Obesity and Overweight Prevalence for the U.S • Hacker News Board

Re: Obesity and Overweight Prevalence for the U.S

#241

Post by nradov » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 9:51 PM UTC

chisleu wrote: post #207

3pt14159 wrote: post #8

This is directly related to the way American cities are designed. It’s a car centric culture where big houses are far away from each other. That means driving everywhere. That means long commutes. That means TV over communal activity. That means big grocery runs with shelf stable food. Then pile on hyper sweet drinks and nutritional misinformation campaigns, and of course Americans are going to be overweight. The wor…

You are not wrong, but I will say that overweight is a really low threshold. For me at 6'5", it's about 200lbs at the top. Factor in that tall people generally have more variance in torso to leg ratio, and it makes it difficult to get down to that weight. I was 235 lbs when I left the Army and was incredibly trim. At 200 lbs, I would have been very skinny. At the middle of the healthy range, 175 lbs, I would look inc…

The top of the normal BMI range for someone 6'5" tall is actually 210 lbs. That's not incredibly skinny nor would it be impractical for most people to maintain.

Re: Obesity and Overweight Prevalence for the U.S

#242

Post by ghaff » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 9:52 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #208

lobster_johnson wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about this. I lived in a predominantly Latino (mostly Puerto Rican) neighborhood of Brooklyn for a while a couple of years back. The supermarkets were full of fresh, cheap food, yet the customers (who were consistently overweight and often obese, including the kids) were piling their shopping carts up with terrible stuff -- sugary cereals (Froot Loops etc.), sugary drinks (sodas, fruit juices, Caprisun, i…

No instructions on the label of a pak choi, and no industry gain from suggesting recipes using it, since it would just be rice, cheap meats and/or other vegetables. Blue Apron and similar services might be superfluous for some, as well as expensive, but they at least inspire people to use more basic ingredients. I don't know where one starts to educate people in making "real" food. New/old school subject?

Way back when, there used to be home economics but that was really oriented toward the women who were clearly going to get married and cook for their husbands/families. As gender roles changed, home economics pretty much went away.

Re: Obesity and Overweight Prevalence for the U.S

#243

Post by kstenerud » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 9:53 PM UTC

dexwiz wrote: post #95

These numbers aren’t shocking. Many people are “casually” fat, meaning they carry an extra 30-40lbs around their gut. Probably accumulated slowly by 2-3lbs a year. They don’t fit the classic image of an obese person but they are obese according to BMI. I moved to SF which is a relatively fit city. Going back home in the Midwest I am shocked by the number of people who are overweight. Fat is normalized there. It wasn’…

I've lived in San Francisco and I've lived in Europe, and while SF isn't quite as bad as other places in the USA (for example, Philadelphia), I was still shocked at how fat everyone was.

Re: Obesity and Overweight Prevalence for the U.S

#244

Post by nradov » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 9:55 PM UTC

Joeri wrote: post #106

CharlesMerriam2 wrote: post #11

Methinks that if 70% of you population is affected, something is effecting them. It's not just "low will power" even if that explanation makes 30% of people smug.

It's the food. I've visited the U.S. several times, and every time I'm shocked by how hard it is to find affordable healthy food. Even so called "healthy" options like salads are often loaded with egg yolks, fatty dressings, bacon bits and all kinds of unhealthy ingredients. Portion size is also way off.

There's nothing particularly unhealthy about a little bit of egg yolk, oil (dressing), or bacon. Added sugar in the dressing may be more problematic.

Re: Obesity and Overweight Prevalence for the U.S

#245

Post by nradov » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 10:04 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #43

How many of these people are actually "overweight" as far as health and how many are "overweight" according to BMI? When I was in the best shape of my life from my mid 20s to my mid 30s, working out 12 hours a week (part time fitness instructor and a runner) with a body fat of 12% (measured with calipers) and a 29-30 inch waist, I was according to the BMI calculations 30 pounds overweight. Even now weighing 10 pounds…

Caliper measurements are notorious for underestimating actual body fat percentage. If you can afford $50 it's worth getting a DXA scan to accurately measure composition.

Re: Obesity and Overweight Prevalence for the U.S

#246

Post by nradov » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 10:10 PM UTC

nicolashahn wrote: post #40

Anyone have statistics on what % of those overweight adults are actually healthy, or at least have an acceptable body fat %? Many athletes and weightlifters would be considered overweight by BMI due to muscle mass. And according to the "Adults" PDF, that's the metric they're using. It's probably not a large percentage but I get ticked off a bit to know that you can be in the "overweight" BMI category and have clearly…

Very few athletes are actually overweight. The Olympics are on TV right now. How many of the competitors look overweight to you? Even in America only a tiny fraction of the population is really "buff"; they have a negligible impact on the overall percentage.

Re: Obesity and Overweight Prevalence for the U.S

#247

Post by always_good » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

_1qd4 wrote: post #235

always_good wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fussy Kids: people who appeasing fussy kids (yeah yeah yeah... the hardos without kids will say you should just force them to eat it. Life isn't so straightforward.) My friends with children basically fall into two camps: one camp that agrees with you and blames their kids, and the other camp that just feeds their kids healthy food because, like your pet dog or cat, can't drive to the grocery store when it refuses…

It hurts to watch you child starve because they are being picky. I had a teacher tell me she didn't want to eat peas one night, so her father sent her to bed hungry. She woke up a few hours later, went downstairs to her cold plate of peas still on the table, and ate the whole thing. I had a classmate in high school who ONLY ate pancakes and fries. He was from a wealthy family and his mother had various supplements sh…

My dad made me sit at the table until I finished my milk and peas. After waiting two hours to spite him, I then had to drink warm milk and eat cold peas anyways. I learned pretty quickly that the manipulation didn't work on him.

I have no doubt that a lot of parents have that "my little angel" syndrome that keeps them from disciplining their children, but notice how that doesn't free them from the responsibility nor allow them to blame their kids.

I can appreciate that I was really fortunate to have parents that put in that sort of effort. My mom would also cut up vegetables like turnips for us after school that we would scarf down. They set me up for a healthy lifestyle as an adult that didn't take much effort on my part.

I know a lot of people didn't have those kinds of advantages, so they especially don't come naturally for them once faced with raising children and having to make those decisions themselves.

Re: Obesity and Overweight Prevalence for the U.S

#248

Post by wjn0 » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 10:26 PM UTC

HarryHirsch wrote: post #123

wjn0 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Highly effective and widely prescribed.

What do the meta-studies have to say about statins and life expectancy? Back then, before we had statins we had clofibrate. It decreased cholesterol levels just fine but overall mortality went up. Also, why isn't dietary adjustment the first-line treatment for high cholesterol?

> What do the meta-studies have to say about statins and life expectancy?

For long term maintenance, they're definitely recommended. Near EOL is a bit different, but I don't know the guidelines.

> Also, why isn't dietary adjustment the first-line treatment for high cholesterol?

It is, but only in conjunction with medication. It seems that having a poor diet (e.g. high saturated fats) has long-lasting effects on cholesterol levels, and short-term dietary changes do little to "repair the damage", so to speak. Additionally, we know very little about what other factors affect HDL/LDL levels. For example, for a long time, there was concern that dietary cholesterol had an impact on serum levels, but I believe now the consensus is that this is false.

Cholesterol is complex, and while its role in disease is what gets attention, it's a vital compound with a number of downstream effects. In most cells, it acts as a modulator of membrane structure and function: absolutely crucial aspects of every cell's job, regardless of what tissue they're in. My point is twofold: first, statins likely have unknown "off-target" effects on cholesterol synthesis throughout the body (which potentially speaks to the life expectancy issue); and second, the comorbidity of high cholesterol and obesity is likely more complex than "bad diet."

Of course, keep in mind that having a "good diet" in the cholesterol sense (low saturated fats, possibly low dietary cholesterol) has been shown to be a good idea regardless. It's temporary changes to diet that seem ineffective, at a population level.

Re: Obesity and Overweight Prevalence for the U.S

#249

Post by lozenge » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 10:36 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #134

always_good wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched a good youtube video that compared the 7/11-level food available in japan vs america and was convinced that this is one of the biggest issues. What's the healthiest thing you can get in a 7/11 in the States? An apple? One of those shitty packaged sandwiches that has a slice of ham with a mysterious wad of splooge? A hotdog that's been turning on the spit all day? Then you realize this is how it is every ste…

For whatever reason, there seems to be a gap in the US between convenience store and full-fledged grocery store. There are various mostly non-chain markets in many cities but, for the most part, you either have pretty much junk food or you have to find a big grocery store. In London at least there are a lot more of the Sainsbury Local or other chains that don't have the selection of a bigger store but aren't just jun…

It's the walkability again. If I'm getting in a car, I may as well go somewhere that will have everything I could possibly need.

Also, I do feel the store you mention, and similar ones, are de-emphasising veg in favour of higher margin packaged/processed items. Although, they are wildly optimised for each store placement so it is difficult to tell.

Re: Obesity and Overweight Prevalence for the U.S

#250

Post by ellyagg » Fri, Feb 23, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

halotrope wrote: post #119

3pt14159 wrote: post #8

This is directly related to the way American cities are designed. It’s a car centric culture where big houses are far away from each other. That means driving everywhere. That means long commutes. That means TV over communal activity. That means big grocery runs with shelf stable food. Then pile on hyper sweet drinks and nutritional misinformation campaigns, and of course Americans are going to be overweight. The wor…

Sugar seems to be a major driver of this development. The main problem is likely excessive sugar and especially fructose consumption starting with the emerge of cheap HFCS in most products. Dr. Robert Lustig has put a lot of research into the causes of the obesity crisis. He goes into great detail in his lectures on YouTube https://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y?t=51m41s He also argues against the "gluttony and sloth" prejudic…

You should read Stephen Guyenet to challenge what you've heard about sugar, both his twitter and his blog. He's a Ph.D. neuroscientist who studies the connection of the brain to fatness for a living.

A recent tweet from him:

    Most comprehensive analysis of macronutrients vs. lifespan, fatness, health in mice.  High fat + high carb + low protein = highest body fat.  High fat + high carb + high protein = highest insulin.  High carb + low fat + low protein = longest lifespan.

https://twitter.com/whsource/status/965330116468502529

There is an air of certainty about low carbs permeating our culture right now that is not justified by the evidence at all. The Kitavans today get 70% of their calories from potato and have no diabetes or metabolic syndrome.

Look up Ray Peat for a good argument in favor of sugar. Plenty of people are thriving on high sugar diets.

For my own part, I've consumed 1300 or so calories of sugar a day for 20 years and my biomarkers are 99th percentile. I'm very consistent about resistance training and I don't overeat, both factors likely dwarfing my sugar intake.

Of course, obviously that's an anecdote, but I would caution anyone who automatically judges someone else for their sugar consumption. You might be wrong about sugar and, more importantly, you might be wrong about sugar paired with a particular person's genes or other lifestyle factors.

Because of my high sugar consumption, I eat relatively low fat and protein. What if that's better for you, assuming you don't overeat?

Guyenet is somewhat in favor of the hypothesis that sugar increases fatness, but he thinks it's because humans are susceptible to the "unnatural" increase in food reward that adding extra sugar induces, not because sugar is toxic in and of itself.