Why are so many people overweight?

[Poe]

Bull-fucking-shit, someone with that level of education wouldn't be spewing the all calories are equal crap. But hey, you let me know how consuming 200g of sugar a day goes for ya. Nothing like chronically high levels of insulin to create a shield against obesity!

2.5k cals is most definitely a reasonable number for an adult male who has a job with even a shred of a physical component to it. Your figure of 1.7 barely meets the needs of a sedentary existence laying in bed all day based on any BMR calculator. You should ask for a refund on your degree.



Is this what your degree in bro science has taught you too? Go google sugar, insulin and trans fats in diets, then come back and tell me that all calories are equal. I understand the unit of measure, but how they function once in your body is not as simple as the bro science spewing fitness personalities have falsely led you to believe.

If you say so buddy. Multiple people here are saying the opposite of what you're saying so you'd think the logical thing would be to provide some evidence to support your argument seeing how you're literally the only person in this thread saying otherwise.

[smegmage]

If you say so buddy. Multiple people here are saying the opposite of what you're saying so you'd think the logical thing would be to provide some evidence to support your argument seeing how you're literally the only person in this thread saying otherwise.

Argumentum ad populum, nice. A bunch of people sharing bad nutritional information on a gaming forum doesn't make it true. You're free to Google the studies that show the impact that insulin plays on obesity all you'd, but a self proclaimed nutritional specialist should already know this. After all, you've already proven you're an authority with claiming 2.5k calories a day is too much for an adult to be consuming. /s

For those who aren't "experts"

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2018...-90446176.html
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/253713.php

[Galactis]

Unprecedented easy access to food. I literally took the elevator down 12 floors, walked 50 feet to a indian shop, bought some pringles, paid and went back up to work. Took 3 mins.

[TJ]

Generally agree, but "good tasting" is also very conditional.

Anecdotal from a couple of friends who work for an American-owned company here in Norway: A while back, some management from the US was visiting and commented on how our cakes and cupcakes "don't taste anything". They came back some months later with a massive shipment of cupcakes from the US (oil company, money to waste) so that Norwegians could taste "proper cupcakes". No one liked them, way too sweet, made people nauseous and got thrown away. The reason they thought ours didn't taste anything, was that they contained way less sugar.

Point is that the super-unhealthy stuff is sometimes only tasty because you're conditioned to liking it, and that can be undone. Eat more healthy food, and healthy food will start tasting better.

I don't know man, I've got relatives in Texas and we go over to see them every couple of years. My god, every bit of their food (barring maybe some chocolate) is so much better than the UK, literally get stuff from the local store and it tastes better than some restaurants around here. Not to mention the soda and all sorts tastes way better too. I go over there and stuff my face every time, even if we do nothing else I've still got that to look forward to xD their food is immense.

[AeneasBK]

their food is immense.

I'm not sure comparing cuisine to UK food and finding it favourable means a great deal. I'm pretty sure you can scrape things off the pavement in some countries that are better than UK food.

Don't get me wrong I couldn't give a toss, food is fuel its not there to entertain me.

[petej0]

That's not how it works. If you eat 1700 calories of junk food a day. You're not going to get obese. In your example earlier you mention 2500 calories of junk food which is obviously more than you should eat with no physical activity which kind of indicates you might not quite understand what you're talking about. This is coming from someone who has a degree in nutrition science, if you watch your calories intake, you can eat whatever you want and not have to worry about getting obese.

Problem is most people don't know how many calories they are consuming and they don't care which leads to obesity. I have never met a single obese person who knew how many calories they consumed a day.

Obese just factors weight vs height. Yeah, you may not become obese eating only 1700 calories of junk food but you wont be healthy. You may however gain more fat than muscle than someone who eats a much healthier 1700 calorie diet. Since Muscle weighs more than fat, the healthier eater may end up weighing more, however the junk food eater may have more body fat.

That has no scientific basis whatsoever. A calorie is a calorie. It is a unit of measurement in how water heats up a single degree, and it does not change for biochemistry.

Yes, a calorie is a measurement. But the macro-nutrients contained in junk food vs say a healthier meal is the difference. Fructose and Glucose have the same caloric value, but fructose is metabolized much differently than glucose and the effects on the body are much different. Glucose can be metabolized and used by your whole body, Fructose can only be metabolized by your liver. If your liver is overloaded with Fructose it turns it into fat. This among other reasons why High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is in everything these days, is bad.

- - - Updated - - -

Generally agree, but "good tasting" is also very conditional.

Anecdotal from a couple of friends who work for an American-owned company here in Norway: A while back, some management from the US was visiting and commented on how our cakes and cupcakes "don't taste anything". They came back some months later with a massive shipment of cupcakes from the US (oil company, money to waste) so that Norwegians could taste "proper cupcakes". No one liked them, way too sweet, made people nauseous and got thrown away. The reason they thought ours didn't taste anything, was that they contained way less sugar.

Point is that the super-unhealthy stuff is sometimes only tasty because you're conditioned to liking it, and that can be undone. Eat more healthy food, and healthy food will start tasting better.

I wonder if alot of that has to do with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) which is used in alot of our foods in the US. It is much sweeter than regular sugar and is added to many foods because of its preservative value and cheaper than other sugars.

[Zantos]

People aren't making healthy choices, they aren't exercising and they don't know what they're shoveling into their mouths. Genetics have nothing to do with the obesity crisis that has 40% of Americans and 25% of Brits classified as obese, these are societal changes.

As I stated, 75% of Americans DO have a gene that makes you store fat more. However, the blame is partially on the food makers. They fill things up with so much junk that even what some would think is healthy is bad for you. That is why you see so many older people with bellies. Not classified as obese, but have fat none the less.

[petej0]

As I stated, 75% of Americans DO have a gene that makes you store fat more. However, the blame is partially on the food makers. They fill things up with so much junk that even what some would think is healthy is bad for you. That is why you see so many older people with bellies. Not classified as obese, but have fat none the less.

When you say "food makers" who do you mean, people like Kraft foods or places like Applebees. Because if you have any notion that eating out is somewhat healthy, you are sadly mistaken. You can however take reasonable precautions at grocery stores and be able to prep a much healthier meal.

As for the bellies of older people, not saying you are right or wrong, but how much of that is just lack of exercise? Older people having more sedentary lifestyle, may put on weight younger people would burn off.

[Zelk]

energy in > energy out

[smegmage]

That is why you see so many older people with bellies.

That's visceral fat and is the result of years of hard work and dedication towards living an unhealthy lifestyle, it ain't "muh genes" although they do play a role. Takeaway? You're more in control than your genetics are, they just may not be helping you.

https://www.nhs.uk/news/obesity/bell...do-diet-genes/

[TJ]

I'm not sure comparing cuisine to UK food and finding it favourable means a great deal. I'm pretty sure you can scrape things off the pavement in some countries that are better than UK food.

Don't get me wrong I couldn't give a toss, food is fuel its not there to entertain me.

Probably, UK is an undeniable shithole in nearly every way. At least the Indian restaurants we have are top notch though.

[Deletedaccount1]

Jason Fung wrote about this in his book The Obesity Code. He thinks American obesity is primarily caused by insulin spikes throughout a 24 hour period, in other words people eat too much food too often and never deplete their glucose so they aren't burning body fat.

[Shadowferal]

I don't worry over calories.
I focus on saturated fat, sodium, and cholesterol, in that order.

[Halicia]

I see some people, and simply have trouble understanding the amount of food they have to consume to be that overweight.

I tend to spend a lot of my time fairly "idle" and eat !@#$ for food, but I've never been overweight. So I figure if I had to put on that kind of weight, even eating the same !@#$ food I already eat, I'd have to eat double the calories every day.

So that's double the $$ on my food bill, and double the time spent preparing/acquiring/ordering from the driveup window every day... and I simply don't get it.

[Saucexorzski]

Sugar is one hell of a drug.

[Pony Soldier]

I think it really just comes down to them eating too much and doing too little.

You may eat a lot but I'm sure you're up and around enough to burn at least most of it off. Either that or you're just a freak.

[Goldielocks]

Is this what your degree in bro science has taught you too? Go google sugar, insulin and trans fats in diets, then come back and tell me that all calories are equal. I understand the unit of measure, but how they function once in your body is not as simple as the bro science spewing fitness personalities have falsely led you to believe.

Lmao look at this anti-vaxx tier anti-science stupidity. Insulin and trans fats have nothing to do with energy balance. Higher levels of insulin just means more absorption now but less in the long term. Trans fats just produce more LDL over time.

Also lol at you arguing with someone with a real degree. Seriously the scientific literacy of the common person is absolute trash. Pick up a textbook.

Yes, a calorie is a measurement. But the macro-nutrients contained in junk food vs say a healthier meal is the difference. Fructose and Glucose have the same caloric value, but fructose is metabolized much differently than glucose and the effects on the body are much different. Glucose can be metabolized and used by your whole body, Fructose can only be metabolized by your liver. If your liver is overloaded with Fructose it turns it into fat. This among other reasons why High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is in everything these days, is bad.

You're not looking at the whole picture here. Even if you take into account that eating more Fructose will convert into fat at a faster rate, if you eat equal calories all your body will be doing is taking from fat stores rather than blood sugar or glycogen once they're depleted, rather than by turning more blood sugar or glycogen into ATP over time. When calories are equal, everything is equal.

To imply otherwise would be a violation of the conservation of energy.

[smegmage]

Lmao look at this anti-vaxx tier anti-science stupidity. Insulin and trans fats have nothing to do with energy balance. Higher levels of insulin just means more absorption now but less in the long term. Trans fats just produce more LDL over time.

Also lol at you arguing with someone with a real degree. Seriously the scientific literacy of the common person is absolute trash. Pick up a textbook.

Lemme know how that sugar based diet works out for ya then. To suggest all calories are equal simply because of they're units of energy is absurd and completely dismisses how individual nutrients are used throughout the body. Perhaps when you were studying something unrelated to dietetics, you should've cracked open some literature on nutrition and realized your foundational understanding of physics/chemistry don't necessarily translate in application. Again this fallacy that because someone claims to have a degree they become an authority and that excuses their bad information? Anyone who claims to be formally educated by shares outright nonsense is a joke.

But sure, a calorie is a calorie, what do the untold number of registered dietitians who say otherwise know. By your nonsensical argument, an athlete should be able to achieve their goals through any macro-nutrient ratio so long as the same calories are consumed...but we sure as hell know that's not the case. This most certainly scales down to lesser levels of performance, albeit with not as measurable results, but certainly results can and are observed.

[Goldielocks]

But sure, a calorie is a calorie, what do the untold number of registered dietitians who say otherwise know. By your nonsensical argument, an athlete should be able to achieve their goals through any macro-nutrient ratio so long as the same calories are consumed...but we sure as hell know that's not the case. This most certainly scales down to lesser levels of performance, albeit with not as measurable results, but certainly results can and are observed.

Look at you, moving the goal posts. The argument was never to create the most optimal diet for performance. This is for ENERGY BALANCE. Obviously more complex carbohydrates are better for performance over a longer period over sugar.

You keep making yourself look dumber and dumber with every post.

[smegmage]

Look at you, moving the goal posts. The argument was never to create the most optimal diet for performance. This is for ENERGY BALANCE. Obviously more complex carbohydrates are better for performance over a longer period over sugar.

You keep making yourself look dumber and dumber with every post.

And you keep making yourself look like you're incapable of looking past a chalkboard equation to actual examples of the applied science. As I said, the importance of different macro-nutrient ratios are more easily recognized at the pinnacle of performance, the same measurable difference (smaller) is true at the opposite end as well. Performance doesn't mean high performance, it means the process or function of a task from the absence of work being done all the way up to it's maximum potential. Different macro-nutrients in a diet will yield differences in how the human body functions in utilizes those nutrients, how it performs. Be it laying in a bed in a coma, to growing a bubble gut or running a marathon.

Anxiously awaiting your ad hominem response.