I agree that this is clearly a problem, but BMI really isn't a good indicator. I'm 5'10" and 170 lbs. I'm about 12% body fat, avid marathoner, and not extremely muscular, just built a little stronger than the average distance runner.
Anyway, my BMI is 24, just under the threshold of "overweight", which makes no sense. I'm in great shape. At my last physical well check, my doctor kept referencing my BMI, and I pointed out that it doesn't really make sense in my case and he just shrugged.
Yes! I 100% agree with this as well. I am also in my 50s and agree that we were always doing something in the 1980s. I had an Atari, but you couldn't play "all day" for years on end. They were fun games back then (Pac Man?) but not that fun.
I guess in my original post, I was saying that the "eat less" mantra doesn't really fix our culture. Because of caloric density and an "all-sitting" lifestyle, the average American might only need to eat one meal a day to get enough calories into the system.
But we all know that eating one meal (junk food or not) is not a viable way to feel satisfied. So yes, they do eat too many calories as well.
My point was that is wasn't just overeating and willpower. The "modern foods" are also 100% digested and absorbed because of the response they create in our gut. Eating 1000 calories worth of carrots would not result in 1000 calories being absorbed by the gut (as an example of the opposite end of the spectrum).
Of course its just calories in vs out. You cant change reality. Denying this is denying biological reality. This board has really lost it.
The reason is people simply eat too much because eating gives people a nice feeling. People are bored and eat. Thats it.
I was only saying that is not the whole story. It is about how much we move, how much we sit, how safe our neighborhoods are for exercising, baseline metabolism, gut biomes, non-functioning endocrine systems, food quality, social pressures, food choices, calories, cultural attitudes towards obesity, etc.
I am pointing out that everyone has brought up good reasons, the fact that Americans eat way too much calorically dense food is for sure the main one. But it is not just that one thing.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text single_style=”1″] Top 20 Countries That Eat the Most and Least Calories Per Person Each Day How much does the average person eat in a day? There are many factors that influence average calor...
There are tons of sources for this all over the internet. There is some variation depending on the source, but the bottom line is that Americans are consuming at least 3500 calories per day daily, probably more. It's calories in / calories out. If everyone dropped to 2200 calories per day, then I'm sure minor variation in TYPE of calories would matter, but not when you're eating 3700 calories per day.
FWIW, I do think WHAT you eat impacts satiety. It would take an incredible amount of effort to eat 3700 calories of carrots, and you'd get a ton of exercise just chewing them. It's way easier and more pleasant to eat Cheetos. As someone raising three kids, it is very, very hard to keep the Cheetos away. They are plied with snacks and treats everywhere, every day. It's terrible. You practically will develop an eating disorder just trying to keep your family's diet healthy.
The average American consumes more than 3,600 calories daily – a 24% increase from 1961. Here's how much more meat, alcohol, grains, and sugar the US is eating.
Great grandparents were probably a lot more active as well, especially in terms of daily life and not having the same labour-saving devices. Even things like maintaining a clean home would have taken a lot more activity and energy. I think it's a combination of a few things but as well as the main issues of excess calories and unnatural content of food - I truly believe excess calories is the overall driver of this - if children are becoming morbidly obese at a young age their bodies haven't had any time to physically develop properly and that might in part lead to the odd shapes you're mentioning.
By that I mean children who have barely ever played outside, walked long distances, played sport (organised or with friends), run about all day, climbed trees and so on. It's sad. They have essentially sat for their childhood. And there are studies linking extended periods of sitting with accumulation of fat in certain areas.
You can say a lot of negative things about it, but I feel lucky that I grew up in the '80s and '90s. We used to play out until it was dark every day and there were four TV channels. Sitting about was boring so no one did it.
I grew up in the 70's. We used to ride our bikes 2 miles to a reservoir and then hike a few miles up this creek and back then bike home. We were 12-14 and our parents had no idea that we did this.
Now, parents are constantly watching over their kids and they're involved with organized activites.
They don't run around and play tag or just wander aimlessly.
Think about even soccer leagues- kids are standing there waiting to kick the ball.
Anyway, my BMI is 24, just under the threshold of "overweight", which makes no sense...
Those BMI charts are terrible.
There was a study done (sorry, I don't have the link) where 6% of participants were "overweight" according to the chart (more than 25% body fat), but they actually were super fit people with high muscle mass. An additional 10% (or 16%? I don't remember) were "normal BMI" according to the chart, but with DEXA scans they were actually overweight due to high body fat. aka, they were "skinny fat." sometimes called "normal weight obesity."
You are in the minority where those BMI charts make it look like you're less fit than you are, but those BMI chart are dangerous to a larger % of people who think they're fine when they're actually in the danger zone health-wise with high body fat, but "normal" weight for their height.
I detest those BMI charts because not only do MDs/DOs reference them to determine their patients' obesity, but the general public can look up those charts and then think,"Oh, I'm fine!" when they're not fine -- actually, they are slowly developing metabolic disease. JUST MY OPINION, but sometimes those BMI charts give people decades to start developing metabolic disease: by the time they realize it/show symptoms, it's so much harder to turn the ship around!
; she talks about the "Thin Fat Phenotype" that is common amongst Asians. Also, look at the pictures from the Lancet in 2004: the guy on the right looks thinner & fitter, but he's not!
In 2023, at the Endocrine Society's annual ENDO conference, researchers revealed new data that showed approximately three quarters of Americans are not merely overweight, but certifiably obese.
Aayush Visaria, M.D., M.P.H., an internal medicine resident at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J. conducted a research project that compared conventional BMI measurements of individuals to DEXA scan results.
Visaria found that 44% of young and middle aged adults people that met the definition of "normal weight" based on BMI actually were obese when analyzing body fat percentage within their bodies with DEXA scans.
Overall, nearly 3 in 4 young-to-middle-aged U.S. adults were considered to have obesity.
Getting past the headline, this is actually fascinating, potentially important, and kind of perplexing. The study authors are arguing that under some alternative definition of "obese" that is not in common use, based on body scans rather than just a calculation based on height and weight, somebody with a normal BMI (e.g., a 5'10" 165 pound guy) could potentially be considered "obese." By this definition a large number of people who don't "look fat" would be considered "obese." This is an entirely different point than most of the comments about people who weigh a lot seem to be taking from this.
I agree that this is clearly a problem, but BMI really isn't a good indicator.
Sure BMI may not be true for some people, but it's true for most people. I mean just go to your local grocery store, most people aren't 5'6 and 200 ibs of muscle looking like a pro bodybuilder. Most people are built like a tub of lard.
That's my point. People need completely different amounts. If they cut calories to below the amount they need to maintain, they lose weight. Just as someone who is short will need a lot less than someone who is tall. Someone who is female will usually need less than someone who is male. If someone needs less calories as a result of their gut microbiome, that doesn't suddenly negate the issue of calories in versus calories out. If gut micobiome composition influences metabolism and/or calories leaving in faeces and they need e.g. 116 calories less it simply means they need 116 calories less, just as someone shorter has a similar (but much bigger) issue. You honestly think that if someone cuts their calories significantly from where they're maintaining they don't lose weight? That's the essence of calories in/calories out. Calories in poo are calories out (with variation), just as exercise, daily activity, metabolism, fidgeting, height, weight, sex (M/F) and so on. People need different amounts (e.g. the woman I know who maintains on 1200 kcal per day). It simply means they have a lower set point to maintain which could be changed by diversifying gut flora or, if someone doesn't want to do that, eat less to lose weight i.e. negative energy balance.
Also I don't think it's a simple as if you feed the exact same amount of calories to a skinny person and a fat person the skinny person stays skinny and the fat person gains weight. Aside from anything else, fat people have increased calorie demands to maintain their weight. If someone is morbidly obese they often lose weight on high calorie diets (e.g. going from 6000 to 3000) whereas someone who is underweight will (generally) gain on that. Gut microbiome variation isn't significant enough in terms of kcal to overcome the greater variation between underweight and overweight in terms of maintenance kcal (on average).
The Nature study (the one on the metabolic ward) talks about energy balance and negative energy balance in terms of losing weight. That's exactly calories in versus calories out. They're all accounted for - none vanish into the ether.
I used to have a career in academia and have been published over the years in many journals and society reports including in an area that isn't too dissimilar to this. I don't think this repeated denial of calories in versus calories out is helpful for anyone.
I also had a head injury after leaving the last university that I worked at that affected my ability to write so it is frustrating sometimes as I know what I want to say yet it gets obfuscated but I am trying the best that I can. People tend to pick at that, so I mention it here because honestly, I am tired of it. Thanks for the interesting discussion and articles.
I think the two of you are basically agreeing, but disguising your agreement by using complex terminology (like "in" and "out") differently.
Sure BMI may not be true for some people, but it's true for most people. I mean just go to your local grocery store, most people aren't 5'6 and 200 ibs of muscle looking like a pro bodybuilder. Most people are built like a tub of lard.
Not to nitpick (but yet, here I am): according to the study I linked above in the youtube video (go to the 21:55 mark, then watch about 2 minutes) BMI charts are not accurate for about 16% of people (Chinese study), so about 1 in 6.
Sure BMI may not be true for some people, but it's true for most people. I mean just go to your local grocery store, most people aren't 5'6 and 200 ibs of muscle looking like a pro bodybuilder. Most people are built like a tub of lard.
Not to nitpick (but yet, here I am): according to the study I linked above in the youtube video (go to the 21:55 mark, then watch about 2 minutes) BMI charts are not accurate for about 16% of people (Chinese study), so about 1 in 6.
Interestingly the point of the study seems to be the group nobody thinks about. Usually when we pick on BMI the objection is that heavy athletes can still be healthy despite high BMI. This study is about the opposite. The headline finding of the new study is that people of normal weight / normal BMI can still be, in some sense, "obese."
There are tons of sources for this all over the internet. There is some variation depending on the source, but the bottom line is that Americans are consuming at least 3500 calories per day daily, probably more. It's calories in / calories out. If everyone dropped to 2200 calories per day, then I'm sure minor variation in TYPE of calories would matter, but not when you're eating 3700 calories per day.
FWIW, I do think WHAT you eat impacts satiety. It would take an incredible amount of effort to eat 3700 calories of carrots, and you'd get a ton of exercise just chewing them. It's way easier and more pleasant to eat Cheetos. As someone raising three kids, it is very, very hard to keep the Cheetos away. They are plied with snacks and treats everywhere, every day. It's terrible. You practically will develop an eating disorder just trying to keep your family's diet healthy.
I see this statistic all over the place and it's just wrong - it drives me nuts! If you look at the cited source for the chart you linked (and many others like it), the data comes from here:
Measured in kilocalories per person per day. This indicates the calories that are available for consumption, but does not necessarily measure the number of calories actually consumed, since it doesn't factor in consumer waste...
That URL links to a dataset called "daily supply of calories per person." The dataset description explains that it "indicates the calories that are available for consumption, but does not necessarily measure the number of calories actually consumed, since it doesn't factor in consumer waste." So the 3700 calories per day includes both calories eaten and food waste.
According to the USDA, food waste makes up about 30-40% of the food supply. If we subtract that out of the 3700 calorie estimate, we end up with something around 2500 calories per day that people are actually eating.
You can say that you don’t find calories-in-calories-out to be particularly useful, but calories-in-calories-out is very much consistent with the results people are getting.
I actually think an addiction model is a decent alternative framework for describing obesity, because there can be addictive properties of eating ice cream or pizza (processed foods), while I’ve never seen addictive properties of eating spelt or barley or rice.
But even if you’re not a fan of “calorie talk”, obesity is undeniably associated with an imbalance of calories-in-calories-out.
Simple answer is to start running 70-100 mile weeks. I eat like crazy. And I’m fit af.
Maybe. I certainly don't think 'out' is just 'energy burnt' i.e. exercise, daily living - it's a complex interplay of factors. Maybe using a different word on here would be better - negative energy factors?
Out = anything that causes a negative to the energy balance, including as mentioned calories that are lost in poo (which are not insignificant) and metabolism (which is affected by the gut microbiome amongst other things), exercise, fidgeting and so on. Even thinking can cause more calories to be lost, interestingly (not much though!).
The reason they keep those patients on metabolic wards and try so hard to control all factors - even though it's borderline impossible to completely do that - is basically because of the energy balance.
I just wanted to touch on this because it's interesting:
"That is why you can't just say 2500 calories a day of microwavable Hot-Pockets with ranch dressing and a diet coke will lead to the same body as 2500 calories of whatever your great, great grandparents were eating. It is the same number of "calories in, calories out" but obviously not the same outcome."
If you want my thoughts on this area it isn't the same number of calories in or calories out. When you eat 2500 kcal of hot pockets your body doesn't absorb 2500 kcal. Likewise when you eat 2500 kcal of nuts you don't absorb 2500 kcal. Calories in doesn't literally mean the number written on the packet, in terms of energy balance it means the number of calories your body absorbs/extracts which is different depending on the food. Some foods also take more energy to digest (so adding to negative energy factors/out), some have a higher % passed out. Those figures are estimates and averages at best. It actually isn't the same number of kcal in (to your body) or out (negative energy factors) either. The true numbers (in terms of your body) aren't the ones written on the packets. Those are usually done by combustion studies or now the Atwater system (average values of 4 Kcal/g for protein, 4 Kcal/g for carbohydrate, and 9 Kcal/g for fat) - which were actually calculated by using combustion/averaging. This is not your body!
It's a lot more complicated than that but I didn't really feel like writing more of an essay. Hope that was in some way interesting or at least relevant to the hot pocket dilemma.
I thought you said it well the first time honestly. I just hadn't stopped to think too deeply about all that "in" and "out" implied. When I first read your comment about pooping out calories, I started asking myself "if your body doesn't absorb the calories from something you eat, do those even count as 'calories in'?" Then I got to where you count those as "out," and said to myself, "Uh, yeah, that makes more sense. In means in, but out means more than just burn though activity.
Anyway, this is the Letsrun message board. Most people don't stop and think deeply about what terms mean because they don't stop and think deeply about anything. I don't think most people commenting on this discussion even realize that the study that started this discussion does NOT say that 3/4 of young to middle-aged Americans have BMI > 30. It says 36% actually have BMI > 30 yet an even larger number have body fat percentages that would classify them as obese [by some other definition] despite not having high BMI.
What do you expect from a country with plenty of money to buy whatever food they want combined with no stigma for being unhealthy. The more we "promote" obesity as being okay (which we certainly do), the worse the problem will get. We should not fat shame, but we also shouldn't call fat people healthy any more than we should promote diabetes as no big deal. Virtual signaling is killing our country. This is just one symptom of it.
If you don't believe the 'calories in/calories out' explanation then you're either ignorant or lying to yourself.
There are of course going to confounding factors, like ingredients that disrupt hormones, elevated levels of stress from work or what have you, etc. But these factors are a drop in the bucket compared to the issue of calories.
First, calories in. As others have pointed out, Americans eat horribly. Very unhealthy, processed foods that are calorically dense but not filling. Americans also eat a lot. No other country eats portions the way Americans do. Whether we have been goaded into this by the powers that be for financial gain is debatable but ultimately immaterial. The bottom line is that Americans eat far more than they should, and in much larger quantities than they should. Americans also overestimate how much food fits into a typical 2000-2500 calorie diet.
Second, calories out. No other country is as sedentary as America. Other countries walk and bike to work, to the store, etc. They walk. Americans sit. Constantly. At work, at home, and in the car between those two places. Car dependency has completely negated the 'calories out' part of the equation for Americans. Americans also underestimate how much exercise is necessary to burn a given amount of calories.
That's really it. Too much food, food that is unhealthy, and car dependency. Those three things account 99% of the issue. But Americans will bend over backwards and do all kinds of mental gymnastics to blame it on something else, like seed oils. Anything that doesn't challenge them and allows them to continue to live the lifestyle in which they are entrenched.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
