[OT] Why are so many Americans "overweight"

[otto]

Most of the sodas rank in at 300 calories per 8oz (not per bottle. thats the sneaky math). 300 calories x 3 (24 oz bottle) x 4 = 2700 calories!!

Just wanted to correct your math (someone may have already)... most pop (soda is carbonated water, darn it!) is 100 calories per 8 ounces. So, 250 for a 20 ounce.

Still, I had a similar problem... 3-5 20 ounces a day is still 750-1250 extra calories. It did fill me up some though... and there are studies that found that pop is as effective as milk for making one feel less hungry.

Peanut butter was my other nasty habbit. I love the stuff, but do the math... 168 calories an ounce. I put 1.8 on my PB&J. It's not the healthy, high-protien stuff Skippy would like you to believe.

Compare it to roast beef cold cuts at some point, I did. 30-35 calories an ounce, I use 3 oz on a sandwich. Fat content is less, too... 2 grams per serving vs 12, IIRC. Even though the percentage of saturated fat is smaller, 50% of 2 is still a lot smaller than 40% of 12. I did the math once, to equal my PB&J I could have 10 ounces of roast beef or ham and still be less on the fat grams.

For anyone losing weight, just do the math. Forget the crap you've learned and just look at the numbers.

 

[otto]

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has quite a bit of information, including a PDF report on obesity.

One stat from the article: Obesity (BMI 30+) increased from 12% to nearly 18% from 1991 to 1998. That's a dramatic increase in less than a decade.

BTW, I don't think the BMI is a terribly accurate depiction of the average American build. Not just fat, but muscle and bone.

This is gonna sound like an "I'm big boned" excuse, but there's something to it... I'm overweight (but loosing it pretty fast) and if my bodyfat scale is even close to right I'd have to be at 6% bodyfat (very, very little) before I fit into the "overweight" category of BMI... that's just under the "obese".

The problem with BMI is that it doesn't take into account where someone's weight comes from. I have no proof, but I suspect American's bone mass (or *something*) is making us seem fatter than we are. That isn't to say we're not overweight or even overfat, but I think the numbers are a bit skewed since we assume that any weight over the ideal *has* to be fat.

 

[apsuman]

Two things. I would discourage anyone from using the center for science in the public interest as their source of data for anything. Simply put these people have an axe to grind, a really big axe.

Two, the baby boomers are getting older, and older people have slower metabolisms, which means they will gain weight unless they change thier lifestyle choices.

g!

 

[Lizard]

Re: Why are so many Americans "overweight"

I was just looking at the photo thread and remembering 2 vacations in the States and 90% of europe is skin and bones compared to the average american I've seen, Americans are extreme in lifestyles, opinions and size I've come to experience. Is it the food... or what?

Because don't have 95% taxation before we ever see a paycheck, so we can afford to buy mega-double cheeseburgers with extra bacon.

Mmmmm....bacon....

From what I can tell, EVERYTHING'S bigger in America. Avg. house or apartment size. Cars. Servings at restauraunts. Egos. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

 

[mmadsen]

I'm overweight (but loosing it pretty fast) and if my bodyfat scale is even close to right I'd have to be at 6% bodyfat (very, very little) before I fit into the "overweight" category of BMI... that's just under the "obese".

To just barely fit into "overweight" and not "obese", a 6' man would have to weigh 220 lbs. (That gives a BMI of 29.8, just under 30.)

A 220-lb man at 6% body-fat has just 13 lbs of fat and 207 lbs of muscle. That's a very, very muscular, very, very ripped guy. (Since Vin Diesel's been discussed lately, he's supposedly 6'2", 180 lbs.)

The problem with BMI is that it doesn't take into account where someone's weight comes from.

That's true, but for discussing Americans as a whole, I seriously doubt it's extra muscle mass contributing to their obesity.

Look around. When I was in school, the fat kid was the fat kid. Now a quick look at school-age kids reveals a lot of fat kids -- with 44-oz soft drinks.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

Sorry to heat that it seems true.... damn I'm glad I live in a very safe country and in a very safe area in that as well, some major cities have bad neighbourhoods but thats it.

What you've just said is EXACTLY how America is. In 99.999999% of the cities in this country, you can walk around without fear of ANY sort of crime. They're just unheard of. The only violent crimes you hear about are usually either premeditated or comitted by someone the victim knows.

The reason that kids stay inside more nowadays is twofold:
1) The indoor entertainments are more fun than they were in the past

2) PARENTS ARE RETARDED!!!!

I've noticed this a lot nowadays. When I was a kid (only 20 years ago) we *never* wore helmets, kneepads, etc. If you fell down and broke your arm, oh well, it healed. Nowadays kids are pampered and cushioned and protected. Show me ANY kid on tv who rides a bike without a helmet. Soccer moms listen to the sensational news reports about SIDS or kidnappings (like that girl in Utah who had 300 FBI agents looking for her when several other cases go unsolved each year, but that's another topic) and they get the idea that kids are being kidnapped left and right. These parents then overreact, and THAT's the safety issue that someone else was talking about. An overreaction, not an indication that it's truly dangerous outside.

 

[mmadsen]

A recent Reuter's Health article (referencing Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2002;51:701-703) pointed out some interesting facts about childhood obesity and kids walking and biking to school:

According to the CDC, 43% of US high school students spend at least 2 hours a day watching television. Rates of overweight and obesity among youngsters have tripled since the late 1970s and now run as high as 14% among US children. Rates are even higher in African-American and Hispanic communities.

Only 31% of trips to school are made on foot and only 2% by bike among children living 2 miles or less from their school, the researchers report.

The survey also found that about 40% of kids don't walk or bike to school because of traffic dangers perceived by their parents.

 

[otto]

To just barely fit into "overweight" and not "obese", a 6' man would have to weigh 220 lbs. (That gives a BMI of 29.8, just under 30.)

A 220-lb man at 6% body-fat has just 13 lbs of fat and 207 lbs of muscle. That's a very, very muscular, very, very ripped guy. (Since Vin Diesel's been discussed lately, he's supposedly 6'2", 180 lbs.)

Those numbers are almost exactly where I'll be when I drop the rest of my fat. I'm 321 (145.6 kg) at 5'11" (1.8 m) right now, the scale says 37% or 38% (*). Using the higher number, puts me at 200 (90.7 kg) of lean mass and 121 (54.8 kg) of fat. I know I'm overfat, but I used to think I had 140 lbs (63.9 kg) to go but reality seems to be closer to 71-90 (32.2-40.8kg)... almost half. For me that meant it seemed like an attainable goal. Am I really the only one?

Incidentally, I'm strong but I'm not a super-built behemoth under this extra stuff.

(*) - Admittedly, I'm under the assumption these things aren't wildly inaccurate... +/-5% seems reasonable. Also, I've had the wife do a caliper test and it was about the same. It'd have to be off by 14% to get me to the 25 BMI without dropping muscle. If anyone knows how accurate these things are, I'd be interested.

Odly, I thought Vin Diesel was a little small... ripped, yes but a little small. As a counterpoint, The Rock is 6'5" (1.95 m), 275 (124.7 kg) and his BMI is 32.6. Well into the obese category.

That's true, but for discussing Americans as a whole, I seriously doubt it's extra muscle mass contributing to their obesity.

I'm not saying it's the case for everyone of people, but it is the case for some people... possibly enough to toss off the stats some, and the stats I've seen never take into account anything but total mass.

One thing I'd like to see is bone density studies of the various countries. I'd bet $5 on Americans having the highest. Next best thing would be milk consumption per capita... supposedly building all those nice big healthy strong bones, right?

I'm just saying there's one more variable people forget about... bone. Most people assume if you're not bulging muscles all over, everything over the "norm" is fat.

Look around. When I was in school, the fat kid was the fat kid. Now a quick look at school-age kids reveals a lot of fat kids -- with 44-oz soft drinks.

As always, South Park has the answer. *The* fat kid is alwas the fattest kid in the class... when Cartman got dragged off to the funny farm, that became Butters.

 

[mmadsen]

I'm 321 (145.6 kg) at 5'11" (1.8 m) right now, the scale says 37% or 38% (*).

If you're 321 lbs at 5'11", you're carrying some extra muscle to handle that weight -- and it's extra muscle through your legs in particular, an area where you can easily add 10 or 20 lbs of muscle.

Still 200 lbs of lean mass is a lot of lean mass on a 5'11" guy. That's linebacker mass.

As a counterpoint, The Rock is 6'5" (1.95 m), 275 (124.7 kg) and his BMI is 32.6. Well into the obese category.

Pro bodybuilders and pro wrestlers are often "obese" by BMI. Certainly strength athletes can carry enough muscle to seem obese by height/weight.

 

[WayneLigon]

Southern Bugs

Texas certainly does have its share of enormous bugs, doesn't it?
-F

I had a grade school teacher from Texas. She claimed there were only two types of mosquitoes in TX: those small enough to slip through the screen door, and the ones big enough to open them.