
It’s easy to become obese in America. These 7 charts explain why - pmcpinto
https://www.vox.com/2016/8/31/12368246/obesity-america-2018-charts
======
codeafin
As a non-US person, I used to think "you all just have to stop eating so much"
towards those overweight in the US.

But after living in the US you start to understand that it really is not easy.

In other countries, bread is bread, restaurant food is one serving and the
snacks your peers bring in are home-made sweets, or cheese and crackers, etc.

In the US, bread is sugary and dense in calories, restaurant food is in two
salty-oily servings, and the snacks your peers bring in are donuts and
cupcakes.

When I first moved to the US and lived as I normally would, I gained weight
quickly. It sucked having to involve yourself mentally in something you
normally don't have to think about.

~~~
mtw
Also everyone drives, even to fetch milk from nearest convenience store. It's
too easy not to have any exercise all day

~~~
stronglikedan
There's plenty of metropolitan cities where no one has to drive, but there's
plenty of rural areas where it's pretty much a necessity, and plenty of
suburban areas where you can easily bike everywhere (or even walk if you have
the time or drive if you don't). The greatest thing about the US is the
choices you get to make for yourself - no matter which lifestyle you choose to
live, you can find somewhere to fit that lifestyle in the US.

~~~
logfromblammo
...as long as you're rich.

If you take a typical median-income family, plot out a reasonable household
budget and daily schedule, and then try to match it with every place in the
US, most of the results will show that the family must own at least one car
and spend an hour a day driving it. It's the only way to afford being there at
all. The desirable areas are priced out of their reach, because there just
aren't enough of them.

I'd love for all my daily transit to be on elevators and electric trains. But
I also want my public school district to have enough money to pay its teachers
without taxing me, specifically, into oblivion. For reasons I cannot
comprehend, my employer wants to locate its workplace in the middle of a bunch
of office buildings, where they enjoy lower facilities costs and a lower tax
rate, while still benefiting from an educated workforce. So I pretty much have
to drive a while between home and work.

If I lived close to work, I couldn't afford the place. If I worked close to
home, the jobs nearby wouldn't pay enough to cover housing.

~~~
stronglikedan
Since we're dealing purely in anecdata, I live 4 miles from a job that covers
my housing, and I'm _far_ from rich. I could choose to put myself in a
different situation, but I chose my current situation and am quite happy.

~~~
logfromblammo
> _Since we 're dealing purely in anecdata..._

The median household income is roughly $60k. 86% of workers commute using a
privately-owned automobile (ACS data), with about 3/4 commuting by driving
solo. The mean commute time is about 26 minutes.

This situation might be exacerbated by the fact that the median tenure at a
job is hovering just above 4 years, and home mortgages are 30 years. So if you
buy a house and want to pay off the loan on schedule, you now have to make
sure it is close to 7.5 different jobs in your industry. ...Per person working
in your household. Married? Site your home near 15 jobs, some of which might
not even exist yet. This doesn't even account for what happens when your
company decides to build on a new campus for all of its workers.

By the home affordability rule of thumb that you can afford 2x to 2.5x your
annual income on your mortgage loan, the median household can afford a house
at $120k to $150k. Find a pile of those within biking distance of 15 different
jobs in one or two careers that pay $30k to $60k per year.

You won't, outside a handful of large cities, and the majority of the US
doesn't live there, as shown by the commuting data.

------
wallflower
> In 1800, the average person consumed approximately 22.4 grams of sugar each
> day (10.2 kg per year). In 1900, the average person consumed approximately
> 112 grams of sugar each day (40.8 kg per year). In 2009, 50 per cent of
> Americans consumed approximately 227 grams of sugar each day - equating to
> 81.6 kg per year.

The seminal event for increasing per-capita sugar intake was the introduction
of Coca Cola/soda.

[http://www.divineeatingout.com/food-1/sugar-consumption-
now-...](http://www.divineeatingout.com/food-1/sugar-consumption-now-
vs-100-years-ago)

If you aren't familiar with the tragedy of sugar on traditional Native
Americans, introduction of processed American foods has created an epidemic on
reservation.

"Type II Diabetes, the Modern Epidemic of American Indians"

[https://anthropology.ua.edu/bindon/ant570/Papers/King/king.h...](https://anthropology.ua.edu/bindon/ant570/Papers/King/king.htm)

Christopher McDougall's book "Natural Born Heroes" is about the heroes of
Crete during WW2 who were able to fight off the Germans by putting up
extraordinary resistance by doing, among other things, hiking for miles and
miles over treacherous territory for 20 hours straight. It makes an argument
that a paleo-based diet is the _reason_ why they were able to do it. With this
diet, they were able to run and evade for long distances without fatigue.
Meats and other proteins provide a sustainable, longer-lasting source of
energy in contrast to the spike of sugar.

[https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Born-Heroes-Mastering-
Enduran...](https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Born-Heroes-Mastering-
Endurance/dp/0307742229)

~~~
appleiigs
I dunno man... the reason why I could hike 20 hours straight today is because
I run 6 days a week and now have the fitness level to do it. It's not because
I ate bacon instead of toast.

------
belltaco
Why doesn't the article talk about corn and meat subsidies. While meat by
itself doesn't fuel obesity as much as carbs, most people typically pair with
high fat and high carb foods.

The decision usually is between a cheap meat based meal and a non-meat based
meal, and since meat is as cheap or cheaper than vegetables, it gets picked.
Also, broccoli has more protein per calorie than beef.

~~~
tcfunk
> Also, broccoli has more protein per calorie than beef.

It looks like this might be a myth. I'd never heard this claim before so
decided to do some googling. However, I am surprised to learn that broccoli
has a substantial amount of protein, regardless of whether or not it's "more
than beef".

~~~
saiya-jin
This is old vegetable-vs-animal proteins issue. Non-animal proteins don't
contain all aminoacids for the human body to be able to absorb it. Only meat &
diary products naturally do.

What you can do, and vegetarians/vegans have been doing, is to pair it with
another plant product that is also non-complete, but has a different
composition of these amino acids. Mixed together, they end up providing some
sort of complete protein (meaning you have to know what to mix with what, in
what ratio). Or just mix it with some animal protein.

That's why broccoli is dense with protein, but most if not all just goes
through your body, depending what you consume it with.

This is my fitness-guy understanding, please correct me if it's incorrect.

~~~
mikehotel
This may help improve your understanding.

[https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.cir.00000189...](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.cir.0000018905.97677.1f)

~~~
appleiigs
to save people a click...

"the results show that any single one or combination of these plant foods
provides amino acid intakes in excess of the recommended requirements."

"A vegetarian diet based on any single one or combination of these unprocessed
starches (eg, rice, corn, potatoes, beans), with the addition of vegetables
and fruits, supplies all the protein, amino acids, essential fats, minerals,
and vitamins (with the exception of vitamin B12) necessary for excellent
health"

------
fallingfrog
I think there is another factor too- there are a lot more double income
households than there have been in the past, which leaves less time for
cooking, so people just eat out. People are also under a lot of stress due to
lack of job security, more part time or gig work, weekend and evening work,
etc, which leads to stress eating. Communities are fragmenting as people have
to move every couple years to find new work, or as they substitute online
relationships for real ones (who has the time?), which again leads to stress
eating. No doubt everything in the article is a factor too, but we are
undergoing wider cultural changes that you have to take into effect.

By the way, when I talk about "double income households" I'm not saying that
women shouldn't be equal in the workforce, I'm saying that maybe men and women
should both be working somewhat shorter hours so that they have time for their
home lives.

~~~
CompelTechnic
I hope that as time goes on more people are realizing the diseconomies that
having a dual-income household creates. Chronic stress, outsourcing the
maintenance of the household (cars, going out to eat, etc), higher tax
brackets, childcare, a lot of it adds up faster than you think. Ambition for
more fuels the dual income dream. Misplaced ambition is a killer.

Another reason to save a large fraction of your income- to pay off the house
quickly and get back down to a single income household, or have both people go
part time. Very liberating.

The big thing working against it though, is that land and luxuries are
positional goods, and people will continue to work hard in order to outbid
eachother in order to have more of these positional goods. This is why I'm
afraid the dual-income trend will not reverse.

~~~
marcosdumay
Most people learn to give up on chasing luxuries sooner or later.

The one modern problem is "land". It's not even just that. Land is actually
very plentiful, the problem is the small amount of land available in desired
places. And it's again not what it looks like, because desirability is not
some intrinsic characteristic of the land anymore, instead the land is
desirable because for some reason all the employment opportunities are there.

I really don't understand how employment got to be so much geographically
restricted. But it is about this that people are fighting at current
positional markets.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Because, buildings. And social structure.

------
MrEfficiency
>A variety of healthier foods — especially fruits and vegetables — also need
to be made more affordable and readily available to Americans.

I was looking for this uninformed and incorrect statement.

"Junk Food" and Fast food tends to be between 100-300 Calories Per Dollar.
Fresh Fruit and Vegetables are in this same range.

This doesnt include that homecooked meals are 200-300% cheaper than junk food.
A meal with Chicken Rice and Veggies are closer to 600-700 calories per dollar
and have protein and nutrients.

There is obviously a time aspect, but that isnt what is discussed in the
quote.

My expertise is food, source-
[http://efficiencyiseverything.com/food/](http://efficiencyiseverything.com/food/)

~~~
jedberg
> "Junk Food" and Fast food tends to be between 100-300 Calories Per Dollar.
> Fresh Fruit and Vegetables are in this same range.

Is that median or average? Because from my understanding, that may be true at
a large supermarket in a wealthy suburb, but at a small corner market in a
poor neighborhood, which is often the only market a poor person has access to,
the veggies are far more expensive per calorie than junco food, if they even
have the fresh fruits and veggies, which they often don’t.

~~~
MrEfficiency
Junk food ranges from 100 Calories per dollar to 300 calories per dollar.

There arent junk foods that score above 400 calories per dollar. They dont
exist from 5 years of searching(and if they do, let me know, I would like to
study it).

Those corner stores will have Apples, Oranges, and Bananas. There is a reason,
they are cheap and similar cost to these junk foods.

> small corner market in a poor neighborhood, which is often the only market a
> poor person has access to, the veggies are far more expensive per calorie
> than junco food

This seems like an impossibility. Junk food requires a multiple stage
manufacturing process, while vegetables only need to be shipped and sometimes
refrigerated.

The big thing is to look at the price you pay. Paying 1 dollar for a bag of
carrots is cheaper than a 15 dollar tray of mixed veggies.

As previously mentioned, if you have ideas for low cost foods, let me know, we
study this for Efficiency Is Everything.

~~~
dragonwriter
> There arent junk foods that score above 400 calories per dollar. They dont
> exist from 5 years of searching

Top Ramen chicken flavor is 190 calories per package, 48 packs look to be
available at around $10 (the lowest I can find right now is actually $8.78,
but $10 is a nice round figure.) So that's $10/9120 calories or 912 calories
per dollar.

Slim Jim Smoked Snack Sticks I can find for $20 for 120. They are 160 calories
each. That works out to $20/19200cal or 960cal/$.

That all took about 5 minutes of searching. Your five years of searching don't
appear to have been spent very efficiently.

> Junk food requires a multiple stage manufacturing process, while vegetables
> only need to be shipped and sometimes refrigerated.

Shipping and refrigeration and allowances for damage and spoilage and paying
for shelf space (raw veggies are bulky per calorie, which affects in-store or,
for direct to consumer delivery, in a warehouse, inventory cost as well as
shipping) are, altogether, _huge_ costs; mitigating them is one of the big
drivers for industrial food production.

~~~
MrEfficiency
Ramen can be found closer to 2,200 calories per dollar. At what point are we
moving from Junk food to Soup?

I havent looked at Slim Jims in bulk, but usually dried meat is quite
expensive. What store do you buy slim jims at? (I expect the protein per
dollar to be less than chicken but on-par with yogurts/dollar fast food.
10-20g/$)

Also, none of those have calcium

[https://efficiencyiseverything.com/food-nutrition-per-
dollar...](https://efficiencyiseverything.com/food-nutrition-per-dollar/)

I'm not sure what you are trying to point out since you mentioned soup. That
you can drink flour cheaper than you can cook a well rounded meal? Flour isnt
going to get you fiber.

Did you read the original source? Ramen and various junk food are all over
that page.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Ramen can be found closer to 2,200 calories per dollar. At what point are we
> moving from Junk food to Soup?

They are overlapping categories.

> Also, none of those have calcium

Well, yeah, they are junk food. Micronutrient (or even macro) completeness
isn't really an expected feature. Your claim was that no junk food existed
over 400cal/$. This is false. That junk food is, well, junk is not the claim I
was addressing, nor one that seems to be in any kind of dispute.

~~~
MrEfficiency
Alrighty mister, you win ;)

Now where are you getting these slim jims?

------
CompelTechnic
>Let’s start with cost: As you can see in the chart, when it comes to how many
calories you get per dollar, sugar, vegetable oils, and refined grains deliver
a higher bang for the buck than fruits and vegetables

Somebody shopping with purpose can get cheap healthy food easily, but the
chart they give did give me some thought.

If you use look at chart they give, fruits and vegetables are actually
slightly lower on the $/100g axis, but have a much lower calorie density. This
underlines one thing I've thought about: we are kind of too busy to spend all
day eating low energy-density foods. The modern lifestlye has a decent amount
of pressure to minimize the amount of time spent eating so we can get back to
work.

------
JDiculous
Americans are fat because 1. Poor diet and eating too much 2. lack of exercise
driven by car-dependence and sprawled out unwalkable car-centric cities.
Commuting in a car 1 hour per day and sitting in an office for 8 hours doesn't
exactly foster a healthy lifestyle unless one goes out of their way to be
active (eg. gym), sacrificing their already sparse free time. This is part of
the reason obesity is much lower in cities like NYC where people walk/bike to
get around.

------
georgeecollins
The CDC graph really confuses me. 40% of US men are overweight, 35% are obese,
5% are extremely obese. If I add that up, 80% of American men are overweight.
Maybe it is because I live in Los Angeles, and it is really hard to believe
that 80% of American men are overweight.

Really, 4 out of 5? I get that other parts of the country are different, but I
also think BMI is a really crude tool that paints some healthy people as
weighing more than they should for their height. But it can be muscle, it can
be body type, etc.

~~~
MrEfficiency
Yep, I'm technically overweight even when I have a 6pack. 185 lbs at 6ft.

Ive been lifting for 6 years, and my lowest weight I get is 183lbs, after this
I begin to starve and overeat due to how skinny I am.

I dont know the solution, but my doctor looked at me and knew I was healthy
even though I was technically overweight.

~~~
jakemoshenko
That sounds like a problem with the definition of overweight, which probably
uses BMI. BMI doesn't seem to scale well to athletic builds.

~~~
georgeecollins
But that is my point: that is how people get to statistics like 80% of
American men are overweight. Like the poster above, I am 6'. So I am kind of
tall and broad shouldered, due to genetics. If I weigh 185 I am overweight,
although I think at that weight I look reasonably trim. Working out eventually
makes me weigh more, because muscle weighs more. I have seen papers where
people say 'Overweight' people (as defined by BMI) actually have longer life
spans than normal BMI people. Keep in mind, some people get to normal BMI via
chemotherapy. It is only at Obese and very Obeses that you see negative
effects.

For the biggest group of American men, this article is implying that they are
unhealthy, when the facts are that they are actually healthy.

I'm not saying this isn't among the most important health issues in the US. I
just think you need a more reasonable standard or a lot of people will just
throw up their hands.

~~~
philipkglass
I know that BMI is imperfect, but it seems like a reasonable enough proxy
measure when you're looking at whole-population trends for the USA. I don't
think a more reasonable measure is really needed for this purpose.

The BMI of athletes, or the limited options of people who live in food
deserts, really seem like missing-the-forest-for-the-trees tangents in these
sorts of discussions. According to the "rise of obesity in America" chart in
the article, overweight-or-more among American women went from about 40% in
1960 to about 80% in 2014, with the highest percentage increase in the
"extremely obese" subgroup. It's interesting to speculate about what drives
it. But I don't think we can explain the trend with "they got shredded" or
"they moved to food deserts" when we're talking about _40% of all American
women_.

Maybe my intuition is wrong -- maybe there _are_ enough people with high
muscle mass that it's skewing entire charts like the Vox article shows. If you
have citations to that effect, I'll read them with gratitude.

------
corerius
It certainly doesn't help that more people type for a living, look at moving
pixels on a screen for fun, sit in a car for an hour a day.

The US diet seems natural to me. I think it's the result of 100 years of
evolution in food design and the fact that your body wants fat-adding easy to
acquire calories. Fritos didn't grow on trees.

A more interesting question is to compare why countries at an equal level of
wealth and technical development aren't the same. Ethnicity? Culture? Legal
climate?

------
sametmax
It's also about taste.

Fruits and vegetables in the US taste terrible.

How do you want a kid to chose this sad dry dirt stick they call carrots when
they got a deliciously engineered Maillard molecules stacked burger next to it
?

Every time I go to the US, I have to spend crazy money at Whole food to get
something only near the quality of what I get to regular supermarkets in
France. And in my country, I try to avoid regular supermarkets because there
is no joy in eating their fresh good.

Of course you will eat a kit kat if you have to pay 3 times the price to get
something healthy, and 5 times to get something satisfying.

Plus remember, this tops the effort that is already required in choosing what
to buy and cook it.

It's an impossible game to win for many American.

And it's a vicious circle.

Being fed with crap lead to less energy, more disease, and worse mood, and so
you have even less chance to catch on life opportunities. And less chance to
ever eat healthy again.

~~~
mikehotel
Bland fruits and veggies are a result of agribusiness efforts to optimize for
shelf life and visual appeal. One strategy to address this is to expand the
types of fruits and veggies in your diet. Explore a local ethnic grocery to
try a variety of flavors, aromas and textures. The complaint may change to
sensory overload.

~~~
sametmax
> Explore a local ethnic grocery to try a variety of flavors, aromas and
> textures.

That won't scale.

I have a fine strategy for eating proper food: not leaving in the US.

------
jacknews
Just search "food capitalism", eg [https://www.popmatters.com/foodies-guide-
to-capitalism-inter...](https://www.popmatters.com/foodies-guide-to-
capitalism-interview-2518372029.html) or
[https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/a-public-option-
for-f...](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/a-public-option-for-food)

"Food is actually the perfect example of a system in which the presence of a
profit motive is having incredibly destructive human consequences. That’s
because it introduces a terrible incentive: to sell people the products
they’ll get addicted to rather than the products that are good for them.
Americans live on junk food; they have terrible diets, with too much sodium,
too many calories, too much sugar, and too few fruits and vegetables. "

~~~
S_A_P
I cant ever foresee a situation where I think the government is in the best
position to decide what farmers grow, what livestock is produced and what I
should put on my plate. just no.

~~~
jacknews
Why is the opposite of capitalism always government?

Feral free-market capitalism clearly isn't delivering what we want when it
comes to food, but the alternative isn't communism. It's better incentives
and/or punishments for the market. That certainly is where government (which,
incidentally, represents the people, or should do), has a place.

~~~
S_A_P
My thought on this is that how else would you compel change in the market? I
don't think any other entity could do so. Of course I am no expert in this so
I am willing to listen and consider what the alternatives are.

Also just want to clarify that I do not think that our state of agribusiness
is perfect and not in need of some systemic change. There are tons of perverse
incentives out there that have created some of the problems we face. However,
I feel like a lot of that was caused by government intervention. I don't see
this as a left vs right issue either, as both sides are guilty here.

~~~
jacknews
Of course, but they don't need to plan what crops are grown, or what's on your
plate.

There could be a sugar tax for example.

Or even better a 'health tax' pegged to a 'health index' of some kind, quite
possibly with both government and private involvement.

Lots of possibilities

But one thing seems clear, that capitalism is ultimately only interested in
profit. It should be tailored to align better with society's needs.

------
gepi79
> Healthier foods can cost more

This is an outrageous lie; although they added the word "can" which is either
quickly overseen or makes the statement useless.

But arrogant ignorant misleading propaganda is typical for the harmful
mainstream media where writers are paid for words and stories and not for
content and truth.

Unhealthy food and mainstream media are similar in a way.

Vegan products are the cheapest products.

Vegetables and fruits are cheap if one buys seasonal products.

Vegan high carb (e.g. bread, rice,...) and high fat (e.g. oil) products offer
always cheap calories. Besides, getting enough calories in the US is not the
problem according to the article.

Animal products are by far the most expensive and most harmful products. Note:
They are also subsidized.

~~~
autocorr
Accusing Vox of a hidden agenda and bad faith really isn't called for. And I
don't see how the fact that healthier food, under some circumstances, can cost
more, is a controversial statement. The chart for point 4 even supports your
point, since meat is the highest cost per 100 g.

But I think your comment is misplaced because the points of the article have
almost nothing to do with vegan/meat choices. Taking meat out of the American
diet would not significantly change the facts presented in the article. This
is especially true for point 3, where we consume way, way too much (vegan)
soda and (vegan) sugary beverages.

~~~
gepi79
I do not think that the author of the article has a hidden agenda but
mentioning that healthy food can cost more is either misleading or useless.

Quote (of a lie): "Instead, there is a range of economic and social factors
that make eating enough fruits and vegetables really hard."

Of course it "can" cost more if you insist on buying only the most expensive
vegan food available.

Try to become obese on a cheap healthy whole food plant based diet and rice
and potatoes and bread without much added sugar (= normal bread in Europe).

The article offers no useful information to the reader and shifts all
responsibility to the evil industry and claims that healthy food is too
expensive and socially unacceptable and thus out of reach and not a solution.

Can you find one benefit of the article that made you smarter or a better
person ?

------
sdkjskf
" Researchers have pointed out that if Americans actually followed the US
dietary guidelines and started to eat the volume and variety of produce health
officials recommend, we wouldn’t have nearly enough to meet consumer demand."

Compare any American super market's fruit and veggie section to one in Canada,
or EU, and this is obviously true. Even Whole Foods' is pathetically small[1].

Seeing how little space there is for F&V, if you imagine doubling the space,
the production problem is quite apparent.

[1]In Canada, the nearest supermarket to my folks' uses half it's floor space
on vegetables and fruits. Grown in California, of course.

~~~
jessriedel
If the demand for these products existed, the market would easily provide
them. But why would excess supply be created if no one wants it?

~~~
danharaj
Agriculture is, like, the least free market.

~~~
jessriedel
Ignoring your hyperbole, I agree the existence of many distorting subsidies
surely affects prices, but the price of all food is low across the board
(compared to other industrialized countries). If people wanted to buy the
healthy options at the price paid for them in Europe, they would be available.

------
thomasfedb
Seven graphs that could be boiled down to two factors - more food, more sugar
- shoved in your face, and if you dare get fat it's your fault!

~~~
bitwize
Well, obviously it's your fault if you get fat. Any Hackernews oughta know by
now that they should be eating a strict paleo diet, with ingredients sourced
from farmers they know personally and cooked at home with the copious free
time they have after commuting an hour each way between SV and the exurbs to
work their cushy job building JS webshit for a YC-backed startup.

~~~
gepi79
> should be eating a strict paleo diet

This seems to be a typical US american thing as well and why it is easy to
become obese and unhealthy in the USA.

Tales of evil sugar and tales of good healthy high fat high protein diets with
much animal products.

Worldwide scientific experts warn against much sugar and much fat and much
animal products (high fat, high protein).

~~~
maxxxxx
Exactly. American diet is excessive is people try to fix that by switching
another excessive diet. Eat less, eat better foods. It's that simole. You
don't need a fancy diet with a name.

~~~
gepi79
I agree although the healthiest diet has a name: vegan or better whole food
plant based diet.

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGJq0eQZoFSwgcqgxIE9MHw/vid...](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGJq0eQZoFSwgcqgxIE9MHw/videos)

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJRjK20fHylJyf-
HiBtqI2w/vid...](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJRjK20fHylJyf-
HiBtqI2w/videos)

~~~
maxxxxx
There are a ton of healthy diets. You can pick pretty much any diet that is
not the American standard diet and you will be fine.

------
ponderatul
Because it's easy is not an excuse. When you say that you become a victim and
you lose any agency you might have had over this.

But to each his own.

~~~
qntty
What is it exactly that you're refusing to excuse people from?

