4 ms·

Another of the menu items talks about causes, which is immediately where the mind goes: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/

Another of the menu items talks about causes, which is immediately where the mind goes: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesi... It talks about unhealthy food habits, lack of exercise etc. There is probably solid science behind it, but my gut feeling is that there is something missing. I mean people have been eating beef steaks and gobbled sweets in front of TVs for ages now haven't they? I could be wrong.

baroomba 7y ago
There's very, very cheap food now that's also low-effort and craving-satisfying and/or inducing. All sorts of crappy low- or zero-prep food has gotten both cheaper and better at being hard to resist. Meanwhile, sedentary entertainment has gotten much better and also very cheap.
- chadcmulligan 7y ago
  Yes I think this is a big factor - also the social barriers to eating this junk food is lower. It used to be you'd eat at home and seldom buy and eat anything when out, social eating at a restaurant was a special occasion and you'd eat 'treat' foods like cake or ice cream. This sort of eating is now nearly every day, all it takes is 100-200 calories to much a day and you're a fatty in 10 years. I suppose a good example of this is to look at asians who have a traditional diet - they sit around as much as the westerners but are still predominantly thin, though you can tell who's adopted a western diet.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
partiallypro 7y ago
I think it largely has to do with not being as active. We have a lot more desk jobs now than we had in the past. In the past people didn't have to go to the gym to not be overweight, they burned it all off when they were going throughout their day.
- jfries 7y ago
  That's a tempting theory, but the increased ratio of white vs blue collar jobs isn't enough to explain it. See graph on https://www.businessinsider.com/great-news-weve-become-a-white-collar-nation-2010-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/great-news-weve-become-a-whi...
  - partiallypro 7y ago
    But even "blue collar" jobs require less labor than before
- brailsafe 7y ago
  I really think it has less to do with that—though not nothing to do with that—and more to do with economic and convenience factors that lead to more people choosing very cheap and awful food in excess, consistently, while not getting any exercise
- sethammons 7y ago
  "you can't out exercise a bad diet"
ryanobjc 7y ago
There is a lot of missing science here - yes we have the whole 'calories in - calories out', but we are missing some detailed biochemical descriptions of what's going on. The human body is more complex than a 2 term math expression using subtraction. For example, we do not really fully understand the role of biochemical stress hormones, and weight gain. Or how exactly insulin, leptin, cortisol, inflammation markers (eg: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4155060/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4155060/) all interact. Note that leptin is created in adipose tissue, potentially suggesting a cycle - and this is something borne out in experience, it is harder to lose weight the more you have to lose. Definitely an area of research to learn more. The epidemiological approaches reveal interesting things, but there are a lot of variables, hidden and not, that is pointing that the advice accumulated from these studies is not really having the impact we want. After all, the current advice is "hey do this thing that is very hard for you to commit to, and has uneven outcomes". Some research even references 'the big loser' because of the inability of people to maintain weight losses. Typically discussions about this devolve very quickly into coded (and not so coded!) shaming. "unhealthy food habits"? How about "unaffordable healthy food" or "habit forming unhealthy food"? Why not that framing? Go to any average 7-11 and enumerate the list of products that aren't designed to generate "repeat customers". Bananas (in-so-far as they are sold) and water are the only ones I can come up with. Non-edible items not eligible.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  I've got a third: string cheese. For me, the local 7-11 and/or liquor store is enemy number one, lately Starbucks is number two, and it's taken long term thinking about habit manipulation to fight it off. And it's something you have to fight, or just be lucky enough to avoid -- in the modern world you might be default alive but you're not default healthy.
James_Henry 7y ago
I am convinced that a huge factor in the obesity epidemic is due to environmental pollutants. Many household chemicals have been shown to be related to obesity. Fungicide and pesticide exposure have been linked to obesity. And, with all of these there are probably compounding effects with each generation.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  In particular, a lot of them seem to be related to endocrine function, aka hormone regulation.
derefr 7y ago
A fun hypothesis I've heard with absolutely no backing whatsoever: it's psychiatric drugs, which were only really widely prescribed starting in the 1990s. Depressed people eat less; people with anxiety have higher metabolisms due to constant adrenal activation; people with ADD fidget more (= non-exercise activity thermogenesis). People treated for these conditions all gain weight as a result. It's enough to create a pretty big statistical bump.
- James_Henry 7y ago
  People on ADD medication lose weight from what I understand.
  - qes 7y ago
    ADD medication is usually amphetamine, which has a potent hunger suppression effect.

baroomba 7y ago

There's very, very cheap food now that's also low-effort and craving-satisfying and/or inducing. All sorts of crappy low- or zero-prep food has gotten both cheaper and better at being hard to resist. Meanwhile, sedentary entertainment has gotten much better and also very cheap.

chadcmulligan 7y ago
Yes I think this is a big factor - also the social barriers to eating this junk food is lower. It used to be you'd eat at home and seldom buy and eat anything when out, social eating at a restaurant was a special occasion and you'd eat 'treat' foods like cake or ice cream. This sort of eating is now nearly every day, all it takes is 100-200 calories to much a day and you're a fatty in 10 years. I suppose a good example of this is to look at asians who have a traditional diet - they sit around as much as the westerners but are still predominantly thin, though you can tell who's adopted a western diet.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

partiallypro 7y ago

I think it largely has to do with not being as active. We have a lot more desk jobs now than we had in the past. In the past people didn't have to go to the gym to not be overweight, they burned it all off when they were going throughout their day.

jfries 7y ago
That's a tempting theory, but the increased ratio of white vs blue collar jobs isn't enough to explain it. See graph on https://www.businessinsider.com/great-news-weve-become-a-white-collar-nation-2010-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/great-news-weve-become-a-whi...
- partiallypro 7y ago
  But even "blue collar" jobs require less labor than before
brailsafe 7y ago
I really think it has less to do with that—though not nothing to do with that—and more to do with economic and convenience factors that lead to more people choosing very cheap and awful food in excess, consistently, while not getting any exercise
sethammons 7y ago
"you can't out exercise a bad diet"

ryanobjc 7y ago

There is a lot of missing science here - yes we have the whole 'calories in - calories out', but we are missing some detailed biochemical descriptions of what's going on. The human body is more complex than a 2 term math expression using subtraction. For example, we do not really fully understand the role of biochemical stress hormones, and weight gain. Or how exactly insulin, leptin, cortisol, inflammation markers (eg: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4155060/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4155060/) all interact. Note that leptin is created in adipose tissue, potentially suggesting a cycle - and this is something borne out in experience, it is harder to lose weight the more you have to lose. Definitely an area of research to learn more. The epidemiological approaches reveal interesting things, but there are a lot of variables, hidden and not, that is pointing that the advice accumulated from these studies is not really having the impact we want. After all, the current advice is "hey do this thing that is very hard for you to commit to, and has uneven outcomes". Some research even references 'the big loser' because of the inability of people to maintain weight losses. Typically discussions about this devolve very quickly into coded (and not so coded!) shaming. "unhealthy food habits"? How about "unaffordable healthy food" or "habit forming unhealthy food"? Why not that framing? Go to any average 7-11 and enumerate the list of products that aren't designed to generate "repeat customers". Bananas (in-so-far as they are sold) and water are the only ones I can come up with. Non-edible items not eligible.

SamReidHughes 7y ago
I've got a third: string cheese. For me, the local 7-11 and/or liquor store is enemy number one, lately Starbucks is number two, and it's taken long term thinking about habit manipulation to fight it off. And it's something you have to fight, or just be lucky enough to avoid -- in the modern world you might be default alive but you're not default healthy.

James_Henry 7y ago

I am convinced that a huge factor in the obesity epidemic is due to environmental pollutants. Many household chemicals have been shown to be related to obesity. Fungicide and pesticide exposure have been linked to obesity. And, with all of these there are probably compounding effects with each generation.

blaser-waffle 7y ago
In particular, a lot of them seem to be related to endocrine function, aka hormone regulation.

derefr 7y ago

A fun hypothesis I've heard with absolutely no backing whatsoever: it's psychiatric drugs, which were only really widely prescribed starting in the 1990s. Depressed people eat less; people with anxiety have higher metabolisms due to constant adrenal activation; people with ADD fidget more (= non-exercise activity thermogenesis). People treated for these conditions all gain weight as a result. It's enough to create a pretty big statistical bump.

James_Henry 7y ago
People on ADD medication lose weight from what I understand.
- qes 7y ago
  ADD medication is usually amphetamine, which has a potent hunger suppression effect.