Rise of Childhood Obesity

[Plecostomus]

Once upon a time kids went outside to play. Depending on their age, they had limits as to where they could roam, but for the most part they weren't supervised except to have to remain within earshot when Mom or Dad hollared. Being outside generally resulted in walking, running, jumping and exertion.

Now, thanks in large part to galloping paranoia that Mr. Stranger Danger is lurking behind every tree or bush to Do Something Horrible, kids mostly aren't allowed to play outside without direct supervision by an adult. Adults often have other things they want to do so they keep the kid inside parked in front of a TV or game console.

Seems pretty obvious to me what the problem is.

Jan

This.


My sister won't let her kid out of sight "I need to know where he is in case we have another terrorist attack or there is some kind of incident in the neighborhood."

We've lived in this area for a long time, there has never been a shooting, "incident" or terrorist attack, and there is no drug activity.

The little guy spends most of his time inside with his toys and video-game.

Funny, When sister and I were that age we were deep in the woods hunting for interesting bugs... fishing at the creek, and three clicks away at the neighboring farm poking though old barns filled with "amazing stuff."


What a bloody double-standard.

So, yeah... over-protective parents can be part of the problem along with diet.



Really there is no one single "cure" for this problem as there are many different causes. One thing I dislike is the need to find one over-arching "cause" for a problem and use that to "cure" everything. Sort of like my dislike for people who talk about a universal "cure for cancer..." Ok that's nice but WHAT KIND of cancer cause by WHAT FACTORS?

*grumble*

 

[Arrqh]

HFCS is a bane on our food supply. I spend more for food that is either certified organic or locally produced. It has made a big difference in how I feel. I also work with a lady who is allergic to HFCS.

There are also people who are allergic to sucrose. Bottom line is, everybody is different and we all have slightly different metabolisms... I don't believe that the majority of people have the same reaction to HFCS then you do. Compositionally, there isn't really that much "bad" about HFCS... the commonly used version has nearly the same fructose/glucose mix as honey. Additionally, I've read that fructose may reduce the feeling of fullness, but I don't think I've read anything indicating that it actually reverses it to make you feel more hungry then before.

Again... I don't want to sound like an HFCS-apologist here, because that's definitely not how I feel. I'm just afraid that by focusing on HFCS being "bad" we lose sight of the real problem... the over-consumption of sugar as a whole. And eliminating or limiting HFCS won't go a very long way towards fixing that fundamental problem.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yes. And GM foods.

Let's also not forget the wanky schools that forbid dodgeball, capture the flag and other physical games during recess and phys ed.

What do GM foods have to do with it? Is their nutritional value substantially different?

The problem isn't HFCS nor is it GM foods. It's eating too much and not getting enough exercise. It's that simple.

I'm not saying there is no difference in the way HFCS is metabolized because I don't know. The American Dietetic Association, BTW, rejects the linkage you mention, Robert Maxwell (http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/nutrition_19399_ENU_HTML.htm), but I know other knowledgeable authorities say something else. But whatever. The bottom line is, too much food, not enough exercise. HFCS would not be an issue if people didn't eat too much and got enough exercise.

What I really dislike about the emphasis on HFCS is that it's just too easy - it's kind of like what you said about carbs. People want easy answers to obesity, and apparently "eat less and get more exercise" isn't easy enough.

Considering the number of people I know who eat right and exercise like crazy, yet can barely knock any pounds off, your generalizations are pretty bogus here.

Numerous factors influence weight gain and weight loss. Some people balloon up despite eating well and exercising. Some stay toothpick-thin even though they eat like crap and never exercise. And then you have everything in between.

I would say that most people who are obese do eat too much and exercise too little, however there are plenty of other factors involved, and what works for one person may work very poorly for another.

"Eat less, move more" is a nice, feel-good mantra, but there is really more to it than that. Given how medicated most Americans are, I would put quite a bit of the blame on drugs, too. Look how many commonly-prescribed medications have "weight gain" as a side effect.

Now, everyone should take responsibility for their own health, but the various components of one's health are interlocking and sometimes at odds. Do you treat your depression and gain weight, or risk suicide to stay thin?

I attack HFCS specifically because it's not a case where the market decided it was the way to go. Instead, it's a special interest getting an advantage at taxpayer expense, and it's detrimental to the health of the population. Considering that most of the claims that HFCS is harmless come from the Corn Refiners' Association. Too many things have too much fructose in them, even at a normal serving size.

And for those saying "all the information is out there," I assume you mean all the various conflicting information about what you should or shouldn't eat. Many people are still going by the old "food pyramid," even though it's been substantially changed in the last few years. There is ample information available, and a lot of it is at odds.

"Eat less, move more" is a good place to start, but it isn't the whole solution. There are plenty of other things that should be addressed, as well.

 

[John Picard]

I was advised to rent the documentary "King Corn" and then be prepared to be shocked and disgusted at what the corn producers do and how they act.

The Sugar lobby is one of the most powerful in this country as well. That it the reason there are so few candy/confectionery manufacturers in the US these days and it all went to Mexico and Canada.

 

[JustKate]

Considering the number of people I know who eat right and exercise like crazy, yet can barely knock any pounds off, your generalizations are pretty bogus here.

Numerous factors influence weight gain and weight loss. Some people balloon up despite eating well and exercising. Some stay toothpick-thin even though they eat like crap and never exercise. And then you have everything in between.

I would say that most people who are obese do eat too much and exercise too little, however there are plenty of other factors involved, and what works for one person may work very poorly for another.

"Eat less, move more" is a nice, feel-good mantra, but there is really more to it than that. Given how medicated most Americans are, I would put quite a bit of the blame on drugs, too. Look how many commonly-prescribed medications have "weight gain" as a side effect.

Now, everyone should take responsibility for their own health, but the various components of one's health are interlocking and sometimes at odds. Do you treat your depression and gain weight, or risk suicide to stay thin?

I attack HFCS specifically because it's not a case where the market decided it was the way to go. Instead, it's a special interest getting an advantage at taxpayer expense, and it's detrimental to the health of the population. Considering that most of the claims that HFCS is harmless come from the Corn Refiners' Association. Too many things have too much fructose in them, even at a normal serving size.

Quite possibly true, Robert, but I would like to point out that the organization I cited wasn't the Corn Refiners' Association or anybody like them. It was the American Dietetic Association. Surely you can concede that the American Dietetic Association is a pretty good source for dietary matters?

"Eat less, exercise more" isn't the whole solution, but for most people it is the single most important component in the solution. For that reason alone, it is a far better "mantra," to use your phrase, than "HFCS is evil."

Because "HFCS is evil" is a "feel-good mantra," too. That is, it is slogan that people like to say because it's easy and it's satisfying to think that the problem really is that simple. It is, in fact, a far more simplistic and far less accurate feel-good mantra than "eat less, exercise more." The reason is that even if it is true in some cases, it isn't true nearly as often as "eat less, exercise more."

So why say it (except, perhaps, in those cases where people can't lose weight even when they do all the right things)? Why focus on the lesser problem instead of the main problem?

I am sorry that the Corn Refiners' Association has more power than it should, if in fact that is true, but whether it does or doesn't has no bearing on whether HFCS is an important component in obesity or not. As John Picard pointed out, Big Sugar is a very powerful lobbying organization as well - amazingly powerful, considering how few sugar growers are left in the U.S. That isn't an indicator of whether sugar is a healthy or unhealthy part of our diets. It merely demonstrates that sugar growers and sugar cooperatives know how to work the Hill.

I'm not saying ignore HFCS entirely. I really doubt that it's a big factor, but hey, I could be wrong, and maybe there really is a problem there. But it's not even close to being the main problem, and focusing on it too much takes away from what is for most people the real issue.

For most people, and particularly most children, the problem is too much food and not enough exercise. For an awful lot of adults, the problem is that they ate too much food and got too little exercise when they were children. Banning HFCS, therefore, will not make a significant difference in most people's weight problems.

And you know this. So why fixate on HFCS when for most people it isn't the main problem? By all means, let's cut down on the power of this lobby, if it is in fact too powerful, because that is what should happen to overly powerful lobbies in a democracy. But if you honestly think this nation would be significantly more healthy if people replaced their HFCS calories with the same number of calories from cane or beet sugar, you are sadly mistaken. That won't, for most people, make even a bit of difference unless they - you guessed it - eat less and exercise more.

 

[sidious618]

I think it's great news that people are getting fatter. Less competition when it comes to dating.

I'm a prick, I know.

 

[RoJoHen]

The people who have "fast" metabolism are overweight people. Need to eat more food to gain weight then someone like you yet they consistently eat more then they need to.

Eh? I do not follow this.

Fatter = Bigger = More energy the body needs to just move or sit.

Thin = Smaller = Less energy needed to move around.

That's also why when obese people start to exercise they lose a lot of weight fat and gradually have to exercise harder and harder.

These are some pretty big generalizations. Some fat people really DO have slow metabolisms. That's why they have to be careful of what they eat, because they can gain weight incredibly easily.

And sometimes thin people have incredibly fast metabolisms. I can eat and eat and eat, and I don't get fat. My body just breaks food down very quickly. I intentionally overeat because I want to gain weight, and it still doesn't work. By your statement, I should be overweight.

 

[kimc]

It takes time to educate yourself about healthy eating.
It takes time to educate your children about them.
It takes time to train your children to eat healthily.

Back before the "obesity epidemic" people learned what/how to eat from their parents who learned from their parents. Then we all got bombarded with conflicting health information (fat is bad, no it's good sometimes, blah blah blah). Combine that with processed foods containing cheap additives (like high fructose corn syrup) and you get an epidemic.

Check out "In Defense of Food" for a great book on this.

 

[John Picard]

Considering the number of people I know who eat right and exercise like crazy, yet can barely knock any pounds off, your generalizations are pretty bogus here.

Numerous factors influence weight gain and weight loss. Some people balloon up despite eating well and exercising. Some stay toothpick-thin even though they eat like crap and never exercise. And then you have everything in between.

I would say that most people who are obese do eat too much and exercise too little, however there are plenty of other factors involved, and what works for one person may work very poorly for another.

"Eat less, move more" is a nice, feel-good mantra, but there is really more to it than that. Given how medicated most Americans are, I would put quite a bit of the blame on drugs, too. Look how many commonly-prescribed medications have "weight gain" as a side effect.

Now, everyone should take responsibility for their own health, but the various components of one's health are interlocking and sometimes at odds. Do you treat your depression and gain weight, or risk suicide to stay thin?

I attack HFCS specifically because it's not a case where the market decided it was the way to go. Instead, it's a special interest getting an advantage at taxpayer expense, and it's detrimental to the health of the population. Considering that most of the claims that HFCS is harmless come from the Corn Refiners' Association. Too many things have too much fructose in them, even at a normal serving size.

Quite possibly true, John, but I would like to point out that the organization I cited wasn't the Corn Refiners Association or anybody like them. It was the American Dietetic Association. Surely you can concede that the American Dietetic Association is a pretty good source for dietary matters?

"Eat less, exercise more" isn't the whole solution, but for most people it is the single most important component in the solution. For that reason alone, it is a far better "mantra," to use your phrase, than "HFCS is evil."

Because "HFCS is evil" is a "feel-good mantra," too. That is, it is slogan that people like to say because it's easy and it's satisfying to think that the problem really is that simple. It is, in fact, a far more simplistic and far less accurate slogan than "eat less, exercise more." The reason is, even if it is true in some cases, it isn't true nearly as often as "eat less, exercise more."

So why say it (unless, perhaps, in some of those cases where people can't lose weight even when they do all the right things)? Why focus on the lesser problem instead of the main problem?

I am sorry that the Corn Refiners' Association has more power than it should, if in fact that is true, but whether it does or doesn't has no bearing on whether HFCS is an important component in obesity or not. As John Picard pointed out, Big Sugar is a very powerful lobbying organization as well - amazingly powerful, considering how few sugar growers are left in the U.S. That isn't an indicator of whether sugar is a healthy or unhealthy part of our diets. It is merely an indicator that sugar growers and sugar cooperatives know how to work the Hill.

I'm not saying ignore HFCS entirely. I really doubt that it's a big factor, but hey, I could be wrong, and maybe there really is a problem there. But it's not even close to being the main problem, and focusing on it too much takes away from what is for most people the real issue.

For most people, and particularly most children, the problem is too much food and not enough exercise. For an awful lot of adults, the problem is that they ate too much food and got too little exercise when they were children. Banning HFCS will not make a significant difference in most people's weight problems.

And you know this. So why fixate on HFCS when for most people it isn't the main problem? By all means, let's cut down on the power of this lobby, if it is in fact too powerful, because that is what should happen to overly powerful lobbies. But if you honestly think this nation would be significantly more healthy if HFCS was replaced by cane or beet sugar or some other sweetener, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. That won't, for most people, make even a bit of difference unless they - you guessed it - eat less and exercise more.

I disagree that replacing HFCS with another type of sweetener won't make a difference. Some people may not have the proper enzyme to process it, hence some of what's happening.

I agree, people don't eat healthy. I cringe at these lard asses who order a double decker buger with fries and wash it down with a diet soda. The last item in that order is pure poison. But, people in the US have very bad eating habits and it will take time to get them to change.

 

[JustKate]

I disagree that replacing HFCS with another type of sweetener won't make a difference. Some people may not have the proper enzyme to process it, hence some of what's happening.

I agree, people don't eat healthy. I cringe at these lard asses who order a double decker buger with fries and wash it down with a diet soda. The last item in that order is pure poison. But, people in the US have very bad eating habits and it will take time to get them to change.

That maybe be true in some cases, but I think my primary point still holds: In almost all cases, by far the most significant health issue isn't the source of one's caloric sweeteners but the number of calories in sweeteners one consumes. That is, in fact, what the American Dietetic Association says. For almost everybody, 3 cane/beet-sugar-sweetened colas aren't significantly more healthful than 3 corn-sweetener-sweetened colas. However those colas are sweetened, that is simply too many calories from sweeteners.

 

[Arrqh]

I disagree that replacing HFCS with another type of sweetener won't make a difference. Some people may not have the proper enzyme to process it, hence some of what's happening.

And again, I think it's only a minority of people who have trouble digesting HFCS. For those people it's obviously a significant problem, but you can't explain overall obesity rates that way.

 

[John Picard]

I disagree that replacing HFCS with another type of sweetener won't make a difference. Some people may not have the proper enzyme to process it, hence some of what's happening.

And again, I think it's only a minority of people who have trouble digesting HFCS. For those people it's obviously a significant problem, but you can't explain overall obesity rates that way.

No? Aspartame was thought to be a Godsend until diabetics were losing their eyesight. It took a while for researchers to compile data and narrow it down to
Phenylalanine, which breaks down to wood alcohol in temps above 40º.Once the patients removed it from their diet, their sight returned. The long term effects of HFCS are unknown, but just brushing it off as a non-factor is not wise.

 

[Kestra]

I dunno, my parents were super strict with our eating habits when I was young and now I eat all sorts of junk. I think part of it was just the fact that I couldn't when I was younger. I'm getting better though, slowly.

 

[Arrqh]

I disagree that replacing HFCS with another type of sweetener won't make a difference. Some people may not have the proper enzyme to process it, hence some of what's happening.

And again, I think it's only a minority of people who have trouble digesting HFCS. For those people it's obviously a significant problem, but you can't explain overall obesity rates that way.

No? Aspartame was thought to be a Godsend until diabetics were losing their eyesight. It took a while for researchers to compile data and narrow it down to
Phenylalanine, which breaks down to wood alcohol in temps above 40º.Once the patients removed it from their diet, their sight returned. The long term effects of HFCS are unknown, but just brushing it off as a non-factor is not wise.

That has nothing to do with what you said... which is about people who are unable to properly digest HFCS. This is the minority of people. Further, HFCS is just a glucose/fructose blend. Compositionally, there's nothing special about it. And even if there is, I didn't brush anything off... I simply pointed out to you the fact that just because you have a problem digesting HFCS does not mean that the majority of people have this problem.

As I also said upthread, there are people with sucrose allergies who are unable to digest it. That doesn't mean sucrose is bad, it just means those people need to be careful about their diet. I'm lactose intolerant, I don't use that to suggest that lactose is bad for everyone, it just means that people like me have to be careful about what we eat because we have a dietary problem that isn't reflected by the majority of the population.

 

[Tribbles]

Eh? I do not follow this.

Fatter = Bigger = More energy the body needs to just move or sit.

Thin = Smaller = Less energy needed to move around.

That's also why when obese people start to exercise they lose a lot of weight fat and gradually have to exercise harder and harder.

These are some pretty big generalizations. Some fat people really DO have slow metabolisms. That's why they have to be careful of what they eat, because they can gain weight incredibly easily.

And sometimes thin people have incredibly fast metabolisms. I can eat and eat and eat, and I don't get fat. My body just breaks food down very quickly. I intentionally overeat because I want to gain weight, and it still doesn't work. By your statement, I should be overweight.

I've always thought of it the way you do, RoJoHen. Would it be accurate to say that I just have an average metabolism, Bluesteel? If the idea of having a fast metabolism contributing to being slender is a misconception, it's a very common one. I always associate having a slow metabolism with being more inclined to gain weight easily.

 

[Bluesteel]

Eh? I do not follow this.

Fatter = Bigger = More energy the body needs to just move or sit.

Thin = Smaller = Less energy needed to move around.

That's also why when obese people start to exercise they lose a lot of weight fat and gradually have to exercise harder and harder.

These are some pretty big generalizations. Some fat people really DO have slow metabolisms. That's why they have to be careful of what they eat, because they can gain weight incredibly easily.

And sometimes thin people have incredibly fast metabolisms.

Yeah some people do have slow metabolism. But the vast majority of people don't. Having a slow metabolism isn't something an overweight person can just get by with without noticing. There would be a problem like the thyroid not doing what it's meant to do.
How ever the vast majority of fat people who complain about slow metabolism and thin people about fast metabolism just don't know how much they eat. It's a very nice and simple explanation but it doesn't shine under the light. Put it simply.
How does it take more energy to move a 150 pound body then a 300 pound? Oh and weight isn't gained very easily. The quick weight gain people have is water. Gaining fat is something hard. Most fat people gain it over years/months. They don't wake up suddenly the day after eating a nice cake with an extra pound of fat in their body.

I can eat and eat and eat, and I don't get fat. My body just breaks food down very quickly. I intentionally overeat because I want to gain weight, and it still doesn't work. By your statement, I should be overweight.

Yeah that definitely not true. For one thing where would the energy go? Do you have a large amount of muscles? Do you move around a lot more then most people? Do you actually eat a "lot"? Remember perception is everything. What my my sister calls "eating a lot" would be a snack for my overweight friend.

I've always thought of it the way you do, RoJoHen. Would it be accurate to say that I just have an average metabolism, Bluesteel? If the idea of having a fast metabolism contributing to being slender is a misconception, it's a very common one. I always associate having a slow metabolism with being more inclined to gain weight easily.

You have to be careful when you say gain weight quickly. It's possible to gain and lose weight quickly. But that is almost always water for most people. Gaining or losing fat isn't something that can be done quickly. It takes time. People who gained weight do so over a period of time. How at the time they are gaining fat they aren't aware because it happens slowly until one day they notice their pants don't fit them. Hell my best friend went from size 36 to 44 before realizing that he was actually gaining weight and had to do something about it.

 

[UssGlenn]

I can eat and eat and eat, and I don't get fat. My body just breaks food down very quickly. I intentionally overeat because I want to gain weight, and it still doesn't work. By your statement, I should be overweight.

Yeah that definitely not true. For one thing where would the energy go? Do you have a large amount of muscles? Do you move around a lot more then most people? Do you actually eat a "lot"?

I would think it's possible that food is passing through the system without the nutrients being fully absorbed. You'd need to analyze the content of the stool to confirm. Perhaps it's just an inefficient digestive system. Tapeworms have the same effect by preventing you from absorbing all the food you eat.

 

[Bluesteel]

I can eat and eat and eat, and I don't get fat. My body just breaks food down very quickly. I intentionally overeat because I want to gain weight, and it still doesn't work. By your statement, I should be overweight.

Yeah that definitely not true. For one thing where would the energy go? Do you have a large amount of muscles? Do you move around a lot more then most people? Do you actually eat a "lot"?

I would think it's possible that food is passing through the system without the nutrients being fully absorbed. You'd need to analyze the content of the stool to confirm. Perhaps it's just an inefficient digestive system. Tapeworms have the same effect by preventing you from absorbing all the food you eat.

If the food wasn't digested it would most definitely be noticeable. It's not something you can just "do" into the toilet bowl and then flush.

Oh and tapeworms work by absorbing calories so the amount of energy being taken into the body is reduced.

 

[thestrangequark]

Fatter = Bigger = More energy the body needs to just move or sit.

Thin = Smaller = Less energy needed to move around.

That's also why when obese people start to exercise they lose a lot of weight fat and gradually have to exercise harder and harder.

These are some pretty big generalizations. Some fat people really DO have slow metabolisms. That's why they have to be careful of what they eat, because they can gain weight incredibly easily.

And sometimes thin people have incredibly fast metabolisms.

Yeah some people do have slow metabolism. But the vast majority of people don't. Having a slow metabolism isn't something an overweight person can just get by with without noticing. There would be a problem like the thyroid not doing what it's meant to do.
How ever the vast majority of fat people who complain about slow metabolism and thin people about fast metabolism just don't know how much they eat. It's a very nice and simple explanation but it doesn't shine under the light. Put it simply.
How does it take more energy to move a 150 pound body then a 300 pound? Oh and weight isn't gained very easily. The quick weight gain people have is water. Gaining fat is something hard. Most fat people gain it over years/months. They don't wake up suddenly the day after eating a nice cake with an extra pound of fat in their body.

I can eat and eat and eat, and I don't get fat. My body just breaks food down very quickly. I intentionally overeat because I want to gain weight, and it still doesn't work. By your statement, I should be overweight.

Yeah that definitely not true. For one thing where would the energy go? Do you have a large amount of muscles? Do you move around a lot more then most people? Do you actually eat a "lot"? Remember perception is everything. What my my sister calls "eating a lot" would be a snack for my overweight friend.

Some people require more energy for the same cellular functions than others -- hence, higher metabolisms. It has to do with how efficiently the energy is used.

 

[RoJoHen]

These are some pretty big generalizations. Some fat people really DO have slow metabolisms. That's why they have to be careful of what they eat, because they can gain weight incredibly easily.

And sometimes thin people have incredibly fast metabolisms.

Yeah some people do have slow metabolism. But the vast majority of people don't. Having a slow metabolism isn't something an overweight person can just get by with without noticing. There would be a problem like the thyroid not doing what it's meant to do.
How ever the vast majority of fat people who complain about slow metabolism and thin people about fast metabolism just don't know how much they eat. It's a very nice and simple explanation but it doesn't shine under the light. Put it simply.
How does it take more energy to move a 150 pound body then a 300 pound? Oh and weight isn't gained very easily. The quick weight gain people have is water. Gaining fat is something hard. Most fat people gain it over years/months. They don't wake up suddenly the day after eating a nice cake with an extra pound of fat in their body.

I can eat and eat and eat, and I don't get fat. My body just breaks food down very quickly. I intentionally overeat because I want to gain weight, and it still doesn't work. By your statement, I should be overweight.

Yeah that definitely not true. For one thing where would the energy go? Do you have a large amount of muscles? Do you move around a lot more then most people? Do you actually eat a "lot"? Remember perception is everything. What my my sister calls "eating a lot" would be a snack for my overweight friend.

Some people require more energy for the same cellular functions than others -- hence, higher metabolisms. It has to do with how efficiently the energy is used.

Exactly. Two people with exactly the same musculature and bodyfat percentage might have to consume completely different amounts of calories to maintain such a figure.

It's why we have body classifications like endomorph, mesomorph, and ectomorph.