[One Degree]

I do not want to diminish the importance of research. But don't overcomplicate what it is very clear: It all comes down to a combination of increase of energy rich foods and decrease of exercise. Genetics certainly might play a role, microbiota might play a role, less diseases might play a role. But the big deal is 2 much food 2 little exercise.

But then you have to go into the reasons we eat too much. The fact people are obviously very unhappy in the Western world might provide a clue.

[jimjam]

NY tried putting a tax on soda and it didn't work... Taxing food won't do a damn thing.

When I was a kid in NYC you could get a pack of cigarettes for $.15 (I am old). A pack in NYC costs today $14. Guess what? People smoke fewer cigarettes. Money is ........ money. It will have a similar effect on liquid sugar (soda).

Researchers followed residents of several low-income communities in Berkeley, San Francisco and Oakland around the time that Berkeley voters passed the country’s first big soda tax in 2014. The study found that, in the four months after the tax took effect last year, consumption of sugary drinks fell by 21 percent in the Berkeley neighborhoods, but rose by 4 percent in the other two cities.

The study, published in The American Journal of Public Health on Tuesday, also found that the Berkeley residents reported drinking more water, a sign that they were replacing sugar-sweetened beverages with something healthier.

And its results are consistent with research from Mexico, which passed a nationwide soda tax in 2014. In that country, sugary drink sales fell by about 17 percent among the poorest households by the end of a year.

[Rancid]

Big soda is shitting their pants.

[XogGyux]

When I was a kid in NYC you could get a pack of cigarettes for $.15 (I am old). A pack in NYC costs today $14. Guess what? People smoke fewer cigarettes. Money is ........ money. It will have a similar effect on liquid sugar (soda).

Researchers followed residents of several low-income communities in Berkeley, San Francisco and Oakland around the time that Berkeley voters passed the country’s first big soda tax in 2014. The study found that, in the four months after the tax took effect last year, consumption of sugary drinks fell by 21 percent in the Berkeley neighborhoods, but rose by 4 percent in the other two cities.

The study, published in The American Journal of Public Health on Tuesday, also found that the Berkeley residents reported drinking more water, a sign that they were replacing sugar-sweetened beverages with something healthier.

And its results are consistent with research from Mexico, which passed a nationwide soda tax in 2014. In that country, sugary drink sales fell by about 17 percent among the poorest households by the end of a year.

Not just that but also the tax = revenue that can be used to raise awareness of the problem, help cover healthcosts, fund research or even subsidize healthier alternatives.
I support tax on rapid food and sodas. This will hurt me! I love cola drinks!

[Godstud]

When I was a kid in NYC you could get a pack of cigarettes for $.15 (I am old). A pack in NYC costs today $14. Guess what? People smoke fewer cigarettes. Money is ........ money. It will have a similar effect on liquid sugar (soda).

I disagree with your assessment of that. More people are educated and know the hazards of smoking. Education and social stigma has made smoking far less popular than it once was, not the price of cigarettes, which people will complain about, but continue to buy.

If they teach people about soda like they did smokes, it WILL, eventually, result in less people drinking soda. It's not simply due to the cost, however.

[Rancid]

I'm not so sure about that. We are far more addicted to sugar than we ever have been to cigarettes. Education alone, may not help.

[noemon]

Taxes can go a long way in the battle against bad habits, from fizzy drinks which are cheaper than juices to junk food which are cheaper than home-cooked meals.

The tax on cigarettes has had significant effects and one can clearly observe a correlation between price/smokers. The higher the price the lesser the smokers.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I do not want to diminish the importance of research. But don't overcomplicate what it is very clear: It all comes down to a combination of increase of energy rich foods and decrease of exercise. Genetics certainly might play a role, microbiota might play a role, less diseases might play a role. But the big deal is 2 much food 2 little exercise.

Sure, and you could say that in anorexia the big deal is too little food, but that doesn't help us understand what is happening. I'm interested in the why and how we can influence it, since it's clear that the long term odds are stacked against people. This is also about realistic expectations.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Record what you eat. Eat a caloric deficit. Light exercise at first, ramp it up as you get to a weight level that allows it.

Like why do the fat acceptance people keep having to try to complicate this with gut bacteria, genetics and psychology when the obvious solution is that you put too much food in your mouth and didn't do enough walking?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Like why do the fat acceptance people keep having to try to complicate this with gut bacteria, genetics and psychology when the obvious solution is that you put too much food in your mouth and didn't do enough walking?

As mentioned, by the same logic the obvious solution to anorexia is to eat more.

In NZ, an unbelievable 68%of Pacific Islanders are obese compared with 47% of Maori, 26% of Europeans and 15% Asians. Moreover, all Pacific Islands are notorious for their high obesity rates. Also note that the Maori are a Pacific people (Polynesian). To me, that 's a strong pointer that we should look into genetic predisposition. At the very least it needs to be considered as a possible factors. Why would anybody ignore this? It makes no sense.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also interesting: no clear relationship between income and obesity in men, but some in women.

[One Degree]

Taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and proposed soft drinks are poor taxes.
They are a transparent attempt to get the poor to pay a larger per cent of their income in taxes than anyone else. If you truly believed these things are dangerous, then you would attempt to ban them, not tax the poor.
Why should your income determine whether you have freedom of choice about your own body?

[jimjam]

I am highly addicted to sugar and salt, two things the food "industry" uses to get us to increase consumption of their products and increase their profits. There are times during a day where I unexpectedly experience a craving for sugar. I know that the body requires sugar and salt but when sugar and salt are added to foods that are essentially of little or no nutritional value, a food "producer" is increasing their profits at the expense of your health. I used to work for General Mills. They have actual food "laboratories" where they "invent" foods designed to increase their profits with little consideration of what it does to your body. I consider "fast food" to be artificial or pretend food and avoid it almost completely. I have not drunk and liquid sugar (soda) in years and consider it to be a major source of poor health. One 12 ounce coca cola contains two ounces of sugar. I exercise daily and keep a scale handy for obsessive weigh ins. If I go up a pound or two I have a brilliant strategy to get back into the acceptable range ........ I stop eating and drink water. If I did not do the above, I would be obese.
I think a major cause of obesity among those not genetically predisposed is stumbling through life impulsively eating whatever one craves with no thought of food's effect on one's health. Simply connecting the dots is a big deal.
Obviously I have given this a high priority in my life.

[Drlee]

In NZ, an unbelievable 68%of Pacific Islanders are obese compared with 47% of Maori, 26% of Europeans and 15% Asians. Moreover, all Pacific Islands are notorious for their high obesity rates. Also note that the Maori are a Pacific people (Polynesian). To me, that 's a strong pointer that we should look into genetic predisposition. At the very least it needs to be considered as a possible factors. Why would anybody ignore this? It makes no sense.

There is clearly a genetic component to obesity in general and most particularly in indigenous populations. We have the same issue in the US. Telling them to eat less is preposterous. That is not really the issue. There is also interesting research that shows that even so dramatic a step as bariatric surgery does not prolong life. In fact:

Here are the conclusions from two major studies published in 2009 (2) and 2010 (3)..

"Weight loss is associated with excess mortality among normal, overweight, and mildly obese middle- and older-aged adults. The excess risk increases for larger losses and lower initial BMI [body mass index]. These results suggest that the potential benefits of a lower BMI may be offset by the negative effects associated with weight loss. Weight gain may be associated with excess mortality only among obese people with an initial BMI over 35." So weight loss is bad for most of us (below severe obesity) and weight gain has trivial effects on longevity.

"Weight loss of 15% or more from maximum body weight is associated with increased risk of death from all causes among overweight men and among women regardless of maximum BMI." Increased mortality rates ranged from 46% - 170%.

One reason that weight loss increases mortality may be the use of unsafe methods, such as severe calorie restriction, or stimulant drugs, including nicotine. Risks include diabetes, high blood pressure, osteoarthritis, and strokes. Another reason is that weight losers often have widely fluctuating weight that is a risk factor for heart disease (4).

So my judgmental friends. Tell your sister to lose weight. It may kill her sooner but you are just acting out of love. Dipshits.

[Saeko]

One reason that weight loss increases mortality may be the use of unsafe methods, such as severe calorie restriction, or stimulant drugs, including nicotine. Risks include diabetes, high blood pressure, osteoarthritis, and strokes. Another reason is that weight losers often have widely fluctuating weight that is a risk factor for heart disease (4).

In other words, people who engage in "get think quick" schemes, rather than proper diet and exercise.

[Drlee]

Do try and read that again. This time pay attention.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

There is clearly a genetic component to obesity in general and most particularly in indigenous populations. We have the same issue in the US. Telling them to eat less is preposterous. That is not really the issue. There is also interesting research that shows that even so dramatic a step as bariatric surgery does not prolong life. In fact:

So my judgmental friends. Tell your sister to lose weight. It may kill her sooner but you are just acting out of love. Dipshits.

Agreed. At this point, I'd be willing to bet money on a predisposition. In the Pacific populations here the percentage of people with normal weight is in the low single digits, that is, almost 100% are at least overweight. It's crazy. Then add co-morbid conditions, which are not necessarily a consequence of being overweight, such as depression as well as evidence of inflammation (and similar findings in anorexia/eating disorders). The body is just not cooperating and at least for some control over it is very limited.

I know somebody who has the opposite problem. He's underweight and constantly fighting to not lose more. As a bystander it's hard to really understand this. I mean what could be easier than just eating more, right? Throw in a few snacks and you are good to go. If this was a matter of willpower he'd have solved this a long time ago. I sometimes think about this in terms of an equilibrium that the body tries to maintain. His body is dysregulated somehow so that its equilibrium is lower than normal and hence the whole system is set up to push for less weight. This would fit nicely with the possibility that anorexia is kicked off by the initial - often deliberate - weight loss at which point the body itself also tries to either maintain the low weight or to push it even lower. If that's the case you'd want to "reset" the system so that the body stops being your enemy.

[MistyTiger]

As someone who has struggled with being overweight, I can say that exercising is a commitment. Since I was 9, I have been swimming so I manage to keep my weight stable. I am slowly getting down to the weight I was in high school. I am getting a stationary bike next month.


The taxes on junk food won't work because people will still keep spending. It is like the people who lease cars all the time. Every time the old one breaks down or gets totalled, they lease a new one, no matter the cost. People aren't really thinking about money. They just think about what they want to stuff into their mouths.

We should have worldwide campaigns that inspire people to live active lifestyles whether it's swimming, hiking or going to the gym. But inevitably, people have to want to be more active. All the lovely talk in the world will not work if the obese and overweight people do not want to get off of their couches or step away from the food and start moving their body.

[One Degree]

Agreed. At this point, I'd be willing to bet money on a predisposition. In the Pacific populations here the percentage of people with normal weight is in the low single digits, that is, almost 100% are at least overweight. It's crazy. Then add co-morbid conditions, which are not necessarily a consequence of being overweight, such as depression as well as evidence of inflammation (and similar findings in anorexia/eating disorders). The body is just not cooperating and at least for some control over it is very limited.

I know somebody who has the opposite problem. He's underweight and constantly fighting to not lose more. As a bystander it's hard to really understand this. I mean what could be easier than just eating more, right? Throw in a few snacks and you are good to go. If this was a matter of willpower he'd have solved this a long time ago. I sometimes think about this in terms of an equilibrium that the body tries to maintain. His body is dysregulated somehow so that its equilibrium is lower than normal and hence the whole system is set up to push for less weight. This would fit nicely with the possibility that anorexia is kicked off by the initial - often deliberate - weight loss at which point the body itself also tries to either maintain the low weight or to push it even lower. If that's the case you'd want to "reset" the system so that the body stops being your enemy.

This makes a lot of sense even to someone like me who knows if they gain weight it is due to too much beer.
but, I think all of us have seen the bathroom scales refuse to cooperate with our eating and exercising sometimes. It is like our body metabolism adjusts to our efforts.
Edit: Actually I notice it more when I have been extremely lazy for a long period and been eating like a pig. I get on the scales to see the bad news and am pleasantly surprised.

[Drlee]

It is like our body metabolism adjusts to our efforts.

Sort of. What happens is that our bodies attempt to adapt to starvation.

Also.

Depending on our aerobic fitness our cells release fat to be burned more or less quickly. One of the advantages to aerobic exercise is that it encourages fat cells to more quickly release fat for burning.

Bigger muscles burn more calories even at rest. So if you do a bunch of walking and strengthen your legs the muscles will get larger and burn more calories whether or not you are using them.

If you want a really good layman's book about how to lose weight and how this stuff works, read Covert Bailey's "Fit or Fat".

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

look all I know is that unless you actually keep track of what you eat and stick to a calorie deficit diet, all this hogwash about genetic predispositions and exercise means diddly. Is it really so crazy an idea that if you keep track of what you eat and make sure that the calories are at a deficit of what you need, that you will see results not matter what your genetics are? Like how much mental gymnastics do you want to do when you can do what I am telling you and see the results for yourself.