Some thoughts on obesity

[undergroundpanther]

Something I have been pondering....

It's interesting to think of the obesity/poverty/stress/size stigma and starvation/obesity issue in a bigger framework than the usual stuff you hear about the demon of obesity and the magical willpower games people play to be thin or bash fat people with....

It's worth asking questions about coorelations..I bring up some here considering the levels of depression and obsessive compulsion and other"disorders" in America,and the way obesity is linked to a reaction to starvation now that dieting since the 1960's has been popular ever notice the obesity statistics have gone up in the population ? Maybe this"obesity epidemic all began with "twiggy"?And has grown the more thin became"in" culturally..
Coincidence? I dunno but it's pretty damning evidence to me.
Did you know a 1600 calorie diet was considered a starvation level food intake in the 1940's? And most average diets focus on 1200 calorie limits nowadays.Starvation diets dip as low as 500 calories..Why is that..have people'evolved'to use less calories since the 1940's or have they been socially engineered regarding their beliefs about food and conditioned by diets and fat phobic peers to lower their own bodies calorie burning set point and hate themselves for it?? Profit soars when people are unhappy.

Could it be thin is in is a way to not only profit off misery but to keep a population irritated messed up psychologically and sick enough to not be able to bond with one another as equal human beings.just enough to reduce brainpower and dumb us down in teen years,just enough to keep us desperate,on a biochemical level so we never become a threat so the'elites' can feel secure dominating us all?
Obesity is the perfect disguise to tell ourselves we are not being slowly starved by the pursuit of this thin is in bullshit.What a scam!

How come when obesity becomes a"big problem" it's interesting to track the growth of obesity over decades into a "problem" I ask has the cult of dieting, the rates of anorexia/bulimia that hits 5 year old kids,a general fat phobia that rages on ,in a culture wide scale, due to ignorance about starvation and it's effects on the body and mind.

It's strange to note poor people are more likely to be fat,and minorities,and fat people are one last class of people besides gays and 'hillbillies' who can get stigmatized by insecure people with no severe social repercussions like racists face.All this is going on while we have an increased wealth disparity ,a government dominated by little cotton Mather puritan hypocrites wanting to take over the world,profound social inequality,..along with high rates of child abuse,violence,..we have high rates of depression and other anxiety disorders.stress etc?

Is starvation/obesity cycling of a huge amount of people who diet and yo yo again and again part of this obesity issues and a problem with our inability to deal with each other's differences harmoniously? And what makes a person want to diet to begin with? is it Vanity or is it something deeper like a fear of rejection, Fear of feeling like a disease,being treated like an object of disgust a contamination,as a 'thing' that does not deserve to exist,because it is marring a perfect thin mono-culture utopia we are all taught we must want to belong to to be worthy of love,and acceptance that the dominant wealthier class wants to pretend is superior? How much of marketing is about telling people what they should prefer and want? Is this why clothing styles and how we decorate our homes are so much ALIKE.

The feeling of rejection ,being unwanted,and the feeling of being less than human,? Isn't that the hell we all fear that really hurts a e person most? Every article I see on the evils of obesity inevitably has a picture of a faceless gut or butt,to demonstrate how disgusting fat is, this cropping reinforces a person is a disease,a sickness in a human like shame not really a person.It's the same thing if you saw only a woman's crotch and boobs in a photo..no face,no identity of who's crotch or body parts they belong to..... what is that saying on a primordial level? That women are not whole people they are nothing but objects that exist to be fucked & used Both cropped pictures remove the person hood of the person in the picture rendering them into objects not really people...
Coincidence?

I would love to see a study done on correlations between calorie intake,social discrimination/stigmas/class ism/poverty and depression or obsessive compulsive disorders /nutrition deficiencies,pollution(body carrying capacity).
See how much of this epidemic of mental illness is really undetected starvation for nutrients,slow poisoning by chemicals in our environment, poverty and the effects of stigma created in sick hierarchical cultures that are not socially or otherwise more egalitarian and accepting of differences in people's bodies or of who they are..



I have some articles here from different writers,
Talking about poverty obesity starvation etc.
Taken together an interesting correlation occurs.

what happens to people when people get too hungry
http://jaoii.lunarpages.com/starve.html

Obesity and starvation at the same time? Is it possible?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-06/uom-oid060804.php
http://www.undp.org/fojam/obesity_speech.htm

Cognitive disconnect between obesity and starvation?
http://www.techcentralstation.com/113004E.html

Thin: a cultural brownie point to be gotten at any cost?
http://h05.cgpublisher.com/proposals/190/index_html

Diet industry and the numbers
http://www.overcomingovereating.com/campaign.html

Obesity and diet relapse
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-04132001-

joke...

The History of Medicine 2000 BC
Here, eat this root.

1000 BC
That root is heathen.
Here, say this prayer.

1805 AD
That prayer is superstition.
Here, drink this potion.

1940 AD
That potion is snake oil.
Here, swallow this pill.

1985 AD
That pill is ineffective.
Here, take this antibiotic.

2000 AD
That antibiotic doesn't work
anymore. Here, eat this root.
— — Anonymous

[sugapablo]

1. It is...

It is interesting to note that for teh first time in history (as far as I can tell), we have the poor in a society who are in disproportionate numbers, obese.

[undergroundpanther]

2. why do you think

this is happening?

Rich people can afford to eat varied and well & get adequate rest and take excercize and are not chained to as desk all day working two jobs gobbling on the run. Rich people can afford to be thin,work out thier issues with therapists,go to doctors to maintainm thier bodies , and feel sanctified for it too...

[ultraist]

14. excellent points!

Wealthier people are also more likely to be better educated about nutrition. They also may not eat as much for comfort, as they are under less stress and have access to other ways to deal with stress.

I've never been overweight, but I can say, that if I could afford a personal trainer or take a bit more time out to exercise or hire a cook, I'd be in much better shape.

It's a LOT easier to be healthy when you have more money, thus more access to the best of the best.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. I've noticed over the years that restaurants that cater to the wealthy

serve much smaller portions than those that cater to the middle and working classes.

At Cafe Le Snob, you'll get a chicken breast with some kind of carefully prepared sauce, some steamed vegetables on the side, perhaps a small scoop of mashed potatoes or rice, a bread basket with enough bread for each person to have one slice, and a dessert no larger than your fist.

At The Strip Mall Trough, you get a pile of fried chicken, a "salad" consisting of iceberg lettuce with ranch dressing, a pile of French fries, a heaping basket of white rolls, and a dessert the size of your head.

I've actually heard people acculturated to the latter style of eating complaing about their first trip to a fancy restaurant, saying that "they didn't get much for their money."

[earth mom]

87. More Rich People Would Be Just As Fat

if they didn't spend all their time puking their guts out and instead let their bodies absorb all the calories they actually do eat. :eyes:

IMO, obesity has NOTHING to do with finances or whether someone is rich or poor-that is absurd and might be considered a prejudiced viewpoint by some. Instead, as posted down thread, weight problems have everything to do with one or a combination of several factors-metabolism, diabetes, possibly a virus-that when combined with a more sedentary lifestyle causes some people to gain weight.

Not enough is known as to the causes of obesity and no doubt insurance companies and the weight loss industry like it that way.

[elehhhhna]

89. I agree-- American Tourists in Europe can hardly be poor people...

but you can spot them (us) a mile away...obesity in the US is epidemic and seems spread across all socio-economic classes.

[Arugula Latte]

28. Yes, and it's also interesting

that a lot of these people are considered malnourished. They eat thousands of empty calories a week.

[ariellyn]

97. Which is why I think the Twiggy/'60's reference doesn't apply...

Most of the obese kids today don't know who Twiggy is, or care. It's difficult to imagine the legions of obese people today all have psychological problems which are causing their weight to balloon.

It is not difficult to look at food costs, wages and food quality as external impacts to the epidemic. Food costs are soaring--every time a new healthier eating alternative appears, prices skyrocket. I was at the grocer's yesterday and I was going to buy frozen fruit for smoothies. The prices were astronomical--because cooking shows have talked about how healthy these fruits are therefore demand, and prices, have increased.

Also, there are low-cost food stores (such as Aldi in my area) where the primary items for sale in the story are sugar or starch laden--very little protein.

I eat a higher protein diet and it is very expensive. I looked at steaks while at the grocery store the other day. Steaks that used to cost about $7.00 now cost $10 or $11 or more.

As a friend of mine said, it's expensive to eat healthily.

[Stephanie]

3. IMO, it's the Frankenfood -

Processed foods with plenty of calories but no nutritional value. You can eat and eat but your body will not be satisfied because it has not taken in any real nutrition. So you keep eating. Processed grains (cereals, pasta, white bread, white rice), fake foods (packaged or fast foods loaded with artificial ingredients) and sugars (especially sodas) are making us fat. Corn syrup in everything. Hydrogenated fats in everything. The food industry is making us not only fat but sick. Eat whole foods, fresh foods, unprocessed foods, and see the difference.

[KitSileya]

9. Amen!

It's really depressing to see that processed foods are ever so much more cheaper than fresh vegetables and other good food. The megafarms sell to fast food joints and factories, and the proper food is often sold by smaller farms, who must needs take more for their food because they are more labor intensive - they treat the soil and the produce with more respect.

And it takes knowledge to cook the nutritious food - as well as a good kitchen. McDonalds et al is the easier, cheaper option for many. It's a disgrace.

[bmbmd]

16. High fructose corn syrup

is a major player. Stay away from sodas.

[Stephanie]

22. What's the deal with that anyway?

I know to stay away from it but not really sure why - what's the distinction from regular sugar?

[SmokingJacket]

34. Body processes it differently...

"HFCS contains 14-percent fructose, much more than regular corn syrup, and I am concerned about its potentially disruptive effects on metabolism. The body doesn't utilize fructose well, and never before in history have people been consuming so much of it."

http://www.drweil.com/u/QA/QA331712/

[Stephanie]

36. thanks

I love Dr. Weil - had forgotten all about him!

[musiclawyer]

105. Dr Weil was the first one who pointed out the danger

of HFCS, I think. Nast shit. In everything, including commercially made bread. Really watch out. Ever since HFCS came out, incidence of of diabetes, obesity goes up. Somebody do a graph. It's probably startling.

[Shakespeare]

41. I was just about to post about HFCS.

An insider's glimpse: I recently worked for a law firm that represented several MAJOR food and restaurant corporations. They're all running scared over HFCS; planning pre-litigation strategies, conducting their own in-house research, altering their marketing approach, etc.

HFCS is bad, bad news, and the companies that feed us that crap are fully aware of it. They're also aware of their potential liability, and are going nuts right now trying to pre-empt anything that's going to cost them too much money.

Stay away from HFCS--and it's not all just soft drinks. Read labels carefully (you'll be stunned at how much HFCS is in products you'd never dream of seeing it in), and avoid anything with too much processed corn additives. Our bodies do not process it properly, and it will do damage to your adrenal system.

If you absolutely cannot live without your Coke, you have two possible options: look for Coke manufactured in Mexico (check your local latin markets) or for kosher Coke. Both of those, last time I checked, were still made with cane sugar instead of HFCS.

edited to add: that timeline the OP believes is due to social influences is probably more closely related to the increased per capita consumption of HFCS. It's much cheaper to use than cane sugar, and was put into wide distribution in.....the late 1960s.

[Stephanie]

44. Very interesting! So just like the tobacco companies, they know

They know what they've done. They've damaged the health of a generation for profit.

What specific charges are they preparing to defend against, do you know? This would be in the case of any "lawsuit abuse" - you know, those "junk lawsuits" - which is why we need "tort reform" - right?

Found this article -

___________

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-2003Mar10?language=printer

In 1966, refined sugar, also known as sucrose, held the No. 1 slot, accounting for 86 percent of sweeteners used, according to the USDA. Today, sweeteners made from corn are the leader, racking up $4.5 billion in annual sales and accounting for 55 percent of the sweetener market. That switch largely reflects the steady growth of high-fructose corn syrup, which climbed from zero consumption in 1966 to 62.6 pounds per person in 2001.

***

Fructose is a different story. It "appears to behave more like fat with respect to the hormones involved in body weight regulation," explains Peter Havel, associate professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis. "Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin secretion. It doesn't increase leptin production or suppress production of ghrelin. That suggests that consuming a lot of fructose, like consuming too much fat, could contribute to weight gain." Whether it actually does do this is not known "because the studies have not been conducted," said Havel.

Another concern is the action of fructose in the liver, where it is converted into the chemical backbone of trigylcerides more efficiently than glucose. Like low-density lipoprotein -- the most damaging form of cholesterol -- elevated levels of trigylcerides are linked to an increased risk of heart disease. A University of Minnesota study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2000 found that in men, but not in women, fructose "produced significantly higher levels" than did glucose. The researchers, led by J.P Bantle, concluded that "diets high in added fructose may be undesirable, particularly for men."

Other recent research suggests that fructose may alter the magnesium balance in the body. That could, in turn, accelerate bone loss, according to a USDA study published in 2000 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

In November, however, Havel and his colleagues published a review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that examined evidence from multiple studies. They concluded that large quantities of fructose from a variety of sources, including table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, induce insulin resistance, impair glucose tolerance, produce high levels of insulin, boost a dangerous type of fat in the blood and cause high blood pressure in animals. "The data in humans are less clear," the team noted.

___________________

[Shakespeare]

46. Oh, they definitely know.

And they're spending HUGE sums to try to keep the research stifled and the public in the dark.

[Stephanie]

48. Where would one find this research?

They are preventing studies from being done? Or they have their own studies that they are hiding? Or, what? I would like to read this research if it is publicly available. Thanks!

[Shakespeare]

59. You can do a search for it

Google will turn up a lot of info for you. The suppression I mentioned was pressuring editors either not to run stories on the studies or to run them with such a slant as to basically discredit the studies; very lopsided pieces.

I can't say much more than this without getting myself into trouble--hope you can understand.

[Stephanie]

61. totally understand

Was just wondering if the research was out there or if they had their own studies that they are hiding. But I think it should be out there although not often reported, is what you're saying.

[Eloriel]

49. The science behind obesity -- it's not just HFCS

Curious that this thread should pop up today. I spent the morning re-reading parts of an important book -- The Rosedale Diet. Ron Rosedeale, M.D., is a metabolism specialist in North Carolina. He's written a book that describes the physiology about WHY we're fat, how we got that way, why we stay that way.

BTW, another superb book, very much in the same league, is The South Beach Diet by Arthir Agatston, M.D. I would suggest reading this one first, and THEN Dr. Rosedale's book. OR, if you're interested in putting the principles of either/both diets to work, Dr. Agatston does a much better job of meal plans and recipes. I also highly recommend The South Beach Diet Cookbook.

Basically, here's a quote from the book (Rosedale) that sort of summarizes it:

I don't consider obesity...or diabetes or heart disease to be diseases. These conditions are symptoms of a greater underlying problem -- the inability of the body to use energy correctly to maintain health and life. If we don't treat the underlying cause of this miserable glitch, we will never truly cure obesity or diabetes -- or any of the symptoms we call disease such as heart disease or osteoporosis -- that feed on this vicious cycle.

He cald diabetes a metabolic dysfunction (which can be corrected -- CURED!! -- thru correct diet, and NOT the diet most usually prescribed)

Another quote that describes the vicious cycle of master hormone leptins resistance (related to insulin resistance, which is what South Beach focuses on and probably helps correct leptin resistance as well):

Most overweight people -- and nearly all obese people -- are not leptin deficient; in fact,t hey produce too much leptin. As a result, they become leptin resistant, much the same way people with type 2 diabetes are insulin resistant.

When a person becomes leptin reseistant, it takes more and more leptin to tellt he brin that it's satisfied and that you don't need more food. Therefore, it takes more and more food to feel satisfied. The brain, not hearing leptin, frantically signals for more and more fat to be stored. Since leptin is made by fat cells, you have to make more and more fat to produce enough leptin to finally get its message across to the brain to stop being hungry and stop storing fat. This creates a viciouc cycle: you eat more because your brain doesn't know how to tell you to stop, and the only way you can stop is by producing more fat to make more leptin, which mens that you keep getting fatter, and more insulin and leptin resistant, which just makes you cant ot keep eating.

The cravings produced by these horomonal imbalances aren't easily denied -- it's not really an issue of "willpower," NOR WILL THE KINDS OF "HEALTHY DIETS" so popular, like Weight Watchers, Atkins, many others, work in the long run.

Sadly, Rosedale says that some people will never be able to go "off" the diet, because their leptin (and insulin) resistance will return and they'll start gaining weight again. (I believe I'm one of those people.)

I went on the South Beach Diet last June because as soon as I read it I knew it was for me. I knew I could follow its principles for the rest of my life, and I knew that addressing "insulin resistance" as it does was for me too. As soon as I ever heard that term, over a decade ago now, I KNEW I was insulin resistant, and while I'd read things about how to eat (low glycemic index, for one), I really wasn't clever enough or good enough in the kitchen to make a diet out of it, which South Beach does and quite well.

Rosedale takes all this one step further, with his discussion of leptin resistance (as well as insulin resistance):

If you are insulin resistant you are almost always leptin resistant, and if you are leptin resistant you re a sugar burner not a fat burner. if you are not burning fat you are storing fat and getting fat.

The Rosedale diet (and South Beach too, IMO) help turn you into a fat burner (as opposed to a "sugar burner"), which is what is "normal," what helps you stay thin. It's when we make our bodies mostly burn sugar by feeding it the Standard American Diet all the time (and it's REAL difficult not to feed it the S.A.D.) it begins to depend solely on burning sugar as opposed to burning fat for its daily/constant fuel (which gives you a clue about those cravings!!)

The science in these two books, written for lay people of course, is compelling, fascinating, infuriating (when you stop and think of the POLITICS of food in this country and indeed most of the "industrialized" world), enlightening and liberating.

I recommend them both highly -- borrow or or both of them from the library, and see if you don't think they're worth having and utilizing in your life.

And even if you don't have any weight to lose, it's worth looking at some of the OTHER symptoms and conditions that can result from the S.A.D. and take steps now to fix them. For example, my own husband is both diabetic and has high blood pressure -- and yet wasn't AT ALL overweight when these conditions manifested.

Oh! Theres's a stress component as well -- you've seen the commercials for products that attack cortisone, "the stress hormone. From what I was reading today, this approach may be just backwards, it might be the leptin resistance causing the stress.

Anyway, I recommend them HIGHLY.

[Stephanie]

51. I have read and am doing South Beach right now

But thanks, I will look at the Rosedale book. I notice, though, that by cutting out sweets, breads, etc. on South Beach you are eliminating the foods that would contain HFCS as well.

A similar book that I thought was clear and interesting is The Schwarzbein Principle.

[Eloriel]

56. You're eliminating a LOT, but not all

South Beach doesn't require that you give up all processed foods -- so you have to be very careful about canned goods such as salad dressings, salsa, spaghetti and pizza sauce (I have a zucchini-pizza crust recipe!! whee!!), and so on.

I myself have to go back on Phase I for a while. I'm hoping only a few days, 3 - 5 or so.

[Stephanie]

58. pizza recipe, please!

I really miss pasta... :(

[Eloriel]

65. Okay -- here ya go

This is from 500 Low-Carb Recipes by Dana Carpender. (Even tho we don't count carbs and we're not ON a "low-carb" diet but rather, as Agatston puts it, a "good carb, good fat" diet, you can still find some helpful or adaptable recipes in some of the Low-Carb and Low-Fat or Light cookbooks.)

Takes a bit of work, but IMO worth it:

3-1/2 C shredded zucchini (about 3 medium large zukes)
3 eggs
1/3 C rice Protein powder or soy powder (I use soy flour or even tofu powder)
1-1/2 C shredded mozzarella (1/2 C of this is for the zuke crust, the rest is topping)
1/2 C grated Parmesan (all of it for the crust)
Pinch or two of dried basil
1/2 tsp salt
1/4 tsp pepper
oil
1 C sugarless pizza sauce (I use Ragu -- always check label for sugar)
toppings of your choice (I use pepperoni, mushrooms, onion, gr pepper)

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F.
2. Sprinkle the zucchini with a little salt and let it seit for 15 - 30 minutes. put it in a strainer and press out the excess moisture.
3. Beat together the zucchini, eggs, protein powder, 1/2 C mozzarella, Paremsan, basil, salt and pepper.
4. Spray a 9 x 13 baking pan with nonstick cooking psray and spread the zucchini mixture in it. (I actually use a jelly-roll pan, or a cookie sheet with sides, which is 10 x 15 -- and it's the perfect size IMO, esp. with the 15 oz. jar of Ragu sauce.)
5. bake for about 25 minutes, or until firm. Brush with a little olive oil and broil for about 5 minutes, until it's golden. (I usually skip this broiling part -- might let the crust bake a few minutes more instead, if I think it needs it.)
6. Spread on the pizza sauce, add your toppings, including the remaining Mozzarella.
7. Bake for another 25 minutes, then cut into squares and serve.

Yield: 4 generous servings.

This isn't something you can eat with your hands -- but you also don't realize you're eating zucchini.


As for pasta, by all means check out spaghetti squash as an alternative. (Cut in half, scoop out seeds, bake at 350 for about an hour, scoop out meat and it separates into spaghetti-like strands. taste is very mild -- perfect for carrying sauce.) I am not typically one who likes to make some foods into fake other foods, but I make an exception for spaghetti squash. It works wonderfully as an Italian-style side dish, for example, for the Parmesan chicken (see the recipe on the side of the Kraft Parmesan label) I like to fix or Chicken Capri recipe in the book, or as the base for a pasta dinner splurge now and then (with a huge salad on the side, of course).

AND/OR, see if you can find a healthfood store that caries Kamut pasta -- usually in spirals. That too is a better alternative to wheat pasta.

[Stephanie]

69. Thanks!

Copied and saved! Will definitely be trying all of those.

[lukasahero]

81. Look at yogurt

Try to find a yogurt that doesn't have HFCS in it. Good luck. It's not just in the things you might expect. HFCS is in EVERYTHING.

[AngryAmish]

4. I think that there are many reasons for more obesity

I don't think I have any special insight, but I see

1. More fast food. Fast food is more calorie dense than brown-bagging it I think.

2. Serving sizes have gone up a lot. When the Big MAc came out, it was supposed to be huge. Now it is just another sandwhich.

3. Food is cheaper, as a percentage of income.

4. Life is easier. Everything from TV remotes, to more elevators, to mechanical washers and dryers.

5. People smoke a lot less. Smoking is an effective appetite suppressive.

6. More poor people have cars.

[SmokingJacket]

76. All good ones, and I would add...

7. New development makes it hard to walk anywhere -- even if you wanted to.

8. Kids don't play outside as much, because of video games and fearful parents.

[theboss]

5. People need to run their asses around the block a few times

Lack of exercise is probably the greater issue than what foods are eaten or even the amounts of food eaten.

As a society, we sit on our fat asses way too much. That's why Houston has the health problems it has. People take an air condition car to get the mail.

[Stephanie]

7. You rarely see heavy people in NYC

In fact it's one way to spot the tourists. Because New Yorkers walk about 3-4 miles a day in their normal activities, while suburbanites walk maybe 1 mile. (Factoids from Supersize Me).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. That's why you see few fat people in Asia

Their diets are not as low-fat as is generally claimed (tempura? tonkatsu? tori karaage--the original Chicken McNuggets--), and yet there is little obesity.

They walk or bike a lot more than we do, sometimes a mile or more each way on their way to work, in the course of going to the train or subway station, transferring, and walking from the nearest station to their jobs. Then when it's lunchtime, they walk to lunch instead of driving.

When I was in Beijing in 1990, most people bicycled to work. (Sadly, this is no longer true). People would say matter of factly, "I live a half hour from here by bicycle."

Despite the fact that people ate large amounts of food, much of it very oily, no one was fat.

However, as cars become more common, even the Chinese are plumping up, or so I'm told.

[DARE to HOPE]

78. Yep--but also, the KINDS of fats used has everything to do with it...

Since WWII we have been encouraged to switch from saturated fats to polyunsaturated vegetable oils, especially corn and soy (in EVERYTHING!)

The thing is, they KNEW @1946 that corn and soy oil slowed down their little piggies for market, making them marbled, plump and lazy.

Up until then they had experimented with cheap oils like coconut, which made their livestock energized and skinny.

Now--look at the rise of obesity in the last century, and the rise of the use of margarine (given a boost in the Depression as "cheaper.")

Turns out that coconut oil HEALS the thyroid, while oils like corn, soy, even cold pressed safflower, sunflower, and especially CANOLA--DEPRESS the thyroid.

People in Asian countries, in India, on all the islands out that direction, eat coconut oil, and live to a ripe old age with beautiful skin. The soy they may eat also is FERMENTED, NOT the tofu and soymilk we are sold which also slows the thyroid.

Soooo--the GOOD NEWS is that shedding all vegetable oils (except for organic virgin olive oil used cold on salads) and using virgin organic coconut oil (or any kind that is NOT hydrogenated) causes one to be WARM and ENERGIZED and suddenly shedding weight without effort.

I also believe that we crave that which our bodies need, and will eat until we fulfill that. For example, we mostly get "salt" that is synthesized sodium chloride rather than salt from the sea or the mountains which contains our essential minerals as well.

Of course, sugar gums up the whole works, creating low blood sugar which causes one to eat things like "the whole box." Also destroys nerves, arteries, etc. Then there are things like MSG and NutraSweet which are highly destructive to the body. It is NOT just about calories, folks.

BUT--exercise can mount a defense over a LOT of evils. When you start feeling good, your body WANTS to move. My own youth was spent on my bicycle, too, to the point of shopping for my wedding--age 24--with my saddle bags on the back (we had lived in Europe when I was growing up.) Once I moved to the suburbs--the weight came on effortlessly.

Now it is coming OFF effortlessly. Fruits, vegetables, clean protein, br rice, oats, all organic and cooked with coconut oil. We make ice cream out of frozen mango and strawberries with a splash of coconut milk. You experience such deep nutrition you do NOT WANT junk! Also, green tea extract helps turn up the metabolism. 32 pounds since October.

God bless. Yes, happiness helps, stress gets in the way. Love your body--it has sustained you in life thus far.

[Samurai_Writer]

18. Houston...

as a former Houston resident (26 years), I can tell you why people don't get out of their cars there... they can't frickin' breathe in that highly polluted, 100% humidity. Whenever I go visit Houston (from south east Florida), I can SMELL the crap in the air every time I go outside.

[Mondon]

33. I find your remarks insensitive

to those of us who don't conform to the media's idealized shape due to factors such as genetics, disease, or just being different.

[Eloriel]

50. Exericse helps, is not definitive

See my previous post for info re diet.

[calico1]

6. Up through the 1940's people cooked mostly

from scratch. "Convenience" foods then were things like evaporated milk, tomato sauce, spaghetti, etc. No frozen meals, fast food, etc. No frankenfoods filled with preservatives and all kinds of chemicals. People actually ate more fat. Whole milk, lard, butter. But there was little obesity. Later on frozen foods became more popular and fast food places opened up but when I was growing up in the 60's and 70's people still didn't eat a lot of fast food. That was unheard of. Portions were smaller. A lot smaller. And it was unheard of to eat mini meals, graze, or eat 6 or 8 small meals throughout the day as many "experts" tell you to do today. You ate breakfast, lunch and dinner. Dessert was once in a while, not everyday. You walked a lot more. There were no self propelled lawn mowers, no leaf blowers, no snow blowers. Even to change the channel on your TV set you had to get up off your butt and do it. There were no malls so you went into town to shop from one store to the other and walked a lot more. A lot of kids walked 6, 7, 8 blocks to school and it was no big deal. There are so many differences today then years ago and a lot of them have not been for the better.

[undergroundpanther]

8. Did you look at the links?

Dieting is one of the causes of obesity.. the bodies calorie burining setpoint is forced by diets to change permanently slower unless the person is nutritionally rehabbed ..
Dieting causes obesity it is a rebound from starvation broght on by pressure to be thin and not eating enough or enough variety .

[NickB79]

24. The metabolic setpoint should be able to be maintained higher

If a good exercise regiment is incorporated. You're exactly right, you're going to gain more weight later on if you try starvation diets without exercise.

[calico1]

26. I was actually agreeing with you.

But also pointing out the major differences between today and when I was growing up and before. Aside from not too many people dieting, most people didn't do any "formal" exericse like jog, go to a gym, etc. But they did walk everywhere, they mowed their lawn with a regular push mower (not self propelled). A lot of jobs were not automated so there was a lot more manual labor involved. Kids like me played outside for hours and hours. We were just more naturally active in our everyday lives. I think constand dieting is very bad. Severe calorie reduction is not good because it screws up the metabolism. Especially in people that diet over and over again. And as I said before people ate more whole, natural and homecooked meals and little or no processed, packaged stuff or fast food. The body can tell the difference.

[elehhhhna]

91. I struggle to GAIN weight and a Doctor pal suggested that I

DIET for a week, cut calories, then resume normal eating and be mindful to take on extra calories daily.

It worked! Gained 9 lbs. and kept it on. What does that tell you about dieting?

[Eloriel]

53. Right -- it's the SUGAR (diff. types of sugars) in all the processed

and high carb foods we eat now. Carbs turn to sugar in the body; all the highly processed foods have additional sugars added; etc.

[DARE to HOPE]

79. They ate more fat, like lard and whole milk, but from grass fed cows....

Livestock raised on grass produce more omega-3 fatty acids as well as CLA, which everyone is rushing to buy at health food stores as it raises the metabolism. The 100-yr old grandmother discussed below who insisted on lard pie crust was not wrong. It is the food supply which changed.

Instead of grassfed lard and butter (they actually had a "butter diet" to heal disease--butter has short chain fatty acids which are powerful anti-viral etc as strong as the medium chain fatty acids found in coconut oil) we are eating (margarine, but also) butter with higher amounts of the over abundant omega-6 fatty acids.

The kinds of fats we are eating, brought to us by Big Government, has everything to do with our obesity problem, even with our "lazy llifestyle."

[porphyrian]

10. Social Programming and the Good Consumer

As corporations have acquired more and more power over our lives, so does their agenda dictate ours. The corporate agenda is to make money, period, despite what it may do to people, the world, or the future (past the current ten year fiscal projection). Once corporations realized how successful propaganda was in controlling the behavior of people, they began pouring millions into advertising (which is really the same as propaganda, but with a product or brand featured instead of a country). The one message consistant in all advertising is CONSUME. Unlike the Depression-era folks and some hippies, recent generations have been trained to believe via advertising that more is necessary. Consumption is our unwritten civic duty.

Now, return customers are what businesses strive for, because that's where the steady, reliable money is, and it let's them make more accurate projections of future profits. You can get return business a few different ways. One of the most effective is to provide a service or product that is consumed during use, thus needing constant replacement. Food is the ultimate example of this type of product, and food is big business in America. Thus, an ungodly amount of money is pumped into advertising food consumption annually. And, who do you think is exposed to the most of this advertising? The rich? Middle-aged men? The answer is entwined with the answer to this question: Who is exposed to the most commercial television?

Television is one big advertisement. Sure, it looks a little different than it did when that was obvious in its early years, but it's still true today. The programs you tune in to watch are nothing more than ways to trick you into watching commercials, because they pay the bills. Did you ever keep track of what commercials air during a given program or time slot? They are specifically aimed at a projected demographic, given past polling information. Try counting how many food-related commercials play during a given sports event. Then count how many occur during a childrens' show.

We are being programmed to be obese.

[lectrobyte]

31. and if you are sitting in front of the "glass teat", then you are not

exercising, thinking, walking, gardening, creating, etc. etc. Now, say something to make me feel less guilty about the time I spend reading/posting DU, etc. on the internets.

[porphyrian]

80. Thinking burns calories. Posting here sometimes involves thinking.

...and, um, so does typing. And sitting up straight.

[raccoon]

11. Another contributing factor

is that some medications cause weight gain as a side effect.

[nuffy]

12. Long-time lurker, 1st time poster...

I just had to register to say I couldn't agree more. I am sure that a combination of forcing people to a low caloric intake over their lifetime causes both the lowering of their metabolism AND an unhealthy psychological relationship with food... and that these more than anything else have created the situation we find ourselves in.

And there is totally a "blame the victim" mentality when it comes to so-called "overweight" people (let me not get into that right now...). In fact, I read an editorial today that said that the new food pyramid (I won't touch that either, not now) even MORE makes it the individual's "fault" by implying that everything can be solved by simply exercising more!

[Lars39]

67. Glad you stopped lurking, nuffy!

Welcome to DU. :toast:

[Mrs_Beastman]

95. Welcome!

from a former lurker! :hide:

[ultraist]

13. Obesity linked to low income

Numerous studies have shown that the rates of obesity are higher amongst the low income.

This article offers some reasons why:

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=6603

Obesity is likely to affect individuals in low-income areas where fresh fruits and vegetables may not be as plentiful, according to a new University of Houston study.

The finding is suggested in a study on the availability and quality of produce in high-income versus low-income urban neighborhoods. The study was made possible by a two year, $110,000 grant from the American Heart Association Heartland Affiliate.

"Obesity disproportionately burdens low-income, ethnic minority populations," said Rebecca E. Lee, assistant professor of health and human performance and lead researcher on the study. "The results suggest that these populations have less access to healthy foods."

The study found that people living in low-income, urban neighborhoods had access to at least one convenience store and a liquor store that sold convenience foods, but very few supermarkets or grocery stores. The produce that was available to these neighborhoods included few fresh fruits and hardly any vegetables. In contrast, the high-income urban neighborhoods studied were more likely to have access to supermarkets and grocery stores and the quality and quantity of produce available was higher than those found in low-income neighborhoods.

[Eloriel]

55. Yes, when I went on MY healthy diet --

South Beach (see my first post in this thread) -- there was a significant jump in the cost of our groceries. Cheap carbs fill you up (temporarily) -- but create all sorts of other problems. It's no mystery to me AT ALL why the poor in our country are obese. None whatsoever. They couldn't be anything but.

[Marnieworld]

15. The reason why there aren't more studies

Is BECAUSE of the prevailing predjudice against fat people. It is a socially acceptable hatred. Because it affects a hated group it's not a priority to society. The prevailing belief is that it all starts and begins with the individual. While I do believe that is true, the individual does not live in a vacumn. If it wasn't for the hatred there would be more of a general effort to fix the problem. People raised in this culture after the 80s do not know how to eat healthy. I was raised with fast food, take-out and not taught to cook. As an adult I only ate what I knew. I am now making efforts to change and believe me it is sooooooo much easier when you have extra money compared to when you don't. I gained weight when I was broke. Now I just bought a house that included a gym and now I am working out. It's completely an opportunity based on income. Sure I could have gone to a gym but then I would have the hatred and predjudice of all around me to face as I worked out.

The pain of being hated makes people eat. Then, when fat, the hatred keeps people from exercising. People learn to hate themselves and the cycle continues.

If it was treated as a result from other influences and a health epidemic to be attacked like aids or cancer perhaps progress could be made. Then again fat people do not have lobbyists (that I'm aware of.) Pot is illegal but Fast Food is legal. If the laws were based on health effects it would be illegal to have transfat and corn syrup. But instead Congress is worried about Steroids in sports to protect the sanctity of statistics.

So it is all about money. The food manufacturers and fast food companies will never be stopped. The pharmaceutical companies and health care professionals benefit from sick people not healthy people. Not to mention the BILLIONS made promising to get people thin. It's an endless cycle to keep people fat and make money off of them.

[Batgirl]

17. My mom's experience with cholesterol-lowering meds

got me to thinking about this subject recently. Both parents developed Type II diabetes in their 60s. They were put on daily oral medication to treat insulin resistance. They also ended up on daily meds to treat high blood pressure and high cholesterol (statin meds made my mom very sick with muscle inflammation and pain). Additionally, my dad had a history of mini strokes, then bypass surgery 4 years ago. I've learned since then that all of these conditions were most likely secondary symptoms, the results of having the diabetes. And we've all heard by now that Type II diabetes, which some refer to as an epidemic in our country, is largely a created disease. Meaning that to an extent, so are high blood pressure, high cholesterol and heart disease.

Then I started thinking about how much money is being made from this situation. The processed food industry, the diet industry, then the drug companies to treat the eventual long term health problems.

Which makes fat political. I'm hooked on junk food but have started reading labels and avoiding high fructose corn syrup and trans fats, which appear to be the two main disease-creating culprits.

So forget dieting as such -- I feel it's a small political victory every time I don't eat unhealthy processed foods. A moderate workout is a small political victory. And maybe I'll be able to avoid certain chronic health conditions when I'm older and can avoid enriching big pharmacy.

I thought this article made some interesting points about the history of our engineered food supply as it relates to the rise of chronic disease in our populace (although I'm not a scientist and can't vouch for any of this.)

"Diabetes, which had a per capita incidence of 0.0028% at the turn of the century, had by 1933, zoomed 1000% in the US to become a disease faced by many doctors <8>. This disease, under a variety of aliases, was destined to go on to wreck the health of over half of the American population and to incapacitate almost 20% by the 1990's. <9> According to the American Heart Association, almost 50% of Americans suffer from one or more symptoms of this disease. One third of our population is morbidly obese. Half of our population is overweight. Type II Diabetes, also called Adult Onset Diabetes, now appears routinely in six year old children"


"Many of our degenerative diseases can be traced to a massive failure of our endocrine system that was well known to the physicians of the 1930's as Insulin Resistant Diabetes. This basic underlying disorder is known to be a derangement of the blood sugar control system by badly engineered fats and oils. It is exacerbated and complicated by the widespread lack of other essential nutrition that the body needs to cope with the metabolic consequences of these poisons."

The history of the engineered adulteration of our once clean food supply exactly parallels the rise of the epidemic of diabetes and hyperinsulinemia now sweeping the US as well as much of the rest of the world."

http://www.rense.com/general58/diabetes.htm

[Pockets]

19. My reaction...

You have nice thoughts on the topic, but I have to say that being overweight is a serious problem in America. I do not think there is a conspiracy compelling us to stigmatize one another. Obesity is the number two health risk in America after smoking. My father recently was diagnosed with diabetes from being a little overweight, and if I'm not careful it could happen to me. Corporations encourage Americans to join in on the endless cycle of eating and dieting/exercising. The more we diet and exercise, the more we can eat and thus be good and obedient consumers.

[minerva50]

29. The CDC downgraded it from number 2 to number 7.

[lukasahero]

83. Your father

It's not likely that he was "diagnosed with diabetes from being a little overweight". He was at risk for it with the added weight but he was diagnosed with it for being unable to properly process insulin. That's because everything we eat these days, unless it's straight from the garden or the ranch, has sugar in it. Corn syrup, corn starch, glucose, dextrin, dextrose... all are simply sugar.

I was at risk for type II diabetes when I weighed 110 lbs - not exactly overweight. I was at risk because I ate badly (ok, not at all) in college and screwed up my health and my body no longer knew how to make and use insulin. I went on a strict diet of natural, unprocessed, whole foods with limited (and unusual) grains and my triglyceride levels have reduced by 2/3! in a year.

[minerva50]

20. Have you read the latest CDC Study

It shows that "overweight" people actually live longer.

Paul Campos covered that territory in "the obesity myth". He said the wealthier classes, especially rich women who head up the health establishment in this country have an anorexic attitude, a real fear and loathing of fat. It is no longer PC to dislike or be repelled by the poor or ethnics or african-americans, but they can loathe and despise the obese, often cloaked as concern for their health.

His additional point was that, even if it were proven that overweight or obesity per se were bad for your health (rather than things like high blood pressure or chloresterol); there is no proof that reducing the weight of a naturally inclined-to-fat person would improve his health, indeed there is proof that diets generally don't work and that yoyo dieting does worsen your health.

What we can say is that physical activity is good for your health, and that physically fit "overweight" people are healthier than physically unfit "normal weight" people.

[Pockets]

21. Never read the book

I openly admit my ignorance on the topic. But who's to say that book wasn't sponsored by the agriculture industry in America who profits from our appetites? Diabetes is very common, and there are various other specific health problems that are the direct result of being overweight. I can't get the movie "Supersize Me" out of my mind now.

Of course, demaning people to be ultra thin, and judging someone based on how thin they is also ridiculous. I would never expect a female with children to go right back to weighing 110 lbs afterwards. Some men are piglike in their behavior and attitudes and I'm not defending them at all.

[kineneb]

86. hi from a physically fit "overweight" person

Last time I was at the Docs place, I weighed in at 200lb! I am 5'9" size ~16 and study ballet. I can do basic center floor exercizes on pointe! So weight and size are not everything. And I have always eaten a healthy diet.

[NickB79]

23. "a 1600 calorie diet was considered a starvation level food intake"

"in the 1940's".

Yes, and a large portion of the US population at that time was either still farming or doing heavy labor in a factory somewhere building tanks, bombers and battleships. When you're burning 3000-4000 calories per day, then yes, 1600 calories is starvation-level. Now fastforward to 2005, and you don't find nearly as many people with that level of physical exertion. With the average American's level of exertion today, 1800-2000 calories seems reasonable, IMO.

My grandmother still cooks the way she did when she was feeding all her boys on the farm years ago. The amounts of butter, lard and sugar she uses would blow your mind (and your tastebuds, mmmmm). Yet not a single one of my 7 uncles, or my dad, are obese. All still either farm or work factory jobs, though.

Take a country of people who used to work as farmers, manufacturers, and hard laborers, and put them behind desks in cubicles 40 hrs a week, and you can see what happens.

[calico1]

30. Exactly!

Instead of going on diet after diet after diet we should be focusing on adding physical acitivity to our lives. The problem is that today there is very little activity for most of us in our everyday lives. We have to make ourselves be active. Which ie easier said than done in an age where we have so many conveniences. And I came froma time when people were so much more naturally active so for me its easier in the sense that I can remember what it was like and try to be more like that. But what about people born from the 80's and on who have never lived like that? Who were born in the age of convenience and fast food? Much harder because they have to not only make themselves eat better but also make themselves be more active.

[elehhhhna]

92. Yep--peoplel weren't chained to their desk for 60 hours per week back then

[ScreamingMeemie]

32. In a society where the healthier the product is, the more expensive it is

it is easy to see why the poor are obese. White bread usually costs much less than fancy multi grain varieties.

[lukasahero]

84. Bless you!

Absolutely, this the core of the issue!!!!!!

[dmallind]

35. Hmm interesting

I agree with this idea on some levels. Certainly the fat-phobia and implied (or heck in may supercilious cases explicitly stated) inferiority of the fat is a societal norm these days.

Think about it on DU. Give me a few minutes and I can find a dozen posts where fat is used as a general derogatory term applied to a negatively viewed population. It seems there is a large subsection even if this liberal and supposedly tolerant population that views weight as a weapon to be hurled, accurately or not, against those whom it despises and with whom it disagrees.

About the only thing which is used comparably is "suburban".

Now I'm a fat white suburban male so I am of course the natural enemy of the tofu and solar heating wing of DU.

Some people need to realize being overweight is not a sign of being stupid or weak willed. I know there are, usually overstated but still real, health risks in being overweight. While I am naturally endomorphic I could indeed decide to make lifestyle choices that would make me decidedly less fat. I however don't care enough to do so. The negative aspects of forcing myself into activities I do not enjoy, and withholding foods (OK mostly beer in my case) which I do enjoy far outweigh the uncertain positives of having a slightly lower risk of heart disease or living a few years longer at the end of my life (it's not like being thin keeps you at twenty years of age for those additional years after all). None of us knows when or how mortality will strike and thin or fat I may die accidentally or of a non-weight related condition at any time, just like all of you. Taking the chance that I WILL die of a weight-related cause, at some slightly younger age than I otherwise would, is a small price to pay for a stress-free life I enjoy and choosing my activities and diet based only to my taste. My weight in no way impairs me from doing anything I want to do or need to do. If it did I would change it, but I'm damned if I'll change it so perfect strangers think I look better in a T shirt. Frankly I couldn't give a toss.

Sure there are people out there who like tofu and enjoy running six miles a day. No doubt they are thinner than I. It's quite probable that cet par they will live a bit longer. Good luck to them. But they are neither superior nor inferior to me as people based solely on these preferences.

[Stephanie]

37. I did not realize "suburban" was a derogatory word

What you seem to be saying is that being overweight is a choice that you make, and that you are tired of people criticizing your choices. Is that it?

[ultraist]

39. Yes, suburban dwellers and SUV drivers are ridiculed here

[dmallind]

54. Thank goodness for small mercies

Well at least I'm only one of the two.

I mean everyone knows the personal worth and political acumen of anyone can be determined based on whether they want a yard and a spare bedroom on a quiet street for an affordable price, and whether they like sitting high to get good visibility in traffic with a vehicle that can carry a good mix of people and luggage.

I drive a station wagon. It gets about the same mileage as most normal sized SUVs, so heck maybe I'm both untouchable classes after all. Oh well.

[Cats Against Frist]

74. You need to find Walt Starr, immediately

I think he's your soulmate.

:hi:

[dmallind]

52. Oh indeed it is - look on any of the environmental and social threads.

And you are close but not quite right I think.

For me being overweight is a default condition which I could change by relatively drastic lifestyle changes so yes in one sense it's a choice but it's not like I have an equally probable and equally accessible choice between being overweight or not. Given that I would not be, for no other reason than being able to find a wider range of clothing in my size. Anyway semantic difference and yes since I could by choice become if not ideal weight then at least less overweight then I suppose it's a choice in the end OK.

Funny aside there - my doctor mentioned I was overweight (perhaps he thought that at 280 I couldn't work that out myself) at my last physical - I am otherwise fine. He checked my body fat percentage and found it to be 30%. Inarguably more than it should be. He pointed to the weight chart that said at 5'10 I should be between, IIRC, 155 and 175lbs and at 280 was in the "extremely obese", or whatever the worst one is, column. Now I'm not slow with numbers so I took 30% of 280 and found that at zero % body fat - which is neither possible nor desirable - I would be 196lbs and still then in the "very overweight" column. I was a competitive powerlifter in my youth and still retain considerable muscle mass.

So it's hard for him to say "normal weight is X" when I could not possibly achieve anywhere near that weight. He mumbled something, perfectly true, about the charts not being made for weightlifters but then that rather weakens the indexes for me too - does that make me "very obese" or just "obese"? If I was at a very healthy 10% body fat I would still weigh 215 - which is obese on most charts for my height. This is not to say I am not absolutely fatter than I should be and could be, but we need to stop extrapolating cast iron rules and divisions form guidelines which exclude anyone who is even slightly more muscular than average. Every single NFL linebacker is either very overweight or obese - so how valid is the chart for anyone who lifts even a little?

And no I'm not tired of people criticizing my choices. I'm not even personally offended by people using "fat" as a synonym for lazy, stupid, racist, republican, whatever else it is used for, I just think it's sloppy and inaccurate and does the person trying to make that point no favors. It's a sign of prejudice against the fat in others that speaks about their intellectual limitations more than it speaks about anything to do with me or other fatties, so the criticism is not that meaningful.

[Batgirl]

38. "the tofu and solar heating wing of DU."

I kind of envy this wing but must admit the closest I've gotten to belonging was last summer when I grew 3 cucumber plants. The resulting "crops" were strangely bloated and terrifying to behold.

I agree that eking out a (maybe) slightly longer lifespan isn't a good reason. My new motivation for eating a bit healthier stems from seeing how my parents handled their Type II diabetes-related ailments. They thought they could just take pills rather than change their eating and exercise habits.

Mostly I hate the thought of going through all the hassle with doctor visits and procedures.

My great grandmother was a firm believer in the power of lard pie crust, and lived to be nearly 100. I don't think she knew what an Extra Value Meal was though.

[calico1]

45. Your body recognizes real foods.

"My great grandmother was a firm believer in the power of lard pie crust, and lived to be nearly 100. I don't think she knew what an Extra Value Meal was though."

Which is probably why she could use lard and it didn't hurt her but fast food probably would have.

By the way, if I was one of the ones being referred to, I hate tofu.

[dmallind]

57. No no individuals in mind

"By the way, if I was one of the ones being referred to, I hate tofu."

I don't know anyone on these boards well enough to aim such descriptions at any individual.

However the same is true of anyone who in a blanket generalization ascribes negative characteristics toward overweight white suburbanites.

By the way I've always wondered because it seems those terms are often linked together on many message boards and debate sites I have seen - are overweight black suburbanites any more or less worthy of scorn? My neighbor across the street has to be at least 50lbs heavier than I am and he's less reliably Democratic than I am (I confess to occasionally voting for Republican judges and commissioners etc I think he actually voted Rep for US Senate last time although mostly a Dem guy).

[elehhhhna]

93. LOL re; your crops, Batgirl.

[Eloriel]

60. Longevity

The negative aspects of forcing myself into activities I do not enjoy, and withholding foods (OK mostly beer in my case) which I do enjoy far outweigh the uncertain positives of having a slightly lower risk of heart disease or living a few years longer at the end of my life (it's not like being thin keeps you at twenty years of age for those additional years after all).

Uh, you might want to check out the factors re longevity factors involved with not having insulin and leptin resistance. (Rosedale op. cit.)

[dmallind]

63. Another fad diet?

Not being a medically inclined fellow could you help me out and give me the rough probability of developing this problem with a poor diet and overweight condition like mine and the probability of developing them with an ideal weight and a balanced diet?

This is not sarcasm or laziness. I lack the knowledge on where to find that data. The numbers I will understand. How to get them I do not.

The reason I ask this is it's all too often the case where a media blurb says something like "obese people 50% more likely to develop condition X". Condition X may indeed be horrible and life threateneing but in the cases where I have managed to find raw numbers (some kind of cholesterol reducing medication IIRC) it turns out that the obese population develops this condition in 9 cases out of 1000 people whereas the nonobese develops it in 6. So in other words I could dedicate many hours of my time to activities I do not enjoy, and permanently drastically reduce activities I do enjoy, for the sake of moving my probability of NOT getting horrible condition X from 99.1% to 99.4% That ain't worth it.

Now I'm not in denial here - if someone could say that my diet and weight, cet par,increaes my chances of becoming diabetic from say .05 if I were in ideal shape to .5 probability as a fatty I'd do something about it. But if it's a wholesale lifestyle change to be .003 safer then I'll take those odds every time because everything has a risk and all lifestyle choices carry some negatives. Noone has yet demonstrated to me that being overweight increases those negatives to such a degree that I must act so drastically to avoid them. The probability of harm is just not differentiated enough from the probability of the same harm if I were thinner.

So if you can sell me on increased probability of harm being significant by all means point me to the data. A quick search for Rosedale and "leptin reistance" led me to a slew of ads for yet another fad diet book.

[Stephanie]

64. This is an excellent article that will give you more info >

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/health/article-page.html?res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B63

What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?

By Gary Taubes

Published: July 7, 2002


f the members of the American medical establishment were to have a collective find-yourself-standing-naked-in-Times-Square-type nightmare, this might be it. They spend 30 years ridiculing Robert Atkins, author of the phenomenally-best-selling ''Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution'' and ''Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution,'' accusing the Manhattan doctor of quackery and fraud, only to discover that the unrepentant Atkins was right all along. Or maybe it's this: they find that their very own dietary recommendations -- eat less fat and more carbohydrates -- are the cause of the rampaging epidemic of obesity in America. Or, just possibly this: they find out both of the above are true.

When Atkins first published his ''Diet Revolution'' in 1972, Americans were just coming to terms with the proposition that fat -- particularly the saturated fat of meat and dairy products -- was the primary nutritional evil in the American diet. Atkins managed to sell millions of copies of a book promising that we would lose weight eating steak, eggs and butter to our heart's desire, because it was the carbohydrates, the pasta, rice, bagels and sugar, that caused obesity and even heart disease. Fat, he said, was harmless.

Atkins allowed his readers to eat ''truly luxurious foods without limit,'' as he put it, ''lobster with butter sauce, steak with béarnaise sauce . . . bacon cheeseburgers,'' but allowed no starches or refined carbohydrates, which means no sugars or anything made from flour. Atkins banned even fruit juices, and permitted only a modicum of vegetables, although the latter were negotiable as the diet progressed.

[dmallind]

100. Very interesting article thanks - but I'm buggered either way

After all beer is pretty much all carbs.

I don't think Atkins made it to average life expectancy though did he? Wonder if Rosedale will? Wonder if I will?

Kinda makes you think it's just a crapshoot anyway.

Which of course is my firm conviction. Mortality is so complex and so coincidental that there is no point taking precaution against anything except the factors where the probability of increased mortality is ridiculously high - nothing else is worth the stress.

So yep I don't drive at 60 mph on a solidly frozen twisty road - too much real RISK,

So yep I don't hang out in the high crime urban zones carrying bags of cash - too much real RISK.

And yep I don't engage in unprotected anal sex with strange men at every opportunity (or frankly at any opportunity) - too much real risk.

But millions upon millions of Americans eat high fat poor diets, exercise little, and live long productive lives. Millions don't - but the EXACT same thing can be said of those who weigh every fat gram, get up at 4.30 AM to run ten miles every day and know the glycemic index better than the Dow Jones index. Some of them live healthy long lives, some don't.

It ain't worth worrying about not because it isn't important - I am not a nihilist or suicidal and consider my life to be very important indeed, but because there is no real way of knowing what it is you need to protect yourself from and what the change in your risk will be. It's all too easy to imagine (heck remember -a couple of incidents spring to mind) people who take drastic action to watch their weight and stay "in shape" (what an absurd phrase - what person isn't in some shape or another) and then get killed on their bikes or keel over with a heart attack while jogging. No I know full well that's not ALWAYS the case but that's my point - too many unpredictable factors to worry about doing anything but taking precautions against overwhelmingly dangerous activities or conditions with proven significant risk.

[Eloriel]

66. Sure, I'll be happy to help you out.

With pleasure.

Now I'm not in denial here - if someone could say that my diet and weight, cet par,increaes my chances of becoming diabetic from say .05 if I were in ideal shape to .5 probability as a fatty I'd do something about it.

Oh, no, that's not denial at all. You're simply demanding your motivation be spoon fed to you in precisely, exactly the form you want. And that you're having trouble finding it (not that you're looking) is all the better, isn't it?

Sorry, bub. You're on your own. You can stay exactly how you please -- no skin off my back. My only interest is in bringing information to people who might find it worthwhile and valuable, as I have. What you do with it is yours and yours alone to figure out, but asking for precise numbers is way over the line. But funny as all get out. I'm not in denial here -- :rofl:

You can read the damn books. Or not. But of course, since you've automatically relegated them to the "fad diet" category, by all means I hope you will enjoy your level of obesity and ill health. You've certainly earned (and even argued for!) them. They're yours.

[dmallind]

99. No I'm simply demanding people back up modish assertions

with facts.

Starting with the fact that my health is fine. I think I did mention that.

Carrying on with facts about the RISK of obesity, duly separated from other risks, not the INCREASE in the risk.

If you buy two lottery tickets that increases your chance of winning the lottery 100%. But that's not important to the decision about whether buying tickets is a good idea or not. What's important is how likely you are to win the lottery.

That's exactly the case with all these health fads, which of course are almost always contradicted by the next one people jump onto.

Where is the DATA - not book blurbs - telling us what the life expectancy of an obese person is compared to the life expectancy of the same person, with all other factors held constant other than obesity.

As has been mentioned before low income correlates positively with obesity. Well low income alsso correlates positively with low life expectancy. Which is causal and which is incidental? A life of poor education, low living standards, poor access to health care, stress from living hand to mouth. or being overweight?

I HAVE looked for real data but they ain't out there that obviously bub and sure as hell not in just the most recent weight loss snake oil.

The simple truth is what data I have been able to find tell me that obesity, even uncorrected for other coincidental factors like low income and race, has a relatively minor impact on life expectancy.

Enjoy your three (maybe) extra stressed out years bub - the ones between 75 and 78 are normally SO enjoyable after all. Enjoy the deprivation and toil and restrictions on what you can do for the remaining decades until you hit that age. Because I AM enjoying my life right now and have no intention of changing that unless any real risk factor is identified that would have anything but a remote chance of changing that.

Soprry that offends your sanctimonious holier than thou skinny bigotry bub.

[Batgirl]

104. I'm glad you are still here

All you or any of us can do is try to be informed. Scientific understanding of nutrition has changed a lot over the years and will probably keep changing.

Anyone who's struggled with this problem is very mistrustful of the snake oil peddlers. Or of whatever conventional wisdom is currently in favor.

If you feel happy and healthy, then by all means keep doing whatever you are doing. I've gone through lengthy periods when I just didn't want to focus my energy on any of this, and there was a definite sense of relief.

But as far as the issue of longevity, I've come to think that it's not all about lifepan. They've come up with medications that allow people to live for extra years with adult onset diabetes and its related chronic conditions. But those extra years can be fraught with terrible problems. I know this from watching both of my parents who have been on these medications for the past decade or so.

There's been a sharp decline in their quality of life, brought on by their diabetes related ailments. My dad's case is the more severe. Diabetes damaged his ciculatory system so the capillaries in his brain couldn't deliver a good blood supply. So parts of his brain died. He is 72 now, has been confined to a hospital bed for over 2 years, diagnosed with vascular dementia 3 years ago, and looking back we can see he was mentally compromised since at least 5 years ago. So since age 67 things haven't been going too great for him. Unfortunately, his brain damage wasn't diagnosed at the time they did bypass surgery 4 years ago (to fix the clogged arteries which were also most likely related to his diabetes). An operation that guaranteed his body would live a lot longer than his mind.

So I don't care so much about how many years I live, but the quality of those years if/when I get to be my parents' age.

It's true, there are so many other ways to get sick and die, and if I don't get hit by a bus, one of them will happen to me. But I don't like those diabetes statistics, not with my family history.

Your case could be completely different. But the incidence of type II diabetes in our population is going up drastically, to the point where some studies are now predicting that overall life expectancy could start to decline.

[dmallind]

106. Thanks for thoughtful response

Truth be told, adult onset diabetes is the only condition where I think an even vaguely substantial risk - not just a substantial increase in risk - due to weight is somewhat established.

And even for that I can't find real figures that show raw risk. After all if 30% of the population are obese and 60%+ overweight, this should not be too difficult to find but it seems none of the publicly available studies breakdown data with regard to risk rather than differential risk. I could, and actually will, find the population ratio of those who have type II diabetes, but even then we have to find out how many would have developed it without being overweight. This is of course anecdotal and entirely meaningless statistically, but the only person I know personally with it is a rail and always has been.

Still it's the only condition where I keep an eye on it and I make sure my blood sugar levels are checked every physical. So far I'm fine.

My best wishes for you and your parents. That's a tough position and while in no way trying to take a stance on your scenario, I'm not sure I want my own body to outlive my brain, which may have some influence on how I approach longevity too.

BTW as I am sure you have already considered, make sure you get checked out yourself.

Thanks again.

[Batgirl]

107. you're quite welcome

as far as the brain/body thing, so far they both seem to be deteriorating at roughly the same rate -- who could ask for more?

[elehhhhna]

94. Interesting mention of beer. I think booze is the culprit for MANY people

[Cats Against Frist]

75. I think you can be overweight and still in favor of solar energy

just for the record. :)

[dmallind]

103. Agreed - just :-)

but hey if classifying groups negatively on the basis of weight is fair game, then surely poking fun at those who wrap their walls in tin foil is too.

[sam sarrha]

40. Obesity is linked to Ab-36 Virus ... are Insurance companies covering this

up so that they dont have to pay for necessary treatment..?? I new a woman in 1967 that went from slim to 150 pounds overweight in only months, she was pissed because her doctors woldnt listen to her. She said she got a little flu, then started to put on the weight.. she said she caught something that made her fat.. 42 years ago.

http://www.excel.net/~jaguar/fatvirus.html

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA09/obesity497.html

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/882026/posts

[ultraist]

42. For many that's true

For others, it's a matter of poor diet & lack of exercise. And then of course, there are those who over eat for psychological reasons (food addicts). There are other health reasons for being overweight as well: hormones, metabolism issues, etc.

[sam sarrha]

47. that is a given.. My wife has a thyroid problem and the virus.

there are many factors and combinations.. my post was in reference to the insurance companies now having to cover previously denied treatments, because it has now been prove to be a disease.

[bleedingheart]

43. TV is a curse

This past weekend, my family spent the evenings outside enjoying the stars, talking with each other....this was after doing outside work all day long.

I can tell you that we were probably the only ones not holed up in our house watching TV.

[Nikia]

62. I've been suspicious about some foods

Some foods do seem to have more calories than they say. Perhaps, some things are metabolized differently, but it seems that some calories stay with you. My husband and I have noticed this in regards to eating fast food. A diet of around 2000 calories seems to burn up easier if it consists of large portions of healthy food compared to fast food sandwiches and fries.
You are right about the effects of dieting on metabolism. Physiologically, the body tries to adjust its metabolism to activity and diet. Gaining or losing more than 10% of your body weight in a year is actually a metabolic mistake.

[lukasahero]

85. Actually most body builders and doctors

will tell you that more smaller meals a day will improve your metabolism.

But I'd stay away from the fast food in general because the portions may seem small but a) they're not and b) they're filled with all sorts of processed crap and sugars and that's what's hurting the metabolism.

[nonconformist]

68. What you're overlooking is the change in physical activity

From the 1940's until now. I grew up in the 70's and it's changed a lot even since then.

It's a well known fact that people aren't as active now as they were in the past. People walk less, children play outside less, fewer people have physical jobs. As our society becomes more technologically advanced, it becomes possible to not even leave your house if you don't want to. That is the real problem, balancing enjoying what technology has to offer with moderate physical activity. Caloric intake has to be on par with physical activity.

I agree that poverty plays a large role. I'd say a lot of factors play into that... the inability to afford healthier foods (fruit is more expensive than a bag of generic potato chips), tradition (those large dinners of deep fried fatty foods they grew up with but overlooking that they were more physically active then... this is rampant in the south), ignorance about health, the lack of quality healthcare and regular check-ups, and low self-esteem.

Also, to be fair, it's probably hard for poor people to spend a lot of time thinking about their health and fitness when they're struggling to pay their rent - other things are taking priority. Sadly, health should be a huge priority in all our lives but it isn't. When your government doesn't think you are entitled to adequate healthcare unless you can afford it it doesn't give the impression that your health is a central focus of quality of life. Education is federally funded because people understand that without it, your quality of life will suffer in several ways. We don't, as a society, put that same emphasis on health and fitness.

But back to the caloric argument - honestly, I'm not up to speed on the latest medical research in caloric needs - if I get a chance I'll do some research later. But I do remember a few years ago reading that a lot of experts were in favor of substantially lower daily requirements than the FDA recommended. As a side note, I have read that prior to the 20th century, tooth decay was rare because refined sugars weren't a part of most people's regular diet - they were occasional treats if anything. Processed foods with high fat and refined sugars that have become part of our everyday life now must definitely play a role in the increase in obesity as well. In essence, I think that looking back in the past for guidelines on caloric intake are only relevant if you're consuming the diet of someone who lived in that time and are as physically active as they were.

[Blue Moon]

70. It's a scientific fact

that you will not be obese if you take in less calories than you expend. Jeebus, how about a little personal repsonsibility for one's own condition, instead of blaming "da man."

[Eloriel]

71. It's just really not that simple --

once you get the insulin resistance thing going on, you really don't have that much control of those hormonal shifts and processes and cravings. It becomes an issue of calories in WHICH FOODS. Trust me. Willpower becomes TOTALLY moot. Totally.

[Blue Moon]

72. I'll concede that point

Now, answer me this: is that the cause for the vast majority of obese people in the overindulged USA?

[Cats Against Frist]

73. ROCK ON WITH YOUR SOCKS ON

I think that people are OVERWEIGHT because they don't get enough exercise and eat crappy food.

I think that people are OBESE for two major reasons: 1. Heredity, and 2. The Diet Industry/Television/Shallow Mothers/Stupid Doctors.

And, I think I have the ANSWER to, besides the fact that the poor really DO eat crappy food, and are probably pretty uneducated on how to put together a balanced diet -- and even if they COULD, they probably couldn't afford it. I have the link that makes it a hat trick.

When one diets, one loses a DISPROPORTIONAL amount of lean muscle to fat. Meaning that every time you diet, you decrease your body's natural fat-burning potential, and, after returning EVEN TO A HEALTHY CALORIE INTAKE, one can still gain weight. A series of yo-yo diets can further decrease the muscle to everything else ratio, and make it worse.

Most of the overweight people that I know -- women and men -- were put on "diets" as children, most likely, because of HEREDITY -- because people aren't all born with the propensity to be thin -- which made them slightly overweight. A self-conscious parent, or ignorant doctor, or teacher or something, lands a 12-year-old with a stupid diet and exercise program -- while the entire family continues to eat McDonald's and Ho-Hos. The child fails. The child gets fatter. Ad nauseum.

Why do women gain weight AFTER they're pregnant? Because, lots of times, they begin dieting after pregnancy.

Now, one with a modicum of self-control, a lot of patience, a view for the long term, plenty of money and a GOOD EDUCATION on how to build lean muscle can get out of this trap -- by a tripartate approach to exercise: cardio, weight training and flexibility training with NO CALORIE REDUCTION (or, at least, nothing less than the appropriate amount, or slightly less, for a "normal" person at your height). But it is UNLIKELY that most of the poor, and probably a lot of the middle class, have had extensive exposure to how to naturally correct an overweight body -- and aside from the fact that they might not be able to afford it -- while someone can easily tell you to "cut back and exercise," it takes more extensive knowledge to do the right thing to fix your metabolism and muscle -- and not just get trapped into making th obesity worse.

Anyway, I don't think that obesity is a "plan" of some higher group of people, because if it were the elites, I'm sure that the insurance companies would have something to say about paying for obesity-related illness and bariatric surgery (holocaust).

I think it's just that we really are excessive, and impatient -- and lazy --, etc., etc.


And, worst of all, we're shallow. Very shallow. And yes -- it makes people very sick. One in five 9-year-old girls has anorexia. How you like that Britney, you fucking whore Hitler of 9-year-old girls?

Also -- I do believe that eating an unwhole diet -- and that includes things that are normall seen as "good" for you, such as canola oil and soy products contribute to obesity. Also the reliance on cars.

It's not all the fault of the dieting, but a lot of cases of morbid obesity can be most likely traced back to that.

[eridani]

77. It's definitely a class thing

100 years ago, being pale and plump made a social statement. It said "I sit around in the shade all day and drink mint juleps, in contrast to the rest of you disposable human garbage who chop cotton and dig potatoes out in the hot sun all day.

These days being lean and tan makes a social statement. It says "I play tennis in the summer and ski in the winter and can afford a personal trainer, in contrast to the rest of you disposable human garbage who work several sedentary jobs indoors all day.

[loudestchick]

96. Ding Ding Ding! And you win a year's supply of Fritos!

[redqueen]

82. Wish I'd have seen this yesterday to recommend it.

Excellent insight... thanks very much for the links.

[Javaman]

88. Just read Fast Food nation and it will all be explained.

[TexasSissy]

90. People were more active in the 1940s, so needed more calories.

There is a special problem with morbid obesity. IMO, it is a different problem from regular overweight or even regular obesity.

So leaving morbid obesity out of the picture (there's even been a fat gene identified now):

LESS ACTIVITY + MORE CALORIES = TOO FAT.

It's as simple as that.

What has contributed most, IMO, is the advent of the computer. People spend hours each day watching TV or being on their computers. In the old days, people actually DID activities on weekends and in the evenings. Second major contributor: Fast food.

As a child I played softball w/the neighborhood kids, rode my bike around town, walked all over the place, jumped rope, would swing for hours on my swingset. I walked to school. Kids nowadays still do these things, but not to the same degree, and they ALSO have to fit in time for just sitting on their derrieres in front of the TV and computer.

As a child I never ate fast food. I don't think we had fast food places in our town (if they even existed). We ate natural foods, home cooking, but plenty of candy bars and sodas too. Kids nowadays eat all these things, still, but eat a LOT of fast food. There are few things as bad for you as fast food.

[Mrs_Beastman]

98. Great topic, BTW, I'm a Suze Orman nut

watch her all the time. One call she took peaked my interest. She had a caller that stated she used to have out of control debt and was in over her head, but presently is debt free. Suze then asked her how much weight she had lost. The caller was intially taken aback, but then answered she had lost about 20 pounds.

Stress (and the stress of poverty) is real. I know with my own dieting, I am more likely to not eat healthy when I haven't had enough sleep or am angry about something.

Second, processed foods. I can't say it better then has already been posted here in this thread...Corn Syrup is bad for you. Yet, it is in every processed food..from peanut butter to spagetti sauce.

Another sidenote. Processed meat. My family gets together every Sunday for a big meal and take turns hosting and cooking. My 94 year old Grandma had us over and roasted a whole chicken that a local farmer gave her that uses no hormones, antibiotics, etc. It tasted so much better, wasn't as tough, and I felt satciated (not lethargic after the meal. While that is for from scientific evidence, this just just drives home the fact for me that corportions will sell us foods that they know are not healthy for us...or even taste that good.

[BigBearJohn]

101. I have the answer: INSULIN-RESISTANCE. I just lost 32 pounds in 20 days

by following a book called "The Insulin-Resistance Diet : How to Turn Off Your Body's Fat-Making Machine" by Cheryle R. Hart M.D., Mary Kay Grossman

A friend of mine has lost an enormous amount of weight and kept it off for over 4 years by following this book. So, I decided to try it. After 50 different diets in 40 years, I finally found the answer. Well, my answer anyway.

[LiberallyInclined]

102. there were no obese people in concentration camps-

i find it amusing that so many obese people blame their genes or their metabolism for their weight-
that might...might be somewhat true for a very few people- but by and large it has to do with diet and exercise or lack thereof.
Also- not everyone can eat the same foods without getting fat- your metabolism and genetic makeup can influence what foods are best for you- and how much of them you can eat- but ultimately, everyone is responsible for their own flab.

[expatriate]

109. this is a rather absurd comparison to draw

People in concentrations camps received less than 500 calories per day, and suffered from many diseases, including chronic dysentery caused by contaminated food and water. There's nothing like dysentery to strip the pounds off. Many of the concentration camps were also labor camps, and those people did hard physical labor for many hours per day. Add to that a cold climate and insufficient heating, clothing and bedding - yes, you will lose weight in cold weather in such circumstances simply through your body's attempts to maintain warmth. This is one reason why the Inuit (Eskimo) people have a higher ratio of body fat than is considered "healthy" by American doctors - they live in a place where they need that fat simply to survive.

I can agree that if you feed someone less than 500 calories a day, they will eventually become an emaciated skeleton like the concentration camp victims, regardless of their genetic makeup. However, such a daily diet would fall far below the World Health Organization's definition of starvation (900 calories per day), and would be insufficient to maintain health.

Certainly, personal intake of food and personal expenditure of energy has much to do with obesity, but these are not the only factors involved by any means. As more and more is found out about genetic factors, and more and more things that were once considered behavioral are now found to be genetic, the old theories of caloric intake/exercise ratio are being debunked. Why is it that people of certain ethnic origins have a higher preponderance toward insulin resistance? Until recently, this was not common knowledge, and these people, even when eating a "healthy" diet, got fat - because this was not the diet for them and many of the so-called "healthy" foods are deposited as fat by their bodies, regardless of physical activity. If these people did not know about the condition, how could they be responsible, as you say, for their own flab? It takes time for such information to be disseminated, and even more time for it to be digested and put into use.

[dmallind]

110. Sure what a great example of skinny health

after all those non-obese death camp inmates were just pictures of burgeoning health, vitality and longevity.

What an asinine argument.

Next you'll be telling me so few slaves on the cotton plantations were fat so it's obviously nothing to do with genetics that obesity is more prevalent in blacks and it's just hilarious and entirely their fault that they can't be so lean and healthy like their enslaved ancestors.

Fat bastard I am but I'm pretty sure I'll make it to a greater age than the average Belsen inmate.

What other fine lean role models do you have for me?

[expatriate]

108. Obesity is a complex issue and the cause

varies from individual to individual. I've known obese people who were quite fit, exercised, and did not eat an unhealthy diet. These were people who were genetically predisposed, by nature of ethnic heritage, to be heavier than "the norm", which is based largely on a white, European body type. Many South Pacific islanders, Africans and Native Americans tend toward a much more rounded body shape than the "ideal" held up by the medical profession and the media as "normal", and many of those people could not attain that body size and fat to muscle ratio if they died trying. To apply the current standards of height/weight ratio to these people is absurd, but it is done all the time. Many people are being called "obese" who are not obese according to their actual frame size and ethnic body type.

Also, I've noticed of late that the term "morbid" obesity has now been scaled down much lower than it used to be - people are being told they are morbidly obese when they are, in fact, not - usually by doctors who are interested in building their practices doing lots of gastric bypass or other weight loss surgeries.

I can attest to poverty being an enormous contributor to obesity in the United States. I have lived far below the poverty level in the USA, to the point where I simply could not buy so much as a bag of green beans. When you have twenty dollars to go to the grocery store with for a week for three people, you have to make it go as far as you can, and put something in those bellies. And tragically, the things that stretch the dollar the most are the things that are the worst to eat. Carbohydrates and fatty meats are the cheapest things in the grocery store. During my poverty years, I gained almost 200 pounds. At one time, this sort of obesity among the poor was referred to as "starch bloat".

I have lived out of the USA for some years now, and upon a recent visit to America, was appalled by what I saw people purchasing in the supermarket. Crates of those Ramen noodle things which are laden with carbohydrates, fat and salt, and which have absolutely no nutritional value to speak of. From the look of many shopping carts, people no longer drink water - bottles and bottles of soda, taking up more than half the cart. People with entire carts full of nothing but frozen dinners - about seventy five cents worth of food in a plastic tray and cardboard box - which costs about three bucks! Potato chips, pretzels, "breakfast bars". It was shocking, and sadly, these products are now becoming common in the country where I live now - and people's weight is going up.

Someone on the thread also mentioned the terrible cycle that slightly overweight children undergo - mothers who see their fat child as a bad reflection on them put them on diets at the very time when they absolutely should NOT be dieting. Prepubescent and early adolescent girls in particular tend toward what used to be called "puppy fat". It is often caused by the first surges of estrogen into the child's system - estrogen promotes fat production. If left alone, given a healthful but unrestricted diet and allowed to exercise normally, girls will eventually shed this weight - but let Diet Mom rush in and insist that her child be thin and start the guilt cycle and the shaming and humiliation of a child who fails to meet weight loss goals - and the damage is done. And the child's metabolic system becomes more efficient, so that she deposits more fat than ever.

After finding out about insulin resistance, and beginning to eat accordingly, I've gone from over 400 pounds to just about where I look and feel good - about 190. However, I accept that I will have to eat this way for the rest of my days - thankfully, it is a very healthy and satisfying way to eat! My particular answer to a complex problem - not the answer for everyone who happens to be obese, I'm sure, but the first thing I ever tried that I had any success with. I have maintained my present weight for over 4 years, and have been at a weight less than my highest weight for more than seven years.