The Uneasy Truth About Traveling While Fat

[cgeorg]

I also don't buy the whole, "highly palatable food" claim that's going around lately. Donuts weren't invented 20 years ago, and neither were snickers bars and ice cream. That stuff has been around for a long time, and people could eat an entire diet consisting of nutrient deficient, highly caloric dense food for a lot longer than those 20 years.

^I find this observation very compelling^. But, one hole I see, is that "back then" (this topic defies putting exact dates on things) if you wanted donuts you had to go to the donut store and purchase and eat them around other people. They didn't have boxes of crispy creme in the grocery store.

Come to think of it, every grocery store I can remember shopping at literally has had the bakery & donuts and cakes directly adjoining the produce section. It's almost like they're trying to make it hard to be good.

But "back then" the donuts were made with sugar, flour, butter, and some oil that was probably not very processed. At the very least, that sugar has been replaced with HFCS, which has demonstrated negative effects regarding health and satiety.

[KyleSchuant]

As far as "transmitting" obesity to your kids, I'm pretty convinced that the simplest explanation is not "genetics" per se, but rather that children tend to copy the (unhealthy) eating habits of their parents.

Yeah after the south of the US has more obese people than the north, rural areas of Australia more than urban areas, are the genetics different? I think it's mostly environmental and social stuff - this is all dietary choices. I mean, if you're Jewish then you're not going to sit there eating a ham, cheese and tomato toasted sandwich when everyone else is having Passover dinner. If you're a family of lean people eating chicken salad, you're not going to be the one person eating a bucket of KFC - and vice versa.

This has been studied, and obesity does indeed communicate among social networks in unrelated individuals.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7617300350

Fat people have fat friends, and if you're the one skinny person among a bunch of fat people, you'll get fatter. And vice versa. I once trained a young woman, not fat but deconditioned, she was doing well in training, improving her food and health a lot, and I suggested a novice PL meet. "Oh," she said, "my friends wouldn't be down for that." They had weekends with music concerts, booze and pills. "Maybe if you're changing your own lifestyle," I said, "you'll need to change your friends, too." She stopped training not long after that.

[5hout]

This is #ShowerThought level on this topic but: 20 years ago people went to So Cal and raved about tamale ladies. Then it was street tacos, now it's burritos and similar more constructed/"modern" food (or fucking massive tacos). The calories per street meal serving have gone up faster than inflation.

[mikeylikey]

But "back then" the donuts were made with sugar, flour, butter, and some oil that was probably not very processed.

... if not Lard for that matter.

As far as "transmitting" obesity to your kids, I'm pretty convinced that the simplest explanation is not "genetics" per se, but rather that children tend to copy the (unhealthy) eating habits of their parents. After all it's the parents who usually buy the food and cook it for their kids. Furthermore, the eating habits tend to stay constant in adulthood: if you grew up eating fast food for every meal with your parents, it's likely you'll keep doing the same as an adult, simply because this is what your taste buds have been educated to consider tasty food.

It doesn't have to be every meal. My parents made us eat pretty healthy when I was growing up. If we were eating junk food or sweets, it was probably a vacation, holiday, or other special occasion. I suspect that my love for Cheetos is because my brain associates them with good times at the lake, rather than having been feed too many Cheetos as a kid, which I really wasn't. N=1 but I bet this isn't unique to me.

[Culican]

[alek]

alek I think that the "highly palatable food" (or rather the "highly processed food") argument is pretty convincing honestly.

The start of the obesity epidemic in the US is in the middle of the 70s and this is exactly when the consumption of highly processed foods became hugely popular probably because of:

- higher availability
- lower prices (farmers were subsidized by the USDA, commodities such as sugar became cheaper)
- increased popularity of eating out
- people stopped cooking at home (partly due to more women joining the workforce)

As you mentioned, donuts or pizzas or coca-cola were not invented yesterday (I think the first fast food restaurant in the US was created in the 20s), but how people consume them did change dramatically, with catastrophic effects.

I pulled the following image from Stephan Guyenet's website: https://www.stephanguyenet.com/obesity- ... in-the-us/. It does show the upward tend in obesity starting in the 70's.



I think maybe I don't like "highly palatable food" argument because if that's the reason, then that takes one's agency away. It's not your fault, it's the "highly palatable food". But that also implies that you can't do anything about it either. As long as there's "highly palatable food" then you'll be obese.

Also, why didn't everyone all at once get obese given the "highly palatable food"? Why has it taken so long in that environment for so many to become obese? Shouldn't the graph be essentially a Heaviside function? (I'm not sure if that pun is intentional or not...)

As far as "transmitting" obesity to your kids, I'm pretty convinced that the simplest explanation is not "genetics" per se, but rather that children tend to copy the (unhealthy) eating habits of their parents. After all it's the parents who usually buy the food and cook it for their kids. Furthermore, the eating habits tend to stay constant in adulthood: if you grew up eating fast food for every meal with your parents, it's likely you'll keep doing the same as an adult, simply because this is what your taste buds have been educated to consider tasty food. I made a (semi-serious) joke about mac'n'cheese being disgusting, but i'm sure that if my parents made mac'n'cheese for me as a little boy I'd probably like it as an adult.

Yeah, I think this is likely a better argument.

[5hout]

Also, why didn't everyone all at once get obese given the "highly palatable food"? Why has it taken so long in that environment for so many to become obese? Shouldn't the graph be essentially a Heaviside function? (I'm not sure if that pun is intentional or not...)

As far as "transmitting" obesity to your kids, I'm pretty convinced that the simplest explanation is not "genetics" per se, but rather that children tend to copy the (unhealthy) eating habits of their parents. After all it's the parents who usually buy the food and cook it for their kids. Furthermore, the eating habits tend to stay constant in adulthood: if you grew up eating fast food for every meal with your parents, it's likely you'll keep doing the same as an adult, simply because this is what your taste buds have been educated to consider tasty food. I made a (semi-serious) joke about mac'n'cheese being disgusting, but i'm sure that if my parents made mac'n'cheese for me as a little boy I'd probably like it as an adult.

Yeah, I think this is likely a better argument.

In the spirit of TacoBell (I liked the step function joke) "Why not both?"? They feed into each other. Mass availability of instant highly palatable food makes it easier to indulge in terrible habits. When donuts turned stale in 8 hours, you don't live off donuts and sweet cakes b/c constantly going to the bakery is a lot of work. When you can buy an amazing pack of donuts that last days/weeks, you have this crap around (and eatable) all the time. If you already went too often/had bad habits, the availability makes it easier to model this.

As to the step function I think it's simply that it takes time for crap habits to propagate. People who (under 1950's conditions) would be 5-10 lbs overweight (and maybe not even that given the insanely widespread smoking habits) stop smoking/smoke less and start modeling crappier behavior for their kids, but they aren't full on pod people overnight. Over time though (as pod people eating/life habits) become more standard more and more fatties are forming groups, aided and abetted by it being every easier to do this (b/c you can get infinite supplies of highly palatable crap that keeps forever).

This suggest that we need to attack at least 3 avenues: Eating Habits, Food Availability, Lifestyle (i.e. 9 hours a day of sitting followed by TV time is going to fucking kill you). I think we need to win on at least 2 of these to stem the tide, and possibly all 3. A real problem I have is balancing my vaguely libertarian beliefs with the fact that gov sugar/palatability mandates are probably a near-essential part of this.

One thing I can get fully behind without any political issues we have to fix school lunches. You simply cannot feed kids fucking terrible food that is both shit and bad for them for 13 years and then be all surprised pikachu when they eat like shit as adults. We spend way too much and get way too little. Given FdB's arguments in the Cult of Smart I'd be straight up comfortable firing 10% of teachers and a higher % of admin staff and using the money simply to provide decent food and a cleaner box to kill time in.

EDIT:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/184 ... in-the-us/

I'm mostly not-joking: It looks like some good % of people went from smoking to being fatties and modeling terrible eating behavior. Now I'm wondering if you add in anti-depressant use (which also tends to make people obese) how much does less smoking + more pills explain 80% of the obesity crisis.

[aurelius]

Also, why didn't everyone all at once get obese given the "highly palatable food"?

This is a silly question. Let's rephrase: Why are not all people that use drugs addicts*? Let's rephrase again more broadly: Why are not all people the same even when raised in similar environments?

Answer those question and you will have an answer to your original question.

I think all of us can be rather less than empathetic while ignoring our own experiences. At some point every one of us tried to get the six pack for the ladies physique. But the realities and physical discomfort of the diet required to achieve that deterred 99% from ever achieving that. So much for 'willpower'.

In fact, the vast majority of drug users are NOT drug addicts. Only a small percentage of people that use drugs become addicts.[/sizqe]

[alek]

Also, why didn't everyone all at once get obese given the "highly palatable food"? Why has it taken so long in that environment for so many to become obese? Shouldn't the graph be essentially a Heaviside function? (I'm not sure if that pun is intentional or not...)

As far as "transmitting" obesity to your kids, I'm pretty convinced that the simplest explanation is not "genetics" per se, but rather that children tend to copy the (unhealthy) eating habits of their parents. After all it's the parents who usually buy the food and cook it for their kids. Furthermore, the eating habits tend to stay constant in adulthood: if you grew up eating fast food for every meal with your parents, it's likely you'll keep doing the same as an adult, simply because this is what your taste buds have been educated to consider tasty food. I made a (semi-serious) joke about mac'n'cheese being disgusting, but i'm sure that if my parents made mac'n'cheese for me as a little boy I'd probably like it as an adult.

Yeah, I think this is likely a better argument.

In the spirit of TacoBell (I liked the step function joke) "Why not both?"? They feed into each other. Mass availability of instant highly palatable food makes it easier to indulge in terrible habits. When donuts turned stale in 8 hours, you don't live off donuts and sweet cakes b/c constantly going to the bakery is a lot of work. When you can buy an amazing pack of donuts that last days/weeks, you have this crap around (and eatable) all the time. If you already went too often/had bad habits, the availability makes it easier to model this.

As to the step function I think it's simply that it takes time for crap habits to propagate. People who (under 1950's conditions) would be 5-10 lbs overweight (and maybe not even that given the insanely widespread smoking habits) stop smoking/smoke less and start modeling crappier behavior for their kids, but they aren't full on pod people overnight. Over time though (as pod people eating/life habits) become more standard more and more fatties are forming groups, aided and abetted by it being every easier to do this (b/c you can get infinite supplies of highly palatable crap that keeps forever).

This suggest that we need to attack at least 3 avenues: Eating Habits, Food Availability, Lifestyle (i.e. 9 hours a day of sitting followed by TV time is going to fucking kill you). I think we need to win on at least 2 of these to stem the tide, and possibly all 3. A real problem I have is balancing my vaguely libertarian beliefs with the fact that gov sugar/palatability mandates are probably a near-essential part of this.

One thing I can get fully behind without any political issues we have to fix school lunches. You simply cannot feed kids fucking terrible food that is both shit and bad for them for 13 years and then be all surprised pikachu when they eat like shit as adults. We spend way too much and get way too little. Given FdB's arguments in the Cult of Smart I'd be straight up comfortable firing 10% of teachers and a higher % of admin staff and using the money simply to provide decent food and a cleaner box to kill time in.

EDIT:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/184 ... in-the-us/

I'm mostly not-joking: It looks like some good % of people went from smoking to being fatties and modeling terrible eating behavior. Now I'm wondering if you add in anti-depressant use (which also tends to make people obese) how much does less smoking + more pills explain 80% of the obesity crisis.

Yeah, again all this I think is a good take.

And amen, brother, about school lunches. It amazes me how crappy it is. My kids go to a small Montessori charter school, and they don’t have a cafeteria. The stuff they get from the district is terrible, and expensive—$3 per lunch. The breakfast is free for everyone since so many kids get free lunch, and it’s even worse—all sugar laden junk. They’ll get a boxes of raisins covered in a sugar glaze in the breakfast sometimes.

We send them with lunch everyday and spend less than $3 for both kids.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@alek I do not think that it takes one's agency away. I think the reason why the problem is complicated is that the behaviors that you adopt (i.e. eating that jelly doughnut) are a complex function of conscious factors (like willpower), unconscious factors, and the environment. I believe that people will only switch to a new behavior if maintaining this behavior requires minimal willpower.

To give an example: if I do not purchase doughnuts in the supermarket, then it takes me zero willpower to not eat doughnuts during the week, I won't even think about it. But if somebody gives me a pack of doughnuts as a gift, I'm almost guaranteed to eat all of them, and not eating them would require more willpower and mental stress than I can handle.

[alek]

Also, why didn't everyone all at once get obese given the "highly palatable food"?

This is a silly question.

I really don’t think so; if the argument is that “highly palatable food” and access to it is the cause of obesity, then why didn’t everyone get obese at the same time?

Again, I reject that argument for the reasons I said above, and the answer to the question is because it is not the “highly palatable food”—it’s the collection of choices and behaviors that an ever increasing number of people have made given access to the abundance of all foods since the start of the obesity epidemic.

[alek]

alek I do not think that it takes one's agency away. I think the reason why the problem is complicated is that the behaviors that you adopt (i.e. eating that jelly doughnut) are a complex function of conscious factors (like willpower), unconscious factors, and the environment. I believe that people will only switch to a new behavior if maintaining this behavior requires minimal willpower.

To give an example: if I do not purchase doughnuts in the supermarket, then it takes me zero willpower to not eat doughnuts during the week, I won't even think about it. But if somebody gives me a pack of doughnuts as a gift, I'm almost guaranteed to eat all of them, and not eating them would require more willpower and mental stress than I can handle.

Oh I agree with you essentially entirely. I think it’s that bio-psycho-social thing as well as the environment. 5hout has laid out some compelling statements as well.

I like how Layne Norton says it: It may not be your fault entirely, but it is your responsibility.

[mikeylikey]

Also, why didn't everyone all at once get obese given the "highly palatable food"?

This is a silly question.

I really don’t think so; if the argument is that “highly palatable food” and access to it is the cause of obesity, then why didn’t everyone get obese at the same time?

Again, I reject that argument for the reasons I said above, and the answer to the question is because it is not the “highly palatable food”—it’s the collection of choices and behaviors that an ever increasing number of people have made given access to the abundance of all foods since the start of the obesity epidemic.

Obesity has gotten significantly more prevalent over a pretty well defined and relatively short period of time. That can rule out (edit... too strong) should reduce the weight we give certain factors like willpower, which it doesn't seem reasonable to believe just vanished about 1982.

[aurelius]

I really don’t think so; if the argument is that “highly palatable food” and access to it is the cause of obesity, then why didn’t everyone get obese at the same time?

It isn't and this is still a VERY silly question.

My point you entirely dodged is genetics play a large factor in who is susceptible and to what degree to "highly palatable foods". Just like some are more susceptible to the effects of drugs. This is not up for debate but fact. Which is why the class of recent appetizer suppressant drugs are such game changer for the obesity epidemic. They work with ZERO change to lifestyle.

Yes, everyone is responsible. AND it is not a level playing field. BUT understanding the relationship between "highly palatable food" and those that are susceptible to them will be necessary to address the issue on a population wide scale. Because fat shaming and telling people they don't have 'willpower' isn't working.

[5hout]

I like how Layne Norton says it: It may not be your fault entirely, but it is your responsibility.

Spot on. Hear him, hear him!

[quikky]

Which is why the class of recent appetizer suppressant drugs are such game changer for the obesity epidemic.

Damn. Sometimes appetizers are better than the entrees though

[alek]

Also, why didn't everyone all at once get obese given the "highly palatable food"?

This is a silly question.

I really don’t think so; if the argument is that “highly palatable food” and access to it is the cause of obesity, then why didn’t everyone get obese at the same time?

Again, I reject that argument for the reasons I said above, and the answer to the question is because it is not the “highly palatable food”—it’s the collection of choices and behaviors that an ever increasing number of people have made given access to the abundance of all foods since the start of the obesity epidemic.

Obesity has gotten significantly more prevalent over a pretty well defined and relatively short period of time. That can rule out (edit... too strong) should reduce the weight we give certain factors like willpower, which it doesn't seem reasonable to believe just vanished about 1982.

I hear you, and I don’t think willpower abruptly vanished in the face of the food environment. I think the cause is bolded above, and it has come about because of a variety of factors, not just one. I think Cheeki did a fine job enumerating several of them in a post above.

I don’t have the data in front of me, but it seems that the US has averaged about a percentage point increase in obesity prevalence over the last several decades, which I think shows that we cannot point to one single thing and say, “Aha, that’s the cause! Now just eliminate this one thing, and it’ll be solved.” Yes, people are obese or become obese because they consume too many calories, but it’s not because of just one thing. And I don’t think the solution is just one thing, either.

[alek]

I really don’t think so; if the argument is that “highly palatable food” and access to it is the cause of obesity, then why didn’t everyone get obese at the same time?

It isn't and this is still a VERY silly question.

My point you entirely dodged is genetics play a large factor in who is susceptible and to what degree to "highly palatable foods". Just like some are more susceptible to the effects of drugs. This is not up for debate but fact. Which is why the class of recent appetizer suppressant drugs are such game changer for the obesity epidemic. They work with ZERO change to lifestyle.

Yes, everyone is responsible. AND it is not a level playing field. BUT understanding the relationship between "highly palatable food" and those that are susceptible to them will be necessary to address the issue on a population wide scale. Because fat shaming and telling people they don't have 'willpower' isn't working.

I mean, I still don’t think it’s a silly question.

Speaking of dodging, did you read the rest of my first post you took that quote from?

Irregardless, is there a genetic component that makes some people more susceptible to the “highly palatable food” than others? Sure, why not? I’ve read Pontzer’s book; humans are fat storing machines. Damn chimps, getting jacked when overfed… why I oughtta…

Ahem. Anyway, even if there is, then why is the number of obese individuals increasing? Shouldn’t all those susceptible to obesity already be obese? There’s that silly question again. Maybe you could answer it rather than dodging it.

And yes semiglutides and other similar drugs work because people don’t eat as much while they’re on them. I think they are a good thing.

Making sure I’m not dodging any more of your post… ah, yes, you are right, fat shaming and telling people to just have more willpower is not the answer. That’s like saying, “Eat less, move more.” While somewhat true, that ain’t gonna fix anything.

I think the whole bio/psyco/social/enviro theory of everything applies. Unless you change/fix/cure people’s hangups/neuroses about food, health, environment, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, then this ain’t gonna get better.

[aurelius]

I mean, I still don’t think it’s a silly question.

If people evolved from monkeys then why aren't all people monkeys?

[alek]

I mean, I still don’t think it’s a silly question.

If people evolved from monkeys then why aren't all people monkeys?

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball… I mean a question.