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.""

Comments

Re:Sugar

[MrL0G1C]

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?

Re:Europe is moving to the right.

[MrL0G1C]

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!.

"Down with fat-shaming!"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:"Down with fat-shaming!"

[AthanasiusKircher]

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

BMI is a lie!

[sjwt]

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!

Re:Sugar

[gnupun]

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.

Re:As they say:

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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."

Re:BMI is 2d but people are 3d

[wiredlogic]

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.

Re:Sugar

[Vitriol Angst]

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.

Re:Send us a postcard from Stockholm.

[epine]

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.

Re:Sugar

[David_Hart]

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...

Re:Not the way we have carbs now

[lgw]

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.

Re:Not the way we have carbs now

[Rich0]

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.

Perception of Normal

[SlurpingGreen]

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.