7 ms·

It's calories. It's always been calories https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-caloric-supply?tab=chart&time=1970..2020&region=NorthAmerica&facet=

It's calories. It's always been calories https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-caloric-supply?tab=chart&time=1970..2020&region=NorthAmerica&facet=entity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-caloric-...

462436347 3y ago
The point is the added calories aren't coming from sugar, contrary to what everyone here thinks. And even if sugar did somehow magically make you fat regardless of calories, sugar consumption has actually gone down, yet the obesity and diabetes epidemics have only gotten worse.
- bsder 3y ago
  But, body weight increase is going to correspond to the "area under the graph" (the integral) and NOT the current level (the instantaneous value). Yes, it's nice that we're getting sugar consumption back down to 1970 levels so we don't keep adding more obese people to the cohort, but that doesn't help everybody who gained weight prior to 2020. From 1995 to 2005, people ate roughly an extra 10 pounds relative to 1970 of bodyweight in sugar every single year. That's an extra 100 pounds in bodyweight over 10 years if you don't adjust something else. That's huge. Literally.
  - parineum 3y ago
    Obesity isn't something that stays around if you consume less calories over 20 years.
    - cycomanic 3y ago
      Actually, there is significant research that shows that childhood obesity is an excellent predictor of adulthood obesity. Because sugar drinks made it so easy to take in way too many calories for children and hence became overweight, we now have a big cohort of adults with weight problems.
      - parineum 3y ago
        > Actually, there is significant research that shows that childhood obesity is an excellent predictor of adulthood obesity. Fact. > Because sugar drinks made it so easy to take in way too many calories for children and hence became overweight, we now have a big cohort of adults with weight problems. Speculation.
    - bsder 3y ago
      Once you become a young adult, from that point on the total number of fat cells is conserved. Even liposuction will not change that. This isn't completely hopeless, though. Fat cells "remember" the weight you are when they are created and fat cells turn over roughly 25% per year. However, it does mean that you need to hold your weight down for 3+ years for new fat cells to forget about the "fatter" you.
      - parineum 3y ago
        It doesn't matter how many fat cells you have if you're running a calorie deficit.
lobochrome 3y ago
Fascinating. Japan's caloric intake per capita has declined since the peak in the early 90s. No wonder everybody here is so lean. I'm always shocked when I step off the plane in Germany or the US at how fat everybody is.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Fat taxes. [1] The Western world is/was adopting a fat acceptance mindset, at the same time Japan decided to start fining businesses and governmental regions for having overweight workers/residents. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax#Japan
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - fbdab103 3y ago
    Fat acceptance? Turn on any form of broadcast media and you are going to be inundated with products/lifestyles/coaching on how you can lose weight to get the body you want. Random web hit claims 89% of American women are unhappy with their weight[0] [0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/89-percent-of-american-women-are-unhappy-with-their-weight%E2%80%94heres-how-to-change-that/ar-AA12uRhI https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/89-percent-of-amer...
    - _nalply 3y ago
      It's not the same. Advertisement for countermeasures does not mean that compliance is controlled. Compare advertisement vs the Japanese "fat ban".
    - itake 3y ago
      Walk into any Target or Victoria Secret and look at the size of their mannequins. The fat acceptance movement in the 2000s changed how we advertise.
      - 3y ago
truculent 3y ago
Per the data, caloric supply dropped after/during the great recession (2007-2008) to the levels of about 10-20 years prior. Did obesity drop during this period, too? Edit: It doesn’t appear to have had much effect per the data on the same website [1]. I suppose there are a number of reasons why it might not have had an effect on the top level numbers, though. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-defined-as-obese?tab=chart&country=USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-defined-a...
- dilyevsky 3y ago
  1. It dropped to like ‘97 level which was already too high 2. Pretty sure calorie intake is not uniformly distributed so if avg dropped bc some folks went from 5000kcal to 4000kcal a day it’s not going to reduce overall obesity rate
cycomanic 3y ago
Every time there is some discussion about weight here, somebody will come with the whole "there is no good or bad food, calories in/out is the only thing that matters" argument. And while technically correct it's also overly symplistic. The whole point about "bad" (processed) foods is that they make it very easy to take in a lot of calories without feeling sated. Take an apple or orange juice for example. To eat the equivalent amount of fructose (or calories) that is contained in an orange juice, you will need to eat a lot of fruit, and like feel full before finishing, while the equivalent juice doesn't even register.
- pkulak 3y ago
  Anyone who says only calories matter should try tracking their calories, then eating processed food one day, unprocessed the next. If you stick to the same total calories, you’ll be very hungry the first day.
  - WA 3y ago
    So what? It’s still calories in, calories out. Whether you feel full or not is another discussion.
    - Gud 3y ago
      Yes, in a universe where people easily ignore their basics instincts it doesn’t matter.
      - watwut 3y ago
        It does matter even there. You energy spending goes down too automatically.
        readthenotes1 3y ago
        Says who?
      - SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
otabdeveloper4 3y ago
Calories are equivalent to joules. Diesel fuel has lots of calories, but you probably won't get fat drinking it. (The human body can't process diesel fuel.) Alcohol is also very caloric, and the human body can process small amounts of it. But replacing cola with alcohol won't have the expected effect either.
- dilyevsky 3y ago
  What is the expected effect here? Are you saying you can’t gain extra weight by consuming alcohol? Well that is simply not true - you just haven’t applied yourself enough
  - otabdeveloper4 3y ago
    No, you cannot gain extra weight by replacing food with alcohol. You will get liver problems before you get obese.
kolinko 3y ago
It’s also smoking https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-total-daily-smokers?country=FIN~DEU~ITA~GBR~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-total-daily-smo...
CyberDildonics 3y ago
Calories absorbed vs calories expended is physics, but it doesn't explain why people are storing more calories over time. The idea that all calories are the same is not even held by people who say "everything is just about calories". Ask them what you need to build muscle and they will say protein. Suddenly not all calories are the same. Fructose is does not stop hunger as much and is more easily stored as fat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8G8tLsl_A4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8G8tLsl_A4
- 462436347 3y ago
  > and is more easily stored as fat Dietary fat is even more easily stored as fat, since it doesn't require the added step of de novo lipogenesis (DNL) like carbohydrate does, or the added steps of gluconeogenesis + DNL as protein does. And go look up recent photos of Lustig: he's fat (bordering on obese) himself.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    Lustig: he's fat (bordering on obese) himself. This is not relevant to arguments (with sources and statistics) about systemic obesity he presents. If dietary fat is more easily stored as fat, why do keto diets work? Also do you have sources or data that says what you are saying here?
    - 462436347 3y ago
      > This is not relevant to arguments (with sources and statistics) about systemic obesity he presents. Yes it absolutely is, since he claims he doesn't eat sugar for all the reasons he cites, yet he's fat and looks metabolically unhealthy: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/heresthething/episodes/218983-robert-lustig#transcript https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/heresthething/episodes/... >Robert Lustig: I carry a few extra pounds and I’m not happy about it. I don’t eat sugar. >Alec Baldwin: You don’t. >Robert Lustig: No. I have dessert twice a year. When I’m in New York I have a piece of Junior’s cheesecake and when I’m in New Orleans I have bread pudding - Notice his twice yearly dessert sugar indulgences are high in fat. > If dietary fat is more easily stored as fat, You seriously believe your body preferentially uses de novo lipogenesis to convert carbohydrate to fat (which entails some energy loss) rather than just storing fat as fat? DNL on a typical mixed macro diet is rare, to the point that something like 90% of your bodyfat came from fat you ate, and the fatty acid profile of your body mirrors that of your diet: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12324287/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12324287/ Even in low-carb circles, this is tacitly acknowledged now by warning against eating meat from animals fed a high-PUFA diet, like poultry. I'm not saying overeating carbs won't make you fat, but arguing that it somehow makes you fatter, calorie-for-calorie, than fat is ridiculous considering that eventually your body runs out of fat and has to use DNL (which is inefficient), and that fats require the least energy for your body to digest of any macro. > why do keto diets work? They don't, at least not any better than low-fat diets. They seem to work better initially because keto dieters lose a lot more weight early, but that weight is disproportionately fat-free mass, i.e., water, glycogen, and probably at least some lean body mass (muscle and bone density). See the graph on p. 4 of Kevin Hall's NIH study comparing the diets: https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/s41591-020-01209-1 https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/s41591-020-01209-1

462436347 3y ago

The point is the added calories aren't coming from sugar, contrary to what everyone here thinks. And even if sugar did somehow magically make you fat regardless of calories, sugar consumption has actually gone down, yet the obesity and diabetes epidemics have only gotten worse.

bsder 3y ago
But, body weight increase is going to correspond to the "area under the graph" (the integral) and NOT the current level (the instantaneous value). Yes, it's nice that we're getting sugar consumption back down to 1970 levels so we don't keep adding more obese people to the cohort, but that doesn't help everybody who gained weight prior to 2020. From 1995 to 2005, people ate roughly an extra 10 pounds relative to 1970 of bodyweight in sugar every single year. That's an extra 100 pounds in bodyweight over 10 years if you don't adjust something else. That's huge. Literally.
- parineum 3y ago
  Obesity isn't something that stays around if you consume less calories over 20 years.
  - cycomanic 3y ago
    Actually, there is significant research that shows that childhood obesity is an excellent predictor of adulthood obesity. Because sugar drinks made it so easy to take in way too many calories for children and hence became overweight, we now have a big cohort of adults with weight problems.
    - parineum 3y ago
      > Actually, there is significant research that shows that childhood obesity is an excellent predictor of adulthood obesity. Fact. > Because sugar drinks made it so easy to take in way too many calories for children and hence became overweight, we now have a big cohort of adults with weight problems. Speculation.
  - bsder 3y ago
    Once you become a young adult, from that point on the total number of fat cells is conserved. Even liposuction will not change that. This isn't completely hopeless, though. Fat cells "remember" the weight you are when they are created and fat cells turn over roughly 25% per year. However, it does mean that you need to hold your weight down for 3+ years for new fat cells to forget about the "fatter" you.
    - parineum 3y ago
      It doesn't matter how many fat cells you have if you're running a calorie deficit.

lobochrome 3y ago

Fascinating. Japan's caloric intake per capita has declined since the peak in the early 90s. No wonder everybody here is so lean. I'm always shocked when I step off the plane in Germany or the US at how fat everybody is.

somenameforme 3y ago
Fat taxes. [1] The Western world is/was adopting a fat acceptance mindset, at the same time Japan decided to start fining businesses and governmental regions for having overweight workers/residents. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax#Japan
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- fbdab103 3y ago
  Fat acceptance? Turn on any form of broadcast media and you are going to be inundated with products/lifestyles/coaching on how you can lose weight to get the body you want. Random web hit claims 89% of American women are unhappy with their weight[0] [0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/89-percent-of-american-women-are-unhappy-with-their-weight%E2%80%94heres-how-to-change-that/ar-AA12uRhI https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/89-percent-of-amer...
  - _nalply 3y ago
    It's not the same. Advertisement for countermeasures does not mean that compliance is controlled. Compare advertisement vs the Japanese "fat ban".
  - itake 3y ago
    Walk into any Target or Victoria Secret and look at the size of their mannequins. The fat acceptance movement in the 2000s changed how we advertise.
    - 3y ago

truculent 3y ago

Per the data, caloric supply dropped after/during the great recession (2007-2008) to the levels of about 10-20 years prior. Did obesity drop during this period, too? Edit: It doesn’t appear to have had much effect per the data on the same website [1]. I suppose there are a number of reasons why it might not have had an effect on the top level numbers, though. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-defined-as-obese?tab=chart&country=USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-defined-a...

dilyevsky 3y ago
1. It dropped to like ‘97 level which was already too high 2. Pretty sure calorie intake is not uniformly distributed so if avg dropped bc some folks went from 5000kcal to 4000kcal a day it’s not going to reduce overall obesity rate

cycomanic 3y ago

Every time there is some discussion about weight here, somebody will come with the whole "there is no good or bad food, calories in/out is the only thing that matters" argument. And while technically correct it's also overly symplistic. The whole point about "bad" (processed) foods is that they make it very easy to take in a lot of calories without feeling sated. Take an apple or orange juice for example. To eat the equivalent amount of fructose (or calories) that is contained in an orange juice, you will need to eat a lot of fruit, and like feel full before finishing, while the equivalent juice doesn't even register.

pkulak 3y ago
Anyone who says only calories matter should try tracking their calories, then eating processed food one day, unprocessed the next. If you stick to the same total calories, you’ll be very hungry the first day.
- WA 3y ago
  So what? It’s still calories in, calories out. Whether you feel full or not is another discussion.
  - Gud 3y ago
    Yes, in a universe where people easily ignore their basics instincts it doesn’t matter.
    - watwut 3y ago
      It does matter even there. You energy spending goes down too automatically.
      - readthenotes1 3y ago
        Says who?
    - SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago

otabdeveloper4 3y ago

Calories are equivalent to joules. Diesel fuel has lots of calories, but you probably won't get fat drinking it. (The human body can't process diesel fuel.) Alcohol is also very caloric, and the human body can process small amounts of it. But replacing cola with alcohol won't have the expected effect either.

dilyevsky 3y ago
What is the expected effect here? Are you saying you can’t gain extra weight by consuming alcohol? Well that is simply not true - you just haven’t applied yourself enough
- otabdeveloper4 3y ago
  No, you cannot gain extra weight by replacing food with alcohol. You will get liver problems before you get obese.

kolinko 3y ago

It’s also smoking https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-total-daily-smokers?country=FIN~DEU~ITA~GBR~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-total-daily-smo...

CyberDildonics 3y ago

Calories absorbed vs calories expended is physics, but it doesn't explain why people are storing more calories over time. The idea that all calories are the same is not even held by people who say "everything is just about calories". Ask them what you need to build muscle and they will say protein. Suddenly not all calories are the same. Fructose is does not stop hunger as much and is more easily stored as fat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8G8tLsl_A4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8G8tLsl_A4

462436347 3y ago
> and is more easily stored as fat Dietary fat is even more easily stored as fat, since it doesn't require the added step of de novo lipogenesis (DNL) like carbohydrate does, or the added steps of gluconeogenesis + DNL as protein does. And go look up recent photos of Lustig: he's fat (bordering on obese) himself.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  Lustig: he's fat (bordering on obese) himself. This is not relevant to arguments (with sources and statistics) about systemic obesity he presents. If dietary fat is more easily stored as fat, why do keto diets work? Also do you have sources or data that says what you are saying here?
  - 462436347 3y ago
    > This is not relevant to arguments (with sources and statistics) about systemic obesity he presents. Yes it absolutely is, since he claims he doesn't eat sugar for all the reasons he cites, yet he's fat and looks metabolically unhealthy: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/heresthething/episodes/218983-robert-lustig#transcript https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/heresthething/episodes/... >Robert Lustig: I carry a few extra pounds and I’m not happy about it. I don’t eat sugar. >Alec Baldwin: You don’t. >Robert Lustig: No. I have dessert twice a year. When I’m in New York I have a piece of Junior’s cheesecake and when I’m in New Orleans I have bread pudding - Notice his twice yearly dessert sugar indulgences are high in fat. > If dietary fat is more easily stored as fat, You seriously believe your body preferentially uses de novo lipogenesis to convert carbohydrate to fat (which entails some energy loss) rather than just storing fat as fat? DNL on a typical mixed macro diet is rare, to the point that something like 90% of your bodyfat came from fat you ate, and the fatty acid profile of your body mirrors that of your diet: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12324287/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12324287/ Even in low-carb circles, this is tacitly acknowledged now by warning against eating meat from animals fed a high-PUFA diet, like poultry. I'm not saying overeating carbs won't make you fat, but arguing that it somehow makes you fatter, calorie-for-calorie, than fat is ridiculous considering that eventually your body runs out of fat and has to use DNL (which is inefficient), and that fats require the least energy for your body to digest of any macro. > why do keto diets work? They don't, at least not any better than low-fat diets. They seem to work better initially because keto dieters lose a lot more weight early, but that weight is disproportionately fat-free mass, i.e., water, glycogen, and probably at least some lean body mass (muscle and bone density). See the graph on p. 4 of Kevin Hall's NIH study comparing the diets: https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/s41591-020-01209-1 https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/s41591-020-01209-1