SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The obesity rate in the U.S. is continuing to rise (slowly, off the couch):
The new measure of the nation's weight problem, released early Friday by statisticians from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, chronicles dramatic increases from the nation's obesity levels since the turn of the 21st century.
Adult obesity rates have climbed steadily from a rate of 30.5% in 1999-2000 to 39.8% in 2015-2016, the most recent period for which data were available. That represents a 30% increase. Childrens' rates of obesity have risen roughly 34% in the same period, from 13.9% in 1999-2000 to 18% in 2015-2016.
Seen against a more distant backdrop, the new figures show an even starker pattern of national weight-gain over a generation. In the period between 1976 and 1980, the same national survey found that roughly 15% of adults and just 5.5% of children qualified as obese. In the time that's elapsed since "Saturday Night Fever" was playing in movie theaters and Ronald Reagan won the presidency, rates of obesity in the United States have nearly tripled.
The new report, from the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, measures obesity according to body mass index. This is a rough measure of fatness that takes a person's weight (measured in kilograms) and divides it by their height (measured in meters) squared. For adults, those with a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 are considered to have a "normal" weight. A BMI between 25 and 29.9 is considered overweight, and anything above 30 is deemed obese. (You can calculate yours here.)
Obesity rates for children and teens are based on CDC growth charts that use a baseline period between 1963 and 1994. Those with a BMI above the 85th percentile are considered overweight, and those above the 95th percentile are considered obese.
70.7% of Americans are overweight or obese, according to the CDC's data for 2015-2016.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development expects the U.S. obesity rate to reach 47% in 2030.
Related: Obesity Surges to 13.6% in Ghana
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:41AM (7 children)
Yes. I've been as poor as Americans can get at more than one time in my life and I never had the gall to compare myself to people who were actually starving.
And if you think the American Dream is dead, it's because you never knew what it was in the first place. Hint: it isn't "I'll go do something a trained monkey can for eight hours a day and it'll magically make me middle class". It's always been about being able to rise to the limits of your abilities. It's also never been a guarantee of success, just the promise that success is possible.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 17 2017, @12:08PM (6 children)
Starving, no. I'll ask you again the questions you ignored: given that starvation and poverty are two different things, what's your suggestion for poverty? Because if you only have critics, we can stop rigt now, thisdiscussion is even more inconsequential than any of the other comments on S/N
Many US citizens are poor without starving.
Mmmm... possibility/probability...
1. true, Zuck stroke rich and it seems rich enough to stay so under most reasonable scenarios.
2. You had some problems lately in "staying comfortable" - so getting to success is no guarantee that one will be able to keep it that way - just ask the fly over country what globalization brought them.
3. Others aren't lucky enough to even reach a modest level of "success".
But, one on top of the other, the reason I said the American dream is dead: point2 - the banks will take care
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 17 2017, @12:24PM (5 children)
Changing the goal posts? Get a new playbook. This discussion was never about a solution to poverty.
Of course there are no guarantees. You want a guaranteed outcome you're talking the Russian Dream not the American Dream.
Luck has very little to do with anything. Only those of limited ability think it does.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @02:54PM (3 children)
but you changed the goal post by stating your moral superiority in not having compared yourself to an actual starving person, in your attempt to look better in light of what the question asked of you.
No one cares about your comparison. the question was about you, as an offshoot of the discussion.
it's ok to deflect but it's not an acceptable debate strategy.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 17 2017, @03:02PM (2 children)
I think you're reading a different conversation than we're having.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @03:26PM (1 child)
This right here, evasive when you have been caught in a corner. Who the hell would trust you with anything you sniveling excuse for a human???
You always sound so full of yourself but every time you're challenged you back down with a variety of attacks which are almost invariably projections.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 17 2017, @03:30PM
I see a great case of projection here. At least you're aware of the concept.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:00PM
I intended to be have the solution dimension from early on**.
You refused the topic by ignoring it; your right after all but, in my books, it doesn't sit well if you climb a high horse only to get prominence for yourself and refusing to use the high position in doing something or even only considering what could/need to be done.
Maybe you didn't intend to climb a high horse, but believe me it looks that way from where I'm staying (and I might not be alone)
---
**
Is your target "starving people" or "people that eat well"?
And you would suggest to do... exactly what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford