"... Could Be Linked to Obesity..."
Replies
-
LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Don't understand why so many posters are against research giving new information. Do you all want to live in yesterday's medicine without any advances? So strange.
Don't think anyone is against new research.
People are (ironically given the above post) against drawing false conclusions from new research0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »oyChihuahua wrote: »DragonShoe_GCole wrote: »I lol'd; this just in----
Posting on MyFitnessPal now linked to obesity...
Therefore flagging spam could be linked to obesity
I thought if you ate Spam it lead to. . . . .
That's only if you eat Spamalot (sorry, bad joke...which can also lead to obesity)
Yes bad jokes lead to obseity due to no ab workout from lack of laughter. And sitting longer waiting for a funny joke to arrive, hence weight gain. . .
0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »
But there is medical research and reasoning behind why there is a link.Kimegatron wrote: »So I'm reading the new issue of Parents magazine... Not even 1/2 way in, I have read 3 articles already saying "such and such" is or could be linked to obesity...
Isn't what you feed yourself, or your children, as in quantity, the only thing linked to obesity, aside from medical issues??? What is going on?!
Drinking more than 12oz of caffeine a day COULD be linked to obesity
Giving antiobotics can cause tummy troubles and have been linked to obesity
What you talk about at the dinner table COULD/IS linked to obesity...
The link is not.. You take antibiotics and it automatically adds 10 pounds. Instead the link with antibiotics is that it affects hormones, specifically the ghrelin and leptin hormones which control appetite and control the feelings of satiety. Because antibiotics mess this up you feel more hungry and less full causing a person to eat more which may eventually lead to obesity if not controlled. Personally I've felt this after taking a high dose of antibiotics and took a long time to get back to normal. Same goes for coffee its not the calories that would lead to obesity but probably something in caffeine/coffee effects blood sugar causing increased eating habits. So i think that is what they mean when they use the word 'link'. It's not an a=b effect but more of an a=b=c therefore a=c effect (if that makes sense).
I...don't remember learning that in pharmacy school. Source?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/health/scientist-examines-possible-link-between-antibiotics-and-obesity.html?referer=
If you look up the dr who did this research you can find his full report.
Sometimes theres more to learn after pharmacy or medical school. Im not in the medical field but I am sure lots of different research is published all the time and sometimes eventually proven false when new research is done. So who knows what eventually they will figure out with antibiotics. Was just making point that there is research out there saying that something about antibiotics could affect our weight goals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3089783/?tool=pubmed0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »oyChihuahua wrote: »DragonShoe_GCole wrote: »I lol'd; this just in----
Posting on MyFitnessPal now linked to obesity...
Therefore flagging spam could be linked to obesity
I thought if you ate Spam it lead to. . . . .
That's only if you eat Spamalot (sorry, bad joke...which can also lead to obesity)
Yes bad jokes lead to obseity due to no ab workout from lack of laughter. And sitting longer waiting for a funny joke to arrive, hence weight gain. . .
Oh goodness, I'm slowly killing people on MFP. I'm so sorry everyone.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »oyChihuahua wrote: »DragonShoe_GCole wrote: »I lol'd; this just in----
Posting on MyFitnessPal now linked to obesity...
Therefore flagging spam could be linked to obesity
I thought if you ate Spam it lead to. . . . .
That's only if you eat Spamalot (sorry, bad joke...which can also lead to obesity)
Yes bad jokes lead to obseity due to no ab workout from lack of laughter. And sitting longer waiting for a funny joke to arrive, hence weight gain. . .
Oh goodness, I'm slowly killing people on MFP. I'm so sorry everyone.
I gained 2lb after conversing with you on the do not close threads, thread, which was pleasingly closed.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »oyChihuahua wrote: »DragonShoe_GCole wrote: »I lol'd; this just in----
Posting on MyFitnessPal now linked to obesity...
Therefore flagging spam could be linked to obesity
I thought if you ate Spam it lead to. . . . .
That's only if you eat Spamalot (sorry, bad joke...which can also lead to obesity)
Yes bad jokes lead to obseity due to no ab workout from lack of laughter. And sitting longer waiting for a funny joke to arrive, hence weight gain. . .
Oh goodness, I'm slowly killing people on MFP. I'm so sorry everyone.
I gained 2lb after conversing with you on the do not close threads, thread, which was pleasingly closed.
2 pounds of ab muscles? Quickly, give me a list of 7 foods to never eat so I can have a six pack!0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Don't understand why so many posters are against research giving new information. Do you all want to live in yesterday's medicine without any advances? So strange.
Don't think anyone is against new research.
People are (ironically given the above post) against drawing false conclusions from new research
Isn't the research drawing the conclusion for them by the scientists doing the research?0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Don't understand why so many posters are against research giving new information. Do you all want to live in a world where medicine has no advances? So strange.
I think it's just a theme of the internet in general to look down on anyone who wants to find another answer. As much as we have things like "I ****ing love science" links plastered all over Facebook, most of those people could not be less curious or open-minded if their lives depended upon it. A lot of people are offended when you question conventional thoughts. Health is the new religion: CICO is the sacred gospel, exercise is attending mass, fast food is a mortal sin. Currently I agree, CICO hasn't been proven wrong, but it doesn't mean it's the ONLY truth.0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Don't understand why so many posters are against research giving new information. Do you all want to live in yesterday's medicine without any advances? So strange.
Don't think anyone is against new research.
People are (ironically given the above post) against drawing false conclusions from new research
Isn't the research drawing the conclusion for them by the scientists doing the research?
Science isn't about accepting the researchers' conclusion as written blindly.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »oyChihuahua wrote: »DragonShoe_GCole wrote: »I lol'd; this just in----
Posting on MyFitnessPal now linked to obesity...
Therefore flagging spam could be linked to obesity
I thought if you ate Spam it lead to. . . . .
That's only if you eat Spamalot (sorry, bad joke...which can also lead to obesity)
Yes bad jokes lead to obseity due to no ab workout from lack of laughter. And sitting longer waiting for a funny joke to arrive, hence weight gain. . .
Oh goodness, I'm slowly killing people on MFP. I'm so sorry everyone.
Hey it is a slow death. I choose to read the bad jokes. I can't stop after one. . .okay the cookie thread just bled in to this one. . .carry on people.0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Don't understand why so many posters are against research giving new information. Do you all want to live in yesterday's medicine without any advances? So strange.
Don't think anyone is against new research.
People are (ironically given the above post) against drawing false conclusions from new research
Isn't the research drawing the conclusion for them by the scientists doing the research?
Science isn't about accepting the researchers' conclusion as written blindly.
0 -
Exactly. Whether written blindly or with sight, those conclusions should be scrutinized.LastingChanges wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Don't understand why so many posters are against research giving new information. Do you all want to live in yesterday's medicine without any advances? So strange.
Don't think anyone is against new research.
People are (ironically given the above post) against drawing false conclusions from new research
Isn't the research drawing the conclusion for them by the scientists doing the research?
Science isn't about accepting the researchers' conclusion as written blindly.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Exactly. Whether written blindly or with sight, those conclusions should be scrutinized.LastingChanges wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Don't understand why so many posters are against research giving new information. Do you all want to live in yesterday's medicine without any advances? So strange.
Don't think anyone is against new research.
People are (ironically given the above post) against drawing false conclusions from new research
Isn't the research drawing the conclusion for them by the scientists doing the research?
Science isn't about accepting the researchers' conclusion as written blindly.
Agreed, my only point was that there was some truth behind those headlines found in the magazine. Truth that may eventually be disproven or proven stronger with more research. Or maybe something that doesnt apply to everyone in the end.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Exactly. Whether written blindly or with sight, those conclusions should be scrutinized.LastingChanges wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Don't understand why so many posters are against research giving new information. Do you all want to live in yesterday's medicine without any advances? So strange.
Don't think anyone is against new research.
People are (ironically given the above post) against drawing false conclusions from new research
Isn't the research drawing the conclusion for them by the scientists doing the research?
Science isn't about accepting the researchers' conclusion as written blindly.
Guess I moved an adverb too far from the modified verb.0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Don't understand why so many posters are against research giving new information. Do you all want to live in yesterday's medicine without any advances? So strange.
Don't think anyone is against new research.
People are (ironically given the above post) against drawing false conclusions from new research
Isn't the research drawing the conclusion for them by the scientists doing the research?
Science isn't about accepting the researchers' conclusion as written blindly.
Depends on what magazine.
Far and away most fitness and many women's magazines do just that0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »oyChihuahua wrote: »DragonShoe_GCole wrote: »I lol'd; this just in----
Posting on MyFitnessPal now linked to obesity...
Therefore flagging spam could be linked to obesity
I thought if you ate Spam it lead to. . . . .
That's only if you eat Spamalot (sorry, bad joke...which can also lead to obesity)
Yes bad jokes lead to obseity due to no ab workout from lack of laughter. And sitting longer waiting for a funny joke to arrive, hence weight gain. . .
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16652129
(Study on energy expenditure from genuine laughter.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.0 -
Ashtoretet wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Don't understand why so many posters are against research giving new information. Do you all want to live in a world where medicine has no advances? So strange.
I think it's just a theme of the internet in general to look down on anyone who wants to find another answer. As much as we have things like "I ****ing love science" links plastered all over Facebook, most of those people could not be less curious or open-minded if their lives depended upon it. A lot of people are offended when you question conventional thoughts. Health is the new religion: CICO is the sacred gospel, exercise is attending mass, fast food is a mortal sin. Currently I agree, CICO hasn't been proven wrong, but it doesn't mean it's the ONLY truth.
I think people like to view things in a simplified way. It is much easier to see everything as CICO rather than think about what else may be factored into weight.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
0 -
Where "factored into weight" can realistically only mean "affects CI or CO."LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Don't understand why so many posters are against research giving new information. Do you all want to live in a world where medicine has no advances? So strange.
I think it's just a theme of the internet in general to look down on anyone who wants to find another answer. As much as we have things like "I ****ing love science" links plastered all over Facebook, most of those people could not be less curious or open-minded if their lives depended upon it. A lot of people are offended when you question conventional thoughts. Health is the new religion: CICO is the sacred gospel, exercise is attending mass, fast food is a mortal sin. Currently I agree, CICO hasn't been proven wrong, but it doesn't mean it's the ONLY truth.
I think people like to view things in a simplified way. It is much easier to see everything as CICO rather than think about what else may be factored into weight.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Where "factored into weight" can realistically only mean "affects CI or CO."LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Don't understand why so many posters are against research giving new information. Do you all want to live in a world where medicine has no advances? So strange.
I think it's just a theme of the internet in general to look down on anyone who wants to find another answer. As much as we have things like "I ****ing love science" links plastered all over Facebook, most of those people could not be less curious or open-minded if their lives depended upon it. A lot of people are offended when you question conventional thoughts. Health is the new religion: CICO is the sacred gospel, exercise is attending mass, fast food is a mortal sin. Currently I agree, CICO hasn't been proven wrong, but it doesn't mean it's the ONLY truth.
I think people like to view things in a simplified way. It is much easier to see everything as CICO rather than think about what else may be factored into weight.
But there are other factors that can affect appetite and satiety eventually causing a person to increase their calories. Yes we all have control over ourselves and if we feel hungry we should be able to control our eating habits, but quality of life is important as well. And if someone is eating enough and doesn't feel their appetite or satiety is fulfilled then that probably isn't a great feeling to live with.0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
Outside of weight possibly affecting the ability to search for food, yeah.
Most obesity related health issues don't affect reproductive success. So no evolutionary pressure. Heck, even the extra weight isn't a huge issue if you have daily running forcing you to keep the cardiovascular capacity to move. There are overweight and even obese people that have far greater aerobic capacity than normal weight people.0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
If I had to guess, you probably think evolution is about making perfect or better organisms. Nope. It is about genes that leave more copies.0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
Outside of weight possibly affecting the ability to search for food, yeah.
Most obesity related health issues don't affect reproductive success. So no evolutionary pressure. Heck, even the extra weight isn't a huge issue if you have daily running forcing you to keep the cardiovascular capacity to move. There are overweight and even obese people that have far greater aerobic capacity than normal weight people.
Really? Actually weight can be big factor to why some women can't get pregnant. Also aerobic capacity has nothing to do with someones general health while being obese.
0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
We typically lived in an environment of scarcity, where it would have been advantageous to be able to overeat when food was available and to withstand periods of scarcity. It would not have been an advantage to eat only when under one's TDEE for the day.
Most of human history avoiding overweight was not a concern in the evolutionary sense (overeating wouldn't have prevented reproduction). We have mostly had scarcity plus cultural habits that precluded the kind of overeating that happens now. We have no experience with an environmental where food is always available and there are no checks on eating it. Why on earth would we have evolved to be naturally able to stop eating without thinking about it in the face of all that?0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
Outside of weight possibly affecting the ability to search for food, yeah.
Most obesity related health issues don't affect reproductive success. So no evolutionary pressure. Heck, even the extra weight isn't a huge issue if you have daily running forcing you to keep the cardiovascular capacity to move. There are overweight and even obese people that have far greater aerobic capacity than normal weight people.
Really? Actually weight can be big factor to why some women can't get pregnant. Also aerobic capacity has nothing to do with someones general health while being obese.
Compared to starvation, the impact is negligible.
Really, getting pregnant is nothing compared to carrying to term and surviving the next two years or so. We take this for granted in the modern, developed world.
And how many fertility stats are about obese women who are physically active? In an evolutionary environment we aren't discussing sedentary obesity.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
We typically lived in an environment of scarcity, where it would have been advantageous to be able to overeat when food was available and to withstand periods of scarcity. It would not have been an advantage to eat only when under one's TDEE for the day.
Most of human history avoiding overweight was not a concern in the evolutionary sense (overeating wouldn't have prevented reproduction). We have mostly had scarcity plus cultural habits that precluded the kind of overeating that happens now. We have no experience with an environmental where food is always available and there are no checks on eating it. Why on earth would we have evolved to be naturally able to stop eating without thinking about it in the face of all that?
If I eat 3000 calories today, I will still end up feeling hungry tomorrow. I don't think the human body was made to eat a large amount of food then store it which would then make it easier to starve later. The normal thing your body is supposed to do is eat when you are hungry and you stop when you feel full or satisfied.0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
We typically lived in an environment of scarcity, where it would have been advantageous to be able to overeat when food was available and to withstand periods of scarcity. It would not have been an advantage to eat only when under one's TDEE for the day.
Most of human history avoiding overweight was not a concern in the evolutionary sense (overeating wouldn't have prevented reproduction). We have mostly had scarcity plus cultural habits that precluded the kind of overeating that happens now. We have no experience with an environmental where food is always available and there are no checks on eating it. Why on earth would we have evolved to be naturally able to stop eating without thinking about it in the face of all that?
If I eat 3000 calories today, I will still end up feeling hungry tomorrow. I don't think the human body was made to eat a large amount of food then store it which would then make it easier to starve later. The normal thing your body is supposed to do is eat when you are hungry and you stop when you feel full or satisfied.
Your relationship with food and appetite isn't evolution.0 -
Kimegatron wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Two threads a few days back were on obesity and pollutants, sorry, was going off of that, since this topic seemed so open ended.
No matter how much your hormones may or may not be disrupted, you body can't store fat if you haven't eaten enough to enable your body to do so.
But it can mess with my satiety, possibly my thyroid function, and doubtless my energy levels, too.
I'm a human being, not a robot. What, when, and how much I eat are not simple logical formulas. They're all driven by my biochemistry and all I have to fight back with is my poor conscious mind, who also has plenty of other stuff to be doing and which I'd much rather use for more important things than fighting excess hunger, cravings, fatigue, and other issues that may very well be related to pollutants, thanks very much. Also, jogging outside in polluted air might just make us all stupider. Doesn't that matter to you?
Are you saying your conscious mind isn't better than that of a pet that's gonna eat everything and get fat if you put the food in front of it? I think you're doing yourself a disservice if you're gonna put the importance of your own mind down like that.
If that were true I'd never have lost the weight that I have lost. I am saying it has cost me incredible effort to lose weight and it costs me incredible effort every day not to gain it all back. And if any part of it is due to the ingestion of man made chemicals (and possibly the over ingestion of natural mimickers, such as soy) then it's time to figure out how to put an end to that, both by avoiding these chemicals as much as I can and by being politically and socially active in an effort to clean up our environment and prevent a worsening of the problem.
What is wrong with soy and man made chemicals? I understand that soy can be bad for some, but some soy has had the isoflavins removed, which is what people, like cancer patients, are worried about. What are the man made chemicals you're talking about?
Read up on estrogen mimickers. Also known as xenoestrogens. Lots of good stuff out there. Soy is a little different, from what I understand, unlike the nastier man-made mimickers, it leaves the body rather quickly. I don't like to consume it daily, however. Could be too much of an otherwise good thing. Why risk it? There are some studies starting to come out on air pollution and possible insulin disruption, too. And the whole air pollution and other pollutants making us stupid studies. We should probably tackle that first, while we still have a few brain cells left to do anything about it.
Soy and many plants contain phytoestrogens. The effects of soy phytoestogen is generally health beneficial. Worst thing I've seen linked to them with any legitimacy is breast cancer might be able to use it in place of natural estrogen, so maybe avoid soy if you're going through breast cancer treatment.
I actually think you're probably correct. But I've read just enough to have just enough doubt to not want to eat soy every single day. And many people might be surprised to know how easy it is to eat soy every single day if they're eating the Standard American Diet. It's in darn near everything. I feel I shouldn't even have mentioned soy and should have stuck with the xenoestrogens researchers know are potentially an issue (for many reasons) but it concerns me. Sometimes being honest about a personal concern does weaken an argument. Oh well!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions