|
On July 05 2014 06:14 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:
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.
Dont talk about stuff you dont know anything about. Addiction is one of those topics that you will never get if you didnt deal with it yourself or got HONEST inside by junkies and fked up people. And considering lying to oneself is the crown discipline for addicts, even that is questionable.
If you think knowing about the negative consequences will stop people from trying heroin or similar stuff, you dont know ANYTHING about this topic. Its not about knowing or not knowing, its about not giving a shit.
An addict is always someone living in the moment, sugar tastes good now, its tastier than the rest, the negative consequences come later, and even when they are there, you still got sugar to make you feel good, same with heroin.
|
On July 05 2014 11:01 phyre112 wrote: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. All the time? Only to family members because the health of my family is part of my concern, as it should be for you. To friends? Occasionally when it is obvious they can't partake in light physical activity, as a light jab, because they are unfit, as opposed to fat, but that is another matter. How often would you hear the phrase "I/you should excercise more"? All the time.
Talk to someone about how bad smoking is for them? Never. I don't need to, they already know. Ask them not to smoke near me? In my house, or when eating, yes but it's not as if fat people are forcing cancerous, nasty smelling, second hand smoke into my throat and lungs. False equivalence is false equivalence.
|
On July 05 2014 17:28 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2014 11:01 phyre112 wrote: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. 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?
In many cases shaming can actually exacerbate the problem. It reinforces the cycle of; feel like shit--->abuse--->shame--->feel like shit--->abuse.
Edit
This is not to say that the issue shouldn't be confronted; it has to be from a basis of support, not ostracism.
|
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.
To bolded:
while technically correct from a neurochemical perspective, the reality is rather different. We don't feed heroin to our kids; This is the key issue. The younger it hooks you the harder it is to kick it.
I wasn't trying to disprove anything, sorry if i came across that way. I was just iterating for clarity.
|
On July 05 2014 18:43 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2014 06:14 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:
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.
Dont talk about stuff you dont know anything about. Addiction is one of those topics that you will never get if you didnt deal with it yourself or got HONEST inside by junkies and fked up people. And considering lying to oneself is the crown discipline for addicts, even that is questionable. If you think knowing about the negative consequences will stop people from trying heroin or similar stuff, you dont know ANYTHING about this topic. Its not about knowing or not knowing, its about not giving a shit. An addict is always someone living in the moment, sugar tastes good now, its tastier than the rest, the negative consequences come later, and even when they are there, you still got sugar to make you feel good, same with heroin.
I do speak from experience.
Of course 'education and motivation' are not the only determinant factors in substance abuse, or even necessarily the strongest ones. I was just addressing those specifically for the sake of argument.
The education issue is a complex one. Everybody knows 'drugs are bad'. Very few people know the specific consequences and their actual likelihood, especially in the case of 'drug food'.
In fact, the types of foods that are typically loaded with fat/sugar/salt cocktails (red meat, high carb, low fiber) are shown to cause colorectal cancer http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/type/bowel-cancer/about/risks/food-types-and-bowel-cancer , which is an issue that strikes close to home in this community.
Edit. grammar
|
On July 05 2014 23:57 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2014 17:28 hummingbird23 wrote:On July 05 2014 11:01 phyre112 wrote: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. 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? In many cases shaming can actually exacerbate the problem. It reinforces the cycle of; feel like shit--->abuse--->shame--->feel like shit--->abuse. Edit This is not to say that the issue shouldn't be confronted; it has to be from a basis of support, not ostracism.
I agree with Noman, it can make it worse, but it could also help, it really depends on the person.
I´ve worked in a therapy/rehab institution for drug addicts with convicted criminials, and what i took from there is that there is a huge difference between not wanting to use any more and not wanting negative consequences any more. Sounds weird at first.
A huge majority of the addicts will relapse. In my opinion this is because they truly believe they want to stop, because they are fed up with the increasingly negative consequences, but in reality they still like getting high or in this case eating, more. Humans are incredibly good at fooling themselfes.
Lets say getting high (or overeating) gives you 10 positive points for wanting to use drugs (eat), the negative consequences are currently a -5 for you. Now by shaming you will add more negative consequences for him. If with that the negative will outweigh the positive of the abuse, then it might help him turn his shit around.
If it doesnt however, it might just make him feel more crap and therefore do what he does to deal with negative feelings, take drugs or eat. On top of that the problem is that the shitter you feel the more you urge for the positive feeling of the abuse. Real tricky situation and probably why so many people need to hit the metaphorical rock bottom before deciding to change something.
So its a really tough call for which you really should know the person well.
Edit: I agree that the educating part is helpfull with this issue and definetly needed in health class early at school concerning food, however not with true addicts, which heroin addicts, which the comparison was, are.
There are people who abuse substances/food and there are addicts. Really hard to tell who is who, but a true addict knows about the negative consequence and either ignores them or thinks he can handle them. The sad part is you never know which type you are untill its too late.
|
On July 06 2014 00:30 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2014 23:57 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On July 05 2014 17:28 hummingbird23 wrote:On July 05 2014 11:01 phyre112 wrote: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. 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? In many cases shaming can actually exacerbate the problem. It reinforces the cycle of; feel like shit--->abuse--->shame--->feel like shit--->abuse. Edit This is not to say that the issue shouldn't be confronted; it has to be from a basis of support, not ostracism. I agree that the educating part is helpfull with this issue and definetly needed in health class early at school concerning food, however not with true addicts, which heroin addicts, which the comparison was, are. There are people who abuse substances/food and there are addicts. Really hard to tell who is who, but a true addict knows about the negative consequence and either ignores them or thinks he can handle them. The sad part is you never know which type you are untill its too late.
I agree. Some people, due to genetic factors/abuse/bad environment become locked in the cycle early on, which can make breaking free almost impossible.
The only true solution is prevention, which is to say; love the shit out of your kids and for gods sake don't feed them junk food
|
On July 06 2014 00:30 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2014 23:57 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On July 05 2014 17:28 hummingbird23 wrote:On July 05 2014 11:01 phyre112 wrote: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. 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? In many cases shaming can actually exacerbate the problem. It reinforces the cycle of; feel like shit--->abuse--->shame--->feel like shit--->abuse. Edit This is not to say that the issue shouldn't be confronted; it has to be from a basis of support, not ostracism. I agree with Noman, it can make it worse, but it could also help, it really depends on the person. I´ve worked in a therapy/rehab institution for drug addicts with convicted criminials, and what i took from there is that there is a huge difference between not wanting to use any more and not wanting negative consequences any more. Sounds weird at first. A huge majority of the addicts will relapse. In my opinion this is because they truly believe they want to stop, because they are fed up with the increasingly negative consequences, but in reality they still like getting high or in this case eating, more. Humans are incredibly good at fooling themselfes. Lets say getting high (or overeating) gives you 10 positive points for wanting to use drugs (eat), the negative consequences are currently a -5 for you. Now by shaming you will add more negative consequences for him. If with that the negative will outweigh the positive of the abuse, then it might help him turn his shit around. If it doesnt however, it might just make him feel more crap and therefore do what he does to deal with negative feelings, take drugs or eat. On top of that the problem is that the shitter you feel the more you urge for the positive feeling of the abuse. Real tricky situation and probably why so many people need to hit the metaphorical rock bottom before deciding to change something. So its a really tough call for which you really should know the person well. Edit: I agree that the educating part is helpfull with this issue and definetly needed in health class early at school concerning food, however not with true addicts, which heroin addicts, which the comparison was, are. There are people who abuse substances/food and there are addicts. Really hard to tell who is who, but a true addict knows about the negative consequence and either ignores them or thinks he can handle them. The sad part is you never know which type you are untill its too late.
Speaking of fat-shaming/acceptance. I'm of the opinion that people who are obese already have enough on their plate to deal with, and fat shaming is simply punching down for the benefit of those who don't suffer from weight problems, rather than as a motivational tool. Of course, if you know the person and are genuinely trying to help and not being an ass about it, it's another story, but just randomly shaming people for obesity is pretty low in my book.
|
On July 06 2014 01:09 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2014 00:30 freewareplayer wrote:On July 05 2014 23:57 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On July 05 2014 17:28 hummingbird23 wrote:On July 05 2014 11:01 phyre112 wrote: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. 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? In many cases shaming can actually exacerbate the problem. It reinforces the cycle of; feel like shit--->abuse--->shame--->feel like shit--->abuse. Edit This is not to say that the issue shouldn't be confronted; it has to be from a basis of support, not ostracism. I agree with Noman, it can make it worse, but it could also help, it really depends on the person. I´ve worked in a therapy/rehab institution for drug addicts with convicted criminials, and what i took from there is that there is a huge difference between not wanting to use any more and not wanting negative consequences any more. Sounds weird at first. A huge majority of the addicts will relapse. In my opinion this is because they truly believe they want to stop, because they are fed up with the increasingly negative consequences, but in reality they still like getting high or in this case eating, more. Humans are incredibly good at fooling themselfes. Lets say getting high (or overeating) gives you 10 positive points for wanting to use drugs (eat), the negative consequences are currently a -5 for you. Now by shaming you will add more negative consequences for him. If with that the negative will outweigh the positive of the abuse, then it might help him turn his shit around. If it doesnt however, it might just make him feel more crap and therefore do what he does to deal with negative feelings, take drugs or eat. On top of that the problem is that the shitter you feel the more you urge for the positive feeling of the abuse. Real tricky situation and probably why so many people need to hit the metaphorical rock bottom before deciding to change something. So its a really tough call for which you really should know the person well. Edit: I agree that the educating part is helpfull with this issue and definetly needed in health class early at school concerning food, however not with true addicts, which heroin addicts, which the comparison was, are. There are people who abuse substances/food and there are addicts. Really hard to tell who is who, but a true addict knows about the negative consequence and either ignores them or thinks he can handle them. The sad part is you never know which type you are untill its too late. Speaking of fat-shaming/acceptance. I'm of the opinion that people who are obese already have enough on their plate to deal with, and fat shaming is simply punching down for the benefit of those who don't suffer from weight problems, rather than as a motivational tool. Of course, if you know the person and are genuinely trying to help and not being an ass about it, it's another story, but just randomly shaming people for obesity is pretty low in my book.
Spot on.
|
Netherlands6187 Posts
I am thoroughly surprised at the obesity rate in South Africa actually. I saw a lot of overweight men and women there, but I had no idea that it compared like that on a global scale. I wonder if the more traditional roles in the rural areas plays a part in this. Hmm.
E: if this was the case then i wonder why it doesn't affect the similalry cultured surrounding areas?
|
On July 06 2014 00:30 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2014 23:57 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On July 05 2014 17:28 hummingbird23 wrote:On July 05 2014 11:01 phyre112 wrote: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. 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? In many cases shaming can actually exacerbate the problem. It reinforces the cycle of; feel like shit--->abuse--->shame--->feel like shit--->abuse. Edit This is not to say that the issue shouldn't be confronted; it has to be from a basis of support, not ostracism. I agree with Noman, it can make it worse, but it could also help, it really depends on the person. I´ve worked in a therapy/rehab institution for drug addicts with convicted criminials, and what i took from there is that there is a huge difference between not wanting to use any more and not wanting negative consequences any more. Sounds weird at first. A huge majority of the addicts will relapse. In my opinion this is because they truly believe they want to stop, because they are fed up with the increasingly negative consequences, but in reality they still like getting high or in this case eating, more. Humans are incredibly good at fooling themselfes. Lets say getting high (or overeating) gives you 10 positive points for wanting to use drugs (eat), the negative consequences are currently a -5 for you. Now by shaming you will add more negative consequences for him. If with that the negative will outweigh the positive of the abuse, then it might help him turn his shit around.If it doesnt however, it might just make him feel more crap and therefore do what he does to deal with negative feelings, take drugs or eat. On top of that the problem is that the shitter you feel the more you urge for the positive feeling of the abuse. Real tricky situation and probably why so many people need to hit the metaphorical rock bottom before deciding to change something. So its a really tough call for which you really should know the person well. Edit: I agree that the educating part is helpfull with this issue and definetly needed in health class early at school concerning food, however not with true addicts, which heroin addicts, which the comparison was, are. There are people who abuse substances/food and there are addicts. Really hard to tell who is who, but a true addict knows about the negative consequence and either ignores them or thinks he can handle them. The sad part is you never know which type you are untill its too late.
Like you have said before, the biggest problem is that they live right here right now. Which in its turn (imho) is a result of the absense of a satisfying lifestyle with perspective. A normal person refrains from drugs because the negative consequences interfere with a positively viewed future. If there is no such future, drugs became a valid option. So the biggest challenge is to create that future for an addict.
Also thanks, your last posts have given me lots to think about.
|
|
|
On July 06 2014 01:30 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2014 00:30 freewareplayer wrote:On July 05 2014 23:57 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On July 05 2014 17:28 hummingbird23 wrote:On July 05 2014 11:01 phyre112 wrote: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. 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? In many cases shaming can actually exacerbate the problem. It reinforces the cycle of; feel like shit--->abuse--->shame--->feel like shit--->abuse. Edit This is not to say that the issue shouldn't be confronted; it has to be from a basis of support, not ostracism. I agree with Noman, it can make it worse, but it could also help, it really depends on the person. I´ve worked in a therapy/rehab institution for drug addicts with convicted criminials, and what i took from there is that there is a huge difference between not wanting to use any more and not wanting negative consequences any more. Sounds weird at first. A huge majority of the addicts will relapse. In my opinion this is because they truly believe they want to stop, because they are fed up with the increasingly negative consequences, but in reality they still like getting high or in this case eating, more. Humans are incredibly good at fooling themselfes. Lets say getting high (or overeating) gives you 10 positive points for wanting to use drugs (eat), the negative consequences are currently a -5 for you. Now by shaming you will add more negative consequences for him. If with that the negative will outweigh the positive of the abuse, then it might help him turn his shit around.If it doesnt however, it might just make him feel more crap and therefore do what he does to deal with negative feelings, take drugs or eat. On top of that the problem is that the shitter you feel the more you urge for the positive feeling of the abuse. Real tricky situation and probably why so many people need to hit the metaphorical rock bottom before deciding to change something. So its a really tough call for which you really should know the person well. Edit: I agree that the educating part is helpfull with this issue and definetly needed in health class early at school concerning food, however not with true addicts, which heroin addicts, which the comparison was, are. There are people who abuse substances/food and there are addicts. Really hard to tell who is who, but a true addict knows about the negative consequence and either ignores them or thinks he can handle them. The sad part is you never know which type you are untill its too late. Like you have said before, the biggest problem is that they live right here right now. Which in its turn (imho) is a result of the absense of a satisfying lifestyle with perspective. A normal person refrains from drugs because the negative consequences interfere with a positively viewed future. If there is no such future, drugs became a valid option. So the biggest challenge is to create that future for an addict.Also thanks, your last posts have given me lots to think about.
That's really what it all boils down to, but I don't know that anybody can do that for someone. They can definitely HELP them (sometimes that's all they need), but it's really up to the person to see how their life would improve if they made the effort. On some level, it really is quite simple; you set goals, give everything the effort it deserves, and try to live healthier and you will be happier. Why it is that so many of us cannot come to terms with this is really the question, not why so many of us are obese.
Many people seem to be born with a perspective of "If I work for it, I'll get it" (ever heard Will Smith talk about motivation?). They are not obstructed by feelings of a lack of talent or a belief that it will take too long, and these people are by and large quite happy fellows. Many, however, cannot disembody themselves from the negative emotions that are overtaking them right now. They look and think "that will take too long" or "that's not for me," and they use the present situation to validate why they can wait a bit longer to make a change (when the weather gets warm, then I'll start running). The key is to break this cycle of thought, because hard work is inevitably more satisfying, and personal achievements are what give our lives meaning. When you have been caught in a cycle of negativity, bad feelings build on top of bad feelings, and the longer this happens, the further back you have to go to find times when you felt as if you had something to your name. When life in general is a struggle, and you don't feel as if your day-to-day actions are actually meaningful, there is no way that you will have the strength to fix your diet and lifestyle. Likewise, heroin seems like a great alternative to life's struggles when you cannot see the big picture.
If a person can convince their self to just put forth the effort, eventually their efforts will bear fruit, yet so many people don't realize this. It's a matter of knowing what you want, and realizing how bad you want it. If a person can't be convinced that they really do want something more, or that that something could be a reality, then that person will definitely succumb to quick fixes like sugary foods and feel-good drugs.
|
Blame McDonalds, blame convienence and the lack of physical activity that we are less inclined to do because of transportation advancements, blame blah blah blah... list goes on.
|
@Flying Potato: that sounds like a rather "faith-based" approach to treatment to me. Let's face it, there's not enough opportunity to go around for everyone to be like Will Smith. A lot of comedians make a good living poking fun of that sort of pompous attitude ("I am America and so can you"). If Will Smith was homeless and still wanted to talk about motivation, I might listen. I can only imagine that this sort of optimism stems from hearing the exceptional rags-to-riches success stories while we never hear of the tremendous efforts that end in failure. I would have to believe that this is why there are such high a number of relapses once people go out and face practical reality, if this is the game plan for treatment.
|
On July 07 2014 18:36 Advantageous wrote:
Blame McDonalds, blame convienence and the lack of physical activity that we are less inclined to do because of transportation advancements, blame blah blah blah... list goes on. Or on this thread recently, blame having to heave the fat ass to the supermarket, blame being so stupid that they can't follow the simple movements known as cooking, blame "culture", blame that sugar is apparently as addicting as herorin.
|
I'm pretty sure that the strive for maximizing returns in untamed capitalism is the main culprit.
Healthy food needs to get subsidized by the governments, otherwise nothing will change!
|
Healthy food is far cheaper than fast food and ready meals.
|
On July 07 2014 23:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Healthy food is far cheaper than fast food and ready meals.
It is cheaper because you do it yourself at home.
If you would also do fast food yourself at home, then healthy food would be much more expensive in comparison.
I could comfortably live off noodles and sausages with 80 Euros per month while I need at least 3x as much for healthy food.
Fast food and ready meals fulfill a purpose in this fast-paced world.
And where I come from, healthy fast food and healthy ready meals simply do not exist.
|
So you are too lazy to spend a few minutes to cook some food for yourself and then wonder why you are fat. Claps hand slowly. Btw, less buzzwords pls. It makes you sound like a politician looking for a soundbite.
Also lol at your crazy argument. If fast food can be done at home, the healthy food would be more expensive lol. Try making sense please.
Also lol at being able to live off noodle and sausages at 80 euros a month, but if you spend a little care to cook it instead of microwaving ready meals, it will cost 3 times more? Like wtf? Either youa re seriously delusional (possible?) or you are just trying to cause arguments for the sake of argumenting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
