What's Causing the Rise In Obesity? Everything.

Mr_Blank writes "We all know — because we are being constantly reminded — that we are getting fat. Americans are at the forefront of the trend, but it is a transnational one. Apparently, it is also trans-species: Over the past 20 years, as the American people were getting fatter, so were America's laboratory macaques, chimpanzees, vervet monkeys and mice, as well as domestic dogs, domestic cats, and domestic and feral rats from both rural and urban areas. Researchers examined records on those eight species and found that average weight for every one had increased. The marmosets gained an average of 9% per decade. Lab mice gained about 11% per decade. Chimps are doing especially badly: their average body weight had risen 35% per decade. What is causing the obesity era? Everything."

Comments

Sugar

[EEPROMS]

Very simply food manufacturers removed the fat in the 70's and replaced it with huge amounts of sugar. The problem with sugar is the brain doesn't see it as nutrition thus it doesn't suppress your appetite when you eat sugar filled foods.

Re:Sugar

[EEPROMS]

to back up my above statement there is a good short scientific article regarding sugar that can be found here

Re:Sugar

[Thanshin]

Very simply food manufacturers removed the fat in the 70's and replaced it with huge amounts of sugar. The problem with sugar is the brain doesn't see it as nutrition thus it doesn't suppress your appetite when you eat sugar filled foods.

And, as we all know, marmosets are among the greatest consumers of manufactured foods.

Re:Sugar

[somersault]

Short term, perhaps. But then a few hours later, you crash and want more.

Re:Sugar

[silentcoder]

>And, as we all know, marmosets are among the greatest consumers of manufactured foods.

These are laboratory marmosets which are, if anything, fed MORE on manufactured foods than even pet marmosets (since nobody gives a lab animal treats).
These are all animals that eat foods made in large scale commercial operations and poured out of a tin or cardboard box.

There is NO evidence of an obesity rise in WILD stocks of ANY of these animals.
What do humans and lab animals have in common ? Diets filled with processed and manufactured foods.

Now I am not saying that this is the cause or even that the GP is right- I am saying your reason for claiming he is wrong is outright idiotic.

Re:Sugar

[Errol backfiring]

No. You taste them, but that's different. Candies contain so much sugar (compared to the food we would eat in nature) that our bodies do not trust their own correction mechanisms anymore. This is called insulin resistance. This suppresses your feeling of having eaten enough, so you stay hungry. This is why you can eat the bag of candies completely empty in one go, even if (no, because) it contains more energy than you will need the entire day.

Re:Sugar

[Longjmp]

Sugar doesn't make you fat. Marriage makes you fat. [...]

What's the difference between a bachelor and a married man?

The bachelor comes home, looks into the fridge, finds nothing interesting, and goes to bed.
The husband comes home, looks in the bedroom...

Re:Sugar

[The Grim Reefer]

Diets filled with processed and manufactured foods.

Pointless statement.

There is absolutely nothing that says that processed or manufactured food should be any different form other food.

That sounds like the defense the tobacco industry used for decades.

Even if the food is entirely synthetic doesn't mean that it is in any way less healthy than non-synthetic food. There could be something wrong with the processed food that obese people eat but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible to create processed / manufactured food that is healthier.

You're right. It doesn't have to be. Unfortunately, it's not like there is an incentive for these manufactures to do this. But there are considerable profits to be made in making the food as cheaply as possible. That's the problem.

Re:Sugar

[smpoole7]

> AFAIK HFCS is just as bad a sucrose

The makers of HFCS say that it's the "same as sugar" (i.e., table sugar, i.e., sucrose), but that's not strictly accurate. It really should be compared to *invert* sugar, in which the glucose and fructose molecules have been separated. Bakers have been using that for centuries: take sucrose and heat it with a mild acidic solution (such as lemon juice), and there you go.

The problem is it's hard to know whom to believe about HFCS. My wife and I have essentially cut out added sugar. We don't even have sugar in our house. And yet, we still both struggle to keep our A1C under 6-7. In our case, walking and mild exercise have made the biggest difference. (Ah, the joys of getting older.) :)

Now for the fine print: "we don't have sugar in our house ..." yeah, I know. Actually, we do. Someone did a comparison between cereals, cookies and breads from a couple of decades ago, and the manufacturers are adding considerably more sugar now, because that's what consumers want.

As for lab animals becoming fatter, I think that's simple: they're being fed processed foods as well. Think about it: do you throw your cat a slab of meat every evening, or do you open a can or pour some dry food? The latter are LOADED with added carbohydrates. Loaded. Cats are CARNIVORES.

My biggest complaint about HFCS isn't the syrup, per se, it's that Monsanto and ADM have ruined my corn. They've modified the corn to be sweeter, so that they can get more HFCS and ethanol from it. I used to love corn on the cob, but given that Sandy and I have tried to stop eating so much sugar, it's sickeningly sweet to us now. We buy locally-grown, unmodified corn whenever possible. Rarely from a supermarket.

Re:Sugar

[dwarfsoft]

Really. So you think it is chemically the same as glucose? The difference is that sucrose provides half sucrose half fructose. The fructose gets metabolized in an entirely different way to the glucose.

The two main issues are that fructose by itself provides energy in such a way that it does not make the body feel "full", and that unlike the normal sugar we would expect (sucrose) we get no glucose from using it as an alternative.

Normal consumption of fructose in a natural setting also would include fibre which helps signal the body about satiation. This has been a major contributing factor in the whole "processed foods" vs "weight gain" issue. HCFS is a major component of most of the processed products that we rely on for our bulk energy needs. Really, do take a look at the lecture. The biochemistry component on how fructose gets metabolized in the liver is very interesting.

Re:Sugar

[pla]

From which of those do you suggest fat was removed in the 70 and "replaced with huge amounts of sugar"?

Cat chow, for one. Cat count as obligate carnivores. They have zero need for sugar in their diet - They can't taste it), they can't even properly metabolize it. Bad for them. They do, however, have a high need for fat and protein.

And it pisses me off every time I go shopping for cat chow that I have to pay literally twice as much to get cat food that doesn't have 15-25% added carbs in it. Cat food should not have any carbs, except what comes incidental to whatever kind of horse they use as the basic ingredient. And you think you can't go wrong buying tinned more-or-less fresh meat for fluffy? Nope. Many brands even add sugar to that.

That said, I have to agree with you that wild marmosets probably don't eat a lot of doughnuts. ;)

Re:Sugar

[TheCarp]

Yes but it is also a poison. Sucrose too, but only because sucrose is one fructose and one glucose bonded, and the body has no trouble breaking that bond.

Problem with fructose is it is only processed in the liver. I am going off memory here, if you want a more in depth discussion from an expert google "Sugar the bitter truth" a video by an endocrinologist. So.... while only about 10% of the glucose that you ingest is processed in the liver, 90% of the fructose is.

The liver's process for dealing with these produces several products, which include both VLDLs (the worst kinds of cholesterol, far worst than you get from fat, which is mostly more boyent cholesterol...even not all LDLs are created equal) AND it produces hormones which supress appetite.

So sucrose is 50% fructose. If you use sucrose It splits 50-50 into glucose and fructose. 10% of the glucose and 90% of the fructose go to your liver... or about 55% of the total you ingested. If you use fructose, thats the full 90%.

Since it supresses appetite, you tend to eat more. A kid given a soda before a meal tends to eat more during the meal than a kid who doesn't.

As for spoilers on the video.... the problem more comes down to reduction in fiber. Fiber increases fullness, slows down the absorbtion of sugars, and is always found with sugars in nature. A glass of fruit juice is every bit as bad, and does the same liver damage, as a shot of whiskey. (alcohol is a carbohydrate too remember). You can't really overeat if you are munching on apples. Remove the juice from the fiber, and you can pack in the calories like nobodies business.

Know anyone who ever got diabetes from chewing on sugar cane? Didn't think so. Good luck trying it.

Re:Sugar

[TheCarp]

The answer is actually quite simple, so simple that most people miss it.

Processed food generally means the fiber has been removed in some manner or another or involves low fiber foods to begin with. Fiber increases feelings of fullness, and slows the absorbtion of sugars, which supress fullness, increase the worst kinds of cholesterol, and damage the liver (sugar is processed similarly to alcohol, which does the same things wrt cholesterol and liver damage)

Also, since "fat" was demonized as increasing cholesterol, and removing fat from processed food leaves it tasting like cardboard, "low fat" food has been loaded up with sugar.... which, is demonstrably worst than the fat it replaced.

Ignore all the talk of "toxins" and "not natural" or any of the other BS, it really is that simple. Its the fiber/sugar/fat connection that is huge. Average simple sugar consumption has skyrocketed while fiber intake hasn't. It answers not only why we have more diabetes and heart disease but, why people eat more in general.

"IT'S A COOKBOOK! A COOKBOOK!"

[Tekoneiric]

Aliens are fattening us up for the slaughter...

Failure to even Attempt to process the article.

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is so much more in depth than "it's sugar" or "it's excess calories", and reasons away these as just one of the growing body of hundreds of possible causes and proven links to obesity. Hence why this article is titled "What's Causing the Rise In Obesity? Everything." Any pithy "It's this one thing [someone] did [somewhere]" comment is highly ignorant.

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article.

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, go and read TFA. The entire article is about demonstrating that the "it's simple thermodynamics" answer is pure bullshit. I'll give you a hint as to part of why it's bullshit –humans are not closed systems. It's not true that the energy we use and the energy input as food are equal. We for example, poop.

The article even gives strong evidence that it's got nothing at all to do with simple thermodynamics, citing that lab animals, which are fed regulated diets with specific calorific values are gaining weight at the same rate as humans are.

The "it's basic thermodynamics" people would have you believe that if you consume 2030 calories, and gain 30 calories worth of fat a day, that you could eat 2000 calories and magically lose weight. As TFA points out, if this were true, losing weight would be a simple matter of not eating 3 peanuts a day. The reality is that it's much harder than that. The reality is that if you consume 2000 calories instead of 2030, many people's bodies biochemistry will simply decide to poop out 30 calories less fat.

At 2030 calories input, your body may well decide to do the following:
- Use 1500 calories on doing things
- store 30 calories
- poop 500 calories

At 2000 calories input, your body may well decide to do the following:
- Use 1500 calories on doing things
- store 30 calories
- poop 470 calories

At 1500 calories input, your body may well decide to do:
- Use only 1200 calories, make you feel tired and depressed
- store 30 calories
- poop 270 calories.

At a certain calorific intake, from certain foods, with certain genetics, certain viruses, certain chemical conditions, certain lighting and heating conditions ..., your body will decide to do all kinds of different things. So no, it's not simply a matter of telling overweight people "eat less, do more". It's not that simple.

Unfortunately, the kind of people who think it is that simple tend to be people who are thin because of all kinds of environmental factors. Because of that, they think it's trivial to be thin, and hence lambast the fatties for their "lack of willpower", when the reality is actually massively more complex than that.

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article.

[Bongo]

And also, most of our energy is used in the base metabolic rate. The body can adjust that a little here, a little there.

Another little point, children overeat because they are growing. But they don't grow because they overeat. It is the body's control systems which regulate what the body is doing and thus, how much to eat.

Sugar / carbs, being available in unnatural quantities, flummox this system. It puts the body into a mode where its aim becomes to store fat, and it'll get the energy to store fat even by destroying muscle if it has to. Lab rats which died of heart failure because they were being underfed, starved, and they burned up their muscle tissue, whilst keeping their fat tissue -- they died obese and starved. (see Taubes for the ref.)

But instead of recognising the conventional energy-balance model has failed, "common sense" blames it on "lack of will power".
(Thermodynamics as a law hasn't failed, it is still true for bodies, but they reasoning that fat loss is just about calorie counting and exercise has failed.)

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article.

[evilviper]

There's actually almost no evidence that calorie restriction diets work (in fact there is much more evidence in favor of low carb type diets).

That's so idiotic it hurts my head to read it.

ALL DIETS involve calorie restrictions. Low-fat diets, low-carb diets, Mediterranean diets, all-kelp diets, etc., they ALL involve reducing calorie intake as the fundamental first step in the diet program.

No studies have shown any type of diet is more effective than any other (beyond the margin of error). Whether you follow Atkins, or the FDA pyramid, or Jenny Craig, or anything else, your chances of success are the same, and you'll lose the same amount of weight. It's the "diet" part, consuming slightly fewer calories, that causes the weight loss and health improvements.

Calorie restriction ALWAYS works. There's no way for it not to. All the body reactions that can cause gains or reduce losses, are entirely temporary and rather short-term. And starving is never required... Just keeping yourself very slightly hungry for a few weeks, rather than stuffing your face at every opportunity.

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article.

[rand.srand()]

I've manipulated my weight by over 30 pounds down and up since the beginning of the year. I've done it on a schedule based on calorie intake and burn measured carefully. I average 3.5 workout hours a week. I've spent just as much time eating over my calories burned as I have eating under. And I'm not eating superfoods or no carbs, or no fat, or whatever other fad... I'm eating pretty much the same stuff I always have just on a budget. My weight change has been impossible to detect day-to-day on the scale it's been so slow yet the total impact has been huge.

For years I believed the calorie thing was bunk and indeed I managed my "weight" but got fatter and fatter with the scale largely in the same range. When my weight would go up I'd cut back and lose weight... but it didn't impact my physical dimensions. So last year I said that was it and decided to get serious.

Losing weight is a mental task. It's the time and consistency that it takes that is so brutal. Society suffers from a negative feedback loop where everything promises quick results, and when you don't get them, it feels impossible. The reality is losing a pound a week of fat is rapid weight loss. And when your weight fluctuates by a few pounds a day it can take a long time for readily apparent results to show up. But if you stack up 26 weeks of weight loss you will feel like a champion and it didn't take superhuman effort on any given day to do it.

Start today and by the end of the year you'll see major changes. Or you can keep doing what you are doing thinking the calorie math doesn't work and you will probably keep on the same trend line.

Re:FP

[ciderbrew]

Actually obesity is the defence against the peeders. No one wants the ugly fat child. Keep Em fat and safe people!

Re:Well America isn't number 1 in being fat

[Anonymous Coward]

What? America is not the number 1? That's not acceptable! EAT MORE!

The problem isn't

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't that obesity runs in the family; it's rather nobody runs in the family!

People who can't stop

[DNS-and-BIND]

The author obviously has his pet topic, which is that it's not anyone's fault that anyone is fat. Sorry, but I've lived around too many fat people. They eat. They eat a lot. Honestly the author goes on far too long about "it's not their fault" and doesn't spend too much time discussing "why".

I can buy that there's something in food these days that may cause people to become heavier than they otherwise would become. But I don't buy the fact that this mystery chemical has made a nation of blobs. It may be a contributory factor, but it's not why obesity happens.

Frankly, I think that companies like McDonald's have successfully hacked the human brain and created foods that people just can't say no to. It's not all of us, I get nauseous eating McD's more than once a week (the smell outside the restaurant is enough to drive me away) but there are plenty of us who are wholly unable to resist. And by "unable to resist" I mean exactly that - your conscious mind might know it's bad, but you just can't help yourself because the food is so delicious. That this "flavor" is a bunch of old, tired cows mixed with industrial chemicals is beside the point. You've been hacked - you could say no, but you really don't want to. The idea of living without McD's for the rest of your life is repellent, a life hardly worth living at all.

I live overseas, and I've seen this myself with the locals and foreigners alike. The locals freaking love McD's and KFC. There's nothing like it in their cuisine and some of them (not all) just can't stop going there. Especially kids. Then, there are foreigners who upon discovering the local (awesome) food spit it out and won't eat anything but Western food. Seriously, I've known people who have lived locally for years and who every day eat nothing but Subway, Starbucks, McD's, KFC, Papa John's, Pizza Hut, etc. If I suggest we go and get a bowl of noodles or other local stuff and I receive a wide-eyed, "You eat that shite, mate? It's garbage!"

Look no further than the closest thing he makes to a hypothesis: "being poor is stressful, and stress makes you eat, and the cheapest food available is the stuff with a lot of âempty caloriesâ(TM), therefore poorer people are fatter than the better-off." Stop right there at the "stress makes you eat" part. WTF man? No it doesn't. Maybe it does FOR YOU, perhaps FOR SOME, but it's hardly universal.

Conclusion: the guy wanted to write 4,700 words to get his name in print and support his pre-existing political views, not because he had something insightful to say.

Re:People who can't stop

[N1AK]

Stop right there at the "stress makes you eat" part. WTF man? No it doesn't. Maybe it does FOR YOU, perhaps FOR SOME, but it's hardly universal.

Not my favourite part of his article but you're splitting hairs if you only accept statements that are universal. Your own post says "The locals freaking love McDs" WTF man? but by your own criteria-> No they don't. Maybe it does for that ONE, perhaps for SOME.. can you see how that kind of nitpicking doesn't add anything as it's obviously not meant literally.

There is a well researched correlation between stress, over-eating and unhealthy-eating.

You're right that personal responsibility and control are important and some people tend to ignore these, however it is also true that factors outside individual control (brain hacking as you call it for example) play a massive part and masses of people ignore those. A common opinion of fat people is that they're fat because they're lazy, weak etc with no recognition that yes they played a part but so did food manufacturers, governments etc and we should be dealing with both.

Re:Lazyness

[evilviper]

Want to know why im fucking fat? Cus im fucking lazy and like to eat pizza while watching 4 episodes of TNG on Netflix

Exercise is absolutely insignificant next to the baseline caloric intake. Any dietician will tell you the same. You have to get as much exercise as a marathon runner to lose substantial weight without changing your diet. It's almost ALL about diet.

Re:FP

[Sponge Bath]

No one wants the ugly fat child.

What about with fava beans and a nice chianti?

Re:so who to blame , wallst or govt or fiat money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it was all the nuke testing done on the planet, seriously, 500+ nukes in the air and orbit and underground, cant be healthy can it.

Ah, there's that phrase I love: can't be healthy/good for you. It seems every time I hear or see that phrase, it's someone who doesn't really quite know what they are talking about and just has a hypothesis from their gut. They want to say it's bad for you, but have absolutely no evidence of that, so they just say it can't be good.

Re:Lazyness

[evilviper]

I burn an extra 400 calories a day on the crosstrainer.

You're effectively running 1/8th of a marathon each day, and you're doing it every single day, which is atypical, so almost a marathon each week.

And you're STILL not burning a significant number of calories. You would completely erase all your work by just eating 5 cookies, or drinking 2 bottles of Gatorade.

What is making us fat? well ... DUH

[LoRdTAW]

Here is what is making people fat: (tl/dr: Sugar, cheap & plentiful fatty foods, sedentary lifestyle, stress and distracting entertainment)

Sugar - Everything is pumped so full of sugar its almost unbearable. Soda, juices candies are big sources of sugar. And that was a result of cheaper high fructose corn syrup which is added to make the food item more appealing. Just think of how much sugar in in the 2 to 4 cups of coffee you drink per day when you order it with some sweetener or flavor. You can't even buy a supposedly healthy fruit juice without it being loaded with as much sugar as a soda. I drink fresh brewed iced tea, either green tea with a bit of honey added or regular black tea both with fresh lemon. Very refreshing, a thirst quencher and good for you. I cut out soda a few years back though I do enjoy a Coke every now and then as a treat.

Low quality food - Animal fats and carbs. Two things that our body can use for nutrition but eat in too large of quantities. Our brains are also wired to enjoy savory foods through evolution to ensure we ingest enough protein. But we are overexposed to such foods and are over indulging in them as as a result. Food is cheap and plentiful in developed nations and bad food is the cheapest food. We have restaurants serving up boatloads of fatty foods loaded with carbs. Fast food is notorious for this because most of them are burger joints serving up fatty meat on a carb bun and carb fries soaked in more fat. And to top it off its cheap and fast. when you're stressed out, running around all day, have a deadline, boss harping on you, it can become overwhelming and eating can help relieve stress. So you run to McBurgerdys and pick up a triple bypass bacon cheese burger with a side of fat fries and wash it down with a tub of sugar water. Its too easy to get a hold of this junk. I am guilty of this along with many many others. I try to cook but too often am I distracted by stress to deal with it.

Sedentary lifestyle - We have many jobs where a worker sits in a chair all day. Once they return home they are burnt out by stress (see below) and plop down on a couch in front of the TV. The only time they may have free time is on weekends providing they aren't burnt out from family or partying. Life is way too fast paced and full of stress and problems.

Stress - Work, trying to make ends meet family etc all contribute to mental stress which slows people down. You escape by watching TV, playing Video games, surfing the web or some other hobby. Some hobbies involve exercise but for a majority, it doesn't. rush rush rush! go go go! now now now! This is mentality killing us. Then throw in the shitty economy where the cost of living is outpacing many peoples income.

Entertainment - We are at a point where entertainment is on demand and interactive. People get lost for hours watching TV, playing video games or surfing the web. Its too easy to plop in front of the TV or computer and be immersed in an alternate world where we can escape the daily stress of our lives. The real world sucks but video games offer an alternate world where we play a hero or are at the top of the gaming food chain. BOOM headshot! Take that bitch! Feels good doesn't it? Better than typing up TPS reports, meeting deadlines, hunting down bugs etc. Fuck work. That is why you have people who lose jobs, spouses and even their lives. The virtual world is better than the real world. And TV is the same thing, we follow an immersive story or laugh at jokes and gags which take us away from our stressful lives. Before Radio, TV and video games many people drowned their stress in alcohol at local pubs. People are always looking to escape.

Re:Processed food is NOT the same

[LordLimecat]

That's because nobody would ever say anything so ridiculous, since it's false. Processed and manufactured food bears almost no relationship at all to natural organic

Organic is a word that doesnt even have a scientifically defined meaning (unless we're talking organic chemistry, which, guess what, organic farmers are not). Its a stupid buzzword defined arbitrarily by legislation based on some stupid assumption that a naturally derived chemical is different than a synthetically derived one. Sometimes that may be true (the synthetic may have byproducts in it). Sometimes its false and just raises prices (rainwater is probably not healthier than water produced in a lab by burning hydrogen).

Read up here.

Let me summarize the differences:
Nutrition--

A 2012 survey of the scientific literature did not find significant differences in the vitamin content of organic and conventional plant or animal products, and found that results varied from study to study.

Contamination--

while literature reviews found no significant evidence that levels of arsenic, cadmium or other heavy metals differed significantly between organic and conventional food products.
...
Only three studies reported the prevalence of contamination exceeding maximum allowed limits; all were from the European Union.[6] The American Cancer Society has stated that no evidence exist that pesticide residue will lead to any form of cancer.

Bacteria--

The 2012 meta-analysis determined that prevalence of E. coli contamination was not statistically significant (7% in organic produce and 6% in conventional produce). Four of the five studies found higher risk for contamination among organic produce.

Can it be? Theres actually no real science behind "organic is healthier" other than perception bias? Wow, what a shocker.