From my understanding of US social history, "back in the day" when women were forced to sit at home and be "mommy" all day and have dinner on the table by the time dad got home . . . there were a whole lot of unfullfilled, lonely, depressed women taking medications to keep them "happy" with the life they were handed. Personally, I'd rather live in today's society (as a woman) in which I actually have choices about what to do with my life. Health isn't simply about physical well-being or an ideal BMI; its about self-fullfillment, happiness, and the freedom to make choices about ones own life. Now, that ideal health certainly isn't being achieved by everyone (not by a long shot), but I think it far more attainable today than in any other point in history.

I think this would be true of anyone. If you create an environment where any person remains sedentary while eating excessive calories, he or she will gain weight. If I were to remain motionless while eating 10,000 calories worth of steak daily, I’ll set the world’s record for fastest to 500lbs!



I’d imagine that in whatever time period we isolate, there can be found “triggers” in every respective society which mirrors our own when it comes to precipitating a certain action or inaction. Of course, I haven’t the foggiest as to the varying degrees on the severity of triggering or tipping point events over a wide period of time. However, I must agree that historically, the affluent were more slender than they were corpulent. The only difference is the impoverished were “never” corpulent. This is the main difference, in my view. The wealthy of the past never had access to fast food, ready made ice cream, or candy bars for a buck on every other street corner. The stark contrast is that these days, anyone has ready access to such an abundance of every kind of food imaginable. I’d imagine that 100 years ago, even for the wealthy, it would require a very concerted effort to get fat, which is completely unlike today where becoming fat is effortless.



I’m curious, why do you feel this is true?

In my view, I don’t believe our lives are any more or less stressful than any other period in history. If anything, I’d imagine being a nobleman during the turbulent French revolution, or being on the wrong side during the many great wars, or those persecuted during the Spanish inquisition to be far more stressful than being an everyday American feeling entitled to live a life completely absolved of any responsibility for his or her actions, or non actions. Yet, we are the generation afflicted with the obesity epidemic, while we never hear of stories of fat Neanderthals running away from those giant elephants and overgrown tigers with big teeth.



I’m not sure I fully appreciate the relationship between feeling the angst of stress and eating too much. I infer that you believe there exists a positive correlation between stress and overeating?

Since this is the war zone, I’ll throw up this politically incorrect hypothesis that will be sure to incite some ire. A common trait of many (certainly not all) self-made “successful” people is discipline. I’ve rarely ever met a highly disciplined person not realize his or her goals. Perhaps, it is because most successful people are perfectionists, they also make every effort and already have the discipline to conform to whatever society defines as physically ideal as well, whereas those who are impoverished (lacking discipline or drive compared to the self-made person) lack not only the discipline to improve their situation (assuming they wish to improve it), but also lacking discipline in other areas of their lives as well, such as refraining from eating too much.

Is it possible that those traits (ambition, drive, and discipline), which characterize the self-made successful person is what keeps one from over-indulging?



If the stats compiled are correct, in America obesity now comprises of roughly 60% of the population. So, I infer that you’re asserting 60% of Americans are afflicted with one form or another of metabolic disease?

Firstly, I find that kind of…er…high. LOL

Secondly, even if true, if these 60% of American’s will power utterly incapacitated by a metabolic disease (I’m sure some are, but certainly not 60%), would they still be obese if there weren’t such a widespread availability of abundant food?

Finally, would these 60% be obese 300 years ago?



I could not agree with you more that obesity is not and should not ever be considered a human failing. I would hope that we’ve evolved enough in our civilization that it is perfectly acceptable to be whomever or whatever one wishes to be. Clearly, obesity has been marked as common in our generation; however, that certainly isn’t the case historically. For 99.9% of our evolution, being slender was our most natural state.

What has changed from now and the past when obesity weren’t as widespread as it is now? Could modern stress, work ethic, and dedication being the culprit for obesity? Every era had more than it’s share of the latter. Again, the main difference is that modernity has made food abundant, and physical activity unnecessary.



Woo, that is very true.

Great things are accomplished by ordinary people aspiring to extraordinary feats. In my view, it is our birthright and within each of us to strive to accomplish similar feats when the drive, determination, and necessity all conspire us to.



I'm not sure what is causing it, but I suspect it's having both elements of widely available food and overeating?

The need to surpress weight is driven by most people's view that slender is more aesthetically pleasing in appearance to being not slender. Of course, there are exceptions, but in general, slender is attractive, while fat isn't. Why? I don't know. The media? Genetics? Enviroment? I have no idea. All I know is that in the era and society in which I live, being slender and fit is seen as attractive while being fat and out of shape isn't.

What does that mean? It means that many of us will feel a need to surpress weight.

I have 2 cats and a dog, and they will eat whatever is made available to them. I walk the dog regularly and she spends most days running around outside, but she gains weight quickly if she's fed too much. I've even put her on weight control a few times, and she's young too. The cats are pretty chubby too, but far to finicky for the weight control food. My point is, they would be overweight if I let them eat as much as they want to. So I agree with this theory.

On the other hand, we humans have knowledge to our advantage, so we have tools to control our instincts. But stress is a huge factor for me personally. Stress makes you lose control of those instincts. It's the "fight or flight" mechanism. Your nervous system can only funtion in one of two ways, being "fight or flight" or "feed and breed". It can't do both. So when your in "fight or flight" and you eat a lot it automatically causes a relaxation response. (I've simplified for the sake of typing less)
When I'm too stressed I always gain.

I agree with the notion that modern living causes obesity. We are always trying to get more than we have. If we don't have it then we don't feel successful. I think that's one reason poor people have more problems with obesity, other than fattening food being cheap. Vegetables are cheap, so are a lot of cuts of meat. But we feel like we have to get what's being sold to us to be successful. Then we're stressed because we can't afford it...

Sure it was stressful in old times, but the food just wasn't as plentiful. It couldn't be used for medicating because there wasn't enough. Plus, needless to say, they moved a lot more than we do.

I'm trying, as part of this diet, to have every meal at the table. Of course I fall short but we're having many more meals at home. For one, it's cheaper. There's a few less hours I need to work so I'll have time to cook. Also, it's been really fun! I love the time spent with the family. We're busy just like everyone else, but I've noticed that eating at home is more relaxing than stressful. Plus, If we just have to go somewhere it takes just as long to throw some fruit, veggies, peanut butter, or something like that in a cooler as it does to get through the drive-through. I keep cut veggies and boiled eggs ready to go all the time, prep takes less than 1 hr on Sundays. A week's worth costs about the same as 1 family meal at the drive through. I think it's saving some stress in the long run.

interesting topic!

Sing it!!


Sing that even louder!!

As far as the French...they invented the "hypermarche." Bigger than a supermarket, the "hypermarket." When did they invent it? In the 1970s. While they do have great farmer's markets in some places, they all go to Carrefour (which is like a CostCo mated with a SuperTarget, plus a cheese market and fish market). There are more compact ones in urban locations, but there are nearly 200 Carrefour stores in France (cliquez ici). You'd have to be from a pretty remote district not to have been to one - plus they are international, with nearly 7000 hypermarkets around the world (cliquez-moi).

I just don't agree that life is somehow harder or more complex now. Brain scans of Aboriginal Australians living out in the bush showed they lead complicated mental lives and dream just as complex dreams as modern urban humans. Complexity and stress are a part of the human experience.

I've heard that the body doesn't really differentiate between stress coming from unemployment, bills, debt, etc. and the stress originating from a tiger. I don't know if that is true or not, but our society certainly does accommodate obesity. And even the healthier options on the fast food menus are often more expensive than their unhealthy counterparts. It costs me 5 bucks and then some for a salad at McDonalds, I could have ordered two cheeseburgers for half that.

I don't think there is any mystery to metabolic disease in America. I could readily believe that those 60% of obese folks have it. However, sometimes diet and eating healthy adds other stress because it's something that has to be worked out and done, and being that metabolic disease is complicated, it takes a lot of work and research. In other words, it's more work to add onto other work. My conscience towards food might be different if I had two kids and was working two jobs to feed them, it might be more relaxed and I might pay more attention to expense rather than obesity.

For me, I think the difference between the two people is the same as the difference between two people who gamble. One who can do that occasionally-think it is fun and let it go. The other who cannot go a day without some kind of wager. There seems to be two or three different underlying reasons for any kind of destructive behaviors-over eating, gambling addictions, alcoholism, what have you.

The first is physiological/genetic based. You mentioned that both of your examples did not trigger any metabolic mechanisms so we will ignore this one. Although I think that is a large part of the issue.

The second is psychologically based. In my own personal opinion as a nonpsychologist (and let me stress that-my education is anatomical, evolutionary and biologically oriented) I think that being human is hard. We have these huge brains, awareness of selfhood as separate from others, awareness of our own mortality, awareness of the otherness of different people, blah, blah, blah. It leads to a void and/or conflict inside that can be temporarily filled with food, sex, gambling....anything that will alleviate the internal conflict of all that awareness.

I think there is also an existential component, but that will take far too long to write at the moment.

Or it could be just like Frederick said-the propensity to overeat is an animal thing-since most animals spend a lot of their time getting food when it is easily available it is almost natural to overeat to buffer for times when it is not so available. Then again, one of my cats does overeats, while the other one does not.

Since the dawn of agricultural civilization, we have been increasingly bombarded with commercially and/or politically motivated messages to give up our personal power, whether that power is our health, our self-esteem or our inherent ability to be our own best spiritual authorities. We are encouraged at every turn to see ourselves as fundamentally flawed - physically, psychologically, morally, spiritually - and dependent on the government, religious authorities and the medical establishment for direction in all things. And as long as we accept that, we remain slaves to these systems. Chronically ill, unhappy, and spiritually bankrupt.

Wyv

Keep in mind that you are saying this from the perspective of having always had a choice.
I find it interesting that we have come full circle from those days and now those who make the choice to stay home and be 'mommy' all day are looked down on by those who choose to have full time careers and perhaps even forgo having children in favor of having a career. IMO, if someone is bored and unhappy the great majority of the time they have noone to blame for that but themselves.

"Keep in mind that you are saying this from the perspective of having always had a choice.
I find it interesting that we have come full circle from those days and now those who make the choice to stay home and be 'mommy' all day are looked down on by those who choose to have full time careers and perhaps even forgo having children in favor of having a career. IMO, if someone is bored and unhappy the great majority of the time they have noone to blame for that but themselves."

I don't know that stay at home moms are "looked down on" by any other segment of the population, particularly. Seems that its more of a self-inflicted stigma, from my viewpoint. Sure, you'll have people say "I wouldn't want to do that" or somesuch. I don't know if merely stating that it wouldn't be something you'd do, is necessarily looking down on someone else's choice to do it. Lot's of people wouldn't want to do what I've chosen to do, either . . . doesn't mean I think they're all looking down on me. Different choices for different people.

I do get irked at those who flaunt their "stay at homeness" as some badge that they're a better parent . . . .personally, I think its all about results; outcome based practices.

The parenting debate, I'm sure, is an entirely different thread.

I'm a stay at home mum - well for the most part (I have a part time job while they're at school). I see it as an honour and a priviledge. Its the most important job in the world, bringing up the next generation and looking after my OH so that he can concentrate on his job, earning enough money for me to stay at home and look after everyone.

If I'm "looked down on" because I'm just a wife and mother then society needs to re-evaluate its priorities. I think my job is much more important and less stressful than a career and wouldnt change it for anything - just my opinion!

My sister and I fit the "two people" analogy well. I've always been the compulsive eater, and she (two years younger) has been the moderate sensible one.
This question has always puzzled me: why do I have weight problems, and problems with controlling portions/ recognising when I am full/ not obsessing over food, while my sister has never had these problems, obsessed over food or been on any diet? She eats a little of whatever she wants including refined carbs but doesn't get addicted or binge. Her figure is great. And I've been battling this food addiction thing for YEARS.
I still don't know why, but I feel as if it is physiological, because it's like I'm programmed to gorge and she is programmed to have good satiety mechanisms. I'm trying to conciously recognise this tendency every time I have a meal, and conciously stop eating when my body has had enough. It is a work in progress.

Oh well, that's life, huh? - Sorry, I rambled...

Trust me, they often are and IMO undeservedly so.
http://mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc....&id=85583&cn=82
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ywars/mommy.htm

Of course, that's a new form of stress that only the middle and upper class must face. But what about the stress of those who would desperately love to stay home and raise their own children but are forced to go earn a living just so their families can have the basics or because they are the only income earner due to divorce or single parenthood? Women are facing more and different types of stress now than they ever did 75 years ago.
After all, there is no such thing as a free lunch and 'having it all' often comes with a high price tag.

All this talk of how society is responsible for the obesity epidemic has really made me think. I know exactly what it is that led me to my weight problem...

It's those darn starving kids in China.

Every time I didn't clean my plate, I got reminded of the starving kids in China who would be grateful for what I was wasting... the guilt and shame clearly have scarred me for life.

I knew it was society, and not my own choices that did it.

I used to look down on SAHM'S before I had kids too. I thought they were sitting around letting their husbands earn the money. I thought they were disrespecting the whole feminist movement! Then I had kids...
I've worked too, and personally I couldn't stop calling in so I could spend time with my kids so I just quit. I know that I'm lucky to have the choice, as my husband makes enough for us to get by on. And I stress "get by". But it is a choice, and I'm glad to have it.

It's pretty damn stressful though! And I was a paramedic before I had kids, so it's not like I had a stress free job. I think being a parent is stressful no matter how you do it.

But to relate this to the topic, IMO it's easier to keep the family less "hurried" with one parent at home. That's assuming you can pay the bills... I don't think you have to stay home to be a better parent. But you do have a lot more time to plan meals. It's easier in that aspect.

I think this is partially correct Jo.

Where I disagree is the assumption that this ability for some humans to gain weight uncontrollably - never decreasing appetite or increasing lipolysis enough to control weight - is the way bodies are supposed to react. This is not normal, it (obesity, morbid obesity especially) is a progressive disease.

I think a body, when healthy, decreases appetite and increases metabolism to maintain weight. I've just seen too many people like this to believe that all people will eat endlessly and gain weight unless they structure themselves. It can't be about willpower, or pleasure from food, or any other factor either because I've met plenty of people who were just like me in their attitudes toward enjoying food and over eating. The only difference is after they eat that nice meal at the restaurant, they are stuffed later, and, their bodies metabolisms increase... so they never gain weight. On the other hand, unless I select low carb foods and am very careful not to regularly eat big portions regularly so as to keep my sugar under control, over eating just makes me hungrier and makes it harder for my body to use fat/sugar energy.

I think this is metabolic syndrome obesity in a nutshell. Some people, the more they eat the fuller they feel and the more energy they make. In other people, the more they eat the hungrier they get and the more impossible it is for the body to create energy. Actually, I should put the energy status part of the equation first, since, it is energy status which regulates our satiety levels through the hypothalamus. It is more appropriate to say that some people just "burn up" everything they eat so to speak; this creates an extremely high energy state and hunger levels decrease as appropriate. In other words, cals out and cals in balance out perfectly at all times for a person with a very low tendency to this. For some people, the more food they consume, the less reliable the body can make energy and thus the whole system is thrown out of wack... those people, like me, become obese very easily.


I agree with you in another respect. I do think a greater sensitivity to it (metabolic syndrome obesity) was probably evolutionarily conserved in certain ethnic populations or human lineages who were subject to a relatively less stable food supply, because it yielded such a tremendous benefit. Sorta how sickle cell anemia was conserved in african americans because it increases resistance to malaria. I think the trait is normal. I don't think, though, that everyone has it nor do I think what we have here in america is normal at all. I do agree with your evolutionary theory of over eating and weight gain. I just disagree that it is the way all humans are default to opperate, and instead, I think waht you are describing is a trait. This is a trait we all manifest in varying degrees. Some of us develop it quickly whereas others never really do.

It is a product of our genes combined with environment. Environment has to trip the switch. What trips it? The switch is tripped by stress (undersleeping, stimulants, pregnancy, environment), as well as darkness, coldness, carbohydrate and over eating (high sugar levels). High sugar (and darkness/coldness) correlates with fall; I think the body has learned to associate high sugar with impending stressors (winter).

To summerize:
1) I think the tendency to gain weight uncontrollably in the presence of an unrestricted food supply is a disease, and it is by no means how healthy human bodies work
2) I think this disease is an extreme manifestation of a trait (a cluster of genetic factors) that exists on a continuum. Some people barely have it, like the thin girl I mentioned earlier. Others have it very badly and become obese immediately and very early in life in the same environment.
3) This trait manifests more strongly in humans who were subject to less stable food supplies as it provided a benefit; today it just causes diseases most of the time.
4) The trait is a product of genes and environment; you can control the environment to reduce the expression of the trait.
5) Over eating does not cause obesity. Over eating is just one catalyst of many that "trips the switch" and encourages manifestation of the trait. Carbs, and various kinds of stresses and environments do too.