Nice Michael Kinsley impression, dude: Breezy, obtuse and dismissive. The list of problems includes:

1. No data to show that we're actually eating more food by weight.

2. Presumption that none of the formulation changes (e.g., replacing sugar with corn syrup) had any impact.

3. No accounting for chemicals/additives-- do hormones in meat and dairy stop working just because we ground the cow into hamburger or pasteurized it.

4. Absolute refusal to admit the possibility that Big Food might be (through neglect or malice) presenting the food in ways that cause cravings or break down body defenses.

Yes, times have changed-- they didn't have a McDonalds in my school cafeteria (they didn't even allow chocolate milk). But the "you eat too much, move too little" spiel sounds eerily similar to every "blame the consumer" dodge business spits out before it is shown that they knew they were doing bad things to people.

I would err on that side if I were you.

Ezra -- I think you're missing the point of the item KDrum was discussing. It wasn't that phthalates was a source of growing incidence of childhood obesity. It was that, in the past, there wasn't the same degree of correlation between childhood obesity and Type 2 diabetes.

To put the argument crudely. We had some fat kids but not much Type 2 diabetes. We now have lots of fat kids, but Type 2 diabetes has increased at an even greater rate. Obseity and diabetes were mildly correlated, now they're much more so. So what additional factor, if any, is strengthening the correlation between obseity and diabetes?

The point isn't whether we eat more and move less, it's why we eat more and move less.

I don't think it's because we all just decided that would be more fun. It seems very plausible to me that some environmental factor or factors (maybe including phthalates, maybe not) is screwing with us.

Where are you getting your calorie data?

We now have lots of fat kids, but Type 2 diabetes has increased at an even greater rate.

Is this the case? It does indeed seem to be the point Drum is making when he writes:

Childhood obesity is far higher than it used to be, but it's not brand new: there have always been kids who were sedentary and ate lots of crappy food. But 30 years ago, these kids just got flabby, they didn't get diabetes.

...but it's not clear to me there's hard evidence for this. In other words, pretty clearly Americans of all ages -- including kids -- have gotten fatter on average. What's not clear to me is whether the incidence of type II diabetes has increased even more. If not, Ezra's on pretty firm ground. If so, then we need to look at items beyond calories and exercise.

I agree with Woodrow. Throwing up your hands about obesity may sound great (I love that bit about "behavioral" causes = fat people deserve what's coming to them). As Woodrow says, why not use the schools to control food intake, not get kids hooked on junk, and have physical fitness programs worthy of the name? Or use zoning and local construction ordinances to encourage sidewalks, parks, bike/walking paths, and other means of getting around other than the Great Sedentary Passenger Auto? Not even bothering to engage on these kinds of easily imaginable reforms is just laziness, made all the more abhorrent because it serves the established order (Big Junk Food, rich development conractors, the health care industry, etc.) just fine to leave things the way they are. Really weak stuff.

It's important to put the data in context of demographics more vulnerable than others to type II diabetes. The prevalence of type II diabetes among Hispanics, for example, can be twice that of non-white hispanics. Factor in that they account for half of the population growth since 2000, your numbers are going to trend higher than would be expected if you weren't adjusting for those more susceptible demographics.

@ Jasper -- I have no idea whether Type 2 diabetes has increased faster than childhood obesity. But that indeed seems to be what KDrum was indicating. He wasn't suggesting, as I read him, that phthalates were producing a greater incidence of childhood obseity. Instead, he was throwing out the possiblity that something like phthalates might be the culprit for greater incidence of Type 2 diabetes.

I just didn't want a "ships passing the night" discussion, since Ezra doesn't seem to be addressing the point Kevin was raising.

ThomasEn is pointing to an alternative demographic explanation that's interesting. I'd like to see Ezra explore those sorts of alternatives. Assuming, of course, that Type 2 diabetes incidence is indeed increasing at a faster rate than childhood obesity, or that the correlation between the two has strengthened. About all of which I hold no knowledge or opinion other than that KDrum seemed to be saying some non-obesity factor appears to be involved.

@Liberal
BTW "not as "big" as land ownership "

But in the USA land is still very cheap. Around where I live land is very cheap but if I pave a road to some land price shoots up.

I am very interested in this idea that you presented (taxing only land). I like it but I see problems with it also.

nadezhda wrote:

We now have lots of fat kids, but Type 2 diabetes has increased at an even greater rate. Obseity and diabetes were mildly correlated, now they're much more so.

Twice the risk

Mexican-Americans are the largest Hispanic population in the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau report from 2002, the most recent year statistics were available, 66.9% of the 37.4 million Hispanic Americans in the civilian, noninstitutional population were of Mexican heritage. Those of Central and South American heritage comprise the next largest group at 14.3%, Puerto Ricans comprise 8.6% and those of other heritages comprise 6.5%.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health reports that the Hispanic population has the highest uninsured rate of any ethnic group in the country. Within the Hispanic population, Mexican-Americans have the highest uninsured rate at 37%.

According to the National Diabetes Education program, approximately 10.2% of Hispanic Americans have diabetes; approximately 2 million Hispanic Americans have been diagnosed with diabetes. In addition, they are 1.9 times more likely to have diabetes than the non-Hispanic white population.

Their elevated risk for type 2 diabetes is based on genetics, said Caballero. Mexican-Americans are more insulin resistant than those of other heritages. The process of insulin binding to insulin receptors is a normal process in most people with diabetes. However, after that happens, the series of events that follows can cause problems for some populations. In Mexican-Americans, compared with Caucasians, “it is the intracellular insulin signaling cascade that seems to be abnormal,” Caballero said.

Instead, he was throwing out the possibility that something like phthalates might be the culprit for greater incidence of Type 2 diabetes.

Right. I read Drum's source -- blogger Blue Girl -- and she seems to be making the case that the plastics may be responsible for both greater obesity (screws up the appetite?) and diabetes.

Why can't they chew on paint chips like we used to?

What's the matter with kids today?

Those numbers for calorie consumption look suspicious to me when I divide by 3500, which is the number of calories in a pound of fat.

Assuming that the average man is not burning any more calories in 2000 than in 1971 (big assumption), and that the average man in 1971 was consuming at his weight maintenance level, the average man in 2000 should be putting on 17.5 pounds/year.

Of course, as you get heavier, the number of calories you need to maintain your weight goes up. So maybe that's how a lot of these extra calories are being burned off.

> I'm all for more study of
> phthalates, but I really
> wouldn't dismiss the change
> in eating habits over the
> past 30 years. Thirty years
> ago, kids might have been
> sedentary and eating lots of
> crappy food, but they were
> eating less of it than they
> are now.

Supersizing, HFCS, and trans fat seem to be more direct differences from the unhealthy diet of 30 years ago. Although there is also are a lot more bizarre chemicals floating around our environment as well to be sure.

Cranky

Most of the added calories are in metabolism disrupting carbohydrate. We're heeding the government's suggestion to eat less fat, and more whole grain, and it's porking us out because carbohydrate spikes insulin, and insulin manages fat storage.

Here's a great post from Dr. Eades of Protein Power fame, on why we're fat...

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/saturated-fat/changing-dietary-trends-and-the-obesity-epidemic/