9 ms·

For whatever reason, I was struck watching the special on PBS, "Woodstock: 50 Years Later". Everybody was thin. It was sort of amazing when you stopped and re

For whatever reason, I was struck watching the special on PBS, "Woodstock: 50 Years Later". Everybody was thin. It was sort of amazing when you stopped and really noticed it, then contrasted it to what you see on a day to day basis out on the streets. There just weren't any overweight people to be seen, at least nowhere near approaching the magnitude you see walking around today. There's got to be some cultural component to all this too. I'm not sure the built environment is really all that much different than from what it was when I was a kid in the suburbs. It's as if people just collectively stopped using their bodies and started consuming more calories.

okmokmz 7y ago
I wonder if the industrialization of food and agriculture and the increase in processed foods is part of the reason
- tosser0001 7y ago
  I can only speak from what I saw all around me growing up in the US, but people were eating some comically terrible stuff back then. People grew up on white Wonder bread and shoveling raw sugar out of the bowl onto their cornflakes, etc. I don't think it's the industrialization so much as the quantity.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    I remember the 90's "part of this complete breakfast" was cereal, toast, and a glass of orange juice, and my parents thought they were eating healthy. I think people are just more aware now.
    - planteen 7y ago
      I mean a bowl of Cheerios, whole wheat toast, orange juice, and a banana is what I had every morning before school. I would consider it a pretty healthy breakfast, even by today's standards. I guarantee you most people eat much worse than that.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        That's big old pile of carbs. There's no fat and little proteins, only in the milk, which will have even more sugar.
      - okmokmz 7y ago
        It's definitely better than pop tarts and chocolate milk but I still wouldn't consider that healthy. Switch the juice for water and cheerios for a source of protein and it would be much better > bowl of Cheerios carbs and added sugar >whole wheat toast better but still carbs >orange juice glass of sugar without fiber >a banana better than juice and added sugar, but still natural sugars.
  - Apocryphon 7y ago
    Is raw sugar at least marginally more healthy than processed additives like HFCS?
    - Liquix 7y ago
      At present, we believe that the following conclusions are warranted. First, there is no unique relationship between HFCS and obesity. Second, there is broad scientific consensus that there are no significant metabolic or endocrine response differences or differences in health-related effects between HFCS and sucrose. [0] As others have said, it's an issue of quantity. Consuming 10-30 grams of sugar daily - table sugar, corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, or otherwise - does not cause obesity and health problems. The World Health Organization recommends no more than 10% of one's daily calories come from sugar. [1] The average American consumes ! 125 ! grams of sugar a day, with empty carbs accounting for up to 40% of caloric intake [2]. This 40% includes the simple, 'empty' carbohydrates found in processed breads, cereals, condiments, drinks - which are converted to glucose by the digestive system in minutes. The amount - not the quality - of sugars in our diet is the problem. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/ [1] https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/guidelines/sugars_intake/en/ https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/guidelines/sugars... [2] https://www.thediabetescouncil.com/45-alarming-statistics-on-americans-sugar-consumption-and-the-effects-of-sugar-on-americans-health/ https://www.thediabetescouncil.com/45-alarming-statistics-on...
    - ska 7y ago
      The problem with HFCS seems to be it's ubiquity and low cost, not its chemical makeup.
      - Gibbon1 7y ago
        My current understanding is sucrose gets converted to glucose and fructose pretty much instantly once it hits your stomach[1]. The difference is, no one dumps a dozen teaspoons of sugar per serving in home prepared food and drink. Where drink and processed food manufacturers carefully buffer their recipes to accommodate the equivalent amount of HFCS. [1] Read though that low end processed foods and drinks often contain very high levels of fructose.
- DanBC 7y ago
  Portion sizes have massively increased. https://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/06/supersize-biggest-sodas-mcdonalds-big-gulp-chart/ https://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/06/supersize-biggest-...
- magashna 7y ago
  It's hard to notice when you've grown up here, but any Euro who visits the US will tell you how sweet our milk, bread, and other basics are. You can think you're eating healthy and still be having lots of sugars in your diet.
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    I am from the US, and I often wish I could find half-sweet (or less) versions of things, even things I only eat rarely as a treat.
    - xur17 7y ago
      Maybe they should replace all of the "low fat" items with "low sugar" (and just reduce the sugar rather than replacing it with artificial sugar).
      - nitrogen 7y ago
        and just reduce the sugar rather than replacing it with artificial sugar That's the key. I have a low-sugar protein powder but rarely use it because it's too sickly sweet with sucralose and I have to bury it in a ton of other ingredients.
  - lazypenguin 7y ago
    Yeah but just walk around Hamburg or London and you'll see equally as many overweight people. Hell, if you look carefully in a lot of developing countries you'll see more overweight people than you expect. I'd suspect it's slowly becoming a global phenomenon.
  - Apocryphon 7y ago
    Anecdotally, Asian pastries, even local versions of western desserts, taste less sweet and rich for whatever reason.
  - jobigoud 7y ago
    I was surprised to learn than 50% of Europeans are also overweight (vs 75% or so in the US). It doesn't feel that way. It's crazy. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Overweight_and_obesity_-_BMI_statistics#Obesity_by_age_group https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
ameister14 7y ago
Cable television got huge in the 80's. Prior to that, there was just less consistent incentive to sit in front of the TV.
- bediger4000 7y ago
  Ha ha. You youngsters make me laugh. Sitting in front of the TV was almost universal when I was a kid mid 60s - mid 70s. There might only have been 3 channels (4 if you lived in a big city with a PBS or independent) but we all sat around and lapped up that crap.
  - senorjazz 7y ago
    I cannot speak for the US, but in the UK in the 80s sure we all watched telly, however kids programs were on from 3pm to 5:30pm. After that it was go outside. I don't think you were having multiple channels with 24hours programming for kids.
    - bediger4000 7y ago
      Like I said, 3 channels, ABC, NBC, CBS. We watched a lot of stuff that wasn't necessarily developed for children, but at the very least wasn't overtly "mature". The US FCC kept a tighter rein on what was on TV at the time. No swearing, no nudity, not much overt violence. You can see the effects of this in the shows that have survived as "classics" today. "The Brady Bunch" is non-controversial pablum, for example. Get home from school at 3:30pm, flip on the TV to watch whatever local TV host ran a few old Warner Brothers or Terrytoons animated cartoons. Maybe watch "The Lawrence Welk Show" or one of the regional pro-wrestling leagues that predated WWE or roller derby or some re-run, then network news, then Prime Time! The Brady Bunch, Charlie's Angels, westerns, lawyer shows, cop or detective shows, medical dramas, network and local news at 10 or 11pm. I will grant you I'm smearing this out over time. Prime time shows in the 60s weren't the same as during the 70s, local TV cartoon hosts disappeared by about 1975 (no more Binky The Clown, or Cactus Jim or ...), and certainly what got re-run before network news and after 10 or 11pm local news changed. This is totally ignoring the 6am - 12pm Saturday all-kids programming. Mostly badly-animated cartoons, some weird live-action ("Land of the Lost"), but all aimed at and advertised to children. You could waste all Saturday watching crappy animation, then reeling around because you had lost your stereoscopic vision.
rrauenza 7y ago
Keep in mind that nicotine is an appetite suppressant. Some people wonder if the reduced number of smokers contributes.
idoubtit 7y ago
The demographics is worse than what is seen in the streets, because of the correlation between overweight and outdoor activities. The CDC facts are that 39% of the American adults are obese and 75% are overweight (including obesity). So overweight is the norm, and thin people are the exception. As the tendency is stable, I wonder if a "hidden minority" lobby will emerge in a few years, claiming that TV speakers and movie actors are too thin to represent the average citizen.
- Retric 7y ago
  Young people still tend to be significantly less overweight. https://www.stateofobesity.org/obesity-by-age/ https://www.stateofobesity.org/obesity-by-age/ However, you do see more overweight people on modern films than in the 50’s. What’s really odd some characters where supposed to be noticeably overweight, but they don’t seem that way to modern eyes.
  - lostapathy 7y ago
    Curious - do you have examples handy of characters like you described who were "overweight for the time" but don't seem so today?
    - krustyburger 7y ago
      Even going back just to the 90s, characters like George Costanza were meant to look noticeably overweight but look fairly typical by 2019 standards. And Homer Simpson weighed a very specific 239 pounds, a weight that seems much less extreme now.
      - flukus 7y ago
        On the extreme end there was John Candy (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001006/mediaindex?ref_=nm_phs_md_sm https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001006/mediaindex?ref_=nm_phs_m...), he used to be "the funny fat guy" but if he were to cameo (and be alive) today I don't think he'd stand out like he used to.
    - 7y ago
chiefalchemist 7y ago
> There's got to be some cultural component to all this too. Absolutely. Humans naturally gravitate to the norms they see around them. Behavior is "viral" and should be given more weight in public health discussion and decisions. Unfortunately, we (in the USA) live in a hyper-sensitive pro-PC society. Mention anyone else's unhealthy habits (e.g., weight or lack of exercise) and you're label a bully. Obesity deniers aren't that much different than climate change deniers. They science/data is there. Some conveniently choose to ignore it. We were able to lower the smoking rate because that habit was label as "anti social". Eventually, where and when you could smoke was more and more limites. I don't recognize the fight against obesity using stigma. In fact, "love yourself" is openly promoted. Yes, love yourself. But be aware It's unhealthy, costly (i.e., healthcare) and it subverts those around you. It's the latter that is effectively "second hand smoke" and should be used as justification for making obesity less acceptable.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  Lots of people are overweight purely because of hormonal/genetic factors, and couldn't lose it no matter how hard they were willing to work. Plus, depression is a contributing factor to weight gain, so maybe think twice before trying to shame people into losing weight.
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    > "Lots of people are overweight purely because of hormonal/genetic factors" Yes. That's true. But that's not why the obesity rate is so high. We know this. As for depression, fair play. But let's not forget that many insist exercise is an effective way to deal with depression. Let's also be mindful that excess weight causes hormonal changes that are also mood-altering. So perhaps your cause v effect - at least in a good number of cases - is in reverse? Finally, I never said shaming, nor did I imply it. What I said was, if we're going to normalize certain behaviors for individuals then we should not be surprised when those things spread "virally" throughout the rest of the society. So, to your point, when we normalize food as a means for self-medicating depression we're not doing anyone any favors. To clarify. I agree with your thoughts in general. However, they are the 20% (at best). What about the other 80%? I also like to add, we're doing it "your way" and frankly, it's clear to see, it's not working. The medical costs associated with T2 diabetes is massive. In nearly all cases, T2D is generally preventable.
rolltiide 7y ago
You made that conclusion from that? Go to almost any music festival, especially ones people love to hate on, and you will find lean young people from cities Your conclusion can only be coincidentally accurate. Hot trendy folks go to music festivals. The BMI of whats considered hot has only gotten thinner since the 1960s.
- jschwartzi 7y ago
  Music festivals require a lot of walking, dancing, etc. which actually contributes a significant portion of daily activity. So I would actually conclude that being physically active is part of being a hot trendy person. There are tons of people who travel to festivals as a lifestyle.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    right, so the point is that you can't look at photos from a music festival from the 1960s or 2019s to understand what society looks like OP's whole point is that everyone must have been lean and fit just because they were in a 50 year old documentary - about a music festival.
SamReidHughes 7y ago
There certainly is a cultural component -- you'll see it if you live in San Diego and travel to the rest of the country.
- georgeecollins 7y ago
  It's kind of a cultural component but it is also the weather and the kind of people the weather self selects for. I lived in Del Mar for college a while back and a lot of people who trained for triathlons or liked to surf lived around there. In general people wore less bulky clothes and were more active. Even if that was not your profile at all, you were more likely to be self-conscious about not being healthy.
bduerst 7y ago
I mean, that could also be the result of some selection or survivor bias. Such as, documentary producers had enough footage to exclude it from anyone who was not photogenic. Or the obese people who attended Woodstock didn't live to their 70s.
mgleason_3 7y ago
It is interesting. I remember thinking the same thing looking at old photos - everyone was slimmer. I grew up in the 70s. 40 years later we’ve got laws against large sodas, sugar, vending machines. And maybe it is just the easier availability of all those calories - but I remember getting giant cokes at Carls Jr. in the early 70’s, the school cafeteria food was lots of carbs and fat and you could eat ice cream every day if you wanted to. We all know that “Studies say exercise programs don't work because people don't stick to them.” But I think it misses the subtle difference between exercise as a planned activity and exercise thats built into your daily life. When I was young, we played in the streets every day. I walked or rode my bike to school. For my kids, that almost never happened. Everyone is inside. We drove everywhere. But we also know no-one can stick to a diet. So “eat less” isn't the answer either. So, whats the answer? Personally, I think its both. So, the answer is to build a little more exercise into your life. Walk to work or bike or learn to dance. Try to eat less - Maybe only eat 2/3rds or 1/2 of each meal. And avoid carbs since it stimulate hunger later. But, it would be great to have an actual fact-based answer as to what has happened.
- cladari 7y ago
  I don't think it's possible to exercise your way to weight loss. A handful of Oreo's will negate an hour workout. Simply cutting out as much added sugar as possible will drop weight quickly on just about anyone. Cutting out sugar isn't really a diet but more of a habit change. I'm not saying don't exercise, I'm saying both are necessary for results.
- teslabox 7y ago
  > But, it would be great to have an actual fact-based answer as to what has happened. This would be inconvenient to the business models of Big Medicine and Big Food. Good places to start an investigation are the official advocacy for replacing saturated fats with deodorized vegetable oils [1], the holy war against sweet forms of sugar (mix of fructose/glucose) instead of waging war on starch (chains of non-sweet insulin-stimulating glucose), the advocacy for chemical non-caloric sweetners (sucralose, etc), the contamination of the food supply with imitation foods (orange drink vs. orange juice, etc), and considering whether fortified grains is really the nutritional panacea it is supposed to be. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10536349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10536349 edit: added "non-caloric" and "sucralose"

okmokmz 7y ago

I wonder if the industrialization of food and agriculture and the increase in processed foods is part of the reason

tosser0001 7y ago
I can only speak from what I saw all around me growing up in the US, but people were eating some comically terrible stuff back then. People grew up on white Wonder bread and shoveling raw sugar out of the bowl onto their cornflakes, etc. I don't think it's the industrialization so much as the quantity.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  I remember the 90's "part of this complete breakfast" was cereal, toast, and a glass of orange juice, and my parents thought they were eating healthy. I think people are just more aware now.
  - planteen 7y ago
    I mean a bowl of Cheerios, whole wheat toast, orange juice, and a banana is what I had every morning before school. I would consider it a pretty healthy breakfast, even by today's standards. I guarantee you most people eat much worse than that.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      That's big old pile of carbs. There's no fat and little proteins, only in the milk, which will have even more sugar.
    - okmokmz 7y ago
      It's definitely better than pop tarts and chocolate milk but I still wouldn't consider that healthy. Switch the juice for water and cheerios for a source of protein and it would be much better > bowl of Cheerios carbs and added sugar >whole wheat toast better but still carbs >orange juice glass of sugar without fiber >a banana better than juice and added sugar, but still natural sugars.
- Apocryphon 7y ago
  Is raw sugar at least marginally more healthy than processed additives like HFCS?
  - Liquix 7y ago
    At present, we believe that the following conclusions are warranted. First, there is no unique relationship between HFCS and obesity. Second, there is broad scientific consensus that there are no significant metabolic or endocrine response differences or differences in health-related effects between HFCS and sucrose. [0] As others have said, it's an issue of quantity. Consuming 10-30 grams of sugar daily - table sugar, corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, or otherwise - does not cause obesity and health problems. The World Health Organization recommends no more than 10% of one's daily calories come from sugar. [1] The average American consumes ! 125 ! grams of sugar a day, with empty carbs accounting for up to 40% of caloric intake [2]. This 40% includes the simple, 'empty' carbohydrates found in processed breads, cereals, condiments, drinks - which are converted to glucose by the digestive system in minutes. The amount - not the quality - of sugars in our diet is the problem. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/ [1] https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/guidelines/sugars_intake/en/ https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/guidelines/sugars... [2] https://www.thediabetescouncil.com/45-alarming-statistics-on-americans-sugar-consumption-and-the-effects-of-sugar-on-americans-health/ https://www.thediabetescouncil.com/45-alarming-statistics-on...
  - ska 7y ago
    The problem with HFCS seems to be it's ubiquity and low cost, not its chemical makeup.
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      My current understanding is sucrose gets converted to glucose and fructose pretty much instantly once it hits your stomach[1]. The difference is, no one dumps a dozen teaspoons of sugar per serving in home prepared food and drink. Where drink and processed food manufacturers carefully buffer their recipes to accommodate the equivalent amount of HFCS. [1] Read though that low end processed foods and drinks often contain very high levels of fructose.
DanBC 7y ago
Portion sizes have massively increased. https://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/06/supersize-biggest-sodas-mcdonalds-big-gulp-chart/ https://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/06/supersize-biggest-...
magashna 7y ago
It's hard to notice when you've grown up here, but any Euro who visits the US will tell you how sweet our milk, bread, and other basics are. You can think you're eating healthy and still be having lots of sugars in your diet.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  I am from the US, and I often wish I could find half-sweet (or less) versions of things, even things I only eat rarely as a treat.
  - xur17 7y ago
    Maybe they should replace all of the "low fat" items with "low sugar" (and just reduce the sugar rather than replacing it with artificial sugar).
    - nitrogen 7y ago
      and just reduce the sugar rather than replacing it with artificial sugar That's the key. I have a low-sugar protein powder but rarely use it because it's too sickly sweet with sucralose and I have to bury it in a ton of other ingredients.
- lazypenguin 7y ago
  Yeah but just walk around Hamburg or London and you'll see equally as many overweight people. Hell, if you look carefully in a lot of developing countries you'll see more overweight people than you expect. I'd suspect it's slowly becoming a global phenomenon.
- Apocryphon 7y ago
  Anecdotally, Asian pastries, even local versions of western desserts, taste less sweet and rich for whatever reason.
- jobigoud 7y ago
  I was surprised to learn than 50% of Europeans are also overweight (vs 75% or so in the US). It doesn't feel that way. It's crazy. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Overweight_and_obesity_-_BMI_statistics#Obesity_by_age_group https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

ameister14 7y ago

Cable television got huge in the 80's. Prior to that, there was just less consistent incentive to sit in front of the TV.

bediger4000 7y ago
Ha ha. You youngsters make me laugh. Sitting in front of the TV was almost universal when I was a kid mid 60s - mid 70s. There might only have been 3 channels (4 if you lived in a big city with a PBS or independent) but we all sat around and lapped up that crap.
- senorjazz 7y ago
  I cannot speak for the US, but in the UK in the 80s sure we all watched telly, however kids programs were on from 3pm to 5:30pm. After that it was go outside. I don't think you were having multiple channels with 24hours programming for kids.
  - bediger4000 7y ago
    Like I said, 3 channels, ABC, NBC, CBS. We watched a lot of stuff that wasn't necessarily developed for children, but at the very least wasn't overtly "mature". The US FCC kept a tighter rein on what was on TV at the time. No swearing, no nudity, not much overt violence. You can see the effects of this in the shows that have survived as "classics" today. "The Brady Bunch" is non-controversial pablum, for example. Get home from school at 3:30pm, flip on the TV to watch whatever local TV host ran a few old Warner Brothers or Terrytoons animated cartoons. Maybe watch "The Lawrence Welk Show" or one of the regional pro-wrestling leagues that predated WWE or roller derby or some re-run, then network news, then Prime Time! The Brady Bunch, Charlie's Angels, westerns, lawyer shows, cop or detective shows, medical dramas, network and local news at 10 or 11pm. I will grant you I'm smearing this out over time. Prime time shows in the 60s weren't the same as during the 70s, local TV cartoon hosts disappeared by about 1975 (no more Binky The Clown, or Cactus Jim or ...), and certainly what got re-run before network news and after 10 or 11pm local news changed. This is totally ignoring the 6am - 12pm Saturday all-kids programming. Mostly badly-animated cartoons, some weird live-action ("Land of the Lost"), but all aimed at and advertised to children. You could waste all Saturday watching crappy animation, then reeling around because you had lost your stereoscopic vision.

rrauenza 7y ago

Keep in mind that nicotine is an appetite suppressant. Some people wonder if the reduced number of smokers contributes.

idoubtit 7y ago

The demographics is worse than what is seen in the streets, because of the correlation between overweight and outdoor activities. The CDC facts are that 39% of the American adults are obese and 75% are overweight (including obesity). So overweight is the norm, and thin people are the exception. As the tendency is stable, I wonder if a "hidden minority" lobby will emerge in a few years, claiming that TV speakers and movie actors are too thin to represent the average citizen.

Retric 7y ago
Young people still tend to be significantly less overweight. https://www.stateofobesity.org/obesity-by-age/ https://www.stateofobesity.org/obesity-by-age/ However, you do see more overweight people on modern films than in the 50’s. What’s really odd some characters where supposed to be noticeably overweight, but they don’t seem that way to modern eyes.
- lostapathy 7y ago
  Curious - do you have examples handy of characters like you described who were "overweight for the time" but don't seem so today?
  - krustyburger 7y ago
    Even going back just to the 90s, characters like George Costanza were meant to look noticeably overweight but look fairly typical by 2019 standards. And Homer Simpson weighed a very specific 239 pounds, a weight that seems much less extreme now.
    - flukus 7y ago
      On the extreme end there was John Candy (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001006/mediaindex?ref_=nm_phs_md_sm https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001006/mediaindex?ref_=nm_phs_m...), he used to be "the funny fat guy" but if he were to cameo (and be alive) today I don't think he'd stand out like he used to.
  - 7y ago

chiefalchemist 7y ago

> There's got to be some cultural component to all this too. Absolutely. Humans naturally gravitate to the norms they see around them. Behavior is "viral" and should be given more weight in public health discussion and decisions. Unfortunately, we (in the USA) live in a hyper-sensitive pro-PC society. Mention anyone else's unhealthy habits (e.g., weight or lack of exercise) and you're label a bully. Obesity deniers aren't that much different than climate change deniers. They science/data is there. Some conveniently choose to ignore it. We were able to lower the smoking rate because that habit was label as "anti social". Eventually, where and when you could smoke was more and more limites. I don't recognize the fight against obesity using stigma. In fact, "love yourself" is openly promoted. Yes, love yourself. But be aware It's unhealthy, costly (i.e., healthcare) and it subverts those around you. It's the latter that is effectively "second hand smoke" and should be used as justification for making obesity less acceptable.

_bxg1 7y ago
Lots of people are overweight purely because of hormonal/genetic factors, and couldn't lose it no matter how hard they were willing to work. Plus, depression is a contributing factor to weight gain, so maybe think twice before trying to shame people into losing weight.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  > "Lots of people are overweight purely because of hormonal/genetic factors" Yes. That's true. But that's not why the obesity rate is so high. We know this. As for depression, fair play. But let's not forget that many insist exercise is an effective way to deal with depression. Let's also be mindful that excess weight causes hormonal changes that are also mood-altering. So perhaps your cause v effect - at least in a good number of cases - is in reverse? Finally, I never said shaming, nor did I imply it. What I said was, if we're going to normalize certain behaviors for individuals then we should not be surprised when those things spread "virally" throughout the rest of the society. So, to your point, when we normalize food as a means for self-medicating depression we're not doing anyone any favors. To clarify. I agree with your thoughts in general. However, they are the 20% (at best). What about the other 80%? I also like to add, we're doing it "your way" and frankly, it's clear to see, it's not working. The medical costs associated with T2 diabetes is massive. In nearly all cases, T2D is generally preventable.

rolltiide 7y ago

You made that conclusion from that? Go to almost any music festival, especially ones people love to hate on, and you will find lean young people from cities Your conclusion can only be coincidentally accurate. Hot trendy folks go to music festivals. The BMI of whats considered hot has only gotten thinner since the 1960s.

jschwartzi 7y ago
Music festivals require a lot of walking, dancing, etc. which actually contributes a significant portion of daily activity. So I would actually conclude that being physically active is part of being a hot trendy person. There are tons of people who travel to festivals as a lifestyle.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  right, so the point is that you can't look at photos from a music festival from the 1960s or 2019s to understand what society looks like OP's whole point is that everyone must have been lean and fit just because they were in a 50 year old documentary - about a music festival.

SamReidHughes 7y ago

There certainly is a cultural component -- you'll see it if you live in San Diego and travel to the rest of the country.

georgeecollins 7y ago
It's kind of a cultural component but it is also the weather and the kind of people the weather self selects for. I lived in Del Mar for college a while back and a lot of people who trained for triathlons or liked to surf lived around there. In general people wore less bulky clothes and were more active. Even if that was not your profile at all, you were more likely to be self-conscious about not being healthy.

bduerst 7y ago

I mean, that could also be the result of some selection or survivor bias. Such as, documentary producers had enough footage to exclude it from anyone who was not photogenic. Or the obese people who attended Woodstock didn't live to their 70s.

mgleason_3 7y ago

It is interesting. I remember thinking the same thing looking at old photos - everyone was slimmer. I grew up in the 70s. 40 years later we’ve got laws against large sodas, sugar, vending machines. And maybe it is just the easier availability of all those calories - but I remember getting giant cokes at Carls Jr. in the early 70’s, the school cafeteria food was lots of carbs and fat and you could eat ice cream every day if you wanted to. We all know that “Studies say exercise programs don't work because people don't stick to them.” But I think it misses the subtle difference between exercise as a planned activity and exercise thats built into your daily life. When I was young, we played in the streets every day. I walked or rode my bike to school. For my kids, that almost never happened. Everyone is inside. We drove everywhere. But we also know no-one can stick to a diet. So “eat less” isn't the answer either. So, whats the answer? Personally, I think its both. So, the answer is to build a little more exercise into your life. Walk to work or bike or learn to dance. Try to eat less - Maybe only eat 2/3rds or 1/2 of each meal. And avoid carbs since it stimulate hunger later. But, it would be great to have an actual fact-based answer as to what has happened.

cladari 7y ago
I don't think it's possible to exercise your way to weight loss. A handful of Oreo's will negate an hour workout. Simply cutting out as much added sugar as possible will drop weight quickly on just about anyone. Cutting out sugar isn't really a diet but more of a habit change. I'm not saying don't exercise, I'm saying both are necessary for results.
teslabox 7y ago
> But, it would be great to have an actual fact-based answer as to what has happened. This would be inconvenient to the business models of Big Medicine and Big Food. Good places to start an investigation are the official advocacy for replacing saturated fats with deodorized vegetable oils [1], the holy war against sweet forms of sugar (mix of fructose/glucose) instead of waging war on starch (chains of non-sweet insulin-stimulating glucose), the advocacy for chemical non-caloric sweetners (sucralose, etc), the contamination of the food supply with imitation foods (orange drink vs. orange juice, etc), and considering whether fortified grains is really the nutritional panacea it is supposed to be. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10536349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10536349 edit: added "non-caloric" and "sucralose"