"Americans Exercise More....Obesity Rates Still Climbing"
Options
Replies
-
A big part of the problem is that people have no idea how many calories they really eat (and, as others point out, how few calories exercise burns comparatively). Any meal from pretty much any restaurant, fast food or not, is easily at least 700-800 calories (yes, even the salads). And that's not including a drink.
I remember the "sticker shock" when I first started tracking my food. Of course I was overweight! Cooking at home and being mindful of empty calories makes a big difference.11 -
By exercising more, people are getting heavier. BMI makes no distinction between muscle mass and fat, so “obesity” (and by that they nearly always mean “overweight or above”) goes up.
Yeahhh, no.
I don't know about where you live, but where I live, I don't see a bunch of lean, yoked bodybuilders walking around the aisles of Walmart. Those 400-pounders clogging the aisles on the electric carts aren't there because it was leg day and they overdid their squat workouts.
Fit, ripped, muscly people aren't what they're talking about when they refer to the obesity epidemic. It shouldn't take more than a quick walk through the nearest populated area to confirm that.37 -
By exercising more, people are getting heavier. BMI makes no distinction between muscle mass and fat, so “obesity” (and by that they nearly always mean “overweight or above”) goes up.
Yeahhh, no.
I don't know about where you live, but where I live, I don't see a bunch of lean, yoked bodybuilders walking around the aisles of Walmart. Those 400-pounders clogging the aisles on the electric carts aren't there because it was leg day and they overdid their squat workouts.
Fit, ripped, muscly people aren't what they're talking about when they refer to the obesity epidemic. It shouldn't take more than a quick walk through the nearest populated area to confirm that.
Quick confirmation of what you're saying on any sunny Saturday at the beach.8 -
Carrying heavy bodyweight, whether muscle or fat, has been shown to be detrimental to health.
It puts a strain on your heart in either case.9 -
I think people need to be aware of both their real calorie intake and their real activity level and what is appropriate for their weight management goals. Tracking can help with that.
There are a lot of people who think if they just "eat healthy" they will lose weight just like there are many who think they just need to exercise more. Neither approach is going to be effective if the person is still taking in too many calories for what they are doing. A lot of people think you get fat eating 3 whole pizzas or gallons of ice cream daily but most people it is the steady overconsumption of a couple hundred calories per day. That might be their fancy cup of coffee or healthy smoothie.13 -
Carrying heavy bodyweight, whether muscle or fat, has been shown to be detrimental to health.
It puts a strain on your heart in either case.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say if we look at 2 6ft, 275 pound guys one is 15% BF and the other is 35% BF the guy with 15% is actually moving, getting his heart rate up, etc and most likely healthier.
Is his heart healthier than another guy that is 6ft, 200 pounds and 25% BF? Someplace the streams cross.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »candylilacs wrote: »Now, your BMI was 30 or higher, you were considered obese. My husband weighs 210 and is 5'9" and he's not obese. I'm 5'7" and 272 lbs. and I can be considered MORBIDLY obese.
Unfortunately IMO, you're operating under the size distortion that is rampant in the US. Unless your husband is a big time weight trainer, his BMI as well as bodyfat % would put him in the obese category.
I'm 6'2", 205 so 26.1 BMI (overweight category by BMI). I've been lifting for 40+ years, somewhere in the upper teens bodyfat and I'm trying to recomp a bit to keep the weight and lower BF%.
My size distortion isn't the problem. He's not obese.
18 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't know what the comparison date was, but if we are going back significant years, I don't think Americans exercise more is true. We may go to the gym more or do things we call "working out" more, but we are likely far less active in our daily lives (on average) even so.
Re CI vs CO, it doesn't make sense to say one side is more important or 80% or whatever. The problem is that if you don't do something (it doesn't have to be counting calories) to control calories in, and if you live in an environment like ours where eating is super easy and cheap, then increasing exercise may just result in eating more. Especially since many think exercise burns more calories than it does and will see that as an excuse to eat more indulgently.
I've lost weight just by increasing exercise, but it happened when my eating was already under control, so I didn't start eating more without realizing it. And I was truly exercising quite a lot (tri training)--many of the studies showing exercise does not help do things like taking someone out of shape and having them walk on a treadmill for an hour, which is both boring (people feel like it was more work than it was, since they hated it, and think they deserve a reward, food) and doesn't burn many calories.
It looks like the report is comparing numbers from Jan-Sept 2017 back to 1997. Given that time frame, it actually doesn't surprise me that physical activity would be up. I'd be curious specifically how many more people work out at home given the rise of free or inexpensive (at least compared to gym membership) online services.
Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/EarlyRelease201803.pdf
ETA: The charts for "leisure-time physical activity" start on page 43 and show a distinct jump for people meeting the aerobic activity recommendation starting in 2009 with a general upward trend since then. The response for meeting aerobic plus strength recommendations is on page 46 and shows a general upward trend since 1997, although overall numbers are lower.
I assume this is largely or entirely based on self reports. Perhaps a chunk of the exercise-increase statistical result arises from people gradually starting, around 2009, to feel better about themselves if they delude themselves into believing they routinely exercise, or simply wanting to look more respectable by lying about it?
3 -
By exercising more, people are getting heavier. BMI makes no distinction between muscle mass and fat, so “obesity” (and by that they nearly always mean “overweight or above”) goes up.
The 117 people in the US who are sooooo muscle-y that their BMI says "obese", when they actually aren't, are not enough to skew the population statistics for the whole *baby-feline* country. And if it's 237 or 1,289 or any rationally possible number instead of 117, that's still true.
The math just doesn't mathify.
BTW: Whoever they are, they didn't get there merely by hitting the government's minimum exercise recommendations, either.15 -
Silentpadna wrote: »...says the CDC.
I would link it, but it was actually just a 15 second news radio story I heard on the way into the office today.
The CDC spokesperson cited the "fact" that 70% of the battle is in the diet, but Americans believe that exercise alone will do the trick.
This struck me for 2 reasons:
1. I've always said (guessed really based on my own experiences) that 80% of the battle was in the kitchen (diet). I guess this could be a small case of confirmation bias....
2. A vast majority of the "I Can't Lose Weight" posts start off with how much exercise the poster is doing, many times with no other information.
So, MFP peeps, how can we emphasize the importance of the CI side of the energy balance? You want to lose weight? You almost have to find a way to eat less. That can seem harsh, but seems true enough to me - and most of the veterans around here (of which I am not one).
I don't know about "vast majority" . . . there are a heckuva lot of "eating clean, can't lose weight" posts, too.11 -
Can he do at least 20 good push ups in a row? Bench 125% or so of bodyweight? If not, yes he is obese by BMI and bodyfat measure.candylilacs wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »candylilacs wrote: »Now, your BMI was 30 or higher, you were considered obese. My husband weighs 210 and is 5'9" and he's not obese. I'm 5'7" and 272 lbs. and I can be considered MORBIDLY obese.
Unfortunately IMO, you're operating under the size distortion that is rampant in the US. Unless your husband is a big time weight trainer, his BMI as well as bodyfat % would put him in the obese category.
I'm 6'2", 205 so 26.1 BMI (overweight category by BMI). I've been lifting for 40+ years, somewhere in the upper teens bodyfat and I'm trying to recomp a bit to keep the weight and lower BF%.
My size distortion isn't the problem. He's not obese.
As I said in my initial post, if he's a big time lifter he may be at a non-obese BF% at his height and weight. If no liftimg that possibility really approaches 0%.7 -
candylilacs wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »candylilacs wrote: »Now, your BMI was 30 or higher, you were considered obese. My husband weighs 210 and is 5'9" and he's not obese. I'm 5'7" and 272 lbs. and I can be considered MORBIDLY obese.
Unfortunately IMO, you're operating under the size distortion that is rampant in the US. Unless your husband is a big time weight trainer, his BMI as well as bodyfat % would put him in the obese category.
I'm 6'2", 205 so 26.1 BMI (overweight category by BMI). I've been lifting for 40+ years, somewhere in the upper teens bodyfat and I'm trying to recomp a bit to keep the weight and lower BF%.
My size distortion isn't the problem. He's not obese.
I'm 5'10'' and used to be 200 pounds. Let me tell you, I was fat. Fat, fat, fat. Borderline obese. Unless he did strength training and has good amounts of muscle because of that, so is your husband. And so are you. Denial won't make that go away.17 -
"My husband weighs 210 and is 5'9" and he's not obese."
This 5'9", 170lbs person who has done a little bit of training and has more than average amount of muscle thinks that's highly improbable.
12 -
I live in the UK and it's the same here. I think it served the purposes of the companies that manufacture high sugar, high fat, "food-like substances" to promote the myth that you can exercise away the effect of their products. In that way, it becomes the individual's fault that they are fat because they are too lazy to exercise. They don't want people to realise that it's the stuff they are putting in their mouth which is creating the problem. If people did it would hit profits.8
-
According to Wikipedia...
The average American consumes 3750 calories per day
2nd highest in the world
PER DAY!6 -
Tblackdogs wrote: »I am constantly amazed on this site by the amount of calories people "claim" to have burned by exercise. I'm sorry, but most people (especially older women) are not burning 1000 calories from an hour and half of exercise. I went on a 100 mile hike in New Mexico, and I didn't lose a pound, even when hiking 10 plus miles a day with a 45 pack on my back.
90 mins of running burns me about 1k calories. I don’t think it’s highly unlikely to burn 1k with 90 mins of exercise, dependent on exertion level of course. Now those who claim a 1k burn in 60 mins are pretty laughable. But 1k in 90 mins is not unfathomable.10 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »According to Wikipedia...
The average American consumes 3750 calories per day
2nd highest in the world
PER DAY!
And check how much non-work time people spend on screens. Not a good combination.0 -
Tblackdogs wrote: »I am constantly amazed on this site by the amount of calories people "claim" to have burned by exercise. I'm sorry, but most people (especially older women) are not burning 1000 calories from an hour and half of exercise. I went on a 100 mile hike in New Mexico, and I didn't lose a pound, even when hiking 10 plus miles a day with a 45 pack on my back.
90 mins of running burns me about 1k calories. I don’t think it’s highly unlikely to burn 1k with 90 mins of exercise, dependent on exertion level of course. Now those who claim a 1k burn in 60 mins are pretty laughable. But 1k in 90 mins is not unfathomable.
what exercise is netting you 1000cal burn in 90min? because that is like 3.5hrs of cycling for me at 16mph6 -
stevencloser wrote: »candylilacs wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »candylilacs wrote: »Now, your BMI was 30 or higher, you were considered obese. My husband weighs 210 and is 5'9" and he's not obese. I'm 5'7" and 272 lbs. and I can be considered MORBIDLY obese.
Unfortunately IMO, you're operating under the size distortion that is rampant in the US. Unless your husband is a big time weight trainer, his BMI as well as bodyfat % would put him in the obese category.
I'm 6'2", 205 so 26.1 BMI (overweight category by BMI). I've been lifting for 40+ years, somewhere in the upper teens bodyfat and I'm trying to recomp a bit to keep the weight and lower BF%.
My size distortion isn't the problem. He's not obese.
I'm 5'10'' and used to be 200 pounds. Let me tell you, I was fat. Fat, fat, fat. Borderline obese. Unless he did strength training and has good amounts of muscle because of that, so is your husband. And so are you. Denial won't make that go away.
Ya, when I met my (now ex) husband, he was in the military and spending a lot of time weight lifting. He was 5'10" and looked really good at 175. He would have been overweight at 200.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions