[Selfcommit]

You are making an assumption that obesity is because people overeat, and that "moving around" is somehow a counter to that. Have you considered the amount of sugar found in virtually all SAD based food could be the problem? (Setting aside the movement debate and the false premise it creates about energy in vs energy out).

[jlarocco]

Too much sugar is definitely a problem, but if obesity were solely due to sugar in "virtually all SAD based food" then everybody would be obese across the board. That's not what the data shows, though.

And even if sugar were the main factor, OP's post would still be technically correct, because the underlying problem would be overeating foods with sugar, possibly in addition to overeating other foods.

This may be an unpopular view, but there's no getting around the fact that obesity in most adults is caused by poor decision making around food and exercise.

[cloverich]

It saddens me that you are being down voted. There's plenty of reasonable debate to be had around how different types of foods make you feel, whether that leads to over / under-eating, allergies, etc. But the premise that one's total calorie count is the most important (and perhaps only) factor in determining weight is not a radical thought.

[mjevans]

The last time I bought 'healthy' food, I couldn't use it before it's shelf life expired. Smaller portions are prohibitively expensive (it costs less for me to get something that looks better, tastes better, and has more variety going out to eat).

It also isn't cost effective for me to make the time to make my own food, even ignoring the cost of the ingredients; aside from simple things that use mostly non-perishable ingredients.

However, even going out to eat, the incentive to buy in bulk /there/ exists too. Purchase of a single meal that should fill someone up for a day has a substantial discount over getting what should be a properly sized portion for a small regular meal.

For all sides, the market incentives push towards over-consumption which is why we have the outcome we do.

I recall hearing that the cost of labor was actually one of the primary factors in meal price.

[cik2e]

This is a load of horse shit, and I am holding back from being too harsh.

Eating out is in no way cheaper than making your own meals. The only way I can even imagine someone claiming otherwise is if you haven't yet built up a pantry and have to buy things like vinegars, dressings, sauces, flour, etc., every time.

Here are some numbers. I cook an average of 4x a week, making 4 portions of each meal. My grocery bill is never more than $70 and that's if I have to restock on some pantry items or am splurging on something like shellfish. So on the high end, that's $4.38 per portion that always includes meat or fish and a vegetable. That's comparable to eating on the value menu at McDonald's but certainly cheaper than the full combo meals which can run upwards of $10.

I'll admit that I shop at Trader Joe's which has some of the best prices out there. But the point is, it's not too difficult to make your own meals that cost about the same as shitty junk food. And at least for me, it's faster than any sit down place or even take out that you still have to go somewhere to get.

[jlarocco]

Are those not all personal choices? You're choosing cheap, easy, and convenient over healthy.

IME eating healthy isn't particularly expensive or difficult, but it does require more planning and consideration than just eating what's convenient.

[tomjen3]

There is nothing wrong with buying in bulk, and cooking in bulk is a good way to save money and time: just put the rest in the freezer.

[mjevans]

There is an area where I definitely differ.

I don't have the knowledge, skills, or training in pallet to accept self-prepared frozen meals. Those just sound inherently disgusting to me. I don't expect to find crispy anywhere within that and thinking of trying to save things in the freezer makes me think of freezerburn.

[xinyhn]

Interesting study on activity levels and energy expenditure.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjourna...

Abstract

Western lifestyles differ markedly from those of our hunter-gatherer ancestors, and these differences in diet and activity level are often implicated in the global obesity pandemic. However, few physiological data for hunter-gatherer populations are available to test these models of obesity. In this study, we used the doubly-labeled water method to measure total daily energy expenditure (kCal/day) in Hadza hunter-gatherers to test whether foragers expend more energy each day than their Western counterparts. As expected, physical activity level, PAL, was greater among Hadza foragers than among Westerners. Nonetheless, average daily energy expenditure of traditional Hadza foragers was no different than that of Westerners after controlling for body size. The metabolic cost of walking (kcal kg−1 m−1) and resting (kcal kg−1 s−1) were also similar among Hadza and Western groups. The similarity in metabolic rates across a broad range of cultures challenges current models of obesity suggesting that Western lifestyles lead to decreased energy expenditure. We hypothesize that human daily energy expenditure may be an evolved physiological trait largely independent of cultural differences.

[sn9]

Increasing activity increases calories burned, which can help produce a caloric deficit which will lead to weight loss.

Obesity is literally impossible without being in a caloric surplus over the long term.

Added sugar contributes to the problem, in that it is not very satiating so it makes it easier to overeat, but you can easily lose weight on a high sugar diet so long as a caloric deficit is maintained.

The actual physiology is well-understood. The only problem is changing habits and behaviors, which can be difficult but is certainly not even close to impossible.

[maxerickson]

SAD=standard American diet

[dvdhnt]

This.

There was a study I'm struggling to find at the moment, that I saw via HN, that claimed childhood obesity is more dependent on what people eat than when they eat it or how much.

[killjoywashere]

Childhood obesity, like all obesity, is most definitely about calories in vs calories out. However, it is also true that fructose (one half of sucrose), doesn't induce any of the body's satiety responses.

A second issue is salt, which induces thirst, which induced consumption of fluids. Solving that problem with water drops the osmolarity, which decreases the satiety signals by way of diluting the interstitium. Solving the thirst problem with beer, soda, milk, etc, maintains the osmolarity of the interstitium, but does so by way of increasing the blood glucose.

Overall, it's 90% eat less, 10% exercise more. But the exercise more is also critically important for increasing norepinephrine, which improves focus, willpower, concentration, whatever the amalgam of those words are that represents the effect of norepi.

Having seen really horrible outcomes in kids, please, please, give up this idea that calories in doesn't need to equal calories out. It does. Always.