Current Events > We're in a new age of obesity. How did it happen? You'd be surprised

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people

[...]
So heres the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when theyre included.
[...]
So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figures in more detail. Yes, we ate more in 1976, but differently. [...] While our direct purchases of sugar have sharply declined, the sugar we consume in drinks and confectionery is likely to have rocketed
[...]
The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.
[...]

---

Capitalism at work
---

Jeez
---

It's because we're on our ass in front of our computers, consoles and phones instead of out riding bikes or at the park.

Seriously, playgrounds are empty now. Every parent is afraid of letting their kids out of their sight these days whereas it used to be come home from school, "go out and play and come home at 6:30 for dinner".

We don't move like we used to.
---

depression and medication and celibacy and defeat
---

So a capitalist nation is more likely to have obese populations?
---

DavidWong posted...

It's because we're on our ass in front of our computers, consoles and phones instead of out riding bikes or at the park.

Seriously, playgrounds are empty now. Every parent is afraid of letting their kids out of their sight these days whereas it used to be come home from school, "go out and play and come home at 6:30 for dinner".

We don't move like we used to.

This is extremely true. When I was kid it could be the middle of winter but we would be outside until dark. On the weekends we would leave the house in the morning while not coming home until night. You'd be gone 12 hours with no phone and your parents didn't worry.

Now people call the police because they see 8 year olds walking to the park on their own.
---

DavidWong posted...

It's because we're on our ass in front of our computers, consoles and phones instead of out riding bikes or at the park.

Seriously, playgrounds are empty now. Every parent is afraid of letting their kids out of their sight these days whereas it used to be come home from school, "go out and play and come home at 6:30 for dinner".

We don't move like we used to.

The article addresses that specifically:

Others insisted that the cause is a decline in manual labour. Again, this seems to make sense, but again the data doesnt support it. A paper last year in the International Journal of Surgery states that adults working in unskilled manual professions are over four times more likely to be classified as morbidly obese compared with those in professional employment.
So how about voluntary exercise? Plenty of people argued that, as we drive rather than walk or cycle, are stuck to our screens and order our groceries online, we exercise far less than we did. It seems to make sense so here comes the next surprise. According to a long-term study at Plymouth University, childrens physical activity is the same as it was 50 years ago. A paper in the International Journal of Epidemiology finds that, corrected for body size, there is no difference between the amount of calories burned by people in rich countries and those in poor ones, where subsistence agriculture remains the norm. It proposes that there is no relationship between physical activity and weight gain. Many other studies suggest that exercise, while crucial to other aspects of good health, is far less important than diet in regulating our weight. Some suggest it plays no role at all as the more we exercise, the hungrier we become.

---

DavidWong posted...

It's because we're on our ass in front of our computers, consoles and phones instead of out riding bikes or at the park.

Seriously, playgrounds are empty now. Every parent is afraid of letting their kids out of their sight these days whereas it used to be come home from school, "go out and play and come home at 6:30 for dinner".

We don't move like we used to.

I mean like half of this summer it was too hot outside to even fuckin breathe in the northeast

Like all of this should be an enormous wake up call to how thoroughly capitalism has destroyed our society
---

I'm not sure but I pretty much feel like a god damn wizard for still being thin and well conditioned into my early 30's. >_>

It shouldn't be like that, though. Obesity should be the exception and not the norm. I feel bad that so many people are struggling.
---

I've lost nearly 100 lbs and I gotta say, I agree with the article. When I first started my diet and exercise plan, I was all about the gym. I was doing 30min on the elliptical, pressing the weights, I was doing it all.

Well, I kept the eating habits I learned, but I quit going to the gym and the weight loss continued anyway. Diet is pretty much everything. You gotta watch out for sugars and fats and all of that. Carbs ain't that bad, your body tears through them for the most part.

But mostly what I eat now is lean chicken, fish, occasionally red meats, sometimes pasta, grain cereals, eggs... Just shit like that. Sides of fruit and veggies, every meal. It's not as cheap as McDonalds, no, but it's not as expensive as it seems when you realize how many servings you actually get. And the weight just keeps falling away. And all I drink is water, tea (mostly green) and 100% juice (not from concentrate).

The shit they feed people nowadays has got 'em fucked up. I used to be there. I used to think my eating was harmless and I was just fat because I didn't exercise enough. But once you actually sit down and look at what you're eating, pound for pound, you realize where the real problem is.

Oh and I want to also mention, eating the way I was before, I was always hungry, always drained. Never felt like I had the energy I needed. I thought it was because I was a fatass, but nah, once you start giving your body the good shit, you can feel the changes. It's huge. You feel satisfied after a meal, you're not hungry again 10 minutes later, and you just have more energy to throw at everything you do in your life.

How is anyone surprised over this? I thought it was common sense and public knowledge about the use of sugar as an addictive agent.
---

Watch what you eat and exercise.

Works for 99% of the population.
---

OpenlyGator posted...

So a capitalist nation is more likely to have obese populations?

Better to have an abundance of food than no food at all.
---

MakoReizei posted...

OpenlyGator posted...

So a capitalist nation is more likely to have obese populations?

Better to have an abundance of food than no food at all.

The article points out that the problem of obesity isn't an abundance of food, though.
---

The problem is people are stupid enough to buy that shit.

Read the labels. Don't buy food with too much sugar. Problem solved.
---

SpiralDrift posted...

The problem is people are stupid enough to buy that shit.

Read the labels. Don't buy food with too much sugar. Problem solved.

most people don't have CE tho
---

SpiralDrift posted...

The problem is people are stupid enough to buy that shit.

Read the labels. Don't buy food with too much sugar. Problem solved.

This is also addressed:

More alarmingly, according to a paper in the Lancet, more than 90% of policymakers believe that personal motivation is a strong or very strong influence on the rise of obesity. Such people propose no mechanism by which the 61% of English people who are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence.

Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates are much higher at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. They correlate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why the UKs incidence is greater than in most European and OECD nations. The scientific literature shows how the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets.

Just as jobless people are blamed for structural unemployment, and indebted people are blamed for impossible housing costs, fat people are blamed for a societal problem. But yes, willpower needs to be exercised by governments. Yes, we need personal responsibility on the part of policymakers. And yes, control needs to be exerted over those who have discovered our weaknesses and ruthlessly exploit them.

---

scar the 1 posted...

DavidWong posted...

It's because we're on our ass in front of our computers, consoles and phones instead of out riding bikes or at the park.

Seriously, playgrounds are empty now. Every parent is afraid of letting their kids out of their sight these days whereas it used to be come home from school, "go out and play and come home at 6:30 for dinner".

We don't move like we used to.

The article addresses that specifically:

Others insisted that the cause is a decline in manual labour. Again, this seems to make sense, but again the data doesnt support it. A paper last year in the International Journal of Surgery states that adults working in unskilled manual professions are over four times more likely to be classified as morbidly obese compared with those in professional employment.
So how about voluntary exercise? Plenty of people argued that, as we drive rather than walk or cycle, are stuck to our screens and order our groceries online, we exercise far less than we did. It seems to make sense so here comes the next surprise. According to a long-term study at Plymouth University, childrens physical activity is the same as it was 50 years ago. A paper in the International Journal of Epidemiology finds that, corrected for body size, there is no difference between the amount of calories burned by people in rich countries and those in poor ones, where subsistence agriculture remains the norm. It proposes that there is no relationship between physical activity and weight gain. Many other studies suggest that exercise, while crucial to other aspects of good health, is far less important than diet in regulating our weight. Some suggest it plays no role at all as the more we exercise, the hungrier we become.

Did they seriously suggest exercise has no role in controlling your weight? Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit, Guardian.

Between that and the rhetoric about food companies ruthlessly exploiting our weaknesses, I can't take this article seriously.

Look, I've lost 50lbs over a year because I changed my diet just a little bit and added exercise. I wasn't 50lbs heavier because I was helpless to resist the siren song of junk food. I was heavier because I didn't take the time and personal responsibility to keep track of what I was eating beyond "this tastes good, I'll eat a bunch of it". I still occasionally eat some of that junk food, fast food, or sweets, but more moderately than I used to.
---

Sounds like a whole lot of excuses for not taking care of yourself.
---

Esrac posted...

Did they seriously suggest exercise has no role in controlling your weight? Get the f*** outta here with that bulls***, Guardian.

Many other studies suggest that exercise, while crucial to other aspects of good health, is far less important than diet in regulating our weight. Some suggest it plays no role at all as the more we exercise, the hungrier we become.

They seriously summed up a bunch of research, most of which is saying that exercise plays a lesser role than diet, some suggesting that it plays no role. It's not The Guardian suggesting this, it's actual studies made by researchers. The takeaway is that there seems to be quite a lot of evidence that diet is a much bigger factor than exercise.
---

Esrac posted...

Did they seriously suggest exercise has no role in controlling your weight? Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit, Guardian.

Also there was some guy who ate like nothing but fast food but still lost weight because he would walk to the restaurant.

It's basically about burning it off.
---

I could have told you this stuff at the age of 15
just from educated inferences
---

scar the 1 posted...

Esrac posted...

Did they seriously suggest exercise has no role in controlling your weight? Get the f*** outta here with that bulls***, Guardian.

Many other studies suggest that exercise, while crucial to other aspects of good health, is far less important than diet in regulating our weight. Some suggest it plays no role at all as the more we exercise, the hungrier we become.

They seriously summed up a bunch of research, most of which is saying that exercise plays a lesser role than diet, some suggesting that it plays no role. It's not The Guardian suggesting this, it's actual studies made by researchers. The takeaway is that there seems to be quite a lot of evidence that diet is a much bigger factor than exercise.

people really dont like when their long held beliefs are countered.

weight loss is almost entirely diet, you cant out run your fork.
---

MakoReizei posted...

Esrac posted...

Did they seriously suggest exercise has no role in controlling your weight? Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit, Guardian.

Also there was some guy who ate like nothing but fast food but still lost weight because he would walk to the restaurant.

It's basically about burning it off.

What a set of amazingly silly posts.
---

So if we eat less and exercise the same are we fatter because it's harder to burn sugar calories or they lead to more fat gain?

Why do people always overcomplicate this shit? Say your body requires an average 2k calories per day to sustain itself. If you eat around 2k calories per day and rarely diverge from this you will maintain your current weight. If you regularly eat more than 2k calories per day, you will gain weight. Do this for many months or even years and you will gain a lot of weight.

If you burn 500 calories a day through exercise and continue to eat 2k calories a day (no dietary changes) you will end up with a caloric deficit resulting in one pound of weight loss per week (every pound of fat contains 3.5k calories).

If you decide to do no exercise but you reduce the amount of calories you eat to 1.5k a day you will have a caloric deficit resulting in one pound of weight loss per week. Same result, different method.

If you burn 500 calories a day through exercise while reducing your daily caloric intake to 1.5k calories, you can lose two pounds a week.

The reason exercise alone is often not enough is because people eat/drink far too many calorie dense foods, typically as snacks or a small portion of their meal. What's that 300-500 calories you spent an hour burning off? A small bag of chips, small order of fries, a chocolate bar, a donut, a slice of pizza, a few chicken wings, a bottle of soda, etc. Some stuff like a large frappuccino or a blizzard from DQ can be more than 1k calories on their own.. that's insane. And don't even get me started on a night out drinking, lol. A few too many of those and you can for sure expect to have a spare tire around your waist.

Exercise has many, many more benefits than simply being thin or being jacked. It's pretty much the difference between being a broken down mess that needs to swallow handfuls of pills every day to "enjoy" a substandard quality of life in your 50's to being physically active, lucid, healthy, pain free, etc.. well into old age.

tldr; Use more calories than your body consumes if you want to lose weight, it's not rocket science.
---

DavidWong posted...

It's because we're on our ass in front of our computers, consoles and phones instead of out riding bikes or at the park.

Seriously, playgrounds are empty now. Every parent is afraid of letting their kids out of their sight these days whereas it used to be come home from school, "go out and play and come home at 6:30 for dinner".

We don't move like we used to.

Honestly activity has very little to do with it. You can ride your bike for 4-5 miles and probably burn off at beat the equivalent of a bagel in the morning. Weight is like 90% diet.

And I say this as someone who lifts 4 days a week. My maintenance is 2800 calories. My cut is 2300, my bulk is 3300.
---

Quit eating McDonalds every day and go workout a few times a week

Problem solved
---

HydraSlayer82 posted...

Yeah, I think lack of physical activity contributes more if were eating less calories, but hey lets blame sugar.

scar the 1 posted...

The article addresses that specifically:

Others insisted that the cause is a decline in manual labour. Again, this seems to make sense, but again the data doesnt support it. A paper last year in the International Journal of Surgery states that adults working in unskilled manual professions are over four times more likely to be classified as morbidly obese compared with those in professional employment.
So how about voluntary exercise? Plenty of people argued that, as we drive rather than walk or cycle, are stuck to our screens and order our groceries online, we exercise far less than we did. It seems to make sense so here comes the next surprise. According to a long-term study at Plymouth University, childrens physical activity is the same as it was 50 years ago. A paper in the International Journal of Epidemiology finds that, corrected for body size, there is no difference between the amount of calories burned by people in rich countries and those in poor ones, where subsistence agriculture remains the norm. It proposes that there is no relationship between physical activity and weight gain. Many other studies suggest that exercise, while crucial to other aspects of good health, is far less important than diet in regulating our weight. Some suggest it plays no role at all as the more we exercise, the hungrier we become.

---

Basically laziness.

LOL at the people blaming capitalism, such fools.

Most people are too lazy to get off their screens and think posting diet plans on facebook is working out.

The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.

So our food is loaded with sugar to make us eat more but the actual data says we dont eat more. What? Then it goes on about how caloric intake from drinks wasnt tracked well back then. So in a nutshell, people are taking in more calories, just not eating them, theyre drinking them.
---

You don't need to give up sugar, just substitute a meal with it when you want it

if you gotta have that can of coke then just skip your lunch for the day
---

As someone who just recently lost 15 pounds in three months, its really not that hard. Eat less, only drink water. Some exercise certainly helps, but dont reward yourself with junk food. Before you know it, youre losing weight. My only regret is not starting sooner. I feel so much better now, physically and mentally
---

DavidWong posted...

It's because we're on our ass in front of our computers, consoles and phones instead of out riding bikes or at the park.

Seriously, playgrounds are empty now. Every parent is afraid of letting their kids out of their sight these days whereas it used to be come home from school, "go out and play and come home at 6:30 for dinner".

We don't move like we used to.

yep, I live 2 blocks away from a park, it's either dead or there will be a few mothers with toddlers playing

once in a blue moon there will be a group of adolescents playing basketball
---

HydraSlayer82 posted...

So our food is loaded with sugar to make us eat more but the actual data says we dont eat more. What?

His argument is that the data doesn't support the hypothesis that people weren't thing thin because they went hungry in the '70s.
---

scar the 1 posted...

HydraSlayer82 posted...

So our food is loaded with sugar to make us eat more but the actual data says we dont eat more. What?

His argument is that the data doesn't support the hypothesis that people weren't thing thin because they went hungry in the '70s.

Which is fine but it outright states data for caloric intake on what we drank is shoddy. Those calories count just as much.
---

Extremely basic health facts + liberals = rocket science that only makes sense to the jowlbeards
---

sugar doesnt make you fat, fat does. vegetable oils and the other ones except for coconut oil and genuine olive oil do cellular damage and damage the thyroid which slows your metabolic rate and the liver gets fatty. add artificial coloring which excites the brain, high fructose corn syrup which makes the liver fatty and you have yourself a perfect recipe for metabolic dysfunction, the obesity and diseases follow.
---

Awesome posted...

sugar doesnt make you fat, fat does. vegetable oils and the other ones except for coconut oil and genuine olive oil do cellular damage and damage the thyroid which slows your metabolic rate and the liver gets fatty. add artificial coloring which excites the brain, high fructose corn syrup which makes the liver fatty and you have yourself a perfect recipe for metabolic dysfunction, the obesity and diseases follow.

Although fat can be stored, obesity is most certainly caused by carbs. Most people need all the fat they eat to live.
---

There's no way I believe people today are as active as years ago. Sure in the fuck not kids and teens anyways.
---

Exercise doesn't burn a lot of calories like random people on the internet seem to think it does. Every time you say "it's a personal problem, just work out more, it's your own fault you're fat" you're spreading misinformation and defending a corrupt industry all because your mind can't handle anything but the status quo you've grown to love and trust.

We've been poisoned on a national level, if your genes and metabolism were enough to withstand soda and other processed foods that were pushed on you, good for you. If you were born into a family educated and privileged enough to keep that shit out of the house, good for you. Weight loss isn't successful 99% of the time and it's not an individual moral failing every time. Certain food products are scientifically designed to deceive your mind and destroy your body and I don't feel the need to shame those people any further.
---

Ultima Dragon posted...

Why do people always overcomplicate this shit? Say your body requires an average 2k calories per day to sustain itself. If you eat around 2k calories per day and rarely diverge from this you will maintain your current weight. If you regularly eat more than 2k calories per day, you will gain weight. Do this for many months or even years and you will gain a lot of weight.

If you burn 500 calories a day through exercise and continue to eat 2k calories a day (no dietary changes) you will end up with a caloric deficit resulting in one pound of weight loss per week (every pound of fat contains 3.5k calories).

If you decide to do no exercise but you reduce the amount of calories you eat to 1.5k a day you will have a caloric deficit resulting in one pound of weight loss per week. Same result, different method.

If you burn 500 calories a day through exercise while reducing your daily caloric intake to 1.5k calories, you can lose two pounds a week.

The reason exercise alone is often not enough is because people eat/drink far too many calorie dense foods, typically as snacks or a small portion of their meal. What's that 300-500 calories you spent an hour burning off? A small bag of chips, small order of fries, a chocolate bar, a donut, a slice of pizza, a few chicken wings, a bottle of soda, etc. Some stuff like a large frappuccino or a blizzard from DQ can be more than 1k calories on their own.. that's insane. And don't even get me started on a night out drinking, lol. A few too many of those and you can for sure expect to have a spare tire around your waist.

Exercise has many, many more benefits than simply being thin or being jacked. It's pretty much the difference between being a broken down mess that needs to swallow handfuls of pills every day to "enjoy" a substandard quality of life in your 50's to being physically active, lucid, healthy, pain free, etc.. well into old age.

tldr; Use more calories than your body consumes if you want to lose weight, it's not rocket science.

Vermander posted...

Honestly activity has very little to do with it. You can ride your bike for 4-5 miles and probably burn off at beat the equivalent of a bagel in the morning. Weight is like 90% diet.

And I say this as someone who lifts 4 days a week. My maintenance is 2800 calories. My cut is 2300, my bulk is 3300.

Both of these posts have it right. I don't care what you consume, or what anyone says about how bad sugar/carbs/oils/whatever the fad of the day is- You could eat pure lard, pure sugar or straight McDonalds as long as you're measuring how many calories you're consuming and calculate your burn you'll still lose weight.
---

HydraSlayer82 posted...

Which is fine but it outright states data for caloric intake on what we drank is shoddy. Those calories count just as much.

Yeah? That's kind of his point
---

rikasa posted...

Exercise doesn't burn a lot of calories like random people on the internet seem to think it does. Every time you say "it's a personal problem, just work out more, it's your own fault you're fat" you're spreading misinformation and defending a corrupt industry all because your mind can't handle anything but the status quo you've grown to love and trust.

Imagine believing this.

Actually believe it, that way you'll always be miserable.

I'm actually thin and attractive and eat whatever I want. It's part of what helped me recognize how disgusting it is to see people who are simply lucky like me being cruel and uninformed.
---

Kombucha posted...

Ultima Dragon posted...

Why do people always overcomplicate this shit? Say your body requires an average 2k calories per day to sustain itself. If you eat around 2k calories per day and rarely diverge from this you will maintain your current weight. If you regularly eat more than 2k calories per day, you will gain weight. Do this for many months or even years and you will gain a lot of weight.

If you burn 500 calories a day through exercise and continue to eat 2k calories a day (no dietary changes) you will end up with a caloric deficit resulting in one pound of weight loss per week (every pound of fat contains 3.5k calories).

If you decide to do no exercise but you reduce the amount of calories you eat to 1.5k a day you will have a caloric deficit resulting in one pound of weight loss per week. Same result, different method.

If you burn 500 calories a day through exercise while reducing your daily caloric intake to 1.5k calories, you can lose two pounds a week.

The reason exercise alone is often not enough is because people eat/drink far too many calorie dense foods, typically as snacks or a small portion of their meal. What's that 300-500 calories you spent an hour burning off? A small bag of chips, small order of fries, a chocolate bar, a donut, a slice of pizza, a few chicken wings, a bottle of soda, etc. Some stuff like a large frappuccino or a blizzard from DQ can be more than 1k calories on their own.. that's insane. And don't even get me started on a night out drinking, lol. A few too many of those and you can for sure expect to have a spare tire around your waist.

Exercise has many, many more benefits than simply being thin or being jacked. It's pretty much the difference between being a broken down mess that needs to swallow handfuls of pills every day to "enjoy" a substandard quality of life in your 50's to being physically active, lucid, healthy, pain free, etc.. well into old age.

tldr; Use more calories than your body consumes if you want to lose weight, it's not rocket science.

Vermander posted...

Honestly activity has very little to do with it. You can ride your bike for 4-5 miles and probably burn off at beat the equivalent of a bagel in the morning. Weight is like 90% diet.

And I say this as someone who lifts 4 days a week. My maintenance is 2800 calories. My cut is 2300, my bulk is 3300.

Both of these posts have it right. I don't care what you consume, or what anyone says about how bad sugar/carbs/oils/whatever the fad of the day is- You could eat pure lard, pure sugar or straight McDonalds as long as you're measuring how many calories you're consuming and calculate your burn you'll still lose weight.

No. They most assuredly aren't.

You think Micheal Phelps just has a magic superhero metabolism that let's him eat 10 thousand calories in a day and not get fat?

Keep telling yourself that. Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.
---

Bro fat chicks getting praised for being brave and bold is by far the funniest shit in the world. Like we cant tell a 300 lb chick hey you're fat and unhealthy maybe diet...that's a no no. But we are allowed to tell a skinny girl to eat a burger?hypocrisy at its finest.

Also did you see that woman on the cover or Cosmo? She is over 300 pounds! That's not beautiful or healthy so why fucking promote it? You wouldnt promote heroin addiction so why promote obesity?