Nearly 3 in 4 young-to-middle-aged U.S. adults were considered to have obesity according to BF% from DEXA scans

OTOH wrote:

To "prove" it's mostly about calories in/out, Prof Marc Haub lost 27 pounds in 10 weeks with more than 2/3 of his diet being UPFs in the form of Twinkies, Little Debbie Snacks, Doritos, Sugary Cereals and Oreos etc. He's got more details on his blog link (sorry, can't find it). Crucially, he (claims) his exercise was the same, which was moderate amounts of walking, and dealing with obese students.

Link:www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/public/T...

A couple of points to add to this article :

1. some people have genetic traits for storing fat, which manifests in modern humans under certain conditions: next to zero exercise, mostly UPF diet, lack of fiber, lack of sunlight, chronic stress. Ancient hunter/gatherers are barely getting enough calories, men walking on average 15k/day, and getting 100+ grams of fiber, so no, their propensity to store fat won't manifest, but the genes to store fat is a survival advantage for them. Daniel Lieberman explains this in his books "Exercised..." and "The story of the human body".

2. Caloric expenditure differences in subjects' fidget factor(NEAT), from lowest to highest, is around 350 calories per day, which adds up to about 35 pounds a year.

3. studies on humans overfed by 1000 calories a day show large difference between min/max weight gain. When twins are subjects, the fat amount/type gained is very close, suggesting strong genetic component.

4. I would expect UPF companies to promote calories in/out theory, that way they can, like Coca Cola, make claims that their food can be part of a well balanced diet when consumed in "appropriate" amounts.

little movements wrote:

Uxxe wrote:

What do you suggest be done about this? Any ideas?

one poster stated that he had never seen this type of obesity in europe. I have noticed the same thing in europe and in mexico. Sure, there are larger and smaller people all over the world. But in the US, it is really easy to not move all day long. There is no walking to a bus or subway in most places. you can go from your car to your office, back to your car and home and never have to get any physical activity except for getting into and out of your car.

But it makes me wonder if obesity is lower in cities like boston, chicago, NY, and DC who have substantial public transit systems. Just having to walk to a public transit stop is more than most people in other cities do in one day.

We have to consciously decide to move, it is not a part of our day.

track chick wrote:

FatSlowLurker wrote:

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.

Agreed. They used body fat percentage in addition. BMI is usually used with regard to obesity because it's easier to calculate, not necessarily because it's better. The merits/utility of body fat % vs BMI in terms of health outcomes are one for another day. But, for example, there are medical conditions where body fat % seems to be a lot more important and I will say that if obesity is defined as the degree of fat storage associated with clearly elevated health risks (WHO) we should be looking beyond BMI but the problem is putting that into practice (plus a lot of the cheaper methods to estimate body fat % are really inaccurate anyway). I can't see everyone having a DEXA.

I 'm not sure about the conference presentation/initial research because it uses two different BMI cut offs for obesity for Asian and non-Asian (27.5+ and 30+) and normal weight (18.5-22.9 vs 18.5-24.9) and yet ONE body fat percentage cut off not separated by race yet separated by sex (25% for men, 32% for women). See the issue? It's a limitation IMO. It was a presentation not a journal article and I cannot find the full text anywhere. There is nothing beyond this: no full text, the pdf is identical.

Link:academic.oup.com/jes/article/7/Supplem...

BMI is an approximation of body fat percentage. You can't separate one by race and one by gender and then expect to draw reasonable conclusions from it, in my opinion. It needs to be consistent. Just my thoughts.

track chick wrote:

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.

Cavorty wrote:

track chick wrote:

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.

This is just a study of one, so I don't claim it to be scientific in anyway, but I have been a serious runner for over 50 years. My experience is that when I get injured, I add weight. When I start training again, I start losing weight. So for me, it's definitely calories in, calories out.

What I do find tough, being older (67), and spending most of my time on a computer, is how low my calorie burn is on days, I don't work out. If my Garmin is right, it's only 1800 calories per day, which is not a lot to play with.

track chick wrote:

FatSlowLurker wrote:

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.

Agreed. They used body fat percentage in addition. BMI is usually used with regard to obesity because it's easier to calculate, not necessarily because it's better. The merits/utility of body fat % vs BMI in terms of health outcomes are one for another day. But, for example, there are medical conditions where body fat % seems to be a lot more important and I will say that if obesity is defined as the degree of fat storage associated with clearly elevated health risks (WHO) we should be looking beyond BMI but the problem is putting that into practice (plus a lot of the cheaper methods to estimate body fat % are really inaccurate anyway). I can't see everyone having a DEXA.

I 'm not sure about the conference presentation/initial research because it uses two different BMI cut offs for obesity for Asian and non-Asian (27.5+ and 30+) and normal weight (18.5-22.9 vs 18.5-24.9) and yet ONE body fat percentage cut off not separated by race yet separated by sex (25% for men, 32% for women). See the issue? It's a limitation IMO. It was a presentation not a journal article and I cannot find the full text anywhere. There is nothing beyond this: no full text, the pdf is identical.

Link:academic.oup.com/jes/article/7/Supplem...

BMI is an approximation of body fat percentage. You can't separate one by race and one by gender and then expect to draw reasonable conclusions from it, in my opinion. It needs to be consistent. Just my thoughts.

FatSlowLurker wrote:

reflekteve wrote:

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.

Link:www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/ne...

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.

Ruxton Towers XC wrote:

I am going to preemptively point out that this is not caused by "calories in vs. calories out." It has to be more than that. That will cause you to being overweight, but not 200 lbs at age 14.

I just got back from grocery shopping and it looked like everyone (including kids) was obese. But not obese in the old-fashioned way (like just "big people with big bodies") but rather with huge, soft rolls of fat hanging down over their belt-line. Even short people... It was like they have some gelatinous aspect to their fat that isn't what you see in overweight people overseas.

Could it possibly have something to do with the synthetic foods, chemicals, and food-substitutes that Americans gorge themselves on?

Obese Americans have higher biological risk factors than obese people in other countries. And all these factors hit teens and 20-year-olds in numbers not seen overseas.

• In America, obese people are also much sicker (and on more meds) than in other countries.
• We have more people with multiple chronic conditions than people in other countries.
• We have more cardiovascular disease, including heart disease, stroke, and hypertension.
• And a lot more type 2 diabetes (we eat WAY MORE sugar than other countries).
• And more of our overweight people have osteoarthritis.

Brits, Russians and Germans can be fat too, but I have NEVER seen one who looked like this, let alone in their 20s.

Image:www.samaa.tv/images/obesity-1.jpg

Man Moth wrote:

Ruxton Towers XC wrote:

I am going to preemptively point out that this is not caused by "calories in vs. calories out." It has to be more than that. That will cause you to being overweight, but not 200 lbs at age 14.

I just got back from grocery shopping and it looked like everyone (including kids) was obese. But not obese in the old-fashioned way (like just "big people with big bodies") but rather with huge, soft rolls of fat hanging down over their belt-line. Even short people... It was like they have some gelatinous aspect to their fat that isn't what you see in overweight people overseas.

Could it possibly have something to do with the synthetic foods, chemicals, and food-substitutes that Americans gorge themselves on?

Obese Americans have higher biological risk factors than obese people in other countries. And all these factors hit teens and 20-year-olds in numbers not seen overseas.

• In America, obese people are also much sicker (and on more meds) than in other countries.
• We have more people with multiple chronic conditions than people in other countries.
• We have more cardiovascular disease, including heart disease, stroke, and hypertension.
• And a lot more type 2 diabetes (we eat WAY MORE sugar than other countries).
• And more of our overweight people have osteoarthritis.

Brits, Russians and Germans can be fat too, but I have NEVER seen one who looked like this, let alone in their 20s.

Image:www.samaa.tv/images/obesity-1.jpg

Completely agree.

The "calories in, calories out" idea is just food industry propaganda, designed to shift the blame back on the consumer, rather than the scumbags that pump your food full of garbage.

There's more in you what you eat than just calories, and lots of it isn't food. Your body has a hormonal response to what you put in your stomach; and if its not food, the response isn't good.

There are other issues to consider of course; the addictive nature of ultra-processed food, portion sizes, and a lack of exercise - to name a few. But the quality of food is certainly one of the heavy hitters (pardon the pun).