News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why It Was Easier to Be Skinny in the 1980s by lagerstedt on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @02:45PM (#14454918)
The article does not answer the "why" at all. Just some theories that might or (maybe more likely) might not be the explanation
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why It Was Easier to Be Skinny in the 1980s by jpeg_hero on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @05:15PM (#14455982)
see also:

https://aeon.co/essays/blaming-individuals-for-obesity-may-b...

tldr even lab animals are getting heavier.

my favorite explanation is greater control over our temperature uses less metabolism.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why It Was Easier to Be Skinny in the 1980s by dreamthtwasrome on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @06:58PM (#14456593)
When I was growing up, I was always very skinny. Now I take Remeron (Mirtazapine) and have gained about 20% (19 kg / 40 lbs) over baseline (90 kg / 200 lbs), although I also stopped working out as much due to lifestyle changes. Now take Metformin for both weight loss and possible life-extension. I also cut out carbonated diet beverages after their links to increased hunger.

I'm on a mission now to increase activity to help with ghrelin and leptin levels.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why It Was Easier to Be Skinny in the 1980s by jsjfjjfhsfhfh on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @07:21PM (#14456692)
What does skinny mean? Are you American? If so I have a feeling our definition is going to differ. For me skinny means 100 lbs.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why It Was Easier to Be Skinny in the 1980s by planteen on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @07:48PM (#14456822)
100 lbs is useless without height. So you wouldn't consider a 6' 3" person weighing 130 lbs skinny? I think the usual definition would be underweight (or near the low side of underweight) in a BMI sense.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why It Was Easier to Be Skinny in the 1980s by kmdmsmkdmksd on Thursday June 01, 2017 @12:18AM (#14457973)
5' 7"
[ Parent | on HN ]