Why are most people fat in the US? Any ideas?

Calories dont matter nearly as much as people think. it’s all the DNA altering additives and chemicals that are the problem now.

Shifting our genes to store onto fat because of inflammation and malnourishment. I know so many fatties who only eat one meal a day but that one meal a day consists of pure junk, their bodies are never truly “fed” because of the lack of nourishment in their diets so their bodies hold on to every single measily micro-ounce of fat they have.

It amazes me how many people think calories actually matter. If you get a person who lives on 1500 cal of junk a day and another who lives on 2000cal of healthy food, the 2000cal guy will most likely be leaner and much healthier.

I come from a family of nutritionalists. wrote:

It amazes me how many people think calories actually matter. If you get a person who lives on 1500 cal of junk a day and another who lives on 2000cal of healthy food, the 2000cal guy will most likely be leaner and much healthier.

bullcrap

If the 1500 cal person was actually eating 1500 cal, they would lose weight if they were burning more than they consumed.

The two big components that have changed in the American diet sine the '60s is the added sugar in everything and seed/vegetable oils being used in everything instead of more stable and satieting saturated fats. This was due to the misguided government recommendations against saturated fat of the McGovern commission in 1980:

https://eathropology.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/072313_1631_asthecalori1.jpg?w=960

Food is cheap and abundant. Even poor people can afford lots of food. They may not be able to afford a luxury car or fancy vacation, but they can afford a trip to the buffet. It's cheap entertainment.

We have lifestyles that require very little physical exertion. You actually have to go out of your way to exercise, instead of life being exercise.

Result: lots of fat people.

Thermodynamics wrote:

They eat more calories than they burn.

Big if true.

YMMV wrote:

The two big components that have changed in the American diet sine the '60s is the added sugar in everything and seed/vegetable oils being used in everything instead of more stable and satieting saturated fats. This was due to the misguided government recommendations against saturated fat of the McGovern commission in 1980:

https://eathropology.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/072313_1631_asthecalori1.jpg?w=960

Aren't you the one (and your type hypocritically does it all the time) who lectured me that "correlation doesn't equal causation" and that "anyone with a properly functioning brain" would understand that x, y, or z phenomenon is " multi-factorial" and can't be simplified to one cause and effect ?? Yes, that would be you. But yet, your trot out the above??? Wow.

Did your forget your brain? Do you have one hypocrite?

Sometime you are so stupid it hurts to read your comments. Most of the time in fact.

(BTW, saturated fats are not more satiAting than unsaturated fats. But good imagination)

I have read somewhere that pollution ruins appetite regulation? People eat when feeling hungry and yet they don't need it!

I doubt if food has anything to do with it. People ate fatty foods and plenty of sugar in the old days, and they were much leaning on the average than today.

Too many conveniences in the modern world. You don't even have to walk up to your tv anymore. It's not a very physical world in the US.

Most young people at my gym study their phones while sitting at a machine. A set of reps; look at the phone for 5 minutes. Not much of a workout.

Ask-hole wrote:

Thermodynamics wrote:

They eat more calories than they burn.

Big if true.

One of the biggest nutritional myths is that it is just calories in vs calories out.

Bradyc wrote:

When I was young we spent all day outdoors playing, we would ride to other neighborhoods looking to play pick up baseball games, now the only things kids pick up is their phone.

Very true. If I wasn’t at school I was outside playing. Pick up games, riding bikes, anything. Adults were not involved in our “play” and organizing everything like it is now.

sure surely wrote:

I come from a family of nutritionalists. wrote:

It amazes me how many people think calories actually matter. If you get a person who lives on 1500 cal of junk a day and another who lives on 2000cal of healthy food, the 2000cal guy will most likely be leaner and much healthier.

bullcrap

If the 1500 cal person was actually eating 1500 cal, they would lose weight if they were burning more than they consumed.

I am living proof, my diet used to be terrible. Over the years I have kept a calorie log. I was a lot fatter when I used think cutting cals was the way to go. I have run 30mpw (same activity level) during both of these periods by the way so I’m not burning more.

This is an average day from MyFitnessPal logs.

July 2014

Weight at the time: 186lbs

Breakfast:

Corn flakes 30g - 120cal

200ml semi skimmed milk - 80cal

1tbsp sugar - 25 cal

Total cal: 225

Snack at work:

Walkers cheese and onion crisps - 101cal

Apple - 86 cal

Diet coke - 1 cal

Total cal 188cal

Lunch:

2 pieces of bread - 102cal

1 banana- 78 cal

1 tbsp jam - 67 cal

1 tbsp peanut butter - 98 cal

Total cal: 345

Dinner:

Microwave fries (1/5th bag - medium portion) - 267 cal

6 chicken nuggets - 346 cal

Diet coke - 1 cal

Total cal: 614

DAILY CAL: 1372

I platued on my weight loss journey, was only capable of running 26 minute 5ks and couldn’t get any better and my parents told me that my diet was trash so I replied back “well I’m eating less than 1400 calories a day” and they basically told me that I needed to eat more but high quality foods. When I took their advice, it took a few months for my body to respond but controlling my macros and eating appropriate foods made the fat slide off me, I kept the muscle also and my 26 minute 5ks soon turned into 19 minute 5ks.

Jan 2019

Weight now: 155lbs

Breakfast:

0.5 cup of oats - 300cal

1scoop vanilla protein - 67 cal

2 tbsp flaxseed - 110 cal

1 tsp cocoa powder - 24 cal

1 tsp honey - 27 cal

Total cal: 534

Snack:

8 small squares dark chocolate- 160cal

1 small banana- 80cal

Total cal: 240

Lunch:

150g Mung bean pasta - 320cal

2 tbsp hummus - 195cal

1 quinoa wrap - 96cal

100g steamed brocolli - 32cal

Small glass of fresh OJ: 70 cal

Total cal: 510 cal

Snack:

Half an apple - 40cal

1 tbsp cashew butter- 111 cal

Total cal: 151

Dinner:

Large chicken breast with skin- 260cal

Small baked potato - 120cal

1 tbsp grass fed butter - 100cal

100g green beans - 45 cal

1 medium diced carrot - 25 cal

Total cal: 450

DAILY CAL: 1914

May it be worth noting that my body fat percentage has also dropped from 26% to 18% (I am a female). Calorie counting is wrong and highly inaccurate. It might be useful for athletes who are counting to make sure they have enough to fuel their training but for normies trying to shed the pounds, the best thing to do is just eat real natural food, eat good fats and move your body. Forget about calories, they aren’t the answer to sustained weight loss.

My God you are

A) insanely delusional, or

B) one hell of a dedicated troll to post all of that.

If you TRULY think that you kept ALL activity levels basically constant (quantity and quality of workouts), then added 600 calories a day to your diet, and this resulted in you losing 30 lbs, you seriously have drank the kool-aid and don't understand a thing about diet, exercise, weight loss, etc.

But I did see that eat "grass fed butter", so....that might magically solve/explain all the impossibilities of your supposed miracle weight loss.

Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:

My God you are

A) insanely delusional, or

B) one hell of a dedicated troll to post all of that.

If you TRULY think that you kept ALL activity levels basically constant (quantity and quality of workouts), then added 600 calories a day to your diet, and this resulted in you losing 30 lbs, you seriously have drank the kool-aid and don't understand a thing about diet, exercise, weight loss, etc. .

Who knew t rex would be wrong again on human nutrition?

When we tell fat people, "oh just eat less and move more". All we are doing is setting them up for failure. Eventually they will snap and start eating like they once did because most people do not like to be be hungry 24/7. What your body needs is proper nutrition. And your body will continue to seek food until it gets the nutrition. What needs to change is the eating patterns, not calories.

I'm wrong that one can't keep activity levels constant, increases calories by 600 a day, and then lose 30 lbs? If so, prove it (anonymous troll anecdotes are not proof).

And what did your link have to do with what I said, or demonstrate that I am "wrong again" ? So people ate a very low calorie diet for a long time, and......lost weight and got depressed. Ok, that doesn't show I was wrong about anything, because I didn't propose a semi-starvation diet for anyone. But thanks anyway.

Lol. Guess what? Changing eating patterns is great. I never said it wasn't. Eating healthier is great. I never said it wasn't. And what's wrong with telling "fat people" to do be more active? "Changing eating patterns" and eating "proper nutrition" will only result in meaningful weight loss (if there is no increase in physical activity) if it results in less calories consumed. Period. Yes, a better, healthier, more "whole food/less processed/junk food" based "eating pattern" should result in being more full, feeling better, being more healthy, AND...... thus hopefully, and likely, consuming less calories. So yes, that is the WAY to get there. But if it doesn't result in the less calories consumed part (and no increased physical activity), there will be no meaningful weight loss. Period.

This isn't magic.

Now what did I say that was "wrong again about human nutrition." Oh, right, nothing.

My wife once stated in a horrified manner at the sad state of fitness at our gym. We could not find one fit person in the building! These poor people are actually attempting to get fit .WOW! The trainers are fat and claim intervals/high intensity training is the key to being thin. I really have to question the science behind all of this. I really believe the information in popular media is off. If these people walked for 60 min everyday and did 10 min of body weight exercises problem solved. Meal plan made simple-cut what ever you are going to eat in half! Pop and processed calories are not food and I would not feed that to my dog. I never heard of such a thing "eating before exercise" and Sports nutrition to get you through the session. Carb up at home before, then everyone slurps down a purple drink and hits it hard, for recovery a heavy shake and presto you have gained weight!

This is a terrible post and bolded is just wrong. Your diet is still terrible.

It's simple physics, something most nutritionists don't understand, that explains that caloric intake has to be reduced in order for weight loss to be possible.

If you want to lose weight the only way is to consume less. All the rest is garbage.

Oh, and I'd love to hear what the right "eating pattern" is and what "Proper Nutrition" is that will help "fat people" lose weight. Especially if it doesn't result in reduced calories. But maybe it does....

Either way, I am all ears (ok, eyes).

(since you said I am "wrong again," my guess is that your will propose: a high ***HEALTHY** sat fat, high red meat diet. lol. But you did reference the "Evil" Dr Keys with your last post, so maybe I have you pegged wrong. hmmm.....Let's see.)

Believe what you want. I’ll let my results and immaculate bloodwork speak for itself then :)

It's not rocket science wrote:

gfyikt wrote:

2. Food ingredients changed in the early 1990's. Fat was replaced by more calorie dense sugar.

"Fat contains twice the energy density of carbohydrate (9 calories per gram versus 4 calories per gram) and does not require water for storage, as does carbohydrate." "Fat is energy dense, having an at water factor of 9 kilocalories, 37 kilojoules, per gram."

This.

I am pissed every time I hear that sugar is a cause for health and weight problems. This is utter BS. Just once and for all look at the reaserches. Converting sugars to fat (process known as de novo lipogenesis) is so fckuing energy ineffective that body just increases metabolism to burn sugars most of the time. Almost all living organisms (including humans) ALWAYS opt to burn sugars for energy generation instead of fats. This is primary fuel since the days when life evolved on our planet. Only in case of shortage of sugars some higher organisms such as animals and humans have adapted to burn fat.

The cause of the health and weight problems are fatty meats and vegetable oils that are consumed in high amounts together with energy dense carbohydrates (breads, fries, sugary drinks). Once you consume fats+carbs, it's the carbs that are primarily used for energy generation. Since the fats are not needed for energy generation they are stored (fat storage are very effective process since it's driven by insulin which is plenty if you just consumed lots of carbs).

If you don't believe me, go for few weeks on high carb and low fat diet (