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

[Seshet]

See, the problem with believing the "experts" is that they often disagree, are often wrong, & sometimes know nothing about the topic. This goes for all areas, not just nutrition.

 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/pyramid/

 

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/ART02995/Dr-Weil-Anti-Inflammatory-Food-Pyramid.html

 

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/kenkou/pdf/eiyou-syokuji5.pdf

 

http://www.hpb.gov.sg/HOPPortal/health-article/2638

 

http://oldwayspt.org/sites/default/files/images/Asian_pyramid_flyer.jpg

 

http://www.choosemyplate.gov/index.html

 

Every one of those links, a different food pyramid/plate/guide, ALL created by "experts." Every fad diet - created by an "expert." Swallow a tapeworm to lose weight - supported by "experts." All illness can be cured by leaches & bleeding - believed by "experts." The "experts" are not infallible.

 

The problem boils down to total lack of moderation. Convenience food made life easier, and as it became more popular, less home cooked meals were eaten. Fast food became popular, as it is even more convenient than convenience food, and still less meals were homemade. Yes, the old food pyramid was wrong about how many servings of carbs we should eat. However, the fact that what we see as a serving size is 2-3 times larger than what an actual serving size is, is a big problem, too. As technology has advanced & cities have spread, we move less & less. Our lives are much easier than those of 100 years ago, so we've become complacent.

 

The blame is not so simple as to say "it's eating too many carbs." That is oversimplifying the problem. If it were that simple, then a cure would also be that simple, "cut down on carbs." However, that doesn't work for everyone, because the amount of carbs are not the sole problem. I think that's what most of the people posting on this were saying. There isn't just one cause, nor is there just one cure.

 

Maybe, instead of focusing all attention on figuring out how we, as a society, got so large & unhealthy, maybe we should focus on teaching the next generation about moderation, eating more real foods & less 'convenience' or fast food, and staying active.

[justamouse]

 

The problem boils down to total lack of moderation. Convenience food made life easier, and as it became more popular, less home cooked meals were eaten. Fast food became popular, as it is even more convenient than convenience food, and still less meals were homemade. Yes, the old food pyramid was wrong about how many servings of carbs we should eat. However, the fact that what we see as a serving size is 2-3 times larger than what an actual serving size is, is a big problem, too. As technology has advanced & cities have spread, we move less & less. Our lives are much easier than those of 100 years ago, so we've become complacent.

 

The blame is not so simple as to say "it's eating too many carbs." That is oversimplifying the problem. If it were that simple, then a cure would also be that simple, "cut down on carbs." However, that doesn't work for everyone, because the amount of carbs are not the sole problem. I think that's what most of the people posting on this were saying. There isn't just one cause, nor is there just one cure.

 

Maybe, instead of focusing all attention on figuring out how we, as a society, got so large & unhealthy, maybe we should focus on teaching the next generation about moderation, eating more real foods & less 'convenience' or fast food, and staying active.

 

You need to read the whole thread. I've disproved that in almost every post I've made.

 

Don't you think if it were that easy, most people would have already? I mean, that's a no brainer. Search all my posts on this thread, read all of them, and then tell me what you think. Because your post is really insulting to those of us who have done everything right and still suffered.

[Lawana]

I read Taubes─cover to cover. I appreciate his take on many things, including how the "sloth and gluttony" theory of obesity just doesn't cut it. And the information about fat storage─how the old model that fat storage occurs when there is an excess of calories consumed and that fat is mostly static is being replaced by a recognition that fat is continuously being stored and used.

 

"A calorie is a calorie" is true in the sense that as a measure of energy, each kcal burned will have the same yield. It is a gross oversimplification to apply it to human diet, because it completely neglects the effect of hormones on how the body is directed to burn or store energy. Recognition of the role of insulin in directing the storage of excess energy is the whole basis of low carb.

 

But as has been noted, there are whole groups of people that eat plenty of carbs that don't get fat. That is something I'd like to see addressed. Perhaps as long as one has enough activity which increases insulin sensitivity, OR consumes few enough calories absent activity, OR has low enough refined carb intake, the body is able go about it merry way and avoid obesity. Maybe by violating one, two or even all three of the above is enough to greatly increase the prevalence of obesity in a particular group.

[kroe1]

The problem with all these new, latest and greatest food "scientists" is they forget one essential factor. The body rapidly converts almost everything we eat into a simple sugar, glucose. It doesn't matter if we consume fat, carbohydrates, proteins, or even just a vitamin pill. The liver starts immediately converting everything absorbed through the gut into glucose.

 

There were some awesome studies on starvation which helped illustrate this point. Bariatric surgeons were trying to find ways to help patients lose pre-surgical weight to assure better surgical outcomes. Liquid diets were thought to be safe for that purpose. Many patients were put on 500 calorie a day diets. No worries because the diets were packed with vitamins and nutrients. Ha! The patients still became vitamin deficient because their livers were converting the vitamins to glucose! Amazing bodies we have. Glucose first, everything else last.

 

The other misconception from the new people wanting to sell books is that the body uses fat instantly to make hormones and other body goodies. Nope. This is also mostly untrue, especially if the liver thinks it needs sugar. The liver goes backwards and uses the glucose to make fatty acids and then cholesterol and other hormones. The exception is essential fatty acids which our livers cannot make. Those must come from the diet and then in addition to enough glucose so the liver doesn't go overboard and convert essential fatty acids into glucose, too.

 

Yes, there's things such as insulin resistance and full blown diabetes. But that's a little beyond a simple how to lose weight thread that puts halos around people wanting to sell books to a bunch of fat Americans who won't keep their mouths closed and expend some energy all day. We could always start another thread on the metabolic variations of people.

 

What is a much more interesting study is portion distortion. I can look in the cupboard at my grandmother's 1910 China pattern. The plates and bowls look tiny compared to a recent China pattern I purchased as a wedding gift.

 

Then I think back on the initial bottle of 8oz Coke sold in Coke machines when I was a kiddo. It hardly compares to the 24oz one I buy out of a machine today. Then, I remember the 3 inch bagels which were so popular when I was in my teens. Here again, I would feel cheated if I saw one of those at my favorite bagel store today. Eeks, should we forget about the size of Krystal burgers and McDonald's cheeseburgers in the 1960's. Wrap that around today's Big Mac or Quarter Pounder.

 

Likewise, what we put on the enlarged Corelle dishes for even the most health conscious moms has changed. Gone are the days of one fish strip and 2 tablespoons of peas. Now a kiddo gets a meat, 2 large scoops of vegetables and a cup of fruit. Give me a break.

 

There is no major science behind American obesity. It is multifactorial, but it still boils down to eat less, exercise more.

 

(And to the poster who accused me of being an uneducated, non-reading basher of all things science. No way. I make my living at this stuff with years and years of study before that.)

 

And thank you to the posters who bring up the basic laws of physics. Yep, the human body must obey them as well.

 

:)

[LibraryLover]

The cafes of Europe are filled with people enjoying each other's company and decent food. Eating out is social and the norm. The (mostly slender) French especially eat in restuarants *daily*. It's not a simple thing like 'forgetting how to cook', although it is partly about super-sized high fructose corn syrup burgers, fries, and soda. You won't find many French workers eating that on their lunch hours.

Edited July 17, 2012 by LibraryLover

[regentrude]

Correlation or causation, anyone?

 

The comparison with basketball is faulty because taking up the activity does not make a person taller.

There are, however, numerous instances where people have taken up strenuous physical activity (like the aformentioned long distance hiking or biking) and as a result of this one change in their lifestyle have lost considerable amunts of weight. Do not tell me that this is an unheard of scenario.

[I.Dup.]

How many people have gone on the Biggest Loser or other similar programs and not lost any weight because of a metabolic problem?

[kricau]

:iagree:

:iagree: I also believe it's all the fast food, larger portions, sedentary lifestyle..... I don't believe carbs/grains are bad. I think people need to eat more whole foods, less processed foods, and get off of their butts once in awhile. :D

[Stacy in NJ]

as my original post pointed out. The diet is called LCHF (low carb/high fat) for a reason. The medial community has been telling us for 50 years or so that fat - saturated fat in the form of butter, cheese, sour cream, cream, and animal fat - is bad for our hearts. That's not true. We took out the fat (and some protein) in our diets and replaced it with empty carbs. We began using margarine and low fat dairy substitutes and cut back on the oil in our diets. These combined events (increase in carbs, decrease in fat) had the effect of causing some people (obese people) to fall into a metobalic condition of insulin/lipid resistance. Other cultures that have higher carb diets ususally also have higher fat diets. The French are a wonderful example of this. This is about balancing carb/fat/protein intake. It you've never become insulin/lipid resistant then you have a higher tolerance for carb intake. Once you've fallen into resistance than you become hyper-sensitive to carb intake.

 

I read Taubes─cover to cover. I appreciate his take on many things, including how the "sloth and gluttony" theory of obesity just doesn't cut it. And the information about fat storage─how the old model that fat storage occurs when there is an excess of calories consumed and that fat is mostly static is being replaced by a recognition that fat is continuously being stored and used.

 

"A calorie is a calorie" is true in the sense that as a measure of energy, each kcal burned will have the same yield. It is a gross oversimplification to apply it to human diet, because it completely neglects the effect of hormones on how the body is directed to burn or store energy. Recognition of the role of insulin in directing the storage of excess energy is the whole basis of low carb.

 

But as has been noted, there are whole groups of people that eat plenty of carbs that don't get fat. That is something I'd like to see addressed. Perhaps as long as one has enough activity which increases insulin sensitivity, OR consumes few enough calories absent activity, OR has low enough refined carb intake, the body is able go about it merry way and avoid obesity. Maybe by violating one, two or even all three of the above is enough to greatly increase the prevalence of obesity in a particular group.

[LibraryLover]

The comparison with basketball is faulty because taking up the activity does not make a person taller.

There are, however, numerous instances where people have taken up strenuous physical activity (like the aformentioned long distance hiking or biking) and as a result of this one change in their lifestyle have lost considerable amunts of weight. Do not tell me that this is an unheard of scenario.

 

 

Of course one can tone and loose weight, but your basic body shape won't change. Strenuous activity can also be difficult to maintain, depending on weather, injury, age etc. Humans can't change their genetic background.

[Momof3littles]

I

I read Taubes─cover to cover. I appreciate his take on many things, including how the "sloth and gluttony" theory of obesity just doesn't cut it. And the information about fat storage─how the old model that fat storage occurs when there is an excess of calories consumed and that fat is mostly static is being replaced by a recognition that fat is continuously being stored and used.

 

"A calorie is a calorie" is true in the sense that as a measure of energy, each kcal burned will have the same yield. It is a gross oversimplification to apply it to human diet, because it completely neglects the effect of hormones on how the body is directed to burn or store energy. Recognition of the role of insulin in directing the storage of excess energy is the whole basis of low carb.

 

But as has been noted, there are whole groups of people that eat plenty of carbs that don't get fat. That is something I'd like to see addressed. Perhaps as long as one has enough activity which increases insulin sensitivity, OR consumes few enough calories absent activity, OR has low enough refined carb intake, the body is able go about it merry way and avoid obesity. Maybe by violating one, two or even all three of the above is enough to greatly increase the prevalence of obesity in a particular group.

I didn't cycle when I was in high school. I was under 100 lbs and a long distance runner. Everyone chalked it up to that. I was put on the pill to regulate my cycles. Only when I was 24 and stopped taking the pill in an effort to TTC did I figure out I wasn't ovulating, or cycling...still. Even though I wasn't a hard core long distance runner anymore. I eventually got a PCOS diagnosis...but I now know I had it back in high school. I was extraordinarily active, and ran 3-12 miles per day. I often ran twice a day, once before school and once in my normal practice. For 3 years of high school I was on a jr. Olympic AAU team, and had my normal high school practice, followed by a jr. olympics practice several days per week. I had PCOS, and was likely IR at the time.

 

Oh, and FWIW in addition to the metabolic syndrome issues I listed above that my parents have contended with (which all made sense once I got a PCOS diagnosis), my grandfather had gout, and my dad psoriasis. BOth of those have connections to IR as well.

 

Remember that even the mom or grandmother's diet can alter the epigenome. Maybe those of us with IR are dealing with some of the repercussions from our recent ancestors.

[AdventureMoms]

I walk around town all the time. I walk to church, I walk to my farmer's market. It is NOTHING for my family to take a three mile hike on the weekend. Nothing. It didn't help at all. Not in the least. Actually, it made me MORE hungry, I crashed faster, and I had to go home faster because I had to eat before I crashed.

 

You know, I hope this never, ever happens to you. Really. Because your paradigm would shift so fast it would be like getting whapped in the head with a bat.

 

Me too. I walk everywhere. For the last 1.5 years, as my weight ballooned to my heaviest ever, I have been walking and pushing a triple stroller everywhere I go. I walk to the doctor's office, I walk to the store, I walk when the kids get grouchy, I walk to the playground, chase the kids for a couple of hours, and walk back home. I walk with kids on my back. I walk carrying two 35lb 1yos at the same time.

 

And I still gain weight. The more I exercise, the more hungry I am. I'm not impressed with the "but if we only walked more" line of thinking.

[SKL]

Generally speaking, the more you think about how fat you are, the fatter you'll get.

 

Americans are fat because the country is obsessed with fatness.

[regentrude]

I walk around town all the time. I walk to church, I walk to my farmer's market. It is NOTHING for my family to take a three mile hike on the weekend. Nothing. It didn't help at all. Not in the least. Actually, it made me MORE hungry, I crashed faster, and I had to go home faster because I had to eat before I crashed.

 

You know, I hope this never, ever happens to you. Really. Because your paradigm would shift so fast it would be like getting whapped in the head with a bat.

 

I am sorry that you have medical circumstances that makes things difficult for you.

I have never denied that conditions like this exist.

I am, however, unconvinced that the 60% of the US population that are overweight ALL suffer from insulin resistance or similar problems.

For the ones who do not, lifestyle changes can play an important role in weight reduction.

[Momof3littles]

How many people have gone on the Biggest Loser or other similar programs and not lost any weight because of a metabolic problem?

Hasn't the media had stories about how many of those people resorted to unhealthy purging and so forth to win? I'm sure there have been interviews to that effect. Obviously that isn't the sole cause of their weight loss, but I despise that show because I don't think we are seeing everything that happens. I've only watched it once.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/biggest-loser-contestant-kai-hibbard-eating-disorder/story?id=11012666#.UAXA8nBXjrM

 

In a normal environment, people tend to increase their calories as they increase exercise. It is hard to avoid doing so.

[Caroline]

I can't be just that, though. The old pyramid has been in use for what, 50-100 years? People weren't fat when I was growing up, and we had the food pyramid. But we didn't sit on our butts in front of screens all days back then.

 

Actually, the first food pyramid was introduced in Sweeden in 1974. The USDA pyramid was introduced in 1992.

[Lawana]

The problem with all these new, latest and greatest food "scientists" is they forget one essential factor. The body rapidly converts almost everything we eat into a simple sugar, glucose. It doesn't matter if we consume fat, carbohydrates, proteins, or even just a vitamin pill. The liver starts immediately converting everything absorbed through the gut into glucose.

<snip>

Amazing bodies we have. Glucose first, everything else last.

Please provide a reference for this.

 

<sip>

There is no major science behind American obesity. It is multifactorial, but it still boils down to eat less, exercise more.

I really have to disagree with this. It oversimplifies by disregarding the reasons─beyond social─ that people eat what and how much they do. Science has yet to discover how the body operates on all levels, yet we do have a better understanding now than in earlier times. If only political agendas didn't interfere with acquisition and siddemination of knowledge. And it has been very well documented that what you eat can matter more than how much you eat.

 

 

And thank you to the posters who bring up the basic laws of physics. Yep, the human body must obey them as well.

That I completely agree with.

 

.

[Momof3littles]

I am sorry that you have medical circumstances that makes things difficult for you.

I have never denied that conditions like this exist.

I am, however, unconvinced that the 60% of the US population that are overweight ALL suffer from insulin resistance or similar problems.

For the ones who do not, lifestyle changes can play an important role in weight reduction.

One in five Americans have metabolic syndrome. Obviously, again, chicken and egg, but I do think IR plays a huge part.

 

5-10 percent of women of childbearing age have PCOS. Many experts believe insulin resistance underlies PCOS. They do nearly always coexist, even in thin women with PCOS.

 

Many people just get routine screenings like fasting blood sugar and fasting insulin, which do not always catch insulin resistance. You really need a 2-3 hour glucose tolerance test with insulin levels (at least that was the case when I was seeing a reproductive endo), and even that doesn't work as well as a euglycemic clamp test, which is rarely used outside of a research setting. So how many people are going to be *diagnosed* with IR? Probably not many. Until they are so badly affected that they have full blown Type 2 diabetes, or if they have issues like PCOS that coexist w/ their IR.

 

(eta: I agree that not all of obese Americans can attribute their obesity to IR. Some people use food to medicate, for example. However, I do think it is very easy for people to say overweight people just need to regulate their portion size, etc. and I think being IR makes that "willpower" very difficult to come by. I can tell you, I feel incredibly hungry an hour after a carby meal. I just never got grief for it because I've never been overweight).

[nono]

The comparison with basketball is faulty because taking up the activity does not make a person taller.

There are, however, numerous instances where people have taken up strenuous physical activity (like the aformentioned long distance hiking or biking) and as a result of this one change in their lifestyle have lost considerable amunts of weight. Do not tell me that this is an unheard of scenario.

 

OK, then explain this one. It's me. I'm an athlete. After I ran my first marathon, and qualified for Boston, I decided I should get serious about my diet and eat a "runner's diet." I have a food diary of everything I've eaten in the last 5 years along with every mile I've run logged. So, I dropped my fat intake, increased my carb load (complex) and kept the calories the same. I gained 20 lbs. and maintained that weight for 2 years. I certainly never qualified for Boston again. I ran slightly more mileage.

 

Then, I decided to do Atkins this spring. I don't follow it religiously, because basically, it's close enough to the way I used to eat (very high fat). I've lost 10 lbs. in 60 days. Just going back to the percentages I used to eat without changing my net number of calories. The pudgy thighs are gone. I've been running 40 mpw for years now. The pudge came during my "eat like a runner" carb diet. (And, I swim 2500 yds a week, and bike 9 miles on a one speeder, and don't move my car from the driveway most days...I don't have time to snack because I'm never near the fridge!)

 

I am a study of one. That's all. But, don't tell me I don't know my stats, because I got 'em all.

[Stacy in NJ]

Generally speaking, the more you think about how fat you are, the fatter you'll get.

 

Americans are fat because the country is obsessed with fatness.

 

In case anyone is in doubt, this is a joke. :D

[Momof3littles]

OK, then explain this one. It's me. I'm an athlete. After I ran my first marathon, and qualified for Boston, I decided I should get serious about my diet and eat a "runner's diet." I have a food diary of everything I've eaten in the last 5 years along with every mile I've run logged. So, I dropped my fat intake, increased my carb load (complex) and kept the calories the same. I gained 20 lbs. and maintained that weight for 2 years. I certainly never qualified for Boston again. I ran slightly more mileage.

 

Then, I decided to do Atkins this spring. I don't follow it religiously, because basically, it's close enough to the way I used to eat (very high fat). I've lost 10 lbs. in 60 days. Just going back to the percentages I used to eat without changing my net number of calories. The pudgy thighs are gone. I've been running 40 mpw for years now. The pudge came during my "eat like a runner" carb diet. (And, I swim 2500 yds a week, and bike 9 miles on a one speeder, and don't move my car from the driveway most days...I don't have time to snack because I'm never near the fridge!)

 

I am a study of one. That's all. But, don't tell me I don't know my stats, because I got 'em all.

Yep, and perhaps you are genetically more IR than some people. It is a continuum, and I think a lot more people are impacted by insulin than has been widely acknowledged. Like I said, I had PCOS dating back to high school (I just wasn't diagnosed at the time) when I was running 30-40 miles per week and weighed under 100 lbs.

[Stacy in NJ]

The comparison with basketball is faulty because taking up the activity does not make a person taller.

There are, however, numerous instances where people have taken up strenuous physical activity (like the aformentioned long distance hiking or biking) and as a result of this one change in their lifestyle have lost considerable amunts of weight. Do not tell me that this is an unheard of scenario.

 

But if getting thin was so easy - take up running or long distance biking, then why aren't more people thin? We we chubbies just too lazy?

 

Tall people take up basketball because they may do well at it. Thin people take up sports like running because it's easier for them to run. In both cases they're predisposed to do better than average at the activity.

[AdventureMoms]

The problem with all these new, latest and greatest food "scientists" is they forget one essential factor. The body rapidly converts almost everything we eat into a simple sugar, glucose. It doesn't matter if we consume fat, carbohydrates, proteins, or even just a vitamin pill. The liver starts immediately converting everything absorbed through the gut into glucose.

 

There were some awesome studies on starvation which helped illustrate this point. Bariatric surgeons were trying to find ways to help patients lose pre-surgical weight to assure better surgical outcomes. Liquid diets were thought to be safe for that purpose. Many patients were put on 500 calorie a day diets. No worries because the diets were packed with vitamins and nutrients. Ha! The patients still became vitamin deficient because their livers were converting the vitamins to glucose! Amazing bodies we have. Glucose first, everything else last.

 

Do you have a citation for this? I can tell you that my body absolutely reacts differently to a plate of meat vs. a plate of carbs, so this makes little sense to me.

 

The other misconception from the new people wanting to sell books is that the body uses fat instantly to make hormones and other body goodies. Nope. This is also mostly untrue, especially if the liver thinks it needs sugar. The liver goes backwards and uses the glucose to make fatty acids and then cholesterol and other hormones. The exception is essential fatty acids which our livers cannot make. Those must come from the diet and then in addition to enough glucose so the liver doesn't go overboard and convert essential fatty acids into glucose, too.

 

Yes, there's things such as insulin resistance and full blown diabetes. But that's a little beyond a simple how to lose weight thread that puts halos around people wanting to sell books to a bunch of fat Americans who won't keep their mouths closed and expend some energy all day. We could always start another thread on the metabolic variations of people.

 

Ah yes. The virtue argument again. Fat people are just gluttonous sloths.

 

What is a much more interesting study is portion distortion. I can look in the cupboard at my grandmother's 1910 China pattern. The plates and bowls look tiny compared to a recent China pattern I purchased as a wedding gift.

 

This is true. I use the "lunch sized" plates for all our meals. The kids usually use saucers. Plate sizes are absurd.

 

Then I think back on the initial bottle of 8oz Coke sold in Coke machines when I was a kiddo. It hardly compares to the 24oz one I buy out of a machine today. Then, I remember the 3 inch bagels which were so popular when I was in my teens. Here again, I would feel cheated if I saw one of those at my favorite bagel store today. Eeks, should we forget about the size of Krystal burgers and McDonald's cheeseburgers in the 1960's. Wrap that around today's Big Mac or Quarter Pounder.

 

Likewise, what we put on the enlarged Corelle dishes for even the most health conscious moms has changed. Gone are the days of one fish strip and 2 tablespoons of peas. Now a kiddo gets a meat, 2 large scoops of vegetables and a cup of fruit. Give me a break.

 

There is no major science behind American obesity. It is multifactorial, but it still boils down to eat less, exercise more.

 

(And to the poster who accused me of being an uneducated, non-reading basher of all things science. No way. I make my living at this stuff with years and years of study before that.)

 

And thank you to the posters who bring up the basic laws of physics. Yep, the human body must obey them as well.

 

:)

[tex-mex]

None of this explains why other cultures with a diet that is heavily based on carbs do not have the same obesity problems as Americans do.

The main difference is not that the Americans eat more carbs (I am coming from a country of bread lovers with amazing bread which is the basis for two meals each day) but rather the amount of physical activity that is built into a daily schedule.

 

ETA: In former times, most people could not afford a diet high in protein and fat - carbs was almost all they had to satisfy their hunger. Yet obesity was not an issue because they did physical work. Nor is obesity a problem for people in other parts of the world whose daily meals consist mainly of a couple bowls of rice because they have nothing else.

:iagree:

I also believe it's all the fast food, larger portions, sedentary lifestyle..... I don't believe carbs/grains are bad. I think people need to eat more whole foods, less processed foods, and get off of their butts once in awhile. :D

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I have only read up to Bean's post in this thread... but my diet was horrible as a child. I ate heavy carb loaded fast food, drank soda all day long, candy, processed food, and NO fruits/veggies. Yet, I was skinny. And my body type was an ENDOMORPH. I am not naturally thin, people. How do you explain my weight back then? Simple. We did not own a car. In order to get to school and around town... we HAD TO WALK. ;) In bad and good weather, I walked easily 1.5-2 miles a day.

 

Now, once I got to college and lived in a big city that had bus system for transportation, I got the freshman "15" pounds due to my diet being horrible but no longer doing the daily walking like I did as a child/teen. Once I got married at age 19 and finally learned how to drive a car... well, I gained tons of weight! Kept my horrible diet and became sedentary. Why walk if I had a car?

 

I can see the theory of people not exercising and living a sedentary lifestyle, driving cars, going to fast food places, and being too tired when they get home from work to whip up a healthy meal to eat. Being fit is a LOT OF WORK. Especially as you age and your metabolism slows down.

 

Off topic, but I do find it hilarious to see young people call themselves vegetarians and they eat highly processed foods and very little fruits and veggies. I truly do not get that. Why not just call yourself a CARB-it-tarian?

Edited July 17, 2012 by tex-mex

[jewellsmommy]

The whole "Americans are fat because they don't walk or bike to work, the market, school, etc." comment just never fails to make me wince. It's almost always offered through the lenses of those who live in smaller, densely populated nations with adequate public transportation, a fresh market on nearly every corner and super highways circling AROUND the cities, not THROUGH them.

 

Walk or bike to the market? I'd definitely be thin because I'd be flattened by an 18 wheeler if I attempted that. ;)

 

astrid

 

 

:lol: Sorry I just had to laugh. America is so vast, not just in size, but in diversity. And :iagree:

 

If you stood in rural Tennessee and then New York City and then on the Outer banks of NC, you can hardly reconcile the 3 as the same eastern half of the same country. Now, yes, I know there are differences in other countries' rural vs city setups too. But, I am just saying that you can't judge America as a whole like that. It's just not that easy.

[Momof3littles]

I'll link to an older GT piece on exercise and weight loss-

 

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

[Trish]

You do know that millions of Americans are relying on the advice of experts(doctors, nutritionists) who are giving them not only wrong information but information that is actually promoting the obesity, right?

 

Well since a lot of this weight gain has occurred since the early 1980s, doctors' and nutritionists' advice has changed since then HOW? Because before then (when people were thinner) it was still Ye Olde Food Pyramid.

 

:toetap05:

[Quiver0f10]

:iagree: I also believe it's all the fast food, larger portions, sedentary lifestyle..... I don't believe carbs/grains are bad. I think people need to eat more whole foods, less processed foods, and get off of their butts once in awhile. :D

 

I agree. I lost 100#s by eating mostly whole grains and starches with some fruits, veggies and lean protein tossed in and then exercising 45+ min a day.

[AdventureMoms]

I'll link to an older GT piece on exercise and weight loss-

 

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

 

that was a good article, thanks!

[Stacy in NJ]

Well since a lot of this weight gain has occurred since the early 1980s, doctors' and nutritionists' advice has changed since then HOW? Because before then (when people were thinner) it was still Ye Olde Food Pyramid.

 

:toetap05:

 

That's when the fat scare began. Fat was evil. Butter? deadly. Only it's not. Americans began eating low fat in the '80s. Low fat means more calories from carbs. More carbs means more insulin. More insulin means more fat storage and insulin resistance. A fatter America.

[AdventureMoms]

Well since a lot of this weight gain has occurred since the early 1980s, doctors' and nutritionists' advice has changed since then HOW? Because before then (when people were thinner) it was still Ye Olde Food Pyramid.

 

:toetap05:

 

The food pyramid was introduced in the 90's. The notion that starches cause weight gain is very, very old and can be found in diet books from at least a century ago.

[AdventureMoms]

That's when the fat scare began. Fat was evil. Butter? deadly. Only it's not. Americans began eating low fat in the '80s. Low fat means more calories from carbs. More carbs means more insulin. More insulin means more fat storage and insulin resistance. A fatter America.

 

:iagree:

[Aelwydd]

This also flies in the face of the PC vegetarian push right now.

 

Two clinical trials does not a body of evidence make. My undergrad is in public health. I can tell you that the largest, strongest studies, i.e., long-term, prospective, large population design, all demonstrate that a plants-based diet, where vegetables--not meats, not grains, not fruits--make up the majority, is the healthiest. Healthiest in terms of lowering obesity, cancer, heart disease and a whole host of other ailments.

 

I happen to believe that's why a lot of ancient religions and cultures have, in built in them, times of fasting, when one is encouraged to give up meats, dairy, leavened breads, etc. And why so many medicines are derived from plants. Because there is some inherent wisdom in making plants the basis of our diet that various cultures have grasped.

 

It bothers me that something that is healthy (vegetarianism, or plants-based diet) has become the political territory of some folks, who claim that it's something new or radical, instead of the opposite. A plants-based, low-meat, balanced diet has always been more the rule than the opposite (there did exist folks like Henry VIII and rich folk--and they often suffered such conditions as gout due to their high fat diets). Certainly, there has always been a history in many Christian traditions of folks who abstained from anything but the plainest meals, and certainly, a diet high in fat, or sugar, was discouraged by the Church. I think naming "gluttony" as one of the seven sins is certainly no PC act.

 

High fat, high protein diets is a new concept for Americans, existing only since maybe the 1950s, and part of government experimentation, in terms of public health. And I don't believe that any diet that emphasizes one thing to an extreme is ever healthy, whether it is carbs, fats, or proteins.

[Alte Veste Academy]

The liver starts immediately converting everything absorbed through the gut into glucose.

 

No, it doesn't. It sets the fat aside and converts the carbohydrates first. It should be noted that the glycemic index of fat is zero. Fat and protein are converted to glucose in a process called gluconeogenesis and the body only does it if it's necessary (and that would be a fat burning process). It's not necessary when you're eating tons of carbs, especially if you feed the carb monster after blood sugar crashes throughout the day.

 

There is no major science behind American obesity. It is multifactorial, but it still boils down to eat less, exercise more.

 

:confused: There's more out there than I would ever have time to read...

 

(And to the poster who accused me of being an uneducated, non-reading basher of all things science.

 

I assume you mean me and that's just not what I said. I was simply inquiring as to what factored into the formation of your stated opinion, because you said...

 

Americans are fat because they eat too much. Just look at American restaurant portions vs. European portions.

 

Sorry, but I could care less where a calorie comes from. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It's the same whether it's from fat, sugars, or proteins. There is some minor processing differences, i.e. fat triggers satiety, proteins trigger some liver enzymes, etc. But it still boils down to too many calories in the American diet for the amount of expenditure.

 

Science is trying to make, "Close your mouth and get active" something more complicated than it is.

 

and I said...

 

Did you read the articles? What books have you read on the subject?

 

...

 

I would love it if some people here who really, truly know how the body works (scientifically speaking!) would read the books/articles and discuss particulars.

 

because your first post didn't reflect anything but a very simplistic understanding. It certainly didn't reflect...

 

I make my living at this stuff with years and years of study before that.

 

I have to say I also find it ironic that physics has been mentioned in this thread so many times. Have we heard the word biology even once? I am LOL about how "Book 1" of Why We Get Fat... is called "Biology, Not Physics." There are other branches at work here. Of course physics applies but biology comes into play as well.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Alte Veste Academy

[tex-mex]

The food pyramid was introduced in the 90's. The notion that starches cause weight gain is very, very old and can be found in diet books from at least a century ago.

:iagree:

My grandmother in the 1960s was on a diet of no white bread. I recall many of my family members joining her diet regimen. Add a scoop of cottage cheese with the grapefruit and it was a meal.

 

And remember after WWII, the invention of margarine was to help those lose weight and be a "healthier" alternative to deadly butter that clogged arteries. Funny thing is, decades later, they discovered that margarine was just as deadly for the heart with its trans fats.

Edited July 17, 2012 by tex-mex

[Stacy in NJ]

that was a good article, thanks!

 

Thanks for the link.

 

:001_smile:

[Alte Veste Academy]

I have to say I also find it ironic that physics has been mentioned in this thread so many times. Have we heard the word biology even once? I am LOL about how "Book 1" of Why We Get Fat... is called "Biology, Not Physics." There are other branches at work here. Of course physics applies but biology comes into play as well.

 

I will also say that just because the laws of physics are believed to be immutable, the same is not necessarily true for biology. Profound thought for the day: people are different.

 

From the video justamouse linked upthread, after the interviewer asked Dr. Mary Vernon, "For whom is it most important [to eat low carb]?"

 

I think of carbohydrate exposure the way I think of sun exposure. So, I’m very pale. If I go to Florida, California, to the beach, I have to have a hat, I have to have sunscreen, and long sleeves. So there’s no such thing as a suntan in my life. It’s just sunburn. Alright? So I can tolerate very little sun exposure. And that’s not going to change. It’s not a moral issue. It doesn’t say whether I’m a good person or a bad person. I’m just a pale person. OK. Carbohydrates are the same way. In some people, carbohydrates stimulate a huge amount of storage metabolism. And so if you’re one of those folks, you need to trim your carbohydrate exposure to the level you can tolerate. So, when I go to Florida, I know to go out in the early morning hours or the late afternoon hours, not in the middle of the day. In other words, I have coping strategies. I can still go to Florida; I just can’t be out in a bikini in a boat in the middle of the day without some sun protection. It’s the same way with carbs. Every person will have a carbohydrate tolerance in their diet.

 

Can we not allow for the fact that people are different?

[Stacy in NJ]

I agree. I lost 100#s by eating mostly whole grains and starches with some fruits, veggies and lean protein tossed in and then exercising 45+ min a day.

 

Excellent work. But, if you find keeping that weight off is a struggle, please look into the LCHF diet.

[justamouse]

Remember that even the mom or grandmother's diet can alter the epigenome. Maybe those of us with IR are dealing with some of the repercussions from our recent ancestors.

 

This is what I think it's going to come down to. We've been messing with stuff we have no business messing with, all at the blessing of the USDA. I can only hope that we can en masse sue the bejesus out of them for screwing up our genes. (allowing all kinds of insanity allowed with our food products, from feeding beef corn to Monsanto GMOs)

 

I honestly think that when we find the cure for Alzheimers, we'll find out that we starved our brains of good fat, and what fat we did ingest was so mutated by what we did to it, our bodies couldn't process it.

 

The food pyramid was introduced in the 90's. The notion that starches cause weight gain is very, very old and can be found in diet books from at least a century ago.

 

Yup.

[SKL]

In case anyone is in doubt, this is a joke. :D

 

Actually, I was dead serious.

[justLisa]

Actually, I was dead serious.

 

What awesomeness the world would be if only everyone could be like you and succeed in everything you work so hard at.

[Stacy in NJ]

Actually, I was dead serious.

 

:D

[Stacy in NJ]

What awesomeness the world would be if only everyone could be like you and succeed in everything you work so hard at.

 

some folks feel for both the overweight/obese and their fellow Americans in general.

 

It's as if they'd prefer to believe fat folks and Americans are lazy, stupid, and slothful rather than accept the science that says it's a metabolic disorder originating in a diet promoted and recommended by scientists, government officals, and corporations pursuing profits. Sad really.:confused:

[Perry]

rather than accept the science that says it's a metabolic disorder originating in a diet promoted and recommended by scientists, government officals, and corporations pursuing profits. Sad really.:confused:

 

I've read Taubes, and I agree with you that the science supports a LCHF diet as healthy. I do think though, that excess calories (mainly carb calories) are a large part of the problem. Most of those extra calories are in the form of junk food and empty calories, and I don't believe we can blame scientists and government officials for that. Corporations, definitely. But I've never heard any scientist, anywhere, suggesting that pop, sweets, and chips are part of a healthy diet.

 

 

 

[swimmermom3]

What cultures eat diets that are heavily based on carbs that don't have obesity problems? Perhaps the Japanese (much rice)? These cultures use practically no sugar. Carbs minus sugar can be eaten in moderation. Add sugar to the equation and any significant intake of all carbs leads to insulin resistence.

 

The physical activity issue is also unproven.

 

My parents just celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary and at the celebration, we watched a film of their wedding. One of the things that struck me was how thin and healthy everyone looked and I mean nearly everyone outside of one older lady and she was only heavy in comparison to the rest, looked amazing.

 

In talking to my mom afterwards, she said that most everyone still cooked from scratch and that no one was rolling in so much money that they could afford lots of extra. My grandmother was a stellar cook so there was plenty of mashed potatoes, gravy, and homemade pies. But Mom said that people ate less, keeping budgets in mind and were considerably more active. Kids were never in the house sitting on their bums all summer.

 

As far as eating all that meat instead of carbs? All those extra hormones don't help your girth any either unless you are eating organic meat.

[Delirium]

high fructose corn syrup!!!

:iagree: HFCS is evil and some research even shows it makes you stupid. Its generally banned in Europe. Not all, not everywhere, just a general they know its bad for you.

 

I'd like this post a lot better if you said *some* Americans instead of bashing the whole nation. JMHO, of course. None of this is true of all Americans. I certainly don't eat, shop, or raise my children as you've described, and neither do most people of my acquaintance.

:iagree::iagree:

 

 

This is really turned into a USian (Holy smokes, someone in the U.S. that realizes that America is more than just the United States!) hate thread. Yes, over-processed crap is just that....crap. Yes, there's a lot of people that could exercise more, but not just here in the US! We are not the sole abusers and gluttonous consumers of the planet.

[Matryoshka]

If you look at people like me though, it is really interesting. I have PCOS and insulin resistance, even though I'm not overweight and always ate quite healthily by the standard definition. My 8 yr stint as a vegetarian probably didn't help my insulin resistance. If you look at my parents, neither has been tested for IR, but both have markers of metabolic syndrome, which is closely tied to IR. (hypertension, low HDL, elevated triglycerides, etc.). WHen they addressed insulin, their issues *also* improved, as did my PCOS. I think corn is an oversimplification. We have something inherited that causes us to be insulin resistant. Where that originates from...who knows. But I can tell you I have PCOS and was diagnosed when I weighed 114 lbs at age 24. Had it not been for infertility, no one would have ever even considered that maybe I was IR. My OB/GYN at the time suggested I'd ovulate if I *gained* weight. It wasn't on anyone's radar at all until the infertility. My parents have had docs trying to treat their individual symptoms through the years, but never linked it back to metabolic syndrome and or IR.

 

I have PCOS too, and was always thin (I was diagnosed when I was about the same weight and age as you were) before I started trying to have kids (which wasn't till years later), but I ballooned up with pg and then had a dickens of a time getting it off.

 

Like you, I must have some kind of predisposition to insulin resistance, as I didn't personally eat lots of junk or processed food with added corn syrup even before I realized it was a problem for me, so I think you're right. Eating low-carb was the thing that finally regulated my hormones. It's also the only way I can lose weight, and now that I'm older, as soon as I start cheating I start gaining.

 

Of course "corn" is an oversimplification :), but I do think having sugar added to every thing most people eat - even those that aren't obviously sweet - isn't helping - those sugar grams add up quickly. While there are those of us that are going to end up IR even at a normal weight and without a junk/processed food diet, I think there are also many, many people who wouldn't have had a problem in the past that become IR once they are overweight - look at the huge increase in kids with Type 2 diabetes - that is almost all due to weight and bad eating habits. And yeah, I do think sedentary behavior is a factor as well.

[Stacy in NJ]

I've read Taubes, and I agree with you that the science supports a LCHF diet as healthy. I do think though, that excess calories (mainly carb calories) are a large part of the problem. Most of those extra calories are in the form of junk food and empty calories, and I don't believe we can blame scientists and government officials for that. Corporations, definitely. But I've never heard any scientist, anywhere, suggesting that pop, sweets, and chips are part of a healthy diet.

 

 

 

 

It's about how insulin affects the body. Insulin stores the fat and then tells the body it's still hungry. People are eating more calories because their bodies are telling them they're starving.

 

Please have a look at this very short video by Dr. Robert Lustig that explains this:

 

[Momof3littles]

It's about how insulin affects the body. Insulin stores the fat and then tells the body it's still hungry. People are eating more calories because their bodies are telling them they're starving.

 

Please have a look at this very short video by Dr. Robert Lustig that explains this:

 

Yep, very hard to self regulate when you are hyperinsulemic. I've experienced it personally, even though I'm not overweight. When I eat carbs, I can't feel sated.

 

Unfortunately for me, even pseudo grains like quinoa do that to me. I eat a half cup and suddenly I'm even more hungry than I was before I began eating.

[Perry]

It's about how insulin affects the body. Insulin stores the fat and then tells the body it's still hungry. People are eating more calories because their bodies are telling them they're starving.

I agree with that, but my point is we're eating more convenience food, because it's convenient, which creates a vicious cycle. If we forced ourselves to make ourselves a salad or scrambled eggs when we were hungry, we'd eat less calories, feel more satisfied, and lose weight.