|
On July 04 2014 23:40 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2014 23:19 freewareplayer wrote: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. 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'm not sure you actually own a clock or can tell time... 15 minute meals while washing the dishes? Are you shoving a frozen pizza in the oven or something? Or are you doing some clever accounting with your 15 minutes? Let's take an example of a delicious "15 minute meal" from Jamie Oliver:
Cook the aubergines whole in the microwave (800W) for 7 minutes • Put 1 mug of couscous and 2 mugs of boiling water into a bowl and cover • Cut the lamb into 8 pieces and flatten with your fist, then toss with salt, pepper and the garam masala • Put into the large frying pan with 1 tablespoon of oil, turning when golden • Toast the cumin crunch mix in the medium frying pan until lightly golden, then pound in a pestle and mortar • Return the empty pan to a low heat
Carefully transfer the aubergines to a board, then halve lengthways and add to the lamb pan, skin side down, pushing the lamb to the side • Put the saffron into a mug half-filled with boiling water • Roughly chop the tomatoes, finely chop the preserved lemon, trim and slice the spring onions and chilli, then add it all to the medium frying pan with 2 tablespoons of oil, the saffron and its soaking water • Turn the heat up to high, bring to the boil, then season to taste
Fluff up the couscous, then spoon over a large serving board or platter • Flip the aubergine over to soak up the pan juices, then place on top of the couscous and pour over the tomatoes and any juices • Lay over the lamb, then scatter with the cumin crunch and the coriander leaves • Serve with the yoghurt
Source
(That was just the first one I picked).
I don't know a soul that can do all of that in 15 minutes, and maybe a couple of people that could do it in an hour. And that's without doing dishes in the middle.
Maybe you're thinking everybody should live off of sandwiches and rice or something, as if that is enough for a lot of people's tastes...
To add to the other poster though, even if you do own a freezer, for a lot of healthy food, freezing meat poses a problem with thawing as well. Forget to lay out the chicken before you go to work? Looks like the home cooked dinner is cancelled...
|
The other thing that enters into the discussion is stress and the neuroendocrine stress response. Genetics is one factor, yes, but as they say, genetics loads the gun and the environment pulls the trigger. Chronic stress can make you eat more, and some people are more vulnerable to chronic stress than others. Under certain conditions, the stress hormone cortisol increases appetite, so now the person is left with two choices 1) feel hungry all the time 2) eat more. I would be very reluctant to call people weak-minded for that (not that I like the term or the characterization anyway).
Some very very interesting work has emerged in the last couple decades on stress and social structures, and also on social structures and disease. I have, as a personal hypothesis thought that these are connected via the keep-up-with-the-neighbours mentality that is increasingly common and intensifying across the globe. When read alone, the books "The Spirit Level" (connects socioeconomic inequality with health outcomes across the board) and "Why do Zebras not get Ulcers" (an excellent summary of the effects of stress as has been revealed in the last couple decades) are interesting books in their own right, but read both, and inescapably, one starts to wonder if widespread obesity (and an enormous battery of "developed nation diseases") has got something to do with a political and social framework that has developed in the last century.
TLDR: Stress could also have something to do with this obesity explosion.
|
On July 05 2014 03:38 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2014 23:40 Xiphos wrote:On July 04 2014 23:19 freewareplayer wrote: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. 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'm not sure you actually own a clock or can tell time... 15 minute meals while washing the dishes? Are you shoving a frozen pizza in the oven or something? Or are you doing some clever accounting with your 15 minutes? Let's take an example of a delicious "15 minute meal" from Jamie Oliver: Show nested quote +Cook the aubergines whole in the microwave (800W) for 7 minutes • Put 1 mug of couscous and 2 mugs of boiling water into a bowl and cover • Cut the lamb into 8 pieces and flatten with your fist, then toss with salt, pepper and the garam masala • Put into the large frying pan with 1 tablespoon of oil, turning when golden • Toast the cumin crunch mix in the medium frying pan until lightly golden, then pound in a pestle and mortar • Return the empty pan to a low heat
Carefully transfer the aubergines to a board, then halve lengthways and add to the lamb pan, skin side down, pushing the lamb to the side • Put the saffron into a mug half-filled with boiling water • Roughly chop the tomatoes, finely chop the preserved lemon, trim and slice the spring onions and chilli, then add it all to the medium frying pan with 2 tablespoons of oil, the saffron and its soaking water • Turn the heat up to high, bring to the boil, then season to taste
Fluff up the couscous, then spoon over a large serving board or platter • Flip the aubergine over to soak up the pan juices, then place on top of the couscous and pour over the tomatoes and any juices • Lay over the lamb, then scatter with the cumin crunch and the coriander leaves • Serve with the yoghurt Source(That was just the first one I picked). I don't know a soul that can do all of that in 15 minutes, and maybe a couple of people that could do it in an hour. And that's without doing dishes in the middle. Maybe you're thinking everybody should live off of sandwiches and rice or something, as if that is enough for a lot of people's tastes... To add to the other poster though, even if you do own a freezer, for a lot of healthy food, freezing meat poses a problem with thawing as well. Forget to lay out the chicken before you go to work? Looks like the home cooked dinner is cancelled...
Raw cucumber + Apple = veggies + fruits = 2 minutes
Scrambled Eggs = protein = 5 minutes
Boil potatoes = carbs = 10 minutes.
Its akin to playing starcraft. While a certain thing is in the process of completion, I don't waste time and immediately go to the next thing.
And from the above diet that I JUST ate, I get WAY better nutrients than mcdonalds or any fast food restaurent AND its cheap too.
Again some people are just plain lazy.
Oh by the way if you see how professional athletes eat, their diet ain't that tasty. All those good "tastes" in food comes from sodium, fructose, and spices. All of those contains malignant properties that are detrimental to your health. I try to stay away from salt, sugar, spicy stuff (unless it is ACTUALLY pepers and not that red vietnamess sauce), and oil (except for maybe olive oil) as much as I can.
EVERYTHING is an exchange, in this case: taste vs health.
And I choose the later.
|
On July 05 2014 03:38 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2014 23:40 Xiphos wrote:On July 04 2014 23:19 freewareplayer wrote: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. 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'm not sure you actually own a clock or can tell time... 15 minute meals while washing the dishes? Are you shoving a frozen pizza in the oven or something? Or are you doing some clever accounting with your 15 minutes? Let's take an example of a delicious "15 minute meal" from Jamie Oliver: Show nested quote +Cook the aubergines whole in the microwave (800W) for 7 minutes • Put 1 mug of couscous and 2 mugs of boiling water into a bowl and cover • Cut the lamb into 8 pieces and flatten with your fist, then toss with salt, pepper and the garam masala • Put into the large frying pan with 1 tablespoon of oil, turning when golden • Toast the cumin crunch mix in the medium frying pan until lightly golden, then pound in a pestle and mortar • Return the empty pan to a low heat
Carefully transfer the aubergines to a board, then halve lengthways and add to the lamb pan, skin side down, pushing the lamb to the side • Put the saffron into a mug half-filled with boiling water • Roughly chop the tomatoes, finely chop the preserved lemon, trim and slice the spring onions and chilli, then add it all to the medium frying pan with 2 tablespoons of oil, the saffron and its soaking water • Turn the heat up to high, bring to the boil, then season to taste
Fluff up the couscous, then spoon over a large serving board or platter • Flip the aubergine over to soak up the pan juices, then place on top of the couscous and pour over the tomatoes and any juices • Lay over the lamb, then scatter with the cumin crunch and the coriander leaves • Serve with the yoghurt Source(That was just the first one I picked). I don't know a soul that can do all of that in 15 minutes, and maybe a couple of people that could do it in an hour. And that's without doing dishes in the middle. Maybe you're thinking everybody should live off of sandwiches and rice or something, as if that is enough for a lot of people's tastes... To add to the other poster though, even if you do own a freezer, for a lot of healthy food, freezing meat poses a problem with thawing as well. Forget to lay out the chicken before you go to work? Looks like the home cooked dinner is cancelled...
I don't understand your point. I can do that in 15 minutes. There's 15 actions and they all easily take under a minute. Sure, maybe taking all the food out of the fridge and laying the dishes and the washing up isn't included. So what? Those don't take too long.
Not to mention, why are you talking about a meal for 4 people as an example? Plenty of families with both working parents can make the time to cook, it's absurd that a single person who apparently eats enough for 4 people cannot.
|
We can discuss as many ways to live healthy as we want, the fact is that one third of the world population doesn't give a shit about all that.
Being fat has become an accepted status in our society and that is the main issue.
|
^Blame twitter for that.
Those who advocated for #Fatacceptance (or any other bad habit activists such as #drinkingalldayallnights) are pretty much useless in my eyes.
|
On July 05 2014 04:32 urboss wrote:
We can discuss as many ways to live healthy as we want, the fact is that one third of the world population doesn't give a shit about all that.
Being fat has become an accepted status in our society and that is the main issue.
Truly, this is the root of the problem. The discussions going on in this thread about "why it's harder to be thin" or "what should we do about sugar" are all well and good, but literally every person in the world, metabolic disease or no who made a serious and educated attempt to do so, could lose a significant amount of weight.
So in the end it's about willpower, education, and motivation, not science or time management, or any of the rest of this stuff.
|
On July 04 2014 16:07 urboss wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2014 14:04 _-NoMaN-_ wrote: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 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).
thank you for forcing me to do some more research. here is what i found:
excerpts from http://authoritynutrition.com/4-ways-sugar-makes-you-fat/:
"1.Fructose causes insulin resistance and raises insulin levels in the body, which increases the deposition of fat in the fat cells.
2.Fructose causes resistance to a hormone called leptin, which makes the brain not “see” that the fat cells are full of fat. This leads to increased food intake and decreased fat burning.
3. Fructose does not make you feel satiated after meals. It does not lower levels of the hunger hormone ghrelin and it doesn’t reduce blood flow in the centers of the brain that control appetite. This increases overall food intake.
4.Sugar, with its powerful impact on the reward system, causes addiction in certain individuals. This activates powerful reward-seeking behavior that also increases food intake.
This way, sugar sets up an extremely powerful biochemical drive to make you eat more, burn less and get fat. Trying to exert willpower over this powerful drive can be next to impossible.
Empty calories are just the tip of the iceberg, sugar is a leading cause of obesity by its powerful effects on hormones and the brain."
Excerpt from http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/consumed-fat-converted-fat-body-6862.html:
"A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that fat consumption of between 18 percent and 40 percent has little effect on fat in the body, and that diets high in fat are not the primary cause of excess fat in the body."
Excerpt from http://www.nutritionj.com/content/4/1/24
"while for many years it has been claimed that the increase in pediatric obesity has happened because of an increase in high fat intake, contradictory results have been obtained by cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Result of NHANES has shown that fat consumption of American children has fallen over the last three decades. For instance; mean dietary fat consumption in males aged 12–19 years fell from 37.0% (SD = 0.29%) of total caloric intake in 1971–1974 to 32.0% (SD = 0.42%) in 1999–2000. The pattern was the same for females, whose fat consumption fell from 36.7% (SD = 0.27%) to 32.1% (SD = 0.61%) [38,39]. Gregory et al. [40] reported that the average fat intake of children aged 4–18 years in the UK is close to the government recommendation of 35% energy. On the other hand, some cross-sectional studies have found a positive relationship between fat intake and adiposity in children even after controlling for confounding factors [41,42]. The main objection to the notion that dietary fat is responsible for the accelerated pediatric obesity epidemic is the fact that at the same time the prevalence of childhood obesity was increasing, the consumption of dietary fat in different populations was decreasing. Although fat eaten in excess leads to obesity, there is not strong enough evidence that fat intake is the chief reason for the ascending trend of childhood obesity."
Thus, though in theory consuming fat should make you more overweight, sugar (specifically fructose) intake seems to be a stronger factor due to the complex nature of bio-feedback systems in the body and brain.
|
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).
Biochemistry is all well and good, but we're talking about biology here. It's not necessarily more complex, but there are more factors involved than just the chemical reactions. It's technically easier to get fat by eating fat, because it's more calorie dense and it's more easily made into triglycerides, sure. But it's also significantly harder to overeat on fat, because of the hormone responses caused by its ingestion and because of the types of food that are typically high in fat.
tl;dr this isn't a one sided problem, they both contribute. Which side contributes more depends on who you talk to, and about the specific case you're talking about.
On July 05 2014 05:37 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:thank you for forcing me to do some more research. here is what i found: excerpts from http://authoritynutrition.com/4-ways-sugar-makes-you-fat/: "1.Fructose causes insulin resistance and raises insulin levels in the body, which increases the deposition of fat in the fat cells. 2.Fructose causes resistance to a hormone called leptin, which makes the brain not “see” that the fat cells are full of fat. This leads to increased food intake and decreased fat burning. 3. Fructose does not make you feel satiated after meals. It does not lower levels of the hunger hormone ghrelin and it doesn’t reduce blood flow in the centers of the brain that control appetite. This increases overall food intake. 4.Sugar, with its powerful impact on the reward system, causes addiction in certain individuals. This activates powerful reward-seeking behavior that also increases food intake. This way, sugar sets up an extremely powerful biochemical drive to make you eat more, burn less and get fat. Trying to exert willpower over this powerful drive can be next to impossible. Empty calories are just the tip of the iceberg, sugar is a leading cause of obesity by its powerful effects on hormones and the brain." Excerpt from http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/consumed-fat-converted-fat-body-6862.html:"A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that fat consumption of between 18 percent and 40 percent has little effect on fat in the body, and that diets high in fat are not the primary cause of excess fat in the body." Excerpt from http://www.nutritionj.com/content/4/1/24"while for many years it has been claimed that the increase in pediatric obesity has happened because of an increase in high fat intake, contradictory results have been obtained by cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Result of NHANES has shown that fat consumption of American children has fallen over the last three decades. For instance; mean dietary fat consumption in males aged 12–19 years fell from 37.0% (SD = 0.29%) of total caloric intake in 1971–1974 to 32.0% (SD = 0.42%) in 1999–2000. The pattern was the same for females, whose fat consumption fell from 36.7% (SD = 0.27%) to 32.1% (SD = 0.61%) [38,39]. Gregory et al. [40] reported that the average fat intake of children aged 4–18 years in the UK is close to the government recommendation of 35% energy. On the other hand, some cross-sectional studies have found a positive relationship between fat intake and adiposity in children even after controlling for confounding factors [41,42]. The main objection to the notion that dietary fat is responsible for the accelerated pediatric obesity epidemic is the fact that at the same time the prevalence of childhood obesity was increasing, the consumption of dietary fat in different populations was decreasing. Although fat eaten in excess leads to obesity, there is not strong enough evidence that fat intake is the chief reason for the ascending trend of childhood obesity."
Blah blah blah, the root of the problem is still not sugar, it's education and motivation. Sure, low sugar diets will make it easier for most people to lose weight. It's still entirely possible to be "hungry" and not eat something - and that will cause weight loss as well.
|
On July 05 2014 03:38 aksfjh wrote:I'm not sure you actually own a clock or can tell time... 15 minute meals while washing the dishes? Are you shoving a frozen pizza in the oven or something? Or are you doing some clever accounting with your 15 minutes? Let's take an example of a delicious "15 minute meal" from Jamie Oliver: Show nested quote +Cook the aubergines whole in the microwave (800W) for 7 minutes • Put 1 mug of couscous and 2 mugs of boiling water into a bowl and cover • Cut the lamb into 8 pieces and flatten with your fist, then toss with salt, pepper and the garam masala • Put into the large frying pan with 1 tablespoon of oil, turning when golden • Toast the cumin crunch mix in the medium frying pan until lightly golden, then pound in a pestle and mortar • Return the empty pan to a low heat
Carefully transfer the aubergines to a board, then halve lengthways and add to the lamb pan, skin side down, pushing the lamb to the side • Put the saffron into a mug half-filled with boiling water • Roughly chop the tomatoes, finely chop the preserved lemon, trim and slice the spring onions and chilli, then add it all to the medium frying pan with 2 tablespoons of oil, the saffron and its soaking water • Turn the heat up to high, bring to the boil, then season to taste
Fluff up the couscous, then spoon over a large serving board or platter • Flip the aubergine over to soak up the pan juices, then place on top of the couscous and pour over the tomatoes and any juices • Lay over the lamb, then scatter with the cumin crunch and the coriander leaves • Serve with the yoghurt Source(That was just the first one I picked).
Things I'm reading here:
1. Microwave aubergines
2. cut up lamb, season it, and start it cooking in a pan (or buy it precut to save on your precious labor costs)
3. toast and grind cumin (takes like one minute, or buy it already done)
4. slice your microwaved aubergines, add them to the pan with the lamb.
5. slice/chop and boil some spices and vegetables
6. Make couscous (I think that's like a rice?)
7. Put it all on a plate and serve with yogurt on the side.
On July 05 2014 03:38 aksfjh wrote:
I don't know a soul that can do all of that in 15 minutes, and maybe a couple of people that could do it in an hour. And that's without doing dishes in the middle.
Sure it would take an hour. But most of that time would be "dead time" while you're waiting for the meat to cook, or water to boil, etc. - that's the time you do dishes, or anything else you have to get done for that day. There's probably 15-20 minutes of "active time" in there if you've got things reasonably organized.
On July 05 2014 03:38 aksfjh wrote:
Maybe you're thinking everybody should live off of sandwiches and rice or something, as if that is enough for a lot of people's tastes...
Certainly not, but there's about a mile of middle ground in between "sandwiches and rice" and what you posted. Your original arguement was about the time efficiency of going through a drivethrough, and I don't think the kind of person who's going to be happy eating that type of food is suddenly going to require a standard like this, jut because they're cooking at home. Regardless, "peoples tastes" are irrelevant to a discussion about weight loss. Food is fuel, not fun.
On July 05 2014 03:38 aksfjh wrote:
To add to the other poster though, even if you do own a freezer, for a lot of healthy food, freezing meat poses a problem with thawing as well. Forget to lay out the chicken before you go to work? Looks like the home cooked dinner is cancelled...
Then don't forget to thaw the chicken. And if you do? Leave that in the freezer, and buy some new (not frozen) chicken on your way home from work! Anyway, heaven forbid you eat out once a week, or two weeks, or whatever you can afford. It doesn't matter, and it's not going to cause an issue with weight loss. If you count your calories (99% of restaurants post them on menus now) you can eat from a drive-through seven days a week, and still lose weight. You'll feel awful doing it, but it's firmly within the realm of possibility.
|
On July 05 2014 05:54 phyre112 wrote:Show nested quote +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).
Biochemistry is all well and good, but we're talking about biology here. It's not necessarily more complex, but there are more factors involved than just the chemical reactions. It's technically easier to get fat by eating fat, because it's more calorie dense and it's more easily made into triglycerides, sure. But it's also significantly harder to overeat on fat, because of the hormone responses caused by its ingestion and because of the types of food that are typically high in fat. tl;dr this isn't a one sided problem, they both contribute. Which side contributes more depends on who you talk to, and about the specific case you're talking about. Show nested quote +On July 05 2014 05:37 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:thank you for forcing me to do some more research. here is what i found: excerpts from http://authoritynutrition.com/4-ways-sugar-makes-you-fat/: "1.Fructose causes insulin resistance and raises insulin levels in the body, which increases the deposition of fat in the fat cells. 2.Fructose causes resistance to a hormone called leptin, which makes the brain not “see” that the fat cells are full of fat. This leads to increased food intake and decreased fat burning. 3. Fructose does not make you feel satiated after meals. It does not lower levels of the hunger hormone ghrelin and it doesn’t reduce blood flow in the centers of the brain that control appetite. This increases overall food intake. 4.Sugar, with its powerful impact on the reward system, causes addiction in certain individuals. This activates powerful reward-seeking behavior that also increases food intake. This way, sugar sets up an extremely powerful biochemical drive to make you eat more, burn less and get fat. Trying to exert willpower over this powerful drive can be next to impossible. Empty calories are just the tip of the iceberg, sugar is a leading cause of obesity by its powerful effects on hormones and the brain." Excerpt from http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/consumed-fat-converted-fat-body-6862.html:"A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that fat consumption of between 18 percent and 40 percent has little effect on fat in the body, and that diets high in fat are not the primary cause of excess fat in the body." Excerpt from http://www.nutritionj.com/content/4/1/24"while for many years it has been claimed that the increase in pediatric obesity has happened because of an increase in high fat intake, contradictory results have been obtained by cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Result of NHANES has shown that fat consumption of American children has fallen over the last three decades. For instance; mean dietary fat consumption in males aged 12–19 years fell from 37.0% (SD = 0.29%) of total caloric intake in 1971–1974 to 32.0% (SD = 0.42%) in 1999–2000. The pattern was the same for females, whose fat consumption fell from 36.7% (SD = 0.27%) to 32.1% (SD = 0.61%) [38,39]. Gregory et al. [40] reported that the average fat intake of children aged 4–18 years in the UK is close to the government recommendation of 35% energy. On the other hand, some cross-sectional studies have found a positive relationship between fat intake and adiposity in children even after controlling for confounding factors [41,42]. The main objection to the notion that dietary fat is responsible for the accelerated pediatric obesity epidemic is the fact that at the same time the prevalence of childhood obesity was increasing, the consumption of dietary fat in different populations was decreasing. Although fat eaten in excess leads to obesity, there is not strong enough evidence that fat intake is the chief reason for the ascending trend of childhood obesity." Blah blah blah, the root of the problem is still not sugar, it's education and motivation. Sure, low sugar diets will make it easier for most people to lose weight. It's still entirely possible to be "hungry" and not eat something - and that will cause weight loss as well.
responding to bolded section.
To put it another way: Heroin is not at the root of heroin addiction; it's education and motivation: well, yes and no.
If you are educated about the negative effects of heroin, then the will power required to not do heroin is basically zero or less.
If for whatever reason you become addicted to heroin, the will power required to not do it is immense, and any amount of education will barely make it much, if at all, easier.
Make no mistake, refined sugar is indeed addictive:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/88/56G31/index.xml?section=topstories
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
Edited for grammar
|
On July 05 2014 04:18 hummingbird23 wrote:
The other thing that enters into the discussion is stress and the neuroendocrine stress response. Genetics is one factor, yes, but as they say, genetics loads the gun and the environment pulls the trigger. Chronic stress can make you eat more, and some people are more vulnerable to chronic stress than others. Under certain conditions, the stress hormone cortisol increases appetite, so now the person is left with two choices 1) feel hungry all the time 2) eat more. I would be very reluctant to call people weak-minded for that (not that I like the term or the characterization anyway).
Some very very interesting work has emerged in the last couple decades on stress and social structures, and also on social structures and disease. I have, as a personal hypothesis thought that these are connected via the keep-up-with-the-neighbours mentality that is increasingly common and intensifying across the globe. When read alone, the books "The Spirit Level" (connects socioeconomic inequality with health outcomes across the board) and "Why do Zebras not get Ulcers" (an excellent summary of the effects of stress as has been revealed in the last couple decades) are interesting books in their own right, but read both, and inescapably, one starts to wonder if widespread obesity (and an enormous battery of "developed nation diseases") has got something to do with a political and social framework that has developed in the last century.
TLDR: Stress could also have something to do with this obesity explosion.
I believe this to be true.
Substance abuse is essentially the default response to chronic stress, so far as i can tell.
|
On July 05 2014 06:31 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2014 04:18 hummingbird23 wrote:
The other thing that enters into the discussion is stress and the neuroendocrine stress response. Genetics is one factor, yes, but as they say, genetics loads the gun and the environment pulls the trigger. Chronic stress can make you eat more, and some people are more vulnerable to chronic stress than others. Under certain conditions, the stress hormone cortisol increases appetite, so now the person is left with two choices 1) feel hungry all the time 2) eat more. I would be very reluctant to call people weak-minded for that (not that I like the term or the characterization anyway).
Some very very interesting work has emerged in the last couple decades on stress and social structures, and also on social structures and disease. I have, as a personal hypothesis thought that these are connected via the keep-up-with-the-neighbours mentality that is increasingly common and intensifying across the globe. When read alone, the books "The Spirit Level" (connects socioeconomic inequality with health outcomes across the board) and "Why do Zebras not get Ulcers" (an excellent summary of the effects of stress as has been revealed in the last couple decades) are interesting books in their own right, but read both, and inescapably, one starts to wonder if widespread obesity (and an enormous battery of "developed nation diseases") has got something to do with a political and social framework that has developed in the last century.
TLDR: Stress could also have something to do with this obesity explosion. I believe this to be true. Substance abuse is essentially the default response to chronic stress, so far as i can tell.
Then explain how the Japanese people manage to stay so thin despite being more in higher stressed than the western counterpart?
And I'm calling BS on the stress part. Back in the 60s and the 70s in the USA, there are SOO many gun violence and the murder rate was at its peak. People actually had a reasons to be scared while living in cities that higher chances than now that they can get caught in the middle of gang violence. Now, the streets are much more safer. I think the stress of actually being scared for your life far outweighs the safer environment of nowadays.
|
On July 05 2014 06:31 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2014 04:18 hummingbird23 wrote:
The other thing that enters into the discussion is stress and the neuroendocrine stress response. Genetics is one factor, yes, but as they say, genetics loads the gun and the environment pulls the trigger. Chronic stress can make you eat more, and some people are more vulnerable to chronic stress than others. Under certain conditions, the stress hormone cortisol increases appetite, so now the person is left with two choices 1) feel hungry all the time 2) eat more. I would be very reluctant to call people weak-minded for that (not that I like the term or the characterization anyway).
Some very very interesting work has emerged in the last couple decades on stress and social structures, and also on social structures and disease. I have, as a personal hypothesis thought that these are connected via the keep-up-with-the-neighbours mentality that is increasingly common and intensifying across the globe. When read alone, the books "The Spirit Level" (connects socioeconomic inequality with health outcomes across the board) and "Why do Zebras not get Ulcers" (an excellent summary of the effects of stress as has been revealed in the last couple decades) are interesting books in their own right, but read both, and inescapably, one starts to wonder if widespread obesity (and an enormous battery of "developed nation diseases") has got something to do with a political and social framework that has developed in the last century.
TLDR: Stress could also have something to do with this obesity explosion. I believe this to be true. Substance abuse is essentially the default response to chronic stress, so far as i can tell.
I think it's doubly insidious. Firstly, you get increased appetite, and secondly, what do you eat when it's not a mealtime? Sugary, fatty snacks. Little packets of dopamine, that are analogous in some way to substance abuse.
|
On July 05 2014 07:13 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2014 06:31 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On July 05 2014 04:18 hummingbird23 wrote:
The other thing that enters into the discussion is stress and the neuroendocrine stress response. Genetics is one factor, yes, but as they say, genetics loads the gun and the environment pulls the trigger. Chronic stress can make you eat more, and some people are more vulnerable to chronic stress than others. Under certain conditions, the stress hormone cortisol increases appetite, so now the person is left with two choices 1) feel hungry all the time 2) eat more. I would be very reluctant to call people weak-minded for that (not that I like the term or the characterization anyway).
Some very very interesting work has emerged in the last couple decades on stress and social structures, and also on social structures and disease. I have, as a personal hypothesis thought that these are connected via the keep-up-with-the-neighbours mentality that is increasingly common and intensifying across the globe. When read alone, the books "The Spirit Level" (connects socioeconomic inequality with health outcomes across the board) and "Why do Zebras not get Ulcers" (an excellent summary of the effects of stress as has been revealed in the last couple decades) are interesting books in their own right, but read both, and inescapably, one starts to wonder if widespread obesity (and an enormous battery of "developed nation diseases") has got something to do with a political and social framework that has developed in the last century.
TLDR: Stress could also have something to do with this obesity explosion. I believe this to be true. Substance abuse is essentially the default response to chronic stress, so far as i can tell. I think it's doubly insidious. Firstly, you get increased appetite, and secondly, what do you eat when it's not a mealtime? Sugary, fatty snacks. Little packets of dopamine, that are analogous in some way to substance abuse.
I agree with substance abuse, but it doesn't have to do anything with the stress level.
But people have been successfully getting over alcohol, cigarettes, pot, and even coke abuses and emerged victorious and those are way more addicting than sugar. If people can get over those, so should anyone else.
|
On the Fat/Carbs topic, it's still a biochemistry issue, but people always forget the slight more important issue: What are absorption and utilization rates?
Very shortly: the amount of Fat you can actually eat is rather limited, in comparison to the amount of Carbs you can consume. Further, Fat and the release of Bile Salts have massive satiety effects on the hormonal response system.
One of the most destructive choices, in the American system, was the "Fat makes you Fat" fallacy. This caused a massive shift from Fat flavoring to Sugar (and HFCS) in the US diet. And the obesity rate has been going up right along with it.
On the stress aspect, it plays a big part in gaining fat, but don't think our societies are high or lower in stress than others. Physiological Stress is actually quite hard to quantify, at the moment, so the danger is always implementing some idealistic system on what "Stress" is. It's actually a massively complex issue, though looking for "heavy endocrine stressors" is probably the best when it comes to dealing with Obesity.
|
On July 05 2014 07:16 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2014 07:13 hummingbird23 wrote:On July 05 2014 06:31 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On July 05 2014 04:18 hummingbird23 wrote:
The other thing that enters into the discussion is stress and the neuroendocrine stress response. Genetics is one factor, yes, but as they say, genetics loads the gun and the environment pulls the trigger. Chronic stress can make you eat more, and some people are more vulnerable to chronic stress than others. Under certain conditions, the stress hormone cortisol increases appetite, so now the person is left with two choices 1) feel hungry all the time 2) eat more. I would be very reluctant to call people weak-minded for that (not that I like the term or the characterization anyway).
Some very very interesting work has emerged in the last couple decades on stress and social structures, and also on social structures and disease. I have, as a personal hypothesis thought that these are connected via the keep-up-with-the-neighbours mentality that is increasingly common and intensifying across the globe. When read alone, the books "The Spirit Level" (connects socioeconomic inequality with health outcomes across the board) and "Why do Zebras not get Ulcers" (an excellent summary of the effects of stress as has been revealed in the last couple decades) are interesting books in their own right, but read both, and inescapably, one starts to wonder if widespread obesity (and an enormous battery of "developed nation diseases") has got something to do with a political and social framework that has developed in the last century.
TLDR: Stress could also have something to do with this obesity explosion. I believe this to be true. Substance abuse is essentially the default response to chronic stress, so far as i can tell. I think it's doubly insidious. Firstly, you get increased appetite, and secondly, what do you eat when it's not a mealtime? Sugary, fatty snacks. Little packets of dopamine, that are analogous in some way to substance abuse. I agree with substance abuse, but it doesn't have to do anything with the stress level. But people have been successfully getting over alcohol, cigarettes, pot, and even coke abuses and emerged victorious and those are way more addicting than sugar. If people can get over those, so should anyone else.
That's precisely the point: that drug food/junk food is socially acceptable in a way that 'conventional' drugs are not. They are regularly sold and marketed to kids, at an age when any 'neural re-wiring' is much more devastating and permanent.
The precise degree of addictiveness is not yet well understood:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-02/fatty-foods-addictive-as-cocaine-in-growing-body-of-science.html
studies show that sugar and/or salt combined with fat produces a powerful neurochemical effect that can be highly addictive.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/03/fatty-and-sugary-food-as-addictive-as-cocaine-and-nicotine_n_1073513.html
|
lol, don't blame culture for being fat. You and everybody's mother know that junk food is bad for you. It really isn't socially acceptable to be constantly gorging yourself on junk food, on ready meals, on fast food, to be constantly snacking. Where is this mythical place where it is socially acceptable and no one will tell you that maybe, just maybe you should stop eating like a complete slob?
|
On July 05 2014 06:14 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2014 05:54 phyre112 wrote: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).
Biochemistry is all well and good, but we're talking about biology here. It's not necessarily more complex, but there are more factors involved than just the chemical reactions. It's technically easier to get fat by eating fat, because it's more calorie dense and it's more easily made into triglycerides, sure. But it's also significantly harder to overeat on fat, because of the hormone responses caused by its ingestion and because of the types of food that are typically high in fat. tl;dr this isn't a one sided problem, they both contribute. Which side contributes more depends on who you talk to, and about the specific case you're talking about. On July 05 2014 05:37 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:thank you for forcing me to do some more research. here is what i found: excerpts from http://authoritynutrition.com/4-ways-sugar-makes-you-fat/: "1.Fructose causes insulin resistance and raises insulin levels in the body, which increases the deposition of fat in the fat cells. 2.Fructose causes resistance to a hormone called leptin, which makes the brain not “see” that the fat cells are full of fat. This leads to increased food intake and decreased fat burning. 3. Fructose does not make you feel satiated after meals. It does not lower levels of the hunger hormone ghrelin and it doesn’t reduce blood flow in the centers of the brain that control appetite. This increases overall food intake. 4.Sugar, with its powerful impact on the reward system, causes addiction in certain individuals. This activates powerful reward-seeking behavior that also increases food intake. This way, sugar sets up an extremely powerful biochemical drive to make you eat more, burn less and get fat. Trying to exert willpower over this powerful drive can be next to impossible. Empty calories are just the tip of the iceberg, sugar is a leading cause of obesity by its powerful effects on hormones and the brain." Excerpt from http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/consumed-fat-converted-fat-body-6862.html:"A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that fat consumption of between 18 percent and 40 percent has little effect on fat in the body, and that diets high in fat are not the primary cause of excess fat in the body." Excerpt from http://www.nutritionj.com/content/4/1/24"while for many years it has been claimed that the increase in pediatric obesity has happened because of an increase in high fat intake, contradictory results have been obtained by cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Result of NHANES has shown that fat consumption of American children has fallen over the last three decades. For instance; mean dietary fat consumption in males aged 12–19 years fell from 37.0% (SD = 0.29%) of total caloric intake in 1971–1974 to 32.0% (SD = 0.42%) in 1999–2000. The pattern was the same for females, whose fat consumption fell from 36.7% (SD = 0.27%) to 32.1% (SD = 0.61%) [38,39]. Gregory et al. [40] reported that the average fat intake of children aged 4–18 years in the UK is close to the government recommendation of 35% energy. On the other hand, some cross-sectional studies have found a positive relationship between fat intake and adiposity in children even after controlling for confounding factors [41,42]. The main objection to the notion that dietary fat is responsible for the accelerated pediatric obesity epidemic is the fact that at the same time the prevalence of childhood obesity was increasing, the consumption of dietary fat in different populations was decreasing. Although fat eaten in excess leads to obesity, there is not strong enough evidence that fat intake is the chief reason for the ascending trend of childhood obesity." Blah blah blah, the root of the problem is still not sugar, it's education and motivation. Sure, low sugar diets will make it easier for most people to lose weight. It's still entirely possible to be "hungry" and not eat something - and that will cause weight loss as well. responding to bolded section. To put it another way: Heroin is not at the root of heroin addiction; it's education and motivation: well, yes and no. If you are educated about the negative effects of heroin, then the will power required to not do heroin is basically zero or less. If for whatever reason you become addicted to heroin, the will power required to not do it is immense, and any amount of education will barely make it much, if at all, easier. Make no mistake, refined sugar is indeed addictive: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/88/56G31/index.xml?section=topstorieshttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/Edited for grammar
Heroin is to drug epidemic as sugar is to obesity epidemic. Its one part of the problem, but it's not the entire thing. I never said that sugar isn't a problem. It's addictive, yes, but... oh well? I don't think anyone is arguing that. Not doing heroin (or getting fat) in the first place is an educational issue. Stopping heroin (or losing weight) is a motivational issue. That's exactly what I said in my last post, and I don't think you really disproved it... at all.
On July 05 2014 10:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
lol, don't blame culture for being fat. You and everybody's mother know that junk food is bad for you. It really isn't socially acceptable to be constantly gorging yourself on junk food, on ready meals, on fast food, to be constantly snacking. Where is this mythical place where it is socially acceptable and no one will tell you that maybe, just maybe you should stop eating like a complete slob?
When is the last time you actually told someone they needed to lose weight? Even a family member? Now when is the last time you talked to someone about how bad smoking was for them, or asked them not to smoke near you? They're not even close to comparable in how "socially acceptable" they each are.
|
On July 05 2014 11:01 phyre112 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2014 06:14 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On July 05 2014 05:54 phyre112 wrote: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).
Biochemistry is all well and good, but we're talking about biology here. It's not necessarily more complex, but there are more factors involved than just the chemical reactions. It's technically easier to get fat by eating fat, because it's more calorie dense and it's more easily made into triglycerides, sure. But it's also significantly harder to overeat on fat, because of the hormone responses caused by its ingestion and because of the types of food that are typically high in fat. tl;dr this isn't a one sided problem, they both contribute. Which side contributes more depends on who you talk to, and about the specific case you're talking about. On July 05 2014 05:37 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:thank you for forcing me to do some more research. here is what i found: excerpts from http://authoritynutrition.com/4-ways-sugar-makes-you-fat/: "1.Fructose causes insulin resistance and raises insulin levels in the body, which increases the deposition of fat in the fat cells. 2.Fructose causes resistance to a hormone called leptin, which makes the brain not “see” that the fat cells are full of fat. This leads to increased food intake and decreased fat burning. 3. Fructose does not make you feel satiated after meals. It does not lower levels of the hunger hormone ghrelin and it doesn’t reduce blood flow in the centers of the brain that control appetite. This increases overall food intake. 4.Sugar, with its powerful impact on the reward system, causes addiction in certain individuals. This activates powerful reward-seeking behavior that also increases food intake. This way, sugar sets up an extremely powerful biochemical drive to make you eat more, burn less and get fat. Trying to exert willpower over this powerful drive can be next to impossible. Empty calories are just the tip of the iceberg, sugar is a leading cause of obesity by its powerful effects on hormones and the brain." Excerpt from http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/consumed-fat-converted-fat-body-6862.html:"A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that fat consumption of between 18 percent and 40 percent has little effect on fat in the body, and that diets high in fat are not the primary cause of excess fat in the body." Excerpt from http://www.nutritionj.com/content/4/1/24"while for many years it has been claimed that the increase in pediatric obesity has happened because of an increase in high fat intake, contradictory results have been obtained by cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Result of NHANES has shown that fat consumption of American children has fallen over the last three decades. For instance; mean dietary fat consumption in males aged 12–19 years fell from 37.0% (SD = 0.29%) of total caloric intake in 1971–1974 to 32.0% (SD = 0.42%) in 1999–2000. The pattern was the same for females, whose fat consumption fell from 36.7% (SD = 0.27%) to 32.1% (SD = 0.61%) [38,39]. Gregory et al. [40] reported that the average fat intake of children aged 4–18 years in the UK is close to the government recommendation of 35% energy. On the other hand, some cross-sectional studies have found a positive relationship between fat intake and adiposity in children even after controlling for confounding factors [41,42]. The main objection to the notion that dietary fat is responsible for the accelerated pediatric obesity epidemic is the fact that at the same time the prevalence of childhood obesity was increasing, the consumption of dietary fat in different populations was decreasing. Although fat eaten in excess leads to obesity, there is not strong enough evidence that fat intake is the chief reason for the ascending trend of childhood obesity." Blah blah blah, the root of the problem is still not sugar, it's education and motivation. Sure, low sugar diets will make it easier for most people to lose weight. It's still entirely possible to be "hungry" and not eat something - and that will cause weight loss as well. responding to bolded section. To put it another way: Heroin is not at the root of heroin addiction; it's education and motivation: well, yes and no. If you are educated about the negative effects of heroin, then the will power required to not do heroin is basically zero or less. If for whatever reason you become addicted to heroin, the will power required to not do it is immense, and any amount of education will barely make it much, if at all, easier. Make no mistake, refined sugar is indeed addictive: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/88/56G31/index.xml?section=topstorieshttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/Edited for grammar Heroin is to drug epidemic as sugar is to obesity epidemic. Its one part of the problem, but it's not the entire thing. I never said that sugar isn't a problem. It's addictive, yes, but... oh well? I don't think anyone is arguing that. Not doing heroin (or getting fat) in the first place is an educational issue. Stopping heroin (or losing weight) is a motivational issue. That's exactly what I said in my last post, and I don't think you really disproved it... at all. Show nested quote +On July 05 2014 10:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
lol, don't blame culture for being fat. You and everybody's mother know that junk food is bad for you. It really isn't socially acceptable to be constantly gorging yourself on junk food, on ready meals, on fast food, to be constantly snacking. Where is this mythical place where it is socially acceptable and no one will tell you that maybe, just maybe you should stop eating like a complete slob? When is the last time you actually told someone they needed to lose weight? Even a family member? Now when is the last time you talked to someone about how bad smoking was for them, or asked them not to smoke near you? They're not even close to comparable in how "socially acceptable" they each are.
Does shaming actually work in increasing long term motivation? Asking someone to not smoke near you is different, you're asking to not get the secondhand smoke. Social ostracism is as powerful a neuroendocrine stressor as you're going to get, short of outright bullying. Does anyone have experience with addiction, or professional experience with helping others quit addiction that can weigh in here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
