This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Bulging Costs Of America's Obesity Epidemic

Tyler Durden's picture





 

A month ago we chronicled what we consider one of the biggest problems for America's long-term viability in "No Country For Thin Men: 75% Of Americans To Be Obese By 2020" which goes straight to the heart of the biggest shortfall in America's balance sheet: the net present value of future spending associated with Medicare and various other healthcare related programs, which will sadly only rise as more and more Americans become morbidly obese, and demand more expensive health service out of the piggy bank that even now has tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities. And while the future is certainly not bright, the past and present are just as bleak. A Reuters report focuses on just how it is that America got to where it is today (most likely sitting in front a computer, eating potato chips and drinking sugar-laden soda): "The percentage of Americans who are obese (with a BMI of 30 or higher) has tripled since 1960, to 34 percent, while the incidence of extreme or "morbid" obesity (BMI above 40) has risen sixfold, to 6 percent. The percentage of overweight Americans (BMI of 25 to 29.9) has held steady: It was 34 percent in 2008 and 32 percent in 1961. What seems to have happened is that for every healthy-weight person who "graduated" into overweight, an overweight person graduated into obesity." Which is not surprising: with pink and white slime food substitutes (as an example) allowing more and more low income individuals to drown their sorrows in fat (aka high calorie dollar meals) it was only a matter of time. Sadly, there is nothing in the equation that indicates this is set to change any time soon, even as the all too real costs, to both the individual and to society, mount in an exponential manner.

Here is a sample of how America's obesity epidemic is causing not just the average circumference of Americans to explode, but also how it is sending private and public sector costs and expenses through the stratosphere:

  • U.S. hospitals are ripping out wall-mounted toilets and replacing them with floor models to better support obese patients.
  • The Federal Transit Administration wants buses to be tested for the impact of heavier riders on steering and braking.
  • Cars are burning nearly a billion gallons of gasoline more a year than if passengers weighed what they did in 1960.
  • Because obesity raises the risk of a host of medical conditions, from heart disease to chronic pain, the obese are absent from work more often than people of healthy weight. The most obese men take 5.9 more sick days a year; the most obese women, 9.4 days more. Obesity-related absenteeism costs employers as much as $6.4 billion a year, health economists led by Eric Finkelstein of Duke University calculated.
  • The very obese lose one month of productive work per year, costing employers an average of $3,792 per very obese male worker and $3,037 per female. Total annual cost of presenteeism due to obesity: $30 billion.
    • Obese men rack up an additional $1,152 a year in medical spending, especially for hospitalizations and prescription drugs, Cawley and Chad Meyerhoefer of Lehigh University reported in January in the Journal of Health Economics.
    • Obese women account for an extra $3,613 a year. Using data from 9,852 men (average BMI: 28) and 13,837 women (average BMI: 27) ages 20 to 64, among whom 28 percent were obese, the researchers found even higher costs among the uninsured: annual medical spending for an obese person was $3,271 compared with $512 for the non-obese.
  • Nationally, that comes to $190 billion a year in additional medical spending as a result of obesity, calculated Cawley, or 20.6 percent of U.S. health care expenditures.

And guess who ends up eating (no pun intended) the shortfall? You:

  • Those extra medical costs are partly born by the
    non-obese, in the form of higher taxes to support Medicaid and higher
    health insurance premiums. Obese women raise such "third party"
    expenditures $3,220 a year each; obese men, $967 a year, Cawley and
    Meyerhoefer found.

That is only the beginning:

The startling economic costs of obesity, often borne by the non-obese, could become the epidemic's second-hand smoke. Only when scientists discovered that nonsmokers were developing lung cancer and other diseases from breathing smoke-filled air did policymakers get serious about fighting the habit, in particular by establishing nonsmoking zones. The costs that smoking added to Medicaid also spurred action. Now, as economists put a price tag on sky-high body mass indexes (BMIs), policymakers as well as the private sector are mobilizing to find solutions to the obesity epidemic.

The private sector is starting to take steps to trim America's fat, so to say, with negative reinforcement:

The U.S. health care reform law of 2010 allows employers to charge obese workers 30 percent to 50 percent more for health insurance if they decline to participate in a qualified wellness program. The law also includes carrots and celery sticks, so to speak, to persuade Medicare and Medicaid enrollees to see a primary care physician about losing weight, and funds community demonstration programs for weight loss.

Naturally, in a country which loathes negative reinforcement more than anything (as it involved work to undo retroactive shortfalls), cries of discrimination against fat people are reaching fever pitch:

Such measures do not sit well with all obese Americans. Advocacy groups formed to "end size discrimination" argue that it is possible to be healthy "at every size," taking issue with the findings that obesity necessarily comes with added medical costs.

Oddly enough, nobody had a problem with smokers being stigmatized: after all while eating is optional, even stuffing your mouth with the worst filth imaginable, it is simply unamerican to blame someone for eating. Smoking is a different matter entirely. Yet when one cuts to the chase, smoking is a far lower financial drag on society than fatness (sic):

One recent surprise is the discovery that the costs of obesity exceed those of smoking. In a paper published in March, scientists at the Mayo Clinic toted up the exact medical costs of 30,529 Mayo employees, adult dependents, and retirees over several years.

 

"Smoking added about 20 percent a year to medical costs," said Mayo's James Naessens. "Obesity was similar, but morbid obesity increased those costs by 50 percent a year. There really is an economic justification for employers to offer programs to help the very obese lose weight."

And here we get into some rather Mengelian demographic reverse eugenics:

For years researchers suspected that the higher medical costs of obesity might be offset by the possibility that the obese would die young, and thus never rack up spending for nursing homes, Alzheimer's care, and other pricey items.

 

That's what happens to smokers. While they do incur higher medical costs than nonsmokers in any given year, their lifetime drain on public and private dollars is less because they die sooner. "Smokers die early enough that they save Social Security, private pensions, and Medicare" trillions of dollars, said Duke's Finkelstein. "But mortality isn't that much higher among the obese."

In other words, those damn fat people just refuse to die. One is unsure whether to laugh or cry that this is the kind of prudent financial analysis that would carry tens, if not hundreds of trillions in unfunded medical costs. And yet, that's precisely what it is.

Where one does have to laugh is when extrpolating physical events as a result of obesity. Such as gas prices.

Some costs of obesity reflect basic physics. It requires twice as much energy to move 250 pounds than 125 pounds. As a result, a vehicle burns more gasoline carrying heavier passengers than lighter ones.

 

"Growing obesity rates increase fuel consumption," said engineer Sheldon Jacobson of the University of Illinois. How much? An additional 938 million gallons of gasoline each year due to overweight and obesity in the United States, or 0.8 percent, he calculated. That's $4 billion extra.

It gets better:

The built environment generally is changing to accommodate larger Americans. New York's commuter trains are considering new cars with seats able to hold 400 pounds. Blue Bird is widening the front doors on its school buses so wider kids can fit. And at both the new Yankee Stadium and Citi Field, home of the New York Mets, seats are wider than their predecessors by 1 to 2 inches.

 

The new performance testing proposed by transit officials for buses, assuming an average passenger weight of 175 instead of 150 pounds, arise from concerns that heavier passengers might pose a safety threat. If too much weight is behind the rear axle, a bus can lose steering. And every additional pound increases a moving vehicle's momentum, requiring more force to stop and thereby putting greater demands on brakes. Manufacturers have told the FTA the proposal will require them to upgrade several components.

Leave it to Keynesians to justify away fatness:

"Yes, a heart attack will generate economic activity, since the surgeon and hospital get paid, but not in a good way," said Murray Ross, vice president of Kaiser Permanente's Institute for Health Policy. "If we avoided that heart attack we could have put the money to better use, such as in education or investments in clean energy."

From Broken Window to Busted Ticker falacy. Brilliant.

The best news, however, is that at least the fat are as docile as Hindu cows (just before they are eaten in the local McDonalds):

The books on obesity remain open. The latest entry: An obese man is 64 percent less likely to be arrested for a crime than a healthy man. Researchers have yet to run the numbers on what that might save.

And so it goes on.

As noted, while we are unsure whether to laugh or cry, the sad conclusion sticks out like an overflowing midsection: spending related to America's obesity epidemic will merely continue to rise. One can argue about the behvioral reasons for this propensity of Americans to chew the fat until one is blue in the face, but the truth is that until cheap, low quality food is easily accessible, as long as a sedentary lifestyle is dominant (and with more and more working in front of a computer all day long this won't change any time soon), and as long as healthcare is supposedly prefunded and exists to everyone, the problem will only get worse.

So go out, have that $0.99 cent meal, and enjoy life. Because a stray heart attack is only a few cholesterol molecules away.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:04 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

Damnit. I had to actually put down my Big Mac in order to type this stupid comment.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:06 | Link to Comment Seorse Gorog fr...
Seorse Gorog from that Quantum Entanglement Fund. alright_.-'s picture

You're wasting precious chewing energy. Back to work, son.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:09 | Link to Comment Troll Magnet
Troll Magnet's picture

a taxpayer-funded gym membership for everyone, bitchez!!! 

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:23 | Link to Comment bigdumbnugly
bigdumbnugly's picture

dam they cut off the head in that photo.

i'm betting it's hillary.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:27 | Link to Comment 5880
5880's picture

could I get her #? Please?

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:31 | Link to Comment Clueless Economist
Clueless Economist's picture

She is a fine example of the newly discovered species...Obestius Americanus

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:58 | Link to Comment The Big Ching-aso
The Big Ching-aso's picture

 

 

"Fat in eye of defolder."

Neoconfucius

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 15:17 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Yaaaaay, blame the fatties.  Get them!!!!!

"But mortality isn't that much higher among the obese."

Then it's clear what must be done.  Yaaaaayyyy!!!!!!

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 15:54 | Link to Comment Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

Fatties are gross.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 16:17 | Link to Comment mophead
mophead's picture

If we avoided that heart attack we could have put the money to better use, such as in education or investments in clean energy.

What if the education system doesn't need anymore money and if global warming is a fraud, will the Keynesians openly proclaim that heart attacks are good for the economy? Will they finally admit that they're evil sons of bitches?

The books on obesity remain open. The latest entry: An obese man is 64 percent less likely to be arrested for a crime than a healthy man. Researchers have yet to run the numbers on what that might save.

If you think about it, masturbation is likely linked to lower rape crimes. Tax credit for masturbating US citizens?

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:12 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

no healthcare for

  • obese
  • smokers
  • alcoholics
  • drug addicts
  • school drop outs
Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:56 | Link to Comment prole
prole's picture

How about just "no free healthcare?"

Solves the entire problem before it can get started. This little article is meaningless outside a Communist system. It veritably assumes Collectivism. Kind of like all your posts "Aldo"

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 20:30 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

So you are in favor of making decisions denying what two private individuals may contract to?

Point noted.

 

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 21:24 | Link to Comment Andre
Andre's picture

You

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 15:32 | Link to Comment fockewulf190
fockewulf190's picture

It isn't just happening in the US. Germans are also turning into blobs at ever increasing rates. If you go into a typical grocery store such as Aldi, Norma or Lidl, damn near everything for sale has sugar added to it. Do you really need to add sugar to sliced pineapples in a can? Corn too?

A few other certainties. The airlines are doomed. 2XL and 3XL will be normal sizes. Medicare and Medicaid will collapse sooner than anyone is currently forcasting. Pet obesity will also explode. The sizes of western military armies will shrink alarmingly as physically suitable recruits become harder and harder to find (already a big problem for the US Army).

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 15:45 | Link to Comment mophead
mophead's picture

The startling economic costs of obesity, often borne by the non-obese, could become the epidemic's second-hand smoke. Only when scientists discovered that nonsmokers were developing lung cancer and other diseases from breathing smoke-filled

Smoking causes lung cancer?? Haaaaaahaha...

http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm

http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/123363.html

 

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 15:51 | Link to Comment The Big Ching-aso
The Big Ching-aso's picture

 

 

In a fat enough timeline we all end up bone-white thin.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 16:21 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Yes.  The diet doc diet.  Herman Tarnower now 30 lbs AND LOSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:46 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Mon, 04/30/2012 - 15:16 | Link to Comment BeetleBailey
BeetleBailey's picture

Related to the

 

Adiposius OhMyGawdous

and the

Lardorumptus Thunderthighus

 

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:28 | Link to Comment FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

The number of that beast is 666.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:38 | Link to Comment Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Too small  and not butch enough  for Hillary.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:18 | Link to Comment The Big Ching-aso
The Big Ching-aso's picture

 

 

Meals on Wheels will soon be 3x a day wheelbarrows to your doorstep.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:25 | Link to Comment Badabing
Badabing's picture

We get fed pink slime and then they wonder why we’re fat.

Grind all the fat people into pink slime!!

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:27 | Link to Comment WALLST8MY8BALL
WALLST8MY8BALL's picture

Soylent Pink!

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:59 | Link to Comment prole
prole's picture

Soylent Pink is Sheeple!

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:29 | Link to Comment t_kAyk
t_kAyk's picture

Then you just have pink slime eating pink slime, the same way that mad cow disease started. 

 

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:32 | Link to Comment odatruf
odatruf's picture

Don't be a victim. No one is shoving that shit down your or anyone else's throat. The fat fucking fucks gobble it up willingly.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:34 | Link to Comment Sgt.Sausage
Sgt.Sausage's picture

Correction: You CHOOSE 'Pink Slime'.

There are plenty of alternatives to choose from. Choose wisely, young Grasshopper, and some day you may leave the Temple.

 

 

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:45 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

A new study testing the limits of what people will eat...

~~~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31JNEVHZxO8&feature=relmfu

Summary: 'Anything... with melted cheese on it'...

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 15:50 | Link to Comment duo
duo's picture

unfortunately, once you've given yourself diabeties or metabolic syndrome, and screwed up your endocrine system with HFCS and GMO foods, you can't undo most of the damage, and purging the toxins and their effects usually requires effort, discomfort, and possibly sweating.

The food industry and Monsanto have created a health crisis.  Why you would want to poison your "customers" (read: slaves) is beyond me, but it seems to be a profitable business model with the government's help.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 16:33 | Link to Comment mophead
mophead's picture

That's not why it's profitable. It's profitable because people are stupid enough to believe that eating the "wrong" kinds of foods will lead to disease.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 19:27 | Link to Comment smiler03
smiler03's picture

As much as I hate Monsanto I wouldn't blame them (except for corn). The whole world has an obesity epidemic, including China but most European countries ban GM foods.

George Washington posted an interesting article on ZH a while back regarding toxic chemicals linked to fat pets and 6 month old infants. I can't find the ZH link but GWs blog has it:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/the-real-cause-of-the-global-obesity-epidemic.html

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 20:07 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

The main correlation of interest is between simple/refined carbohydrate consumption, and just about every major degenerative disease, including the obvious outward symptom, obesity.     

The GMO's are just an additional twist of the same deadly screw:  cheap carbohydrates.  

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 21:15 | Link to Comment Matt
Matt's picture

High Fructose Corn Syrup is a big one. Cane sugar has been around for quite some time, but the epidemic levels of obesity are much more recent.

Glucose-Fructose does not digest the same as sugar at all; it suppresses the signals that tell you that you are full, scars the liver, and some of it converts directly into fat inside the liver.

Best of all, it is in nearly everything.

short 1 minute version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y0vHBTJcdk&feature=fvst

Long 80 minute version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z5X0i92OZQ&feature=related

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 21:31 | Link to Comment mophead
mophead's picture

Five thumbs down and not a single person can post a link showing that eating certain foods causes disease.

Where are the studies? Where is the scientific proof?

Answer: there are no studies that show scientific proof of any kind. It's another BIG LIE.

Food does not cause disease, no matter how bad it is, no matter how often you've consumed it. That is a fact. 100% scientifically provable.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 22:09 | Link to Comment dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

Here ya go:

http://www.dietivity.com/msg-obesity-and-other-health-issues-a-list-of-s...

Any form of free glutamate will do, not just MSG.  Here's a list of the ingredients used to increase free glutamate levels while maintaining a clean label:

http://www.msgexposed.com/hidden-sources-of-msg-monosodium-glutamate-on-...

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 22:16 | Link to Comment mophead
mophead's picture

I see no references to scientific studies relating to human disease, only mice. Sigh. And the second link doesn't even contain the word "disease".

Studies...anyone? Scientific??? Any takers?

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:05 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

How often do you get fed?

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:41 | Link to Comment tempo
tempo's picture

When your bored and don't work, what else is there to do except eat comfort cheap junk food. Its the only way to escape from reality.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:59 | Link to Comment Hippocratic Oaf
Hippocratic Oaf's picture

Its the only way to escape from reality.

 

Apparently you have never heard of weed.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 18:05 | Link to Comment prole
prole's picture

When your bored and don't work, what else is there to do except eat comfort cheap junk food. Its the only way to escape from reality.

You talking to me? Are you talking to me?

That comment should only apply to the shifless and useless. Ever heard of working out? Ever heard of cooking your own healthy food?

Max Fischer

Civis Obesitus

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:07 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

I wouldn't be surprised if she's on Food Stamps.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:27 | Link to Comment Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

True. However if this were a picture of an individual at the turn of the century you would have assumed this was someone very wealthy. Speaking as an person who 5 years ago was on my way towards this shape I can attest to the fact my food bill was much cheaper at that time. Even taking inflation into account, I pay more than double for our non processed, home cooked, mostly organic food. At least giving up all my medications makes up for some part of the monthy expense and being in better health at 51 than I was at 25 certainly is a perk. Being healthy today,unfortunately, is just very expensive.

Miffed:-)

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 15:12 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

I think what you're experiencing is price inflation in food.  There's no way (apples to apples) home cooked food is more expensive than buying prepared food.  Organic or not.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:13 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

And simple carbs are cheaper than fats or protein, which is why poorer people tend to be fatter people.  

Wealthier people choose more fat and protein, and less refined carbs and sugar, and are healthier for it.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:12 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

No, since the advent of mass manufactured sugar and refined flour, obesity has been associated with poverty.    Sugar and flour product dates back a couple centuries in developed/western countries.   

Over the centuries, each human group that adopted these easy to store and ship, addictive, carbohydrate loaded foods developed "diseases of civilisation" that is to say diabetes, cancer, obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, and so on.   

 

Each of us can experience what the days before civilisation were like by dropping carbs almost entirely from our diet for just a few weeks.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:12 | Link to Comment Steaming_Wookie_Doo
Steaming_Wookie_Doo's picture

As someone who also went from the obese to normal weight in 1 yr, yeah it may cost a bit more in terms of food cost (not eating cheap carbs all the time), but in terms of my ability to do more and feel really good all the time, such costs are minor. Plus the long term costs of avoiding diabetes, etc are savings I get to bank in the future.

And I can't avoid commenting on this bit:

"The books on obesity remain open. The latest entry: An obese man is 64 percent less likely to be arrested for a crime than a healthy man. Researchers have yet to run the numbers on what that might save."

So in order to empty out prisons, all we really need to do is get them completely hooked on supersized Cokes, double cheeseburgers, etc. Maybe even have fountain drink dispensers in their cells--they'll balloon up in no time. You're too fat to run from the cops, or even figure it's worth the effort to get up off the couch to even *try* to commit some mayhem. And, as a fat ex-felon, you'll be embraced by the rest of your fat community and the broader society. Everyone wins!

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:15 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Cheap carbs are the principal problem here.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 19:46 | Link to Comment smiler03
smiler03's picture

I cannot source this story as I can't find it but I believe it's true:

There is an American food agency that is succeeding in persuading more people to use skimmed and semi-skimmed milk. A positive thing for fighting obesity, you'd think. But..

There is another American food agency that promotes the consumption of dairy products. They found that farmers were being left with excess milk fat which they couldn't sell. This agency assists those farmers by helping them to make and sell more cheese.

I'm not sure what my point is but maybe there are too many government agencies interfering with Agriculture?

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 20:12 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Actually, skim milk is more fattening than whole milk.   The nutritious, essential fat is removed from skim milk, leaving the SUGARS behind.  

Sugars are fattening.    

A diet involving as dairy intake ONLY the fat component of milk, I.E. straight up whipping cream, plus very low carbohydrates, would be very effective at dropping weight and improving blood work across the board.   

 

But I do take your point that government working at the behest of corporate interests is pretty funny to watch sometimes.   I mean, you have to laugh, or else cry/be disgusted.    

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:33 | Link to Comment Metalredneck
Metalredneck's picture

And disability.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 15:00 | Link to Comment Hippocratic Oaf
Hippocratic Oaf's picture

How do you know it's a she?

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:17 | Link to Comment Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

LoL. I just blew  cheeseburger out my nose.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:13 | Link to Comment whatsinaname
whatsinaname's picture

Fishy stuff going on with VVUS & ARNA lately ?

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:23 | Link to Comment taniquetil
taniquetil's picture

I will not stand for this type of abusive language from ZeroHedge about fat people.

 

I mean, I probably could if I lost 100 pounds, but as it is, it's just...too...much...effort.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:30 | Link to Comment Clueless Economist
Clueless Economist's picture

Laaard Hogggg!

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:16 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

If she ate more fat, she would be a lot thinner.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:37 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Once again, judging by the photo, the only people safe to hate in the US are fat white women.

Pussies!

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 16:23 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Why not?  They hate you.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:17 | Link to Comment in4mayshun
in4mayshun's picture

People are not getting fatter...they're achieving the next evolutionary step- Homo Lazious.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:44 | Link to Comment Arnold Ziffel
Arnold Ziffel's picture

Big Mac? That's ok, as long as you drink a Diet Coke with it.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:07 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Big Mac "hold the bread" is a very wise meal choice.    Hold the fries hold the sugar laden drink/shake.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:48 | Link to Comment Ruffcut
Ruffcut's picture

Let's pick on fat people after we kill the  freedumbs of the land.

You are a fuckup if you have no compassion for people that gain this foreign fat. Thank your lucky stars if you do not suffer from this... whatever fucking abnormality. I'm fifty three today, and could never eat enuff to have a huge ass, like some others suffer.

Suffer.. get it..

Soon suffer, comes to us all... Enjoy bitchezzz

 

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:05 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Your Big Mac is good for you.   Go get a knife and fork and eat everything but the bread.    Do NOT have a sugary beverage or starch packed fries.   Your blood work will improve right away, your waistline will shrink, and it will cost you...you'll need to buy clothes.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:05 | Link to Comment ihedgemyhedges
ihedgemyhedges's picture

Sir Mix-A-Lot was just early................

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:36 | Link to Comment WALLST8MY8BALL
WALLST8MY8BALL's picture

Cake's "Wheels" has it right

 In a seedy karaoke bar by the banks of the mighty Bosphorus
Is a Japanese man in a business suit singing Smoke Gets In Your Eyes
And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
While the overweight Americans wear their patriotic jumpsuits!

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:06 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Dude. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Fat and happy"?

Shirley we Americans must be a jolly bunch. :)

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:12 | Link to Comment flacon
flacon's picture

Shirley?

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:13 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:17 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

I am jolly, and stop calling me Shirley!

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:20 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Jelly Belly.......bitches.

http://www.jellybelly.com/Shop/ShopMain.aspx

I love that they sell them in 16 oz "tubs". Too freaking funny.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:55 | Link to Comment onelight
onelight's picture

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/30/fructose-a...

We'll have to rein in the food-medical-pharma complex probably, but in meantime folks can learn how their metabolism works -- and make better choices -- main hitch is that a lot of the better food costs more --

...and like you say, CD, the jelly bellys are right there, in the big bowl....but eating better, and being less of a burden on the health system can be thought of as a civic duty, part of an emerging renewal of the social contract --

....we could afford healthcare for all, if it wasn't such a herding racket, and yet given how politics are, that will only happen with individuals and groups taking responsibility for personal outcomes -- the reward is feeling more alive..

...here's a good one -- good fats burn the bad fats, no magic, just go back to what worked for eons...

http://www.drrons.com/dr-rons-superfats-super-fun-diet.htm

http://www.laleva.org/eng/2012/03/world_renown_heart_surgeon_speaks_out_...

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:35 | Link to Comment Sgt.Sausage
Sgt.Sausage's picture

... and don't call me Surely!

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:45 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Cognitive Dissonance

Read it and weep bitches.

Then again the majority here refuse to do any research contrary to their bias.

As with the Organic food bullshit.


http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20090625/study-overweight-people-live-lon...

Study: Overweight People Live Longer But Extreme Underweight, Obesity Linked to Earlier Death

Compared to people who fell into the normal-weight category:

  • Those classified as underweight were 73% more likely to die.
  • Those classified as extremely obese with BMI of 35 or greater were 36% more likely to die.
  • Those classified as obese with BMI 30-34.9 had about the same risk of death.
  •  Those classified as overweight with BMI 25-29.9 were 17% less likely to die.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20110816/study-obese-people-live-as-long-...

Study: Obese People Live as Long as Slimmer People

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/24/overweight_live_longer/

'Overweight' people live longer than those of 'ideal' weight

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2007-01-11/science/27883681_...

Obese survive heart attacks better than lean

NEW DELHI: It's a well-known paradox that had little evidence to support it, until now. Doctors from UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine have, for the first time, successfully demonstrated that obese patients actually fare better and have better chances of survival when hospitalised for acute heart failure than their leaner counterparts.

In the first-ever large scale study to assess the relationship between Body Mass Index and survival in patients hospitalised with acute heart failure, doctors have found the obesity paradox — BMI being inversely associated with long-term mortality in chronic heart failure — to be real.

The study has found that by weight category, in-hospital mortality rate was 6.3% for underweight, 4.6% for healthy weight, 3.4% for overweight and 2.4% for obese patients.

Researchers also found that for every five-unit increase in body mass, the odds of risk-adjusted mortality fell 10%, irrespective of the patients age, sex, blood urea nitrogen, blood pressure and additional prognostic factors.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/03/obesity-paradox-14-serious-i...

Researchers at the University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, NY examined the records on more than 62,000 patients in intensive care units in the United States, Europe, Australia and the Middle East. The researchers were looking to see if obesity was associated with a better or worse chance for survival among critically ill patients.


They included in their meta-analysis all studies on ICU adult patients published since 1966 to February, 2007 which had reported weight status and mortality. As in all medical or surgical ICUs, the conditions that brought these patients to intensive care units varied, with most being respiratory problems, trauma and infections.

The first thing that became apparent in the data was that ‘obese’ people made up a remarkably lower percentage of ICU patients. Only 25% of the ICU patients were ‘obese’, compared with 75% who were not ‘nonobese’.

The second thing that the data showed, looking at the deaths that occurred during ICU stays, there was “no mortality difference between the obese and the nonobese group,” they said [RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.86–1.16].

When the researchers examined the overall survival rates throughout hospital stays, the ‘obese’ patients were associated with a 17% higher chance of surviving hospitalization compared to nonobese patients. Not a staggering correlation, but reportable because it counters what might have been expected.

http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/fat-guys-survive-car-crashes-better....


Fat guys survive car crashes better

The study, by Dr. Michael Sivak and Dr. Jonathan Rupp, found that belted drivers with a body mass index (BMI) of 35 to 50 have a 22 percent lower probability of being killed in a crash than belted drivers with a BMI between 15 and 18.4.

BMI is a calculation based on weight and height, and the CDC uses it because, for most people, it correlates with their amount of body fat. Anyone with a BMI of 30 or more is considered obese. At 30 BMI, we're talking about someone who is 5-foot-9 and tips the scale in excess of 203. If your BMI is 45, you're hauling around more than 300 pounds at that height.

Ladies: This does not apply to you. Although rotund fellows fare better in serious accidents in which they are wearing a seatbelt, the same is not true for heavy women. Belted females with a BMI between 35 to 50 have a 10 percent higher probability of being killed in a crash than women with a normal BMI between 18.5 and 24.9, the study found.

Obese folk are at a disadvantage if they forego the seatbelt, the study found. Unbelted fat men had a 10 percent higher probably of dying than skinny guys who weren't belted. There was no statistically significant difference among BMI categories for unbelted women, although for belted females, those with a normal BMI had the lowest risk of being killed.

 

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:53 | Link to Comment ronin12
ronin12's picture

 

"Obese survive heart attacks better than lean" - but are you more or less likely to have a heart attck if you're obese?

I'll stay in shape and avoid the heart attack, thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:04 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Just like Jim Fixx....oh wait...

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:11 | Link to Comment RobD
RobD's picture

Long slow exercise like jogging is bad for the heart. Better off doing wind sprints or any other high intensity exercises.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:18 | Link to Comment ronin12
ronin12's picture

Yup - just take a look and common sense tells you that a sprinter is healthier than a marathon runner.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 16:15 | Link to Comment The Big Ching-aso
The Big Ching-aso's picture

 

 

Ya know, I can't argue with stats unless I had some.   However, I do know this from real-life kinda experiences taking 2 varying levels of oral consuming American guys in certain hypothetical situations............................

Here's one situation.   Most generally in an intense fight or flight gig - you know like where ya gotta pronto over a 6' barbed wire fence while being chased by 10 pitbulls - the real obese person will most likely be in real deep doo-doo dog shit.     The other relatively significantly thinner-assed guy will most likely generally be on the other side covering his eyes.    So much for 'longetivity studies' excluding said not-so-uncommon similar situations.

Maybe what I'm really describing here is fat, some fight, and little to zero flight. 

 

 

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 19:54 | Link to Comment smiler03
smiler03's picture

 "Better off doing wind sprints"

What the hell is a wind sprint? Fart propelled running?

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:53 | Link to Comment mckee
mckee's picture
  • Those classified as underweight were 73% more likely to die.
  • Those classified as extremely obese with BMI of 35 or greater were 36% more likely to die.
  • Those classified as obese with BMI 30-34.9 had about the same risk of death.
  •  Those classified as overweight with BMI 25-29.9 were 17% less likely to die.
  • Those in all groups 100% likely to die!!!!

"On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero"!

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:02 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

A FAT guy won't live as long as a normal guy.

How many old fat people do you see? Less thant normal old people.
Fat people kick the can much earlier than normal people.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:29 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

When was the last time you met a normal person.  Been years here.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 22:23 | Link to Comment dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

In my family the fatter ones lived more years than the thinner ones.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:03 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Quite useless. A waste of time.

Facts could have mattered when US citizens were primarly propagandists. Nowadays, they are turning more and more fantasists, throwing around fantasy to fish for like minded people and start a union dedicated to defend their fantasy.

Collecting data and reporting them to US citizens is a waste of time. Even US citizens should know that.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:19 | Link to Comment Whoa Dammit
Whoa Dammit's picture

Note that these studies were for in hospital stays. The fatter people were more likely to survive when forced to live off of terrible hospital food, as their bodies could utilize stored fat for nutrition.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:55 | Link to Comment Withdrawn Sanction
Withdrawn Sanction's picture

"Those classified as underweight were 73% more likely to die."

Those classified as mortal were 100% likely to die. No one gets out of this life alive. No one. So go ahead, spend your life, or what's left of it, worrying.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 16:53 | Link to Comment mophead
mophead's picture

Fat guys survive car crashes better

Yeah, but they're likely to cause more damage to vehicles they crash into because of the added weight, and thus, more injury to those passengers. Also, if they roll off a hill and they have passengers they're likely to squash them causing serious injury or death. So there. I think they should pay higher insurance premiums.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:20 | Link to Comment in4mayshun
in4mayshun's picture

Damn! I knew there was a reason why I wasn't experiencing the "Hopium" in the economy- I'm too skinny!!!

Bacon hot fudge sundae...here I come!

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:05 | Link to Comment Council of Econ...
Council of Economic Terrorists's picture

Fat people suck...dollars from my wallet.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:45 | Link to Comment narnia
narnia's picture

Is there some rule of nature that we have to subsidize health care costs or make eating decisions of obese people?  

The majority tyranny empowers jerkoffs to write unconstitutional rules that make you pay for them or go to prison.  It's no different than these same jerkoffs covering all risks of of the mythological TBTF.   

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:06 | Link to Comment Ramboy
Ramboy's picture

Good for the country since most guys like plumper sex

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:12 | Link to Comment f16hoser
f16hoser's picture

Not unlike riding a mopid.....

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:27 | Link to Comment t_kAyk
t_kAyk's picture

Long Segways...

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:07 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Went to the market this morning and I only bought fresh farm products.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:29 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Yeah.

Because you just can't get fat eating fresh farm products.

/sarc

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:34 | Link to Comment Arthor Bearing
Arthor Bearing's picture

It makes it more difficult. Real food has stuff in it which your body needs, so at some point your body says "nice work I have had enough." Processed foods have little to no nutritional value so your stomach says "I will need alot more of that to do anything worthwhile."

Throw away your diet books and replace them with this sentence: high-fiber nutritional food in reasonable serving sizes with moderate exercise. ftw.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:40 | Link to Comment Sgt.Sausage
Sgt.Sausage's picture

It's kinda really hard to. I'm a serious distance runner (70-90 miles a week) and I burn through 4,000+ calories a day. Last November I switched to a healthy diet that includes nothing out of a box, nothing out of a can - only fresh produce, plain dry beans, and some chicken and fish once or twice a week.

I am, quite literally, shoveling food down my pie hole from the minute I get up until the minute I go to sleep and I'm losing weight to the tune of 2 pounds a month. If this keeps up, by 2014 I'll look like one of those hunger strike guys. 2015 I'll be a poster boy for African Famine and by 2016 I'll be playing Auschwitz victims in movies.

It's damned hard to get fat if you limit yourself to mostly fresh produce. I'd say it's just about impossible, based on my last 6 month's experience.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:48 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

Load up on nuts and healthy whole food fats (avocados) for those extra calories.  

Your body is merely reaching it's natural weight.  It will reach an equilibrium and level off.

That is a LOT of running though!  Could never get a bear to chase me that long myself!

Kudos!

Check out this guy if you want to see all the benefits you are getting from eating a whole food diet:

http://www.drfuhrman.com/

pods

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:57 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Sgt.Sausage

"I'm a serious distance runner (70-90 miles a week) and I burn through 4,000+ calories a day."

"It's damned hard to get fat if you limit yourself to mostly fresh produce."

And you don't see a link between those two?

 

 

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:59 | Link to Comment ronin12
ronin12's picture

Distance running is not ideal if you are seeking optimal health.

Ask yourself who looks healthier - Usain Bolt or whoever the top marathon runner is.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:17 | Link to Comment RobD
RobD's picture

Exactly, sprinters=muscular and lean, long distance runners=skelitors generally.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 15:48 | Link to Comment Id fight Gandhi
Id fight Gandhi's picture

No it's actually bad on your joints too. Everything in moderation.

The ironic stories you hear "healthy" runners having heart attacks is usually generics being aggravated by the the constant stress of running.

Cross training is best. Build fast twitch muscle.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 16:32 | Link to Comment tired1
tired1's picture

Dont run on hard surfaces, blows out your knees! Want a good workout? Try running on sand.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:19 | Link to Comment RobD
RobD's picture

Dude you are burning your muscle, eat more protein especially the animal type.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 15:22 | Link to Comment Max Hunter
Max Hunter's picture

Right on Rob.. That kind of running is not my style though, I use to run 3-5 miles a day but it was tearing up my body. Now, I do 30 min cardio per day along with 50 min weight training.. I take in 250 grams of protein +/-.. I'm 5'-7 1/2" and weigh 192 lbs.. I have to have my shirts and Jackets taylored because of fat ass Americans that have a 48" (XL) jacket/shirt also gives me so much material around the waist it feels like i'm tucking in a parachute..

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:21 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

"2015 I'll be a poster boy for African Famine and by 2016 I'll be playing Auschwitz victims in movies."

That's a bit much.  All I eat is fresh mostly raw food and weigh 200lbs.  If you don't settle in at your natural weight, you should check for HIV Sgt sausage.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:44 | Link to Comment Whoa Dammit
Whoa Dammit's picture

Sarge,

Add some rice bran oil to your diet. It's very healthy and its high fat content will help you retain your weight--it's what we use for horses that are in extensive training to maintain their weight without overfeeding them.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:11 | Link to Comment mophead
mophead's picture

Okay, everyone's talking about their diet. I myself eat whatever I damn crave, and as much as I want. My weight is correct for my body size. I've never been healthier. Want to live a miserable life? Eat things you don't crave.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:55 | Link to Comment ronin12
ronin12's picture

So, what exactly is going to make you fat? It's not all about calories.

Read "Good calories, bad calories" by Taubes.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:05 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Right, cuz there are no fat farmers. Oh wait...

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:30 | Link to Comment in4mayshun
in4mayshun's picture

"Went to the market this morning and I only bought fresh farm products."

...then got arrested as a terrorist.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:41 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

I live in Europe. We give only give visums for terrorists so they can go to America.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:07 | Link to Comment NERVEAGENTVX
NERVEAGENTVX's picture

This is going to be a funny thread.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:35 | Link to Comment machinegear
machinegear's picture

DID YOU SEE THE CANKELS ON THAT JERSEY?

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:47 | Link to Comment Rubbish
Rubbish's picture

I think Tyler has a secret fantasy, he has been harping on porkers quite a bit lately.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:08 | Link to Comment Id fight Gandhi
Id fight Gandhi's picture

Aside from all the obvious bad foods. It's gets expensive to eat healthy.

Just about ALL meals you eat out, sit down included, are very unhealthy. Even if calories and fats are low, they're loaded with days worth of sodium.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:18 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

If you look at only the front end, yes, but if you look at all the costs, eating healthy is rather cheap.

Of course, you first have to define "healthy", and many cannot even do that.

pods

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:20 | Link to Comment Saro
Saro's picture

"Low-Fat" is terrible for you.  Try high fat, and dump the grains instead.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:25 | Link to Comment Killtruck
Killtruck's picture

I logged in just to green arrow you.

"Dump the grains instead" - Damn right, brother.

Hunt and gather, bitchez.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:33 | Link to Comment in4mayshun
in4mayshun's picture

Complex carbohydrates are the body's preferrred source of energy. Refined sugars and lack of physical activity is the problem. A primarily protein diet is very hard on your body.

Stop listening to the Atkins freaks.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:39 | Link to Comment Saro
Saro's picture

Complex carbs and refined sugars both break down into blood glucose, so your cells don't treat them any differently in the end.  And your body "prefers" what it's trained to prefer.  Once you kick the carb cycle and your body adjusts, it will happily run on fat like it's meant to.

(And who said anything about "primarily protein"?  I eat plenty of fat and non-starchy vegetables too.)

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:54 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

Your body was designed to run on glucose.  Obtaining it from whole natural foods.

Here is a blog that someone from Dr. Fuhrman's site runs:  

http://www.diseaseproof.com/

Has alot of information about the dangers of ketosis/atkins eating styles.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:05 | Link to Comment Saro
Saro's picture

The crap that passes for wheat these days is not a "whole, natural food".

I get my carbs from fruits, berries, and non-starchy vegetables.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:08 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

I am with you on wheat (and most grains, save quinoa, barley, millet, hemp)!

Remember the statement GOMBS.

Greens, Onions, Mushrooms, Beans & Berries, Seeds (and nuts).

http://healthymealdiet.com/gombs-diet

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:11 | Link to Comment Saro
Saro's picture

Thanks for the link to Fuhrman's site, by the by.  I'll definitely run it past a few of my own and see what comes out of it.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:21 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

Really if you want to be blown away, go to his site and he has some vids (one on PBS).  He does wonders with helping people.

I heard him on the radio and was amazed. I am not heavy, been the same weight since high school really, but it still has helped me alot.  He sounded like a coked up crazy man.  Full of energy and passionate.  Almost like Crazy Eddie from way back when.  

Had chronic back pain (2 herniated and 1 bulging disc) and was able to treat it with diet and inversion therapy.  

Now I have a spinach shake for breakfast with berries, mushrooms, nuts, etc.  Just toss it all in the Vitamix and I have like 6 servings of fruits and veggies for breakfast.

Dr. Fuhrman's main site is:

http://www.drfuhrman.com/

Best of luck to ya!

pods

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:16 | Link to Comment in4mayshun
in4mayshun's picture

Complex carbs break down much slower therfore creating a slow-release of sugars into your bloodstream. Simple or refined sugars release glucose into the bloodstream nearly instantly thereby creating a sugar and insulin spike which creates a whole host of issues, not least of which confuses your body on how it metabolizes sugars fats and proteins. Not to mention that recent research suggests that high protein intake (especially meat) creates a much more fertile environment for cancer and heart disease, even with exercise and a balanced diet.(read "The China Study")

Afer years of training individuals with chronic disease,  I have found that switching to a mostly vegetable based diet with limited amounts of meat is the quickest way to sustainable weight loss and increased health.

Turns out nature had it right all along.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 16:03 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

Upvoted you simply for mentioning "The China Study."

Agree with the mosty vegetable based diet as well.  I have however met just as many unhealthy vegetarians.  You have correctly stated (down below) that it is the nutrient density in food that is the benefit, not merely that it is a vegetable.  

Have eliminated my chronic back problems through limiting animal based protein intake (lowers production of arachadonic acid) and substitute with beans, nuts and seeds as well as cruciferous veggies.

pods

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:25 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Humans evolved eating lots of fatty meat, and limited fruit only in season, plus, oh, bugs, worms, roots, things full of fat and a raft of protein.   Modern "diseases of civilisation" began with agriculture.   

In the last few centuriues, culture after culture and people after people on this planet went from health to wide ranging obsesity and all of the degenerative diseases that correlate with that when they went from their traditional diets favoring as much meat and fat as they could get, to including refined flour(modern industrial product) and of course, sugar(ditto).

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 20:35 | Link to Comment smiler03
smiler03's picture

Yeah, and those evolving humans didn't live long:

"People evidently lived in small hunting, gathering, and scavenging bands that rarely exceeded a few dozen individuals.  Life expectancy was typically 30 years or less, often much less. "

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_5.htm

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 20:46 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

Well eat that way for the next 20 years and report back.

Humans evolved that way because CALORIES were the major problem back then.

If you want to eliminate cancer, all you have to do is limit your caloric intake to less than like 5% from animal products.

Animal tissue is great for obtaining calories, but poor when it comes to nutrients.  Not to mention of our preferred method of cooking it (grill) causing the production of known carcinogens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterocyclic_amine

Excerpt:

Some heterocyclic amines (HCAs) found in cooked and especially burned meat are known carcinogens. Research has shown that heterocyclic amine formation in meat occurs at high cooking temperatures. For example, heterocyclic amines are the carcinogenic chemicals formed from the cooking of muscle meats such as beefporkfowl, and fish. HCAs form when amino acids and creatine (a chemical found in muscles) react at high cooking temperatures. 


Harmane, a ?-carboline alkaloid found in meats, has been shown to have strong neurotoxic characteristics, and in particular, is 'highly tremorogenic.'[4] These chemicals are formed during the cooking process of meat, particularly the longer they are cooked, and the more they are exposed to high temperatures during cooking.[5][6] Harmane has been found in roughly 50% higher concentrations in patients with essential tremor than in controls;[7] essential tremor is a condition 20 times more prevalent than Parkinson's disease.[8] There is no direct correlation between blood-levels and levels of daily meat consumption, suggesting a difference in metabolism of this chemical plays a greater role.

I am not saying you have to eat a certain way.  Do as you choose.  Just don't say that you didn't know.

pods

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 22:36 | Link to Comment dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

I have found 2 ways that promote weight loss.  The low carb way does work.  I ate low carb in the years that I was having babies because it also helps to get pregnant.  But after awhile it is so yuck.  But also a diet lower in iron seems to work for me as well.  I had seen people ranting about this on the internet, but I never listened to them.  However when I had to start cooking for my daughter that was allergic to so many things I inadverently reduced our iron intake.  Then, when I took iron pills to catch back up, I started gaining a lot of weight, so I noticed the correlation.  Dropped the iron pills, and started eating more low iron again, and the weight started coming back off again.  I also felt better and had less chronic pain when eating less iron.

The most important thing though is to cut out the premade foods.  I always felt hungry when I ate the premade foods.  I think it's all the free glutamate they add to make the food addictive.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:26 | Link to Comment catacl1sm
catacl1sm's picture

Lo-Carb, bitchez. Carbohydrates make you fat.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:14 | Link to Comment in4mayshun
in4mayshun's picture

Then you can be really skinny when you die of cancer.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:26 | Link to Comment Clayton Bigsby
Clayton Bigsby's picture

Yup - the fat ain't the problem - it's the carbs/sugars - friend of mine turned me on to a diet that was 120 grams carbs and 15 grams sugar limit per day - eat all the bacon, salad dressing and other shit you want - I dropped 10 lbs in 6 weeks and was never hungry - bears exploration

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:30 | Link to Comment Saro
Saro's picture

Since I started eating Primal 3 months ago, I've dropped 45 lbs.

Disregard grains, acquire bacon.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:33 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Clayton Bigsby

AND WRONG!

It's burning more calories than you take in.

Because you followed a DIET your intake consisted of the right amount of calories.

Read about Haub and his Twinky diet.

http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2010/11/kansas-state-nutrition-professor...

Kansas State Nutrition Professor Loses 27 Pounds on Twinkie Diet

College campuses can often be a place where new research is conducted on various relevant topics. In some cases, students are researching for an assignment, or in others, professors are researching for a lesson plan.

One research experiment that is getting a considerable amount of buzz was conducted by Professor Mark Haub of Kansas State University. Professor Haub wanted to prove that losing weight is a matter of burning more calories than you consume, so he went on a special diet that included various sweet treats like Twinkies, nutty bars and powdered donuts. He wanted to prove that all you need to be successful at weight loss is to count your calories and the nutritional content of the food you eat is overshadowed when you properly restrict your calories.

This “convenience store diet” allowed the college professor to lose 27 pounds in 10 weeks. Professor Haub kept his daily calorie content below 1,800 calories per day and ate one of the snack foods every three hours in place of a meal. When he wanted variety, Haub included things like Doritos, Oreos or sugary cereal.

This whole idea started out as a class project. Someone the same size as Haub at the start of the diet would typically consume about 2,600 calories per day. The professor didn’t change his level of activity at all, only his calorie intake. The most surprising results to come from this project were that he not only lost weight, but was able to improve his overall health.

Haub was able to lower his body mass index from 28.8 to 24.9, lower his bad cholesterol by 20 percent and raise his good cholesterol by 20 percent. These additional health benefits were what really surprised Haub. He wasn’t prepared for those kinds of results in addition to the weight loss. Although Professor Haub had success with this plan, he doesn’t recommend that others use it for weight loss. He doesn’t believe there is enough information to conclude whether this is a good plan to follow.

In an effort to prove that those with limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables could lose weight, Haub consumed two-thirds of his calories from junk food and ate canned vegetables or celery stalks for the remaining. He also took a multivitamin and had a protein shake each day and avoided meat, whole grains and fruits to keep his calorie intake low.

Overall, Haub is a bit confused by the data. He’s not confident enough in the data to make a conclusion that this program was healthy or unhealthy, but it has proven that consuming fewer calories than you burn will result in weight loss.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:45 | Link to Comment Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Nobody(except guards)came out of a concentration camp fat.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:46 | Link to Comment Saro
Saro's picture

"It's burning more calories than you take in."

And the easiest way to eat fewer calories is for the calories you do eat to be more filling:  Less carbs, more fat.

(And you get the added benefit that as your glucose stores are depleted, your cells will start to improve their ability to consume stored body fat, making body fat more like a bank instead of a one-way nuclear waste depository.)

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:52 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Saro

Jesus you can't be that stupid can you?

The ONLY way to eat diet is to follow the caloric restrictions of that diet.

You can eat what the fuck you want when you want as long as you don't exceed your daily total.

Everything else you claimed is hippy bullshit.



Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:00 | Link to Comment Saro
Saro's picture

"You can eat what the fuck you want when you want as long as you don't exceed your daily total."

Obviously, but people find it easier to stick to a diet when they don't feel like they are starving all the time.  X calories from fat will make you feel fuller longer than X calories of carbs.

And everything else I claimed is known as "biology".  Most cells in your body can consume either glucose or fatty acids for fuel, but just like the realm of exercise, they become more efficient at consuming the one they are used to.  If you eat massive amounts of carbs, then they prioritize glucose over fat.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:29 | Link to Comment in4mayshun
in4mayshun's picture

"Obviously, but people find it easier to stick to a diet when they don't feel like they are starving all the time.  X calories from fat will make you feel fuller longer than X calories of carbs."

If you get suffienient nutrients out of your food, you will not feel like you are starving all the time. Diets dont work because people restrict their caloric intake and also restrict their vitamin and mineral intake as well. High quality vegetables, grains and fruits (as organic as possible) will satiate your cravings if you give it a chance.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:30 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

They satisfy cravings briefly.   Then you are hungry again right quick.  

In the ZH vernacular, insulin is a bitch.   Insulin resistance even more so.    See "America, Health Costs"

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:07 | Link to Comment ronin12
ronin12's picture

Sorry you are wrong.

First of all eating twinkies is hardly a way to be "healthy" as eventually you will suffer from various nutrient deficiencies.

Second, the whole calories in calories out theory is quite limited. If I eat 900 calories a day, but 'burn' 2000 calories through exercise in perpetuity, on its face the calories in calories out model would have me wasting away to nothing!

But obviously that is not what happens. What happens is your body 'down-regulates' your metabolism so you don't burn as many calories in a resting state. 

So how do you suppose one can continue to lose weight if your body 'sabotages' your efforts, by slowing down your metabolism? Eat less and less twinkies LOL?

 

 

 

 

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:13 | Link to Comment Saro
Saro's picture

It should be noted that your body's ability to reduce its metabolism is not unlimited.  The figure I heard was a maximum 15-20% below normal.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 17:32 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Right.   Scientific studies of calorie restriction diets regularly have the experimental group reporting being COLD all the time, in addition to just lethargic.      Food input and energy output are not independent variables in humans, as you have well noted here.  

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 13:59 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

Your "full" feeling is based upon volume mostly.

Easiest way to overeat is to fill your stomach with high calorie dense foods.

Can you guess what type of food (macro nutrient) has the highest calorie density?

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:40 | Link to Comment in4mayshun
in4mayshun's picture

"Your "full" feeling is based upon volume mostly..."

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Obviously ignorance prevails on this subject as usual. The "full" felling you receive is based on a psychological response. Your body instinctively makes a connection between high calorie foods and nutrients. SInce this is no longer the case with our industrialized food production system, your brain is being tricked into accepting high fat and high calorie foods as nutritious. Because we are not receiving the nutrients our bodies need, your brain keeps craving more and more fatty and high calorie foods thinking that eventually it will receive the vitamins and minerals it needs. If you break this ridiculous cycle that is making our whole society a bunch of lard-asses, you will start to feel full after eating high quality (organic) vegetables fruits and limited amounts of grains and meat.

You CANNOT out smart nature.

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