Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
World’s obese population hits 641 million, global study finds
Replies
-
Christine_72 wrote: »mangrothian wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Another thought on all of this: I know very few people who come from families who have been wealthy for more than one generation who are obese, or even very overweight. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is one problem that will slowly fix itself even if that takes a couple of generations. What this "problem" really tells me is that fewer people at risk of starving, and that's a good thing.
In America, I argue that there are very few who do not have access to food. The issue is having access to "quality" food. High calorie pre-packaged foods with fewer micronutrients is cheap. Those with limited funds will obviously buy what is cheapest. Of course, any food with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is ultimately subsidized through the USDA. I'm pretty sure my state is the largest producer of corn (if not #1, we are really close); and I know all the big farmers around me get big money for corn. That's why they don't rotate crops anymore like the last generation did.
Don't they do free breakfasts/lunches in schools in America for kids that don't have access to food or decent food?
I think that's a wonderful idea, we don't have anything like it in Australia.
Christine, in Australia it varies from school to school rather than a state funded program. Where I grew up a mostly low to lower middle class area, both my primary and highschool had breakfast programs, and so did a few other in the area. I don't know if it's as common now though.
Come to think of it, so did my university. It might have been vegemite on toast or weetbix, but it was better than nothing.
Wow I had no idea. Never had anything like it when I was in school, or when my kids were there.
It could be different in the poorer suburbs, I haven't looked into it.
Australian Red Cross currently has a Good Start Breakfast club which operates in over 200 schools nation wide.
That's wonderful, I'm glad we've adopted this
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »Recently found this article saying that now, over half of calories consumed in the US are from ultra processed foods, according to self reports.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/139909/20160310/more-than-half-of-american-calories-come-from-processed-food.htm
Ultra processed foods don't make people fat. Eating too much food and not moving enough makes people fat.
@Packerjohn it would be great if that was factual medically speaking.
I'm a 205 pound male. If I ate 1500 calories of nothing but processed food what do you think would happen to my weight?
Your weight would go down if 1,500 calories in is less than how many calories you expend.
Your weight would stay the same if 1,500 calories in is the same as how many calories you expend.
Your weight would go up if 1,500 calories in is more than how many calories you expend.
1 -
TheBeachgod wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »Recently found this article saying that now, over half of calories consumed in the US are from ultra processed foods, according to self reports.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/139909/20160310/more-than-half-of-american-calories-come-from-processed-food.htm
Ultra processed foods don't make people fat. Eating too much food and not moving enough makes people fat.
@Packerjohn it would be great if that was factual medically speaking.
I'm a 205 pound male. If I ate 1500 calories of nothing but processed food what do you think would happen to my weight?
Your weight would go down if 1,500 calories in is less than how many calories you expend.
Your weight would stay the same if 1,500 calories in is the same as how many calories you expend.
Your weight would go up if 1,500 calories in is more than how many calories you expend.
Exactly. @GaleHawkins was questioning this (response to processed vs nonprocessed food)0 -
Sugar, liquid sugar, added sugar, refined carbohydrates, nutritionally devoid processed food...
And don't forget the diabetes epidemic too.2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Sugar, liquid sugar, added sugar, refined carbohydrates, nutritionally devoid processed food...
And don't forget the diabetes epidemic too.
Calories, Calories, Calories, Calories, Calories
And don't forget Calories.11 -
stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Sugar, liquid sugar, added sugar, refined carbohydrates, nutritionally devoid processed food...
And don't forget the diabetes epidemic too.
Calories, Calories, Calories, Calories, Calories
And don't forget Calories.
Believe me, I know your mantra by now Steven. A gross oversimplification. And I find it bizarre coming from someone who seems to be so interested details when it comes to anything else.4 -
I know that suggesting that the types of foods we are eating is playing a part is worse than taking a dump in a church on this board, but I strongly believe this to be true. I think the mediator may well be satiety. Some foods are calorie dense yet do not lead to satiety. Perhaps some of these foods even lead to increased cravings.
How many times have you read a post where someone said something like "I feel so guilty, I ate a whole big bag of ________ last night and went over my calories" and the food that went into that blank was asparagus??
I know this anecdotal evidence, and doesn't prove anything.
Perhaps more to the point is the increase in obesity rates following the introduction of certain types of foods in countries that didn't have them before. Also interesting are comparing cultures where food is plentiful but obesity rates are relatively low. The types of food eaten are always different than in cultures with really high obesity rates.
I realize that the bottom line is that people are eating more calories/and or moving less. However, it still begs the question 'Why are people eating more calories?' I don't think affluence is the only explanation.7 -
I know that suggesting that the types of foods we are eating is playing a part is worse than taking a dump in a church on this board, but I strongly believe this to be true. I think the mediator may well be satiety. Some foods are calorie dense yet do not lead to satiety. Perhaps some of these foods even lead to increased cravings.
How many times have you read a post where someone said something like "I feel so guilty, I ate a whole big bag of ________ last night and went over my calories" and the food that went into that blank was asparagus??
I know this anecdotal evidence, and doesn't prove anything.
Perhaps more to the point is the increase in obesity rates following the introduction of certain types of foods in countries that didn't have them before. Also interesting are comparing cultures where food is plentiful but obesity rates are relatively low. The types of food eaten are always different than in cultures with really high obesity rates.
I realize that the bottom line is that people are eating more calories/and or moving less. However, it still begs the question 'Why are people eating more calories?' I don't think affluence is the only explanation.
People feel guilty eating certain foods because they're conditioned to by all the "experts" saying they should because of labeling food good or bad.
There's a decent correlation between obesity and poverty, so I'm not sure where you're getting the argument that it's affluence?2 -
I know that suggesting that the types of foods we are eating is playing a part is worse than taking a dump in a church on this board, but I strongly believe this to be true. I think the mediator may well be satiety. Some foods are calorie dense yet do not lead to satiety. Perhaps some of these foods even lead to increased cravings.
How many times have you read a post where someone said something like "I feel so guilty, I ate a whole big bag of ________ last night and went over my calories" and the food that went into that blank was asparagus??
I know this anecdotal evidence, and doesn't prove anything.
Perhaps more to the point is the increase in obesity rates following the introduction of certain types of foods in countries that didn't have them before. Also interesting are comparing cultures where food is plentiful but obesity rates are relatively low. The types of food eaten are always different than in cultures with really high obesity rates.
I realize that the bottom line is that people are eating more calories/and or moving less. However, it still begs the question 'Why are people eating more calories?' I don't think affluence is the only explanation.
People feel guilty eating certain foods because they're conditioned to by all the "experts" saying they should because of labeling food good or bad.
There's a decent correlation between obesity and poverty, so I'm not sure where you're getting the argument that it's affluence?
It is my position that it is NOT affluence.2 -
I know that suggesting that the types of foods we are eating is playing a part is worse than taking a dump in a church on this board, but I strongly believe this to be true. I think the mediator may well be satiety. Some foods are calorie dense yet do not lead to satiety. Perhaps some of these foods even lead to increased cravings.
How many times have you read a post where someone said something like "I feel so guilty, I ate a whole big bag of ________ last night and went over my calories" and the food that went into that blank was asparagus??
I know this anecdotal evidence, and doesn't prove anything.
Perhaps more to the point is the increase in obesity rates following the introduction of certain types of foods in countries that didn't have them before. Also interesting are comparing cultures where food is plentiful but obesity rates are relatively low. The types of food eaten are always different than in cultures with really high obesity rates.
I realize that the bottom line is that people are eating more calories/and or moving less. However, it still begs the question 'Why are people eating more calories?' I don't think affluence is the only explanation.
People feel guilty eating certain foods because they're conditioned to by all the "experts" saying they should because of labeling food good or bad.
There's a decent correlation between obesity and poverty, so I'm not sure where you're getting the argument that it's affluence?
Labeling someone's moderate consumption of certain foods as bad makes no sense. But I see that as a different point.0 -
I know that suggesting that the types of foods we are eating is playing a part is worse than taking a dump in a church on this board, but I strongly believe this to be true. I think the mediator may well be satiety. Some foods are calorie dense yet do not lead to satiety. Perhaps some of these foods even lead to increased cravings.
How many times have you read a post where someone said something like "I feel so guilty, I ate a whole big bag of ________ last night and went over my calories" and the food that went into that blank was asparagus??
I know this anecdotal evidence, and doesn't prove anything.
Perhaps more to the point is the increase in obesity rates following the introduction of certain types of foods in countries that didn't have them before. Also interesting are comparing cultures where food is plentiful but obesity rates are relatively low. The types of food eaten are always different than in cultures with really high obesity rates.
I realize that the bottom line is that people are eating more calories/and or moving less. However, it still begs the question 'Why are people eating more calories?' I don't think affluence is the only explanation.
People feel guilty eating certain foods because they're conditioned to by all the "experts" saying they should because of labeling food good or bad.
There's a decent correlation between obesity and poverty, so I'm not sure where you're getting the argument that it's affluence?
It is my position that it is NOT affluence.
I would go so far as to say that, in the U.S.A., poverty leads to higher rates of obesity because calorie dense and highly-processed food is inexpensive (on a cost per calorie basis) when compared to less calorie-dense foods. Many impoverished Americans are not actually going hungry and not eating, but they are having to restrict food budgets. That leads to buying calorie dense foods, which often also lead to a surplus consumption rate in order to feel full.4 -
I know that suggesting that the types of foods we are eating is playing a part is worse than taking a dump in a church on this board
The types of food we are eating (although hard to generalize since "we" eat different things--I did not get fat on sugary soda or highly processed things and don't find I need to reduce carbs to lose) may well play a role, especially on an individual basis. What is objected to is the argument that they play a role in some way other than adding up to more calories than we should be eating. It's clear that Americans eat too much, on average.
For me, satiety wasn't the issue, because I didn't overeat because hungry. I actually suspect that's a factor for only a minority of people and that more overeat because food is always around and tempting. (I was in the airport yesterday and not hungry at all, yet I found myself wanting to eat because I passed some foods I like and I was bored and hate being in the airport. Seemed like something fun to do. Of course, I didn't, since I tend to be more mindful about food these days.)
I think food choice also cannot be separated from food culture in general.
Bigger point is that once you are mindful about it you can make choices sensible for you. If hungry, no one says eat cookies. Makes sense to eat something you find filling. Therefore, if the real issue was satiety, why don't people who are still hungry eat vegetables or protein or some such?4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I know that suggesting that the types of foods we are eating is playing a part is worse than taking a dump in a church on this board
The types of food we are eating (although hard to generalize since "we" eat different things--I did not get fat on sugary soda or highly processed things and don't find I need to reduce carbs to lose) may well play a role, especially on an individual basis. What is objected to is the argument that they play a role in some way other than adding up to more calories than we should be eating. It's clear that Americans eat too much, on average.
For me, satiety wasn't the issue, because I didn't overeat because hungry. I actually suspect that's a factor for only a minority of people and that more overeat because food is always around and tempting. (I was in the airport yesterday and not hungry at all, yet I found myself wanting to eat because I passed some foods I like and I was bored and hate being in the airport. Seemed like something fun to do. Of course, I didn't, since I tend to be more mindful about food these days.)
I think food choice also cannot be separated from food culture in general.
Bigger point is that once you are mindful about it you can make choices sensible for you. If hungry, no one says eat cookies. Makes sense to eat something you find filling. Therefore, if the real issue was satiety, why don't people who are still hungry eat vegetables or protein or some such?
How satiating a food is once one starts eating is a separate point from whether it was primarily hunger that drove one to eat it in the first place. Even if it is boredom, some foods seem to satisfy me well before I can do any caloric damage with them. Others not so much.
I would argue that some people do chose the kind of items to which you refer. And that when they do they usually end up stopping sooner and eating fewer calories-EVEN IF IT WAS NOT HUNGER THAT MOTIVATED THEM.
There are some types of snacks where my brain never seems to tell me "stop, you're full now." They are not necessarily even my favorite things to eat-which is why it is best I just pass them bye. As a matter of fact, some of the larger snack manufacturers design their foods in such a manner as to minimize the satiety signal. There is a science behind this. (Snacks that dissolve quickly before swallowing are an example.)
I am not sure of you remember the three different options I described in my one attempt to actually start a discussion on this board, but I would argue that some people are going to tend to snack more heavily on some things and not others. It would be hard, for example, to imagine an ad tagline such as "Bartlett pears, no one can eat just one."
As to why many people reach for things that they are more prone to overeat, there are many reasons. They are often cheaper or more available. They come complete with salt, sugar and other seasonings whereas fresh vegetables do need a bit of help to become really tasty. Protein snacks or FAR more expensive than a big bag of chips.
But if the choice of food does not play a role, we would need to find another mediator to explain why cultures who tend to have diets with larger percentages of certain kind of foods tend to be less obese irrespective of how plentiful foods are.2 -
I know that suggesting that the types of foods we are eating is playing a part is worse than taking a dump in a church on this board, but I strongly believe this to be true. I think the mediator may well be satiety. Some foods are calorie dense yet do not lead to satiety. Perhaps some of these foods even lead to increased cravings.
How many times have you read a post where someone said something like "I feel so guilty, I ate a whole big bag of ________ last night and went over my calories" and the food that went into that blank was asparagus??
I know this anecdotal evidence, and doesn't prove anything.
Perhaps more to the point is the increase in obesity rates following the introduction of certain types of foods in countries that didn't have them before. Also interesting are comparing cultures where food is plentiful but obesity rates are relatively low. The types of food eaten are always different than in cultures with really high obesity rates.
I realize that the bottom line is that people are eating more calories/and or moving less. However, it still begs the question 'Why are people eating more calories?' I don't think affluence is the only explanation.
People feel guilty eating certain foods because they're conditioned to by all the "experts" saying they should because of labeling food good or bad.
There's a decent correlation between obesity and poverty, so I'm not sure where you're getting the argument that it's affluence?
It is my position that it is NOT affluence.
Yes. I get that, but where are you getting the argument that people are saying it is affluence?
You're right in that moderation shouldn't result in guilty feelings, but when you're bombarded with "SUGAR AND CARBS ARE BAD AND/OR THE DEVIL AND/OR ADDICTIVE" day in and day out, people begin to question it. In the US, scientific literacy tends to not be great among the population, it seems.1 -
I know that suggesting that the types of foods we are eating is playing a part is worse than taking a dump in a church on this board, but I strongly believe this to be true. I think the mediator may well be satiety. Some foods are calorie dense yet do not lead to satiety. Perhaps some of these foods even lead to increased cravings.
How many times have you read a post where someone said something like "I feel so guilty, I ate a whole big bag of ________ last night and went over my calories" and the food that went into that blank was asparagus??
I know this anecdotal evidence, and doesn't prove anything.
Perhaps more to the point is the increase in obesity rates following the introduction of certain types of foods in countries that didn't have them before. Also interesting are comparing cultures where food is plentiful but obesity rates are relatively low. The types of food eaten are always different than in cultures with really high obesity rates.
I realize that the bottom line is that people are eating more calories/and or moving less. However, it still begs the question 'Why are people eating more calories?' I don't think affluence is the only explanation.
People feel guilty eating certain foods because they're conditioned to by all the "experts" saying they should because of labeling food good or bad.
There's a decent correlation between obesity and poverty, so I'm not sure where you're getting the argument that it's affluence?
It is my position that it is NOT affluence.
Yes. I get that, but where are you getting the argument that people are saying it is affluence?
You're right in that moderation shouldn't result in guilty feelings, but when you're bombarded with "SUGAR AND CARBS ARE BAD AND/OR THE DEVIL AND/OR ADDICTIVE" day in and day out, people begin to question it. In the US, scientific literacy tends to not be great among the population, it seems.
It seems that somewhere in this thread someone said that ready access to food (which is admittedly related to but not identical to greater affluence) could be a factor. I am happy to concede that this was a misinterpretation of the point if you like; it wasn't really my main point at all.0 -
I know that suggesting that the types of foods we are eating is playing a part is worse than taking a dump in a church on this board, but I strongly believe this to be true. I think the mediator may well be satiety. Some foods are calorie dense yet do not lead to satiety. Perhaps some of these foods even lead to increased cravings.
How many times have you read a post where someone said something like "I feel so guilty, I ate a whole big bag of ________ last night and went over my calories" and the food that went into that blank was asparagus??
I know this anecdotal evidence, and doesn't prove anything.
Perhaps more to the point is the increase in obesity rates following the introduction of certain types of foods in countries that didn't have them before. Also interesting are comparing cultures where food is plentiful but obesity rates are relatively low. The types of food eaten are always different than in cultures with really high obesity rates.
I realize that the bottom line is that people are eating more calories/and or moving less. However, it still begs the question 'Why are people eating more calories?' I don't think affluence is the only explanation.
People feel guilty eating certain foods because they're conditioned to by all the "experts" saying they should because of labeling food good or bad.
There's a decent correlation between obesity and poverty, so I'm not sure where you're getting the argument that it's affluence?
It is my position that it is NOT affluence.
Yes. I get that, but where are you getting the argument that people are saying it is affluence?
You're right in that moderation shouldn't result in guilty feelings, but when you're bombarded with "SUGAR AND CARBS ARE BAD AND/OR THE DEVIL AND/OR ADDICTIVE" day in and day out, people begin to question it. In the US, scientific literacy tends to not be great among the population, it seems.
It seems that somewhere in this thread someone said that ready access to food (which is admittedly related to but not identical to greater affluence) could be a factor. I am happy to concede that this was a misinterpretation of the point if you like; it wasn't really my main point at all.
Easy access to food and affluence don't necessarily go hand in hand in "developed" countries.
The reason why people in "developed" countries are eating more food is partially an educational thing and partially a time thing, IMO.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Another thought on all of this: I know very few people who come from families who have been wealthy for more than one generation who are obese, or even very overweight. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is one problem that will slowly fix itself even if that takes a couple of generations. What this "problem" really tells me is that fewer people at risk of starving, and that's a good thing.
In America, I argue that there are very few who do not have access to food. The issue is having access to "quality" food. High calorie pre-packaged foods with fewer micronutrients is cheap. Those with limited funds will obviously buy what is cheapest. Of course, any food with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is ultimately subsidized through the USDA. I'm pretty sure my state is the largest producer of corn (if not #1, we are really close); and I know all the big farmers around me get big money for corn. That's why they don't rotate crops anymore like the last generation did.
Don't they do free breakfasts/lunches in schools in America for kids that don't have access to food or decent food?
I think that's a wonderful idea, we don't have anything like it in Australia.
Yes.
There is also a summer feeding program for when children are out of school that is NON-NEED BASED. All you have to do is be under 18 and you are given at least free breakfast and lunch. My daughter's summer programs have always taken all the kids there for their government cheese. I've never been impressed with the food at all. Mostly just a bunch of pre-packaged and overprocessed junk w/ a token salad bar at lunch, but it is free and there are people that really do need it, so *shrug*.0 -
CrabNebula wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Another thought on all of this: I know very few people who come from families who have been wealthy for more than one generation who are obese, or even very overweight. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is one problem that will slowly fix itself even if that takes a couple of generations. What this "problem" really tells me is that fewer people at risk of starving, and that's a good thing.
In America, I argue that there are very few who do not have access to food. The issue is having access to "quality" food. High calorie pre-packaged foods with fewer micronutrients is cheap. Those with limited funds will obviously buy what is cheapest. Of course, any food with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is ultimately subsidized through the USDA. I'm pretty sure my state is the largest producer of corn (if not #1, we are really close); and I know all the big farmers around me get big money for corn. That's why they don't rotate crops anymore like the last generation did.
Don't they do free breakfasts/lunches in schools in America for kids that don't have access to food or decent food?
I think that's a wonderful idea, we don't have anything like it in Australia.
Yes.
There is also a summer feeding program for when children are out of school that is NON-NEED BASED. All you have to do is be under 18 and you are given at least free breakfast and lunch. My daughter's summer programs have always taken all the kids there for their government cheese. I've never been impressed with the food at all. Mostly just a bunch of pre-packaged and overprocessed junk w/ a token salad bar at lunch, but it is free and there are people that really do need it, so *shrug*.
This might be state or locally based. Do you know the name of the program? I'd like to look it up.0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Sugar, liquid sugar, added sugar, refined carbohydrates, nutritionally devoid processed food...
And don't forget the diabetes epidemic too.
Yet, strangely enough, carbohydrate consumption per capita worldwide does not correlate with obesity rate (or diabetes for that matter) except for select countries where high calorie consumption is also present. In fact, countries with lower BMI actually happen to have a higher than average carbohydrate% intake (but lower than average calorie intake).
United States, known for a high obesity rates, actually has a relatively low carbohydrate% consumption compared to most countries and a higher fat%, but it also tops the chart in the amount of calories consumed.
When you fault the intake of "refined carbohydrates and nutritionally devoid processed food", you somehow forget that the majority of the calories in such items come from fat. Now you could interpret this data to go the 80s route and blame fat for obesity (or carbs like you are trying to do), but the fact remains that energy consumption is the only reliable factor here.
8 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Sugar, liquid sugar, added sugar, refined carbohydrates, nutritionally devoid processed food...
And don't forget the diabetes epidemic too.
Calories, Calories, Calories, Calories, Calories
And don't forget Calories.
Believe me, I know your mantra by now Steven. A gross oversimplification. And I find it bizarre coming from someone who seems to be so interested details when it comes to anything else.
I'd rather call "Sugar is the root of all evil" an oversimplification.
Worse than that, it's also completely wrong.8 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Sugar, liquid sugar, added sugar, refined carbohydrates, nutritionally devoid processed food...
And don't forget the diabetes epidemic too.
Yet, strangely enough, carbohydrate consumption per capita worldwide does not correlate with obesity rate (or diabetes for that matter) except for select countries where high calorie consumption is also present. In fact, countries with lower BMI actually happen to have a higher than average carbohydrate% intake (but lower than average calorie intake).
United States, known for a high obesity rates, actually has a relatively low carbohydrate% consumption compared to most countries and a higher fat%, but it also tops the chart in the amount of calories consumed.
When you fault the intake of "refined carbohydrates and nutritionally devoid processed food", you somehow forget that the majority of the calories in such items come from fat. Now you could interpret this data to go the 80s route and blame fat for obesity (or carbs like you are trying to do), but the fact remains that energy consumption is the only reliable factor here.
Carbs traditionally have never been a health problem. About 100% of Blue Zones eat mainly carbs.
There is a difference between a 15 year old guy on the sofa playing video games making a meal out of Pringles and Mountain Dew than a 15 year son of a potato farmer in a third world country who is living mainly on potatoes who is burning off the carbs in the fields drinking mostly water.
Lifestyle is a lot more than just one part of our WOE macro. People that move enough to burn most of the carbs they eat daily can expect to live a full life. People who are obese at the age of five can expect otherwise. The darkest color countries will have very few 5 year olds that are obese. The kids at McDonald's may not all be skinny.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Sugar, liquid sugar, added sugar, refined carbohydrates, nutritionally devoid processed food...
And don't forget the diabetes epidemic too.
Yet, strangely enough, carbohydrate consumption per capita worldwide does not correlate with obesity rate (or diabetes for that matter) except for select countries where high calorie consumption is also present. In fact, countries with lower BMI actually happen to have a higher than average carbohydrate% intake (but lower than average calorie intake).
United States, known for a high obesity rates, actually has a relatively low carbohydrate% consumption compared to most countries and a higher fat%, but it also tops the chart in the amount of calories consumed.
When you fault the intake of "refined carbohydrates and nutritionally devoid processed food", you somehow forget that the majority of the calories in such items come from fat. Now you could interpret this data to go the 80s route and blame fat for obesity (or carbs like you are trying to do), but the fact remains that energy consumption is the only reliable factor here.
Carbs traditionally have never been a health problem. About 100% of Blue Zones eat mainly carbs.
There is a difference between a 15 year old guy on the sofa playing video games making a meal out of Pringles and Mountain Dew than a 15 year son of a potato farmer in a third world country who is living mainly on potatoes who is burning off the carbs in the fields drinking mostly water.
Lifestyle is a lot more than just one part of our WOE macro.
Yes, the 15 year old on the sofa sounds like he might be consuming more calories than he burns....and the 15 yr old potato farmer sounds like he is not consuming more calories than he burns.
Bingo.
Natural carbs are not the issue and have never been the issue.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Sugar, liquid sugar, added sugar, refined carbohydrates, nutritionally devoid processed food...
And don't forget the diabetes epidemic too.
Yet, strangely enough, carbohydrate consumption per capita worldwide does not correlate with obesity rate (or diabetes for that matter) except for select countries where high calorie consumption is also present. In fact, countries with lower BMI actually happen to have a higher than average carbohydrate% intake (but lower than average calorie intake).
United States, known for a high obesity rates, actually has a relatively low carbohydrate% consumption compared to most countries and a higher fat%, but it also tops the chart in the amount of calories consumed.
When you fault the intake of "refined carbohydrates and nutritionally devoid processed food", you somehow forget that the majority of the calories in such items come from fat. Now you could interpret this data to go the 80s route and blame fat for obesity (or carbs like you are trying to do), but the fact remains that energy consumption is the only reliable factor here.
Carbs traditionally have never been a health problem. About 100% of Blue Zones eat mainly carbs.
There is a difference between a 15 year old guy on the sofa playing video games making a meal out of Pringles and Mountain Dew than a 15 year son of a potato farmer in a third world country who is living mainly on potatoes who is burning off the carbs in the fields drinking mostly water.
Lifestyle is a lot more than just one part of our WOE macro.
Yes, the 15 year old on the sofa sounds like he might be consuming more calories than he burns....and the 15 yr old potato farmer sounds like he is not consuming more calories than he burns.
Bingo.
Natural carbs are not the issue and have never been the issue.
You say bingo, but then say something completely different from her.
The 15 year old on the sofa could be eating nothing but potatoes too and not be any better off.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Sugar, liquid sugar, added sugar, refined carbohydrates, nutritionally devoid processed food...
And don't forget the diabetes epidemic too.
Yet, strangely enough, carbohydrate consumption per capita worldwide does not correlate with obesity rate (or diabetes for that matter) except for select countries where high calorie consumption is also present. In fact, countries with lower BMI actually happen to have a higher than average carbohydrate% intake (but lower than average calorie intake).
United States, known for a high obesity rates, actually has a relatively low carbohydrate% consumption compared to most countries and a higher fat%, but it also tops the chart in the amount of calories consumed.
When you fault the intake of "refined carbohydrates and nutritionally devoid processed food", you somehow forget that the majority of the calories in such items come from fat. Now you could interpret this data to go the 80s route and blame fat for obesity (or carbs like you are trying to do), but the fact remains that energy consumption is the only reliable factor here.
Carbs traditionally have never been a health problem. About 100% of Blue Zones eat mainly carbs.
There is a difference between a 15 year old guy on the sofa playing video games making a meal out of Pringles and Mountain Dew than a 15 year son of a potato farmer in a third world country who is living mainly on potatoes who is burning off the carbs in the fields drinking mostly water.
Lifestyle is a lot more than just one part of our WOE macro.
Yes, the 15 year old on the sofa sounds like he might be consuming more calories than he burns....and the 15 yr old potato farmer sounds like he is not consuming more calories than he burns.
Bingo.
Natural carbs are not the issue and have never been the issue.
You say bingo, but then say something completely different from her.
The 15 year old on the sofa could be eating nothing but potatoes too and not be any better off.
The 15 year old may weigh the same. But Mountain Dew compared to potatoes?1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Sugar, liquid sugar, added sugar, refined carbohydrates, nutritionally devoid processed food...
And don't forget the diabetes epidemic too.
Yet, strangely enough, carbohydrate consumption per capita worldwide does not correlate with obesity rate (or diabetes for that matter) except for select countries where high calorie consumption is also present. In fact, countries with lower BMI actually happen to have a higher than average carbohydrate% intake (but lower than average calorie intake).
United States, known for a high obesity rates, actually has a relatively low carbohydrate% consumption compared to most countries and a higher fat%, but it also tops the chart in the amount of calories consumed.
When you fault the intake of "refined carbohydrates and nutritionally devoid processed food", you somehow forget that the majority of the calories in such items come from fat. Now you could interpret this data to go the 80s route and blame fat for obesity (or carbs like you are trying to do), but the fact remains that energy consumption is the only reliable factor here.
Carbs traditionally have never been a health problem. About 100% of Blue Zones eat mainly carbs.
There is a difference between a 15 year old guy on the sofa playing video games making a meal out of Pringles and Mountain Dew than a 15 year son of a potato farmer in a third world country who is living mainly on potatoes who is burning off the carbs in the fields drinking mostly water.
Lifestyle is a lot more than just one part of our WOE macro.
Yes, the 15 year old on the sofa sounds like he might be consuming more calories than he burns....and the 15 yr old potato farmer sounds like he is not consuming more calories than he burns.
Bingo.
Nature carbs are not the issue and have never been the issue.
Nature carbs? If I eat nature carbs (such weird phrasing) in excess then I won't gain weight? Of course I will.
Excessive calories have always been the issue.
True.
The article below also drives home Pringles are far from being natural potatoes for sure;
articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/07/the-shocking-true-story-of-how-pringles-are-made.aspx1 -
Any single food only is going to leave you malnourished. Except Soylent I guess.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Any single food only is going to leave you malnourished. Except Soylent I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_(drink)
Steven just natural spuds would be better than that cocktail perhaps?
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Any single food only is going to leave you malnourished. Except Soylent I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_(drink)
Steven just natural spuds would be better than that cocktail perhaps?
That cocktail is far more nutritionally balanced than eating nothing but natural potatoes.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions