This is a tricky subject, because as this article mentions, BMI is an imperfect measure of health. So, we should probably stop using it. I am 26.2 BMI but I am an athlete. I have a higher body fat than I would like, particularly around parts of my mid section, but otherwise am in good heart health and all blood tests come back great. Yet, I will still be told to lose weight by most primary care doctors, based purely on BMI.
Unfortunately this fact has been hijacked by "fat positive" movements like Health at Every Size. They take this fact that BMI is an imperfect measure of health and stretch it waaaaay too far in my opinion, with most supporters translating it as "I can be healthy no matter how fat I am," which is definitely not true. There is an absolutely positive correlation with body fat, weight, and health. Unfortunately sane discussion on this is practically impossible no matter where you stand.
Would it be reasonable to say that BMI is a bad measure at an individual level, especially at values close to ideal range but at the same time it is a useful measure at population scale? As stated on the NHS Scotland website:
"BMI is used to categorise people’s weight. BMI charts are mainly used for working out the health of populations rather than individuals.
Within a population there will always be people who are at the extremes (have a high BMI or low BMI).
A high or low BMI may be an indicator of poor diet, varying activity levels, or high stress. Just because someone has a ‘normal BMI’ does not mean that they are healthy.
BMI doesn’t take account of body composition, for example, muscle, fat, bone density. Sex and other factors which can impact your weight can also lead to an inaccurate reading. As such a BMI calculation is not a suitable measure for some people including children and young people under 18, pregnant women and athletes."
Not really, it’s one variable amongst many. If the general population also has poor diet, we can assume the BMI is not because everyone has an exemplary physique
> Unfortunately this fact has been hijacked by "fat positive" movements like Health at Every Size. They take this fact that BMI is an imperfect measure of health and stretch it waaaaay too far in my opinion, with most supporters translating it as "I can be healthy no matter how fat I am," which is definitely not true.
"Health At Every Size" was how it started, encouragement that you can improve your health despite not losing weight. For example, if you don't normally work out but decide to start, you're probably going to gain weight first - adding muscle faster than you lose fat.
"Healthy At Every Size" is the corrupted version you're describing.
> For example, if you don't normally work out but decide to start, you're probably going to gain weight first - adding muscle faster than you lose fat.
It takes at least a month to get your CNS firing correctly before your body can possibly build muscle in any significant way.
If you don’t work out and then you start, and you gain weight, you’re eating poorly, not gaining muscle.
I think that such “fat positivity” is not necessarily an organic grassroots phenomenon, rather it might be a consequence of the modern ad-driven internet. Celebrating personal expression, underdogs and minorities (and the obese can be slotted in alongside these) is something that advertisers love. Perceived negativity and judgement, on the other hand, could threaten advertiser relationships.
I never thought about it from this angle. I personally think celebrating body positivity is a good thing, but as it correlates to health, I think it can become harmful. IME there are a TON of "body positive" fat-focused influencers but I'm not sure a fat shaming influencer or even one that was criticizing the pro-fat movement would ever survive on social media, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't follow the young tiktok trends.
At least two influencers in the US criticize the HAES movement. And they're pretty just in their criticism (one is an ex-obese and is probably still overweight).
Yes, but a large component of worse health outcomes is due to bias on the part of healthcare workers.
Overweight people frequently have their problems ignored or downplayed, or given treatments for issues that they aren't experiencing, which leads to worse health outcomes.
I'm not denying that being overweight can be bad for one's health, just pointing out that when doctors provide worse treatment to a group of people that group has worse health outcomes and makes obesity more dangerous that it would be in a world without weight stigma.
Yea, my dad died of something similar - was morbidly obese among a lot of other problems towards the end of his life, they attributed a lot of those problems solely to his weight, but it turned out he had severe obstructive sleep apnea that was never treated. Had it been, I think his outcome would have been a little bit different. he was never even tested. We'd been telling him for years to get it looked at but his doctor convinced him the issue was weight.
It is a risk factor, but it is not 1:1. Lots of people have obstructive sleep apnea that are not obese. Sleep apnea can also contribute to weight gain.
I actually thought you were preaching the same thing as the ones you are criticizing later on.
I agree that there is people with a high BMI that are quite healthy. So this is not a perfect indicator of health. Sure.
But those people are a minority.
At the scale of a country of ~346 millions people, having 3/4 of adults with a high BMI is a clear sign of an unhealthy population.
And, yes, unfortunately, some people decided that, because BMI doesn't work with a minority, we shouldn't care about it and, furthermore, shouldn't care about body composition.
I will disagree here, athletes aren't the only one who can have a BMI > 25 and still be healthy, I'm at 26.2 now (down from 34) and my body fat is in the healthy range. BMI is actually just a poor indicator, hip/waist ration is as easy to calculate and is better imho.
Exactly this. Athletes are an outlier when it comes to BMI.
Furthermore, I reckon the majority of the people discussing BMI, as in these comments, would tend to be outliers, too, based solely on the fact they care/understand.
The majority of the population has no fucking clue, and can’t even read nutrition labels. And I am not blaming them. This stuff should be taught in school—basic nutrition education.
And even most athletes I personally know fall under what's considered a healthy BMI (< 25). Some sports require a body composition that pushes the boundary of it but as a general proxy of the health of millions in a population it's a pretty good one.
BMI, Both-Might-Indicate lots of muscles or fat stores. I can see how someone lugging lots of muscle mass around would want their own number - a BMI is either a credit score or a debt score, its absolute value means nothing. What if we did started to put a + or - in front of the number, if there was more muscle than fat being stored.
> I can see how someone lugging lots of muscle mass around would want their own number
Healthy people with high BMI are not how they are by accident, they don't care about their BMI because they know why it's high and they know it's not an issue
exactly. the number of people who have "high BMI" due to muscle mass and general fitness is utterly trivial when compared to number who are straight up fat.
it's a nothingburger; whether you use BMI or Body Roundness or whatever, most USA-ians are fat as hell.
> General Mills has toured the country touting anti-diet research it claims proves the harms of “food shaming.” It has showered giveaways on registered dietitians who promote its cereals online with the hashtag #DerailTheShame, and sponsored influencers who promote its sugary snacks. The company has also enlisted a team of lobbyists and pushed back against federal policies that would add health information to food labels.
I wonder if that was part of the inspiration for the South Park special "The End of Obesity" [1]? A big part of that involved companies that sell sugary foods pushing body positivity so people wouldn't cut down on their foods.
My weight has fluctuated all my life, to my consternation. I do feel the health differences.
Something that helps me is body shaming. (Making a serious point here.) I have a sense of humor about life’s challenges and get a motivation boost from comments by strangers or familiars.
I personally value the motivation aid, as motivation is often hard to manufacture. I find comments & judgements hilarious, as long as they reflect reality, and have no practical impact.
I don’t judge my worth on my weight, but on my unstoppable optimism that yes, once again for the nth time, I am confident in my power to solve that problem, when time & circumstances allow. And until then? I am working on something else, worthy of progress.
At a particularly poor time in my body composition state, I initiated a turnaround by telling a friend I had really enjoyed being fat for the last several years, but thought it might be nice to be skinny for a change. His laughter played into my making a real commitment, that I followed through on.
Our brains are idiosyncratic things.
I think an instinct/habit to consciously hold two or more orthogonal and opposite viewpoints about all serious things, keeps our world views and option awareness nimble.
I have minority friends (of various blends) who are completely insensitive to mild discrimination most of the time. Just expect a fraction of people can’t get past pointless categorization and judgements. They either ignore it, to the point of looking right past it, or laugh or smile politely but pointedly in a way that draws attention to infractions in a way that disarms. People are often surprised by being called out, but not being shamed, discounted, or their immediate purpose side tracked in any way.
Humor and a thick skin go a long way in life to protect our mental & social health.
[Absolutely not making light of shaming or belittling anyone. We are not born with all the armor we need. But it is useful to know that our reactions to smaller expressions of rudeness can take positive forms, even provide opportunities to give unconfrontational feedback. They don’t have to undermine us.
The best victories are achieved by finding a stance that lets us master conflicts we encounter without need for concern or motion.]
> Should a true national security emergency arise, America lacks the ability to mobilize as Israel and Russia have done. The Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) — comprising former active duty or selected reserve personnel who could be reactivated by the Secretary of Defense during wartime or a national emergency — is designed to act as a bridge from the AVF to a revived draft. Almost forgotten even by servicemembers, the IRR earned brief notoriety when some servicemembers were “stop-lossed” during the Iraq War — pulled from the IRR and returned to active duty involuntarily, usually to deploy again.
> Today, there are just over 264,000 servicemembers in the entire IRR. The Army’s IRR pool has shrunk from 700,000 in 1973 to 76,000 in 2023. Forget building new units in wartime: the IRR is now incapable of even providing sufficient casualty replacements for losses from the first battles of a high-intensity war.
> And even if more Americans could be encouraged to sign up, they may not be able to serve. Before Covid, fewer than three in 10 Americans in the prime recruiting demographic — ages 17 to 24 — were eligible to serve in uniform. Those numbers have shrunk further since the pandemic began. Only 23 percent of young Americans are qualified to enlist without a waiver, based on the most recent data. Endemic youth obesity, record levels of physical unfitness, mental health issues exacerbated by the Covid pandemic, and drug use have rendered the vast majority of young Americans ineligible for military service. Scores on the ASVAB — the military’s standardized exam for recruits, which tests aptitude for service — plummeted during the pandemic.
Turns out, if you don't build a system for your human pipeline to thrive, it comes back to bite. You can only neglect it for so long until the system goes from hobbling along to system failure.
The US has huge active duty, Guard, and Reserve groups in all branches that can and do deploy regularly. The AF in particular regularly performs logistics exercises just to practice and demonstrate the ability to deploy and fight quickly.
Typically logistics matters far more for a war of attrition and the US is still one of the best at that. Moreover what are we even talking about—an offensive war against the US? Our geographical position makes that unrealistic.
> logistics matters far more for a war of attrition and the US is still one of the best at that
Logistics matter far more in any war. In a war of attrition, however, production (not stocks) determine the outcome. (Soldiers are produced out of the civilian population.)
The reason OP's argument isn't urgent is there is no proximate war of attritition in which the stock America is running down are its soldiers. As a rich democracy, we're somewhat uniquely sensitive to troop losses. It's why we invest so heavily in technology to compensate.
> an offensive war against the US? Our geographical position makes that unrealistic
Those buffers of course. After which we don't have buffers. I'm not predicting imminent invasion of the homeland.
Like, if we lose our security positions in Europe and the West Pacific we're back where we were in the inter-War period.
> "buffers" are two massive oceans, those are not going anywhere for the next million years
There are also nukes. Nobody is invading America any time soon. But losing that security space means conceding a massive chunk of our GDP and, with it, autonomy and quality of life. At the very least, the system of government that oversaw that failure would be replaced.
Being ready for war prevents war : Being unready for war invites it.
It's really simple: If you are leading an expansionist state, who are you going to attack first? The neighboring village/fiefdom/nation that trains like Sparta and is clearly ready to kick your military's asses back to your farthest border, or the other one whose population is mostly too fat to run down the street and spends their time chasing the latest TV show and fashion trend?
Another thought further down the line is to get some self-driving equipment installed, and use the cars before sending actual people. I feel like a relatively cheap kit could turn one into a ram and/or remote surveillance point.
> While the prevailing viewpoint once was that obesity was merely a problem of calories in and calories out, and that people simply needed to eat less and exercise more to lose weight, the reality is much more nuanced, Dr. Armstrong said.
> “Obesity comes from genetic, physiological and environmental interactions,” she said. “It’s not the fault of any one individual who has the disease.”
> There are many potential drivers behind the skyrocketing rates, including the wide availability of ultraprocessed foods, the challenges to accessing fresh fruits and vegetables and an increase in sedentary online activity.
Is it just me or is this completely contradictory? Obesity is just a matter of how many calories you ingest relative to how much you burn. The doctor says this is inaccurate, but then goes on to say that people are simply eating less healthy and exercising less. That is literally the point.
My understanding is there exist people who have something legitimately wrong with them beyond just liking cookies. So they’re fat through no real fault of their own. I’m sure this is a vanishingly small minority of people, but we have a strong history of making decisions about behavior based on relative outliers.
Your comment doesn’t seem like good faith, but I hope there’ll be people replying in good faith that explain this better.
Their comment is dead so I'm replying to yours (...which also works).
"Fat shaming" is discouraged not because it's a protected class or because a minority have an actual medical problem, it's discouraged because for most people it's counterproductive. For example, going to comfort foods to feel better in the short term, so they just end up gaining more weight.
Why do people always focus on the fringe science of HFCS and seed oils?
There is a valid argument about the loads of salt and sugar in modern processed foods but no, we attack something that does not have as strong scientific evidence.
> Why do people also focus on the fringe science of HFCS and seed oils?
I think both are easy to see examples of ingredients that seem out of place from what our bodies have evolved to eat for millenia.
When you read about how things like canola oil (i.e., rapeseed oil) are so high in erucic acid that they're toxic and must be extracted with hexane to make them edible, it's reasonable to question whether we should be eating them at all. Versus something like olive oil (literally just squeezed olives) or butter (milk from cow).
> both are easy to see examples of ingredients that seem out of place from what our bodies have evolved to eat for millenia
You might as well add everything farmed, raised or processed to that list.
Appeals to nature don't work in nutrition [1]. We've been starving and malnourished since the Neolithic [2]. And almost everything in our food supplies we consider "natural" is engineered.
As a follow up on the descendant study from China, your link shows that children with a mother that experienced childhood famine have an average BMI that is higher by ~1. Children with fathers who experienced childhood famine actually have a lower BMI. This study doesn't control for the obvious cultural and behavioral implications of a parent living through the famines, although epigenetic connections have been proposed elsewhere [0]
Here [1] is another study from China That shows that simply having an obese parent is the single biggest factor in a developing childhood obesity, and nearly doubles the obesity risk.
I didnt bother digging up a study, but this link[2] says that in the USA, a child with 1 obese parent has a 50% chance of being obese (absolute, not increased hazard ratio!) If both parents are obese, a child has an 80% chance of being obese!
This makes a lot of intuitive sense to me. I would expect the modeled behavior, status, household food, and parenting to have a huge impact on children. This naturally overshadows the interesting but tiny impact of epigenetic transmission.
I was expecting you to link the transgenerational study from polish famines during world war II, so thanks for some references I haven't seen before. That said, you have to admit that they are a hell of a lot of variables at play when you're talking about populations that self-reported food insecurity or underwent literal famine.
That said, if you are worried about the next generation, it'd be interesting to compare the magnitude of transgenerational effect from simply being raised in a household with obese parents in the usa. I imagine it's much larger but I'm not on a pc to look it up right now.
Last, if I were to lazily steel Man my appeal to nature, I doubt our Neolithic ancestors yo-yo'd back and forth between skinny and obese generations due to calorie restrictions.
Does the hexane being used have anything to do with erucic acid? We have bred the plant to be low in erucic acid already. Hexane is used in the processing as a way to maximize extraction. Maybe I am wrong.
Regardless that is a tail risk when thinking about the general population.
> Why do people also focus on the fringe science of HFCS and seed oils?
I'd argue similarly but take the opposite position, why support HFCS and seed oils? What are their positive attributes that contribute to a healthy body?
They're cheap, that's it. We deserve higher quality food. Let's subsidize something else.
Why? Because there is no strong evidence that supports HFCS and seed oils contribute to the obesity epidemic but there is loads of evidence that poorer outcomes are coming from the loads of processed foods filled with hidden sugar (of any kind) and salt.
Its about focusing your energy. You have populations eating loads of sugar and salt but focusing on a tail risk, HFCS and seed oils. Most of the seed oil science is fringe though I am sure there is some extreme tail risk. Same with HFCS. Its more worth the time focusing on what really matters, its calories, sugar and salt. Those are no easy task either.
A major enabler of all of those processed foods are exactly HFCS and seed oils due to being so shelf-stable. And abundance of those ingredients at cheap prices is part of the problem.
Maybe it's the calories, sugar and salt, maybe it's the HFCS and seed oils binding it all together. Either way the processed food industry is churning out poison.
All I am reading is fringe ideas. Sugar and HFCS are both shelf-stable. Price plays a role but thats largely a US problem with Ag policies that inflate the price of sugar. Without those policies we would see sugar in the same amount.
Seed oil science is all bunk junk science, similar to HFCS. I am sure there is some measurable tail risk but its nothing compared to the generalized risk of calories, sugar and salt (regardless of sugar types).
> Maybe it's the calories, sugar and salt, maybe it's the HFCS and seed oils binding it all together. Either way the processed food industry is churning out poison
You see why one might want more evidence than "maybe" to ban a major food product? Particularly since having effected that ban, one would wait to measure the results, waiting time in which one might have deployed substantiated policies.
Right, but high sugar content isn't better than high HFCS content. Both are bad.
The main issue with HFCS seems to be how cheap and subsidized it is which leads to being a major ingredient in a large number of products that should just have less or no added sugar.
> forcing companies using those products to clearly disclose the associated risks
This is the last thing you should want for better health.
What you'd get is an explosion of "This is known by the state of California to cause obseity" on everything from a banana to a chocolate muffin, leading to people to ignore and diminish the health impact of eating a chocolate muffin because, "how bad can it be if they have to tag a banana".
"Clearly disclosing risks" just leads to overwhelming people and is the opposite of good health education. In fact junk food peddlers would love for this to be the "solution" because it wouldn't nudge people away from junk food.
Much better is just to tax unhealthy food more. That nudges people toward healthier options without them realising it.
However, people (or junk food companies masquerading as people) will oppose such "sin taxes" on the basis they are regressive.
Sugar yes, but cooking oils and shorteners are used in every food culture in the world. Probably not the issue if you think about it for more than 10 seconds.
I don't think the appointment of a medical quack is going to be good for anyone, despite any silver lining you might grasp at straws for. We need science-based medical advocates that follow the evidence, not undisciplined slobs.
Whenever you see people quote RFK on the internet, you should realize that it's probably a quote of a quote. He doesn't come up with things out of nowhere, he points to some academic work.
You can try to attack the work he's quoting from, and maybe you'll have a legitimate point. But if you act like he put on a lab coat and tried playing scientist, and is just spewing original crank research into the world, well you're just misinformed, and you're making others misinformed as well.
Of course, you're in good company doing this. That's pretty much every mass media reference to the man, and why the meme about him being a crank exists.
Show me one example where he's said something like that and he was citing a real source. And I mean an actual source that he should be respecting. If he just parrots this stuff from other cranks on Twitter, that's not exactly the defense you think it is.
I can't speak to whether the case is good or not, but the point stands: these aren't his original claims as so many people like to say. They come from e.g. expert witnesses. Maybe those people are cranks, I have no idea.
Can you provide any legitimate documentation on the actual outcome of that lawsuit? Not from "Children's Health Defense Inc" (RFK's own organization) or "RFSafe" (a "5g causes cancer" rag) but an actual legitimate legal source?
I haven't looked for any. He says that he won the case in the clip you referenced elsewhere. I don't see any reason to believe he's lying. To be clear, that also doesn't make me think definitively that WiFi causes cancer.
What possible context of this quote would lend credibility to RFK Jr. with this quote, other than it being prefaced by "one of my uninformed friends keeps sharing a meme on Facebook that claims..."
> But if you act like he put on a lab coat and tried playing scientist, and is just spewing original crank research into the world, well you're just misinformed, and you're making others misinformed as well.
He still claims that vaccines cause autism. He's ardently against the HPV vaccine, despite proof that it decreases cancer risk with no comparable downsides. He claims that 5g causes tumors. He's a huge advocate of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, despite there being zero legitimate evidence of them having any affect on COVID 19.
NO ONE is saying these are "original claims" of his. He's dangerous precisely because he amplifies disproven nonsense to a gigantic audience that eats it right up. If someone spends their entire lives repeating nonsense, then yes that is pretty much the exact definition of a "crank."
His crusade against seed oils fits perfectly with all of his other repeated claims: no evidence that they're bad beyond Facebook memes and substantiation purely from other cranks like Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein.
So your honest take on his claims is that these are just "quotes of quotes" and that he might not actually believe the verifiable bullshit nonsense contained within his words?
I'll translate these claims to how I understand them. Note that these aren't my claims and I won't/can't defend them.
> He still claims that vaccines cause autism.
He claims that an uptick in autism incidence is correlated with a lot of environmental things, one of them being that the number of childhood vaccines has increased, and as a result, work should be done to validate each of those environmental changes, vaccine schedule changes included.
> He's ardently against the HPV vaccine [in children, because their risk for HPV is negligible], despite proof that it decreases cancer risk with no comparable downsides.
> He claims that 5g causes tumors.
This based on some court case that he won against the government, as he mentions in your YouTube clip. No idea how real the risk is.
> He's a huge advocate of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, despite there being zero legitimate evidence of them having any affect on COVID 19.
There is plenty of academic literature around these things, I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of it, but it exists, and I'm not talking about YouTube channels.
I'd imagine the same thing is true about seed oils, although I'm not up on his views there.
My overall point is that every talking head that mentions RFK makes it look like he's just some weirdo that thought up all of these kooky ideas. If you go to the actual horses mouth, you see that these ideas came from one expert or another. Some of those people are probably wrong, but I (and respectfully, probably most of the commentariat) aren't actually qualified to tell you either way.
> He claims that an uptick in autism incidence is correlated with a lot of environmental things, one of them being that the number of childhood vaccines has increased
> It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts... that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real.
The idea that thimerosal in vaccinations causes autism, or any other neurological problem, has been thoroughly debunked by every serious researcher who's ever looked at it. I'll just link to Wikipedia's page on the topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_and_vaccines) since that's easier than collecting the same list of sources again, but you can ask the CDC, the WHO, the NIH, etc., etc.
> There is plenty of academic literature around [ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine]
> I'd imagine the same thing is true about seed oils
So you know nothing, much like RFK. You're right, the situation is the same: there is no actual evidence, and this is a nonsense meme that's been spread on social media by non-experts. There are fewer academic studies, because the panic about seed oils is newer (and therefore there hasn't been time for academia to exhaustively disprove it), but that's not how this works: if you're making the extreme, uncommon claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence, not on the rest of the community to disprove it. Sources: American Heart Association, citing a professor of medicine at Stanford (https://www.heart.org/en/news/2024/08/20/theres-no-reason-to...).
> every talking head that mentions RFK makes it look like he's just some weirdo that thought up all of these kooky ideas
This is also a lie. This is the fourth or fifth time you've said this in this thread, and it's not true. Nobody, neither on this thread nor in the wider media landscape, thinks he invented them himself. Everyone knows he's parroting random memes or conspiracy theories he found online. That is not an excuse.
> I (and respectfully, probably most of the commentariat) aren't actually qualified to tell you either way.
You're right! That's why I trust the actual medical experts, who categorically disagree with RFK and his ilk, and tend to describe them as "quacks", "cranks", and "misinformed". If you are as unqualified to judge the evidence as you say you are, then the only even remotely logical response is to rely on experts to interpret it for you. Why are you trusting some random person with a a famous last name over every single medical researcher? Do you apply this logic to any other topic - "I'm not an expert, therefore, instead of listening to the experts, I'll listen to the first person I see talk about it on TV"?
-----
There is a reason why people abbreviate this whole conversation to "brain worm" and move on. Nothing RFK says about health is founded in reality. It is all crank nonsense, and it takes a special kind of gullibility or motivated reasoning to believe it when the actual sources are right there, just a Google search away. He's the equivalent of the schizophrenic who stands on the corner screaming about UFOs and bodysnatchers, just with slightly more decorum. In order to even believe that he's acting in good faith, let alone that he's right, you have to be willfully blind to evidence that is right in front of you. You have to choose to believe one weirdo over the entirety of modern science. That is simply not how intelligent people behave.
RFK is a crank who's never met a conspiracy theory he didn't believe. Raw milk is not good for you, vaccines do not cause autism, and seed oils are not unhealthy or toxic beyond being high in fat. There is no evidence for any of those things, and there is tons of evidence to the contrary.
Putting a nutcase who doesn't believe in modern medicine in charge of regulating food and drugs is an incomprehensibly stupid idea unless your goal is to destroy the United States. But Trump is both one of the dumbest people ever born and very obviously in debt to enemies of the United States, so that shouldn't be a surprise.
Do you want to tighten this up a little bit? Cause as written it sounds like nonsense. E.g. contaminated raw milk is obviously bad for you. But otherwise?
Yep, I survived drinking a lot of a raw milk in a European country where it is legal. Curiously, the people there were skinny and healthy and didnt seem to be affected by its noxious properties either.
I find it very hard to take this kind of comment in good faith. You know as well as I do what RFK says, and why saying that it won't instantly kill you, while obviously true, only benefits misinformation.
But ok, fine. Raw milk is not better for you than pasteurized. It does not have magic healing properties. And it has a much higher risk of introducing pathogens into an industrialized food supply.
But see, this is the problem. Raw = natural = good takes only a word or two. And if challenged, the crank can fall back on the motte-and-bailey argument of "what do you mean, of course milk is good for you!" But if you're not aligned with the lunatic fringe, any incomplete or even fractionally incorrect answer is a gotcha. Debunking nonsense is exponentially harder than spewing it to begin with, and then concern-trolling about "oh, only if it's contaminated!" makes the situation worse, not better.
No. People do this thing where they become convinced that so and so is a villain, so any negative thing you say about them is fine, no matter how loose, sloppy, or just plain incorrect.
You need to be a better adversary if you want to have a positive impact. Otherwise you're just contributing to the noise. And then people see all the incorrect criticisms of him, and it makes them less likely to believe actually legit criticisms.
In what way is it a straw man? Google "RFK vaccines" and tell me the first thing you find. You don't get to dismiss facts you don't like because they're too extreme when you're the one causing them.
Moreover... fuck off, troll. I know it's against HN decorum or whatever, but this is obviously a bad-faith misinformation actor. There is zero evidence for any of the things that RFK says about health, and when you're as far outside the mainstream as him, the burden of proof is on you. Every medical expert ever consulted disagrees with him, and he's never presented anything to defend his nonsense. Unlike him, I know that I'm not a medical expert, so I take the word of, again, literally every medical and food science expert over some random lunatic on Twitter
This is an insane figure. With Trump threatening a trade war with the EU I wonder if these Ozempic/Wegovi drugs will be targetted in retaliation -- they seem to be the only weapons to counter this epidemic.
> "Been 6 months...still haven't gained a lb. It was a miracle medicine," said one user and another agreed, "Nope. Been off 18 months and Not. A. Pound. Gained."
>But this doesn't ring true for all, one user said: "This is very true was on Ozempic reached my goal weight then stopped and regained it all back. Just started again."
>"Lost 52 pounds on Ozempic in 5 months. Was taken off gained 85 pounds in 6 months. [Back] on Ozempic and dwn 7 pounds in 3 days. I'll just stay on it..."
> Daily/weekly needle injections is the only defense?
No, just the most effective one once you've got an obese population. (Nicotine patches aren't the solution to cigarette smoking. But they are a great tool for cigarette smokers.)
Here's the deal: You give us iPhones because we lost our domestic tech industry, and we'll give you anti-fattening drugs because you can't be bothered to put down the endless refill of Big-Gulp. Seems fair to me.
> they seem to be the only weapons to counter this epidemic
Surely we haven’t realized the full potential of health behaviour change and healthy default choices at scale. That class of interventions is considerably cheaper and more immune to trade disputes than GLP-1 agonists. But also deeply unprofitable for the pharmaceutical and processed food industries.
> this makes me question whether we've correctly identified the "normal" weight
Where did those questions lead you?
A BMI above 35 (severe obesity) is "associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality" [1]. Regular obesity (30 to 35) is associated with higher morbidity, e.g. CVD, GERD and asthma. (Being underweight is more dangerous than being overweight [2].)
I don't understand why when it comes to weight critical thinking goes out the door. People always point to these things and say weight causes them, but no one ever considers these things may actually lead to people gaining weight. I say this as a person who has struggled with weight their whole life. I've spent 40 years having every issue dismissed by doctors with a "you just need to lose weight," while I sit at a dinner table with friends and family eating significantly less than everyone and still gaining weight. It's like people are so committed to the idea of weight gain being a moral failing, they won't consider for even a minute that people are gaining weight for other reasons.
> People always point to these things and say weight causes them, but no one ever considers these things may actually lead to people gaining weight
How did you conclude this? The evidence we have says obesity causes mortality [1].
> while I sit at a dinner table with friends and family eating significantly less than everyone and still gaining weight
Yes, this is metabolic syndrome. There is increasing evidence that some peoples' bodies will reduce base metabolism to compensate for reduced calorie intake or exercise, sometimes to the point of permitting starvation despite food intake, in an effort to conserve body fat.
Modelling nutrition thermodynamically is like trying to model flight with Newtonian dynamics. You can do it. But not in a practical way, and certainly not when it comes to edge cases.
> people are so committed to the idea of weight gain being a moral failing
Sorry you've experienced this. I've seen it too, in peoples' zero-information dismissal of e.g. Ozempic as a moral failing. (For disclosure, I've only dealt with weight gain as a cosmetic issue.)
Sun exposure causes melanoma. That doesn't make the beach evil. It just means that causation is established. It's not perfect. But if you're at risk of melanoma, knowing that causation helps. In the same vein, obesity causes mortality. That doesn't make being obese (or overweight) evil. It just means the causation is established. It's not perfect. But if you're obese, you and your doctors knowing that causation helps.
I wouldn't focus on that, food intake relative to others will be misleading.
Have you tried a food journal? For a week, take a picture of __everything__ you eat or drink. Go back and review it at the end of the week, a month would be better.
If you review it and think "yes, this is a reasonable amount of food" you now have a months worth of data to shop around to a doctor who can help you. If you have the opposite reaction, now you have a baseline to work against.
metabolic health can be a factor in obesity, but the primary driver of metabolic dysfunction is also diet and exercise.
It is possible that you may metabolize food slightly different from other people. What is not possible is that your body is defying conservation of energy and mass.
I wont go into all the possible problems with using dinner comparison as a benchmark, because the charitable take is that you sharing a sentiment, not proof of anything.
> What is not possible is that your body is defying conservation of energy and mass
Your body has a lot of latitude in modifying its base metabolism. Folks with metabolic syndrome can reduce food intake to virtually zero and their bodies will still try turning off vital mechanisms before burning fat stores.
Most people get into obesity through bad habits. But good habits aren't enough to get out. (The exception to my first statement are those with genetic or hormonal factors.)
Metabolic syndrome is a board classification, and what you described constitutes a tiny portion. For the vast majority of people with Metabolic syndrome, lifestyle change is both capable and necessary for reversing the issue.
The challenge is that the syndrome is resistant to incremental change require a lot more than simply adopting what would otherwise be healthy steady state behaviors.
That is to say, the syndrome goes away if you get back to a normal weight, it is just extremely hard to do it. Im hopeful GLP-1 drugs will help some people break through this wall.
> eating significantly less than everyone and still gaining weight
What I have learned time and time again is that people are at best inaccurate at counting their caloric intake or at worst just entirely dishonest about how much they at eating. You are most likely eating a lot more than you think you are and have normalized it after 40 years of doing so.
You skipped right over what I think they were referring to: "overweight" (BMI 25-30) vs "normal" (18.5-25). Evidence there isn't as clear, I've occasionally but regularly for decades run across some that overweight could be healthier than a normal weight.
Got it. And agree--that's the finding of the second source.
"Possible explanations have included earlier presentation of heavier patients, greater likelihood of receiving optimal medical treatment, cardioprotective metabolic effects of increased body fat, and benefits of higher metabolic reserves" [1].
In summary, obesity (BMI > 30) is a health problem. 40% of Americans are obese [2]. I'd be curious to see what fraction of overweight Americans become obese versus normal weight become either obese or underweight--the presumption seems to have been that being overweight (particularly when young) is a risk factor for obesity.
Why would the "normal" weight (or BMI) change between 2024 and 1974?
BMI has been in usage for over a century. Its never been a perfect measurement (neck is also taken into account in Navy tests IIRC), but function(weight, height) is good enough for the basics.
That isn't a change of physiology, it's a change of our external environment. AFAIK there's no evidence to show humans living 100 years ago would respond any differently to modern nutrition than we do.
If the cause of being taller were internal, such as genetic changes: that would be a change in physiology.
That's a complete non-sequitur. If you cut off your feet and get shorter, it doesn't mean the human species has physiologically changed. And if you eat more calories and get taller, it doesn't mean the human species has physiologically changed.
Yep, and it's not like there is a mysterious lack of cardiovascular and health consequences that would make us question the belief that high BMI is bad
> people shouldn't be downvoting you just for asking the question
I didn't downvote. But if you're asking a question, ask it. Don't phrase it as a statement while pretending it's a question. And if you're making a statement, substantiate it. Ending a question with a period is borderline intellectually dishonest.
Covid would have been a great opportunity to discuss this, exercise during lockdown could have had a bigger impact than many measures we did dare talk about.
Most U.S. adults have PFAS, microplastics and other assorted contaminants in their blood. Some of which are known to mimic natural hormones in the body.
Hmmm... surely it has nothing to do with enormous portions, sugar in everything, and a lack of exercise. The human body can deal with a lot of garbage if it is healthy.
Surely American exposure to toxins from plastics pales next to countries in the developing world, where locals have historically eaten from non-food-grade plastics since there was insufficient enforcement to ensure sale of food-grade plastics, and plastic is regularly disposed of by burning that fills the air of whole villages and cities with fumes.
> Most U.S. adults have PFAS, microplastics and other assorted contaminants in their blood. Some of which are known to mimic natural hormones in the body
Where is your control? Is the argument less-fat countries, particularly those in Asia, have less PFAS and microplastics?
This is a tricky subject, because as this article mentions, BMI is an imperfect measure of health. So, we should probably stop using it. I am 26.2 BMI but I am an athlete. I have a higher body fat than I would like, particularly around parts of my mid section, but otherwise am in good heart health and all blood tests come back great. Yet, I will still be told to lose weight by most primary care doctors, based purely on BMI.
Unfortunately this fact has been hijacked by "fat positive" movements like Health at Every Size. They take this fact that BMI is an imperfect measure of health and stretch it waaaaay too far in my opinion, with most supporters translating it as "I can be healthy no matter how fat I am," which is definitely not true. There is an absolutely positive correlation with body fat, weight, and health. Unfortunately sane discussion on this is practically impossible no matter where you stand.
Would it be reasonable to say that BMI is a bad measure at an individual level, especially at values close to ideal range but at the same time it is a useful measure at population scale? As stated on the NHS Scotland website:
"BMI is used to categorise people’s weight. BMI charts are mainly used for working out the health of populations rather than individuals.
Within a population there will always be people who are at the extremes (have a high BMI or low BMI).
A high or low BMI may be an indicator of poor diet, varying activity levels, or high stress. Just because someone has a ‘normal BMI’ does not mean that they are healthy.
BMI doesn’t take account of body composition, for example, muscle, fat, bone density. Sex and other factors which can impact your weight can also lead to an inaccurate reading. As such a BMI calculation is not a suitable measure for some people including children and young people under 18, pregnant women and athletes."
It's only useful at scale if people at scale are unhealthy.
If the norm was to be like OP, then BMI would not be useful at scale.
Given that you need to know the outcome to determine if the measure is valid, it rather defeats the purpose of using the measure at all.
Not really, it’s one variable amongst many. If the general population also has poor diet, we can assume the BMI is not because everyone has an exemplary physique
> Unfortunately this fact has been hijacked by "fat positive" movements like Health at Every Size. They take this fact that BMI is an imperfect measure of health and stretch it waaaaay too far in my opinion, with most supporters translating it as "I can be healthy no matter how fat I am," which is definitely not true.
"Health At Every Size" was how it started, encouragement that you can improve your health despite not losing weight. For example, if you don't normally work out but decide to start, you're probably going to gain weight first - adding muscle faster than you lose fat.
"Healthy At Every Size" is the corrupted version you're describing.
> For example, if you don't normally work out but decide to start, you're probably going to gain weight first - adding muscle faster than you lose fat.
It takes at least a month to get your CNS firing correctly before your body can possibly build muscle in any significant way.
If you don’t work out and then you start, and you gain weight, you’re eating poorly, not gaining muscle.
I think that such “fat positivity” is not necessarily an organic grassroots phenomenon, rather it might be a consequence of the modern ad-driven internet. Celebrating personal expression, underdogs and minorities (and the obese can be slotted in alongside these) is something that advertisers love. Perceived negativity and judgement, on the other hand, could threaten advertiser relationships.
I never thought about it from this angle. I personally think celebrating body positivity is a good thing, but as it correlates to health, I think it can become harmful. IME there are a TON of "body positive" fat-focused influencers but I'm not sure a fat shaming influencer or even one that was criticizing the pro-fat movement would ever survive on social media, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't follow the young tiktok trends.
At least two influencers in the US criticize the HAES movement. And they're pretty just in their criticism (one is an ex-obese and is probably still overweight).
BRI (Body Roundness Index, height/waist) seems like a much better metric than BMI and just as easy to measure: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/body-roundnes...
This is actually what I use.
Yes, but a large component of worse health outcomes is due to bias on the part of healthcare workers.
Overweight people frequently have their problems ignored or downplayed, or given treatments for issues that they aren't experiencing, which leads to worse health outcomes.
I'm not denying that being overweight can be bad for one's health, just pointing out that when doctors provide worse treatment to a group of people that group has worse health outcomes and makes obesity more dangerous that it would be in a world without weight stigma.
Yea, my dad died of something similar - was morbidly obese among a lot of other problems towards the end of his life, they attributed a lot of those problems solely to his weight, but it turned out he had severe obstructive sleep apnea that was never treated. Had it been, I think his outcome would have been a little bit different. he was never even tested. We'd been telling him for years to get it looked at but his doctor convinced him the issue was weight.
Isn't obesity one of the contributors to sleep apnea?
It is a risk factor, but it is not 1:1. Lots of people have obstructive sleep apnea that are not obese. Sleep apnea can also contribute to weight gain.
You got me in the first half.
I actually thought you were preaching the same thing as the ones you are criticizing later on.
I agree that there is people with a high BMI that are quite healthy. So this is not a perfect indicator of health. Sure. But those people are a minority. At the scale of a country of ~346 millions people, having 3/4 of adults with a high BMI is a clear sign of an unhealthy population.
And, yes, unfortunately, some people decided that, because BMI doesn't work with a minority, we shouldn't care about it and, furthermore, shouldn't care about body composition.
I will disagree here, athletes aren't the only one who can have a BMI > 25 and still be healthy, I'm at 26.2 now (down from 34) and my body fat is in the healthy range. BMI is actually just a poor indicator, hip/waist ration is as easy to calculate and is better imho.
Exactly this. Athletes are an outlier when it comes to BMI.
Furthermore, I reckon the majority of the people discussing BMI, as in these comments, would tend to be outliers, too, based solely on the fact they care/understand.
The majority of the population has no fucking clue, and can’t even read nutrition labels. And I am not blaming them. This stuff should be taught in school—basic nutrition education.
And even most athletes I personally know fall under what's considered a healthy BMI (< 25). Some sports require a body composition that pushes the boundary of it but as a general proxy of the health of millions in a population it's a pretty good one.
BMI, Both-Might-Indicate lots of muscles or fat stores. I can see how someone lugging lots of muscle mass around would want their own number - a BMI is either a credit score or a debt score, its absolute value means nothing. What if we did started to put a + or - in front of the number, if there was more muscle than fat being stored.
> I can see how someone lugging lots of muscle mass around would want their own number
Healthy people with high BMI are not how they are by accident, they don't care about their BMI because they know why it's high and they know it's not an issue
Yeah and this also affects like what...2% of people? It is indeed a non-issue that people keep marshalling in when this topic comes up.
exactly. the number of people who have "high BMI" due to muscle mass and general fitness is utterly trivial when compared to number who are straight up fat.
it's a nothingburger; whether you use BMI or Body Roundness or whatever, most USA-ians are fat as hell.
> What if we did started to put a + or - in front of the number
Not how a metric centred around 22.5 works.
Ok what if I used a different symbol with no mathematical alignment?
> what if I used a different symbol with no mathematical alignment?
A nonsense symbol?
The metrics you're looking for are body fat and muscle mass.
I don't think it is tricky at all. The number of people who are a bad fit for BMI is small percentage of the general population.
The tricky part is getting people to understand bell curves, standard deviations, and outliers when explaining why a policy is the way it is.
Sure, body fat % is much better to use. Of course for many people BMI is perfectly accurate. Most obese people are not athletes after all.
BMI should just be modified with some kind of fitness dimension. Like take the traditional BMI and multiply it by your mile time / 9
BMI being based on the metric system, you should go for one's time on 1km ;)
[dead]
yes and people (or maybe the industry in secret) promotes this as "Its good to be overweight and obese. celebrate it"
> General Mills has toured the country touting anti-diet research it claims proves the harms of “food shaming.” It has showered giveaways on registered dietitians who promote its cereals online with the hashtag #DerailTheShame, and sponsored influencers who promote its sugary snacks. The company has also enlisted a team of lobbyists and pushed back against federal policies that would add health information to food labels.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2024/04/03/diet-cult...
I wonder if that was part of the inspiration for the South Park special "The End of Obesity" [1]? A big part of that involved companies that sell sugary foods pushing body positivity so people wouldn't cut down on their foods.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park:_The_End_of_Obesity
My weight has fluctuated all my life, to my consternation. I do feel the health differences.
Something that helps me is body shaming. (Making a serious point here.) I have a sense of humor about life’s challenges and get a motivation boost from comments by strangers or familiars.
I personally value the motivation aid, as motivation is often hard to manufacture. I find comments & judgements hilarious, as long as they reflect reality, and have no practical impact.
I don’t judge my worth on my weight, but on my unstoppable optimism that yes, once again for the nth time, I am confident in my power to solve that problem, when time & circumstances allow. And until then? I am working on something else, worthy of progress.
At a particularly poor time in my body composition state, I initiated a turnaround by telling a friend I had really enjoyed being fat for the last several years, but thought it might be nice to be skinny for a change. His laughter played into my making a real commitment, that I followed through on.
Our brains are idiosyncratic things.
I think an instinct/habit to consciously hold two or more orthogonal and opposite viewpoints about all serious things, keeps our world views and option awareness nimble.
I have minority friends (of various blends) who are completely insensitive to mild discrimination most of the time. Just expect a fraction of people can’t get past pointless categorization and judgements. They either ignore it, to the point of looking right past it, or laugh or smile politely but pointedly in a way that draws attention to infractions in a way that disarms. People are often surprised by being called out, but not being shamed, discounted, or their immediate purpose side tracked in any way.
Humor and a thick skin go a long way in life to protect our mental & social health.
[Absolutely not making light of shaming or belittling anyone. We are not born with all the armor we need. But it is useful to know that our reactions to smaller expressions of rudeness can take positive forms, even provide opportunities to give unconfrontational feedback. They don’t have to undermine us.
The best victories are achieved by finding a stance that lets us master conflicts we encounter without need for concern or motion.]
Here’s a link to the article with no paywall: https://archive.is/eFXxn
That's why WW3 with China will have to be held in Overwatch.
While a hot take, you're not wrong.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/368528/us-military-army-n...
> Should a true national security emergency arise, America lacks the ability to mobilize as Israel and Russia have done. The Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) — comprising former active duty or selected reserve personnel who could be reactivated by the Secretary of Defense during wartime or a national emergency — is designed to act as a bridge from the AVF to a revived draft. Almost forgotten even by servicemembers, the IRR earned brief notoriety when some servicemembers were “stop-lossed” during the Iraq War — pulled from the IRR and returned to active duty involuntarily, usually to deploy again.
> Today, there are just over 264,000 servicemembers in the entire IRR. The Army’s IRR pool has shrunk from 700,000 in 1973 to 76,000 in 2023. Forget building new units in wartime: the IRR is now incapable of even providing sufficient casualty replacements for losses from the first battles of a high-intensity war.
> And even if more Americans could be encouraged to sign up, they may not be able to serve. Before Covid, fewer than three in 10 Americans in the prime recruiting demographic — ages 17 to 24 — were eligible to serve in uniform. Those numbers have shrunk further since the pandemic began. Only 23 percent of young Americans are qualified to enlist without a waiver, based on the most recent data. Endemic youth obesity, record levels of physical unfitness, mental health issues exacerbated by the Covid pandemic, and drug use have rendered the vast majority of young Americans ineligible for military service. Scores on the ASVAB — the military’s standardized exam for recruits, which tests aptitude for service — plummeted during the pandemic.
Turns out, if you don't build a system for your human pipeline to thrive, it comes back to bite. You can only neglect it for so long until the system goes from hobbling along to system failure.
The US has huge active duty, Guard, and Reserve groups in all branches that can and do deploy regularly. The AF in particular regularly performs logistics exercises just to practice and demonstrate the ability to deploy and fight quickly.
I see your point, but I'm not sure we want to take availability of cannon fodder to be our metric for human thriving.
> I'm not sure we want to take availability of cannon fodder to be our metric for human thriving
It's a measure of security. If you know your enemy cannot sustain a war of attrition, it incentivises launching one against them.
Typically logistics matters far more for a war of attrition and the US is still one of the best at that. Moreover what are we even talking about—an offensive war against the US? Our geographical position makes that unrealistic.
> logistics matters far more for a war of attrition and the US is still one of the best at that
Logistics matter far more in any war. In a war of attrition, however, production (not stocks) determine the outcome. (Soldiers are produced out of the civilian population.)
The reason OP's argument isn't urgent is there is no proximate war of attritition in which the stock America is running down are its soldiers. As a rich democracy, we're somewhat uniquely sensitive to troop losses. It's why we invest so heavily in technology to compensate.
> an offensive war against the US? Our geographical position makes that unrealistic
Those buffers of course. After which we don't have buffers. I'm not predicting imminent invasion of the homeland.
Like, if we lose our security positions in Europe and the West Pacific we're back where we were in the inter-War period.
> after which we don't have buffers
The "buffers" are two massive oceans, those are not going anywhere for the next million years.
Russia can't sustain an invasion of its next door neighbor. There is zero chance of a hostile invasion of the mainland United States.
> "buffers" are two massive oceans, those are not going anywhere for the next million years
There are also nukes. Nobody is invading America any time soon. But losing that security space means conceding a massive chunk of our GDP and, with it, autonomy and quality of life. At the very least, the system of government that oversaw that failure would be replaced.
Paradox as old as recorded time:
Being ready for war prevents war : Being unready for war invites it.
It's really simple: If you are leading an expansionist state, who are you going to attack first? The neighboring village/fiefdom/nation that trains like Sparta and is clearly ready to kick your military's asses back to your farthest border, or the other one whose population is mostly too fat to run down the street and spends their time chasing the latest TV show and fashion trend?
This made me think if it would make sense to send SUV owners to battle in their SUVs. Might actually increase survival rates.
good thought, depends on the battlefield environment?
Most certainly.
Another thought further down the line is to get some self-driving equipment installed, and use the cars before sending actual people. I feel like a relatively cheap kit could turn one into a ram and/or remote surveillance point.
Installing a drive-by-wire kit on a car sure isn’t hard. Self-driving would be a bit trickier, need a sensor suite and some OSS like ROS2 or the like.
> While the prevailing viewpoint once was that obesity was merely a problem of calories in and calories out, and that people simply needed to eat less and exercise more to lose weight, the reality is much more nuanced, Dr. Armstrong said.
> “Obesity comes from genetic, physiological and environmental interactions,” she said. “It’s not the fault of any one individual who has the disease.”
> There are many potential drivers behind the skyrocketing rates, including the wide availability of ultraprocessed foods, the challenges to accessing fresh fruits and vegetables and an increase in sedentary online activity.
Is it just me or is this completely contradictory? Obesity is just a matter of how many calories you ingest relative to how much you burn. The doctor says this is inaccurate, but then goes on to say that people are simply eating less healthy and exercising less. That is literally the point.
It is contradictory and counterproductive for an issue that can only be realistically addressed through individual behavioral change.
The potential of governmental regulation is incremental at best, and a deflection at worst.
The whole point is that "individual behavioral change" has failed as a solution to obesity. Now we are trying drugs.
[flagged]
You are OK. I just get to think of you as an ass, that's all. If you are cool with that, please continue.
My understanding is there exist people who have something legitimately wrong with them beyond just liking cookies. So they’re fat through no real fault of their own. I’m sure this is a vanishingly small minority of people, but we have a strong history of making decisions about behavior based on relative outliers.
Your comment doesn’t seem like good faith, but I hope there’ll be people replying in good faith that explain this better.
Their comment is dead so I'm replying to yours (...which also works).
"Fat shaming" is discouraged not because it's a protected class or because a minority have an actual medical problem, it's discouraged because for most people it's counterproductive. For example, going to comfort foods to feel better in the short term, so they just end up gaining more weight.
[flagged]
Why do people always focus on the fringe science of HFCS and seed oils?
There is a valid argument about the loads of salt and sugar in modern processed foods but no, we attack something that does not have as strong scientific evidence.
> Why do people also focus on the fringe science of HFCS and seed oils?
I think both are easy to see examples of ingredients that seem out of place from what our bodies have evolved to eat for millenia.
When you read about how things like canola oil (i.e., rapeseed oil) are so high in erucic acid that they're toxic and must be extracted with hexane to make them edible, it's reasonable to question whether we should be eating them at all. Versus something like olive oil (literally just squeezed olives) or butter (milk from cow).
> both are easy to see examples of ingredients that seem out of place from what our bodies have evolved to eat for millenia
You might as well add everything farmed, raised or processed to that list.
Appeals to nature don't work in nutrition [1]. We've been starving and malnourished since the Neolithic [2]. And almost everything in our food supplies we consider "natural" is engineered.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9460423/
I think a more effective appeal to nature would be that need to return to a near starvation diet.
> a more effective appeal to nature would be that need to return to a near starvation diet
Also increases CVD and mortality [1]. And causes your descendants to be fat [2].
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7792411/
[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36507560/
As a follow up on the descendant study from China, your link shows that children with a mother that experienced childhood famine have an average BMI that is higher by ~1. Children with fathers who experienced childhood famine actually have a lower BMI. This study doesn't control for the obvious cultural and behavioral implications of a parent living through the famines, although epigenetic connections have been proposed elsewhere [0]
Here [1] is another study from China That shows that simply having an obese parent is the single biggest factor in a developing childhood obesity, and nearly doubles the obesity risk.
I didnt bother digging up a study, but this link[2] says that in the USA, a child with 1 obese parent has a 50% chance of being obese (absolute, not increased hazard ratio!) If both parents are obese, a child has an 80% chance of being obese!
This makes a lot of intuitive sense to me. I would expect the modeled behavior, status, household food, and parenting to have a huge impact on children. This naturally overshadows the interesting but tiny impact of epigenetic transmission.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8648067/
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12199-021-009...
https://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/conditions/obesity#:~:t....
I was expecting you to link the transgenerational study from polish famines during world war II, so thanks for some references I haven't seen before. That said, you have to admit that they are a hell of a lot of variables at play when you're talking about populations that self-reported food insecurity or underwent literal famine.
That said, if you are worried about the next generation, it'd be interesting to compare the magnitude of transgenerational effect from simply being raised in a household with obese parents in the usa. I imagine it's much larger but I'm not on a pc to look it up right now.
Last, if I were to lazily steel Man my appeal to nature, I doubt our Neolithic ancestors yo-yo'd back and forth between skinny and obese generations due to calorie restrictions.
Does the hexane being used have anything to do with erucic acid? We have bred the plant to be low in erucic acid already. Hexane is used in the processing as a way to maximize extraction. Maybe I am wrong.
Regardless that is a tail risk when thinking about the general population.
> Why do people also focus on the fringe science of HFCS and seed oils?
I'd argue similarly but take the opposite position, why support HFCS and seed oils? What are their positive attributes that contribute to a healthy body?
They're cheap, that's it. We deserve higher quality food. Let's subsidize something else.
Why? Because there is no strong evidence that supports HFCS and seed oils contribute to the obesity epidemic but there is loads of evidence that poorer outcomes are coming from the loads of processed foods filled with hidden sugar (of any kind) and salt.
Its about focusing your energy. You have populations eating loads of sugar and salt but focusing on a tail risk, HFCS and seed oils. Most of the seed oil science is fringe though I am sure there is some extreme tail risk. Same with HFCS. Its more worth the time focusing on what really matters, its calories, sugar and salt. Those are no easy task either.
A major enabler of all of those processed foods are exactly HFCS and seed oils due to being so shelf-stable. And abundance of those ingredients at cheap prices is part of the problem.
Maybe it's the calories, sugar and salt, maybe it's the HFCS and seed oils binding it all together. Either way the processed food industry is churning out poison.
All I am reading is fringe ideas. Sugar and HFCS are both shelf-stable. Price plays a role but thats largely a US problem with Ag policies that inflate the price of sugar. Without those policies we would see sugar in the same amount.
Seed oil science is all bunk junk science, similar to HFCS. I am sure there is some measurable tail risk but its nothing compared to the generalized risk of calories, sugar and salt (regardless of sugar types).
> Maybe it's the calories, sugar and salt, maybe it's the HFCS and seed oils binding it all together. Either way the processed food industry is churning out poison
You see why one might want more evidence than "maybe" to ban a major food product? Particularly since having effected that ban, one would wait to measure the results, waiting time in which one might have deployed substantiated policies.
To be fair the first point on sugar is obvious.
Right, but high sugar content isn't better than high HFCS content. Both are bad.
The main issue with HFCS seems to be how cheap and subsidized it is which leads to being a major ingredient in a large number of products that should just have less or no added sugar.
To be fair, "specifically high fructose corn syrup".
The OP specifically called out HFCS not sugar.
> forcing companies using those products to clearly disclose the associated risks
This is the last thing you should want for better health.
What you'd get is an explosion of "This is known by the state of California to cause obseity" on everything from a banana to a chocolate muffin, leading to people to ignore and diminish the health impact of eating a chocolate muffin because, "how bad can it be if they have to tag a banana".
"Clearly disclosing risks" just leads to overwhelming people and is the opposite of good health education. In fact junk food peddlers would love for this to be the "solution" because it wouldn't nudge people away from junk food.
Much better is just to tax unhealthy food more. That nudges people toward healthier options without them realising it.
However, people (or junk food companies masquerading as people) will oppose such "sin taxes" on the basis they are regressive.
> tax unhealthy food more
I don't want to derail this thread. But anyone know R. F. K. Jr's views on this?
Sugar yes, but cooking oils and shorteners are used in every food culture in the world. Probably not the issue if you think about it for more than 10 seconds.
I don't think the appointment of a medical quack is going to be good for anyone, despite any silver lining you might grasp at straws for. We need science-based medical advocates that follow the evidence, not undisciplined slobs.
Are you sure that there is a place in the world where vegetable oils haven’t correlated with the population getting unhealthier?
"Wi-Fi radiation opens up your blood-brain barrier, so all these toxins that are in your body can now go into your brain.” -- RFK Jr.
Whenever you see people quote RFK on the internet, you should realize that it's probably a quote of a quote. He doesn't come up with things out of nowhere, he points to some academic work.
You can try to attack the work he's quoting from, and maybe you'll have a legitimate point. But if you act like he put on a lab coat and tried playing scientist, and is just spewing original crank research into the world, well you're just misinformed, and you're making others misinformed as well.
Of course, you're in good company doing this. That's pretty much every mass media reference to the man, and why the meme about him being a crank exists.
Bullshit.
Show me one example where he's said something like that and he was citing a real source. And I mean an actual source that he should be respecting. If he just parrots this stuff from other cranks on Twitter, that's not exactly the defense you think it is.
Hes a lawyer. Do you think he wins cases by showing the judge and jury twitter screenshots?
This specific issue is based on a lawsuit, googling brings this up:
https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/robert-kennedy-jrs-legal-...
I can't speak to whether the case is good or not, but the point stands: these aren't his original claims as so many people like to say. They come from e.g. expert witnesses. Maybe those people are cranks, I have no idea.
Can you provide any legitimate documentation on the actual outcome of that lawsuit? Not from "Children's Health Defense Inc" (RFK's own organization) or "RFSafe" (a "5g causes cancer" rag) but an actual legitimate legal source?
I haven't looked for any. He says that he won the case in the clip you referenced elsewhere. I don't see any reason to believe he's lying. To be clear, that also doesn't make me think definitively that WiFi causes cancer.
What possible context of this quote would lend credibility to RFK Jr. with this quote, other than it being prefaced by "one of my uninformed friends keeps sharing a meme on Facebook that claims..."
> But if you act like he put on a lab coat and tried playing scientist, and is just spewing original crank research into the world, well you're just misinformed, and you're making others misinformed as well.
He still claims that vaccines cause autism. He's ardently against the HPV vaccine, despite proof that it decreases cancer risk with no comparable downsides. He claims that 5g causes tumors. He's a huge advocate of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, despite there being zero legitimate evidence of them having any affect on COVID 19.
NO ONE is saying these are "original claims" of his. He's dangerous precisely because he amplifies disproven nonsense to a gigantic audience that eats it right up. If someone spends their entire lives repeating nonsense, then yes that is pretty much the exact definition of a "crank."
His crusade against seed oils fits perfectly with all of his other repeated claims: no evidence that they're bad beyond Facebook memes and substantiation purely from other cranks like Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein.
Watch this video of the man himself and listen to the claims he makes. https://youtu.be/Z-YQ1Y7c_Pk
So your honest take on his claims is that these are just "quotes of quotes" and that he might not actually believe the verifiable bullshit nonsense contained within his words?
I'll translate these claims to how I understand them. Note that these aren't my claims and I won't/can't defend them.
> He still claims that vaccines cause autism.
He claims that an uptick in autism incidence is correlated with a lot of environmental things, one of them being that the number of childhood vaccines has increased, and as a result, work should be done to validate each of those environmental changes, vaccine schedule changes included.
> He's ardently against the HPV vaccine [in children, because their risk for HPV is negligible], despite proof that it decreases cancer risk with no comparable downsides.
> He claims that 5g causes tumors.
This based on some court case that he won against the government, as he mentions in your YouTube clip. No idea how real the risk is.
> He's a huge advocate of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, despite there being zero legitimate evidence of them having any affect on COVID 19.
There is plenty of academic literature around these things, I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of it, but it exists, and I'm not talking about YouTube channels.
I'd imagine the same thing is true about seed oils, although I'm not up on his views there.
My overall point is that every talking head that mentions RFK makes it look like he's just some weirdo that thought up all of these kooky ideas. If you go to the actual horses mouth, you see that these ideas came from one expert or another. Some of those people are probably wrong, but I (and respectfully, probably most of the commentariat) aren't actually qualified to tell you either way.
> He claims that an uptick in autism incidence is correlated with a lot of environmental things, one of them being that the number of childhood vaccines has increased
That is a factual lie. That is not what he said.
In 2005, he wrote an article (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2005-pt10/html/CRE...) that was published in Salon - since retracted by the publication, but never disavowed by him - in which he said, among other things:
> It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts... that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real.
The idea that thimerosal in vaccinations causes autism, or any other neurological problem, has been thoroughly debunked by every serious researcher who's ever looked at it. I'll just link to Wikipedia's page on the topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_and_vaccines) since that's easier than collecting the same list of sources again, but you can ask the CDC, the WHO, the NIH, etc., etc.
> There is plenty of academic literature around [ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine]
Yes, and all of it points to them having no effect on COVID. Sources: Mayo Clinic (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...), NIH (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/12053/), WHO (https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cor...).
> I'd imagine the same thing is true about seed oils
So you know nothing, much like RFK. You're right, the situation is the same: there is no actual evidence, and this is a nonsense meme that's been spread on social media by non-experts. There are fewer academic studies, because the panic about seed oils is newer (and therefore there hasn't been time for academia to exhaustively disprove it), but that's not how this works: if you're making the extreme, uncommon claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence, not on the rest of the community to disprove it. Sources: American Heart Association, citing a professor of medicine at Stanford (https://www.heart.org/en/news/2024/08/20/theres-no-reason-to...).
> every talking head that mentions RFK makes it look like he's just some weirdo that thought up all of these kooky ideas
This is also a lie. This is the fourth or fifth time you've said this in this thread, and it's not true. Nobody, neither on this thread nor in the wider media landscape, thinks he invented them himself. Everyone knows he's parroting random memes or conspiracy theories he found online. That is not an excuse.
> I (and respectfully, probably most of the commentariat) aren't actually qualified to tell you either way.
You're right! That's why I trust the actual medical experts, who categorically disagree with RFK and his ilk, and tend to describe them as "quacks", "cranks", and "misinformed". If you are as unqualified to judge the evidence as you say you are, then the only even remotely logical response is to rely on experts to interpret it for you. Why are you trusting some random person with a a famous last name over every single medical researcher? Do you apply this logic to any other topic - "I'm not an expert, therefore, instead of listening to the experts, I'll listen to the first person I see talk about it on TV"?
-----
There is a reason why people abbreviate this whole conversation to "brain worm" and move on. Nothing RFK says about health is founded in reality. It is all crank nonsense, and it takes a special kind of gullibility or motivated reasoning to believe it when the actual sources are right there, just a Google search away. He's the equivalent of the schizophrenic who stands on the corner screaming about UFOs and bodysnatchers, just with slightly more decorum. In order to even believe that he's acting in good faith, let alone that he's right, you have to be willfully blind to evidence that is right in front of you. You have to choose to believe one weirdo over the entirety of modern science. That is simply not how intelligent people behave.
> and other governments
Whoah there cowboy.
Perhaps as with certain other aspects of policy, the US would do well to get its own house in order first.
When it comes to food, there are many disgusting things allowed in US food that are not allowed in other sensible jurisdictions (e.g. EU).
Just a few of many examples:
Trump's diet is famously McDonald's no?
username checks out
RFK is a crank who's never met a conspiracy theory he didn't believe. Raw milk is not good for you, vaccines do not cause autism, and seed oils are not unhealthy or toxic beyond being high in fat. There is no evidence for any of those things, and there is tons of evidence to the contrary.
Putting a nutcase who doesn't believe in modern medicine in charge of regulating food and drugs is an incomprehensibly stupid idea unless your goal is to destroy the United States. But Trump is both one of the dumbest people ever born and very obviously in debt to enemies of the United States, so that shouldn't be a surprise.
> Raw milk is not good for you
Do you want to tighten this up a little bit? Cause as written it sounds like nonsense. E.g. contaminated raw milk is obviously bad for you. But otherwise?
Yep, I survived drinking a lot of a raw milk in a European country where it is legal. Curiously, the people there were skinny and healthy and didnt seem to be affected by its noxious properties either.
I find it very hard to take this kind of comment in good faith. You know as well as I do what RFK says, and why saying that it won't instantly kill you, while obviously true, only benefits misinformation.
But ok, fine. Raw milk is not better for you than pasteurized. It does not have magic healing properties. And it has a much higher risk of introducing pathogens into an industrialized food supply.
But see, this is the problem. Raw = natural = good takes only a word or two. And if challenged, the crank can fall back on the motte-and-bailey argument of "what do you mean, of course milk is good for you!" But if you're not aligned with the lunatic fringe, any incomplete or even fractionally incorrect answer is a gotcha. Debunking nonsense is exponentially harder than spewing it to begin with, and then concern-trolling about "oh, only if it's contaminated!" makes the situation worse, not better.
No. People do this thing where they become convinced that so and so is a villain, so any negative thing you say about them is fine, no matter how loose, sloppy, or just plain incorrect.
You need to be a better adversary if you want to have a positive impact. Otherwise you're just contributing to the noise. And then people see all the incorrect criticisms of him, and it makes them less likely to believe actually legit criticisms.
There’s valid evidence for all of those things (although the vaccine thing is a straw man), and RFK Jr is a very intelligent man.
Are you convinced that the evidence to the contrary is stronger here? How well read are you in nutrition science?
In what way is it a straw man? Google "RFK vaccines" and tell me the first thing you find. You don't get to dismiss facts you don't like because they're too extreme when you're the one causing them.
Moreover... fuck off, troll. I know it's against HN decorum or whatever, but this is obviously a bad-faith misinformation actor. There is zero evidence for any of the things that RFK says about health, and when you're as far outside the mainstream as him, the burden of proof is on you. Every medical expert ever consulted disagrees with him, and he's never presented anything to defend his nonsense. Unlike him, I know that I'm not a medical expert, so I take the word of, again, literally every medical and food science expert over some random lunatic on Twitter
[dead]
This is an insane figure. With Trump threatening a trade war with the EU I wonder if these Ozempic/Wegovi drugs will be targetted in retaliation -- they seem to be the only weapons to counter this epidemic.
There are arms and legs to those drugs.
https://www.newsweek.com/surgeon-warning-about-weight-gain-o...
> "Been 6 months...still haven't gained a lb. It was a miracle medicine," said one user and another agreed, "Nope. Been off 18 months and Not. A. Pound. Gained."
>But this doesn't ring true for all, one user said: "This is very true was on Ozempic reached my goal weight then stopped and regained it all back. Just started again."
>"Lost 52 pounds on Ozempic in 5 months. Was taken off gained 85 pounds in 6 months. [Back] on Ozempic and dwn 7 pounds in 3 days. I'll just stay on it..."
All sorts of chronic conditions require permanent medicating. Why should obesity be different?
Daily/weekly needle injections is the only defense?
> Daily/weekly needle injections is the only defense?
No, just the most effective one once you've got an obese population. (Nicotine patches aren't the solution to cigarette smoking. But they are a great tool for cigarette smokers.)
Here's the deal: You give us iPhones because we lost our domestic tech industry, and we'll give you anti-fattening drugs because you can't be bothered to put down the endless refill of Big-Gulp. Seems fair to me.
Trump is committed to making America healthy again.
The guy who insists McDonalds is healthy, and claims that exercise depletes a finite amount of energy one has in their lifetime?
> they seem to be the only weapons to counter this epidemic
Surely we haven’t realized the full potential of health behaviour change and healthy default choices at scale. That class of interventions is considerably cheaper and more immune to trade disputes than GLP-1 agonists. But also deeply unprofitable for the pharmaceutical and processed food industries.
The food and pharma industry isn't going to kick down the door with guns if someone puts down the fork and starts exercising.
It can be done at an individual level, with no permission, and no training.
Candidly, this makes me question whether we've correctly identified the "normal" weight.
> this makes me question whether we've correctly identified the "normal" weight
Where did those questions lead you?
A BMI above 35 (severe obesity) is "associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality" [1]. Regular obesity (30 to 35) is associated with higher morbidity, e.g. CVD, GERD and asthma. (Being underweight is more dangerous than being overweight [2].)
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5401682/
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-29586-w
I don't understand why when it comes to weight critical thinking goes out the door. People always point to these things and say weight causes them, but no one ever considers these things may actually lead to people gaining weight. I say this as a person who has struggled with weight their whole life. I've spent 40 years having every issue dismissed by doctors with a "you just need to lose weight," while I sit at a dinner table with friends and family eating significantly less than everyone and still gaining weight. It's like people are so committed to the idea of weight gain being a moral failing, they won't consider for even a minute that people are gaining weight for other reasons.
> People always point to these things and say weight causes them, but no one ever considers these things may actually lead to people gaining weight
How did you conclude this? The evidence we have says obesity causes mortality [1].
> while I sit at a dinner table with friends and family eating significantly less than everyone and still gaining weight
Yes, this is metabolic syndrome. There is increasing evidence that some peoples' bodies will reduce base metabolism to compensate for reduced calorie intake or exercise, sometimes to the point of permitting starvation despite food intake, in an effort to conserve body fat.
Modelling nutrition thermodynamically is like trying to model flight with Newtonian dynamics. You can do it. But not in a practical way, and certainly not when it comes to edge cases.
> people are so committed to the idea of weight gain being a moral failing
Sorry you've experienced this. I've seen it too, in peoples' zero-information dismissal of e.g. Ozempic as a moral failing. (For disclosure, I've only dealt with weight gain as a cosmetic issue.)
Sun exposure causes melanoma. That doesn't make the beach evil. It just means that causation is established. It's not perfect. But if you're at risk of melanoma, knowing that causation helps. In the same vein, obesity causes mortality. That doesn't make being obese (or overweight) evil. It just means the causation is established. It's not perfect. But if you're obese, you and your doctors knowing that causation helps.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2765728/
> eating significantly less than everyone
I wouldn't focus on that, food intake relative to others will be misleading.
Have you tried a food journal? For a week, take a picture of __everything__ you eat or drink. Go back and review it at the end of the week, a month would be better.
If you review it and think "yes, this is a reasonable amount of food" you now have a months worth of data to shop around to a doctor who can help you. If you have the opposite reaction, now you have a baseline to work against.
As an aside, do you drink a lot of soda?
I don't drink soda at all. I have used food journals for years.
metabolic health can be a factor in obesity, but the primary driver of metabolic dysfunction is also diet and exercise.
It is possible that you may metabolize food slightly different from other people. What is not possible is that your body is defying conservation of energy and mass.
I wont go into all the possible problems with using dinner comparison as a benchmark, because the charitable take is that you sharing a sentiment, not proof of anything.
> What is not possible is that your body is defying conservation of energy and mass
Your body has a lot of latitude in modifying its base metabolism. Folks with metabolic syndrome can reduce food intake to virtually zero and their bodies will still try turning off vital mechanisms before burning fat stores.
Most people get into obesity through bad habits. But good habits aren't enough to get out. (The exception to my first statement are those with genetic or hormonal factors.)
Metabolic syndrome is a board classification, and what you described constitutes a tiny portion. For the vast majority of people with Metabolic syndrome, lifestyle change is both capable and necessary for reversing the issue.
The challenge is that the syndrome is resistant to incremental change require a lot more than simply adopting what would otherwise be healthy steady state behaviors.
That is to say, the syndrome goes away if you get back to a normal weight, it is just extremely hard to do it. Im hopeful GLP-1 drugs will help some people break through this wall.
> eating significantly less than everyone and still gaining weight
What I have learned time and time again is that people are at best inaccurate at counting their caloric intake or at worst just entirely dishonest about how much they at eating. You are most likely eating a lot more than you think you are and have normalized it after 40 years of doing so.
You skipped right over what I think they were referring to: "overweight" (BMI 25-30) vs "normal" (18.5-25). Evidence there isn't as clear, I've occasionally but regularly for decades run across some that overweight could be healthier than a normal weight.
Got it. And agree--that's the finding of the second source.
"Possible explanations have included earlier presentation of heavier patients, greater likelihood of receiving optimal medical treatment, cardioprotective metabolic effects of increased body fat, and benefits of higher metabolic reserves" [1].
In summary, obesity (BMI > 30) is a health problem. 40% of Americans are obese [2]. I'd be curious to see what fraction of overweight Americans become obese versus normal weight become either obese or underweight--the presumption seems to have been that being overweight (particularly when young) is a risk factor for obesity.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4855514/
[2] https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statisti...
Why would the "normal" weight (or BMI) change between 2024 and 1974?
BMI has been in usage for over a century. Its never been a perfect measurement (neck is also taken into account in Navy tests IIRC), but function(weight, height) is good enough for the basics.
Considering:
- a century ago a greater percentage of people were "normal" weight
- human physiology has not changed much over the past century
- our current definitions of overweight/obese correlate with negative health outcomes
I think the classification is largely correct even if you can haggle over some of the smaller details.
(EDIT: That said, people shouldn't be downvoting you just for asking the question, sorry that happened)
> - human physiology has not changed much over the past century
With improved nutrition, people are several inches taller than they were a century or so ago.
That isn't a change of physiology, it's a change of our external environment. AFAIK there's no evidence to show humans living 100 years ago would respond any differently to modern nutrition than we do.
If the cause of being taller were internal, such as genetic changes: that would be a change in physiology.
There are only two inputs to BMI, and height is one of them.
That's a complete non-sequitur. If you cut off your feet and get shorter, it doesn't mean the human species has physiologically changed. And if you eat more calories and get taller, it doesn't mean the human species has physiologically changed.
Yep, and it's not like there is a mysterious lack of cardiovascular and health consequences that would make us question the belief that high BMI is bad
Even that is relevant, because it would mean the measurement is now wrong.
> people shouldn't be downvoting you just for asking the question
I didn't downvote. But if you're asking a question, ask it. Don't phrase it as a statement while pretending it's a question. And if you're making a statement, substantiate it. Ending a question with a period is borderline intellectually dishonest.
Covid would have been a great opportunity to discuss this, exercise during lockdown could have had a bigger impact than many measures we did dare talk about.
Short memory? Weights and gym equipment costs went through the roof, pelaton blew up (briefly) etc.
That was mostly because gyms were closed, not because more people started working out.
Source?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42147310
Why is this a "we" issue requiring discussion? I think this whole framing is the problem for what is essentially a personal self control issue.
Exercise is almost useless to combat bad eating habits.
However, I find exercise helps support good eating habits.
Most U.S. adults have PFAS, microplastics and other assorted contaminants in their blood. Some of which are known to mimic natural hormones in the body.
Coincidence? My guess is no.
Hmmm... surely it has nothing to do with enormous portions, sugar in everything, and a lack of exercise. The human body can deal with a lot of garbage if it is healthy.
Surely American exposure to toxins from plastics pales next to countries in the developing world, where locals have historically eaten from non-food-grade plastics since there was insufficient enforcement to ensure sale of food-grade plastics, and plastic is regularly disposed of by burning that fills the air of whole villages and cities with fumes.
> Most U.S. adults have PFAS, microplastics and other assorted contaminants in their blood. Some of which are known to mimic natural hormones in the body
Where is your control? Is the argument less-fat countries, particularly those in Asia, have less PFAS and microplastics?
One would expect Japan to be particularly hard hit if this is the case as they overpackage foodstuffs like crazy.
Most U.S. adults breathe oxygen, which inevitably leads to body hormone generation.
Coincidence? My guess is no.