Obesity: Why are we getting fat? :epizza:

[Racoon]

My Solution: The Walking Desk

 

I bought a used treadmill off of Craigslist, custom built a desk that would be at the perfect height to use while walking on the treadmill, and now have turned normally sedentary work, surfing the web, and playing computer games into physically active activities.

 

Inspired by this article at Men's Health

Diet Strategies: Increase Metabolism - Men's Health

 

If you like the idea, curious about the actual use, or want to build your own and need some pointers don't hesitate to ask. :shrug:

 

 

Theres a guy at the Gym who hooked up a Treadmill to the TV. When his wife wants to watch TV, she has to move the treadmill.

an Hour or two of Soaps on a treadmill is a whole lot different than 2 hours on the couch.

 

:confused:

 

Great call Nitack!

This conversion can be done by the scientific minds here rather easily in terms of engineering.

 

A little harder to Walk and Type on the computer than it is to simply watch TV; a treadmill to a TV is easier to hook up.

 

The solution is easy.

Watch TV, but you have to Treadmill the electricity! (or Bike it)

[modest]

The solution is easy.

Watch TV, but you have to Treadmill the electricity! (or Bike it)

 

That's a good idea. Quickly looking up some figures, it looks like people can on-average produce 125-200 watts pedaling (the second source below has 150 W for 30 minutes). A small television is right around 150 W (plasmas are usually a bit higher).

 

So, it really would be a challenge to watch a half-hour show making it an incentive to push oneself. I'm surprised I haven't seen an infomercial for one of these :confused:

 

Human Power Generator.The Pedal-A-Watt Stationary Bicycle Generator.

David Butcher: Pedal Powered Generator - DIY Plans

 

~modest

[cooloola]

There is a link between poverty and lack of education and geographic location. Whilst it seems simple to many of us that increased calorie intake = weight gain/obesity many don't have available to them a varied diet eg: indigenous australians who live in the outback where fruit and veges sell at exhorbitant prices if they are available. Processed foods high in sugar and salt is often all that is available to this population.

Sure for most its all about discipline but for others this is a complex social problem deserving diverse solutions.

[pamela]

The local boys and girls club in my area have two exercise bikes that are hooked up to playstation 2 consoles. These kids are so preoccupied with the game, that they are not paying attention to their continual pedaling. After about 20 minutes, they take a break, rub their legs, and get in line for their next turn.

These bikes are more of an industrial model, but there are a few on the market for the home

[Nitack]

I have given this a lot of thought over the last evening and must say I am disappointed in the hypo community and disheartened at the implications of what was posted here yesterday.

 

I get the feeling that there are some that are not satisfied with the answer we know to be true and are grasping for a different answer. Say that Calories in vs. Calories out is "oversimplified" if you want, but I think too many people are trying to complicate the issue because they don't like the implications of what we know to be true. If Calories in vs. Calories out is true, and the solution is "eat less, move more" then the responsibility falls to the individual to fix their situation, and people can not blame some condition or gene for their lot in life.

 

I put forward the notion of a walking desk as a part of the solution, and it was dismissed with the statement

I think that is an entirely silly suggestion and not really all that helpful. Aside from the astounding cost and immense waste (as most overweight people would likely not accept forced exercise as a solution)

Offering individuals who normally would be sedentary 8 hours a day a way to be more active is not silly at all. At least you offer them the opportunity. In addition, if you are not going to coerce the overweight population to actually work hard to lose their weight, then how do you propose to do it? Will you restrict their food? Not likely. These people already have a solution, diet and exercise, but are not using it. And to say they need to be educated more is the real silly answer. You could stop any obese person on the street and I GUARANTEE you that they could tell you exactly what is needed in a healthy diet and the importance of exercise. People are bombarded with this information.

 

So what I read from that statement is that the only solution that some here find realistic is a salutation that does not require control of diet or exercise. So we are talking about a pill, gene therapy, or other kind of quick fix. This I find to be a sad notion. We are saying that the population in general needs to be chemically or genetically altered because they are defective as they are now.

 

Speaking of complex sociological factors and then being dismissive of a very real way to address at least one of the "complex sociological factors" I find to be very shortsighted. After all, complex sociological change requires many small changes as a part of the larger change. Like making sedentary activities more active.

 

Diet and exercise is the obvious solution to the Calories in vs. Calories out problem. If you dismiss the formula as oversimplified then you dismiss the solution as well. Diet and exercise can't change your genetics, it can't cause an under active thyroid to function normally. It can only change how many Calories go in and how many Calories you use (go out).

 

I hope that those who were so dismissive of me yesterday can please tell me what they would consider a real solution? Hard work, despite how much evidence we have that it actually works for practically everyone, has been called unrealistic and a simplistic answer. You can't force people to diet and exercise, so is the only answer considered to be realistic in this thread one that involves an easier way out?

 

I agree, that there are factors that can change how your body handles energy and that will affect weight, but I out of hand dismiss the idea that it can't be fixed through hard work in the form of diet and activity if you understand those complex factors. There is a simple answer and solution when you understand the complex contributing factors.

 

Obesity is an individual problem that we are seeing on an epidemic scale. In my opinion, each of those individuals needs to make individual changes to fix that problem. There will never be a macro solution that still preserves personal freedoms and the ability of individuals to run their own lives. Every pill will have a drawback and side effect. Every gene you find that relates to obesity and you fix can not compensate for the individual behaviors that actually cause the weight gain.

 

Perhaps it is just in the nature of science geeks to want a scientific solution...

[Nitack]

Theres a guy at the Gym who hooked up a Treadmill to the TV. When his wife wants to watch TV, she has to move the treadmill.

an Hour or two of Soaps on a treadmill is a whole lot different than 2 hours on the couch.

 

:shrug:

 

Great call Nitack!

This conversion can be done by the scientific minds here rather easily in terms of engineering.

 

A little harder to Walk and Type on the computer than it is to simply watch TV; a treadmill to a TV is easier to hook up.

 

The solution is easy.

Watch TV, but you have to Treadmill the electricity! (or Bike it)

 

You know what, I actually found it no harder to walk and type. I have spend hours and hours (a lot playing computer games) walking along and completely forgot I was moving.

 

There is a reason why my solution is working for me, because I took the option to be more active away from myself. I use a desktop computer, and will not move the thing every time I want to use the computer but don't want to exercise. People are not sedentary because they don't have the option to exercise, we all have feet and plenty of space around us to walk. People are sedentary because it is in our nature to conserve energy. Japanese exercise programs work because the option is taken away from people by use of social and societal pressures. Those same factors don't exist here and never will.

 

Guess what, I see nothing wrong with an employer, who foots the bill for a lot of your medical care, to require you to walk while working for two hours a day. They have a financial stake in your health and as long as the practice is uniformly applied it is completely fair. You don't like that workplace policy, then leave. It is no different than a dress code in my mind.

[pamela]

As a reminder, the topic if this thread is "why", the reasoning behind why obesity has grown to epidemic proportions.

We all understand, eat less, exercise more; that is not the issue here.

The problem occurs when you treat this as if it was such an easy simple thing to do. For many people, this simplicity is all that is needed, but for others with complications as previously mentioned in this thread, it is infact, not so simple.

Your treadmill desk is a good idea for reading while walking, could'nt imagine typing and walking though, must be tricky;)

While I am not obese, I do understand how difficult it can be to lose weight.With the inevitable 10 pounds that always manages to find me, when the cold weather comes in, I have to work hard to remove it by Spring. Drinking plenty of water, avoiding bread( bread is evil:evil:), and pushing myself beyond normal physical activity, does the trick. I feel better and have much more energy to accomplish more and subsequently burn more calories.

My biggest concern at this point, are the children. Obesity is starting at a very younge age now and setting the course for an overweight life. The health problems associated with this are horrific. I think it imperative that parents, follow the guidelines of a low fat diet starting at age 2. On well check visits to the pediatrician's office, parents are urged to do this. I have to wonder how much of this advice is followed. It is the parent's responsibility to provide healthy food, and may require thought, as Gerber is no longer handling that. We should want the best for our children, not what is the fastest or cheapest way to go in our busy lifestyles.

[Nitack]

I could not have said it better myself. It is so pertinent to the point I try to make here.

 

YouTube - Bill Maher - Anti-Pharma Rant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHXXTCc-IVg

 

And started a new thread to discuss this too

[Nitack]

My biggest concern at this point, are the children. Obesity is starting at a very younge age now and setting the course for an overweight life. The health problems associated with this are horrific. I think it imperative that parents, follow the guidelines of a low fat diet starting at age 2. On well check visits to the pediatrician's office, parents are urged to do this. I have to wonder how much of this advice is followed. It is the parent's responsibility to provide healthy food, and may require thought, as Gerber is no longer handling that. We should want the best for our children, not what is the fastest or cheapest way to go in our busy lifestyles.

 

I see your point, and can honestly say as some one who was a very fat child, I needed to get my *** kicked out of the house every afternoon to play instead of watching TV and playing video games.

 

I have a bodybugg. For those of you that don't know what it is, http://www.bodybugg.com, it is a measurement tool that is supposed to measure your caloric burn with up to 92% accuracy or higher. I have conducted plenty of tests with it. The difference between how many calories I burn just working around the house (comparable to play for a child) and what I burn sitting at a computer or watching TV is astounding. We're talking three times as many calories consumed when doing something even moderately active like just building my desk (using it is even more active).

 

Kick your kid out of the house. Don't let him watch TV except select shows. Make him spend his afternoons in the backyard or at the local playground (maybe a bit old for this at 12, but there are basketball courts).

[pamela]

yeah, when I was growing up, afterschool you got a piece of fruit, glass of water and don't show your face in this house until dinner;)

Big difference today, I am afraid. I have my son in an afterschool program as mentioned earlier in this thread. Not only does he enjoy the ps2 bike, they also have indoor basketball and baseball outside, weather permitting. From what I have seen, at least 1/2 of the kids there, have a weight problem. This program works very hard to ensure that they are getting plenty of exercise. They have regular exercise classes and programs designed to teach the kids proper health and eating habits. I find more is being done here for promoting healthy habits, than in the school system.

[Kayra]

Nitack: I can see from this response that your suggestion was not a joke, but a serious proposal.

 

Calling the concept silly was perhaps being dismissive of it, but giving serious consideration to an idea like forced exercise using equipment paid for by employers did not even occur to me. The entire notion is so fraught with issues (many unconstitutional) that it should be taken to another thread just to discuss them.

 

I had thought that the hypo community was making progress in making it clear to you that your notion of the issue being simply one of doing a caloric count was vastly oversimplifying a very complex issue. Sadly I was mistaken.

 

It does not address the fundamental question of why some countries are getting fat and others are not. You have presented no evidence or support your view, only repeatedly stating it as a fact and assuming we are all so thick for not understanding.

 

You continue to propose solutions to a problem that most here believe has not been properly identified. Indeed, that is the very focus of this thread.

 

We all "get it" that you believe the only thing that is necessary is for all these lazy people with no self control have to do is get off their *** and take control of their diet. You have made that abundantly clear. Most here have made it abundantly clear that they do not believe that to be a valid course of action.

 

Your understanding that this is a global issue for all first world countries is incorrect. While many are affected, some countries (like the US, Mexico, and GB) are drastically ahead of the curve, and the focus of this thread was to determine why.

 

Your proposal addresses the symptom, not the cause.. This is like a doctor proscribing blood clotting agent for a persistent bleeder without understanding the root cause.

 

What is the cause?

 

Since this is not a ubiquitous problem for all first world countries, my original suggestion that you discarded out of hand because it did not fit your view of the issue might be a starting point. At least a starting point for discussion of how to determine the source of the problem.

 

It may very well turn out that the source of the problem is purely cultural, and can be resolved with a programmed change of that culture. Or it may turn out that some chemical, hormone, or process involved in the food chain is at fault. How can we know until we search for the cause.

 

While it may be difficult to understand, we science geeks on this board do like to follow some semblance of the scientific process.

[Kayra]

Oops.

I meant to point to this comment, not my other post.

 

Personally I think we have a wonderful tool to help us in identifying the source of the problem. We have to look in depth at the differences in societies becoming obese to ones that are not. Look for commonalities in those that are, and use ones that are not to eliminate commonalities (such as diet or social aspects) from the areas to be investigated.

[Nitack]

Nitack: I can see from this response that your suggestion was not a joke, but a serious proposal.

 

Calling the concept silly was perhaps being dismissive of it, but giving serious consideration to an idea like forced exercise using equipment paid for by employers did not even occur to me. The entire notion is so fraught with issues (many unconstitutional) that it should be taken to another thread just to discuss them.

 

On this I can actually speak as a relative expert. There is nothing unconstitutional for an employer to require their employees to work in a standing position or a more active posture (walking). This could possibly fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is not part of the Constitution, but even that would only go so far, as they could still require the individual to have their doctor dictate what limits their disability places on them and still require a more active work environment that conforms to their individual limitations.

 

Is it ethically wrong, I don't believe so. Employment is at will, if you don't like the work environment no one is forcing you to be there. Additionally, every study we have shows that healthier employees are more productive and use less sick time. The initial investment by the employer would pay exponential dividends.

 

I had thought that the hypo community was making progress in making it clear to you that your notion of the issue being simply one of doing a caloric count was vastly oversimplifying a very complex issue. Sadly I was mistaken.

 

I'm glad that the Hypo community (all three yesterday) set me straight :). Maybe this is beyond the realm of possibility, but maybe, just maybe, the angle of my view is a little closer to the truth.

 

Additionally, you REPEATEDLY misstate my position. I have repeatedly acknowledged that this is a complex issue, but that at some layers it is quite simple.

 

It does not address the fundamental question of why some countries are getting fat and others are not. You have presented no evidence or support your view, only repeatedly stating it as a fact and assuming we are all so thick for not understanding.

 

Are only some countries getting fat? According to this report, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_894_(part1).pdf, It is actually happening world wide, in all countries, including your beloved Canada that you seem to think is immune.

 

You continue to propose solutions to a problem that most here believe has not been properly identified. Indeed, that is the very focus of this thread.

 

Now you are confusing me, because earlier you said that the focus was to identify the reason why AND possible solutions. If you are of the mindset (as I am) that the reason why has already been identified, then it is time for the identification of solutions. Your argument reads "I don't agree with what you have identified as a cause". I can accept that, and I can accept that there is never a cause to stop investigating the cause to see what else can be learned. I don't accept that proposed solutions based on what is currently the best theory out there are "silly".

 

We all "get it" that you believe the only thing that is necessary is for all these lazy people with no self control have to do is get off their *** and take control of their diet. You have made that abundantly clear. Most here have made it abundantly clear that they do not believe that to be a valid course of action.

 

You don't "get it" as you continue to mischaracterize my position in a way that makes me appear to loath obese people when I do not.

 

Your understanding that this is a global issue for all first world countries is incorrect. While many are affected, some countries (like the US, Mexico, and GB) are drastically ahead of the curve, and the focus of this thread was to determine why.

All first world countries are affected, it is an issue for all first world countries. It is becoming a growing issue even in the third world.

 

Please see the previously posted report, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_894_(part1).pdf. I am trying to discuss the very question you ask, but rather than address the points made you just dismiss what I say. Yes, GB and the US are more drastically affected than say Australia and New Zealand. However that is a very important distinction, which i have tried to make but was ignored, in those four countries. All four countries can be tied back to (at least partially) English or Western European descent. Genetically we could not have seen enough drift in 200 years to account for the disparity, so the cause must be an argument of nurture and not nature in my mind. This would preclude as a major factor genetics for starters. By no means is that conclusive, just speculation on my part.

 

Your proposal addresses the symptom, not the cause.. This is like a doctor proscribing blood clotting agent for a persistent bleeder without understanding the root cause.

 

I think your argument here is disingenuous and misleading when you consider that in this particular instance what you call a symptom can in fact be the cause. Reduced mobility and fewer Calories being burned can in fact lead to weight gain, that is a cause. If anything, the weight gain is the symptom.

 

What is the cause?

 

Well I believe that it has been identified, you have not. There are plenty on both side of the fence. ;)

 

Since this is not a ubiquitous problem for all first world countries, my original suggestion that you discarded out of hand because it did not fit your view of the issue might be a starting point. At least a starting point for discussion of how to determine the source of the problem.

 

That was a very intelligent post and I have read it multiple times. You are looking for more answers, I think that is great and fully encourage it. I think the answer has already been found, and I am onto discussing the solutions. Instead of letting me run along that line, and discuss what could be solutions to that answer, your response has been to try to shut me up until Kayra has declared the answer found. You dismiss my stabs at solutions with out even being able to show that the answer I believe in is incorrect.

 

It may very well turn out that the source of the problem is purely cultural, and can be resolved with a programmed change of that culture. Or it may turn out that some chemical, hormone, or process involved in the food chain is at fault. How can we know until we search for the cause.

 

While it may be difficult to understand, we science geeks on this board do like to follow some semblance of the scientific process.

 

I do consider myself a science geek as well. I also understand the scientific method. Part of that method involves forming a theory (too many Calories in, not enough Calories out) and devising an experiment to test that theory. Just because you test one theory does not mean it precludes another theory from being true. Your argument is to stop postulating on one theory because you are not satisfied that all others have not yet been flushed out.

 

The crux of your argument is that the search for a cause may not yet be complete. The crux of my argument is that we have a plausible answer and should further explore that. The two do not have to preclude each other from continuing, but you seem to think that even discussing one is some how premature.

[Moontanman]

Nitack, why do some people gain weight and others do not even though their caloric intake is higher and they are the same or more sedentary that the people gaining weight. I know people who eat like pigs, do very little exercise and stay rail thin. I know others who are very active and eat very little but stay chubby. why?

[Nitack]

Nitack, why do some people gain weight and others do not even though their caloric intake is higher and they are the same or more sedentary that the people gaining weight. I know people who eat like pigs, do very little exercise and stay rail thin. I know others who are very active and eat very little but stay chubby. why?

 

Great question! First I would like to direct you to a study out of the University of Colorado that was previously linked in this thread. Now we both appreciate the difference between anecdotal evidence, "I know people", and scientific evidence. Read this...

Metabolism alone doesn't explain how thin people stay thin

Metabolism alone doesn't explain how thin people stay thin

August 19, 2008 | John Schieszer

 

More important factors may be differences in food intake and activity, and the fact that people who gain weight may not truly realize how much they consume

 

SAN FRANCISCO | Metabolism alone may not explain why some people are fat or thin, according to a study presented at this year’s annual Endocrine Society meeting here.

 

It is unclear how some individuals remain thin in the current obesigenic environment that promotes significant weight gain in the majority of people. However, researchers with the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver say it is not because thin people have a faster metabolism or metabolize their food differently than obese people.

 

Additionally, those people in no way fall outside of the argument I was making. My argument, put a different way, was that each of us have individual bodies with many many factors that influence our BMR, eating habits, tastes, and the way we process food. No two of us have the same energy needs or expenditures. That is the part of my argument that seems to be getting lost. The next part is this: Once we have a better understanding of our own individual needs and complications, we can change our individual behavior to better match our bodies need, rather than trying to change our bodies (chemistry, genes, etc.) to match our behaviors. If I have a naturally low body temperature (which I coincidentally do) and my body requires less Calories because of it, I can either reduce my Calorie intake to compensate, or increase my Calorie expenditure to compensate.

 

By the way, that study went on to conclude this...

Unaware of intake

He suggested these findings are important because many thin people think they have a “faster metabolism.” However, Dr. Bessesen said his study shows that is simply a myth. He said primary-care physicians often have a significant number of patients coming in for visits and reporting they are eating less but still gaining weight. But it is more likely that these patients are probably not mentally processing how many calories they are actually consuming.

 

“Overall, we found no evidence that thin people have a higher metabolic rate on a regular diet or that they burn more energy following a period of overfeeding,” Dr. Bessesen said. “The most important take-home message for clinicians is that people who are tending to gain weight may not be getting accurate information on how much they are eating through biologic mechanisms. So self-monitoring might be an important tool for them, such as keeping food diaries and food records, because they may be eating more than they think.”

 

Dr. Henry Anhalt, a pediatric endocrinologist in Englewood, N.J., described Dr. Bessesen’s study as an important first step. Until now, he said, most studies have focused on why people become obese and what can be done to prevent obesity. Instead, he hopes more studies like this will look at how normal-weight or thin people avoid obesity in today’s fast-food, “super-size me” culture.

[Kayra]

On this I can actually speak as a relative expert.

 

Unless you have qualifications not yet proclaimed you are no more an expert then a diabetic is on diabetes. Regardless, it is not relevant to this thread, please start a new one if you wish to pursue this. Those interested in your perspective can freely participate without sidetracking this thread.

 

 

Are only some countries getting fat? According to this report, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_894_(part1).pdf, It is actually happening world wide, in all countries, including your beloved Canada that you seem to think is immune.

 

Nitack, until you can put forth an suggestion as to why some countries are getting obese at a rate 2-5 times the rest of the first world countries then no understanding as to the root cause has been reached, and I believe suggestions to solutions are premature. My beloved Canada is also getting obese, but why at a rate less then half of it's southern neighbor considering the similar diet, technology, and standard of living? I think that this bears investigation. As noted below, you do not.

 

 

Now you are confusing me, because earlier you said that the focus was to identify the reason why AND possible solutions.

 

Yes, once reasons, supported by fact and testable to a reasonable degree are identified, suggested solutions would be the logical progression. I know on this one that you will once again state your calorie/exercise theory/solution. This has generally been dismissed by the folks here as unworkable on anything other then a personal scale regardless of the number of times you repeat it. (It is not just me Nitack)

 

Yes, GB and the US are more drastically affected than say Australia and New Zealand. However that is a very important distinction, which i have tried to make but was ignored, in those four countries. All four countries can be tied back to (at least partially) English or Western European descent.

 

Genetically speaking, Canada is far closer to the US then Mexico as both countries are from the same European stock. This would likely preclude (on the surface) racial genetics as a root cause. Your statements were not ignored, but countered. An important distinction.

 

That was a very intelligent post and I have read it multiple times. You are looking for more answers, I think that is great and fully encourage it.

 

Thank you, but no you do not. At least not according to tone and wording below.

 

I get the feeling that there are some that are not satisfied with the answer we know to be true and are grasping for a different answer. Say that Calories in vs. Calories out is "oversimplified" if you want, but I think too many people are trying to complicate the issue because they don't like the implications of what we know to be true.

 

You have decided without support of data that your position is true, that we know it to be true, and any other attempt to find answers is "Grasping". This quote seems to sum up the belligerent tone of many of your posts on this subject, while in other posts your "Claim" that you support the search for other causes is obviously not accurate.

 

 

I think the answer has already been found, and I am onto discussing the solutions. Instead of letting me run along that line, and discuss what could be solutions to that answer, your response has been to try to shut me up until Kayra has declared the answer found. You dismiss my stabs at solutions with out even being able to show that the answer I believe in is incorrect.

 

I have not been making a personal attack against you Nitack, merely trying to show you the weakness of your position. It fails any test of the scientific burden of proof and yet you proclaim not only cause but solution to boot. Not a single person has agreed that you have found either on anything but a personal scale.

 

 

Your argument is to stop postulating on one theory because you are not satisfied that all others have not yet been flushed out.

 

My argument is that you should stop proclaiming you have the almighty answer without producing any convincing evidence to support it. My arguments against your proposed solution to your yet to be substantiated cause are reserved for another thread.

 

The crux of your argument is that the search for a cause may not yet be complete. The crux of my argument is that we have a plausible answer and should further explore that. The two do not have to preclude each other from continuing, but you seem to think that even discussing one is some how premature.

 

I think discussing solutions to an unsupported cause is ludicrous until the cause has been substantiated. Of course, this is only my opinion.

[pamela]

Nitack

Now we both appreciate the difference between anecdotal evidence, "I know people", and scientific evidence

 

Correct if I am wrong here, but aren't the "people", the subjects used in your double blind study scientific evidence?

 

No two of us have the same energy needs or expenditures. That is the part of my argument that seems to be getting lost

 

Trust me, no one is missing a word that you are posting.

Supersize this-

There is a much larger problem going on than just being sedentary and eating a few too many calories