On Dec 27, 7:56 am, Zebee Johnstone <zeb....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> [2] The whole obesity thing pisses me off. No, it isn't a sudden
> epidemic, height/weight haven't changed in the average in lots of years.
> The definitions of "obese" and "diabetic" have though. As have
> heights, so absolute weight has. Taller people are heavier. And the
> whole "must eat too much and exercise too little" is just bull. And
> has been shown to be bull time and time again. Since the 1960s. It
> is way way way more complex than that, and still not understood. But
> eating is a sin. The new masturbation.
Well you probably know far more than I do on the subject, but my
perception is you're incorrect - the rise in obesity (and by that I
mean people who are "seriously overweight" (1) ) being reported,
matches with my general observations. In other words when I went to
school I could have counted on one hand the number of kids out of a
thousand or so at my high school who had that "Michelin man" shape.
Last two times I drove past a high school (circa 12 months - I'm
usually at work) - I observed at least 10 or 12 kids with that shape.
Is that scientific or anything more than anecdote ? No absolutely not,
however I also observe a LOT (ie at least 10%, probably much more) of
adults with a similar shape both in the CBD and in country towns.
Neither of those observation sets matches with my memory / perception
of how many people were very overweight when I was a kid.
If the surveys/scientific studies say something different then fair
enough, but it seems to me there are both a lot more people who quite
overweight as well as proportionately more people who are very
underweight. It's just my observation, not scientifically measured or
calibrated ! Hammo would probably go to town on it, but I do think
there are more people overweight than there used to be.
Lastly on the "eat too much, exercise too little" when simplified to
that extent, yes it is "bull" but the broad intent of the statement
isn't.
If you eat more calories than you burn, you *will* increase in weight.
The converse is only true within certain parameters and time
measurements.
- Your body will burn muscle rather than fat, and rebound to a higher
total weight if you "crash diet" as your body is programmed
genetically to go into "famine" mode if you suddenly cut your intake.
- Somewhat self evident but some foods have very high calories while
not making you feel "full" hence including them in your diet in any
significant proportion makes it nigh on impossible to lose weight.
- The trigger mechanisms for feeling "full" after consuming food are
primarily based on 3 things:
1. time elapsed since starting consumption
2. Quantity of fat in the food.
3. Physical bulk of the food
It's still not clear whether you need to match all 3 or only 2of three
of these parameters (the research is still equivocal unless something
new has come out I've not seen)
- Long term weight loss for most people in western society (ie there's
an implicit assumption about dietary parameters in the following
statement) requires you to move your body out of a sugar processing
mode (that is a large proportion of calories coming from high GI carbs
and fats) into a mode where the bulk of calories are coming into the
blood stream in a slower release (low GI and proteins).High quantities
of pastas(2) and sugars in the diet causes the liver to produce
greater quantities of insulin and etc which has been linked to type 2
diabetes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905095319.htm
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/137/9/2121
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=79547-sugary-drinks-fr...-juice-
(Noting linked does not denote unequivocal proof)
- Corn syrup as found in many soft drinks has been linked to higher
levels of insulin resistance than other sweeteners (more commonly used
in the US than here).
http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructose.html
- There's a complex interplay between types of fat ingested, genetics,
types of sugars and carbs ingested, amount and type of exercise. A
quick google throws up some possibly wild theories here's one:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19225760.900
and a commentary:
http://nielsolson.us/archives/2006/05/ghrelin_leptin.php
- Measuring weight rather than a muscle mass / height index is also
misleading (although it's rather easier to step on a $40 pair of
scales than an expensive bit of fancy medical machinery. The old saw
about "metabolism" has some truth. A person with comparatively high
muscle to fat ratio will burn more calories while resting (ie not
doing work) than someone with a higher fat ratio. The other old saw
about muscle being heavier than fat is also true - hence many people
getting disappointed they're not losing weight when they start dieting
and exercising. Measuring your waist and hips is more useful than your
weight - the increase in muscle tone will translate to a slimmer
appearance and long term lower weight.
For the vast majority of people who want to lose weight, eating "whole
food " rather than processed food. Ditching anything that is pre-
prepared (because there's lots of hidden calories in just about
anything you'll buy) and eating raw or fresh vegetables combined with
a moderate amount of protein and only low GI carbs plus doing moderate
aerobic exercise (anaerobic exercise can be counter productive - this
is long enough already without going into that !) will allow most
people to lose weight.
A very small number of people ( 3) have the genetic odds stacked
against them, a lot more people than that however use genetics as an
excuse for poor exercise habits.
JL
(1) deliberately being imprecise, but by this I mean someone who has
that spherical shape that is *more* than "just a bit chubby" or
"carrying an extra couple of kilos".
(2) Noting not all pasta is high GI
(3) < 5% at a broad guess I don't know of a study that gives the
number however
>> Stay informed about: parents 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
