sugar toxic
Replies
-
And to all you Primal followers and Sisson fans, if you believe that sugar is toxic, Sisson is trying to kill you
Take a look at the ingredients of his Primal Fuel
Speaking of people bringing up arguments that no one else did, WHF does that have to do with anything.
I don't know, maybe the topic? Wasn't this thread started to talk about if sugar is toxic or not?
right, so why did you bring up primal? We know, but to say the reason would not make me popular with the mods around here
Seeing as as their were some Primal/Paleo adherents in the thread, it was to make them aware that if sugar was indeed toxic, Sisson was trying to poison them. If you think otherwise, go ahead and let's hear it
no one mentioned primal until you did, it is just more porof that your BS thread "let's talk primal" was nothing but a hit job like I said. This thread was about a 60 min piece on sugar nothing more nothing less. we know what you are about and you just provided more evidence to that fact.0 -
And to all you Primal followers and Sisson fans, if you believe that sugar is toxic, Sisson is trying to kill you
Take a look at the ingredients of his Primal Fuel
Speaking of people bringing up arguments that no one else did, WHF does that have to do with anything.
I don't know, maybe the topic? Wasn't this thread started to talk about if sugar is toxic or not?
right, so why did you bring up primal? We know, but to say the reason would not make me popular with the mods around here
Seeing as as their were some Primal/Paleo adherents in the thread, it was to make them aware that if sugar was indeed toxic, Sisson was trying to poison them. If you think otherwise, go ahead and let's hear it
sisson isnt the be all and end all of health. he obvi has other things in mind like...making money off his products!!! which IMO are no better than any other protein product or whatever other supplement out there. its bologna if you ask me
i will prob be cast off the primal island haha0 -
It wouldn't be if people actually followed it."Eat less, move more" has been the mainstream approach for decades and it has failed time and time again.
A.C.E. Certified Personal & Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
At this point it really boils down to a philosophical question as to why people don't follow it. You either believe the mind controls the body or the body controls the mind. People come up with all these behavioral changes they need to do to lose weight and/or keep it off. For me it was so simple. I exercise the same amount. I eat the same portions (at least I haven't made any direct changes to my portions or plate sizes). I eat with the same frequency. The only difference is the choice of food items I make each and every time I decide to eat. So my philosophy is that the body controls the mind. The food itself controls me through bodily response.0 -
And to all you Primal followers and Sisson fans, if you believe that sugar is toxic, Sisson is trying to kill you
Take a look at the ingredients of his Primal Fuel
Speaking of people bringing up arguments that no one else did, WHF does that have to do with anything.
I don't know, maybe the topic? Wasn't this thread started to talk about if sugar is toxic or not?
right, so why did you bring up primal? We know, but to say the reason would not make me popular with the mods around here
Seeing as as their were some Primal/Paleo adherents in the thread, it was to make them aware that if sugar was indeed toxic, Sisson was trying to poison them. If you think otherwise, go ahead and let's hear it
no one mentioned primal until you did, it is just more porof that your BS thread "let's talk primal" was nothing but a hit job like I said. This thread was about a 60 min piece on sugar nothing more nothing less. we know what you are about and you just provided more evidence to that fact.
First explain how talking about the paleo diet in an objective manner was a hit job, be specific please. And what am I about, go on...0 -
Sorry, I'm confused about the label. I'm only seeing 5 grams of dietary sugar and sucrose listed in the ingredients. How does this mean Sisson is trying to poison his followers? Pardon my cluelessness.0
-
Sorry, I'm confused about the label. I'm only seeing 5 grams of dietary sugar and sucrose listed in the ingredients. How does this mean Sisson is trying to poison his followers? Pardon my cluelessness.
I think we can also agree that alcohol is toxic, but many of us consume it as well. Its just a matter of knowing your limit. Its pretty obvious with alcohol but not so much with sugar.0 -
Sorry, I'm confused about the label. I'm only seeing 5 grams of dietary sugar and sucrose listed in the ingredients. How does this mean Sisson is trying to poison his followers? Pardon my cluelessness.
Are you trying to imply that dosage and context matter? Interesting0 -
How exactly is 'eat less and move more' a proven way to work? And have you heard of leptin and does it not matter? Is the primary reason for long-term diet failure because people think they have permission to shove food endlessly down their gullet post-diet?
Yes, the primary reason for failure is the lack of acknowledgement of how much they eat. It's been shown that thinner people report more calories than they actually ate and fatter people report less calories than they actually ate. Humans are accountable for themselves. There are millions of successful people who have gone under 10% and maintain physiques in the 10-15% range.
Now, of course, hormones and genetics play an incredibly large role but please don't use leptin as an excuse for someone to stay at 20%. People fail because they have no clue what to do once they've achieved that body. They don't understand what reverse dieting is. Reverse dieting exists to help normalize hormones, especially leptin.
On diet breaks:
"The physiological stuff is the stuff I talk about all the time here on the site, on the forum and elsewhere. When folks diet and lose weight/fat, the body adjusts metabolic rate downwards. While a majority of this is simply due to weighing less (smaller bodies burn fewer calories), there is also an adaptive component, a greater decrease in metabolic rate than would be predicted due to changes in things like leptin, insulin, thyroid hormones, etc.
By moving to roughly maintenance for a couple of weeks, many of those hormones are given time to recover. Thyroid hormones come back up, as does leptin. This is a big part of the reason for the recommendation to raise carbs to 100-150 grams per day as a minimum.
Thyroid hormones are distinctly sensitive to carbohydrate intake as are leptin levels (especially in the short-term). Just raising calories but keeping the diet very low carb doesn’t accomplish everything hormonally I want the full diet break to do."
Any way you slice it, a caloric deficit must be present for fat to be lost. If you currently are not losing weight then you must decrease it more. Yes, your body can adapt to a certain intake. Why do you think a bodybuilder starts at, for example, 3000 calories and, by the end of the cut, ends up at 2000? Stalls happen. Hormones change. But once you're done dieting, you should REVERSE diet. People go off a diet by simply eating. They have no idea how much they're really eat and their body is primed to gain fat.
So, to extent, you're correct. It is proven that post-diet you are primed to put fat back and it's quite possible to put all of it back on. It happens all the time. But is it leptin's fault? Is it the hormones? Or is it a lack of knowledge on post-dieting tactics? Increased fat storage post-dieting is negative effects on hormones, which is why reverse dieting exists. One should seek to be strict post-dieting only for a little while longer to ensure that they properly come off the diet and normalize hormones.
But if we take your position, we have removed accountability yet we can't do that. Fat gain post-dieting is the dieter's fault. Yes, they're more susceptible to fat gain but please do not suggest that it isn't the dieter's fault. The fat gain could not exist without the dieter picking up more food than they need and stuffing it in their gullet. Plain and simple, no other way around that. If it were the hormone's fault then fat gain would exist regardless of food intake.but what defines a flexible diet to you? to me counting calories and doing all sorts of math and living within certain limitations and having to work out extra if i splurge a little seems restrictive. i just choose to make good food decisions MOST of the time and work out a little (3 or 4 days a week) and if i want a treat i have one. i dont count anything and i dont adhere to any nutrient paramaters. i eat when i feel hungry and eat what tastes good. i dont eat food that makes me feel sick or gives me digestive problems. and if i want dessert i have it and i DONT feel guilty about it. oh and i have lost 35 lbs. the thought of actually counting calories and monitoring everything i eat seems restrictive and a pain. and i would much rather not have to do a bunch of math and adding. as long as i have a general idea of what goes on my plate i am fine. how is that not something to live with?
I am failing to see your point. Flexible dieting is something that is flexible to fit someone's lifestyle. It's not particularly definable hence FLEXIBLE.0 -
[First explain how talking about the paleo diet in an objective manner was a hit job, be specific please. And what am I about, go on...
objective manner is the key, you did not, and this post is just more proof.
As for the rest of you FDA, calorie is a calorie followers, move along nothing to see here have a great life
0 -
Pretty much anything is toxic if you ingest too much of it.0
-
How exactly is 'eat less and move more' a proven way to work? And have you heard of leptin and does it not matter? Is the primary reason for long-term diet failure because people think they have permission to shove food endlessly down their gullet post-diet?
Yes, the primary reason for failure is the lack of acknowledgement of how much they eat. It's been shown that thinner people report more calories than they actually ate and fatter people report less calories than they actually ate. Humans are accountable for themselves. There are millions of successful people who have gone under 10% and maintain physiques in the 10-15% range.
Now, of course, hormones and genetics play an incredibly large role but please don't use leptin as an excuse for someone to stay at 20%. People fail because they have no clue what to do once they've achieved that body. They don't understand what reverse dieting is. Reverse dieting exists to help normalize hormones, especially leptin.
On diet breaks:
"The physiological stuff is the stuff I talk about all the time here on the site, on the forum and elsewhere. When folks diet and lose weight/fat, the body adjusts metabolic rate downwards. While a majority of this is simply due to weighing less (smaller bodies burn fewer calories), there is also an adaptive component, a greater decrease in metabolic rate than would be predicted due to changes in things like leptin, insulin, thyroid hormones, etc.
By moving to roughly maintenance for a couple of weeks, many of those hormones are given time to recover. Thyroid hormones come back up, as does leptin. This is a big part of the reason for the recommendation to raise carbs to 100-150 grams per day as a minimum.
Thyroid hormones are distinctly sensitive to carbohydrate intake as are leptin levels (especially in the short-term). Just raising calories but keeping the diet very low carb doesn’t accomplish everything hormonally I want the full diet break to do."
Any way you slice it, a caloric deficit must be present for fat to be lost. If you currently are not losing weight then you must decrease it more. Yes, your body can adapt to a certain intake. Why do you think a bodybuilder starts at, for example, 3000 calories and, by the end of the cut, ends up at 2000? Stalls happen. Hormones change. But once you're done dieting, you should REVERSE diet. People go off a diet by simply eating. They have no idea how much they're really eat and their body is primed to gain fat.
So, to extent, you're correct. It is proven that post-diet you are primed to put fat back and it's quite possible to put all of it back on. It happens all the time. But is it leptin's fault? Is it the hormones? Or is it a lack of knowledge on post-dieting tactics? Increased fat storage post-dieting is negative effects on hormones, which is why reverse dieting exists. One should seek to be strict post-dieting only for a little while longer to ensure that they properly come off the diet and normalize hormones.
But if we take your position, we have removed accountability yet we can't do that. Fat gain post-dieting is the dieter's fault. Yes, they're more susceptible to fat gain but please do not suggest that it isn't the dieter's fault. The fat gain could not exist without the dieter picking up more food than they need and stuffing it in their gullet. Plain and simple, no other way around that. If it were the hormone's fault then fat gain would exist regardless of food intake.but what defines a flexible diet to you? to me counting calories and doing all sorts of math and living within certain limitations and having to work out extra if i splurge a little seems restrictive. i just choose to make good food decisions MOST of the time and work out a little (3 or 4 days a week) and if i want a treat i have one. i dont count anything and i dont adhere to any nutrient paramaters. i eat when i feel hungry and eat what tastes good. i dont eat food that makes me feel sick or gives me digestive problems. and if i want dessert i have it and i DONT feel guilty about it. oh and i have lost 35 lbs. the thought of actually counting calories and monitoring everything i eat seems restrictive and a pain. and i would much rather not have to do a bunch of math and adding. as long as i have a general idea of what goes on my plate i am fine. how is that not something to live with?
I am failing to see your point. Flexible dieting is something that is flexible to fit someone's lifestyle. It's not particularly definable hence FLEXIBLE.
I have a hard time believing that the average dieter who loses weight and regains it multiple times doesn't understand that they can't just go back to their old eating habits. And from what I've read, leptin levels are more affected by fat stores than by eating carbohydrates, so you can't just arbitrarily raise leptin by increasing carbs, at least not for more than a very short term basis. I don't really believe that willpower can overcome the body's desire to eat, otherwise diet success rates would have better long-term prognosis.0 -
It's days like this that make me glad I'm not a Sisson groupie.0
-
I don't really believe that willpower can overcome the body's desire to eat, otherwise diet success rates would have better long-term prognosis.
Hahahaha... you realize how undisciplined the average person is?0 -
The main point here is that we all have a free choice to eat sugar or not eat sugar. I should be able to look at all the studies and decided for myself how much sugar I want to eat. People will understand one day when his goal of having sugar restricted like tobacco and alcohol is obtained.0
-
Sorry, I'm confused about the label. I'm only seeing 5 grams of dietary sugar and sucrose listed in the ingredients. How does this mean Sisson is trying to poison his followers? Pardon my cluelessness.
Are you trying to imply that dosage and context matter? Interesting
Of course it matters. And I've read enough of your posts (many of which I find informative and have learned from) to know that one of your biggest problems with Lustig is that he never mentions either in any specific way. I also read the Paleo thread you started and I understand your issue with Primal/ Paleo is the lack of any definitive study citing benefits.
My own personal take on both is sugar is something to be respected and can have addictive properties that can induce cravings in some. It is not toxic and Lustig's statements are overstatements. I also believe not everyone is as disciplined as you, or me or others on this site and too much sugar can cause issues in their diet. do I have any idea how much is too much? Nope. No clue. That is why I believe it needs to be respected as something potentialy hazardous.
I am a Primal eater based on Sisson's book. I have issues with both gluten and cow's diary. So the lack of inflamation from ingesting these items works for me. I feel better. No peer reviewed study required. I don't believe it's an end all and be all diet for all people. I also see the Primal postion as eating food that are least processed and added to and only limiting carbs to a healthy range which he describes as 150 grams give or take for manitenance.
Bottom line, of course context and dosage matter.0 -
I don't really believe that willpower can overcome the body's desire to eat, otherwise diet success rates would have better long-term prognosis.
Hahahaha... you realize how undisciplined the average person is?
I don't think that avoiding a serious health problem like obesity should require such an enormous amount of discipline in such a large number of people if it was largely a behavioral disorder.0 -
It wouldn't be if people actually followed it."Eat less, move more" has been the mainstream approach for decades and it has failed time and time again.
A.C.E. Certified Personal & Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
At this point it really boils down to a philosophical question as to why people don't follow it. You either believe the mind controls the body or the body controls the mind. People come up with all these behavioral changes they need to do to lose weight and/or keep it off. For me it was so simple. I exercise the same amount. I eat the same portions (at least I haven't made any direct changes to my portions or plate sizes). I eat with the same frequency. The only difference is the choice of food items I make each and every time I decide to eat. So my philosophy is that the body controls the mind. The food itself controls me through bodily response.
Wow. So you REALLY would buy the Twinkie defense? How does one get to the point at which you believe you can completely abdicate personal choice and responsibility and go with "the food made me do it"?0 -
It wouldn't be if people actually followed it."Eat less, move more" has been the mainstream approach for decades and it has failed time and time again.
A.C.E. Certified Personal & Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
At this point it really boils down to a philosophical question as to why people don't follow it. You either believe the mind controls the body or the body controls the mind. People come up with all these behavioral changes they need to do to lose weight and/or keep it off. For me it was so simple. I exercise the same amount. I eat the same portions (at least I haven't made any direct changes to my portions or plate sizes). I eat with the same frequency. The only difference is the choice of food items I make each and every time I decide to eat. So my philosophy is that the body controls the mind. The food itself controls me through bodily response.
Wow. So you REALLY would buy the Twinkie defense? How does one get to the point at which you believe you can completely abdicate personal choice and responsibility and go with "the food made me do it"?
Because it doesn't seem to explain the observations and data on obesity throughout the world.0 -
[First explain how talking about the paleo diet in an objective manner was a hit job, be specific please. And what am I about, go on...
objective manner is the key, you did not, and this post is just more proof.
As for the rest of you FDA, calorie is a calorie followers, move along nothing to see here have a great life
Way to cite specifics. I took no stance on the manner and laid out the current evidence for Paleo. Again specifically what makes you think it was a hit job?
A calorie is a unit of measurement, so strictly speaking a calorie is a calorie. And you can continue to live in your fantasy world of metabolic advantages, fat adaptation and non paleo foods are evil.0 -
Sorry, I'm confused about the label. I'm only seeing 5 grams of dietary sugar and sucrose listed in the ingredients. How does this mean Sisson is trying to poison his followers? Pardon my cluelessness.
Are you trying to imply that dosage and context matter? Interesting
Of course it matters. And I've read enough of your posts (many of which I find informative and have learned from) to know that one of your biggest problems with Lustig is that he never mentions either in any specific way. I also read the Paleo thread you started and I understand your issue with Primal/ Paleo is the lack of any definitive study citing benefits.
My own personal take on both is sugar is something to be respected and can have addictive properties that can induce cravings in some. It is not toxic and Lustig's statements are overstatements. I also believe not everyone is as disciplined as you, or me or others on this site and too much sugar can cause issues in their diet. do I have any idea how much is too much? Nope. No clue. That is why I believe it needs to be respected as something potentialy hazardous.
I am a Primal eater based on Sisson's book. I have issues with both gluten and cow's diary. So the lack of inflamation from ingesting these items works for me. I feel better. No peer reviewed study required. I don't believe it's an end all and be all diet for all people. I also see the Primal postion as eating food that are least processed and added to and only limiting carbs to a healthy range which he describes as 150 grams give or take for manitenance.
Bottom line, of course context and dosage matter.
I'm glad we agree that context and dosage actually matter.
I've mentioned repeatedly that I agree with the main premise of Paleo, which is to eat mostly whole, minimally processed foods. It's the whole limiting or eliminating grains/legumes/dairy for everyone that I take issue with. Yet the more zealous Paleo/Primal peeps think I'm against the diet, which I have my suspicions why, but we'll leave that alone for now0 -
I have a hard time believing that the average dieter who loses weight and regains it multiple times doesn't understand that they can't just go back to their old eating habits. And from what I've read, leptin levels are more affected by fat stores than by eating carbohydrates, so you can't just arbitrarily raise leptin by increasing carbs, at least not for more than a very short term basis. I don't really believe that willpower can overcome the body's desire to eat, otherwise diet success rates would have better long-term prognosis.
Physiology has a big factor, I recognize this, but it does not remove culpability like you are suggesting.
To be honest, I'm too lazy to type out a lot of stuff.
Why dieting fails (read the first question and answer):
http://body-improvements.com/2008/10/08/lyle-mcdonald-interview-part-4-why-diets-fail-and-obesity/
From there, read Lyle McDonald's 6-part leptin series.0 -
I have a hard time believing that the average dieter who loses weight and regains it multiple times doesn't understand that they can't just go back to their old eating habits. And from what I've read, leptin levels are more affected by fat stores than by eating carbohydrates, so you can't just arbitrarily raise leptin by increasing carbs, at least not for more than a very short term basis. I don't really believe that willpower can overcome the body's desire to eat, otherwise diet success rates would have better long-term prognosis.
Physiology has a big factor, I recognize this, but it does not remove culpability like you are suggesting.
To be honest, I'm too lazy to type out a lot of stuff.
Why dieting fails (read the first question and answer):
http://body-improvements.com/2008/10/08/lyle-mcdonald-interview-part-4-why-diets-fail-and-obesity/
From there, read Lyle McDonald's 6-part leptin series.
I know, I've read a lot of Lyle's stuff. I have a fundamental difference in philosophy than him. I question his judgement in a lot of ways, because he seems to know science pretty well, but doesn't seem to understand human psychology. The fact that he accuses everyone who disagrees with him as being a religious zealot or someone who is already set in their ways demonstrates this. His mind is not open enough for me to fully accept his viewpoints.0 -
"Eat less, move more" has been the mainstream approach for decades and it has failed time and time again.
Eat less, move more works just fine. The problem is, if you look at the data, compared to 40 years ago, Americans are eating MORE and moving LESS. It's really quite simple to figure out why there's an obesity problem, more and more jobs are becoming computer and machine based, people are spending more and more time being sedentary, rather than active, and food in general is much more plentiful, not to mention eating becomes easier when you are less active, as a computer programmer who works from home can eat much more often and end up eating much more than say, a factory worker on an assembly line. And then you take into account that a lot of factory jobs have turned into "push button, watch machine" and it becomes pretty clear why people are growing more and more out of shape, and it has nothing to do with sugar.
Most professional athletes tend toward lots of carbs and lots of sugar, if it was all sugar's fault, and not calories or activity, then shouldn't all these pro athletes be obese, as well?0 -
"Eat less, move more" has been the mainstream approach for decades and it has failed time and time again.
Eat less, move more works just fine. The problem is, if you look at the data, compared to 40 years ago, Americans are eating MORE and moving LESS. It's really quite simple to figure out why there's an obesity problem, more and more jobs are becoming computer and machine based, people are spending more and more time being sedentary, rather than active, and food in general is much more plentiful, not to mention eating becomes easier when you are less active, as a computer programmer who works from home can eat much more often and end up eating much more than say, a factory worker on an assembly line. And then you take into account that a lot of factory jobs have turned into "push button, watch machine" and it becomes pretty clear why people are growing more and more out of shape, and it has nothing to do with sugar.
I know I've heard all this before. It doesn't add up. I think we should be a lot fatter than this because this environment has changed quite a bit more than obesity rates have. Plus it doesn't explain the obese cultures that are not like us.0 -
Most professional athletes tend toward lots of carbs and lots of sugar, if it was all sugar's fault, and not calories or activity, then shouldn't all these pro athletes be obese, as well?
Noticed you added this. See this kind of reasoning is why I can't take you seriously. Did it ever occur to you that professional athletes are genetically superior to the rest of us, such that they can handle carbs more effectively than us, which might also explain why they perform better than us at athletics?0 -
Maybe because Lustig is a known fear mongerer?
Here is the full text of the study they reference in the article
Consumption of Fructose and High Fructose Corn Syrup Increase Postprandial Triglycerides, LDL-Cholesterol, and Apolipoprotein-B in Young Men and Women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism August 17, 2011 jc.2011-1251
http://goo.gl/jfmxn
My main takeaway from the study was maybe it's not that great of an idea to consume 25% of your daily cals in HFCS if you're sedentary and eating at maintenance or above. However there is a huge confounder in that in the outpatient phase of the study when they were consuming 25% of their cals in sugar, they ate ad lib, so it's possible they were chowing down on foods with lots of trans fats or stuff like that that could have lead to the elevated blood markers.
If we look at studies such as this one, which had intake much more controlled, subjects ate 43% of their daily cals in sucrose which is basically the same as HFCS and LDL decreased, however they were also eating in a deficit.
Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Apr;65(4):908-15.
www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
Awesome as long as i dont eat more than 220g of HFCS i am safe.0 -
I'm glad we agree that context and dosage actually matter.
I've mentioned repeatedly that I agree with the main premise of Paleo, which is to eat mostly whole, minimally processed foods. It's the whole limiting or eliminating grains/legumes/dairy for everyone that I take issue with. Yet the more zealous Paleo/Primal peeps think I'm against the diet, which I have my suspicions why, but we'll leave that alone for now
I did notice that you had stated your agreement with the main premise back in "the thread". In almost all cases, those who are overzealous get blinded by defending thier positions. Just take a look at the strength vs. cardio threads to see the lunacy play out. On the whole grains and legumes thing, my take is that if they cause you no issue, do what you wish. There are some issues with the digestabilty of saccharids on legumes and the resulting gas but in my view, no harm, no foul. Same with the phytates in grains inhibiting mineral absorbtion. Again, context and dosage are key factors.0 -
Toniights Episode is
"if you sniff splenda you die"0 -
I know I've heard all this before. It doesn't add up. I think we should be a lot fatter than this because this environment has changed quite a bit more than obesity rates have. Plus it doesn't explain the obese cultures that are not like us.
What cultures? Some cultures view fatness as a sign of wealth and therefore purposefully over feed. Some cultures (like the Japanese and Okinawans) practice "hara hachi bu," eat until you're 80% full so that they don't get fat. Sometimes it's environment. The Inuits, for example, consume a diet largely made up of fat, some protein and almost no carbs yet their CVD is (was) lower than North Americans. But, no matter how it goes, overeating = fat gain. Why someone eats a lot or little can be for so many reasons. But we should not remove culpability. Little Johnny wouldn't have been all that fat 100 years ago yet he would now. The manipulation of how foods taste now can be partially blamed but no one is forcing food down anyone's throat.
I'm not particularly sure why you are so set on making sure fat people arent to blame for the excessive consumption of food. There are too many societal and psychological factors to pinpoint one but we can say for sure fat people are fst because they eat too much. And fat people who become skinny then fat again eat too much.0 -
I know I've heard all this before. It doesn't add up. I think we should be a lot fatter than this because this environment has changed quite a bit more than obesity rates have. Plus it doesn't explain the obese cultures that are not like us.
What cultures? Some cultures view fatness as a sign of wealth and therefore purposefully over feed. Some cultures (like the Japanese and Okinawans) practice "hara hachi bu," eat until you're 80% full so that they don't get fat. Sometimes it's environment. The Inuits, for example, consume a diet largely made up of fat, some protein and almost no carbs yet their CVD is (was) lower than North Americans. But, no matter how it goes, overeating = fat gain. Why someone eats a lot or little can be for so many reasons. But we should not remove culpability. Little Johnny wouldn't have been all that fat 100 years ago yet he would now. The manipulation of how foods taste now can be partially blamed but no one is forcing food down anyone's throat.
I'm not particularly sure why you are so set on making sure fat people arent to blame for the excessive consumption of food. There are too many societal and psychological factors to pinpoint one but we can say for sure fat people are fst because they eat too much. And fat people who become skinny then fat again eat too much.
Because there is scientific evidence that fat metabolism is regulated by the body. Its not up for debate, it is true. To what extent is really where the debate comes in. Everyone knows environment can affect both your calorie consumption and energy expenditure, but I happen to think the data shows more compellingly that the body rules over the mind.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions