Are some people doomed to obesity? - The science of weight loss
Replies
-
rubbish that's lite fair.
I have zero issues using the C word- but that was totally uncalled for considering the vanilla-ness of the comment you seem to have your panties all wadded up about.
I don't really know what makes it more uncalled for than "you're off topic, thanks for playing", but I guess this is even more off-topic so - I agree to disagree about that and will abscond from this thread as of immediately.
-1 -
Wow. No. Fresh food in the US is way cheaper. Way cheaper. I could easily chop off $200-$300/month on my grocery bill if I lived anywhere there. We get killed in Canada for food prices overall. The only region in the Canada I've seen with even remotely comparable prices are certain parts of BC.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Isn't odd that most of the people that have been doomed with bad genetics are in the USA? And that these people that share genetic ancestry in let's say Europe aren't obese in general?
I don't think anyone is saying that genetics are all that matter when they say that genetics play a role. Obviously there's more to it, because the obesity stats have changed so dramatically.
If that is the case, wouldn't there be similar %s in Obese in Europe and the USA?
Only if the environmental factors are identical in the US and Europe, and they obviously are not.
Canada also has a lower overweight and obesity rate than the US and we also tend to eat more fruits and vegitables as well. The major difference that I can see is that food in general is more expensive in Canada than the US but we also do not give farm subsidies so there is no cheap crop advantage for corn, soy and wheat like you see in the US so fruit and vegitables are relatively cheaper compared to highly processed foods and fast foods. We often here the complaints from our southern neighbours that it's more affordable to eat fast food and highly processed foods than it is to eat fresh produce but in Canada chips are generally no cheaper than apples and oranges on a weight comparisson (e.g. where I live is actually expensive and apples and oranges are generally $1 to $2 per pound while chips are around $2 to $3 for less than half a pound).
Food pricing and availability is going to be a huge factor in the eating habits of a population and in the US it seems that it's harder and more expensive to eat healthy -- at least that seems to be the concensus.
Also Canada does have farm subsidies.
I have lived in SE idaho and food was certainly cheaper but it's relative costs I refere to. Now is fresh food more expensive? Many say it is and I won't argue since it's been a long time but if that's the general perception than that's what affects your shipping habits rightly or wrongly.
Could you tell me what sub programs we have? My family farms dairy and cattle and receive no subs but there are marketing boards. If you can show I have no problem accepting that we do but I have not seen them personally.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Isn't odd that most of the people that have been doomed with bad genetics are in the USA? And that these people that share genetic ancestry in let's say Europe aren't obese in general?
I don't think anyone is saying that genetics are all that matter when they say that genetics play a role. Obviously there's more to it, because the obesity stats have changed so dramatically.
If that is the case, wouldn't there be similar %s in Obese in Europe and the USA?
Only if the environmental factors are identical in the US and Europe, and they obviously are not.
And what environmental factors do you speak of? wheelhouse touches on one. Food pricing.
Where people live, how people travel, how much activity people get in their daily life, cultural factors, etc.
And I'm saying that genetics is a small part. Not a major part like people are stating. Same general genetics in the USA and Europe. Yet the USA has a much higher rate of obesity.
The USA also does a lot worse on some of those tests for school kids. That there are natural differences between people doesn't mean that it's remotely determinative, especially across a relatively diverse population.
My guess is that there are factors that make it especially easy for some people to put on weight barring environmental factors that tend to prevent it. The US currently probably is more lacking in those factors (as compared to historically and other countries) although in many ways the differences are getting to be less and they are probably going to become more like us.
Also, apparently the increase in obesity stalled at a certain point here, which could well be because of natural or genetic factors too.
I am not saying that this means anyone can't help being fat or "waah poor me" or anything like that. (I do not intend to get fat again, and if I do it's because of my own actions or inactions.)0 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Isn't odd that most of the people that have been doomed with bad genetics are in the USA? And that these people that share genetic ancestry in let's say Europe aren't obese in general?
I don't think anyone is saying that genetics are all that matter when they say that genetics play a role. Obviously there's more to it, because the obesity stats have changed so dramatically.
If that is the case, wouldn't there be similar %s in Obese in Europe and the USA?
Only if the environmental factors are identical in the US and Europe, and they obviously are not.
Canada also has a lower overweight and obesity rate than the US and we also tend to eat more fruits and vegitables as well. The major difference that I can see is that food in general is more expensive in Canada than the US but we also do not give farm subsidies so there is no cheap crop advantage for corn, soy and wheat like you see in the US so fruit and vegitables are relatively cheaper compared to highly processed foods and fast foods.
I'm curious if this is so, and I suspect not. That is, even if products containing corn and soy are cheaper in the US (and I doubt the domestic subsidies matter for that, since UD food companies probably market in Canada--the main effect would be an increased production of corn and soy in the US, and clearly we sell outside the US in large part), that would not mean that veggies and fruits are less available here.
One difference I'm familiar with (at least seeing argued) is that US residents tend to be more dependent on cars and travel more car miles vs. Canadians. At least, although I'd have to check the stats, that was always raised back when I used to read Atlantic Cities regularly when people would try to blame our size and low density for the US's figures vs. Europe.
The car vs. biking/walking thing is one of the differences I was thinking of between the US and Europe, although there are many.in Canada chips are generally no cheaper than apples and oranges on a weight comparisson (e.g. where I live is actually expensive and apples and oranges are generally $1 to $2 per pound while chips are around $2 to $3 for less than half a pound).
They aren't here either, but there's tremendous difference within the US. I bet they are more expensive in certain parts of Canada just because my parents used to live in Alaska and I know the produce there was far more expensive than what I'm used to in Illinois (or than they currently experience in Washington).in the US it seems that it's harder and more expensive to eat healthy -- at least that seems to be the concensus.
I think this is false, except perhaps for a small segment of the population (food deserts). It's reasonably cheap to eat healthy (again, food is on average cheap in the US); it's just reasonably cheap and convenient to buy convenience foods.
As I tried to state that the price difference is perhaps a perception and not a reality. However, Canadians do eat more fruits and vegitables than Americans and our food is more expensive. We do not import a lot of manufacturered US food most just set up factories up here to avoid duty and to cater to our tastes. Canada is a net exporter of the big three crops already so I doubt we import any raw US crop.
I will see of a can find some price comparison for food groups between our countries.
ETA: here is a comparison I found: moneytipscanada.ca/us-canada-food-price-comparison/
I'll keep looking around for more as well since this is a small chart...
Hmm here are some from the main government stat collectors in each country but the differences in measurements makes it a little tricky at times:
statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/econ155a-eng.htm
bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/AverageRetailFoodAndEnergyPrices_USandMidwest_Table.htm0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Isn't odd that most of the people that have been doomed with bad genetics are in the USA? And that these people that share genetic ancestry in let's say Europe aren't obese in general?
I don't think anyone is saying that genetics are all that matter when they say that genetics play a role. Obviously there's more to it, because the obesity stats have changed so dramatically.
If that is the case, wouldn't there be similar %s in Obese in Europe and the USA?
Obesity rates are climbing worldwide. The US is still the most obese, but there are quite a few countries that aren't far behind us (including some in Europe). http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Obesity-Update-2014.pdf
More to the point though, a difference in obesity rates between American and Europeans would actually be more of an argument for a genetic component, IMO. Although the population of the US was originally mostly of European descent, we've had about 200 years to mix up the genetic bag and boy, have we. We have healthy doses of lots of different genetic groups mixed into the overall population, including Native American (whom are well-known to have high obesity rates on a modern diet) and Latin American (Mexico is right behind us on the worldwide obesity chart). So it isn't really fair to say that the population of the US would respond exactly like Europeans just because the US was originally populated by a few European countries. The genetics are far too mixed up now.
All that aside, I fully acknowledge that although I believe genetics play a role, that's obviously not all there is to it. The US is a country of excess -- we have a ridiculous number of choices at our fingertips on a daily basis, and many of those are high calorie and delicious. It's easy for us to get away with sitting in our chairs all day and doing nothing (even at work). And I think we as a culture don't have as much discipline about our eating habits as other cultures do. All of these things add up to a country that's at the head of the race for the most obese country in the world.0 -
HAbennettinfinity wrote: »
glad I could clear that up for you.
perhaps saying cart will catch on now. LULZ
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »
We often here the complaints from our southern neighbours that it's more affordable to eat fast food and highly processed foods than it is to eat fresh produce but in Canada chips are generally no cheaper than apples and oranges on a weight comparisson (e.g. where I live is actually expensive and apples and oranges are generally $1 to $2 per pound while chips are around $2 to $3 for less than half a pound).
It is far cheaper and faster to get your calories from "bad" foods than from nutritious, protein- and fiber-rich foods in Canada. I used to get a large jar of peanut butter for $10 and a large bag of chocolate chips for $20 about once a month. Any time I felt hungry I would have a (large) tablespoon or two of each, and get back to my day (maybe 120 "meals" a month). This would be almost all I ate for the month, except when being treated out by my boyfriend. Now I'm dieting, I spend $15 to get the basics for a salad (about 7 salads) and they take 5 minutes each to make. Then I could spend $17 for the basics (about 9 meals, with some veggies and beans left over) and 2 hours and have chili. And now I just have to come up with the money for the rest of the 900 calories I need that day. Or, for the same calories, no prep time, and $2.50, I could have a bag of chips (or my peanut butter, or spend half that on a Mars bar). Getting your calories throught healthy food takes more time and money, and eating nutrition-poor (but calorie-dense) food leads to weight gain.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »
We often here the complaints from our southern neighbours that it's more affordable to eat fast food and highly processed foods than it is to eat fresh produce but in Canada chips are generally no cheaper than apples and oranges on a weight comparisson (e.g. where I live is actually expensive and apples and oranges are generally $1 to $2 per pound while chips are around $2 to $3 for less than half a pound).
It is far cheaper and faster to get your calories from "bad" foods than from nutritious, protein- and fiber-rich foods in Canada. I used to get a large jar of peanut butter for $10 and a large bag of chocolate chips for $20 about once a month. Any time I felt hungry I would have a (large) tablespoon or two of each, and get back to my day (maybe 120 "meals" a month). This would be almost all I ate for the month, except when being treated out by my boyfriend. Now I'm dieting, I spend $15 to get the basics for a salad (about 7 salads) and they take 5 minutes each to make. Then I could spend $17 for the basics (about 9 meals, with some veggies and beans left over) and 2 hours and have chili. And now I just have to come up with the money for the rest of the 900 calories I need that day. Or, for the same calories, no prep time, and $2.50, I could have a bag of chips (or my peanut butter, or spend half that on a Mars bar). Getting your calories throught healthy food takes more time and money, and eating nutrition-poor (but calorie-dense) food leads to weight gain.
I certainly won't argue with your statements of faster and the idea that it's cheaper is always the general feeling I get from any discussion on food choices. I believe that this is the main reason why people eat too many calorically dense but nutritionally poor foods and end up gaining weight. One big difference between now and when I grew up is that there are far fewer one income homes where one person (almost always the wife) stayed home and prepared meals from scratch. Since everyone is rushed we get a lot more eating out and a lot more fast food intake.
However, I don't believe that processed and fast foods are really cheaper. It wouldn't make economic sense for any company to sell you what you can make cheaper than you can make it since they don't buy it for much less than you do. What you get from processed foods is a lot of cheap fillers and a little bit of real food and that's not really the same thing at all.
ETA please don't misunderstand that I agree that processed food can seem cheaper but when you compare it really isn't. This really does go to my own point about food choices and price perceptions.0 -
onelentilatatime wrote: »The science of weight loss
E=MC^2
Energy and mass are the same thing in different forms. That's science. If you have too much mass you've obtained too much energy (calories).
The biggest problem I've witnessed is that people don't like the notion that different people have different energy demands. If I give my wife a piece of pumpkin pie half the size of mine she's going to complain even though I'm nearly twice her size. It's apparently not fair that I have a larger slice even if it makes her fat and I need the energy. Pointing out this fact makes me mean.
Transportation is a huge factor in obesity as well. I think this was already mentioned in that there's not much incentive to weigh less.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »baconslave wrote: »EatsNotTreats wrote: »EatsNotTreats wrote: »Many diseases usually result from a combination of nature (genotype) and nurture (phenotype). So is it possible that there is a genetic variability in obesity tendency? Absolutely. Is it also possible that the obese people have to make changes to what they are doing if they want to be thin? Absolutely.
So just out of curiosity, why do people think that there is an obesity epidemic now which was not there before??? I understand that this is a CICO forum and people will say well, it's because obese people eat more and exercise less. Ok, if this is your theory, fine.
But why are they doing it NOW??? Why was there never an obesity epidemic before????? And why has the number of EXTREMELY OBESE people skyrocketed in the last few decades????
Please don't misuse scientific terminology. It confuses people, which results in confused posts down the line.
Nature refers to inheritable factors - more than just the genotype.
Nurture refers to the environment, which is not phenotype.
Phenotype is an individual's set of observed characteristics resulting from the interaction of the genotype with the environment.
To answer the question, yes, it's CICO. By default, obese people are eating more calories than they burn. They may be very active, and eating too much. Others may eat very little, but are completely sedentary so are still eating too much. Some may have reduced burns because of a disease like hypothyroidism that contribute.
Pretty simply, we are becoming less and less active. Food is easily available and relatively cheap. People in general are not that educated on the energy content of the foods they eat. People are also better able to live while being extremely obese - better medical care, jobs available that don't require mobility the extremely obese generally don't have, etc - a bit less pressure to be at least minimally physically capable.
Perfect storm to contribute to obesity.
Actually, I meant, THIS is hilarious.
For those who don't get why this is funny:
Genotype IS the "internally coded, inheritable information" which is "nature" in the "nature vs. nurture" paradigm.
There is no "nurture" without phenotype being involved. Nurture IS the sum of environmental factors PLUS phenotype.
So how again was the terminology misused?
Phenotype isn't nurture. It is the composite of the organism's morphology, physical properties and behaviours, some of which are influenced by biology and some by environment. As some of the factors are purely determined by genetic make up, you cannot say these are down to nurture. Equally, genotype can be influenced by environment by the process of natural selection.
So the terminology is wrong and simplistic.
Thanks for the explanation while I was busy.
There are additional inheritable factors beyond genotype, but I didn't want to get into details since it's beyond the scope of the post, and I thought it would be unnecessary and, again, potentially confusing.
Anyone who's curious can look up research on the 'maternal effect'. Basically, the fetus not only inherits the genotype, but also a host of small molecules in the ovum (proteins, mRNA, probably others like regulatory RNAs as well) that can affect development and the offspring's phenotype. In some cases, it can induce a phenotype not indicated by the offspring's genotype.
0 -
Absolutely stunned at how many people can't tell the difference between "genetics plays a role in how likely someone is to be overweight" and "genetics is the only factor that determines whether someone will be overweight." The first is obviously true, the second is obviously not.
Twin studies show with absolutely no doubt that the genetic factors outweigh the environmental factors when it comes to body weight. That is: identical twins are closer in weight than non-identical twins; and studies of twins raised together and apart show that the environment in which a child is raised has far less impact on weight than their genetics.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119832/
However, that said: this is not a controlled experiment where they took twins and placed them in isolation chambers and doled out their meals in 400 calorie portions. So perhaps what's inherited is NOT a "low BMR" or "slow metabolism" but a preference or dispreference for exercise or certain types of foods like sugars and fats. I think we've all known someone who is rail-thin and never gets hungry and has to be reminded to eat.
Or possibly a genetic predisposition to attain a certain body mass, in which case the hunger reflex would respond to the perceived "underfeeding" of a body that simply wanted to be larger. As Gary Taubes says, teenage boys don't get tall just because they eat a lot - they eat a lot because they're getting taller.
So, can someone with a genetic predisposition to obesity behave in such a way as to not become obese? Of course, because otherwise every pair of twins would weigh almost exactly the same, which clearly isn't the case. Is it harder for them to maintain a socially acceptable weight? Of course it is. They have to do stuff they don't like, like exercising more and eating less. And the more stressed you get with other stuff (family responsibilities, work, financial problems, health problems), the harder it is to keep doing stuff you don't like.
So the recipe for obesity is: genetic predisposition + busy/stressful lifestyle + high availability of cheap high energy food + low availability of exercise in the normal routine. In other words, America.
Being one of a pair of monozygotic twins I can actually speak on this from experience. My brother at one time was 202 when I was 142 then he lost weight and has maintained 155 for several years. I went the other way for a while and ended up at 198 at my heaviest dropped back to 165 then back up to 196 over 5 years and now I'm down to 153. A lot of it has to do with lifestyle at the time as we both gained while we stopped working out and were eating due to stress etc.
So you can certainly get a huge difference in even twins based on environment but either of us could have just kept gaining weight if we didn't make the choice to modify our behaviours and take off the weight by getting more active and eating more responsibly. Oh, and one of the biggest motivating factors in the weight loss and more healthy lifestyle was the ribbing of the thinner contra the heavier twin. It's hard to be 40 pounds heavier than the guy wearing virtually the same face as your but who is much leaner than you!0 -
Canadian Obesity Rate, expected to be 21% by 2019. It has tripled in the past thirty years.
US obesity rate in 2010 is 35.7%. The Wikipedia article shows that obesity rates are higher in the poorer southern states, which is what I would expect.
My trips to the US I was shocked at the restaurant portions. Huge to my Canadian eyes. I am pretty sure our Big Macs are the same size, though.0 -
Canadian Obesity Rate, expected to be 21% by 2019. It has tripled in the past thirty years.
US obesity rate in 2010 is 35.7%. The Wikipedia article shows that obesity rates are higher in the poorer southern states, which is what I would expect.
My trips to the US I was shocked at the restaurant portions. Huge to my Canadian eyes.
I used to live in Idaho and the buffets there were amazing (we mainly ate at North's Chuck Wagon when we lived there). Drinks aren't normally included in Canadian buffets but they seem to be included as a standard in all the ones I've eaten at in the US and sugary drinks by the gallon aren't going to help your waistline! I also had a conversation with one of my American inlaws when he came to visit and he couldn't believe that he couldn't get a 32oz steak anywhere in our city. The largest seems to be a 16oz so he ended up ordering 2.
US and Canada are very similar cultures but there are some interesting difference.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Absolutely stunned at how many people can't tell the difference between "genetics plays a role in how likely someone is to be overweight" and "genetics is the only factor that determines whether someone will be overweight." The first is obviously true, the second is obviously not.
Exactly! With essentially everything else we do there are natural differences between people. No one gets upset if I say that school is easier for some people than others, for example. So why it is offensive to suggest that some people might have more challenges than others in staying slim? We still don't know exactly who is one and who is the other, and none of it dooms us to be fat.
It's not so much offensive I think, as aggravating. Mostly because we hear the genetics card played as an excuse for why a person "can't" lose weight so often. So, we tend to jump all over anyone who mentions genetics, even if that is not in fact their mindset.
My suspicion is that the vast majority of healthy people just aren't all that different as far as the genetics of metabolism goes. It's an extremely tightly regulated system that is not particularly tolerant of variance before you have some manner of disease state (or death). As an aside, it is interesting to me how many diseases are getting linked back to metabolic dysfunctions lately, and surprising that this is a relatively new direction in immunology research since metabolic products are a significant component of our immune defenses.
If there is a significant inherited component, I'd think it'd be more in our behaviors. But, how significant inheritance is when it comes to psychology, I don't know. There seems to be some, according to some papers I read ages ago - but that's not my field at all.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Canada is a net exporter of the big three crops already so I doubt we import any raw US crop.
I'm not talking about importing raw crop, but generally you can't avoid having domestic price be affected by the international market, so the idea that food prices for items that use soy and corn (which is a huge category, of course) wouldn't be affected by US subsidies independent of what Canada does (which I've never researched) seems wrong. It's like trying to separate the domestic oil market from the international one.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that food prices are identical in the US and Canada, only that I am skeptical that the obesity problem in the US relates to food costs being high (or "healthy" foods being expensive here) in that food on average tends to be cheap in the US when compared with other countries.
0 -
Canadian Obesity Rate, expected to be 21% by 2019. It has tripled in the past thirty years.
US obesity rate in 2010 is 35.7%. The Wikipedia article shows that obesity rates are higher in the poorer southern states, which is what I would expect.
My trips to the US I was shocked at the restaurant portions. Huge to my Canadian eyes. I am pretty sure our Big Macs are the same size, though.
Yes, portion sizes are one of the significant environmental differences.
These numbers are also interesting in light of the fact that the growth of the obesity rate in the US is supposed to have slowed or stopped. It's quite possible that the US is just ahead of Canada and there's some natural limit on the percentage of the population likely to become obese.
0 -
Canadian Obesity Rate, expected to be 21% by 2019. It has tripled in the past thirty years.
US obesity rate in 2010 is 35.7%. The Wikipedia article shows that obesity rates are higher in the poorer southern states, which is what I would expect.
My trips to the US I was shocked at the restaurant portions. Huge to my Canadian eyes. I am pretty sure our Big Macs are the same size, though.
I can see this when you look at places like Macaroni Grill or Chili's. Anything other than the big chains have portion sizes no different than the places I've been to in Toronto.
Interestingly enough, given all of the exclamations about huge portion size I've seen from some Europeans on this board, I observed the same in France this year. Large portions everywhere we went ( an entire 10" calzone for a meal! ), except for a couple of 3-star restaurants that served about the same as I'd expect from fine dining here.
We went to Michel Bras' restaurant and ordered the seven course tasting menu. Here, we'd expect <= 5 bites per plate on a tasting menu with lots of courses. There? Full size plates. Absolutely no difference in size between the tasting menu and ordering a single dish, and those dishes were larger than I'd usually expect from fine dining. Plus, the last three courses turned out to be desserts. It kind of ruined the experience, having to send back plates nearly full and getting not-very-nice looks from the wait staff. Or maybe that's because we complained about the pebble we found in one of our salads, and the apple seeds and cores in two others. We had no idea that serving inedibles for dinner was becoming a thing.
0 -
My suspicion is that the vast majority of healthy people just aren't all that different as far as the genetics of metabolism goes. It's an extremely tightly regulated system that is not particularly tolerant of variance before you have some manner of disease state (or death). As an aside, it is interesting to me how many diseases are getting linked back to metabolic dysfunctions lately, and surprising that this is a relatively new direction in immunology research since metabolic products are a significant component of our immune defenses.
I actually find it kind of amazing that it's not easier to get substantially overweight or obese, that so many people manage to avoid it without micromanaging what they eat (which is different than claiming they don't have to watch what they eat or exercise).If there is a significant inherited component, I'd think it'd be more in our behaviors. But, how significant inheritance is when it comes to psychology, I don't know. There seems to be some, according to some papers I read ages ago - but that's not my field at all.
I think I'm talking more about behavior--specifically about the fact that lots of people naturally get more active or stop eating when they've had enough vs. others who don't seem to have the same cues or they are easily overridden. (I am not necessarily claiming this is especially hard for me. Despite the fact that I can obviously become substantially overweight I think losing weight is pretty easy for me and I have found maintenance at various times not especially difficult.)
On metabolism, I think there are studies that indicate that there's quite a bit of natural variance (within a range) but there's obviously more difference just based on stuff like size, and having a high metabolism doesn't necessarily prevent you from gaining weight at all, as lots of people with quite high metabolisms continue to gain. So I don't think the argument that there are natural (or genetic) differences is primarily about the claim that some people can just eat and eat. It's about the fact that they don't have the tendency to eat and eat.
0 -
My trips to the US I was shocked at the restaurant portions. Huge to my Canadian eyes. I am pretty sure our Big Macs are the same size, though.
I find the same compared to the UK. I was amazed when I first visited Disney World at the number of people walking round eating turkey legs, which looked a similar size to a Sunday Roast.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I actually find it kind of amazing that it's not easier to get substantially overweight or obese, that so many people manage to avoid it without micromanaging what they eat (which is different than claiming they don't have to watch what they eat or exercise).
My thoughts exactly. I think it's funny (ironic funny, not haha funny) that I am not allowed to point out to the people who have trouble gaining that they could "just eat more", lest I be accused of thin-shaming. I guess I'm willing to believe that some people have trouble eating enough to sustain a high enough weight. I'm a little more accepting now that I have one child who simply doesn't care about food and has to be prodded to eat.
But god forbid I should suggest that some people also have higher hunger levels, lower exercise proclivities, or otherwise have bodies that naturally tend toward behaviors that keep the fat on. Because THOSE people just lack self-control *eye roll*.
And everyone else is allowed to tell me that exercise will make me feel "energetic". No, it makes YOU feel energetic. It makes ME feel exhausted.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Canada is a net exporter of the big three crops already so I doubt we import any raw US crop.
I'm not talking about importing raw crop, but generally you can't avoid having domestic price be affected by the international market, so the idea that food prices for items that use soy and corn (which is a huge category, of course) wouldn't be affected by US subsidies independent of what Canada does (which I've never researched) seems wrong. It's like trying to separate the domestic oil market from the international one.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that food prices are identical in the US and Canada, only that I am skeptical that the obesity problem in the US relates to food costs being high (or "healthy" foods being expensive here) in that food on average tends to be cheap in the US when compared with other countries.
I offer the relative costs as a hypothesis since it always seems to come up when discussing why people don't eat enough vegetables or fruits. You often hear people say that it's too expensive to eat healthfully even though the prices of all foods are very reasonable in the US without a doubt. Transportation can be a big issue and does seem to show up as well in both countries but I would be skeptical that this is the big reason for the differences in our countries since I don't believe that Canadians live any more active lives than Americans in general. Baring the activity levels there must be something on the intake side and certainly the price and availability fast foods and highly processed foods are going to be the main focus to explain the differences.
I'm sure there have been more than a few studies that examine factors between our countries to determine what factors are likely to be responsible for the higher levels of obesity in the US. I should see if I can track them down.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Canadian Obesity Rate, expected to be 21% by 2019. It has tripled in the past thirty years.
US obesity rate in 2010 is 35.7%. The Wikipedia article shows that obesity rates are higher in the poorer southern states, which is what I would expect.
My trips to the US I was shocked at the restaurant portions. Huge to my Canadian eyes. I am pretty sure our Big Macs are the same size, though.
Yes, portion sizes are one of the significant environmental differences.
These numbers are also interesting in light of the fact that the growth of the obesity rate in the US is supposed to have slowed or stopped. It's quite possible that the US is just ahead of Canada and there's some natural limit on the percentage of the population likely to become obese.
That's a possibility, we certainly have followed the US in many other population trends. It might just be taking us longer or we may cap out lower. Only time will tell.
0 -
onelentilatatime wrote: »They start with the perennial question of why someone people seem to be able to eat what they want and not put on weight.
Because, consciously or not, they don't want to eat more than they burn.
0 -
In europe, there is better infrastructure for walking as a primary mode of travel.JeffseekingV wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Isn't odd that most of the people that have been doomed with bad genetics are in the USA? And that these people that share genetic ancestry in let's say Europe aren't obese in general?
I don't think anyone is saying that genetics are all that matter when they say that genetics play a role. Obviously there's more to it, because the obesity stats have changed so dramatically.
If that is the case, wouldn't there be similar %s in Obese in Europe and the USA?
Only if the environmental factors are identical in the US and Europe, and they obviously are not.
And what environmental factors do you speak of? wheelhouse touches on one. Food pricing.
Here, we are a car centric society. That's a big one.
0 -
I laughed a little.
Why is it that here in the US we're so uncomfortable with it, but the folks I know in the UK use it like I use salt on a steak.
0 -
As somebody who takes this medication and does well on it, I have to say there it more to it than just desiccated pig thyroid. They have to have the proper ratio of T3/T4, so all batches have to be tested and adjusted, pigs do not all have 100% great balance of T3/T4 any more than humans do. If you were to take straight desiccated thyroid that did not go through this process, you would never have a "standard" dosage so you would be a lot more up and down (as happens with Hashimotos anyway) as happened in the old days when people just took desiccated hormone that was not ensured to have the proper ratio. Also T3 is the active form of thryoid hormone (after your body converts it from T4) so the correct ratio of this is not going to be there in the thyroid gland. Many with thyroid issues also have conversion problems (if T4 does not work well for you, you have a conversion problem, your body can't make it into the active form well enough).onelentilatatime wrote: »And thank you for being the first person ever to say the phrase "dehydrated pig thyroid" to me.0 -
Daily physical movement are polar opposites from my experiences visiting a living in Europe, not to mention food purchase habits and far fewer fast food choices in a general sense. They eat better and move more. Italy consumes 3 times the pasta and has single digit obesity, but they're also getting fatter with the increase of fast food chain operations springing up everywhere, France as well.JeffseekingV wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Isn't odd that most of the people that have been doomed with bad genetics are in the USA? And that these people that share genetic ancestry in let's say Europe aren't obese in general?
I don't think anyone is saying that genetics are all that matter when they say that genetics play a role. Obviously there's more to it, because the obesity stats have changed so dramatically.
If that is the case, wouldn't there be similar %s in Obese in Europe and the USA?
Obesity rates are climbing worldwide. The US is still the most obese, but there are quite a few countries that aren't far behind us (including some in Europe). http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Obesity-Update-2014.pdf
More to the point though, a difference in obesity rates between American and Europeans would actually be more of an argument for a genetic component, IMO. Although the population of the US was originally mostly of European descent, we've had about 200 years to mix up the genetic bag and boy, have we. We have healthy doses of lots of different genetic groups mixed into the overall population, including Native American (whom are well-known to have high obesity rates on a modern diet) and Latin American (Mexico is right behind us on the worldwide obesity chart). So it isn't really fair to say that the population of the US would respond exactly like Europeans just because the US was originally populated by a few European countries. The genetics are far too mixed up now.
All that aside, I fully acknowledge that although I believe genetics play a role, that's obviously not all there is to it. The US is a country of excess -- we have a ridiculous number of choices at our fingertips on a daily basis, and many of those are high calorie and delicious. It's easy for us to get away with sitting in our chairs all day and doing nothing (even at work). And I think we as a culture don't have as much discipline about our eating habits as other cultures do. All of these things add up to a country that's at the head of the race for the most obese country in the world.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions