Obesity is a societal failure. Not a personal one.

[bigbill]

Originally Posted by Peter P.

Do you remember the outcome? I flew recently and thought about being involved in such a scenario.

I remember when I was in the Air Force we had height + weight limits. I was told if I exceeded my height vs. weight they would take caliper measurements to determine whether I could get a "weight waver" which believe it or not, you would have to carry with you to prove your exemption if ever stopped.

On the flight, the flight attendants asked other passengers and a woman traveling with a small child shared the three seats with the heavy passenger. On SWA, I always had early bird tickets so I'd either be in a window or aisle. At the end of the loading when the folks with "D" tickets would load with only middle seats remaining. It might be my imagination, but I could feel the apprehension when a larger passenger would be looking around for a seat.

In the Navy, the first decade was all "rope and choke" before the height/weight charts were added. At my height, I could weigh 206, and until the last three years of my career, I could meet the standard. Stress, knee surgery, and a broken back caused me to gain weight. I skirted the limits right up to retirement.

[nmrt]

I think being fit, or healthy, or lean can be mutually exclusive. But they do not have to be.

BMI does work at a societal level. As always, there are exceptions at the individual level. But many people kid themselves that while BMI categorizes them as overweight/obese, they are indeed not.

[tuscanyswe]

Originally Posted by prototoast

I think BMI is reasonably useful, and people make a bigger deal out of the situations where it's wrong than the situations where it's right. Obviously a single number based on a formula that can be applied to every human alive isn't going to apply perfectly. It should be facially obvious that it would be a bad metric to apply to Aaron Judge or Bethany Hamilton, but that doesn't mean it's of no value to most people (although I'd guess that more people think they are the exceptions to BMI than actually are).

I broadly agree that there are societal factors that go into obesity trends, but I don't think that necessarily absolves individuals of responsibility. We are all part of that society. It's not just an accident that the patrons of Golden Corral have higher BMI than the patrons of Panera. We can all think about ways we can make not just ourselves, but also the people we interact with healthier. And not just recreational interactions--work environments and work culture play a huge part... I've found both stressful and boring jobs cause me to overeat. Keeping work engaging and balanced goes a long way to keeping everyone healthy.

I agree with this.

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

Choosing to not make time is just that- a choice. It may feel like there is no choice in the matter because little Timmy has soccer, little Bella has dance, and one parent is working- but it is a choice.

I will say it again, this is a somewhat myopic view of someone who debates what new tire to ride or whether to get a winder for their Rolex (not you specifically, but you know what I mean)..

Many, far too many, families aren't making a choice based on a soccer or dance practice, they're making a choice because they are on their hour break between job #1 and job #2.. coupled with having to choose between buying groceries or paying the heat bill some weeks.. I'm not trying to sounds sensationalistic, but this is the sad reality of many families across the country/world.. is there still some personal choice here? of course, there is always personal choice.. but a choice between a fresh home-cooked meal or dance is a lot different than the choice between being able to spend an hour cooking/etc or an hour with your kid(s) between jobs.. that's the societal part IMHO..

and to the person who posted about the choice to have xx number of kids or not.. wow! Not even going to go there.. you obviously have never studied sociology or the dynamics of people, trends, disadvantaged populations, etc..

it's really easy to say "but it's a personal choice" as that is always technically true.. just not a always a functional choice for many..

and just for reference, as I said before, I have always been a fat kid to some extent.. I've know people who could eat cheesburgers and smoke cigerettes all day and never gain a pound.. I think about a piece of cake and seem to gain 5! I know I could certainly lose my gut for sure.. and with me, it is certainly personal choice, I'm at a point of my life where I could buy whatever I wanted for food and I often choose a less than organic, healthy choice.. but I also realize while there are many folks like me, there are many, many who fit the scenario I painted above.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

Obesity isn't solely a societal failure.
Obesity isn't solely an individual failure.

Claiming it is one or the other is simplistic when reality is complex.

- Society's acceptance of food at grocery stores that is largely deleterious is a societal failure.
- Society's willingness to heavily subsidize industry which produces unhealthy food is a societal(and governmental) failure.
- Society's acceptance of nutritious foods being replaced with junk in schools is a societal(and governmental) failure.
- Family's acceptance of quick/easy food which lacks nutrition and is high in sugar, salt, and fat is an individual failure.
- Family's refusal to teach portion control, healthy eating habits, and how to understand nutrition is an individual failure.
- Society's push over the last decade to normalize obesity and celebrate it is, while commendable because nobody should be treated poorly due to their size, still a failure because it ignoees the reality that so many avoidable health issues statistically come with obesity. Don't fat shame, but also don't fat celebrate. Both are, in my view, quite objectionable.


I am 6'5 220# right now. I am firmly in the 'overweight' category for BMI and even though I know that calculation is BS, my warped mind doesn't let me ignore or forget about it. Weight is forever on my mind, unfortunately.
I was 207# 15 months ago and am trying to get back there, but damn it's tough. It is really difficult to out exercise a diet that is 70% very healthy and 30% very junky, but I am determined to be the first to succeed!

All seriousness, tracking calories along with exercise each day is exhausting, but it works. Consume fewer calories over the week than you took in. Some days are better than others due to energy output, life responsibilities, etc.
This doesn't hold true for literally all people, but for the vast majority- it's accurate.

smart response.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by paredown

Taking a left turn, someone posted a glowing "remember how great it was when we all sat down for family meals" nostalgic post on Facebook. For whatever reason, it struck me as being part of the deliberate myopia of boomers.

Who produced the full meals at home in the '50s? If you were poor like us, you had a stay-at-home mom, who worked very hard knocking out three squares a day, not to mention the baking and canning to supplement that. If you were solidly middle class--it was a toss-up between stay at home mom and a housekeeper--the example that jumps out--the Bailies in 'It's a Wonderful Life"--where dad is scraping by--still have a cook/housekeeper. The well-to-do--full-time family cooks and other household help. (Look at the ads for apartments in NYC that have servant's quarters--and this was not just the 1% of its day.)

The evil genius of capitalism is that we have driven those moms out of the house to be income earners, since the costs of living require two incomes to get by. (BTW, no one appreciates the cost and sacrifice of those moms who "ran the house" and set their dreams aside...) For the poor (like the families where we work on Habitat houses) the parents are likely to have two, and sometimes three jobs to make ends meet--sometimes the grandmas pick up the slack, but a lot of the time, it is a quick dinner at Mickey-Dees because everyone is exhausted;

Two busy parents, throw in commuting and modern scheduled time for kids--where's the time for thoughtfully and carefully prepared foot? I have a friend who was raised half time by her dad and step mom--two professor family--and they NEVER prepared a home cooked meal. It was all from the freezer and microwaved.

Add that to the list from above--and some of the causality changes:

Ditto.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by fourflys

I will say it again, this is a somewhat myopic view of someone who debates what new tire to ride or whether to get a winder for their Rolex (not you specifically, but you know what I mean)..

Many, far too many, families aren't making a choice based on a soccer or dance practice, they're making a choice because they are on their hour break between job #1 and job #2.. coupled with having to choose between buying groceries or paying the heat bill some weeks.. I'm not trying to sounds sensationalistic, but this is the sad reality of many families across the country/world.. is there still some personal choice here? of course, there is always personal choice.. but a choice between a fresh home-cooked meal or dance is a lot different than the choice between being able to spend an hour cooking/etc or an hour with your kid(s) between jobs.. that's the societal part IMHO..

and to the person who posted about the choice to have xx number of kids or not.. wow! Not even going to go there.. you obviously have never studied sociology or the dynamics of people, trends, disadvantaged populations, etc..

it's really easy to say "but it's a personal choice" as that is always technically true.. just not a always a functional choice for many..

and just for reference, as I said before, I have always been a fat kid to some extent.. I've know people who could eat cheesburgers and smoke cigerettes all day and never gain a pound.. I think about a piece of cake and seem to gain 5! I know I could certainly lose my gut for sure.. and with me, it is certainly personal choice, I'm at a point of my life where I could buy whatever I wanted for food and I often choose a less than organic, healthy choice.. but I also realize while there are many folks like me, there are many, many who fit the scenario I painted above.

Totally agree with your counter points. I fully admit that my comments up to now have been general and do not apply to everyone(individual or family). I have tried to make that clear, but suppose more clarity is needed.

My comments cant apply to every situation. And yes when parents are going to multiple jobs, their kids are left to fend and will naturally eat whatever is available and that is typically calorie dense unhealthy food.

Once more though- very few people work literally 7 days a week. Batch cooking/prep on a day off can help reduce how much processed and unhealthy food is eaten by a family. Talking about nutrition during that time, where you make your kids help with the process, can improve understanding and knowledge.
This process is exhausting and it is way easier to buy frozen meals and pizzas. I am not in the position of the parents in this scenario and cant imagine how stressful and tiring it would be.

And yet- doing nothing will quite literally kill you and/or loved ones earlier than necessary. That should be a stronger motivator for many.

[fourflys]

^ fair points!

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by batman1425

A major contributor to obesity is gut microbiome. How we are born (traditional or c-section), what our parents feed us, how many rounds of antibiotics we get early in life, all play into shaping what our microbial communities ultimately become. The majority of that plays out over the first 3 or 4 years of life. After that, the biodiversity that we are going to have is more or less fixed. We can give it nudges in different directions, but making substantive changes after that point is very difficult. Those microbes talk to us (biochemically), we talk back, and they have substantive changes on our physiology and long term health outcomes.

Obesity can be a microbially transferable outcome, lots of experimental evidence and case reports in patients to support this. There is also strong evidence to support that the way the western world lives (not just diet - see examples above) is rapidly and fundamentally changing the ecology of the microbes in and on us. We are losing biodiversity. Microbes that used to be cornerstone species in the human gut are now completely extinct in people from the western world. That loss of biodiversity is a determinant of obesity and other conditions that were once thought to be exclusively genetically, behaviorally, or environmentally based.



Precisely, and that diet is one of the most important determinants for what our microbiome becomes, and how it works. The western diet/lifestyle has fundamentally changed the composition and function of our microbes and on a time scale that our own evolutionary mechanisms cannot keep up with. Evidence suggests that these microbial changes are key contributor to the increased rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and other conditions whose rate of increase simple can't be explained by genetics.



This is an example of what Dr. Martin Blaser, a physician/scientist at NYU calls "The modern plagues" resulting from "antibiotic winter". The way we live, what we eat, how we abuse antibiotics (not just at the Dr. office but also in agriculture) are changing the biodiversity of our microbes in such a dramatic, and permanent way, that as a population, we are now far more susceptible to poor outcomes. Dr. Blaser wrote about this years ago, and we watched an example of it happen in real time during COVID. His focus is on the antibiotic side of this story, but diet plays a critical role as well.

When I teach human microbiome I and use a book that he wrote about: "Missing Microbes". It's a good read and explains the science underlying these outcomes in a really accessible way.

- is a c-section or traditional birth the 'best'?
- are established shots 'better' than unvaccinated?
- is formula or breast milk 'best' and how is that even measured in a controlled study?
- are any packaged beginner foods healthy or is it all worse than home prepped first foods for babies/toddlers?


Do these changed microbes just sit there and not do what they are supposed to do?...or what is the fundamental difference between them and what we would ideally have?

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by batman1425

A major contributor to obesity is gut microbiome. How we are born (traditional or c-section), what our parents feed us, how many rounds of antibiotics we get early in life, all play into shaping what our microbial communities ultimately become. The majority of that plays out over the first 3 or 4 years of life. After that, the biodiversity that we are going to have is more or less fixed. We can give it nudges in different directions, but making substantive changes after that point is very difficult. Those microbes talk to us (biochemically), we talk back, and they have substantive changes on our physiology and long term health outcomes.

Obesity can be a microbially transferable outcome, lots of experimental evidence and case reports in patients to support this. There is also strong evidence to support that the way the western world lives (not just diet - see examples above) is rapidly and fundamentally changing the ecology of the microbes in and on us. We are losing biodiversity. Microbes that used to be cornerstone species in the human gut are now completely extinct in people from the western world. That loss of biodiversity is a determinant of obesity and other conditions that were once thought to be exclusively genetically, behaviorally, or environmentally based.



Precisely, and that diet is one of the most important determinants for what our microbiome becomes, and how it works. The western diet/lifestyle has fundamentally changed the composition and function of our microbes and on a time scale that our own evolutionary mechanisms cannot keep up with. Evidence suggests that these microbial changes are key contributor to the increased rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and other conditions whose rate of increase simple can't be explained by genetics.



This is an example of what Dr. Martin Blaser, a physician/scientist at NYU calls "The modern plagues" resulting from "antibiotic winter". The way we live, what we eat, how we abuse antibiotics (not just at the Dr. office but also in agriculture) are changing the biodiversity of our microbes in such a dramatic, and permanent way, that as a population, we are now far more susceptible to poor outcomes. Dr. Blaser wrote about this years ago, and we watched an example of it happen in real time during COVID. His focus is on the antibiotic side of this story, but diet plays a critical role as well.

When I teach human microbiome I and use a book that he wrote about: "Missing Microbes". It's a good read and explains the science underlying these outcomes in a really accessible way.

I'd appreciate more information. Maybe in layperson's terms. There was a recent book by Dr. Jason Fung ("The Obesity Code") that referred to a body's "set point": which (according to Dr. Fung) the body isn't capable of maintaining. I thought this was a bit too fatalistic, but there's lots of speculation on the impact of the industrial food complex, particularly as it relates to ghrelin: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/ghrelin

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by Spinner

After my "career" and during my "pre-retirement" years, I worked at a locally-owned, high-line grocery store in an affluent area. Whenever I saw an obese person in the aisle, I quickly observed that I could predict what items would be in their cart: soda, potato chips, candy, cereals, prepared frozen foods, ice cream, pastries, etc.

In a similar fashion, whenever I saw lean, athletic types, their carts were typically filled with produce, fish, chicken, and other nutritional foods.

Eating junk begets eating a lot of it. Have you ever seen an individual eat a "single" portion of potato chips. If I start eating said junk, I can't stop either and that's why it is not in my house.

To my earlier point about economic disparities.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by unterhausen

There is a thread on the trainerroad forum about how to get to 5 w/kg, and the only people that did it said they did it by losing weight.

That's why I always say that cycling is an eating disorder.

Makes sense... consider an "average" American who is 5'10 and 80kg and has a 300W FTP. This person is just into the "overweight" classification on BMI, and has an FTP of 3.75 W/kg. To get to 5 w/kg without losing weight, the person would need to increase FTP by 100W. To get to 5 W/kg without increasing power, the person would need to get to 60kg. That BMI would put the person in the "normal" BMI range, but just barely above underweight.

On the other hand, if that person could both increase FTP by 100W and drop 20kg, his W/kg FTP would be 6.67 which is winning the Tour de France territory.

More realistically, for someone who's already reasonably trained, getting more than a 10% increase in FTP is a pretty tall order. If that "average" cyclist goes up to 330W, he would still need to drop to 66 kg to get to 5 w/kg. That's still quite a lot of weight, but it's right in the middle of the "normal" BMI range and possibly achievable to a lot of people. On the other hand, 400W FTP simply isn't.

[benb]

I think one thing that gets ignored in these discussions about "gut biome makes you fat/doesn't make you fat" is that it influences your behavior as well.

I would not be surprised if we start to hear in the future as research continues that:

- People who are apt to have weight issues absorb sugars better
- People who are apt to have weight issues have a biome which doesn't produce as many negative effects if they take in excessive sugar
- something in modern society has shifted more people into having that kind of biome

If you are coming in on the lower end of how much sugar you can absorb in your small intestine AND your gut biome will put you at risk of gas and/or other GI issues when the bacteria gets it's shot at the undigested sugars you will not feel well and it will create a feedback loop that causes you to stop pounding sodas or eating ice cream and cake and whatever else. Likewise with very high fat meals.

The sugar thing was not likely an issue in the past. People just couldn't get modern levels of sugar into their diet until fairly recently. Maybe the gut biome has just been adjusting to the new levels of sugar.

I still don't really buy the idea that people who have issues aren't eating more. Nothing I see in the real world supports that. My wife has issues. She regularly takes larger portions than I do, even though I exercise more. I regularly see people I work with who have serious issue getting absolutely enormous lunches, especially those that always buy their lunch. Any time I go anywhere near a restaurant I see people eating enormous portions.

[benb]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Makes sense... consider an "average" American who is 5'10 and 80kg and has a 300W FTP. This person is just into the "overweight" classification on BMI, and has an FTP of 3.75 W/kg. To get to 5 w/kg without losing weight, the person would need to increase FTP by 100W. To get to 5 W/kg without increasing power, the person would need to get to 60kg. That BMI would put the person in the "normal" BMI range, but just barely above underweight.

LOL.. 300+ watt FTPs are not that common, that should not be in the same sentence with "average".

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by benb

This one is always funny. I completely assume you have a ripped 6-pack and your doctor looks at you and says you're clearly not overweight/overfat. If you're not and you have visible fat on your mid section maybe the doctor is not agreeing with your assessments of your fitness level, body fat, and lean body mass levels.

Most of the time I see this trotted out in the real world it's a guy who has a visible gut and is holding onto high school football fame.

What I hear in the real world is doctors giving up on trying to get their obese patients to even listen to anything about weight loss. Not doctors falsely claiming low % body fat people with a lot of muscle are overweight based on BMI.

Doctors have better things to do than try and argue with obviously athletic people with good test results about BMI. They have lots and lots of really unhealthy patients to treat.

The whole issue has been politicized to death. Everything has changed.. diet, activity levels, what people do in their spare time to entertain themselves. No one wants to admit any part of it might be screwed up or anything might need to change.

hey man

every time I mention BMI we dance this silly dance. And every time you personalize it. It's nauseating. So, here is the BMI chart. According to this chart, if you are six feet tall and weigh 190 pounds, you are overweight. That is just ridiculous - and way out of line with the reality of the world we live in. It's just wrong.

I don't often post pictures of myself. I'm not on Facebook or Instagram. So, here is a recent pic I sent to a couple of Paceline buddies when I was trying to convince them that "brown" is the new "pink."* I'm six feet and 195, and most certainly not overweight.

If you want any more pics of me, I'll send you my PP address and you can wire me the funds.

*feel free and disagree with this assessment.