×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

What's Causing the Rise In Obesity? Everything.

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the i-blame-vegetarians dept.

Medicine 926

Mr_Blank writes "We all know — because we are being constantly reminded — that we are getting fat. Americans are at the forefront of the trend, but it is a transnational one. Apparently, it is also trans-species: Over the past 20 years, as the American people were getting fatter, so were America's laboratory macaques, chimpanzees, vervet monkeys and mice, as well as domestic dogs, domestic cats, and domestic and feral rats from both rural and urban areas. Researchers examined records on those eight species and found that average weight for every one had increased. The marmosets gained an average of 9% per decade. Lab mice gained about 11% per decade. Chimps are doing especially badly: their average body weight had risen 35% per decade. What is causing the obesity era? Everything."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP (0, Troll)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#44628205)

Clearly it's terrusts, comnusts and peeders.

Re:FP (5, Funny)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year ago | (#44628337)

Actually obesity is the defence against the peeders. No one wants the ugly fat child. Keep Em fat and safe people!

Re:FP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628347)

And the dam lib'rulz.

I, for one. . . (-1, Troll)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44628579)

. . .blame fasting.
If Michael Hastings [nbclosangeles.com] hadn't been fasting so much down that street, he wouldn't have gone up in an obese fireball, now would he?
Prosecution rests.

Re:FP (3, Interesting)

lightknight (213164) | about a year ago | (#44628625)

Actually, I hypothesize it's a link between the focus on a decrease in recess (unordered recreational time) and an increase in environmental stress (in other words, and contrary to official accounts, we might want to shorten the work day, but increase the efficiency of the work during that shorter period). Too much stress, not enough proper outlets (because they all cost too much now...and people aren't making enough to make use of them), results in a catastrophic / cascade failure scenario.

If we have a large die-off in the future, in a short period of time, then perhaps, if these comments survive, we will have an idea where to look next time.

so who to blame , wallst or govt or fiat money? (1, Troll)

cheekyboy (598084) | about a year ago | (#44628733)

Maybe it was all the nuke testing done on the planet, seriously, 500+ nukes in the air and orbit and underground, cant be healthy can it.

Never in the history of the 4 billion years , has so much radioactive material been spread so far and wide.

Thanks a lot oldies who believed their govts and still do.

Sugar (5, Interesting)

EEPROMS (889169) | about a year ago | (#44628207)

Very simply food manufacturers removed the fat in the 70's and replaced it with huge amounts of sugar. The problem with sugar is the brain doesn't see it as nutrition thus it doesn't suppress your appetite when you eat sugar filled foods.

Re:Sugar (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628243)

The problem with sugar is the brain doesn't see it as nutrition thus it doesn't suppress your appetite when you eat sugar filled foods.

Are you sure about that? Empirical evidence does seem to point that candies and other sweets suppress appetite very well.

Re:Sugar (5, Informative)

somersault (912633) | about a year ago | (#44628313)

Short term, perhaps. But then a few hours later, you crash and want more.

Re:Sugar (5, Insightful)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about a year ago | (#44628449)

No. You taste them, but that's different. Candies contain so much sugar (compared to the food we would eat in nature) that our bodies do not trust their own correction mechanisms anymore. This is called insulin resistance [wikipedia.org] . This suppresses your feeling of having eaten enough, so you stay hungry. This is why you can eat the bag of candies completely empty in one go, even if (no, because) it contains more energy than you will need the entire day.

Re:Sugar (5, Informative)

EEPROMS (889169) | about a year ago | (#44628259)

to back up my above statement there is a good short scientific article regarding sugar that can be found here [abc.net.au]

Re:Sugar (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44628291)

Very simply food manufacturers removed the fat in the 70's and replaced it with huge amounts of sugar. The problem with sugar is the brain doesn't see it as nutrition thus it doesn't suppress your appetite when you eat sugar filled foods.

And, as we all know, marmosets are among the greatest consumers of manufactured foods.

Re:Sugar (5, Insightful)

silentcoder (1241496) | about a year ago | (#44628373)

>And, as we all know, marmosets are among the greatest consumers of manufactured foods.

These are laboratory marmosets which are, if anything, fed MORE on manufactured foods than even pet marmosets (since nobody gives a lab animal treats).
These are all animals that eat foods made in large scale commercial operations and poured out of a tin or cardboard box.

There is NO evidence of an obesity rise in WILD stocks of ANY of these animals.
What do humans and lab animals have in common ? Diets filled with processed and manufactured foods.

Now I am not saying that this is the cause or even that the GP is right- I am saying your reason for claiming he is wrong is outright idiotic.

Re:Sugar (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628529)

Diets filled with processed and manufactured foods.

Pointless statement.

There is absolutely nothing that says that processed or manufactured food should be any different form other food. Even if the food is entirely synthetic doesn't mean that it is in any way less healthy than non-synthetic food.
There could be something wrong with the processed food that obese people eat but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible to create processed / manufactured food that is healthier.

General fear of processed/manufactured/GMO/whatever isn't helpful and doesn't lead to a correct decisions. Instead you should point out the specifics on why current food is bad.
It's not like switching to a diet of organic natural sugarcanes is going to be healthier.

Processed food is NOT the same (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628669)

There is absolutely nothing that says that processed or manufactured food should be any different form other food.

That's because nobody would ever say anything so ridiculous, since it's false. Processed and manufactured food bears almost no relationship at all to natural organic food except inasmuch as some of the pure chemicals that they both contain are identical.

The bulk of industrial processed food is completely different in structure, texture, in its overall nutritional balance, in its micro-nutrients, and in the many toxins it contains. And the bad processed food is accompanied by equally bad environmental byproducts of the industrial food and farming chemical industries, such as the widespread presence of glyphosate not only in our food but in our water and even air.

That we and animals in our environment are unavoidably being affected through ingesting a manufactured diet of chemicals is not an outlier theory, it would be a miracle if it were not happening. We know it is because our gut flora is a mess, and our lab animals show the same symptoms whereas in the wild they do not.

Re:Sugar (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#44628689)

Though what is relevant is the trends in processing over the last few decades. So it is not 'because it is processed' and more 'because how things are generally processed today'... thus it is kinda a shorthand.

Re:Sugar (4, Insightful)

Salgak1 (20136) | about a year ago | (#44628737)

The question is, WHICH processes are to blame? Obviously, the dropping of fat levels and the rise of HFCS look to be LIKELY causes, but it would be nice to see if this is confirmed by double-blind testing.

Notionally, take 10,000 rodents, and a basic food stock. Process some of the food for low-fat only, some for HFCS-only, and some for both. And, of course, the unprocessed as control. Other variables to explore would be physical portion size (based on 100% need and the raw food stock), caloric size (again, baselined to the control), and unlimited portions, for each food type. And run for a few generations. That should provide a decent statistical universe for drawing conclusions.

Rinse and repeat for other suspect methods/additives. We can't make rational decisions without good data. . .

Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628311)

The article is so much more in depth than "it's sugar" or "it's excess calories", and reasons away these as just one of the growing body of hundreds of possible causes and proven links to obesity. Hence why this article is titled "What's Causing the Rise In Obesity? Everything." Any pithy "It's this one thing [someone] did [somewhere]" comment is highly ignorant.

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (2, Informative)

PeterKraus (1244558) | about a year ago | (#44628339)

I'm sorry but it clearly is excess calories. If you burn more than you eat, you will lose weight. It's basic thermodynamics.

The reason why your caloric intake is such as it is, why your burning efficiency is lower, or why you're less active and hence burn less are obviously quite a complex set of conditions, but in the end, it's really just about energy conservation.

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (4, Interesting)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about a year ago | (#44628409)

Yeah, it sure it is all about excess calories. No, it isn't just about excess sugar, which is what:

Very simply food manufacturers removed the fat in the 70's and replaced it with huge amounts of sugar. The problem with sugar is the brain doesn't see it as nutrition thus it doesn't suppress your appetite when you eat sugar filled foods.

suggest, because:

The reason why your caloric intake is such as it is, why your burning efficiency is lower, or why you're less active and hence burn less are obviously quite a complex set of conditions

which isn't really reduced to food manufactures removing fat and replacing it with sugar (let alone the validity of this claim and it's applicability to the considered population). And this is what I believe was what AC was trying to point out and you reinforced.

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628413)

Jesus fucking christ... just read the article and stop bringing your shitty notion of 'common sense' to the table.

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628465)

Haha, go and read TFA. The entire article is about demonstrating that the "it's simple thermodynamics" answer is pure bullshit. I'll give you a hint as to part of why it's bullshit –humans are not closed systems. It's not true that the energy we use and the energy input as food are equal. We for example, poop.

The article even gives strong evidence that it's got nothing at all to do with simple thermodynamics, citing that lab animals, which are fed regulated diets with specific calorific values are gaining weight at the same rate as humans are.

The "it's basic thermodynamics" people would have you believe that if you consume 2030 calories, and gain 30 calories worth of fat a day, that you could eat 2000 calories and magically lose weight. As TFA points out, if this were true, losing weight would be a simple matter of not eating 3 peanuts a day. The reality is that it's much harder than that. The reality is that if you consume 2000 calories instead of 2030, many people's bodies biochemistry will simply decide to poop out 30 calories less fat.

At 2030 calories input, your body may well decide to do the following:
- Use 1500 calories on doing things
- store 30 calories
- poop 500 calories

At 2000 calories input, your body may well decide to do the following:
- Use 1500 calories on doing things
- store 30 calories
- poop 470 calories

At 1500 calories input, your body may well decide to do:
- Use only 1200 calories, make you feel tired and depressed
- store 30 calories
- poop 270 calories.

At a certain calorific intake, from certain foods, with certain genetics, certain viruses, certain chemical conditions, certain lighting and heating conditions ..., your body will decide to do all kinds of different things. So no, it's not simply a matter of telling overweight people "eat less, do more". It's not that simple.

Unfortunately, the kind of people who think it is that simple tend to be people who are thin because of all kinds of environmental factors. Because of that, they think it's trivial to be thin, and hence lambast the fatties for their "lack of willpower", when the reality is actually massively more complex than that.

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628589)

If "it's got nothing at all to do with simple thermodynamics," then someone should inform the North Koreans that it doesn't matter that they don't have enough food, they too can magically get fat. Famine solved!

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628603)

Obligatory [wikipedia.org]

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (4, Insightful)

Eivind (15695) | about a year ago | (#44628621)

Certainly, in principle that's entirely true. In practice though, our bodies have evolved to try *really* hard to extract as much energy as possible from the food we digest. To our detriment today, eating 500 kcals/day too much wouldn't matter if the body would just take "what it needs" and poop the rest.

There's no indication that consuming more calories will cause your body to digest significantly fewer of them. But it is true, like you write, that on very low calorie diets, your metabolism and thus energy-consumption will tend to fall. So you might eat 1000 kcal less, but your metabolism slows by 300 kcal, so your weight-loss is slower than expected.

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (5, Interesting)

Bongo (13261) | about a year ago | (#44628631)

And also, most of our energy is used in the base metabolic rate. The body can adjust that a little here, a little there.

Another little point, children overeat because they are growing. But they don't grow because they overeat. It is the body's control systems which regulate what the body is doing and thus, how much to eat.

Sugar / carbs, being available in unnatural quantities, flummox this system. It puts the body into a mode where its aim becomes to store fat, and it'll get the energy to store fat even by destroying muscle if it has to. Lab rats which died of heart failure because they were being underfed, starved, and they burned up their muscle tissue, whilst keeping their fat tissue -- they died obese and starved. (see Taubes for the ref.)

But instead of recognising the conventional energy-balance model has failed, "common sense" blames it on "lack of will power".
(Thermodynamics as a law hasn't failed, it is still true for bodies, but they reasoning that fat loss is just about calorie counting and exercise has failed.)

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628643)

So what you mean is, the study was done by people who've done those "miracle diets" and found out it doesn't work.

Yes, the body does work like that, if (and this a big big big IF) it's starved, but you can drop your caloric intake without starving the body. Our metabolism (it varies in degree, but it's basically the same in essence) will detect it's being "starved" if we let it pass too much time during meals, and it will lower our metabolism and start gathering every bit of what we eat for reserve (after using what it needs).

It's not only about caloric intake. The "starving" mechanism in our body isn't about (or only about, or even the most important factor to the mechanism) caloric intake, but the regularity of the meals. If you take those 2030 calories in one go, but don't eat anything else the rest of the day, you can pretty much be sure that as soon as the body "notices" it goes long periods of time without any intake it will start to gather the full load and place what it doesn't use as reserve (and lowers your metabolism, so it will need less calories while putting on reserve, as fat, even more).

But if you take those 2030 calories in several meals throughout the day, the body won't have a reason to exec it's "starving" protection mechanism, so it won't lower your metabolism (it might even rise it), but it will store much of what it doesn't need as reserve.

So you can guess what happens if you take a 2030 calories but in several meals, and 1500 calories in just a couple.

I can say by experience that eating well (in several meals throughout the day) does wonders, since I lost 30 kilograms (110 pounds) in a period of 3 months while doing it (and ran for 10 minutes every morning, but that wasn't exercise, was just a "wake up" run). After that initial loss (huge, granted) I started loosing way less (about 4 to 6 kg a year - 8 to 13 pounds - but I think this year I'll plateau it) since my body fat stabilized (and the reason for loosing so much in a short period of time is explained by raising my metabolism, loosing excess water and trading part of the body fat for muscle, even without doing much exercise, and with the rise of muscle tissue it raised the basal metabolism even more).

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (3, Insightful)

Taxeman (50753) | about a year ago | (#44628671)

Contrary to what you're saying, the problem has everything to do with thermodynamics. You just don't seem to get the "simple thermodynamics" argument.

You're right that the energy used by the body might vary, and right that it's difficult to control or assess the difference between the input energy and the used energy. Still, you're missing an important limit in your calculation.

At 0 calories input, your body may well decide to do the following:
- Use only 750 calories
- store -750 calories
- poop 0 calories.

There is no way around it. You can *force* your body to use more than you eat, and you *will* lose weight. This can be done by eating less, or moving more. This isn't easy, would not necessarily be considered 'healthy', but that's not the point. The point isn't about whether you'll feel depressed or tired, it's about conservation of energy.

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628673)

And yet every controlled study ever performed disagrees with your "hard evidence". The only studies that ever support the LCHF/Atkins garbage that you spout are non-controlled studies. The only reason that LCHF/Atkins works for some people is becuase they consume less calories when they exclude the carbs, but the think that they consume more (so they are not cheating their bodies, they are cheeting themselves) which of course is a good thing.

Betteridge's Law (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628569)

What's Causing the Rise In Obesity?

No?

Or is it under Godwin's jurisdiction:
What's Causing the Rise In Obesity? Hitler

Either way there's clearly no individual responsibility in it, we'll just blame everything.

Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (1, Flamebait)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year ago | (#44628613)

Ignorant, but useful in identifying the idiots who oversimplify things either because they're aggressively stupid (every adult should pretty much understand that NOTHING is quite as simple as single-answer solution), or disingenuously answering based on their politics, religion, or some other dogma that is more important to them than candor.

Although I'm pretty sure this is caused solely by Global Warming.

Re:Sugar (3, Funny)

MMC Monster (602931) | about a year ago | (#44628369)

You must be outside the U.S.

In the U.S. we've been using High Fructose Corn Syrup as our sweetener for a couple decades now. Why import something natural when you can synthesize something much worse locally?

Re:Sugar (1)

ameen.ross (2498000) | about a year ago | (#44628407)

AFAIK HFCS is just as bad a sucrose, as both are digested into their glucose and fructose components. HFCS is just a bit sweeter in taste.

(acronyms, wee!)

Re:Sugar (4, Interesting)

mrclisdue (1321513) | about a year ago | (#44628417)

....and, Cuba has lots of sugar. But the land of the free is still mad at Cuba for actions 50+ years ago, so the country remains embargoed and impoverished. Russia, China, Vietnam? They're all good buddies now, lots of forgiveness to go around. Cuba? Fuckem.

Re:Sugar (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628551)

This makes me wonder. How does the U.S. right wing handle the Russian stance against gay people?
If those red commie terrorists are against gay people, wouldn't that force the right-wingers to change stance on the subject?

Re:Sugar (0)

benlwilson (983210) | about a year ago | (#44628421)

Exactly.

If the body is supplied with all the carbs it could ever want then it doesn't need to burn fat. After many many years of this (depending on the person) the bodies ability to burn fat starts to suffer (Basically the body gets lazy and stops burning fat as well as it should). Burning fat is required to keep your body weight correct so with that system not working properly the body ends up storing more fat than it's burning.
Result = People get fat
Solution = Eat less carbs and eat more good fats

Also, what most people consider begin "Hungry" is just a sugar craving, hunger is a slight pain in the stomach area and not.. "mmm.... want food"

Re:Sugar (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628423)

Perhaps you should try reading TFA.

Re:Sugar (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#44628425)

Sugar doesn't make you fat. Marriage makes you fat. Just compare the waistlines of your single and married friends to see what I mean.

Re:Sugar (5, Funny)

Longjmp (632577) | about a year ago | (#44628501)

Sugar doesn't make you fat. Marriage makes you fat. [...]

What's the difference between a bachelor and a married man?

The bachelor comes home, looks into the fridge, finds nothing interesting, and goes to bed.
The husband comes home, looks in the bedroom...

Re:Sugar (3, Interesting)

Mike Frett (2811077) | about a year ago | (#44628527)

Depends who you are and what your metabolism is. My body is a Sugar factory, yet I'm considered underweight. Irrelevant to your comment and relevant to the article: you guys miss one thing, the Thyroid.

People with Thyroid issues usually have either weight gain or weight loss. And if your Thyroid has been removed, controlling your weight gain is damn near impossible. Since nobody outside of Thyroid problems understands that, it's easy to rationalize your hate and tell people to exercise and stop eating so much. It's not uncommon to gain 100 pounds in one week after a complete removal.

Let's face the facts, we have lots of Radiation in various forms around us now. I have no doubt about it's contributing factor to Metabolism. I'm missing half my Thyroid due to a nodule that grew and decided to take over. Thankfully for me, it wasn't Cancer and even thought I was suppose to gain about 10 pounds; I actually lost 10 -- the Doctors were stumped on that one since it went against their data.

ProTip: Don't let a General Surgeon remove your Thyroid, I ended up with a massive hematoma and damaged Parathyroids. Do yourself a favor and seek attention from a ENT. And make sure you're getting enough Iodine in your diets.

Disclaimer: These are NOT my opinions but the opinions of Doctors I've seen over many years of Thyroid issues that are ongoing.

Re:Sugar (2)

somersault (912633) | about a year ago | (#44628717)

This is probably the best comment I've read here. I've successfully lost weight by controlling my carb intake, and so have some of my friends. But another friend just didn't lose any weight at all until I gave her some iodine supplements to help her thyroid. Her metabolism sped up (as evidenced by her hair growing much faster), and she started to lose weight.

Sucralose contains chlorine, which can block iodine reception in your thyroid. So at least one artificial sweetener is bad to ingest if you want to lose weight - especially if you aren't getting enough iodine in your diet.

Re:Sugar (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year ago | (#44628719)

Very simply food manufacturers removed the fat in the 70's and replaced it with huge amounts of sugar. The problem with sugar is the brain doesn't see it as nutrition thus it doesn't suppress your appetite when you eat sugar filled foods.

How would that explain the weight changes in the animals mentioned?

"IT'S A COOKBOOK! A COOKBOOK!" (5, Funny)

Tekoneiric (590239) | about a year ago | (#44628211)

Aliens are fattening us up for the slaughter...

Re:"IT'S A COOKBOOK! A COOKBOOK!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628265)

orion burger inc. :)

Re:"IT'S A COOKBOOK! A COOKBOOK!" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628345)

Phew, and I was getting afraid I might be useless.

Re:"IT'S A COOKBOOK! A COOKBOOK!" (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44628583)

Aliens are fattening us up for the slaughter...

Fortunately for us, after a prolonged study, the Aliens have only managed to reduce the list of possible dominant species on Earth to: macaques, chimpanzees, vervet monkeys, mice, humans, domestic dogs, domestic cats, and domestic and feral rats from both rural and urban areas.

And marmosets. Which are considered, by the vast majority of the alien scientific community, as the most likely candidate.

There's a solution. (3, Informative)

mybeat (1516477) | about a year ago | (#44628221)

I heard something called 'mehth' can make you slim!

i would somthing else (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628233)

je veux que vous donner des articles en français car j'ai des probleme a comprendre l'anglais
et merci
my blog :
http://softawres-for-free.blogspot.com/

Re:i would somthing else (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628267)

Tu ne sembles pas savoir écrire le français correctement. Tu es sûr d'etre français?

MURICA! Fighting for freedom (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628241)

I have the freedom to be fat... now lean more to the left cause i need that extra space of your chair.

More grav(it)y (1)

MoreDruid (584251) | about a year ago | (#44628279)

... it makes you heavier

How stupid can you get? (0)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year ago | (#44628281)

So the excuse for Americans to get fatter is that they managed to fuck off all the species living on their soil with them? I though that would be seen as an aggravating factor, not an excuse.

Well America isn't number 1 in being fat (4, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#44628287)

That title goes to Mexico. [calgaryherald.com] So cheer on, someone else has you beat on this.

Re:Well America isn't number 1 in being fat (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628357)

What? America is not the number 1? That's not acceptable! EAT MORE!

Re:Well America isn't number 1 in being fat (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about a year ago | (#44628415)

nah. We can just allow more illegals up here.

Re:Well America isn't number 1 in being fat (1)

will_die (586523) | about a year ago | (#44628483)

If you go by a more number, per capita, the USA drops even more.
By per capita the US is around number 7 or 8.

State Department Clears Itself of All Possible Neg (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628301)

Wow, our government is really firing on all cylinders!

Every time there's a scandal or a tragedy they report back to us in six or nine months that they've absolved themselves of any errors or malfeasances!

Wow! I've never been so convinced of the government's fundamental competency before!

All stations are green and we are Go for Launch!!!

        The State Department is insisting that secretary of state John Kerry’s decision to reinstate four employees put on administrative leave in the wake of of last year’s Benghazi attack was the right call. A spokeswoman said that Kerry, after revewing the Accountability Review Board’s report on the attack and the “totality of the careers” of the four employees, determined that the the action taken against them was “not warranted.”

        “These are people with real lives, real careers,” deputy press secretary Marie Harf told reporters on Tuesday.

Oh my goodness they have careers. Some Americans have jobs, but Government Workers and members of the New Class have Careers. And Careers are very special things. They should not be lightly tossed aside over the matter of a couple or four deaths.

        Asked who should be held accountable for the attack that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens, Harf responded that the terrorists themselves are at fault.

Outstanding.

        “The people who were ultimately responsible were the terrorists who perpetrated the attack on us,” she said, though she conceded that “things could have been done better.”

The law calls gross errors that lead to deaths "criminal negligence," but, in the case of People With Careers, it's called "things that could have been done better."

        The State Department, Harf insisted, is interested in “moving forward"...

Yes yes, I imagine so.

Whenever someone says they want to "Move Forward" your first question should be "Who are the victims and how many are there?"

The personnel will not be reassigned to security details. Apparently they did such a good job with security -- albeit, a good job which could have been done better -- that they'll be getting exciting new Careers in Things Having Nothing to Do With Their Previous Specialization.

Not because they failed, mind you. Just so that they can be Well-Rounded, as People With Careers always strive to be.

More: Jake Tapper, who also Has a Career, notices that the absolutely none of the People With Careers at State seem to have any responsibility for any errors they might make during the performance of duties relating to Their Careers.

Obesity can come in handy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628317)

whales also have Obesity they die with out it.

Seriously, what the fuck is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628321)

A link to a sociology blog and a hipster blog?

What is this shit?

Think Differently! (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#44628411)

What is this shit?

Better than an article about the iphone being the colour GOLD!....maybe

You are fat because you are stupid. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628327)

You know what's causing the rise in obesity? A rise in eating too fucking much. There isn't anything mysterious about this.

http://www.yourefatbecauseyourestupid.com/

Read the article. (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#44628399)

A rise in eating too fucking much. There isn't anything mysterious about this

Ignoring your link to the advert! You should read the article. The article is questioning the "rise" in obesity (in America is 1 in 3) in seeming contradiction of Bloomberg’s thermodynamics.

Your advert might make the point "You're fat because you are stupid" in what you may think is clever because its offensive (gives you a feeling of superiority), but it excuses the underlying factors. That is not to say you should eat sensibly and exercise and underlying factors should be used as an excuse for being fat.

Games and Beer (4, Funny)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year ago | (#44628331)

Late late nights, Games, Beer and doing fuck all about it for years. But they are symptoms of depression and wanting escapism. A knee injury doesn't help. Also, a dumb sense of being able to lose a few KG with magic when I finally get the motivation to put the effort in. But Skyrim and Arkham Asylum have to take some blame, they should have sucked more so I could put them down.
Thanks for asking.

the study seems defeatist (4, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about a year ago | (#44628343)

more data should be required before we make such a broad spectrum 'everything is getting fat because of everything' claim, which is absolutely as absurd as it sounds. In the cases of laboratory controlled animals, im willing to venture a sedentary and stressful lifestyle has accumulated their girth.
in the case of people, we've stopped eating real food entirely for both convenience and lack of nutritional education. Some of us work odd hours or multiple jobs and just dont have time to cook. places like wendys offer a reasonable facimile of food but the ingredients list for even a hamburger bun starts to look more like the back pages of an organic chemistry lab book. Most 30somethings like myself havent the slightest idea, nor care, about how to cook their own food outside of a cardboard box and boil-point water. And packaged food companies agree this is the way it should be. There is no more home economics, we emerge from primary education with no more than an understanding of hunger and satiation.

I also think its a cultural thing. Jamie Oliver, for all the work hes done in targeting childhood obesity and healthy eating, still cooks an alarming number of recipes that youd never think to serve the majority of a populus thats overweight. This holds true for most chefs, celebrity or not. Browned butter and whole cream are still entirely acceptable additions to most semi-casual and upscale dining experiences despite the well proven fact theyre killing us. There are only four meats we readily consume on a daily basis yet theyve replaced hundreds of vegetables in nearly every meal of the day. Many adults simply avoid healthy vegetables like onions, tomatoes or broccoli alltogether, picking from their meal and instead focusing on pasta or meat.

articles like this that just throw in the proverbial towel arent helping. We need competent nutritional education and responsible industry to start offering food that is both nutritious and healthy. Yet as with most industries the change often comes from the consumer, and its often met half-hearted and begrudgingly.

Re:the study seems defeatist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628723)

All of these things are good, and on a personal level, important. That said, if you read the article (gasp!), lab animals are also getting fat, but their environments are well known and controlled in effectively the same way for many many decades. That is not a cultural thing. Diet is controlled, and we have the records, so for them it is either environmental (chemical, virii, bacteria), or due to the changes in laboratory feed stock.

The problem isn't (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628363)

The problem isn't that obesity runs in the family; it's rather nobody runs in the family!

Want an off-the-wall explanation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628367)

The earth is moving toward enlightenment, to a new era, to a higher vibrational state. And so we need less food, but it's never been as cheap and abundant as it is now. No wonder it's hard not to put on weight. This is the age of aquarius and all, doncha know.

High Rise (1)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about a year ago | (#44628375)

When I was in a student exchange program in the U.S. (St. Louis, Missouri) we stopped at a diner for breakfast on the way to some friends and I ordered waffles, expecting to get something like this [edrants.com] . What I got instead was three 30cm diameter waffles stacked on top of each other with sweet cream in between and marmalade and powdered sugar on top. I didn't even manage to eat a quarter of that and felt really bad to my hosts for wasting so much food.

Re:High Rise (0)

codeButcher (223668) | about a year ago | (#44628469)

... felt really bad to my hosts for wasting so much food.

That ain't no food.

Re:High Rise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628479)

There are plenty places in the world where you don't get oversized portions like that, yet they too have an obesity problem.

It's not that you're wrong to mention this, just that it cannot possibly be the complete explanation. So this is mostly a good illustration of how the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Marmalade? (1)

dtmos (447842) | about a year ago | (#44628647)

You got marmalade at a diner in St. Louis? As in, jam with fruit peel in it? That must be a first. Are you sure it wasn't just jam? While I'm sure it can be done, finding marmalade at a diner in the American Midwest is still quite a feat.

Don't worry about feeling bad for wasting food. It's a common sentiment among those visiting the US. After one spends enough time shopping in a Costco [costco.com] or other bulk food warehouse, the feeling passes.

Watch it from start to finish (4, Informative)

AbRASiON (589899) | about a year ago | (#44628381)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM [youtube.com] Sugar, the bitter truth.

Also
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/heresthething/2012/jul/02/ [wnyc.org]
(transcript)
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/heresthething/2012/jul/02/transcript/ [wnyc.org]

Just try, for 2 weeks - see just how hard it is.

Everything makes you fatter - just try a little .. (1)

burni2 (1643061) | about a year ago | (#44628389)

.. less of everything.

Blaming electricity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628393)

As I sit here at 6:00 AM, half an hour before sunrise, eating breakfast? Perhaps daylight savings time is a stupid idea.

People who can't stop (5, Interesting)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#44628395)

The author obviously has his pet topic, which is that it's not anyone's fault that anyone is fat. Sorry, but I've lived around too many fat people. They eat. They eat a lot. Honestly the author goes on far too long about "it's not their fault" and doesn't spend too much time discussing "why".

I can buy that there's something in food these days that may cause people to become heavier than they otherwise would become. But I don't buy the fact that this mystery chemical has made a nation of blobs. It may be a contributory factor, but it's not why obesity happens.

Frankly, I think that companies like McDonald's have successfully hacked the human brain and created foods that people just can't say no to. It's not all of us, I get nauseous eating McD's more than once a week (the smell outside the restaurant is enough to drive me away) but there are plenty of us who are wholly unable to resist. And by "unable to resist" I mean exactly that - your conscious mind might know it's bad, but you just can't help yourself because the food is so delicious. That this "flavor" is a bunch of old, tired cows mixed with industrial chemicals is beside the point. You've been hacked - you could say no, but you really don't want to. The idea of living without McD's for the rest of your life is repellent, a life hardly worth living at all.

I live overseas, and I've seen this myself with the locals and foreigners alike. The locals freaking love McD's and KFC. There's nothing like it in their cuisine and some of them (not all) just can't stop going there. Especially kids. Then, there are foreigners who upon discovering the local (awesome) food spit it out and won't eat anything but Western food. Seriously, I've known people who have lived locally for years and who every day eat nothing but Subway, Starbucks, McD's, KFC, Papa John's, Pizza Hut, etc. If I suggest we go and get a bowl of noodles or other local stuff and I receive a wide-eyed, "You eat that shite, mate? It's garbage!"

Look no further than the closest thing he makes to a hypothesis: "being poor is stressful, and stress makes you eat, and the cheapest food available is the stuff with a lot of âempty caloriesâ(TM), therefore poorer people are fatter than the better-off." Stop right there at the "stress makes you eat" part. WTF man? No it doesn't. Maybe it does FOR YOU, perhaps FOR SOME, but it's hardly universal.

Conclusion: the guy wanted to write 4,700 words to get his name in print and support his pre-existing political views, not because he had something insightful to say.

Re:People who can't stop (5, Insightful)

N1AK (864906) | about a year ago | (#44628597)

Stop right there at the "stress makes you eat" part. WTF man? No it doesn't. Maybe it does FOR YOU, perhaps FOR SOME, but it's hardly universal.

Not my favourite part of his article but you're splitting hairs if you only accept statements that are universal. Your own post says "The locals freaking love McDs" WTF man? but by your own criteria-> No they don't. Maybe it does for that ONE, perhaps for SOME.. can you see how that kind of nitpicking doesn't add anything as it's obviously not meant literally.

There is a well researched correlation between stress, over-eating and unhealthy-eating.

You're right that personal responsibility and control are important and some people tend to ignore these, however it is also true that factors outside individual control (brain hacking as you call it for example) play a massive part and masses of people ignore those. A common opinion of fat people is that they're fat because they're lazy, weak etc with no recognition that yes they played a part but so did food manufacturers, governments etc and we should be dealing with both.

Re:People who can't stop (2)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year ago | (#44628637)

The cheapest food available is actually going to the store and cooking your own food. Most people are too lazy to do this, or to exercise, so we get articles like this telling them its not their fault. I have seen someone say their doctor was fat shaming them, because whenever they went he told them to lose weight as it was affecting their health. This is the society we live in now.

Nope. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about a year ago | (#44628401)

Gut Bacteria. You will notice that it occurs in Locations and then it happens by those with contact with humans. All in all, that indicates a single source, rather than 'everything'.

Re:Nope. (2)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#44628661)

I would also blame gut parasites. For instance, simply having most of the human population wearing shoes significantly breaks the life cycle of tapeworms. Parasites and gut bacteria are one of the few things that could affect so many species all at the same time.

blame it on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628405)

bush!

I make you fat... (1)

Macchendra (2919537) | about a year ago | (#44628447)

Now snout down in the trough, piggy, or else it gets the hose again...

Mod this one down, then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628457)

Julian Simon pointed out, in the late 1960s, that humanity (and, presumably, any animal group depending on humans) has a history of continuous improvement.

EVERY generation has had a better standard of life than its forebears. That includes food, so it is unsurprising that we class ourselves as 'fat' now. We are also, if anyone's interested. considerably TALLER (on average) than earlier generations. But no one seems to mention that. Because it isn't seen as bad.

That was the other point Julian Simon made. He showed that, although everything was getting better all the time, people did not want to believe it, and continuously produced stories warning that civilisation was deteriorating, and that collapse was just round the corner. In the 1970s It was overpopulation - we were going to run out of food by the 1990s, and mass starvation would cause global wars. We have had a succession of scare stories ever since - none of which have been true.

An 'obesity epidemic' sounds like just another one of these...

Re:Mod this one down, then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628481)

We are also, if anyone's interested. considerably TALLER (on average) than earlier generations.

Excess carbohydrates can do that too (stimulation of growth hormone production).

not going to read all that (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about a year ago | (#44628499)

can somebody condense it down to a 120 word paragraph?

i think it is High Fructose Corn Syrup, they put it in almost everything, cookies, crackers, sodapop, non-dairy-coffee-creamer, prepared packaged foods, sauces, it might be just a few tablespoons per serving but over the course of the day you eat about a cup of that stuff everyday

Re:not going to read all that (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44628581)

Add to diet sleep, stress, electric lightning, gut bacterial unbalance, air conditioning, popular alcoholic beberages (because in any meeting you must have a beer, or better yet, drink a lot, else you are an outsider), lack of exercise, and several etcs. Most of that is under your control, but who controls you? Tried to go to a supermarket [medium.com] ?

That food corporations are more interested in selling addictive food than of your health [nytimes.com] don't help a lot.

avoid sugar and limit carbs. eat more protein (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628503)

you're welcome

Electromagnetics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628511)

I use electromagnetic shielding in my work from time to time. On numerous occassions I have fallen asleep within the Faraday cage. I have noticed increased weight loss, even after a single night.

It may be that the electromagnetics in our environment is messing with cellular communication causing metabolisms to slow. Rather like a DDoS attack. This needs to be examined.

Even the government (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44628531)

Now America is the lard of the free

Plate size, my friends. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628571)

Average plate size in 1950: 10 inches in diameter. Average plate size in 2013: 12 inches in diameter.
Simple answer; we eat more. 'nuff said.

Don't Forget the Definition Has Changed (1)

Psion (2244) | about a year ago | (#44628577)

While this is hardly the sole culprit, in 1998, the the National Institute of Health adopted a new definition of overweight. [cnn.com] That is responsible for at least part of the increase shown since that time.

Re:Don't Forget the Definition Has Changed (1)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#44628663)

Well, after all, there's no better way to increase the crime rate than to pass laws that define new crimes. The same can apply to obesity. But it still doesn't explain rural feral rats.

Mind which definition we're talking about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628691)

Why yes, that put its definition of "overweight" in line with the world health organisation's. In other words, one could just as easily make the case that the NIH was in denial before. And if that wasn't enough, there's a recommendation to lower that boundary for Asians to "around 23". Go figure.

The thing is, though, that we're seeing more people, relatively as well as absolutely (the latter would figure given a growing population) with BMI well over that, since "obese" starts at BMI 30. And that definition didn't change.

It is true that BMI is not a magic number that tells you whether you're healty or not. So while there's a valid point to be made about BMI being problematic on various grounds, your attempt does not.

Wasn't there some sort of virus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628587)

I thought there was a virus that makes mammals produce more fat cells. Did I dream that?

Re:Wasn't there some sort of virus? (2)

Macchendra (2919537) | about a year ago | (#44628711)

Not a dream. It is adenovirus 36. Mentioned in the article too. Every girlfriend I've ever had must have exposed me to this, lol.

Convenience. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44628595)

Convenience is the cause. Today we have more done for us than ever before, so we do less.

The life I lead today is quite probably the easiest life ever lived:
I get up. I sometimes eat breakfast. I get a 5 minute walk to work. I sometimes run to feel healthier. I sit for 4 hours. I eat my lunch. I sit for another 3 hours. I get another 5 minute walk home. I sit an hour. I microwave some food and eat it. I sit for another 8 hours. I lie down for another 8.

At no point do I have to:
1. Think
2. Exercise
3. Change

I am not attracted by instinct to want to do more than the above. Muscles atrophy and weight is gained, but I survive. I'm not blaming the above vegetative behaviour on instinct as some external, haywire control over my body. This is what I am. I am a human being and I strive for mediocrity and so do you.

As intelligent beings we want to abstract problem solving and control over systems to enhance our efficiency and minimise wastage. It's that same wastage we need to keep ourselves fit, physically and psychologically.

Want a "transnational" solution? Reinstate survival of the fucking fittest.

Lazyness (3, Insightful)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year ago | (#44628623)

God i hate articles like this. Everything isnt causing obesity, lazyness is. Want to know why im fucking fat? Cus im fucking lazy and like to eat pizza while watching 4 episodes of TNG on Netflix. From people too lazy to go buy groceries ( i had someone tell me it was virtually impossible to buy groceries because they didnt have a car) to people being too fucking lazy to cook, or exercise even the slightest bit. You can eat whatever food you want, as many calories you want, if you burn it off you wont be fat, you might have other health complications but thats another story alltogether. Combined with people telling them that "its ok", "not your fault" and "out of your control" that make it worse. Obese people just go "oh its not my fault fuck it", stuff their faces with food, dont work out, baloon up, then shrug like they had no control over it. Its bullshit. People need to start accepting some personal responsibility for their actions.

Re:Lazyness (5, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#44628695)

Want to know why im fucking fat? Cus im fucking lazy and like to eat pizza while watching 4 episodes of TNG on Netflix

Exercise is absolutely insignificant next to the baseline caloric intake. Any dietician will tell you the same. You have to get as much exercise as a marathon runner to lose substantial weight without changing your diet. It's almost ALL about diet.

Eating too much (2, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#44628667)

Personally I'm a bit tired of all of these media invented excuses. If you're overweight in almost all cases with very few exceptions it's YOUR fault.
You eat too much.
You eat crappy food.
And you likely have all sorts of psychological excuses to make the above two points plausibly not your fault in your own mind.

While going to college I worked as a cashier at a grocery store for a while and saw it all. Morbidly obese people coming in on Food Stamps or other government assistance because they were "Disabled" due to their weight, and using those funds to buy almost entirely junk food. And no small amount either. Cases upon cases of Soda, frozen chicken wings, etc... The ironic part was they seemed to feel he most guilty at the checkout and I, their cashier was their confessor. So they'd tell me all about how this was the "Diet" Swanson's family pack of salsbury steak yet they still couldn't lose any weight!!!

Too each their own, if you want to eat until you're 500lbs and die of a heart attack at an early age? If you think "Big is beautiful" or whatever the catch phrase is now... great! I'm cool with that. But lets not let people lie to themselves. Yes there may be a lot of environmental factors that make gaining weight easier now, and you may have some societal engrained habits that are hard to break, but the choice is still yours. There's no undiscovered bacteria that's going to make you obese even if eat salads all day (yes, I've had people tell me this was why they were over weight) It's a very simple process, eat less... a lot less, and you will lose weight. There is no such thing as big boned, you are not just a "big person" you can be as skinny as any person on TV if you want, although maybe not as attractive and successful, at least you wont die at 45.

Yes I realize that now every obese person with a Grande Mocha Cookie Crumble Frappuccino in their hand is going to mod me down this morning... but hey, I'll outlive you anyway, so mod away!

Too much (bad) food, too little exercize (0)

Alejux (2800513) | about a year ago | (#44628681)

Any other reason is just BS.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?