Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adult Obesity Facts

cdc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 236 posts

Re: Adult Obesity Facts

#151

Post by waihtis »

nradov wrote: post #127
hncurious wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular opinion: It's both a personal and societal failing, but personal choice is dominant. You can choose to eat rice and beans and drink water. You don't have to eat hamburgers and fries and drink sugar.

Hamburgers aren't necessarily more obesogenic than rice and beans, depending on the specific type of bun and condiments. Rice has a fairly high glycemic index. Nothing wrong with eating some rice in moderation, but getting the majority of your calories from rice isn't healthy. https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/a-good-guide-to-go...

I recently learned about the real danger of fast food - the hidden sugar content. Not only does it mean hidden calories, but apparently the stomach also has neurons that can "sense" the sugar, causing dopamine spikes (and consequently increasing sugar cravings.)

Re: Adult Obesity Facts

#152

Post by lotsofpulp »

mey wrote: post #121
lotsofpulp wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What harm is there from artificial sweeteners? Or rather, how much consumption of artificial sweeteners is harmful?

They may mess with your sense of taste, making you crave even sweeter foods. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/artificial-sweeteners-su...

I feel like I have seen a lot of BS peddled about artificial sweeteners over the years, but it seems like they would certainly be a better alternative to the sugar people have been eating.

Despite their widespread consumption, I have yet to see any reports of people being directly affected by them, at least in the amounts currently consumed.

Re: Adult Obesity Facts

#153

Post by nradov »

throw8383833jj wrote: post #137
nradov wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hamburgers aren't necessarily more obesogenic than rice and beans, depending on the specific type of bun and condiments. Rice has a fairly high glycemic index. Nothing wrong with eating some rice in moderation, but getting the majority of your calories from rice isn't healthy. https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/a-good-guide-to-go...

They are, if they're designed to be addictively delicious. McDonalds and their ilk, have created taste formulas that are nearly irresistable. I've seen people from foreign countries come to america who've never tasted anything other than their local cuisines who can't imagine eating anything else. but the second they sink their teeth into a McDon hamburger, they are hooked. MSG has been shown as a super reliable way…

Nonsense. McDonald's hamburgers don't taste any better than hamburgers cooked at home. They're just more convenient. And they don't contain MSG.

https://www.mcdonalds.com/ae/en-ae/your-right-to-know.3807.d...

Re: Adult Obesity Facts

#154

Post by yupper32 »

feifan wrote: post #124
yupper32 wrote: post #23

Every time I comment on one of these threads, I mention how most people don't know about the most fundamental component of weight control: Calories-in calories-out. And then I get a mass of people complaining that "it's not that simple! x y and z also impact weight!" I think so much has to do with these two points: 1. Most don't know about CICO. 2. Many who do throw it away as not useful. We should be teaching this i…

CICO is probably valid but it's easy to misinterpret. For example, in the presence of insulin, fat and muscle cells take in calories, regardless of the energy state of the rest of the body, resulting in hunger and probably more calories-in. While insulin is elevated, the calories stored wIthin fat cells is inaccessible to the rest of the body … would those calories be considered "in" or "out" according to CICO?

You're the one making it easy to misinterpret by making it massively more complicated than it needs to be. Copy pasting from a previous post of mine:

How to lose weight, by me, someone who has lost 30 pounds and kept it off:

Step 1: Count every calorie you consume. If you don't know the exact amount of a dish, do your best. Apps like MyFitnessPal make this easier.

Step 2: Limit that amount to 1500 calories per day.

Step 3: Weigh yourself everyday first thing in the morning, and only look at 7 day averages at least. Daily fluctuations don't matter.

Step 4: After 2 weeks, see how much you've lost (if any). If you've lost more than 1% of your body weight per week, raise that 1500 number. If you've lost less than 1% per week, lower that 1500 number.

Repeat until satisfied!

How can you make this easier?

1. Eat things that are filling with fewer calories. Think vegetables and protein. Stay away from things that aren't filling and have a lot of calories. Think candy bars. Water helps too.

2. Walk/run. This will burn calories efficiently and if you attach a fit bit to it, you can incorporate the calories burned into your 1500 number above. Weight lifting doesn't burn many calories, though it's nice for your overall health of course.

You're stuck on how fat cells are stored or insulin levels? How is that at all approachable.

Re: Adult Obesity Facts

#155

Post by meetups323 »

> Overall, men and women with college degrees had lower obesity prevalence compared with those with less education.

Makes sense.

> Although the difference was not statistically significant among non-Hispanic Black men, obesity prevalence increased with educational attainment.

That's unexpected. So every other demographic gets less fat as they get more money/education, but Non-Hispanic Black Men get more fat as they get more money/education. I wonder why.

Re: Adult Obesity Facts

#156

Post by paulddraper »

woodruffw wrote: post #76
paulddraper wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with "policy solutions" is that they don't account for individual preferences. Do people want walkable cities? Or do they want single-family dwellings and yards? Do people want to be healthy? Or do they want sugary foods and television programs? Fortunately, the U.S. has plenty of each, to accommodate multiple preferences. Life is trade-offs. It's the conceit of policy makers to force their trade-off pref…

> Fortunately, the U.S. has plenty of each, to accommodate multiple preferences. As of 2010, close to 24 million Americans lived in a "food desert"[1], i.e. an area without adequate access to healthy eating choices. These areas are disproportionately lower SES areas, and the people in them don't get to have a "preference"; the decision is being made for them. Edit: Here's a paper explaining the correlation and absenc…

My point was the the U.S. has plenty of each place.

So, yeah, that's exactly my point.

Re: Adult Obesity Facts

#157

Post by ncoehnoehuo »

aww_dang wrote: post #79
rjbwork wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walkable and bikable cities and suburbs. Increased transit. Reduced working hours so that people don't feel the need to choose between health and survival and stress. Getting the garbage out of our supermarkets. Not subsidizing massive amounts of corn syrup and sugar. I really could go on.

If you're a cycling enthusiast you'll always find a way. As you develop as a cyclist areas which once intimidated you may feel safer. It is like any other skill in that way. I know many would prefer bike lanes, but bicycle infrastructure isn't always safer for cyclists. Often city planners have no concept of what actually goes on, so even when token lines are painted on the street - it does nothing to increase cyclin…

Cities shouldn't be made for cyclists anymore than they should be made for cars.

Most people do not care what form of transportation they take. They do not identify as cyclists, drivers, or anything else. Transportation is an inconvenience in their lives as they travel from A to B. They will do whatever is cheap, fast, and convenient.

Cities need to be built to a human scale and not a car scale. Cities should be designed so that riding a comfortable, durable, upright bicycle is a fast and convenient option for people. That means bicycle paths that are physically separated from other forms of traffic. It means constructing different kinds of buildings and businesses so that bicycle routes are short and convenient.

Most people are never going to risk their lives to ride bicycles on roads where cars, driven by people on their phone, are travelling at speeds exceeding 30 mph. They won't ride their bicycles for an hour over the vast distances that are convenient for cars to travel in a few minutes. And they won't take their bicycle to a big box store with car-parks larger than the store so that they can clumsily chain their bicycle to a street light pole.

If you want normal people to ride bicycles as transportation, you need extensive bicycle infrastructure.

Re: Adult Obesity Facts

#158

Post by jjj123 »

kccqzy wrote: post #89
dantheman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop tariffs on sugar and end subsidies to corn that lead to high fructose corn syrup.

I get that cane sugar is more natural than high fructose corn syrup, and I myself would choose the former over the latter, but aren't these basically the same in terms of causing obesity?

I’m talking out of my ass here but wouldn’t raising the price floor of sugar lower the incentive for companies to make high sugar foods?

Re: Adult Obesity Facts

#159

Post by eigenrick »

cf100clunk wrote: post #88

Purely from my own viewpoint, the general size of U.S. restaurant portions in comparison with those in any other country I've visited is noticeably larger. Dishes are more likely to contain processed food products, less likely to contain fresh vegetables, and more likely to contain higher levels of sugars and salt. Again, just my own take. I found when working in Texas and the deep south that booking a room with a ki…

Demand and supply.

Most Americans concept of "value" is not quality, it's quantity. Being unable to otherwise judge a thing on its merits, they take the bigger one. Not the one that is healthier, or more nutrient-dense. This, IMO, stems from the industrialization of our food supply.

America came of age in post-WWII industrialization. Our food industry originally "began" because it was scaling to cheaply meet the food and logistics needs of a massive war.

So Baby boomers (and therefore subsequent generations) learned to buy shitty, processed food "For America". Buying a box of mac and cheese isn't like picking out the best vegetables. All things being equal, you just get the biggest one for the price.

Re: Adult Obesity Facts

#160

Post by dragontamer »

sam0x17 wrote: post #139
dragontamer wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of banning (or discouraging) "processed foods", lets start with banning/discouraging "unhealthy foods". Because "unhealthy" is a better starting point than the arbitrary metric "processed". ------- You're going to do more for your health by cutting back on your rice portions, rather than worrying about what is or isn't processed. (And rice is barely "processed" at all... but its incredibly calorie dense with…

> You're going to do more for your health by cutting back on your rice portions, rather than worrying about what is or isn't processed. (And rice is barely "processed" at all... but its incredibly calorie dense with high glycemic index). And yet Asia has basically no obesity problem. We clearly need better nutrition science.

Portion sizes in Asia are smaller.

Citation: I'm Asian-American. Also, Filipino. We're not obese, but erm... Americans might be healthier, no joke. The amount of lechon we consume (incredibly fatty pig) + other fatty foods is a big problem to heart health, despite the fact that it doesn't cause obesity.

Oh, and Filipinos generally eat fresh foods. Fresh fish, fresh pork, fresh chicken. Relatively low processed foods (our Halo-Halo is similar to your "ice cream", except Halo-Halo is just milk poured over shaved ice + fruits + ube mixed in. "Low processing", but we all know its a desert and unhealthy).

That's the thing. Being Filipino gives me more insight into this "processed food" craze going on. Halo-halo has almost no processing involved and is made out of fresh ingredients. That doesn't make Halo-halo any healthier.

> And yet Asia has basically no obesity problem. We clearly need better nutrition science.

We all know beer and soda is bad for us, and yet we drink it all the time as a society. I'm not sure what nutrition science is beneficial when so many people choose to ignore it.

Cut back on high calorie foods. Watch your portion sizes. Count calories. Eat more fibrous meals to fill up your stomach ("tricking" your brain into thinking you're more full). Avoid non-fibrous foods (such as soda) because they miss out on the stomach/brain psychology.

---------

Its hard in America because of stupid little things. Plates are bigger in America, so when you're in America you trick yourself into putting more food into your plates.

Plates are literally smaller in the Philippines. So you end up eating less. Stupid cultural differences like that make a big difference.

Because American culture subtly forces you to overeat (bigger plates, bigger glasses, bigger drinks), you need to explicitly count calories. That's just the facts, if you aren't counting calories in America, you're going to overeat.

Post reply on HN