backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by tmouse.. on Feb 10 at 3:53 PM


The world's population is increasingly shaping up to become the electric scooter bound population depicted in the Disney Pixar film WALL-E.  (Source: Disney/Pixar)
"When you see me coming your way, better give me plenty space; when I tell you that I'm hungry, won't you feed my face..."

Pleasantly plump, big-boned, rotund, meatier, beefed-up, and portly -- whatever your favorite term, the people of the world have grown much larger over the past thirty years, and not vertically.  In a massive trio of studies [abstract 1, abstract 2, abstract 3] in medicine's top peer-reviewed journal Lancet, the results are astounding -- obesity rates have doubled in less than 30 years.

It is the marvel of modern medicine -- even as the waists of world's citizens swell, cholesterol and heart disease rates are dropping thanks to daily-ingested pills.

Meanwhile, obesity rates have soared from 5 percent of men and 8 percent of women worldwide in 1980 to 10 percent for men and 14 percent for women by the study's end in 2008.  That means that as of two years ago a whopping 343 million men and 458 million women worldwide were of an unhealthy weight.  Another 1.5 billion adults -- roughly a quarter of the world's population, were overweight.

The figure used to measure obesity was the body-mass-index.  While BMI -- a height to weight ratio -- can be misleading in highly muscular individuals, in most cases it is one of the most accurate and quickest ways of assessing the amount of fat a person carries.

The study [press release], conducted by researchers from Harvard University, the Imperial College of London, and other top global universities, was the most comprehensive analysis of BMI, cholesterol, and blood pressure in the worldwide population, to date.

According to the report, Americans are by far the fattest of any developed nation.  Japanese, on the other hand, are the skinniest developed nation. (The most obese non-developed nation is American Samoa.)  But while the west is leading the way in the rise in obesity, obesity rates in Asia are also creeping up.

Majid Ezzati, a professor of public health at Imperial College London and one of the study's authors, comments in a CBS News interview, "Being obese is no longer just a Western problem."

As the fattest continue to get fatter, the experts warn of a coming "global tsunami of cardiovascular disease." Medicine, they say, can only do so much to stave off nature.  Sonia Anand [profile] and Salim Yusuf [profile] of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario authored an accompanying review [abstract] in Lancet, in which they state, "[The forecast for global heart disease is] dismal and comprises a population emergency that will cost tens of millions of preventable deaths [unless action is taken]."

Besides cardiovascular disease, obesity carries a host of other problems including an increased risk of a host of cancers, diabetes, digestive problems, and sexual impotence.  In other words, it's pretty much the mother of all diseases.

Besides the U.S., other regions growing fast in the waist are Latin America, the Middle East, and Western and Southern Africa.  Only regions like central Africa and South Asia bucked the global trend.

Researchers say there are a number of options on the cardiovascular disease front -- including mandating lower salt in manufactured foods and banning transfats.  Likewise new medications may be able to continue to counter the effects of the world's higher fat content.  

But the underlying problem is that people increasingly eating too much, and modern medicine has little answer to that issue.  When confronted with their unhealthy behaviors, many defiantly defend their right to overeat.

And the outlook for the other obesity diseases like cancer and diabetes is more dismal.  States Professor Ezzati [profile], "We don't know how much worse the obesity problem will get. While we can manage blood pressure and cholesterol with medication, diabetes will be a lot harder." 

The three studies' lead authors were Farshad Farzadfar [profile], Mariel M. Finucane [profile], and Goodarz Danaei [profile] -- all of which are researchers at Harvard University in various departments.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

BMI
By tastyratz on 2/4/2011 11:32:50 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
in most cases it is one of the most accurate and quickest ways of assessing the amount of fat a person carries.


I highly disagree with this statement. BMI is a simple metric that's based on the assumption that if you weigh a lot you must be fat. While it might be "good enough" for an easily pie charted figure it is NOT accurate, just quick and easy. The numbers skew more towards the average sized Individual. Statistically if you are extremely light for your height your *probably* skinny, and the inverse is true - but for those individuals that fall in the median area bmi is pissing in the wind.

Do I disagree that we are increasingly fatter? Not at all its obvious. I just hate seeing BMI touted as anything near accurate.




RE: BMI
By FITCamaro on 2/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: BMI
By The Raven on 2/4/2011 12:22:01 PM , Rating: 2
The important question to ask in relation to this article would be, "How many of his 'fat camp' classmates were actually obese (had excess body fat which has accumulated to the extent that it may have an adverse effect on health)?"

If 'obese' people like him account for 1% of the class, then there is little meat to your point. Not that it is not true...as that was pointed out in the article itself.

Speaking of the military...I have recently heard news stories saying that people were getting rejected because they were too fat. If this is true, then why would the military have a fat boy program? Maybe it is a pre-obesity program or something?


RE: BMI
By FITCamaro on 2/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: BMI
By headbox on 2/4/2011 12:25:28 PM , Rating: 3
That's right- my brother and I, both former Army Rangers and current crossfitters who can do 25 pull-ups and run a 5k in 18 minutes, are considered "overweight" according to BMI. Meanwhile a 140 pound twig, who couldn't bench his own bodyweight once, would be considered healthy. BMI is BS.


RE: BMI
By Dr of crap on 2/4/2011 12:32:43 PM , Rating: 1
Are you way removed from the Rangers, because 25 pull ups and 18 minute 5K don't spell the same level of fitness?

Six minute miles are good even great, 25 pull ups are nothing to brag about.


RE: BMI
By 91TTZ on 2/4/2011 12:53:19 PM , Rating: 3
I'd like you to find an obese person that can do 25 pull ups. 25 is pretty hard to do.


RE: BMI
By Mitch101 on 2/5/2011 11:34:35 AM , Rating: 2
If they are obese they are probably not exercising at all but I hope you mean based upon what BMI considers Obese.

Its funny were taken pullups from the original post as a measure of physical stature. The original posted is giving a measure of Upper and Lower body with a level of stamina but everyone is talking about pullups. Its like when people ask me how much to I bench but never ask how much can I curl and leg press or run a mile.

The majority of people who cant do 25 pull ups are people who never work those muscle groups. Unless your excessively overweight 25 pullups is possible you just need to work that muscle group.

Technique plays a big role in achieving this too I can move someones grip on bench and get them to press their body weight in no time. But I have to ask one question first do you want to look like you bench 500lbs or do you actually want to bench 500lbs? There is a difference body builders and power lifters look entirely. Both are strong but both lift different ways for different reasons.

All Im saying before I write a book.


RE: BMI
By Dr of crap on 2/7/2011 8:58:15 AM , Rating: 1
Uhmmmm,
That would be my point. No fat guy can do 25, but a Ranger should be able to. And no 25 is not hard to do.


RE: BMI
By kmmatney on 2/7/2011 1:28:26 PM , Rating: 4
I don't think I could ever do 25 pull-ups in my life. But in high school I ran 3 miles in less than 16 minutes. I'm 40 now, but can still do 3 miles in 20 minutes (and still can't do more than maybe 5 pull-ups).


RE: BMI
By jimbojimbo on 2/4/2011 1:25:00 PM , Rating: 5
Here we go again with the anonymous internet pissing contest.


RE: BMI
By Denigrate on 2/4/2011 2:00:27 PM , Rating: 3
I'd guess you can't do 5. Anyone who can do 25 straight pull ups without cheating is a freakin' stud. I tip the scales at around 245 and can do 3 sets of 10 good ones, and that's considered pretty darn good by most accounts.

Oh, and BMI is a horrid thing to use for obesity. Before I started lifting 15ish years ago, I was a "skinny" 195 lbs, over 6' tall, and was "over weight".


RE: BMI
By FITCamaro on 2/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: BMI
By Dr of crap on 2/7/2011 8:48:09 AM , Rating: 1
Nope you are wrong!
I'm 6 ft, 175 and can do 40 pull ups no sweat.
I said - running 6 minute miles were very good.
But if the you can't even to 25 pull ups you are not in "shape".
So call me what you want, freakin' stud guy.
But you sound out of shape!


RE: BMI
By Dr of crap on 2/7/2011 8:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
Skinny at 195 and 6 feet - that's your measurement for skinny?
Maybe on todays fat standard, but 195 and 6 feet is not skinny.
I'm 6 and under 180 and am NOT skinny.


RE: BMI
By FITCamaro on 2/4/11, Rating: 0
RE: BMI
By FITCamaro on 2/4/11, Rating: 0
RE: BMI
By LRonaldHubbs on 2/4/2011 4:59:26 PM , Rating: 4
25 is doable when you don't weigh much. In high school I was 5'8" and about 125, and I could do 25 at that time. Still it was not easy. Now a more practical number is 10. If that guy thinks 25 is easy, he's either full of crap or a beanpole.


RE: BMI
By Dr of crap on 2/7/2011 8:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
Let me state what started this all -
If the guy was a RANGER, than NOT being able to do 25 pull ups is not a good thing.
I gave him credit for being able to run 6 minute miles. Hell I can't do 6 minute miles, and some of that has to do with bad knees.

But Rangers should be able to do 25 pull ups. They're our fighting best. Not the average Joe that thinks 6 ft 195 lbs is skinny.


RE: BMI
By geddarkstorm on 2/4/2011 4:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
I think you were thinking push ups. Otherwise you've never done a real pull up if you mean that seriously.


RE: BMI
By Leper Messiah on 2/4/2011 5:20:05 PM , Rating: 3
If you think that 25 pull ups in a row (real pull ups, going from a dead hang, all the way up, controlled negative to dead hang, repeat) is nothing to brag about then you must be one of the fittest people on the planet, because that is [b]hard[/b]. I would reckon that most people can't even do 1 real pull up much less 25 in a row.


RE: BMI
By SeanMI on 2/4/2011 6:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, although I will admit it seems pull ups are easier for people who are short and skinny. A friend of mine, around 5'7" and 145 can knock out 20 no problem.

I on the other hand am lucky to get 5. I can run one 6 minute mile and lift pretty regularly so I wouldn't consider myself out of shape, but at 6'6" and 205 I've got a long way to pull up :)


RE: BMI
By surt on 2/6/2011 12:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
The 140 pound twig isn't considered healthy, he's considered not fat. Which is accurate if he's a twig.


RE: BMI
By FaceMaster on 2/5/2011 8:37:41 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
A coworker of mine had a friend who had like 2% body fat


I some how doubt that. A lot.

I guess that's the problem with 'a friend of a friend...' stories.


RE: BMI
By The Raven on 2/4/2011 12:12:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The figure used to measure obesity was the body-mass-index. While BMI -- a height to weight ratio -- can be misleading in highly muscular individuals , in most cases it is one of the most accurate and quickest ways of assessing the amount of fat a person carries.


Did you purposefully leave this disclaimer off of your quote to make it seem like you had a point?
I think everyone knows this yet people always trash the measurement. What would you people propose they use instead? Doctors actually running around with a caliper to pinch the flab hanging from their triceps?

BMI is accurate for what it is...BODY MASS INDEX. It is not accurate as an obesety meter. It is an accurate measurement that is used to best estimate the flabbiness of the population.

And on top of this, the threshhold for obesity itself is not some scientifically determined hardline number. It is a determination of the greater medical community made based on statistics.


RE: BMI
By lyeoh on 2/4/2011 1:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What would you people propose they use instead? Doctors actually running around with a caliper to pinch the flab hanging from their triceps?


How about waist to hip ratio?

Or waist circumference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11360147


RE: BMI
By The Raven on 2/4/2011 3:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think that would be more accurate but I think that is the same idea as the caliper that they used on us in elementary school.

Also measuring going on near the crotch may present some problems.

If you are Arnold Schwarzenegger I think you know that you are not "fat". Why are people arguing about the accuracy of the BMI measurement.

Can we just admit that we are fatter now than we were 30 years ago and stop with the stickling?


RE: BMI
By tmouse on 2/7/2011 8:05:19 AM , Rating: 3
Well the BMI also does not take into account bone density, which can be significant. Only a measurement in a water tank can accurately determine percent body fat, next is calipers, BMI is the LEAST accurate (but quickest) way. That’s what people are arguing about. You can look skinny and the BMI will indicate a weight problem if you have a dense skeleton. Again I am not saying people are getting fatter, I am saying I still think the current weight tables are off by quite a bit. The extremes are obvious it’s in between that can skew the results (someone who is slightly overweight falling into the obese category).

Also it was NOT 3 obesity studies it was ONE. There were 3 studies, obesity, cholesterol and a cardiac disease incidence study. ALL of the studies were from the Global Burden of Metabolic Risk Factors of Chronic Diseases Collaborating Group. The potential problem is the BMI study only used 199 countries the more dramatic number (960 and 9.1 million participants) were culled from publications and lumped in. There is no way to determine the overlap or if many new members were added late.

This is not a rigorous study following a true cohort along a 20 year period. This is a gamish of uncontrolled data being thrown into a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate mean BMI trends. Welcome to science today, make it sexy and hype the hell out of it, strict controlled studies be dammed. I agree obesity is a growing problem (pun intended) but this study was somewhat of a waste of the Gate’s money.


RE: BMI
By tmouse on 2/7/2011 8:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again I am not saying people are getting fatter,


Make that "are NOT getting fatter" ; )


RE: BMI
By The Raven on 2/8/2011 2:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
lol, yeah I caught that.

I did lose you on some of that... what 3 studies?

But the thing is that if they used BMI 30 years ago to measure obesity, then they should use it now. They could do some calculations to account for the % increase/decrease of atheletes and the elderly and come up with a fairly accurate number to measure the difference - now to 30 years back.

If they have the numbers from 30 years back where some other test was used, then we would have a meaningful discussion going on here.


RE: BMI
By tmouse on 2/10/2011 3:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
The article says three studies, there were 3 studies published only 1 was on obesity, not 3 independent studies on obesity.


RE: BMI
By bennyg on 2/5/2011 3:36:18 AM , Rating: 2
ROFL... good luck finding a waist amongst the rolls!!


RE: BMI
By surt on 2/6/2011 12:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
It's not as easy. How many people know their current waist and hip measurements? How many know their current weight and height?


RE: BMI
By Solandri on 2/7/2011 2:56:32 AM , Rating: 2
There's an easier way. Jump in a swimming pool. Exhale slowly until you start to sink. If you have to exhale a little, you're fit. If you have to exhale a moderate amount, you're normal. If you have to exhale a lot or don't sink, you're fat.

Most body tissue including muscle is slightly denser than fresh water, so will normally sink. Fat is less dense than fresh water, so will float. Your fat ratio will determine how hard it is to get yourself to sink. This is actually how they measure your body fat percentage if they want an accurate number - they just put you on a scale underwater ask you to exhale as much as you can. BMI is just a crude estimate to avoid the time and wetness with this method.


RE: BMI
By tastyratz on 2/4/2011 4:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
*can be misleading* and the word accurate are contradictory. That statement makes it sound like the extreme end of the muscular are the only exceptions. My statement is that I believe not only "highly muscular individuals" will negatively impact results.
As you stated BMI is accurate as a body mass index not an obesity meter... but they are USING it as an obesity meter.

It is being used because no other statistics are readily available such as yes you said it caliper measurements. What do I suggest? A test that's accurate for the statistic with which you measure and attempt to argue a point. I agree obesity is statistically higher but why don't we just guess at how much of a problem it really is? We might as well since we cant utlize a proper study.

50%? 10%? did the man in the back say 72%?


RE: BMI
By The Raven on 2/5/2011 2:19:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...one of the most accurate ...

Note she doesn't say that it is "100% accurate".

The words 'richest' and 'hobo' are also contradictory, but yet there is some guy out there who is the richest hobo.


RE: BMI
By tastyratz on 2/5/2011 1:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
bmi is simply mass.
It is known that we are much larger now than we were generations ago be it taller etc. Could it also be that through advances in commonplace nutrition and healthcare people have more body mass by means of bone density, general "thickness" etc. That alone can skew results in favor of the argument.


RE: BMI
By The Raven on 2/6/2011 12:07:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Weight is simply mass. It is known that we are much larger now than we were generations ago be it taller etc. Could it also be that through advances in commonplace nutrition and healthcare people have more body mass by means of bone density, general "thickness" etc. That alone can skew results in favor of the argument.


Fixed it for you (kinda). BMI is an index used to estimate the amount of fat on your average person by using a height to weight ratio. It is less accurate for athletes and the elderly. Are there atheltes and such who throw it off? Yes. But atheletes weren't invented in 1990. So there would be little skewing.


RE: BMI
By tmouse on 2/7/2011 8:14:21 AM , Rating: 3
But it is NOT one of the MOST accurate, as a matter of fact it is one of the LEAST accurate outside of looking at someone and saying I think your fat. There are 3 methods, tank weight, calipers and BMI. BMI is at the bottom and therefore the least NOT most. There is a LOT of other problem with this study I outlined in another thread.


RE: BMI
By The Raven on 2/7/2011 10:55:46 AM , Rating: 1
There are more than 2 other methods that are better at measuring fat percentages but that is beside the point. In this country, we don't dunk people in water every time they go to the doctor or pinch their arm flab or measure their waistlines. We weigh them because it is cheapest, easiest and is sufficiently accurate to advise people that they might need to modify their diets. Also if someone is found via a BMI measurement to be obese, further measurement is typical, meaning that they just might break out the calipers.

If this article was titled, "BMI found to be most accurate body fat measurement," then there would be a point about arguing this. But its not. And we are more overweight than we have ever been. Do you disagree? If so, don't attack the BMI, but put up some info about how we are thinner based on the data you use that is more accurate than the BMI.


RE: BMI
By tmouse on 2/10/2011 3:53:10 PM , Rating: 3
The article says doubles in 30 years. That is a very specific statement. If it said has grown then I would agree. In science that statement cannot be accurate if you followed the protocol they followed. I'm shocked such a study was published. I have personally rejected studies for protocols less sloppy that the ones followed in these studies. This is sensationalism pure and simple. There is most certainly is a problem with obesity in developing nations but things like this do not help. It’s sad to say more and more of this is coming out every day. I've seen studies without replicates, use single populations with small cohorts, parametric tests on clearly skewed populations you name it. Today we are publishing more and more work but higher and higher amounts are coming out with lower and lower standards.


RE: BMI
By tmouse on 2/7/2011 7:36:14 AM , Rating: 2
Problem is he said MOST accurate (not AN accurate; VERY different statement), which clearly is NOT true.


RE: BMI
By The Raven on 2/8/2011 2:46:27 PM , Rating: 1
He said, "...one of the most accurate..."

Its a true statement.


RE: BMI
By tmouse on 2/10/2011 3:35:08 PM , Rating: 3
I’ll repeat my answer again: if there are 3 methods and you are on the bottom the word most is NOT appropriate period. The study is also fundamentally flawed since it is a small study that for some unknown reason then had a HUGH volume of data thrown into it from other studies. One has to ask why? The sheer volume of the other dwarfs the data obtained from the proposed study. It is does not and cannot account for population discrepancies between the studies, there could and probably are vast amounts of duplicate data and the cut offs and categorizations of groups simply will not align. Throwing data into a Bayesian analysis (which has its own limitations) with enormous volumes of second or third hand data to derive any meaningful trends is pure garbage. GIGO. Yes people in developed nations are getting fatter beyond that piece of startling news this study has little merit.


RE: BMI
By Nutzo on 2/4/2011 2:38:09 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed.
Most body builders would be classified as over weight or even obese based on their BMI numbers, even though they have very little fat.
Mussel is heavier than fat which skews the number even more.


RE: BMI
By FITCamaro on 2/4/2011 3:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
Muscle


Best Picture Reference Ever
By Meinolf on 2/4/2011 3:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
So we're fat who gives a Fuc*




RE: Best Picture Reference Ever
By RedemptionAD on 2/4/2011 4:54:36 PM , Rating: 3
The largest part of our debt is healthcare related, obesity increases a large number of health risks. Obese and overweight people are the majority of people in America, skinny people are subsidizing the healthcare costs of the fat. I should get a tax break for being in shape.


RE: Best Picture Reference Ever
By ARoyalF on 2/4/2011 10:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
I wish you nothing but good health, but should people who don't have a history (insert ailment here) have to pay for people who do and come down said ailment? That's a slippery slope.


RE: Best Picture Reference Ever
By omnicronx on 2/5/2011 12:13:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wish you nothing but good health, but should people who don't have a history (insert ailment here) have to pay for people who do and come down said ailment? That's a slippery slope.
What exactly do you think happens when health costs rise in an insurance based healthcare system?


RE: Best Picture Reference Ever
By Kurz on 2/5/2011 7:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
The price that Obese people have to pay for health insurance goes up duh.


RE: Best Picture Reference Ever
By jimhsu on 2/6/2011 2:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
The problem being insurance (billing) groups don't segregate based on preexisting health conditions (or at least this is a big no-no), but based on things like geographic locations, age, etc. Personally I think body fat % should be a part of the equation, but there is immense lobbying pressure against that.


RE: Best Picture Reference Ever
By Kurz on 2/6/2011 7:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly... let the free market work.
If you are a smoker, Fat, or other behavioral conditions let the insurance companies charge what they want based on your health.


RE: Best Picture Reference Ever
By bennyg on 2/5/2011 3:39:15 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
who gives a Fuc*


Your knees do. Very much.


By Dr of crap on 2/7/2011 9:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
Some of use with a little bit of pride in ourselves to!


Denmark
By PorreKaj on 2/4/2011 11:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
Denmark is normally not known as a FAT country ^^ But, just weeks ago we were "proud" to announce that overweight people account for 56% of the danish population.

There is now officially more fat, than thin. In a country which use alot of time promoting health.

Sad

Go to hell Junk food




RE: Denmark
By The Raven on 2/4/2011 12:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh...Denmark. Known to Americans as the birthplace of the Danish and Royal Dansk Danish Butter Cookies.


RE: Denmark
By PorreKaj on 2/4/2011 1:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
A "Danish" is from Austria ^^


RE: Denmark
By JarredWalton on 2/4/2011 3:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
Having lived in Denmark for a couple of years and seeing what your countrymen regularly eat, I have no doubt that Denmark is getting dangerously close to the US for obesity. Heck, if they were to toss out the .5 million or so refugees the percentages would likely go up. No doubt there are a ton of health conscious people in Denmark, just as there are in the US, but the majority are anything but. All those meals of frikadeller, carbonader, flæskesteg osv. med kartoffler og brun sovs -- og en masse smør og fløde! -- det kan slet ikke være godt for ens helbred. (Pardon my poor Danish... I don't get to practice it much.)


RE: Denmark
By The Raven on 2/8/2011 3:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
I said...
quote:
Known to Americans as...

...not "Proven to be invented in..."
lol

And besides, I learned from my aunt who lived in Vienna for a few years that it is called Wiener bread ;-) in Vienna and that Americans were introduced to the danish via Denmark, which explains the name. I furthermore learned from my Swedish aunt that danishes are popular all over Scandinavia.

So though I was kidding in a "had-the-comment-have-been-about-France-instead-I-w ould've-used-french-fries" kind of way, it actually is true based on my sources and a quick look at Wikipedia.


RE: Denmark
By ARoyalF on 2/4/2011 10:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
Lolz Royal Dansk Danish butter cookies! I swear they are the new fruitcake. I've regifted a few tins at Xmas.


RE: Denmark
By Nutzo on 2/4/2011 2:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they just did the same as here in the US.
Several years ago they lowered the BMI numbers for over weight and obese, so they could claim more people are over weight.

I fall in the over-weight category, but I'm also have a "large" body type (muscular, large hands, wide shoulders, etc)
If I where to lose enough weight to fall into the middle of the "normal" BMI for my height, I'd look like some prisoner who was being starved to death.


By dijuremo on 2/4/2011 1:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like more and more recent studies are showing that obesity is the result of the wrong (low fat) diet that has been pushed to us in the last few decades.

Most of the studies seem to show that it is in great part to the elevated consumption of sugar (not just raw, but also any type of carbs and anything that has been recommended to reduce fat).

Here is a good collection of sources that agree, some even very funny that explain that it is mostly all about excess sugar intake:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=86C665F9EC...
http://www.gnolls.org/905/mechanisms-of-sugar-addi...
http://www.hulu.com/fat-head

A nice way of getting to eat better:
http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/




By Xaussie on 2/4/2011 2:29:56 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. Going in to a supermarket these days and trying to buy anything with protein or fat in it is tough these days but you can buy as much sugar as you want. Low fat diets are the problem not the solution.

As to the complaints about BMI ... yes, but most people aren't muscular or we wouldn't have this problem. Most people don't do any exercise at all and being unfit is just as bad for you as being overweight. As a weightlifter and 5% bodyfat I was considered obese by BMI standards, but that's not typical.

For all the rubbish you read in books it's really not that hard. Eat a moderate balanced diet, exercise regularly.


By omnicronx on 2/5/2011 12:28:28 AM , Rating: 3
The medical community have long championed a balanced diet, nobody ever recommended stopping the intake of fat only to take in extra sugars and carbs.

Furthermore, diets such as Atkins have been foolishly pushed for years, even though TRUE studies have shown the detriment it can cause your body over a long period of time.

The world's population is getting fat because of terrible eating habits, not because of some medical community pushing conspiracy theory.


By dijuremo on 2/5/2011 10:26:58 AM , Rating: 1
Yes and no...

The great majority of the medical community still pushes a low fat diet. A lot of entities and all food products in the US and probably many more around the world basically support a culture of eliminating fats, which is fundamentally wrong. If they were in the culture of eliminating sugar, then a lot of companies (most of which have paid fabricated studies to eliminate fat) would go bankrupt.

Ultimately, the population makes their own choices, but if they are already being steered in the wrong direction, it will be harder for them to realize what they are doing wrong.


By bennyg on 2/5/2011 3:46:37 AM , Rating: 2
yeah but sensibility is incredibly hard to market successfully.

We're directly now reaping the benefits of the "5-6 serves of carbs per day" food pyramid.

P.S. GI is a wank, it's all sugar anyway.


Gonna impact those EM-Pee-G's
By SSDMaster on 2/4/2011 11:31:03 AM , Rating: 3
Not sure we're gonna hit Obama's MPG efficiency goals if this keeps up.




RE: Gonna impact those EM-Pee-G's
By Kurz on 2/4/2011 2:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
By angryplayer on 2/4/2011 9:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
She must be poor to feed that body. Jeez.


You're not a body builder!
By MrX8503 on 2/4/2011 2:54:36 PM , Rating: 4
All the people I hear complain and moan about BMI are no where near close being a body builder to the point they would register an incorrect BMI. More than likely those people who complain are actually overweight.

Everyone knows the limitation of BMI, stop using muscle as an excuse of why your BMI registers as overweight, when it's really fat you're hulling around. If you're truly in shape, you don't need a BMI to verify this.




RE: You're not a body builder!
By Dr of crap on 2/7/2011 12:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks you for that voice of reason.

And the last line says it all!!


US vs Asia
By PaterPelligrino on 2/4/2011 9:52:59 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
According to the report, Americans are by far the fattest of any developed nation. Japanese, on the other hand, are the skinniest developed nation.


Man is that the truth. I lived in Japan for 15 years. Flying back to the States every few years was a real eye opener - it felt like I'd wandered straight from the airport into the Fun House Hall of Fat Mirrors where everybody from the tots to the old was from Bloat City. After a few weeks you get used to it and on my return to Japan I would notice how slim everyone was. I once brought a Japanese GF - normal 5'6", 120 lbs - home with me and she was frequently told "why don't you eat more"!

Point is you get used to what you see around you and think it's how things should be. Man up to it people - you're seriously overweight, this BMI is unreliable thing is just smoke and mirrors.

When I went to High School back in the 60's, there was one fat kid in the entire school of 2000, now one out of every 7 kids is obese.

I'm in Taiwan now and the women over here are unbelievably slim and sexy. Women in their 30's with two kids still have the physiques of 18 yr olds. (Growing old really sucks.)




Lets just admit it most people are lazy and fat
By ChipDude on 2/5/2011 10:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
What better picture, it cracked me up when I saw it.

Lets be serious Americans as a group are lazy and fat. They think some 10'/day infomercial and pills will fix them. Where else is there a show who's theme is about fat people losing wait.

its the rich as a rule who are thin and healthy, lets be honest America isn't that rich any more.




By tmouse on 2/7/2011 8:49:16 AM , Rating: 3
In case you cannot read or understand the article; it’s a multinational study, idiot.

The root cause is mostly minimal exercise and highly processed fast foods. Time is short, people are spending more and more time in sedentary office type jobs grabbing "quick" meals loaded with sugars and fats and sleeping only 4-5 hours per night. Less carbs and salt and more sleep with even a moderate increase in exercise would result in almost miraculous change for the majority of people.


Blame the Women
By shin0bi272 on 2/8/2011 7:11:12 AM , Rating: 2
More specifically blame the women's lib movement. Prior to the 60's and 70's women were home cooking and cleaning and raising the children. Thats a hugely important job in the family and I argue that its more important than a second income. If we men spent less than what we brought in and didnt go out and buy toys and stuff we cant afford on credit cards we cant pay back then we wouldnt need the second income anyway!

So the generation I grew up in had a working mom and working dad and we didnt learn to cook from them because they were too busy... now this generation is living on mcdonalds and junk food and we wonder why they are fat...




RE: Blame the Women
By Kurz on 2/9/2011 9:47:39 AM , Rating: 2
I would actually blame the fact that we are making less now than in the 70's.

If you want to blame anyone blame the government.
They are the ones who are constantly inflating the currency since the closure of the glod window by Richard Nixon.

Then you have the Corn subsidies that makes it more economical to use high-fructose corn syrup a simple sugar. Than actual table sugar which is much better for you.


government subsidies
By LumbergTech on 2/4/2011 2:32:40 PM , Rating: 3
A fair portion of the blame could be put on government subsidy of things that are not good for everyone. Let people buy what they want, but don't subsidize food ingredients that are strong contributors to obesity and diabetes.




Its called a stationary a bike
By Kurz on 2/4/2011 11:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
Great for getting your heart rate up and burning fat.




Who woulda thunkit?
By roykahn on 2/5/2011 6:12:39 AM , Rating: 2
In completely unrelated news, the number of McDonalds franchises has doubled over the past 30 years :-P

I recall reading a book that said the quest for money can be one of the causes of people becoming fatter. If someone works longer hours then they won't have as much time to exercise or prepare healthy meals. Food for thought...




By BernardP on 2/5/2011 10:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's scary
By Beenthere on 2/6/2011 12:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
I am literally shocked almost daily at the people I see in the U.S. who are extremely obese. I mean we're talking 300-400+ lb. people, both men and woman and often a trail of children following of similar proportion. If you live where this is not common you may not understand just how serious this issue really is.

While the fast food joints don't help the problem, it's the person who down's the 2000 calorie meals numerous times per day that is the problem, not the provider of the food. IMO these people have chosen to be obese. No one tricked them into eating 5,000+ calories per day - they knowingly chose to do so.




Humanity is growing in height too
By Calin on 2/7/2011 2:41:32 AM , Rating: 2
Kids of today are bigger than their parents in height too (by a couple of centimeters, usually). But they usually aren't as fit as their parents (and my uncle who died some 80 years old had more muscular mass and strength that I have now at 35)




C.O.R.N.
By Shadowmaster625 on 2/7/2011 8:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
It is sad that a search of this page (comment section included) for the word "corn" yielded zero results. The vast majority of the obesity epidemic has been caused by government meddling in the market in ways they should not. The corn subsidy is what has enabled every stinking food item on the store shelves to contain ungodly amounts of high fructose corn syrup. The damage caused by this is not just limited to obesity. If you do enough research you will reach the unavoidable conclusion that this is eugenics in action. This trend will not reverse until people educate themselves. The system that is poisoning you is obviously not going to provide you that education.

God help those who are dumb enough to believe that if their fat ass falls off their walle-cart, some loving and caring machine is going to come along and scoop them back up and send them on their merry way.




Let's be honest
By pixelslave on 2/10/2011 12:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to point this out (because some people will definitely disagree) -- in the past 20 years or so, there's a notion that people should just "LOVE" the way they look, no matter how they actually look like. So, people who is as skinny as a piece of paper, or as fat as an elephant, find their paradise. Because words that don't approve their look are suddenly being labeled as a form of discrimination.

So, a 5'2 400lb should appreciate its own body, so should a 6'5 100lb.

All I can say is. If you take the shame out, some people just become shameless.




“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki