6 ms·

Edit: The following is mostly a non sequitur. My response was based in part on a misreading of the article's arguments. They're concerned primarily with the "

by retrac 5y ago

Edit: The following is mostly a non sequitur. My response was based in part on a misreading of the article's arguments. They're concerned primarily with the "consolidation" of obesity since about 1980 without any obvious changes for why. The changes for why were in the previous decades and the chickens should have come home to roost by 1980. Yet we are indeed much more obese than in 1980 but not more sedentary. So... why? This I have to say, is in fact somewhat mysterious. I have a contention with the "obesity hasn't been reversed in any population" claim. Here in Canada, child obesity has in fact decreased in recent years, after several decades of continual increases. Given that childhood obesity, and obesity in general, has been a major social issue everyone is aware of and has been working hard on (I assume), the small decrease in proportion to the amount of energy invested, is rather depressing. Still, maybe cause for some hope. > Something seems to have changed. But surprisingly, we don’t seem to have any idea what that thing was. We don't? While exactly how much this is a factor is contended, I thought it was near-consensus at this point that it's because we are less physically active. The timeline certainly fits - beginning about 1890 and ending about 1975 -- that is the period from the beginning to universal adoption of the car. Between home appliances, powered vehicles and industrial automation, many modern people don't actually have to do anything physical. Hauling their corporeal form between various chairs is literally all the exercise many people get. This would be unfathomable to my great-grandparents. They walked to the store then hauled the groceries home. They walked a few miles every Sunday to go to church. They walked to work. They tended the fields largely with manual labour and a horse. They mowed the garden and yard, by hand. Every nail in the home, driven by hand. Ground meat for dinner? Minced by hand. And by then, industrialization had already completely changed things for them, to their own grandparents, giving them what they must have thought an amazing amount of free time and leisure. (My great-grandparents clothes were almost certainly machine-woven, for example.) If we're eating as many calories, or slightly more, as our grandparents did, while barely moving in comparison to them, is it any surprise we all got really fat? In fairness to the paper, I suppose one could view this social change as a mimetic contagion of a sort.

chillpenguin 5y ago
I'm pretty sure we are eating more calories than our grandparents did, too. Portion sizes for common things are much larger now. You can look at muffin sizes for example and how the average muffin is physically larger today. Same with burgers, soft-drink cup sizes, etc. But yeah I agree with everything you said as well regarding lack of physical exercise.
- krona 5y ago
  > I'm pretty sure we are eating more calories than our grandparents did, too It varies from country to country. In the UK for instance, calories per household decreased 15-30% from 1980 to 2009 (https://ifs.org.uk/bns/bn142.pdf https://ifs.org.uk/bns/bn142.pdf). The trend has continued since.
yeuxardents 5y ago
Certainly the addition of ubiquitous sugary snacks and drinks everywhere as well contributes, how is that discounted so easily. So much processed food within a 2 minute car rides reach, and it only require 30 paces into and out of the store for 2000kcals in treats!
nickthemagicman 5y ago
This is certainly true from an personal anecdotal perspective. The minute I went from college where I was very active to an office job the pounds piled on. What's interesting is that if you're poor modern Capitalism doesn't allow much free time to exercise, which might explain why the obesity epidemic effects the poor more.
zosima 5y ago
The mystery is not the modest increase of obesity from 1890 to 1975. This increase is very likely caused by reduced activity and increased caloric consumption. It is the dramatic increase in obesity from around 1980 and onward that is a mystery. And part of the mystery is that animals living around humans, in the wild or in the lab, seems to have gone through a similar increase in body weight. The article goes through why this dramatic increase can not just be due to reduced exercise or increased caloric consumption, but must have some other, unknown factors, to explain it.
- human 5y ago
  Increased gravity?
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  Does that coincide with the switch from animal fats to vegetable oils?
sedatk 5y ago
"We're less active" probably isn't the right answer. Members of African hunter-gatherer tribes spend the same amount of calories as an average American[1]. I think the real answer is more about dietary changes rather than lifestyle. https://news.yale.edu/2012/08/02/hunter-gatherers-expend-same-calories-average-americans https://news.yale.edu/2012/08/02/hunter-gatherers-expend-sam...
- flavius29663 5y ago
  this is fascinating, I couldn't have guessed this. This is in the same category as: sit on the couch watching TV and you're spending almost the same amount of calories as a walking person. Maybe it also matters how you spend those calories. Fasting helps a lot, westerners don't fast. I assume hunter tribes fast more and also have lots of short bursts of energy.
  - lommelun 5y ago
    “ sit on the couch watching TV and you're spending almost the same amount of calories as a walking person.” Some quick googling tells me that walking burns 4x as many calories as sitting. Or maybe I missed your point and you were just claiming that the stated fact is as surprising as this fact would have been had it been true?
    - flavius29663 5y ago
      I am off, you are right. I remembered something vague but it must have been: watching tv while eating (140 calories an hour) vs slow walking at 220 calories an hour.
- bsder 5y ago
  I would actually guess "cigarettes". Nicotine is an appetite suppressant.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
saurik 5y ago
> If we're eating as many calories, or slightly more, as our grandparents did, while barely moving in comparison to them... So you don't think that people who do more work are "supposed to be" more hungry and thereby eat more food? The people I know who are leaner seem to just not get hungry as often--or as much--as I seem to get... and hell: I've gone through periods where I'm gaining weight and periods where I'm losing weight, and when I'm gaining weight I feel like I'm hungry constantly and when I'm losing weight I find eating a bit tedious.
voisin 5y ago
> I thought it was near-consensus at this point that it's because we are less physically active. Except wild animals are also getting obese. I doubt they are becoming less physically active.
- david-gpu 5y ago
  I'd love to read some more. Can you share a source so that we can learn?
  - chrisdinn 5y ago
    This is the article that the study authors linked to in their other writing: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2010.1890 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2010...
    - derbOac 5y ago
      It's certainly interesting although worth noting that all the animals examined have some close link to human-supplied food. They're all domestic pets, research animals, or rats (although I suppose the rural rats might be less so? They still show weight gain). I admit it would be hard to find something else that would be appropriate, especially given competing factors at play (e.g., the possibility of animals having shorter lifespans over time or evolving to be smaller in response to capture). Still, you'd think if it was something environmental it would show up in animals less dependent on humans for food. Interesting study. There's a tiny bit more context here: https://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9194579/obesity-animals https://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9194579/obesity-animals As for that article, the author makes a good point it's curious this hasn't been followed-up on.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
i_am_proteus 5y ago
The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human waistline.

by retrac 5y ago

chillpenguin 5y ago

I'm pretty sure we are eating more calories than our grandparents did, too. Portion sizes for common things are much larger now. You can look at muffin sizes for example and how the average muffin is physically larger today. Same with burgers, soft-drink cup sizes, etc. But yeah I agree with everything you said as well regarding lack of physical exercise.

krona 5y ago
> I'm pretty sure we are eating more calories than our grandparents did, too It varies from country to country. In the UK for instance, calories per household decreased 15-30% from 1980 to 2009 (https://ifs.org.uk/bns/bn142.pdf https://ifs.org.uk/bns/bn142.pdf). The trend has continued since.

yeuxardents 5y ago

Certainly the addition of ubiquitous sugary snacks and drinks everywhere as well contributes, how is that discounted so easily. So much processed food within a 2 minute car rides reach, and it only require 30 paces into and out of the store for 2000kcals in treats!

nickthemagicman 5y ago

This is certainly true from an personal anecdotal perspective. The minute I went from college where I was very active to an office job the pounds piled on. What's interesting is that if you're poor modern Capitalism doesn't allow much free time to exercise, which might explain why the obesity epidemic effects the poor more.

zosima 5y ago

The mystery is not the modest increase of obesity from 1890 to 1975. This increase is very likely caused by reduced activity and increased caloric consumption. It is the dramatic increase in obesity from around 1980 and onward that is a mystery. And part of the mystery is that animals living around humans, in the wild or in the lab, seems to have gone through a similar increase in body weight. The article goes through why this dramatic increase can not just be due to reduced exercise or increased caloric consumption, but must have some other, unknown factors, to explain it.

human 5y ago
Increased gravity?
throwaway316943 5y ago
Does that coincide with the switch from animal fats to vegetable oils?

sedatk 5y ago

"We're less active" probably isn't the right answer. Members of African hunter-gatherer tribes spend the same amount of calories as an average American[1]. I think the real answer is more about dietary changes rather than lifestyle. https://news.yale.edu/2012/08/02/hunter-gatherers-expend-same-calories-average-americans https://news.yale.edu/2012/08/02/hunter-gatherers-expend-sam...

flavius29663 5y ago
this is fascinating, I couldn't have guessed this. This is in the same category as: sit on the couch watching TV and you're spending almost the same amount of calories as a walking person. Maybe it also matters how you spend those calories. Fasting helps a lot, westerners don't fast. I assume hunter tribes fast more and also have lots of short bursts of energy.
- lommelun 5y ago
  “ sit on the couch watching TV and you're spending almost the same amount of calories as a walking person.” Some quick googling tells me that walking burns 4x as many calories as sitting. Or maybe I missed your point and you were just claiming that the stated fact is as surprising as this fact would have been had it been true?
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    I am off, you are right. I remembered something vague but it must have been: watching tv while eating (140 calories an hour) vs slow walking at 220 calories an hour.
bsder 5y ago
I would actually guess "cigarettes". Nicotine is an appetite suppressant.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

saurik 5y ago

> If we're eating as many calories, or slightly more, as our grandparents did, while barely moving in comparison to them... So you don't think that people who do more work are "supposed to be" more hungry and thereby eat more food? The people I know who are leaner seem to just not get hungry as often--or as much--as I seem to get... and hell: I've gone through periods where I'm gaining weight and periods where I'm losing weight, and when I'm gaining weight I feel like I'm hungry constantly and when I'm losing weight I find eating a bit tedious.

voisin 5y ago

> I thought it was near-consensus at this point that it's because we are less physically active. Except wild animals are also getting obese. I doubt they are becoming less physically active.

david-gpu 5y ago
I'd love to read some more. Can you share a source so that we can learn?
- chrisdinn 5y ago
  This is the article that the study authors linked to in their other writing: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2010.1890 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2010...
  - derbOac 5y ago
    It's certainly interesting although worth noting that all the animals examined have some close link to human-supplied food. They're all domestic pets, research animals, or rats (although I suppose the rural rats might be less so? They still show weight gain). I admit it would be hard to find something else that would be appropriate, especially given competing factors at play (e.g., the possibility of animals having shorter lifespans over time or evolving to be smaller in response to capture). Still, you'd think if it was something environmental it would show up in animals less dependent on humans for food. Interesting study. There's a tiny bit more context here: https://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9194579/obesity-animals https://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9194579/obesity-animals As for that article, the author makes a good point it's curious this hasn't been followed-up on.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

i_am_proteus 5y ago

The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human waistline.