More on America's Obesity Problem

[Guest Raidne]

So, I was reading Slate and saw this link to the Fooducate blog, which has a great visual representation of everything that is wrong with serving sizes.

Really? 3 oz. of protein is a serving? Three? For some reason, I thought it was five.

Also, my Marie Claire this month has profiles on women around the world and how many calories they eat and this skinny chick from Germany was showing down 2,700/day. How is that even possible?

Oh also, just wanted to throw this out there for anyone who never ever wants to eat at McDonalds again. It's not disgusting, really, by the way. It's kind of fascinating, really.

And, also, after the last thread, I have decided to come down firmly on the "exercise is not the issue" camp. Exercise is good for you. For sure. But, barring some other medical condition, we're fat because we eat too much. Period. There literally is not enough time in the day to work out enough to compensate for all that we are eating. As it says on the blog, calories per serving jumped 63% from 1936 to 2006.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Also, my Marie Claire this month has profiles on women around the world and how many calories they eat and this skinny chick from Germany was showing down 2,700/day. How is that even possible?

Michael Phelps eats 12000 per day. My friend who lives at the gym eats about 9000. When I am very physically active (climbing this several times per week), I eat about 3500. 2000 calories is what you need for a fairly active lifestyle, which isn't hard to do, you just have to learn to like exercise and strenuous activity.

[Eurytus]

And, also, after the last thread, I have decided to come down firmly on the "exercise is not the issue" camp. Exercise is good for you. For sure. But, barring some other medical condition, we're fat because we eat too much. Period. There literally is not enough time in the day to work out enough to compensate for all that we are eating. As it says on the blog, calories per serving jumped 63% from 1936 to 2006.

Yeah I'm reading a book at the moment which describes how the portion size of McDonald's fries has grown from something like 230 to 660 calories (or thereabouts) in the last 40 odd years. At the same time that the burgers have grown and the drinks sizes also.

[Ormond]

And, also, after the last thread, I have decided to come down firmly on the "exercise is not the issue" camp. Exercise is good for you. For sure. But, barring some other medical condition, we're fat because we eat too much. Period. There literally is not enough time in the day to work out enough to compensate for all that we are eating. As it says on the blog, calories per serving jumped 63% from 1936 to 2006.

Gee, I'll have to disagree. Like most societal problems, this is NOT an "either/or" issue, it's a "both/and". Exercise is not the entire issue, but it certainly is part of it.

http://heartdisease.about.com/od/dietandobesity/f/eating_or_exercise.htm

(I know about.com is not the best source, but unfortunately I don't have time for a more extensive search at the moment.)

[Ixodes]

One problem is that you train yourself to expect larger portions. Once in the habit of eating a certain volume it is hard to reduce without an adjustment period. At least for me, it's a bitch retraining my eating habits for that reason.

I've been trying really hard with my kids to get them started on appropriate portion sizes. You really start to realize how bad we allow ourselves to eat when you see what and how they market crap to kids.

[sizemology]

30% of Americans classified as "overweight" say they are of normal weight.

70% of the "obese" say that they are only overweight.

[Harris Interactive/Health Day]

<edited to correct type-o>

[ljkeane]

And, also, after the last thread, I have decided to come down firmly on the "exercise is not the issue" camp. Exercise is good for you. For sure. But, barring some other medical condition, we're fat because we eat too much. Period. There literally is not enough time in the day to work out enough to compensate for all that we are eating.

I disagree. I expect it probably varies for different people but since since I hurt my knee and haven't been exercising as much I'm now a bit of fat bastard, my diet hasn't changed the only difference is the amount of exercise I'm doing.

[The Wedge]

And, also, after the last thread, I have decided to come down firmly on the "exercise is not the issue" camp. Exercise is good for you. For sure. But, barring some other medical condition, we're fat because we eat too much. Period. There literally is not enough time in the day to work out enough to compensate for all that we are eating.

The link that was in the last post of the other thread was full of "exercise won't make you skinny because people don't have time, but skipping a sandwich here and there will" kind of information.

HOWEVER, the final paragraph finally got to the "oh yeah, almost forgot to mention...." part that exercise helps to reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes, etc. It was an afterthought.

It's not just one thing. It's not just eating less. It's not just exercise. It's a combination of eating right and living an active life. It may not make a person skinny, but it (usually) does make a person look and feel healthier.*

* insert caveat here that some people have legitimate medical issues so can't eat right, exercise like Michael Phelps, etc.

[Eurytus]

Raidne, you don't think the fact that we have a sedentary and urbanized lifestyle has anything to do with our weight gain?

I mean, this past decade was the first time (in the history of humankind) that the majority of us lived in cities. I don't see the correlation between being fat and being sedentary/urbanized as being superfluous.

I don't see the causation as being an either/or thing. But activity/exercise levels are traditionally given too much weight when discussing reasons for weight gain. Sure you have the odd person like Phelps who trains all day long and who can therefore eat what he wants. But way, way too many people who actually do go to the gym and who do try to keep fit, have the completely wrong expectation that "I workout so I can eat what I like".

Well no, you can't. People habitually overestimate the calories they have burned at the gym (and the counters don't help) and usually massively underestimate the calories they have eaten. That's a dangerous combination. Switching from a meat feast pizza to a salad will reduce your calories, in a single meal, by a number that would take considerable effort to sweat off at the gym.

People are less active now than they were in the 50's or 60's (although I'd bet the number of active gym users and joggers is higher) but that decline in activity levels is nowhere near as steep as the dramatic increase in servings sizes.

People's activity levels haven't declined 300%, servings sizes often have increased by that factor.

[Angeleyes]

My mom and dad always comment on the 'tricky' downsizing of food items bought from the store where the package looks the same size, costs the same, but contains less food.Personally I remember eating 4 oz cups of yogurt in my childhood, which then became 6 oz cups that we have today. Although some manufacturers (Dannon?) are stealthily reducing the portion size by doing things like indenting the bottom of the cup (like bottles of wine), causing many to eat less without noticing.

Could this be a helpful trend? How do we get it to continue? Additionally, at my house plates come in Humongous, Legitimate, and Small sizes. At my school housing I committed to only using legitimate sized plates in order to reduce the amount I can heap on while I'm hungry, and feel obligated to eat when I'm full.

But you can never have my big cereal bowls! Ever! :tantrum:

[kungtotte]

Raidne has a valid point.

Absent any medical issues you gain weight when your caloric intake exceeds your energy expenditure. If you improve either side of the equation, or both, you will start to lose weight. So you can eat less (in terms of caloric value), exercise more, or both.

The US does not have a significantly more sedentary lifestyle than the rest of the westernised world, which means that you have to start looking at diet to figure out why they're ahead of the curve in the obesity department. A higher caloric value in the food, due to their processed nature and horrible things such as HFCS, and generally larger portions mean that Americans by and large have a higher caloric intake than other people in the westernised world.

Obviously people should strive to both eat healthier (less) and exercise, but if you only manage the dietary side of the equation you will still see an improvement.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I walk a few miles a day (1 to work, 1 at lunchtime, and sometimes .5 or more at night with my wife), but I know I'm in the minority.

When I still worked at an office I would walk around the building on breaks, and around the block at lunch. I calculated on my 5 year anniversary that I had walked about 3500 miles during that time.

[Eurytus]

You probably discussed this in the other thread, so I apologize if I'm bringing up an old argument, but I'm not even talking about exercising, per se. I'm talking about simple things like whether one walks to and from work, increased/increasing TV viewing (probably the most injurious sedentary activity of all), sitting computer use, desk and "service" jobs as opposed to blue collar jobs, the amount of driving one does, and the like. That's not less activity. It's a complete lack of activity. For instance...

I know people that get up, walk to their driveway, go to work in their car, walk into the office, sit at the desk all day, walk to their car, go home, walk in their door, cook dinner, watch TV, and go to bed. Every single day. That's a relatively new phenomenon.

Look at the change in a child's life at this point: how many of these kids actually walk to school? 1% maybe? Nobody lives close enough these days. How many kids take public transportation to school (which requires walking)? How many are driven by their parents right to the door?

I walk a few miles a day (1 to work, 1 at lunchtime, and sometimes .5 or more at night with my wife), but I know I'm in the minority.

Yes, but my point would be that even that activity (which as you say is more than most) probably only burns off 200-300 calories tops. The size of portions has increased to a degree that a single meal (now compared to say the early 70's) would be larger by as much as double that amount. So the reduction of activity sure doesn't help, but I still think its the almost comical portion sizes that are the main contributor.

I come from the UK which is in the chasing pack behind the US in terms of obesity but when I moved to the US I was staggered by the food you received at your table. I mean in the UK, if you order chicken wings as a starter you'd get a handful at most. When I ordered them here something approaching a dozen turned up. And that's just one example.

Somewhere like Claim Jumper has average main courses that sit in the 1,500 calorie range. A McDonalds meal, if you have a shake as a drink, can approach your total daily limit.

Its bonkers.

[Swordfish]

Yes, but my point would be that even that activity (which as you say is more than most) probably only burns off 200-300 calories tops.

I'm puzzled as to why you think that isn't significant. Even ignoring the metabolism boosting (and other positive health) effects of exercise, you're talking about 1400 - 2100 calories a week. (although i think your estimates are probably a little on the high side for walking) In caloric terms that's the equivalent of .5 - .75 pounds of fat.

I'm not saying you're wrong that a lot of people eat way too much, and that that is probably the primary issue behind obesity, but i have to admit that this effort to trivialize the value of exercise has me a little surprised.

[Guest Raidne]

Let me rephrase:

(1) I believe America has gotten fat primarily because of how we eat.

(2) I have no problem with the statement that exercise leads to better and more sustained weight loss.

(3) Eating little while leading a sedentary lifestyle is a good way to end up being one of those skinny people that somehow ended up with heart disease.

(4) I believe that if your individual activity level drastically decreases, you will gain weight even if you eat the same (this is part of the reason why the week in Michigan over the holidays is such a flipping disaster for me).

(5) I believe that if you want to lose weight, as an individual, you need to make eating less your primary focus. Unless you are only trying to lose 5 or so pounds, working out is not going to contribute all that much to actual pounds taken off.

I went from living in Houston to living in DC. Needless to say, my activity level has increased quite a bit. I have probably lost about 5 lbs. It takes longer for me to gain weight. But to lose weight, I need to really watch what I eat.

ETA: Also, people take this mindset of "I burned 1200 calories this week!" and use it as an excuse to eat that same amount in one sitting.

[Swordfish]

I know that this is easier said than done, but I think it's great to turn into more of a grazer. Someone who eats very often, but rarely eats a lot of calories in one sitting. I've had a lot of success with this. It's a bit of a habit change to never eat a large meal, but you're also never too far away from your next meal. I think this helps energy levels as well as helping a bit to keep the metabolism elevated.

Nuts and fruit are great snacks to keep around for smaller snacks in between meals.

The only time that I typically eat a large meal is at dinner, but it's only large because I usually eat a big portion of vegetables which just don't contain that many calories.

No doubt.

The 'Five meals a day, all the size of your fist plus a few healthy snacks' is extremely effective for a lot of reasons. Lack of hunger, level blood sugar, etc....

[Eurytus]

I'm puzzled as to why you think that isn't significant. Even ignoring the metabolism boosting (and other positive health) effects of exercise, you're talking about 1400 - 2100 calories a week. (although i think your estimates are probably a little on the high side for walking) In caloric terms that's the equivalent of .5 - .75 pounds of fat.

I'm not saying you're wrong that a lot of people eat way too much, and that that is probably the primary issue behind obesity, but i have to admit that this effort to trivialize the value of exercise has me a little surprised.

I would never trivialize the value of exercise. It has value even if you don't lose any weight. But its value is massively overestimated for weight loss specifically. I have gone to the gym 5 times a week or more for over 5 years now. And it was only changing my diet a year ago that actually caused me to lose weight when everything else remained a constant.

I hear the "I exercise so I can eat what I want" refrain an awful lot and nothing could be further from the truth.

[Swordfish]

I would never trivialize the value of exercise. It has value even if you don't lose any weight. But its value is massively overestimated for weight loss specifically. I have gone to the gym 5 times a week or more for over 5 years now. And it was only changing my diet a year ago that actually caused me to lose weight when everything else remained a constant.

Well, sure.

But the flipside would also be true.

If your weight was constant, and you started going to the gym five days a week and didn't change your diet, you'd also lose weight.

In that case do you think it would be fair to say that the value of changing your diet is massively overestimated when it comes to losing weight? That wouldn't make much sense to me either.

And you DO trivialize it when you say things like 'That will only burn 200 - 300 calories a day....'

I hear the "I exercise so I can eat what I want" refrain an awful lot and nothing could be further from the truth.

That really depends on the person and how much they are exercising.

[Lord of Oop North]

And, also, after the last thread, I have decided to come down firmly on the "exercise is not the issue" camp. Exercise is good for you. For sure. But, barring some other medical condition, we're fat because we eat too much. Period. There literally is not enough time in the day to work out enough to compensate for all that we are eating. As it says on the blog, calories per serving jumped 63% from 1936 to 2006.

Think that you'd enjoy this article. Sort of a combination of supposedly 'healthy-eating' gone totally wrong because of portion sizes and blatant trickery.

[Nichole]

And you DO trivialize it when you say things like 'That will only burn 200 - 300 calories a day....'

I agree with you, I don't like to trivialize the small changes people make. Often it is start and I'm all for encouraging people to make any healthy changes.

I also agree that exercise will not help you lose weight if you continue to eat like crap unless you are training like Phelps. Usually, healthy weight loss comes at a combination of healthy eating and exercise. Perhaps I'm weird, but I can't image doing only one or the other.

And for those who didn't understand why I'm so big on education in the previous thread, it is because it bothers me how little people understand about what portion size really is. We need to put this in everyone's face. Eurytus has mentioned Claim Jumper. Holy shit, I could not believe how much food you get at that place. I think if it was shown just how over the top it is, many people would really start to think about how much they consume. And that at least, is a start.