

Overweight people are now a global problem - SuperChihuahua
http://blog.trejdify.com/2012/10/overweight-is-now-global-problem.html

======
roc
It used to be that differences in obesity rates worldwide were explained by
diet: the French ate rich food, but in smaller portions; the Japanese ate lots
of white rice, but didn't eat much meat; etc.

That has been found to not hold up over time and so people seemed to explain
it by culture: The US was fatter, because we sit in cars all day; in most
other countries you have to walk considerable distance every day, even to use
transit.

Now that, too, seems to be failing the data, as other countries become fatter
without any notable shift in how they get around town.

It may be time we studied to what degree the worldwide spread of obesity maps
to the worldwide spread of industrial food products.

Could it be the 'lag' between obesity becoming a problem in the US vs the rest
of the world was nothing more than initial cultural resistance to processed
food wearing down over time?

The question of how an individual can lose weight is pretty well understood
(if difficult for many to practice).

The more interesting question is what enables entire cultures to surrender
their previous generation's habits seemingly en masse.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> The question of how an individual can lose weight is pretty well understood
> (if difficult for many to practice).

From reading discussions and articles about it that pop up here from time to
time, and also from talking with my family and friends, I'd disagree. What I
actually perceive is that in discussions about loosing weight:

\- a) people generalize personal anecdotes,

\- b) there are dozens of popular diets, and people usually quote their
favourite,

\- c) whatever Real Science gets quoted, will soon be challenged by another
paper saying something opposite,

\- d) people try to reason from common sense ("surely if you eat less X you'll
be less fat, because X does this-and-that"); I was a believer of the
thermodynamics-like theory that deltaWeight = weight + (calories in - calories
out)*stuff; many a post on HN convinced me that it's not true, even though it
sounds much more obvious than typical dietetary nonsense you'll hear from your
random friend.

I'm against blaming everything on people being not determined or hardworking
enough. For one, it's wrong attitude (any system that assumes strong willpower
or moral high ground from people will fail because of human nature; it's
better to engineer around it), and secondly, there are indications that the
same diet/exercise combination executed with the same determination will have
great effects on some, moderate on others, and zero-to-negative on few
unfortunate people.

~~~
goostavos
Out of curiosity, what were the arguments that convinced you that simple
calories in/out ins't valid?

I'm personally a tiny bit incredulous anytime someone mentions that they've
tried cutting calories, but with no results. I've always wondered how they
continue to get an energy surplus in the absence of input. These seemingly
perpetual motion machines would be of great interest to science, I'm sure ;)

~~~
polyfractal
To be fair, the human body is pretty good at limiting calorie depletion when
caloric intake decreases. When you cut calories, your body automatically
scales back how much you are using.

Of course, this is why any good diet _needs_ to be coupled with an exercise
program.

Even better, increase your caloric intake, switch to a high-protein diet and
start lifting some heavy weights. Muscle creation is metabolically expensive,
and muscle maintenance uses a lot of calories. Furthermore, even though muscle
is heavier than fat (omg you may gain weight!) it looks a lot slimmer and more
fit.

Moral of the story: lift weights, eat protein, get fit, lose "mirror" pounds
(even if you actually put more mass on)

------
Kurtz79
Exercise will speed-up weight loss if paired with a diet, and it's just plain
healthy, regardless of weight issues.

But if the goal is to lose weight, exercise alone can be counterproductive,
because leads people to think that slacking off in the gym for half an hour
will offset that supersize menu that they will eat afterwards...

Changing (permanently) eating habits should be the first step and the final
goal.

~~~
mistercow
>Changing (permanently) eating habits should be the first step and the final
goal.

That word "permanently" is really key. It's sad to watch people say "Oh, I
can't eat that now because I'm on a diet. But in two more weeks..."

~~~
StavrosK
The positive thing is that your perception of food intake also changes. I lost
10ish kg after eating less, and now I'm eating various things I like and
binging a bit, and I feel like I ate an ox. When I say "god, I binged again
today", people say "uh, you only ate some cereal and a steak", so I weigh
myself after two weeks of "binging" and I'm at the same weight.

My point is that maintenance becomes simple once you get used to eating less.
Eating the amount you used to eat before now seems like a terrible excess (and
I wasn't even overweight before).

~~~
goostavos
>My point is that maintenance becomes simple once you get used to eating less.
Eating the amount you used to eat before now seems like a terrible excess (and
I wasn't even overweight before).

This honestly surprised me once I started trying to lose weight. I assumed it
be a constant war with my will power to not gorge myself. After about two
weeks of a very restricted diet, the desire to eat a lot, and often, just kind
of drifted away.

I now feel _super_ lethargic if I eat a big meal. I prefer eating a couple
small meals through out the day. "Eat not to dullness," and whatnot. Your
average fast food meal is now a pretty big amount of food for me -- I used to
eat the stuff twice a day, and still want more.

~~~
StavrosK
It _still_ surprises me. I used to eat a chocolate bar and want more, now I'm
the guy who eats two blocks and puts it in the fridge. I never thought this to
be possible.

------
simonbarker87
Exercise and eating less is a valid response to the growing weight issue but
it all stems from education and an understanding of how being overweight will
impact your life and, more importantly, your family's life.

By education I don't mean college level stuff, I mean basic home skills and
life skills education and instilling an understanding that fast
food/sweets/crisps etc are fine in small amounts but that decent fruit, veg
and fresh meat are the staple to a healthy life. Again, this doesn't need to
be super complex, there isn't some sexy problem to be solved here, it is just
basic, old fashioned food understanding etc. Think Jamie Oliver's Food
Revolution type thing.

Also, this is something where governments also need to step up and educate.
Free market ethos is fine but preemptive measures don't sell or make money for
business so the governments need to fill this gap.

~~~
freehunter
The fact that this is just now becoming a global problem indicates that
perhaps there is a problem to be solved here beyond education. Mankind (and
our pets) did not evolve to live the lifestyle we're living. Sitting at a
computer all day, driving home, then sitting at a TV all night. Changing diet
is fine and it works well for some. Others might not have such as easy time of
it.

I don't know what the solution to the problem is. But if you do, you will be
rich. Something has to change, globally: either our lifestyle or our bodily
engineering. And changing lifestyles is not an easy thing to do.

~~~
Avshalom
>did not evolve to live the lifestyle we're living

evolution didn't magically stop.

~~~
TeMPOraL
But then it won't fix it sooner than in 10 000 years.

Technological progress (and life style changes that follow it) has outpaced
whatever biological processes of adaptation there are by many _orders of
magnitude_.

------
brianbreslin
Am I the only one who thought this post was all fluff?

"I believe that the solution to this problem is exercise, and those who would
like to decrease their weight should try different sport activities."

What about eating healthier? That strikes me as a more effective and
maintainable solution.

~~~
bonesinger
you are absolutely right. Eating healthy is more important than exercise and
the two together will lead to an overall improvement in health.

[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121015142405.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121015142405.htm)

Though its a small sample and an extreme one at that, the contestants' diets
accounted for approximately 65% of their weight loss.

~~~
eru
> Eating healthy is more important than exercise

For losing weight. For health in general, both seem about equally important.
(And lots of exercise will allow you to get away with a crappy diet much
easier.)

------
mistercow
>Chinese people are now so addicted to sugar

This is supposed to be a list of "facts" but in reality, the "sugar is
addictive" hypothesis is still, well, a hypothesis.

>that the government is scared that there will be political unrest if the
price of sugar goes up

It's the _Chinese government_. "Scared that there will be political unrest if
X" is their default state for any untested X.

~~~
jere
>This is supposed to be a list of "facts" but in reality, the "sugar is
addictive" hypothesis is still, well, a hypothesis.

I took addictive in the sense that we are "addicted to oil."

~~~
jonathlee
That sense is just as nonsensical. Would you also say that people in the 19th
century were "addicted to coal" and "addicted to whale oil" and that people
before that were "addicted to wood fires"? Oil is just the latest, most
economical energy source in an entire series of sources. In a few years
modern-day Luddites will change to "addicted to natural gas" or "addicted to
nuclear fission", "addicted to fusion" or whatever the most popular portable
energy source is then. Whenever there is more of something (food, energy,
comfort, luxury, pr0n) than someone approves of (Puritans, Luddites,
environmental extremists, religionists, etc.), they demonize it by saying
people are addicted to it. It's called propaganda.

~~~
mistercow
Eh, I would say that in some ways the analogy to an addiction makes sense for
oil. The point is to illustrate a bad cycle that we have. Oil is our cheapest
portable energy solution, so we use it in most of our existing technology that
needs lots of portable energy. That has a negative impact on research into new
portable energy solutions because it is unlikely that any can be backwards
compatible with old technology. As a result, oil continues to be the cheapest
portable energy solution even as it gets more and more expensive. The analogy
isn't perfect, of course, but no analogy is.

What makes no sense to me whatsoever is to try to extend this analogy to
sugar.

------
tryitnow
I think combining fairly elementary economics and physics can reveal the cause
of obesity epidemics.

Consumers seek to maximize the taste/cost ratio where cost = the monetary cost
of food + time to prepare

Sure you can eat healthy for cheap if you're willing to eat things that are
not that tasty or if you're willing to spend time learning to prepare foods
and then preparing them on a regular basis. I'd really like to see the
economics behind that - like most things, stuff produced in mass is "cheaper"
than stuff we make ourselves, maybe not in terms of monetary costs, but
definitely in terms of labor savings.

The tastiest things tend to pack a big caloric impact, which makes sense from
an evolutionary point of view.

Cheaper tasty calories lead to greater caloric intake, which often occurs at
the same time an economy is shifting to less labor intensive work. This
creates a perfect storm where caloric expenditure is declining at the same
time caloric intake is increasing, leading to an obesity epidemic. It's simple
physics, conservation of energy/matter. The energy intake of humans increases,
but their expenditure declines, the surplus has to go somewhere. That
somewhere is our fat stores.

------
dia80
"Overweight people are now a global problem"

My first thought was they are exerting too much pressure on the surface of the
world and endangering the integrity of the crust... need to get out more...

------
Nursie
I also enjoy cycling and used to cycle-commute. Unfortunately I have now moved
to a cold, wet country and work too far from home for it to be practical, and
am getting fatter...

~~~
s_henry_paulson
A great substitute is to find a gym with spinning classes in the morning
before work.

~~~
stephengillie
It's not a great substitute - it costs ~$50-100 per month and an extra 45-90
minutes per day... _instead_ of saving gas money. I too live in a cold wet
land, but can't afford the cost in time _or_ money.

------
atomical
I've been a runner for a long time but occasionally I try new forms of
exercise / fun. In the not too recent past I joined a rowing club. The dues
were cheap and it's a great workout. And I take advantage of hiking if I'm in
an area that has mountains.

------
AznHisoka
I was in China for a month. And I had to look extremely hard to find 1 obese
person everyday.

~~~
will_work4tears
1\. How long ago was this? 'Becoming a problem' implies that it is a new-ish
thing, and an observation from 5 years ago isn't really current.

2\. Are you sure you don't mean "hard to find 1 _morbidly_ obese person
everyday? You do realize that a BMI of 30 or greater is obese, right? And In
non-tight and non-revealing clothes, you probably aren't even going to be able
to tell a person with a BMI of 30-35 is obese. But they are according to
studies like the linked article refers to.

For instance, this guy is obese (BMI of 30.7):
<http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/511-220.html>

And this guy is overweight (BMI of 26.2):
<http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/603-210.html>

~~~
JoeAltmaier
SO the problem is, the definition of overweight has changed to 'anyone that
doesn't look good in a bathing suit'?

~~~
will_work4tears
I don't think it's changed, I'm not commenting on that, merely saying most
people don't realize they are, or are seeing an obese person. People think
Obese = rolls of fat when in fact you can be pretty fit looking with clothes
on.

I'm pretty sure a BMI of 30+ is still not the healthiest. Just not as obvious
as a person with a 40+ BMI (morbidly obese)

------
bravoyankee
Many people are too poor to eat well. When all you can afford is spaghetti and
potatoes, you will gain weight and experience suboptimal energy. You'll also
be more likely to suffer anxiety, depression and get diabetes.

Believe me, you don't think all that well either - decisions become more
emotional than rational - so getting out of the hole gets even harder.

Instead of finger pointing, chastising and instructing, I think more
compassion is required when it comes to dealing with the complex issue of
obesity.

~~~
Tycho
Your two assertions that

1\. Eating healthily is more expensive than eating junk

2\. Eating poorly impairs your ability to think to the extent that you cannot
be held responsible for your poor choice of diet

I find them very hard to believe (even though I hear them often). Do you have
any links to the studies or evidence that show this?

~~~
skylan_q
"Eating healthily is more expensive than eating junk"

This assertion is blatantly false. I can get full on excellent quality food
for about the price of a mcdonald's meal + a bag of chips.

I've eaten like crap, and I've eaten well. It's very cheap to eat healthy.
Most people are just making excuses for not wanting to practice self-control
or educate themselves.

~~~
potatolicious
Spoken like a person of privilege - a widespread epidemic _clearly_ must be
hordes of poor people too lazy to exercise self-control.

Having lived in both incredibly poor neighborhoods and incredibly wealthy
ones, I'll say this:

It's _possible_ to eat healthily in poor neighborhoods, it takes a _lot_ of
work - a lot more work than it does for a wealthy person living in a wealthy
place. I've observed this in myself: I gained _enormous_ amounts of weight
while living in a poor, working-class neighborhood, and promptly shed it once
I moved to a wealthy upper middle-class neighborhood. I've bounced back and
forth between poor areas and rich areas since then, and the pattern has so far
held up.

But, anecdotes not equivalent to data, etc etc.

In a upper-middle class neighborhood healthy diets practically come after you
with a baseball bat. It's steeped in the general consciousness of the area,
support by people who possess the freedom of finance, time, and effort to
think about such things, and it's supported by the merchants in the area.

The same is not true in poor neighborhoods, where fast is king to a population
of overworked and tired people. When you're holding down multiple jobs and
raising kids at the same time, the CSA subscription may be cheaper and
healthier, but it also requires time you don't have. Merchant offerings in the
area reflect this reality, and so even someone with the intent to eat
healthily will find that availability of healthy food is substantially lower.

We are fortunate in that we have the resources with which to abstract _many_
annoying details away from our lives so we can concentrate on the important
things: good bodily health, mental well-being, and the such. Most of the
population isn't so lucky.

~~~
mhartl
Did poor people 100 years ago have the same problem? I doubt it. But today,
poor people in America are _fatter_ than rich people. Fat poor people? There's
something strange going on here...

~~~
potatolicious
> _"Fat poor people?"_

This seems only incredible because you don't understand the mechanics of being
poor.

Contrary to popular belief, the main bottleneck of being poor is not access to
food - the market has solved that part remarkably well, and farming
improvements throughout the last century (Borlaug is perhaps rolling in his
grave) means that food in general is so cheap that everyone in a developed
country has access to it.

The main bottleneck of being poor is _time_.

A poor person spends considerably more time just to ensure survival than a
wealthy person, and has remarkably little "disposable" time remaining in a
day. Long, irregular hours, possibility of multiple jobs, lack of access to
speedy/on-demand transportation, lack of access to time-creating conveniences
(laundromat far way instead of laundry in the house, for example), all serve
to make time the rarest resource for the poor.

That's not an exhaustive list by the way, and I don't pretend to know the full
exhaustive list.

All of this means that the poor gravitates towards fast, low-effort food, and
the rest makes sense.

~~~
mhartl
If poor people can be fat, we need a different word for what people 100 years
ago would have called "poor". Maybe "destitute" could serve this purpose?

In any case, if you're poor, your time is cheap. This doesn't jibe with the
claim that the poor lack enough time to, say, cook healthy meals for
themselves. Poor people 100 years ago were poorer than most poor people today,
and yet they largely cooked for themselves—and they were much thinner.

What accounts for this change? My suspicion is that it's _dependence_ without
_responsibility_. A hundred years ago, private charities (which are
accountable to their donors) were in a position to hold recipients of their
largesse responsible for their actions. But such charities have now largely
been displaced by government agencies. These agencies have been captured by
special interest groups,† and charity has mutated into entitlements. As a
result of receiving benefits without accountability, the poor have lost much
of the knowledge needed to be self-sufficient, which motivates further
intervention. It's the law of unintended consequences followed by iatrogenic
escalation.

†These interest groups are not the poor themselves, but rather those who speak
for the poor. I think it's no coincidence that the former tend to vote for the
latter. Political patronage is one of the oldest plays in the book.

I'd guess you'll find the above narrative unconvincing, but I like how you
think, so I thought it was worth a shot.

