Obesity epidemic due solely to increased food intake? 2009 European Congress on Obesity in Amsterdam

The obesity epidemic in the US is due solely to increased food intake

May 14, 2009

Melbourne, Australia - The amount of food Americans eat has been increasing since the 1970s, and that alone is the cause of the obesity epidemic in the US today [1]. Physical activity—or the lack thereof—has played virtually no role in the rising number of expanding American waistlines, according to research presented at the 2009 European Congress on Obesity in Amsterdam last week.

The finding is contrary to the widely held assumption that decreased physical activity is an equally important driver of overweight and obesity in the US, said lead author Dr Boyd Swinburn (Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia).

If Americans want to get serious about winning the battle of the bulge, they are going to have to cut down on the amount of food they eat, Swinburn, who is director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention, told heartwire.

But, he warned, that won't be easy. "The food industry has done such a great job of marketing their products, making the food so tasty that it's almost irresistible, pricing their products just right, and placing them everywhere, that it is very hard for the average person to resist temptation. Food is virtually everywhere, probably even in churches and funeral parlors."



I eat [too much], therefore I'm fat


How much this rise in obesity has been driven by excess calorie intake and how much by decreased physical activity has been a topic of debate for years but has been difficult to pin down, Swinburn said. He and his colleagues estimated those proportions by devising a series of equations that took into account energy intake, energy expenditure, and body size in 963 children and 1399 adults. They also analyzed the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) food-supply data to determine how much food had actually been delivered to the US population between 1970 and 2002.

Using that information, they then predicted the increases in weight in children and adults between 1971 and 1976 and between 1999 and 2002. If the predicted weight equaled the observed weight, increased food consumption was presumed to be the cause of the weight increase. If the predicted weight was higher or lower than the weight that was actually observed, it was assumed that changes in physical-activity levels were the cause.


"Americans have been eating more; the USDA data clearly show this. But US epidemiological data shows that physical-activity levels haven't really changed all that much. So I think we have to be much more focused on the energy-intake side of the energy-balance equation in understanding what the drivers of obesity are and also in working out what the solutions are," Swinburn commented. "We still need to continue to promote increases in physical activity, because exercise has a lot of positive physiologic benefits, but our level of expectation about the impact of physical activity on weight gain has to be a bit more tempered."

The food industry is driving overconsumption


Promoting physical activity has been the favored approach to solving the problem of obesity by politicians and the food industry, said Swinburn. "It's relatively uncontroversial, there are no commercial competitors, it's a positive thing to do, so politicians, egged on by the food industry, heavily promote the physical-activity side of the equation."

Swinburn said that the food industry has been "extraordinarily successful" in promoting excessive intake of calories. "They've worked their marketing out to the nth degree. They've got the products that we like to eat, they've got the price right—in fact the price of junk food has been coming down for years and is getting cheaper and cheaper. Food is everywhere. In the 1970s, in Australia, when you went to a petrol station you used to buy petrol. Now it's a chocolate and fast-food station. The food industry has done all they can to sell their products, and they're doing it extremely well."

The food industry has also mastered promotion, especially to the most vulnerable and impressionable members of society—children. "Over the past 30 years they have become very sophisticated in marketing and advertising that is particularly iniquitous in relation to kids. They are adept in the way they turn kids into liking, preferring, demanding, and pestering for the foods that they advertise."

Spokespersons for the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology praised the study, even though its results are not surprising. "This is a nice study. It reflects many of the things that we have predicted, but I'm glad to see that it has been presented and that it is going to be published somewhere," said AHA spokesperson Dr Gerald Fletcher (Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Florida).

Lower-caloric, healthier foods are also more expensive, and this can pose a problem for families with two or three kids when they go to the supermarket to shop. "The less expensive foods are those the industry can provide, with lots of calories. It's a socioeconomic problem as much as anything," Fletcher said.

ACC spokesperson Dr Matthew Sorrentino (University of Chicago), agreed that Swinburn and colleagues verified what experts in the obesity field had long suspected.

"The main cause of the obesity epidemic in this country is the wide availability of high-caloric foods and the fact that we are eating way too many calories in the course of a day. Exercise has much less impact."

Sorrentino said that about 90% of weight loss is achieved by cutting calories; only about 10% of weight loss is achieved by significantly increasing physical activity.


http://www.theheart.org/article/970183.do

[GSDgirl]

Thank you Port.  I just copied and pasted that and sent it to hubbies email.  

[Trinity4]

Looks like the Europeans aren't such sticklers on political correctness.  They aren't the fat society Americans are either.

"An additional issue with regard to language is that many in the fat acceptance movement find the terms "obese" and "overweight" offensive, as they are often used to make overtly prejudiced statements seem more clinical or scientific. The word "fat" is generally preferred".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizeism

[Rockerforlife]

Simple...you eat too much you get fat.

[Rockerforlife]

Like i said before...the commericial food industry and the medicail industry are in cohorts together....the cra.p food makes us sick ,and the docs charge you cash to get "fixed up"....cancer is caused by the additives in the food...its just common sense....eat smart

[mikesimon]

Nothing is unpredictable or rational

[Spirito]

indeed europe and and australia are catching up

[IAmTheWalrus]

I recently heard Jared Diamond lecture about the problem being evolved in our genes from the years as hunter-gatherer societies when it was feast and famine cycles. Ouf bodies/brains evolved to eat excessively when food was available, the genetic advantage was that those who put on lots of weight were more likely to survive the times of famine, long journeys, and periods of instability. The gene that causes more stilulation to insulin making is very pronounced in genetic material form those societies. This same effect was present through the centuries of agrarian societies.

Only after the industrial revolution was there a huge change in the availability of food. So, now we are eating three square meals per day, 365 days a year, and our prehistoric brain and body systems are adapted to overstimulate insulin production to turn as much of those carbs into fat. The result is in the huge increase in type II diabetes seen as epidemic.

Interestingly, the developing parts of the world have the biggest epidemic of type II diabetes on their hands while european countries have the least. Americans have a higher rate than Europe, but much less than the developing countries. This squares with Diamond's theory about the lag in our genes to adapt to having food abundantly available. One would expect the Europeans have had the longest to adapt while developing countries have only experienced this change in diet more recently, quite recently in the perspective of history.

I think that the adaptation is genetic evolution, with the gene controlling insulin production, and perhaps also behavioral, learning not to eat so much.

Europeans, don't be too smug. The Yanks are only a little behind and the rest of the world will adapt. In the meantime it seems that some forced restraint will help aleviate the short term problem until our genes adapt.

I am a big guy, but pretty slim for a walrus! I am trying to keep it that way though my appetite has returned well since finishing TX.

Prof. Diamonds lecture was very facinating. Perhaps this material is covered in one of his books, I don't know.

[moahunter]

I think the stuff about it being genetic is hogwash. If I feed my pet dog too much food, she gets fat. If I eat too much food, I get fat. If don't eat too much food, or take lots of interferon, I get skinny. You never see a fat person when they show pictures of poor locations in Africa, because they don't eat too much food.

As to it being a grand conspiracy by fast food and similar to make people fat, that's nonesense as well. Of coure they are going to try to sell more of their products, but making people fat is not the goal, its just about making money. If a person is too stupid to not be able to figure out that even the smallest blizzard size is way too large a portion for any healthy person, IMO, they deserve to be "fat".

[Bobby1952]

    Its always the people that haven't developed a weight problem yet that make statements about people gaining weight. I work out with weights 4 times a week, I jog 4 times a week and in the nice weather ride my bike 3-4 times a week yet even though I am not fat I am heavier than I would like to be.

   I eat 3 healthy meals a day and I still have to watch what I eat as I get older. No matter how much I exercise my metabolism has still slowed down as I get older. Some people find it hard to exercise regularly so as they age they gain weight because they  can afford to eat 3 meals a day. A lot of our parents and grandparents couldn't afford it as they aged so they cut down.

   Most people I know do not eat a lot but they are heavier than they want to be. Sorry if I went on and on but this is not easy for everyone like it may be for you.

Bobby

[moahunter]

^my comments probably don't come across as being very "sensitive", but on this issue, I struggle to be. I don't find it "easy" to maintain my weight, and to be honest, it annoys me a bit when people who are overweight think it is - that they have it "harder". I don't buy that for one minute.

I maintain my weight by being careful as to what portion sizes I eat, and how often I eat. If my weight starts going outside the healty range, I restrict my calories, even if it means I go to bed a little hungry. Exercise is important to be healthy, but to be honest, I don't think it is the key to whether one is fat or skinny. It is a simple formula of calories in, greater than calories out. Even a person who can't exercise can reduce calorie intake - it is not IMO the great challenge that it is made out to be. We have just become a "lazy" society that always finds somebody else to blame for our problems (like "parents" in the case of the genetics "explanation").

[IAmTheWalrus]

I think you may have missed Jared Diamond's point a little. It is just that we have evolved for tens of thousands of years or more to adapt to a lifestyle where we are not constantly fed and our bodies are designed to encourage us to overeat in times of plenty. Our bodies did not evolve in a situation where we have plenty of food, and that with high sugar/caloric properties, that is constantly available and convenient, like we have now. It is definitely overeating that is the cause of obesity and type II diabetes.

His point is that we have evolved to do this and we are in the process of adjusting to a different environment where we have plenty of food. Over time natural selection will weed out the genes that predispose us to overeat and select those that prosper in our current environment. In the meantime, it is up to us to watch out for our health and that requires discipline. We need to be smart enough to not have to wait for evolution to catch up.

I liked the elegance with which his hypothesis was born out by facts in studies and observation. Particularly the part concerning which societies are showing the steepest rates of obesity and type II diabetes. His hypothesis predicts, as is shown the case in recent studies on type II diabetes demographics, that the least problem would be with western europeans and the greatest problem would be among Chinese and other developing societies that are relative newcomers to a "food always" environment.

Certainly Diamond was not making excuses for overeating or anybody's obesity. Indeed, he is thin as a rail and says that obesity and diabetes are dire threats to humanity and he is pointing out some root causes for scientific purposes.

It was all quite interesting. The way one interprets this data to discredit or to suit a particular set of prejudices, to excuse or to condemn, is outside of the realm of science. Personally, I feel kind of sorry for the morbidly obese, even if it is their own doing, but when I am on a plane I am glad when that 300+ pound mass passes my row!

Just food for thought..

[IAmTheWalrus]

Don't get the wrong idea about my name (different story altogether) .... I am a big guy as in 6'-5". I've kept my weight at 220 lbs (100 kg).

[PrettyPoisonNoMore]

I think sugar, fructose corn syrup and refined flour are addictive and almost self reinforcing. The more you eat the more you want.  I always feel much better and can better control my eating when I abstain and eat more natural veggies, fruits, lean meats.  This is just based on my own observations about my own eating habits.

[IAmTheWalrus]

Found the same....when I eat sugar, I want more sugar. When I eat healthy food only, I don't crave the sugar.  Kind of a vicious circle.

[pigeonca]

When I was a kid, back in the fifties, we had one car for a family of four (3 of whom could drive).  Now everybody has their own car.  We used to hang up our laundry on the line; now we have dryers.  We used to stand at the sink and wash and dry dishes; now we have machines for that.  Even though people didn't "exercise" as such, I recall a lot more movement in the course of the day.  Just visiting a coworker in a neighboring cubicle vs. sending an email will burn a few calories.  And that burn is cumulative. In fact I once read that people who fidget weigh less than people who sit still.  So I don't quite believe that study.

[portann]

I myself agree with the study, although I saw first-hand like you the transformation of our society into a less active one for daily routines. We're more sedentary and while we're sedentary, we're snacking.

Most of us would  benefit by reducing caloric intake. Our gut reaction is more is better. I can't tell you how many times I know I'm full and keep eating.

[IAmTheWalrus]

Click finger tired .... can't speak ...