
Obesity is rising in Silicon Valley - fahimulhaq
http://fortune.com/2015/10/23/is-silicon-valley-bad-for-your-health/
======
grezbegriff
I've found it easy to live healthy here (for 2.5 years so far). I expect with
the right choices you could be healthy in any normal place. But there are some
aspects of silicon valley that make it _easier_ to be healthy compared to much
of the US:

\- better pay, so it's easier to eat a healthy diet

\- better weather, so you can easily exercise outside every day and don't need
any exercise equipment

\- better public transportation / bike lanes, so living without a car is
feasible.

\- lots of amazing geography and ocean nearby, so I've been going hiking /
surfing on days off and rarely spend my free time indoors.

There are cities with better public transit, and there are places that have
nature even more accessible, but I can't think of anywhere else in the US with
this combination of pay, weather, public transit and nature all in the same
place.

Of course, if you have a job that requires you to spend many more than 40
hours at the computer each week, and doesn't provide healthy food, it will be
more difficult to keep healthy habits.

~~~
presty
not to mention that big companies also have in office gyms and classes
(usually yoga)

and many mid-size startups also provide those perks by budding up with gyms

------
tsunamifury
I recently got an Apple Watch and comparing my activity on a normal weekend vs
a normal weekday was staggering. When I'm not at work I live an active healthy
lifestyle, at work I'm literally killing myself.

It's not about the fancy gyms free on campus or one off runs, it's that on the
weekend physical activity is a normal part of my work and on the weekday it is
antithetical to my work.

I, and several others, have expressed a desire to leave tech over this issue.
We are active fit people who TRY to workout and eat right, but our work grinds
our willingness out of us while demanding large numbers of hours being
physically inactive.

~~~
Todd
The best solution that I've come across so far is the treadmill desk. Standing
desks are not much better than sitting desks. You're still basically inactive.
They might be better for your back, though.

Treadmill desks don't get you fit, but they will let you move while you
code/design/write/etc. You only have to do an hour or two off and on
throughout the day to notice a big improvement. It's not hard to get to 10000
steps.

~~~
tsunamifury
I am unwilling to accept an actual manifestation of a hamster wheel as the
solution to my problem.

Variety of physicality is as important as its execution

~~~
Todd
Fair enough. I basically agree. If you find a better solution when you have to
code 8-12 hours a day, let me know.

Edit: Also, some people pay to walk on treadmills.

------
mahyarm
It's the food.

There are 24/7 snacks everywhere, for free, and half of them are not good for
you. Even if they were all good for you, you it's too easy to eat too much
anyway.

Then all the provided food is given buffet style, so you cannot measure how
much you eat, and the barriers to eating more are very minimal. Even services
like Zesty who provide calorie counts are not useful, because they serve it
buffet style and make it difficult to calculate portions. Food served is
usually restaurant food too, so fat is not visible but added for flavor.

All of this combines to becoming fatter.

SV can become a force of healthy weight if they provided packaged weight loss
meals that had all nutritional info on them for breakfast/lunch/dinner. Then
people who wanted to lose weight would have this very convenient option to do
so.

Most employers are not interested although because a very small amount of
their employees will use it at a time.

~~~
lgas
Why can't you measure how much you eat from a buffet?

~~~
mahyarm
Calorie counts are often not there, the food are cooked composites where you
don't know how much oil has been used for example.

Even if the counts were there, you have to bring a scale and hold up the line
for everyone else for each item you dump on your plate. You'll piss off
coworkers.

You also get gravity effects where if your scoop near the bottom of the
serving dish, you get extra helpings of oil, adding hundreds of calories.

------
ihsw
This whole article plays out as a ringing endorsement for the ketogenic
diet[1].

Most people don't realize it but a diet high in carbohydrates and sugars is
lethal, and hundreds of millions of people suffer from it on a regular basis.

It's a serious lifestyle change but honestly I think many would benefit from
it significantly, as adhering to it requires a basic level of self-directed
education into what you eat and why it matters.

It's not just "eating more fruits and vegetables is good and eating less pizza
is better."

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/keto](https://www.reddit.com/r/keto)

~~~
glossyscr
Glad to see that somebody points this out. It's alarming when I see all the
chubby faces around me painstakingly eating their salad and going to the gym
but not having the slightest clue of nutrition.

It's not about eating less calories or eating low-fat. Or fruits or vegan. Or
doing more exercise. It's always about carbs--avoiding carbs is the key. The
most common education gaps:

1\. Carbs are like crack, the more you eat the more you thrive for them, you
think you are hungry but you aren't. And this is the no 1 reason that most
cannot stop their obesity, they are hooked on carbs. Just go to the next
supermarket and check which products have the biggest shelf space: those which
have addictive ingredients, booze and sweets.

2\. You have to heavily compensate carbs with protein and fat when you do low
carb/keto. Eg, if I go below 70g carbs a day, I need 70g protein and 130g (!)
fat a day to compensate the lower carbs intake. If you are not doing so you
become hungry. Most think that fat is bad and makes you obese, what a fallacy.
As long you keep you carb intake low you can consume tons of fat and you will
stay forever slim. Actually it is rather a problem to get that amounts of fat
in mainstream food. With protein it's even worse and more expensive.

3\. The older you get the harder your body can handle carbs. People think it's
normal that they get a belly at some point and they can't do anything about
it. Your metabolism changes over the years and you have just to learn to
manage carbs. You cannot totally avoid carbs, you still need them but know how
to control the volume.

As the parent wrote, go to Reddit's Keto sub, probably the most advanced
keto/low carb group. And it's not a niche diet.

Besides, I also found that when I am on carbs I am ultra ADD not able to focus
on anything.

EDIT: Thanks for the downvote, I would love to know why

~~~
yodsanklai
You say "Carbs are like crack, the more you eat the more your thrive for them,
you think you are hungry but you aren't."

Most official nutrition guidelines go along the following line: "An optimum
diet contains 45 to 60% of energy from carbohydrates per day for all those
over two years of age."
[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/nutrition/carbohydrates/expi...](http://www.eufic.org/article/en/nutrition/carbohydrates/expid/basics-
carbohydrates/)

I know the ketogenic diet is popular in some circles but it goes against all
the official recommendations. I understand that official recommendations are
not always correct, but when there's a consensus in the medical community, I
would think twice before blindly following (what I perceive as) a fad.

~~~
ihsw
There is a fair bit of science behind it:

* British Journal of Nutrition did a study[1] whose results indicated that "achieve better long-term body weight and cardiovascular risk factor management when compared with individuals assigned to a conventional low-fat diet"

* a Swedish government advisor group at the Council on Health Technology produced an assessment found[2] that "the nation would benefit most from a low-carb, high fat, ketogenic diet" where the study indicated benefits include "improved blood sugar, reduced body weight, and enhanced high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol without adverse effects on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol"

Rejection of popular low-fat diet dogma is increasing in prevalence among the
general populace, nutritional academia, and government-supported dietary
guidelines.

The medical community often moves at a snails pace, there was once a time when
doctors didn't wash their hands in hospitals because "a gentleman's hands
could not be unclean."[3]

[1]
[http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...](http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9016489)

[2] [http://www.examiner.com/article/sweden-first-to-battle-
obesi...](http://www.examiner.com/article/sweden-first-to-battle-obesity-with-
low-carb-high-fat-ketogenic-diet)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Conflict_with...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Conflict_with_established_medical_opinion)

~~~
yodsanklai
Some studies say the opposite.
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555979/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555979/)

"Low-carbohydrate diets were associated with a significantly higher risk of
all-cause mortality and they were not significantly associated with a risk of
CVD mortality and incidence. However, this analysis is based on limited
observational studies and large-scale trials on the complex interactions
between low-carbohydrate diets and long-term outcomes are needed."

It's very difficult for a layman to come to a conclusion using scientific
articles. There are many and they are sometimes contradictory. One should do a
synthesis of the state of the art in order to draw an informed conclusion. In
practice, I think it's reasonable to be conservative and follow the current
consensus (given by government guidelines).

What I found disturbing is that the ketogenic diet has emerged as solution to
obesity in the US. But as an outsider, obesity in the US is obviously a
consequence of the prevalence of junk food and the marketing power of the food
industry. There's no need for a new miracle diet to solve it: basically,
replace "low carb" with "low junk food ".

~~~
ehsanu1
_But as an outsider, obesity in the US is obviously a consequence of the
prevalence of junk food and the marketing power of the food industry._

That doesn't sound like the most scientifically-founded assertion to me,
especially given that you're looking for scientific evidence for or against
low-carbohydrate diets. I guess it also doesn't necessarily tell you whether
low-carb diets are any good or not, so it's a red herring here.

A really great book that points out many studies related to low-carbohydrate
diets (especially experimental studies comparing against low-fat diets) is
"The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living". Written by two scientists
who've spent their careers studying this, they point out that almost all
studies which show poor results and undesirable side effects from a low-carb
diet only last a few weeks - whereas it _takes_ a few weeks for humans to
adapt to a diet like that, so a study must necessarily get over that hump
before making any conclusions.

Furthermore, low-carb diets cause people to lose a lot of electrolytes, which
is the main cause of bad side effects, and many studies do not tell their low-
carb subjects to supplement with salts. Studies which last longer than a few
weeks tend to show favorable outcomes, generally with fat loss exceeding low-
fat diets and better adherence as well over the long-term. If you want more
details, I'd recommend you get the book.

------
ivan_ah
Sitting all day + commute + stress is terrible. A 20 year old body can take
this sort of damage and recover, but at 30 the "warranty" runs out and you're
likely to find yourself facing medical problems, unless you compensate with
regular exercise.

Metabolic syndrome is very real---if you eat a big breakfast and then a big
lunch and you did no physical activity in between, guess what your blood
glucose level will be after lunch? [Hint: not good]

One hack I'd like to share with y'all: use the Mac OS text-to-speech tool to
make the computer read HN stories for you while you do exercise in the
morning. ('System Preferences --> Dictation and Speech --> Speak selected text
when key is pressed') A few push ups + situ ps + 1min of plank can make a big
difference. Also, the more HN you read the more in shape you'll become :)

------
ronyeh
I recently bought a [http://www.deskcycle.com](http://www.deskcycle.com) and I
have been happy so far. No long term results yet, but it's better than just
sitting there typing.... (I am not affiliated w the company, just a happy
consumer.)

------
randomname2
I'm surprised the article doesn't question whether there's something about the
environment itself that is contributing to these health problems.

Use of electronic devices is definitively more prevalent in Silicon Valley,
and there is evidence that blue light exposure from screens or artificial
light exposure at night may be harmful to health. And while this may be far
fetched, there also are indications that some forms of electromagnetic
radiation could potentially be harmful too.

~~~
toufka
There are also all the environmental effects of living in the 'Silicon Valley'
\- named as such because of all the chip manufacturing from the 60-80s.
Google's campus is nearby the 'MEW Plume'[1] of trichloroethene. A few
buildings on Google's campus exposed pregnant Googlers' children to
significant risk of heart defects [2]. Here's a pretty good article on silicon
valley's troubled environmental legacy as they try to remediate their land
[3]. Not to say that the environment is causative, but it sure does not help
matters of health for employees who live their lives in the area. Silicon
valley still has a significantly polluted environment [4].

[1] [http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Moffet-Field-
Toxic-...](http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Moffet-Field-Toxic-Plume-
Concerns-192436521.html)

[2] [http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/02/28/toxics-put-
pregnant-...](http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/02/28/toxics-put-pregnant-
googlers-at-risk-expert-says)

[3] [http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-
interactive/2014/m...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-
interactive/2014/mar/-sp-toxic-waste-silicon-valley-trail)

[4]
[http://dotspotting.org/u/302/sheets/2679#c=10.00/37.3527/-12...](http://dotspotting.org/u/302/sheets/2679#c=10.00/37.3527/-121.9610)

~~~
npunt
Wow, that Guardian article is really well done. Our lack of concern for the
environment leaves a terrible legacy both in lives and pure dollars. 10's of
billions to not even properly clean up what could have been dealt with at the
source for thousands or millions. The rising number of superfund sites shows
the increasing cost burden to this way of doing things - this is probably the
best argument for the fiscally minded who do not identify as
environmentalists.

The article explains a few ways the cleanup is spreading waste elsewhere, and
it makes me wonder what similar sorts of choices we are making today in areas
where the 'science isn't clear' or other excuses that were probably used in
the 60s when this started. Are we changing the way we do things, or just which
things are being done?

Thanks for sharing this.

------
tonomics
First semester living in the Valley, I gained ~30 lbs and realized the same
happened to most new employees(not as much me).

Somehow, the company gave the idea of change/disruption/... and that made us
work a lot more. Sometimes, 15 hours a day in front of a computer. Still, PMs
and execs always got all credit and I started focusing on myself. It was NOT
worth it.

I ended up regaining my health and I always remind hardworking friends they're
playing their own game.

------
toephu2
think SV is overweight? try going to the midwest or the south..

------
yodsanklai
> the primary culprit is a diet high in processed carbohydrates and sugar.

Isn't sugar a special case of carbohydrate? The way I see it, most common
carbs are sugar and starch.

I'm not trying to be nitpicky but I've been reading nutrition articles and I'd
like to understand the proper terminology. I understand there are complex
carbs (starch) and simple carbs (aka sugar, such as glucose and fructose).

~~~
refurb
Yes, carbohydrates are comprised of: simple sugars (e.g. glucose), more
complex sugars (e.g. sucrose is a disaccharide), even more complex starches
(e.g. amylose) and very complex fibers (e.g. cellulose).

Each one is processed in a different way by the body.

------
idlewords
With computer salary, we can afford many potato!

