What do you think are the reasons for this explosion of obese people? Is this a world wide problem or is it no big deal? How will the future look like if the number of obese are continuously growing? Can there anything be done to address this issue?
Junk food earns too much money to food industry and pharmaceuticals, and both have very strong lobbies, so it's unlikely that governments are going to do more than pretend to fight obesity.
The amount of money used to treat diabetes and other diseases associated to obesity is just insane, I don't have the figures in mind, but I think it was almost a trillion USD? I don't wanna hear that healthy food costs too much.
We need additional education, further promotion of local/healthy foods, and more importantly tell lobbyists to fuck off.
American style fast food and cheap, corn syrup soft drinks and other processed snack food. The shitty feed from corn and corn silage going into the beef industry also leads to a huge demand for antibiotics so the pharmaceuticals don't want to change because the entire cycle makes them money. Sick humans eating sick animals...
Until the US stops producing such a fuck-ton of inedible corn for processing/feed I don't see the trend changing much.
Food is too tasty, desk work is too lucrative, and the various means for entertainment while lying on the couch are too interesting. That and people are getting old.
Not to dismiss problem (because its really serious) but BMI is a joke. I have BMI of 24,8 and everyone says i am skinny. One can be 25<BMI<30 pretty easily and be super healthy and not overweight at all.
While all that Endy wrote is certainly true, there is also the uncomfortable fact that taking a primate from its natural habitat on the African savannah and plopping it down in an environment where saturated fat, sugar, red meat etc, exist in abundance, is going to lead to problems.
We are hard-wired to desire these things, and whenever I get asked about this(I work part time at a gym as an instructor so it's relatively frequent), all I can say is that it's going to take discipline and it's going to be hard, for some more than others. The market is so huge and lucrative because the demand is there. We'd need some fairly draconic measures to seriously promote healthier lifestyles on a global level, and I don't think too many would be interested in that.
What we can do is just appeal to people's self-interest in staying healthy, and often to do so for the sake of others, offer affordable health food, probably through subsidies, and try to ensure everyone has access to information and opportunities for physical activities. Ultimately though, this will always fall on the shoulders of the individual.
On May 29 2014 21:45 endy wrote: Junk food earns too much money to food industry and pharmaceuticals, and both have very strong lobbies, so it's unlikely that governments are going to do more than pretend to fight obesity.
The amount of money used to treat diabetes and other diseases associated to obesity is just insane, I don't have the figures in mind, but I think it was almost a trillion USD? I don't wanna hear that healthy food costs too much.
We need additional education, further promotion of local/healthy foods, and more importantly tell lobbyists to fuck off.
this actually has very little to do with the US's 'obesity problems'. Our obesity problems would have to be titanic to substantially change the global statistics, considering that we represent only a minuscule proportion of the population. In addition, it's unlikely that any global initiative will be at all useful since it is more likely that each area in which obesity is increasing is due to various different issues and need to be approached individually.
If I had to make a guess, I'd say its most likely due to higher standards of living. It's certainly a unique problem to our era.
On May 29 2014 21:58 Silvanel wrote: Not to dismiss problem (because its really serious) but BMI is a joke. I have BMI of 24,8 and everyone says i am skinny. One can be 25<BMI<30 pretty easily and be super healthy and not overweight at all.
Yes BMI is a terribly clumsy tool to measure health and obesity. My dad was a competitive powerlifter in his younger days, he was heavily obese according to the BMI scale, and he could run 7-8 kilometers easy and deadlift 300 kgs. Health and being overweight is a complex problem, it cannot be summed up by a rather arbitrary number.
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?
On May 29 2014 21:58 Silvanel wrote: Not to dismiss problem (because its really serious) but BMI is a joke. I have BMI of 24,8 and everyone says i am skinny. One can be 25<BMI<30 pretty easily and be super healthy and not overweight at all.
Yes BMI is a terribly clumsy tool to measure health and obesity. My dad was a competitive powerlifter in his younger days, he was heavily obese according to the BMI scale, and he could run 7-8 kilometers easy and deadlift 300 kgs. Health and being overweight is a complex problem, it cannot be summed up by a rather arbitrary number.
BMI is useless for individuals, but it is a useful metric for large cohorts.
I AM overweight atm ... my bmi now is lower than when i was 18 and ran half marathons.
I strongly suspect this whoel food is expensive thing to be bs
What is really likely is that food has been artificially segmented into cheap average and good. As a result 'food' is shit by default and so normal costs more.
Its turned into marketing when in reality it should be illegal to sell people sub standard bullshit that has been fed waste from antibiotic production to artificially induce huge amounts of weight gain.
All it has done is put legitimate producers of food tthat do not operate on gigantic scale out of business.
On May 29 2014 22:10 urboss wrote: 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?
??? How is replacing soda by water, which should be the first step in fighting obesity, an issue?
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.
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.
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.
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.
My personal bet would be a combination of these factors:
1 Domestic lights. Years ago, when the sun was down you had nothing else to do but go sleep, according to my grandparents. Plus, the day after you had to wake up early since work was necessary during daylights. Nowadays lifestyles are way more flexible, and since when you are awake the probabilities of eating are way higher than when you sleep (I mean...>_>), you are more prone to eat little snacks.
2 Fruit juice, coca cola and beverages like that are a disaster for your body. Once there weren't that much, and were generally for 'special occasions'. Now, they are a common rule. Alcoholics as well, but alcohol has always been an issue so it doesn't really count (not for the sake of your thread, at least).
3 Many families own more than a car, so every family member uses a car more than how much he actually walks. Physical excersise nowadays its a distraction or a 'hobby', once it was more a natural consequence of working.
4 Money etc. The more money you have, the more you spend. Once, you couldn't not only afford, but even have icecream in your house.
5 The most important one: self indulgence. We are in a society where the current trend is "accepting ourselves since everything is beautiful and worth of respect and so on". Without reasoning on the validity of that statement nor judging an individual's believes, I'd just say that we are becoming more and more self indulgent and less proactive to change things. Once, the solution offered was to man up, now the solution offered is to pay someone to vent off your problems, being told that you can do something to relief your stress and then feel better. The first one tries to face the problem (not necessarly solving it, of course), the other one to ignore it or to redirect your attention somewhere else. An oversimplification? It's up to you.
Edit: plus we all eat crap, and I'm not talking about snacks but actual vegetables raised in a completely industrial way. Celieac diseases always existed in few induviduals, but in the last years they are jumping left and right. I personally own some chickens, so I produce and eat my own eggs. Trust me when I say that I can spot supermarket eggs by texture, taste or whatever. If you ever get the chance try to fry two different ones in the same pan!
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.
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.
Interesting issue as many people are lured into all sorts of issues when it comes to their diets. But that shouldn't be where we point all the problems too, food has to be eaten or your not going to survive. What you need to look at is why people do not get the exercise they need. People cant buy fresh vegetables and what not in some countries/cities due to prices is so high compared to a frozen pizza or whatever. So what is the excuse of not walking to walk in the summer (if you can) or going for a cycle or whatever. Exercise is the key to beating obesity for me not changing the way food is. I mean who can resist McDonalds or whatever take away when they do stupidly cheap offers.
It is a problem and we need to tackle it with exercise!!
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.
Sorry that is bro-science. There are no studies that point to a higher meal frequency leading resulting in a higher metabolic rate or better weight loss. Even John Berardi agrees with that. Now there is very little research on the "health" perspective (Vitamins, Cholesterol, etc.) of meal frequency. All studies that investigate meal frequency seem to focus on weight loss/metabolic rate. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20847729
On May 30 2014 00:42 Pandemona wrote: Interesting issue as many people are lured into all sorts of issues when it comes to their diets. But that shouldn't be where we point all the problems too, food has to be eaten or your not going to survive. What you need to look at is why people do not get the exercise they need. People cant buy fresh vegetables and what not in some countries/cities due to prices is so high compared to a frozen pizza or whatever. So what is the excuse of not walking to walk in the summer (if you can) or going for a cycle or whatever. Exercise is the key to beating obesity for me not changing the way food is. I mean who can resist McDonalds or whatever take away when they do stupidly cheap offers.
It is a problem and we need to tackle it with exercise!!
The price of foods is a huge issue. I was travelling in central america this spring and a bottle of water was more expensive than in europe. But if you like coke, you got that dirt cheap.
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.
Sorry that is bro-science. There are no studies that point to a higher meal frequency leading resulting in a higher metabolic rate or better weight loss. Even John Berardi agrees with that. Now there is very little research on the "health" perspective (Vitamins, Cholesterol, etc.) of meal frequency. All studies that investigate meal frequency seem to focus on weight loss/metabolic rate. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20847729
On May 30 2014 00:42 Pandemona wrote: Interesting issue as many people are lured into all sorts of issues when it comes to their diets. But that shouldn't be where we point all the problems too, food has to be eaten or your not going to survive. What you need to look at is why people do not get the exercise they need. People cant buy fresh vegetables and what not in some countries/cities due to prices is so high compared to a frozen pizza or whatever. So what is the excuse of not walking to walk in the summer (if you can) or going for a cycle or whatever. Exercise is the key to beating obesity for me not changing the way food is. I mean who can resist McDonalds or whatever take away when they do stupidly cheap offers.
It is a problem and we need to tackle it with exercise!!
The price of foods is a huge issue. I was travelling in central america this spring and a bottle of water was more expensive than in europe. But if you like coke, you got that dirt cheap.
The irony of water being more expensive than Coke is almost unbearable. 1. It is likely the same corporation selling both. 2. Those same corporations spent years fighting selling water because they were convinced people would never buy it.
I just wonder in Central America asking for 'some coke' is going to get you anything to drink anyway?
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.
Sorry that is bro-science. There are no studies that point to a higher meal frequency leading resulting in a higher metabolic rate or better weight loss. Even John Berardi agrees with that. Now there is very little research on the "health" perspective (Vitamins, Cholesterol, etc.) of meal frequency. All studies that investigate meal frequency seem to focus on weight loss/metabolic rate. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20847729
On May 30 2014 00:42 Pandemona wrote: Interesting issue as many people are lured into all sorts of issues when it comes to their diets. But that shouldn't be where we point all the problems too, food has to be eaten or your not going to survive. What you need to look at is why people do not get the exercise they need. People cant buy fresh vegetables and what not in some countries/cities due to prices is so high compared to a frozen pizza or whatever. So what is the excuse of not walking to walk in the summer (if you can) or going for a cycle or whatever. Exercise is the key to beating obesity for me not changing the way food is. I mean who can resist McDonalds or whatever take away when they do stupidly cheap offers.
It is a problem and we need to tackle it with exercise!!
The price of foods is a huge issue. I was travelling in central america this spring and a bottle of water was more expensive than in europe. But if you like coke, you got that dirt cheap.
Yeah there you go, you hit the nail on the head. When Coke is cheaper than Water your going to drink Coke. If a 99cent cheese burger in Mcdonalds is cheaper than a $2 salad bowl your not going to pushed into buying a salad bowl.
EXERCISE, is free and easily pushed onto people if you educate them on good healthy exercise when people are younger. I played football for my youth and then once i stopped i soon realized i needed more exercise as i gained weight so quickly once i started work. Now im back to being in good shape like i was when i was 16-18.
And no i don't pay for the Gym, i bought £50 exercise bike and £30 dumbells and do cardio workout that you can find on the internet and on TL which is short and sweet. 20minute exercise x 4 days a week with dumbells on a friday is all i do.
Exercise is great, but if you tell a fat person to start exercising, this is what happens: The lost energy of the exercise creates a feeling of excessive hunger, which is replenished with more junk food. That is why getting the diet under control is more important than exercise initially for people that don't move at all.
Having lots muscles is of course a great fat burner. But for the purpose of losing weight, endurance sports are less effective than a proper diet.
On May 30 2014 00:42 Pandemona wrote: 20minute exercise x 4 days a week with dumbells on a friday is all i do.
Wow, that's pretty crazy dude :p
But back to the topic, obesity should stop being such a stigma/taboo because it's just a simple fact that too many fat cells and cholesterol in your blood is going to harm you. Artherosclerosis, diabetes even alzheimer's disease are highly increased by choosing this "lifestyle". Now there are some very big problems here, the market and how it's marketed (which is unethical in its core) being the least of the problems.
Genetics, personal background and present psychological well-being are probably just as relevant factors as the market they're flocking to to get their 1$ deals. People become lazy, depressed, or, have no time. This is a society created with an eye on the instant and this is where the problem lies imo. The dystopian view we're all too familiar with is becoming all too true, and not one in particular, but more like a mesh of every one out there.
The biggest problem might actually be motivation, because I know how difficult and painful physical exercise can actually be. Now I know some basic stuff is very, very doable, but that's from my 72kg viewpoint, not a 150kg one, so that might actually be also biased.
What I am really curious about is how first world Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore maintain such low rates of obesity, yet have western food influences (McDs, KFC etc) and in the case of Singapore, cheap relatively unhealthy options as well (e.g hawker centres)
On May 30 2014 02:23 FractalsOnFire wrote: What I am really curious about is how first world Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore maintain such low rates of obesity, yet have western food influences (McDs, KFC etc) and in the case of Singapore, cheap relatively unhealthy options as well (e.g hawker centres)
IDK about other areas, but in Japan, it's all about eating smaller portions. Case in point, my younger brother who went there for a few weeks said he basically felt as though he never had enough to eat, and could eat 2-3 meals worth of a normal japanese person's food in a single sitting.
In my opinion obesity is a personal issue. I don't think any country needs to do more to regulate this as people who don't like being obese are themselves required to change their diet and/or exercise. It is not hard to know that water has less calories than cola. And everyone knows the word calories, if they don't quite understand what it is then it is only a google search away.
On May 30 2014 02:33 Bongy wrote: In my opinion obesity is a personal issue. I don't think any country needs to do more to regulate this as people who don't like being obese are themselves required to change their diet and/or exercise. It is not hard to know that water has less calories than cola. And everyone knows the word calories, if they don't quite understand what it is then it is only a google search away.
That people should be responsible for their own actions (instead of the government) is becoming more and more rare in the western world. Eating less/moving more is apparently too hard for some people.
However, when you get collective health care system you have to pay for other's people medical bills, which includes fat people and smokers, shit gets a bit messier.
I don't know what's wrong with Libya for example. They don't even have a McDonald's there. They are still a developing country. And they're supposed to have the healthy Mediterranean food.
I don't know what's wrong with Libya for example. They don't even have a McDonald's there. They are still a developing country. And they're supposed to have the healthy Mediterranean food.
Well, one confounding variable (among many I'm sure) in the study is that in many cultures it's attractive to be overweight.
On May 30 2014 02:23 FractalsOnFire wrote: What I am really curious about is how first world Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore maintain such low rates of obesity, yet have western food influences (McDs, KFC etc) and in the case of Singapore, cheap relatively unhealthy options as well (e.g hawker centres)
IDK about other areas, but in Japan, it's all about eating smaller portions. Case in point, my younger brother who went there for a few weeks said he basically felt as though he never had enough to eat, and could eat 2-3 meals worth of a normal japanese person's food in a single sitting.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, some East Asian countries have higher prices on those same high caloric foods most of the world has on a "value menu." If a burger at McDonalds costs more than a bowl of ramen or a home cooked meal, it makes sense less of it would be eaten.
It all comes back down to a food problem. Cheap food keeps people fed. India logistically shouldn't exist and neither should china. We have way too much people on earth to feed well and the situation is just getting worse.
As for the countries without a food problem people just want tasty food and not spend money on it. Basic human things can't be reformed out of.
I'd like to read more case studies on the topic; to understand why so many individuals have problems (if they're actually at the point of having problems due to weight).
On May 30 2014 02:23 FractalsOnFire wrote: What I am really curious about is how first world Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore maintain such low rates of obesity, yet have western food influences (McDs, KFC etc) and in the case of Singapore, cheap relatively unhealthy options as well (e.g hawker centres)
Our bodies are different, we have smaller structures and are more slender, and we have smaller appetites. Also only takes the height and weight into account it's not a surprise at all. Someone with a slender structure with a BMI of 25 is way "fatter" than someone with a large body structre with a BMI of 25.
There's also the difference in culture. For example, my foreigner friends are asking me to gain weight (after I just lost tome) while my family is telling me I'm fat.
On May 30 2014 03:56 danl9rm wrote: "Junk" food does not cause obesity. Obesity is caused by eating too much food.
Obesity is caused by not properly burning the excess calories you get from eating too much food, if I'm not mistaken. Trust me, I eat a lot of food (not always good food), but it isn't a problem because I exercise properly. This isn't just an issue of too much food or bad food, it's a combination of factors.
There's gotta be some personal accountability here. I have an obese roomate who does nothing but sit around all day, never exercising at all. He eats a ton of greasy takeout and drinks soda for every meal of the day. You can't really tell me that politics has anything to do with his problem, and I suspect this to be true for many people.
It's common knowledge at this point that a proper diet and exercise will lead to a healthier body.
Yeah weight loss is the ultimate test in patience. I think people are so wired to get quick fixes that they are unwilling to take things slowly. They just go on a bunch of crash diets or extreme workout routines, and then because its unsustainable, they basically end up nowhere. You can lose a ton of weight if you're willing to wait a few months.
Just eat only what you need, when you're hungry, not when you're bored or just want to satisfy your taste buds. And secondly, do a little exercise every day. People hate exercise because its so difficult, all you need to do is some simple, fun exercises to stress the body. Your strength will slowly rise and you'll see that it can be really easy if you just take it slow.
Eventually I think these messages will be hammered into everyone, there will be clear information on how to lose weight without going on thousands of different diets. Just eat when you're hungry, exercise a little...that is all you need to do. And of course have a banana once in a while and get all your vitamins .
I think another aspect (perhaps minor) is that in some countries people see being fat as a symbol of your status. If you're a fat guy you're wealthy and well-off. Its pretty sad, I hope that changes
Yes, but the poblem is that proper diet and exercise is not something that humans evolved to give much thought about. Before industrialization, people worked hard to stay alive every day and ate what was available.
Nowadays, with the abundance of food, it takes a conscious effort to eat healthy and exercise. Fruits and vegetables make up maybe 10% of a supermarket, while in ancient times this was the basis of our diet. It feels like running the gauntlet if you want to eat healthy.
Also, what exacerbates the problem is the addictive nature of sugar, fat and salt. These things were scarce and highly valuable in the stone age, that's why they taste so good on our tongues.
I wonder what would happen if we were to take the money that treating obese people cost and gave it to them as a reward for living healthier. Could be interesting...
Edit : Looking up some number, that is 147 billion $ for 2008 in the US, 100 million obese. That's 1470 $ per person per year. How is that for an incentive... I know this is not doable, but still an interesting figure imo.
On May 30 2014 04:44 Cynry wrote: I wonder what would happen if we were to take the money that treating obese people cost and gave it to them as a reward for living healthier. Could be interesting...
Edit : Looking up some number, that is 147 billion $ for 2008 in the US, 10 million obese. That's 14700 $ per person per year. How is that for an incentive... I know this is not doable, but still an interesting figure imo.
You're off by an order of magnitude buddy. Do you honestly think there are just 10 million obese people in the US?
The real problem is how easy it is to overeat on our modern diet, and the inability of people to exercise self-discipline when it comes to what they eat. All this is compounded by the time and effort saved to go out to eat even though it's possible to eat quite healthily for a pretty low monthly amount (easily less than $200/month for a single person).
Personally I am the lighter side of "normal weight" (per BMI) but I am skinnyfat due to lack of exercise and overconsumption of sugars. I'm trying to work on it, but it's hard. I can't imagine what it's like for legitimately fat people.
Haha, turns out I looked too quickly and watched the figure for 17/24 years olds. Seems like it's more like 100 million. Seemed like a lot of money, should have checked...
In Austria we have in fact such a system. Although it's only for self-employed people.
The idea is that you first have to visit the doctor to get a health check. The doctor then gives you some health milestones that you have to reach after half a year. If you are able to reach them, you will have to spend less money on future medical treatments.
On May 30 2014 05:31 urboss wrote: In Austria we have in fact such a system. Although it's only for self-employed people.
The idea is that you first have to visit the doctor to get a health check. The doctor then gives you some health milestones that you have to reach after half a year. If you are able to reach them, you will have to spend less money on future medical treatments.
I don't think prices are a good explanation for this. Most people act irrational with their money all the time, be it food, drugs, phones/cars or any other items they don't need. I think it all comes down to addiction and anxiety. I mean, most western countries have alarming suicide rates, it's getting very hard to make sense of anything that's happening in the world, less so of our lifes. If you can eat your way out of the anxiety that all this creates, you can be sure people will eat a lot.
Why would anybody eat healthy when they're too busy wrapped up in their own melancholy after work and could get a massive burger for a dollar in under a minute?
Obesity is a product of our culture, and it sucks; but we all should have seen it coming. I'm not that surprised.
On May 30 2014 03:56 danl9rm wrote: "Junk" food does not cause obesity. Obesity is caused by eating too much food.
Obesity is caused by not properly burning the excess calories you get from eating too much food, if I'm not mistaken. Trust me, I eat a lot of food (not always good food), but it isn't a problem because I exercise properly. This isn't just an issue of too much food or bad food, it's a combination of factors.
Fair enough on your first point, but to me, you're not saying anything different. Either way, you're eating too much food. No one can burn infinite calories. Your body has some allowance for "extra" calories when it is introduced to it, and can burn them accordingly, but if you eat too much, you will gain weight. It really is that simple.
For example, and I'm pulling these numbers out of my rear, if my body can live off 1800 calories and I eat 1900, I still may not necessarily gain weight. For one, I'd probably eat less the next day because I'd be less hungry. Even if I habitually ate 1900 but only needed 1800, I may not gain weight. However, if I ate, here it comes, too much food, I would gain weight. My body can't handle anything and everything I throw at it. There is a limit.
What it comes down to is physics. If you aren't eating the food, you will not be gaining the weight. I know some people hate simplistic statements, but I hate to complicate things unnecessarily.
On May 30 2014 03:56 danl9rm wrote: "Junk" food does not cause obesity. Obesity is caused by eating too much food.
Obesity is caused by not properly burning the excess calories you get from eating too much food, if I'm not mistaken. Trust me, I eat a lot of food (not always good food), but it isn't a problem because I exercise properly. This isn't just an issue of too much food or bad food, it's a combination of factors.
Fair enough on your first point, but to me, you're not saying anything different. Either way, you're eating too much food. No one can burn infinite calories. Your body has some allowance for "extra" calories when it is introduced to it, and can burn them accordingly, but if you eat too much, you will gain weight. It really is that simple.
For example, and I'm pulling these numbers out of my rear, if my body can live off 1800 calories and I eat 1900, I still may not necessarily gain weight. For one, I'd probably eat less the next day because I'd be less hungry. Even if I habitually ate 1900 but only needed 1800, I may not gain weight. However, if I ate, here it comes, too much food, I would gain weight. My body can't handle anything and everything I throw at it. There is a limit.
What it comes down to is physics. If you aren't eating the food, you will not be gaining the weight. I know some people hate simplistic statements, but I hate to complicate things unnecessarily.
edit: grammr
You both miss the point though. Of course obesity manifest itself through some physiological process, but that doesn't explain why people eat too much/exercize too little in the first place.
The best way to avoid it is to avoid having junk/fast food around you. That way you don't think about it or are unable to get it when you have that craving :D
Also BMI isn't exactly the best way to calculate obesity...
On May 30 2014 03:56 danl9rm wrote: "Junk" food does not cause obesity. Obesity is caused by eating too much food.
Obesity is caused by not properly burning the excess calories you get from eating too much food, if I'm not mistaken. Trust me, I eat a lot of food (not always good food), but it isn't a problem because I exercise properly. This isn't just an issue of too much food or bad food, it's a combination of factors.
Fair enough on your first point, but to me, you're not saying anything different. Either way, you're eating too much food. No one can burn infinite calories. Your body has some allowance for "extra" calories when it is introduced to it, and can burn them accordingly, but if you eat too much, you will gain weight. It really is that simple.
For example, and I'm pulling these numbers out of my rear, if my body can live off 1800 calories and I eat 1900, I still may not necessarily gain weight. For one, I'd probably eat less the next day because I'd be less hungry. Even if I habitually ate 1900 but only needed 1800, I may not gain weight. However, if I ate, here it comes, too much food, I would gain weight. My body can't handle anything and everything I throw at it. There is a limit.
What it comes down to is physics. If you aren't eating the food, you will not be gaining the weight. I know some people hate simplistic statements, but I hate to complicate things unnecessarily.
edit: grammr
You both miss the point though. Of course obesity manifest itself through some physiological process, but that doesn't explain why people eat too much/exercize too little in the first place.
On May 30 2014 03:56 danl9rm wrote: "Junk" food does not cause obesity. Obesity is caused by eating too much food.
Obesity is caused by not properly burning the excess calories you get from eating too much food, if I'm not mistaken. Trust me, I eat a lot of food (not always good food), but it isn't a problem because I exercise properly. This isn't just an issue of too much food or bad food, it's a combination of factors.
Fair enough on your first point, but to me, you're not saying anything different. Either way, you're eating too much food. No one can burn infinite calories. Your body has some allowance for "extra" calories when it is introduced to it, and can burn them accordingly, but if you eat too much, you will gain weight. It really is that simple.
For example, and I'm pulling these numbers out of my rear, if my body can live off 1800 calories and I eat 1900, I still may not necessarily gain weight. For one, I'd probably eat less the next day because I'd be less hungry. Even if I habitually ate 1900 but only needed 1800, I may not gain weight. However, if I ate, here it comes, too much food, I would gain weight. My body can't handle anything and everything I throw at it. There is a limit.
What it comes down to is physics. If you aren't eating the food, you will not be gaining the weight. I know some people hate simplistic statements, but I hate to complicate things unnecessarily.
edit: grammr
You both miss the point though. Of course obesity manifest itself through some physiological process, but that doesn't explain why people eat too much/exercize too little in the first place.
stress. +cost
I'm pretty sure it is mostly just laziness and a lack of giving sufficient fucks about it.
On May 30 2014 03:56 danl9rm wrote: "Junk" food does not cause obesity. Obesity is caused by eating too much food.
Obesity is caused by not properly burning the excess calories you get from eating too much food, if I'm not mistaken. Trust me, I eat a lot of food (not always good food), but it isn't a problem because I exercise properly. This isn't just an issue of too much food or bad food, it's a combination of factors.
Fair enough on your first point, but to me, you're not saying anything different. Either way, you're eating too much food. No one can burn infinite calories. Your body has some allowance for "extra" calories when it is introduced to it, and can burn them accordingly, but if you eat too much, you will gain weight. It really is that simple.
For example, and I'm pulling these numbers out of my rear, if my body can live off 1800 calories and I eat 1900, I still may not necessarily gain weight. For one, I'd probably eat less the next day because I'd be less hungry. Even if I habitually ate 1900 but only needed 1800, I may not gain weight. However, if I ate, here it comes, too much food, I would gain weight. My body can't handle anything and everything I throw at it. There is a limit.
What it comes down to is physics. If you aren't eating the food, you will not be gaining the weight. I know some people hate simplistic statements, but I hate to complicate things unnecessarily.
edit: grammr
You both miss the point though. Of course obesity manifest itself through some physiological process, but that doesn't explain why people eat too much/exercize too little in the first place.
The problem isn't that we eat too much but that what we eat is too dense in calories. Our bodies simply haven't adopted to the fact that a glass of soda contains as much sugar as it does, or that a little bit of chocolate can easily cover 10% of your daily energy requirement.
That's why people achieve very good results by simply cutting out "processed" food or simply eat more natural. Everything that our ancestors ate is a lot less calorie-rich than what we eat today.
The higher the animal fat consumption, the higher the rates of obesity. The China Study is still relevant, and provides a working, proven solution to the problem.
Now if we could just get people to eat rice and vegetables instead of beef and cheese we would be doing fine.
@Nyxisto Still wrong imo. Not the phenomen you describe, but seeing that as the issue. There are ways to take care of yourself, people just won't do it for some reason. Too much stress/anxiety would be my guess, as I already said.
I imagine that if we continue to eat the way we do, the human metabolism will evolve as well, eventually hording less calories, allowing to eat more and maintain a normal weight. We will all surely be long gone by the time this happens, but still a nice thought. =]
On May 30 2014 03:56 danl9rm wrote: "Junk" food does not cause obesity. Obesity is caused by eating too much food.
Obesity is caused by not properly burning the excess calories you get from eating too much food, if I'm not mistaken. Trust me, I eat a lot of food (not always good food), but it isn't a problem because I exercise properly. This isn't just an issue of too much food or bad food, it's a combination of factors.
Yeah you smash that hammer down too much, Kadavver has a Ronaldo esc body due to all his ban hammerings.
Back to your point this is also how you dont let yourself get obese, eat whatever you want if you exercise it off. 2000 Calories for a male per day, if you have 2.2k you exercise 200 off minimum which is about 40 minutes on exercise bike at a "casual" pace aka 1 bo3 in SC2. I did a 45 minute bike watching DeMuslim vs Welmu i think it was.
On May 30 2014 07:39 Nyxisto wrote: As the overwhelming majority of the population is neither a professional bodybuilder nor 300 pounds fat, for whole populations the BMI is quite okay.
And yet they still put fit and fat people in the same category which defeats the whole purpose of it in the first place.
On May 30 2014 07:39 Nyxisto wrote: As the overwhelming majority of the population is neither a professional bodybuilder nor 300 pounds fat, for whole populations the BMI is quite okay.
And yet they still put fit and fat people in the same category which defeats the whole purpose of it in the first place.
no, the whole purpose in this case is to show that BMI has increased markedly over the time period
which in essence means, people weigh more at the same height than they used to
so unless you're going to argue that the world has become absolutely choc-full of bodybuilding fanatics in the interim, then it's a pretty decent rough stat to work from
On May 30 2014 07:39 Nyxisto wrote: As the overwhelming majority of the population is neither a professional bodybuilder nor 300 pounds fat, for whole populations the BMI is quite okay.
And yet they still put fit and fat people in the same category which defeats the whole purpose of it in the first place.
no, the whole purpose in this case is to show that BMI has increased markedly over the time period
which in essence means, people weigh more at the same height than they used to
so unless you're going to argue that the world has become absolutely choc-full of bodybuilding fanatics in the interim, then it's a pretty decent rough stat to work from
Yes, the people in the statistics has either become more fit as in that they gained more muscle, or gained more fat and we can't really know for sure which one so the only thing we can do is to speculate and argue about it. There is no way to certainly say, based on this data, what person is more fit and what person is more fat.
On May 30 2014 07:39 Nyxisto wrote: As the overwhelming majority of the population is neither a professional bodybuilder nor 300 pounds fat, for whole populations the BMI is quite okay.
And yet they still put fit and fat people in the same category which defeats the whole purpose of it in the first place.
no, the whole purpose in this case is to show that BMI has increased markedly over the time period
which in essence means, people weigh more at the same height than they used to
so unless you're going to argue that the world has become absolutely choc-full of bodybuilding fanatics in the interim, then it's a pretty decent rough stat to work from
Yes, the people in the statistics has either become more fit as in that they gained more muscle, or gained more fat and we can't really know for sure which one so the only thing we can do is to speculate and argue about it. There is no way to certainly say, based on this data, what person is more fit and what person is more fat.
ok, forgive me for taking the common sense approach.
the world is suddenly full of adonises.
I don't think anyone would argue this but you, in fact.
On May 30 2014 07:39 Nyxisto wrote: As the overwhelming majority of the population is neither a professional bodybuilder nor 300 pounds fat, for whole populations the BMI is quite okay.
And yet they still put fit and fat people in the same category which defeats the whole purpose of it in the first place.
no, the whole purpose in this case is to show that BMI has increased markedly over the time period
which in essence means, people weigh more at the same height than they used to
so unless you're going to argue that the world has become absolutely choc-full of bodybuilding fanatics in the interim, then it's a pretty decent rough stat to work from
Yes, the people in the statistics has either become more fit as in that they gained more muscle, or gained more fat and we can't really know for sure which one so the only thing we can do is to speculate and argue about it. There is no way to certainly say, based on this data, what person is more fit and what person is more fat.
ok, forgive me for taking the common sense approach.
the world is suddenly full of adonises.
I don't think anyone would argue this but you, in fact.
IMO Korea doesn't seem to have much of a problem (yet) because:
- So much peer/parental pressure. If you're fat you will be told to your face, regularly and even by strangers. It's really harsh. - Traditional korean food is still the staple (high in salt and fat) but not sugar. - Korean food is cheaper than Western. A hamburger costs $5 or $6, a decent pizza can be $20+, whereas you can live off kimbab or samgakbab or dumplings for a $1-$2 a meal. Having cheap, relatively healthy, food for the poor makes a huge difference. - Less beer more soju - Free exercise equipment in most public spaces (though I feel this is secondary to diet). People can get lazy with exercising but everyone has to eat. Changing diet is going to have the greatest impact.
Street food and snack food do make a bit of an impact and I feel obesity is rising in schoolkids. However, having the core of the diet be lots of rice, meat and vegetables with flavour coming from fermented beans/chilli rather than sugar/cream/cheese makes a huge difference.
The first problem is the issue is badly clouded, by the statistics at the beginning.
BMI is a nearly 200 year old hack statistic. It's still loved for a few reasons, mostly because it's "old" but came from one of the original social busy-body types.
It's relevancy is only at the extremes (if I remember correctly, it's below 16 and above 32) when it comes to diagnostic criteria. In the "massive amount of people", it really has little in the way of predictive effect. But it's old, so there has been years of data with it. Insurance companies like historic data. (And/or they're forced to use it)
The other issue is that you can collect data on nearly the entire population of the country with very little trouble. That's wonderfully tempting to data people. The problem is that "social scientists" can't handle statistical relevance (this is a long term problem that effects practically everything in public policy). So, yes, BMI doesn't mean a whole great deal.
Further to the problem, look at the dates: 1980 to 2013. The world population has gotten a lot bigger and a LOT older. Historically, you didn't get fat until you got old. There's a fairly specific reason for this (hint: your Metabolic rate DROPS every year of age), but during the time that we've drastically increased Life Expectancy, the world has gotten significantly wealthier.
Now, while the data that most of this is based off is worthless, it doesn't mean it isn't happening. A lot of it is down to "affluence", especially in the advanced economies. If you went back 200 years and looked at what we qualify as "poor" now, they'd very much come to conclusion that we're living in paradise. It is the natural state of Humans that "poor" means you're at the risk of starving to death. In a good portion of the World, that simply isn't something that comes to mind much.
The other lingering issue is one of very complex Biochemistry. There "seems" to be an extra Fat-adding effecting that is due to some combination of several staple food types. For those thinking "sugar", there's a bit of that in the West, but not as much as you think. Some of the China studies are pointing to Wheat + Poly-Unsaturated Fats (think Bread + Veggie Oil). This data is still in the early days of development, but it would explain a lot of the "big picture" type effects we see in geographical differences.
This could explain much of the reason is why the Rice-staple countries, in the Rice-staple areas, aren't seeing much increase in Obesity, but they are in the heavy Wheat usage areas. It would also fit with the rising rates in the USA data as well (which is a post-1980 phenomena), as the USA start pushing to "cut fat" and so Fat was replaced by Sugar for flavoring.
While there is definitely a lot of biochemistry & genetics that takes a hold, the main issue still just comes down to the Wealth Effect. Calories have gotten far cheaper & far easier to access. "Food Self-Control" is pretty much something Humans never had to learn until the last 60 years, so the ones that have it either have a genetic background to it or just have high levels of Self Control period, even if there are biochemical processes involved that can make it easier or harder.
On May 30 2014 09:26 Taf the Ghost wrote: The first problem is the issue is badly clouded, by the statistics at the beginning.
BMI is a nearly 200 year old hack statistic. It's still loved for a few reasons, mostly because it's "old" but came from one of the original social busy-body types.
It's relevancy is only at the extremes (if I remember correctly, it's below 16 and above 32) when it comes to diagnostic criteria. In the "massive amount of people", it really has little in the way of predictive effect. But it's old, so there has been years of data with it. Insurance companies like historic data. (And/or they're forced to use it)
The other issue is that you can collect data on nearly the entire population of the country with very little trouble. That's wonderfully tempting to data people. The problem is that "social scientists" can't handle statistical relevance (this is a long term problem that effects practically everything in public policy). So, yes, BMI doesn't mean a whole great deal.
Further to the problem, look at the dates: 1980 to 2013. The world population has gotten a lot bigger and a LOT older. Historically, you didn't get fat until you got old. There's a fairly specific reason for this (hint: your Metabolic rate DROPS every year of age), but during the time that we've drastically increased Life Expectancy, the world has gotten significantly wealthier.
Now, while the data that most of this is based off is worthless, it doesn't mean it isn't happening. A lot of it is down to "affluence", especially in the advanced economies. If you went back 200 years and looked at what we qualify as "poor" now, they'd very much come to conclusion that we're living in paradise. It is the natural state of Humans that "poor" means you're at the risk of starving to death. In a good portion of the World, that simply isn't something that comes to mind much.
The other lingering issue is one of very complex Biochemistry. There "seems" to be an extra Fat-adding effecting that is due to some combination of several staple food types. For those thinking "sugar", there's a bit of that in the West, but not as much as you think. Some of the China studies are pointing to Wheat + Poly-Unsaturated Fats (think Bread + Veggie Oil). This data is still in the early days of development, but it would explain a lot of the "big picture" type effects we see in geographical differences.
This could explain much of the reason is why the Rice-staple countries, in the Rice-staple areas, aren't seeing much increase in Obesity, but they are in the heavy Wheat usage areas. It would also fit with the rising rates in the USA data as well (which is a post-1980 phenomena), as the USA start pushing to "cut fat" and so Fat was replaced by Sugar for flavoring.
While there is definitely a lot of biochemistry & genetics that takes a hold, the main issue still just comes down to the Wealth Effect. Calories have gotten far cheaper & far easier to access. "Food Self-Control" is pretty much something Humans never had to learn until the last 60 years, so the ones that have it either have a genetic background to it or just have high levels of Self Control period, even if there are biochemical processes involved that can make it easier or harder.
Pretty much every study around has determined that males have lower testosterone levels than before, and that the average continues to decrease every year. As this happens, its no surprise that half the population keeps getting weaker and fatter. Cause is unkown, but there are a few tin foil worthy theories :p.
Excess carbohidrates (specially sugars) and trans-fat and by far the worse for people. Governments misleading people into avoiding healthy dosis of animal fat/cholesterol, and salt do not help much either (salt intake is not a problem except for morbidly obese people and people with kidney problems; you can lick a salt block every day and have no side effects)
While the above is relevant to get body fat below 15%, sustaining a healthy weight is just a matter of exercising a bit of self control. (I'd say you can make a somewhat similar analogy to people getting into debt for no reason and blaming the banks for it)
Nobody ever said self-control would be easy, but then again nothing is. Eating more and exercising more creates different injuries or cause of death i.e. cardiac arrest. Can't exercise more forever, can't push your body metabolism that hard forever either, same as burning a candle from both ends. A better alternative regardless perhaps?
Better food education would help, a ban on unhealthy food would be extreme. They could be improved upon though, a chocolate bar should'nt be full of palm oil, preserving agents or other cheap ingredients. In 2014, can we not resort to proper ingredients?
I would'nt want some miracle pill to come up, for people to rely upon.
I feel like it just comes down to convenience and cost.
If I can buy a pizza or a burger for $5 and 5 minutes, while making a fresh and healthy meal for myself costs $10 and 20 minutes, I'm going to eat worse on average unless I make a concerted effort.
This plays out in every supermarket. Fresh foods and meats are expensive, require effort and are hard to store. Ultra-processed, high sugar/fat/salt foods are cheap, easy and keep forever.
I'm not convinced it's an issue that requires government intervention, but you could probably start with taxing the unhealthy stuff rather than banning it.
Lots of people in this thread fully displaying their ignorance of statistics Yes everyone knows that BMI is not a clear indicator of health but for adequate sample sizes it is an indicator of population weight. For every bodybuilder who throws off the BMI there are half a dozen other fringe cases; all of them insignificant to the majority of the data.
Regardless, as correctly stated earlier, the key here is that BMI has always been measured the same way and that what is important is the difference in BMI distribution before and after, as the graphs show. The key message here is that general population weight is increasing (and people are not getting taller or more muscular at the same rate). There is plenty of other data to corroborate this idea.
I think it's about incentives really; we do not respond well to long term goals and we are driven by well defined behavioral pathways to eat a variety of tasty and interesting foods. Recent discussions on the matter (in the professional world) indicate that the current thinking poses one theory more strongly than others; that humans have a positive feedback associated with eating to complement our ability to store energy. Ie, when food is available, consistent and easy to get; eat it. When food is scarce, be less hungry. This theory is also backed up by the way our body responds to foods that we are familiar with as well as how we deal with excesses of food and such.
Again; incentives. Many incentives to eat lots of tasty food, fewer (not few, just less) incentives to get healthy.
On May 30 2014 11:40 Belisarius wrote: I feel like it just comes down to convenience and cost.
If I can buy a pizza or a burger for $5 and 5 minutes, while making a fresh and healthy meal for myself costs $10 and 20 minutes, I'm going to eat worse on average unless I make a concerted effort.
This plays out in every supermarket. Fresh foods and meats are expensive, require effort and are hard to store. Ultra-processed, high sugar/fat/salt foods are cheap, easy and keep forever.
I'm not convinced it's an issue that requires government intervention, but you could probably start with taxing the unhealthy stuff rather than banning it.
It's not hard to eat healthy for very reasonable rates.
On May 30 2014 11:40 Belisarius wrote: I feel like it just comes down to convenience and cost.
If I can buy a pizza or a burger for $5 and 5 minutes, while making a fresh and healthy meal for myself costs $10 and 20 minutes, I'm going to eat worse on average unless I make a concerted effort.
This plays out in every supermarket. Fresh foods and meats are expensive, require effort and are hard to store. Ultra-processed, high sugar/fat/salt foods are cheap, easy and keep forever.
I'm not convinced it's an issue that requires government intervention, but you could probably start with taxing the unhealthy stuff rather than banning it.
Maybe it's the pricing in Australia but it sure as hell does not take $10 to eat a healthy meal. You can eat quite healthily for two days on $10 if you cook your own stuff. I think you are right about convenience and time but when it comes to cost you are just being lazy.
Australia is pretty expensive... I can easily throw $10/serve into a meal (less if I don't use any meat). But the budget conscious could EASILY be getting good food for less... I'm just a food snob
This is why things like hunger in Africa are stupid. The world is shit.
OK yeah that doesn't seem all that constructive but let's be serious here, food is wasted SO much everywhere it's disgusting. Unless I'm at school cafeteria where food can sometimes be down-right disgusting (that said I often finished other peoples' plates), I always finish what's on my plate.
Don't waste food. Doing so is disgusting. Don't get me started about how supermarkets will throw away tons of perfectly good food because the date on the label says that it's not going to be good in the next few days.
Legislation around food is shit, people's attitude towards food is also shit. I don't have anything against fat people however I do think they should take a very hard look at their attitude towards food and I think that everyone should. People are taking for granted something that should be absolutely respected.
the only way things are gonna turn around is if governments stop enabling their food industries to dictate what the populace consumes. Of course, that will never happen here in the U.S. Corn is indeed one of the most important crops to the human populace in the western world but the sugar industry that rose in its wake is out of control. There is sugar in EVERYTHING here, due to the need to keep feeding the masses profitable for the right people. The political system is so broken that the last check against legislative corruption, the goddamned supreme court, has determined that money influencing politics is legal. That's like the nail in the coffin, if it weren't already so apparent that only the money has power in this country anymore.
*sigh*
Anyway, I read a while ago that Japan (one of the leanest countries anyway due to their overall diet) had the balls to actually put a fat tax on its overweight citizens. Has anybody seen any information on how that's been working out yet?
1) What do you think are the reasons for this explosion of obese people? 2) Is this a world wide problem or is it no big deal? 3) How will the future look like if the number of obese are continuously growing? 4) Can there anything be done to address this issue?
1 - grains and sugar being cheap. the body can only handle a certain amount of carbs every day, and if we eat too many it can't absorb them as nutrition and turns them into fat 2 - it is a serious issue. people are also becoming more stupid since these foods directly affect the brain and many studies found an inversely proportional relation between % of fat in the body and brain size (this is very scary) 3 - people being stupid and unhealthy, having less energies overall and the world being a worse place for everybody 4 - information about the causes and how to fix nutrition can prevent this from happening
On May 30 2014 15:33 Incognoto wrote: This is why things like hunger in Africa are stupid. The world is shit.
OK yeah that doesn't seem all that constructive but let's be serious here, food is wasted SO much everywhere it's disgusting. Unless I'm at school cafeteria where food can sometimes be down-right disgusting (that said I often finished other peoples' plates), I always finish what's on my plate.
Don't waste food. Doing so is disgusting. Don't get me started about how supermarkets will throw away tons of perfectly good food because the date on the label says that it's not going to be good in the next few days.
Legislation around food is shit, people's attitude towards food is also shit. I don't have anything against fat people however I do think they should take a very hard look at their attitude towards food and I think that everyone should. People are taking for granted something that should be absolutely respected.
dude, it doesn't work that way. you could undereat every day but if all you eat is pizza i promise you you will get fat in no time. it's not so much that people eat too much, it's just that they eat too many carbs, which are cheaper than real food
On May 30 2014 15:33 Incognoto wrote: This is why things like hunger in Africa are stupid. The world is shit.
OK yeah that doesn't seem all that constructive but let's be serious here, food is wasted SO much everywhere it's disgusting. Unless I'm at school cafeteria where food can sometimes be down-right disgusting (that said I often finished other peoples' plates), I always finish what's on my plate.
Don't waste food. Doing so is disgusting. Don't get me started about how supermarkets will throw away tons of perfectly good food because the date on the label says that it's not going to be good in the next few days.
Legislation around food is shit, people's attitude towards food is also shit. I don't have anything against fat people however I do think they should take a very hard look at their attitude towards food and I think that everyone should. People are taking for granted something that should be absolutely respected.
dude, it doesn't work that way. you could undereat every day but if all you eat is pizza i promise you you will get fat in no time. it's not so much that people eat too much, it's just that they eat too many carbs, which are cheaper than real food
So people prefer not to spend money on properly nourishing themselves? Are fruits and vegetables that expensive? Come on, it's not as cheap as it used to be, however I find that a nice sack of apples (I eat a lot of apples) isn't that expensive compared to meat and it's WAY cheaper than alcohol. The difference is there on the receipt when I buy booze and when I don't. I can get 10 eggs for €1.
On May 30 2014 15:33 Incognoto wrote: This is why things like hunger in Africa are stupid. The world is shit.
OK yeah that doesn't seem all that constructive but let's be serious here, food is wasted SO much everywhere it's disgusting. Unless I'm at school cafeteria where food can sometimes be down-right disgusting (that said I often finished other peoples' plates), I always finish what's on my plate.
Don't waste food. Doing so is disgusting. Don't get me started about how supermarkets will throw away tons of perfectly good food because the date on the label says that it's not going to be good in the next few days.
Legislation around food is shit, people's attitude towards food is also shit. I don't have anything against fat people however I do think they should take a very hard look at their attitude towards food and I think that everyone should. People are taking for granted something that should be absolutely respected.
dude, it doesn't work that way. you could undereat every day but if all you eat is pizza i promise you you will get fat in no time. it's not so much that people eat too much, it's just that they eat too many carbs, which are cheaper than real food
So people prefer not to spend money on properly nourishing themselves? Are fruits and vegetables that expensive? Come on, it's not as cheap as it used to be, however I find that a nice sack of apples (I eat a lot of apples) isn't that expensive compared to meat and it's WAY cheaper than alcohol. The difference is there on the receipt when I buy booze and when I don't. I can get 10 eggs for €1.
Eating properly isn't that difficult.
I started eating healthy 2 months ago and I am paying more than twice the amount I used to spend when I was consuming pasta every day. Eating healthy is obnoxiously expensive pretty much everywhere, and btw if you eat too much fruit you are gonna get fat anyway. Humans have evolved to eat mostly vegetable and meat when available.
edit: also do not forget that the sugars you find in carbs are addictive. I've heard several nutritionists and neuroscientists on ted.com saying the addiction to sugars is stronger than some hard drugs. go figure for yourself why people can't pull out of their shit diet
On May 30 2014 07:39 Nyxisto wrote: As the overwhelming majority of the population is neither a professional bodybuilder nor 300 pounds fat, for whole populations the BMI is quite okay.
BMI is a stupid statistic, it doesn't even account for gender. Fat distributions in men and female are very different, women are meant to carry more fat.
BMI version most often cited in "news" is derived from a study only using men who mostly descended from northern european descent. Hardly a base for whole populations.
A simple metric, waist hip ratio is far more reliable as it concentrates on the harmful fat, fat on the stomach, liver and heart fat which causes complications. By looking at excessive fat above the hip, not bulletproof but easy to do.
But complications due to excessive fat vary quite a bit from gender and race. Genders distribute fat differently and races distribute fat differently. BMI is an utter joke as it doesn't even account for gender.
On May 30 2014 15:33 Incognoto wrote: OK yeah that doesn't seem all that constructive but let's be serious here, food is wasted SO much everywhere it's disgusting. Unless I'm at school cafeteria where food can sometimes be down-right disgusting (that said I often finished other peoples' plates), I always finish what's on my plate.
Supermarkets also throw away a lot of food, that cannot be sold anymore but is still eatable. In Germany there are people that are organizing this throw-away food by collecting it from the supermarkets and handing it out to poor people or students. Currently there is something called "Food Sharing" becoming known, which is pretty much people giving others the opportunity to take their unwanted food. (Maybe near date of expiry and you know you won't use it before that)
Just finishing your plate won't help with this problem. The problem is pretty much that developed countries overproduce food, which is then thrown away.
In this case people would have to consume more, which leads to more obesity. (Or companies just produce less, but then they might lose revenue, which they probably don't want to lose.)
On May 30 2014 15:33 Incognoto wrote: This is why things like hunger in Africa are stupid. The world is shit.
OK yeah that doesn't seem all that constructive but let's be serious here, food is wasted SO much everywhere it's disgusting. Unless I'm at school cafeteria where food can sometimes be down-right disgusting (that said I often finished other peoples' plates), I always finish what's on my plate.
Don't waste food. Doing so is disgusting. Don't get me started about how supermarkets will throw away tons of perfectly good food because the date on the label says that it's not going to be good in the next few days.
Legislation around food is shit, people's attitude towards food is also shit. I don't have anything against fat people however I do think they should take a very hard look at their attitude towards food and I think that everyone should. People are taking for granted something that should be absolutely respected.
dude, it doesn't work that way. you could undereat every day but if all you eat is pizza i promise you you will get fat in no time. it's not so much that people eat too much, it's just that they eat too many carbs, which are cheaper than real food
So people prefer not to spend money on properly nourishing themselves? Are fruits and vegetables that expensive? Come on, it's not as cheap as it used to be, however I find that a nice sack of apples (I eat a lot of apples) isn't that expensive compared to meat and it's WAY cheaper than alcohol. The difference is there on the receipt when I buy booze and when I don't. I can get 10 eggs for €1.
Eating properly isn't that difficult.
I started eating healthy 2 months ago and I am paying more than twice the amount I used to spend when I was consuming pasta every day. Eating healthy is obnoxiously expensive pretty much everywhere, and btw if you eat too much fruit you are gonna get fat anyway. Humans have evolved to eat mostly vegetable and meat when available.
edit: also do not forget that the sugars you find in carbs are addictive. I've heard several nutritionists and neuroscientists on ted.com saying the addiction to sugars is stronger than some hard drugs. go figure for yourself why people can't pull out of their shit diet
I won't deny that eating healthy is more expensive than just eating pasta. What can I say though I'd say that's an economic problem (living in the EU is expensive) not a social one.
How should I put this? Eating without getting fat isn't that hard? I don't know. Do "genetics" count? Let me put it this way, I've never given the slightest thought about what I eat yet I've never become "fat". I'm not the epitome of physical prowess either, but I don't think I've ever gone over 80 kg for example (3 years of prep school and lack of physical exercise weren't good for me though). I know close to nothing about these matters but I just tend to use common sense when eating. Don't eat too much, eat a lot of different stuff. Pasta, rice, potatoes, but also apples, salad, tomatoes, lots of meat, canned fish, bread, butter, eggs. Just a variety of raw stuff that I just cook myself. I often see people getting prebuilt meals and stuff when I go to the supermarket, or lots of those stuff you get in bags (umm, chips and stuff like that). That just can't be as healthy as buying stuff yourself. my last receipt was this
1 kg of rice: €3 20 eggs: €2 olive oil: €4 (fuckers what a rip-off) veggie oil: €1 cashew nuts: €3 loaf of bread: €1 4 slices of ham: €2 some "bacon" (not bacon just pork like bacon in cubes, called "lardons": €1.44 400 g of ground beef: €4
total is €22 for a 4 or 5 days worth of meals. if we don't take into account luxuries like the cashew nuts and olive oil, price goes down to €15. a salad is like €1, tomatoes are like €2-3. a pack of spaghetti is like €2 /kg ?
I'd eat 50% carbs, 25% fruit/veggie and 25% meat. Anything else is just for tasty snacks (desserts and cashew nuts). Just based off of common sense. and some milk, cheese and yoghurt as well.
On May 30 2014 15:33 Incognoto wrote: This is why things like hunger in Africa are stupid. The world is shit.
OK yeah that doesn't seem all that constructive but let's be serious here, food is wasted SO much everywhere it's disgusting. Unless I'm at school cafeteria where food can sometimes be down-right disgusting (that said I often finished other peoples' plates), I always finish what's on my plate.
Don't waste food. Doing so is disgusting. Don't get me started about how supermarkets will throw away tons of perfectly good food because the date on the label says that it's not going to be good in the next few days.
Legislation around food is shit, people's attitude towards food is also shit. I don't have anything against fat people however I do think they should take a very hard look at their attitude towards food and I think that everyone should. People are taking for granted something that should be absolutely respected.
dude, it doesn't work that way. you could undereat every day but if all you eat is pizza i promise you you will get fat in no time. it's not so much that people eat too much, it's just that they eat too many carbs, which are cheaper than real food
So people prefer not to spend money on properly nourishing themselves? Are fruits and vegetables that expensive? Come on, it's not as cheap as it used to be, however I find that a nice sack of apples (I eat a lot of apples) isn't that expensive compared to meat and it's WAY cheaper than alcohol. The difference is there on the receipt when I buy booze and when I don't. I can get 10 eggs for €1.
Eating properly isn't that difficult.
I started eating healthy 2 months ago and I am paying more than twice the amount I used to spend when I was consuming pasta every day. Eating healthy is obnoxiously expensive pretty much everywhere, and btw if you eat too much fruit you are gonna get fat anyway. Humans have evolved to eat mostly vegetable and meat when available.
edit: also do not forget that the sugars you find in carbs are addictive. I've heard several nutritionists and neuroscientists on ted.com saying the addiction to sugars is stronger than some hard drugs. go figure for yourself why people can't pull out of their shit diet
I won't deny that eating healthy is more expensive than just eating pasta. What can I say though I'd say that's an economic problem (living in the EU is expensive) not a social one.
How should I put this? Eating without getting fat isn't that hard? I don't know. Do "genetics" count? Let me put it this way, I've never given the slightest thought about what I eat yet I've never become "fat". I'm not the epitome of physical prowess either, but I don't think I've ever gone over 80 kg for example (3 years of prep school and lack of physical exercise weren't good for me though). I know close to nothing about these matters but I just tend to use common sense when eating. Don't eat too much, eat a lot of different stuff. Pasta, rice, potatoes, but also apples, salad, tomatoes, lots of meat, canned fish, bread, butter, eggs. Just a variety of raw stuff that I just cook myself. I often see people getting prebuilt meals and stuff when I go to the supermarket, or lots of those stuff you get in bags (umm, chips and stuff like that). That just can't be as healthy as buying stuff yourself. my last receipt was this
1 kg of rice: €3 20 eggs: €2 olive oil: €4 (fuckers what a rip-off) veggie oil: €1 cashew nuts: €3 loaf of bread: €1 4 slices of ham: €2 some "bacon" (not bacon just pork like bacon in cubes, called "lardons": €1.44 400 g of ground beef: €4
total is €22 for a 4 or 5 days worth of meals. if we don't take into account luxuries like the cashew nuts and olive oil, price goes down to €15. a salad is like €1, tomatoes are like €2-3. a pack of spaghetti is like €2 /kg ?
I'd eat 50% carbs, 25% fruit/veggie and 25% meat. Anything else is just for tasty snacks (desserts and cashew nuts). Just based off of common sense. and some milk, cheese and yoghurt as well.
You are using your common sense because it was given to you by your circumstances (parents, informations or your own curiosity led you to understand what could be relatively good or bad) and that's working out great for you. Remember that some people are so unlucky and ignorant on nutrition that they don't even have the basic knowledge of what's real food and what's processed food and why the latter is bad for health (mostly americans, but said ignorance is spreading rapidly to Europe and asian cultures). Many think they get fat purely due to bad genetics and they can't do anything about it, feeling helpless. If you inform people about the consequences of eating right and wrong foods you give a chance to the ones who actually care about their health and well being to choose the life they want.
Pretty sure obesity isnt an issue for most people in asia. Its mainly just a western (especially america) problem. Discipline is all it takes for people to not get fat and eat a healthy diet
1 kg of rice: €3 20 eggs: €2 olive oil: €4 (fuckers what a rip-off) veggie oil: €1 cashew nuts: €3 loaf of bread: €1 4 slices of ham: €2 some "bacon" (not bacon just pork like bacon in cubes, called "lardons": €1.44 400 g of ground beef: €4
total is €22 for a 4 or 5 days worth of meals. if we don't take into account luxuries like the cashew nuts and olive oil, price goes down to €15. a salad is like €1, tomatoes are like €2-3. a pack of spaghetti is like €2 /kg ?
I'd eat 50% carbs, 25% fruit/veggie and 25% meat. Anything else is just for tasty snacks (desserts and cashew nuts). Just based off of common sense. and some milk, cheese and yoghurt as well.
not that i eat any better but Olive oil is a basic necessity. its not a luxury lol. 4euro is also cheap olive oil. A qulity product usually starts around 7 euros. other than that your diet seems pretty blunt. Its good like you said to vary and eat different things, but: canned fish<fresh fish Slices of ham>piece of meat too many eggs (unless you discart the yellow part) Slices of ham are a very processed thing (especially non-raw ham) The best healthy way too eat is growing your own vegetables and cooking your own food. Its not only about money. Its also about time. You cannot get the same quality of food from a supermarket as you could get from your back yard. And also spending the time making food. These two are the biggest burdens i feel to eating well. of course people don' t have "time"
I know where lies the problem, women in the western world don't know how to cook anymore -_- We were all healthier when they were in the kitchen! hehe
Aside of this terrible true joke.
Depression and stress caused by the global economic crises might be one of the reason why there is an increase of obesity. We eat more when we are stressed.
On May 30 2014 18:58 iFU.pauline wrote: I know where lies the problem, women in the western world don't know how to cook anymore -_- We were all healthier when they were in the kitchen! hehe
Aside of this terrible true joke.
Depression and stress caused by the global economic crises might be one of the reason why there is an increase of obesity. We eat more when we are stressed.
That's also true, our levels of cortisol are shooting up through the years (cortisol is the hormone of stress). If somebody has a high level of cortisol the effectiveness of any diet is lowered aswell. The best way to lower cortisol level is through intake of D vitamin (the body produces it naturally when in contact with sunlight) and meditation.
The situation is especially grotesque when obesity meets malnutrition and hunger:
"In Kenya, an increasingly affluent middle class has led to a growth in the quantity of food waste that ends up rotting in its cities' extended dumpsites."
Also, I think Japan and China are much more immune from westernization on a cultural level. But even though overall obesity is low compared to the US, it did increase in both countries since 1980. China has the particular problem that obesity is concentrated in cities.
"Obesity in China is a major health concern according to the WHO, with overall rates of obesity below 5% in the country, but greater than 20% in some cities."
1 kg of rice: €3 20 eggs: €2 olive oil: €4 (fuckers what a rip-off) veggie oil: €1 cashew nuts: €3 loaf of bread: €1 4 slices of ham: €2 some "bacon" (not bacon just pork like bacon in cubes, called "lardons": €1.44 400 g of ground beef: €4
total is €22 for a 4 or 5 days worth of meals. if we don't take into account luxuries like the cashew nuts and olive oil, price goes down to €15. a salad is like €1, tomatoes are like €2-3. a pack of spaghetti is like €2 /kg ?
I'd eat 50% carbs, 25% fruit/veggie and 25% meat. Anything else is just for tasty snacks (desserts and cashew nuts). Just based off of common sense. and some milk, cheese and yoghurt as well.
not that i eat any better but Olive oil is a basic necessity. its not a luxury lol. 4euro is also cheap olive oil. A qulity product usually starts around 7 euros. other than that your diet seems pretty blunt. Its good like you said to vary and eat different things, but: canned fish<fresh fish Slices of ham>piece of meat too many eggs (unless you discart the yellow part) Slices of ham are a very processed thing (especially non-raw ham) The best healthy way too eat is growing your own vegetables and cooking your own food. Its not only about money. Its also about time. You cannot get the same quality of food from a supermarket as you could get from your back yard. And also spending the time making food. These two are the biggest burdens i feel to eating well. of course people don' t have "time"
Of course olive oil is a necessity to you, you're italian!
No, I completely agree with you though. My parents have a huge garden where you have so many different vegetables, off the top of my head there are potatoes, tomatoes, beans, onions, garlic, artichokes and probably other stuff I can't think of atm. I can't help all that much since I'm never home but I can assure you I haven't bought a potato in years. However you need time (well not for potatoes, you need to dedicate a few days a year at most for potatoes afaik) and a yard to do it right, as well as know-how.
You can't eat fresh fish in ile-de-france afaik, it's just not good at all. In britanny though when I go home you've got tons of good fresh sea-food though.
1 kg of rice: €3 20 eggs: €2 olive oil: €4 (fuckers what a rip-off) veggie oil: €1 cashew nuts: €3 loaf of bread: €1 4 slices of ham: €2 some "bacon" (not bacon just pork like bacon in cubes, called "lardons": €1.44 400 g of ground beef: €4
total is €22 for a 4 or 5 days worth of meals. if we don't take into account luxuries like the cashew nuts and olive oil, price goes down to €15. a salad is like €1, tomatoes are like €2-3. a pack of spaghetti is like €2 /kg ?
I'd eat 50% carbs, 25% fruit/veggie and 25% meat. Anything else is just for tasty snacks (desserts and cashew nuts). Just based off of common sense. and some milk, cheese and yoghurt as well.
not that i eat any better but Olive oil is a basic necessity. its not a luxury lol. 4euro is also cheap olive oil. A qulity product usually starts around 7 euros. other than that your diet seems pretty blunt. Its good like you said to vary and eat different things, but: canned fish<fresh fish Slices of ham>piece of meat too many eggs (unless you discart the yellow part) Slices of ham are a very processed thing (especially non-raw ham) The best healthy way too eat is growing your own vegetables and cooking your own food. Its not only about money. Its also about time. You cannot get the same quality of food from a supermarket as you could get from your back yard. And also spending the time making food. These two are the biggest burdens i feel to eating well. of course people don' t have "time"
Of course olive oil is a necessity to you, you're italian!
No, I completely agree with you though. My parents have a huge garden where you have so many different vegetables, off the top of my head there are potatoes, tomatoes, beans, onions, garlic, artichokes and probably other stuff I can't think of atm. I can't help all that much since I'm never home but I can assure you I haven't bought a potato in years. However you need time (well not for potatoes, you need to dedicate a few days a year at most for potatoes afaik) and a yard to do it right, as well as know-how.
You can't eat fresh fish in ile-de-france afaik, it's just not good at all. In britanny though when I go home you've got tons of good fresh sea-food though.
I think he talked about what we called "Jambon blanc". At least the one we buy in supermarket, it's just gross stuff... Raw ham is better, I guess, although any meat bought in supermarket should be avoided if possible imo. Edit : I assumed he made a mistake with his > < when answering. No way non-raw ham is better than meat.
On May 30 2014 15:33 Incognoto wrote: This is why things like hunger in Africa are stupid. The world is shit.
OK yeah that doesn't seem all that constructive but let's be serious here, food is wasted SO much everywhere it's disgusting. Unless I'm at school cafeteria where food can sometimes be down-right disgusting (that said I often finished other peoples' plates), I always finish what's on my plate.
Don't waste food. Doing so is disgusting. Don't get me started about how supermarkets will throw away tons of perfectly good food because the date on the label says that it's not going to be good in the next few days.
Legislation around food is shit, people's attitude towards food is also shit. I don't have anything against fat people however I do think they should take a very hard look at their attitude towards food and I think that everyone should. People are taking for granted something that should be absolutely respected.
dude, it doesn't work that way. you could undereat every day but if all you eat is pizza i promise you you will get fat in no time. it's not so much that people eat too much, it's just that they eat too many carbs, which are cheaper than real food
There are lots of similar experiments. Another lecturer somewhere in the States did this eating only candy.
Generally yes. But macros are important too. If you eat only shit with mass carbs and fat, but under your caloric intake you're gonna lose weight but its muscle weight because of the lack of protein. Then you're basal metabolic rate sinks and you need to cut calories even more or do even more cardio. But you get super tired of eating so much fat and carbs + doing so much cardio and you cannot build up muscles to make cardio easier on you.
Its also very easy to overeat on fat and carbs and very hard to eat an appropriate amount of protein without busting your calorie budget. Your workout potential is capped at some point. Overeating has no limits. You can always outeat your workout. So the approach "I can eat anything if i just work out enough" is flawed.
Nutrition is so important for muscle gains. Working out will have only marginal effects if youre nutrition isnt right. You can move the weights but nothing will happen.
I mean its possible to lose weight with shit nutrition but youre gonna get weaker and just a smaller version of yourself instead of stronger and leaner. You would still be jiggly.
On May 30 2014 15:33 Incognoto wrote: This is why things like hunger in Africa are stupid. The world is shit.
OK yeah that doesn't seem all that constructive but let's be serious here, food is wasted SO much everywhere it's disgusting. Unless I'm at school cafeteria where food can sometimes be down-right disgusting (that said I often finished other peoples' plates), I always finish what's on my plate.
Don't waste food. Doing so is disgusting. Don't get me started about how supermarkets will throw away tons of perfectly good food because the date on the label says that it's not going to be good in the next few days.
Legislation around food is shit, people's attitude towards food is also shit. I don't have anything against fat people however I do think they should take a very hard look at their attitude towards food and I think that everyone should. People are taking for granted something that should be absolutely respected.
dude, it doesn't work that way. you could undereat every day but if all you eat is pizza i promise you you will get fat in no time. it's not so much that people eat too much, it's just that they eat too many carbs, which are cheaper than real food
There are lots of similar experiments. Another lecturer somewhere in the States did this eating only candy.
It's fun you say that, because at a certain point a few years ago I tried a chocolate only diet with correct daily caloric deficit intake and that experiment miserably failed. You might find this video very interesting, you can skip to the second part if you want, where the doctor explains how cell metabolism works:
On May 30 2014 15:33 Incognoto wrote: This is why things like hunger in Africa are stupid. The world is shit.
OK yeah that doesn't seem all that constructive but let's be serious here, food is wasted SO much everywhere it's disgusting. Unless I'm at school cafeteria where food can sometimes be down-right disgusting (that said I often finished other peoples' plates), I always finish what's on my plate.
Don't waste food. Doing so is disgusting. Don't get me started about how supermarkets will throw away tons of perfectly good food because the date on the label says that it's not going to be good in the next few days.
Legislation around food is shit, people's attitude towards food is also shit. I don't have anything against fat people however I do think they should take a very hard look at their attitude towards food and I think that everyone should. People are taking for granted something that should be absolutely respected.
dude, it doesn't work that way. you could undereat every day but if all you eat is pizza i promise you you will get fat in no time. it's not so much that people eat too much, it's just that they eat too many carbs, which are cheaper than real food
There are lots of similar experiments. Another lecturer somewhere in the States did this eating only candy.
It's fun you say that, because at a certain point a few years ago I tried a chocolate only diet with correct daily caloric deficit intake and that experiment miserably failed. You might find this video very interesting, you can skip to the second part if you want, where the doctor explains how cell metabolism works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdJFbjWHEU
You can lose weight as long as you eat less than you need. Losing weight is different than being healthy. To be lean (decent muscle, low fat) at a decent weight you need proper calories AND proper macro nutrients.
What you both are saying is not contradictory. Being "thin" eating shit on a caloric restricted diet will make you feel and look like shit.
On May 30 2014 18:58 iFU.pauline wrote: I know where lies the problem, women in the western world don't know how to cook anymore -_- We were all healthier when they were in the kitchen! hehe
Aside of this terrible true joke.
Depression and stress caused by the global economic crises might be one of the reason why there is an increase of obesity. We eat more when we are stressed.
The truth in your joke is that capitalism has pushed women into the labor pool and has succeeded in commoditizing basic acts of reproduction like cooking and eating. When people spend their days laboring to make ends meet they turn to cheap and hassle-free ways of getting their meals. Turning more meals into commodity services and products provides new markets, which in turn provide new opportunities for capital, but it also reduces the production of those meals to a means for generatig profit, disconnecting the growth and preparation of food from the sensuous human acts of reproduction that they were in our past.
On May 31 2014 03:26 IgnE wrote: The truth in your joke is that capitalism has pushed women into the labor pool and has succeeded in commoditizing basic acts of reproduction like cooking and eating.
Oh these poor women! Now they get the chance to do something else than cooking or cleaning! What a terrible change, they had it so much better in the 50's! Seriously, do you give lectures about how to turn everything into critisism of capitalism?
On May 31 2014 03:26 IgnE wrote: The truth in your joke is that capitalism has pushed women into the labor pool and has succeeded in commoditizing basic acts of reproduction like cooking and eating.
Oh these poor women! Now they get the chance to do something else than cooking or cleaning! What a terrible change, they had it so much better in the 50's! Seriously, do you give lectures about how to turn everything into critisism of capitalism?
He didn't really judge it, pretty much just wrote down what happened.
I like cooking something and sharing that with someone so I'm fine with how it is (as a man).
Fast food restaurant have genetically engineered corn syrup to make the food extremely addicting by tricking the brain.
It is up for the people to legislate the production of such food in the market. Unfortunately many people are addicted to it which makes it harder to resists. And McDonald, KFC have shops all around the world and contributed to a lot of USA's GDP, the companies will "legally bribe the government" or another word "lobby" against those points to be taken seriously.
In the end, people needs to take action like the 1960s to go on constant strikes so that the USA government should be the one SERVING THE PEOPLE instead of the contemporary vice-versa situation. Another dismay is that people are so immersed to this smartphone and internet culture that they've became too complacent to get out of their butt to do so.
Its the degeneracy of the society (especially for the western civilization) but as history have always displayed that no empires last forever and soon there will be another nations to rise up. Then maybe the current number one of the world can wake up to put up a fight but until then, it will get worse before it gets better.
On May 31 2014 03:26 IgnE wrote: The truth in your joke is that capitalism has pushed women into the labor pool and has succeeded in commoditizing basic acts of reproduction like cooking and eating.
Oh these poor women! Now they get the chance to do something else than cooking or cleaning! What a terrible change, they had it so much better in the 50's! Seriously, do you give lectures about how to turn everything into critisism of capitalism?
Overreact much? Capitalism doesn't care what gender you are now, even though it has a long history of channeling laborer dissatisfaction into liberalized minority politics. I wasn't lamenting the death of the gendered distribution of labor, but rather the way that normal reproductive acts like cooking and eating have been commoditized and pushed to the margins. The wage grinder has far reaching effects.
I'll add one more reason for the obesity epidemic that may have been said already (I apologize if so). In developed countries you have access to food that would be difficult to prepare yourself. These foods are created en masse by mega corporations for cheap (cost goes down the more you make, basic economics).
For example, say you had to make your own soft ice-cream or bake a cake or doughnuts from scratch. How often would you actually eat those things?
This is pretty well represented in the graphs in the OP. 3rd world countries have less access to such foods and have to prepare their food themselves, hence they are generally thinner.
Add this to all the other reasons in this thread (less exercise, cars, sedentary jobs, etc) and its no wonder we have an obesity problem.
Infants born by cesarean delivery are at increased risk of asthma, obesity and type 1 diabetes, whereas breastfeeding is variably protective against these and other disorders.
Not super important, but it does offer an explanation to his initial claim.
People refuse to take care of themselves. I've only gained ~25 pounds because I dropped fencing on a frequent basis. I still wouldn't call myself "obese," despite eating a lot of junk food and drinking quite a few sodas. My secret is to stop eating when I'm full; I doubt many people do that. It's less what you eat and more how much of it you eat. If you take in more calories than you're burning, you're going to inflate.
I'm 16 and I've been overweight since my 11th. About 8 months I decided I'd throw it around (no idea how, I think I got triggered by watching a guy on youtube I watched and he started gymming actively.) and start gymming once, preferably twice, but atleast once a week in our local gym. I've done mostly cardio and recently started doing weights (because intensiveness --> calorie loss apparently.) on top of that I started eating more fruit and slightly less bad, sugary foods and sweets/chocolate/w/e and be more conscious of what I grab when I go into our closet. I've lost about 8KG in half a year, and I even feel slightly better.
I was struck by how EASY it is to live healthy if you take a bit of time to do research, a couple of hours a week to practice (not even the excessive amounts some people do). I still sit behind my computer about 6 hours a day during a school day and I'm losing weight. It's just so stupidly easy. YOu just have to make the switch before it's too late. We need something to switch the MINDSET of a lot of people.
On June 02 2014 00:30 Thalandros wrote: I'm 16 and I've been overweight since my 11th. About 8 months I decided I'd throw it around (no idea how, I think I got triggered by watching a guy on youtube I watched and he started gymming actively.) and start gymming once, preferably twice, but atleast once a week in our local gym. I've done mostly cardio and recently started doing weights (because intensiveness --> calorie loss apparently.) on top of that I started eating more fruit and slightly less bad, sugary foods and sweets/chocolate/w/e and be more conscious of what I grab when I go into our closet. I've lost about 8KG in half a year, and I even feel slightly better.
I was struck by how EASY it is to live healthy if you take a bit of time to do research, a couple of hours a week to practice (not even the excessive amounts some people do). I still sit behind my computer about 6 hours a day during a school day and I'm losing weight. It's just so stupidly easy. YOu just have to make the switch before it's too late. We need something to switch the MINDSET of a lot of people.
Congrats, most people just blame McDonalds instead of changing their habits
The reason for the explosion is the lack of cheap food options. I mean, I've seen pictures of costs of a salad in comparison to meat such as a hamburger and the meat is actually cheaper? Not to mention most things including sweets have lots of fat in them, the saturated kind which isn't healthy for you etc...
I think that obesity is on its way to being a worldwide problem. It's only in the early stage now. The future looks bleak though. Imagine cardiovascular problems with every single obese patient. Hypertension, possible diabetes etc...
I think having more mandatory gym classes for all students and similarlty in work settings (opt out of if you can prove you go to the gym) as well as making things that are healthier cheaper (that salad example from earlier). Other than that, people making the change themselves.
On May 29 2014 21:58 Silvanel wrote: Not to dismiss problem (because its really serious) but BMI is a joke. I have BMI of 24,8 and everyone says i am skinny. One can be 25 this too. With BMI, if you are older, you'll have a lower BMI though you can be overweight. In the same way, someone who works out can have a higher BMI though he's not overweight.
To me, it seems like educating yourself on what is healthy to eat and how to exercise properly is impossible. Seriously, for any topic I find interest in I can pretty easily narrow down the most respected and accepted published information and dive right in. Try that with food. No consensus on which foods are healthy. They change the opinion on whether eggs are healthy or not every few years. And don't get me started on exercising. Hell, even discussions on how to do a proper squat look like religious fanatics arguing endlessly.
I dare you, point me to a book about nutrition or an healthy everyday exercise routine, that is popular and widely accepted. I would really like to see them. I bet you that if a few people try within a few posts there will be argument and name calling...
Think this might have something to do with it too.
Well, they are not bad for you. They serve a vital role in your body. Especially in regard to hormone levels. However, I feel like the average FOX-viewer sees that and makes himself an "all bacon" salad. As with everything in life, you have to balance it out.
On June 02 2014 04:00 IgnE wrote: Chloride not sodium?
Salt is sodium-chloride. 40% of its weight is sodium atoms, which translates into 2g sodium in your food being the same as 5g salt. I don't know why they usually only count the sodium, but that's what you'd look out for when reading the labels on products in the supermarket. 5g salt or 2g sodium are the suggested daily limit.
There's studies about life expectancy that suggest that eating meat is fine for your health if using raw meat in your cooking (so eating steaks basically), but eating something involving curing like bratwurst or salami or bacon is not, decreases life expectancy when looking at statistics. I've seen sodium getting blamed for that difference. That might also be where counting sodium instead of salt gets interesting as the salt used for curing isn't only sodium-chloride, instead also adds another sodium compound.
On June 02 2014 04:30 Shikada wrote: To me, it seems like educating yourself on what is healthy to eat and how to exercise properly is impossible. Seriously, for any topic I find interest in I can pretty easily narrow down the most respected and accepted published information and dive right in. Try that with food. No consensus on which foods are healthy. They change the opinion on whether eggs are healthy or not every few years. And don't get me started on exercising. Hell, even discussions on how to do a proper squat look like religious fanatics arguing endlessly.
I dare you, point me to a book about nutrition or an healthy everyday exercise routine, that is popular and widely accepted. I would really like to see them. I bet you that if a few people try within a few posts there will be argument and name calling...
Yeah, you can say the same thing about social studies or stock market analysis. All they have in common is that they are open complex systems.
The human body is ridiculously complex and most of the molecular biological intricacies are simply not understood yet.
Nutritional studies usually focus on one out of 1000s of possible parameters. This alone makes it almost impossible to establish causation based on a correlation. And since most studies contradict each other, not even a correlation can be established.
All this results in a shitload of pseudoscience and esoterical trends, even among the medical/scientific community.
I don't think there is much need to over-complicate stuff. Cook for yourself, eat a lot of vegetables, don't eat a lot of "unhealthy"(meaning very fatty or sugary food) and move your body around a lot. Works for everybody.
On June 02 2014 04:09 sharkie wrote: Countries should just do what Japan does... Junk food is pretty successful there as well but no obesity.
Yeah, their junk food isn't literally made of fat and infinite calories and their people know that it's not good to eat until you feel like puking. That's a primary difference between Japan and America on this matter. IMHO the biggest issue in the US is people eat and eat and eat, and I observe it on a daily basis. That's the primary issue to resolve, because no amount of exercise is going to compensate for that. I mean, you can be thin with minimal exercise and eating well. It's the extreme excess that will start getting to you.
On June 02 2014 05:45 Nyxisto wrote: I don't think there is much need to over-complicate stuff. Cook for yourself, eat a lot of vegetables, don't eat a lot of "unhealthy"(meaning very fatty or sugary food) and move your body around a lot. Works for everybody.
On June 02 2014 04:00 IgnE wrote: Chloride not sodium?
Salt is sodium-chloride. 40% of its weight is sodium atoms, which translates into 2g sodium in your food being the same as 5g salt. I don't know why they usually only count the sodium, but that's what you'd look out for when reading the labels on products in the supermarket. 5g salt or 2g sodium are the suggested daily limit.
There's studies about life expectancy that suggest that eating meat is fine for your health if using raw meat in your cooking (so eating steaks basically), but eating something involving curing like bratwurst or salami or bacon is not, decreases life expectancy when looking at statistics. I've seen sodium getting blamed for that difference. That might also be where counting sodium instead of salt gets interesting as the salt used for curing isn't only sodium-chloride, instead also adds another sodium compound.
Sodium is not the preservatie in those foods that is responsible for the difference in outcomes. Chloride is more likely the culprit behind high blood pressure than sodium.
On June 02 2014 04:30 Shikada wrote: To me, it seems like educating yourself on what is healthy to eat and how to exercise properly is impossible. Seriously, for any topic I find interest in I can pretty easily narrow down the most respected and accepted published information and dive right in. Try that with food. No consensus on which foods are healthy. They change the opinion on whether eggs are healthy or not every few years. And don't get me started on exercising. Hell, even discussions on how to do a proper squat look like religious fanatics arguing endlessly.
I dare you, point me to a book about nutrition or an healthy everyday exercise routine, that is popular and widely accepted. I would really like to see them. I bet you that if a few people try within a few posts there will be argument and name calling...
Yeah, you can say the same thing about social studies or stock market analysis. All they have in common is that they are open complex systems.
The human body is ridiculously complex and most of the molecular biological intricacies are simply not understood yet.
Nutritional studies usually focus on one out of 1000s of possible parameters. This alone makes it almost impossible to establish causation based on a correlation. And since most studies contradict each other, not even a correlation can be established.
All this results in a shitload of pseudoscience and esoterical trends, even among the medical/scientific community.
While this is true to a great extent, we have the magic of empirical knowledge.
Strength athletes (Olympic lifters, power lifters and bodybuilders to be generous :p) eat meat/veggies as their main diet, and add carbs around workouts (specially after) depending how hard they are hitting the gym.
To lose weight and mantain lean mass you eat less carbs, to gain muscles you lift harder and add a bit more of protein/carbs.
The salt thing is largely a myth, people with normal kidney function have no issues at all.
While I don't believe that salt will necessarily make you gain weight (maybe indirectly gain though), salt is pretty bad for your blood pressure which increases your risk of cardiovascular events.
On June 02 2014 09:21 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised the increasing social acceptance of being fat across the board hasn't been mentioned (so far as I can tell)
While I don't advocate a culture of people being made to feel shit about themselves, I'd imagine it would have some cumulative impact
I'm sure there are some cultures out there where being fat is seen as superior to being thin.
As for the rest of the world I don't get why people just don't eat less and/or move more if they really wanna stay in a nice pretty slim shape. Don't even have to eat super healthy, just adjust the quantities. It really barely matters unless you're a competitive athlete. People collectively seem so fucking retarded when it comes to this stuff.
On June 02 2014 09:21 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised the increasing social acceptance of being fat across the board hasn't been mentioned (so far as I can tell)
While I don't advocate a culture of people being made to feel shit about themselves, I'd imagine it would have some cumulative impact
I'm sure there are some cultures out there where being fat is seen as superior to being thin.
As for the rest of the world I don't get why people just don't eat less and/or move more if they really wanna stay in a nice pretty slim shape. Don't even have to eat super healthy, just adjust the quantities. People collectively seem so fucking retarded when it comes to this stuff.
In Hmong culture, that was the case. Being fat was seen as a sign of eating well and such. Dunno about other cultures lol.
Interestingly, it aligned with my own personal experiences with weight loss. A few years ago, I was significantly overweight (5'4'', 245 lbs) and decided I needed to do something about it. I tried eating less and eating things that I considered to be healthy, and made a bit of progress, but was having trouble until I stumbled upon the TLHF thread and educated myself on health and nutrition. Largely, I stopped eating processed foods and learned how to cook real food for myself. I also began weightlifting. One year later, I had lost 85 lbs and felt better than I ever had in my life. But I still struggle sometimes, and I've noticed over the years that those times when I struggle are after I drink soda or consume foods which contain (now I'm paying much closer attention to ingredient labels) HFCS. I've personally experienced how, after drinking soda, I ate significantly more (and more unhealthy) food because I still felt hungry.
Drink a 32oz soda --> Eat an entire pizza (2000+ calories including soda)
or
Drink water --> Eat homemade baked chicken and vegetables (~500 calories, and so much more nutritious)
I've lived this dozens of times. The difference in how we feel and the resulting decisions we make about how we eat are astounding. It seems like unhealthy chemicals we choose to ingest are the beginning of a very slippery slope.
Interestingly, it aligned with my own personal experiences with weight loss. A few years ago, I was significantly overweight (5'4'', 245 lbs) and decided I needed to do something about it. I tried eating less and eating things that I considered to be healthy, and made a bit of progress, but was having trouble until I stumbled upon the TLHF thread and educated myself on health and nutrition. Largely, I stopped eating processed foods and learned how to cook real food for myself. I also began weightlifting. One year later, I had lost 85 lbs and felt better than I ever had in my life. But I still struggle sometimes, and I've noticed over the years that those times when I struggle are after I drink soda or consume foods which contain (now I'm paying much closer attention to ingredient labels) HFCS. I've personally experienced how, after drinking soda, I ate significantly more (and more unhealthy) food because I still felt hungry.
Drink a 32oz soda --> Eat an entire pizza (2000+ calories including soda)
or
Drink water --> Eat homemade baked chicken and vegetables (~500 calories, and so much more nutritious)
I've lived this dozens of times. The difference in how we feel and the resulting decisions we make about how we eat are astounding. It seems like unhealthy chemicals we choose to ingest are the beginning of a very slippery slope.
I think this is just you associating soda with unhealthy food. I mean I never get the urge to eat more, actually I eat quite less when I drink something with sparkling.
Also tons of Japanese drink soda and dont become obese.
On June 02 2014 09:21 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised the increasing social acceptance of being fat across the board hasn't been mentioned (so far as I can tell)
While I don't advocate a culture of people being made to feel shit about themselves, I'd imagine it would have some cumulative impact
I'm sure there are some cultures out there where being fat is seen as superior to being thin.
As for the rest of the world I don't get why people just don't eat less and/or move more if they really wanna stay in a nice pretty slim shape. Don't even have to eat super healthy, just adjust the quantities. It really barely matters unless you're a competitive athlete. People collectively seem so fucking retarded when it comes to this stuff.
people are lazy and are fed wrong information all day.
On June 02 2014 09:21 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised the increasing social acceptance of being fat across the board hasn't been mentioned (so far as I can tell)
While I don't advocate a culture of people being made to feel shit about themselves, I'd imagine it would have some cumulative impact
I'm sure there are some cultures out there where being fat is seen as superior to being thin.
As for the rest of the world I don't get why people just don't eat less and/or move more if they really wanna stay in a nice pretty slim shape. Don't even have to eat super healthy, just adjust the quantities. It really barely matters unless you're a competitive athlete. People collectively seem so fucking retarded when it comes to this stuff.
People, the average person, are not intelligent or smart...
Sugar is the cheapest and easiest way to make any food palpable, and isn't regulated or cautioned against quite the way fats are. As a result it's highly prevalent in all processed food, and people get way too much of it in their diet. It's not only energy-rich but also wrecks your metabolism and appetite in ways that makes you suspectible to obesity.
Other lesser but significant causes are immobility and alcohol.
I expect sugar sactions will be society's next attempt to deal with this issue. If that doesn't work, then medicine. What's not going to happen is that people start excersising their willpower and wisdom to regulate their own diet. People are far too lazy for that, and drinking and eating are two of the greatest joys in everyone's life.
On June 02 2014 09:21 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised the increasing social acceptance of being fat across the board hasn't been mentioned (so far as I can tell)
While I don't advocate a culture of people being made to feel shit about themselves, I'd imagine it would have some cumulative impact
I'm sure there are some cultures out there where being fat is seen as superior to being thin.
As for the rest of the world I don't get why people just don't eat less and/or move more if they really wanna stay in a nice pretty slim shape. Don't even have to eat super healthy, just adjust the quantities. People collectively seem so fucking retarded when it comes to this stuff.
In Hmong culture, that was the case. Being fat was seen as a sign of eating well and such. Dunno about other cultures lol.
In the united states it is unacceptable to ask someone about their weight or make fun of someone for being fat, "body acceptance" is talked about alot. Compare this to asian cultures where being super skinny is ideal and family members usually greet people with "did you gain weight", it really isn't surprising how some of the lowest obesity rates are east asain
On June 02 2014 09:21 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised the increasing social acceptance of being fat across the board hasn't been mentioned (so far as I can tell)
While I don't advocate a culture of people being made to feel shit about themselves, I'd imagine it would have some cumulative impact
I'm sure there are some cultures out there where being fat is seen as superior to being thin.
As for the rest of the world I don't get why people just don't eat less and/or move more if they really wanna stay in a nice pretty slim shape. Don't even have to eat super healthy, just adjust the quantities. People collectively seem so fucking retarded when it comes to this stuff.
In Hmong culture, that was the case. Being fat was seen as a sign of eating well and such. Dunno about other cultures lol.
In the united states it is unacceptable to ask someone about their weight or make fun of someone for being fat, "body acceptance" is talked about alot. Compare this to asian cultures where being super skinny is ideal and family members usually greet people with "did you gain weight", it really isn't surprising how some of the lowest obesity rates are east asain
Yeah, what pisses me off is the Western society even seeing it as a illness. So never talk about those "poor" people. These people are just lazy, they are not ill. (of course exceptions EXIST)
On June 02 2014 09:21 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised the increasing social acceptance of being fat across the board hasn't been mentioned (so far as I can tell)
While I don't advocate a culture of people being made to feel shit about themselves, I'd imagine it would have some cumulative impact
I'm sure there are some cultures out there where being fat is seen as superior to being thin.
As for the rest of the world I don't get why people just don't eat less and/or move more if they really wanna stay in a nice pretty slim shape. Don't even have to eat super healthy, just adjust the quantities. People collectively seem so fucking retarded when it comes to this stuff.
In Hmong culture, that was the case. Being fat was seen as a sign of eating well and such. Dunno about other cultures lol.
In the united states it is unacceptable to ask someone about their weight or make fun of someone for being fat, "body acceptance" is talked about alot. Compare this to asian cultures where being super skinny is ideal and family members usually greet people with "did you gain weight", it really isn't surprising how some of the lowest obesity rates are east asain
Yeah, what pisses me off is the Western society even seeing it as a illness. So never talk about those "poor" people. These people are just lazy, they are not ill. (of course exceptions EXIST)
Well but there's still no reason to "look down" on fat people or ridicule them. People don't do that with alcoholics either, although the latter is also dangerous to the person drinking and to people around them and costs society money. Same with several other addictions.
Smoking weed often isn't even perceived as something negative although potheads aren't exactly known for being the most disciplined or productive people in society.
I would imagine that it will only get much worse as people continue to blame the wrong reasons and cling to conventional wisdom. Someone posted a great video about obesity in another thread that argued against many of the usual suspects (overeating, lazy). It presented examples of widespread obesity in groups of people that challenges these ideas- groups living in extreme poverty (overeating?) or working in tough physical labor/factories (lazy?). Yet we seem to continue barking up the wrong tree. I don't claim to be an expert, but I just think there is much more to this than most of us are aware of.
On June 02 2014 09:21 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised the increasing social acceptance of being fat across the board hasn't been mentioned (so far as I can tell)
While I don't advocate a culture of people being made to feel shit about themselves, I'd imagine it would have some cumulative impact
I'm sure there are some cultures out there where being fat is seen as superior to being thin.
As for the rest of the world I don't get why people just don't eat less and/or move more if they really wanna stay in a nice pretty slim shape. Don't even have to eat super healthy, just adjust the quantities. People collectively seem so fucking retarded when it comes to this stuff.
In Hmong culture, that was the case. Being fat was seen as a sign of eating well and such. Dunno about other cultures lol.
In the united states it is unacceptable to ask someone about their weight or make fun of someone for being fat, "body acceptance" is talked about alot. Compare this to asian cultures where being super skinny is ideal and family members usually greet people with "did you gain weight", it really isn't surprising how some of the lowest obesity rates are east asain
Yeah, what pisses me off is the Western society even seeing it as a illness. So never talk about those "poor" people. These people are just lazy, they are not ill. (of course exceptions EXIST)
Well but there's still no reason to "look down" on fat people or ridicule them. People don't do that with alcoholics either, although the latter is also dangerous to the person drinking and to people around them and costs society money. Same with several other addictions.
Smoking weed often isn't even perceived as something negative although potheads aren't exactly known for being the most disciplined or productive people in society.
Yet look at drunken driving deaths in societies where alcoholism is accepted vrs not. The whole entire "we should accept people for who they are" is a very western thought.
To call the obesity epidemic worldwide is ridiculous, it is a product of our societal acceptance, societies where fat people are judged harshly don't have this problem.
EDIT
On June 04 2014 08:23 screamingpalm wrote: I would imagine that it will only get much worse as people continue to blame the wrong reasons and cling to conventional wisdom. Someone posted a great video about obesity in another thread that argued against many of the usual suspects (overeating, lazy). It presented examples of widespread obesity in groups of people that challenges these ideas- groups living in extreme poverty (overeating?) or working in tough physical labor/factories (lazy?). Yet we seem to continue barking up the wrong tree. I don't claim to be an expert, but I just think there is much more to this than most of us are aware of.
That's a horrible study. Poverty is not a good indicator for overeating. In fact healthy food is far more expensive than cheap food. I can go to harolds chicken and get half a chicken (fried) and fries for $3.16, while buying healthy is more expensive (unless you decide to cook for yourself).
Likewise just working out doesn't mean you are not going to overeat. If you eat 5000 calories, no matter how tough your job is you will go fat
On June 04 2014 08:44 LSB wrote: To call the obesity epidemic worldwide is ridiculous, it is a product of our societal acceptance, societies where fat people are judged harshly don't have this problem.
I don't buy this. I think it's much simpler. If you give your pets too much too eat they're going to get fat. Same will happen to humans. Some people are disciplined enough to not gain weight, the majority will. I think the only solution is to either tax fat unhealthy food like crazy, have some medical breakthrough or just live with people getting fatter.
On June 04 2014 08:44 LSB wrote: That's a horrible study. Poverty is not a good indicator for overeating. In fact healthy food is far more expensive than cheap food. I can go to harolds chicken and get half a chicken (fried) and fries for $3.16, while buying healthy is more expensive (unless you decide to cook for yourself).
Likewise just working out doesn't mean you are not going to overeat. If you eat 5000 calories, no matter how tough your job is you will go fat
Yes, I would say quality is far more important of a factor than quantity... not all calories are created equal etc. That lines up with my own experiences when travelling between the US and Italy- where I ate at least 3 times more in quantity and lost weight compared to living in the US. Then you get into policy making and politics and subsidies for GMO corn and monoculture etc. In the example presented though, these people were getting by on scraps of food (and no KFC), directly challenging one of the popular caricatures that people seem to enjoy venting their hate upon.
On June 02 2014 09:21 Wombat_NI wrote: I'm surprised the increasing social acceptance of being fat across the board hasn't been mentioned (so far as I can tell)
While I don't advocate a culture of people being made to feel shit about themselves, I'd imagine it would have some cumulative impact
I'm sure there are some cultures out there where being fat is seen as superior to being thin.
As for the rest of the world I don't get why people just don't eat less and/or move more if they really wanna stay in a nice pretty slim shape. Don't even have to eat super healthy, just adjust the quantities. People collectively seem so fucking retarded when it comes to this stuff.
In Hmong culture, that was the case. Being fat was seen as a sign of eating well and such. Dunno about other cultures lol.
In the united states it is unacceptable to ask someone about their weight or make fun of someone for being fat, "body acceptance" is talked about alot. Compare this to asian cultures where being super skinny is ideal and family members usually greet people with "did you gain weight", it really isn't surprising how some of the lowest obesity rates are east asain
Yeah, what pisses me off is the Western society even seeing it as a illness. So never talk about those "poor" people. These people are just lazy, they are not ill. (of course exceptions EXIST)
Well but there's still no reason to "look down" on fat people or ridicule them. People don't do that with alcoholics either, although the latter is also dangerous to the person drinking and to people around them and costs society money. Same with several other addictions.
Smoking weed often isn't even perceived as something negative although potheads aren't exactly known for being the most disciplined or productive people in society.
Well, society not looking down on fat people and alcoholics is a big part of the problem. As long as both are classified as a disease, people have other factors to blame than themselves.
Yes, there is a tiny, neglectable percentage of people whose genetic disposition makes them more vulnerable to alcoholism and overeating. But remember, those diseases would barely exist if excess wasn't culturally accepted.
Do what you want health wise if you live in a society where you have to front the cost of your healthcare.
It becomes a societal issue when you have a nationalised health service. Judging from certain corners of the blogosphere and whatnot (always dangerous to draw wider conclusions from there mind!), there is an attempt to actually dispute that being overweight is in any way a negative thing, and I find that well, something of concern down the line.
In America ignorance is closer to the sickness while obesity being more of a symptom. We can't even pass laws to LABEL GMO's (not that they are neccessarily unhealthy) let alone get people on mass to get any sort of grasp on health.
On June 04 2014 09:19 Wombat_NI wrote: Do what you want health wise if you live in a society where you have to front the cost of your healthcare.
It becomes a societal issue when you have a nationalised health service. Judging from certain corners of the blogosphere and whatnot (always dangerous to draw wider conclusions from there mind!), there is an attempt to actually dispute that being overweight is in any way a negative thing, and I find that well, something of concern down the line.
i agree with you to some extend. on the other hand, the correlation between sickness and obesity is way, way smaller than society makes u believe. most of it has psychologic reasons, which society forces itself.
Besides your semi-true point, there really is no such thing as obesity being a problem. Not more or less than any other group of people is. Probably even less than most of them :O
It's not that GMO products are unhealthy, but the way it is mass produced (monoculture) which depletes the soil of nutrients. Not that corn has any nutritional value (and is actually unhealthy when mixed with a diet containing sugars from what I've read). "Organic" produced in the same fashion doesn't really offer much of an alternative. :D
On June 04 2014 09:19 Wombat_NI wrote: Do what you want health wise if you live in a society where you have to front the cost of your healthcare.
It becomes a societal issue when you have a nationalised health service. Judging from certain corners of the blogosphere and whatnot (always dangerous to draw wider conclusions from there mind!), there is an attempt to actually dispute that being overweight is in any way a negative thing, and I find that well, something of concern down the line.
i agree with you to some extend. on the other hand, the correlation between sickness and obesity is way, way smaller than society makes u believe. most of it has psychologic reasons, which society forces itself.
Besides your semi-true point, there really is no such thing as obesity being a problem. Not more or less than any other group of people is. Probably even less than most of them :O
You're functionally healthy until you die years before your time from certain issues that are exacerbated by being overweight, for example cardiovascular problems, diabetes etc. That's overplaying it to a degree, but it's not in the day-to-day that being overweight is a particularly big deal, it's it being a contributory factor in certain conditions that can straight-up kill you down the line.
BMI needs consigned to the dustbin of history in an unrelated sidetrack, and we need a more nuanced way of discussing the issue.
I still agree that we shouldn't look down on fat people, no reason to be condescending. But obesity still costs a shit ton of money, that remains a fact.
On June 04 2014 08:44 LSB wrote: That's a horrible study. Poverty is not a good indicator for overeating. In fact healthy food is far more expensive than cheap food. I can go to harolds chicken and get half a chicken (fried) and fries for $3.16, while buying healthy is more expensive (unless you decide to cook for yourself).
Likewise just working out doesn't mean you are not going to overeat. If you eat 5000 calories, no matter how tough your job is you will go fat
Yes, I would say quality is far more important of a factor than quantity... not all calories are created equal etc. That lines up with my own experiences when travelling between the US and Italy- where I ate at least 3 times more in quantity and lost weight compared to living in the US. Then you get into policy making and politics and subsidies for GMO corn and monoculture etc. In the example presented though, these people were getting by on scraps of food (and no KFC), directly challenging one of the popular caricatures that people seem to enjoy venting their hate upon.
Interesting link Nyxisto, albeit the American system is a basket case so not sure what to really draw from it
I was intrigued to see that the writer said that obesity doesn't significantly increase mortality, but results in increased use of healthcare costs throughout a lifetime, as smokers for example die out significantly younger on average.
On June 04 2014 08:44 LSB wrote: That's a horrible study. Poverty is not a good indicator for overeating. In fact healthy food is far more expensive than cheap food. I can go to harolds chicken and get half a chicken (fried) and fries for $3.16, while buying healthy is more expensive (unless you decide to cook for yourself).
Likewise just working out doesn't mean you are not going to overeat. If you eat 5000 calories, no matter how tough your job is you will go fat
Yes, I would say quality is far more important of a factor than quantity... not all calories are created equal etc. That lines up with my own experiences when travelling between the US and Italy- where I ate at least 3 times more in quantity and lost weight compared to living in the US. Then you get into policy making and politics and subsidies for GMO corn and monoculture etc. In the example presented though, these people were getting by on scraps of food (and no KFC), directly challenging one of the popular caricatures that people seem to enjoy venting their hate upon.
On June 04 2014 10:09 urboss wrote: So far I haven't heard any good argument against stigmatizing fat people. There's of course no need to be condescending while doing it.
Because we should treat other people with respect, no matter if they're fat or whatever?
On June 04 2014 10:09 urboss wrote: So far I haven't heard any good argument against stigmatizing fat people. There's of course no need to be condescending while doing it.
Because we should treat other people with respect, no matter if they're fat or whatever?
There's no need to be disrespectful while stigmatizing fat people. The stigmatization can be done in the form of laws that favor people who live a healthy life.
On June 04 2014 10:22 urboss wrote: There's no need to be disrespectful while stigmatizing fat people. The stigmatization can be done in the form of laws that favor people who live a healthy life.
This would surely lead to class warfare, quality of diet is often dependent on income. I would say incentives such as a focus on universal, preventive heath care, subsidizing healthier staples of food and the way it is produced rather than corn etc. But there are huge obstacles in the way, at least here in the US.
On June 04 2014 10:22 urboss wrote: There's no need to be disrespectful while stigmatizing fat people. The stigmatization can be done in the form of laws that favor people who live a healthy life.
This would surely lead to class warfare, quality of diet is often dependent on income. I would say incentives such as a focus on universal, preventive heath care, subsidizing healthier staples of food and the way it is produced rather than corn etc. But there are huge obstacles in the way, at least here in the US.
Quality of diet is actually a lot more dependent on how lazy you are. Cooking a healthy meal is no more expensive than going to rotten Ronnie's or eating that shit from the frozen section.
On June 04 2014 10:56 Zorkmid wrote: Quality of diet is actually a lot more dependent on how lazy you are. Cooking a healthy meal is no more expensive than going to rotten Ronnie's or eating that shit from the frozen section.
Probably the lesser of two evils, but it's practically all corn, frozen or cooked yourself. Probably more dependent on taking multi-vitamins and such. Also, going out to eat at restaurants can net you higher quality food than you can find at the supermarket. I went to culinary school, but lost the passion- the food here is just generally terrible compared with Europe.
Maybe we are all genetically prone to over eat? If you think about it, maybe the scarcity of food in the early days of mankind has caused us to continually want to eat because we were afraid we may not get the chance to if we wait.
Maybe fast food appeals to some part of our nature that tells us we need to eat quickly. Back in the cave man days when we were out hunting wooly mammoths or whatever, its not like you could just find a table in a park and calmly enjoy you're meal, you had to be quick and vigilant in case you were being hunted yourself.
No one ever gets bored of eating, no matter how often you do it, we always look forward to eating even though we've all done it thousands of times, that seems weird to me.
Also, almost every social occasion or tradition in every culture contains food of some kind, so we relate food with being social, with being safe and provided for, the term "comfort food" comes to mind. For me that is spaghetti, i could eat it everyday, and have eaten it for many days in a row before.
No one ever gets bored of eating, no matter how often you do it, we always look forward to eating even though we've all done it thousands of times, that seems weird to me.
Because we get hungry because our body needs energy to survive...??
No one ever gets bored of eating, no matter how often you do it, we always look forward to eating even though we've all done it thousands of times, that seems weird to me.
Because we get hungry because our body needs energy to survive...??
I know about that guy but I don't look forward to eating at all. It stifles my productivity and I know that in 24 hrs, I will have to take a huge load of shit which will spend about any from 10 minutes to 20 minutes to get rid of.
At the moment, the food I eat might have temporary enjoyment but I know that I WILL have to pay the price at a later time. Its just a matter of being smart with your diet. If you ain't smart about it, then you will die sooner.
On June 04 2014 10:56 Zorkmid wrote: Quality of diet is actually a lot more dependent on how lazy you are. Cooking a healthy meal is no more expensive than going to rotten Ronnie's or eating that shit from the frozen section.
Probably the lesser of two evils, but it's practically all corn, frozen or cooked yourself. Probably more dependent on taking multi-vitamins and such. Also, going out to eat at restaurants can net you higher quality food than you can find at the supermarket. I went to culinary school, but lost the passion- the food here is just generally terrible compared with Europe.
Restaurants serve the same exact things that you can get at the supermarket.
Restaurants serve the same exact things that you can get at the supermarket.
Then you must have really awesome supermarkets where you live or poor restaurants. :D Most of the product that I worked with when I was training to be a chef were things you would never even be able to find at a grocery store. And the things you could were nowhere near the same quality/grade... you'd need to go to a specialty store or butcher etc to find something even comparable. And of course many of the things I enjoyed in Sicily aren't even available at all in the US. A heavy cream called panna (or pana- however it's spelled, not that Frankenstein of a monstrosity called Alfredo- which isn't even Italian I don't believe) and ricotta made from sheep's milk. I worked at an "organic" produce/citrus factory over there, all product aged and ripened 100% naturally, not heat pasteurized like FL oranges. To be able to eat the quality of food that I was accustomed to having on a daily basis in Sicily would cost you at least around 100-150 bucks a plate here in the US at a swanky restaurant.
But I think what makes me laugh the most is lazy Americans pointing fingers at other lazy Americans because they go through the massive effort to one-stop shop to pick up their dog food and actually cook it and feel like that puts them up on some moral high horse. Just hilarious.
The problem is that we have an excess of food and a very sedentary lifestyle. We drive everywhere and a lot of our entertainment consists of sitting around staring at screens. Heck, a lot of well paying jobs consist of sitting around staring at screens. That kind of lifestyle does not require a great deal of energy to sustain.
Food consumption has gone up while daily caloric requirements have gone down. Obesity is the result.
Fixing it won't be easy, but making obese people feel bad about themselves is certainly not the right way to go about it.
Another problem is that a lot of people think exercise compensates a nutritionally poor diet. It doesn't, not even close. It's perfectly possible and common for a slim and seemingly fit person to have dreadful LDL-cholesterol and blood pressure levels.
On June 04 2014 14:46 daylu wrote: Maybe we are all genetically prone to over eat? If you think about it, maybe the scarcity of food in the early days of mankind has caused us to continually want to eat because we were afraid we may not get the chance to if we wait.
There's genes, and there's culture/environment. I've lived and travelled both in the US and Europe - portion sizes in the EU are smaller than US counterparts (even in the same global branded chain restaurants) to begin with, the sourcing of food and food processing is vastly different etc.
Also even within a country, your friends/colleagues also influence how/what/when you eat.
On June 04 2014 11:08 screamingpalm wrote: Probably the lesser of two evils, but it's practically all corn, frozen or cooked yourself. Probably more dependent on taking multi-vitamins and such. Also, going out to eat at restaurants can net you higher quality food than you can find at the supermarket. I went to culinary school, but lost the passion- the food here is just generally terrible compared with Europe.
Yes and no. Maybe they source better ingredients (and even that's debatable if you are talking a fast food place) but the preparation (added salt in particular) in a restaurant, even a swanky one, can make or break the nutrition of a meal.
Yes and no. Maybe they source better ingredients (and even that's debatable if you are talking a fast food place) but the preparation (added salt in particular) in a restaurant, even a swanky one, can make or break the nutrition of a meal.
Anyways, the article seems to rely on a basis of all calories being equal (which I'm not convinced of). It is a very complicated and confusing issue, one that I've tried reading up on as a hobby- and still feel like I don't understand it all. With all of the conflicting information and studies done by "experts" who may or may not be trying to sell a particular diet or product, I can only go by my own anecdotal experiences. While I would stop short of calling eating at a restaurant "healthy", at least I know I can find decent quality ingredients etc (I've never noticed much difference in the way I cooked while working at a restaurant from cooking at home aside from the quality of product being used). :D
On June 04 2014 08:44 LSB wrote: That's a horrible study. Poverty is not a good indicator for overeating. In fact healthy food is far more expensive than cheap food. I can go to harolds chicken and get half a chicken (fried) and fries for $3.16, while buying healthy is more expensive (unless you decide to cook for yourself).
Likewise just working out doesn't mean you are not going to overeat. If you eat 5000 calories, no matter how tough your job is you will go fat
Yes, I would say quality is far more important of a factor than quantity... not all calories are created equal etc. That lines up with my own experiences when travelling between the US and Italy- where I ate at least 3 times more in quantity and lost weight compared to living in the US. Then you get into policy making and politics and subsidies for GMO corn and monoculture etc. In the example presented though, these people were getting by on scraps of food (and no KFC), directly challenging one of the popular caricatures that people seem to enjoy venting their hate upon.
Doesn't matter if calories are equal or not. More important are vitamins, salts etc per calorie. You can eat anything to get proper amount of calories, the rest of it is what is hard in a modern society.
According to that map there are anywhere from 3-5 times as many obese female South Africans (40-50%) compared to male South Africans (10-15%). That's very interesting if true, but kind of leads me to doubt those numbers.
On June 22 2014 10:25 GhostKorean wrote: All calories are equal (It's a unit of energy) but there are many more factors to health than calories.
Oh it's a unit of energy????? That clears everything up then. I'm glad you brought up the various metabolic pathways by which differet calories are digested and made available to the body. The discussion of the role of AMP-K and mtor, insulin, ghrelin, IGF1, GH, somatostatin, and other extracellular signals has been elucidating. But at least we all know that if you only eat a couple twinkies every day you will lose fat and muscle mass so calories must be calories right?
On June 22 2014 11:41 hacklebeast wrote: According to that map there are anywhere from 3-5 times as many obese female South Africans (40-50%) compared to male South Africans (10-15%). That's very interesting if true, but kind of leads me to doubt those numbers.
Women being fatter than men is mainly a thing in developing countries. In South Africa in particular big women are sex symbols and associated with status and wealth, while skinny women are often associated with HIV.
On June 22 2014 10:25 GhostKorean wrote: All calories are equal (It's a unit of energy) but there are many more factors to health than calories.
Oh it's a unit of energy????? That clears everything up then. I'm glad you brought up the various metabolic pathways by which differet calories are digested and made available to the body. The discussion of the role of AMP-K and mtor, insulin, ghrelin, IGF1, GH, somatostatin, and other extracellular signals has been elucidating. But at least we all know that if you only eat a couple twinkies every day you will lose fat and muscle mass so calories must be calories right?
I'm not promoting no poptart diet but i stand by my point that all calories are equal just as all kilograms and metres are equal.
On June 22 2014 10:25 GhostKorean wrote: All calories are equal (It's a unit of energy) but there are many more factors to health than calories.
Oh it's a unit of energy????? That clears everything up then. I'm glad you brought up the various metabolic pathways by which differet calories are digested and made available to the body. The discussion of the role of AMP-K and mtor, insulin, ghrelin, IGF1, GH, somatostatin, and other extracellular signals has been elucidating. But at least we all know that if you only eat a couple twinkies every day you will lose fat and muscle mass so calories must be calories right?
I'm not promoting no poptart diet but i stand by my point that all calories are equal just as all kilograms and metres are equal.
you should make a distinction though: the amount of calories that can be extracted from the same quality/quantity of food, differs from body to body (based on internal mechanism/genetics/or what-ever-differences you have there).
this thread is nothing but a boogeyman. there is literally nothing wrong with being fat. #FatAcceptance #BodyPositive #HealthyAtAllSizes #Shitlords #SmashThePatriarchy
Healthy food is so freaking expensive, because time IS money (if I have too much money, I take an extra month vacation f.ex). And please stop with the braindead calorie is equal bullshit. It's way too simplified. A healthy meal leaves you way more satisfied then mcdonalds.
On June 22 2014 10:25 GhostKorean wrote: All calories are equal (It's a unit of energy) but there are many more factors to health than calories.
Oh it's a unit of energy????? That clears everything up then. I'm glad you brought up the various metabolic pathways by which differet calories are digested and made available to the body. The discussion of the role of AMP-K and mtor, insulin, ghrelin, IGF1, GH, somatostatin, and other extracellular signals has been elucidating. But at least we all know that if you only eat a couple twinkies every day you will lose fat and muscle mass so calories must be calories right?
I'm not promoting no poptart diet but i stand by my point that all calories are equal just as all kilograms and metres are equal.
you should make a distinction though: the amount of calories that can be extracted from the same quality/quantity of food, differs from body to body (based on internal mechanism/genetics/or what-ever-differences you have there).
Different foods have different effects on a persons feeling of satiety and in turn makes them consume more or less foods. Biochemistry is interesting and fun but more academic than useful if this context. I mean the eat less and do more mantra is hardly a new thing.
You guys are blowing my mind....does what i'm trying to clarify here make more sense to you when i say all kilojoules are created equal? How on earth do we measure anything at all when the units of measure we use are not consistent.
On May 29 2014 21:58 Silvanel wrote: Not to dismiss problem (because its really serious) but BMI is a joke. I have BMI of 24,8 and everyone says i am skinny. One can be 25<BMI<30 pretty easily and be super healthy and not overweight at all.
BMI is not a joke, it's just a rule of thumb that does work on average. I'm pretty sure there is a good reason why it doesn't work for you.
On June 22 2014 11:41 hacklebeast wrote: According to that map there are anywhere from 3-5 times as many obese female South Africans (40-50%) compared to male South Africans (10-15%). That's very interesting if true, but kind of leads me to doubt those numbers.
Women being fatter than men is mainly a thing in developing countries. In South Africa in particular big women are sex symbols and associated with status and wealth, while skinny women are often associated with HIV.
I'm not an expert on the subject but I've read numerous times women do have a genetical predisposition to more fat. A quick google search game me this
There are many reasons why women have more body fat than men. One is biological. Body fat content is 25% for women at normal size compared to 15% for men. All other things being equal, such as age and exercise levels, women require fewer calories per pound of body weight daily than do men. Female hormones make it easier to convert fat into food. Women more often do the cooking in the households. Finally, in fat-prone women, birth control pills cause the body to produce increased amounts of fat and water. Estrogen alone will cause increased deposition of fat. Anyone on the pill needs to decrease caloric intake by at least 10% in order to maintain the same weight. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=8519
But that clearly does not explain the huge gap in SA.
On June 22 2014 20:37 crappen wrote: And please stop with the braindead calorie is equal bullshit. It's way too simplified. A healthy meal leaves you way more satisfied then mcdonalds.
That is not the point though.
If you eat 2000 kcal of McDonalds versus 2000 kcal of 'healthy meals' you will have consumed the same amount of calories.
I see what you are saying, that people who ate those 2000kcal of McDonalds will probably snack during the day since they are not feeling satisfied, compared to the healthy food group who are feeling satisfied by the 2000kcal they already ate. This doesn't mean that you can call it "braindead calorie is equal bullshit" though, since if you follow the daily calorie intake that you had planned, eating 2000kcal McD or 2000kcal 'healthy meals' will make no difference in calories consumed.
That is true, women do have more body fat in general, but the BMI doesn't measure the body fat alone. You can use the BMI to measure a difference in body fat, as long as musculature stays the same. For normal sized persons, men have a slightly higher BMI than women. However, overweight women tend to have a higher BMI than overweight men.
On June 22 2014 20:37 crappen wrote: And please stop with the braindead calorie is equal bullshit. It's way too simplified. A healthy meal leaves you way more satisfied then mcdonalds.
That is not the point though.
If you eat 2000 kcal of McDonalds versus 2000 kcal of 'healthy meals' you will have consumed the same amount of calories.
I see what you are saying, that people who ate those 2000kcal of McDonalds will probably snack during the day since they are not feeling satisfied, compared to the healthy food group who are feeling satisfied by the 2000kcal they already ate. This doesn't mean that you can call it "braindead calorie is equal bullshit" though, since if you follow the daily calorie intake that you had planned, eating 2000kcal McD or 2000kcal 'healthy meals' will make no difference in calories consumed.
You say you see what he is saying and then attempt to reiterate nonsense.
Those calories are not comparable. That is the end of it. Maybe the people who eat that eat other stuff maybe they dont. When i eat that stuff i dont eat anythign else for ages because i feel like shit and cant eat anything until i do have a shit.
You are attempting to edge into an argument that is factual with a generalisation of a counter case that attempts to equate 2 things that are obviously not equal.
The purpose of calorie diets is NOT the amount of calories you eat - unless you are stupid enough to replace the kpi that you are using to indicate a measurement with an absolute requirement. In which case there is no hope for you.
Its like saying rotten meat is bat for you threfor all meat is bad. Don't mistake the abstraction for what it is.
The amount of misinformation in this thread is staggering and only demonstrates a large component of the issue. People aren't informed about energy intake and output well enough to make educated choices.
Working behind a desk during the day and sitting on the couch/behind the pc in the evening doesn't help either.
I'm a skinny guy, but during my ICT jobs my weight went up to 100kilo. Those jobs paid good money, but I hated them.
In the end I gave up on it.
I found out I was way more happy with a less paid, less serious job in a big busy store than a well paid job in an office. No more stress, no more deadlines. Instead of staring at the same monitor, together with the same 3 people in the same room day in day out who rarely say a word, I'm now chatting and having fun at my work with all kinds of different people all day.
And no more sitting all day anymore. Still enough sitting of course, I'm still a gamer But during the day lots more walking and standing. That's all that was needed for me, I lost 30kilos and that's back to the 70 kilo I've always been
No sports. No diet. Just less stress, more fun and more walking during the day. Fuck my 5 year study and career. Im so much healthier and happier now
On June 22 2014 20:37 crappen wrote: And please stop with the braindead calorie is equal bullshit. It's way too simplified. A healthy meal leaves you way more satisfied then mcdonalds.
That is not the point though.
If you eat 2000 kcal of McDonalds versus 2000 kcal of 'healthy meals' you will have consumed the same amount of calories.
I see what you are saying, that people who ate those 2000kcal of McDonalds will probably snack during the day since they are not feeling satisfied, compared to the healthy food group who are feeling satisfied by the 2000kcal they already ate. This doesn't mean that you can call it "braindead calorie is equal bullshit" though, since if you follow the daily calorie intake that you had planned, eating 2000kcal McD or 2000kcal 'healthy meals' will make no difference in calories consumed.
Saying a calorie is a calorie, in that as a unit of energy it is exactly equal to another identical unit of energy, is an obscuring banality, even putting aside the methods used to measure and quantify calories in different foods.
But I am saying precisely that a person who is only allowed to eat a 2kcal diet of dry cereal will look different and be a different weight than the same person on a 2kcal meat and vegetable diet and the same person on a 2kcal big mac and fries diet. Energy utilization and partitioning within the body depends on the type, quantity, and timing of calories ingested, as well as upon the needs and state (rested, walking, just ran a marathon, just spent an hour lifting weights) of the body consuming those calories.
The only thing that the twinkie diet teaches us is that it's still possible to starve yourself eating just a twinkie everyday which should have been obvious.
On June 22 2014 20:37 crappen wrote: And please stop with the braindead calorie is equal bullshit. It's way too simplified. A healthy meal leaves you way more satisfied then mcdonalds.
That is not the point though.
If you eat 2000 kcal of McDonalds versus 2000 kcal of 'healthy meals' you will have consumed the same amount of calories.
I see what you are saying, that people who ate those 2000kcal of McDonalds will probably snack during the day since they are not feeling satisfied, compared to the healthy food group who are feeling satisfied by the 2000kcal they already ate. This doesn't mean that you can call it "braindead calorie is equal bullshit" though, since if you follow the daily calorie intake that you had planned, eating 2000kcal McD or 2000kcal 'healthy meals' will make no difference in calories consumed.
Saying a calorie is a calorie, in that as a unit of energy it is exactly equal to another identical unit of energy, is an obscuring banality, even putting aside the methods used to measure and quantify calories in different foods.
But I am saying precisely that a person who is only allowed to eat a 2kcal diet of dry cereal will look different and be a different weight than the same person on a 2kcal meat and vegetable diet and the same person on a 2kcal big mac and fries diet. Energy utilization and partitioning within the body depends on the type, quantity, and timing of calories ingested, as well as upon the needs and state (rested, walking, just ran a marathon, just spent an hour lifting weights) of the body consuming those calories.
The only thing that the twinkie diet teaches us is that it's still possible to starve yourself eating just a twinkie everyday which should have been obvious.
You didn't even take a look at it... He ate 1800 kcal of twinkies. He also wasn't stupid, did take multivitamins and protein supplements. The end result seems to have been the expected weight loss just as with any normal 1800 kcal diet for his particular body and level of activity. The numbers in his blood work improved.
This thread is about people that have 20 kg too much weight or something. Losing so much weight will take years of work. The supposedly stupid counting of calories will absolutely work for the affected person. I feel this nutrition talk about minerals and vitamins and proteins or whatever is the obscuring banality.
-everyone giving the food industry the blame instead of taking responsibility. -trying to make it look as if everyone wants to eat healthy but they cant because there is an evil mafia behind this ^^
face it, if you want to eat healthy you can. if you want to lose weight you can. You can do this without sacrificing anything in your life. You dont even need to exercise. But well its easier to say simply it is the unhealthy foods fault for which we paid for. Grow up people seriously :/
On June 23 2014 03:29 404AlphaSquad wrote: The people in this thread make me laugh :
-everyone giving the food industry the blame instead of taking responsibility. -trying to make it look as if everyone wants to eat healthy but they cant because there is an evil mafia behind this ^^
face it, if you want to eat healthy you can. if you want to lose weight you can. You can do this without sacrificing anything in your life. You dont even need to exercise. But well its easier to say simply it is the unhealthy foods fault for which we paid for. Grow up people seriously :/
Meh. People prefer blaming others or diseases rather than themself. That's normal. Obviously it's not rocket science that you lose weight by running even a slight energy deficit but then again that requires willpower and some work for most people, i.e. the ones that aren't actually ill.
However it's fruitless preaching all that again and again. Most people do know that and choose to ignore it. That's fine with me (it's your body overall) but I guess insurance companies should react and adjust their rates accordingly and either reward people for living healthy or punish for being unhealthy, whatever they prefer. Do whatever you want to, just don't make me pay for the consequences.
On June 22 2014 20:37 crappen wrote: And please stop with the braindead calorie is equal bullshit. It's way too simplified. A healthy meal leaves you way more satisfied then mcdonalds.
That is not the point though.
If you eat 2000 kcal of McDonalds versus 2000 kcal of 'healthy meals' you will have consumed the same amount of calories.
I see what you are saying, that people who ate those 2000kcal of McDonalds will probably snack during the day since they are not feeling satisfied, compared to the healthy food group who are feeling satisfied by the 2000kcal they already ate. This doesn't mean that you can call it "braindead calorie is equal bullshit" though, since if you follow the daily calorie intake that you had planned, eating 2000kcal McD or 2000kcal 'healthy meals' will make no difference in calories consumed.
Saying a calorie is a calorie, in that as a unit of energy it is exactly equal to another identical unit of energy, is an obscuring banality, even putting aside the methods used to measure and quantify calories in different foods.
But I am saying precisely that a person who is only allowed to eat a 2kcal diet of dry cereal will look different and be a different weight than the same person on a 2kcal meat and vegetable diet and the same person on a 2kcal big mac and fries diet. Energy utilization and partitioning within the body depends on the type, quantity, and timing of calories ingested, as well as upon the needs and state (rested, walking, just ran a marathon, just spent an hour lifting weights) of the body consuming those calories.
The only thing that the twinkie diet teaches us is that it's still possible to starve yourself eating just a twinkie everyday which should have been obvious.
You didn't even take a look at it... He ate 1800 kcal of twinkies. He also wasn't stupid, did take multivitamins and protein supplements. The end result seems to have been the expected weight loss just as with any normal 1800 kcal diet for his particular body and level of activity. The numbers in his blood work improved.
This thread is about people that have 20 kg too much weight or something. Losing so much weight will take years of work. The supposedly stupid counting of calories will absolutely work for the affected person. I feel this nutrition talk about minerals and vitamins and proteins or whatever is the obscuring banality.
Just because every calorie isn't equal doesn't mean that counting calories is stupid. Obviously you can lose weight by eating less. How much weight, what type of weight (fat, muscle), and for how long all depend on what those calories are though. I'm responding to the assertion that "all calories are created equal," which even in the narrow context of how much fat you store or lose is simply not true. But only an idiot would take my argument to mean that the quantity of food you eat doesn't matter.
On June 23 2014 03:29 404AlphaSquad wrote: The people in this thread make me laugh :
-everyone giving the food industry the blame instead of taking responsibility. -trying to make it look as if everyone wants to eat healthy but they cant because there is an evil mafia behind this ^^
face it, if you want to eat healthy you can. if you want to lose weight you can. You can do this without sacrificing anything in your life. You dont even need to exercise. But well its easier to say simply it is the unhealthy foods fault for which we paid for. Grow up people seriously :/
Yes the food industry has nothing to do with it. People are making fully informed, fully free decisions to eat what they do. Just like they are choosing where to work.
On June 23 2014 03:39 zdfgucker wrote: ...and either reward people for living healthy or punish for being unhealthy, whatever they prefer. Do whatever you want to, just don't make me pay for the consequences.
Same is true for alcohol, any other drug, dangerous sports, and basically everything that is fun and involves you leaving your house. I'd rather pay for other peoples stupid behaviour than live in a society of pretentious pricks.
On June 23 2014 03:29 404AlphaSquad wrote: The people in this thread make me laugh :
-everyone giving the food industry the blame instead of taking responsibility. -trying to make it look as if everyone wants to eat healthy but they cant because there is an evil mafia behind this ^^
face it, if you want to eat healthy you can. if you want to lose weight you can. You can do this without sacrificing anything in your life. You dont even need to exercise. But well its easier to say simply it is the unhealthy foods fault for which we paid for. Grow up people seriously :/
Yes the food industry has nothing to do with it. People are making fully informed, fully free decisions to eat what they do. Just like they are choosing where to work.
You don't need to have a PhD in nutritional science to understand how much food is too much. People are pretty intuitive when it comes to how much they should eat.
Yes the food industry has nothing to do with it. People are making fully informed, fully free decisions to eat what they do. Just like they are choosing where to work.
You don't need to have a PhD in nutritional science to understand how much food is too much. People are pretty intuitive when it comes to how much they should eat.
Yeah you don't need a PhD but come on. That's demonstrably false. Most of the food people eat in the western world is processed food. People routinely eat more of that food than they should because its addictive, deceptively caloric, and nutrient poor. I know that you would prefer that it was intuitive to people but it's not.
On June 22 2014 20:37 crappen wrote: And please stop with the braindead calorie is equal bullshit. It's way too simplified. A healthy meal leaves you way more satisfied then mcdonalds.
That is not the point though.
If you eat 2000 kcal of McDonalds versus 2000 kcal of 'healthy meals' you will have consumed the same amount of calories.
I see what you are saying, that people who ate those 2000kcal of McDonalds will probably snack during the day since they are not feeling satisfied, compared to the healthy food group who are feeling satisfied by the 2000kcal they already ate. This doesn't mean that you can call it "braindead calorie is equal bullshit" though, since if you follow the daily calorie intake that you had planned, eating 2000kcal McD or 2000kcal 'healthy meals' will make no difference in calories consumed.
Saying a calorie is a calorie, in that as a unit of energy it is exactly equal to another identical unit of energy, is an obscuring banality, even putting aside the methods used to measure and quantify calories in different foods.
But I am saying precisely that a person who is only allowed to eat a 2kcal diet of dry cereal will look different and be a different weight than the same person on a 2kcal meat and vegetable diet and the same person on a 2kcal big mac and fries diet. Energy utilization and partitioning within the body depends on the type, quantity, and timing of calories ingested, as well as upon the needs and state (rested, walking, just ran a marathon, just spent an hour lifting weights) of the body consuming those calories.
The only thing that the twinkie diet teaches us is that it's still possible to starve yourself eating just a twinkie everyday which should have been obvious.
You didn't even take a look at it... He ate 1800 kcal of twinkies. He also wasn't stupid, did take multivitamins and protein supplements. The end result seems to have been the expected weight loss just as with any normal 1800 kcal diet for his particular body and level of activity. The numbers in his blood work improved.
This thread is about people that have 20 kg too much weight or something. Losing so much weight will take years of work. The supposedly stupid counting of calories will absolutely work for the affected person. I feel this nutrition talk about minerals and vitamins and proteins or whatever is the obscuring banality.
Just because every calorie isn't equal doesn't mean that counting calories is stupid. Obviously you can lose weight by eating less. How much weight, what type of weight (fat, muscle), and for how long all depend on what those calories are though. I'm responding to the assertion that "all calories are created equal," which even in the narrow context of how much fat you store or lose is simply not true. But only an idiot would take my argument to mean that the quantity of food you eat doesn't matter.
From everything I've learned about this, this is just not true. The diet can be close to 100% carbs or it can be close to 100% fats, and it ends up being roughly the same.
Yes the food industry has nothing to do with it. People are making fully informed, fully free decisions to eat what they do. Just like they are choosing where to work.
You don't need to have a PhD in nutritional science to understand how much food is too much. People are pretty intuitive when it comes to how much they should eat.
Yeah you don't need a PhD but come on. That's demonstrably false. Most of the food people eat in the western world is processed food. People routinely eat more of that food than they should because its addictive, deceptively caloric, and nutrient poor. I know that you would prefer that it was intuitive to people but it's not.
You don't just wake up and are obese. If you're gaining weight you start noticing it. You can argue that people aren't responsible for being undisciplined , which might very well be true, but it's not about the knowledge or the deceptive food industry.
Yes the food industry has nothing to do with it. People are making fully informed, fully free decisions to eat what they do. Just like they are choosing where to work.
You don't need to have a PhD in nutritional science to understand how much food is too much. People are pretty intuitive when it comes to how much they should eat.
Yeah you don't need a PhD but come on. That's demonstrably false. Most of the food people eat in the western world is processed food. People routinely eat more of that food than they should because its addictive, deceptively caloric, and nutrient poor. I know that you would prefer that it was intuitive to people but it's not.
You don't just wake up and are obese. If you're gaining weight you start noticing it. You can argue that people aren't responsible for being undisciplined , which might very well be true, but it's not about the knowledge or the deceptive food industry.
So you've gone from, "knowing how much to eat of a given meal throughout the day is intuitive" to "you don't just wake up one day with a bunch of fat on you." If you can't see how the two are different I don't know what to tell you. The realities of living mean that people have to make judgments about how much to eat without knowing how many calories are in what they are eating, being 20%, 30%, 50% off of the real values. On top of that they have a broken metabolism, broken by design through an industry that knows its selling non-nutritive, calorically dense, addictive, unsatisfying products, so that they don't feel full until they've overeaten and feel hungry when they don't need to eat. If you say, fine, fine, that's all true but people still can notice they are getting fat then you've just fallen back into an obviously true, completely trivial observation that lends nothing to the conversation except obfuscating the real issues at play. Quibbling over semantics and saying that individuals who are motivated and knowledgeable can through real effort change their situation (another banality of the kind that you seem to be fond of) is morally dubious, uncompassionate, and oblivious.
On June 22 2014 20:37 crappen wrote: And please stop with the braindead calorie is equal bullshit. It's way too simplified. A healthy meal leaves you way more satisfied then mcdonalds.
That is not the point though.
If you eat 2000 kcal of McDonalds versus 2000 kcal of 'healthy meals' you will have consumed the same amount of calories.
I see what you are saying, that people who ate those 2000kcal of McDonalds will probably snack during the day since they are not feeling satisfied, compared to the healthy food group who are feeling satisfied by the 2000kcal they already ate. This doesn't mean that you can call it "braindead calorie is equal bullshit" though, since if you follow the daily calorie intake that you had planned, eating 2000kcal McD or 2000kcal 'healthy meals' will make no difference in calories consumed.
Saying a calorie is a calorie, in that as a unit of energy it is exactly equal to another identical unit of energy, is an obscuring banality, even putting aside the methods used to measure and quantify calories in different foods.
But I am saying precisely that a person who is only allowed to eat a 2kcal diet of dry cereal will look different and be a different weight than the same person on a 2kcal meat and vegetable diet and the same person on a 2kcal big mac and fries diet. Energy utilization and partitioning within the body depends on the type, quantity, and timing of calories ingested, as well as upon the needs and state (rested, walking, just ran a marathon, just spent an hour lifting weights) of the body consuming those calories.
The only thing that the twinkie diet teaches us is that it's still possible to starve yourself eating just a twinkie everyday which should have been obvious.
You didn't even take a look at it... He ate 1800 kcal of twinkies. He also wasn't stupid, did take multivitamins and protein supplements. The end result seems to have been the expected weight loss just as with any normal 1800 kcal diet for his particular body and level of activity. The numbers in his blood work improved.
This thread is about people that have 20 kg too much weight or something. Losing so much weight will take years of work. The supposedly stupid counting of calories will absolutely work for the affected person. I feel this nutrition talk about minerals and vitamins and proteins or whatever is the obscuring banality.
Just because every calorie isn't equal doesn't mean that counting calories is stupid. Obviously you can lose weight by eating less. How much weight, what type of weight (fat, muscle), and for how long all depend on what those calories are though. I'm responding to the assertion that "all calories are created equal," which even in the narrow context of how much fat you store or lose is simply not true. But only an idiot would take my argument to mean that the quantity of food you eat doesn't matter.
From everything I've learned about this, this is just not true. The diet can be close to 100% carbs or it can be close to 100% fats, and it ends up being roughly the same.
That's great. Nutrition is perhaps the most convoluted human science. Nutrition books are already a decade or more out of date by the time they get published, and combing through nutrition books over several decades leads to totally conflicting information. I'm not even going to evaluate the hyperbolic claims you've asserted because they are ridiculous on their face, depending on your definition of "close to." If you want to talk about the nitty gritty of an actually complete diet compared to another actual complete diet be my guest. I wouldn't deny that diets can get similar results despite varying widely between people or even across the same person. That still doesn't mean that all calories are created equal. There's no biological basis for the distinction between "drugs" and "foodstuffs" that some cultures and governments create. We aren't cars with combustion engines.
On June 23 2014 06:05 IgnE wrote: Quibbling over semantics and saying that individuals who are motivated and knowledgeable can through real effort change their situation (another banality of the kind that you seem to be fond of) is morally dubious, uncompassionate, and oblivious.
But what are you gonna do about it? That's the only way to shed pounds. Banning food is probably not a very good idea given the fact other prohibition adventures went.
On June 22 2014 20:37 crappen wrote: And please stop with the braindead calorie is equal bullshit. It's way too simplified. A healthy meal leaves you way more satisfied then mcdonalds.
That is not the point though.
If you eat 2000 kcal of McDonalds versus 2000 kcal of 'healthy meals' you will have consumed the same amount of calories.
I see what you are saying, that people who ate those 2000kcal of McDonalds will probably snack during the day since they are not feeling satisfied, compared to the healthy food group who are feeling satisfied by the 2000kcal they already ate. This doesn't mean that you can call it "braindead calorie is equal bullshit" though, since if you follow the daily calorie intake that you had planned, eating 2000kcal McD or 2000kcal 'healthy meals' will make no difference in calories consumed.
Saying a calorie is a calorie, in that as a unit of energy it is exactly equal to another identical unit of energy, is an obscuring banality, even putting aside the methods used to measure and quantify calories in different foods.
But I am saying precisely that a person who is only allowed to eat a 2kcal diet of dry cereal will look different and be a different weight than the same person on a 2kcal meat and vegetable diet and the same person on a 2kcal big mac and fries diet. Energy utilization and partitioning within the body depends on the type, quantity, and timing of calories ingested, as well as upon the needs and state (rested, walking, just ran a marathon, just spent an hour lifting weights) of the body consuming those calories.
The only thing that the twinkie diet teaches us is that it's still possible to starve yourself eating just a twinkie everyday which should have been obvious.
You didn't even take a look at it... He ate 1800 kcal of twinkies. He also wasn't stupid, did take multivitamins and protein supplements. The end result seems to have been the expected weight loss just as with any normal 1800 kcal diet for his particular body and level of activity. The numbers in his blood work improved.
This thread is about people that have 20 kg too much weight or something. Losing so much weight will take years of work. The supposedly stupid counting of calories will absolutely work for the affected person. I feel this nutrition talk about minerals and vitamins and proteins or whatever is the obscuring banality.
Just because every calorie isn't equal doesn't mean that counting calories is stupid. Obviously you can lose weight by eating less. How much weight, what type of weight (fat, muscle), and for how long all depend on what those calories are though. I'm responding to the assertion that "all calories are created equal," which even in the narrow context of how much fat you store or lose is simply not true. But only an idiot would take my argument to mean that the quantity of food you eat doesn't matter.
From everything I've learned about this, this is just not true. The diet can be close to 100% carbs or it can be close to 100% fats, and it ends up being roughly the same.
That's great. Nutrition is perhaps the most convoluted human science. Nutrition books are already a decade or more out of date by the time they get published, and combing through nutrition books over several decades leads to totally conflicting information. I'm not even going to evaluate the hyperbolic claims you've asserted because they are ridiculous on their face, depending on your definition of "close to." If you want to talk about the nitty gritty of an actually complete diet compared to another actual complete diet be my guest. I wouldn't deny that diets can get similar results despite varying widely between people or even across the same person. That still doesn't mean that all calories are created equal. There's no biological basis for the distinction between "drugs" and "foodstuffs" that some cultures and governments create. We aren't cars with combustion engines.
I feel I don't understand your point. I read what you are saying as, obese people would be merely overweight or possibly normal-weight if they'd rearrange the sources for the calories in their diet, could stay with the exact same overall calorie count despite losing weight? I really think that's just wrong. Do you have something concrete I could look at, perhaps a study about a particular diet change or something?
No of course not. People who are eating 3k or 4k calories a day and not engaging in the active lifestyle to maintain it are always going to be fat. What I'm saying is that simply encouraging people to "just eat less" of the shitty box cereal, white bread sandwiches, soda, potato chips, and boxed dinners they are currently eating is not going to work for a number of behavioral and pragmatic reasons that are inextricably bound up with the biochemical pathways and feedback loops of eating food. Saying "just eat less" ignores the very reasons they got fat in the first place.
You can lose a lot more weight, maintain a lot more muscle, and feel healthier eating X number of calories of real food than you can eating X number of calories eating the garbage that passes for food in most American grocery stores. Not only is compliance and success rate going to be higher with the real food option but there are also going to be physical differences in the weight lost on a twinkie diet of X calories vs. a raw vegan diet vs. a fruit, vegetable, and meat diet because all affect the maintenance and operation of your body in different ways.
On June 23 2014 06:05 IgnE wrote: Quibbling over semantics and saying that individuals who are motivated and knowledgeable can through real effort change their situation (another banality of the kind that you seem to be fond of) is morally dubious, uncompassionate, and oblivious.
But what are you gonna do about it? That's the only way to shed pounds. Banning food is probably not a very good idea given the fact other prohibition adventures went.
There are plenty of things you can do about it beyond the intellectually lazy dichotomy of preserving the status quo or banning foods.
On June 23 2014 06:05 IgnE wrote: Quibbling over semantics and saying that individuals who are motivated and knowledgeable can through real effort change their situation (another banality of the kind that you seem to be fond of) is morally dubious, uncompassionate, and oblivious.
But what are you gonna do about it? That's the only way to shed pounds. Banning food is probably not a very good idea given the fact other prohibition adventures went.
There are plenty of things you can do about it beyond the intellectually lazy dichotomy of preserving the status quo or banning foods.
TIL Libya is the fattest country in the world? (certainly to women at the least) I never would have thought... However, what's the source of that information? Wikipedia doesn't have Libya listed for stats on their map, and other sources tend to not have Libya either. Many sources seem to say the USA has the most fat people, but I guess it depends what breakpoints you use for the map colors (if using a map), or what the break-point is for what's considered to be overweight or obese (some countries may have different distributions of weight — different bell curves).
On June 22 2014 23:36 Zerste wrote: The amount of misinformation in this thread is staggering and only demonstrates a large component of the issue. People aren't informed about energy intake and output well enough to make educated choices.
I agree. I read virtually no comments, but I've heard all sorts of stuff in other places about this sort of thing, and many people seemingly have poor understanding of what makes a person overweight.
Sure, unhealthy food is unhealthy, but that's not what makes people overweight.
On June 22 2014 20:37 crappen wrote: And please stop with the braindead calorie is equal bullshit. It's way too simplified. A healthy meal leaves you way more satisfied then mcdonalds.
That is not the point though.
If you eat 2000 kcal of McDonalds versus 2000 kcal of 'healthy meals' you will have consumed the same amount of calories.
I see what you are saying, that people who ate those 2000kcal of McDonalds will probably snack during the day since they are not feeling satisfied, compared to the healthy food group who are feeling satisfied by the 2000kcal they already ate. This doesn't mean that you can call it "braindead calorie is equal bullshit" though, since if you follow the daily calorie intake that you had planned, eating 2000kcal McD or 2000kcal 'healthy meals' will make no difference in calories consumed.
Saying a calorie is a calorie, in that as a unit of energy it is exactly equal to another identical unit of energy, is an obscuring banality, even putting aside the methods used to measure and quantify calories in different foods.
But I am saying precisely that a person who is only allowed to eat a 2kcal diet of dry cereal will look different and be a different weight than the same person on a 2kcal meat and vegetable diet and the same person on a 2kcal big mac and fries diet. Energy utilization and partitioning within the body depends on the type, quantity, and timing of calories ingested, as well as upon the needs and state (rested, walking, just ran a marathon, just spent an hour lifting weights) of the body consuming those calories.
The only thing that the twinkie diet teaches us is that it's still possible to starve yourself eating just a twinkie everyday which should have been obvious.
You didn't even take a look at it... He ate 1800 kcal of twinkies. He also wasn't stupid, did take multivitamins and protein supplements. The end result seems to have been the expected weight loss just as with any normal 1800 kcal diet for his particular body and level of activity. The numbers in his blood work improved.
This thread is about people that have 20 kg too much weight or something. Losing so much weight will take years of work. The supposedly stupid counting of calories will absolutely work for the affected person. I feel this nutrition talk about minerals and vitamins and proteins or whatever is the obscuring banality.
Just because every calorie isn't equal doesn't mean that counting calories is stupid. Obviously you can lose weight by eating less. How much weight, what type of weight (fat, muscle), and for how long all depend on what those calories are though. I'm responding to the assertion that "all calories are created equal," which even in the narrow context of how much fat you store or lose is simply not true. But only an idiot would take my argument to mean that the quantity of food you eat doesn't matter.
I am going to insist that every calorie is equal. I think you are conflating calories and calorie sources to be the same thing. You might think that it's vapid semantics but i would agree with everything you've posted if instead of 'calories' you wrote 'source of calories'.
On June 23 2014 07:21 Xapti wrote: TIL Libya is the fattest country in the world? (certainly to women at the least) I never would have thought... However, what's the source of that information? Wikipedia doesn't have Libya listed for stats on their map, and other sources tend to not have Libya either. Many sources seem to say the USA has the most fat people, but I guess it depends what breakpoints you use for the map colors (if using a map), or what the break-point is for what's considered to be overweight or obese (some countries may have different distributions of weight — different bell curves).
On June 22 2014 23:36 Zerste wrote: The amount of misinformation in this thread is staggering and only demonstrates a large component of the issue. People aren't informed about energy intake and output well enough to make educated choices.
I agree. I read virtually no comments, but I've heard all sorts of stuff in other places about this sort of thing, and many people seemingly have poor understanding of what makes a person overweight.
Sure, unhealthy food is unhealthy, but that's not what makes people overweight.
There is also lack of exercise.
And lack of exercise is heavily attributed to our technology-filled society.
40 or even 30 years ago, kids were playing in the playground in all kind of sports while nowadays, you will find many of them playing on their parent's tablets and/or smartphones.
Then most them will become adults and copy those behaviors upon the next generation.
I looked what my BMI is. Apparently i'm overweight. At 6 feet tall, i should only weight at max around 173 pounds. I weigh about 180. I'm really shocked only 37% of men are are considered overweight or above. I'm just about as thin as you can get. I have a flat stomach and recently started doing ab workouts because i can see my oblique lines and thought it wouldn't take much to get a six pack. I run a few times a week and am going to start doing P90x, i went through the program last year.
EDIT: according to different BMI calculation I'm at 24.4 just skating that line but not overweight.
On June 22 2014 20:37 crappen wrote: And please stop with the braindead calorie is equal bullshit. It's way too simplified. A healthy meal leaves you way more satisfied then mcdonalds.
That is not the point though.
If you eat 2000 kcal of McDonalds versus 2000 kcal of 'healthy meals' you will have consumed the same amount of calories.
I see what you are saying, that people who ate those 2000kcal of McDonalds will probably snack during the day since they are not feeling satisfied, compared to the healthy food group who are feeling satisfied by the 2000kcal they already ate. This doesn't mean that you can call it "braindead calorie is equal bullshit" though, since if you follow the daily calorie intake that you had planned, eating 2000kcal McD or 2000kcal 'healthy meals' will make no difference in calories consumed.
Saying a calorie is a calorie, in that as a unit of energy it is exactly equal to another identical unit of energy, is an obscuring banality, even putting aside the methods used to measure and quantify calories in different foods.
But I am saying precisely that a person who is only allowed to eat a 2kcal diet of dry cereal will look different and be a different weight than the same person on a 2kcal meat and vegetable diet and the same person on a 2kcal big mac and fries diet. Energy utilization and partitioning within the body depends on the type, quantity, and timing of calories ingested, as well as upon the needs and state (rested, walking, just ran a marathon, just spent an hour lifting weights) of the body consuming those calories.
The only thing that the twinkie diet teaches us is that it's still possible to starve yourself eating just a twinkie everyday which should have been obvious.
You didn't even take a look at it... He ate 1800 kcal of twinkies. He also wasn't stupid, did take multivitamins and protein supplements. The end result seems to have been the expected weight loss just as with any normal 1800 kcal diet for his particular body and level of activity. The numbers in his blood work improved.
This thread is about people that have 20 kg too much weight or something. Losing so much weight will take years of work. The supposedly stupid counting of calories will absolutely work for the affected person. I feel this nutrition talk about minerals and vitamins and proteins or whatever is the obscuring banality.
Just because every calorie isn't equal doesn't mean that counting calories is stupid. Obviously you can lose weight by eating less. How much weight, what type of weight (fat, muscle), and for how long all depend on what those calories are though. I'm responding to the assertion that "all calories are created equal," which even in the narrow context of how much fat you store or lose is simply not true. But only an idiot would take my argument to mean that the quantity of food you eat doesn't matter.
I am going to insist that every calorie is equal. I think you are conflating calories and calorie sources to be the same thing. You might think that it's vapid semantics but i would agree with everything you've posted if instead of 'calories' you wrote 'source of calories'.
That's fine but you are having a different conversation from everyone else here. I try to address people's arguments within the conceptual framework they are arguing from.
On June 23 2014 12:55 Amnesty wrote: I looked what my BMI is. Apparently i'm overweight. At 6 feet tall, i should only weight at max around 173 pounds. I weigh about 180. I'm really shocked only 37% of men are are considered overweight or above. I'm just about as thin as you can get. I have a flat stomach and recently started doing ab workouts because i can see my oblique lines and thought it wouldn't take much to get a six pack. I run a few times a week and am going to start doing P90x, i went through the program last year.
EDIT: according to different BMI calculation I'm at 24.4 just skating that line but not overweight.
To get a useful BMI you want to take your skeleton into account. The base weight there varies, which you then build a BMI on top of. It does matter, but not much more than 5 kg.
The other side is you can get outside BMI on muscles or on fats. If you are thin and overweight it is most likely a case of skeleton + lots of thin muscles.
It does not account for muscle mass, body fat % or any other factors associated with body mass.
Skinfold calipers are extremely inaccurate as well, but better than using BMI. People should base their body fat % on their general appearance. A lot more accurate than these stupid measures like BMI or skinfold thickness.
On June 23 2014 12:00 ShadeR wrote: I am going to insist that every calorie is equal. I think you are conflating calories and calorie sources to be the same thing. You might think that it's vapid semantics but i would agree with everything you've posted if instead of 'calories' you wrote 'source of calories'.
"Not all calories are created equal"
From my understanding (or confusion) the body is going to process foods differently. Calories gained from sugar is going to have a different result from broccoli or something. (My ex-mother-in-law made an awesome broccoli soup when I lived in Sicily- imagine what you would need to add in order to make that edible in the US lol).
When I hear about eating less to lose weight, all I can think about is going to Sicily and barely able to keep from exploding trying to just get through the first dinner course of pasta, and after a couple days or so (and my stomach expanding enough) eating something like three times as much in quantity, yet losing weight. Well, some- we weren't overweight, but was still quite obvious to all. Just doesn't make sense, and I've tried researching this stuff over the years lol.
On June 23 2014 14:53 AutoEngineer wrote: BMI is absolutely useless in the medical field.
Have you worked at the hospital? I have and we use it. Do you think we have the time to make extra calculations to determine exactly those sort of things when the only thing we need is an approximation?
On June 23 2014 03:29 404AlphaSquad wrote: The people in this thread make me laugh :
-everyone giving the food industry the blame instead of taking responsibility. -trying to make it look as if everyone wants to eat healthy but they cant because there is an evil mafia behind this ^^
face it, if you want to eat healthy you can. if you want to lose weight you can. You can do this without sacrificing anything in your life. You dont even need to exercise. But well its easier to say simply it is the unhealthy foods fault for which we paid for. Grow up people seriously :/
Have you ever been in a grocery store in the US? What healthy choice are you referring to? Is it the pathetic produce isle with items grown in nutrient-depleted soil, heat pasteurized oranges and wax sprayed fruit past their prime? Is it the corn-fed livestock and cattle, the uber-chickens grown to unnatural proportions laying white-shelled eggs with sickly colored yolk? Is it all the corn, corn , and byproducts of corn (even the actual brick and mortar of the store included)? Eating not-unhealthy isn't the same as eating healthy. That is what I'd call a "half truth".
And then we always end up at this conclusion:
On June 23 2014 03:39 zdfgucker wrote: Do whatever you want to, just don't make me pay for the consequences.
Right.. so.. here's what gets me. Why is obesity an epidemic? I don't know the excact defenition of an epidemic but I would think that an epidemic would be something related to disease or sickness of some sort. Correct me if im wrong because it would be great to have it explained, but how the hell is obesity an epidemic? <.<
On June 23 2014 21:50 Madlobster wrote: Right.. so.. here's what gets me. Why is obesity an epidemic? I don't know the excact defenition of an epidemic but I would think that an epidemic would be something related to disease or sickness of some sort. Correct me if im wrong because it would be great to have it explained, but how the hell is obesity an epidemic? <.<
If my memory serves, the first video I posted explains just that.
On June 23 2014 21:50 Madlobster wrote: Right.. so.. here's what gets me. Why is obesity an epidemic? I don't know the excact defenition of an epidemic but I would think that an epidemic would be something related to disease or sickness of some sort. Correct me if im wrong because it would be great to have it explained, but how the hell is obesity an epidemic? <.<
Obesity is as much an epidemic as it as a disease, a lifestyle, a cultural phenomenon or a moral issue.
If the society as a whole is affected by too many people being obese, then you can call it an epidemic for political reasons. Do whatever you want!
For some interesting reason, nobody ever calls smoking or drinking alcohol an epidemic, even though similar numbers of people are affected and the effects on society are similar.
On June 23 2014 21:50 Madlobster wrote: Right.. so.. here's what gets me. Why is obesity an epidemic? I don't know the excact defenition of an epidemic but I would think that an epidemic would be something related to disease or sickness of some sort. Correct me if im wrong because it would be great to have it explained, but how the hell is obesity an epidemic? <.<
Obesity is as much an epidemic as it as a disease, a lifestyle, a cultural phenomenon or a moral issue.
If the society as a whole is affected by too many people being obese, then you can call it an epidemic for political reasons. Do whatever you want!
For some interesting reason, nobody ever calls smoking or drinking alcohol an epidemic, even though similar numbers of people are affected and the effects on society are similar.
I would just think that calling Obesity an epidemic seems like a tabloid exaggeration to blow things out of preportions, "obesity problem" doesnt seem as dramatic as "obesity epidemic". It might just be me thats totaly ignorant, but my brain links the word epidemic with disease, illness and sickness. And the word Obesity to "eating more than you are supposed to", which doesn't seem like a virus you can catch...
Sure there are probably people suffering from bodily dysfunction and need proper medical help, but when talking about obesity or overweight in general, obesity doesn't strike me as a disease. I mean, if it is a disease it would be a disease everyone in the world probably knows the cure for, if you asked a 1000 different overweight people what they needed to do to lose weight, they probably would answer correctly. Everyone knows that to drop weight you would eat less and excersie more. So its a cure that everyone knows, and everyone has access to :S
Thank video, along with the other videos in the series, explain the problem very well. By understanding how the body works, it makes losing/gaining weight much easier and people can make their own decisions based on science. Lots of people WANT to lose weight, but they don't understand the cycle they're stuck in and the addiction their bodies have to sugar.
For the curious onces, the University of California team has the rest of their videos on youtube, I'll put them in spoilers. + Show Spoiler +
Weird thing is the average age is still rising worldwide.
With this obesitas spreading everywhere, you'd think that people would start dieing younger again. If our food was really that bad compared to 50 years ago wouldn't the average age of death go down? Or is it just because better medicine, safety at work and stuff like that.
all calories are created equal. Its just that when the body metabolizes carbs/proteins it generates 4 kcal per 1 gram, for fat it generates 9kcal per 1 gram and just for giggle ethanol is 7 kcal per 1 gram. In the end the body needs all 3, and it does not matter what type of food you eat to get them. If you eat a lot of fatty foods you will have to eat less, simply because it generates more energy.
yeah. If you get 2000 kcals from food source X or you eat 2000 kcals from food source Y you are going to weigh exactly the same. Is there any evidence that would suggest the opposite?
On June 23 2014 22:58 Zandar wrote: Also as a guy who likes girls with some meat on their bones I guess this is my kind of epidemic
Well, I, too, like women with hour-glass curves, but unfortunately, women with curve (1 curve, as in a spherical shape) are steadily on the rise due to this obesity epidemic
On June 24 2014 00:08 Nyxisto wrote: yeah. If you get 2000 kcals from food source X or you eat 2000 kcals from food source Y you are going to weigh exactly the same. Is there any evidence that would suggest the opposite?
Depends. If you eat 2000kcal only carbs it will have a different effect on your body composition than if you have a healthy balance of fat carbs and protein. However if you eat lets say 200g Carbs 200g Protein and 80g of Fat it does not matter where you get that from. Whether you get that from mcdonalds or from oats and broccoli. In that case yes, your going to lose the same amount of fat/muscle. Now I'd imagine if you do that for long enough, eventually the one eating only mcdonalds will suffer from vitamin and mineral deficiency which will impact your overall health and ability of your body to correctly metabolize anything. But that is pure speculation on my part. That is the whole point of "If it fits your macros". If you maintain the same macronutrients you can eat pizza and still lose weight.
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.
Don't listen to this guy at all. I was speaking with one of my doctor friends about this just yesterday and he basically refuted all of this. Hesaid it's a simple mass balance equation: Calories in - Calories out = net gains or losses.
It doesn't matter how often you eat, or what quantities, as long as you're burning as much as you're taking in.
On June 23 2014 23:51 biology]major wrote: all calories are created equal. Its just that when the body metabolizes carbs/proteins it generates 4 kcal per 1 gram, for fat it generates 9kcal per 1 gram and just for giggle ethanol is 7 kcal per 1 gram. In the end the body needs all 3, and it does not matter what type of food you eat to get them. If you eat a lot of fatty foods you will have to eat less, simply because it generates more energy.
Doesn't sugar, leptin, and insulin throw a monkey wrench into this though? Just seems like it doesn't tell the whole story to me.
Then we have the powerful School Nutrition Association lobby backed by Coke, Domino's, and Pepsi fighting to undo progress made in nutrition standards at schools, so I get the feeling things have to get much worse before improving. :/
On June 23 2014 22:56 Zandar wrote: Weird thing is the average age is still rising worldwide.
With this obesitas spreading everywhere, you'd think that people would start dieing younger again. If our food was really that bad compared to 50 years ago wouldn't the average age of death go down? Or is it just because better medicine, safety at work and stuff like that.
Gains in China and India are offsetting losses in the West.
On June 24 2014 00:08 Nyxisto wrote: yeah. If you get 2000 kcals from food source X or you eat 2000 kcals from food source Y you are going to weigh exactly the same. Is there any evidence that would suggest the opposite?
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.
Don't listen to this guy at all. I was speaking with one of my doctor friends about this just yesterday and he basically refuted all of this. Hesaid it's a simple mass balance equation: Calories in - Calories out = net gains or losses.
It doesn't matter how often you eat, or what quantities, as long as you're burning as much as you're taking in.
Ah yes, your doctor friend. Nevermind that doctors don't really get taught nutrition in school and usually don't give two shits about it, believing simply whatever the USDA puts out as guidelines for eating and well-being.
It's not a simple mass balance equation at all because the source of your calories affects nutrient partitioning, affects how much you are burning, affects hormonal balances, etc. You can write that equation if you want, and it's true in a simple way, but the real equation that includes the functions that comprise "Calories out" would take up several pages and the variables in those pages depend on the kinds of food you are eating.
On June 24 2014 08:54 IgnE wrote: It's not a simple mass balance equation at all because the source of your calories affects nutrient partitioning, affects how much you are burning, affects hormonal balances, etc. You can write that equation if you want, and it's true in a simple way, but the real equation that includes the functions that comprise "Calories out" would take up several pages and the variables in those pages depend on the kinds of food you are eating.
Yeah, if you're only eating chocolate and drinking soda then you're more prone to getting fat than if you're eating fresh and healthy. But everybody knows that. The relevant question is "how do we tackle the problem of overeating, cheap unhealthy food, and the lack of exercise?"
I don't see why the "is a calorie a calorie?" discussion is relevant.
On June 24 2014 09:20 Nyxisto wrote: The relevant question is "how do we tackle the problem of overeating, cheap unhealthy food, and the lack of exercise?"
Are those the relevant questions though? Cheap, unhealthy food perhaps, but the second video I posted from the other thread directly questions whether overeating and lack of exercise are the true culprits as conventional wisdom would suggest, and provides evidence to the contrary.
There have been a bunch of posts over the last several pages, Nyxisto, asserting that it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you count the calories. Along with that, either explicitly or implicitly, there have been a number of posts saying, since that is the case, this simply a problem of willpower: no one wants to count their calories. So I have been addressing those arguments. Clearly everybody does not know that not all food calories are created equal.
On June 24 2014 10:10 IgnE wrote: There have been a bunch of posts over the last several pages, Nyxisto, asserting that it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you count the calories. Along with that, either explicitly or implicitly, there have been a number of posts saying, since that is the case, this simply a problem of willpower: no one wants to count their calories. So I have been addressing those arguments. Clearly everybody does not know that not all food calories are created equal.
What IgnE said. Yes, a calorie is a standard unit of energy. However, the food the calorie came from can have a dramatically different process for how it's processed by the body. For a simplified example:
Human A eats 2000 calories of meat, veggies and fruit. This food is low in sugar and is slowly metabolized throughout the day, gradually feeding the body the (assumed) 2000 it needs. All is well in this situation.
Human B eats 2000 calories of bread, soda, and other carbohydrate-rich foods. This food is quickly metabolized into blood sugar. Now, blood sugar has to be very highly regulated because high blood sugar is toxic and WILL kill you. So the body produces insulin, which is a chemical hormone that forces that blood sugar into fat cells. Insulin literally creates an environment where it forces your blood's fuel into fat cells to keep the body from dying.
This creates a problem, because suddenly those 2000 calories human B ate aren't feeding the body, and the body gets hungry. The body will become so hungry that it produces more and more hormones to drive the brain to find food. People overeat, metabolism slows down (changing the daily required calories from 2000 to less) and this is what drives obesity.
Furthermore, cells become damaged - essentially - as they become resistant to hormones such as insulin and leptin. This breaks the system down even further in an environment overloaded with carbohydrates. (I'm going to plug my own post because the youtube series in the spoilers I posted explains this much more eloquently: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/451503-obesity-now-a-global-issue?page=13#258 )
A calorie is a unit of energy. But the calorie isn't the problem. The calorie has never been the problem. It's what the actually food does to your body on the CHEMICAL level, not on the physical level.
On June 24 2014 00:08 Nyxisto wrote: yeah. If you get 2000 kcals from food source X or you eat 2000 kcals from food source Y you are going to weigh exactly the same. Is there any evidence that would suggest the opposite?
Incorrect. Humans are biochemical "machines", so metabolism is highly dependent upon form, function & hormonal response to the nature of the food eaten.
Further, a large percentage of your daily metabolism is shifted to body heat production and futile cycling, allowing the body to regulate a fairly large shift in energy expenditure via hormone regulation.
This is why, for most people, removing just a few calories from their diet will rarely cause any change, unless perfectly held over a significant time frame. (Though if you know how to manipulate the start of a Diet, you can do okay with just knocking out 500 kCal from a diet) Even further than that, meal timing, frequencies and absorption of food can be manipulated to effect total body fat levels.
The "Mass In / Mass Out" and "1 lb of fat = 3500 kCal" are accurate in the grand scheme of science but are utterly unimportant to managing total body health. The body's build, rebuild, breakdown and excretion functions are far & away more complex than simple analysis allows for. That's always been the "rub" with gaining/losing fat.
Now, all that being said, the actual difference between food types is pretty minimal within the "normal" kCal amount range. You have to really start pushing the outside your normal diet % amounts to shift things when you're eating your regular amount of calories. This part of the reason small changes don't "change" much about a person's total health, but they can limit increases in weight.
In sum, this is why most properly structure "weight loss" plans have to be focused on hormone manipulation via food intake. That's what drives much of what you desire to eat and your current food-state. Changing that will result in the dramatic changes to the body, but it normally requires a large shift in the person's normal diet composition.
On June 24 2014 10:10 IgnE wrote: There have been a bunch of posts over the last several pages, Nyxisto, asserting that it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you count the calories. Along with that, either explicitly or implicitly, there have been a number of posts saying, since that is the case, this simply a problem of willpower: no one wants to count their calories. So I have been addressing those arguments. Clearly everybody does not know that not all food calories are created equal.
What IgnE said. Yes, a calorie is a standard unit of energy. However, the food the calorie came from can have a dramatically different process for how it's processed by the body. For a simplified example:
Human A eats 2000 calories of meat, veggies and fruit. This food is low in sugar and is slowly metabolized throughout the day, gradually feeding the body the (assumed) 2000 it needs. All is well in this situation.
Human B eats 2000 calories of bread, soda, and other carbohydrate-rich foods. This food is quickly metabolized into blood sugar. Now, blood sugar has to be very highly regulated because high blood sugar is toxic and WILL kill you. So the body produces insulin, which is a chemical hormone that forces that blood sugar into fat cells. Insulin literally creates an environment where it forces your blood's fuel into fat cells to keep the body from dying.
This creates a problem, because suddenly those 2000 calories human B ate aren't feeding the body, and the body gets hungry. The body will become so hungry that it produces more and more hormones to drive the brain to find food. People overeat, metabolism slows down (changing the daily required calories from 2000 to less) and this is what drives obesity.
Furthermore, cells become damaged - essentially - as they become resistant to hormones such as insulin and leptin. This breaks the system down even further in an environment overloaded with carbohydrates. (I'm going to plug my own post because the youtube series in the spoilers I posted explains this much more eloquently: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/451503-obesity-now-a-global-issue?page=13#258 )
A calorie is a unit of energy. But the calorie isn't the problem. The calorie has never been the problem. It's what the actually food does to your body on the CHEMICAL level, not on the physical level.
Oh my, I'm learning shit.
This has been extremely helpful.
In my experience, this has been largely true. When I eat donuts, my stomach doesn't get "full", it kicks my hunger into overdrive but if I eat something of oats, cumbers, eggs and such of equivalent calories, it really "fill" it up and I have been wondering about this phenomenon for months.
So yes this all end up being one's personal choices that he or she end up being fat.
On June 24 2014 00:08 Nyxisto wrote: yeah. If you get 2000 kcals from food source X or you eat 2000 kcals from food source Y you are going to weigh exactly the same. Is there any evidence that would suggest the opposite?
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.
Don't listen to this guy at all. I was speaking with one of my doctor friends about this just yesterday and he basically refuted all of this. Hesaid it's a simple mass balance equation: Calories in - Calories out = net gains or losses.
It doesn't matter how often you eat, or what quantities, as long as you're burning as much as you're taking in.
Ah yes, your doctor friend. Nevermind that doctors don't really get taught nutrition in school and usually don't give two shits about it, believing simply whatever the USDA puts out as guidelines for eating and well-being.
It's not a simple mass balance equation at all because the source of your calories affects nutrient partitioning, affects how much you are burning, affects hormonal balances, etc. You can write that equation if you want, and it's true in a simple way, but the real equation that includes the functions that comprise "Calories out" would take up several pages and the variables in those pages depend on the kinds of food you are eating.
He also explained it in "several pages and variables" as he was listing the different hormones and products that your body naturally releases in response to your diet, and although I can fluently converse in biological discussions (I have a degree in it), I can't possibly repeat everything he said. I'll get a more elaborate writeup from him later.. American doctors may not learn proper nutrition but it's definitely covered in Canadian med schools.
Also note that I didn't say it doesn't matter WHAT you eat, I said how often and what quantities (to combat the you must eat [x] meals per day line of thinking). Of course starch and carbohydrate-rich foods will be harder to break down and will leave one with a full stomach and less energy. That's a given.
On June 24 2014 00:08 Nyxisto wrote: yeah. If you get 2000 kcals from food source X or you eat 2000 kcals from food source Y you are going to weigh exactly the same. Is there any evidence that would suggest the opposite?
Yes.
On June 24 2014 08:29 chadissilent wrote:
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.
Don't listen to this guy at all. I was speaking with one of my doctor friends about this just yesterday and he basically refuted all of this. Hesaid it's a simple mass balance equation: Calories in - Calories out = net gains or losses.
It doesn't matter how often you eat, or what quantities, as long as you're burning as much as you're taking in.
Ah yes, your doctor friend. Nevermind that doctors don't really get taught nutrition in school and usually don't give two shits about it, believing simply whatever the USDA puts out as guidelines for eating and well-being.
It's not a simple mass balance equation at all because the source of your calories affects nutrient partitioning, affects how much you are burning, affects hormonal balances, etc. You can write that equation if you want, and it's true in a simple way, but the real equation that includes the functions that comprise "Calories out" would take up several pages and the variables in those pages depend on the kinds of food you are eating.
He also explained it in "several pages and variables" as he was listing the different hormones and products that your body naturally releases in response to your diet, and although I can fluently converse in biological discussions (I have a degree in it), I can't possibly repeat everything he said. I'll get a more elaborate writeup from him later.. American doctors may not learn proper nutrition but it's definitely covered in Canadian med schools.
Also note that I didn't say it doesn't matter WHAT you eat, I said how often and what quantities (to combat the you must eat [x] meals per day line of thinking). Of course starch and carbohydrate-rich foods will be harder to break down and will leave one with a full stomach and less energy. That's a given.
I don't think it matters how many degrees and studies you have, you can't go against empirical data. For single digit bodyfat at high levels of muscle mass (bodybuilding) you need to eat not only your proper macros, but at the proper time in very specific windows.
I'm a power lifter and I can assure you to mantain my current muscle mass, strength and weight (all 3) I need to eat most of my carbs post workout, fat pre workout, most calories after training etc; also, I can't down all the food I eat in less than 3 meals, I would just throw up.
Anyone who has ever done any strength or physique related sport will tell you that nutrient timing has a huge impact on performance and body composition.
Nutrient timing comes after you start eating healthier and stop being sedentary obviously.
I don't care about the obese people but it shouldn't be a diagnosed disease because it's eating up health care costs. If you smoke or eat your body to death then you shouldn't get benefits from health care.
On June 22 2014 10:25 GhostKorean wrote: All calories are equal (It's a unit of energy) but there are many more factors to health than calories.
Oh it's a unit of energy????? That clears everything up then. I'm glad you brought up the various metabolic pathways by which differet calories are digested and made available to the body. The discussion of the role of AMP-K and mtor, insulin, ghrelin, IGF1, GH, somatostatin, and other extracellular signals has been elucidating. But at least we all know that if you only eat a couple twinkies every day you will lose fat and muscle mass so calories must be calories right?
What's your point? I said there are other factors to health than calories, which seems to be what you are implying.
On June 24 2014 00:08 Nyxisto wrote: yeah. If you get 2000 kcals from food source X or you eat 2000 kcals from food source Y you are going to weigh exactly the same. Is there any evidence that would suggest the opposite?
Yes.
On June 24 2014 08:29 chadissilent wrote:
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.
Don't listen to this guy at all. I was speaking with one of my doctor friends about this just yesterday and he basically refuted all of this. Hesaid it's a simple mass balance equation: Calories in - Calories out = net gains or losses.
It doesn't matter how often you eat, or what quantities, as long as you're burning as much as you're taking in.
Ah yes, your doctor friend. Nevermind that doctors don't really get taught nutrition in school and usually don't give two shits about it, believing simply whatever the USDA puts out as guidelines for eating and well-being.
It's not a simple mass balance equation at all because the source of your calories affects nutrient partitioning, affects how much you are burning, affects hormonal balances, etc. You can write that equation if you want, and it's true in a simple way, but the real equation that includes the functions that comprise "Calories out" would take up several pages and the variables in those pages depend on the kinds of food you are eating.
He also explained it in "several pages and variables" as he was listing the different hormones and products that your body naturally releases in response to your diet, and although I can fluently converse in biological discussions (I have a degree in it), I can't possibly repeat everything he said. I'll get a more elaborate writeup from him later.. American doctors may not learn proper nutrition but it's definitely covered in Canadian med schools.
Also note that I didn't say it doesn't matter WHAT you eat, I said how often and what quantities (to combat the you must eat [x] meals per day line of thinking). Of course starch and carbohydrate-rich foods will be harder to break down and will leave one with a full stomach and less energy. That's a given.
I don't think it matters how many degrees and studies you have, you can't go against empirical data. For single digit bodyfat at high levels of muscle mass (bodybuilding) you need to eat not only your proper macros, but at the proper time in very specific windows.
I'm a power lifter and I can assure you to mantain my current muscle mass, strength and weight (all 3) I need to eat most of my carbs post workout, fat pre workout, most calories after training etc; also, I can't down all the food I eat in less than 3 meals, I would just throw up.
Anyone who has ever done any strength or physique related sport will tell you that nutrient timing has a huge impact on performance and body composition.
Nutrient timing comes after you start eating healthier and stop being sedentary obviously.
Sure, at your level you need to fine-tune and optimize as much as you can. But when you're 300 lbs overweight, if you eat at a calorie deficit you'll start losing weight. I agree with you; the answer isn't black or white. Nutrition is more than a mere energy balance, but obese and overweight people needn't overly complicate the process when counting calories is far more impactful than anything else. Different needs for different bodies...
The problem with a fast rise of blood sugar and insulin is not that it tells our body to start storing fat! Whatever we eat and don't burn up eventually gets turned into fat anyway.
The bigger concern is that an insulin surge causes too much blood sugar to be transported out of the blood and this results in our blood sugar levels dropping below normal. This leaves us feeling tired and hungry and wanting to eat more.
Now, there are two important things to consider:
- Not all carbs raise the blood sugar levels equally fast. A low glycemic index (GI) indicates slow rise of blood sugar. Note that fructose (!) has a low GI while white bread has a high GI. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index
- Dietary fiber increases food volume without increasing caloric content. We are satisfied much easier and have less appetite. By eating food rich in dietary fiber, you can eat as much as you want and still lose weight. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_fiber
Note that fruits and vegetables fulfill both criteria. They have a low glycemic index and they are rich in dietary fiber.
Also note that sports and exercise drop our blood sugar levels in a similar fashion. Which is why people tend to gain weight when they are doing sports because of overeating afterwards.
Dietary fiber also reduces cholesterol levels and hence gets rid of excess estrogen.
Low GI foods are excellent to keep your body awake throughout the day.
If you consume too many high GI carbs like white bread, white rice, etc you will doze off easily due to the spike in blood sugar which quickly plunges after 1-2 hours.
On June 24 2014 14:13 dRaW wrote: I don't care about the obese people but it shouldn't be a diagnosed disease because it's eating up health care costs. If you smoke or eat your body to death then you shouldn't get benefits from health care.
It seems there's no way around that. For example risks for heart attacks and strokes can be managed through medication. Even if it's not really a disease, from the point of view of health care work, there's things that need to be done on the person and you need to budget for that and stuff, so in practice it's exactly like working on someone with a disease.
On June 24 2014 10:10 IgnE wrote: There have been a bunch of posts over the last several pages, Nyxisto, asserting that it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you count the calories. Along with that, either explicitly or implicitly, there have been a number of posts saying, since that is the case, this simply a problem of willpower: no one wants to count their calories. So I have been addressing those arguments. Clearly everybody does not know that not all food calories are created equal.
What IgnE said. Yes, a calorie is a standard unit of energy. However, the food the calorie came from can have a dramatically different process for how it's processed by the body. For a simplified example:
Human A eats 2000 calories of meat, veggies and fruit. This food is low in sugar and is slowly metabolized throughout the day, gradually feeding the body the (assumed) 2000 it needs. All is well in this situation.
Human B eats 2000 calories of bread, soda, and other carbohydrate-rich foods. This food is quickly metabolized into blood sugar. Now, blood sugar has to be very highly regulated because high blood sugar is toxic and WILL kill you. So the body produces insulin, which is a chemical hormone that forces that blood sugar into fat cells. Insulin literally creates an environment where it forces your blood's fuel into fat cells to keep the body from dying.
This creates a problem, because suddenly those 2000 calories human B ate aren't feeding the body, and the body gets hungry. The body will become so hungry that it produces more and more hormones to drive the brain to find food. People overeat, metabolism slows down (changing the daily required calories from 2000 to less) and this is what drives obesity.
Furthermore, cells become damaged - essentially - as they become resistant to hormones such as insulin and leptin. This breaks the system down even further in an environment overloaded with carbohydrates. (I'm going to plug my own post because the youtube series in the spoilers I posted explains this much more eloquently: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/451503-obesity-now-a-global-issue?page=13#258 )
A calorie is a unit of energy. But the calorie isn't the problem. The calorie has never been the problem. It's what the actually food does to your body on the CHEMICAL level, not on the physical level.
On June 24 2014 10:10 IgnE wrote: There have been a bunch of posts over the last several pages, Nyxisto, asserting that it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you count the calories. Along with that, either explicitly or implicitly, there have been a number of posts saying, since that is the case, this simply a problem of willpower: no one wants to count their calories. So I have been addressing those arguments. Clearly everybody does not know that not all food calories are created equal.
What IgnE said. Yes, a calorie is a standard unit of energy. However, the food the calorie came from can have a dramatically different process for how it's processed by the body. For a simplified example:
Human A eats 2000 calories of meat, veggies and fruit. This food is low in sugar and is slowly metabolized throughout the day, gradually feeding the body the (assumed) 2000 it needs. All is well in this situation.
Human B eats 2000 calories of bread, soda, and other carbohydrate-rich foods. This food is quickly metabolized into blood sugar. Now, blood sugar has to be very highly regulated because high blood sugar is toxic and WILL kill you. So the body produces insulin, which is a chemical hormone that forces that blood sugar into fat cells. Insulin literally creates an environment where it forces your blood's fuel into fat cells to keep the body from dying.
This creates a problem, because suddenly those 2000 calories human B ate aren't feeding the body, and the body gets hungry. The body will become so hungry that it produces more and more hormones to drive the brain to find food. People overeat, metabolism slows down (changing the daily required calories from 2000 to less) and this is what drives obesity.
Furthermore, cells become damaged - essentially - as they become resistant to hormones such as insulin and leptin. This breaks the system down even further in an environment overloaded with carbohydrates. (I'm going to plug my own post because the youtube series in the spoilers I posted explains this much more eloquently: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/451503-obesity-now-a-global-issue?page=13#258 )
A calorie is a unit of energy. But the calorie isn't the problem. The calorie has never been the problem. It's what the actually food does to your body on the CHEMICAL level, not on the physical level.
I thought a good bit about your post. I think what's irking me is that the Human B example of yours would in practice not exist like you imagine. The kind of carbs in that diet you think of for B will behave exactly like you describe, and that means a real person would actually suffer if eating on the same schedule as in the Human A example. Because of this suffering, feeling weak etc., B would start eating snacks. If B snacks a lot, but still stays in the 2000 kcal limit, this means that problem you think of will not occur like you describe. The real person B would eat tiny meals and a lot of snacks, and the blood sugar levels wouldn't be that different from what happens to A.
On June 24 2014 21:30 marvellosity wrote: so you're randomly changing the premise for no reason to fit into your preconceived notions, is what I'm getting from that
No, think about what's described. A 2000 kcal diet of soda and other stuff like that. If that person for example drinks 2 liters of cola a day, that's 800 kcal right there. That's a real issue for staying inside a 2000 kcal limit.
I suspect that Human B would not exist in practice. The issues that are described are what happens to someone obese with a 3000-4000 kcal diet.
On June 24 2014 21:30 marvellosity wrote: so you're randomly changing the premise for no reason to fit into your preconceived notions, is what I'm getting from that
No, think about what's described. A 2000 kcal diet of soda and other stuff like that. If that person for example drinks 2 liters of cola a day, that's 800 kcal right there. That's a real issue for staying inside a 2000 kcal limit.
I suspect that Human B would not exist in practice. The issues that are described are what happens to someone obese with a 3000-4000 kcal diet.
What he's demonstrating is that 2k calories is not necessarily the same as 2k calories. Saying example B "does not exist in practice" does not in any way change what he said/argued.
On June 24 2014 10:10 IgnE wrote: There have been a bunch of posts over the last several pages, Nyxisto, asserting that it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you count the calories. Along with that, either explicitly or implicitly, there have been a number of posts saying, since that is the case, this simply a problem of willpower: no one wants to count their calories. So I have been addressing those arguments. Clearly everybody does not know that not all food calories are created equal.
What IgnE said. Yes, a calorie is a standard unit of energy. However, the food the calorie came from can have a dramatically different process for how it's processed by the body. For a simplified example:
Human A eats 2000 calories of meat, veggies and fruit. This food is low in sugar and is slowly metabolized throughout the day, gradually feeding the body the (assumed) 2000 it needs. All is well in this situation.
Human B eats 2000 calories of bread, soda, and other carbohydrate-rich foods. This food is quickly metabolized into blood sugar. Now, blood sugar has to be very highly regulated because high blood sugar is toxic and WILL kill you. So the body produces insulin, which is a chemical hormone that forces that blood sugar into fat cells. Insulin literally creates an environment where it forces your blood's fuel into fat cells to keep the body from dying.
This creates a problem, because suddenly those 2000 calories human B ate aren't feeding the body, and the body gets hungry. The body will become so hungry that it produces more and more hormones to drive the brain to find food. People overeat, metabolism slows down (changing the daily required calories from 2000 to less) and this is what drives obesity.
Furthermore, cells become damaged - essentially - as they become resistant to hormones such as insulin and leptin. This breaks the system down even further in an environment overloaded with carbohydrates. (I'm going to plug my own post because the youtube series in the spoilers I posted explains this much more eloquently: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/451503-obesity-now-a-global-issue?page=13#258 )
A calorie is a unit of energy. But the calorie isn't the problem. The calorie has never been the problem. It's what the actually food does to your body on the CHEMICAL level, not on the physical level.
I thought a good bit about your post. I think what's irking me is that the Human B example of yours would in practice not exist like you imagine. The kind of carbs in that diet you think of for B will behave exactly like you describe, and that means a real person would actually suffer if eating on the same schedule as in the Human A example. Because of this suffering, feeling weak etc., B would start eating snacks. If B snacks a lot, but still stays in the 2000 kcal limit, this means that problem you think of will not occur like you describe. The real person B would eat tiny meals and a lot of snacks, and the blood sugar levels wouldn't be that different from what happens to A.
Yes, this is how proponents of the high-carb diet would argue. Keep the insulin levels low by eating small amounts often in a day.
What people don't realize is that doing it this way is a lot harder than eating low glycemic food in the first place.
Eating high glycemic food is a psychological uphill battle that you cannot win over time. You would need to eat the exact same amount of snacks every day so that your blood sugar doesn't rise.
No more going out for dinner, no more binging, nor more skipping snacks. You skip one snack and the hunger creeps in. You overeat once and you are already gaining weight. Nobody can hold that up over time.
On June 24 2014 21:30 marvellosity wrote: so you're randomly changing the premise for no reason to fit into your preconceived notions, is what I'm getting from that
No, think about what's described. A 2000 kcal diet of soda and other stuff like that. If that person for example drinks 2 liters of cola a day, that's 800 kcal right there. That's a real issue for staying inside a 2000 kcal limit.
I suspect that Human B would not exist in practice. The issues that are described are what happens to someone obese with a 3000-4000 kcal diet.
What he's demonstrating is that 2k calories is not necessarily the same as 2k calories. Saying example B "does not exist in practice" does not in any way change what he said/argued.
If you want to stay inside the experiment, not change it at all, then I'd say that what's described is simply wrong. He misunderstood how that will work out with the insulin and whatnot for B. There would be absolutely no issues like what he describes. Human B would feel totally fine and would have no problems.
Human B would be pretty much that professor with his Twinkie Diet case study he did on himself. The guy ate one can of green beans for minerals and other stuff against cramps and whatnot, took multivitamins, drank protein powder shakes. Nearly all of his calories came from Twinkies, and it was 1800 kcal. He snacked on those Twinkies all day. He did not suffer, and his blood work actually improved through the course of his experiment.
So it obviously seems to work just fine. The body's system for managing the levels of carbs and fats works just fine if you count calories and make sure to not gain weight over time. You can then probably eat whatever amount of "evil" carbs you want without worry.
I feel that this image belongs in any discussion on BMI. I will allow you to draw your own conclusions from it
There has been a rather intensive discussion on nutrition.
I want to weigh in and say that nutrition is a very complex science dealing with an array of biochemical interactions. The data points are quite limited due to the difficulty of accurately tracking precise nutritional input over any long period of time. I am quite leery of any example of nutritional advice based on specific biochemical pathways (for instance, the poster claiming that eating carbs instead of other macro nutrients will cause fat to be formed is not an assertion based on solid science). Any advice on specific timing of when to eat, how often to eat, etc also should be taken with a grain of salt (though really you should try to limit your salt intake)
The only facts which are certain in nutrition is that limiting calories compared to your metabolic output will cause you to lose weight, and eating more will cause you to gain. Also that the body thrives on a variety of nutrients, and there is nothing healthier to eat than fresh vegetables. It is also probably that simple sugars in excess are a factor (though more due to ready available and lack of other nutritional value, rather than elaborate claims that sugar creates some horrible chain reaction in the body)
In the end, best to focus on number of calories and eating as much fresh vegetables and fruit when it comes to losing weight. Worrying about specific nutrients or following any specific fad diet isn't necessary
On June 24 2014 10:10 IgnE wrote: There have been a bunch of posts over the last several pages, Nyxisto, asserting that it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you count the calories. Along with that, either explicitly or implicitly, there have been a number of posts saying, since that is the case, this simply a problem of willpower: no one wants to count their calories. So I have been addressing those arguments. Clearly everybody does not know that not all food calories are created equal.
What IgnE said. Yes, a calorie is a standard unit of energy. However, the food the calorie came from can have a dramatically different process for how it's processed by the body. For a simplified example:
Human A eats 2000 calories of meat, veggies and fruit. This food is low in sugar and is slowly metabolized throughout the day, gradually feeding the body the (assumed) 2000 it needs. All is well in this situation.
Human B eats 2000 calories of bread, soda, and other carbohydrate-rich foods. This food is quickly metabolized into blood sugar. Now, blood sugar has to be very highly regulated because high blood sugar is toxic and WILL kill you. So the body produces insulin, which is a chemical hormone that forces that blood sugar into fat cells. Insulin literally creates an environment where it forces your blood's fuel into fat cells to keep the body from dying.
This creates a problem, because suddenly those 2000 calories human B ate aren't feeding the body, and the body gets hungry. The body will become so hungry that it produces more and more hormones to drive the brain to find food. People overeat, metabolism slows down (changing the daily required calories from 2000 to less) and this is what drives obesity.
Furthermore, cells become damaged - essentially - as they become resistant to hormones such as insulin and leptin. This breaks the system down even further in an environment overloaded with carbohydrates. (I'm going to plug my own post because the youtube series in the spoilers I posted explains this much more eloquently: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/451503-obesity-now-a-global-issue?page=13#258 )
A calorie is a unit of energy. But the calorie isn't the problem. The calorie has never been the problem. It's what the actually food does to your body on the CHEMICAL level, not on the physical level.
Wow that's a really enlightening post.
Although if Human B in this scenario was disciplined, they would stop eating after 2k calories (and do something like drink tea or water, or eat stuff like carrot / celery sticks which is great at making people forget they're hungry) and let the body turn that fat back into glucose and thus not get fat.
Or they continue to eat food with "empty calories", which they obviously already are, but then not eat more, knowing they will feel less hungry in 30-60 mins time.
I also think any discussion about weight gain / loss using biochemistry pathways is flawed. It's great and interesting to explain what happens when people exceed intakes of xyz (in this case calories), or what can cause people to over eat (i.e. empty calories), but actually these pathways are activated because of excess of total intake rather than the composition of the intake. Although certain compositions of food make it much more likely for the ignorant to overeat.
Now do you think it's easier to teach Human B how to cook and buy sensible food or to make them eat less? (I actually think both won't work with is why there's so many fatties around). I'm more interested in peoples thoughts on Public Health promotion or incentives rather than everyone playing "I'm a biochemist".
It's like how people can go at great lengths to explain why people run into debt, but ultimately it boils down to a simple lack of incoming / outgoing balance.
I'm easily willing to accept that it's easier to overeat on unhealthy food than on healthy (especially not "caloric dense") food. However I seriously doubt that there is compelling evidence that it makes a difference to your body weight if you're eating 2000 kcals of candy or 2000 kcals of appels.
On June 24 2014 10:10 IgnE wrote: There have been a bunch of posts over the last several pages, Nyxisto, asserting that it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you count the calories. Along with that, either explicitly or implicitly, there have been a number of posts saying, since that is the case, this simply a problem of willpower: no one wants to count their calories. So I have been addressing those arguments. Clearly everybody does not know that not all food calories are created equal.
What IgnE said. Yes, a calorie is a standard unit of energy. However, the food the calorie came from can have a dramatically different process for how it's processed by the body. For a simplified example:
Human A eats 2000 calories of meat, veggies and fruit. This food is low in sugar and is slowly metabolized throughout the day, gradually feeding the body the (assumed) 2000 it needs. All is well in this situation.
Human B eats 2000 calories of bread, soda, and other carbohydrate-rich foods. This food is quickly metabolized into blood sugar. Now, blood sugar has to be very highly regulated because high blood sugar is toxic and WILL kill you. So the body produces insulin, which is a chemical hormone that forces that blood sugar into fat cells. Insulin literally creates an environment where it forces your blood's fuel into fat cells to keep the body from dying.
This creates a problem, because suddenly those 2000 calories human B ate aren't feeding the body, and the body gets hungry. The body will become so hungry that it produces more and more hormones to drive the brain to find food. People overeat, metabolism slows down (changing the daily required calories from 2000 to less) and this is what drives obesity.
Furthermore, cells become damaged - essentially - as they become resistant to hormones such as insulin and leptin. This breaks the system down even further in an environment overloaded with carbohydrates. (I'm going to plug my own post because the youtube series in the spoilers I posted explains this much more eloquently: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/451503-obesity-now-a-global-issue?page=13#258 )
A calorie is a unit of energy. But the calorie isn't the problem. The calorie has never been the problem. It's what the actually food does to your body on the CHEMICAL level, not on the physical level.
Wow that's a really enlightening post.
Although if Human B in this scenario was disciplined, they would stop eating after 2k calories (and do something like drink tea or water, or eat stuff like carrot / celery sticks which is great at making people forget they're hungry) and let the body turn that fat back into glucose and thus not get fat.
Or they continue to eat food with "empty calories", which they obviously already are, but then not eat more, knowing they will feel less hungry in 30-60 mins time.
I also think any discussion about weight gain / loss using biochemistry pathways is flawed. It's great and interesting to explain what happens when people exceed intakes of xyz (in this case calories), but actually these pathways are activated because of excess of total intake (calories, as above) rather than the composition of the intake. Although certain compositions of food make it much more likely for the ignorant to overeat.
Now do you think it's easier to teach Human B how to cook and buy sensible food or to make them eat less? (I actually think both won't work with is why there's so many fatties around). I'm more interested in peoples thoughts on Public Health promotion or incentives rather than everyone playing "I'm a biochemist".
There's no system to turn fat back into carbs in the body. That carb to fat transformation is a one way street. It will then stay in its fatty acid form until burned like that (muscles can do that). The only thing the body has to create glucose is to break down protein, but I think that feature only kicks in after several days of starving.
To solve this problem, Nature's solution apparently was to make you feel terribly hungry if your blood sugar level is close to zero.
On June 25 2014 01:24 Nyxisto wrote: I'm easily willing to accept that it's easier to overeat on unhealthy food than on healthy (especially not "caloric dense") food. However I seriously doubt that there is compelling evidence that it makes a difference to your body weight if you're eating 2000 kcals of candy or 2000 kcals of appels.
Mind that the process that converts glucose into fatty acids is very inefficient. That means, a lot of calories from carbohydrates get lost when they are stored as fat.
So 2000 calories of beef and 2000 calories of apple are NOT the same, because the sugar cannot be stored efficiently.
Since most candies contain also a high amount of fat, your calculation is not quite correct.
I cannot believe people are actually trying to argue that 2000 calories of food A, are the same as 2000 of calories of food B.
Like is this a joke? Do you think that putting fat, sodium, sat fats, trans fats, protein, carb, vitamins on every single food you buy is totally irrelevent, and calories is all that matters? The kind of food you eat is very important. I do believe (unlike most people), that eating smaller portions for lunch/dinner is usually more effective than switching to a healthier food diet, yet eating the same amount of calories, but by now means does that mean that the type of food you eat has no differences.
I think 99% of the people posting in this thread are too uneducated about the subject (myself included), but what I do know from a couple graduates in molecular biology, is it's not a simple thing. Hormonal imbalances in your body occur, deficiencies in specific nutrients is something your body is effected by.
It's not like the only thing that happens in your body is: -Eat food, get glucose, amino acids, others organic molecules -Break bonds, make new lower energy molecules -Use that energy to make ATP, discard waste
Personaly living in Canada, I don't think Obesity is an issue in the sense that anything dramatic needs to be done. People who choose to live a healthy life can easily make those decisions, and there's lots of support if that's what you want. If you don't mind being fat, not really have much of a sexual life, be at a greater risk for disease, and not feel as good physically, then so be it. It can take some work to be healthy and change a lot of habits, that for many people aren't worth it.
Nothing wrong with living a relaxing life working an office job 9-5, watching TV to relax when you get home, go out with friends for Wing Night, play video games in free time. Take care of kid.
The one thing I notice though, because I have many international student friends, is they all say that white people (referring to western world), spend much less money on food than other races. I don't know why that is, but I also get the impression that white people (relative to brown/asian/latino), care a lot less about what they eat. None of my non-white friends (I'm white) are able to eat fast food very frequently, they just feel gross. They will much rather go to a vietnemese place which is a lot less greasy, they don't eat fries if they get a burger, and subway is especially popular among non-white races in my university.
Anyway, I went off topic quite a lot, but all I wanted to get at is I don't think it's a big issue, and the only thing I wish happened, is that there would be some shift in mentality around the western world to care what people put in their body, rather than just buying the cheapest food they can buy (which is fatty food).
On June 25 2014 02:23 FiWiFaKi wrote: I cannot believe people are actually trying to argue that 2000 calories of food A, are the same as 2000 of calories of food B.
Like is this a joke? [...]
It's just that you have to take a step back and think about a real person that actually lives with a diet like proposed. It can't be something that makes you feel like shit, because no one wants to feel bad and will do changes to the diet. This means any real person that eats a 2000 kcal diet will eat something that feels alright to them. Amongst those diets that feel fine to a person, there will be close to any combination of carbs and fats you can think of. I'm just saying those combinations will all work.
There will be guys with a low-fat diet, and they will feel fine. There will be guys with a low-carb diet and they also will feel fine. You can roughly count the macro-nutrients to get to 2000 kcal and all will roughly behave the same, at least with regards to this topic which is about obesity. No idea about things like acne or cramps.
Regarding the high fat diet. I tried this out some while ago. I got terrible skin, got bad breath and felt absolutely terrible. Would not recommend that at all. Sticking to the "mainstream advice" of eating a lot of complex carbs, many vegetables, not much red meat and moving a lot works like a charm for practical purposes.
It's a pretty interesting field theoretically, but for the average person trying to lose some pounds all this new age keto stuff is completely irrelevant.
On June 24 2014 10:10 IgnE wrote: There have been a bunch of posts over the last several pages, Nyxisto, asserting that it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you count the calories. Along with that, either explicitly or implicitly, there have been a number of posts saying, since that is the case, this simply a problem of willpower: no one wants to count their calories. So I have been addressing those arguments. Clearly everybody does not know that not all food calories are created equal.
What IgnE said. Yes, a calorie is a standard unit of energy. However, the food the calorie came from can have a dramatically different process for how it's processed by the body. For a simplified example:
Human A eats 2000 calories of meat, veggies and fruit. This food is low in sugar and is slowly metabolized throughout the day, gradually feeding the body the (assumed) 2000 it needs. All is well in this situation.
Human B eats 2000 calories of bread, soda, and other carbohydrate-rich foods. This food is quickly metabolized into blood sugar. Now, blood sugar has to be very highly regulated because high blood sugar is toxic and WILL kill you. So the body produces insulin, which is a chemical hormone that forces that blood sugar into fat cells. Insulin literally creates an environment where it forces your blood's fuel into fat cells to keep the body from dying.
This creates a problem, because suddenly those 2000 calories human B ate aren't feeding the body, and the body gets hungry. The body will become so hungry that it produces more and more hormones to drive the brain to find food. People overeat, metabolism slows down (changing the daily required calories from 2000 to less) and this is what drives obesity.
Furthermore, cells become damaged - essentially - as they become resistant to hormones such as insulin and leptin. This breaks the system down even further in an environment overloaded with carbohydrates. (I'm going to plug my own post because the youtube series in the spoilers I posted explains this much more eloquently: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/451503-obesity-now-a-global-issue?page=13#258 )
A calorie is a unit of energy. But the calorie isn't the problem. The calorie has never been the problem. It's what the actually food does to your body on the CHEMICAL level, not on the physical level.
Wow that's a really enlightening post.
Although if Human B in this scenario was disciplined, they would stop eating after 2k calories (and do something like drink tea or water, or eat stuff like carrot / celery sticks which is great at making people forget they're hungry) and let the body turn that fat back into glucose and thus not get fat.
Or they continue to eat food with "empty calories", which they obviously already are, but then not eat more, knowing they will feel less hungry in 30-60 mins time.
I also think any discussion about weight gain / loss using biochemistry pathways is flawed. It's great and interesting to explain what happens when people exceed intakes of xyz (in this case calories), but actually these pathways are activated because of excess of total intake (calories, as above) rather than the composition of the intake. Although certain compositions of food make it much more likely for the ignorant to overeat.
Now do you think it's easier to teach Human B how to cook and buy sensible food or to make them eat less? (I actually think both won't work with is why there's so many fatties around). I'm more interested in peoples thoughts on Public Health promotion or incentives rather than everyone playing "I'm a biochemist".
There's no system to turn fat back into carbs in the body. That carb to fat transformation is a one way street. It will then stay in its fatty acid form until burned like that (muscles can do that). The only thing the body has to create glucose is to break down protein, but I think that feature only kicks in after several days of starving.
To solve this problem, Nature's solution apparently was to make you feel terribly hungry if your blood sugar level is close to zero.
Fine I misphrased it, haven't looked at gluconeogenesis or metabolic pathways for about 10 years, swap out the "glucose" for "energy".
The premise is still valid that if you eat to a defecit, you shed the fat. And even if you eat more fat than the next guy, as long as the calories are ok you still shed weight. That was the whole point of that dude eating only Twinkies and managing to shed pounds.
Nobody is actually arguing that 1000 calories worth of pure sugar is metabolised the same was as 1000 calories of beef, but most of us are argueing that it's largely irrelevant since quantity > quality.
Or put another way, of you eat an excess of 1000 calories in healthy food, you'll still be obese, just as if you have 1000 calorie excess in unhealthy food. You might not be as fat, but you'll still be fat. You can change the quality of food but not necessarily the outcome. Changing the quantity is required.
Thats the whole point.
Nobody is disputing what constitutes a good diet or that Western food culture is shit (ate in Kelseys like twice when up in Canada for the ski season cos everyone else did and felt like death).
As someone who isn't afflicted with obesity I find it difficult to care.
Since it was a BMI chart that started this discussion, I will agree that avg. BMI is up worldwide. That's a good thing afaic. More people have the power to choose between being overweight or looking after themselves, as opposed to starving. Good for us.
Let's just do what seems to be so popular these days and put a more positive spin on the acronym "BMI" - I propose that we call it the Beast Mode Index. The world is more beast than ever!
On June 25 2014 03:43 dUTtrOACh wrote: As someone who isn't afflicted with obesity I find it difficult to care.
Since it was a BMI chart that started this discussion, I will agree that avg. BMI is up worldwide. That's a good thing afaic. More people have the power to choose between being overweight or looking after themselves, as opposed to starving. Good for us.
Let's just do what seems to be so popular these days and put a more positive spin on the acronym "BMI" - I propose that we call it the Beast Mode Index. The world is more beast than ever!
Ermmm I can think of one person who would be ok with that, provided he got his share
On Friday, December 19, 2008, a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for BEAST MODE by Marshawn Lynch, San Francisco, CA 94111. The USPTO has given the BEAST MODE trademark serial number of 77637215. The current federal status of this trademark filing is REGISTERED.
On June 24 2014 10:10 IgnE wrote: There have been a bunch of posts over the last several pages, Nyxisto, asserting that it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you count the calories. Along with that, either explicitly or implicitly, there have been a number of posts saying, since that is the case, this simply a problem of willpower: no one wants to count their calories. So I have been addressing those arguments. Clearly everybody does not know that not all food calories are created equal.
What IgnE said. Yes, a calorie is a standard unit of energy. However, the food the calorie came from can have a dramatically different process for how it's processed by the body. For a simplified example:
Human A eats 2000 calories of meat, veggies and fruit. This food is low in sugar and is slowly metabolized throughout the day, gradually feeding the body the (assumed) 2000 it needs. All is well in this situation.
Human B eats 2000 calories of bread, soda, and other carbohydrate-rich foods. This food is quickly metabolized into blood sugar. Now, blood sugar has to be very highly regulated because high blood sugar is toxic and WILL kill you. So the body produces insulin, which is a chemical hormone that forces that blood sugar into fat cells. Insulin literally creates an environment where it forces your blood's fuel into fat cells to keep the body from dying.
This creates a problem, because suddenly those 2000 calories human B ate aren't feeding the body, and the body gets hungry. The body will become so hungry that it produces more and more hormones to drive the brain to find food. People overeat, metabolism slows down (changing the daily required calories from 2000 to less) and this is what drives obesity.
Furthermore, cells become damaged - essentially - as they become resistant to hormones such as insulin and leptin. This breaks the system down even further in an environment overloaded with carbohydrates. (I'm going to plug my own post because the youtube series in the spoilers I posted explains this much more eloquently: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/451503-obesity-now-a-global-issue?page=13#258 )
A calorie is a unit of energy. But the calorie isn't the problem. The calorie has never been the problem. It's what the actually food does to your body on the CHEMICAL level, not on the physical level.
Wow that's a really enlightening post.
Although if Human B in this scenario was disciplined, they would stop eating after 2k calories (and do something like drink tea or water, or eat stuff like carrot / celery sticks which is great at making people forget they're hungry) and let the body turn that fat back into glucose and thus not get fat.
Or they continue to eat food with "empty calories", which they obviously already are, but then not eat more, knowing they will feel less hungry in 30-60 mins time.
I also think any discussion about weight gain / loss using biochemistry pathways is flawed. It's great and interesting to explain what happens when people exceed intakes of xyz (in this case calories), but actually these pathways are activated because of excess of total intake (calories, as above) rather than the composition of the intake. Although certain compositions of food make it much more likely for the ignorant to overeat.
Now do you think it's easier to teach Human B how to cook and buy sensible food or to make them eat less? (I actually think both won't work with is why there's so many fatties around). I'm more interested in peoples thoughts on Public Health promotion or incentives rather than everyone playing "I'm a biochemist".
There's no system to turn fat back into carbs in the body. That carb to fat transformation is a one way street. It will then stay in its fatty acid form until burned like that (muscles can do that). The only thing the body has to create glucose is to break down protein, but I think that feature only kicks in after several days of starving.
To solve this problem, Nature's solution apparently was to make you feel terribly hungry if your blood sugar level is close to zero.
Fine I misphrased it, haven't looked at gluconeogenesis or metabolic pathways for about 10 years, swap out the "glucose" for "energy".
The premise is still valid that if you eat to a defecit, you shed the fat. And even if you eat more fat than the next guy, as long as the calories are ok you still shed weight. That was the whole point of that dude eating only Twinkies and managing to shed pounds.
Nobody is actually arguing that 1000 calories worth of pure sugar is metabolised the same was as 1000 calories of beef, but most of us are argueing that it's largely irrelevant since quantity > quality.
Or put another way, of you eat an excess of 1000 calories in healthy food, you'll still be obese, just as if you have 1000 calorie excess in unhealthy food. You might not be as fat, but you'll still be fat. You can change the quality of food but not necessarily the outcome. Changing the quantity is required.
Thats the whole point.
Nobody is disputing what constitutes a good diet or that Western food culture is shit (ate in Kelseys like twice when up in Canada for the ski season cos everyone else did and felt like death).
As I understand the discussion it is along the lines of 1000 calories of one food makes you feel ok and has average fat gain. 1000 of another kind makes you feel hungry and increases fat gain, having a accumulative effect.
Basically, people can't hold to a diet that makes them hungry is the argument being made. At least not the decades most people live.
I'd add that obesity has become culturally acceptable and normal in countries like the USA.
Basically all developed countries people have access to their own local culturally-acceptable junk food (it doesn't have to be Doritos and twinkies), but people actively avoid to overeating because they are too embarrassed to allow themselves to get fat.
In the USA we have plenty of movies stars (and even politicians) who are extremely overweight. What does that say to the American people? Furthermore there is this whole anti "fat-shaming" campaign, and discussion of all "body types" being normal/beautiful etc. I agree that quasi-anorexic models promote an unhealthy life-style, but that argument shouldn't be used to promote obesity...
After reading a lot from some more well-informed posters and watching recommended videos on youtube (the UCTV ones) I'm starting to think that the only real solution is for governments to start labeling sugar as a toxin and having them to be strictly regulated, just like what they did with fat several decades ago.
In the mean time, if you want to continue eating these foods...I think the only way to do it is to do calorie counting (at least try to get a rough estimate) so that you can do leptin's job of knowing when you've had enough even if some of it is automatically turned into fat by insulin.
I think in the end you will still go into starvation mode, but as long as you're having a protein shake and all the vitamins, and doing some simple, fairly regular exercise routines (I do exercise for about 20-25 minutes once every two days), hopefully that means your body will burn that fat again while keeping your muscles intact.
To the person who said fats can't be converted to carbs, triglycerides are broken into glycerol (precursor for gluconeogenesis) + fatty acids which get oxidized into acetylCoA, and that can also be used to generate glucose(although less than glycerol). The "1 way street" thing is just false. Now with insulin resistance, yes that process is less active because of the excess insulin, but regardless if a person stops eating --> the body will convert fat to ketones and glucose to provide energy to the rest of the body. However this process only starts after about 18 hours of starvation, So I guess it doesn't really apply to someone eating regularly.
On June 25 2014 06:04 Mc wrote: I agree that quasi-anorexic models promote an unhealthy life-style, but that argument shouldn't be used to promote obesity...
I don't think anybody actually does that. It's not like people are building statues of Jonah Hill in their garden.
I think it would help if they started including satiety index data on foods; in addition to all the other health info. That'd make it easier for people to account for that in their diets; and give the food companies more incentive to work on improving their food in that regard.
On June 25 2014 06:04 Mc wrote: I agree that quasi-anorexic models promote an unhealthy life-style, but that argument shouldn't be used to promote obesity...
I don't think anybody actually does that. It's not like people are building statues of Jonah Hill in their garden.
Dove commercials are definitely promoting obsesity, and Jonah Hill
Well the US is probably one of the few places in the world where being extremely obese and unimaginably ignorant can make you more money than working your ass off.
Don't get me wrong I think this family has more love and care than plenty of 'Healthy' families, but we all know the reason they have a show and 100's of thousands of $'s isn't just because they are a caring family. + Show Spoiler +
After the second episode aired, the network offered the family a significant increase in salary. Although the sources wouldn’t be specific, it was between $15,000 and $20,000 an episode.
That’s not all — TLC also paid for a body guard for the family, and a driver for Sugar Bear after his ATV accident.
Traditional Hollywood wishes they still had the influence they had even 25 years ago.
Watch pretty much anytime a trained actor has to share a stage with a 'Reality Star'. Not even the best actors can hide their contempt. Especially when the 'Reality star' is more famous than the trained actor (or gets a bigger ovation).
Unfortunately 'Real' television is actually worse than the bullshit that was coming out of Hollywood. At least people knewtraditional Hollywood wasn't real.
I think it's a reasonably small subset of rejects who are intentionally emulating that kind of behaviour thinking it could make them successful.
I think more than an idea of acceptance it's more about being able to point at people who are in worse shape than yourself and being able to say 'At least I'm not THAT fat". And in the US you can get pretty damn big before you run out of people to point at. I mean at least once a week you can find at least an hour of programming about someone who hasn't been able to stand in years and is 600+ pounds.
Basically all developed countries people have access to their own local culturally-acceptable junk food (it doesn't have to be Doritos and twinkies), but people actively avoid to overeating because they are too embarrassed to allow themselves to get fat.
About overeating, again, when we lived back and forth between Sicily and the US, we'd eat waaaay more in quantity in Sicily and lose weight. My stomach would have to expand to become accustomed to it. Family on my side that would visit could also barely make it through just the first course at dinner, and it is culturally a bit insulting not to clear your plate over there lol. I'm not sure what caused this, but assume it is because of how rich and densely packed the food in the US is with processed junk?
The difference in quality of basic food staples is huge. It is a "purist" style of cooking in Sicily, which relies heavily on the quality of the basic ingredients themselves for the flavor, rather than adding a lot of crap to it, cooking like a chemist or something. Simple things like broccoli or tomatoes burst with eye-opening flavor compared to what I was used to in the US, and no doubt substantial differences in nutrition which adds up.
As for junk food, Sicily has pizza of course, but it is quite a different beast than what you find in the US. "Quatro formaggi" was one of my favorites, four cheeses one being gorgonzola which comes out crispy from the oven and delicious! But again, "purist" form and very basic ingredients without a lot of the unnecessary extra added crap that Americans add for flavor.
Unfortunately, gross food has become the norm in most supermarkets, with packaged food ingredient lists reading more like chemistry homework than something you'd want your family to eat. But in many cases, marketers have figured out a way to keep toxic additives and disease-promoting food packaging off of the label, making your job as a consumer harder than ever. We're here to clear up the confusion and help you avoid some of the grossest foods on the market!
Flame retardant–laced soda
What it is: The toxic flame retardant chemical brominated vegetable oil, or BVO, was initially used to keep plastics from catching on fire.
Where it is: For decades, the food industry has been adding it to certain sodas, juices, and sports drinks, including Mountain Dew, Fanta Orange, Sunkist Pineapple, and some Powerade flavors. (Gatorade announced it would remove the compound from its drinks in spring 2013.) BVO's purpose? To keep the artificial flavoring chemicals from separating from the rest of the liquids.
Why it's bad: Scientists have linked too much BVO to bromide poisoning symptoms like skin lesions, memory loss, and nerve disorders.
Paint chemical in salad dressing
What it is: Titanium dioxide is a component of the metallic element titanium, a mined substance that is sometimes contaminated with toxic lead.
Where it is: Commonly used in paints and sunscreens, big food corporations add it to lots of things we eat, too, including processed salad dressing, coffee creamers, and icing.
Why it's bad: The food industry adds it to hundreds of products to make dingy, overly processed items appear whiter. "White has long been the symbolic color of 'clean,'" explains food industry insider Bruce Bradley, who shares the tricks, traps, and ploys of big food manufacturers on his blog, BruceBradley.com. "Funny, when you use real food, you don't need any of these crazy additives—I think I prefer the real deal."
Maggoty mushrooms
What it is: Maggots are fly larvae, tiny rice-shaped creatures that feast on rotting foods.
Where it is: The Food and Drug Administration legally allows 19 maggots and 74 mites in a 3.5-ounce can of mushrooms.
Why it's bad: While maggots do have their place in the medical world—they can help heal ulcers and other wounds—most people think it's pretty gross to eat them!
If you need another reason to ditch canned goods, consider this: Most are lined with bisphenol A, or BPA, a plastic chemical that causes unnatural hormonal changes linked to heart attacks, obesity, and certain cancers.
Cloned cow's stomach
What it is: Traditionally, cheese makers used rennet derived from the mucosa of a veal calf's fourth stomach to create the beloved, versatile dairy product. But Bradley notes that cost and the limited availability of calf stomachs have led to the development of several alternatives, including vegetable rennet, microbial rennet, and—the food industry's rennet of choice—a genetically modified version derived from a cloned calf gene.
Where it is: It's used to make the vast majority of cheese sold in the United States.
Why it's bad: The long-term health effects of eating genetically engineered foods has never been studied in humans. And since GMO ingredients aren't listed on the label, it can be tough for consumers to avoid rennet from this source. "With all these rennet varieties often listed simply as "enzymes" on an ingredient panel, it can be very hard to know exactly what kind you’re eating when you buy cheese," says Bradley, author of the soon-to-be-released book, Fat Profits.
Herbicide-flavored food
What it is: Glyphosate, the active chemical ingredient in the popular weed killer, Roundup, is a hormone-disrupting chemical now used primarily on corn and soy crops genetically engineered to withstand a heavy dousing of the chemical. Nonorganic farmers dumped 57 million pounds of glyphosate on food crops in 2009, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) figures.
Where it is: Roundup is so heavily used around homes and in farm fields that it's now being detected in streams, the air, and even rain. Because it's a systemic herbicide, it's actually taken up inside the plant…meaning we eat it. Yep, it's legally allowed in our food, and in an amount that worries scientists. It's found in most nonorganic packaged foods because most contain corn- or soy-derived ingredients, the crops that are most often heavily doused with Roundup. (For even more reasons you NEED to go organic, check out Organic Manifesto.)
Why it's bad: Glyphosate exposure is linked to obesity, learning disabilities, birth defects, infertility, and potentially irreversible metabolic damage. To avoid pesticides in products, eat organic and avoided processed foods as much as possible. And use caution—"all natural" foods often are chockfull of pesticides and genetically engineered ingredients.
Sex hormones in milk
What it is: Today's cows produce double the amount of milk they did just 40 years ago, thanks largely to a genetically engineered, synthetic hormone called recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST.
Where it is: It could be in milk that's not organic or not labeled as rBST free.
Why it's bad: Scientists link rBST to prostate, breast, and colon cancers. It's banned in other countries, and although still legal here, many dairies are moving away from it due to consumer demand. Choose organic milk to ensure that the cows producing your milk are fed a diet free of antibiotics, hormones, and pesticides.
Shampoo chemicals in produce
What it is: Phthalates are plasticizing chemicals used in everything from pesticides and fragranced soaps and shampoos to nail polish and vinyl shower curtains.
Where it is: A 2010 study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found phthalates are winding up in our food, too. The source could be direct exposure to pesticides containing the hormone-disrupting chemical. Or to another potential source, human sewage sludge applied as a fertilizer to farm fields. The sludge can be tainted with shampoo chemicals that wash down the drain—it all winds up at the water-treatment plant, the source of the sludge. (Note: Use of human sewage sludge is banned in organic farming.)
Why it's bad: Phthalate exposure, even in small amounts, has been linked to behavioral problems in children, allergies and asthma, eczema, and unhealthy changes in our hormonal systems.
Human hair and feathers
What it is: L-cysteine is a non-essential amino acid made from dissolved human hair (often from China) or duck feathers.
Where it is: It's used as a commercial dough conditioner to improve the texture of breads and baked goods.
Why it's bad: Eating something derived from the human body violates Muslim beliefs. Hair and duck feathers pose an ethical dilemma for vegans, too.
Bake your own homemade bread (without hair and feathers) using bread recipes from the Rodale Recipe Finder.
Crushed bugs
What it is: Carmine, a bright red food colorant, is actually the crushed abdomen of the female Dactylopius coccus, an African beetle-like insect.
Where it is: Look for it in red candies and red-tinted yogurts and juices (particularly ruby red juices)—it's often listed as carmine, crimson lake, cochineal, or natural red #4 on ingredient labels, according to Bradley.
Why it's bad: Not only is the thought of eating bug juice gross, but it also poses an ethical issue for some vegetarians and vegans.
Ammonia-cleansed beef
What it is: Factory-farm conditions are rife with bacteria. On top of that, processing plants mix meat from hundreds or thousands of different cows, potentially creating a public health hazard in the mix. To try to make the meat "safer," industry typically puts the beef through an ammonia gas bath.
Where it is: The USDA deems the gross process safe enough, and allows the meat to be sold without any indication that it received the gas treatment. (The process is banned in meats earning organic certification.)
Why it's bad: You might order your burger with pickles or lettuce, but you likely don't want a side of ammonia, a poisonous gas. The kicker? Evidence suggests that blasting beef with it might not even be fully effective at killing germs. Look for organic, pasture-raised meats for a safer option. Often, you can buy these meats directly from local, sustainable farmers.
Brain-frying fake food dyes
What it is: Many artificial food dyes found in hundreds of everyday foods are made from petroleum-derived materials.
Where it is: Dyes are used in cereals and candy to make them more "fun" for kids, in pickles to make them appear fresher, and in place of actual real ingredients in a variety of foods. Example? Betty Crocker Carrot Cake Mix is actually a carrot-free product, with "carrot flavored pieces" cooked up from corn syrup and artificial colors Yellow 6 and Red 40.
Why it's bad: Orange and purple food dyes have been shown to impair brain function, while other dyes have been linked to ADHD and behavioral problems in kids and brain cell toxicity. You're getting ripped off, too. It's cheaper for food companies to use fake dyes than real ingredients. (Tropicana Twister Cherry Berry Blast contains 0 percent berry and cherry juice, despite its name.)
Shrimp coated in cleaning chemicals
What it is: Depending on where your shrimp comes from, it could be tainted with chemicals used to clean filthy shrimp farm pens. Just as gross, farmed shrimp from overseas is often full of antibiotics, mouse and rat hair, and pieces of insects. (Learn more about the dirty side of the seafood industry in The Perfect Protein by Andy Sharpless, CEO of the nonprofit Oceana)
Where it is: Contaminated shrimp tends to come from critters imported from overseas shrimp farms. If you're looking for safer options, choose domestic shrimp. For the best options, consult the good fish list.
Why it's bad: Only about 2 percent of all imported seafood is inspected, meaning this nasty stuff is making its way onto your plate.
Disease-promoting popcorn bags
What it is: An industrial nonstick chemical that falls under the perfluorinated chemicals class is utilized in certain food packaging.
Where it is: These suspect chemicals are commonly used to coat the inside of popcorn bags to prevent sticking and grease leakage. The same chemicals are also in the nonstick coating of many pots, pans, and baking sheets.
Why it's bad: A study published in January 2012 in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that nonstick chemicals in popcorn bags significantly damage the immune system, opening the floodgates for a whole host of other health problems. Nonstick chemicals are also linked to high cholesterol, sperm damage and infertility, and ADHD. Popcorn—made the good old-fashioned way, in a pot on the stovetop—is still a great option
Unfortunately, gross food has become the norm in most supermarkets, with packaged food ingredient lists reading more like chemistry homework than something you'd want your family to eat. But in many cases, marketers have figured out a way to keep toxic additives and disease-promoting food packaging off of the label, making your job as a consumer harder than ever. We're here to clear up the confusion and help you avoid some of the grossest foods on the market!
Flame retardant–laced soda
What it is: The toxic flame retardant chemical brominated vegetable oil, or BVO, was initially used to keep plastics from catching on fire.
Where it is: For decades, the food industry has been adding it to certain sodas, juices, and sports drinks, including Mountain Dew, Fanta Orange, Sunkist Pineapple, and some Powerade flavors. (Gatorade announced it would remove the compound from its drinks in spring 2013.) BVO's purpose? To keep the artificial flavoring chemicals from separating from the rest of the liquids.
Why it's bad: Scientists have linked too much BVO to bromide poisoning symptoms like skin lesions, memory loss, and nerve disorders.
Paint chemical in salad dressing
What it is: Titanium dioxide is a component of the metallic element titanium, a mined substance that is sometimes contaminated with toxic lead.
Where it is: Commonly used in paints and sunscreens, big food corporations add it to lots of things we eat, too, including processed salad dressing, coffee creamers, and icing.
Why it's bad: The food industry adds it to hundreds of products to make dingy, overly processed items appear whiter. "White has long been the symbolic color of 'clean,'" explains food industry insider Bruce Bradley, who shares the tricks, traps, and ploys of big food manufacturers on his blog, BruceBradley.com. "Funny, when you use real food, you don't need any of these crazy additives—I think I prefer the real deal."
Maggoty mushrooms
What it is: Maggots are fly larvae, tiny rice-shaped creatures that feast on rotting foods.
Where it is: The Food and Drug Administration legally allows 19 maggots and 74 mites in a 3.5-ounce can of mushrooms.
Why it's bad: While maggots do have their place in the medical world—they can help heal ulcers and other wounds—most people think it's pretty gross to eat them!
If you need another reason to ditch canned goods, consider this: Most are lined with bisphenol A, or BPA, a plastic chemical that causes unnatural hormonal changes linked to heart attacks, obesity, and certain cancers.
Cloned cow's stomach
What it is: Traditionally, cheese makers used rennet derived from the mucosa of a veal calf's fourth stomach to create the beloved, versatile dairy product. But Bradley notes that cost and the limited availability of calf stomachs have led to the development of several alternatives, including vegetable rennet, microbial rennet, and—the food industry's rennet of choice—a genetically modified version derived from a cloned calf gene.
Where it is: It's used to make the vast majority of cheese sold in the United States.
Why it's bad: The long-term health effects of eating genetically engineered foods has never been studied in humans. And since GMO ingredients aren't listed on the label, it can be tough for consumers to avoid rennet from this source. "With all these rennet varieties often listed simply as "enzymes" on an ingredient panel, it can be very hard to know exactly what kind you’re eating when you buy cheese," says Bradley, author of the soon-to-be-released book, Fat Profits.
Herbicide-flavored food
What it is: Glyphosate, the active chemical ingredient in the popular weed killer, Roundup, is a hormone-disrupting chemical now used primarily on corn and soy crops genetically engineered to withstand a heavy dousing of the chemical. Nonorganic farmers dumped 57 million pounds of glyphosate on food crops in 2009, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) figures.
Where it is: Roundup is so heavily used around homes and in farm fields that it's now being detected in streams, the air, and even rain. Because it's a systemic herbicide, it's actually taken up inside the plant…meaning we eat it. Yep, it's legally allowed in our food, and in an amount that worries scientists. It's found in most nonorganic packaged foods because most contain corn- or soy-derived ingredients, the crops that are most often heavily doused with Roundup. (For even more reasons you NEED to go organic, check out Organic Manifesto.)
Why it's bad: Glyphosate exposure is linked to obesity, learning disabilities, birth defects, infertility, and potentially irreversible metabolic damage. To avoid pesticides in products, eat organic and avoided processed foods as much as possible. And use caution—"all natural" foods often are chockfull of pesticides and genetically engineered ingredients.
Sex hormones in milk
What it is: Today's cows produce double the amount of milk they did just 40 years ago, thanks largely to a genetically engineered, synthetic hormone called recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST.
Where it is: It could be in milk that's not organic or not labeled as rBST free.
Why it's bad: Scientists link rBST to prostate, breast, and colon cancers. It's banned in other countries, and although still legal here, many dairies are moving away from it due to consumer demand. Choose organic milk to ensure that the cows producing your milk are fed a diet free of antibiotics, hormones, and pesticides.
Shampoo chemicals in produce
What it is: Phthalates are plasticizing chemicals used in everything from pesticides and fragranced soaps and shampoos to nail polish and vinyl shower curtains.
Where it is: A 2010 study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found phthalates are winding up in our food, too. The source could be direct exposure to pesticides containing the hormone-disrupting chemical. Or to another potential source, human sewage sludge applied as a fertilizer to farm fields. The sludge can be tainted with shampoo chemicals that wash down the drain—it all winds up at the water-treatment plant, the source of the sludge. (Note: Use of human sewage sludge is banned in organic farming.)
Why it's bad: Phthalate exposure, even in small amounts, has been linked to behavioral problems in children, allergies and asthma, eczema, and unhealthy changes in our hormonal systems.
Human hair and feathers
What it is: L-cysteine is a non-essential amino acid made from dissolved human hair (often from China) or duck feathers.
Where it is: It's used as a commercial dough conditioner to improve the texture of breads and baked goods.
Why it's bad: Eating something derived from the human body violates Muslim beliefs. Hair and duck feathers pose an ethical dilemma for vegans, too.
Bake your own homemade bread (without hair and feathers) using bread recipes from the Rodale Recipe Finder.
Crushed bugs
What it is: Carmine, a bright red food colorant, is actually the crushed abdomen of the female Dactylopius coccus, an African beetle-like insect.
Where it is: Look for it in red candies and red-tinted yogurts and juices (particularly ruby red juices)—it's often listed as carmine, crimson lake, cochineal, or natural red #4 on ingredient labels, according to Bradley.
Why it's bad: Not only is the thought of eating bug juice gross, but it also poses an ethical issue for some vegetarians and vegans.
Ammonia-cleansed beef
What it is: Factory-farm conditions are rife with bacteria. On top of that, processing plants mix meat from hundreds or thousands of different cows, potentially creating a public health hazard in the mix. To try to make the meat "safer," industry typically puts the beef through an ammonia gas bath.
Where it is: The USDA deems the gross process safe enough, and allows the meat to be sold without any indication that it received the gas treatment. (The process is banned in meats earning organic certification.)
Why it's bad: You might order your burger with pickles or lettuce, but you likely don't want a side of ammonia, a poisonous gas. The kicker? Evidence suggests that blasting beef with it might not even be fully effective at killing germs. Look for organic, pasture-raised meats for a safer option. Often, you can buy these meats directly from local, sustainable farmers.
Brain-frying fake food dyes
What it is: Many artificial food dyes found in hundreds of everyday foods are made from petroleum-derived materials.
Where it is: Dyes are used in cereals and candy to make them more "fun" for kids, in pickles to make them appear fresher, and in place of actual real ingredients in a variety of foods. Example? Betty Crocker Carrot Cake Mix is actually a carrot-free product, with "carrot flavored pieces" cooked up from corn syrup and artificial colors Yellow 6 and Red 40.
Why it's bad: Orange and purple food dyes have been shown to impair brain function, while other dyes have been linked to ADHD and behavioral problems in kids and brain cell toxicity. You're getting ripped off, too. It's cheaper for food companies to use fake dyes than real ingredients. (Tropicana Twister Cherry Berry Blast contains 0 percent berry and cherry juice, despite its name.)
Shrimp coated in cleaning chemicals
What it is: Depending on where your shrimp comes from, it could be tainted with chemicals used to clean filthy shrimp farm pens. Just as gross, farmed shrimp from overseas is often full of antibiotics, mouse and rat hair, and pieces of insects. (Learn more about the dirty side of the seafood industry in The Perfect Protein by Andy Sharpless, CEO of the nonprofit Oceana)
Where it is: Contaminated shrimp tends to come from critters imported from overseas shrimp farms. If you're looking for safer options, choose domestic shrimp. For the best options, consult the good fish list.
Why it's bad: Only about 2 percent of all imported seafood is inspected, meaning this nasty stuff is making its way onto your plate.
Disease-promoting popcorn bags
What it is: An industrial nonstick chemical that falls under the perfluorinated chemicals class is utilized in certain food packaging.
Where it is: These suspect chemicals are commonly used to coat the inside of popcorn bags to prevent sticking and grease leakage. The same chemicals are also in the nonstick coating of many pots, pans, and baking sheets.
Why it's bad: A study published in January 2012 in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that nonstick chemicals in popcorn bags significantly damage the immune system, opening the floodgates for a whole host of other health problems. Nonstick chemicals are also linked to high cholesterol, sperm damage and infertility, and ADHD. Popcorn—made the good old-fashioned way, in a pot on the stovetop—is still a great option
I don't get why people are grossed out by the idea of bugs possibly being hidden inside their food. I can understand the stigma of eating either a live bug or a bug's corpse, but if it's not immediately obvious that there are bugs in your food, who gives a flying fuck whether or not a few crushed beetles or some maggots are in there. Also, it really just makes the case that you should probably wash off your food before you prepare it.
On June 26 2014 00:11 barbsq wrote: A lot of that looks like fearmongering.
I don't get why people are grossed out by the idea of bugs possibly being hidden inside their food. I can understand the stigma of eating either a live bug or a bug's corpse, but if it's not immediately obvious that there are bugs in your food, who gives a flying fuck whether or not a few crushed beetles or some maggots are in there. Also, it really just makes the case that you should probably wash off your food before you prepare it.
I would say bugs are probably of least concern from that list (well, for those not ethically opposed that is). Honestly, it sounds like someone pushing organics to me, but still plenty to take away from it imo. Certainly a lot of those chemicals linked to obesity and other problems seems relevant, although I haven't any secondary sources to check. Maybe you can debunk the claims? I know I have read about the food dyes in cereals being really bad before though, for one.
Since this is a topic of obesity, I guess physical movement and exercise is on topic. Bad food won't help you recover faster, and when I have the choice between ice cream or just regular food with same calorie, I'm pretty sure I feel way more satisfied and can perform better physically eating food.
Although food is the big concern, have there even been discussed the psychological aspect of eating? I was under the impression emotional eating was Americas biggest issue regarding obesity. A note on my own experience, is that when I eat too much, I really dislike the feeling of feeling so full, it makes me tired, and it takes hours to digest. Do people who overeat actually want this? Like the sleepy feeling they get, like they where on drugs, forcing them to relax?
I watched the UCTV videos and either I was inattentive or it wasn't covered but I still got this question: So how do we end up with high levels of insulin? It said we are producing it ourselves because of the change in the global diet, but didn't go into specifics? Like which products make us produce more insulin?
Read up on Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load. For example, white bread has a high glycemic index and a high glycemic load. A water melon has a high glycemic index and a low glycemic load. A banana has a low glycemic index and a high glycemic load in large quantities.
Insulin production is correlated to how much sugars are being metabolized and fed into the blood stream. The glycemic index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index) shows which foods create higher levels of blood sugar levels.
Carbohydrate content is the most relevant factor to consider. Roughly from lowest to highest, it'll go: meat -> nuts/veggies -> fruit -> grains -> pure sugar
compare 1980 population pyramid to 2010 population pyramid.
Is it that big a surprise that we are more obese than 30 years ago when the biggest chunk of our population has aged by 30 years? They were spring chickens in their prime 30 years ago, skinny as could be!
I'm not saying there isn't an underlying issue -- child obesity rates and the prevalence of diabetes and the like are definitely worth debating, but I think BMI rates aren't as crazy as they seem.
Old people put on weight as their metabolism slows down.
On July 04 2014 06:04 Cheerio wrote: I watched the UCTV videos and either I was inattentive or it wasn't covered but I still got this question: So how do we end up with high levels of insulin? It said we are producing it ourselves because of the change in the global diet, but didn't go into specifics? Like which products make us produce more insulin?
Insulin is a hormone/peptide your body produces in response to an increase in blood sugar. Insulin's primary function (it has a thousand and one secondary functions) is to move that sugar from the blood, into your cells. So we ended up with high levels of insulin by having high levels of blood sugar, and we ended up with high blood sugar by eating high carbohydrate foods (or any foods, to a lesser degree) too frequently, and in too large a quantity.
On July 04 2014 06:28 dudeman001 wrote: Insulin production is correlated to how much sugars are being metabolized and fed into the blood stream. The glycemic index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index) shows which foods create higher levels of blood sugar levels.
Carbohydrate content is the most relevant factor to consider. Roughly from lowest to highest, it'll go: meat -> nuts/veggies -> fruit -> grains -> pure sugar
Edit: ^ also what he said lol
Glycemic index, in a vacuum is actually pretty useless. But it is one factor in understanding why blood glucose is rising.
On July 04 2014 07:15 ahw wrote: worth considering for western nations...
compare 1980 population pyramid to 2010 population pyramid.
Is it that big a surprise that we are more obese than 30 years ago when the biggest chunk of our population has aged by 30 years? They were spring chickens in their prime 30 years ago, skinny as could be!
I'm not saying there isn't an underlying issue -- child obesity rates and the prevalence of diabetes and the like are definitely worth debating, but I think BMI rates aren't as crazy as they seem.
Old people put on weight as their metabolism slows down.
Contrary to popular belief, aging doesn't hugely slow your metabolism. It does - a little bit. But the much more significant contribution that most people attribute to age is actually due to the decrease in activity level that you hit in your late 20's/early 30s, and continue to hit periodically as you get older. In your 30's, you have a desk job and you drive everywhere. In your 40's, you're no longer chasing kids around. In your 50's, your knees and hips and back hurt too much to exercise, etc. Old people don't put on weight because they're old, old people put on weight because they work desk jobs and sit around watching TV in their free time. Old people put on weight because their meals while watching TV consist of beer and chips, which are incredibly hard to regulate the calorie content of even if you are actually calorie counting, I can tell you from experience.
the metabolism of a 20 year old triathlete and a 50 year old triathlete are MUCH more similar than the metabolisms of an average 20 year old and an average 35 year old.
It costs less to buy yourself a beef steak + vegetable and cook it than to go eat in a fast food chain.
So it isn't about money.
You can influence your weight (loose some or gain some) willingly by either eating less/more and/or doing more exercise.
So it is not genetic, and that's a FACT For anyone skeptical, a genetic issue can only be solved/affected by modifying the chromosomes. What can be genetic might be how much one "absorbs" from 500g of fat, someone might store 200g out of it and shit the rest, a "genetic obese" might store 450g, in which case solving their problem is about eating less than "normal" people. Following with my exemple when "normal" people have to eat 500g of fat to retain 200g, "obese" ones just need to eat 220g of fat
It's really important to get the distinction. Because anyone who is overweight or obese can loose weight and be healthy again, none of them is doomed and it is thus their own and only fault if they became as they are (or their parents fault if underaged I guess ).
Then there are two kinds of fat people: -those who don't care about it/ assume it and that's great ! -those who complain about it and worst, put the blame on other people (fast food chains)
How fucking retarded can someone be to sue a fast food chain for becoming obese after eating all his meals there and doing no exercise, there should be 3 digits fines for stupid suing.
If there is so much junk and crappy products in supermarkets it's because that's what people want. They want crappy products, they want to pay the lowest prices possible. If everyone wanted to eat healthy quality food and just bought that, then there would be no market for the junk food and it would disappear just like that.
Obesity is essentially an education problem. People are just too dumb to educate themselves, which is quite surprising those days because you can just basically google up any question and obtain tangible sources with little effort (just try "how to eat healthy?" , most government websites have good content on the subject).
And a golden rule which everyone should know about is that too much of anything is bad (you can die if you keep drinking water non stop, if you breath air with too much oxygen for too long etc. )
Fighting obesity starts in schools, they should definitely incorporate courses on food/cooking in the cursus. I think it should be done by parents but all those statistics are showing it's not. Food served in schools should always be balanced and healthy and that should be monitored by government and not private companies (nor schools themselves). You can't put your trust in a private capitalist entity to feed your country's kids (I'm all for capitalism and free market, but some specific things like this should still be government exclusive)
And every parent with an obese kid should be considered for child ill-treatment and law enforced.
On July 04 2014 12:25 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: It costs less to buy yourself a beef steak + vegetable and cook it than to go eat in a fast food chain.
So it isn't about money.
You can influence your weight (loose some or gain some) willingly by either eating less/more and/or doing more exercise.
So it is not genetic, and that's a FACT For anyone skeptical, a genetic issue can only be solved/affected by modifying the chromosomes. What can be genetic might be how much one "absorbs" from 500g of fat, someone might store 200g out of it and shit the rest, a "genetic obese" might store 450g, in which case solving their problem is about eating less than "normal" people. Following with my exemple when "normal" people have to eat 500g of fat to retain 200g, "obese" ones just need to eat 220g of fat
It's really important to get the distinction. Because anyone who is overweight or obese can loose weight and be healthy again, none of them is doomed and it is thus their own and only fault if they became as they are (or their parents fault if underaged I guess ).
Then there are two kinds of fat people: -those who don't care about it/ assume it and that's great ! -those who complain about it and worst, put the blame on other people (fast food chains)
How fucking retarded can someone be to sue a fast food chain for becoming obese after eating all his meals there and doing no exercise, there should be 3 digits fines for stupid suing.
If there is so much junk and crappy products in supermarkets it's because that's what people want. They want crappy products, they want to pay the lowest prices possible. If everyone wanted to eat healthy quality food and just bought that, then there would be no market for the junk food and it would disappear just like that.
Obesity is essentially an education problem. People are just too dumb to educate themselves, which is quite surprising those days because you can just basically google up any question and obtain tangible sources with little effort (just try "how to eat healthy?" , most government websites have good content on the subject).
And a golden rule which everyone should know about is that too much of anything is bad (you can die if you keep drinking water non stop, if you breath air with too much oxygen for too long etc. )
Fighting obesity starts in schools, they should definitely incorporate courses on food/cooking in the cursus. I think it should be done by parents but all those statistics are showing it's not. Food served in schools should always be balanced and healthy and that should be monitored by government and not private companies (nor schools themselves). You can't put your trust in a private capitalist entity to feed your country's kids (I'm all for capitalism and free market, but some specific things like this should still be government exclusive)
And every parent with an obese kid should be considered for child ill-treatment and law enforced.
I have a couple of issues with your post.
First: It is and it isn't about money. Look at it this way; to buy and prepare the ingredients of a healthy, balanced meal takes anywhere from 20 to 60 minutes. A drive-through takes 2, and you never actually have to do anything. If you include the 'time-cost', then healthy eating is certainly more expensive.
Second: Just to clarify; Fat consumed isn't stored as fat. Fat in the body is created from SUGAR. The obesity problem has one simple cause. Not calories, but carbohydrates.
You can blame individuals 'till you're blue in the face; the obesity problem is systemic. What is the main source of sugar in the modern diet? Corn syrup. Corn happens to be one of the most government-subsidised/genetically-modified crops on the planet. Economics and marketing do the rest.
On July 04 2014 12:25 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: It costs less to buy yourself a beef steak + vegetable and cook it than to go eat in a fast food chain.
So it isn't about money.
You can influence your weight (loose some or gain some) willingly by either eating less/more and/or doing more exercise.
So it is not genetic, and that's a FACT For anyone skeptical, a genetic issue can only be solved/affected by modifying the chromosomes. What can be genetic might be how much one "absorbs" from 500g of fat, someone might store 200g out of it and shit the rest, a "genetic obese" might store 450g, in which case solving their problem is about eating less than "normal" people. Following with my exemple when "normal" people have to eat 500g of fat to retain 200g, "obese" ones just need to eat 220g of fat
It's really important to get the distinction. Because anyone who is overweight or obese can loose weight and be healthy again, none of them is doomed and it is thus their own and only fault if they became as they are (or their parents fault if underaged I guess ).
Then there are two kinds of fat people: -those who don't care about it/ assume it and that's great ! -those who complain about it and worst, put the blame on other people (fast food chains)
How fucking retarded can someone be to sue a fast food chain for becoming obese after eating all his meals there and doing no exercise, there should be 3 digits fines for stupid suing.
If there is so much junk and crappy products in supermarkets it's because that's what people want. They want crappy products, they want to pay the lowest prices possible. If everyone wanted to eat healthy quality food and just bought that, then there would be no market for the junk food and it would disappear just like that.
Obesity is essentially an education problem. People are just too dumb to educate themselves, which is quite surprising those days because you can just basically google up any question and obtain tangible sources with little effort (just try "how to eat healthy?" , most government websites have good content on the subject).
And a golden rule which everyone should know about is that too much of anything is bad (you can die if you keep drinking water non stop, if you breath air with too much oxygen for too long etc. )
Fighting obesity starts in schools, they should definitely incorporate courses on food/cooking in the cursus. I think it should be done by parents but all those statistics are showing it's not. Food served in schools should always be balanced and healthy and that should be monitored by government and not private companies (nor schools themselves). You can't put your trust in a private capitalist entity to feed your country's kids (I'm all for capitalism and free market, but some specific things like this should still be government exclusive)
And every parent with an obese kid should be considered for child ill-treatment and law enforced.
I have a couple of issues with your post.
First: It is and it isn't about money. Look at it this way; to buy and prepare the ingredients of a healthy, balanced meal takes anywhere from 20 to 60 minutes. A drive-through takes 2, and you never actually have to do anything. If you include the 'time-cost', then healthy eating is certainly more expensive.
Second: Just to clarify; Fat consumed isn't stored as fat. Fat in the body is created from SUGAR. The obesity problem has one simple cause. Not calories, but carbohydrates.
You can blame individuals 'till you're blue in the face; the obesity problem is systemic. What is the main source of sugar in the modern diet? Corn syrup. Corn happens to be one of the most government-subsidised/genetically-modified crops on the planet. Economics and marketing do the rest.
Edited for clarity
I agree with healthy meals being more expensive. This is a result of the lack of large-scale automation when it comes to producing healthy food.
However, fat isn't stored as fat? Who told you that bullshit? Also, the conversion of sugar into fat is VERY inefficient.
Read up on basic biochemistry: Fatty acids are produced from Acetyl-CoA. 1 molecule of glucose produces 2 molecules of Acetyl-CoA.
1 Acetyl-CoA + CO2 + ATP --> 1 Malonyl CoA (so this step requires energy). A typical fatty acid is 16-20 carbons long. Acetyl-CoA has two Carbons and Malonyl-CoA adds an extra 2 Carbons during elongation. Therefore, one fatty acid requires 1 molecule of Acetyl-CoA and ~8 molecules of Malonyl-CoA.
Fat is stored as triglycerides, which means three of those fatty acids. Thus, for each triglyceride to be produced, we need ~24 molecules of glucose.
Or in other words, it is much easier to get fat by eating fat. What sugar does is to make you crave for more. That is why the typical McDonald's meal is so dangerous. It contains large amounts of high-glycemic food (soft drink and white bread) and fat (French fries and meat).
On July 04 2014 12:25 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: It costs less to buy yourself a beef steak + vegetable and cook it than to go eat in a fast food chain.
So it isn't about money.
You can influence your weight (loose some or gain some) willingly by either eating less/more and/or doing more exercise.
So it is not genetic, and that's a FACT For anyone skeptical, a genetic issue can only be solved/affected by modifying the chromosomes. What can be genetic might be how much one "absorbs" from 500g of fat, someone might store 200g out of it and shit the rest, a "genetic obese" might store 450g, in which case solving their problem is about eating less than "normal" people. Following with my exemple when "normal" people have to eat 500g of fat to retain 200g, "obese" ones just need to eat 220g of fat
It's really important to get the distinction. Because anyone who is overweight or obese can loose weight and be healthy again, none of them is doomed and it is thus their own and only fault if they became as they are (or their parents fault if underaged I guess ).
Then there are two kinds of fat people: -those who don't care about it/ assume it and that's great ! -those who complain about it and worst, put the blame on other people (fast food chains)
How fucking retarded can someone be to sue a fast food chain for becoming obese after eating all his meals there and doing no exercise, there should be 3 digits fines for stupid suing.
If there is so much junk and crappy products in supermarkets it's because that's what people want. They want crappy products, they want to pay the lowest prices possible. If everyone wanted to eat healthy quality food and just bought that, then there would be no market for the junk food and it would disappear just like that.
Obesity is essentially an education problem. People are just too dumb to educate themselves, which is quite surprising those days because you can just basically google up any question and obtain tangible sources with little effort (just try "how to eat healthy?" , most government websites have good content on the subject).
And a golden rule which everyone should know about is that too much of anything is bad (you can die if you keep drinking water non stop, if you breath air with too much oxygen for too long etc. )
Fighting obesity starts in schools, they should definitely incorporate courses on food/cooking in the cursus. I think it should be done by parents but all those statistics are showing it's not. Food served in schools should always be balanced and healthy and that should be monitored by government and not private companies (nor schools themselves). You can't put your trust in a private capitalist entity to feed your country's kids (I'm all for capitalism and free market, but some specific things like this should still be government exclusive)
And every parent with an obese kid should be considered for child ill-treatment and law enforced.
I have a couple of issues with your post.
First: It is and it isn't about money. Look at it this way; to buy and prepare the ingredients of a healthy, balanced meal takes anywhere from 20 to 60 minutes. A drive-through takes 2, and you never actually have to do anything. If you include the 'time-cost', then healthy eating is certainly more expensive.
Second: Just to clarify; Fat consumed isn't stored as fat. Fat in the body is created from SUGAR. The obesity problem has one simple cause. Not calories, but carbohydrates.
You can blame individuals 'till you're blue in the face; the obesity problem is systemic. What is the main source of sugar in the modern diet? Corn syrup. Corn happens to be one of the most government-subsidised/genetically-modified crops on the planet. Economics and marketing do the rest.
Edited for clarity
I agree with healthy meals being more expensive. This is a result of the lack of large-scale automation when it comes to producing healthy food.
However, fat isn't stored as fat? Who told you that bullshit? Also, the conversion of sugar into fat is VERY inefficient.
Read up on basic biochemistry: Fatty acids are produced from Acetyl-CoA. 1 molecule of glucose produces 2 molecules of Acetyl-CoA.
1 Acetyl-CoA + CO2 + ATP --> 1 Malonyl CoA (so this step requires energy). A typical fatty acid is 16-20 carbons long. Acetyl-CoA has two Carbons and Malonyl-CoA adds an extra 2 Carbons during elongation. Therefore, one fatty acid requires 1 molecule of Acetyl-CoA and ~8 molecules of Malonyl-CoA.
Fat is stored as triglycerides, which means three of those fatty acids. Thus, for each triglyceride to be produced, we need ~24 molecules of glucose.
Or in other words, it is much easier to get fat by eating fat. What sugar does is to make you crave for more. That is why the typical McDonald's meal is so dangerous. It contains large amounts of high-glycemic food (soft drink and white bread) and fat (French fries and meat).
The problem is not a lack of "large-scale automation when it comes to producing healthy food." You are looking at this backwards. Real food rots. It decays. It goes bad. The problem is that people don't have time anymore to reproduce themselves. Reproductive labor is the labor that goes into supporting, maintaining, and refreshing human beings. It includes things like: eating, sleeping, exercise, intellectual cultivation, rest, recreation, creative endeavors, emotional support, social interaction, preparing food. Capital works to suppress wages, requiring people to sell more and more of their labor power, at hourly wages, just to survive. When everyone is working 50+ hour weeks, taking second and third jobs just to make ends meet, they do not have the time or energy required to reproduce themselves, leading to degradation of the bodies, minds, and spirits of the population. The problem, then, is not that industry has not gotten around to mass-producing "healthy" food. Such a concept is oxymoronic. The problem is that people are being ground into dust by a wage slave system that devalues reproductive labor in order to maximize capital's profit.
You take in less calories than you use and you loose weight, more and you gain, if you eat fat or sugar or whatever, who gives a damn? As long as your not malnourished on anything it should not concern people half as much as it does. While the detailed scientific (or not) facts might be helpful, spending time on it is nothing else than procrastinating and trying to find an easy way out, instead of just eating less/working out, at least imo.
You cant generalize stuff like this to the extent it does get generalized. Life isnt fair, every body and metabolism is different, you dont need to have a disease to be worse off than others. I recently read a study, ( sadly cant find it atm) which compared weight gain between persons that each got the same amount of surplus calories over the same time (iirc 3 month). Highest gain was around 27, lowest around 9,x average around 16 or sth. Thats a huge difference.
And always this: bohoo fast food is bad for you, so is a lot of sugar and fat bohoo. Im sorry life isnt fair and a lot of people have "weak" bodies, allergies, cant process all food correctly, that doesnt mean generalising it is appropriate. Theres enough people like me who lucked out, arent even close to an ectomorph body type, live nearly exclusively on fast food, no vegies, barely fruit, soft drinks, smoke, whatever, and are perfectly healthy. Sentences like "McDonald's meals are dangerous" make me lol hard. I nearly exclusively eat fast food like that, I go to donate blood/plasma regularly and my bloodwork is literally perfect. They might be dangerous to someone who has a body thats bad at processing that sort of food. Of course its less healthy than healthy meals and full of crap, but thats doesnt mean that its unhealthy food for people with good bodies.
It still all comes down to personal choices and will power.
Yeah sugar might be addicting but so are cocaine and morphine. If you ain't strong enough to resist food, you certainly won't be strong enough to hold up against drugs.
The world currently is filled with weak minded people. So quit being lazy and stand up for you and your health.
lol @ the people saying healthy meals are more expensive.
Like really? That is 100% not true. More time consuming yes, but you can cook a healthy minute in under 20 minutes. You all have enough time to make posts on an internet forum, I'm sure you all have 20 mins in your life to cook and prepare food, rather than ordering a pizza or drive to a drive through mcdonalds.
On July 04 2014 12:25 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: It costs less to buy yourself a beef steak + vegetable and cook it than to go eat in a fast food chain.
So it isn't about money.
This is very misleading. First of all in a food chain there is no delayed gratification, you pay and you get what you want right away. Secondly there are time and labour costs of cooking. Food chain buys you time that you could spend for all the goodies it might give you. Or you could spend it working, and unless you are really low-paid you would have earned more there than you would have saved by choosing to cook yourself. So this is about money actually.
On July 04 2014 22:58 Xiphos wrote: It still all comes down to personal choices and will power.
Yeah sugar might be addicting but so are cocaine and morphine. If you ain't strong enough to resist food, you certainly won't be strong enough to hold up against drugs.
The world currently is filled with weak minded people. So quit being lazy and stand up for you and your health.
Neuro-chemically speaking all people are different. For some people it is far harder to exert self-control than for others. So unless you are on the "harder" side of the spectrum you really have no right to make such a claim.
On June 25 2014 06:19 radscorpion9 wrote: After reading a lot from some more well-informed posters and watching recommended videos on youtube (the UCTV ones) I'm starting to think that the only real solution is for governments to start labeling sugar as a toxin and having them to be strictly regulated, just like what they did with fat several decades ago..
What do you mean by sugar? How is sugar a toxin, more than salt, or water? And if by sugar you mean what I really think you mean, are you insane? Can you seriously fathom the regulation system that needs to supervise any individual's plants and goats?
On July 04 2014 23:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote: lol @ the people saying healthy meals are more expensive.
Like really? That is 100% not true. More time consuming yes, but you can cook a healthy minute in under 20 minutes. You all have enough time to make posts on an internet forum, I'm sure you all have 20 mins in your life to cook and prepare food, rather than ordering a pizza or drive to a drive through mcdonalds.
I eat raw cucumbers, carrots, apples, oranges, bananas, and yogurt at regular intervals to keep my diet well balanced. Those takes <1 mins to wash.
As for proteins, you purchase nuts, eggs, beans, and meat product. All of them (cept for meat) takes less than 10 minutes to boil up.
And carbohydrates, get a rice cooker or just make yourself boiled potatoes.
A healthy meal can be produced in less than 15 minutes for sure.
Its matter of personal choices -> Spend more time on the kitchen for better meals or go out and buy meals that would cost the time to go out to buy them.
On July 04 2014 22:58 Xiphos wrote: It still all comes down to personal choices and will power Yeah sugar might be addicting but so are cocaine and morphine. If you ain't strong enough to resist food, you certainly won't be strong enough to hold up against drugs.
The world currently is filled with weak minded people. So quit being lazy and stand up for you and your health.
Neuro-chemically speaking all people are different. For some people it is far harder to exert self-control than for others. So unless you are on the "harder" side of the spectrum you really have no right to make such a claim.
I was once over 50 pounds overweight to the average weight of my age group. I use to munch 1 full box of oreo cookies every single day until the doctor told me that my knees is getting messed up due to my corpulence.
So I took up swimming and started cutting down the sweets one bite and a time and start eating vegies and actual proteins. If you each healthy, your mind will catch on to it and work more efficiently. You will actually feel it in your body.
So there is no excuse for being fat except for REAL biologically deficiency.
On June 25 2014 06:19 radscorpion9 wrote: After reading a lot from some more well-informed posters and watching recommended videos on youtube (the UCTV ones) I'm starting to think that the only real solution is for governments to start labeling sugar as a toxin and having them to be strictly regulated, just like what they did with fat several decades ago..
If you simply see that as a solution, which technicly i guess it COULD be, by that i mean it COULD lower obesity a bit, but dont want this to happen then disregard the lower part. If however you actually want that to happen, feel free to see the lower part also directed at you.
People like you need to get their freedom of speech strictly regulated because there are enough idiots that will believe and side with that.
Fuck off limiting healthy peoples freedom because a large group is weak in either body or mind. Worse enough people go full Nazi on smokers, now people want to limit how much sugar i can eat? Seriously why dont you just take away every bit of freedom people have left to make the world a healthier place? Better make them emotionless too, technicly its for the better of mankind.
Edit:
On July 04 2014 23:12 Xiphos wrote:
A healthy meal can be produced in less than 15 minutes for sure.
I have to disagree, you might get a healthy meal ready in 15 minutes. But theres a limited amount of dishes you can do in that little time while tasting good. Unless your experienced, but that is time too. Then you have to account for shopping time and washing dishes/cleaning up kitchen. All adds up. Then there's the problem that if your schedule is irregular and you have to eat out sometimes, you cant stockpile food, especially not as a young person who doesnt even own a freezer, food will rot and go bad. Unless you shop daily/every 2 days. Thats also additional time. If you are an unorganised person on top of that, you easily loose an hour a day cooking yourself.
Other people would be unhealthy big time eating like me, but for me it is impossible to spend only 15-30 min on cooking a day while others pull that off. And to be honest, adding up shopping/cleaning/schedule time, 15 minutes "for sure" seems to be the utmost limit probably not achieved by many.
On June 25 2014 06:19 radscorpion9 wrote: After reading a lot from some more well-informed posters and watching recommended videos on youtube (the UCTV ones) I'm starting to think that the only real solution is for governments to start labeling sugar as a toxin and having them to be strictly regulated, just like what they did with fat several decades ago..
If you simply see that as a solution, which technicly i guess it COULD be, by that i mean it COULD lower obesity a bit but dont want this to happen then disregard the lower part. if however you actually want that to happen, feel free to see the lower part also directed at you.
People like you need to get their freedom of speech strictly regulated because there are enough idiots that will believe and side with that.
Fuck off limiting healthy peoples freedom because a large group is weak in either body or mind. Worse enough people go full Nazi on smokers, now people want to limit how much sugar i can eat? Seriously why dont you just take away every bit of freedom people have left to make the world a healthier place? Better make them emotionless too, technicly its for the better of mankind.
What this guy said. I want access to bad food, since on occasion when I eat it, I just eat a bit. I can get going full Nazi on smokers since they fuck up everybodys air, fatties don't affect my life at all.
Probably a better solution is to subsidise fresh fruit / veg. We already subsidise fat shits with with their chronic fat related health problems (in the UK at least) so anybody that pays taxes shouldn't have much of a problem with that. The worst outcome is nobody changes eating habits and healthy people like me have more disposable income to spend on funs.
On June 25 2014 06:19 radscorpion9 wrote: After reading a lot from some more well-informed posters and watching recommended videos on youtube (the UCTV ones) I'm starting to think that the only real solution is for governments to start labeling sugar as a toxin and having them to be strictly regulated, just like what they did with fat several decades ago..
If you simply see that as a solution, which technicly i guess it COULD be, by that i mean it COULD lower obesity a bit, but dont want this to happen then disregard the lower part. If however you actually want that to happen, feel free to see the lower part also directed at you.
People like you need to get their freedom of speech strictly regulated because there are enough idiots that will believe and side with that.
Fuck off limiting healthy peoples freedom because a large group is weak in either body or mind. Worse enough people go full Nazi on smokers, now people want to limit how much sugar i can eat? Seriously why dont you just take away every bit of freedom people have left to make the world a healthier place? Better make them emotionless too, technicly its for the better of mankind.
A healthy meal can be produced in less than 15 minutes for sure.
I have to disagree, you might get a healthy meal ready in 15 minutes. But theres a limited amount of dishes you can do in that little time while tasting good. Unless your experienced, but that is time too. Then you have to account for shopping time and washing dishes/cleaning up kitchen. All adds up. Then there's the problem that if your schedule is irregular and you have to eat out sometimes, you cant stockpile food, especially not as a young person who doesnt even own a freezer, food will rot and go bad. Unless you shop daily/every 2 days. Thats also additional time. If you are an unorganised person on top of that, you easily loose an hour a day cooking yourself.
Other people would be unhealthy big time eating like me, but for me it is impossible to spend only 15-30 min on cooking a day while others pull that off. And to be honest, adding up shopping/cleaning/schedule time, 15 minutes "for sure" seems to be the utmost limit probably not achieved by many.
I wash my dishes while I cook.
Yes shopping takes time too but on the weekend, where you have 48 hours to spare? That's just being smart with time.
On June 25 2014 06:19 radscorpion9 wrote: After reading a lot from some more well-informed posters and watching recommended videos on youtube (the UCTV ones) I'm starting to think that the only real solution is for governments to start labeling sugar as a toxin and having them to be strictly regulated, just like what they did with fat several decades ago..
If you simply see that as a solution, which technicly i guess it COULD be, by that i mean it COULD lower obesity a bit, but dont want this to happen then disregard the lower part. If however you actually want that to happen, feel free to see the lower part also directed at you.
People like you need to get their freedom of speech strictly regulated because there are enough idiots that will believe and side with that.
Fuck off limiting healthy peoples freedom because a large group is weak in either body or mind. Worse enough people go full Nazi on smokers, now people want to limit how much sugar i can eat? Seriously why dont you just take away every bit of freedom people have left to make the world a healthier place? Better make them emotionless too, technicly its for the better of mankind.
Edit:
On July 04 2014 23:12 Xiphos wrote:
A healthy meal can be produced in less than 15 minutes for sure.
I have to disagree, you might get a healthy meal ready in 15 minutes. But theres a limited amount of dishes you can do in that little time while tasting good. Unless your experienced, but that is time too. Then you have to account for shopping time and washing dishes/cleaning up kitchen. All adds up. Then there's the problem that if your schedule is irregular and you have to eat out sometimes, you cant stockpile food, especially not as a young person who doesnt even own a freezer, food will rot and go bad. Unless you shop daily/every 2 days. Thats also additional time. If you are an unorganised person on top of that, you easily loose an hour a day cooking yourself.
Other people would be unhealthy big time eating like me, but for me it is impossible to spend only 15-30 min on cooking a day while others pull that off. And to be honest, adding up shopping/cleaning/schedule time, 15 minutes "for sure" seems to be the utmost limit probably not achieved by many.
I wash my dishes while I cook.
Yes shopping takes time too but on the weekend, where you have 48 hours to spare? That's just being smart with time.
I completly agree with you. I admit my time management is crap, im utterly bad at that and got ADD as well, however i dont see that as an excuse.
Some people are weak at controlling their eating habits, others are terrible at time management, everyone has weak points, its just so hypocritic to only bash one side. The decision to change or not to change this with time/effort should be up to each person tho.
On July 04 2014 23:19 freewareplayer wrote: Fuck off limiting healthy peoples freedom because a large group is weak in either body or mind. Worse enough people go full Nazi on smokers, now people want to limit how much sugar i can eat? Seriously why dont you just take away every bit of freedom people have left to make the world a healthier place? Better make them emotionless too, technicly its for the better of mankind.
You can substitute sugar for drugs in your post and argue the same way. The thing is freedom has natural limitations. One of those is that underaged health should be protected because they can't make educated and fully informed decisions on their own. Another one is that unhealthy behavior should be discouraged, including by additional taxation. Nobody is banning sugar, relax.
On July 04 2014 23:19 freewareplayer wrote: Fuck off limiting healthy peoples freedom because a large group is weak in either body or mind. Worse enough people go full Nazi on smokers, now people want to limit how much sugar i can eat? Seriously why dont you just take away every bit of freedom people have left to make the world a healthier place? Better make them emotionless too, technicly its for the better of mankind.
You can substitute sugar for drugs in your post and argue the same thing. The thing is freedom has natural limitations. One of those is that underaged health should be protected because they can't make educated and fully informed decisions on their own. Another one is that unhealthy behavior should be discouraged, including by additional taxation. Nobody is banning sugar, relax.
I also get that. But theres a limitation for everything. Also a limitation for limitations. I highly doubt sugar will get banned, but the limitation stuff already crossed a line.
Its already at the point where if you own the land, own the house on it, open a buiseness on it ( bar), you cant even decide yourself any more if smoking is allowed or not ( thats making it impossible to target a specific audience for your buiseness, which basicly EVERY buiseness does). If people dont like it, stay way, dont bother the others. Same with sugar or whatever. Good to give kids informations, bad to regulate adults.
Same logic would be me going to a gay club because i like the music/drinks, and then constantly complain about dudes hitting on me and demanding it to stop.
If the solution: "stay away from whats bothering you" is an option and doesnt require effot, then it doesnt require limitations. If it isnt, feel free to regulate, thats fair. Nonne forces sugar down peoples throats if they watch out for it, and noone forces non smokers to enter a smoking bar. Yet one of the two is already limited with overkill.
On July 04 2014 12:25 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: It costs less to buy yourself a beef steak + vegetable and cook it than to go eat in a fast food chain.
So it isn't about money.
This is very misleading. First of all in a food chain there is no delayed gratification, you pay and you get what you want right away. Secondly there are time and labour costs of cooking. Food chain buys you time that you could spend for all the goodies it might give you. Or you could spend it working, and unless you are really low-paid you would have earned more there than you would have saved by choosing to cook yourself. So this is about money actually.
Lol no. Calling the time you take to to cook labour costs is absurd. The time taken to cook is during your free time; they are not time taken out of your working hours. You personally spend at least 20 minutes browsing the internet. Where is the "labour costs" taken away there? You spend 20 minutes preparing cooking and cleaning your food and dishes. This is time away from working hours, unless you literally work overtime, all the time like in Japan. Somehow, I doubt this is the case. Just look at Japan and how they can make time to eat healthily and be healthy despite their literally working to death work ethic.
On June 25 2014 06:19 radscorpion9 wrote: After reading a lot from some more well-informed posters and watching recommended videos on youtube (the UCTV ones) I'm starting to think that the only real solution is for governments to start labeling sugar as a toxin and having them to be strictly regulated, just like what they did with fat several decades ago..
If you simply see that as a solution, which technicly i guess it COULD be, by that i mean it COULD lower obesity a bit, but dont want this to happen then disregard the lower part. If however you actually want that to happen, feel free to see the lower part also directed at you.
People like you need to get their freedom of speech strictly regulated because there are enough idiots that will believe and side with that.
Fuck off limiting healthy peoples freedom because a large group is weak in either body or mind. Worse enough people go full Nazi on smokers, now people want to limit how much sugar i can eat? Seriously why dont you just take away every bit of freedom people have left to make the world a healthier place? Better make them emotionless too, technicly its for the better of mankind.
Edit:
On July 04 2014 23:12 Xiphos wrote:
A healthy meal can be produced in less than 15 minutes for sure.
I have to disagree, you might get a healthy meal ready in 15 minutes. But theres a limited amount of dishes you can do in that little time while tasting good. Unless your experienced, but that is time too. Then you have to account for shopping time and washing dishes/cleaning up kitchen. All adds up. Then there's the problem that if your schedule is irregular and you have to eat out sometimes, you cant stockpile food, especially not as a young person who doesnt even own a freezer, food will rot and go bad. Unless you shop daily/every 2 days. Thats also additional time. If you are an unorganised person on top of that, you easily loose an hour a day cooking yourself.
Other people would be unhealthy big time eating like me, but for me it is impossible to spend only 15-30 min on cooking a day while others pull that off. And to be honest, adding up shopping/cleaning/schedule time, 15 minutes "for sure" seems to be the utmost limit probably not achieved by many.
I wash my dishes while I cook.
Yes shopping takes time too but on the weekend, where you have 48 hours to spare? That's just being smart with time.
I'm not sure you actually own a clock or can tell time... 15 minute meals while washing the dishes? Are you shoving a frozen pizza in the oven or something? Or are you doing some clever accounting with your 15 minutes? Let's take an example of a delicious "15 minute meal" from Jamie Oliver:
Cook the aubergines whole in the microwave (800W) for 7 minutes • Put 1 mug of couscous and 2 mugs of boiling water into a bowl and cover • Cut the lamb into 8 pieces and flatten with your fist, then toss with salt, pepper and the garam masala • Put into the large frying pan with 1 tablespoon of oil, turning when golden • Toast the cumin crunch mix in the medium frying pan until lightly golden, then pound in a pestle and mortar • Return the empty pan to a low heat
Carefully transfer the aubergines to a board, then halve lengthways and add to the lamb pan, skin side down, pushing the lamb to the side • Put the saffron into a mug half-filled with boiling water • Roughly chop the tomatoes, finely chop the preserved lemon, trim and slice the spring onions and chilli, then add it all to the medium frying pan with 2 tablespoons of oil, the saffron and its soaking water • Turn the heat up to high, bring to the boil, then season to taste
Fluff up the couscous, then spoon over a large serving board or platter • Flip the aubergine over to soak up the pan juices, then place on top of the couscous and pour over the tomatoes and any juices • Lay over the lamb, then scatter with the cumin crunch and the coriander leaves • Serve with the yoghurt
I don't know a soul that can do all of that in 15 minutes, and maybe a couple of people that could do it in an hour. And that's without doing dishes in the middle.
Maybe you're thinking everybody should live off of sandwiches and rice or something, as if that is enough for a lot of people's tastes...
To add to the other poster though, even if you do own a freezer, for a lot of healthy food, freezing meat poses a problem with thawing as well. Forget to lay out the chicken before you go to work? Looks like the home cooked dinner is cancelled...
The other thing that enters into the discussion is stress and the neuroendocrine stress response. Genetics is one factor, yes, but as they say, genetics loads the gun and the environment pulls the trigger. Chronic stress can make you eat more, and some people are more vulnerable to chronic stress than others. Under certain conditions, the stress hormone cortisol increases appetite, so now the person is left with two choices 1) feel hungry all the time 2) eat more. I would be very reluctant to call people weak-minded for that (not that I like the term or the characterization anyway).
Some very very interesting work has emerged in the last couple decades on stress and social structures, and also on social structures and disease. I have, as a personal hypothesis thought that these are connected via the keep-up-with-the-neighbours mentality that is increasingly common and intensifying across the globe. When read alone, the books "The Spirit Level" (connects socioeconomic inequality with health outcomes across the board) and "Why do Zebras not get Ulcers" (an excellent summary of the effects of stress as has been revealed in the last couple decades) are interesting books in their own right, but read both, and inescapably, one starts to wonder if widespread obesity (and an enormous battery of "developed nation diseases") has got something to do with a political and social framework that has developed in the last century.
TLDR: Stress could also have something to do with this obesity explosion.
On June 25 2014 06:19 radscorpion9 wrote: After reading a lot from some more well-informed posters and watching recommended videos on youtube (the UCTV ones) I'm starting to think that the only real solution is for governments to start labeling sugar as a toxin and having them to be strictly regulated, just like what they did with fat several decades ago..
If you simply see that as a solution, which technicly i guess it COULD be, by that i mean it COULD lower obesity a bit, but dont want this to happen then disregard the lower part. If however you actually want that to happen, feel free to see the lower part also directed at you.
People like you need to get their freedom of speech strictly regulated because there are enough idiots that will believe and side with that.
Fuck off limiting healthy peoples freedom because a large group is weak in either body or mind. Worse enough people go full Nazi on smokers, now people want to limit how much sugar i can eat? Seriously why dont you just take away every bit of freedom people have left to make the world a healthier place? Better make them emotionless too, technicly its for the better of mankind.
Edit:
On July 04 2014 23:12 Xiphos wrote:
A healthy meal can be produced in less than 15 minutes for sure.
I have to disagree, you might get a healthy meal ready in 15 minutes. But theres a limited amount of dishes you can do in that little time while tasting good. Unless your experienced, but that is time too. Then you have to account for shopping time and washing dishes/cleaning up kitchen. All adds up. Then there's the problem that if your schedule is irregular and you have to eat out sometimes, you cant stockpile food, especially not as a young person who doesnt even own a freezer, food will rot and go bad. Unless you shop daily/every 2 days. Thats also additional time. If you are an unorganised person on top of that, you easily loose an hour a day cooking yourself.
Other people would be unhealthy big time eating like me, but for me it is impossible to spend only 15-30 min on cooking a day while others pull that off. And to be honest, adding up shopping/cleaning/schedule time, 15 minutes "for sure" seems to be the utmost limit probably not achieved by many.
I wash my dishes while I cook.
Yes shopping takes time too but on the weekend, where you have 48 hours to spare? That's just being smart with time.
I'm not sure you actually own a clock or can tell time... 15 minute meals while washing the dishes? Are you shoving a frozen pizza in the oven or something? Or are you doing some clever accounting with your 15 minutes? Let's take an example of a delicious "15 minute meal" from Jamie Oliver:
Cook the aubergines whole in the microwave (800W) for 7 minutes • Put 1 mug of couscous and 2 mugs of boiling water into a bowl and cover • Cut the lamb into 8 pieces and flatten with your fist, then toss with salt, pepper and the garam masala • Put into the large frying pan with 1 tablespoon of oil, turning when golden • Toast the cumin crunch mix in the medium frying pan until lightly golden, then pound in a pestle and mortar • Return the empty pan to a low heat
Carefully transfer the aubergines to a board, then halve lengthways and add to the lamb pan, skin side down, pushing the lamb to the side • Put the saffron into a mug half-filled with boiling water • Roughly chop the tomatoes, finely chop the preserved lemon, trim and slice the spring onions and chilli, then add it all to the medium frying pan with 2 tablespoons of oil, the saffron and its soaking water • Turn the heat up to high, bring to the boil, then season to taste
Fluff up the couscous, then spoon over a large serving board or platter • Flip the aubergine over to soak up the pan juices, then place on top of the couscous and pour over the tomatoes and any juices • Lay over the lamb, then scatter with the cumin crunch and the coriander leaves • Serve with the yoghurt
I don't know a soul that can do all of that in 15 minutes, and maybe a couple of people that could do it in an hour. And that's without doing dishes in the middle.
Maybe you're thinking everybody should live off of sandwiches and rice or something, as if that is enough for a lot of people's tastes...
To add to the other poster though, even if you do own a freezer, for a lot of healthy food, freezing meat poses a problem with thawing as well. Forget to lay out the chicken before you go to work? Looks like the home cooked dinner is cancelled...
Raw cucumber + Apple = veggies + fruits = 2 minutes
Scrambled Eggs = protein = 5 minutes
Boil potatoes = carbs = 10 minutes.
Its akin to playing starcraft. While a certain thing is in the process of completion, I don't waste time and immediately go to the next thing.
And from the above diet that I JUST ate, I get WAY better nutrients than mcdonalds or any fast food restaurent AND its cheap too.
Again some people are just plain lazy.
Oh by the way if you see how professional athletes eat, their diet ain't that tasty. All those good "tastes" in food comes from sodium, fructose, and spices. All of those contains malignant properties that are detrimental to your health. I try to stay away from salt, sugar, spicy stuff (unless it is ACTUALLY pepers and not that red vietnamess sauce), and oil (except for maybe olive oil) as much as I can.
EVERYTHING is an exchange, in this case: taste vs health.
On June 25 2014 06:19 radscorpion9 wrote: After reading a lot from some more well-informed posters and watching recommended videos on youtube (the UCTV ones) I'm starting to think that the only real solution is for governments to start labeling sugar as a toxin and having them to be strictly regulated, just like what they did with fat several decades ago..
If you simply see that as a solution, which technicly i guess it COULD be, by that i mean it COULD lower obesity a bit, but dont want this to happen then disregard the lower part. If however you actually want that to happen, feel free to see the lower part also directed at you.
People like you need to get their freedom of speech strictly regulated because there are enough idiots that will believe and side with that.
Fuck off limiting healthy peoples freedom because a large group is weak in either body or mind. Worse enough people go full Nazi on smokers, now people want to limit how much sugar i can eat? Seriously why dont you just take away every bit of freedom people have left to make the world a healthier place? Better make them emotionless too, technicly its for the better of mankind.
Edit:
On July 04 2014 23:12 Xiphos wrote:
A healthy meal can be produced in less than 15 minutes for sure.
I have to disagree, you might get a healthy meal ready in 15 minutes. But theres a limited amount of dishes you can do in that little time while tasting good. Unless your experienced, but that is time too. Then you have to account for shopping time and washing dishes/cleaning up kitchen. All adds up. Then there's the problem that if your schedule is irregular and you have to eat out sometimes, you cant stockpile food, especially not as a young person who doesnt even own a freezer, food will rot and go bad. Unless you shop daily/every 2 days. Thats also additional time. If you are an unorganised person on top of that, you easily loose an hour a day cooking yourself.
Other people would be unhealthy big time eating like me, but for me it is impossible to spend only 15-30 min on cooking a day while others pull that off. And to be honest, adding up shopping/cleaning/schedule time, 15 minutes "for sure" seems to be the utmost limit probably not achieved by many.
I wash my dishes while I cook.
Yes shopping takes time too but on the weekend, where you have 48 hours to spare? That's just being smart with time.
I'm not sure you actually own a clock or can tell time... 15 minute meals while washing the dishes? Are you shoving a frozen pizza in the oven or something? Or are you doing some clever accounting with your 15 minutes? Let's take an example of a delicious "15 minute meal" from Jamie Oliver:
Cook the aubergines whole in the microwave (800W) for 7 minutes • Put 1 mug of couscous and 2 mugs of boiling water into a bowl and cover • Cut the lamb into 8 pieces and flatten with your fist, then toss with salt, pepper and the garam masala • Put into the large frying pan with 1 tablespoon of oil, turning when golden • Toast the cumin crunch mix in the medium frying pan until lightly golden, then pound in a pestle and mortar • Return the empty pan to a low heat
Carefully transfer the aubergines to a board, then halve lengthways and add to the lamb pan, skin side down, pushing the lamb to the side • Put the saffron into a mug half-filled with boiling water • Roughly chop the tomatoes, finely chop the preserved lemon, trim and slice the spring onions and chilli, then add it all to the medium frying pan with 2 tablespoons of oil, the saffron and its soaking water • Turn the heat up to high, bring to the boil, then season to taste
Fluff up the couscous, then spoon over a large serving board or platter • Flip the aubergine over to soak up the pan juices, then place on top of the couscous and pour over the tomatoes and any juices • Lay over the lamb, then scatter with the cumin crunch and the coriander leaves • Serve with the yoghurt
I don't know a soul that can do all of that in 15 minutes, and maybe a couple of people that could do it in an hour. And that's without doing dishes in the middle.
Maybe you're thinking everybody should live off of sandwiches and rice or something, as if that is enough for a lot of people's tastes...
To add to the other poster though, even if you do own a freezer, for a lot of healthy food, freezing meat poses a problem with thawing as well. Forget to lay out the chicken before you go to work? Looks like the home cooked dinner is cancelled...
I don't understand your point. I can do that in 15 minutes. There's 15 actions and they all easily take under a minute. Sure, maybe taking all the food out of the fridge and laying the dishes and the washing up isn't included. So what? Those don't take too long.
Not to mention, why are you talking about a meal for 4 people as an example? Plenty of families with both working parents can make the time to cook, it's absurd that a single person who apparently eats enough for 4 people cannot.
We can discuss as many ways to live healthy as we want, the fact is that one third of the world population doesn't give a shit about all that. Being fat has become an accepted status in our society and that is the main issue.
On July 05 2014 04:32 urboss wrote: We can discuss as many ways to live healthy as we want, the fact is that one third of the world population doesn't give a shit about all that. Being fat has become an accepted status in our society and that is the main issue.
Truly, this is the root of the problem. The discussions going on in this thread about "why it's harder to be thin" or "what should we do about sugar" are all well and good, but literally every person in the world, metabolic disease or no who made a serious and educated attempt to do so, could lose a significant amount of weight.
So in the end it's about willpower, education, and motivation, not science or time management, or any of the rest of this stuff.
On July 04 2014 12:25 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: It costs less to buy yourself a beef steak + vegetable and cook it than to go eat in a fast food chain.
So it isn't about money.
You can influence your weight (loose some or gain some) willingly by either eating less/more and/or doing more exercise.
So it is not genetic, and that's a FACT For anyone skeptical, a genetic issue can only be solved/affected by modifying the chromosomes. What can be genetic might be how much one "absorbs" from 500g of fat, someone might store 200g out of it and shit the rest, a "genetic obese" might store 450g, in which case solving their problem is about eating less than "normal" people. Following with my exemple when "normal" people have to eat 500g of fat to retain 200g, "obese" ones just need to eat 220g of fat
It's really important to get the distinction. Because anyone who is overweight or obese can loose weight and be healthy again, none of them is doomed and it is thus their own and only fault if they became as they are (or their parents fault if underaged I guess ).
Then there are two kinds of fat people: -those who don't care about it/ assume it and that's great ! -those who complain about it and worst, put the blame on other people (fast food chains)
How fucking retarded can someone be to sue a fast food chain for becoming obese after eating all his meals there and doing no exercise, there should be 3 digits fines for stupid suing.
If there is so much junk and crappy products in supermarkets it's because that's what people want. They want crappy products, they want to pay the lowest prices possible. If everyone wanted to eat healthy quality food and just bought that, then there would be no market for the junk food and it would disappear just like that.
Obesity is essentially an education problem. People are just too dumb to educate themselves, which is quite surprising those days because you can just basically google up any question and obtain tangible sources with little effort (just try "how to eat healthy?" , most government websites have good content on the subject).
And a golden rule which everyone should know about is that too much of anything is bad (you can die if you keep drinking water non stop, if you breath air with too much oxygen for too long etc. )
Fighting obesity starts in schools, they should definitely incorporate courses on food/cooking in the cursus. I think it should be done by parents but all those statistics are showing it's not. Food served in schools should always be balanced and healthy and that should be monitored by government and not private companies (nor schools themselves). You can't put your trust in a private capitalist entity to feed your country's kids (I'm all for capitalism and free market, but some specific things like this should still be government exclusive)
And every parent with an obese kid should be considered for child ill-treatment and law enforced.
I have a couple of issues with your post.
First: It is and it isn't about money. Look at it this way; to buy and prepare the ingredients of a healthy, balanced meal takes anywhere from 20 to 60 minutes. A drive-through takes 2, and you never actually have to do anything. If you include the 'time-cost', then healthy eating is certainly more expensive.
Second: Just to clarify; Fat consumed isn't stored as fat. Fat in the body is created from SUGAR. The obesity problem has one simple cause. Not calories, but carbohydrates.
You can blame individuals 'till you're blue in the face; the obesity problem is systemic. What is the main source of sugar in the modern diet? Corn syrup. Corn happens to be one of the most government-subsidised/genetically-modified crops on the planet. Economics and marketing do the rest.
Edited for clarity
I agree with healthy meals being more expensive. This is a result of the lack of large-scale automation when it comes to producing healthy food.
However, fat isn't stored as fat? Who told you that bullshit? Also, the conversion of sugar into fat is VERY inefficient.
Read up on basic biochemistry: Fatty acids are produced from Acetyl-CoA. 1 molecule of glucose produces 2 molecules of Acetyl-CoA.
1 Acetyl-CoA + CO2 + ATP --> 1 Malonyl CoA (so this step requires energy). A typical fatty acid is 16-20 carbons long. Acetyl-CoA has two Carbons and Malonyl-CoA adds an extra 2 Carbons during elongation. Therefore, one fatty acid requires 1 molecule of Acetyl-CoA and ~8 molecules of Malonyl-CoA.
Fat is stored as triglycerides, which means three of those fatty acids. Thus, for each triglyceride to be produced, we need ~24 molecules of glucose.
Or in other words, it is much easier to get fat by eating fat. What sugar does is to make you crave for more. That is why the typical McDonald's meal is so dangerous. It contains large amounts of high-glycemic food (soft drink and white bread) and fat (French fries and meat).
thank you for forcing me to do some more research. here is what i found:
"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."
"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."
"while for many years it has been claimed that the increase in pediatric obesity has happened because of an increase in high fat intake, contradictory results have been obtained by cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Result of NHANES has shown that fat consumption of American children has fallen over the last three decades. For instance; mean dietary fat consumption in males aged 12–19 years fell from 37.0% (SD = 0.29%) of total caloric intake in 1971–1974 to 32.0% (SD = 0.42%) in 1999–2000. The pattern was the same for females, whose fat consumption fell from 36.7% (SD = 0.27%) to 32.1% (SD = 0.61%) [38,39]. Gregory et al. [40] reported that the average fat intake of children aged 4–18 years in the UK is close to the government recommendation of 35% energy. On the other hand, some cross-sectional studies have found a positive relationship between fat intake and adiposity in children even after controlling for confounding factors [41,42]. The main objection to the notion that dietary fat is responsible for the accelerated pediatric obesity epidemic is the fact that at the same time the prevalence of childhood obesity was increasing, the consumption of dietary fat in different populations was decreasing. Although fat eaten in excess leads to obesity, there is not strong enough evidence that fat intake is the chief reason for the ascending trend of childhood obesity."
Thus, though in theory consuming fat should make you more overweight, sugar (specifically fructose) intake seems to be a stronger factor due to the complex nature of bio-feedback systems in the body and brain.
On July 04 2014 16:07 urboss wrote: I agree with healthy meals being more expensive. This is a result of the lack of large-scale automation when it comes to producing healthy food.
However, fat isn't stored as fat? Who told you that bullshit? Also, the conversion of sugar into fat is VERY inefficient.
Read up on basic biochemistry: Fatty acids are produced from Acetyl-CoA. 1 molecule of glucose produces 2 molecules of Acetyl-CoA.
1 Acetyl-CoA + CO2 + ATP --> 1 Malonyl CoA (so this step requires energy). A typical fatty acid is 16-20 carbons long. Acetyl-CoA has two Carbons and Malonyl-CoA adds an extra 2 Carbons during elongation. Therefore, one fatty acid requires 1 molecule of Acetyl-CoA and ~8 molecules of Malonyl-CoA.
Fat is stored as triglycerides, which means three of those fatty acids. Thus, for each triglyceride to be produced, we need ~24 molecules of glucose.
Or in other words, it is much easier to get fat by eating fat. What sugar does is to make you crave for more. That is why the typical McDonald's meal is so dangerous. It contains large amounts of high-glycemic food (soft drink and white bread) and fat (French fries and meat).
Biochemistry is all well and good, but we're talking about biology here. It's not necessarily more complex, but there are more factors involved than just the chemical reactions. It's technically easier to get fat by eating fat, because it's more calorie dense and it's more easily made into triglycerides, sure. But it's also significantly harder to overeat on fat, because of the hormone responses caused by its ingestion and because of the types of food that are typically high in fat.
tl;dr this isn't a one sided problem, they both contribute. Which side contributes more depends on who you talk to, and about the specific case you're talking about.
On July 05 2014 05:37 _-NoMaN-_ wrote: thank you for forcing me to do some more research. here is what i found:
"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."
"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."
"while for many years it has been claimed that the increase in pediatric obesity has happened because of an increase in high fat intake, contradictory results have been obtained by cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Result of NHANES has shown that fat consumption of American children has fallen over the last three decades. For instance; mean dietary fat consumption in males aged 12–19 years fell from 37.0% (SD = 0.29%) of total caloric intake in 1971–1974 to 32.0% (SD = 0.42%) in 1999–2000. The pattern was the same for females, whose fat consumption fell from 36.7% (SD = 0.27%) to 32.1% (SD = 0.61%) [38,39]. Gregory et al. [40] reported that the average fat intake of children aged 4–18 years in the UK is close to the government recommendation of 35% energy. On the other hand, some cross-sectional studies have found a positive relationship between fat intake and adiposity in children even after controlling for confounding factors [41,42]. The main objection to the notion that dietary fat is responsible for the accelerated pediatric obesity epidemic is the fact that at the same time the prevalence of childhood obesity was increasing, the consumption of dietary fat in different populations was decreasing. Although fat eaten in excess leads to obesity, there is not strong enough evidence that fat intake is the chief reason for the ascending trend of childhood obesity."
Blah blah blah, the root of the problem is still not sugar, it's education and motivation. Sure, low sugar diets will make it easier for most people to lose weight. It's still entirely possible to be "hungry" and not eat something - and that will cause weight loss as well.
On July 05 2014 03:38 aksfjh wrote: I'm not sure you actually own a clock or can tell time... 15 minute meals while washing the dishes? Are you shoving a frozen pizza in the oven or something? Or are you doing some clever accounting with your 15 minutes? Let's take an example of a delicious "15 minute meal" from Jamie Oliver:
Cook the aubergines whole in the microwave (800W) for 7 minutes • Put 1 mug of couscous and 2 mugs of boiling water into a bowl and cover • Cut the lamb into 8 pieces and flatten with your fist, then toss with salt, pepper and the garam masala • Put into the large frying pan with 1 tablespoon of oil, turning when golden • Toast the cumin crunch mix in the medium frying pan until lightly golden, then pound in a pestle and mortar • Return the empty pan to a low heat
Carefully transfer the aubergines to a board, then halve lengthways and add to the lamb pan, skin side down, pushing the lamb to the side • Put the saffron into a mug half-filled with boiling water • Roughly chop the tomatoes, finely chop the preserved lemon, trim and slice the spring onions and chilli, then add it all to the medium frying pan with 2 tablespoons of oil, the saffron and its soaking water • Turn the heat up to high, bring to the boil, then season to taste
Fluff up the couscous, then spoon over a large serving board or platter • Flip the aubergine over to soak up the pan juices, then place on top of the couscous and pour over the tomatoes and any juices • Lay over the lamb, then scatter with the cumin crunch and the coriander leaves • Serve with the yoghurt
Things I'm reading here: 1. Microwave aubergines 2. cut up lamb, season it, and start it cooking in a pan (or buy it precut to save on your precious labor costs) 3. toast and grind cumin (takes like one minute, or buy it already done) 4. slice your microwaved aubergines, add them to the pan with the lamb. 5. slice/chop and boil some spices and vegetables 6. Make couscous (I think that's like a rice?) 7. Put it all on a plate and serve with yogurt on the side.
On July 05 2014 03:38 aksfjh wrote: I don't know a soul that can do all of that in 15 minutes, and maybe a couple of people that could do it in an hour. And that's without doing dishes in the middle.
Sure it would take an hour. But most of that time would be "dead time" while you're waiting for the meat to cook, or water to boil, etc. - that's the time you do dishes, or anything else you have to get done for that day. There's probably 15-20 minutes of "active time" in there if you've got things reasonably organized.
On July 05 2014 03:38 aksfjh wrote: Maybe you're thinking everybody should live off of sandwiches and rice or something, as if that is enough for a lot of people's tastes...
Certainly not, but there's about a mile of middle ground in between "sandwiches and rice" and what you posted. Your original arguement was about the time efficiency of going through a drivethrough, and I don't think the kind of person who's going to be happy eating that type of food is suddenly going to require a standard like this, jut because they're cooking at home. Regardless, "peoples tastes" are irrelevant to a discussion about weight loss. Food is fuel, not fun.
On July 05 2014 03:38 aksfjh wrote: To add to the other poster though, even if you do own a freezer, for a lot of healthy food, freezing meat poses a problem with thawing as well. Forget to lay out the chicken before you go to work? Looks like the home cooked dinner is cancelled...
Then don't forget to thaw the chicken. And if you do? Leave that in the freezer, and buy some new (not frozen) chicken on your way home from work! Anyway, heaven forbid you eat out once a week, or two weeks, or whatever you can afford. It doesn't matter, and it's not going to cause an issue with weight loss. If you count your calories (99% of restaurants post them on menus now) you can eat from a drive-through seven days a week, and still lose weight. You'll feel awful doing it, but it's firmly within the realm of possibility.
On July 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.
"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."
"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."
"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:
On July 05 2014 04:18 hummingbird23 wrote: The other thing that enters into the discussion is stress and the neuroendocrine stress response. Genetics is one factor, yes, but as they say, genetics loads the gun and the environment pulls the trigger. Chronic stress can make you eat more, and some people are more vulnerable to chronic stress than others. Under certain conditions, the stress hormone cortisol increases appetite, so now the person is left with two choices 1) feel hungry all the time 2) eat more. I would be very reluctant to call people weak-minded for that (not that I like the term or the characterization anyway).
Some very very interesting work has emerged in the last couple decades on stress and social structures, and also on social structures and disease. I have, as a personal hypothesis thought that these are connected via the keep-up-with-the-neighbours mentality that is increasingly common and intensifying across the globe. When read alone, the books "The Spirit Level" (connects socioeconomic inequality with health outcomes across the board) and "Why do Zebras not get Ulcers" (an excellent summary of the effects of stress as has been revealed in the last couple decades) are interesting books in their own right, but read both, and inescapably, one starts to wonder if widespread obesity (and an enormous battery of "developed nation diseases") has got something to do with a political and social framework that has developed in the last century.
TLDR: Stress could also have something to do with this obesity explosion.
I believe this to be true.
Substance abuse is essentially the default response to chronic stress, so far as i can tell.
On July 05 2014 04:18 hummingbird23 wrote: The other thing that enters into the discussion is stress and the neuroendocrine stress response. Genetics is one factor, yes, but as they say, genetics loads the gun and the environment pulls the trigger. Chronic stress can make you eat more, and some people are more vulnerable to chronic stress than others. Under certain conditions, the stress hormone cortisol increases appetite, so now the person is left with two choices 1) feel hungry all the time 2) eat more. I would be very reluctant to call people weak-minded for that (not that I like the term or the characterization anyway).
Some very very interesting work has emerged in the last couple decades on stress and social structures, and also on social structures and disease. I have, as a personal hypothesis thought that these are connected via the keep-up-with-the-neighbours mentality that is increasingly common and intensifying across the globe. When read alone, the books "The Spirit Level" (connects socioeconomic inequality with health outcomes across the board) and "Why do Zebras not get Ulcers" (an excellent summary of the effects of stress as has been revealed in the last couple decades) are interesting books in their own right, but read both, and inescapably, one starts to wonder if widespread obesity (and an enormous battery of "developed nation diseases") has got something to do with a political and social framework that has developed in the last century.
TLDR: Stress could also have something to do with this obesity explosion.
I believe this to be true.
Substance abuse is essentially the default response to chronic stress, so far as i can tell.
Then explain how the Japanese people manage to stay so thin despite being more in higher stressed than the western counterpart?
And I'm calling BS on the stress part. Back in the 60s and the 70s in the USA, there are SOO many gun violence and the murder rate was at its peak. People actually had a reasons to be scared while living in cities that higher chances than now that they can get caught in the middle of gang violence. Now, the streets are much more safer. I think the stress of actually being scared for your life far outweighs the safer environment of nowadays.
On July 05 2014 04:18 hummingbird23 wrote: The other thing that enters into the discussion is stress and the neuroendocrine stress response. Genetics is one factor, yes, but as they say, genetics loads the gun and the environment pulls the trigger. Chronic stress can make you eat more, and some people are more vulnerable to chronic stress than others. Under certain conditions, the stress hormone cortisol increases appetite, so now the person is left with two choices 1) feel hungry all the time 2) eat more. I would be very reluctant to call people weak-minded for that (not that I like the term or the characterization anyway).
Some very very interesting work has emerged in the last couple decades on stress and social structures, and also on social structures and disease. I have, as a personal hypothesis thought that these are connected via the keep-up-with-the-neighbours mentality that is increasingly common and intensifying across the globe. When read alone, the books "The Spirit Level" (connects socioeconomic inequality with health outcomes across the board) and "Why do Zebras not get Ulcers" (an excellent summary of the effects of stress as has been revealed in the last couple decades) are interesting books in their own right, but read both, and inescapably, one starts to wonder if widespread obesity (and an enormous battery of "developed nation diseases") has got something to do with a political and social framework that has developed in the last century.
TLDR: Stress could also have something to do with this obesity explosion.
I believe this to be true.
Substance abuse is essentially the default response to chronic stress, so far as i can tell.
I think it's doubly insidious. Firstly, you get increased appetite, and secondly, what do you eat when it's not a mealtime? Sugary, fatty snacks. Little packets of dopamine, that are analogous in some way to substance abuse.
On July 05 2014 04:18 hummingbird23 wrote: The other thing that enters into the discussion is stress and the neuroendocrine stress response. Genetics is one factor, yes, but as they say, genetics loads the gun and the environment pulls the trigger. Chronic stress can make you eat more, and some people are more vulnerable to chronic stress than others. Under certain conditions, the stress hormone cortisol increases appetite, so now the person is left with two choices 1) feel hungry all the time 2) eat more. I would be very reluctant to call people weak-minded for that (not that I like the term or the characterization anyway).
Some very very interesting work has emerged in the last couple decades on stress and social structures, and also on social structures and disease. I have, as a personal hypothesis thought that these are connected via the keep-up-with-the-neighbours mentality that is increasingly common and intensifying across the globe. When read alone, the books "The Spirit Level" (connects socioeconomic inequality with health outcomes across the board) and "Why do Zebras not get Ulcers" (an excellent summary of the effects of stress as has been revealed in the last couple decades) are interesting books in their own right, but read both, and inescapably, one starts to wonder if widespread obesity (and an enormous battery of "developed nation diseases") has got something to do with a political and social framework that has developed in the last century.
TLDR: Stress could also have something to do with this obesity explosion.
I believe this to be true.
Substance abuse is essentially the default response to chronic stress, so far as i can tell.
I think it's doubly insidious. Firstly, you get increased appetite, and secondly, what do you eat when it's not a mealtime? Sugary, fatty snacks. Little packets of dopamine, that are analogous in some way to substance abuse.
I agree with substance abuse, but it doesn't have to do anything with the stress level.
But people have been successfully getting over alcohol, cigarettes, pot, and even coke abuses and emerged victorious and those are way more addicting than sugar. If people can get over those, so should anyone else.
On the Fat/Carbs topic, it's still a biochemistry issue, but people always forget the slight more important issue: What are absorption and utilization rates?
Very shortly: the amount of Fat you can actually eat is rather limited, in comparison to the amount of Carbs you can consume. Further, Fat and the release of Bile Salts have massive satiety effects on the hormonal response system.
One of the most destructive choices, in the American system, was the "Fat makes you Fat" fallacy. This caused a massive shift from Fat flavoring to Sugar (and HFCS) in the US diet. And the obesity rate has been going up right along with it.
On the stress aspect, it plays a big part in gaining fat, but don't think our societies are high or lower in stress than others. Physiological Stress is actually quite hard to quantify, at the moment, so the danger is always implementing some idealistic system on what "Stress" is. It's actually a massively complex issue, though looking for "heavy endocrine stressors" is probably the best when it comes to dealing with Obesity.
On July 05 2014 04:18 hummingbird23 wrote: The other thing that enters into the discussion is stress and the neuroendocrine stress response. Genetics is one factor, yes, but as they say, genetics loads the gun and the environment pulls the trigger. Chronic stress can make you eat more, and some people are more vulnerable to chronic stress than others. Under certain conditions, the stress hormone cortisol increases appetite, so now the person is left with two choices 1) feel hungry all the time 2) eat more. I would be very reluctant to call people weak-minded for that (not that I like the term or the characterization anyway).
Some very very interesting work has emerged in the last couple decades on stress and social structures, and also on social structures and disease. I have, as a personal hypothesis thought that these are connected via the keep-up-with-the-neighbours mentality that is increasingly common and intensifying across the globe. When read alone, the books "The Spirit Level" (connects socioeconomic inequality with health outcomes across the board) and "Why do Zebras not get Ulcers" (an excellent summary of the effects of stress as has been revealed in the last couple decades) are interesting books in their own right, but read both, and inescapably, one starts to wonder if widespread obesity (and an enormous battery of "developed nation diseases") has got something to do with a political and social framework that has developed in the last century.
TLDR: Stress could also have something to do with this obesity explosion.
I believe this to be true.
Substance abuse is essentially the default response to chronic stress, so far as i can tell.
I think it's doubly insidious. Firstly, you get increased appetite, and secondly, what do you eat when it's not a mealtime? Sugary, fatty snacks. Little packets of dopamine, that are analogous in some way to substance abuse.
I agree with substance abuse, but it doesn't have to do anything with the stress level.
But people have been successfully getting over alcohol, cigarettes, pot, and even coke abuses and emerged victorious and those are way more addicting than sugar. If people can get over those, so should anyone else.
That's precisely the point: that drug food/junk food is socially acceptable in a way that 'conventional' drugs are not. They are regularly sold and marketed to kids, at an age when any 'neural re-wiring' is much more devastating and permanent.
The precise degree of addictiveness is not yet well understood:
lol, don't blame culture for being fat. You and everybody's mother know that junk food is bad for you. It really isn't socially acceptable to be constantly gorging yourself on junk food, on ready meals, on fast food, to be constantly snacking. Where is this mythical place where it is socially acceptable and no one will tell you that maybe, just maybe you should stop eating like a complete slob?
On July 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:
"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."
"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."
"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:
Heroin is to drug epidemic as sugar is to obesity epidemic. Its one part of the problem, but it's not the entire thing. I never said that sugar isn't a problem. It's addictive, yes, but... oh well? I don't think anyone is arguing that. Not doing heroin (or getting fat) in the first place is an educational issue. Stopping heroin (or losing weight) is a motivational issue. That's exactly what I said in my last post, and I don't think you really disproved it... at all.
On July 05 2014 10:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote: lol, don't blame culture for being fat. You and everybody's mother know that junk food is bad for you. It really isn't socially acceptable to be constantly gorging yourself on junk food, on ready meals, on fast food, to be constantly snacking. Where is this mythical place where it is socially acceptable and no one will tell you that maybe, just maybe you should stop eating like a complete slob?
When is the last time you actually told someone they needed to lose weight? Even a family member? Now when is the last time you talked to someone about how bad smoking was for them, or asked them not to smoke near you? They're not even close to comparable in how "socially acceptable" they each are.
On July 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:
"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."
"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."
"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:
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?
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 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 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:
"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."
"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."
"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:
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 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:
"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."
"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."
"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:
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.
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 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'.
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:
"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."
"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."
"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:
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 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:
"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."
"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."
"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:
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 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:
"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."
"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."
"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:
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 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:
"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."
"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."
"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:
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.
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 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:
"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."
"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."
"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:
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 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:
"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."
"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."
"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:
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!
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.
On July 08 2014 00:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 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.
When quoting posts, it works wonders if one reads them first. Next time...
On July 07 2014 23:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Healthy food is far cheaper than fast food and ready meals.
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.
Note that I removed buzzwords soundbites for your convenience.
On July 07 2014 23:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Healthy food is far cheaper than fast food and ready meals.
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.
Note that I removed buzzwords soundbites for your convenience.
It makes sense because you could cook yourself and just cook mountains of pasta and rice and beans and make some crappy sauce for it and that's it. It's very cheap, but not better than fast food.
On July 08 2014 02:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Ok, explain to me how does this make sense:
On July 07 2014 23:49 urboss wrote:
On July 07 2014 23:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Healthy food is far cheaper than fast food and ready meals.
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.
Note that I removed buzzwords soundbites for your convenience.
It makes sense because you could cook yourself and just cook mountains of pasta and rice and beans and make some crappy sauce for it and that's it. It's very cheap, but not better than fast food.
Less fat, Less sugar. How's that not better?
I've been looking all over for foodstuffs to cut my consumption of sugar this summer. God, anything _ANYTHING_ that is less than 5% sugar is ridiculously expensive. Discounting, say, plain rice, pasta and porridge.
And have some variety in the beans and add some fruit and veg and that would be far far healthier than eating snacks, eating fast food, and eating ready meal. And it still would be far cheaper. And is still take the same amount of time as the food you have suggested. But tastier.
Also you yourself said that food would be cheap so tell me, how exactly does that relate to urboss's nonsensical statement?
Most of you guys are stuck in the mentality where the women should be the one cooking and men can't cook at all.
Well guess what? The most famous and best in the field of gastronomy are 90% men! Men on average, if they try definitely cooks better than women!
So quit bitching about how difficult it is to prepare food, why not cut off 30 minutes of video game playing, forum surfing, instagram posting, facebook updating, Twitter hashtagging, and Game of Throne watching time of your life and go back to the basic of humanity! To be able to cook a balance, healthy, and satisfying meal by your own!
You are all strong and independent men that don't need no women. #yesallmen
On July 08 2014 03:25 Xiphos wrote: Most of you guys are stuck in the mentality where the women should be the one cooking and men can't cook at all.
Well guess what? The most famous and best in the field of gastronomy are 90% men! Men on average, if they try definitely cooks better than women!
So quit bitching about how difficult it is to prepare food, why not cut off 30 minutes of video game playing, forum surfing, instagram posting, facebook updating, Twitter hashtagging, and Game of Throne watching time of your life and go back to the basic of humanity! To be able to cook a balance, healthy, and satisfying meal by your own!
You are all strong and independent men that don't need no women. #yesallmen
Wat.
This is slightly off-topic, but lets not pretend that the fact that professional kitchens are male-dominated has anything to do with men being better at cooking (again, wat).
I've seen you post here and there on these boards and you always seem to think your way of life is somehow superior to the people you are arguing with. Whether or not that's what you intend, that method of discussion isn't likely to bring anyone around to your side.
It's a lot more complicated than simply "make 30 minutes of time and you're set!" Eating a well-balanced diet of fresh food takes time and forethought, especially when it is new to you. In addition, if you're not already half-decent at cooking, a lot of time goes into learning, which is great but definitely takes time that some people just don't have or want to spare. Secondly, I see a lot of people making the argument that eating healthy is cheaper because instead of buying a Big Mac (or whatever), you have an apple and a piece of celery (as an example). To me, an apple is a snack and a piece of celery is a piece of garbage. The two together does not a meal make. It is definitely possible to eat healthy, but people do it in different ways, and there are different time and money commitments associated with that. My idea of a healthy dinner is a grilled salmon salad, not white rice and a piece of fruit. Guess which one is more expensive than most fast food?
There is a tremendous upside to fast food that people seem to ignore when they assume that people like destroying their bodies and do it on purpose: it's fucking easy. You suggest going back to the basics of humanity, but we are so far beyond that in our daily responsibilities. People work longer and longer days and have more and more responsibilities at home, and unless they have a lot of time on their hands or are superhuman, there is tremendous appeal to the idea of making a quick stop on your way home, paying some money, and being able to put food on your table as soon as you get home.
On July 08 2014 03:08 Dangermousecatdog wrote: And have some variety in the beans and add some fruit and veg and that would be far far healthier than eating snacks, eating fast food, and eating ready meal. And it still would be far cheaper. And is still take the same amount of time as the food you have suggested. But tastier.
Also you yourself said that food would be cheap so tell me, how exactly does that relate to urboss's nonsensical statement?
I only tried to explain it! I don't really know what opinion I have myself. If you're not convinced, please try to help?
I started with the assumption that it's technically true even if it feels strange. It might be possible to construct a situation that feels realistic to you.
For example a husband and wife cook for their family, but they might skip pretty much all vegetables. They do potatoes every day. Schnitzel is neat as you don't have to buy the best meat and it will still be fine after you hammer it and bread it and drown it in oil. That's for pork, but also for chicken you can still cheapen things up if you bread and deep fry it as you'll add calories so need less meat. Beef is more expensive but you can buy the sort of cut that needs two hours of cooking and does not taste like anything by itself, then use it for roulades and serve with a greasy sauce. If there's not enough money, the couple might replace the meat with beans on most days.
That sound pretty realistic to me and I guess that's what urboss meant. I think the couple and their kids won't have major health issues without any vegetables (other than having an increased chance of being overweight or obese), because potatoes and milk should have nearly all nutrients required. Their food is cheap, they cook it themselves, but it's not better than fastfood.
On July 08 2014 03:25 Xiphos wrote: Most of you guys are stuck in the mentality where the women should be the one cooking and men can't cook at all.
Well guess what? The most famous and best in the field of gastronomy are 90% men! Men on average, if they try definitely cooks better than women!
So quit bitching about how difficult it is to prepare food, why not cut off 30 minutes of video game playing, forum surfing, instagram posting, facebook updating, Twitter hashtagging, and Game of Throne watching time of your life and go back to the basic of humanity! To be able to cook a balance, healthy, and satisfying meal by your own!
You are all strong and independent men that don't need no women. #yesallmen
Wat.
This is slightly off-topic, but lets not pretend that the fact that professional kitchens are male-dominated has anything to do with men being better at cooking (again, wat).
I've seen you post here and there on these boards and you always seem to think your way of life is somehow superior to the people you are arguing with. Whether or not that's what you intend, that method of discussion isn't likely to bring anyone around to your side.
It's a lot more complicated than simply "make 30 minutes of time and you're set!" Eating a well-balanced diet of fresh food takes time and forethought, especially when it is new to you. In addition, if you're not already half-decent at cooking, a lot of time goes into learning, which is great but definitely takes time that some people just don't have or want to spare. Secondly, I see a lot of people making the argument that eating healthy is cheaper because instead of buying a Big Mac (or whatever), you have an apple and a piece of celery (as an example). To me, an apple is a snack and a piece of celery is a piece of garbage. The two together does not a meal make. It is definitely possible to eat healthy, but people do it in different ways, and there are different time and money commitments associated with that. My idea of a healthy dinner is a grilled salmon salad, not white rice and a piece of fruit. Guess which one is more expensive than most fast food?
There is a tremendous upside to fast food that people seem to ignore when they assume that people like destroying their bodies and do it on purpose: it's fucking easy. You suggest going back to the basics of humanity, but we are so far beyond that in our daily responsibilities. People work longer and longer days and have more and more responsibilities at home, and unless they have a lot of time on their hands or are superhuman, there is tremendous appeal to the idea of making a quick stop on your way home, paying some money, and being able to put food on your table as soon as you get home.
Wat
Cost of a big mac meal in USA = ??? Grilled salmon salad = ???
Salmon Fillet approx 1 pound = $5 Salad = $0.5 Some sort of carbohydrate, take your pick = $0.5 $6
Time taken = 10 minutes or less. Time to wash the dishes = 1 min
Btw that's assuming that you eat enough for 2 large and fat people. Oh and for your benefit I overpriced everything. This is some good quality food I have chosen for you to eating.
Former fatass here. I worked my butt off in the gym for the past year or so to get from 220 lb to 180 lb. Then clean bulked to 190 lb with 15% body fat or so. So I look pretty great now. I work in a restaurant kitchen and every day I'm noticing something more apparent; there are more and more fat kids walk around now. The problem I think is just people are not valuing exercise as much as before with the increase in poor foods we eat.
Now it's almost impossible to get the message through that being overweight is not a good thing. There is a thing called "fat acceptance" now. I don't know why people think this movement is acceptable, when there are so many health risks associated with being overweight. Pretty much we are screwed for the next few decades.
On July 08 2014 03:25 Xiphos wrote: Most of you guys are stuck in the mentality where the women should be the one cooking and men can't cook at all.
Well guess what? The most famous and best in the field of gastronomy are 90% men! Men on average, if they try definitely cooks better than women!
So quit bitching about how difficult it is to prepare food, why not cut off 30 minutes of video game playing, forum surfing, instagram posting, facebook updating, Twitter hashtagging, and Game of Throne watching time of your life and go back to the basic of humanity! To be able to cook a balance, healthy, and satisfying meal by your own!
You are all strong and independent men that don't need no women. #yesallmen
Ok so no girlfriend, no social time, no internet time, no Game of Throne watching time for the Gods sake... sounds like a terrible life. And for what? To have a few years more of that when you are in your 80ties?
Yes, i'm exaggerating but I hope you see my point.
On July 08 2014 03:25 Xiphos wrote: Most of you guys are stuck in the mentality where the women should be the one cooking and men can't cook at all.
Well guess what? The most famous and best in the field of gastronomy are 90% men! Men on average, if they try definitely cooks better than women!
So quit bitching about how difficult it is to prepare food, why not cut off 30 minutes of video game playing, forum surfing, instagram posting, facebook updating, Twitter hashtagging, and Game of Throne watching time of your life and go back to the basic of humanity! To be able to cook a balance, healthy, and satisfying meal by your own!
You are all strong and independent men that don't need no women. #yesallmen
Wat.
This is slightly off-topic, but lets not pretend that the fact that professional kitchens are male-dominated has anything to do with men being better at cooking (again, wat).
I've seen you post here and there on these boards and you always seem to think your way of life is somehow superior to the people you are arguing with. Whether or not that's what you intend, that method of discussion isn't likely to bring anyone around to your side.
It's a lot more complicated than simply "make 30 minutes of time and you're set!" Eating a well-balanced diet of fresh food takes time and forethought, especially when it is new to you. In addition, if you're not already half-decent at cooking, a lot of time goes into learning, which is great but definitely takes time that some people just don't have or want to spare. Secondly, I see a lot of people making the argument that eating healthy is cheaper because instead of buying a Big Mac (or whatever), you have an apple and a piece of celery (as an example). To me, an apple is a snack and a piece of celery is a piece of garbage. The two together does not a meal make. It is definitely possible to eat healthy, but people do it in different ways, and there are different time and money commitments associated with that. My idea of a healthy dinner is a grilled salmon salad, not white rice and a piece of fruit. Guess which one is more expensive than most fast food?
There is a tremendous upside to fast food that people seem to ignore when they assume that people like destroying their bodies and do it on purpose: it's fucking easy. You suggest going back to the basics of humanity, but we are so far beyond that in our daily responsibilities. People work longer and longer days and have more and more responsibilities at home, and unless they have a lot of time on their hands or are superhuman, there is tremendous appeal to the idea of making a quick stop on your way home, paying some money, and being able to put food on your table as soon as you get home.
Wat
Cost of a big mac meal in USA = ??? Grilled salmon salad = ???
Salmon Fillet approx 1 pound = $5 Salad = $0.5 Some sort of carbohydrate, take your pick = $0.5 $6
Time taken = 10 minutes or less. Time to wash the dishes = 1 min
Btw that's assuming that you eat enough for 2 large and fat people. Oh and for your benefit I overpriced everything. This is some good quality food I have chosen for you to eating.
Your costs are as arbitrary as your ignorance of food access, which is saying something.
On July 08 2014 03:25 Xiphos wrote: Most of you guys are stuck in the mentality where the women should be the one cooking and men can't cook at all.
Well guess what? The most famous and best in the field of gastronomy are 90% men! Men on average, if they try definitely cooks better than women!
So quit bitching about how difficult it is to prepare food, why not cut off 30 minutes of video game playing, forum surfing, instagram posting, facebook updating, Twitter hashtagging, and Game of Throne watching time of your life and go back to the basic of humanity! To be able to cook a balance, healthy, and satisfying meal by your own!
You are all strong and independent men that don't need no women. #yesallmen
Ok so no girlfriend, no social time, no internet time, no Game of Throne watching time for the Gods sake... sounds like a terrible life. And for what? To have a few years more of that when you are in your 80ties?
Yes, i'm exaggerating but I hope you see my point.
The exageration actually makes your point not very good. He never said "do none of these", he said to cut some time out. It doesn't have to be a lot, it doesn't even have to be everyday (cook for multiple meals and freeze leftovers for exemple). You can even cook while watching something, I often do that while watching starcraft or some youtube video. And it's not to get a few more years at the end of your life. It's to live an overall more comfortable one, which could also be longer. I know I feel better when I eat well and exercise, I don't have to wait 80+ to reap the benefits.
I would agree though that the rest of Xiphos' post is garbage and the his tone is, as usual, condescending. But that's off topic.
The hardest part of eating right for me was planning my shopping list. That was really hard the first few times. After that it just becomes normal like any other thing you do. Prices and time restraints are really a cop out if you go about it the correct way.
On July 08 2014 04:17 G3CKO wrote: Now it's almost impossible to get the message through that being overweight is not a good thing. There is a thing called "fat acceptance" now. I don't know why people think this movement is acceptable, when there are so many health risks associated with being overweight.
Yeah,nothing more enjoyable than a society of presumptuous smart asses that judge each other based on their weaknesses.
On July 08 2014 03:25 Xiphos wrote: Most of you guys are stuck in the mentality where the women should be the one cooking and men can't cook at all.
Well guess what? The most famous and best in the field of gastronomy are 90% men! Men on average, if they try definitely cooks better than women!
So quit bitching about how difficult it is to prepare food, why not cut off 30 minutes of video game playing, forum surfing, instagram posting, facebook updating, Twitter hashtagging, and Game of Throne watching time of your life and go back to the basic of humanity! To be able to cook a balance, healthy, and satisfying meal by your own!
You are all strong and independent men that don't need no women. #yesallmen
Wat.
This is slightly off-topic, but lets not pretend that the fact that professional kitchens are male-dominated has anything to do with men being better at cooking (again, wat).
I've seen you post here and there on these boards and you always seem to think your way of life is somehow superior to the people you are arguing with. Whether or not that's what you intend, that method of discussion isn't likely to bring anyone around to your side.
It's a lot more complicated than simply "make 30 minutes of time and you're set!" Eating a well-balanced diet of fresh food takes time and forethought, especially when it is new to you. In addition, if you're not already half-decent at cooking, a lot of time goes into learning, which is great but definitely takes time that some people just don't have or want to spare. Secondly, I see a lot of people making the argument that eating healthy is cheaper because instead of buying a Big Mac (or whatever), you have an apple and a piece of celery (as an example). To me, an apple is a snack and a piece of celery is a piece of garbage. The two together does not a meal make. It is definitely possible to eat healthy, but people do it in different ways, and there are different time and money commitments associated with that. My idea of a healthy dinner is a grilled salmon salad, not white rice and a piece of fruit. Guess which one is more expensive than most fast food?
There is a tremendous upside to fast food that people seem to ignore when they assume that people like destroying their bodies and do it on purpose: it's fucking easy. You suggest going back to the basics of humanity, but we are so far beyond that in our daily responsibilities. People work longer and longer days and have more and more responsibilities at home, and unless they have a lot of time on their hands or are superhuman, there is tremendous appeal to the idea of making a quick stop on your way home, paying some money, and being able to put food on your table as soon as you get home.
All good points.
However this will help you solve all the problems explained above:
This thread seems to have turned into a debate of "eating healthy costs too much". When originally, it was about obesity. You don't need to eat "healthier" food to not be obese, you just need to eat LESS food/booze etc. A shit diet where you eat the correct amount of calories for your body is much healthier then a shit diet where you eat way to much so thats a pretty big improvement. Lets get that message across first and then once your eating LESS, eat BETTER.
On the healthy eating front. The human body is amazing, you don't need the perfect balance of foods to have a "healthy" diet. All you need is to eat enough, and get the occasional nutrients from veggies/fruits in addition to whatever else you may eat. Yes fish is very good for you, but you don't NEED fish to have a good diet, find the right balance of things you need that fits your budget and this will work in all but the more extreme poverty cases.
On the preparing front. I'm super lazy, I don't like to cook, I want my meal to be ready and microwaveable. This is a non issue with a tiny bit of foresight. I buy cheap ass chicken or pork and every weekend toss it in the oven over night to slow cook, if I'm feeling fancy or motivated Ill dress it up with a rub or something. I then have ~5lbs of meat to consume the next week as my main source of food thats already ready to go.
On July 08 2014 03:50 ZasZ. wrote: It's a lot more complicated than simply "make 30 minutes of time and you're set!" Eating a well-balanced diet of fresh food takes time and forethought, especially when it is new to you. In addition, if you're not already half-decent at cooking, a lot of time goes into learning, which is great but definitely takes time that some people just don't have or want to spare. Secondly, I see a lot of people making the argument that eating healthy is cheaper because instead of buying a Big Mac (or whatever), you have an apple and a piece of celery (as an example). To me, an apple is a snack and a piece of celery is a piece of garbage. The two together does not a meal make. It is definitely possible to eat healthy, but people do it in different ways, and there are different time and money commitments associated with that. My idea of a healthy dinner is a grilled salmon salad, not white rice and a piece of fruit. Guess which one is more expensive than most fast food?
It's not what "your idea" of healthy is. Its what is healthy and in your budget that matters.
You not liking healthy food is a completely separate issue. If you just don't like any healthy food, then you either live with that or you change your likes.
On July 08 2014 03:25 Xiphos wrote: Most of you guys are stuck in the mentality where the women should be the one cooking and men can't cook at all.
Well guess what? The most famous and best in the field of gastronomy are 90% men! Men on average, if they try definitely cooks better than women!
So quit bitching about how difficult it is to prepare food, why not cut off 30 minutes of video game playing, forum surfing, instagram posting, facebook updating, Twitter hashtagging, and Game of Throne watching time of your life and go back to the basic of humanity! To be able to cook a balance, healthy, and satisfying meal by your own!
You are all strong and independent men that don't need no women. #yesallmen
Wat.
This is slightly off-topic, but lets not pretend that the fact that professional kitchens are male-dominated has anything to do with men being better at cooking (again, wat).
I've seen you post here and there on these boards and you always seem to think your way of life is somehow superior to the people you are arguing with. Whether or not that's what you intend, that method of discussion isn't likely to bring anyone around to your side.
It's a lot more complicated than simply "make 30 minutes of time and you're set!" Eating a well-balanced diet of fresh food takes time and forethought, especially when it is new to you. In addition, if you're not already half-decent at cooking, a lot of time goes into learning, which is great but definitely takes time that some people just don't have or want to spare. Secondly, I see a lot of people making the argument that eating healthy is cheaper because instead of buying a Big Mac (or whatever), you have an apple and a piece of celery (as an example). To me, an apple is a snack and a piece of celery is a piece of garbage. The two together does not a meal make. It is definitely possible to eat healthy, but people do it in different ways, and there are different time and money commitments associated with that. My idea of a healthy dinner is a grilled salmon salad, not white rice and a piece of fruit. Guess which one is more expensive than most fast food?
There is a tremendous upside to fast food that people seem to ignore when they assume that people like destroying their bodies and do it on purpose: it's fucking easy. You suggest going back to the basics of humanity, but we are so far beyond that in our daily responsibilities. People work longer and longer days and have more and more responsibilities at home, and unless they have a lot of time on their hands or are superhuman, there is tremendous appeal to the idea of making a quick stop on your way home, paying some money, and being able to put food on your table as soon as you get home.
Wat
Cost of a big mac meal in USA = ??? Grilled salmon salad = ???
Salmon Fillet approx 1 pound = $5 Salad = $0.5 Some sort of carbohydrate, take your pick = $0.5 $6
Time taken = 10 minutes or less. Time to wash the dishes = 1 min
Btw that's assuming that you eat enough for 2 large and fat people. Oh and for your benefit I overpriced everything. This is some good quality food I have chosen for you to eating.
Your costs are as arbitrary as your ignorance of food access, which is saying something.
They are arbitrary in that I took a look at my shopping receipt. And they are of good quality.
What do you mean by food access. Are you telling me that you can't buy food along with your weekly shopping? WTF?
On July 08 2014 03:25 Xiphos wrote: Most of you guys are stuck in the mentality where the women should be the one cooking and men can't cook at all.
Well guess what? The most famous and best in the field of gastronomy are 90% men! Men on average, if they try definitely cooks better than women!
So quit bitching about how difficult it is to prepare food, why not cut off 30 minutes of video game playing, forum surfing, instagram posting, facebook updating, Twitter hashtagging, and Game of Throne watching time of your life and go back to the basic of humanity! To be able to cook a balance, healthy, and satisfying meal by your own!
You are all strong and independent men that don't need no women. #yesallmen
Wat.
This is slightly off-topic, but lets not pretend that the fact that professional kitchens are male-dominated has anything to do with men being better at cooking (again, wat).
I've seen you post here and there on these boards and you always seem to think your way of life is somehow superior to the people you are arguing with. Whether or not that's what you intend, that method of discussion isn't likely to bring anyone around to your side.
It's a lot more complicated than simply "make 30 minutes of time and you're set!" Eating a well-balanced diet of fresh food takes time and forethought, especially when it is new to you. In addition, if you're not already half-decent at cooking, a lot of time goes into learning, which is great but definitely takes time that some people just don't have or want to spare. Secondly, I see a lot of people making the argument that eating healthy is cheaper because instead of buying a Big Mac (or whatever), you have an apple and a piece of celery (as an example). To me, an apple is a snack and a piece of celery is a piece of garbage. The two together does not a meal make. It is definitely possible to eat healthy, but people do it in different ways, and there are different time and money commitments associated with that. My idea of a healthy dinner is a grilled salmon salad, not white rice and a piece of fruit. Guess which one is more expensive than most fast food?
There is a tremendous upside to fast food that people seem to ignore when they assume that people like destroying their bodies and do it on purpose: it's fucking easy. You suggest going back to the basics of humanity, but we are so far beyond that in our daily responsibilities. People work longer and longer days and have more and more responsibilities at home, and unless they have a lot of time on their hands or are superhuman, there is tremendous appeal to the idea of making a quick stop on your way home, paying some money, and being able to put food on your table as soon as you get home.
Wat
Cost of a big mac meal in USA = ??? Grilled salmon salad = ???
Salmon Fillet approx 1 pound = $5 Salad = $0.5 Some sort of carbohydrate, take your pick = $0.5 $6
Time taken = 10 minutes or less. Time to wash the dishes = 1 min
Btw that's assuming that you eat enough for 2 large and fat people. Oh and for your benefit I overpriced everything. This is some good quality food I have chosen for you to eating.
Your costs are as arbitrary as your ignorance of food access, which is saying something.
They are arbitrary in that I took a look at my shopping receipt. And they are of good quality.
What do you mean by food access. Are you telling me that you can't buy food along with your weekly shopping? WTF?
On July 08 2014 05:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I'm sorry I don't understand. How is a shopping receipt arbitrary? How can a person in USA not be able to have access to a shop?
On July 08 2014 05:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I'm sorry I don't understand. How is a shopping receipt arbitrary? How can a person in USA not be able to have access to a shop?
It's arbitrary because you seem to be unfamiliar with the concept that things cost different amounts of money depending on where you live. In my example, if you think you are getting a pound of salmon for $5 where I live, you're fucking crazy. But even if we assume that it were possible, you can get three burgers at any fast food joint for that much money.
Your numbers don't add up. Unless you are literally eating some white rice and a small piece of fruit, it is definitely conceivable that for a lot of people in a lot of places (at least in the US), fast food could be cheaper and less time consuming than eating healthy.
On July 08 2014 03:50 ZasZ. wrote: It's a lot more complicated than simply "make 30 minutes of time and you're set!" Eating a well-balanced diet of fresh food takes time and forethought, especially when it is new to you. In addition, if you're not already half-decent at cooking, a lot of time goes into learning, which is great but definitely takes time that some people just don't have or want to spare. Secondly, I see a lot of people making the argument that eating healthy is cheaper because instead of buying a Big Mac (or whatever), you have an apple and a piece of celery (as an example). To me, an apple is a snack and a piece of celery is a piece of garbage. The two together does not a meal make. It is definitely possible to eat healthy, but people do it in different ways, and there are different time and money commitments associated with that. My idea of a healthy dinner is a grilled salmon salad, not white rice and a piece of fruit. Guess which one is more expensive than most fast food?
It's not what "your idea" of healthy is. Its what is healthy and in your budget that matters.
You not liking healthy food is a completely separate issue. If you just don't like any healthy food, then you either live with that or you change your likes.
Where on earth did I say I don't like healthy food? I said I don't like celery which is one (shitty) vegetable in a sea of vegetables. My problem is with the people claiming it's easy to eat healthy when their idea of eating healthy is boring. There is a world of flavor out there, not all of it is terrible for you, and some people like to eat as an activity. In order to live a healthy lifestyle, it's not necessary to treat eating like pooping, an obligatory bodily function that should be done as little as possible in the most efficient way possible. And there really isn't a question (at least where I'm at) that it is often cheaper and easier to go out for food like that than cook it at home.
I agree with the sentiment that in general, the obesity problem is stemming more from people eating too much than what they are actually eating (which could also use improvement).
And as far as "fat acceptance" goes, it only goes so far. You get into hot water for publicly judging someone for their weight, but no one is stopping you from judging them internally, and fat people will still have a hard time finding romantic partners that aren't also fat. It's just not sexually desirable to most people, and likely will never be. As long as that's the case, fat acceptance can't really be a thing in my eyes, even if people want to go off of the political correctness diving board on every issue.
I think a number of people confuse "cost", "cost in TIME", "cheaper" and "amount of effort required" in the way Americans eat.
For the most part, unless you're eating off the Dollar Menus from a Fast Food place, all it's truly "cheaper" in is your "effort" to get food. Assuming the place isn't far away. (Driving, after having done it for several years, is far less mentally intensive than cooking, unless you've been doing THAT for years) Even with a good usage of "Calorie Arbitrage" from the Dollar Menu, odds are the total time, physical expenditure, total monetary cost and caloric content are always going to be on the side of a home-cooked meal. (Unless you're a homeless guy that lives right next to a McDonald's, then that's a different issue)
On a per-kCal basis, I'm sure that the money-losing Value menus (or money-neutral, depending on the item) are the "cheapest" calories available. But you have to ignore getting to the location and all of the investment & opportunities costs.
It's really just about the Effort. Most people just can't be bothered to change.
Just a point on food access. There are places where there are not fresh options available for miles. Without a car, convenience shops become a popular place to go 'grocery shopping'
On July 08 2014 04:48 Rankith wrote: This thread seems to have turned into a debate of "eating healthy costs too much". When originally, it was about obesity. You don't need to eat "healthier" food to not be obese, you just need to eat LESS food/booze etc. A shit diet where you eat the correct amount of calories for your body is much healthier then a shit diet where you eat way to much so thats a pretty big improvement. Lets get that message across first and then once your eating LESS, eat BETTER.
On the healthy eating front. The human body is amazing, you don't need the perfect balance of foods to have a "healthy" diet. All you need is to eat enough, and get the occasional nutrients from veggies/fruits in addition to whatever else you may eat. Yes fish is very good for you, but you don't NEED fish to have a good diet, find the right balance of things you need that fits your budget and this will work in all but the more extreme poverty cases.
This. So much this. You can be healthy eating a lot of crap. And considering the topic is about obesity hes right, calory intake matters first and foremost, not all the healthy cookbooks we are starting to assemble here.
Most likely for a fat person its hard both to eat healthy and to not overeat. Changing both at once, i imagine, should be harder than changing one. So just start with the more important one, the calory intake.
Plus a lot of people, including me, dont give 2 flying rats about whether its healthy or not. My tastebuds decide what i eat.
I lived in San Francisco for a year and whilst the food in general was cheap it is such bullshit that making savory, flavourful and absolutely delicious food is some sort of arduous task or money-sink. The stores have such a huge variety of fresh vegetables and decent quality meat that you are hardly even going to need any recipes because with such ingredients it is almost impossible to fail. That and fish tacos are probably the things I miss the most about the US.
On July 08 2014 06:23 Ghostcom wrote: I lived in San Francisco for a year and whilst the food in general was cheap it is such bullshit that making savory, flavourful and absolutely delicious food is some sort of arduous task or money-sink. The stores have such a huge variety of fresh vegetables and decent quality meat that you are hardly even going to need any recipes because with such ingredients it is almost impossible to fail. That and fish tacos are probably the things I miss the most about the US.
Ah San Francisco, been quite awhile since I've been there. You do realize you are talking about perhaps the most progressive city in the world right? Sure, if I could jump on a plane and go shop for good quality food anywhere in the country, San Francisco would most likely rank in my top 3. But that's like going to Amsterdam and then saying the thing you miss the most about Europe is buying cannabis in coffee shops lol.
Assuming that an obese person switching from junk fast food to "clean" brofoods is going to suddenly stop eating at 3k Calorie surplus is hopeful at best...
On July 08 2014 11:18 Xiphos wrote: By the way, another great way to lose weight and get healthier is to take cold showers.
A friend of mine went from 250 to 215 in one months by taking 1 5 minutes cold showers everyday. No work out, no dieting.
Jeez, that is literally the mindset why a lot of people are fat. They prefer "torture" over some work or self control.
He is loosing weight cause he is shivering, in a documentary about anorexia i saw patients in rehab chill next to open windows just so they would shiver and ergo loose weight. Its basicly forcing your body to do a little workout on its own, downside, your freezing.
Even if it worked for him, thats fked up imo.
Edit: Really doubt 5 minutes a day will result in a loss 17,5kg in a month, not sure any more if you are serious or trolling.
On July 08 2014 11:18 Xiphos wrote: By the way, another great way to lose weight and get healthier is to take cold showers.
A friend of mine went from 250 to 215 in one months by taking 1 5 minutes cold showers everyday. No work out, no dieting.
Now that he have lost 35 pounds, he felt lighter and started to jog regularly while keeping up with his showering ritual.
I think he is also eating less to maintain his current lighter weight.
Another good way to lose weight and get healthier is to drink your urine every morning. My friend went from 260 to 220 in 6 weeks just by drinking his urine everyday. No workouts, no real dieting.
Well, there's some truth behind that, if you cool of your body you're gonna burn some calories heating up your body, I still wouldn't recommend cold showers though as it will probably get you quite vurneable to a cold or other health issues.
IMHO: Is it so hard to understand, that there's no magic formula for weight loss? There is no trick or super easy way. Stop wasting money and time searching for it. Stop eating too much shit, move your ass and get some discipline (concerning eating habits), because it's not going to be easy! From my personal experience the most important factor is being honest to yourself. How much do you really eat/burn a day? Basically all people i know, who complain about being overweight are lying to themselves concerning their eating habits. If you really can't control it, get help!
Apart from not finding it attractive personally i got no problems with overweight people. You're free to do whatever you want with your body as far as i'm concerned. Just don't whine about it, if you don't have certain diseases, genetic or mental disorders. Which, but the latter, are basically irrelevant in the discussion. They just aren't a factor numbers wise.
On July 08 2014 06:23 Ghostcom wrote: I lived in San Francisco for a year and whilst the food in general was cheap it is such bullshit that making savory, flavourful and absolutely delicious food is some sort of arduous task or money-sink. The stores have such a huge variety of fresh vegetables and decent quality meat that you are hardly even going to need any recipes because with such ingredients it is almost impossible to fail. That and fish tacos are probably the things I miss the most about the US.
Ah San Francisco, been quite awhile since I've been there. You do realize you are talking about perhaps the most progressive city in the world right? Sure, if I could jump on a plane and go shop for good quality food anywhere in the country, San Francisco would most likely rank in my top 3. But that's like going to Amsterdam and then saying the thing you miss the most about Europe is buying cannabis in coffee shops lol.
I somehow doubt that there is a huge difference between safeways or lucky's across the country. Regardless my point was that decent quality ingredients are available and that it is entirely possible to cook savory and fulfilling meals cheaply.
On July 08 2014 06:23 Ghostcom wrote: I lived in San Francisco for a year and whilst the food in general was cheap it is such bullshit that making savory, flavourful and absolutely delicious food is some sort of arduous task or money-sink. The stores have such a huge variety of fresh vegetables and decent quality meat that you are hardly even going to need any recipes because with such ingredients it is almost impossible to fail. That and fish tacos are probably the things I miss the most about the US.
Ah San Francisco, been quite awhile since I've been there. You do realize you are talking about perhaps the most progressive city in the world right? Sure, if I could jump on a plane and go shop for good quality food anywhere in the country, San Francisco would most likely rank in my top 3. But that's like going to Amsterdam and then saying the thing you miss the most about Europe is buying cannabis in coffee shops lol.
I somehow doubt that there is a huge difference between safeways or lucky's across the country. Regardless my point was that decent quality ingredients are available and that it is entirely possible to cook savory and fulfilling meals cheaply.
Your doubts are relatively unimportant; folks actually born and raised in the USA are telling you that food access in a place like San Francisco is radically different than in Camden, Detroit, or even LA. You might want to look up the term "food desert" and go off more than confirmation bias and doubt.
On July 08 2014 06:23 Ghostcom wrote: I lived in San Francisco for a year and whilst the food in general was cheap it is such bullshit that making savory, flavourful and absolutely delicious food is some sort of arduous task or money-sink. The stores have such a huge variety of fresh vegetables and decent quality meat that you are hardly even going to need any recipes because with such ingredients it is almost impossible to fail. That and fish tacos are probably the things I miss the most about the US.
Ah San Francisco, been quite awhile since I've been there. You do realize you are talking about perhaps the most progressive city in the world right? Sure, if I could jump on a plane and go shop for good quality food anywhere in the country, San Francisco would most likely rank in my top 3. But that's like going to Amsterdam and then saying the thing you miss the most about Europe is buying cannabis in coffee shops lol.
I somehow doubt that there is a huge difference between safeways or lucky's across the country. Regardless my point was that decent quality ingredients are available and that it is entirely possible to cook savory and fulfilling meals cheaply.
Your doubts are relatively unimportant; folks actually born and raised in the USA are telling you that food access in a place like San Francisco is radically different than in Camden, Detroit, or even LA. You might want to look up the term "food desert" and go off more than confirmation bias and doubt.
My initial post was a response to someone who claimed it impossible to cook savory healthy food and that all healthy food was bland, making the concept of food deserts irrelevant. Nevermind that though: Are you seriously trying to argue that food deserts are the reason for the US obesity (or obesity in general)? Have you given any thought as to how food deserts even go around existing in the first place?
On July 08 2014 05:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I'm sorry I don't understand. How is a shopping receipt arbitrary? How can a person in USA not be able to have access to a shop?
It's arbitrary because you seem to be unfamiliar with the concept that things cost different amounts of money depending on where you live. In my example, if you think you are getting a pound of salmon for $5 where I live, you're fucking crazy. But even if we assume that it were possible, you can get three burgers at any fast food joint for that much money.
Your numbers don't add up. Unless you are literally eating some white rice and a small piece of fruit, it is definitely conceivable that for a lot of people in a lot of places (at least in the US), fast food could be cheaper and less time consuming than eating healthy.
Ok lets double the cost of salmon to $10 a pound. Now you are almost eating expensive restaurant quality, wild salmon. But then let eat a reasonably large amount as opposed to a reasonably fat man's amount , say half a pound of salmon. What does that come to? Oh $5. Amazing.
Anyhow the example of salmon salad isn't mine, it is somebody else's excuse that food you cook for yourself is expensive, and he had chosen the most reasonably expensive meal he could think of. Only that reasonably expensive meal he could think of turns out to be cheaper than fast food, which isn't even the equivalent in quality or type of meat.
Oh and 3 burgers at any fast food joint for $5? Ok.
A 3/4 pound of minced beef =$3 Enough for 3 quarter pounder burgers.
Real cheese, not processed artificial cheese, enough for 4 thin slices = $1
Enough salad for 4 burgers that you can't fit into your burger and certainly more than you will get for 3 burgers for 5 dollars = $0.5
3 of the same burger bun that you can get at any fast foodjoint, but probably tastier = $1.5
Comes to $6, but you aren't eating nasty processed cheese, connective tissue and gristle, and bread that hasn't been frozen and shipped across a thousand miles.
Oh adn if you was using the same quality as these 3 burgers for $5 at fast food joint,then it'll be a lot lot cheaper. Like for like any food will be cheaper if you spend 10 minutes to cook instead of 5 minutes to drive and eat in your car.
Time to cook = 12 minutes
Btw, I think we found out why you would be obese. It's because you would consider eating 3 burgers at any fast food joint for $5 as a meal as opposed to using less money to cook for a more reasonable amount of tastier food.
Also lol at the idea that you got to be in the most "progressive city in the world" to find a variety of fresh vegetable and decent quality meat. Like really?
On July 08 2014 06:23 Ghostcom wrote: I lived in San Francisco for a year and whilst the food in general was cheap it is such bullshit that making savory, flavourful and absolutely delicious food is some sort of arduous task or money-sink. The stores have such a huge variety of fresh vegetables and decent quality meat that you are hardly even going to need any recipes because with such ingredients it is almost impossible to fail. That and fish tacos are probably the things I miss the most about the US.
Ah San Francisco, been quite awhile since I've been there. You do realize you are talking about perhaps the most progressive city in the world right? Sure, if I could jump on a plane and go shop for good quality food anywhere in the country, San Francisco would most likely rank in my top 3. But that's like going to Amsterdam and then saying the thing you miss the most about Europe is buying cannabis in coffee shops lol.
I somehow doubt that there is a huge difference between safeways or lucky's across the country. Regardless my point was that decent quality ingredients are available and that it is entirely possible to cook savory and fulfilling meals cheaply.
Your doubts are relatively unimportant; folks actually born and raised in the USA are telling you that food access in a place like San Francisco is radically different than in Camden, Detroit, or even LA. You might want to look up the term "food desert" and go off more than confirmation bias and doubt.
My initial post was a response to someone who claimed it impossible to cook savory healthy food and that all healthy food was bland, making the concept of food deserts irrelevant. Nevermind that though: Are you seriously trying to argue that food deserts are the reason for the US obesity (or obesity in general)? Have you given any thought as to how food deserts even go around existing in the first place?
There is obviously no singular cause, and if you are of the opinion that a mere lack of demand is what drives supermarkets out of low income areas, I've got a bridge to sell you.
I wonder how many people in this thread consider themselves overweight.
I don't consider obesity a global issue. Obesity is an individual issue. Why should I be concerned for someone else lack of self-discipline? I'm not the one with increased chance of hearth failure, stroke, bone structure degradation and so on.
If the majority of people in a country are obese, this puts an unnecessary strain on the economy. Studies have shown that the costs per individual is 40% higher than for normal weight people. In the US, overall, obesity-related direct and indirect economic costs already exceed $150 billion annually.
On July 09 2014 00:02 tertos wrote: I wonder how many people in this thread consider themselves overweight.
I don't consider obesity a global issue. Obesity is an individual issue. Why should I be concerned for someone else lack of self-discipline? I'm not the one with increased chance of hearth failure, stroke, bone structure degradation and so on.
Sadly you are because their treatment is payed with your tax money (or future tax money)
On July 08 2014 04:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Cost of a big mac meal in USA = ??? Grilled salmon salad = ???
Salmon Fillet approx 1 pound = $5 Salad = $0.5 Some sort of carbohydrate, take your pick = $0.5 $6
Time taken = 10 minutes or less. Time to wash the dishes = 1 min
Btw that's assuming that you eat enough for 2 large and fat people. Oh and for your benefit I overpriced everything. This is some good quality food I have chosen for you to eating.
If you calculate the prices for salmon and beef as cheap as that, you might as well eat fast food, to be honest. You cant even get the shittiest salmon that cheap here. But good that you "overpriced" everything. That whole post sounds near delusional.
Non wild Salmon and meat as cheap as your 2nd example is so full of shit and or questionably produced that it is questionable at best if that is any "healthier". Your price calculations are sorta wtf, or you live somewhere that is jackpot for foodies?
Also your delusional time calculation. Only the thawing alone takes longer than your whole time calculation. You got a dirty pan, dirty bowl, dirty plate and several dirty other stuff. Definetly no minute.
You should either make an example video of your 11 minute wonder show, or calculate better, or not advice great meals you never cooked yourself with completly unrealistic standards..
On July 09 2014 00:12 urboss wrote: Now imagine, these $150 billion could easily be spent on subsidizing and promoting healthy food instead.
Or give Africa more food, or use it for renewable energy, or education or space exploration. What we would do with the money: give it to banks and bail them out.
On July 08 2014 04:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Cost of a big mac meal in USA = ??? Grilled salmon salad = ???
Salmon Fillet approx 1 pound = $5 Salad = $0.5 Some sort of carbohydrate, take your pick = $0.5 $6
Time taken = 10 minutes or less. Time to wash the dishes = 1 min
Btw that's assuming that you eat enough for 2 large and fat people. Oh and for your benefit I overpriced everything. This is some good quality food I have chosen for you to eating.
If you calculate the prices for salmon and beef as cheap as that, you might as well eat fast food, to be honest. You cant even get the shittiest salmon that cheap here. But good that you "overpriced" everything. That whole post sounds near delusional.
Non wild Salmon and meat as cheap as your 2nd example is so full of shit and or questionably produced that it is questionable at best if that is any "healthier". Your price calculations are sorta wtf, or you live somewhere that is jackpot for foodies?
Also your delusional time calculation. Only the thawing alone takes longer than your whole time calculation. You got a dirty pan, dirty bowl, dirty plate and several dirty other stuff. Definetly no minute.
You should either make an example video of your 11 minute wonder show, or calculate better, or not advice great meals you never cooked yourself with completly unrealistic standards..
Dirty pan, dirty kitchen utensils, dirty chopping board, dirty plate, lots of dirty stuff. How long does it take YOU to wash up? If you want shit standard salmon here it is : http://lmgtfy.com/?q=walmart salmon price How much is that? If you want to find out your local whole fillet prices go to your local store if you have one. You are German right? You must be swimming in supermarkets.
The only thing that is delusional is your belief that fast food is cheaper than home made food. 11 minute wonder show, here it goes.
Presumptions: You goto the supermarket weekly because you need to buy personal hygiene products or other domestic goods. If you don't go shopping, you got bigger problems than that you are obese. Mainly that you probably have bad personal hygiene and smell bad and your home relly needs a good clean. Time: not really that important; neglible.
Presumption: You have kitchen utensils and a chopping everything that makes up a kitchen. If you don't, you got bigger problems in that unless you are Indian you eat food with the same hand you wash your bumhole with.
Presumption: You have running water, gas and electricity. If you don't, you are probably homeless and got bigger problems, then a lack of a fridge. Plus you probably aren't obese and have much more life threatening health problems. Not to mention you have no access to the internet. Or a warm home.
Presumption: You don't fucking spend hours staring at whatever you are thawing, like a total retard. You go to school or have a job. Or stare at TL.net and play some SC2. Like wtf? I don't even understand this point.
Step 1: Put food in fridge. Important step this. Step 2: Take food out of fridge. Also fairly important. Step 3: Take the kitchen utensils out. In most cases they will be found in a drawer or hanging out on a peg. A chopping board and a chef's knife is all you really need for the most part though. Not so important, but it is nice to not have burnt hands.
How to make salmon salad: (Remember I am not the guy who suggested this dish, it was the guy who wanted to compare salmon salad to ready meals as an "objective" comparison of price difference.)
Broil, pan sear it or poach it. Shouldn't take more than 10 minutes. Grill or baking it may take longer.
While that is going on, cut about $0.5 worth of salad. Make it 3 varieties of veg if you want. That's where the knife and board comes in handy. If you want to be fancy go cut a lemon into quarter and squeeze out the juice. Add $0.1. So expensive!
Time taken so far: less than 10 minutes.
Go back to staring at the salmon. Flip it over at half time is usually a good idea. Makes the sides even. Just like football. Unless you are American. Then just like soccer.
Don't want to stare at the salmon? Go wash the dishes and the utensils you have just used.
How to make a burger: (I can't beleive I have to write this)
Step 1: Chop and shape the meat and veg Step 2: Heat the meat. Results may vary on the time taken. Should take 12 mins or less depending how thick the meat is. Step 3: Place the veg and meat and condiments and bread in an artistic manner. Tradition dictates that the bread be on the outermost layer. Step 4: Open mouth. Step 5: How you consume the burger is up to you.
Washing up: About 5 items. Less if you use your hands. About 1 minute. If it takes longer, you are doing it wrong. Ask your carer to do it, if you are old and infirm.
On July 08 2014 04:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Cost of a big mac meal in USA = ??? Grilled salmon salad = ???
Salmon Fillet approx 1 pound = $5 Salad = $0.5 Some sort of carbohydrate, take your pick = $0.5 $6
Time taken = 10 minutes or less. Time to wash the dishes = 1 min
Btw that's assuming that you eat enough for 2 large and fat people. Oh and for your benefit I overpriced everything. This is some good quality food I have chosen for you to eating.
If you calculate the prices for salmon and beef as cheap as that, you might as well eat fast food, to be honest. You cant even get the shittiest salmon that cheap here. But good that you "overpriced" everything. That whole post sounds near delusional.
Non wild Salmon and meat as cheap as your 2nd example is so full of shit and or questionably produced that it is questionable at best if that is any "healthier". Your price calculations are sorta wtf, or you live somewhere that is jackpot for foodies?
Also your delusional time calculation. Only the thawing alone takes longer than your whole time calculation. You got a dirty pan, dirty bowl, dirty plate and several dirty other stuff. Definetly no minute.
You should either make an example video of your 11 minute wonder show, or calculate better, or not advice great meals you never cooked yourself with completly unrealistic standards..
Dirty pan, dirty kitchen utensils, dirty chopping board, dirty plate, lots of dirty stuff. How long does it take YOU to wash up? If you want shit standard salmon here it is : http://lmgtfy.com/?q=walmart salmon price How much is that? If you want to find out your local whole fillet prices go to your local store if you have one. You are German right? You must be swimming in supermarkets.
The only thing that is delusional is your belief that fast food is cheaper than home made food. 11 minute wonder show, here it goes.
Presumptions: You goto the supermarket weekly because you need to buy personal hygiene products or other domestic goods. If you don't go shopping, you got bigger problems than that you are obese. Mainly that you probably have bad personal hygiene and smell bad and your home relly needs a good clean. Time: not really that important; neglible.
Presumption: You have kitchen utensils and a chopping everything that makes up a kitchen. If you don't, you got bigger problems in that unless you are Indian you eat food with the same hand you wash your bumhole with.
Presumption: You have running water, gas and electricity. If you don't, you are probably homeless and got bigger problems, then a lack of a fridge. Plus you probably aren't obese and have much more life threatening health problems. Not to mention you have no access to the internet. Or a warm home.
Presumption: You don't fucking spend hours staring at whatever you are thawing, like a total retard. You go to school or have a job. Or stare at TL.net and play some SC2. Like wtf? I don't even understand this point.
Step 1: Put food in fridge. Important step this. Step 2: Take food out of fridge. Also fairly important. Step 3: Take the kitchen utensils out. In most cases they will be found in a drawer or hanging out on a peg. A chopping board and a chef's knife is all you really need for the most part though. Not so important, but it is nice to not have burnt hands.
How to make salmon salad: (Remember I am not the guy who suggested this dish, it was the guy who wanted to compare salmon salad to ready meals as an "objective" comparison of price difference.)
Broil, pan sear it or poach it. Shouldn't take more than 10 minutes. Grill or baking it may take longer.
While that is going on, cut about $0.5 worth of salad. Make it 3 varieties of veg if you want. That's where the knife and board comes in handy. If you want to be fancy go cut a lemon into quarter and squeeze out the juice. Add $0.1. So expensive!
Time taken so far: less than 10 minutes.
Go back to staring at the salmon. Flip it over at half time is usually a good idea. Makes the sides even. Just like football. Unless you are American. Then just like soccer.
Don't want to stare at the salmon? Go wash the dishes and the utensils you have just used.
How to make a burger: (I can't beleive I have to write this)
Step 1: Chop and shape the meat and veg Step 2: Heat the meat. Results may vary on the time taken. Should take 12 mins or less depending how thick the meat is. Step 3: Place the veg and meat and condiments and bread in an artistic manner. Tradition dictates that the bread be on the outermost layer. Step 4: Open mouth. Step 5: How you consume the burger is up to you.
Washing up: About 5 items. Less if you use your hands. About 1 minute. If it takes longer, you are doing it wrong. Ask your carer to do it, if you are old and infirm.
I don't get this whole discussion. Is anyone really arguing that any of the following is not true?
a) You can make food as good as at a fastfood restaurant cheaper if you prepare it yourself (This is obvious unless you assume people in fastfood joints work for free) b) You can make better food compared to a fastfood restaurant if you prepare it yourself for the same price (This directly follows from a) if you assume that money spend is in any way correlated to food quality under simular circumstances)
Food is simple. The more time you invest, the less money you pay for the same quality. The more money you invest, the better the quality of the food. Quality can mean taste or healthiness. This is not rocket science.
On July 08 2014 04:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Cost of a big mac meal in USA = ??? Grilled salmon salad = ???
Salmon Fillet approx 1 pound = $5 Salad = $0.5 Some sort of carbohydrate, take your pick = $0.5 $6
Time taken = 10 minutes or less. Time to wash the dishes = 1 min
Btw that's assuming that you eat enough for 2 large and fat people. Oh and for your benefit I overpriced everything. This is some good quality food I have chosen for you to eating.
If you calculate the prices for salmon and beef as cheap as that, you might as well eat fast food, to be honest. You cant even get the shittiest salmon that cheap here. But good that you "overpriced" everything. That whole post sounds near delusional.
Non wild Salmon and meat as cheap as your 2nd example is so full of shit and or questionably produced that it is questionable at best if that is any "healthier". Your price calculations are sorta wtf, or you live somewhere that is jackpot for foodies?
Also your delusional time calculation. Only the thawing alone takes longer than your whole time calculation. You got a dirty pan, dirty bowl, dirty plate and several dirty other stuff. Definetly no minute.
You should either make an example video of your 11 minute wonder show, or calculate better, or not advice great meals you never cooked yourself with completly unrealistic standards..
Dirty pan, dirty kitchen utensils, dirty chopping board, dirty plate, lots of dirty stuff. How long does it take YOU to wash up? If you want shit standard salmon here it is : http://lmgtfy.com/?q=walmart salmon price How much is that? If you want to find out your local whole fillet prices go to your local store if you have one. You are German right? You must be swimming in supermarkets.
The only thing that is delusional is your belief that fast food is cheaper than home made food. 11 minute wonder show, here it goes.
Presumptions: You goto the supermarket weekly because you need to buy personal hygiene products or other domestic goods. If you don't go shopping, you got bigger problems than that you are obese. Mainly that you probably have bad personal hygiene and smell bad and your home relly needs a good clean. Time: not really that important; neglible.
Presumption: You have kitchen utensils and a chopping everything that makes up a kitchen. If you don't, you got bigger problems in that unless you are Indian you eat food with the same hand you wash your bumhole with.
Presumption: You have running water, gas and electricity. If you don't, you are probably homeless and got bigger problems, then a lack of a fridge. Plus you probably aren't obese and have much more life threatening health problems. Not to mention you have no access to the internet. Or a warm home.
Presumption: You don't fucking spend hours staring at whatever you are thawing, like a total retard. You go to school or have a job. Or stare at TL.net and play some SC2. Like wtf? I don't even understand this point.
Step 1: Put food in fridge. Important step this. Step 2: Take food out of fridge. Also fairly important. Step 3: Take the kitchen utensils out. In most cases they will be found in a drawer or hanging out on a peg. A chopping board and a chef's knife is all you really need for the most part though. Not so important, but it is nice to not have burnt hands.
How to make salmon salad: (Remember I am not the guy who suggested this dish, it was the guy who wanted to compare salmon salad to ready meals as an "objective" comparison of price difference.)
Broil, pan sear it or poach it. Shouldn't take more than 10 minutes. Grill or baking it may take longer.
While that is going on, cut about $0.5 worth of salad. Make it 3 varieties of veg if you want. That's where the knife and board comes in handy. If you want to be fancy go cut a lemon into quarter and squeeze out the juice. Add $0.1. So expensive!
Time taken so far: less than 10 minutes.
Go back to staring at the salmon. Flip it over at half time is usually a good idea. Makes the sides even. Just like football. Unless you are American. Then just like soccer.
Don't want to stare at the salmon? Go wash the dishes and the utensils you have just used.
How to make a burger: (I can't beleive I have to write this)
Step 1: Chop and shape the meat and veg Step 2: Heat the meat. Results may vary on the time taken. Should take 12 mins or less depending how thick the meat is. Step 3: Place the veg and meat and condiments and bread in an artistic manner. Tradition dictates that the bread be on the outermost layer. Step 4: Open mouth. Step 5: How you consume the burger is up to you.
Washing up: About 5 items. Less if you use your hands. About 1 minute. If it takes longer, you are doing it wrong. Ask your carer to do it, if you are old and infirm.
I don't get this whole discussion. Is anyone really arguing that any of the following is not true?
a) You can make food as good as at a fastfood restaurant cheaper if you prepare it yourself (This is obvious unless you assume people in fastfood joints work for free) b) You can make better food compared to a fastfood restaurant if you prepare it yourself for the same price (This directly follows from a) if you assume that money spend is in any way correlated to food quality under simular circumstances)
Food is simple. The more time you invest, the less money you pay for the same quality. The more money you invest, the better the quality of the food. Quality can mean taste or healthiness. This is not rocket science.
On July 08 2014 04:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Cost of a big mac meal in USA = ??? Grilled salmon salad = ???
Salmon Fillet approx 1 pound = $5 Salad = $0.5 Some sort of carbohydrate, take your pick = $0.5 $6
Time taken = 10 minutes or less. Time to wash the dishes = 1 min
Btw that's assuming that you eat enough for 2 large and fat people. Oh and for your benefit I overpriced everything. This is some good quality food I have chosen for you to eating.
If you calculate the prices for salmon and beef as cheap as that, you might as well eat fast food, to be honest. You cant even get the shittiest salmon that cheap here. But good that you "overpriced" everything. That whole post sounds near delusional.
Non wild Salmon and meat as cheap as your 2nd example is so full of shit and or questionably produced that it is questionable at best if that is any "healthier". Your price calculations are sorta wtf, or you live somewhere that is jackpot for foodies?
Also your delusional time calculation. Only the thawing alone takes longer than your whole time calculation. You got a dirty pan, dirty bowl, dirty plate and several dirty other stuff. Definetly no minute.
You should either make an example video of your 11 minute wonder show, or calculate better, or not advice great meals you never cooked yourself with completly unrealistic standards..
Dirty pan, dirty kitchen utensils, dirty chopping board, dirty plate, lots of dirty stuff. How long does it take YOU to wash up? If you want shit standard salmon here it is : http://lmgtfy.com/?q=walmart salmon price How much is that? If you want to find out your local whole fillet prices go to your local store if you have one. You are German right? You must be swimming in supermarkets.
No Walmart here. Even if you would get it at your quoted price, which you wont, irrelevant. My argument was that its not healthier than fast food considering how salmon gets raised. Same for your low price beef or other meat, so no need to add some burger recipe noone wants to read on here, doesnt even adress my argument.
On July 08 2014 04:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: The only thing that is delusional is your belief that fast food is cheaper than home made food.
Too bad i didnt claim that once. Reading comprehension, if your gonna act like either a dick or troll, at least be factually right.
On July 08 2014 04:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 11 minute wonder show, here it goes.
Presumptions: You goto the supermarket weekly because you need to buy personal hygiene products or other domestic goods. If you don't go shopping, you got bigger problems than that you are obese. Mainly that you probably have bad personal hygiene and smell bad and your home relly needs a good clean. Time: not really that important; neglible.
Presumption: You have kitchen utensils and a chopping everything that makes up a kitchen. If you don't, you got bigger problems in that unless you are Indian you eat food with the same hand you wash your bumhole with.
Seriously dude?
On July 08 2014 04:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Presumption: You have running water, gas and electricity. If you don't, you are probably homeless and got bigger problems, then a lack of a fridge. Plus you probably aren't obese and have much more life threatening health problems. Not to mention you have no access to the internet. Or a warm home.
Presumption: You don't fucking spend hours staring at whatever you are thawing, like a total retard. You go to school or have a job. Or stare at TL.net and play some SC2. Like wtf? I don't even understand this point.
You dont understand it cause your either trolling or seriously close minded. Your argument here is the same as saying: "I get my food instantly at the restaurant because i did my homework in the waiting time".
Cant even be bothered to respond to the rest or future stuff from you, before i get dragged down to full ignorance level. This seems to be a really sensitive topic for you. Also if you go this much full retard, just make a video of your 11 minute wonder show, cause nothing else will convince people after your angry offensive and defensive post lol.
On July 08 2014 04:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Cost of a big mac meal in USA = ??? Grilled salmon salad = ???
Salmon Fillet approx 1 pound = $5 Salad = $0.5 Some sort of carbohydrate, take your pick = $0.5 $6
Time taken = 10 minutes or less. Time to wash the dishes = 1 min
Btw that's assuming that you eat enough for 2 large and fat people. Oh and for your benefit I overpriced everything. This is some good quality food I have chosen for you to eating.
If you calculate the prices for salmon and beef as cheap as that, you might as well eat fast food, to be honest. You cant even get the shittiest salmon that cheap here. But good that you "overpriced" everything. That whole post sounds near delusional.
Non wild Salmon and meat as cheap as your 2nd example is so full of shit and or questionably produced that it is questionable at best if that is any "healthier". Your price calculations are sorta wtf, or you live somewhere that is jackpot for foodies?
Also your delusional time calculation. Only the thawing alone takes longer than your whole time calculation. You got a dirty pan, dirty bowl, dirty plate and several dirty other stuff. Definetly no minute.
You should either make an example video of your 11 minute wonder show, or calculate better, or not advice great meals you never cooked yourself with completly unrealistic standards..
Dirty pan, dirty kitchen utensils, dirty chopping board, dirty plate, lots of dirty stuff. How long does it take YOU to wash up? If you want shit standard salmon here it is : http://lmgtfy.com/?q=walmart salmon price How much is that? If you want to find out your local whole fillet prices go to your local store if you have one. You are German right? You must be swimming in supermarkets.
The only thing that is delusional is your belief that fast food is cheaper than home made food. 11 minute wonder show, here it goes.
Presumptions: You goto the supermarket weekly because you need to buy personal hygiene products or other domestic goods. If you don't go shopping, you got bigger problems than that you are obese. Mainly that you probably have bad personal hygiene and smell bad and your home relly needs a good clean. Time: not really that important; neglible.
Presumption: You have kitchen utensils and a chopping everything that makes up a kitchen. If you don't, you got bigger problems in that unless you are Indian you eat food with the same hand you wash your bumhole with.
Presumption: You have running water, gas and electricity. If you don't, you are probably homeless and got bigger problems, then a lack of a fridge. Plus you probably aren't obese and have much more life threatening health problems. Not to mention you have no access to the internet. Or a warm home.
Presumption: You don't fucking spend hours staring at whatever you are thawing, like a total retard. You go to school or have a job. Or stare at TL.net and play some SC2. Like wtf? I don't even understand this point.
Step 1: Put food in fridge. Important step this. Step 2: Take food out of fridge. Also fairly important. Step 3: Take the kitchen utensils out. In most cases they will be found in a drawer or hanging out on a peg. A chopping board and a chef's knife is all you really need for the most part though. Not so important, but it is nice to not have burnt hands.
How to make salmon salad: (Remember I am not the guy who suggested this dish, it was the guy who wanted to compare salmon salad to ready meals as an "objective" comparison of price difference.)
Broil, pan sear it or poach it. Shouldn't take more than 10 minutes. Grill or baking it may take longer.
While that is going on, cut about $0.5 worth of salad. Make it 3 varieties of veg if you want. That's where the knife and board comes in handy. If you want to be fancy go cut a lemon into quarter and squeeze out the juice. Add $0.1. So expensive!
Time taken so far: less than 10 minutes.
Go back to staring at the salmon. Flip it over at half time is usually a good idea. Makes the sides even. Just like football. Unless you are American. Then just like soccer.
Don't want to stare at the salmon? Go wash the dishes and the utensils you have just used.
How to make a burger: (I can't beleive I have to write this)
Step 1: Chop and shape the meat and veg Step 2: Heat the meat. Results may vary on the time taken. Should take 12 mins or less depending how thick the meat is. Step 3: Place the veg and meat and condiments and bread in an artistic manner. Tradition dictates that the bread be on the outermost layer. Step 4: Open mouth. Step 5: How you consume the burger is up to you.
Washing up: About 5 items. Less if you use your hands. About 1 minute. If it takes longer, you are doing it wrong. Ask your carer to do it, if you are old and infirm.
I don't get this whole discussion. Is anyone really arguing that any of the following is not true?
a) You can make food as good as at a fastfood restaurant cheaper if you prepare it yourself (This is obvious unless you assume people in fastfood joints work for free) b) You can make better food compared to a fastfood restaurant if you prepare it yourself for the same price (This directly follows from a) if you assume that money spend is in any way correlated to food quality under simular circumstances)
Food is simple. The more time you invest, the less money you pay for the same quality. The more money you invest, the better the quality of the food. Quality can mean taste or healthiness. This is not rocket science.
Look below/above. Theres about 5 people in this thread insisting that home cook food is time consuming, less tasty and more expensive.
On July 08 2014 04:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Cost of a big mac meal in USA = ??? Grilled salmon salad = ???
Salmon Fillet approx 1 pound = $5 Salad = $0.5 Some sort of carbohydrate, take your pick = $0.5 $6
Time taken = 10 minutes or less. Time to wash the dishes = 1 min
Btw that's assuming that you eat enough for 2 large and fat people. Oh and for your benefit I overpriced everything. This is some good quality food I have chosen for you to eating.
If you calculate the prices for salmon and beef as cheap as that, you might as well eat fast food, to be honest. You cant even get the shittiest salmon that cheap here. But good that you "overpriced" everything. That whole post sounds near delusional.
Non wild Salmon and meat as cheap as your 2nd example is so full of shit and or questionably produced that it is questionable at best if that is any "healthier". Your price calculations are sorta wtf, or you live somewhere that is jackpot for foodies?
Also your delusional time calculation. Only the thawing alone takes longer than your whole time calculation. You got a dirty pan, dirty bowl, dirty plate and several dirty other stuff. Definetly no minute.
You should either make an example video of your 11 minute wonder show, or calculate better, or not advice great meals you never cooked yourself with completly unrealistic standards..
Dirty pan, dirty kitchen utensils, dirty chopping board, dirty plate, lots of dirty stuff. How long does it take YOU to wash up? If you want shit standard salmon here it is : http://lmgtfy.com/?q=walmart salmon price How much is that? If you want to find out your local whole fillet prices go to your local store if you have one. You are German right? You must be swimming in supermarkets.
No Walmart here. Even if you would get it at your quoted price, which you wont, irrelevant. My argument was that its not healthier than fast food considering how salmon gets raised. Same for your low price beef or other meat, so no need to add some burger recipe noone wants to read on here, doesnt even adress my argument.
On July 08 2014 04:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 11 minute wonder show, here it goes.
Presumptions: You goto the supermarket weekly because you need to buy personal hygiene products or other domestic goods. If you don't go shopping, you got bigger problems than that you are obese. Mainly that you probably have bad personal hygiene and smell bad and your home relly needs a good clean. Time: not really that important; neglible.
Presumption: You have kitchen utensils and a chopping everything that makes up a kitchen. If you don't, you got bigger problems in that unless you are Indian you eat food with the same hand you wash your bumhole with.
On July 08 2014 04:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Presumption: You have running water, gas and electricity. If you don't, you are probably homeless and got bigger problems, then a lack of a fridge. Plus you probably aren't obese and have much more life threatening health problems. Not to mention you have no access to the internet. Or a warm home.
Presumption: You don't fucking spend hours staring at whatever you are thawing, like a total retard. You go to school or have a job. Or stare at TL.net and play some SC2. Like wtf? I don't even understand this point.
You dont understand it cause your either trolling or seriously close minded. Your argument here is the same as saying: "I get my food instantly at the restaurant because i did my homework in the waiting time".
Cant even be bothered to respond to the rest or future stuff from you, before i get dragged down to full ignorance level. This seems to be a really sensitive topic for you. Also if you go this much full retard, just make a video of your 11 minute wonder show, cause nothing else will convince people after your angry offensive and defensive post lol.
Ok mr freeware player. Tell me why you consider thawing time in if you don't manically stare at a thawing piece of meat? No seriously tell me. I really want to know. Do you spend hours of your time watching a thawing peice of meat? Because I got to tell you, you are doing it wrong.
Tell me me freewareplayer, how long does it take you to do the washing for a single person? Becuase if you aren't taking a minute, you are doing it wrong.
Tell me mr freewareplayer, wtf is so hard to understand a simple instruction of heating a piece of meat for 10 minutes, flip halfway? 10 minutes is 10 minutes. Time is time. it doesn't change unless you are moving at near lightspeed.
I don't need to put of a video of my home, of my self cooking? Like wtf, you want me to chop things with a knife, cook meat with oil and wave a camcorder around? A kitchen is not a playground. Plus there's no way I am going to reveal something as intimate as the inside of my house to someone who stares at a thawing peice of meat lol.
On July 08 2014 04:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Cost of a big mac meal in USA = ??? Grilled salmon salad = ???
Salmon Fillet approx 1 pound = $5 Salad = $0.5 Some sort of carbohydrate, take your pick = $0.5 $6
Time taken = 10 minutes or less. Time to wash the dishes = 1 min
Btw that's assuming that you eat enough for 2 large and fat people. Oh and for your benefit I overpriced everything. This is some good quality food I have chosen for you to eating.
If you calculate the prices for salmon and beef as cheap as that, you might as well eat fast food, to be honest. You cant even get the shittiest salmon that cheap here. But good that you "overpriced" everything. That whole post sounds near delusional.
Non wild Salmon and meat as cheap as your 2nd example is so full of shit and or questionably produced that it is questionable at best if that is any "healthier". Your price calculations are sorta wtf, or you live somewhere that is jackpot for foodies?
Also your delusional time calculation. Only the thawing alone takes longer than your whole time calculation. You got a dirty pan, dirty bowl, dirty plate and several dirty other stuff. Definetly no minute.
You should either make an example video of your 11 minute wonder show, or calculate better, or not advice great meals you never cooked yourself with completly unrealistic standards..
Dirty pan, dirty kitchen utensils, dirty chopping board, dirty plate, lots of dirty stuff. How long does it take YOU to wash up? If you want shit standard salmon here it is : http://lmgtfy.com/?q=walmart salmon price How much is that? If you want to find out your local whole fillet prices go to your local store if you have one. You are German right? You must be swimming in supermarkets.
No Walmart here. Even if you would get it at your quoted price, which you wont, irrelevant. My argument was that its not healthier than fast food considering how salmon gets raised. Same for your low price beef or other meat, so no need to add some burger recipe noone wants to read on here, doesnt even adress my argument.
Obviously you don't get the healthiest food on the planet at the same price as a burger at a fast food joint. Luckily enough, that is not necessary for this argument. All you need is something that is more healthy than that burger. Yes, the cheapest meat you will find at a store is probably not the healthiest thing you have ever seen. A reasonable homemade meal including this meat is STILL healthier than a fastfood burger made from the exact same meat. Do you really think they use organic beef in those?
Tell me mr freewareplayer, wtf is so hard to understand a simple instruction of heating a piece of meat for 10 minutes, flip halfway? 10 minutes is 10 minutes. Time is time. it doesn't change unless you are moving at near lightspeed.
Time doesn't change when you are fast. The time of everything else does. So unless you are moving at a vastly different speed in relation to your meat, you will never have problems with relativistic physics. How fast you move in relation to other stuff is not relevant.
On July 09 2014 03:06 Simberto wrote: Time doesn't change when you are fast. The time of everything else does. So unless you are moving at a vastly different speed in relation to your meat, you will never have problems with relativistic physics. How fast you move in relation to other stuff is not relevant.
I am assuming mr freewareplayer is moving at near lightspeed next to a sizzling pan. This throws off his timing as what is 10 minutes to him is an hour to the outside world and the salmon has been cooked to carbon. This is the only reasonable explanation why 10 minutes to cook is not 10 minutes to cook for him.
On July 09 2014 02:57 freewareplayer wrote: You dont understand it cause your either trolling or seriously close minded. Your argument here is the same as saying: "I get my food instantly at the restaurant because i did my homework in the waiting time".
Cant even be bothered to respond to the rest or future stuff from you, before i get dragged down to full ignorance level. This seems to be a really sensitive topic for you. Also if you go this much full retard, just make a video of your 11 minute wonder show, cause nothing else will convince people after your angry offensive and defensive post lol.
Really now? You don't see how thawing meat isn't time to be considered? Unlike say, doing your homework in the waiting time, thawing meat doesn't actually take up your time. You literally don't have to partake in any physical or mental activity. It's a piece of meat, you put it under water and leave it there. You don't have to be physically present when meat is thawing.
Time taken: approx 10 seconds. So lets make it 11m10s including washing up lol.
Seriously though, don't go flouncing off, explain it to me. I am bashing my head trying to understand why you spend hours doing exactly to the thawing meat?
Ok you are one seriously angry kid set on arguing lol. Once more so even you get it, not gonna respond further.
You get home at 18:00, you want to eat asap. You need to start by thawing the meat. Are you going to have your food ready and everything done at 18:11? No you wont. Fact. Thawing isnt even going to be done by that time. Whatever you do during the thawing time does not change that this takes time. Period. Being condocending, trying to be funny, or being a keyboard warrior wont change a thing about that.
This is stupid because even if it's objectively correct that managing everything about cooking at home isn't that much work compared to going out for fast food, it only matters what it feels like to people.
A person that feels like cooking isn't much of an effort will obviously not be going out to buy fast food. Someone else that's going for fast food every day obviously feels like cooking would be more of an effort. It's just different people.
On July 09 2014 03:35 freewareplayer wrote: Ok you are one seriously angry kid set on arguing lol. Once more so even you get it, not gonna respond further.
You get home at 18:00, you want to eat asap. You need to start by thawing the meat. Are you going to have your food ready and everything done at 18:11? No you wont. Fact. Thawing isnt even going to be done by that time. Whatever you do during the thawing time does not change that this takes time. Period. Being condocending, trying to be funny, or being a keyboard warrior wont change a thing about that.
so plan your meals ahead of time? put your meat in the fridge it'll thaw and be fine by dinner time. Jesus christ you guys are ridiculous i cant even read it all without getting a headache
Yeah mr freeware player instead of arguing, I will just call the the other person names lol. Excellent.
Seriously, my head hurts. You got several options:
Option 1: You wake up 10 seconds earlier in the morning. 20 seconds earlier so you can wash your hands with plenty of time to spare.
Option 2: You open your fridge and look at expiration dates, becuase you didn't slap everything you brought into the freezer. You cook whatever meat you have available in the fridge. Or crack some eggs open.
Option 3: You order a takeaway. Because you cook 7 days a week, so why not take a break and eat something you didn't cook for once? Wait, that doesn't describe you, you eat fast food every day lol.
Option 4: You always slap everything you brought into the freezer for some god forsaken reason, and for 30 days running you forgot to defrost the meat. Every single day. You start to apply common sense to your daily routine.
On July 09 2014 03:35 freewareplayer wrote: Ok you are one seriously angry kid set on arguing lol. Once more so even you get it, not gonna respond further.
You get home at 18:00, you want to eat asap. You need to start by thawing the meat. Are you going to have your food ready and everything done at 18:11? No you wont. Fact. Thawing isnt even going to be done by that time. Whatever you do during the thawing time does not change that this takes time. Period. Being condocending, trying to be funny, or being a keyboard warrior wont change a thing about that.
so plan your meals ahead of time? put your meat in the fridge it'll thaw and be fine by dinner time. Jesus christ you guys are ridiculous i cant even read it all without getting a headache
So what's your explanation why people exist that eat fast food every day?
On July 09 2014 03:35 freewareplayer wrote: Ok you are one seriously angry kid set on arguing lol. Once more so even you get it, not gonna respond further.
You get home at 18:00, you want to eat asap. You need to start by thawing the meat. Are you going to have your food ready and everything done at 18:11? No you wont. Fact. Thawing isnt even going to be done by that time. Whatever you do during the thawing time does not change that this takes time. Period. Being condocending, trying to be funny, or being a keyboard warrior wont change a thing about that.
so plan your meals ahead of time? put your meat in the fridge it'll thaw and be fine by dinner time. Jesus christ you guys are ridiculous i cant even read it all without getting a headache
So what's your explanation why people exist that eat fast food every day?
People like freewareplayer who doesn't understand the concept of that you can either not put everything in the freezer, or defrost meat before you set out for work.
Because cooking a meal takes hours apparently! And is more expensive somehow! And taste worse somehow!
If you say that you are lazy or ignorant I can understand that. Sometimes, you don't feel like cooking. If somebody said they simply have never been taught how to fry an egg, or make a sandwich, it is beleivable.
But when you argue that fast food taste better, that is is more expensive by comparing salmon with pig slop, and that it takes shit loads of time to cook because of the defrosting time, it is just mind blowingly unbeleivable; it is no longer laziness or ignorance, it is just ... I have no idea, it is just a WTF.
On July 08 2014 20:21 r00ty wrote: IMHO: Is it so hard to understand, that there's no magic formula for weight loss? There is no trick or super easy way. Stop wasting money and time searching for it. Stop eating too much shit, move your ass and get some discipline (concerning eating habits), because it's not going to be easy! From my personal experience the most important factor is being honest to yourself. How much do you really eat/burn a day? Basically all people i know, who complain about being overweight are lying to themselves concerning their eating habits. If you really can't control it, get help!
Apart from not finding it attractive personally i got no problems with overweight people. You're free to do whatever you want with your body as far as i'm concerned. Just don't whine about it, if you don't have certain diseases, genetic or mental disorders. Which, but the latter, are basically irrelevant in the discussion. They just aren't a factor numbers wise.
Hat of for you sire! same thing im telling ppl.
running or doing somthing physically after work can be very boring after a hard days work(1hour or 40 min is enuff) for you, eat healthy is not enuff eating good and healthy and excersice is the forumula especially if you have bad "ämnesomsättning" in swedish i dont know the english word for it.
just like everything in life, one choice dont make a diffrence multiple decisions have impact.
On July 09 2014 00:02 tertos wrote: I wonder how many people in this thread consider themselves overweight.
I don't consider obesity a global issue. Obesity is an individual issue. Why should I be concerned for someone else lack of self-discipline? I'm not the one with increased chance of hearth failure, stroke, bone structure degradation and so on.
Here's the irony for me. I am not, well maybe slightly as I'm getting older, but not by much. My parents however, were. My mother had acquired diabetes and obesity. The difference is, they were much more conscious and responsible than I am. They followed all of the latest diet fads, my mother was Betty Crocker, yet none of that effort had any effect. It certainly is nowhere even close to the caricatures people are offering here. It's very hard for me to relate to much of what many are saying when this topic comes up, and it usually just ends up turning circular- but sometimes bears fruit. The videos that turned up from the last thread seem logical and plausible, for example.
Why do I care to bother about obesity then? Partly for philosophical issues and principle (see: Martin Niemöller ) and partly because I believe it could and does affect me. I don't think I am immune to acquiring diabetes as I get older, which could lead to weight problems. I also think there are problems with nutrition that affects overall health even without being obese.
I am often having different conversations with friends on how much consensus is there among men on the issue of thinness in women. When someone tells me they don't find thin women the most attractive I find it extremely hard to believe, like they have issues or something. Has everyone met any scientific research on the matter?
What you want to do is to marry a fit women. Thin women are pretty much useless in terms of housekeeping and childbearing. But a women with relative strong hip and legs are healthy enough to engage in such activities. That's men's primitive evolutionary sense at work telling us to go for the healthy and fit type of girls instead of the twigs.
Also, the definition of thin might be relevant for the discussion. I personally find a woman who looks like a skeleton not too attractive. On the other hand, if she looks like a sphere that is also not for me. If it is somewhere in between the extremes, i care a lot more about other features, specifically a pretty face.
Not going to go into the whole personality thing which is obviously also very important, just pure physical attractiveness all other factors being the same.
On July 14 2014 22:26 Xiphos wrote: What you want to do is to marry a fit women. Thin women are pretty much useless in terms of housekeeping and childbearing.
Choose your wife depending on how useful you think she will be at housekeeping and childbearing lol.
Anyhow that aside, "thin" is relative. What is "thin"? You aren't exactly giving dimensions to estimate what you mean by thin. Every person has different preferences. Most adult males (as opposed to teenagers or younger) prefer women with what would be considered significant amounts of fat by most women who look at fashion magazines. Of course there could be cultural bias. Perhaps the average male has been fed images from various modelling industries which then would form the preference of the majority adult male, but I would consider that unlikely.
Personally, I would consider lingerie or swimwear models to have the ideal bodies. The type of models you would see on billboards advertising lingerie and swimwear for women for high street or department stores. If you don't now what I am talkign about, there are probably plenty of examples to peruse in the internet. Would those models be considered thin to most people? No, but they would be considered to be not fat either.
On July 14 2014 22:26 Xiphos wrote: What you want to do is to marry a fit women. Thin women are pretty much useless in terms of housekeeping and childbearing.
Anyhow that aside, "thin" is relative. What is "thin"? You aren't exactly giving dimensions to estimate what you mean by thin. Every person has different preferences. Most adult males (as opposed to teenagers or younger) prefer women with what would be considered significant amounts of fat by most women who look at fashion magazines. Of course there could be cultural bias. Perhaps the average male has been fed images from various modelling industries which then would form the preference of the majority adult male, but I would consider that unlikely.
Personally, I would consider lingerie or swimwear models to have the ideal bodies. The type of models you would see on billboards advertising lingerie and swimwear for women for high street or department stores. If you don't now what I am talkign about, there are probably plenty of examples to peruse in the internet. Would those models be considered thin to most people? No, but they would be considered to be not fat either.
That's exactly what I'm asking about. Is there any kind of research about how many men prefer this and how many men prefer that?
That still doesn't describe anything in particular lol. What does "low fat" mean to you?
Edit:: What is standard? Everything is relative. What does your "low fat" relative to? The average woman? The average changes according to perception. Different countries have different women. What is average in one country is fat or thin in another.
You are basically using personal perspective as a baseline for comparison. Sorry to say, we simply dont know what your personal perspective mean. What is "thin" or "lowfat" to you? It's probably different from what I would regard as either. It's like describing a warm or hot place. We simply can't know what you mean by it.
Edit again: Stop changing your posts pls. If you want to reply, just press reply instead of making me seem like someone who can't reply to a post. Who knows if there is a study. Probably there's been several, but eveyone is different. My personal preference and the general preference of those I have talked to are just that.
If you find stick thin women as thin as runway models the most attractive, then that's just your preference. You don't have to feel insecure about it, questioning if other people are lying to you and if they have issues or something.
Even if absolutely nothing was changing with respect to diet and exercise habits, rates of obesity would still be going up given that we're getting better and better at treating its sequelae (obesity, hypertension, MIs, strokes, CAD, PVD, diabetes, etc.). This is especially true on a global scale.
I wish more research would take into account that we're getting better at preventing death from the complications of obesity. That'd have to take thought and make your study less exciting, though, so no wonder it doesn't get much airtime.
I know people are uneasy or even ashamed of being thin these days:
"Oh, you're sick!" "Oh, you're feeding into an unrealistic self image that nobody but movie stars can actually have, plus they do so much photoshop!". "Oh, you're fat shaming!"
I'm proud to be only 160 lbs and I exercise not only to change my physical appearance from the stocky triangle-legs shape into the lean legged thin shape. I do it because it universally looks better and I feel better about myself. We should have thin pride much as gay pride. Gay pride doesn't shame straight people, people who want to be thin or keep themselves looking good shouldn't be ridiculed or told they're feeding into unrealistic expectations. People used to look thin before high calorie high sugar food was so easy to obtain and in basically everything. Also, Buffets. Yes, I still do the whole gluttonous gorge yourself on food thing once in a long while, but I generally eat small portions because after not eating much for a long while your body eventually begins to recognize when you're full from the proper amount of food, again.
I do feel bad about people that have glandular or metabolic issues though. I personally know a girl who used to be about 280+lb and ate nothing all the time, and finally recently got a doctor to prescribe a proper medication and the lbs are melting off.
Obesity and being fat having such a big growth can probably be traced to epigenetics because earlier generations had more food and ability to get food and overindulge than ever before. Overweight in the old days was a sign of wealth because it meant you could afford all that tasty shit all the time. Lots of factors at play for obesity epidemic.
On July 16 2014 01:24 TheTenthDoc wrote: Even if absolutely nothing was changing with respect to diet and exercise habits, rates of obesity would still be going up given that we're getting better and better at treating its sequelae (obesity, hypertension, MIs, strokes, CAD, PVD, diabetes, etc.). This is especially true on a global scale.
I wish more research would take into account that we're getting better at preventing death from the complications of obesity. That'd have to take thought and make your study less exciting, though, so no wonder it doesn't get much airtime.
When people were less sedentary, they could live long while being obese. Have you seen the armor of one of the Kings of England, is it Henry 8th? I forget which but he was definitely obese. His plate armor protrudes about a foot and a half at the belly area.
On July 14 2014 22:26 Xiphos wrote: What you want to do is to marry a fit women. Thin women are pretty much useless in terms of housekeeping and childbearing.
Choose your wife depending on how useful you think she will be at housekeeping and childbearing lol.
Anyhow that aside, "thin" is relative. What is "thin"? You aren't exactly giving dimensions to estimate what you mean by thin. Every person has different preferences. Most adult males (as opposed to teenagers or younger) prefer women with what would be considered significant amounts of fat by most women who look at fashion magazines. Of course there could be cultural bias. Perhaps the average male has been fed images from various modelling industries which then would form the preference of the majority adult male, but I would consider that unlikely.
Personally, I would consider lingerie or swimwear models to have the ideal bodies. The type of models you would see on billboards advertising lingerie and swimwear for women for high street or department stores. If you don't now what I am talkign about, there are probably plenty of examples to peruse in the internet. Would those models be considered thin to most people? No, but they would be considered to be not fat either.
I call bullshit on that. Also, "fed images" go both ways. If we push hard to shame males for liking thin or petite women, for various reasons, then they'll "Chubby chase" to be socially accepted. What would you say if I said my ideal girl in only physical terms would be 5'2-5'5 with thin legs and a narrow gut area with some decent hips and thus is likely not to have large breasts? Im sure the things that people would say might scare a guy into picking a chubby. I've heard it and seen it all before. The interesting or funny thing is that researchers are attempting to show correlation to genetics and your choice of friends now. This would obviously extend further to S.O. relations as well, so as superficial as people appear for their choices, inevitably they'll choose the type of people that they find attractive regardless of any physical constraints.
On July 08 2014 20:21 r00ty wrote: IMHO: Is it so hard to understand, that there's no magic formula for weight loss? There is no trick or super easy way. Stop wasting money and time searching for it. Stop eating too much shit, move your ass and get some discipline (concerning eating habits), because it's not going to be easy! From my personal experience the most important factor is being honest to yourself. How much do you really eat/burn a day? Basically all people i know, who complain about being overweight are lying to themselves concerning their eating habits. If you really can't control it, get help!
Apart from not finding it attractive personally i got no problems with overweight people. You're free to do whatever you want with your body as far as i'm concerned. Just don't whine about it, if you don't have certain diseases, genetic or mental disorders. Which, but the latter, are basically irrelevant in the discussion. They just aren't a factor numbers wise.
Hat of for you sire! same thing im telling ppl.
running or doing somthing physically after work can be very boring after a hard days work(1hour or 40 min is enuff) for you, eat healthy is not enuff eating good and healthy and excersice is the forumula especially if you have bad "ämnesomsättning" in swedish i dont know the english word for it.
just like everything in life, one choice dont make a diffrence multiple decisions have impact.
Not really. If you have a 10-12 mile job, a bicycle to work can improve your health dramatically and squeeze your exercise routine into an area that you'd already be spending time doing.
Do things more efficiently. Bruce Lee would park on the highest level of a parking complex or farthest from the destination in a lot in order to get more walking in his daily routine. There's so many ways people can squeeze movement activities into their daily lives.
Also, I'd look up Superbetter TED talk. There's some things you can do sitting at the desk right now to improve your health that only takes a few moments. People need to do the isometric stretching that comes naturally to all animals more often imo.
For people who think there is no scientific research and speculation about attractiveness of thin women I suggest you read a scientific book on human evolution called The Red Queen by Matt Ridley. Humans most likely wanted thin, fit women with a BF ranging between 15% to 24% (depending on the body type). What matters are the proportions, and the most important for a woman is the waist/hips proportion (70% is the most attractive to males) because women with hips bigger than waist had a much better rate of sane, smart child survival, thus removing from the genetic pool the males who had a preference for other proportions or no preference at all. Fat women have their proportion screwed and are less attractive than if they were fit. That is a fact.
On July 16 2014 01:24 TheTenthDoc wrote: Even if absolutely nothing was changing with respect to diet and exercise habits, rates of obesity would still be going up given that we're getting better and better at treating its sequelae (obesity, hypertension, MIs, strokes, CAD, PVD, diabetes, etc.). This is especially true on a global scale.
I wish more research would take into account that we're getting better at preventing death from the complications of obesity. That'd have to take thought and make your study less exciting, though, so no wonder it doesn't get much airtime.
The reason behind this apparent ignorance of palliative care has less to do with making studies exciting and more to do with what is considered a beneficial angle of study; our ability to allay symptoms can, in many cases, end up incentivizing an unhealthier community. Take the US for example; the nature of healthcare and insurance here in the United States has led to a society in which symptoms are treated above all else, and the obesity epidemic is a great example of how this can begin to spiral out of control. In much of Western Europe, healthcare is very rarely a widespread cause for concern, and the ease with which the average person can fund their medical needs ends up creating a society that prioritizes preventative care above palliative. When potential patients find little reason to stress over setting up a doctor's appointment or finding money for treatment, far more people end up diagnosed before things get too serious, leading to a reduction in costs (symptomatic or palliative treatments are almost always more expensive than their preventative counterparts) and a generally healthier society. I won't even get into the troubling loop that develops as a result of the insurance-provider obsession with palliative treatments that require lifetime renewals; guaranteed customers are nice for those who'd like to pretend that healthcare can be run like a business.
It is with this in mind that I'd practically guarantee that "good" authors of "good" studies concerned with public health issues like obesity are well aware of what happens when lifespans extend alongside the presence of disease; they simply don't find such an angle relevant to their inquiry.
The reason for the higher level obesity is the way we are living/working. Most people don't have the time to eat properly, or just don't know any better. If you don't eat in the morning you won't have the chance to do it until the lunch break(if you have one)... After that there is no time for eating until the end of the work day. So we end up eating once in the morning, once at lunch and dinner. Most people think that this is normal... But it's not. The proper way of eating is this : 1. Nothing heavy before 12 AM - a fruit or a fresh is OK. 2. Nothing after 8 PM. period. 3. Small meals in between. On top of that many people work at desk or are drivers, which means that they are not moving much... Aaand then come the bad cultural habits like eating extremely heavy at breakfast (fried bacon... ffs.), eating junk food, oversized soda etc. So yeah... The humanity is screwed.
On July 14 2014 22:26 Xiphos wrote: What you want to do is to marry a fit women. Thin women are pretty much useless in terms of housekeeping and childbearing.
Choose your wife depending on how useful you think she will be at housekeeping and childbearing lol.
Anyhow that aside, "thin" is relative. What is "thin"? You aren't exactly giving dimensions to estimate what you mean by thin. Every person has different preferences. Most adult males (as opposed to teenagers or younger) prefer women with what would be considered significant amounts of fat by most women who look at fashion magazines. Of course there could be cultural bias. Perhaps the average male has been fed images from various modelling industries which then would form the preference of the majority adult male, but I would consider that unlikely.
Personally, I would consider lingerie or swimwear models to have the ideal bodies. The type of models you would see on billboards advertising lingerie and swimwear for women for high street or department stores. If you don't now what I am talkign about, there are probably plenty of examples to peruse in the internet. Would those models be considered thin to most people? No, but they would be considered to be not fat either.
I call bullshit on that. Also, "fed images" go both ways. If we push hard to shame males for liking thin or petite women, for various reasons, then they'll "Chubby chase" to be socially accepted. What would you say if I said my ideal girl in only physical terms would be 5'2-5'5 with thin legs and a narrow gut area with some decent hips and thus is likely not to have large breasts? Im sure the things that people would say might scare a guy into picking a chubby. I've heard it and seen it all before. The interesting or funny thing is that researchers are attempting to show correlation to genetics and your choice of friends now. This would obviously extend further to S.O. relations as well, so as superficial as people appear for their choices, inevitably they'll choose the type of people that they find attractive regardless of any physical constraints.
What exactly are you calling bullshit on? The bolded part bears no relation to the reply. And then you start to talk about something else about friends?
You implied fed images are why people go for thin instead of the preference for "a little extra", because its cultural indoctrination of younger minds by what we see. Shaming males also has to do with why males choose to go for extra. "You're shallow!" "you're ugly and cant get an attractive girl" etc. In the end, people have preferences based on genetics for their friends, which will extend to S.O.s or casual involvements, and most guys would choose thin. It's not that difficult to see where your reasoning is coming from. Culture is trying to say guys should be attracted to a little bit extra and guys are awful if they aren't attracted to it.
What do you think about that real beauty "campaign" by L'oreal, who happens to be owned by the same company that also owns axe body spray, which shows extremely attractive thin females in heat over some guy because he's wearing it? It's about marketing and getting sales. The reality is that most guys prefer the axe version of a girl.
I don't think you read my post(s) properly. What does women being fed images in fashion magazines got to do with male preference? Furthermore you appear to be going of on a tangent. I literally have no idea what you are on about with this shaming of males. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it, but I really don't see how it relates to anything I have said.
On July 16 2014 03:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I don't think you read my post(s) properly. What does women being fed images in fashion magazines got to do with male preference? Furthermore you appear to be going of on a tangent. I literally have no idea what you are on about with this shaming of males. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it, but I really don't see how it relates to anything I have said.
Haven't you considered that images in men or women's fashion magazines are ideal to live up to for attracting the opposite sex? Haven't you considered that people are consistently saying it's fake and wrong and hurtful to girls precisely because even though it is attainable, it feeds into what males consider attractive, and thus by association, calling it wrong or bad also implies that male preferences are wrong and bad?
You really must try to see the situation from a more holistic angle.
On July 16 2014 03:20 Socup wrote: You implied fed images are why people go for thin instead of the preference for "a little extra", because its cultural indoctrination of younger minds by what we see. Shaming males also has to do with why males choose to go for extra. "You're shallow!" "you're ugly and cant get an attractive girl" etc. In the end, people have preferences based on genetics for their friends, which will extend to S.O.s or casual involvements, and most guys would choose thin. It's not that difficult to see where your reasoning is coming from. Culture is trying to say guys should be attracted to a little bit extra and guys are awful if they aren't attracted to it.
What do you think about that real beauty "campaign" by L'oreal, who happens to be owned by the same company that also owns axe body spray, which shows extremely attractive thin females in heat over some guy because he's wearing it? It's about marketing and getting sales. The reality is that most guys prefer the axe version of a girl.
you can bring it down to curves&contrast pretty much. most men wont find super skinny girls "that" hot cause they lack stuff we associate with a good looking female body. nice tits,hips etc. if they got dem curves many will gladly take a bit of chubbiness.
still almost evryone will take bit too thin over bit too fat cause a hanging belly is never attractive outside of a few special people.
On July 16 2014 03:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I don't think you read my post(s) properly. What does women being fed images in fashion magazines got to do with male preference? Furthermore you appear to be going of on a tangent. I literally have no idea what you are on about with this shaming of males. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it, but I really don't see how it relates to anything I have said.
Haven't you considered that images in men or women's fashion magazines are ideal to live up to for attracting the opposite sex? Haven't you considered that people are consistently saying it's fake and wrong and hurtful to girls precisely because even though it is attainable, it feeds into what males consider attractive, and thus by association, calling it wrong or bad also implies that male preferences are wrong and bad?
You really must try to see the situation from a more holistic angle.
I dunno man, I don't know any male who isn't gay who reads at women fashion magazines, and for obvious reasons we can dispense with their preferences to be physically attracted to women.
Men don't have to read the magazines. The magazines are selling to women who wants to be attractive to men and thus the looks of the models will be dictated by what men find attractive.
That's the thing. I think you will find that the type of women men actually prefer is not that depicted by fashion magazines. Fashion magazines are targetted a women. Again, no male I know who isn't gay would pick up, let alone read a women's fashion magazine. If you want to know what kind of women body type men prefer, you are going to have to look at images directed at males instead. Glamour or pornographic magazines for instance. Completely different body types are depicted, and for good reason.
On May 29 2014 22:12 MrTortoise wrote: I AM overweight atm ... my bmi now is lower than when i was 18 and ran half marathons.
I strongly suspect this whoel food is expensive thing to be bs
What is really likely is that food has been artificially segmented into cheap average and good. As a result 'food' is shit by default and so normal costs more.
Its turned into marketing when in reality it should be illegal to sell people sub standard bullshit that has been fed waste from antibiotic production to artificially induce huge amounts of weight gain.
All it has done is put legitimate producers of food tthat do not operate on gigantic scale out of business.
Agreed
On July 16 2014 06:22 Ghostcom wrote: Men don't have to read the magazines. The magazines are selling to women who wants to be attractive to men and thus the looks of the models will be dictated by what men find attractive.
The way the tipical model look, dress, the makeup, all of that is so repulsive.
On May 29 2014 22:12 MrTortoise wrote: I AM overweight atm ... my bmi now is lower than when i was 18 and ran half marathons.
I strongly suspect this whoel food is expensive thing to be bs
What is really likely is that food has been artificially segmented into cheap average and good. As a result 'food' is shit by default and so normal costs more.
Its turned into marketing when in reality it should be illegal to sell people sub standard bullshit that has been fed waste from antibiotic production to artificially induce huge amounts of weight gain.
All it has done is put legitimate producers of food tthat do not operate on gigantic scale out of business.
On July 16 2014 06:22 Ghostcom wrote: Men don't have to read the magazines. The magazines are selling to women who wants to be attractive to men and thus the looks of the models will be dictated by what men find attractive.
The way the tipical model look, dress, the makeup, all of that is so repulsive.
Runway models need to fit a standard design size and have a nearly completely neutral face. Most of the work is done via makeup. (They're not supposed to upend the look of the fashion itself.)
Most magazine model photography operates with a different issue in mind. 2D images "flatten" 3D objects. Depending on the way your cheekbones are setup, and the way facial fat rests on it, it changes the proportions of the face. (This is the Jennifer Lawrence effect. She's quite thin, but he cheekbones are such that in direct view, she looks like she carries more weight than she does. Yes, you can "look fat" without being fat; similarly, you can "look thin" when you really aren't that thin. )
Further for Women's Magazines, there's a separate issue. They sell to Women. So they've all honed in on set of proportions that sell well. These operate as "The view of Women that Women think Men like, but Women still like to look at". It's actually a complex bit of marketing & psychology interacting, especially as the covers need to attract attention in Grocery stores. People can complain all that they want, but that's simply what sells for visual images.
Can someone tell me the simplest ( i mean very simple ) exercises or something . You can post a link maybe. I think i should be careful now. I dont exercise and sometimes eat alot.
On May 29 2014 22:12 MrTortoise wrote: I AM overweight atm ... my bmi now is lower than when i was 18 and ran half marathons.
I strongly suspect this whoel food is expensive thing to be bs
What is really likely is that food has been artificially segmented into cheap average and good. As a result 'food' is shit by default and so normal costs more.
Its turned into marketing when in reality it should be illegal to sell people sub standard bullshit that has been fed waste from antibiotic production to artificially induce huge amounts of weight gain.
All it has done is put legitimate producers of food tthat do not operate on gigantic scale out of business.
Agreed
On July 16 2014 06:22 Ghostcom wrote: Men don't have to read the magazines. The magazines are selling to women who wants to be attractive to men and thus the looks of the models will be dictated by what men find attractive.
The way the tipical model look, dress, the makeup, all of that is so repulsive.
This for example, just what the fuck, it is not attractive at all but yet it is considered attractive :s
I bet if you saw this person in a bar you would find her very attractive.
Personally (not that this was directed at me), if i saw this person in a bar i would appreciate the fact that she puts a lot of effort into the way she looks. Sexually, the level of attraction would be low.
There are many determinants of sexual attraction; BMI is certainly not the dominant one, as far as i can tell. Good hip/chest ratios are much more important, as are facial features.
That said, extremes of both obesity and thinness are generally considered unattractive.
In the case of supermodels, the general appeal is not sexual. The main audience for these displays consists of mostly women and some (mostly gay) men, who are there for the fashion, not the women.
On July 16 2014 16:05 Butterz wrote: Can someone tell me the simplest ( i mean very simple ) exercises or something . You can post a link maybe. I think i should be careful now. I dont exercise and sometimes eat alot.
The most simple way is just walking. 20 minutes in the morning and 20 minutes in the evening can do wonders.
If you are overweight, jogging is a bad idea; instead buy a bike. Biking is tons of fun, and easier on your joints than jogging.
If you have some money to spend, see if there is a rock-climbing gym in your area. Although it's slightly more expensive than a regular gym membership, it's also way more fun.
The key thing is to find something that requires you to learn/build a skill during the course of your workout. This means that the more you do it, the more fun you have and the easier it becomes.
Personally, I've always found "normal"-looking, casual women the most attractive. Quite thin but not underweight with shapes, cute facial features. I've never been really into all the fancy fashion clothes, heavy makeup or sexy looks and whatnot.
On July 16 2014 16:05 Butterz wrote: Can someone tell me the simplest ( i mean very simple ) exercises or something . You can post a link maybe. I think i should be careful now. I dont exercise and sometimes eat alot.
Generally, exercise is pretty overrated. If you just do 1 hour of cardio daily and eat healthy you'll be golden.
I find cardio to be entirely overrated. An exercise regime with progressive overload will have your body continue to burn calories for up to 72 hours after the fact.
On July 16 2014 16:05 Butterz wrote: Can someone tell me the simplest ( i mean very simple ) exercises or something . You can post a link maybe. I think i should be careful now. I dont exercise and sometimes eat alot.
As others have said, the simplest solution is getting a bike. If it is less than 1km away, walk there. If it is less than 5 km away, bike there. Always. No excuses. Bäm free exercise.
If you want something that feels more exercise-y, you can train a pretty good set of muscles doing a combination of situps, pushups, pullups/weights for biceps, and squats.
On July 16 2014 16:05 Butterz wrote: Can someone tell me the simplest ( i mean very simple ) exercises or something . You can post a link maybe. I think i should be careful now. I dont exercise and sometimes eat alot.
There's links to bodyweight training programs with good explanations for everything. The simple routine takes something around 30-45 minutes to do and only requires a pull-up bar or something else where you can do rows or pull-ups. A sturdy table can work fine for rows. I've done it for a few weeks and I've noticed significant development, now I'm moving on to the intermediate beginner program. The good thing about those links is that they offer clear progression paths and also beginner level exercises that should be fine for anyone regardless of how weak or strong they are. If the wall handstand feels too intimidating, it can be skipped at least in the beginning.
On July 16 2014 16:05 Butterz wrote: Can someone tell me the simplest ( i mean very simple ) exercises or something . You can post a link maybe. I think i should be careful now. I dont exercise and sometimes eat alot.
Motivation is the problem, almost anything will work, even the most retarded program/activity done consistently and pushing hard will yield great results (like crossfit :p)
So start trying stuff (biking, weight lifting, rock climbing, other sports) and find one you like.
On May 29 2014 22:12 MrTortoise wrote: I AM overweight atm ... my bmi now is lower than when i was 18 and ran half marathons.
I strongly suspect this whoel food is expensive thing to be bs
What is really likely is that food has been artificially segmented into cheap average and good. As a result 'food' is shit by default and so normal costs more.
Its turned into marketing when in reality it should be illegal to sell people sub standard bullshit that has been fed waste from antibiotic production to artificially induce huge amounts of weight gain.
All it has done is put legitimate producers of food tthat do not operate on gigantic scale out of business.
Agreed
On July 16 2014 06:22 Ghostcom wrote: Men don't have to read the magazines. The magazines are selling to women who wants to be attractive to men and thus the looks of the models will be dictated by what men find attractive.
The way the tipical model look, dress, the makeup, all of that is so repulsive.
On July 17 2014 06:52 xM(Z wrote: cardio increases the calories you burn when your body is in rest stage by a significant amount (it's not about the calories you burn while doing it)
Basically, the main point is not what exercise you should do, but actually doing any at all. It doesn't matter if you bike, walk, lift weights, run, do karate, skateboard, mudwrestle or whatever else. As soon as you incorporate actually moving your body into your weekly, and ideally also daily routine, your health will improve and you will lose fat. So the main question is not "what is the most efficient exercise", but "what exercise will you actually keep on doing regularly"
On July 17 2014 06:52 xM(Z wrote: cardio increases the calories you burn when your body is in rest stage by a significant amount (it's not about the calories you burn while doing it)
On July 17 2014 06:52 xM(Z wrote: cardio increases the calories you burn when your body is in rest stage by a significant amount (it's not about the calories you burn while doing it)
no it doesn't
yes it does
Lean muscle mass burns way more calories when you're at rest. It also makes you look damn good naked.
If you can last 8 hours a day not doing things you particularly want to do at that moment, you can last another hour a day, 5 times a week. Grit your teeth, do some cardio, do some intensive muscle training. No more obesity, no more stress about it. Come on, people ! It's not rocket science; if you want to stay healthy, do things healthy people do. Exercise regularly ! And stop complaining !
Remember, we are not talking about being a little overweight. We're talking about obesity. You can't blame nothing but yourself for being obese, and it really doesn't take much to not be obese.
On July 17 2014 06:52 xM(Z wrote: cardio increases the calories you burn when your body is in rest stage by a significant amount (it's not about the calories you burn while doing it)
no it doesn't
yes it does
Lean muscle mass burns way more calories when you're at rest. It also makes you look damn good naked.
maybe you still believe muscles burn 50 cal per pound per day 'cause Dr.Oz said so.
...Claude Bouchard, an obesity researcher from the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, revealed that a pound of muscle, at rest, burns about six calories per day (and a pound of fat burns about two). That’s a far cry from the 50 calories per day figure “cited” by others. This number isn’t available in the abstract of some specific study. It’s drawn from extensive reading of the “biochemical and metabolic literature.
On July 17 2014 06:52 xM(Z wrote: cardio increases the calories you burn when your body is in rest stage by a significant amount (it's not about the calories you burn while doing it)
no it doesn't
yes it does
Happy to be disproved, but I can find multiple things like this:
“Many people believe that you rev up” your metabolism after an exercise session “so that you burn additional body fat throughout the day,” said Edward Melanson, Ph.D., an associate professor in the division of endocrinology at the School of Medicine and the lead author of the study. If afterburn were found to exist, it would suggest that even if you replaced the calories you used during an exercise session, you should lose weight, without gaining weight — the proverbial free lunch.
To their surprise, the researchers found that none of the groups, including the athletes, experienced “afterburn.” They did not use additional body fat on the day when they exercised. In fact, most of the subjects burned slightly less fat over the 24-hour study period when they exercised than when they did not.
Swimming has the disadvantage that you need to be at a swimming pool to do it. Other than that, it is obviously also very good. As far as i know it is actually especially good if you are overweight to begin with, as it puts a lot less stress onto your joints.
On July 17 2014 06:52 xM(Z wrote: cardio increases the calories you burn when your body is in rest stage by a significant amount (it's not about the calories you burn while doing it)
no it doesn't
yes it does
Happy to be disproved, but I can find multiple things like this:
“Many people believe that you rev up” your metabolism after an exercise session “so that you burn additional body fat throughout the day,” said Edward Melanson, Ph.D., an associate professor in the division of endocrinology at the School of Medicine and the lead author of the study. If afterburn were found to exist, it would suggest that even if you replaced the calories you used during an exercise session, you should lose weight, without gaining weight — the proverbial free lunch.
To their surprise, the researchers found that none of the groups, including the athletes, experienced “afterburn.” They did not use additional body fat on the day when they exercised. In fact, most of the subjects burned slightly less fat over the 24-hour study period when they exercised than when they did not.
On July 17 2014 06:52 xM(Z wrote: cardio increases the calories you burn when your body is in rest stage by a significant amount (it's not about the calories you burn while doing it)
no it doesn't
yes it does
Happy to be disproved, but I can find multiple things like this:
“Many people believe that you rev up” your metabolism after an exercise session “so that you burn additional body fat throughout the day,” said Edward Melanson, Ph.D., an associate professor in the division of endocrinology at the School of Medicine and the lead author of the study. If afterburn were found to exist, it would suggest that even if you replaced the calories you used during an exercise session, you should lose weight, without gaining weight — the proverbial free lunch.
To their surprise, the researchers found that none of the groups, including the athletes, experienced “afterburn.” They did not use additional body fat on the day when they exercised. In fact, most of the subjects burned slightly less fat over the 24-hour study period when they exercised than when they did not.
That one suggests you might want to assume 26 liters of oxygen for this. I heard the rule of thumb to get kcal is to multiply by 5, so 26 * 5 = 130 kcal. That's a bit disappointing, but it's still there.
On July 17 2014 06:52 xM(Z wrote: cardio increases the calories you burn when your body is in rest stage by a significant amount (it's not about the calories you burn while doing it)
no it doesn't
yes it does
Happy to be disproved, but I can find multiple things like this:
“Many people believe that you rev up” your metabolism after an exercise session “so that you burn additional body fat throughout the day,” said Edward Melanson, Ph.D., an associate professor in the division of endocrinology at the School of Medicine and the lead author of the study. If afterburn were found to exist, it would suggest that even if you replaced the calories you used during an exercise session, you should lose weight, without gaining weight — the proverbial free lunch.
To their surprise, the researchers found that none of the groups, including the athletes, experienced “afterburn.” They did not use additional body fat on the day when they exercised. In fact, most of the subjects burned slightly less fat over the 24-hour study period when they exercised than when they did not.
Your quoted research is about burning "fat". The discussion is about calories.
On July 16 2014 16:28 ShadeR wrote: I find cardio to be entirely overrated. An exercise regime with progressive overload will have your body continue to burn calories for up to 72 hours after the fact.
What is this? I don't even? Calories is a measurement of energy, and fat is a substance that stores and releases energy. The human body tends to keep its carbohydrate levels steady. If you aren't losing fat, you aren't "burning" calories. Anyhow, it is up to you to show that such a weird ass concept as burning calories after certain exercises exists, not the other way round.
In the end, you should just eat less, exercise more. Not because you will lose wieght, but because you will be happier and healthier for it.
Edit: yeah sure, doing anaerobic excercise would increase your metabolism a little bit for a short time, but the effects are so minor to the actual excercise that they can be discarded as negligible. Anyways, you primarily don't do anaerobic excercise for the fat loss.
On July 17 2014 06:52 xM(Z wrote: cardio increases the calories you burn when your body is in rest stage by a significant amount (it's not about the calories you burn while doing it)
no it doesn't
yes it does
Lean muscle mass burns way more calories when you're at rest. It also makes you look damn good naked.
maybe you still believe muscles burn 50 cal per pound per day 'cause Dr.Oz said so.
...Claude Bouchard, an obesity researcher from the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, revealed that a pound of muscle, at rest, burns about six calories per day (and a pound of fat burns about two). That’s a far cry from the 50 calories per day figure “cited” by others. This number isn’t available in the abstract of some specific study. It’s drawn from extensive reading of the “biochemical and metabolic literature.
She can do as many studies as she wants, but she is wrong.
a 280 pound man eats twice as much as a 150 pound man (assume extra 100 pounds of lean mass, 30 of fat to make it somewhat realistic) , not 600 more calories
Also, the main benefit of lean mass is that you spend more energy (using/reparing muscles)
On July 17 2014 06:52 xM(Z wrote: cardio increases the calories you burn when your body is in rest stage by a significant amount (it's not about the calories you burn while doing it)
no it doesn't
yes it does
Happy to be disproved, but I can find multiple things like this:
“Many people believe that you rev up” your metabolism after an exercise session “so that you burn additional body fat throughout the day,” said Edward Melanson, Ph.D., an associate professor in the division of endocrinology at the School of Medicine and the lead author of the study. If afterburn were found to exist, it would suggest that even if you replaced the calories you used during an exercise session, you should lose weight, without gaining weight — the proverbial free lunch.
To their surprise, the researchers found that none of the groups, including the athletes, experienced “afterburn.” They did not use additional body fat on the day when they exercised. In fact, most of the subjects burned slightly less fat over the 24-hour study period when they exercised than when they did not.
On July 16 2014 16:28 ShadeR wrote: I find cardio to be entirely overrated. An exercise regime with progressive overload will have your body continue to burn calories for up to 72 hours after the fact.
What is this? I don't even? Calories is a measurement of energy, and fat is a substance that stores and releases energy. The human body tends to keep its carbohydrate levels steady. If you aren't losing fat, you aren't "burning" calories. Anyhow, it is up to you to show that such a weird ass concept as burning calories after certain exercises exists, not the other way round.
In the end, you should just eat less, exercise more. Not because you will lose wieght, but because you will be happier and healthier for it.
Edit: yeah sure, doing anaerobic excercise would increase your metabolism a little bit for a short time, but the effects are so minor to the actual excercise that they can be discarded as negligible. Anyways, you primarily don't do anaerobic excercise for the fat loss.
The human body does not follow the simplistic idea that 'excess calories = fat'. The two are closely related but it is disingenuous to equate them.
Exercise resulting in muscle hypertrophy has continued caloric expenditure beyond the initial training period because the body requires energy to repair the micro tears to muscle fibers. Additionally the increase in muscle mass raises a persons basal metabolic rate which can be helpful to obese people in particular because the amount of calories they need to cut to improve their body composition is less harsh.
I think that strength/weight training is superior to cardio if fat loss is the primary goal. So it does not make sense to me when you claim that anaerobic exercise isn't for fat loss.
Edit: All said whatever exercise regime someone who is obese chooses, it is secondary to diet. Just stop eating 7000 calories a day.
On July 17 2014 23:48 Xiphos wrote: Idk about any of you guys but personally jogging definitely decreased my fat more than weight lifting.
Weight lifting is too inconsistent for my taste. Jogging keeps the burn going for a straight 45 minutes.
Well you don't burn fat only while exercising. You burn fat all day and you store fat all day. It's an ongoing process, your body doesn't stop at 12am and says (pretend to do a silly voice) "Ok lets see Jim. You consumed 2132 calories but only burned 2019. Therefor I will store the remaining calories as fat" Doesn't work that way.
But you know what? If jogging works for you, that is great. Keep at it, do it good, good job!
On July 17 2014 23:48 Xiphos wrote: Idk about any of you guys but personally jogging definitely decreased my fat more than weight lifting.
Weight lifting is too inconsistent for my taste. Jogging keeps the burn going for a straight 45 minutes.
Well you don't burn fat only while exercising. You burn fat all day and you store fat all day. It's an ongoing process, your body doesn't stop at 12am and says (pretend to do a silly voice) "Ok lets see Jim. You consumed 2132 calories but only burned 2019. Therefor I will store the remaining calories as fat" Doesn't work that way.
But you know what? If jogging works for you, that is great. Keep at it, do it good, good job!
Why so condescending about jogging? You do get sore muscles after not running for a long time, so it will build up some muscles. It also uses both aerobic and anaerobic pathways a good bit and you can get your muscles' energy storage drained completely and properly feel like a wreck if running long and fast enough.
On July 17 2014 23:48 Xiphos wrote: Idk about any of you guys but personally jogging definitely decreased my fat more than weight lifting.
Weight lifting is too inconsistent for my taste. Jogging keeps the burn going for a straight 45 minutes.
Well you don't burn fat only while exercising. You burn fat all day and you store fat all day. It's an ongoing process, your body doesn't stop at 12am and says (pretend to do a silly voice) "Ok lets see Jim. You consumed 2132 calories but only burned 2019. Therefor I will store the remaining calories as fat" Doesn't work that way.
But you know what? If jogging works for you, that is great. Keep at it, do it good, good job!
Why so condescending about jogging? You do get sore muscles after not running for a long time, so it will build up some muscles. It also uses both aerobic and anaerobic pathways a good bit and you can get your muscles' energy storage drained completely and properly feel like a wreck if running long and fast enough.
Jogging, if we are defining it as medium intensity running over a period of time longer than 5 minutes, does not activate "anaerobic pathways", as it is the literal antithesis to anaerobic stimulus. Furthermore, soreness is not an indicator of muscle growth, so to suggest that the soreness which follows a return to jogging indicates muscle growth is folly.
Personally I think jogging gives me more "gravitation bounce" in my body.
Say I jog for 5 km, I would have bounced for at least 5 thousands times at fast interval. If I simply were just to do my regular weight lifting of curl, bench, and dead lift, my digestive tract would have only shook about at the most 1 thousand times.
Jogging make sure that my digestive system is regulated and there isn't clog in the body. And as long as my body is able to fully digest food properly, that means there will be less leftover calories and nutrients to store as fat.
On July 17 2014 23:48 Xiphos wrote: Idk about any of you guys but personally jogging definitely decreased my fat more than weight lifting.
Weight lifting is too inconsistent for my taste. Jogging keeps the burn going for a straight 45 minutes.
Well you don't burn fat only while exercising. You burn fat all day and you store fat all day. It's an ongoing process, your body doesn't stop at 12am and says (pretend to do a silly voice) "Ok lets see Jim. You consumed 2132 calories but only burned 2019. Therefor I will store the remaining calories as fat" Doesn't work that way.
But you know what? If jogging works for you, that is great. Keep at it, do it good, good job!
Why so condescending about jogging? You do get sore muscles after not running for a long time, so it will build up some muscles. It also uses both aerobic and anaerobic pathways a good bit and you can get your muscles' energy storage drained completely and properly feel like a wreck if running long and fast enough.
I didn't mean to sound condescending. Jogging is a great exercise. However it does not burn fat better or any worse than any other sport. (excluding e-sports and chess) I guess my point is, find something that works for you. Whether it is jogging, swimming or rock climbing.
One of the fastest ways to lose weight quick is by blending your food!
Find a diet or whatever where you blend your food. I heard of this book once and saw the guy on tv quite a few times who was behind this form of dieting and losing weight,but I don't remember his name. I only remember that he was bald so I hope that helps.
1st are you an ectomorph (Stick thin and hardly gains weight) endomorph (Peter griffin basically fat) or mesomorph (All around 50/50 not skinny not fat but you're not fit either)
From what I know and my experience you will not gain anything or lose anything by doing nothing so figure out a routine and try to stick with it. After that mix it up so you don't stagnate in your workouts on whatever you choose.
2nd Get positive! Find some influence or motivation to keep you going. This can even be negative influence by means of someone saying you can never accomplish a certain goal. Mine was that last bit and the anime Baki the grappler (LMAO) I do not know what got into my head but I needed to workout after watching it!
I used to run up and down my hallway in my building for 5 minutes a day after work. I gradually raised it to 20 mins and would do a series of workouts after the run. This included suicides, stair climbing, dips, pull ups (rarely), and many variations of sit ups and the use of dumbbells. For the sit ups just get creative there are many different styles my personal favorite is lying flat, arms up, sit up and try and touch my toes if feel like it.
3rd resting everybody needs to rest you're going to have to figure that out on your own and what you are comfortable with. I used to give myself 30 seconds between reps. I soon found that it was too long of a rest for me. So I now do a rep count to 15 then do another. I also decrease that by 5, so sometimes going 15, 10, 5, and done.
4th find areas in your life when you can workout. For example when I was waiting for people to ready up in a game on xbox I'd grab a dumbbell and lift it until we were in the game.
After about 2 months I had results but to this day I didn't keep them because guess what I got lazy! Not really I suffered some injuries such as twisted knee but not from working out.
The argument over which exercise is best is rather irrelevant since most people don't do any exercise and would probably see a big benefit from simply walking for half an hour a day.
On July 17 2014 20:42 Simberto wrote: Swimming has the disadvantage that you need to be at a swimming pool to do it. Other than that, it is obviously also very good. As far as i know it is actually especially good if you are overweight to begin with, as it puts a lot less stress onto your joints.
I'd assume it > jogging if you're frequently doing both. Just from the joint strain perspective, intuitively I would figure that pounding your body weight alternating leg to leg on concrete might not be optimal.
Please don't bring the unscientific, completely psychologically made up ''Ecto, Meso and Endo-morphs'' into this. body types like that do not exist and they give people a false sense of justification. ''Hardgainers'' don't exist. It's not like Starcraft. Some people are just genetically slightly favored, (and everyone has a different bone structure) but your metabolism is simply the law of thermodynamics, nothing more or less.
The reason why weightlifting is so good is because it keeps your body's metabolism up in resting state. So indirectly it burns a lot more calories that initially, and apart from that as well as making you lose fat, it makes you gain muscle, essentially ''doubling'' the perceivable effect. (obviously this isn't fully true as you gain muscle quite a bit slower than you lose fat, but still.)
A healthy diet is #1 way to lose weight though. You cannot out-exercise a shitty diet, is what's often said and it's true. You see those guys with 6-pack abs? They didn't weight lift years to get there. They just ate very little (and probably carb-starved themselves).
Being fat or thin is just a calculation, really. If your TDEE is X, then eat below X and you will lose fat over time. Eat over that, and you'll gain fat. It's as simple as that. Weight lifting increases your lean mass ratio (and helps slightly with burning calories) and cardiovascular exercise takes care of some extra calories (Either allowing you to eat SLIGHTLY more or to lose slightly more weight.) Don't overestimate this though.
3500kcal in deficit = 1lb.
As a final point, what a lot of studies and influential people have said, if you want to lose weight, do two things.
1. Fix your diet. Eat at or below your maintenance. Lower your carb intake, increase your protein intake. 2. When you wake up, go walk for half an hour or an hour on an empty stomach. This increases fat burn (after a certain amount of time the exercise will stop burning fat as much, so don't walk too long before eating)
On July 18 2014 05:47 Xiphos wrote: Personally I think jogging gives me more "gravitation bounce" in my body.
Say I jog for 5 km, I would have bounced for at least 5 thousands times at fast interval. If I simply were just to do my regular weight lifting of curl, bench, and dead lift, my digestive tract would have only shook about at the most 1 thousand times.
Jogging make sure that my digestive system is regulated and there isn't clog in the body. And as long as my body is able to fully digest food properly, that means there will be less leftover calories and nutrients to store as fat.
I shit y'all not bros.
Is there any basis to this? I have been having trouble digesting lately and if this really helps...
On July 18 2014 05:47 Xiphos wrote: Personally I think jogging gives me more "gravitation bounce" in my body.
Say I jog for 5 km, I would have bounced for at least 5 thousands times at fast interval. If I simply were just to do my regular weight lifting of curl, bench, and dead lift, my digestive tract would have only shook about at the most 1 thousand times.
Jogging make sure that my digestive system is regulated and there isn't clog in the body. And as long as my body is able to fully digest food properly, that means there will be less leftover calories and nutrients to store as fat.
I shit y'all not bros.
Is there any basis to this? I have been having trouble digesting lately and if this really helps...
Try it out? Walk half an hour a day for two weeks or so, see if that helps.
On July 18 2014 05:47 Xiphos wrote: Personally I think jogging gives me more "gravitation bounce" in my body.
Say I jog for 5 km, I would have bounced for at least 5 thousands times at fast interval. If I simply were just to do my regular weight lifting of curl, bench, and dead lift, my digestive tract would have only shook about at the most 1 thousand times.
Jogging make sure that my digestive system is regulated and there isn't clog in the body. And as long as my body is able to fully digest food properly, that means there will be less leftover calories and nutrients to store as fat.
I shit y'all not bros.
Is there any basis to this? I have been having trouble digesting lately and if this really helps...
Depends what you mean by "trouble digesting", but yeah intestinal pain & associated pleasant things like constipation are favored by a sedentary lifestyle while running/walking/not sitting tend to reduce them. The reason is that when you're sitting, your abs are relaxed, thus your viscera are less tightly held and a "smooth", pain-free intestinal transit is more difficult to do for your body. The opposite effect is realized when your abs are (moderatly) contracted when running/walking. (there's also the potential side effect of sport increasing self-confidence, thus decreasing stress, which could lead to less digestion problems) So yeah, it's legit. Do moderate activity though, going too hard on your body while digesting will only make you throw up^^
On May 14 2015 21:02 Thalandros wrote: Being fat or thin is just a calculation, really.
Don't get me wrong I completely agree with you. I eat mostly-well and exercise, both cardio and weights, play sports, etc. But being an endomorph is actually a thing (read Schwarzenegger's encyclopedia) and there's nothing I can do about it. I'll be pudgy forever. That's just my body's static-resting point for my given lean diet and regular exercise.
ANYWAYS... I agree with you, but I think some of the reason people are fat is psychological. In the sense that their perception of self is different, or they're addicted to certain tastes, whether it be a sweet/salty tooth, beer, or whatever.
I think most people get that eating less (+exercise) = weighing less, it's just they can't **psychologically** do it. They HAVE to give into their addiction of eating salt/sugar. So even though they get the basic point of eating less, they can't mentally do it.
Its like me in school trying to start an assignment the day I get it. Earlier assignment start probably equals better learning, but I can't man, gotta doto.
Though I'm in good shape, I'm a sugar addict. And believe me, sugar is the worst addiction ever. I was a heavy smoker for about 5 years and I could quit from one day to the other, no big deal.
But sugar, this is some fucked up shit! It's everywhere and it is socially accepted! The food industry uses sugar in small amounts to get people addicted to their products. This makes it ridiculously hard to stay away from it.
Small amounts of sugar every day would be perfectly fine. But it is just not feasible to keep that up due to OVERABUNDANCE.
On May 15 2015 01:16 helpman173 wrote: Though I'm in good shape, I'm a sugar addict. And believe me, sugar is the worst addiction ever. I was a heavy smoker for about 5 years and I could quit from one day to the other, no big deal.
But sugar, this is some fucked up shit! It's everywhere and it is socially accepted! The food industry uses sugar in small amounts to get people addicted to their products. This makes it ridiculously hard to stay away from it.
Small amounts of sugar every day would be perfectly fine. But it is just not feasible to keep that up due to OVERABUNDANCE.
I get pretty much all my sugar from bread. I can stay away from it the rest of the time but don't like the breads that are sugar free. The places I normally eat at has a demand on them to make nutritious food (they rent space from my employer). So I don't really find it a problem, never drink anything but water, don't take cakes when offered.
Go low carb and drink all the coffee you want. In fact, you need it. Get that caffeine buzz going to give you the energy.
Sugarless bread? Link please? Got to get my hands onto that stuff. I tried gluten free bread, but it is stiff full of carbs. it is absolutely disgusting but if it were free of carbs and thus actually healthy, I'd eat it all day.
On May 15 2015 03:23 Alcathous wrote: Go low carb and drink all the coffee you want. In fact, you need it. Get that caffeine buzz going to give you the energy.
Sugarless bread? Link please? Got to get my hands onto that stuff. I tried gluten free bread, but it is stiff full of carbs. it is absolutely disgusting but if it were free of carbs and thus actually healthy, I'd eat it all day.
sugarless bread is an oxymoron since carbs are sugar. If you want to avoid sugars/carbs completely, just do paleo or keto
On May 15 2015 03:23 Alcathous wrote: Go low carb and drink all the coffee you want. In fact, you need it. Get that caffeine buzz going to give you the energy.
Sugarless bread? Link please? Got to get my hands onto that stuff. I tried gluten free bread, but it is stiff full of carbs. it is absolutely disgusting but if it were free of carbs and thus actually healthy, I'd eat it all day.
sugarless bread is an oxymoron since carbs are sugar. If you want to avoid sugars/carbs completely, just do paleo or keto
Starch in bread is broken down into maltose already in the mouth to some degree. However, maltose is only one third as sweet as sucrose. Maltose is a disaccharide and is only broken down into glucose in the intestines.
That means when you eat sweets, the pleasure center is directly activated by the taste receptors in the mouth, something that doesn't happen when you eat bread. With bread you also get the rise in blood sugar, but the rise is a lot less steep compared to pure sugar because it has to be slowly broken down first.
On May 15 2015 03:23 Alcathous wrote: Go low carb and drink all the coffee you want. In fact, you need it. Get that caffeine buzz going to give you the energy.
Sugarless bread? Link please? Got to get my hands onto that stuff. I tried gluten free bread, but it is stiff full of carbs. it is absolutely disgusting but if it were free of carbs and thus actually healthy, I'd eat it all day.
sugarless bread is an oxymoron since carbs are sugar. If you want to avoid sugars/carbs completely, just do paleo or keto
It being besides the point that you don't know what 'oxymoron' means, surely one can create break without sugars. There are many low-carb breads out there and no reason why there can't be a zero carb bread.
Just an issue of how much you can stomach to stay keto.
That stuff isn't that tasty, so if someone has a better zero sugar bread, keep me informed. Gonna try a marathon next year and I need to have some tasty low carb bread for that as I can't eat pasta.
helpman173 is exactly right. I have a MSc in biochem and I know that sugars are already hydrolized in the mouth by amylase. In fact, you do get nasty glucose right away, not just maltose. If it were only maltose, then it would have been ok. Beer has maltose.
Glucose can get in your blood even before you even swallow the bread, unless it is low carb.
On May 14 2015 21:02 Thalandros wrote: Being fat or thin is just a calculation, really.
Don't get me wrong I completely agree with you. I eat mostly-well and exercise, both cardio and weights, play sports, etc. But being an endomorph is actually a thing (read Schwarzenegger's encyclopedia) and there's nothing I can do about it. I'll be pudgy forever. That's just my body's static-resting point for my given lean diet and regular exercise.
ANYWAYS... I agree with you, but I think some of the reason people are fat is psychological. In the sense that their perception of self is different, or they're addicted to certain tastes, whether it be a sweet/salty tooth, beer, or whatever.
I think most people get that eating less (+exercise) = weighing less, it's just they can't **psychologically** do it. They HAVE to give into their addiction of eating salt/sugar. So even though they get the basic point of eating less, they can't mentally do it.
Its like me in school trying to start an assignment the day I get it. Earlier assignment start probably equals better learning, but I can't man, gotta doto.
I agree, but I'm just saying that using the different bodytypes isn't a way to argue against basic maths and the law of thermodynamics. I'd consider myself an endomorph (Always find it hard to say, but I've got wide hips, wide shoulders, always been heavier, although again, that was just my lifestyle). Physically everyone can get into shape, look good naked or at the very least be at a very healthy bodyweight. I weighed in at 97KG 1.5 year ago - Right now I'm down to 76.5KG (17 y/o now) and it's true that some people's metabolism is better than others naturally, but everyone can boost their metabolism by working out, staying active, sleeping enough etcetera. Supplements and excuses are not needed! I lost 15+kg in half a year without REALLY noticing it just because I realised my diet was just ''eat everytihng I feel like''. Once I got realised that it was very easy to just jump to smoothies instead of chocolate and steak/chicken instead of pizza.
It's all in the mind. And this world fuck's the human mind up so much through commercials etc. My dad was VERY overweight for most of his life until last year. He was/is legit food addicted. He still needs to control himself every minute of his life. Bad food just grows on you and you need to catch it and get the discipline to ''return to normal' which is often not normal in our western society.
On May 15 2015 03:23 Alcathous wrote: Go low carb and drink all the coffee you want. In fact, you need it. Get that caffeine buzz going to give you the energy.
Sugarless bread? Link please? Got to get my hands onto that stuff. I tried gluten free bread, but it is stiff full of carbs. it is absolutely disgusting but if it were free of carbs and thus actually healthy, I'd eat it all day.
sugarless bread is an oxymoron since carbs are sugar. If you want to avoid sugars/carbs completely, just do paleo or keto
It being besides the point that you don't know what 'oxymoron' means, surely one can create break without sugars. There are many low-carb breads out there and no reason why there can't be a zero carb bread.
Just an issue of how much you can stomach to stay keto. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=81&v=IdDfF4hXfj4 That stuff isn't that tasty, so if someone has a better zero sugar bread, keep me informed. Gonna try a marathon next year and I need to have some tasty low carb bread for that as I can't eat pasta.
helpman173 is exactly right. I have a MSc in biochem and I know that sugars are already hydrolized in the mouth by amylase. In fact, you do get nasty glucose right away, not just maltose. If it were only maltose, then it would have been ok. Beer has maltose.
Glucose can get in your blood even before you even swallow the bread, unless it is low carb.
Isn't ezekiel bread what you're looking for? High protein, low-carb.
On May 15 2015 03:23 Alcathous wrote: Go low carb and drink all the coffee you want. In fact, you need it. Get that caffeine buzz going to give you the energy.
Sugarless bread? Link please? Got to get my hands onto that stuff. I tried gluten free bread, but it is stiff full of carbs. it is absolutely disgusting but if it were free of carbs and thus actually healthy, I'd eat it all day.
sugarless bread is an oxymoron since carbs are sugar. If you want to avoid sugars/carbs completely, just do paleo or keto
It being besides the point that you don't know what 'oxymoron' means, surely one can create break without sugars. There are many low-carb breads out there and no reason why there can't be a zero carb bread.
Just an issue of how much you can stomach to stay keto. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=81&v=IdDfF4hXfj4 That stuff isn't that tasty, so if someone has a better zero sugar bread, keep me informed. Gonna try a marathon next year and I need to have some tasty low carb bread for that as I can't eat pasta.
helpman173 is exactly right. I have a MSc in biochem and I know that sugars are already hydrolized in the mouth by amylase. In fact, you do get nasty glucose right away, not just maltose. If it were only maltose, then it would have been ok. Beer has maltose.
Glucose can get in your blood even before you even swallow the bread, unless it is low carb.
I would love to see you run a marathon on a low carb diet.
On May 15 2015 03:23 Alcathous wrote: Go low carb and drink all the coffee you want. In fact, you need it. Get that caffeine buzz going to give you the energy.
Sugarless bread? Link please? Got to get my hands onto that stuff. I tried gluten free bread, but it is stiff full of carbs. it is absolutely disgusting but if it were free of carbs and thus actually healthy, I'd eat it all day.
sugarless bread is an oxymoron since carbs are sugar. If you want to avoid sugars/carbs completely, just do paleo or keto
It being besides the point that you don't know what 'oxymoron' means, surely one can create break without sugars. There are many low-carb breads out there and no reason why there can't be a zero carb bread.
Just an issue of how much you can stomach to stay keto. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=81&v=IdDfF4hXfj4 That stuff isn't that tasty, so if someone has a better zero sugar bread, keep me informed. Gonna try a marathon next year and I need to have some tasty low carb bread for that as I can't eat pasta.
helpman173 is exactly right. I have a MSc in biochem and I know that sugars are already hydrolized in the mouth by amylase. In fact, you do get nasty glucose right away, not just maltose. If it were only maltose, then it would have been ok. Beer has maltose.
Glucose can get in your blood even before you even swallow the bread, unless it is low carb.
I would love to see you run a marathon on a low carb diet.
As a gym owner for a few years now, I'd like to see ANYONE running any decent-length marathons (spartan challenge anyone) right after doing a serious no-carb or cutting period. Whenever we're getting ready for fitness shows, the last 4 weeks are absolutely brutal when it comes time to cut all the water and fat to show what we've been working on!
On May 15 2015 06:39 Alcathous wrote: helpman173 is exactly right. I have a MSc in biochem and I know that sugars are already hydrolized in the mouth by amylase. In fact, you do get nasty glucose right away, not just maltose. If it were only maltose, then it would have been ok. Beer has maltose.
Glucose can get in your blood even before you even swallow the bread, unless it is low carb.
As far as I know, amylase only converts starch to maltose. This happens both in the saliva and in the pancreas. A different enzyme called maltase converts maltose to glucose. As far as I know, this happens only in the intestine. Do you have some evidence that maltase is also present in the saliva?
Aside from that, this is some valuable info from Wikipedia:
"The glycemic effect of foods depends on a number of factors, such as the type of starch (amylose versus amylopectin), physical entrapment of the starch molecules within the food, fat and protein content of the food and organic acids or their salts in the meal. The presence of fat or soluble dietary fiber can slow the gastric emptying rate, thus lowering the GI. In general, coarse, grainy breads with higher amounts of fiber have a lower GI value than white breads. However, most breads made with 100% whole wheat or wholemeal flour have a GI not very different from endosperm only (white) bread. Many brown breads are treated with enzymes to soften the crust, which makes the starch more accessible (high GI)."
On May 15 2015 03:23 Alcathous wrote: Go low carb and drink all the coffee you want. In fact, you need it. Get that caffeine buzz going to give you the energy.
Sugarless bread? Link please? Got to get my hands onto that stuff. I tried gluten free bread, but it is stiff full of carbs. it is absolutely disgusting but if it were free of carbs and thus actually healthy, I'd eat it all day.
sugarless bread is an oxymoron since carbs are sugar. If you want to avoid sugars/carbs completely, just do paleo or keto
It being besides the point that you don't know what 'oxymoron' means, surely one can create break without sugars. There are many low-carb breads out there and no reason why there can't be a zero carb bread.
Just an issue of how much you can stomach to stay keto. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=81&v=IdDfF4hXfj4 That stuff isn't that tasty, so if someone has a better zero sugar bread, keep me informed. Gonna try a marathon next year and I need to have some tasty low carb bread for that as I can't eat pasta.
helpman173 is exactly right. I have a MSc in biochem and I know that sugars are already hydrolized in the mouth by amylase. In fact, you do get nasty glucose right away, not just maltose. If it were only maltose, then it would have been ok. Beer has maltose.
Glucose can get in your blood even before you even swallow the bread, unless it is low carb.
I would love to see you run a marathon on a low carb diet.
From someone who is studying in this field and getting certifications in sports dietetics let me shed some let on what a ketogenic/low carb diet is. It is where you body produces ketones to provide energy for the brain when glucose is in short supply. There are some athletes (I stress some and athletes in this) that find ketogenic diets actually assist with long distance running and cycling. There are several athletes who do run marathons on this quite easily. A lot of high intensity athletes (again athletes not weight lifters in the gym 4 times a week) tend to find that ketogenic diets are more harmful than helpful. Again this is mostly done on a per person basis as the results don't generally hold up well in an objective lab setting (placebo effect could be a big reason for it or just for different people different things work; remember some people have different ligaments, not everyone's body is the same. I actually hate this when it comes to dealing with athletes).
This is due to the pathway for how glycogen (stored glucose) is used during high intensity.
This lack of glycogen from a low carb/ketogenic is also what allows for rapid fat burn in dieters (why the ketogenic diet has taken off). This does have some risks. We can see people going through ketoacidosis (a process where the body builds up too many ketones and causes the pH balance of the blood to alter; lots of health risks with that) if they do not balance their carb intake.
We also see benefits in the mental health world, especially with individuals who have seizures, when they switch to a ketogenic diet. The reasoning for this is glucose increases electrical activity in the brain and ketones can have a mild sedative affect for anxiety.
There are also a few physical disorders (crohn's disease for one) where ketogenic is very beneficial as fiber can be extremely disruptive to their intestinal tract.
Source time:
These are going to be mostly text books so a library would be beneficial unless you want to pay a bit of money on amazon.
Krause's Food and Nutrition Care Process by L. Kathleen Mahan, Sylvia escott-Stump, Janice L. Raymond. Nutrient Timing for Peak Performance by Heidi Skolink and Andrea Chernus Nutrition Periodization for Athletes by Bob Seebohar
Lecture Material from Adam Sacks (Chef, RD, who also helped Olympic athletes and currently specializes in helping Endurance Athletes) Here is a current bio. http://www.enrgperformance.com/adam-sacks/
On May 15 2015 11:10 IgnE wrote: Thanks for the lecture bro, for all us nimwits out here.
So which source talks about running marathons on low-carb diets?
That would mostly be the lecture notes from the professor. I'll have access to the notes again in 3 months if you want me to send you a PM with them.
But like he says, it's pretty dependent on the athlete. The transition is pretty annoying to deal with as for the first couple weeks you tend to just feel weak all the time. You also have to stay in ketosis. You can't have cheat days.
I don't doubt that it's possible to run a marathon in ketosis and that a few people like doing it. I do doubt whether it's a sustainable thing for the majority of people. I think you are likely to end up overtrained, immune-compromised, endocrine-impaired, and all around less fit.
On May 15 2015 11:23 IgnE wrote: I don't doubt that it's possible to run a marathon in ketosis and that a few people like doing it. I do doubt whether it's a sustainable thing for the majority of people. I think you are likely to end up overtrained, immune-compromised, endocrine-impaired, and all around less fit.
Yea, this is the main issue with ketogenic diets and athletes. There are definitely outliers such as the "50 Marathons in 50 Days" ultramarathon runner who actually produces less lactic acid the longer her runs (as in her starts with more lactic acid at the beginning of a 30 mile run than when he ends). The average individual won't see massive improvements in long distance running when on a ketogenic diet.
Which is generally why ketogenic isn't recommended to athletes unless it is a special case. Why I stressed the words I stressed.
Dean Karnazes is the guy who makes everyone look like a wimp when it comes to long distance running.
As far as I know, amylase only converts starch to maltose. This happens both in the saliva and in the pancreas. A different enzyme called maltase converts maltose to glucose. As far as I know, this happens only in the intestine. Do you have some evidence that maltase is also present in the saliva?
The biggest problem is instead of doing something about it, people are just getting behind the fat acceptance movement. This is so dumb it's like you are signing your own death warrant.
On May 16 2015 07:00 G3CKO wrote: The biggest problem is instead of doing something about it, people are just getting behind the fat acceptance movement. This is so dumb it's like you are signing your own death warrant.
Fat acceptance is super important because there's so much fat shaming out there.
I'm not condoning a fat lifestyle, but I doubt making fun of chubsters and treating them like they are garbage does anything to help the issue. I don't know about more progressive countries, but in Germany there are TV shows dedicated to fat-shaming, which is absolutely disgusting, because it points to the fact that there's an audience for that.
I don't know, if we assume that fat people are a fa(c)t of life, I'd much rather have them be happy and retain some of their dignity rather than getting them more depressed by shaming them.
And it's certainly not the "biggest problem". Sedetary lifestyles are the biggest problem. American low quality food is the second biggest problem (and will be our second biggest problem as well, once TTIP is done and dusted).
I agree. Bullying people is not a solution to anything, ever. If someone does not wish to or is not capable of reducing their weight, making them feel bad about it is not helpful in any way.
But i also think that a lot of fat people would prefer to not be fat. Thus, they should be given the necessary tools to help them solve their problems.
The idea that being fat is a good thing is kind of weird though. It is not. But a lot of things that people do are not a good idea. Smoking, drinking, driving at 200 km/h. Being fat should be treated similar to those in my opinion.
Well, nobody should say being fat is great, the message that it hurts your health should be clearly conveyed, I just feel it's counterproductive to treat chubsters like the scum of the earth.
Focussing on "inspiring" one in a million stories is just not conductive to fitness motivation. And it was not fat shaming, it was a good friend helping him with dieting (he didn't just write those text messages, they talked about the diet, and what to do), he wasn't antagonizing and belittleing him, he was lifting him up, quite the contrary from the bullying discussed in the thread.
- Taxes on sugar and unhealthy food - Let people pay patient contributions - Nationwide fat-shaming campaigns - Obesity-prevention in schools - Tax reductions for the healthy - Desk jobs required to have half hour "fitness breaks"
I was fat, now I am fit. How I did it? Like everyone else! I stay away as much as I can from sweet food, I eat like 1.5 - 2 grams per protein per kilogram body weight for a day, I drink around 3-4 liters of water. I also try to do at least 3, better 4 training sessions, be it muay thai, weights or just simple running and bodyweight exercises. I am not with the looks of a professional athlete but with persistence I will get there. If I can force myself to do it (and I one lazy ass bum btw), I think most sane people can. And it's not easy for me, I am constantly torn apart by my desire to live longer and my sincere love for unhealthy food. But I manage somehow.
On May 16 2015 21:35 helpman173 wrote: Ways to solve the obesity problem:
- Taxes on sugar and unhealthy food - Let people pay patient contributions - Nationwide fat-shaming campaigns - Obesity-prevention in schools - Tax reductions for the healthy - Desk jobs required to have half hour "fitness breaks"
Tax reduction for the healthy is ethically unjustifiable because genetic factors in one's health, thus you'd be creating government-induced inequality based on genetics, which leaves the door open for terrible abuse of the system. Taxes on sugar and unhealthy food are unlikely to happen because of lobbies. Fat shaming is bad, most fat people are already ashamed of being fat. Obesity prevention, as well as better food + more sport, in schools is good.
I was fat, now I am fit. How I did it? Like some other people ! I stay away from animal products and as much as I can from processed food, I eat like 0.7 - 1 grams per protein per kilogram body weight for a day, I drink around 3-4 liters of water. I also try to do at least 3, better 4 training sessions, be it riding my bike or just simple running and bodyweight exercises. I am not with the looks of a professional athlete because I'm mostly focusing on other things than looks. If I can force myself to do it (and I one lazy ass bum btw), I think most sane people can. And it's getting easier and easier for me, I am not constantly torn apart by my desire to live longer and my sincere love for unhealthy food any more. And now I manage somehow.
My boss was in a similar situation Captain Kirk was in when he fired an obese employee
He fired an overweight worker, she sued, he argued that obesity is a contagious disease and a danger to his employees safety, and the judge ruled in my bosses favor.
On May 16 2015 07:00 G3CKO wrote: The biggest problem is instead of doing something about it, people are just getting behind the fat acceptance movement. This is so dumb it's like you are signing your own death warrant.
Fat acceptance is super important because there's so much fat shaming out there.
I'm not condoning a fat lifestyle, but I doubt making fun of chubsters and treating them like they are garbage does anything to help the issue. I don't know about more progressive countries, but in Germany there are TV shows dedicated to fat-shaming, which is absolutely disgusting, because it points to the fact that there's an audience for that.
I don't know, if we assume that fat people are a fa(c)t of life, I'd much rather have them be happy and retain some of their dignity rather than getting them more depressed by shaming them.
And it's certainly not the "biggest problem". Sedetary lifestyles are the biggest problem. American low quality food is the second biggest problem (and will be our second biggest problem as well, once TTIP is done and dusted).
I don't think fat acceptance is super important. Fat acceptance is a movement which relies on pure fabricated delusion. The motto is "it's OK to be fat". No. It is not.
Although I do agree with you when you say fat shaming is bad. It's the other end of the spectrum, really. Accepting fat and pretending it's not unhealthy, ignoring science and promotion delusion is bad, but hate does not solve anything. Never has, and never will.
There has to be a middle ground. We should be able to point out, without reproach, that fat is unhealthy. Because it is the truth.
On May 17 2015 02:05 D-light wrote: I was fat, now I am fit. How I did it? Like some other people ! I stay away from animal products and as much as I can from processed food, I eat like 0.7 - 1 grams per protein per kilogram body weight for a day, I drink around 3-4 liters of water. I also try to do at least 3, better 4 training sessions, be it riding my bike or just simple running and bodyweight exercises. I am not with the looks of a professional athlete because I'm mostly focusing on other things than looks. If I can force myself to do it (and I one lazy ass bum btw), I think most sane people can. And it's getting easier and easier for me, I am not constantly torn apart by my desire to live longer and my sincere love for unhealthy food any more. And now I manage somehow.
You sound like a skinny hippie nerd. That can't be healthy bro.
Better eat bacon& 2 grams protein/lbs, lift heavy and go keto. Better to have at least some fat and muscle than have an unhealthy look like that.
Disclaimer: Every person deserves respect. This is a problem I have with obesity and bad parents, not with the people themselves.
Obesity is a big problem in our society right now. Every year thousands of people around the world die of obesity-related causes. Furthermore the life of fat person is undeniably harder than that of a fit person. The worst part? Obesity is not slowing down. It is estimated that in the UK 74% of men and 64% of women will be overweight by 2030. [*]
Everyone knows being overweight and obesity in general are clear problems, and objectively bad things, but these conditions are on the rise instead of slowing down, and for me this is a clear example of when education fails. Countries like the United States have among the highest obesity rates in the world, and people can’t excuse themselves by saying they don’t know. While in the case of other health conditions, particularly virus and diseases like AIDS, education has been shown to be enough to reduce dramatically the number of people infected by it, in the case of obesity it hasn’t worked. You know being overweight is bad, I know it’s bad, my overweight father knows is bad. But they don’t care.
What if we made them care? You can’t say it’s just their problem, as all the diseases caused by obesity need to have resources devoted to them. Your government set up a clinic to help overweight people fight diabetes? Well, guess who is paying for it? You with your taxes. A father that dies leaving children behind, all of it because he couldn’t stop himself from eating thrash.
I could write a thousand pages about why obesity is bad for everyone, but you all already know why. Is there something people can do?
I’ve been thinking that maybe the government's need to do something stupidly radical, that is so dumb it might just work. For example, what if governments banned Childhood Obesity? Stupid right? but let's think about it. Children are one of the groups most vulnerable to being obese, and the worst part is that most of the times it’s not even in their control. You can’t blame a kid for being fat if their fathers buy them trash food all the time.A fat children, unless they have a particular condition that makes them more prone to be overweight, is a direct consequence of bad eating habits caused by bad parenting. The parents are probably screwing their children for life, is that fair? What if the government made something radical, like banning childhood obesity forcing their fathers to teach healthy habits to their children, or else they are fined or forced to send them in the evenings to some special places where they excercises and are thought good habits, and if the fathers don’t understand after a year or two, outright taking the kids away from them as they are hurting the child's forever.
Why not ban all obesity? Well, you can’t ask that, as it would have even less chances of working as banning childhood obesity. Adults work and have way less free time than kids. But if we force people to teach kids to develop healthy habits, they will grow with those habits and while it won’t eradicate 100% the problem it will reduce it immensely.
TL;DR Education has failed. People know being fat is bad, they just don’t care. Do we need to find ways to make them care?
Even if you think my idea is stupid (which I kind of agree..but I think we need that kind of stuff before my kids are born into a worl where being obese is the norm), do you think stronger meassures should be taken?
Totally agree, I used to be obese and once I lost weight, I realized how my life was aweful, and I was just "small obese" with a BMI of 30, now at 26 and closing to "normal".
There are a lot of things that we can do to prevent obesity :
- Yearly wealth exam for people asking for benefits, if these people are obese, ask them to lose weight. If they haven't lost like 10lbs the year after, cut the benefit. - Remove child benefit for children bellow 14yo if the child is obese. - Publics campaigns that explain that eating healthy is actually cheaper than going to fast food. - Adding extra sport hours in school program, or health course which explain dietetary, health benefit, etc.. - Providing benefit for each child doing a sport outside of school
there is a lot of stuff one can do. I remember how well ads about drinking milk or using margarin instead of butter have changed the usual dietetary habbit of people, why not doing the same for actual good thing ?
In france, they banned very underweight models, I think they should also ban obese model, eventhough I don't think they really exist in Europe. But I remember the Dove ads on TV where some girls were obviously more than overweight.
Its in the junk food itself. It is addicting. Just try it yourself with mc donalds,if you normally do not go there. If you eat their burgers every day you will get addicted to them and start craving for them. Only once you stopped eating them for several days you will notice how horrible they are.
Then there is also the drug effect,digesting food makes you feel relaxed and somewhat subdued, specially if its large amounts of food. You just sit there eating and digesting while in a sort of happy trance. In that sense it is somewhat similar to softdrugs
But ya,the problem is in the food first, and with the people themselves 2nd. The food it becomes a vicious circle,it has all characteristics of an addiction. Eating red meat for example makes your more vulnerable to all sorts of adictions in general. But problem with many obese people is, they do not care anymore. And its impossible to help someone who does not care any more. No amount of information will make them change their habits. They know its bad.
They have been fighting obesitas for quiet a while now in the usa and the problem only grows. That indicates that the current methods do not work and might even have a negative effect. My suggestion would be to look closely at the food of the burger chains and closely examine all ingredients found,maybe some ingredients that have addictive characteristics should be removed.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rhpptDh.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6XVgv8R.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bNH0Q0U.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rzRlLfk.jpg)
![[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.
![[image loading]](http://ih1.redbubble.net/image.10476250.7096/fc,550x550,white.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Correlation_between_BMI_and_Percent_Body_Fat_for_Men_in_NCHS'_NHANES_1994_Data.PNG)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/S4owMON.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/opSw9Cv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/w8AKRDB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://s15.postimg.org/6xg719uyj/14_B2w9j33.jpg)
