4 ms·

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 wh

by 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.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  It is quite true that the human body is subject to the limits described by thermodynamics (this should not be controversial). That doesn't make it any easier to determine what calories out happens to be for a given person on a given day. It does mean that a reasonable estimate can be made and evaluated against a well tracked dietary intake (but well tracked there has its own set of problems).
- goostavos 14y ago
  Out of curiosity, what were the arguments that convinced you that simple calories in/out ins't valid? I'm personally a tiny bit incredulous anytime someone mentions that they've tried cutting calories, but with no results. I've always wondered how they continue to get an energy surplus in the absence of input. These seemingly perpetual motion machines would be of great interest to science, I'm sure ;)
  - polyfractal 14y ago
    To be fair, the human body is pretty good at limiting calorie depletion when caloric intake decreases. When you cut calories, your body automatically scales back how much you are using. Of course, this is why any good diet needs to be coupled with an exercise program. Even better, increase your caloric intake, switch to a high-protein diet and start lifting some heavy weights. Muscle creation is metabolically expensive, and muscle maintenance uses a lot of calories. Furthermore, even though muscle is heavier than fat (omg you may gain weight!) it looks a lot slimmer and more fit. Moral of the story: lift weights, eat protein, get fit, lose "mirror" pounds (even if you actually put more mass on)
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    All arguments went along the line: the body is a very complex mechanism and assuming that cutting down on calories will result in weight loss is an oversimplification; also that not all calories are equal. Example discussion I pulled out of google: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=710399 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=710399
- xsmasher 14y ago
talmand 14y ago
In the US I always felt part of the problem was the fear fat campaign we've had for so long that has convinced people to have diets that are low in fat and high in carbs as opposed to a more balanced approach. Plus so many of our foods here are processed, including almost everything having cheap sugars in them, that it cannot be healthy. I have no evidence to back it up but I would think the spread of obesity can possibly be tied to the spread of industrialized processed foods, just as you say.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  We were a lot thinner back when we ate primarily carbs, most of which were processed (historically the American diet was primarily white flour and potatos). https://docs.google.com/a/patch.com/viewer?url=http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/foodsupply/foodsupply1909-2004report.pdf https://docs.google.com/a/patch.com/viewer?url=http://www.cn...
  - travisp 14y ago
    Putting aside the problems of accurately figuring out diets, your charts show very little different consumption in total carbohydrates per day. In 1909-19 it shows 487g carbs per day, and in 2004 is shows 481g carbs per day. The carbs in 1909 were often processed, but there was less sugar (potatoes are starch, and don't contain fructose). Sugar/sweets consumption increased from 12.9% of the diet in 1909-19 to 17.3% of the diet in 2004. Further, your chart shows that meat consumption went down (13.3% of diet in 1909-19 to 8.2% in 2004), whole milk consumption switched to lowfat milk and cheese, green vegetable consumption dropped, butter dropped (4.4% to 1%), lard & beef tallow consumption dropped (3.8% to 1.4%). These animal fats were replaced by salad and cooking oils (vegetable oils), going from 0.7% of the diet to 11.1% of the diet. Basically, while total carbohydrate and cholesterol consumption remained the same, Americans began eating more sugars and less starches and ate less animal fat and more vegetable fat.
  - roc 14y ago
    I think we may benefit from drawing a distinction between processed foods as in processed flour and processed foods as in "rolled off an assembly line with added sugars, preservatives, etc." My concern is much more for the latter. Paleo-fans may well have a point about whether flour and such is less healthful than raw plant matter. But that difference didn't seem to manifest into a society-wide weight problem until industrially packaged food gained wide circulation. Not even the achievement of food-security or the introduction of 'fast food' aligns with the obesity problem like the massive increase of consumption of ready-to-eat types of foods. Including, notably, chain restaurants peddling industrial foods, displacing local restaurants cooking from scratch (or at lest more often from scratch, or from a place much closer to scratch).

by roc 14y ago

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.

maxerickson 14y ago
It is quite true that the human body is subject to the limits described by thermodynamics (this should not be controversial). That doesn't make it any easier to determine what calories out happens to be for a given person on a given day. It does mean that a reasonable estimate can be made and evaluated against a well tracked dietary intake (but well tracked there has its own set of problems).
goostavos 14y ago
Out of curiosity, what were the arguments that convinced you that simple calories in/out ins't valid? I'm personally a tiny bit incredulous anytime someone mentions that they've tried cutting calories, but with no results. I've always wondered how they continue to get an energy surplus in the absence of input. These seemingly perpetual motion machines would be of great interest to science, I'm sure ;)
- polyfractal 14y ago
  To be fair, the human body is pretty good at limiting calorie depletion when caloric intake decreases. When you cut calories, your body automatically scales back how much you are using. Of course, this is why any good diet needs to be coupled with an exercise program. Even better, increase your caloric intake, switch to a high-protein diet and start lifting some heavy weights. Muscle creation is metabolically expensive, and muscle maintenance uses a lot of calories. Furthermore, even though muscle is heavier than fat (omg you may gain weight!) it looks a lot slimmer and more fit. Moral of the story: lift weights, eat protein, get fit, lose "mirror" pounds (even if you actually put more mass on)
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  All arguments went along the line: the body is a very complex mechanism and assuming that cutting down on calories will result in weight loss is an oversimplification; also that not all calories are equal. Example discussion I pulled out of google: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=710399 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=710399
xsmasher 14y ago

talmand 14y ago

In the US I always felt part of the problem was the fear fat campaign we've had for so long that has convinced people to have diets that are low in fat and high in carbs as opposed to a more balanced approach. Plus so many of our foods here are processed, including almost everything having cheap sugars in them, that it cannot be healthy. I have no evidence to back it up but I would think the spread of obesity can possibly be tied to the spread of industrialized processed foods, just as you say.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
We were a lot thinner back when we ate primarily carbs, most of which were processed (historically the American diet was primarily white flour and potatos). https://docs.google.com/a/patch.com/viewer?url=http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/foodsupply/foodsupply1909-2004report.pdf https://docs.google.com/a/patch.com/viewer?url=http://www.cn...
- travisp 14y ago
  Putting aside the problems of accurately figuring out diets, your charts show very little different consumption in total carbohydrates per day. In 1909-19 it shows 487g carbs per day, and in 2004 is shows 481g carbs per day. The carbs in 1909 were often processed, but there was less sugar (potatoes are starch, and don't contain fructose). Sugar/sweets consumption increased from 12.9% of the diet in 1909-19 to 17.3% of the diet in 2004. Further, your chart shows that meat consumption went down (13.3% of diet in 1909-19 to 8.2% in 2004), whole milk consumption switched to lowfat milk and cheese, green vegetable consumption dropped, butter dropped (4.4% to 1%), lard & beef tallow consumption dropped (3.8% to 1.4%). These animal fats were replaced by salad and cooking oils (vegetable oils), going from 0.7% of the diet to 11.1% of the diet. Basically, while total carbohydrate and cholesterol consumption remained the same, Americans began eating more sugars and less starches and ate less animal fat and more vegetable fat.
- roc 14y ago
  I think we may benefit from drawing a distinction between processed foods as in processed flour and processed foods as in "rolled off an assembly line with added sugars, preservatives, etc." My concern is much more for the latter. Paleo-fans may well have a point about whether flour and such is less healthful than raw plant matter. But that difference didn't seem to manifest into a society-wide weight problem until industrially packaged food gained wide circulation. Not even the achievement of food-security or the introduction of 'fast food' aligns with the obesity problem like the massive increase of consumption of ready-to-eat types of foods. Including, notably, chain restaurants peddling industrial foods, displacing local restaurants cooking from scratch (or at lest more often from scratch, or from a place much closer to scratch).