|
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.
Source
GO SEAHAWKS!
+ Show Spoiler +
But how we talk about and treat BMI at least in The United States, reflects on how even smart people can be science-resistant.
|
On June 25 2014 03:21 MoonfireSpam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2014 01:25 Ropid wrote:On June 25 2014 01:05 MoonfireSpam wrote:On June 24 2014 18:23 Zandar wrote:On June 24 2014 11:24 dudeman001 wrote: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.
|
*boring biochem*
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 07:45 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +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 knew traditional 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.
Add that to the success of places like this...
Yeah those are candy and real cigarettes and 8 patty burgers. Oh yeah, and if you're over 350 lbs you eat for free (with purchase of a drink) http://www.heartattackgrill.com/heart-attack-grill.html
|
On June 25 2014 06:04 Mc wrote:
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.
|
On the subject of "personal responsibility" and "healthy choices", well...
+ Show Spoiler + 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
Source
|
An illustration
|
lol, why are the shower gels next to it not sized accordingly? More skin --> More shower gel
|
On June 25 2014 10:47 screamingpalm wrote:On the subject of "personal responsibility" and "healthy choices", well... + Show Spoiler + 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
Source 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.
|
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
Edit: ^ also what he said lol
|
worth considering for western nations...
http://www.footwork.com/pyramids.asp
compare 1980 population pyramid to 2010 population pyramid.
Is it that big a surprise that we are more obese than 30 years ago when the biggest chunk of our population has aged by 30 years? They were spring chickens in their prime 30 years ago, skinny as could be!
I'm not saying there isn't an underlying issue -- child obesity rates and the prevalence of diabetes and the like are definitely worth debating, but I think BMI rates aren't as crazy as they seem.
Old people put on weight as their metabolism slows down.
|
|
|
|