[Slow Ben]

gulex said:

1345304216[/url]' post='988894']
we're not getting fat as a nation because we, suddenly and inexplicably grew into lazy gluttons.

While what your post states is true, and to a point i agree with you, but to believe this statement is insanely naive on your part.
How often did people eat processed fast food junk 50 years ago? How often do people actually cook instead of being "lazy" and taking the easy option?

[gulex]

Slow Ben, on 18 August 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

gulex, on 18 August 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

we're not getting fat as a nation because we, suddenly and inexplicably grew into lazy gluttons.

While what your post states is true, and to a point i agree with you, but to believe this statement is insanely naive on your part.
How often did people eat processed fast food junk 50 years ago? How often do people actually cook instead of being "lazy" and taking the easy option?

What i say still holds. Modern junk food is primarily composed of sugar because saturated fat has been thought to be unhealthy. Companies know that food without either fat or sugar tastes bland - so they replace fat with sugar, which has caused the modern obesity epidemic.
This governmental stupidity is certainly not the fault of the average consumer - it is the fault of the government. It funded bad science due to a very influential agricultural industry and made us believe that natural unprocessed food was bad while their chemically altered high-carb low-fat products were healthy.

[Mrs Savagely Wishy Washy]

gulex, on 18 August 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

Slow Ben, on 18 August 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

gulex, on 18 August 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

we're not getting fat as a nation because we, suddenly and inexplicably grew into lazy gluttons.

While what your post states is true, and to a point i agree with you, but to believe this statement is insanely naive on your part.
How often did people eat processed fast food junk 50 years ago? How often do people actually cook instead of being "lazy" and taking the easy option?

What i say still holds. Modern junk food is primarily composed of sugar because saturated fat has been thought to be unhealthy. Companies know that food without either fat or sugar tastes bland - so they replace fat with sugar, which has caused the modern obesity epidemic.
This governmental stupidity is certainly not the fault of the average consumer - it is the fault of the government. It funded bad science due to a very influential agricultural industry and made us believe that natural unprocessed food was bad while their chemically altered high-carb low-fat products were healthy.

Protein- modern diet/fast food contains less protein than "old fashioned" cuisine and it has been shown in model organisms that those on a diet with low protein and high sugar compensate by eating more of the carb-rich food compared to those groups with normal or more protein in their diet.
In fact I found that for myself, if I go through a period where I eat mainly carbs after a while I crave sweets/sugar/carbs in obscene amounts. If I have some meat then- and by meat I mean good quality piece of steak, the cravings go- usually for about a week or two, depending on how physically active I am.
Sugar is also highly addictive, because it is involved in hormone regulation, and it is basically the only form of energy our brain can use (there's another one, but that's not ideal and not really important for this discussion- it only happens in starvation when proteins are degraded).
And, to add insult to injury, insulin is also involved in the regulation of our lifespan. Big time.

[gulex]

Miss Savage: I won't quote you as to prevent the 'wall of quotation' this could develop to.

The graphs i have looked at - mainly the ones presented by Taubes - suggests that protein intake has been unaltered for the last hundred years. Only carb/fat intake has changed. It could be wrong however, you'll find graphs showing anything - so i guess it is quite possible that protein has decreased even though i dont quite see the rationale behind it.
I can relate to your carb -> sugar thing by the way. I find eating more fat and moderate protein helps me more however.
Regarding fuelling for the brain you're refering to glucogenesis from protein, right?

[Mrs Savagely Wishy Washy]

gulex, on 18 August 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Miss Savage: I won't quote you as to prevent the 'wall of quotation' this could develop to.

The graphs i have looked at - mainly the ones presented by Taubes - suggests that protein intake has been unaltered for the last hundred years. Only carb/fat intake has changed. It could be wrong however, you'll find graphs showing anything - so i guess it is quite possible that protein has decreased even though i dont quite see the rationale behind it.
I can relate to your carb -> sugar thing by the way. I find eating more fat and moderate protein helps me more however.
Regarding fuelling for the brain you're refering to glucogenesis from protein, right?

... I generally eat lots of fat... nuts, tahin, all kinds of oils, butter, but nothing beats a bloody steak every now and then!
I'll have a look at these graphs from Taubes, I was told that by somebody I work with. Could be that less people eat more meat, or the quality of the meat has decreased because they inject it with glucose solutions and all sorts of other things to make it look tasty and big.
I was strictly speaking and not very accurately referring to two things: first during early phases of fasting or starvation the breakdown of fatty acids which produces ketone bodies that can be used by the brain as alternative source of energy, and then second in late stages of fasting or severe starvation the generation of glucose through the degradation of protein. So the brain can use both glucose (preferred) and ketone bodies (if nothing else is around).

[Coco with marshmallows]

i'd have thought that protein intake would have risen, given the prevalence of meat entering the diet.

After all, its far more common now for someone to eat meat every day due to its more widespread availability surely?

[Mrs Savagely Wishy Washy]

Cocoreturns, on 18 August 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

i'd have thought that protein intake would have risen, given the prevalence of meat entering the diet.

After all, its far more common now for someone to eat meat every day due to its more widespread availability surely?

I'll ask the guy again about it and what he meant exactly.

[Slow Ben]

gulex said:

1345320401[/url]' post='988921']

Slow Ben said:

1345313585[/url]' post='988913']

gulex said:

1345304216[/url]' post='988894']
we're not getting fat as a nation because we, suddenly and inexplicably grew into lazy gluttons.

While what your post states is true, and to a point i agree with you, but to believe this statement is insanely naive on your part.
How often did people eat processed fast food junk 50 years ago? How often do people actually cook instead of being "lazy" and taking the easy option?

What i say still holds. Modern junk food is primarily composed of sugar because saturated fat has been thought to be unhealthy. Companies know that food without either fat or sugar tastes bland - so they replace fat with sugar, which has caused the modern obesity epidemic.
This governmental stupidity is certainly not the fault of the average consumer - it is the fault of the government. It funded bad science due to a very influential agricultural industry and made us believe that natural unprocessed food was bad while their chemically altered high-carb low-fat products were healthy.

Again, I agree with that. I just think you're giving the average person way too much leeway. To say that people are obese because the food industries have changed the way the produce things is crazy. Is it a part of the problem? Of course it is. But if someone is obese, it is their own fault 99% of the time, period. You don't get tricked ino being obese overnight. People realize they're getting fat and most do nothing about it. Yes, the FDA is for the most part, a collection of fuck-ups, but if you're obese, you have no one to blame but yourself.

[worry]

Leeway? Problem? Fault? Blame?

Uh, since when is it anyone's responsibility not to get fat? Are healthy living and a long lifespan imperatives all of a sudden? Why even bother thinking about being fat in those frames of reference?

[Slow Ben]

I could give less of a shit what size someone is. You wanna be big? Be big! You wanna be tiny? Be tiny! It's called free will brother.
I'm pretty sure you're missing the point of what I'm arguing.

[gulex]

Slow Ben: You're right - my earlier posts gives fat people too much leeway. But i think you're giving them way too little. The trouble with obesity is that when obese people then want to lose weight, they go to Weight-Watchers or the like and are told to cut calories and eat a low fat diet. Most people fail on a diet like this and the reason are obvious: You are waging a war against your own biology that is telling you to consume an adequate amount of calories per day. When obese people then fail in this, their doctors either accuse them of cheating or become perplexed because they cant come up with another solution.
On the other hand, alot of people have a total neglect for health and will eat junk food on a daily basis - and this is indeed their own fault.

[worry]

Slow Ben, on 18 August 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

I could give less of a shit what size someone is. You wanna be big? Be big! You wanna be tiny? Be tiny! It's called free will brother.
I'm pretty sure you're missing the point of what I'm arguing.

I'm not talking about free will, nor the point you're making, but the language (and therefore POV) you're couching it in. If you don't care (and I don't doubt it) then why bother casting blame or suggesting fault? Where's the problem that requires giving people that have it leeway? That said, even though it was your post I was reacting to directly since it included all those words, my questions were more thrown out there in general rather than aimed at you to defend...even JLV (not in the OP but a couple posts down) constructed the question as "is this site helpful or harmful?" rather than "Who the hell is asking for this guy's help?" or "Why doesn't this simpleton mind his business?"

[Mrs Savagely Wishy Washy]

gulex, on 18 August 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Miss Savage: I won't quote you as to prevent the 'wall of quotation' this could develop to.

The graphs i have looked at - mainly the ones presented by Taubes - suggests that protein intake has been unaltered for the last hundred years. Only carb/fat intake has changed. It could be wrong however, you'll find graphs showing anything - so i guess it is quite possible that protein has decreased even though i dont quite see the rationale behind it.
I can relate to your carb -> sugar thing by the way. I find eating more fat and moderate protein helps me more however.
Regarding fuelling for the brain you're refering to glucogenesis from protein, right?

Cocoreturns, on 18 August 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

i'd have thought that protein intake would have risen, given the prevalence of meat entering the diet.

After all, its far more common now for someone to eat meat every day due to its more widespread availability surely?

That guy is off galavanting, don't know when he'll be back to answer my question. Meanwhile, I have done some musing of mine- here's what I came up with.

I have also found that the protein intake hasn't changed much over the past century. What has changed is that in total we eat more, and the food stuff is increasingly more energy-dense and sweeter, and more processed. So while the actual amount of dietary protein hasn't changed, in relation to the increased amounts of other foods such as processed with lots of saturated and (importantly) hydrogenated fats (vegetable and animal), sugar/sweeteners and filler such as xanthan gum, in relation to these bad boys, dietary protein intake hasn't been increased, hence relatively speaking the percentage of protein is decreased. Ratios of substances can be just as important, if not more important than absolute amounts in biological processes (as long as it is in the physiological/normal range of concentration of course, and not causing poisoning or disease).
That make sense?

This post has been edited by Miss Savage: 19 August 2012 - 12:35 PM

[Slow Ben]

worrywort said:

1345335608[/url]' post='988959']

Slow Ben said:

1345330973[/url]' post='988950']
I could give less of a shit what size someone is. You wanna be big? Be big! You wanna be tiny? Be tiny! It's called free will brother.
I'm pretty sure you're missing the point of what I'm arguing.

I'm not talking about free will, nor the point you're making, but the language (and therefore POV) you're couching it in. If you don't care (and I don't doubt it) then why bother casting blame or suggesting fault? Where's the problem that requires giving people that have it leeway? That said, even though it was your post I was reacting to directly since it included all those words, my questions were more thrown out there in general rather than aimed at you to defend...even JLV (not in the OP but a couple posts down) constructed the question as "is this site helpful or harmful?" rather than "Who the hell is asking for this guy's help?" or "Why doesn't this simpleton mind his business?"

Because the effects the rising obesity rates are having on this country are staggering.
Direct medical costs/spending, Human capital costs, Transportation costs, Productivity costs, Etc.
People are free to eat, drink, smoke, indulge in whatever they want. But that doesn't change the fact tht something needs to change.

@gulex- totally agree.

This post has been edited by Slow Ben: 19 August 2012 - 04:52 PM

[gulex]

Miss Savage:
I appreciate your research. It opens an interesting question - Why are people getting fatter? is it the increase in overall caloric intake or is it the specific increase in carbohydrates? (especially the sugars) I believe it to be the latter, naturally.

This post has been edited by gulex: 19 August 2012 - 08:21 PM

[worry]

Slow Ben, on 19 August 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

Because the effects the rising obesity rates are having on this country are staggering.
Direct medical costs/spending, Human capital costs, Transportation costs, Productivity costs, Etc.
People are free to eat, drink, smoke, indulge in whatever they want. But that doesn't change the fact tht something needs to change.

Some of those things are good arguments about a social problem that needs a social solution (though I wouldn't include human capital there either), but none of that necessitates the language of personal offense, personal debt, personal failure, etc. that surrounds the issue. Unless you're the parent of minor children, to whom do you owe not dying young? So where does blame come in at all? Why is it any stranger's place to grant or not grant that person leeway? I know there's a caricature out there of people who "blame" everyone but themselves for their weight -- which the stupid website references -- but how many actual people do that? I'd wager very few, and there's mostly people who blame themselves or who aren't all that concerned about it in the first place.

[Slow Ben]

I don't really know what kind of answer you want. I wasn't pointing out faults or blame for the obese. If I was giving personal offense it would be to Gulex, since it was his opinion I was questioning.

That said, this is what I do for a living. Training, nutrition, etc. so it is my job to find individual reasons and blame as to why people are obese. I do it all day every day and that probably comes through in my posts. If it seems offensive or like I'm being an uncaring ass, I apologize.

This post has been edited by Slow Ben: 20 August 2012 - 02:23 AM

[worry]

You don't need to apologize or answer me, even hesitantly, for as I said, I wasn't aiming my questions/point at you specifically. It just so happened your post had a number of example terms of what I was talking about, but it was more about the premise of the thread I suppose.

There's a world of difference between someone coming to you for nutrition/health/weight guidance and you providing it to the best of your ability, and just the general sense of disgust towards fat people that permeates a lot of these discussions (as exemplified by the OP site, which one can either take as "brutally honest", as its author claims, or actually quite extreme and mean spirited -- but still the question was "will this really help?" and not "who asked for this guy's help?!"). The assumption there being that it is unfortunate that a person is fat, and it invades the language. And "Oh you poor dear, you're fat, so you must want to change that" is an assumption, it isn't a sympathetic, thoughtful, or even particularly nice sentiment. Translated, it just means "I wish you weren't fat, so you must too."

Hope that clarifies my angle on this.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 20 August 2012 - 02:59 AM

[Morgoth]

Although a lot of what is said here about diet is likely true, you cannot discount the general reduction in physical activity when talking about why people get fat.

[Solidsnape]

Moving slightly off topic, I watched this Horizon the other day on BBC1. It blew me away.
Is anybody else intrigued by the supposed fact that we're all of us potentially able to protect ourselves from Cancer by lowering our IGF1 levels to switch our bodies into repair mode. Giving us not only longer life spans but also less chance of degenerative orders such as Alzheimer's.

See for yourself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...health-19112549