"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

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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Jendrzejczyk's picture

American Chickenizm same as Easter Island Blobbing up chickens. Make me laugh.

nmewn's picture

Big breasts became wrong because someone with little tiny breats objected.

Sooo....Everbudy round here got ObamaBreasts!

Parrotile's picture

Parents had chickens (obviously free-range). Tried a short experiment - "piped music" in the coop at night. Tried many composers / styles, and noted laying rates. the "louder" and more intrusive the music, the less eggs were laid (and it was a reasonable difference - about 7%). For our flock, the most popular piece was Beethoven's Piano Sonata No 8 ("Pathetique") which netted a 3% increase in laying rates vs. no music.

Not too loud, but just enough to get the ladies into the snoozing mood. Seemed to work a treat (until the cassette player died, at which point the "experiment" came to an abrupt end!)

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Might want to couple that with the enormous 7' tall Shack O'Niels and the ever-lowering puberty age.



Whoa Dammit's picture

Broiler chickens are only 6 weeks old when slaughtered. Broilers are what is sold at the grocery stores.

CuriousPasserby's picture

Isn't the problem that they're using high fructose corn syrup instead of normal sugar in the drinks and foods?

Dr Benway's picture

No. You will get equally fat regardless of whether you gorge HFCS or sugar. The studies claiming some special evil of HFCS are all bullshit. Complete bullshit but it feels better to have something to blame other than yourself.

LetThemEatRand's picture

"Science -- if it conflicts with my worldview, it is bullshit."  I suppose you think that adding radiation to food would not have an effect on one's body either, because you wouldn't actually see or taste the difference.  Drug companies make fortunes selling people chemicals that change their bodies, but you reject the idea high fructose corn syrup may affect the body differently than natural sugar.  Good sound reasoning.

Dr Benway's picture

'Science' is not blindly accepting what the media tells you studies say. Take a closer look at the research that is used to justify the claims against HFCS, and you will see that it is flimsy to nonexistent.




LetThemEatRand's picture



"A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same."

That is a 2012 study that says exactly the opposite of what you say.  It is not just MSM tripe and it does not come from The Atlantic (like both of your links, one of which simply cites the other).  Okay, why don't you save me some time and tell me what your financial or ideological interest in claiming that there is no real science backing the claim that HFCS is worse than sugar.

Dr Benway's picture

That is a 2010 study with known flaws and internally contradictory results. You don't even read the shit you cite as proof, lol.


And you can take off the tinfoil hat, I have no interest whatsoever, financial or otherwise, in what you stuff yourself with.


It's just funny to see the lengths people go to shift blame for obesity from themselves. HFCS, GM food, vaccines. The simple truth is caloric intake less caloric expenditure will determine how much weight your sorry ass gains.

LetThemEatRand's picture

So I can give you cold hard facts, and you will simply brush them aside and acuse me of going to lengths because you supposedly know more than these Princeton scientists (yet your specifics consist of an Atlantic artcle)?  Do you really believe it is a stretch of science to suggest that chemicals can and do have an effect on human metabolism and appetite?  Let me guess -- global warming is also a hoax, right?   Thousands of scientists are in on it, right?  It would laughable if your ideologically based rejection of science were not so prevalent in main stream society.  Pretty soon your ilk will tell us we can't teach evoloution without saying it is equally possible that a cloud dwelling man put us here a few thousand years ago.  Oh shit, I hit on another one, didn't I?

Dr Benway's picture

No, not at all, you're just ranting disjointedly. The fact is there is no body of evidence to support the wild claims you are making. Simple as that. Doesn't matter how much you rant or ad hominem.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Yes, no body of evidence.  Just the scientific studies you have personally debunked with your ideology.  

Dr Benway's picture

To the contrary, it is you that only read the studies, or rather the articles misquoting the studies, that you agree with. Classic confirmation bias.

There will always be some study seemingly agreeing with your preconception, and it is that one you latch onto, despite thousands of studies over hundreds of years showing weight gain as a derivative of caloric intake less expenditure.

LetThemEatRand's picture

So we all need to be able to double check the research of scientists before we can learn from them?  Should I stop using the internet because I cannot understand how it works on more than a rudimentary level?  

So which scientific concepts specifically do you find wrong in the Princeton study?  

And do you really believe that human metabolism cannot be affected by chemicals, such that part of the calories in/calories out equation cannot be changed?  I mean, really?

Dr Benway's picture

Of course we all need to doublecheck the research, lol. Look, every year there are thousands of studies, many of them contradictory, and of different validity and applicability. You have to judge the weight of evidence on a particular matter, instead of jumping on the one rat study that confirms what you already believed. I can find you a study claiming that masturbation gives you brain cancer.

LetThemEatRand's picture

So how many scientists have to agree about something that you cannot independently debunk before it is to be believed?  You are speaking the language of ideologues.   The tobacco lobby successfully convinced an entire generation of people that the science on the link between cigarettes and cancer was dubious, because they found a few whores who would say so.  Of course you can always find some excuse not to believe the facts.   I'll go with the university scientists.  You feel free to listen to Monsanto's PR department.  

Dr Benway's picture

The scientific consensus is that HFCS, GM foods and vaccines are safe. This is fact.


You can believe whatever crackpot theory you want, but don't hypocritically claim to use the scientific method.

nmewn's picture


Doc, you made my night! Can't wait to eat my eggs, an Alar tainted apple, followed by a nice red wine and the aspirin required for the headache of digging through what NOT to eat ;-)

Hulk's picture

As Joel Salatin likes to say: "sound science is killing us"

All the shit, literally, fed to cattle has been scientifically approved...

LetThemEatRand's picture

True for vaccines (I have not spoken out against those), not true for HFCS.  For GM foods, I've seen studies on both sides -- most of that technology is new.   I eat GM foods all the time as do most people.  Your point is self-serving and more importantly inaccurate as it relates to what we were discussing, which is HFCS.  Show me a university study from this decade that says HFCS is harmless.  

kekekekekekeke's picture

I am cackling




A Crackpot

knukles's picture













LetThemEatRand's picture

Funny because most of the hateful rants here towards jooos and muzzies seem to eminate from the same people who think scientists cannot be trusted.  As for Bush, it probably is partly his fault.  He was a fucking douche, like Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Bush I, etc.

Disenchanted's picture




Scene: Standing in the Court of High Dudgeon with the Honorable Judge knukles presiding.


Your Honor may I approach the bench?


Thank you your Honor.


Today I would like to ask the opinion of the court that in regards to the whole kit and kaboodle of the status quo Establishment(Gov't., MIC, Corp World, banking/finance/economic, 'news'/entertainment, etc., etc.) of the greatest corporation in the world The UNITED STATES OF AMERIKA from Presidents/CEOs down to "advisors" and staffers, who predominates..."JOOOOS or Muzzies?" Keeping in mind that "JOOOOS" only represent 2-3% of our general population.


No further questions your Honor...

jballz's picture

global warming IS a hoax. It isn't that thousands of scientists are "in on it". It's that thousands of meatheads wander through a few years of college and are shat out the other end with a science degree and not a fucking clue how to monetize it.

Politicians pushing global tax revenue back agencies dispersing funds for "research" which lo and behold generates enough evidence for more research. And more research. And with a little luck from the push of the ignorant masses the money starts flowing back to the assholes looking for some other huge cash cow to regulate.

The world has not warmed for the last 16 years, the data has been curve fitted and adulterated to paint a bullshit picture.

Also I'm an environmentalist and I voted for Obama so don't give me any political bias bullshit. Bad science is bad science and AGW is the worst of the worst, detracts from the real problems of global pollution and destruction in a huge and disasterous way.

monoloco's picture

In Mexico where I live, obesity is epidemic, just the lost hours of productivity, from the women trying to sqeeze their bloated nalgas into jeans that are 3 sizes to small, is staggering.

Incubus's picture

"bloated natgas" sounds profitable

Dr Benway's picture

This article misses the main driver of obesity once people can afford enough crappy food, namely lower stigma against fat.


There is less societal pressure on the fat, and what is considered 'normal' has got fatter.

TBT or not TBT's picture

This is the exact opposite of what we see on planet earth.    High obesity and malnutrition go together among the poor, because just about universally, the cheapest calorie sources are carbohydrate laden, and carbohydrates are uniquely fattening.    You find this everywhere on the planet where people eat developed world foods.   Numerous cases documented by western science and other careful observers, of societies introduced for the first time to carbohydrate laden western food staples including grains and sugars illustrated transformations of those societies from lean and free of "diseases of civilisation" such as diabetes to societies full of fatties and diabetics, as quickly as one generation.   In the Americas, in Africa, in Asia, in the Pacific Rim.   Over and over again.    Of course we also see a relation between income and obesity in western countries as well, an inverse relation.   The poorer oyu are the fatter you are.   BEcause carbohydrates are cheap.   Richer people can afford protein and fat, which are far less fattening than carbohydrate sources, and far more satiating.

Parrotile's picture

In Australia, there seem to be more evidently fat people waddlimg around than there were say 10 years ago (OK, make that Year 2000), when we had the Olympics. Can't really remember noticing that many "obviously fat" people from the 1990 era, and in those days "wobbly people" really did stand out as exceptional.

It's almost certainly co-incidental, but the start of the 1990's saw the appearance of "affordable" ride-on lawnmowers, which for many with the larger blocks of land, became quite a status symbol (which of course led to everyone and his dog wanting one - even for tiddly little blocks), and by the early 2000 era we were seeing the arrival of quite inexpensive models, which could double up as tractors too.

So, no more lawn mowers to push, and for many "Bye, bye wheelbarrow" too.

Yet another roadblock on the "Calories OUT" highway, and unfortunately, one of many that "modernisation" has unwittingly provided.


cbxer55's picture


I've been working out since I graduated hs in 79, and am now 51. I went to a doctor in June this year because of one high blood pressure reading. Had not been to a doctor since 1987. I now check my blood pressure every day and it has remained normal since the one bad reading. Blood work came back exceptional, doctor was really happy. And I do not home cook very much, eat a lot of pre-packaged stuff, hate cooking. Doctor said compared to the normal person my age, I am a race horse. ;-)

I exercise every day, varying my workout from day to day to not overwork any one particular set of muscles. Pullups, chinups, pushups, situps holding various dumbells behind my head (start at 50 pounds and work down to 10), standing erect holding 50 pound weight overhead and doing full bendover and return to erect, crunchies (upper and lower), double crunchies, grip strength exercisers (Iron Mind Captains Of Crush are the best), weight lifting and bicycling. I feel terrific, and from the neck down I look better now than I ever have in my life, neck up not so much. ;-0

I take nothing but a multi vitamin and a herbal vitamin every day. Weigh 165, have BMI of 22. A typical blood pressure reading for me is like 110 over 70 with a pulse in the high 60s / low 70s. 

I avoid fast food places for the most part, Mickie Dee's maybe twice a year. Have a weakness for pizza and beer though! ;-)

Refrigerator is chock full of nothing but bottled water all the time, over 100 bottles in there at present and another 72 waiting to go in when there is room.  Other than that, two cups of coffee daily and some booze at night. May have a can of soda maybe twice a week.


Fred C Dobbs's picture

You got it firgured out.  People need to educate themselves and make better choices.  I stay away from GMO, BPA, high fructose corn syrup, msg, hydrogenated oils, take supplements, work out and of course no fast foods.  I too like my beer and wine a little too much.  

My co-worker was pre diabetic and he started taking Beyond Tangy Tangerine and he dropped 25 pounds and his blood readings are now normal every morning.  I take Life Extenstion products and have no vested interest in that product.  Only wanted to say it worked for him.  

cbxer55's picture

I may have it figured out, but apparently some folks don't like it.

Hmmmppphhh! Two down arrows for staying in shape and mostly eating right.

Must be a couple of lazy lard asses.  ;-)

Edit: make it three now. ;-0

Tinky's picture

Perhaps some of the down arrows were as a result of your horrifying plastic bottle related environmental record. Ever heard of a filter?

cbxer55's picture

I recycle them, dummy. I may go the way of a filter eventually, but I have found a brand of bottled water that actually "tastes" good. Much better than what comes out of the faucet for sure. Not sure a filter can get all of the stuff in water out. Medicine that got into the water supply from rain runoff, etcetera.

I put the bottles in a sepa

rate bag, and take it to the recycling center once a month. Is that good enough for you?

I did up arrow you due to your environmental concern. ;-)

onelight's picture

just fwiw I got a couple of Mercola's hard-glass no-break bottles for storing/toting water -- they work v well, and no risk of plastic chemical whatever seepage..

Living where the water has arsenic I have tinkered with kitchen filters and they work really well -- Berkey is among the best esp for outdoors but other models (like at Mercola.com) are rigorous too, and he explains it all

LetThemEatRand's picture

Some of the down arrows are probably related to distaste over your narcissist salute to your own greatness, not to mention that your ode to yourself couched as an observation that working out vigorously for a couple of hours a day is good for fitness is also appearing in next week's issue of "Duh" magazine.  People that didn't work out a lot were not as fat 30 years ago as are people today who don't work out a lot.  

cbxer55's picture

I do not have overwhelming thoughts that I am "GREAT". I was merely pointing out that one can survive on the foods of the day by taking care of one's self. I do not buy special foods from health stores, nor do I cook a lot. As a single guy (separated really), I do not like cooking as I usually cannot finish al the food before it goes bad. So I eat a lot of "packaged" stuff, and have suffered no ill effects for doing so. I also usually only eat one meal a day, with a little picking in between. I am not constantly stuffing my pie hole.

Couple hours a day? LOL. Do not have time for that. 45 minutes give or take. 

BTW: I did say that from the neck up I do not look so hot. Just mho. ;-) 

LetThemEatRand's picture

I would add that what works for one person does not always work for another, including the same person at different ages.  Before I turned 30, I could eat, drink whatever I wanted in as much quantity as I could stand.  I had zero weight problem no matter how outrageous I was.  During my 30's that started to change.  By the time I turned 40, I had to pay attention, limit myself, and workout more.  If the "calories in/calories out" concept changes dramatically over one's life, then it stands to reason that many people start out with a much lower tolerance to the crap food we are all exposed to.   So for some, eating what they want and being somewhat moderate isn't good enough.  For some, they can eat and drink whatever.   I agree with you that everyone should be active.

onelight's picture

You're doing well, cboxer55 -- thanks for the rundown -- good motivation there. Sometimes different people hear the same things quite differently, and we all have to put it out there the way we see it.

Only thing I'd add is (Dr.) Mercola.com has some good whey protein products distinct/different, funtionally better than usual isolate product in stores - great for muscle recovery w/in 20-30 mins of workout -- also good science of strength training stuff he does with the interval training approach with Ori Hofmekler and others; it addresses the boosting of human growth hormone by the body with only small adjustment of workout and post-workout steps -- for someone already in the game, those would be added leverage w.out much effort

Also, he added an article on Kefir lately and I have been doing that for some time now -- Kefir = fermented milk (and fermented veggies via immunitrition.com ) I have found these to be a real spark plug for the immune system -- part of natural boost to longevity approach -- just fyi - there are youtube videos expanding on how to make, etc.

Fred C Dobbs's picture

I guess you get Dr. Mercola's email newsletter as i do.  I recommend it to everyone.  

onelight's picture

Yeah, Fred -- I read the site on weekends when I have time; lots of good articles, including this on whey protein + probiotics + meal timing:


...and this one concerning what we used to call interval training back in high school 32 years ago:


Also, digestive enzymes help break down food for more value gained, and that helps metabolize the beer wine which I rather enjoy too

jballz's picture


I down arrowed you for the very complex reason of who gives a fuck?

samcontrol's picture

did you ever think of putting Some of the water bottles somewhere besides inside the fridge..? Cold is better,,, burns calories, but 2 liters a day is fine, putting them back in the fridge everyday is good exercise.

long post to say exercise is good for you, no kidding.

Yen Cross's picture

 Long " unionized" garbage collection... /sarc.off

Dollar Bill Hiccup's picture

Time for another slice of pie, thank you, Thanksgiving.

More pushups tomorrow.