Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Saturday, January 27. 2024

Fat Americans


I have no idea how these stats are calculated, but supposedly just over 70% of Americans are overweight, and 40% obese. 


It's just interesting. Asking "why?" is silly.






Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 14:49 | Comments (26) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Quality and quantity of food and sedentary lifestyle.
#1 don on 2024-01-27 15:31 (Reply)
Snacking and sugar in almost all processed foods would be my best answer. Lower calorie intake by 400-500 a day and most people would be much fitter and firmer.
#2 Spurt Reynolds on 2024-01-27 15:45 (Reply)
Exceptional articulation! Continue the dialogue at https://kasba.ai/boost-your-ai-skills-with-skillshare/. It's a conversation worth expanding!
#2.1 Deedra Wuolle (Link) on 2024-01-27 21:44 (Reply)
It's many things. A lot of is heredity/race and a lot of it is from available food with almost all physical activity being optional. But it is worth knowing "why" because there are those who will take advantage of statistical anomalies to profit, AWG being a great example. Just as you will hear that our high carb food causes diabetes. It doesn't, diabetes is mostly a hereditary disease and is far worse in certain ethnicities who more recently, relatively speaking made the transition from hunter gatherer to farmer. Diabetes is rare in Northern Europeans and common in Africans and indigenous Americans. The answer is simple: a diet of meat and "gathered" food is coincidently ideal to forestall serious diabetic symptoms. But when cultures settled down and food was abundant it was common that serious diabetes showed serious symptoms much earlier and even death if untreated. This tended to eliminate diabetics from passing on their genes.
So with all the immigration obesity and diabetes will be more common. Simple math, if half our population comes from cultures where diabetes is 5-10 times the rate of people whose heritage is from Northern Europe then the rate of diabetes will double, triple even quadruple. And there will be no shortage of Zach's out there trying to sell you the snake oil or at least the argument that your entire country needs to stop eating bread or whatever to save the few who have genetic diabetes, which of course is pure BS. But as we've seen BS is profitable.
#3 OneGuy on 2024-01-27 15:47 (Reply)
 
Please see below.
#3.1 Zachriel on 2024-01-28 08:58 (Reply)
Don't know about now, but in the past food like McDonalds was categorized by university professors as being too cheap, too tasty and too readily available. All traits that are apparently bad in regards to food.

In times when people were skinny, the food was not alawys cheap, not always tasty and almost never readily available except to the nobles and kings who collected the food rent.
#4 JKB on 2024-01-27 17:32 (Reply)
Fewer smokers, junk added to food, jobs require less physical exertion.
#5 Shauna on 2024-01-27 19:16 (Reply)
My dad correctly said that nothing destroys the health and morality of people more or faster than extended periods of prosperity.
#6 Fred Z on 2024-01-28 02:00 (Reply)
Bad carbs.
#7 bobby b on 2024-01-28 03:18 (Reply)
I have to admit it that I am old. When I was young there were very few people, especially kids and teenagers had any extra weight. There were no fast food places and garbage food being pushed in the stores. I remember when the first McDonalds was built in our city and I thought it was awful food, still do. Mothers cooked meals at home and would never think of continuing to give their kids soda all the time. People are lazy with eating fast food and eating over processed food with additives all the time. Empty calories. Next time you grocery shop just take some time to read the ingredient label and you will see all the crap in the food of today.
#8 JC on 2024-01-28 08:43 (Reply)
OneGuy: Simple math, if half our population comes from cultures where diabetes is 5-10 times the rate of people whose heritage is from Northern Europe then the rate of diabetes will double, triple even quadruple.

That is not the case in the United States. While rates of diabetes are somewhat higher for non-whites, it is nowhere near that ratio.
OneGuy: And there will be no shortage of Zach's out there trying to sell you the snake oil or at least the argument that your entire country needs to stop eating bread or whatever to save the few who have genetic diabetes

Portion control and exercise are the most important safeguards against developing adult-onset diabetes.

Rates of diabetes are increasing for all ethnic groups, so there is more at work than genetics. Increased access to high calorie foods and sedentary lifestyles appear to be important factors.
#9 Zachriel on 2024-01-28 08:55 (Reply)
The figures above are for diagnosed and undiagnosed cases of diabetes among adults. Here is the diagnosed rate over time for the whole population.
#9.1 Zachriel on 2024-01-28 09:01 (Reply)
What is the rate for American Indians? For Australian aboriginal? South Pacific Islanders? The various indigenous people of South and Central America?

The problem with categorizing by "Hispanic" is that means in the United States and almost all of them are mixed race with Northern Europeans> When you are talking about a genetic disease than the genetics matter. From your chart "Hispanics", meaning mixed race white and Mexican/South American have a reduced rate of diabetes due to the genes of Europeans. While the native populations of South and Central America have rates that are double and even triple your "Hispanic" statistic.
#10 OneGuy on 2024-01-28 09:34 (Reply)
OneGuy: What is the rate for American Indians? For Australian aboriginal? South Pacific Islanders? The various indigenous people of South and Central America?

Those groups are small enough that they don't affect the overall rate for the United States. Nor would that explain why all racial groups, including whites are seeing increases. You are correct, though, that some people have a propensity for diabetes.
#10.1 Zachriel on 2024-01-28 10:03 (Reply)
"Those groups are small enough that they don't affect the overall rate for the United States"

That is not the point. Somehow the point evaded you. This proves that in some ethnic groups diabetes is rampant.

"Nor would that explain why all racial groups, including whites are seeing increases."

Actually it does. As I pointed out many/most Hispanics are mixed race and mixed with whites. The delineation becomes blurrier as we integrate. The rate of diabetes for a person of pure Swedish (for example) heritage hasn't changed. BUT the rate for "whites" changes as the various other ethnicities merge. A simple example of this would be a native American with a 40%-60% chance of developing diabetes in their lifetime marrying an Englishman with an 8% chance of developing diabetes and their children (who could be considered "white") will have about a 24%-36% chance of having diabetes. And is simple as that you explain why the rate of diabetes is increasing in "whites".

Statistics without common sense is flawed.
#10.1.1 OneGuy on 2024-01-28 14:50 (Reply)
OneGuy: A simple example of this would be a native American with a 40%-60% chance of developing diabetes

About 15% of Native Americans have diabetes. Statistics based on made up numbers will lead to unfounded conclusions.

Try this, cite real data to support your original claim about "half our population comes from cultures where diabetes is 5-10 times the rate of people whose heritage is from Northern Europe".
#10.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2024-01-28 16:56 (Reply)
Here is a good example of both the rate of diabetes in native Mexicans (not "Hispanics") AND an example of how the diabetes scare is used to push an agenda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-t3M-To7co

As for American Indians I don't know where you got your data but it is wrong. I suspect you are cherry picking your data or simply making it up. But, that IS what you do...
#10.1.1.1.1 OneGuy on 2024-01-28 17:09 (Reply)
OneGuy: Here is a good example of both the rate of diabetes in native Mexicans

Gee whiz. They provide a chart at the 23 seconds mark showing the rate of diabetes in Mexico is 14.8%. The town with the much higher rate drinks a LOT of Coke, which is not a genetic condition.

See McLaughlin, Traditions and Diabetes Prevention: A Healthy Path for Native Americans, Diabetes Spectrum 2010: “Less than 100 years ago, diabetes was virtually unknown in native communities. . . Data from the IHS Diabetes Program show a 160% increase in diagnosed diabetes for Native Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 years between 1990 and 2004.“
#10.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2024-01-28 17:33 (Reply)
"the rate of diabetes in Mexico is 14.8%. The town with the much higher rate drinks a LOT of Coke, which is not a genetic condition."

Exactly!! That's how the scam works. The villagers are all 100 natives and Mexico is mostly a mixed race/ethnicity country. So Mexico national rate is lower while the pure bred native race reflects their native genetic predisposition to diabetes. You got it! You stumbled over it without even knowing it.

As for the coke, seriously do you really think coca-cola causes diabetes? This is nothing more than the precursor to a class action lawsuit. BUT!!!! IT does point out what should be the obvious. IF these indigenous people didn't consume high carb foods their symptoms would be milder and their medically harmful side effects would be less. Interestingly you will notice that ONLY those with diabetes got worse symptoms from consuming the sugary cola. Funny how it didn't cause diabetes for all of them! Hmmm! Kind of destroys the meme doesn't it.

Also this would be the same result if they all ate potatoes like the Irish did and strangely the potatoes didn't cause a massive outbreak of diabetes in the Irish. It would be the same result if they ate rice like the Asians do but somehow doesn't cause a diabetes epidemic in the Asians.
#10.1.1.1.2.1 OneGuy on 2024-01-28 20:17 (Reply)
OneGuy - you are correct in stating that diabetes rates in native North Americans and Mexicans are troubling. Last time was in Mexico, noticed signs up around clinics, etc., re diabetes. And is it well known that North American Indians have a disproportionately high rate of diabetes; it is suspected that switching from a high protein and high fat diet to one with a lot more carbs is causing problems. Read of a man from the BC West Coast who reverted - as much as possible - to the ancestral diet which meant a lot of fish and even oolichan grease while minimizing carbs of any sort. It was working for him.
#10.1.1.1.2.1.1 Frances on 2024-01-28 22:31 (Reply)
OneGuy: The villagers are all 100 natives and Mexico is mostly a mixed race/ethnicity country.

You point to a small population with high rates of diabetes who have extremely high consumption of sugary drinks to support a claim that sugary drinks are not a contributing cause of diabetes. That doesn't support your claim.

Your made-up statistics are of no use. While some people certainly have a propensity to diabetes, rates of diabetes have increased in all populations as they have modernized, including whites.

OneGuy: As for the coke, seriously do you really think coca-cola causes diabetes?

It's certainly a contributing cause, as your own video showed.

OneGuy: Also this would be the same result if they all ate potatoes like the Irish

An apple and a cookie have a similar amount of calories, but someone might easily eat six or more cookies, but will feel full after just two or three apples.

Someone might eat six potatoes and be full. Someone who drinks six cokes will not be full. Indeed, someone who eats six potatoes will still easily consume six cokes along with it.
#10.1.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2024-01-29 08:48 (Reply)
Perhaps, this will help, maps of diabetes prevalence: Global, United States. On the global map, note that most of Latin America has comparable rates of diabetes to the United States. On the United States map, the higher rates of diabetes include much of the South, which might be due to either large minority populations, or could be due to greater levels of poverty and lack of regular medical care. But then you see West Virginia and eastern Kentucky, which is nearly all white, with a population that has been relatively isolated from in-migration, also has high rates of diabetes; while the New York City metropolitan area doesn't show the higher rates of diabetes, even though it has a very large minority population.
#10.1.1.1.2.3 Zachriel on 2024-01-29 10:37 (Reply)
Trying to decide if you are really not able to understand or that you are intentionally ignoring the obvious to push your agenda. Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter. You can't find the answer statistically. There is no accuracy in the statistics or the groups they use to measure. Here is where the answer is:

If the person or group is a direct descendent of an ethnicity or culture that within the last few hundred years existed totally as a hunter gatherer than they, the group has a higher rate of diabetes than anyone or group that is a direct descendent of an ethnicity or culture that has existed as farmers. The reason is simple as I previously explained: That a hunter gatherer lifestyle masks/prevents the serious/debilitating symptoms of diabetes for years longer than does a high carb diet thus allowing the individual to contribute to the gene pool. While in the farmer society the high carbs effect on individuals with a disease that cannot tolerate carbs can prevent someone from being a suitable mate especially those with a higher level of symptoms from the illness. Thus the gene pool was "cleaned" somewhat especially of those with the more serious level of diabetes.

It is what it is. It isn't racism or white supremacy or some wild conspiracy theory so it doesn't have to be suppressed because of DEI or something. The value of this truth is that we will know to ignore those who claim diabetes is "caused" by sugar or Coca-Cola or lack of exercise or obesity. It is genetic, pure and simple.
#10.1.1.1.2.3.1 OneGuy on 2024-01-29 17:42 (Reply)
OneGuy: Simple math

OneGuy: You can't find the answer statistically.

In other words, you got nothin’.
#10.1.1.1.2.3.2 Zachriel on 2024-01-29 22:06 (Reply)
To be clear, you made a claim based on statistical probability, but can't support your claim.
#10.1.1.1.2.3.3 Zachriel on 2024-01-30 08:09 (Reply)
Everyone falling for the myths again, I see. No matter how much data is out there, people still want to believe it's all those undisciplined people. Why peop0le would suddenly become more undisciplined in 1980 goes unexplained. Why people lower in the watersheds have more obesity goes unexplained. Why people...oh, never mind. People would rather believe they are virtuous.

There are serious researchers out there. They aren't just looking to make excuses for people (as they are so often accused of), they really want to know the answer. I think the seed oil people are wrong, or at least mostly wrong, but they are mostly trying to figure it out.

The exposure-to-lithium theory fits a lot of the data. I'm partly sold on that, but not entirely.

Until the new drugs just came on the market, it did remain true that the only solidly reliable way of losing weight was to restrict intake. But that is only after the fact. It does not explain how the weight went on in the first place. That people think that is impossible, that of course it must explain it, is why we still can't get (enough) good research and people sell us expensive crap for weight control.
#11 Assistant Village Idiot on 2024-01-28 09:52 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.