Why are Americans so fat?

[jindojim]

I came back to the States for winter vacation, and I had two initial impressions. First, I was surprised at the diversity. Then, I noticed that Americans are generally rather fat. Now, I'm not saying I'm a slim jim myself. But, in comparison, I feel quite svelte.

For instance, I was in a diner in New York and listening on a conversation between two women about dieting. They kept mentioning that they were trying out different "fad diets" but only mentioned going to the gym as an aside.

Not to mention, they ate quite a bit at the diner as well.

I think there needs to be some rather big reforms in America because it doesn't seem like this trend is going to be good for population's general health. But I'm not sure what would be the best method to implement them. I think the root of the problem is how a lot of people approach dieting, thinking that there's some quick and easy solution to losing weight. And it doesn't help that McDonald's is pretending like it's healthy with pictures of people exercising on their bags while serving the same greasy food.

What do you think?

[Mittens]

Sex is a pretty good workout =3
My favourite method of losing that little extra I could do without =P

[Fred]

Breast-Feeding is also a good work-out, but it may not be the best solution for the entire nation.

[RoxFontaine]

Shut up. It's about balance.

[MeneerDijk]

I actually lost some weight during my visit to the states. Allthough i did have some fastfood there like Sonic and KFC, i mostly ate my girlfriends home cooking. She pays attention to getting natural products and makes a good and balanced meal that also tastes good. I can cook healthy myself, but there isn't much variation, so i'm more inclined to get a fast an easy meal that is unhealthy when i'm by myself.

And of course the 'working out' together helps :P

[Lisa M]

IT SI NOT OUR FUALT! IT IS TEH GENEZ!!!!!

Yeah, really, I think it's just that most Americans have no idea what a proper portion-size looks like. People assume that whatever they are eating is "one serving" when it's really usually two, three, or even more than that.

[Plekto]

Yeah, but we have the biggest breasts over here. I think that's fair enough compensation. ;)

Yes, lazy and eating a lot of fatty foods... bigger breasts. Japan could learn something, maybe???

[xtine]

I think that it's a combination of bad physical education in schools, large portions of food in restaurants, and a mostly sedentary lifestyle. Fast unhealthy food plays a part, but I believe it's mostly because most Americans drive everywhere and do not walk or exercise to make up for that fact.

[Stephy]

Not all Americans are fat! :O

Well, I sure am not. I'd fit right in with all the skinny asian people! ;p

Seriously now its very hard shopping because every size I see is too big for me, there are only two stores I've found in all the malls in my area that actually sell a double zero in pants! Can't find sizes small enough in clothing for me unless it's in the kids section, but I'm not interested in having kid's clothing >:\ .

I love fast food places though. I know it's unhealthy but they're so tasty! I have a lucky metabolism I guess.

I assume one reason for the fat problem is the difference of our food and how different the food of another countries is.

[Shamu]

Breast-Feeding is also a good work-out, but it may not be the best solution for the entire nation.
Breast-feeding will turn you into a twig! I lost 20lbs in two months after having my daughter. It takes a lot of energy to feed baby, especially because they want to eat ALL the time!

Anyways, yeah, like Meneer said, I get a lot of food that's natural/organic/low fat. It's quite a bit more expensive, but it's worth it to me. I'm not stuffing my daughter full of processed sugars and growth hormones (she won't have boobs when the rest of her friends do at the age of 9, but I'm hoping she'll actually grow normally). Makes me feel better too. I guess I'm a bit of a health nut, but I like taking care of myself and my family. I just wish Meneer was here more often so I could cook better things for him too ><
Portion size is a big deal too, like Lisa mentioned. Look at what you're eating and figure out what the proper portion size is supposed to be. If you're still hungry after that, have a glass of skim/low fat milk.

IRT Steph: wait a few years until you hit your 20's, you'll start to put on some weight. Most girls do even if genetically they won't be inclined to be fat.

[jindojim]

Yeah, but we have the biggest breasts over here. I think that's fair enough compensation. ;)

Not really, if I have to deal with a big belly as well. A fat woman with big breasts isn't attractive.

***

I think restaurants need to decrease portion size in general. That's one major factor I think in Americans being overweight. Food portions always need to be "bigger".

[Pierrot le Fou]

I actually lost some weight during my visit to the states. Allthough i did have some fastfood there like Sonic and KFC, i mostly ate my girlfriends home cooking. She pays attention to getting natural products and makes a good and balanced meal that also tastes good. I can cook healthy myself, but there isn't much variation, so i'm more inclined to get a fast an easy meal that is unhealthy when i'm by myself.

And of course the 'working out' together helps :P
Perhaps after re-reading the original post, followed by your own, you would decide to post your commentary that has little to do with the thread topic on livejournal (http://www.livejournal.com) rather than clutter up this thread?

Just a humble suggestion.

Or, if you really feel like that is too much of an imposition, you could make another thread entitled, "I am a Dutch person who lost weight in the US" and then include your quaint little anecdote about your girlfriend's home cooking.

To return to the original post (which seems to have been forgotten), the US really needs to raise the price of gas. By a lot. That would force more people to embrace public transport, cycling, and other forms of not using the car to go 200 meters down the road. It's ridiculous how dependent on cars people are, and how little excercise they really need to get on a daily basis.

[Plekto]

Not really, if I have to deal with a big belly as well. A fat woman with big breasts isn't attractive.

***

I think restaurants need to decrease portion size in general. That's one major factor I think in Americans being overweight. Food portions always need to be "bigger".

True, that. :)

The trick seems to be to have a fairly normal "American" lifestyle until you get past puberty. Then exercise like they do in Japan to not get the secondary fat in places that you don't want.

[Shamu]

PLF: It's possible Meneer was talking about losing weight in the US as opposed to gaining weight while being here, which does relate to the thread topic, in that, he is showing he was able to come to this country and not become fat like an American.
I also suggest that if you want to make long complaints about someone, maybe you yourself should check out live journal? Just stop being a troll when it's not necessary. It's not very attractive, nor does it gain you any respect.

Anyways, back on topic. People here in Dallas have become obsessed with exercise and dieting since we were named one of the fatter cities in the US. Seems to be working, except I think a lot of people are cheating and just getting the fat surgically removed instead of just being healthier in general.

[Mastiker]

Americans aren't fat; we're just genetically screwed

(the modern man's way of saying "we're big boned")

[Pierrot le Fou]

PLF: It's possible Meneer was talking about losing weight in the US as opposed to gaining weight while being here, which does relate to the thread topic, in that, he is showing he was able to come to this country and not become fat like an American.
I also suggest that if you want to make long complaints about someone, maybe you yourself should check out live journal? Just stop being a troll when it's not necessary. It's not very attractive, nor does it gain you any respect.

Anyways, back on topic. People here in Dallas have become obsessed with exercise and dieting since we were named one of the fatter cities in the US. Seems to be working, except I think a lot of people are cheating and just getting the fat surgically removed instead of just being healthier in general.
Addressing why Americans are fat has little to do with whether or not a Dutch person on a holiday was able to gain or lose weight while in the US.

Food, diet, and excercise are largely cultural/regional things, which are not very well addressed by a short trip by someone from another culture/region.

Obesity in the US, to a large part, is tied to class. Poor people have far more trouble affording fresh fruits and vegetables in comparison to empty calories. That makes them fat. It is simply more expensive to eat healthy. While this isn't the only reason, it's certainly a large one -- for the first time in history, calories are dirt cheap. Processed foods are cheaper than fresh foods. You can eat for very very little, but it's very very bad for you.

Or we can pretend that I know jack and shit about this, and that Meneer is clearly an authority on the basis of his visit and the fact he lost weight.

[Shamu]

Considering he's been in this country more than you have in the past year (or so I'm guessing, since you're in Japan) I'm gonna go with your last paragraph as being correct and also say, that I've seen quite a few VERY rich fat people.
I think it's a problem for all classes, and while I will agree that healthier foods are generally less affordable for those with less income, that doesn't mean that they can't watch portion size or go out and run or walk.

[PopCulturePooka]

America. The only country in the world where the poor people are fat. Not really true, England and Australia have similar issues.

Poor education about food and lifestyles, larger then necessary servings even for healthy foods, 'junk' food and trickerky by manufacturers into making people think bad food is 'healthy' (eg the whole 'Diet' or 'Lite' scam), sedentary lifestyle and an excess in income so we can afford to eat for pleasure when we feel like it.

[Citizen]

It should be noted that, while there are more obese people in America (roughly 33% of adults, as compared to, say, England's 20% or Japan's 24%), there are also far more healthy people, due to nothing more than the sheer size of our population. Granted, that's comparing a percentage to an actual number. Just pointing out that we're not as fat as other nations claim we are. Of course, that's still no excuse for being the fattest nation.

So why are so many American's fat? Several factors. Note: These are merely reasons/causes, I'm not making excuses.
1. Standard of living. America has one of the highest standards of living in the world. It's also one of the richest nations. However, this alone doesn't explain the problem, as there are richer nations with higher standards of living that manage to keep their obesity rates below ours (once again, Japan, England, etc.).

2. Fast/junk food is convenient and cheap. America is a nation that was raised on convenience. From eating unhealthy, salted meats during the Revolutionary War (due to how long they kept), to using canned foods during the Civil War (for soldiers), to making canned foods a mainstream product during the depression (for poor people to survive), to the fast food resteraunts of today, which, admittedly, we abuse.

3. Fast-paced society. Less time for yourself means less time to cook healthy and excersize for many people.

4. America has inherited unhealthy recipes from damn near every nation on earth. A nation founded on immigrants is going to get all of the worlds good food and all of the worlds unhealthy food.

As for "driving everywhere", one could argue that it's much easier to walk everywhere you need to go in countries such as Japan or England, which, oddly enough, are both roughly the average size of one or two of America's fifty states. But surely, that has nothing to do with the fact that Americans are more dependant on vehicles.

Just remember, obesity has become a world issue. America isn't the only country with an obesity rate that tripled between 1980 and 2000. The other nations of the world should worry less about America and more about themselves, before they catch up to, or even pass America.

[Soli]

I try to eat healthier, but it's hard when you don't buy your own food! XD My mom buys all the food for our family. Some of it is healthy, but a lot is microwave food.

I have a friend who's family is really... big. (I don't know how to put it without being mean! :s) I was over at their house for a little New Years Eve board game party with just her, her little sister and brother, and her mom. They made "snacks". They made onion rings, soft pretzals, fries, nachos, lots of soda, etc. I didn't have any because I don't eat past a certain time at night or else I won't go to sleep.

But they ate a lot! When they had the onion rings, they decided they didn't like the taste of them, but they ate the whole bag that was made. I found that sorta odd. It's good not to waste food! But I wouldn't eat it if I didn't like it. =/ When all those snacks were done they stopped eating and just drank soda. But the little brother was still going. He got out some fruit-roll-ups, a bag of chips, asked for more onion rings, and stuff like that.

Her brother is so cute! But he eats more in one meal then I would in a day. :P He's only in 1st grade, but looks like he could be in 4th.

[seiji]

I think restaurants need to decrease portion size in general. That's one major factor I think in Americans being overweight. Food portions always need to be "bigger".
QFT. Example: oyakodon (chicken and egg rice bowl), being quite tasty for 350yen, was one of my favorite foods in Japan. I was excited to find it on the menu of the local Japanese restaurant. They charged $9.45 for it, which I figured was because they imported special rice or negi or something. Turned out it was triple the price for triple the food: a mixing-bowl full of soggy rice, big, ugly chicken chunks, and enormous slices of zucchini :boggled:, with a bit of egg for flavor. I would rather pay Japanese prices for Japanese portions, or even American prices for Japanese portions, tbh.

[Soli]

http://hp2010.nhlbihin.net/portion/

Click on where it says Portion Distortion I/II on the right for a quiz kind of thing.

[RoxFontaine]

I still say balance. I'm not one to think that smaller is better. Fat is relative. Obesity is problematic.

All cultures have their vices. Americans have junk food. The Japanese have cigarettes and alcohol. Even.

[Soli]

^ Hmm, which do you think is better for a country to have? A junk food addiction, or the cigarettes/alcohol? :watson: Both are bad, but which is less?

[Citizen]

^ Hmm, which do you think is better for a country to have? A junk food addiction, or the cigarettes/alcohol? :watson: Both are bad, but which is less?

Doesn't matter. One bad habit doesn't excuse another.

But for the sake of argument, I'd say junk food addiction is "better". Obesity kills the obese. Obesity doesn't cause anything that can compare to drunk driving and second hand smoke.

[blank slate]

It should be noted that, while there are more obese people in America (roughly 33% of adults, as compared to, say, England's 20% or Japan's 24%), there are also far more healthy people, due to nothing more than the sheer size of our population. Granted, that's comparing a percentage to an actual number. Just pointing out that we're not as fat as other nations claim we are. Of course, that's still no excuse for being the fattest nation.

So why are so many American's fat? Several factors. Note: These are merely reasons/causes, I'm not making excuses.
1. Standard of living. America has one of the highest standards of living in the world. It's also one of the richest nations. However, this alone doesn't explain the problem, as there are richer nations with higher standards of living that manage to keep their obesity rates below ours (once again, Japan, England, etc.).

2. Fast/junk food is convenient and cheap. America is a nation that was raised on convenience. From eating unhealthy, salted meats during the Revolutionary War (due to how long they kept), to using canned foods during the Civil War (for soldiers), to making canned foods a mainstream product during the depression (for poor people to survive), to the fast food resteraunts of today, which, admittedly, we abuse.

3. Fast-paced society. Less time for yourself means less time to cook healthy and excersize for many people.

4. America has inherited unhealthy recipes from damn near every nation on earth. A nation founded on immigrants is going to get all of the worlds good food and all of the worlds unhealthy food.

As for "driving everywhere", one could argue that it's much easier to walk everywhere you need to go in countries such as Japan or England, which, oddly enough, are both roughly the average size of one or two of America's fifty states. But surely, that has nothing to do with the fact that Americans are more dependant on vehicles.

Just remember, obesity has become a world issue. America isn't the only country with an obesity rate that tripled between 1980 and 2000. The other nations of the world should worry less about America and more about themselves, before they catch up to, or even pass America.QFT. Wonderful job of explaining how obesity is caused by a multitude of things and can't be blamed on just one thing.

[Roxie]

I don't know why anyone who isn't American would care...but any way..

There is a lack of physical education in schools. Also, the food served in public schools is never healthy. Sure, some have salad bars, but you can't really trust an 8 year old to choose salad over the pizza.

Also, there are soda companies that have contracts with schools. For some sum of money, the soda companies are allowed to put in soda machines and snack machines filled with very unhealthy things.

I really think it's immoral. It's like the schools (grade schools) are selling the kids to these companies. I mean sure there's personal choice, but...it's wrong, imo.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Considering he's been in this country more than you have in the past year (or so I'm guessing, since you're in Japan) I'm gonna go with your last paragraph as being correct and also say, that I've seen quite a few VERY rich fat people.
I think it's a problem for all classes, and while I will agree that healthier foods are generally less affordable for those with less income, that doesn't mean that they can't watch portion size or go out and run or walk.
Good for you. You've seen obese rich people.

This does not change the fact that there is a correlation between income and obesity levels. The data shows that rich people are less likely to be obese than poor people are. Your anecdotal evidence, frankly speaking, doesn't mean shit. Neither does that of your boyfriend. Anecdotal evidence in a discussion of a widespread societal trend is almost entirely useless unless backed up by, and incorporated with statistical analysis which gives a bigger picture of what's going on.

Shamu's foolhardy analysis:
- I've seen fat rich people, ergo it has nothing to do with wealth.
- My boyfriend's been in the US more than you for the past year, therefore his opinion is more valid than yours.

Analysis based on available data:
- Rich people are less likely to be obese than poor people, therefore it is likely that wealth or education have something to do with this 'epidemic.'
- US gas prices are some of the lowest in the world, and I think we all know someone who drives their car 2 minutes to the corner store rather than walking, therefore it is likely that transportation has something to do with this 'epidemic.'

Now quit being snotty, mmmkay? How about you use some actual intellectual rigor rather than baseless criticism and nonsensical anecdotal evidence. Or do you think the solution to America's obesity epidemic is something as silly as sending everyone to Holland and back, because that somehow made your boyfriend lose weight?

[seiji]

I'd gladly walk to the grocery store if there were one in walking distance. Maybe I'll walk to the nearest Kroger someday just to see how long it would take me (5-7min by car, depending on lights). Of course, I wouldn't be able to actually buy groceries because then I'd have to carry them back, and that's just far too much stress on my fat American thighs.

[Citizen]

I think we all know someone who drives their car 2 minutes to the corner store rather than walking

This statement is no less baseless than those of Shamu and Meener. Odd that you would make such a statement while nitpicking anecdotes.

[Soli]

There is a lack of physical education in schools. Also, the food served in public schools is never healthy. Sure, some have salad bars, but you can't really trust an 8 year old to choose salad over the pizza.

The gym thing is very true for my school. I don't have to take gym my entire time at high school. Got all my credits for it from 8th grade and over the summer. ^_^

The things at my school that are served along with the main lunch (in a different line and stuff) are not healthy at all! They serve something called "bosco sticks" It's a bread stick with cheese in the middle. There are a ton of kids who get this for lunch every single day. >< My sister loves them and used to buy them every single day. She gained at least 10lbs. her freshman year.

At least they have raised the prices of the bad foods. But that made no difference. These kids don't care because it's their parent's money they're spending.

You are right again. We have a deli line along with the bosco stick/pizza line. But the deli line is considerable shorter then the other one.

[Roxie]

Shamu's foolhardy analysis


Now quit being snotty, mmmkay?
Pot meet kettle.

[Lateli]

Also, there are soda companies that have contracts with schools. For some sum of money, the soda companies are allowed to put in soda machines and snack machines filled with very unhealthy things.

I really think it's immoral. It's like the schools (grade schools) are selling the kids to these companies. I mean sure there's personal choice, but...it's wrong, imo.

This reminded me of the soda machines on campus. When I go out into the hall I'm greeted by two vending machines, one sells soda and the other juice. I usually don't carry $1 bills around campus because I just use my zip card everywhere, including vending machines. It's crazy though because the vending machine for soda will take a swipe from my zip card, yet the juice one takes ONLY bills, no zip card option. I can't figure out why they'd make soda my only easy option :( (I'm leery of the juice too to be honest, but I can imagine it's more healthy than soda.)

[Pierrot le Fou]

Ah, Citizen, I italicized it to make it stand out, to emphasize the previous point I had made in the post, "Anecdotal evidence in a discussion of a widespread societal trend is almost entirely useless unless backed up by, and incorporated with statistical analysis which gives a bigger picture of what's going on."

Stating that everyone knows someone who drives 2 minutes to the store is, well, silly by itself. When incoporated with the fact that gasoline, and driving in general is really damned cheap in the US, it makes the anecdotal evidence indicative of a more general trend.

But I guess it was a little too obscurely hidden.

[Citizen]

But I guess it was a little too obscurely hidden.

Indeed. =0

But really, a statistical analysis of gasoline prices isn't much of a base for that particular piece of anecdotal evidence.

American gas prices are lower, but Americans, on average, have to cover more ground when going from point A to point B, due to the size of the nation. The USD is also worth less than several of the nations with higher gas prices. In the end, it about evens out. So there's no real reason to assume that American gas prices cause Americans to "drive 2 minutes to the store".

[Pierrot le Fou]

No, it isn't that much of a base, but it's certainly far more apt analysis than a trip to the US by a Dutchman, no?

We could go deeply into the relative cost of transportation in various countries as well as the availability, to show why it's cheaper to own a car in the US than any other country, but that would take a lot more time and effort than I'm willing to put into it. Currency has little to do with it. It's more about tax burden, difficulty in licensing, insurance rates, population density, etc.

You don't have to take my word for it, and can look it up yourself if interested.

[Citizen]

Nah, I'll take your word for it.

but that would take a lot more time and effort than I'm willing to put into it.

Too much time and effort for me, as well. And because you've proven to be reliable enough in the past.

[Duke Luke of Juke]

Because we're easily the most well-off country, and with wealth comes luxury, and with luxury comes sloth, and with sloth comes obesity.

[Nannou]

I came back to the States for winter vacation, and I had two initial impressions. First, I was surprised at the diversity. Then, I noticed that Americans are generally rather fat. Now, I'm not saying I'm a slim jim myself. But, in comparison, I feel quite svelte.

For instance, I was in a diner in New York and listening on a conversation between two women about dieting. They kept mentioning that they were trying out different "fad diets" but only mentioned going to the gym as an aside.

Not to mention, they ate quite a bit at the diner as well.

I think there needs to be some rather big reforms in America because it doesn't seem like this trend is going to be good for population's general health. But I'm not sure what would be the best method to implement them. I think the root of the problem is how a lot of people approach dieting, thinking that there's some quick and easy solution to losing weight. And it doesn't help that McDonald's is pretending like it's healthy with pictures of people exercising on their bags while serving the same greasy food.

What do you think?

I was seriously expecting the post to be some funny joke answer to the topics question.

:(

[RoxFontaine]

Because we're easily the most well-off country, and with wealth comes luxury, and with luxury comes sloth, and with sloth comes obesity.

What the hell are you talking about?

1. Luxembourg
2. Norway
3. United States

Japan is ranked at 14 but it's a very wealthy country. Probably has the most money in reserve in the world.

[Citizen]

What the hell are you talking about?

1. Luxembourg
2. Norway
3. United States

Japan is ranked at 14 but it's a very wealthy country. Probably has the most money in reserve in the world.

GPD per capita isn't the only factor that determains a country's quality of life.

However, on the quality of life chart, America ranks even lower.

1. Ireland
2. Switzerland
3. Norway
4. Luxembourg
5. Sweden
6. Australia
7. Iceland
8. Italy
9. Denmark
10. Spain
11. Singapore
12. Finland
13. United States
14. Canada
15. New Zealand
16. Netherlands
17. Japan

Oh well, 13 is pretty good when you consider the fact that there are almost 300 countries on earth.

[jindojim]

I was seriously expecting the post to be some funny joke answer to the topics question.

:(

"Why are Americans so fat?"
Because they're too stupid to believe in global warming? I dun know.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Quality of life is absurdly abstract in most of the studies, and tend to reflect the bias of the group in charge of them. Something like the Heritage Foundation would rank the US highly because of the economic and social freedoms, while drop the Scandanavians down because of the absurd tax rate.

On the other hand, more left-wing groups will label the US below the Scandanavians because they don't think that high taxes hinder the quality of life in comparison to things like free healthcare or whatever.

Point is that 1st world countries vary in their policies, but are good places to live, which despots tend to run shitholes.

In general.

[4letterwords]

We're not allowed to cook for ourselves here in the dorms and to be honest, I can't eat fish and I absolutely hate to have giant peices of fat hanging off of my meat... so I don't eat the dormitory food very often... its hard to find things I like down here in Shimonoseki where almost everything has fish in it... Mcdonalds, MoS Burger and some small resturants are the only places where I can really eat... I tried Ramen places but they get old after like a week... so I see myself eating fast food about 3 times a week... it's a killer... I haven't gained any weight but I know it can't be good for me.

[4letterwords]

GPD per capita isn't the only factor that determains a country's quality of life.

However, on the quality of life chart, America ranks even lower.

1. Ireland
2. Switzerland
3. Norway
4. Luxembourg
5. Sweden
6. Australia
7. Iceland
8. Italy
9. Denmark
10. Spain
11. Singapore
12. Finland
13. United States
14. Canada
15. New Zealand
16. Netherlands
17. Japan

Oh well, 13 is pretty good when you consider the fact that there are almost 300 countries on earth.

I would have to say that to live in Ireland means living in the land of drunk people(so it seems)... That to me, is pure bliss.

[erbiumfiber]

How the hell does Ireland rank first? I think that's the first time I've seen them in the top ten even... And if we're on the topic of disgusting food and unhealthy eating, Ireland ranks right up there...

I've got to agree with PLF on the car thing here...it's determined how we grow our cities (so as to make cars indispensible), dismantled our railways (with the help of the auto industry lobbyists), created the fabulous interstate highway system, etc.

Al Gore once said that, for the environment's sake, people were going to have to start to live closer to work and accept living in less spacious housing (like apartments) that comes with being closer to cities...you would think he had personally driven a plane into the World Trade Center.

When we were kids, my parents moved us to a town where we could walk everywhere or ride our bikes. Made us independent and of normal weight.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

GPD per capita isn't the only factor that determains a country's quality of life.

However, on the quality of life chart, America ranks even lower.

1. Ireland
2. Switzerland
3. Norway
4. Luxembourg
5. Sweden
6. Australia
7. Iceland
8. Italy
9. Denmark
10. Spain
11. Singapore
12. Finland
13. United States
14. Canada
15. New Zealand
16. Netherlands
17. Japan

Oh well, 13 is pretty good when you consider the fact that there are almost 300 countries on earth.
Well, last I checked, the majority of those 300 countries aren't doing so hot.

Oh, and would you mind telling me where you got that quality of life ranking? I only ask because there are a bunch of publications that do it and I don't think all of them completely agree on rankings or use the same methodology.

[Duke Luke of Juke]

What the hell are you talking about?
Calm down. My post wasn't about facts, it was about psychology and guesswork--in essence, a microcosm of this entire thread.

p.s. Please cite sources in the future, or just make generalizations like mine.

[Citizen]

Oh, and would you mind telling me where you got that quality of life ranking? I only ask because there are a bunch of publications that do it and I don't think all of them completely agree on rankings or use the same methodology.

Wiki. And yes, QOL charts will never be perfect. I just didn't feel like digging up five of them for comparison.

Besides, I was only attempting to make the point that GPD per capita isn't the only thing that determains quality of life. Even if it is the main factor.

[Psychochink]

Oh, and would you mind telling me where you got that quality of life ranking? I only ask because there are a bunch of publications that do it and I don't think all of them completely agree on rankings or use the same methodology.

The generally accepted benchmark standard is the UN Human Development Index (HDI) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index), where the U.S. actually ranks 8th.

The methodology is there as well, if you're interested.

I'm happy, I live in a consistently 'top 5' country, good enough for me - although it makes me wonder sometimes exactly how 'for granted' we really take all this stuff.

Not that I really care, mind you...

[Jetsetlemming]

I eat unhealthy. :( Just this morning I made myself an omlette of 6 eggs and a quarter pack of mozzerella cheese and some random meat from the fridge >_>. I was hungry again by lunch, but decided to just get a drink instead.
I'm not at all fat. I do have a tiny bit of padding on me, and I'm WAY heavier than I look. Must by my rockhard physique. :P

[MeneerDijk]

Edit: PLF, Your trolling and flaming was uncalled for. Go cool of for a day

I am curious about the level of health education people get in school. starting from elementary school we get classes on how to eat varied and healthy, but i think all in all it's maybe 10 hours in total (in the entire school career) Where the subject specifically covers how to keep from gaining weight and how to eat healthy. Maybe the American members can shed some light on this?

[Jetsetlemming]

We had plenty of health classes when I was in middle school/early high school. Biology, anatomy, eating right, sex ed., etc. etc. etc. We got plenty of knowledge about eating right, and plenty of reminders of the message in PSA commercials.
Most of us just ignore it. :D

[Stephy]

Oh, well, every year we have had a health fair since 6th to 12th grade (although optional for some classes). It taught us about eating right, food groups, exercise, therapies, activities we could join, etc ... so.. Don't know about other areas but this city doesn't have a problem educating people on it (even though the schools' serve mostly junk food; how ironic). It just depends on whether or not people care to listen, I guess.

Also, elementary school we learned about our food groups too! Hm, probably too young to actually care and would rather eat a cookie then listen to a lecture on healthy food.

edit: after making this post I decided to snack on some junk food! ;p Yay honeybuns!

[Angelyne]

The health education at my school was a joke. Students only needed to take a semester-long health course in order to graduate. This health class covered a wide range of topics--nutrition, sex ed, anatomy, dealing with stress/wellness stuff, etc.--so there wasn't much time to go into great detail about anything. We only spent about 2-3 lectures about nutrition and dieting. And given that most students took this course in the first year of high school, I doubt many students even remembered any the material at the time they graduated. I sure as hell don't remember much about that class--I can't even remember the name of the teacher who taught it.

I also haven't seen a PSA about nutrition or exercise ever. The only ones I ever see are either anti-tobacco, anti-drug, anti-drunk driving, or about safe sex.

Not that I think that adding more education or PSAs would make a difference. The root of the problem is the general decline of personal responsibility in this country. It's far more profitable and easier to push the blame on a scapegoat or sue someone than it is to realize that YOUR eating habits and lack of exercise are the cause of your weight problems. This is why fad diets are popular. This is why there is still a profitable market for diet pills. This is why we have idiots who sue McDonalds on the grounds that McD's food made them fat (and not the idiot's personal eating and exercise diets). Few Americans are willing to take the responsibility to recognize their problems and fix themselves.

Fix the mentality and then maybe obesity rates will go down.

[japanat]

I checked my old elementary school lunch menu on the net, what a shock. Admittedly, it's been 30 yrs since I went to school there, but lunches are totally different. When I was a kid, there was a choice of 2 main dishes, usually pretty unhealthy stuff like pigs-in-a-blanket or grilled cheese sandwiches. But that was coupled with a vegetable, a fruit and milk.

This week's menu was tacos, burritos or chef's salad on Monday. Tuesday was pizza or calzones. Wed was corn dogs or fish'n'chips. The drink machines in the cafeteria are turned on during lunch, too. This doesn't really teach healthy eating. Hell, Reagan tried to get ketchup classified as a vegetable!

Also, many studies have shown that portions have on average double/tripled since 1970. Taco Bell started the trend with their 59-cent menu around 1980. Other restaurants had to follow suit. Now so many people think that size is normal that that sized meal at home is also common.

I still remember going to the Black-Eyed Pea in Denver with my kids. My oldest daughter and older son both ordered the kid's meal spaghetti. Christ! One full plate of spaghetti, over 1 c. brocolli and 1 c. corn. And the obligatory 20oz children's drink... My student the dentist goes to conferences at UCLA every Golden Week, and he and another dentist go out to dinner together and order one meal and an empty plate. One meal is enough for 2 180cm, very-athletic men!

How many people know that a 'normal' serving of chicken should be the size of your palm? That the average meal at Black-Eyed Pea is nearly 1500 kcal?

I'm currently rather fat. But I know/acknowledge that the reason I'm fat (even though I live in -gasp- Japan) is that I overeat. I don't blame it on genes or anything other than myself.

:innocent: BTW, the Daily Yomiuri had a story last spring saying that Australia had actually bypassed the US in the number of morbidly obese people...

[mawande]

When I went home Christmas, 2006, I found that more of my family had become severely heavier than Christmas, 2005.

My brother I'm not sure of, because I seldom get a good look at him. But his S.O. has gone from being delightfully curvacious to oval. I can't touch my fingertips to each other hugging my step-father, but he's also six foot three and I'm only five feet tall. My mother has actually dropped some weight by virtue of being slightly more careful what she eats and getting a lot of exercise. Now if she only became REALLY careful...

My step-father's family generally runs to tall and beefy. His oldest daughter's sons are strapping and have baby fat, but both of them are heavily into sports which burns out most of the junk-weight they could gather. Their sisters, however, are a different story. Their oldest sister's weight is no longer pleasantly blanced. She's pear-ish, if I understand the terms used. Her younger sister stopped eating at MacDonald's and dropped twenty pounds. Her mother is trying to get control of the weight-thing, but at a family gathering I saw what they were eating. It's very hard when you have to feed power-house sons who stand six-seven and six-three, too. You can't keep the house bare of easily-assembled food.

I went to lunch with my brother's S.O. and her meal to my mind would have served three people, and was high calorie. I went to dinner with my mother and sisters. Besides the huge portions, my mother ordered an apple crisp vanilla ice cream dessert which to my eyes really should have been split between four people, it seemed huge (and yes, I was tempted).

So, the answer to the question is: THEY EAT A LOT AND DON'T GET ENOUGH EXERCISE TO BURN OFF THE EXCESS CALORIES.

The end.

[Soli]

I am curious about the level of health education people get in school. starting from elementary school we get classes on how to eat varied and healthy, but i think all in all it's maybe 10 hours in total (in the entire school career) Where the subject specifically covers how to keep from gaining weight and how to eat healthy. Maybe the American members can shed some light on this?

I don't have to take Health at all at high school. It's not required, and I don't have room in my schedule to take it. But we only cover sex ed stuff and I won't need that for a looong time thankyouverymuch. XD

But I did take it for a semester in 7th grade. And even then we never covered how to eat right. =/ We did first aid, mental diseases and sex ed.

[Saitou Hajime]

I had to take health for a semester in 7th, 8th, 9th, and 11th grades, but the same areas of study were what Soli already listed. If food was involved, I don't remember at all.

[Kass]

About school lunches/school foods...

Many school districts in the US have removed sodas from soda machines. A LOT did it years ago partly for nutrition and partly because no teacher wanted to teach a classroom full of kids hyped up on sugar and caffeine right after lunch. That's a far better reason than some diet warlord telling me I can't let my kid have soda because they wouldn't let their kid have it.

School lunches aren't that bad either. I checked a few at random and none of them offered pizza more than once a month. Pizza once a month isn't going to make anyone fat. It's called moderation. Nearly all of the menus included a variety of meals and they had very little red meat, plenty of chicken and fish and all came with lots of veggies on the side. The alternatives if you don't want the meal include yogurt and a pretzel or a PB&J sandwich and the like. Not exactly the horrendous junk food people seem to think is all that ever shows up in schools. They are far healthier than the crap I see in some kids' lunches they bring from home.

All through out the 50s, 60s and 70s, school lunches were less healthy with more fried foods and heavy sauces and kids and adults were thinner. As school lunches have gotten healthier since the 80s, kids and adults have gotten fatter. Go figure.

Of course, that is all assuming that it is actually the school's responsibiltiy to do anything about fat kids in the first place. (It isn't, by the way.)

People need to quit blaming everyone but themselves if they or their children are overweight. The schools and school lunches or the school PE programs don't make anyone obese. Parents not teaching their kids to eat right (it is THEIR job after all) makes their kids fat. Parents letting their kids sit on their asses all day watching TV and playing games make their kids fat.

It is NOT the school's function to make sure kids get exercise or eat right. It is their function to EDUCATE students. One of the things my daughter's school does that infuriates me is that they require that my daughter participate in some sort of organized sport outside of school. How dare they interfere with my time and my decisions on what activities outside of school my daughter participates in? How dare they mandate that I spend money that I don't have to enroll my child in something she doesn't like to do? How dare they impinge even further on my time with my child? Oh yeah, exercising with me doesn't count. Screw that. I told them no. I'm not wasting money on an activity neither of us wants just to appease some nanny-esque group that thinks it knows what is best for my child.

Quit passing off the blame and accept that if people are fat, obviously with medical exceptions, it is their own fault. No one makes anyone eat badly. No one makes anyone not exercise. No one makes anyone sit on the couch wasting their life in front of an idiot box or a video game. No one makes people drive around the corner to the store when they could have walked. It is a personal choice and if people make bad personal choices, it is neither yours nor the governments nor the school's responsibility. It is the person's responsibility--ENTIRELY.

It isn't the restaurant's fault that they serve large portions. No one is shoving the food down anyone's throat. They serve large portions because that is what people pay for. Get a doggie bag if it is too much.

If many Americans are fat it is because many Americans eat too much, eat unhealthily and exercise too little. It isn't complicated. If they want to slim down, they should eat less, eat healthier and exercise more. Again, not complicated.

[Mastiker]

I am curious about the level of health education people get in school. starting from elementary school we get classes on how to eat varied and healthy, but i think all in all it's maybe 10 hours in total (in the entire school career) Where the subject specifically covers how to keep from gaining weight and how to eat healthy. Maybe the American members can shed some light on this?

I learned something on this a while back;

It really has something to do with what the education system deems necessary. Since more and more colleges are caring less and less about courses like "physical education" and "health" these classes are getting less and less attention. In my school, physical education and health are jumbled into one course, and you only have to take it once, freshman year, for half a year. But because of our schedule, it's more like 1\4th of the year. And, it's only one period a day. My sister has the same issue at her school. In the elementary school that my mom works at, they get ten minutes of recess and gym once every five school days. That is not enough excersize for little kids.

The thing is... schools have deemed physical education a "useless" course, because they don't see the implications of it. They'd rather focus more on math and science, because mathmeticians get paid more, or some such nonsense as that. The way I see it, I'd rather have a healthy mathmetician who didn't know as much, then an obese one that wasn't going to live past forty.

If many Americans are fat it is because many Americans eat too much, eat unhealthily and exercise too little. It isn't complicated. If they want to slim down, they should eat less, eat healthier and exercise more. Again, not complicated.

This is very fine and all, but Americans are going to eat what's handed in front of them. If you make someone dependent on the fact that big portions are going to be served to them, they're going to eat big portions. While it's true that people can make the sensible decision, most of them aren't. They're happy and content eating their big meals, and if they are going to change you have to find some way to convince them.... or, simply take away their food source. It won't solve the problem by making them eat less, but it will help.

You're right, it's not complicated.

[yogi]

I heard a while back that Australia was the fattest nation per capitia.. I tend to agree; though I dont think people here get as fat as some scary americans I have seen. In the extremes I think amercia still has the medal.

[Kass]

People don't just eat what is handed to them. They order and purchase their own food. They choose large portions and they choose unhealthily. See that? They make a CHOICE. No one is dictating where, when, what and how much anyone eats. If they do not have the self control to put down their spoon, how exactly is that anyone's fault but their own?

I suppose you want a law regulating portions that can be served in restaurants? Or how about we register what we eat every day and if we choose wrogn, we are fined? Big Brother can choose our food for us. That's what it will take to force people to make wise nutrition choices.

Someone not making a sensible decision is THEIR problem, not society's. This country spends a lot of money marketing diets and exercise plans. The government spends a ton of money on studies and programs to reduce obesity and educate people on healthy choices. No one can force anyone to actually make the right decision.

There is no shortage of healthy options. There is no shortage of small portion meals. There is also no shortage of ingredients for people to make their own meals.

Four people brought cookies into the office this week so far. I've eaten exactly ONE despite there being several dozen less than six feet from my desk. One guy in the office has been chowing down. Why is it my responsibility to make him do what he already knows he should be doing? I'm neither his wife nor his mother. It isn't my place to nag him about his eating habits.

It is neither the government's right nor responsibility to make people eat right and exercise. That is a personal liberty and if it is squandered, then that is a personal problem.

Oh, and it is not the school's responsibility to make sure kids get enough exercise. Schools: Teach academics. Parents: Ensure the health and welfare of their children.

Why is the solution always that someone else fix problems at home? Government, hold my hand and do this for me.... And people wonder why the govenrment interferes in so many other things. They were invited.

[Mastiker]

Eep. I really need to word myself differently when in response to you. I was agreeing with you, but I was trying to extend on what you said :gloomy: You seemed to put a bit more malice into your post than usual as well

Just because Americans have a choice doesn't mean they're going to choose the one that's healthier for them. A lot of them are going to eat what they're conditioned to eat. Resturaunts don't sell huge portions because they're evil and they're trying to fatten up their customers; they sell huge portions because their customers demand it. Resturaunts and fast food places are businesses, and respond as businesses do to demand. When a customer wants something, the company gives it to them- if they can. And you're right, there's a number of options, but either obese people aren't aware of it, or they don't care.

I'm just saying that there isn't enough education about the proper things to do. It's a jackass thing to make your daughter do extra-curricular activites, because that's what they are- extra. However, in school they should be educating us on proper health education. They should be allowing proper exersize both mentally and physically for children, teenagers, and adults. Proper education in the right thing to do for your body is just as important as studying for a quiz. While, yes, parents should be teaching their kids how to eat right, not every parent is a) that responsible or b) that knowledgeable about what's right and wrong to eat.

And it's not like it's a waste of time either. My sister goes to a non-vocational high school. She has four classes a day, each for an hour and a half, I think. Most of the time she spends in the class is wasted by not doing work, watching useless TV, or just goofing around. She says that they could easily fit two or maybe even three more classes and still have just as much free time. What would those classes be? How about health and phys. ed? Plenty of time for that... now, I'm aware that not every school can fit these two classes into their curriculum, but those that can still aren't. A lot of the school systems in my area are horrible at managing classes, and a lot of the students have no idea what's good or bad for them.




We ALWAYS have options, but if you're not educated about them, you don't know which ones are the right ones for you to take.

[Trump]

Why do people instantly think certain foods make you fat? Fast food won't make you fat. You could eat it once a week and not gain a pound. Microwave food isn't necessarily bad either. But if that is all you eat, you might start to have problems. I don't know why "Organic" food make people think they will lose weight either compared to the other foods. Sure, it has preservatives in it but those aren't going to hurt you unless that is all you eat. (For the average person, not counting nursing etc). Really, it has to do with balance. Eat a variety of things and don't eat too much. Couple that with exercise and you'll find yourself very health and able to eat pretty much any type of food.

No, people get fat because they eat too much, eat ALL crap (and nothing to mix it up). I don't think it is education, it isn't quality of life, it isn't cheap cars (that is the stupidest thing I've heard), and it isn't fast food. What causes people to be fat is simply not caring about their health. Because food tastes good they eat as much as they can cram in their stomach. I'm sure they know they shouldn't but they don't have any will power or responsibility for their actions. People think it is someone else's responsibility to make them healthy. There is a growing problem in the US where no one takes responsibility for their actions. If people cared, they could do something about it.

PS. PLF, by your arguments people in Japan who own cars should all be overweight. Please, give me a break.

[Mastiker]

You're right, it doesn't matter what you eat, as much as it matters how much of it that you eat.

But obese people aren't obese because they eat at McDonalds once or twice a week. They're obese because they eat at McDonalds once or twice a day. Maybe not McDonalds, but you get my point. It should be obvious that obese people aren't getting educated enough, or they aren't caring enough. Fast food is addicting too. People grow dependencies on it; not as harsh as drugs, but it's still enough to be a problem.

edit:

I asked my friend (who works at Burger King) what would happen if McDonalds and BK served smaller portions... she figured that either people would lose weight, or pay to get more servings to make up for the lack of fries.
"This guy came in and we gave him a small fry by accident. He yelled and demanded that we give him the larger fries... I just wanted to say "sir, you do NOT need this food." but I'm too nice, or something. Seriously, the guy had to use two chairs to sit down."

[Trump]

If someone doesn't care about their health, what good is education going to do? I mean people KNOW smoking will kill them, but they still do it. All people care about is that the food tastes good and is easy to get. And guess what, they end up fat.

[Mastiker]

Well, in that case, let's just stop educating people about english. I mean, people KNOW that bad grammar isn't good for you, but they still do it.

That's horrible logic. You can't just stop educating people because people do it anyways. People smoke because it's addictive, people eat because they like to eat... if their educated in making their decision, knowing full well the consequences, then that's fine. But if they're blindly making decisions becase they like the way it tastes, then that's just wrong.

[akitaka]

"pay to get more servings to make up for the lack of fries."

Fuck yeah. If McDonald's did this, there'd have to be some sort of restaurant revolution. It's not like they'd lose much money either, since they're not a corporation of food, but real-estate.

[Kass]

Well, in that case, let's just stop educating people about english. I mean, people KNOW that bad grammar isn't good for you, but they still do it.

That's horrible logic. You can't just stop educating people because people do it anyways. People smoke because it's addictive, people eat because they like to eat... if their educated in making their decision, knowing full well the consequences, then that's fine. But if they're blindly making decisions becase they like the way it tastes, then that's just wrong.

If education was the cure-all, no one would be starting smoking, yet thousands of people pick up cigarettes for the first time every week. No one is addicted to smoking before they start. If there is someone over the age of five in the US who doesn't know that smoking is bad for them, they've been living in a cave. All the same, someone will light up and start sucking down all the tar and formaldehyde in a cigarrette knowing they are puffing away minutes of their life.

I seriously doubt there is an adult or even a child over the age of 7 who can't tell you that eating too much is bad and so is eating sweets, junk food and fats. They all know fruits and veggies are better for you.People know fried food is bad for you. It's all over the TV. "Our burgers are flame-broiled, not fried." "Jarod lost 10 million pounds eating our sanwiches..."

Yet, knowing all that, they behave the way they do anyway. People KNOW what they are doing is wrong. They do it anyway because they want to or just don't care. As important as being Kate Moss-thin is in this country, I just don't buy that there are all that many people out there who don't know making pigs of themselves and eating junk food everyday is bad for them.

I'm not saying stopping education is a good idea. It isn't, but we are educating people and it isn't making a difference. The solution lies elsewhere. It lies with the individual. They have to WANT to be healthy and no one but themselves can make that happen.

(I hope everyone remembers this excludes people who have medical conditions that affect the ability to gain or lose weight.)

[Mastiker]

If education was the cure-all, no one would be starting smoking, yet thousands of people pick up cigarettes for the first time every week. No one is addicted to smoking before they start. If there is someone over the age of five in the US who doesn't know that smoking is bad for them, they've been living in a cave. All the same, someone will light up and start sucking down all the tar and formaldehyde in a cigarrette knowing they are puffing away minutes of their life.

I seriously doubt there is an adult or even a child over the age of 7 who can't tell you that eating too much is bad and so is eating sweets, junk food and fats. They all know fruits and veggies are better for you.People know fried food is bad for you. It's all over the TV. "Our burgers are flame-broiled, not fried." "Jarod lost 10 million pounds eating our sanwiches..."

Yet, knowing all that, they behave the way they do anyway. People KNOW what they are doing is wrong. They do it anyway because they want to or just don't care. As important as being Kate Moss-thin is in this country, I just don't buy that there are all that many people out there who don't know making pigs of themselves and eating junk food everyday is bad for them.

I'm not saying stopping education is a good idea. It isn't, but we are educating people and it isn't making a difference. The solution lies elsewhere. It lies with the individual. They have to WANT to be healthy and no one but themselves can make that happen.

(I hope everyone remembers this excludes people who have medical conditions that affect the ability to gain or lose weight.)

Smoking usually starts with peer pressure, true XD

I like your posts better when they're like this. :innocent:

You're right, education is not the cure-all, but it's much better to continue to educate people than it is to let them wander around in ignorance. However, I don't know a single person (in my school) that would even think obesity is an issue, or is even aware of what it is, except for maybe the Health Occupations students. Weight problems are an issue and not that many people are educated about it. Sure, any seven year old will tell you that eating too much is bad for you, but do they understand why, or what it does to you? And if they do, why do I see kids in my school making decisions to eat Twinkies and Oreos every day, as opposed to the pasta and sandwiches?

Gah, I really need to work on my structure. I don't think I can argue much more about this with you :gloomy: I'm a student, you're an adult. You have much better vocabulary and whatnot. This is probably going to be the last post I make in this thread, unless somebody else says something.

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

The problem is people are like children, they wont do anything unless they HAVE to, one heart attack can usually be a nice wake up call, but one that's far too late. The thing is, you can be warned all you want, educated as much as you want, but in the end, there's no reality to what is taught to people, only when they get some real experience of it can they actually grasp the severity of the issue and at that point it's generally a waste of time telling them anything. For example, smoking, no-one really cares until it starts damaging them, they start getting a heavy wheezing flemmy cough or something of the sort and then they pay attention, or in this case eating to excess until it finally becomes a real physical burden on the person, where they have difficulty with stairs, trouble walking, or even that heart attack they never thought would happen.

So, back to my origional statement, people are like children, the only way you will get them to stop excess eating and such is to FORCE them, of course, that not being a real practical solution, there's not much can be done, let them make their mistakes and hope that they teach their children before they themselves are put into that possition. In the end, it comes down to parents teaching kids a little thing called moderation, it all starts in the home and generally fat parents = fat kids because they raise their kids on the same food they eat, and their kids will grow up as they did and will inflict that same lifestyle upon their own kids. I've grown up around people with weight issues, ie being high, being the youngest, i've seen them struggling to get that weight off before i've had the issue, that's affected me and turned me in the opposite direction towards eating very little instead of alot, people just need to learn from the mistakes of others if they're to make progress, i'd be willing the bet that while some people are still getting fat, the fact that such a big deal is being made of it means more people will also be adopting a healthier lifestyle, even if it's only healthier by not eating to excess but still eating crap food, it's still an improvement on too much bad food.

[Mysticalmelody]

I think one problem is that there are a lot of people out there that don't think they deserve to be very healthy. They don't think it's worth it to sacrifice the burger and have the salad instead. They don't value their health as much as they do their comfort food because they don't take pride in being healthy.

[Fred]

I think people are answering and arguing about two different questions in this thread.

One question is why Americans are fat. The other question is how Americans get fat. The means by which Americans get fat is simple. They take in more calories than they consume. This has been pointed out by several other people in this thread.

The “why” part is more complicated. I think Citizen made several good points. The availability of calorie dense foods is one example. I fast for three days every year, and each time I fast I become very aware of how easy it is to get food if you have the money. I think the point about the pace of people’s lives is also relevant. I think people are less inclined to savor their meals and thus tend to over-consume. Kass made a good point about personal responsibility. I heard that there was an effort to put together a lawsuit against McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy’s for making some kids obese and diabetic. I have no idea what happened to the lawsuit, but it is indicative of a lack of perceived responsibility for one’s own actions.

In addition to these points, I also think there is a growing demand for instant gratification over delayed gratification. My nephew once yelled, “I want more and I want it now!” I no longer remember what he was demanding, but the statement seemed to summarize a general attitude.

Another element is that I think high-fat, calorie dense food is addictive. I watched a documentary some guy made about eating only McDonalds food for one month and the impact that diet had on his health. I think it was called Fast-Food Nation. Does anyone know the movie I am referring to?

I think our Health Care/Insurance system adds to the problem. The U.S. health care system is predominantly focused on treating diseases rather than preventing them. Their tendency is to focus on medical treatments for the problems obese people have. They keep on looking for the magic pill that will allow people to do whatever they want without suffering the consequences. I went to the doctor’s office for a checkup a few years ago. I had about 22% body fat at the time, which is high. The doctor never said anything about it. I have since heard that doctors are hesitant to call people on their weight for fear of offending them. I can not think of a place better suited for blunt talk about a person’s health than the doctor’s office.

I disagree with the statements that people do not care. The diet and exercise industry is making huge bucks off the fact that people do care and are just not willing to do the hard work to be healthy. There is almost a sadomasochistic element to the relationship.

“We will give you these Zero Fat products with five times the calories!”
“Oh Yes! Hurt me some more!”

[japanat]

"Super-Size Me". I watched it a month ago, and I no longer eat McD's. We decided as a family that the kids can have it 1X/mo. Luckily for me, Subway opened in the next town; so I can get a mildly healthy junk-food fix every few months...

Many Americans see all these 'low-fat' foods, and think that means they can eat as much as they want. They concentrate on the fat, in many cases, but forget about total calories.

I've been waffling on starting a life-style change, but a lot of the comments in this thread are helping to motivate me to get off my lard-ass and get back to the body I used to have. Besides, I kinda want to watch my kids grow up, you know?

[bakagaijin]

[QUOTE=japanat
I've been waffling on starting a life-style change, but a lot of the comments in this thread are helping to motivate me to get off my lard-ass and get back to the body I used to have. Besides, I kinda want to watch my kids grow up, you know?[/QUOTE]


Japanat---

Check out this site. It's tremendous and has a lot of useful information for people with varioius goals.

www.johnstonefitness.com

[Plekto]

By the way... The guy who made that movie almost died trying to revcover from the damage it inflicted.

But often times, it's the choices we make. Take, for instance, well, burger places.

McDonalds and Burger King are right out - nothing really as an alternative. Carls Jr. has a few salads and such as well, but it's not much better. OTOH - and this is where being smart comes in, small choices make a big difference.

The 6 dollar burger at Carls Jr. is something like 1300 calories. Yet the low carb version without cheese is barely 550. The difference? Cheese and the greasy buns. Honestly, it fills you up just as well, since your stomach sees size instead of calories - and it doesn't make you fat, either.(though all that red meat isn't good for other reasons)

The best fast food place has to be Wendys. they have a huge selection of sides and alternatives. A small cup of chili and a baked potato(sans the butter of course - there's more than enough fat in the chili to make your tastebuds happy) - It's way less than a typical burger.

El Pollo Loco also is good this way - you can eat healty with a little tweaking of the menu.

Things that make a huge difference
- learn to go without cheese. First off, it's not REAL cheese - it's just processed oil - and nasty at that. I can't stand the taste of fake cheese on my burgers anymore - and it only took a couple of years.(now I'll put a slice of real cheese sometimes on a burger once I get it home - lol...)
- no sodas - switch to iced tea or diet soda. Or just water with a second or so of soda in it for flavor.
- no ice cream. save for special occasions. Or get one of those astro-pops instead if it's say, an ice cream truck/etc.
- no butter/oil except for maybe cooking. For instance, switching from a partially hydrogenated goo for salad dressing to a homemade Balsamic vinegrette is a couple of hunred calories right there!(and it tastes much better)
- no snacks between meals. Hunger is a good thing - it means you are keeing thin. Now, *starving* is a whole other thng, of course. But too many people are "I feel a teesy tiny bit hungry..." and off they go to the fridge.
- eat your biggest meal at breakfast and your smallest at dinner.(this is hard to re-train, but it's what most peole who do physical labor do - and it pays off big as long as you don't go crazy)
- do a search for "The Hacker's Diet" - and read it. All you ever wanted to know about weight loss and how to win at it. And, yes, it basically comes down to total calories and not much else.

[bakagaijin]

- no snacks between meals. Hunger is a good thing - it means you are keeing thin. Now, *starving* is a whole other thng, of course. But too many people are "I feel a teesy tiny bit hungry..." and off they go to the fridge.



I agree with the tips you have except for this one. Hunger is not a good thing. It's best to determine the number of calories you need to eat in order to lose weight, and spread those calories over 5/6 meals in a day. This way, you won't feel hungry and maintain a steady blood/glucose level. The calories consumed should contain the proper percentage of macronutrients (carbohydrates, protein, fat) Carbohydrates should have a low GI (glycemic index) rating, and fats should primarily be monounsaturated and polyunsaturated.

In addition, any exercise routine taken on should consist not only of cardiovascular training, but also weight training.

I posted a good link above that has a wealth of good information relating to weight loss, weight gain (for bodybuilding purposes), and general health overall.

[Cherub Rock]

Lack of exercise is the single biggest reason why Americans are fat.

[Soli]

Hunger is stupid. >< I can never tell when I'm hungry and when I'm full! Either I don't eat enough (or at all), or I don't stop eating when I'm full. =/

I agree that school lunches are usually pretty healthy for you. But how many kids are going to choose the healthy (and sort of tastey) main lunch, or the yummy pizza or bosco stick line.

Hmm, I know kids who buy cookies. And that's all they eat for lunch, 7 days a week.

I agree with the people who have said it before: It's all choice. Nobody's forcing you to eat fast food and cookies everyday (except the voices in my head telling me that 10 cookies would make a good dinner)!

[Jetsetlemming]

When I was in my old school, my lunch, without fail, every single day was a Turkey Hill oolong or orange tea, and a soft pretzle. :D Occasionally something else with that, like a small cookie, but that was rare. I was bone thin the entire time I lived there, too.

[Angelyne]

But often times, it's the choices we make. Take, for instance, well, burger places.

McDonalds and Burger King are right out - nothing really as an alternative. Carls Jr. has a few salads and such as well, but it's not much better. OTOH - and this is where being smart comes in, small choices make a big difference.

The 6 dollar burger at Carls Jr. is something like 1300 calories. Yet the low carb version without cheese is barely 550. The difference? Cheese and the greasy buns. Honestly, it fills you up just as well, since your stomach sees size instead of calories - and it doesn't make you fat, either.(though all that red meat isn't good for other reasons)

The best fast food place has to be Wendys. they have a huge selection of sides and alternatives. A small cup of chili and a baked potato(sans the butter of course - there's more than enough fat in the chili to make your tastebuds happy) - It's way less than a typical burger.

This is what pisses me off about a lot of fast food places. A lot of their "healthier" options aren't much better than the rest of the greasy shit that they serve. Looking at Wendy's nutrition information (http://www.wendys.com/food/NutritionLanding.jsp), two of their salads + salad dressing actually have more calories and fat than most of the burgers that they serve, and about the same unhealthy amount of sodium as the burgers. While I already said earlier that I blame lack of responsibility on obesity, deceptive marketing campaigns that advertise these salads as "healthy alternatives" don't help the situation at all. Not many people would believe that their salad has as much unhealthy crap as the burger covered in bacon and cheese, and not many people have the time or means during the lunch rush to carefully compare the nutritional content of Wendy's products.

Same with eating a baked potato on the side. A couple of chain restaurants (not counting Wendy's in this) offer a baked potato side as a substitute for fries, tricking people into believing the baked potato is healthier than the fried stuff. In reality, with all of the cheese, loads of butter, sour cream, and other crap these places add to the potato, the baked potato actually becomes a lot more unhealthier than the fries.

Again, I believe people should take more responsibility, but some of these tactics are just shady, especially when it isn't easy to obtain nutrition information when you're sitting down at a restaurant and need to make a quick decision.


Things that make a huge difference

- no butter/oil except for maybe cooking. For instance, switching from a partially hydrogenated goo for salad dressing to a homemade Balsamic vinegrette is a couple of hunred calories right there!(and it tastes much better)


I disagree. Olive oil is actually quite healthy and there have been many showing the health benefits of a diet rich in olive oil.

Butter isn't evil, either, although should be used in moderation.

[NERD]

A glass of water counts as a snack, believe it or not. An 8 inch stick of celery amounts to 6 calories, and you will burn more calories trying to digest that thing.

[bakagaijin]

I disagree. Olive oil is actually quite healthy and there have been many showing the health benefits of a diet rich in olive oil.

.

That's right. Olive oil is rich in polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat.

[悲しいパンダ]

A nice site, which tells you wheather your underweight to normal to obese.
http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/
Steps:
1) Click on the link I posted
2) Put in your height
3) Put in your weight
4) Click "Calculate BMI"
5) Look at the number that is in the center of the heart (that is your BMI)
6) Check on the side to see wheather or not your underweight, normal, overweight, or obese

I'd also say that the BMI is not always accurate. It work on all people. Like body builders. they have more muscle mass than fat mass.

I'm 30 pounds overweight. I really should workout more.

[Ceirnian]

That BMI stuff has been crap for as long as I lived, right now it's showing me as "obese" (6ft 225lbs) and I'm nowhere near even being 'overweight'. Maybe that works for the 'average' white male, but that chart fails in a lot of ways.

[japanat]

Japanat---

Check out this site. It's tremendous and has a lot of useful information for people with varioius goals.

www.johnstonefitness.comThat is a good site, too. Actually, I'm going back on BFFM (Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle). It helped me beef up my shoulders and back before my injury (not the site's fault, genetic), and drop 5% body fat at the same time. [I'm not listing the site, because it's an e-book, and I don't want to spam anyone].

Does anyone have any good, nutritious recipes they want to share? I started a thread on this before, but it became Cooking 101. I cook well, I'm just interested in ideas for different taste combo's, ethnic dishes, etc. PM me if you have any good ones, or revive the old thread in GD... Never mind, it's gone.

[Roxie]

About school lunches/school foods...

Many school districts in the US have removed sodas from soda machines. A LOT did it years ago partly for nutrition and partly because no teacher wanted to teach a classroom full of kids hyped up on sugar and caffeine right after lunch.
School lunches aren't that bad either. I checked a few at random and none of them offered pizza more than once a month. Pizza once a month isn't going to make anyone fat. It's called moderation. Nearly all of the menus included a variety of meals and they had very little red meat, plenty of chicken and fish and all came with lots of veggies on the side. The alternatives if you don't want the meal include yogurt and a pretzel or a PB&J sandwich and the like. Not exactly the horrendous junk food people seem to think is all that ever shows up in schools. They are far healthier than the crap I see in some kids' lunches they bring from home.

All through out the 50s, 60s and 70s, school lunches were less healthy with more fried foods and heavy sauces and kids and adults were thinner. As school lunches have gotten healthier since the 80s, kids and adults have gotten fatter. Go figure.
I graduated highschool in 2001. Pizza, burgers, fries, pizza sticks, calzones, cheesburgers, etc..where served everyday. There was NO salad line. There was just the regular lunch line.

In middle school we had pizza once a week and there was no "salad" line. It was all regular lunch.

Never was yogurt, prezetls, nor pb&j offered, ever.

And I'll bet you that most of that fish/chicken is highly processed, breaded, and/or fried.

There were soda machines in every building on every floor.

Of course, that is all assuming that it is actually the school's responsibiltiy to do anything about fat kids in the first place. (It isn't, by the way.)

People need to quit blaming everyone but themselves if they or their children are overweight. The schools and school lunches or the school PE programs don't make anyone obese. Parents not teaching their kids to eat right (it is THEIR job after all) makes their kids fat. Parents letting their kids sit on their asses all day watching TV and playing games make their kids fat.

It is NOT the school's function to make sure kids get exercise or eat right. It is their function to EDUCATE students.

Actually, these unhealthy school lunches and a lack of PE programs do contribute to overweight children.

Of course, parents should be teaching their kids healthy eating habits, but like I said an 8 year old will choose pizza every time. Not because their parents did a poor job, but b/c pizza is fuckin tasty.

However, these kids are basically captive audiences and in this situation I believe it is the school's responsibility to make sure they are getting well rounded, healthy lunches and some sort of recess/pe time. Things to get the kids moving and take off some of that restless energy.

Also, feeding kids better, healthier food has been shown to improve behavior, mood, and attentiveness in the classroom. So one would think that schools should be feeding children healthier foods.

Do I believe these are the sole and only reasons?
Absolutely not. However, the point is, they are part of the harm and they are far from helping.

[zarmsway]

I came back to the States for winter vacation, and I had two initial impressions. First, I was surprised at the diversity. Then, I noticed that Americans are generally rather fat. Now, I'm not saying I'm a slim jim myself. But, in comparison, I feel quite svelte.

For instance, I was in a diner in New York and listening on a conversation between two women about dieting. They kept mentioning that they were trying out different "fad diets" but only mentioned going to the gym as an aside.

Not to mention, they ate quite a bit at the diner as well.

I think there needs to be some rather big reforms in America because it doesn't seem like this trend is going to be good for population's general health. But I'm not sure what would be the best method to implement them. I think the root of the problem is how a lot of people approach dieting, thinking that there's some quick and easy solution to losing weight. And it doesn't help that McDonald's is pretending like it's healthy with pictures of people exercising on their bags while serving the same greasy food.

What do you think?


Hmm... Okay, first I have a few questions for you before I dive into this thread.

1) Where are you from/where do you currently live?
2) What part(s) of the USA have you visited to give you the overwhelming assumption Americans are generally fat?

In response to your last paragraph, I will say this: Some people are much stronger willed than others when it comes to certain things. If everyone in the world had a stronger constitution to work out, then everyone, obviously, in the world would be thin. Me personally, I like the variety. Besides, It isn't McDonald's job to teach people about eating healthy. It is however their aim to make money selling food they know that people like regardless of whether it has nutritional value or not. Such is the nature of business.

[zarmsway]

Not really, if I have to deal with a big belly as well. A fat woman with big breasts isn't attractive.

***

I think restaurants need to decrease portion size in general. That's one major factor I think in Americans being overweight. Food portions always need to be "bigger".

Says you. I happen to think that some "big" women are beautiful. When will people learn that beauty is subjective? As for a decrease in portion size, I agree. That could in fact help out some.

[Kass]

You know, Super-Size Me makes a very good point about one thing: over-indulgence. The man ate McDonalds burger meals and nothing but McDonalds burger meals for a month. Of course you are going end up a porker doing that. It has no other bearing on reality for the majority of the populace. It's a nice scare-tactic movie by someone with a grudge against fast-food joints. McDonalds isn't the problem.

One Big Mac meal a month or every so often isn't going to kill anyone or make anyone obese. I try to eat healthy, but I know I have a few weaknesses: hot fresh bread, chocolate and the occasional burger. To minimize the damage I could do with those things, my daugher puts the bread inthe breadmaker when I'm not home. It's done and cooled by the time I get there and I'm not so tempted to eat the whole loaf fresh out of the oven. I have a chocolate bar once a week as a treat and once a month or so, I have a great, big, juice-runs-down-your-chin burger (or Wendy's--whichever is more convenient) with fries and a milkshake. None of that will kill me and I don't gain any weight doing it.

Moderation is the key and only the individual can make themselves control themselves at the table. Only the individual can drive PAST the McDonalds drive-thru and not through it. You can't legislate healthy lifestyles. Sure, we can prohibit children from gaining access to obviously harmful products like cigarettes and alcohol, but we can't run people's lives. The pursuit of happiness doesn't necessarily mean healthy, nor is it open to govenrment direction. It's a free country and if someone wants to stuff their faces with fat on a bun, that is their choice and it is really no one's business, esp. not the busybody activists' or the government's business.

This is why I find NYC's law banning trans-fats so heinous. It is a fundamental infringement on our rights. Yeah, too many trans-fats are bad for you. Water can be bad for you if you drink too much. There's very little healthy about trans-fats except that they don't go rancid as fast as other fats and you are less likely to get food poisoning. exactly what gives anyone the right to make that decision for you or me? If someone wants to eat it, they can and no govenrment has the right to say no. This isn't something that affects anyone but the consumer. There's no second-hand smoke, there's no risk of of someone intoxicated on trans-fats driving into a crowd and killing anyone.

What's next? Telling me not only how I can prepare my french fries, but how many I can eat in a month? Rations on how many Frosties I can consume a month? What's next on the ban list? Butter? Fried food? Both are as bad for you as trans-fats. We keep inviting the government in to be our nannies and eventually, we're not going to have any free choices left.

I've already got a list of things I'm not allowed to send in my daughter's lunch to school. I'm sure that banning them for home consumption is next on the list. Groups are already trying to do that with sodas. They want warning labels and to not let children be able to purchase them at all. No kidding sodas make you fat. That's like saying water makes you wet. EVERYTHING can make you fat if you eat too much of it.

Fast food and junk food isn't anymore addictive than carrots. It's easy and people are lazy. Rather than prepare their own meals, they'd just as soon buy them and everyone wants everything "NOW NOW NOW." A fat butt is the cost of their laziness.

There's no real difference in the how and why people are fat. Why are they fat? Because people are lazy, eat too much and eat too much of the wrong foods. How did they get that way? By being lazy, eating too much and eating too much of the wrong foods.

Ironically, at the same time we have people, especially girls and young women, being so insecure and starving themselves to emulate stick-thin, closet-anorexic supermodels. It isn't as widespread as obesity, but it is as deadly. We're a country of extremes on this issue and no one seems to get that it is extremism that is the problem. Eat way too much and get fat or eat next to nothing and starve to death.

Everything in moderation...

[Mastiker]

You know, Super-Size Me makes a very good point about one thing: over-indulgence. The man ate McDonalds burger meals and nothing but McDonalds burger meals for a month. Of course you are going end up a porker doing that. It has no other bearing on reality for the majority of the populace. It's a nice scare-tactic movie by someone with a grudge against fast-food joints. McDonalds isn't the problem.


Just gonna comment on the Super Size me part:

He made that with the intention to show that moderation is important. He ate that much food to emulate the people that do eat that much food. He was trying to show that maybe, just maybe McDonalds food did really affect those two girls in that law case, by emulating how much they ate and went to a little extreme. McDonalds (or the judge) said "prove that eating this much McDonalds can have lasting effects" to those girls, and so he did.

I can't count how many times he mentioned that moderation is the key. In the end, he even said "corporations aren't going to change. they're a business, why would they not want to make a profit? the only way that anything is going to happen is if you decide to make it happen. and nobody can make you do that." Which is almost word for word what you're saying.

Now I'll go back to not commmenting.

edit: he ALSO mentioned that McDonalds wasn't the only factor. He rarely excersized as well, trying to emulate the behavior patterns of the average obese american. Something I think you're also saying?

[Kass]

I graduated highschool in 2001. Pizza, burgers, fries, pizza sticks, calzones, cheesburgers, etc..where served everyday. There was NO salad line. There was just the regular lunch line.

In middle school we had pizza once a week and there was no "salad" line. It was all regular lunch.

Never was yogurt, prezetls, nor pb&j offered, ever.

And I'll bet you that most of that fish/chicken is highly processed, breaded, and/or fried.

There were soda machines in every building on every floor.


Then your schools sucked. Not even when I was in school were there soda machines on every floor or a predominance of fried foods. Salads were available as well. The fish and chicken served now are mostly baked, not fried. You can bread things and bake them, you know. Breading isn't bad for you. Monounsaturated fats are. The amount of breading on a piece of fish or chicken is so negligible it's silly.

Pizza might be tasty to you, but it isn't to a lot of people. Of course, salads and fruit are tasty too IF you are brought up to think so. Any child that grows up in a home where healthy food is prepared and served is MORE likely to make healthy choices when not in the home. I see kids turn down cookies for apples and pizza for chicken everyday because that is what their parents taught them.

Actually, these unhealthy school lunches and a lack of PE programs do contribute to overweight children.

But not even close to how much their home life contributes. School lunches are a drop in the ocean compared to a child's eating habits and activities at home. It isn't the school's responsibility to run a child's life. TEACH. They already do everything but that as it is, they don't need to be diet dictators too.

A child eats three times as many meals OUTSIDE of school as they do in school. Three times. Those meals are what have the most impact. Even if the school lunches (that only about half the students eat anyway) were absolutely unhealthy, five small portioned unhealthy meals aren't going to make anyone fat if they are eating properly the other 16 meals a week (based on three meals a day, seven days a week).

Children don't get to run around for an hour in school. That is kind of the point. They are supposed to be sitting in class and learning. The problem is that they are flat on their asses outside of school. Yes, younger children needmore recess or active lessons to burn off excess energy, but moreso, they need an education and a decent teacher can work a few active lessons into math class or english or whatever.

School is a negligible percentage of the problem. Kids aren't getting fat from school lunches or lack of PE. They are getting fat at home, where they consume the vast majority of food. Kids aren't snacking all day in school. They are coming home and grabbing a snack and a soda and plopping in front of the TV at HOME. Then they are eating whatever crap their parents bring home or prepare. Then they are eating dessert and later a snack before bed at home. They get up in the morning and eat cereal loaded with sugar and head to school to eat the only meal even remotely nutritionally balanced during their day. They don't snack from 8 am to 3 pm, the only extended period of time during the day they are not scarfing down cheetos or chips.

Yes, school lunches should be reasonably healthy, but making school lunches and only one PE class a day seem like even a middling problem is silly. It isn't. The problem is at home and no one wants to admit it. It is easier to blame everyone else and look for a scapegoat.

Of course, parents should be teaching their kids healthy eating habits, but like I said an 8 year old will choose pizza every time. Not because their parents did a poor job, but b/c pizza is fuckin tasty.

Again, not if their PARENTS teach them better.

However, these kids are basically captive audiences and in this situation I believe it is the school's responsibility to make sure they are getting well rounded, healthy lunches and some sort of recess/pe time. Things to get the kids moving and take off some of that restless energy.

They do. Kids get PE and they get probably the healthiest meal most of them eat a day at school. Just because you might have chosen pizza doesn't mean the majority of kids do or that the majority of schools even offer it that often. Most don't and never did. It's a convenient cop out.

People just now want schools to fix a problem that isn't the schools' problem. Even when their meals were far less healthy and PE was still only one hour a day or less decades ago, childhood obesity wasn't the "issue" it is today. Schools have changed menus to be healthier and kid are fatter. That means the problem isn't really school lunches, is it? Let's face it, if the addition of salad lines and the removal of sodas, like was done starting in the 80s, hasn't had an impact in two decades, it isn't going to. What it does show is that the real problem is elsewhere.

What has truly changed? Really, look at the REAL difference between the 50s and 60s and now. It isn't the schools. They didn't offer healthier choices or more PE than is offered now.

Kids don't go outside and play anymore. They sit on their butts and play video games. Playgrounds are empty, but the couches aren't. Parents aren't fixing meals for dinner, they're stopping at McDonalds on the way home or throwing a TV dinner in the microwave.

Parents let their children be sedentary. Parents don't throw their kids out of the house and tell them to go PLAY. Parents buy them playstations and nintendos and games galore. They don't buy them bikes and basketballs. Kids can pop in a DVD whenever instead of running around outside. Kids surf the net instead of skateboard.

It is a parent problem. Kids have five years of training before they even get close to school. Five years of brainwashing by parents who have two food choices: feed their kids crap or feed their kids healthy food. Depending on what is done those five years and beyond, the children will either choose well or not. Parents have two activity choices: make kids play outside and run around or let them get couch-potato butt.

Also, feeding kids better, healthier food has been shown to improve behavior, mood, and attentiveness in the classroom. So one would think that schools should be feeding children healthier foods.

Look at more than a few school menus before you base all your assertions on the crap served at your schools. They do and sodas have been banned in many school districts for decades.

Do I believe these are the sole and only reasons?
Absolutely not. However, the point is, they are part of the harm and they are far from helping.


They aren't nearly as damaging as a parent's negligent behavior. Schools are just the place everyone turns when parents fail. Kids aren't learning morals in the home anymore, so schools have to teach kids to be good citizens and right from wrong. Kids aren't eating well at home anymore, so schools have to try and undo that in five meals a week. Kids aren't playing at home anymore, so schools have to turn into Gold's Gym and provide trainers to undo the effects of raising generation after generation of couch potatos at home.

Parents fail, schools have to fix it. So instead, we might raise a generation of kids who get mixed messages and crappy educations because schools spend all their time being the parents kids don't have at home. Schools as parents and guardians will and do fail.

When all else fails, blame the schools, even when the problem has nothing to do with them and everything to do with new generations of parents abdicating their parental obligations to whomever they can bully into taking them. They are too busy to raise their kids, so they want the government to do it. No wonder our society is screwed and getting worse.

[Trump]

I don't know about you, but I brought my lunch to school. It took all of 5 minutes the night before (or that morning) to make it. And it was usually better than anything served by the school. Oh yeah, and we had to buy the stuff but people go grocery shopping anyway. It was just soooo much work! (like typing this post! whew*)

[Roxie]

Kass, there is a difference between a scapegoat and a contributing factor.

I am obviously NOT scapegoating the schools. I am not abidicating the parents of any blame, again obvious. To me, blaming the parents goes without saying. But please, stop making up stuff, ok?

You're also talking out of two sides of your mouth. You've already said schools are there to educate, then you went on to say that no matter how you educate people they're going to make their own choices (so what's the point of educating them), and now you say kids make bad choices only because their parents didn't teach them better. So which is it?

Actually, children SHOULD run around for an hour in school. They're there for nearly 8 hours--the majority of their day. Everyone should run around for an hour! Like you said, lack of exercise. Alot of kids DO eat more at school than at home. Schools also serve breakfasts. Then there are the kids who get free lunch due to their parent's financial situation.

Eliminating sodas is not enough. Removal of soda machines did start until a few years ago (not the 80's) and additions of salad lines have not reached all schools, so you cannot reasonably say "it's not helping".

Is showing them how to eat healthy and be healthy NOT education?

[Trump]

At some point, more education just does not help any more.

[delen]

I completely disagree with the notion that if parents teach a kid to like healthy food then they will like it more than unhealthy food. From personal experience I always went for the tastey food even though my parents were like, "eat these vegetables". Maybe I was just a really stubborn kid but my parents tried plenty.

I try to eat healthy these days but that's not really because of my parents it is because I perfer to eat less tastey foods and be more healthy. When I was a kid I didn't care about that stuff.

[Kass]

Kass, there is a difference between a scapegoat and a contributing factor.

I am obviously NOT scapegoating the schools. I am not abidicating the parents of any blame, again obvious. To me, blaming the parents goes without saying. But please, stop making up stuff, ok?

You're also talking out of two sides of your mouth. You've already said schools are there to educate, then you went on to say that no matter how you educate people they're going to make their own choices (so what's the point of educating them), and now you say kids make bad choices only because their parents didn't teach them better. So which is it?

No, it is more obvious that you project the opinion that everyone BUT parents are responsible for fixing a problem parents create. It doens't go without saying. Parents raise fat kids and so the government has to fix it. Quick, blame the schools for selling sodas and serving pizza once in a while instead of tofu every day.

The biggest problem is that no one says it. Crappy parenting is responsible for nearly all the problems with kids today, but no one says it. It's the schools not choosing food for the kids. It's the schools not making kids do community service on the weekends. It's the schools not teaching kids violence is wrong. It's the schools not teaching kids bigotry is wrong. It's the schools not teaching kids not to cuss. It's the schools not teaching kids to show respect. That is ALL on the parents and no one else. Every last bit of it.

I'm saying it. You see a fat kid, slap the parents, not the schools. The schools have jack to do with kids being fat. They provide less than 25% of the food for half the kids in school. About half the kids bring their lunches. Think about that. Half the kids get all their food from home. The schools aren't even remotely the problem.

The problem is no one taking responsiblity for themselves or their kids. Since they don't take responsibility and nothing can ever be their fault, someone is to blame and the schools won the coin toss this time.

Learn to read. I never said there was no point to educating anyone. I also said FLAT OUT we shouldn't stop educating people, but you can't force people to use that education. More education isn't going to do any good. People know what they need to do. EVERYTHING people need to know about known nutrition and exercise requirements is out there and being provided. (Obviously new discoveries aren't yet.) They just have to want to use it.

The lessons parents should provide and the lessons schools should provide are TWO different things. Parents: life lessons. Schools: Academics. Our schools suck because they are trying to be everything BUT schools. They are substitute parents, morality police and now dieticians and physical trainers. Educating is no longer the priority.

Schools have NO business dictating food choices to anyone. Yes, they should and DO serve healthy lunches. Are they perfectly balanced lunches? No, but I can assure you, they are far healthier than the crap most people eat outside of school or bring into school.

Actually, children SHOULD run around for an hour in school. They're there for nearly 8 hours--the majority of their day. Everyone should run around for an hour! Like you said, lack of exercise. Alot of kids DO eat more at school than at home. Schools also serve breakfasts. Then there are the kids who get free lunch due to their parent's financial situation.

Very few students actually consume breakfast at schools. The numbers are staggeringly low. The bigger problem is kids aren't eating breakfast at all. Also, the numbers are low with regard to the free/reduced-price lunch program because it is too difficult to qualify when you look at how many school-aged children there ar and how many are in the lunch program. You have to make below federal poverty levels that are still set obscenely low and do not factor in differences in cost of living in different regions. I know. I've tried to qualify. Most people in financial difficulty don't qualify.

Students DO get a full class period of PE in schools and most class periods are 45 minutes or more. The school's function is NOT to be a gym or a vehicle to make up for deficiencies outside the home. Kids should run around for an hour a day. They don't necessarily have to do it in school. Schools are there for ACADEMICS. Parents are capable of making a kid run even if they don't. Most parents can't teach algebra or history. PE class is as much as the schools should provide outside of recess for much younger kids.

Eliminating sodas is not enough. Removal of soda machines did start until a few years ago (not the 80's) and additions of salad lines have not reached all schools, so you cannot reasonably say "it's not helping".

Flat out wrong. Sodas were removed from schools in DoD schools and several school districts in the 80s. They were also removed from elementary and middle schools across the country going that far back. High schools kept them longer because people assumed when a kid was that old, they could decide what they wanted to eat.

There was much ado in the news because soda companies were paying to put their drinks in schools and the outcry put a stop to that and many places yanked the sodas out completely. I remember being pissed that I no longer had the choice when the machines were yanked. Many places left the machines but turned them off or stocked them with canned juices and fruit drinks, which funnily enough, have as much or more sugar than some sodas.

As well, schools drastically reduced the amounts of fried foods starting that far back. Most people assume that chicken nuggets or the fish is fried. It isn't and hasn't been for a while. It's baked, just like the kind you buy at the store goes in the oven.

Is showing them how to eat healthy and be healthy NOT education?

They do already. Whether or not the parents, who are most responsible, or the kids make use of that education is the issue and you can't make people do the right thing. You put it out there, you provide the tools and step back. You can't make the decision for them, which is what you want the schools to do. The schools have no business meddling in that outside of what they do already. We are already suffering because schools spend too much time being social services. It's time to quit expecting them to fix the problems idiot parents cause and start expecting people to take responsibility for themselves and the families they create.

[Plekto]

This is what pisses me off about a lot of fast food places. A lot of their "healthier" options aren't much better than the rest of the greasy shit that they serve. Looking at Wendy's nutrition information (http://www.wendys.com/food/NutritionLanding.jsp), two of their salads + salad dressing actually have more calories and fat than most of the burgers that they serve, and about the same unhealthy amount of sodium as the burgers. While I already said earlier that I blame lack of responsibility on obesity, deceptive marketing campaigns that advertise these salads as "healthy alternatives" don't help the situation at all. Not many people would believe that their salad has as much unhealthy crap as the burger covered in bacon and cheese, and not many people have the time or means during the lunch rush to carefully compare the nutritional content of Wendy's products.

Same with eating a baked potato on the side. A couple of chain restaurants (not counting Wendy's in this) offer a baked potato side as a substitute for fries, tricking people into believing the baked potato is healthier than the fried stuff. In reality, with all of the cheese, loads of butter, sour cream, and other crap these places add to the potato, the baked potato actually becomes a lot more unhealthier than the fries.


Obviously you toss the dressing and toss the butter and sour cream on the potato. That's almost ALL of the bad fat in it. One simple step and your evil meal turns into something quite decently healthy.

A slice of processed cheese is over 100 calories of pure gunk and fat. And honestly, a burger tastes better without it. You can actually taste the meat!
I like the low carb 6 dollar burger because of this. No special sauce or fake cheese goo. Just meat, some veggies, and nothing else.

I recommended a small cup of chili, since without the cheese, butter, and so on, a plain potato with plan chili on top is quite decent and fools your tastebuds into not caring if it's slathered in butter.(true of almost anything with meat in it - your tastebuds register enough "fat" content to make doing without the other things tolerable. Doubly so if it's slightly spicy. A nice $1 taco at a typical place(Rubios or simmilar - the type with a real tortilla and some meat filling) for instance, is tons better than Taco Hell.

As for oil - I mean the goey crap. Natural oils like you'd find in a vinegrette are of course, okay, since you only need 50 calories worth of oil for an entire salad(the rest being balsamic vinegar or simmilar). Tousand Island or Ranch dressing is no good.

Lastly, on hunger... read The Hacker's Diet. It explains how as many people get older, their internal "eat clock" gets old and works imperfectly. So they register hunger way before they actually are needing more food. So a little hunger as you get older and less active is a good thing. Just don't stuff yourself when you do get some food in you. That, and exercise helps a lot.

As for dieting...
1:Always take a multivitamin. Carvings are due to imbalances caused by lack of enzymes and minerals or too much of them(which happens when you burn fat - all the toxic crud comes leeching out).
2:Always do at least a little exercise so you don't lose too much muscle as well as fat.(technically replacing the fat with some muscle)
3:Get a good Coral Calcium suppliment. A two month supply is under $10. Take a teaspoon every day. This is because of the toxic crud coming from the fat cells - it acts as a PH balancer.
4:realize that you have to starve a bit to lose wight. No easy way around it.

[Fred]

Regarding whether or not high-fat, high-calorie food is addictive –

There are many studies being done on this question and some results do support the conclusion that such food is addictive. Researchers are debating the conclusions. My personal experience is that the more high-fat, high-calorie foods I eat, the more I crave those kinds of foods, and that it is hard to stop eating them. The counter argument is that people are not experiencing addiction; they are just experiencing pleasure at eating something tasty. Even if such food is addictive, it does not abdicate people of their personal responsibility for their health. However, it is part of the explanation as to why Americans are so fat.

Regarding the idea that people (excluding those with medical issues) are fat because they are lazy –

I suppose if people are satisfied with that conclusion, then there is not much else to say. Personally, I think the word “lazy” is a judgment, not a conclusion. It’s certainly not a very meaningful analysis. It may accurately describe some people’s experience, but definitely not everyone’s experiences. I think about all the money that is spent on health foods, and weight loss products, and exercise equipment, and gym membership, and diet books, and all sorts of other items. Many people, who are industrious in other areas of their lives, have powerful desires to be slim and healthy, but something gets in their way. On the other hand, maybe it is too much effort to figure out what those influences might be, so perhaps it is best to just call them lazy.

(For the literal-minded members: The point of the last sentence was to imply that it is intellectually lazy to say people are fat because they are lazy.)

Regarding parent’s responsibility in teaching their children healthy eating and exercising habits –

Yes, it is absolutely their responsibility to do so.

Regarding school’s role in teaching children healthy eating and exercising habits –

I don’t know where to take a stand in this question. I would like to see schools educate children about health and fitness. I would also like to see schools practice what they preach. However, the way they did those things would definitely have an impact on whether or not I supported it. I know I don’t like people telling me I have to do something.

[Plekto]

Bit of data (my lunch today - I wanted MEAT, damn it!)

6 dollar low carb burger, sans cheese:
Originally: 490 Calories, 330 from fat. 37Gr fat, 16Gr saturated.
Minus Cheese: 370 Calories, 210 from fat. 26Gr fat, 11Gr saturated.

Regular burger:
960 calories. 560 from fat. 62Gr fat, 25Gr saturated.

For comparison:
Kid's burger
520 calories 160 from fat. 18Gr fat, 6Gr saturated

Note how a tiny burger with about 1/6th of a pound of meat is higher in calories than a half a pound low carb burger! If you fed the kid in question half of the low carb burger, you'd get:

185 Calories, 105 from fat. 13Gr fat, 5.5Gr saturated.

And a fuller kid as well.(though I'd not recommend this be all you eat, of course - lol - it's too high in fat)

Oh - I also splurged and had a Snapple - so add in 250 calories in carbs to equal out the fat ;) Total lunch: 370+250=620 calories. That's perfectly adequate - and I was quite satisfied.

P.S. Recommended dialy intake (2000 calorie diet, for males):
65Gr fat, 20Gr, saturated, 300gr carbs, 50gr protien. So my lunch is well within normal healthy guidelines if I don't eat meat for the other meals.(and frankly, I've had my meat "fix" for a couple of days - one thing eating a big wad all at once does for you, IME.)

[Soli]

For teenage girls, the daily amount of calories would be around 2,200.

On a usual day I have around 600 at most. 0 at the least. >_>

[japanat]

Then your schools sucked. Not even when I was in school were there soda machines on every floor or a predominance of fried foods. Salads were available as well. You must have gone to a good school district, one with adequate funding. (see below) The fish and chicken served now are mostly baked, not fried. You can bread things and bake them, you know. Breading isn't bad for you. Monounsaturated fats are. Actually, no, it's saturated fats that are bad for you. The amount of breading on a piece of fish or chicken is so negligible it's silly.

Pizza might be tasty to you, but it isn't to a lot of people. Of course, salads and fruit are tasty too IF you are brought up to think so. Salads and fruits are very tasty. They are also much more expensive and labor-intensive to make in an institutional setting such as a school, where budget is the bottom-line. Any child that grows up in a home where healthy food is prepared and served is MORE likely to make healthy choices when not in the home. I see kids turn down cookies for apples and pizza for chicken everyday because that is what their parents taught them. Very true, much of one's eating habits are learned at home. But many kids, indeed most American kids, eat at least one meal a day (breakfast is also available for low-income families) at school.


But not even close to how much their home life contributes. School lunches are a drop in the ocean compared to a child's eating habits and activities at home. It isn't the school's responsibility to run a child's life. TEACH. (Teach by example, too, right? Give a decent meal to be emulated.) They already do everything but that as it is, they don't need to be diet dictators too. No, they shouldn't be diet dictators. But they can make sure that the foods they provide are healthy. They can also stop selling the cookies, etc, ala carte; turn off or get rid of the cola machines, candy vending machines, etc.

A child eats three times as many meals OUTSIDE of school as they do in school. Three times. Those meals are what have the most impact. Even if the school lunches (that only about half the students eat anyway ???, 90%+ of kids in my elementary school) were absolutely unhealthy, five small portioned unhealthy meals aren't going to make anyone fat if they are eating properly the other 16 meals a week (based on three meals a day, seven days a week). Yes, that is true. But since America has such a high rate of obese children, their families are obviously failing.

Children don't get to run around for an hour in school. That is kind of the point. They are supposed to be sitting in class and learning. The problem is that they are flat on their asses outside of school. Yes, younger children needmore recess or active lessons to burn off excess energy, but moreso, they need an education and a decent teacher can work a few active lessons into math class or english or whatever. It's not the same. A young kid who has an outlet for energy release such as recess, learns better and is less of a discipline problem at school. Even JHS students benefit from that. And exercise and proper training usually won't be learned from lard-ass parents.

School is a negligible percentage of the problem. Kids aren't getting fat from school lunches or lack of PE. They are getting fat at home, where they consume the vast majority of food. Kids aren't snacking all day in school. They are coming home and grabbing a snack and a soda and plopping in front of the TV at HOME. Then they are eating whatever crap their parents bring home or prepare. Then they are eating dessert and later a snack before bed at home. They get up in the morning and eat cereal loaded with sugar and head to school to eat the only meal even remotely nutritionally balanced during their day. They don't snack from 8 am to 3 pm, the only extended period of time during the day they are not scarfing down cheetos or chips.

Yes, school lunches should be reasonably healthy, but making school lunches and only one PE class a day seem like even a middling problem is silly. It isn't. The problem is at home and no one wants to admit it. It is easier to blame everyone else and look for a scapegoat. I don't like the fact that football programs get multiple coaches and equipment funding, but the average kid can't even get P.E.

They do. Kids get PE and they get probably the healthiest meal most of them eat a day at school. See below

Again, not if their PARENTS teach them better. No one disagrees with this. We're just saying that schools are a factor as well.



Just because you might have chosen pizza doesn't mean the majority of kids do or that the majority of schools even offer it that often.
Kass, you have some very good, well-thought-out arguments. But don't dismiss all other arguments on the basis of the schools you've seen. It's a complex problem, with many facets.
http://sc.jeffco.k12.co.us/education/sctemp/7e034dc7e6f6ad9596782d84cb123c73/January_Lunch.pdf

[Pierrot le Fou]

Why do people instantly think certain foods make you fat? Fast food won't make you fat. You could eat it once a week and not gain a pound. Microwave food isn't necessarily bad either. But if that is all you eat, you might start to have problems. I don't know why "Organic" food make people think they will lose weight either compared to the other foods. Sure, it has preservatives in it but those aren't going to hurt you unless that is all you eat. (For the average person, not counting nursing etc). Really, it has to do with balance. Eat a variety of things and don't eat too much. Couple that with exercise and you'll find yourself very health and able to eat pretty much any type of food.

No, people get fat because they eat too much, eat ALL crap (and nothing to mix it up). I don't think it is education, it isn't quality of life, it isn't cheap cars (that is the stupidest thing I've heard), and it isn't fast food. What causes people to be fat is simply not caring about their health. Because food tastes good they eat as much as they can cram in their stomach. I'm sure they know they shouldn't but they don't have any will power or responsibility for their actions. People think it is someone else's responsibility to make them healthy. There is a growing problem in the US where no one takes responsibility for their actions. If people cared, they could do something about it.

PS. PLF, by your arguments people in Japan who own cars should all be overweight. Please, give me a break.

People in areas where cars are more prevalent do have more obesity in Japan. Public transport leads to more excercise which leads to less obesity, generally speaking.

If you have identical twins, feed them identically, but one drives to work for their 1 hour commute, and the other uses public transport, the one using public transport will be burning more calories, all other things being equal.

If you give two people the same food budget, but one lives in an area where fresh food/vegetables are 10 times as expensive, and processed food 10 times as cheap, while the other has fresh food/vegetables 10 times cheaper, and processed food 10 times as expensive, the person with the cheaper fresh food/vegetables will be thinner -- all other things being equal.

If you give two people the same food budget, and both want to lose weight, but one is given a professional nutritionist and the other is barred from any information on healthy weight loss, the one with the nutritionist will lose their weight more healthily, all other things being equal.

Suggesting that these things are not factors is fucking stupid.

A person with a 40-hour work week and a gym with a personal trainer is going to have more time to spend on their health than someone working an 80-hour week at minimum wage and can't afford fresh foods or the time to properly excercise. This is common sense.

Yes, a large portion of it is choice, but the choice is far easier for someone educated and well-off than it is for someone who's overworked, uneducated, and living in poverty.

Don't be obtuse.

[jindojim]

Hmm... Okay, first I have a few questions for you before I dive into this thread.

1) Where are you from/where do you currently live?
2) What part(s) of the USA have you visited to give you the overwhelming assumption Americans are generally fat?

In response to your last paragraph, I will say this: Some people are much stronger willed than others when it comes to certain things. If everyone in the world had a stronger constitution to work out, then everyone, obviously, in the world would be thin.

1) I am from America (East Coast). I currently live in Japan.
2) I have been all over the East Coast, parts of the Midwest, and parts of the West Coast. I'm just saying that when I came back to America from Japan, my immediate 1st impression was that there were a lotta fat people.

Will is only part of the problem of being overweight. A lot of Americans want to try to loose weight. But, they don't know the proper way to do so and choose alternative means of dieting without exercising. Or, even if they have the will, they might not have the time to work out either. And, there's the fundamental problem of their being (or perceiving themselves as) overweight in the first place that even motivates them to lose weight. That, in and of itself, is the primary point of concern.

Says you. I happen to think that some "big" women are beautiful. When will people learn that beauty is subjective?

Says you. I happen to think that slender women are beautiful. When will people learn that beauty is subjective?

[MNJetter]

Fast food and junk food isn't anymore addictive than carrots.

Everything else that you said, Kass, I've either agreed with wholeheartedly or been able to write off as differing opinion based on different experiences in different parts of a gigantic country in which the schools differ by state or even by city. My schools never would have required kids to do extracurriculars, and the only healthy option that we got regularly was slightly wilted shredded lettuce with a variety of half-frozen vegetables and some dressings. Or the single sandwich at the a la carte line, hidden among the deep-fried tacos and chocolate chip cookies. But I'm willing to believe that some other schools are better at the healthy eating thing than mine was. (Roxie, you and I graduated from high school in the same year! :D)

But the bit about junk food not being addictive - I'd have to ask for where you got that information before I even get close to agreeing with you. Foods rich in empty calories almost invariably have simple sugars and/or at least one of the cholesterol-rich types of fat. These nutrients cause endorphins to be released in the body, much like taking certain illegal drugs. Addiction doesn't happen right away, but if you do it often enough and for a long enough time, the body gets used to the outside stimulus releasing endorphins, and quits releasing them on its own in an attempt to balance out the body's chemistry. Then if you try to stop eating the junk food, the body is short on endorphins and goes through a mild version of withdrawal symptoms. No amount of carrots is going to release the chemicals needed to become addicted to them.

When I was in college, I was totally addicted to junk food. If I tried to completely stop eating junk food, my throat would hurt and my hands would become shaky and I would feel weak and faint. I could eat and eat and eat the healthier foods until I was so full that I was about to burst, but there was still this horrible raw feeling in my whole body that just craved the unhealthy stuff. It took three painful months and a doctor's help to get me out of it. You can't tell me that's not some sort of addiction.

EDIT: By the way, jindojim, I know what you mean. I came back for a vacation to America after a year of being in Japan, and was rather intimidated by the fact that I suddenly felt really small. And skinny. I've never felt skinny in my life. And when I ordered a pancake breakfast (meant for one person) at a family diner, I got a meal that, in Japan, would have adequately fed a family of five. I was disgusted and amazed at how I hadn't noticed this before. And it's just about impossible nowadays to find a place with actual normal portions.

[seiji]

What's next on the ban list? Butter? Fried food? Both are as bad for you as trans-fats.
Not according to my biology professor. Trans-fats are a byproduct of the hydrogenation process which makes plant oils (unsaturated=healthy) act more like animal fats (saturated=not so healthy). The hydrogenation process is very difficult to control, and a portion of the new fake fats come out "backwards"--these are the trans-fats. They are shaped almost identical to saturated fats and so behave like them, building up in big chunks to plump up your thighs or clog your arteries. Unfortunately, their structure is just different enough from natural saturated fats that your body's enzymes are unable to break them down and get rid of them. They sit there, piling on top of each other and never providing you a bit of energy.

If my professor was incorrect, please correct me. However, as I understand it, natural butter is much healthier than almost anything containing hydrogenated vegetable oils.

[DragonQueen]

Students DO get a full class period of PE in schools
Perhaps it's because I go to an arts school now and went to a very small school before, but I haven't had PE since 6th grade. The other two years in middle school it was an elective and in this particular high school, it's not offered.

Flat out wrong. Sodas were removed from schools in DoD schools and several school districts in the 80s. They were also removed from elementary and middle schools across the country going that far back. High schools kept them longer because people assumed when a kid was that old, they could decide what they wanted to eat.
Once again, not sure whether this applies as I'm not in that specific district, but the cafeteria doesn't have a salad line/bar AND it has soda machines stocked with both soda and juices with far too much sugar for their own good. I mean, both schools have a salad option--however, it's not available for the students, just for the teachers.


For the benefit of my own curiosity, I know that craving junk food can mean that you're craving the endorphins that the junk food gives you after eating it as opposed to the actual food, but would craving something healthy--bell peppers, for instance, or oranges--mean that you're missing some element present in those foods that has no place in your diet? Like, if you're craving spinach, then could it mean that you're craving the iron present in spinach?

[japanat]

For the benefit of my own curiosity, I know that craving junk food can mean that you're craving the endorphins that the junk food gives you after eating it as opposed to the actual food, but would craving something healthy--bell peppers, for instance, or oranges--mean that you're missing some element present in those foods that has no place in your diet? Like, if you're craving spinach, then could it mean that you're craving the iron present in spinach?
I found an interesting paper about cravings and what they reveal your body may be lacking. I take it with a grain of salt, but it's interesting.

Give me a few hours to finish work, then I'll transcribe and PM it to you.

[4letterwords]

There are health posters all over my college campus here in Japan, and they say they daily recommended caloric intake for college aged women (18-22) is 1600 everyday, and 1300 for a diet... for men they say its 2000 day to do and 1700 for a diet... Hmm...

[4letterwords]

For teenage girls, the daily amount of calories would be around 2,200.

On a usual day I have around 600 at most. 0 at the least. >_>

Then you have an eating disorder, whether you tried to have it or not. Even if it's because your pressed for time, if you can function day to day on 600 calories then you have an eating disorder. See a doctor.

[Masa the Masta]

I have an eating disorder.

I think, anyway.

I can eat a lot, and then choose not to eat until much later. I only eat breakfast and dinner. I have a large breakfast, and a considerable dinner. I think that's unhealthy. I think I should just chill, have moderate portions throughout the day.

I just really like stuffing my face though. I lead a very active lifestyle, so chances are I burn it off. I deliver packages, involves me holding a box and either jogging/running/sprinting up to a door from a truck, then running back to it 70-90 times in a day. Either that or I exercise at night, about an hour or 30 minutes prior to going to sleep.

[TygressVirgo]

Not according to my biology professor. Trans-fats are a byproduct of the hydrogenation process which makes plant oils (unsaturated=healthy) act more like animal fats (saturated=not so healthy). The hydrogenation process is very difficult to control, and a portion of the new fake fats come out "backwards"--these are the trans-fats. They are shaped almost identical to saturated fats and so behave like them, building up in big chunks to plump up your thighs or clog your arteries. Unfortunately, their structure is just different enough from natural saturated fats that your body's enzymes are unable to break them down and get rid of them. They sit there, piling on top of each other and never providing you a bit of energy.

If my professor was incorrect, please correct me. However, as I understand it, natural butter is much healthier than almost anything containing hydrogenated vegetable oils.

Seji,

I have heard this before and yes naturally made butter is better than anything with hydrofenated oils of any kind. There is a team of doctors that are trying their best to spread the truth about some of the main ingredients in a great portion of foods eaten by the average american. Oprah features him and his partner on many shows, and the stuff the bring up are valid and solid in their findings

here is their health book
You, the Owner's Manual: An Insider's Guide to the Body That Will Make You Healthier and Younger
by Mehmet Oz, Michael F. Roizen, Mehmet C. Oz, Gary Hallgren (Illustrator), Lisa Oz (With)

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780060765316&itm=1

I believe they also have a show in Discovery - Health

[zarmsway]

1) I am from America (East Coast). I currently live in Japan.
2) I have been all over the East Coast, parts of the Midwest, and parts of the West Coast. I'm just saying that when I came back to America from Japan, my immediate 1st impression was that there were a lotta fat people.

Will is only part of the problem of being overweight. A lot of Americans want to try to loose weight. But, they don't know the proper way to do so and choose alternative means of dieting without exercising. Or, even if they have the will, they might not have the time to work out either. And, there's the fundamental problem of their being (or perceiving themselves as) overweight in the first place that even motivates them to lose weight. That, in and of itself, is the primary point of concern.



Says you. I happen to think that slender women are beautiful. When will people learn that beauty is subjective?


Good to know. Next time don't assume to think that your opinon about beauty is the only one that matters.

[Masa the Masta]

I think slender women are hawt.

[Nannou]

I think slender women are hawt.

seconded. or is it thirded.

[japanat]

I think women are hot!

I've seen hot bigger ladies, and I've also seen unattractively flabby skinny ones. Each woman is a separate package.

[Soli]

Then you have an eating disorder, whether you tried to have it or not. Even if it's because your pressed for time, if you can function day to day on 600 calories then you have an eating disorder. See a doctor.

My eating habits have been like this since the beginning of 8th grade and I'm fine. ^_^ I went to the doctor's for a physical in November and she said I was healthy, just a little tall for my weight.

I don't eat breakfast because it's either food or brush my teeth (I don't have much time in the morning). And I have band first period so I'd rather not be blowing food into my instrument. :knockout: Yuck!
I don't eat lunch because we have 20 minutes, and the lines are very very long. We have way too many people in the lunch period! It takes me awhile to get to lunch so I'm never in the front of the line. So I'd get my food with 5 minutes to eat it all. And if I'm late to my next class... no excuses.
After school I'll have a small snack then maybe a dinner if I'm hungry and I like what's being made.

I do like food! If we go out to a restruant I'll order something and eat it all. I just don't feel the motivation at home. XD

[MNJetter]

hmmm.....you may be able to survive like that now, and may not have an eating disorder, but in ten years, it's going to do horrible things to your metabolism.

[japanat]

Get up a little earlier and eat something for breakfast. It'll make the studying go easier, help with your memory, and speed up your metabolism. Then just bring an apple or banana for lunch if you're too pressed for time to eat a real lunch.

You're fine now, but you're setting your metabolism up to become a fat-saving machine when you get older...

edit: damn, MNJ beat me again!

[Kass]

If you are a little tall for your weight, that is a nice way of saying you're underweight and should probably put on a few pounds. How you get through the days with a diet averaging 600 calories per day is beyond me. A weight loss calorie level is in 1,400-1,800 calories per day range for most women and 2,100 to 2,500 for most men. You do know that 600 calories is WAY below what is considered the starvation level by the WHO, don't you? Any diet below 2,000 calories is considered a starvation diet for adults. For teens, anything below 2,500 calories is considered a starvation diet. Teens tend to burn calories much faster than adults (darn you all and your speedy metabolisms :p ).

The UN classifies anything below 1,600 per day as famine level food intake. Even in Ethiopia, where starvation and food insecurity is epidemic, the average daily caloric intake is 1,858.

You should get up earlier and eat breakfast. It is the most important meal of the day and you shouldn't skip it, even if you're eating a cereal bar on the way to school. You will feel MUCH better and MUCH more alert during the day if you eat breakfast. Kids who eat breakfast perform better in school and score better on tests. Bring your lunch and you avoid all the lines, plus you get to eat what you like as opposed to what is available.

My boyfriend was "a little tall for his weight" well into his 40s and according to his doctor, he has that to thank for his back problems. Being underweight meant he didn't have the muscle mass to support his skeletal structure, especially because he is more than 6' tall. He also used to sport a beard just to make his face look less sunken and really did look a bit on the unhealthily thin side. He actually had to make a concerted effort to gain weight and it wasn't easy for him. He's the only person I know who could eat breakfast, a Wendy's double, fries and a coke for lunch, and a steak, potato, vegetable and salad for dinner daily and LOSE weight. (Needless to say, I had a few choice words for him upon being informed of that situation. Think longshoreman.)

His metabolism has slowed down and he's put on enough weight to bring him into the healthy range. He looks better, hasn't had any real problems with his back in at least a year, shaved his beard (I actually miss it though) and feels much, much better. The improvement in back health is the biggest benefit, he says. When your back hurts so bad getting out of bed is excruciating, you really can't function the rest of the day.

I loved him then and love him now, but I am very glad he's gained weight. He is much healthier and much happier now than he was 6 1/2 years ago.

[mawande]

I completely disagree with the notion that if parents teach a kid to like healthy food then they will like it more than unhealthy food. From personal experience I always went for the tastey food even though my parents were like, "eat these vegetables". Maybe I was just a really stubborn kid but my parents tried plenty.

I try to eat healthy these days but that's not really because of my parents it is because I perfer to eat less tastey foods and be more healthy. When I was a kid I didn't care about that stuff.

Parents tend to extremes that sometimes screw up the lessons they're trying to impart. Before we moved to Japan, I used to go with my son rather often to one of those all-you-can-eat family restaurants. The first thing he had to do was eat a plate of salad (and yes, I made sure it was greens and etc, not a pile of bacon bits on a piece of lettuce). The rule was that after he'd eaten a big plate of salad, he could get whatever he wanted.

In an amusing turn, after a few times of this he started loading up his salad plate until we were amazed the veggies didn't end up all over the place. He doesn't eat veggies as willingly now that he's pretty much an adult, however he's pretty healthy otherwise. I can slap him together a tuna salad as a primary dinner and he won't fuss unless he wants more meat.

[Ichisan]

One of the things my daughter's school does that infuriates me is that they require that my daughter participate in some sort of organized sport outside of school. How dare they interfere with my time and my decisions on what activities outside of school my daughter participates in? How dare they mandate that I spend money that I don't have to enroll my child in something she doesn't like to do? How dare they impinge even further on my time with my child? Oh yeah, exercising with me doesn't count. Screw that. I told them no. I'm not wasting money on an activity neither of us wants just to appease some nanny-esque group that thinks it knows what is best for my child.

Good for you. Someone has to take a stand against that kind of nonsense. I think it's outrageous when anyone or anything thinks they can interfere in one's personal life and it bespeaks an appalling lack of sense or principle too.

Quit passing off the blame and accept that if people are fat, obviously with medical exceptions, it is their own fault. No one makes anyone eat badly. No one makes anyone not exercise. No one makes anyone sit on the couch wasting their life in front of an idiot box or a video game. No one makes people drive around the corner to the store when they could have walked. It is a personal choice and if people make bad personal choices, it is neither yours nor the governments nor the school's responsibility. It is the person's responsibility--ENTIRELY.

There's no arguing with that, in theory. It's unquestionably each individual's choice to eat x amount more and exercise y amount less. However, you have to wonder why so many individuals in one country, say America, freely choose a lifestyle that results in obesity while so many in a different country, say Japan, do not.

Here comes a rant:

(1)I'd say at a guess it's the culture of convenience in America, or rather, the downside of the culture of convenience. The culture of convenience is a very positive thing resulting from a positive, can-do, approach to problem-solving, a desire for efficiency, ingenuity, a great customer service ethic, a refusal to accept that some or indeed any things have to be endured just because no-one's come up with a better way of doing things before. So you have an unprecedented degree of ease and comfort, speed and efficiency in daily life, that can still impress visitors to America even though so much of it has spread to other countries too. I guess the culture of convenience has been so successful in solving problems that now there is just too much of an expectation, a sense of entitlement, that all problems - inconveniences - should have been solved, and correspondingly less of and less place for an innovative, problem-solving spirit.

(2)The food culture. I guess America is cursed by having Anglo-Saxon roots to its food culture instead of, say, French or even German, because Anglo-Saxons are basically barbarians when it comes to food. We like sugar and fat, and some of us even see eating as a chore rather than a pleasure, and cooking as drudgery rather than art. It seems like just about every other country, European, Middle Eastern, or Asian, has accumulated over centuries a rich and subtle knowledge of food and cooking and a fine appreciation of flavour. We try nowadays to make a science out of it and go on and on about calories and carbs and polyunsaturated fats but damnit cooking should be an artform not a type of organic chemistry. The gourmet diet is the healthiest in my book.

BTW why do we always assume that we're fighting against nature when we try to get kids to go for healthy food rather than chocolate or pizza? Watch kids in Korea go for rice, and turn up their nose at dessert because it's too sweet and you'll know these are cultural preferences not instinctive appetites. You don't necessarily like a food because it's the way God made you. You like it because at some point, early in life, you accepted the idea that this is the kind of thing you should like.

BTW people ask why Americans are fat but you could also ask why America dominates the Olympics so much, and why so many Americans are fit, or, if not fit in terms of cardio, in shape in terms of muscle. Because it's definitely true that lifting weights is more common in America than Europe.

[Trump]

Talking about addicting food, people get addicted to hot sauce too. It is more because they like tasting it and keep adding more. Eventually they cannot taste anything unless it is spicy. I would definately call it an addiction but nothing to the same level as drugs.

[Angelyne]

BTW people ask why Americans are fat but you could also ask why America dominates the Olympics so much, and why so many Americans are fit, or, if not fit in terms of cardio, in shape in terms of muscle. Because it's definitely true that lifting weights is more common in America than Europe.

Americans do better in the Olympics because our athletes typically get a lot more funding than athletes from other countries, which means they can pay for better trainers/coaches, training facilities, and equipment. It has nothing to do with exercise habits by country.


Talking about addicting food, people get addicted to hot sauce too. It is more because they like tasting it and keep adding more. Eventually they cannot taste anything unless it is spicy. I would definately call it an addiction but nothing to the same level as drugs.

This has actually happened to me. I got so used to spicing the hell out of my food that anything not spicy just tastes bland now. I used to love Italian food, but now I can barely eat it because it's just not hot enough (and adding hot spices to most pasta dishes just tastes odd to me, so I refuse to do that).

[Digital Masta]

There are health posters all over my college campus here in Japan, and they say they daily recommended caloric intake for college aged women (18-22) is 1600 everyday, and 1300 for a diet... for men they say its 2000 day to do and 1700 for a diet... Hmm...

Thats ridiculous.

[Trump]

You should go for a couple weeks without hot sauce so you can ctually enjoy food for its taste again!!

[RandomPasserby]

Americans do better in the Olympics because our athletes typically get a lot more funding than athletes from other countries, which means they can pay for better trainers/coaches, training facilities, and equipment. It has nothing to do with exercise habits by country.

Also USA is amongst the largest non-developing countries in the World.Actually, aren't you the largest population wise?

Back on topic, I think one of the reasons that Americans are so fat is that there are limitations on how they can exercise. For example if they go to the beach and try to swim, they get pushed back into the ocean by Greenpeace!

Sorry, I also thought the topic needed a bad fat joke answer :(

Also eating greasy and sugary food like pizza, donuts and twinkles and drinking soda/juice with added sugar (or do companies use syrup?) really makes you gain weight. I know, I gained maybe 5 kg because I quinched my thirst with soda all the time during one hot summer. And let's not talk about cooking vs. sticking a frozen pizza in the oven :P

[Kass]

China and India have us beat. India could still be considered a developing country depending on how you define it.

[Cherub Rock]

India and China are both extremely developing. The US has by far and away the largest population for a fully developed country and we have by far and away the most money. We have access to the best supplements, best methods of cheating, etc. We glorify our athletes which means we have more kids striving to be athletes as well. In some countries the best athletes simply cannot afford to be athletes, because being an athlete isn't a profession. In the US you can not only live off being able to run fast, but if you can run fast enough you can become extremely wealthy by doing it. Not many countries offer that can in incentive from a grassroots level.

[Trump]

Funny how striving to be an athlete makes you thinner too.

[Soli]

I was feeling guilty so I had some lunch today. One of those little boxes of cereal, peanutbutter crackers, and 2 oatmeal cookies. ^_^

[delen]

*gives soli some green applesauce*

[Soli]

...green?? :confused:

[delen]

Yea, it is made from green apples instead of red apples. It is really good. And healthy!

[TygressVirgo]

Talking about addicting food, people get addicted to hot sauce too. It is more because they like tasting it and keep adding more. Eventually they cannot taste anything unless it is spicy. I would definately call it an addiction but nothing to the same level as drugs.

That is so me . . . and my culture. :knockout:

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

BTW people ask why Americans are fat but you could also ask why America dominates the Olympics so much...

Actually, Australia has the highest medal count per capita. That is, if they had the same population as the US does, no one else would want to go to the Olympics, because they'd just get beaten and utterly outclassed.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Actually, Australia has the highest medal count per capita. That is, if they had the same population as the US does, no one else would want to go to the Olympics, because they'd just get beaten and utterly outclassed.
I'm not sure I see the logic in this.

[delen]

Actually, Australia has the highest medal count per capita. That is, if they had the same population as the US does, they would no longer have the highest medal count per capita and would cry.

Fixed.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

I hsould qualify my statement, if one doesn't count countries with less than 3 million inhabitants, you get: 1. Australia (24.8 medals per 10 million inhabitants), 2. Cuba (23.9), 3. Hungary (17.2), 4. Bulgaria (15.2), 5. Belarus (15.2), 6. Denmark (14.9), 7. Greece (14.6), 8. Netherlands (13.6), 9. Norway (13.2), 10. New Zealand (12.9) 11. Croatia (11.3), 12. Slovakia (11.1)

In raw medal counts, they ranked forth behind US, Russia, and China. So presumably, if they had more population to work with, say, 300 million rather than 20ish million, they'd win more medals.

[MNJetter]

*claps for Soli* ^^

America might have the biggest population for a developed country, but doesn't it also have one of the least dense populations? I know that if my home state of Minnesota (5 million people) suddenly became an independant nation, it could never hold a candle to, say, Germany (80 million people, about the same size in land mass).

[Plekto]

Well, that's just Minnesota :P

California, OTOH, could definately hold its own.

[Soli]

*claps for Soli* ^^

Thank you, thank you. *bows*

Hmm, but I actually fail because I didn't have dinner. >.< All of a sudden it was past dinner and time to go to class!

[SlickWilly440]

I entered college weighing about 180 pounds and lost about 35 pounds my first year practically doing no exercising, except walking around campus and runing up flights of stair with a really heavy backpack containing all my school books(Never broke a sweat). (People were suprised at the size of my backpack asking "What do you keep in there?"). I also ate a lot less, went on the Cup Ramen diete, eating 3 cups of ramen a day, and everytime you feel hungry or you stomache hurts, just tough it out by studying. Also never ate fast food, or went out to any restaurants.

[Ceirnian]

That's quite unhealthy.

[Masa the Masta]

People've done unhealthier things. Whatever works you know??

I know for a fact that I just bought wrist and ankle weights. I have an added 5 lbs on each limb.


I wanna get strong this year.

[Fred]

Sometimes, I think it couldn't be possible to find a denser population than in the US. If you think about it, as a nation we elected Bush twice. How much more dense can you get?

[japanat]

Originally Posted by 4letterwords
There are health posters all over my college campus here in Japan, and they say they daily recommended caloric intake for college aged women (18-22) is 1600 everyday, and 1300 for a diet... for men they say its 2000 day to do and 1700 for a diet... Hmm...Thats ridiculous.
Actually, it's small frames. The average Japanese (key word: average) is still shorter than the average American, and has much smaller bone structure, especially in the rib cage and femurs. Smaller bodies mean smaller caloric needs. The US D.O.H. says that the average person needs approximately 2000 calories per day, so the Japanese numbers aren't that surprising.

Then go eat the ribs meal at Tony Roma's. You can hit that calorie count in one sitting!

[bakagaijin]

Actually, Australia has the highest medal count per capita. That is, if they had the same population as the US does, they would no longer have the highest medal count per capita and would cry.

Fixed.

Just a guess--- take away swimming events and Australia would probably lose about 1/2 of their medals.

Anyway, the best part of the last summer olympics was the Australian baseball team beating Japan.

[Cherub Rock]

I hsould qualify my statement, if one doesn't count countries with less than 3 million inhabitants, you get: 1. Australia (24.8 medals per 10 million inhabitants), 2. Cuba (23.9), 3. Hungary (17.2), 4. Bulgaria (15.2), 5. Belarus (15.2), 6. Denmark (14.9), 7. Greece (14.6), 8. Netherlands (13.6), 9. Norway (13.2), 10. New Zealand (12.9) 11. Croatia (11.3), 12. Slovakia (11.1)

In raw medal counts, they ranked forth behind US, Russia, and China. So presumably, if they had more population to work with, say, 300 million rather than 20ish million, they'd win more medals.

That's doubtful. Countries with low population levels are more likely to have higher per capita ratios because their numbers are more susceptible to deviation.

Besides, you're also assuming that these extra people are going to win medals in events Australia isn't winning them in now. You know, kids don't just say "Well my country isn't doing so hot in skiing so I'm going to do that instead of swimming." It's likely that another 200 million people would just improve their standings in events they are already good at, which would not exponentially inflate their medal count. Basically they would level off real fast.

[MNJetter]

Well, that's just Minnesota

California, OTOH, could definately hold its own.

Cali might be one of the couple of exceptions insofar as state-to-state population density goes, but I was using MN as a prime example of why the U.S. overall has an incredibly low population density compared to the rest of the developed world. Check the URL below and note how few people America has per square unit of measurement in comparison to, say, the entirety of Europe. Sure, we've got more density than Canada and Australia and the Sweden/Norway area, but we in the 25-29 people per square kilometer range have a while to go until we even approach places like the UK (150-299) or Japan (399-999).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_population_density_map.PNG

[Cherub Rock]

I've heard that you could fit the entire world's population inside Texas and it would only be as dense at Paris. Granted Paris is among the densest places to live in the world, but TEXAS. The United States isn't even close to reaching its carrying capacity. We could hold a billion easily.

[japanat]

And what would the standard-of-living be like in that case?

You know, kids don't just say "Well my country isn't doing so hot in skiing so I'm going to do that instead of swimming." It's likely that another 200 million people would just improve their standings in events they are already good at, which would not exponentially inflate their medal count. Basically they would level off real fast.Unless the country in question is Japan. In which case, you import 80% of your ice hockey team from Canada in the form of 2nd- and 3rd-generation Japanese-Canadians, and fast-track their citizenship to a period of months in a few cases.

[RandomPasserby]

Just a guess--- take away swimming events and Australia would probably lose about 1/2 of their medals.

Take away the sharks and crocodiles from Australia and you don't need to take away the swimming!

[Angelyne]

Just because we have the space to hold more people doesn't mean that we have the resources to sustain them.

[PopCulturePooka]

Take away the sharks and crocodiles from Australia and you don't need to take away the swimming!
You'd also need severe climate change ;)

[Trump]

Just because we have the space to hold more people doesn't mean that we have the resources to sustain them.

What do you mean? We have tons and tons of resources.

[MNJetter]

No kidding. People on the coasts might not notice it much, but if you come out to the middle of the country, it's like 99% open space and farmland. America is a huge exporter of food, because we make so much that we can't eat all of it ourselves. Whole warehouses rot while waiting to be sent to grocery stores. We've also got plenty of wood and metal deposits and oil and rock and all sorts of other stuff.

The reason why Americans consume 65% of the world's resources is not because we need them to survive. Not by a long shot. We could get by on a lot less than we use, and even now, we don't use all that we have.

[Angelyne]

Resources include more than just food, water, and raw materials. We barely have the funding to keep our infrastructure going with our current population. Schools and hospitals are overcrowded, electrical grids are running at capacity in a lot of areas, the highway system in a lot of cities can't handle the growing volume of traffic, a lot of social services need to turn people away because there are just too many who demand it, etc. Add a couple hundred million people to this and everything would collapse.

Japanat mentioned standard of living earlier--again, we might have the space, food, and water, but the quality of life would be awful.

[MNJetter]

"Funding" isn't "resources." It's just a reflection of how the economy is going.

Besides, you're just talking about the more populated areas. Schools in the less populated areas are shrinking and closing down, hospitals are just fine, we export half the electricity we make because we can't use it all, and highways suck anyway and we should concentrate on public transportation.

I agree there's a problem with social services, but I don't think it has anything to do with resources available to us. And it's not even like we don't have the funding, either. We just spend it on more "important" things, like the military. Do you have any idea how many millions of dollars could have been saved if America and Russia hadn't bothered with the 25,000 nuclear weapons we now have between us? It costs a fortune just to make one of those suckers.

The quality of life would go down in urban areas if the population were to increase there, yes. But the majority of the United States is far from urban. Just because New York can't handle any more people doesn't mean we couldn't handle them in rural Nebraska or something.

[japanat]

I'm sorry, I can't remember the author's name or the title, but I read a book in the early '80s that talked about this. The authors estimated that the US could comfortably double its population, provided it wasn't all in urban areas, before it affected quality of life. Beyond that point, however, housing would be using cropland and/or ranchland, reducing our available supplies at a time when we would need twice the food.

You're talking about quadrupling the States' population! You so glibly say that people should use public transportation instead of their cars. What public trans? Amtrak is pretty much out of business, other than a few routes. Most cities' public transportation is already being used near capacity, but cannot expand due to budgetary restraints. And Greyhound/Trailways is not a real option for interstate travel other than between large cities. Try going from Denver to Valentine, NE (north-central, near SD), sometime. It took 4 transfers and 18 hrs to go 1000mi.

And as Angelyne says, the electrical grids and supply situation in the States needs serious updating and investment even to keep up with current growth. Why do you think California has brown-outs? Because the de-regulated companies have screwed up the distribution grids and supply to the point where supply/demand are way out of whack.

[MNJetter]

I hardly claim to be an expert on population density. But I find it hard to believe that America is so much less capable of handling population density than Europe, despite having a very similar climate and resources, that we can't handle more than a quarter of their population density. Japan (yes, I know, not Europe) has a population density of 300-999 people per square kilometer, and we don't even know if that's taking into account the 67% of land in the nation that's uninhabitable due to being too mountainous. Take a piece of land slightly smaller than California, make over half of it uninhabitable, and then throw 120 million people in there, and then we're talking population density.

I didn't really mean to imply that our current infrastructure can handle a huge growth in population. I meant to imply that in terms of resources, i.e., the raw materials needed to come up with an infrastructure in the first place, America can handle a lot more population than it currently has. We are very rich in natural resources, and are really not all that crowded if you look at the whole nation and not just the people jammed into the big cities. Just because we're stupid with how we use those resources doesn't mean we don't have them. It just means we're using them wrong.

Also, I didn't mean to talk about state-to-state public transportation. Not even highways have much of a problem state-to-state right now. I meant in places where the highways are actually a problem - big cities and stuff. Within any big city, increased public transportation is certainly a viable option for lowering highway traffic.

[Plekto]

I should also point out that people in the middle of the U.S. also don't realize that the single largest agricultural producing state in the country is...

California. We're busy out here. :)

But, yeah, we could easily stuff 3-4 times as many people in here.

[Y.T.]

It's profitable .. for the diet industry , and for the food production sector.
An American who eats three times what he / she should means that the average revenue per person is higher.... and not only he overconsumes, but then also spends more money on .. I don't know exactly what ... but what the diet industry lives off...

What's good for the economy is good for you. Isn't that so ?

So don't try thinking too hard about it, and have another donut...

[ruaidhri]

Wow! This is sure a fast moving thread. It’s only been up for 5 days and already it has over 160 posts.

Fat Americans. Yup, as a nation, we’re overweight. Why? Because we eat too much. It wasn’t always that way. When I was a boy in the 1940’s and 1950’s people were absolutely skinny by today’s standards. Look at some of the old movies or TV shows.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s people were still pretty thin. Then, with both husband and wife working more and more hours families are forced to eat fast food. Stress is another major part of overeating. Americans work more hours, are always in a rush and shove food down their throats without pleasure. Even when they do eat at home it’s often take out or processed foods that you can’t really call home made.

Americans confuse quantity with quality. Look at the serving sizes at most restaurants. Often it’s enough for two or three people. When you eat at one of the many “family” style restaurants check out the plates; they’re platters. Also, when was the last time a restaurant automatically offered you water to drink with your meal. Having water with your meal helps fill you and encourages you to slow down giving your body time to say “I’m full, stop eating”.

I know overweight. I’m a Weight Watchers Leader. I’m going to spare you the big spiel about how Weight Watchers works and why. What I will say is I lost 90 pounds a year ago and I look younger, feel younger, am healthier and no longer have to take any prescription medicine.

[MNJetter]

I've always wanted to try Weight Watchers. At the moment I can't, since I live out in the boonies in Japan. Not that I'm fat, per se. Just can't seem to get past that line between "slightly overweight" and "healthy range."

My mom and sister and I all split a meal now when we go to Perkins (think Denny's, for those of you who don't live in the midwestern United States). All three of us split one, and we still feel full. Not that I'm complaining about that. When they make the meals big enough so that it's easy to share, it makes it really inexpensive to eat out if you can agree on what to order. I do it with one person a lot. You can pull off two people just about anywhere. But the three people thing only really works for breakfast at family diners.

[Y.T.]

A friend of mine mentioned the same thing.. that restaurant portions in the US are big enough so that four girls feel sated after eating one......*

I think they quadrupled in size since the 1960's or something like that. Businesses don't want to lower prices, so they increase portion size.

[Ichisan]

Actually, Australia has the highest medal count per capita. That is, if they had the same population as the US does, no one else would want to go to the Olympics, because they'd just get beaten and utterly outclassed.

No argument from me. Australians do indeed rock at sports, even more so than Americans.

[Trump]

The US has plenty of resources. If we have to build more roads, or trains, or subways, or high density housing we can because we have the resources. If we need to fix the power grid, sewer system, or anything else, we can. But anyway.

Oh, we have Perkins in Florida, so they aren't just a midwest thing.

BTW, I blame not working out Saturday on my dumbass roommate who locked his keys in his car and needed me to waste what little time I had picking him up. So my theory is many people are fat simply because they are stupid and make aweful decisions for themselves.

[MNJetter]

Maybe Perkins is everywhere in the U.S. except New England and California, then. The people I've asked about it have all been (coincidentally) either from Pennsylvania or California.

[Trump]

Now that you mention it, I don't remember seeing them in those two places. Heh.

[SlickWilly440]

Yeah so I went to this Japanese resturant the other day, and when I noticed the coster per person, I decied to eat as much as I could. I was there for about an hour and a half filling up on Sushi, Sashimi, Makizushi, Crab, Tempura, etc. By the end I was so filled up that my stomach hurt like crap, and I felt like I was going to burst. (Mention that I haven't ate so much at one time in years) So I tell the resturant feeling kind of sick and wanting to hurl, but I was able to keep it down. As a souvenier I kept part of a crab claw and a clam shell which I taped down and let dry so it will stay closed.

Oh yeah I am suppose to post about something that does with obessity. Well going out to eat at resturants and getting stuff a lot has added to the obesity rate in this country...I think. Some people just don't have the self discipline when it comes to picking what to eat and how much in sake of their health.

[Trump]

Umm... you are supposed to stop eating when you aren't hungry.

[Soli]

^ Sometimes I don't stop eating when I'm full. >.< My mom will make a meal and hates having leftovers because no one will eat them later. So I usually try to eat as much as I can so she doesn't have to waste food. I feel so bad because she'll look to me to see if I'd eat more. She thinks that all teenagers are bottemless pits and eat everything.

Somedays I eat almost nothing! But others I eat a ton. :P

[xtine]

You aren't "supposed" to eat after you aren't hungry anymore, but many Americans eat for appetite rather than hunger, thus overeating.

[hectorse]

^ Sometimes I don't stop eating when I'm full. >.< My mom will make a meal and hates having leftovers because no one will eat them later. So I usually try to eat as much as I can so she doesn't have to waste food. I feel so bad because she'll look to me to see if I'd eat more. She thinks that all teenagers are bottemless pits and eat everything.

Somedays I eat almost nothing! But others I eat a ton. :P


My mom was like that. Pretty obnoxious with the food "YOU GOTTA EAT IT ALL" until I was fed up, and just told her that I WASN'T FREAKING HUNGRY ANYMORE... Don't make ME feel bad because you put an entire pig in my table that is gonna be wasted. Just serve me less, and if I'm still hungry I'll ask for more.


Moms are like that, specially old-school moms

[spaik]

*claps for Soli* ^^

America might have the biggest population for a developed country, but doesn't it also have one of the least dense populations? I know that if my home state of Minnesota (5 million people) suddenly became an independant nation, it could never hold a candle to, say, Germany (80 million people, about the same size in land mass).

if you want to talk about ridiculous population densities...

canada

some of the cities in the us have larger populations than the entire country

[Trump]

Leftovers get eaten pretty quickly when there is no junk food around.

[MNJetter]

if you want to talk about ridiculous population densities...

canada

some of the cities in the us have larger populations than the entire country
Yeah, I know, I used to live right next to Canada. That's why I called the U.S. "one of" the least dense developed countries (along with Canada, Sweden/Norway area, and Australia, among a couple others) :D

[Masa the Masta]

This thread has made me hungry. :knockout:

[Fumi]

89% of the land in Canada is uninhabitable due to extreme climate. Take that out and the population density isn't so low, afterall.

[hectorse]

I just ate 5 tamales.

Green ones.

So much for fattyness

[Trayal]

The root of the problem is the general decline of personal responsibility in this country. It's far more profitable and easier to push the blame on a scapegoat or sue someone than it is to realize that YOUR eating habits and lack of exercise are the cause of your weight problems. This is why fad diets are popular. This is why there is still a profitable market for diet pills. This is why we have idiots who sue McDonalds on the grounds that McD's food made them fat (and not the idiot's personal eating and exercise diets). Few Americans are willing to take the responsibility to recognize their problems and fix themselves.

*Ding*ding*ding*ding!* We have a winnar!

I've seen sooo many people that will try everything to lose weight except for that one thing that actually works (eat healthy and exercise). It is so easy for them to persuade themselves into thinking that the next big fad really will work 'this time' :duh: - because it is easier for them to be lazy and believe what you are comfortable with believing rather than accepting the hard reality of the situation they are in.

Never ceases to amaze me.

[jindojim]

Yeah, sometimes I feel that "lazy" and "American" are synonymous.

Part of it seems to be because we've heard about so many things that make life easier for us that it's not a big stretch to imagine that there's a product out there that can skip the "eating healthy and exercise" method of dieting.

Some sort of product where we can eat all the food we want and still somehow lose weight. And, there are plenty of people waiting to capitalize on that, since there's a significant part of the population that wants there to be actually a product like a miracle pill or a weight loss method that doesn't take hard work and pure sweat.

[MNJetter]

I imagine that if someone actually comes up with a pill that increases people's metabolisms (instead of just speeding up their heartrate with caffeine or anphetamines), or actually dissolves fat in the body, they will be as rich as Bill Gates.

[spaik]

89% of the land in Canada is uninhabitable due to extreme climate. Take that out and the population density isn't so low, afterall.

wow, thats just retarded. there are cities in alaska, the yukon, the nw territories, etc, and that's pretty hostile, not to mention covering a LOT of land mass. russia has larger cities in even more hostile landscapes, and they have no problem whatsoever. there are full fledged cities and populations of people far far north, in nothing but arctic tundra. i don't even begin to comprehend how you can call that inhabitable. just because there's no skyscrapers, doesn't mean its inhospitable. i'd give you even 50% just because of the amount of 'land' mass up closer to the arctic circle, but even without that, the population density is still extremely low. if you include native populations, then the habitable land mass goes up even FURTHER than just that.