The Uneasy Truth About Traveling While Fat

[quikky]

Firefox suggested I read this article. Seemed appropriate to go here.

https://www.romper.com/life/what-to-kno ... wtab-en-us

My opinion is that, because of the modern food environment, there is a fraction of people who will not be able to lose weight through dieting and exercising. For this fraction of people, if their weight is a long term health risk, I feel that them being able to access a weight loss drug is a good thing. Now I'm not sure about the long term side effects of those drugs, but if they are not as bad as the long term side effects of being severely obese (which are pretty bad and very well documented).

Now you could argue that this is solving the wrong problem, and the actual problem would be to pass actual legislation to impose change in the food environment, but that's probably never going to ever happen, at least as long as politicians are owned by corporate interests.

Yeah, I have no problem with weight loss drugs either. Main thing is as far as I can tell, if you stop using the drugs, the rates of weight regain seem pretty high. This means you likely either have to stay on the drugs for life, which still might be preferable to lifelong obesity, or lifestyle changes have to be good enough to maintain the lost weight.

The thing I don't like about some folks in the weight loss field is it seems they started to push this idea that obesity is almost entirely outside of an individual's control. I understand the reasons why they might suggest it, i.e. people naturally have different appetites, satiety levels, cravings, etc, but to me this is more a difficulty not a choice issue. Completely agree for a lot of obese people weight loss is a very steep hill to climb. But I wouldn't suggest it's outside of their control. It's like this weird liberating, yet hopeless kind of rhetoric, in my opinion.

In terms of food environment, what would this look like? Pretty much only thing I could really think of is higher taxes on "weight promoting" food like the ultra processed/palatable stuff, and subsidies on whole food. Even that has a lot of issues though

[alek]

My opinion is that, because of the modern food environment, there is a fraction of people who will not be able to lose weight through dieting and exercising. For this fraction of people, if their weight is a long term health risk, I feel that them being able to access a weight loss drug is a good thing. Now I'm not sure about the long term side effects of those drugs, but if they are not as bad as the long term side effects of being severely obese (which are pretty bad and very well documented).

Now you could argue that this is solving the wrong problem, and the actual problem would be to pass actual legislation to impose change in the food environment, but that's probably never going to ever happen, at least as long as politicians are owned by corporate interests.

I think all of this is totally reasonable and thoughtful. However, in my experience of reading such articles or the one that started this thread, reason and thought are not part of the conversation usually. It seems that

the long term side effects of being severely obese (which are pretty bad and very well documented).

is often denied by the writers and subjects of those articles. I recently saw a What the Fitness episode by Dr. Layne Norton about a physician in the UK that denies there are health benefits to losing weight when one is obese.

[mikeylikey]

In terms of food environment, what would this look like? Pretty much only thing I could really think of is higher taxes on "weight promoting" food like the ultra processed/palatable stuff, and subsidies on whole food. Even that has a lot of issues though

We got where we are today because of government subsidies on corn and grains, and at the time this was because everyone "knew" that meat and butter make you fat.

A good start would just be for the government to not interfere in our food at all and see what happens.

[quikky]

In terms of food environment, what would this look like? Pretty much only thing I could really think of is higher taxes on "weight promoting" food like the ultra processed/palatable stuff, and subsidies on whole food. Even that has a lot of issues though

We got where we are today because of government subsidies on corn and grains, and at the time this was because everyone "knew" that meat and butter make you fat.

Eh, I think it's a lot more complicated than corn and grains being cheaper.

[mikeylikey]

In terms of food environment, what would this look like? Pretty much only thing I could really think of is higher taxes on "weight promoting" food like the ultra processed/palatable stuff, and subsidies on whole food. Even that has a lot of issues though

We got where we are today because of government subsidies on corn and grains, and at the time this was because everyone "knew" that meat and butter make you fat.

Eh, I think it's a lot more complicated than corn and grains being cheaper.

Yeah but what would it hurt to just try NOT monkeying with things for once and see what happens.

[quikky]

In terms of food environment, what would this look like? Pretty much only thing I could really think of is higher taxes on "weight promoting" food like the ultra processed/palatable stuff, and subsidies on whole food. Even that has a lot of issues though

We got where we are today because of government subsidies on corn and grains, and at the time this was because everyone "knew" that meat and butter make you fat.

Eh, I think it's a lot more complicated than corn and grains being cheaper.

Yeah but what would it hurt to just try NOT monkeying with things for once and see what happens.

No disagreement there.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Yeah, I have no problem with weight loss drugs either. Main thing is as far as I can tell, if you stop using the drugs, the rates of weight regain seem pretty high. This means you likely either have to stay on the drugs for life, which still might be preferable to lifelong obesity, or lifestyle changes have to be good enough to maintain the lost weight.

Exactly, I think you'd have to be on the meds for life. As far as lifestyle changes go, my vision is that the drugs are specifically for the people for whom (for whatever reason) cannot lose weight from lifestyle alone. In a sense it's like hypertension or cholesterol, you have to keep taking the drugs, but its still better than having a heart attack.

The thing I don't like about some folks in the weight loss field is it seems they started to push this idea that obesity is almost entirely outside of an individual's control. I understand the reasons why they might suggest it, i.e. people naturally have different appetites, satiety levels, cravings, etc, but to me this is more a difficulty not a choice issue. Completely agree for a lot of obese people weight loss is a very steep hill to climb. But I wouldn't suggest it's outside of their control. It's like this weird liberating, yet hopeless kind of rhetoric, in my opinion.

Yeah absolutely, some things are within your control and some things are not. I feel this is the reason why the problem is so complex to solve or even understand, there's always a mixture of decisions made by the individual (that are within one's control) and a bunch of sub conscious processes running in the background and the environment. Because I do not live in the US I'm very aware of the impact of the environment, whenever I go to the US for a short stay I start to become fatter. My genetics didn't change, my mental state or my hormonal balance has not been altered or whatever and I consistently find myself eating more food. I don't even like US food that much, and I'm still eating more. It's kind of fascinating.

In terms of food environment, what would this look like? Pretty much only thing I could really think of is higher taxes on "weight promoting" food like the ultra processed/palatable stuff, and subsidies on whole food. Even that has a lot of issues though

I'm not sure, I think the subject is incredibly complex. I could imagine a few changes:

- no more sodas, chips and candy: forbid them or tax them to oblivion
- portion control: force restaurants to serve normal size portions, instead of everything being king sized and super jumbo
- forbid people who sell junk food to advertise to kids (or to advertise at all, even better)
- limiting the amount of fast food joints that serve unhealthy crap, like you have places in which its' one fast food after the other for miles and miles
- make fresh fruits and veggies available in poorer neighborhoods
- teach people how to cook: it's amazing the number of people who can't prepare basic food from raw ingredients

In a sense force people to go back to the food environment from 50-100 years ago.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

My opinion is that, because of the modern food environment, there is a fraction of people who will not be able to lose weight through dieting and exercising. For this fraction of people, if their weight is a long term health risk, I feel that them being able to access a weight loss drug is a good thing. Now I'm not sure about the long term side effects of those drugs, but if they are not as bad as the long term side effects of being severely obese (which are pretty bad and very well documented).

Now you could argue that this is solving the wrong problem, and the actual problem would be to pass actual legislation to impose change in the food environment, but that's probably never going to ever happen, at least as long as politicians are owned by corporate interests.

I think all of this is totally reasonable and thoughtful. However, in my experience of reading such articles or the one that started this thread, reason and thought are not part of the conversation usually. It seems that

the long term side effects of being severely obese (which are pretty bad and very well documented).

is often denied by the writers and subjects of those articles. I recently saw a What the Fitness episode by Dr. Layne Norton about a physician in the UK that denies there are health benefits to losing weight when one is obese.

I agree 100%, reason and thought are sometimes not part of the conversation, it's kind of annoying.

[mikeylikey]

The thing I don't like about some folks in the weight loss field is it seems they started to push this idea that obesity is almost entirely outside of an individual's control.

Strictly scientifically speaking, sure it's within the individual's control. I have been both overweight and pretty fit at various periods of life and it's not really any mystery what choices I made that led to either; it was pretty much 100% within my control. It's also really hard for most people to stay fit. It can't have always been this hard. Look at pictures of people from the 60s. They're all thin. There's almost no fat people at Woodstock. And not only that but it came pretty easy as best I can tell; people in the 60s were not obsessively worrying about not getting fat all the time. Whereas now it is a daily struggle; I mean to the level of many of us stress over literally everything we put in our mouths, and we're still fat. And I don't think we just collectively all developed a massive deficiency of self-control. The food has to be a big part of that.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

The thing I don't like about some folks in the weight loss field is it seems they started to push this idea that obesity is almost entirely outside of an individual's control.

Strictly scientifically speaking, sure it's within the individual's control. I have been both overweight and pretty fit at various periods of life and it's not really any mystery what choices I made that led to either; it was pretty much 100% within my control. It's also really hard for most people to stay fit. It can't have always been this hard. Look at pictures of people from the 60s. They're all thin. There's almost no fat people at Woodstock. And not only that but it came pretty easy as best I can tell; people in the 60s were not obsessively worrying about not getting fat all the time. Whereas now it is a daily struggle; I mean to the level of many of us stress over literally everything we put in our mouths, and we're still fat. And I don't think we just collectively all developed a massive deficiency of self-control. The food has to be a big part of that.

I agree with that, the food environment is definitely the factor that triggered this. I read somewhere that the CDC claimed that current portion sizes in the US are 3 times what they used to be in the 50s. No wonder people got bigger.

[omaniphil]

Firefox suggested I read this article. Seemed appropriate to go here.

https://www.romper.com/life/what-to-kno ... wtab-en-us

This article seems a little overwrought, in search of some controversial take. I'm agnostic about the "why are we getting fat" questions, and feel like any mechanism which can make people healthier on the whole should be embraced. Are there psychological issues that are being brushed under the rug? Maybe. Can people lose weight the old fashioned way? Maybe... in some circumstances. But getting healthier and reducing obesity is hard, and a lot of people struggle. Why not make it easier for them?

Full disclosure, I've been on tirzepatide for about 4.5 months and have had a fairly typical response, losing about 18% of my bodyweight. I was active before and have lifted throughout, but going from 285lbs to 235lbs, without even "trying" has been a major improvement in my life. I'd like to lose another 20lbs, but I don't think I'll get there since I've plateaued.

[chrisd]

We got where we are today because of government subsidies on corn and grains, and at the time this was because everyone "knew" that meat and butter make you fat.

I thought it was because Nixon needed the farm vote.

Anyway, you're now flooded with maize to the extent that you try to make it int fuel and plastics, it's rubbish for both.

[chrisd]

In a sense force people to go back to the food environment from 50-100 years ago.

Further.

You must be young. The food environment fifty years ago was pretty damn poor. Stuff was tinned, frozen or dried. Sure, fresh food existed, but who had time for that ?

A hundred years ago was when the rot set in. Vegetable oils had taken over and were being put in everything. Sugar had become cheaper and new sources had been found.

For perspective. U.S servicemen killed in battle (or dead from other causes I suppose) were given autopsies. During the first world war, cases of atherosclerosis were so rare, they were noteworthy. During the Vietnam war, it was rare not to find it. Same demographic, fifty years apart.

[aurelius]

I just watched a Netflix comedy special. Pretty mediocre. But the comedian brought up a what I thought was a good point. The comedian got in an argument with the stewardess about his carryon bag not being fully under the seat in front of him. The stewardess stated that was a safety rule so that in the case of an emergency evacuation of the plane he would not trip over it. But seated in an aisle seat on his row was a 400 pound man. Which the comedian pointed out was more of an obstacle for him evacuating the plane than his bag at his feet.

If evacuating the plane in a timely fashion is a real safety concern, then wouldn't mobility impaired passengers represent a safety risk? Should they not all be required to sit in window sits so other passengers can disembark the plane?

Thought it was interesting. This is all concern trolling. If the plane crashes everyone is dead. But if we are going to be concerned trolled with this nonsense, then we got to follow the logic right?

[mikeylikey]

If the plane crashes everyone is dead.

There is at least one case in recent memory where a plane crash landed in Russia and caught fire and the whole back of the plane died because they could not get out in time. At least in part because people in the front were allegedly retrieving baggage from the overhead bins. So fatalities from slower than ideal disembarking are > 0. If it's a big enough number to be worth reconfiguring the entire system, maybe somebody else knows.

[mikeylikey]

I agree with that, the food environment is definitely the factor that triggered this. I read somewhere that the CDC claimed that current portion sizes in the US are 3 times what they used to be in the 50s. No wonder people got bigger.

But why are the portion sizes bigger is the question, right? People overeat at home too, not just at Olive Garden. Why are we so hungry all the time? The answer I have heard posited is that the food is high in calories but low in 'nutrition' whatever that means. I am not a scientist but this sounds plausible.

Seriously can anybody tell me how not to be so hungry all the time

[KyleSchuant]

- limiting the amount of fast food joints that serve unhealthy crap, like you have places in which its' one fast food after the other for miles and miles
- make fresh fruits and veggies available in poorer neighborhoods
- teach people how to cook: it's amazing the number of people who can't prepare basic food from raw ingredients

In a sense force people to go back to the food environment from 50-100 years ago.

I don't think force is necessary. Traditionally, small towns and urban areas had shops and workshops on the ground floor, and apartments above. People would walk there. Nowadays it's One Big Shopping Centre miles away from One Big Sprawled Suburb.

To a large degree, these are issues of the built environment. If city zoning means that you're building like SimCity - all this is the commercial zone, all this is the residential zone, and never the twain shall meet, this leads to One Big Shopping Centre. And if all your shops are in One Big Shopping Centre which sits in a field of parking lots, this tends to make the food shops have a lot of packaged goods and not much fresh stuff - easier to transport and store frozen junk than fresh greens. And obviously since it's miles from anywhere and striding along the road next to the traffic black hole singularity of the mall entrance is taking your life in your hands, you have to drive there.

Whereas if you have mixed use zoning, and if you put a cap on the size of any one commercial area, you get a lot of small shopping areas. And because people can walk to them and physically carry the stuff home, they're more likely to be fresh foods, and people are more likely to have the time and mental energy (driving through busy roads and car parking takes ages and saps your will to live) to cook their own food. And of course, they get incidental exercise going to the corner shop which they don't in the mall.

Adam Something talks a lot about this, though he's more about city planning than nutrition.

[Philbert]

Because I do not live in the US I'm very aware of the impact of the environment, whenever I go to the US for a short stay I start to become fatter. My genetics didn't change, my mental state or my hormonal balance has not been altered or whatever and I consistently find myself eating more food. I don't even like US food that much, and I'm still eating more. It's kind of fascinating.

This is intriguing to me. Can you describe the differences in what you eat, and how you feel in terms of hunger/appetite, between home and visiting the US.

[DanCR]

Yeah absolutely, some things are within your control and some things are not. I feel this is the reason why the problem is so complex to solve or even understand, there's always a mixture of decisions made by the individual (that are within one's control) and a bunch of sub conscious processes running in the background and the environment. Because I do not live in the US I'm very aware of the impact of the environment, whenever I go to the US for a short stay I start to become fatter. My genetics didn't change, my mental state or my hormonal balance has not been altered or whatever and I consistently find myself eating more food. I don't even like US food that much, and I'm still eating more. It's kind of fascinating.

In contrast, I am from the US and when I’ve visited Italy have lost weight despite eating whatever I wanted.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

I agree with that, the food environment is definitely the factor that triggered this. I read somewhere that the CDC claimed that current portion sizes in the US are 3 times what they used to be in the 50s. No wonder people got bigger.

But why are the portion sizes bigger is the question, right? People overeat at home too, not just at Olive Garden. Why are we so hungry all the time? The answer I have heard posited is that the food is high in calories but low in 'nutrition' whatever that means. I am not a scientist but this sounds plausible.

Seriously can anybody tell me how not to be so hungry all the time

It's probably quite complex but I can imagine a few reasons why people can eat so much:

- the food is very low in fiber so it's not satiating
- the food is more "rewarding" for your brain in the sense that it's full of fat salt and sugar
- people are more stressed so they use food as a compensation mechanism
- the food is cheaper

In my experience I can modulate my hunger by shopping: if I buy tasty food at the supermarket I will feel my hunger increase rapidly, whereas if my fridge is nothing but broccoli and meat my hunger levels will usually be average. I do share your frustration: I tend to be hungry most of the time.