Obesity now a global issue - Page 5

On May 30 2014 07:39 Nyxisto wrote:
As the overwhelming majority of the population is neither a professional bodybuilder nor 300 pounds fat, for whole populations the BMI is quite okay.

On May 30 2014 08:12 Integra wrote:

And yet they still put fit and fat people in the same category which defeats the whole purpose of it in the first place.

On May 30 2014 08:15 marvellosity wrote:

no, the whole purpose in this case is to show that BMI has increased markedly over the time period

which in essence means, people weigh more at the same height than they used to

so unless you're going to argue that the world has become absolutely choc-full of bodybuilding fanatics in the interim, then it's a pretty decent rough stat to work from

On May 30 2014 08:19 Integra wrote:

Yes, the people in the statistics has either become more fit as in that they gained more muscle, or gained more fat and we can't really know for sure which one so the only thing we can do is to speculate and argue about it. There is no way to certainly say, based on this data, what person is more fit and what person is more fat.

On May 30 2014 08:23 marvellosity wrote:

ok, forgive me for taking the common sense approach.

the world is suddenly full of adonises.

I don't think anyone would argue this but you, in fact.

On May 30 2014 09:26 Taf the Ghost wrote:
The first problem is the issue is badly clouded, by the statistics at the beginning.

BMI is a nearly 200 year old hack statistic. It's still loved for a few reasons, mostly because it's "old" but came from one of the original social busy-body types.

It's relevancy is only at the extremes (if I remember correctly, it's below 16 and above 32) when it comes to diagnostic criteria. In the "massive amount of people", it really has little in the way of predictive effect. But it's old, so there has been years of data with it. Insurance companies like historic data. (And/or they're forced to use it)

The other issue is that you can collect data on nearly the entire population of the country with very little trouble. That's wonderfully tempting to data people. The problem is that "social scientists" can't handle statistical relevance (this is a long term problem that effects practically everything in public policy). So, yes, BMI doesn't mean a whole great deal.

Further to the problem, look at the dates: 1980 to 2013. The world population has gotten a lot bigger and a LOT older. Historically, you didn't get fat until you got old. There's a fairly specific reason for this (hint: your Metabolic rate DROPS every year of age), but during the time that we've drastically increased Life Expectancy, the world has gotten significantly wealthier.

Now, while the data that most of this is based off is worthless, it doesn't mean it isn't happening. A lot of it is down to "affluence", especially in the advanced economies. If you went back 200 years and looked at what we qualify as "poor" now, they'd very much come to conclusion that we're living in paradise. It is the natural state of Humans that "poor" means you're at the risk of starving to death. In a good portion of the World, that simply isn't something that comes to mind much.

The other lingering issue is one of very complex Biochemistry. There "seems" to be an extra Fat-adding effecting that is due to some combination of several staple food types. For those thinking "sugar", there's a bit of that in the West, but not as much as you think. Some of the China studies are pointing to Wheat + Poly-Unsaturated Fats (think Bread + Veggie Oil). This data is still in the early days of development, but it would explain a lot of the "big picture" type effects we see in geographical differences.

This could explain much of the reason is why the Rice-staple countries, in the Rice-staple areas, aren't seeing much increase in Obesity, but they are in the heavy Wheat usage areas. It would also fit with the rising rates in the USA data as well (which is a post-1980 phenomena), as the USA start pushing to "cut fat" and so Fat was replaced by Sugar for flavoring.

While there is definitely a lot of biochemistry & genetics that takes a hold, the main issue still just comes down to the Wealth Effect. Calories have gotten far cheaper & far easier to access. "Food Self-Control" is pretty much something Humans never had to learn until the last 60 years, so the ones that have it either have a genetic background to it or just have high levels of Self Control period, even if there are biochemical processes involved that can make it easier or harder.

On May 30 2014 11:40 Belisarius wrote:
I feel like it just comes down to convenience and cost.

If I can buy a pizza or a burger for $5 and 5 minutes, while making a fresh and healthy meal for myself costs $10 and 20 minutes, I'm going to eat worse on average unless I make a concerted effort.

This plays out in every supermarket. Fresh foods and meats are expensive, require effort and are hard to store. Ultra-processed, high sugar/fat/salt foods are cheap, easy and keep forever.

I'm not convinced it's an issue that requires government intervention, but you could probably start with taxing the unhealthy stuff rather than banning it.

On May 30 2014 11:40 Belisarius wrote:
I feel like it just comes down to convenience and cost.

If I can buy a pizza or a burger for $5 and 5 minutes, while making a fresh and healthy meal for myself costs $10 and 20 minutes, I'm going to eat worse on average unless I make a concerted effort.

This plays out in every supermarket. Fresh foods and meats are expensive, require effort and are hard to store. Ultra-processed, high sugar/fat/salt foods are cheap, easy and keep forever.

I'm not convinced it's an issue that requires government intervention, but you could probably start with taxing the unhealthy stuff rather than banning it.