Obese young America has its coronaries early

The Sunday Times (U.K.) ^ | 03/24/2002 | John Harlow

[sell_propaganda]

these stories of raw potatoes, apple peels and radishes from the back yard are stirring up some memories...

Is Phys Ed in the schools a joke? (I don't know.) When I was in school, phys ed (in elementary and middle school) was about serious work outs (sit-ups, push-ups, climbing ropes, sprints, oh, and dodge ball). There was also this National Fitness thing to measure your level of, er, fitness.

[sell_propaganda]

[Marylander]

Great. I'll be touring that area later this year & will definitely stop in to try a Famous Sam's Burger.

[speekinout]

I'd like to see some rigorous research documenting actual caloric compsumption increases over the past 50 years.

Well, there has been plenty of documentation (a simple query on the Net gave too many results to even think about posting one), but surely you have noticed the "super size" of everything - fast food, muffins, soft drinks, movie candy and popcorn, etc. And any of us can manage to eat large quantities of food - it's always been so. It's just that more people are in the habit of doing it now.
And we all get less exercise - particularly kids. Playing computer games does not burn up as many calories as playing ball or riding a bike.
We, as a society, are developing some very bad habits!

[garbanzo]

But has this resulted in overall increases in caloric consumption, i.e. are we eating bigger lunches and smaller breakfasts and dinners? And much of the evidence it seems to me has been presumptive and anectodal - i.e., we're fatter so we must be eating more.

And some of the stuff I've read doesn't quite seem to square with massive increases in caloric intake - for example, the poorest among us are also the fattest which doesn't appear to make much sense.

[speekinout]

the poorest among us are also the fattest which doesn't appear to make much sense.

It does make sense. The poorest of us are also the least educated. And, unfortunately, some also live in areas that are not well served by markets. For example, if you have $2 for lunch, an educated person will likely go to the supermarket salad bar and buy a salad and an apple. The poorer person will more likely go to McDs and buy a burger, fries and a coke. The difference in calories is astronomical.
Of course, poor neighborhoods are more likely to have a McD's than a supermarket salad bar, but it's a circular argument about whether the markets aren't there because they don't buy, or if they don't buy because the markets aren't there.

[Jeff Chandler]

I'll be touring that area later this year

Touring? Are you a performer?

I always try to go to Sam's in the mid-aftenoon to early evening. It's a sports bar and gets kinda smokey later on.

[garbanzo]

Again where is the actual documented evidence on the eating patterns - all I've seen is supposition.

[sell_propaganda]

Do we need yet another study to confirm common sense?
Seriously though, I'm sure it's more complex including heredity, neurology, psychology, ??? and some percentage of the increase will be due to these issues. But even supposing caloric intake has remained constant, lower levels of activity will still explain a greater percentage of the increase. Simple carbs are converted to fat if not immediately burned. Muscle burns more energy. Declining lean body mass accounts for (some) weight gain as people get older and I'm guessing kids today have just bypassed the lean body mass years. Exercise also effects a person mentally making them less likely to overeat or to eat sweets. Boredom and stress and depression can lead to increased food consumption.

fat and happy
- "It's possible that recent increases in portion size are confusing people."
- The root of the problem, then, is a psychological one - a kind of self-deception that, exacerbated by a food-obsessed, sedentary culture, overrides physical fullness cues and allows people to over eat.

[garbanzo]

Do we need yet another study to confirm common sense?

Well this is how we do science - occasionally, "common sense" turns out to be wrong. However, declining physical activity could be the main culprit rather than caloric intake.

Personally, just from my own experience, I think the various nutrional guidelines from the experts are off. It's not as much as they are conceptually wrong as it is the one-size-fits-all approach to proper diet, which don't take into account any number of factors.

Just to give an example, studies have shown that fat consumption has declined over the past decade - however, we're still getting fatter. And just from the attached article above, the parents put the kid on strict diet, made him exercise and he still didn't lose much weight. And it should be clear that most adults can't do a 500 calories per day diet and still be functional. And anecdotally, a lot of people seem to report success with low carb diets - the exact opposite of what most nutrionists recommend.