Article

2004-10-28 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-10-28 6:16:21 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2004-10-28 10:00:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Same could be said for the cars :-)

Posted by True German Ally 2004-10-28 10:04:23 AM|| 2004-10-28 10:04:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-10-28 10:22:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 "Fat" by Weird Al

Posted by Steve from Relto 2004-10-28 11:08:32 AM|| 2004-10-28 11:08:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 DB's a troll? is that a new development?

Posted by Frank G 2004-10-28 11:13:00 AM|| 2004-10-28 11:13:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-10-28 11:18:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-10-28 11:18:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-10-28 11:18:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Fat cells, why do they hate us?

Posted by mhw 2004-10-28 11:30:02 AM|| 2004-10-28 11:30:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Mark: âit's an effect of multiple causesâ

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|| 2004-10-28 11:36:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-10-28 11:46:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-10-28 11:54:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-10-28 12:41:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-10-28 3:00:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-10-28 4:12:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#16
#14: Yeah. I'd be perfectly proportioned if I was 11'6"...

Posted by Fred 2004-10-28 5:12:52 PM|| 2004-10-28 5:12:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 LOL JQ.C!

Posted by Shipman 2004-10-28 5:24:52 PM|| 2004-10-28 5:24:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-10-28 10:53:01 PM|| Front Page Top