> People got fat at the same time flipflops and cheesy t-shirts became suitable public attire. Pure coincidence?

Yes, as before the 1950's it was common to see the working class wearing 'waist overalls' (AKA baggy jeans) and wife beaters in public. It was after the 1950's that they became a staple in teen culture and spread to the middle class as those teens matured.

I don't see how there's a difference between cheesy t-shirts and wearing a wife beater (technically underwear) in public. I actually think t-shirts are more acceptable, despite wife beaters being a staple, like jeans, in the working class back before the 1900's. They became acceptable footwear in the post-war period when soldiers returned from Japan with them.

Note that Japan has had sandals as a cultural staple for centuries, to the point that they invented the tabi(?) AKA toe socks to be worn with them (because, you know inventing real shoes that keep your feet warm was just an absurd notion). So despite being commonly regarded as thin compared to westerners, I suppose they've become grossly obese by their own standards since they invented the sandal.

It's quite frankly absurd logic. I might as well say that Americans are fatter than Brits because it's acceptable to wear a lounge suit to formal events, whilst in the UK its less acceptable and generally only a full tux is regarded as fitting formal wear.

Sorry, the reason Americans have the fattest arses in the world is because its government gives massive subsidies to corn growers. Corn incidentally is a great source of calories and low source of nutrients. This means poor people have to consume larger amounts of food to get the same nutrition. This means they tend to get obese, because despite eating copious amounts of calories, they're still malnourished.

People get fat because of the abundance of cheap, low quality calories.

The most likely reason why South East Asians are healthier than westerners is because their government subsidizes higher nutritional quality foods. Rice for instance is a better start than corn. Similarly subsidizing salmon and tuna as opposed to cattle farm beef is again better.

I'm not saying beef is bad for you, but the shit in a McDonalds patty is, especially when you can get 1lb for like $2. The stuff you're paying $15 a lb for is likely not as bad as the vegans would want you to believe.

A McDonald's patty contains nothing but beef and a little salt. It's probably corn-fed beef, but there are no fillers. What's bad for you at McDonald's is the bun, the fries, and the 44oz soda.

That beef comes from consolidated animal feedlot operations (CAFOs), at which a normally free-ranging, grass-fed animal is concentrated into densities so high you can smell them 10-20 miles away (yes, I've driven through Dodge, KS), force-fed corn (which they digest poorly), pumped full of antibiotics and hormones, both to drive off infection and just to drive up "production yields".

Even if Mickey D's is selling "pure beef patties", it's the quality of that beef that's among the problems. Though yes, the other things on the menu are a lot worse.

> Though yes, the other things on the menu are a lot worse.

Like the white meat chicken nuggets that are actually made from dark meat and processed the shit out of. You know, because people won't eat an actual white meat chicken nugget, you've got to use the mould-able dark meat and shape it into a chicken wing shape and then bleach and throw in two-thousand chemicals to make it look right.

My problem with the beef is that they somehow get regular ground beef from 22% fat up to almost 40% fat by weight. It's almost like they just stick suet on a George Foreman and serve the ungodly result.

The thing I find disturbing is that 100% beef simply means 100% beef products. Commercial dog food often claims to be 100% beef, but actually contains cuts and pieces we don't even consider safe for consumption, let alone edible.