One of the higher profile medical stories of the past week was the news that work is increasingly workless. In the physical sense, that is. Physics defines work as force times distance, and we do ever less of the former, and electrons traverse ever more of the latter on our behalf.
Specifically, the paper published in PLoS One, and the media coverage of the study published everywhere else, tell us that the average adult male expends roughly 142 fewer calories per day at work, and the average adult female expends 124 fewer. The findings are based on an analysis of Department of Labor statistics from the 1960s, to 2008.
The theoretical importance of this finding is that it helps to explain the obesity epidemic, and a bit of number crunching will quickly show why. Assume that everything else other than energy expenditure at work -- such as all other energy expenditure and total calorie intake -- were constant over the past four decades (nonsense, of course, and we'll come to that shortly -- but go with it for now).
A man burning 142 fewer calories each of roughly 240 work days per year would burn just shy of 34,000 fewer calories annually. Using the standard, if somewhat inaccurate, 3,500 calories per pound of body fat gained or lost, that translates to about 9.7 lbs of weight gain in just one year! A comparable calculation with the woman's 124 fewer calories burned translates to 8.5 lbs gained per year.
That this one finding, if even remotely accurate, could account for much of the modern obesity epidemic all on its own goes a long way toward demonstrating how un-mysterious the epidemic is! We really don't need a lot of exotic theories to account for rampant obesity in the modern age. We just need what we have: a massive shift in energy balance.
That we're burning fewer calories at work in the modern age is about as surprising as a report telling us we're using more cell phones. And, in fact, the two are separate halves of the same, obvious truth. We have ever more technology in our lives doing what muscles used to do at work and at play. This is another one of those times when a careful analysis of a lot of data demonstrates what the average person would quickly conclude merely by not living under a rock.
And this obvious truth about energy expenditure is just part of an equally obvious, larger truth -- also accessible to all with an above-rock-bottom view of the world. We are eating more, too.
You may already know my refrain on this topic: throughout all of human history until very recently, calories were relatively scarce and hard to get and physical activity was unavoidable. We have devised a modern world in which physical activity is increasingly scarce and hard to get (as evidence by those 120 to 140 fewer calories burned at work each day), and calories are unavoidable.
The assumption I asked for above notwithstanding, nothing relevant to energy balance has stayed constant over the time span in question. The number of processed foods has increased by tens of thousands. The use of food chemicals has gone up. Portion sizes have increased. Fast food has become a fixture in the modern landscape and the modern diet.
Time for food preparation has gone down, and with it, skills for food preparation have atrophied. Factory farming has emerged, and surged. The use of hormones in animal husbandry has expanded. The internet was invented.
The list could go on, but let's stop there. The proximal explanation for epidemic obesity is less use of feet, less prudent use of forks. The root explanation is everything about modern living that makes it modern. Workless work is an example.
What, then, are the take-away messages from this study, and the media attention to it?
First, the obesity epidemic is hard to fix, but not hard to explain. We tend to act as if the first requires the second, and so keep doing studies to re-verify the obvious. It's hard, but not complicated. The causes are as easy to see as the differences in the average work day now, and 40 years ago.
Second, since obesigenic influences have been engineered into the structure of the work day, it is indeed silly as well as wrong to blame the victims of rampant obesity. The amount of physical work demanded of you by your job is not a matter of will power. It is a fundamental change at the societal level, far larger than the personal choices and personal responsibility of any individual employee.
Third, the fact that the obesity epidemic is easily explained does not mean that every individual's struggle with weight is quite so clear. There are cases of extreme susceptibility to weight gain, and unusual resistance to weight loss- a topic I've recently addressed on these pages.
Fourth, if we engineered the causes of obesity into the typical day and are reaping the consequences, logic suggests that we should engineer the remedy back into daily routine if we hope ever to reap the reward. Our recently launched A-B-E for Fitness program is a timely example; the hourly five-minute activity bursts it is designed to fit into a work day would allow the average adult to burn 100 calories or more each day. What we engineered out, we can engineer back in.
Data confirming less work at work is scarcely an epiphany. But it does serve to remind us of things we broke along the path of modern progress, and of the need to fix them. It reminds us, in other words, that we've had work cut out of our work for us -- and we've cut our work cut out for us figuring out how to engineer it back in!
Dr. David L. Katz; www.davidkatzmd.com
www.turnthetidefoundation.org
Follow David Katz, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrDavidKatz
Matthew Edlund, M.D.: Weight Loss Beyond Diet And Exercise
If the study had made some attempt to factor in the 50% substitution of sugar by HFCS after 1975, then it might be worth a look. As it is, it represents bogus science.
But it ends with this clear, unambiguous conclusion:
"Over the last 50 years in the U.S. there has been a progressive decrease in the percent of individuals employed in occupations that require moderate intensity physical activity.... daily occupation-related energy expenditure has decreased by more than 100 calories, and this reduction in energy expenditure accounts for a significant portion of the increase in mean U.S. body weight for women and men over the last 5 decades."
There's no clear understanding of how this study was actually done. It reminds me of Ancel Keys deciding ahead of time fat caused cardiovascular problems--not sugar--while British rival, John Yudkin, in his 1972 book: "Pure, White and Deadly," pointed correctly to sugar as the real culprit.
Here's the clincher. Going back 50 years--to the 1960s--allows the data in this study to get around the question of sugar--particularly high fructose corn syrup, which was introduced in the mid-70s and became the almost exclusive sweetener in soda pop and juices by the 1980s.
Jacked up sugar consumption is what we need to focus on as the cause of obesity and metabolic syndrome in the U.S. Don't let some second-rate indecipherable study using stale and suspect data from the past throw us off the trail of the true menace to our health: sugar and its more evil sister, HFCS.
www.WeightLossInspiration.net
“… the study published everywhere else, tell us that the average adult male expends roughly 142 fewer calories per day at work, and the average adult female expends 124 fewer.â€
There is a problem with this statement.
Quote: Yahoo! Inc,
“How did they come up with these calorie counts?â€
“Researchers looked at U.S. Bureau of Labors Statistics figures on the prevalence of different occupations over time, and cross-referenced those numbers with a broad national database on body weight.â€
http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/20110527/cm_theweek/215776
Their belief that people spend less calories today is based on the fact that obesity has increased over the last fifty years. It is estimated, or better to say guessing, guided by counting calories and energy balance.
I think that many scientists are not aware that since early 2010, “The Association for the Study of Obesity (ASO)â€, the United Kingdoms foremost organisation dedicated to the understanding and treatment of obesity, has removed from their website everything that mentioned calories in – calories out and energy balance.
http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/energybalance.htm
Up to date of 30 March 2011on “The web site of the Association for the Study of Obesity (ASO)†there is noting about calories or “energy balanceâ€. The ASO used to run the ORIC, the Obesity Resource and Information Centre. The ORIC disappeared from the internet in the early of 2010.
A much more valuable study is done byCarl-Étienne Juneau, a researcher at the Université de Montréal Department of Social and Preventive Medicine.
Quote
“People eat better and exercise more today than they did in the 1970's, yet obesity rates continue to rise,†says lead author Carl-Étienne Juneau a researcher at the Université de Montréal Department of Social and Preventive Medicine. “My hypothesis is that our professional life is linked to this seemingly contradictory phenomenon.â€
Quote:
“A surprise findings was the increased healthy attitudes toward transportation. “As a result of urban sprawl we expected to see more car-dependant people,†says Juneau. “Yet, both men and women increasingly adopted healthy behaviours such as walking and biking, which is definitely good news.â€
http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/udem-news/news/20101007-is-your-job-making-you-fat.html
Luke Tunyich
Biomechanics and Weight Management
http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/
Experiments were conducted on indoor cats for multiple generations (over fifteen) to see what happens if they are provided their natural diet (in relatively unlimited quantity), while living a life of ease.
According to the human hypothesis, they would become obese and suffer from related health problems. That is certainly the case when pets are fed processed Frankenfoods that come in cans and bags.
Now, change the diet, and feed these animals only what nature evolved them to eat. For cats, this is raw whole ground-living animals. The result: no obesity, self- regulation of food consumption, perfect dentition, beautiful coats, and no need to ever visit a vet. Hmm.
Next, we have gorillas. Case Western University and the Cleveland Zoo took a nature-based approach to solving the riddle of obesity and heart disease, using caged gorillas as a model. They found that simply by switching to foods that nature evolved the primates to eat, their weight would automatically normalize, and their health would return. The gorillas lost weight and reversed heart disease, even though they ate more food more often than when they ate Frankenfoods. See:
http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/42383
For a video, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9A74LvPxU8
Quote:
"Experiments were conducted on indoor cats for multiple generations (over fifteen) to see what happens if they are provided their natural diet (in relatively unlimited quantity), while living a life of ease.â€
Obesity among domestic pets and other domestic animals is non-existent. Feeding domestic pets and domestic animals with any kind of food will not cause obesity in domestic pets and other domestic animals, which spend all or most of their time outside the house.
The obesity epidemic is caused by man-made environments, and it has nothing to do with the kind of food that is consumed.
Quote:
“Next, we have gorillas. Case Western University and the Cleveland Zoo took a nature-based approach to solving the riddle of obesity and heart disease, using caged gorillas as a model.
They found that simply by switching to foods that nature evolved the primates to eat, their weight would automatically normalize, and their health would return. The gorillas lost weight and reversed heart disease, even though they ate more food more often than when they ate Frankenfoods.â€
That study is designed in a way that will prove their already established belief.
I think they caged the gorilla in such way that is far more different from the standard environment that is provided for gorillas in any ZOO in the world.
1. Feeding gorillas in their natural environment with any kind of food will not produce obesity in them.
2. Feeding gorillas in any zoo in the world with any kind of food without altering the standard ZOO environment for gorillas will not produce obesity in them.
Only a human is able to gain 6 times more weight than what their normal weight is. If it is possible for animals to gain 6 times more weight than what their normal weight is, than in that case, a man can overfeed a cow and get an “elephant sized cowâ€, or a man can overfeed an elephant and get a “dinosaur’s sized elephantâ€. It is obvious that this is impossible. Only the human is able to gain 6 to 7 times more weight than what his normal weight would be.
A little bit more about the differences in weight gain in animals and humans is explained on my website in the article: “Modern Sitting Furniture and Obesity Epidemicâ€
The link to the article is: http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/obesitytherealcause.htm
Good luck with your health experiments.
The mechanism underlining weight gain around the abdomen caused by prolonged sitting is explained in the article: “THE SHAPE of MODERN UPHOLSTERED SITTING FURNITURE AND ABDOMINAL WEIGHT GAIN†The link to the article is: http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/causesofweightgain.htm
The work place and the type of job do PARTIALLY explain the obesity epidemic.
On the other side of the coin:
1. The work place and type of job do partially explain why obesity is NOT prevalent among medical doctors.
2. Work place and type of job doesn’t explain why obesity is prevalent among medical nurses.
3. Work place and type of doesn’t explain the obesity epidemic or the obesity among children and infants.
Please note: Weight gain caused by prolonged sitting is not due to negative energy balance.
Luke Tunyich
http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/
It's a shame, though, because if governments ever started augmenting inventories of domestically-produced fitness and sporting goods (to the point where they could be handed out for free, if need be), they could help people shape up without shipping jobs out.
And if they ever decided to tax (or even ban) remotes, they'd soon have people up out of their chairs. Maybe even marching in the streets...
This study suffers from one glaring limitation: it fails to account for energy expenditure outside of the occupational setting. It has been shown that in fact our total daily energy expenditure has not changed very much over the years so although an interesting observation in itself, to draw a conclusion that occupational physical activity "accounts for a significant portion of the increase in mean U.S. body weight" is to make a pretty big assumption about our exercise habits.
Although increasing physical activity will obviously result in weight loss, we need to start focussing on the real cause of (and solution to) this epidemic - corrupt agricultural policy, overly processed food and the shameful marketing of cheap empty calories to children and adolescents.
Physical activity - simply moving and elevating the heart rate - is a key component to good health. I don't think anyone can argue with that.
Food choice, food quality, and food quantity matter. Adding high fructose corn syrup to packaged foods has been shown (in a post by Dr Katz) to elevate triglycerides (stored as body fat) and suppress satiety, causing one to consume more. The introduction of hfcs to our food supply thirty years ago correlates with the obesity epidemic.
Working a more sedentary job, living a more sedentary life, and consuming more energy dense foods most certainly leads to an energy imbalance. Exercise alone won't fix the problem. Diet alone won't either. You need both to reverse the energy imbalance and jump start the burning of stored fat for energy.
This information is widely available. Until we stop subsidizing corn and dissuading food manufacturers from adding hfcs to everything, most people won't even realize how they are slowly killing themselves.