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.
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!)
and RFK wants to regulate HFCS… I don’t know how to feel about this, that’s… good? I guess?
How is walking more not something different?
Well, I meant as in, without actively changing anything, like going to the gym more or whatever. Just passive environmental changes.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Indeed that’s what I meant, no intentional going for walks, just organically more walking as taking the train and walking is more convenient than driving almost every time.
And they bought different food too lol. You can buy clean vegetables, proteins and fresh non sugar bread in America. (Not that sliced sugar wonder bread shit). They just apparently chose the junk food (which is wildly available no question about that) when it was put in front of them.
When in a grocery with less of the junk (theres still junk in UK and EU Groceries), they chose better stuff.
Unless they want to make a claim that something like raw broccoli, raw grass fed beef, raw beans are substantially different in the eu. That wasn’t my experience, it’s just more prominent
Like, if you eat processed chips and cookies in America or the EU it’s still junk
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. Does help that the culture is also pretty bad around that stuff so maybe going to Europe was the moment they were finally taken out of the toxicity of their local community.
Yeah but you’re missing the fact that their shitty junk food is still miles better than the shitty junk food here.
Look at something that is sold in both places and check the ingredients list. The one I’m Europe will have less ingredients and more real food in general, the American one will have a ton of chemicals and other shit
I acknowledged that. I’m highlighting that when presented with that option, the above commenter chose to eat American junk
If you eat 1k calories of excess sweets, it’s the same the world over.
Yes, calories-wise it’s the same, but it’s far worse biologically in the US where the sweetener is predominantly high fructose corn syrup. Not all sugars have the same effect.
Fructose has to be
porridgeprocessed through the liver and causes much higher incidence of non-fatty liver disease, insulin resistance, uric acid causing gout, etc. leading to higher rates of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. When someone is ill from these sorts of diseases, they’re less likely to exercise or move around, and will tend to want to eat more convenient comfort foods, which only amplifies the obesity issue.Many of the countries that consume the least amount of fructose per capita are in Europe (Germany, Poland, Greece, Portugal, Finland, etc.)
The article is about obesity, which CICO is the chief, immediate topic of significance. Long term organ damage from different sugar sources is a good topic, but not proximal to obesity in the near term.
Eat too many calories, get bigger. Easy to do when the grocery is packed with junk, but good food is available (and affordable) in both places.
Discussion on food deserts and time-to-prepare are also critical, but again I think present in both continents.
Yes, I covered that. For example, people who are ill tend to exercise and move less. So calories-out (CO) goes down = people get fatter.
So it’s definitely directly relevant.
I had the opposite experience. I got fat while eating nothing but stone soup! We just put in some onions and celery for flavor, and potatoes for bulk. Add some bacon and a ham hock, and melt in cream cheese to thicken it.
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.
Not an expert but I think ultra processed food has two main aspects, one is additives and preservatives. And the other is our body doesn’t need to process it as much to digest it. If you eta rice/bread your body has to break that carbohydrates into glucose which takes energy. Now if you directly take suger/glucose then eating the same calories would be a lot more plus calories since your body doesn’t need to work hard to process it. Furthermore it has more pure calories per same weight, so you end up consuming more to feel full compared to eating something not as calories dense.
“Body doesn’t work as hard to process it”, would this in theory mean that more tender foods would be less work to break down, so a crock pot would actually be a poor method to cook your food long term?
Again I’m not an expert on this. But the problem is think comes from sharp change in the type of food within few generations. Since we have started cooking food more and more we have gotten weaker jaw and bad teeth with results. But something that happened over a long time, vs something that happened within last 100 years has a different health impact.
Nope I’m going to call you the expert that told me that all foods slow cooker are now worse for me. Kidding. But thanks for the thought, someday maybe I’ll look more into whether breaking down food so they are easier to eat and having weaker jaws would be bad long term. I would have figured not having hard foods would be better for your teeth though, maybe it is worse for your gums not needing to be as sturdy over time? Thoughts for food I suppose.
Like with most things in life, variety is the key. Everything in moderation. Eat fruits, vegetables like carrots, celery, etc (raw). Chewing action has benefits. Sometimes cook things till they’re really soft, sometimes enjoy a bit of chewy meat. If you have variety in your habits it should be ok.
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
The individuals make the collective, most Americans are making these choices everyday. There is not some boogeyman forcing Americans to live a certain way, they love their unhealthy sedentary lifestyle and will actively fight you to defend it, with guns.
The infrastructure that makes it impossible or dangerous to walk or ride a trolley into town to have dinner was built with lobbyist persuasion 50 years before I was born. Most of us cannot afford to buy into the narrow islands of places built for humans in north America.
But you can afford a car, or better yet a giant truck or SUV which most Americans choose to drive in, fucking please. And the infrastructure got funded and put in place by people, and then used by those people. Individuals make the collective, you are not isolated from the world you live in, your actions and choices shape the world you live in everyday, and they matter. Businesses and corporations get big because of the people funding and supporting them, they are not isolated and neither are you.
America has a severe lack of accountability and responsibility, somehow it is always someone else’s fault no matter what. No surprise it has become the unhealthiest and most obese nation in existence.
Affording the materialism which is creating the problem as described above is part of the problem, not the solution you think it is lmao.
You are right. Which sword should I fall on for corrupt lobbying by the ruling class when my grandparents were children?
It’s also now fully accepted to be fat or overweight. Online dating has become pretty weird to me. I’m a pretty athletic guy, so i’m looking for someone that is also a bit sporty and healthy.
Curvy on tinder has become just a blanket statement for not very skinny to wow, you look like walking must really suck. It’s a very small percentage that is super athletic, a small percentage that is just “normal” and the rest just fat. I’m not trying to shame people but reading shit like: i’m not skinny and i’ll never be is fucking sad to me. My dad is fat and his life is fucking garbage, and it’s getting worse the older he gets. I honestly forsee a shitty future for a lot of overweight people today.
Ugh, you just described my experience exactly. I’m mildly autistic and so online dating is my primary method since it’s easy for me to misinterpret or not understand the initial stages of the courting process. A lot of my interests are also very male dominated too. Therefore most of the women on dating apps that are interested in me either have kids (I don’t want any and even had a vasectomy) or are overweight since the more in shape women in the same spaces are “more desirable” and have everyone coming to them.
I’d say 90%+ of my partners have weighed more than me while being a lot shorter. Don’t know if I have ever had to worry about my hoodies being stolen since they can’t fit them.
P.S. I know that phrasing sounds problematic and is not how I view people or women as individuals. Game Theory does apply when it comes to dating though, and in the abstract that is one of the things that is going on.
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.
Co-worker of mine visited Ethiopia for like 2-3 weeks. He said he actually ate more than he usually does while there and still lost 15lbs. Our food is a huge problem in the US. It’s better for business to keep us unhealthy.
Oh, I can totally believe it. Ethiopian food is so damn filling, while not being insanely calorie dense like a lot of what we’re used to in the US. Beans and veggies are filling but not calorie dense, so just adding more of those, even cheap canned ones to your diet can make it much easier to lose weight. I had a buddy that lost almost 30lbs in college literally just by replacing a meal with a can or two of green beans and hot sauce every day for a couple of months. He’s managed to keep it off too, as it helped him realize just how much more his hunger was sated by a couple 60cal cans of beans vs some huge 800 calorie meal from Taco Bell, which was his preferred junk food of choice at the time. Fun fact, it also works extremely well on overweight dogs, minus the hot sauce.
The shitty US labor laws (piss poor working conditions) are one of many problems associated with obesity.
Depressing, but having seen my Missouri friend eat in not surprised. I’m glad he’s taking ozempic now cause I swear the Midwestern diet it inherently an eating disorder. (Also thinking of a Texan friend who drinks coke like it’s water, oooof).
I’ve been seeing these commercials about losing weight. They briefly show a 💉 needle and state, “with the same active ingredient as ozampic”. It’s sort of messed up. It’s funny (dark humor), right?
Those commercials are about to stop interesting enough. They were only able to be on market due to the main drugs being in a shortage, which allows special pharmacies (compounders) to make knock off versions without going through the whole process the main drug did and bypassing patents.
The main drugs are now no longer in shortage, so in a few months, these compounders will not be allowed to sell those drugs.
[Tinfoil hat time]Crazy how much money is involved.
It’s sad on how much food is “wasted” because people eat way more than they need. But now you can eat like a pig and just get a shot to lose weight. As long as it’s not some bad big pharma vaccine and i can still eat as many nuggies as i want, fantastic.
GLP-1s work by making unhealthy food feel more sickening, causing people to eat and drink less
I lost a bunch of weight a couple years ago. The secret was counting calories. Eating out at lunch was usually twice as many calories as I was allowed. Everywhere I went it was this way. Personally, the portion sizes didn’t look huge.
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%.
Someone with bmi 26 is absolutely overweight o.O
Yes, technically, they are. But it’s unlikely you would see someone with a bmi of 26 walk by you on the street and think “that guy is overweight.”
This guy has a BMI of 26. If he had clothes on, few people are going to assume he’s overweight, even though technically he is:
i hate being wrong on the internet :D
point taken!with men, the issue is that there is a lot built up internal fat around the inner organs BEFORE you even get to see fat thats visible from the outside. so yeah, i bet the guy is medically considered overweight even though he doesn’t look like peter griffin. this is why when women gain weight you can tell immediately and for men it takes a while. both is unhealthy though
As usual it is a matter of education and normalisation. I’m a rock climber and am surrounded by shredded people a lot of the time. I’m sitting at around 18-20% body fat which is high for the sport but I am considerably leaner than the guy in your photo.
I can absolutely tell that he is overweight (even with clothes) but that’s because I have invested a lot of time into learning about health and fitness and spend most of my time with people who have a ‘healthy’ BMI. If all you see are overweight and obese people every day then of course you will look at this guy and think he looks perfectly healthy (which he might well be but that’s another discussion).
I’ve got about 10lbs on this guy. I’m obese. I know it. I’m ashamed of it. My body knows it and tries telling me every day I need to lose 30lbs.
It’s never too late, I managed to lose 20lbs simply not going after seconds on my tasty pasta dinners. Took like 6 months but my stomach got used to it. Granted, this last week has been hella tempting to stress eat, but just seeing progress is enough to keep me going. Just get the ball rolling and be happy with really subtle losses. Like, impossible to notice day to day loses.
Yeah. I was actually fifteen pounds lighter this time last year. It’s been a rough year. I cut out all bread, pasta, cheese, and beer, and walked an average of 15 miles a week.
It’s really mostly about doing something sustainable. I tried keto once and lost 20lbs only to regain it immediately after. Portion control seems to be working better for me since I will still eat whatever I want during the day (helps that my diet is mostly normal food I cook and not processed)
Where can I learn more about these tasty pasta dinners that you speak of? :-)
We’re talking about losing weight, not bulking up!
This is the more important part, even if you don’t look unhealthy, if you are overweight there are health conditions that become more likely and it is likely poor lifestyle and diet is influencing it. Just because you don’t look unhealthy doesn’t mean you are perfectly healthy. Even people who are a healthy weight and exercise regularly could benefit from removing processed, oilly and sugary foods from their diets. People who eat amazingly healthy might not be getting as much exercise as they should. Our bodies require high quality nutrition and movement to stay in shape and most of us aren’t meeting those needs between lifestyle choices, work, finances, and education.
If you or anyone else is actually interested in getting yoked, a great place to start is the fitness wiki. It does a good job of condensing everything down and lists various effective routines which will do a good job of getting you looking the way you want.
Fitness influencers specialize in baffling people with bullshit. The recipe to getting in good shape is really simple. Follow an established routine, adjust your diet (the does not have to be drastic, you only need subtle changes) and improve your sleep. You could lift 40 minutes two days per week, walk 30-60 minutes another two days per week and you’d look and feel like a new person in a year
That’s the thing 40 years ago you would realize that they were overweight.
Well, 40 years ago it was easy to find really good blow anywhere.
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.
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.
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.
Yup. I was talking to a guy whose doctor told him that he needed to lose weight. He didn’t look big - he’s tall, but apparently his bmi was 30.
I’ve always had a scale and I’ve always used it. My weight now is less than my weight in hs. I was 130.
Yeah right now I weigh 170, I’m in pretty good shape (would be in better shape if I didn’t injure my foot and could start running again). But for me 180 is overweight? Even if that’s just fat that means my muscles become less visible. Hell it feels like my thighs are bigger now after getting in shape that when I was 180. And I started to look really skinny when I got down to 165.
I’m sure people would keep calling me skinny at 180. What we need are easier ways to measure body fat percentage. Because it is true that holding onto lots of fat for a long time is what’s bad for you.
The easiest way to check on body fat percentage right now is just to take weekly pictures of yourself in your underwear. You can see the muscle vs fat pretty well.
Part of the problem with BMI is that since it’s squared it over-reports overweight in tall people and under-reports overweight in short people. I’m 189 cm or so and if I were to reach the bottom of the “healthy” weight I would look like a concentration camp victim. 😄
So is Joe!
We don’t care about the fat fux
We? You and who else?
I mean, do you feel bad if someone is overweight and complains about their bad knees? Yes, obviousy
And I care that there’s a country full of very unhealthy people who will die unnecessarily early deaths because they have been raised to eat processed food and have been addicted to sugar since they were babies.
You know what the national emblem of this country should be? A big bowl of macaroni and cheese.
Benjamin Franklin wanted it to be the turkey. He was thinking of the lean, mean wild turkey, but I think a deep fried one that had been fattened on a farm with the help of a bunch of hormones would work these days.
I wonder how recent semaglutide (ozempic, wegovy, etc) will affect this. It’s just come into mainstream recently and it seems like it actually does have positive outcomes for weight loss and addiction. When availability increases and eventual price comes down with patent expiration in the next decade we might see a huge change in this data.
I see once again we’re going for the “just give me some magic pills” approach rather than actually changing the things that are making us fat. People want the wonders of medicine to save them from themselves.
Good for the shareholders I guess.
My understanding too is that these pills work alongside lifestyle changes. They make it a bit easier to make the lifestyle changes in part by helping control appetite. But if you don’t implement the lifestyle changes while taking them, you’ll just put the weight back on when you stop.
This comment is from a random guy on the internet familiar with some patient support programs that help people on these meds make those changes, so I would love corrected if I’m understanding this wrong.
People are trying to escape what others are doing to them.
By eating magic pills :D
I am not disagreeing with that point; I actually wholeheartedly agree that it is not a good solution. I wanted to remind poster that those people are victims of the system, are trapped in it. We need to have compassion for them.
3/4 of US polled
Yes that’s how statistics work.
Well 69 is actually closer to 2/3 anyway
Lmao yeah I’m not sure what the commenter is implying? The question we should be asking is if the polled population is representative of the general population.
Do they expect the study to poll the entire US population?
I’m positive the Lancet will manage to produce a representative sample and sample size sufficient to ensure this
Ok so I looked in to their sources and boy, you’re under selling it.
They used 130+ sources of 10’s of thousands of surveyed people, each. Typical sample sizes were 70,000+.
This is a meta analysis. The number of people contributing to this analysis is wide enough to put to rest any doubt that it’s a representative sample ten times over.
Arrogantly appending “polled” to those figures is like proudly proclaiming that teen pregnancies drop off sharply after age 19.
Ok, thank you. I was seeing 3/4 (75%) and 40% and was very confused lol.
Overweight and obese are two different categories. 40% are obese. Nearly 75% are overweight or obese.
Oh dear :(
I’m at least a quarter by myself hahahah…ha
i love personal anecdotes where someone makes sure to call everyone but them stupid and fat. eating proper meals takes time and money, which a great many people do not have, and large portions of the population do not have even live in areas with fresh food. ever heard of a food desert?
also the BMI system is based entirely on white Irish men of a specific height who lived like a hundred years ago.
also also, being ‘fat’ does not always mean you’re unhealthy, and being ‘skinny’ does not always make you healthy.
Every time I visit Germany, I eat and drink a ton. I’ll lose about 5 lbs that week just from the higher quality food and walking convenience.
At least the Germans have time to take care of themselves, but quite a bit of the food is processed too.
Where do you normally eat?
That’s interesting. Germans certainly aren’t known for their healthy food when you look at the prevalence of cured meats and things like currywurst.
contrary to conventional wisdom, quality of food isn’t really considered a primary instigator of the obesity epidemic. rather, environmental factors such as poverty, failures in education/access to diet information, and car-centric urbanization are proven to be much bigger factors in the ongoing health crisis.
in other words, america could be totally healthy eating the exact same food if we built society around people living healthy lives, but that is far from the primary goal for a country living under capital.
I slightly disagree.
If I suddenly started eating 15000 kcal of mostly sugar and fat each day, it would have a detrimental impact on my health. Regardless of my education or income.
So to me it seems like the effect is in reverse. If we changed society to make it easier for people to make healthier choices, then the general health would improve. But the actual improvement would come from calorie intake, food quality and activity levels.
But I absolutely agree that having limited access to healthy food, and living in a area where walking could be unsafe makes it incredibly hard to be healthy.
that’s the difference between primary and secondary causes, individual cases and epidemics.
while you may be able to imagine an instance where food quality is a primary factor in an individual’s wellbeing doesn’t challenge the empirical evidence that overall the epidemic affecting massive swaths of people is borne primarily out of a context of low income, low education and urbanization.
Well, the smugness is impressive. I’ll have to give you that.
You specifically said: “in other words, america could be totally healthy eating the exact same food if we built society around people living healthy lives, but that is far from the primary goal for a country living under capital.”
I just disagree with this statement. I don’t think we could eat the exact same diet in a different society and expect food-related health issues to significantly improve.
So where on the list of causes would you place calorie intake, food quality and inactivity? Secondary? Tertiary? Completely unrelated?
me: in other words, america could be totally healthy eating the exact same food
you: I don’t think we could eat the exact same diet
notice the key difference in language. makes 100% of the difference. i choose my words with care.
So, I’m I to assume that you wanted to say that calories are more important than food quality?
Sure. I agree with that.
Regarding your careful choice of words. If you wanted to make a convoluted post in order to smugly debate some random person on the internet, then you have done an excellent job and I congratulate you sir.
If you are trying to actually communicate clearly then you have some improvements to make.
5 lbs is literally just a hydration and glycogen difference. You tend to have about 5 lbs of glycogen of which each pound is holding 2 lbs of water so 5 lbs is within normal fluctuations. Carb and fat profile of diet and a lack of gluconeogenesis can have you eat the same amount of calories while “losing” weight. Additionally, the amount of salt that you retain from your food can have a significant difference. If you’re going from a high salt diet to a low one, you could expect to lose water weight.
It’s called freedom, libtards. We want the freedom to order a gallon of soda with our king size fries without the government telling us how to eat or food producers how to make their food. And we certainly don’t want the government to work on our behalf to lower the cost of insulin. We want a free market to shop around for the best price.
We live at a time of artificial plenty and everyone’s stressed. It literally doesn’t have to be a bad thing, either. We don’t judge people who take on prestigious corporate jobs that will by nature make them more stressed and worn down. They get money, 75% of us get to eat tasty food and treats.
🤔
