101–110 of 182 posts
Also look at the sizes of portions, soda and food packages they have all increased too.
Fast food consumption which is high in sugar and fat has also increased.
Lab rats has shown to be as addicted as cocaine on sugar http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-...
Compare sugar intake now and 20 years ago, sugar metabolizes to fat in the body. So that food is fat free, but high in sugar leads to the same thing in the body anyway. Also look at the sizes of portions, soda and food packages they have all increased too. Fast food consumption which is high in sugar and fat has also increased. Lab rats has shown to be as addicted as cocaine on sugar http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacob…
Amongst others we blamed cholesterol, we blamed fats, then saturated fats, now we're starting to blame carbohydrates. The problem starts from the reductionist science being applied, coupled with the constant lobbying of the food industry of course. What happens is that nutrition is an incredibly complex subject and nutritionists can only blame what they can currently measure. The result is a whole industry of processed foods that have lost their nutritional value. And for the food industry, that's OK because processed foods are more profitable.
The problem is not naturally occurring sugar. The problem is high fructose corn syrup and (to a lesser extent) sucrose and the current practice of injecting these substances in processed foods, because these sugars are fooling our senses and create addiction. But we are talking about refined carbohydrates. The sugar in fruits is totally fine and in fact there are signs that we don't eat enough fruits. But why stop at sugars? Margarine was certainly a bad idea, as was every other idea that the nutritionists' community ever had.
So really, if you want an enemy, that's certainly processed foods and the weakest cult-like science that human kind ever practised. To this day doctors are still advising patients to avoid saturated fats, even though there's zero evidence of saturated fats provoking cancer or heart disease or obesity. To this day you can see low-fat products, like low-fat milk that's artificially coloured and enriched with powdered milk, being sold because of health claims. Expect to see Omega-3 in bananas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are lab rats (whose hormones/genetics have been fucked with) that can literally die of starvation while remaining nearly spherical with excess fat. When their food is removed, their bodies ignore the stored fat and strictly cannibalize muscle and other tissues until the rat dies. Being fat is much more complicated than calories in minus calories burned.
> There are lab rats (whose hormones/genetics have been fucked with) that can literally die of starvation while remaining nearly spherical with excess fat. I bet there aren't. You'll need to cite that claim.
It was bizarre that the article did not mention trends in other behaviours that effect weight, like sleep and stress level. Millenials are arguably more stressed out than people the same age a generation ago, due to increased student loan debt, unstable job market and poor job security. This constant stress of course contributes to how well your body can maintain a healthy weight. There should be a rigorous study com…
Does this study factor in the huge life style changes over 20 years? Far more access to cars, and far more spending entire days sitting down (computer jobs, Netflix binge watching, etc). A lot of how we live has changed in 20 years, I'm inclined to think the problem lies there, not in environmental factors.
We had cars and tv/video games/films 20 years ago. I know, I was there.
That aside, moderate exercise has so many positive benefits, why not do a little. I have no idea if it helps lose weight, but working up a slight sweat daily, has helped me greatly over the years. Not so much with weight, but psychologically. Yes--it's been my major drug since 8th grade. (It seems like 8th grade is when society injects those needles of stress, on so many levels?) I do other drugs, but exercise has been my major addiction for years. I don't tell people. I'm actually embarrassed by it.
I've been fat and skinny. When I was fat, I didn't need to exercise as much in order to get the psychological benefits from exercise--in my case, it's always been some kind of cardio.
My point is if you don't feel well, and you don't have any physical reason not to exercise; give it a shot. You don't need to do marathons; just walk(fast, or slow, or run small distances--then walk). Exercise until you work up a good sweat.(I need at least 45 minutes now, but when I was heavier I just needed 20 minutes/daily. That was a hidden benefit from being overweight?) I guarantee after a little while, you will feel better. You might lose weight. You might improve your blood numbers. I can guarantee you will feal better, and will get to like the slight muscle pain the next day. In my case I need to exercise daily. Some people get the psychological boost from just exercising occasionally. I think your occupation plays a role? My father worked construction and was always sweaty. I would never tell him to exercise. You will come to like the slight muscle pain the next day. I've been around people who don't have any pain the next day, but not me. I ache when I arise. Yes, your legs/body will hurt when you wake up the next day. I've never had anyone tell me to be be prepared to hurt the next day, but the hurt becomes a good hurt with time.
I've always hated getting up in the mornings, and don't know if my exercise régime is to blame, but once I get going; I'm glad I worked up a sweat the previous day. (I sugesseted sweating because, in my experience, if I don't sweat profusely; I don't get the same psychological bump. Maybe it's psychosomatic--I am a bit of a Nut?
basically:
People have been getting fatter, to pathological levels for quite a while. The phenomenon is global. The conventional explanation is too much for and not enough exercise, caloric surplus.
This is not nonsensical. We know that caloric restriction leads to weigh loss. We can also see that various other approaches can result in weight loss. Carbohydrate restriction, for example. But, this doesn't give us a complete (or possibly even relevant) answer.
This requires another 'why' and a 'why now.' All it takes is a small sustained caloric surplus over long periods to reach obesity. People have had access to these calories, in large populations or in pockets for a long time. There have been periods of regional caloric wealth and certainly periods of caloric wealth within subcultures/classes. If caloric surplus is the key idea, why do we have these caloric surpluses today.
There were sedentary workers even in ancient times, certainly in the 20th century. Today's sedentary worker is fatter than yesteryear's. Today's carpenter is fatter than a carpenter in 1972. Why? A carpenter in 1972 had plenty of access to calories, similar physical lifestyle.
IMO, this is an epidemic and we need an explanation that works at epidemic levels. We need to explain the change in populations weight, not differences in individual's weight. The answer to the first is probably different to the second.
"Gut biome" may be an answer. Antibiotics. Parasites are another interesting possibility.
In any case, I don't think it's coincidence that fad diet books and other pop science is so successful. We do not have an answer from science. I don't eves think the right question is usually asked.
Why did we all get so fat?
I seem to gain weight when I eat wheat. When I eliminate wheat, my weight is stable. I found a study about how wheat interferes with leptin (the hormone that makes us feel full): http://www.biochemj.org/content/410/3/595 I think I've read several places that the wheat we eat today is significantly different from the wheat people ate in the old days. If I remember correctly, our wheat contains much more gluten, since…
And entertainingly this reckons increasingly industrialy generated wheat is now so devoid of any nutrients, even pigs won't eat it? http://www.grainstorm.com/pages/modern-wheat
Is it just me or is it becoming increasingly more difficult to get the truth on any matter, because you're wading through so many layers of human generated FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is evidence that gut bacteria is passed down from generation to generation, we could very well be seeing a delayed effect from public policy and health decisions made around the time the previous generation was growing up. oops. This is something that doesn't get mentioned enough. Your gut bacteria play a large role in your health, and we're going so far as to do fecal transplants to resolve GI tract disorder…
> one of the primary causes of America's obesity > problems. As any European who's spent time in the US can tell you, a dramatically simpler explanation is that portion sizes are enormous and many foods are "low fat" which mean they're loaded with sugar.
my specialty nephrology dietician commented when i asked about lo salt products "all the shit they put in it makes it worse" and that is a direct quote
Weight gain is simple: calorie intake - calorie expenditure. The amount of calories in our food tends to go up over 20 years. Doing the same activities consumes the same amount of calories after 20 years. Thus we would have more caloric surplus, and likely gain more weight than people 20 years ago with less caloric food. Pretty simple imo.