6 ms·

The flip side to the caveman diet is that 1) it wasn't particularly planned. They eat what they could, when they could, and 2) There was a pretty major exercis

by bmelton 16y ago

The flip side to the caveman diet is that 1) it wasn't particularly planned. They eat what they could, when they could, and 2) There was a pretty major exercise component that went along with it, in that if they didn't hunt / fish / forage, they died of starvation. The main issue with obesity is that people can easily afford to be obese and not too significantly impact their lives (aside from all health and social malaise of being overweight). Eating how a caveman ate isn't a particularly bad diet, but misses out on the major aspect of a day filled with exercise.

apinstein 16y ago
Actually, people cannot afford to be obese. They are massively subsidized by others in terms of health care expenses. Healthy people and other taxpayers are footing the bill.
ghshephard 16y ago
Numerous studies (See the first chapter of "Why we get Fat, by Taubes) have shown that Obesity is a disease of poverty. The food that keeps you lean (protein/fats) is expensive. Carbs are cheap. Poor people eat carbs. Rich people eat steak, chicken, fish. There is no significant research that shows adding exercise to an overweight person's lifestyle will significantly reduce their weight - typically just increases their appetite.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  If obesity is a disease of poverty, then how come truly poor people (e.g., the poor in India or China) are skinny? Lack of money for food is not a cause of obesity. If your goal is to obtain 2500 calories (assuming that is what you need to maintain a healthy weight) for a little money as possible, you will consume 2500 calories of carbs. You will not become obese. If you instead consume 3500 calories and become obese, you are wasting money on 1000 extra calories. You are not constrained by cost. You could instead reduce consumption by 1000 calories, and spend the money on increasing the quality of the remaining 2500 calories. There is no significant research that shows adding exercise to an overweight person's lifestyle will significantly reduce their weight - typically just increases their appetite. Increasing exercise and holding consumption constant will reduce body fat. One of many studies: http://www.duke.cardiologydomain.com/images/uploaded/dukeh/2_Slentz_BodyCompWt_STRRIDE_2004.pdf http://www.duke.cardiologydomain.com/images/uploaded/dukeh/2... Do a google scholar search. The only difficulty is that you'll find so many studies which measure additional benefits to exercise that some of the studies measuring only effect on body fat will be buried. (I.e., the majority of the articles have conclusions like "exercise reduces body fat AND increases muscle mass", "exercise reduces body fat AND breast cancer", etc). I'm curious, did you hear this claim from Gary Taubes? The one time I read a blog post by him, I discovered him to be incredibly dishonest: http://crazybear.posterous.com/how-1-graph-reveals-what-3000-words-tried-to http://crazybear.posterous.com/how-1-graph-reveals-what-3000...
  - dasil003 16y ago
    > If obesity is a disease of poverty, then how come truly poor people (e.g., the poor in India or China) are skinny? Because they're not eating extremely processed foods based on subsidized grains that make them cheaper than real food... yet.
  - keiferski 16y ago
    If obesity is a disease of poverty, then how come truly poor people (e.g., the poor in India or China) are skinny? Corn subsidy in the U.S.. Not much else to say.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Rice and wheat are subsidized in India too. And unlike US poor, the poor in India can't afford to supplement it with a Big Mac, Fried Chicken or a Premium Southwest Salad. They are skinny because they eat less. They cannot afford 2500 calories, so they consume 2000 calories (mostly rice or wheat, depending on region) and suffer adverse health as a result. They also get exercise working physical jobs rather than sitting at home and watching TV. Of course, even if corn subsidies were unique, poverty still don't explain why the US poor waste money on 500-1000 extra calories. If they were optimizing for cost, they would eat only 2500 calories of cheap corn.
    - cma 16y ago
      Corn subsidies in the US since more than a decade are mostly for fuel; the net effect is to make corn use for food more expensive, not less.
  - randallsquared 16y ago
    "and holding consumption constant" is the trick, ain't it? Works great if you want to lose a little weight later more than you want to eat another 500 calories now. Most people don't want that (me included, by revealed preference -- I'm over 300 lbs). When people say that obesity goes with poverty, they're noting that virtually everyone eats until they are sated, and if you eat until you are sated with high-quality, expensive food, you will be far less likely to be overweight than if you eat until you are sated with low-quality, inexpensive food.
- argv_empty 16y ago
  Poor people eat carbs. Poor people eat fast food. Good food is cheaper than McDonald's, but you have to be able to cook.
  - jdminhbg 16y ago
    Fast food and carbs are equivalent: Potatoes, white flour, and sugar. The meat/vegetable content is negligible.
    - argv_empty 16y ago
      According to USDA, the recommended (carb, fat, protein) calorie distribution is (53%, 29%, 18%). Looking at McDonald's nutrition facts, the hamburger follows this distribution pretty closely; the other sandwiches appear to skew towards fat. Even fries still only get half their calories from carbs (and almost half from fat, well above the recommended 29%). When eating out, fat is cheap. Again, good meat and produce (raw materials for cooking) are also accessible for less than it costs to eat out.
      - nitrogen 16y ago
        Where do you buy your affordable meat and produce? Every time I buy raw ingredients for a meal I end up spending like $25 (plus $100 worth of my time) for one or two servings that I could've got for $15 from Applebee's.
        argv_empty 16y ago
        Where do you buy your affordable meat and produce? The grocery store (and I don't mean some specialty place like Whole Foods -- if we're talking about eating on a tight budget, something like Wal-Mart will be much more helpful).

by bmelton 16y ago

apinstein 16y ago

Actually, people cannot afford to be obese. They are massively subsidized by others in terms of health care expenses. Healthy people and other taxpayers are footing the bill.

ghshephard 16y ago

Numerous studies (See the first chapter of "Why we get Fat, by Taubes) have shown that Obesity is a disease of poverty. The food that keeps you lean (protein/fats) is expensive. Carbs are cheap. Poor people eat carbs. Rich people eat steak, chicken, fish. There is no significant research that shows adding exercise to an overweight person's lifestyle will significantly reduce their weight - typically just increases their appetite.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
If obesity is a disease of poverty, then how come truly poor people (e.g., the poor in India or China) are skinny? Lack of money for food is not a cause of obesity. If your goal is to obtain 2500 calories (assuming that is what you need to maintain a healthy weight) for a little money as possible, you will consume 2500 calories of carbs. You will not become obese. If you instead consume 3500 calories and become obese, you are wasting money on 1000 extra calories. You are not constrained by cost. You could instead reduce consumption by 1000 calories, and spend the money on increasing the quality of the remaining 2500 calories. There is no significant research that shows adding exercise to an overweight person's lifestyle will significantly reduce their weight - typically just increases their appetite. Increasing exercise and holding consumption constant will reduce body fat. One of many studies: http://www.duke.cardiologydomain.com/images/uploaded/dukeh/2_Slentz_BodyCompWt_STRRIDE_2004.pdf http://www.duke.cardiologydomain.com/images/uploaded/dukeh/2... Do a google scholar search. The only difficulty is that you'll find so many studies which measure additional benefits to exercise that some of the studies measuring only effect on body fat will be buried. (I.e., the majority of the articles have conclusions like "exercise reduces body fat AND increases muscle mass", "exercise reduces body fat AND breast cancer", etc). I'm curious, did you hear this claim from Gary Taubes? The one time I read a blog post by him, I discovered him to be incredibly dishonest: http://crazybear.posterous.com/how-1-graph-reveals-what-3000-words-tried-to http://crazybear.posterous.com/how-1-graph-reveals-what-3000...
- dasil003 16y ago
  > If obesity is a disease of poverty, then how come truly poor people (e.g., the poor in India or China) are skinny? Because they're not eating extremely processed foods based on subsidized grains that make them cheaper than real food... yet.
- keiferski 16y ago
  If obesity is a disease of poverty, then how come truly poor people (e.g., the poor in India or China) are skinny? Corn subsidy in the U.S.. Not much else to say.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Rice and wheat are subsidized in India too. And unlike US poor, the poor in India can't afford to supplement it with a Big Mac, Fried Chicken or a Premium Southwest Salad. They are skinny because they eat less. They cannot afford 2500 calories, so they consume 2000 calories (mostly rice or wheat, depending on region) and suffer adverse health as a result. They also get exercise working physical jobs rather than sitting at home and watching TV. Of course, even if corn subsidies were unique, poverty still don't explain why the US poor waste money on 500-1000 extra calories. If they were optimizing for cost, they would eat only 2500 calories of cheap corn.
  - cma 16y ago
    Corn subsidies in the US since more than a decade are mostly for fuel; the net effect is to make corn use for food more expensive, not less.
- randallsquared 16y ago
  "and holding consumption constant" is the trick, ain't it? Works great if you want to lose a little weight later more than you want to eat another 500 calories now. Most people don't want that (me included, by revealed preference -- I'm over 300 lbs). When people say that obesity goes with poverty, they're noting that virtually everyone eats until they are sated, and if you eat until you are sated with high-quality, expensive food, you will be far less likely to be overweight than if you eat until you are sated with low-quality, inexpensive food.
argv_empty 16y ago
Poor people eat carbs. Poor people eat fast food. Good food is cheaper than McDonald's, but you have to be able to cook.
- jdminhbg 16y ago
  Fast food and carbs are equivalent: Potatoes, white flour, and sugar. The meat/vegetable content is negligible.
  - argv_empty 16y ago
    According to USDA, the recommended (carb, fat, protein) calorie distribution is (53%, 29%, 18%). Looking at McDonald's nutrition facts, the hamburger follows this distribution pretty closely; the other sandwiches appear to skew towards fat. Even fries still only get half their calories from carbs (and almost half from fat, well above the recommended 29%). When eating out, fat is cheap. Again, good meat and produce (raw materials for cooking) are also accessible for less than it costs to eat out.
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      Where do you buy your affordable meat and produce? Every time I buy raw ingredients for a meal I end up spending like $25 (plus $100 worth of my time) for one or two servings that I could've got for $15 from Applebee's.
      - argv_empty 16y ago
        Where do you buy your affordable meat and produce? The grocery store (and I don't mean some specialty place like Whole Foods -- if we're talking about eating on a tight budget, something like Wal-Mart will be much more helpful).