Slashdot Mirror


Gaining On the US: Most Europeans To Be Overweight By 2030

An anonymous reader writes "Welcome to the club, Euro friends. A World Health Organization analysis concludes that within 15 years a majority of Europeans will be obese or severely overweight. In almost all countries the proportion of overweight and obesity in males was projected to increase – to reach 75% in UK, 80% in Czech Republic, Spain and Poland, and 90% in Ireland, the highest level calculated. Women fare a little better. In reviewing the results, the lead researcher said: "Our study presents a worrying picture of rising obesity across Europe. Policies to reverse this trend are urgently needed.""

329 comments

  1. Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cannot think of a skinny person I work with who does not have a sugar-free diet. And I work in an industry where we work really really strange hours, over really really bad time-zone changes.

    1. Re:Sugar by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Me, 2+ sugars in tea 4 times a day, biscuits, ice cream cake sweets.

      I'm 5'11 and 142pounds / 64kg

      It's not just sugar. I cycle. How many overweight people do you know that cycle regularly?

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    2. Re:Sugar by marcello_dl · · Score: 4, Funny

      > How many overweight people do you know that cycle regularly?

      I only know logrotate, you insensitive clod.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    3. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I cannot think of a skinny person I work with who does not have a sugar-free diet. And I work in an industry where we work really really strange hours, over really really bad time-zone changes.

      It isn't that easy. I'm a skinny person that eat sugar products fairly frequently (I actually actively avoid the sugar free alternatives that use other sweeteners), and know many others like me.

      There was a significant research report published recently that concluded that the main factor driving the obesity growth is the nutrition mix of processed food. It contains too little proteins and too much fat, carbs and crap (because it is cheaper), and your body/mind eats to much of it to get enough proteins. I believe the secondary factor in terms of contribution to obesity was reduction in physical activity.

    4. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I cannot think of a skinny person I work with who does not have a sugar-free diet. And I work in an industry where we work really really strange hours, over really really bad time-zone changes.

      People have been eating sugar for a long time, something else has changed to cause so much obesity. Crap ready made food in increasing portion sizes, non-sugar sweeteners (including high fructose corn syrup) and lack of exercise.

    5. Re:Sugar by gnupun · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You think they didn't have sugar, fatty foods and exercising decades ago? However, only a small percentage of people in the 70s and 80s were overweight. In today's age, if you aren't fat, there's still a chance your face seems swollen. Barring some health conscious people, actors, models and athletes, almost everyone seem swollen/fat somewhere. Therefore, I think the modern processed foods sold in stores and restaurants is the culprit. These foods might contain chemicals (perhaps some preservative) that fatten people as a side effect.

    6. Re:Sugar by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm skinny. Everyone comments on it. At 35 you can put your fingers around the widest parts of arms without difficulty.

      I basically live on sugar. I drink Coca-Cola endlessly (do not drink hot drinks, tend to have sugar in them when I do). I pig out on high-fat, high-sugar food and lived off fast food for many years. I eat sweets like a child and have to curb my appetite for sweets only because I work in a school and they are banned there for the kdis themselves (so I have to hide them, etc.). I also don't really exercise. At all. Ever. Never been to a gym in my life.

      Yes, I have a "health" problem that's going to catch up with me in the end. Until then, I enjoy my food. And sweets. And crisps. And everything I feel like eating.

      And people in work keep asking how I stay so skinny. How I have so much energy. I'm still the guy work colleagues ask to move heavy cabinets etc. when they need moving.

      Blanket rules curb the average, but it does not mean there's an instant 1:1 relationship with every person's metabolism and diet. I'm sure my cholesterol and blood sugar are off the scale at points in the day. But my health, generally speaking, is pretty damn good.

      I've been to doctors about 3-4 times in the last TEN YEARS. Once to have a toenail removed. Once to be diagnosed with swine flu (but had 5% of the symptoms of everyone else who had it, I just needed it confirmed as I work in schools and had to be certified off-work - I've probably had less than 5 sick days in the last five years). Three times to register with new doctors (so not medically-related, just administration). Who all take my BP, quiz me, and then never mention a thing about my health - probably because I look thin.

      I live in a country with free healthcare, so I'm certainly not self-medicating here - in fact I don't medicate... people know I'm really bad if I ask for a paracetamol as I just don't take ANYTHING generally speaking (not some hippy-drive, just don't take pills for things unnecessarily and the rare headache I have will go in the same amount of time, pills or not).

      The problem is not the general availability of high-sugar, high-fat foods. The problem is that humans are NOT all the same and BMI, in particular, is a REALLY bad measure (technically I'm underweight so advice would be to eat more of the bad stuff....). The focus on a metric rather than the person is part of the modern medical degeneration of personal contact. "I don't care who you are, you're over this number, eat less."

      I trust doctors implicitly. I consult them when required. I regard them as qualified experts in their field who don't need me bothering them for a sniffle but will trust my life to them any time. However, I also have not been to doctors in years, and also have had to go with friends to doctors and tell THEM what the problem is (and then had it confirmed by GP, consultant specialist, etc.).

      Health != skinny. Health != fat. Health != a number. It's a statistic and thus, as a mathematician, almost certainly a lie chosen to suit the intended outcome.

      Don't ban sugar, or tax it. Start with a health system that has time for patients and to listen, and go from there. People are adults who can make their own choices and who can understand the consequences in seconds if they want to. Regulating sugar - of all things - is the ultimate nanny-state.

    7. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correlation does not prove causation. You don't see that many people with bellow-average intelligence taking math majors, but that doesn't mean math makes you significantly smarter.

    8. Re:Sugar by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Correlation does not prove causation.

      But it's a strong hint.

      You don't see that many people with bellow[sic]-average intelligence taking math majors, but that doesn't mean math makes you significantly smarter.

      Right. It couldn't possibly be that you have to be smarter to actually be admitted as a math major, could it? And even if it did, that wouldn't be causation, I suppose?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:Sugar by rogoshen1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah but in the 70's and 80's foods were not nearly as laden with sugar, and the portion sizes were different -- and people ate at home more often. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to reason out that human beings do not need a 54 ounce soda. And the availability of drinks in such quantities coincide quite nicely with the rises in obesity.

      I was born in 1982 -- growing up, 16 ounces was the standard size for a bottle of soda. then it was 20, and now it's moving on up to a liter. Prior to the early 80's soda sizes were even smaller.

      I'm singling out soda because it kind of serves as a yardstick that other portion sizes can be compared to -- which, are out of control. Gigantic, out of control portion sizes at restaurants and fast food places that we frequent more than ever before.. serving a menu comprised mainly out of simple, refined, processed to hell carbohydrates. Oh and we're gulping down pure sugar by the gallon.

      This shouldn't be a fucking mystery.

    10. Re:Sugar by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      I don't have a sugar free diet by any stretch. I do have an innate loathing of excessive amounts of sugar and eat candy sparingly but it isn't by conscious choice.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    11. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're ectomorph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatotype_and_constitutional_psychology#The_three_types

      That's it.

    12. Re:Sugar by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      That lifestyle will catch up with you, you are likely aging you heart and increasing your risk of cancer. (pot kettle black here). IMO to be healthy just excercise (get a bike) and eat plenty of fruit+veg+fibre and when buying foods pick the ones with lower sat-fats.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    13. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I basically live on sugar. I drink Coca-Cola endlessly (do not drink hot drinks, tend to have sugar in them when I do). I pig out on high-fat, high-sugar food and lived off fast food for many years. I eat sweets like a child and have to curb my appetite for sweets only because I work in a school and they are banned there for the kdis themselves (so I have to hide them, etc.). I also don't really exercise. At all. Ever. Never been to a gym in my life.

      You have the diabetus. Type 2. Your vision and circulation will start failing soon if you don't cut back.

    14. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm such a person. Probably thats why im obese not morbidly obese (but I'm creeping up to it). I cycle to work every day i ride for fun maybe not large distances for fun but usualy no less than 30km and not more than 100km. I'm quite not that slow also but ... in hilly terrain my weight brings me down ... both figuratively and literaly ;] ). I sometimes eat large amouts of food almost no sweets and no soft drinks either. But I dont eat regularly i rarely eat breakfasts and i stay up lat (or cycle late at night) . And i cycle for pure joy it gives me .. not to loose weight and... i dont realy loose weight. My weight jumps up and down at times +-5KG in a year and slowely the average is rising. so yeah i regularly cycle. And yes i'm obese. I know few people as fat as me and sure most of the dont eat right and sit all day but there are also quite active people that cycle or hike (unimaginable distances) and still are quite fat ... it';s not as simple issue as you may think.

    15. Re:Sugar by flyneye · · Score: 2

      240 lb. is the NEW thin...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    16. Re:Sugar by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      You think they didn't have sugar, fatty foods and exercising decades ago?

      They did, but now it is in every thing you eat. Because we love the taste of fat and sugar.

      Instead of a special occasion of the day when you eat sugar, it is eaten routinely. That is what is new.

      For instance, replacing a piece of bread with a thin layer of bread and jam in the morning with a muffin (so essentially eating cake for breakfast).
      Drinks also have vast amounts of sugar in them. A typical Starbucks coffee contains tons of fat and sugar to make it tastier, whereas black coffee does not.

      Animals are getting fatter too though. link, link paper

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    17. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything has those chemicals ...
      Worse, there are a lot of things that legally go undetected. For instance, there are some preservatives that go into the flour, some make it into the final product and have to be labeled as such, but others, "vanish" after baking, and no mention is made on the wrapping.
      That's bread, only one product. God knows what other stunts they pull for everything else ...

    18. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said. I believe there is something like a thermostat set point for weight that the body is trying to maintain. I do not think that it is easy to change it either. I never counted a single calorie last year but maintained my exact weight to within a pound or two.

    19. Re:Sugar by Vermonter · · Score: 2

      Consuming sugar doesn't bother me. What does bother me is consuming all the preservatives in out food, and all the unnatural sweeteners that are included. Although I am not a scientist, I wonder if high fructose corn syrup, calorie free sweeteners, and to a lesser extend, regular corn syrup, are far worse for us than the FDA understands yet. Also, try going 2 weeks without any sugar except for naturally occurring sugars in fruits and the like... you'll get your actual sense of sweetness back. I can no longer drink sugary soda (I usually drink seltzer, and occasionally I drink coke watered down with seltzer to 1/5 the concentration). I can't eat milk chocolate or most candy. They all taste disgustingly sweet to me.

    20. Re:Sugar by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Got news for you. Of the bread and cake, the cake is probably better to eat and higher in protein, since you need gluten to keep the bubbly texture and cake also contains egg. Our bodies are so well attuned to processing wheat, that bread causes a faster sugar high than Coca Cola, because the Coke is sweetened with fructose.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    21. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how old would you be? I was like that in my 20s as well.

    22. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the diabetus. Type 2. Your vision and circulation will start failing soon if you don't cut back.

      Lets take a medical diagnosis from an AC that cannot spell! (bold mine for emphasis)

    23. Re:Sugar by scott9693 · · Score: 1
      Actually, I know two.

      If you doubt my sincerity, one of the bicyclers helped campaign for bicycle tracks in our town, and advertise it to tourists.

    24. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bellow average?

      I'M AVERAGE AND I'M SHOUTING ABOUT IT!

      Like that?

      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

      I know! That's the joke you dumb website!

    25. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, coming from someone who can't spell let's and doesn't keep up on the memes. Fuck you. (bold mine for emphasis)

      And BTW, learn to [sic] if you feel you are quoting an erroneous word.

    26. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm skinny. Everyone comments on it. At 35 you can put your fingers around the widest parts of arms without difficulty.

      I basically live on sugar. I drink Coca-Cola endlessly (do not drink hot drinks, tend to have sugar in them when I do). I pig out on high-fat, high-sugar food and lived off fast food for many years. I eat sweets like a child and have to curb my appetite for sweets only because I work in a school and they are banned there for the kdis themselves (so I have to hide them, etc.). I also don't really exercise. At all. Ever. Never been to a gym in my life.

      Yes, I have a "health" problem that's going to catch up with me in the end. Until then, I enjoy my food. And sweets. And crisps. And everything I feel like eating.

      Diabetes doesn't wait until you're obese or old, but hey, eat up! Enjoy all that horrible food Perhaps you'll even get addicted to it. That's certainly what the other group of statisticians want out of all this (those would be the marketing people behind junk food who are trying to make you all addicts...and succeeding)

      Don't ban sugar, or tax it. Start with a health system that has time for patients and to listen, and go from there. People are adults who can make their own choices and who can understand the consequences in seconds if they want to. Regulating sugar - of all things - is the ultimate nanny-state.

      Yes, people understand the consequences alright, just as you have, right? You're stuffing your face with shit food because you don't SEE the damage it's doing in the form of fat hanging off your body or damage to your organs, but hey, you supposedly understand those "consequences in seconds". Yeah, so does every other person. They also make the same shitty decisions you're making and CHOOSE to ignore the hell out of all of it, which is why we have an obesity problem in the first place.

      And you think the solution to that is...more time in front of your healthcare professional.

      I'm not even sure what kind of message you were trying to convey here, but you failed horribly. Enjoy your food (and your illusions) while you can.

    27. Re:Sugar by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      "Our bodies are so well attuned to processing wheat, that bread causes a faster sugar high than Coca Cola"...

      Does that apply to brown wheat or just white flour products?

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    28. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you knock Wilford Brimley.

    29. Re:Sugar by Splab · · Score: 1

      I only ever cycle, I do fitness 3-4 times a week. I'm still quite a bit overweight. And I fucking hate people like you who thinks it all comes down to getting some exercise. Having muscle will help metabolism, however, it is a big fucking mistake to think that hitting the gym will lower your weight, in fact quite the opposite happens for most overweight people.

      Hitting the gym with the object of losing weight will be very detrimental to your efforts, 1. you will gain weight from the additional muscle. 2. raising your activity will increase your need for calories and if not kept in check, will just have you eat more.
      Now what happens to us fatties at this point is, we realize that all that effort in the gym hasn't helped us, so we stop going there, but the calorie intake doesn't go down, causing even more weight gain...

      If we as a society want to get rid of this epidemic, we can't just go around telling people to move more, it doesn't help, we need people to eat proper food, we need to have the amount of added sugar to daily food removed. And we need to make it easier for people combatting their weight - restrict advertisements on candy/cake/cookies, just like with smoking. Require supermarkets to move the unhealthy food away from cash registers and by law require a "healthy" path through the market, a path which allows you to buy the daily groceries, without having to fight your inner need for candy, and trust me it's a daily battle and it doesn't get easier.

      I've dropped almost 30kgs over the last 18 months, and it's still a fucking struggle; one advertisement can send you on a binge eating candy spree like you wouldn't believe it.

    30. Re:Sugar by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I suspect that you are in the "lucky bacteria club." Your stomach bacteria manage to break down sugar at a sufficient rate. Most people are not so adapted and hence sugar acts pretty muck like a toxin to them.

      Now if this were 10,000 years ago, you would have died off as humans seem to have mutated a long time ago to have a large brain and subsist on less food than it would take an animal with a normal metabolism. Pound for pound, humans are one of the weakest mammals -- and I believe the trade off was just for this reason. We are also the 2nd coolest Mammal temperature wise.

      It has been show over and over that a little "Nanny state" regulation can do a lot to improve health in the general population. If someone can eat glass at a carnival, we don't just "allow glass" in food do we? If someone has a thick scull, we don't just say; "everyone has to wear seat belts but you get a pass."

      I don't want the state to tell me what to do -- but corporations that might impact the health of the population? If it's a good idea -- we should try it. Letting people "just be" doesn't seem to a great society. Yes; education is ideal and awareness -- but we've ceded a lot of that to corporations with profit motives and we've lowered taxes so now we can't afford to "hope that everyone is just smart" -- that's not the USA anymore.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    31. Re:Sugar by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      A courtesy message about "the diabetus":

      When someone says "you have the diabetes" -- that's a reference to the pronunciation of Wilford Brimley and his stern message on the topic;
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      So the person was being cute -- not ignorant.
      And it isn't an issue for people to give an ID (Internet Diagnosis) -- it's an issue if people accept it and start boiling their shorts in garlic and whacking their head with a large Halibut because someone on the internet told them to.

      IANAID (I Am Not An Internet Doctor)

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    32. Re:Sugar by confused+one · · Score: 1

      It's not limited to that. I'm 6'0" and my best sustainable weight was 220 lbs. And I cycle. At the time I was that weight I was cycling daily -- using my bike to commute to work and going for longer rides on the weekend. I reached 195 lbs once, for a short period, but that was by adding jogging to the cycling. There are numerous other factors involved here.

    33. Re:Sugar by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I think eating a lot of fruit helps, another easy thing I do is use brown pasta, brown rice and mostly brown bread when I cook.

      One food to steer clear of is chocolate ice creams and chocolate, so high in fat and sugar. Whilst cake is not good, some cake is much lower in fat. When I gave up smoking I gained 3 stone and decided to diet, but I was lazy so I just counted sat-fats intake - and it worked!

      I'm thinking of replacing sugar in tea with sweeteners but am put off by potential side effects.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    34. Re:Sugar by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Yes I oversimplified, diet is of course important. The food industry has a lot to answer for, so much food is made with adulterated flour and rice, pizzas really don't need to be made with white flour, brown rice tastes fine to me, whole grain pasta is almost identical to the bleached stuff. Bleaching food and removing the nutrients may not have seemed like a bad idea in the 19th century but we really should know better now.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    35. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a lot of people worked hard manual jobs and didnt live long enough to die of being fat, lung cancer etc killed them.

    36. Re:Sugar by DogDude · · Score: 1

      one advertisement can send you on a binge eating candy spree like you wouldn't believe it.

      It sounds like you're in serious need of a psychologist. That's a personal, mental problem, not a societal problem.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    37. Re:Sugar by confused+one · · Score: 1

      There's a whole other potential issue that's being reviewed: Our heavy use of antibiotics. We've changed our gut flora through antibiotic use. It's not entirely clear how that's affecting humans. The studies are showing a similar effect on animals -- you feed one group of animals antibiotics and another group gets the same feed but no antibiotics and guess which group ends up weighing more.

      There's another point to be made as well: There are no absolutes. It's not food only, or processed sugar, or antibiotics, or genetics or exercise. It's combinations and interactions of all of the above. That's why some people, such as yourself, stay trim, while others, like myself, tend to put on weight if I look at carbohydrates from across the room.

    38. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the same - very fit (muscular), slim, and used to eat enormous amounts of sweets on a daily basis, pretty much for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. But it does catch up to you. I'm still fit and slim now but whenever I eat the same crap I did 15 years ago I get really, really sick - basically feel like I'm going to pass out and die. I've been checked and don't have diabetes but apparently all those years of eating sugar has destroyed my body's ability to metabolize it properly. Now I'm fit and slim but avoid overt sources of sugar like candy (but not in bread, sauces, etc, so I'm not militant about it) and I've never felt better in my life.

    39. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had many people tell me I didn't need to lose weight when I started trying. I was 210 at 5 feet 9 inches and it wasn't muscle. Borderline obese is in fact the new normal.

    40. Re:Sugar by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I only ever took antibiotics briefly in my teens for whooping cough so it could indeed be a factor. Genetics seems to be a big factor with me.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    41. Re:Sugar by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      How old are you? Specifically, are you still in your twenties? I'm late thirties, ~178 cm and 73 kg, which I maintain by cycling and limiting sugar and snacking. Cycling alone is not sufficient to control my weight. To really not have to watch what I eat, I'd have to be doing professional-cyclist levels of it (i.e. many hours each day, and >500 kilometres / week).

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    42. Re: Sugar by jaseuk · · Score: 1

      Snacking is what's new. 5 isles of the supermarket and most convenience stores are all about snacks. You can eat 3 fairly significant meals a day for 2000ish calories. However a typical "lunch" deal (Sandwich-600, Soda-200 and Chocolate Bar/Muffin/Cake-300) could easily be half of that.

      Theres a whole industry and part of the economy that relies on this eating between meals. It's high calorie and doesn't tend satisfy actual hunger for very long.

      I sometimes feel that exercise is overplayed in these discussions as people tend to over-compensate for the exercise with eating. There is nothing wrong with being fit, it has separate health benefits, but it rarely makes a difference in weight loss. The now and then difference is that kids in earlier generations would have been expected to walk/cycle to school independently from a young age (8+ - up to 6 miles a day was typical) This does make a difference, particularly when the playstation is 20 steps from the fridge.

      Jason

    43. Re:Sugar by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      I grew up in the 70s and early 80s in western europe. We had sweets and sugar, but there wasn't the abundance of sweets then as there is today - is my vague memory. Least, I remember getting sweets being special, and not getting many of them when I did.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    44. Re:Sugar by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Yeah, portions have increased. It's especially noticeable when you compare plate sizes. I did this last time I was at my mother's: We compared the old plates she still had from the 70s, to the more modern plates we use today. The modern ones are much bigger. The old dinner plates, you'd use them for lunch or cakes or appetisers today.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    45. Re:Sugar by laejoh · · Score: 1

      I hate it when there are condoms in my food!

    46. Re:Sugar by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Watching what you eat is different to different people, I'm over 40, my doctor has recommended I keep the saturated fats down and eat lots of fibre. I have a sweet tooth but limit it by simply not buying too much junk, that way when I get a craving there's not much I can do about it. but I suspect some peoples cravings are much more than mine, I very rarely binge, I just don't feel like it. I also place fruit strategically so that it's 'centre stage' it helps me eat healthily.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    47. Re:Sugar by kheldan · · Score: 2

      I'm not European, I'm American (but we're goddamn fat here so it's still relevant to this discussion). I'm almost 50 years old, consume anywhere from 2500 to 4000 calories a day (depending on the day), and I have 13% bodyfat. How? Speaking of cycling: I've been training and racing road races for the last 5 years, and burning off 1000kcal riding my bike is trivial to me. On the weekly 'long endurance ride' I may burn as much as 3000kcal. The upshot of this: Most people sit on their butts all day for their jobs, and go home at night complaining about 'being tired' and sit some more, in front of the TV, eating excessive amounts of dinner. What's worse is, according to my own non-scientific observations, most people eat too much fat and too much carbohydrate, and not enough protein. This observation is somewhat backed up by another news story (http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/04/29/0338249/you-are-what-youre-tricked-into-eating) that says the American food industry produces processed foods that mimick having protein in them, but are just full of fat and carbs instead, making the problem worse. My personal opinion is that substances like HFCS make the problem worse, because it's so concentrated, and that artificial sweeteners, ironically enough, also contribute to the problem because they encourage people to keep craving sweet things instead of changing their lifestyle/eating habits away from sweetened things. Also, again, in my personal opinion, artificial sweeteners are additionally causing harm to people's health in the long term that isn't being detected yet because it takes years and years for it to happen. Final note on artificial sweeteners: Like me, some people who ingest sucralose become ravenously hungry from it, which can't be a good thing (when it happened to me, I literally couldn't eat enough to make that 'artificial' hunger leave me alone. I can't be the only one that happened to!).

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    48. Re:Sugar by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I do too. When I'm at home I sometimes crave food, but I can control myself when shopping. So the trick is to buy only healthy and filling stuff. Unfortunately, my other half is the opposite - can't control herself in the shop, but has no problem not eating the junk once it's at home. ;)

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    49. Re:Sugar by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I'm lazy, I like ready meals, what bugs me is the lack of healthy ready meals, they all lack enough veg, they typically use wheat or rice with the nutrients removed, they are low in fibre etc.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    50. Re:Sugar by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You'll get the chocolate from my cold dead fingers...just cut the sugar content. 18-22% is plenty.

      Do you want to live forever?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    51. Re:Sugar by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I see fat people cycling all of the time.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    52. Re:Sugar by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Where-abouts? out of curiosity.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    53. Re:Sugar by David_Hart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah but in the 70's and 80's foods were not nearly as laden with sugar, and the portion sizes were different -- and people ate at home more often. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to reason out that human beings do not need a 54 ounce soda. And the availability of drinks in such quantities coincide quite nicely with the rises in obesity.

      In the 90's the health kick began and it was determined, at the time, that weight gain and clogged arteries were tied to the amount of fat that we consumed. There was no distinction between fat types. So, the food industry reduced the total amount of fat in foods. However, this also affected the taste so they added sugar and, worse, high fructose corn syrup, to boost the taste. Current research indicates that eating fat actually results in a lower amount of weight gain as eating high fructose corn syrup or sugars.

      Personally, I would rather have real sugar in my foods than high fructose corn syrup, but that's all that you can get in the US. I try to avoid it as much as possible. High Fructose corn syrup should be banned...

    54. Re:Sugar by mspohr · · Score: 1

      No. Just wrong on both points.

      Cake flour is lower in protein (gluten) than bread flour. Cakes use baking powder to get the bubbly texture.

      Bread has complex polysaccharide carbohydrates so it take time for these to be broken down to simple sugars. Coke, sugar, glucose, fructose and other simple sugars (5 and 6 carbon monosaccharides and disaccharides) go straight to your bloodstream and cause your pancreas to freak out with insulin response (and later rebound of low blood sugar).
      Whole grains also slow the break down and absorption and are a good thing.
      Don't eat simple sugars.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    55. Re:Sugar by mspohr · · Score: 1

      California - Sierra Nevada and wine country

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    56. Re:Sugar by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Consuming sugar doesn't bother me. What does bother me is consuming all the preservatives in out food, and all the unnatural sweeteners that are included. Although I am not a scientist, I wonder if high fructose corn syrup, calorie free sweeteners, and to a lesser extend, regular corn syrup, are far worse for us than the FDA understands yet.

      Also, try going 2 weeks without any sugar except for naturally occurring sugars in fruits and the like... you'll get your actual sense of sweetness back. I can no longer drink sugary soda (I usually drink seltzer, and occasionally I drink coke watered down with seltzer to 1/5 the concentration). I can't eat milk chocolate or most candy. They all taste disgustingly sweet to me.

      I'm assuming that you are in the US since your ID is Vermonter... Chocolate bars in the US are chocolate in name only. It's candy. Chocolate should not be that sweet.

      I'm originally from Canada and I prefer milk chocolate bars (i.e. Cadbury, Nestle) or good dark chocolate (Ganong - NB, Canada). There are specialty chocolates in the US, like Ghirardelli dark that is good. Anything above 72% cacoa is too tart for me, but 72% is a nice dark chocolate.

      I usually bring back chocolate from Canada when I visit and my US co-workers can't believe the difference. I just ran out and they are begging me to go back and get more....

    57. Re:Sugar by lgw · · Score: 1

      And we need to make it easier for people combatting their weight - restrict advertisements on candy/cake/cookies, just like with smoking. Require supermarkets to move the unhealthy food away from cash registers and by law require a "healthy" path through the market, a path which allows you to buy the daily groceries, without having to fight your inner need for candy, and trust me it's a daily battle and it doesn't get easier.

      Can't tell if trolling ...

      But just in case: you could become an adult, with impulse control. I'm definitely overweight, but the idea that it's anyone's fault but my own is laughable.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    58. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look up glycaemic index

    59. Re:Sugar by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      In the 90s McDonalds (and every restaurant) started 'supersizing,' adding a ton of food for cheap. A single meal from a restaurant is typically twice what a standard American needs.

      Now 20 years later we're having an obesity epidemic. I guess Europe is too.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    60. Re:Sugar by kheldan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm skinny. Everyone comments on it. At 35 you can put your fingers around the widest parts of arms without difficulty. I basically live on sugar. I drink Coca-Cola endlessly (do not drink hot drinks, tend to have sugar in them when I do). I pig out on high-fat, high-sugar food and lived off fast food for many years. I eat sweets like a child and have to curb my appetite for sweets only because I work in a school and they are banned there for the kdis themselves (so I have to hide them, etc.). I also don't really exercise. At all. Ever. Never been to a gym in my life.

      I hate to be the one to tell you, but you're 'skinny-fat'. You're thin because you have no muscle anywhere on your body to speak of, because you probably don't eat enough protein to start with, too much carbs, and zero meaningful exercise to speak of.

      Furthermore: Someone like you, making the statements I quoted above, should not at any time be giving unsuspecting, naive people any sort of advice on diet, exercise, or fitness, because you are the absolute poorest of examples. Don't believe me? Go get body composition analysis done. Wouldn't be surprised if your bodyfat percentage is something like 30-40%, and afterwards the doctor insists on consulting with you regarding your possibly being anorexic. Additionally with your 'lifestyle' you're at serious risk for diabetes because of the high simple-carbs intake. I also wouldn't be surprised if you develop digestive issues from overgrowth of certain intestinal flora from all that sugar, tooth decay from all the sugar and carbonation, and generally declining health as you start getting older because of all the above.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    61. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweet Jesus everything you think you understand about food is just wrong... Google the "naturalistic" fallacy and just start reading.

    62. Re:Sugar by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Coke is sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup. Not fructose. HFC is (typically) 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Cane sugar is made of Sucrose which is 50%/50% fructose/glucose.

      Fructose is not the problem. Eating too much of any sugar will add calories.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    63. Re:Sugar by stenvar · · Score: 1

      So, it's no "fucking mystery" why the two correlate. But it's not an explanation for why people are obese. Economically, restaurants and food producers have no interest in making portion sizes bigger unless customers demand it. People who are obese tend to have bigger appetites, so they demand bigger portion sizes and the market responds. They also crave sugar, so sugary drinks is what the market supplies in abundance.

      Ultimately, the simple reality is that people make lifestyle choices that make them obese: they don't exercise and they eat fatty and sweet foods because they actually like them and the consequences are not that serious all things considered. People make the rational choice that enjoying good food in their 30's is worth losing a couple of years in their 70's. The only real problem is that they are forcing others to pay for their diabetes and heart disease treatments through socialized health care costs.

    64. Re:Sugar by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Good news then - there are no potential side effects from artificial sweeteners. Unless you intend to ingest them in *very* large quantities (but then the sugar would also be just as deadly).

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    65. Re: Sugar by AlexSasha · · Score: 1

      That's correct - there is a difference between cycling at 130kw average power vs a 250kw average for mid level pro.

    66. Re:Sugar by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      You should do a calorie count and see how much your burning and how much you're eating and see where the problem is. If you're coming out with burning more calories than you're eating you should go see a doctor and see what's going on.

    67. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are adults who can make their own choices and who can understand the consequences in seconds if they want to.

      Ha, riiight. That's what people said about smoking too.

    68. Re:Sugar by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Call me unconvinced:

      http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...

      The Saccharin Saga

      Safety, particularly as it relates to cancer risk, is on many people's mind as a result of the saccharine saga, which began in the 1970s. In 1977, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration tried to ban this sweetener as animal studies showed that it caused cancer of the bladder, uterus, ovaries, skin, and other organs. But the food industry intervened, urging Congress to keep it on the market with a warning label that (until recently) read: "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals."

      In the late 1990s, the Calorie Control Council stated that the main health concern about saccharin was bladder cancer in male rats -- not people.

      It seems to me the the artificial sweetener industry has done a very good job of getting a lot of people to ignore all of the studies showing problems.

      "animal studies showed that it caused cancer of the bladder, uterus, ovaries, skin, and other organs."

      But hey, let's just forget about those studies??????????????

      If I were to see a well made study done by someone not affiliated with the sweetener industry that showed no increase of ill effects amongst sweetener users as compared to non-sweetener users then I'd accept that. But I haven't seen that.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    69. Re:Sugar by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Another object of research is caesarean births where the infant does not pass through the birth canal and misses picking up the flora present in the vagina which jump starts their gut flora. Between mothers being given way too many antibiotics, infants not getting inoculated with their mothers gut flora, infants and children being given too many antibiotics and the attempts to raise children in a sterile environment, people are very deficient in gut flora.
      Antibiotics, while having saved more lives then most any other medical advance, are also causing many problems from unneeded and over usage. Not only do they wipe out our gut flora but the bacteria that they kill are evolving to make antibiotics useless.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    70. Re:Sugar by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Good idea, though I'd hedge a bit. The doctor has a real chance of finding a measurable problem. From there, there is a smaller, but real, chance that there is an effective treatment.

      But the doctor ending up having no clue is the most likely outcome with this sort of thing.

      My advice, don't try to see "a" doctor for this sort of problem. Plan to see 10 or 12 until you find one that has critical thinking, and bothers to try to figure your problem out.

    71. Re:Sugar by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Ugh. That seems like a lot of money just seeing doctors. :/

    72. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's possible. It's also possible that everything he wrote is fiction. For example, "you can put your fingers around the widest parts of arms without difficulty.... I'm still the guy work colleagues ask to move heavy cabinets etc," does not compute.

    73. Re:Sugar by CurryCamel · · Score: 1

      The topic is fat europeans, so the money is probably not an issue. Last doctor's bill I had was 13 euro (for a busted knee). Of course, this is just the fee in one of the european countries. YMMV.

    74. Re:Sugar by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Good point. Still seems like a ton of effort. I guess if you do find a good doctor it will end well, one hopes.

    75. Re:Sugar by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Sure, this is the Internet, and it's full of trolls, and even as I wrote that I recognized a large possibility that it was just a stupid troll. But I'd prefer not to see misinformation spread around on this subject.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    76. Re:Sugar by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ, i think it absolutely explains why obesity is increasing. What i'm not even remotely suggesting though is that restaurants / producers be censured in what they serve (after all McDonald's would serve broccoli if people wanted it.) It is consumer choice, and it is not anyone's business other than the person buying it. (even if it will kill them much sooner than otherwise.)

      What I definitely disagree with is that exercise is some kind of panacea for reducing obesity *after it has occurred*. The math seriously works out to something akin to a 200 pound man needing to climb ~20 flights of stairs to burn the equivalent of a single piece of white bread. (90-100 calories?). That's a lot of stairs. And that's only assuming his appetite wouldn't increase to accommodate the increased output. (god i sound like gary taubes, i'll just shut up now.)

      Though for what it's worth, people dying of heart disease or other obesity related illness at 50, while tragic are far cheaper than people dying at 85+.

    77. Re:Sugar by Guido+von+Guido+II · · Score: 1

      Whole grains also slow the break down and absorption and are a good thing. Don't eat simple sugars.

      I'm diabetic (type 2). While this is generally true, in practice I've found that wheat of any kind and rice of any kind will send my blood sugar up unless I keep my portion sizes very small. Nowadays I usually just avoid the both.

    78. Re:Sugar by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      If you're unconvinced perhaps it's because you're the one ignoring the studies. Aspertame has been *extensively* studied after all the hoopla in the '90s.

      European Health Commission report as one example:
      http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc...

      500 studies have been evaluated on aspertame with non showing any clear danger. And you forget that these products have been around for a long while now. So epidemiological studies on the public at large can be done. So far no clear evidence of any increased risk.

      Heck - from your own source: "According to the National Cancer Institute, there's no scientific evidence that any of the artificial sweeteners approved for use in the U.S. cause cancer."

      But hey, lets just ignore the experts????????????? (is that enough question marks?)

      Fear of something is not justification of the fear itself.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    79. Re:Sugar by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Also want to add - not all studies are conclusive. That "a" study shows a potential link does not mean there necessarily is a link. If the study wasn't properly randomized, blinded, had large drop-out rates, had a small sample group, was performed with human analogs rather than humans, (the list goes on) then there are a ton of ways the results can be misleading.

      As I pointed out in my other reply - more and better studies have been done and so far there is no evidence that artificial sweeteners are bad.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    80. Re:Sugar by stenvar · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ, i think it absolutely explains why obesity is increasing

      So, how does that work? You seem to claim that the increase in food portion sizes causes increases in obesity. If that's the case, then what caused food portion sizes to increase in the first place? And why have Europeans reached US levels of obesity of a few years ago at much smaller portion sizes?

      The math seriously works out to something akin to a 200 pound man needing to climb ~20 flights of stairs to burn the equivalent of a single piece of white bread.

      And now apply that insight back to portion sizes. If large portion sizes caused overeating, then obese people would still be eating more calories than regular people, but they stop when they are somewhere around 20-50 pounds overweight, even though they could easily gain another 20 pounds every year simply by overeating only 10%. And even at US obesity rates, there are plenty of people who are not obese despite large portion sizes.

      Sorry, I don't see any way in which the hypothesis "large portion sizes cause obesity" makes sense as an explanation of the obesity epidemic.

    81. Re:Sugar by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      in my completely unscientific and laymen point of view, the overeating is caused by sugar/carbs.

      proof? none. anecdote: sure.

      you eat steak, it's filling. when you're 'full' you literally don't want another bite. then the waiter asks if you'd like desert. what do you suddenly have room for?

      there's a few arguments out there about how insulin prevents the liberation of fat from fat cells, and how a high-carb diet can cause someone to be perpetually hungry while still consuming ample calories -- but dunno, it makes sense to me, on a laymen's level. i'm sure someone more educated (in the biochem sense) could explain it in better detail.

    82. Re:Sugar by stenvar · · Score: 1

      in my completely unscientific and laymen point of view, the overeating is caused by sugar/carbs.

      That's a good guess. And it also means that eating carbs causes both obesity and a preference for larger portion sizes, so portion size is an effect, not a cause.

      And it's no mystery where that dietary preference for carbs came from either: recommendations from the US government and "health authorities". There was a "scientific consensus" a few decades ago that fat was bad and carbs were good. The whole thing has been supported through massive agricultural subsidies and tariffs ever since. It's not unlike more recent "scientific consensus" of what's good for us and the ensuing subsidies.

    83. Re:Sugar by Vermonter · · Score: 1

      I do like dark chocolate, but it has to be at least 85% cocoa.

    84. Re:Sugar by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      RLA of dirt is two pecks. In order to get a lifetime of two pecks it is recommended that every child eats a full peck of dirt. The remaining peck can be spread over the remaining lifetime.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    85. Re:Sugar by dryeo · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... is an example why dirt can be good for you.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    86. Re:Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you eat any kind of meat? If so, you're eating antibiotics every day.

    87. Re:Sugar by sjames · · Score: 1

      I have NEVER seen an animal ordering in Starbucks.

    88. Re:Sugar by Hategrin · · Score: 1

      Cardio is not meant to burn fat, it's meant to improve cardiovascular health. To burn fat you have to pump iron, build muscle. Like you said, cardio just isn't going to do it unless you spend 5 hours a day at it.

      Anarobic exercise however will build your muscle mass, which will cause your body to burn more calories even when you're sleeping which can quickly add up. This is also why extreme diets are so horrible and cause people to balloon up after they quit their 2-6 month fast.

    89. Re:Sugar by sjames · · Score: 1

      You're giving someone who is underweight advice on how to lose weight?

    90. Re:Sugar by sjames · · Score: 1

      I guess that's why he's the one his coworkers ask to move the heavy filing cabinets and such. All that fat makes him strong.

    91. Re:Sugar by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Skinny != healthy he said so himself and a diet like his will shorten his life if he doesn't fix it.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    92. Re:Sugar by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      ...Actually my advice was about healthy diet.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    93. Re:Sugar by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      "But hey, lets just ignore the experts?"

      Why not, that's what most of the other experts have done!!!

      I have found articles saying the sweetener industries own studies shrink organs and cause cancer in numerous organs.

      I have found other studies saying that sweeteners can cause leukemia. I have also found studies that say that sweeteners can cause insulin problems, raise blood sugar level and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes.

      I've looked for epidemiological studies and all I come up with is 1 study from 1985 that purely looks at bladder cancer and says that there is no increased risk, personally I would be suspicious of an epidemiological study that is so narrowly focused.

      I'd love to use sweeteners to replace sugar and it may well be safer overall, but it does not look to me based on what I've read that sweeteners are safe and may in fact not be useful in a healthy diet due to the increased risk of diabetes and the fact that they can increase cravings for sweet foods.

      So, I am not ignoring the experts, I have spent some time looking at the results of the search for "epidemiological study sweeteners" and what I find does not look good.

      See:
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/...
      http://annonc.oxfordjournals.o...
      http://www.mpwhi.com/consumpti...

      "Diet soda has been tied to higher risk for heart attacks, strokes, cancers, osteoporosis, tooth decay, and nervous system disorders."

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    94. Re:Sugar by sjames · · Score: 1

      My concern is that if he cuts out dense caloric food, he might get even skinnier than he already is, and that would, indeed, be unhealthy.

    95. Re:Sugar by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      The math seriously works out to something akin to a 200 pound man needing to climb ~20 flights of stairs to burn the equivalent of a single piece of white bread. (90-100 calories?). That's a lot of stairs. And that's only assuming his appetite wouldn't increase to accommodate the increased output

      Actually exercise reduces food cravings. See this and this. I admit these don't sound like the last word, scientifically, but I have other arguments :

      1. Personal experience - being an irregular exerciser, I know both states of mind. The exerciser me yields a lot less to temptations.

      2. Comfort food : Lots of people eat because they are depressed. Exercise reduces depression.

      3. That's a lot of stairs : The one who exercises knows that a LOT of exercise is required to burn a little extra food. He also knows the effort / pain/ willpower required to exercise that much. The one who doesn't exercise, doesn't know at least one of these. Since it is a lot of stairs to burn the extra bread, the exerciser is more likely to choose to not eat the extra bread.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    96. Re:Sugar by Splab · · Score: 1

      No no no and no.

      Fat people are not going to lose weight by eating calories. Rice and pasta has very high amount of carbs per g.

      I'm not advocating eating chocolate, but trust me, binge eating rice will not help you.

      Also, if you absolutely must eat something sweet, ice cream is actually not a bad option. Pretty much any candy you pick will come in at 500kcal / 100g (+/-50kcal), most ice cream will come in around 250kcal/100g, just remember 100ml != 100g.

      Another fun fact, sugarfree candy is usually just as bad as the regular stuff, look at the content description, the calorie table will almost always match the regular candy.

    97. Re:Sugar by Splab · · Score: 1

      Really? The do tell why smoking commercials where banned?

      Are all people suddenly mentally ill?

      The feedback loop in your brain for stimulus like sugar is very well understood and it's almost impossible to fight; but hey good for you if you haven't been conditioned like about 90% of the young population.

      Also props for not understanding anything about the current issue, stay ignorant, stay happy!

    98. Re:Sugar by Splab · · Score: 1

      At what point did I blame society for the problem?

      What I said was society needs to understand the problem and help the people who are in trouble, iff we wan't to fix this issue. Huge difference...

      Also, you are really really ignorant, if you think it's a matter of impulse control. Sugar is extremely addictive - think Heroin like cravings. Those of us who grew up with lots of candy are battling an inner demon like you wouldn't believe; and having ignorant people like you telling us to just grow up is again a detrimental to the effort.

      As long as you and the rest of society doesn't understand the problem, we as a society can't fix it.

      Also, as I wrote, I've dropped 30kg, don't fucking tell me what impulse control is about, you have no idea what hell I've been through.

      So yeah, fuck you, but thanks for playing.

    99. Re:Sugar by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I don't count calories but I do watch my saturated fat intake and 1 magnum chocolate ice cream is over 50% of a days saturated fat - some pizza's have less.

      I think controlling appetite is the best way to control diet and the way to do that is to eat healthily including lots of fruit and veg.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    100. Re:Sugar by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      Consuming sugar doesn't bother me.

      It does bother me. Sugar and high-glycemic carbs trigger hormonal changes which trigger overeating in both animals and humans.

      What does bother me is consuming all the preservatives in out food, and all the unnatural sweeteners that are included.

      Agreed.

      I wonder if high fructose corn syrup, calorie free sweeteners, and to a lesser extend, regular corn syrup....

      HFCS is uniquely nasty, even more than sugar and other high-glycemic carbs, because it is absorbed more rapidly, metabolized primarily in the liver (as is the fructose in table sugar, only more slowly), often is contaminated by toxic levels of heavy metals, and also is usually contaminated by enzymes used in its production, which have the lovely side effect of continuing to convert starches in the digestive tract into more fructose, and also damage the intestinal flora which are now known to be a vital part of the immune system.

      The "calorie free sweeteners" are almost uniformly awful, although some are more awful than others. Pure stevia is the only one with a reasonable safety record, and even that is usually adulterated with much less safe substances such as maltodextrin, sugar alcohols (which trigger moderate to severe GI distress in many people), or silicon dioxide (sand - supposedly, generally regarded as safe, but known to cause lung cancer if aspirated).

      try going 2 weeks without any sugar except for naturally occurring sugars in fruits and the like... you'll get your actual sense of sweetness back

      Agreed. I've tried it and it absolutely does work, but, beyond just losing a lot of the "sweet tooth" which is really an addiction, one will generally feel much better as well, and one's appetite also will gradually return to normal (most of us who consume excess sugar do NOT have normal appetites, and never will, short of eliminating sugar and other toxic sweeteners from our diets.)

      I would say most Americans' health would benefit more by greatly reducing sugar and HFCS, if not eliminating them outright, than by any other single lifestyle change. But in addition to this, I strongly suggest:

      • minimizing trans fats ("partially hydrogenated" anything);
      • filtering one's drinking water (carbon filter and/or reverse osmosis);
      • avoiding huge excesses of any single food;
      • eating a varied, nutrient-dense diet;
      • insofar as one can, avoiding pesticides and herbicides (e.g., wash fruit and veggies, try to buy organic or free range when possible, etc.); and
      • supplementing carefully. Most of us can't get optimal amounts of vitamins C or D from our diets. Cheap multivitamins are known to do more harm than good, but judicious use of high-quality supplements, tailored to one's specific situation, is something I do, and recommend.

      We do all these things, and, although I'm still overweight, I'm losing maybe 1-2 pounds a year, and none of us are hardly ever sick, even when exposed to other kids who are.

    101. Re:Sugar by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's entirely about taking control of your own life. Just stop. I did, and I don't have willpower for shit. Stop letting the meat control the mind: humans are supposed to work the other way round.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    102. Re: Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never exersize and I eat a high sugar high fat diet, my potato mash is 20% butter and i add sugar to my bacon and never gain any weight, for me my weight is nearly 100% genetics, me, my siblings, my mother, her siblings, her father, his siblings are all skinny and thin types.
      It's not just about lifestyle its your inherited metabolisms and whatever

    103. Re: Sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might also add that being underweight holds higher toll on life expectancey than obesity, particuldairily when its connected to an eating disorder

  2. Europe is moving to the right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And collecting all its ills, too.

    1. Re:Europe is moving to the right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean "moving to the left"? Unless you are looking at it upside-down...

    2. Re:Europe is moving to the right. by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's not becoming more socialist, the Lisbon treaty demands our gov'ts sell all govt property, everything is supposed to be run by corp's - that's EU law!.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  3. As they say: by Zanadou · · Score: 2

    "If you can't eat 'em - join 'em"

    1. Re:As they say: by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They also say:

      "In a poor country, only the rich can afford to get fat."

      "In a rich country, only the rich can afford to stay thin."

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:As they say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever, if that's the excuse these wheelbarrows are going to use, then great. Taste of reality FTFA:

      "The UK and Ireland, where obesity prevalence is among the highest, possess unregulated liberal market economies similar to the US, where the collective actions of big multinational food companies to maximise profit encourages over-consumption,” they write.

    3. Re:As they say: by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Taste of propaganda more like it. It's really simple. People are spending wayyy more time sitting on their asses than 40 years ago, either messing with their phones, laptops, computer, ipads, or driving. If you want to fix obesity, promote exercise. End of story. Also I'd have serious questions about their statistics, 90% obesity in Ireland is nonsense unless you're using some imaginary definition of obesity.

    4. Re:As they say: by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      90% obesity in Ireland is nonsense unless you're using some imaginary definition of obesity.

      "Overweight or obese", and males only.

      It doesn't really take that much to fall into the "overweight" category on the BMI scale. As a matter of fact the start of the "overweight" scale is actually what I'd consider to be optimal weight. At my height 5'10" you're officially overweight starting at 175 lbs - I personally wouldn't want to be much under that.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    5. Re:As they say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you can't eat 'em - join 'em"

      American inspired JUNK FOOD there is the problem make junk food illegal and the problem would fade slowly but surely .

    6. Re:As they say: by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      That's not the end of the story. Processed foods that either has large amounts of sugar or fat or both are also a big part of the problem.

    7. Re:As they say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's important to remember that definitions of overweight does not take the ratio of fat and muscle into account. If you don't have a healthy amount of muscle at 5'10", 175 lbs, you are chubby enough to have elevated health risks.

    8. Re:As they say: by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      They also say:

      "In a poor country, only the rich can afford to get fat."

      "In a rich country, only the rich can afford to stay thin."

      Oh, brother, yet more of those simplified catch phrases Americans are so fond of. What it really takes to thin yourself down is adjusting your diet, exercising and a bit of willpower. Even doing nothing but significantly downscaling your portion sizes and getting a bit more movement will make a difference. Although the claim of lacking willpower is often made, I'm not sure a shortage of willpower is always the only problem. The hard part is actually not dragging yourself to the gym it's changing your diet since everything that's good for you also seems to taste like shit (true up to a point but you can cook tasty and healty food), also processed foods and fast food are designed to be addicting so you'll also have to deal with that addiction. Another demotivating factor is the fact that it's just plain time consuming (and really boring) to exercise sufficiently for it to make a difference. Most of the time I go to the gym (I'm overweight, but on a downard trend) I see most of the people there spending 10 minutes on a treadmill on the lowest setting, lifting 10-20 kg weights and not even breaking a sweat and another 20 minutes just sitting around or wandering aimlessly around (the guys spend a lot of time sitting on the exercise equipment staring at the female gym bunnies). The only ones doing proper exercise are:

      [A] the gym bunnies, muscle mountains and that funky group of people that spend half the day in front of those giant mirrors hypnotically admiring themselves while they lift weighs (I call them the 'mirror posers').
      [B] a handful of lard-asses such as myself who actually have come to terms with the truth of one of that cheesy axiom: "No pain, no gain" and put in the required daily 60-90 minutes at the gym.

      If you are serious about loosing weight, get some professional advice, and come to terms with the fact that if your exercise routine does not make you sweat like a pig, your muscles burn and occasionally ache, and leaves you at least a bit out of breath you are probably doing something wrong.

      That's my 0.02 € anyway...

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    9. Re:As they say: by mpe · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really take that much to fall into the "overweight" category on the BMI scale. As a matter of fact the start of the "overweight" scale is actually what I'd consider to be optimal weight.

      IIRC there was some research that showed that slightly "overweight" people tend to live the longest. Thus implying that current definitions err on the low side.

    10. Re:As they say: by mpe · · Score: 1

      That's not the end of the story. Processed foods that either has large amounts of sugar or fat or both are also a big part of the problem.

      The evidence appears to be more that it's sugars, including amylose and amylopectin, which are actually the issue. With fear of fat being a big part of the problem. Especially with processed foods where there as been a trend of replacing fats with sugars. A large amount of sugar because of faith in the calorie idea.
      If you actually look at what people are encouraged to eat the vast majority (up to 70%) is glucose.
      Ironically so called "junk food" can be less unbalanced than so called "healthy food".

  4. People live longer by flyingfsck · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As people live longer on average, the average symptoms change. Eventually, all these older fat people will get cancer. Nothing new here.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:People live longer by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Or heart disease, cars cause obesity, lack of exercise. Bicycles are the cure.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    2. Re:People live longer by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

      Bicycles are the cure.

      As long as your knees last

    3. Re:People live longer by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Sitting n an office chair for 8-12 hours a day doesn't help much either. I miss my old job where I was on my feet all day long. Now I am in a chair for the entire day and it sucks.

      What we need to do is to automate management, and accounting systems and go work on our feet all day. Obesity will disappear.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:People live longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My knees are holding out much better riding a bike than running, thank you very much.

    5. Re:People live longer by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      dude, lots and lots of people work manual labor jobs and are still fat. the reality is more like caloric consumption would increase to about 105% of the increase in expenditure. it's like being married and getting a raise.

    6. Re:People live longer by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Huh? My impression was that the fat people mostly died from cardiovascular problems aka old body can't take the strain while the thinner mostly died from cancer. Sure, you have somewhat more cells that could go cancerous but I've never heard obesity being a big risk factor for cancer.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:People live longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bicycles are the cure.

      As long as your knees last

      They'll last a hell of a lot longer than the alternatives such as running or weightlifting.

      And if they start to get weak, then do Yoga. The point of it all is to not ever stop exercising, no matter what age. Our bodies are machines that require it. I don't know why we feel that should ever stop at a certain age.

    8. Re:People live longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, lots and lots of people work manual labor jobs and are still fat. the reality is more like caloric consumption would increase to about 105% of the increase in expenditure. it's like being married and getting a raise.

      So, "Joe Six-Pack" is overweight, married, and broke?

      Yup, sounds about right. Not sure how that was ever became the American Dream, but sounds about right.

    9. Re: People live longer by russotto · · Score: 1

      The American Dream was always a dream. The American reality is Al Bundy.

    10. Re:People live longer by mpe · · Score: 1

      My impression was that the fat people mostly died from cardiovascular problems aka old body can't take the strain while the thinner mostly died from cancer. Sure, you have somewhat more cells that could go cancerous but I've never heard obesity being a big risk factor for cancer.

      Hyperglycemia (even at levels not considered "diabetic") is a risk factor for both obesity and cancer.
      Obesity because one of of the ways in which the human body removes excess glucose from the blood is via lipogenesis. (Glucose lipogenesis, at least in mammals, requires insulin which also encourages fat storage. Resulting in both dietary and liver produced fat rapidly migrating to adipose cells and staying there.)
      Cancer because cancer cells disable their mitochondria and are thus entirely dependant on glycolysis for respiration.

  5. goddamn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eurofats

  6. BMI is 2d but people are 3d by pijokela · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The formula for BMI is weight(kg) / heigth(m) * height(m). This formula only has two terms for height, but in reality I'm a 3d person. What I mean with this is that it is easier for a short person to be "normal weigth" in BMI. As people on average get taller and taller more and more people are going to be overweight. On the other hand many of my male friends are lifting weights and they are all "overweight" while clearly they are not fat.

    So, while the problem is probably real and severe, I'd like to see a better way of measuring this stuff.

    1. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

      I agree, BMI is a horrible metric. It would be much more meaningful to use body fat percentage to evaluate if someone is overweight.

      And even then, it doesn't always hold up for individuals. My BMI is ~31.5, my body fat is right around 30%, but I'm in extremely good health, good cholesterol numbers, no diseases, good blood pressure, stable blood sugar levels, no diabetes, all of those things. But I lift weights and I'm not into the cut and striated bodybuilder thing. Sure, I'd love to lose some fat, but not at the cost of my current good health.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    2. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by ExecutorElassus · · Score: 0

      your math is a bit wonky. "weight/kg) / height(m) * height(m)" is just "weight(kg)." Perhaps you meant "height(m)^2" ? Extra parentheses help clarify terms.

    3. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      BMI is a [poor] approximation of body fat percentage (that article lists a few ways to measure it; I know people with eletronic scales that use bioelectrical impedance analysis when you step on them barefoot). Wikipedia has a section on it in the BMI article including a scatterplot of BMI vs. body fat % I hadn't seen before. Basically, BMI is used because it is much easier to measure than body fat %, but it does not tell the whole story. Importantly, BMI is far more meaningful for a population than for an individual because the error cancels out to some extent.

    4. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm short, 5'6", but broad, 2' shoulder to shoulder. BMI doesn't take into account that I know various people my height at least 2-4" less broad than I am.

    5. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Mod parent back up, he is correct.

    6. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      scatterplot of BMI vs. body fat %

      It's interesting to see that even with all its problems, BMI still has some predictive power when used for whole populations... but that is one shitty use of a linear regression! It's quite clear that it is flattening out at the higher BMI values and BF rises very quickly with BMI at lower values of BMI, so something like a ln model would probably fit the data much more convincingly...

    7. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by wiredlogic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      BMI isn't supposed to be used for measuring this stuff. It was developed to be an expedient way to gather data on large populations of people. Its inaccuracies become smoothed out with a large enough sample size. It is always wrong to apply it to an individual and make decisions based on it.

      The better way exists in the form of the US Navy body composition assessment which includes the circumference of the neck and waist. Nobody wants to take the time to do that in a clinical setting so it isn't used in the civilian world.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    8. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      What I mean with this is that it is easier for a short person to be "normal weigth" in BMI. As people on average get taller and taller more and more people are going to be overweight.

      True enough. Wilt "the Stilt" Chamberlain was overweight and tending toward obese by BMI standards.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by pijokela · · Score: 1

      Yes, a better way of measuring would be nice.

      My point was that in addition to the other problems that BMI has it also has a problem of making tall people overweight. And as populations get taller and taller on average, this measurement problem increases the percentage of overweight people. For this simple problem it would be enough to just create a new formula using height and weight or even just use something above 25 as the overweight limit for taller people.

    10. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      So, while the problem is probably real and severe, I'd like to see a better way of measuring this stuff.

      The trick is finding something similarly cheap and easy to measure. For something that can be determined with just a bathroom scale and a tape measure, most of the more effective competing metrics I'm seeing involve equipment you wouldn't see outside of a major hospital.

    11. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      weight(kg) / heigth(m) * height(m)

      Hm. "height(m)" cancels. I sense some error in your formula.

    12. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by kheldan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Allow me to give you another perspective on why the BMI tables, even recently updated, are stupid and need to be deprecated/abolished/destroyed/ignored: They're based on statistical averages, whereas human beings are most certainly not statistically average. Even skin-caliper testing, administered by an experienced person, is more accurate at determining body composition than BMI tables are. Hydrostatic weighing is very accurate, but only if your bone density is either 'statistically average', or you know what your bone density is so the calculations used can compensate. The real 'Gold Standard' is a DEXA scan, which is primarily used for bone densitometry, but is also highly accurate for determining body composition.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    13. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was some guy who proposed a new formula: 1,3 * weight / height^2,5
      Here's an article about it: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/255712.php
      And here's the guy's online calculator: http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi_calc.html

      It basically considers a person near 170 cm as the normal person who gets the same old BMI. Shorter people get a higher BMI, while taller individuals a lower one. A 180-cm person gets a deduction of one point. It supposedly handles the 3D thing better than the old BMI.

    14. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by stenvar · · Score: 2

      There is a "new BMI formula" here:

      http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/t...

      Tall people get a slight bonus on BMI, but less than you might think, and the measure doesn't seem to be much better than the old BMI.

      You are 3D, but if you're healthy, you grow preferentially along one axis.

    15. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by stenvar · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call it "poor". That's a pretty good correlation for such a simple measure. It is best used for population analysis, but even at the individual level, if your BMI is around 25 or above, you definitely should find out why. Unless you are discovering that you are a somnambulating body builder, you should probably get it down.

    16. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I agree, BMI is a horrible metric.

      Nope, it's perfectly fine. It's what you get when you marginalise out all but two variables. Those two are easy to measure. Your comment in fact supports my claim.

      My BMI is ~31.5, my body fat is right around 30%

      So, I went here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

      I assume you're 35 and plugged in the numbers. I used that since out UIDs are around the same and so I made out ages around the same. The "horrible metric" as you claim gave your body fat as almost 30% on the money. In other words the thing that you claim is a "horrible metric" is almost perfectly accurate in your case. Feel free to recalculate with your correct age.

      Don't worry, the correlation with age is quite weak, so even if you're 20 or 50, it's still within about 4 percentage points.

      good cholesterol numbers, no diseases, good blood pressure, stable blood sugar levels, no diabetes, all of those things

      What ever makes you think BMI hs anything to do with any of those?

      BMI is a proxy mesure for body fat percentage based on average person statistics. Not only that it appears to be quite accurate in your case. If you don't have many of the health symptoms associated with excessive body fat, that's good, ut it doesn't make BMI wrong.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      God yes! Mod parent up!

      I wouldn't call it "poor".

      Hard to tell without the raw data but that looks better than I expected. Most of the mass is quite well contained close to the correlation. The amount of mass in the "wrong" quadrants is small. Which means that asically it's probably correct.

      And then of course there's this:

      Unless you are discovering that you are a somnambulating body builder, you should probably get it down.

      I do love the excuse: well it doesn't work for bodybuilders/rugby players.

      Do you go to the gym or do any exercise at all? No? Chances are you're fat.

      If you're muscly enough for BMI to not be accurate, you'll know.

      Though interestingly when it comes to heart trouble it actually doesn't matter and BMI is surprisingly good. Basically it's hard for your heart to push blood through excessive mass, muscle or fat. It's just that it's much esaier to gain excessive fat than muscle.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    18. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm quite stocky but you make me look gangly!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      I'm 28, if that matters. Using the calculation you linked, I got 28.04%. This may actually be correct, it's been a while since I had my body fat % measured accurately. But keep in mind that this calculation does not take fitness level, muscle mass or any other factor other than geometry, age and sex into account. At best, it is a tool for estimating the average body fat percentage of a group of people.

      Allow me rephrase my complaint. BMI is a reasonable statistical tool used for estimating incidences of overweight in groups of people based on pure geometry, but it should not be used as a metric for estimating health in individuals, at least not without a number of other, more accurate measurements. It can give a ballpark figure, but that's all.

      Whenever health or overweight is discussed, BMI is brought up as the ultimate metric of health, as if you can't be healthy outside of the 18-25 BMI envelope. Everyone with a BMI of 30 or above is classified as "obese", for which I'll quote the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:

      Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have a negative effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems. People are considered obese when their body mass index (BMI), a measurement obtained by dividing a person's weight by the square of the person's height, exceeds 30 kg/m^2.

      Now, if you knew me, you would know that I'm well aware that I am overweight (and working to change that), but I sure as hell am not obese, not even close. But someone looking at my papers would probably think so, based on simple geometry.

      Health is much too complicated to be defined in such a simple way.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    20. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Duh. There is one degree of freedom - because height does not make one obese/overweight/underweight. BMI is not for measuring body's density - one would use body weight / body volume if that were the purpose, but it is NOT.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    21. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Health is much too complicated to be defined in such a simple way

      But health is too important to be NOT defined in simple ways. Everyone will not study the human body for 10 years. Simple ways to keep healthy, and detect if you could be going wrong are essential. Human body being complex, simple ways don't turn out to be perfect. But I haven't seen a better substitute for BMI.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    22. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      There is a better substitute, measure body fat percentage instead of height in relation to weight. It's easy enough to measure using a set of plastic calipers, or a DXA scan if you want super-precise results.

      It is a much better predictor of health than BMI, because it actually measures body composition. BMI fails in many cases because it assumes everyone has a perfectly average body composition, when in fact the metric we're really interested in, body fat percentage, is readily measurable using a simple $2 tool that is readily available from every single health- or fitness-related store in existence. It takes a couple of minutes to do the measurement compared to plugging a couple of numbers into an overly-simplistic formula, but the results are better and more usable.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    23. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BMI is a reasonable statistical tool used for estimating incidences of overweight in groups of people based on pure geometry, but it should not be used as a metric for estimating health in individuals, at least not without a number of other, more accurate measurements.

      The origins of BMI were in the insurance industry where it was worked out that people with a BMI above 25 or below 20 had something like 90% of health problems that "normal" people did not so this measure was used to call in people for medicals as giving medicals to every potential customer was not feasible.

      A guy had his doctor write to his boss telling the boss that he was overweight. The boss told his Physical Exercise guy to take a new batch of recruits through their paces. Just like everything looks like a nail when your only tool is a hammer BMI can be and is abused by the ill-informed.

    24. Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      In a couple of minutes, with a caliper, only a very rough estimate of body fat can be acquired - exactly the problem you have with BMI. It doesn't measure body composition, but body surface composition. To eliminate the effects of retained water and skin defects, significant training is required.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  7. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    They'll make better targets for the next big war with Russia. Once their small, super-downsized professional armies will have been wiped out, the EU Commission will order every able-bodied male (and probably female) not part of the Ruling Elite or their servant workforce to the front where they'll be cut to shreds by machine gun fire, blown to bloody chunks by artillery and burned to death from the inside out by thermobaric weapons. It will be the show of a lifetime, watching a generation of unemployed youth exterminated in the name of Yoorop. All for naught, of course, but that's in tune with the rich Euro-nazi cultural heritage.

    1. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seek help. Make an appointment with a psychiatrist. I'm seriously worried about your mental health. Get well soon.

    2. Re:Good by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Spicy! Write a fictional novel around that theme, I'll read it.

    3. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why, are you telling me you wouldn't enjoy the sight of obese, pathetic, fatso tubs o' lard huffing and puffing in the middle of a battlefield, their faces shattered open by high-velocity bullets? Their sweaty misshapen bodies blown to bits by bomblets? Hear them whine "I don't wanna die" and "mommy help me" while they're shoved out into the merciless meatgrinder? Watch them burn like screaming, flailing human candles when set on fire by WP rounds, their body fat melting and feeding the flame in glorious human combustion? And what about APCs filled to half capacity because the lardos occupy twice the size a healthy soldier does? What happens when they're struck by a HEAT warhead and set on fire? They scramble for the exit, only to have it blocked because them fatsos can't get through the door and they burn to death, screaming like pigs as the air fills with the sizzling noise of cooking bacon. Hmmm, the delicious human grease dripping into the bloody mud! I can't for the life of me understand how you wouldn't appreciate the awesomeness of the spectacle!

  8. Agricultural subsidies is a big part of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Consider this:
    http://www.pcrm.org/images/gm/autumn2007/pyramid.jpg

    Present economic policies in western countries actively encourage companies, fast food chains and restaurants to make unhealthy food products. Since these companies want to sell their products, they will also push unhealthy eating habits in advertising, movies and TV-series and so on. There is basically a huge economic incentive to push people to eat an unhealthy diet, and thus you get strongly financed opposition to the type of changes that would address the issue, such as serving more fruit and veg in school, limiting the calorie content of fast food and so on...

    1. Re:Agricultural subsidies is a big part of it. by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      Europe does not subsidize corn production or corn sugar like the US does. Even coca cola here is made with real sugar. Some countries even have sugar taxes, but obesity rates are still going up. Something else is wrong too.

    2. Re:Agricultural subsidies is a big part of it. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The problem is that we are looking at problems and trying to find an easy fix to them!
      If we ban or stop this one thing than it will all be better.

      Sure we know if Calories in > Calories out = fat.
      However counting calories in real life is difficult. Also they are foods that are Calorie dense but also have nutrients and other stuff that makes us feel satisfied longer so we don't eat as much. Then we have "Diet" foods low in calories, but low in nutrients too, so after we eat it, we get hungry again and again, so we eat more calories trying to get the nutrients that we are really craving.

      I would also point out that we are in a global depression. Sure the economy may be improving but the individuals world wide, are feeling depressed and not empowered. This lack of empowerment makes us more opt to stay at home and just survive and not take any risks, as the system is increasingly out to prevent us from taking risks. When we are not going out taking risks, we are not out and moving thus we burn less calories per day.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Agricultural subsidies is a big part of it. by mpe · · Score: 1

      Europe does not subsidize corn production or corn sugar like the US does. Even coca cola here is made with real sugar. Some countries even have sugar taxes, but obesity rates are still going up. Something else is wrong too.

      The greatest proportion of most people's sugar intake is likely to come from "grains" (wheat and rice probably more than maize) than soft drinks indeed anything with "sugar" on the label at all.
      Somewhere in the recent past the knowlage that everything called "carbohydrate" is made up of sugars appears to have vanished from the public conciousness.
      What makes things even worst is that a quirk of chemistry means that "complex carbohydrates" frequently pushed as "healthy" actually contain more sugars than so called "simple sugars".
      The terms monosaccharide, disaccharide, ogliosaccharide and polysaccharide really make things rather clearer than those the food industry prefers.

    4. Re:Agricultural subsidies is a big part of it. by mpe · · Score: 1

      Sure we know if Calories in > Calories out = fat.

      There are actually quite a few ways in which this idea is never going to work. First is that "calories" are only really meaningful when measured in a "calorimeter". Second "efficency" can be highly variable. Thirdly food is both "fuel" and "constriction materials". (Even sugars which perform virtually no role in the structure of animal cells can be converted to fats, which do. Though this process is endothermic.)

      However counting calories in real life is difficult.

      It's ever harder to measure "calories out" in any meaningful way

      Also they are foods that are Calorie dense but also have nutrients and other stuff that makes us feel satisfied longer so we don't eat as much.

      The biochemical processes which underpin things are considerably more complex. Eat fat and it will be transported through the bloodstream in structures called "lipoproteins" which are similar to cells, which can safely stay in the blood for some time. In contrast sugars are water soluable and their concentration in blood plasma needs to be closely regulated. Fructose and galactose are rapidly removed by the liver. The situation with glucose is more complex but the body typically will try very hard to get the blood glucose level down to normal within 2-3 hours. The complication here is that the hormone insulin which regulates glucose in the blood also tends to encouage "fat storage" and inhibit respiration of fats (beta oxidation).
      The practical aspect of this is that fat eaten with glucose will rapidly migrate to adipose(fat) cells and stay there. Any glucose your body cannot use within 2-3 hours is likely to be converted into fat (and stay in fat cells).
      The amount of glucose in a meal can easilty matter considerably more than the total "calories" when it comes to fat gain. It just so happens that the "healthy, low fat, low calorie diet" promoted for the last 30 odd years is mostly glucose. With there being a fairlr good correlation between the adoption of this kind of diet and increases in both obesity and T2 diabetes.

  9. My son has a BMI of 14, coming from 12; going to 30 would be a real improvement. In the statistics 18 (healthy) is more morbid than 36 (morbid obesity), but thin is a good business model.

  10. "Down with fat-shaming!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People like Gok Wan that make people take pride in how awful their bodies look is partially to blame for this epidemic.
    People are no longer ashamed to be fat larding morons wobbling around the streets.
    Fat-shaming NEEDS to be a thing. Despite what those childish tumblr-tards say. You shouldn't be happy you are fat. You shouldn't at all. It is an abnormality. The human body hasn't evolved to deal with it. And it shouldn't evolve to deal with it. It shouldn't even be happening.

    And while I have mentioned this, these people only make it accepting. It is the bad fast-foods, the premade foods and ready-meal generation that are corrupted.
    THESE need to change more than anything. All these companies can put as much spin on it as possible, "oh, our meals are only meant to be one-offs every so often", or whatever other bullshit they can come up with, they are partly responsible for this.

    Quite frankly, I say make people pay double for healthcare if they become obese through circumstances out of their own hands. (illnesses, genetics, and some medications like the steroidal types)
    And if they haven't fixed it by 10 years, make it official and roll it out across the countries. There is no reason to be fat unless you have severe illness, genetics or medications. No reason at all. (NHS UK included. I am from UK and I would be for those changes. Screw equality, these people aren't equal any more, equality was based on averages, they are well outside the range of these averages!)
    Even WHEN eating all these fattening foods, you can still exercise it off completely.

    More physical classes in school should also be a thing. Hell, go experimental, have classes on foot if possible. Teach people while walking around the school, a forest, a school garden, whatever. There are various classes that could be taught on foot. They don't even need to be long classes either, they can be spaced out in amongst other classes, 15-30 minute classes on foot, standing about, writing on a notepad (with backing to make it sturdy), gets them used to being outside, standing while doing other things instead of sitting down to do things.
    Seriously, fund it. If that doesn't breed an active generation, I don't know what will.
    Nothing beats relaxing after exercising. Relaxing all the time? It is sickening. I don't know how people can be a semi-permanent couch potato day-in day-out.

    1. Re: "Down with fat-shaming!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Being fat IS actually the result of evolution and the remnant of harsh times back in the stone age. The ability to store fat has evolved so that in times of no food you would still be able to keep going. Literally.

      To the rest of your drivel : you might want to look up the time Rembrandt was alive. Fat was beautiful back then and a sign of wealth and health. Skinny supermodels of today would have been considered poor and ugly. If fat or skinny is en vogue is defined by the era you are living in.

      If you want to raise healthcare costs for obese people, so should we do that for smokers, C2H5OH-drinkers, outdoor/risk sports (like climbing, hiking, outdoor cycling, etc), car drivers and everyone who doesn't live in bubble. Why do I need to pay YOUR costs due to injuries while pursuing idiotic extreme sports?

      Long story, no point : its not your life. While super extreme obesity (>200 kilograms) is certainly bad, it's difficult to draw a line.

      Do you want to fay shame everyone with an BMI of over 20? 15? 30?

      Anorectic people might consider YOU fat and would like to shame you. Or do you consider yourself the perfect role model?

    2. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I heard that in East Asia countries it is more common to people point out that you are fat. They are not necessarily angry but more like "wow, you're been gaining some weight, my friend". Something like that should indeed come in spades to the western world too, instead of people being extremely careful of "not insulting" (wavy hands) anyone.

    3. Re: "Down with fat-shaming!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Skinny supermodels are en vogue because fashion is dominated by gays and women. Porn stars aren't usually skinny, though they have fake boobs, fake lips, fake asses. Probably not very healthy either but at least they don't look like holocaust survivors and don't die when they forget to eat their one apple.

    4. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When we see obese animals, we are overwhelmed with pity for the animal and a little anger for the caretaker. With obese humans, the animal is usually the caretaker, so the pity sometimes shifts wholly to anger or disgust. If the anti-shamers think obese animals are normal or cute when they take three steps then collapse from the strain, then at least they're consistent. But I doubt they do.

    5. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by dejanc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I was visiting my parents once, after getting out of shower all wet and with a towel on, I got an epic line from my father: "Go back to the bathroom, put on some clothes, and lose 10 kilos, before you enter the living room".

      In many parts of Europe (I can speak for the Balkans for sure), it's perfectly normal to comment on weight and friends and family. It's not said out of malice, it's with best intentions. And if anything, when everybody you know starts commenting on how fat you are getting, you start and think if it's time to go on a diet. It also usually means that you can get some support from family and friends if you need to change your lifestyle to lose weight, so it can work out good.

      It's different with children though - they can be rough and tease/bully you for being fat. For some kids that can be an incentive to take up a sport, for some it will be nothing but trauma.

    6. Re: "Down with fat-shaming!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being fat IS actually the result of evolution and the remnant of harsh times back in the stone age. The ability to store fat has evolved so that in times of no food you would still be able to keep going. Literally.

      To the rest of your drivel : you might want to look up the time Rembrandt was alive. Fat was beautiful back then and a sign of wealth and health. Skinny supermodels of today would have been considered poor and ugly. If fat or skinny is en vogue is defined by the era you are living in.

      If you want to raise healthcare costs for obese people, so should we do that for smokers, C2H5OH-drinkers, outdoor/risk sports (like climbing, hiking, outdoor cycling, etc), car drivers and everyone who doesn't live in bubble. Why do I need to pay YOUR costs due to injuries while pursuing idiotic extreme sports?

      Long story, no point : its not your life. While super extreme obesity (>200 kilograms) is certainly bad, it's difficult to draw a line.

      Do you want to fay shame everyone with an BMI of over 20? 15? 30?

      Anorectic people might consider YOU fat and would like to shame you. Or do you consider yourself the perfect role model?

      The best you could do in this counterargument was try and compare diets from hundreds and even thousands of years ago when you know damn well the obesity epidemic has been a result of our activity (or lack of), and mainly focused in the last 50 - 75 years.

      Sorry, but that is a pathetic argument. I don't give a shit how supermodels would have been treated hundreds of years ago by society. What society should care about is being healthy, and instead wants to use every fucking excuse in the book to point at the tools of measurement (BMI) being bad or wrong. To an extent they are, but shoving the random lard-ass in a water tank to show them their EXACT fat measurements isn't going to change their path to a McDinner later that evening. They are fat because they choose to be. This is the case for 95% of the population so drop the weightlifters and tall people bullshit already. In the overwhelming majority of cases, BMI is merely showing people the truth. You're fat. And you're fat because you eat like shit and don't exercise. And much like the Rembrant era looking at supermodels, people refuse to accept the truth.

    7. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Even WHEN eating all these fattening foods, you can still exercise it off completely."

      Not without portion control. You can eat anything you want, yes, but not all of it. The amount of calories a person can take in greatly exceeds the amount they can work off in normal circumstances.

    8. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      In many parts of Europe (I can speak for the Balkans for sure), it's perfectly normal to comment on weight and friends and family. It's not said out of malice, it's with best intentions.

      In Finland, the topic is avoided, and if mentioned, is interpreted as mild malice. Only among very close friends and family members can overweight be openly discussed. A random coworker, for example, will never talk about it.

    9. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Yeah I've noticed that in France too. I was out shopping with some friends and one guy had a hard time finding a t-shirt that fitted him, so he mumbled something about big bones. The woman next to him promptly said "FAT BONES!" loudly and without a bother.

    10. Re: "Down with fat-shaming!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words you're fat and have tons of excuses for it. I hope that being fat is the next tobacco. It's socially acceptable to criticize someone for smoking. That should apply to being fat too.

    11. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      While I don't agree with much of what you say, I do agree that there is something to be said for social pressure against being fat, and losing that social pressure is on balance a bad thing.

      I noticed maybe 10 years ago that it had become acceptable for teenage girls to wear low cut jeans and short tops with rolls of fat sticking out. Girls would wear this fashion with pride regardless of their physique. This is very different than when I was a teenager in the 80s and looking like that would generally subject a person to ridicule.

      Whether or not that just kept fat girls from feeling pretty, or if it actually encouraged greater concern for one's weight, I don't really know; but a little shame about any of one's faults is unpleasant but necessary if you ask me.

    12. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite frankly, I say make people pay double for healthcare if they become obese through circumstances out of their own hands. (illnesses, genetics, and some medications like the steroidal types)

      Why should anyone pay double for health care?

      For example: Let's say I am 100 pounds overweight. If I fall and break my arm, what does that have to do with my weight? If I catch pneumonia and need to be hospitalized, what does that have to do with my weight? Let's say I crossing a street (properly and legally) and I get hit by a driver who has been drinking alcohol. Again, medical care that is needed regardless of my weight. Why should I pay double for these services?

      Oh. Right. You are saying that if I am 100 pounds overweight, I should have to pay double every time I see a doctor for my type 2 diabetes or my high cholesterol or my heart attack that I would not have had if I had been the proper weight. Right?

      Wrong again. I pay the doctor/hospital the full price of my medical care. Why should I pay double what it actually costs? Who benefits from taking more money from me than the cost of care? Who does that extra money go to?

      Oh right. You live in a subsidized health care system country. Therefore, all my abusive visits to the doctor take away from your ability to see the doctor and correspondingly raises the price of your health care. Hm.

      So, a socialized health care system gives YOU and everyone else the right to tell me how to live my life? And yet, you make fun of large groups of people who do not want socialized health care?

      Fuck off, you bloody cunt. Give me liberty or give me death. Take your fucking "civilized" and socialized health care and stick it right up your mother fucking ass.

      Oh. Actual, civilized socialized health care systems do not actually give you the right to tell you how to live my life? LOL. Suck it bitch. I am going 200 pounds overweight just to piss you off. Loser.

    13. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by m00sh · · Score: 1

      One of the most astounding thing I encounter with "OB-city" threads is that everyone seems to know the solution to cure obesity. Do this and do this and do this. Everyone has their own pet theory that they think is absolutely right.

      Well, here's my pet theory to cure obesity. Fund obesity researchers and let them conduct scientific experiments.

      I have bat-shiat crazy theories on this. Walk barefoot in the hook-worm infested latrines in Africa. Seriously, that is one of them. Our ancestors ate raw food and lived with parasites and so should we!

      ATM, who know what is right. Maybe the latrine-walking is better advice than the doctor recommended 20 minute exercise per week or whatever. But, maybe we should let researchers figure that out. At the same time, researchers got here in the first place with cholesterol and saturated fat bullshit.

    14. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      People are no longer ashamed to be fat larding morons wobbling around the streets.

      Fact is, they are ashamed, probably more than any time and history.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Fat-shaming NEEDS to be a thing. Despite what those childish tumblr-tards say.

      Later in your post, you say there should be exceptions for illnesses, genetics, etc. How exactly do you plan to explain when it's appropriate for kids to shame other fats vs. when they can't, for example? Or is it okay to shame everyone for their appearance if it might imply something bad about their character? A lot of black people commit crimes (on average, more so than some other groups) -- should we shame all black people too on the basis of their appearance?

      It is an abnormality. The human body hasn't evolved to deal with it. And it shouldn't evolve to deal with it.

      It's good that we have an AC to decide how the human race "should evolve." Congratulations: you've now entered into the exciting field of eugenics!

      All these companies can put as much spin on it as possible, "oh, our meals are only meant to be one-offs every so often", or whatever other bullshit they can come up with, they are partly responsible for this.

      Great -- the corporations are partly responsible. How much do you plan to charge them to contribute to healthcare for their "responsibility" for the fat people? Or do we only charge the fat people more, even though you claim some other people share the blame? (Just looking for the logic here.)

      Quite frankly, I say make people pay double for healthcare

      Yeah, this always comes up when morbidly obese people and smokers are discussed. (For the record, I'm neither -- but that shouldn't matter now, if we're discussing logically, should it?)

      What's the argument here? Fat people (and smokers and whoever the demon of the week is) cost more in healthcare? Yeah, they do, on average -- on an annual basis. But guess what? They die earlier. There have been a number of studies that show a clear cost savings over the lifespan of an obese person. Why? Because old people need more health care. Who do you think will cost more over the course of retirement? The fat guy who dies in his mid-60s and basically never retires, but costs more for his 5 years of diabetes care or whatever? Or the skinny guy who lives to 95, spends 30 years drawing government retirement money, needs a couple knee replacements for the all the running he did by his late 60s, falls and breaks a hip and spends a year recuperating in his 70s, and then needs 10-15 years of care during his 80s and 90s as his brain slowly turns to mush from whatever random degenerative disease? Fat people die sooner, so even though they have more years of concentrated medical costs at a younger age, over their lifespan they cost significantly less. (And that's just healthcare costs -- factor in extra costs for the government to pay out retirement money, etc., and fat people cost society a LOT less.)

      If you live in a country where you pay for health insurance, by all means, charge fat people more for their premiums. It makes sense from a cost-benefit analysis. But if you have a nationalized health system (or even if you don't), you should actually be giving these people a tax break -- if your goal is to save the system money.

      It sounds counterintuitive, but most studies don't take into account decrease longevity when they talk about how fat people "cost more." (And governments downplay the few studies that have looked at this question, because they don't want to encourage obesity.) It gets even better for cigarette smokers -- a few different studies show that for ever pack of cigarettes someone smokes, they save society about 30 cents because they are likely to die sooner. I'm not kidding. And that's not even counting taxes on cigarettes.

      (illnesses, genetics, and some medications like the steroidal types)

      Exactly how do you determine which "genetics" are bad enough to justify that it's okay to be fat? I mean, the human race evolved

    16. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that but also that people is lacking some strictness in their character. That is, parents cannot say NO to children anymore (it is easier to just give them candy to STFU), even worse, people is so fucking used to having a mundane life that cannot even limit themselves from simple addictions (like eating).

      We don't need to rage a war against MacDonalds, we just need people to stop acting like dumbfucks that always fall down to every pleasure that life prompts them with. We need to stop having pity of fat people, (unless they have some medical condition) they are fat because they cannot resist staying away of tasty meals and because they are so fucking lazy that cannot even run for 10 mins in the street.

      In the end, getting overweight due to bad food habits is no different from smokers ending up with lung cancer... It is their decision, I have no respect for them.

    17. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Fat-shaming works...to an extent. The problem is that it carries over into places it really shouldn't.

      Specifically, I'm thinking about what happens currently when overweight people try to get in some exercise to improve their situation. Fat-shaming is already alive and well when those people show up at the gym or start jogging around town. An overweight person may not feel out of place when they're surrounded by the general public (i.e. other overweight people) all the time, but dress them in clothes that identify them with healthy, fit people or have them taking up a reasonable amount of time on a piece of exercise equipment that a "normal" person wants to use at the gym, and you'll see that a good number of folks will do everything in their power to make sure that the overweight person doesn't feel welcome.

      It's a real tragedy, since it means that overweight people who simply want to exercise either have to put up with what effectively amounts to bullying from adults, or they need to make do with fewer or more expensive resources (e.g. purchasing exercise equipment for home).

      So, while I'm all for fat-shaming, including policies that make it more costly to those people, I think we also need to be doing everything in our power to be encouraging overweight people who show up at the gym or who we see exercising around town. It's already MUCH harder for them to put themselves out there than it is for the perfectly fit person to be doing so, and we don't need people dumping on them while they're trying to dig themselves out of that hole.

      Disclaimer: I'm obese.

    18. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Fast food doesn't make you fat.

      Too much food makes you fat.

      signed, someone who recently lost 55 pounds of fat and put on 8 pounds of muscle on a calorie-controlled diet of mcdonalds and burger king.

    19. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I've noticed that in France too. I was out shopping with some friends and one guy had a hard time finding a t-shirt that fitted him, so he mumbled something about big bones. The woman next to him promptly said "FAT BONES!" loudly and without a bother.

      What? French people acting rude?! Who would ever believe it!?

    20. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      While I don't agree with much of what you say, I do agree that there is something to be said for social pressure against being fat,

      There is nothing to be said for it. There are two names for people that respond to social pressure (bullying) not to be fat. Anorexic and Bulimic. For those that actually are fat, bullying won't cause them to become normal weight either. They'll mostly get bigger because they comfort eat.

      The difference between a thin person and a fat one in general isn't self control. Generally people that are thin aren't actually trying very hard. That's just the natural state for their body.

      Eating is a primal urge that the conscious mind has little control over in the long term, which is why virtually all diets fail, or the weight in put back on within a year or two. And it's not an illness, either, it's an evolutionary trait to cope with seasonal availability of foods. One that doesn't work so well in a world of year round abundance.

      Rather than social pressure to be thin, what would help would be social pressure to make food from unprocessed ingredients, rather than eat convenience and processed food.

    21. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by poity · · Score: 1

      I agree. Nationalized universal healthcare must be accompanied by fat-shaming (and smoking-shaming, non-exercise-shaming, etc). If you're squandering other people's healthcare resources, you should be motivated in every way possible into correcting your ways.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    22. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The stereotype that all French people are rude asses is just that, a false stereotype.

      The truth of the matter is that Parisians are rude asses who give the rest of the French a bad name. Most French outside Paris are perfectly normal people.

      Not unlike 'Massholes' from outside greater Boston.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    23. Re: "Down with fat-shaming!" by hene · · Score: 1

      Being fat IS actually the result of evolution

      That is actually good point. This is the problem that is going to fix it self, trough evolution. This will affect so heavily on procreation and general health, that problem will fix itself trough time. Lets just sit back and wait few million years.

    24. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by sjames · · Score: 1

      So what deep shame drives you to need others to be ashamed to pump you up?

    25. Re:"Down with fat-shaming!" by mpe · · Score: 1

      Eating is a primal urge that the conscious mind has little control over in the long term, which is why virtually all diets fail, or the weight in put back on within a year or two. And it's not an illness, either, it's an evolutionary trait to cope with seasonal availability of foods. One that doesn't work so well in a world of year round abundance.
      Rather than social pressure to be thin, what would help would be social pressure to make food from unprocessed ingredients, rather than eat convenience and processed food.


      Possibly also cutting out things which our ancestors (even a couple of generations back) simply wouldn't have eaten.
      Though any form of "paleo diet" appears to really annoy most of the supposed "experts".
      Quite possibly a big part of the problem here is that things which are both highly processed and "new" may well be agressivly marketed as "healthy".
      Where as things people have been eating since prehistory can be demonised.

  11. BMI is a lie! by sjwt · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you cycle, then I suggest doing your BMI maths to find out how obse you are, BMI FUCKING SUCKS! Muscle is heavier than fat, bmi is your weight in relation to you high. therefore if you have a maximum about of muscle then you come in at Obse on this stupid fucking scale.
    Fuck all fat on me, mostly skinny build, have some nice leg muscles, no real arm or back muscles, no fat gut, im 183cms and 95KGs..
    Overweight to the point that if I put on more weight i'm Obese!

    --
    You have 5 Moderator Points!
    Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    1. Re:BMI is a lie! by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      If you cycle, then I suggest doing your BMI maths to find out how obse you are,

      If you are concerned with obesity BMI is good enough. It can falsely flag you as overweight, but if it marks you obese you have a serious problems. (Even if it mostly muscle your steroid abuse should have killed you by now.)

    2. Re:BMI is a lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muscle is heavier than fat

      Incorrect. A kilo of muscle weighs the same as a kilo of feathers, but a pound of fat weighs the same as only 0.454 kilos of lead.

    3. Re:BMI is a lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. A kilo of muscle weighs the same as a kilo of feathers, but a pound of fat weighs the same as only 0.454 kilos of lead.

      Wholly dependent on gravity. On the moon, a pound of fat weighs a different amount than 0.454 kilos of lead because pounds are weight and grams are mass.

    4. Re:BMI is a lie! by flyingfsck · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the muscular obese club. We are a minority though. So don't worry about it.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    5. Re:BMI is a lie! by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bah, 99.9% of the people who complain that their BMI is high because of muscles don't have that much muscles. This is Olaf Tufte, former olympic champion in rowing and overall tough guy, he's 193 cm and 95 kg for a BMI of 25.5. In other words, despite being almost pure muscle he's barely overweight by BMI standards. To be "obese" he'd have to add 17 kg worth of fat to that body. It's not a body for power lifting but he'll easily carry a 50kg backpack up a mountain side if you ask him, he's outrageously well trained. Even sustaining 10 kg worth of extra muscle is a lot of work and doesn't affect the BMI that much. Fat is a different story, you can easily be 20 or 40 kg overweight. I've been your weight (adjusting for height), it's by no means skinny and only normal if you compare yourself to other overweight people.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:BMI is a lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. A kilo of muscle weighs the same as a kilo of feathers, but a pound of fat weighs the same as only 0.454 kilos of lead.

      Wholly dependent on gravity. On the moon, a pound of fat weighs a different amount than 0.454 kilos of lead because pounds are weight and grams are mass.

      Seriously? This conversation could have stayed rather grounded with the old pound of feathers vs. pound of lead argument, and you had to take it to the moon?

      Damn you guys can get nerdy...

    7. Re:BMI is a lie! by teg · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you cycle, then I suggest doing your BMI maths to find out how obse you are, BMI FUCKING SUCKS! Muscle is heavier than fat, bmi is your weight in relation to you high. therefore if you have a maximum about of muscle then you come in at Obse on this stupid fucking scale. Fuck all fat on me, mostly skinny build, have some nice leg muscles, no real arm or back muscles, no fat gut, im 183cms and 95KGs.. Overweight to the point that if I put on more weight i'm Obese!

      BMI is not perfect. However, unless you are a weightlifter or outrageously fit (not just "skinny fit", but bulging muscles) it's a pretty good indicator. And it's pretty easy to know if you are in the extremely fit part - if you're thinking about it, you aren't.

    8. Re:BMI is a lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry dude, you're fat. quit making excuses.

    9. Re:BMI is a lie! by Alomex · · Score: 1

      However, unless you are a weightlifter or outrageously fit (not just "skinny fit", but bulging muscles) it's a pretty good indicator.

      Not at the overweight scale. This is well documented. People have collected actual examples of people together with their BMI and you'll see that there are plenty of examples of "overweight" people which are perfectly fine.

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/...

      Here's another overweight person:

      http://www.klikk.no/multimedia...

    10. Re:BMI is a lie! by tempmpi · · Score: 1

      It can falsely flag you as overweight, but if it marks you obese you have a serious problems.

      It depends. Overweight seems to be very healthy and results in a quite significant reduction of mortality. Obesity class I (BMI 30-35) seems to still provide a slightly lower mortality than normal weight. "BMI and mortality: results from a national longitudinal study of Canadian adults." So do you also consider normal weight to be a serious problem?

      --
      Jan
    11. Re:BMI is a lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proper BMI calculations take into account your age, sex, body type (athletic, normal, fat) and activity level.

    12. Re:BMI is a lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am 5'10 and 200 lbs. That sounds obese but if you asked 100 people to guess my weight, 90% would be way off thinking I am 160-170. I'm no body builder and have never practiced regular weight lifting but I but I have freakishly large leg muscles and shoulders compared to the average person my height and my neck is 22 inches. Genetics. My mom and sister and several of my nieces and one of my children have the same exact build but scaled down. I'm the only male in the chain that got that from my family.

    13. Re:BMI is a lie! by hankwang · · Score: 1

      Bah, 99.9% of the people who complain that their BMI is high because of muscles don't have that much muscles. This is Olaf Tufte, former olympic champion

      Well, that's an example of a guy who, as you say, are almost pure muscle. Go and Google for "strongest man competition". Most of those guys have quite a bit more fat, but I doubt that their overal body fat percentage is that high.

    14. Re:BMI is a lie! by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      But a pound of gold does not .
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    15. Re:BMI is a lie! by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      I went through the first 21 or so of those photos, and the BMI classification doesn't seem at all wrong to me. The most "contraversial" one might be the 3rd photo - woman in front of the pumpkin - but the photo doesn't really show you her shape, and the stripes also hide it. She doesn't look skinny though.

      That photoset basically affirms the utility of BMI as a heuristic diagnostic, for me. (I'm a hair under overweight, which I think is pretty fair).

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    16. Re:BMI is a lie! by nightcats · · Score: 1

      Agreed - I've written at some length on this topic (see the footnote); and the BMI is not helping at all. Geeks here may find my approach to this question excessively new-agey and such, but the point is merely that weight loss is not a superficial undertaking, even if you consider it from a purely mechanical positivist perspective.

      --
      Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
    17. Re:BMI is a lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has a BMI that's currently around 28 after cutting for two months I have to say, that guy looks kind of skinny. Of course, 90% of my exercise is lifting weights and the last 10% or so is bouldering and I'm guessing he's more focused on endurance than I am.

      I guess my point is that everyone has a different frame of reference.

    18. Re:BMI is a lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of the people in that flickr stream are ridiculously fat.

    19. Re:BMI is a lie! by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      It can falsely flag you as overweight, but if it marks you obese you have a serious problems.

      It depends. Overweight seems to be very healthy and results in a quite significant reduction of mortality. Obesity class I (BMI 30-35) seems to still provide a slightly lower mortality than normal weight. "BMI and mortality: results from a national longitudinal study of Canadian adults." So do you also consider normal weight to be a serious problem?

      A recent study of elderly who lived past 80 (was on 60 minutes) indicated that being a bit overweight (not obese) as you get older tends to protect you from a wide range of old age diseases and results in longer life.

    20. Re:BMI is a lie! by mspohr · · Score: 1

      BMI is a useful yardstick for most people. It doesn't apply to everyone.
      You are special today.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    21. Re:BMI is a lie! by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Really? I think the following people aren't overweight:

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/...

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/...

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/...

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/...

      I hadn't realized how screwed up the BMI could be until it happened to me. I exercise regularly and have six-pack abs yet the BMI consistently ranks me between overweight and nearly obese, whereas my percentage of body fat is considered "lean" for my age, and my waste measurement is well within recommended normal parameters for my height.

      Which brings up another point: BMI doesn't account for age. Male adults under heavily regulated regimes of diet and exercise still add about a pound of weight every two years. This seems to be part of the normal process of aging and it is not accounted for in the BMI.

    22. Re:BMI is a lie! by stenvar · · Score: 1

      BMI gives some rough, useful information and correlates decently with obesity:

      http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detai...

      It is known that for tall people, BMI overestimates obesity, but that just knocks you down from a BMI of about 28.3 to 27.3, still way too high.

      http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/t...

      You're not obese, but you are almost certainly overweight, since you are not a body builder.

      That's not a judgment, it just should encourage you to get your actual body fat measured (a few dollars for calipers), and then take steps to get it down to some reasonable level. You should aim for less than 20% (you're probably somewhere around 25%). Also have regular physicals and check your blood pressure.

    23. Re:BMI is a lie! by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      The first one is the pumpkin woman - I covered her already: Photo is distant, front on, fully clothed, wearing stripes so hard to judge her shape. However, she certainly doesn't look skinny.

      The 2nd photo looks like a professionally shot photo, very likely for a magazine. Indeed, you can see writing in the bottom left corner, as if from a catalogue. It's suspicious that this photo is in there. If this photo hasn't been retouched, well it's certainly been shot to show this woman in the best possible light. Further, again, she's wearing stripes and its front on - making it hard to tell.

      The 4th: He's got a slightly baggy shirt on, so hard to be sure, but from the way it goes in at his belt, he may well have a very slight paunch - which would be very consistent with 'overweight', no?

      The 5th: He's about my height, and he's definitely heavier set than I am - you can see some spare subcutaneous fat between his neck and jawline.

      I am right on the line between normal and overweight, FWIW. My face and neck and shoulders probably look like I'm not carrying much fat. However, I still have a slight spare tyre around my midriff. Further, under the skin is not the only place fat accumulates. It also accumulates around the organs. People can look relatively thin if judged just on the upper body or legs or skin, but still be overweight because of visceral fat.

      I think the problem perhaps is that people have become accustomed to overweight being "normal". However, it wasn't. If I look through old photos, from my grandparents times when my parents when kids, in the 50s and 60s, to when I was a young child in the 70s, it is *striking* to me how people then were generally much thinner than people today, particularly pre-middle-aged adults (e.g. my parents).

      Just because overweight has become "normal" in the sense that most western populations are now overweight, doesn't mean it is "normal" with respect to a healthy weight.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    24. Re:BMI is a lie! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      BMI is not perfect. However, unless you are a weightlifter or outrageously fit (not just "skinny fit", but bulging muscles) it's a pretty good indicator.

      No it is NOT. SERIOUSLY. It is absolutely NOT a good indicator.

      See, for example, this actual study on correlation between BMI and obesity measured by bodyfat percentage. The main finding, according to the study: "A BMI >= 30 had ... a poor sensitivity (36% and 49 % [in men and women], respectively) to detect [Body-fat %]-defined obesity."

      In other words, the current BMI cut-off of 30 only correctly identifies 36% of male obese people correctly, and only 49% of females. Does that sound like a "pretty good indicator" to you?

      Now, most of the error here is actually underreporting obesity. So, you might say, let's decrease the threshold. But again, from the study: "Decreasing the BMI cut-off for obesity to >= 25 kg/m2 for instance, will still result in misclassifying as obese 38% of men and 16% of women."

      In other words, if we lower the BMI threshold enough to capture more than 90% of obese people, we end up misdiagnosing about 1/3 of them as obese. The article summarizes these problems:

      The implications of mislabeling patients are not trivial. By using BMI as a marker of obesity, we misclassify >= 50% of patients with excess body fat as being normal or just overweight and we miss the opportunity to intervene and reduce health risk in such individuals. Conversely, BMI may lead to misclassification of persons with normal levels of fat as being overweight...

      In other words, BMI is a TERRIBLE indicator of actual obesity. It ends up massively underreporting actual obesity, but it misclassifies a similarly large number as "overweight" even when those pounds represent extra muscle mass or other things unlikely to lead to health problems.

      Seriously. People need to stop saying "Yeah, BMI's okay for most people." It is NOT okay. We need to stop using it, if we want to be accurate in classifying obesity.

    25. Re:BMI is a lie! by Alomex · · Score: 1

      The 70s are a bad period to compare to. The ideal back then was the emaciated "i'm on drugs" look. It is true that the "really skinny" kid seems to have disappeared. Nowadays most people in USA range between normal and morbidly obese, with very few examples on the low side.

    26. Re:BMI is a lie! by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Probably because the body uses the fat as fuel to fight off whatever.

    27. Re:BMI is a lie! by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      I don't think my parents were going for that look. Also, this was in Europe. Also, they didn't look thinner than in the 50s / 60s.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    28. Re:BMI is a lie! by Alomex · · Score: 1

      The media certainly did go for skinny types. A few years back we were browsing through a collection of Hollywood pinups and hunks through the years and the stars were severely underweight aroud the late 70s. Look for example at these three 70s "hotties":

      http://content.time.com/time/p...

      Today they wouldn't qualify for the job.

    29. Re:BMI is a lie! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      [...] it's by no means skinny and only normal if you compare yourself to other overweight people.

      And that's the key.

    30. Re:BMI is a lie! by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Well, none of the people in my old family photos were Hollywood pinups. So, I'm not sure how that's relevant. :)

      Further, are you saying all the people in those photos are dreadfully underweight, or just the first photo? If just the first photo, well the angels in Charlie's angels weren't at all overweight, granted, but neither were they malnourished waifs either. They were considered to be fairly athletic builds for young woman at the time as far as I remember. Indeed, it's in more recent times that the female ideal has shifted more to the 'malnourished' look, I think. That first photo - they all look like healthy, very normal weight young women to me!

      Given you also said "hunks", and linked to that series of photos: are you trying to say that Lee Majors (the guy in the suit with the 3 angels) is skinny and underweight? He was considered a beefy action man then!

      Actually, that's another thing, steroid abuse in sports has shifted the ideal male shape far from normality. I remember in the 80s rugby players and male action movie stars (e.g. Kirk Douglas, Lee Majors, etc) could be beefy but still were always within the bounds of normality (other than a few actors who came from the body building scene). Today, many rugby players and action stars look like they'd put the original 80s Incredible Hulk to shame. Steroid abuse however is not at all healthy!

      Anyway, all this is irrelevant. I'm not talking about the media. I'm talking about day to day photos of normal people and comparing those from decades past to today. Try it for yourself and I'm *sure* you'll notice the same thing - there is ample statistical evidence for population wide weight gain after all!

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    31. Re:BMI is a lie! by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Err, 70s hulk.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    32. Re:BMI is a lie! by Alomex · · Score: 1

      well the angels in Charlie's angels weren't at all overweight, granted, but neither were they malnourished waifs either.

      They were underweight under the BMI index as were most television starlets back then.

    33. Re:BMI is a lie! by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Farah Fawcett looks a healthy weight to me, and again my memory is they were held up as athletic girls. Googling around suggests she was 1.69 metres and somewhere between 55 to 60 kg, which'd make her a BMI of between 19¼ and 21 - in the healthy range.

      I'm wondering if you're one of these of people who's in denial about being overweight? :)

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    34. Re:BMI is a lie! by Outta_the_way_peck! · · Score: 1

      Which makes it next to impossible for me to find a pair of pants in 30x34. Nobody carries them any more.

    35. Re:BMI is a lie! by Alomex · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering if you're one of these of people who's in denial about being overweight? :)

      Nope, my body fat percentage is in the lean range and this can easily be glanced from my waist measurements, apropos of which:

      Waist to height ratio 'more accurate than BMI'

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/hea...

    36. Re:BMI is a lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but he most likely a bit less than the "normal" 12-14% body fat. If he had those, while he certainly wouldn't be obese, he would be much more in the overweight category (and he is already overweight by being above 25).

    37. Re:BMI is a lie! by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      You previously qualified your body fat percentage as being in the lean range for "your age". I'm not as convinced as you are that it is normal to put on 1 kg per annum with age - other than for a definition of "normal" that is tied in to the increase in excess-weight and obesity in the west. Though, I agree with you that it gets harder and harder with age to avoid putting on that weight, but in my case it's more down to increased time pressure making it harder to regularly do exercise, plus the fact that with age socialising revolves ever more around plentiful food. ;)

      Also, if you've been fat in the past, but lost most of the weight again, those fat cells are largely still there. They may be mostly empty, but they're sitting there waiting. Next time you eat too much, your body no longer has to go to the *expense* of making fat cells, the fat cells are there, ready to store the excess lipids. That makes it much easier to put on weight, and much more difficult not to.

      I'm very, very sceptical that you could be on the verge of "obese" yet be "lean" by any definition (other than ones normalised to a predominantly overweight and obese population). As others you'd have noted, you'd have to be *incredibly* muscled for this to be true. So... I still suspect there's a good chance there's an element of will-full self-delusion here. ;)

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    38. Re:BMI is a lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, one pound every two years, not one kilo every year.

      I'm very, very sceptical that you could be on the verge of "obese" yet be "lean" by any definition/quote.

      Of course, you've reached the conclusion and now reject any facts that point otherwise.

    39. Re:BMI is a lie! by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      You havn't posted any facts though that I'm aware of, other than your interpretations. Indeed, you've already shown to me that your perception of "not overweight" is skewed, given the photo links you posted - one of whom (the pool guy) clearly is carrying extra weight. :)

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    40. Re:BMI is a lie! by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Oh, and you seemed to describe Farah Fawcett in her day as "severely underweight" and potentially (you didn't clear up whether or not you intended it) Lee Majors as "skinny" :). I really do think there is a strong possibility that you've allowed the norms of the current overweight & obese society you live in to skew your perception. ;)

      Again, as per others, while BMI is definitely a heuristic rather than a precise diagnostic, if however you're near "obese" on the BMI scale then, *unless* you're one of an astonishingly rare number of people who are incredibly muscular and lean, you almost certainly are carrying extra weight that you probably shouldn't be. :)

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    41. Re:BMI is a lie! by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Really? I think the following people aren't overweight

      From looks, that too clothed? How is your opinion any useful?

      For a metric to be successful, it should be fit for a purpose. The purpose of BMI is NOT to tell whether a person looks overweight to Alomex when appropriately camouflaged in clothes.

      The purpose of BMI to be an easy to compute formula for easy to obtain raw metrics to determine chances of disease. It is a difficult problem to solve. If the only objection to BMI is that overweight people according to BMI "look" non-overweight to you, that is a great metric.

      Do you have an alternative ? Equally easy to calculate on equally easy to obtain raw metrics with better chance of predicting lifestyle disease than BMI? You could win a Nobel. Though I guess like all nit-picking-non-Nobel-laureates, you just don't understand the purpose of things you are picking nits in.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    42. Re:BMI is a lie! by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Do you have an alternative ?

      Yes, waist to height ratio which is superior. I posted the link elsewhere in this thread.

    43. Re:BMI is a lie! by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Waist to height ratio doesn't work well on females because with low testerone levels, fat deposition isn't primarily around the waist. False positives are because it catches the health risks due to hormone imbalance in women. A large paunch is anyway a health risks in males, so this metric doesn't bring much to the table.

      BTW you haven't posted health risks in future for the individuals by whose photographs you declared them non-overweight.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    44. Re:BMI is a lie! by Alomex · · Score: 1

      BTW you haven't posted health risks in future for the individuals by whose photographs you declared them non-overweight.

      Neither have you posted the contrary. This is just a random request. Anyhow, I've posted links showing that waist to height is preferable and given examples how it is incorrect (estimates range around 5-10%). I'll leave it at that for those who are interested about the facts.

    45. Re:BMI is a lie! by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Neither have you posted the contrary. This is just a random request

      Random request? You came up with random people, with their BMI values, and YOU don't think they are "overweight", without defining "overweight". If you can't go into those people's future from the time the photograph was clicked, and find their health problems, your opinion on their being overweight is meaningless.

      Anyhow, I've posted links showing that waist to height is preferable

      Which doesn't really show it is preferable. It doesn't answer the women question. Secondly, a large majority of men develop lots of fat only near their abdomen. While waist to height ratio does correctly predict higher CVD incidence for such people, the pattern of diffuse fat deposition all through the body causes higher joint strain. Waist to height ration does nothing to predict that. This diffuse fat deposition pattern while being more popular in women, is not limited to women.

      If you narrow down the purpose of a metric to CVD prediction, that too correctly only in males, waist to height ration could be said to be better.

      around 5-10%

      Funny, you don't consider the ~50% women important but 5-10% "incorrect" predictions makes BMI a "lie" ?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    46. Re:BMI is a lie! by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Dude, the header is not mine. I wouldn't call it a lie. I would say "often incorrect".

    47. Re:BMI is a lie! by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      And the metric you propose is just not for females. A metric doing 90-95% (your numbers) correct predictions for complex systems like human bodies is doing great - and definitely does not deserve to be replaced by other metrics which pretend meat-balls with low testesterone don't even exist.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  12. For the lazy, a metric/imperial BMI calculator.. by sjwt · · Score: 2
    --
    You have 5 Moderator Points!
    Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
  13. Bugger by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    That means we won't have anything to tease them about.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Bugger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont you worry any, there's still PLENTY of stuff to make fun of.... more material than you could possibly use up in your (now shortened due to your newfound obesity) lifetime.

  14. India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When do we get to reach this status? Please outsource your eating habits to us.

  15. Dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't those Europeans let us be better at something

  16. America the fallen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can't be first in anything anymore.

  17. Women fair better? Not from what I've seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everywhere I go nowadays when I see a younger couple it's a normal sized man with an overweight woman. It's like normal sized women don't even exist any more and this is the best they can do.

    Now with older couples (say aged 30 and up) they're almost always both fat. Probably the man adapted to her lifestyle over time.

    1. Re:Women fair better? Not from what I've seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everywhere I go nowadays when I see a younger couple it's a normal sized man with an overweight woman. It's like normal sized women don't even exist any more and this is the best they can do....

      I have a theory about this. "normal" sized women are in such high demand. They are usually attracted to the men with the biggest wallets. Leaving the rest of us to fight over their rejects...

    2. Re:Women fair better? Not from what I've seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More cushion for the pushin'. It's harder for skinny women to straddle obese men, but obese women can straddle a skinny man just fine.

  18. Not sure if any policies will help the fact that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..it seems food producers globally are instructed to lace everything with more and more sugar. The USA is the best example - sugar and/or HFCS added to everything, even the most unthinkable.

  19. Slashdot poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you overweight?

  20. health advice is 30-60 mins exercise per day by SkunkPussy · · Score: 2

    I have lost 2 stone / 28 lb / 13kgs over the last 18 months after I scrapped my car and started cycling to work (7 miles each way). I have no interest in going to the gym - no time for that - and I'm not particularly bothered about sport. If I had kept my car I would inevitably drive whenever I was going to be late for work, which would be all the time. So what worked for me was to leave myself no option other than to do exercise every day.

    --
    SURELY NOT!!!!!
    1. Re:health advice is 30-60 mins exercise per day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to have some self control and enjoy getting groceries on your bike.

    2. Re:health advice is 30-60 mins exercise per day by Malc · · Score: 1

      Well done, that's an impressive feat.

      I also sold my car a few years ago, so I can say categorically that it helps to live somewhere that accessible on foot or has decent public transportation as a back-up option is very helpful. I cycle 11 miles TW9-SE1 in London, but these days I only do it when the roads are dry (safety and comfort), and take public transport if I'm feeling unwell, need a rest, have plans elsewhere during the day/after work. I also sleep like a baby after three days in a row commuting on the bike, which is great for an insomniac like me.

      Keep up the good work, keep yourself feeling good, and keep safe.

  21. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess it's too difficult to look in the mirror to determine if your BMI is too high because of being fat or muscular!

  22. Send us a postcard from Stockholm. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    The formula for BMI is weight(kg) / heigth(m) * height(m). This formula only has two terms for height, but in reality I'm a 3d person.

    Congratulations, I'm sure nobody has noticed that before.

    I mean, It's entirely impossible that people don't scale up like, say, solid bronze statues would. Furthermore it'd be ludicrous to suggest that the formula wasn't an empirically derived approximation but was just made up by someone who wasn't as math-smart as you.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Send us a postcard from Stockholm. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      The formula for BMI is weight(kg) / heigth(m) * height(m). This formula only has two terms for height, but in reality I'm a 3d person.

      Congratulations, I'm sure nobody has noticed that before.

      I mean, It's entirely impossible that people don't scale up like, say, solid bronze statues would.

      Well, if I cut through the sarcasm here, (1) people have noticed this before, and (2) people do NOT scale up like solid bronze would. On the other hand, your sarcasm doesn't make an exponent of 2 true or an accurate approximation, nor does it make the exponent 3 as the GP suggests. The actual value when derived from various empirical studies falls in an exponent range of 2.3-2.7. If you separate out men and women, you can narrow that range somewhat. If you take other factors into account, you can get even more accurate.

      (By the way, statutes are a poor example. Large human figures by great artists often have exaggerated (larger than life) features on the top, since they are often viewed from below. A good sculptor understands the importance of distance in making things appear "too small," and will often overcompensate in various ways for large statutes, making them disproportionate with actual humans.)

      Furthermore it'd be ludicrous to suggest that the formula wasn't an empirically derived approximation but was just made up by someone who wasn't as math-smart as you.

      The sarcasm is so heavy here that it's difficult to know what you're saying.

      Nonetheless, (3) the formula was an empirically derived approximation, but for populations, not individuals, and (4) the person who designed it may have been "math-smart," but it was made up in an era long before pocket calculators, and an exponent of 2.3 or something would have made things more complicated to calculate than simply squaring a number; the approximation of 2 worked well with other assumptions of the number. Furthermore, when it was made up, it was understood to apply to population statistics, so the people who were "math-dumb" were those in the medical profession who started applying it to individuals in the last 40 years, not the demographers who designed it 200 years ago.

      The big problem with coming up with a measure for the population at large (no pun intended) is that men and women have very different body shapes, and women tend to have higher bodyfat percentages when they are healthy. But women are also shorter. Therefore, if you want ONE NUMBER to describe both sexes, you necessarily must design a measure that will allow short people to be fatter (but still "normal"), while tall people must have lower bodyfat than average to be "normal." Thus, BMI works great as an approximation for estimating the size of the population in general, but it is terrible for individuals. For short men and tall women it was designed to be terrible. For really short people, you basically have to be obese to be "normal" and for really tall people, you basically have to be emaciated.

      Numerous subsequent medical studies have shown that any number of simple alternative measurements have higher correlations with actual adiposity and actual disease or mortality. For example, simply measuring a man's waist without taking anything else into account (no height, weight, body shape or anything) is a better predictor than BMI. It's still not great, but it's better than BMI.

      You can live in denial and go on insulting people for being ignorant, but you're just hiding your own. BMI is a TERRIBLE measure of adiposity and propensity for disease -- it's explcitily designed to be for maybe 1/3 of the population or more.

    2. Re:Send us a postcard from Stockholm. by epine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That was a surprisingly good summary of what I've concluded from my own readings. I guess there are two types of nerds: speedy nerds and slow nerds. Generally what passes for intelligence here is News for Speedy Nerds.

      For really short people, you basically have to be obese to be "normal" and for really tall people, you basically have to be emaciated.

      I'm in the second group. I'd have to check myself into the Ally McBeal foie gras buffet emporium if I ever got down to the bottom end of my "healthy" BMI bracket using the dumb old formula. I used to weight about that much during my growth spurt, despite devouring large meals between larger meals. Strangers standing beside me in elevators used to worry whether my body could withstand the acceleration, and suggest to me that I eat more. On one work term there was a one-plate lunch buffet restaurant I used to frequent where I discovered the technique of using the sturdy vegetables and lettuce to cantilever the plate's diameter. I was a serious eater, and still I had no shadow.

      Here is an equally simplistic BMI that works better at the extremes: Ponderal index. It works for me because I eventually filled out into a "scaled up" normal person with no (recent) African genes for shedding heat.

      After taking a closer look I concluded that some individuals are such a bad fit for the regular BMI, the use of BMI in the medical setting with these individuals amounts to borderline malpractice. How many people are taking a cholesterol drug because their BMI factored into their GP's uncritical perception?

      Anyone else remember the old expression: garbage in, garbage out? Coefficient 2.0 of the BMI formula needs a serious make-over.

    3. Re:Send us a postcard from Stockholm. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      BMI is a TERRIBLE measure of adiposity and propensity for disease -- it's explcitily designed to be for maybe 1/3 of the population or more.

      No, it's explicitly designed NOT to be an absolute, standalone, diagnostic tool.

      You've fallen for the excluded middle fallacy. It doesn't tell you everything, but it doesn't follow from that that it tells you nothing; it's a useful first-cut approximation, that has the added advantage that it's easily calculated from known or easily measurable values.

      I bet you have a hotkey set up with "correlation is not causation" on it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  23. The experts found that.. and they are wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basically don't believe these news. See data and you would be surprised how rigged these studies are.

    http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.cz/2014/05/yet-more-obesity-babble.html

    The exprts warn: most of the studies reported in newspaper are totally wrong....

  24. so far, USA is the only country i've seen this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In the USA I've seen people who must use motorized chairs to move about, not because they are handicapped or paralyzed in any way, but merely because they are morbidly obese. I've not seen that in any other country so far.

    1. Re:so far, USA is the only country i've seen this by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      You can see this in the UK too sometimes.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  25. Re:For the lazy, a metric/imperial BMI calculator. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BMI is a flawed method. It doesn't take individual build into consideration, but only assumes a certain "generic" mass of muscle etc., which is why it always fails for slender people and for muscular people. Avoid the concept of BMI.

  26. I can vouch for Ireland's fatness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The highest obesity prevalence in females was projected in Ireland (47%)

    As someone from Ireland I can vouch for that. Used to be nice feminine creatures - now fat pig dogs, almost all of them, hyper tense, feminist trolls

  27. Not the way we have carbs now by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 3, Informative

    The amount of sugar and other carbs in our current diet is way higher than it was. Also, we stopped using fat as our energy source since some studies suggested (falsely) that fat was the cause of cardiac diseases and obesity. Those studies have since been proven wrong and the new consensus is that our current high carbs intake is responsible for the enormous amount of obese people and diabetes type II patients.

    A human can live healthy with 0 carbs intake for an entire year, providing they use fat to substitute for energy intake. A human will die within 6 months if they have 0 fat intake, regardless of what they use to substitute that.

    The whole "omega fat" and cholesterol story is way more complicated and correlation and causation between fats, omega fats, cholesterol (various sorts of it) and cardiac disease is currently highly debated. Much research is finding that previous research is wrong and new things are being found every few months. Several papers that have been proven by independent re-trials seem to point out that the whole omega fat theory holds no statistical advantage and there are indications that it may actually be contra productive, but those results are too inconclusive.

    We used to have natural fats, natural carbs and way less carbs in our diet 70 years ago, compared to now. High fructose corn syrup didn't exist yet the way it does now and breakfast wasn't sugar frosted. We didn't limit our fat intake "because it's bad for your heart and you'll get fat" the way we do now and yes, we did often exercise more than we do now. Our whole culture has moved to prepared food instead of home cooking and our taste buds made us buy the food with the "richer" taste. We don't look on the labels to see what's in it, we just want it to taste good and end our appetite. That lead to a totally different diet currently, which leads to obesity.

    To make it more difficult, carbs and especially sugar are actually addictive and our modern stomach fauna will produce chemical substances to make our brain feel good if we eat carbs. We have to go through actual withdrawal symptoms if we don't have our trice daily fix of carbs (feeling faint and woozy) and we get a reward "after dinner dip" if we eat.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by matbury · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, diet is a complicated topic, so this is going to be long...

      Yes, we have different carbs now. One of the most significant features of the modern diet is how we mill flour; with steel milling machines which produce finer, more doughy flour than traditional stone mills. This pushes the glycemic index (the speed at which carbs get digested into sugars and absorbed into our bloodstreams) of most bread and baked good above that of regular table sugar (sucrose).

      No, fat increases obesity too. Fat contains more available calories per gramme than sugar.

      Another problem is the reduced amounts of protein in modern foods. We have to eat a lot more food, i.e. we eat, get full, but get hungry again sooner, because our bodies aren't getting the protein we need. This could also explain the massive increase in meat consumption in order to compensate. However, large amounts of protein in one sitting can't compensate for an overall lack of protein. We need to eat protein with every meal/snack.

      And no, you can't live without carbohydrates, you'd die of starvation. Our brains can only metabolise carbs, they cannot break down fats and proteins to use for energy like other parts of our bodies. If we don't get enough carbs in our diets, our brains start to "digest themselves" producing ketones which make your breath smell of pears. It also provokes feelings of depression and lethargy. And we've all hear of low blood sugar and how it impairs our ability to think and work.

      If you don't want to get obese, don't go on calorie control diets; they just don't work and human will power isn't enough in "normal" people. If you have an eating disorder, on the other hand, yes, it'll work but you'll make yourself ill at the same time. Also, most raw vegetables have very little nutritional value; they need to be cooked (lightly) to release their nutrients and make them available to our digestive systems. The most effective approach is to cut out processed foods from your diet, although that's easier said than done; millions of years of evolution has predisposed us to select sugary, salty, fatty foods over healthier options, and most people go through a certain degree of "withdrawal" when they change their dietary habits, e.g. healthy food is less appetising, and cravings for "something else."

      The quality of our carb intake makes a huge difference. Many whole grains (but not all, check them on glycemic index/load tables) are "slow release" and so keep your bood sugar at a fairly stable, moderate level for longer, so you feel the need to eat less frequently, e.g. basmati rice, oats (porridge is great for breakfast), and barley (great in soups). Steer well clear of most breakfast cereals of the whether they have sugar added or not; the grains are usually processed in ways that make them worse than sugar, e.g. puffed wheat or steamed and rolled corn.

      A rule of thumb that seems to work well in most cases is, "Eat more plants, eat more non-meat protein, eat higher quality carbs."

      If you like an emotional/visual approach, this website's fun: http://www.sugarstacks.com/
       
      If you want to know more about carbs from a research evidence based perspective, "The New Glucose Revolution" is a good book. However, beware of caveats such a fructose being low on the glycemic index - It's just as bad, if not worse than sucrose, as has been revealed recently in the media. In large amounts, it also overstresses your liver.

      Happy and healthy eating!

    2. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, diet is a complicated topic, so this is going to be long...

      Long and wrong.

      A simple rebuttal: Your fat cells store energy when insulin takes the extra sugars in your blood, made from carbs, and stores it in the cells. The mechanism for storing fat in your fat cells is not nearly as efficient. Whole grains vs processed grains, doesn't really matter. They all convert to sugar in your blood stream.

      As for the brain running off carbs only.. that's not the case. Please become educated about the subject first before spouting on and on. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6061736

    3. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And no, you can't live without carbohydrates, you'd die of starvation. Our brains can only metabolise carbs, they cannot break down fats and proteins to use for energy like other parts of our bodies. If we don't get enough carbs in our diets, our brains start to "digest themselves" producing ketones which make your breath smell of pears. It also provokes feelings of depression and lethargy. And we've all hear of low blood sugar and how it impairs our ability to think and work.

      This is hilarious. Precisely ketogenic diets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet are prescribed to children with epilepsy. In most cases the diet reduces or removes all epilepsy attacks.

      Seriously, next time you see a doctor and want him to laugh, tell him about ketogenic diets starving your brain.

    4. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by PJ6 · · Score: 0

      A human can live healthy with 0 carbs intake for an entire year, providing they use fat to substitute for energy intake.

      ... but you fail to mention that this causes irreversible damage by making them a brittle diabetic.

    5. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by DogDude · · Score: 0

      Blah, blah blah. Everything you said was a bunch of gimmicky, pseudo-science looking for a "trick" to enable people to justify being fat.

      If calories in > calories burned then FAT.

      That's just science, but hey, don't let me spoil your fat justification party...

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    6. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by Kjella · · Score: 2

      If you don't want to get obese, don't go on calorie control diets; they just don't work

      Actually that is the problem for many, they're eating reasonably healthy but they're simply eating too much. And then the obvious answer is: eat less. What happens in practice though is that you get hungry, eat only your allotted calories but get more and more hungry as the backlog builds until the dam bursts and you're so hungry you binge eat something. It's not nutrition management that is the killer, it's hunger management. The most obvious point is that eating food late at night is pointless because you'll be sleeping through the effect. Go to bed on a light stomach, wake with a big hunger and eat a big breakfast instead. Another big trick is filler food, food that has extremely low calorie density like broccoli or cauliflower which gives your stomach something to work on while barely containing any energy. And don't eat calories you don't need to, even if they're tasty. It's so easy to go nuts there...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by impossiblefork · · Score: 1

      But calories in and calories burned aren't independent variables.

      You can cause health problems that make eating less impossible by eating less sooner than you would cause healthy weight loss. There's an old story that I found in an old fechtbuch. An english fencing master complained of a spanish argument that you if you always held your point as far towards your opponent as possible would strike him first, and he compared this argument an old story of how a man goes to woman for a cure against seasickness who is to have told him to "Take this rock. As long as you have it in your mouth you will not throw up" and as he went to sea and eventually threw up he realized the precise way in which the woman's statement was true. I feel that your argument involving this accounting inequality has the same character.

    8. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by badzilla · · Score: 1

      Not completely true - you have to consider the availability of those calories. A good example is almonds, there is about 9 calories in the average Costco roasted salted almond, but your body only manages to absorb a lesser number than 9 with the remainder being excreted. Another example is a litre bottle of olive oil; imagine the huge calorific value but if you drank the whole bottle at one go you would not absorb all those calories.

      --
      "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    9. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's a lot of calories in cardboard, but you won't get fat by eating it. Availability of calories matters, as does speed of digestion. You get fatter from eating the same amount of calories if those calories are from high-glycemic-index foods.

      Most people who have dieted for a while have noticed the difference between foods that give them a quick boost but leave them feeling hungry (or sleepy) later, and boring foods that are filling but don't give that sense of having eaten a large meal.

      tl;dr: short peaks of overfeeding are still bad, even if the day's calories aren't.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, like many others, have fallen for the following logical fallacy: since some (not all) parts of the brain require glucose => we need to eat carbs to fuel the brain. First, just parts of the brain and a few other tissues actually require glucose as a fuel source. Almost every other cell in the body works more efficiently on ketone bodies. Second, the liver is easily able to provide the glucose actually required by the brain by a process called gluconeogenesis (creating glucose from non-carb sources). The OP was correct that you can live indefinitely without consuming a single gram of carbohydrate. Although, there are reasons that one may not want to do that, they are not related to survival, and certainly not starvation.

      Unfortunately, the OP was incorrect in saying that you will die without eating fats. Although there are tons of fat-soluble vitamins that will be much much more difficult to obtain without fat, it can be done. And -as people on low-fat diets find- you will be in a world of hurt from constant depression due to the brain not receiving adequate precursors for hormones and neurotransmitters. So, although one wouldn't die without fat, life will monumentally suck. You also made another specious argument against fat. Although fat on average contains 9 kcal/gm vs 4 kcal/gm for protein or carbs, it is not correct to state that it is more fattening. Both fat and protein are more sating than carbs, so one will automatically consume less of them. Also, fat does not going fucking around with the glucose levels in the blood stream, as carbs do (protein does as well, but it also causes the muscles to absorb glucose as glycogen, which carbs do not do). Although not the -only- cause of fattening, the primary cause is due to the erroneous signaling of starvation due to out-of-wack glucose levels. When you eat a mega-ton of carbs, the carbs are converted into glucose, causing the blood glucose levels to rise, triggering the pancreas to release insulin, which the adipose tissue (fat cells) take as a signal to absorb the glucose from the blood stream. Unfortunately, this feedback mechanism isn't lightning fast, and the pancreas often continues pumping out insulin, and the fat cells absorbing glucose, after the blood glucose levels have normalized, which leads to a state of hypoglycemia, which the brain takes as a queue that you are starving at a cellular level and tells you to go eat again - even though your fat cells have tons of stored energy at this point.

      The only true -required- macronutrient is protein. As amino acids are the fundamental building blocks of cells. And since the body is in a constant state of repair, the body will quickly deteriorate without protein.

           

    11. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      No, fat increases obesity too. Fat contains more available calories per gramme than sugar.

      While fat does increase obesity, it does so at a much lower rate than sugar. In other words, the conversion of natural fat is much more inefficient than the conversion of high fructose corn syrup and sugar.

    12. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by stenvar · · Score: 3, Informative

      And no, you can't live without carbohydrates, you'd die of starvation. ... If we don't get enough carbs in our diets, our brains start to "digest themselves" producing ketones which make your breath smell of pears.

      Complete nonsense. Ketone bodies are produced from fat in the liver:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

      You really don't need carbs in your diet.

    13. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If calories in > calories burned then FAT.

      Sure, but that is about as helpful as telling a homeless person that if they spend a lot less than they earn, they'll be able to save up and buy a house.

      Your statement carries an unstated assumption that the amount of calories consumed or expended is easily controlled, and thus they simply need to be adjusted. Any idiot knows that if they eat less they'll lose weight, and yet we have an obesity epidemic.

      I've been on a low-carb diet and while I'm not as lean as I'd like to be it took fairly little effort for me to lose about 20% of my weight bringing me just under the obese threshold and keep it off for a year. When I've tried other strategies like strict calorie-counting with nutrient balancing I've never lost this much weight and I felt like I was ALWAYS hungry (despite eating 6 fairly equal portions per day - and I weighed anything that went into my mouth other than water).

      In both cases I am eating less than I'm burning, but there are ways to go about it that make it MUCH easier to adhere to, and I suspect that there are far better methods that have yet to be discovered.

    14. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And no, you can't live without carbohydrates, you'd die of starvation

      The Innu are shocked to find out they are dead.

    15. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol? Going with a ketogenic diet actually causes your body do become more sensitive to insulin.. Ie less prone to become diabetic.

      Going with a diet with a high sugary diet will cause your body to become less insulin sensitive and that is not good. A high-sugar diet also increases the risk of diabetes.. http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

      If you look into the history of the recommended diet we have to day this all goes back to a few studies made around 50-60 years ago, and most of the assumptions in them have actually been proven to be false..

      A good diet is a mixed diet of both carbs and fat, but carbs should come from things likes apples/potatoes etc, not from processed sugar like corn-syrup. There are so many addetives in todays food that are just bad for us.. And the "low-carb" diets does help with this to a large degree by making you skip allot of them.

      I have myself lost around ~17Kg during the last 6 months by going on a low-carb diet and there are a number of factors that comes into play with this.
      - You become more aware of what's in the food you eat.
      - You become more aware of what things you can/cannot eat without breaking the ketosis.
      - You become more insulin sensitive (a good thing!)
      - You become less hungry and get more energy. This is a huge benefit when you are trying to lose weight..
          You only eat when you are hungry and you only eat until you are full. If you eat food with high-carb content you will eat more.

      I believe the biggest gain i have got from this is that i feel less hungry causing me to eat less. It also have removed lots of the nasty stuff that's put into our foods today.. And the second part is that my cholesterol values have improved quite a bit and have been sick alot less during this time.
      I do not say that this is for everyone and you really should study a bit on how it works and so on because if done incorrectly, or if you have a previous medical condition, it can be dangerous.

      But to sum it up... I would say that a perfect diet would be switching between foods that are high fat/high carb, but they should never be high-fat and high carb at the same time. And get rid of all the processed sugars an go back to the basics. And skip drinking juice, have a fruit instead ( http://www.health.harvard.edu/... )

    16. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, another fascinating discovery! Quick! Someone tell all the Inuit living up north with no carbs that they are all dead diabetics!

      Oh thank you slashdot! You've really removed my blinders and I've learned so much today!

      Oh thank you for showing me that eating no carbs makes you diabetic!

    17. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by DogDude · · Score: 0

      Your statement carries an unstated assumption that the amount of calories consumed or expended is easily controlled

      That's right. Unless you're being forcibly fed, it is easily controlled. Hands don't put food in mouth.

      like strict calorie-counting with nutrient balancing I've never lost this much weight and I felt like I was ALWAYS hungry

      That's right. To lose weight, you'll need to feel hungry. That's life. I didn't make the rules, but the science is very simple, no matter how you'd like to be able to lose weight without being hungry. Just be hungry. It won't kill you.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    18. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah, blah blah. Everything you said was a bunch of gimmicky, pseudo-science looking for a "trick" to enable people to justify being fat.

      If calories in > calories burned then FAT.

      That's just science, but hey, don't let me spoil your fat justification party...

      You are sort of right, but the reality is that's it's not so easy.
      For one thing, call us again when you are 80 years old and let us know how well diet and exercise is working for you to keep that flat stomach.

      Here's the catch. Most people have jobs, and they must maintain a certain level of performance or they lose their job.
      You can control how many calories you eat by simply not putting food in your mouth, but if you don't have enough glucose in your blood, your brain's performance drops significantly. That's OK if you are a 25 year old working in a pizza joint, but not OK if you are an accountant or programmer. But the rest of us have to shove in whatever we can get just to make it through the day.

      Here's the other thing. Just because you want to pull energy from your stored fat does not mean that the fat cells will give it up, no matter how strong your will power is. You can't really control calories burned. Consider this: go to the gym and do curls with some heavy weight and see how many you can do until your muscles fail to complete another rep. Why is it that you can do 6 reps and not 20 if you're carrying 50 pounds of excess fat? 50 pounds of fat can provide enough energy to do thousands of curls. Is it your lack of will power?

      In young people the ability to pull fat from fat cells works fairly well, but as you get older, no so much. Just because you desire to pull 5000 calories of energy from your fat cells today does not mean that your fat cells will co-operate.
      Oh, and I don't want to hear from some ultra marathoner that has dedicated their life to riding a bicycle. Some of have jobs, kids, and responsibilities that prevent such narcisstic lifestyles.

    19. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by clovis · · Score: 1

      The Inuit get carbs in their diet as well, but it's not from soda pop.

      From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

      Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30-35% from protein and 15-20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of
      glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.[10]

    20. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      That's right. To lose weight, you'll need to feel hungry. That's life. I didn't make the rules, but the science is very simple, no matter how you'd like to be able to lose weight without being hungry. Just be hungry. It won't kill you.

      If you read my post you'll note that I lost over 50 pounds not really feeling all that hungry at all.

      Believe it or not, suffering isn't a virtue.

      You can go on telling overweight people to just eat less. Just don't be surprised when they don't do it, and it ends up costing you more taxes to pay for their medical bills. They outnumber you, so you don't really get a choice in that part. You might as well try giving them advice that is actually helpful.

    21. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by hene · · Score: 1

      Eat more plants, eat more non-meat protein, eat higher quality carbs.

      My weight has gone up and down trough all my life. While it has never been a big problem. It has been something I have to sometimes pay attention to. This is pretty much the formula I use to loose weight (+exercise). Stomach is pretty stupid. When it has enough food in it, it is satisfied and vegetables are good way to fill stomach. It will take time to process those foods and after three hours you are allowed to eat again.

    22. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your body can make the carbohydrates for the brain without resorting to eating the brain. Gluconeogenesis allows the production of sugars from protein. However, this will still lead to a low blood sugar. Some people handle that well, others don't.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

    23. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      The word here is zero carbs, not low carbs. I'm sure your diet worked great for you.

      I can't find a link to the study any more (2008 I think), it was about using a zero-carb diet to increase endurance in Olympic athletes. Results showed that it worked (endurance was increased) in both humans and mice, but it always resulted in brittle diabetes. Discussed at a MITOC lecture.

      And wow... I wonder if /. has a way of detecting people who mod comments down and then post trollish replies to them as an AC.

      Not you - the other post.

    24. Re:Not the way we have carbs now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, repeat after me:

      Diet is for Health
      Exercise is for Weight Loss

      They are not the same thing and doing one to try and achieve the other will always fail.

  28. Pretty logical by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    As a society becomes more technologically advanced there is less and less actual physical work being done by most of its citizens.

    Couple that with more readily available food ( both good and bad kinds ), and a general lack of personal control, being overweight makes logical sense in many parts of today's world.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  29. I eat a lot of junk food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but I also cycle 20km daily to and from work. People should have some physical activities included in their everyday routines. If e.g. your workplace is only a few kilometers away, why not cycle?

  30. Stop the theft of American culture! by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

    Next is our guns. That's always how it happens. But they will never take our stupidity. Nope, We have ALGOR. hahaha yes ALGOR! Bwahahahaha. Bwahahahahaaaaaaaaahaaaahaaa.

  31. Skinny fat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No doubt there will be a lot of overweight Eurotrash in years to come - the UK is already there imho. Ireland too.

    But what about all the people who are 'skinny fat'? The young people who look slender but have appalling muscle density - is that any healthier?

  32. This is effectively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the slow erasing of the unique American culture and identity. There may be a war over this.

  33. an effective solution by Max_W · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Closing cities to all automobile traffic. This is it.

    Commuting becomes very fast as bicycles do not need traffic lights.

    There are cargo bicycles too for supplying shops. Strangely people will eat less as they move more. Anyone who was on a long distance cycling tour could not to fail to notice it. People overeat due to to an anxiety. And regular physical activity reduces anxiety dramatically.

    As a by-product we get that there will be no bad areas in a city due to traffic noise and pollution.

    1. Re:an effective solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you put everyone on a bike they're going to need traffic lights. The streets will have too many people on them.

    2. Re:an effective solution by Nemosoft+Unv. · · Score: 2

      Although this is an obvious "solution", it's not very realistic.

      However, there is one trend I noticed over the last years: I see a lot of young, healthy people riding on motorized scooters that do not require wearing a helmet. They are limited to 25 km/h (16 mph) which is a bit faster than a bicycle (though many are 'unlimited' afterwards), and I wonder "Why don't they take the bike?" It takes only slightly longer to do the same trip on the bike, it costs fuel and thus money and it is not very healthy, since a) the riders don't exercise and b) most scooters are 2-stroke engines, usually badly maintained so they pollute enormously.

      Last week there was an item on the news that the sales of these scooters are rising steadily, especially under young people. So, people are getting used to a sedentary lifestyle earlier, and thus get fatter earlier and quicker.

      --
      "Fix it? It has been disintegrated, by definition it cannot be fixed!" - Gru in Despicable Me.
    3. Re:an effective solution by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2

      Thank you commrade Max for your suggestions on how to control other people's lives.

    4. Re:an effective solution by PPH · · Score: 1

      Commuting becomes very fast as bicycles do not need traffic lights.

      Speaking as a pedestrian and one who spends some time in Amsterdam, "Yes they do!"

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:an effective solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I almost hate to break your utopian dream, but if there were bikes replacing all the cars, the bikes would need traffic lights at their intersections.

      The only reason you don't see that currently is total volume of bikers is pretty low.

    6. Re:an effective solution by m00sh · · Score: 1

      Closing cities to all automobile traffic. This is it.

      I tried to get one street closed for rush hour for one day of the week and have it reserved for only bicycle traffic and that was next to impossible.

    7. Re:an effective solution by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 0

      Car fatty is upset over the great idea.

    8. Re:an effective solution by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I ride 4-7 days a week for at least a couple hundred miles, so you can't say I'm anti-bicycle or pro-automobile, but while I, in theory at least, approve of, but there are problems with it. What do the elderly do? How about disabled people, or injured people (broken limb, for instance)? Do you tell the guy who got a limb blown off in Afghanistan 'tough luck buddy, get someone to pedal you around'? What about when you're sick and riding a bike any distance is going to make you that much sicker that much longer, or just being outdoors in the middle of winter when it's cold and snowing is going to turn a simple headcold into pneumonia? As much as I'm an advocate in theory of you and others that keep suggesting this, it's just not practical on the absolute scale you keep insisting on implementing it in. Finally, forcing people to exercise just plain doesn't work, they have to choose to do it. Mandating it by forcing people to ride a bike everywhere (or walk everywhere) just plain won't work, people will find a way around it one way or another, or so many citizens will complain to the government about it that it wouldn't stand. You want to change the world and get people to be more fit and less fat? Find a way to get people to want to be that way. If you can find a sure-fire way to make even 50% of all people from all walks of life to want to do it voluntarily, you'll be a billionaire and get a Nobel prize.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    9. Re:an effective solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suck it bumper bait.

    10. Re:an effective solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They are limited to 25 km/h (16 mph) which is a bit faster than a bicycle

      Whut? Maybe if you absolutely try to avoid getting sweaty or uphill, but downhill or normal cycling on plains I sure hope you meant "a bit slower".
      Sure, you will not manage 25 km/h as average speed, but that's true for both. On the 5 km trip to work I manage 14 km/h uphill and 23 km/h downhill as average speed, and I am not at all in a good shape (always hated any type of sports).

  34. 2meters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am 2 meters high, 85 kg.

    I cycle and exercise regularly but in my opinion the most important thing is the quality of your your food. It is in fact the most important change since 60 years ago.

    It is not biscuits, it is biscuits with Palm and partially hydrogenated oils, which are super inexpensive to manufacture, lasting long but very difficult to eliminate by your methabolism.

    Also it is very hard to mass produce food with fiber, alive cells, antioxidants, enzymes and vitamines(the medium is very important so it is not the same vitamin c from a lemmon than from a pill). 100 years ago most of the food you eat already had this. So the human being as evolved thinking food have those

    But artificial flavors have developed a lot. So you can manufacture something that tastes really good, but does not feed you. And by feeding I don't mean just carbs, or oils, but aminoacids, fiber, good living cells, and good viruses, enzymes, vitamines, natural antioxidants.

    You can eat a lot and don't feel satiated at all. Because you body needs these things and when you eat preprocesed food you are not giving them. So your body gets in panic asking for more food to get those.

    1. Re:2meters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " your methabolism"

      I think I see your problem!

    2. Re:2meters by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Wrong drug of choice for a skinny. Needs less blood in his alcohol system.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  35. WALL-E by koan · · Score: 1
    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  36. Alcohol by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, I'm the first to mention alcohol in this discussion.

    1. Re:Alcohol by Zedrick · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen any reports about Europeans drinking less, but you're right. Since I stopped drinking 4-5 months ago I've gained around 10KG. I'll try to catch up in a few weeks when my girlfriend and our newborn daughter are going away for the weekend, but no matter how many bottles of ale I manage to drink, I doubt I'll get back in shape.

  37. Pics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm 5'11 and 142pounds / 64kg

    It's not just sugar. I cycle.

    ASL? Pics, or it didn't happen.

  38. Crapola by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    Policies to reverse this trend are urgently needed.

    OMG! People are (insert adjective, adverbs, nouns as appropriate)! We must do something! Somebody make a policy, quick!

    The role of government is not to be Mom or Nanny. Will the government next send a message to their TV's 'You have reached your maxium TV dose for today, go outside and play now. The TV is off until tomorrow!"

  39. Nutritionists are harmful. by russotto · · Score: 1

    A good rule of thumb is to find out what the most respected nutritionists agree on and do the opposite. My employer provides lunch, and labels the food according to the 'food pyramid' -- red for the worst stuff like red meats and sweetsand fried food and white flour or rice. Green for steamed vegetables and high fiber foods and the like, yellow in the middle and containing poultry and fatty vegetables. I only eat red and yellow, preferring red. It's tastiest of course. ~145lb, 5' 7". Cholesterol on the low end of normal. Portion control is important, but when you're eating tasty filling foods, it's easy. If I notice myself gaining, I can just cut down on the cookies. When you're trying to feed yourself on low macronutrient foods, portion control is ridiculously difficult; you need huge amounts to just stop the hunger.

    1. Re:Nutritionists are harmful. by mpe · · Score: 1

      A good rule of thumb is to find out what the most respected nutritionists agree on and do the opposite.

      At least until they go back to pre 1977, 1980 (or whenever "healthy eating" started being promoted in your part of the world.) It might make ore sense to look at earlier neutritional advice or what people actually ate in the past.

      Cholesterol on the low end of normal.

      Assuming that "normal" isn't actually "low". The drug companies have worked hard to promote numbers which mean that as many people as possible "need" their drugs.

  40. BMI is not used to diagnose obesity by BradMajors · · Score: 1

    BMI is used for screening.

  41. Definition of overweight keeps changing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The brackets keep changing for what is considered overweight, so of course more people are overweight. Same with diabetes.

  42. Perception of Normal by SlurpingGreen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I live in the US. 6 feet, 145lbs, lift weights regularly, eat rice/beans/vegetables, no sugar. Roughly a third of my family regularly tells me I'm way too skinny and they're concerned about my health. They think I'm going to die of starvation. I've had quite a few women make comments about how I'm too skinny and not strong (one thought she could beat me arm wrestling). My favorite is when I'm with someone and a seriously in shape bicyclist passes by and they compare the bicyclist to a holocaust survivor.

    We've entered a dark place when people start shaming fit people because they don't even know what a normal person should look like.

    1. Re:Perception of Normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ~65kg for ~183cm *is* quite little. At 185cm, I'm 20kg heavier and definitely not overweight. Sure, I do some body weight fitness and I'm quite sure I'm noticably more muscular than your average guy, but nowhere near 20kg worth of it! Further, I have a friend of my own height who's at ~62kg if I recall correctly, and he really is pretty damn skinny.

      All right, I have a hard time believing you're "starving to death" skinny, but you definitely sound regular skinny.

  43. Global warming will save us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People will sweat off those extra pounds. Mostly while riding public transportation that doesn't have air conditioning to save the batteries.

  44. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    The upcoming Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) should prevent any regulations that could help fighting US food megacorporation practices from spreading the EU.

  45. Right on time for the Alien Harvest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure our Alien overlords will be pleased that their cattle will be plump and juicy for consumption upon their arrival. :-)

  46. The work of Dr. Anthony Ray bears mentioning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interestingly its been known since the late 80s that 36,24,36 is actually skinny if a woman is over 5' 3".
    Dr. Anthony Ray, the author of this work, went on to conclude that, increased and well positioned body weight is good for reproductive health Quote:

    "My Anaconda don't want none unless you've got buns hun!" unquote.

  47. The next epidemic. by Salgat · · Score: 1

    People don't realize that the next epidemic will be obesity. Its effects are dramatic and very harmful to health and it's only a matter of time before technology makes food sufficiently cheap for everyone.

  48. And by NewYork · · Score: 1

    I recommend free public transportation

  49. Obesity is complex by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

    There are many factors in obesity.
    1. The greatest is willpower. Pure, sheer wilpower. The willpower to eat less, the willpower to exercise.
    2. Luck. I happen to have the luck to be able to sleep with a mostly empty stomach. It is surprising how much that helps. I also have the luck that I like biking and live in the Netherlands, where almost everybody bikes. Some people have the bad luck to have a body that gains easy and looses difficultly.
    3. Food. I do not mean quantity, that's covered in 1. I mean types. There seems to be some indication that some types of food set the body to gain weight. How that works exactly is not yet known as far as I know. Apparently I don't eat much of them, or I compensate for it sufficiently.
    4 and onwards are unknown to me. However, due to the complexity I expect them to be there.

    I am 1m96 and weigh 95 kg. My ideal weight according to my doctor would be 88kg. I have dropped from 106kg in 6 months. That was easy, I halved my portion size and upped my bicycling distance significantly.

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    1. Re:Obesity is complex by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      5. genetics
      6. money and/or cooking education - its cheaper to get fast food unless you know how to cook things from scratch. If you don't know how to cook, it is expensive to buy high quality cooked food.
      7. availability of real food (many cities in the US are Food Deserts).