Obesity

 Yglesias did one of those things where he brings some of his priors to a debate he really doesn't know a bunch about and does a bunch of confirmation bias research to prove the point it felt like he was going to make in the first place.

This one is on obesity, which is the latest front in the perpetual war between responsibility and tolerance. Basically, this debate breaks down whether you think obesity is a personal failing or whether its a culture event beyond the control of anyone to really control. No one "chooses" to be obese, but if you have tasty, quick, cheap food available to you, you're going to eat that and become overweight.

Of course, "overweight" is another issue. According to BMI, I'm obese. If I was at the weight I want to be - knowing myself and my body - I would merely be overweight. What BMI leaves out is that I am a fairly stout guy - wide through the shoulders. I lift weights as my primary form of exercise. So, I'm physically fit (most of the time, not currently) but I'm "obese." In fact, my body fat composition at the moment is not where I want it to be - wrestling season makes it hard to workout on my own - but my actual weight is the same as it was this fall when I was in pretty good shape for someone my age. Luckily, my doctor is not a slave to BMI and he's cool with my weight as long as I'm fit.

So one reason Americans are more "obese" is - I believe - simply because they are bigger. However, any trip to certain parts of America will let you know that people in America carry too much body fat. 

Recently new guidelines for childhood obesity created friction among people who saw this as "victim blaming." Certainly kids aren't making informed choices about what they eat, but presumably this message is for the parents. There is a good argument that food processors are creating less healthy options. "Salt, sugar and fat" and all that.

I actually do know a few things about weight loss and weight control as a wrestling coach. The answer strikes me as pretty easy - with the obvious caveats that every situation is unique. The basic problem is we have access to way more calories and way more "empty" calories than ever before. There may be "hacks" that help you navigate this dynamic, but the basic issue is if you take in more calories than you burn, your body will store those extra calories as a future store of energy as fat.

That's pretty much it.

However, your need for about 2500-3000 calories a day can often be met in a single trip to Starbucks. When chains post the caloric content of food, that's a really good way to monitor whether you are getting "excess" calories. For some, this is fat shaming. I honestly don't know what to say about that. It feels like people are looking for things to be upset about.

Maintaining a healthy weight - or more accurately a healthy percentage of body fat - is simply going to be a challenge for many people in the food environment we have created for ourselves. An unhealthy amount of body fat is not good for you and correlates and causes many health complications. My "overweight" status is hard on my knees, which is why I want to be 10 pounds lighter. It's hard when I can get 2000 calories at a single meal (and I'm older and my metabolism is slowing).

There is a compassionate middle ground that acknowledges that high percentages of body fat is bad for you, while understanding that this is frequently difficult to resist.