 hours a day to prepare food.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Joce640k]

No, being poor is the problem.

When you need to feed a family of four on a tight budget, well, you just can't do it healthy unless you grow stuff yourself

Bullshit. Basic foodstuff like flour, rice, vegetables is dirt cheap anywhere.

The prices only go through the roof when you want you salad pre-chopped, pre-washed and in a special little plastic tray of its own.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[operagost]

3 1/4 pounds is actually a lot of bananas! And $0.67/lb is a pretty high price.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[operagost]

Not to mention how difficult it is to find a seat on the bus for your straw man.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true, but a more insidious problem is that for historical reasons, food consumption studies never ask about alcohol intake--and alcohol is extremely fattening. The reason is that people would be so dishonest about the amount of alcohol they drink that studies ended up highly skewed. So, instead, they 'modeled' the amount of alcohol they expected a person to drink and added those calories to the total.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Paul Jakma]

I strongly suspect that, in the set of obese people who /believe/ they are on a healthy fruit & veg diet, the proportion who are self-delusional about their diet greatly outweighs those who /really/ are on a healthy fruit & veg diet but for whom it isn't working. Indeed, I'd say the latter number are insignificant compared to the former.

FWIW, I eat a fairly healthy fruit & veg & nuts diet. I can definitely put on weight on it. So I'll agree with you it's quite possible. However to do so requires fairly excessive binging on dried fruit & nuts, at least for me. Also, nb, salted, oiled and/or roasted nuts don't count as healthy... (Added salt is bad for you, and roasting makes the nuts much easier to break down and digest).

Re:Fruit is the problem

[djdanlib]

You know what? In some parts of the world, that's how it is.

You don't have to buy the eggs the same day. You also don't make only one day's worth of noodles at a time. That's really inefficient. No, you take some time, and prepare enough for a good number of meals. Then those noodles are ready to go whenever you are ready to make a meal for at least a few days or weeks. You don't let things get to the point where you don't have any food until you make more ingredients when you live like that.

Check it out, people lived like that for millennia. This whole idea of kicking back and relaxing after a hard day's work seems to be a modern invention. There used to be a reason to have a family and stick together - spreading out the labor.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Fned]

actually, kicking back and relaxing after a hard day's work seems to be the default standard of most of humankind's existence.

Even at 44 hours a week, hunter-gatherers are kicking back a fuckton more than most working Americans, who might, if they're lucky, get to START adding food preparation time at that point...

Re:Fruit is the problem

[djdanlib]

Hmm, interesting! I wonder what the gain is, if we're trading in leisure time for something else.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh? The link says that total dietary fiber in apples is about 2.4g/100, which is next to nothing. You'd be better off eating some beans or a tablespoon of psyllium husk instead.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Belial6]

The most common pattern is that people eat 'healthy' and get lots of exercise. They either are get no significant health results and give up on a pointless endeavor, or find that it works for them and declare it proof that everyone it doesn't work for is a lazy liar. The whole subject is a mess of confirmation bias.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[proxima]

yeah cause somebody who works exhausting menial labor for 8-12 hours a day is comming home to extrude noodles in their combo bathroom/kitchen sink, using fresh eggs from a grocery store they had to hop 3 busses to get to.

I'm not going to deny the existence of "food deserts" consisting of areas with few choices of fresh fruits and vegetables. However, eggs are ubiquitous. Places like CVS and 7-11 tend to carry them, and they're all over. You pay a small premium over a large grocery store price ($3-4 instead of $2-3 per dozen), but they're still a good value for their protein content. Making one's own egg noodles has to fall pretty far down on the list of cost-saving measures, though they are tastier than dry noodles and cheaper than refridgerated store-bought noodles.

I think the biggest barrier to healthy eating (even at low income levels) is knowledge and some practice. Master a handful of simple recipes, especially those which make leftovers for a few days, and you won't need to spend much time or money (either in food or equipment) to be healthier than most Americans. It's an up-front cost of time, sure, but it's doable in several evenings. Given that Americans watch 30+ hours of TV each week, I think most of us have that time to spare.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

fruit naturally limits your intake of it. The fibrous nature of if stops you eating too much, if too quickly. Try eating two oranges, compare with a glass of orange juice (roughly the same quantity of orange)

Re:Fruit is the problem

[sjames]

Fruit is bad, but so is meat. I think we all know that. Veggies are also a problem with those carbs. Best just to eat distilled water.

FTFY

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Paul Jakma]

So conservation of energy and mass are just the result of confirmation bias. Uh huh...

Re:Fruit is the problem

[netsavior]

Obesity?

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Belial6]

Thinking that it is a 'conservation of energy and mass' issue is a fantasy. Humans are not closed system, and counting only food consumed and energy burned in exercise is not counting all of the inputs and outputs. Saying "conservation of mass" clearly does not imply that you understand it.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[sandytaru]

Dried fruits aren't fruit, they're candy. Added sugar and all. Raw fruits are still not something you should eat exclusively or binge on, but having apples, bananas, and oranges as a daily thing is totally worth the natural fruit sugars.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Paul Jakma]

Rubbish.

You can consider it a 2-part closed system, the human and the outside environment. You don't care about fully determining the outside environment, you only care about determining what happens to the human. While you can not easily measure every input and output, nor easily determine precisely the effect each such input/output will have on the human, it however is *trivial* to measure the net result on the human system. Even without precisely knowing the inputs and outputs or their effects, you have great control over them and can modulate them (both inputs to the human and many processes within the human that affect the outputs) and observe the net effects. With a modicum of experimentation, it is trivial to keep the human in equilibrium or increase/decrease their mass at will. Further, many other humans have already done this experimentation, so there's already plenty of clues as to what modulation of which variables are likely to give what results.

If you really think otherwise, if you really are suggesting that there are some people out there whose mass will not decrease no matter how much they reduce their food intake and increase exercise, then you really are denying physical reality. I would also start to wonder if you are in fact in that set of delusional people I mentioned earlier (why else argue so strongly against reality).

Note, that while it is trivial to control the human's mass at will, it is not trivial for the human itself to exercise the will-power to control its own inputs. Evolution has equipped us with deep desires to consume food wherever and whenever available.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Paul Jakma]

Dried fruit that I eat don't have added sugar. However, they are very sweet, energy dense, and pretty close to candy. Yes.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Belial6]

Claiming that conservation of mass proves a formula, AND that all of the inputs and outputs don't need to be known is hand wavy pseudo-math. Different chemicals will run different machines at different efficiencies with different fuels and produce different quantities of waste.

The human body is an incredibly complex machine with a lot of different components. "Eat Less Exercise More" relies entirely on the idea that all meterial put into that complex machine will run the machine at equal efficiency with equal waste no matter what you put into it.

Using your logic, YOU should be able to do pull ups for 6 hours straight with no rest, as you will still have energy stored in your body. After all, it is just an issue of conservation of energy and mass. And you never poop.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Paul Jakma]

Eh? Where did I claim you never poop? Or that exercise can continue indefinitely without any input? Are you sure you read my comment?

Of course there may be different efficiencies. Still it remains a physical fact that putting less energy into the system than is expended MUST, in time, lead to a reduction of energy and/or mass (so in the case where the system is human and energy is stored chemically - that means a reduction in mass). Efficiencies only affect the rates at which this happen.

If you really won't accept that, then I'm pretty sure you're delusional, in at least one way. ;)

The difficulties people have with weight loss are nearly always mental - motivation, knowledge, will-power, the huge cravings we can have for food, etc. Sometimes, there may be hormonal reasons that make these more powerful or difficult to overcome.

Re:Fruit is the problem

[Belial6]

Sure a dead rotting corpse will reduce it's mass. It was presumed that why you say "Eat Less Exercise More", you are not intending for people to injure themselves. Apparently I was wrong since the "Still it remains a physical fact that putting less energy into the system than is expended MUST, in time, lead to a reduction of energy and/or mass" does not have to happen before systems start shutting down.

I didn't say that you said you could exercise indefinitely without any input. You said that it was just conservation of mass and energy, which means that you claim that you can exercise non-stop until the mass and energy required to do so is no longer in your body. That is certainly less than 6 hours. Your claim that it is conservation of mass and energy would also require that large amounts of mass or energy are not leaving your body in a way other than being burned off as energy. Thus no poop.

long time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I agree that losing weight takes a 'very very long time.' I went to eating yogurt for breakfast, soup for lunch and salmon or chicken and broccoli or strawberries and sometimes some almonds here and there as well as switching to Almond milk. I also gave up red meat, most dairy, etc.. and let me tell you -- not to sound hippy-ish but, I never felt better. Combined with walking - I lost 100lbs in a year... and I didn't starve myself. My diet was boring but, it happened in a year and 100lbs is no small feat.

I've also noticed on the other hand that eating like crap -- you can gain a lot of that back. I went from 267 to 169 and now am at 215.. trying again to reach less than 200. It doesn't seem to take some people long to gain it or lose it.

Wish I knew why.

Re:long time?

[TemperedAlchemist]

3500 Cal in a pound of fat. This means a caloric deficit of ~500 Cal a day is sufficient to lose one pound of fat per week. Of course, this doesn't work out so simply, which is why the equation provided here is so nice.

A lot of the weight lost can be from water -- not just fat. But claims that you can lose 10 lbs. of fat in a week? Complete bullshit.

Re:long time?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's taken me 45 years. Since around the age of 18. I've had a 28 inch waist. Now I'm 45, I have to wear 29 inch waist jeans - with a belt. I'm the skinniest person I know. No matter what or how much I eat, I never gain weight.

Re:long time?

[Kergan]

Skinny != healthy.

What actually counts is the fat in your abdomen, which you cannot see. Not all overweight people have signs of metabolic syndrome, but most do. And some skinny people have it too. 60% and 40% respectively, if memory serves -- figures are from a UC video I can no longer find.

Re:long time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I never claimed to be healthy, just skinny.

I was commenting on the length of time taken to gain/loose weight. You are correct regarding abdominal fat.

Re:long time?

[GNious]

I'm currently targeting (and mostly hitting) about 2-2.5 kilo fat-loss per week. I think it might be possible to achieve more in a short burst, but it wouldn't be sustainable in a healthy manner.

To get there, I'm now on ca 1/3 the caloric intake that I had before, where my weight was stable, and it is (as GP mentioned) boring. Will currently have to endure it for at least 4 more months, longer if work keeps getting in the way.

As for dropping 100lbs of fat in 1 year, I think is extreme based on the numbers I'm looking at for myself. Most likely there was some water and some muscle-mass in that loss too.

Re:long time?

[ghostdoc]

of course, if you exercise as part of the lifestyle change, you'll be putting on muscle, which weighs a lot more than the fat you're losing.

I've just run the simulator in TFA on my known variables for the last year (I got diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had to make some very controlled, measured, changes to my lifestyle which got me back to being healthy).
It said I'd have lost over 30Kg over that year. I actually lost just under 10Kg, but went from being unable to run for more than 100m to completing a 12Km fun-run and confidently entering for a half-marathon in 3 months' time. I also lost about 6inches off my waistline (as in I gained a waist!).

Also, humans are not controlled by variables and equations. The equations describe an average person, who doesn't exist. They're useful approximations, but in the end just approximations.

Re:long time?

[Nidi62]

Yeah, I wonder what their definition of "a very very long time". 3 years ago during my senior year of college, I lost 30lbs in only 3 months. I did this simply by eating less (didn't change what I ate) and working out only slightly more(as I had been playing football in college the last 4 years, I had already been exercising pretty regularly). So it can be done in what is to me a pretty quick amount of time, without much effort. Of course, over the next 3 years in grad school I put it all back on, but that's a different story.

Re:long time?

[N1AK]

The starting weight has a big influence on what level of weight loss is healthy or sustainable. I'm slightly overweight by BMI but 8-10kg a month wouldn't be healthy (even 4-5kg is borderline) however if I was carrying another 40+ kg of fat then faster weight loss would be fine. I have to admit that 2.5kg per week is a very heavy diet. Your doctor obviously knows more than I do, and I'm sure it is fine, but I'd estimate that it wouldn't be suitable for most people who are considering trying to lose weight. I hope everything foes well for you.

Re:long time?

[Anonymous Coward]

A year is a very long time.

Re:long time?

[Jason Levine]

Losing 10 pounds in a week is actually pretty dangerous. Your best bet is to lose a smaller amount (1 or 2 pounds), but continue it for a long period of time. Over a year, that could work out to 52 to 104 pounds lost. Too many people want a quick fix, though. They hope to go from flabby to perfectly fit in 3 weeks and, when they fail, they give up completely. Or move onto the next fad diet. Or, worst of all, they actually force themselves to drop the weight through some highly unhealthy means ("I lost 30 pounds by only consuming watermelon juice!") and then they go off the diet and gain that weight back plus some more. I'd love for The Biggest Loser to do a series of reunion shows to see just where their contestants are now. I'd wager that most of them have gained back much, if not all, of their reality show weight loss.

Re:long time?

[Hatta]

The equations describe an average person, who doesn't exist.

Sweet! I'm above average.

Re:long time?

[nauseum_dot]

of course, if you exercise as part of the lifestyle change, you'll be putting on muscle, which weighs a lot more than the fat you're losing.

I have a problem with "muscle, which weighs a lot more that the fat you're losing". A pound or kg of muscle has the same weight as a pound or kg of fat because of the unit of measure. The truth is that muscle is denser than fat, i.e. when you account for volume, muscle has more weight per volume than fat.

Re:long time?

[DrgnDancer]

It would be more accurate to say that the muscle is more *dense* than the fat, but I think it's obvious what he meant. A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat, but takes up less space. Hence the not uncommon "problem" of the person attempting to "lose weight" with a program involving strength training. You can lose inches (or centimeters if you prefer), while the scale doesn't move much, or even goes up. It's why most exercise based weight loss plans try to keep people focused on measurements rather than weight.

Re:long time?

[jedidiah]

Muscle is more dense.

You can become smaller, drop several clothing sizes, and still end up being heavier.

You can be smaller and be heavier at the same time.

Re:long time?

[JigJag]

Hey man, just a personal question. You said you couldn't run 100m but now you can do a 12 km run. I'm interested in how you did it.
I'm in a similar position as your initial situation. Although not terrible fat, I can run 100 m without perspiring a small flood and my heart is beating on a hardtrance beat.
How did you get to where you're at now? How long did it take? Any recommendation to share with your fellow slashdotter?

thx
JigJag

Re:long time?

[JigJag]

arrgh, I meant "I CAN'T run 100 m"

Re:long time?

[n7ytd]

I'm currently targeting (and mostly hitting) about 2-2.5 kilo fat-loss per week. I think it might be possible to achieve more in a short burst, but it wouldn't be sustainable in a healthy manner.

That is a significant amount of weight. Good for you! But be careful; losing that much weight, that quickly is usually done with a diet that can't be sustained for the rest of your life. People who fad diet often go through a short, ridiculously low-calorie diet until they reach a certain weight goal, and then resume their previous eating habits, which causes them to bounce back above their starting weight. The key is to get yourself onto a reasonable diet plan that you really can do the rest of your life.

Re:long time?

[cojsl]

I've just run the simulator in TFA on my known variables for the last year (I got diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had to make some very controlled, measured, changes to my lifestyle which got me back to being healthy). It said I'd have lost over 30Kg over that year. I actually lost just under 10Kg, but went from being unable to run for more than 100m to completing a 12Km fun-run and confidently entering for a half-marathon in 3 months' time. I also lost about 6inches off my waistline (as in I gained a waist!).

Also, humans are not controlled by variables and equations. The equations describe an average person, who doesn't exist. They're useful approximations, but in the end just approximations.

Glad to hear of your success. Agreed that the simulator is flawed. As one who actively tracked caloric intake, improved food quality, and increased activity in the process of losing over 150lbs in the past 5 years, the simulator's assumptions about caloric intake are way off for me. The simulator's suggested "lose weight" calorie level is my personal "maintain weight" calorie level.

Re:long time?

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I'll repost something from a forum I frequent, that I found highly inspiring:

"I run slow

I work in the social services, and a lot of the people we work with have a lot of regrets. I've asked our case managers to have their clients come out and watch me run. I run so slow, time run backwards. As I waddle along, your life runs in reverse. Scars becomes wounds become chances to exercise better judgement. I run slow.

Like most people, I enjoy running in the mornings, before it gets to hot. Unlike most people, I've been pushed over by a squirrel.

I run slow. Sometimes when I am running, I think of those zen fountains that absorb a drip drip drip of water down a bamboo tube before finally tipping over and dumping their contents into a pool. Each step I take is another drip. I think, that fountain would call me a pussy.

I run slow. But I know where I have been.

Six months ago, I didn't run.

Six months ago, I had heartburn bad enough to keep me from sleeping through the night. Six months ago, I felt like I needed to go to sleep at 2pm. And six months ago, running felt impossible.

I run slow, and I have ways to go. But I can sleep. I feel alive. I can run two, slow, miles. Slowly.

Sometimes I get discouraged. I compare where I am to where other people are. But all that matters is where I am compared to where I was.

Once something good becomes something you are going to do for the rest of your life, the pace becomes less important. I know that my drip drip drip will amount to that deluge, eventually. Someday I will run 3 miles, slowly."

Just get out there and run those 100m. When you can't run anymore, walk. Start out by going a mile. Soon you'll be up to 2 miles. At some point, you'll suddenly find that you can run for miles without being completely out of breath. Just keep working at it, and it will come :-)

Re:long time?

[ghostdoc]

you are, of course, correct, and I apologise for my stupid use of language.

If I changed it to '..which weights a lot more than the fat you're losing for the same volume' that would probably fix it.

Re:long time?

[ghostdoc]

Congrats on your success also.

It'd be interesting to see whether there's a common cause here... those of us who put on way too much weight, usually in our late 20's, and have since shed it. It seems to be a common experience that we have to go way under the dietician's recommended calorie intake to avoid putting on the weight again.

Re:long time?

[another_twilight]

Late reply, I know, but in case you are checking ...

The "Couch to 5k" program is designed to take you from not running to running 5km/3m. You start with intervals of running and walking and slowly increase the running portion. You can run at whatever pace you like and either measure your 'run' portions by the time you take or the distance you cover.

It was a great way for me to get back to running without over-straining and to introduce someone who had never run and found running uncomfortable and undesireable.

http://www.c25k.com/

Re:long time?

[JigJag]

thanks, I'll check it out!
JigJag

Not really news IMHO

[mikael_j]

That the primary problem with people becoming obese being that they consume too much food is hardly news, nor is it news that food is much more abundant these days than it was in the past.

That said, it is interesting to read about this approach to studying obesity. And the simulator was also kind of interesting although it told me that in order to maintain my current weight I need to increase my energy intake by 300-800 kCal/day (depending on activity level specified) which is sort of odd since I'm currently neither gaining nor losing weight, just maintaining (in case you're wondering about my activity level, I'm at the gym more days than I'm not and I also try to get an hour or two of cardio in every week).

Re:Not really news IMHO

[Intrepid imaginaut]

More than that even, weight change can go up and down quite drastically in a short period of time, so I'm not sure what the summary is on about. This looks like a case of "mathematical models not accurately representing reality" I reckon.

Re:Not really news IMHO

[Fished]

I recently watched Ken Burns' Prohibition documentary, and was struck again and again by how many people were overweight despite the image of Americans back then as skinny.

Re:Not really news IMHO

[Rich0]

That the primary problem with people becoming obese being that they consume too much food is hardly news, nor is it news that food is much more abundant these days than it was in the past.

I think the real issue is what the underlying root cause is. Obviously if everybody ate less there would be less obesity. The important question is WHY people don't just do it.

Re:Not really news IMHO

[Anne Thwacks]

None of this explains how all animals on the planet are becoming obese, including lizards on unpopulated islands!

I have no wish to suggest the average American does not eat too much, and not being in America, I cannot possibly comment. However, lizards on the far side of the world are probably more affected by pollution of the oceans and related food chain with assorted (but now banned) pesticides and hormone related weed killers than high fructose corn syrup. (I may be wrong about this ;-)

Disclaimer: I have lost over 10kg over the past few years.

Re:Not really news IMHO

[mikael_j]

I suspect one contributing factor is that in the past (100+ years ago) food simply wasn't as abundant as it is today, not to mention that in the 19th century you couldn't just pop a microwave pizza weighing in at 1200+ kCal, wait two minutes and then eat. Cooking took time. Just look at candy, on my way home from work I pass by a grocery store, right next to the checkout they have candy, large 200 gram candybars each packing 1200 kCal or so worth of energy, and they're being sold for less than SEK 20 (~$2.8), even if your income is low that means an hour's worth of work will buy you a lot more than the energy you need in a day.

I don't even want to know how much energy is in proper pizza from a pizzeria but I doubt it's less than 2000 kCal...

Re:Not really news IMHO

[CastrTroy]

Which candy bar has 1200 kCal in it? Even the King Size Snickers (2 bars in 1 wrapper) only contained 440 kCal (220 each). I do see your point though. It's way to easy for people to stuff themselves with a lot of calories without even realizing it. The most sensible thing I read when looking at obesity literature is telling people to move back to eating "real" food. This means get rid of all the pre-processed stuff and go back to buying raw ingredients and preparing the food yourself. While both a snickers bar and a home-made muffin may contain the same number of calories (not sure if they do, I'm making and example), my guess is that the home made muffin takes more calories for your body to actually process, thereby cutting down on the actual calories able to be used for other purposes by your body. A cup of sugar contains 774 calories. 2.5 cups of oatmeal contains about the same. So they contain the same amount of calories, from a weight gain perspective, they should do the same. Yet we all know they don't affect your body in the same way.

Re:Not really news IMHO

[mikael_j]

A Marabou 200 gram chocolate bar has 545 kCal/100g which comes to 1090 kCal, that's for the regular milk chocolate ones. I know I've seen higher figures for the ones that have various types of other candy or nuts in them.

Yeah, my point was mostly that people don't realize just how much energy is in the food they eat. And the "health experts" employed by various magazines and other media outlets don't help, they spout things like "Nuts are much healthier than candy". Right, except the energy density is about the same as chocolate so 100 grams of peanuts or cashew nuts will do approximately as much damage as 100 grams of chocolate (if you're trying to lose weight), and since people think nuts are "healthy" they eat a lot more of them than they would if it was chocolate...

Re:Not really news IMHO

[CastrTroy]

Again back to my other point. 200 calories of nuts will take a lot more energy from your body to process then 200 calories of white sugar. It will also fill you up quiet a bit more, and make it easier to not eat more calories for a period of time after eating it. So while they do contain the same number of calories, the nuts will yield less weight gain in the end.

Re:Not really news IMHO

[Cyberax]

No they don't. Oh, there'll be some difference but it's well within 10-15%.

Re:Not really news IMHO

[swb]

I'll bet that food was far more abundant 100+ years ago than you think, at least for the majority of people who lived in rural settings. They were either involved directly in food production as a vocation (farming) or were involved in some kind of part time small scale subsistence agriculture -- keeping a cow for milk, raising chickens or some other fowl, sheep or goats for milk, meat or wool, and pigs for meat and their ability to eat organic garbage.

My dad lived on a farm in the 1930s during the depression and he said they always had pork and chicken, raised, slaughtered and smoked on site. Beef was more seasonal as they only raised a small number of beef cattle primarily to be sold and they had to eat what beef they got as they got it since there wasn't preservation capacity (freezers; smoking worked less well for beef). All manner of vegetables were available as was commercially procured grains.

For city dwelling poor people, food quantity was probably an issue, but an economic one, not a supply issue. There wasn't a lot of urban poverty concentration until there was larger scale grain agriculture capable of supply cheap, high-volume processed grains capable of supporting a large population not engaged in any form of agriculture, subsistence or otherwise.

How about we blame ourslef?

[Krneki]

The main problem is sugar.

It's everywhere and you don't need it. Drink only water and don't buy any food that has sugar (fructose excluded) in it.

You DON'T need it. You like it because your are an addicted junky.

Re:How about we blame ourslef?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the human brain requires glucose.

Re:How about we blame ourslef?

[Anonymous Coward]

I learned from a man expert in diet development for agricultural animals that no animal gets fat eating its natural diet. In fact they will not even over eat. Then I learned that McDonalds and KFC had for 50 years directed the development of crops for the encouragement of over eating. Literally they reformulated even things like potatoes for the purpose of causing Malnutrition causing over consumption as a natural compensation. As genetic engineering came in it was far worse.

In the 1930's to 1950's period considerable direction was done by the Agriculture Department of the USA which led world efforts to do things like suppliment vitamins and such in food to prevent malnutrition. No such effort exists today. As such the effort by ag marketers is to cause demand and that means deliberate malnutrition. As such even a Vegan who never ate at KFC (Now Pepsico) or McDonalds is affected by the engineering these people did. The epidemic of fat corresponds largely to their efforts and to the Genetic Engineers. This would produce as the study was done to see the illusion that the issue is quantity of intake calories. It is in fact the mix of nutrients in the food.

Having just lost 90 pounds myself and eating all I want on the diet, I know very well that this is true. I was IDDM, Hypertensive, Obese and generally quite sick. This is much better now but it took a massive shift is what I ate. The headgames buy the diet and Ag guys are getting thick. Bluntly they need regulated to return nutrition to foods and to discourage their activities that give us "Empty Calories" and things like that. Unfortunately there is a lot of blame the victim going on. The industry is attacking people. I am now free of IDDM and no longer Obese. Other health problems are fading away. Bluntly we need to tell these people that they cannot target the deliberate malnutrition of people to make them eat more.

Re:How about we blame ourslef?

[Anonymous Coward]

Drink only water and don't buy any food that has sugar (fructose excluded) in it.

This statement and the +5 Informative confuse me.

There are hardly any cells in your entire body that can absorb fructose. It has to be metabolized. This process occurs in your liver.

Aside from that, fructose also does not trigger your body's insulin reaction. So the more fructose you eat, the more fructose you can eat. Rather than other forms of sugar, which do trigger the reaction, causing you to stop eating.

Now if you meant to say glucose, I completely agree. But fructose is about has harsh on your liver as grain alcohol.

Re:How about we blame ourslef?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 1940s, farmers attempted to use cheap, industrial grade coconut oil to fatten their animals for market. More fat in the diet = fatter cattle, right? Wrong! The farmers found that coconut oil made the cows lean and active. By the late 1940s, the solution was found and remains in place today – feed animals soy and corn and they will get fat quickly and on less food – largely because of the oils in soy and corn.

Subsequent experiments on animals proved conclusively that obesity increased directly in proportion to the ratio of unsaturated oil to coconut oil in the diet, and was not related to the total amount of fat consumed. That is, animals that ate small amounts of unsaturated oil (corn, canola and soy) were fat, and animals that ate a lot of coconut oil were lean.

The corn and soy oil producers did not want the public to become aware of these facts – and, for the past 60 years, have done a wonderful job of slandering “tropical oils” as artery-clogging, fat-producing, cellulite-making, and generally bad fats to be avoided at all costs.

The smear campaign has worked – and several generations of Americans have been raised on Mazola and other unsaturated, processed, Omega 6, genetically modified, and largely rancid oils. You need only look at a cross-section of our society to see the gradual and now very evident decline in health. For the first time in recorded history – the life expectancy of our youngest generation is less than that of their parents.

Re:How about we blame ourslef?

[antdude]

Ourslef?

Re:How about we blame ourslef?

[bill_mcgonigle]

The main problem is sugar.

YES

It's everywhere and you don't need it. Drink only water and don't buy any food that has sugar

YES

(fructose excluded) in it.

Ahhhghhh - train off the rails! If you mean fructose that's bound up with fruit fibers - sure, fine. The fiber slows down the absorption. And honey for some reason absorbs slowly (we don't know why).

What's really important is the rate of fructose absorption. If it's too fast, the liver just turns it into fat - similar in process to heavy drinking - and possibly worsens arachidonic acid cycle products, bad triglycerides, oxidative stress, etc..

This is why HFCS is such a problem. Instead of sucrose, which is partly broken down in stomach acid and then more thoroughly broken down by sucrase in the small intestine (both moderating absorption rates) the fructose in HFCS is immediately available as soon as it goes down your throat (to the extent that it can get to the right bits that it can be absorbed, but there's nothing slowing it down beyond that).

Of course high glucose amounts have their own problems from insulin spikes to metabolic syndrome to full-on diabetes, so I'm not recommending sucrose here either, just making the point that fructose isn't a safe sucrose substitute. Try stevia (Stevia in the Raw, Truvia are good) or xylitol (I buy 5lb bags from) for baking. Also eat whole grains so that glucose doesn't spike (again, rates are as important as amounts).

You DON'T need it. You like it because your are an addicted junky.

YES

Re:How about we blame ourslef?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can stop any time I want.

Re:How about we blame ourslef?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unbelievable.......sometimes the problem with being smart in one area is that you are retarded in others. So this uber-goober is saying we eat too much food because it's there? Didn't he say when he started working on the obesity epidemic he read everything he could get his hands on? He obviously didn't read Gary Taubes and his work on exposing the lies behind the "science" of nutrition.

I agree with this guy. Sugar is poison. It's been proven. But not by a calculator. On real people.

Re:How about we blame ourslef?

[Krneki]

Yap, I meant only fructose contained in the fruits.

Re:How about we blame ourslef?

[Anonymous Coward]

The High Fructose Corn Syrup in a can of soda is typically 55% fructose and 43% glucose, and 2% other sugars. An apple has 60% fructose, 40% glucose. Dextrose (table sugar) is 50/50. Do you seriously think that fructose is somehow more healthy than HFCS?

All these amateur armchair nutritionists are making people think weight loss is complicated. Calculate your basal metabolic rate. This is the amount of calories you burn laying in bed all day doing nothing. Click the link to the Harris Benedict Equation. This gives you a simple guide to account for your daily activity level by multiplying your BMR by a number from 1.2 to 1.9. This gives you your maintenance calories. Eat 500 calories a day less than this number and you'll lose weight. If you're not losing weight after two weeks, you've given yourself too much credit for activity, or you're not counting calories somewhere (like the people who smother food in ketchup or heap jelly on their morning toast because they think condiments don't count). Every time you lose 5 pounds, re-calculate.

If you're feeling like an over-achiever, do something like Couch to 5K in addition. I've lost thirty pounds doing these two things, and believe me when I tell you that when you were the fatass in high school who always walked during gym class, it feels fucking great to be able to run three miles.

Re:How about we blame ourslef?

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, sucrose, not dextrose.

Why is this appropriate?

[gmhowell]

Why is this appropriate for Slashdot, for the math, or for the obesity?

Re:Why is this appropriate?

[AHuxley]

Or the java installer

Re:Why is this appropriate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the buritto installer.

Re:Why is this appropriate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both. They'r not mutually exclusive.

Re:Why is this appropriate?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is "buritto"?

eat less

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, fat people - eat less!

You are consciously lifting that food and putting it in your mouth, chewing and swallowing.

Just stop doing that so much and you'll get thinner.

I guarantee it.

Why the Campaign to Stop America's Obesity Fails

[martijnd]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/why-the-campaign-to-stop-america-s-obesity-crisis-keeps-failing.html

According to this its a change of diet (as in the promoted healthy diet is anything but) in the 1970's and way too many sugars.

Wrong Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1.Completely (or as much as reasonably possible) eliminate fructose from your diet.
Step 2. Win.

The fact that people are eating more is not due to supply, its due to the fact that their natural appetite inhibitor is ruined by eating fructose. (See step 1)
You cannot expect to lose weight purely by expending energy. (See step 1, and after you've lost weight, you'll _want_ to exercise, but you won't _need_ to)

Re:Wrong Again

[Fished]

It's not a "magical notion". Fiber in fruit keeps fructose in the gut, where it is digested by gut flora and turned into tasty flatulence. I happen to know this because my daughter is fructose intolerant.

Re:Wrong Again

[Anonymous Coward]

The simpler solution is just to not eat fruit in the first place, and eat something more nutritious than watery sugarballs instead.

Re:Wrong Again

[codeButcher]

Apparently (IANA Dietician), some fruit contain more Fructose than Glucose, which makes the fructose load more problematic. See for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose_malabsorption, which has lists. Fructose is further problematic in that it chelates some other nutrients, like Zinc and Iron, removing them from the digestive tract and preventing them from being absorbed (can't find the paragraph on Wikipedia anymore, might be wrong.)

There's another article (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/PRN-this-is-your-brain-on-sugar-ucla-233992.aspx) that did the rounds this morning about the negative effects of fructose on learning and memory.

Of course, this article also mentions omega-3 fatty acids, which are sorely lacking in the modern western diet that relies heavily on wheat, corn, soy and sunflower, as well as on meats, dairy and eggs "grain fed" on these crops instead of natural green pasture. This lack (or rather the imbalance between omega-3 and omega-6 content in modern food because of this) also contributes to obesity (and other "lifestyle diseases" like cancer and diabetes).

Drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

I now buy raw food and cook it myself, I even bake the bread myself. And, my calorie intake dropped -- I am just less hungry, I do not crave for food in the middle of night, etc. My small cereal breakfast supplies me with energy well till afternoon.

The highly processed food is tasty and burns fast in some addictive way. People have refined the recipes for hundreds of years to make the food just that -- it has been a selective process that promoted the most addictive variants.

Fortunately, the art of making food for people that think, that the real taste is not a copious amount of simple sugars and sodium glutamate, has survived as well.

Re:Drugs

[Lumpy]

Baking your own bread makes HUGE changes in diet. Most bread in the store has a metric buttload of sugars added simply because they can. home made bread has t he minimum needed and it is usually consumed by the yeast.

Want to make that baked bread better? slow rise in the fridge overnight. the yeast will consumer more sugars and add in a lot more flavors. Sourdoughs are the best for you.

Re:Drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

I make a full grain bread based on sourdough, and it rises about 12h even in the room temperature.

It has a strong deep taste, that intensifies over time. It also can be cut into very thin slices, what pairs well with the strong taste.

And the thin slices mean less starch, and less starch in one diet component means looking for energy elsewhere, and that in turn means more diversified diet overall.

Re:Drugs

[Mindcontrolled]

Coming from Germany with its huge culture around sourdough bread I was shocked when I shopped for bread in a Californian supermarket for the first time. It was late already, I just came from the airport and I just wanted to grab something to make a sandwich. When I unpacked the stuff and took the first bite, it was... just horrible. When I studied the packaging, I learned that they obviously added a metric fuckton of molasses to the bread. What... the...??? The stuff was sweeter than some of the cakes I was used to.

Re:Drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Sourdough tastes horrible though, used because the bread lasts longer. If you're making your own bread every two days, there's no need to use sourdough.

Re:Drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a similar experience. Where I come from rye bread is what people first think when you say "bread".
While In the USA I managed to find dark rye bread, I was very, very happy, but when at home I bite it, I almost started to cry, because it was such a disappointment. It was sweet. I ended up throwing it away cause I couldn't bring myself eating that fake bread.

Re:Drugs

[phantomfive]

lol breaking news......man moving to foreign country finds the local cuisine unpalatable. Wishes he could eat normal things, like blutwurst.

Re:Drugs

[Fned]

Mod Parent Urrp!

Sorry threw up in my mouth a little there

Re:Drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that you, coming from Germany, would make this comment. As coming from Finland, and having spent one year as an exchange student in Germany, i found the availability of proper bread really sad. Actually the one thing that finnish students asked their visiting relatives to bring to them was proper sourdoug rye bread.

You do not really have a taste of bread until ou go for the rye bread. Try it sometime:
http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/25121/real-finnish-100-sourdough-rye-bread

Re:Drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

True dat. I'm British, raised on cheap sliced supermarket bread, but the first time I tasted American supermarket bread - this was back in the 90s - I actually gagged.

Then someone started telling me about "high-fructose corn syrup" and I began to see that living in the USA for a whole two weeks might be quite a challenge.

Processed sugar is the problem

[Kergan]

Fruit isn't so bad, because it has fiber -- this keeps part of the sugar in your bowls, until it gets refined by bacteria and farted. Plus you need the vitamin. Fruit juice is another story: might as well drink beer.

Some videos on sugar from the UC:

http://www.uctv.tv/skinny-on-obesity/

Re:Processed sugar is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, just eat legumes - all the fiber (more, actually) with none of the sugar.

Re:Processed sugar is the problem

[FilthCatcher]

I personally find that leaving sugar in the bowl helps me keep off the weight too.

Re:Processed sugar is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, there aren't that many vitamins and minerals in fruits, mostly sugar. If you're worried about vitamins you should increase your vegetable intake.

Re:Processed sugar is the problem

[oldmac31310]

Thanks for your permission to drink beer instead of fruit juice. I much prefer it anyway.

Re:Processed sugar is the problem

[Buzz_Litebeer]

It is calories in calories out.

I started at 310 lbs, ate mostly taco bell, restaurants, and fast food, but i tracked my calories, and I lost 130lbs with strenuous exercise.

Now that I eat "healthy" (prepared meals, balances of nuts/veggies/pastas) the math all comes out to be the same. My weight fluctuates depending on the calories I consume, nothing more, nothing less.

If you want to see how your body actually works when it comes to weight (not necessarily HEALTH), based on thousands of people testing it via tracked exercises etc... join fitocracy and read the begginners guides to weight loss.

In the end, it is all about calories in and calories out. If you have a calorie deficit at the end of the day, you are going to lose that much fat/muscle.

Simply, easy. People just don't track these things, it doesn't matter that they are eating processed sugars etc... It only matters that they are eating more calories than they expend in a day.

I, personally, have to eat around 3500 calories a day to maintain weight, because I am active now. It doesn't matter if I eat those as healthy or unhealthy calories, as processed sugar or whole unprocessed sugar from the teat of the organic wholesome sugar fairy.

Re:Processed sugar is the problem

[ourlovecanlastforeve]

The problem with monotheistic religions is that they make people tend toward assuming that one problem has one cause and one solution that is out of reach.

Source code would be nice

[YttriumOxide]

A cursory look at the app and I can see some definite uses. I've been wanting to create (mostly for my wife and myself; but theoretically for others later as open source) a personalised diet planner application based on some fuzzy logic, the "USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference" data, and user input for common/preferred/available meals. Combining it with the formula used in this simulator would be really helpful.

Unfortunately, I don't actually see the formula or source code to the app anywhere on the linked pages. Am I just missing it somewhere?

Re:Source code would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

It has serious issues. For one thing it doesn't take into account a persons frame size. At 83kg and roughly 178cm, it's estimating my body fat at 20.3%, the problem though is that I have a large frame and I'm slim enough that I can just about see my ribs.

Re:Source code would be nice

[YttriumOxide]

It has serious issues. For one thing it doesn't take into account a persons frame size. At 83kg and roughly 178cm, it's estimating my body fat at 20.3%, the problem though is that I have a large frame and I'm slim enough that I can just about see my ribs.

Of course, there will always be people it doesn't apply to; however you must realise that you're the exception rather than the rule. The majority of people have a "normal" frame (hence referring to it as normal) and for such people (including myself: normal frame and definitely overweight) it seems fairly suitable.

Re:Source code would be nice

[turtledawn]

Here, check this one out. No way to input preferred meals, but it's far more flexible than the thing in this article.

http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov/

Re:Source code would be nice

[YttriumOxide]

Here, check this one out. No way to input preferred meals, but it's far more flexible than the thing in this article.

http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov/

Ummmmm.... that is the one I was already referring to (and is both linked from the article (first link in the summary) and is itself the last link in the summary)

Were you intending to give a different link here?

Re:Source code would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU, Cartman.

Re:Source code would be nice

[turtledawn]

No. I didn't RTFA and this time it bit me in the butt. Sorry for that. The comments made it sound as though it's both new and useless, and it's neither.

Simplified

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the mathematics of obesity:

input > output

Re:Simplified

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean "input = output"?

Re:Simplified

[reub2000]

Um no. He was writing to a file named output.

Re:Simplified

[nitehawk214]

No its more like "garbage in = garbage out".

Re:Simplified

[reub2000]

Fine if your trying to make garbage out the same thing as garbage in, then maybe you should try:
$garbageOut = $garbageIn;

Re:Simplified

[nitehawk214]

I am using a functional language.

It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Shivetya]

Far too many Americans are simply not active. This is compounded by the fact that while not active they have easy access to food that it too conveniently packaged for consumption. I love the people at work who blame medical conditions for their weight while consuming a whole bag of chips or having that bagel covered in cream cheese. People don't know the calories they are consuming and woefully underestimate the amount of them in the foods they eat.

So sugar is only part of the problem. I know lots of people who don't eat cookies, drink soda, or the like, and yet they little walking cubed shaped individuals. All because of the mass amount of carb and fat filled foods they consume.

Gone are the long days and long weeks of manual labor. Instead most Americans sit during their workday and spend only a third of their week at most working and traveling too and from work. I am not declaring that working only forty hours or less is bad; but lets be honest those we know who do more tend to get further; but it did leave many people with way too much time on their hands and they don't know what to do with it.

You can maintain a healthy weight and eat some truly trashy food. As part of a diet and exercise contest we have at work I set out to prove that some seriously trashy breakfast foods could be consumed while losing weight as long as the diet and exercise balanced out. This meant items like donuts or muffins with coffee and cream from Dunkin in the morning every work day for two weeks. Yet followed by sensible lunches and dinners which most of us kept logs for. Those who logged their food showed the most loss. That is the real key, knowing what you eat.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Anonymous Coward]

The above poster is correct: Americans don't exercise, and even when they're not consuming processed sugar they ARE consuming loads of useless starches.

On the exercise front, we don't. Many (economically mobile) Americans have moved away from sidewalked cities and suburban towns into exeburgs (whatever you call them). Fueled by federal DC subsidized roadbuilding welfare, the South and West has gone through a bit of a development boom the last 40 years: build new highways, build new homes connected to it, and profit. The new developments lack both public transportation (which was typically walked to) but it also lacks wide sides on roads (room to bike on the far right), and no sidewalks at all. Building codes _prohibit_ neighborhood grocery/convenience stores so now it's a 25 minute drive to get eggs and milk. No matter how fat you are, sporting a goatee, baseball cap, and sleeveless oversized Dont Tread On Me shirt won't slim you ANY. A larger truck wont help you any either.

America's transportation system was designed by Americans, but you could easily convince me it was designed by haters of America who wanted an economic time bomb. Not only is the obesity problem killing us, but so are the transportation issues. In a suburban state, looking for work means DRIVING... lots of it.. and the fuel cost can easily exceed one's savings or unemployment insurance. It's not a question of when things return to fantasy normal, but when people see the light at the end of the tunnel is a train coming right for them. Try going 3 days without a car to see how you and your development are prepared for $10 gasoline (which is inevitable as more and more of the world buys cars.. hey, you told them to, remember?).

Oh yeah. Cut back on the sugar AND starch (notice I did not say carbs), and whatever exercise you do will have more impact. Try mashed cauliflower folks, instead of mashed potato.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[drinkypoo]

So sugar is only part of the problem. I know lots of people who don't eat cookies, drink soda, or the like, and yet they little walking cubed shaped individuals. All because of the mass amount of carb and fat filled foods they consume.

Then there's the successful dieters who still sit on their ass, and that ass is flat. I see women all the time who are conventionally attractive, but they just look frail and I'm afraid I'd hurt 'em. Sitting on ass is likely to become the new fat, which used to be a sign that you were rich. Now the sign of being rich is that you are thin but weak since you can afford to eat the best food, and afford to go to the dietician, but you don't do anything for yourself.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[ayjay29]

>>while consuming a whole bag of chips or having that bagel covered in cream cheese

I love American food...

I visited the US for a week a while ago, and gained 3 kg (5 lb), I was aiming for 5 kg. If you go to Prague you go an a beer binge, in Amsterdam its a drugs bunge, but if you go to the US you go on a food binge.

I worked out that if I lived there for a year I would weigh about 230 kb (460 lb).

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Anonymous Coward]

* You can maintain a healthy weight and eat some truly trashy food. *

Absolutely. I eat a terrible diet of mostly soda/snack foods and I play hours of video games at home....but I'm 37, 6' even, and weigh 160lbs. For me it's a combination of being a bench chemist at work, a reasonably active runner, and I never eat till I'm full. Take any one of those away and I'm sure I'd really pack on the pounds.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[merlinokos]

I am not declaring that working only forty hours or less is bad; but lets be honest those we know who do more tend to get further;

Science and reality both say you, and those whose viewpoints you represent are deluded.
Labor, experiments, and industry all agree that a 40-hour work week is better for everybody - individuals and companies. Productivity by people who regularly work more than 40 hours per week is lower than those who work 40 hours.
The only reason people get ahead for working longer hours is because a generation of managers appears to have been taught to think that bums in seats = productivity. So longer hours = increased likelihood of promotion. It's a vicious cycle that's fuelled by people like yourself who speak with no understanding of how the human mind and body work. As a matter of fact, /. posted an article on this very subject 2 months ago today.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[mapkinase]

Yes, it's food. But why? Why do we eat McDonalnds? Because it's tasty, and it tasty because it has calories.

Thousands of years the most important part of food was calories: to chase wild animals, bend your back on plantation, fight enemies with swords, lift, carry, dig, stab, grasp, run, exert yourself in every possible way, and for all that we need plenty of calories, and we did not have enough most of the time. That's why calories taste the best: the more vegetable oil I put on the pan while making hash browns in the morning, the better they taste (up to the certain limit of course).

Now we don't need calories, but we are still addicted to it. Our stupid body still craves them.

It is very unreasonable to think that people will change in their food choices.

Now exercise: it's really stupid activity to do physical work for the sake of physical work, talk about Sisyphus. You either have to bring out your inner child capable of having a joy of moving around aimlessly spending all this energy or you have to be really determined on losing your weight.

So we have both options: cutting on tasty food and doing useless work that are doomed to fail on mass scale.

And we are doomed, the humans wall-e discovered ARE our future.

The only way to bring us back in shape is a technological reset that will create both lack of calories and necessity of hard physical labor. We will look like morlocks.

It's either fat eloy or skinny morlocks, there is no in between.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[dunkelfalke]

McDonalds food tasty? Really?!

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Anonymous Coward]

The article addresses this - pointing out that physical activity among americans hasn't significantly changed over the course of the weight spike.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Mindcontrolled]

Well, if I wanted to go on a food binge, I'd definitely not go to the USA. Strassbourg comes to mind, instead. I always pack on some pounds when I go there, the cooking is just too good to be allowed...

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Mindcontrolled]

Here we are closing in on the problem. McDonalds food is indeed perceived as tasty by a lot of people. If you know anything about food, if you tasted actually decent food before, you will of course recognize it as the bland boring crap it is. Many people, however, do not have that knowledge or experience. If you watch the relevant Jamie Oliver shows, like Food Revolution or Ministry of Food, you get the impression that we are rapidly losing our cultural knowledge about food and cooking as an everyday experience.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[drinkypoo]

Labor, experiments, and industry all agree that a 40-hour work week is better for everybody - individuals and companies. Productivity by people who regularly work more than 40 hours per week is lower than those who work 40 hours.

Given current unemployment, it might be nice to change that to 30 hours per week. Medieval serfs worked less than 40 hours a week. I wouldn't trade places with them, but the point is still made. Haven't we supposedly realized massive improvements in efficiency since then? Where is all the extra work going, when it comes to just subsistence living? No, you MUST work to keep the system running over people, or you don't get health care. Welcome to the corporatocracy.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Drethon]

I eat fast food or less than healthy restaurants at least a couple times a week and my wife's cooking from scratch isn't exactly healthy but it is damn tasty. I'm 5'9 and 145 pounds (OK 148 but working my way back down again...). I can't say for sure what keeps me at a healthy weight but I think it's bringing in one lunch bag of food and eating that throughout my work day. Probably ~750 calories. Then having a plate of food for dinner.

I also try to lift weights and hit the bike three times a week but working OT lowers how often that happens. So I don't think its really exercise that is my "diet", just not eating a lot. There is some to be said for quality vs quantity but my quality is pretty lousy and I'm still pretty healthy from low quantity.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[drinkypoo]

If you watch the relevant Jamie Oliver shows, like Food Revolution or Ministry of Food, you get the impression that we are rapidly losing our cultural knowledge about food and cooking as an everyday experience.

It's true, people can't cook for shit any more. My last girlfriend was younger than I am and couldn't cook a damn thing, I could barely cook and I actually impressed her. And the pathetic thing is that I'm not really such an amazing cook now and yet even when I go out to restaurants I am typically served some piece of crap that I could easily exceed even if I go to someplace that is well-reviewed and/or expensive. That's a good thing though, I guess, because it means I go out less.

Luckily my fiancee is a chef so I've been improving in leaps and bounds. Like I said I'm not a fantastic cook now, but that's how far I had to come. As a young kid I learned how to make macaroni and cheese (from a box) and corn bread (from scratch) and that's about it. In junior high school I took a cooking class and we made spaghetti from a box with some lame sauce from scratch and some sugar cookies and a damned salad.

One problem is that we came to associate eating out with wealth, so people who can eat out do and that results in less cooking. Another problem is that we've taken the time out of people's lives, with many couples with children still having to have both parents work, which leads to serving processed foods. All in all people are just not cooking at home and they're not teaching their children to cook. Tear those little peckers away from the idiot box, or youtube or whatever, and plug them into the kitchen. Teach them some skills they're going to need later in their life.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Hatta]

Far too many Americans are simply not active.

It's a lot easier to refrain from eating 400 calories than it is to burn off 400 calories.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[CrispyZorro]

I believe there is also a "when you eat" component. For a long time, I ate only at night, after work and that was a big meal. No breakfast. Infrequent lunch. I started eating breakfast and noticed that I was hungry around lunch time so I started eating lunch. Dinner sizes decreased as well as my appetite. I have lost nearly 35 pounds.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Pope]

Yes, it's food. But why? Why do we eat McDonalnds? Because it's tasty, and it tasty because it has calories.

It really isn't tasty at all. It's "cheap" and convenient. And advertised to death.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[kraut]

If you weigh 80kg, burning off 400k takes (very) roughly a 5-6K run.

That's tough if you haven't exercised before, but it won't take long to get into, and then it's easy.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Hatta]

A modest 5k run will take around half an hour. Not eating that candy bar and soda will take you zero hours.

I'd suggest that it's the time, more than the effort, that makes people not exercise. If I could spend some of the time I spend working, exercising without losing pay, I would. I'm not going to spend my free time doing anything I don't want to do.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[ClioCJS]

Diet matters more than exercise, and studies have shown that, in the long term, people who exercise are no more likely to keep off weight. It's controversial because we've been taught otherwise by those trying to sell us exercise equipment and gym memberships.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we are closing in on the problem. McDonalds food is indeed perceived as tasty by a lot of people. If you know anything about food, if you tasted actually decent food before, you will of course recognize it as the bland boring crap it is.

McDonalds food definitely is very umami , no matter how refined your taste is.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Anonymous Coward]

Total productivity or the rate? Thanks.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Anonymous Coward]

By your logic higher calories = better taste. I'd venture to say its the sugars and sweeteners that make fast food "tasty." I can make you a chicken sandwich with a lot fewer calories and I bet it will taste better (and keep you full longer) than a fast food sandwich.

People are obese because they are lazy and have terrible priorities (which is largely a product of our culture). Personally, I'll take being physically fit over driving a luxury car or owning a "nice" house.

Your body isn't stupid. It's your head thats got things mixed up.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Exercise matters a lot, just not as much weight-wise as previously thought.

It still matters a whole lot in forcing your body to build muscles instead of fats depots and increasing cardiovascular health. Which is why you can have a high BMI and still be in great physical condition.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[KozmoStevnNaut]

People tend to have a maniacal focus on weight, as if it's the one true parameter of how healthy you are.

Exercise is essential not for losing weight, but for forcing your body to build muscles and to maintain your physical condition and abilities. Muscles burn energy simply by existing, so the fitter you are, the more you can eat. Unless you want to end up as a weakling couch potato when you grow old, get out there and get moving! It'll strengthen your bones, too.

My BMI is close to 31 and I have a bit of a belly that I'm working on losing (through diet and lifestyle). But I am also physically active and in by no means a slouch when it comes to lifting weights or other exercises. A usual warmup session consists of something like 80-100 burpees in 10 minutes. This is usually followed by plenty of weight lifting, squats, pullups, tractor tire flips and so on. I do this for 2-3 hours a week. Anyone can dedicate at least 2 hours a week to keeping in shape, think of it as a hobby instead of a penalty. Try kayaking or bicycling or climbing or hiking or whatever strikes you as fun.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[KozmoStevnNaut]

the more vegetable oil I put on the pan while making hash browns in the morning, the better they taste (up to the certain limit of course).

Instead of greasy pan-fried starches for breakfast, try something healthy for a change.

Like a bowl of rolled oats (not sugary instant oats!) with hazelnuts, raisins and skim milk. It even saves you time in the morning!

The above has been my staple breakfast for 10 years. It is both filling, nutritionally sound and leaves me feeling energized all morning instead of bloated and lethargic as fatty starchy foods would.

Now exercise: it's really stupid activity to do physical work for the sake of physical work, talk about Sisyphus. You either have to bring out your inner child capable of having a joy of moving around aimlessly spending all this energy or you have to be really determined on losing your weight.

One word: endorphins.

Or how about the joy of feeling your strength increase and discovering that it's much harder for you to run out of breath? How about the challenge of seeing that big-ass dumbbell and thinking to yourself "hell yes, someday I will lift that sucker" and then working towards that goal? How about the camaraderie you get in a good gym, working out with friends and expanding your social circle?

Or if that's too dull for you, how about mountain biking, kayaking, hiking, climbing and so on. These are "hobbies", but they are also damn good exercise.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[VickiM]

If I join one of the pricey gyms around here, I won't be able to afford so much food. Maybe they're trying to help in that way.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[ClioCJS]

Hahahahaha! :)

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[dunkelfalke]

Well, going to work by car would take me 40 minutes. Going to work by bike takes maybe half an hour longer, is much more fun (riding at the riverside vs standing in a traffic jam), is far cheaper - especially with German fuel prices - and burns around 700 kkal.

Oh, and after you have done it for a while you feel way fitter. Is a win-win situation. Oh, and I paid around EUR 2000 for my (pretty good) bike, the cost of a car is ten times as much for a lower quality vehicle.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[m00sh]

I don't know why people keep repeating the "eat less, workout more" mantra in its various forms fed by bad science. There is a huge debate on if the "sloth gluttony sins" cause of obesity is scientifically correct.

People are not active because the body's hormones has been switched to get fat mode. If people ate more and the body did not get into fat conserving mode, they would be crazy active to burn off the extra calories - like little children in supermarkets running around. The human body loves burning energy, all our fondest memories and times of great joy have been activities where we used up a lot of calories.

The whole evolutionary advantage of storing fat argument is bullshit. Our body only stores fat and no other nutrients. At 10% body fat, low enough to get six-packs, it is enough fat to live off a month without eating. Our body regulates temperature, blood sugar level, acidity, blood composition and hundreds of other things but doesn't regulate our weight and we have to actively regulate it when even a 5% error either way can result in obesity from normal in a few years.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Hatta]

People tend to have a maniacal focus on weight, as if it's the one true parameter of how healthy you are.

I haven't weighed myself in at least a decade. I'm not dead yet, so I must be doing OK.

Unless you want to end up as a weakling couch potato when you grow old, get out there and get moving! It'll strengthen your bones, too.

I expect to die in my 50s anyway. I really don't care to spend any of the precious little time I have sweating and out of breath. That is, unless I get an orgasm out of it.

And if I don't die early, I'm already accustomed to being a couch potato. So no loss there.

A usual warmup session consists of something like 80-100 burpees in 10 minutes. This is usually followed by plenty of weight lifting, squats, pullups, tractor tire flips and so on. I do this for 2-3 hours a week.

Good god, that sounds awful.

Anyone can dedicate at least 2 hours a week to keeping in shape, think of it as a hobby instead of a penalty. Try kayaking or bicycling or climbing or hiking or whatever strikes you as fun.

If I thought any of that would be fun, I'd be doing it already.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Cyberax]

Being active doesn't help a lot. An hour of walking is just under 500 kCal and that's less than one candybar. There's additional help from increasing your basal rate, but it's not that big.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I expect to die in my 50s anyway. I really don't care to spend any of the precious little time I have sweating and out of breath. That is, unless I get an orgasm out of it.

So you've given up and resigned yourself to being a drain on humanity.

Well done. I'm glad my taxes don't pay for your dead-end lifestyle.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Hatta]

Who said anything about being a drain on society? I work and pay taxes and support arts and entertainment in my community. If I spent my time sculpting my bod, that's time I won't have to visit new restaurants, see new bands, listen to lectures, read books, etc. Doing any of those things 2 hours a week will do more for your community than biking or climbing.

You do realize that *all* lifestyles are "dead-end", right?

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[KozmoStevnNaut]

And yet I find that besides my full-time job, I have plenty of time to visit restaurants, socialize with friends, go to the theater, watch movies, ride my motorcycle, go to concerts, read books, play video games, go on dates etc. in addition to my exercise regimen.

You must be doing something wrong if you are unable to find the time.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[DinDaddy]

Have to echo that. Curious if the study looked at different levels of exercise.

  I am fast approaching 50, and in my mid 40s had pit one probably 15-20 pounds, depending on which year you look at. I scaled back my food intake from probably 3000 calories a day to 2000, but didn't really change my amount of exercise, which was low to medium, including activity at work. Probably dropped 4-6 pounds.

About 10 months ago, started doing actually strenuous workouts, although only 2-3 times a week on average, about 60-90 minutes each, and actually began eating more again, probably back up to 2500 or more, and I am down below the 20 pound loss mark, back to what I weighed in my late 20s. My metabolism is significantly higher.

I don't think moderate exercise like walking or light aerobics or things like that have the same effect.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Hatta]

Well congratulations. What do you want, a cookie? Oh wait, I guess not.

Your free time is limited, you are making a tradeoff whether you want to admit it or not. Since you like exercising, you're not going to be very bothered by that tradeoff. Since I don't like exercise, I'm going to find that tradeoff objectionable.

It's not that hard to understand. Not everyone likes the same things. I particularly dislike the idea of spinning my wheels for the sake of spinning my wheels. Last summer when the Missouri river was flooding, I made time to go out and fill sandbags and worked all god damn day because it was the right thing to do. But fuck me if I'm going to lift a finger when there's no actual work to be done. I have better ways to spend my time.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Mindcontrolled]

Absolutely true - but even a so slightly refined palate will tell you that umami alone is bland and boring without a decent taste base that it can reinforce.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Sure, I like cookies. Chocolate chip?

You see, because I eat a healthy diet 99% of the time and work out, eating the odd snack or bowl of ice cream makes no difference. I'm still losing weight and getting stronger.

Re:It really isn't sugar, that is just one avenue

[Anonymous Coward]

That's been debunked.

The results could be interesting,

[tehlinux]

but I gave up after about the 20th dialogue box.

Re:The results could be interesting,

[Chrisq]

but I gave up after about the 20th dialogue box.

This is one of those apps where the "help" instructions are more complicated than going in and using it.

This is some model

[sco08y]

"Well, what do people do when there is extra food around? They eat it! This, of course, is a tremendously controversial idea. However, the model shows that increase in food more than explains the increase in weight."

So he's not just modelling physiology, he's also modelling economic decisions? And he's modelling the impacts of various government policies?

I wouldn't be surprised if poor people ate more food when the price went down, as they are highly affected by food costs, and they are the ones who experienced the largest increases in obesity. I'm just skeptical because he seems to be making some very broad conclusions from such a specific piece of research.

Junk food is the problem

[Taco Cowboy]

The term "Junk Food" used to denote things like potato chips, but with the arrival of food glut since the '70s in the States, "Junk Food" now includes the following:

* TV Dinner

No matter how good they look on TV ads, no matter how "nutritious" we are told, TV Dinners are still packed with preservatives, flavor enhancers (MSG), processed starched, and so on

* Take Outs

No matter it's "Moo Goo Gai Pan" from Chinese restaurants or that super yummy pizza from your neighborhood Italian joints, take outs contain super-duper dose of MSGs

* Deliveries and Drive Through

Even the biggies, from Mickey Dees to Pizza Hut are jumping on the bandwagon trying their best to stuff your face - as long as you got the $$$

Re:Junk food is the problem

[bjourne]

Neither preservatives nor flavor enhancers cause obesity. They may be unhealthy to eat for other reasons but when it comes to overweight problems it is calories that count.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Lumpy]

Want to find the fattest people in america? they all have two things in common.

1 - they eat fast food constantly.
2 - when they are not eating fast food, they are eating pre-processed food like TV dinners, or other ready to eat foods.

I have yet to find any obese people that are eating fresh fruits and veggies. The crap in cans does not count as that all has added salt and sugar.

It's simple. eat only fresh meat, veggies and fruits. But you have to prepare it yourself, or it must come from a restaurant that starts with ONLY fresh ingredients.

Guarantee you will lose weight if that is the only change you make to your diet.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[mundanetechnomancer]

sounds like a diet that only someone with an above average income could afford

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simple. eat only fresh meat, veggies and fruits.

What a pain. The problem is that I'll be having to go to the store every few days to acquire more fruits and vegetables (since they rot quite quickly).

Re:Junk food is the problem

[johnnyb]

I think you are just looking at a selective sample. My wife and son have health issues, so nearly everything we eat is home-cooked from fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats. I'm still pretty large.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[TheRaven64]

Really? I spent a bit of time in the USA, in a variety of states, and I didn't find anywhere where it would have been difficult to afford to live on food cooked from fresh ingredients spending only a few dollars a day. Cooking a meal for a family would cost a lot less than taking them all to McDonald's.

I don't know where this idea that fresh fruit and vegetables are expensive comes from. They're the cheapest way of getting food, as long as you have time to cook (and 10-20 minutes a day is enough for that if you don't do anything too complicated).

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

First of all, we've known cheap calories were the problem for at least 20 years. For most of the world, and most of human history, one of the most vital statistics economists measure is calories-per-person. When you graph things like that against, say, economic freedom, there's a clear, strong relationship.

So one would expect our society to have the most calories per person.

However...we are also very sedentary, which we weren't in the past. So one could also argue we just don't move enough, which is to say, we don't move much at all.

3000 calories a day makes you weigh 270 pounds. In the past, you were a wirey 170. So "cheap calories" isn't the whole story, not by a long shot.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tired of this lie. My wife went on a health food kick 2 years ago. We've pretty much stopped eating out. Our food costs have dropped 20%. We're not eating fancy snobby "healthy" food, just real food. Do you really believe that $7x3 for meals at McD's is affordable, but $4 for a pound of hamburger, $.50 for 3 fresh potatoes, and 2 cups of flour for buns costs more than $21? Really? Add a head of lettuce, a whole bottle of dressing, and the oil to fry the potatoes, and I'm still well under your $21 "can't afford to eat healthy" meal.

If you don't have the time to cook this simple meal, the you're lying to yourself. You're just lying to yourself. The money you saved buys you an hour a day of labor if you're anywhere near the minimum wage. And that's a fat western meal. If you think a little about eating decently, instead of just replicating mcdonalds, you can do so amazingly cheaply. Rice? Cheap. Flour? Cheap. frozen veggies? Pretty damn cheap, considering. You don't need organic arugula in January to be healthy.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Yeah that's flat-out horseshit. I eat a prepared lunch at Wegman's every weekday, for about $5.00. Buying the ingredients would be even cheaper.

You know what makes you fat? As the article says, input vs. output. It's not "oh god sugar" or "oh god fat" or "oh god carbs". You're eating more than you're expending. More than you need. That's it. So when you see that poor bastard that weighs 350 lbs? That poor bastard is spending way more money than he needs to. And if it's on fast food, it's more expensive than it would be to get decent stuff at the grocery store.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[BeardsmoreA]

Rubbish. I'm obese and cook 90% of my meals myself, with fresh meat and veg. I also enjoy my food too much, work a desk job, and struggle to make time to exercise enough.

To lose weight you have to consume fewer calories or burn more of them. Which makes it sound easy, which it is not.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Mindcontrolled]

Flavor enhancers and other additives definitely play a role - surely not the only one, but they do affect appetite- and satiety-regulation, thereby influencing the amount that is eaten.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[FictionPimp]

Physically, buying fresh food is cheaper. Time wise it is more expensive.

My wife and I have saved a ton of money by making our own bread, pasta sauce, soups, etc. We only eat fresh fruits, veggies, and meats and have saved tons.

However, the time investment to make a jar of salsa and can it, or to make a large pot of pasta sauce or chicken stock for the next month or two is probably out of the range of time a single mother with two jobs has.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[FictionPimp]

Freezing and pre-prep can help with the time issue. It will hurt the quality, but it will still be healthy. That said, I shop daily not because I have to, but because I don't like to plan my meals.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Paul Jakma]

MSG is a natural seaweed extract, which has been used in Asia for a long long time. There's nothing wrong it. The big problem with ready-made, convenience dinners is fats and, especially, salt. They always seem to be *stuffed* with salt.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Lumpy]

Calories in 1/4 pound of good ground beef = 244.
Calories in a home made bun = 120.

Calories in a Mcdonalds 1/4 pounder... 510

146 extra calories... It's not in the catsup, onions and lettuce.

When you eat crap, you eat a lot of extra calories that are not there in home made food.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[justthinkit]

The comment you were replying to do not list all the chemicals in processed food.
.

A big one omitted is emulsifiers: things that suspend one thing in another. Oil and vinegar dressing used to be clearly two fluids that you shook vigorously before using. Today, "thanks" to emulsifiers, you open and pour.

Once consumed, emulsifiers are not fussy about what they emulsify. Your body uses the oil & the vinegar, and what is left is happy to get into your lymphatic system where it will suspend all manner of crap, keeping it there until you exercise enough or eat enough spice to "melt" it away.

We first heard that the sugar in cola was bad. Then we heard that the nail-dissolving nitric acid was bad. Then we heard that the caffeine in cola was bad. It is high time we start rejecting cola for its dissolve-the-oil-based-flavor-in-the-water emulsifier.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Income is the best predictor of obesity.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

They may be unhealthy to eat for other reasons but when it comes to overweight problems it is calories that count.

No, it's really carbs that count. Specifically refined carbs (sugar, HFCS, white bread, white rice, etc).

Seriously, since switching to a high-fat, medium-high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet I've been consistently losing 5-10lbs a week even though my calorie count is higher than it was previously.

I'd highly recommend reading Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes and The Primal Blueprint by Mark Sisson.

It really boils down to insulin. When insulin levels are high, you store fat. When insulin levels are low, you burn fat. Avoiding things that cause insulin responses (simple carbs, artificial sweeteners, etc) results in losing fat. As long as you eat plenty of non starchy vegetables (ie, kale, spinach, collard greens, cauliflower, asparagus, etc) you'll get more than enough nutrition.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong it.

Well, except that its excitotoxic, large amounts can damage nerve cells, and is a common migraine trigger for many people.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[netsavior]

Cooking a meal for a family would cost a lot less than taking them all to McDonald's.

I don't know where this idea that fresh fruit and vegetables are expensive comes from. They're the cheapest way of getting food, as long as you have time to cook (and 10-20 minutes a day is enough for that if you don't do anything too complicated).

This is one of the most annoying and common fallacies in this whole discussion.

Did you grow up in a house in the suburbs, with a functioning kitchen, at least one parent working only 9-5 and a real grocery store within walking/car/bus distance? Congratulations, you had a better food situation growing up than 60% of people in the united states.

I have a nice house in the suburbs, a kitchen with a functioning stove, a car that works every time I turn the key in the ignition, a fridge and freezer that work, a decent set of pots and pans, all the right knives, a cutting board, all the right spoons, a whole rack full of spices, an understanding of cooking given to me by my homemaker motherm and I can afford all this stuff on only one job.

It costs me $5-$10 to prepare a decent dinner for my family... But i interact with $400,000 worth of stuff most people don't have to do it. The most significant of which is priceless: My upbringing in a household where people were educated, mildly successful, and proficient at cooking.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes me about 90 seconds to make a jar of salsa, which is a greater number of seconds than the combined IQs of you and your wife.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[19thNervousBreakdown]

1.) My post was refuting the claim that junk food is cheaper than good food. Wegman's is a grocery store that also makes food cafeteria style, and my bloodwork after changing my diet to go to lunch there will attest to the healthiness of the food. I know McDonald's is terrible food. I was saying there's no economic reason to go there.

2.) The 510 calorie count for a quarter-pounder includes two slices of cheese, which you didn't include in your home-cooked version. There are 70 calories in a slice of cheese. You don't have 146 calories to make up, you have 6. There is no extra crap, there is exactly the correct amount of crap. You don't have to resort to either magic sauce or Hollywood accounting of cheese to make the argument that fast food is awful for you.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Pope]

However, the time investment to make a jar of salsa and can it, or to make a large pot of pasta sauce or chicken stock for the next month or two is probably out of the range of time a single mother with two jobs has.

Nice strawman,

Re:Junk food is the problem

[jitterman]

This is a true statement. I am technically obese (it "happened" over time - I graduated college in very good shape), and self-started a push to change that. In three months I've lost 14 pounds (the rate of loss has slowly increased as my body adjusts to the new activity and eating routine), and part of that has been eating less, but also reducing processed foods and cutting out fast food entirely. It IS expensive to eat more healthily (I earn well, but am by no means wealthy); the one benefit of this is that I am forced to eat less as I can't afford to stuff my face with quality foods.

In the long run, I hope to avoid the far more expensive costs of diabetes and heart disease treatment, so the up-front costs of eating well and exercising (if one chooses to join a gym rather than walk-run-bike-etc.) will hopefully truly save me money in the long run.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea of it being expensive comes from the fastfood industry.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[kj_kabaje]

Please mod this up. I think there is a serious lack of understanding about real world conditions which drive this. Also, working one less hour is not really an option for a lot of people--you work what your boss tells you need to work.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Pope]

Rubbish. I'm obese and cook 90% of my meals myself, with fresh meat and veg. I also enjoy my food too much, work a desk job, and struggle to make time to exercise enough.

To lose weight you have to consume fewer calories or burn more of them. Which makes it sound easy, which it is not.

It is easy. Very easy. You simply aren't doing it. You start by eating less, then go from there.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Rolgar]

The things that will make you fat:
Wheat
Corn (including HFCS)
Rice
Oats
Potatoes
Sugar
Too much Dairy
Too many fruits

Things that won't make you fat are on this shopping list. 80-90% of what goes in your mouth should be animal proteins and fats and lots of vegetables.

Look at the list of things that makes people fat and think about fast food.

Any burger/sandwich place: Fries or chips, Soda pop, and the bun on any burger or sandwich are a recipe for weight gain. Get a salad and the insides of any burger/sandwich, and drink water, and your weight will move toward a healthy equilibrium.
Fried food: What gets you fat is not the oil that it's fried in, it's the breading on the outside. Get something unbreaded.
Pizza: All kinds of bad things about the crust.
Mexican: Tortillas and chips (plus Chipotle's rice) are the killers. Get a taco salad but skip the chips/shell. Have salsa, meat, lettuce, sour cream, cheese, guacamole and enjoy a supper healthy meal.

Or as you recommend, get some unprocessed meat, add 2-3 vegetables, and you can't go wrong.

The items on that top list down to and including sugar all act like sugar in the blood stream. Anybody who really wants to learn about weight gain should go look at the website the shopping list is on, marksdailyapple.com.

Mark also recommends moderate exercise totaling about 1 hour a week (1 20 minute cardio, 1 20 minute weight carrying, and a small amount of functional exercises like squats and pushups) to stay fit as opposed to the 30 minutes a day. He does recommend averaging 10,000 steps a day. Although Mark recommends the exercise, he says that weight gain or loss is 80% what you put into your body and 20% activity level.

Check out the Friday success stories to see how others have benefited from this lifestyle.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not get 3 potatoes for 50 cents.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[internerdj]

You also have the factors of above average income workers are less likely to need multiple jobs to bring in their income (meaning more free time to cook), less likely to be a single parent (again time to cook), and most importantly they have the luxury of food price competition within transportation distance (meaning lower price foods).

Re:Junk food is the problem

[bjourne]

Right, but that is a secondary cause. Additives may enhance your appetite, but it is still the eating of the extra calories that is causing the obesity. SSRI may also increase your appetite, but one wouldn't suggest it as a cause.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe. However, evidence suggest that many man made chemicals may also cause obesity. I don't think it's conclusive yet, but it would seem to warrant further investigation. There was an interesting documentary at http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episode/programmed-to-be-fat.html

Re:Junk food is the problem

[rubycodez]

why would moderate amount of starch in a say a potato mixed in with good vegatables & meat be a problem? (only 100 calories with the sour cream and butter!) it'll be slowly absorbed over hours and not ramp up blood sugar levels.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Making a jar of salsa and canning a jar of salsa are two completely different things.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

No, if you start by eating less you will only make yourself miserable and send your body into hoarding mode. The correct answer most of the time is 'develop some more muscle', it doesn't take a whole lot of time like cardio does, increases your idle calorie consumption and doesn't send the signal to start protecting it's fat reserves to your body.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

this is pure baloney.

it's not calories that count. they play a role, but if I fed a sedentary person 2000 calories a day, of brocolli and fish, and a couple of apples, they will lose weight.

if I feed a sedentary person 2000 calories a day, comprised of highly refined carbs, with some fat smeared on to make it tasty, then they will not lose very little, if any weight.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[rubycodez]

nonsense and bullshit. your misconception is annoying, that it is in any way expensive to eat proper food. instead of the chain grocery stores, there are independent ones in the area that sell produce that hasn't been selected to be perfectly shaped, etc. It's half the price or less. There are low income people in the ones near me with the rest of us middle class (though mostly those are ethnic polish, russian, indian, etc.) buying brown rice by the bag, dried beans, fruits and vegatables and cheap meat. The 350 lbs. obese poor women in poverty should be in there with us instead of blowing their "food stamp" card rations on ding-dongs orange drink and other crap at 7-11 or walmart.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Do weight training, you can do a full muscle building (few hard repetitions) routine in less 30 minutes, doing that every other day (you're not supposed to every day) will not amount to more than 2 hours a week.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[arose]

Large amounts of anything will damage something, try an argument about realistic doses. Gluten is a problem for many people, does that make it bad?

Re:Junk food is the problem

[slashrio]

sounds like a diet that only someone with an above average income could afford

I heard some young speaker on a TEDx presentation say: "You can pay the farmer or you can pay the doctor." That definitely resonated with me.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

close, but bullshit. Grains don't make you fat. Grains feed you. Too much of them makes you fat. We're omnivores, and as Americans we out-eat pigs.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[drsmithy]

It is easy. Very easy. You simply aren't doing it. You start by eating less, then go from there.

Eating less is quite difficult when you end up spending 3/4 of your day trying to ignore gnawing hunger.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, but it's quite clear that GP isn't familiar with it. Or they will claim that they know all about it, though their version is a mild discomfort, and attribute it to their superior willpower.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[slashrio]

The things that will make you fat: [snip> Too many fruits

It's difficult to eat too many fruits because after a few of them you'd feel full because of all the fiber you just ate. Fruit juice o.t.o.h. as someone state somewhere above, has *no* (or little) fibers and contains the sugar of many fruits per glass.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[hsthompson69]

The problem is that some people can tolerate carbohydrate toxicity, and others cannot. We all know that guy who does nothing but chug down sodas, sit on the couch playing xbox, and scarfs down pizza and pop tarts all day without gaining a pound. That guy doesn't have insulin resistance.

All those fat people you see at the mall? They've got insulin resistance, and their carbohydrate intake is what is driving their obesity.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[hsthompson69]

Actually, if you feed a sedentary *fat* person 3000 calories a day, comprised of bacon, beef and lard, they will lose weight. A sedentary skinny person simply won't *gain* weight.

Insulin drives fat accumulation, blood sugar levels drive insulin, and carbohydrates drive blood sugar levels. Carnivores simply don't get fat eating protein and fat.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Belial6]

It's exactly the opposite. The obsession with calories is most peoples problems. The "Calories Eaten Calories burned" mantra is only useful for people without an anus. There is also a huge cognitive disassociation between people believing that feeding a kid a bunch of sugar will make them hyper while at the same time believing that the ability to use the energy consumed is not effected by what you eat.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

you need a sharp knife, cutting board, wok pan. the rest is optional. with those three items, you can feed your family with very good meals every day.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[slashrio]

You know what makes you fat? As the article says, input vs. output.

There's a Dr. Robert Lustig (go, check him out on google) who said that the input increases because (amongst others) alcohol and fructose interfere with the part in your brains that make you feel full. Or in fact, they do *not* interfere at all, so no matter how much of it you consume, it doesn't make you feel full, but ads a lot in energy intake.

He backs his story up in an impressive lecture with a lot of biochemistry to explain why and how exactly this works.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[jedidiah]

It depends.

Some people can handle a post-agricultural diet just fine. Others can't. You just have figure out what works best for you and ignore all of the stupid propaganda that assumes we're all the same.

We're not all the same. Contradictory anecdotes are to be expected.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[DrgnDancer]

Make the exercise time. There's several reasons I say this (and I hope it's clear that I say this form a position of wanting to help, not accusation). First, fitness has been shown to be more important than fatness as a predictor for a long and healthy life. It's not a panacea, and fit and lean is better than fit and fat, but fit and fat is better than thin and not fit. Second, time to exercise is the easiest chink to make in the problem's armor. You can get DVDs that you can do in your living room in half an hour. It's often not the most ideal way to exercise (though some are quite good), but it gets you moving, which is step one. Or just go for a walk every afternoon. Half hour, every afternoon, rain or shine, push a little harder every day. Third, as I said in an earlier comment, fitness begets fitness. You workout. You burn calories, and the calories don't get stored as fat... that's good. You also build muscles. Muscles are really nice things, because they burn calories at rest. So after your workout you're siting on the couch watching TV, or sleeping at night, and you're still burning more calories. I've noticed tremendous increases in my weight loss since I added strength training to my exercise regime.

It's definitely doable, and it doesn't require huge lifestyle changes. You may find that it inspires lifestyle changes... I can tell you that I spend a lot more time doing fun active things than I did 35 pounds ago; it turns out that running away from people in zombie costumes while traversing mud and obstacles is actually a huge amount of fun. That's more of a choice opened up to you by greater fitness than an actual requirement though.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Belial6]

That is one of the biggest problem with the entire weight topic. Even though we see it first hand everywhere, as a society, we are in complete denial that there are different metabolisms. It is completely accepted that genetics plays a roll in a persons height, the size of their nose, the color of their skin, and the color of their eyes, but it is blasphemous to suggest that it could have any role in their width, or what their body needs to maintain itself.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[hsthompson69]

You know what makes you fat? As the article says, input vs. output

Bullshit. The human body isn't a simple engine - it is a dynamic, actively regulated system. In the case of fat cells, fat accumulation is regulated by the hormone insulin, not by how many calories one puts in one's mouth. When you see that poor bastard that weights 350 pounds, horking down a pizza like he's starving, it's because he *is* -> the carbohydrate in his diet has caused blood sugar spikes, which causes insulin levels to rise, which causes his fat cells to accumulate fat (stealing calories from the bloodstream), leaving his muscles in his body starving. Put another way, in order to protect his body from the toxicity of blood sugar levels, his body is as fat as it *needs* to be.

To fix obesity, one has to understand the complexity of the human body, and address the true root cause -> carbohydrate intake. Treating it like a simple mathematics equation is the idiot kind of thinking that got us the obesity epidemic in the first place.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Neil Boekend]

I can't tell if you are sarcastic, lying or misled.
In any case: eating mostly protein and animal fat will make most people fat. The bun of the burger is the relatively healthy piece. The burger itself is what makes you fat.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[jedidiah]

> sounds like a diet that only someone with an above average income could afford

Been there. Did that. It's not the great challenge some people would like to believe. This is all about lazy stupid people doing everything to make up excuses for their own failings.

"It's impossible, therefore it's not my fault"

It's not impossible. It just requires some effort, some knowledge, and perhaps a little will power.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[rock_climbing_guy]

Oh really? When I graduated college, I paid to live in a bedroom in someone's house and still managed to cook my own food most of the time. I didn't have $400,000 worth of stuff.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[qwijibo]

I'm in a similar boat - not morbidly obese, but I could safely lose 100 pounds. I've found that just using smaller plates help. The difference between an 8" and 12" plate doesn't sound like much, but it gives you more opportunities to evaluate your intake. When you're done with one serving, you can take a minute to decide if you really need to go back for more or if you've been eating larger servings because it was already on your plate. No need to starve yourself or make drastic changes to the foods you eat, just give yourself more opportunities to ask if you're still hungry.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[ClioCJS]

how the fuck do you spend $7 on one person at McDonald's? I eat there almost every week and can't get more than $3 or $4 down. And I have a huge appetite.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[jedidiah]

> Did you grow up in a house in the suburbs

No, I did not.

I was "well enough off" that I ate free school lunches through most of my childhood. Any adult in my household held down their own job. NO ONE played the role of dedicated maid or house wife. It simply wasn't an option.

Although no one made excuses.

That's the difference between "poor" and working class.

Most people have never had this Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle that you see in old TV shows.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[jedidiah]

The most expensive "baking" potatoes top out at about $1 per pound when they are not on sale (and they are often on sale). The smaller potatoes bought in bulk in large bags are going to be a lot cheaper per pound.

3 potatoes for 50 cents is not unrealistic.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[jedidiah]

You do both at the same time.

Exercise helps keeps your metabolism from crashing and adjusting to the calorie defecit. It's also beneficial for it's own reasons beyond mere weight control.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[PraiseBob]

But i interact with $400,000 worth of stuff most people don't have to do it.

Show me an apartment anywhere that doesn't have a fridge and stovetop or oven or microwave. If you have $400k worth of kitchen equipment you are better off than most commercial kitchens that feed 1000+ people a day.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[jedidiah]

> Gluten is a problem for many people, does that make it bad?

Yes.

You can't just blindly transplant dietary practices without considering the possibility that they might not be appropriate for a population that hasn't adapted to them.

"Large amounts of anything" might be consumed merely as side effect of the cuisine you are trying to consume.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[operagost]

Why was this modded insightful? We're willing to buy Alienware game systems and 40" TVs, but not buy staples and cook our own food?

Re:Junk food is the problem

[dunkelfalke]

Stop spreading that crap already, will you. The human body is complex indeed, but first, your description is wrong and second, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.

As I already mentioned, sugar goes to muscles and liver first, and only THEN to fat - if there is any unused sugar left so it cannot leave the muscles starving in first place. And even this fat doesn't matter much, it only gets excessive if you eat more than you use. It is a simple mathematics equation and treating carbohydrates as the one and only reason is what killed Atkins.

And that poor 350-pound-bastard is starving because he lost his feeling for satiation long ago and has replaced it with the the feeling of a stuffed stomach.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Kreigaffe]

$7 is one super-sized meal. Actually, it's a bit over $7. I don't think they have *any* value meal offerings for less than 4-and-change, plus tax.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[PraiseBob]

While a hunter-gatherer diet is more "natural" and slightly healthier, surely you realize that the staple crops you listed are responsible for the population growth of the civilized world. Ignoring Wheat, Corn, Rice, Oats, Potatoes, would lead to mass starvation for 90% of the planet. Surely there must be some medium ground between fat or dead, with a healthy balance of cereal grains.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[BeardsmoreA]

I know it's silly to bother starting a debate with an AC, but I genuinely don't understand this comment, care to expand on it?

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

what sort of lifestyle/excersize?

Re:Junk food is the problem

[ClioCJS]

McDouble: $1. $4 gets you 4 burgers. I can't eat 4 burgers. $4 gets you 2 burgers and the largest fry size available. I can't eat all that either. You must be buying soda. Your problem isn't eating burgers and going to McDonald's, it's drinking empty soda calories and paying extra to get fat.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[mcgrew]

If potato chips are junk food, then so is a baked potato -- a potato is a potato. Grease with french fries or chips, butter with baked, no difference.

Meanwhile, I've never had a weight problem except the two years I was on Paxil and gained 40 pounds, and lost most of it despite trying not to when I stopped. Maybe this mathematician should add drugs to the equation. There's a woman that I see in the bar once in a while who used to be a crackhead. After stopping the crack she went from rail-thin to overweight in six months. And the number of drugs folks take today, and the number of new different drugs, especially prescription drugs is far more than in the '70s. No crack cocaine, no SSRIs, no ADD drugs (they hadn't even categorized ADD) etc. Pot makes some people fat and lots more folks are smoking it today. Rather than blaming "too much food" (I never knew many folks going hungry when I was a kid) maybe they should look at today's drug intake.

The "there couldn't be any fast food if food was expensive" in TFS is completely bogus. McDonald's has been around since 1940, Pizza Hut since 1958, long before they stopped paying farmers not to grow food and long before the obesity "epidemic". And when I was ten in 1962, a McDonald's hamburger, fries, and small coke was thirty two cents. How is that "expensive"? You'll pay ten times that much for the same thing today.

His history omits an important variable -- exports. After the government stopped paying farmers to not grow food, we started exporting so much that ADM's slogan is now "breadbasket to the world". We're not eating more because more's available, most of the extra food is being exported. It also neglects the size of soda, a small coke at McDonalds today is bigger than a large coke was in the sixties. Lots of caloric intake with nothing to curb hunger, a sure-fire way to obesity.

It also doesn't explain why poor people are more obese than middle class people. He would probably say "food stamps" but he'd be wrong. Poor folks are fat because cheap food is fattening --five pounds of potatos is only two bucks, TV dinners 89 cents, while expensive foods usually are far less fatteniing. Poor folks can't afford McDonalds very often, a small order of fries (1/3 of a potato) is a buck twenty while a five pound bag of raw potatos is only eighty cents more. Add a quarter pounder and a cole, and you'll pay the same price as two dozen burger patties and a loaf of bread at WalMart.

I'm sure the guy's maths are correct, but he's a mathematician, not a nutritionist, biologist, medical doctor, sociologist, or historian. A study like this would need input from all those fields and probably more to have any meaning. You don't ask a geologist about solar flares, after all.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Hognoxious]

It IS expensive to eat more healthily

Only if you equate healthy with triple-bio free-range happy rice watered with a genuine Buddhist monk's scrotal sweat.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[operagost]

$400,000?

• Stove: $500
• Car: not required, when two trips on a bus will do. But we just established that the fatties live in the suburbs, so... we'll say $10,000 for a used one that runs well.
• Fridge: $500
• Pots and pans: $200. Seriously, we don't have to be Wolfgang Puck. Get an iron skillet, two sizes of steel pots (no teflon, please), some Pyrex or Corningware, and wash them every day instead of leaving them in the sink.
• Knives: $50. Or by junkers at the "dollar stores" and replace them every year.
• Cutting board: $15. Seriously? And don't get a wooden one; dangerous if not cleaned thoroughly.
• Spoons: $25
• Spice rack: $40 with 10-15 jars of spices. Get more for $1 at Dollar Tree or supermarket brand.
• Understanding of cooking: Buy Fannie Farmer cookbook for $25 to get started. Borrow more from library, or go to yard sales and get them for $1 each.

Total: $11,355. And that's because I humored your absurd suggestion that one must own a car to go shopping. Heck, add another $150 for a good microwave and vegetable oil cooking spray for your stainless cookware ; those will be a big help.

...

Who doesn't have a FRIDGE?

Re:Junk food is the problem

[operagost]

I know several folks who used Atkins and lost a lot of weight. That's high protein, relatively high fat, and low carb. People are different.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[BeardsmoreA]

Thanks for a sane and considered reply. Yep, I've been making an effort to get to the gym a few times a week over the last few months and it certainly helps. Along with careful calorie counting, 20 or 30 pounds has come off, but plenty to go. I've found the livestrong 'myplate' website a reasonable help in the latter, though it's by no means perfect (and a bit preachy for my taste).

But it really does get tedious seeing the morons on here talking about how easy it is if you have some willpower etc. You don't like eating as much? Have a higher metabolism? Weren't brought up to seek comfort in food the same way when bored or low? Lucky you - I bet you have other personality flaws you could be working on. Try finding a tiny bit of empathy for a start. (Now flame away :) ).

Re:Junk food is the problem

[BeardsmoreA]

Ah - sorry to reply to myself, but makes sense now, GP being Pope rather than my post - I miscounted.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[misexistentialist]

Where I live there are no such choices, and I actually buy a lot of staples online since they are cheaper via UPS. Cheap healthy options are still available in chain stores, but there is still more effort involved. Most people aren't very educated about cooking or what they eat, and it doesn't really matter anyway, because laziness has become more of a community virtue than conscientiousness.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

There's still simple conservation of energy here: you cannot gain weight without excess input. The body may fail to use already stored fat, but you can be assured that no fat will form unless there is excess input. Conservation of energy is a hard maiden.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[misexistentialist]

The median net worth for people under 40 is something like $8000...

Re:Junk food is the problem

[jitterman]

While your astounding power to neither make sense nor to engage in mature discussion does indeed intimidate me, I will risk pointing out that, for example, a box of Rice-A-Roni is much cheaper than "salad in a bag" (both convenience foods in a sense).

I don't shop at whole foods-type stores. I suppose you will probably come to my house and pour the aforementioned sweat in my doorstep to show me what I'm missing out on. Can't wait.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[phantomfive]

with a functioning kitchen....a fridge and freezer that work, a decent set of pots and pans, all the right knives, a cutting board, all the right spoons, a whole rack full of spices

I think you have a different understanding of 'functioning kitchen' than most people, mate. If your goal is to cook healthy food that tastes at least as good as McDonald's and is cheaper, you don't need most of that stuff. Also, you don't have to live in the suburbs to have a nice kitchen, your statistic is kind of meaningless.

If your goal is to have healthy, homecooked food without spending too much money, well, people living in bamboo huts in developing countries manage to meet that goal.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[19thNervousBreakdown]

While I have no doubt that there are people with obesity caused by untreated medical conditions, I have about as much doubt as it's possible to have that those people are the majority of cases. That assertion is simply ridiculous.

You know what I feel like when I diet? I feel like I'm starving. Because I'm starving. It's not a pleasant feeling, but the thing that people who have never truly tried don't understand is that it gets better after a couple weeks. Speaking from experience, reducing my caloric intake from 2600 to 1400 was second only to quitting smoking in terms of difficulty, and felt even worse.

Most people are fat because they have poor self control, eating a lot feels good, and they lie to themselves to justify away the shame. You're enabling that right now. Take a good look, do you actually have any idea what you're talking about, medically? Or are you just cherry-picking half facts and spouting mumbo-jumbo? Stop typing that argumentative reply and seriously, actually, honestly think about that.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[netsavior]

Oh really? When I graduated college, I paid to live in a bedroom in someone's house and still managed to cook my own food most of the time. I didn't have $400,000 worth of stuff.

lolol your privilige is showing.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

MSG is a type of salt. mono-sodium-glutamate. Rarely will you see another salt additive if MSG is used. Stuff gives me migranes, I can't eat it at all.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[hsthompson69]

Take your model, and instead of thinking about the entire body, think about the fat cell. Apply conservation of energy there -> excess fat *input*, plus limited fat *output* means a bigger fat cell.

Now, understand that fat *input* and fat *output* are driven by the hormone insulin, not simply by how many calories of material you put in your mouth.

The body, under the influence of insulin, not only prevents fat from being circulated *from* the fat cells, it also forces accumulation *to* the fat cells.

Put another way, when a child is growing, are you going to assert they have "excess input"? Is their vertical growth caused by "excess input"? Of course not -> their vertical growth is caused by growth hormone, which drives the body to consume what is necessary to complete growth, whether or not that comes from more food input, or, from slowing down metabolism, or cannibalizing existing parts (malnutrition).

Why would you consider vertical growth driven by hormones any differently than horizontal growth driven by hormones?

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Larryish]

The reason that I, personally, discount the "differing metabolism" argument is because most of the people I hear it from are the sort of excuse-making fat losers who live on steady diets of pizza and potato chips, or who insist on drinking most of a gallon of milk per day even though they can see in the mirror that their metabolism does not support that sort of behavior.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[hsthompson69]

Most people are fat because they have poor self control

No, fat people are fat because they are insulin resistant, and consume a diet of carbohydrates that is too high. Now perhaps you can rephrase this as "poor self control over carbohydrate intake" (after all, starches and sugars behave like drugs), but the answer isn't to reduce calories, the answer is to reduce carbohydrate.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are an idiot. You are arguing against thermodynamics in an attempt to make an unrelated point.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[mcgrew]

Neither preservatives nor flavor enhancers cause obesity.

Flavor enhancers can, by getting you to eat more of it. Whenever I eat at D'Arcy's (best tasting food in town) I get so full it hurts. Good thing I have a fast metabolism.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[fdrebin]

Sadly, not always true.
I am substantially overweight.

I eat 1200 calories a day, or less. I exercise intensely ~90 minutes a day (bicycle to work and back with 500+ ft elevation change each way(rolling hills)). At that level I maintain weight.

To lose weight I have to go to below 1000 calories and increase the exercise.

BTW my diet does not include processed foods such as bread or pasta or donuts, nor does it include relatively high carb content foods like potatoes. (Try getting fast food. HA!)

My diet is principally fresh vegetables and fruit, some protein source (small amounts of meat or eggs). Nothing out of a can or a package

Agreed, though, that calories alone do not tell the tale.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[edremy]

Yes, there are a few folks out there with serious health issues that make it very difficult to maintain a healthy weight.

But we're even more in denial thinking they are a significant number of the obese. They aren't- they're convenient excuses. I can think back to my wife's roommate in college who was morbidly obese, even though she ate healthy meals and exercised by biking around campus. She explained to everyone that she had glandular problems that caused the weight gain. Those same glandular problems also apparently caused her to eat cans of frosting late at night when she was depressed or stressed. (Yes, you read that correctly)

My metabolism has changed over the years- I was rail thin through college no matter what I ate. After 25 years of post-college life eating the same food, I was pushing the obese range- my body's burn rate has slowed even though I exercise quite a bit. So I stopped eating so much crap last year. Metabolism change or no, I'm down 35 pounds and a hair away from "healthy" BMI. It might be harder to lose weight with a crap metabolism, but it's hardly impossible.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

By your logic, all of the cooks in China come from educated mildly successful families of proficient cooks.

that is the biggest fallacy of your argument. The Lancet information is interesting, as it doesn't say that you take your $400k in cookware with you. Hence, by coming here, those immigrants can function just fine with a limited amount of utensils.

And, as to your comment that $10 for a meal for your entire family is expensive, you're dreaming. $3600 a year to cook dinner for an entire family is the same price as 2 lattes a day for the principals of the household. That tells the truth about values and priorities as much as a $400K kitchen ensemble does.

Cooking fresh food every day is what a lot of immigrants, especially Chinese immigrants, to this country do, and they don't have $100 kitchens.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[spongman]

wrong. it's the sugar in the bun that causes your body to store the fat.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Sebastopol]

You're looking at it from a perspective of great privilege.

For example: do you have a grocery story in your neighborhood that cells vegetables? That is assumption #1 most people don't realize. Impoverished areas have quick-e-marts, because why would a grocery chain with fresh produce open in a ghetto?

Second: if you didn't have a car, how long would it take for you to get to the nearest grocery store? What about if the nearest store was outside your ghetto, and took 1-hour both ways on public transportation (because funding is being cut for busses). That's 2 hours of travel and 30 minutes of shopping out of your day.

Are you even strong enough to carry all of the groceries yourself (a family of 4's weekly groceries are pretty damn heavy if you don't have a car and have to change busses to get home).

What if you worked two jobs, when do you have 2.5 hours free?

And then time to cook?

Being privileged makes it really easy to throw stones from your high horse. Try taking a closer look

Re:Junk food is the problem

[spongman]

yeah, but why do fat people eat more? because they're hungry. why? because their insulin response has been screwed up by too much sugar.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

But i interact with $400,000 worth of stuff most people don't have to do it.

Really, do you have this guy's kitchen? It does not take $400,000 worth of equipment to cook food. You could easily get by with a few hundred dollars....

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You food costs went down because you're eating less calories. You have to calculate price based on calories (ie. "calorie per dollar").

Cheap foods almost always give you higher calories per dollar. Yes, most people need to eat less calories anyway but that's not what we're talking about here.

You need to calculate how much to costs to eat 2000 "junk food" calories versus 2000 healthy calories. The healthy ones are way more expensive.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[alcmaeon]

For most of the world, and most of human history, one of the most vital statistics economists measure is calories-per-person. When you graph things like that against, say, economic freedom, there's a clear, strong relationship.

So if we graph an objectively measurable quantity (calories-per-person) against a subjective, fuzzy, undefined concept (economic freedom) we find a "clear, strong relationship."

Right. Sure we do. In the same sense that if I graph Gross Annual Income against invisible pink unicorns, I get a "clear, strong relationship." Hell, its my fantasy and my chart, so why not.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the $400k was including housing. Which is still high, but not totally unreasonable.

I actually can show you an apartment with no microwave... but that's just a friend who is cheap and doesn't want one.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[n7ytd]

Make the exercise time. There's several reasons I say this (and I hope it's clear that I say this form a position of wanting to help, not accusation). First, fitness has been shown to be more important than fatness as a predictor for a long and healthy life. It's not a panacea, and fit and lean is better than fit and fat, but fit and fat is better than thin and not fit. Second, time to exercise is the easiest chink to make in the problem's armor. You can get DVDs that you can do in your living room in half an hour. It's often not the most ideal way to exercise (though some are quite good), but it gets you moving, which is step one. Or just go for a walk every afternoon. Half hour, every afternoon, rain or shine, push a little harder every day.

If you're working a desk job and can make your schedule fit it, take a 20-25 minute walk away from your building every afternoon, about the time that you start to crash from lunch or get hungry. The sunshine and the fresh air will do worlds of good for you. It can also be helpful to clear your head and when you arrive back at your desk, you will be able to have a fresh go at the task at hand.

If you are having trouble getting the 30 minutes away from your desk, just remind yourself that the smokers take three or four 15 minute breaks every day, and no one seems to have a problem with that.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[MozeeToby]

Reality is that if he reduced his intake signficantly, he'd feel like crap every time he chose a high carb option for his food. And, consciously or unconsciously, he'd adjust his food choices. If you go so far as to actually write down everything you eat, add up the calorie content, and keep it under a certain level for each day, you'll see people rapidly move away from the kinds of foods that cause problems because they make us miserable if eaten as part of a lower calorie diet. And it'll happen even faster if you tell them what to avoid and why.

It isn't a simple math problem. It's a control system problem where at least one of the elements is the human brain. That doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't model-able, the human brain has predictable responses to repeated stimuli, at least in the bulk (might not work for a particular individual but it'll work for 80% of the population). The reasons that "eat less, move more" work aren't as simple as the GP make them out to be, but that doesn't mean that "eat less, move more" won't lead to weight loss.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

... no, bodies don't work that way. Unless you have serious health issues or a very abnormal metabolism, diet (certainly not number of calories) isn't going to hugely affect your weight (+/- 10-20 pounds, but no more than that). Exercise will affect your weight. By making you heavier because muscle is heavier than fat.

*waves* I have a ridiculously fast metabolism. I pretty regularly get comments from people telling me I should eat more because obviously the only way I could be so skinny is if I were starving myself. Of course, I eat more than nearly everyone else I know.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[MozeeToby]

If you try to reduce calories in the average American diet without reducing carbs you'll rapidly find that there's nothing left to reduce. Track what a morbidly obese person eats in a day and you'll see 75% of his calorie budget is eaten up by sugars and starches. Reducing calories in the American diet is synonymous with reducing carbs.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[grep_rocks]

Let me second that the laws of thermodynamics is indeed true, our level of physical activity is so low today that most people could probably live on a 1500 calories or less a day - you can talk all you want about complex dynamic systems but the beauty of thermodynamics is it can tell you something important about a system regardless of its internal working or complexity. If you sit on your ass all day which most of us do at work there is no need for more than a base maintenance level of caloric intake- and our bodies are very good a making do with very few calories - practically,the only way to loose weight is to up your calorie burn a day, an hour of exercise is about 600 calories, which is about 60 grams of fat, so to get serious weight loss you would have to exercise a _lot_ to loose weight quickly

Re:Junk food is the problem

[grep_rocks]

In addition to the laws of thermodynamics I also subscribe to conservation of mass and energy - apparently this is controversial

Re:Junk food is the problem

[rubycodez]

yes the core problem is laziness and only laziness, those 450 lbs. slugs brushing both sides of the aisle at walmart know that eating box of twinkie,and ho-ho's is a bad thing. Plenty of people in my grandparents day had 8th grade education, and knew one needed to "eat your greens", "get your roughage" (fiber), etc. and that too much cake or candy was bad. no mom and pop grocery stores there? maybe you're not looking hard enough....

Re:Junk food is the problem

[rubycodez]

sure, but I'm talking about a moderate amount of carbs (that is unavoidable anyway, everything has them). I'm sitting here eating two cups of brown rice, with carrot sticks and celery. breakfast was cup of yoghurt and nuts. yes, I eat meat, I'll have some for dinner with dark greens, some avacado and sweet potato. 99% of all those fat people could eat what I'm eating and they wouldn't be fat.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[ffflala]

I don't know where this idea that fresh fruit and vegetables are expensive comes from. They're the cheapest way of getting food, as long as you have time to cook (and 10-20 minutes a day is enough for that if you don't do anything too complicated).

10-20 minutes per day for simple food prep isn't accurate, especially if you don't have a dishwasher. I'll give grandparent 10-20 minutes per meal, which comes out to 30-60 minutes per day.

There's a related term to parent's point, "food desert" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert One of the articles referenced discusses a study that observed drops in obesity rates in food deserts after a supermarket was built in the area.

A lot of people live in areas where an hour's round trip travel will at best get you to a 7-11 or a Walgreens. While in my region I've noticed that some 7-11s have started to sell fruit, it's marked up so much that it's really not cheaper than fast food -- $5 for a 12oz cup of sliced melon, $1 per apple or banana. And at those prices, the dollar menu at a fast food counter really is cheaper in terms of both time and money.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[dunkelfalke]

People with type 2 diabetes are insulin resistant. And yes, obesity can cause insulin resistance, but does not have to. Interestingly, insulin resistance is not solely caused by a large simple carbohydrate intake, but instead by a large quantities of dietary fat. You can look it up yourself here: http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/40/11/1397.short

Oh yes, another cause is also lack of physical activity:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=279&issue=9&page=669.

And here you are, preaching that carbohydrates and physical activity are the root of all evil and only fat is good.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[rycamor]

This is something I have only just begun to get a picture of, after half a lifetime of carb addiction. I do liken it to an addiction because you get addicted to that glycemic rush in your body from eating a stack of pancakes, or even 3-4 "heart-healthy" granola bars. And then you get that blood-sugar drop an hour later that has you hating yourself, so you look for another quick fix, maybe coffee with sugar, a soda and some chips, and off you go on the insulin roller coaster again.

All you young Slashdotters: it only gets worse as you hit middle age. Learn to recognize the signs. I now can eat an evening meal of meat, fresh vegetables, maybe some cheese, etc... and if I avoid the bread and dessert, I can literally go the whole next day without feeling any real hunger pangs (I try to fast like this once or twice a month). Once you invest in eating nutrient-dense food that produces a slow blood sugar rise (meat, healthy fats, complex carbs), you find yourself on a much more even keel. Less headaches, less lethargy. In fact, you find yourself actively *wanting* to work out instead of dreading it.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Frozen veggies are often more nutritious than their fresh counterparts. Fresh veggies start losing their nutritional value as soon as they are harvested, but freezing them preserves the vitamins etc.

And frozen veggies keep really really well ;-)

Re:Junk food is the problem

[rycamor]

There is a problem when geeks try to argue from a priori logic and theory. Empirical evidence. Anyone who has changed his/her diet away from processed carbs and toward meat and fresh vegetables sees the change within days, even without modifying physical activity.

After I changed my diet I was almost embarrassed at the amount of food I could eat and still lose weight. It only starts becoming a problem when I get tempted to start sneak processed carbs or sugars back into the diet. I find that the equivalent of about 1 (maybe 2) slices of bread a day is workable, but once I go over that, I start to bloat up. Meanwhile, I can eat all the meat, cheese, full-fat Greek yoghurt and eggs I want, I see no problem.

Now, I am fully willing to find the hard math in all this. Absolutely. I am a geek, after all. But the simplistic calories-in/calories-out stuff just doesn't wash with me anymore.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[dunkelfalke]

When I went to the university (and back then it was free for everyone here in Germany who has passed the Abitur exams) the total cost of my kitchen equipment (which included a stove, a fridge, a frying pan, a pressure cooker, a cutting board and two decent knives) was about $400, not $400000. Could have been cheaper but I really wanted that induction stove and the Japanese knives). My girlfriend back then taught me a few basics about cooking, and I am glad for it, because it made things easier.

I really like to quote that film, "Ratatouille", at this point: "Anyone can cook".

Re:Junk food is the problem

[mcgrew]

SSRI may also increase your appetite, but one wouldn't suggest it as a cause.

I would. I was thin all my life until 2002 when my doctor prescribed Paxil. I gained 40 pounds. When I stopped taking it I lost almost all of the weight despite trying to keep it on.

It doesn't just increase your appetite, it slows your metabolism, so you'll burn fewer calories doing the same activities.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[airdweller]

"Once consumed, emulsifiers are not fussy about what they emulsify. Your body uses the oil & the vinegar, and what is left is happy to get into your lymphatic system where it will suspend all manner of crap, keeping it there until you exercise enough or eat enough spice to "melt" it away. "
Dude, seriously? How old are you? 10? :D

Re:Junk food is the problem

[KozmoStevnNaut]

The things that will make you fat:
Too much Dairy

80-90% of what goes in your mouth should be animal proteins and fats and lots of vegetables.

Milk is animal protein and fat ;-) Drink skim milk, it's refreshing and good for you (unless you're lactose intolerant, of course).

There's no need to go full-on complicated with a diet, easier diets (actually lifestyle changes) are easier to maintain. Try eating using the 3-2 method:

Three daily main meals consisting of two fist-sized components. One fist lean protein. The other 50/50 veggies and complex carbs, like whole grain bread. Veggies can be fresh or frozen, depending on convenience, it doesn't matter.

Two smaller meals consisting of a piece of fruit or a couple of carrots etc. plus a small portion of lean protein of some kind. I use 30 grams of whey protein powder mixed with skim milk because I buy it anyway for my post-workout protein+carbs and it fits my busy work schedule, I can drink it at my desk.

Much easier to remember and stick to. No counting calories, no paleolithic philosophies etc., and no fads. Just a solid calorie deficit and a healthy combination of macro and micro-nutrients, especially if your protein comes from fish and/or you supplement with fish oil and a vitamin pill once in a while, depending on how varied your diet is. The key point is that this method works and is fully compatible with a busy lifestyle.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[KozmoStevnNaut]

No, you're wrong.

Lean protein is good for you. Your body uses more energy per calorie to process protein than any other macronutrient and it stimulates the metabolism.

On the other hand, a normal burger bun is nothing but simple carbs. It's all white flour and sugars. Completely devoid of any meaningful nutritional value.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Cutting board: $15. Seriously? And don't get a wooden one; dangerous if not cleaned thoroughly.

Actually, wooden cutting boards are much more hygienic than plastic boards, as long as you wash them regularly.

Cuts and scrapes in cutting boards will harbor germs that are hard to get rid of. But cuts in wood tends to close themselves, hence wooden cutting boards are actually cleaner than even slightly used plastic cutting boards.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize your comment was content-free but nonetheless...
.

To answer your question, I think the one using the word "dude" is the 10-year-old.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoke 2 packs of cigs a day, drink lots and lots of water

Re:Junk food is the problem

[19thNervousBreakdown]

You're muddying the argument, and by making it complex, allowing people to continue to delude themselves into counter-productive behavior.

It ain't the ratio. You can't drop carbs and replace them with equal calories of protein and lose weight. Unless you are seriously diseased (go to the doctor, get diagnosed, get treated) your body mass is determined by the sum of your calories eaten minus calories you expend.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like a diet that only someone with an above average income could afford

Oh really? I fed myself on a budget of one pound per day for a whole month. Guess what - fresh food is generally *cheaper* than processed. Even something as mundane as instant noodles is more expensive than home-made noodles. Now stop making excuses and get yourself some fresh veg.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Magius_AR]

It really boils down to insulin. When insulin levels are high, you store fat. When insulin levels are low, you burn fat.

Umm, so what you said was that "calories matter", namely the "calories out" side of the equation. I've never understood people who claim that the laws of physics somehow don't apply and then go on to ignore the second half of the "calories in, calories out" equation. If carbs reduce your metabolic burn rate, that's one thing. But it doesn't somehow mean that a simple caloric calculation doesn't still determine your end weight.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Buzz_Litebeer]

McDonalds is definitely cheaper per Calorie.

(I think!)

Hell, Tacobell has a 550 calories per dollar in their beef burrito. (IIRC).

That would be like 10 oz of chicken.

which is pretty calorie dense for a home processed food. Or about 7 apples, which still costs more.

SO, depends on how you determine costs. If you count everything as calories in and calories out, and want to see the costs per calorie, a lot of fast food / canned and processed food, is a much better deal for caloric volume.

If you put in the cost of personal labor, it is _FAR_ cheaper.

Imagine you were, yourself, a food industry worker making 7.50 an hour. You just got your food from your local CSA farm share, and you cooked up (time to cook 1.5 hours), you just spent 11.25 dollars of your life cooking for food that in itself was more expensive.

I spent 1 hour last night with my GF making food, we make far far more than minimum wage, and it took 2 people. So lets pretend our time is worth a dollar a minute (combined, it is worth more but this an example), that would be 60 bucks of "effort" put in.

Etc.... etc... Even if you just take our income and divide by 3 (assuming we work 8 hours a day, but spread it out over 24 hours so that even sleeping itself would "cost" money) it would still imply 20 dollars an hour to make that food.

Far more than driving through McDonalds parking lot or Taco bell and getting the same calories that way.

It all depends on how you look at this stuff.

Take a look at this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5360768

Where a guy determines the true cost of a tomato he gardened to be 64 dollars a tomato.

Very Very expensive.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly correct. This is precisely why diets fail and why it is typically necessary to couple them to increases in activity. That said, the problem with all of the analyses so far is that they neglect to consider the relative caloric densities of foods. There are 30 calories(kcal) in a large carrot(72g) while there are 271 in a snickers bar(54g). I challenge you to eat 9 large carrots and tell me you are hungry. In more scientific terms, the caloric density of a carrot is .416 calories/gm while that Snickers bar is 4.75cal/gm. There is literally an order of magnitude difference between these two foods. Thus, even the addition of mild exercise may be inadequate to deal with particularly bad diets. So if the conservation of energy rules of Physics are correct, in order to lose weight while not starving, it is simply necessary to change ones diet to a set of foods with lower caloric densities and ensure that ones basal metabolism + calories burned while exercising are less than the calories eaten each day.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[mcgrew]

If you don't have the time to cook this simple meal

It's not just the time to cook it, it's the time to drive to the grocery store, shop (and they lay out stores in such a way that it takes the most amount of time to shop, so you'll have more of a chance to buy something not on your list), wait in the checkout line, drive home, and put all the stuff away. That takes more time than most of the actual cooking.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I get potatoes for 35 cents a pound. Depending on the size of the potatoes, 50 cents sounds about right for 3 potatoes.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Belial6]

While you are a good example of metabolism keeping someone thin, that isn't the only factor. When I say that we need to consider metabolism, that isn't at the expense of other factors. In my home, my wife's weight is almost 100% controlled by exercise. If she starts putting on weight, changing her diet doesn't help. A bit of extra exercise has dramatic results. On the other hand, my muscle content ranges from high without exercise (lean body mass is only ~10 lbs below 'overweight'), to excessive if I work out (lean body mass puts me in the 'overweight' category). My fat content is almost exclusively controlled by diet. A high fat low sugar diet will make me shed fat rather quickly.

* My lean body mass was determined via hydrostatic weighing.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[operagost]

Are we really going to seriously claim that people can't afford to own pots and spices in the western world? This isn't Columbus' time, when you had to said to HERE THERE BE DRAGONS to score some tumeric. You don't need to own the car, and you really don't need to own the fridge and stove as it is not hard to find an apartment that comes with them.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Belial6]

First problem is that "healthy weight" is a misnomer to begin with. BMI is complete crap and down right dangerous. It leads to people who are terribly unhealthy calling healthy people lazy fat asses. My lean body mass is only 10 lbs below 'overweight'. That is when I don't get exercise. If I work out, my lean body mass exceeds the 'overweight' values for BMI. A healthy quantity of body fat puts me in the 'obese' category when I get moderate exercise.

My body makeup means that I can literally be at risk of dying due to too little body fat while simultaneously being overweight. The fact that this is not that uncommon doesn't seem to stop the BMI myth from perpetuating.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[dgatwood]

If they had been eating that all along, perhaps. If they started today, either:

1. They would not have enough calories to satisfy the fat cells, and their metabolic rates would plummet, causing them to be lethargic and unhealthy, but they probably wouldn't lose much weight.

2. They would consume twice as much as you do, and wouldn't lose any weight.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[DarwinSurvivor]

I also know a guy who *litterally* almost died because of the crap that guy was telling people to eat (yes, the cause was confirmed by his doctor!).

Re:Junk food is the problem

[dgatwood]

And even the fatty portion of meats is still digested more slowly than carbs.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[TheRaven64]

And his prices are massively over the top. I moved house two years ago and bought a new fridge and freezer and I paid less than $500 for the pair. Second hand ones are half the price, and most rental places come with at least a fridge, usually a combination of the two. Similarly, I've never seen a flat rented without a cooker (although it may only be a two-hob thing). The $200 he spent on pans is about what I have spent on pans in total over ten years - most of mine are very cheap supermarket ones, and when I went to university I took a set of three (£20 from Sainsbury's, along with about £10 of cheap wood and plastic utensils. Most places I've rented - including the place I'm renting now - come with enough to cook with and a few plates and so on).

And don't forget that $10K of his $11,355 figure is a car. I don't own a car, nor have I felt the need for one. I pay £3 every week or two to have my supermarket shopping delivered to me - less than the cost of taking the bus to the supermarket and back - and I can pick up fresh things locally. If you live in a big city then you probably don't even need to do the supermarket shopping.

Of the things he listed, about the only ones that you might actually need to buy if you are in rented accommodation are the spices, and you can cook quite competently with only a couple of herbs and spices. Pick them up from a local immigrant shop and you can probably get ten times as much for half the price of a supermarket.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't tell you I'm hungry, I will tell you I'm horribly bloated as carrots are hard to digest (at least for me) and thus are not a great thing to have as the only thing.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[ChrisMaple]

Any time that you eat a diet that lacks an essential nutrient you're going to hurt your body, and there's a good chance that you'll lose weight, too. That applies to your "no carbohydrate" diet as well as "no fat" and "no protein" diets.

A fairly large percentage of people have trouble digesting grains containing gluten; it can degrade bodies and cause weight gain. Not all people have this problem.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[ChrisMaple]

Naming insulin as the problem ignores the fact that in a healthy person insulin is produced in response to circulating sugar, which is in turn caused by consumption of foods that include sugar or are easily converted to sugar. Insulin is an intermediary; the primary cause of excess fat is excess food intake.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[hsthompson69]

Actually, insulin resistance is most likely triggered by fructose intake, which then makes even simple glucose intake from starches dangerous. Lustig talks about this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

A diet solely composed of animal meats and fats cannot create type 2 diabetes, period. When it comes right down to it, fruit and sugar tend to damage the liver to cause insulin resistance, which then makes simple starches dangerous. Perhaps, if you've managed to avoid fruit and sugar, and stuck strictly to starches, you *might* be okay...but as I've stated elsewhere, while we have essential proteins and fatty acids, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[hsthompson69]

Foods that include sugar, or are quickly converted into blood sugar are called "carbohydrates". The primary cause of excess fat is excess carbohydrate intake, not excess food intake.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[hsthompson69]

I'm talking about a moderate amount of carbs (that is unavoidable anyway, everything has them).

My grilled burgers have effectively zero carbohydrates.
My diet coke has effectively zero carbohydrates.
My home made beef jerky has effectively zero carbohydrates.
My bacon has effectively zero carbohydrates.

You can avoid carbohydrates if you want to, but if you're not conscious about it (looking at that sugary bbq sauce on the ribs, or that hidden sugar in the beef jerky, or even that damn wheat they put in soy sauce for some reason), it can be difficult.

As for "moderate", that's a weasel word -> what is a "moderate" amount of LSD or cocaine for a 5 year old?

99% of fat people can't eat why you eat and lose weight because they have a bigger problem with insulin resistance than you do. The big mistake of characterizing this as "calories in, calories out" is that people assume that outcomes are due to gluttony and sloth, rather than hormonal issues. You wouldn't look down on someone who has an overactive pituitary and keeps growing abnormally tall, but apparently you can look down on someone who has insulin resistant fat cells and who keeps growing abnormally wide on a diet including carbohydrate.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[hsthompson69]

Applying the conservation of mass and energy is inapplicable to a complex system like a human and their digestive system.

How many calories are in a penny? Put the penny in a calorimeter, burn it, measure the output. Now eat a penny and see if any of those calories get into your fat cells. (And if you want to argue that it is simply excreted undigested, have you bothered to consider the caloric value of excrement in general?)

The simple biochemical fact is that fat is accumulated under the influence of insulin. If you don't have insulin to tell fat cells to accumulate fat, they simply *do not* get fatter. It is the *type* of calorie that matters, not the simple existence of an energy potential in a solid.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[hsthompson69]

I dropped carbs, replaced them with *greater* calories of protein and fat, and I lost weight.

Your body mass is determined by the sum of calories that enter your fat cells, and the sum of calories that exit your fat cells, and that, dear sir, is moderated by the hormone insulin.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[hsthompson69]

It's a control system where the primary control is the hormone insulin.

"Eat less, move more" does not address the controlling factor, which is the hormone insulin. When "eat less, move more" does work, it is because it just happened to align with the "eat less insulin producing foods".

Yes, the sun rises when the rooster crows. The rooster didn't make the sun rise, though.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[hsthompson69]

As I already mentioned, sugar goes to muscles and liver first, and only THEN to fat

Um, bullshit. Increased blood sugar levels causes insulin levels to rise. *Insulin* is what tells fat cells to stop releasing fatty acids into the blood stream for energy, and causes fat cells to accumulate fat. You're treating the muscles, liver and fat cells as if they were simply buckets, when in fact they are *active* participants in metabolism.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[hsthompson69]

Cribbed mercilessly from someone's comment on a blog somewhere:

"Just simple math is needed to show how bogus the whole calorie hypothesis is. Just to make the math a little easier to follow I'll use round numbers. An adult male is supposed to need about 2,500 calories per day to maintain their weight...not gain, not lose. So that means over the course of a year you consume 912,500 calories (2500 * 365). To change your weight you are supposed to consume 3,500 extra (to gain) or less (to lose) calories in order to change your weight by one pound. So in order to NOT change your weight over the course of a year your consumption of calories has to be accurate to a level of 0.4% (3500/912500) or about 10 calories (2500 * 0.004) PER DAY. Anybody really think they are that precise with their calorie intake? Or that all of the mistakes over a year will balance out that accurately?"

Your body adapts itself as necessary, to whatever caloric intake you give it. When you give it carbohydrates, though, you fuck up its control system, and if you're unlucky enough to be insulin resistant, you get fat. The problem isn't the calories, it's the carbohydrates.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[edremy]

Ah, yes, the next defense- "BMI is crap. I'm a heavy-framed bodybuilder with 4% body fat and a BMI of 30"

Once again, there are a few people out there like this- I've even known some. The *vast* majority of obese people do not fall under this category, and pretending that BMI is junk because of a few outliers is just a way to wish away the fact that we're fat. Folks with BMI over 30? They're almost certainly fat. Sorry, it's just the truth- as a population we're nowhere athletic enough to fall into the (very well understood) pool of folks with a lot of lean muscle mass, and I've never heard of a doctor telling a highly fit person to drop weight because their BMI was technically overweight. It's not even all that prevalent among athletes- I have relatives and coworkers who compete seriously in triathalons and while I don't know their BMI I'd be blown away if any of them was over 20. I have a lot of college student athletes in my classes and with the exception of a few wrestlers and a football player or two they aren't going to be over 25. As I mentioned, my BMI edged up over 30. I was a fat fuck. My BMI right now is 25.2, and frankly I'm still overweight. I come about as close as you can get to "normal" height and frame, and BMI works just fine for me, and most folks.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[arose]

So have you dropped anything that causes problems for a significant amount of people from your diet? No salt, no MSG, no gluten, no soy, no peanuts, no nuts, no shellfish, etc? If you are claiming them to be bad, period, not "bad for those who can't have them". Large amounts of anything being a problem doesn't prove that smaller amounts are, cuisine wasn't part of that argument.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Rolgar]

We don't need dairy. Calcium consumption doesn't prevent bone density loss. Weight bearing activities maintain your bone heath regardless of your dairy intake. After all, adult wild animals don't consume dairy, and you don't see them breaking hips.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Belial6]

Ah, yes, the next rationalization of BMI. the "Only body builders with 4% body fat are inaccurately calculated as obese by the BMI."

If you have enough muscle mass to put you overweight per the BMI and have 4% body fat, then the BMI is grudgingly accepted as having an exception, but as soon as that body fat reaches 10%, he suddenly becomes a lazy fat ass, and the BMI mysteriously becomes accurate. All the while the guy with no muscle mass at all is called 'healthy' with his 30% body fat.

I am no body builder, but my lean muscle mass, measured via hydrostatic weighing has me at 168 pounds of lean body mass. That means that to be considered 'normal' weight, I can have only 10 lbs of body fat. So, according to the BMI anything over ~5-6% body fat makes me 'over weight'. It also says that I would be 'healthy' at 133 pounds. This would require not only reaching 0% body fat, but amputating body parts to boot.

BMI is complete crap and dangerous. It tells healthy people to lose weight and fat people that they are healthy.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[gullevek]

See, and this is the strange thing about America.

Let's take Japan, although I have three convenience stores in walking distance, I also have 2 supermarkets and one smaller grocery store and two other supermarkets if I ride my bike.

I think a lot of people are just lazy fucks, honestly. And cooking doesn't need to take 10~20min. I can do some quick stuff with fresh vegetables in less than five minutes. I can even cook rice in a pressure cooker in my microwave in 10min. And it is still 100x times more healthy than any fast food or any process food they sell in the junk joints. Honestly, last time I checked, one of the pastas in the convenience store hat 985 kcal ...

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with all the above, except... are you saying all obese people are not "privileged"?

The fact is, there is a huge amount of obese people. From the wealthy to the poor. Something needs to change, and it's not as simple as you make it sound.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[sjames]

All you have to do is ignore the second most powerful biological drive (where breathing is 1st and sex is on down the list) for the rest of your life. Easy peasy say those who don't have to do it!

Re:Junk food is the problem

[KozmoStevnNaut]

And as we all know, the human body is exactly the same as every wild animal's. Because we haven't been constructing tools and conveniences to make our life easier or cooking food for tens of thousands of years, right?

We don't need milk, unlike hundreds (thousands) of years ago when milk was one of the only reliable food sources during long cold winters. Dark leafy greans are a good source of calcium if you don't like milk.

Milk contains protein, calcium, vitamin C and a host of other important nutrients that you can get in other places as well. But milk packages it in a tasty, refreshing and versatile liquid.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[rs79]

Bingo.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I just started eating less for various reasons (got lazy to cook, worked late hours so even eating out became less of an option). Over time my body just adapted to the lower intake; I didn't feel hungry to the point where I could go on like 1 or 1.5 meals a day (basically lunch + dinner snack). Recently I've started eating more regularly & I've noticed that I get hungry as I'm approaching these meals.

My theory is that your body is conditioned to get hungry around "meal" time. Try delaying meals more and more gradually over a period of time. For instance,

Week 1: instead of eating breakfast at 8, eat at 8:15
Week 2: instead of eating breakfast at 8:15 eat at 8:30
Week 3: instead of eating breakfast at 8:30 eat it at work at 8:45.
Week 4: eat breakfast at 9:00
Week 5: eat breakfast at 9:30
Week 6: eat breakfast at 10 (also try eating a smaller lunch to account for the decreased time between meals). .. etc until you hit 11 & then just skip breakfast.

(or do this for whatever meal of the day you want to try ommitting). The long-term health of this is questionable though. Also, have you tried eating drastically smaller meals & simply eating fruits & vegetables as snacks throughout the day (e.g. munch on some carrots, apples, celery without dressing, etc). Perhaps eat just a chicken breast for dinner without any sauces & broccoli on the side (i.e. no rice, potatoes, bread etc). Maybe for dinner eat some fish with salad.

For moments of hunger between meals try drinking water instead or at most eat an apple, carrots or something along those lines (stay away from salty foods).

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moron. You seriously believe this?

Egg is an emulsifier.

Ever heard of mayonnaise? Oil emulsified in vinegary water. The emulsifier is egg.

Ever heard of Caesar salad dressing? Again, oil emulsified in vinegar with spices and cheese. The emulsifier is egg.

(While I've heard plenty on the unhealthfulness of mayo and Caesar dressing, the emulsifier was not on the radar screen of potential threats.)

As a matter of fact, lots of stuff has egg in it. Have fun freaking out, freak.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[netsavior]

Please don't do this. "College poor" IS NOT THE SAME THING as generational poverty, or even working poor. If you are in college you have a half billion dollars worth of knowledge at your disposal that the working poor on down will never ever have access to.
You are going to compare the eating and purchasing habits of someone in higher learning finance classes and mandatory health and/or nutrition classes to those choices made by someone who MIGHT have graduated high school?

Please please don't compare "College poor" to "actually poor".

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Buzz_Litebeer]

LoL.

Hillarious and TRUE.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[rubycodez]

The diet coke has 0.35 grams per can, 93 / 7% beef has 0.5 gram of carbs per ounce silly to say "what is a "moderate" amount of LSD or cocaine for a 5 year old", as carbs are NOT HARMFUL in a normal human. Breast milk contains carbs, after all. The fruits and vegetables hominids including humans have been eating for millions of years contain carbs. as does honey. moderation is the key, historically it was moderate compared to today's U.S. people getting 2,000 kcal plus a day from carbs.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[dances with elks]

Have you considered competing with someone else about losing weight, I find petty one-upmanship quite motivating. Perhaps you could do this with a with a short northerner of some description.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[hsthompson69]

The diet coke has 0.35 grams per can, 93 / 7% beef has 0.5 gram of carbs per ounce

Both effectively zero grams. Look up the glycemic load or index on either of those.

Oh, and always get the fattiest meat - 93/7% beef is a waste of time.

carbs are NOT HARMFUL in a normal human.

Of course they are. They're chronic toxins.

. The fruits and vegetables hominids including humans have been eating for millions of years contain carbs.

None of the fruits and vegetables you buy in the store are anything like what humans may have occasionally ate while evolving. That apple has been genetically engineered and grafted for enhanced sweetness. That whole grain has been ruthlessly manipulated for higher yield.

Fruits and vegetables should be fed to ruminants, and then the humans can eat those tasty animals.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Sebastopol]

Wait, did you just compare Japan and America and then blame americans? Odd logic.

And white rice spikes insulin production, so its not "healthier" than pasta in most regards, unless it is highly refined pasta that has lost a great deal of vitamins and needs to be fortified. But generally japanese eat smaller rice portions compared to america's pasta portions, so the insulin spike probably isn't that big.

But living in japan with 3 convenience stores and 2 supermarkets in walking distance??? /jealous

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Sebastopol]

That's a good point, about privelege and obesity.

And I wasn't trying to make things sounds simple, lol!

I have a kneejerk reaction when people start blaming a subset of the poor/obese demo that literally has no choice but to eat shit foot.

Another side of the coin, like you point out, is middle-class/upper-class obesity. I'm right there with you: There's no effing excuse for these fatties. I know genetics play a real role in obesity, but I haven't seen any compelling data that it is more than just a few % of the problem (e.g., there were obese folks during the great depression, or in the famine-stricken appalacians.) Seriously, if you live in a burb where every mile you hit a grocery store, a taco bell, McD's and tanning salon, haul your lazy ass into the store and buy a salad instead of the supersized tacoburgercombo. Take that priveleged free time and walk for 30 minutes a day rather than watching another episode of Jersey Cunts or Bridezillas... Damn, now I'm angry.

Anyway, yes, I only went after one aspect of the obesity problem: issues in poverty areas. But there are many more as you point out.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

I'm obese, and I have experience with losing large amounts of weight (and putting it back on). Here's what I have to do:

1) Eat zero wheat.
2) Eat zero dairy.
3) Eat zero High-Fructose Corn Syrup
4) Eat no MSG, preservatives other than salt, etc.
5) Stay away from all simple starches and sugars (no fruit).
6) Exercise a little bit (walking)

Basically I have to cook my own food. Due to my allergies, 85% of every food choice I encounter during the course of a day is POISONOUS to me. I can't eat at restaurants, I can't eat at friends' houses. Even the stuff my wife prepares can cause me to be randomly ill because someone didn't wash something at the factory when a 'safe' food product was processed and packaged. So I still have to take meds to keep my food in, even when it's prepared 'properly'.

Now, how sustainable do you think dieting can possibly be for me? How many times will I choose to go hungry when the perfect choice isn't available at a banquet or a social occasion? Or when I'm working late and it's eat some pizza with the guys or starve? So I give in, get sick, and the weight marches up. I'm hardly alone. I encounter people every day that are allergic in some way to the standard American diet. It's not just the calories, it's the content. The additives. It's the stuff that some of us just can't digest properly. All mixed together in ways that taste good but which keep us from being able to avoid the poisons.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Or when you're paid to think but didn't get a perfect night's sleep. So high-calorie sugar foods are the only way to keep up your energy.

I need 9 hours/night. How often do you think I can manage to get more than 7? When I lived alone it was easier, but then I got married and had kids. :)

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah? Well, what's IN the grease? What was used to prepare the chips? What preservative was used to keep them fresh-tasting? All of that matters too. If my wife eats ANY MSG, she gains 3-4 pounds that takes her 2-3 weeks to lose.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[ToddInSF]

Yeah, because most people that don't go to college are stupid and lazy.

Please get out more outside your own little socio-cultural island.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

On my 30th birthday I climbed a mountain with a bunch of 16-18 year olds. My BMI was 32. Solidly in the 'Very Obese' range, with a fat belly and ass to prove it. But not only did I keep up with all of those teenagers for 2 weeks, but I had such a low Blood Pressure for my size that the camp doctors checked it 3 times. At the end of the trip I had only lost 5 pounds. Even after days where we hiked 18 miles.

So yes, the BMI is complete crap. It's what's underneath the fat that counts.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[nobodie]

Another thing the article points to is the quantites of food eaten that have also increased (because of the glut of food, restaurant portions increased which increased portion expectation on the plate) and fed the obesity epidemic. My little bro, the uber-geek in the family, went on a diet a few years ago based entirely on increased fiber and portion control.

When I was living in Asia and we would come back to the US for visits we could only buy the kiddie portions, or buy a hors d'oervre plate or other small portion. Even today I eat about 1/3 of what my colleagues eat. And I still am not starving the least little bit, not to mention still being a little bit over weight by my own estimation. Even the American BMI is torqued to the "obesity standard".

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Trash this whole post and say this: The things that will make you fat -- eating more calories per week than you burn. The things that will make you thin -- burning more calories per week than you eat. tl;dr First Law of Thermodynamics.

Just from your list, oats and (brown) rice are two of the healthiest things you can eat. They have very good and balanced macronutrient profiles. You also actually need sugars, especially if you're doing any sort of exercise, to replenish glycogen stores. Your list seems to take the opinion that all carbohydrates make you fat, regardless, which is too simplistic unless you're planning a ketogenic diet.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[sandytaru]

The hunter/gatherers did have some grains in their diets, but they were a luxury and a seasonal thing at best. Grinding flour by hand with stones would take someone hours for just a few cups. And it would be unleavened, and probably simply mixed with fats and nuts before cooking, making it wildly different from what we know as bread today. Still, a great way to get some quick energy during the busy summer hunting/storing season, and sweetened with some fruits, probably a nice treat.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe!

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

my personal anecdote. I was raised by a freshly immigrated father from the third world and a wasp mother of lower middl class. my family started in a trailer. we had one skillet and one sauce pan and a camp stove. we always ate well, because my parents were willing to try to learn. we ate lots of cabbage and rice and cheap meats. we ate for less than $1 per person per day (in california in the 80's). I spoke at length with my mother about as i was leaving to go to school and trying to make my own ends meet.

Obesity is less about access and more about too fucking lazy to even try. tv is more important, xbox in more important.
  you may have $400,000 dollars of infrastructure at your house, but even with a $15 dollar trip to the goodwill and a $25 tank of propane you can cook for 2 or three months. I know I've done it. I have obese friends, the difference is they wont even try. How hard is it to learn to cook these days? It's unbelievably fucking easy. How hard is it to fry an egg? How hard is it to Boil cabbage? Cook rice? How cheap are carrots?

In 2008 In college had a food budget of $3 a day and was fine and healthy. A single fastfood meal these days is around $7 to $9 if you keep everything small.

I've been on the far side of poverty and honestly a large part of it is a mindset of not wanting to try and not wanting to work. I know because after i got a better job and didn't want to cook for a while, i started eating fast food and junk food and put on 50 pounds. just out of sheer laziness. I couldn't believe how much i spent on food at the end of the year either. These days I try to keep the budget under control and eat out occasionally, what i consider to be a reasonable amount of lazy-ass-ness. Lets not pretend that the problem is a lack of information. I dare anyone that thinks it is to type "eating healthy on a tight budget" into google. and lets not pretend that the obese dont have internet or cable. So lets not pretend that people cant because to cook a healthy means you need thousands of dollars of infrastructure.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

1000 times yes!

Re:Junk food is the problem

[dunkelfalke]

Finance classes? Nutrition classes?
Not in Germany. Well, actually there are cooking classes here alright, but they only are taught in schools that aren't preparing people for the university. And before you think that I went to a fancy private school: university-preparatory schools in Germany are also free for everyone who passes the required grades. And please, stop treating poor people as incapable.

Just FYI, I came from a "working poor" family (happened due to us moving from the USSR to Germany). I've made it, thanks to German social safety net and the willingness to actually do something. My sister never bothered to do something, now she has got more difficulties.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you eliminate stove, since that normally is already in a house or apartment, eliminate car, since they can take the bus, and assume something like a 50% cut on the rest of the items, since they can be purchased for much cheaper at yard/estate sales or thrift stores, and/or the necessities bought first and added to over time to build up a collection (e.g. the cookbooks are unnecessary - get one from the library, look in newspapers or magazines, ask your friends, write down favorite recipes to keep after the library book is returned; or use the internet - at the library if necessary - the internet has all the recipes you could possibly want)... the total is something more like $666.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't even try. The poor can go to the fucking library and they have literally trillions of dollars worth of knowledge right at their fingertips. The library which I help pay for so that they can have free internet access.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't eat 2 McDoubles and a large fry? You do not have a huge appetite.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't tell you I'm hungry, I will tell you I'm horribly bloated as carrots are hard to digest (at least for me)

Probably because your stomach is going "what's this? what's he putting into me now? I've never seen this before. what do I do with it?"

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

There is something wrong with it. It tastes so good that it almost burns your mouth. If you've had something that was loaded with MSG, you know what I mean. It has an intensely salty flavor and it almost numbs your tongue. Which means you can't taste the rest of the food very well, so it also needs to be loaded with MSG to make it taste good. And with all this food that tastes so good, you end up eating way too much, and it's all super calorie-dense because that's the sort of food that they load up with MSG and peddle to you.

Re:Junk food is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, so what you said was that "calories matter", namely the "calories out" side of the equation. I've never understood people who claim that the laws of physics somehow don't apply and then go on to ignore the second half of the "calories in, calories out" equation. If carbs reduce your metabolic burn rate, that's one thing. But it doesn't somehow mean that a simple caloric calculation doesn't still determine your end weight.

Well, if I eat 2000 calories with a government recommended percentage of carbs, I gain weight. If I eat 2500 calories with a high percentage of that being fat and a very low amount of carbs (50g), I lose weight. Activity and energy level is the same in both situations.

Predicting the next 100 posts

[sco08y]

Just so we can get them out of the way:

"I tried diet X and lost Y pounds, thus clearly establishing that substance Z is causing everyone to become fat."

"Moral failing Q is the real culprit! We need government policy R! I have no proof!"

"I'm from country C and we have no fat people. You Americans are fat, and I have a ridiculous accent!"

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm from country C and we have no fat people.
> You Americans are fat

Well, to be fair....
*Nobody* does land whales like the US of A :-)

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[Inda]

The norms upsetting the fatties again? They should stop. Stop it. Stop it now.

"I'd go to the gym but gas prices make it too expensive a journey"

"I can't afford fresh food"

"My genetics make me eat birthday cake"

"They don't make push-bikes large enough for my frame"

"The objects on my desk have started to orbit me"

"I don't like sports; I only like birthday cake"

"It's my birthday and it's my cake"

"Fatties run in my family! Well, actually they waddle, and the scooter only travels at a walking pace"

"Nom, nom, nom. Birthday cake."

"I haven't seen my cock in years"

"I have cake; who's birthday is it?"

"Using the Type-two-diabetes diet, I lost 20 kilos and a leg"

"Birthday cake!"

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry dude, it's not doing any good. Nice try though.

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[N1AK]

The food cost argument is one I find particularly disheartening to hear. You can buy bananas as cheaply as most snacks. Wholegrain rice/pasta isn't expensive. Tinned spinach costs something like 10-20 pence (as is a healthy choice). I have trouble losing weight and am slightly heavier than I'd like so I won't pretend I'm the role model for dieting but I can say for sure that healthy eating is probably cheaper than not.

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[bef]

That said, it really is amazing how much fatter Americans are than Europeans. And Europeans have plenty to eat. Another point is that Mexicans are fat, though the country is not very rich. So whatever the math says, it is not about availability alone. Also I have lived in Europe for some time and I'm much thinner than my similarly aged siblings who live in the US.

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[Anonymous Coward]

>"I tried diet X and lost Y pounds, thus clearly establishing that >substance Z is causing everyone to become fat."

Well, it depends on "substance Z". If you're talking about american fast-food sandwiches, the answer is YES, they make people become fat, lots of studies confirm that.

>"Moral failing Q is the real culprit! We need government policy >R! I have no proof!"

It wouldn't be bad to have more government policy about health and food, maybe putting taxes on junk food could be good.

>"I'm from country C and we have no fat people. You >Americans are fat, and I have a ridiculous accent!"

Sorry, but it's absolutely true (the fact that americans are fat, not the accent):

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... the cheapest calories are high density.

Tell me you can get 100 calories of banana for the same cost as 100 calories of soft drink, or even the cost of 100 calories of chocolate, and then you're saying something. And you can't; a choclate bar may cost the same as a banana, but it has twice the calories.

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to factor in advertising. It's not just that food in general is cheaper, but that the increased calorie intake becomes affordable and the restaurants can convince people to buy at those prices.

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[ClioCJS]

Bananas rot in 5 days. So unless you have the time and gas money to go to a grocery store over and over, they aren't nearly as cheap as you'd think. I go grocery shopping once every 2 months, saving a lot of gas money. Actually, I get it delivered, paying a delivery fee that comes with gas credit points that end up paying itself. But yeah. The one week with bananas is a nice week. Otherwise, I'm driving, which currently costs $1 per 3.75 miles for me, not counting car repairs.

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol @ pence.

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[Anonymous Coward]

You're saying that, in a typical week, you never go near enough to a grocery store to drop in and buy bananas? It's possible, I suppose, but for most people it would just be a detour on the way home from work. But if you really do live in a place where eating healthily is impossible because of travel costs, then perhaps you should move somewhere else. And there are plenty of fruits that will keep better than bananas in a refrigerator.

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[KozmoStevnNaut]

That's the entire problem! People are thinking "how can I get the most amount of calories for my money?", when they should be thinking "how can I get the best nutrition for my money?".

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[Hognoxious]

Ummm... the cheapest calories are high density. [...] And you can't; a choclate bar may cost the same as a banana, but it has twice the calories.

Ummmmm, so buy the banana. The point is to try and reduce the calories, isn't it?

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[dunkelfalke]

Once every two months :-O
Do you actually remember how fresh food tastes like?

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[orgenegro]

They can be refrigerated. Though the outer peel will turn black, this does not affect the ability to eat the inner part of the banana. The push to not refrigerate them came from Chiquita, via the Chiquita banana song. You can make your own guesses about why Chiquita wanted them unrefrigerated.

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[ClioCJS]

Interesting. I'll try that out. Thanks. I didn't expect to learn about bananas here.

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[ClioCJS]

After you've cooked it into your rice and meat, canned food tastes the same as fresh. If you're eating it straight - that's where the real difference lies. I love fruit week!

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[m00sh]

What about, "The government agencies, scientists, doctors, media is controlled by the food industries that keep real science away and promote fallacies so that their foods don't look bad".

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[dunkelfalke]

Hm, if it really tastes the same to you, maybe the fresh food you can get is not very good in first place.

I can taste the difference for sure. Then again, I buy groceries every other day on the way from work. Because of that I don't even need a car, everything I need for two days fits in my backpack just fine. And of course, raw fruits and vegetables are tasty, too.

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[mvdwege]

This is in true of all fruit, in fact all foods. The microorganisms that cause decay cannot stand cold, they work a lot slower in a refrigerator.

Why Chiquita would advertise not refrigerating bananas is a mystery to me. They could do it to increase sales of course, but it's so transparently untrue that this is good for the bananas, that I wonder if that is the real reason. Maybe Chiquita made a habit of selling underripe bananas, and advocates keeping them out of the fridge to mask that fact?

Re:Predicting the next 100 posts

[ClioCJS]

Underripe bananas are awesome, because when your ripe ones go bad, they are finally read to eat. Banana week gets extended.

But yea, this doesn't work unless you ALSO get some ripe ones AS WELL.

We order online delivery, and it's nice they have the option to order both kinds separately even tho it's teh same price.

The perfect "fat" storm...

[Anonymous Coward]

The late 70s created the "perfect storm" as it were for obesity to take off....Up until the late 70s obesity was relatively constant in the US, but then skyrocketed, and no matter what your favorite cause for this rapid increase, you will find it in the late 70s. We had:
Nixons ag reforms
High-fructose corn syrup becoming mainstream
Peak factory employment(marking a trend towards more sedentary work)
And McDonalds introduced the happy meal toy, helping get kids hooked early :P Hell you could even blame the backlash against smoking that started in the 70s for some of the gain(esp. if you are a smoker) as many smokers turned from niccotine to food to get their fix...

and at least hundreds of parameters?

[mapkinase]

> created a mathematical model of a human with hundreds of equations

and at least hundreds of parameters?

Re:and at least hundreds of parameters?

[Anne_Nonymous]

In 1978 the mathematics of obesity were a bit simpler. We only used one equation and it went something like this: fatty, fatty 2 by 4, couldn't fit though the kitchen door. Often this computation was performed while exercising. Note that there were a lot fewer fat people in America back when the modeling was simpler.

Coral cache link

[Anonymous Coward]

Coral cached before it's overrun by horde of fat sweaty nerds...

They need an MIT mathemathician to tell that?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm italian, I went to the US many times as a tourist, and I noticed the huge amount of fat people there. I'm not a mathemathician, but I just need to watch an american fast food to understand what the problem is: hamburgers, hot dogs, fried fries and sugar beverages. Just DON'T get them, NEVER, not even on your birthday. Is it so difficult to understand?!

Eat healthy things, usually they are also tasteful (of course I could suggest the italian food, we have only 8% obesity rate here...), go running in the park 2-3 times a week, and - most of all - have a lot of sex. :D

Re:They need an MIT mathemathician to tell that?!

[Hognoxious]

I have relatives in Italy. One thing I have noticed is that people from 20 - 50 are generally in good shape. Many of the old people are fat, I guess that's to be expected but increasingly so are younger kids.

SUGAR is POISON

[arcite]

Yes, go watch this youtube vid: Sugar: the Bitter Truth

Sugar IS indeed a poison, like alcohol...in fact, alcohol and sugar both get turned into FAT, which is killing us because we eat too damn much of it.

Anyway, on a personal note, I have cut out sugary drinks (no sodas) I only allow a few coke zeros (yes I know they are also poison, but I still drink a couple a month). Similarly, cut out fast food, white bread, beef, anything processed, juice, salt. Cook everything yourself then you know what goes in it. Eat natural foods. Once you know how to cook, it will be better than any restaurant anyway. You can always use the freshest ingredients. Anyway, eating healthy and being a normal weight (got a bmi of 21.5, but still fat!) is easy to achieve with a little knowledge and exercise.

Re:SUGAR is POISON

[ShakaUVM]

>Sugar IS indeed a poison, like alcohol...in fact, alcohol and sugar both get turned into FAT, which is killing us because we eat too damn much of it.

"Poison" usually means an acute toxicity, not just something that will make us high in fat. (And yes, I've watched that video before and recommended it to my personal trainer.) I cut sugar entirely out of my diet a year or two ago, as much as is practical (i.e. checking food labels and not eating anything with sugar in it). I haven't drunk soda in years (maybe a couple cokes in the last four or five years, total). Didn't matter. Still was gaining weight slightly. The nice thing about being off sugar was that I got a LOT less hungry during the day. But I was still eating a lot.

So a couple months ago I decided I'd simply start eating less, while maintaining a fairly high level of activity (I work out about 5 days a week, martial arts and the like). Lo and behold! I've lost 14 pounds. Haven't really been hungry. When I get hungry, I eat a little bit, and I tend to get full very quickly. Had one food dream, but that was about it.

Re:SUGAR is POISON

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr version: you ate less food, exercised more, and lost weight. Cutting sugar out of your diet had absolutely nothing to do with that because you still ate like a pig. Oink.

Re:SUGAR is POISON

[Anonymous Coward]

got a bmi of 21.5, but still fat!

You have fat, but you're not fat. If you think you're fat, then you have body image problems and should see a mental health professional (* unless you're an athlete and you're trying to hit competition weight; and no, bodybuilding doesn't count as being an athlete.).

Re:SUGAR is POISON

[TheRealMindChild]

Alcohol is NOT "turned into fat". It turns to acetate, which the body will use as fuel before it burns anything else, including body fat.

Re:SUGAR is POISON

[bazim2]

Really? The mitochondria in the body's cells can only directly process glucose into adenosine triphospate - the chemical the body uses to carry energy. The acetate is just going to be metabolised into fatty acids pretty quickly without being used by the body's cells.

Re:SUGAR is POISON

[Anonymous Coward]

That is awesome to know. I'll start baiting my rat traps with the stuff if it's so bad.

Re:SUGAR is POISON

[TheRealMindChild]

Take a look at http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa35.htm

A good little snippet to read:

Body Weight. Although alcohol has a relatively high caloric value, 7.1 Calories per gram (as a point of reference, 1 gram of carbohydrate contains 4.5 Calories, and 1 gram of fat contains 9 Calories), alcohol consumption does not necessarily result in increased body weight. An analysis of data collected from the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I) found that although drinkers had significantly higher intakes of total calories than nondrinkers, drinkers were not more obese than nondrinkers. In fact, women drinkers had significantly lower body weight than nondrinkers. As alcohol intake among men increased, their body weight decreased (17). An analysis of data from the second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II) and other large national studies found similar results for women (18), although the relationship between drinking and body weight for men is inconsistent. Although moderate doses of alcohol added to the diets of lean men and women do not seem to lead to weight gain, some studies have reported weight gain when alcohol is added to the diets of overweight persons (19,20). When chronic heavy drinkers substitute alcohol for carbohydrates in their diets, they lose weight and weigh less than their nondrinking counterparts (21,22). Furthermore, when chronic heavy drinkers add alcohol to an otherwise normal diet, they do not gain weight (21).

Re:SUGAR is POISON

[ShakaUVM]

Cutting sugar reduced the *hunger*. It's hardly insignificant.

American calories different from European ones?

[Anonymous Coward]

It’s so easy for someone to go out and eat 6,000 calories a day.

the number of calories available to the average American grew by about 1,000 a day.

I don't know, but I hear 2200 kcal is about normal for a male my size. I can't begin to imagine it being "easy" to eat triple my daily food intake.

At the same time,

the conventional wisdom of 3,500 calories less is what it takes to lose a pound of weight is wrong

Typically 100 grams of fat => 900 kcal but apparently 3500kcal per 454 grams would suggest 770 kcal per gram of fat.

What's going on here?

Re:American calories different from European ones?

[Hognoxious]

One college vacation I was eating over 5000 per day. I know because I was keeping a detailed diary of what I ate (& drank!) for a friend's nutrition project.

I lost weight.

Maybe it was because I spent 6 hours every day digging holes?

So the obvious conclusion is..

[second_coming]

put the price of food up. Not what people want to hear nor really what should be done, but putting up the price of food would make the average person thinner.

In an ideal world we would show restraint and only eat what we needed to, but human nature makes most people eat lots of food when it is cheap and easily available.

Re:So the obvious conclusion is..

[Anonymous Coward]

Total crap, why can't anyone admit America is full of lazy idiots who eat like pigs, most of them being on welfare? This article seems to be another in lets control everything people do. Over production is bad wah. Wah I eat too much and its not my fault. I'm from slash dot and I'm a whiner anti anything.

I used to be over 300, now I'm 150, how did I do it? I stopped eating like a pig and got out of the house. wah life is so hard.

Re:So the obvious conclusion is..

[Beerdood]

Better yet, eliminate the subsidies on food we have now. There's no good reason why a big mac meal should cost as much as a rice / noodle bowl, or a large salad or a much healthier equivalent. There's virtually no subsidies for veggies and healthy food - the majority of the subsidy share goes towards feed grains (resulting in cheaper prices in beef, not including actual cattle subsidies, which were about $227 Million in 2010), and corn (where a huge chunk goes towards HFCS, arguably worse than sugar).

The beef subsidies irk me the most - if there's an obesity 'epidemic' in the United States, then why the hell is the government artificially lowering the price of one of the most unhealthy meats there is? Fatty foods don't have to cost less than healthy foods here, and they shouldn't. Put all beef subsidies towards broccoli farming and we'll see a lot less obesity.

A few problems

[Anonymous Coward]

1) There is an obesity epidemic among children too young to ever have been to a fast-food restaurant.
2) Babies are fat, but babies have always been fat.
3) Exercise is good, but has a very limited effect on weight. Most food energy is used to keep our core temperature up. Ask any lizard.
4) There is an obesity epidemic among other mammals, including zoo animals that are on controlled diets.

Conclusions: The obesity epidemic is most likely caused by an endocrine disruptor that affects many or all mammals. Also, most obesity theories are faith-based crap.

Re:A few problems

[ShakaUVM]

>>The obesity epidemic is most likely caused by an endocrine disruptor that affects many or all mammals.

Yes, the endocrine disruptor is called "McDonalds".

Whenever it is introduced to a country, the obesity rates skyrocket.

Re:A few problems

[second_coming]

4) There is an obesity epidemic among other mammals, including zoo animals that are on controlled diets.

Not much of an obesity problem with the same breeds of animals in the wild though is there? Zoo animals get fat because they are not living as nature intended. ie. not working for their food / not being hunted for food.

Re:A few problems

[moeinvt]

"3) Exercise is good, but has a very limited effect on weight."

I'm rather skeptical of that claim as it pertains to obesity.

I can see how the effect of added exercise on weight would be very limited for someone who was already in decent shape or in a "normal" weight range.

By contrast, suppose that an obese person added 30 minutes of strenuous aerobic exercise 3-4 times per week to their schedule. With all else being equal, I'd be surprised if the extra calories being burned and an increase in metabolism did not have a significant effect on their weight.

Re:A few problems

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Some think it's too much CO2:

http://www.inquisitr.com/206123/high-co2-levels-are-making-people-fat-says-new-study/

Chowing down...

[flyingfsck]

So, Chow found that Americans chow down on cheap chow too much...

Model Validation ?

[Sqr(twg)]

A mathematical model is a simplification of the underlying system. That means it is worthless unless validated against experiments. Even after validation, the model cannot make predictions ouside the range where it has been validated.

Statements like "huge variations in your daily food intake will not cause variations in weight, as long as your average food intake over a year is about the same" seem go way outside where there could possibly have been any experimental validation, and suggest that this MIT researcher doesn't know what he's doing. (Either that, or TFS is wrong, but that would never happen on /. )

Re:Model Validation ?

[Rich0]

Yup, here's a mathematical model:

masstoday=massyesterday+0.05kg.

My prediction is that the obesity epidemic is hopeless - people will gain weight no matter what you do. Oh, and best not to live near a graveyard - one of these days one of those old people buried there will collapse into a singularity.

Now let's have a round of useless speculation about what my results mean, without calling into question the fact that a model is not reality.

java????

[Anonymous Coward]

And here I though java was completely dead on the internet

Re:java????

[Anonymous Coward]

> And here I thought java was completely dead on the internet

can someone please convert the thing to something with no connection to oracle?

Corn and Processed Grains

[Riggity]

Newsweek had a nice writeup about obesity and consumption of processed grains that pairs well with this story.

she arrived in New York in 1934 and was "startled" by the number of fat kids she saw - "really fat ones, not only in clinics, but on the streets and subways, and in schools." What makes Bruch's story relevant to the obesity problem today is that this was New York in the worst year of the Great Depression, an era of bread lines and soup kitchens, when 6 in 10 Americans were living in poverty. The conventional wisdom these days - promoted by government, obesity researchers, physicians, and probably your personal trainer as well - is that we get fat because we have too much to eat and not enough reasons to be physically active. But then why were the PC- and Big Mac - deprived Depression-era kids fat? How can we blame the obesity epidemic on gluttony and sloth if we easily find epidemics of obesity throughout the past century in populations that barely had food to survive and had to work hard to earn it?

From my personal experience, I recently lost a lot of weight. The biggest shift I made to burn off fat was to drastically reduce how much grain I consumed weekly. I exercised about the same amount during the time, but the weight loss tracked pretty closely to my change in diet.

Re:Corn and Processed Grains

[Rich0]

Interesting. I think another factor that people ignore is epigenetics. It was found that the incidence rate of diabetes in some town in Europe that had good records seemed to be related to what people's grandparents ate.

I have no idea whether it is true, but if there are epigenetic factors at work, then the best we can hope to do is prevent obesity in kids who have not been born yet, or find some way to manipulate our own epigenetic programming.

Re:Corn and Processed Grains

[Anonymous Coward]

drastically reduce how much grain I consumed weekly

What about potatoes? Did you consume more, less, or the same amount during this time?

Re:Corn and Processed Grains

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried avoiding wheat on my diet 6 weeks ago and dropped 20lbs.

If you live in USA and want to loose weight then try avoiding anything that has wheat. You'll be surprised at how much of our food includes wheat, and be prepared to read the ingredients on everything you eat. Some of the things that include wheat: Condiments, powdered drink mixes, ground spices, soy sauce, canned vegges, pre-shredded cheese (keeps the cheese from sticking together). By avoiding wheat you effectively avoid most bad food anyway but it slips in unlikely places. The first few weeks are hell because you're constantly trying to figure out wtf you can eat and spend a lot of time researching, but you'll get the hang of it.
Hint: Only shop on the outside edge of the grocery store except when looking for a few select items like seasonings. If it has 10g or more of sugar, don't eat it.

And get a fitness tracker app for you phone and try to meet your goals on daily NUTRITION, not calories!

Re:Corn and Processed Grains

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes Bruch's story relevant to the obesity problem today is that this was New York in the worst year of the Great Depression, an era of bread lines and soup kitchens, when 6 in 10 Americans were living in poverty.

And this is the reason I'll never give a penny to an obese homeless person.

Re:Corn and Processed Grains

[Anonymous Coward]

The psychological effect of different types of foods always seems to be overlooked.

In my case... I tried the Atkins diet a few years ago. Within a week of starting it... I wasn't hungry most of the time. I didn't feel the need to eat carbs. It was really quite astonishing - that craving for bread, crisp etc... just vanished... and the weight dropped off me. I eventually went back to eating bread etc and had the same old cravings back (stopped eating them again pretty fucking quickly).

Different foods seem to affect people in different ways. I always wondered if my particular make up said "This has carbs in it... get 'em while you can, keep eating".

I don't know... but it worked for me

I think it is more likely...

[blahplusplus]

... that the advent of Television (watching movies together, cartoons, simpsons, etc) was much more damaging. How many people are glued to TV or a screen in case of the net these days?

The truth is our minds find it easier to find positively stimulating things on screens then being active.

Re:I think it is more likely...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree,

I can basically feel my body falling apart as I sit here at work day-in day-out typing away while all my muscles drop into this relaxed state, shorten and thus cause me to feel stiff when I get up. If I didn't do alot of exercise i'd hate to know how i'd be feeling right now.

Sure a good diet is, well, good, but don't forget that before the digital age people moved around alot more. You don't see any fat people in the pictures of 1930s industrial workers. We are simply become lazy as a species and the fat people in hovering pods from Wall-E is become ever more real.

Re:I think it is more likely...

[m00sh]

The truth is our minds find it easier to find positively stimulating things on screens then being active.

The government keep advertising on TV that not being active is the cause of being fat.

The truth is that it is bullshit.

A fit guy probably spends more time in the kitchen than in the gym, he will probably have more recipes to offer than exercise routines and techniques.

Think of fruit this way

[arcite]

Take an orange and eat it. You feel full, it tasted good. Take a glass of orange juice (an average size glass can have the equivalent of three oranges, thus three times the calories AND with most of the fiber removed). A glass of juice has the same amount of calories as a can of COKE.

Re:Think of fruit this way

[Anonymous Coward]

Take an orange and eat it. You feel full, it tasted good.

You must have a remarkably small stomach. When I eat an orange, I feel hungry again half an hour later. Same with most fruit: full of sugar, low on nutrients, doesn't fill you up. It's junk food.

Re:Think of fruit this way

[Hognoxious]

If I eat an orange I feel more hungry.

Re:Think of fruit this way

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think I've ever felt 'full' after eating an orange. Also, the amount of calories may be the same but the type is completely different. This is about as correct as saying that the orange weighs more than a cupcake and therefore the cupcake must be better for you. Calories are more than just a number.

Re:Think of fruit this way

[Anonymous Coward]

> take an orange.. it tasted good.
Not the orange I ate from Nov-March in MI - bleggh! Unfortunately with juice concentrate storage/reconstitution tech increases; the juice stays in the mostly 'could-be-better-but-really-not-bad' range all year.

It's a conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen V, it's all about fattening us up like livestock to eaten. It's the only thing that makes any sense. It's almost impossible to buy any food that isn't filled with either some form of Salt or Sugar. You have to pay a premium to eat anything that's good for you. I KNOW THE TRUTH!

Re:It's a conspiracy

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Solyent Green... it's made of PEOPLE

Unfortunately

[chesterVonWinchester]

I won't partake in diet plans that don't involve N easy steps or miracle fruits.

How is this news?

[hamster_nz]

It has long been known that one kg of fat is 7000 (kilo)calories (sorry about mixed units).

So if you eat just 100 more calories per day than you expend, you put on a about a pound a month.

And another rule of thumb - for each kg of body weight you need one (kilo)calorie to travel a mile - regardless if you walk, jog or run. So my 6 mile run burns 540 calories - and if I do that for 7 days without eating more I'll loose 500g.

Re:How is this news?

[swb]

This is the problem with the calories in/calories out model.

Eating an additional 20 calories a day will make a 55 year old 57 pounds overweight.

How on earth are you supposed to balance your energy output against your energy input down to 20 calories a day? That's maybe a half a slice of bread. A bite of meat. Across the 40 million calories you would have consumed over that lifetime?

Get a copy of The China Study

[transporter_ii]

Other factors factored in, like activity, Campbell found surprisingly that many Chinese actually consume about 30% more calories than Americans, yet they had incredibly less overweight people. Again, he didn't compare a sedentary American to a field worker in China, he compared them to an office worker in China to make it fair.

So it wasn't just calories, it is the types of food. Processed foods and animal foods are to blame. China actually proves to be an excellent place to study because they have a wide range of groups that live the same way, eat the same way, and live in the same place most of their lives. Campbell found that the more animal foods and processed foods they ate, the more disease and obesity the had. This isn't just junk science, either. You can do the research for yourself. As third world countries get wealthier and adopt a western-style diet, they also adopt western disease rates and obesity. It is not just their genes. If they move here and start eating like us, they get our diseases at the same rates (or higher). There is nothing special about these people other than their diets.

Our diets combined with our lifestyles are killing us here...and if you want to cut your chances of cancer, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses down, the solution is simple. All you have to do is eat like you live in a 3rd world country. Less animal products and processed foods, more whole foods. It's that simple.

I do disagree with Campbell that you *have* to become a vegetarian. They do eat meat in China, just way less of it. But his studies on people that reversed massive heart disease just by becoming vegetarians is fairly impressive.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[Anonymous Coward]

The china study has been shown to be bullshit by many people. The conclusions aren't supported by the data whatsoever.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[transporter_ii]

Here is the same info from the Lancet. Per wikipedia, the Lancet is "one of the world's best known, oldest, and most respected general medical journals."

Cross off cancer here and insert diabetes, or obesity. If you bothered to do your own research, I guarantee you could could not just dismiss this as bullshit.

From the Lancet:

"In many [western] countries, peoples' diet changed substantially in the second half of the twentieth century, generally with increases in consumption of meat, dairy products, vegetable oils, fruit juice, and alcoholic beverages, and decreases in consumption of starchy staple foods such as bread, potatoes, rice, and maize flour. Other aspects of lifestyle also changed, notably, large reductions in physical activity and large increases in the prevalence of obesity."[18]

"It was noted in the 1970s that people in many western countries had diets high in animal products, fat, and sugar, and high rates of cancers of the colorectum, breast, prostate, endometrium, and lung; by contrast, individuals in developing countries usually had diets that were based on one or two starchy staple foods, with low intakes of animal products, fat, and sugar, and low rates of these cancers."[18]

"These observations suggest that the diets [or lifestyle] of different populations might partly determine their rates of cancer, and the basis for this hypothesis was strengthened by results of studies showing that people who migrate from one country to another generally acquire the cancer rates of the new host country, suggesting that environmental [or lifestyle factors] rather than genetic factors are the key determinants of the international variation in cancer rates."[18]

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[mapkinase]

It's exercise. Most importantly personal cars. When I lived in NYC 15 years ago, I very rarely saw fat people on the street.

Seriously, sitting in the car is worse than sitting in the office.

One day we all eventually move to a megalopolis of 3B people and there will be no obese people.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm living in China and I've lost a considerable amount of weight. It has little to do with diet. They eat substantially more fat and oil as a part of their diet than Americans do. But what they do do is exercise and a lot more of it. In the months I've been in China I've only ridden in an elevator one round trip. Not because I was avoiding them, but because I haven't seen them. My apartment up north required me to walk up and down 4 flights of stairs every time I left to go to work or really anywhere.

If I want to go somewhere, chances are good I have to walk.

What's more, the Chinese government provides free fitness equipment for people to use, and people do use it fairly regularly.

The suggestion that it's got something to do with diet is specious. They burn the calories they eat, and nothing more.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[Paul Jakma]

I don't know whether it is true whether Chinese eat more calories (I'd be sceptical). From trips to the north of China I've noticed their food is quite different to western food. Chinese there do not eat highly-refined foods as much as we do. Indeed, there is very little sugar in their foods. Their meals have substantial amounts of fresh vegetables, which tend to be cooked more lightly than over here. The most refined things they eat are the dough of their breakfast buns and pancakes, and of their dumpling & won-ton skins! When they snack, they seem to snack mostly on fresh fruit and nuts.

The calorific content stated for foods here is determined by burning up the food-stuff. I.e. it determines more the /maximal/ energy content. However, our bodies efficiency at digesting food is not uniform. Fibreous and/or more whole foods are literally harder to digest than more refined foods - it literally takes more energy to break such foods down than the more refined foods. Some of that energy goes toward the extra bacteria that are required to pre-process and break-down the extra fibre. Some of that food will literally go undigested, and through us.

Not all calories are equal.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to say BS, but look at the prior to 1920's diet of america. Read a damned cookbook from the era, or prior to thaqt era. Plus historically, who lived longer, was it those that had access to food, or those that did not? Look at the rank of the person in the context of their society, Cross relate that to breeding chances, and the survival rates. Then awnser, who lived longer, had the better diet, what did they eat, and then say what diet is better. With numbers, as with computers, remember GIGO.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[AntEater]

Where did you find that article? I'd like to read the rest of it. URL?

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[hairyfeet]

I would argue its not that food is cheap so much as good food is expensive at least as far as the poor is concerned. You go to a poor person's house to eat and you'll see its cheap cuts of meat (which are usually the fattiest cuts) and cheap vegetables like potatoes because frankly that is what is cheap and when the economy is a corpse and so many have their heads barely above water that is what you get. Hell in my area colas are cheaper than bottled water and frankly the tap water tastes like crap, so is it any wonder they all drink it?

Then you have to look at the time factor. if you are working a shit job that wears your ass down and you come home to a hungry family you are gonna do what is fast and easy. Again that is cheap cuts of meat or quick fix dinners like hamburger helper.

You look at the time line in question and it just so happens to be the same period that more single families replaced the nuclear family and those that have both are often both working their asses off. So I'd say its a lot more than just "cheap food" that is causing this and frankly i don't even like that line of reasoning because next someone will answer "Well just add more taxes and make food more expensive" which considering we have millions doing without is that REALLY the line we would want to take?

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[kryliss]

Amen SW! There's a reason I don't mind mowing grass. The smell of a fresh cut lawn is just amazing. Plants trees and flowers all around my house. Wouldn't trade it for life in the big city for .0274% of all the world's money.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[Kyont]

An honest question: Is smoking part of it? From what I've seen, a huge percentage of people in China smoke quite a bit. Obviously, this is hard on the lungs and heart in the longer term, but in the short term, it does burn more calories and tends to make people thinner. So are people healthier or do they just "look" healthier?

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[rubycodez]

you have some misconceptions there. fat and meat are fine, you can eat all you want because your body will stop you from eating too much of those. but starches and sugars are another matter, and high concentrations of them without the things that are in real food to slow down their absorption are another matter. Too much milk fat a problem too. Take the fattest meat, or even eat animal fat, add to that green vegetables, fleshy fruit, fatty fruits and vegetables, proper amount of complex carbs, a daily cup of yoghurt ......people get very, very old without many problems (diabetes, obesity, colon cancer, heart disease, hemmoroids) on a diet like that.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[Anonymous Coward]

The China Study has been proven to be certified bullshit.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[hsthompson69]

To avoid the "appeal to unnamed authorities" fallacy, here's a specific person (Denise Minger) who specifically tore the China Study to pieces, and has graciously put up her formal critique, including references, here:

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/

tl;dr - the China Study ignored data that didn't support their basic conceit, and exaggerated data that did.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[jedidiah]

No. Eating well requires knowledge and thoughtfulness. The poor usually lack both of these for a number of reasons. Processed foods also give the illusion that you are eating well. Cheap nutritious food may be viewed as a sign of poverty that people might want to disassociate themselves with.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[awrowe]

Citation?

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[MsWhich]

My personal experience bears this out. Graduated from college, bought a car, started driving everywhere instead of walking everywhere: Gained 20 pounds.

My husband: Took a job working for the USPS as a mail carrier, spends every day walking around: Lost 20 pounds. (And he wasn't overweight to start with; this took him from the top of "normal" BMI to closer to the middle.)

We have increasingly sedentary lifestyles and an overwhelming abundance of insanely cheap food. Even the expensive food is cheaper than it used to be. Check out this graph of food expenditures as a percentage of personal income over the last 90 years.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Smoking contributes to weight loss, eh? Surprised Oprah didn't do a special on this. Does it throw the humours out of balance or something?

China/India/Indonesia/Greece all have male smokers at >40% in 2009: CBS - Across the world more men than women smoke - Web magazine. Curiously enough the percentages of women who smoke in the first three listed countries are much lower.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[Anonymous Coward]

China actually proves to be an excellent place to study because they have a wide range of groups that live the same way, eat the same way, and all look the same

FT4U

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of " They may be unhealthy to eat for other reasons but when it comes to overweight problems it is calories that count." did you have trouble understanding in bjourn's comment? Here you are specifically saying: foods are unhealthy for cancer, therefore "Cross off cancer here and insert diabetes, or obesity".

Science does not work by saying "X causes Y, therefore X must also cause Z and W"

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[mapkinase]

> and an overwhelming abundance of insanely cheap food

Though it might be 10% of my "disposable income", but it's not 20% of my real "disposable" income (that is official disposable minus rent expense), which becomes around 50% of income minus all other bills and payments

One should measure everything in regards to savings, not income. Foe example in regards to 401K payments each month.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[avandesande]

The Chinese have been exposed to agricultural foods the longest of any contiguous culture. Asians are more resistant to toxins (ie cancer rates for smokers significantly lower) than other races. I think that their isn't anything special about what they eat, they are just better adapted to a cheap carbohydrate (rice) diet.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[oldmac31310]

NY is getting fatter.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[grep_rocks]

I would agree, if you compare the lifestyle of a typical office worker to that of one of their ancestors 200 years ago the difference in physical activity between the two is enormous, for example if I didn't work out every day my physical activity would be limited to walking to my car (50ft) and then walking from the parking lot at work to my office (200ft) twice a day - compare this to someone who lived on a farm 200 years ago, or even a city dweller without a car and the comparison is basically between zero physical activity to someone walking for 1-6 hours per day - a difference of between 300-1800 calories/day not including any physical labor - we focus too much on what food we eat but the real issue is exercise - I work out every day burning about 300 calories but compared to someone who has to walk for a significant part the day I exercise very little.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[mcgrew]

You look at the time line in question and it just so happens to be the same period that more single families replaced the nuclear family and those that have both are often both working their asses off.

Excellent point. There was a study reported last week that said the stress of commuting makes one fat, that those with longer commutes were heavier than those with short commutes. So they're going to stop by Burger King on their way home and pick up a few two pound whoppers for the family rather than cooking.

That said, both my parents worked and nobody in my family is overweight (but that's genetics).

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[painandgreed]

Smoking (nicotine) is an appetite suppressant.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[u38cg]

It doesn't burn calories, it's an appetite suppressant. Off the top of my head, I would say second order effect. And although smoking is big in China, it's still only on the order of 30-40%.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[dgatwood]

"In many [western] countries, peoples' diet changed substantially in the second half of the twentieth century, generally with increases in consumption of meat, dairy products, vegetable oils, fruit juice, and alcoholic beverages, and decreases in consumption of starchy staple foods such as bread, potatoes, rice, and maize flour.

If they're talking about the U.S., that last part is exactly backwards. Our consumption of starchy staple foods has gone way, way up. Almost nobody eats a burger without fried potatoes, and the fast food is loaded with bread. The chicken is breaded, and half the time, you have a bun on top of that. And pizza is mostly bread. And so on. All of these are things that are rising in popularity. I have a hard time believing that bread consumption could possibly have gone down unless most people ate two meals a day of nothing but bread. :-)

No, based on what I've seen, what has changed most is:

• A reduction of portion control. This means: 1. A gradual decline of buffet-style and cafeteria-style eating and a rise in fast food restaurants that serve the same, fixed-size portion to everyone. 2. Buffet pricing that makes people feel like they aren't getting their money's worth unless they consume more food than they would ordinarily eat.
• An increase in fried and breaded foods. These tend to have more calories than foods that are baked or grilled.
• An increase in the consumption of empty starches, such as rice (served at almost every Asian restaurant) and potatoes (mostly in the form of French fries).
• An increase in overall stress levels and a decrease in sleep, both of which increase cortisol production, which is well understood to increase obesity, particularly around the waistline.
• A huge decrease in the variety of vegetables available. Not counting salads or french fries, most fast food chains don't offer any vegetables at all, and if they do, it is usually limited to beans.

All of these things contribute to the problem. It isn't just one thing. It is an epidemic of really, really lousy options provided by our food industry. And in an era where many people simply do not have time to cook or sit down for an extended dinner at a nicer restaurant, there are painfully few healthy alternatives.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[hairyfeet]

I'll be the first to admit that while I got tons of home cooked meals when I was a kid my two boys, which I raised pretty much since birth since right after my sister was diagnosed with a terminal illness and her husband couldn't take the frustration and walked away, simply didn't get that. Why? because i was totally overworked, still recovering myself from a bad wreck WHILE having to deal with my sister slowly dying and finally? I can't cook.

Honestly I REALLY can't. My GF who was nice enough to drop everything and use up all her vacation time to be with us when the end came really tried to teach me before just giving up. its probably the fact I have VERY little sense of smell and as we all know a lot of what we sense as taste is actually tied in to smell and without that frankly anything more complex than something like hamburger helper where you simply follow directions is gonna come out truly God awful.

But lucky for us the boys like your family got one good thing from their father (who last we heard had become a full blown junkie and gotten Hep C for his trouble) and that was great genes as both are slim no matter what they eat.

So that is why I have trouble condemning the poor for their actions because I know first hand all it takes is a couple of really nasty curveballs to turn all your best laid plans to absolute shit. Within a year of my sister being diagnosed I had had to pretty much give up my career that I had worked so hard to get, take a job I absolutely hated, and for the first 5 years of their life live on practically no sleep at all because when I wasn't taking care of them I was trying to do a half a dozen other things to free up more and more time for my mother to spend time with my sis before she really went downhill. Is it ANY wonder that cooking was the LAST thing on my mind?

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[mathmathrevolution]

fat and meat are fine, you can eat all you want because your body will stop you from eating too much of those.

Tell that to the folks at Old Country Buffet

Take the fattest meat, or even eat animal fat, add to that green vegetables, fleshy fruit, fatty fruits and vegetables, proper amount of complex carbs, a daily cup of yoghurt ......people get very, very old without many problems (diabetes, obesity, colon cancer, heart disease, hemmoroids) on a diet like that.

You are aware that Dr. Atkins was an obese man who died of congestive heart failure, right?

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read there's a correlation between obesity and bacterial gut flora. High amounts of processed foods inevitably lead to poor "biodiversity" in the gut, which in turn triggers obesity. This is why they feed healthy farm animals antibiotics to put on weight
http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=24890&news_item=5599

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[mathmathrevolution]

Minger's critiques are a far cry from "ignoring data" and "exaggerating data". I'm looking through this critique and its plagued by a lot of petty annie gripes. Minger is upset because potentially conflating factors like Hepatitis-B were not investigated. This is, at most, a weakness to the study that should have been rectified 20 years ago when they were designing the study, but it doesn't make Campbell dishonest. Minger is upset because an outlier was included in a dataset that she thinks it should have been excluded from. It turns out that excluding this data point does not significantly weaken the result, but Minger wants to point it out anyway. These gripes may be valid (or they may not be), but that doesn't constitute tearing the China Study to pieces.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[hsthompson69]

"Despite this, Campbell forces myocardial infarction into a disease cluster it does not naturally align with, and ignores the remaining diseases rather than attempt to explain their anomalous nonassociation with other Western conditions.

Consequently, Campbell’s use of these disease clusters to identify relationships between diet and diseases of Western nations may be unsound, especially given a myopic focus on cholesterol to the point of excluding other pertinent factors."

Ignoring data that would invalidate your postulations *is* exaggerating about both the accuracy of one's analysis and the significance of one's analysis. Campbell may not have been intentionally dishonest, but he simply wasn't rigorously scientific, and his findings are of no merit.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[gullevek]

That smoking makes you thin is an urban mystery.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[mathmathrevolution]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Campbell isn't ignoring any data, nor does Minger actually claim he did (although you could be forgiven if you were misled because what she writes is misleading).

Campbell clusters diseases into "diseases of poverty" and "diseases of affluence" in the obvious way. Myocardial infarction ends up in a disease cluster for affluence because it is associated with affluence. Now Minger's critique argues that myocardial infarction "does not naturally align with" diseases of affluence, but that argument isn't based upon disease prevalence but upon her understanding of associations of related diseases and "non-rice grain consumption". Minger can argue that Campbell really ought to have introduced a zip-a-dee-doo-dah third category to test her boutique nutritional philosophy, but then the study would be about Minger's hypotheses instead of about DISEASES OF POVERTY VS DISEASES OF AFFLUENCE which was the entire point of the study in the first place.

It's trivial to come along decades after the fact and criticize the author for not addressing some contingency or other. There are a massive number of ways to cluster the data. It's trivial to say "You really should have tested it out this way or that way". And if Minger had done the analysis to show her clustering makes more sense, then she could get her work peer reviewed and published and I would have to look at that. But she didn't. She gave no evidence whatsoever that her clustering is superior other than stating her own personal biases.

Maybe some of her other criticisms are more substantive, but when I see superfluous BS like this dressed up as some sort critique I'm not inclined to go digging through it.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[hsthompson69]

There are a massive number of ways to cluster the data.

And isn't that the point of the critique that you've missed? Campbell's analysis didn't come from the data, it came from how he decided to torture it. His conclusions are simply the lens through which he decided to cluster the data, rather than being driven by what was actually *in* the data.

I'm not inclined to go digging through it.

And that's clearly why you don't understand. You've essentially outsourced your judgement to someone you believe is an authority figure, and haven't bothered to look at the actual data.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[rs79]

Unless of course there's something in their fruits and vegetables that helps prevent cancer, and we lack that.

Hint: cyp1b1 picotanneol.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[sco08y]

Here is the same info from the Lancet. Per wikipedia, the Lancet is "one of the world's best known, oldest, and most respected general medical journals."

They're the same journal that posted the (now retracted) study linking vaccines and autism, so I'd challenge the "most respected" label.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[satuon]

The Chinese have been exposed to agricultural foods the longest of any contiguous culture.

Shouldn't the people in the Fertile Crescent (modern day Iraq and around it I think) be the ones with the longest exposure, considering they were the first to discover agriculture?

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[mathmathrevolution]

Campbell's analysis didn't come from the data, it came from how he decided to torture it

How is it "torturing the data" to cluster diseases of affluence and diseases of poverty by their respective prevalences in affluent versus impoverished countries? Campbell clustered the data in exactly the right way to investigate his question and his clustering is far more natural than the entirely subjective three-way categorization that Minger proposes. The results Campbell showed were statistically significant. And it's trivial for Minger (or anybody) to claim without any evidence that her way would produce much more significant results.

And that's clearly why you don't understand. You've essentially outsourced your judgement to someone you believe is an authority figure, and haven't bothered to look at the actual data.

I just did go back to look at the actual data. I got the original paper. I critically examined Minger's gripe. I saw that Campbell's methodology made the most sense to address the question he had been granted research dollars to investigate. I saw that Minger's gripe was just a bunch of petty bitching because Campbell didn't explicitly structure some experiment 21 years ago to account for her personal philosophy of nutrition. I saw that if Campbell had actually conducted the analysis the way Minger wanted then he probably would have seriously damaged his career by wasting money conducting research outside the scope of his project. I saw that Minger's complaints bore absolutely no resemblance to your accusation that Campbell "hid" data.

If you want to get your nutritional advice from some sophomoric English major, fine by me. But claiming that people who disagree with you are "outsourcing their judgement to an authority figure" is a cynical smear. If you think Minger's critiques are so scientifically devastating, then why don't you defend them on their merit instead of making baseless accusations?

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[AmaDaden]

This blog does a great job a ripping Campbell's "The China Study" apart. http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/. The short story is he warped his representation of the numbers to make meat look worse then it is to reach conclusions that not even his academic papers support. I agree that the problem is the western diet, but not because the western diet contains large amounts of meat. I've tried my best to read about this topic with an open mind and I've come to the conclusion that we have two major problems in our western diets that is killing us. 1) Too much sugar. See "Sugar: the bitter truth" and 2) Too much Omega-6 compared to Omega-3. This can be partly tied to meat consumption as corn feed beef is much lower in Omega-3 then grass feed beef is. Cut out the soda and eat good quality meat and you will avoid most of the modern health issues

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[hsthompson69]

Campbell clustered the data in exactly the right way

That contradicts your statement that "There are a massive number of ways to cluster the data." Minger clearly shows that his arbitrary choice of clustering was just that - arbitrary. Expecting to find wisdom in a cherry-picked conclusion that can be refuted by the same data used to generate it is foolish.

The results Campbell showed were statistically significant.

What Minger points out is that there were other statistically significant results Campbell *didn't* highlight, that contradicted his basic premise that plant-based diets were superior for health.

I saw that if Campbell had actually conducted the analysis the way Minger wanted then he probably would have seriously damaged his career by wasting money conducting research outside the scope of his project.

And there's the problem - Campbell was concerned more about his career than with science. The scope of his project was arbitrarily limited to avoid any contradictory information to his basic conceit.

Don't you see that as a problem?

If you think Minger's critiques are so scientifically devastating, then why don't you defend them on their merit instead of making baseless accusations?

I have been defending them on their merits. What you've been doing is giving Campbell a pass, for what I'll assume is either naive deference to authority, or some sort of ideological alignment with his basic conceit.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[kaatochacha]

I lived in Japan for a few years, lost a ton of weight. Here's why:
1) Food portions are smaller
2) You don't drive a damn car everywhere, you walk, take a bus, ride a bike, and generally move around more to get places. This calorie burn adds up over time.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[nobodie]

But you started with exercise as a factor and should have stayed with it. The last few years in China I could see the physical differences:
Bicycle riders = ass fits on little bicycle seat
Electric scooter riders = ass squeezes over the edge of a wider scooter seat
Car riders = wide western butts

The other thing with car riders is that they can afford both apartments with elevators, and/or apartments in the "sweet spot" of 2nd or 3rd floor. (First floor means rat and mice, 5-8th floor is really good exercise without elevator-- there was a Chinese law that required elevators only when the building had MORE than 8 floors) When I lived on the 5th floor (and my office was on the fifth floor as well) I was getting some serious exercise every day.

But where I work now, in the US, I teach in a 4 floor building where many students won't even walk up a single floor. The school I taught in the last few years in China had a 5 floor building with elevator and the rich kids in that school refused to even walk down the steps to go home. That is the change and the difference

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[nobodie]

sorry, but the Chinese smokers are also the richer men (no women) who drive cars and eat high fat/protein/dairy diets. So they are both overfed and under-exercised as well as smokers. Death wish, eh what?

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[mathmathrevolution]

That contradicts your statement that "There are a massive number of ways to cluster the data." Minger clearly shows that his arbitrary choice of clustering was just that - arbitrary. Expecting to find wisdom in a cherry-picked conclusion that can be refuted by the same data used to generate it is foolish.

No, there's no contradiction. There are massive number of stupid ways to cluster the data, but there is exactly one way to cluster the data by diseases of affluence vs diseases of poverty: examining the prevalence of diseases. How else would you do it? To cluster by any other method would be to inject subjectivity into the clustering. What Minger and you want to do is to develop some subjective criteria about what should constitute a disease of affluence rather than just looking at the prevalence of diseases and accepting the them for what they are. You and Minger are the ones promoting cherry picking because you want to subjectively exclude certain diseases from being considered diseases of affluence and introduce them into their own separate category.

BTW, Minger never claimed that Campbell's clustering was arbitrary, she just claimed that her way would be better than Campbell's. But Minger didn't show her way was better quantitatively, she just asserted it without any evidence whatsoever.

What Minger points out is that there were other statistically significant results Campbell *didn't* highlight, that contradicted his basic premise that plant-based diets were superior for health.

No, Minger didn't show any other clustering would have statistically significant results. She didn't do statistical analysis whatsoever. I'm beginning to wonder if you even read her critique.

Campbell was concerned more about his career than with science. The scope of his project was arbitrarily limited to avoid any contradictory information to his basic conceit. Don't you see that as a problem?

In the early 90s there was a major question as to why affluent countries suffered much higher rates of certain diseases than impoverished countries. This study addresses that critical question and does so in the natural way. The NIH made the right call to fund this work to address this question and Campbell properly executed the research and obtained valuable results. The scope of the research was chosen by the NIH and Campbell to address this mystery of diseases of affluence. I don't know what "contradictory information" you think the NIH wants hidden, but maybe you or Minger could actually do some analysis of the data rather engaging in conspiracy theories about the NIH hiding data?

What you've been doing is giving Campbell a pass, for what I'll assume is either naive deference to authority, or some sort of ideological alignment with his basic conceit.

No, if I was giving Campbell a pass I would have just informed you that Minger has zero formal education in the field while Campbell is an established expert and then I would have called you a dipshit and left it at that. But in fact I patiently drudged through Minger's bitching and then looked up Campbell's paper and then read it and then and then found, lo-and-behold, that Campbell made exactly the right call in clustering the diseases according their prevalence in affluent versus impoverished countries, and then I patiently explained this to you twice appealing to your sense of reason. If you call that "deferring to authority" then up must be down in your world.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you also got a job after you graduated, and started having enough money to buy regular meals and eat out more often. I bet that your calorie intake increased more than your calorie burning decreased.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[hsthompson69]

There are massive number of stupid ways to cluster the data, but there is exactly one way to cluster the data by diseases of affluence vs diseases of poverty: examining the prevalence of diseases.

From the paper you didn't read:

"6. The use of a three-variable chain to connect animal-based foods with cholesterol and cholesterol with “Western” diseases.

To form a comprehensive method for examining disease patterns, Campbell creates two dichotomous sets of diseases—one associated with affluent living conditions and one associated with poverty. While searching for underlying nutritional patterns characterizing the diseases of affluence, he observes that plasma cholesterol has a positive correlation with the collective group, and concludes that “one of the strongest predictors of Western diseases was blood cholesterol.”

Given that a variety of factors—dietary and otherwise—can influence cholesterol and the cause-and-effect relationship between cholesterol and disease is not always clear, Campbell’s use of cholesterol as an intermediary between animal foods and disease is unsubstantiated. For instance, a shift from a highly active lifestyle in agriculture-dominated regions to a more sedentary one in industrialized areas may, in itself, be enough to explain higher cholesterol levels in certain areas—a plausible theory, given that regions with greater industry employment in the China Study tended to have higher total cholesterol (r = 0.45, pNo, Minger didn't show any other clustering would have statistically significant results.

Again, from the paper you didn't read:

"Oversight of a third, potentially significant disease cluster. Myocardial infarction, hypertensive heart disease, stroke, brain and neurological diseases, and diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs share strongly statistically significant correlations with each other and with shared nutritional variables, such as non-rice grain consumption, while correlating inversely with the variables associated with diseases of affluence. Despite this, Campbell forces myocardial infarction into a disease cluster it does not naturally align with, and ignores the remaining diseases rather than attempt to explain their anomalous nonassociation with other Western conditions."

In the early 90s there was a major question as to why affluent countries suffered much higher rates of certain diseases than impoverished countries. This study addresses that critical question and does so in the natural way.

This study clearly starts off with a predetermined conceit, and does everything it can to preserve that conceit, despite the logical and statistical problems it faces. It looks at cholesterol instead of blood glucose, and ignores anomalous non associations.

Your fervent defense of Campbell, and inability to understand Minger's critique is puzzling.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[mathmathrevolution]

I'm a little confused here. You just wrote several posts assailing Campbell claiming that he basically rigged the study by his method of clustering. Do you believe that Campbell's clustering should be based on rates disease prevalence or not?

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[hsthompson69]

Do you believe that Campbell's clustering should be based on rates disease prevalence or not?

His clustering is arbitrary and capricious, in order to defend his primary conceit (i.e., plant-based diets are good, animal-based diets are bad). As per the quote before from Minger, "Despite this, Campbell forces myocardial infarction into a disease cluster it does not naturally align with, and ignores the remaining diseases rather than attempt to explain their anomalous nonassociation with other Western conditions."

Campbell is not consistent or justifiable.

And don't forget, this is a study of *correlation* - Campbell not only makes arbitrary decisions about what correlations he highlights, in order to preserve his thesis, but on top of that, implies (if not outright claims) that the relationship is *causal*. That is, even if one were to agree to his arbitrary clusters, it could be that he's showing that people more likely to die are more likely to choose to eat meat-based diets (perhaps in some attempt to self-medicate with the healing properties of animal flesh).

Minger's critique is thorough, well referenced, and stands as a full refutation of any claim of wisdom from the China Study. If you have a specific bone of contention with her analysis (a *specific* bone, not just "she seems snarky"), I'd love to hear it.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[mathmathrevolution]

I recognize that Minger doesn't think myocardial infarction belongs in a disease cluster with other diseases of affluent nations. But since myocardial infarctions, aka heart attacks, have long been one of the most common causes of death in the Western nations and not in poor nations, then Minger is obviously wrong on this point. If you think she's right, then show me validated data that demonstrates that the prevalence of heart attacks is greater in poorer countries than in richer countries. If you can do that then I'll accept Minger's criticism as entirely valid and I will even actively inform all my peers of what a bad book the China Study is. I'm waiting.

Re:Get a copy of The China Study

[hsthompson69]

If you think she's right, then show me validated data that demonstrates that the prevalence of heart attacks is greater in poorer countries than in richer countries.

You're missing the point I think - from Minger's critique:

"Oversight of a third, potentially significant disease cluster. Myocardial infarction, hypertensive heart disease, stroke, brain and neurological diseases, and diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs share strongly statistically significant correlations with each other and with shared nutritional variables, such as non-rice grain consumption, while correlating inversely with the variables associated with diseases of affluence. Despite this, Campbell forces myocardial infarction into a disease cluster it does not naturally align with, and ignores the remaining diseases rather than attempt to explain their anomalous nonassociation with other Western conditions."

In other words, myocardial infarctions have less to do with diseases of affluence as it does to other nutritional variables, such as non-rice grain consumption. Yes, you can point out a correlation from myocardial infarction to affluence, but the *stronger* correlation is with shared nutritional variables.

You can see her graphs of the actual data here:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/06/final-china-study-response-html/

Again, from her critique:

"On pages 78-79 of “The China Study,” Campbell writes:

As blood cholesterol decreased from 170 mg/dL to 90 mg/dL, cancers of the liver, rectum, colon, male lung, female lung, breast, childhood leukemia, adult leukemia, childhood brain, adult brain, stomach and esophagus (throat) decreased.

However, citing the same univariate correlations, he could have also written:

As plasma glucose decreased, cancers of the liver, rectum, colon, male lung, female lung, breast, childhood leukemia, adult leukemia, childhood brain, adult brain, stomach, bladder, and cervix, as well as childhood and adult lymphoma, decreased."

So the alternate hypothesis of disease (that it is related to plasma glucose rather than blood cholesterol), is *just as supported* by the China Study as the hypothesis they chose to highlight (if not more, as you look at the data itself).

Minger's point isn't that poor nations have more heart attacks - it's that heart attacks correlate more with nutritional variables that Campbell dismissed than with the economic variables he chose to highlight.

Just follow the physics diet.

[AbRASiON]

I think I found this here like 5 years ago and I've kept it since.
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm

I've emailed Richard last year by the way and he's still the weight he achieved in that article 9 years later.

FWIW: I'm an endomorph who DOES believe that some people hold weight easier, crave carbs and sugar more than others and have a lower BMR. However science is science - these things only make up a small fraction of the work. 95%+ is simply putting in the effort.

I can also confirm that adjusting diet is far, far far more rewarding than excercise for weight loss, despite other health benefits. Just as his article says.

Re:Just follow the physics diet.

[Dcnjoe60]

I think I found this here like 5 years ago and I've kept it since.
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm

I've emailed Richard last year by the way and he's still the weight he achieved in that article 9 years later.

FWIW: I'm an endomorph who DOES believe that some people hold weight easier, crave carbs and sugar more than others and have a lower BMR. However science is science - these things only make up a small fraction of the work. 95%+ is simply putting in the effort.

I can also confirm that adjusting diet is far, far far more rewarding than excercise for weight loss, despite other health benefits. Just as his article says.

I agree with what you post, but research now shows that very often, it's not a craving for carbs, but an actual addiction to them in terms of the way they effect brain chemistry. As such, just like quitting smoking or giving up drugs and alcohol, since there is a chemical dependency, it is not as easy as one would think. Obviously, just as many people can drink and not become alcoholics. Many can overeat and not become addicted to carbs. But for many, they do, and for them, will power often is not enough.

Re:Just follow the physics diet.

[Rolgar]

It's not really about the amount of what you eat. It's more about having the right ingredients. I made a long post further up you might check out. Drop the wheat, corn, rice, potatoes, sugar, and limit dairy and fruits, and eat healthy amounts of meat and vegetables, and you can eat until full find yourself at a healthy number of calories, with most of the recommended nutrients covered.

Read marksdailyapple.com for info about this diet and a moderate exercise recommendations (5 hours of walking and 1 hour of actual exercise per week).

Re:Just follow the physics diet.

[AbRASiON]

I am really glad you posted, because as I hit post I forgot to breach the topic of food addiction.
I've been watching a lot of supersize vs superskinny (ermmtv on youtube, whole series uploaded!) and observing my own behaviour for 34 years.

I dont' need to go into the sobstory but ultimately I 101% believe in food addiction, without question. I am a major major comfort eater and the sensation is incredibly addictive.
Just to note, when you shovel food in it's utterly mindless, the voice in your head saying "you don't need this, you know it's wrong" gets drowned out as you gorge. You can see the person almost become a zombie as they shovel the food.

This may be due to sugar or bad parenting or millions of things, it's certainly compulsive for me - I think the only thing I can say, besides yes I absoloutely experience and understand it is that while yes, fat people got themselves to where they are and yes we are WAY too politically correct about fatties and coddling them, do bear in mind - they don't sit at home thinking "I want to be fat" the weight is a symptom of their issues and depression, generally not the cause (but it sure adds to it) A heroin addict can roll up their sleeves. An alcoholic can not drink for a couple of days and so on - but the food addict cannot hide their problem.

Re:Just follow the physics diet.

[AbRASiON]

Ingredients are 1/5'th of the battle. The reality is as I've mentioned to the guy above, the vast majority of fat people are food ADDICTED - this is habits which they need to break, serious habits.

Skinny people simply don't understand, a smoker might understand or alcoholic - and many may ridicule me (or others) for pushing the food addiction theory but as someone who experiences it, I can clarify it's quite real.
A smoker, drinker, heroin user, coke user - all these people when they finally quit their addiction it's over - for food addicts, they must eat for the rest of their life, it sits with them forever.

I do appreciate your post, but to clarify my stance, I'm 34 - I have fluctuated between 70 and 115kgs 6 or 7 times over the past 20 years. I can lose weight incredibly easy when I put my mind to it but it's an ongoing battle which I have to fight day in and day out and relenting off course is a disaster due to the addictive nature of my eating. I believe this is why many, many dieters fail. It's not (all) about nutrition help or excercise or even the health benefits of being skinnier or eating better, it's simply about making someone not want to gorge themselves, often by addressing other issues.
Every meal is a battle to keep on course, it's amazing how miserable, how difficult it is to order a meal out at a resteraunt when on a diet. You have to make a conscious, sensible choice about what to eat and then eat carefully in front of others. It sounds so trivial probably to skinny people but you're stressing before the meal, then stressing when the meal arrives. It's difficult to even EAT the damned meal, even if you chose wisely, it's easy to go into "zombie eating" mode, the addiction takes over as you shovel the food quickly - I suspect we're probably very ugly people to watch eating, not just due to appearance but the style in which we eat, so compulsive and uncivilised. Finally it's difficult after the meal, you're either sitting there feeling TERRIBLY guilty because you ate too much or you're not feeling satiated because over 50% of your life, your idea of a decent meal is to be gorged to the point of being physically uncomfortable (yet we do it again and again)

To finish my point, here is a massive post I made on reddit, a self depreciating and honest post covering more of the topic of being fat and what it's like, near 10,000 chars,........
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/sd9pf/what_is_it_like_being_a_fat_person/c4dosfp

Long story short, thank you for the information - people need all the help they can get - I've learnt a lot in the last 2 years about food, nutrition and excercise and did nothing for 18 months of that, ultimately you HAVE to want to do it for yourself.

Re:Just follow the physics diet.

[AdamHaun]

The founder of Autodesk takes a similar approach. His guide is very detailed and motivating. I lost sixty pounds through simple calorie counting. (And then put it back on during some bad times last year, but at least it's under my control.)

http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/

If you're seriously overweight (50-100+ pounds), this translates to all kinds of good news:

* The fatter you are, the more calories you burn. This really adds up at 100 pounds overweight. I was eating three hot, filling, satisfying meals a day and still losing two pounds per week.
* It's easy to get calorie counts for junk food and fast food -- just check the label or the web site! Eating poorly actually makes it easier to lose weight.
* Progress will be rapid and visible.

Most of the magazine articles and other popular material are written for neurotic skinny women who freak out about being 5-10 pounds overweight and want a simple answer to their self-image problems. Don't let them mislead you into looking for magic when the science is right in front of you. It really is this simple.

Re:Just follow the physics diet.

[dunkelfalke]

Be a functioning addict. If you want to eat a lot, go for a workout first.

Re:Just follow the physics diet.

[Anonymous Coward]

> the way they *effect* brain chemistry.

Yeah, I can see you're an expert.

Re:Just follow the physics diet.

[cachapa]

Thanks for the link.
I have a huge interest in weight loss, mainly because I used to be a bit overweight, (although never really "fat") and have struggled to keep my weight under control ever since I started trying to.

In fact, I've published an app for Android (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.cachapa.libra) based on the Hacker's diet: http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet

If you haven't done so, I really recommend you read it. If you have, then I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how it compares with the link you posted.

Re:Just follow the physics diet.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.gnolls.org/79/i-am-a-ghrelin-addict/

He says "I feel lighter."

Also, for some actual scientific reasoning, http://www.gnolls.org/2181/the-breakfast-myth-part-2-the-art-and-science-of-not-eating-breakfast/

This guy didn't do it by conservation of energy, he did it with meal timing. The root cause of the "obesity epidemic" is metabolic syndrome; it's the reason that all these obese have diabetes and will die of heart disease or cancer. Metabolic syndrome comes out of constant snacking on sugary shit, among other causes.

Re:Just follow the physics diet.

[chemicaldave]

The physics diet mentions cutting out 600 calories per day of food intake. If you're at work, consider a standing desk which will significantly increase calories used up during the work day compared to sitting on your arse, even more if you're heavier.

Re:Just follow the physics diet.

[thehumble1]

His physics is funny though, almost like the round cow. It's an oversimplification that is born out of our need to understand the world in terms that can be held in our simple meat computer all at once. Like the round cow, it's nice and easy, but just not practical. Maybe it's more complicated. Like for instance his assertion that you lose 1oz for each hour of activity. Other studies have shown that even at less than 1 hour of activity, you change your metabolism for more than 24 hours. That readout on the treadmill has almost nothing to do with the benefits of working out since muscle requires more energy to function, your body believes that it must be more ready for future activity and your entire system stays at a higher level for hours. Plus, when you work out you also decrease your appetite overall and you increase your mood, which reduces emotional eating. It's also been shown that a depressed mode, even when adjusted for lethargy, increases fat deposits and weight gain. So working out, feeling better and reducing depression may also lead to decreased weight and have nothing to do with how many joules of work you did on the stair stepper.

I eat Paleo

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of meat, almost NO carbs (under 50g a day) tons of green veggies. Lost 11 lb in the first week and around 5 lb/week afterward. I will reach my and since I cook all the stuff I eat, maintenance is easy since good habits are now a given. Grok on!

Duh?

[argStyopa]

This is news?
When I was a kid, and McDonald's were few and far between (early 70s) a McDonald's "meal" was a hamburger, fries, and drink.

That's a single hamburger, what is now a small fries, and a small beverage. That was a satisfying full meal for an adult. Is that even a kids meal any more?

Another example, I believe it was mentioned by a poster on slashdot. He was remodeling a 100yr-old farmhouse and he hadn't planned to, but found he had to rip out the cabinets as they were too small - the only plates that fit in the cupboard were the 9" (small) dinner plates, not our today-common 12" dinner plates.

Finally, I was talking with a friend that runs a restaurant. I asked him why their portion sizes were so massive. His response was that it was to camouflage the prices with extra food, since food prices were cheap - it's the labor that drives costs. If he offered a moderately-sized meal, it might cost $8. If he was to DOUBLE the amount of food on that plate, it would cost perhaps +$1. Conversely, cutting the amount of food in half would only save $1. Consumers are far more willing to pay $9 for a GIANT pile of food (they feel they're getting a bargain), than $7 for 1/4 the food. On the latter, they feel they're being ripped off.

Re:Duh?

[brian0918]

Those are not the only changes at your local McDonald's. Fries used to cooked in animal fat, but are now cooked in one of those "heart-healthy" vegetable oils such as soybean oil, which contain high amount of omega-6 fatty acids, which contribute significantly to cardiovascular disease.

Re:Duh?

[Jason Levine]

A few years back, I lost a lot of weight (about 80 pounds). One of the big things that helped was eating my meals on the small dinner plates instead of the big ones. This gave me the illusion of having more food than I really had. Try it sometime. Put the exact same amount of food on a big plate and on a little plate. Ask someone (who doesn't know they have the same amount) to tell you which plate has more food. Surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly), the illusion of eating a lot of food versus very little food makes you feel fuller. About the only exception we made to the small plate rule was when we had salads, but we didn't load these up with unhealthy dressings and the like. The bigger plates became vehicles to transport more veggies into us.

Re:Duh?

[digitalsushi]

And then you get your food spit in by the waitress when you share that plate with your friend.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here, I started using only my desert plates for my meals.
I got used to it and now eat exclusively in them and nowadays I only break out the standard dinner plates when we have visitors.

Besides the fact that it's now easier to control my portions, the plates are easier to wash, either by hand, or because they fit better in the machine.

I recommend it to everyone, even if they're not trying to control their weight.

Re:Duh?

[thehumble1]

but there is also good evidence to show that people eat less with big forks and big spoons than with small ones. Following your method, you'd think that smaller forks would mean more mouthfuls which would seem like more. So I wonder why there are these two, separate patterns, one for plates and one for forks.

Re:Duh?

[Jason Levine]

I've never seen the "big forks/spoons" study. I did see one where people were served stale popcorn in either big or small containers and were shown a movie. The big container people ate a lot more popcorn (even though it was stale) than the small container people. (Basically, if you give people more food, they'll eat more food. Even if the food isn't that great.)

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't share and I don't take any home. I eat a metric fuckton when I'm at an all-you-can-eat buffet. I'll just skip a meal or two afterward. As I rarely eat out, it works. It all evens out in the long run.

The worst part about it is that afterward I like the "full" feeling and as soon as it goes away I'll have to deliberately not eat just to be full again. So I'll feel hungry the next morning, but I'll eat something like carrot sticks and drink coffee/water and it's not unbearable. Versus if I'd just consistently eat reasonable portion sizes I wouldn't have the swing effect, but I like eating too much and frankly it's expensive to eat out and I want to get my money's worth. And that means eating 2 or 3 meals at once.

News from a slim man

[Anonymous Coward]

As to the comment above that sugar is poison, then why, with my voracious sweet tooth, am I still alive and healthy at 66?

    I have never been fat. As a result, I have been able to see what starts making me fat. The culprits are:

1. Soda pop. This is possibly the greatest fat producer. If you want to stay slim, you have to swear off soda pop. Sweet tea is as bad. I knew a bus driver that said he couldn't stop gaining weight. Every time I woud see him, he would be carrying a humongous Big Gulp from 7-eleven (a huge fountain drink). A new crew member at a gas pipeline service company complained to me that he was gaining weight like never before. The crew always bought and drank tons of Gaiter Aid during the day.

2. Fried foods. Probably along side with soda pop in fattening ability.

3. Potatos. Especially mashed. Ear rice or corn.

4. Bread. I once had a girl after me who was way too plump. One time at dinner she said that she loved her bread. Dropped considering her as wife.

5. Ice cream. I know, you will die first. Try to make it a once a month treat.

Re:News from a slim man

[Hognoxious]

The crew always bought and drank tons of Gaiter Aid during the day.

Our neighbour came home with a carload of Garter Aid. Apparently she was stocking up.

Is there no self-accountability?

[netwarerip]

Impressive study, but why will no one accept blame for their own actions? We know fast food is bad, but still eat it. We know sitting on the couch with an Xbox controller for hours on end is bad, but won't go outside and shoot some hoops, or take a walk, etc.

It's like everything else; it's not my fault, I have a 'disease', I can't control it. Food is too cheap. Restaurants serve too much.

(This post was written while sitting in a chair, drinking coffee, having a cheese danish, and ordering a pizza for lunch.)

Re:Is there no self-accountability?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the statistics demonstrate so clearly that self-accountability doesn't work, isn't it time to question your views on it? During most of our evolution food scarcity limited what we ate. Now that it isn't scarce it turns out evolution didn't equip us with what's needed to limit our food-intake as much as is healthy. That seems to me to be a likely explanation. If that (or something similar) is the case, no amount of self-accountablilty will change it, your ideology contradicts what humans are. How much you eat is actually influenced by how much food you get. Apart from self-accountability with social beasts like humans mutual accountabilty has a place too. This can mean that disallowing food marketing aimed at kids is a good idea. Having some measures like this is not the same as completely deteriorating into a nanny state, it's not black or white.

Man + Slashdot =

[virgnarus]

No hope.

Calorie counting is wrong

[Bongo]

The energy balance equation of, food eaten equals fat stored minus exercise, is used in a very misleading way. Most assume you can manipulate it yourself by eating less and exercising more. But that ignores entirely the body's own control system. There are some lab rats that were starved to death by underfeeding, in an experiment, and whilst they starved to death they were gaining fat and died obese. Why? Because they were also receiving insulin and this told their bodies to store fat no matter what, even if they were not being fed, so they converted their muscle and organs into fat and stored that instead. They died of weak heart mucles and heart failure.

It is like a child eats extra to grow but he doesn't grow because he's eating extra, he eats extra and grows because the body's hormones are controlling things and telling the body to eat more and grow. It is all about hormones. Why do diabetics take insulin? To CONTROL their blood sugar. That's what insulin does. Insulin decides that you have to lower that blood sugar. And how does it control it and get it out of the blood stream? It tells fat cells to open up and absorb it. That's what "lowers" your blood sugar. The insulin decides to store it. And as it is storing it, your normal metabolism is still hungry. So the energy equation is used wrong. You don't get fat because you overeat, you overeat because you're getting fat.

What drives up insulin levels beyond normal, beyond what our 100,000 year old bodies are used to? Carbohydrates. You can eat fat and that'll be converted to energy and you'll want to move more. But eat carbs in the massive unusual quantities that we do, like pasta, pizza, bread, potatoes, and sugared drinks, and it all turns to sugar and insulin has to be produced in huge quantities to deal with it. Your normal blood sugar is one teaspoon of sugar. That's it. That's all we're made to deal with. So insulin goes nuts trying to deal with all that "healthy slow release energy" and eventually you get obese and you get diabetes.

The food pyramid was a huge shift towards grains (bird food) and away from fat. The fat / heart disease / lipid hypothesis was wrong 50 years ago and by committee "we have to tell the politicians what to regulate even if we aren't sure ourselves" consensus opinion ended up dominating and it is still wrong today. Eating a low fat high carb diet is a recipe not only for obesity but also depression. Just try switching to a genuine low carb high fat diet (see Sweden's latest magazine, "LCHF") and try it for yourself. After a month carbs just don't look like food anymore. Sleep better, feel lighter, feel satiated all the time (fat is filling, whilst carbs increase appetite or make you sleepy) and have more mental clarity. YMMV but that's been my experience to my surprise.

There are so many things wrong with the current dogma around the food pyramid that you have to undo many issues before you can wade your way to some clarity. But the best thing is to actually try it for a period, and see if what the proponents of LCHF and paleo say is true. Your own body can tell you.

Go and check what that research about bad fat and heart disease was actually based on, how they've repeatedly failed to show in good controlled studies that eating low fat is good for you, or that counting calories and exercising lets you lose wight. Those studies keep failing but the advocates keep hoping the next big study will show it. The start in rise in obesity coincided with the start of that advice about fat being the devil and to make most of your food plate carbs (sugar) instead. It has been a massive experiment on the public and it has gone catastrophically wrong, but rather than say that they just call people weak willed and lazy. All those carbs and sugar simply drive up your hunger whilst storing it as fat and keeping you tired.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

It's not gluttony (we eat too much) or sloth (we don't exercise enough) but the high carbohydrate and high sugar diets that cause insulin overproduction. See Gary Taubes' "Why We Get Fat (and what to do about it)." He provides plenty of references to back this position up.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[dunkelfalke]

Sorry, but this is wrong on so many levels. You see, while you get energy from stored fat, it is a quite energy intensive process itself if fat should be the main energy source. You can experience the "hitting the wall" effect yourself after a long endurance training. When the glycogen storage is depleted, the body switches completely to fat burning and suddenly you don't have any energy to go on and breathe much faster, might even faint.

Fat burning is meant to be an additional energy source, not the primary one. The reason why fat is stored is:

1) you have eaten too much food. Otherwise the fat would be all used up

2) You have got far too much fat mixed with carbohydrates in the food. Well, duh, the body takes what it can use right away and stores what it can use only with some effort.

Your example with lab rats is very misleading because in the experiment the own control mechanism of rat's organism was artificially overridden. This matters to healthy organisms who don't receive additional insulin exactly how? Right, not at all.

Oh, by the way, the insulin doesn't just tell "fat cells to open up and absorb it", it also (and this is actually its primary task) tells the muscle tissue and liver to absorb sugar so they can convert it to glycogen, which is the primary source of short- and middle-term energy for your body. Only the absolute excess of carbohydrates is stored as fat - and fat, of course, for already explained reasons.

Of course, if your glycogen storage is still almost full, then most of what you just ate would be in excess and will be stored as fat. So yes, you indeed get fat because you overeat. Either don't overeat (which is difficult) or deplete your glycogen storage by using your muscles, then you'll be fine.

The only reason why these "carbs are bad" - posts are marked as insightful is that most people don't want to admit that their own behaviour is a part of the problem.

Oh, and don't even try to mention Inuit, they are a result of selective breeding and adapting from childhood on. They eat rotten meat that would kill many Europeans due to high levels of cadaverine.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[jomama717]

You cannot argue that going from a 4000 calorie/day diet to a 2000 calorie/day diet will not have an effect on your weight. The point you are missing is that when you actually make an effort to go from 4000 to 2000 you will find that the best way to keep calories low while maximizing the amount of food you can eat is to eat fresh, unprocessed food and prepare it yourself, and you don't really need to worry too much about carbohydrates/fats/sugar/etc. it just kind of takes care of itself. Your post sounds like a well informed Atkins Diet pitch, which I have always been wary of due to reasons cited in the wikipedia article.

I went from ~3500 calories a day to ~2300 calories a day a year ago and added in ~3 hours of exercise a week and I have maintained a weight 50 lbs. lower than when I began for over year, got myself off of blood pressure medication, and in general feel fantastic both physically and mentally. It bothers me when I see people discounting calorie awareness as valuable, because there really is no downside if it's done responsibly.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[nauseum_dot]

I can't mod because I commented above, but the post above is awesome! I also want to chime in that the food pyramid has been replaced by "my plate". This has been the case for a few years, now.

As for counting calories, it is the fundamental unit of measure for energy. I have shed a bit of weight and like to think of my body as a rational system. In the fact that the storage of fat and gains in girth are because I was eating too much energy than what I needed to survive so my body stored the weight. The Hacker's Diet gave me great insight as to how weight is 90% caloric intake, 5% genetics, and 5% exercise.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[Dcnjoe60]

Instead of a low carb, high fat diet like the one you mention, even a moderately based one like the Mediterranean Diet (or derivatives), does wonders for one's health, both heart wise and general. The US food pyramid was designed to help farmers, not the health of the population.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[Rolgar]

Specifically, the unprocessed foods are meats and vegetables. A health diet is 1 serving of meat and 3 vegetables per meal. The variety of vegetables gets you a variety of nutrients to keep you healthy. A carrot is not broccoli and neither are spinach. Have them all and you'll be pretty fit. Great to hear you've got it figured out.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[hsthompson69]

Fat burning is meant to be an additional energy source, not the primary one.

Bullshit.

http://www.njamworld.com/2010/03/08/low-carb-diet-for-endurance-exercise/

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, your pop pseudoscience diet ideas are wrong. As the study shows, short term fluctuations in nutritional intake are meaningless. Your body's mechanisms for weight control can only be reasonably manipulated and measured in time spans of years or more.

The rats were experiencing extreme, short term stress due to starvation. Starvation mechanisims are understood and have nothing to do with sugar or starch or your other nutrional devil of the week. When you starve, your body doesn't expect that you'll be out of food for a few days. It expects you're going to be out of food for a whole season or more. (This is in tune with what we know of our evolutionary history)

When you starve, your body produces fat to hedge against future low calorie intake. Fat is not consumed while starving. Your body consumes muscles while starving, because when food is scarce muscles are a liability. Muscles consume lots of energy, so your body gets rid of them to hedge against future food scarcity.

Years of reasonable eating and exercise will make you thin, like it took years of lazing around and eating too much made you fat.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[hsthompson69]

I went from ~2300 calories a day, to ~3500 calories a day about 3 years ago, and stopped ~5 hours of cardio a week, and have maintained a weight 50lbs. lower than when I began.

My trick? I stopped eating inulin raising carbohydrates. Calories simply don't count the way carbohydrates do.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

So you basically lost your muscle mass and are proud of it?

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[jomama717]

3500 calories a day of non-carbohydrates with no exercise, huh? Had your cholesterol checked lately? How can this be healthy - and why the hell would you do it? 5 hours of cardio is a good idea for many reasons that have nothing to do with weight loss. Maybe you should take up smoking too, go for the gusto.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure nonsense. You not only have zero knowledge of the subject at hand, but your weird, deluded advice is dangerous. Please stop writing about nutrition and do everyone a service.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[KozmoStevnNaut]

And while your weight is lower, you have trouble lifting the remote control.

OR you began strength based exercises instead of cardio and you've "accidentally" left out that very important fact.

If not, get back to me when your skinny-fat ass can do 10 pullups.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[m00sh]

Fat burning is meant to be an additional energy source, not the primary one.

Wrong!. It has already been shown (with isotopic tracking) that fat cells were meant to be a temporary buffer, not a storage device. Fat molecules don't get stored away, they go into fat cells and come out like in a buffer, no isotopic fats really get stored away in the fat cells.

As for going through the rest of your posts and going point through point and arguing about it, let me say that settling these kinds of arguments are the job of scientists not random slashdot posters.

The only reason why these "carbs are bad" - posts are marked as insightful is that most people don't want to admit that their own behaviour is a part of the problem.

Or maybe that people don't want to admit that they are genetic dinosaurs, their bodies not being able to handle modern foods is evolution bitslapping them into selection pressure.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your insight. I've actually printed your comment and pinned it to my cubicle wall.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[hsthompson69]

Actually, I did begin strength training exercises after about a year, and now exercise precisely 30 minutes a week, and I keep getting stronger. While I can't do ten pull-ups yet, I can certainly do six, and frankly, I'm perfectly happy to be at that point.

The answer to obesity is to stop eating carbohydrates. The answer to fitness is "slow-burn" ala Fred Hahn - http://slowburnfitness.com/

Simply put, running 5 miles a day, eating 2300 calories a day, I was gaining weight, and getting unhealthier. Doing slow strength training 30 minutes a week, and eating 3000 calories a day, I've both maintained weight loss and increased fitness. The common wisdom of diet and exercise is bullshit.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[hsthompson69]

My cholesterol got much better on a primarily meat and fat diet, as did my blood pressure.

As to why I did it, it's because one day, I heard Gary Taubes on NPR, then bought his book, read through it, and became thoroughly convinced that our diet and exercise recommendations from the government were completely ass backwards. The science is clear, and our authorities simply cannot admit their error because admitting error would reduce their authority.

Cardio is crap. Google "Jim Fixx".

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[hsthompson69]

Did for the first year, but then started slow-burn fitness (http://slowburnfitness.com/). Gained back the muscle, lost more fat, and kept the weight off.

Slow strength training for exercise.

Carbohydrate restriction for diet.

It's simple.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[KozmoStevnNaut]

So cutting out cardio wasn't the solution, it was adding strength traning.

That's a hugely important detail to remember, since proper strength training gives you a reasonable amount of cardio workout as well.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[hsthompson69]

No, let's be very clear.

Year 0 - 7 hours of cardio a week, decreased calories, increased carbohydrates - overweight, high blood pressure, bad cholesterol

Year 1 - no cardio, increased calories, lowered carbohydrates - 50 lbs. weight loss, normal blood pressure, good cholesterol

Year 2 to 4 - no cardio, increased calories, lowered carbohydrates, and a mere 30 minutes of slow strength training a week - maintain 50 lbs. weight loss, normal blood pressure, good cholesterol

Year 0 and Year 1 shows that exercise had *nothing* to do with weight loss. Year 2 - 4, I managed to gain fitness *without* gaining weight, and *without* lowering calories.

The whole idea behind "cardio" is crap - your lungs don't get bigger, your heart doesn't get bigger, you're just wasting time doing inefficient exercise. Slow strength training of the muscles you can consciously control is the most efficient exercise, and it makes your muscles more efficient at using oxygen, thereby putting less strain on your lungs and heart (which, as mentioned before, don't get any bigger with "cardio").

Read Fred Hahn's "Slow Burn Fitness Revolution" and get back to me.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[Bongo]

Your example with lab rats is very misleading because in the experiment the own control mechanism of rat's organism was artificially overridden. This matters to healthy organisms who don't receive additional insulin exactly how? Right, not at all.

That's the point –– eating carbs artificially drives up your insulin.

We never used to have access to pasta and bread. But you could bring down an animal and gorge on its substantial fat tissue.

Anyway there are lots of details in the information and arguments both ways. Only reason I'm posting it here is because I found in the last 3 years it has worked so well for me, and that's not just an anecdote, at some point any doctor has to ask the patient, how are you feeling? I eat less than 40 gm of carbs a day and my energy and mental clarity and weight and sound sleep has never been so good. It really amazed me as I wasn't expecting it. Of course your body may be different. The Taubes arguments are interesting but I only took interest because they proved to have effect with my body.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[KozmoStevnNaut]

No thank you, I've read enough useless fad diet and fad workout "miracles" and "revolutions" to last a lifetime. I looked at the "Slow Burn" thing a while ago, and while slow strength exercises have their place, the needless putdowns of every other kind of exercise smacks of a fad-like ideology. Besides, explosive strength should not be neglected.

Let's take a look at your progression:

Year 0, you ingested way too many carbs. We agree 100% that eating a lot of simple carbs is bad. What you did wrong was try to cut down on total calories while maintaining your level of carb intake. It's a quality of nutrition vs. amount of calories thing. If you want to cut down on calories, always start with the carbs. Proteins should be last to go, as they take the most energy per calorie to digest and because they stimulate the metabolism. I have a feeling your 7 hours of cardio a week were around mid-level strenous. Cardio only works if you really push yourself to the limit, preferable with a HIIT method. It's very hard work, but it does show actual results in improved endurance and improved cardiovascular health. Your high intake of what I presume was almost 100% simple carbs contributed to your health problems.

Year 1, you cut out the simple carbs, good for you. It's also basic knowledge to anyone with the slighest idea about nutrition and/or exercise. Ask any dietician worth his or her salt (as it were).

Year 2-4 you added some exercise to your program. That's a good thing, we're not meant to sit on our asses all day. You should be doing more per week and preferably add some explosive training to your regimen, but it's a good start.

My point here is that you're absolutely right in saying that exercise is not essential for weight loss. In fact, most people put on weight while becoming healthier if they run a good heavy weight lifting program. That's because exercise doesn't burn fat, it adds muscle. A common phrase heard in weight lifting-focused training circles is "you gotta get bigger before you get smaller". That's because a pound of muscle burns a certain number of calories per day, just by virtue of existing. Thus, the bigger you are, the higher your calorie burn rate is and the easier it is to lose fat.

But weight loss is not the end goal. Greater fitness is the end goal. In the end, your weight is just a number on a scale. It's irrelevant as long as you're fit and healthy. My BMI is almost 31, for crying out loud. Yet I pump out pullups, burpies and tire flips and whatnot. I also deadlift 150kg for reps and squat 120kg for reps, raw. According to the BMI scale I am "Obese Class I (Moderately obese)", based on my weight and height. That's bullshit of the highest degree, I've never been healthier in my life.

No one is really interested in losing pounds, it's just a metaphor for losing fat that comes mostly from diet, lowering the amount of calories you consume and increasing the nutritional quality of the things you eat.

But cardio does work, it just isn't the end-all, be-all of exercise. You need to back it up with strength training to see the benefits. Would you say a marathon runner or bicycle road racer should completely neglect his cardio and just lift weights? If so, you have a hell of a lot to learn.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[Bongo]

It seems rational but the causality is not simple. Your body can "decide" what to do with the energy you eat. It can burn it or store it. If it decides to burn it, your metabolic rate goes up (in my case I felt hot a lot) and you can have more impulse to move around. But equally your body could decide to store that energy, in which case you get fat, you feel tired (the energy has been stored already) and you metabolism goes down. That's what confuses a lot of the arguments, which direction does the causality go? Imagine you have a machine that has a chip that runs a program that decides whether to feed the fuel to the engine or to the batteries for charging. If the program is in "charge" mode then your batteries will get fat and you won't move no matter how much fuel you put in. That's the point about the "child eats more because he's growing" rather than "child grows because he eats more".

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[hsthompson69]

What you did wrong was try to cut down on total calories while maintaining your level of carb intake.

Which was the dietary advice given to me by my doctor and the USDA - low-fat, low-calorie diet with exercise, which by definition, is going to have a high proportion of carbohydrate.

Your high intake of what I presume was almost 100% simple carbs contributed to your health problems.

Actually, it was complex carbs - whole wheat bread, brown rice, carrots - and a bunch of fruit, including "healthy" bananas, apples, oranges and "real" fruit juice.

Year 1, you cut out the simple carbs, good for you. It's also basic knowledge to anyone with the slighest idea about nutrition and/or exercise.

Actually, I cut out *all* carbs, not just simple ones. The problem I was having wasn't because of sugary soda, it was because of that starchy baked potato and whole wheat bread, both of which are touted as "healthy" by your average USDA indoctrinated nutritionist.

You should be doing more per week and preferably add some explosive training to your regimen, but it's a good start.

Actually, I did a few months with 30 minutes twice a week on slow burn, but frankly, I've been able to slowly maintain gains with just 30 minutes a week. Since I'm doing this to stay healthy, not competitive, I'm perfectly satisfied with doing the bare minimum for continued fitness gains, no matter how slow :)

Would you say a marathon runner or bicycle road racer should completely neglect his cardio and just lift weights?

Not at all - and Fred Hahn addresses this in his book too - someone who is competing in a sport needs to practice that sport. While marathon running and bicycling may not be very efficient exercise for fitness, the only way you can be competitive in those sports is to practice them. What slow burn fitness does for you is get you fit - you still need the specialized training for any given sport, otherwise all that fitness isn't going to do you much good (for example, while we might believe both bicyclists and runners are in extremely good "cardio" shape, you wouldn't expect a champion bicyclist to beat a champion marathon runner in a 20k run, or vice versa for a 200k bike).

Cardio, as in "just do whatever you can to get your heart rate up, and keep it up, for long periods of time" is inefficient. It can work, but it does so slowly, and frankly, I'd rather spend 30 minutes a week on fitness than 10 hours.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Not gonna comment on the rest of your post, we agree on at least 90% of both our points, so no need :-)

But

Actually, I cut out *all* carbs, not just simple ones. The problem I was having wasn't because of sugary soda, it was because of that starchy baked potato and whole wheat bread, both of which are touted as "healthy" by your average USDA indoctrinated nutritionist.

Surely the baked potato recommendation is severely outdated? White bread is obviously worse, but potatoes (baked or mashed in particular) are still very starchy with not many fibers. The only benefit over white bread is the token amount of vitamins and minerals they contain. If that is still the advice given by US dietitians (not nutritionists, that title is not legally protected and they are usually self-appointed quacks), that is a severe problem.

On the other hand, there isn't really a whole lot wrong with proper whole wheat bread with loads of kernels, or preferably whole rye bread with loads of kernels. Unfortunately, most ready-baked breads you find these days are absolutely loaded with added sugars and salts to make them "palatable", which is a problem with just about any ready-made food now.

And really, all carbs? Including dark leafy greens, carrots, beets, onions, the whole lot of them in addition to bread, rice, potatoes etc?

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[hsthompson69]

And really, all carbs? Including dark leafy greens, carrots, beets, onions, the whole lot of them in addition to bread, rice, potatoes etc?

Yup. On the very rare occasion I'll have some spinach or something, but essentially zero glycemic carbohydrates.

On the other hand, there isn't really a whole lot wrong with proper whole wheat bread with loads of kernel

It seems that wheat (particularly the modern varieties of it) has some pretty dangerous properties - http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I much prefer rye or old wheat varieties such as spelt, but some of the healthiest people I know eat wheat bread for lunch every day, and occasionally for breakfast as well, with no ill effects.

The blog you linked seems needlessly alarmist to me, as if the author has found the one true cause of all modern dietary problems.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[ToddInSF]

Another thing about all wheat products in the US, you end up with sequesterants in all the wheat products. They are not on the label, and they are not healthy.

If the bread you're eating doesn't go bad, it's got sequesterants in it, and these chemicals suck the nutrients up and deactivate digestive enzymes.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[hsthompson69]

some of the healthiest people I know eat wheat bread for lunch every day, and occasionally for breakfast as well, with no ill effects.

It's absolutely true that a percentage of the human population, most likely about 1/4, is able to tolerate the chronic toxins we call carbohydrates with little or no ill effects. I'm not too worried about them - they'll keep ticking no matter what they eat. It's the other 3/4 of the population, who cannot stand the ill effects of high insulin levels because of their insulin resistance, that need the stern warnings. I mean, imagine if we treated hemophiliacs just like they were normal people who could clot blood - they need to be extraordinarily careful because of the inherent weaknesses of their body. Same thing with *all* fat people -> they might not be able to eat as much wheat bread as you can, without ill effect, and need specific, actionable information to help them with their problem.

So, while not everybody may have a problem with the modern "civilized" diet, everyone who *does* have a problem has it because of the effects of chronically elevated insulin levels.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Aaand we have the T-word, favored by quacks and proponents of alternative "medicine" everywhere. Let me give you a hint. Carbohydrates are not and will never be a "toxin" to humans. It is the primary fuel for muscle activity. They are necessary for biological life as we know it. Toxins, my hat.

3/4 of the population can't handle bread or similar carbs? Are you off your rocker? Keep in mind that we're not talking refined carbs here, but whole wheat and brown rice etc.

Get off the alternative medicine soap box, your crazy is showing and it ain't pretty, son.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[hsthompson69]

Carbohydrates are not and will never be a "toxin" to humans. It is the primary fuel for muscle activity. They are necessary for biological life as we know it. Toxins, my hat.

Actually, carbohydrates are chronic toxins. And thanks to the miracle of gluconeogensis, carbohydrates are completely unnecessary for human life. Our body will *make* glucose out of both protein and fat to supply a stable amount of blood sugar. Various people can tolerate various levels of this chronic toxin, but at the end of the day, there is simply no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.

3/4 of the population can't handle bread or similar carbs?

Yeah, there are apparently 4 quartiles of insulin resistance, with 25% that can pretty much tolerate any amount of toxic carbohydrates, and 25% that is incredibly hurt by carbohydrates, and two other quartiles that are somewhat hurt by carbohydrates. You'll notice this as the obesity rate plateaus to a maximum.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm

"Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are obese: 33.9% (2007-2008)
Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are overweight (and not obese): 34.4% (2007-2008)"

So, close to 70% by the latest statistics from the CDC, but you can slice it a number of ways.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, carbohydrates are chronic toxins

Bull. The word is "omnivorous". Humans' ancestors ate berries, fruits, nuts, seeds, leaves, tubers, and whatever meat they could get their hands on. Their diet had a fair amount of carbohydrates, usually along with a significant amount of dietary fiber, both soluble and insoluble.

The refined carbohydrate is a modern fad, and pigging out on carbs and causing blood sugar swings is not and never was healthy, I'll agree, but "carbohydrates are chronic toxins" is just plain false.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[KozmoStevnNaut]

While it is true that the human body can convert other macro-nutrients into carbohydrates (as it it the only fuel our muscles can run on), but it takes a significant amount of energy. Not exactly ideal, but it works reasonably well in a modern society, due to our over-abundance of food.

Ingesting carbohydrates gives your muscles the energy they need directly, in the most energy-efficient way. This is why sports drinks contain carbs, they're meant to give you renewed energy during periods of hard physical work, without negatively impacting your energy needed for said physical work.

The problem lies not with carbohydrates as such, but rather with the sheer amount of refined carbohydrates in everything and our collective tendency to over-indulge in them. This gives our body a large surplus of energy and it deals with that in the only way it knows to: storing it as fat for later use in times when food is scarce. But food is never scarce in the western world, hence people just put on more and more fat.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[hsthompson69]

Of course, when push came to shove, we'd rather eat chronic toxins than starve, but make no mistake, paleolithic man ate more meat than plant. The genetically selected "fruit" we see in the stores has *no* resemblance at all to fruit in its natural state - that "healthy" and "natural" apple you see sitting in the produce section was genetically selected, and only continues to be available because we *graft* clones of it. On top of that, the year-round abundance of plant foods is completely unprecedented in human history - at least back in paleo times, after you finished eating all the nuts off a tree, you were out of nuts until time passed and more grew.

My argument is this - chronically elevated insulin levels cause disease. The only food that appreciably elevates insulin levels are digestible carbohydrates (we'll give spinach and celery and broccoli a pass here). Ergo, digestible carbohydrates are chronic toxins, that can be tolerated by some people, but to which others are particularly sensitive.

Re:Calorie counting is wrong

[hsthompson69]

The problem lies not with carbohydrates as such, but rather with the sheer amount of refined carbohydrates in everything and our collective tendency to over-indulge in them. This gives our body a large surplus of energy and it deals with that in the only way it knows to: storing it as fat for later use in times when food is scarce. But food is never scarce in the western world, hence people just put on more and more fat.

Gary Taubes talks about this "obesity from prosperity" trope by citing the Pima indians.

Originally, the Pima were wealthy, and had plenty of food - so much that they were contracted to provide provisions to travelers through their lands. During this time, they were lithe and skinny.

A period of famine set in, as settlers upstream diverted water, and their lands dried up, and during this time, when they had to subsist on government rations of flour, sugar and coffee, they became thoroughly obese. By your hypothesis, under scarce food conditions, the Pima should have *lost* weight. Instead, they ballooned up, in a society that was arguably more physically active than anything modern man deals with, without any modern conveniences, like running water. The answer to this conundrum is to realize that the flour and sugar caused their fat cells to accumulate fat, *not* an abundance of food.

Another example Taubes brings up is obese women in Haiti with starving children. One could posit that these women are somehow hoarding calories for themselves (in order to get fat), and failing to give those calories to their children, but everything we know about maternal instincts goes against that - what woman would sneak that snickers bar for herself rather than feeding her child? Of course the insulin hypothesis addresses this as well - the woman is fat not because she is *over* nutritioned, but because she is *mal* nutritioned - she has nothing but cheap carbohydrates, and while she feeds herself and her child (probably feeding her child more than herself), her insulin resistance turns into fat, and her child simply starves.

The other good example Taubes gives is lipodistrophy, where the top of a woman is emaciated (not accumulating fat), but her bottom is significantly obese. Should we tell the top half to eat more, and the bottom half to eat less?

http://reflow.scribd.com/6eq7pqq3pcyshyf/images/image-16.jpg

HFCS is POISON (FTFY)

[d3ac0n]

Sugar is a needed and necessary nutrient for our bodies. But, much like anything else, the poison is in the dose. For example, our bodies are mostly made up of water. Good old H2O, necessary for all life on Earth. But drink too much water in too short an amount of time and you can die from electrolyte imbalance. By and large it's the dose, not the substance that is poisonous.

Our bodies were designed to take in small amounts of natural sugars from fruits and vegetables. Large amounts of sugars will, as you said, be converted to fat. and can make you lethargic and ill-feeling.

Ironically, (at least in the US) Most soft drinks and other "sugary" foods don't actually have any sugar in them. Instead they use a far more dangerous substance, High Fructose Corn Syrup, or HFCS.

HFCS is a cheap (due to corn subsidies) easy to transport, slow to spoil, and highly soluble in water, making it an ideal sugar substitute for much of the food industry. The downside is that HFCS in any significant amount causes the human body to react in some very adverse ways. HFCS causes thirst, liver damage, diabetes and as has been recently discovered by researchers at Princeton University causes extreme weight gain and obesity far in excess of what simple sugar can do. In particular, HFCS causes weight gain in the belly and torso. HFCS also causes significant increases in the amount of triglycerides in the bloodstream, a major factor in heart disease, the number one killer of adults in the US.

So it's good that you are cutting out the soft drinks and other "sugary" things, but unless you live somewhere that doesn't use HFCS (South America, parts of Europe, China) make sure you are blaming the right thing. otherwise, i think your diet change is a sound one. Lots of fresh meats, fresh vegetables, small amounts of fruit and grains and an absolute minimum of "sweet snacks". (This is basically the "maintenance" portion of the Atkins diet, btw.)

Also, if you live in the US, be sure to join a group lobbying for the repeal of corn subsidies of all kinds. It's the subsidies that make HFCS so cheap. eliminate them, and the food industry will go back to using much more benign sugar.

Re:HFCS is POISON (FTFY)

[reub2000]

Ironically, (at least in the US) Most soft drinks and other "sugary" foods don't actually have any sugar in them. Instead they use a far more dangerous substance, High Fructose Corn Syrup, or HFCS.

Huh, what? HFCS is like 45:55 glucose to fructose. Both are sugars.

Re:HFCS is POISON (FTFY)

[d3ac0n]

Depends on the HFCS you are talking about.

According to the USDA, HFCS consists of 24% water, and the rest sugars. The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in beverages, processed foods, cereals and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.[5][6] HFCS-90, approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose, is used in small quantities for specialty applications, but primarily is used to blend with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55.[7]

And while they are "sugars" in the chemical sense, none of them are "Sugar" (IE: Cane Sugar), which is sucrose. And this is the critical difference.

Re:HFCS is POISON (FTFY)

[bazim2]

Your body generates and enzyme called sucrase which splits the sucrose into its two halves, glucose and fructose, with high efficiency. Afterwards, your body processes the glucose and fructose in sucrose exactly the same as the glucose and fructose in HFCS.

Re:HFCS is POISON (FTFY)

[hamburger lady]

sucrose is made up of glucose and fructose, 50/50. the moment it hits your stomach acids sucrose breaks down, and the rest is taken care of in the small intestine.

a small amount of real sugar and an equal amount of hfcs are essentially identical this way. however, you eat so much sugar that your stomach can't handle all of it and the extra gets shunted to the intestines, that's where the two become different, because hfcs is already 'broken down', whereas your small intestine can regulate the breakdown via the enzyme sucrase.

that being said, if the sugar you drank was processed (say, real-sugar coke), it's probably already been broken down during processing in the factory and is basically identical to 50/50 hfcs. make lemonade out of simple syrup that's been cooked in a pot (especially with a pinch of citric acid) and you may as well have used corn syrup instead.

Re:HFCS is POISON (FTFY)

[Anonymous Coward]

HFCS causes thirst, liver damage, diabetes and as has been recently discovered by researchers at Princeton University [princeton.edu] causes extreme weight gain and obesity far in excess of what simple sugar can do

Bah, that's a lot of FUD, it doesn't directly cause any of those things. Over consumption of sugars in general causes those things, it's just a little bit easier with the high fructose corn syrup.
You should try reading your study a little closer, and you'll see what the problem is- it's more highly processed and takes less energy for the body to digest. From your linked article:

"As a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.

Re:HFCS is POISON (FTFY)

[spongman]

yeah, but by eating the post-split sugar you're screwing with the natural insulin cycle.

Re:HFCS is POISON (FTFY)

[reub2000]

Bah, that's a lot of FUD, it doesn't directly cause any of those things. Over consumption of sugars in general causes those things, it's just a little bit easier with the high fructose corn syrup.

I'm trying to figure out the logic of how something being analogous to another compound makes it's effects indirect. It's kind of like saying that heroin isn't a direct cause of addiction because morphine is just as addictive.

Mathematical model?

[nairolF]

I guess their model starts with "assume a spherical person"...

Re:Mathematical model?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess their model starts with "assume a spherical person"...

Brilliant! I think you've just explained obesity!

mass = energy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it difficult to take seriously any nutritional doctrine that posits a non-relativistic equivalence between mass (pounds) and energy (calories). I'm willing to believe that there's a relationship between the two as far as weight gain/loss goes for a particular foodstuff, but there are so many variables involved it's hard to believe that the relationship is even close to linear. On top of which, a substantial fraction of human body weight is water whose calorie content is - wait for it - zero.

Aside from simple monotonicity - eat less to weigh less - I'm still waiting for a quantitative approach that's anywhere near plausible. The Java applet in the link isn't it.

Sugar isn't that bad

[UpnAtom]

Sucrose and glucose cause insulin spikes which cause fat to be stored. If you've not eaten fat within 2 hours either side, they just make you hungry, but aren't a direct cause of becoming fat.
Caffeine seems to block fat storage to some degree as well as help you burn those calories.

Being inactive probably also causes fat to be stored. Those calories have to go somewhere.

Re:Sugar isn't that bad

[bazim2]

Sucrose is a glucose and a fructose molecule joined together, which are split by an digestive enzyme. The body will metabolise the fructose part of sucrose directly into fat - it's the only way it can metabolise it. Insulin isn't involved in fructose metabolization although is, of course, used in the glucose part of the process.

Re:Sugar isn't that bad

[UpnAtom]

I stand corrected to some degree.

According to Wikipedia, fructose will be preferentially converted into glycogen in the liver, with only excess being converted into fat. So it depends how much you eat along with other carbs, recent exercise etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Metabolism_of_fructose_to_DHAP_and_glyceraldehyde

The author's name

[rishistar]

Chow, an MIT-trained mathematician and physicist

The fact it's written by Chow is making me hungry.

What about poor countries

[Anonymous Coward]

If we are able to produce more than we need, please consider it giving to third world nations where people die due to hunger and major population is malnourished.

hating fatties is

[Anonymous Coward]

the new sport of the urban metrosexual foot-tapper

Factor 1,000

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:
''That the conventional wisdom of 3,500 calories less is what it takes to lose a pound of weight is wrong. The body changes as you lose. Interestingly, we also found that the fatter you get, the easier it is to gain weight. An extra 10 calories a day puts more weight onto an obese person than on a thinner one.''

A factor 1,000 wrong with the calories.

personal experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: the following is totally subjective

My personal experience coming to study in the USA.
In 1995, I arrived to Boston for one-year exchange to study in a college. The first thing I noticed was that the meal size in USA was enormous compared to what I was used to living in Europe. The first night they "unleashed" us, the international students, we went for a stroll by the town. We were very hungry, and picked (and I mean it) the first place we saw that served food. We ordered medium size meals, and NONE, not one of us guys managed to finish the meal. We wanted. I've been raised with the dogma that "you have to finish what's on your plate", but it was just physically impossible.

I have yet to find a place in Europe where "large meal" is too big for me to finish. But I will never forget the HUGE meals that the serve in the USA.

I cannot prove it, but I do believe the size of the meals have some correlation with obesity.

Charge by calorie

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Food should be priced per calorie.

A typical 2000 calorie a day diet should cost roughly $20 if obtained from processed foods or restaurants. That means the typical 4000+ calorie a day diet from eating at fast food restaurants or processed food would be $40/day or roughly $15k a year, or $60k for a family of 4, which is far too expensive for most people.

"Good" food, such as fruits and vegetables and non-processed food would be nearly free as farmers should be subsidized by taxes on the fast food/packaged food industry. This would encourage people who want to eat cheap to get their food energy from nutritious sources. Fast food restaurants can reduce their taxation by offering cheap "nutritious" options on their menu with produce bought directly from farmers at non-subsidized prices.

Salt and Sugar should cost as much as gold/oz forcing fast/packaged food industries to reduce the use of salt and sugar as cheap flavouring agents.

Looking back in history, only rich people could afford to be fat. Today the 99% are fat because they are eating like kings and queens and the 1% can afford liposuction and tummy tucks and trendy organic food.

Re:Charge by calorie

[Anonymous Coward]

What socialist crap, grow up.

Re:Charge by calorie

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, salt doesn't have calories.

Amen

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more complicated than counting calories. Our bodies are chemical black box engines. As with any engine, fuel composition makes a difference (try putting wood pellets in your gas tank or gas in your wood stove). There's a lot of wishing for a one-size fits-all solution but each of us is a unique engine requiring a unique fuel blend. There's just too many variables - everything from activity level to the species of bacteria in your gut (which never comes up in weight management discussion).

I know from personal experience that my engine runs efficiently on meat and fat with some low sugar carbs. Your results may vary.

Is that anything like the the apples of oranges?

[Gimbal]

"The mathematics of obesity" doesn't parse, unless we're talking about statistical analysis.

Mathematics is a matter of number systems and mathematical operations. Obeisity is a matter of anatomy - and I doubt there's any one special cause to it. If we would be concerned, rather, about how to address it as individual persons responsible for our own health - it being rather a personal matter - then I doubt that the discussion would continue to be relevant in the technical Slashdot forum. Dr. Phil is there for baggage, health scientists for dietary concerns, fitness instructors for recreational exercise, and one's own coworkers, family, and community are there for ... whatever they're there for, maybe for community.

Me, I'm not one to try to judge my family, friends, and neighbors in terms of statistics. DNRTA.

Java is the problem!

[xmorg]

Java is not supported on freebsd firefox, so i cant use the calculator. I guess ill just stay fat...

I'll bite

[trout007]

For most of my adult life I was 30 lbs over weight and tried all of the tricks. I'm a mechanical engineer so intuitively I knew energy in vs energy out was the key. So I said screw it, this year I'm going eat less no matter how much it sucks. I personally can't stand eating small meals so I decided to eat one meal a day. I drink coffee and tea during the day and have a big meal at night. I estimate the average daily calorie went from 3000 to 1800. Guess what? I lost 30 pounds over 4 months. Was it hard? You bet your ass it was. I was/am hungry most of the time. But at least I can look forward to that one nice meal at night. And it's not always a "healthy" meal. Sometimes it's a 1/2 lb cheese burger with fries. But that's still less than 1800 calories and that's all that counts.

Re:I'll bite

[m00sh]

For most of my adult life I was 30 lbs over weight and tried all of the tricks. I'm a mechanical engineer so intuitively I knew energy in vs energy out was the key. So I said screw it, this year I'm going eat less no matter how much it sucks. I personally can't stand eating small meals so I decided to eat one meal a day. I drink coffee and tea during the day and have a big meal at night. I estimate the average daily calorie went from 3000 to 1800. Guess what? I lost 30 pounds over 4 months. Was it hard? You bet your ass it was. I was/am hungry most of the time. But at least I can look forward to that one nice meal at night. And it's not always a "healthy" meal. Sometimes it's a 1/2 lb cheese burger with fries. But that's still less than 1800 calories and that's all that counts.

Congratulations.

Now, the hard part is keeping those 30lbs from coming back.

The failings of "diets" isn't that you don't lose weight, it's that the weight comes back and comes back stronger. Fighting hunger eats away from a limited pool of willpower and when you have a huge project or a stressful event if your life that eats away your reserves to fight hunger, you will find after that the pounds have come back.

My point is that calories in, calories out model is wrong on the big picture.

The mathematics is simple.

[Dcnjoe60]

The mathematics of obesity is simple. If calories burned is less than calories consumed, then people will gain weight. Doesn't matter if there is an abundance of food or not, although a lack of food tends to make it more difficult.

It's not just the consumption side of the equation, but also the burn side, too. In 1970, people walked to the local store. Today, there are few local stores, replaced by mega shopping centers which have to be driven to. In 1970, to put your car in the garage, you got out of the car, bent over and lifted a heavy garage door to open it. Today, you push a button. In 1970, agriculture and heavy manufacturing were the mainstay of the economy (meaning physical labor), today it is information and what manufacturing is left is heavily dominated by computer controlled robotics. In 1970, most areas of the country were limited to a handful of tv stations and they went off the air at midnight, as such, we spent much more time outdoors doing stuff. Today, we have 100s of stations 24/7 and can plant ourselves on the couch without the need to go outdoors (there is also a vitamin D deficiency epidemic in this country, too). The list goes on and on.

The reality is that not only do we live in a society that has unlimited access to calories to consume, but we also live in a society that has eliminated much physical work, so much so, that today, exercise is the main way to burn calories.

Actually,

[Dcnjoe60]

Actually, the reason fat is stored is because prior to refrigeration, calories in most diets were seasonal. Just like bears who put on fat before they hibernate, humans would store fat (although nothing like the obesity today) to help them get through the lean winter months. It is how the body is designed.

However, the real problem with the high carbohydrate (and no, I am not an Atkins fan), is that not only does the insulin break down the sugars to be used by the body, it also signals the body to store an excess fat floating around for later use, because it is easier to store fat than it is to convert excess sugar to fat (although it can do that, too).

In short, high carbohydrate diets, particularly those with empty calories (no nutritional value) accompanied by high fat diets lead to overweight people by overloading the carefully balanced system the body depended on during evolution to deal with the feast and famine cycle the people had to deal with.

Ultimately, though, whether fat calories or carbohydrate calories, if you consume more calories than you burn, you are going to get fat. High fat diets just make it easier because they are higher calorie to start with and fat is easier to store as fat than sugar is.

Re:Actually,

[hsthompson69]

Just like bears who put on fat before they hibernate, humans would store fat (although nothing like the obesity today) to help them get through the lean winter months.

You do realize that humanity evolved in the tropics, where there aren't "lean winter months" to speak of, right?

Re:Actually,

[Dcnjoe60]

Just like bears who put on fat before they hibernate, humans would store fat (although nothing like the obesity today) to help them get through the lean winter months.

You do realize that humanity evolved in the tropics, where there aren't "lean winter months" to speak of, right?

But humanity didn't stay in the tropics and one has to assume that the process on natural selection was at work as humanity moved to northern latitudes. Those that could sustain the lean times are the ones that past the genes on to succeeding generations.

Re:Actually,

[hsthompson69]

The vast majority of human evolution has occurred in the tropics. Our venturing out of the tropics into the rest of the world is actually quite recent in evolutionary terms.

Now, we can test your hypothesis by asserting that nordic folk should be more obese than african folks. Of course, we don't see this kind of relationship.

Humans are adapted to eating animal protein and fat, and while we have essential proteins and fatty acids, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.

Re:Actually,

[PraiseBob]

Even in the tropics the plants don't produce food year round and people need to adapt their diets based on the season. There are wet/dry seasons, and in the tropcis they have a "hungry season" for part of the year. But, fat stores are useful because hunter gatherers can face a food shortage at any time of the year.

Re:Actually,

[Dcnjoe60]

The vast majority of human evolution has occurred in the tropics. Our venturing out of the tropics into the rest of the world is actually quite recent in evolutionary terms.

Now, we can test your hypothesis by asserting that nordic folk should be more obese than african folks. Of course, we don't see this kind of relationship.

Humans are adapted to eating animal protein and fat, and while we have essential proteins and fatty acids, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.

The US, the population in question, is predominantly European in makeup. Adaptation doesn't take very long, particularly during an ice age, to cause genetic differentiation. Since all humans came from the tropics, and only recently migrated from there, then all the various "races" occurred in that same short time frame that we are talking about, too. In the same amount of time for Europeans to lose melanin, or Asians to develop their charecteristics, could they not also adapt to different diets?

I do accept that humans are adapted to eating animal protein and fat, but looking at the human jaw, it also includes molars for grinding, which would imply an adaptation for vegetable matter, too. Humans are not carnivores, they are omnivores. Humans cannot exist only on animal protein (eat only lean meat and you will starve). In addition, some essential vitamins and minerals only come from plant sources. So while there is not an essential carbohydrate, there are essential vitamins and minerals that only come from certain types of carbohydrates.

Besides, people in the tropics are not immune to the feast vs famine cycle, just ask the people in the Sudan or Ethiopia. It is more than likely that the ability to store excess calories as fat for lean times occurred before the exodus out of Africa.

Re:Actually,

[Hognoxious]

Food supply is precarious for people at a primitive level of technology whatever the latitude. A disease in their main food source, a cyclic rise in the number of something else that eats that food source, even a sustained period of adverse weather are life threatening problems.

Re:Actually,

[hsthompson69]

I'd argue that's true for agrarian food supplies that tie people to the land and allow for class divisions, but that's not very true of hunter gatherers. When you can simply follow your food, and start eating some other critter when your preferred critter runs out, you're actually much less insecure.

Re:Actually,

[hsthompson69]

Adaptation doesn't take very long, particularly during an ice age, to cause genetic differentiation.

Sure it does. In fact, the genetic differentiation between the so called "races" is infinitesimal.

Humans cannot exist only on animal protein (eat only lean meat and you will starve).

Humans can, and have existed only on animal protein and fat. See the Inuit and the Masai.

So while there is not an essential carbohydrate, there are essential vitamins and minerals that only come from certain types of carbohydrates.

Name a single essential vitamin or mineral you can't get from eating an animal.

Re:Actually,

[hsthompson69]

Of course plants don't produce food year round - that's why hunters hunt *animals* and eat them. The advent of agriculture, and the tying of humans to specific plots of land is actually quite a recent invention.

Re:Actually,

[Dcnjoe60]

Adaptation doesn't take very long, particularly during an ice age, to cause genetic differentiation.

Sure it does. In fact, the genetic differentiation between the so called "races" is infinitesimal.

Humans cannot exist only on animal protein (eat only lean meat and you will starve).

Humans can, and have existed only on animal protein and fat. See the Inuit and the Masai.

So while there is not an essential carbohydrate, there are essential vitamins and minerals that only come from certain types of carbohydrates.

Name a single essential vitamin or mineral you can't get from eating an animal.

Unless you are eating your meat raw, most vitamins, like B and C are destroyed by cooking. Vitamin A is in very low quantities in meat, but is found in fat, so you could get it there. Likewise, if you eat enough liver you could get your Vitamin B and A. However, the question would be could a family eat enough liver from what a hunter would gather to supply all of their vitamin A and B from the liver (assuming early man)? Wild meat, unlike fattened cattle contain little fat and there fore little vitamin stores. But it would not be impossible to essential vitamins from meat, the question is would you get enough, particularly for growing children? Minerals would be found in meat, but again, would the right quantity be there?

As for there being very little differentiation between the so called "races," I would hope that would be the case. We all are human, after all. However, since a chimpanzee and a human share 96% of our genetic material, I would hope that an Asian and African and European would share all but an infinitesimal amount. The point is, it only takes an infinitesimal difference to make a difference.

Yes, humans can exist on animal protein AND fat, that is not in doubt. But unless they are eating the organs and blubber, like the Inuit and Masai, they aren't getting all the nutrition they need. Likewise, the Inuit and Masai go through feast and famine periods in the diets, which further emphasizes the reason humans store fat, whether generated from excess carbs, protein or fat.

Re:Actually,

[hsthompson69]

However, the question would be could a family eat enough liver from what a hunter would gather to supply all of their vitamin A and B from the liver (assuming early man)?

The answer is yes. Both Inuit and Masai lived eschewing eating *anything* but animal products before western contact.

Unless you are eating your meat raw, most vitamins, like B and C are destroyed by cooking.

Fun fact -> scurvy was caused by the hard tack rations (carbohydrates) which leached vitamin C out of the body. Had sailors simply eaten meat their entire voyages, they wouldn't have gotten scurvy in the first place.

The point is, it only takes an infinitesimal difference to make a difference.

The problem with the whole discredited concept of "race" though is that there are more differences *within* groups than *between* groups. Human variation is quite the norm, and whatever "difference" you may assert between races, you'll find that it is literally, only skin deep.

Likewise, the Inuit and Masai go through feast and famine periods in the diets,

Cite?

which further emphasizes the reason humans store fat,

The reasons human store fat is simple -> it is the preferred energy source. A hunter can go out, make a kill, eat protein and fat, and without any sort of seasonal fat accumulation, replenish his stores with his meal. The release of fatty acids as energy from fat cells is nice and steady, giving a nice constant energy even though "fill ups" might not be constant.

Humans are *not* hibernating animals, which accumulate excess fat stores with internal biological clocks.

Chow?

[Eraesr]

His name is Chow? How apt.

So...

[nitehawk214]

If food was expensive, we wouldn't eat as much. Also if food was very expensive more people would starve to death. Which according to mathematics means they are not obese, so its a win-win.

Since we are using math to analyze this, lets start taking the average human weight. That way for every morbidly obese person, we can have one or two skin and bones starving person to make up for them. Mathematical perfection!

While we are at it, we can government-mandate that the little food we do produce must be highly bland and nearly inedible. Problem solved!

King Corn

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently lost a lot of weight (60lbs) by completely avoiding any food containing corn byproducts, including meat. Corn is used to fatten up cattle. The corn's RNA causes the cow to fatten. When we eat the cow, that same fattening RNA is folded into our own DNA, and creates a lot health problems, diabetes, leg cramps, shaky leg syndrome, etc. (my exercise regiment stayed the same from before the weight loss and after)
Normally you shouldn't get sleepy after a meal. If you eat clean, you burn clean energy. Avoid anything that has to do with corn.
I still eat fresh baked breads, fruits and chocolate and I'm looking sexy as hell. Also my thinking is clearer and its easier to learn new things!
You don't have to believe me, but just try avoiding corn for a week and see how you feel. Then you will agree and spread the word. which is all i care for really.

Americas food supply is compromised and pushed into our minds via the symbols of commercial propaganda.

Depends

[renoX]

> Most bread in the store has a metric buttload of sugars added simply because they can.

This is not true in all the countries: in France most breads don't contain sugar AFAIK, the main exception being pain de mie, yet there is also a big proportion of people with weight issues, not as big as in the USA, but still quite big..

Re:Depends

[Anonymous Coward]

in France most breads don't contain sugar AFAIK [...] yet there is also a big proportion of people with weight issues, not as big as in the USA, but still quite big.

Data from Forbes from 198 countries:

United states: 9th fattest country in the world, 74.1% overweight or obese

France: 128th fattest country in the world, 40.1 overweight or obese

In Europe, only Romania (134th, 39.1%) has fewer fat people.

The only first-world countries that ranked lower than France in this table were Singapore and Japan.

Saying that France has a "big" problem with obesity is rather an overstatement, don't you think?

Re:Depends

[renoX]

The thing is: the proportion of overweight & obese people in France is constantly growing, that is the "big problem", and even if other countries are worse this doesn't mean that ~40% is good: this is mostly caused by lifestyle..

Exactly wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but this is wrong on so many levels. You see, while you get energy from stored fat, it is a quite energy intensive process itself if fat should be the main energy source. You can experience the "hitting the wall" effect yourself after a long endurance training. When the glycogen storage is depleted, the body switches completely to fat burning and suddenly you don't have any energy to go on and breathe much faster, might even faint.

Fat burning is meant to be an additional energy source, not the primary one. The reason why fat is stored is:

1) you have eaten too much food. Otherwise the fat would be all used up

2) You have got far too much fat mixed with carbohydrates in the food. Well, duh, the body takes what it can use right away and stores what it can use only with some effort.

Good grief, if this isn't a fantastic example of missing the forest for the trees....you have it almost exactly wrong.

Fat metabolism IS supposed to be the primary metabolic pathway. It is ideal for fueling the basal metabolic processes and low-level everyday activity. Why on earth would all mammals evolve the ability to store excess energy as saturated fat if the body wasn't fully prepared to run itself on that stored energy? Carrying around that excess weight is a hindrance, and if you have to have carbs present to make use of it I just don't see how it would confer the type of survival advantage that would bake it into the basic structure of our metabolism.
  Taken a step further - what fuels mammals during hibernation?
  If you look at the 'calorie requirement' calculators, the basal processes + everyday activity will always be the overwhelming majority of the calorie expenditure for a person during the day. Calories burned through exercise is substantially lower in all but the most extreme endurance athletes. this should be a pretty clear indication as to what is the more important metabolic process.

Your example of 'hitting the wall' during glycolytic exercise is also backwards. High-intensity glycolytic exercise is the EXCEPTION, not the rule. It is an activity that ISN"T supposed to happen frequently, and when it does happen it isn't supposed to be of a long duration. There is a very good reason we have only evolved the ability to store a fairly limited amount of glycogen - because historically, any more simply wasn't needed.

Taken together, IMHO these clearly illustrate why the low-carb/HIIT regimen is actually very successful as a strategy. Fat fuels your daily activity, with carbs 'topping up' the fairly minimal depletion of glycogen that occurs during the high-intensity activity. No one approach is ideal for everyone due to personal history etc, but there is a lot of science behind the low-carb/HIIT approach that very easily explains why it works well.

Re:Exactly wrong

[dunkelfalke]

Why on earth would all mammals evolve the ability to store excess energy as saturated fat if the body wasn't fully prepared to run itself on that stored energy?

Because otherwise they would starve if they cannot get a meal in time.

Taken a step further - what fuels mammals during hibernation?

Humans don't hibernate. And the closest human relatives eat mostly fruits, which are carbohydrates. Besides, what is so difficult in understanding "emergency ration", which the fat storage is? To make an easier to understand comparison: you can surely survive on canned food, but you really shouldn't use it as your primary food source.

High-intensity glycolytic exercise is the EXCEPTION, not the rule. It is an activity that ISN"T supposed to happen frequently, and when it does happen it isn't supposed to be of a long duration.

Only it is. Humans are built as endurance runners first and foremost - although strength training is admittedly more fun. Glycogen storage is so small because glycogen is not the optimal way to store energy due to a comparably low energy density. It is supposed to be enough until the next meal and fat is the storage for the starvation mode.

Re:Exactly wrong

[alnjmshntr]

ACtually carbs fuel your brain not fat, so you probably should be ranking carbs a bit higher on the scale of what's important to me.

Fat is for survival, carbs are for activity. That's not to say that some humans can't burn fat for activity, some do very efficently, but it takes lots of training and is not the norm.

Paying farmers not to grow food

[Jiro]

Paying farmers not to grow food has been a joke and an attack on the government far more recently than the 1970's.

Ah, models.

[hsthompson69]

First off, standard "correlation is not causality" caveat.

Second, obesity is a disease driven by the hormone insulin. Insulin (in insulin resistant people) is what causes fat cells to accumulate fat. Chronic insulin levels are driven by chronically elevated blood sugar levels. Chronically elevated blood sugar levels are caused by carbohydrate intake, the only food type that causes significant blood sugar rises.

So, go back to 1970 and promote say, nothing but beef or pork production, and you can have a glut of food, without obesity. Promote "healthy" whole wheat, or sugary fruits, or starchy corn, that raises blood sugar levels, and you'll get obesity.

Stop eating carbohydrates. It's simple.

Re:Ah, models.

[Cid Highwind]

So, go back to 1970 and promote say, nothing but beef or pork production, and you can have a glut of food, without obesity.

You probably wouldn't have a glut of food, the conversion ratio of feed calories to meat is pretty terrible, especially for cattle.

Re:Ah, models.

[hsthompson69]

Fun fact -> we fatten animals by feeding them starches, not fats :)

Re:Ah, models.

[ToddInSF]

Animals are fed primarily corn nowadays.

The meat from animals not fed corn does not have the same unhealthy misbalance of fatty acids.

Re:Ah, models.

[Cid Highwind]

Right. So if you take the current glut of starches that we fat humans are eating and feed them to animals to produce fats and protein (at a conversion efficiency of ~1.5%) suddenly you no have much less food available. That might not be a bad thing, but it should be acknowledged in any alternate future dietary fanfic where the beef lobby beat out the corn lobby in Congress.

Re:Ah, models.

[hsthompson69]

Actually, that's a very good point - it's quite possible that we cannot feed humanity a healthy diet of animal meat and fat, just based on the amount of arable land available. It's also quite possible that the promotion of grains and starches and sugars as "healthy" has been a conscious effort on the part of authorities, to stop the impoverished and underprivileged from rioting against the cheap foods that they are left to consume. The side effect of also affecting the dietary attitudes of the affluent in the same negative way is simply blowback :)

Re:Ah, models.

[hsthompson69]

Yeah, I wish I could get more grass fed beef, but it just hasn't caught on enough yet to get into most markets.

We subsidize the corn, which we feed to the animals and people, which makes them sick, which requires us to subsidize health care. A win-win for big government subsidizes :)

The lancet is wrong.

[hsthompson69]

That hypothesis, using data directly from the china study, has been thoroughly falsified by a wonderful woman named Denise Minger:

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/

The problem is carbohydrate, not animal protein or fat.

Socialism

[operagost]

'Beginning in the 1970s, there was a change in national agricultural policy. Instead of the government paying farmers not to engage in full production, as was the practice'

As was the practice since the Great Depression, when crops were plowed under to drive up prices. Meanwhile, people starved.
I love how the solution is to make food expensive. Let's make water and clothing expensive, too! But make sure that Fannie Mae gives home loans to poor people.

The rake

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy across me at work eats a large bag of crisps + 2 chocklate bars for lunch every day and he is as thin as a rake. Oh, how I hate him

Classic SMBC fodder

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, does this validate that SMBC comic? "As [physicists] get on in years, they reach the 'telling other fields they're wrong about everything' phase."

food superstitions are off the chart

[0111 1110]

It's amazing to me how irrational people become as soon as the subject of food comes up. Science? Evidence? What's that? People convince themselves of all kinds of ridiculous ideas about food and nutrition, none of which have even the slightest shred of evidence to back them up. Probably because people don't want it to be simply a matter of calories. It's another example of intellectual hedonism. People don't want to believe that the quantity of food they are eating is just too much. So they simply choose not to believe it. Instead they invent some simple rule that does not rely on calorie counting or ever being hungry. Fat doesn't make you fat. Sugar doesn't make you fat. Preservatives and MSG don't make you fat. "Refined" foods don't make you fat. Fast food doesn't make you fat. Burgers and donuts don't make you fat. Even insulin doesn't make you fat. If you are overweight (as I am) the only thing you can blame is your own lack of self-control. It's calories that make you fat. Fat people simply eat too much for the amount of physical activity they engage in. You could live on pure fat or pure sugar and huge amounts of preservatives and lots of MSG and as long as you didn't exceed 1000 calories per day you wouldn't gain weight. In fact you would probably lose it.

It is true that some restriction diets are effective, but not for the reasons usually given. If all you eat is low calorie vegetables you are very unlikely to gain weight and quite likely to lose it. That's because most people cannot manage to eat enough low calorie vegetables to gain weight. Some vegetables are so low in calories that you would pretty much have to eat them continuously the whole day. Carbohydrate restricted diets are popular these days. They don't work because 'carbohydrates make you fat'. They work because people seem to more easily be able to eat fewer calories on those diets. They are probably the most effective diets if you can stay on them because protein makes you feel full faster and keeps you feeling full longer. I've tried this but I feel truly awful for the first couple of days. I get really depressed without any carbohydrates. So I haven't been able to stay on it for long. I also find that I can quite easily overeat on all protein diets. So I'm back to counting calories again anyway.

I've had better luck with calorie restricted vegetable diets, but the problem with those is that I have to constantly eat throughout the day to not feel hungry. I can eat a huge bowl of Romaine lettuce and within an hour I am hungry again. Not only is it a huge amount of work to keep filling my stomach with low calorie vegetables, but it's very expensive and tiring to constantly be preparing food.

I've lived in several countries besides the US and none of those countries have as many overweight people as the US. The only other country I have visited which seems to be able to compete with the US in terms of obesity is Italy. In most countries people eat high calorie foods. The reason they do not get fat is simply because they don't overeat. It really is that simple. Just stop eating before you feel full. You should still feel at least a little bit hungry. One of my most successful diets was achieved just by eating my meals with a thin friend of mine. I ate exactly the same things he did in exactly the same amounts at every meal. He wasn't on any kind of special diet. He just didn't eat all that much food. I lost a lot of weight and I was left only slightly hungry.

Re:food superstitions are off the chart

[m00sh]

It's amazing to me how irrational people become as soon as the subject of food comes up. Science? Evidence? What's that? People convince themselves of all kinds of ridiculous ideas about food and nutrition, none of which have even the slightest shred of evidence to back them up. Probably because people don't want it to be simply a matter of calories. It's another example of intellectual hedonism. People don't want to believe that the quantity of food they are eating is just too much. So they simply choose not to believe it. Instead they invent some simple rule that does not rely on calorie counting or ever being hungry. Fat doesn't make you fat. Sugar doesn't make you fat. Preservatives and MSG don't make you fat. "Refined" foods don't make you fat. Fast food doesn't make you fat. Burgers and donuts don't make you fat. Even insulin doesn't make you fat. If you are overweight (as I am) the only thing you can blame is your own lack of self-control. It's calories that make you fat. Fat people simply eat too much for the amount of physical activity they engage in. You could live on pure fat or pure sugar and huge amounts of preservatives and lots of MSG and as long as you didn't exceed 1000 calories per day you wouldn't gain weight. In fact you would probably lose it.

Every set of observable statistics has infinite theories to explain it, from which only one is right. Since our nutritionists and scientists can't give us a straight answer and we are drowning in obesity, everyone is looking for alternate theories. Everyone has their own little pet theory on why we get fat and unless you have been designing and running experiments, analyzing data to confirm or deny your problem, you're part of the problem you mention.

Look at what we were able to achieve with HIV and AIDS. We should be putting our resources like that to the obesity epidemic and once and for all, figure out what the right theory to explain everything is.

Re:food superstitions are off the chart

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my most successful diets was achieved just by eating my meals with a thin friend of mine. I ate exactly the same things he did in exactly the same amounts at every meal. He wasn't on any kind of special diet. He just didn't eat all that much food. I lost a lot of weight and I was left only slightly hungry.

That's fucking hilarious and awesomely true. More people should try doing that.

Methodology

[dumky2]

Taking a step back from the article and its conclusion, I wonder about the method that is used. Has anyone seen the presentation or read the paper to explain the method? Why should their modelling process produce convincing conclusions? Mathematical models seem a reasonable way to come up with plausible hypothesis, but I have trouble giving much credibility to such a hypothesis without a double-blind study or maybe validating some unlikely predictions about the future.

TV Series / Movies

[John Bokma]

Nearly each time I watch someone eat in a TV Series/Movies I get hungry myself. My feeling is that in a lot of USA TV Series/Movies people eat often. My feeling is also that UK TV Series have more often people drinking alcoholic beverages.

Depends on how you watch

[phorm]

In addition to other exercise, I've actually increased my TV watching lately.
Since my fiancee is away, I've been catching up on sci-fi shows that don't interest her (and thankfully, I've been spared from "Say yes to the dress"). However, there's nothing saying you have to sit on your ass while watching TV. Free-arm weights and various other exercises are pretty easy to do while watching. If you've got floor space you can do even more, but barbells don't require any extra space.

Not sure it's making a huge dent in my flab (the biking and other exercise is likely a higher contributor) but it's definitely improved the musculature in my arms etc.

You need just one equation

[u19925]

Frankly, you need just one equation which is known for quite long time: Obesity is inversely proportional to fraction of income spent on food. America has this fraction very low compared to most nations (even richer nations where people spent more money on less but more expensive food items). In many poor countries, this ratio is greater than 40%. In America, it is less than 10%.

Is the model accurate?

[dgdriscoll]

In the comments I don't see anyone else questioning whether this metabolism modeling formula is accurate. I can't seem to get to the original paper, the link in the Times story goes to an announcement of the conference. I'm not saying the formula isn't accurate. I'm just saying that sometime mathematical models give results that don't match the real world and I'd want to see some empirical evidence for this before I start drawing conclusions based on it.

It's not the fast-food restaurants

[S77IM]

It's the Hot Pockets. Or the Jimmy Dean Frozen Sausage Biscuits.

This kind of stuff is cheap to buy, quick to make, and very bad for you.

Availability + Appetite

[StikyPad]

Availability means nothing without appetite. We have access to virtually unlimited quantities of water, yet we don't over-consume water (through drinking anyway). Why not? I actually came up with a hypothesis yesterday, which is that overeating and and depression both have the same root cause, which I posit to be low serotonin, and that low serotonin is itself a consequence of our society.

Serotonin's role in both appetite and depression are well established. The majority of our serotonin is in the gut (90%, according to Wikipedia), and higher levels decrease appetite. Given that depression and obesity are both at epidemic levels in the US, it's not unreasonable to conclude that we are, as a whole, suffering from low serotonin. Interestingly, countries with lower levels of depression also suffer from lower levels of obesity. Official statistics put depression at around 17% in the US, and as we know, we lead the world in rates of obesity at 30%. Japan, on the other hand, has levels of both depression and obesity at around 3%. Again, I think it's plausible that this is not so much causal (depression -> overeating -> obesity) as it is correlated (low serotonin -> depression && overeating).

So why would people in the US have lower levels of serotonin than elsewhere? Beyond appetite and depression, serotonin is also linked with dominance in animals. Lower levels of serotonin are consistent with subordinate behavior, while higher levels are found in more dominant animals. Dominant animals sometimes have control over other animals, but I believe the more important issue is that they have control over their own lives. And rather than being predetermined, where high serotonin induces dominance and low serotonin subordination (though this may be true to a limited extent), the causality may well be the other way around. It would, after all, be a huge liability if there were no so-called "natural leaders" around -- packs lions would just wander around aimlessly like "WTF should we do?!? We have no leader." And this happens sometimes when leaders are lost, but eventually someone steps up to the plate. We already know that depression is self-reinforcing, and so it stands to reason that dominance and subordination are also self-reinforcing.

Getting back to people, Japan prides itself on behavior that western society considers subordinate, and this discrepancy seems somewhat puzzling at first glance. How could subordination lead to feelings of dominance? Consider, though, that the well defined structure and general meritocracy of Japanese society may actually lead to a greater sense of control over one's life than our markedly less structured (and less consistent) society in the US. Not only is Japanese society more of a meritocracy, but they place value on and instill pride in every role, not merely those at the top. And it's not the lip service we have in the US, putting up some Successories posters and pretending to care about employees. Japanese society genuinely values the work that *everyone* does because it values collective action and shuns individualism.

So, by virtue of our individualism, our plutocracy where the most powerful, most popular, or most beautiful wins in fact, despite our ideals in theory, many people feel they have little control over their lives, and justifiably so. This lack of control is the definition of subordination, and if subordination leads to low serotonin, then we are probably witnessing its effects: higher appetite which leads to obesity given our ready access to food, and depression.

Of course, this could all just be a coincidence. Maybe Americans feel more in control of their lives than ever. Maybe our epidemic of depression is a consequence of overeating. Maybe, as the article asserts, we just have too much food and feel obliged to consume it for no reason. I'm not attached to my hypothesis, but it would be interesting to see it tested. Designing an ethical experiment on people might be difficult though, given that deliberately inducing health problems is generally frowned upon.

Re:Availability + Appetite

[neminem]

That is a lot of text to explain a very simple question with, it seems to me, a much simpler answer, called "cause, food -tastes good-". Water tastes like, well, water. Food tastes like almost anything. We don't eat given the ability even if we're not hungry "for no reason" - we eat given the ability even if we're not hungry because it's there, and eating it provides pleasurable stimuli to our brains. Same reason we do anything else fun but unhealthy.

Re:Availability + Appetite

[swb]

There's research linking sugar consumption to dopamine, making it actually similar to cocaine in its brain effect.

More food in + less exercise = fatter

[bryan1945]

Someone gimme some of that sweet, sweet grant money.

Re:Why the Campaign to Stop America's Obesity Fail

[mvdwege]

Taubes (and Atkins for that matter) is right to point at carbs as a major problem; however the problem is not so much that carbs are inherently more fattening, as that they are more insidious.

People routinely underestimate the caloric values of food taken in. Ask people what's more fattening: two wheat buns of 100g total, or 250 grams of steak. I bet a statistically significant number will point at the meat. I've done some careful calorie counting, and I found out to my horror that the major source of calories in my diet was bread.

This is the double whammy: the carbohydrates in grain products produce an insulin response, as Mr. Taubes rightly points out, and we routinely underestimate the amount of calories we take in from grain products. The result is obvious.

These days, I eat half the amount of bread, with the same amount of toppings. People see a thick layer of sandwich spread, or a thick layer of cheese, and they ask "Isn't that bad for your weight?". And then they act surprised when I pull up the stats and show them that spreading a lesser amount of toppings over more bread is in fact worse.

And yes, a program of dedicated calorie counting, keeping me at just the DV for my sedentary lifestyle, and starting martial arts, did drop 10kg off my total weight; but I did do that over a period of almost a year.

Obesity Study by Chow and Hall

[todd_is_not]

Chowhall.

I can't be the only one who saw this

It's not just food

[thetoadwarrior]

Did people think they could have an office job sitting on their ass and drive everywhere and still consume the same amount of calories as people did when they were more physical?

Exercise

[gd1234]

Lot of comments here about exercise and weight loss. Just reminding everyone that exercise is important whether or not you lose weight. The 30 mins a day recommendations are well documented to improve heart health, reduce diabetes risk, reduce risk for many cancers etc. Whether you are fat or lean, regular exercise improves your health.

Labor is the problem

[alcmaeon]

See, McDonalds works not because you couldn't buy the raw materials cheaper than the finished product at McD's, but because you incorrectly assume your, or your wife's, labor is worthless. Now, if you factor in the labor cost of the meal at home, and the transportation costs of getting it all there, your healthy hamburger meal at home is probably approaching $500.00, depending upon your billable rate. I'm figuring 2 hours of time at my rate of $250.00/hr. YMMV.

There is no way I can truly make a hamburger for less than McD's can.

I eat at home not because it is cheaper, but because I want to spend the time with my family, I want to eat clean, healthy food, and I don't want to be a big strapping fat-ass with a smorgasbord of diet-related, diseases, not the least of which is e.coli.

stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

obesity doesn't have anything to do with food offer... Fad diets and the media are responsible for an increase in dieting, which results in weight gains long term...

just do your research and treat obesity as a disease, not as low self-steem, or glutony

Metabolism is a factor but

[Radical Moderate]

it doesn't explain the exploding obesity rates of the last couple decades, unless you believe that in 20 years we somehow evolved slower metabolisms.

Re:Metabolism is a factor but

[Belial6]

Greater muscle mass could easily explain it. Most people don't realize that our current definition of 'obese' puts this as one of those 'lazy fat asses'.

An even easier answer would be that there has been a massive shift our countries genetic makeup in the last 20 years.

More than Sugar

[mathmathrevolution]

Sugar is a major problem, but we need to be more intelligent than the conventional wisdom that attribute the Obesity epidemic to just one factor. It isn't just sugar. It isn't just lack of exercise. It's about a dozen different factors and when people exclusively focus on one thing, what they are really doing is consciously deciding to ignore everything else. If you decide sugar is the problem but fat isn't, then you're excusing yourself to eat as much fried chicken ad potato chips as possible. People need to step back and see the big picture.

The problem is sugar, fat, alcohol, processed foods, lack of exercise, convenience foods, lack of fruits and vegetables, sedentary activity, eating in front of the television, reliance on the automobile, the expense of healthy foods, people's ignorance on how to cook a balanced meal, the dearth of household meals, the accompanying physiological acclimatization to a high calorie lifestyle, depression, etc. There's dozens of factors.

If you were to name a single problem it is the fact that you can not live a "mainstream" lifestyle in the United States and still have a healthy lifestyle. Less than one-third of Americans have a healthy weight. So if you want to be healthy you need to exist on the fringe of American society, which takes a lot of effort that most people don't want give.

Asian genetic resistance to toxins = BS

[mathmathrevolution]

No, the Chinese were not exposed to agriculture before the Egyptians. There is no genetic basis for race. There is no genetically Asian basis for "resistance to toxins". And there's plenty about the Asian diet that is special, namely fiber and antioxidants which are critical for transporting toxins out of the body and reducing the body's oxidatitive stress. If you're going to claim that Asians have some special genetic resistance to toxins then you need to present a study showing that Asians on a Western diet die of cancer at a lower rate than their Western peers.

Bacon will not help you lose weight

[mathmathrevolution]

Actually, if you feed a sedentary *fat* person 3000 calories a day, comprised of bacon, beef and lard, they will lose weight. A sedentary skinny person simply won't *gain* weight.

Actually if you feed a sedentary fat person 3000 calories of bacon every day, what you will get is diabetes, depression, sleep apnea, atherosclerosis, congestive heart failure, and stroke.

Greed

[masonc]

Forget all the science, the diets and the theories. Americans are fat, generally, because they stuff as much food in their mouths as they physically can. Then they eat more. They are greedy. American culture is based on enjoying as much of life's pleasures as conspicuously as possible to demonstrate your success. It's cultural and is all based on the "winners take all" and "success is good" mentality that has made America the best place in the world to live. However, it comes at a price.

Actually, bacon is health food.

[hsthompson69]

http://blog.rifftrax.com/2009/01/31/bacon-stupidity/

You feed a sedentary fat person 2000 calories of whole wheat bread, bananas, carrots and low-fat yogurt a day, and you'll get diabetes, depression, sleep apnea, atherosclerosis, congestive heart failure and stroke. It's not the calories that matter, it's the carbohydrates.

Re:Actually, bacon is health food.

[mathmathrevolution]

Oh wait a minute. Apparently some random internet satirist wrote a blog post about the prospect of eating Bacon for a month? Well that settles that. Who needs more science than that? Why listen to the American Heart Association when you can just mouth ignorant Atkins bullshit after reading some idiotic blog post.

Just goes to show how fucking stupid people are. Creationism, Climate Denial, the belief that Bacon is a health food. Some people will literally believe any comforting lie no matter how idiotic when it justifies their self-destructive lifestyle.

Re:Actually, bacon is health food.

[hsthompson69]

Why listen to the American Heart Association when you can just mouth ignorant Atkins bullshit after reading some idiotic blog post.

Because Atkins was right and the AHA is wrong.

Just goes to show how fucking stupid people are. Creationism, Climate Denial, the belief that Bacon is a health food.

Well, creationism actually goes together with the whole Church of Global Warming (neither area having falsifiable hypotheses). As for bacon is health food, we've clearly established, by empirical evidence, that it is. The silly idea that dietary fat is somehow harmful is the sad legacy of Ancel Keys and his perverted application of the precautionary principle before actually bothering to *test* any of his hypotheses.

Seriously, read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes, or just google for one of his lectures, and then get back to me. Your appalling ignorance is showing.

Re:Actually, bacon is health food.

[mathmathrevolution]

Well, creationism actually goes together with the whole Church of Global Warming (neither area having falsifiable hypotheses). As for bacon is health food, we've clearly established, by empirical evidence, that it is

The Greenhouse effect has a falsifiable premise. It was investigated and verified back in by John Tyndall in 1858. Coincidentally, this is the same year that Darwin published his theory of Natural Selection. Some people just don't like to listen to the facts, I'm afraid to say. They prefer to get their information from sources like quacks and 3rd-rate internet satirists. And they imagine that because they condescend so freely to their detractors, then they must be the more correct.

I agree with Gary Taubes that refined sugars are a serious health problem. But just because sugar is bad doesn't imply bacon is good.

Re:Actually, bacon is health food.

[hsthompson69]

The Greenhouse effect has a falsifiable premise.

Of course the greenhouse effect has a falsifiable premise. But asserting that because the greenhouse effect exists that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic increases in temperature over say, 100 years, is a jump of logic that isn't justified, and must be subject to the strict scrutiny of falsifiable hypotheses.

I agree with Gary Taubes that refined sugars are a serious health problem. But just because sugar is bad doesn't imply bacon is good.

Did you read his book? His point isn't that refined sugars are a serious health problem - his point is that we've misdiagnosed the causes of obesity and the diseases of civilization, and blamed dietary fat (which makes "common" sense but isn't true), and instead should be looking at dietary carbohydrate. His critique isn't just about sugars, and it's not even just about diet -> the whole science of obesity was corrupted, turned into a government fiat, and hasn't been amenable to correction (much like some other "science" you can guess for yourself).

Whole wheat is bad, low-fat yogurt is bad, oranges are bad, apples are bad, and bacon is good.

Re:Actually, bacon is health food.

[Anonymous Coward]

Before:
    Waist: 33/34
    Blood pressure: 117/65
    Cholesterol: Unknown
    Weight: 190 lbs.
    Height: 6'2"

During:
    Calories, average, kcal/day: Unknown
    Protein, average, grams/day: Unknown
    Fat, average, grams/day: Unknown
    Sodium, average, milligrams/day: Unknown

After:
    Waist: Unknown
    Blood pressure: Unknown
    Cholesterol: Unknown
    Weight: Unknown
    Height: I'm willing to assume it's still 6'2"

Wow yeah he proved it all right. I'm going to go home and eat 2 lbs. of bacon for dinner.

Re:Actually, bacon is health food.

[mathmathrevolution]

But asserting that because the greenhouse effect exists that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic increases in temperature over say, 100 years, is a jump of logic that isn't justified, and must be subject to the strict scrutiny of falsifiable hypotheses.

Climate scientists have already examined this issue and produced models of the very warming we are currently experiencing.

Did you read his book? His point isn't that refined sugars are a serious health problem - his point is that we've misdiagnosed the causes of obesity and the diseases of civilization, and blamed dietary fat (which makes "common" sense but isn't true), and instead should be looking at dietary carbohydrate.

Taubes rightly points out that singling out one macronutrient to blame for all our problems is a absurd proposition, and then foolishly decides to myopically single out a different macronutrient for all our problems. Taubes never sees the limitations of his simplistic understanding of balanced nutrition. This is what leads people to absurd propositions that fruits and vegetables are "bad" for you and that bacon is "good".

But look, you're not very bright. If you want to ingest a huge amount of carcinogenic meat and deprive your body of fiber, antioxidants, exercise, and every other tool the body has to rid itself of toxins, then go for it. I'd much rather have you wasting away of cancer in a hospital bed than, say, voting.

Re:Actually, bacon is health food.

[hsthompson69]

Climate scientists have already examined this issue and produced models of the very warming we are currently experiencing.

Name any combination of global average temperature and global average CO2 that would serve as a falsification of those models if observed next year.

Models that are not falsifiable are not scientific.

Taubes rightly points out that singling out one macronutrient to blame for all our problems is a absurd proposition, and then foolishly decides to myopically single out a different macronutrient for all our problems.

No, Taubes points out that the myopic use of the precautionary principle in defense of one's prejudices leads us down a wrong path, and that only through the ruthless application of skepticism to our own conceits can we try to find the truth. The fact is that carbohydrate, as a macronutrient, is a chronic toxin. We know this from the biochemistry, and from observed history. We know this from laboratory experiment, and we know this from successful treatments of the "diseases of civilization".

The absurd proposition has always been "fruits and vegetables are good, and animal meats and fats are bad". You've clearly internalized this as a passionate belief system, and it seems you've got no strength of character to challenge yourself on your belief.

Re:Actually, bacon is health food.

[mathmathrevolution]

Name any combination of global average temperature and global average CO2 that would serve as a falsification of those models if observed next year. Models that are not falsifiable are not scientific.

Temperature is a realization of a stocastic variable and the underlying dynamics take more than a year's worth of data to assess. But at this point you can go back to papers written decades ago and validate their accuracy in predicting the warming trend we have experienced.

The absurd proposition has always been "fruits and vegetables are good, and animal meats and fats are bad".

Not even Taubes goes so far as to say this. You are, of course, free to invent delusional ideas of your very own, but not even your idol is going to back you up on that one.

Re:Actually, bacon is health food.

[hsthompson69]

But at this point you can go back to papers written decades ago and validate their accuracy in predicting the warming trend we have experienced.

So say we have 5 papers, all of which have the basic conceit that CO2 drives global warming (rather than the other way around). 4 of them are falsified by observation. 1 of them is consistent with observations. Have you thereby proven the basic conceit, or have you hedged your bets by not having an actual falsifiable hypothesis?

When you have say, 26 major GCM models, should I be surprised that one of them might match observation for some limited period of time?

Name a specific observation that would falsify AGW or it's great grand-daddy CAGW (and be sure to make sure that it is not just necessary, but *sufficient* - yes, AGW and CAGW are false if humanity is shown not to exist, but the mere existence of humanity does not imply AGW or CAGW)

Not even Taubes goes so far as to say this

Have you read Taubes?

p454, "Good Calories, Bad Calories"

"1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease, or any other chronic disease of civilization.

2. The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis - the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body. The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on our health, weight and well-being."

The first clearly shows that the proposition that animal meats and fats are bad is absurd in his measure, and the second clearly shows that the proposition that fruits and vegetables are good is absurd in his measure.

Re:Actually, bacon is health food.

[mathmathrevolution]

Look, you've clearly got your mind made up about Global Warming. If you want to pretend that the warming trend we've been experiencing my entire life has nothing to do with the 32 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases that we're dumping into the atmosphere every year, then you're making that decision. And the real question is this: is there any evidence that the climate denial community would ever accept as definitive proof of global warming? And the answer is no.

Moving on, here's Gary Taubes in his own words: "Lord knows I don't want to tell anybody not to eat their fruits and vegetables."

So it looks like you're completely full of shit, once again.

Re:Actually, bacon is health food.

[hsthompson69]

And the real question is this: is there any evidence that the climate denial community would ever accept as definitive proof of global warming? And the answer is no.

Let's be specific in terms here - global warming happens all the time naturally, you're trying to assert that recent warming was primarily driven by man. As for "definitive proof", I would ask first for a falsifiable hypothesis statement, and then a ruthless attempt to falsify it. To date, the AGW crowd has neither.

""Lord knows I don't want to tell anybody not to eat their fruits and vegetables.""

Ah, the cherry picked, misinterpreted quote - a favorite of the church of global warming :) Let's examine some context for a moment. Polland was talking about all the things they could agree on, and started touting fruits and vegetables, and Taubes interrupted:

"At the risk of sounding heretical, one of my favorite things to do,
The key words in all these, say again, lord knows I don't want to tell anyone
not to eat their fruits and vegetables, but it's always "likely" protective,
"likely"...transfats are "likely" to be bad.

And again, the reason we have to say "likely" is cause when they do laboratory studies
and they can isolate factors in the food that seem to be protective against cancer
for instance in test tubes...you can do comparative studies where you take two groups
of people and you say the groups who eat more margarine, more trans fatty acids are less...
seem to have more heart disease than people who don't.

But these are all associations, and they don't answer the actual questions."

So when he says "lord knows I don't want to tell anyone not to eat their fruits and vegetables", he's covering himself because he *is* telling them that there isn't any proof that fruits and vegetables are "good". It may be "likely", but that's a cheap hedge.

Apparently your bullshit detector isn't calibrated properly :) Would you like to try a different Taubes quote out of context? :)

wisdom of the unwashed

[epine]

One has to take into account the human momeostatic preference. Inflate like a blimp after a decade or so, or wander around in a low blood sugar haze all the damn time.

Hall's model actually demonstrates how consistently most people maintain their long term calorie intake. In the model, my extra 20 pounds correspond to a long term dietary excess of about 10% In many contexts, regulation within 10% is pretty good.

The problem with dietary controls is decision fatigue.
Do You Suffer From Decision Fatigue?

You can expend a lot of will power depriving yourself of a little craving hundreds of times per day. That will show up in making poorer decisions elsewhere, unless you alleviate your decision fatigue with a dose of sugar.

In the food studies, when you put a person on a restriction diet, there seems to be a large osmotic term over and above what the subjects report. It doesn't take many weak moments to rupture the envelop in a ten percent caloric restriction. One tablespoon of olive oil has 120 calories. I get that much extra oil just licking the spoons if I whip up my Caesar salad dressing with too much gusto.

In the appetite system, fructose is particularly problematic. HFCS used in soda pop has about the same amount of fructose as table sugar (sucrose breaks down to glucose and fructose extremely promptly after ingestion).

Dr. Lustig's excellent presentation

Dr Mercola is a strange man. I think he would sign up to live in the Matrix with that tube coming out of the back of his scull if he was promised that it was a feeding tube, and that all the nutrients were purified by reverse osmosis to ten nines purity level. A bit like the space engineer in Contact: Why eat good and wholesome food when you can double the purity for ten times the price? His OCD purity compulsion notwithstanding, many of his links are highly informative.

A while back I also watched an excellent video by Dr Brian Wansink about the psychology of portion size. There was another good resource from his food lab at Cornell IIRC. Wansink won an ignoble for his bottomless soup bowl.

Here's another of his tricks: Gluttony even when the food tastes lousy.

Another odd duck is Gary Taubes. He's not all wrong, and he's not all right.

Science of Weightloss and Fat Accumulation

The obesity epidemic and metabolic syndrome are harder to unwind than 90% of the people here thinking they are posting wisdom for the unwashed.

Obesity is a proxy for POVERTY

[AlejoHausner]

There is a lot of opinion here, and very little data. Here is a simple bit of research everyone can do: find a map of the USA, showing rates of poverty, and another showing rates of obesity. Bingo! They match one-for-one!

Obesity: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/October-2011/The-Low-Poverty-Diet/

Poverty: http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/percent_in_poverty.gif

The correlation is especially marked in Appalachia, the lower Mississippi and the coast of the Carolinas and Georgia. What's going on here? Do poor people exercise less? I doubt it. Most poor people have physical jobs, while rich people sit in offices. I think the problem is that most poor people can't afford much beyond spaghetti, potatoes, and bread (cheap starches), whereas rich people can afford protein, butter, and vegetables.

We have to be careful about making statements about obese people's lifestyles. Usually our statements about fat people are little more than racial and class prejudice: "those people eat too much" really means "they're uncontrolled gluttons", and "those people don't get enough exercise" really means "they're lazy slobs". As long as social classes have existed, the rich and comfortable have justified their privilege by claiming that the poor are weak and immoral.

Achieve balance

[manwargi]

(Posting mostly to undo a modding error, but posting only that declaration is silly.)

It's okay to eat a little bit of the rich and decadent foods so long as moderation is shown. Every once in a while a chocolatey donut or french fries can be fantastic so long as a person is active and generally eating better things most of the time. The more frequently the servings of things like that and the less active one is, the more it's going to have an adverse effect on one body.

USE THE DAM METRIC SYSTEM!

[Anonymous Coward]

If its a scientific paper use joules. Calories? WTF? You measure your weight load in "Kips" too?. Hogsheads per furlongs and hands too? foot pounds? BTU? Its more confusing because its based of metric units (gram and C). Use joules.

All of a sudden it makes sense, you intake joules and you output joules. You can measure work done in Joules, how awesome is that!

The calories of turds

[thehumble1]

Isn't it strange that no diet nor scientist wants to study the caloric content of poop, instead we just assume that calories in is the important factor. What I want is a way to make my digestive system less efficient. I had intestinal parasites for about 2 years and I could eat whatever I wanted and still lost weight. The idea of calories in - exercise = weight gain/loss is just crazy unless you check on how my tapeworm and feces enter in to the equation.

Statistics of obesity

[FreedomFirstThenPeac]

I just attended a medical conference where we presented results that had already been picked up by the press on the relationship of obesity to health care costs. Not surprising was that obesity predicted higher costs, what was interesting was that it was a bigger factor than smoking, which has already led to headlines asking "Is obesity becoming the next "second-hand smoke" issue?"". Yup, brought to you by the same nanny-state that took away smoking, coming soon to a fast food joint near you, even more shaming of "super-sized" servings to "super-sized" people. I guess that's the price we pay for asking everyone else to "share the costs" of what used to be personal lifestyle choices. But what cold-hearted SOB is going to be the greeter at the ER door turning away motorcyclists who "forgot" their helmets, smokers who "just could not quit" or obese people who "just ate a couple, social eaters, really". And how to cull the herd for those unfortunates who got the disease without the crime (spontaneous "wild type" lung cancers, thyroid gone-amuk obese people). A government big enough to give you everything you ask for is big enough to take away everything you've got. Even if only one shaming ad program at a time.

No Legs for this Story... it's anti-narrative...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Narrative = We don't have lots of food. We are near a food crisis and food prices are too high.

So... sorry... while I tend to want to agree with this well thought out scientific analysis... the mainstream narrative goes against it. So this well thought out analysis must be wrong!

Another miss-direction for obesity.

[SkipStein]

Well, here we go again. This is a really good analysis of calories and while true, you must burn what you take in to maintain weight but it is not just calories, it is the type and source of the calories. The article is right about the glut of 'food' but it is the glut of overly processed foods, the extremely high sugar and fat content in these dense sources. It is the lack of fiber that makes people continuously hungry and the high sugar/fat that is addictive; not unlike cocaine. There have been studies and studies that point to the obvious fact that EVERYONE ignores. Plant based (preferably organic) nutrition is the key. Like math? Chart the rise in obesity to the growth of 'prepared/fast' foods, drive through restaurants and other junk packaged foods. If people simply stopped eating this crap they wouldn't gain weight. They would be full/stuffed after most meals due to the high nutrition and fiber content. The body's mechanism to detect 'full' is based on volumetrics not food density. The low fiber and high fat/sugar/protein density overloads the body with excess calories it does not need. Too much protein also contributes as most people on the Standard American Diet eat way too much protein, not enough vegetables, beans, fruit and grains. Of course all the vegetables, grains, beans etc. have LOADS of plant protein without the animal fat and cholesterol. This same chart I suggest also is statistically related to the similar rise in Diabetes 2, heart disease, cancer and a host of other lifestyle diseases. Change the lifestyle diet in the USA and fix the healthcare system overnight! People just don't believe that nutrition is the key to Health & Wellness, not a pill. Cheers, Skip Stein Whole Foods 4 Healthy Living http://www.wholefoods4healthyliving.com/

I call b*llsh*t on this study

[Anonymous Coward]

I grew up in a third world country as a kid and food was cheap there. I go back to third world countries now and food is still cheap. Almost all my friends in third world countries eat out at restaurants and food stalls. None of them are fat. In fact, my GF who has lived her entire life in her country (Indonesia) doesn't even know how to cook. Food there is a lot cheaper than it is in Australia (where I live), in fact food prices here are freakin' stupid. If food being cheap was the cause then people I know in third world countries would be the obess ones and not people in Western countries. When I'm in Indoesia I eat the same stuff as my GF (in fact, I eat slightly healthier as I'm a vegetarian), but I'm the fat one and she's the thin one.

Also, fast food has been around since the Roman days. Fast food was also prevalent in Medieval Europe, with pie shops being very common. Plus, the English 'Fish and Chip' shop has been around since the 1850's. American style fast food has been around since at least the 1920's when A & W and Whitecastle came into existence. Fast food (Mamak stalls - street vendors) have been common in the third world countries for hundreds of years.

Also, fast food isn't that cheap. If I take my lunch to work rather than purchase it at MacDonalds or Burger King etc I save a fortune.

No shit, really?

[davesag]

Wow who'd have thought that eating too much would cause people to put on weight. Glad it took a mathematician and a bunch of complex modelling to work that one out. I might now go write a paper on how standing up makes one seem taller.

Stating the obvious, perhaps?

[doccus]

Is there anyone in North America who *doesn't* know that there's a food glut here?.. The amount of waste that's thrown away, of good food, is sickening.. The problem is DISTRIBUTION.. which is essentially stymied by the economics of the "free market".. even where I live.. there are restaurants that POISON their waste food with rat poison or other sprays (as reported in the Canadian media some 3 years ago) in order to comply with some regulation or other.. and other "expired" food is thrown out, rather than sent to food banks, out of concerns of lawsuits... World food banks that send food to remote places like Africa, cannot accept food, but must accept only cash, and then BUY food, leaving the waste to ROT.. Did any one of you ever have a Mum that told you "clean your plate, because there's people starving in Africa ;-)? Well, do you really think we would ever be able to send our leftovers there?..So... How about , instead, a study that addressed how to *resolve* the food glut?

meat and big ag

[Anonymous Coward]

forksoverknives.com

if we cut the online lobbying ...

[Anonymous Coward]

quantity don't matter as much as quality ... and most people love trash-processed-food full of sugar and synthetic chemicals. so yes, they'll get fat as the body is incapable of getting rid of all the toxins.