The true cause of obesity

Rhea30

Lack of understanding of energy intake vs energy needs.

Now, do I think that everyone should count calories? Of course not. But I DO think that there's a significant portion of people who do not understand how energy balance dictates weight change, and knowing this could help people either lose, or not get that way to begin with.

I agree that a lot of people do not understand how much they need to eat. What puzzles me is how does every other animal do it? With ample food around you don't get fat lions and fat deer and fat cheetahs. How do they know how much they need?

Actually you would get fat lions, cheetahs and so on if they have ample food but they don't have ample food.

PaulS70

Lack of understanding of energy intake vs energy needs.

Now, do I think that everyone should count calories? Of course not. But I DO think that there's a significant portion of people who do not understand how energy balance dictates weight change, and knowing this could help people either lose, or not get that way to begin with.

I agree that a lot of people do not understand how much they need to eat. What puzzles me is how does every other animal do it? With ample food around you don't get fat lions and fat deer and fat cheetahs. How do they know how much they need?

Actually you would get fat lions, cheetahs and so on if they have ample food but they don't have ample food.

Maybe. I would argue that it would depend on what the ample food was. Natural vs. unnatural, low quality vs high quality.

PaulS70

I also forgot in the original post that "potion size" is a key part of the TOXIC ENVIRONMENT theory. That should be noted

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

I can accept your first three theories, but I have to reject the last one. I reject any philosophy that treats "junk" food as if it were some foreign matter that our bodies somehow can't handle. Yes, additives have altered the nature of our diets dramatically, but additives have not chemically altered the food. Food is still food. Nutritional values vary, but if it is identified as food, whether it be healthy or "junk" it is still food. I think that viewing "junk" food as junk instead of food actually fosters an unhealthy relationship with food. As if it is somehow the food's fault that we are fat. We have to take responsibility for our own choices, and I think that blaming any kind of food is blame-shifting. Instead of taking responsibility for the choices that made us fat, we blame the restaurants, food distributors, and the government for not protecting us from the "junk", but essentially, it was OUR lack of self-control when it came to eating the nutritionally defecient food that made us fat.

This

travla01

I can accept your first three theories, but I have to reject the last one. I reject any philosophy that treats "junk" food as if it were some foreign matter that our bodies somehow can't handle. Yes, additives have altered the nature of our diets dramatically, but additives have not chemically altered the food. Food is still food. Nutritional values vary, but if it is identified as food, whether it be healthy or "junk" it is still food. I think that viewing "junk" food as junk instead of food actually fosters an unhealthy relationship with food. As if it is somehow the food's fault that we are fat. We have to take responsibility for our own choices, and I think that blaming any kind of food is blame-shifting. Instead of taking responsibility for the choices that made us fat, we blame the restaurants, food distributors, and the government for not protecting us from the "junk", but essentially, it was OUR lack of self-control when it came to eating the nutritionally defecient food that made us fat.

One caveat I would add to this is...depending on your family background you may have been raised with unhealthy habits that are in fact your parents fault but once you reach a certain age it is your responsibility to educate yourself and fix these habits. Case in point, I was raised drinking soda to the point where I was up to 3L a day, it was accepted and natural in my house. Once I moved out and grew up, I educated myself and made a different choice but when I was a kid I didn't know better and followed my parents example.

I agree that people should educate themselves and MOST DEFINITELY take responsibility for what they eat. (I think this is the biggest problem with many people today) I do disagree that all food is 'food'. In other words, what we call "food'' these days can be described as junk. Take a look at the labels of what you eat. Most of the food offered in the inner aisles of grocery stores are loaded with chemicals, and chemically extracted oils. They are so processed now I know I can't identify the ingredients. I assume that most people don't know what they are putting into their body. I consider chemically processed foods as junk.

I know I have seen a drastic difference since I stopped eating these foods and shopped in the outer ring of the grocery store/organic aisles. My emotional eating has decreased, and my constant hunger has diminished. A good sized, eggs and bacon breakfast keeps me full for hours.

That is just my 2 cents.

KJVBear33

I say forget ALL of those theories.........they MAY have some validity, but I think that it has to do with today's society. I have heard this over and over again..........obesity in the US is such a problem, but everyone throws up their hands like they don't know how to help this scenario while throwing money to programs that may not need it or should not be funded THAT much and it really gets underneath my skin. The reason for WHY this happens is because there are a multitude of easy fixes as far as meals are concerned because there are a dozen.......billion........fast food places one could go to, they have pop and candy vending machines in schools FILLED with fattening products, and the hot lunches schools provide are a joke I think.........I mean yes, all of these places, save for vending machines that is, have to abide by nutritional standards and all. But still.........its today's society that is the problem. Everywhere you look everyone is looking for that quick fix.........youre out and you are tired and don't want to cook and yet you don't want to go out to eat--you want to eat at home--what do you do? Get a greasy nasty pizza, go get fried food at a drive thru, or get chinese food that is wrought with God knows what.

I seem to think that its not laziness........I think its the fact that we have already a taste of what we like and what we don't like and its an automatic thing. I honestly know from experience that before I started losing weight myself, I would go for things that I knew tasted great to me, but I never gave it much thought of what I was putting in my mouth. Now, I know. Like for instance, I would go to the movies and get popcorn every single time. Is it wrought with grease and God only knows what else? Yes........but does it taste good? very much so..........so smelling that popcorn as you walk in is just going to pull you in unless you get it through your head before you enter the theater........no, I am not going to do this.

Figuringoutme

I think those are all true. at least for me.


and..
The thing about animals. Wild animals eat natural food and they only eat when there hungry. They have to hunt for food unlike domestic animals that can walk into the next room and have a bowl of food out for them.

sunfyrejade

I agree that people should educate themselves and MOST DEFINITELY take responsibility for what they eat. (I think this is the biggest problem with many people today) I do disagree that all food is 'food'. In other words, what we call "food'' these days can be described as junk. Take a look at the labels of what you eat. Most of the food offered in the inner aisles of grocery stores are loaded with chemicals, and chemically extracted oils. They are so processed now I know I can't identify the ingredients. I assume that most people don't know what they are putting into their body. I consider chemically processed foods as junk.

I know I have seen a drastic difference since I stopped eating these foods and shopped in the outer ring of the grocery store/organic aisles. My emotional eating has decreased, and my constant hunger has diminished. A good sized, eggs and bacon breakfast keeps me full for hours.

That is just my 2 cents.

I think it depends on your term of "junk", I think what the OP was trying to highlight was blaming food that is not nutritionally sound is a cop out. I definitely agree with food choices being a big part of health and well-being. Processed food with more chemicals in them that most people cannot pronounce is looked at by our bodies as toxins and make our livers work overtime (I try to explain to my students that the liver pulls out everything not just drugs and alcohol) and are not as nutritionally valuable as real food. However if you still only eat 1200 calories of twinkies or cheesy poofs you might lose weight based on the energy because 1200 calories is still 1200 calories. Would you be healthy? Probably not, but I think laying blame on the food doesn't make you accountable for your choices in food. Just because it's available doesn't mean we should eat it.....

PaulS70

I say forget ALL of those theories.........they MAY have some validity, but I think that it has to do with today's society. I have heard this over and over again..........obesity in the US is such a problem, but everyone throws up their hands like they don't know how to help this scenario while throwing money to programs that may not need it or should not be funded THAT much and it really gets underneath my skin. The reason for WHY this happens is because there are a multitude of easy fixes as far as meals are concerned because there are a dozen.......billion........fast food places one could go to, they have pop and candy vending machines in schools FILLED with fattening products, and the hot lunches schools provide are a joke I think.........I mean yes, all of these places, save for vending machines that is, have to abide by nutritional standards and all. But still.........its today's society that is the problem. Everywhere you look everyone is looking for that quick fix.........youre out and you are tired and don't want to cook and yet you don't want to go out to eat--you want to eat at home--what do you do? Get a greasy nasty pizza, go get fried food at a drive thru, or get chinese food that is wrought with God knows what.

I seem to think that its not laziness........I think its the fact that we have already a taste of what we like and what we don't like and its an automatic thing. I honestly know from experience that before I started losing weight myself, I would go for things that I knew tasted great to me, but I never gave it much thought of what I was putting in my mouth. Now, I know. Like for instance, I would go to the movies and get popcorn every single time. Is it wrought with grease and God only knows what else? Yes........but does it taste good? very much so..........so smelling that popcorn as you walk in is just going to pull you in unless you get it through your head before you enter the theater........no, I am not going to do this.

This sounds almost exactly like the TOXIC ENVIRONMENT theory.

applejacks1552

Simply understanding the energy value of foods does not make you want the higher calorie fatty/sugary/salty foods any less, now does it?

Yes, we can make better desicions with that information, but our underlying biological drive is to gravitate toward those very foods.

And do advertisers and food producers take advantage of that? Of course they do. And are we rewarded chemically every time we eat a food that rings those bells in our brains? Of course we are!

I agree, thousands of years of evolving in an environment where calories were scarce and where we had to work very hard for our food built us to be "survivors". We had to get through famines and times of food scarcity, all the while doing a lot of physical labor.

So a lot of us today are REALLY good at making the most of very little food.

But food is not scarce anyore. And the simplier our foods are chemically, the more our bodies gravitate toward them because it means buring less calories to transform them into useful energy (simple sugars, animal fats).

So while it's not exactly our faults that as a society we have become overly efficient at making high calorie foods highly available with little effort on our parts, we can't fall into the trap of using it as an excuse.

As a society, we need to educate ourselves about energy balance and fight that natural inclination to overconsume. We also need to learn to expend energy, which is also fighting against our nature to avoid expending energy if we don't need to.

And it's also very frustrating, because some us are more "blessed" than others when it comes to the ability to store calories as fat. Metabolism is very genetically driven. And watching a thin friend consume 4 slices of pizza with no consequences, while you are reduced to a grilled chicken salad with light dressing and hoping to keep your weight down does smack of unfairness.

But as mama always said, life just isn't fair. So we just have to work harder.

But it is frustrating when people assume that if you are overweight, that you are just lazy, stupid, or lack self control.

I like to joke though and tell people my body is simply preparing for the next apocolyptic famine.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

I can accept your first three theories, but I have to reject the last one. I reject any philosophy that treats "junk" food as if it were some foreign matter that our bodies somehow can't handle. Yes, additives have altered the nature of our diets dramatically, but additives have not chemically altered the food. Food is still food. Nutritional values vary, but if it is identified as food, whether it be healthy or "junk" it is still food. I think that viewing "junk" food as junk instead of food actually fosters an unhealthy relationship with food. As if it is somehow the food's fault that we are fat. We have to take responsibility for our own choices, and I think that blaming any kind of food is blame-shifting. Instead of taking responsibility for the choices that made us fat, we blame the restaurants, food distributors, and the government for not protecting us from the "junk", but essentially, it was OUR lack of self-control when it came to eating the nutritionally defecient food that made us fat.

One caveat I would add to this is...depending on your family background you may have been raised with unhealthy habits that are in fact your parents fault but once you reach a certain age it is your responsibility to educate yourself and fix these habits. Case in point, I was raised drinking soda to the point where I was up to 3L a day, it was accepted and natural in my house. Once I moved out and grew up, I educated myself and made a different choice but when I was a kid I didn't know better and followed my parents example.

I agree that people should educate themselves and MOST DEFINITELY take responsibility for what they eat. (I think this is the biggest problem with many people today) I do disagree that all food is 'food'. In other words, what we call "food'' these days can be described as junk. Take a look at the labels of what you eat. Most of the food offered in the inner aisles of grocery stores are loaded with chemicals, and chemically extracted oils. They are so processed now I know I can't identify the ingredients. I assume that most people don't know what they are putting into their body. I consider chemically processed foods as junk.

I know I have seen a drastic difference since I stopped eating these foods and shopped in the outer ring of the grocery store/organic aisles. My emotional eating has decreased, and my constant hunger has diminished. A good sized, eggs and bacon breakfast keeps me full for hours.

That is just my 2 cents.

I think people absolutely know what's in their food. If they don't they haven't been paying attention. The information is everywhere-- on the news, on the box, on websites like this one. While people may not have a specific chemical understanding, I think we know that "real" food is healthier than processed. And if they don't know, I think it's their responsibility to educate themselves. Schools do have nutrition classes. There are tons of books, television shows, and websites about how to eat properly. I dislike the notion that we're all just dumb sheep who don't know any better. When I eat fast food, or other "junk food", it's not because I don't know what's in it. There's always something else going on, and for me it has become about priorities. Is it more important to me to eat healthy this meal or is it more important to satisfy the craving I'm having for a sausage biscuit? I go into it with both eyes open.

travla01

I agree that people should educate themselves and MOST DEFINITELY take responsibility for what they eat. (I think this is the biggest problem with many people today) I do disagree that all food is 'food'. In other words, what we call "food'' these days can be described as junk. Take a look at the labels of what you eat. Most of the food offered in the inner aisles of grocery stores are loaded with chemicals, and chemically extracted oils. They are so processed now I know I can't identify the ingredients. I assume that most people don't know what they are putting into their body. I consider chemically processed foods as junk.

I know I have seen a drastic difference since I stopped eating these foods and shopped in the outer ring of the grocery store/organic aisles. My emotional eating has decreased, and my constant hunger has diminished. A good sized, eggs and bacon breakfast keeps me full for hours.

That is just my 2 cents.

I think it depends on your term of "junk", I think what the OP was trying to highlight was blaming food that is not nutritionally sound is a cop out. I definitely agree with food choices being a big part of health and well-being. Processed food with more chemicals in them that most people cannot pronounce is looked at by our bodies as toxins and make our livers work overtime (I try to explain to my students that the liver pulls out everything not just drugs and alcohol) and are not as nutritionally valuable as real food. However if you still only eat 1200 calories of twinkies or cheesy poofs you might lose weight based on the energy because 1200 calories is still 1200 calories. Would you be healthy? Probably not, but I think laying blame on the food doesn't make you accountable for your choices in food. Just because it's available doesn't mean we should eat it.....

But I know many people can't eat 1200 calories of cheesy poofs and twinkies and call it a day. I know if tried that I would be starving and miserable.

Personally, I don't buy the whole calorie is a calorie idea. I think a calorie theory is a decent measure of the QUANTITY of what you are eating but not the QUALITY of the food you are eating. I am saying that WHAT you eat is just as important, and in my opinion, MORE important then the calorie idea. A calorie of salmon reacts in your body differently then a calorie of cheesy poofs. I know when I eat 500 calories of protein or good fats I feel a WHOLE lot different then when I reached for 500 calories of chips. 500 calories of Protein or fat= not hungry for hours. 500 calories of cheesy poofs = a RAGINGLY hungry me. That is just my personal experience.

MaximalLife

A famous researcher (Jean Mayer) once said... (paraphrasing)

The idea that overeating causes obesity is vacuously true, but is no more enlightening than saying that over-drinking causes alcoholism. We need to ask why does the person over-drink?

To solve our weight problems we need to find out WHY we overeat. It has to be more than just boredom or emotions or stress.

Here are 4 different theories I have come across. Please discuss and feel free to add your own.

1.) THE FAT LAZY SLOB THEORY - We simply eat too much because we have no willpower. Our character has devolved and we are unable to resist foods that make us fat. We are also dumb and do not know which foods are fattening and continue to eat them despite their effect on our health. On top of that if we would just get off our lazy butts and exercise the overeating would disappear or be offset by "burning calories"

2.) THE TOXIC ENVIRONMENT - Junk food is everywhere, and has become ingrained in our culture. We cant help but overeat because the junk is such a part of our environment that using it is as inescapable as using toothpaste or deodorant.

3.) HYPER-PALATABILITY / MENTAL ADDICTION - We have altered food stuffs to the point where they are so delicious and so tasty that they effect "reward centers" in our brains that cause us to become chemically addicted to the foods much like drugs. We need the delicious junk food to comfort us and feed the addiction.

4.) HORMONE BLOCKAGE / INTERNAL STARVATION - The junk food that we eat causes the normal hormonal metabolic process that our body uses to become dysfunctional and unregulated. Our bodies lose the ability to transport nutrients to our muscles and organs. With the nutrients unable to get to our muscles and organs our bodies continuously send out hunger signals as they are "internally starving" and thus biologically we need tons of extra calories to break through the "hormone blockage"

Great info - for me, ALL OF THE ABOVE!

serenity216

So true!

I tend to agree. Since I've started counting calories I have most definitely gone over on occasion, but I see the energy value of the food I'm selecting easier and can almost guess within a couple of hundred calories how much I'm having when I eat a meal. I don't think strict calorie counting is the end all be all of a healthy lifestyle, but being aware of what you're choosing to eat does impact the choices you make.

sunfyrejade

But I know many people can't eat 1200 calories of cheesy poofs and twinkies and call it a day. I know if tried that I would be starving and miserable.

Personally, I don't buy the whole calorie is a calorie idea. I think a calorie theory is a decent measure of the QUANTITY of what you are eating but not the QUALITY of the food you are eating. I am saying that WHAT you eat is just as important, and in my opinion, MORE important then the calorie idea. A calorie of salmon reacts in your body differently then a calorie of cheesy poofs. I know when I eat 500 calories of protein or good fats I feel a WHOLE lot different then when I reached for 500 calories of chips. 500 calories of Protein or fat= not hungry for hours. 500 calories of cheesy poofs = a RAGINGLY hungry me. That is just my personal experience.

Scientifically a calorie is a calorie, it is a unit of energy. How easily your body accesses and uses those calories is different from food to food. Your body will spend less time working to get the energy from a candy bar than a piece of chicken because the candy bar calories are already broken down for us. All foods have to become glucose for our body to access the energy in them it just depends on how much work we have to do to make it glucose. So yes, the quality of food is totally important but you have to be responsible for making those decisions you can't blame the food.

Pollyfleming

I can accept your first three theories, but I have to reject the last one. I reject any philosophy that treats "junk" food as if it were some foreign matter that our bodies somehow can't handle. Yes, additives have altered the nature of our diets dramatically, but additives have not chemically altered the food. Food is still food. Nutritional values vary, but if it is identified as food, whether it be healthy or "junk" it is still food. I think that viewing "junk" food as junk instead of food actually fosters an unhealthy relationship with food. As if it is somehow the food's fault that we are fat. We have to take responsibility for our own choices, and I think that blaming any kind of food is blame-shifting. Instead of taking responsibility for the choices that made us fat, we blame the restaurants, food distributors, and the government for not protecting us from the "junk", but essentially, it was OUR lack of self-control when it came to eating the nutritionally defecient food that made us fat.

One caveat I would add to this is...depending on your family background you may have been raised with unhealthy habits that are in fact your parents fault but once you reach a certain age it is your responsibility to educate yourself and fix these habits. Case in point, I was raised drinking soda to the point where I was up to 3L a day, it was accepted and natural in my house. Once I moved out and grew up, I educated myself and made a different choice but when I was a kid I didn't know better and followed my parents example.

I agree that people should educate themselves and MOST DEFINITELY take responsibility for what they eat. (I think this is the biggest problem with many people today) I do disagree that all food is 'food'. In other words, what we call "food'' these days can be described as junk. Take a look at the labels of what you eat. Most of the food offered in the inner aisles of grocery stores are loaded with chemicals, and chemically extracted oils. They are so processed now I know I can't identify the ingredients. I assume that most people don't know what they are putting into their body. I consider chemically processed foods as junk.

I know I have seen a drastic difference since I stopped eating these foods and shopped in the outer ring of the grocery store/organic aisles. My emotional eating has decreased, and my constant hunger has diminished. A good sized, eggs and bacon breakfast keeps me full for hours.

That is just my 2 cents.

I think people absolutely know what's in their food. If they don't they haven't been paying attention. The information is everywhere-- on the news, on the box, on websites like this one. While people may not have a specific chemical understanding, I think we know that "real" food is healthier than processed. And if they don't know, I think it's their responsibility to educate themselves. Schools do have nutrition classes. There are tons of books, television shows, and websites about how to eat properly. I dislike the notion that we're all just dumb sheep who don't know any better. When I eat fast food, or other "junk food", it's not because I don't know what's in it. There's always something else going on, and for me it has become about priorities. Is it more important to me to eat healthy this meal or is it more important to satisfy the craving I'm having for a sausage biscuit? I go into it with both eyes open.

I agree ^^^^ Every girl over the age of 8 or 9 knows what makes you fat. I raised girls and they were aware of their body size by the time they were in 3rd grade. I'm overweight and like most of my overweight friends, I am a walking encyclopedia of weight loss. Sometimes I'm amazed that people who don't know anything about political candidates but can give me a detailed analysis/comparison between weight watchers, Jenny Craig, and The Zone.

travla01

I can accept your first three theories, but I have to reject the last one. I reject any philosophy that treats "junk" food as if it were some foreign matter that our bodies somehow can't handle. Yes, additives have altered the nature of our diets dramatically, but additives have not chemically altered the food. Food is still food. Nutritional values vary, but if it is identified as food, whether it be healthy or "junk" it is still food. I think that viewing "junk" food as junk instead of food actually fosters an unhealthy relationship with food. As if it is somehow the food's fault that we are fat. We have to take responsibility for our own choices, and I think that blaming any kind of food is blame-shifting. Instead of taking responsibility for the choices that made us fat, we blame the restaurants, food distributors, and the government for not protecting us from the "junk", but essentially, it was OUR lack of self-control when it came to eating the nutritionally defecient food that made us fat.

One caveat I would add to this is...depending on your family background you may have been raised with unhealthy habits that are in fact your parents fault but once you reach a certain age it is your responsibility to educate yourself and fix these habits. Case in point, I was raised drinking soda to the point where I was up to 3L a day, it was accepted and natural in my house. Once I moved out and grew up, I educated myself and made a different choice but when I was a kid I didn't know better and followed my parents example.

I agree that people should educate themselves and MOST DEFINITELY take responsibility for what they eat. (I think this is the biggest problem with many people today) I do disagree that all food is 'food'. In other words, what we call "food'' these days can be described as junk. Take a look at the labels of what you eat. Most of the food offered in the inner aisles of grocery stores are loaded with chemicals, and chemically extracted oils. They are so processed now I know I can't identify the ingredients. I assume that most people don't know what they are putting into their body. I consider chemically processed foods as junk.

I know I have seen a drastic difference since I stopped eating these foods and shopped in the outer ring of the grocery store/organic aisles. My emotional eating has decreased, and my constant hunger has diminished. A good sized, eggs and bacon breakfast keeps me full for hours.

That is just my 2 cents.

I think people absolutely know what's in their food. If they don't they haven't been paying attention. The information is everywhere-- on the news, on the box, on websites like this one. While people may not have a specific chemical understanding, I think we know that "real" food is healthier than processed. And if they don't know, I think it's their responsibility to educate themselves. Schools do have nutrition classes. There are tons of books, television shows, and websites about how to eat properly. I dislike the notion that we're all just dumb sheep who don't know any better. When I eat fast food, or other "junk food", it's not because I don't know what's in it. There's always something else going on, and for me it has become about priorities. Is it more important to me to eat healthy this meal or is it more important to satisfy the craving I'm having for a sausage biscuit? I go into it with both eyes open.

I also dislike the notion that we are all dumb sheep. But I think that most people THINK they are eating healthy by gravitating to the whole grain processed food. They are marketed as being healthy and people buy into that and they don't look at the label to see how processed they are. I also go into things with 2 eyes open, I have gotten a chemical latent chocolate shake from mcdonalds knowing exactly what I was doing. (that of course wasn't for hunger, I teach 8th Grade, its sometimes needed/craved ). Of course the information is out there.. I think some people don't really want to know..

PaulS70

Scientifically a calorie is a calorie, it is a unit of energy. How easily your body accesses and uses those calories is different from food to food. Your body will spend less time working to get the energy from a candy bar than a piece of chicken because the candy bar calories are already broken down for us. All foods have to become glucose for our body to access the energy in them it just depends on how much work we have to do to make it glucose. So yes, the quality of food is totally important but you have to be responsible for making those decisions you can't blame the food.

Its a chicken or the egg conundrum... It is your fault for eating the food, but the food is making you less healthy and more hungry.

travla01

But I know many people can't eat 1200 calories of cheesy poofs and twinkies and call it a day. I know if tried that I would be starving and miserable.

Personally, I don't buy the whole calorie is a calorie idea. I think a calorie theory is a decent measure of the QUANTITY of what you are eating but not the QUALITY of the food you are eating. I am saying that WHAT you eat is just as important, and in my opinion, MORE important then the calorie idea. A calorie of salmon reacts in your body differently then a calorie of cheesy poofs. I know when I eat 500 calories of protein or good fats I feel a WHOLE lot different then when I reached for 500 calories of chips. 500 calories of Protein or fat= not hungry for hours. 500 calories of cheesy poofs = a RAGINGLY hungry me. That is just my personal experience.

Scientifically a calorie is a calorie, it is a unit of energy. How easily your body accesses and uses those calories is different from food to food. Your body will spend less time working to get the energy from a candy bar than a piece of chicken because the candy bar calories are already broken down for us. All foods have to become glucose for our body to access the energy in them it just depends on how much work we have to do to make it glucose. So yes, the quality of food is totally important but you have to be responsible for making those decisions you can't blame the food.

I am all about personal responsibility and its everyone's choice to what they eat. I am not disagreeing with you there. But one has to recognize that WHAT you put into your body DOES effect you, not just how much of it (calories). I am just saying that it is not as simple as calorie in/out, that there is more going on in your body than a simple math equation. I had the same calorie goal at the beginning of my weight loss journey and was eating what was supposedly a healthy whole grain diet. I was miserable and hungry. I eat the same calorie amount now, but drastically changed WHAT I ate and not only am I down 20 (8 since joining mfp), I am so much happier and not starving all day. Of course, some people may have had different experiences but I am just saying what I experienced.

I hope this illustrates my point a little better.

neanderthin

How easily your body accesses and uses those calories is different from food to food. Your body will spend less time working to get the energy from a candy bar than a piece of chicken because the candy bar calories are already broken down for us.

A snickers bar has a lower GI then most fruit, so I quess the snickers is the better option. j/k

Quarrysider

We have an obesity epidemic in UK at the moment, and part of it may be down to lack of knowledge of just how many calories are contained in fast-food, now so readily available. In wartime Britain, because of food rationing, which went on into the 50s, most adults were pretty healthy. Meat was in short supply, so people supplemented their ration with unrationed offal, like liver, and with lots of veggies; sugar and sweets were rationed, and Coca Cola did not then exist over here (though I do remember an American serviceman in the 1940s giving us a huge box of 'candy' - my eyes were on stalks! I can remember the careful cutting of a rare Mars Bar into 3 pieces between my 2 brothers and me... he who cut, got the last piece! When sweet rationing finally ended when I was 11, I fear I never looked back!

Add to this the added lethargy in getting out to exercise that we are teaching our children. 25 years ago, kids would play out much more, ride their bikes around the neighbourhood, and walk to and from school. For all sorts of reasons (e.g. stranger-fear, time pressures, TV and computer games) this has changed considerably.

But there is also the psychological element ... when you were hurt as a child, were you given, as well as a kiss and a cuddle, a sweet? Look how, if people want to give you a reward, they take you out for a meal, or give you choccies. Birthdays and any kind of celebration always involves food of some sort. So when we are emotionally low, we have learned to turn to 'comfort' food.

The only way to break this cycle is to teach our children about other rewards, and teach them differently about food values and exercise. My long-since grown-up children were taught early on the words, protein, carbohydrate and vitamin, and also knew that they might get scurvy if they didn't eat enough fresh fruit and vegetables! They only had water or milk to drink, except on special occasions, and chocolate and sweets were bought with their limited pocket money.

Good post. I particularly agree with our 'learned emotional response' to food - the number of 'repeat dieters' who have lost a bunch of weight through a healthy eating/calorie accounting plan (so they have learned about what is healthy, energy in/energy out etc) only to put it all back and have to start again suggests to me that psychological issues are probably as important as evolutionary/physiological ones.

sunfyrejade

I am all about personal responsibility and its everyone's choice to what they eat. I am not disagreeing with you there. But one has to recognize that WHAT you put into your body DOES effect you, not just how much of it (calories). I am just saying that it is not as simple as calorie in/out, that there is more going on in your body than a simple math equation. I had the same calorie goal at the beginning of my weight loss journey and was eating what was supposedly a healthy whole grain diet. I was miserable and hungry. I eat the same calorie amount now, but drastically changed WHAT I ate and not only am I down 20 (8 since joining mfp), I am so much happier and not starving all day. Of course, some people may have had different experiences but I am just saying what I experienced.

I hope this illustrates my point a little better.

LOL, I think we're really talking the same side of a point just in different ways. The bottom line is people need to be responsible for what they put into their systems and not make the excuses that we've all made for various reasons that caused us to gain weight.

ogypsy0soulo

I agree that a lot of people do not understand how much they need to eat. What puzzles me is how does every other animal do it? With ample food around you don't get fat lions and fat deer and fat cheetahs. How do they know how much they need?

We don't have to chase a hamburger through a forest and tackle it and then break it's neck before we consume it. I also haven't seen a lion order his deer-meat online while watching ESPN.

Drastic energy expenditure differences there.

I'm new on this site, but not only did this crack me up (great mental imagery) but I think you're absolutely right. lol

lollye51

My doctor told me, " to put it in laymans terms, if there was another Ice Age, you would survive", fat and survival, cheeky LOL

Rhea30

Lack of understanding of energy intake vs energy needs.

Now, do I think that everyone should count calories? Of course not. But I DO think that there's a significant portion of people who do not understand how energy balance dictates weight change, and knowing this could help people either lose, or not get that way to begin with.

I agree that a lot of people do not understand how much they need to eat. What puzzles me is how does every other animal do it? With ample food around you don't get fat lions and fat deer and fat cheetahs. How do they know how much they need?

Actually you would get fat lions, cheetahs and so on if they have ample food but they don't have ample food.

Maybe. I would argue that it would depend on what the ample food was. Natural vs. unnatural, low quality vs high quality.

Natural or unnatural, if there is plenty food around and they have a sedentary lifestyle, they'll get fat. You can see it with people who sometimes own a wild animal and also just with our pets in general. They are not immune to being overweight, its just their lifestyle on having to work for their food keeps them from going overweight. There isn't an ample food source for most wild animals to obtain with little effort, its a continuous struggle on finding/hunting for their food.

Liopleurodon

Carnivores are always going to struggle to kill enough to stay alive. Herbivores eat food with a very low calorie density - if you're a large animal living on grass you can eat all day every day and barely get enough calories because grass is a pretty rubbish food really. Even omnivores like rats tend to throw so much energy into crazy fast metabolism (to escape from predators) and reproducing to keep their genes going. We're pretty much alone in having an unlimited supply of delicious food to eat, whenever we want. Our bodies have evolved to be better at dealing with food shortage, because not getting enough food has always been a risk. We're just not equipped very well for the dangers of dying from eating too much, because it's not something our ancestors had the luxury of worrying about. But there are unhealthily fat animals of a wide variety of species: cats, dogs, horses, rabbits - because they've had too much food provided to them by humans.

It's not that we're stupid or weak-willed. We are surrounded by food that presses human pleasure buttons. It is a battle not to give in. Unfortunately if we want to look after our health, we need to develop some discipline.

sarahbear1981

For me, it's this one:
3.) HYPER-PALATABILITY / MENTAL ADDICTION - We have altered food stuffs to the point where they are so delicious and so tasty that they effect "reward centers" in our brains that cause us to become chemically addicted to the foods much like drugs. We need the delicious junk food to comfort us and feed the addiction.

auticus

Your theories are great but cannot possibly cover everyone. You want to know what caused my obesity?

I grew up in a household with little food. I regularly snuck food when I could because I was hungry. I passed out on the wrestling mat during a meet due to being underfed in comparison to my physical activity. This isn't to say I was starving, because I was not, but for a person heavily involved in sports I was only taking in about 2000 calories at most.

Throughout high school I was at my ideal weight.

When I joined the army and had my own money, I was able to eat what I wanted when I wanted. I also did not understand caloric intake or the evils of soda. I would buy cases of soda and store it in my wall locker and go through one a weekend.

It didn't take long for the pounds to accumulate, especially after I got out of the army and stopped being physically active. I literally gained 50 lbs in two months and have the stretch marks for all time to prove it.

It wasn't until 2004 when I was at my worst at 272 lbs, my wife had left me for being fat, and I could no longer walk without assistance due to an extremely high level of sugar in my blood (my count at diagnosis was 512) that I educated myself on nutrition.

So in my case it was a mixture of not knowing better plus i enjoy eating high caloric food plus my activity level slacked off (i am a software engineer so I sit on my *kitten* all day) that caused me to become obese. I also became addicted to sugar and the part above where someone mentioned the reward centers in the brain are dead on. After my divorce, the wiring in my brain changed to overcome my depression in a way where food became a comfort to me and where once social acceptance and acknowledgement and being married triggered my reward center in the brain, food replaced that.

Now at 34 years of age, almost eight years since the day I went to the doctor for having difficulties standing up, that I am very active again, only about 15 lbs overweight, and have not been obese in a while. I still love high caloric food but I understand the importance of calories, the evils of soda, and the importance of activity.

skinz2k2

I think the "true cause of obesity" is different for everybody. Any one of your theories, and any other theory out there, can most likely be applied to someone's experience. In general, it's overeating and under-exercising combined with eating too much of the wrong things. I know for me, my weight comes on when I eat refined carbs, added sugars, etc., even if I'm eating low-calorie. Someone else may be able to eat cookies all day but lose weight as long as they're in a calorie deficit.

Honestly, I think it's all very individual.

This is very true. There are psychological, sociological, cultural, hereditary etc. connections we make with food and a variety of ideas of what it does to us and for us. That's why it laughable that a magic pill can make every lose weight without factoring in tons of variables including but not limited to lifestyle, activity, food sensitivities, etc.

PaulS70

Natural or unnatural, if there is plenty food around and they have a sedentary lifestyle, they'll get fat. You can see it with people who sometimes own a wild animal and also just with our pets in general. They are not immune to being overweight, its just their lifestyle on having to work for their food keeps them from going overweight. There isn't an ample food source for most wild animals to obtain with little effort, its a continuous struggle on finding/hunting for their food.

I used to agree with this completely... A few things lately (last 5 years or so) have made me question this belief.

1.) I have read articles describing animal (mostly mice) feeding trials where they were fed ad-libitum and did not have to struggle and hunt for food, where the mice did not get fat.

2.) The deer population is exploding in my area and they are having very little trouble finding food. They also are having to spend less and less time running from predators, yet they are not getting fat.

3.) I have observed a number of humans who have lived a sedentary lifestyle with ample food available and have not gotten fat.

4.) I personally have lost 35 lbs (7 since joining MFP). During this time I have actually DEcreased my energy expenditure and INcreased my energy intake.

5.) I have read some compelling analysis that argues that the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to human energy balance. Change in fat mass = Energy in - Energy Out assumes that energy in and energy out are the only variables. There are many other variables that can affect both E(in) and E(out) as well as them being able to affect each other...Its not just a simple math problem. Anyone who has ever struggled with sustained weight loss knows this.

These ( and other factors) have caused me to question the typical nutrition advice. I am not claiming to have any answers.