What made Americans fat..........

[regentrude]

We got a dog a few months ago, and I walk it about five miles a day, miles I wasn't walking before. And I'm losing weight. .

 

And I had the opposite happen, LOL. When my kids still attended public school, I walked two miles every morning before work, taking them to school and walking back home.

I started gaining weight when I began homeschooling- the only change was not having the walk every morning, absolutely no change in diet. (I had to add that amount of activity back into my day to stabilize my weight)

[Stacy in NJ]

Just a couple things that have been niggling at me as I read this thread. Hypoglycemia and like issues aside, it seems that the focus is solely on weight loss, rather than overall health. If someone is eating sensibly and exercising regularly, is in good cardiovascular health, does it make sense to obsess over 10 or 20 pounds and try every fad diet under the sun, setting the stage for yo-yo-ing with bigger and bigger oscillations until there is a real problem?

 

I often see people complain that they gain weight when they start to exercise. Why is that a problem? Do we want to be healthy, or do we want someone else's body? Me, I'm overweight. I went through yo-yo cycles until, after my last child I just didn't care much any more. I've never weighed less than 124, and in retrospect probably never could have (and stayed healthy) because I'm of a "solid" build. Short, muscular legs are never going to be slim and willowy, yet always in the back of my mind in younger days was the delusion that they could be.

 

We got a dog a few months ago, and I walk it about five miles a day, miles I wasn't walking before. And I'm losing weight. That's the only thing that's changed. I'm not saying everyone should get a dog: I am a cat person, and dogs seem needy and desperate to me, always wanting attention. However I think it's a huge mistake to focus on weight only or even primarily on weight because that's not the prize: a long, healthy life is the prize.

 

Focusing on weight makes us lose sight of overall heath. Here's a truth, though. Diets high in carbs and low in fats and protein are bad for your heart regardless of your weight. Thin folks or folks with just a few extra pounds can suffer from conditions relationed to bad triglycerides on low-fat high carb diets.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Stacy in NJ

[justLisa]

I'm gonna go eat a steak.

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

:lol:

[DarlaS]

That is only true for some. Many people have adopted a more active lifestyle and lost weight, and some have managed to keep it off.

 

It does tend to make you feel invested in your health in general.

[Parrothead]

I *can* be fine with a certain number of calories. I have done it before. But then I discovered that if I eat high fat and lower carb I am not miserably hungry all the time. So while it could work for me, I am not satisfied. And I don't have good skin.

Like I said, some people. If it doesn't work for you, fine. No big deal. But for others CI/CO works just fine.

 

I really don't get the overall hostility to the idea that not everyone needs or wants HFLC.

[Stacy in NJ]

Yeah and who can live with feeling hungry all the time. I can starve myself for vanity for a period of time. But that eventually gets old.

 

As a person who does and did exercise regularly, I can wear out my body and "enjoy" the benefits of pulled muscles and tendons, shin splints, and heel spears, but eventually that gets a bit old. :001_smile:

[justLisa]

Like I said, some people. If it doesn't work for you, fine. No big deal. But for others CI/CO works just fine.

 

I really don't get the overall hostility to the idea that not everyone needs or wants HFLC.

 

I'm not hostile :D

 

I was actually agreeing that it probably can work for lots of people. It could work for me, but I am so hungry all the time, and then I just eat more than I should.

 

My sister is a runner and does not eat HFLC. SHe does tell me that she is hungry often though. But she is restricting calories to lose weight, too. Running alone does nothing for her, and she runs as much as she can. I don't think LOSING weight is ever easy. It sucks :lol:

[Stacy in NJ]

but I do wonder if you've read the article referenced above?

 

I did not say anybody HAD to do anything. I am merely refuting the absolute statement made earlier that exercise can not cause weight loss.

Some people may not be able to exercise enough to lose a significant amount of weight, fine. Some people do not want to, fine. But for some people, it does work. That's all I am saying.

[nmoira]

What is sensible though? I keep hearing about "sensible". We are told that we should eat fat free everything on piles of brown rice. I don't agree. I don't feel well on those things at all.

Sensible to me means predominantly whole foods with fresh fruit and vegetables, not eating meat every night, and a minimum of anxiety. I wouldn't call a side of brown vs white rice the dividing line... the idea that one thing spoils or undoes everything else is anxiety producing, and probably a bit silly. :001_smile: And _____-free seems odd to me in a historical and cross-cultural context.

[nono]

Like I said, some people. If it doesn't work for you, fine. No big deal. But for others CI/CO works just fine.

 

I really don't get the overall hostility to the idea that not everyone needs or wants HFLC.

 

I'm only hostile to folks telling me that upping my exercise while ignoring my composition of fat/protein/complex (no less!) carbs will work. I have enough data to know it doesn't for me. And, I can't believe I'm that unique. That's why I'm responding. So it might give someone who's had the same issue a trail to pursue. :)

 

As for "Does 10 or 20 lbs matter?" How rich are all of you that you can afford a new wardrobe??? It matters terribly to me to stay within the same size range I've already been because I've got some long-term investments in my closet! I do have a close correlation as an athlete to girth/weight (not much more muscle to develop on this 47 yr old bod). So I'm not in love with the number on the scale. I'm in love with the number in my bank account, and don't care to have to lower that because I'm bigger and need all new clothes. :lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

It does tend to make you feel invested in your health in general.

 

I think this is true. I think more about my health when I am exercising regularly.

[justLisa]

I'm only hostile to folks telling me that upping my exercise while ignoring my composition of fat/protein/complex (no less!) carbs will work. I have enough data to know it doesn't for me. And, I can't believe I'm that unique. That's why I'm responding. So it might give someone who's had the same issue a trail to pursue. :)

 

As for "Does 10 or 20 lbs matter?" How rich are all of you that you can afford a new wardrobe??? It matters terribly to me to stay within the same size range I've already been because I've got some long-term investments in my closet! I do have a close correlation as an athlete to girth/weight (not much more muscle to develop on this 47 yr old bod). So I'm not in love with the number on the scale. I'm in love with the number in my bank account, and don't care to have to lower that because I'm bigger and need all new clothes. :lol:

 

No kidding. I didn't buy those $200 jeans to have them collecting dust on the hanger! I NEED this 5 pounds offa me!

[Parrothead]

I'm not hostile :D

 

I was actually agreeing that it probably can work for lots of people. It could work for me, but I am so hungry all the time, and then I just eat more than I should.

 

My sister is a runner and does not eat HFLC. SHe does tell me that she is hungry often though. But she is restricting calories to lose weight, too. Running alone does nothing for her, and she runs as much as she can. I don't think LOSING weight is ever easy. It sucks :lol:

Sorry. Second paragraph is a separate thought not directed at anyone in particular.

[nmoira]

Focusing on weight makes us lose sight of overall heath. Here's a truth, though. Diets high in carbs and low in fats and protein are bad for your heart regardless of your weight. Thin folks or folks with just a few extra pounds can suffer from conditions relationed to bad triglycerides on low-fat high carb diets.

That's something of a straw man. Diets with protein and fats under minimum recommend amounts are indeed bad for overall health. But low protein or fats can be remedied with adequate amounts rather than high. I have yet to see good research saying that high carb (minimally processed) diets have an overall negative effect on health and longevity absent other nutritional concerns. As was mentioned up-thread, there are a number of cultures in which high-carb diets were traditionally the norm, and we don't see in them the kinds of problems we see in the US.

[nmoira]

Where did the "not eating meat every night" come from though? I eat meat every night. That seems sensible to me.

It's sensible to me because I was a student so long I couldn't afford to eat much meat. It still feels like a luxury to me. :D

[Lawana]

Focusing on weight makes us lose sight of overall heath. Here's a truth, though. Diets high in carbs and low in fats and protein are bad for your heart regardless of your weight. Thin folks or folks with just a few extra pounds can suffer from conditions relationed to bad triglycerides on low-fat high carb diets.

What about the Eat to Live diet that has reversed heart disease? Even the McDougall diet has been shown to reverse arterial placque.

You are painting with too broad a brush. Certainly if you eat a diet that has replaced chocolate with circus peanuts and maraschino cherries (because they are fat free foods, you know;)) and full fat cheese and mayo with the fake food varieties:confused:, then you have my agreement.

And what about the traditional Japanese diet that is high in carbs, including refined rice and noodles, and yet had extremely low obesity and heart disease?

[Bluegoat]

There are many people who don't have unusual issues that would benefit from doing the math before they assume they can't lose. Put that pedometer on and see just how sedentary life is. Understand that a stroll is not going to give the same aerobic benefits as a brisk walk. And weigh those portions before you enter the data into the calorie tracker.

My step-dad had a patient who couldn't lose. He was sent to a nutritionist and she did an audit of his food. It turned out he was using two liters of ketchup on his food every day!:tongue_smilie:

[regentrude]

but I do wonder if you've read the article referenced above?

 

I read the first of the linked articles which was basically a summary of a bunch of original papers that were cited, and and I started looking up some of the articles cited... until I found the one that had so much gibberish about non-equilibrium thermodynamics and Gibb's fee energy that I stopped reading.

 

I am a theoretical physicist with a PhD and a materials research background and I do not feel qualified, without spending a lot of time, to evaluate the merit of this original paper that I was interested in.

I do not have the days an weeks that it would require to immerse myself in the matter and a) understand what exactly they are saying and b) judge whether I want to believe it.

I doubt most of the readers on these boards are able to critically evaluate "the science" as you call it . Reading the abstract or the summary is insufficient.

Edited July 18, 2012 by regentrude

[Parrothead]

What is sensible though? I keep hearing about "sensible". We are told that we should eat fat free everything on piles of brown rice. I don't agree. I don't feel well on those things at all.

 

But otherwise I don't disagree.

Now there is a school of thought on the "why many people do not feel well while adjusting to a more whole foods diet.

 

The main reason would be that the body is detoxing all the crap previously ingusted. If one's diet consisted of cold cereal, a sandwich full of nitrates with a bag of chips then a meat, a box of mac and cheese and a canned veg moving to a diet of mostly organic veggies, fruit, a bit of grain and grass fed meats will cause one's system to react badly while both detoxing and relearning to process whole foods.

 

After a life time of poor eating it may take a body several months to get over the hump.

 

I know personally it took a good week for me once I made the total switch. I'd been working up to it for over a year and still had the bad feelings. Almost like I was sick.

[regentrude]

Where did the "not eating meat every night" come from though? I eat meat every night. That seems sensible to me.

 

The fact that it is not a traditional diet? For centuries, most people could not afford this. In fact, most people in the world can not afford this even now.

And it is unclear if it was doable in a sustainable manner if they all started to.

[M&MsMom]

What about the Eat to Live diet that has reversed heart disease? Even the McDougall diet has been shown to reverse arterial placque.

You are painting with too broad a brush. Certainly if you eat a diet that has replaced chocolate with circus peanuts and maraschino cherries (because they are fat free foods, you know;)) and full fat cheese and mayo with the fake food varieties:confused:, then you have my agreement.

And what about the traditional Japanese diet that is high in carbs, including refined rice and noodles, and yet had extremely low obesity and heart disease?

 

http://www.heartattackproof.com/resolving_cade.htm

 

Dr. Esselstyn has REVERSED heart disease with a plant-based LF/HC diet. Dr. Ornish has done the same. Dr. McDougall has reversed diabetes, HBP, and many other ailments through his "starch-based" diet. Dr. Fuhrman also gets great results. LF/HC diets do not cause heart disease.

[Parrothead]

What about the Eat to Live diet that has reversed heart disease? Even the McDougall diet has been shown to reverse arterial placque.

You are painting with too broad a brush. Certainly if you eat a diet that has replaced chocolate with circus peanuts and maraschino cherries (because they are fat free foods, you know;)) and full fat cheese and mayo with the fake food varieties:confused:, then you have my agreement.

And what about the traditional Japanese diet that is high in carbs, including refined rice and noodles, and yet had extremely low obesity and heart disease?

:iagree:The China Study is worth looking into for those interested in disease resistance.

 

Also I think there is a lot to be said for types of fat. Animals, humans included, store toxins in their fat cells. If one is eating animal fat, one is eating those toxins. There is no way around that.

 

But if one is getting one's fat from avocado, olives and nuts then one isn't taking in those toxins. Yet one is getting the fats one need to regulate and promote bodily functions.

[Parrothead]

My step-dad had a patient who couldn't lose. He was sent to a nutritionist and she did an audit of his food. It turned out he was using two liters of ketchup on his food every day!:tongue_smilie:

Gak!

[justLisa]

Meat doesn't have to be expensive. Ground options, dark meat etc or whole birds are cheaper. I do not buy local non farmed meat though. I feel I am at the top of the food chain and I'd rather eat a farmed bird than starve or eat beans. My kids hate beans anyways despite my many attempts. Maybe it's bad, but I don't even feel bad eating this way. I know some are so very compelled to only buy local, ethically raised meats, but for some reason it's not something I care about. Or maybe I just don't believe it is as bad as the vegan people say....

 

The grass fed beef I once bought was so terrible it was almost un edible. We all hated it, and it tainted my taste buds to this day.

 

ETA: I do love beans and COULD also be vegan. I was for a long while but I was NOT optimally healthy by any means.

[Stacy in NJ]

That's something of a straw man. Diets with protein and fats under minimum recommend amounts are indeed bad for overall health. But low protein or fats can be remedied with adequate amounts rather than high. I have yet to see good research saying that high carb (minimally processed) diets have an overall negative effect on health and longevity absent other nutritional concerns. As was mentioned up-thread, there are a number of cultures in which high-carb diets were traditionally the norm, and we don't see in them the kinds of problems we see in the US.

 

When we take out one type of calorie we tend to naturally balance that out by adding calories of another type. It all depends on your metabolism and what you define as low or high.

 

I'm not claiming that a diet that balances fat/protein with complex carbs is necessarily bad for the heart. It's not necessarily good for the heart either when compared to a higher fat/protein and lower carb diet.

 

Here's and interesting article that discusses the Japanese (high carb) diet. Just for fun. http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/how-do-some-cultures-stay-lean-while-still-consuming-high-amounts-of-carbohydrates?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-do-some-cultures-stay-lean-while-still-consuming-high-amounts-of-carbohydrates

[Parrothead]

I totally disagree. First, they can turn off the teevee and go out after dinner. Or before dinner. Or before breakfast. Or during the lunch hour. Or use home exercise equipment. An hour daily is all that is needed. Many busy people are successful with this approach.

 

Shouldn't have to??? Who ya kiddin? The body needs weight bearing exercise as well as movement to function properly & and that extra fat is having a tremendous affect on the production and storage of the nutrients.

:iagree: People should have to exercise. Not exercising leads to all sorts of problems. Weight bearing exercise has been shown to prevent osteoporosis. (At least it did last time I looked into it.)

[nmoira]

 

The other things that come with morbid obesity aside from immobility are diabetes and irritable bowel syndrome.

And hemorrhoids.

[Lawana]

:iagree:The China Study is worth looking into for those interested in disease resistance.

 

Also I think there is a lot to be said for types of fat. Animals, humans included, store toxins in their fat cells. If one is eating animal fat, one is eating those toxins. There is no way around that.

 

But if one is getting one's fat from avocado, olives and nuts then one isn't taking in those toxins. Yet one is getting the fats one need to regulate and promote bodily functions.

Thanks for bringing up the China Study.

Really, there is so much to nutrition that we do not know yet. Why do the Japanese live longer with very low heart disease even though they eat high amounts of refined carbs? Why the correlation found in the China Study between lower rates of animal products and lower heart disease and cancer? There may turn out to be a simple answer, but we don't know it yet. Because if were as simple as LCHF, the Japanese should be fat and dying of heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.

ETA I'm not implying that LCFH is wrong. Just that it may be beneficial only for some with.

[melik]

I have read the entire thread!!!!!:party::party: My husband won't be too happy with me when he gets home and sees the same dirty house as when he left, but I think it was worth it!

 

Thank you ladies for the thought provoking information! You have motivated me to get back on the wagon. I have been out of control lately! No more carbs for me!

 

 

Meli

[Stacy in NJ]

I read the first of the linked articles which was basically a summary of a bunch of original papers that were cited, and and I started looking up some of the articles cited... until I found the one that had so much gibberish about non-equilibrium thermodynamics and Gibb's fee energy that I stopped reading.

 

I am a theoretical physicist with a PhD and a materials research background and I do not feel qualified, without spending a lot of time, to evaluate the merit of this original paper that I was interested in.

I do not have the days an weeks that it would require to immerse myself in the matter and a) understand what exactly they are saying and b) judge whether I want to believe it.

I doubt most of the readers on these boards are able to critically evaluate "the science" as you call it . Reading the abstract or the summary is insufficient.

 

Gary Taubs' books and articles. He's also a physicist. He does a great job of summarizing in layman terms the science. The articles will take less than 30 minutes, the books a bit longer obviously.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

 

http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342630251&sr=8-1&keywords=why+we+get+fat

 

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462/ref=la_B0034P66MY_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1342630276&sr=1-2

 

http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

[M&MsMom]

Dr. Greger runs the amazing webite called nutritionfacts.org.

 

It's worth a look as he is extremely well researched.

 

Here's a link to a video with the above name.

 

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/convergence-of-evidence/

[Bluegoat]

I wonder if it is because of all the GMOs. Are people doing the lots of meat diet losing because cows/pigs/fish are not genetically engineered (yet)?

 

No. It's because in the past, the tigers caught the fat ones.;)

[Stacy in NJ]

If you keep the load on, you'll be looking at knee replacements. Far morei expensive than warming up properly and getting the move on.

 

The other things that come with morbid obesity aside from immobility are diabetes and irritable bowel syndrome. Yes, it takes a long time to develop...for one relative it was 20 yrs till the diabetes required meds and the IBS req'd Depends, and 25 until the knee joints wore out and the carpal tunnels had to be enlarged. Every pound lost is 7 psi less on the knee joint.

 

It must be because I'm not doing it right. It couldn't be because I'm just demanding too much from my body, and like all organism, this causes wear. A bit of sarcasm here. sorry. :D

[Nestof3]

For the most part I agree with you, but there were definitely a few posters who were adamant on the eat less, move more mantra. ;)

 

Because truly most people I know IRL are eating primarily for pleasure, they are eating tons of junk food, etc. Look at the fast food lines, the snack and soda machines everywhere. And most people I know IRL are not moving much at all. I see carts at the checkout line. I see my own -- the chips each person wants, the ice cream. No one eats that stuff because they are hungry!

 

I did Jazzercise yesterday with my skinny friend. It was fun but no where near as taxing as my Jillian Michaels DVD. She said she had never sweat so much in her life and that she would have to do the shorter session. I know very few people over the age of 25 who exercises regularly. Not even a bike ride or after dinner walk.

[Nestof3]

One more thing. I have only lost 4 pounds, but I am much more fit now. I exercise because it's good for my whole body. I think moving is great whether a pound is never lost.

[Momof3littles]

In the super low fat diets, remember they are also cutting out all transfats, in most cases most vegetable oils, etc. There are many in the LC community who don't think those are particularly healthy either. Paleo folks don't like store bought mayo, dressings, most vegetable oils, etc. If those are inflammatory (eta: to the blood vessels, and inflammation is a major, major cardiovascular issue), perhaps that's part of the underlying reason for success with both ways of eating. I admit, it has been a while since I've read up on their diets in detail.

 

I have never read the actual China study, but I remember Dr. Eades ripping it apart.

 

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/obesity/another-china-study/

 

I was a veg for years, and read media bits on the China Study, but never looked at the actual data.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Momof3littles

[Stacy in NJ]

I have read the entire thread!!!!!:party::party: My husband won't be too happy with me when he gets home and sees the same dirty house as when he left, but I think it was worth it!

 

Thank you ladies for the thought provoking information! You have motivated me to get back on the wagon. I have been out of control lately! No more carbs for me!

 

 

Meli

 

you serve him a big steak with bearnaise sauce and a veggies for dinner.

 

Don't forget some cheese and wine for before or after dinner.

 

:D

[Parrothead]

In the super low fat diets, remember they are also cutting out all transfats, in most cases most vegetable oils, etc. There are many in the LC community who don't think those are particularly healthy either. Paleo folks don't like store bought mayo, dressings, most vegetable oils, etc. If those are inflammatory, perhaps that's part of the underlying reason for success with both ways of eating. I admit, it has been a while since I've read up on their diets in detail.

 

I have never read the actual China study, but I remember Dr. Eades ripping it apart.

 

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/obesity/another-china-study/

 

I was a veg for years, and read media bits on the China Study, but never looked at the actual data.

Like anything else, the experts on the other side will tear into what they don't agree with. They are generally trying to sell something also.

 

One should look at all the available evidence that one has time for. Make an informed decision, and do what works for one while allowing others to do what works for them.

[Momof3littles]

Like anything else, the experts on the other side will tear into what they don't agree with. They are generally trying to sell something also.

I think he raised some valid points. Of course there are experts on both sides who disagree and become entrenched in their philosophies. I doubt most people who cite the China study have read the actual content and looked at all of the data. eta: After looking at enough conflicting data from observational studies through the years, I don't think they are particularly useful.

[Parrothead]

I don't know. Although our meat supply has been altered if you consider what animals are fed. I don't think we know for sure if this affects us negatively or not.

Ugh! Your comment reminded me of the movie Food, Inc. Again, Ugh!

 

 

 

Off to the dentist. You guys pray for me while I'm gone. I'm likely to have an anxiety attack sitting in that chair.

[Momof3littles]

Ugh! Your comment reminded me of the movie Food, Inc. Again, Ugh!

 

 

 

Off to the dentist. You guys pray for me while I'm gone. I'm likely to have an anxiety attack sitting in that chair.

Best of luck, and fingers crossed it goes smoothly.

[Lawana]

Gary Taubs' books and articles. He's also a physicist. He does a great job of summarizing in layman terms the science. The articles will take less than 30 minutes, the books a bit longer obviously.

 

You seem to be implying that anyone who reads Taubes' work will agree with him. I think he did a remarkable job taking on all the vast amount of research that he did. I'm not a physisict or microbiologist, merely an engineer. I don't have the training or inclination to redo his work. I can, however, understand that while he may have gotten it right to some unkown degree, it is almost certain that he got some part wrong.

 

Along with Good Calories, Bad Calories, I have read The China Study, Eat to Live, and watched Lustig's presentations on fructose metabolism. All 4 authors are scientists and/or medical doctors, all highly motivated to get to the issue of what is the most healthy way to eat. I don't think any of them has gotten to the one right answer.

 

In order to know whther or not to agree with any of the above, one must do considerably more than just read through an article or book. One must be able to independently evaluate the conclusions reached by having some basis to know if the author adequately addressed the available studies or not. I know I certainly can't.

 

By titling the thread What made Americans fat, you do seem to be claiming the knowledge to support the conclusion the it was the low fat high carb diet food pyramid.

 

Because LCHF worked for you, you seem to be evangelizing the rest of us that it is the answer. I'm ecstatic that it is working for you and others on this thread.

 

But I don't understand dismissing those whose personal experience tells them there may be another way.

[Firefly]

 

The main reason would be that the body is detoxing all the crap previously ingusted. If one's diet consisted of cold cereal, a sandwich full of nitrates with a bag of chips then a meat, a box of mac and cheese and a canned veg moving to a diet of mostly organic veggies, fruit, a bit of grain and grass fed meats will cause one's system to react badly while both detoxing and relearning to process whole foods.

 

After a life time of poor eating it may take a body several months to get over the hump.

 

I know personally it took a good week for me once I made the total switch. I'd been working up to it for over a year and still had the bad feelings. Almost like I was sick.

 

:iagree: So true. It actually took me a lot longer, but I also didn't go cold turkey. I phased the junk out slowly. In retrospect I wish I'd done it your way.

 

 

The grass fed beef I once bought was so terrible it was almost un edible. We all hated it, and it tainted my taste buds to this day.

 

Interesting-- we had the exact opposite experience. Once we had local, pastured raised beef, we couldn't go back. Even DH who was skeptical (and balked at the price) is now a convert. We also do it for ethical concerns, but the fact that we much prefer the taste is a bonus.

[justLisa]

Well I wish I could find a source of good tasting local meats that are affordable, but until then I am fine with Costco's best. Although they do have organic, I just can't pay that price.

[justamouse]

Feel free. It's your body, do what you want. Just don't bill me for your medical costs down the road when the consequences of the poorer choices become evident. Or expect to tax me because you disabled yourself to the point that you can't work.

 

Do you have to be so rude?

[swellmomma]

What do these abbreviations mean?

 

TTC- trying to conceive

PCOS- polysystic Ovarian syndrome

IR- insulin resistance

 

I have PCOS and likely have insulin resistance. I was a skinny mini until I got pregnant, but between pregnancies, antidepressants, PCOS and IR the weight would not come off again.

 

I have done meds, slimfast, dieting, exercise without even losing 1/2 a lb. I spent a whole year on a restricted calorie diet, working out 2 hours a day and at the end of that YEAR had lost 5lbs. I kept a food journal to show what I was eating and met with a nutritionist and there wasn't much to explain it. That is what actually got my dr considering PCOS.

 

It looks like I will be going on metformin to deal with the IR which from talking with teh dr should help my body start to lose the weight.

 

Due to the weight my plantar fascitis has gotten severe in my left foot. Severe enough that I am in daily pain and have troubles walking. It becomes a negative cycle in that I can't exercise due to the pain, but have to exercise to lose the weight for the PF to improve and reduce my daily pain. But a simple walk around the block leaves me unable to walk for hours later.

 

I have not read the whole thread, I read the first couple pages and then then last few, have to go back and read the 45 in between. But I can say that obesity is not as cut an dry as many think. It is not just a matter of CI/CO or HFLC etc So much of the body's chemistry is tied to weight and there comes a time when the body actually fights itself making losing the weight almost impossible without medical intervention.

 

For myself if the metformin doesn't work I am looking at surgical options because nothing else is working.

 

I also want to point out the fallecy of healthier food being cheaper than the junk. When we lived in the big city that was true, there was a large selection for cheap produce, walmart selling packs of meat for $5 etc. My current town, the cheapest meat is regular ground beef for $8 a package. The produce section has very little selection of the least healthy foods for a high price, such as $2 for a head of iceberg lettuce, the same lettuce I could buy in the city for less than a dollar. A dozen eggs is $3. A block of cheese is $13. A can of tuna is $2. For a family of 5 that is expensive. On the other hand a bag of chips is $1.27, a 2L of pop is $1.25 plus deposit etc.

 

For us lately we are an almost all carb family. That is a recent development and while it has increased my weight further it is not the norm of how we were eating. Pasta out here is $1-2 a package. A package feeds the 5 of us plus the 2 daycare kids with some left overs. So we eat a lot of plain pasta and rice. I bought food for 1 day for the 5 of us plus 2 daycare kids. It consisted of a loaf of bread ($4), a bundle of bananas, a carton of eggs, 4L of milk, 1 container of yogurt, 1 package of ground beef, 1 can of beans, 1 can of tomato sauce, 1 package of pasta, 1 can of spaghetti sauce, and 1 bag of baby carrots. It came in at just under $50. For 1 day. Now if I had bought just the bread, a package of hot dogs, buns, frozen fish sticks and fries I could have paid less than $20. In what I did buy I know many of you have better prices and options, for example I see many talk about dried beans, but a bag of dried beans out here is almost $7, so it is cheaper to just buy the 1 can(I am the only one that eats them). Or homemade spaghetti sauce instead of canned, but whole tomatoes out here are sold for $1.15 EACH, to make a sauce would be a lot more expensive than just buying the can. To get the cheaper food and better selection we have to drive 1-2 hours, and with the price of gas that isn't always an actual savings

 

Anyway, yes in many places the healthy food is cheaper but it is not always the case. Combine high food prices, with medical issues, reduced exercise etc and you have a recipe for obesity, with few options to actually change it.

[M&MsMom]

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html

 

Just the conclusion, to further complicate things!

 

I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but it may even be backward. The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers tend not to take this idea seriously is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields. I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom", but the fact is that obesity is a complex state and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses.

 

Carbohydrate consumption per se is not behind the obesity epidemic. However, once overweight or obesity is established, carbohydrate restriction can aid fat loss in some people. The mechanism by which this occurs is not totally clear, but there is no evidence that insulin plays a causal role in this process. Carbohydrate restriction spontaneously reduces calorie intake (as does fat restriction), suggesting the possibility that it alters body fat homeostasis, but this alteration likely occurs in the brain, not in the fat tissue itself. The brain is the primary homeostatic regulator of fat mass, just as it homeostatically regulates blood pressure, breathing rate, and body temperature. This has been suspected since the early brain lesion studies of the 1940s (47) and even before, and the discovery of leptin in 1994 cemented leptin's role as the main player in body fat homeostasis. In some cases, the setpoint around which the body defends these variables can be changed (e.g., hypertension, fever, and obesity). Research is ongoing to understand how this process works.

 

Stephan Guyenet

[justLisa]

Me too. And I'm so over making myself crazy thinking about it.

 

I don't even think about it anymore. We are planning to own property in 3-5 years and will raise meat birds and more. DH grew up summers on a working farm and chased chickens down and his aunt kept cows for meat for them and the entire family. But until then I will not even spend one minute questioning my quality choice.

[swellmomma]

I'm responding to a sarcastic comment with sincerety. I've spent many hours this year taking care of someone who is in denial of the consequences of obesity, so I am sharing first hand what those consequences truly are. If you feel it is rude to understand that these people ARE passing the costs on to working persons and homeowners thru taxes and increased health insurance costs, that's fine with me. The buck has to stop somewhere, and I'd prefer that people who enjoy food with such gusto as to become morbidly obese plan for the known consequences rather than pass the hat. It's rude to put your hand in someone else's pocketbook, when they are trying to pay for things that are needed in their life.

 

But that is making a large assumption too. What about those people who classify as obese who are not enjoying food with such gusto? I am thinking of myself, I love good food but don't eat it much. I eat 2 meals a day plus snacks (would be 3 but breakfast makes me sick). I occasionally have seconds but not every meal, I never have thirds. We don't have dessert though we do consume treats over the course of the week, not everyday. In fact I generally stop before being full and often go to bed hungry. It is not eating with gusto that has caused the weight to pack on. Based on the actual amounts I eat I should not be able to maintain my weight let alone continue to gain and yet I am, likely due to the PCOS and IR. Not every obese person is being lazy stuffing their faces and to essentially assume they are doing so with plans to make you pay the price is wrong imo

[Karen in CO]

It is interesting to watch the rise of obesity in non-Western countries how they deal with it and what they consider the cause and cure. Here is a relatively recent article from the Japan Times. Of course, Japan also has a law regulating waistline size.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Karen in CO