EPTObesity now a global issue - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
phyre112
United States3090 Posts
On July 04 2014 06:04 Cheerio wrote: I watched the UCTV videos and either I was inattentive or it wasn't covered but I still got this question: So how do we end up with high levels of insulin? It said we are producing it ourselves because of the change in the global diet, but didn't go into specifics? Like which products make us produce more insulin? Insulin is a hormone/peptide your body produces in response to an increase in blood sugar. Insulin's primary function (it has a thousand and one secondary functions) is to move that sugar from the blood, into your cells. So we ended up with high levels of insulin by having high levels of blood sugar, and we ended up with high blood sugar by eating high carbohydrate foods (or any foods, to a lesser degree) too frequently, and in too large a quantity. On July 04 2014 06:28 dudeman001 wrote: Insulin production is correlated to how much sugars are being metabolized and fed into the blood stream. The glycemic index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index) shows which foods create higher levels of blood sugar levels. Carbohydrate content is the most relevant factor to consider. Roughly from lowest to highest, it'll go: meat -> nuts/veggies -> fruit -> grains -> pure sugar Edit: ^ also what he said lol Glycemic index, in a vacuum is actually pretty useless. But it is one factor in understanding why blood glucose is rising. On July 04 2014 07:15 ahw wrote: worth considering for western nations... http://www.footwork.com/pyramids.asp compare 1980 population pyramid to 2010 population pyramid. Is it that big a surprise that we are more obese than 30 years ago when the biggest chunk of our population has aged by 30 years? They were spring chickens in their prime 30 years ago, skinny as could be! I'm not saying there isn't an underlying issue -- child obesity rates and the prevalence of diabetes and the like are definitely worth debating, but I think BMI rates aren't as crazy as they seem. Old people put on weight as their metabolism slows down. Contrary to popular belief, aging doesn't hugely slow your metabolism. It does - a little bit. But the much more significant contribution that most people attribute to age is actually due to the decrease in activity level that you hit in your late 20's/early 30s, and continue to hit periodically as you get older. In your 30's, you have a desk job and you drive everywhere. In your 40's, you're no longer chasing kids around. In your 50's, your knees and hips and back hurt too much to exercise, etc. Old people don't put on weight because they're old, old people put on weight because they work desk jobs and sit around watching TV in their free time. Old people put on weight because their meals while watching TV consist of beer and chips, which are incredibly hard to regulate the calorie content of even if you are actually calorie counting, I can tell you from experience. the metabolism of a 20 year old triathlete and a 50 year old triathlete are MUCH more similar than the metabolisms of an average 20 year old and an average 35 year old. | ||
|
The_Masked_Shrimp
425 Posts
So it isn't about money. You can influence your weight (loose some or gain some) willingly by either eating less/more and/or doing more exercise. So it is not genetic, and that's a FACT For anyone skeptical, a genetic issue can only be solved/affected by modifying the chromosomes. What can be genetic might be how much one "absorbs" from 500g of fat, someone might store 200g out of it and shit the rest, a "genetic obese" might store 450g, in which case solving their problem is about eating less than "normal" people. Following with my exemple when "normal" people have to eat 500g of fat to retain 200g, "obese" ones just need to eat 220g of fat It's really important to get the distinction. Because anyone who is overweight or obese can loose weight and be healthy again, none of them is doomed and it is thus their own and only fault if they became as they are (or their parents fault if underaged I guess ). Then there are two kinds of fat people: -those who don't care about it/ assume it and that's great ! -those who complain about it and worst, put the blame on other people (fast food chains) How fucking retarded can someone be to sue a fast food chain for becoming obese after eating all his meals there and doing no exercise, there should be 3 digits fines for stupid suing. If there is so much junk and crappy products in supermarkets it's because that's what people want. They want crappy products, they want to pay the lowest prices possible. If everyone wanted to eat healthy quality food and just bought that, then there would be no market for the junk food and it would disappear just like that. Obesity is essentially an education problem. People are just too dumb to educate themselves, which is quite surprising those days because you can just basically google up any question and obtain tangible sources with little effort (just try "how to eat healthy?" , most government websites have good content on the subject). And a golden rule which everyone should know about is that too much of anything is bad (you can die if you keep drinking water non stop, if you breath air with too much oxygen for too long etc. ) Fighting obesity starts in schools, they should definitely incorporate courses on food/cooking in the cursus. I think it should be done by parents but all those statistics are showing it's not. Food served in schools should always be balanced and healthy and that should be monitored by government and not private companies (nor schools themselves). You can't put your trust in a private capitalist entity to feed your country's kids (I'm all for capitalism and free market, but some specific things like this should still be government exclusive) And every parent with an obese kid should be considered for child ill-treatment and law enforced. | ||
|
_-NoMaN-_
Canada250 Posts
On July 04 2014 12:25 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: It costs less to buy yourself a beef steak + vegetable and cook it than to go eat in a fast food chain. So it isn't about money. You can influence your weight (loose some or gain some) willingly by either eating less/more and/or doing more exercise. So it is not genetic, and that's a FACT For anyone skeptical, a genetic issue can only be solved/affected by modifying the chromosomes. What can be genetic might be how much one "absorbs" from 500g of fat, someone might store 200g out of it and shit the rest, a "genetic obese" might store 450g, in which case solving their problem is about eating less than "normal" people. Following with my exemple when "normal" people have to eat 500g of fat to retain 200g, "obese" ones just need to eat 220g of fat It's really important to get the distinction. Because anyone who is overweight or obese can loose weight and be healthy again, none of them is doomed and it is thus their own and only fault if they became as they are (or their parents fault if underaged I guess ). Then there are two kinds of fat people: -those who don't care about it/ assume it and that's great ! -those who complain about it and worst, put the blame on other people (fast food chains) How fucking retarded can someone be to sue a fast food chain for becoming obese after eating all his meals there and doing no exercise, there should be 3 digits fines for stupid suing. If there is so much junk and crappy products in supermarkets it's because that's what people want. They want crappy products, they want to pay the lowest prices possible. If everyone wanted to eat healthy quality food and just bought that, then there would be no market for the junk food and it would disappear just like that. Obesity is essentially an education problem. People are just too dumb to educate themselves, which is quite surprising those days because you can just basically google up any question and obtain tangible sources with little effort (just try "how to eat healthy?" , most government websites have good content on the subject). And a golden rule which everyone should know about is that too much of anything is bad (you can die if you keep drinking water non stop, if you breath air with too much oxygen for too long etc. ) Fighting obesity starts in schools, they should definitely incorporate courses on food/cooking in the cursus. I think it should be done by parents but all those statistics are showing it's not. Food served in schools should always be balanced and healthy and that should be monitored by government and not private companies (nor schools themselves). You can't put your trust in a private capitalist entity to feed your country's kids (I'm all for capitalism and free market, but some specific things like this should still be government exclusive) And every parent with an obese kid should be considered for child ill-treatment and law enforced. I have a couple of issues with your post. First: It is and it isn't about money. Look at it this way; to buy and prepare the ingredients of a healthy, balanced meal takes anywhere from 20 to 60 minutes. A drive-through takes 2, and you never actually have to do anything. If you include the 'time-cost', then healthy eating is certainly more expensive. Second: Just to clarify; Fat consumed isn't stored as fat. Fat in the body is created from SUGAR. The obesity problem has one simple cause. Not calories, but carbohydrates. You can blame individuals 'till you're blue in the face; the obesity problem is systemic. What is the main source of sugar in the modern diet? Corn syrup. Corn happens to be one of the most government-subsidised/genetically-modified crops on the planet. Economics and marketing do the rest. Edited for clarity | ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
On July 04 2014 14:04 _-NoMaN-_ wrote: I have a couple of issues with your post. First: It is and it isn't about money. Look at it this way; to buy and prepare the ingredients of a healthy, balanced meal takes anywhere from 20 to 60 minutes. A drive-through takes 2, and you never actually have to do anything. If you include the 'time-cost', then healthy eating is certainly more expensive. Second: Just to clarify; Fat consumed isn't stored as fat. Fat in the body is created from SUGAR. The obesity problem has one simple cause. Not calories, but carbohydrates. You can blame individuals 'till you're blue in the face; the obesity problem is systemic. What is the main source of sugar in the modern diet? Corn syrup. Corn happens to be one of the most government-subsidised/genetically-modified crops on the planet. Economics and marketing do the rest. Edited for clarity I agree with healthy meals being more expensive. This is a result of the lack of large-scale automation when it comes to producing healthy food. However, fat isn't stored as fat? Who told you that bullshit? Also, the conversion of sugar into fat is VERY inefficient. Read up on basic biochemistry: Fatty acids are produced from Acetyl-CoA. 1 molecule of glucose produces 2 molecules of Acetyl-CoA. 1 Acetyl-CoA + CO2 + ATP --> 1 Malonyl CoA (so this step requires energy). A typical fatty acid is 16-20 carbons long. Acetyl-CoA has two Carbons and Malonyl-CoA adds an extra 2 Carbons during elongation. Therefore, one fatty acid requires 1 molecule of Acetyl-CoA and ~8 molecules of Malonyl-CoA. Fat is stored as triglycerides, which means three of those fatty acids. Thus, for each triglyceride to be produced, we need ~24 molecules of glucose. Or in other words, it is much easier to get fat by eating fat. What sugar does is to make you crave for more. That is why the typical McDonald's meal is so dangerous. It contains large amounts of high-glycemic food (soft drink and white bread) and fat (French fries and meat). | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 04 2014 16:07 urboss wrote: I agree with healthy meals being more expensive. This is a result of the lack of large-scale automation when it comes to producing healthy food. However, fat isn't stored as fat? Who told you that bullshit? Also, the conversion of sugar into fat is VERY inefficient. Read up on basic biochemistry: Fatty acids are produced from Acetyl-CoA. 1 molecule of glucose produces 2 molecules of Acetyl-CoA. 1 Acetyl-CoA + CO2 + ATP --> 1 Malonyl CoA (so this step requires energy). A typical fatty acid is 16-20 carbons long. Acetyl-CoA has two Carbons and Malonyl-CoA adds an extra 2 Carbons during elongation. Therefore, one fatty acid requires 1 molecule of Acetyl-CoA and ~8 molecules of Malonyl-CoA. Fat is stored as triglycerides, which means three of those fatty acids. Thus, for each triglyceride to be produced, we need ~24 molecules of glucose. Or in other words, it is much easier to get fat by eating fat. What sugar does is to make you crave for more. That is why the typical McDonald's meal is so dangerous. It contains large amounts of high-glycemic food (soft drink and white bread) and fat (French fries and meat). The problem is not a lack of "large-scale automation when it comes to producing healthy food." You are looking at this backwards. Real food rots. It decays. It goes bad. The problem is that people don't have time anymore to reproduce themselves. Reproductive labor is the labor that goes into supporting, maintaining, and refreshing human beings. It includes things like: eating, sleeping, exercise, intellectual cultivation, rest, recreation, creative endeavors, emotional support, social interaction, preparing food. Capital works to suppress wages, requiring people to sell more and more of their labor power, at hourly wages, just to survive. When everyone is working 50+ hour weeks, taking second and third jobs just to make ends meet, they do not have the time or energy required to reproduce themselves, leading to degradation of the bodies, minds, and spirits of the population. The problem, then, is not that industry has not gotten around to mass-producing "healthy" food. Such a concept is oxymoronic. The problem is that people are being ground into dust by a wage slave system that devalues reproductive labor in order to maximize capital's profit. | ||
|
freewareplayer
Germany403 Posts
While the detailed scientific (or not) facts might be helpful, spending time on it is nothing else than procrastinating and trying to find an easy way out, instead of just eating less/working out, at least imo. You cant generalize stuff like this to the extent it does get generalized. Life isnt fair, every body and metabolism is different, you dont need to have a disease to be worse off than others. I recently read a study, ( sadly cant find it atm) which compared weight gain between persons that each got the same amount of surplus calories over the same time (iirc 3 month). Highest gain was around 27, lowest around 9,x average around 16 or sth. Thats a huge difference. And always this: bohoo fast food is bad for you, so is a lot of sugar and fat bohoo. Im sorry life isnt fair and a lot of people have "weak" bodies, allergies, cant process all food correctly, that doesnt mean generalising it is appropriate. Theres enough people like me who lucked out, arent even close to an ectomorph body type, live nearly exclusively on fast food, no vegies, barely fruit, soft drinks, smoke, whatever, and are perfectly healthy. Sentences like "McDonald's meals are dangerous" make me lol hard. I nearly exclusively eat fast food like that, I go to donate blood/plasma regularly and my bloodwork is literally perfect. They might be dangerous to someone who has a body thats bad at processing that sort of food. Of course its less healthy than healthy meals and full of crap, but thats doesnt mean that its unhealthy food for people with good bodies. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
Yeah sugar might be addicting but so are cocaine and morphine. If you ain't strong enough to resist food, you certainly won't be strong enough to hold up against drugs. The world currently is filled with weak minded people. So quit being lazy and stand up for you and your health. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Like really? That is 100% not true. More time consuming yes, but you can cook a healthy minute in under 20 minutes. You all have enough time to make posts on an internet forum, I'm sure you all have 20 mins in your life to cook and prepare food, rather than ordering a pizza or drive to a drive through mcdonalds. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On July 04 2014 12:25 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: It costs less to buy yourself a beef steak + vegetable and cook it than to go eat in a fast food chain. So it isn't about money. This is very misleading. First of all in a food chain there is no delayed gratification, you pay and you get what you want right away. Secondly there are time and labour costs of cooking. Food chain buys you time that you could spend for all the goodies it might give you. Or you could spend it working, and unless you are really low-paid you would have earned more there than you would have saved by choosing to cook yourself. So this is about money actually. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On July 04 2014 22:58 Xiphos wrote: It still all comes down to personal choices and will power. Yeah sugar might be addicting but so are cocaine and morphine. If you ain't strong enough to resist food, you certainly won't be strong enough to hold up against drugs. The world currently is filled with weak minded people. So quit being lazy and stand up for you and your health. Neuro-chemically speaking all people are different. For some people it is far harder to exert self-control than for others. So unless you are on the "harder" side of the spectrum you really have no right to make such a claim. | ||
|
tertos
Romania394 Posts
On June 25 2014 06:19 radscorpion9 wrote: After reading a lot from some more well-informed posters and watching recommended videos on youtube (the UCTV ones) I'm starting to think that the only real solution is for governments to start labeling sugar as a toxin and having them to be strictly regulated, just like what they did with fat several decades ago.. What do you mean by sugar? How is sugar a toxin, more than salt, or water? And if by sugar you mean what I really think you mean, are you insane? Can you seriously fathom the regulation system that needs to supervise any individual's plants and goats? | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On July 04 2014 23:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote: lol @ the people saying healthy meals are more expensive. Like really? That is 100% not true. More time consuming yes, but you can cook a healthy minute in under 20 minutes. You all have enough time to make posts on an internet forum, I'm sure you all have 20 mins in your life to cook and prepare food, rather than ordering a pizza or drive to a drive through mcdonalds. I eat raw cucumbers, carrots, apples, oranges, bananas, and yogurt at regular intervals to keep my diet well balanced. Those takes <1 mins to wash. As for proteins, you purchase nuts, eggs, beans, and meat product. All of them (cept for meat) takes less than 10 minutes to boil up. And carbohydrates, get a rice cooker or just make yourself boiled potatoes. A healthy meal can be produced in less than 15 minutes for sure. Its matter of personal choices -> Spend more time on the kitchen for better meals or go out and buy meals that would cost the time to go out to buy them. I know which choice I would choose. On July 04 2014 23:07 Cheerio wrote: Neuro-chemically speaking all people are different. For some people it is far harder to exert self-control than for others. So unless you are on the "harder" side of the spectrum you really have no right to make such a claim. I was once over 50 pounds overweight to the average weight of my age group. I use to munch 1 full box of oreo cookies every single day until the doctor told me that my knees is getting messed up due to my corpulence. So I took up swimming and started cutting down the sweets one bite and a time and start eating vegies and actual proteins. If you each healthy, your mind will catch on to it and work more efficiently. You will actually feel it in your body. So there is no excuse for being fat except for REAL biologically deficiency. | ||
|
freewareplayer
Germany403 Posts
On June 25 2014 06:19 radscorpion9 wrote: After reading a lot from some more well-informed posters and watching recommended videos on youtube (the UCTV ones) I'm starting to think that the only real solution is for governments to start labeling sugar as a toxin and having them to be strictly regulated, just like what they did with fat several decades ago.. If you simply see that as a solution, which technicly i guess it COULD be, by that i mean it COULD lower obesity a bit, but dont want this to happen then disregard the lower part. If however you actually want that to happen, feel free to see the lower part also directed at you. People like you need to get their freedom of speech strictly regulated because there are enough idiots that will believe and side with that. Fuck off limiting healthy peoples freedom because a large group is weak in either body or mind. Worse enough people go full Nazi on smokers, now people want to limit how much sugar i can eat? Seriously why dont you just take away every bit of freedom people have left to make the world a healthier place? Better make them emotionless too, technicly its for the better of mankind. Edit: On July 04 2014 23:12 Xiphos wrote: A healthy meal can be produced in less than 15 minutes for sure. I have to disagree, you might get a healthy meal ready in 15 minutes. But theres a limited amount of dishes you can do in that little time while tasting good. Unless your experienced, but that is time too. Then you have to account for shopping time and washing dishes/cleaning up kitchen. All adds up. Then there's the problem that if your schedule is irregular and you have to eat out sometimes, you cant stockpile food, especially not as a young person who doesnt even own a freezer, food will rot and go bad. Unless you shop daily/every 2 days. Thats also additional time. If you are an unorganised person on top of that, you easily loose an hour a day cooking yourself. Other people would be unhealthy big time eating like me, but for me it is impossible to spend only 15-30 min on cooking a day while others pull that off. And to be honest, adding up shopping/cleaning/schedule time, 15 minutes "for sure" seems to be the utmost limit probably not achieved by many. | ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
On July 04 2014 23:19 freewareplayer wrote: If you simply see that as a solution, which technicly i guess it COULD be, by that i mean it COULD lower obesity a bit but dont want this to happen then disregard the lower part. if however you actually want that to happen, feel free to see the lower part also directed at you. People like you need to get their freedom of speech strictly regulated because there are enough idiots that will believe and side with that. Fuck off limiting healthy peoples freedom because a large group is weak in either body or mind. Worse enough people go full Nazi on smokers, now people want to limit how much sugar i can eat? Seriously why dont you just take away every bit of freedom people have left to make the world a healthier place? Better make them emotionless too, technicly its for the better of mankind. What this guy said. I want access to bad food, since on occasion when I eat it, I just eat a bit. I can get going full Nazi on smokers since they fuck up everybodys air, fatties don't affect my life at all. Probably a better solution is to subsidise fresh fruit / veg. We already subsidise fat shits with with their chronic fat related health problems (in the UK at least) so anybody that pays taxes shouldn't have much of a problem with that. The worst outcome is nobody changes eating habits and healthy people like me have more disposable income to spend on funs. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On July 04 2014 23:19 freewareplayer wrote: If you simply see that as a solution, which technicly i guess it COULD be, by that i mean it COULD lower obesity a bit, but dont want this to happen then disregard the lower part. If however you actually want that to happen, feel free to see the lower part also directed at you. People like you need to get their freedom of speech strictly regulated because there are enough idiots that will believe and side with that. Fuck off limiting healthy peoples freedom because a large group is weak in either body or mind. Worse enough people go full Nazi on smokers, now people want to limit how much sugar i can eat? Seriously why dont you just take away every bit of freedom people have left to make the world a healthier place? Better make them emotionless too, technicly its for the better of mankind. Edit: I have to disagree, you might get a healthy meal ready in 15 minutes. But theres a limited amount of dishes you can do in that little time while tasting good. Unless your experienced, but that is time too. Then you have to account for shopping time and washing dishes/cleaning up kitchen. All adds up. Then there's the problem that if your schedule is irregular and you have to eat out sometimes, you cant stockpile food, especially not as a young person who doesnt even own a freezer, food will rot and go bad. Unless you shop daily/every 2 days. Thats also additional time. If you are an unorganised person on top of that, you easily loose an hour a day cooking yourself. Other people would be unhealthy big time eating like me, but for me it is impossible to spend only 15-30 min on cooking a day while others pull that off. And to be honest, adding up shopping/cleaning/schedule time, 15 minutes "for sure" seems to be the utmost limit probably not achieved by many. I wash my dishes while I cook. Yes shopping takes time too but on the weekend, where you have 48 hours to spare? That's just being smart with time. | ||
|
freewareplayer
Germany403 Posts
On July 04 2014 23:40 Xiphos wrote: I wash my dishes while I cook. Yes shopping takes time too but on the weekend, where you have 48 hours to spare? That's just being smart with time. I completly agree with you. I admit my time management is crap, im utterly bad at that and got ADD as well, however i dont see that as an excuse. Some people are weak at controlling their eating habits, others are terrible at time management, everyone has weak points, its just so hypocritic to only bash one side. The decision to change or not to change this with time/effort should be up to each person tho. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On July 04 2014 23:19 freewareplayer wrote: Fuck off limiting healthy peoples freedom because a large group is weak in either body or mind. Worse enough people go full Nazi on smokers, now people want to limit how much sugar i can eat? Seriously why dont you just take away every bit of freedom people have left to make the world a healthier place? Better make them emotionless too, technicly its for the better of mankind. You can substitute sugar for drugs in your post and argue the same way. The thing is freedom has natural limitations. One of those is that underaged health should be protected because they can't make educated and fully informed decisions on their own. Another one is that unhealthy behavior should be discouraged, including by additional taxation. Nobody is banning sugar, relax. | ||
|
freewareplayer
Germany403 Posts
On July 05 2014 00:08 Cheerio wrote: You can substitute sugar for drugs in your post and argue the same thing. The thing is freedom has natural limitations. One of those is that underaged health should be protected because they can't make educated and fully informed decisions on their own. Another one is that unhealthy behavior should be discouraged, including by additional taxation. Nobody is banning sugar, relax. I also get that. But theres a limitation for everything. Also a limitation for limitations. I highly doubt sugar will get banned, but the limitation stuff already crossed a line. Its already at the point where if you own the land, own the house on it, open a buiseness on it ( bar), you cant even decide yourself any more if smoking is allowed or not ( thats making it impossible to target a specific audience for your buiseness, which basicly EVERY buiseness does). If people dont like it, stay way, dont bother the others. Same with sugar or whatever. Good to give kids informations, bad to regulate adults. Same logic would be me going to a gay club because i like the music/drinks, and then constantly complain about dudes hitting on me and demanding it to stop. If the solution: "stay away from whats bothering you" is an option and doesnt require effot, then it doesnt require limitations. If it isnt, feel free to regulate, thats fair. Nonne forces sugar down peoples throats if they watch out for it, and noone forces non smokers to enter a smoking bar. Yet one of the two is already limited with overkill. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On July 04 2014 23:02 Cheerio wrote: This is very misleading. First of all in a food chain there is no delayed gratification, you pay and you get what you want right away. Secondly there are time and labour costs of cooking. Food chain buys you time that you could spend for all the goodies it might give you. Or you could spend it working, and unless you are really low-paid you would have earned more there than you would have saved by choosing to cook yourself. So this is about money actually. Lol no. Calling the time you take to to cook labour costs is absurd. The time taken to cook is during your free time; they are not time taken out of your working hours. You personally spend at least 20 minutes browsing the internet. Where is the "labour costs" taken away there? You spend 20 minutes preparing cooking and cleaning your food and dishes. This is time away from working hours, unless you literally work overtime, all the time like in Japan. Somehow, I doubt this is the case. Just look at Japan and how they can make time to eat healthily and be healthy despite their literally working to death work ethic. | ||
| ||
