My Prejudice Against Obesity

 I follow Tamara Haspel on twitter, whose feed included this response, the beginning of a thread on the genetics of obesity:

As requested by @TamarHaspel here is a brief tweetorial on my latest @NatureRevGenet review on the #genetics 🧬 of #obesity https://t.co/OsLHqyvy6w 🧵👇 1/7 https://t.co/RrxTOZQmkf

— Giles Yeo (@GilesYeo) September 23, 2021

If I understand he says there are relatively rare cases where a mutation in a gene causes obesity and more common cases where a constellation of genetic markers leads to obesity.  

For as old as I am, I think I keep up pretty well with the changing social norms, at least the more important ones. But I still have a hard time with obesity--I have a knee jerk reaction when I see a picture which includes obese people, particularly obese Americans. I'd like to think I don't act on my first feelings when I'm dealing with obese people in person, but you never know.

Maybe science will finally disprove the idea that obesity is a matter of willpower?

The United States of Excess

 This is a 2015 small book by Robert Paarlberg, subtitled "Gluttony and the Dark Side of American Exceptionalism.". Its thesis is that the US stands out for its obesity and its per capita greenhouse gas emissions, both of which are based in America's:

• material and demographic conditions
• political structure
• culture.

I found it interesting, specifically:

• the importance of geography in American politics in contrast to European countries--our politicians do "earmarks", bring home the bacon for their constituents while EU pols are more bound to a party platform.
• the distinction between "mitigation" and "adaptation" as applied to climate change and obesity.  Mitigation means changing the causes of the problems; adaptation means dealing with the results.  He argues that the US will go for adaptation in both instances.  

Laugh of the Day

An interesting article in the NY Times magazine on Shell Oil's Arctic oil effort and its mishaps (many).   At one point the Coast Guardsmen on a rescue helicopter run into an unpleasant surprise: the smallest of the 18 crew members who must be airlifted to safety weighs 235 pounds.

Our Fighters Are Fat

From Tom Ricks  The Best Defense:

At present, 62 percent of active duty military members over the age of 20 have a body mass index that falls into either the overweight or obese category.

 My title is, I hope, unfair.  I'd assume the 62 percent REMF's or FOBBITS, part of the "tail" supporting the fighters, and we have a bigger tail than ever.

And Gov. Romney wants to spend more money on the military? If he wins, I hope a good bit of it is with Weight Watchers.

(Have I ever mentioned that my worst prejudice, the one I have least under control, is probably weightism?)

On Obesity and Exercise, and Children

I'm going to relapse into geezerhood and say the reason Americans are so far is they use strollers for their children.  It's a good way to containerize and control your kids, but it doesn't get them used to exercising.

The other day coming back from the garden I encountered a woman pushing a 2x stroller with a couple kids sprawling across the seats.  Granted, if the three of them were walking, the woman would have had problems; the kids looked as if they'd be two handfuls.

I was reading something somewhere the musings of a person who observed really young children in a foreign society being useful and handling dangerous tools, like a machete at age 3.   Now that's a tad young.  If I remember I was kept out of the barn until I was 5 or so, parents thought it was too dangerous.  But I was anxious to help, to prove I was old enough to do something.  That's not something usually possible for today's suburban kids.

Misinformation from the Times: Food

The Times has an interview with an NIH mathematician today who says, in part:

Did you ever solve the question posed to you when you were first hired — what caused the obesity epidemic?

We think so. And it’s something very simple, very obvious, something that few want to hear: The epidemic was caused by the overproduction of food in the United States.

Beginning in the 1970s, there was a change in national agricultural policy. Instead of the government paying farmers not to engage in full production, as was the practice, they were encouraged to grow as much food as they could. At the same time, technological changes and the “green revolution” made our farms much more productive. The price of food plummeted, while the number of calories available to the average American grew by about 1,000 a day.

Well, what do people do when there is extra food around? They eat it! This, of course, is a tremendously controversial idea. However, the model shows that increase in food more than explains the increase in weight.

Sounds to me as if he's been reading Mr. Pollan.  The truth of course is there was no such long lasting change in policy. Yes, Earl Butz said "fence row to fence row", but his impact on farm policy was mostly gone by the time Jimmy Carter was elected .  We had annual production adjustment programs into the 1990's and beginning in 1986 removed millions of acres of cropland from production through CRP.

Less Physical Work, More Fat

Matt Yglesias makes a catch which I didn't see in the original NY Times article on how our physical work is declining at the same time our weight is climbing.  Specifically: "Running a pre-mechanization farm is hard work"

In the original article the focus is on the changes since 1960, particularly the decline of manufacturing jobs. But the same probably applies for farming.  Our tractor, a small John Deere, didn't have power steering so you definitely could use some calories just driving the darn thing.  Not that I've been on a tractor since, but John Phipps would lead me to believe that all tractors are air conditioned with power steering and a sound system. And certainly a lot of the farmers you see on TV have good sized bellies.  I remember one barrel-chested farmer from my youth, but mostly they were muscular but not fat.

Surprising Sentence: Our Growing Obesity

From a Patch post on the Fairfax police aviation unit:

"Kaminski said the helicopters do have some restrictions they can fly in. Severe inclement weather can ground the helicopters he said and in some cases with larger patients, the unit may not be able to transport them. [emphasis added]

Food Deserts

James McWilliams discusses some options on reducing obesity, including this point:

There’s plenty of evidence supporting a strong correlation between ease of access to healthy food and reduced obesity risk. Similarly, there’s proof that those with limited access to healthy food spend less on it. Causation, though, is another matter. A couple of things to consider: a) a study of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients found that participants lived an average of 1.8 miles from the nearest source of fresh produce but still traveled an average of 4.9 miles (most likely to a superstore) to buy their groceries; and b) sixty-eight percent of Americans are fat but—at the most—8 percent of us lack easy access to healthy food choices. Interpreting these points, Michele Ver Ploeg sums up their implications nicely: “Even though most Americans have fabulous access to healthy foods, on average, they eat only about half the recommended daily levels of fruits and vegetables.”

 The first sentence struck me: there seems to be a strong correlation between class/money and obesity/thinness.  Given that the U.S. tends to segregate by money, perhaps the pattern is the new suburbs are designed and built around the super supermarkets. So the rich are better able to maintain their waistlines and the poor less able to.

USDA Supporting Obesity?

Not so, says this study:

A careful examination of the linkages between farm policy, food prices, and obesity in the United States demonstrates that U.S. farm commodity subsidy policies have had very small effects on obesity. This finding is driven by three key factors. First, with a few exceptions, farm subsidies have relatively small and mixed impacts on prices of farm commodities in the United States. Second, the share of the cost of commodities in the cost of retail food products is small, and continues to shrink over time. Third, food consumption patterns do not change substantially in response to small changes in food prices.

I don't expect the food movement to change their views; it's very hard to correct errors.

Yglesias Buries the Lede

"Burying the lede" seems to be the phrase for not recognizing and promoting the real story.  Matt Yglesias is posting on the value of frozen vegetables, not as good as fresh but still good and very convenient, and says:

"Part of my recent weight loss strategy (down a bit over 60 pounds since the beginning of March)" x

Flash: Rising Rate of Blindness in the U.S.

From this post:

Far fewer parents describe their children as overweight or obese than we see in the actual population. Specifically, the GQR poll showed even parents who volunteer their children's height and weight underreported whether they also view them as overweight or obese. Similarly, this McClatchy-Ipsos poll shows far fewer reporting a personal obesity issue or one in their own family than is actually true among the population.

The only rational explanation is that Americans are losing their eyesight much more rapidly than anyone realizes.

Obesity at Lake Woebegon

From Farm Policy, quoting an AP article on the new obesity report:

The article stated that, “The new survey shows that 84 percent of parents believe their children are at a healthy weight, even though nearly a third of children and teens are considered obese or overweight.”

Obesity Is Sam Walton's Fault, Not Farmers

A report cited at Barking Up the Wrong Tree says there's a correlation between Walmart Supercenters and the rate of obesity.  (Of course correlation is not cause and in this instance there's probably a whole set of causal factors affecting obesity and the siting of Walmarts.)

The Fat Chinese and Not a Corn Subsidy in Sight

Prof. Pollan blames federal farm program subsidies of corn and soybeans for our obesity, at least in part.

The Newshour had a piece last week on the growing obesity problem in China, which doesn't have the same sort of subsidies.  The reasons include the one-child policy (lots of adults to spoil the kids), lots of cars and less exercise, urbanization, fast food.  To the best of my knowledge the Chinese don't subsidize corn production.

Transparency Works, in the Long Run

Much discussion over the results of study of the effect in NYC of posting the calories in restaurant foods.  In short, no significant impact on the food chosen.  Kevin Drum and Ezra Klein aslo link to it.

I'd caution people to relax and think long term.  I remember when the health warning was added to cigarette packs. It took a long time, but that was one step in establishing a social consensus against smoking.  That, the consensus, is what is effective in changing behavior.

Why Are We Fat--We're Capitalists

Cornell has a study out which says:

The study found that fathers who worked long hours or had non-standard schedules were more likely to use takeout meals, miss family meals, purchase prepared entrees and eat while working. Working mothers in the study who worked under similar conditions purchased restaurant meals or prepared entrees or missed breakfast significantly more often than other women. About a quarter of mothers and fathers said they did not have access to healthful, reasonably priced or good-tasting food at or near work.

One of the things celebrated about our economy is our flexibility and hard work, the idea that unlike France people can and do change locations and jobs, meaning the economy is more friendly to innovation and change.  But the quote suggests we pay a price for that on our waistline.

Obesity and Fast Food

The Times has an article on a study which found proximity to fast food outlets was strongly correlated with obesity. It sounds impressive.

HFCS, Corn Subsidies and Obesity II

Tom Philpott channels a Tufts University study. Some sentences:

"Take them [farm program subsidies] away, I've argued more than once, and you'd still have a food system that mainly produces junk churned out by a few big companies...."

"Get this:

Today, HFCS represents just 3.5% of the total cost of soft drink manufacturing as measured by the value of shipments. Meanwhile, the corn content of HFCS represents only 1.6% of this value. Thus, the impact of corn prices on the final retail price of a food product is not as high as one might think.

That means even if you take away the 27 percent discount HFCS producers got for their corn, you'd only be adding a penny or two to the final price of a Big Gulp."

If Crunchies Join the Military

Maybe we do need a draft. I don't suppose there's any other way which would lead the greens and organic food people to join the military voluntarily. The greens do have kids, so they study and criticize the school lunch program. (See here for an Asian comparison.) But our men and women in uniform are left with the Iraq 20 and comfort food such as:

Barbecue ribs, fried chicken, rib-eye steak, lobster tails, crab legs, roast turkey, stir-fry, cheeseburgers, fries, onion rings, egg rolls, breaded shrimp, buffalo wings, chili, crepes, pancakes, omelets, waffles, burritos, tacos, quesadillas, quiches, bacon, polish sausages, pulled pork, corned beef hash, milk shakes and smoothies — and that’s just for starters. (From Edge of the West post quoting a Chicago Tribune article, also going back to GI's in Britain in WWII.)

Makes me hungry just to read it. If it's okay for the military to eat comfort food in a war zone, is it okay for the lower class to eat comfort food in their daily life?