Why are people in coutries other then the U.S. mostly skinny?
December 13, 2006 11:21 PM Subscribe
Why are people in countries other then the U.S. mostly skinny? It can't just be the Mcdonalds. Could it maybe have to do with weather? or how we grow vegetables? I am in the middle of building a hydroponics plant system which uses nutrients (chemicals) and was wondering if we grow lots of our produce that way and thus are maybe causing more problems for our health?
My friend is in the navy, and recently went to 8 different places all over the world outside the U.S. He said: "Dude the United States is the only place that has fat people." I was wondering why this could be, besides the U.S. having Mcdonalds. Is it what we eat? The way they grow vegetables? Are they more productive in other countries? or is it due to a different climate? I wonder if it has to do with maybe how he produce vegetables or other products. I also talked to a lady from Kosovo who said she eats so much over there and said she feels so light. But while she is in the United States, everything seems to make you feel stuffed and heavy. Lets try and figure this out together. Any ideas are welcome....also I'm not against fat people.
My friend is in the navy, and recently went to 8 different places all over the world outside the U.S. He said: "Dude the United States is the only place that has fat people." I was wondering why this could be, besides the U.S. having Mcdonalds. Is it what we eat? The way they grow vegetables? Are they more productive in other countries? or is it due to a different climate? I wonder if it has to do with maybe how he produce vegetables or other products. I also talked to a lady from Kosovo who said she eats so much over there and said she feels so light. But while she is in the United States, everything seems to make you feel stuffed and heavy. Lets try and figure this out together. Any ideas are welcome....also I'm not against fat people.
There are many, many, many, many articles and studies that address this. Here's a start for your reading list.
posted by occhiblu at 11:28 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by occhiblu at 11:28 PM on December 13, 2006
Well, there's lots of stuff: fairly poor levels of exercise, really bad eating habits, poor urban centers with little access to fresh, cheap vegetables. Corn syrup as our main source of sweetener. There some pretty shitty stuff going in to our food too, hormone and chemical wise. Could have a lot to do with it.
But probably the majority of it is higher caloric intake than caloric use.
On preview: everyone has said it already. Hmmm...something new then that is a catchall: industrialization and a movement away from a manufacturing/agricultural based economy towards a service based one?
posted by Mister Cheese at 11:34 PM on December 13, 2006
But probably the majority of it is higher caloric intake than caloric use.
On preview: everyone has said it already. Hmmm...something new then that is a catchall: industrialization and a movement away from a manufacturing/agricultural based economy towards a service based one?
posted by Mister Cheese at 11:34 PM on December 13, 2006
To echo the others, I'd say you should consider the topic that you have chosen to file this question under. The difference isn't in the quality of crops grown in North America. Rather, it's the lifestyle choices that people choose to make.
Also, 119 of 193 countries on this planet contain at least one McDonald's. So, no, probably not that.
posted by Drunken_munky at 11:38 PM on December 13, 2006
Also, 119 of 193 countries on this planet contain at least one McDonald's. So, no, probably not that.
posted by Drunken_munky at 11:38 PM on December 13, 2006
Response by poster: Do you think the way we grow vegetables is a major contributer? I'm just thinking alot of the veggies in the majore food markets are maybe grown hydroponically? Wonder if the chemicals have a bad effect? Also why is it that we use so much corn syrup, what do they do in other coutries to sweeten?
posted by Craiggy83 at 11:39 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by Craiggy83 at 11:39 PM on December 13, 2006
It's the subsidized corn. Hydroponics and vegetables don't really have much if anything to do with it.
posted by majick at 11:44 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by majick at 11:44 PM on December 13, 2006
Oh, you specifically want to know if hydroponically grown vegetables have detrimental effects on our health? That's an interesting question; I imagine that if you can control the environment that the vegetables are grown in that you wouldn't have to worry about bugs... so you wouldn't have to spray them with chemicals. And you wouldn't have to worry about groundwater contamination. You would have to be careful about what you actually put in to the vegetables for the nutrients.
Yes, chemicals have a bad effect on the body, but I'm not sure if you can link that to obesity. Poorer health, yes, but not obesity.
If the fields and fields of greens in California are any indication, the US still grows its stuff mostly in the ground.
posted by Mister Cheese at 11:45 PM on December 13, 2006
Yes, chemicals have a bad effect on the body, but I'm not sure if you can link that to obesity. Poorer health, yes, but not obesity.
If the fields and fields of greens in California are any indication, the US still grows its stuff mostly in the ground.
posted by Mister Cheese at 11:45 PM on December 13, 2006
I doubt it's the way we grow vegetables, but the way we (don't) eat them. I think I remember from "The Wal-Mart Effect" one interesting statistic that 30 or more % of groceries are bought at Wal-Mart. They don't even sell fresh fruit and veggies there. People eat processed crap, and they don't have a long culture of a cuisine.
Also, frontier food and portions are good if you're farming 14 hours a day, but the French culture of rich food -- eat a little, enjoy it thoroughly and be satisfied without pigging out -- is such a novelty here, that a very popular book French women don't get fat was written about it.
By the way, McDonald's isn't real food but more based on the dough+grease+flavour frontier food. A lot of people here don't know what real food is. It doesn't include pop.
posted by Listener at 11:51 PM on December 13, 2006 [1 favorite]
Also, frontier food and portions are good if you're farming 14 hours a day, but the French culture of rich food -- eat a little, enjoy it thoroughly and be satisfied without pigging out -- is such a novelty here, that a very popular book French women don't get fat was written about it.
By the way, McDonald's isn't real food but more based on the dough+grease+flavour frontier food. A lot of people here don't know what real food is. It doesn't include pop.
posted by Listener at 11:51 PM on December 13, 2006 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Awesome guys!! Now those of you going over seas, how do you compare eating healthy in both there and the U.S.? Do you feel there is still something different about the food?
posted by Craiggy83 at 11:51 PM on December 13, 2006
posted by Craiggy83 at 11:51 PM on December 13, 2006
Response by poster: Also a link: http://nomorespin.blogspot.com/2006/11/is-tax-subsidized-corn-making-us-fat.html
Maybe we should just move, since part of the obesity is our choices, but also probably the society as a whole that has begun to accept it.
posted by Craiggy83 at 11:58 PM on December 13, 2006
Maybe we should just move, since part of the obesity is our choices, but also probably the society as a whole that has begun to accept it.
posted by Craiggy83 at 11:58 PM on December 13, 2006
Would someone like to explain how subsidising corn alone makes people fat?
High fructose corn syrup, yes, but plenty of countries have subsidized and even socialist agricultural systems and do not have obesity problems. Take China for instance. Agriculture is highly subsidized, but the diet of most people consists of more fruits and vegitables and less meats and fewer people have a completely sedentary lifestyle. As more Chinese turn to sedentary office jobs, cars for transportation and processed food, their obesity numbers are going up as well.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:07 AM on December 14, 2006
High fructose corn syrup, yes, but plenty of countries have subsidized and even socialist agricultural systems and do not have obesity problems. Take China for instance. Agriculture is highly subsidized, but the diet of most people consists of more fruits and vegitables and less meats and fewer people have a completely sedentary lifestyle. As more Chinese turn to sedentary office jobs, cars for transportation and processed food, their obesity numbers are going up as well.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:07 AM on December 14, 2006
how do you compare eating healthy in both there and the U.S.? Do you feel there is still something different about the food?
It is much easier to eat healthily here in China. The fruits and veggies are more available, better and cheaper (maybe thanks to farm subsidies?). I've lost a lot of weight and it can't all be from walking and biking as I did that in the states too.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:10 AM on December 14, 2006
It is much easier to eat healthily here in China. The fruits and veggies are more available, better and cheaper (maybe thanks to farm subsidies?). I've lost a lot of weight and it can't all be from walking and biking as I did that in the states too.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:10 AM on December 14, 2006
30 or more % of groceries are bought at Wal-Mart. They don't even sell fresh fruit and veggies there.
Actually, there are many Wal-Mart Supercenters with full groceries, including produce. There are more "regular" Wal-Marts, of course, but the grocery departments in the Supercenters are unbelievably popular. A good portion of that 30% number is undoubtedly Supercenter grocery business and would include some of the vaunted fresh fruits and veggies.
posted by kindall at 12:11 AM on December 14, 2006
Actually, there are many Wal-Mart Supercenters with full groceries, including produce. There are more "regular" Wal-Marts, of course, but the grocery departments in the Supercenters are unbelievably popular. A good portion of that 30% number is undoubtedly Supercenter grocery business and would include some of the vaunted fresh fruits and veggies.
posted by kindall at 12:11 AM on December 14, 2006
Response by poster: I still wonder about the fertilizers and food we are producing, the obesity delimma I bet is a factor of the way we are producing treating, and cooking our food as well as lack of excersize. Now how come people I talk to say that other countries are more layed back the way they live. They work, but they don't run around like we americans.
posted by Craiggy83 at 12:18 AM on December 14, 2006
posted by Craiggy83 at 12:18 AM on December 14, 2006
Would someone like to explain how subsidising corn alone makes people fat?
I don't think anyone is saying that alone is responsible, but certainly it plays a significant role in the problem:
East Meets West, Adding Pounds and Peril
Underwritten by roughly $40 billion in federal subsidies paid to corn growers in the past 10 years alone, [HFCS] is now so cheap that it has all but replaced cane sugar as the sweetener of choice in processed foods. [emph. added]
Consumption of soft drinks and high-fructose corn syrup linked to obesity and diabetes
New research published in the United States that followed 50,000 U.S. nurses reveals those who drank just one serving of soda or fruit punch a day gained weight more quickly than those who drank less than one soda a month. Those who drank more also had an 80% increased risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. This risk, by the way, was associated with those who drank drinks sweetened with either sugar or high-fructose corn syrup.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:20 AM on December 14, 2006
I don't think anyone is saying that alone is responsible, but certainly it plays a significant role in the problem:
East Meets West, Adding Pounds and Peril
Underwritten by roughly $40 billion in federal subsidies paid to corn growers in the past 10 years alone, [HFCS] is now so cheap that it has all but replaced cane sugar as the sweetener of choice in processed foods. [emph. added]
Consumption of soft drinks and high-fructose corn syrup linked to obesity and diabetes
New research published in the United States that followed 50,000 U.S. nurses reveals those who drank just one serving of soda or fruit punch a day gained weight more quickly than those who drank less than one soda a month. Those who drank more also had an 80% increased risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. This risk, by the way, was associated with those who drank drinks sweetened with either sugar or high-fructose corn syrup.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:20 AM on December 14, 2006
I agree that it's just the quantity of fresh vegetables consumed rather than the quality/chemicals.
I mean, some of us (Americans) count ketchup and french fries as veg. And when we do eat healthful vegetables, we tend to douse them with fattening sauces, dressings or toppings. In contrast, folks in other countries just naturally eat more veggies -- plain or more simply prepared -- and enjoy it. Things like a plain, baked sweet potato for a snack over cookies or something.
But ooh, you might be on to something. If your hydroponics system can boost the quality of the TASTE of the vegetables, people might be more inclined to enjoy them in their pure state.
[On preview, what everyone else said.]
posted by QueSeraSera at 12:24 AM on December 14, 2006
I mean, some of us (Americans) count ketchup and french fries as veg. And when we do eat healthful vegetables, we tend to douse them with fattening sauces, dressings or toppings. In contrast, folks in other countries just naturally eat more veggies -- plain or more simply prepared -- and enjoy it. Things like a plain, baked sweet potato for a snack over cookies or something.
But ooh, you might be on to something. If your hydroponics system can boost the quality of the TASTE of the vegetables, people might be more inclined to enjoy them in their pure state.
[On preview, what everyone else said.]
posted by QueSeraSera at 12:24 AM on December 14, 2006
Diet definitely is an important part, but I suspect that walking has a lot more to do with this. People in most parts of Europe walk every day. To work, to the market or supermarket, to the park, etc.
posted by sic at 12:24 AM on December 14, 2006
posted by sic at 12:24 AM on December 14, 2006
Craiggy83 : "what do they do in other coutries to sweeten?"
In Japan, usually sugar is used.
posted by Bugbread at 12:26 AM on December 14, 2006
In Japan, usually sugar is used.
posted by Bugbread at 12:26 AM on December 14, 2006
Oh and regarding sweetners:
It's probably not so much the form of sweetner that's used that makes a difference but eating packaged foods that contain sweetner at all. Chicken nuggets, for example, if made from scratch would not need a sweetner. But get them from a box and they're loaded with corn syrup.
More than anything, I think the issue is home-cooked meals vs. eating out/packaged foods. And beyond that, popular cooking techniques (boiled, steamed, baked, vs. fried, etc.).
posted by QueSeraSera at 12:28 AM on December 14, 2006
It's probably not so much the form of sweetner that's used that makes a difference but eating packaged foods that contain sweetner at all. Chicken nuggets, for example, if made from scratch would not need a sweetner. But get them from a box and they're loaded with corn syrup.
More than anything, I think the issue is home-cooked meals vs. eating out/packaged foods. And beyond that, popular cooking techniques (boiled, steamed, baked, vs. fried, etc.).
posted by QueSeraSera at 12:28 AM on December 14, 2006
So in other words, US food contain a lot of sweeteners, maybe that is the problem rather than the price of those sweeteners.
Also, if you saw the amount of chemical fertilizers and pesticides they use on crops in other "skinnier" countries, you would toss those theories out the window.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:29 AM on December 14, 2006
Also, if you saw the amount of chemical fertilizers and pesticides they use on crops in other "skinnier" countries, you would toss those theories out the window.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:29 AM on December 14, 2006
So in other words, US food contain a lot of sweeteners, maybe that is the problem rather than the price of those sweeteners.
It's easier to sell more of something when it's cheaper.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:31 AM on December 14, 2006
It's easier to sell more of something when it's cheaper.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:31 AM on December 14, 2006
Response by poster: Well when I talked to my hair dresser from Kosovo, she said that the veggies over there are mainly produced by the people and manure is the fertilizer of choice. They also have huge freezers which they use to store all the overloads of veggies they produce. She also said that when people do drive they do as much as they can so they limit the driving, and grocery stores really don't carry veggies over there because everyone has their own. I also read an article about a man who both used dry manure with sawdust as a fuel, and tested lime with other fertilizer against manure. His conclusion after 1 year was both seemed to work the same. After two years some significant growth in the manure fertilized crop and after 3 years he was amazed at the difference between the crops. He used the dryed manure with sawdust as fuel and the ashes were used for the garden as opposed to just straight manure.
Link: http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/hooker87.html
posted by Craiggy83 at 12:35 AM on December 14, 2006
Link: http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/hooker87.html
posted by Craiggy83 at 12:35 AM on December 14, 2006
The premise is false. People in all western countries face an obesity epidemic. See for example The figures of child and juvenile obesity and overweight in Spain are of great concern: 13.9% of children aged 2-24 are obese and 26.3% are overweight, thus almost 1 out of 2 children are over the accepted healthy weight..
posted by davar at 1:17 AM on December 14, 2006
posted by davar at 1:17 AM on December 14, 2006
Speaking generally, the U.S. also has longer expected working hours than many other countries, so people have less time to prepare time-intensive home-cooked meals and more often turn to prepared foods. Also, foods that are both healthful and convenient (for example, organic and otherwise healthful frozen or prepared meals at places like Whole Foods) tend to be far more expensive than less healthful prepared foods, like McDonalds and TV dinners. The reliance on cars is in part also due to less free time, as is lack of time for exercise.
Personally, I think free time and stress are significant factors. I lost weight when I lived in France and again now that I live in China, but when I worked a 60-hr week in the U.S., I gained 10-15 lbs.
posted by piers at 1:36 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
Personally, I think free time and stress are significant factors. I lost weight when I lived in France and again now that I live in China, but when I worked a 60-hr week in the U.S., I gained 10-15 lbs.
posted by piers at 1:36 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
I live in a part of the US with a decent amount of agriculture, and yet local produce seems rarely to find its way into the grocery stores. Going to the farmers' market takes planning. The produce that's available in those grocery stores makes me long for Tesco, even though that particular behemoth makes me long for the markets of continental Europe. The steps that get produce into your grocery store -- transportation, industrial agriculture, the pursuit of the Platonic vegetable -- add to the cost.
It's often really hard to live a lifestyle conducive to a healthy diet and decent exercise in the US, especially outside of big cities. Urban planning tends to leave out pavements/sidewalks, meaning that you walk in the gutter or the mud. Cycling is not always an option: to get into the city centre from the suburbs here requires a long detour, because the direct route is an interstate.
The US is a very big country. Health and weight issues are not equally distributed, and the patterns there can be extrapolated.
posted by holgate at 1:45 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
It's often really hard to live a lifestyle conducive to a healthy diet and decent exercise in the US, especially outside of big cities. Urban planning tends to leave out pavements/sidewalks, meaning that you walk in the gutter or the mud. Cycling is not always an option: to get into the city centre from the suburbs here requires a long detour, because the direct route is an interstate.
The US is a very big country. Health and weight issues are not equally distributed, and the patterns there can be extrapolated.
posted by holgate at 1:45 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
He said: "Dude the United States is the only place that has fat people."
Dude, your friend is wrong. I've been around the world a few times myself, and there are fat people everywhere. Are there more fat people in America? I'd say probably.
Why? It's complicated, of course. But #1 with a bullet is probably that people eat more cheap garbage industrial food there than almost anywhere.
It may be instructional to note that obesity is more often the province of the poorer segments of society in North America and other wealthy societies, while just the opposite was true historically and in poorer nations today.
In the ten years since I've come to Korea, as people (and especially kids) have started eating more and more junk food (domestic and western-style), there are a lot more fat people than there were. A noticeable increase in numbers. But obesity by NAmerican standards is still very rare. I see perhaps one morbidly obese person here in a month, if that; walking down the street in Vancouver on my last visit, I'd see several per hour. And Vancouver's supposed to be a health conscious place.
So, yeah. There are fat folks outside of North America (and the US, particularly). Just, usually, not as many.
Speaking generally, the U.S. also has longer expected working hours than many other countries, so people have less time to prepare time-intensive home-cooked meals and more often turn to prepared foods.
Not so sure about that: have a look at the graph here, from 2004.
US annual average: 1777 hours
Korea (to pick the outlier): 2390 hours
The prepared industrial foods are certainly part of the problem, but blaming consumption of them to any significant extent merely on long working hours is a mistake, I think. Preparation of healthy food simply doesn't take that long -- not much longer than sitting in a busy drive-through, if you're smart about it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:47 AM on December 14, 2006
Dude, your friend is wrong. I've been around the world a few times myself, and there are fat people everywhere. Are there more fat people in America? I'd say probably.
Why? It's complicated, of course. But #1 with a bullet is probably that people eat more cheap garbage industrial food there than almost anywhere.
It may be instructional to note that obesity is more often the province of the poorer segments of society in North America and other wealthy societies, while just the opposite was true historically and in poorer nations today.
In the ten years since I've come to Korea, as people (and especially kids) have started eating more and more junk food (domestic and western-style), there are a lot more fat people than there were. A noticeable increase in numbers. But obesity by NAmerican standards is still very rare. I see perhaps one morbidly obese person here in a month, if that; walking down the street in Vancouver on my last visit, I'd see several per hour. And Vancouver's supposed to be a health conscious place.
So, yeah. There are fat folks outside of North America (and the US, particularly). Just, usually, not as many.
Speaking generally, the U.S. also has longer expected working hours than many other countries, so people have less time to prepare time-intensive home-cooked meals and more often turn to prepared foods.
Not so sure about that: have a look at the graph here, from 2004.
US annual average: 1777 hours
Korea (to pick the outlier): 2390 hours
The prepared industrial foods are certainly part of the problem, but blaming consumption of them to any significant extent merely on long working hours is a mistake, I think. Preparation of healthy food simply doesn't take that long -- not much longer than sitting in a busy drive-through, if you're smart about it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:47 AM on December 14, 2006
To add to the chorus, "Dude, your friend is wrong." Obesity is certainly a known problem in the UK and is frequently discussed in the news.
posted by grouse at 1:57 AM on December 14, 2006
posted by grouse at 1:57 AM on December 14, 2006
Response by poster: ok sort of side tangent, I have no idea bout this, but are microwaves used as much in other countries, because we live or I feel we live off of them here. If they are used less or are more rare in other countries, does the microwave effect the food it cooks? I know it just vibrates the water molecule at a certain frequency, but I wonder if it effects us health wize...I know it's a tangent and I bet one of you is going to shoot it down but I figuered I'd keep it interesting.
posted by Craiggy83 at 2:02 AM on December 14, 2006
posted by Craiggy83 at 2:02 AM on December 14, 2006
Microwaves are used pretty damn often here in the UK, and the extensive ready-made food sections of some supermarkets here would put any American grocery store to shame.
I know it just vibrates the water molecule at a certain frequency, but I wonder if it effects us health wize
No. Microwavable food is sometimes less healthy even before you put it into the microwave, but that's because of the ingredients, not the cooking method.
Baking and frying, on the other hand, produce known carcinogen as a by-product. Not that I am suggesting that you stop eating baked food.
posted by grouse at 2:09 AM on December 14, 2006
I know it just vibrates the water molecule at a certain frequency, but I wonder if it effects us health wize
No. Microwavable food is sometimes less healthy even before you put it into the microwave, but that's because of the ingredients, not the cooking method.
Baking and frying, on the other hand, produce known carcinogen as a by-product. Not that I am suggesting that you stop eating baked food.
posted by grouse at 2:09 AM on December 14, 2006
here is an article about the effects of microwaving broccoli. I've always heard that cooking veggies decreases their nutritional value.
posted by idiotfactory at 2:14 AM on December 14, 2006
posted by idiotfactory at 2:14 AM on December 14, 2006
I wanted to chime in on the corn syrup issue: subsidized corn crops means that growing corn is kind of profitable, means there's lots more corn grown, means there's an excess of corn than fresh or frozen corn markets demand. Which in turn means that that corn has got to go somewhere.
Corn syrup.
And the contribution to obesity?
Aside from calories, there's been research that points to high fructose corn syrup fucking with your metabolism. I'm not sure if it's conclusive; I haven't read those studies. However, James Holland Jones is the fellow I learnt from that "corn syrup is really bad." Apparently we don't digest it like normal sugar and it tends to bypass the blood stream free floating glucose part of digestion and go straight in to storage. Don't know the mechanism of that. Not saying it's a solidly proven theory--yet.
But yeah... most any world wide nutrition study is going to say that generally obesity and obesity related disease is on the rise. It's just a lot more pronounced in the united states.
Craiggy83, you seem to be more interested in the method of vegetable growth and it's impact on health outcomes, particularly obesity. I'm going to say this: the domesticated, genericalized, growth hormoned food of the United States does not have the same same nutritional value as they did in the past. We've bred vegetables and fruits to be mostly sugar and water. And we've decided to prepare foods in such a way that rids them of most of their nutritional value: mashed potatos without skin are the biggest culprits.
You might be on to something with the microwaves, though. Cooking, generally, allows the nutritional content of food to be more easily utilized by the body. Like meat or spinach (put lemon in to get that iron out better). Microwaving mayn't change the chemical composition like cooking does.
posted by Mister Cheese at 2:24 AM on December 14, 2006
Corn syrup.
And the contribution to obesity?
Aside from calories, there's been research that points to high fructose corn syrup fucking with your metabolism. I'm not sure if it's conclusive; I haven't read those studies. However, James Holland Jones is the fellow I learnt from that "corn syrup is really bad." Apparently we don't digest it like normal sugar and it tends to bypass the blood stream free floating glucose part of digestion and go straight in to storage. Don't know the mechanism of that. Not saying it's a solidly proven theory--yet.
But yeah... most any world wide nutrition study is going to say that generally obesity and obesity related disease is on the rise. It's just a lot more pronounced in the united states.
Craiggy83, you seem to be more interested in the method of vegetable growth and it's impact on health outcomes, particularly obesity. I'm going to say this: the domesticated, genericalized, growth hormoned food of the United States does not have the same same nutritional value as they did in the past. We've bred vegetables and fruits to be mostly sugar and water. And we've decided to prepare foods in such a way that rids them of most of their nutritional value: mashed potatos without skin are the biggest culprits.
You might be on to something with the microwaves, though. Cooking, generally, allows the nutritional content of food to be more easily utilized by the body. Like meat or spinach (put lemon in to get that iron out better). Microwaving mayn't change the chemical composition like cooking does.
posted by Mister Cheese at 2:24 AM on December 14, 2006
Oh man, I really screwed up the grammar on that last post of mine. I want to add that cooking veggies in water certainly decreases their nutritional value especially if boiled in water. The nutrients tend to leach out. Drink the water and you can get it. Better to sauté. Really quick, yeah? Some veggies, however, are best prepared in certain ways to get at all the nutrients, like spinach.
I'm given to thinking that the caloric value of vegetables isn't too much affected by cooking. Cooking vegetables doesn't affect obesity then, at least not that way. However, it is certainly possible that cooking destroys certain isoflavones that aid in metabolism. This is last bit I've said is speculation, though. I haven't heard of anyone studying it. Certainly, though, the loss of nutrients in boiling is a solid fact.
posted by Mister Cheese at 2:29 AM on December 14, 2006
I'm given to thinking that the caloric value of vegetables isn't too much affected by cooking. Cooking vegetables doesn't affect obesity then, at least not that way. However, it is certainly possible that cooking destroys certain isoflavones that aid in metabolism. This is last bit I've said is speculation, though. I haven't heard of anyone studying it. Certainly, though, the loss of nutrients in boiling is a solid fact.
posted by Mister Cheese at 2:29 AM on December 14, 2006
The size of American portions.
Seriously, they are easily double that of the UK. I have never managed to eat a whole meal and if I did, I would fatten up pretty quickly.
posted by mr_silver at 3:05 AM on December 14, 2006
Seriously, they are easily double that of the UK. I have never managed to eat a whole meal and if I did, I would fatten up pretty quickly.
posted by mr_silver at 3:05 AM on December 14, 2006
(Are you talking about restaurants, mr_silver? Many Americans can't finish the restaurant portions here either. Skinny people who eat out often have fridges full of those styrofoam take-out boxes with the food they couldn't finish.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 4:24 AM on December 14, 2006
posted by nebulawindphone at 4:24 AM on December 14, 2006
Aside from calories, there's been research that points to high fructose corn syrup fucking with your metabolism.
Bingo!
Other countries may subsidize crops, including corn, but I don't think any country eats HFCS like the US, also note that other countries, especially Britain are catching up.
I think because crap food is so cheap, it is a sort of cheap thrill if you are in the underclass. And if you are poor, you will likely be able to afford a jumbo bag of chips for the price of a head of cauliflower. Also many (most) towns don't even have sidwalks, thus you can't walk even if you wanted to.
As an aside, in New York I am not skinny, even a bit paunchy, but when I leave my beloved city and travel ANYWHERE else in the US I am transformed to the skinniest man in the room, exception is the Pacific Northwest, interestingly Californians are just as hefty as the rest of the country and are much fatter than New Yorkers. New York is a sort of exception to the US obesity, but then again, everyone walks, takes subways etc.
Note even in New York there are huge people.
I also note that while there *are* many people in Europe who are a bit fleshy and paunchy, I have NEVER EVER seen a person in Europe who is so fat that he will draw stares or who has trouble walking, I see that even in New York on a daily basis, that is the most striking difference.
posted by xetere at 4:43 AM on December 14, 2006
Bingo!
Other countries may subsidize crops, including corn, but I don't think any country eats HFCS like the US, also note that other countries, especially Britain are catching up.
I think because crap food is so cheap, it is a sort of cheap thrill if you are in the underclass. And if you are poor, you will likely be able to afford a jumbo bag of chips for the price of a head of cauliflower. Also many (most) towns don't even have sidwalks, thus you can't walk even if you wanted to.
As an aside, in New York I am not skinny, even a bit paunchy, but when I leave my beloved city and travel ANYWHERE else in the US I am transformed to the skinniest man in the room, exception is the Pacific Northwest, interestingly Californians are just as hefty as the rest of the country and are much fatter than New Yorkers. New York is a sort of exception to the US obesity, but then again, everyone walks, takes subways etc.
Note even in New York there are huge people.
I also note that while there *are* many people in Europe who are a bit fleshy and paunchy, I have NEVER EVER seen a person in Europe who is so fat that he will draw stares or who has trouble walking, I see that even in New York on a daily basis, that is the most striking difference.
posted by xetere at 4:43 AM on December 14, 2006
General laziness on the part of the average American. Whenever I visit I'm always amazed at how little people walk anywhere. Part of it is also poor urban planning; people want to live in their massive mcmansions and have a big yard, and so everything is spread out and so people drive EVERYWHERE.
One of my favourite photos is one I took of a couple of chubbies standing on an escalator going up to their Bally's. Americans -- god love 'em; they're like everyone's crazy but loveable uncle.
posted by modernnomad at 5:06 AM on December 14, 2006
One of my favourite photos is one I took of a couple of chubbies standing on an escalator going up to their Bally's. Americans -- god love 'em; they're like everyone's crazy but loveable uncle.
posted by modernnomad at 5:06 AM on December 14, 2006
Read Michael Pollan, who is fascinating on the subject and will make you look at corn in a whole new way.
(All his magazine articles are on that website, for you fans of the Botany of Desire and the Omnivore's Dilemma)
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:15 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
(All his magazine articles are on that website, for you fans of the Botany of Desire and the Omnivore's Dilemma)
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:15 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
Anecdotally, I just returned from Mexico (Yucatan) and there are tons of overweight people there, but very few morbidly obese. They drink a lot of juices and sodas, but those are all sweetened with sugar rather than HFCS. I did notice that women tended to be overweight and men not so much-- the men have these bicycle cart things they ride around on, but the women ride in them as passengers, which I suspect accounts for the difference.
Anyway, that's my long way of saying your friend isn't correct. I've also seen overweight folks in Greece, England, Ireland, and Canada. (Gosh, my recent travels have been so Western!)
I agree with modernnomad about the walking. One of the things that blows me away about Portland is that people literally won't go anywhere if they have to park over a block away. The Old Port is littered with parking garages, but I've seen many people drive around and around in circles so they can park directly in front of their destination.
posted by miss tea at 5:26 AM on December 14, 2006
Anyway, that's my long way of saying your friend isn't correct. I've also seen overweight folks in Greece, England, Ireland, and Canada. (Gosh, my recent travels have been so Western!)
I agree with modernnomad about the walking. One of the things that blows me away about Portland is that people literally won't go anywhere if they have to park over a block away. The Old Port is littered with parking garages, but I've seen many people drive around and around in circles so they can park directly in front of their destination.
posted by miss tea at 5:26 AM on December 14, 2006
As for the longer working hours - not so sure about that. People work much longer hours back in India than here, that includes Saturdays.
One reason I guess most families, including mine, back in India had good home-cooked food was the moms didn't have a full time job.
Eating good food here in US takes a level of planning that was more or less natural back home. Eating out was rarely done; it was usually an occasion once a month. We rarely drank soda - again that was when friends got together or something. Refrigerators were not stocked with soda and ice cream. Of course all this is changing rapidly in metropolitan cities like Delhi. Here in US, it is so much easier to eat bad food. I gained close to 30 lbs in my first year of stay till I realized what was happening. As someone posted above, walking, the most essential and natural exercise, almost seems like an aversion for most people here.
posted by raheel at 5:48 AM on December 14, 2006
One reason I guess most families, including mine, back in India had good home-cooked food was the moms didn't have a full time job.
Eating good food here in US takes a level of planning that was more or less natural back home. Eating out was rarely done; it was usually an occasion once a month. We rarely drank soda - again that was when friends got together or something. Refrigerators were not stocked with soda and ice cream. Of course all this is changing rapidly in metropolitan cities like Delhi. Here in US, it is so much easier to eat bad food. I gained close to 30 lbs in my first year of stay till I realized what was happening. As someone posted above, walking, the most essential and natural exercise, almost seems like an aversion for most people here.
posted by raheel at 5:48 AM on December 14, 2006
One more thing - if you are serious about the 'kind' of vegetables you are growing in your greenhouse - try to find 'a few sources for 'heirloom' seeds.
From what I understand these are less 'bred/modified' that most standard seed crops - so potentially 'more' healthy.
Next - I frankly don't think you have to worry about 'vegetables' making you fat - it you are eating them correctly. Sure - once you chop up that potato/squash/eggplant, deep fry it and cover it with salt - you think it's going to be healthy?
posted by jkaczor at 5:52 AM on December 14, 2006
From what I understand these are less 'bred/modified' that most standard seed crops - so potentially 'more' healthy.
Next - I frankly don't think you have to worry about 'vegetables' making you fat - it you are eating them correctly. Sure - once you chop up that potato/squash/eggplant, deep fry it and cover it with salt - you think it's going to be healthy?
posted by jkaczor at 5:52 AM on December 14, 2006
living in Australia, where we have a little obesity epidemic all of our own, and having travelled through the US and Canada several times, the things I noticed most were that the portions were larger (WAY larger) and that the fast food was much, much cheaper.
Here (in Australia) I could get a meal from McD's or buy a baguette, some dip, a couple of tomatoes, an avocado and a bottle of water for the same price. In the US the fast food was so much cheaper than any remotely healthy alternative.
posted by twirlypen at 6:03 AM on December 14, 2006
Here (in Australia) I could get a meal from McD's or buy a baguette, some dip, a couple of tomatoes, an avocado and a bottle of water for the same price. In the US the fast food was so much cheaper than any remotely healthy alternative.
posted by twirlypen at 6:03 AM on December 14, 2006
From what I understand these are less 'bred/modified' that most standard seed crops - so potentially 'more' healthy.
Don't forget that they are also potentially "less" healthy.
posted by grouse at 6:09 AM on December 14, 2006
Don't forget that they are also potentially "less" healthy.
posted by grouse at 6:09 AM on December 14, 2006
I think the above posters have it right.
Crap food is *so much cheaper* (in some places, ten percent the price) of good, healthy food. It's cheap because it's packed with fillers such as starches and soy protein isolate, which are ridiculously cheap. Add enough salt, sugar, and fat to anything and it'll taste good enough for the average person not to bother wasting time and energy on making food.
Although I don't think the problem is corn as much as soy byproducts. Soy is incredibly inexpensive (taxpayers subsidize it to an enormous extent) and it's in everything. Start reading labels and notice how much damn soy is in everything. Soy is very good at absorbing fat and making food seem less greasy while still preserving the taste of the fat - and the calories.
posted by watsondog at 6:14 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
Crap food is *so much cheaper* (in some places, ten percent the price) of good, healthy food. It's cheap because it's packed with fillers such as starches and soy protein isolate, which are ridiculously cheap. Add enough salt, sugar, and fat to anything and it'll taste good enough for the average person not to bother wasting time and energy on making food.
Although I don't think the problem is corn as much as soy byproducts. Soy is incredibly inexpensive (taxpayers subsidize it to an enormous extent) and it's in everything. Start reading labels and notice how much damn soy is in everything. Soy is very good at absorbing fat and making food seem less greasy while still preserving the taste of the fat - and the calories.
posted by watsondog at 6:14 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
Anecdotally, I just returned from Mexico (Yucatan) and there are tons of overweight people there, but very few morbidly obese. They drink a lot of juices and sodas, but those are all sweetened with sugar rather than HFCS. I did notice that women tended to be overweight and men not so much-- the men have these bicycle cart things they ride around on, but the women ride in them as passengers, which I suspect accounts for the difference.
I suspect that different cultural norms of physical attractiveness may also be at least partially involved there. Not every culture idolizes women with washboard abs, for what it's worth.
Also, I have my suspicions that part of the reason the American diet tends to be rather less healthy than elsewhere in the world is because our produce is generally cultivated to grow easily and look nice, and a lot of the time the flavor takes a BIG hit. I'm trying to remember the last time I bought a tomato that didn't taste like lettuce. If food doesn't taste good, people won't want to eat it.
posted by DoctorFedora at 6:22 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
I suspect that different cultural norms of physical attractiveness may also be at least partially involved there. Not every culture idolizes women with washboard abs, for what it's worth.
Also, I have my suspicions that part of the reason the American diet tends to be rather less healthy than elsewhere in the world is because our produce is generally cultivated to grow easily and look nice, and a lot of the time the flavor takes a BIG hit. I'm trying to remember the last time I bought a tomato that didn't taste like lettuce. If food doesn't taste good, people won't want to eat it.
posted by DoctorFedora at 6:22 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
I think because crap food is so cheap, it is a sort of cheap thrill if you are in the underclass. And if you are poor, you will likely be able to afford a jumbo bag of chips for the price of a head of cauliflower.
And small bags aren't to be found, outside gas station stores, even if you don't want a pound of corn chips.
I don't want to descend into Another MeFi Fat Discussion, but the combination of food production, town planning and after-the-fact healthcare contributes to an environment in which the symptoms and not the causes get treated. I've seen plenty of obese people in the UK, but I've never seen obese people who buzz around in motorised scooters: something that's not uncommon in the US.
My American wife has said repeatedly that she eats better because I do much of the cooking; she never learned to cook for herself -- the bare essentials of having a handful of recipes that are quick and simple and healthy -- because her mother and grandmother never learned. And I wonder sometimes whether Food Network is really Food ESPN: spectator cooking.
posted by holgate at 6:43 AM on December 14, 2006
And small bags aren't to be found, outside gas station stores, even if you don't want a pound of corn chips.
I don't want to descend into Another MeFi Fat Discussion, but the combination of food production, town planning and after-the-fact healthcare contributes to an environment in which the symptoms and not the causes get treated. I've seen plenty of obese people in the UK, but I've never seen obese people who buzz around in motorised scooters: something that's not uncommon in the US.
My American wife has said repeatedly that she eats better because I do much of the cooking; she never learned to cook for herself -- the bare essentials of having a handful of recipes that are quick and simple and healthy -- because her mother and grandmother never learned. And I wonder sometimes whether Food Network is really Food ESPN: spectator cooking.
posted by holgate at 6:43 AM on December 14, 2006
Without disagreeing that Americans tend to be fat, let me point out some details of your question:
My friend is in the navy
This means that there's a high probability that this story, and all others about his travels not backed up with photographic evidence and sworn statements, are bullshit. Telling bullshit stories, especially to dumbass civvies back home, is an age-old tradition of the military.
And yes, even bullshit stories can have a kernel of truth in them. That's what makes them believable bullshit instead of dumbass lies.
and recently went to 8 different places all over the world
Even if this story isn't bullshit depends on what places he went to, doesn't it? If he went to a bunch of places that are poor enough that malnutrition is a serious concern, or where the genetic mix happens to strongly favor tall, thin people, well then.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:51 AM on December 14, 2006
My friend is in the navy
This means that there's a high probability that this story, and all others about his travels not backed up with photographic evidence and sworn statements, are bullshit. Telling bullshit stories, especially to dumbass civvies back home, is an age-old tradition of the military.
And yes, even bullshit stories can have a kernel of truth in them. That's what makes them believable bullshit instead of dumbass lies.
and recently went to 8 different places all over the world
Even if this story isn't bullshit depends on what places he went to, doesn't it? If he went to a bunch of places that are poor enough that malnutrition is a serious concern, or where the genetic mix happens to strongly favor tall, thin people, well then.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:51 AM on December 14, 2006
ALL THESE REASONS AS STATED ABOVE plus growth hormones in the meat....
You think all those growth hormones given to cows, and other animals, DISAPPEAR, no they end up in us.
This is the reason people are getting so much TALLER too in the USA. Children did not used to be half a foot taller then their parents....
http://victoria682.tripod.com/thelargestofall/id1.html
posted by Budge at 7:36 AM on December 14, 2006
You think all those growth hormones given to cows, and other animals, DISAPPEAR, no they end up in us.
This is the reason people are getting so much TALLER too in the USA. Children did not used to be half a foot taller then their parents....
http://victoria682.tripod.com/thelargestofall/id1.html
posted by Budge at 7:36 AM on December 14, 2006
Microwaves don't do mysterious voodoo to food that makes it worse than just cooking it with ambient heat, no matter what some website trying to sell something tells you.
Eating vegetables grown using fertilizer rather than manure doesn't really do anything different to your body, either, though they each have different side-effects on the local environment. If it was something in the vegetables, you'd expect obese people to eat much more vegetables than thinner people and the opposite has been my experience.
I really think you have to accept the consensus conclusion that it's the ready availability of cheap junk food before looking for subtler effects.
Definitely look into Heirloom seeds and varietals, too.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 7:38 AM on December 14, 2006
Eating vegetables grown using fertilizer rather than manure doesn't really do anything different to your body, either, though they each have different side-effects on the local environment. If it was something in the vegetables, you'd expect obese people to eat much more vegetables than thinner people and the opposite has been my experience.
I really think you have to accept the consensus conclusion that it's the ready availability of cheap junk food before looking for subtler effects.
Definitely look into Heirloom seeds and varietals, too.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 7:38 AM on December 14, 2006
We're the only place where people drive everywhere, rather than walk (at least some of the time.) Our cities have been built/structured such that nothing is within walking distance unless you live in the downtown core of a big city.
We're the only culture that says its okay to eat at any time of the day, in any circumstance.
We're the only culture that says that a massive platter of food is 'one' meal. We're the only culture that guages its food consumption to the cost of the food rather than to how full or hungry you are.
We're the only culture that prioritizes life inside our isolated homes, rather than being involved in the community. So we stay inside and don't move our bodies, and pass the time by eating.
There's lots of reasons.
posted by Kololo at 7:45 AM on December 14, 2006
We're the only culture that says its okay to eat at any time of the day, in any circumstance.
We're the only culture that says that a massive platter of food is 'one' meal. We're the only culture that guages its food consumption to the cost of the food rather than to how full or hungry you are.
We're the only culture that prioritizes life inside our isolated homes, rather than being involved in the community. So we stay inside and don't move our bodies, and pass the time by eating.
There's lots of reasons.
posted by Kololo at 7:45 AM on December 14, 2006
This is the reason people are getting so much TALLER too in the USA. Children did not used to be half a foot taller then their parents....
This is a total derail, sorry, but do they use a lot of growth hormone in Scandinavia? I would have thought not, but damn, those people are getting insanely tall.
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:49 AM on December 14, 2006
This is a total derail, sorry, but do they use a lot of growth hormone in Scandinavia? I would have thought not, but damn, those people are getting insanely tall.
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:49 AM on December 14, 2006
This is the reason people are getting so much TALLER too in the USA.
Actually, Americans used to be the tallest people in the world, but grow mostly sideways nowadays, compared to other countries.
Bad food and having a huge poor underclass has a severe impact on the average height of all Americans; who are less tall than a century ago.
posted by ijsbrand at 8:11 AM on December 14, 2006
Actually, Americans used to be the tallest people in the world, but grow mostly sideways nowadays, compared to other countries.
Bad food and having a huge poor underclass has a severe impact on the average height of all Americans; who are less tall than a century ago.
posted by ijsbrand at 8:11 AM on December 14, 2006
but I've never seen obese people who buzz around in motorised scooters: something that's not uncommon in the US
It's pretty freaking uncommon. I've lived here about 27 years and never seen it.
posted by dame at 8:11 AM on December 14, 2006
It's pretty freaking uncommon. I've lived here about 27 years and never seen it.
posted by dame at 8:11 AM on December 14, 2006
Another contributing factor, IMO, was the damage caused by the low-fat craze that the US went through during the 80s and 90s. Everyone was taught that fat is bad and carbs are good. You can eat your Snackwells no-fat cookies to your heart's content cause they don't have fat. Well, that just spikes your insulin and gives you Type 2 diabetes in the long run. The "fat is bad" attitude is still very much around and continues to mislead people. Fortunately, much of the rest of the world was spared this mania.
posted by Durin's Bane at 8:47 AM on December 14, 2006
posted by Durin's Bane at 8:47 AM on December 14, 2006
Got to weigh in with those who point a fat finger to the U.S.'s long work hours -- for both men and women.
With both parents (when they're present) working 40+ hours a week, there isn't someone home to supervise kids' snacks, portion control, or most important, cook healthy, homemade meals. There's little to no time to exercise -- or walk or bike somewhere if it's quicker by car. Far too many of us come home after a day on the job, shove something fast and fattening and comforting down our throats, and then collapse in exhaustion (usually in front of the TV). Morning is the same routine, just in reverse.
America is the most overworked industrialized nation in the world. On average, we work 350 hours longer per year than our counterparts in Western Europe. We take less vacation, too, while Europeans average 5-6 weeks annually.
That's time we used to spend on leisure pursuits (many of them physically active) and other calorie-burning activities.
True, a small percentage of India's population might be burning the midnight oil, but it's a recent development and true for only an elite minority pf the population. Check back when both parents in a majority of homes have been doing this for a generation or two.
posted by CMichaelCook at 9:23 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
With both parents (when they're present) working 40+ hours a week, there isn't someone home to supervise kids' snacks, portion control, or most important, cook healthy, homemade meals. There's little to no time to exercise -- or walk or bike somewhere if it's quicker by car. Far too many of us come home after a day on the job, shove something fast and fattening and comforting down our throats, and then collapse in exhaustion (usually in front of the TV). Morning is the same routine, just in reverse.
America is the most overworked industrialized nation in the world. On average, we work 350 hours longer per year than our counterparts in Western Europe. We take less vacation, too, while Europeans average 5-6 weeks annually.
That's time we used to spend on leisure pursuits (many of them physically active) and other calorie-burning activities.
True, a small percentage of India's population might be burning the midnight oil, but it's a recent development and true for only an elite minority pf the population. Check back when both parents in a majority of homes have been doing this for a generation or two.
posted by CMichaelCook at 9:23 AM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
Symptomatic of one of the cultural problems, in the suburbia of cities where I am in the US Northwest, sidewalks are a fickle afterthought - even if you try to walk somewhere, you're continually forced to criss-cross the road as the sidewalks end and start at random, and where there are none you end up walking over grass, and walking in the road. I figure that walking must have been pretty uncommon just to allow this state of affairs to have occurred, but now that it has occured, it makes walking pretty annoying and inconvenient, thus perpetuating the problem.
I wouldn't be surprised if the subsidy-driven use of HFCS was another contributing factor.
posted by -harlequin- at 9:31 AM on December 14, 2006
I wouldn't be surprised if the subsidy-driven use of HFCS was another contributing factor.
posted by -harlequin- at 9:31 AM on December 14, 2006
It's pretty freaking uncommon. I've lived here about 27 years and never seen it.
It's not uncommon around this end of the USA, so I imagine the extent of it varies place to place, based on some other factor/s.
posted by -harlequin- at 9:35 AM on December 14, 2006
Also, many/most countries have higher population density - suburbs in the USA are larger, everything is more spread out. Higher population density means shorter distances from A to B, which makes walking and cycling more viable. Commutes in the USA are frequently 20-30 miles, which discourages cycling and walking.
On a similar note, around here it seems almost unheard of for kids to walk or cycle to school. I don't think the sprawl offers a reason here - even kids living within a mile or two of their school don't get their under their own power. If so, that's cultural, and how you commute to school often sets up expectations and habits for life.
posted by -harlequin- at 9:53 AM on December 14, 2006
On a similar note, around here it seems almost unheard of for kids to walk or cycle to school. I don't think the sprawl offers a reason here - even kids living within a mile or two of their school don't get their under their own power. If so, that's cultural, and how you commute to school often sets up expectations and habits for life.
posted by -harlequin- at 9:53 AM on December 14, 2006
Here's my theory which I posted in a recent thread. Of course, everything mentioned so far in this thread contributes to the problem.
posted by SBMike at 10:07 AM on December 14, 2006
posted by SBMike at 10:07 AM on December 14, 2006
I have to say that it seems unlikely from Kololo's categorical comments that she has spent time in many other cultures.
You think all those growth hormones given to cows, and other animals, DISAPPEAR, no they end up in us.
That is total hogwash. Orally consumed bovine growth hormone does not affect humans.
posted by grouse at 10:44 AM on December 14, 2006
You think all those growth hormones given to cows, and other animals, DISAPPEAR, no they end up in us.
That is total hogwash. Orally consumed bovine growth hormone does not affect humans.
posted by grouse at 10:44 AM on December 14, 2006
I suspect that different cultural norms of physical attractiveness may also be at least partially involved there. Not every culture idolizes women with washboard abs, for what it's worth.
Good point, doc. I often think if our cultural ideal (rather than norm) was a little curvier lots of people would never get on the yo-yo diet cycle that leads so many into obesity.
I'm going to have to argue with the "we work too much" thing, though. It's not too much work, it's a combination of lack of cooking skills/experience and tthe culture of instant gratification. Even a 45 or 50 hour workweek leaves plenty of time to make a decent meal, especially nowadays when you can purchase such great produce practically anywhere.
posted by miss tea at 10:50 AM on December 14, 2006
Good point, doc. I often think if our cultural ideal (rather than norm) was a little curvier lots of people would never get on the yo-yo diet cycle that leads so many into obesity.
I'm going to have to argue with the "we work too much" thing, though. It's not too much work, it's a combination of lack of cooking skills/experience and tthe culture of instant gratification. Even a 45 or 50 hour workweek leaves plenty of time to make a decent meal, especially nowadays when you can purchase such great produce practically anywhere.
posted by miss tea at 10:50 AM on December 14, 2006
To follow Davar's point, it's not unique to the US, there was an article in the Guardian (UK) yesterday:
Stomach surgery and drugs for children to tackle obesity epidemic
"It follows a Department of Health report, published in August, that showed a third of all adults and a fifth of all children under 15 will be clinically obese by 2010. More than 12 million adults and a million children are expected to be obese - with several million more being overweight."
posted by Boobus Tuber at 10:58 AM on December 14, 2006
Stomach surgery and drugs for children to tackle obesity epidemic
"It follows a Department of Health report, published in August, that showed a third of all adults and a fifth of all children under 15 will be clinically obese by 2010. More than 12 million adults and a million children are expected to be obese - with several million more being overweight."
posted by Boobus Tuber at 10:58 AM on December 14, 2006
grouse says: That is total hogwash. Orally consumed bovine growth hormone does not affect humans.
Okay, you're doing a PhD in biology, but... I looked at your link and apart from the general assumption that the FDA is subservient to Monsanto, another problem I have is that it seems to be based on a 90-day rat study, and this seems to be a main conclusion as well:
FDA believes that the available data confirm that biologically significant amounts of rbGH are not absorbed in humans following the consumption of milk from cows treated with rbGH. Oral toxicity studies of longer duration are not necessary because rbGH at dietary levels found in the milk of rbGH-treated cows is not significantly biologically available.
That's not encouraging. I think I would have gotten zero on a lab report in high school had I made a conclusion like that. They "believe." Well, that's their job -- to approve chemicals for the market place, while covering their butts.
The Canadian report indicates that milk from rbGH-treated cows contains significantly elevated levels of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) in milk, and presents human health safety concerns. IGF-I is a protein normally found in all humans, and is not intrinsically harmful.
Right, well, a lot of "natural" things that aren't intrinsically harmful should not be ingested. I would think "insulin like growth factor" would be a good example of that. Guess that's why it's banned in Canada (as I understand, ready to be proven wrong yet again.)
Why are you so convinced by that report?
posted by Listener at 11:12 AM on December 14, 2006
Okay, you're doing a PhD in biology, but... I looked at your link and apart from the general assumption that the FDA is subservient to Monsanto, another problem I have is that it seems to be based on a 90-day rat study, and this seems to be a main conclusion as well:
FDA believes that the available data confirm that biologically significant amounts of rbGH are not absorbed in humans following the consumption of milk from cows treated with rbGH. Oral toxicity studies of longer duration are not necessary because rbGH at dietary levels found in the milk of rbGH-treated cows is not significantly biologically available.
That's not encouraging. I think I would have gotten zero on a lab report in high school had I made a conclusion like that. They "believe." Well, that's their job -- to approve chemicals for the market place, while covering their butts.
The Canadian report indicates that milk from rbGH-treated cows contains significantly elevated levels of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) in milk, and presents human health safety concerns. IGF-I is a protein normally found in all humans, and is not intrinsically harmful.
Right, well, a lot of "natural" things that aren't intrinsically harmful should not be ingested. I would think "insulin like growth factor" would be a good example of that. Guess that's why it's banned in Canada (as I understand, ready to be proven wrong yet again.)
Why are you so convinced by that report?
posted by Listener at 11:12 AM on December 14, 2006
Speaking more of the ills of soda: what happens if you drink a coke right now.
posted by frecklefaerie at 11:34 AM on December 14, 2006
posted by frecklefaerie at 11:34 AM on December 14, 2006
I agree that portion sizes could be a huge issue. I went to college in the U.S. and pretty soon I got used to bringing a doggy bag back home from a restaurant with plenty of food for another meal.
In Europe or South America where I've traveled extensively I've never had problems finishing my meals, but in the U.S. I soon realized that I would become fat if I did.
Just look at an appetizer at a restaurant chain like Chilli's, Friday's, etc. In most countries those appetizers would be more than enough for a full meal.
posted by einarorn at 11:34 AM on December 14, 2006
In Europe or South America where I've traveled extensively I've never had problems finishing my meals, but in the U.S. I soon realized that I would become fat if I did.
Just look at an appetizer at a restaurant chain like Chilli's, Friday's, etc. In most countries those appetizers would be more than enough for a full meal.
posted by einarorn at 11:34 AM on December 14, 2006
Don't forget breastfeeding rates as a factor. We in the US have some of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world. Besides being nutritionally superior to artificial feeding, breastfeeding may have an effect on metabolism and future eating patterns. There is a difference between nursing on demand when hungry and being fed a full bottle on a schedule. Also, nursing toddlers can't really walk around with their milk, while it is not uncommon to see babies and toddlers toting their own bottle or sippy cup everywhere they go. They even make things like this, which just makes it easier to overfeed a baby.
posted by Biblio at 11:54 AM on December 14, 2006
posted by Biblio at 11:54 AM on December 14, 2006
CMichaelCook writes "America is the most overworked industrialized nation in the world. On average, we work 350 hours longer per year than our counterparts in Western Europe. We take less vacation, too, while Europeans average 5-6 weeks annually. "
I'm not sure what you mean by "overworked", but, as stavros pointed out above, people work longer hours in Japan and Korea, both of which have much lower rates of obesity.
I've gotta put in another vote for portion size. We just eat more food here.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:56 AM on December 14, 2006
I'm not sure what you mean by "overworked", but, as stavros pointed out above, people work longer hours in Japan and Korea, both of which have much lower rates of obesity.
I've gotta put in another vote for portion size. We just eat more food here.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:56 AM on December 14, 2006
Listener: While I deny that rBGH has known health effects at all, that is not what this questions is about. The topic is about the reason Americans are fatter, and there is only evidence against rBGH being a cause of that. The report I linked says, "It is noted that there were no dose-related effects on body weight or organ weight found in either the 90-day oral exposure study or the pivotal 28-day oral exposure study in rats, demonstrating a lack of biological activity."
Guess that's why it's banned in Canada (as I understand, ready to be proven wrong yet again.)
The rBGH ban in Canada has either to do with animal safety or politics. Their panel on human safety found that:
It's not just that report—it's the totality of scientific research that concludes that bovine growth hormone doesn't cause the sort of human growth being talked about here. On the other side there are just wild claims and Tripod web pages.
posted by grouse at 12:03 PM on December 14, 2006
Guess that's why it's banned in Canada (as I understand, ready to be proven wrong yet again.)
The rBGH ban in Canada has either to do with animal safety or politics. Their panel on human safety found that:
In summary, with one exception, the panel finds no biologically plausible reason for concern about human safety if rbST were to be approved for sale in Canada. The only exception to this statement is the occurrence of an antibody reaction (possible hypersensitivity) in a subchronic (90-day) study of rbST oral toxicity in rats that resulted in one test animal developing an antibody response at low dose (0.1 mg/kg/day) after 14 weeks. In the opinion of the panel, this anomalous result deserves further study, including discussion between the manufacturer of Nutrilac and Health Canada scientists. The panel recommends, on the basis of present knowledge, that the study in question be repeated. [emphasis added]Why are you so convinced by that report?
It's not just that report—it's the totality of scientific research that concludes that bovine growth hormone doesn't cause the sort of human growth being talked about here. On the other side there are just wild claims and Tripod web pages.
posted by grouse at 12:03 PM on December 14, 2006
It's pretty freaking uncommon. I've lived here about 27 years and never seen it.
Ah, but according to your profile, you live in a city that's amenable to walking. And to expand upon myself, the regional variations across the US are probably more useful than comparisons with the rest of the world, because they're easier to measure and less reliant upon cross-cultural speculation.
Re: -harlequin-: the spotty provision of sidewalks is more insulting than their absence. Two feet of walking-space that switches to opposite sides of a four-lane road at each junction? It smacks of being laid begrudgingly to satisfy some ordinance. And I don't want to get all Four Yorkshiremen, but the school bus didn't pick me up a few yards from home: I had to walk to the bus stop. Or to school, if it the bus didn't show up.
posted by holgate at 12:04 PM on December 14, 2006
Ah, but according to your profile, you live in a city that's amenable to walking. And to expand upon myself, the regional variations across the US are probably more useful than comparisons with the rest of the world, because they're easier to measure and less reliant upon cross-cultural speculation.
Re: -harlequin-: the spotty provision of sidewalks is more insulting than their absence. Two feet of walking-space that switches to opposite sides of a four-lane road at each junction? It smacks of being laid begrudgingly to satisfy some ordinance. And I don't want to get all Four Yorkshiremen, but the school bus didn't pick me up a few yards from home: I had to walk to the bus stop. Or to school, if it the bus didn't show up.
posted by holgate at 12:04 PM on December 14, 2006
Yeah, just to join the chorus of people saying that the premise here is ridiculous, I just returned to the northeast from spending 4 months in northern Mexico, and there are a humongous number of fat people there. You know why? Because people eat large portions, often fatty foods and often with a lot of carbs, and don't exercise much. Which, my guess is, is the same reason why Americans get fat.
I know, shock.
posted by Subcommandante Cheese at 1:44 PM on December 14, 2006
I know, shock.
posted by Subcommandante Cheese at 1:44 PM on December 14, 2006
[HFCS] is now so cheap that it has all but replaced cane sugar as the sweetener of choice in processed foods
That also has to do with the US shoring up the prices of cane sugar. Were we to knock that off the cost of using real sugar would probably be more than cut in half.
posted by phearlez at 2:17 PM on December 14, 2006
That also has to do with the US shoring up the prices of cane sugar. Were we to knock that off the cost of using real sugar would probably be more than cut in half.
posted by phearlez at 2:17 PM on December 14, 2006
Grouse, I've spent more time in other cultures than most other people ever will. The last two years i spent living in Uganda and the 6 months i spent backpacking in europe aren't so shabby i think.
My categorical comments were just that, categorical. Everyone is different - there are both healthy and obese people here, and everywhere else. But the OP question started with a broad stroke ("Why are people in coutries other then the U.S. mostly skinny?") so i answered with a broad stroke. As did everyone else. But thanks for the insight!
posted by Kololo at 2:18 PM on December 14, 2006
My categorical comments were just that, categorical. Everyone is different - there are both healthy and obese people here, and everywhere else. But the OP question started with a broad stroke ("Why are people in coutries other then the U.S. mostly skinny?") so i answered with a broad stroke. As did everyone else. But thanks for the insight!
posted by Kololo at 2:18 PM on December 14, 2006
********Orally consumed bovine growth hormone does not affect humans********
So tell me where does it end up?
I want to know *****HOW IT DISAPPEARS*****
This is the same FDA that has approved the meat from CLONED animals...
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/healthmedical/a/safeclone.htm
BARF...
and GMOs galore.
Wanted to add this too..
1. Obesity is painful who would CHOOSE TO BE FAT if it was always a simple matter of "eating healthy"?
2. The cessation of exercise usually comes AFTER the FAT...ie you cant move and breathe worth a darn. Take it from someone who had a serious weight gain. I walked for miles for years for fun and recreation, I never wanted to give it up...
3. I had a smart farmer friend, who told me that the nutritional value in our food is diminishing...ie there is less vitamins and nutrients from depleted soils...I know for instance when I have eaten things from private organic gardens that the feeling of health from the food and its taste was FAR FAR SUPERIOR to the stuff in most grocery stores.
They have done studies of this, and I wish I could recall the title of the book, but I read this a few months at the library and even basic foods like Cauliflower have lost 40% of certain needed vitamins.
4. If our food is becoming nutritionally depleted wouldnt it take more calories to get the same amount of nutrition?
I still want to know where the growth hormone goes...my husband told me when he lived in Europe the meat was far smaller and so where animals....so they arent getting these growth hormones......
posted by Budge at 2:20 PM on December 14, 2006
So tell me where does it end up?
I want to know *****HOW IT DISAPPEARS*****
This is the same FDA that has approved the meat from CLONED animals...
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/healthmedical/a/safeclone.htm
BARF...
and GMOs galore.
Wanted to add this too..
1. Obesity is painful who would CHOOSE TO BE FAT if it was always a simple matter of "eating healthy"?
2. The cessation of exercise usually comes AFTER the FAT...ie you cant move and breathe worth a darn. Take it from someone who had a serious weight gain. I walked for miles for years for fun and recreation, I never wanted to give it up...
3. I had a smart farmer friend, who told me that the nutritional value in our food is diminishing...ie there is less vitamins and nutrients from depleted soils...I know for instance when I have eaten things from private organic gardens that the feeling of health from the food and its taste was FAR FAR SUPERIOR to the stuff in most grocery stores.
They have done studies of this, and I wish I could recall the title of the book, but I read this a few months at the library and even basic foods like Cauliflower have lost 40% of certain needed vitamins.
4. If our food is becoming nutritionally depleted wouldnt it take more calories to get the same amount of nutrition?
I still want to know where the growth hormone goes...my husband told me when he lived in Europe the meat was far smaller and so where animals....so they arent getting these growth hormones......
posted by Budge at 2:20 PM on December 14, 2006
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16440006
Very interesting..
It is known that bovine GH (bGH) transgenic mice have increased body mass, insulin resistance, and altered lipoprotein metabolism when fed a normal diet (ND)
Diabetes epidemic anyone?
*********
Bovine GH is outlawed in Europe...by the way...
interesting article I just found...
{sorry when I post links here using the link button, they arent showing up...so youll have to copy and paste}
http://www.citizensadvisory.org/news/Advisories/AmericansShouldBeMad.html
posted by Budge at 2:31 PM on December 14, 2006
Very interesting..
It is known that bovine GH (bGH) transgenic mice have increased body mass, insulin resistance, and altered lipoprotein metabolism when fed a normal diet (ND)
Diabetes epidemic anyone?
*********
Bovine GH is outlawed in Europe...by the way...
interesting article I just found...
{sorry when I post links here using the link button, they arent showing up...so youll have to copy and paste}
http://www.citizensadvisory.org/news/Advisories/AmericansShouldBeMad.html
posted by Budge at 2:31 PM on December 14, 2006
Budge writes "So tell me where does it end up?
"I want to know *****HOW IT DISAPPEARS*****"
It's a protein. It's degraded into constituent amino acids by acid hydrolysis in the stomach. The amino acids are then metabalized by well-known pathways. Protein drugs are notoriously difficult to administer, because they cannot be delivered orally; they are destroyed in the stomach. This is why insulin, for instance, must be injected.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:41 PM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
"I want to know *****HOW IT DISAPPEARS*****"
It's a protein. It's degraded into constituent amino acids by acid hydrolysis in the stomach. The amino acids are then metabalized by well-known pathways. Protein drugs are notoriously difficult to administer, because they cannot be delivered orally; they are destroyed in the stomach. This is why insulin, for instance, must be injected.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:41 PM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
Kololo wrote: I've spent more time in other cultures than most other people ever will.
Then you must have been pretty selective in the countries you visited if the U.S. is truly the only one where it's "okay to eat at any time of the day, in any circumstance." Just not true.
Budge: I want to know *****HOW IT DISAPPEARS*****
It doesn't disappear. You digest it like any other protein. Stomach acid and proteases break it down into smaller chains of the same 20 amino acids that make proteins from hemoglobin to collagen.
This is the same FDA that has approved the meat from CLONED animals[...] and GMOs galore.
And I suppose this is the same knee-jerk opposition from the Food Fear people again unsupported by evidence.
Obesity is painful who would CHOOSE TO BE FAT if it was always a simple matter of "eating healthy"?
Well I never said it was "simple" or easy, because I know it isn't for some people. But if you burn more energy than you take in, you will lose weight.
I know for instance when I have eaten things from private organic gardens that the feeling of health from the food and its taste was FAR FAR SUPERIOR to the stuff in most grocery stores.
Placebo effect. In blind taste tests there is no significant difference between organic and conventional food.
If our food is becoming nutritionally depleted wouldnt it take more calories to get the same amount of nutrition?
Our food is not becoming "nutritionally depleted." Some people are choosing to eat food that has fewer vitamins and minerals. This has nothing to do with organic food. If you eat potato chips made from conventional potatoes or 100% certified organic potatoes, they're still going to have the same number of empty calories per mass, and the same lack of vitamins and minerals.
my husband told me when he lived in Europe the meat was far smaller and so where animals....so they arent getting these growth hormones......
They are getting growth hormones—every cow has growth hormones that it generates naturally. This has been happening as long as there have been cows. But even before people started injecting cows with extra hormones, American cows would have been larger because they are fed more, in the form of corn supplementing their diet.
posted by grouse at 3:01 PM on December 14, 2006
Then you must have been pretty selective in the countries you visited if the U.S. is truly the only one where it's "okay to eat at any time of the day, in any circumstance." Just not true.
Budge: I want to know *****HOW IT DISAPPEARS*****
It doesn't disappear. You digest it like any other protein. Stomach acid and proteases break it down into smaller chains of the same 20 amino acids that make proteins from hemoglobin to collagen.
This is the same FDA that has approved the meat from CLONED animals[...] and GMOs galore.
And I suppose this is the same knee-jerk opposition from the Food Fear people again unsupported by evidence.
Obesity is painful who would CHOOSE TO BE FAT if it was always a simple matter of "eating healthy"?
Well I never said it was "simple" or easy, because I know it isn't for some people. But if you burn more energy than you take in, you will lose weight.
I know for instance when I have eaten things from private organic gardens that the feeling of health from the food and its taste was FAR FAR SUPERIOR to the stuff in most grocery stores.
Placebo effect. In blind taste tests there is no significant difference between organic and conventional food.
If our food is becoming nutritionally depleted wouldnt it take more calories to get the same amount of nutrition?
Our food is not becoming "nutritionally depleted." Some people are choosing to eat food that has fewer vitamins and minerals. This has nothing to do with organic food. If you eat potato chips made from conventional potatoes or 100% certified organic potatoes, they're still going to have the same number of empty calories per mass, and the same lack of vitamins and minerals.
my husband told me when he lived in Europe the meat was far smaller and so where animals....so they arent getting these growth hormones......
They are getting growth hormones—every cow has growth hormones that it generates naturally. This has been happening as long as there have been cows. But even before people started injecting cows with extra hormones, American cows would have been larger because they are fed more, in the form of corn supplementing their diet.
posted by grouse at 3:01 PM on December 14, 2006
Protein drugs are notoriously difficult to administer, because they cannot be delivered orally; they are destroyed in the stomach. This is why insulin, for instance, must be injected.
One should note that this is why rBST must be injected as well. I doubt it would work even on cows if they just fed it to them.
posted by grouse at 3:02 PM on December 14, 2006
One should note that this is why rBST must be injected as well. I doubt it would work even on cows if they just fed it to them.
posted by grouse at 3:02 PM on December 14, 2006
Grouse: I've never been anywhere else where people snack all day. Where people snack in meetings, or in class, and no one bats an eyelash. Where there is constant 'grazing' - just eating all day. Where its common to eat three times between lunch and dinner. Where potato chips and candy bars are common, day-to-day foods, rather than occasional 'treats'.
Where have you seen those things as commonplace, outside of america, and its cultural cousins, Canada, and perhaps, the Uk?
posted by Kololo at 3:27 PM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
Where have you seen those things as commonplace, outside of america, and its cultural cousins, Canada, and perhaps, the Uk?
posted by Kololo at 3:27 PM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
Kololo writes "We're the only culture that prioritizes life inside our isolated homes, rather than being involved in the community."
Nope. Japan does that too, and Japan is generally skinny.
posted by Bugbread at 3:32 PM on December 14, 2006
Nope. Japan does that too, and Japan is generally skinny.
posted by Bugbread at 3:32 PM on December 14, 2006
CMichaelCook writes "America is the most overworked industrialized nation in the world."
I can't accept that statement without evidence. Both Japan and Korea are industrialized nations that I suspect work more than America.
posted by Bugbread at 3:37 PM on December 14, 2006
I can't accept that statement without evidence. Both Japan and Korea are industrialized nations that I suspect work more than America.
posted by Bugbread at 3:37 PM on December 14, 2006
bugbread writes "Nope. Japan does that too, and Japan is generally skinny."
I've also noticed quite a "snack culture" in Japan, kind of like what Kololo describes above. Especially with the convenience stores everywhere, selling tasty snacks...
posted by mr_roboto at 3:39 PM on December 14, 2006
I've also noticed quite a "snack culture" in Japan, kind of like what Kololo describes above. Especially with the convenience stores everywhere, selling tasty snacks...
posted by mr_roboto at 3:39 PM on December 14, 2006
I've never been anywhere else where people snack all day.
Your limited experience doesn't provide a general rule.
Where have you seen those things as commonplace, outside of america, and its cultural cousins, Canada, and perhaps, the Uk?
No, the OP was talking about countries other than the U.S. Canada and the UK are not part of the U.S. If you want to treat them as a single unit then your claim no longer has any power to explain the differences in obesity levels between countries, which is what the question is about.
And besides those, I have personally witnessed the same behavior repeatedly in Germany. People eating all the time, in meetings and classes, unhealthy food available at all hours of the day and night, etc.
posted by grouse at 3:42 PM on December 14, 2006
Your limited experience doesn't provide a general rule.
Where have you seen those things as commonplace, outside of america, and its cultural cousins, Canada, and perhaps, the Uk?
No, the OP was talking about countries other than the U.S. Canada and the UK are not part of the U.S. If you want to treat them as a single unit then your claim no longer has any power to explain the differences in obesity levels between countries, which is what the question is about.
And besides those, I have personally witnessed the same behavior repeatedly in Germany. People eating all the time, in meetings and classes, unhealthy food available at all hours of the day and night, etc.
posted by grouse at 3:42 PM on December 14, 2006
Kololo writes "the OP question started with a broad stroke so i answered with a broad stroke."
That's fine, but the problem is when your broad strokes are wrong. Saying "Americans work a lot" is a broad stroke (some do, some don't), but probably accurate. Saying "America works the most" is a broad stroke which is incorrect. In the same way, "A lot of people speak Japanese in Guam" is a broad statement, but may be somewhat accurate. It's also a very different statement from "Guam has the most Japanese speakers of any country in the world".
posted by Bugbread at 4:03 PM on December 14, 2006
That's fine, but the problem is when your broad strokes are wrong. Saying "Americans work a lot" is a broad stroke (some do, some don't), but probably accurate. Saying "America works the most" is a broad stroke which is incorrect. In the same way, "A lot of people speak Japanese in Guam" is a broad statement, but may be somewhat accurate. It's also a very different statement from "Guam has the most Japanese speakers of any country in the world".
posted by Bugbread at 4:03 PM on December 14, 2006
grouse writes "No, the OP was talking about countries other than the U.S. Canada and the UK are not part of the U.S. If you want to treat them as a single unit then your claim no longer has any power to explain the differences in obesity levels between countries, which is what the question is about."
Perhaps what Kololo meant was "America is the only country where people snack all day (note: America is defined as "The United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, perhaps Germany, perhaps Japan, and any other countries where people snack all day)." In which case I totally agree. America is also the only country in the world where humans walk upright and use opposable thumbs (assuming that we define "America" as "any country with a population of 1 or more").
posted by Bugbread at 4:06 PM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
Perhaps what Kololo meant was "America is the only country where people snack all day (note: America is defined as "The United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, perhaps Germany, perhaps Japan, and any other countries where people snack all day)." In which case I totally agree. America is also the only country in the world where humans walk upright and use opposable thumbs (assuming that we define "America" as "any country with a population of 1 or more").
posted by Bugbread at 4:06 PM on December 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
I study these sorts of questions recreationally. Here's what I've seen repeated often - poverty in America causes people to make calorie choices. A candy bar or McDonalds meal has many times more calories than a bag of carrots or a fresh bell pepper. People who are spending their food money to simply get through the day are unable to sacrifice calories in favor of micronutrients. As such, we are a culture that is simultaneously obese and undernourished.
Some interesting reading:
Marion Nestle (no relation to the food company) Food Politics
Bill Robbins Diet for a New America
posted by bilabial at 6:14 PM on December 14, 2006
Some interesting reading:
Marion Nestle (no relation to the food company) Food Politics
Bill Robbins Diet for a New America
posted by bilabial at 6:14 PM on December 14, 2006
I've never been anywhere else where people snack all day. Where people snack in meetings, or in class, and no one bats an eyelash. Where there is constant 'grazing' - just eating all day.
I think it is safe to assume that you haven't been to western Europe then. I have been to the UK (oh, that's part of the US now?), Netherlands, France, Germany and Sweden and this constant snacking (that I do think plays a part in the obesity problem) is everywhere.
posted by davar at 12:50 AM on December 15, 2006
I think it is safe to assume that you haven't been to western Europe then. I have been to the UK (oh, that's part of the US now?), Netherlands, France, Germany and Sweden and this constant snacking (that I do think plays a part in the obesity problem) is everywhere.
posted by davar at 12:50 AM on December 15, 2006
I study these sorts of questions recreationally. Here's what I've seen repeated often - poverty in America causes people to make calorie choices. A candy bar or McDonalds meal has many times more calories than a bag of carrots or a fresh bell pepper. People who are spending their food money to simply get through the day are unable to sacrifice calories in favor of micronutrients.
I always find that a bit dishonest. When I was fat, I did not eat 1800 calories (that's two milkshakes) of mcDonalds and nothing else. I easily ate a whole bag of potato chips MORE than I was supposed to eat each day. That bag of chips costs about as much as a whole package of frozen kale, that would have provided me with vegetables for two days.
If you are fat, you eat more calories than you burn, so you should eat less. You do not have to eat carrots (for weight loss anyway), you should just eat LESS Mc Donalds. The benefit is that you'll save money, so you can splurge on a bell pepper every once in a while.
Mc Donalds is expensive. If you are poor, you should not complain that a fresh bell pepper is so expensive that you have to eat junk food, you should look at what healthy options you do have. You could make a big pot of lentil soup with frozen greens, for example. That costs much less than Mc Donalds, is much more nutritious and lasts you a whole week. Other cheaper and more nutritious options include beans and rice or pasta. Those dishes do not take much time to prepare (about as much as it takes time to go to the fast food restaurant) and you can prepare them in advance and refrigerate or freeze them.
It is much more an education issue than a money issue. When I was fat, I had NO IDEA how bad Mc Donalds actually was. I really thought that french fries were just potatoes with oil, right. Well, that's not that bad, I thought. I thought a milkshake was just milk with a flavour and I thought that that was somewhat healthy. I would bet that most regular mc Donalds goers think the same.
posted by davar at 1:27 AM on December 15, 2006
I always find that a bit dishonest. When I was fat, I did not eat 1800 calories (that's two milkshakes) of mcDonalds and nothing else. I easily ate a whole bag of potato chips MORE than I was supposed to eat each day. That bag of chips costs about as much as a whole package of frozen kale, that would have provided me with vegetables for two days.
If you are fat, you eat more calories than you burn, so you should eat less. You do not have to eat carrots (for weight loss anyway), you should just eat LESS Mc Donalds. The benefit is that you'll save money, so you can splurge on a bell pepper every once in a while.
Mc Donalds is expensive. If you are poor, you should not complain that a fresh bell pepper is so expensive that you have to eat junk food, you should look at what healthy options you do have. You could make a big pot of lentil soup with frozen greens, for example. That costs much less than Mc Donalds, is much more nutritious and lasts you a whole week. Other cheaper and more nutritious options include beans and rice or pasta. Those dishes do not take much time to prepare (about as much as it takes time to go to the fast food restaurant) and you can prepare them in advance and refrigerate or freeze them.
It is much more an education issue than a money issue. When I was fat, I had NO IDEA how bad Mc Donalds actually was. I really thought that french fries were just potatoes with oil, right. Well, that's not that bad, I thought. I thought a milkshake was just milk with a flavour and I thought that that was somewhat healthy. I would bet that most regular mc Donalds goers think the same.
posted by davar at 1:27 AM on December 15, 2006
I did not eat 1800 calories (that's two milkshakes)
I thought this was interesting and discovered that a single super-size milkshake has 1110
Calories. That's about as much as two Big Macs. Jesus.
posted by grouse at 4:05 AM on December 15, 2006
I thought this was interesting and discovered that a single super-size milkshake has 1110
Calories. That's about as much as two Big Macs. Jesus.
posted by grouse at 4:05 AM on December 15, 2006
grouse:
While I deny that rBGH has known health effects at all
I wonder how hard they looked for them. Absence of something could as well be because it wasn't found. Nonexistence is unprovable. (I know you know this, but it's just your statement looks a little weak, because of that.)
But anyway, thanks very much for clarification. I guess we ban it because of the effect on cows and the subsequent effects of mastitis and infection on the milk, the difficulty of managing mastitis, which is best simply avoided.
posted by Listener at 3:35 PM on December 15, 2006
While I deny that rBGH has known health effects at all
I wonder how hard they looked for them. Absence of something could as well be because it wasn't found. Nonexistence is unprovable. (I know you know this, but it's just your statement looks a little weak, because of that.)
But anyway, thanks very much for clarification. I guess we ban it because of the effect on cows and the subsequent effects of mastitis and infection on the milk, the difficulty of managing mastitis, which is best simply avoided.
posted by Listener at 3:35 PM on December 15, 2006
It is much more an education issue than a money issue.
Education plus access to ingredients and equipment and cooking facilities... and time. One of Barbara Ehrenreich's points in Nickel and Dimed was that many of her co-workers, lacking the money to put down a deposit, lived out of motels. Their jobs were too physically demanding to lead to weight gain, but those people were certainly malnourished.
On 'snack culture': a snack-sized bag of crisps in the UK is 25g, approx. 1oz. The most common size in the US is five times as big.
posted by holgate at 6:52 AM on December 16, 2006
Education plus access to ingredients and equipment and cooking facilities... and time. One of Barbara Ehrenreich's points in Nickel and Dimed was that many of her co-workers, lacking the money to put down a deposit, lived out of motels. Their jobs were too physically demanding to lead to weight gain, but those people were certainly malnourished.
On 'snack culture': a snack-sized bag of crisps in the UK is 25g, approx. 1oz. The most common size in the US is five times as big.
posted by holgate at 6:52 AM on December 16, 2006
Nonexistence is unprovable.
Let me not muddy the waters too much by discussing what is "provable" in science, but I would agree that it is much easier to verify that something causes harmful or beneficial effects, than to verify that it causes no effect.
Some testing has been done, and that testing shows no detectable effect so far. Certainly there are people who say that more testing must be done. But how much more? Can you identify the point at which you would agree that rBST is probably not a risk? I am fairly certain that there are people (not you) who would never agree to this no matter how much research is done. Nothing is to be gained by catering to their dilatory demands for more testing, because the additional testing will never persuade them.
On the other hand, there are foods and food preparation methods which are not banned which carry known health risks. For example, mushrooms and baked goods contain known carcinogens. Yet you don't see the same people demanding laws prohibiting baking. Whatever their own reasons for this, they can't argue that baking has been tested enough while rBST has not. The desire to ban rBST does not come from a rational decision that it is too risky, but from a fear of things that are not "natural."
And then people take "dietary supplements" which are totally untested and unregulated. Boggles the mind.
posted by grouse at 6:45 PM on December 16, 2006
Let me not muddy the waters too much by discussing what is "provable" in science, but I would agree that it is much easier to verify that something causes harmful or beneficial effects, than to verify that it causes no effect.
Some testing has been done, and that testing shows no detectable effect so far. Certainly there are people who say that more testing must be done. But how much more? Can you identify the point at which you would agree that rBST is probably not a risk? I am fairly certain that there are people (not you) who would never agree to this no matter how much research is done. Nothing is to be gained by catering to their dilatory demands for more testing, because the additional testing will never persuade them.
On the other hand, there are foods and food preparation methods which are not banned which carry known health risks. For example, mushrooms and baked goods contain known carcinogens. Yet you don't see the same people demanding laws prohibiting baking. Whatever their own reasons for this, they can't argue that baking has been tested enough while rBST has not. The desire to ban rBST does not come from a rational decision that it is too risky, but from a fear of things that are not "natural."
And then people take "dietary supplements" which are totally untested and unregulated. Boggles the mind.
posted by grouse at 6:45 PM on December 16, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:27 PM on December 13, 2006