New Crash Test Dummies Reflect Rising American Bodyweight

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Crash Test Dummies Reflect Rising American Bodyweight

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 30, 2014 @01:54AM from the my-self-esteem-has-certainly-taken-a-beating dept.

Ever thought that all those crash-test dummies getting slammed around in slow-motion were reflecting an unrealistic, hard-to-achieve body image? One company is acting to change that, with some super-sized (or right-sized) dummies more in line with current American body shapes: Plymouth, Michigan-based company Humanetics said that it has been manufacturing overweight crash test dummies to reflect growing obesity trends in the U.S. Humanetics has been the pioneer in crash test dummies segment since the 1950s. But now, the company's crash test dummies are undergoing a makeover, which will represent thicker waistlines and large rear ends of Americans.

144 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What did you expect.. by bazmail · 2014-10-30 02:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

... from our country that now judges food quality in calories per dollar?

Its disgusting seeing my nation turning into a bunch of blubber-pods.
1. Re:What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  ... from our country that now judges food quality in calories per dollar?
  Its disgusting seeing my nation turning into a bunch of blubber-pods.
  Imagine 500 years into the future : Wall-E.
2. Re: What did you expect.. by OzPeter · 2014-10-30 02:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ... from our country that now judges food quality in calories per dollar?
  
  I think you have it backwards, otherwise McDonald's wouldn't be so cheap
  A true testament to the fact that a bad diet screws with intelligence
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
3. Re:What did you expect.. by Penguinisto · 2014-10-30 02:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Seriously? The old self-loathing OMG-I-hate-my-country-because-we're-all-so-fat! trope? What are you, a sophomore in his first PoliSci class?
  Lookit - you're dead-wrong in that this is somehow just an American thing: Europe and many parts of Asia(!) are seeing a large rise in obesity as well.
  This isn't a national thing, it's a side-effect caused by an overall rising standard of living within any given culture. The short version: If you're not forced to skip meals and not forced to sweat your ass off just to put food on the table, you're going to have a surfeit of calories, and neither your metabolism or hunger mechanism got the memo.
  Now if you're that worried about folks whose physiological evolution hasn't caught up to relative prosperity, then crash the global economy and drive civilization back into the dark ages. Otherwise, dude, grow up already... this is much simpler (and at the same time more complex) than you think.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
4. Re: What did you expect.. by Penguinisto · 2014-10-30 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, McDonald's doesn't really count as food.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
5. Re:What did you expect.. by Person147 · 2014-10-30 03:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This isn't a national thing, it's a side-effect caused by an overall rising standard of living within any given culture.
  Actually in the UK (and I expect other countries) the poorer members of society are the fatter ones (citation). So the evidence collected thus far completely contradicts your comment. It may well be the case that as a culture (or country) itself raises its standards of living the population as a whole get fatter - but that wasn't your observation.
6. Re:What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  That's almost exactly how I judge it. Of course, I mean "inversely" so...the better the food, the fewer calories per dollar.
  Although there are some exceptions, good food costs money, and is incredibly weak on the calories per dollar metric. A pint of strawberries has maybe 10% of the calories of a big mac, but where I live, they cost about the same (depending on season of course). If you switch "big mac" to "chees puffs", its probably now about 5%. How can you expect people to make good choices when (in the US at least) the obese are almost exactly the poor, and it costs so much money to eat well?
7. Re:What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 03:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Overweight people can (with a few exceptions due to medical conditions) change the fact that they're overweight. Gay people by and large cannot make themselves not gay. Apples and oranges.
8. Re:What did you expect.. by C0R1D4N · 2014-10-30 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  It's because low paying jobs are very sedentary and people working two or three of them don't have the time to hit the gym or go out jogging like all those upper middle class moms with their land rovers.
9. Re:What did you expect.. by Moof123 · 2014-10-30 03:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In poor countries is is often cheapest to eat meals like rice with vegetables, or noodle soup with vegetables. In the US and other developed countries vegetables and fruits are fairly pricey relative to high calorie processed foods. I can get a 500 calorie sausage McMuffin for $1 (ready to eat no les), about the same price that I pay for an 100 calorie apple, and less than I pay for a 25 calorie bell pepper. I can get 3-4 boxes of mac and cheese at 700 calories a box for that same $1.
  Go compare what is costs in most cities to put a veggie loaded salad with some white meat chicken on the table ($20-25 in my experience) compared to a vat of spaghetti with red sauce ($3-4, or $7-8 if you toss in a pound of meat). Poor people are making rational economic choices based on how we have driven down the cost per calorie in processed foods.
  The rising standard of living brings great economies of scale (and subsidies), but not to everything equally. So veggies don't get relatively cheaper, but meat and cheese do.
  In a sane world we would respond by backing off of meat and dairy subsidies and heavily subsidize fresh fruit and vegetables. Maybe outlaw checkout aisle candy and put baskets of fresh fruit there. Some euro countries are doing this, we probably never will.
10. Re: What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  People don't eat their way to gay.
11. Re: What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  Ass excepted..
12. Re:What did you expect.. by aardvarkjoe · 2014-10-30 04:03 · Score: 2
  
  Go compare what is costs in most cities to put a veggie loaded salad with some white meat chicken on the table ($20-25 in my experience) compared to a vat of spaghetti with red sauce ($3-4, or $7-8 if you toss in a pound of meat). Poor people are making rational economic choices based on how we have driven down the cost per calorie in processed foods.
  First off, $20-25 seems really high unless you're feeding an army.
  But regardless of that, if you're looking to get the calorie count up, a salad is exactly the wrong way to do that. There's a reason why dieters eat so much salad, after all. Take a look at your basic staple foods -- flour, rice, potatoes, etc. They beat out typical processed foods in a calorie-per-dollar comparison any day.
  
  --
  
  How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
13. Re: What did you expect.. by Concerned+Onlooker · 2014-10-30 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  You can if you do it right.
  
  --
  http://www.rootstrikers.org/
14. Re:What did you expect.. by Concerned+Onlooker · 2014-10-30 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  "The short version: If you're not forced to skip meals and not forced to sweat your ass off just to put food on the table, you're going to have a surfeit of calories, and neither your metabolism or hunger mechanism got the memo."
  In the 1950s the US was not in the dark ages. We did not have to sweat our butts off just to put food on the table. We enjoyed a huge wave of prosperity. And yet, as a nation we were thinner.
  
  --
  http://www.rootstrikers.org/
15. Re:What did you expect.. by cayenne8 · 2014-10-30 04:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I can get a 500 calorie sausage McMuffin for $1 (ready to eat no les), about the same price that I pay for an 100 calorie apple,
  Wow..where do you pay that much for an apple? When they are in season (and I try to only eat fresh veggies and fruit that are in season and mostly local)...I buy 6-8lb bags of apples for $4 or so.
  
  Go compare what is costs in most cities to put a veggie loaded salad with some white meat chicken on the table ($20-25 in my experience)
  Where are you paying this much?? I mean, chicken breasts in the meat dept on sale are about $1.99/lb....whole chickens often are $0.89/lb...so a veggie and chicken dinner to feed a family of 4 isn't $25?!?!
  Where in the US do you live where food is so expensive?
  I find that I spend far less money buying whole foods like veggies and fruit in season, along with good animal proteins, cooking from scratch..that I would for crap processed food.
  I certainly feel MUCH better doing it that way too. I mean, don't get me wrong, I like a good pizza or occasional Taco Bell..but if I eat that crap for 2 days in a row, I feel physically less better than I do when eating good for you foods.
  And again...it isn't a money thing, at least not anywhere I've lived before.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
16. Re:What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  To add, if price (per calorie) is what the poor look for, I wager they will save even more money if they make and cook themselves.
  The bigger reason I think people choose processed or fast foods is convenience.
  It's probably cheaper to buy muffins, sausage, and eggs in bulk and make your own McMuffins. But that takes time.
17. Re: What did you expect.. by itzly · 2014-10-30 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Poor people could even save more by eating less. The money saved could be used to buy some vegetables.
18. Re:What did you expect.. by operagost · 2014-10-30 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  ... from our country that now judges food quality in calories per dollar?
  
  Who does that, Captain Strawman?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
19. Re:What did you expect.. by operagost · 2014-10-30 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  In a sane world we would respond by backing off of meat and dairy subsidies and heavily subsidize fresh fruit and vegetables. Maybe outlaw checkout aisle candy and put baskets of fresh fruit there. Some euro countries are doing this, we probably never will.
  
  Maybe because we're not fascists trying to create some kind of micromanaging bureaucratic dystopia.
  I mean, regulating checkout aisles? Putting fruit there isn't going to make people buy it. Michele Obama pressured schools into putting tasteless, low-quality versions of "gourmet" dishes and fruit on kids' lunch trays, and they responded by throwing it out.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
20. Re:What did you expect.. by operagost · 2014-10-30 04:45 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, you are wrong. There was more industry and correspondingly far more blue-collar workers, who typically engage in a lot more physical activity.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
21. Re:What did you expect.. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-10-30 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Apples and oranges
  Given the comparison you're making, I think "burgers and fruits" would be a more suitable comparison.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
22. Re:What did you expect.. by sudon't · 2014-10-30 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure it has to do with the rise of the gaming console/personal computer, and parents no longer forcing their kids out of the house to play. Kids no longer burn off the fatty, sugary, starchy food they eat. These kids nowadays!
  [Citations forthcoming. You'll see!]
  
  --
  -- sudon't
  Air-ride Equipped
23. Re: What did you expect.. by johnamadsen · 2014-10-30 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually more expensive than cooking yourself. 8 bucks for a meal. That a freaking pound of ground beef, bag of buns - enough for 4-5 meals. And way higher quality. It's not cheap, it's just fast.
24. Re:What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  I like Fugi apples. Last night when I bought them at the local krogers, they were $2.49 a pound. Yes, Fugi are one of the more expensive, but you rarely see apples for less than $1.00 a pound.
25. Re: What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 05:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well to do people are well because they are smarter. They do not smoke. As soon as it was proven cancer bla boa, they stopped. Same with excessive drinking or drugs. And now that it is so obvious that food plays a important role in health, they handle that too. The poor/ stupid don't care. It is well proven fast food is absolutely more expensive. It's just fast. I eat fast food once a month, then I feel sick. Then I forget, and try again. Eat less, eat well. Except for children. So many studies have been done on school performance and nutrition. Poor=map nourished = low brain performance. Sad. This is one problem we do know how to fix, unlike energy or pollution or greenhouse gases. But we can't. You cant, and I cant. It is up to the family and the individual. Some people just don't deal with in.
26. Re: What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  Make a hamburger yourself for $1
27. Re: What did you expect.. by johnamadsen · 2014-10-30 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. The guy was exaggerating (lying to us all) to try to justify literally, poor decisions. Fuck of lier. Stop giving these lazy idiots more excuses.
28. Re: What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Fatties gonna eat and fatties gonna blame others for their piggish habits
29. Re:What did you expect.. by DRJlaw · 2014-10-30 05:29 · Score: 2
  
  Overweight people can (with a few exceptions due to medical conditions) change the fact that they're overweight. Gay people by and large cannot make themselves not gay.
  Citation needed. For both.
  Your "exceptions" are the rule.
  Gay people can be celibate.
  Frankly I'm more interested in the first point. While gay people can "not be gay," I wouldn't wish it upon them, they've worked hard not to be looked down upon for being gay, and all the more power to them.
  Now on to your implied point that it's ok to shame overweight people because they supposedly can change the fact that they're overweight -- just like gay people can change the fact that they have same-sex relationships -- by overcoming fundamental physiological urges that you're oh-so-sure can be overcome by pure willpower.
30. Re:What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Overweight people often find it extremely, extremely difficult to lose weight. Gay people can quite easily choose not to have gay sex, not to cross-dress, etc. I've never met anyone who hated gays for the fact that they had unusual sexual desires, only for the fact that they act on those desires. So what's actually harder?
31. Re:What did you expect.. by Em+Adespoton · 2014-10-30 05:35 · Score: 2
  
  As a number of people have responded to you, the issue, while simple, is not what you're stating. That's something that can be adjusted for and overcome pretty easily.
  The real issue is that more developed nations have found methods of mass-producing cheap consumables -- cheap to produce, cheap to buy, lacking in nutrients, rich in other stuff that causes obesity (or sometimes just the wrong balance for your body to process as "working" food). These consumables have replaced grown vegetables in the diet of people with less income, because they're more easily affordable at the time they're needed.
  Ron Finley spells it out pretty clearly. When his poorer neighbourhood converted abandoned lots and street easements into places to plant edible food, obesity levels dropped, vandalism dropped, and most importantly, diabetes levels dropped.
  It's correlation and not causation, but this is a pretty damning result suggesting that convenience "foods" are a major contributor to the obesity issue (likely because of what they use as fillers, preservatives and growth hormones).
32. Re:What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 05:48 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  >Gay people by and large cannot make themselves not gay.
  They can choose not to have sexual relations. It's an depressing life, I'll grant you. Many overweight people will tell you of the woes of failed diets and that the few times it's lasted, it was a very depressing time of their life.
  Medical science has also proven that dieting generally doesn't work. Scientifically, it works. Psychologically, it doesn't. This is just like the "solution" to being gay, scientifically, it works. Psychologically, it doesn't.
  Medical science has also proven that there is a genetic propensity to overweight (and also a genetic propensity to underweight or average weight). Psychology also plays a factor, but is generally a trigger for those genes. There is no specific psychology to being gay, although there is a trigger: Puberty.
  Does the comparison ring true for you yet? While I will concede being overweight is certainly "more" of a choice than being gay, the level of choice involved in the matter hardly clear cut.
  I'm not going to include the edge cases of people who are overweight due to disabilities.
  Shall we also consider that the shape of someone's body and your attraction or repulsion to it is based on the same rules of your attraction and repulsion to the opposite or same sex? You are letting your genes makes the decisions for you just as much as the overweight are doing so as well. How about you make the more adult decision and consider that rationally someone else's weight almost never affects you (there are occasions such as on an airplane where it does, however, that's a rudeness issue--the larger person needs to consider how they can accommodate themselves without encroaching upon others). When what someone else is or does has no affect on your life, the rational answer is not to care--or, if you feel it is harmful to them only, to offer compassion and support. Not derision.
  As for these crash test dummies affecting you, they're still going to test with dummies at your weight, and modern air bags are variable and dependent on the weight of the person sitting there. This doesn't affect you.
33. Re:What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  So you are claiming that celibate people do not have a sexual preference? You might want to work on your thinking skills a bit.
34. Re:What did you expect.. by butalearner · 2014-10-30 05:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Go compare what is costs in most cities to put a veggie loaded salad with some white meat chicken on the table ($20-25 in my experience)
  Where are you paying this much?? I mean, chicken breasts in the meat dept on sale are about $1.99/lb....whole chickens often are $0.89/lb...so a veggie and chicken dinner to feed a family of 4 isn't $25?!?!
  Where in the US do you live where food is so expensive?
  It's almost certainly the veggies that are the problem. In Colorado, the thinnest state in the nation (though even 1 in 5 adults there are obese), I could get all manner of cheap but high-quality fruits and vegetables all year round from Sprouts (a chain grocery store that calls itself a farmer's market). Bell peppers were almost always on sale for $0.25 - $0.50 apiece, and that's including orange ones, which are generally more expensive. Where I live now, 1 in 3 adults are obese, and I'm lucky to find green bell peppers, which are usually the cheapest, for $1.00 apiece. The parking lot farmer's markets (they also had those in CO, by the way, but prices were rarely better there than at Sprouts) are all over now, and their prices weren't much better anyway, so crappy grocery store produce is once again my only option.
  As a result, we often end up buying frozen veggies, which don't taste nearly as good, so we don't do it as often. We ate a lot more rice and veggie dishes and salads in CO, but we eat more pasta and meat dishes here.
  Over the course of making this post, I found out that Sprouts is coming to my city in 2015. I am very excited about this.
35. Re:What did you expect.. by drainbramage · 2014-10-30 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't you mean 'Bi and Large"?
  
  --
  No brain, no pain.
36. Re:What did you expect.. by operagost · 2014-10-30 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe because we're not fascists trying to create some kind of micromanaging bureaucratic dystopia.
  I mean, regulating checkout aisles? Putting fruit there isn't going to make people buy it. Michele Obama pressured schools into putting tasteless, low-quality versions of "gourmet" dishes and fruit on kids' lunch trays, and they responded by throwing it out.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
37. Re:What did you expect.. by DerekLyons · 2014-10-30 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't a national thing, it's a side-effect caused by an overall rising standard of living within any given culture.
  Actually in the UK (and I expect other countries) the poorer members of society are the fatter ones (citation). So the evidence collected thus far completely contradicts your comment.
  Comparing the standard of living of modern urban poor to that of the urban poor of even a century ago - yeah, it's definitely improved greatly. (Regulated working hours, minimum wages, improved workplace safety, improved medical care, improved access to food... I could go on, but you get the point.) So no, the evidence thus far collected does not contradict his statement. You've just confused "society as a whole is getting larger" with "the poor are the largest".
38. Re:What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  Poster might live in a food desert.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
39. Re:What did you expect.. by DRJlaw · 2014-10-30 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  So if a person merely thinks that they're gay, they're gay.
  If an overweight person doesn't think they're overweight...
40. Re:What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, chicken breasts in the meat dept on sale are about $1.99/lb....whole chickens often are $0.89/lb
  <kenobi>That's no chicken.</kenobi>
  
  For someone who seems to care about what they eat, you should really know that. Chicken that was raised (as opposed to manufactured) costs quite a bit more than that in the United States.
41. Re:What did you expect.. by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-10-30 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  I've never met anyone who hated gays for the fact that they had unusual sexual desires, only for the fact that they act on those desires.
  That's odd, my experience has been pretty much the exact opposite.
  
  I've never met anyone who hated gays for the fact that they acted on their desires, only for the fact that they identified as gay. Most gay-haters would hate a lisp-talking limp-wristed flamboyantly fabulous man that claims to be gay regardless of his sexual escapades, and they wouldn't have a problem with a bible-thumping wife-and-kids-having man's man that claims to be straight but secretly sucks cock.
  
  We must run in different circles?
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
42. Re:What did you expect.. by neoritter · 2014-10-30 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Micro-gravity tends to do things like that...
43. Re: What did you expect.. by mister_playboy · 2014-10-30 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Recent prank:
  "What happens when you serve Mc Donald's food to some experts and pretend it's a new organic meal?"
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  --
  Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
44. Re:What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  Well duh...
  poor people are usually less educated, and definitely have less ability to discriminate on quality over price when purchasing food. Those are the main causes of obesity in a first world nation (not knowing how to eat well, and not being able to buy "the good stuff" and settling for stuff that's loaded with sugars and preservatives instead)
  At the low end of quality of life (at the national scale) Obesity is confided to the upper classes because no one else can afford excess consumption, but as quality of life increases across the board starvation becomes less of a real problem and eventually you get the opposite issue where food is so prevalent that it takes an act of restraint to not over-consume.
  Further once a society discovers marketing it has to deal with food that's designed to exploit the bugs in the human hunger/satiation response and you get a whole range of "junk foods" that are actively bad for you but do a better job than regular food of sating the cravings that are supposed to be encouraging you to eat well.
45. Re:What did you expect.. by thegarbz · 2014-10-30 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  At no point did the GP say this is something exclusive to Americans.
  What the GP implied is that he was sad that America is part of it, and he's right. I have the same feelings about the lardarses in Australia.
  We're getting bigger. We shouldn't accept that just because the rest of the world is too.
46. Re:What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  Outlaw food commercials past 8pm local time and stop with all the high fructose corn syrup in all the processed canned foods and that would help.
  But Here It Is:
  Start a visual trekker excersize experience with audio/ video excursions from around the world for the excersize bike, stairstepper, tread mill.. and even a rowing machine. Turn it into a virtual reality program complete with a lightweight custom Audio Video DVD Headset. Ideal fun when its tough to get away from the salty snow and ice covered sidewalks and office that's good for you. Even jogging in place anytime, anywhere would be a great trek.. an Excertrek! Or XR Trek. Pay audio and video contributors from all parts of the globe a nice % of gro$$ $ales and maybe let contributors win free A/V recording equipment for top selling treks. Compile half a dozen treks 20 minutes each on each DVD and sell the crap out of them. You'll see everyone getting in better shape. This would kick ass in the fat slob department!!
  Want to become a billionaire fairly quickly? Start up for a couple $MM R&D and media blitz it. The technology for the video goggles is here now. Making them affordable for every body is the key. Here you are..
47. Re:What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 12:24 · Score: 0
  
  I mean, regulating checkout aisles? Putting fruit there isn't going to make people buy it. Michele Obama pressured schools into putting tasteless, low-quality versions of "gourmet" dishes and fruit on kids' lunch trays, and they responded by throwing it out.
  Go google market research.
  It will.
48. Re:What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  And in the 1950s there was less driving.
49. Re:What did you expect.. by nogginthenog · 2014-10-30 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  Fresh apples are available all year round. They store them in huge Nitrogen filled warehouses.
50. Re: What did you expect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-05 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry no. Americans are fat as hell compared to Europeans. Ever tube I go back there, they are fatter and fatter.
Obesity by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 02:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yes, Americans are fatter than ever before. But "overweight" and "obese" are completely arbitrary terms. It's about time someone did some kind of science in this area. There's nothing scientific about BMI, for example. We act like there's some sort of cutoff for what's healthy, and that's not borne out by real data.
1. Re:Obesity by binarylarry · 2014-10-30 02:41 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Sounds like something a fatty would say.
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
2. Re:Obesity by ceoyoyo · 2014-10-30 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  There's lots of actual science done in that area. And a lot of crap "science" too, plus a LOT of random incorrect assertions. The "overweight" and "obese" ranges aren't arbitrary, they were chosen to correspond to bands of health risk. BMI is "scientific" and it works pretty well as a population health metric, as do the weight ranges based on it.
  BMI doesn't work as well when applied to individuals. There are some other reasonably simple measurements that work better, such as waist to hip ratio. Being overweight is an important risk factor for a lot of serious diseases, both at the individual level and at the population level.
3. Re:Obesity by GLMDesigns · 2014-10-30 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Take a look at Mike Tyson circa 1990: 5'10" and 218 pounds. According to BMI metrics he's obese. (31.3)
  
  --
  If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
  Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
4. Re:Obesity by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  BMI does not work very well, and you making a claim shows you don't know that. I remember somebody pointing out the snapple lady from the snapple commercials that I think aired a decade ago who was almost perfectly round had the same BMI as Shaq in the prime of his basket ball days. The reason why is because BMI does not take height in to cosideration correctly. It favors shorter people.
  Now, that's not to say the US doesn't have a problem, as a lot of scandanavia are a) taller than americans and b) have lower BMIs, but none the less, using BMI blindly is about the stupidest thing one can do.
5. Re:Obesity by itzly · 2014-10-30 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  There are very few Shaqs in the general population, so the BMI remains a good statistical indicator. In individual cases, you should always use your brains to decide whether you may be an exception to the guidelines.
6. Re:Obesity by onkelonkel · 2014-10-30 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  Overweight and obese are medical terms based on associated health risk. BMI is fairly good for average people, not so good for athletes.
  
  Want to know if you are fat? Try this - lift your shirt, and grab a fold of skin 2 inches to the left (or right) of you belly button. How thick is the fold of skin (and fat)? An inch or less, ok. More than an inch, you are carrying unnecessary extra body fat which will damage your health.
  
  --
  None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
7. Re:Obesity by itzly · 2014-10-30 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  Doesn't work well for people who carry their fat around their internal organs, which is the most dangerous place to have it. Unfortunately, BMI doesn't necessarily work that well either. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
8. Re:Obesity by ceoyoyo · 2014-10-30 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Read more carefully. What I said:
  "[BMI] works pretty well as a population health metric"
  "BMI doesn't work as well when applied to individuals."
  You understand that the Snapple lady is an individual, right? And that individuals and a population are quite different things?
9. Re:Obesity by Nethemas+the+Great · 2014-10-30 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  BMI was invented as an accommodation to practitioners involved with the general populace such as dietitians and physical trainers, for whom proper evaluation is beyond their intellectual reach. For the majority of the population existing within the bell curve, BMI fits reasonably well. Athletes don't fit the bell curve and anyone running in those circles doesn't give BMI serious consideration. In other words, it was a tool invented to call fat people fat.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
10. Re:Obesity by Nethemas+the+Great · 2014-10-30 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  One can always find exceptions to rules. Rules of thumb such a pinching fat, or looking down to see whether or not you can see your toes, etc. work pretty well on the general populace.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
11. Re:Obesity by itzly · 2014-10-30 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  1 in 7 men is a considerable amount, though, and that's only in the 20-25 BMI category. There are probably more in the 25+ category that still consider themselves not really overweight and can still see their toes. And considering these are higher risk people, that's a big exception.
12. Re:Obesity by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-10-30 08:53 · Score: 2
  
  You're right, maybe that's what the problem is. Maybe America isn't getting incredibly fat, maybe we're just getting incredibly muscular.
  
  *goes to Walmart*
  
  Nope. Incredibly fat. Sorry.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
13. Re:Obesity by GLMDesigns · 2014-10-30 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  It's a combination of many things - including how we work out. A couple of years ago I spent some time in Italy. I came back to my gym and there was this real fat fck. Oh sh*t he's fat. But then he does shrugs with 7 plates. OMG. And then benches with 4. Shit that mutherfck3r is strong.
  
  In 5 minutes I go from thinking he is a fat slob to being super impressed.
  
  To those not into weight lifting saying someone puts on 4 plates is someone putting on 4 45 pound (20 kilo) weights on each end of a 45 pound bar. Four plates is lifting 415 pounds(180 kilos).
  
  I notice my work out habit. If I don't have time I lift and skip the aerobics. I probably have about 15-20 pounds of fat on me. If I chose to run instead of lift on those time-deprived days I would probably be 30-35 pounds lighter (the fat plus less muscle).
  
  --
  If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
  Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
14. Re:Obesity by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-10-31 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Consider that only 58,000,000 Americans have gym memberships, and that only 1/3 actually make use of these memberships, and you're looking at fewer than 1 in 10 Americans that actually go to the gym. Furthermore, many of these people focus more on cardio than strength training. Additionally, let's not forget the rather sizeable proportion of gym people that are only there for their first or second time, will shortly stop going entirely, and are, frankly, fat as fuck.
  
  The percentage of Americans that engages in the sort of strength training you describe is very, very small. Much smaller than the 35% of the population that is clinically obese. Some small part of this 35% is surely Mike Tysons or random fat dudes that bench 415 lbs. However, this small part doesn't really change the fact that the overwhelming majority are indeed fat. If you subtract out the people who have low body fat but exceptionally high muscle mass (and are thus falsely identified as obese), I doubt the obesity rate would fall below 34%.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
15. Re:Obesity by cgimusic · 2014-11-01 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  People often seem to bring up world class athletes when criticizing BMI but these people are the absolute outliers. The vast majority of people are not like Mike Tyson in their physical build and as such BMI gives a reasonable indication of if they are at a healthy weight.
16. Re:Obesity by GLMDesigns · 2014-11-03 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  I could not disagree more. I think a lot of Americans (including myself) who go to the gym regularly are not suited well by the BMI chart. A far better calculation would be a chest to waist measurement (or a caliper measurement of fat around the waist). Both of those would be more time consuming but would be a better judge of obesity.
  
  A 5'10 male is considered over weight at 174lbs(https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmi_tbl.pdf) and obese at 209. I'm 5'10. If I weighed 174lbs I would be cut - competition cut. When I weigh 19 I can flex out my abs. And yet - according to the BMI chart I am borderline obese.
  
  The BMI charts are worthless in my opinion. There is nothing about them that has any validity - especially with a population that values muscles and goes to a gym to add muscle (as opposed to taking off fat). According to the chart - middle of the range normal would be 153. What!!! If I trimmed to 3% body fat I don't think I would be under 170lbs.
  
  So. No. I don't think BMI is accurate measurement of health or obesity.
  
  --
  If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
  Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Average body size by OzPeter · 2014-10-30 02:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

Kinda relevant, Average American Male's Body Compared To Bodies Of Men From Other Nations

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
1. Re:Average body size by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  It's sad but in many countries USA peoples are now informally called bibendums.
2. Re:Average body size by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  Why, cause we drink a lot?
3. Re:Average body size by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  Living in America is like life on easy mode :)
4. Re:Average body size by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  Kinda Irrelevant.
  Except this comparison uses BMI which is known to have serious problems measuring people of different sizes. A person who is above 6 feet tall is naturally going to have a very high bmi. Athletes in particular have very screwed up BMI measurements. Pro athletes with ultra low body fats will regularly fall into the "obese" category in the BMI tables. So without having a more precise measurement system, one that accounts for body composition, this comparison rendered by "artist Nickolay Lamm" is completely made up and not at all representative of reality. Based on the numbers he provides it could actually mean that Americans are all significantly more athletic and muscly than the rest of the world (I know we're fat but my statement is true based on the numbers provided by the link).
5. Re:Average body size by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  I spent some time on Google Earth looking at random street view pics in cities around the world.
  There are fat people everywhere.
  This not an exclusively American problem.
  So get off my skinny ass.
6. Re:Average body size by s122604 · 2014-10-30 03:26 · Score: 2
  
  Oh, but Europeans love to think that...
  I've been to the UK numerous times, no shortage of lard buckets
7. Re:Average body size by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, those are American tourists.
8. Re:Average body size by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  Because you don't like being called 'murican or USAian.
9. Re:Average body size by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  It's sad but in many countries USA peoples are now informally called bibendums.
  
  Why, cause we drink a lot?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibendum aka, the Michelin tire man
10. Re:Average body size by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  I think you'll find they're American tourists.
11. Re: Average body size by johnamadsen · 2014-10-30 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  Again with the Moroccans we do the Moroccans have to do with us? And learn how to spell dipshit fuck face ass clown.
12. Re:Average body size by Em+Adespoton · 2014-10-30 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  While true, most truly obese people aren't going to be visible on Street View, as they never walk anywhere. So it's not going to be an accurate measurement for shut-ins and 'drive to work/store' obese persons, which are the majority in the US.
  I can't think of a better way of measuring it off the top of my head though.
13. Re:Average body size by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  So it's not going to be an accurate measurement for shut-ins and 'drive to work/store' obese persons, which are the majority in the US.
  ?
  You don't actually believe that, do you?
14. Re:Average body size by plover · 2014-10-30 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots."
  
  --
  John
15. Re:Average body size by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  The Huffington Post? Really? You're actually going to link to that propaganda rag?
16. Re:Average body size by s122604 · 2014-10-30 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  I think not...
17. Re: Average body size by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-10-30 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Did you just feign stupidity in an attempt to be clever?
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
18. Re: Average body size by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty certain that wasn't an act.
19. Re:Average body size by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, but Europeans love to think that...
  I've been to the UK numerous times, no shortage of lard buckets
  The UK is the most obese country in Western Europe by far. There has actually been an observable shift in cross country sharing of medical data because of this (as reported on slashdot some time ago), the dietary boffins in the UK share more data with the USA than with the European countries these days because their obesity problems are much closer to those of the USA than those in the rest of Europe. The rest of Europe has a couple of lard buckets, the UK and USA have a national obesity problem.
20. Re: Average body size by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  > Did you just feign stupidity in an attempt to be clever?
  What makes you assume they're faking it?
This makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 02:17 · Score: 2, Funny

The Crash Test Dummies are Canadian.
1. Re:This makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm, eh?
Automakers do not want by codeButcher · 2014-10-30 02:20 · Score: 2

They might not want to buy these crash test dummies, because they do not fit so well in some of their cars.

--
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
1. Re:Automakers do not want by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-10-30 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  When I was in college, we fit 21 people into a station wagon and 19 people into a pickup truck. This was years before the practice was made illegal by state law. I doubt they can get that many dummies into today's cars.
2. Re:Automakers do not want by cayenne8 · 2014-10-30 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  When I was in college, we fit 21 people into a station wagon and 19 people into a pickup truck. This was years before the practice was made illegal by state law. I doubt they can get that many dummies into today's cars.
  Back when I was in college, I fit in 5 people into a 2x seater Datsun 280Z, along with a case of beer.
  We had to leave the hatch up and it was only about a couple miles or so....
  Thankfully the cops didn't see us...hahaha.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
3. Re:Automakers do not want by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  Back in high school I fit 11 people in a 1984 Ford Thunderbird. Also only for a couple miles. One brave soul volunteered to ride in the trunk.
  
  In hindsight, he probably had the most confortable seat after the driver.
What about the "old normal"? by dpilot · 2014-10-30 02:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

Might this have bad implications for those who can keep their appetites and activity levels in decent proportion?
I'm thinking about the fact that airbags can be harmful to kids, because they're tuned for adults. What happens when we start tuning our restraint systems for the obese? Will they continue to function properly for trim people, will they work less effectively, or might they actually become harmful, like airbags for kids? (I would expect that they might become too stiff for old-normal body proportions, for instance.)

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
1. Re:What about the "old normal"? by ShanghaiBill · 2014-10-30 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  What happens when we start tuning our restraint systems for the obese?
  Many cars have sensors in the seats that can measure the mass of the occupant, and use that data to adjust the force of the restraint systems.
2. Re:What about the "old normal"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  Guess you better start walking, skinny. Fuck you.
3. Re:What about the "old normal"? by Bob9113 · 2014-10-30 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  What happens when we start tuning our restraint systems for the obese? Will they continue to function properly for trim people, will they work less effectively, or might they actually become harmful, like airbags for kids?
  Perhaps there will be restraint system option packages. The Kid-Size, Fit-Size, Fun-Size, and Super-Size. Of course, then there might be size inflation like women's dresses, so eventually fit people will be driving size zero cars and slender people won't be able to buy off-the-rack at all.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
4. Re:What about the "old normal"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  Both of those suggestions would result in improved fitness....
5. Re:What about the "old normal"? by Nethemas+the+Great · 2014-10-30 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  I thought they already had lap belt extenders...
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Air bags by c · 2014-10-30 02:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

As long as it doesn't lead to an increase in the power of air bags such that they become (more) unsafe to people with a healthy weight, I don't see this as an entirely bad thing.

--
Log in or piss off.
1. Re:Air bags by rogueippacket · 2014-10-30 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  This was the first thing that came to mind. Then again, American car companies have been specifically catering to overweight customers for some time now; American cars typically have wider seats to accommodate larger posteriors, and the popularity of SUV and Pickup Truck frames in the American markets cannot be overstated. Sure, both have replaced the Minivan in recent years, but the larger frames, higher ground clearance, and wide-open entryways are not a coincidence.
2. Re:Air bags by Overzeetop · 2014-10-30 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  That, and they're partially exempt from CAFE and gas guzzler taxes (or were at the time of their wildly increasing popularity)
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
3. Re:Air bags by plover · 2014-10-30 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  I also thought it sounded like a good thing. When safety components have to structurally withstand higher impact loads, that really means they cover a wider range of occupants. It doesn't mean they won't continue to test with infants and children.
  Besides, they run many thousands of simulated crashes before they expend real dollars on actual crash tests. The dummy is nowadays just the "proof" test.
  
  --
  John
Careful with that dummy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 02:27 · Score: 0

Don't let it fall on you!
Techniacl details of the dummies by nimbius · 2014-10-30 02:30 · Score: 5, Funny

What ive found to be lacking in this article is the technical details of the dummies. Here at humanetics our dummies are actually quite advanced as the details on a few recently manufactured units will surely attest:

model 13543: Fudge: Meant to simulate the average child in america, Fudge comes pre-treated with cookie dough and its kinematic range has been artificially limited for realism. Fudge stands 4'4, and weights 230 pounds. Convenient multi-grip handles are provided as Fudge requres a team-lift for safety.
model 9543: Lerleen: lerleen measures 5' tall and weighs more than 400 pounds. Kinematics have been removed for savings/realism and the materials impregnated with a mix of cigarette smoke resin, liquid yogurt, and imitation chocolate. Installation is easy with the included guide rails and lift straps for most counterbalance indoor fork-lift trucks. Mass can be redirected to the feet, and feet are also removable in order to simulate lifelike condition of end-stage diabetes.
model 15442: Cobbler: Cobbler represents the average adult american male, at 5'11 and 550 pounds. This model is not kinematic, however is poseable in a variety of styles to simulate heart attack, COPD related loss of consciousness, or food-related motor vehicle operator distraction. Cobbler is impregnated with a malty, earthy aroma comprised of barbecue sauce and artificial cheese, and must be installed by a certified mover/millwright.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:Techniacl details of the dummies by PPH · 2014-10-30 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  model 12707: Mary Lou: Mary Lou stands 5'-2" and weights 95 pounds. Limbs are articulated to allow feet to be placed on the dashboard or out the window in the front passenger seat. Meant to test limb injury or loss due to air bag deployment or rollover.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
For all the snarky and negative comments .... by King_TJ · 2014-10-30 02:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have to say that IMO, this is a pretty good idea.
The whole idea of doing crash tests and designing vehicles around one standard dummy size means you have no way to know if the safety systems work well with anyone outside that narrow parameter.
Not everyone heavier than the 167lbs. or so of the current crash dummy is unhealthy, for starters. Should America's vehicles be higher safety risks for all of our professional athletes with more muscle-mass than average? (Chevrolet just sponsored the World Series .... Maybe they better rethink their strategy if they don't design cars to be as safe for some of those guys?)
Even the "ideal weight charts" say a 6'4" person is still in the "normal" weight range at 197lbs. - so what about tall people like that? (Are the crash test dummies tall enough to see what happens when someone's head is that much higher up in the vehicle? They probably should check into that.)
But even putting all of that aside for a moment? The people bringing up those comparisons of average body types in other countries to ours don't really convince me that we're so bad off as a nation. Honestly, I used to be as skinny as the depicted "average sized 30 year old Japanese male" in that Huffington Post article -- and you know what? I hated it. As a general rule, women found me too skinny to be physically attractive to them (with many preferring the larger-framed guys who were clearly in the "overweight" category). The only praise I ever received was from the "gym rat" types who cared more about achieving the numbers the charts or stats said you should achieve as "ideal". And even then? I was never really very strong. They always assumed I would be a "quick runner" though.
1. Re:For all the snarky and negative comments .... by pavon · 2014-10-30 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, more test data across the spectrum of body types is always a good thing. The article mentions that they are working on building dummies to better model elderly people as well.
2. Re:For all the snarky and negative comments .... by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-10-30 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  An elderly dummy with a Viagra prescription, seeing how well the woody survives the crash test.
Headline News by tepples · 2014-10-30 02:54 · Score: 1

Hasn't "Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm" already been displaced in cultural consciousness by "Weird Al" Yankovic's parody "Headline News"? "Then there was this guy who made his wife so mad one night that she cut off his wiener..."
1. Re:Headline News by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2014-10-30 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  I've always been fond of Mike Nelson's rendition.
A prediction by aaron4801 · 2014-10-30 03:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Car companies will purchase a few test units, then realize all their 5-Star Safety cars are now only 3-Star safe for bigger passengers, then go right back to the smaller dummies. Seriously, what's the incentive for car companies to voluntarily take on more difficult metrics to reach? Unless the government mandates an increase in dummy weight, this is nothing more than a publicity stunt by the CTD manufacturer.
1. Re:A prediction by timeOday · 2014-10-30 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's interesting that we give so much emphasis to "stars" (that is, controlled tests) and so little to accident statistical data. I would never argue against controlled tests, but there is a risk of overlooking some important variable - like variability in occupant size, for example. If we focused more on the bottom line - safety the real world - then the car companies would have an incentive to do a wider range of tests.
2. Re:A prediction by Em+Adespoton · 2014-10-30 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, car companies will probably add these to their test beds; safety ratings aren't based off of manufacturer's internal testing results, they're based off of the national testing facility results.
  Which means the only time the 5-star rating is going to go to a 3-star rating is if the national testing facilities start using these dummies. And if they do that... the auto manufacturers had better start using them too, or they're going to lose a LOT of money as their cars' ratings go down the drain compared to those who DO test with them.
3. Re:A prediction by hankwang · 2014-10-30 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  "the only time the 5-star rating is going to go to a 3-star rating is if the national testing facilities start using these dummies. And if they do that..."
  If they do that, you'll need twice the number of cars to sacrifice in crash tests and the dummies will wear out twice as fast. Likely, you'll need twice the number of testing facilities as well. A decision to make such tests mandatory should not be taken lightly.
  My guess is that these dummies will be used to gain knowledge on how to translate standard test results to risks for nonstandard body types, and possibly to mandatory requirements on car/safety belt construction if the disadvantage of an obese person is large and preventable.
  
  --
  Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
Old Physics Joke by VorpalRodent · 2014-10-30 03:19 · Score: 4, Funny

So, the punchline is now reality? "Assume a spherical driver."

--
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
An Ode to a Fat Test Dummy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 03:50 · Score: 0

There once was a test dummy named Yummy, his girth was caused by his tummy
As he sped down the track, the electrodes in his crack fed data to likewise fat scientists
The data collected was further inspected to protect the whales who would drive
Whilst they drove in their rides, their cars listing to port side, the sight of sparks from the weight in the night
You want to know why we're fat? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 04:01 · Score: 0

A burger costs a buck, whereas a salad costs five. You do the math.
1. Re:You want to know why we're fat? by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-10-30 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Or make your own meals at home and save money.
2. Re:You want to know why we're fat? by cayenne8 · 2014-10-30 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Or make your own meals at home and save money.
  Amen.
  I can buy a box of salad greens (already mixed and washed) at Costco/Sams for less than $5...and some onions, tomatoes, cukes, etc...for a total of maybe altogether $10...and get several meals out of it, maybe 5-7.
  That's just barely over a $1.x / meal....and much better and filling for you.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
3. Re:You want to know why we're fat? by Overzeetop · 2014-10-30 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but 3 of your salads will still have too few calories to meet the basal metabolic rate for even a thin adult human, whereas $3 in burgers will get you there.
  On the bright side, the chance of catching e. coli is about the same from a fast food burger and from pre-washed, bagged greens. A bout with the bac is always good for a quick weight loss.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
4. Re:You want to know why we're fat? by Em+Adespoton · 2014-10-30 05:51 · Score: 2
  
  Which means that people who plan ahead and alot time to prepare food in the evening/morning for the day will have much healthier diets than those who pick up something from the corner convenience store/fast food store between shifts.
  This is what all the studies and numbers already indicate. They also indicate that people would rather someone else do that work for them and pay the extra money/pay the price in health.
5. Re:You want to know why we're fat? by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-10-30 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  I prepare my own food at home. I spend about $6 per day for three meals. As for hamburger, I get big bag of 16 frozen patties for $8, eight hamburger buns for $1 and 16 cheese slices for $1. A double cheese burger cost me $1.25 to make.
6. Re:You want to know why we're fat? by itzly · 2014-10-30 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is not that people aren't eating enough calories to meet their basal metabolic rate. The problem is that they're eating twice that.
7. Re:You want to know why we're fat? by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-10-30 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  save money = spend time
  
  The people with the least money have already traded away all of their time (in the form of second jobs, etc).
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
8. Re:You want to know why we're fat? by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-10-30 09:09 · Score: 2
  
  Doesn't McDonalds sell a double cheese burger for $1?
  
  So you're saying that if you're willing to pay a 25% premium, you'll earn the ability to waste time at the grocery store and in your kitchen?
  
  Sold!
  
  I spend a lot of time and money cooking my own food, but living off fast food was a lot cheaper (in terms of both money and time). It's an odd world we live in.
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
9. Re:You want to know why we're fat? by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-10-30 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying that if you're willing to pay a 25% premium, you'll earn the ability to waste time at the grocery store and in your kitchen?
  Considering that I'm on a low-carb diet, I need to measure what I eat. That's hard to do if you're eating on the run.
10. Re:You want to know why we're fat? by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-10-31 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  I did this a few months ago. It was incredibly cumbersome using my tiny scale, but it was somewhat satifying to have such a precise log of my nutritional intake. Good luck in your dieting. I was able to stay below 20g net carbs by eating the same thing every day. 2 eggs + 2 slices bacon + 2 slices american cheese for breakfast, a Chipotle salad bowl w/ double chicken (no rice, no beans, mild, medium, and hot salsas, and cheese) for lunch, and a grocery-store rotisserie chicken w/ an avocado and a mountain of steamed broccoli for dinner. Even left me with a few spare grams of carbs for snacks if I felt suicide was imminent. Took me a while to figure out how to get my carbs that low, so good luck!
  
  --
  Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Comparisons by ilsaloving · 2014-10-30 04:51 · Score: 1

I'll be very interested to see how the data plays out, comparing the old dummies with the new ones.
For example: Does the extra fat provide a sufficient additional layer of protection, resulting in less severe injuries?
Do we still need crash testing? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 04:53 · Score: 0

As we get more "big boned" won't our big bones protect us from car crashes on our way to the buffet?
heavier body but... by Tsolias · 2014-10-30 05:06 · Score: 1

lighter dummy head.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-10-30 07:00 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-10-30 07:06 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
It is about time! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 07:42 · Score: 0

Finally they are releasing crash test dummies that reflect a healthy weight.
The old anorexic or dangerously thin crash test dummies were giving androids, cyborgs and other humanoid mechanical unrealistic body image problems.
With these new dummies, even gantry robots and other healthy sized mechanicals can feel comfortable about their bodies.
Yea...we would increase the speed limit, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 08:19 · Score: 0

Yea...we would increase the speed limit, but...Y'all are too fat!
Darwinism... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 11:36 · Score: 0

...the car companies are doing you a favour in the long run.
Wake Up Call by MakersDirector · 2014-10-30 13:02 · Score: 0

Witht he fact that most scientific research has been stolen by Eastern countries such as China and India, and their attempts to make everyone 'their size'. I think this is a wake up call to these countries to understand individualism rather than their one size fits all equations base don collective norms they continue trying to shove down our throats because it fits their equations better.
Agreed. Normns are not a bad thing. But to the point of making your consumers look bad to benefit your brainless scientific approach... There comes a point where right sizing is about reminding the engineers and scientists who they are in business with. And it's NOT just thesmselves, even though they seem to prefer thinking that's the case.
I'm a tall guy, 6'2", and carry about 220 pounds. To be able to get into and out of an 'economy' airplane seat after 10 hours of flight without feeling like I'm being crushed ina sardina can and intentionally being made to feel uncomfortable for doing the thing I love - air travel - just ain't right.
Will there come a point where designers design with comfort and luxury in mind, even for the 'lower class' passengers?
It's nice to aspire to Lexus style luxury and First class seating. But in all reality, the system's rigged against anyone actually having that kind of expendable income and nowadays and let's face it, companies certainly aren't there for us anymore.
GOOD LUCK having a company car or having a company pay for a great first class flight to hong kong.
AINT gonna happen.
So it's NICE to see they are making SOME kind of concilitaory effort to make the bigger sized people more comfortable.
Even if it means something as simple as planning their quick and fiery demise in a car crash.
Nice psychology at work here, i might add.
height too? by Mirar · 2014-10-30 21:53 · Score: 2

Can we have some crash test dummies reflecting taller people too? *NCAP tests with 180cm/6' dolls (I asked them).
I want to know which cars will kill me because the ceiling is too low for a 6'4" (193cm).
Imported dummies: Made in Mexico. by iq145 · 2014-10-31 15:12 · Score: 1

The U.S. is no longer the official "most over-weight" country on Earth: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-01 02:12 · Score: 0

Once, there was this kid...