American obesity? Why?

[LizzyBee]

Yet everyone IME assumes people get type 2 because they are overweight. People don't understand that hyperinsulemia, etc. can cause people to become overweight.

 

CHicken and egg.

 

I didn't realize that a lot of people think that. There are a lot of thin diabetics in my family, and for the most part, they are older people who eat real food.

Edited July 11, 2011 by LizzyBee

[Audrey]

I think it boils in huge part down to economics. What are the cheapest, easiest, and most widely produced agricultural goods in the US? Grains

 

:iagree: Your govt. heavily subsidizes the production of grains and corn (among other crops). It behooves them to keep you eating it... lots of it.

 

Interesting reading if international agriculture subsidies and their effects get you going.

 

But, that's not the only reason people are overweight. It's a whole mosaic of issues.

[The Governess]

I don't agree. I know lots of people who hardly eat any meat (and don't have the lack of weight problem to show for it). Lots of poor people don't eat a lot of meat because white bread and pasta is cheaper.

 

Granted, my "evidence" is anecdotal. The more I added meat to my diet (verses what I'm told I should add) the better my weight.

 

I guess I am speaking generally here. As a country, I believe we eat too much meat. If every animal we ate was raised humanely and on the proper diet, meat would be much more expensive. Most Americans would not be able to afford to eat the amount of meat that they do if they purchased grass-fed and pastured varieties. If all of the meat eaten in this country was raised this way, I wouldn't have an issue with it. I'm not a vegetarian, but after reading about the state of our feed lots, pork and chicken farms, etc. I think that eating less animals and making sure those we do eat are raised naturally would help solve some of our food/health issues. When we eat animals raised on a "junk food" diet, we may as well be eating junk food ourselves IMO.

 

I also need a decent amount of meat in my diet to feel good. I'm gluten-free and pretty low carb in general. And I agree with you that carbs are probably a bigger culprit than meat when it comes to our country's health problems. But I also think that how we eat/think about meat can use some improvement. :001_smile:

[ktgrok]

I agree with you EXACTLY. I think most, not all, of the problem is excessive sugar and carbs. Without a doubt. We are all so freakin afraid of some full fat cheese and meat that we end up overdosing on bagels and poptarts.

[Joker]

I thought of this thread this afternoon as dds, dh and I were doing yardwork. We were each taking turns using the reel mower, pulling weeds and sweeping. Several of our neighbors were out with their power mowers, weed whackers and leaf blowers. Our yards aren't that big. Maybe its become too easy to be inactive?

[YLVD]

I agree. I think most overweight people probably fall into this category.

 

:iagree:

 

Although it was disheartening, I'm really glad that we discovered my DDs PCOS and insulin resistance at an early age (13). We have worked hard to instill new habits, routines and a whole change in diet. It is hard work! But, the fact that she's gotten started in her teens will make it easier for her than if she were older.

[silliness7]

I think carbs have nothing to do with it. Many people around the world eat tons of carbs.

 

My question is -- when do Americans not eat? There is constant eating, and lots of nutrient-rich food (high calorie) like cheese, nuts, meat, salty fatty snacks (chips) and baked goods. Dessert constantly. And tons and tons of soda.

 

And no one cooks anymore!

 

With no exercise, no physically demanding housework, and no walking or bicycling anywhere. Sweating is a bad word!

 

:iagree::iagree: We just eat too much food. period. We have more buying power and we are bored. We can afford to eat and we have plenty of time to eat.

 

I have been wildly successful losing weight 3 times in my life. After baby #2 I didn't have money for junk food or extra food. We had enough.period. No snacks. After baby #7. I got a job on top of homeschooling. I had zero time to eat. Currently. I am counting calories and it is the hardest way of all but it works. Less calories in, more calories out. Chewing gum keeps the hunger at bay. Low fat, low carb, whole grain blah blah...I count calories.period. Junk food calories count the same as vegetables. Weight comes off just the same.

[Greta]

Like you, I used to eat a bagel and get hungry in an hour. Now I can actually just eat 2 or 3 meals a day.

 

This is me EXACTLY and it's why I think that carbs are indeed a big part of the health and weight problems in the US. I used to eat the low-fat, high-grain diet that is recommended, and I was always hungry. I would eat six times a day! Now, I eat plenty of fat and protein and very little carbohydrate, and I feel great on three meals a day (two light and one big), or even two meals and one small snack per day. The lower my carbohydrate intake is, the less my appetite is (to a point). When I eat something starchy, I am hungry again an hour later. It's the difference between real, nourishing food and empty calories which cause a blood sugar spike followed by a crash.

[Peela]

No, I don't think people eat too many carbs at all. Half (or more) of the world lives on mainly white rice and are not overweight at all, so the carbs are not the cause.

 

I do think that a couple of generations of excessive sugar, refined carbs, processed foods and unhealthy fats, have damaged peoples' systems so much that they can no longer tolerate carbs- their systems can no longer deal with it. But that is a result of exhaustion of the ability to deal with excessive carbs- not the carbs themselves. Otherwise, most of China and India would be fat! Most eat plenty of calories- but the calories they do eat are different.

 

One thing they do do (in China for example) is eat barely any dairy or meat.The more they add these foods into their diets, the more they get Western diseases.

 

I get that people feel better when they don't eat carbs. But I don't buy that there is an intrinsic problem with carbs. There has been an abuse, an overeating of refined carbs in the form of sugar and white flour for several generations, steadily getting worse. Along with less and less fresh real food. I grew up on cornflakes and sugar, white bread, meat and dairy, with a few veg. Our systems are not handling the carbs any more, but it's a combination of factors.

 

If you cut out carbs you are once again living in imbalance, just like the generation or 2 who ate low fat.

 

Just eat real food, not processed foods. Mostly plants, plus some meat if you want to. Unless your system can no longer handle the carbs. But that is not the carbs fault. I don't believe any one of the 3 major food groups (carbs, fats proteins) is inherently wrong or bad for us. If it was, most of the world would have died out by now. But what we DO with those major food groups says a lot about how our systems will react. Take the fat out of your diet, and you will probably eat too much sugar. Take the carbs out of your diet and you will probably -from what I see- eat too much meat and dairy- and there is plenty of research to say that too much meat and dairy is bad for you, and is related to many cancers, but the low carb people seem to ignore that.

 

No food is evil. Not real food. Its all good, in a healthy system, in balance.

[busymama7]

:lurk5:

 

 

ETA: ironic how I picked the popcorn smiilie without even thinking, LOL!!!(I was just trying to sub the thread)

[Heather in Neverland]

Portion size is one major factor. When we moved here we were surprised at how small the portions are and the hawker stall owners will automatically give a bigger portion to westerners. When I asked them why they said it was because of the complaints from westerners.

 

I also think there is a "desensitization" to obesity in America. We are quick to make excuses for it. Both my dh and I are shocked at how FEW obese locals there are on this island. All the "fat" people are westerners!

 

I think we get used to something and then we don't notice as much any more. It becomes the norm. We just got cable after 2 years without it and when you watch american reality shows (and I am NOT talking about The Biggest Loser) there seems to be an overabundance of obese people on these shows. This is how the world sees us.

[Lily_Grace]

I live in Italy right now and the difference in habits/food choices between Italians and Americans is very interesting.

 

-they eat more carbs. But they balance them more. Pasta is a 'prima' - a first course, not the meal. A small dish of pasta, then a meat.

 

-they exercise more. Daily. I have not seen an Italian gym since I got here, but I have seen plenty of people on their bicycles and taking public transportation. With gas $9/gallon, who can afford to drive everywhere?

 

-they eat less preservatives. Markets come weekly to the towns and you can buy just about anything there. What you can't, you grow yourself. Corn syrup is not in food here and most certainly not in soda. Look at the difference between their popular orange soda (Fanta) and ours (Sunkist)

Fanta

Water

Orange Juice

Sugar

 

Sunkist

CARBONATED WATER, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CITRIC ACID, SODIUM BENZOATE (PRESERVATIVE), MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, NATURAL FLAVORS, CAFFEINE, ESTER GUM, ASCORBIC ACID (PRESERVATIVE), YELLOW 6, RED 40.

 

Fanta colors their bottles, Sunkist colors their drink.

 

-there is a greater emphasis on 'clean' flavors. They use more herbs and less salt and fat in their cooking.

 

 

 

 

I have seen far less overweight Italians than I have Americans. I don't know what part of the above is the magic recipe, but they're obviously doing something right!

[WishboneDawn]

No, I don't think people eat too many carbs at all. Half (or more) of the world lives on mainly white rice and are not overweight at all, so the carbs are not the cause.

 

I don't think that excuses carbs. They can still be a contributing factor. Without certain other factors a high-carb diet may not lead to obesity. With those other factors it may.

[Anne Rittenhouse]

Alot the things....portion size, additives, fear of real high quality fat, pricing.

 

Portion size: Pots of yogurt: Europe - about 4oz, USA - 6-8oz

Coca-cola : Europe - 250ml, USA - 16oz up to 2L big gulps

Sliced bread: Europe's standard witdh for a slice of bread is about 2/3 of the US's

on and on it goes.....Apples: Europe - the size of a baseball USA- the size of softball

Steak: Europe - 2-3 oz USA - 4oz and up

 

Additives: shown above with the Fanta vs. Sunkist example, but this type of thing is throughout the food chain

 

Fear of real fat: real cheese, meat and nuts are not bad for you. Fat-free salad dressing is deadly and fat-free dessert is disgusting. Europeans will eat a real dessert once a week, not once a day. They eat cheese and nuts and fruit for dessert.

 

Pricing: Due to the tremendous cost of manpower in Europe, processed food carries with it a hugh price hike to to the manpower costs in productions. Thus today at the market 6 nice tomatoes are 0.68p and a head of broccoli is 0.79p and a basket of peaches is 1.25 and a dozen eggs 1.79 will the cheapest frozen pizza available is at over 3Euros and serves just two. The US is full of loss leader promotions of 50cent frozen pizza's vs. 4.59 heads of cauliflower.

 

Finally, EVERY and I mean EVERY European child is on a "diet". They are never allowed to eat until satisfied or snack or graze outside of meal time. The message that you must control your weight is drilled into them from the age of two and up. "Stop or you will be fat like an American," is the Euro-mother's mantra. Children faint from hunger in tennis lessons. They must "rest" in the middle of ballet class because they are too weak from not eating. After running a morning 5K, a top athelete will be offered a raw cucumber, granola bar and a banana for lunch.

[butterflymommy]

 

If just eating less and exercise was all it took, while adhering to the food pyramid or pie graph. Why isn't it working?

 

 

But they don't. Hardly anyone gets 30 minutes of vigorous exercise a day, which I believe is the recommendation. (Roughly the equivalent of walking 14 miles a week.) And the portion sizing of the pyramid is so poorly understood that people overeat. A "portion" of grains is half cup of cooked grains, or about half a small bagel. One huge bagel is probably closer to 3-4 servings, a huge bowl of cereal likewise. But because people think they can have 8-11 servings of grains a day, they eat as many huge bagels and bowls of cereal as they want to, because "it's just one serving." The plate idea is even worse-- how big is the plate, how many plates a day do you get, how high is the food piled up on the plate? And so on.

 

As far as carbs go-- the RDA for carbs is 250 grams (I think?). This isn't really a huge amount, especially if you are eating fresh fruit (which is roughly 30g carbs for your average piece). So if you eat 4 pieces of fresh fruit a day, and two small slices of bread, you're around 200 g carbs. That's pretty reasonable IMO.

 

But-- protein and fat DO curb appetite. I cannot eat more than ~1400 calories a day if I am eating a high fat/ high protein diet. ~1200 is more comfortable. Whereas if I eat a carb-heavy diet, I'm usually satiated around 1600-1800 calories a day.

 

I eat about 200-250 grams of carbs a day and have never had a weight problem. Both of my parents are overweight so I have always been food-conscious and concerned about following in their footsteps, but so far I'm ok.

 

Ultimately-- I think it is about caloric intake. People on high fat/ high protein diets will take in fewer calories because their appetite is naturally curbed.

[Lovedtodeath]

http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=7EC06D27B1A945BE85E7DA8483025962

 

Because Americans eat these food substitutes.

 

You should also read the Omnivores dilemma. Beef used to be as healthy as fish. Then they started feeding grain to animals that should eat grass.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

I had a link that spelled out what our body needs in the form of amino acids and enzymes in order to produce ATP. It said that is actually much easier to produce ATP from fat than it is to produce it from carbs, requiring much less. This has been removed from the link. I wonder why.

[Lovedtodeath]

and there is plenty of research to say that too much meat and dairy is bad for you, and is related to many cancers, but the low carb people seem to ignore that.

Grass fed meat and dairy? or grain fed? I would bet they didn't do a study on grass fed, since it is difficult to find.

[ktgrok]

:iagree::iagree: We just eat too much food. period. We have more buying power and we are bored. We can afford to eat and we have plenty of time to eat.

 

I have been wildly successful losing weight 3 times in my life. After baby #2 I didn't have money for junk food or extra food. We had enough.period. No snacks. After baby #7. I got a job on top of homeschooling. I had zero time to eat. Currently. I am counting calories and it is the hardest way of all but it works. Less calories in, more calories out. Chewing gum keeps the hunger at bay. Low fat, low carb, whole grain blah blah...I count calories.period. Junk food calories count the same as vegetables. Weight comes off just the same.

 

That may be true for you. But it isn't true for everyone. Despite the myth of calories in/calories out, there are many studies that show that it isn't true. They did studies on semi starvation diets and people did NOT lose as much as they should have, even in a lab environment where everything was controlled. And the amount lost differed hugely from one person to another, with some people losing only 1 lb, and some losing 10 times that much...again, this was a very low cal diet. In another study people were fed excess calories to make them gain weight, and it was almost impossible to do. Even fed thousands of calories extra, most people gained very little weight,and certainly not as much as expected. In both cases the body adjusted it's metabolic rate to compensate.

 

Also, diets that were low carb and well over 2000 calories led to the same amount of weight loss as higher carb diets that were about 600 calories a day less. Because it changes metabolic rate.

 

Calories in/calories out is not the true simple system we make it out to be.

[Lovedtodeath]

Obesity rates leveled off about a decade ago.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-01-13-obesity-rates_N.htm

 

And, Europe isn't that far behind us.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/world/europe/22iht-health.4.5393089.html

 

Honestly, I think we're in the midst of a moral panic. Obesity rates leveled off 10 years ago, in that 10 years we've seen life expectancies continue to rise, and yet we've seen an absolute explosion of media reports on the "obesity crisis." It's got all the hallmarks of a classic moral panic.

 

There is no evidence that any of the interventions being proposed will do anything to change people's body weights long-term. And yet, rather than emphasizing the value of healthy eating habits and physical activity for their own good (and they are extremely good for health even if weight doesn't change), we continue to push weight loss as the only way to good health. This despite the fact that every single study of dieting (yes, even when it's marketed as a "lifestyle change") has found that over 95% of dieters end up regaining everything they lost, and most of those end up weighing 10% more after a diet than they did before, with every single diet. If we want to make people fat, dieting seems to be the surest way to do it, and yet we keep pushing it (and at younger and younger ages).

 

I really think we're going to see some extremely bad outcomes to our current "war on obesity." We're going to see children growing up with an obsessive, unhealthy focus on body size and afraid to eat (already the rates of eating disorders in young children has skyrocketed). We're going to see young people probably ending up heavier than they would have because we're told to start restricting their food intake as early as infancy. We're going to see an entirely generation of children coming of age with disordered thinking and behaviors around food and their bodies. And, we're not going to be any healthier for it.

Wonderful post!

[Mama Geek]

"Why?

 

Summarizing the morbidly obese ( as in large BMI, gasping for air if walking more than 2 steps at a time) extended family members' opinions:

 

1) indulgence

 

The emotional "I deserve this" is used to justify the sweets, in XXXXL portions - you know, half a carton of ice cream, an entire carton of rice pudding, half a cheesecake at once etc. 2 liters soda in the a.m., another 2 in the p.m.

 

2) sloth

 

"I don't cook" translates into "I eat out as much as possible at buffets where I reaaaally get my money's worth." or "I re-heat warehouse club frozen..", but "I won't be lifting a paring knife, or washing an apple...my days of slaving in the kitchen are over."

 

3) medicine will fix all attitude

 

If arthroscopic knee surgery doesn't work, then it'll be a total knee replacement. No need to take the load off.

 

Cholesterol - med for that

Diabetes - there is a med for that

Heart issues - surgical solution

 

Note: insurance will pick up most of the tab

 

4) elevators & scooters & handicap tags

 

These are readily available. At home, stair elevators let you get upstairs and down, scooters get you from the car to your destination & all you have to do is lean against the vehicle and get from the driver's seat to the scooter lift in the rear. If the knees can't do that, see #3. Handicap tag means you park up front and the nice young man will assist you in moving the groceries into your vehicle from the scooter basket.

 

Observation from those family members who are not obese:

 

Real food is not in the obese members' diet one bit, even at the buffet (unless there is crab legs). If the choice is steak and salad vs chicken nuggets and fries the processed 'treat' wins!!! You will never see a veggie or a fruit brought in to the home except at Thanksgiving.

 

That may be true for some but absolutely not for me. I am about 100 lbs overweight.

 

I can walk more than 2 steps without gasping for breath. I can walk easily walk for an hour

 

I don't eat nearly that many sweets in a day. I have never sat down and ate 1/2 gallon of ice cream or a half of a cake or the rest of the food on your list.

 

I do occasionally eat out, but I cook most of our meals, usually protein, veggie, fruit, and part of the time a starchy carb. I do use some canned veggies, but none of the processed packaged meals like hamburger helper. I don't remember the last time I ate at a buffet. (Actually I did end up eating at a pizza hut buffet when we drove out to CO, but it had been years before that.)

 

Yes I am concerned about my health. No I don't want to have knee replacement surgery when I am older. I don't want to be on drugs for diabetes.

 

I don't have a scooter, I don't have a handicapped sticker, I have only on occasion had help getting groceries to the car and only then when dd was with me.

 

If you look in my fridge I have a ton of fresh foods, salad stuff, fruit, unsweetened yogurt, cheese, meat. I do like popcorn and I do like peanut M&M's which became the candy of choice due to its low glycemic index value.

[WishboneDawn]

Obesity rates leveled off about a decade ago.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-01-13-obesity-rates_N.htm

 

And, Europe isn't that far behind us.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/world/europe/22iht-health.4.5393089.html

 

Honestly, I think we're in the midst of a moral panic. Obesity rates leveled off 10 years ago, in that 10 years we've seen life expectancies continue to rise, and yet we've seen an absolute explosion of media reports on the "obesity crisis." It's got all the hallmarks of a classic moral panic.

 

There is no evidence that any of the interventions being proposed will do anything to change people's body weights long-term. And yet, rather than emphasizing the value of healthy eating habits and physical activity for their own good (and they are extremely good for health even if weight doesn't change), we continue to push weight loss as the only way to good health. This despite the fact that every single study of dieting (yes, even when it's marketed as a "lifestyle change") has found that over 95% of dieters end up regaining everything they lost, and most of those end up weighing 10% more after a diet than they did before, with every single diet. If we want to make people fat, dieting seems to be the surest way to do it, and yet we keep pushing it (and at younger and younger ages).

 

I really think we're going to see some extremely bad outcomes to our current "war on obesity." We're going to see children growing up with an obsessive, unhealthy focus on body size and afraid to eat (already the rates of eating disorders in young children has skyrocketed). We're going to see young people probably ending up heavier than they would have because we're told to start restricting their food intake as early as infancy. We're going to see an entirely generation of children coming of age with disordered thinking and behaviors around food and their bodies. And, we're not going to be any healthier for it.

 

Excellent post! Missed it when you first posted it and I have feeling it will be ignored. Obesity is a big boogeyman and we love to obsess over our boogeymen.

[WishboneDawn]

I get that people feel better when they don't eat carbs. But I don't buy that there is an intrinsic problem with carbs. There has been an abuse, an overeating of refined carbs in the form of sugar and white flour for several generations, steadily getting worse. Along with less and less fresh real food. I grew up on cornflakes and sugar, white bread, meat and dairy, with a few veg. Our systems are not handling the carbs any more, but it's a combination of factors.

 

I think we're actually pretty close in terms of outlooks on diet. I don't think carbs are evil but we process a lot in grains that, if unprocessed or minimally processed, would go through through our systems as fibre. Instead it's turned into carbs which become sugar.

 

But if we abuse grains, we also abuse meat. What we feed our animals, how we process them, what we add afterwards also turns what should be a fairly healthy food into something that 's damaging.

 

As Lovedotdeath pointed out we don't have a lot of good research into what good meat does to or for us and judging what it does by what the stuff in the stores does is like judging grains by studying snack cakes.

 

We're trying to address some of it by raising our own meat chickens and layers this year.

[Orthodox6]

Excellent post! Missed it when you first posted it and I have feeling it will be ignored. Obesity is a big boogeyman and we love to obsess over our boogeymen.

 

I think the issue can have different emphases.

 

I agree with what you have noted, if the emphasis is on physical appearance, on a warped set of values related to "attractiveness" and "beauty."

 

I disagree, on the other hand, because obesity is related to serious, sometimes notably life-shortening health conditions. I'm not shadowing the legend's footsteps of Ponce de Leon in Florida, by a search for eternal youth! I am, however, concerned about my physical health. People with fibromyalgia (which I'm stuck with) often struggle with weight problems which can lead to other ailments. My personal worries are legitimate, not "obsessive." By technical and medical definitions, I am obese. Mercifully, I developed the knack of dressing such that nobody believes me if I say so.

[Lovedtodeath]

That may be true for you. But it isn't true for everyone. Despite the myth of calories in/calories out, there are many studies that show that it isn't true. They did studies on semi starvation diets and people did NOT lose as much as they should have, even in a lab environment where everything was controlled. And the amount lost differed hugely from one person to another, with some people losing only 1 lb, and some losing 10 times that much...again, this was a very low cal diet. In another study people were fed excess calories to make them gain weight, and it was almost impossible to do. Even fed thousands of calories extra, most people gained very little weight,and certainly not as much as expected. In both cases the body adjusted it's metabolic rate to compensate.

 

Also, diets that were low carb and well over 2000 calories led to the same amount of weight loss as higher carb diets that were about 600 calories a day less. Because it changes metabolic rate.

 

Calories in/calories out is not the true simple system we make it out to be.

:hurray:So many people need to fix their metabolism by eating more food!

 

Curves has taught me that, and when I follow their plan it works for me.

 

My best friend is obese even though she eats less than 1500 calories and exercises for over an hour every day.

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't know, it feels like you are saying you'd be glad if meat was so expensive the average person wouldn't be able to afford it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

I do wish that the bad cheap meat was not available. As it is my family still eats it almost half the time.

[Capt_Uhura]

 

But-- protein and fat DO curb appetite. I cannot eat more than ~1400 calories a day if I am eating a high fat/ high protein diet. ~1200 is more comfortable. Whereas if I eat a carb-heavy diet, I'm usually satiated around 1600-1800 calories a day.

 

I eat about 200-250 grams of carbs a day and have never had a weight problem. Both of my parents are overweight so I have always been food-conscious and concerned about following in their footsteps, but so far I'm ok.

 

Ultimately-- I think it is about caloric intake. People on high fat/ high protein diets will take in fewer calories because their appetite is naturally curbed.

 

I've been religiously weighing and calculating protein:carb:fat ratio of everything that goes into my mouth for about a month. I'm doing Insanity - which is intense cardio 40min/day 6 days/week. I've switched to the INsanity nutrition guidelines of 40:40:20 protein:carbs:fat ratio. ON my regular diet, which was closer to 25-20:55-60:20, I had no problems getting to 1800 calories per day. That 1800 is based on my age, height, weight and doing an extreme exercise program daily such as INsanity and wanting to lose weight. Most people i know eat wayyyy more than 1800 calories and are quite sedentary. Now that I'm doing the 40:40:20, I'm finding it difficult to get to 1600 calories every day! Some days I'm below 1500 calories.

[ktgrok]

:hurray:So many people need to fix their metabolism by eating more food!

 

Curves has taught me that, and when I follow their plan it works for me.

 

My best friend is obese even though she eats less than 1500 calories and exercises for over an hour every day.

 

Yup. I have been tracking everything, and I don't lose weight unless I am eating at LEAST 2000 calories a day. And i'm only 5'1" tall. I am nursing my 17 month old, but still, if you look at typical diets I shouldn't be eating that much. But when I drop below that I stop losing.

[Greta]

Peela, I always enjoy reading your thoughtful posts. So please know that the following is said with tremendous respect, even though I most definitely disagree with you.

 

Take the carbs out of your diet and you will probably -from what I see- eat too much meat and dairy- and there is plenty of research to say that too much meat and dairy is bad for you, and is related to many cancers, but the low carb people seem to ignore that.

 

:001_smile: This is true, I do tend to ignore the results of studies which fly in the face of reason. That's because I've learned that when one looks at these studies a little more closely, it's easy to see that ignoring them is the only proper response.

 

I particularly love this study which "proved" that cholesterol in the diet causes breast cancer in human women (at least, according the media which reported it) by comparing mice fed ground wheat, oats, and corn (the "low-fat" group) to mice fed sugar and other isolated, highly-processed foods (the "high-fat and cholesterol" group). People actually get grant money for this kind of thing?

 

Another [sarcasm] really well-designed study [/sarcasm] "proved" that red meat causes cancer by having people fill out a questionnaire about their eating habits of the previous year. Nevermind the fact that questionnaires make a questionable basis for a scientific study. Interestingly, they say right in the "methods" section of the abstract that they did not bother to correlate cancer to carbohydrate intake at all -- did not take into account how much carbohydrate a person was eating or what form those carbohydrates were in, whether root vegetables or soda pop. Hmmm, I wonder why?

 

Just a couple of examples among MANY. And not limited to the area of cancer.

 

I recently read about a study which claimed that a diet low in saturated fat and high in carbohydrate could prevent Alzheimer's disease. But not only was saturated fat intake different between the two groups, but the high-fat group ate "high-glycemic-index carbohydrates like french fries and sugar-sweetened sodas" while the low-fat group ate "low-glycemic-index carbohydrates from whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and beans". As homeschoolers, I bet most of us teach our kids that an effective science experiment has ONE variable, not two or more. Why can't professional researchers figure that out?

 

This was a recent one, but this kind of thing has been going on for a very long time. It never ceases to amaze me to run across articles that talk about Ancel Keys' famous Seven Countries study as anything but a pathetic joke and possibly the worst example of pseudo-science doing harm to the public for decades. But people still refer to it as if it were valid evidence! :001_huh: Unbelievable.

 

The junk that passes for science in the field of nutrition is truly unreal. When politics, special interests, and science collide, the results must be viewed with skepticism. I look instead to my own body's unmistakable response to a diet based on grains versus one based on meat and dairy (with veggies and fruits in both cases), and also to history, anthropology, and human evolution. The results couldn't be more clear.

Edited July 12, 2011 by GretaLynne

[Momof3littles]

Peela, I always enjoy reading your thoughtful posts. So please know that the following is said with tremendous respect, even though I most definitely disagree with you.

 

 

 

:001_smile: This is true, I do tend to ignore the results of studies which fly in the face of reason. That's because I've learned that when one looks at these studies a little more closely, it's easy to see that ignoring them is the only proper response.

 

I particularly love this study which "proved" that cholesterol in the diet causes breast cancer in human women (at least, according the media which reported it) by comparing mice fed ground wheat, oats, and corn (the "low-fat" group) to mice fed sugar and other isolated, highly-processed foods (the "high-fat and cholesterol" group). People actually get grant money for this kind of thing?

 

Another [sarcasm] really well-designed study [/sarcasm] "proved" that red meat causes cancer by having people fill out a questionnaire about their eating habits of the previous year. Nevermind the fact that questionnaires make a questionable basis for a scientific study. Interestingly, they say right in the "methods" section of the abstract that they did not bother to correlate cancer to carbohydrate intake at all -- did not take into account how much carbohydrate a person was eating or what form those carbohydrates were in, whether root vegetables or soda pop. Hmmm, I wonder why?

 

Just a couple of examples among MANY. And not limited to the area of cancer.

 

I recently read about a study which claimed that a diet low in saturated fat and high in carbohydrate could prevent Alzheimer's disease. But not only was saturated fat intake different between the two groups, but the high-fat group ate "high-glycemic-index carbohydrates like french fries and sugar-sweetened sodas" while the low-fat group ate "low-glycemic-index carbohydrates from whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and beans". As homeschoolers, I bet most of us teach our kids that an effective science experiment has ONE variable, not two or more. Why can't professional researchers figure that out?

 

This was a recent one, but this kind of thing has been going on for a very long time. It never ceases to amaze me to run across articles that talk about Ancel Keys' famous Seven Countries study as anything but a pathetic joke and possibly the worst example of pseudo-science doing harm to the public for decades. But people still refer to it as if it were valid evidence! :001_huh: Unbelievable.

 

The junk that passes for science in the field of nutrition is truly unreal. When politics, special interests, and science collide, the results must be viewed with skepticism. I look instead to my own body's unmistakable response to a diet based on grains versus one based on meat and dairy (with veggies and fruits in both cases), and also to history, anthropology, and human evolution. The results couldn't be more clear.

 

:iagree:

 

THere was a study out of UNC a year or two ago bashing "high fat" diets for women. It made headlines everywhere. What were the women eating in the actual study (which you actually had to search for, not just read the headline version in the press)? Potato chips, pastries, cheetos and candybars. Seriously. But "high fat" is what was made out to be the boogeyman.

 

In terms of red meat, some studies in the past haven't teased out that red meat eating folks also tend to have higher rates of smoking, for example. How many studies tease out corn fed, yucky omega 6 laden, hormone-containing beef vs. grassfed, CLA-rich, better omega-ratio beef?

 

Look at some of the research on fructose and cancer, insulin and cancer, hyperinsulemia and cancer, insulin resistance and cancer...carbs and sugar do a great job of growing cancer cells.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Momof3littles

[Capt_Uhura]

Yep, if your weight loss has plateaued despite exercise and eating well, then you should try increasing your calories by 100 and then 200cal/day. If you're in a calorie deficit, your body will hold on to fat and burn muscle instead. THis can lead to a decrease in performance. Once you increase your calories, can perform better, harder - you'll find that you actually lose weight. I did a full round of P90X w/ no weight loss. My body sensed that as a stress! During my recovery week, my body felt it could safely shed 4lbs! From one week to the next, all my clothes were too big in the waist. And it was most definitely not water weight!

[Joker]

Yep, if your weight loss has plateaued despite exercise and eating well, then you should try increasing your calories by 100 and then 200cal/day. If you're in a calorie deficit, your body will hold on to fat and burn muscle instead. THis can lead to a decrease in performance. Once you increase your calories, can perform better, harder - you'll find that you actually lose weight. I did a full round of P90X w/ no weight loss. My body sensed that as a stress! During my recovery week, my body felt it could safely shed 4lbs! From one week to the next, all my clothes were too big in the waist. And it was most definitely not water weight!

 

:iagree: I didn't start losing weight until I started eating more. I'm about 40 lbs overweight and I have lost 13 lbs in the last 7 weeks. My exercise level didn't change but I increased my intake of calories. I honestly didn't believe it would work.

[The Governess]

I don't know, it feels like you are saying you'd be glad if meat was so expensive the average person wouldn't be able to afford it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

 

I eat meat almost everyday and I don't feel like it is too much. Humans have eaten meat for eons. Yes they can live without meat, but I think it is one of the healthier things people eat.

 

I'm sorry, I don't think I am explaining myself very clearly. It's not that I think it would be better if the average person couldn't afford to eat meat. Rather, the historically low prices we pay for meat today only exist because we are packing animals into very dense living conditions, feeding them grains so we don't need land for them to graze, and pumping them with hormones and other chemicals so they grow faster so they can be sold cheaply. We can't eat healthy animals at these prices. We have sacrificed quality for price, and I don't think we fully understand the cost.

 

Humans have eaten meat forever, but only recently have we been eating lots of poor quality meat. And the lower prices mean that people eat more than they used to. The average American eats 8 oz of meat every day. Man, woman, and child. That is 14 pounds per week for a family of four. 90 percent or more of which is factory farmed. It just seems like a lot to me. And I think that cutting that number in half and increasing it's quality would probably be beneficial for Americans overall, allowing for the fact that some people would feel better eating more, some less, and some none at all.

 

Not sure if that helped at all. :lol:

[Mom in High Heels]

What in interesting thread!

 

 

Yeah, but keep in mind that Germany now has one of the highest rates of obesity in Europe. So it's not quite like that anymore.

 

Actually, this is not true. Germany ranks #14 in the world and #9 in Europe. The highest European country is the UK (no big surprise, IMO), followed by Slovakia (this actually surprised me), Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg (really?), Check Republic, Spain, Ireland and then Germany. Germany's obesity rate is 12.9% compared to the US (#1 ranked in the world, of course) with 30.6%. Source

 

I think carbs have nothing to do with it. Many people around the world eat tons of carbs.

 

 

Agreed. People in Europe (with an average obesity rate of 14%) eat carbs all day. You can't walk 500 yards in most European cities and not come across a bakery. They are everywhere. Why? Because Europeans eat carbs with complete and utter joy. If you've ever had a croissant in France or a pretzel in Germany, you know what I'm talking about.

 

No, I don't think people eat too many carbs at all. Half (or more) of the world lives on mainly white rice and are not overweight at all, so the carbs are not the cause.

 

I do think that a couple of generations of excessive sugar, refined carbs, processed foods and unhealthy fats, have damaged peoples' systems so much that they can no longer tolerate carbs- their systems can no longer deal with it. But that is a result of exhaustion of the ability to deal with excessive carbs- not the carbs themselves. Otherwise, most of China and India would be fat! Most eat plenty of calories- but the calories they do eat are different.

 

One thing they do do (in China for example) is eat barely any dairy or meat.The more they add these foods into their diets, the more they get Western diseases.

 

I get that people feel better when they don't eat carbs. But I don't buy that there is an intrinsic problem with carbs. There has been an abuse, an overeating of refined carbs in the form of sugar and white flour for several generations, steadily getting worse. Along with less and less fresh real food. I grew up on cornflakes and sugar, white bread, meat and dairy, with a few veg. Our systems are not handling the carbs any more, but it's a combination of factors.

 

If you cut out carbs you are once again living in imbalance, just like the generation or 2 who ate low fat.

{SNIP a bunch of stuff because my word count was too high!}

 

 

This, this, this!!!

 

Portion size is one major factor. When we moved here we were surprised at how small the portions are and the hawker stall owners will automatically give a bigger portion to westerners. When I asked them why they said it was because of the complaints from westerners.

 

I also think there is a "desensitization" to obesity in America. We are quick to make excuses for it. Both my dh and I are shocked at how FEW obese locals there are on this island. All the "fat" people are westerners!

 

I think we get used to something and then we don't notice as much any more. It becomes the norm. We just got cable after 2 years without it and when you watch american reality shows (and I am NOT talking about The Biggest Loser) there seems to be an overabundance of obese people on these shows. This is how the world sees us.

 

Portion sizes in most European restaurants are small too. Actually, they're not small, they're normal. Even at fast food places, their large size isn't the size of a medium in America.

There is one local German restaurant that has HUGE portions of food. The food is delicious, but crazy big. Why? Because the majority of the people who eat there are American. They cater to Americans. Many of the military units here hold their hail and farewell events there. The place is packed with Americans every night of the week. We went there the other night with some friends and the few locals that were there were just having drinks or sharing one entree for 3 or 4 people. Everyone else there was American. We know how big the portions are and split the entrees. JB and Indy split the Jagerschnitzel (fried schnitzel with mushroom gravy) and still brought some of it home.

 

I live in Italy right now and the difference in habits/food choices between Italians and Americans is very interesting.

 

-they eat more carbs. But they balance them more. Pasta is a 'prima' - a first course, not the meal. A small dish of pasta, then a meat.

 

-they exercise more. Daily. I have not seen an Italian gym since I got here, but I have seen plenty of people on their bicycles and taking public transportation. With gas $9/gallon, who can afford to drive everywhere?

 

-they eat less preservatives. Markets come weekly to the towns and you can buy just about anything there. What you can't, you grow yourself. Corn syrup is not in food here and most certainly not in soda. Look at the difference between their popular orange soda (Fanta) and ours (Sunkist)

Fanta

Water

Orange Juice

Sugar

 

Sunkist

CARBONATED WATER, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CITRIC ACID, SODIUM BENZOATE (PRESERVATIVE), MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, NATURAL FLAVORS, CAFFEINE, ESTER GUM, ASCORBIC ACID (PRESERVATIVE), YELLOW 6, RED 40.

 

Fanta colors their bottles, Sunkist colors their drink.

 

-there is a greater emphasis on 'clean' flavors. They use more herbs and less salt and fat in their cooking.

 

 

 

 

I have seen far less overweight Italians than I have Americans. I don't know what part of the above is the magic recipe, but they're obviously doing something right!

 

It's the same here in Germany. I love the weekly markets. If I can't make it to the market, I can go to Aldi and get fresh fruits and veg that aren't covered in pesticides and meats that are not grain fed. Fanta is delicious and barely sweet. I can't stand Sunkist. I hate American Coke, but love the European version because it's made with sugar not sweeteners. HFCS is illegal in Germany (maybe the EU, but I don't know for certain). I buy all of our condiments at the German stores because of this. They taste different, but once you get used to the less sweet taste, their actually better (IMO). Even their candy isn't as sweet. I ship my dad boxes filled with gummy bears every month. They are his favorite candy in the world, but he prefers the German ones to the ones he can get in the US because they don't just taste sweet. They have flavor. Twix candy bars are my weakness. After eating the European version though, I find the ones I pick up at the PX or commissary too sweet.

 

Alot the things....portion size, additives, fear of real high quality fat, pricing.

 

Portion size: Pots of yogurt: Europe - about 4oz, USA - 6-8oz

Coca-cola : Europe - 250ml, USA - 16oz up to 2L big gulps

Sliced bread: Europe's standard witdh for a slice of bread is about 2/3 of the US's

on and on it goes.....Apples: Europe - the size of a baseball USA- the size of softball

Steak: Europe - 2-3 oz USA - 4oz and up

 

Additives: shown above with the Fanta vs. Sunkist example, but this type of thing is throughout the food chain

 

Fear of real fat: real cheese, meat and nuts are not bad for you. Fat-free salad dressing is deadly and fat-free dessert is disgusting. Europeans will eat a real dessert once a week, not once a day. They eat cheese and nuts and fruit for dessert.

 

Pricing: Due to the tremendous cost of manpower in Europe, processed food carries with it a hugh price hike to to the manpower costs in productions. Thus today at the market 6 nice tomatoes are 0.68p and a head of broccoli is 0.79p and a basket of peaches is 1.25 and a dozen eggs 1.79 will the cheapest frozen pizza available is at over 3Euros and serves just two. The US is full of loss leader promotions of 50cent frozen pizza's vs. 4.59 heads of cauliflower.

 

Finally, EVERY and I mean EVERY European child is on a "diet". They are never allowed to eat until satisfied or snack or graze outside of meal time. The message that you must control your weight is drilled into them from the age of two and up. "Stop or you will be fat like an American," is the Euro-mother's mantra. Children faint from hunger in tennis lessons. They must "rest" in the middle of ballet class because they are too weak from not eating. After running a morning 5K, a top athelete will be offered a raw cucumber, granola bar and a banana for lunch.

 

I agree with most everything here except the last bit. I know tons of Germans and I've never heard of their children fainting or having to rest during a sport. I've also never heard the mothers tell the children they will get fat like Americans. And believe me, Germans are not the most tactful people (I don't mean that derogatorily, they're just straight forward and say what's on their mind) and would not hesitate to say that in front of me.

 

I had to drive some friends to the airport in Frankfurt today (they're flying to the States for a few weeks) and before we made it to the autobahn we passed so many people on bicycles it wasn't funny. Literally, hundreds of them. People bike to work and school. They bike to the store. They bike to restaurants. You see them in packs. There are bike lanes and paths everywhere. You can ride your bike from one town to the other (and many people do) on special paths only for bikes. There are signs pointing you to the bike paths and distances to the next towns/points of interest. They make it easy to bike. In the US, the only time I ever saw anyone on a bike was when it was kids riding on the street where they lived. Here everyone does, even little bitty kids with their parents.

[Pretty in Pink]

Mmmm...jagersnitzel...German ketchup...strawberry Fanta...:drool5:

[regentrude]

Simple: too little exercise. Too much driving around car centered cities.

My mother in Europe walks several miles every day to do her errands, shopping, etc. She does not need a gym to remain fit and slender - nor did my grandmothers who led similar life styles.

[regentrude]

Finally, EVERY and I mean EVERY European child is on a "diet". They are never allowed to eat until satisfied or snack or graze outside of meal time. The message that you must control your weight is drilled into them from the age of two and up. "Stop or you will be fat like an American," is the Euro-mother's mantra. Children faint from hunger in tennis lessons. They must "rest" in the middle of ballet class because they are too weak from not eating. After running a morning 5K, a top athelete will be offered a raw cucumber, granola bar and a banana for lunch.

 

Excuse me - but this is incorrect. I have grown up in Germany, spend summers there, have recently lived there for a year - and I have observed or experienced absolutely none of this.

We (myelef personally, my family, my friends, their children...) ALWAYS ate until we were not hungry anymore, we had snacks whenever we wished - heck, there even is a regular afternoon meal that consists of CAKE.

I have never seen any kid faint either.

 

When I am visiting in summer, I eat MORE than I do in the US - and I usualy still lose a few pounds: because physical exrcise is built into every day.

[Plucky]

Simple: too little exercise. Too much driving around car centered cities.

My mother in Europe walks several miles every day to do her errands, shopping, etc. She does not need a gym to remain fit and slender - nor did my grandmothers who led similar life styles.

 

I agree. We do need to exercise. It seems like Americans have a certain culture now. Those that are overweight already have a broken insulin system. It's kind of like when we say another country would be so much better off using our government or justice system, but their culture is so set in their ways it really doesn't work for them.

 

The American diet is fraught with empty carbs and sugar. For those of us that have out of wack systems, just exercising or dieting isn't enough. We have to treat the disease, and most overweight people have a glucose intolerance or insulin issue.

 

People that don't have weight problems or are just losing pregnancy weight don't have the same system malfunctions. Neither do a lot of people in Europe and other countries. We have a problem. The answer may not be as straight forward as people without the malfunctioning insulin system think. And since people aren't losing weight by just following the previous advice of dieting and exercise, maybe taking a look at a low carb lifestyle for those with glucose/insulin issues is in order.

Edited July 12, 2011 by True Blue

[Mom in High Heels]

Excuse me - but this is incorrect. I have grown up in Germany, spend summers there, have recently lived there for a year - and I have observed or experienced absolutely none of this.

We (myelef personally, my family, my friends, their children...) ALWAYS ate until we were not hungry anymore, we had snacks whenever we wished - heck, there even is a regular afternoon meal that consists of CAKE.

I have never seen any kid faint either.

 

When I am visiting in summer, I eat MORE than I do in the US - and I usualy still lose a few pounds: because physical exrcise is built into every day.

 

 

See, I knew it wasn't just my experience! When I was in the hospital with preterm labor and then later having Han Solo, every afternoon at 3pm they brought me a piece of cake. In the hospital. If they were worried about becoming obese like Americans, they wouldn't be doling out cake at the hospital.

[Greta]

THere was a study out of UNC a year or two ago bashing "high fat" diets for women. It made headlines everywhere. What were the women eating in the actual study (which you actually had to search for, not just read the headline version in the press)? Potato chips, pastries, cheetos and candybars. Seriously. But "high fat" is what was made out to be the boogeyman.

 

:rolleyes: Reminds me of Super Size Me! He gained all that weight on a high-fat diet. Yeah, I'm sure all the white bread, potatoes, and soda pops had nothing to do with it.

[Mrs Mungo]

:rolleyes: Reminds me of Super Size Me! He gained all that weight on a high-fat diet. Yeah, I'm sure all the white bread, potatoes, and soda pops had nothing to do with it.

 

Well, he also STUFFED himself until he was sick every time he ate!

[Hedgehogs4]

I think carbs have nothing to do with it. Many people around the world eat tons of carbs.

 

 

And no one cooks anymore!

 

 

Hey now....I cook every day. ;)

 

:iagree:

 

But I think all of the responses pertaining to processed grains, sugar, HFCS, pesticides, sedentary lifestyle are all spot-on.

 

I think we are totally out of touch with our food supply, and have no clue what "food" is anymore. If we did, we wouldn't be so big because we'd be working a whole lot harder to obtain it.

[Jenny in Atl]

Simple: too little exercise. Too much driving around car centered cities.

My mother in Europe walks several miles every day to do her errands, shopping, etc. She does not need a gym to remain fit and slender - nor did my grandmothers who led similar life styles.

 

:iagree: and too much processed high salt/sugar/fat/chemically altered foods.

 

My husband and I lost a ton of weight while staying in the UK, and we ate every goody in sight. I'm sure all that walking had something to do with it.

[Greta]

Well, he also STUFFED himself until he was sick every time he ate!

 

:lol: Good point! There were MANY flaws with that little experiment.

[Joker]

:lol: Good point! There were MANY flaws with that little experiment.

 

Yep! Fat Head brought up all of the things that bothered me about Super Size Me. It made much more sense, imo.

[KatDilan]

As a Christian, I came to a conclusion earlier this year. While gluttony is a sin, I do not believe God created us to have to starve ourselves and feel constantly hungry and deprived in order to maintain a healthy weight. So I determined to figure out why so many of us, in the U.S. in particular are either fat or dieting (constantly hungry).

 

1. The liver has two primary functions; handle toxins & convert fat to energy. With the amount of non-food chemical packed processed food we eat DAILY in this country, no wonder my poor body doesn't have the time or energy to convert my fat into energy like it should!

 

2. As chemical packed as our foods are, they are totally nutrient deficient. Even "enrichment" doesn't cut it, because those are only the nutrients that "they" have recognized and officially declared we need, but there are tons of micro nutrients and unknowns that are not being compensated for. Thus, we fill our belly and we feel full until it is empty, but our bodies' needs have not been met and so it is just waiting for enough room to send out the "I'm still starving!" signal. No wonder we're constantly stuffing our faces!

 

So far I've dropped about 20lbs by following 1 simple rule. Only eat food that is really food. No dieting, no extra excercise (though I am more active in general, because I have more energy), eating until I am full and not starving myself.

[Peela]

The junk that passes for science in the field of nutrition is truly unreal. When politics, special interests, and science collide, the results must be viewed with skepticism. I look instead to my own body's unmistakable response to a diet based on grains versus one based on meat and dairy (with veggies and fruits in both cases), and also to history, anthropology, and human evolution. The results couldn't be more clear.

 

I totally agree - there is a lot of junk science, especially in the world of nutrition. I am often amazed that one study can become "truth" and spread like wildfire through the health conscious world and no one questions the source of the information- such as the 'soy is bad' that Weston Price promotes.

But it's too easy to select the studies that prove your point and dismiss the ones that don't, so I don't bother. I always suggest to people to read widely and look at both sides, including all the criticisms.

The thing is, if you already have an agenda, (whether you are a scientist or a lay person) it's hard to be objective.

I did address why individual people will feel better on a low carb diet, even though I am not convinced carbs themselves are the problem or that a low carb diet is in general a good thing.

[WishboneDawn]

A couple of other factors I think are important but tend to be overlooked because they don't seem to have anything to do with food are sleep and routine.

 

We keep focused on trendy diets and exercise fads but fail to do much about the basic way we live each day.

[Greta]

But it's too easy to select the studies that prove your point and dismiss the ones that don't, so I don't bother. I always suggest to people to read widely and look at both sides, including all the criticisms.

 

Very good point, and I completely agree. And it is hard to do this with complete objectivity, because we all have our biases. (I know I have mine!)

 

I did address why individual people will feel better on a low carb diet, even though I am not convinced carbs themselves are the problem or that a low carb diet is in general a good thing.

 

I believe your point was that if you have abused your body with sugar and white flour, then naturally you are going to feel better going low-carb, but that doesn't mean low-carb is optimal, right? And to a large extent, I completely agree with you! Our ancestors were omnivores, and the evidence shows they likely ate pretty much whatever they could get their hands on, whether it was comprised of carbs or fat: meat and lots of it, root vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds. Wherever they found a source of calories, they ate it. That's what our bodies are designed for, and I think if you eat like that, you *probably* don't need to count carbs or calories or anything else. (Although the 'eating anything you can get your hands on' instinct does us a disservice in the modern world, where food is so abundantly available!)

 

I think where you and I might disagree though (and I'm not on a crusade to change your mind, I promise, just musing) is that I think that grains are an unnatural food for the human body, and that they are harmful whether they are whole or refined, or even soaked and fermented as the Weston Price Foundation suggests. Mammals in general and humans in particular were not designed to digest and process grains. (Birds of course are a different story, but mammals don't eat grains.)

 

As someone who has always been interested anthropology, maybe I consider the evidence from archaeology to be more compelling than others would. To me, the archaeological evidence is pretty darn convincing. Skeletal remains from hunter-gatherer societies show tall, strong, healthy, long-lived people. But once agriculture comes along, all that changes. Suddenly the remains show that people weren't growing as tall but were carrying more extra weight, that they suffered from extensive tooth decay, that they lived into their forties instead of into their seventies.

 

But I'm rambling. Getting back around to the point. :) I do think that once someone's body has suffered a certain amount of damage from too many carbs in the diet, a low-carb diet may be the ONLY choice. If even a piece of fruit, which I think we could all agree is a natural part of the human diet, sends your blood sugar through the roof, then you have little choice but to eat extremely low-carb if you want to live a healthy and active life. Whether that is the ideal or not, it is the necessity. My body, fortunately, has not been *that* damaged by the stupid things I have done to it. But it has been damaged enough that I suffer when I eat cereal grains, corn, rice, potatoes, etc. I am able to eat fruit (only with some fat like nut butter or creme fraiche) and other rather starchy veggies like carrots, parsnips, etc (with butter, coconut oil, or olive oil). without any problems, so I do so. I have to keep my carb intake limited to 70 grams per day and avoid super-starchy and sugary foods in order to stay healthy. Some people of course have to go even lower. And others can tolerate levels significantly higher. But I think the standard set by the US government of 300 grams per day will eventually damage anyone's metabolism. That is just too much.

 

Sorry this ended up so long! :blush: Once you get me going....

[Greta]

Yep! Fat Head brought up all of the things that bothered me about Super Size Me. It made much more sense, imo.

 

I just watched that for the first time last week, and yes I think it is a much better movie! Funny and amusing, too. :001_smile: