12 ms·

Is Everything Getting Fatter?

77 points by dbcooper 11y ago

dbcooper 11y ago
Original paper is from 2011: http://m.rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org//content/278/1712/1626.short http://m.rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org//content/278/1712/1... Citing papers: https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?client=tablet-android-google&espv=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=10925269364062618050 https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?client=tablet-android-g...
nichochar 11y ago
In america, definitly yes. In Europe, not from what I can tell
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  Yep. Every year I come back to Turkey (home) for vacation and I'm stunned by how thin everyone is.
  - nichochar 11y ago
    same here. It is very surprinsing
- barking 11y ago
  Completely unscientifically I think that the French look slim by comparison with Americans. Not so the British though.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    UK has high rates of obesity. UK's rate of obesity is higher than most of Europe. It's a problem. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/29/uk-western-europe-obesity-study http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/29/uk-western-eu... > In the UK, 67% of men and 57% of women are either overweight or obese, according to the Global Burden of Disease study, published in the Lancet medical journal. More than a quarter of children are also overweight or obese – 26% of boys and 29% of girls. That's much worse than international comparisons: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60460-8/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... > Worldwide, the proportion of adults with a body-mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m2 or greater increased between 1980 and 2013 from 28·8% (95% UI 28·4–29·3) to 36·9% (36·3–37·4) in men, and from 29·8% (29·3–30·2) to 38·0% (37·5–38·5) in women. Prevalence has increased substantially in children and adolescents in developed countries; 23·8% (22·9–24·7) of boys and 22·6% (21·7–23·6) of girls were overweight or obese in 2013. The prevalence of overweight and obesity has also increased in children and adolescents in developing countries, from 8·1% (7·7–8·6) to 12·9% (12·3–13·5) in 2013 for boys and from 8·4% (8·1–8·8) to 13·4% (13·0–13·9) in girls. In adults, estimated prevalence of obesity exceeded 50% in men in Tonga and in women in Kuwait, Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Libya, Qatar, Tonga, and Samoa. Since 2006, the increase in adult obesity in developed countries has slowed down.
  - VeejayRampay 11y ago
    Just based on my observation as a French person, I'd say that the French are getting fatter as well. It only makes sense since more and more people are abandoning the "French way" of 2,3 meals a day eaten at the dinner table at fixed hours with the family, a healthy dose of red wine and variety in the plate. More and more people are falling to the sirens of Starbucks, McDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut because it's easy and convenient. The irony in this is that in the meantime in the United States (home of aforementioned franchises), a decent fraction of the population is going the other way and starting to eat healthy, incorporate more cooking and good produce into their diet. Funny how cultural soft power is so strong...
nichochar 11y ago
In america, definitely yes. In Europe, not from what I can tell
- DanBC 11y ago
  No country has managed to lower the rate of obesity. Some countries are seeing slower rises in rates of obesity, and some countries have much lower rates of obesity than international averages. But Europe is probably getting fatter.
  - jahnu 11y ago
    A few countries appear to have lowered adult obesity rates according to this data... http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/49712491.pdf http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/49712491.pdf
nkuttler 11y ago
> Now, feral rats could be chowing down on a greater abundance of rich food in the available garbage, but that doesn’t explain the upwards creep in ad libitum fed research animal weights. That doesn't seem to make sense. So when feral animals eat more processed "rich foods" and gain weight that's understandable, but when animals that live with and are fed by humans gain weight it's a mystery? Could it be that animal food production has changed in the same way as food production for humans?
- dbcooper 11y ago
  Yeah, it's the also the first comment on the blog post. >I haven’t read the paper, but domestic cats and dogs doesn’t surprise me in the least. >The pet food industry isn’t that much different than the human food industry in making food cheaper, tastier, and more calorie rich than ever. Not too mention more pets now are strictly house pets than ever before and don’t run around the yard or neighborhood as much. >As for lab animals I’d wonder the same thing regarding chow. For many caloric intake is probably highly monitored but I would wonder if where those calories come from has changed in monkey chow for example in the last few decades.
  - nkuttler 11y ago
    Haha, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't make it to the comments.
- DanBC 11y ago
  "Ad libitum" means the food is unrestricted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_libitum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_libitum Asking why rats given unrestricted food had lower weights in 1980s than today seems like a reasonable question. Has the food recipe changed? (And how has it changed?) because if the calorie content of the food hasn't changed but the recipe has changed we might be able to challenge the calories in calories out crowd.
  - zdean 11y ago
    "...we might be able to challenge the calories in calories out crowd." Not really. If they have unrestricted access and the recipe has changed, the simple balance of sugars, fats, and proteins per serving could be having an impact on their total caloric intake.
mirimir 11y ago
I'm guessing that it's an environmentally stable lipophilic chemical. There are a lot of them.
- filoeleven 11y ago
  My first thought was chemical as well due to the recent series of articles about DuPont's use of the surfactant C8[0] and how they continued to use it for fifty years after knowing that it caused major problems in humans and was leaking into the environment[1]. This chemical is now ubiquitous, it's in everybody, and it's an endocrine disruptor, meaning that it screws with living systems that are controlled by hormones, and it does so in very small doses. There are literally thousands of unstudied, unregulated chemicals in industrial use in America. Chances are high that there are a number of them doing a number on us. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid [1]https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-deception/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/11/dupont-chemist...
  - mirimir 11y ago
    It's arguable that most industrial organic chemicals are degraded in the environment in one way or another. But some aren't. And others have environmentally stable degradation products. So there are probably at least tens of thousands of persistent, anthropogenic, organic chemicals. The lipophilic ones are most hazardous, because they bioaccumulate through the food chain. Also, the more volatile ones tend to get trapped in polar regions. So lipid levels for Eskimos and penguins are higher than those for more equatorial populations. I wonder if body mass has increased more in recent decades among polar populations than among equatorial populations.
jcfrei 11y ago
I'm pretty confident that we'll see a reversal in the trend, for humans at least. The last 70+ years have been unprecedented in the history of nutrition, with high calorie and high fat food being more affordable than ever and with the addition of additives (such as the "E numbers" in Europe) also tastier than ever. We were simply unprepared to deal with such a high availability of tasty and highly nutritious food, because most people didn't know what a good diet looks like. the term diet in itself is a pretty new term, the whole concept of choosing what you eat might seem pretty absurd to earlier generations, which simply ate whatever they could get. But I'm confident that current generations will adapt to these new circumstances in our nutrition and start learning about their diets and start teaching their kids how to eat properly. and I'm pretty certain that within 50 years or so, widespread obesity will be nothing but a short and weird artifact during the turn of the millennium.
- rubidium 11y ago
  I think you may be over-optimistic. I live in a poor neighborhood. Food stamps are the norm. "high calorie and high fat food being more affordable" is true, but the food necessary for a good diet is completely absent. The only food in walking distance is the gas-station (think Big Gulps and Twinkies). This isn't an educational problem, it's a systemic socioeconomic one. And it's not likely to work itself out in the next 50 years.
  - mhuffman 11y ago
    Surely everyone in your neighborhood is not subsisting on Big Gulps and Twinkies. When they get to the grocery store (even if it is just once per month) to use those food stamps, there is food other than twinkies and big gulps to be had, right? There are clearly systemic socioeconomic issues, but this seems to be an educational one. Being able to read the backs of packages and know what is better for you at the same price point. For example how $2 bag of beans are better for you than a $2 bag of chips (in general). Or $.75 canned vegetables are better for you than $1 canned beefaroni (in general). The amount that it takes to fill you up vs. the nutritional value / cost is obvious in those 2 examples but gets murky pretty quick for a lot of people. People do not need to live off of fresh produce and coconut waters to not be obese. I think there isn't enough public education in this area, and I believe that labeling requirements are not nearly as helpful as they could be and are often deceptive (in particular to serving portions) to consumers.
logfromblammo 11y ago
Adenovirus 36 is zoonotic, and causes obesity in mammals and birds, including humans, rodents, chickens, and monkeys. The gut biome is significantly different between obese and non-obese individuals, though so far, no causative mechanism has been proven in either direction.

77 points by dbcooper 11y ago

Original paper is from 2011: http://m.rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org//content/278/1712/1626.short http://m.rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org//content/278/1712/1... Citing papers: https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?client=tablet-android-google&espv=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=10925269364062618050 https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?client=tablet-android-g...

nichochar 11y ago

In america, definitly yes. In Europe, not from what I can tell

enraged_camel 11y ago
Yep. Every year I come back to Turkey (home) for vacation and I'm stunned by how thin everyone is.
- nichochar 11y ago
  same here. It is very surprinsing
barking 11y ago
Completely unscientifically I think that the French look slim by comparison with Americans. Not so the British though.
- DanBC 11y ago
  UK has high rates of obesity. UK's rate of obesity is higher than most of Europe. It's a problem. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/29/uk-western-europe-obesity-study http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/29/uk-western-eu... > In the UK, 67% of men and 57% of women are either overweight or obese, according to the Global Burden of Disease study, published in the Lancet medical journal. More than a quarter of children are also overweight or obese – 26% of boys and 29% of girls. That's much worse than international comparisons: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60460-8/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... > Worldwide, the proportion of adults with a body-mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m2 or greater increased between 1980 and 2013 from 28·8% (95% UI 28·4–29·3) to 36·9% (36·3–37·4) in men, and from 29·8% (29·3–30·2) to 38·0% (37·5–38·5) in women. Prevalence has increased substantially in children and adolescents in developed countries; 23·8% (22·9–24·7) of boys and 22·6% (21·7–23·6) of girls were overweight or obese in 2013. The prevalence of overweight and obesity has also increased in children and adolescents in developing countries, from 8·1% (7·7–8·6) to 12·9% (12·3–13·5) in 2013 for boys and from 8·4% (8·1–8·8) to 13·4% (13·0–13·9) in girls. In adults, estimated prevalence of obesity exceeded 50% in men in Tonga and in women in Kuwait, Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Libya, Qatar, Tonga, and Samoa. Since 2006, the increase in adult obesity in developed countries has slowed down.
- VeejayRampay 11y ago
  Just based on my observation as a French person, I'd say that the French are getting fatter as well. It only makes sense since more and more people are abandoning the "French way" of 2,3 meals a day eaten at the dinner table at fixed hours with the family, a healthy dose of red wine and variety in the plate. More and more people are falling to the sirens of Starbucks, McDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut because it's easy and convenient. The irony in this is that in the meantime in the United States (home of aforementioned franchises), a decent fraction of the population is going the other way and starting to eat healthy, incorporate more cooking and good produce into their diet. Funny how cultural soft power is so strong...

nichochar 11y ago

In america, definitely yes. In Europe, not from what I can tell

DanBC 11y ago
No country has managed to lower the rate of obesity. Some countries are seeing slower rises in rates of obesity, and some countries have much lower rates of obesity than international averages. But Europe is probably getting fatter.
- jahnu 11y ago
  A few countries appear to have lowered adult obesity rates according to this data... http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/49712491.pdf http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/49712491.pdf

nkuttler 11y ago

> Now, feral rats could be chowing down on a greater abundance of rich food in the available garbage, but that doesn’t explain the upwards creep in ad libitum fed research animal weights. That doesn't seem to make sense. So when feral animals eat more processed "rich foods" and gain weight that's understandable, but when animals that live with and are fed by humans gain weight it's a mystery? Could it be that animal food production has changed in the same way as food production for humans?

dbcooper 11y ago
Yeah, it's the also the first comment on the blog post. >I haven’t read the paper, but domestic cats and dogs doesn’t surprise me in the least. >The pet food industry isn’t that much different than the human food industry in making food cheaper, tastier, and more calorie rich than ever. Not too mention more pets now are strictly house pets than ever before and don’t run around the yard or neighborhood as much. >As for lab animals I’d wonder the same thing regarding chow. For many caloric intake is probably highly monitored but I would wonder if where those calories come from has changed in monkey chow for example in the last few decades.
- nkuttler 11y ago
  Haha, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't make it to the comments.
DanBC 11y ago
"Ad libitum" means the food is unrestricted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_libitum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_libitum Asking why rats given unrestricted food had lower weights in 1980s than today seems like a reasonable question. Has the food recipe changed? (And how has it changed?) because if the calorie content of the food hasn't changed but the recipe has changed we might be able to challenge the calories in calories out crowd.
- zdean 11y ago
  "...we might be able to challenge the calories in calories out crowd." Not really. If they have unrestricted access and the recipe has changed, the simple balance of sugars, fats, and proteins per serving could be having an impact on their total caloric intake.

mirimir 11y ago

I'm guessing that it's an environmentally stable lipophilic chemical. There are a lot of them.

filoeleven 11y ago
My first thought was chemical as well due to the recent series of articles about DuPont's use of the surfactant C8[0] and how they continued to use it for fifty years after knowing that it caused major problems in humans and was leaking into the environment[1]. This chemical is now ubiquitous, it's in everybody, and it's an endocrine disruptor, meaning that it screws with living systems that are controlled by hormones, and it does so in very small doses. There are literally thousands of unstudied, unregulated chemicals in industrial use in America. Chances are high that there are a number of them doing a number on us. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid [1]https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-deception/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/11/dupont-chemist...
- mirimir 11y ago
  It's arguable that most industrial organic chemicals are degraded in the environment in one way or another. But some aren't. And others have environmentally stable degradation products. So there are probably at least tens of thousands of persistent, anthropogenic, organic chemicals. The lipophilic ones are most hazardous, because they bioaccumulate through the food chain. Also, the more volatile ones tend to get trapped in polar regions. So lipid levels for Eskimos and penguins are higher than those for more equatorial populations. I wonder if body mass has increased more in recent decades among polar populations than among equatorial populations.

jcfrei 11y ago

I'm pretty confident that we'll see a reversal in the trend, for humans at least. The last 70+ years have been unprecedented in the history of nutrition, with high calorie and high fat food being more affordable than ever and with the addition of additives (such as the "E numbers" in Europe) also tastier than ever. We were simply unprepared to deal with such a high availability of tasty and highly nutritious food, because most people didn't know what a good diet looks like. the term diet in itself is a pretty new term, the whole concept of choosing what you eat might seem pretty absurd to earlier generations, which simply ate whatever they could get. But I'm confident that current generations will adapt to these new circumstances in our nutrition and start learning about their diets and start teaching their kids how to eat properly. and I'm pretty certain that within 50 years or so, widespread obesity will be nothing but a short and weird artifact during the turn of the millennium.

rubidium 11y ago
I think you may be over-optimistic. I live in a poor neighborhood. Food stamps are the norm. "high calorie and high fat food being more affordable" is true, but the food necessary for a good diet is completely absent. The only food in walking distance is the gas-station (think Big Gulps and Twinkies). This isn't an educational problem, it's a systemic socioeconomic one. And it's not likely to work itself out in the next 50 years.
- mhuffman 11y ago
  Surely everyone in your neighborhood is not subsisting on Big Gulps and Twinkies. When they get to the grocery store (even if it is just once per month) to use those food stamps, there is food other than twinkies and big gulps to be had, right? There are clearly systemic socioeconomic issues, but this seems to be an educational one. Being able to read the backs of packages and know what is better for you at the same price point. For example how $2 bag of beans are better for you than a $2 bag of chips (in general). Or $.75 canned vegetables are better for you than $1 canned beefaroni (in general). The amount that it takes to fill you up vs. the nutritional value / cost is obvious in those 2 examples but gets murky pretty quick for a lot of people. People do not need to live off of fresh produce and coconut waters to not be obese. I think there isn't enough public education in this area, and I believe that labeling requirements are not nearly as helpful as they could be and are often deceptive (in particular to serving portions) to consumers.

logfromblammo 11y ago

Adenovirus 36 is zoonotic, and causes obesity in mammals and birds, including humans, rodents, chickens, and monkeys. The gut biome is significantly different between obese and non-obese individuals, though so far, no causative mechanism has been proven in either direction.