| Author | Post |
|---|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4178 |
|
Posted: 3 October 2006 11:13 pm |
|
Yes? No? It's not that simple, and I don't want to make it sound like it is. But I’ve had an eye-opening experience that's made me think twice about just how much responsibility we bear for our weight problems.
I recently returned from a trip to Switzerland, where I saw virtually no obese Swiss people. In fact I only saw one that I can remember. I returned to the U.S. where on my first outing I could see two, three, four obese people in every direction -- many of them morbidly obese.
We're all familiar with the food culture in the U.S. Large portions of high-calorie foods, and fast food restaurants on every block. But we also have many diet foods to chose from, something I rarely saw in Switzerland.
Every meal there included bread and butter and cheese and all the foods that we blame for making us obese. Yet the obese people I saw were the U.S. tourists.
As someone who has had to fight obesity most of my life, this experience gave me a lot to think about. What are your thoughts on the subject?
Peter
|
VYV8
Senior Member
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 02:06 am |
|
I think a big part of the problem is the way we view and use food when we grew up. For example, when I was a kid all our portions were tiny, and my mother wasn't a particularly good cook (don't tell her I said that). So when I left home and started cooking for myself, I always cooked heaps of food and gobbled it all down. Then got fat!
In Australia we have lots of overweight people (though not as many as the US does). Our culture here with regards to eating is one of cutting corners and eating whatever you feel like. There is also a culture of being proud of being able to eat heaps. I have noticed this lately when a family member asked if I had an eating disorder because at a large family dinner where we serve ourselves I selected mostly vegetables, some meat, and no bread - and the portion wasn't huge (but not tiny either).
When you are surrounded by people behaving in a certain way, you come to accept it as normal. This includes eating!
So what's the solution? I think to role model good living habits. Selecting healthy foods, eating moderately, exercising regularly and enjoying it all! That way others think "gee, maybe that person has got it together".
I have never been to Switzerland, but I suspect they have a culture of being outdoors (even when it's very cold), and of being active. Being active in cold weather can burn a LOT of energy!
I guess it comes down to the question: do you eat to live or live to eat?
|
jandtgee
New Member
| Joined: | 4 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 10:44 am |
|
I think all that has been said is true. But, I would add the idea of HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup). Almost everything in America is made with it. It is my understanding that the obesity epidemic did not start until this item started being added to the foods in America.
I would surmise that Switzerland does not have this problem. I know this is true in Africa, where I presently live. I dropped 40 pounds within just a few months of coming to Africa. I think it was for this reason. There are also a lot less processed foods here. The sugar is not refined. The flour is not as processed as it is in America. The preservatives are not there either. So, maybe it's a combination of all these things.
Just my two cents.
Jimmy
|
capsul38
New Member
| Joined: | 4 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 11:38 am |
|
I believe in the HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) philosophy that is in everything. Do the homework. Next time you go to the supermarket, check the ingredients. It takes me a long time to shop so as not to buy those items. They are out there, you just have to read the labels. Also PORTIONS, PORTIONS, PORTIONS, need I say more. They may be eating bread, cheese, etc. in Switzerland, frying things in oil in Venezuela, but they don't consumer such large portions. They eat small, frequent little meals. "French Women Don't Get Fat". Fun book! Check that out for portion size meals.
|
jillybean720
Senior Member
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 01:41 pm |
|
Wow, I definitely don't think you can blame HFCS. I try to avoid it when possible due to possible links to things like colon cancer, but I certainly don't blame it for my weight. Correlation studies can be VERY misleading. Yes, HFCS is in most of our foods and has had an increased appearance as we as Americans have grown larger. Likewise, video games, cell phones, and computers have all increased in popularity and use--shouldn't we blame them for obesity, too? Or the number of fast food restaurants? Or the popularity of Nike athletic gear? More Americans have gym memberships now than in the past--does that mean gym mebershps lead to obesity? A LOT of things have grown in amounts of use, consumption, and availability in the same time period as Americans have gotten larger, but that doesn't mean they are specifically to blame 
I wouldn't say I ever had a CHOICE in the matter of obesity. I've been obese my whole life. When I was 5, I certainly didn't think to myself, "hey, I'll have another cookie so I can be nice and obese when I grow up." 
To be continued...time to go to work.
|
jandtgee
New Member
| Joined: | 4 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 01:53 pm |
|
The next time I see someone eating a cellphone or a computer I'll consider it....but until then I think I will at least factor in the HFCS idea to the whole equation.
But, now that you mention it, does sitting in front of the computer (or TV, etc) and the increased usage thereof, have ANYTHING to with obesity? YES IT DOES!!
So, it all works together to make for a fatter America.
Again, just my two cents (that and another $5 will get you a super dooper cappacino espresso with all kinds of other high calorie stuff at the local Starbucks! Boy, things sure have changed from "My opinion plus 25 cents will get you a cup of coffee." Maybe we should blame Starbucks too!  ) (Sarcasm is really not my forte!)
Seriously, no matter what else is said, it all comes down to personal responsibility.
JG
|
Aquastar48
New Member
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 02:44 pm |
|
 
Hello all, no you are wrong about gaining weight because of the fructose corn syrup, if anything this ingredient will increase the burning of the product you are consuming. But only the product you are consuming, and here is the explaination if you want to do some reading. I am sorry for its length but I hope it helps.
Sugars increase your energy levels and increase blood pressure, increase the circulartory system, thus burning more quickly the carbs and the slow burning portions of the food we eat. Like you just ran around the block, although at times not enough to totally burn off the energy stored from the carbs we have consumed during our eating period.  Thus we remain sluggish. And we blame the one thing that would aid in the burning of the carbs we consume.
 The Product manufacturers have today taken steps to insure that their product does not promote obesity, and that there is enough energy producing ingredients to approperately burn the carbs consumed by the product, but there is no way to predict the other carbs consumed during the eating stage of the day by the individual. If you eat a proper diet that has the ingredients to burn the carbs consumed druing your eating period your extra product will have the ingredients to burn itself.  But this product may not aid in the reduction of weight gain or even the burning of the carbs consumed within the product because we are so sluggish from other carb consumption that it does not have the kick we need to burn anthing consumed. (Not enough kick in the butt to get us up off our adariars, to jog around the block to burn off the stored carbs eaten from other products.) Thus adding to our problems of increased bulk.   So what do we blame? The ingredient that we know nothing about and the one that helps us burn the extra carbs consumed.
 This also is a reason that we sleep for 8 to 12 hours per day so that our bodies will naturally go into a burning process that usually burn the extra carbs consumed during the day, a fasting period, without the interuption of food being injested.
 Some religious secs request their congragations to fast for a fort-night or a weekend to aid in the fasting process of burning extra carbs consumed in our diets. It is still not a bad practice regardless of our religious beliefs. When do we have the most energy?  When we are fasting or in Hunt mode of yesteryear when food was not just around the corner. We had to go out on a journey (hunt),  like walk, chase and catch our food, now we drive two blocks to the corner store before our bodies say it is hungry. 
When we eat all carbs and protien, for instance a sub sandwich or a hamburger, there are no fast burning ingredients within these meals, we feel sluggish and slow .
We drink our fruit juices, cokes with sugar, or other natural (juices, fresh fruit and berries, Fiber,and vegtables) to granulated sugars it helps us to be able to move our bodies to burn the carbs before they get stored.
Cakes and cookies and such things like these have high carbs and sugars, thus giving us energy to burn the extra carbs within the products plus, but at times our sugar levels are increased so that we run the risk of creating a condition of a desease called diabeties. These products are not necessary to sustain a good balanced diet but we enjoy our cake  too. Frutous is natural sugar, granulated sugar is a bleached product or ingredient it is also a crystal with stored water (try putting a cup of sugar over a warm element in a pot and watch it melt, syurp), the raw sugars are better for a diet in moderarion, or balance.
Moderation and the planned energy release, (exercise)  is most important to our good health, the small amount of natural sugar in the frutose in the measured amounts of the carbs in the product we consume, the manufacturers have been able to balance this ingredient to aid in the burning of THIS PRODUCT ALONE without going for a 2 km run after consuming the amount of carbs that we just enjoyed. Instead of feeling sluggish and slow, we feel like dancing. It is when we don't trust the balance of these highly researched and blanced products and eat hotdogs, hamburgers, (and don't get me wrong I like my hamburger) the amount of frutouse in products are not enough to get our metabolizm up to burn these carbs and we store, or get fat.
But when hear this news we think that we should go out and feed ourselves high sugar products to burn the foods we love, wrong again.  High sugar intake will unbalance our bodies again, and unless we calculate the carbs consumed and the energy needed to burn these carbs we risk an over dose of sugar thus causing another serious imbalance. We may only need two bites of a high energy chocolate bar to aid in the burning of these carbs, or a fruit juice, or a coke, not big gulp, gulped in 5 minutes flat! 
A proper proportionate intake of carbs, 4 oz of fruit juice per meal, your 5 servings of fruit and vegies per day, fiber, and exercise, we are away to the races to enjoy our lives in good health.
   I would like to know if in Switzerland, the visit if they consumed some high sugar products to counter the energy from the foods consumed, the atmostphere that makes a walk a jog, and a jog a marithon and or other products such as wine  (fruit juice gone bad and consintration form of 4 oz of fruit juices per meal), ect. Then you can understand the ability to consume such foods and not be "fat".
 Plan meals, within this balance and we all will feel better.
 I hope this helps.
Aquastar48 new to this forum, Thank-you
|
pj19
New Member
| Joined: | 28 March 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 03:14 pm |
|
From my experience I notice that Europeans in general are more active and eat better than Americans. I think alot of it has to do with how people present themselves there. Especially in Italy and France, everyone dresses up everywhere they go and are very concerned with the way they look. This includes not only what clothes they wear but also if they are in shape or not. I believe that htis culture makes it very hard to be overweight/obese in these contries. Compare this to the US, where people don't seem to care about their appearances as much. Just to let you know I have traveled to different parts of western europe many times in my lifetime, and I am a dual citizen (German/American).
|
leahredwine
New Member
| Joined: | 11 January 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 03:15 pm |
|
| Sugar from fruits and other natural sources....not sugar from HFCS. And video games, motorized scooters, cartoon networks 24/7, all of these things are making our culture so lazy and thus fat. What more do we have to do than eat, eat, eat. I know when I've got nothing at all to do, I want to munch, munch, munch. Choosing smart things to crunch, like carrots, celery and other smart munchies are key, in addition to portioning our sweet teeth. Attached Image (viewed 639 times):
|
squirrelygirl
New Member
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 03:53 pm |
|
| Peter has brought up a very good question. Do we CHOOSE to be obese? Well, I cant speak for everyone else in the US, but here's my story. I've always been an active person. As a child, I preferred playing outside to watching saturday morning cartoons. My Mom always cooked good, and we always had 3 hot meals a day, but from these meals, the majority was red meat and starches. I also think we have genetics to think about as well. My metabolism is so slow, where as my husband can eat 3 times as much as I do, and never gain an ounce, and he's less active than I am. I think it's a combination of things. Portions, not enough GREEN vegetables, genetics, and the lazy lifestyles that many Americans have slipped into. As for me, I am now on a 1500 calorie/30 fat gram daily diet. My job is sedentary, so after 5 pm, I'm pretty active whether it's cleaning the house, or working in the yard. I've tried to cut out most of the red meat I eat, fill my diet with green vegetables, and limit the starches.... and only watch TV when it's time for bed to unwind a little. Last edited on 4 October 2006 03:54 pm by squirrelygirl
|
devyshka
New Member
| Joined: | 4 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 04:58 pm |
|
Well, I think the amount of consumption and how they travel is a big factor. I lived in Russia for a little while and we ate sour cream (real sour cream) everyday and had some very unhealthy things. I asked my hostess why so many of them were thin and Americans were overweight. Her response - "You eat a lot of hamburgers." Hee-hee! I thought that was pretty funny. But what I noticed was that they walked EVERYWHERE and they ate in moderation. Sure, some of it was unhealthy, but it was in small quantities.
Also, I lot of their food did not have those "extra" preservatives and things in it that may cause our foods to become unhealthy. Also, we drank soup occasionally. Not the chunky, creamy style, but Mushroom soup (with a broth) and of course, borsch. When I was there, I walked everywhere, ate sour cream, (and drank plenty of vodka), but did not gain weight. The solution I think (and only my opinion) is go natural when eating, eat in moderation, walk or bike instead of drive, and drink plenty of VODKA. Just kidding. No need to drink the vodka.
Half Marathon in training!!!
|
Aquastar48
New Member
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 05:22 pm |
|
Hi again, nice to see all the responses. The statement that I responded to is the fact that Frutose makes you gain weight. This statement is untrue it may not be the healthiest choice but it does not cause a person to gain weight. The rest is choices, video games, cartoons, and the rest.
As of fiber, (raw munchies, can eat a bag of the goodies, love them to death) and the point is death, these should be also eaten in moderation, because they are fiber, for the most part undigestables, no energy. Fiber is eaten to process the carb, flour, and iky sticky starches, to many of these fiber goodies when you are not eating carbs, can upset the balance too. But are good choices for munchies if you are eating a good balanced diet and getting good exercise.
Thank you for your coments
Aquastar48
|
jillybean720
Senior Member
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 05:46 pm |
|
So, about this "choice" issue...like I said, I did not CHOOSE to be obese. When you're obese as a child, it is an effect of your lifestyle and upbringing, not your choice. However, I do have a choice now that I am old enough and mature enough to understand that the foods I eat and the activities I do (or don't do  ) have a direct correlation to my health, level of fitness, and weight. Of course, I'm starting off behind the 8 ball, so to speak, since I'm already obese from childhood and have had poor habits instilled all my life. Nonetheless, I do have a choice--I can choose to eat a piece of cake or a piece of fruit, watch a movie or go for a walk, add tons of butter and salt or look for healthier seasonings, go to the grocery store for fresh ingredients or hit the drive-through, etc. Are they all easy choices to make? Of course not--they don't always fit in with the lifestyle to which I've grown accustomed, and changing a lifestyle is a lot of work. However, I still have the choice to do that work, to change my lifestyle, to lose the weight, and to become a healthier person.
Oh, and on the HFCS--I agree that video games and computers definitely play a role in today's lack of physical activity, which contributes to our nation's obesity epidemic. I was just pointing out that you cannot blame any ONE thing (in this case, HFCS) because there are so many factors that come into play. I know plenty of people who have never been overweight and yet regularly consume foods with HFCS in them. As with anything else, moderation is key. Eating too much of ANYTHING (whether it contains HFCS or not) is what causes obesity.
What really angers me is when people try to place blame on the fast food industry, restaurants, snack manufacturers, etc. Just because that junk is available does not mean you HAVE to eat it. I think lawsuits against restaurants are outrageous--no one is forced to eat a particular food at any restaurant. I wish people would stop trying to place blame and start accepting some responibility for their own choices.
|
teri
New Member
| Joined: | 4 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 06:02 pm |
|
As a person who has struggled with her last 10kg for the past 5years, and finally made it; here is what my experiences taught me:
When we can train our minds to grasp the fact tha every meal is an opportunity to feed our "body and soul", than we are done! What I mean by this statement is:
- Always have a seat and allocate at least 10-15min minimum for a meal,
- Choose wisely (make sure we include the healthy food groups but also be keen in allowing ourselves to eat our favorites, in small quantities)
- Never eat to the feeling of "COMPLETE FULLNESS"
- Don't eat fruit and/or desert right after a meal. (These foods may constitute a mini meal on their own).
- If you relapse (which is inevitable, keep your perspective about the damage that may have been done - 7000 excess cal is required for a kg of fat deposition!!); and get hold of the matter, the next day - ie don't let a relapse be a collapse..
Now you may ask: "but how do you still explain the difference between the US citizen, and the Swiss. Personally, as an outsider, (from Turkey) who has made several visits to US, here is what I have observed:
In US there is such an abundance of food choices (making it hard to stick to a plan); everyone believes that "more and bigger" is a good bargain (not when it comes to food), the life pace is FAST (making it hard to "sit and enjoy"); people are so isolated from each other (making food a legal subtance to abuse when looking for comfort), evrything comes in giant portions (in supermarkets, you have buckets of icecream, popcorn, ...)(giving the feeling that it may be OK to consume such a quantity in 1 sitting).....
I am not savvy abouth the Swiss way, but I have been to other places in Europe. So, in short, I think "food" is a cultural thing. From the way it is prepared to the way it is consumed. And I humbly suggest that if US had a smaller, "delicatesse" way of preparing, packaging, marketing, and consuming their food; then maybe, there would have been less incidents of obesity.
But, I totally agree with the fact that at the end of the day, it is a personal responsibility; and how you view and present yourself has a lot to do with your personal food choices.
Of course, this is just a humble observation and conclusion of mine!!..
|
JR
New Member
| Joined: | 24 January 2006 |
| Location: | NY, USA |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 06:06 pm |
|
I firmly believe that unless you have certain dietary/medical problems, you can eat ANYTHING. The trick is ( and we ALL know this) is portion control.
|
Rosie Real
Member
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 06:13 pm |
|
I agree with Jandtee regarding HFCS. The article Aquastar48 posted is just the brainwashing the food companies want us to believe. Sure, it is not all HFCS fault that people are obese as sitting on the couch all day eating non-stop will certainly add on the pounds, but what about the person who is healthy and active?
If you do a search on the web for HFCS, you will find much controversy to the article Aquastar48 posted, such as the one below. If you don’t believe it, then just keep eating HFCS – it is your personal choice. I am only posting this as a warning that people ought to at least do a little research.
An overweight America may be fixated on fat and obsessed with carbs, but nutritionists say the real problem is much sweeter -- we're awash in sugar.
Not just any sugar, but high fructose corn syrup.
The country eats more sweetener made from corn than from sugarcane or beets, gulping it down in drinks as well as in frozen food and baked goods. Even ketchup is laced with it.
Almost all nutritionists finger high fructose corn syrup consumption as a major culprit in the nation's obesity crisis. The inexpensive sweetener flooded the American food supply in the early 1980s, just about the time the nation's obesity rate started its unprecedented climb.
The question is why did it make us so fat. Is it simply the Big Gulp syndrome -- that we're eating too many empty calories in ever-increasing portion sizes? Or does the fructose in all that corn syrup do something more insidious -- literally short-wire our metabolism and force us to gain weight?
The debate can divide a group of nutritional researchers almost as fast as whether the low-carb craze is fact or fad.
Loading high fructose corn syrup into increasingly larger portions of soda and processed food has packed more calories into us and more money into food processing companies, say nutritionists and food activists. But some health experts argue that the issue is bigger than mere calories. The theory goes like this: The body processes the fructose in high fructose corn syrup differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which in turn alters the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream……………..
Last edited on 4 October 2006 06:18 pm by Rosie Real
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 06:35 pm |
|
Aquastar48 wrote: you are wrong about gaining weight because of the fructose corn syrup, if anything this ingredient will increase the burning of the product you are consuming.
Your reasoning appears flawed! HFCS is a syrup. It is added to pruducts (drinks, for instance). If I had some, I could add it to any product and make it "part of the product I am consuming". So by your flawed reasoning, it should help to burn anything.
Why should a sugar, a carb, help me burn calories? Sure, it provides energy for my body, it raises my blood sugar level, but so do any carbs. Why should the consumption of HFCS or carbs in general increase energy use by the body (any more than the thermic effect, which on average is about 10% for carbs).
Do you perhaps wish to refer to any research or articles that back up your unusual point of view? Make sure that any internet links you paste are 'inactive', though.
|
zenobia
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 07:54 pm |
|
i'm with Nir on this one. i have also heard that HFCS turns off our ability to know when we are full, that is why a person can drink a whole litre or two of coke in one sitting.
and then, along the same lines as HFCS, what about trans fats? they are in almost every fast food product. that has also been considered a culprit of many problems (besides just weight) regarding health.
it is a choice, yes, but i think we are conditioned to view food in a particular way. and americans are rather lazy, they want everything NOW (convenience foods), and cheaply (think .99 cent value menu at wendy's). but, people need to decide that it is worth the extra time, money and effort to be healthy, if that is a priority to them.
and yes, aquastar, some refrences would be helpful. perhaps my views are incorrect; i would love to know if they are. but it does sound a bit like propoganda from the food and marketing industry...
Last edited on 4 October 2006 07:55 pm by zenobia
|
mjrjm31
New Member
| Joined: | 4 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 09:04 pm |
|
| I too have fought all my life with my weight. I was the biggest in my family. I put on weight and than before I had children, I took off 50 lbs using diet pills. After my children I put that weight back on and more. I was gestational diabetic with my second child and lost so much weight. But through constant eating and eating everything on my plate as well as my children's left overs, I gained 80 lbs. I got sick with an inflamed stomach and have lost almost 50. This news letter helps me to focus on the weight I have lost and trying to keep it off in a healthy manner. It was my own fault that I gained so much weight. I would eat. Than eat more because I was bored. I didn't exercise just sat on the couch or floor with the kids and ate more. When we went out, I wasn't aware of the portions the restaurants were feeding me. I would eat until the plate was empty. When my children finished, I ate what they didn't or shared it with my husband. Now I am portion controlling what I eat. If I do go out, I eat what looks like a healthy portion and take the rest home. I have 2-3 dinners left. This letter and forum, have helped me see the distruction I was doing to myself and now I am much more aware of what I do. Thanks so much for being here
|
ezmerelda
New Member
| Joined: | 4 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 09:27 pm |
|
I believe that obesity is definately avoidable. I exercise and watch what I eat because I choose not to be overweight. It is ineveitably up to each and every one of us to take charge of our lives. Whether the problem lies wiht food, alcohol or otherwise. Losing weight is not rocket science, it merely comes down to moving more and eating less. There is no miracle cure. I think that Americans are so used to having everything at their fingertips, that the thought of actually working towards something turns them off.
Thank You
|
Aquastar48
New Member
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 10:10 pm |
|
This is such a good conversation about this subject. I would still like to clear up my flawed opinion of the corn syrup thing, it does not burn everything. Mater of a fact if you consume as much corn syrup that would take to burn the other items we consume in a day we would have a problem. I did say in my article that it was not the Healthiest choice, and that it is not enough to burn everything we eat, just the product ingredients of the item that contains the syrup, sugar is syrup too. and that it does give us the illusion of safty so we consume more. And sugars burn more quickly than starches.
I merly stated that this is a sugar that the manufacturers put in place of the refined sugars because of the fear of sugar that has been in the things we eat today caused us not to consume these products. Now the fear of HFCS we either feel safe and consume to much or not at all again. People were so afraid of eating sugar, now with the replacements they consume twice as much because they are free from calories. And one twinkie with corn syurp will not kill you it is the 20 in one sitting, or the other subtances consumed with it in in one sitting.
And I say here here to the lady stateing her childhood conditions being a factor, and the struggle to change a lifestyle. My heart and support goes out to you in your endevours to make this change for yourself and your health.
Historically our bodies have been put through the ringer, and there are more people alive today, we ate less, we had to find our food, and most working positions were active, we went to dances and did many other extracricular activities.
So I don't feel that we should put corn syrup in every food we eat, but the little bit of the substance within the extras we eat weight gain should not be soley blamed on the products we choose to eat with HFCS, just the quantity and our other balanced diet that goes with it. I do believe that we have a responsibility to promote healthy eating in every venue we take.
Thanks everyone, and to all I hope you have an enjoyable Healthy course in your endevours.
Aquastar48
|
MustangToni
New Member
| Joined: | 4 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 10:24 pm |
|
As a Personal Trainer and an advocate for health, fitness and nutrition I have to say that my experience is that Americans suffer from the SAD (Standard American Diet) diet. This American way of eatng is killing us all and thwarting our best efforts to lose weight. I have seen clients who have cleaned up ther plates and have lost weight with out crazy fad diets or tons of wasted money on pills or supplements. If we could get back to nature's way of eating and get out of the box way of eating we would all do ourselves a world of good. The one true thing about fitness is it's hard work and it's the only thing that reaps more rewards than one can even imagine. Push hard, work hard and lift heavy or go home. All women should live by this saying! Enjoy your days!!!!!
Toni
|
LattesMom
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 10:29 pm |
|
First of all: Peter, congrats on getting to Switzerland--wondered where you have been and glad to know it was something fun!
Teri pretty much said what I feel about this subject but I'll add a couple things. First, the USA culture is very different in the amount of stress we heap on ourselves. Workers in Germany and other countries may get four to six weeks of vacation a year, where similar workers in the US get zero vacation. In Spain and France they might take a 2-3 hour lunch to our 15 min grab and go, eat at the desk mentality. The pace we expect of ourselves and our families is mind-blowing. For me personally stress has waylaid many a good intention when it comes to food and eating more healthfully.
Second, I did notice when I went in to a grocery when I was visiting Paris France that the package sizes, bottle sizes, etc. were MUCH smaller. So I do think we have a serious problem in the US with supersize portions.
I gained weight as a teenager when I started making my own money and could go places independently and could buy all the junk food I wanted and stopped backpacking with my family or in any other way being active physically. Before that my mother provided lots of veggies and other nutritious and delicious meals and I was very active. The availability of junk food was a problem, but I was also eating to salve my emotional wounds. So for me overeating initially was my choice--but I feel now that I have been doing it for 30 years there have been biological changes in my body that DRIVE me to want to overeat--especially if I am eating a lot of refined carbs. So I have to use my power of choice to eat in a way that actually assists me to stay on that path.
|
devyshka
New Member
| Joined: | 4 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
|
Posted: 4 October 2006 11:25 pm |
|
| Great observation, Teri. And I certainly agree. It's good to hear others view Americans when it comes to our dieting.
|
VYV8
Senior Member
|
Posted: 5 October 2006 02:07 am |
|
Zenobia raises a very interesting point: corn syrup turning off our ability to know when we are full. After some health issues a few years ago I had to learn a LOT about sugars and carbohydrates, and what they do to the body. One of the interesting things I have learnt, and notice regularly, is that refined sugars (and, to a lesser degree, carbs) stimulate the hunger reflex. This is why people eating sweet foods can just eat and eat and eat, whereas when you eat non-starchy vegatables you get full a lot sooner.
I would not be surprised if many food manufacturers add sweeteners to stimulate hunger in their market!
Also, when I was in the US on business earlier this year I noticed most foods you have there are a lot sweeter than the 'equivalent' Australian food. Especially breads - all your breads tasted very sweet to me. A sure indication off lots of added sweeteners.
You lot were a fun bunch to meet, though! Very friendly!
|
Rich10005
New Member
| Joined: | 4 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
|
Posted: 5 October 2006 04:12 am |
|
You are correct that many countries have diets with rich foods but are not obese, especially in Europe. When my family travel to Europe we notice the portions are smaller, but we still feel full after eating. Also Europeans do not gobble the food down but linger over good food. Americans tend to eat large portions quickly thereby taking in more calories than required for maintaining a healthy Body Mass Index (BMI).
Europeans traditionally do not eat large quantities of processed foods, which contain higher levels of fats, calories, sugars etc. If you want to lose weight then stay away from processed foods and control your portions. If you eat out do not feel you to consume everything especially in a diner. Take home the excess home for consuming another night.
European cities are smaller and walking around them keeps the weight off. On average a European will walk 7 miles in a day, while most Americans walk 4 at best. When I was in London on business for two weeks and had several beers per night at the pubs, but mmanaged to lose weight since I walked most of the city after work.
Because you must walk around and everyone knows you, Europeans are more concerned on how they appear, as opposed to Americans who stuff their fat behinds in stretch pants and a sweatshirt to waddle through a mall.
|
jababb
New Member
| Joined: | 5 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
|
Posted: 6 October 2006 06:27 am |
|
It's not that easy because weight gain/loss is a very complex process. The simplistic answer is: Calories IN minus Calories OUT equals weight gain/loss. HOWEVER (caps for emphasis, not shouting), establishing the calories in and out is not precise. Further, there are long term and short term effects, and, just to make the system a little more confusing, there are individual, e.g. genetic, factors that also have some major impacts.
Very basically, what you consume has to be less than what you expend, or you gain weight. Given some random averages and variances of consumption and expenditure, if you eat a certain amount of calories per day, and exercise regularly enough to establish a valid average amount each day, then you will either be gaining or losing weight based on the simplistic calories IN minus calories out = gain or loss. 3500 calories of change equal one pound of weight gain/loss. Genetics now kick in. If in your DNA, the priciples of Darwin have established that your metabolism will be lower than average, then you will gain more weight for the same amount of food and exercise than a person whom Darwin's principles (i.e. their family genes) have predisposed to high metabolism. Those with high metabolic rates gain less with the same amount of food and exercise as a person with a lower metabolic rate.
So, now we are about back to square one. Eat at least 10 calories per pound of body weight and exercise enough to exceed your caloric input, and you will lose weight. If you eat more that you need, you will gain weight.
As nature would have it, our body is governed by rates (changes). So, once we establish a heavier weight and a higher caloric input, the body continues to want to maintain that higher food input and weight. Ergo, the increase in weight due to excess food consumption creates a body chemistry that continues to want to eat more and gain more weight. This is good if you do not eat every day and famine is a looming possibility. This is not good if you eat every day and famine is non-existent. You have to break the cycle once you exceed a certain level of excess. Breaking the cycle mean you have to change your eating habits and exercise habits - no easy task without some sort of numeric references - e.g. calorie input (food) charts and calorie output (exercise) charts (or instrumentation such as a polar heart monitor which also counts calories burned).
So, why are the Swiss less obese? 1. Their culture and eating habits do not foster food, fat, and sedentary life style. 2. Assume that the average Swiss male weighs about 150 lb. He will need 1500 calories per day just to sit on the couch. If he walks five miles per day - both on the job and commuting- he will burn another 500 calories. Assuming that vegetables have a low impact on total calories, 2000 calories worth of bread and cheese can be a lot of food. Even if the vegetables and fruit add 200 calories to the diet, 1800 calories of bread and cheese is a lot. For example, 3 ounces of cheese per meal (almost half a block of cheese, since our cheese is generally packaged in 8 oz blocks) and 3 ounces of bread per meal (about 3 slices of our bread plus a lot of veggies would be a typical meal. Three of these meals a day, and, you still do not become obese. In summary, you could eat a block and a half of cheese plus a half a loaf of bread per day and not gain weight.
Contrast the above with the American lifestyle where the average caloric input is somewhat higher, and the exercise is somewhat less. If we kick in Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, Easter, Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day gorgings, voila, we have an obese society.
Jim Babb
|
Past Member
|
Posted: 9 October 2006 08:38 pm |
|
I believe there are a variety of reasons why you saw these differences, all of which are deeply seated in the American culture:
- The vast land resources combined with the relative wealth in this country has led to suburban sprawl, where everyone and everything is dependent on the automobile. Unless you live in the city, no one walks in this country as a means of transportation. It's very much the opposite in most of the rest of the world.
- In pursuit of better living, we have become a nation of two-income families, leaving little time for meal preparation. That, combined again, with the relative wealth in the country, has led to a prevalence of dining out and reliance on convenience foods.
- As our economy has shifted from a manufacturing-oriented one to a service-oriented one, jobs requiring physical activity have declined. Most of our jobs involve little or no activity.
While I am not a fan of government intervention, I am a fan of government-sponsored education. We made huge gains in smoking reductions in the last thirty years, primarily due to better education. If concerned citizens and the government and schools can apply this same energy to promoting fitness and healthy eating, we can make the same reductions in obesity!
|
LattesMom
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 9 October 2006 09:06 pm |
|
Here, here, Healthy Travel Network--I couldn't agree more!! I think societal pressure and mores really affect individual behavior!! I'd volunteer to be part of that education effort. I think this site does a great job as well!! Thanks Peter!
|
Heavenseventeen
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 9 October 2006 09:08 pm |
|
Yes and no.
No- I've been overweight since I was born.
Yes- we can all do something about it. For some people, they enjoy being big because men like it, etc.
|
Nurse31069
New Member
| Joined: | 9 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
|
Posted: 10 October 2006 01:32 am |
|
On a recent trip to NYC I noticed that no one was fat... why I asked? -- they say if you live in the city you dont own a car. You walk on a daily basis, you climb stairs, all in all they get more exercise then the rest of us. Fact - muscle burns calories! Americans (self included) are not active -- yet we consume more calories than our grandparents did when they were about to go out and plow the north forty with a pair of mules. most of our jobs require nothing of us in the way of burning up the calories we consume.. so we store them! -- Is obesity a choice -- as someone in the nursing field for 30 plus years -- yep it is ... eat the right foods, less often, exercise more and build muscle -- guess what happens? --- you lose weight! imagine that -- here is another great idea -- dont buy diet food, diet pills, or even magic diets -- it takes a long time to gain weight and lose the muscle mass to burn it -- so if you eat a balanced died, exercise, drink plenty of water -- and comit to the long haul you will lose weight and keep it off. look at the people around us -- seen nay fat construction guys lately? what about a fat olimpic swimmer, runner, skater? -- seen a fat trucker lately that loads his own rig? -- case in point
|
Rich10005
New Member
| Joined: | 4 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
|
Posted: 10 October 2006 08:28 pm |
|
No one stated it was easy but it is a choice.
Do I chow down at an "all you can eat Buffet" or do I make a healthy meal of normal portions that allow the body to burn the calories consummed. There is a choice!
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 October 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 11 October 2006 02:48 pm |
|
I'd have thought that obesity is not 'a choice', but a series of bad choices that eventually merge into a poor lifestyle.
Equally, choosing not to be obese is not a single action, but a number of adjustments to get things back on track without giving oneself the excuse that it's too difficult.
Gradual is good, so far as shedding body fat is concerned.
|
fruitloop
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 12 October 2006 01:20 am |
|
nevd wrote: I'd have thought that obesity is not 'a choice', but a series of bad choices that eventually merge into a poor lifestyle.
Equally, choosing not to be obese is not a single action, but a number of adjustments to get things back on track without giving oneself the excuse that it's too difficult.
Gradual is good, so far as shedding body fat is concerned.
|
MisterP
New Member
| Joined: | 21 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
|
Posted: 22 October 2006 01:51 am |
|
I would be very interested in finding out the basis on which jababb made the following statement about obesity: "As nature would have it, our body is governed by rates (changes). So, once we establish a heavier weight and a higher caloric input, the body continues to want to maintain that higher food input and weight. Ergo, the increase in weight due to excess food consumption creates a body chemistry that continues to want to eat more and gain more weight."
This statement amounts to an assertion that obesity is a fundamentally "autocatalytic" phenomenon -- that is, that it basically feeds on itself and creates the conditions for its perpetuation, and indeed for its amplification. The best-known example of such a destructive "autocatalytic" phenomenon would be certain extraordinarily addictive drugs: The drug itself creates an effect which amplifies your desire for more of that same drug et cetera et cetera. The layman's term for autocatalysis is the proverbial "vicious circle" -- or, if the autocatalytic process in question is positive and beneficial in character, the so-called "virtuous circle".
If it proved to be true, identifying obesity as a fundamentally "autocatayltic" condition would have radical implications -- to put it mildly -- for addressing the condition. Much of the "established wisdom" in the area of diet would be consigned to the ashcan. Describing obesity as a fundamentally autocatalytic, self-perpetuating phenomenon would mean -- among many other things -- that ascribing it to "bad eating habits" or "poor exercise habits" would be quite simply incorrect, just as it would be incorrect to ascribe heroin addiction to "poor drug-taking habits". In both cases the "poor...habits" would be seen in an entirely new light -- as no longer the cause of the problem but, rather, its effect. It goes without saying that this would represent a radical overturning of most of the "established wisdom" in the dietary area -- and would change the whole focus of the attack on obesity from "poor...habits" to whatever causes were ultimately found to underlie the autocatalytic process.
There is an interesting precedent for this in the recent past: Stomach ulcers. For decades it was the "established wisdom" to attribute stomach ulcers primarily to "stress". This turned out to be completely incorrect. The stress that was seen to be associated with ulcers turned out to be a result of stomach ulcers rather than their cause -- which, as it turned out, was in fact a theretofore-unnoticed bacterium. The two Australians who made this revolutionary discovery, which turned the entire world of stomach-ulcer treatment on its head, were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine last year.
Could something similar be the case with the "established wisdom" on obesity? One interesting "clue": In spite of the increasingly widespread and aggressive dissemination of the "established wisdom" on obesity over the past 30 or so years, the problem has grown much worse. This is frequently the first tip-off that there is something wrong with the "established wisdom" in question -- just as was also the case with the "established wisdom" on stomach ulcers. If the "established wisdom" is fundamentally accurate -- shouldn't its increasingly widespread and aggressive propagation be producing a decrease rather than a continuing (and indeed accelerating) increase in the scale and frequency of the problem it is addressing?
So I would be very interested in hearing what scientific facts -- if any -- jababb's assertion, quoted above, is based on.
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 October 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 22 October 2006 03:44 pm |
|
Phew... The things you learn on caloriesperhour.com! Now I can tell everyone in the pub about 'autocatalytic phenomena'.
That was an interesting post, MisterP, despite my joshing above. I wonder though at your expectations regarding the dissemination of 'established wisdom'. For instance, although the various governments' warnings against smoking grow ever more explicit, some groups are actually increasing their smoking. Young women in particular (in the UK) are bucking the general trend to quit.
Since young women (according to educationalists) are brighter than young men (if you measure their scholastic achievements, anyway), then why would they choose to treat their health and chances of longevity in this way?
I think it's because logic and human nature rarely choose the same path. It could be that the increase in obesity over the last 30 years has more to do with changes in our lifestyles (more leisure time, more TV, more computer games, less sport, more personal transport, more heavily processed food... the list is pretty long) than our inability to heed the established wisdom.
It's noticeable that, where the US leads, the UK follows. Since the invasion of fast food joints, Brits have become ever more 'roly-poly' and we now top the European league for obesity (at least no-one can say we're not best at something - let's hear it for the UK!).
Just my take on your very interesting post.
|
prettybird
New Member
| Joined: | 17 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 34 |
|
Posted: 22 October 2006 07:37 pm |
|
Part of the problem is that information about risks is not helpful in losing weight, quitting smoking, or getting off of drugs. I used to be a smoker. I knew it was bad for me. Friends told me it was bad for me and said I should quit. My thought in response was "screw you," I know it is bad. Telling me it is bad DOES NOT HELP.
So all the education in the world about how our extra pounds is bad for us probably doesn't help a whole lot because it does not help us eat less.
Instead, I think education and research should focus on motivation and habits. What helps people take the step to put down the cigarette, stop the drugs, or stop overeating? What helps them stay on track in developing new habits?
Habit is extraordinarily powerful. People risk death everyday due to the power of habit.
I am becoming more and more intrigued by an AA type model to help with impulse control disorders. Feel like eating? Call your sponsor. Go to meetings. Not necessarily a 12 step type program, but support from those who are in the same boat and even more importantly, help from those who have succeeded.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 22 October 2006 08:34 pm |
|
prettybird wrote: I am becoming more and more intrigued by an AA type model to help with impulse control disorders. Feel like eating? Call your sponsor. Go to meetings. Not necessarily a 12 step type program, but support from those who are in the same boat and even more importantly, help from those who have succeeded.
Overeaters Anonymous (OA) is a fellowship of men and women who meet worldwide to help solve their common problem of compulsive overeating. Patterned after the 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), OA addresses the physical, emotional and spiritual aspects of recovering from compulsive overeating.
|
jillybean720
Senior Member
|
Posted: 22 October 2006 08:34 pm |
|
prettybird wrote: I am becoming more and more intrigued by an AA type model to help with impulse control disorders. Feel like eating? Call your sponsor. Go to meetings. Not necessarily a 12 step type program, but support from those who are in the same boat and even more importantly, help from those who have succeeded. The problem with overeating as opposed to something like smoking or drugs or drinking is that we all have to eat every day. You don't have to smoke, get high, or drink to survive (although there may be times you feel that way!), but food is crucial. I can't just call my sponsor and say, "I'm hungry--convince me not to eat." I HAVE to eat, and the real challenge is figuring out exactly what and how much.
When someone is a recovering alcoholic, people don't say things like, "Oh, you can have just one drink--it won't hurt." But even though I'm morbidly obese, people constantly say things like, "Oh, you can have just one cookie," or, "oh, going out to dinner just this once won't hurt," or, "you don't get to eat this kind of food very often, so you just HAVE to splurge and get dessert."
While I do think group support and assistance from those who have been successful at losing weight are great, I don't think overeating can be treated quite the same as other addictions simply because our lifestyles and society don't put them in the same boat. I belonged to a weight loss group (TOPS). We had weekly meetings, and they were fabulously supportive. There were some women in the group who had lost HUGE amounts of weight, as well as some women who had reached their goals and maintained their healthy weight for literally years and years. Talk about excellent support and inspiration! And yet, here I am, still struggling just to stay below 300 pounds. I quit drinking because it was becoming a problem when I was in college. I wouldn't even consider going to a party unless there were going to be shots available. I gave up alcohol cold turkey and am now able to have just 1 drink socially and then call it quits. Calling it quits with food has been a thousand times more difficult for me because it is an everyday, multiple-times-a-day, struggle. I can't give up food cold turkey.
Not to be too argumentative--I mean, I agree that support from others is important, and that support from those who have been successful is extremely inspiring/motivating/helpful.
EDIT TO ADD: heh, I see we posted at the same time. My only issue with OA is that it has a very strong spiritual type of program. I am not even remotely religious, so I know a program that continually refers me to a "higher power" is certainly not going to work for everyone. Of course, nothing works for everyone, but it seems pretty clearcut who such a program might and might not work for.
Last edited on 22 October 2006 08:39 pm by jillybean720
|
prettybird
New Member
| Joined: | 17 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 34 |
|
Posted: 22 October 2006 08:40 pm |
|
I understand Jillybean. We do have to eat every day. That is part of the reason why losing weight is difficult. So, plan your meals. If you think you are going to eat outside the plan, call your sponsor. Or if you have a hard time making a plan, call your sponsor. Or if you want a second helping, call your sponsor. Or if someone offers you a cookie, call your sponsor.
Just a thought. 
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 22 October 2006 08:43 pm |
|
jillybean720, I'm not an expert in how OA works, but I have seen this issue (that compulsive over-eaters still have to eat) addressed. They point out that even recovering alcoholics still need to drink - not alcohol, but they still need liquid. OA leaves the definitions of compulsive-eating and abstinence from compulsive eating up to the individual. So if cookies are your trigger foods list but you don't seem to over-eat broccoli, then your plan-of-eating might require you to avoid cookies. I think it boils down to eating mainly healthy foods - or if eating just one unhealthy thing is triggering overeating behaviour, then even avoiding that 'first one'. Also, it might not be specific foods - it might be habits or situations [they suggest that eating something "just because it is free" is a problem for some - it is as if they've read my mind ]
EDIT TO ADD: yes the "God/Higher Power" thing is something for a hurdle for me. They say I can pick a HP of my choice and that some people chose to view OA or their group as the HP which helps them. Still, the concept of being helpless and asking for help takes a leap. As does the other OA assertion - that compulsive overeating is an ongoing never-ending condition. You may be in recovery but you should always watch out or else you'll be back to stuffing your face. You're never completely 'cured'. I'm not sure how I feel abot that either...
Last edited on 22 October 2006 08:53 pm by Nir
|
MisterP
New Member
| Joined: | 21 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
|
Posted: 22 October 2006 10:38 pm |
|
I'm going to run the risk of being accused of excessive self-importance by expanding a bit further on my little "essay" of October 21/06:51 PM -- as I do think that the topic deserves some serious discussion and analysis.
I began the "essay" in question by asking whether jababb had any scientific data on the basis of which he appeared to be asserting (in the three sentences I quoted) that the real problem behind chronic obesity was the "autocatalytic" (my term and not his) character of the condition itself -- that is, that the condition, once it comes into existence, triggers a "vicious circle" process that is aimed at not only keeping the condition in place but actually aggravating it. I used as a well-known example of this kind of autocatalytic process addiction to "serious" drugs such as heroin: The condition itself breeds a process or dynamic that is designed to keep the condition in place and, indeed, to aggravate it.
I inquired into the existence of any scientific data supporting the "autocatalytic hypothesis" in the area of obesity not because I disbelieved it but for the opposite reason -- because I am inclined to find considerable merit in that hypothesis and am hoping that someone, somewhere has been assembling some hard scientific data in support of it.
The revolutionary implications of the "autocatalytic hypothesis" for the "established wisdom" on diet and obesity cannot be overstated. The heart of the current "established wisdom" is that the chronically overweight or obese individual is personally responsible -- either because of his/her ignorance or because of his/her indiscipline or some combination of the two -- for their problem. This is what the constant harping upon "poor eating habits" and "poor exercise habits" reduces itself to -- that you, the overweight or obese individual, are personally responsible for your condition. So the overweight or obese individual now has yet another cross to bear -- not only is he/she physically unattractive and dangerously unhealthy, they are also manifesting either intellectual "inferiority" (i.e. ignorance of "good...habits") or moral inferiority (i.e. lack of the "discipline" required to maintain "good...habits") or some combination of the two. Talk about kicking someone when they're down!
This is not unlike what used to be the situation with stomach ulcers, before the "established wisdom" in that area was turned on its head by the two Australian Nobel Prize winners mentioned in my October 21 "essay". That "established wisdom" placed the primary blame for stomach ulcers on "stress" -- which was, in turn, blamed on the afflicted individual's supposed inability to take the steps required to change his/her supposedly-excessively-"A"-type personality and/or "stress"-inducing circumstances. As with the present "established wisdom" on obesity, in other words, the primary "blame" for the condition was placed on the victim.
The two Australians ultimately demonstrated that the "established wisdom" on stomach ulcers was complete and utter nonsense, and that the vast majority of stomach ulcers were simply caused by a theretofore-undiscovered bacterium. The perceived "stress" involved with stomach ulcers was simply a result of the ulcers and not their cause. This astounding discovery not only turned the world of stomach-ulcer treatment completely on its head -- it also, in one fell swoop, obliterated the notion that the victims of stomach ulcers were personally responsible for their condition. They were not "deficient" in any way whatsoever -- they had simply fallen victim to an infection.
The "autocatalytice hypothesis", in the obesity area, carries exactly the same "revolutionary" potential -- inasmuch as it attributes chronic obesity (or chronic overweightedness) not to "poor eating habits" or "poor exercise habits" but, rather, to the self-reinforcing, "autocatalytic" character of the condition itself. This does not mean that "poor...habits" are not present -- any more than our two Australian friends' "bacterium hypothesis" meant that "stress" was not present in the case of stomach ulcers. What it does mean, however, is that -- as turned out to be the case with stomach-ulcer-related "stress" -- the "poor...habits" associated with being obese or overweight were not the cause of the condition but one of its effects. And what it also means is that the victims of chronic obesity or chronic overweightedness -- as turned out to be the case with the victims of stomach ulcers -- are in fact not at all personally responsible for their condition and do not at all suffer from deficiencies of intellect (i.e. their alleged ignorance of "good...habits") or character (i.e. their alleged failure to implement "good...habits"). This would be a truly "revolutionary" development by any definition of that term.
Our two Australian friends' revolutionary discovery in the stomach-ulcers area was necessarily preconditioned on their decision to at least entertain the possibility that the "established wisdom" in that area was pretty much completely wrong. It is only by "liberating" themselves from that established wisdom that they were able to start their journey down the road that led to their Nobel-Prize-winning discovery of the theretofore unknown bacterium that causes most stomach ulcers. The same state of affairs obtains in the area of obesity today. The first step to discovering what may turn out to be the real cause of obesity would be the willingess to entertain the notion that the "established wisdom" on obesity is, quite simply, wrong. Interestingly, a recent New York Times Magazine Cover Story told the story of a group of very credible and serious researchers who were investigating the possibility that at least some forms of obesity were themselves caused by bacteria and other "microbes". The "autocatalytic hypothesis", of course, heads in an entirely different direction. But both hypotheses, different as they are from each other, share one common trait -- a willingness to at least entertain the possibility that the "establshed wisdom" on obesity is just plain wrong.
As the old saying has it -- "You have to start somewhere".
I am, in any event, very interested in hearing what information or comments others might have to offer on the "autocatalytic hypothesis" in the obesity area.
|
jillybean720
Senior Member
|
Posted: 22 October 2006 11:07 pm |
|
MisterP wrote: What it does mean, however, is that -- as turned out to be the case with stomach-ulcer-related "stress" -- the "poor...habits" associated with being obese or overweight were not the cause of the condition but one of its effects. But, I think the poor habits are both a cause AND an effect. You wouldn't have the effects of obesity until you became obese, so the poor habits have to CAUSE the obesity before any such effects can even occur.
Fat people are not stupid nor immoral for becoming fat. Some do not have the proper education, that is true--but that does not make them unintelligent, but rather simply unexposed. Poor eating and exercise habits are the result of societal changes (less active lifestyles combined with increasing amounts of junk food and chemical additives), not necessarily simply individual decisions. For example, I have been overweight since age 4. You cannot tell me that it was my choice to become overweight at such a young age. It was an effect of my society showing me that playing video games was cool and that eating at McDonald's was cool and that pizza was yummier than vegetables and so on. No matter what my mother fed me at home, absolutely horrible food choices were easily and readily available in my gradeschool cafeteria (pizza, breaded/fried chicken nuggets, french fries, hot dogs, cheeseburgers...).
I have read on several occasions that once you are overweight, your body's behavior actually changes. Fat tissue itself carries hormones (including estrogen) that can wreak havoc on the body. I have spoken directly with women whose excessive fat actually caused their reproductive systems to practically shut down. These women stopped menstruating until enough weight had been lost that they basically went through a second bout with puberty, acne and all. Fat is clearly a very powerful thing when stored excessively.
In addition, I have read on several occasions that dieting, even healthfully (losing at the widely-suggested rate of .5-2 pounds per week), slows your metabolism. 2 people the same age, height, and build--heck, we'll say they are identical twins so they have the same genetic makeup--who weigh the same amount may burn very different amounts of calories. That is, if one has never been overweight, s/he will burn more calories than the other who used to be overweight and had to lose many pounds to reach the same healthy weight as the never-overweight twin. Simply by burning fewer calories, the twin who used to be overweight is more susceptible to becoming overweight again, is s/he not? In this way, I do see obesity as an effect of the condition--it is why I have seen all too many times someone successfully lose 10 pounds only to turn around and gain 20
|
MisterP
New Member
| Joined: | 21 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
|
Posted: 23 October 2006 12:04 am |
|
I disagree that "poor habits have to CAUSE obesity" -- obesity can be caused by any number of "accidents of circumstances". Indeed, your own personal history illustrates the point -- you were put on the road to obesity before you were able to form any "habits" of your own. The same would be true if you had been stranded on an island for years after a shipwreck, where the only available food was "junk food" that the wrecked ship had been carrying in its hold. Or if you had been kidnapped and held hostage for a lengthy period of time, during which your kidnapper fed you only junk food. Et cetera et cetera. "Initial obesity" can come into existence simply by accident -- it doesn't require "bad habits" on the part of the victim.
I note, also, that the process described in the final paragraph of your comment (of today) is an essentially "autocatalytic" process. What you're saying, in effect, is that becoming overweight triggers a metabolic syndrome that both makes it very difficult to lose the excess weight and increases the likelihood that it will in any event be regained. If true, this would be a classic "autocatalytic process" -- that is, the condition of becoming overweight or obese triggers a process that greatly increases the likelihood that that condition will endure (or even become worse). This would have little or nothing to do with "poor eating habits" or "poor exercise habits" -- it's the condition itself which would have bred the process that ensures its continuaton.
|
MisterP
New Member
| Joined: | 21 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
|
Posted: 24 October 2006 06:29 pm |
|
This is my third contribution to the "Is Obesity a Choice?" topic in four days.
My discovery of caloriesperhour.com and this "Forum" happened to take place, by a most bizarre coincidence, over the same weekend that The Obesity Society (NAASO) was holding the 2006 edition of its six-day Annual Meeting in Boston. The Obesity Society is a professional body whose members are physicians and other scientists who specialize in the area of obesity. (Side Note: Based on the results they have -- or have not -- been able to achieve thus far, I would imagine that this must be a pretty depressed group at this point!)
In any event, yesterday's Boston Globe included a front-page story on the Obesity Society's meeting and on an apparently growing trend in the direction of using "cocktails" of drugs -- many of them not originally designed to address obesity -- to address the problem of obesity. But the article included what I thought was a fascinating quote from a Dr. Kishore Gadde, who is described as a "Duke University obesity researcher".
Dr. Gadde was quoted as stating the following: "Once you have lost about ten percent [of your former weight], the brain panics and it resets itself. Whether a normal-weight person is losing weight or an overweight person is losing weight, the brain responds the same: It is sensing you are in trouble."
This is precisely what I am talking about when I hypothesize that obesity might well be an "autocatalytic phenomenon" -- that is, that the condition might breed its own automatic defenses against attempts to alleviate or eradicate it. Assuming that Dr. Gadde's description of the process is an accurate one, the automatic defense in this case takes the form of a false "You are in trouble" signal. When a normal-weight person loses more than 10% of his or her weight they are "in trouble" -- that is, they're beginning to starve. When a modern-day, overweight-by-more-than-10% or obese person loses more than 10% of their weight they are not "in trouble" at all -- but the body sends out that same weight-loss-stopping "You are in trouble" signal anyway.
In other words -- the body, if what Dr. Gadde is saying is true, has a built-in hostility to any more-than-trivial weight loss, regardless of whether the weight loss in question is (by modern standards) healthy or unhealthy. (One can only speculate that this undifferentiated hostility to weight loss is a by-product of human evolutionary history -- that is, for most members of the species over most of human history all weight loss could mean you were "in trouble" because of the ever-present threat of famine. Under those kinds of conditions obesity would actually be seen as a desirable "insurance policy" against starvation and all weight loss would be seen as representing potential "trouble".)
This "built-in hostility to weight loss", taking the form of false "You are in trouble" signals that in turn induce false "hunger pangs", is precisely what I am talking about when I refer to the possibility that obesity is a fundamentally "autocatalytic" phenomenon.
If it were determined that this "autocatalytic hypothesis" were correct, it would -- as I have previously noted -- turn the whole field of obesity treatment upside down. It would completely obliterate the notion that obesity is a product of "poor eating habits" and "poor exercise habits" -- and, with that, the related notion that chronically overweight or obese individuals are ultimately reponsible for their problem because they are either ignorant of "good...habits" or resistant to adopting them.
It would also have one extraordinarily dramatic "clinical" effect -- namely, to make obesity avoidance a centrally important duty and responsibility of all parents and (after they have grown up and assumed responsibility for their own health) all other adults. Obesity would come to be seen as similar in character to AIDS or other "chronic" diseases -- as a disease the best "cure" for which is to avoid getting it in the first place.
|
jillybean720
Senior Member
|
Posted: 24 October 2006 08:25 pm |
|
MisterP wrote: If it were determined that this "autocatalytic hypothesis" were correct, it would -- as I have previously noted -- turn the whole field of obesity treatment upside down. It would completely obliterate the notion that obesity is a product of "poor eating habits" and "poor exercise habits" -- and, with that, the related notion that chronically overweight or obese individuals are ultimately reponsible for their problem because they are either ignorant of "good...habits" or resistant to adopting them.
It would also have one extraordinarily dramatic "clinical" effect -- namely, to make obesity avoidance a centrally important duty and responsibility of all parents and (after they have grown up and assumed responsibility for their own health) all other adults. Obesity would come to be seen as similar in character to AIDS or other "chronic" diseases -- as a disease the best "cure" for which is to avoid getting it in the first place.
Alright, #1: Why do you have so many extra hard returns at the ends of your posts?
[This bugged me too, so I edited them out --Nir]
#2: How would the treatments change? To lose weight you have to cut calories. Regardless of how your body reacts, this is the only way to lose weight. Therefore, the same pills (to curb appetite or resist absorption of fat), surgeries (to minimize the capacity of the stomach, therefore limiting caloric intake capacity as well), and diets will be used/prescribed.
#3: Obesity avoidance is ALREADY important. This is why parents are petitioning to have healthier foods served in school cafeterias and vending machines of junk removed from schools. Some parents even obsess about weight (for themselves AND their children) to the point that it drives their children to develop eating disorders. Of COURSE the easiest way to avoid having to lose weight is to not gain too much in the first place, but fact of the matter is that unless our entire society changes, that's (sadly) not going to happen.
|
MisterP
New Member
| Joined: | 21 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
|
Posted: 25 October 2006 12:25 am |
|
This in response to jillybean720's 1:15 PM (today) comment.
I would be happy to answer your initial question if I knew what you meant by "hard returns at the end of your posts". If you can clarify that reference for me I'll answer whatever your question is on that particular subject.
If the "autocatalytic hypothesis" proved to be accurate the treatment of obesity would change dramatically. It is true, of course, that any treatment of obesity has as its ultimate goal the reduction of calorie intake -- that's an undeniable truism. But the specific methods adopted to achieve that ultimate goal would change dramatically if the "autocatalytic hypothesis" were proven to be correct.
At the present time the primary methodology for attacking obesity is to change the victim's supposedly "poor eating habits" and "poor exercise habits". If the "autocatalytic hypothesis" proved correct this methodology would be tossed into the ashcan -- just as the methodology of changing stomach-ulcer victims' "stress levels" was tossed into the ashcan following the discovery that stomach ulcers were caused not by "stress" but by a bacterium. Once it's established that the alleged cause of the problem -- "stress" in the case of stomach ulcers and "poor...habits" in the case of obesity -- is in fact not the cause of the problem, then all of the treatment methodologies based on that false cause are abandoned. This has been the case throughout the history of medicine -- when false explanations of this or that disease were proven to in fact be false, all of the therapeutic methodologies that were based on those false explanations were immediately abandoned.
In this particular case. taking the place of the discarded "changing poor eating and exercise habits" methodology would be a methodology or methodologies -- whether it or they be of a pharmaceutical or psychological or other character -- aimed at the "False Hunger Signal" ("You're in Trouble") syndrome. The heart of the obesity problem, under the "autocatalytic hypothesis" -- or at least under Gr. Gadde's version of the "autocatalytic hypothesis" (with which I'm inclined to agree) --, is the "False Hunger Signal"/"You're-in-Trouble Signal" mechanism. If that explanation for the obesity problem were accepted as the correct one, all of the therapeutic methodologies would be aimed squarely at countering or overriding that "False Hunger Signal"/"You're-in-Trouble Signal". As I hope is apparent, this would have absolutely nothing to do with "changing poor eating and exercise habits".
As to your third comment -- it is true that there has been, only in the past few years, a growing emphasis on the importance of avoiding childhood obesity (although I might add that the childhood-obesity problem itself has actually been growing much worse over that same time period). But that "growing emphasis" would metamorphose overnight into an avoid-childhood-obesity-at-all-costs urgency if the "autocatalytic hypothesis" were proven to be true. "Safe sex" had one level of importance when "unsafe sex" only meant running the risk of acquiring a curable venereal disease or an unwanted pregnancy. When "safe sex", post-AIDS, meant running the risk of death it acquired a dramatically higher level of importance. The same kind of metamorphosis would take place in the childhood-obesity area if the "autocatalytic hypothesis" were proven to be accurate.
|
jillybean720
Senior Member
|
Posted: 25 October 2006 01:08 pm |
|
In this particular case. taking the place of the discarded "changing poor eating and exercise habits" methodology would be a methodology or methodologies -- whether it or they be of a pharmaceutical or psychological or other character -- aimed at the "False Hunger Signal" ("You're in Trouble") syndrome. The heart of the obesity problem, under the "autocatalytic hypothesis" -- or at least under Gr. Gadde's version of the "autocatalytic hypothesis" (with which I'm inclined to agree) --, is the "False Hunger Signal"/"You're-in-Trouble Signal" mechanism. If that explanation for the obesity problem were accepted as the correct one, all of the therapeutic methodologies would be aimed squarely at countering or overriding that "False Hunger Signal"/"You're-in-Trouble Signal". As I hope is apparent, this would have absolutely nothing to do with "changing poor eating and exercise habits".
As to your third comment -- it is true that there has been, only in the past few years, a growing emphasis on the importance of avoiding childhood obesity (although I might add that the childhood-obesity problem itself has actually been growing much worse over that same time period). But that "growing emphasis" would metamorphose overnight into an avoid-childhood-obesity-at-all-costs urgency if the "autocatalytic hypothesis" were proven to be true. "Safe sex" had one level of importance when "unsafe sex" only meant running the risk of acquiring a curable venereal disease or an unwanted pregnancy. When "safe sex", post-AIDS, meant running the risk of death it acquired a dramatically higher level of importance. The same kind of metamorphosis would take place in the childhood-obesity area if the "autocatalytic hypothesis" were proven to be accurate. Hmm...personally, I completely disagree on both counts. Is appetite suppression, which is currently used, not a method of avoiding the "false hunger" sensation? If this autocatalytic hypothesis is proven true, will people be no longer told to diet and exercise? That's a bunch of bunk, to be quite frank. I believe that obesity does have autocatalytic aspect to it, but no so much so as to render diet and exercise ineffective. If it were a strong enough factor, then those who increase physical activity and reduce calories would not lose the weight, but they do. Of course dieting can make you feel hungry--you're literally starving your body enough so that it reverts to burning stored energy rather than merely the steady supply of incoming energy. I guess I just feel that whether the hypothesis (and I believe it is much more than a hypothesis at this point--either a theory or even a fact) is true/correct or not, there is no other way to treat obesity.
As for attempting to prevent childhood obesity, obesity itself can cause death--is that not enough motivation for prevention? I don't think the proving (or disproving) of any hypothesis/theory about obesity will change the course for obesity prevention. You seem to think this "autocatalytic hypothesis" would be such a major breakthrough, but the truth is, we learn more and more about obesity everyday, and each new proven fact does little to sway society's perception of fat.
|
Current time is 01:59 am | |
|
|
|
