1/3 of americans are now obese

Amby · January 10, 2009

WASHINGTON - The number of obese American adults outweighs the number of those who are merely overweight, according to the latest statistics from the federal government.

Numbers posted by the National Center for Health Statistics show that more than 34 percent of Americans are obese, compared to 32.7 percent who are overweight. It said just under 6 percent are "extremely" obese.

"More than one-third of adults, or over 72 million people, were obese in 2005-2006, the NCHS said in its report.

The numbers are based on a survey of 4,356 adults over the age of 20 who take part in a regular government survey of health, said the NCHS, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The figures come from the 2005-2006 survey and are the most current available.

"During the physical examination, conducted in mobile examination centers, height and weight were measured as part of a more comprehensive set of body measurements," the NCHS report said.

"Although the prevalence of obesity has more than doubled since 1980, the prevalence of overweight has remained stable over the same time period," it said.

Obesity and overweight are calculated using a formula called body mass index. BMI is equal to weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared. Someone with a BMI of 25 to 29 is classified as overweight, 30 to 40 counts as obese and people with BMIs of 40 or more are morbidly obese.

In the 1988-1994 surveys, 33 percent of Americans were overweight, 22.9 percent were obese and 2.9 percent were morbidly obese. The numbers have edged up steadily since.

Being overweight or obese raises the risk of heart disease, diabetes, some cancers, arthritis and other conditions.

In May, the CDC reported that 32 percent of U.S. children fit the definition of being overweight, 16 percent were obese and 11 percent were extremely obese.

Childhood and adult obesity has emerged as a growing problem not only in the United States but also in many countries around the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28582253/

Yoink · January 10, 2009

and 2/3 of all topics are Amby's

Amby · January 10, 2009

and 2/3 of all topics are Amby's

don't click if you don't want to read asshat

Yoink · January 10, 2009

see... now asshat is funny

mawilson · January 10, 2009

Only 1/3? :dance:

Amby · January 10, 2009

Only 1/3?

yeah but another almost 1/3 are overweight :blink:

mawilson · January 10, 2009

Only 1/3?

yeah but another almost 1/3 are overweight

Oh I thought it was the same 1/3. I mean, obviously if you're obese, you're also overweight

Amby · January 10, 2009

Only 1/3?

yeah but another almost 1/3 are overweight

Oh I thought it was the same 1/3. I mean, obviously if you're obese, you're also overweight

I think this just means people need to stop eating. I think we need to have that guy who starved the prisoners as president to set people straight :unsure:

john & jean · January 10, 2009

This poll may be flawed, the polster has never been to WAL MART KILGORE TEXAS. More like 99%!!!

Makes you think, how can people with no teeth be so O B E S E????

Amby · January 10, 2009

This poll may be flawed, the polster has never been to WAL MART KILGORE TEXAS. More like 99%!!!
Makes you think, how can people with no teeth be so O B E S E????

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

peejay · January 10, 2009

This poll may be flawed, the polster has never been to WAL MART KILGORE TEXAS. More like 99%!!!
Makes you think, how can people with no teeth be so O B E S E????

Probably because you don't need any teeth to eat the ####### that makes you obese. Most of that garbage rots your teeth anyway. It's a vicious cycle.

Ban Hammer · January 10, 2009

and 2/3 of all topics are Amby's

don't click if you don't want to read asshat

Danno · January 10, 2009

NUmber like these and other every day observations lead me to cast a lot of doubt on the so called "Poverty" stats.

Has there ever been another time in history where the impoverished also suffered from too much food intake?

And don't give me that "it's because they are poor they can only eat unhealthy fat food".

During the depression years a lot of folks lived off of nothing but Molasses and cornbread.... even with that diet

we did not see folks so fat that businesses provided electric scooters to get around on.

HAL 9000 · January 10, 2009

NUmber like these and other every day observations lead me to cast a lot of doubt on the so called "Poverty" stats.
Has there ever been another time in history where the impoverished also suffered from too much food intake?

And don't give me that "it's because they are poor they can only eat unhealthy fat food".

During the depression years a lot of folks lived off of nothing but Molasses and cornbread.... even with that diet

we did not see folks so fat that businesses provided electric scooters to get around on.

A little FYI- this is something I've corrected others before, so don't take it the wrong way:

Cheaper foods are crammed with cheaper ingredients. For example, HFCS packs per same unit of mass, more caloric/glycogenic capacity than its equivalent mass in regular ole'sugar. And its cheaper to obtain and add to foods. Hence, the 'savings' is passed on.

During the depression years, HFCS was not as widely available. It was first added into most of our food supply until the 70s.

And that's only HFCS. Cheaper ingredients tend to well, be better marketable for those with less funds to procure more nutritious ingredients. Products with saturated fats go this way, with more saturation being cheaper since it lasts longer on a shelf.

So yes, its a lack of proper nutrition argument. Don't believe me? Head on over to your nearest diabetes research lab that handles human pancreatic tissues from humans or you can take my word for it. Again, during the depression lots of folks may have lived off of molasses and cornbread- and they surely walked off those calories than many today. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Danno · January 10, 2009

NUmber like these and other every day observations lead me to cast a lot of doubt on the so called "Poverty" stats.
Has there ever been another time in history where the impoverished also suffered from too much food intake?

And don't give me that "it's because they are poor they can only eat unhealthy fat food".

During the depression years a lot of folks lived off of nothing but Molasses and cornbread.... even with that diet

we did not see folks so fat that businesses provided electric scooters to get around on.

A little FYI- this is something I've corrected others before, so don't take it the wrong way:

Cheaper foods are crammed with cheaper ingredients. For example, HFCS packs per same unit of mass, more caloric/glycogenic capacity than its equivalent mass in regular ole'sugar. And its cheaper to obtain and add to foods. Hence, the 'savings' is passed on.

During the depression years, HFCS was not as widely available. It was first added into most of our food supply until the 70s.

And that's only HFCS. Cheaper ingredients tend to well, be better marketable for those with less funds to procure more nutritious ingredients. Products with saturated fats go this way, with more saturation being cheaper since it lasts longer on a shelf.

So yes, its a lack of proper nutrition argument. Don't believe me? Head on over to your nearest diabetes research lab that handles human pancreatic tissues from humans or you can take my word for it. Again, during the depression lots of folks may have lived off of molasses and cornbread- and they surely walked off those calories than many today. You are comparing apples to oranges.