Granny Shiftin wrote:
Why can't Americans lose weight? What is obesity projected to be in 10years? 20 years?
Your question says it all about the attitude of overweight Americans - "CAN'T lose weight"? "WON'T lose weight" more like. IMO many people are looking for a quick fix and dont want to take responsibility for the fact they are fat - until someone realises the only person who can make them lose weight is themselves, then they'll stay fat forever and have a nice long list of excuses
I was involved in a graduate study, where the hypothesis was essentailly the lack of fresh/healthy food sources within close proximity to poor recent immigrants. Basically, the slant was that "the system" biases these groups to bad dietary resources and practices.
This hypothesis was blown away when it was introduced that poor Asian populations create thier own sources and eat a large proportion of fresh fruits and vegetables.
It was kind of funny to watch the group try and find explanations that blame the US system.
Of course all those groups eat a wonderful diet just below the border, but when they get to the US they all of a sudden start eating poorly!? yeah right!
Culture, culture culture and education
I know I shouldn't but Egg McMuffins taste so good!
Runningart2004 wrote:
Why grab a McMuffin or a donut or some other processed food in the morning when you can just grap a couple pieces of fruit if you're on the go?
Alan
lmb wrote:
Lobstah chowda wrote:Here are a few:
1) Busy lifestyles. Long commutes to work, long workdays. No time for exercise.
2) Lousy diets. No time to cook at home so people eat out. McDs is convenient.
3) Food costs. In the USA it is cheaper to eat fried meals at places like Popeye's than to cook healthy at home. Go price a salad from Whole Foods vs a Big mac Value meal.
4) White collar work means asses are parked in chairs and not on an assembly line or on the farm doing physical labor.
5) Feeling of invincability. Advanced health care will fix me up if I have a heart attack, so why be thin.
6) It's easy to gain weight and 20X more difficult to get it off. Losing even a pound a week can be tough but gaining a pound a week is easy: just eat a lot of very tasty, fatty, comfort food and drink some cold beer or Pepsi with it.
7) Most Americans have a comfortable lifestyle in front of the television and let's face it there are lots of very good American produced shows to watch. Ditto for electronic games for kids to play. You never have to get off your ass to have fun in America.
By no means are these reasons restricted to the USA. Canada and the UK are in the same gravy boat. In Canada though we watch American and British television when we lounge on the coach. Canadian tv sucks.
This is an intelligent and thoughtful answer. It is a disgrace and does not belong on LetsRun
Thank you. I'm leaving now.
Randy savage wrote:
Diet is the key, too much fat and junk food. As long as junk food is cheap and available then Americans will be fat and out of shape. It's the same everywhere else. Look at the kenyans, a super low fat diet and zero junk, they also appreciate the value of hard work. It's not genetics that make them so thin and strong, that's how a healthy human looks.
Actually, THIS is what a HEALTHY human looks like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YivIVmsMgZwThe biggest culprit is Sugar, if the folks with a weight problem learned how the Pancreas works and had some will power they would be able the get their weight down to a normal level.
broken arrow wrote:
The biggest culprit is Sugar, if the folks with a weight problem learned how the Pancreas works and had some will power they would be able the get their weight down to a normal level.
Sugar isn't the culprit.
No macronutrient is the culprit. This is the same crap that exasperated our problem. We blame fat, then we blame carbs/sugar, then we blame fructose...
Hello, the answer is easy. We are eating more and have less daily physical activity.
Look at all the Kenyans who eat more sugar then anyone (they pour loads of it in their tea...its crazy), but they are skinny. Why? They have more daily activity then calories taken in.
rekrunner wrote:
Because Americans are earning much less than their parents or grandparents, most households can only survive on two-incomes.
Compare some lifestyle choices, like the size of the average new home, between now and the 1950s, and tell me how many people "need" two incomes to survive.
I think our portion sizes are out of wack in the US. We went out for dinner a few nights ago and our 8 year old ordered a cheeseburger and fries off the kids menu. It was the size of his head and came with "endless" fries. He took half the burger home and ate maybe a third of the fries on his plate. Don't get me started on the Big Gulp.
I just finished counting -- 489,699,023.But your right, I didn't factor in other causes, like bad credit card habits, and uncontrolled consumer spending.I suppose many two-income families could likely survive on one income if they were more cautious with their spending. But in a world of consumption and convenience, the willingness to sacrifice and suffer is no longer there.
rekrunner wrote:
Because Americans are earning much less than their parents or grandparents, most households can only survive on two-incomes.
perspective wrote:
Compare some lifestyle choices, like the size of the average new home, between now and the 1950s, and tell me how many people "need" two incomes to survive.
Someone mentioned Whole Foods and Starbucks. Guess who goes there? Liberals.
Libbies are the reason why America is fat. Get rid of them and the BMI will drop 5 points right away. No wonder why they call them lazy liberals.
Personally I have never seen a true conservative who is fat or obese. We work hard and don't goof off.
tryingto wrote:
broken arrow wrote:The biggest culprit is Sugar, if the folks with a weight problem learned how the Pancreas works and had some will power they would be able the get their weight down to a normal level.
Sugar isn't the culprit.
No macronutrient is the culprit. This is the same crap that exasperated our problem. We blame fat, then we blame carbs/sugar, then we blame fructose...
Hello, the answer is easy. We are eating more and have less daily physical activity.
.
Wow, people on letsrun are actually learning. You are correct in what you wrote. And surprisingly I don't think there is one person on this thread who wrote that "we are fat because we eat too many carbs, plain and simple." (though I know you were replying to someone discussing sugars, one type of carbs). Not even Alan blamed carbs!
Sugar is ONE of the problems. So is too much fat, which of course equals too many calories coupled with too few calories burned. Yes, it is that simple, but to give others credit, they were trying to explain the why behind the obvious. Why did it get this way. I think many have explained it well.
1) Widespread ignorance about what constitutes proper exercise habits. This ignorance is by no means confined to the general public, but is also pervasive throughout the educational and scientific establishments. Doctors, personal trainers and P.E. teachers generally know something less than nothing about proper exercise.
2) The idea that "normal" body composition is determined by society rather than science (i.e. if enough people become fat, fatness becomes "normal"). People are willing to settle for being overfat as long as they don't stand out.
3) A bad philosophy of life in general. Most people have come to accept a degrading view of human beings seem to think that man is fat by nature.
I took an Obesity course in a graduate program and we researched this extensively. Probably the best course I've ever taken, and taught by a past president of the ACSM. House Atreides is right, there are so many factors and each differ for many people. Couple of the things we covered were the portion sizes when compared to earlier generations, the lifestyle and how it has become so sedentary as we have become more and more reliant on technological advances. But when you combine those things with also being the only country that makes enough food that we don't NEED to import foods (we only do because we want certain fruits/veggies in the winter....etc.), this can lead to a dangerous combination. It has been estimated that the US produces around 3,500 calories of food per person/per day, and studies show that people eat what is in front of them. So you can read between the lines and draw your own conclusion, but these are just a few of the issues that maybe have not been stated but I thought they would be helpful to the discussion.
With the world population estimated at 9 billion in 50 years time, maybe it’s time to consider food rationing as a solution.
Food rationing began here in Britain in January 1940 and didn’t end until 51.
An example of the wartime rations for a week were, for an adult, 4oz of bacon or ham plus equivalent of 2 small chops (eat your heart out Homer)
2oz butter, 2oz cheese, 4oz marg, 3pints of milk 8oz of sugar 1 egg plus a packet of dried eggs a month, 1lb of preserves a month 2oz of tea.
Obviously no such things as coffee, oranges, bananas etc as they had to be imported.
Bread (black, no white) wasn’t rationed until 46 neither were potatoes, but both were scarce at times.
As for fruit and vegetables, (domestic) they were seasonal when available, but remember, domestic refrigerators were practically unknown.
Children received half rations.
It’s interesting that I recently read this below - I’m told an obese child was a rarity back then.
A study comparing the weight and growth of pupils fed on a 1940s diet with those on a contemporary menu rich in junk food underlines the growing concern over obesity levels in Britain's youngsters. The current generation of eight-year-olds consumes on average 1,200 calories a day more than their counterparts 60 years ago.
In addition, those fed on wartime rations grew significantly taller while shedding substantially more weight compared to those on a modern diet of school meals and packed lunches.
Dietary experts are now calling for a new national menu based on the principle of rationing, which involved special advisors designing diets to cope with chronic food shortages while maximising a child's nutrient intake.
A return to boiled cabbage, corned beef, beetroot and grated raw carrot instead of chicken nuggets and chips would, they said, halt the prospect of widespread future health problems caused by being overweight. One in five children is now obese, according to the Government.
Professor Philip James, head of global think-tank the International Obesity Task Force, said children were far healthier during the war than now, when the choice of food has never been greater.
His belief comes amid new historical data showing that nine-year-old girls are now one stone and three pounds heavier than predecessors weaned on wartime rations, which were imposed between 1940 and 1954.
Children fed on a typical modern diet including crisps, hamburgers and chocolate consumed more than 3,000 calories a day. An item of confectionery such as a chocolate Dime bar contains, for example, 155 calories.
By contrast, those fed on wartime rations received 1,800 calories, precisely the amount required for a growing eight-year-old, according to nutritionists.
agip wrote:
well, there's this:
http://www.theonion.com/video/study-americans-get-majority-of-exercise-while-dru,18198/
ha ha.... yes, very funny and true. We're fat because we have too many teetotaling religious people here. People think caffeine gets you going. well they've never downed a bottle of tequila. Do that and THEN you will have an active night: stumbling down side walks, spending an hour walking around and trying to find a party, directing traffic in the middle of a busy road, getting in a fight, running from a taxi you didn't pay for, running from the cops, puking up your dinner, smashing a few windows with heavy boulders, etc. ALL excellent exercise, AND you lose the calories though vomit to boot! (pun intended)
Things aren't always as easy as they seem.The root of obesity is often psychological, not physical.
tryingto wrote:
Sugar isn't the culprit.
No macronutrient is the culprit. [...]
Hello, the answer is easy. We are eating more and have less daily physical activity.
“The root of obesity is often psychological, not physical.”
Oh, yeah?
How many fat people did one see in Hitler’s ‘holiday camps’?
No one was starving, but in early 1964, a Food Stamp Act was signed into law by LBJ appropriating $75 million for 350,000 individuals in 40 counties and three U.S. cities.
Yet, when Richard Nixon took office, 3 million Americans were receiving food stamps at a cost of $270 million. Then CBS ran a program featuring a premature baby near death, and told us it was an infant starving to death in rich America. The nation demanded action, and Nixon acted.
By the time he left office in 1974, the food stamp program was feeding 16 million Americans at an annual cost of $4 billion.
Fast forward to 2009. The cost to taxpayers of the U.S. food stamp program hit $56 billion. The number of recipients and cost of the program exploded again last year.
Among the reasons is family disintegration. Forty percent of all children in America are now born out of wedlock. Among Hispanics, it is 51 percent. Among African-Americans, it is 71 percent.
Food stamps are feeding children abandoned by their own fathers. Taxpayers are taking up the slack for America's deadbeat dads.
Have food stamps made America a healthier nation?
Consider New York City, where 1.7 million people, one in every five in the city, relies on food stamps for daily sustenance.
Obesity rates have soared. Forty percent of all the kids in city public schools from kindergarten through eighth grade are overweight or obese.
Among poor kids, whose families depend on food stamps, the percentages are far higher. Mothers of poor kids use food stamps to buy them sugar-heavy soda pop, candy and junk food.
Yet Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to the Department of Agriculture that recipients not be allowed to use food stamps to buy sugar-rich soft drinks has run into resistance and the Department of Agriculture in 2004 denied a request by Minnesota that would have disallowed food stamp recipients from using them for junk food. To grant the request, said the department, would "perpetuate the myth" that food stamps users make poor shopping decisions.
"