Fat Head

questionablemethods

The average American is much less active than we were in 1970.

I'm not necessarily denying this, but could you cite some statistics that we actually are burning fewer calories through movement and exercise than we were in 1970? While we might have more gadgets, I'm guessing we also have more exercise DVDs, more marathons and more gyms on every other street than we did in 1970, so I'm wondering how this all plays out in terms of calories burned.

hyenagirl

Fat Head changed my life. I was eating 1400 calories a day of pasta and bread. I was obese and sad because I was eating the calories I should every day. Heck, I was evening running an hour 3 times a week.. I now eat 1400 calories a day and way less carbohydrates than I did and about 3 times the fat as I used to, and I lost over 30 lbs. I also ditched the cardio too. I'm now not obese, I'm in the healthy BMI weight range, planning on losing more. It's not just about eating more and moving less, it's about what you eat. I also lost a ton of wrinkles in addition to rolls when I upped the saturated fat content in my diet.

Fat Head focuses on why wheat is bad. People were eating meat long before we ate wheat. People are also bigger in frame now than they were in 1970.

tigersword

The average American is much less active than we were in 1970.

I'm not necessarily denying this, but could you cite some statistics that we actually are burning fewer calories through movement and exercise than we were in 1970? While we might have more gadgets, I'm guessing we also have more exercise DVDs, more marathons and more gyms on every other street than we did in 1970, so I'm wondering how this all plays out in terms of calories burned.

It's got nothing to do with gadgets or the number of gyms, it's the fact that over the last 40 years Americans have shifted into more sedentary jobs than active jobs, I don't have a study on me at the moment, but there are many studies out there showing that Americans are much more sedentary than they were several decades ago.

Acg67

The average American is much less active than we were in 1970.

I'm not necessarily denying this, but could you cite some statistics that we actually are burning fewer calories through movement and exercise than we were in 1970? While we might have more gadgets, I'm guessing we also have more exercise DVDs, more marathons and more gyms on every other street than we did in 1970, so I'm wondering how this all plays out in terms of calories burned.

King DE, et al. Adherence to healthy lifestyle habits in US adults, 1988-2006. Am J Med. 2009 Ju; 122(6):528-34

RESULTS:

Over the last 18 years, the percent of adults aged 40-74 years with a body mass index >or=30 kg/m(2) has increased from 28% to 36% (P <.05); physical activity 12 times a month or more has decreased from 53% to 43% (P <.05)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19486715

questionablemethods

I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist and I'm normally not. But I've done a lot of reading about this and I'm thoroughly convinced that sugar is the major dietary culprit, not saturated fats, as is being espoused by the mainstream diet industry and, indeed, the federal government.

The numbers don't lie, however. People are eating less sugar and more fat nowadays, and it's been trending that way for several decades. If sugar is the culprit, then shouldn't people be eating more sugar and less fat? The real culprit is the fact that people are less active then we were 30-40 years ago, and yet we are eating a lot more in general. It's got nothing to do with one particular food type.

For anyone interested, Stephan Guyenet has put together some graphs from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA): http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/us-weight-lifestyle-and-diet-trends.html

NHANES shows carbohydrates making up the largest increase in calories (right in line with Food Pyramid recommendations).

questionablemethods

The average American is much less active than we were in 1970.

I'm not necessarily denying this, but could you cite some statistics that we actually are burning fewer calories through movement and exercise than we were in 1970? While we might have more gadgets, I'm guessing we also have more exercise DVDs, more marathons and more gyms on every other street than we did in 1970, so I'm wondering how this all plays out in terms of calories burned.

King DE, et al. Adherence to healthy lifestyle habits in US adults, 1988-2006. Am J Med. 2009 Ju; 122(6):528-34

RESULTS:

Over the last 18 years, the percent of adults aged 40-74 years with a body mass index >or=30 kg/m(2) has increased from 28% to 36% (P <.05); physical activity 12 times a month or more has decreased from 53% to 43% (P <.05)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19486715

Thanks! Why was counted as physical activity?

The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (via the link I posted above) shows that people's reports of physical activity increasing since 1988. I wonder why there appear such differences.

tigersword

Fat Head changed my life. I was eating 1400 calories a day of pasta and bread. I was obese and sad because I was eating the calories I should every day. Heck, I was evening running an hour 3 times a week.. I now eat 1400 calories a day and way less carbohydrates than I did and about 3 times the fat as I used to, and I lost over 30 lbs. I also ditched the cardio too. I'm now not obese, I'm in the healthy BMI weight range, planning on losing more. It's not just about eating more and moving less, it's about what you eat. I also lost a ton of wrinkles in addition to rolls when I upped the saturated fat content in my diet.

Fat Head focuses on why wheat is bad. People were eating meat long before we ate wheat. People are also bigger in frame now than they were in 1970.

Wheat is not bad. If it was, the rest of the world would be just as obese as the United States, and they aren't.

questionablemethods

Wheat is not bad. If it was, the rest of the world would be just as obese as the United States, and they aren't.

Well, the rest of the world is certainly getting fatter.

Here's an interesting perspective: How Wheat Made the World Fat (http://www.fatfiction.co.uk/fat/wheatpt1/). Not saying it is spot on, I'm just providing links to other viewpoints for those interested in looking into it further.

bcattoes

Wheat is not bad. If it was, the rest of the world would be just as obese as the United States, and they aren't.

Well, the rest of the world is certainly getting fatter.

Here's an interesting perspective: How Wheat Made the World Fat (http://www.fatfiction.co.uk/fat/wheatpt1/). Not saying it is spot on, I'm just providing links to other viewpoints for those interested in looking into it further.

The rest of world is becoming fatter as more countries become "developed" and begin eating processed foods. And that is the real problem. Processed foods in general. Processed carbs is the most consumed and so, naturally and rightfully, gets the worst wrap. But processed meats are just as bad. It's not wheat so much as a lack of natural foods. It's not as if people just started eating wheat.

saajidah93

I think comedians have an appreciation for irony. I just think the Fat Head guy thinks the documentary "Super Size Me" is ridiculous. He has some points. I do think that some of his other claims are questionable such as his claim of vegetarians influencing the government food pyramid, and his claim that cholesterol and saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease and atherosclerosis. He also points out that Indians are vegetarians and have the highest heart disease in the world, but using that evidence is a fallacy because studies suggest that this cause is genetic.

But the one thing the Fat Head guy does well is expose how stupid SuperSize Me is. If you made hamburgers and deep fried french fries at home, it would be just as bad for you. It's stupid to point fingers at fast food. Personally, I know how to get a reasonably healthy meal at McDonald's but if someone wants to eat a Big Mac and a large fries, then that should be their choice. Another good point he makes is about fat and how it is crucial for your health... He also talks about insulin resistance, but he definitely isn't the first to talk about it... He is incorrect assuming that carbs are all bad and fat is all good... It's about moderation... People shouldnt push carbs or fat, they should promote eating vegetables.

Indians may be vegetarians but use a lot of oil while cooking... that's the reason for higher rates in heart disease, just saying :-)

itontae

If you watch the movie closely, you will hear him explain why he did it. He pretty much proved that Spurlock cooked the books, and that's the point. Spurlock couldn't have eaten the number of calories he claimed to have eaten and stayed within his own self-imposed rules. He won't let anyone see his food diary to prove otherwise.

He's attacking the elitist mentality of Spurlock and others like him who have the idea that people are weak idiots and need to be protected from the world. His argument is that what we need to be protected from is the people claiming to be trying to protect us, because they are working on mistaken assumptions about food. He's attacking those underlying assumptions on which the entire diet industry (and the federal government) is built, and he uses compelling, scientifically sound, arguments to prove his point. We've been misled about fat and sugar both and the establishment is sticking by faulty information despite that no good studies bear it out as accurate.

I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist and I'm normally not. But I've done a lot of reading about this and I'm thoroughly convinced that sugar is the major dietary culprit, not saturated fats, as is being espoused by the mainstream diet industry and, indeed, the federal government.

couldn't agree more.
well said

questionablemethods

The rest of world is becoming fatter as more countries become "developed" and begin eating processed foods. And that is the real problem. Processed foods in general. Processed carbs is the most consumed and so, naturally and rightfully, gets the worst wrap. But processed meats are just as bad. It's not wheat so much as a lack of natural foods. It's not as if people just started eating wheat.

I totally agree, which is why I am so confused that, for example, not only is low fat milk typically the recommendation, even for children (http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6751) but, in fact whole raw milk is prohibited by more than half of the US.

I also don't understand why pasta, crackers, etc. tend to get a free pass. The link I just posted encourages parents to "Give kids whole-grain cereals for breakfast, kid-friendly “white” whole-wheat bread for sandwiches, crunchy whole-grain crackers for snacks and whole-grain pastas for dinner."

Yes, fine, they are whole-grain cereals, bread, crackers, and pasta and I get that, if you're going to be giving your kids those foods, then there are are reasons for recommending whole grain over refined grain products, but I don't believe that's how the recommendations are being interpreted (or really even how they are being communicated). I'm not saying that these foods will kill anyone, but I haven't seen a strong nutrition-based reason that I ought to feed my children crackers and bread, whole-grain or not.

hyenagirl

Here's something Fat Head focuses on, that dubious Healthy Heart Check. Up until last year, you could of found it on both a box of Sugar Smacks and Coco Puffs. Of course the AHA now deems these "unhealthy" all of the sudden, but 60 grams of sugar in one meal was considered good for your heart until 2010. Really now...

bcattoes

The rest of world is becoming fatter as more countries become "developed" and begin eating processed foods. And that is the real problem. Processed foods in general. Processed carbs is the most consumed and so, naturally and rightfully, gets the worst wrap. But processed meats are just as bad. It's not wheat so much as a lack of natural foods. It's not as if people just started eating wheat.

I totally agree, which is why I am so confused that, for example, not only is low fat milk typically the recommendation, even for children (http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6751) but, in fact whole raw milk is prohibited by more than half of the US.

I also don't understand why pasta, crackers, etc. tend to get a free pass. The link I just posted encourages parents to "Give kids whole-grain cereals for breakfast, kid-friendly “white” whole-wheat bread for sandwiches, crunchy whole-grain crackers for snacks and whole-grain pastas for dinner."

Yes, fine, they are whole-grain cereals, bread, crackers, and pasta and I get that, if you're going to be giving your kids those foods, then there are are reasons for recommending whole grain over refined grain products, but I don't believe that's how the recommendations are being interpreted (or really even how they are being communicated). I'm not saying that these foods will kill anyone, but I haven't seen a strong nutrition-based reason that I ought to feed my children crackers and bread, whole-grain or not.

I agree. I think the intent, to replace white grains with whole grains is good and important. But too much empahsis has been placed on it, making it seem more important than simply eating less of overly processed products made from flour such as pasta, crackers and bread even if they are whole grain.

questionablemethods

The rest of world is becoming fatter as more countries become "developed" and begin eating processed foods. And that is the real problem. Processed foods in general. Processed carbs is the most consumed and so, naturally and rightfully, gets the worst wrap. But processed meats are just as bad. It's not wheat so much as a lack of natural foods. It's not as if people just started eating wheat.

I totally agree, which is why I am so confused that, for example, not only is low fat milk typically the recommendation, even for children (http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6751) but, in fact whole raw milk is prohibited by more than half of the US.

I also don't understand why pasta, crackers, etc. tend to get a free pass. The link I just posted encourages parents to "Give kids whole-grain cereals for breakfast, kid-friendly “white” whole-wheat bread for sandwiches, crunchy whole-grain crackers for snacks and whole-grain pastas for dinner."

Yes, fine, they are whole-grain cereals, bread, crackers, and pasta and I get that, if you're going to be giving your kids those foods, then there are are reasons for recommending whole grain over refined grain products, but I don't believe that's how the recommendations are being interpreted (or really even how they are being communicated). I'm not saying that these foods will kill anyone, but I haven't seen a strong nutrition-based reason that I ought to feed my children crackers and bread, whole-grain or not.

I agree. I think the intent, to replace white grains with whole grains is good and important. But too much empahsis has been placed on it, making it seem more important than simply eating less of overly processed products made from flour such as pasta, crackers and bread even if they are whole grain.

And, for me, a lot of what I got out of Fat Head was that a lot of the (allegedly) flawed saturated fat research and subsequent (allegedly) rushed/ill-advised governmental dietary recommendations have driven the American food system into preferring more processed foods. The relatively unprocessed (but "evil" saturated-fat laden) beef tallow, leaf lard or bacon grease that were used were replaced with vegetable shortening, corn oil, soybean oil, etc. I can, and have, rendered beef tallow in a crock pot. I can't say the same about soybean oil.

The (supposedly unjustified) vilification of saturated fat also gave us all kinds of low-fat dairy products. Of course, because fat is tasty, when it is removed it is frequently replaced with sugar (or fake sugar, these days).

rml_16

So, I saw this documentary last night. I don't get it. A skinny comedian does a documentary where he eats nothing but McD for a month and gains weight and his health suffers (shocking!). So, fat comedian retaliates several years later with a long commercial for McD where he eats McD and other fatty foods, but makes sure to keep his calories low and loses weight (again, shocking!). And THIS is what so many people use as their food guide? Comedians? Seriously?

Considering everything else people do regarding food and dieting, are you really surprised by this?

bcattoes

So, I saw this documentary last night. I don't get it. A skinny comedian does a documentary where he eats nothing but McD for a month and gains weight and his health suffers (shocking!). So, fat comedian retaliates several years later with a long commercial for McD where he eats McD and other fatty foods, but makes sure to keep his calories low and loses weight (again, shocking!). And THIS is what so many people use as their food guide? Comedians? Seriously?

Considering everything else people do regarding food and dieting, are you really surprised by this?

:laugh: Good point. But I am constantly surprised at the stuff people believe about food, nutrition and health. How did something so simple as eating food become so screwed up? Aren't we (humans) supposed to be the smart species?

rml_16

So, I saw this documentary last night. I don't get it. A skinny comedian does a documentary where he eats nothing but McD for a month and gains weight and his health suffers (shocking!). So, fat comedian retaliates several years later with a long commercial for McD where he eats McD and other fatty foods, but makes sure to keep his calories low and loses weight (again, shocking!). And THIS is what so many people use as their food guide? Comedians? Seriously?

Considering everything else people do regarding food and dieting, are you really surprised by this?

:laugh: Good point. But I am constantly surprised at the stuff people believe about food, nutrition and health. How did something so simple as eating food become so screwed up? Aren't we (humans) supposed to be the smart species?

There's our species in comparison to other species and then there are the individuals. Common sense, as they say, isn't so common! lol

My dog and cats can't do math or build buildings, but I think they're a lot smarter than some people out there.

I'll also say that for some reason, when it comes to dieting, the smartest people I know are often the ones who follow the dumbest plans. It's like all reason flies out the window. It probably has something to do with wanting that quick fix.

Gigi_licious

So, I saw this documentary last night. I don't get it. A skinny comedian does a documentary where he eats nothing but McD for a month and gains weight and his health suffers (shocking!). So, fat comedian retaliates several years later with a long commercial for McD where he eats McD and other fatty foods, but makes sure to keep his calories low and loses weight (again, shocking!). And THIS is what so many people use as their food guide? Comedians? Seriously?

Considering everything else people do regarding food and dieting, are you really surprised by this?

:laugh: Good point. But I am constantly surprised at the stuff people believe about food, nutrition and health. How did something so simple as eating food become so screwed up? Aren't we (humans) supposed to be the smart species?

I'm just curious what, exactly, makes you the most knowing and holy expert? I'm curious as to what qualifies you to dismiss claims by one group or another? How extensive has YOUR research been to deem you the knower of all things? * Looks up to the sky and asks: God, is that you?? You have WiFi?*

questionablemethods

How did something so simple as eating food become so screwed up?

Research without a guiding paradigm? Here's what Dr. Cordain has said, which really struck me. I've posted it before on another thread but I really like it.

In mature and well-developed scientific disciplines there are universal paradigms that guide scientists to fruitful end points as they design their experiments and hypotheses. For instance, in cosmology (the study of the universe) the guiding paradigm is the “Big Bang” concept showing that the universe began with an enormous explosion and has been expanding ever since. In geology, the “Continental Drift” model established that all of the current continents at one time formed a continuous landmass that eventually drifted apart to form the present-day continents. These central concepts are not theories for each discipline, but rather are indisputable facts that serve as orientation points for all other inquiry within each discipline. Scientists do not know everything about the nature of the universe, but it is absolutely unquestionable that it has been and is expanding. This central knowledge then serves as a guiding template that allows scientists to make much more accurate and informed hypotheses about factors yet to be discovered.

The study of human nutrition remains an immature science because it lacks a universally acknowledged unifying paradigm (11). Without an overarching and guiding template, it is not surprising that there is such seeming chaos, disagreement and confusion in the discipline. The renowned Russian geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (12). Indeed, nothing in nutrition seems to make sense because most nutritionists have little or no formal training in evolutionary theory, much less human evolution. Nutritionists face the same problem as anyone who is not using an evolutionary model to evaluate biology: fragmented information and no coherent way to interpret the data.

http://www.cathletics.com/articles/article.php?articleID=50