I've read about this before. Some of the COs were Quakers. It's amazing what hardship some of the COs endured - they didn't even get paid for whatever they did - and they were treated with such contempt by so many people.

There was a long digression about this in the book In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex, which talks about the effects of starvation, both physical and psychological.

It's a crazy story, I appreciated reading that. But in the light of our current knowledge, if you don't factor in glicemic indexes and such, a lot of stuff about calorie intake and "feeling full" or satisfied after starving oneself, kind of sounds anecdotal at this point.

the problem I have with the blogger is that arguing that "It’s not “overeating,” or eating “unhealthy” foods or not enough “healthy” foods, or too little activity, that explains why some of us are fat and others lean" is misleading, esp when it's not clear who the "some" of us are, and why they are in that group.

Eating -- or not eating -- responsible quantities of food in a balanced diet, and trying to keep under control one's sugar intake is indeed at the root, in most cases, of one's weight problems (unless there are specific conditions, obviously), even if it may not be politically correct to argue so. Metabolism and the DNA lottery is a part of the equation, obviously, but still.

and in other news, ARRRRRRRGH!!!

bleah.

Being discussed over on the blue, lfr. Internet nerds seem supportive of the move- go figure :-)

Oh, well then nevermind.

I can't read MeFi at work.

It's a fascinating study, but the corresponding commentary is a little too absolute for me, too much on the side of "nature" over "nurture".

For example: "It’s not 'overeating,' or eating 'unhealthy' foods or not enough 'healthy' foods, or too little activity, that explains why some of us are fat and others lean." In my case, too little activity, eating unhealthy and calorie-filled foods DOES explain why I'm overweight. How do I know this? When I stop eating out and make healthy, small-calorie lunches, I lose weight without feeling hungry. When I exercise for 20 minutes every morning, I lose weight and have more energy than when I don't.

The article doesn't answer the question, "How do I know when I'm at my genetically-determined set weight?" In college, I was 20 pounds lighter than I am now, and in high school I was 40 or so.

Maybe the article is target to people who are 100-200 pounds overweight? Because at one point it indicates that "environmental fluctuations" only account for 10-20 pounds, which, in my case, is the difference between being "slightly overweight" and "obese" on the BMI scale.

I mean, it's good to point out that I will never be as skinny as my friend Liz (who's 5'4" and 104 lbs), but that doesn't mean I'm at a "healthy weight".

On preview, I see that others share my concerns!

oh and on review, TPS it's not that I don't support our skinny, nerdy overlords (the mister is all of 5'8" and 125 lbs, afterall), it's just that I would dearly love to kick the fashion industry in the face. repeatedly.

The collective American weight increase isn't even all about individual behavior (though I definitely agree with muddgirl that it's a lot about it).

Of course our bodies are different from what they were thirty, forty, fifty years ago; of course we have to eat less. Look at all the ways life was different. People walked more every day - a lot more. Kids walked to schools, and households had one car if they had any car. You walked up the steps into the bank instead of pulling up at the ATM. You climbed stairs in 3- and 4-story buildings instead of taking an elevator. You shoveled snow and raked leaves instead of blowing them. You hung laundry on the line and then you ironed it all because it was all wrinkly from hanging on the line. People spent less time on couches and in chairs in front of screens, and more time on their feet, whether at work or home. Kids played outside daily and had recess at school - sometimes twice a day. More jobs were manufacturing or service jobs where people were on their feet, doing something with their hands or bodies, rather than at workstations.

The Gloucester fishermen of the turn of the century required about 5000 calories a day just to handle the cold and the hard work. A diet like that would spell 'gastric bypass' for most modern guys their age. I've heard similar calorie figures for farmers and lumbermen. As our levels of physical activity decline, the calories required to live declines, too. And if we don't change our eating habits, we end up with an excess - even if we're eating the same number of calories as 30 years ago. Which, thanks to all the usual suspects like increased portion size, more convenience food choice, and more calorie-dense foods, we aren't.

It's a problem with a lot of facets, but the ease of lives made convenient by changes in neighborhood, job, and home infrastructure is one we don't seem to recognize enough.

But one of the things they're also finding is that being "overweight" (in the BMI category sense) is actually preventative for a lot of health problems. And there's also the fact that we're getting taller as a society, which should bring with it some weight gain.

The average weight gain in the U.S. population over the past few decades has been about 7 pounds. Given the health benefits of having some extra weight, it would be totally logical to spin this weight gain as we, as a society, are living longer, getting taller, getting stronger, getting bigger.

But strangely... it's not.

The average weight gain in the U.S. population over the past few decades has been about 7 pounds

But as I understand it, the problem is that this average weight gain taken overall is not evenly spread across the population. Some people's weight has remained consistent with earlier points in history, while others have gained disproportionately. Where one person may weigh 120 today as they would have in 1940, another may weigh 134, representing their own average gain of seven pounds - plus another person's.

Is that a wrong understanding? Certainly people in the medical profession are reporting that they see more overweight, and greater degrees of overweight, than in the past.

I'm sure it is spread across the population, but I think if the obesity epidemic were as much of an epidemic as the media claims it is, then we'd need a LOT of people gaining no weight to balance out the "super-fatties" and average out to seven pounds, you know? In which case, how widespread and extreme can the weight gain really be?

I think there's just a great deal of confirmation bias going on. We hear about the obesity epidemic and see photo after photo of headless fat people on the news, so we start thinking, "OMG, fat people are everywhere!" and we notice them disproportionately (in the mean time pretending that calling women "Rubenesque" isn't an actual historical reference).

And what I find interesting about the linked article, and similar things I've read, is the idea that dieting is making us heavier. Not some strain of immorality that has infected the American populace, draining us of our willpower and understanding of thermodynamics, but simply the fact that we're trying to starve ourselves and our bodies are fighting back. It decouples the issue of weight from the issue of health -- because I agree that we're moving less and eating crappy foods, and that should change, but it shouldn't change because it's making us fat (because it's not, necessarily) but because it's making us unhealthy (I've yet to read any credible evidence contesting that).