What do you think is the reason for our high rate of obesity?

Bottle_of_Smoke

After getting into a bit of a fight about sugar on a recent thread which spiralled off topic I'm interested in what people think are the causes of obesity, and what could be done to reduce the trend.

The last list I looked at we were the second worst in the EU at 23.5% of the population being obese. UK the worst at 25%. Places like Netherlands only around 16% (and even they see that as a problem)

Now we're still not as bad as the Yanks where over 30% are obese but I think we're heading that direction to be honest.

I think the causes are very diverse and multi-factorial but a few come to mind.

Education - I think people are over-reliant on carbs, particularly bread, pasta and potatoes. Its like people think its not a real meal without a hefty portion of one of them being on your plate. Cheers food pyramid.

Genetics - I think this is a big factor but a lot of nutritionists don't like admitting it because some infer that genetics makes it acceptable to be overweight. I would rather we accept genetics is a factor and hammer home the message that if you are genetically prone to being overweight/obese then the onus is on you personally to eat less or exercise more.

Eating disorders - By this I mean comfort eating mostly. Could also include people eating out of boredom/stress rather than hunger

Lack of exercise - More people in non-manual labour jobs than in the past. More kids playing playstation instead of football on the streets. Perhaps the GAA is a reason we're slightly less obese than the UK as people will send their kids to play that out of cultural reasons on top if wanting their kids to get exercise. By doing that more of those kids will end up playing sports/going to gym in later life. Also cycling is much more common in continental Europe whereas everyone seems to have a car/gets a lift in Ireland

Big/standardised portions - In schools/canteens etc everyone is given the same amount of food. Yet I'm 5'7 and some of my mates were 6'2, most around the 5'10-6' region. Makes no sense we all have the same calorific intake.

RobAMerc

we Irish have a very unhealthy attitude towards food. generally its to fill a hole, with very little understanding of nutrition. thats why in a lot of houses people still think a huge plate of spuds with bread and some nuggets or something is a healthy meal as it fills you up!

HardyEustace

Quality of food - people eat a lot of highly processed food, which is very "calorie dense".

It also costs a lot of eat healthily if you're not very smart about what you eat (e.g. I often buy chicken thighs - much cheaper then chicken breast, fantastic flavour however people wouldn't buy them as 1. you've to skin them, 2. people don't eat "brown meat" 3. they wouldn't know how to cook them).

People don't exercise
- due to "sue happy" parents, a lot of schools have had to curtail their exercise regime.
- people have to commute long distances which really gobbles up time and energy for outside pursuits.
- it's very expensive to join a gym or go for a swim. Ideally I'd love to see some decent swimming pools where you could go for a swim for one or two euros.
- it's not viewed as a "way of life" as a lot of people
- safety - no decent cycle paths

Portion size is out of control

Too much processed food in people's diet.

El_Dangeroso

I've always maintained that obesity is a disorder of fat-accumulation. If you look at how the cell regulates energy storage you see a tightly controlled process of hormonal feedback loops. Getting fat is no accident.

We eat more because we are more hungry. The (healthy) body regulates body temperature, blood pressure and blood glucose perfectly, and appetite is no exception to this rule. So whatever causes obesity has to disrupt proper appetite signalling.

If you look at cultures that eat their traditional diet, they can have an abundance of food but they don't get fat they multiply! The same can be seen in the animal kingdom, a glut of food in any environment leads to an increase in populations, not obesity.

Equally if you look at cultures that eat an incredibly nutrient poor yet calorie adequate diet they most will be obese by middle age despite the fact that their jobs involve daily intense manual labour. Farm workers in Mexico are a good example of this.

Re: Genetics, yes and no, there is a definite 'fat gene' but that in and of itself is not enough to explain the dramatic rise in obesity over the last 30 years, evolution doesn't happen that fast. I do think there might be a strong epigenetic component though. We can make mice obese in three generations by feeding them lots of omega 6 for example. The mother's diet while pregnant also seems to be a potent factor, hyperglycaemia during pregnancy has a lifelong impact on the risk of obesity and diabetes for the child.

So definitely *something* was introduced into the food chain in the last century or so that contributed to this dis-regulation of appetite signalling in some of us.

My own personal belief (and no I don't have the cast-iron RCT to prove this:)) is a combination of the following:

- Lack of micronutrients and minerals, mainly fat-soluble vitamins and magnesium and possible others. Ironically the introduction of whole-grain cereals have made this worse as the phytic acid in the fibre binds the minerals in the diet (this was noted by the chief dietician for rationing in WWII, they in turn had to fortify the brown flour with calcium)

- Replacement of traditional fats and oils with industrially produced seed oils such as sunflower, corn, soybean, safflower. Probably the biggest change in our diet of the last century.

- Increase in refined sugar consumption. Correlates with obesity pretty well, even if you don't agree it's a big issue when moderated, the problem is a lot, not all obese people are sugar addicts and as such find it difficult to moderate their intake. When we measure their brain waves you see the same dopamine reward response as an alcoholic gets from a drink.

- The last point I'm on shaky ground because it's almost total speculation, but epidemiological evidence backs me up at least. In the 1970's a new breed of wheat that was of a semi-dwarf, high-yield variety. It grew twice as fast and had much more gluten which was fantastic for profits but not for nutrition.

Faster growing means less time to pull nutrients out of the ground namely magnesium and copper. More gluten might be problematic too, we are experiencing a real rise in coeliac disease that cannot be totally attributed to better detection rates, something is causing it. The lectins may also be problematic, Staffn Lindeburg, a researcher on paleolithic nutrition believes that they interrupt proper appetite signalling. Which makes sense when you see the painstaking grinding, sifting, soaking and fermenting traditional cultures will complete before eating grains, they don't do it for fun, they do it to eliminate lectins and phytic acid.

My 2c!

RJC09

-low costs of processed food. i was in tesco recently and i could have bought 2 brand name frozen pizzas for the same price as a bag of apples.

-people dont know how to cook. its all well and good buying the low fat items, but people just dont know what to do with them.

-lack of exercise. walking and swimming are always a good option, but gym memberships are expensive and there arent many sports clubs to join unless you are into the gaa (where i live anyway)

-i think we are a massive nation of picky eaters. especially children. Because so many adults are picky they just allow their children to say they dont like something and so the cycle continues.

seamus

It's probably no coincidence that USA, UK & Ireland are high on the lists as by-and-large we share a lot of culture.

I think the primary issue is one of exercise more than anything. We've gotten ourselves into thinking that we need a car for everything and we need transport everywhere. Walking more than 15 minutes to get somewhere is too slow, and cycling is reserved for weirdos and madmen.
This trend has reversed with the onset of the recession, but when the economy picks back up again, we risk people going back to their cars because they can afford to not walk/cycle any more.

I think much of it starts in school. I remeber always loving PE all the way through school, despite being overweight and unfit in secondary school. But it was never more than half an hour, once a week. Totally inadequate and it doesn't foster any kind of routine or inspiration in terms of exercise.
I remember in 4th year the school gave us a go at "trying" various sports to see if we'd be any good/enjoy them, but a class of 30 guys with 40 minutes to give everyone a go isn't nearly enough time to decide whether you've enjoyed something or not.

More ideal would be to get kids in at 9am, two hours of classes, followed by 80 minutes of exercise - be that playing football or rugby or cycling or whatever, then hit the showers, have lunch and back to classes for the afternoon. 80 minutes a day is two classes per day, exercising. All schools could easily get 80 minutes extra three days per week in your average school day if the mandatory Irish and Religion classes were removed, and increase the length of the school day by a few minutes.

If there's a routine around the exercise, and kids have a base level of fitness, then they're going to go out and kick a ball about for an hour at the weekend. But if going up the stairs puts them out of breath, they're more likely to sit on their arses and watch TV.

Laziness begets laziness, and in my experience and from seeing others lose weight and gain fitness, it seems that the biggest barrier which puts people off from getting fit, is being unfit in the first place. The fitter you are, the more eager you are to push yourself. It's a positive feedback loop.
If we don't have fit children, we won't have fit adults, simple as.

There is also a portion size/frequency issue, which I think is important but not quite as important as the exercise. We tend to eat big portions - big meals fed from Irish mammies. I remember being an overweight young teenager and being described by Irish Mammies as a "big healthy boy". In pre-World War times, fatness was seen as a sign of health & vitality (you had the money to eat lots of food), so that attitude may be persisting somewhat in this country.
There's also the problem that when we sit down to have a chat, rather than just a cup of tea and a cookie, we sit down with two cups of tea, a sandwich and a handful of biscuits, even if we've just had our lunch.
That, or we go to the pub and drink 3 pints with a bag of crisps, a sandwich and a bag of nuts.

I don't think other europeans have this "grazing" culture, and though they do the whole cafe thing, it's just a cup of coffee or two without much/anything to eat.

BostonB

I think exercise while obviously important, for lots of reason, isn't important as diet when it comes to obesity. As someone said. You can't outrun your mouth. I know I've tried.

I agree with previous comments its about education, about calories, portion size and too much carbs.

They should start putting all this information in all restaurant, fast food, cafe menus. Like they did in New York. That would be a start, to raise awareness.

CaSCaDe711

Laziness. Too much bad food, and more laziness. Tax all those foods at a much higher rate, allow fruit and veg to be available at a much lower price, and ban all kids from purchasing the large bottles of coke, large bags of crisps, and large bars of chocolate. Some parents need to wake up too, the amount of crap a lot of kids eat nowadays is amazing. Games consoles and digital tvs in nearly every home, along with flyers for local takeaways coming through the door almost weekly. Getting more like America every day.

smiles302

I think it's mostly down to how people view food. I find it a very Irish thing to think of a "common man"'s dinner as meat, potatoes and a veg, maybe 2. On top of that there is the strange attitude that attempting to better yourself means you think you are better than everyone else.

If you have a glance at people's trolleys in supermarkets, it's the odd trolley here and there that contents 90% healthy food. The majority have sugary cereal, chocolate bars, frozen pizza, white bread etc. More often than not, trolleys will be 50:50 healthy food and junk food.

Personally I think it's that simple. A lot of people go through Dunnes or Tesco, without a list, aisle by aisle picking up whatever they think looks nice. Unless they are consciously on a diet.

Veg section --> Bread/Cake/biscuit section --> tiny little crappy fish section --> yoghurt/cheesecake section --> meat section, half of which is stuff like sausage rolls and ready made lasagne --> Juice section --> cereal section, with the little afterthought of a porridge section --> a wine section and a general alcohol section --> then the freezer section is convenience food and ice cream, with about two shelfs of frozen veg if you're lucky.

My house-mates had a sociology assignment last year, looking at random people's trolleys compared to what was actually for sale in the shops.

I've done it in my head nearly every time I go shopping since, it's quite shocking just how much crap is taking over the shelves in the supermarkets. Tesco's are getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Still with a crap selection of fish, the same size veg section as any other shop, the rest of it is nearly all convenience crap! Well except for the spices and stuff in tins section. Nom nom nom.

I think it's safe to assume shops continue to sell whatever sells. If shops are 50% junk food, are people buying 50% junk? If the general public's diet is 50% junk, purely from the likes of Dunnes, ignoring take-aways and trips to the pub. Why are we surprised we have an obesity problem?

I accept my hypothesis is quite a bit simplified. But the overall trend is there if you are bored wandering around Tesco.

Adelie

Yeah like smiles302 said the content of trolleys in Tesco is shocking. I usually end up queuing behind someone with a trolley full of convenience foods, most of them labelled with "healthy choice" or "light choice" or whatever. And most of the stuff would actually be healthy if it was prepared from scratch but god knows what the manufacturers put in to make it cheaper.

EileenG

It has to be diet.

I was in France recently, and there were three schools staying in the place we were. I swear, there was not one fat French kid in the whole lot. They ate the same meals we did (Breakfast was cereal, bread, cheese, jam, yogurt, leftover desserts from the night before. Lunch was salad, meat and veg, cheese, dessert. Dinner was soup, meat and veg, fruit/dessert) so they were not under-eating. But that's all they were eating. No chips or crisps or bars of chocolate or tubes of Pringles.

There were plenty of carbs in the food, but just about all of it was cooked from scratch, and most of it was made from local ingredients.

El_Dangeroso

EileenG wrote: »

It has to be diet.

I was in France recently, and there were three schools staying in the place we were. I swear, there was not one fat French kid in the whole lot. They ate the same meals we did (Breakfast was cereal, bread, cheese, jam, yogurt, leftover desserts from the night before. Lunch was salad, meat and veg, cheese, dessert. Dinner was soup, meat and veg, fruit/dessert) so they were not under-eating. But that's all they were eating. No chips or crisps or bars of chocolate or tubes of Pringles.

There were plenty of carbs in the food, but just about all of it was cooked from scratch, and most of it was made from local ingredients.

I think the cereals are a very new intro to the French diet though, most French people I know grew up skipping breakfast. But I totally know what you mean, their dedication to food quality is admirable. They fight for their good food and care passionately about it. They eat lots of offal too (compared to us) and butter and sit down and slowly enjoy and savour their food. Not shove half a wrap filled with processed ingredients while typing at their desks!

I remember reading on a thread in AH on obesity how the working nation was fed by Cuisine de France, oh the irony!

Lia_lia

About the France thing...

I lived in and attended school in France during my childhood. In primary school nobody brought packed lunches. For our break at 10 o clock we would have a cup of hot milk and some crackers (in Ireland I've noticed kids are given chocolate bars!) and then between 1pm and 2pm we'd all go to a big dining hall and have a proper 3 course meal! Something like: melon to start, fish and vegetables, and finally a yoghurt or something. And that would keep you full for the rest of the day. So at home instead of having a big dinner we'd usually have what would be considered lunch at dinner time.

It was also the law in our area that we had to be able to swim by a certain age. (coastal area) So we all went swimming in the local pool twice a week. Then once you reached a certain age (think it was about 7) we started sailing! So lots of exercise too.

whiteonion

First that we have grown up eating loads of carbs
Second, we have been fooled to believe that saturated fat is bad.

Instead we eat processed crap like margarine and non nutritional bread and pasta.

These days I almost exclusively eat meat and eggs, I've lost loads of weight.

huskerdu

Lots of good points raised above.

The one that has to be added is portion distortion.

An adult with a sedentary lifestyle needs 1600-2000 calories a day (depending on gender / height etc)

The standard size muffin these days is 500 calories. That is at least one quarter of your entire daily calorific needs, and yet its seen by many people as a snack, not a meal.

The size of portions in many restaurants ( especially fast food restaurants and pub grub carvery places) is enormous.

metamorphosis

Diet hands down. Yeah people are more sedentary in general but diet is by far at the top of that list.

People eat on the go, eat food in packages, eat far too much sugar, latte after latte on a daily basis, do little exercise (walking to the shop or to the bus stop seems to be the staple of a lot of peoples exercise these days). As we get bigger, our portions get bigger and we refuse to not let out plates be empty!

We simply live off nutrient lacking food and far too much of it.

EileenG

Very true. I find that the huge size of portions tends to keep me away from junk food. If you could buy a mini muffin with a coffee, I might be tempted. Not when I know it's a whole meal's worth of junk calories.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Lattes get a fierce amount of bad press but when I worked in a coffeeshop it was semi-skimmed milk(and skimmed was there if you preferred it)

Why is a shot of espresso and a cupful of hot semi-skimmed milk bad?

EileenG

It's not bad if you know it's basically milk with a bit of coffee, and allow the calories for it. But people tend to forget that milk has cals and drink them without counting.

metamorphosis

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Lattes get a fierce amount of bad press but when I worked in a coffeeshop it was semi-skimmed milk(and skimmed was there if you preferred it)

Why is a shot of espresso and a cupful of hot semi-skimmed milk bad?

didnt say they were bad, its just that people can easily go through 3,4,5 a day and don't even count it as part of their intake. say you have 3 lattes a day @ 500mls, your talking 200+ cals if you are using semi skimmed milk per latte. I can easily have 3 a day, thats easily 6-700 cals and id sometimes forget it as counting towards food intake.

Bottle_of_Smoke

metamorphosis wrote: »

didnt say they were bad, its just that people can easily go through 3,4,5 a day and don't even count it as part of their intake. say you have 3 lattes a day @ 500mls, your talking 200+ cals if you are using semi skimmed milk per latte. I can easily have 3 a day, thats easily 6-700 cals and id sometimes forget it as counting towards food intake.

that would surely be highly unusual though. having three lattes that big. i know starbucks are huge but in spars and coffee takeaways they're usually 200-300ml. though take your point that people forget to count them in their calorie intake

--Kaiser--

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

My own personal belief (and no I don't have the cast-iron RCT to prove this:)) is a combination of the following:

- Lack of micronutrients and minerals, mainly fat-soluble vitamins and magnesium and possible others. Ironically the introduction of whole-grain cereals have made this worse as the phytic acid in the fibre binds the minerals in the diet (this was noted by the chief dietician for rationing in WWII, they in turn had to fortify the brown flour with calcium)

- Replacement of traditional fats and oils with industrially produced seed oils such as sunflower, corn, soybean, safflower. Probably the biggest change in our diet of the last century.

- Increase in refined sugar consumption. Correlates with obesity pretty well, even if you don't agree it's a big issue when moderated, the problem is a lot, not all obese people are sugar addicts and as such find it difficult to moderate their intake. When we measure their brain waves you see the same dopamine reward response as an alcoholic gets from a drink.

- The last point I'm on shaky ground because it's almost total speculation, but epidemiological evidence backs me up at least. In the 1970's a new breed of wheat that was of a semi-dwarf, high-yield variety. It grew twice as fast and had much more gluten which was fantastic for profits but not for nutrition.

This to be honest. Saying 'Genetics' is a factor in more than a tiny precent of obese people is a huge cop-out in my opinion.

Even exercise isn't as big a factor as most people think. I know people who do physical labour for up to 10 hours a day, people who train for marathons and people who go do 2 hour gym sessions 4 days a week. And none of them manage to lose weight. Is it lack of exercise? No, it's the fact that 60% of their diet is refined sugar and carbohydrates with not enough protein and healthy fats. The fact that the media portrays eating this type of diet as healthy doesn't help matters.

I would put poor diet as about 75% cause of obesity, lack of exercise at 25%.

Bottle_of_Smoke

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

This to be honest. Saying 'Genetics' is a factor in more than a tiny precent of obese people is a huge cop-out in my opinion.

What do you mean by cop out there? The people who say ''I'm fat but its genetics so not my fault...'' or just saying it is a factor?

--Kaiser--

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What do you mean by cop out there? The people who say ''I'm fat but its genetics so not my fault...'' or just saying it is a factor?

The first one. I'm sure genetics can play a part, some people have slower metabolisms, glandular disorders etc...but for most people, losing weight is an achievable goal

Bottle_of_Smoke

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The first one. I'm sure genetics can play a part, some people have slower metabolisms, glandular disorders etc...but for most people, losing weight is an achievable goal

Oh yeah absolutely. That's my biggest gripe with the medias reference to it - always this kind of ''they're not lazy its genetics'' as if genetics are somehow this all powerful force that cannot be countered by eating less and exercising more. So although it doesn't justify those people being overweight it just could well be a contributory factor to them being so.

El_Dangeroso

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

This to be honest. Saying 'Genetics' is a factor in more than a tiny precent of obese people is a huge cop-out in my opinion.

I don't see it as a cop out, more of a biological fact, we can quibble over prevalence, but given the exact same environment, some people are born with the tendency to store energy rather than burn it and others the tendency to burn over storing, they'll be the type of people that after a big dose of calories will feel like going for a run as opposed to snoozing in front of the television. Or, to be more accurate, some people are born with genes that contribute towards obesity that are expressed when you have given environmental stimulii. Those genes can be present but not expressed if the environment does not trigger it.

There is the story of the identical twins separated at birth, that were brought up in two completely different socio-economic conditions and forty years later weighed the exact same give or take 1-2lb. We don't see the same effect with fraternal twins:

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The first one. I'm sure genetics can play a part, some people have slower metabolisms, glandular disorders etc...but for most people, losing weight is an achievable goal

I agree, because most people who want to lose weight are overweight not obese (yet). Once scales crosses over into obesity, you can no longer apply the same metabolism rules as you can to someone who needs to lose 10lb. The game has changed.

If you are obese you have a less than 2% chance of losing and maintaining your weight for 5 years. Oh, and they count 'success' as losing 10% body weight, when often they need to lose 30-50% even to get into the 'overweight' category (though losing even 10% has a meaningful impact on health). When you factor in that, the success rate for attaining a normal BMI for longer than 5 years becomes so vanishingly small that the US government keeps a special registry of people who actually manage it and that cohort is so small that they cannot derive meaningful conclusions on how to extrapolate the findings to other people.

I know it's not the most encouraging scenario but those are the facts, we are no where near close to coming up with a long solution for obesity and anyone who says they have the answer is mistaken. I used to be one of the mistaken.

The best solution is to not become obese in the first place. Depressing but true.

smiles302

Why is it so difficult to lose weight once you are obese? =/

It's no longer as simple as eating less?

El_Dangeroso

smiles302 wrote: »

Why is it so difficult to lose weight once you are obese? =/

It's no longer as simple as eating less?

An obese person's metabolism (I'm reluctant to categorise every person with a BMI of 30 with substantial bodyfat as obese. I think it's more about the visceral fat b/w organs than overall weight) works differently than a normal or even overweight person. We can observe this at a cellular level.

If anything obese people lose tonnes of weight quickly when they go on a diet (ever seen the biggest loser?) but the problem is that once the weight loss is done, they are left with cells that still function like an obese cell, the cell is depleted of fat, and when a cell is depleted of fat it releases hormones that upregulate appetite (very simply speaking) so an obese person will always have an appetite of person much larger, even if they lost all the weight.

Fighting your appetite for the rest of your life is a battle that you are unlikely to win.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Poster this on the sugar thread in politics.


I think a possible (if radical) way of reducing overweight/obesity would be to offer a % tax refund(or bonus if on the dole/student/low earner) for people who can squat/deadlift their own weight for 8 reps. Free/reduced health insurance too

If you are a healthy bodyweight this can easily be achieved after a few weeks of resistance training. The amount being lifted could be tweaked for women and people over 55. Studies could be done first to determine what would be a good/fair weight to use.

If it worked and people took part to save money there could be savings made on drug costs for type 2 diabetics/heart problem related drugs. Plus a lot of freed up hospital beds/frontline medical staff. Though I accept that long term it may not be cost effective because people would end up living longer. Though it may also allow people to retire later too.

State gyms would have to be set up for people who can't afford it of course. Though these places could double as testing centres. You'd register and then be told - ''at some point in the coming year you will have to come in and lift the weight with perfect form under supervision of a fitness instructor''

Sapsorrow

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Poster this on the sugar thread in politics.

Could you post a link to the thread pls, sounds interesting!

Bottle_of_Smoke

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056148368&highlight=sugar