171–180 of 182 posts
I have no particular expertise in this area, but I've been making the "we don't know why people are fat" argument to whoever will listen for a while. Doctors (socially, not at an appointment FWIW), academics… I'm actually quite surprised how often they've been thinking along the same lines and/or they are convinced by the general idea. basically: People have been getting fatter, to pathological levels for quite a whi…
I have no particular expertise in this area, but I've been making the "we don't know why people are fat" argument to whoever will listen for a while. Doctors (socially, not at an appointment FWIW), academics… I'm actually quite surprised how often they've been thinking along the same lines and/or they are convinced by the general idea. basically: People have been getting fatter, to pathological levels for quite a whi…
Because we eat more carbs and less fat today than 20 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Noticed the same exact thing when I go to Europe, vs. America I think the article mostly applies to America. American food is just fattening
The study factored in the nutritional value of the food, so your comment seems counter to their findings. "...eating the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that was about 2.3 points higher."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't especially want to defend the article but this whole first-law-of-thermodynamics approach to explaining weight gain is definitely the most useless idea that somehow always rears its head around here. It's not only useless on its face since how much we eat is moderated by satiety mechanisms rather than weights and measures, but it also ignores the complexity of nutrition and metabolism and the fact that weight…
> how much we eat is moderated by satiety mechanisms No, it's moderated by our fork. It also means being hungry a lot and keeping exact track of your calories, just like poor people need to track their expenses. (Been there done that with both money and weight) The »subtleties of nutrition« don't matter if you are huge (BMI > 30) and want to get down to a healthy level. Once you are there you still can optimize and f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is spot on, and came to comment likewise... I think the types of product we are using for our macros is way off base from even a few decades ago. I only had a little glimpse of how much so because I know someone very allergic to soy, and it's in almost everything these days. I don't think that most things in particular are necessarily bad for you, but it might be worth taking a few steps back and switch…
Can you break down the cost of the ingredients for each of your $55/gallon soups? That seems very expensive for soup, unless you’re buying top end ingredients at a yuppie natural food store.
If I wanted to I could probably have done it for under $30 for a pot of soup (basic chicken no-noodle) for example. I happen to like a variety of flavors and ingredients.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is spot on, and came to comment likewise... I think the types of product we are using for our macros is way off base from even a few decades ago. I only had a little glimpse of how much so because I know someone very allergic to soy, and it's in almost everything these days. I don't think that most things in particular are necessarily bad for you, but it might be worth taking a few steps back and switch…
that seems a bit too expensive. Where do you live? I can't imagine how it would cost more than 100 bucks for those ingredients, and I feel like if I went out to buy the ingredients right now (Chicago) I'd be able to make it for 80.
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…
I was curious about this, as a relation has gluten intolerance. This reckons that the gluten content of wheat hasn't really changed: http://nogluten-noproblem.com/2014/03/has-the-gluten-content... 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 m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It says the same number of Calories in the post directly above.
Sure, but it isn't the same person. If my bmi23 diet is 2000 calories and I eat 2000 calories, I will probably have a bmi of 23. If my bmi23 diet is 1800 calories and I eat 2000 calories, I will probably have a higher bmi. I guess a clearer way to say what I am getting at is that bmi is descriptive, not predictive, so a shift in the bmi maintained by a given calorie intake could be explained by a shift in the habits…
^ The previous paragraph to the one I quoted above.
Methods
Dietary data from 36,377 U.S. adults from the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) between 1971 and 2008 was used. Physical activity frequency data was only available in 14,419 adults between 1988 and 2006. Generalised linear models were used to examine if the association between total caloric intake, percent dietary macronutrient intake and physical activity with body mass index (BMI) was different over time.
Results
Between 1971 and 2008, BMI, total caloric intake and carbohydrate intake increased 10–14%, and fat and protein intake decreased 5–9%. Between 1988 and 2006, frequency of leisure time physical activity increased 47–120%. However, for a given amount of caloric intake, macronutrient intake or leisure time physical activity, the predicted BMI was up to 2.3 kg/m2 higher in 2006 that in 1988 in the mutually adjusted model (P
Conclusions
Factors other than diet and physical activity may be contributing to the increase in BMI over time. Further research is necessary to identify these factors and to determine the mechanisms through which they affect body weight.
^ Copypasta from the referenced medical study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871403X15...
What I think I'm seeing is a confusion with the conclusions. What they found was:
1988: Daily calories = x, leisure play = y, observed BMI = z
2006: Daily calories = x, leisure play = (1.47 to 2.2)*y, observed BMI = 2.3 + z
Either the average person's body composition today has a greater percentage of muscle and that's throwing things off, or something else is up with how we live that's making us heavier.
But, we see other studies out in the wild that suggest average fitness is lower, which leads me to think the former solution might not be the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how much we eat is moderated by satiety mechanisms No, it's moderated by our fork. It also means being hungry a lot and keeping exact track of your calories, just like poor people need to track their expenses. (Been there done that with both money and weight) The »subtleties of nutrition« don't matter if you are huge (BMI > 30) and want to get down to a healthy level. Once you are there you still can optimize and f…
I see, so fat people just need to knuckle down and starve themselves until they are reasonable weight and only then start to pay attention to the overall function of the human organism and their particular incarnation of it? That seems utterly backwards if not willfully ignorant.
If your overweight is life-threatening you'll want to lose body-fat asap, which you will not achieve if you first try to understand every detail of digestion and nutrition. See it as kind of first-aid.
I know that losing weight is very hard and that the behavioral change is the key, not the unknown details of nutrition. I just wish people (especially my doctors and family) pushed me much earlier to the right behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stuff's ridiculously loaded with sugar. I stopped eating sugar for a few months on a whim. It's rather difficult to do so. Everything just pointlessly has loads of it. Even trying to use no-calorie sweeteners is difficult as some places like to tout how natural they are. I went back to eating sugar but I can no longer stomach a lot of foods I would happily have eaten before. Everything is so sweet.
The sugar's not pointless - it's a cheap and effective way to make low-fat food taste good. I gave up sugar (well, candy, anything that had refined sugar added, most fruit) for four months. I lost a lot of fat quickly, but it was exceptionally hard from a willpower perspective, and I'd get a massive high when I accidentally ate sweetened food. I'd love to give it up again, but my self discipline is currently needed e…
The biggest thing I've done regarding fruit is getting rid of fruit juice. I don't think fruit itself is so bad, because of the sheer solid mass of the fruit itself. With fruit juice, that's mostly thrown away, and you're consuming what's essentially fructose water, which isn't particularly healthy!