When did humans first get fat/obese and are we the only species capable of so doing ?

Factual Questions
1

A guy on the radio with some interesting ideas about diet said humans are the only species with a tendency toward fatness/obesity. It got me thinking again, especially about modern lifestyles.

It also seemed interesting from an evolutionary dimension. My train of thought went something like this:

Other species (as we once did) exert so much time and energy in procuring food it would seem reasonable to think they need to remain fit in order to do it all again the following day – outside of the need of some species to store winter fat, perhaps over-eating is counter-productive to all other species ?

If that’s so, then, presumably, obesity in humans – because of medical reasons, lifestyle or through gluttony – only became possible once we’d learned to harness our immediate environments and develop food production (faming) skills ?

Assuming that’s right, is it reasonable to conclude that even now human fatness/obesity is purely a function of relative wealth (Developing Worlders with land ownership or other income, First Worlders with same and/or a social safety net) ?

So…if fatness/obesity (within society generally and discounting individual attitudes toward appearance) is an inevitable function of successful capitalism, we’ve only been getting fatter for a very short time.

When did we start getting fat: Was it when we learned to both harness our immediate environments and embraced capitalism ?
…just found it interesting from an evolutionary aspect…perhaps capitalism will, in time, hold evolutionary implications for us of which we’re not yet aware (beyond things like general height/life expectancy increases)…errr, this is sounding pretty obvious now…hey ho…

2

I have seen obese dogs often enough (Labradors, for example, tend to obesity unless they are exercised heavily and given limited diets), and obese pigs are very common for making bacon and ham out of. I have also seen obese cats. And there is a French tradition of force-feeding geese until they become obese, and then making pâté out of the livers. Yumm!

Regards,
Agback

3

Okay, let me qualify:

In the wild…

4

Humans certainly aren’t the only animal with a tendency towards obesity. Most animals will become obese if they can. I can’t think of any animals that wouldn’t. Humans are the only animals with the environnmental conditions to become obese fairly frequently I guess.

What you’re really asking is whether there are any species that find food so abundant in the wild that they can become obese. In that case the answer is yes but it’s rare. Usually once an animal becomes obese it breeds, producing more competition. Because of the rapid maturation of most animals the amount of time that food is abundant for is very small. I guess the reason humans become so obese sp often is because in the modern world we breed so infrequently and we eliminate competitors that should steal oversupplies of food.

However rats often become obese as feral animals. Bears will become obese even in spring if food is plentiful. Hedgehogs often have huge body fat reserves.

5

Someone had a pretty good idea of what fat women looked liked 25,000 to 30,000 years ago. The knowledge was widespread since depictions of obese people are common in paleolithic art.
Of course back then, everyone was a Marxist :wink:

6

Squink beat me to the representations of women – there are plenty of “Venus” figures depicting large women, like the “Venus of Willendorf”. They seem to be anatomically accurate (weight gain in the right places – none of them have huge forearms like Popeye), so presumably they’re based on real fat people.

I can vouch for there being fat animals – two of our cats weigh as much as bowling balls. Midnight’s black, too, which heightens the similarity. I understand that ourangutans can get pretty hefty in captivity if they don’t/can’t exercise.

7

There are 2 main reasons:

  1. Activity. Like you said, civilized man no longer spends all day outside hunting and foraging.

  2. Fat. We have a voracious atavistic appetite for fat-laced food because of it’s caloric density - but now have handed to us on a plate, literally.

  3. Processed foods - They are overly glycemic, spike insulin levels, and start storing carbs as fat.

8

I wonder if part of the situation too is the fact that people in general are getting larger. That is, average heights of people are increasing, and I think bone size is as well, and I wonder if it is more difficult to regulate ideal weight if one is larger…?

That having been said, my dieting has shown me some interesting things. At 2000-2300 calories per day, I held constant at about 160. At my current diet of 600-800 calories per day, which I’ve been on for three months, I hold constant at 118-125 pounds.

600-800 calories a day sure as shit isn’t much, as I’ve found out. When my co-workers bring in doughnuts for the group at work (which happens twice weekly), I easily see many people wash down about 600-800 calories of doughnuts with 280 calories of non-diet pop - all this after they’ve had breakfast at home! :eek: And then they go out for a McDonald’s extra value meal (add another 1000 or so), and then dinner. Plus, non-diet pop all day long (at 140-170 calories per can), and finally, dinner and snacks…Jesus!

I would estimate that some of my co-workers must consume 3000-3500 calories of crap in a day, and yet they hold constant at about 200 pounds. I simply do not understand - their metaboloic rates must be inhuman, because they are not, in general, exercising.

9

The ‘Venus of Willendorf’ is described as a symbol of fertility, not a representation of tasty pre-history crumpet. I don’t think it’s supposed to be accurate…

Like that second link, though. Excellent Squink, I’ll be doing lots of ‘squinking’ at that.
I guess my train of though took me to the wilds of Africa – haven’t seen a lot of chubby tree-hanging monkeys or lardy Panthers bringing down bloated Wildebeests…C’mon folks, think: Tarzan

10

<hijacking myself – “don’t do it!”, “it’s too late!!”, “come back!!!”, “no !!!”>

Just out of interest Anthracite something else that this guy said that relates to your post and the evolution thing…I remember this from some time ago now…is that breakfast is a way of us telling our bodies that it’s okay for the metabolism to kick in (ie. there is no need to conserve fat because there ain’t no famine today). In other words, consuming something for breakfast outweighs (pun!) not consuming anything cos we burn nothing of worth without the metabolism kicking in and it needs ‘breakfast’ (fruit, whatever) to know that everything’s going to be okay on the lunch front.

Three months at 600-800 ! Wow, that’s something. Well done.

</hijacking>

11

I have read your promotional literature and I should like to know more.

Seriously…that was not something I had come across. I think that is worth exploring. Typically, I eat nothing for breakfast, have 200-400 calories of lunch, and 200-400 calories of dinner.

I wonder what happens if I have 200-400 calories of breakfast, and then divide the rest throughout the day?

12

I tell ya; a couple of banana’s, juice or milk and maybe a little peach/nectarine all in a blender for breakfast - it’s like liquid concrete for four/five hours…

Where was I…Evolution !! folks…

13

London_Calling,

Problem with blendering fruit is your providing a great digestive surface area and making it more glycemic. If you made you body work to digest a cm cube chuck of banana your blood sugar would be steadier and keep your metabolism higher for longer.

14

I don’t think this is the case.

Can’t provide a cite (hell, way back then Apple IIs were the latest gadget) but during my uni days one of the professors tried to determine what was the maximum capacity of sheep to deposit fat.

He took a dozen wethers and fed them ad lib for months. He stopped when the sheep had literally consumed the budget without any sign of a reduction in the rate of fat deposition. By the end the group, known as “The Elgins” were an remarkable sight. Most, IIRC, had over 70mm (3") of fat over the loin muscle and were around 10 times their starting weight. When put back on standard rations they gradually returned to normal weights without any apparent ill effects.

Animals that hibenate like bears have the capability of gaining huge amounts of weight. I would presume that bears that didn’t suffer appetite suppression with obesity would have an advantage over those less able to pack on the calories/Mj.

15

  1. Whether it’s a fertility symbol or not is speculation – prehistoric man, by definition, didn’t leave records for us to read. I’ve also heard it suggested that the Venus figures are like Prehistoric Playboy gatefolds – an idea that seems as probable as fertility figures.

  2. As I pointed out in my post, the deposition of fat seems probable, not fantasy. In other words, whoever made the figure saw a fat person, if not necessarily as fat as the figure. Which doesn’t rule out their having seen a person that fat, I might add.

16

I don’t know how much you know about this ** KidCharlemagne **, but I almost posted a GQ on this subject a couple of months ago…

The problem I found was that non-blended, as nature intended fruit didn’t do much except make me hungry. Not what I was looking for. …Okay, so you’re saying blended fruit (which works like concrete for me) is digested quicker because there is greater surface area for ones digestive juices to get to work on. Okay, makes sense – that’s, presumably, why it ‘fills’ me.

Now about that glycemic thing – is that something I need to think about ?

Also, the sugar thing presumably means I’d tend to be a *little more *‘hyper’ after ingesting because the digestive system is consuming quicker (as above; across that greater surface) – is that a problem (2 'nana’s and a peach) other than from a moderately increased energy level POV ?

If you don’t know, don’t worry – if you’re not qualified, not to worry; Just mention that you ain’t. Cheers !

Woolley - I meant in their natural habitat…in the wild…without human interference… Having said that, I saw you had posted and – given the thread title - immediately thought of Australians…What we looking at for the Winter ? – my initial thoughts are 3-0 or 3-1 ?

Sure Cal Meacham, there must have been ‘fat people’ in so much as folks get old (which was, maybe 35-40 in them thar days ?), limbs break and you sit around, women get pregnant, some maybe suffered glandular/metabolic problems, etc…I’m sure there were. Point might be though, that amongst the active ‘workers’ of the time, there wasn’t fatness/obesity because of the effort required in gathering and foraging – and the fitness required to do the same thing tomorrow. I think I’m still clinging to the notion that fatness/obesity is a relatively recent development (controlling our environment), and one accentuated by capitalism…

The other thing that struck me, finally!, was of course that until very recently, portraits of women tended to celebrate the curvaceous …I now wonder about obesity as a sign of affluence in earlier centuries as well as desirability…

Actually, art is a source I should have considered earlier…thank you all. Good stuff !

17

No way! Witness the fat cat pictures on the cover of Weekly World News!:wink:

18

Okay, here a challenge. It’s the Internet; show me a fat mokey. In fact, show me a fat anything in it’s natural environment that isn’t human or storing fat up for the Winter ?

19

600-800 calories a DAY?

That’s below starvation. :o People getting fed through tubes get more than that.

20

Possibly, but I’d be skeptical without a physiological reason offered. And I’m not aware of any variation in obesity rates that can’t be explained by modern diet/lifestyles. Not that there isn’t more research to be done…

**

Has your body fat percentage stayed constant? If not, you’re losing muscle, your metabolism is slowing down, and you’re going to balloon out. Be careful–weight is not a good measure of fitness.

**

Some people just aren’t very good at storing fat. That could be a factor. Additionally, the human body doesn’t have to use all the food energy it gets. Surprising, isn’t it? My sister was in the hospital being treated for anorexia recently (she’s fine, btw), and she was being fed a diet of 4200 calories per day and pretty much just sitting around. She’s 5’6" and probably about 115-120 when at a healthy weight, and she wasn’t gaining weight on this diet! The doctors said this wasn’t an unusual occurence for recovering anorexics. I realize this isn’t a great example, as it’s under abnormal conditions, but it still shows that strange things can happen.