You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Americans Getting Taller, Much Heavier
2004-10-28
EFL:
Whoa! Watch your head there, big boy!
Better nutrition has helped Americans grow a little taller. But it's been too much of a good thing: The nation is also a whole lot fatter.
Yes. I've noticed my own tonnage increasing...
Adults are roughly an inch taller than they were in the early 1960s, on average, and nearly 25 pounds heavier, the government reported Wednesday.
Whatcha might call "the heaviest inch," huh?
The nation's expanding waistline has been well documented, though Wednesday's report is the first to quantify it based on how many pounds the average person is carrying. The reasons are no surprise: more fast food, more television and less walking around the neighborhood, to name a few. Earlier this year, researchers reported that obesity fueled by poor diet and lack of activity threatens to overtake tobacco use as the leading preventable cause of death.
Actually, I put on quite a few pounds when I dropped the gaspers. When I stopped fitting in my favorite chair and was biting people and calling them names for no reason, I took up the pipe, at which point I deflated somewhat, but not all the way...
The Rantburg house doc sez, lose the pipe.
In 1960-62, the average man weighed 166.3 pounds. By 1999-2002, the average had reached 191 pounds, according to the National Center for Health Statistics -- part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- which issued the report. Similarly, the report said, the average woman's weight rose from 140.2 pounds to 164.3 pounds. At same time, though less dramatically, Americans are getting a little bit taller. Men's average height increased from 5 feet 8 inches in the early 1960s to 5 feet 9 1/2 inches in 1999-2002. The average height of a woman, meanwhile, went from just over 5 feet 3 inches to 5 feet 4 inches. The increases in height and weight are both fueled by the availability of more food, researchers say. To reach genetic potential for height, the human body needs a certain level of nourishment, and Wednesday's report shows that Americans have achieved it, said David Katz, director of Yale University's Prevention Research Center.
There are fewer opportunities for what you might call "normal" exercise. When I was a lad, we walked to the grocery store and we could walk downtown to shop. Zoning laws in most places don't allow for the growth of small towns like that, so people drive instead. We cut the grass with a push mower, trimmed the hedges with clippers, and when we did something around the house we cut wood with hand saws. And most people smoked, which also tends to keep weight down. The workplace has become more sedentary as well; you don't see a lot of ads for laborers anymore, and there aren't many people willing to take the jobs anyway. Even if there were, wages and benefits have risen to the point where it's cheaper to buy a machine to dig ditches.

The net result is that exercise becomes more formalized and ritualistic, and also something that can be put off. That's really too bad, but it's an effect of multiple causes, each of which has a set of benefits that we don't want to give up. A hundred years ago, it was normal for men and women in middle age to become a bit portly; it was a sign of success in life, meaning you could buy groceries regularly, which is something we take for granted now. When housewives first began counting calories in the early 1900s it was to make sure the family was getting enough, not too many. The society we live in today is more prosperous for more people than the society of 1904, so there's more of that particular sign of success. Not quite paradoxically, it's the rich folks today, who have the liesure to devote to the gym, who're slim trim and beautiful. The rest of us, filling most of the hours of our day with multiple desk jobs and food taken on the run, grow more portly.
Posted by:Mark Espinola

#18  Bad science. BMI is lame as a indicator of obesity. Body fat % would be much more accurate. We've got some fat people, yes, but there are also a lot of people with high bone densities and muscle mass that are plenty fit, though their BMI is above 25. BMI is a lazy scientists tool.
Posted by: Beau   2004-10-28 10:53:01 PM  

#17  LOL JQ.C!
Posted by: Shipman   2004-10-28 5:24:52 PM  

#16  
#14: Yeah. I'd be perfectly proportioned if I was 11'6"...
Posted by: Fred   2004-10-28 5:12:52 PM  

#15  I gave up sex for food and now I can't even get in to my OWN pants.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2004-10-28 4:12:11 PM  

#14  On attending rounds, I like to say that an obese patient is simply "too short for his weight."
Posted by: Steve White   2004-10-28 3:00:55 PM  

#13  Heterosis, i.e. acceleration of dimensions from one generation to another is natural. Expanding waistlines is not a part of heterosis.

Now that we have gotten bigger. We need to work on stronger, bulletproof, and being invisible.
Posted by: John Q. Citizen   2004-10-28 12:41:59 PM  

#12  This increase is attributable mainly to overeating, which probably accounts for more than half the overall effect. I'd bet the decline in smoking in this country also has had a very significant impact.

The decline in walking/exercise cannot account for more than 20% or so of the 25-lb average increase in weight. To put it another way, if you increase your daily exercise/walking by half an hour-- unlikely that most people have enough free time today to increase it by any more than this amount, on average-- you will not shed more than 5 lbs or so.

Likewise, fatty foods consumed in reasonable proportions have little effect on weight. The key factor here is the size of the average food portion, which has become simply grotesque in this country over the last thirty years.

This has been aided by an absolute price decline for most foodstuffs, which allows restaurants today to tout the amount rather than the quality of their food and also allows everyone, even the poorest Americans, to stuff themselves with far more food than we consumed during the days when people still remembered the Depression. Only in wealthy, low-cost, hyper-efficient supersized America are the poorest people also the fattest ones.
Posted by: lex   2004-10-28 11:54:35 AM  

#11  10 yrs? Shit. Too late.

[ultra mini meme rant]
Now I know how Christopher Reeves felt just before he died, "If only Kerry and Edwards were in office, I'd be walking, running, jumping..."

Bush Lied. Reeves Died.
[/ultra mini meme rant]

Oxymoron of the Day: You Can't Wait For Good Timing.
Posted by: Regnad Kcin   2004-10-28 11:46:59 AM  

#10  Mark: “it's an effect of multiple causes”

Yes, changing exercise patterns is a major cause. As is the variety and abundance of tasty prepared foods that are never more that a few steps away. There may also be a genetic connection of fatter people having more children. There are also recent studies indicating that lifetime fat regulation is affected by nutrition in the womb. The problem is complicated.

The good news is that the significant progress is being made on understanding how our bodies are regulated. It is likely that within ten years obesity will be largely treatable.
Posted by: Anonymous5032   2004-10-28 11:36:17 AM  

#9  Fat cells, why do they hate us?
Posted by: mhw   2004-10-28 11:30:02 AM  

#8  I keep telling my tall buddies I'm average height and weight - for somebody in the early 1960's ;)
Posted by: Jarhead   2004-10-28 11:18:34 AM  

#7  I keep telling my tall buddies I'm average height and weight - for somebody in the early 1960's ;)
Posted by: Jarhead   2004-10-28 11:18:21 AM  

#6  No it's a mistake by your humble and troll-button trigger-finger happy Seafarious. My apologies, DB. I sent a note to Fred to fish you out. Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
Posted by: Seafarious   2004-10-28 11:18:21 AM  

#5  DB's a troll? is that a new development?
Posted by: Frank G   2004-10-28 11:13:00 AM  

#4  "Fat" by Weird Al
Posted by: Steve from Relto   2004-10-28 11:08:32 AM  

#3  TGA - As they say in Detroit, the bigger the wheelbase, the smoother the ride. ;)
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2004-10-28 10:22:27 AM  

#2  Same could be said for the cars :-)
Posted by: True German Ally   2004-10-28 10:04:23 AM  

#1  Interesting using 1960 as a baseline, why not 1950 or 1900? Maybe because there has been a regular increase in height and weight for an extended period of time and using data before 1960 you can't blame processed food?

Compare two charts drawn over mutlple years. One of the percentage of Americans 'overweight' and the second the percentage of Americans not smoking. BTW, kids would be effected by the use of tobacco in a household.

The next political movement after Marxism, Nannyism. We're doing this for your own good.
Posted by: Don   2004-10-28 10:00:33 AM  

00:00