428

Summary

A new Lancet study reveals nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults are overweight or obese, a sharp rise from just over half in 1990.

Obesity among adults doubled to over 40%, while rates among girls and women aged 15–24 nearly tripled to 29%.

The study highlights significant health risks, including diabetes, heart disease, and shortened life expectancy, alongside projected medical costs of up to $9.1 trillion over the next decade.

Experts stress obesity’s complex causes—genetic, environmental, and social—and call for structural reforms like food subsidies, taxes on sugary drinks, and expanded treatment access.

Non-paywall link

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Subtracty@lemmy.world 41 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

I have noticed the general public is now very tolerant of sweet drinks. I know that is not the only problem. I was never allowed soda or coffee or sweet tea growing up, so don't have much of a tolerance for them now. But when I try popular coffees (pumpkin spice this or vanilla chai that) or cocktails at most restaurants, I am surprised that people don't send them back and ask for less sweetener.

As an infrequent treat, I can understand it. But if you are drinking that much sugar on a daily basis, it must seriously screw with your system. I am sure lots of people are drinking a huge amount of calories and don't register how different that is from past generations.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago

I like the edge off my coffee but I just use stevia, which is fine if you don't use a lot and get that tongue numbing sensation. Those novelty coffees are utterly disgustingly sweet, and its all sugar. I can't imagine drinking them, but I guess if everything you eat and drink is sweet, you wouldn't notice it.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 5 points 18 hours ago

Makes your breath smell bad. I noticed this as a teenager and never drank sodas since.

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 points 17 hours ago

I'm the opposite. I wad told sugar was poison, so I avoided it as a kid. But now as an adult I love getting a sugary pop or whatever. My sweet tooth has definitely come in late

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 122 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Not really surprising when all food is so processed and pumped full of all kinds of bullshit, from high fructose corn syrup to preservatives to you name it.

Fun anecdote - I moved to Europe from the states a year back, and lost almost 20 pounds in that time without explicitly doing anything different. Just from the better food quality, and walking more in daily life (walkable cities and good public transportation!)

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 19 points 19 hours ago

The design of our cities and culture in north america definitely doesn't help. Sit in your metal box and drive to the front door (or drive thru and don't even leave the car), sit at a desk all day unless you're in the trades, go home and sit down to consume netflix/youtube/games, order fast food delivered to your door.

Sure nobody is forcing people to live like this but parts of our society certainly feels like it is encouraged. People look at me funny and friends have questioned me if I park and walk into a business with a drive thru, even though I usually get faster service that way

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago

I understand the corn syrup and additives causing weight gain but can someone please explain to me how putting food in a blender would make it worse for you? Ultra processed - what does it even mean. Reshaping food doesn't make it have more sugar/carbs and what not. Just the shit added to it does right?

For example, what makes ground beef not considered ultra processed? If someone puts other things into it, it can get worse for you, but is eating ground sirloin really any worse for you than non-ground sirloin, I can't see how it could be.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 52 points 1 day ago

How is walking more not something different?

[-] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 77 points 1 day ago

Well, I meant as in, without actively changing anything, like going to the gym more or whatever. Just passive environmental changes.

[-] Soup@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago

I took it to mean that they didn’t go out of their way to walk more, it was simply the better option to get around and so they just did that instead of driving a car. After moving from a car-centric city to one with a metro I totally get it and I do go for walks just for fun.

It’s not just about whether or not you can do something but about how available that thing is. Going for a walk can suck real bad in North America, surprisingly. Things like shitty food being the cheaper option, in a country racing to get its working class to be as disproportionately impoverished as possible, can make it hard to justify getting better quality stuff, too.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 16 points 19 hours ago

Yea it sucks walking next to 6 lanes of high speed traffic and basically no noise restrictions on cars. Once I moved somewhere that I could walk to the grocery store down quiet, tree lined streets most of the way, it became my preferred way. The built environment influences how you travel a lot.

[-] Soup@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago

The problem with the car thing is that there is noise reduction on cars. It’s the tires that are making most of the noise you hear from regular cars so even electric vehicles will make more noise than you’d think. It’s always wild to me that my aftermarket muffler isn’t as huge a difference in disruption as you’d think(it’s also not a high-pitch, obnoxious one). Either way I still keep it quiet at night or near pedestrians, and where I live now I’m glad that I basically never need to drive.

I’m real happy to hear that you live somewhere much more compatible with being a human being!

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago

Yes, but there is also little enforcement on extremely loud exhausts and excessive engine revving. People should not be subject to noises loud enough to require hearing protection on a regular basis. Some studies are also finding that car noises in general generate stress responses in humans and long term exposure inreases the chance of some health conditions.

You could also argue road speed and road design should factor in to a noise reduction plan at a city planning level. Cities could enforce lower speeds in certain areas to reduce noise. If the city insists on funneling cars in a certain area they could also be responsible to install sound barriers, maybe even a thin tree line to help buffer noise near residential or certain commerical areas.

[-] Soup@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

Absolutely, though as someone who notices louder exhausts I gotta say that, as much as they stand out, they’re really quite rare. It’s the never-ending drone of tires on pavement, loud cooling fans, heavy diesel trucks, and whatever other clattering and clanging that make up the bulk of the noise. The main street where I live goes pedestrian in the summer and I remember just how much noise a late-ish model Honda Civic made as it drove across it slowly one day even though it’s engine was essentially silent. The contrast between the peaceful pedestrian street and this single, “very quiet” sedan was startling. I already had sorta known but that moment is really where I decided that there’s no such as thing as a “quiet” car.

Our school busses have gone electric, though, and city busses are rapidly being replaced with hybrids that are quiet when they sit or need to accelerate. Those have reduced a lot of noise, and that’s super nice, but again they’re not the bulk of the noise. Removing the worst offenders but keeping the “quiet” cars doesn’t actually help beyond making us feel like we did something. We gotta start making main, commercial streets pedestrian only year-round. We gotta start being aggressive about making public transit accessible. We gotta start building on a human scale.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 hours ago

Not really surprising when all food is so processed and pumped full of all kinds of bullshit, from high fructose corn syrup to preservatives to you name it.

No. I refuse to blame those foods for people being fat.

I'm an amateur endurance cyclist, and during peak summer riding, I can eat junk food all day (literally from 5 am to midnight, multiple times an hour) and still end up in a calorie deficit.

It's actually really hard to gain weight when you're active, and those junk foods are very common with anyone who does endurance sports (or really any sport that requires high-calorie input over a sustained period). This is why sports nutrition products are basically pure sugar with some electrolytes sprinkled in there.

The problem is that people are eating junk food (jet fuel for our bodies) as if they were athletes. If you're sitting on your ass all day and pounding back 4000 calories of junk food, yeah, you're going to be fat.

Now, are those healthy foods? Absolutely not. But if you view food as fuel and nutrition, you can have a healthy relationship with "junk food", too.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 hours ago

I mean, yes, but also I have issues with BMI.

But also yes, look at old films or photos of crowds. North Americans are a heavy people.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 52 points 1 day ago

To be fair, I don't think many of us would recognize someone who is a BMI of 26 as "overweight." It technically is, but you've probably seen people regularly that are "technically" overweight but would never realize it. You yourself might be (and, statistically, are likely to be) overweight according to BMI and not realize it.

The really staggering thing is obesity. From 1960 until about 1992, it was between 15-20%. By 2000 it was 30%. These days it's getting close to 45%.

[-] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 23 points 19 hours ago

That's the thing 40 years ago you would realize that they were overweight.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Actually 40 years ago a higher percentage of Americans were "overweight," so it's unlikely it would seem more obvious then vs now. The difference is that now many more people are obese, but being obese is fairly noticeable unlike being overweight.

The percentage of people who are in the just-above-normal category of "overweight" has remained very steady and within a narrow band over the years, i.e., it's been consistently between roughly 31-34% for almost seven decades. It was 32.9% last year. That's why in my comment I noted that the real concerning thing about the study isn't really the amount of people who are overweight; it's the amount of people who are obese and morbidly obese.

[-] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 2 points 12 hours ago

Maybe...but two things:

If the number of obese people is lower, then what are the people who aren't mildly overweight? They are healthy weight. So even if the percentage of mildly overweight people stay the same, the day to day comparison is with a bigger group of healthy weight people, so they probably were more recognizably overweight.

Secondly, with less really obese people you wouldn't get desensitized to seeing fat all the time, which makes mildly overweight people seem more normal. Somebody with a BMI of 26 and about 15lbs overweight would have been more likely to be described as "plump" or "husky" back then. But when crowds are full of people that are 50+ lbs overweight, that 26 BMI seems downright healthy.

This is all speculation. I can't remember how I perceived overweight vs obese people back in the 80's.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Well, you may be right. I'm not going to try to divine cultural sentiment from 40 years ago or whatever. I just think the study collapsing a relatively stable category (people who are "overweight") with people who are obese and morbidly obese kind of hides the news. Sure, it makes for a splashier headline "75%!!" But the increase in obesity and morbid obesity is actually more dramatic when the "overweight" category is taken out of the focus.

[-] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago

Well, 40 years ago it was easy to find really good blow anywhere.

load more comments (16 replies)
[-] aviationeast@lemmy.world 56 points 1 day ago

Don't worry congress is going to make Obese 50% body fat in response to the crisis...

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 27 points 1 day ago

Can confirm. 3/4 of my body is fat while the rest of it is skinny AF.

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago
[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

Ok, thank you. I was seeing 3/4 (75%) and 40% and was very confused lol.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

In 1990 half were overweight or obese? That's the real news, I would have thought much lower.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
428 points (98.9% liked)

News

23301 readers
4014 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS