: “It could go obesity -> consumption, or perhaps both are caused by some other factor(s) upstream.” Well that was Taubes’s point, no? That we are not getting fat because we’re eating more, but rather, we are eating more because we are getting fat. That the metabolic shift in adipose tissue handling comes first as a result of the food.

On some of the discussion above: before deciding that people don’t care how they look which makes them more unconcerned about fat, observation of women suggests it’s more complex. Women who feel like their figure it ok tend to be far more focused on appearance. The moment that “how you look” appears to leave your sense of control over it, I think it causes a release across the board to some degree. Kind of like being a bit poor in school years, and one would rather look like a rebel who doesn’t care than look like they ‘tried’ to dress acceptably but couldn’t quite succeed. (And there are sub-culture issues with appearance as well. The upper east coast cities, it’s more rare women leave the house without feeling ‘prepared’ while on the lower west coast especially smaller cities, sandals and wet hair from the shower is fine.)

I’ve spent many years reading research and discussion related to nutrition and obesity. The females in my family have — let’s see if I can phrase it properly — a genetically associated adipose disorder — called Lipedema (several spellings of this). While allegedly 11% of the female population it’s virtually unheard of at least to doctors, including those recommending the whole ‘eat less, move more, chop out your guts if that fails’ doctors in the west to women for whom none of those will actually touch the problem. Basically it seems to cover a few things including an ‘inflammation cascade’ that can cause ridiculous adipose gain and a surreal inability to ever get rid of the accruing adipose tissue in certain areas of the body (mostly hips to ankles, upper arms for some). It does not affect the hands, feet, head and neck, or trunk for most, which means the distribution is rather weird (tiny head on huge body, a waist and normal neck for a size that would normally have 6 chins).

When I say inability to get rid of it, I mean nothing works – not even starvation level anorexic dieting that could kill you from gradual organ failure, not even exercise even to the extreme, not even gastric bypass (which really just amounts to the former at least initially). And of course, gradual adipose accumulation isn’t like luggage like used to be believed, it has significant effects body-wide including on storing more. Here’s the thing though. This is defined by the ‘symptom’ usually of ‘utterly resistant’ adipose tissue in the hips and thighs. It’s not defined by simply having utterly resistant adipose tissue. So men could have this too but have it in the torso where they naturally put on weight (just as women do in the hormonal areas most affected by lipedema) and nobody would ever know.

Now, the diagnosis is based on visual evidence so let’s say a degree of overweight or obesity to begin with. But if you take that 10-11% and map it to the actual overweight+ population (15-52 age or so) you get a number more like 40-odd percent of those are likely lipedemic. But if you backed out that number from the stats for women, it would look like far more men were overweight+ than women which I refuse to believe for now. So this suggests that it’s something under the radar affecting men as well. This was discovered in 1940 or so but has managed to stay carefully under the radar, outside medical training, outside any funding or research, for for ~75 years. I’m starting to become a conspiracy theorist about it I think.

The numbers are huge enough to matter, even to population level stats. I just thought I would add that anomaly to your list of inexplicables.

Speaking of the 40-odd percent number, this article on lead toxicity (there is *no* safe level, and look at the sources of stats they are conservative and legit) is enough to make you wonder if maybe we are not actually missing one of the key elements in this soup all along. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/lead-poisoning-why-lead-p_b_609383.html

If the increase in obesity were due to the increase in calorie intake then we should expect a considerable lag between the eating and the increase. Looking at the first graph no lag is apparent. If anything the lag is the other way around. The increase in obesity started before the increase in calorie intake.

I’m wondering where the good old Skinnerian notion of operant conditioning is hiding in this discussion?

Whenever we get into some version of the ‘genetics versus the environment’ eternal recurrence, it’s invariably characterised by the absence of attention given to operant conditioning. If you look at behaviour simply and directly as Skinner does, the dichotomy effectively dissolves, as behaviour emanates from contingencies of reinforcement that are supplied by the environment’s intercourse with the organism.

Then, all we need to do is to sort out how to extinguish conditioning that leads to overeating behaviours via removal of cues/removal of rewards, and simultaneously reward behaviours that lead to desired eating behaviours. Of course, this is the wicked part of the problem…and unlikely to resolve while the socio-cultural-economic-political environment favours the continuation of overeating behaviours. Relatively simply on an individual level for people fortunate enough to have the know-how.

Am enjoying your blog, by the way. Thank you.

Cheers.

[…] know what, exactly, changed from the past environment (though there are some guesses, like my own: Fun Facts About Obesity, though what, exactly, is the problem is still very much far from clear), and even if we did, we […]

“No kidding. But not only were the genetic inputs different to begin with, they have had 1,500 years of separate evolution. And they are genetically distinct today. Similar is not identical.”

Nah, that doesn’t wash either. To say that the English and French have had 1500 years of separate evolution is quite wrong. First let’s start with the Norman i.e. French invasion in 1066. That cuts it to less than 1000. Then there’s the dominion of the Anglo-French kings over large parts of modern day France, including Calais, Normandy and a huge chunk of South-West France. This is helped a lot of trade between Bordeaux and the southern English ports. There’s a reason that the English think ‘normal’ red wine is Bordeaux.

Look at eastern England. There has been constant flow of people across the North Sea beween England, the low countries and Denmark – there’s a reason that the architecture of cities around the North Sea and the Baltic is eerily similar. Some of this is documented, such as the large number of Flemish who settled in Britain and brought proper beer brewing with them.

But that’s only one side of the equation, consider the other side. The average Englishman from, say Kent, has a lot more in common with a Flemish Belgian than a Yorkshireman with his mainly Viking ancestry or from Highland Scots who may be more closely related to the Portuguese due to trade and migration across the sea. But then do an experiment yourself. Go to Edinburgh and then go to Oban on the West coast of Scotland – you may be surprised at how different the people look.

The mix of populations throughout Europe is far more complex than you’re trying to make out and to lump the Anglo-Celts into some giant obesity blob, doesn’t stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

Some discussion above saying that Ango-Celts and the ‘French’ are genetically different enough to produce different obesity outcomes. This doesn’t wash. France has a large gaulish, i.e. celtic substrate. The country was also invaded by the Franks (who are ethnic/linguistic Germans) and then by the Norsemen, who were also Germanic. These then went to invade England. The Franks and Anglo-Saxons are of similar Germanic origin. Some say that the inhabitants of South-East England and those of Netherlands/Belgium and northern France are very similar.

So the argument that the ‘French’ are so different, genetically, just doesn’t wash.

The cultural arguments about slovenliness and lack of care of appearance, though, accord with my experience.

All the hyper-rewarding foods Guyenet point to are full of sugar/carbs. Sugar+fat or sugar+sugar, it all comes down to sugar because sugar is anti-satiety.

A big juicy steak is tasty and rewarding and energy-dense and all that but you have to force yourself to eat three of them in a row. On the other hand eating a whole bag of energy-dense 2000+ calories potato chips in half an hour is easy.

Guyenet chose to ignore the obvious. He wants his Food Reward model to displace the Taubes/Carbodydrates/Sugar model popularized in Good Calories Bad Calories. He needs to try harder.

Calling someone fat is not considered an insult in Thailand. Rather, it is considered an acceptable form of criticism. The Thais do not believe that all criticism is an insult, like we do. PC does not reign there. The common Western inference that since Thais consider calling someone fat acceptable, they must not see fat as negative, is a naive Western failure to understand that many (healthy) cultures permit criticism without considering it an insult.

I have extensive experience of Thai social habits. Fat is indeed a stigma, especially for women, and women talk openly and frankly about the need to restrict their food intake, as do many men. Further, being well groomed and well dressed is of huge importance to Thais, and it is obvious how this creates pressure to stay thin. Thai thinness is quite deliberate. Let no one imagine otherwise.

Compared to America, maybe…But not to France. I have food them to be quite similar in the quantities eaten. In fact, multiple times I have been surprised on how much they ate (more than me!) while still being slim. But of course on average they probably ate less because they keep slim with a smaller body, and as Jayman mentioned, gaining/loosing weight is in fact extremely simply and almost entirely driven by the daily caloric intake. It was probably because I was at the start of my stay, when the change in weather make me loose weight, while they were stable. A few weeks after, I am eating (slightly) more indeed. But still, they do not consciently restrain themselves. They even often over-order (cultural thing, ordering too much is a sign u are wealthy and they do not have much taboo about throwing excessive food – something that is difficult for an European (even when much more wealthy !!!). Probably linked to history, typical food availaibiliy different and strong seasonal effect in Europe. This may also be part of the explanation, now that I think of it.

Now that’s true than when in America, I was often shocked at the amount of food you get in restaurant, or the typical portion people take in buffet (and still go for a second or third round 😯 ). So I understand why our impression differ.

Regarding being called Fat, it’s true, but probably because Thai do not consider this as a strong insult. More like a jest, even if it depend on context of course. In France it is usually a true insult, and in America given the Political correctness, it is probably even worse. But besides that, the self image and social pressure on appearance is not much stronger than in France, probably at the same level.
Competition between girls is stronger though (not much security net provided by the state, if your husband leave u are on your own), so there I agree with you. In France the situation is intermediate compared to Thialand and the US, where once u are married, u get access to half your husband resources, whatever happen, from what I understand…Again a difference, at least for women above 30.

I have spent extensive time in Thailand, and this is not true. It’s true that Thais eat throughout the day, but they are careful to eat extremely small portions, and are extremely conscious of their weight, especially the women. If you gain even a few pounds you will be called fat. I have seen this firsthand. All Thai people are extremely conscious of their appearance and weight and are very self-restrained in their food intake, quite deliberately.

oh and by the way, the self-restraint thing does not hold, especially for thais: They will never refrain from eating what they want when they want. In fact, they will get really angry if u try to tell them to eat 3 times a day (the traditional french way), especially when you are not choosing your food yourself but eat whatever is proposed (the traditional way for most french, at least until recently).

Hum, I guess I could add my own feeliings regarding my home place, northern france (a little bit more overweight than south of france, but nowhere near the american situation) and a place I know quite well: Thailand (mostly extremely thin but less so for some of the new generation).

The two cuisine differ quite a lot: French have sweet pastries (fat+sugar) and fatty sauce, and bread, or the mediteranean stuff(much more in line to what health freaks love), Thai is extremely spicy, quite salty by modern standards, and they love fat more than sugar (no real pastries nor dessert, sugar is used like a sort of spice). Seems not too healthy, but on the other hand they eat fruits as snacks and almost never touch chocolate…
French stands by 3 regular meal per day, Thai will eat when they are hungry, usually very often.

Both have highly evolved foods and culture attach a lot of importance to food (measured by the amount of time per day people are ready to spend on food preparation/consumption). I think that this allows to resist the junk food quite well, if we assume that junk food is engineered to appeal to natural cravings so that most people eat as much of it. Both the French and Thai cuisine is so important culturally that they have moved slightly away from base natural tastes, so the junk food , while probably optimal for natural tastes, miss the culturally-influenced targets. But it hit the mark better with some of new generation, which sometimes did not learn the cultural food but was exposed to junk food from early age.

Still, there are obvious genetic factors too. Body types are not the same, and you can get fit people of extremely different bmi but proably similar body fat percentage. Another thing that is strange is that Thai seems to have quite a lot of diabete, even being thin and apparently eating much less refined sugar.

Another factor is simply the weather, which imho is a huge factor: I loose weight very quickly in hot countries, except with some rather extreme diets like oriental pastries. hunger is lowered in warmer situations, while you drink more….as long as u stay aways from sodas, you automatically loose weight even without thinking of it, and quite fast….while when cold, hunger is terrible and fatty foods become more attractive. This is to be expected (the Bergmann’s rule), and should be factored out imho before comparing bmi between different populations…Especially as this had time to influence both local cuisine and local genetics…

Sensory-specific satiety also became a guiding principle for the processed-food industry. The biggest hits — be they Coca-Cola or Doritos — owe their success to complex formulas that pique the taste buds enough to be alluring but don’t have a distinct, overriding single flavor that tells the brain to stop eating

On the back of this, an interesting HBD angle might be that this kind of small target might be sensitive to even small differences in population sensitivity in taste. Optimizations (a la Howard Moskowitz) to maximize intake work less well in some populations than others (for instance, looking as TASR, Europeans tend to have a higher sensitivity to sugar and less to bitter flavors), so some foods may be less effectively addict for some populations than others.

Another interesting outcome of this is that in this context, evolutionarily novel drugs such as nicotine and caffeine (which are more or less equally new to all populations, even with all the tea in China) might serve as a more optimum index of a populations propensity to addiction.

Guyenet sometimes oddly presents his argument, to the extent that foods with a complex, strong, pleasurable flavor are always more rewarding and people want to eat them in higher quantities. I heard him once claim that people in the past were more slender because a lack of “sauteed onions” and more “plain food”.

This isn’t how flavorists approach the topic. Complex, strongly pleasurable foods are not automatically foods which encourage people to eat a lot of them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“The military has long been in a peculiar bind when it comes to food: how to get soldiers to eat more rations when they are in the field. They know that over time, soldiers would gradually find their meals-ready-to-eat so boring that they would toss them away, half-eaten, and not get all the calories they needed. But what was causing this M.R.E.-fatigue was a mystery. “So I started asking soldiers how frequently they would like to eat this or that, trying to figure out which products they would find boring,” Moskowitz said. The answers he got were inconsistent. “They liked flavorful foods like turkey tetrazzini, but only at first; they quickly grew tired of them. On the other hand, mundane foods like white bread would never get them too excited, but they could eat lots and lots of it without feeling they’d had enough.

This contradiction is known as “sensory-specific satiety.” In lay terms, it is the tendency for big, distinct flavors to overwhelm the brain, which responds by depressing your desire to have more. Sensory-specific satiety also became a guiding principle for the processed-food industry. The biggest hits — be they Coca-Cola or Doritos — owe their success to complex formulas that pique the taste buds enough to be alluring but don’t have a distinct, overriding single flavor that tells the brain to stop eating.”

Strong, complex flavors are not “rewarding” in the sense that either maximizes total food intake or maximizes intake of the specific foodstuff. A prescription to eat blander food (unseasoned baked potatoes) is a madness (well, it might be saner than a Doritos diet, but its far from sane).

Or maybe there is no solution, thanks to genetic differences between Anglo-Celts and the French or the Japanese.

That doesn’t follow. The solution is simply to return to an older way of eating and voluntarily relinquish the quest for maximum palatability. That this CAN be done is obvious. Given the current culture, however, that this WILL be done seems highly unlikely. But if American culture ever rediscovers that the principle of self-restraint and moderation is necessary for happiness, as I think it will sooner or later (probably later), then such a voluntary renunciation of taste and flavor might well happen.

Since the French, say, DON’T eat for maximum taste and flavor, I don’t see how we can conclude that they are evolved to handle greater palatability. The French have retained their traditional diet of medium palatability. The Anglos have not. If the French were to abandon their traditional restraints, all the evidence suggests they would fare as badly as Americans.

I just read the Stepehn Guyenet post and interestingly, he discusses exactly my point. I am still unsure but I am beginning to find the palatability argument more and more convincing. It may be that in countries like Japan and France most food is at a medium level of palatability with extremely palatable food being eaten only occasionally as a treat. In other words such cultures have a good balance between the paltable and the regular. Interestingly, dieting in America is specifically about non-palatable food, yet diets famously don’t work and people crash – maybe because such diets are TOO unpalatable? Maybe the golden mean needs to be achieved, and places like France and Japan have done so, while we are on extreme of palatability. Here is Guyenet:

“Some people have brought up the examples of France and India as challenges to the food reward hypothesis, stating that both have a tradition of delicious food. That, of course, is true. However, it’s important to remember that most people traditionally didn’t eat foie gras and fatty spiced curries every day, and food that you eat in a restaurant or as a tourist doesn’t necessarily represent peoples’ day-to-day food choices. In France, which I can speak for because I spent a significant chunk of my life there, most meals are composed of relatively simple, fresh, home-cooked food. This is particularly true for the older generations. The food is not low in fat, or low in animal fat. It tastes good, but it isn’t extravagant. Traditionally, people rarely ate at restaurants, which were expensive and considered a special treat. As the food system has industrialized, and commercial food has increasingly replaced home cooking, the prevalence of obesity has increased.”

I like to blame my own thinness on the delicious ethnic food I grew up on. Nothing compares — no no high-end restaurant and certainly no fast-food chain. It’s actually given me a visceral disdain for the culture surrounding high-end restaurants. “You think THIS is good? You think this is food?! This?!” Especially when I hear the meal complimented for its visual appeal (“Oh, it’s gorgeous!”), and then especially when it’s arranged in some silly geometric pattern. It could only be severe childhood culinary neglect that could turn a simple appreciation of good food into this status-obsessed parody. Or so I’d like to believe. That said, a sober look at my family suggests there is nothing I could do to make myself fat, not for another 15 years minimum.

Self-control is no doubt partly heritable, but does it make sense to suggest that Anglo people’s are historically lacking in this quality? Unless Anglo people underwent some huge genetic in the space of time it took for the obesity epidemic to arise, it makes more sense to finger culture, especially since Anglo people’s DID go through a huge cultural shift in that same time frame.

It’s called scientism, not science 🙂 Indeed, a true empiricism includes culture. But the modern version – what I call crude empiricism – has a fetish for numbers and for the crude physical fact. Nearly everyone explains obesity through the composition of food. It’s striking how the cultural or psychological factor gets such little attention. Yet it is likely the biggest culprit. It is interesting how this focus on the crude fact has so far has yielded so little of value in dealing with the problem, yet most people continue ploughing the same narrow furrow.

There is no such thing as absolutely free will without impingement from genetics or the environment, but it is an observable phenomenon in daily life that we can exercise some level of control on our actions, and that we can strengthen or weaken our ability to do so through habit.

Dang…my man, you have done your homework. I maintained my ideal weight, 180lbs, 6ft1during my 20 plus years in the Army..Once I retired, bam, I put on 45 lbs. life style change? Yes. I gave up on P.T. I’ve got to pull myself together and hit the pavement again. 😉

Also, Asian people in America stay thin to the proportion they remain rooted in their Asian culture. The more “American” an Asian is, the fatter they become, often just as fat as regular Americans. And the intermediate Asians, with a foot in both camps, are thin only in comparison with Americans – compared to Asians they are fat. To anyone who has not been to Asia, it is hard to understand the extremely high standards for thinness that prevail there, that makes even most Asians in America seem overweight. It’s a level of perfectionism that would be inconceivable to most Americans. And if you talk to Asians (or read Asian blogs online), you will find that this level of perfectionism when it comes to body fat is the result of a culture of strict fat shaming and rigid social policing. As crazy as it sounds, parents will mercilessly mock their children for gaining even a few pounds, an amount that would seem utterly trivial to Americans. Friends do the same thing. Asian thinness is the furthest thing from effortless and spontaneous as is possible. It requires a huge effort of the will. The difference is Asians have their entire society and network of family/friends behind them for reinforcement, and they grow up in a culture that trains their capacity for will power since childhood.

Well, as far as I understand you, you are saying that some people, like the French perhaps, evolved to handle a highly palatable diet, while others, like the Anglos perhaps, did not. Thus when the Anglos moved away from their traditional diet towards a highly palatable one, they could not resist the urge to overeat. This adds a nuance to what seemed to be your original contention that highly palatable food causes overeating for everyone.

It’s an interesting theory but for the reasons I already mentioned, it seems highly unlikely. To add a little more to what was already said, it is common for Americans who move to France to lose weight on very palatable French food, so it seems that food palatability in itself is not the problem for Anglos. Of course, all this is anecdotal, but it has some value. I lost weight in Asia, eating food that was in many cases as full of sugar and fat and palatability as anything in America. Another anecdote, but not without value.

There is a very strong modern tendency to explain everything in terms of a kind of crude empiricism. If people are obese, the explanation is sought in physical factors, not “insubstantial” factors like culture. To many people this seems more “scientific”. I am not against empiricism, but a true empiricism would admit the existence of things like the will, even if it cannot be measured or quantified.

You ask which came first, the cultural decline or obesity, but I think it is clear that the cultural decline, which began seriously in the 60s, came first. Nor does it make sense to see obesity as an isolated thing. It is surely part of a cluster of modern social dysfunctions that spreads out across our entire culture and that traces its roots to the dis-establishment of traditional controls and restraints that began in the 60s.

One important thing is thing is that we are no longer educated to build up our will-power. We know from studies that will-power is something that you can build up and that takes constant practice to maintain. We used to live in a culture that educated us constantly for the use and strengthening of that capacity, but we no longer do. To think that this won’t breed a generation of adults with a reduced capacity for will power seems naive. The entire element of self-restraint and self-control has been taken out of the culture to be replaced by powerful messages towards excessive consumption and self-indulgence. Combined with a reduced capacity for the exercise of will-power and the modern food abundance, the elimination from the culture of the urge towards self-control might well render most people incapable of resisting the urge to overeat, especially when another cultural element is added to this witches brew, democratic egalitarianism, which makes of the desire to appear stylish or look very good a kind of sinful attempt to distinguish oneself. There are also strong cultural messages that see a concern with appearance as either gay or superficial, in stark contrast with the Latin nations, who have always been artistic. No doubt there are some counter messages as well that work towards being thin, but they are clearly not the dominant ones. It’s interesting that the thinner nations are 1) more traditional (have a culture of self-control) 2) celebrate appearance and don’t think a concern with it is “artificial” 3) More elitist (aristocratic) in temperament and don’t think distinction in persona appearance is a sinful attempt to raise oneself above one’s fellows

Great article, very in-depth and I agree with all the main points you raised. I wonder what else has caused obesity to sky-rocket since 1980, besides the main factors you highlight. Maybe stress rates have increased in society? There is anecdotal evidence that in previous post-war generations, rates of stress may have been lower. I don’t have data. But we know that stress causes a spike in cortisol levels, which can cause over-eating and cravings for fatty, sugary foods etc. Poor sleep also causes a spike in cortisol. With people working longer hours, greater job insecurity caused by globalisation, job outsourcing, rounds of down-sizing, etc., also higher household debts, more working women, etc. maybe it is plausible that people are more stressed and eat more junk food and drink more booze in order to cope, increasing obesity. Maybe widespread use of hormonal contraception is to blame also. And far fewer men work manual jobs where lots of calories are burned, but far more work desk jobs with limited physical activity.

Mendelian randomization studies have shown the high density lipoproteins are not causative to coronary artery disease, though they do correlate. However, for BMI, it actually does hold up. See: http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/20/2552.short .

Re fast food; but your original point was that fast food is addictive because it is so delicious. My suggestion is that fast food is addictive because it is somewhat delicious but not quite delicious enough, leaving you feeling unsatisfied. Big difference.

Re palatable food in France, etc; that’s an interesting idea, but it has problems. First, French and Italian cuisines only became great around 500 years ago, which isn’t enough time for evolution to select for people better able to handle such a diet. Second, it is not at all clear what selective pressures would operate here – I can’t really imagine any scenario where people who could not handle this delicious cuisine would be weeded out in large numbers. Presumably, most people couldn’t afford to be gluttons even if they found the food irresistible, so that alone would prevent the weeding out of those who would succumb in an environment of food abundance. I wonder if the ordinary French person even ate more fat and butter than the ordinary Englishman – the difference might well have been just in haute cuisine. Third, and perhaps most damning, is the fact that when French or Chinese people come to America for longer periods they gain lots of weight, showing that it is not the case that they have evolved to handle a diet that Anglos can’t handle. When exposed to the same diet, they succumb as much as Anglos. The author of that famous book about how French women stay thin starts her book by explaining how she got fat living for one year in America, and still overate when she returned to France, remaining fat until she adopted French eating habits once again. In other words, it was not mere exposure to French food that did the trick, but a conscious process of re-acculturation to French eating habits, which she describes in detail. The cultural factor was key, not the kind of food she was exposed to. For a while she was just overeating baguettes and eclairs. There are lots of websites out there about Chinese and other foreigners gaining lots of weight in America and what they need to do to lose it once they get back. – it’s always re-adopting certain cultural habits of eating.

You say the only thing that changed is more junk food, but the culture changed tremendously in that time as well. Tradition broke down, including the traditional standards about physical appearance and grooming – slovenly and ungroomed became the fashion – and traditional notions of restraint and appropriate portion size disappeared.

I should add that the thin people I have known who ate junk food, they ate little – for some reason, they didn’t have cravings. So it’s not an issue of metabolism here. Both the veggie freaks and the junk food guys ate very little, that being the common factor.

The problem with this analysis is that the countries which are thinnest also eat the most palatable food, and are known for delicious cuisines. The obvious examples are the French, the Italians, as well as Japan, Thailand, etc. The French in particular are famous for cooking with tons of butter and fat. I very much doubt if junk food is more palatable than French food or even Thai food, whih uses lots and lots of fatty oils, sugar, and fatty coconut milk. In fact, in my experience, modern American junk food just isn’t very good, it’s kinda good but just about fails to hit the spot, leaving you craving more and more. The Anglo/Germanic countries are known for bland diets, and are the fattest. What gives?

So it would seem that the facts are directly opposed to your analysis. Highly palatable/rewarding cuisines seem to produce thin people, while countries with long traditions of bland food, and a modern tradition of junk food that is only mildly palatable without really “hitting the spot”, produce fat people, which is the exact opposite of your analysis. In my personal anecdotal experience, I have known multiple thin people who eat a combination of junk food and traditional highly palatable fatty foods, as well as some thin health freaks who ate mostly veggies and fruits. Their diets were completely opposed yet both were thin, leaving me unable to find any pattern in the kinds of foods that lead to thinness from examples in my personal life.

As for the concept of “cultural shaming”, it is a striking fact that countries where physical appearance matter the least – where style, fashion, and elegance matter the least – such as the Anglo countries, are the fattest. It is astonishing that nearly ALL the thin countries are full of well dressed, fashionable people, whereas nearly ALL the fat countries are full of people who dress terribly. Why should there be such a convergence on this? I have never ever been to a country where I noticed the people were thin and badly dressed and style disregarded. In France, Italy, Japan, Thailand, style and personal appearance are notoriously a hugely important thing in daily life. Then you have a place like Sweden, with low rates of fatness, but who are Germanic, who however prize personal appearance and fashion.

Good Article. If treatment for being overweight is possible it will not come from the fantasy of misanthropic reactionaries that they are going to take away the abundance of pleasurable foods or punish fat people in some way. If it is possible, I think we will move towards genetic modifications in the womb or petri dish to turn endomorphic fetuses into mesomorphic ones or some sort of drug must be developed for that naturally fat people can stuff themselves without gaining weight. The second way would allow obesity to be treated like a heart condition or other innate health problems. There are attempts to produce drugs of this sort but we will have to see if they survive their trials.