
The average American woman now weighs 166 pounds – as much as a 1960s man - prostoalex
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8784389/america-weight-gain
======
de_Selby
> The average American’s total caloric intake grew from 2,109 calories in 1970
> to 2,568 calories in 2010. As Pew Research put it, that’s "the equivalent of
> an extra steak sandwich every day."

A better comparison might be a snickers and a coke:

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=snickers+and+coke](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=snickers+and+coke)

~~~
kyllo
Yeah, what kind of steak sandwich would only have 459 calories? I wouldn't
expect any reasonably sized and palatable steak sandwich to pack less than
800!

~~~
BozeWolf
The idea of steak sandwhich is just crazy. In the Netherlands something like
that probably not even exists. Or it is exceptionally rare. Come on, if you
want a steak. Sit down at at home or at a proper restaurant and have it on a
plate. And not on the go. Pay attention to what you eat and actually taste it.
If somebody would actually taste the flavor of a snickers he would probably
not finish it. Same for a steak on a sandwhich. Steak is not the problem.
Having it on the go/in front of the tv/computer is.

(Nothing wrong with a bar of good chocolate though. Might be a bit more
expensive though)

~~~
cyphunk
> _In the Netherlands something like that probably not even exists. Come on,
> if you want a steak. Sit down at at home or at a proper restaurant and have
> it on a plate_

The idea of a stroopwafel is crazy. Come on, if you want a waffle with syrup
just sit down at a table and eat a real one ;)

~~~
BozeWolf
But stroopwafels are good;) and not like 1000 calories :)

------
gnoway
The original WaPo article[1] is better IMO. It actually mentions that people
on average are an inch taller than in 1960 before starting to pound the
obesity drum.

[1]
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/12/l...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/12/look-
at-how-much-weight-weve-gained-since-the-1960s/)

~~~
NietTim
An inch in length doesn't weigh 26 pounds

~~~
opcvx
Sure, what you described actually weights exactly 0 pounds.

But in general the volume of a sphere grows with the cube in regards to the
radius, thus gaining an inch of height could add a lot of mass. How much
depends on the object shape.

~~~
NietTim
And no healthy person will gain 26 pounds when growing an inch. Get real man.

~~~
opcvx
I'm already real. Start reading replies.

------
jmkni
To save you a round-trip to Google, that's 75.3KG

~~~
to3m
And also known as 11.85 stone.

~~~
globuous
And 5.16 slugs

~~~
to3m
Is this a common unit of measurement for people's weight?

Stone is standard in the UK for expressing people's weight, which is why I
mentioned it. I've never met anybody that weighs themselves in pounds. (I bet
I'm not the only person who isn't even sure how many pounds there are in a
stone.) Certainly few people seem to have a good instinctive sense for whether
a given amount in pounds is about average, a bit light, or a bit heavy. Which
is why I thought UK readers might like to know how many stone there are in 166
pounds, but evidently not ;)

I have a couple of friends who've gone metric and weigh themselves in kg.
That's as avant garde as it gets.

~~~
globuous
Wow, I would never have guessed British didn't use pounds as a unit when
weighting themselves. I thought you were just making fun of how there are
always so many units in English for the same measurements, so I went an
mentioned yet another mass/weight one. I honestly only remember ever using
slugs in some classes in undergrad. I doubt anyone actually ever weights
themselves in slugs. Actually, slug is a unit of mass, as opposed to pounds
which measure a force. So a slug is the equivalent of a kg and a pound is the
equivalent of a Newton. But there is also the 'pound mass' (lbs_m) and the
'kilogram force' (kg_f) to confuse us even more.

I always thought it was interesting that the SI system is based around mass,
time, and length whereas the English system is based around force, time, and
length. Which means that in SI, the Newton is derived from the kg whereas in
the English system the slug is derived from the pound. Of course, wikipedia
states that the 'stone' unit you were mentioning is both a unit of mass and
weight -.-

Please correct me if I'm wrong though, that's what I remember from my B.S. in
the States (I was born and raised with SI units). Also, is the unit of mass
'slug' ever used in conversations in English speaking countries ? I've never
encountered it outside of science problems in my 4 years of undergrad (nor did
I after, but I don't live in an English speaking country anymore)

------
300bps
The advent of limitless food in the first world has created the need for a
skill to focus on healthy food and ignore the junk. Those that can't slowly
poison their bodies.

Now in addition to that for the first time in history we are presented with
unlimited information. It will be interesting to see the negative effects that
come about for those unable to focus on the right things and ignore the junk.

~~~
smanuel
The problem with unlimited information - it's getting harder and harder to
tell what's good and what's bad for you:

[http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8591837/how-science-is-
broken](http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8591837/how-science-is-broken)

Take a look at the chart that's titled "Everything we eat both causes and
prevents cancer". A picture that's worth a thousand words.

We need better science. But I don't know how that's going to happen.

~~~
freehunter
We need corporations to stop funding shady research, or at least be more
upfront when they do. You might be skeptical if the Association of Nebraska
Corn Growers publishes a study saying HFCS is healthier than cane sugar, but
you wouldn't bat an eye if they paid an organization named America First to
publish it for them. And then paid the WSJ to put it on the front page. And
then paid the FDA to put it into the food pyramid.

PG's "submarine" isn't a fiction piece
([http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html)).

~~~
smanuel
Very nice reading on PR. Thanks for sharing.

------
bluedino
Let's travel back in time to the late 70's, early 80's.

McDonald's was incredibly popular I would guess than the Big Mac and french
fries are around the same serving size and calorie count as they are now. But
the soft drinks were smaller. So you had less calories.

People eat out at casual dining chains far, far more often than they do now.
There are so many more Applebees/Chili's/ what have you now. Serving sizes are
huge there. Appetizers alone are 1,000 calories. 1,500 calorie riblet
platters, 1,400 calorie fajitas. 1,200 calorie salads.

Fast casual. A burrito from Chipotle with chicken, beans, rice and sour cream
is over 1,000 calories. Double that of a 500+ calorie Big Mac.

Starbucks craze. People don't blink at the thought of drinking a 500 calorie
treat from Starbucks every day.

We just eat too dang much.

~~~
dummy7953
The serving sizes for the french fries are larger than they used to be. People
(to conserve their mental energy, I assume) order by number, and that
automatically includes a large order of fries.

If I remember correctly, in the 70's & 80's McDonald's had only two sized of
french fries, small and large.

But you know what? Screw all this quibbling about specifics. Our portions are
larger, we eat more, we exercise less. Our lifestyles and communities are
pretty toxic from the standpoint of metabolism. Lots of places you have to get
in a car to do the simplest things. This is a ridiculous way to live.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find that people eat more
because they feel more economically desperate than before and because in real
terms they are making less. My pet theory is that over-eating is a kind of
hatred turned inward. It's like blaming yourself when the game is rigged to
begin with.

Blah, I covered a lot of ground there. Sorry for the sloppy thinking, but I
think some things can be salvaged from there.

------
afarrell
The oral contraceptive pill is approved by the FDA in 1957. Griswold v.
Connecticut, which declares state laws against it unconstitutional is decided
in 1965. Since we are already having a conversation about women's bodies, the
fact that (according to
[http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html),
whose veracity I know nothing about) 16% of women aged 15-44 use daily hormone
pills is probably relevant to a discussion of their bodies' tendency to retain
adipose tissue.

To be clear against uncharitable interpretation: I think the ability to decide
when/if you get pregnant and have kids is fantastic.

~~~
dublinben
Do you think that hormonal birth control makes it impossible to maintain a
healthy bodyweight? The article very clearly points to an increase in daily
caloric intake.

~~~
glenra
Those two claims aren't incompatible. If birth control pills increased
appetite, people would gain weight on them VIA an increase in daily caloric
intake.

(A third option is that being fatter makes people hungrier, so fatter people
eat more...but starting down the path of _getting_ fatter might have any
random cause at all - that people are eating more doesn't give us much insight
into _why_.)

------
RyanMcGreal
It needs to be pointed out that one of the reasons Americans aren't more
active is that the built environment has been designed to maximize driving to
the active obstruction of any other way of getting around.

~~~
adevine
It's not just driving. The company I work for has an office in Marseille,
France. At that office, there is a beautiful staircase that spirals around the
middle of an open central area. In the middle of that area is a tiny, metal
elevator. Virtually everyone takes the stairs, and the elevator is basically
only there for the physically impaired.

At the US office, the ONLY access to higher floors (mind you, the building
only has 4 floors total) from the lobby is through two large elevators. To
even use the stairs you have to enter through a back alleyway, and the stairs
themselves are the basic dungy "pretty much emergency use only" type stairs.

I see this pattern everywhere, where basic design and access flow in the US
discourages even the slightest amount of physical exertion.

------
jfc
Average American woman - 166 lbs., up 18.5%

Average American man - 195.5 lbs., up 17.6%

The title seems bit linkbait-y. Why focus on women, when it's really all
Americans?

~~~
mhurron
166 is a nicer number?

200lb doesn't have a 1960's equivalent to compare it to in a headline?

------
crdb
What happened around 2000 that the fats & oils calories jumped so fast?

~~~
learnstats2
My guess: the price of sugar spiked and the price of oil fell?

The popularity and promotion of the 'Mediterranean diet' around that time
allowed manufacturers of processed foods to make the switch from sugars to
fats?

Looks like the numbers match:

[http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=sugar&month...](http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=sugar&months=240)

[http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=rapeseed-
oi...](http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=rapeseed-
oil&months=240)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet)

~~~
abandonliberty
Except the majority of sweetening is done with HFCS, not sugar.

~~~
learnstats2
Except the stat that shows a drop in sugar consumption includes corn-based
sugars.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Sweetener_consumption,...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Sweetener_consumption,_1966_to_2013.svg)

------
flippinburgers
Just look at photos of your parents or grandparents generations. While not
scientific per say, it is hilariously obvious that people are increasingly
overweight. And to see people in this thread trying to defend the increases in
weight is pure gold.

------
tim333
It mostly seems to be the grains and fats that have gone up. Too much doughnut
like food I guess.

------
JustSomeNobody
TIL that I weigh as much as a 1960s man, too!

(Or a 2015 woman, depending on how I go about looking at it.)

------
twoodfin
So little is being held constant between "average American woman in 1966" and
"average American woman in 2014" that I can't see the point of such a
statistic except as clickbait.

~~~
venomsnake
Hmm ... has the average american woman grew new limbs, extra appendixes,
wings, gills or something like that?

~~~
twoodfin
No, but she might be older or younger, live in a different part of the
country, be more likely single or married, have different ancestry, have a
different career, live in a household with a different fractional number of
children, ...

Any of these things could have an impact at least as great as the raw passage
of time. IMHO, much more interesting to look at comparable individuals.
Parents and their children and grandchildren at the same ages, for example.

~~~
venomsnake
A woman is still a woman. Neither of the factors you mentioned causes weight
gain. Let alone 20%

~~~
timje1
Yep, age will. If the average age of an American woman has changed from, say,
30 years to 50 years (aging population, changing demographics etc.) then this
could contribute to weight differences because people tend to become more
overweight as they age and get less active.

------
swalsh
This is a great article, I find it really curious that the only submission on
Reddit is the hacker news repost.

Perhaps the filters on there are capturing too much?

~~~
JohnTheBard
If you follow the link from Vox to Washingtonpost, he links to reddit
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/39dm6v/ame...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/39dm6v/american_females_today_weigh_as_much_as_american/)

------
GreaterFool
Instead of simply stating weight, how about tissue composition? Muscle vs bone
vs fat?

~~~
adevine
Weight and height are easy to accurately measure - tissue composition not so
much. And while tissue composition is important for individuals, at a societal
level, BMI (ratio of weight to height) is good enough because it's easy to
show that the vast, vast majority of the change is due to people getting
fatter. It's not like half of American women became bodybuilders.

~~~
dec0dedab0de
_It 's not like half of American women became bodybuilders._

No, but it has become socially acceptable for women to be visually muscular.
In the 70s, a body conscious woman would not likely be lifting weights and
drinking protein powders.

~~~
adevine
The number of "visually muscular" women contributing to the rise in the
_average_ US female body weight is essentially a rounding error.

------
EugeneOZ
Hope soon average American Journalist will use the metric system :)

~~~
happyscrappy
They should make a law that you can't order a pint at the pub, it must be
ordered in metric if you are a member of the EU.

~~~
T-zex
Do you mean Imperial pint (568 ml) or American pint (473 ml)? :)

~~~
gutnor
Often in metric Europe, a pint is exactly 500 ml. Same as the pound that has
become exactly 500 g.

------
jacquesm
Those billions of burgers have to go somewhere. Weird how the title mentions
just the women, how have the men fared?

~~~
mullsork
If you read the article it's right there.

~~~
jacquesm
Exactly, so why focus on the women in the title?

------
revelation
I guess this is a typical misuse of the average, where we have lots of
American women some way below 166 pounds and an equal amount much higher.

Similarly, not every American is eating an extra sandwich, just some get two.

~~~
emodendroket
Why is this a "misuse" of the average? Is there really proof that there are a
handful of outliers distorting the average? The article says 30% of Americans
are obese; that alone seems like a large number, even if the other 70% were
not heavier than they used to be (which I doubt).

~~~
revelation
I'm not saying there are outliers that are distorting the average, I'm saying
that there are few people that _are_ the average. Hence we can't make
decisions based on the value of the average.

~~~
emodendroket
That objection doesn't make sense if everyone is moving in the same direction.

