On May 29 2014 23:06 Nachtwind wrote: It starts with ultra super high sugar levels in basic foods for babies/childs.
Not sure what you're talking about here... basic baby foods have neither 'ultra' or 'super' high levels of sugar unless the parents are retarded. Children's snack food I agree with. I honestly think banning HFC syrup would be a huge step forward in public health though I doubt any government has the balls for it.
On May 29 2014 22:10 urboss wrote: Since BMI was the same measurement used in the 80s and today, it doesn't really matter. We are only interested in the difference between 1980 and today. All the study shows is that the obesity has increased dramatically and it isn't going down.
I have started eating more healthy food since 2 months and even though I was skinny before, I'm feeling better than ever. I'm following the paleo diet, which basically means no processed food whatsoever. However, I'm also spending 30 Euros more per week.
Why is that? Because healthy food is expensive to produce. It's called "paleo" for a reason.
Our civilization is based on agriculture, livestock and the automatization of food production. Could we support 7 billion people suddenly eating healthy food? No. So how can we solve this dilemma?
Even without paleo, just cooking by yourself traditionally while trying to avoid any products that are intended to make cooking easy like instant broth powder, you'll notice a difference. It seems there's a certain amount of for example sugar put into everything ready-made.
My best idea to explain that would be that raw ingredients, vegetables, meat etc., have random differences in their taste. To work around that issue and make products that have a fixed taste, ingredients like sugar, citric acid, flavoring, extra salt and extra fat gets added. That will make normal food taste bland and a craving for increased amounts of for example sugar happens. So over the decades, the amount of sugar in all supermarket products increased.
Basically, I'd propose that the traditional diet works fine, paleo isn't needed. The problem currently is perhaps whatever is put into processed food, drinking soda and juice instead of water and tea, eating sweets every day instead of just on the weekend.
It might be possible to change processed food so that it's not sneakily adding sugar and fitting into a normal diet. I know I basically can't buy anything like frozen pizza any more. I liked it a lot in the past, but the taste is plain bad to me today after home cooking for the last few years.
In any case... all of my post is probably only about obesity. I bet people being overweight can't be fixed.
sugar is actually pretty good for you tbh (assuming you're not guzzling it). It's high-fructose syrup that you're thinking of.
I don't know. People over here are also getting increasingly obese, while there's no HFCS used in the food as far as I know. Agriculture over here grows sugar beets at competitive prices. Sugar is used in the food for sweetness as HFCS isn't cheaper.
Hmm, well I did say assuming you're not guzzling it, so it could just be that food manufacturers across the pond are overloading sugar into their products. I'm not familiar enough with food production and ingredients outside of what they do in the states, so I can't do much other than speculate. HFCS is def a problem over here in the states tho, since corn is subsidized by the govt, making it insanely cheap. HFCS is also problematic for reasons other than obesity as well. Not sure what to do about it tho, since if we end govt subsidies, the farmers get royally fucked, and I don't really want that to happen.
So much anecdotal information in this topic (and demonization of "processed" foods). It seems America's problem has been more related to activity and caloric intake than any ingredient or diet.
Sturm argues there are important policy implications from seeing the obesity crisis as something that's happening all over the country, rather than isolated to certain pockets of America. This suggests to him its not, for example, food deserts that are driving the obesity epidemic, if rates are going up just as quickly in places where there are ample food options, that suggests the lack of healthy choices isn't necessarily to blame.
So what is to blame? It's pretty much all about Americans eating more. A lot more. Americans pretty much everywhere consume more calories than they did a few decades ago.
Americans are actually eating more vegetables, and slightly more fruit, than we used to. We're simply eating more of everything.
Exercise doesn't actually appear to be the problem: Americans are exercising slightly more than they did in late 1990s.
If the world is simply mimicking US trends, it's likely that these countries have access to cheaper/more food, without a similar increase in physical activity.
On May 29 2014 23:06 Nachtwind wrote: It starts with ultra super high sugar levels in basic foods for babies/childs.
Not sure what you're talking about here... basic baby foods have neither 'ultra' or 'super' high levels of sugar unless the parents are retarded. Children's snack food I agree with. I honestly think banning HFC syrup would be a huge step forward in public health though I doubt any government has the balls for it.
What would that actually accomplish? Manufacturers would just substitute to other cheap sweeteners. It is ultimately a behavioral problem (imo), and thus only solved with education on the subject.
On May 29 2014 23:06 Nachtwind wrote: It starts with ultra super high sugar levels in basic foods for babies/childs.
Not sure what you're talking about here... basic baby foods have neither 'ultra' or 'super' high levels of sugar unless the parents are retarded. Children's snack food I agree with. I honestly think banning HFC syrup would be a huge step forward in public health though I doubt any government has the balls for it.
What would that actually accomplish? Manufacturers would just substitute to other cheap sweeteners. It is ultimately a behavioral problem (imo), and thus only solved with education on the subject.
yeah, I ultimately agree that no amount of gov't regulation is going to actually solve the problem. Not to mention, it's the gov't fault to begin with that HFCS is so prevalent.
On May 29 2014 22:10 urboss wrote: Since BMI was the same measurement used in the 80s and today, it doesn't really matter. We are only interested in the difference between 1980 and today. All the study shows is that the obesity has increased dramatically and it isn't going down.
I have started eating more healthy food since 2 months and even though I was skinny before, I'm feeling better than ever. I'm following the paleo diet, which basically means no processed food whatsoever. However, I'm also spending 30 Euros more per week.
Why is that? Because healthy food is expensive to produce. It's called "paleo" for a reason.
Our civilization is based on agriculture, livestock and the automatization of food production. Could we support 7 billion people suddenly eating healthy food? No. So how can we solve this dilemma?
Even without paleo, just cooking by yourself traditionally while trying to avoid any products that are intended to make cooking easy like instant broth powder, you'll notice a difference. It seems there's a certain amount of for example sugar put into everything ready-made.
My best idea to explain that would be that raw ingredients, vegetables, meat etc., have random differences in their taste. To work around that issue and make products that have a fixed taste, ingredients like sugar, citric acid, flavoring, extra salt and extra fat gets added. That will make normal food taste bland and a craving for increased amounts of for example sugar happens. So over the decades, the amount of sugar in all supermarket products increased.
Basically, I'd propose that the traditional diet works fine, paleo isn't needed. The problem currently is perhaps whatever is put into processed food, drinking soda and juice instead of water and tea, eating sweets every day instead of just on the weekend.
It might be possible to change processed food so that it's not sneakily adding sugar and fitting into a normal diet. I know I basically can't buy anything like frozen pizza any more. I liked it a lot in the past, but the taste is plain bad to me today after home cooking for the last few years.
In any case... all of my post is probably only about obesity. I bet people being overweight can't be fixed.
sugar is actually pretty good for you tbh (assuming you're not guzzling it). It's high-fructose syrup that you're thinking of.
Regardless of anything saying that HFCS is worse, how is sugar supposed to be good for you? Apart from being a quick source of quickly available energy and supposedly good for eating before tasks that require concentration, what is "good" about it nutrition-wise? I don't think I've read anything about that, or if I have, I'm sure it must have sounded utterly batty and unsupported, but if you have some sources, I'd love to read more.
On May 29 2014 23:37 aksfjh wrote: So much anecdotal information in this topic (and demonization of "processed" foods). It seems America's problem has been more related to activity and caloric intake than any ingredient or diet.
If the world is simply mimicking US trends, it's likely that these countries have access to cheaper/more food, without a similar increase in physical activity.
and calorie intake isn't at all related to eating processed high-calorie, high GI foods that are addictive and only fill you up for an hour or two. Posting graphs and misinterpreting them is just as bad as all the anecdotal information you're complaining about.
Anyone interested in this sort of thing should check out the doco 'Food Inc'. Really eye-opening and covers a lot of what's being said here.
On May 29 2014 22:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: obesity is on the rise because people are abandoning simple common sense health principles.
stop eating food from boxes and make your food from scratch. 6 feedings a day. humans are mostly herbivore and herbivores are constantly nibbling at food. humans should do the same. notice i said "mostly herbivore". i am not a vegetarian or vegan. humans are not primarily a carnivore. carnivores eat infrequently. herbivore constantly nibble.
a minimum of 2 hours a week of strenuous cardio and 5 hours of mild cardio every week.
3 hours per week of strength based exercise and an organized stretching program such as yoga
deep relaxed breathing will also cut cortisol levels and thereby allow your body the lattitude to not store every single extra calorie as stored up energy in a fat call
all health care practitioners know the above things form a solid foundation for a healthy body. everyone knows it. less and less people do it every year.
the fast food industry is BOOMING.
are you sure about that? I had read/heard that frequent grazing will actually cause significant weight gain if it's not offset by the requisite amount of exercise.
Dr. John Berardi's research points to 6 meals/feedings per day as ideal for humans. i subscribe to his basic outlook his research and experiments in athletic performance.
i'm too lazy to do much more research on the subject other than what he has done. i believe in the guy and his methods. if they start to fail me i'll research further.
as it is now, i get a complete and thorough physical every 6 months and every aspect if my health is perfect.
HFCS is not different from sucrose in any meaningful way, HFCS is about 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Sucrose also is 50% fructose 50% glucose except the molecules are stuck toegther, and your body just seperates them easily. HFCS is used almost exclusively in the US because sucrose is more expensive there because of tariffs. The reverse is true for the EU.
On May 29 2014 22:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: obesity is on the rise because people are abandoning simple common sense health principles.
stop eating food from boxes and make your food from scratch. 6 feedings a day. humans are mostly herbivore and herbivores are constantly nibbling at food. humans should do the same. notice i said "mostly herbivore". i am not a vegetarian or vegan. humans are not primarily a carnivore. carnivores eat infrequently. herbivore constantly nibble.
a minimum of 2 hours a week of strenuous cardio and 5 hours of mild cardio every week.
3 hours per week of strength based exercise and an organized stretching program such as yoga
deep relaxed breathing will also cut cortisol levels and thereby allow your body the lattitude to not store every single extra calorie as stored up energy in a fat call
all health care practitioners know the above things form a solid foundation for a healthy body. everyone knows it. less and less people do it every year.
the fast food industry is BOOMING.
It does not matter how often you eat in a day. Calorie intake matters. 7hours of cardio a week? Where did you get that from? If you make such claims, please provide sources. I am a big advocate of physical exercise but 7hours of cardio seems a lot.
To anyone saying healthy foods are expensive, they are not. Look harder, go to farmers markets, haggle, buy in bulk. There is just a little more effort involved. It is easier to just buy a pizza.
On May 29 2014 22:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: obesity is on the rise because people are abandoning simple common sense health principles.
stop eating food from boxes and make your food from scratch. 6 feedings a day. humans are mostly herbivore and herbivores are constantly nibbling at food. humans should do the same. notice i said "mostly herbivore". i am not a vegetarian or vegan. humans are not primarily a carnivore. carnivores eat infrequently. herbivore constantly nibble.
a minimum of 2 hours a week of strenuous cardio and 5 hours of mild cardio every week.
3 hours per week of strength based exercise and an organized stretching program such as yoga
deep relaxed breathing will also cut cortisol levels and thereby allow your body the lattitude to not store every single extra calorie as stored up energy in a fat call
all health care practitioners know the above things form a solid foundation for a healthy body. everyone knows it. less and less people do it every year.
the fast food industry is BOOMING.
are you sure about that? I had read/heard that frequent grazing will actually cause significant weight gain if it's not offset by the requisite amount of exercise.
Regardless of anything saying that HFCS is worse, how is sugar supposed to be good for you? Apart from being a quick source of quickly available energy and supposedly good for eating before tasks that require concentration, what is "good" about it nutrition-wise? I don't think I've read anything about that, or if I have, I'm sure it must have sounded utterly batty and unsupported, but if you have some sources, I'd love to read more.
(Any Carbohydrate is sugar. Some are faster available some are slower.) Sugar itself is not bad. Too much sugar is bad.
On May 29 2014 22:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: obesity is on the rise because people are abandoning simple common sense health principles.
stop eating food from boxes and make your food from scratch. 6 feedings a day. humans are mostly herbivore and herbivores are constantly nibbling at food. humans should do the same. notice i said "mostly herbivore". i am not a vegetarian or vegan. humans are not primarily a carnivore. carnivores eat infrequently. herbivore constantly nibble.
a minimum of 2 hours a week of strenuous cardio and 5 hours of mild cardio every week.
3 hours per week of strength based exercise and an organized stretching program such as yoga
deep relaxed breathing will also cut cortisol levels and thereby allow your body the lattitude to not store every single extra calorie as stored up energy in a fat call
all health care practitioners know the above things form a solid foundation for a healthy body. everyone knows it. less and less people do it every year.
the fast food industry is BOOMING.
are you sure about that? I had read/heard that frequent grazing will actually cause significant weight gain if it's not offset by the requisite amount of exercise.
Regardless of anything saying that HFCS is worse, how is sugar supposed to be good for you? Apart from being a quick source of quickly available energy and supposedly good for eating before tasks that require concentration, what is "good" about it nutrition-wise? I don't think I've read anything about that, or if I have, I'm sure it must have sounded utterly batty and unsupported, but if you have some sources, I'd love to read more.
i think you quoted the wrong post, but I'll answer as if you quoted the one I think you're referencing . You absolutely have to have sugars to properly metabolize your food. Glucose is a fuel source for cellular respiration (both aerobic and anaerobic) and frequently acts as an intermediary for metabolism. It's a simple fact of humans' metabolic processes that we need some amount of sugars from some source, but I suppose it was misleading of me to say sugar is 'good' for you (in that you should seek it out) because it's pretty easy to get all the sugars you need from various food sources.
edit: You pretty much will fulfill your necessary sugar quota unless you're actively avoiding it, so you probably shouldn't be making nutritional decisions based on trying to get more sugars into your diet.
On May 29 2014 23:37 aksfjh wrote: So much anecdotal information in this topic (and demonization of "processed" foods). It seems America's problem has been more related to activity and caloric intake than any ingredient or diet.
If the world is simply mimicking US trends, it's likely that these countries have access to cheaper/more food, without a similar increase in physical activity.
and calorie intake isn't at all related to eating processed high-calorie, high GI foods that are addictive and only fill you up for an hour or two. Posting graphs and misinterpreting them is just as bad as all the anecdotal information you're complaining about.
Anyone interested in this sort of thing should check out the doco 'Food Inc'. Really eye-opening and covers a lot of what's being said here.
"Anybody interested in the subject should watch this 2 hour long propaganda film to educate yourself!" Thanks Ron Paul Bot.
High GI foods contribute, but are not even the primary cause. If that were the case, rice-heavy cultures would have had much larger problems with obesity long before the US. A change in lifestyle with greater access to food and a smaller desire for physical activity (due to technology, scheduling conflicts, etc.) seems to play a much larger role than some demonic ingredient(s).
Too many first world people projecting their first world problems into the entire planet in this thread. I can guarantee that the problem is not caused by local first world conditions that can be solved by some fad diet that anecdotally works for some people in the thread.
Worldwide obesity is pretty much a side effect of reducing poverty. It might seem a shock to first world people constantly decrying overpopulation, but the last 2-3 decades have seen a dramatic reduction in global poverty. Food is just more abundant and people are starving less.
American-style fast food is not the only unhealthy food in the world. From my personal background, I know that Filipino food and certain Chinese food are very unhealthy. Cantonese food is just terrible and I believe Shanghainese is pretty bad too. Even Japanese can be unhealthy if you don't eat it in Japanese sized portions. The difference nowadays is that the average person in many developing countries is not going to bed hungry as often as they did in the past.
There is a reason that people in Okinawa are the healthiest in the entire world. They have a culture where people would eat only until they are almost full, then stop. They have some term to it that pretty much means stopping while you're still slightly hungry. All the so-called bad foods nowadays are bad because people eat too much. Eat shitty food in moderation and you still wouldn't be obese.
It does not matter how often you eat in a day. Calorie intake matters. 7hours of cardio a week? Where did you get that from? If you make such claims, please provide sources. I am a big advocate of physical exercise but 7hours of cardio seems a lot.
this is a web forum not a phd thesis. i basically subscribe to Dr. John Berardi's research results.as noted in a previous post...
ok great... take in 48,000 calories in 1 feeding every 14 days. compare that with 6 meals a day.
frequency of eating matters. you've already put the 24 hour assumption in your post with your "per day" thing with food.
nice attempt to shift the debate into your own assumption set.
frequency of eating matters. your body will go into starvation mode with method 2.
842 million people in the world do not have enough to eat. This number has fallen by 17 percent since 1990.
Maybe every country with an obesity epidemic should send x million calories to a country where children are starving to death.
About 21,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. This is one person every four seconds, as you can see on this display. Sadly, it is children who die most often.
Also we can't forget stuff like this:
Oh and BMI was some psychological experiment's way of segmenting people and is notably flawed. I really can't understand why BMI hasn't been updated if doctors and scientists want to use it? It should at least have some factoring in of body fat % and muscle mass. I mean if suddenly people were all walking around much buffer the BMI would go up too even though people would likely be healthier. Not to mention BMI doesn't catch 'skinny fat' people or a whole host of other health issues that can come from being out of shape but within a healthy BMI range.
All that being said it does seem clear that on average we are taking in a lot more calories than we are burning.
7 hours a week is 1 hour a day or "Play 60". It doesn't have to be an hour on a treadmill or doing 60 mins of crossfit per day. If an hour of vigorous activity a day sounds like too much, I don't see much hope to right this problem.
On May 29 2014 22:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: obesity is on the rise because people are abandoning simple common sense health principles.
stop eating food from boxes and make your food from scratch. 6 feedings a day. humans are mostly herbivore and herbivores are constantly nibbling at food. humans should do the same. notice i said "mostly herbivore". i am not a vegetarian or vegan. humans are not primarily a carnivore. carnivores eat infrequently. herbivore constantly nibble.
a minimum of 2 hours a week of strenuous cardio and 5 hours of mild cardio every week.
3 hours per week of strength based exercise and an organized stretching program such as yoga
deep relaxed breathing will also cut cortisol levels and thereby allow your body the lattitude to not store every single extra calorie as stored up energy in a fat call
all health care practitioners know the above things form a solid foundation for a healthy body. everyone knows it. less and less people do it every year.
the fast food industry is BOOMING.
It does not matter how often you eat in a day. Calorie intake matters. 7hours of cardio a week? Where did you get that from? If you make such claims, please provide sources. I am a big advocate of physical exercise but 7hours of cardio seems a lot.
To anyone saying healthy foods are expensive, they are not. Look harder, go to farmers markets, haggle, buy in bulk. There is just a little more effort involved. It is easier to just buy a pizza.
On May 29 2014 22:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: obesity is on the rise because people are abandoning simple common sense health principles.
stop eating food from boxes and make your food from scratch. 6 feedings a day. humans are mostly herbivore and herbivores are constantly nibbling at food. humans should do the same. notice i said "mostly herbivore". i am not a vegetarian or vegan. humans are not primarily a carnivore. carnivores eat infrequently. herbivore constantly nibble.
a minimum of 2 hours a week of strenuous cardio and 5 hours of mild cardio every week.
3 hours per week of strength based exercise and an organized stretching program such as yoga
deep relaxed breathing will also cut cortisol levels and thereby allow your body the lattitude to not store every single extra calorie as stored up energy in a fat call
all health care practitioners know the above things form a solid foundation for a healthy body. everyone knows it. less and less people do it every year.
the fast food industry is BOOMING.
are you sure about that? I had read/heard that frequent grazing will actually cause significant weight gain if it's not offset by the requisite amount of exercise.
Regardless of anything saying that HFCS is worse, how is sugar supposed to be good for you? Apart from being a quick source of quickly available energy and supposedly good for eating before tasks that require concentration, what is "good" about it nutrition-wise? I don't think I've read anything about that, or if I have, I'm sure it must have sounded utterly batty and unsupported, but if you have some sources, I'd love to read more.
(Any Carbohydrate is sugar. Some are faster available some are slower.) Sugar itself is not bad. Too much sugar is bad.
Actually, how often you eat greatly affects your nutrition. Your body adjusts its metabolism based on frequency of eating. If you eat 1 meal a day, you actually end up gaining weight overall (compared to eating the exact same amount spread out over the day) because your body stops metabolizing during the day in order to compensate for the lack of food, and then tries to make up for an entire day by storing energy so that you have enough to make it through the next day.
edit: @ above: bmi is kinda useful because it's easy and can be calculated from freely available stats. It can also allow you to make some generalizations about populations based on the statistical distribution of BMI. It's totally useless for individuals, and can't actually make any definitive conclusions, but it can give you an idea.
edit2: oh and it's non-invasive. thats kinda important as well/
On May 30 2014 00:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Oh and BMI was some psychological experiment's way of segmenting people and is notably flawed. I really can't understand why BMI hasn't been updated if doctors and scientists want to use it? It should at least have some factoring in of body fat % and muscle mass. I mean if suddenly people were all walking around much buffer the BMI would go up too even though people would likely be healthier. Not to mention BMI doesn't catch 'skinny fat' people or a whole host of other health issues that can come from being out of shape but within a healthy BMI range.
I thought the relationship between BMI and ideal weight was cooked up by a statistician working for a life insurance company. In the files he had access to weight, height and age, and the BMI formula was the best he could come up with. Ideal weight was what he deduced as worst customers possible, the dudes that live the longest and cost the insurance company the most.
On May 30 2014 00:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Oh and BMI was some psychological experiment's way of segmenting people and is notably flawed. I really can't understand why BMI hasn't been updated if doctors and scientists want to use it? It should at least have some factoring in of body fat % and muscle mass. I mean if suddenly people were all walking around much buffer the BMI would go up too even though people would likely be healthier. Not to mention BMI doesn't catch 'skinny fat' people or a whole host of other health issues that can come from being out of shape but within a healthy BMI range.
I thought the relationship between BMI and ideal weight was cooked up by a statistician working for a life insurance company. In the files he had access to weight, height and age, and the BMI formula was the best he could come up with. Ideal weight was what he deduced as worst customers possible, the dudes that live the longest and cost the insurance company the most.
Not sure if that's a myth.
Devised between 1830 and 1850 by the Belgian polymath Adolphe Quetelet during the course of developing "social physics",[2] it is defined as the individual's body mass divided by the square of their height – with the value universally being given in units of kg/m2.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4493921/calorie_consumption.png)
![[image loading]](http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4493929/fruit_consumption.png)
![[image loading]](http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/4494073/exercise.png)
. You absolutely have to have sugars to properly metabolize your food. Glucose is a fuel source for cellular respiration (both aerobic and anaerobic) and frequently acts as an intermediary for metabolism. It's a simple fact of humans' metabolic processes that we need some amount of sugars from some source, but I suppose it was misleading of me to say sugar is 'good' for you (in that you should seek it out) because it's pretty easy to get all the sugars you need from various food sources.
