323

One in five children on the planet is now overweight or obese. (english.elpais.com)

submitted 4 months ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

76 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Blizzard@lemmy.zip 167 points 4 months ago

[-] alyth@lemmy.world 37 points 4 months ago

lmfao you are a genius

[-] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago

It's even better when you consider Kenny is malnourished and extremely poor

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

So they say, but he doesn't look any different than the rest of them under that hood.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago

One in five children is ~~overweight~~ big-boned

[-] rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

I haven't watched that show in ages and my brain still accompanies this image with that little musical twang.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 100 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Totally nothing to do with rising sugar content in all foods globally and lack of proper nutritional foods

[-] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 60 points 4 months ago

Exactly. And somehow the top of the article says

According to new research, skipping breakfast or excessive screen time are risk factors for developing obesity

Oh yah, it's definitely because kids skip breakfast (and the 22g of sugar per teaspoon) and screens.

[-] De_Narm@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago

I can get behind the logic of more screen time probably meaning less physical activity. But someone needs to explain to me how eating less would ever lead to weight gain. Especially when your typical breakfast junk is just as unhealthy as snacking could ever be.

[-] CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago

I know that if I skip a meal, I can get really hungry later. That or I start snacking on crap. So skipping a meal could potentially lead to weight gain because you end up eating more than if you didn't skip the meal.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

your body adjusts to fasting by increasing hunger hormones and sensitivity to them. This can lead to overconsuming food when its available.

additionally roads and traffic have also reduced effective social and play areas even as vehicles become more dangerous to pedestrians.

Its possible even that the evolutionary adaptation to cars is that low energy kids have less risk of injury/death while more high energy kids get hit by cars, possibly selecting for less active kids generation to generation (notably it may also be selecting for taller heights)

[-] thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago

I'm interested in the idea of selection adaptation and motorised vehicles, however I think selective adaptation takes much much much longer than motorised vehicles have been with us so far. We're talking hundreds of years for selective adaptation to take affairs.

I could be wrong about that though.

The more likely adaptation reason currently is that we like over eating. Food used to be scarce, and when it was available you ate as much as you could or you died. The survivors of that scenario are the ones that made us, and as such we love eating lots when it's there.

I think our fascination with sweet foods makes sense from this perspective also. Our ancestors exposure to sweet foods were mostly fruit. Fruit would have improved their immune system significantly. Unfortunately we've since began mass producing sugar which doesn't offer the same benefits, but our bodies are still set up to love that sweet taste.

I'm rambling a bit, but there you go.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

car accidents are one of the largest causes of death of people below the age of 35 in the US if I recall. This means its likely one of the largest selection factors for people at or below reproductive age.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 3 points 4 months ago

i absolutely hate that this correct answer gets any downvotes.

so much anti-intellectualism on the internet, so much surface level “BuT CaLoRiEs iN CalOriEs OuT” combined with outright denial and doubt of empirical evidence.

humans are a mess. yes, sometimes skipping morning meals can have an effect on the rest of your day and you eat more later. why are we so quick to doubt that?

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] Carnelian@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

I’m not sure exactly how it works tbh! But this was also one of the findings of the National Weight Control Registry when studying people who successfully lost weight and kept it off.

78% eat breakfast every day. 75% weigh themselves at least once a week. 62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week. 90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.

Some more tidbits:

98% of Registry participants report that they modified their food intake in some way to lose weight. 94% increased their physical activity, with the most frequently reported form of activity being walking.

If I had to speculate, my guess is that having breakfast results in a better workout. And then a better workout makes you more likely to comply with your meal plan, which then results in better long term weight results

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Edit: My apologies, it’s in the subtitle line cut out of context like this. I think this is the egregious fault of the publisher more than the author, probably some SEO BS, because again this was obviously not the intent of that sentence.

My browser’s reader mode cut out that subtitle line, hence my original comment:

Bad reading of the author’s intent and you ignore the immediately preceding sentence which provides context for your cherry picked quote:

The researchers identified great heterogeneity in the prevalence between countries and also diverse risk factors, from dietary to behavioral.

The intent of that paragraph is to highlight the diversity of risk factors, not to give the most prevalent ones.

When you ask a text to do something it didn’t ever even pretend to want to do, of course you are going to come away disappointed. ~~Media literacy.~~ < Publisher accountability.

[-] tomalley8342@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Bad reading of the author’s intent and you ignore the immediately preceding sentence which provides context for your cherry picked quote

It is the subtitle in its entirety, as the author of the article intended. That sentence didn't grow legs and and walk all the way up to the top of the article by itself.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago

we chose 🛻🚗🛻 over kids.

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

I was so amazed at European and Asian cities that had good public transportation. Just being able to walk everywhere.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 21 points 4 months ago

[-] MilitantVegan@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Refined sugar is generally not good, and certainly whole food sources of carbs are much more beneficial than simple sugars - however, sugar is not nearly as much of a demon as popular health influencers make it out to be. Importantly, it also needs to be kept in mind that the "standard american diet" (sad) or standard western diet is one that's high in animal products, fat (particularly saturated fat), refined carbs; while being low in whole fruits, vegetables, and fiber and phytonutrients in general.

Walter Kempers rice diet is worth learning about. It was a terrible diet - patients could basically only eat white rice, sugar, and fruit. But despite being an absurdly high sugar and high carb diet, a lot of patients saw dramatic improvements in their health, particularly when it came to things like obesity and type 2 diabetes reversal.

https://www.drmcdougall.com/education/information-all/walter-kempner-md-founder-of-the-rice-diet/

[-] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 months ago

Well, thank you for your reasonable response. Have you seen Parks and Rec though? Because your response kind of sounds like it's continuing the joke...

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

Sometimes it works the other way. We cannot get our teenage daughter to eat anything but junk food half the time and yet she's far thinner than either of us were as teenagers. Neither of us can understand it.

[-] Carnelian@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago

You can be thin eating any type of food. It’s generally just far easier to over-consume junk food, but if she’s not eating too much it won’t inherently lead to weight gain

load more comments (11 replies)

[-] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

Count the calories, probably not much. Probably also active.

[-] Voran@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Could be something she does is burning energy and you haven't figured out what.

I used to wonder why I never gained weight despite eating twice what other people did...I never thought to factor in being extremely active because it was normal for me. I didn't think brutal martial arts classes or 5k runs counted as being 'active'. I thought it was normal.

Granted I wasn't underweight and didn't need to gain but I really wanted to look like Zarya from Overwatch

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 10 points 4 months ago

Heads up for other confused readers, that subheading…

“According to new research, skipping breakfast or excessive screen time are risk factors for developing obesity…”

Is egregiously cut out of context, I am guessing by the publishing site. In context, that quote is meant to hilight the wide variety of risk factors for obesity, not to suggest that those are the most common or significant.

I wish there was a way to reach out to correct this error but I couldn’t find one.

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 7 points 4 months ago

Not for long

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago

Now do north america. I bet the number is much higher

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

~~Already done, it’s about the same.~~

~~Obesity affects ∼20% of U.S. youth, with severe obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥120th of the 95th percentile and/or ≥35 kg/m2) at record high prevalence.~~

Oops this source only counted obesity and not overweight as the original post does. It’s actually ~33%; you were correct.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

The kids in Gaza on the other side of the scale

[-] T156@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Anyone know how skipping breakfast contributes? It seems like it would do the opposite.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 8 points 4 months ago

you may end up eating more later in the day.

research

load more comments

this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024

323 points (98.5% liked)

World News

38969 readers

2356 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.