But being fat is unhealthy. Denying that is silly.

Being fat is not necessarily unhealthy and more than being thin is automatically healthy. Being sedentary is more unhealthy, regardless of body size.

I've no idea what my BMI is but I am definitely overweight, feel crap being overweight (not due to media representation or anything else, just because of the fat), and am useless at getting rid of it. I did drop a stone and have kept it off but could still do with losing another two. I'm very impressed at your doing the Kokoda Track - well done.

Personally, I feel that obesity, like alcoholism and depression (another one I can tick), is a mental disorder and does not have a simple solution. There ought to be more research into the mental correlates of obesity and overeating because just banging on about eating less and getting more exercise clearly isn't working.

I totally hear where you care coming from. There are a bunch of new studies and research papers showing sugar to be a way more addictive substance than alcohol and drugs.
The mental component to eating wasn't covered in this article but I am sure as part of the discussion/series it will be covered also.

Meagan, if you have undertaken a fairly arduous physical challenge after months of training and you haven't lost weight, do you think that is an illustration of what the article says about it not being as simple as calories in/calories out?

In any case, studies show that fat people following healthy habits are about as healthy as thin people following healthy habits and that being sedentary is more risky than being fat.

Halla O,
Unfortunately, in my case it is quite simple I am a COKE (a cola)/energy drink addict. I hate the taste of diet and I would put down easily 2 liters a day. I'm a sugar addict and it's totally all my own fault.

But you make a very valid point, that while I am "fleshy" I'm also quite fit and flexible and know how to pace myself, so while some of the really fit, 6 pack guys had difficulties on Kokoda, I pulled up really well.

What needs to change is our instinct to mock fat people at the gym, walking the dog, jogging with all curves bouncing... we need to be supportive of as you say any non sedentary activity.

Please look at the data ... Australia isn't the US. We don't produce much corn here and our intake of sugar and sweetners in general has been declining for about 50 years.

There is also an obesity crisis in Italy. How much sugar do they eat? very little.

And what about Cuba? They've generally eaten 2 to 3 times more than the Italians, but with far lower levels of obesity. Please look at the chart at the bottom of the following article ... based on FAO food supply data:

http://animalliberation.org.au/blog/123-who-owns-diet-guidelines.html

Actually, I do approach smokers in the street and ask them to stop smoking.

I don't really get your point. Are you trying to say we should wrap fat people in cotton wool to protect their feelings? The cold hard facts are they are overweight and it's a massive burden to themselves and society. It is not a normal body habitus.

Their weight is mostly caused by poor nutritional education, poor exercise choices and lack of motivation. Attributing this to genetics is unhelpful and removes the motivation for people who already lack motivation.

I can't imagine why people should need to be provided with free fruit and veg. They already are very cheap, tasty and nutritious. Poor education is a issue, and this needs to be corrected.

If genetics was such a strong factor, why did it take until post WW2 before the obesity epidemic exploded?

Halla O, the socially contagious nature of obesity is well documented. Many articles are published on this, including: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa066082
It refers to the fact that the more you associate with obese people, the more likely ou are to 'catch' obesity. Many theories for why this is the case, but in my opinion, is to do with normalising overweight body habitus.

What do you mean by 'overweight body habits' (I am assuming you meant 'habits', my apologies if that's not the case)?

I see they considered three causes in that study. They don't draw any firm conclusions though. It is interesting reading.

The problem is that fat people - people who are already fat, to be clear - are being treated like disease vectors because of thinking like that. Or are being treated as if we're stupid, as you do in your last sentence of the first comment I responded to. I am fine with the idea of finding out why the (well fed, Western) population is getting heavier if that's an area science finds rewarding to investigate. I am not fine with treating fat people like lepers or objects of derision. You seem to be stuck on the idea that all fat people sit around and eat junk. You are wrong, although I doubt I will say anything to persuade you of that.

I see from your next comment that you do like to push your opinions on others in an unsolicited manner, so I suppose I should be thankful that you don't reserve all your ire for us fatties.

The key there is thinner *and* healthier - they don't necessarily go together. And yes, attempting to shame people about their bodies is bad.

Shaming people? or Loving them to death?

Why use the word Shame? I was using the word question and that maybe challlenging!

But i would rather challenge someone and atleast get them to think about their weight than say nothing and see them die early..

I wish that I had challenged my late brother in law who die at the age of 45.. He had all the usually polically correct responses, which I respected at the time but when He faced death He was really sad and I miss Him dearly.

You seem to think Joseph that fat people don't know they're fat. Trust me, we know. We don't need you to tell us. We don't need you to point out that our bodies are culturally "unacceptable". Minding ones own business is not being "politically correct" it's behaving a decent human being. The only people in denial about fat bodies are those of you who seem to think we need to be intervened in or "educated" in some way.

We know. We're told every minute of our lives, every time we turn on the news or open a magazine or read a website like this one.

We are not going to be surprised by the news we're fat. In fact, people tell us every day, when we're walking down the street, complete strangers feel the need to yell "Fat b!tch!" at us. We know we're fat because people complain loudly on public transport if we sit down. We know we're fat because the media cuts our heads off and uses us, without our consent, to illustrate hate stories about how we're second class citizens.

All of the above behaviours telling us we're fat are shaming. And shame never cured anyone.

Hi Kath,

Surely, being overweight that is bad for your health and cause people to have a shorter life that is a "shame" or "Tragedy"!

Talking about it and making it a conscious thought that will help many to heal and even avoid this situation.

Is it a good thing to bring to people’s attention this issue so that they can avoid this life issue for themselves and/ or their children?

In order to start to address a problem you first have to be aware and accept there is a problem!

I agree with your argument entirely.

I'm a bit concerned by all the comments, and their endorsement by this site, that point to any suggestion that obesity is unhealthy as demonisation that needs to be silenced. Obesity is unhealthy; and the majority of people saying so here agreed with the original article's proposal to promote the use of images that are neutral or positive, so that media coverage may not be demoralising (reducing motivation to lose weight).

The "Healthy At Every Size" league are abdicating any individual responsibility for health, and further, seem to be implying that obesity is not unhealthy at all!

Shame and stigma are NOT motivation. If it were, we'd all be thin right now. Every fat person has had a gutful (GEDDIT?!) of shame. It hasn't worked.

HAES means health at every size for the population, not the individual. That means health can exist along of spectrum of sizes, not that every obese individual is automatically healthy.

I find it amazing that you think that HAES - with its tenets of mindful eating and enjoyable exercise - has nothing to do with an individual taking responsibility for their health. Like, that's so ridiculous I don't know where to start.

Health may exist for people of various weights but obesity is not helping re: health. Obviously a fat person is healthier if they don't smoke than if they do, or if they eat whole foods than if they don't, but HAES is being used as a tool to ignore the fact that a healthy weight range is a healthy place to be.

My point about abdication of personal responsibility relates to people who have convinced themselves they live in a world not conducive to being slim so there is nothing they can do about it, or that their genes are responsible.

I've been told a lot that I'm lucky to have a good metabolism. It doesn't have anything to do with the 4 times a week I go to the gym, or that I cycle everywhere.

On the contrary to what Damien has stated, this concise and eloquent article shows a total lack of bias (well done!) and has demonstrated the complexities not only with obesity, but also the general public's perception of obesity and related illnesses. I agree, there are many factors involved with obesity and environmental factors cannot, and have not, been ruled out.

Times have changed and unfortunately it is very difficult to have the opportunities to use and move our bodies as have previous generations (sedentary jobs and transport). This combined with the various demands placed on our time, increased environmental toxins (endocrine disruptors), misleading dietary information, and ready access to high GI empty calorie foods also contributes obesity.

Emerging research is showing that offspring of women who put on too much weight during pregnancy (which is incredibly easy to do) have higher incidence of obesity and chronic disease later in life due to epigenetic activity in developing foetus (altering expression of the proteins in certain genes). In clinic I see many women and some men with hypothyroid disease where it is very difficult to lose weight due to poor energy metabolism and general endocrine dysfunction. All my obese patients are obviously actively trying to manage their weight and regain health. Hypothyroidism and subhypothyroidism is endemic in developed nations. Lifestyle plays a big part in this disease, but not due to laziness or not taking responsibility for one's health (as some comments have insinuated) - high stress levels, environmental toxins (including pharmaceutical use), and very little manual labour.

We are a society that seems to put worth on appearances and hold perceptions that have been encouraged my media misrepresentation. This article is not promoting the silencing of negative effects of obesity, but attempting to illuminate the stigmatisation of overweight people and that the issue is complex, societal, and the images that are always protrayed in the media only ostracise people further - a viscious and discouraging cycle, with little in the way of promoting positive outcomes!

Petrina, you may disagree with what I have written, but your post would be strengthened by addressing particular sections that you can show to be incorrect or untenable. I elucidated what I felt were points of bias or inaccuracy. You are free to do likewise.

Your comment that thyroid disorders are 'endemic' in the developed world is not backed up by evidence. As others have hinted at, such conditions leading to obesity are no more than 5% of cases. eg. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001409/ and have been reported to be as low as 1%. Anecdotes from a homeopathy business may or may not enhance understanding of a matter, but do not constitute medical evidence.

Damien, please check the meaning of endemic, maybe you are confused with epidemic? It is a very common disease especially in women, and there are reams of research on this topic, so yes my comment is backed up by evidence...and lots of it. By the way, clinical anecdotal evidence should never be dismissed as "not medical evidence", never lose sight in the fact that science means knowledge.

Thyroid hormone regulates our metabolism so it is not a big ask to link it with obesity. However, this is not the forum to educate you on the biochemistry of our bodies. But quickly, there are also many biochemical and environmental factors that contribute to obesity (which I have mentioned in previous post)- I will add vitamin D deficiency, endotoxins (especially oestrogen which is increased when thyroid function is reduced), and I will say it again - stress (the biggest endocrine disruptor of them all).

So show a little compassion and understanding for over half the population in our country and work towards dispelling negative stigma (based in ignorance) associated with overweight people - as outlined in this clever article. By the way, 1 in 20 adults is an lot of hypothyroidism - wouldn't you agree??

It's you that need to check your definitions.
"characteristic of or prevalent in a particular field" from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/endemic

"natural to or characteristic of a specific people or place;" from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/endemic

Something showing in just 5% of a population can in no way be considered to be characteristic of that population, nor prevalent in it.
Prevalent = "widespread; of wide extent or occurrence" from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prevalent

Please produce referenced clinical evidence that such thyroid disorders are widespread in any western population, female or otherwise.

Your use of the term 'anecdotal evidence' is telling. There is no such thing, at least not in any way that respects the definition of 'evidence' or is suitable for serious medical matters. Anecdotal evidence is unverifiable and unreliable.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-anecdotal-evidence.htm
http://www.uow.edu.au/student/attributes/statlit/modules/module1/anecdotal.html

Science does not 'mean knowledge' - that is too absurd a statement to even bother refuting. So we can see that you are in no position to be lecturing others on their 'ignorance', Petrina.

As for compassion? I have a great deal of compassion and empathy - and respect - for Meagan Kae who has been wonderfully honest and forthright in this thread, despite, by her own admission, being on the wrong end of the stick in such a debate. That kind of brave and honest attitude shames the vacuous and self-righteous quackery of your ill-informed spiels above.

Stephen, when faced with healthy, fit, fat people who don't indulge in any of the stereotypical behaviours you scoff at in your comment, what do you think? Being fat is not the issue, telling people they are worthless because they are fat is.

I'd prefer if everyone adopted healthy behaviours (and had access to nutritious food) but do you know what? It isn't my business to tell others how to live with their bodies and it's not theirs to tell me what's best for mine.

Stephen while your views may be entirely justified, the problem is just by having them doesn't fix the problem.

If you were Health Minister would just say, fat people, you are fat it's your fault, get over it and no health benefits until you have an acceptable BMI (and that may well work). As Health Minister already your biggest (pun ;) problem is Australia now has an obesity rate higher than the United States. That's a lot of fat people in this country, regardless of what the reason is.

Even worse, the morbidly obese qualify as disabled so are entitled to disability pensions. I think it was Insight that had a program recently about kids as young as 13 having lap band surgery to address excessive weight issues. How scary is that? That our culture can't even raise healthy kids?

For all the focus on climate change/and the carbon tax... CO2 is not going to kill us like heart disease will and talking about it is not enough so there is a need for people, like yourself, who are passionate about the problem to come up with viable solutions.

8 weeks ago three different people told me my dog was fat. I made an conscious choice to put her on a diet and now 8 weeks later she is in the health range and looks awesome.
Ironically the only person that has told me recently that I was 'chunky' is a friend who is overweight himself.

and I ask why can't I do for me what I did for my dog?
'food for thought ;)'

However, if someone has become obese, they must have engaged in an unhealthy lifestyle at some point in time. It seems there is a sense of cultural amnesia whereby fat people are somehow, one-day, fat. The work that needs to be done is to stop people becoming fat in the first place. Government policies can assist with this, however, at the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual. When you notice at 23 that you're a little heavier than you used to be, you should take note of that. When you are 24 and you're still putting on weight, maybe you need to think about making some changes. What irks me is that people go on about it being 'out of their hands' however people do not become obese overnight. There is a window of opportunity for people to go: "what am I doing wrong here". To say that these people are just bludgeoned into submission by junk-food advertising, that they never had the chance to walk to the train station every day, instead of driving, is to deny the very autonomy that each of us have. It is easier for some people to lose weight than it is for others, but why the hell do people allow themselves to put on this weight in the first place? That is where the laziness is - and it's not laziness as a failure to exercise. It is this laziness that causes one to fail to become fully in-tune with what their body needs. Every body needs something different. Spend the time and find out what yours does.

What I have said above, does not just apply to obese people either. Thin people who eat poorly every-day then develop the same cardiovascular illnesses obese people do are just as much to blame.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that fat people are worthless. However at a public health level, the authors' stance amounts to ignoring the problem. Every overweight person (and the more accurate measure of healthy weight is waist circumference, ideally <80cm in women and <94cm in men) is exposing themselves to the substantial morbidity and mortality of metabolic health problems. Furthermore, our society is bearing the substantial cost of this (Diabetes Australia has estimated this to be $58 billion per annum, and on the steep rise).

Overweight people are important contributors to our society, but we can't stop meaningful public health interventions because we are worried about offending them.

Sorry, ipad cut off my reply:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that fat people are worthless. However at a public health level, the authors' stance amounts to ignoring the problem. Every overweight person (and the more accurate measure of healthy weight is waist circumference, ideally <80cm in women and <94cm in men) is exposing themselves to greater burden of morbidity and mortality of metabolic-related diseases. And the cost to society is substantial (Diabetes Australia in 2008 estimated the per annum cost of obesity to be $58 billion, and is rising sharply).

Overweight people are clearly valuable contributors to our society. However, I don't think we can stop meaningful public health interventions because we are worried about offending them.

I think the system cuts off any after 'less than' symbols.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that fat people are worthless. However at a public health level, the authors' stance amounts to ignoring the problem. Every overweight person (and the more accurate measure of healthy weight is waist circumference, ideally less than 80cm in women and 94 cm in men) is exposing themselves to a significant burden or metabolic-disease related morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, the cost to society is substantial, with Diabetes Australia estimating obesity is costing us $58 billion per annum (and rising).

Overweight people are clearly valuable members of our society. However, it makes no sense to stop meaningful public health interventions because we are worried about offending them.

Well put and this statement I completely support.
But now take it one step further, what should that intervention look like?

Open Discussion is a good start.
People in general have to "want" to change in order for them to start to then take the necessary steps. All too often this 'want" to change only happens when there is a “significant” event in their lives ie Illness. The “emotional content” from this event then drives the person do actually do something about the "thought" of change..
Everyone is different and so there is no “single” way of addressing this Issue. For one group, those that wish to live a full life, well sell them the benefits and the facts. When we step around the issue Trying to “Back off, fatists” , well are we then denying people the emotional content that they need tol drive them to change?

"According to this article and the comments here I should be battling an ongoing war with genetics and evil food"

Not necessarily, Tim. Don't you know any slim people (who eat whatever they want) and come from a long line of slim people? Genetics can make you slim, and so, I suppose, genetics can make you more easily, fat. Maybe you're happily at the ideal point.

Do we need to be more precise here? Being a bit chubby all over doesn't seem to matter much if you are healthy/have a healthy lifestyle. On the other hand being slim but carrying a 'spare tyre' around the middle is supposed to be a worry.

One of the reasons many people blame fat people for being fat is that they know from their own experience that if they try really hard they lose fat themselves, and then, by backsliding, put it all back on. As other commenters have mentioned there are issues of mental well-being involved, as well as just giving in to temptation.

One thing that might help is offering people an annual, free, comprehensive health checkup, with follow-up advice, referrals and a written report of scores you can compare over time. That little formal intervention, on an ongoing, regular basis, can be one thing that builds motivation to improve.

did you read the other article and comments? Plenty of us fatties are out there talking our dogs for walks, using gym equipment or taking other forms of exercise, eating healthy and not reaching a dress size that society deems acceptable! Do you not realise that your body is not a carbon copy of every body and that what is easy for you to achieve may be unachievable for others and that that can have absolutely nothing to do with any "poor choices"?

Sorry Russell, but you are only half right.

There are metabolic differences between individuals, some gain weight (muscle and/or fat) more easily than others. But this is still controlled by satiety and dietry habits. The studies on the proportions of overweight people who have an actual problem with registering satiety or "genetic" problems (e.g. thyroid conditions) are actually less than 5% of the obesity problem.

On the chubby thing, you're on the right track. BMI and waist measurements are actually just easy measurement tools that have been correlated to specific bodyfat levels. Once you are outside certain bodyfat ranges (15-20% for men, 25-30% for women) you are increasing the likelihood of health problems. These health problems follow an exponential growth curve (to my understanding, exponentials are common in most natural areas, but I'm not certain) thus you see more potential for problems the further you move away from "normal" ranges. You can be technically overweight yet be carrying little bodyfat (as I am) and can be underweight and carrying too much bodyfat (your skinny fat example). One thing appears to be clear, once you hit BMIs in the obese to morbidly obese range, it doesn't matter as much about the muscle weight. Health problems were assessed in NFL players and found to have increased problems that someone at healthy bodyfat shouldn't have had.

I don't doubt the mental battle that is required. Like I said, it is about choices, every day. But fat people have to stop pretending that it is someone elses fault and either make the changes or suffer the consequences. No one held fat people down and force-fed them the extra 1500 calories per day (WHO averages). Well, except for in the movie Seven with Morgan Freeman.

I don't agree with everything you said - I think you're being a bit harsh. But it does bring to mind the regular comments from my housemate about me being lucky to have a good metabolism, something which he "lost". It doesn't have anything to do with the 4 times a week I go to the gym.

However, I'm sure if I didn't have the time to go to the gym, (I have almost no commute), I'd be fatter. I'm looking forward to going back to uni so I can have a healthier lifestyle of intermittent exercise between classes and work. As for the rest of my life, I hope work is flexible enough to allow some exercise into my life.

"fat people have to stop pretending that it is someone elses fault "

Yes, the same could be said for depressed people - give them a good slap and tell them to buck up.

Maybe I just haven't got the terminology right, but to me if a person is a bit fat, it's probably not a problem. If they are too fat - obese - they need to change that for their own good.

I'm only going on my own experience re genetics - I come from a skinny family, and until I was in my 40s I ate a vast amount of rubbish - 3 or 4 chocolate bars a day, thickshakes, chips - nothing could put an ounce of fat on me. So I imagine there are people with the other tendency - they only need a little too many calories to get fat. I don't think the difference between fat and thin people is only strength of will power.

I'm rather sick of the time argument. We all have ~24hrs in a day. If someone choses to put their health last then that is still a choice. I have my weights, stationary bike and rowing machine at home. I often catch up on The Daily Show on the bike.

I've met competitive bodybuilders who have intensive day jobs, yet still manage to prepare for competitions with huge demands on their diet and training. All of them pack their food to take with them and all of them make time to train before or after work.

Russell I understand what you are saying, but I disagree.

Depression is not "something you just get over". It isn't a choice that suddenly occurs. It is something you can combat though, something you have to be proactively dealing with to not let it control your life.

The idea that someone can just eat whatever they want and not get fat is rubbish. High basal metabolisms are related to a number of things, but they are still dependant on caloric intake. There is plenty of research that covers this, especially as it relates to muscle mass, hormones and aging.

My point on eating whatever you want is that the people that claim to do so don't actually eat very much. The last person I discussed this with was trying to gain muscular weight for weightlifting. They complained that they ate all the time and never gained weight. They ate roughly half the amount of food I would in any given day. The servings were smaller, the binges were offset by missed meals or tiny meals (e.g. coffee for breakfast), and often you find these people do a lot more incidental physical activity.

I should also point out that I have a background in weightlifting and bodybuilding so if you want some of the references I have them on my home computer.

"The idea that someone can just eat whatever they want and not get fat is rubbish"

Tim, I was the living proof - until I got into my fifties. When I was younger, at the same time as eating vast amounts of rubbish (who else do you know whose mother drove to the ice-cream factory to buy small drums of it, we ate so much of it!) I also used to swill down those 'protein' shakes and lift weights, but, no, didn't put on an ounce, just like my father, grandfather ......

I mentioned depression because I was thinking 'if Tim knew someone who wasn't managing their diet/exercise regime well because they simply didn't value themselves enough to care about themselves, what would he say to them'? In other words, we have to think of what's behind people's actions - it may not be simple laziness.

One other thing - is obesity like smoking, and a range of other health damaging lifestyle aspects, associated with low socio-economic status? Because if it is, that also suggests it isn't a simple 'we have self-discipline because we do, and they don't because they're slobs' matter.

I agree with your point on the underlying aspects to why people don't make the right decisions. I've read a few papers on it, the scariest one is the normative conditioning and genetic linkages from perinatal influences.

I won't go into the science but instead quote an example. My wife and I went on a boat cruise, which is pretty much an eat and drink bonanza. While we queued up for lunch one day a obese woman was guiding her daughter through the lunch options. The girl was a normal size and was picking all the right foods to eat. Her mother told her off and told her to have some of the chocolate covered pastries.

Oh, and I know several people who struggle with their weight. My opinion still stands.

Well, one distinction that immediately springs to mind between crime and obesity is that crime has both a direct cost (the impact on the victim of the crime) and indirect cost (the cost of maintaining a criminal justice system). Obesity doesn't have a direct victim. Our health and lifestyle choices would be completely personal if it weren't for the costs of the public health system – whereas the choice to commit a crime that hurts another person could never be considered simply a personal choice. (Admittedly I'm generalising here—not all crimes are the same. But you get the idea.)

Obviously we can't ignore the public health costs associated with obesity. But I think the efficacy of shame and guilt as corrective mechanisms might be different in the two cases.

Insider trading is a crime. Point to the victim.

Parking infringements are met with retributive punishments. Point to the victim. Same goes for speeding offenses.

Sadomasochistic acts are illegal, but the person being harmed actively consents. If I was to kill someone who consented to that act, I would still be charged with murder.

The point that Alex above is making is clear. The criminal justice system deals with activities that are considered non-preferential by society. While becoming obese (and smoking/alcholism) is not a crime per-se, it does share a common element with the examples listed above: the activities are not considered to be good for society.

That's a fair point. My distinction was sloppy. I agree that Alex's point is clear, and that it's true that obesity/smoking/alcoholism are considered by society to be non-preferential behaviours.

What isn't clear to me is that assigning blame and attempting to elicit shame are going to be equally effective in criminal and health cases. I presume there's fairly solid evidence to support the effectiveness of blame/shame in deterring would-be criminals and preventing recidivism. Is there data that shows that blaming/shaming overeaters/smokers/drinkers actually makes them change their behaviour? I'm all for "Go for your life" and similar campaigns, which gently rebuke overeaters and remind them that their health is their responsibility. But I find it difficult to believe that abusive anti-overweight discourse in media and society helps the problem.

Hi Petrina They could be a force for good - but are unlikely to be. The data set is taken from 1995, and the evidenced based recommendation system, rates that the proposed guidelines will have neither a positive or negative effect on Australian Nutrition - not the most ringing endorsement is it? The best chance to have made a real change to nutrition could have come from the 2010 DGAC report - but the authors backed off making significant changes under pressure from the food lobby.

The food industry is so dominant in Aus can't really see the Authors rocking the boat, after all who else will provide their research funding?

Hi John, I am not sure what sure what you mean by "the data set is taken from 1995", I understood the process guidelines were undertaking systematic reviews from 2002 to 2009. The guidelines for modelling do address inadequate micronutrient intake as well as the overall dietary patterns and the importance of lactation and pregnancy on weight outcomes (which is all fabulous) - and long overdue!

I am quite familiar with the 2010 DGAC report as it is a wealth of information and very thorough and in depth. As far as I can see, it looks like the revised Oz guidelines will be following in the same fashion, once report has been released. But I am really interested on further discussion. Real change in the population will come about as more health professionals understand and acknowledge the impact nutrition plays on public health and chronic disease. Are the guidelines really there to rock the boat? Maybe that is more the job for people like you and me.

Francesca wouldn't it be wonderful if it were only that simple. The obese store more fat than the rest of us, that is true and relatively simple to understand. Why they store fat is substantially more complicated. It may be eating too much, it may be the composition of the food is wrong, maybe there is poor hormone regulation (particularly insulin) 1 in 4 Australians are insulin resistant (1 in 2 in the obese), or anyone of 8 - 10 factors that impact on mitochondrial function. Then there are the societal components, which clearly inform/misinform peoples choices.
If it was simple why is it that fit people (serious runners for example) gain weight as they age? This except is taken from a blog that talks about the Runners World study published in 2006 the blog address is here http://vergingonserious.wordpress.com/tag/gary-taubes/
to read just the commentary see below. There are other examples I could choose.
One study he sites follows an experiment done in 2006 by Paul Williams, a statistics expert out of Berkley, and Peter Wood, a researcher out of Stanford University. Williams and Woods followed 13,000 runners (subscribers to runner’s world) and then compared the mileage they ran weekly with how much they weighed from year to year. The runners who logged the most mileage kept their weight the lowest, but all of them tended to gain weight with each passing year. Even those who were logging 40 miles a week. So if a runner wanted to maintain their weight with running, then even the most seasoned runners would have to continue to add miles to their runs each year in order to offset the weight gain. That would mean that by age 40 I would have to run a half marathon every day if I wanted to maintain my current weight. I have no plans of doing that and neither should you! So, what is Taubes answer to this phenomenon? There is more to obesity (or weight gain in general) than simply “calories in vs. calories out”.

I have yet to meet anyone, whether a client, researcher or health professional that can provide a coherent universal theory of obesity, so I have yet to me your typical fat person who knows exactly why they are fat......

John,

I agree with a number of your points above, and with some of the issues ascribed to Taubes' book, but without any indication in that link of the runners' consumption of calories the study is not particularly useful as it stands - it's only half the story. In fact, in the very next paragraph the author admits this in relation to the second, Danish, study when she says:

"Granted, this study doesn’t take into account what the subjects were consuming but what it does do is prove that diet is a crucial variable when it comes weight loss and that it’s probably a lot easier to modify your diet than to increase your energy output."

There is no mention of a slowing metabolic rate associated with ageing and whether or not the runners took this into account. It does not say the runners kept adding more distance to their runs. It does not say if their times increased or, more likely, decreased, with age. If they kept eating the same amount of calories, and running the same or similar distances, no faster than before, then as their metabolic rate slows with age, then of course they would gain weight.

When she says "That would mean that by age 40 I would have to run a half marathon every day if I wanted to maintain my current weight." she is completely omitting the question of how much she does, or doesn't, eat. Exercise is only part of the equation. Maybe she could just eat less?

Omitting such a fundamental does not, in this instance, strengthen the case that there is "more to it'. I agree that there are a number of variables, between individuals and societies, and there are areas where it can get complicated, but mostly they tend to be in addition to, not in place of, the basic tenet of relative quantities / energy balance / calories-in-calories-out. WHY some people can't manage that balance is another story, often emotional and/or psychological, as others here have implied.

Of course, quite a few people have a financial interest in making these issues seem more complicated than they might be. Some things are too simple to sell.