7 ms·

Overweight people are now a global problem

28 points by SuperChihuahua 14y ago

simonbarker87 14y ago
Exercise and eating less is a valid response to the growing weight issue but it all stems from education and an understanding of how being overweight will impact your life and, more importantly, your family's life. By education I don't mean college level stuff, I mean basic home skills and life skills education and instilling an understanding that fast food/sweets/crisps etc are fine in small amounts but that decent fruit, veg and fresh meat are the staple to a healthy life. Again, this doesn't need to be super complex, there isn't some sexy problem to be solved here, it is just basic, old fashioned food understanding etc. Think Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution type thing. Also, this is something where governments also need to step up and educate. Free market ethos is fine but preemptive measures don't sell or make money for business so the governments need to fill this gap.
- freehunter 14y ago
  The fact that this is just now becoming a global problem indicates that perhaps there is a problem to be solved here beyond education. Mankind (and our pets) did not evolve to live the lifestyle we're living. Sitting at a computer all day, driving home, then sitting at a TV all night. Changing diet is fine and it works well for some. Others might not have such as easy time of it. I don't know what the solution to the problem is. But if you do, you will be rich. Something has to change, globally: either our lifestyle or our bodily engineering. And changing lifestyles is not an easy thing to do.
  - Avshalom 14y ago
    >did not evolve to live the lifestyle we're living evolution didn't magically stop.
    - TeMPOraL 14y ago
      But then it won't fix it sooner than in 10 000 years. Technological progress (and life style changes that follow it) has outpaced whatever biological processes of adaptation there are by many orders of magnitude.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  Also, this is something where governments also need to step up and educate. No, no, a million times NO. At least in the US, the government already "educates" people about nutrition, and most of what they're pimping is horrible, horrible advice. I don't want some agency stealing my money, and then using it to teach me shit that's ultimately killing me.
- roc 14y ago
  I'd rather the role of government in correcting society-wide problems caused by hidden costs be simply ensuring those costs are properly accounted for up-front. e.g. You don't stop industrial pollution by educating Americans to not buy products that were created by factories that pollute. You stop industrial pollution by enforcing reasonably safe waste disposal methods, so those costs are reflected customer-facing prices. (And thereby also encouraging free market advances in disposal and production technologies.) So why would you try to combat an obesity epidemic by attempting to educate people to not buy sugars? You simply identify the problems ('cheap' sugars in processed foods, huge portions) and ensure the costs are reflected up-front in the price (yes, a sin-tax on junk food and absurd portions). Or, at the very least, stop government subsidies for the production and use of things that we know are contributing to the problem. (cheap corn->cheap HFCS->cheap sugar in everything)
Kurtz79 14y ago
Exercise will speed-up weight loss if paired with a diet, and it's just plain healthy, regardless of weight issues. But if the goal is to lose weight, exercise alone can be counterproductive, because leads people to think that slacking off in the gym for half an hour will offset that supersize menu that they will eat afterwards... Changing (permanently) eating habits should be the first step and the final goal.
- mistercow 14y ago
  >Changing (permanently) eating habits should be the first step and the final goal. That word "permanently" is really key. It's sad to watch people say "Oh, I can't eat that now because I'm on a diet. But in two more weeks..."
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    The positive thing is that your perception of food intake also changes. I lost 10ish kg after eating less, and now I'm eating various things I like and binging a bit, and I feel like I ate an ox. When I say "god, I binged again today", people say "uh, you only ate some cereal and a steak", so I weigh myself after two weeks of "binging" and I'm at the same weight. My point is that maintenance becomes simple once you get used to eating less. Eating the amount you used to eat before now seems like a terrible excess (and I wasn't even overweight before).
    - goostavos 14y ago
      >My point is that maintenance becomes simple once you get used to eating less. Eating the amount you used to eat before now seems like a terrible excess (and I wasn't even overweight before). This honestly surprised me once I started trying to lose weight. I assumed it be a constant war with my will power to not gorge myself. After about two weeks of a very restricted diet, the desire to eat a lot, and often, just kind of drifted away. I now feel super lethargic if I eat a big meal. I prefer eating a couple small meals through out the day. "Eat not to dullness," and whatnot. Your average fast food meal is now a pretty big amount of food for me -- I used to eat the stuff twice a day, and still want more.
roc 14y ago
It used to be that differences in obesity rates worldwide were explained by diet: the French ate rich food, but in smaller portions; the Japanese ate lots of white rice, but didn't eat much meat; etc. That has been found to not hold up over time and so people seemed to explain it by culture: The US was fatter, because we sit in cars all day; in most other countries you have to walk considerable distance every day, even to use transit. Now that, too, seems to be failing the data, as other countries become fatter without any notable shift in how they get around town. It may be time we studied to what degree the worldwide spread of obesity maps to the worldwide spread of industrial food products. Could it be the 'lag' between obesity becoming a problem in the US vs the rest of the world was nothing more than initial cultural resistance to processed food wearing down over time? The question of how an individual can lose weight is pretty well understood (if difficult for many to practice). The more interesting question is what enables entire cultures to surrender their previous generation's habits seemingly en masse.
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  > The question of how an individual can lose weight is pretty well understood (if difficult for many to practice). From reading discussions and articles about it that pop up here from time to time, and also from talking with my family and friends, I'd disagree. What I actually perceive is that in discussions about loosing weight: - a) people generalize personal anecdotes, - b) there are dozens of popular diets, and people usually quote their favourite, - c) whatever Real Science gets quoted, will soon be challenged by another paper saying something opposite, - d) people try to reason from common sense ("surely if you eat less X you'll be less fat, because X does this-and-that"); I was a believer of the thermodynamics-like theory that deltaWeight = weight + (calories in - calories out)*stuff; many a post on HN convinced me that it's not true, even though it sounds much more obvious than typical dietetary nonsense you'll hear from your random friend. I'm against blaming everything on people being not determined or hardworking enough. For one, it's wrong attitude (any system that assumes strong willpower or moral high ground from people will fail because of human nature; it's better to engineer around it), and secondly, there are indications that the same diet/exercise combination executed with the same determination will have great effects on some, moderate on others, and zero-to-negative on few unfortunate people.
bravoyankee 14y ago
Many people are too poor to eat well. When all you can afford is spaghetti and potatoes, you will gain weight and experience suboptimal energy. You'll also be more likely to suffer anxiety, depression and get diabetes. Believe me, you don't think all that well either - decisions become more emotional than rational - so getting out of the hole gets even harder. Instead of finger pointing, chastising and instructing, I think more compassion is required when it comes to dealing with the complex issue of obesity.
- Tycho 14y ago
  Your two assertions that 1. Eating healthily is more expensive than eating junk 2. Eating poorly impairs your ability to think to the extent that you cannot be held responsible for your poor choice of diet I find them very hard to believe (even though I hear them often). Do you have any links to the studies or evidence that show this?
  - skylan_q 14y ago
    "Eating healthily is more expensive than eating junk" This assertion is blatantly false. I can get full on excellent quality food for about the price of a mcdonald's meal + a bag of chips. I've eaten like crap, and I've eaten well. It's very cheap to eat healthy. Most people are just making excuses for not wanting to practice self-control or educate themselves.
    - TeMPOraL 14y ago
      > This assertion is blatantly false. I can get full on excellent quality food for about the price of a mcdonald's meal + a bag of chips. Not that kind of junk. Think ramen noodles.
    - kijin 14y ago
      A lot of people can't even afford a mcdonald's meal + a bag of chips. Everywhere I look, fat is cheaper than protein, white bread is cheaper than whole-grain multigrain bread, white rice is cheaper than brown rice, a pack of sugar is cheaper than the same weight in fresh fruits and veggies, and a bottle of sauce made with nothing but salt and MSG is cheaper than a bottle of sauce made with natural ingredients. When you need to feed 2 teenagers with a budget of single-digit dollars per day, every penny counts.
AznHisoka 14y ago
I was in China for a month. And I had to look extremely hard to find 1 obese person everyday.
- will_work4tears 14y ago
  1. How long ago was this? 'Becoming a problem' implies that it is a new-ish thing, and an observation from 5 years ago isn't really current. 2. Are you sure you don't mean "hard to find 1 morbidly obese person everyday? You do realize that a BMI of 30 or greater is obese, right? And In non-tight and non-revealing clothes, you probably aren't even going to be able to tell a person with a BMI of 30-35 is obese. But they are according to studies like the linked article refers to. For instance, this guy is obese (BMI of 30.7): http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/511-220.html http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/511-220.html And this guy is overweight (BMI of 26.2): http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/603-210.html http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/603-210.html
  - JoeAltmaier 14y ago
    SO the problem is, the definition of overweight has changed to 'anyone that doesn't look good in a bathing suit'?
    - will_work4tears 14y ago
      I don't think it's changed, I'm not commenting on that, merely saying most people don't realize they are, or are seeing an obese person. People think Obese = rolls of fat when in fact you can be pretty fit looking with clothes on. I'm pretty sure a BMI of 30+ is still not the healthiest. Just not as obvious as a person with a 40+ BMI (morbidly obese)
mistercow 14y ago
>Chinese people are now so addicted to sugar This is supposed to be a list of "facts" but in reality, the "sugar is addictive" hypothesis is still, well, a hypothesis. >that the government is scared that there will be political unrest if the price of sugar goes up It's the Chinese government. "Scared that there will be political unrest if X" is their default state for any untested X.
- jere 14y ago
  >This is supposed to be a list of "facts" but in reality, the "sugar is addictive" hypothesis is still, well, a hypothesis. I took addictive in the sense that we are "addicted to oil."
  - jonathlee 14y ago
    That sense is just as nonsensical. Would you also say that people in the 19th century were "addicted to coal" and "addicted to whale oil" and that people before that were "addicted to wood fires"? Oil is just the latest, most economical energy source in an entire series of sources. In a few years modern-day Luddites will change to "addicted to natural gas" or "addicted to nuclear fission", "addicted to fusion" or whatever the most popular portable energy source is then. Whenever there is more of something (food, energy, comfort, luxury, pr0n) than someone approves of (Puritans, Luddites, environmental extremists, religionists, etc.), they demonize it by saying people are addicted to it. It's called propaganda.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      Eh, I would say that in some ways the analogy to an addiction makes sense for oil. The point is to illustrate a bad cycle that we have. Oil is our cheapest portable energy solution, so we use it in most of our existing technology that needs lots of portable energy. That has a negative impact on research into new portable energy solutions because it is unlikely that any can be backwards compatible with old technology. As a result, oil continues to be the cheapest portable energy solution even as it gets more and more expensive. The analogy isn't perfect, of course, but no analogy is. What makes no sense to me whatsoever is to try to extend this analogy to sugar.
brianbreslin 14y ago
Am I the only one who thought this post was all fluff? "I believe that the solution to this problem is exercise, and those who would like to decrease their weight should try different sport activities." What about eating healthier? That strikes me as a more effective and maintainable solution.
- bonesinger 14y ago
  you are absolutely right. Eating healthy is more important than exercise and the two together will lead to an overall improvement in health. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121015142405.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121015142405.ht... Though its a small sample and an extreme one at that, the contestants' diets accounted for approximately 65% of their weight loss.
  - eru 14y ago
    > Eating healthy is more important than exercise For losing weight. For health in general, both seem about equally important. (And lots of exercise will allow you to get away with a crappy diet much easier.)
- s8qnze982y 14y ago
  +1 as well. most of the people with bad habits understands or (refuses to understand) what doing physical activity works out the symptom, not the cause. unfortunately, it's too easy to speculate on diets sitting on a chair.
Nursie 14y ago
I also enjoy cycling and used to cycle-commute. Unfortunately I have now moved to a cold, wet country and work too far from home for it to be practical, and am getting fatter...
- s_henry_paulson 14y ago
  A great substitute is to find a gym with spinning classes in the morning before work.
  - stephengillie 14y ago
    It's not a great substitute - it costs ~$50-100 per month and an extra 45-90 minutes per day...instead of saving gas money. I too live in a cold wet land, but can't afford the cost in time or money.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    But the gym sucks, cycling worked for me because it was actually fun! I need to find something else like that before I go up a(nother) trouser size.
- eru 14y ago
  How about (wo)manning up? Swedish mothers are very fond of saying (in Swedish): There's no bad weather, just inadequate clothing.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    Err, nonsense. IMHO. I've just moved from Perth, Australia, where it is pleasant enough almost every morning to just to throw on shorts and a top and go for it. I'm now in the UK. Getting a face-full of road spray and having to manage your temperature (ugh it's cold, no wait now I'm moving it's hot) and try not to get drenched in either rain or just condensed sweat is frakking NASTY.
    - eru 14y ago
      Welcome to Europe! I'm also based in the UK. Cambridge to be exact. I commute by bike in any weather. English weather is actually quite tame.
dia80 14y ago
"Overweight people are now a global problem" My first thought was they are exerting too much pressure on the surface of the world and endangering the integrity of the crust... need to get out more...
atomical 14y ago
I've been a runner for a long time but occasionally I try new forms of exercise / fun. In the not too recent past I joined a rowing club. The dues were cheap and it's a great workout. And I take advantage of hiking if I'm in an area that has mountains.
tryitnow 14y ago
I think combining fairly elementary economics and physics can reveal the cause of obesity epidemics. Consumers seek to maximize the taste/cost ratio where cost = the monetary cost of food + time to prepare Sure you can eat healthy for cheap if you're willing to eat things that are not that tasty or if you're willing to spend time learning to prepare foods and then preparing them on a regular basis. I'd really like to see the economics behind that - like most things, stuff produced in mass is "cheaper" than stuff we make ourselves, maybe not in terms of monetary costs, but definitely in terms of labor savings. The tastiest things tend to pack a big caloric impact, which makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. Cheaper tasty calories lead to greater caloric intake, which often occurs at the same time an economy is shifting to less labor intensive work. This creates a perfect storm where caloric expenditure is declining at the same time caloric intake is increasing, leading to an obesity epidemic. It's simple physics, conservation of energy/matter. The energy intake of humans increases, but their expenditure declines, the surplus has to go somewhere. That somewhere is our fat stores.

Exercise and eating less is a valid response to the growing weight issue but it all stems from education and an understanding of how being overweight will impact your life and, more importantly, your family's life. By education I don't mean college level stuff, I mean basic home skills and life skills education and instilling an understanding that fast food/sweets/crisps etc are fine in small amounts but that decent fruit, veg and fresh meat are the staple to a healthy life. Again, this doesn't need to be super complex, there isn't some sexy problem to be solved here, it is just basic, old fashioned food understanding etc. Think Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution type thing. Also, this is something where governments also need to step up and educate. Free market ethos is fine but preemptive measures don't sell or make money for business so the governments need to fill this gap.

freehunter 14y ago
The fact that this is just now becoming a global problem indicates that perhaps there is a problem to be solved here beyond education. Mankind (and our pets) did not evolve to live the lifestyle we're living. Sitting at a computer all day, driving home, then sitting at a TV all night. Changing diet is fine and it works well for some. Others might not have such as easy time of it. I don't know what the solution to the problem is. But if you do, you will be rich. Something has to change, globally: either our lifestyle or our bodily engineering. And changing lifestyles is not an easy thing to do.
- Avshalom 14y ago
  >did not evolve to live the lifestyle we're living evolution didn't magically stop.
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    But then it won't fix it sooner than in 10 000 years. Technological progress (and life style changes that follow it) has outpaced whatever biological processes of adaptation there are by many orders of magnitude.
mindcrime 14y ago
Also, this is something where governments also need to step up and educate. No, no, a million times NO. At least in the US, the government already "educates" people about nutrition, and most of what they're pimping is horrible, horrible advice. I don't want some agency stealing my money, and then using it to teach me shit that's ultimately killing me.
roc 14y ago
I'd rather the role of government in correcting society-wide problems caused by hidden costs be simply ensuring those costs are properly accounted for up-front. e.g. You don't stop industrial pollution by educating Americans to not buy products that were created by factories that pollute. You stop industrial pollution by enforcing reasonably safe waste disposal methods, so those costs are reflected customer-facing prices. (And thereby also encouraging free market advances in disposal and production technologies.) So why would you try to combat an obesity epidemic by attempting to educate people to not buy sugars? You simply identify the problems ('cheap' sugars in processed foods, huge portions) and ensure the costs are reflected up-front in the price (yes, a sin-tax on junk food and absurd portions). Or, at the very least, stop government subsidies for the production and use of things that we know are contributing to the problem. (cheap corn->cheap HFCS->cheap sugar in everything)

Kurtz79 14y ago

Exercise will speed-up weight loss if paired with a diet, and it's just plain healthy, regardless of weight issues. But if the goal is to lose weight, exercise alone can be counterproductive, because leads people to think that slacking off in the gym for half an hour will offset that supersize menu that they will eat afterwards... Changing (permanently) eating habits should be the first step and the final goal.

mistercow 14y ago
>Changing (permanently) eating habits should be the first step and the final goal. That word "permanently" is really key. It's sad to watch people say "Oh, I can't eat that now because I'm on a diet. But in two more weeks..."
- StavrosK 14y ago
  The positive thing is that your perception of food intake also changes. I lost 10ish kg after eating less, and now I'm eating various things I like and binging a bit, and I feel like I ate an ox. When I say "god, I binged again today", people say "uh, you only ate some cereal and a steak", so I weigh myself after two weeks of "binging" and I'm at the same weight. My point is that maintenance becomes simple once you get used to eating less. Eating the amount you used to eat before now seems like a terrible excess (and I wasn't even overweight before).
  - goostavos 14y ago
    >My point is that maintenance becomes simple once you get used to eating less. Eating the amount you used to eat before now seems like a terrible excess (and I wasn't even overweight before). This honestly surprised me once I started trying to lose weight. I assumed it be a constant war with my will power to not gorge myself. After about two weeks of a very restricted diet, the desire to eat a lot, and often, just kind of drifted away. I now feel super lethargic if I eat a big meal. I prefer eating a couple small meals through out the day. "Eat not to dullness," and whatnot. Your average fast food meal is now a pretty big amount of food for me -- I used to eat the stuff twice a day, and still want more.

roc 14y ago

It used to be that differences in obesity rates worldwide were explained by diet: the French ate rich food, but in smaller portions; the Japanese ate lots of white rice, but didn't eat much meat; etc. That has been found to not hold up over time and so people seemed to explain it by culture: The US was fatter, because we sit in cars all day; in most other countries you have to walk considerable distance every day, even to use transit. Now that, too, seems to be failing the data, as other countries become fatter without any notable shift in how they get around town. It may be time we studied to what degree the worldwide spread of obesity maps to the worldwide spread of industrial food products. Could it be the 'lag' between obesity becoming a problem in the US vs the rest of the world was nothing more than initial cultural resistance to processed food wearing down over time? The question of how an individual can lose weight is pretty well understood (if difficult for many to practice). The more interesting question is what enables entire cultures to surrender their previous generation's habits seemingly en masse.

TeMPOraL 14y ago
> The question of how an individual can lose weight is pretty well understood (if difficult for many to practice). From reading discussions and articles about it that pop up here from time to time, and also from talking with my family and friends, I'd disagree. What I actually perceive is that in discussions about loosing weight: - a) people generalize personal anecdotes, - b) there are dozens of popular diets, and people usually quote their favourite, - c) whatever Real Science gets quoted, will soon be challenged by another paper saying something opposite, - d) people try to reason from common sense ("surely if you eat less X you'll be less fat, because X does this-and-that"); I was a believer of the thermodynamics-like theory that deltaWeight = weight + (calories in - calories out)*stuff; many a post on HN convinced me that it's not true, even though it sounds much more obvious than typical dietetary nonsense you'll hear from your random friend. I'm against blaming everything on people being not determined or hardworking enough. For one, it's wrong attitude (any system that assumes strong willpower or moral high ground from people will fail because of human nature; it's better to engineer around it), and secondly, there are indications that the same diet/exercise combination executed with the same determination will have great effects on some, moderate on others, and zero-to-negative on few unfortunate people.

bravoyankee 14y ago

Many people are too poor to eat well. When all you can afford is spaghetti and potatoes, you will gain weight and experience suboptimal energy. You'll also be more likely to suffer anxiety, depression and get diabetes. Believe me, you don't think all that well either - decisions become more emotional than rational - so getting out of the hole gets even harder. Instead of finger pointing, chastising and instructing, I think more compassion is required when it comes to dealing with the complex issue of obesity.

Tycho 14y ago
Your two assertions that 1. Eating healthily is more expensive than eating junk 2. Eating poorly impairs your ability to think to the extent that you cannot be held responsible for your poor choice of diet I find them very hard to believe (even though I hear them often). Do you have any links to the studies or evidence that show this?
- skylan_q 14y ago
  "Eating healthily is more expensive than eating junk" This assertion is blatantly false. I can get full on excellent quality food for about the price of a mcdonald's meal + a bag of chips. I've eaten like crap, and I've eaten well. It's very cheap to eat healthy. Most people are just making excuses for not wanting to practice self-control or educate themselves.
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    > This assertion is blatantly false. I can get full on excellent quality food for about the price of a mcdonald's meal + a bag of chips. Not that kind of junk. Think ramen noodles.
  - kijin 14y ago
    A lot of people can't even afford a mcdonald's meal + a bag of chips. Everywhere I look, fat is cheaper than protein, white bread is cheaper than whole-grain multigrain bread, white rice is cheaper than brown rice, a pack of sugar is cheaper than the same weight in fresh fruits and veggies, and a bottle of sauce made with nothing but salt and MSG is cheaper than a bottle of sauce made with natural ingredients. When you need to feed 2 teenagers with a budget of single-digit dollars per day, every penny counts.

AznHisoka 14y ago

I was in China for a month. And I had to look extremely hard to find 1 obese person everyday.

will_work4tears 14y ago
1. How long ago was this? 'Becoming a problem' implies that it is a new-ish thing, and an observation from 5 years ago isn't really current. 2. Are you sure you don't mean "hard to find 1 morbidly obese person everyday? You do realize that a BMI of 30 or greater is obese, right? And In non-tight and non-revealing clothes, you probably aren't even going to be able to tell a person with a BMI of 30-35 is obese. But they are according to studies like the linked article refers to. For instance, this guy is obese (BMI of 30.7): http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/511-220.html http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/511-220.html And this guy is overweight (BMI of 26.2): http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/603-210.html http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/603-210.html
- JoeAltmaier 14y ago
  SO the problem is, the definition of overweight has changed to 'anyone that doesn't look good in a bathing suit'?
  - will_work4tears 14y ago
    I don't think it's changed, I'm not commenting on that, merely saying most people don't realize they are, or are seeing an obese person. People think Obese = rolls of fat when in fact you can be pretty fit looking with clothes on. I'm pretty sure a BMI of 30+ is still not the healthiest. Just not as obvious as a person with a 40+ BMI (morbidly obese)

mistercow 14y ago

>Chinese people are now so addicted to sugar This is supposed to be a list of "facts" but in reality, the "sugar is addictive" hypothesis is still, well, a hypothesis. >that the government is scared that there will be political unrest if the price of sugar goes up It's the Chinese government. "Scared that there will be political unrest if X" is their default state for any untested X.

jere 14y ago
>This is supposed to be a list of "facts" but in reality, the "sugar is addictive" hypothesis is still, well, a hypothesis. I took addictive in the sense that we are "addicted to oil."
- jonathlee 14y ago
  That sense is just as nonsensical. Would you also say that people in the 19th century were "addicted to coal" and "addicted to whale oil" and that people before that were "addicted to wood fires"? Oil is just the latest, most economical energy source in an entire series of sources. In a few years modern-day Luddites will change to "addicted to natural gas" or "addicted to nuclear fission", "addicted to fusion" or whatever the most popular portable energy source is then. Whenever there is more of something (food, energy, comfort, luxury, pr0n) than someone approves of (Puritans, Luddites, environmental extremists, religionists, etc.), they demonize it by saying people are addicted to it. It's called propaganda.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    Eh, I would say that in some ways the analogy to an addiction makes sense for oil. The point is to illustrate a bad cycle that we have. Oil is our cheapest portable energy solution, so we use it in most of our existing technology that needs lots of portable energy. That has a negative impact on research into new portable energy solutions because it is unlikely that any can be backwards compatible with old technology. As a result, oil continues to be the cheapest portable energy solution even as it gets more and more expensive. The analogy isn't perfect, of course, but no analogy is. What makes no sense to me whatsoever is to try to extend this analogy to sugar.

brianbreslin 14y ago

Am I the only one who thought this post was all fluff? "I believe that the solution to this problem is exercise, and those who would like to decrease their weight should try different sport activities." What about eating healthier? That strikes me as a more effective and maintainable solution.

bonesinger 14y ago
you are absolutely right. Eating healthy is more important than exercise and the two together will lead to an overall improvement in health. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121015142405.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121015142405.ht... Though its a small sample and an extreme one at that, the contestants' diets accounted for approximately 65% of their weight loss.
- eru 14y ago
  > Eating healthy is more important than exercise For losing weight. For health in general, both seem about equally important. (And lots of exercise will allow you to get away with a crappy diet much easier.)
s8qnze982y 14y ago
+1 as well. most of the people with bad habits understands or (refuses to understand) what doing physical activity works out the symptom, not the cause. unfortunately, it's too easy to speculate on diets sitting on a chair.

Nursie 14y ago

I also enjoy cycling and used to cycle-commute. Unfortunately I have now moved to a cold, wet country and work too far from home for it to be practical, and am getting fatter...

s_henry_paulson 14y ago
A great substitute is to find a gym with spinning classes in the morning before work.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  It's not a great substitute - it costs ~$50-100 per month and an extra 45-90 minutes per day...instead of saving gas money. I too live in a cold wet land, but can't afford the cost in time or money.
- Nursie 14y ago
  But the gym sucks, cycling worked for me because it was actually fun! I need to find something else like that before I go up a(nother) trouser size.
eru 14y ago
How about (wo)manning up? Swedish mothers are very fond of saying (in Swedish): There's no bad weather, just inadequate clothing.
- Nursie 14y ago
  Err, nonsense. IMHO. I've just moved from Perth, Australia, where it is pleasant enough almost every morning to just to throw on shorts and a top and go for it. I'm now in the UK. Getting a face-full of road spray and having to manage your temperature (ugh it's cold, no wait now I'm moving it's hot) and try not to get drenched in either rain or just condensed sweat is frakking NASTY.
  - eru 14y ago
    Welcome to Europe! I'm also based in the UK. Cambridge to be exact. I commute by bike in any weather. English weather is actually quite tame.

dia80 14y ago

"Overweight people are now a global problem" My first thought was they are exerting too much pressure on the surface of the world and endangering the integrity of the crust... need to get out more...

atomical 14y ago

I've been a runner for a long time but occasionally I try new forms of exercise / fun. In the not too recent past I joined a rowing club. The dues were cheap and it's a great workout. And I take advantage of hiking if I'm in an area that has mountains.

tryitnow 14y ago

I think combining fairly elementary economics and physics can reveal the cause of obesity epidemics. Consumers seek to maximize the taste/cost ratio where cost = the monetary cost of food + time to prepare Sure you can eat healthy for cheap if you're willing to eat things that are not that tasty or if you're willing to spend time learning to prepare foods and then preparing them on a regular basis. I'd really like to see the economics behind that - like most things, stuff produced in mass is "cheaper" than stuff we make ourselves, maybe not in terms of monetary costs, but definitely in terms of labor savings. The tastiest things tend to pack a big caloric impact, which makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. Cheaper tasty calories lead to greater caloric intake, which often occurs at the same time an economy is shifting to less labor intensive work. This creates a perfect storm where caloric expenditure is declining at the same time caloric intake is increasing, leading to an obesity epidemic. It's simple physics, conservation of energy/matter. The energy intake of humans increases, but their expenditure declines, the surplus has to go somewhere. That somewhere is our fat stores.