How the government caused the obesity crisis

[William Wallace]

Article

While blaming lack of exercise, overeating, and (this week) poor parenting, the real culprit has been almost entirely overlooked: The awful dietary advice dispensed by mainstream medical science over the last 30 years. If we want a healthier, slimmer population, we have to stop eating the sugar-laden diet so many experts have recommended to us...

[Cool Chris]

Insert 'Not sure if serious' picture here.

Do people really follow the dietary opinion of 'experts?' Seems like everyone I know just eats whatever the heck they want. And the overweight people eat more of it.

If we want a healthier, slimmer population, we have to stop eating the sugar-laden diet so many experts have recommended to us... like pigs and hit a treadmill from time to time.

[ehra]

That was my initial thought, but aren't the nutritional fact and guideline labels on food based on government's dietary guidelines? Considering how big of a deal was made about fast food places and restaurants making their nutritional information available on demand, I'd have to think that there's a least a decent number of people who look at and use that information.

[Jamesman42]

Yep, fat doesn't make people fat. Carbs/sugar do.

[rumborak]

Strangely, in the US the government is marvelously successful at making people fat, whereas in other countries govt's giving the same advice totally fail. Hmm, can you spot the issue?

rumborak

[William Wallace]

Strangely, in the US the government is marvelously successful at making people fat, whereas in other countries govt's giving the same advice totally fail. Hmm, can you spot the issue?

rumborak

People are getting fatter all around the world. Even Germany's climbing the ladder of chubbiness.  Das ist nicht sehr gut.

[rumborak]

Yeah, but the govt's have been suggesting it for the same amount of time. You theory of govts being the dominant factor should predict essentially the same amount of obesity across the world. It's not, so it means it isn't the dominant one. Culture and lifestyle is. No US govt pamphlet is suggesting the dish sizes you get here, quite to the contrary. The first thing you notice when coming to the US is the size of food you get. And no govt pamphlet is suggesting to drive to the convenience store around the corner.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

It's really sad to see you blame everything on the government. Was the government involved? Yes. But we've become far more sedentary as a culture, and that assuredly has an impact. And seeing as barely anyone actually follows the guidelines 100%, it's ludicrous to blame the actual guidelines (which have changd, for the better, fyi).

Besides, without government, who would you have listened to? The nutritional experts at the time? They were saying the same thing. This problem is as much of a problem of nutritional science as it is "government," and the problem with the government wasn't so much the guidelines (seeing as how they're rarely followed), but the over subsidization of corn, which is made into corn-syrup, and put into just about everything under the sun.

Now, food subsidies are a rationally intelligent thing to do (scarcity of food = death, so I'm fine with manipulating the market to overproduce), but we should subsidize small and individual farmers, as well as more variety in vegetables and fruit.

Oh, and just as a final statement, I think the government should drop any guidelines. What you should eat depends entirely upon your family history and your genetics, and isn't going to be universal.

[emindead]

The girl I'm dating at the moment lived five years in Germany while studying. She gained 10Kg compared to her weight in Colombia. She ate normally in Germany and when she came here just for vacations it's a fact that she ate more of our regular food and and started to recuperate her original weight. Went back to continue her studies, up again with her weight. She's been back for eight months and staying for good and she's getting slimmer and slimmer, soon to reach her weight after she graduated from high-school. The funny thing is that she doesn't exercise!

[William Wallace]

It's really sad to see you blame everything on the government. Was the government involved? Yes. But we've become far more sedentary as a culture, and that assuredly has an impact. And seeing as barely anyone actually follows the guidelines 100%, it's ludicrous to blame the actual guidelines (which have changd, for the better, fyi).

I linked to the guidelines in the article. They haven't change much. There's more emphasis on fruits and vegetables, but the phobia about saturated fat is alive and well; so is the recommendation that half your calories come from carbohydrates.

Besides, without government, who would you have listened to? The nutritional experts at the time? They were saying the same thing. This problem is as much of a problem of nutritional science as it is "government," and the problem with the government wasn't so much the guidelines (seeing as how they're rarely followed), but the over subsidization of corn, which is made into corn-syrup, and put into just about everything under the sun.

There were experts at the time that the government adopted the lipid hypothesis who protested vigorously. They were ignored when the McGovern Committee held hearings and released their report. Furthermore, the NIH was intimately involved as they financed the research that got the ball rolling and keeps it rolling.

Now, food subsidies are a rationally intelligent thing to do (scarcity of food = death, so I'm fine with manipulating the market to overproduce), but we should subsidize small and individual farmers, as well as more variety in vegetables and fruit.

No, they're not intelligent. We're subsidizing products that we have the capability to produce in vast quantities. Think oil subsidies. The same economic rules apply. The only difference is that you have a soft spot for the little farmer in your heart.

Oh, and just as a final statement, I think the government should drop any guidelines. What you should eat depends entirely upon your family history and your genetics, and isn't going to be universal.

I absolutely agree.

[Scheavo]

No, they're not intelligent. We're subsidizing products that we have the capability to produce in vast quantities. Think oil subsidies. The same economic rules apply. The only difference is that you have a soft spot for the little farmer in your heart.

Soft spot? More like I have the need to eat food, and I want that food supply to be pretty much guaranteed (which is why I'm trying to get into aquaponics). I'd much rather distort the market to overproduce food (which is an effect of our subsidies) than to have a "free" market where food shortages and farm poverty can cause problems for the rest of society. Oil has become a necessity in our society, but it is not a physical necessity like food, and is much more of a choice than the need to eat.

The worst result of food subsidies is on other, poorer countries, becuase we produce too much food. Again, since we're talking about food, I really can't imagine a problem.

There were experts at the time that the government adopted the lipid hypothesis who protested vigorously. They were ignored when the McGovern Committee held hearings and released their report. Furthermore, the NIH was intimately involved as they financed the research that got the ball rolling and keeps it rolling.

So, if moneyed interests basically corrupted the government to recommend something different, then how and why would the media be safe from this? You would effectively have the same result, and it doesn't matter if there would have been dissenters. A more important point, no one forces you to eat what you eat; people are and were still free to follow whatever diet they chose, and where I agree with you, is that the problem lies in the way we subsidized food production, which effect prices, which more or less controls what people eat. There's gotta be a way to ensure food production, while still letting the market decide what is produced.

*edit*

I mean, don't American's eat more meat than any other populace in the world? According to your theory, shouldn't that mean we're better off?
 
One of the biggest problems is the amount of soft drinks we consume in this country, something which isn't recommended, and something which is fully becuase of our choice to drink them. Another culprit is beer, which is again not in the FDA recommendations.

Lastly:

I linked to the guidelines in the article. They haven't change much. There's more emphasis on fruits and vegetables, but the phobia about saturated fat is alive and well; so is the recommendation that half your calories come from carbohydrates.

Recommending people to eat fruit and vegetables is going to be telling them to get more of the calories from carbohydrates. You cant lump all carbohydrates together, as they're not all the same. Basically anything you eat that isn't an animal, or from an animal, is going to be full of carbs, becuase, that's sorta how plants build themselves.

[jingle.boy]

Haven't read thru all the posts, but I'm telling you this right now, the biggest issue (between US and Canada at least) is portion sizes.  Seriously, when my wife and I eat out in Canada, we each get our own entree, and maybe have a little bit of leftovers to take home.  When we eat out in the U.S., we share one and are stuffed, maybe can't even finish it.  The portion sizes are out of control.  I ordered a 'kids' pizza at The Hard Rock at downtown Disney a couple of years ago, and I'm not shitting you, it was more than I (a 200 lb man) could think about eating.  A kids portion!

Lack of exercise, bad quality food, and way too much.  Not the gov't.

You wanna control obesity, charge food  by the calorie.  $0.10 per calorie.  That would make a big mac combo $13.  Better yet, high fat/high sugar foods are $0.20, and healthy (lean protein, complex carbs) are $.10.  That'll get people paying attention to what and how much.

[rumborak]

I can't eat anything but kid's size ice cream in the US.
But, it must be the government, because all that is done by private businesses.

rumborak

[slycordinator]

Just because exercise is involved doesn't mean that the information the government has given us with dietary advice isn't involved.

Perhaps the advice is wrong and shows up even more so here in the states due to lack of exercise?

[William Wallace]

I can't eat anything but kid's size ice cream in the US.
But, it must be the government, because all that is done by private businesses.

rumborak

You could bother considering the arguments.

[rumborak]

If you want to discuss the minor effect the not-perfect food pyramid has had on the population, that's fine and dandy.
But, if someone tries to make the claim that caloric deficit plays a smaller role in causing obesity than governmental food recommendation, that person has ideological baggage he can't shed. WW can't get over his government hate, which renders his article, to be perfectly frank, completely useless.

rumborak

[slycordinator]

Though, the argument against the food pyramid is the fact that all calories aren't necessarily equal. Why? Because 1 calorie of fat and one calorie of sugar are metabolized through entirely different mechanisms in the body, despite measurably being the same amount of energy.

Don't get me wrong, eating too many calories will also get you fat.

[William Wallace]

If you want to discuss the minor effect the not-perfect food pyramid has had on the population, that's fine and dandy.
But, if someone tries to make the claim that caloric deficit plays a smaller role in causing obesity than governmental food recommendation, that person has ideological baggage he can't shed. WW can't get over his government hate, which renders his article, to be perfectly frank, completely useless.

rumborak

The genetic fallacy was always my favorite. The clinical trials and experts I cited are irrelevant...because I start with a bias you happen not to share.

The funniest part is that you can't even restate my argument correctly. It's not a question of lousy advice verses a calorie deficit, but why so many people end up consuming too many calories. Your argument is the equivalent of "alcoholics are alcoholics because they drink too much, and don't give me any nonsense about genetics or bad advice leading to alcoholism."

[jingle.boy]

If you want to discuss the minor effect the not-perfect food pyramid has had on the population, that's fine and dandy.
But, if someone tries to make the claim that caloric deficit plays a smaller role in causing obesity than governmental food recommendation, that person has ideological baggage he can't shed. WW can't get over his government hate, which renders his article, to be perfectly frank, completely useless.

rumborak

The genetic fallacy was always my favorite. The clinical trials and experts I cited are irrelevant...because I start with a bias you happen not to share.

The funniest part is that you can't even restate my argument correctly. It's not a question of lousy advice verses a calorie deficit, but why so many people end up consuming too many calories. Your argument is the equivalent of "alcoholics are alcoholics because they drink too much, and don't give me any nonsense about genetics or bad advice leading to alcoholism."

I don't see how you can make that comparison.  Alcoholism is a recognized *disease*.  Not all alcoholics are that way because they drink too much (see, recovering alcoholics, who do not drink).  I didn't read the article, so I don't know what the argument is.  I don't see anything to argue however.   It's a simple math equation, people get fat/obese (ie, add weight) because they consume more calories than they burn.  They fail to lose that weight because they do not burn more than they consume.  Sorry, but at it's root, that's what causes obesity.

[slycordinator]

I didn't read the article, so I don't know what the argument is.  I don't see anything to argue however.

In short: I don't know what's being discussed in the article but I know it's wrong.
Simply stunning.

It's a simple math equation, people get fat/obese (ie, add weight) because they consume more calories than they burn.  They fail to lose that weight because they do not burn more than they consume.  Sorry, but at it's root, that's what causes obesity.

Anyone who looks at obesity SOLELY as a math equation of calories consumed vs calories burned is ignorant on the subject.

Again, different substances are metabolized and stored through different mechanisms. 1 calorie of fat will have a different metabolic response in your body than 1 calorie of sugar, even if they both contain exactly the same amount of energy.

[jingle.boy]

Two insults in one post. That's also a great way to get your point across.

Ciao. I have no more interest if that's the kind of dialog you want.

[ehra]

I only saw one. Unless pointing out how ridiculous it is to comment on an article without actually reading it is an insult?

[Jamesman42]

I saw no insults, and sly is correct.

[slycordinator]

The only reason I posted with the tone I did is because of the "dialog-squashing" comment of "There's nothing to discuss." It felt like it was saying "We might as well end everything here because I'm 100% right." Otherwise, I would've just responded calmly like I had earlier in the thread in response to the same kind of calorie-related argument.