Obese are the Days of Our Lives (Re: Fail Quotes)

[Travis Retriever]

Actually, I wasn't referring to Geisha.

Oh, okay.  Just a reaction as a lot of people have that misconception in my experience.

But anyway, the melting pot isn't really an answer, either, because the "epidemic" seems to be only Caucasian/African Americans. Everyone else seems pretty close to ideal weight, if not under.

Isn't that a contradiction?   If it's "culture" then wouldn't they get fat when they move here and shift culture?

Also, suspect that if we had a way of poofing our selves to 1953, and measured peoples body fat, we'd find they were just as "obese" as now; except they weren't acting like it was apocalyptical.

Probably.  I do know that people back then had lower life expectancy because we didn't grow or eat as many fruits/veggies.

[dallen68]

Isn't that a contradiction?   If it's "culture" then wouldn't they get fat when they move here and shift culture?

Well, sort of, it is yes. Unless, if by "culture" I mean "not sit in front of a plasma screen stuffing your face with doritos and hotpockets all day" and they not shift culture.

[Travis Retriever]

Well, sort of, it is yes. Unless, if by "culture" I mean "not sit in front of a plasma screen stuffing your face with doritos and hotpockets all day" and they not shift culture.

Nice dodge/evasion.  Again, if culture really were an answer, if would effect them too, not just blacks/Caucasians, would it not?

[dallen68]

Nice dodge/evasion.

Tahnk you.

[Travis Retriever]

Tahnk you.

No joke.  Again, if culture really were an answer, if would effect them too, not just blacks/Caucasians.

[dallen68]

No joke.  Again, if culture really were an answer, if would effect them too, not just blacks/Caucasians.

I would presume so, yes. But I may have accidentally stumbled on part of the answer in the midst of making bad joke. Over the last 30 years or so, our lifestyles have become much more sedentary, as things like televisions, computers, etc have increasingly become part of our lives.  This conversation is an example of that, as recently as 1990, either one of us would have had to go to the others house, or we would have both had to go to our local; as the phone bill would have been astronomical otherwise.

It's possible genetic predispositions have a part to play as well, and what evensgrey said. I don't think there's any one answer. Culture? Maybe part of an answer. Lifestyle? Maybe part of an answer. People being concerned about something that doesn't actually exist? Maybe. Some fat causing virus? why not?

[Travis Retriever]

I would presume so, yes. But I may have accidentally stumbled on part of the answer in the midst of making bad joke. Over the last 30 years or so, our lifestyles have become much more sedentary, as things like televisions, computers, etc have increasingly become part of our lives.  This conversation is an example of that, as recently as 1990, either one of us would have had to go to the others house, or we would have both had to go to our local; as the phone bill would have been astronomical otherwise.

It's possible genetic predispositions have a part to play as well, and what evensgrey said. I don't think there's any one answer. Culture? Maybe part of an answer. Lifestyle? Maybe part of an answer. People being concerned about something that doesn't actually exist? Maybe. Some fat causing virus? why not?

It wasn't a virus.  If it was, the media and government would have been all over it, hyping it and using it to scare people and accept even more control.  Hell, just look at swine flu and the media circus--and talk of forced vaccines--with that.  But with something many people consider to be the biggest cause of death (obesity and obesity related illness)?  Forget field day, they'd have a field year.  And I doubt so as many people were obese in the 1950s or whatever as they are now. absent evidence,  I will not accept that.

I will personally always admire a (win) quote Harry Browne made that I think applies here:
"Whenever everyone in an industry seems to be doing the same thing, it's usually because of a technological breakthrough (as in the rise of computers during the past decade or so) or because of government pressures (as in the case of the litigation explosion or companies fleeing the U.S.)."--Why Government Doesn't Work, p. 87
I don't see any reason why same logic wouldn't apply to sociological/societal results like the increase in Obesity over the last several decades.

Technology and especially government seem like the most probable causes.  Like the government giving corn growers subsidies having them put the HFCS in stuff that normally wouldn't even have sweetener.  Especially considering in the Mises Institute article I cited and sourced, they controlled for calories consumed (and exercise IIRC) of groups of lab rats.  One group taking HFCS, and another sugar and the the rats taking the HFCS still gained more weight.  The government being at least a prime suspect makes even more sense when you take into account the money saved over a lifetime by living a healthier life.  Like smaller insurance premiums, less disease later and few hospital bills in life--and govco controls the healthcare and insurance/banking systems.  People like saving money.  You don't have to force or trick them into doing that; and that's why I can't not consider government at least *partially* responsible for this. 

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Shane's input on this, since the original posts I made on this were originally meant for him to begin with.   Not that I don't mind others chiming in.

[dallen68]

Yeah, your probably right about the subsidies.

As far as the bit about people being as fat back then, I was stretching for possibilities and I don't blame you for not just accepting it. Anyway, I got in the time machine (other wise known as the CDC website) and that hypothesis is falsified.  (In the 1950's the percentage of Americans who were obese was 5% vs. 20% today).

Interestingly, the reason they started using HFCS in everything in the first place was because it was supposed to be healthier than sugar. And then subsidies happened and...

Well, I'll let you get back to waiting on Shane.

[MrBogosity]

Sorry you've been waiting for an answer from me, because I really just don't know. It may be a variety of factors. The race thing is interesting.

More and more, we're doing professions that require less manual labor and more sitting in offices in front of computers. That may be another contributing factor.

I blame zoning for the sprawl that makes it virtually impossible for most of us to walk or bike to places. Like, residences all have to be bunched over here, and you can only have commercial businesses way over here. A situation that, as far as I can tell, never existed at any other time in history ever. I really wonder why government thought it was so necessary to do that. But no more can you just walk down the street to the grocery store or the hardware store and smile at the owners of these small businesses; you have to drive to the big box franchises of enormous corporations. Zoning is DEFINITELY a small-business killer, and therefore a job-killer to boot.

[Travis Retriever]

Sorry you've been waiting for an answer from me, because I really just don't know. It may be a variety of factors. The race thing is interesting.

More and more, we're doing professions that require less manual labor and more sitting in offices in front of computers. That may be another contributing factor.

I blame zoning for the sprawl that makes it virtually impossible for most of us to walk or bike to places. Like, residences all have to be bunched over here, and you can only have commercial businesses way over here. A situation that, as far as I can tell, never existed at any other time in history ever. I really wonder why government thought it was so necessary to do that. But no more can you just walk down the street to the grocery store or the hardware store and smile at the owners of these small businesses; you have to drive to the big box franchises of enormous corporations. Zoning is DEFINITELY a small-business killer, and therefore a job-killer to boot.

Glad to get a response.   And yeah, as any skeptic would say, "I don't know" is a valid response too.
Zoning laws and distances and roads and stuff?  Oy. To give you an idea, the nearest bus stop alone is like, 10 miles from my house.  And good luck walking (unless you stay in the cul-da-sac area--and even then, we have neighbors we have dogs they let outside without a fence so...) with our windy country roads with trees blocking the view, no sidewalk or shoulder, no streetlights for night/early morning stuff; and our tons of horrible drivers...well, you do that at your own risk.  But yeah, that would explain why it's so rare that we can just walk to businesses now instead of having to drive because of the shear distance.  I always wondered what was up with that.

And yes, if my posts haven't made it obvious, I have spent a lot of time thinking about this.

[MrBogosity]

Thought people reading this thread might be interested in this:

[yt]raCIUeGUr3s[/yt]

Part of me wants to scream "Bogus!", because I'd bet dollars to donuts the magazine was using BMI as a metric, but still, some nice ideas.

[dallen68]

Thought people reading this thread might be interested in this:

[yt]raCIUeGUr3s[/yt]

Part of me wants to scream "Bogus!", because I'd bet dollars to donuts the magazine was using BMI as a metric, but still, some nice ideas.

Well, yeah, BMI is the metric used to determine obesity. Obesity is different than overweight because it's possible to be overweight because of things like muscle mass. BMI, in theory, measures what amount of your body weight is FAT. If over a certain percentage (I don't recall what it is) of it is fat, you're obese, regardless of your physical weight.

[MrBogosity]

Well, yeah, BMI is the metric used to determine obesity.

Not by anyone who knows what they're doing. Obesity is determined by percent body fat. Not only does BMI make no distinction between fat and lean body mass, it also uses height, which has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. BMI was not developed to be a measure of obesity, or indeed to have any diagnostic value whatsoever.

BMI, in theory, measures what amount of your body weight is FAT.

No. Not in theory, not in reality. It is ONLY a ratio of a person's weight to (the square of) their height. That's IT.

Here's the YMCA's body fat calculator, which, while far from perfect, is MUCH better than BMI. Note that height appears NOWHERE: http://fitness.bizcalcs.com/Calculator.asp?Calc=Body-Fat-YMCA