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
-
Not nutritionally, no. Taste wise, probably.0
-
GaleHawkins 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.
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.aspx
Mercola and shocking true story . . .0 -
GaleHawkins 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.
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.aspx
Mercola, really?
I know how pringles are made, they're basically potato cookies made out of the same stuff instant mashed potatoes are made out of. Not that weird if you're fine with other things made out of dough.2 -
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.
That's a matter of learning that about yourself, not the food made me do it, of course. And I agree it's a sensible thing to learn about yourself. For me, though, if I'm not eating out of hunger (which again I avoid by being mindful and, mostly, by eating to schedule), the type of food really doesn't matter. It's more likely to be something highly palatable, of course (which for me doesn't primarily mean chips and sweets, however, could be nuts, could be steak, could be good cheese), just because that's the kind of thing most likely to seem really tempting when you are eating for hedonic reasons. I like carrots, but they don't call my name when I'm not really hungry (on the other hand, something low cal but spicy like gazpacho certainly could).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.
I doubt they choose these things when not hungry. They don't tend to be hedonically eaten as much (that said, I can put away some cottage cheese and some lean proteins, sure, but I'm not going to do so because I'm hungry/not satisfied, as you said -- I will because they taste good and I am not being sensible about how much I'm eating). Again, if I am mindful (as one should be about amounts AND food choice), it's not an issue.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.
I just don't eat 'til fullness. That "full" feeling is not something I expect or much like. There are not foods that make me hungry when I eat them, as you seemed to be saying, and if there were I would not eat them, but I'd think that was something about me and the food, not the food itself. But I think people wanting to hedonically eat foods when not really hungry (and being able to keep going without feeling too full until after the fact) is a quite different thing that the food not being satisfying or leaving them hungry. I also think the issue with these things is adjusting to the fact that food is always around and easily available. I could eat a diet of mostly hyperpalatable, low nutrient foods (would rather not but could) and if it was offered me at meals and I was busy at other times I wouldn't overeat. If it was around all the time and I wasn't being mindful or making sure I had other options or eating to schedule or eating according to other ideas (like nutrition, which I typically try to do), sure, I could see overeating regularly. But I could do the same if the food was highly nutritious and tasty to me and the same opportunities were available and I hadn't learned to be mindful or that I am better eating to schedule or that I need to pay some attention to how much I am eating (not log, necessarily). I think it's about taste and opportunity.
Oh, and to go back to your after dinner snack, two foods I often have as an after dinner snack now are cheese and ice cream. (I like fruit and sometimes have it instead, but sometimes I have it as part of dinner instead or aren't in the mood for it.) Another snack I sometimes have is cottage cheese. These are all foods I used to eat excessive amounts of at times when gaining weight. I can easily put down half a pint of ice cream, a large chunk of good cheese (or lots of curds), or a container of cottage cheese. That the cheese is basically fat and that the cottage cheese is high in protein doesn't seem to matter for me. BUT when I exercise sense and don't just decide to eat out of the container (or keep cutting pieces of the cheese) until this mythical time when I "feel satisfied" even though I wasn't hungry in the first place and I know satiation tends not to kick in until you stop eating anyway, I am perfectly satisfied giving myself one serving (an oz of cheese, maybe 100 g of cottage cheese, half a cup of ice cream) of these foods as a snack and leaving it at that. There's no more desire to keep eating and eating (unless it's that bored "I just want to eat" thing which I need not to give into) than I'd get with a piece of fruit. (And it's it's the "just want to eat" thing and I have a piece of fruit, I will still just want to eat after, since it's not really about eating.)As a matter of fact, some of the larger snack manufacturers design their foods in such a manner as to minimize the satiety signal.
Again, so what. Lots of people (like me) have a poor satiety signal anyway, and would overeat homemade foods without experiencing it without other regulators (I think lots of people are quite able to overeat homemade foods but there are natural regulators like eating with others, eating a balanced meal, not having so much you can go nuts, stuff like that). Again, if the issue was really that you ate a couple Oreos (I don't like most packaged cookies myself, so don't eat them) and were still hungry, get an apple. It's not that the person is still hungry. It's that the person likes Oreos and lacks a sense (like I recall having as a kid) that there is a certain amount appropriate to eat as a snack and beyond that it's excessive. I think we've lost our cultural breaks and assume we used to have biological breaks that I doubt most ever had -- why would that be a common trait evolutionarily?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.
That we are surrounded by highly palatable foods that we think are okay to snack on all the time in any amount is a cultural issue. It's not surprising that cultures vary on this. And the wide availability of junk food is of course why people eat it -- in cultures without lots of packaged junk food it would be much harder to gobble food all day while being sedentary at a desk or at home or to eat lots of extra food beyond meals.
I don't think that's about the food making us do it. I think it's that we have a messed-up attitude toward food, culturally (which is not unrelated to the fact that many people don't eat the foods they know they should in many cases, like vegetables).3 -
tincanonastring wrote: »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.
But what if you fry the natural potatoes in natural coconut oil.
Superfood!
And the 15-year-old could definitely get fat on them.2 -
GaleHawkins 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.
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.aspx
You really go out of your way to find the worst possible sources, don't you?7 -
Our local district offers a free (for all elementary aged kids in the district) summer breakfast /lunch program with supervised outdoor play time in between, but only at one of their elementary schools (they have 7). They also offer free breakfast /lunch as part of their summer school program. I don't know who's paying for it all though?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 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »
Our local district offers a summer breakfast /lunch program with supervised outdoor play time in between, but only at one of their elementary schools (they have 7). They also offer free breakfast /lunch as part of their summer school program. I don't know who's paying for it all though?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.
I think what's referred to is the USDA Summer Food Service Program: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/sfsp/SFSP-Fact-Sheet.pdf
Normally it's need-based, but in school districts where the student population has a high overall level of poverty (like the one that serves my city), the district can choose to make it eligible to anyone: http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/community-eligibility-provisionThe Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) is a provision from the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 that allows schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) with high poverty rates to provide free breakfast and lunch to all students. CEP eliminates the burden of collecting household applications to determine eligibility for school meals, relying instead on information from other means-tested programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »
Our local district offers a summer breakfast /lunch program with supervised outdoor play time in between, but only at one of their elementary schools (they have 7). They also offer free breakfast /lunch as part of their summer school program. I don't know who's paying for it all though?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.
I think what's referred to is the USDA Summer Food Service Program: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/sfsp/SFSP-Fact-Sheet.pdf
Normally it's need-based, but in school districts where the student population has a high overall level of poverty (like the one that serves my city), the district can choose to make it eligible to anyone: http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/community-eligibility-provisionThe Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) is a provision from the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 that allows schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) with high poverty rates to provide free breakfast and lunch to all students. CEP eliminates the burden of collecting household applications to determine eligibility for school meals, relying instead on information from other means-tested programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Now I'm curious, we live in a pretty middle class district (and a few of the elementary schools are in very nice, upper class neighborhoods).0 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »
Our local district offers a summer breakfast /lunch program with supervised outdoor play time in between, but only at one of their elementary schools (they have 7). They also offer free breakfast /lunch as part of their summer school program. I don't know who's paying for it all though?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.
I think what's referred to is the USDA Summer Food Service Program: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/sfsp/SFSP-Fact-Sheet.pdf
Normally it's need-based, but in school districts where the student population has a high overall level of poverty (like the one that serves my city), the district can choose to make it eligible to anyone: http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/community-eligibility-provisionThe Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) is a provision from the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 that allows schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) with high poverty rates to provide free breakfast and lunch to all students. CEP eliminates the burden of collecting household applications to determine eligibility for school meals, relying instead on information from other means-tested programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Now I'm curious, we live in a pretty middle class district (and a few of the elementary schools are in very nice, upper class neighborhoods).
Some states tie district funding to property taxes and the like, so if the district has more money and nothing to do with it, they might opt for a summer program like this. Thanks for the info!
Also, thanks @lemurcat12 for the info on CEP! I hadn't heard about it.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