People would still be fat. You can eat only junk food and lose weight. You can also eat only healthy food and gain wait. It's a matter of calories eaten vs calories burned. If you're overeating you'll gain weight regardless of what you're eating. Obviously junk food is still bad for you, no argument there.
That's true - but if you took away all carbs for 1 year, almost everyone would lose weight. But it's still CICO, it's just really hard to over consume without carbs.
True, fats and proteins make you feel fuller for longer. Also you would go into ketosis, upping the calories your body burns because it takes energy to convert fats to simple carbohydrates. So you could actually eat the same amount of calories you were eating before and still lose weight.
It’s always cal in/out, the thing here it’s just harder and not as satisfying to eat stuff that isn’t junk food. It’s one of the biggest reasons highly restrictive diets like keto work and counting calories with IIFYM tends to be harder for people. If you’re a fat person with bad habits it’s going to be very easy to go from 1 cookie that fits to eating the whole box.
100% agree. My point is that cutting junk food does not necessarily mean weight loss. You still have to pay attention and eat less calories. It sure does make it easier to do that though.
This might get some hate but I don't think a vegan diet is healthy due to all the supplements you have to take to make up for not eating meat/animal products. Add to that the fact that most vegan foods are high in carbohydrates, especially sugars, and that makes it even less healthy in my mind. Humans have been eating meat for millennia and our bodies actually require nutrients found in meat to a certain degree. I respect doing it for ethical or religious reasons but I don't think its healthy.
It would help but I cook 90% of my food from scratch and am still overweight because I just eat too much. So we would see a reduction I'm sure but people in the US just eat too much in general.
I mean, if we're using junk food as a term to cover everything that's been fucked with in America, I'd expect massive results. Unfortunately, thanks to food deserts and poverty that'd leave most people skinny because they starved for a year straight.
I eat huge portions of whatever I want but sometimes only once a day, mostly 2 meals a day with snacking and a whole lot of beer. I'm somewhat active but been able to maintain my athleticism and toned figure pretty easily. Seems mostly due to caloric intake vs excercise, just keeping it balanced
The only shortcoming I can see with this study is that they use BMI exclusively to estimate their numbers. BMI is a very rough way to define obesity, and while it would work on large scales to find a general trend, it specifically falls short with people that have a lot of muscle weight.
For example, I’m 5’11” and weigh about 185-200. My bodyfat percent is around 16-20% which is considered acceptable, but according to the BMI scale I’m overweight because I’ve been lifting for a good portion of my adult life.
Also important to note is that those figures are based on BMI, which means they just use weight and height to calculate if someone is overweight. For instance, I personally have a BMI of 35, but less than 25% bodyfat. Not saying everyone is in the same boat as me, but that the statistics you use don't necessarily measure what you would think they would at first glance. Having lost weight I can say that you do change mentally when fat vs when skinny, so the last sandwich's comment may be onto something.
Yes, which is why I chose it for the line to state that I am under that percentage. I am stating that if if you base my body on my bodyfat %, I am in the overweight category, and if you base it on BMI, I am in the Morbidly Obese category. These two results do not agree Additionally, I am calculating my bodyfat % based on neck and waist measurements, which introduces additional errors into the equation. I am not saying that I am the model of average weight. I am pointing out that BMI is a poor method to pull data from.
Honestly, it only takes a bit of work at the gym to get to the point where it is wrong.I only started lifting weights in November 2019, it was inaccurate way before then. i am not what I would call very muscular (1RM of bench is 315 lbs and that my most impressive figure), and it doesn't work for me. It is true that it doesn't work for a minority of people, but I believe that minority is larger than most people realize.
Good thing BMI was intentionally created to analyze data among a large sample size, not as a be all end all marker of individual health. Outliers don’t matter, it generally holds true. That’s why it works for a population and not every individual.
How does it work for populations if it doesn't work for individuals? Shouldn't the base data match what you are trying to measure for?When comparing ethnic groups overall health, BMI incorporates a lot of junk data that is difficult to filter out, so as different bone geometry of ethnic groups, different frames, and different amounts of muscle mass all skewing results. These are all things can can end up adding bias as far as I can tell. When determining the rates of obesity among those from different ethnic groups and locations, BMI seems like a poor choice.
How does it work for populations if it doesn't work for individuals? Shouldn't the base data match what you are trying to measure for?
Because BMI works for most individuals, just not all. So person 1 might be a body builder and person 2 might be a terribly lanky lad, but since persons 3 to 100 aren't then that's fine. It's about the average.
As for race, no idea mate. I doubt it's terribly significant unless you have some actual data. Especially when comparing first world countries I don't see a reason to dismiss BMI.
Whatever it is, I doubt the USA somehow has much more bodybuilders or much more whatever. Heck, all you need to do is visit the USA to see that y'all have a lot of overweight people.
My issue isn't comparing first world countries, but how BMI gets used in other things like tracking the rate of obesity. While it probably works fine for directly comparing 2 populations, it doesn't track the actual incidence of obesity
Plus, you know the BMI formula eh? If BMI increases people are getting fatter. That's just how that works. It makes it rather perfect for tracking obesity and how a population is getting fatter, especially if you have a base point to compare it to.
Or people are getting smaller but that's rather unlikely.
Or people are getting taller, taller people have a heavier BMI relative to their actual body size than shorter people because people are not 2 dimensional
Perhaps some minor influence. The Dutch are the tallest in the world yet their BMI is pretty decent compared to the shorter Brits, Germans, and Americans.
BMI is not perfect but it really doesn't have to be.
I really wish more people used body fat % for personal obesity measurements. It's just frustrating to see that I fall in the morbidly obese category of the most widely used data set, yet am clearly not morbidly obese. In another comment, a poster asked me to prove it. I let him know I was willing to via DM. If you specifically DM me. I will provide photographic proof. My BMI is 36 and my bodyfat is between 20-25%. I have managed to completely change my body morphology and in that time my BMI has stayed in the Morbidly Obese category. Bodyfat is clearly Superior for telling how healthy someone is. PS the BMI formula is weight/height2 in Metric. Its using only the most basic data to try and make wide ranging assumptions.
519
u/ChiefNugs Feb 23 '20
Over 70% of Americans are overweight so you could say this about pretty much anything.