You wouldn't believe what Americans are doing this time

Funny considering the actual reason is the quality of their food.

I'm actually genetically predisposed to consuming 4000 calories a day.

>I'm not defending the American diet but many rigorous studies have consistently found that obesity has a high heritability:
>Height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) were assessed in a sample of 1974 monozygotic and 2097 dizygotic male twin pairs. Concordance rates for different degrees of overweight were twice as high for monozygotic twins as for dizygotic twins. Classic twin methods estimated a high heritability for height, weight, and BMI, both at age 20 years (.80,.78, and.77, respectively) and at a 25-year follow-up (.80,.81, and.84, respectively). Height, weight, and BMI were highly correlated across time, and a path analysis suggested that the major part of that covariation was genetic. These results are similar to those of other twin studies of these measures and suggest that human fatness is under substantial genetic control.
>jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/359582

Attached: american poster.png (1146x856, 130K)

go figure that doctor is fat

>go to visit doc
>you're depressed and lazy and became fat
>"gee i sure need more self control and to be more active right doc?"
>"how dare you! its GENETICS that made m-- er YOU like this"
>health insurance only covers 5% of the $500 dollar doctor visit

Attached: ryan-retirement.jpg (352x147, 17K)

It's mostly bad parenting but shitty people won't take the blame for teaching their child bad habits and making their body used to gorging on trash Shart-mart foods
In fact alot of issues with children and young adults are caused by shitty parents

The lowball estimates for heritability of obesity are still relatively high. Is the American diet disgusting? Yes, of course. However this doesn't mean we can just ignore the science for the sake of memes.

That sounds like a correlation is not causation example.
Put one of those twin in a japanese or italian family, and somehow I bet he would not be morbidly obese.
Also
>July 4, 1986

The problem is that they become literally addicted to eating food, like how an alcoholic becomes addicted to alcohol or a druggie addicted to drugs. Of course you also have your lazy fucks who don’t know when to put the fork down but from what I have personally seen that stems more from habits picked up from a shit/unhealthy family. You’ll find a lot of issues people have here come from shitty families.
Agreed, but it’ll be a long process.
>1974
>1986
Think yer sample ‘s all outta date lad.

Still it's by far mostly because eating patterns are often passed on in families. Only genetic component to it is hunger management of the body which can differ a bit, but even that is trainable

BACKGROUND:

Published heritability estimates (h2) for body mass index (BMI) range from as low as 0.05 to as high as 0.90. The purpose of this paper is to introduce new data to help narrow the range of plausible estimates.
SUBJECTS:
Subjects were 53 pairs (23 M; 30 F) of monozygotic twins reared apart (MZAs), whose mean BMI was 24.2 (SD= 4.7). BMI's were transformed to approximate normality via the Box-Cox transformation. Twin paris came from the Finnish Twin Cohort (17 pairs), a data base of Japanese twins (10 pairs) and published case histories of primarily American twins (26 pairs).
RESULTS:
The h2 for MZAs is given by the correlation among the twin pairs. For the transformed data, the zero-order correlation of twins' BMIs was 0.79 for all twins, 0.63 for the Finnish twins, 0.73 for the Japanese twins and 0.85 for the'archival'twins. When modeled with regression to control for relevant covariates, the estimate of h2 is either 0.50 or 0.70, depending on one's definition. The semipartial r was 0.50, suggesting that 50% of the total variance in BMI appears to the genetic in origin after controlling the covariates. The partial r was 0.70, suggesting that 70% of the variance in BMI that is not accounted for by the covariates can be attributed to genetic variation. Separation age had a small positive correlation with absolute intra-pair difference in BMI, suggesting that these estimates of h2 are not biased upwards due to early shared environment.
CONCLUSIONS:

Findings are consistent with past studies of MZAs and suggest that h2 estimates between 0.50 and 0.70 are reasonable. Implications of this finding are discussed.

Allison, D. B., Kaprio, J., Korkeila, M., Koskenvuo, M., Neale, M. C., & Hayakawa, K. (1996). The heritability of body mass index among an international sample of monozygotic twins reared apart. International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders: journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, 20(6), 501-506.

We can ignore the science. Lol wtf. Genetics obviously can play a role but still all you have to do is not eat so much and actually move. Not being a lazy ass can trump genetics and america is the only country with this problem in such severity
There are a ton of populations out there with plenty of access to food and ez safe lives. How come all of them pale in comparison to america in fatness? You'd have to be retarded to blame genetics. Every demographic here is fatter than the same demographic in basically every country. Genetics play a role for everyone else too don't make a lazy excuse and go muuuuh science

So why are y'all much fatter on average than your muh hurritage back in Yurop (or Africa)? Why did Arabs suddenly get so fat after adopting Western style diets thanks to oil wealth?

Truly the untermenschen

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1038/oby.2008.240

Objective: To understand the overlap between the etiology of obesity and normal variation in BMI in children.

Methods and Procedures: Height and weight data were available from a large UK representative sample of twins: 2,342 same‐sex pairs at 7 years and 3,526 same‐sex pairs at 10 years. The twin method and model‐fitting techniques were used to estimate genetic and environmental contributions to BMI. DeFries‐Fulker (DF) extremes analysis was used to investigate genetic and environmental influences on the mean difference between obese and normal‐weight children. Obesity was classified using the International Obesity Task Force (IOTF) criteria.

Results: At both ages, BMI and obesity were highly heritable (0.60–0.74) and only modestly influenced by shared environmental factors (0.12–0.22). Extremes analyses indicated that genetic and environmental influences on obesity are quantitatively and qualitatively similar to those operating across the range of BMI.

Discussion: Obesity is the extreme of the same genetic and environmental factors responsible for variation throughout the distribution of BMI. This finding implies that genes that influence obesity will also be associated with BMI in the normal range, and similar environmental influences will affect BMI in the clinical and normal range. Knowing that obesity is influenced by the same genetic and environmental factors that affect weight at all levels has implications for investigating the mechanisms for weight gain and developing interventions for weighHaworth, C. M., Plomin, R. , Carnell, S. and Wardle, J. (2008), Childhood Obesity: Genetic and Environmental Overlap With Normal‐range BMI. Obesity, 16: 1585-1590. t control.

This, fatties will just use it as an excuse when it's such a minor component

>despite evidence

I hate this manipulative language these articles always use to imply there is ANY sort of actual scinetific basis to their "fat is fine" bullshit.

There is evidence that there are people who suffer genetically from a propensity towards obesity.

cont.

that does not translate into "All obesity, or even most obesity, is caused due to genetics".

Lack of willpower and bad eating habits ARE the main cause.

>muh genetiks
>i can copy paste articles dat meen i smart nao
Let me guess, you’re also just big boned.

I feel bad for Mexico.
newsmax.com/newsfront/epidemic-nafta-food-free-trade/2017/12/11/id/831161/

as a wagie, you'll be surprised to how many fat ass are on EBT (welfare). These people barely buy food like bread, chicken, rice, water ect. none of that, they just buy a bunch of junk food and big boxes of coke. absolutely disgusting and I'm angry that the government gives these useless people so much spending money. and because of this their kids are fat too. I hate these people.

1. If your parents are fat, very likely you will be fat also. This is not necessarily an indication of genetics being involved though is it ?
Fat parents will habituate their kids to their unhealthy tastes, eating habits, lack of exercise and so on. Of course metabolism and morphology are inherited but that isn't morbid obesity.
2. If it is innate and inherited, how come it only popped up the last 50 years in America ? I am willing to believe there is genetic predisposition yes but not genetic obesity. Why 30% of Europe isn't obese since the beginning of time then ?
3. OP says fucking ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS yes well precisely, Americans are surrounded by fat people and unhealthy food, yes. Therefore they need willpower to resist this then. This is completely illogical.

>over 70 percent
NAFTA was a mistake

Simple: the western diet. A trait can be highly heritable and also influenced profoundly by environmental factors: the classic example is height during a famine.

The diet has to go. However, we do ourselves no favors by sticking our heads in the sand.

I have no horse in this race: I am not obese, nor have I ever been. What I don't appreciate however is when people don't even attempt to understand what researchers have found because they dislike the implications. It's a similar story for the heritability of intelligence.

>tfw not fat but have gerard's butt nose

Attached: depard.jpg (214x317, 18K)

Even if obese people do this they tend to just put all that weight back by reverting to the diet they had before weight loss. IIRC most of the winners of the The Biggest Loser went back to being obese within a few years despite losing hundreds of pounds.

I think there needs to be a middle ground between the OP image and what people in this thread are saying. Yes, weight is largely a function of diet. The issue, in my mind, is that most primary care doctors don't have the slightest clue what to recommend to an obese patient outside of "nut up faggot" or simply ignoring the issue entirely.
Doctors today treat obesity the same as they did mental illness 40 years ago.

>blaming a gun for someone being shot
My sides, the comments in there are /pol tier

Attached: comments.png (627x879, 60K)

TDEE, considering persons of same height, weight, age, muscle mass and activity level, only varies by up to 200 calories. Unless you have a very rare malabsorption disease, in which case you actually need MORE to keep weight. But no such disease where you can eat significantly less and still keep or even gain fat, that'd be a perpetuum mobile body

What gene mutated in around 1990 and then somehow spread rapidly to third of population? Does Jew York Times even try to explain that?

Attached: obesity-map-usa.gif (693x471, 2.76M)

probably true, but even with extensive explanations and hints, the aderence people have to change lifestyle is extremly low
everyone finds it easier to just take a pill

Cognitive dissonance, he, his wife or kids are fat and he doesn't want to admit it.

cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/household-availability-of-ultraprocessed-foods-and-obesity-in-nineteen-european-countries/D63EF7095E8EFE72BD825AFC2F331149/core-reader

Maybe, but it's their job to at least try, and the job of medical schools to properly instruct them on how to handle an obese patient. It's criminal that many of them just ignore the issue.

wtf i want to know too

Attached: 1543601357762.jpg (657x527, 32K)

dunno about murica, but here the standard doc (the one that works in town and that should be responsible about that) has like 10-15 minutes at best for each patients, in which he has to know him, gain his trust, solve the problem he came there fo (surely not obesity) and fill him calmly but effectively with all the informations to make a revolution in all his life aspects and effectively
how feasible you think that is?
i dont disagree with you, the opposite, but dont attack the ebil dogtor that only wants his paycheck, its heavy work

This is true. Lack of cooking skills, a culture that emphasizes expediency and convenience over experience and satisfaction, and an unfavorable array of food options in a lot of areas are also factors.

>here the standard doc (the one that works in town and that should be responsible about that) has like 10-15 minutes at best for each patients, in which he has to know him, gain his trust, solve the problem he came there fo (surely not obesity) and fill him calmly but effectively with all the informations to make a revolution in all his life aspects and effectively
It's sort of like that here, depending on who your doctor is. Considering the exorbitant healthcare fees Americans pay, you'd expect better though.

>but dont attack the ebil dogtor that only wants his paycheck, its heavy work
I don't mean to attack them. I just think that the problem is more multifaceted than people make it out to be.

the change of attitude is already going on since a few years, at least here
what lacks is the resources, some things need a really big amount of time and dedication to be reached, appealing to the families willpower sounds silly but would honestly be the way
if the family is supporting the ill one the results will ALWAYS be better, whatever the problem he has
of course i understand the problematics of a whole morbidly obese family, how are they supposed to help if they cant fix their shit? we should probably focus on young people and make the teachings go to their parents, changing attitude after 30yo is extremly unlikely

Anyone got a graph which shows sugar content (Not fat) found in foods across nations and their respective obesity rates? I'm willing to gander that there's a correlation.

that graph would be shitty useless, what matters is their intake

I agree it should be tackled at a young age. Perhaps also advertising fast food should be banned, like for cigarettes.

Here's one graph. Also, refined sugar is 29% cheaper in America than the average price in developed nations.

Attached: global_consumptionGraph1.gif?1509030950.gif (800x670, 24K)

NYT is mexican owned they literally want the downfall of america

Where is Italy?

Sure you can still do CICO on a 50% sugar diet, but you'd be hungry all the time as that shit is barely satiating compared to fats/protons

I thought Americans were blaming it on genetics, despite evidence that anyone can lose weight.

Below France.

>Liberals Blame Criminality on Willpower, Despite Evidences It's Genetic
What if?

Attached: 1530298717673.jpg (645x924, 78K)

>free will doesn't exist

Intake isn't the only factor in gaining weight. The structures of the molecules make a huge difference and also how the foods a processed by the body from a physiological perspective.

people make the ill judgement that fat content = where the weight will be put on but fat can be exceedingly more healthy for you than carbohydrates such as refined sugars. Refined sugar is an extremely cheap 'additive'.
Secondly if the argument is that people are "addicted to food", well I would be willing to argue the majority of those that classify themselves as such are actually addicted to sugar and simply don't realise the foods they're eating are overflowing with the white stuff.

>Full fat yogurt - 3g Sugar, 5g Fat
>Fat free yogurt - 10g sugar,

honestly, as long as you train a bit it would work more or less well, the importance of phisical training is heavily underestimated, it's even more important than fixing your diet
my diet is relatively poor in proteins and rich in carbs but im still at a healthy bodyweight (could really use some extra training tho)
portions are probably a big concern too, the standard pasta dish here is 80g (dry), maybe murican show biased a little but they dont eat like humans, they are pigs in fattening

obesity is an increasing concern here too anyway, especially in low sociocultural classes (kids in south italy already more than 30% obese i think)

Im sure there is a correlation but it isn't the problem. Americans eat too much and are lazy as fuck. Then their kids grow up with this. Inactive homes where everyone is fat.
I feel bad for these kids. Their fat fuck parents likely had entrenched an awful lifestyle and diet into their minds before they are old enough to understand it.

>Intake isn't the only factor in gaining weight
it isnt, but if your intake is 3x your necessity it will be worse than a 1.2x unbalanced toward carbs one
of course its better to check both quantity and quality, fat is truly often demonized, when good fatty acids are better than carbs

>Louisiana
That's all you really need to know

>portions are probably a big concern too, the standard pasta dish here is 80g (dry), maybe murican show biased a little but they dont eat like humans, they are pigs in fattening
This. When I went to Italy I noticed that portions were simply smaller, and people ate a lot more slowly.

I lost like 130 lbs recently (well not recently of course, it’s taken awhile) and it’s because I stopped eating whole bags of chips with gallons of chocolate milk, not because I had my DNA altered. It’s comforting to think I am fat because it’s a genetic issue, maybe I have a slow metabolism or whatever. But adjusting your diet to that, if it’s true, is still up to yourself.

Attached: 3DB1D35B-EE80-4BA4-87F6-F5AE888B823B.jpg (229x249, 21K)

The main problem is diet and health misinfo

"Dieting" so that you're hungry makes you lose more muscle than fat. You need to either fast or go keto

I fully agree that people who are obese often need to curb their intake and are consuming far too much.
This recognition is more for those border lining obesity, but recognition of these problems would also help massively for those looking to lose weight, and not by diet but rather lifestyle reform (Which ultimately it would have to be should people wish to keep the weight off).
This is more an angle of people are their own worse enemies and don't realise that they're demonising the wrong things which would make losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight far easier.

Also I do still maintain the addictive factors of sugar can be a big contributor for gluttony to become common. I doubt all that many people realise sugar is a huge driving force for continuous consumption as sugar consumption has a reward mechanism within the brain.

Just want to re-emphasize that when I refer to sugar I'm discussing refined sugar.
Natural sugars are far healthy in proportions and don't want to cry about the demonising of fats while possibly come across as demonising natural sugars.

Don't forget that american 'sugar" is corn syrup.
Of course, lobbyists will tell you it is the same because it has the same atoms, ignoring that the spatial configuration is different.

I’m eating a clementine right now, how fucked am I?

what i dont understand is how the situation gets so much out of hand
i have periods when i eat more, then when i shower i look at myself and see the fat adding up, so i start to lower quantities and cut on snacks
its not hard, i dont understand people that end up at 150kg without realizing it, fuck you must have noticed when you couldnt see your dick anymore or when you had to buy new clothings
all of this smells of denial and it's hard to approach those people without getting angry

Fruit isn't nearly as bad. It has actual nutritional value, and because there's a lot of fiber in it the sugar gets absorbed into your bloodstream more slowly.

Oh haha that's really small, I generally use around 150-200g dry noodle, but then again I'm pretty much a once per day eater so there's that. 1.90m 81kg. A bit skinnyfat though as I don't do resistance training (other than some gardening here and there which at this time of the year doesn't amount to a lot)

since when was obesity categorized as a disease?

That and sugar. Michelle Obama tried to make kids eat healthier so the conservatards (probably funded by big sugar) had a heart attack and started attacking her plan, saying she “ruined school lunches” and got pizza declared a vegetable so that it would be considered healthy.

Depend on the number of endocrine disruptors from pesticids/herbicids.

Isn't the only difference it being 45% glucose 55% fructose while our "regular" one is 50-50? Doesn't seem THAT different desu, all sugar in excess is equally bad

if fat people bought new clothing, the world would be better

Wrong, that’s literally the attitude that got us to where we are. More focus needs to be put on sugar.

Well, what's the current point of this topic?
I came here too late to follow what is going on so please summarize it.

What the fuck don't you understand in "spatial configuration"?

Completely forgot Americas corn syrup but yeah that's an excellent point. It's even worse than what I was first banging on about.
People overlook the spatial configuration of the molecules they're consuming and I suppose can't blame them, after all it's at a molecular level but it's a big factor in how your body will store and process what you've consumed.

Everything within moderation is fine. What type of sugar (Molecule) you're consuming just changes the line in the sand as to where moderation of its consumption is.

dats a lot but you are bigger so if you do a phisical job or sport that should be fine, especially if you skip a meal
plus that's the pasta portion but there's always other side stuff

lack of willpower is the cause though
these threads are getting more retarded every day

Man, I remember the NYT was a respectable newspaper. What the fuck happened to them in the past 10 years?

I've made an awful image to try represent it a little. Don't be too critical, I made it within 2 minutes.

Attached: molecularspaceconsumption.png (440x56, 1K)

You mean where the molecules are connected? Does it matter in that case when both are broken to the same monomers by your spit? Not a biochemist

Literally google "trans fat" if you want an example of the impact of spatial configuration.

Online news wreaked havoc on all respectable outlets

They moved from centrist to the left and so SJW shit is seeping in.

Yeah I'm aware of cis vs trans config as they don't easily convert into each other. But how does it apply in the case of sugars? Can't the amylase(?) break down the HFCS like it can with saccharose or something?

NYT was always left of center and WSJ was always centrist/moderate. You only really find insane shit in the op-eds and opinion pieces of either paper anyway.

upvoted

Although the metabolism of fructose and glucose share many of the same intermediate structures, they have very different metabolic fates in human metabolism. Fructose is metabolized almost completely in the liver in humans, and is directed toward replenishment of liver glycogen and triglyceride synthesis, while much of dietary glucose passes through the liver and goes to skeletal muscle, where it is metabolized to CO2, H2O and ATP, and to fat cells where it is metabolized primarily to glycerol phosphate for triglyceride synthesis as well as energy production.[1] The products of fructose metabolism are liver glycogen and de novo lipogenesis of fatty acids and eventual synthesis of endogenous triglyceride. This synthesis can be divided into two main phases: The first phase is the synthesis of the trioses, dihydroxyacetone (DHAP) and glyceraldehyde; the second phase is the subsequent metabolism of these trioses either in the gluconeogenic pathway for glycogen replenishment and/or the complete metabolism in the fructolytic pathway to pyruvate, which enters the Krebs cycle, is converted to citrate and subsequently directed toward de novo synthesis of the free fatty acid palmitate.[1]

>1950's: more focus needs to be put on fats
>1990's: more focus needs to be put on carbs
>2000+: it's sugar, insulin, oh and muh keto, CARBS
When will you retards learn?

Attached: 1452718315110.jpg (191x264, 9K)

Knowledge is imperfect about the implication of giving artificial molecules to enzymes that are not designed for them.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/#!po=42.5000
So now, you can go back to my first post and decide by yourself if lobbies care more about americans health or about money.

>le pseudo intellectual complicating things
Eat 500kcal below your TDEE. End of discussion.

To be fair am getting a little off topic and muddying the waters between fats and sugars when the argument was initially in support of fats over sugars, it just kind of merged as went along.
The method of conversion of sugars into fats is not my strong suit.
Break down of sugars does differ, to which extents I'm not entirely sure.
*Did write a long section but to be honest I'm not sure if what I wrote is entirely correct and would rather not spread potentially false / misleading / irrelevant information"

Alright everyone. Pack up and go home, the Croatian has spoken.

We're discussing effectiveness rather than quantity. Quantity obviously is the major defining factor. This is simply going over how lesser quantities of some foods can have greater impacts than a higher quantity of another.