7 ms·

I have no particular expertise in this area, but I've been making the "we don't know why people are fat" argument to whoever will listen for a while. Doctors (s

by netcan 11y ago

I have no particular expertise in this area, but I've been making the "we don't know why people are fat" argument to whoever will listen for a while. Doctors (socially, not at an appointment FWIW), academics… I'm actually quite surprised how often they've been thinking along the same lines and/or they are convinced by the general idea. basically: People have been getting fatter, to pathological levels for quite a while. The phenomenon is global. The conventional explanation is too much for and not enough exercise, caloric surplus. This is not nonsensical. We know that caloric restriction leads to weigh loss. We can also see that various other approaches can result in weight loss. Carbohydrate restriction, for example. But, this doesn't give us a complete (or possibly even relevant) answer. This requires another 'why' and a 'why now.' All it takes is a small sustained caloric surplus over long periods to reach obesity. People have had access to these calories, in large populations or in pockets for a long time. There have been periods of regional caloric wealth and certainly periods of caloric wealth within subcultures/classes. If caloric surplus is the key idea, why do we have these caloric surpluses today. There were sedentary workers even in ancient times, certainly in the 20th century. Today's sedentary worker is fatter than yesteryear's. Today's carpenter is fatter than a carpenter in 1972. Why? A carpenter in 1972 had plenty of access to calories, similar physical lifestyle. IMO, this is an epidemic and we need an explanation that works at epidemic levels. We need to explain the change in populations weight, not differences in individual's weight. The answer to the first is probably different to the second. "Gut biome" may be an answer. Antibiotics. Parasites are another interesting possibility. In any case, I don't think it's coincidence that fad diet books and other pop science is so successful. We do not have an answer from science. I don't eves think the right question is usually asked. Why did we all get so fat?

philliphaydon 11y ago
We don't know? We do know and have known for a long time...
haywirez 11y ago
Didn't read the study, but part of the explanation could be that people spend less time outside and are generally in warmer environments. Omnipresent AC, different clothing, better insulation all means that the body burns less calories to keep itself warm.[0] "[...] in the U.K., average living room temperatures rose from 64.9F/18.3C in 1978 to 66.4F/19.1C in 2008 and bedroom temperatures increased from 59.36F/15.2C to 65.3F/18.5C."[1] [0][1] http://hypothermics.com/2011/02/ch-ch-changes/ http://hypothermics.com/2011/02/ch-ch-changes/
- Menge 11y ago
  This is an excellent example. The other thing I would assume is that a lot more of everyday activity in the 1980s required a little more human physical input and a little less waiting for a machine to stop. Using or even moving typewriters, manual steering, prepping food, cleaning without machines doing small prep instead of standing in front of a microwave, getting up to change the TV station. While we could construct modern measures, I doubt we have good measures for all of the micro-tasks in the 1980s..
  - netcan 11y ago
    Travel agents in 1980 did less physical work than ER nurses do in 2015 whether measured in micro-tasks, macro-tasks, steps per day or anything else. But, secretaries from the 1980s were (I'm guessing, but this is probably true) less fat than ER Nurses today.
    - Menge 11y ago
      > Travel agents in 1980 did less physical work than ER nurses do in 2015 whether measured in micro-tasks, macro-tasks, steps per day or anything else. My point is that that is an assumption, if we choose to believe 1% of the last 30 years of technological innovation in convenience is real then the environments are a better explanation than changes to their inhabitants. A travel agent in 1980 may walk to work, clean the house without a vacuum, scrub the floor, lift and lug all sorts of heavy devices, reference books, carry and hang laundry, etc... Anyone today has higher odds of having to drive to work, having a roomba and easy surfaces at home, carrying a tablet or just a phone, having no steps in their living area and an elevator at work, not cooking at all by 1980's standards, having a private washing machine, being afraid to walk after dusk... Then for the 40 hours they actually spend at work, there are various equipment and practices to no longer lift patients frequently in the ER, etc. Many nurses are spending a lot of time reading things, comparing numbers, following (manual?) push carts and entering pill data. A few ER nurses may be doing more exercise now, but the average could look shockingly low to a travel agent from 1980. I would expect the articles premise if I ran the study. That makes me more suspicious of the outcome; we find what we expect to find when a study can't be perfectly controlled. Swapping the 1980s and 2010s environments is a perfect example of poor control.
maxerickson 11y ago
The food supply has increased and people are consuming more. See here: http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf Two big increases in consumption are in chicken and cooking oils. The average American eats 40 pounds more chicken than their grandparents and 30 additional pounds of fat and oils.
- netcan 11y ago
  Or... maybe the food supply increased because we are eating more. I mean we don't generally produce more than we can consume.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    I wasn't proposing causation, just stating that access to calories has increased.
visakanv 11y ago
I've tried to do some reading about all of this... the main argument that makes sense to me is that it has to do with increased consumption of sugar. To oversimplify, sugar triggers an increase in insulin, and something about insulin (I can't remember the precise details) changes the way the body processes food– it stores more of it as fat. The bulk of these ideas come from Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat. Here's a summary of the process: http://www.columnfivemedia.com/work-items/infographic-carbs-are-killing-you-eating-fat-doesnt-make-you-fat http://www.columnfivemedia.com/work-items/infographic-carbs-... The scary part is that you start secreting insulin just by THINKING about carbs, sugar and so on. I haven't heard people discuss this... but if it's true that insulin is secreted, ADVERTISING could be contributing to obesity. Which is disturbing. I hope I'm wrong. I'm not super well-informed on this subject, but I would like to be and welcome any thoughts and suggestions and corrections and so on.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Advertising could be contributing more directly, food companies are large enough that they serve the entire market, so one of the few ways they can grow is to get people to eat more. You are describing prediabetes and insulin resistance. Excess sugar is probably a contributor, but also probably not the only one.
- netcan 11y ago
  That's the kind of crazy explanation I think we need. Though shall not covet chocolate covered french fries.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
300bps 11y ago
People are fat because of all the little and big things they do on a daily basis. What you eat is the most important thing. How you exercise is next. What you do in your leisure time is important too. In the 70s, I don't recall anyone binge-watching Netflix while sitting on a couch. TV just wasn't that great and there were only a few specific times per day or week that were something you might be interested in. I don't remember many people playing video games for hours at a time. Sure some minority of people did but the games just weren't that fun and anyone that played Pacman on the Atari 2600 knows that. Kids played outside more, and throughout the neighborhood not just in their own back yard. Adults socialized outside more. There was no Facebook to spend hours per day sitting and reading. I don't think the 70s had Amazon.com either so people burned more calories walking through stores. I distinctly remember shopping with my parents as a kid and it was exhausting walking through a mall for hours. I don't see any evidence the study took any of this technological change into consideration.
- netcan 11y ago
  These things absolutely explain why I am fatter than you, why Jane is skinnier than Phyllis. They are useful if Jane wants to gain weight or Phyllis wants to lose it. I don't think they are are enough to explain changes in the population over time though. I don't think habits have changed that much, first of all. Maybe fewer video games were played but fewer people did fun runs and cross fit too. Either way, there definitely were some coach potatoes and office workers in the 70s and there are some now. But our coach potatoes are bigger than our parents'.
saiya-jin 11y ago
it ain't that hard, and it actually makes sense. i can take a look in my own family and it's apparent. answer is - we became lazy, so slowly that many actually think that nothing changed. sample job you mention - carpenter now doesn't do as much physical work as he used do do 500 years ago. the ones who don't use modern approach, they are skinny, muscular athlete-looking types, even if they are 50-60 years old. most people really have very sedentary lifestyle, and even the same profession got more passive over time. you don't need to run around that much in the office searching for some document, if you have DMS for that. all is electronic, reachable with few clicks/taps. Especially in US, but also generally in 1st world countries, people are using cars all the time. For my parents, the only way to do shopping was to carry 10-20kg shopping bags 500m back home from shop, usually few times a week. These tiny examples stack up. Add to this crappy oversweetened, junkish food most people are eating, and it couldn't end up any other way. I live practically in France (Geneva), but most colleagues eat fine tasting, buy shitty composition-wise foods. Most countries fare worse on this. A bit of veggie at the plate doesn't make it magically good and healthy. Also, most people lack any kind of discipline when it comes to food. Spoiling oneself ("treat yourself" bullsh*t), small cheat snacks that somehow don't count to whole food equation, people focused too much on work, and not on their well being. I could go on and on, but why, its apparent. we are to blame, nobody else. you and I choose every day what we put in our mouth, and how much physical exercise we do. Eat better, less (especially dinner), exercise more and all will be good. But for many people, for some reason this seems to be too-hard-to-succeed challenge in life.
- netcan 11y ago
  I'm not talking about 500 years ago, I am talking about 25 or 50 years ago.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    my father is still working in the same company, doing +- the same job and guess what... he is moving around much less. I could go on with examples that are valid across the globe. computers in one or other form, albeit amazing, also got us move around much less. people are happy they can regulate lights from their cellphone, rather than getting up and walking those 3 meters...
pxue 11y ago
it's because we stopped "moving". for example, when was the last time you "ran to the store" to grab something like milk? I wouldn't call that exercise but it's definitely something current generation lost compare to all the previous ones. Including myself and friends, our weekend preferred activity are changing from going out (to parks, movies etc) to "Netflix and chill". think about this, "Running" didn't become a thing until the late 70s. People simply didn't do much to stay "fit" before that. You can attribute it to biomes or genetics, but this is just within one or two generation. What I would find interesting is if we can find data similar to what we record with fitbits, ie. # of steps per day etc. from people 30/40 years ago, and compare to actual fitbit data of today. I'd wager we'd find some interesting correlations.
rsync 11y ago
"I have no particular expertise in this area, but I've been making the "we don't know why people are fat" argument to whoever will listen for a while. Doctors (socially, not at an appointment FWIW), academics… I'm actually quite surprised how often they've been thinking along the same lines and/or they are convinced by the general idea." May I present my broad theory ? Americans, across a very broad swatch of behaviors, haven't broken away from the social norms and habits of living on a farm. You (my fellow American) drive a big truck, eat "3 squares" a day, serve HUGE portions, don't specifically exercise and generally overequip and overfuel our entire lifestyle because we can't remember we're not on the farm anymore. My father grew up on a farm, my wifes grandparents both grew up on a farm, and everyone in their lineage going back ... forever ... were living rural, agrarian, peasant lives. So depending on who you are in the United States, you are perhaps 1-2 generations removed from a radically different lifestyle. It's going to take more than one generation to become well-practiced at being urban, and a pseudo-rural suburban environment coupled with a TV shouting "YOU CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MUCH TRUCK!@" is not helping ...
atlih 11y ago
Because we eat more carbs and less fat today than 20 years ago.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Americans eat more of both. See the PDF I link in a sibling post.

by netcan 11y ago

philliphaydon 11y ago

We don't know? We do know and have known for a long time...

haywirez 11y ago

Didn't read the study, but part of the explanation could be that people spend less time outside and are generally in warmer environments. Omnipresent AC, different clothing, better insulation all means that the body burns less calories to keep itself warm.[0] "[...] in the U.K., average living room temperatures rose from 64.9F/18.3C in 1978 to 66.4F/19.1C in 2008 and bedroom temperatures increased from 59.36F/15.2C to 65.3F/18.5C."[1] [0][1] http://hypothermics.com/2011/02/ch-ch-changes/ http://hypothermics.com/2011/02/ch-ch-changes/

Menge 11y ago
This is an excellent example. The other thing I would assume is that a lot more of everyday activity in the 1980s required a little more human physical input and a little less waiting for a machine to stop. Using or even moving typewriters, manual steering, prepping food, cleaning without machines doing small prep instead of standing in front of a microwave, getting up to change the TV station. While we could construct modern measures, I doubt we have good measures for all of the micro-tasks in the 1980s..
- netcan 11y ago
  Travel agents in 1980 did less physical work than ER nurses do in 2015 whether measured in micro-tasks, macro-tasks, steps per day or anything else. But, secretaries from the 1980s were (I'm guessing, but this is probably true) less fat than ER Nurses today.
  - Menge 11y ago
    > Travel agents in 1980 did less physical work than ER nurses do in 2015 whether measured in micro-tasks, macro-tasks, steps per day or anything else. My point is that that is an assumption, if we choose to believe 1% of the last 30 years of technological innovation in convenience is real then the environments are a better explanation than changes to their inhabitants. A travel agent in 1980 may walk to work, clean the house without a vacuum, scrub the floor, lift and lug all sorts of heavy devices, reference books, carry and hang laundry, etc... Anyone today has higher odds of having to drive to work, having a roomba and easy surfaces at home, carrying a tablet or just a phone, having no steps in their living area and an elevator at work, not cooking at all by 1980's standards, having a private washing machine, being afraid to walk after dusk... Then for the 40 hours they actually spend at work, there are various equipment and practices to no longer lift patients frequently in the ER, etc. Many nurses are spending a lot of time reading things, comparing numbers, following (manual?) push carts and entering pill data. A few ER nurses may be doing more exercise now, but the average could look shockingly low to a travel agent from 1980. I would expect the articles premise if I ran the study. That makes me more suspicious of the outcome; we find what we expect to find when a study can't be perfectly controlled. Swapping the 1980s and 2010s environments is a perfect example of poor control.

maxerickson 11y ago

The food supply has increased and people are consuming more. See here: http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf Two big increases in consumption are in chicken and cooking oils. The average American eats 40 pounds more chicken than their grandparents and 30 additional pounds of fat and oils.

netcan 11y ago
Or... maybe the food supply increased because we are eating more. I mean we don't generally produce more than we can consume.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  I wasn't proposing causation, just stating that access to calories has increased.

visakanv 11y ago

I've tried to do some reading about all of this... the main argument that makes sense to me is that it has to do with increased consumption of sugar. To oversimplify, sugar triggers an increase in insulin, and something about insulin (I can't remember the precise details) changes the way the body processes food– it stores more of it as fat. The bulk of these ideas come from Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat. Here's a summary of the process: http://www.columnfivemedia.com/work-items/infographic-carbs-are-killing-you-eating-fat-doesnt-make-you-fat http://www.columnfivemedia.com/work-items/infographic-carbs-... The scary part is that you start secreting insulin just by THINKING about carbs, sugar and so on. I haven't heard people discuss this... but if it's true that insulin is secreted, ADVERTISING could be contributing to obesity. Which is disturbing. I hope I'm wrong. I'm not super well-informed on this subject, but I would like to be and welcome any thoughts and suggestions and corrections and so on.

maxerickson 11y ago
Advertising could be contributing more directly, food companies are large enough that they serve the entire market, so one of the few ways they can grow is to get people to eat more. You are describing prediabetes and insulin resistance. Excess sugar is probably a contributor, but also probably not the only one.
netcan 11y ago
That's the kind of crazy explanation I think we need. Though shall not covet chocolate covered french fries.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

300bps 11y ago

People are fat because of all the little and big things they do on a daily basis. What you eat is the most important thing. How you exercise is next. What you do in your leisure time is important too. In the 70s, I don't recall anyone binge-watching Netflix while sitting on a couch. TV just wasn't that great and there were only a few specific times per day or week that were something you might be interested in. I don't remember many people playing video games for hours at a time. Sure some minority of people did but the games just weren't that fun and anyone that played Pacman on the Atari 2600 knows that. Kids played outside more, and throughout the neighborhood not just in their own back yard. Adults socialized outside more. There was no Facebook to spend hours per day sitting and reading. I don't think the 70s had Amazon.com either so people burned more calories walking through stores. I distinctly remember shopping with my parents as a kid and it was exhausting walking through a mall for hours. I don't see any evidence the study took any of this technological change into consideration.

netcan 11y ago
These things absolutely explain why I am fatter than you, why Jane is skinnier than Phyllis. They are useful if Jane wants to gain weight or Phyllis wants to lose it. I don't think they are are enough to explain changes in the population over time though. I don't think habits have changed that much, first of all. Maybe fewer video games were played but fewer people did fun runs and cross fit too. Either way, there definitely were some coach potatoes and office workers in the 70s and there are some now. But our coach potatoes are bigger than our parents'.

saiya-jin 11y ago

it ain't that hard, and it actually makes sense. i can take a look in my own family and it's apparent. answer is - we became lazy, so slowly that many actually think that nothing changed. sample job you mention - carpenter now doesn't do as much physical work as he used do do 500 years ago. the ones who don't use modern approach, they are skinny, muscular athlete-looking types, even if they are 50-60 years old. most people really have very sedentary lifestyle, and even the same profession got more passive over time. you don't need to run around that much in the office searching for some document, if you have DMS for that. all is electronic, reachable with few clicks/taps. Especially in US, but also generally in 1st world countries, people are using cars all the time. For my parents, the only way to do shopping was to carry 10-20kg shopping bags 500m back home from shop, usually few times a week. These tiny examples stack up. Add to this crappy oversweetened, junkish food most people are eating, and it couldn't end up any other way. I live practically in France (Geneva), but most colleagues eat fine tasting, buy shitty composition-wise foods. Most countries fare worse on this. A bit of veggie at the plate doesn't make it magically good and healthy. Also, most people lack any kind of discipline when it comes to food. Spoiling oneself ("treat yourself" bullsh*t), small cheat snacks that somehow don't count to whole food equation, people focused too much on work, and not on their well being. I could go on and on, but why, its apparent. we are to blame, nobody else. you and I choose every day what we put in our mouth, and how much physical exercise we do. Eat better, less (especially dinner), exercise more and all will be good. But for many people, for some reason this seems to be too-hard-to-succeed challenge in life.

netcan 11y ago
I'm not talking about 500 years ago, I am talking about 25 or 50 years ago.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  my father is still working in the same company, doing +- the same job and guess what... he is moving around much less. I could go on with examples that are valid across the globe. computers in one or other form, albeit amazing, also got us move around much less. people are happy they can regulate lights from their cellphone, rather than getting up and walking those 3 meters...

pxue 11y ago

it's because we stopped "moving". for example, when was the last time you "ran to the store" to grab something like milk? I wouldn't call that exercise but it's definitely something current generation lost compare to all the previous ones. Including myself and friends, our weekend preferred activity are changing from going out (to parks, movies etc) to "Netflix and chill". think about this, "Running" didn't become a thing until the late 70s. People simply didn't do much to stay "fit" before that. You can attribute it to biomes or genetics, but this is just within one or two generation. What I would find interesting is if we can find data similar to what we record with fitbits, ie. # of steps per day etc. from people 30/40 years ago, and compare to actual fitbit data of today. I'd wager we'd find some interesting correlations.

rsync 11y ago

"I have no particular expertise in this area, but I've been making the "we don't know why people are fat" argument to whoever will listen for a while. Doctors (socially, not at an appointment FWIW), academics… I'm actually quite surprised how often they've been thinking along the same lines and/or they are convinced by the general idea." May I present my broad theory ? Americans, across a very broad swatch of behaviors, haven't broken away from the social norms and habits of living on a farm. You (my fellow American) drive a big truck, eat "3 squares" a day, serve HUGE portions, don't specifically exercise and generally overequip and overfuel our entire lifestyle because we can't remember we're not on the farm anymore. My father grew up on a farm, my wifes grandparents both grew up on a farm, and everyone in their lineage going back ... forever ... were living rural, agrarian, peasant lives. So depending on who you are in the United States, you are perhaps 1-2 generations removed from a radically different lifestyle. It's going to take more than one generation to become well-practiced at being urban, and a pseudo-rural suburban environment coupled with a TV shouting "YOU CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MUCH TRUCK!@" is not helping ...

atlih 11y ago

Because we eat more carbs and less fat today than 20 years ago.

maxerickson 11y ago
Americans eat more of both. See the PDF I link in a sibling post.