The Uneasy Truth About Traveling While Fat

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Because I do not live in the US I'm very aware of the impact of the environment, whenever I go to the US for a short stay I start to become fatter. My genetics didn't change, my mental state or my hormonal balance has not been altered or whatever and I consistently find myself eating more food. I don't even like US food that much, and I'm still eating more. It's kind of fascinating.

This is intriguing to me. Can you describe the differences in what you eat, and how you feel in terms of hunger/appetite, between home and visiting the US.

Just in general portions were larger so I'd naturally eat more (I tend to finish my plate no matter what), fast food was more available and cheaper so I'd eat there sometimes and so on and so forth. And whenever I ate fast food I would not be full for very long, so I'd naturally eat more after. Also more generally the cuisine tends to be richer, with more fats, more sugar, cheese everywhere etc. One dish that particularly troubles me is mac n cheese. Who came up with this idea ? And on top of that I had to use cars whereas at home I walk everywhere.

Now of course you could argue that you can eat healthy too in the US, and I'd full agree with you: you'd go to the supermarket, buy all non processed food, cook all your meals and bring them around in glass tupperwares. I'd do that if I lived there, and probably never eat out, or maybe once a month. But now for the average person who doesn't do that, they are going to have a rough time.

Essentially you could eat healthy too, but the amount of mental stress required to maintain that pattern would be markedly higher than at home.

[Hardartery]

Because I do not live in the US I'm very aware of the impact of the environment, whenever I go to the US for a short stay I start to become fatter. My genetics didn't change, my mental state or my hormonal balance has not been altered or whatever and I consistently find myself eating more food. I don't even like US food that much, and I'm still eating more. It's kind of fascinating.

This is intriguing to me. Can you describe the differences in what you eat, and how you feel in terms of hunger/appetite, between home and visiting the US.

Just in general portions were larger so I'd naturally eat more (I tend to finish my plate no matter what), fast food was more available and cheaper so I'd eat there sometimes and so on and so forth. And whenever I ate fast food I would not be full for very long, so I'd naturally eat more after. Also more generally the cuisine tends to be richer, with more fats, more sugar, cheese everywhere etc. One dish that particularly troubles me is mac n cheese. Who came up with this idea ? And on top of that I had to use cars whereas at home I walk everywhere.

Now of course you could argue that you can eat healthy too in the US, and I'd full agree with you: you'd go to the supermarket, buy all non processed food, cook all your meals and bring them around in glass tupperwares. I'd do that if I lived there, and probably never eat out, or maybe once a month. But now for the average person who doesn't do that, they are going to have a rough time.

Essentially you could eat healthy too, but the amount of mental stress required to maintain that pattern would be markedly higher than at home.

I just spent two weeks in Italy. I ate like a bastard. The food was cheaper than in the US, the portions were equivalent - sometimes larger - and the pastries were delightful. I gained no weight at all as near as I can tell (Not my home scale, so...). I then spent two weeks on the US. 10 lbs and and I mostly tried to be be healthy as much as possible which included making eggs and salad with baked chicken most days. I ate at restaurants with friends and not every day. The portions are not the size they used to be and I can eat a real meal with wine and no holds barred in Italy for less than the drive through in the US. I am ever less inclined to live in the US ever again. It's stupid expensive and makes me fatter almost instantly.

[mikeylikey]

One dish that particularly troubles me is mac n cheese. Who came up with this idea ?

[KyleSchuant]

It's probably quite complex but I can imagine a few reasons why people can eat so much:

All those, but also consider people's life conditions. You've probably heard of books like Bowling Alone, tracking the decline of communal life - fewer people going to churches, bowling clubs, fraternal orders and all that. And anyone who's lived in a rural area and then visited a big city will notice the huge difference in how people just keep to themselves; populations have become more urban over the last couple of generations, so there are more people who just don't interact with others.

At the same time, families have become smaller. The change in birth rate doesn't just mean you go from 4 to 3 children to 1-2. It also means that if you were a kid in (say) 1970, you had 2-3 brothers or sisters, but also 4-5 blood-relative aunties and uncles between your two parents, and, depending on their ages, probably another 3-4 aunties and uncles by marriage. This also meant 9-16 first cousins. Plus of course your 4 grandparents, and maybe 4-8 surviving great-uncles and aunties. Altogether you'd have at least 28 people as part of your immediate family.

But with people marrying later and having fewer children, down to 1-2 children per woman, we're down to no siblings or just one. Which means maybe 1-2 aunties or uncles, who may or may not be married, and 1-4 cousins. Because the parents had children at 35yo instead of 25, not all of the grandparents will be surviving, or if surviving not in great shape to interact with kids. And there probably aren't any surviving great-uncles or aunties, 1-2 if you're lucky. So the kid of today is down to maybe 5-6 immediate relatives. And of course, with fewer relatives, the threshold of getting up and moving across the country for work is lowered, so the kid may not even know half of those 5-6 immediate relatives. Too bad if your parents split, of course.

For many people, life is pretty lonely and isolated. So I see the rise in depression and anxiety, and the rise in substance abuse and obesity as all part of the same thing. Many people aren't happy.

And you could not even think about all that stuff above and just work backwards. What is it about modern life that makes many people think the best they can do with it is sitting around at home staring at tiny screens endlessly stuffing their fat sweaty faces with bright yellow shit?

[quikky]

It's probably quite complex but I can imagine a few reasons why people can eat so much:

All those, but also consider people's life conditions. You've probably heard of books like Bowling Alone, tracking the decline of communal life - fewer people going to churches, bowling clubs, fraternal orders and all that. And anyone who's lived in a rural area and then visited a big city will notice the huge difference in how people just keep to themselves; populations have become more urban over the last couple of generations, so there are more people who just don't interact with others.

At the same time, families have become smaller. The change in birth rate doesn't just mean you go from 4 to 3 children to 1-2. It also means that if you were a kid in (say) 1970, you had 2-3 brothers or sisters, but also 4-5 blood-relative aunties and uncles between your two parents, and, depending on their ages, probably another 3-4 aunties and uncles by marriage. This also meant 9-16 first cousins. Plus of course your 4 grandparents, and maybe 4-8 surviving great-uncles and aunties. Altogether you'd have at least 28 people as part of your immediate family.

But with people marrying later and having fewer children, down to 1-2 children per woman, we're down to no siblings or just one. Which means maybe 1-2 aunties or uncles, who may or may not be married, and 1-4 cousins. Because the parents had children at 35yo instead of 25, not all of the grandparents will be surviving, or if surviving not in great shape to interact with kids. And there probably aren't any surviving great-uncles or aunties, 1-2 if you're lucky. So the kid of today is down to maybe 5-6 immediate relatives. And of course, with fewer relatives, the threshold of getting up and moving across the country for work is lowered, so the kid may not even know half of those 5-6 immediate relatives. Too bad if your parents split, of course.

For many people, life is pretty lonely and isolated. So I see the rise in depression and anxiety, and the rise in substance abuse and obesity as all part of the same thing. Many people aren't happy.

And you could not even think about all that stuff above and just work backwards. What is it about modern life that makes many people think the best they can do with it is sitting around at home staring at tiny screens endlessly stuffing their fat sweaty faces with bright yellow shit?

Well said.

---

I think a lot of the bad trends in society, like isolation above, and also anger, anxiety, polarization, etc., are driven by the internet and social media especially. I don't think humans are meant to see algorithm-determined information meant to generate maximal engagement 24/7, and then interact with each other via a one dimensional, often anonymous medium of communication. We are living in a world of not only physical junk food everywhere, but also mental junk food. Our brains are getting stuffed with artificial cheese deep fried in partially hydrogenated oil and colored with red #7.

[DCR]

I think a lot of the bad trends in society, like isolation above, and also anger, anxiety, polarization, etc., are driven by the internet and social media especially. I don't think humans are meant to see algorithm-determined information meant to generate maximal engagement 24/7, and then interact with each other via a one dimensional, often anonymous medium of communication. We are living in a world of not only physical junk food everywhere, but also mental junk food. Our brains are getting stuffed with artificial cheese deep fried in partially hydrogenated oil and colored with red #7.

This.

The shit my girl’s kids watch online is absolutely mindnumbing. I truly don’t think it’s a generational issue - I’m capable of discerning what is or isn’t educational or of some other value. This trash is rotting their brains. No one cares what I think, though.

But seriously, what’s with every fucking person in every fucking video talking a mile a minute without a breath?

[KyleSchuant]

But seriously, what’s with every fucking person in every fucking video talking a mile a minute without a breath?

They know that the vast majority of people watching them are doing so on their mobile phones with subtitles on, their fingers hovering, ready to flic away the instant that the thing ceases to hold their interest. So they have to keep people watching and cram a lot of words in there.

The medium shapes the message. Some of us will be old enough to remember vinyl LPs, and the "concept album", something like Pink Floyd's Wall, where you were expected to put it on, sit down and do nothing but listen to it for an hour or so - maybe at most have a drink or strike up a blunt while listening. With first CDs shuffling tracks and then the transition to fully-digital, albums like this simply don't exist anymore, it's all individual songs unconnected to each-other.

I think the more successful YouTube channels, for example, show that people are missing this connection. Livestreams allow a back-and-forth with the content producer, and one of the more popular formats is the reaction video, where someone takes someone else's video and comments on it - exactly as you or I would if we were sitting down together showing each-other videos.

Ultimately, people need people. A sense of community and common purpose. If they can't have a sense of community and common purpose they'll take a Big Mac, crystal meth and PornHub.

That's why I'll keep my gym open even without it being successful commercially. People need people. Me, too.

[DCR]

The medium shapes the message. Some of us will be old enough to remember vinyl LPs, and the "concept album", something like Pink Floyd's Wall, where you were expected to put it on, sit down and do nothing but listen to it for an hour or so - maybe at most have a drink or strike up a blunt while listening. With first CDs shuffling tracks and then the transition to fully-digital, albums like this simply don't exist anymore, it's all individual songs unconnected to each-other.

Concept albums remain very popular in metal.

[KyleSchuant]

I'm glad to hear it. Though metal being the cultural repository for Western civilisation would be... unexpected.

[platypus]

I always lose weight when I travel, and I think it's in large part because:
- I hate spending money, and it's cheaper to skip meals or buy rotisserie chicken than to eat out.
- Portion sizes are controlled at restaurants.
- When I am not around people I know, it is very easy to avoid junk food.

At home, there is a direct correlation between how social I am and how fat I am. I have zero self control around food. It's very easy, when cooking for myself, to only buy foods that I have to cook and won't binge eat. When someone else is providing food and especially when there's too much food, it's game over. I'm eating two loaves of garlic bread with chips and pizza.

[platypus]

They know that the vast majority of people watching them are doing so on their mobile phones with subtitles on, their fingers hovering, ready to flic away the instant that the thing ceases to hold their interest. So they have to keep people watching and cram a lot of words in there.

The medium shapes the message. Some of us will be old enough to remember vinyl LPs, and the "concept album", something like Pink Floyd's Wall, where you were expected to put it on, sit down and do nothing but listen to it for an hour or so - maybe at most have a drink or strike up a blunt while listening. With first CDs shuffling tracks and then the transition to fully-digital, albums like this simply don't exist anymore, it's all individual songs unconnected to each-other.

Not kidding, I ran into a younger friend of mine at the coffee shop last night, and he had his earbuds in. I asked what he was listening to, and it was a different song in each ear. He turned a little red and said, "My attention span really is that short."

One of my favorite dates is inviting a girl to drink wine and watch a classical music performance on youtube.

[hector]

They know that the vast majority of people watching them are doing so on their mobile phones with subtitles on, their fingers hovering, ready to flic away the instant that the thing ceases to hold their interest. So they have to keep people watching and cram a lot of words in there.

The medium shapes the message. Some of us will be old enough to remember vinyl LPs, and the "concept album", something like Pink Floyd's Wall, where you were expected to put it on, sit down and do nothing but listen to it for an hour or so - maybe at most have a drink or strike up a blunt while listening. With first CDs shuffling tracks and then the transition to fully-digital, albums like this simply don't exist anymore, it's all individual songs unconnected to each-other.

Not kidding, I ran into a younger friend of mine at the coffee shop last night, and he had his earbuds in. I asked what he was listening to, and it was a different song in each ear. He turned a little red and said, "My attention span really is that short."

One of my favorite dates is inviting a girl to drink wine and watch a classical music performance on youtube.

Decades ago I remember some albums, like Sasha and Digweed, that had 10 minute intros. Just the intro.

A different, almost alien time.

[DCR]

They know that the vast majority of people watching them are doing so on their mobile phones with subtitles on, their fingers hovering, ready to flic away the instant that the thing ceases to hold their interest. So they have to keep people watching and cram a lot of words in there.

The medium shapes the message. Some of us will be old enough to remember vinyl LPs, and the "concept album", something like Pink Floyd's Wall, where you were expected to put it on, sit down and do nothing but listen to it for an hour or so - maybe at most have a drink or strike up a blunt while listening. With first CDs shuffling tracks and then the transition to fully-digital, albums like this simply don't exist anymore, it's all individual songs unconnected to each-other.

Not kidding, I ran into a younger friend of mine at the coffee shop last night, and he had his earbuds in. I asked what he was listening to, and it was a different song in each ear. He turned a little red and said, "My attention span really is that short."

One of my favorite dates is inviting a girl to drink wine and watch a classical music performance on youtube.

Decades ago I remember some albums, like Sasha and Digweed, that had 10 minute intros. Just the intro.

A different, almost alien time.

Duuuuuuuude. “Expeditions” was the shit.

[hector]

They know that the vast majority of people watching them are doing so on their mobile phones with subtitles on, their fingers hovering, ready to flic away the instant that the thing ceases to hold their interest. So they have to keep people watching and cram a lot of words in there.

The medium shapes the message. Some of us will be old enough to remember vinyl LPs, and the "concept album", something like Pink Floyd's Wall, where you were expected to put it on, sit down and do nothing but listen to it for an hour or so - maybe at most have a drink or strike up a blunt while listening. With first CDs shuffling tracks and then the transition to fully-digital, albums like this simply don't exist anymore, it's all individual songs unconnected to each-other.

Not kidding, I ran into a younger friend of mine at the coffee shop last night, and he had his earbuds in. I asked what he was listening to, and it was a different song in each ear. He turned a little red and said, "My attention span really is that short."

One of my favorite dates is inviting a girl to drink wine and watch a classical music performance on youtube.

Decades ago I remember some albums, like Sasha and Digweed, that had 10 minute intros. Just the intro.

A different, almost alien time.

Duuuuuuuude. “Expeditions” was the shit.

Yes!!!!!!! The best!!!!!!

I used to love long solo car trips just so I could listen to some particular albums loudly, including that one.

[Culican]

‘You Don’t Look Anorexic’

[aurelius]

‘You Don’t Look Anorexic’

I read a Barbell Medicine post that essentially stated the obesity epidemic is caused by the non-satiating high calorie foods that are designed to be addicting (a lot of sugars and syrups). They stated there was a certain percentage of the population that is genetically predisposed to overeating. Very similar to how a percentage of the population are predisposed to be alcoholics. Most people can drink and are just fine. Some people that is not an option. My take away from what Barbell Medicine stated: genetics is the main differentiator in those that are obese and those that are not.

There clearly is a huge shift in the type and amount of food that is cheaply available and addictive to people today than say 30+ years ago. It makes sense that a certain portion of the population is more vulnerable to these types of food. Is it the main component? I don't know. But it is a component.

[chrisd]

‘You Don’t Look Anorexic’

I read a Barbell Medicine post that essentially stated the obesity epidemic is caused by the non-satiating high calorie foods that are designed to be addicting (a lot of sugars and syrups). They stated there was a certain percentage of the population that is genetically predisposed to overeating. Very similar to how a percentage of the population are predisposed to be alcoholics. Most people can drink and are just fine. Some people that is not an option. My take away from what Barbell Medicine stated: genetics is the main differentiator in those that are obese and those that are not.

There clearly is a huge shift in the type and amount of food that is cheaply available and addictive to people today than say 30+ years ago. It makes sense that a certain portion of the population is more vulnerable to these types of food. Is it the main component? I don't know. But it is a component.

Hmmm... genetics. The same thing that gets the blame for a lousy bench and being built like a reject Raggedy Andy.

It's not my fault. the reason I have a poverty bench and unassuming build is that I'm genetically predisposed to be @££@$ing lazy and skip accessories.

I've got a problem with the alcoholic analogy here as well. It's not the first time I've had to criticise BBM. If Austin came up with this, I'd like to remind him that alcoholism and obesity have been shown to be the result of the epigenetic control of gene expression(1,2). If it was Jordan... oh, never mind.

Anyway. Modern "food" is produced by the agro-pharmaceutical complex to keep you needing more of both products. The rot set in in Messopatamia and it has got worse ever since. Originally people grew grain to feed cattle. Then they employed (enslaved) others to grow grain to feed the cattle. Then they fooled the growers into eating grains. Now people can be nothing more than cattle and are expected to work to earn "money" to pay for the privilege of being slaves. Take the red pill and wake up Sheeple!


1.Gangisetti, O., Chaudhary, S., Palagani, A., & Sarkar, D. K. (2022, Feb 10). Transgenerational inheritance of fetal alcohol effects on proopiomelanocortin gene expression and methylation, cortisol response to stress, and anxiety-like behaviors in offspring for three generations in rats: Evidence for male germline transmission. Plos One, 17(2), 0.
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2579375/

[mikeylikey]

Originally people grew grain to feed cattle. Then they employed (enslaved) others to grow grain to feed the cattle. Then they fooled the growers into eating grains.

I am interested in this hypothesis. Do you have a source for this?

[KyleSchuant]

My take away from what Barbell Medicine stated: genetics is the main differentiator in those that are obese and those that are not.

This would suggest that the genetics of people of Japanese heritage who live in Japan are somehow different to those who live in (say) Australia. The Japanese who come to Australia are slim, their children less so, and their children are just as fat as all the Anglos etc. Japan's obesity rate is 3-4%, Australia's 35% or so. Something about a generation or two in Australia somehow changes their genes. Maybe they'll turn blonde and start asking to speak to the manager, too.

Genetics and obesity, to my mind, is like genetics and strength. Yes, some people are predisposed to be weaker or stronger - but that's not the main factor, because the vast majority of people don't even lift, bro. Likewise, there will be a predisposition to being skinny or fat, but this will be nothing when set against the diet and lifestyle. If you are living in a country where everyone is having small portions of food with lots of fish and vegetables, and where there's lots of decent public transport and shops within walking distance, you're quite simply more likely to be lean than if you're living in a country where the portions are huge, made up of fat and sugar, and where the people live in trucks.

Guys like BBM suffer from the problem of just looking at the people they train. Given everyone following the training and dietary advice they've paid for, then genetic differences will (eventually) become significant. But that's not an explanation for the obesity or lack thereof in the wider population, who don't train at all - in Japan or Australia.

[aurelius]

As I understand the argument, some people are genetically predisposed to be addicted to these terrible processed foods. It is overeating of those foods that is causing the obesity epidemic. A better comparison is the US population from the 1970's or 80's. Almost genetically identical to today's population but obesity in the population was not significant. One main difference is the introduction of these processed foods. That is my understanding of the argument.

It is not my argument and I'm probably not presenting it correctly. So to all the genetic deniers...FOOK U!