This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

"Survival Of The Fattest": It's A Fat, Fat World After All

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Back in March, we first presented a rather stunning finding: by 2020 75% of Americans will be obese or overweight. This was promptly followed up with a post showing just how it is transpired that America became the fattest nation in the world in less than 20 years. What however may not be known, is that America's fatness epidemic is not localized to the country that gave the world the McDonalds burger (and the McMansion): it really is a fat, fat world, after all. 

Behold - survival of the fattest:

It is hardly surprising in this light, then, that the estimate for number of people living with diabetes has been increased, to 371 million - an increase of 11% over 2011.

So with the sensitive issue of what one stuffs in their mouth becoming of paramount importance, primarily due to the avalanche in social costs as a result of escalating morbid obesity, here is a primer on the key facts and figures relating to obesity, domestic as well as foreign, and impacting not just the developed world but also emerging economies, from GS' Mick Ready and Keyur Parekh.

Obesity is a unique phenomenon affecting almost all countries. It is defined as excessively high amount of body fat in relation to lean tissue, and individuals are generally considered overweight if their BMI is over 25, and clinically obese if their body mass index (BMI) is greater than 30.

The 1980s saw a sharp acceleration in BMI in OECD countries. Before 1980, global obesity rates were generally below 10% but today, in almost half of OECD countries, 50% of the population is overweight. Interestingly, data suggests that obesity is a pandemic that is now impacting not just the developed western countries, but also the emerging economies. In BRIC economies, obesity rates are somewhat lower than in their OECD counterparts, but urbanisation and lifestyle changes are driving a significant increase in average BMI. In China, the proportion of the population considered overweight increased from 13.5% in 1991 to 26.7% in 2006; in Brazil between 1975 and 2003, the obesity rate tripled in men and doubled in women; and in Russia 25% of women and 10% of men are now considered obese.

  • Data suggest that at levels of GDP below US$5,000 per capita there is a linear relationship between GDP and mean BMI, and that the only pre-condition for developing an obese population is the ability to afford food.
  • In low income countries, obese individuals are typically middle-aged women from wealthy, urban settings.
  • In countries with GDP of more than US$5,000 per capita pa, obesity is not characterized by gender, or age, but disadvantaged groups typically are at greater risk of becoming obese;
    • 33% of US adults earning over US$15,000 pa are obese, compared with 25% of those earning over US$50,000 pa.
    • 33% of adults who did not graduate high school were obese, compared with 21.5% who graduated from college.

What’s causing this increase?

Obesity is a complex problem, with multiple factors influencing its development within a population. These factors include systemic and environmental drivers, which provide an infrastructure to promote high growth, consumption of transport and recreational factors, which limit the physical activity within a population, and behavioral patterns, where individuals consume high-energy foods and lead sedentary lifestyles.

For an individual, obesity is caused by an energy imbalance: simply put, obese individuals consume more energy than they use. Energy intake is a clear factor in the rise of obesity, and dietary intake is strongly influenced by the kinds of food we eat. Changes in the food system to more mass-produced, processed foods with added salt, fats and sugars, coupled with more effective marketing of these products, especially targeting young children has changed the kind of food we eat which contributes to this energy imbalance.

To summarize, changes in the global food system, which produces readily available, inexpensive, highly processed and well marketed foods, coupled with changes in working patterns, has created an energy imbalance resulting in increased levels of obesity.

Sugary drinks: The choice of a heavy generation

There are multiple factors which are linked to the development of obesity globally, but sugar-sweetened drinks have attracted particular attention in the US. Sugar intake from sugar-sweetened drinks is thought to be the largest single caloric food source in the US, approaching 15% of the daily calorific intake in several population groups.

High-sugar drinks are effectively marketed to children and young adults, and their consumption is often linked to fast food, which is likely to exacerbate the obesity problem. Many sugar-sweetened drinks contain high-fructose corn syrup, and there is evidence to suggest a link between high-fructose corn syrup and the development of insulin resistance (think diabetes). Multiple studies have shown that replacing a sugar-containing drink with a sugar-free equivalent significantly reduced weight gain and fat accumulation in normal weight children, prompting calls from the American Heart Association, the Institute of Medicine, and the Obesity society to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.

The consequences of being obese: Shorter, less healthy lives The life expectancy of a person with a BMI of 40-45 is reduced by around 8-10 years, which is similar to the reduction in life expectancy suffered by smokers. An  overweight person of average height increases their risk of death by around 30% for every 15kg of weight. Obesity is a key risk factor in the development of multiple diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, osteoarthritis and
cancer.

The most direct and obvious impact of obesity is on incidence of diabetes - a severely obese person is around 60 times more likely to develop diabetes than someone with normal weight. High blood pressure and high cholesterol levels are also linked to high BMI.

These combined risk factors make an obese individual more likely to die from heart disease or stroke.

But perhaps a less intuitive link is the one between obesity, physical inactivity and cancer. Obesity and physical inactivity are also a key risk factor in the development of certain cancers; around 9% of colorectal cancers, and 11% of postmenopausal breast cancer in women is linked to obesity. An additional 5kg/m2 in BMI is thought to increase the risk of colorectal cancer by 24% in males, and to increase the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer in women by 12%.

Obesity and cancer – the not so obvious link

According to the American Cancer Society, one-third of cancer deaths are linked to obesity and/or lack of physical activity.

Improvements in cancer diagnosis, treatment and prevention has seen an improvement in death rates for cancer in the US over recent years, but the obesity epidemic within the US puts this trend at risk. Obesity is a known risk factor for multiple different tumour types, including oesophageal, colorectal, endometrial, kidney and certain breast cancers. In addition to increasing the risk of developing certain cancers, obese individuals are less likely to survive their cancer diagnosis; individuals with a BMI above 40 had death rates 52% higher for men and 62% higher for  women when compared to people of normal weigh.

Obese men are at significantly higher risk of developing colorectal cancer; the distribution of body fat appears to be an important fact, with abdominal obesity measured by waist circumference demonstrating a strong correlation with colon cancer risk. Obesity also modestly increases the risk of women developing postmenopausal breast cancer.

The costs of an obese population – direct, but also indirect Obese populations place greater stress upon healthcare systems already struggling to cope with rising expectation on what healthcare systems can deliver, more expensive medical interventions and an increasingly elderly population. The chronic nature of the condition means that obese people consume a greater share of healthcare resources, over a longer period of time.

Medical costs for obese individuals are as much as 30% to 40% higher than those with normal weight. An obese individual will on average visit a physician 27% more frequently than someone with a normal weight, and the annual extra medical costs of obesity in the US were estimated to be US$75 bn in 2003 (BMJ Wang). If current demographic trends continue, obesity-related costs are set to double every ten years, and could account for 16%-18% of US Healthcare expenditure by 2030. In the UK, data point to a similar trend, with £650 mn increased annual costs by 2020, and £2 bn higher costs by 2030 (Wang).

In addition to the direct medical costs for treating obesity, there are indirect costs to society and economies, which include early retirement and lost or lower productivity. US data suggest a direct correlation between obesity and missed work days in men, with males with a BMI above 40 taking almost six additional sick days each year. Swedish data suggest obese individuals are 1.5-1.9 times more likely to take sick leave than their peers with normal weight.

Who provides the solutions?

Before we get to the investing implication of this pandemic, we believe it’s worth spending a minute on the impact that reversal of current trends might have, and the role that various parties have played thus far to resolve this. Perhaps slightly depressingly, we believe that pharma companies alone are unlikely to be able to resolve this. Indeed we believe that a majority of this change message needs to come from government policy and social change (as we saw in the 1970s-80s with smoking).

What are the benefits if trends reverse?

Modest changes can have a dramatic impact on both an individual’s risk profile and society as a whole. A 1% reduction in BMI (approximately losing 1kg of body weight) is estimated to reduce cases of diabetes by around 2 million, and cases of cancer by around 100. However, implementation of these changes will require behavioural changes through health promotion campaigns and policy interventions to address healthy public sector food service policies. But policy and behavioural changes are not easy to implement and take time to take effect.

Pharma industry response – encouraging, but not adequate

Despite numerous attempts, the pharmaceutical industry has had limited success in addressing the primary cause of obesity (energy imbalance). Current treatments combat the consequences of obesity, e.g., through the management of hypertension, or diabetes. [ZH: perhaps the profit potential is far greater in perpetuating the underlying cause and merely treating the symptoms which have a duration that expires with the expiration of the patient?] A large number of companies have tried to develop pharmaceuticals to target energy imbalance, but the vast majority have failed owing to serious toxic effects. For example, Sanofi’s Accomplia was abandoned for suicidal ideation, Fen-Phen was withdrawn for serious cardiovascular concerns, and sibutramine was recently withdrawn following cardiovascular safety concerns.

2012 has seen the FDA approval of two new treatments for obesity, when used in conjunction with reduced calorie diets. Both Belviq (Arena Pharmaceuticals) and Qsymia (Vivus) reduce appetite and in some people can induce a negative energy balance. Both products have demonstrated safety signals which are a cause for concern, and patients receiving these products will require careful monitoring by clinicians. But, the FDA’s willingness to approve agents with clear safety signals illustrates the need for effective intervention for obesity.

One of the more serious efforts to this end was recently demonstrated by the Australian government, which evaluated several measures aimed at combating this epidemic (see exhibit below). Not surprisingly,  nonpharmacological options were found to be more cost-effective in the long term, but are obviously more difficult to implement at a society level.

* * *

Another, even more dramatic health-related recent intervention was that on behalf of Mike Bloomberg and the city of New York banning sugary drinks in 16 oz containers or more.

The problem with government intervention in individual and social level consumption, is that it never works without a proper incentive system. If instead of using negative reinforcement, the government were to use positive reinforcement techniques, and for example offer each American $100/year for every pound kept below the overweight threshold every year, the results would be far more encouraging, and the costs saved in the long run would more than offset initial outlays.

Of course, this being the government, it is absolutely certain that corruption and "unintended side-effects" will intervene, that incentives will be perverted by special interests and lobby groups, and the final outcome would be a far worse one than the base case.

Which is why, sadly, the obesity epidemic will not be "fixed" in any conventional sense, but like so many other aspects of the current unsustainable socio-economic system, will merely go away on its own once the "weakest links" are eliminated by the various forces of natural (and man-made) selection in play today.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:26 | 3008780 JustPrintMoreDuh
JustPrintMoreDuh's picture

Twinkies for all!  Oh wait ... 

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:05 | 3008847 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

...wait for the Ice Cream they promised.

http://www.gunslot.com/pictures/ice-cream-obama-promised-us

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:19 | 3008872 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture

bitch tits gone parabolic.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 20:02 | 3009024 ACP
ACP's picture

Gotta make it sound food related. How about pancake tits?

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 20:20 | 3009049 TheCanadianAustrian
TheCanadianAustrian's picture

The reason there's an obesity epidemic, which worsened most dramatically in the 80s, is the stigma against eating fat, emploring people to turn to carbs as a way to quell their appetite.

Carbs cause weight gain. It's that simple. The causal links are not even disputed by health professionals. They're simply ignored.

It's understandable that people reject this notion. It's hard to go against all conventional wisdom. But the government food pyramid truly is the Keynesianism of dietary science.

The food pyramid is another example of destructive government propoganda. The entire bottom layer of the pyramid should be removed. It simply does not contain any food that our bodies are designed/evolved to eat.

Think about it logically for a moment. What evolutionary benefit could there possibly be in weighing 400 pounds? This is far from an optimal weight for hunting and gathering. When there are plenty of animals and animal fat to eat, it makes sense that the body should remain in slender, muscular shape, to maximize the chances of catching the next meal.

This doesn't mean there's no evolutionary benefit in weighting 400 pounds. Far from it. The real evolutionary benefit in weighing 400 pounds is during a famine. If the human body expects to go months without a fresh meal, it makes sense to build a store of fat to draw from. Here's the thing: When you eat grains and carbs, the body's less-preferred meal, that's exactly the signal you're sending to your body. You're communicating "famine" to your body when you eat this way. So there should be no surprise that carbs stimulate the hormone which causes weight gain.

Eating less fat means eating more carbs to satisfy the appetite. Eating more carbs means more insulin which stimulates weight gain. Therefore, eating more fat means weight loss. It's such a beautifully elegant explanation for all our weight problems, yet so elusively difficult for the majority of people to understand this. It doesn't help that government-funded public service TV ads are telling us the opposite.

When you think about it, it makes sense that almost everyone fails to understand this. The idea that eating more fat means losing more fat is just plain counterintuitive. Knowing this, should we really be surprised that we have an obesity epidemic? Not really.

Measuring calories in the diet makes as much sense as measuring GDP in the economy. It's such a flawed measurement that there's almost no value to be found in it at all. The main problem is that most people assume that calories can only be disposed through "burning" them or through some kind of exercise. What people never seem to calculate is how much fat is simply ends up in the toilet. Without the fat-storing insulin hormone caused by carbs, there's simply no way for the body to store the fat that is eaten.

If you don't believe me, just try it for yourself. Try eating pork chops and chicken thighs for a month and get rid of all sugars/carbs so that the body doesn't store the excess fat. Then when you shit, look at how much oil is floating in the toilet bowl. Then take a look in the mirror. You're welcome, fatass.

 

 

Oh, and before you pass judgment on this post, please see who agrees with me:

http://www.tomwoods.com/primal/

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 20:51 | 3009090 Joy on Maui
Joy on Maui's picture

We need more voices like yours.   The essence of your message is not new to me, but the  comparison of conventional approaches to diet and Keynesianism is  - great analogy!

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 21:03 | 3009110 duo
duo's picture

I remember spending a week living with my buddies relatives in France.  Sausage, eggs, pate, wine, more pate, cheese, more cheese.  I thought I was going to gain weight.  In reality, I was never hungry between meals, not that there was anything to snack on anyway.  Lost 8 lbs that week.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 21:58 | 3009205 HobbyFarmer
HobbyFarmer's picture

Thanksgiving morning spent it at a 5k with my wife and kids.  We were surrounded by other fit people....generally, it seemed the women out numbered the men 2 to 1 (my rough estimate).  It would appear to be a fantastic time to be a young, fit man.  Too bad most of the eligible bachelors were likely soaking in the beer, football, and feasting.  They missed a great chance to mingle with some really amazing people.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 22:16 | 3009219 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Low IQ third world people getting access to enough food to eat themselves to death. 

Quite Darwin if you ask me.

 

  • EBT card =
  • African American women have the highest rates of being overweight orobese compared to other groups in the U.S. About four out of five African American women are overweight or obese.
  • In 2010, African Americans were 1.4 times as likely to be obese as Non- Hispanic Whites.
  • In 2010, African American women were 70% more likely to be obese than Non-Hispanic White women.
  • In 2007-2010, African American girls were 80% more likely to be overweight than Non-Hispanic White girls.

http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=6456

 

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 22:49 | 3009277 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

America's Fat problem has a rather easy to point to source.

Free Energy. On teh back of the rest of the world, the US of A has had super cheap energy for the decades post WWII.

Free energy makes you lazy. You don't have to do as much. It's all done, mechanized, convenient-ized and of course SUpersized for you.

An energy shock would change everything. BUt everything points to everyone wanting to keep the status quo.

Since embedded energy is THE key to life in all it's forms (our bodies, the thiings we make, use, burn, bomb with, build with......EVERYTHING), it is the equation that reflects the State of everything.

The curse of Free Energy. Kind of like Midas, only worse.

ori

http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/the-curse-of-free-energy/

 

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 22:57 | 3009289 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Americans use to do the hard work until the 2000s when our borders were flooded with illegal immigration.  It was not uncommon to work 50, 60, 80 hours a week of hard labor in America under brutal conditions.  What you read and what reality is are two different things.

We would gladly go back to hard labor if our fucking leaders would stop the flood of Mexicans taking our fucking jobs.

 

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 23:38 | 3009338 El Tuco
El Tuco's picture

This is the only time I've ever disagreed with you.

Mexicans aren't the problem. They have made things extremely affordable with their 3rd world wages here in America. Brick layers, carwashero's, landscaping, roofers, janitors, maids, etc. Shit, I don't know anyone's job they have taken. I don't know anyone who would even want to do that work 12 -14 hours a day in the hot Texas sun. You don't see them in factories because all the factories are in China. You don't see them in IT, engineering, in hospitals, you see them doing work that the SNAP card folks would never do.

 

I'm not afraid of hard physical work but it can make you old and cripple real fast and I don't envy anyone doing it.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 00:41 | 3009376 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Back in the 80s we white folk did the hard labor.  It was the white boys on drugs were the rod busters, Negroes did the concrete, pansy assed white boys electricians, gross white boys were the plumbers, the butt crack people, and smart white guys were the inspectors and superintendents.  Blacks, usually assistant superintendents were the enforcers; they kicked the ass, did the dangerous jobs, and made sure no one got out of line.  It was our system and it worked.

In the 90s and definitely by the 2000s America was flooded with cheap Mexican labor that drove down blue collar wages and put the black and white guys out of work.  We would gladly take our jobs back but we get outbid by Mexicans for jobs everywhere we bid. 

The Mexicans use to live in communal houses bought by the boss, got second mortgages on the house, bid jobs for nothing, made their money and split. 

The assholes in Washington, Bush, Reich, Obama, Clinton, Reagan, intentionally promote the illegal immigration policy for votes, cheap labor, and the rich getting richer. 

It all a Yids world in America and whatever the Yids want the Yids get.  Every fucking industry, every fucking job, every fucking law, the fucking Yids own America.  If the Yids can make a buck the government kisses their ass and makes it happen. 

Separate borders, separate countries. 

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 02:08 | 3009433 markmotive
markmotive's picture

What's causing this? The same things that are causing the rest of our problems. Stupidity and laziness.

You think we'd have an empire of debt if the average person got off their a$$es once in a while?

http://www.planbeconomics.com/2012/11/24/an-empire-of-debt-leading-to-a-...

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 02:30 | 3009445 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

LOVE your flag.... asshole

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 09:20 | 3009558 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

Probably doesn't even realize he's an asshole....or that he's even overweight.

 

You think we'd have an empire of debt if the average person got off their a$$es once in a while?

 

The average person just voted for exactly that....then they went back to their couches and waited for next batch of EBT cards to arrive.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 10:48 | 3009651 derek_vineyard
derek_vineyard's picture

it will be inexpensive for disneyland to change their famous attraction to its a fat, fat world after all

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 23:15 | 3010651 markmotive
markmotive's picture

It's meant to be ironic.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 08:21 | 3009546 Ayreos
Ayreos's picture

Meanwhile: no amount of physical labor can offset the results of a bad diet.

My father has been doing hard labor almost every day for  40 years and the only time he has stopped being overweight is when my mother got sick and stopped feeding him carbs like grains.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 15:53 | 3010112 AgDc
AgDc's picture

Nice ethnic, racial BS stereotypes.   And in requisite ZH fashion you got to throw in the anti-Jewish crap.  What a vacuous mind, if any.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 01:23 | 3009395 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

El Tuco
Your whole argument is only worsened by your screen name...
One assumes you're "Latino" trotting out the old " doing the dirty jobs Gringoes and Negroes won't do" line....which is pure, unadulterated, racist bullshit...a small consolation prize for the fact that so many Millions of "Latinos" couldn't make it back home in "Aztlan" and were forced to flee a myriad of self created "Latino" cultural/institutional hellholes.
Those "crap" jobs belong to American youth and the "undiploma-ed" as they did in times past, not to a bunch of tax swilling, line jumping 3rd world peasants, fortunate enough to have been born adjacent to a burgeoning plantation state (amerika).
Illegal immigration is the on shoring of global wage arbitrage, nothing more, nothing less.
Illegal immigration goes hand in glove with the degradation and decay of American society as a productive citizenry is displaced by a more pliant culturally indifferent peasant workforce.....
"Thanks for the memories, American....Here's your SNAP card. You didn't want that NASTY ole job anyway..."

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 12:27 | 3009751 El Tuco
El Tuco's picture

I'm not a Latino but I understand that they are not the problem for America's job woes. The Mexican guy who is roofing 12 hours a day for 75 bucks in 110 degree heat is just the scapegoat.

Seriously do you think there are 1000's of Americans that want that job?

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 12:53 | 3009792 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Yes.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 13:13 | 3009832 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

That guy gets the entire 12$     No taxes, no payments into a SS ponzi that will not be there anyway.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 14:03 | 3009924 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

"Seriously do you think there are 1000's of Americans that want that job?"

Yes....and you have to be stupid to be buying that propaganda line. There are STILL places in America where Americns do all those things...just like they used to (& will again)

My 1st job was pumping gas.

My 2nd job was sucking the sludge out of big oil storage tanks in a poorly ventilated moonsuit and other oil field kid tasks like that.

My 3rd construction.

See a pattern there?

Those 1st jobs ARE the important jobs.

They train you to get up in the morning, get there on time and teach you what real WORK and cooperative endeavor feels like.

Take that away and what do you get?

Decadence: pure and simple.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 14:59 | 3010023 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Decadence:   Ah, no.  Between the taxes we pay on our income (social security, workman's comp, insurance, etc..the total cost of having the job), a lot of that pay we don't get to have.   On the other hand, politicians buy votes by extending handouts to the unemployed, which incentives them to forgo lower paid work, work they don't ordinarily do, etc, for sitting around instead, taking it easy.     This prevents wages and prices from adjusting as they should, and so the economic weakness persists, drags out, piles up debt, which weighs down the economy further, increasing dependence, increasing the demand and need for handouts.   The government party gains power.   The Great Depression was like this.   Big Democrat majorties.   Economic stagnation.    Rampant vote buying and demagoguery.     A really really big global war that made even vietnam look small, and iraq/afghanistan look like a minute detail, in every respect.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 16:35 | 3010168 fattail
fattail's picture

Not for $12 an hour.  But if there were not 11 million illegal immigrants the labor supply would be such that the equilibrium price of labor would be much higher say $18-20.  High enough in fact that the government could not afford to provide a comparable living standard for the unskilled worker, like they can now.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 12:01 | 3009724 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Youre wrong.

Over the last 2 decades there has been a major shift in jobs in ithe immigrant class.

Whereas twenty years ago it was unskilled labour to skilled and semi skilled.

One more generation, and they will be taking IT and engineering jobs.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 02:30 | 3009446 markettime
markettime's picture

Combination of things: No manufacturing jobs that require labor, Our food is garbage and we all feel like crap from eating it, We are all broke from the Keynesian system. There is nothing for us to do, especially if you live in a big city. 

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 23:08 | 3009304 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

That's racism man?! You're not supposed to know that much less talk about it.

 

Repeat after me: 2 +2 = 5

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 00:44 | 3009381 economics9698
economics9698's picture

I am like the guy in the movie Network where he gives up and says “fuck it” or something to that effect. 

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 10:36 | 3009643 old naughty
old naughty's picture

He said: "I can't take this any more!"

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 12:54 | 3009794 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Opps.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 14:04 | 3009928 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

He said : "Oops"

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 01:41 | 3009418 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

We ran in our local Turkey Trot 5k again this year too. What a fit,vibrant group. It was so cute to see young families come out with their young kids. They gave out awards for the top 7 finishers in the young age brackets. It was so nice to see 200 people cheer when they walked up for their ribbon. I pity the honey boo boo kids at home with the tv blaring and the junk food piled high on platters. I hope some find some way to escape. I managed to shave a minute of my time and came in 112 out of 175 which was a tear filled joy for me considering it was a difficult cross country course and running is not my specialty. After that run its quite hard to over indulge but we did have some tasty home made fixings a la Hedgeless Horseman and slept like rocks!

Miffed:-)

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 18:03 | 3010267 kekekekekekeke
kekekekekekeke's picture

I ran a turkey trot too!  Waaaay more fit single young ladies than fit single young dudes, unfortunately. 

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 21:24 | 3009152 lincolnsteffens
lincolnsteffens's picture

The worsening state of obesity is no accident. It is driven by profit. Just follow the money. It leads directly to big agribusiness, the pharmaceutical industry,food processors, chemical industry and oil/gas which is used in the production of man made fertilizer.

When government agencies and legislators find more reward catering to big business than the general public you get the current results. A nation of sick people mentally and physically. Now we will witness  the consolidation of health insurance that everyone pays for with no consequences for bad behavior and no reward for good. The destructive path is set and you can either stay on it or get off on the road less traveled.

IT IS YOUR PERSONAL CHOICE.

 

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 11:53 | 3009711 JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

But also the BMI index is bullshit. According to that Tom Cruz is obese, wtf?

People have different body types, even with low fat percentages. I think my BMI is around 36 but my body fat percentage is around 22% which is average. I am a stocky muscular guy who can bench press 330 pounds and squat press over 400. I am not a weak ball of fat. Some people are just skinny in body type and can eat everything in sight and still not gain weight, and there are athletic people who seem to have that Goldy Lox middle and they are the body type that the BMI is based on, but sometimes I think the eggheads use the skinnies, lol.

BMI is just an agitprop tool for health nuts to take over everyones fucking lives.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 17:47 | 3010258 sluggo
sluggo's picture

You are correct.  According to their BMI, all those guys playing football toaday are obese!

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 21:27 | 3009157 Esso
Esso's picture

Awesome post TCA!

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 22:05 | 3009221 spekulatn
spekulatn's picture

I haven't read Mr. Taube's book yet but he just received funding from Mr. John Arnold's foundation for a new non profit that appears interesting.

 

http://nusi.org/ 

 

Here's Gary on the subject of sugar.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign

 

 

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 22:36 | 3009268 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Exactly.   One hormone, far and away above all others, causes fat to be stored.   Insulin.  Carbohydrates cause insulin spikes.    Eating/drinking sugar causes insulin to spike, and fat to be stored, among the many other effects of insulin on EVERY cell in the body.    Know what causes even higher spikes than sugar?   Bread.    Whole wheat or white, makes no difference.    And then there is the additive effect, and immune system havoc caused by the glutens in modern "dwwarf" wheat.

 

Must reads on how we got here:   Anything by Gary Taubes.   Anything at all.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 23:11 | 3009312 CrazyCooter
CrazyCooter's picture

I saw this a while back, is this a para-phrase or citation of your arguement?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Regards,

Cooter

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 00:05 | 3009353 peekcrackers
peekcrackers's picture

Good clip Cooter ! Thanks

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 02:33 | 3009447 TheCanadianAustrian
TheCanadianAustrian's picture

My post was just me speaking of what I know. Really an easy post to write. Took me just a few minutes I think. When you learn things and they make sense, it's amazing how smoothly your words flow.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 03:10 | 3009455 nimrod
nimrod's picture

It is not really the carbs, but the FRUCTOSE that turns on the fat switch. although white carbs can be turned into fructose by the body...a backup for hibernating animals. Read the "fat switch" book for the latest info. Fructose tells the cells to store everything as fat, simultaneously it turns off the leptin snsitivity so you do not feel full. the combination is that is so powerful to make hibernating animals fat.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 13:36 | 3009866 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Fructose is a carbohydrate, but most human cells can do nothing with it.    It is processed by the liver, prompting the liver to manufacture lots of LDL cholesterol.    A sure and immediate way to increase your LDL cholesterol is to eat/drink anything with fructose in it, such as sugar(which is 50% fructose 50% glucose) or coke with HFCS in it(55% fructose) or worse, apple juice, which has fructose as something like 70% of the sugars in it.   That's why it is so sweet.

As far as there being a fructose "fat switch" in cells.    Well holy crap nimrod, that's a new one.    Provide a link, please.    Been reading on this for over a year now and never ran across that one.

The main thing that causes fat cells to make fat and not release fat for burning is INSULIN.   There are dozens of singalling hormones that will cause fat cells to release fat(adrenaline is a great example), ditto nicotine), but very few substances that cause fat cells to store fat or prevent the release of fat to the blood stream.    The 800 pound gorilla of them is INSULIN.    

 

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 04:34 | 3009481 piceridu
piceridu's picture

Read "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" the epic book that started questioning fat makes you fat...by great scientific writer: Gary Taubes...it will change the way you look at eating.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 10:55 | 3009653 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

On obesity and natural selection:

Pro-obese:  Fat stores can benefit an individual if there is a short period without adequate nutrition.  A famine. 

Anti-obese:  If there are predators about, the obese make a very high calorie target.  The obesity also makes you an easier target to chase down and consume.  Likewise, the obese are unable to chase down and capture anything.  

 

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 13:40 | 3009874 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Across ALL human populations, introduction of high carbohydrate diets brought about obesity and diabetes and and associated "diseases of civilisation".     Peoples who ate mainly fat and protein food sources, nuts, and very little grains or fruits did not know obesity.    The reason is simple enough.    Carbohydrates trigger insulin production, and insulin production causes fat storage, and upregulates inflammatory processes behind, oh, cancers and joint problems, among so many others.

Mon, 11/26/2012 - 01:34 | 3010728 Dealyer Turdin
Dealyer Turdin's picture

Guessing you're not real big on fishing.  I'd rather be fat and holding a gun than chasing the fat guy...oh, and  there's this other factor, too... brains.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 15:05 | 3010037 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Got it.

Make mine a double bacon sandwich and hold the bread.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 00:16 | 3009363 ShortTheUS
ShortTheUS's picture

Bitch tits... BITCHEZ!!!!!?!!!!!

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:07 | 3008852 killallthefiat
killallthefiat's picture

USA! USA! USA!

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:13 | 3008864 Kitler
Kitler's picture

Worlds Largest Abusement Park.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 13:53 | 3009902 merizobeach
merizobeach's picture

Can I go long on a WLAPs ETF?

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:56 | 3009013 Dingleberry
Dingleberry's picture

See you at the buffet.....bitchez!

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 21:28 | 3009159 cbxer55
cbxer55's picture

Golden Corral ftw. bitchez

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:59 | 3009018 overbet
Sun, 11/25/2012 - 04:05 | 3009472 overbet
overbet's picture

Down voters, I can only show you the door you have to walk through it. Juicing green vegtables makes you feel 18 when you are 40 after a few weeks and you get used to the taste and actually start craving it if you skip a day.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 18:05 | 3010270 kekekekekekeke
kekekekekekeke's picture

Do you use cilantro?

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 18:08 | 3010274 kekekekekekeke
kekekekekekeke's picture

David Wolfe Daniel Vitalis Dr. MErcola and the health ranger? cool ^_^

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 23:04 | 3009298 hunglow
hunglow's picture

Ho, ho, ho.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 02:47 | 3009449 A Dollar Short
A Dollar Short's picture

I will always love my Twinkies.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:27 | 3008782 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

What governments and central banks cannot achieve to restore balance, mother nature will impose over time in a very grissly but effective manner.

The truth s that we are in the process of culling ourselves through lifestyle choices which are neither physically nor economically sustainable.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:12 | 3008860 duo
duo's picture

These articles commonly state "since 1980" figures for obesity increase.  What happened then?  HFCS replaced sugar in soft drinks, and in the next decade replaced sugar in just about everything, from salad dressings to pasta sauce.

HFCS is not metabolized the same as sugar.  It is stored as fat first.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:41 | 3008896 GenXer
GenXer's picture

HFCS is processed by the body the same as sugar. You're correct in saying that the 1980's hearlded huge inflow of HFCS into the market due to government subsidies on corn and food technology breakthroughs making it a far cheaper and therefore more profitable ingredient for the food industry than cane sugar. The real problem since the 80's is not so much HFCS being used but that sugar consumption, rather than declining has stayed very stable, and the new catagory of HFCS has exploded meaning the TOTAL sugar being consumed is skyrocketing.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:19 | 3008971 French Frog
French Frog's picture

Herein lies the problem when we are dealing with anything that has the backing of one the biggest self-interest lobby groups in the world (the food industry, but the principle is the same with oil, finance....). They have access and sponsor research that will invariably return the results that they are after + many 'innocent looking' websites will be setup and maintained to back up their claims.

I put 'High Fructose Corn Syrup' in Google and on the first pages I found plenty of articles backing the "HFCS is processed by the body the same as sugar" theory and as many that said the opposite, all of them referring to articles from well established and reputable sources.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:31 | 3008990 adr
adr's picture

The body does metabolize HFCS the same way as sugar, but not at the same rate. HFCS takes longer to process leading the body to metabolize other sugars first to get energy. What is not consumed is turned to fat. Far more fat is generated from HFCS in an equal caloric intake of sugar.

True studies are just being done now to show how bad HFCS is for your body. At my local gym the licensed trainer there has been running a study on people who are consuming HFCS and those cutting it out as much as possible. On an equal exercise regimen those trying to cut out HFCS are losing far more weight.

That leads anyone with a brain to come to the conclusion that sugar is metabolized quicker than HFCS. I cut out drinking anything with HFCS and switched to drinks sweetened with pure sugar. I lost ten pounds in a week.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 13:53 | 3009903 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

This is retarded.      

Regular table sugar is mainly made of sucrose, a well known molecule, very well understood, which is basically one fructose molecule and one glucose molecule bound together.   So it is 50% fructose and 50% glucose.    It is cleaved into free glucose and free fructose very very quickly by the digestive tract.  

Now, compare to HFCS:

HFCS sugar content is 55% fructose and 45% glucose.

There is no appreciable difference in how these two are metabolized.

HFCS is cheaper, and cheaper for food companies to use because it is sweeter (on the tongue) per unit of cost than cane/table sugar.   Now you know why food companies like to use it rather than cane sugar.   Profit (Duh).

Neither of these is good for you, with HFCS being just slightly worse for you than regular sugar was, because it is cheaper, and because it contains a bit more fructose, which causes LDL cholesterol production, pretty much immediately.   The liver has to process nearly every molecule of fructose we take in, and in that process produces "bad cholesterol".      Most human cells cannot use fructose, aside a few very specialised cells such as sperm cells.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:29 | 3008987 Esso
Esso's picture

HFCS is NOT processed the same way by your body as sucrose (cane or beet sugar). The fructose and glucose in HFCS are free sugars where in sucrose they're molecularly bonded requiring an extra metabolic step by your body to make them available for use by your body to be stored as fat.

A 2010 study pretty conclusively proves that HFCS is a primary cause of obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome as opposed to sucrose. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

It's also a well established fact that excess carbohydrate consumption is the primary cause of high serum colesterol, not the consumption of cholesterol containing foods such as eggs or meats.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:36 | 3008992 adr
adr's picture

Yay, GOLD STAR!!!

It is amazing that people can't accept simple biological concepts as fact. You learn all this stuff in 9th grade Bio, yet it is seemingly impossible to get people to understand it.

I guess that is what billions from ADM and Mosanto can buy you.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 23:10 | 3009310 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

The thing is though, HFCS is very nearly the same thing as table sugar.     HFCS is 55/45 fructose/glucose.     Table sugar(sucrose) is 50/50.     The latter breaks in two in the small intestine fast enough that there is little difference, just that 10% extra amount of fructose(which is really bad for us).   But get this, food manufacturers tend to use a little less, or they can use less HFCS, to get the same level of sweetness as with good ol sucrose, because the free fructose renders HFCS sweeter to the tongue.     The perniciouis thing is mainly that HFCS is even cheaper than table sugar.    Both are subsidized by our taxes.   One has more fructose than the other, slightly more.   And fructose is bad stuff our bodies were not designed to take in year around.   Just during seasons where fruits and berries were in season, which isn't very long in most places.   A few weeks.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 22:06 | 3009222 jimod
jimod's picture

sorry, you're wrong. see princeton study.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:51 | 3008928 El Tuco
El Tuco's picture

It's not just HFCS but the grains we eat.

http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/

Worth the read..

 

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:57 | 3008940 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

GMO'd grains, dwarf wheat, etc.   *nods*

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:38 | 3008994 Esso
Esso's picture

Yes, Dr. Davis' book "Wheat Belly" and his blog are excellent sources.

Another great source is Steve Cooksey's blog Diabetes Warrior. http://www.diabetes-warrior.net/ Cooksey's story is an amazing one.

Mark Sisson really knows his business too. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 23:04 | 3009301 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Table sugar is mostly made of one molecule called "sucrose" which is basically one fructose and one glucose(blood sugar molecule) bound together.  It is 50/50 fructose and glucose.

HFCS is 55/45 fructose/glucose, both "free" as I understand it, but that doesn't make much difference metabolically, because the small intestine stage of digestions splits sucrose in two very quickly and easily.

So, no, nothing particularly more diabolical about HFCS than table sugar other than:   It is sweeter, pound for pound, than table sugar.   Costs less to the industry, per dose of sweetness added.   And last but not least. contains more fructose per unit of weight, and fructose is really really bad for heart/circulatory health, as it directlty causes a quick rise in "BAD" LDL cholesterol, in the worst category of such, the small particle LDL.   Fructose does not turn directly into fat.    It cannot.  Very few cells in the body can burn fructose directly, nevermind store it.  Sperm cells are apparently an exception.   Anyway, for the most part the liver, and the liver alone must convert the fructose to usable forms before anything may be made of it by other cells in the body.    The glucose of course can participate pretty instantly in fat creation, or fuel ANY cell in the body.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 07:24 | 3009520 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

 

 

So in most 'diet' drinks nowadays aspartame is substituted for HFCS, which is worse?

 

I keep hearing(people raving about the better flavor) that the soda bottlers in Mexico and points south still use real sugar in their drinks, is this only because HFCS/corn is not subsidized there as it is here? or...Real sugar cheaper for them?

 

I stopped drinking any sodas, and use the flavor packs(with Truvia) made for bottled water or sweet iced tea with the sugar cut way back and supplemented with Truvia as well.

 

edit: many of those flavor packs for bottled water also contain aspartame too. read ingredients carefully...

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 14:01 | 3009919 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Well now, interesting question.   Answer:   Any sweetness detected by the tongue causes release of insulin.    So drinking a diet soda, particularly on an empty stomach, causes your blood stream to lose glucose, because the insulini increase drives it into fat cells and other cells.  Because no actual glucose arrives in the intestine after drinking an artifically sweetened beverage (on an empty stomach), the glucose in your blood that was mopped up by the insulin spike is not replaced, so you now have low blood sugar, which is also an emergency of sorts.    In response, you get hungry, and eat more, and sooner than you would otherwise.

Which is to say, that diet drinks are, in practice, quite fattening, because of the chain of events they cause.

The solution is not to drink real sugar sodas, however, because the insulin spike from those continues on upward, causing a spike in fat storage of course as the actual glucose is mopped up.   After the glucose spiked is mopped up you are back to having low blood sugar.  

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 17:39 | 3010250 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Well, junker, that's the way humans' nervous system is organized, with connections to the endocrine system, evolved over time to maintain homeostasis.   Artificial sweeteners have not been part of the environment we and our predecessors evolved with, or else I guess our bodies' reaction to detecting sweetness at the taste buds would have been more subdued.    As it happens, apparently starting insulin production as a reaction to sweet tastes was advantageous for passing along one's genes, at some point.   Ditto the bodies' reaction to whey proteins, an insulin spike.     Go read some papers, not just the abstracts and conclusions.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:01 | 3008945 Ajas
Ajas's picture

Yes, but can we cull ourselves fast enough?

This line: "In addition to the direct medical costs for treating obesity, there are indirect costs to society and economies, which include early retirement and lost or lower productivity." is worth an entire article all by itself, particularly in the context of unfunded entitlement liabilities, and a big pharma that knows how to calculate the difference in profits between treating the inevitable symptoms of obesity, vs solving the problem itself.  

And acts accordingly.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:30 | 3008783 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

My ass was out of bed /at the crack of dawn!   I'm a human 'financial calendar'...  My ass is out of bed at the European open, like a SKUNK on STINK! every day, until I die!

   I don't have time for "fat, large, ro-tund..."  Fat isn't in my dictionary! bitchez

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:53 | 3009008 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

We're so proud of you.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:29 | 3008785 Rustysilver
Rustysilver's picture

Any country with McDonalds is or will have problems. Just look at Central Europe after 1989.

 

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:34 | 3008794 Going Loco
Going Loco's picture

Just look at the incidence of heart disease after margerine was invented.

And don't get me started on transfats.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:54 | 3008932 john39
john39's picture

What most are eating these days is not real food. Even the produce is devoid of vitamins and minerals... And the processed stuff that most live on, designed to cause chronic illness. Eat up sheeple.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:52 | 3009009 toady
toady's picture

I just dropped below morbidly obese to mearly obese, mostly because we're 100% down on the farm now. We're up around producing 80% of what we eat. I still buy beef, I love a good steak, and toiletries I can't figure out how to make.

I like to think of the extra fat as my defense against teotwawki. When everyone else is starving I'll just lose weight.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 22:18 | 3009246 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Stay out of my bedroom AND my pantry you fucking creeps.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 23:39 | 3009340 toady
toady's picture

I'll definitely stay out of your bedroom.

Your pantry on the other hand....

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 14:33 | 3009970 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

How do you know you wouldn't get along him/her in bed?

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 18:08 | 3010273 toady
toady's picture

I'm psychic

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:33 | 3008955 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

There are McDonald's in Switzerland, I broke down earlier this year and had one of their $15 "meals" when taking a guest to the airport. But the adult obesity rate here is stable at 8% (and lower than the US childhood obesity rate).

As long as the nominally wealthy developed countries continue to stuff their fat faces with fecal food, the pill pedaling gnomes can make up the revenue lost by the banking gnomes, so we all can buy more thongs for the female gnomes, and everything will be obnoxiously happy-happy-joy-joy tranquil here.

http://www.oecd.org/health/49716427.pdf

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 20:27 | 3009059 Incubus
Incubus's picture

gnomes are usually rather likeable.

 

It's goblins that you're talking about.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 23:13 | 3009313 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

McDonalds does very well in France, as does an identical frenchified chain that does the same thing as "MacDoh"   (as the French slang pronounces McDonalds')

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:29 | 3008786 Smegley Wanxalot
Smegley Wanxalot's picture

Dammit!  There needs to be a law!

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:11 | 3008859 Kitler
Kitler's picture

Airfares, busfares, health insurance etc. based on weight.

Call it the Abuser-Pay system

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:24 | 3008867 Kitler
Kitler's picture

Okay... Who's the Fattie who dinged me?

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:01 | 3008943 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

You are exactly right.  If some 350 pounder gets on the airplane, its takes more fuel to fly him somewhere than it does the 175# guy.  Why shouldnt fatty pay more?  Thats the ultimate incentive, financial incentive to lose some weight.  Fat people don't pay a penalty for all the extra resources they consume outside of food.  And they only pay more for food, because they eat more of it.  Once your insurance deductible is met though, party on Wayne, go to the doctor all you want, because you insurance will pay for it all.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 20:47 | 3009086 knukles
knukles's picture

Bullshit.  I didn't get fat all by myself.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 01:10 | 3009396 toady
toady's picture

You didn't build that!

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 06:36 | 3009511 LikeClockwork
LikeClockwork's picture

You din't binge dat

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 07:21 | 3009523 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

 

 

 

I'm not fat, I just built a shed over my tool...

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 11:02 | 3009660 infinity8
infinity8's picture

I had to have some xrays last week at my local hospital and all the chairs in the waiting room looked fairly new and were like land-of-the-giants double-wides.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:31 | 3008788 Going Loco
Going Loco's picture

Why would the idea of pharma solving obesity occur to anyone other than a twisted conniving industry and the politicians who serve it? Get fat by eating and drinking crap and not exercising enough; then take a pill to try and get thin again? Madness.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:39 | 3008908 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

profit!

there's also the numerous surgical remedies, which are even more profit-able. . .

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 20:01 | 3009021 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Profit? You think it will covered by Obamacare?  For the public good, it's easier to ban any behavior that may impact healthcare costs.  Bloomberg is doing test runs to see how people react to his nanny laws.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 21:35 | 3009168 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

dunno, I don't do allopathic - but if such things as gastric bypass, perky tits, eyelid lifts, tummy tucks, etc. are considered necessary, who knows?

From 2000 to 2005, there was a whopping 44 percent increase in minimally invasive cosmetic procedures among men, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. While the jump in demand isn't unique to the gender, doctors say it speaks to many men's desire to boost their looks — often through quickie treatments that don't cause a lot of bruising or require lengthy recovery times.

Looking to the future, doctors say they expect tummy tucks and body lifts to show dramatic growth due to the popularity of gastric bypass surgery. Patients can lose hefty amounts of weight following the surgery, leaving them with unattractive, baggy folds of skin.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15548276/ns/health-forbes_com/t/most-popular...

fatten 'em up, cut 'em down to size - everyone can play, and some make bank!

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 02:42 | 3009448 Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

I often wonder where all the flab removed via liposuction ends up. I've heard the rumours, and trust me they are not nice!

 

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 05:00 | 3009490 Tango in the Blight
Tango in the Blight's picture

Tyler makes soap of them.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:32 | 3008789 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 My "power nap", is when the rest of IT wakes up!

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:32 | 3008790 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

May the fattest country win! It will soon be a mark of distinction to be fat in tomorrow's global economy. Just like in the days when a chief was worth his weight in gold. Only the few will be able to afford to be fat. 

Long live the corpulent majority!  

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:43 | 3008818 lizzy36
lizzy36's picture

Fat is a class issue.

Obesity is seen in twice as as many people in bottom 50% of society versus top 25%.

Applicant A is obese Applicant B isn't, Applicant B gets the job. 

The culling of the herd.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:54 | 3008825 sitenine
sitenine's picture

"Obesity is seen in twice as as many people in bottom 50% of society versus top 25%"

2 * 100/50 = 4

100/25 = 4

So even chances.  Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 13:34 | 3009865 Ginsengbull
Ginsengbull's picture

Perhaps obesity causes poverty, through lowered energy levels.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:52 | 3008832 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

It is rather that what is an accepted 'normal' weight differs between social groups. If it is accepted and normal to be fat in a social group, members are more likely to get fat.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:56 | 3008840 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

We'll soon return to upper classes being fat, like in feudal times. Fat chiefs and Rubensesque women were considered sexy, cool and desirable

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:07 | 3008849 lizzy36
lizzy36's picture

NO.

That was when food was scarce, and being fat meant one was in a priviledged class. Now with food plentiful, being a size zero means one is in a priviledged class.

There is a reason many high end designers (think $2500 for a dress) don't produce clothing past size 12 when the average woman's size in the USA is 14.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:23 | 3008879 Kitler
Kitler's picture

You mean the designers are being paid not to make anything larger by the liposuctionists?

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:44 | 3008916 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

the majority of male "high end fashion designers" are gay.

dressing the Barbies, some with unacknowledged hatred for females (competition), working as intended.

the fashion industry works much the same as any - unattainable goals, and mockery of others, aka hierarchy.

profits in divide 'n' rule.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 20:31 | 3009065 lotsoffun
lotsoffun's picture

lizzy - it also meant that the only people that could afford sit around all day and stuff themselves with joints of this and that and wines and breads were the rich.  everybody else had to walk to work and then work and then maybe purchase a bit of food and then walk home.  even the obamanauts today live royally on snap cards, sitting infront of the t.v. and the driving down to the local supermarket with their snap cards and having a choice of every piece of animal available to eat from about 4 different national producers, loaded with hormones and preservatives and radiation and more junk and take that home and nuke it up and get back infront of the t.v.

sugar was rare.  it was hard to get.  investigate for yourself the slave triangle between nantes in france, the biggest slave port in europe.  sugar drove a big part of the slave history in the americas.  the south of us was about indigo, rice and cotton.  the caribienne was all about the sugar.

and 400 years later, haiti and other places are still a disaster.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 22:31 | 3009263 cheetahbaby
cheetahbaby's picture

I doubt it. Not in a society where shopping organic and all that takes a premium and is an indication of class. One does not need to go tt far down on the education ladder to find gross lack of understanding of even the most basic of healty eating facts. And the ignorant are not exactly passing healthy eating on to their offspring. We're not talking twinkies and coke for toddlers here, we're talking prepared foods, chain restaurant eating, Starbucks mocha blah blah blah's etc. The educated top percents will not become obese here any time soon.

 

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 23:17 | 3009319 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Bollocks.  Poor people are fatter because the cheapest food is carbohydrates, laced with cheap modern vegetable oils.   Wealthier people can afford more fat and protein in their diets, and better quality fats, and so are not as fat.   Carbohydrates are uniquely fattening, and their combination with cheap vegetable oils causes body wide inflammator conditions that crop up as all sorts of chronic and degenerative diseases.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 10:35 | 3009642 BurningFuld
BurningFuld's picture

Poor people are fat because they are less active, which is why they are poor. It is simple genetics. Sorry but the truth is sometimes rather harsh.

Interesting how people try to blame things for their problems.  Want to lose weight? Eat less and get off your fat ass and go for a walk. Not only does it save you money but it makes you feel a whole bunch better too.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 14:42 | 3009989 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

That doesn't square with observation, BurningFuld.     Gary Taubes kills this one seven ways to Sunday.   The evidence that Sedentary==>Fat is actually very poor, when controlled for carbohydrate intake,    You'd problaby find the same with Sedentary==>Poor as well.   The highest paying jobs are not very physical.   The low paying jobs are quite the opposite.     Because of the low pay, low paid people eat cheaper foods, which are high in carbohydrate content, and high in cheap vegetable oil content, because these are cheap.    You want to lose weight, get OFF the treadmill, go to the kitchen, and collect everything you have that contains sugar or wheat as an additive.   STOP ALL EXCERCISE if you like, and merely stop eating anything with added wheat byproducts, or added sugars.     Insulin causes fat storage.    Lowered insulin levels permit fat to be burned.   This is in fact the only diet plan that succeeds either in the short or long runs.    Same with civilisations.   Fat civilisations eat a lot of carbohydrate.    Lean ones eat more fat and protein, and less far less sugars and grains.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 13:32 | 3009863 Ginsengbull
Ginsengbull's picture

Crisco was invented as a candle wax.

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 14:50 | 3010004 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

A big problem in WWII was how to feed so many troops, and allies troops, and allies populations, half way around the planet.   A centrally planned R&D and manufacturing effort produced preserved foods high in carbohydrates(which are fundamentally easy to preserve), AND hydrogenated fats, which resist going rancid.   NATURAL AND HIGH QUALITY FATS DO NOT PRESERVE WELL, AND SO ARE THE ENEMY OF THE PACKAGED FOODS INDUSTRY.    They paid lots of money over time to be sure these were vilified by governement and government science...you know all of those A&M type universities dependent on government aid and food industry grants.    Newly invented highly processed vegetable oils are a more than a little different, because they are both cheap and designed for stability.    Problem is, together with the high insulin levels caused by all the carbs, these modern vegtable oils get converted at an excessive rate into inflammatory signalling compounds and their toxic precursor, arachidonic acid.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:54 | 3008837 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 Fat is an entitlement issue... Gotta love Lizzy :-)

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:08 | 3008843 lizzy36
lizzy36's picture

It is.

Since 2011 obesity is considered a "disability" and entitles one to apply for disability benefits.

Think all those 400lbs who can no longer self propel (walk) and end up on scooters. They don't pay for them out of pocket. NOOOOO! Medicare and your tax dollars, hard at work ;)

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 20:51 | 3009091 knukles
knukles's picture

And they are demanding I get a feul efficient electric scooter. 

A Goddamned Pelosi ScooterMobile

 

(my V12 supercharged handicap scooter runs great on Iranian oil)

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 22:03 | 3009216 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Ever fat ass round here got ObamaScooter!!!

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 07:44 | 3009539 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

 

 

There've been ads like this long before Obama came around. Hoveround and the Scooter Store, etc., etc..

 

 9 out of 10 Hoveround owners got their electric wheelchair at little or no cost.*

 

Medicare paid most of the wheelchair expense for them.*

 

Hoveround does all the work for you in getting a mobility scooter!

 

  • We work with your doctor to fill out all Medicare and
    insurance paperwork for you.

  • We submit the forms on your behalf and follow up as needed.

  • You pay nothing up front if you have qualified supplemental insurance and have met your deductibles. In fact, you may owe nothing at all.

 

 from: http://www.hoveround.com/home/more-information?PhoneNumber=8008225213&Pa...

 

 Scooter Store:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpjUBNuNU-0&list=UUM60jWUuwnoZtUat7ajNfpg...

(before Bama Care came into effect)

 

 

 Hoverounds and Scooters for the Skittle shitting Unicorn environment. Get one today!

 

Chicks dig guys in wheelchairs(or scooters): http://youtu.be/64Ixzp94ksw

 

 

Sun, 11/25/2012 - 09:02 | 3009566 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Sure. But that wasn't my real point.

If the government is so concerned about obesity, why are they allowing them for fat asses?...for frrrrrrreeeee!

So now, the only exercise a lard ass gets is rolling off their couch into it, in one last desperate search for the now extinct Twinkie...used to be they were reserved for the truely handicapped...you know, people without use of their legs, people on oxygen etc.

Which brings up another pet peeve of mine...those blue handicapped mirror hangers...I don't know how many times I've seen someone slide into a handicapped parking spot , hang one of those on the rear view mirror, only to practically JOG up to the front door of a business. Meanwhile, the parapalegic has to keep circling the parking lot waiting for the asshole who stole her spot to come back out.

People have no fucking shame and government is promoting it.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:35 | 3008902 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

How do you explain Oprahs rich fat ass lizzy?  It's not that simple, in some jobs you need more qualifications than how hot you look.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:47 | 3009001 lizzy36
lizzy36's picture

Oprah is the boss. 

Interesting, she was not obese before she became the boss. And part of her appeal, is the myth that she is every woman, struggling the same way we all do. Her weight was an outward manifestation of her "every woman" struggle and a major selling point. 

Not merely about hotness. Although that is part of it.

When was the last time there was a fat president? What is going to be Chris Christie's major obstacle to the nomination in 2016?

What i was orginally saying was that all things being equal, the thinner candidate is always going to be first choice. 

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 20:51 | 3009092 knukles
knukles's picture

Ophra is Hot

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 21:40 | 3009175 Hulk
Hulk's picture

knukles is drunk...

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 22:21 | 3009251 nmewn
nmewn's picture

He's frying okra.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 22:53 | 3009284 Hulk
Hulk's picture

fried okra googles ???

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 23:06 | 3009303 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Okra Goggles? ;-)

http://www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,1850,150179-253194,00.html

Good stuff. Hardy, easy grow, drought tolerant...old southern favorite.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:42 | 3008913 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

So is dimwittedness...

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:25 | 3008981 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

Not true. Employers love the submissive fatties. Great fun for all the Doms in HR.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:36 | 3008800 Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

They took away the sanctity from food. Now we have whales on land.

Just because it's made doesn't mean you should put it in your mouth...

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:38 | 3008801 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

What about all those obese folks who aren't fat, though?  What are THEY supposed to do?

Ah, fuck it, let's just start prescribing Adderall off-label.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:38 | 3008803 Money Squid
Money Squid's picture

Im not fat, I just have a lot of junk in my trunk. And, I am big boned.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:39 | 3008806 Carl LaFong
Carl LaFong's picture

GM "Frankenfoods" are contributing to weight gain as well. There are over 20 crops now in US that are GM. Good luck with that.

http://salem-news.com/articles/april262010/gm-food-as.php

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 17:40 | 3008809 MillionDollarBoner_
MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

No mention of residual growth hormones in the meat, then?

Just how do you grow a chicken to maturity in 13 weeks?

Huh?

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:38 | 3008907 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Those are just appropriately-motivated AMERICAN chickens.  Most chickens couldn't hack it in an American factory farm--they'd be on the dole, instead.

Our chickens are firm believers in capitalism, so they intentionally grow faster in order to help maximize shareholder value for Tyson/Perdue/etc.

We achieve this by playing audio-books of Atlas Shrugged in the coops of the layers.

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 18:55 | 3008934 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

Amrkn Chikkenstm are bred for big breasts, which is interesting given the culture's desire for siliconed tits.

Freudian?

Sat, 11/24/2012 - 19:57 | 3009016 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

That explains why the breast meat tastes a little off lately.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!