Study: Most Will Be Fat Over the Long Haul By ALEX DOMINGUEZ, Associated Press Writer
Mon Oct 3,11:09 PM ET
BALTIMORE - Just when we thought we couldn't get any fatter, a new study that followed Americans for three decades suggests that over the long haul, 9 out of 10 men and 7 out of 10 women will become overweight.
Even if you are one of the lucky few who made it to middle age without getting fat, don't congratulate yourself — keep watching that waistline.
Half of the men and women in the study who had made it well into adulthood without a weight problem ultimately became overweight. A third of those women and a quarter of the men became obese.
"You cannot become complacent, because you are at risk of becoming overweight," said Ramachandran Vasan, an associate professor of medicine at Boston University and the study's lead author.
He and other researchers studied data gathered from 4,000 white adults over 30 years. Participants were between the ages of 30 and 59 at the start, and were examined every four years. By the end of the study, more than 1 in 3 had become obese.
The study defined obesity as a body mass index, which is a commonly used height and weight comparison, of more than 30.
The findings, published Tuesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, show obesity may be a greater problem than indicated by studies that look at a cross-section of the population at one point in time. Those so-called "snapshots" of obesity have found about 6 in 10 are overweight and about 1 in 3 are obese, Vasan said.
The findings also re-emphasize that people must continually watch their weight, Vasan said.
The research subjects were the children of participants in the long-running and often-cited Framingham Heart Study, which has been following the health of generations of Massachusetts residents.
Dr. Elizabeth G. Nabel, director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, which supported the study, said the findings show "we could have an even more serious degree of overweight and obesity over the next few decades."
Susan Bartlett, an assistant professor of medicine and an obesity researcher at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, said the study was one of the first to look at the risk of becoming overweight.
"The results are pretty sobering, really," said Bartlett, who was not involved in the research.
While the health risks of being obese are much more severe than being overweight, those who are overweight are much more likely to go on to become obese, Bartlett said.
The study shows Americans live in an "environment in which it's hard not to become overweight or obese. Unless people actively work against that, that's what's most likely to happen to them."
Obesity raises the risk of heart disease, some cancers, diabetes and arthritis, and being overweight raises blood pressure and cholesterol, which in turn can raise the risk of heart disease.
The number of deaths linked to obesity has been heavily debated. Earlier this year the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said obesity caused only about 25,814 deaths annually in the United States — far fewer than the 365,000 deaths the agency had earlier reported. Other scientists have disagreed with the revised conclusion, while organizations representing the food and restaurant industry think weight-related ills have been overstated.
As for the Framingham study, Mark Vander Weg, a Mayo Clinic psychologist who researches obesity but was not involved in the study, said it is one of a few to track a group of individuals over an extended period.
"What's particularly concerning is that these results actually may underestimate the risk of becoming overweight or obese among the general population" because minorities, who are at increased risk for obesity, were not included in the study, Vander Weg said.
Recent trends also suggest that people currently coming into middle age may be even more likely to become overweight or obese than those who were studied, Vander Weg said.
While more studies that include more diverse populations are needed, he said, the results "add to a growing body of evidence that makes it increasingly apparent that more effective prevention and treatment strategies are urgently needed."
Interesting article on Yahoo! news this morning
Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating
-
Jammin' Jan
- Posts: 2002
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 2:55 pm
- Location: The Village
Not to wax philosophical or political, but this study confirms my suspicion that we, as a culture, are sick. I mean, if it is STANDARD for the vast majority of people to become overweight.... doesn't this suggest that some serious fundamental changes are in order?
The way we organize or lives, and our modes of food distribution, where food is distributed based not upon nutritional content but upon how it can be profitted upon, produces an unhealthy population.
And people wonder why I sympathize with the anarchists and am against capitalism...
The way we organize or lives, and our modes of food distribution, where food is distributed based not upon nutritional content but upon how it can be profitted upon, produces an unhealthy population.
And people wonder why I sympathize with the anarchists and am against capitalism...
JWL[.|@]Freakwitch[.]net
-
ClickBeetle
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:28 pm
- Location: North Carolina, USA
Yes, and the corporations that make money selling unhealthy foods and unhealthy foodways would like very much for us to believe that it is all a problem of "individual responsibility."
Individual responsibility does play a role, but when 70% or more of the population has a problem, the statistics are telling us that we have a societal problem, not merely an individual one, and we should be looking at societal ways to address it.
Individual responsibility does play a role, but when 70% or more of the population has a problem, the statistics are telling us that we have a societal problem, not merely an individual one, and we should be looking at societal ways to address it.
Chance favors the prepared. - Louis Pasteur
I'm not sure I buy the whole notion that the companies are responsible. Really, corporate offerings are just a reflection of society - there are tons of fast food restaurants becuase we want, well, fast food. We don't want to have to take the time to make our own meals all the time. Fad diet companies spring up because we want a quick fix instead of the "boring" notion of exercise and eating right. And of course, there are gas stations on every corner becuase we drive everwhere.
Really, I think the issue is both individually and as a culture, we don't have our priorities straight. We like to think we are taking care of ourselves, but we don't make it a priority. We put pretty much everything above it... our job, our family, our convenience, our finances, just about everything. We don't make eating right and exercising centerpieces in our lives, we merely try to work them into the lives we already have.
Now *why* we do this boggles me. It boggles me all the more becuase I do it myself so many times... I have no good reason for having eaten fast-food for dinner tonight instead of makign something tasty and/or healthful. Could be that prosperity has a role... we eat too much just becuase we can.
Just my two cents.
Really, I think the issue is both individually and as a culture, we don't have our priorities straight. We like to think we are taking care of ourselves, but we don't make it a priority. We put pretty much everything above it... our job, our family, our convenience, our finances, just about everything. We don't make eating right and exercising centerpieces in our lives, we merely try to work them into the lives we already have.
Now *why* we do this boggles me. It boggles me all the more becuase I do it myself so many times... I have no good reason for having eaten fast-food for dinner tonight instead of makign something tasty and/or healthful. Could be that prosperity has a role... we eat too much just becuase we can.
Just my two cents.
Before criticizing someone, you should try walking a mile in their shoes. Then you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
You know Nav, I'm with you. I think we are each responsible for what we put in our mouths. I'm sure there are just as many up and coming "Whole Grain, Healthy, etc" products in development. Doesn't MacDonalds own Chipoltle? They serve free-range pork and chix! So the corporations, while they are always trying to make a buck, are just giving us what we want.
Regarding our lifestyles, I think that because our society is so convenience oriented we don't move around enough. Did anyone watch "Frontier House" on PBS a few years ago? Well, one of the families brought a physician in to check on the dad because he was getting so thin. It turns out that since he was splitting logs and building cabins and "shove gloving" for 10 hours a day he had got to what was his ideal weight. No love handles. Nothing. Of course, they were eating mostly grain products and had little or no meat at that point. Remember that only 100 years ago plumpness was a status symbol. Isn't a paradox that Western society now tauts underweight celebrities as the ideal? I find it annoying, yet fascinating.
So yes, by doing this No S lifestyle we are taking care of ourselves. We are reprogramming ourselves to something called Moderation. What a concept!!! D.
Regarding our lifestyles, I think that because our society is so convenience oriented we don't move around enough. Did anyone watch "Frontier House" on PBS a few years ago? Well, one of the families brought a physician in to check on the dad because he was getting so thin. It turns out that since he was splitting logs and building cabins and "shove gloving" for 10 hours a day he had got to what was his ideal weight. No love handles. Nothing. Of course, they were eating mostly grain products and had little or no meat at that point. Remember that only 100 years ago plumpness was a status symbol. Isn't a paradox that Western society now tauts underweight celebrities as the ideal? I find it annoying, yet fascinating.
So yes, by doing this No S lifestyle we are taking care of ourselves. We are reprogramming ourselves to something called Moderation. What a concept!!! D.
-
spiralstares
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:55 pm
-
gratefuldeb67
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
- Location: Great Neck, NY
Great taste, more filling
I think the reason most of us like fast food is because it satisfies a physical need - it's a a feast.
It's just that for almost all of human history a bonanza like you can get for $3.50 at McDonalds - three times a day - was all but unattainable.
We really do, for the most part, have it to easy. Even our poor are fat. But, that's way better than our poor dying without their basic 700 calories a day.
Frankly, I like the free market a lot. I can't really think of a better practical way to run a society.
It's just that for almost all of human history a bonanza like you can get for $3.50 at McDonalds - three times a day - was all but unattainable.
We really do, for the most part, have it to easy. Even our poor are fat. But, that's way better than our poor dying without their basic 700 calories a day.
Frankly, I like the free market a lot. I can't really think of a better practical way to run a society.
Kevin
1/13/2011-189# :: 4/21/2011-177# :: Goal-165#
"Respecting the 4th S: sometimes."
1/13/2011-189# :: 4/21/2011-177# :: Goal-165#
"Respecting the 4th S: sometimes."
In my brief rant above I didn't mean that individuals aren't responsible for their own lives and choices. But I don't see it as a black and white causal relationship... as they say in any statistics class, "correlation does not imply causation...."
I don't really believe in simple causation. To me, it makes much more sense to think in terms of physical reality: everything is interconnected on some level and exerts influence over everything else. In this existential soup, simple causation is a bit harder to pin down.
But as ClickBeetle says, these statistics indicate a problem that is more societal than individual.
We are surrounded by fast food restaurants and food-with-chemicals-in-bags and poison sugar water virtually everywhere it is possible to buy anything at all. And, we are inundated with media that repeats the mantra that we can enjoy a good meal if we buy this cr@p, we can lose weight if we buy this chemical or exercise gadget, etc etc etc.
The fact that such yummy poison and programming telling us to buy it are both ubiquitous clearly has an effect upon society.
I don't really believe in simple causation. To me, it makes much more sense to think in terms of physical reality: everything is interconnected on some level and exerts influence over everything else. In this existential soup, simple causation is a bit harder to pin down.
But as ClickBeetle says, these statistics indicate a problem that is more societal than individual.
We are surrounded by fast food restaurants and food-with-chemicals-in-bags and poison sugar water virtually everywhere it is possible to buy anything at all. And, we are inundated with media that repeats the mantra that we can enjoy a good meal if we buy this cr@p, we can lose weight if we buy this chemical or exercise gadget, etc etc etc.
The fact that such yummy poison and programming telling us to buy it are both ubiquitous clearly has an effect upon society.
JWL[.|@]Freakwitch[.]net
You can't fault capitalism for giving the consumer exactly what they want. You can call it an individual problem or a societal problem or whatever else you want to, but unless you think communisim is a better alternative (and big brother enforcing what we can and cannot eat, - or rather what we are rationed to eat - would be precisely that), all that is happening is that corporations are providing us with exactly what we are asking for (as stated very nicely by Navin).
Keep in mind folks, this overwhelming abundance of high-calorie foods being made available to the public at large across all income levels is a relatively new concept, relatively speaking. We've followed up millions of years of survival and evolution with a society where suddenly everything that our ancestors would have had to work so hard to achieve can be provided to us instantly. You can bet your life that as recently as 1 hundred years ago (and in many places this is still true today) that people would have killed to get their hands on the high calorie foods we make readily available in our country today... and they would have needed these calories too!
Our society consists of creatures who have millions of years of evolution and instinct behind them telling their bodies that they NEED to eat, and to get as many calories as possible because they NEED it for their physical lives... what we have not evolved into yet, or made our genetics aware of, is that it is only very, VERY recently in the timeline of humanity this need for such quantities of high calorie foods is no longer present. So you can fault America, or you can fault other modern societies, but the real problem here is buried within ourselves and our overwhelming desire for food.
I suppose I might as well make a comment about the "image" that modern society portrays as "healthy" and "attractive"... In the past, in cultures where being overweight was a status symbol, this was true because it would take a wealthy person to be able to acheive that girth because everyone else was either too poor or too overworked to ever find the time of inactivity or the money necessary to allow their bodies to store so much extra fat. In our modern society, with all of the high calorie foods being presented to us at such a low cost it is no longer a challenge to get fat (as many of us have become painfully aware), but the challenge is instead to do the exact opposite and to find ways to be thin and "healthy" looking. Societies will always put those up on a pedestal that are able to "achieve" (because it is precisely these achievers that define almost everything in and about our societies), and in our current era it is those people who have achieved a physical form that is difficult to acquire with our over-abundance of food and those with great monetary wealth (and the two groups very often will go hand in hand, if not be one in the same).
Just my two cents, so take it for what it is worth... but my suggestion is to not get too wrapped up in blaming the government or big corporations for this problem and take a closer look at ourselves and what we are made of, and who it was that made us this way.
Keep in mind folks, this overwhelming abundance of high-calorie foods being made available to the public at large across all income levels is a relatively new concept, relatively speaking. We've followed up millions of years of survival and evolution with a society where suddenly everything that our ancestors would have had to work so hard to achieve can be provided to us instantly. You can bet your life that as recently as 1 hundred years ago (and in many places this is still true today) that people would have killed to get their hands on the high calorie foods we make readily available in our country today... and they would have needed these calories too!
Our society consists of creatures who have millions of years of evolution and instinct behind them telling their bodies that they NEED to eat, and to get as many calories as possible because they NEED it for their physical lives... what we have not evolved into yet, or made our genetics aware of, is that it is only very, VERY recently in the timeline of humanity this need for such quantities of high calorie foods is no longer present. So you can fault America, or you can fault other modern societies, but the real problem here is buried within ourselves and our overwhelming desire for food.
I suppose I might as well make a comment about the "image" that modern society portrays as "healthy" and "attractive"... In the past, in cultures where being overweight was a status symbol, this was true because it would take a wealthy person to be able to acheive that girth because everyone else was either too poor or too overworked to ever find the time of inactivity or the money necessary to allow their bodies to store so much extra fat. In our modern society, with all of the high calorie foods being presented to us at such a low cost it is no longer a challenge to get fat (as many of us have become painfully aware), but the challenge is instead to do the exact opposite and to find ways to be thin and "healthy" looking. Societies will always put those up on a pedestal that are able to "achieve" (because it is precisely these achievers that define almost everything in and about our societies), and in our current era it is those people who have achieved a physical form that is difficult to acquire with our over-abundance of food and those with great monetary wealth (and the two groups very often will go hand in hand, if not be one in the same).
Just my two cents, so take it for what it is worth... but my suggestion is to not get too wrapped up in blaming the government or big corporations for this problem and take a closer look at ourselves and what we are made of, and who it was that made us this way.
Azathoth, I appreciate your points, but I must remind you that the point of my post isn't about blaming anyone or anything. As I tried to explain above, I don't really believe in simple causation.
You do a good job of echoing US/capitalist propaganda that has been circulating for a century. Most people, like you, seem to believe that there are only two kinds of economies, "capitalist" and "communist." This just isn't so, apart from the fact that there are many different kinds of both capitalism and communism.
For example, from the end of world war 2 up until about 1973, the US economy was primarily Keynesian capitalism. Since the mid-70s, we've shifted over to a system based more on neoliberalism, hence the globalization phenomenon. And while I'll never be a fan of capitalism in general, I'd definitely prefer a Keynesian system over a neoliberal one; it's no accident that the buying power of the American working class peaked in 1973 and has gone steadily downhill ever sense.
Anyway, this is a diet forum, not a political one, so I'll shift it back to diet and food and away from political economy.
When we base a food production and distribution system upon the will to profit, we are asking for trouble. I suggest the book Diet For A Small Planet, which provides an excellent discussion of this fact. In a world where millions of people starve, and millions more eat way too much, the problem is not one of inadequate food production, but rather of inequitable distribution.
And to bring it back into No-S, my main point is that when we are mired in a system where it is difficult enough for people to regularly make good "little choices" about food that 8 out of 10 people will eventually become overweight, there is a serious problem with that system.
And it's not even necessarily capitalism; this largely seems to be a US problem. France, for example, is a capitalist nation (one step closer to socialism that the US, though), and they don't have such troubles.
You do a good job of echoing US/capitalist propaganda that has been circulating for a century. Most people, like you, seem to believe that there are only two kinds of economies, "capitalist" and "communist." This just isn't so, apart from the fact that there are many different kinds of both capitalism and communism.
For example, from the end of world war 2 up until about 1973, the US economy was primarily Keynesian capitalism. Since the mid-70s, we've shifted over to a system based more on neoliberalism, hence the globalization phenomenon. And while I'll never be a fan of capitalism in general, I'd definitely prefer a Keynesian system over a neoliberal one; it's no accident that the buying power of the American working class peaked in 1973 and has gone steadily downhill ever sense.
Anyway, this is a diet forum, not a political one, so I'll shift it back to diet and food and away from political economy.
When we base a food production and distribution system upon the will to profit, we are asking for trouble. I suggest the book Diet For A Small Planet, which provides an excellent discussion of this fact. In a world where millions of people starve, and millions more eat way too much, the problem is not one of inadequate food production, but rather of inequitable distribution.
And to bring it back into No-S, my main point is that when we are mired in a system where it is difficult enough for people to regularly make good "little choices" about food that 8 out of 10 people will eventually become overweight, there is a serious problem with that system.
And it's not even necessarily capitalism; this largely seems to be a US problem. France, for example, is a capitalist nation (one step closer to socialism that the US, though), and they don't have such troubles.
JWL[.|@]Freakwitch[.]net
Just a quick, preemptive reminder to keep things civil.
This is an interesting thread, and it's been reasonably civil so far, just want to make sure it stays that way.
Jan, thanks for posting this disturbing stat. I was about to post it myself.
I'm slammed with work right now, but I'll comment later.
Reinhard
This is an interesting thread, and it's been reasonably civil so far, just want to make sure it stays that way.
Jan, thanks for posting this disturbing stat. I was about to post it myself.
I'm slammed with work right now, but I'll comment later.
Reinhard
Freakwitch (et. al.)-
I definitely agree with you that for this issue, there is no one definitive cause... there are probably hundreds.
But to clarify what I meant, I'll use an analogy from something I know well. Let's say you and a guy named Joe are software developers. You both work on a product, called FancyPants.
One day, a customer calls you with a complaint. You have two choices:
1. Investigate it yourself. You look through your program, and you find that, lo and be hold, it was a change you made last week that made FancyPants not so fancy. You fix it, customer is happy, you are happy.
Or maybe it was't your problem after all. You dig a little deeper and realize it was becuase of a change Joe made last week. You talk to Joe, he figures it out and fixes it. Or maybe Joe's out for the week, but you figure out how to fix it yourself. You're happy, customer is happy, and Joe ends up buying you lunch when he gets back.
Or it could even have been the fault of both you and Joe... maybe you misunderstood something and need to hash things out to make it right. Still, after that, you are happy, Joe is happy, and customer is happy.
Or.. 2. You figure it's probably Joe's problem, he's been making all kinds of crazy changes, he's young and striaght out of college, what have you. You immediately tell Joe about the problem.
Suppose it really is Joe's fault. Okay, you got lucky. Joe fixes it, everybody is happy. But suppose it was really your own fault after all. Joe digs into it, realizes it's your fault, tells you and your manager, and you still end up having to fix the problem. Joe is mad becuase you blamed him, you now have egg on your face, and the customer is mad becuase iit still isn't fixed yet.
Okay, trust me, there is a point to this. That is, in this case, it was better to be proactive and assume as a default that you might be to blame, so do whatever is in your power to fix it first before blaming somebody else. Even in the case that it really was Joe's fault, it doesn't really hurt you much (maybe a little time and effort) to check it out yourself first.
Such is the case with our personal health. We *could* blame all kinds of things... fast food places and convenience stores making it so easy to eat crap, our parents for giving us such a taste for deep-fried foods, our friends for always wanting to order appetizers, and so on and so on. But even still, your best bet is to take the bull by the horns (or maybe, take the free-range chicken by the feathers) and do what you can first. It's so much easier to try to change yourself than it is to try and change somebody else.
Of course, most of us here already know that. So as far as changing society... maybe some day in the future, a study will be done on us No-Sers that shows how we've become heathier over the years than the general population. Others will start to follow, the world will grow thinner, Reinhard will make millions on his book deal, and everybody's happy.
I definitely agree with you that for this issue, there is no one definitive cause... there are probably hundreds.
But to clarify what I meant, I'll use an analogy from something I know well. Let's say you and a guy named Joe are software developers. You both work on a product, called FancyPants.
One day, a customer calls you with a complaint. You have two choices:
1. Investigate it yourself. You look through your program, and you find that, lo and be hold, it was a change you made last week that made FancyPants not so fancy. You fix it, customer is happy, you are happy.
Or maybe it was't your problem after all. You dig a little deeper and realize it was becuase of a change Joe made last week. You talk to Joe, he figures it out and fixes it. Or maybe Joe's out for the week, but you figure out how to fix it yourself. You're happy, customer is happy, and Joe ends up buying you lunch when he gets back.
Or it could even have been the fault of both you and Joe... maybe you misunderstood something and need to hash things out to make it right. Still, after that, you are happy, Joe is happy, and customer is happy.
Or.. 2. You figure it's probably Joe's problem, he's been making all kinds of crazy changes, he's young and striaght out of college, what have you. You immediately tell Joe about the problem.
Suppose it really is Joe's fault. Okay, you got lucky. Joe fixes it, everybody is happy. But suppose it was really your own fault after all. Joe digs into it, realizes it's your fault, tells you and your manager, and you still end up having to fix the problem. Joe is mad becuase you blamed him, you now have egg on your face, and the customer is mad becuase iit still isn't fixed yet.
Okay, trust me, there is a point to this. That is, in this case, it was better to be proactive and assume as a default that you might be to blame, so do whatever is in your power to fix it first before blaming somebody else. Even in the case that it really was Joe's fault, it doesn't really hurt you much (maybe a little time and effort) to check it out yourself first.
Such is the case with our personal health. We *could* blame all kinds of things... fast food places and convenience stores making it so easy to eat crap, our parents for giving us such a taste for deep-fried foods, our friends for always wanting to order appetizers, and so on and so on. But even still, your best bet is to take the bull by the horns (or maybe, take the free-range chicken by the feathers) and do what you can first. It's so much easier to try to change yourself than it is to try and change somebody else.
Of course, most of us here already know that. So as far as changing society... maybe some day in the future, a study will be done on us No-Sers that shows how we've become heathier over the years than the general population. Others will start to follow, the world will grow thinner, Reinhard will make millions on his book deal, and everybody's happy.
Before criticizing someone, you should try walking a mile in their shoes. Then you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
-
gratefuldeb67
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
- Location: Great Neck, NY
-
snazzybabe
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:44 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
-
spiralstares
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:55 pm
I think it’s rather sweet the way we all take this somewhat innocuous study and interpret it so that whatever we perceive to be the problem is what’s to blame. Snazzybabe is very anti-carb, so predictably she sees this article as evidence that we eat too many carbs. Freakwitch rather amazingly was able to see this as an indictment against neo-liberalism of all things. You can kind of read into it however you want, I suppose.
Why are we, as a nation, overweight? It’s impossible to answer that question because there are too many factors of diet, society, genetics, environment, economics, and culture, that have to be factored into the equation and we don’t really know their relative importance. If you want to blame being fat on fast-food, that’s great, but you better be able to explain to me why the fattest nation in the world isn’t home to a single McDonald’s.
The more important question is why are you, as an individual, overweight? The likely answer is that you choose to eat too much. Ultimately it comes down to your individual choice.
But lets look at this study; what does it tell us? That people get fatter when they get older? Of course they do. They’re less active, and their metabolism slows down. This is hardly unique to any particular country. And what does “overweight” in this context actually mean. It means nothing. They can’t even point out any health-risks for being (by their definition) overweight. The only thing they can say is that overweight people are more likely to become obese. Well, no shit. You can’t become obese without first being overweight, so obviously overweight people are more likely to become obese than non-overweight people.
Fretting about these statistics that are based on BMI is a waste of your time, really, I can’t stress that enough.
I don’t know how tall Reinhard is, but if he’s anything less than 5’10” then he is by the government standards “overweight.”
Who else is overweight by the standards used in this study?
Matt Damon
George W. Bush
Denzel Washington
Brad Pitt
Who’s obese according to the government standards?
The Rock
Tom Cruise
Bruce Willis
In many cases, BMI is about as scientific a reflection of what is "overweight" as is Deb's "My Pants Fell Down" Club. In fact it's probably less so.
Why are we, as a nation, overweight? It’s impossible to answer that question because there are too many factors of diet, society, genetics, environment, economics, and culture, that have to be factored into the equation and we don’t really know their relative importance. If you want to blame being fat on fast-food, that’s great, but you better be able to explain to me why the fattest nation in the world isn’t home to a single McDonald’s.
The more important question is why are you, as an individual, overweight? The likely answer is that you choose to eat too much. Ultimately it comes down to your individual choice.
But lets look at this study; what does it tell us? That people get fatter when they get older? Of course they do. They’re less active, and their metabolism slows down. This is hardly unique to any particular country. And what does “overweight” in this context actually mean. It means nothing. They can’t even point out any health-risks for being (by their definition) overweight. The only thing they can say is that overweight people are more likely to become obese. Well, no shit. You can’t become obese without first being overweight, so obviously overweight people are more likely to become obese than non-overweight people.
Fretting about these statistics that are based on BMI is a waste of your time, really, I can’t stress that enough.
I don’t know how tall Reinhard is, but if he’s anything less than 5’10” then he is by the government standards “overweight.”
Who else is overweight by the standards used in this study?
Matt Damon
George W. Bush
Denzel Washington
Brad Pitt
Who’s obese according to the government standards?
The Rock
Tom Cruise
Bruce Willis
In many cases, BMI is about as scientific a reflection of what is "overweight" as is Deb's "My Pants Fell Down" Club. In fact it's probably less so.
Hi Gang.
This had been a really fun thread to read. Yes, I agree, that there is no single answer to the issue but I still contend that personal accountability is critical.
After all, no one held a gun to my head and forced me to eat cookies and M and M's!
D.
P.S. Spiral...you forgot our obese Governator Arnold
This had been a really fun thread to read. Yes, I agree, that there is no single answer to the issue but I still contend that personal accountability is critical.
After all, no one held a gun to my head and forced me to eat cookies and M and M's!
D.
P.S. Spiral...you forgot our obese Governator Arnold
-
gratefuldeb67
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
- Location: Great Neck, NY
Spiralstairs,
Lay off my special and excellent club!
There's no need to knock it, if that's what you're doing... Who really cares if it's a scientific indicator of anything, and I never meant it to be compared with anything else contrived, like BMI or some other dietary jazz..
It's a great feeling when you clothes start to fall off (ha ha) and, by the way, it's *our* club, not just mine... Many many people who have joined NoS, from this group, and the previous group on Yahoo, have had experiences when they realized they had dropped weight when their clothes all felt very loose.. And, when that happens, it's such a great feeling...
I feel sad that you seem to need to assess, and disect all of everyones comments like a frog in fourth grade science class..
Yes this is a discussion board, so I'm not trying to be censoring your right of free speech... But find some other club to knock..
That club is a testiment to the human Spirit!
LOL...
So, apologies in advance to Reinhard, for possibly opening up a can of worms, but I felt like saying something.. Now I feel better...
That's all I have to say.
Have a nice evening all...
Peace and Love,
Deb
Lay off my special and excellent club!
There's no need to knock it, if that's what you're doing... Who really cares if it's a scientific indicator of anything, and I never meant it to be compared with anything else contrived, like BMI or some other dietary jazz..
It's a great feeling when you clothes start to fall off (ha ha) and, by the way, it's *our* club, not just mine... Many many people who have joined NoS, from this group, and the previous group on Yahoo, have had experiences when they realized they had dropped weight when their clothes all felt very loose.. And, when that happens, it's such a great feeling...
I feel sad that you seem to need to assess, and disect all of everyones comments like a frog in fourth grade science class..
Yes this is a discussion board, so I'm not trying to be censoring your right of free speech... But find some other club to knock..
That club is a testiment to the human Spirit!
LOL...
So, apologies in advance to Reinhard, for possibly opening up a can of worms, but I felt like saying something.. Now I feel better...
That's all I have to say.
Have a nice evening all...
Peace and Love,
Deb
This thread reminds me of words, I believe, from the Talmud (Deb, you're the religious scholar here, help me out!), "We don't see things as they are, we see them as WE are." And that is so true in life, in eating plans, in everything. We wear our own special rose or otherwise colored glasses and make our own subjective assessments.
I know I have been heavy in the past because I ate too much and moved too little. Even with all the bad, fast food choices bombarding us today, never have there been so many diet foods and products available to counter them. So we're back to individual choice again. I was anorexic when there were no lo fat products....low calorie frozen dinners......but I found a way to eat next to nothing wishing there was such a thing as lo cal salad dressing. I'm dating myself here....but I think it's both harder and easier for me these days to maintain a decent weight and it's all based on my choices.
Peetie
I know I have been heavy in the past because I ate too much and moved too little. Even with all the bad, fast food choices bombarding us today, never have there been so many diet foods and products available to counter them. So we're back to individual choice again. I was anorexic when there were no lo fat products....low calorie frozen dinners......but I found a way to eat next to nothing wishing there was such a thing as lo cal salad dressing. I'm dating myself here....but I think it's both harder and easier for me these days to maintain a decent weight and it's all based on my choices.
Peetie
-
spiralstares
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:55 pm
-
ClickBeetle
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:28 pm
- Location: North Carolina, USA
There have been many interesting and astute comments here from different viewpoints. What an intelligent bunch of folks! I don't know, but it still seems to me that if a huge majority of people "fail" at the "personal responsibility" test, then something is also at work that's setting them up for failure.
And the "solution" to the problem is something more than simply "all these people ought to make better choices." Undoubtedly, people SHOULD make better choices. BUT they DON'T. WHAT IS CAUSING IT?
Things don't happen, choices aren't made for just one reason. A combination of factors typically causes things to happen ... especially when you're dealing with human behavior.
I'll take my own "personal choice" as an example.
I stopped in at McD's yesterday. I really didn't want to, but I did - Why? I was on the road, I needed something fast, I had no time to make a sandwich before I left, McD's was cheap and on the way.
The cheapness of the food, and the restaurant location where it was, were because of many, many factors, including a (recently anyway) abundant and cheap oil supply, massive subsidies to public road-building projects via state and federal funds, farm products that rely on federal subsidies to maintain certain prices in commodity markets, etc., etc. How many of these facts grew out of true-value pricing? How much of this was based on a free market?
We think we are a free market society, but we operate on massive hidden subsidies and credits that greatly influence consumer and seller choices.
I'm all for capitalism and free markets, but what we have is not capitalism, but rather a highly modified version thereof. If sustainable agriculture were subsidized to the degree that corporate oil-dependent factory farming is currently subsidized (i.e., heavily, with public dollars), we would have an entirely different pricing structure around food commodities, creating a very different set of consumer choices around food purchases ... by individuals exercising what they believe to be "free choice".
Undoubtedly individual choice is one big part of it, but so many other things do play a role.
And the "solution" to the problem is something more than simply "all these people ought to make better choices." Undoubtedly, people SHOULD make better choices. BUT they DON'T. WHAT IS CAUSING IT?
Things don't happen, choices aren't made for just one reason. A combination of factors typically causes things to happen ... especially when you're dealing with human behavior.
I'll take my own "personal choice" as an example.
I stopped in at McD's yesterday. I really didn't want to, but I did - Why? I was on the road, I needed something fast, I had no time to make a sandwich before I left, McD's was cheap and on the way.
The cheapness of the food, and the restaurant location where it was, were because of many, many factors, including a (recently anyway) abundant and cheap oil supply, massive subsidies to public road-building projects via state and federal funds, farm products that rely on federal subsidies to maintain certain prices in commodity markets, etc., etc. How many of these facts grew out of true-value pricing? How much of this was based on a free market?
We think we are a free market society, but we operate on massive hidden subsidies and credits that greatly influence consumer and seller choices.
I'm all for capitalism and free markets, but what we have is not capitalism, but rather a highly modified version thereof. If sustainable agriculture were subsidized to the degree that corporate oil-dependent factory farming is currently subsidized (i.e., heavily, with public dollars), we would have an entirely different pricing structure around food commodities, creating a very different set of consumer choices around food purchases ... by individuals exercising what they believe to be "free choice".
Undoubtedly individual choice is one big part of it, but so many other things do play a role.
Chance favors the prepared. - Louis Pasteur
-
spiralstares
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:55 pm
I don't want it to seem like I'm disagreeing with anybody's politics or viewpoints on anything here. I just like playing devil's advocate.
I think you can effectively argue about so many outside influences that contribute to making people fat. Capitalism makes you fat. Socialism makes you fat. Being rich makes you fat. Being poor makes you fat. Living in the city makes you fat. Living in the suburbs makes you fat.
Here's the truth: People tend towards fatness.
I don't think there's anyone here in the "personal responsibility" camp that discounts outside forces. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's an issue of empowerment. There are certainly outside influences that allow us to indulge in our natural tendency to put on weight, and we can scream entrapment all we want, but we're always free to make that final choice.
I have as much weight to lose as anyone here (119 pounds at the start, in the past three and a half months I've lost about 40 pounds so i've got about 80 to go), and I'd love to shift the blame to some other person or institution but it just doesn't do me any good. When I shift the blame I shift the pressure and I don't want to take the pressure off myself. I take full responsibilty for where I'm at now, and I'm going to take all the credit when I reach my goal.
(BTW, when I do reach my goal weight I'll be 187 pounds. At 6 feet tall that still puts me overweight by the government standards based on BMI. Oh well.)
I think you can effectively argue about so many outside influences that contribute to making people fat. Capitalism makes you fat. Socialism makes you fat. Being rich makes you fat. Being poor makes you fat. Living in the city makes you fat. Living in the suburbs makes you fat.
Here's the truth: People tend towards fatness.
I don't think there's anyone here in the "personal responsibility" camp that discounts outside forces. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's an issue of empowerment. There are certainly outside influences that allow us to indulge in our natural tendency to put on weight, and we can scream entrapment all we want, but we're always free to make that final choice.
I have as much weight to lose as anyone here (119 pounds at the start, in the past three and a half months I've lost about 40 pounds so i've got about 80 to go), and I'd love to shift the blame to some other person or institution but it just doesn't do me any good. When I shift the blame I shift the pressure and I don't want to take the pressure off myself. I take full responsibilty for where I'm at now, and I'm going to take all the credit when I reach my goal.
(BTW, when I do reach my goal weight I'll be 187 pounds. At 6 feet tall that still puts me overweight by the government standards based on BMI. Oh well.)
Clickbeetle, I think you are on to a key point: you are right, there are many intelligent people on this board. And we're all fat (well, most of us).
How many otherwise intelligent people are fat? Some of the smartest people I know are fat. And, it doesn't take rocket science to conclude that eating poorly and not exercising results in weight gain and other health problems.
So if we're so intelligent, why have we all, in effect, habitually chosen poor health? This doesn't sound like intelligence...
This is the key, from where I stand, in understanding this issue: there is some force(s) at work that result in intelligent people making unintelligent decisions about their health. And if the study here is correct, 8 out of 10 people fall into this category....
What up wit dat?
How many otherwise intelligent people are fat? Some of the smartest people I know are fat. And, it doesn't take rocket science to conclude that eating poorly and not exercising results in weight gain and other health problems.
So if we're so intelligent, why have we all, in effect, habitually chosen poor health? This doesn't sound like intelligence...
This is the key, from where I stand, in understanding this issue: there is some force(s) at work that result in intelligent people making unintelligent decisions about their health. And if the study here is correct, 8 out of 10 people fall into this category....
What up wit dat?
JWL[.|@]Freakwitch[.]net
-
gratefuldeb67
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
- Location: Great Neck, NY
Good luck Spiral, with your "underwear" club! LOL...
I'm glad you weren't knocking anything. Whew!
Just making sure.........
So now I'll let go of your lapels and we can just coexist here in NoS land peaceably! (Which is lucky for you since I'm only a train ride away by LIRR! LOL....)
So thanks... I think playing Devil's advocate can be fun, but just remember that most people here are looking for support, not necessarily evaluation... I guess it would be different if someone came out and "asked" for that...
Freakwitch,
I'm glad you weren't knocking anything. Whew!
Just making sure.........
So now I'll let go of your lapels and we can just coexist here in NoS land peaceably! (Which is lucky for you since I'm only a train ride away by LIRR! LOL....)
So thanks... I think playing Devil's advocate can be fun, but just remember that most people here are looking for support, not necessarily evaluation... I guess it would be different if someone came out and "asked" for that...
Freakwitch,
You are a cutie!What up wit dat?
And smart too!!!
I think there's actually a big correlation with people who tend towards "stomach/spleen" disharmonies who are "thinkers"....
According to TCM, overthinking and pensiveness (aka "worry") or any excessive "study" leads to this...
Actually, New York Health and Racquet Club's slogan, used to be
"Think Less, Feel Better"....
LOL..
I guess the people who are active and moving around are just not sitting around contemplating stuff....They are *doing* stuff!!!
LOL... I think if Rodin had a chance to do a more accurate portrayal of "The Thinker",,,
He'd have a little paunch around the middle! LOL...
Peetie!!! I didn't even get Bat Mitzvahed... So ask Reinhard about the Talmud... His father in law is a Rabbi! LOL...
Just keep eating prunes and all will be fine!!! LOL..I only have an hour limit on this darn library computer, I think, so I'll see you later! LOL...
Love,
I don't know what McDonalds is like outside of California, but out here, they have several choices that aren't half bad. They have a grilled chicken sandwhich and you can leave off anything you don't want on it, and several salads which are quite healthy with low fat Newman's Dressing. So, even at a place that specializes in clogging up your arteries, you can still make a personal choice for the greater good of your weight and health.
I promise I don't work for them.
Peetie
I promise I don't work for them.
Peetie
-
gratefuldeb67
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
- Location: Great Neck, NY
Good point, Deb. I think I'll stage a protest!
And while I'm here, I don't think intelligence has a thing to do with being thin.
Some of the biggest air heads on the planet are thin. It's absolutely a mixed bag of inside and outside influences, impulse control, too easy access. If you had to hunt down a Big Mac like man once had to hunt down a wild boar, it wouldn't be so easy to overindulge in such things. Sheesh...they even have drive up windows now so you don't need to "tax" your body by walking a few paces!
Peetie
And while I'm here, I don't think intelligence has a thing to do with being thin.
Some of the biggest air heads on the planet are thin. It's absolutely a mixed bag of inside and outside influences, impulse control, too easy access. If you had to hunt down a Big Mac like man once had to hunt down a wild boar, it wouldn't be so easy to overindulge in such things. Sheesh...they even have drive up windows now so you don't need to "tax" your body by walking a few paces!
Peetie
-
ClickBeetle
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:28 pm
- Location: North Carolina, USA
McDonald's and other fast food places put all those "better choices" on their menu after being threatened with lawsuits by public health interest groups. I don't necessarily agree that lawsuits were legitimate, but the threat of them had the effect of causing these corporations to put a healthier range of choices on the menu, which they weren't willing to do before, and that was a good thing.
As to an earlier point, I did not mean at all that people should "scream entrapment" or seek to lay the blame for their problems on everyone but themselves. That is a straw man, and does not reflect my position.
My position is that when a problem is widespread across society then we would be wise to look, in part, for societal solutions. When a problem has roots in many causes and influences we would do well to find out what those causes and influences are, and address them.
As to an earlier point, I did not mean at all that people should "scream entrapment" or seek to lay the blame for their problems on everyone but themselves. That is a straw man, and does not reflect my position.
My position is that when a problem is widespread across society then we would be wise to look, in part, for societal solutions. When a problem has roots in many causes and influences we would do well to find out what those causes and influences are, and address them.
Chance favors the prepared. - Louis Pasteur
I would like to echo two things spiralstares stated which I think are entirely relevant to this discussion:
I wanted very much to leave politics out of this post entirely, but I want to make one point about "capitalism" in general: Businesses in our modern world find success or failure based on their ability to provide a certain population of people with a product that they enjoy. If a business cannot satisfy its customers then it will utlimately fail, and the striking success of the fast food industry is a damn good indicator that people enjoy the product. If this were not the case, fast food would not exist. It is our priorities as consumers that allow markets like the fast food industry to so easily thrive because we simply demand a quick and cheap solution for our hunger with the actual quality or helpfulness of the food residing as a mere afterthought. It is our thought processes as consumers that needs to change on the whole, not just in certain circles, that will bring about an overall change. As this does not seem a likely alternative, I suggest to those of us in these smaller circles where our overall health is slightly more than just an afterthought to begin retraining our priorities and our decisions so that we can find the healthy solutions we are looking for in a society that on the whole does not want what we do.
This is essentially what I attempted to state in my earlier post. I did not mean to wage a pollitical war in these forums, they are hardly the correct place for such a discussion (not the least of reasons for this being that in a text-only forum of discussion it is very easy for the meaning of someones statements to be misunderstood, leading to hostility and close-mindedness). "People tend towards fatness"... this statement is so true and even with a very good biological and historical understanding of humanity this still seems to elude us somehow. We tend towards fatness because we are animals, and animals carry with them a lot of instinctual baggage that drives them towards certain behaviors. We eat because we need food to survive. We eat too much because it is too readily available and too poorly manufactured to provide us with the quantity and quality our physical makeup is genetically capable of handling at this phase of our evolution. Leading to the next quote...Here's the truth: People tend towards fatness.
There are absolutely outside factors that enable us to reach our unhealthy state of being overweight (and I'm not just referring to any arbitray definition of this). Certainly BMI is a stupid scale to base your overall health on... those of us that are "fat" and "out of shape" and "overweight" are fully aware of it, and we are also aware of (and probably rather irritated with) the abundance of poor choices made availble and so easy for us to take everyday to continue down our path to further weight gain and depression. But simply because such choices exist does not mean that we can place the blame on someone other than ourselves. If there were truly no other choices but fast food then I would agree with you, and I would blame the powers that be for not enabling other businesses to provide us with better alternatives... but we live in a modern world folks (anyone who is reading this forum anyway), and we do have other choices and we can spend our time complaining about the poor choices, or we can use our intelligence and willpower to make better choices instead.There are certainly outside influences that allow us to indulge in our natural tendency to put on weight, and we can scream entrapment all we want, but we're always free to make that final choice.
I wanted very much to leave politics out of this post entirely, but I want to make one point about "capitalism" in general: Businesses in our modern world find success or failure based on their ability to provide a certain population of people with a product that they enjoy. If a business cannot satisfy its customers then it will utlimately fail, and the striking success of the fast food industry is a damn good indicator that people enjoy the product. If this were not the case, fast food would not exist. It is our priorities as consumers that allow markets like the fast food industry to so easily thrive because we simply demand a quick and cheap solution for our hunger with the actual quality or helpfulness of the food residing as a mere afterthought. It is our thought processes as consumers that needs to change on the whole, not just in certain circles, that will bring about an overall change. As this does not seem a likely alternative, I suggest to those of us in these smaller circles where our overall health is slightly more than just an afterthought to begin retraining our priorities and our decisions so that we can find the healthy solutions we are looking for in a society that on the whole does not want what we do.
One more note about McDonald's before I become an inadvertent spokesperson, which is definitely not my goal in life! Years ago...before lawsuits and Supersize Me, McDonalds did have a couple healthy choices on their menu....one was a veggie burger and the other was a low fat burger, and sales were so flat on them, they dropped them from the menu. The same thing happened with Taco Bell.....they had a lite menu and dropped it because of poor sales.
I know way too much about fast food places.
Peetie
I know way too much about fast food places.
Peetie
-
ClickBeetle
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:28 pm
- Location: North Carolina, USA
A great point, Azathoth, I can heartily agree with that.retraining our priorities and our decisions so that we can find the healthy solutions we are looking for in a society that on the whole does not want what we do
It can be a time-consuming and sometimes more expensive or less convenient route that we are trying to take.
The difficulty is aggravated by subsidies to certain commodity markets and industries based on political favors, rather than a policy approach to what would be healthy for humans and their environment.
Just look at the protections given to the sugar industry. If this product weren't subsidized and trade-protected, and had to pay for the environmental destruction it wreaks in south Florida, sugar might be more expensive. Higher sugar prices would tend to influence consumer choices.
Instead, sugar is artificially cheaper than it would be if the industry had to internalize its costs, and that influences consumer choice (in that demand for sugar is some percentage higher because of its lower price than if its costs were internalized).
To make matters worse, because sugar is artifically more profitable (due to said protections & subsidies), the sugar industry can afford to hire lobbyists and influence the way that the USDA presents information (or not) about the health risks of sugar consumption -- making it harder for people to get full information, even when they're trying to be fully informed.
Pretty much everyone knows that "you shouldn't eat too much sugar" -- but we don't get the full picture of just how detrimental it can be from the agency in charge of nutritional data, because of the sugar lobby.
I always thought of sugar as sort of nutritionally valueless calories, but otherwise mostly harmless. But it took an awful lot of reading before I found out that it was probably linked to my high triglycerides. When I got a fuller picture, I reduced my consumption accordingly ...
Chance favors the prepared. - Louis Pasteur
This, from where I stand, is the single biggest myth about capitalism. Providing people with product they enjoy is NOT the prime determinant of success or failure in a capitalist venture. For a capitalist entity, the sine qua non, the one thing that determines success or failure, is whether or not the venture is profitable or not. If a capitalist entity is not profitable for long, it will not survive. Period. It's the first and only essential part of the equation.Azathoth wrote:I want to make one point about "capitalism" in general: Businesses in our modern world find success or failure based on their ability to provide a certain population of people with a product that they enjoy.
Every other concern is secondary to profit, every decision made is made with profitability in mind.
It just so happens that most of the time, supplying products or services that are popular will produce profitability. But there are exceptions to this generalization, and these exceptions are the very things that are so troublesome about capitalism.
JWL[.|@]Freakwitch[.]net
-
ClickBeetle
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:28 pm
- Location: North Carolina, USA
By the way, to everyone who has been posting, I just wanted to say thanks for the intellectual stimulation. I am enjoying the debate and hearing the different viewpoints is interesting.
I realize not everyone is "into" a spirited debate, and disagreement can make some people uncomfortable, but ... I like it.
I realize not everyone is "into" a spirited debate, and disagreement can make some people uncomfortable, but ... I like it.
Chance favors the prepared. - Louis Pasteur
(I'll note up front that much of this is entirely off topic, but in response to the political questions raised)
I'd also like to say I am going to bow out of this discussion at this point. I have no interest in turning this forum into a political battleground. I want everyone, particularly Freakwitch, to know that I value and respect all of your opinions because each and every one of us is entitled to have their own. Thank you for all for the stimulating discussion, I will be more than happy to take up the discussion elsewhere, but for now I will return to my focus of No-S, SG, and UR
You will be hard pressed to find good examples of profitable industries who manage to make money without providing their customer base with products that these customers either need or want. If a product does not fall into one of those categories it is highly unlikely that the business will find success (and even if it does, you cannot fault the businessman for finding his niche).For a capitalist entity, the sine qua non, the one thing that determines success or failure, is whether or not the venture is profitable or not.
Granting this statement to be true, I'm just confused as to how the food industry (which is what I was under the impression this whole discussion was about) could fall into the category of a business that is not driven by the satisfaction of its customers. Even if it does, I'm not sure I understand what difference it makes what drives the food industry, we still have more than enough power to make our own choices. Feel free to point your wrath in whichever direction you choose regarding your own physical health, but I will find it very difficult to point my own finger at anyone but myself regarding the choices that I have made, and the path that led me to my current physical state (which, incidentally, is the exact same person who is going to turn my body back into the healthy physical specimen that it once was and will be again).But there are exceptions to this generalization, and these exceptions are the very things that are so troublesome about capitalism.
I'd also like to say I am going to bow out of this discussion at this point. I have no interest in turning this forum into a political battleground. I want everyone, particularly Freakwitch, to know that I value and respect all of your opinions because each and every one of us is entitled to have their own. Thank you for all for the stimulating discussion, I will be more than happy to take up the discussion elsewhere, but for now I will return to my focus of No-S, SG, and UR
-
gratefuldeb67
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
- Location: Great Neck, NY
-
snazzybabe
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:44 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
We're fat because we are all a bunch of pigs who can't control what we put in our mouths!!
I don't believe that statement. Sure, we are partly to blame but not solely. I was reading a book about wheat/gluten intolerance:
"recent medical studies have proven that these grains actually release a chemical into your brain called an opioid. This is exactly the same reaction that happens when illegal drugs like cocaine and opium are taken. The chemical reacts on the pleasure, wellbeing and calming part of the brain and triggers many of the same satisfying feelings that come from drugs. Is it any wonder that a piece of pizza looks so damn good? When I found this out, apart from realising it explained those Friday night pizza and pasta cravings, I was shocked. I could not believe that something this important, that at the very least explains why so many people have a hard time dieting, had been so vastly under-publicised. With so much damning research it would appear that the addictive and harmful nature of these foods is being ignored in the interest of corporate profits".
I don't believe that statement. Sure, we are partly to blame but not solely. I was reading a book about wheat/gluten intolerance:
"recent medical studies have proven that these grains actually release a chemical into your brain called an opioid. This is exactly the same reaction that happens when illegal drugs like cocaine and opium are taken. The chemical reacts on the pleasure, wellbeing and calming part of the brain and triggers many of the same satisfying feelings that come from drugs. Is it any wonder that a piece of pizza looks so damn good? When I found this out, apart from realising it explained those Friday night pizza and pasta cravings, I was shocked. I could not believe that something this important, that at the very least explains why so many people have a hard time dieting, had been so vastly under-publicised. With so much damning research it would appear that the addictive and harmful nature of these foods is being ignored in the interest of corporate profits".
-
spiralstares
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:55 pm
Snazzy,snazzybabe wrote: I was reading a book about wheat/gluten intolerance:
"recent medical studies have proven that these grains actually release a chemical into your brain called an opioid. This is exactly the same reaction that happens when illegal drugs like cocaine and opium are taken. The chemical reacts on the pleasure, wellbeing and calming part of the brain and triggers many of the same satisfying feelings that come from drugs. Is it any wonder that a piece of pizza looks so damn good? When I found this out, apart from realising it explained those Friday night pizza and pasta cravings, I was shocked. I could not believe that something this important, that at the very least explains why so many people have a hard time dieting, had been so vastly under-publicised. With so much damning research it would appear that the addictive and harmful nature of these foods is being ignored in the interest of corporate profits".
The author of that book doesn't seem to know what he/she is talking about. They're confusing an endogenous opioid with alkaloids and synthetic opioids. I don't know if the author is willfully misleading the reader of if he/she is actually ignorant of this. I'm not sure which is more reprehensible.
Anyway, if you buy into what that book is saying and you're concerned about releasing opioids into your body, then make sure you don't:
Listen to music
Laugh
Exercise
Have an orgasm
because those activities release the same types of opioids into your body that a pizza does.
-
snazzybabe
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:44 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
I might do some more reading on the subject.
But anyway, pizza can make you fat but the others can't.
All I'm saying is that junk food seems very addictive.
I found this when googling:
Gluten produces exorphins which are opioid-acting peptides derived from external sources, instead of being synthesized within the body. These exogenous opioids have been shown to bind to the same cellular receptors that endogenous opioids bind to, thus impacting on the immune system, nerve function, myelination processes, vascular walls, neuromuscular function, and a variety of CNS functions. As may be expected, such opioids can have an anaesthetizing, analgesic, and addictive effect.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/rboon/FOODALLERGIES.htm
(13th paragraph under coeliac disease).
I was reading the wheat/gluten free book as I think my son may be allergic.
But anyway, pizza can make you fat but the others can't.
All I'm saying is that junk food seems very addictive.
I found this when googling:
Gluten produces exorphins which are opioid-acting peptides derived from external sources, instead of being synthesized within the body. These exogenous opioids have been shown to bind to the same cellular receptors that endogenous opioids bind to, thus impacting on the immune system, nerve function, myelination processes, vascular walls, neuromuscular function, and a variety of CNS functions. As may be expected, such opioids can have an anaesthetizing, analgesic, and addictive effect.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/rboon/FOODALLERGIES.htm
(13th paragraph under coeliac disease).
I was reading the wheat/gluten free book as I think my son may be allergic.
My very unscientific opinion is that pizza, and so many other fatty and carbie foods just plain taste good!!! It's pleasureable to taste something yummy. A plain, dry pizza crust would get the same "opiod" high, but we want our taste buds to dance so have it with tasty toppings which inviariably are a spicy sauce and fatty, salty cheese.
Peetie
Uncredentialed and Uneducted Doctor
Peetie
Uncredentialed and Uneducted Doctor
-
gratefuldeb67
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
- Location: Great Neck, NY
-
ClickBeetle
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:28 pm
- Location: North Carolina, USA
When I was in school a few years ago, I used to have a mid-morning snack every day of hummus on whole-wheat pita. And as you may recognize this is food very high in complex carbohydrates.
I could practically feel the endorphins hitting my system after I ate. It was like natural Valium -- I would feel relaxed, contented, calm, and pleasant after this mini-meal -- just like an exercise high. I actually began to look forward to my "carb high" at that time of the morning. And believe me, as a law student, I needed it!
I don't think this was a bad thing. On the contrary, we need the good things -- fiber, minerals, B vitamins -- in whole grains, and if anything, I would guess we've evolved to like them because it helps us survive.
I could practically feel the endorphins hitting my system after I ate. It was like natural Valium -- I would feel relaxed, contented, calm, and pleasant after this mini-meal -- just like an exercise high. I actually began to look forward to my "carb high" at that time of the morning. And believe me, as a law student, I needed it!
I don't think this was a bad thing. On the contrary, we need the good things -- fiber, minerals, B vitamins -- in whole grains, and if anything, I would guess we've evolved to like them because it helps us survive.
Chance favors the prepared. - Louis Pasteur
-
snazzybabe
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:44 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia