5 ms·

> French people couldn't be wrong: they consume plenty of rich food and they don't have American health problems. And you know why your average American turns

> French people couldn't be wrong: they consume plenty of rich food and they don't have American health problems. And you know why your average American turns into an unhealthy tub of lard ? Simple really: 1) Americans have a penchant for over-processed foods which in turn contain high-levels of "the wrong" fats and, of course, sugar (which in America is generally the horrible processed type, e.g. corn syrup) . 2) American portion sizes for one meal could feed an entire African family for a week, American portions are obscene 3) Americans are largely sedentary, and have a penchant for driving instead of walking 4) Americans have a penchant for intensive industrial farming which reduces the quality of the raw ingredient Now, you may choose to try to argue over point (4) if you feel you must be patriotic and defend US agriculture. But points (1)–(3) are, regrettably hard truths. It's not rocket science. Eat Less. Eat Better. Do Some Exercise. Your body will thank you.

jmnicolas 4y ago
I'm French, 1, 3 and 4 are true here too. There is no French miracle, it's just that we're lagging a bit with the US (usually 10 or 20 years depending on the matter).
- traceroute66 4y ago
  > I'm French, 1, 3 and 4 are true here too. I would say that in France (and Europe generally) they are only true as you (unfortunately) move down the socio-economic scale. My experience of Europe is that people who can afford it generally do eat well. As for the driving, I'm not sure I agree. For a start, most US cities barely have any public transport, which automatically pushes people to get in the car (either due to laziness or due to distance). Meanwhile in Europe there are normally plentiful public transport options except for the countryside.
  - jmnicolas 4y ago
    What I meant is that the US is always more extreme but we have the same trends here. Where I'm from if you have the choice you avoid public transport because it's not very practical: buses are crowded and trains aren't flexible enough.
    - avianlyric 4y ago
      Ah the classic, nobody drives in the city anymore, there’s too much traffic. Overcrowded busses and trains are pretty strong indicator they’re doing something right. In the US a “frequent” train service is every hour. In Europe a frequent train service is every 20min. In a major EU city, it’s every 90 seconds. The US isn’t just an extreme, it’s an entirely different, almost incomparable, ballgame.
  - brokenkebaby 4y ago
    Sitting in a bus is still sitting, offering no health benefits vs sitting in a car (arguably, it's even less healthy when crowded). If the topic is health, the opposite here is walking, or (to lesser extent) cycling.
    - Yoric 4y ago
      Well, you do need to walk to/from your bus stop. Might be marginal, though. That being said, I'm in Europe and I typically cycle at least 1h per day from/to work/shopping/etc.
      - oblio 4y ago
        And for the bus you might be standing instead of sitting, you might have to change lines, etc. This is hyper easy to test with a $5 pedometer. I'm willing to bet $100 that if you buy the pedometer and compare both commutes, the bus commute will mean that you have at least 2x the number of steps when you commute by bus versus when you commute by car (for the actual commute).
        brokenkebaby 4y ago
        It's nitpicking. You can make 500 steps vs 100, and make a headline-like claim that it's five times more. In real life difference is negligible. Your organism requires walking in significant doses, and for you to practice it, you have to live in a walkable space (it includes infrastracture, and safety). A city can be driven by public transport, and not be pedestrian-friendly. A city can be private-car driven, and not be pedestrian-friendly.
    - traceroute66 4y ago
      > Sitting in a bus is still sitting, offering no health benefits vs sitting in a car Actually no. With a car, you get into the car outside your house, and you typically aim to park the car as close to physically possible to your destination. With public transport, you have to walk to the nearest stop near your house, and you have to walk to your destination from the destination stop. In addition, with trains you will have the opportunity to walk up and down stairs. You might also walk to run errands around the local area, for example, walking to/from grocery shopping with a few bags, instead of driving to the supermarket, dumping the bags in the back of the car and only walking/carrying the limited distance between your car and the kitchen. You might also opt to walk a slightly longer route if for example it takes you through a local park.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  I find that extraordinarily hard to believe. On my visits to the US from the UK, I’m always struck by how appalling to food options are in the US. Eating anything that isn’t filled with sugar, and about 3 portions too large, requires some thought, when you’re in the major cities. Outside of those cities, you need to expend real effort to find healthy food options. Huge portions of the menus you find in many “resultants” in the US simply isn’t legal in EU because quality of food is simply too low. The UK isn’t exactly know for it culinary expertise, but returning from the US to the UK is like finding water in the desert when it come the quality of food available.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Maybe it's just that I don't eat at restaurants a huge amount in the US and I mostly eat at better restaurants when I do. But I travel to Europe quite a bit and I just don't see the stark difference. Yes, a lot of restaurants in the US will have a fair bit of filler (potatoes/rice/other vegetables) in a typical main course. But if I have fish and chips or a steak pie at a London pub, I'm probably not going to finish all the chips and other vegetables there either. I'm not sure I've just about ever looked at a main course in Europe and thought to myself "Oh, what a small portion." And my experiences in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc. are similar. I do agree that when you get out of major cities in the US, food options can be pretty limited. Even where I live, about 50 miles outside of a major city, there are only a few places I eat at or get takeout from on anything like a regular basis and I wouldn't like to subsist on food from them 7 days a week.
    - Enginerrrd 4y ago
      I find food is a lot better on the coasts too. If you're in the middle of the US, unless you're in a large city, the food is pretty abysmal.
      - ghaff 4y ago
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  France is going shit in this regard as do most developed countries, that's true, but my friend if you want to equate US and FR when it comes to diet and results on current population, they are not in the same league, heck its a different universe. French are much more conscious about quality of the food, fine taste and other aspects that cheap junk food doesn't provide. Walk around any french town, you will see crowds of tall, slender thin people with few overweight folks. Sports are a priority and source of pride, alpinism, climbing or paragliding are deemed as national sports, not some extreme fringe stuff for few adrenaline junkies. Do the same exercise randomly in US, and chances are very good what you will see will be dramatically different. That being said, there are (were at least in 2003) many faces of US - I've spent that summer working blue collar jobs in US as part of work&travel programme US was providing, and already LA was exactly as we discuss. Then I moved to rural Maine and it was night & day, I've met maybe 5 fat people in 5 weeks spent there (but its true racial diversity back there was 0, I've seen 1 black guy in 5 weeks and maybe 2-3 of asian origin, rest looked just like they arrived from Scandinavia). But judging by various articles and feedback from friends that Maine experience was much less common than LA one, and over time even more so. US portions are simply needlessly big and often unhealthy. The logic is to eat till full, instead of just warding off hunger and enjoying few very finely tasting bites.
- Fnoord 4y ago
  Because French culture and English culture also gets overburdened by American brands such as McDonald's and Coca Cola. I like the example of the American pizza. Its not even crunchy, its more dough than anything else. Its pizza with topping, instead of the other way around.
tveyben 4y ago
I’m danish (but lives in LA briefly) and just like My french neighbour i Can totally relate to ^
deserialized 4y ago
America has to find a way to keep all the sugar plantations and beef/dairy land we violently established relevant so sugar, dairy, meat and corn go in everything. Anything less would be communism /s
rejectfinite 4y ago
I remember being 17 and visiting the USA with my family. We were 4 people. The waitress very nicely picked up that we were tourists (from Sweden) and told us to only order 2 dishes and share them. We were full from that. So USA, just cut your portions in half.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  It is pretty normal in the US to share dishes between people at restaurants. Some restaurants also offer half portions even if it isn't listed on the menu.
ryaniscool 4y ago
Ah yes, American bashing. I won't go into the psychology behind it because I don't want to insult your background or whatever country you may be from. By calling it a penchant, you make it sound like Americans choose these things. Most of us are held hostage by capitalist interests. Right now, it's much cheaper to eat processed foods than it is to make a similar meal from whole foods. Also, most of our towns over here in the New World were built with cars in mind. It's not generally feasible to walk places unless you live in a large city. Most people don't have 2+ hours to make a walking trip to the grocery store 5 miles away.
- newsuser 4y ago
  What prevents people from biking these 5 miles? Can't be capitalism, because bikes are cheaper than cars or just fuel with amortization costs for such trips. For 2+ years I had to bike 12 km each time I needed groceries. In fact, this was in France.
  - ryaniscool 4y ago
    Well first, the original poster is making a gross generalization about Americans. Many Americans do bike places for enjoyment and necessity. Just like France, it's the exception not the norm in places with spread out amenities. Just like France, the decision to do this or not do this is based on things like free-time, safety, money, and yes, laziness.
C-x_C-f 4y ago
> 2) American portion sizes for one meal could feed an entire African family for a week, American portions are obscene I don't get why people get so up in arms about this, especially as it's socially acceptable to take out leftovers (unlike, say, Italy). Personally, I'm a tallish, moderately active guy and I need some 3.5k-4k kcal a day, and America is the only country I've been to that I don't have to worry about being hungry after a meal out.
- iLoveOncall 4y ago
  > Personally, I'm a tallish, moderately active guy and I need some 3.5k-4k kcal a day No you don't. Unless you're an incredibly athletic giant you definitely don't need twice as many calories as an average man.
  - C-x_C-f 4y ago
    I simply observed that I lose weight if I eat <3k kcal over long stretches. I think human metabolism has a very wide variance, though it's hard to find good quality studies about it.
    - iLoveOncall 4y ago
      You went from 4K to 3K in a single post. Needless to say you're not exactly reliable.
      - C-x_C-f 4y ago
        I count my calories and I eat between 3.5k and 4k. I had a few periods where I ate <3k. These are two separate things. The latter is significant because the fact that I lost weight makes me think that I need my usual intake to retain my weight.
        iLoveOncall 4y ago
        Dude you need to be a 6"5 320lbs monster to lose weight on less than 3,000 calories a day. https://www.calculator.net/bmr-calculator.html?ctype=standard&cage=35&csex=m&cheightfeet=6&cheightinch=5&cpound=320&cheightmeter=190&ckg=150&cmop=0&coutunit=c&cformula=m&cfatpct=20&x=44&y=3 https://www.calculator.net/bmr-calculator.html?ctype=standar...
eternityforest 4y ago
I don't doubt that #4 is probably technically true and environmentally relevant, but I suspect most people's health issues are far more excess-related than deficiency related, even if there's a few specific things most people might not have enough of, so 1-3 are probably a far bigger deal.

jmnicolas 4y ago

I'm French, 1, 3 and 4 are true here too. There is no French miracle, it's just that we're lagging a bit with the US (usually 10 or 20 years depending on the matter).

traceroute66 4y ago
> I'm French, 1, 3 and 4 are true here too. I would say that in France (and Europe generally) they are only true as you (unfortunately) move down the socio-economic scale. My experience of Europe is that people who can afford it generally do eat well. As for the driving, I'm not sure I agree. For a start, most US cities barely have any public transport, which automatically pushes people to get in the car (either due to laziness or due to distance). Meanwhile in Europe there are normally plentiful public transport options except for the countryside.
- jmnicolas 4y ago
  What I meant is that the US is always more extreme but we have the same trends here. Where I'm from if you have the choice you avoid public transport because it's not very practical: buses are crowded and trains aren't flexible enough.
  - avianlyric 4y ago
    Ah the classic, nobody drives in the city anymore, there’s too much traffic. Overcrowded busses and trains are pretty strong indicator they’re doing something right. In the US a “frequent” train service is every hour. In Europe a frequent train service is every 20min. In a major EU city, it’s every 90 seconds. The US isn’t just an extreme, it’s an entirely different, almost incomparable, ballgame.
- brokenkebaby 4y ago
  Sitting in a bus is still sitting, offering no health benefits vs sitting in a car (arguably, it's even less healthy when crowded). If the topic is health, the opposite here is walking, or (to lesser extent) cycling.
  - Yoric 4y ago
    Well, you do need to walk to/from your bus stop. Might be marginal, though. That being said, I'm in Europe and I typically cycle at least 1h per day from/to work/shopping/etc.
    - oblio 4y ago
      And for the bus you might be standing instead of sitting, you might have to change lines, etc. This is hyper easy to test with a $5 pedometer. I'm willing to bet $100 that if you buy the pedometer and compare both commutes, the bus commute will mean that you have at least 2x the number of steps when you commute by bus versus when you commute by car (for the actual commute).
      - brokenkebaby 4y ago
        It's nitpicking. You can make 500 steps vs 100, and make a headline-like claim that it's five times more. In real life difference is negligible. Your organism requires walking in significant doses, and for you to practice it, you have to live in a walkable space (it includes infrastracture, and safety). A city can be driven by public transport, and not be pedestrian-friendly. A city can be private-car driven, and not be pedestrian-friendly.
  - traceroute66 4y ago
    > Sitting in a bus is still sitting, offering no health benefits vs sitting in a car Actually no. With a car, you get into the car outside your house, and you typically aim to park the car as close to physically possible to your destination. With public transport, you have to walk to the nearest stop near your house, and you have to walk to your destination from the destination stop. In addition, with trains you will have the opportunity to walk up and down stairs. You might also walk to run errands around the local area, for example, walking to/from grocery shopping with a few bags, instead of driving to the supermarket, dumping the bags in the back of the car and only walking/carrying the limited distance between your car and the kitchen. You might also opt to walk a slightly longer route if for example it takes you through a local park.
avianlyric 4y ago
I find that extraordinarily hard to believe. On my visits to the US from the UK, I’m always struck by how appalling to food options are in the US. Eating anything that isn’t filled with sugar, and about 3 portions too large, requires some thought, when you’re in the major cities. Outside of those cities, you need to expend real effort to find healthy food options. Huge portions of the menus you find in many “resultants” in the US simply isn’t legal in EU because quality of food is simply too low. The UK isn’t exactly know for it culinary expertise, but returning from the US to the UK is like finding water in the desert when it come the quality of food available.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ghaff 4y ago
  Maybe it's just that I don't eat at restaurants a huge amount in the US and I mostly eat at better restaurants when I do. But I travel to Europe quite a bit and I just don't see the stark difference. Yes, a lot of restaurants in the US will have a fair bit of filler (potatoes/rice/other vegetables) in a typical main course. But if I have fish and chips or a steak pie at a London pub, I'm probably not going to finish all the chips and other vegetables there either. I'm not sure I've just about ever looked at a main course in Europe and thought to myself "Oh, what a small portion." And my experiences in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc. are similar. I do agree that when you get out of major cities in the US, food options can be pretty limited. Even where I live, about 50 miles outside of a major city, there are only a few places I eat at or get takeout from on anything like a regular basis and I wouldn't like to subsist on food from them 7 days a week.
  - Enginerrrd 4y ago
    I find food is a lot better on the coasts too. If you're in the middle of the US, unless you're in a large city, the food is pretty abysmal.
    - ghaff 4y ago
saiya-jin 4y ago
France is going shit in this regard as do most developed countries, that's true, but my friend if you want to equate US and FR when it comes to diet and results on current population, they are not in the same league, heck its a different universe. French are much more conscious about quality of the food, fine taste and other aspects that cheap junk food doesn't provide. Walk around any french town, you will see crowds of tall, slender thin people with few overweight folks. Sports are a priority and source of pride, alpinism, climbing or paragliding are deemed as national sports, not some extreme fringe stuff for few adrenaline junkies. Do the same exercise randomly in US, and chances are very good what you will see will be dramatically different. That being said, there are (were at least in 2003) many faces of US - I've spent that summer working blue collar jobs in US as part of work&travel programme US was providing, and already LA was exactly as we discuss. Then I moved to rural Maine and it was night & day, I've met maybe 5 fat people in 5 weeks spent there (but its true racial diversity back there was 0, I've seen 1 black guy in 5 weeks and maybe 2-3 of asian origin, rest looked just like they arrived from Scandinavia). But judging by various articles and feedback from friends that Maine experience was much less common than LA one, and over time even more so. US portions are simply needlessly big and often unhealthy. The logic is to eat till full, instead of just warding off hunger and enjoying few very finely tasting bites.
Fnoord 4y ago
Because French culture and English culture also gets overburdened by American brands such as McDonald's and Coca Cola. I like the example of the American pizza. Its not even crunchy, its more dough than anything else. Its pizza with topping, instead of the other way around.

tveyben 4y ago

I’m danish (but lives in LA briefly) and just like My french neighbour i Can totally relate to ^

deserialized 4y ago

America has to find a way to keep all the sugar plantations and beef/dairy land we violently established relevant so sugar, dairy, meat and corn go in everything. Anything less would be communism /s

rejectfinite 4y ago

I remember being 17 and visiting the USA with my family. We were 4 people. The waitress very nicely picked up that we were tourists (from Sweden) and told us to only order 2 dishes and share them. We were full from that. So USA, just cut your portions in half.

jandrewrogers 4y ago
It is pretty normal in the US to share dishes between people at restaurants. Some restaurants also offer half portions even if it isn't listed on the menu.

ryaniscool 4y ago

Ah yes, American bashing. I won't go into the psychology behind it because I don't want to insult your background or whatever country you may be from. By calling it a penchant, you make it sound like Americans choose these things. Most of us are held hostage by capitalist interests. Right now, it's much cheaper to eat processed foods than it is to make a similar meal from whole foods. Also, most of our towns over here in the New World were built with cars in mind. It's not generally feasible to walk places unless you live in a large city. Most people don't have 2+ hours to make a walking trip to the grocery store 5 miles away.

newsuser 4y ago
What prevents people from biking these 5 miles? Can't be capitalism, because bikes are cheaper than cars or just fuel with amortization costs for such trips. For 2+ years I had to bike 12 km each time I needed groceries. In fact, this was in France.
- ryaniscool 4y ago
  Well first, the original poster is making a gross generalization about Americans. Many Americans do bike places for enjoyment and necessity. Just like France, it's the exception not the norm in places with spread out amenities. Just like France, the decision to do this or not do this is based on things like free-time, safety, money, and yes, laziness.

C-x_C-f 4y ago

> 2) American portion sizes for one meal could feed an entire African family for a week, American portions are obscene I don't get why people get so up in arms about this, especially as it's socially acceptable to take out leftovers (unlike, say, Italy). Personally, I'm a tallish, moderately active guy and I need some 3.5k-4k kcal a day, and America is the only country I've been to that I don't have to worry about being hungry after a meal out.

iLoveOncall 4y ago
> Personally, I'm a tallish, moderately active guy and I need some 3.5k-4k kcal a day No you don't. Unless you're an incredibly athletic giant you definitely don't need twice as many calories as an average man.
- C-x_C-f 4y ago
  I simply observed that I lose weight if I eat <3k kcal over long stretches. I think human metabolism has a very wide variance, though it's hard to find good quality studies about it.
  - iLoveOncall 4y ago
    You went from 4K to 3K in a single post. Needless to say you're not exactly reliable.
    - C-x_C-f 4y ago
      I count my calories and I eat between 3.5k and 4k. I had a few periods where I ate <3k. These are two separate things. The latter is significant because the fact that I lost weight makes me think that I need my usual intake to retain my weight.
      - iLoveOncall 4y ago
        Dude you need to be a 6"5 320lbs monster to lose weight on less than 3,000 calories a day. https://www.calculator.net/bmr-calculator.html?ctype=standard&cage=35&csex=m&cheightfeet=6&cheightinch=5&cpound=320&cheightmeter=190&ckg=150&cmop=0&coutunit=c&cformula=m&cfatpct=20&x=44&y=3 https://www.calculator.net/bmr-calculator.html?ctype=standar...

eternityforest 4y ago

I don't doubt that #4 is probably technically true and environmentally relevant, but I suspect most people's health issues are far more excess-related than deficiency related, even if there's a few specific things most people might not have enough of, so 1-3 are probably a far bigger deal.