Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Saving For a Space Ship

Us Obesity Epidemic Worsened 40% Of Women 35 % Of Men17% Of Kids/ Teens

Recommended Posts

US obesity epidemic worsened - 40% of women, 35 % of men &17 % of children & teens, studies released Tuesday found.

http://vietnamnews.vn/miscellany/297890/us-obesity-epidemic-grows-in-all-ages.html

studies released Tuesday found.

Efforts to encourage Americans to lose weight have achieved precious little, the research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.

Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, one study examined data for 2,638 adult men and 2,817 women with average ages of 47 and 48, respectively.

Another study looked at 40,780 children and teens aged two to 17.

Overall, 38 per cent of adults and 17 per cent of teens in the United States are obese.

Obesity has been linked to cardiovascular problems, diabetes and some kinds of cancer. It was defined as having a BMI (body mass index) of 30 or more for adults.

Another third of Americans are considered overweight, with a BMI of 25-29.

The research also indicated that in 2013-2014, more than five percent of men and almost 10 per cent of women were morbidly obese, with a BMI over 40.

Morbid obesity affected 5.8 per cent of children.

The research also found that although obesity decreased among children aged two to five over the past 25 years, it surged among teens.

Men who smoked tended to be thinner, the study found. But there was no apparent link between smoking and weight for women.

In general, three decades of fighting obesity in the United States have not been successful, the authors wrote.

"Perhaps it is time for an entirely different approach," they wrote, "one that emphasizes collaboration with the food and restaurant industries that are in part responsible for putting food on dinner tables."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only Government's issued Citizens with free calorie counting app's......................

It really is as simple as Calorie's in V Calorie's out.

(See <10%fat thread)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US food is laced with sugars. Hard to cut it out and we are genetically predisposed to seek out food high in calories. Im more surprised these figures arent higher.

Plus any fat control injection is going to sell very well in the US. Big money involved all round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only Government's issued Citizens with free calorie counting app's......................

It really is as simple as Calorie's in V Calorie's out.

(See <10%fat thread)

I've lost over a stone since I first read that thread. Maybe the US government could print it out and post it to all their citizens :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the studies I've read the majority of people aren't eating any more than people did fifty years ago.

It's that most people no longer have manual jobs, regularly walk into town, or have active hobbies.

In a way that's reassuring as it's not that people have got greedier or even lazier; it's a product of national lifestyle changes.

The greatest single impact would be if cars & fuel became so expensive that few could afford them and then people would be walking daily and obesity rates would drop massively. I can't however see any government viewing that as a vote winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The greatest single impact would be if cars & fuel became so expensive that few could afford them and then people would be walking daily and obesity rates would drop massively. I can't however see any government viewing that as a vote winner.

Alternatively build some decent segregated cycle infrastructure that would allow people to safely undertake journeys of a couple of miles by bicycle as part of their daily routine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal responsibility.......there is big money to be made from food, even more for cheap addictive unhealthy processed food......just look at the ads, you do not see advertisements selling green veg, fresh local fruit, milk and eggs, fresh fish.....why is that then?...it is not in big business interests to sell healthy basic foods, they push sweet, salty and fatty stuff they make, and you buy to eat without thinking about what you are eating....they are selling taste, convenience, low cost and time saving....the offset is health and fatness.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatively build some decent segregated cycle infrastructure that would allow people to safely undertake journeys of a couple of miles by bicycle as part of their daily routine.

Totally agree. Unfortunately, to live a life where people can walk to work, school, amenities is only available to the few because of (mainly) house prices.

People feel they have to live far away, and waste so much time in a car, on a bus and just accept it.

One of the things that does annoy me is when you drive on any major UK motorway; sooner or later you'll see a new (or newish) housing estate, built right next to the motorway (although surrounded by fields in many cases) with no transport (beyond the road) or facilities that people move to just to get a house with a (small garden). Is very sad. To NOT become overweight in that scenario would be the challenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....anyone from anywhere can exercise given the time......run round the block, down the road, round the park...or skip and jump up and down on the spot.....go dancing. ;)

Edit to say it is a vicious circle if you become too fat to exercise....so cutting down on intake has to be the priority then exercise as long as still relatively fit becomes easier and works more effectively.....like all things you get out of it what you invest into it.....nothing good is easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's worth highlighting is that this is 40%/35% who are obese, an additional third are overweight.

So basically the majority of America is fat.

Healthy eating is not difficult or complex, and the science is pretty definite, but there's money to be made from selling people junk food, then selling them information about junk diets/supplements/exercise plans that will do little to fix the fact that they're eating poison, and then eventually selling them medications to treat the illnesses that have been caused by the food that they eat. We are, above everything else, consumers. Our health is irrelevant.

And now we have fat acceptance movements, which will only add to the problem. A fat acceptance movement is no healthier than an anorexia acceptance movement. Both people are making themselves ill and should change their diet.

Sure, exercise (or lack of it) plays a part; but this is fundamentally about the food that people eat. In every other species on earth, there is a satiety mechanism that seems to work fairly well - if humans were eating what nature intended us to eat, ours would work too.

But this is not going to get better; the food companies are funding most of the nutritional science these days so you'll hear all sorts of information coming out from bad science put out by those with vested interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree. Unfortunately, to live a life where people can walk to work, school, amenities is only available to the few because of (mainly) house prices.

People feel they have to live far away, and waste so much time in a car, on a bus and just accept it.

One of the things that does annoy me is when you drive on any major UK motorway; sooner or later you'll see a new (or newish) housing estate, built right next to the motorway (although surrounded by fields in many cases) with no transport (beyond the road) or facilities that people move to just to get a house with a (small garden). Is very sad. To NOT become overweight in that scenario would be the challenge

It's going the American way. Outside of town centres in the US there are no pavements as people are not expected to walk. If you do you'll get loads of dogs that are kept in the front garden barking at you as it's so unusual. Even they're suspicious of somebody walking past their house.

If you want to walk you drive to a park and walk or drive to the town centre; you can't just go out of your front door for a walk so you do it much less.

Food from supermarkets in the US is extremely expensive because of the lack of competition; fresh food even more so. However eating fast food or buffets is very cheap. So they do that.

Of course people can become really disciplined and do daily exercise and pay extra for fresh food but it is much harder to do so now than it was fifty years ago. So the average level of obesity keeps going up and any number of government health messages will have zero impact when the environment in which you live and work has changed so much.

Fix the environment (cycle paths for one as noted above) and stop nagging people for their natural reaction to their changed circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditching the car is the way to go. You can do it today. You don't have to wait for permission from the government, or infrastructure. Just do it.

wrt development locations, the worst offender for inaccessiblity are the almost ubiquitously out-of-town office parks and employment centres. It's an example of the employer outsourcing cost to the employees (or customers). Cheap land - so the company can declare a saving. But the employees need to stump up £20k to buy a car + running costs.

I find you can still ride or walk there - but you need to explore a bit. It's not made easy as it is for car drones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are going to be a lot of unmarried/lonely women around. Most men will completely ignore the fat/obese.

Surely that works both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditching the car is the way to go. You can do it today. You don't have to wait for permission from the government, or infrastructure. Just do it.

Yes you can.

But people fifty years ago were not walking (to work or to the bus stop) because they preferred it to driving; I wasn't walking to school from choice (which wasn't fifty years ago befre anybody starts). Getting rained on, getting cold and wet. If they had affordable cars as today they would have been driving them. It is convenient, pleasant, and warm.

Most people do not decide to make thier lives harder. I mean I coudl get more vitamin D if I took my roof off but there are several downsides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely that works both ways.

More vice versa IME. Skinny men hook up with fat women but skinny women rarely hook up with fat men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree the ongoing 'acceptance' of people being fat is quite disgraceful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you can.

But people fifty years ago were not walking (to work or to the bus stop) because they preferred it to driving; I wasn't walking to school from choice (which wasn't fifty years ago befre anybody starts). Getting rained on, getting cold and wet. If they had affordable cars as today they would have been driving them. It is convenient, pleasant, and warm.

Most people do not decide to make thier lives harder. I mean I coudl get more vitamin D if I took my roof off but there are several downsides.

I think people living within walking distance [realistically] of their workplace is the key here. A lot of people would quite like to walk but live 20 miles away.

Of course its also possible to walk/bike or whatever - but its not quite the same as just walking.

How many today live within 20 mins walk of their work ? And 50 years ago what were the numbers ?

I imagine the difference is massive.

10% to 90% maybe ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree the ongoing 'acceptance' of people being fat is quite disgraceful.

Well fatness is a disability (minor or major dependent upon your level of obesity) that no sensible person would choose to have.

If you offered any fat person the option to be thin tomorrow then they would take it.

Ignoring the shouty Youtubers like Trigglypuff I think the thrust behind fat acceptance is don't bully the fat kids (as happened when I was at school, partly because there were so few of them) or people which is fair enough.

There are two enormous people where I work, and there was one at my last company. Their weight has disbaled them. One cannot use stairs or walk more than a hundred yards or so; they won't live long. It is a tragedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people living within walking distance [realistically] of their workplace is the key here. A lot of people would quite like to walk but live 20 miles away.

Of course its also possible to walk/bike or whatever - but its not quite the same as just walking.

How many today live within 20 mins walk of their work ? And 50 years ago what were the numbers ?

I imagine the difference is massive.

10% to 90% maybe ?

Yep, exactly.

Fifty years ago (arbitrary number but it works) I would be living where I am but have a job in town, probably in a bank, insurance brokers, or accountancy firm. All of which had a professional workforce in every small town because of the absence of central processing centres.

I would have walked to work, maybe home to lunch (a near neighbour did this until he retired twenty years ago), and walked home in the evening. Hours tended to be fixed at 9-5 so I'd have been home at half five, eatne and then gone out again to the many range of free or very cheap social activities available.

Pretty much anybody living this then entirely usual lifestyle would have been fit; you woudl have had to be a seriosu over-eater to put on weight That's why the photographs show fit people; it was the norm but the world has changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you can.

But people fifty years ago were not walking (to work or to the bus stop) because they preferred it to driving; I wasn't walking to school from choice (which wasn't fifty years ago befre anybody starts). Getting rained on, getting cold and wet. If they had affordable cars as today they would have been driving them. It is convenient, pleasant, and warm.

Most people do not decide to make thier lives harder. I mean I coudl get more vitamin D if I took my roof off but there are several downsides.

You're quite correct. People will choose the easy option of most comfort. Reducing the work/home distances doesn't seem to change that - look at the transport stats for modal choice of 1 mile journeys where the car still rules. There's no hope for the average commute distance which is something like an easily cyclable 7 or 8 miles.

And if people don't choose the option of cycling/walking now, then they aren't going to vote for policies and infrastructure that limit their use of the easy option. So I'm not waiting for government to create cycling nirvana. I just ride my bike. Sure, the world could be nicer - but I've structured my life and location to avoid car dependency and I can get anywhere and everywhere.

It's sad to ride past queues of people in their boxes - fattened and made poorer by their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're quite correct. People will choose the easy option of most comfort. Reducing the work/home distances doesn't seem to change that - look at the transport stats for modal choice of 1 mile journeys where the car still rules. There's no hope for the average commute distance which is something like an easily cyclable 7 or 8 miles.

And if people don't choose the option of cycling/walking now, then they aren't going to vote for policies and infrastructure that limit their use of the easy option. So I'm not waiting for government to create cycling nirvana. I just ride my bike. Sure, the world could be nicer - but I've structured my life and location to avoid car dependency and I can get anywhere and everywhere.

It's sad to ride past queues of people in their boxes - fattened and made poorer by their choice.

You don't work though! (lucky man) If I didn't then my bike would be my main choice with the car used once a week for food shopping and to keep it all working.

The interesting one is Porca Misera who from what he is said has always cycled including distances that would have any other person, however keen a cyclist, picking up their car keys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's sad to ride past queues of people in their boxes - fattened and made poorer by their choice.

I don't think it is sad......I like my box but try to avoid jams, I understand not everyone can......that doesn't mean I will not walk, if less than a couple of miles will always walk, often further.....prefer walking than biking, simply because I feel miles safer. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just the journey to work either. The car (and now the internet) have allowed a lot of services to pack up and leave, so not having a car is for most people much less practical than it was 50 years ago. Don't expect that to do anything than increase, that's all the (utterly pointless) demand for ever faster travel does, although we're talking out of range of walking or cycling anyway.

A classic case of immediate short-term appeal making life worse in the long run by being unable to strike a good balance.

Still, can't see myself cycling to work even if the traffic wasn't so horrible. I get the train in every now and then (usually if I've been in the pub the previous night) which probably involves four or five miles of walking in the day, 20 minutes walk from home to the station and 30 minutes at the work end. Doesn't happen that often though, and I'll certainly stick to the car in bad weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   82 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.