The avg US woman now 166 pounds — as much as a 1960s man

[degenerasian]

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8784389/am ... eight-gain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The average American woman now weighs 166 pounds — as much as a 1960s man

There's no doubt that Americans are bigger today than they were in the 1960s. But Christopher Ingraham at the Washington Post pulled out some staggering stats to demonstrate exactly how big Americans have become: the average woman today weighs 166.2 pounds — which is almost the exact same amount as the average American man in the early 1960s.

Both sexes have gotten bigger since over the past 50 years. Men are 17.6 percent heavier — which translates into a roughly 30-pound gain. "At 195.5 pounds, put five American guys in a room and you've gathered roughly half a ton of manhood," Ingraham notes. In the same period, women's weight shot up from 140 pounds to just over 166 pounds — an 18.5 percent increase.

The article seems to go for some shock value by focussing on women when they could have focused on men or just the fat population in general. It has to be the food right because we are exercising more than our parents ever did.

[brian]

The article seems to go for some shock value by focussing on women when they could have focused on men or just the fat population in general. It has to be the food right because we are exercising more than our parents ever did.

I don't know that that's true. We probably are exercising more but people 50 years didn't have to exercise as much for a lot of reasons:

1) We have more sedentary jobs now. Just the rise of the personal computer and the Internet alone have probably put tens of millions of jobs in place where you literally never have to move, mine included.

2) Television. (While there was obviously TV 50 years ago, I think we can all agree that the average North American watches more of it now.)

3) People aren't as generally active. Possibly related to #2 to be fair, but I think people are less likely to just go out for a walk. Some of THAT is related to fear mongering in the media and the American fear culture.

[Pruitt]

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8784389/am ... eight-gain


The article seems to go for some shock value by focussing on women when they could have focused on men or just the fat population in general. It has to be the food right because we are exercising more than our parents ever did.

The scary thing is that the number of people who exercise regularly probably has increased higher than the rate of population growth - which means that those who do not exercise are even worse off than we could have imagined.

I think of the premise of the great film Wall-E (and it is a great film), whereby in a few generations, the majority of people have become so obese that their bones can no longer support their bulk and they move around in advanced mobility scooters.

[Jerloma]

It could be that small people just don't have as much sex. Although that doesn't explain China.

[degenerasian]

#2 people had radios instead of tvs?

I just find that with all the adult rec leagues around people in their 30s are more active.
Our dads just went to work and came home, and didn't even cook!

people smoked more in the past?

[mister d]

4) We eat garbage-r food now than 50 years ago.

[brian]

And more of it, yeah. That too.

[L-Jam3]

Could the flip side of that be contributing theory? Namely that since people are getting fatter, then they might be more self-perpetuating?

In the past, if people were fat, they were probably less likely to fuck. And if they are less likely to fuck, they would be less likely to have children.

Now, if people are fatter, and fat is the new normal, and because of the internet, even fat people can find someone to fuck, maybe that's a factor. Fat people fuck, create kids, then raise their genetically fat kids in a sedentary, overeating environment. In 20some years, these fat kids are now fat adults, who go looking for other fat people to fuck.




Edited for Typos, not removing "fat" or "fuck".

[Jerloma]

I don't think the impact of it being easier to get laid because of the internet will have affected a poll such as this yet.

[Johnny Carwash]

4) We eat garbage-r food now than 50 years ago.

I'd put this at #1 by a comfortable margin. With the sub-point that even the healthier stuff, we eat too much of.

Also, L-Jam's post above read like this to me:

fat fuck fat fuck fuck fat fuck fat fat fat fuck fuck fuck fat fat fuck fat fuck fat fuck fat fat fat fuck

[howard]

Overwhelmingly the garbage we eat and call food is the primary reason. Yes the increased quantities; but much of the so-called food is chemically designed to increase appetite (to the point of addiction) and thereby increase the quantities consumed.

Here is an example. It is well established that the liver metabolizes high fructose corn syrup differently than sugar; this is yet another pathway recently discovered. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-f ... ircle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We eat chemicals and garbage that make us fat, and make some people rich.

[mister d]

I take an unreasonable amount of pride in the fact that Quin will be 4 soon and no only has never eaten at McDonalds, but doesn't even know what it is.

[Jerloma]

I take an unreasonable amount of pride in the fact that Quin will be 4 soon and no only has never eaten at McDonalds, but doesn't even know what it is.

You're awesome.

[Giff]

I take an unreasonable amount of pride in the fact that Quin will be 4 soon and no only has never eaten at McDonalds, but doesn't even know what it is.

As you should. I believe Harper's had it, but she's never asked for it or probably doesn't know what it is either.

[govmentchedda]

And more of it, yeah. That too.

More garbage-ier food that has been designed to specifically make us want more the more of it we eat. Drinks that make us thirsty, and food that makes us hungry.

[govmentchedda]

Overwhelmingly the garbage we eat and call food is the primary reason. Yes the increased quantities; but much of the so-called food is chemically designed to increase appetite (to the point of addiction) and thereby increase the quantities consumed.

Here is an example. It is well established that the liver metabolizes high fructose corn syrup differently than sugar; this is yet another pathway recently discovered. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-f ... ircle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We eat chemicals and garbage that make us fat, and make some people rich.

Beat me to it.

[Pruitt]

I take an unreasonable amount of pride in the fact that Quin will be 4 soon and no only has never eaten at McDonalds, but doesn't even know what it is.

Good move. And if she ever asks for one of the happy meal toys - go in and buy the toy when she's not with you.

[Sabo]

I take an unreasonable amount of pride in the fact that Quin will be 4 soon and no only has never eaten at McDonalds, but doesn't even know what it is.

I think I was 12 when I had McDonald's for the first time. It wasn't because my parents were trying to make a health statement, it's just my dad much preferred Wendy's (or Frisch's Big Boy) so we'd go there instead.

[Brontoburglar]

I'm below average!

[Rush2112]

And more of it, yeah. That too.

More garbage-ier food that has been designed to specifically make us want more the more of it we eat. Drinks that make us thirsty, and food that makes us hungry.

I wonder how the average has changed in regards to the early 80s when high fructose corn syrup became widely available.

[tennbengal]

The corn syrup thing. Above all else.

[Brontoburglar]

As long as we're making corn syrup the boogeyman, the complicit nature of many by not realizing how many calories they ingest on a regular basis can't be ignored.

Yeah, you eat more when you're eating a lot of empty calories. But many people don't know know just how much more or care. And that's a huge part of this.

[HaulCitgo]

Nor can work that doesnt involve picking crops or dealing with livestock. My father has never picked up a weight in the 40 or so ive known him and at sixty something he is still in good shape from years of farming.

[sancarlos]

Nor can work that doesnt involve picking crops or dealing with livestock. My father has never picked up a weight in the 40 or so ive known him and at sixty something he is still in good shape from years of farming.

This goes back to the thing Brian said. The percentage of people who make their living doing physical work has gone way down.

[Shirley]

Has the average height changed? There is definitely less childhood malnutrition now than there was in the early part of the 20th century (when a lot of adults in the 1960s were kids).


Otherwise, it's definitely the food, and related, the rise of fast food. When I was a kid, fast food was around, but wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is today. Going out to a restaurant, even fast food, was kind of a big deal when I was growing up. Now it's almost hard not to.

[P.D.X.]

As long as we're making corn syrup the boogeyman, the complicit nature of many by not realizing how many calories they ingest on a regular basis can't be ignored.

Yeah, you eat more when you're eating a lot of empty calories. But many people don't know know just how much more or care. And that's a huge part of this.

People were counting calories better in the 60's?

[brian]

As long as we're making corn syrup the boogeyman, the complicit nature of many by not realizing how many calories they ingest on a regular basis can't be ignored.

Yeah, you eat more when you're eating a lot of empty calories. But many people don't know know just how much more or care. And that's a huge part of this.

People were counting calories better in the 60's?

There's not as much excuse in 2015 though considering calories have to labelled on just about everything you eat outside of a restaurant (and even in some states there as well).

[Johnny Carwash]

Otherwise, it's definitely the food, and related, the rise of fast food. When I was a kid, fast food was around, but wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is today. Going out to a restaurant, even fast food, was kind of a big deal when I was growing up. Now it's almost hard not to.

Related to this, you also have to take into account how food prices have plummeted relative to income in the last century. Poorer people used to be skinny because they couldn't afford enough food to get fat. Obesity is now economically possible for a much larger proportion of the population than it used to be.

[P.D.X.]

As long as we're making corn syrup the boogeyman, the complicit nature of many by not realizing how many calories they ingest on a regular basis can't be ignored.

Yeah, you eat more when you're eating a lot of empty calories. But many people don't know know just how much more or care. And that's a huge part of this.

People were counting calories better in the 60's?

There's not as much excuse in 2015 though considering calories have to labelled on just about everything you eat outside of a restaurant (and even in some states there as well).

There's not much excuse, but I wouldn't say nutritional ignorance is higher now than in the 60's. In fact I'm sure it's the opposite.

[brian]

Totally agree. I'm not sure that was Bronto's point, but he did get off the subject a bit. We have more information about nutrition than at any point in human history, but it doesn't seem to do any good. Governments want to essentially label junk food with labels like "This shit will kill you." and people will still eat it. There's a great many reasons for that, but ignorance is not one of them.

[Brontoburglar]

As long as we're making corn syrup the boogeyman, the complicit nature of many by not realizing how many calories they ingest on a regular basis can't be ignored.

Yeah, you eat more when you're eating a lot of empty calories. But many people don't know know just how much more or care. And that's a huge part of this.

People were counting calories better in the 60's?

There's not as much excuse in 2015 though considering calories have to labelled on just about everything you eat outside of a restaurant (and even in some states there as well).

There's not much excuse, but I wouldn't say nutritional ignorance is higher now than in the 60's. In fact I'm sure it's the opposite.

I agree. But portion sizes have increased. As has the cheapness and ease of access to aforementioned empty calories.

People don't realize that the 2,000 calorie dinner they're having at a restaurant (or care enough to be actionable about it) after breakfast and lunch isn't a good idea on a regular basis.

[howard]

The chemical adulterants in so-called food boost appetite. The chemicals cause increased hunger for those larger portions. Like a drug. Like an addiction.

100 calories of fructose create more fat molecules than 100 calories of protein, or other carb. Arguably more stored fat than 100 calories of ingested fat.

All calories are not alike. High fructose calories behave differently in the liver. Consider the metabolism of 100 calories of ethanol.

[degenerasian]

the 99c 1/2 pound burrito from Taco Bell.

Even if they put disgusting pictures on labels of food like they do for cigarettes people would still eat that shit.

[Brontoburglar]

The chemical adulterants in so-called food boost appetite. The chemicals cause increased hunger for those larger portions. Like a drug. Like an addiction.

100 calories of fructose create more fat molecules than 100 calories of protein, or other carb. Arguably more stored fat than 100 calories of ingested fat.

All calories are not alike. High fructose calories behave differently in the liver. Consider the metabolism of 100 calories of ethanol.

And 100 calories of fructose ain't gonna harm you. Neither is 1,000, dependent on your other intake, of course.

Now, if you have an energy surplus and you're gorging on fructose, then sure. But the same goes for protein or fat. You're in a surplus. It has to go somewhere.

ETA: Also important to distinguish that HFCS is not fructose. So I assume you're talking about that here vs. fructose, which is a pretty low GI carb.

[Brontoburglar]

This is a very good article about "clean" eating.

[howard]

Should I edit and use 10,000 calories for my point to sink in?

[Brontoburglar]

Should I edit and use 10,000 calories for my point to sink in?

Hey, it's not the swamp if posts aren't taken literally.

[howard]

sorry, i forgot

[sancarlos]

This is a very good article about "clean" eating.

I found it confusing. So much back and forth, points are made, then contradicted...

[Brontoburglar]

This is a very good article about "clean" eating.

I found it confusing. So much back and forth, points are made, then contradicted...

Hence why "clean" eating is, in very broad terms, bullshit and undefinable.

And why eat less, move more is so effective and simple.