Mice become Obese WITHOUT Consuming Any More Calories
Options
Replies
-
People seem to be getting confused here, none more so than the OP. Unless I am totally reading it wrong, the study is not about intra-day meal timing being relevant - it shows the impact to your metabolism when your whole eating pattern vis a vis night v day gets thrown off. It also addresses the propensity to eat more in that situation.
"When a species’ typical daily rhythm is thrown off, changes in metabolism also happen. For example, in people, night shift workers have an increased prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome, and patients with sleep disorders have a higher risk for developing obesity. Also, less sleep means more weight gain in healthy men and women."
While it is an interesting study and most likely there will be a benefit to more research into it with regard to obesity, it does not refute the laws of thermodynamics and it does not change the findings that intra-day meal timing is irrelevant.
Can we INFER from the laws of thermodynamics the regulation and behavior of mammalian fat cells?
THE ANSWER IS NO!0 -
People seem to be getting confused here, none more so than the OP. Unless I am totally reading it wrong, the study is not about intra-day meal timing being relevant - it shows the impact to your metabolism when your whole eating pattern vis a vis night v day gets thrown off. It also addresses the propensity to eat more in that situation.
"When a species’ typical daily rhythm is thrown off, changes in metabolism also happen. For example, in people, night shift workers have an increased prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome, and patients with sleep disorders have a higher risk for developing obesity. Also, less sleep means more weight gain in healthy men and women."
While it is an interesting study and most likely there will be a benefit to more research into it with regard to obesity, it does not refute the laws of thermodynamics and it does not change the findings that intra-day meal timing is irrelevant.
This is also what I took from this, and I appreciate RobynC's comments earlier clarifying some of the more technical points of the paper as I didn't entirely understand those details upon reading the full study.
I also did not see where the energy expenditure side of the equation was controlled either in the paper, though, admittedly, I didn't spend as much time with it as I'd have liked.
The laws of thermodynamics do NOT AT ALL EXPLAIN - EXPLAIN-EXPLAIN obesity. THEY DO NOT ADDRESS WHAT IS STORED AS FAT, USED AS FUEL, USED TO REPAIR MUSCLE OR CRAPPED OUT.
THAT IS FAR BEYOND THEIOR REACH AND SCOPE, YOU IDIOT.
WHAT DON'T YOU GET ? The experimental mice DID NOT EAT ANY MORE calories.EVERYTHING WAS CONTROLLED WELL. THESE RESEARCHERS ARE TOPS IN THE FIELD, A S SH OL E.
STOP PRETENDING you are a compentent at critiqueing studies. You're a LAYMAN. I ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH DR. FITZGERALD.THE MAN IS ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED BIOMEDICAL RESEARCHERS IN THE WORLD. HIS WORK IS QUALITY. IASSURE YOU THAT YOU - YOU ARE THE CRANK.
HE SAID IN HIS OWN WORDS : "The caloric hypothesis is far too simplistic to explain obesity and fat cell regulation BY ITSELF".
THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS COMPLETELY FALL APART AS YOU APPROACH THE EVENT HORIZON 9 and move toward the center ) OF A BLACKHOLE
DID YOU KNOW THAT?
YOU ARE FAT BY THE WAY........0 -
Thanks for adding to the discussion, I found a more recent review on this topic that I think is a little more inclusive.
Chronobiological aspects of food intake and metabolism and their relevance on energy balance and weight regulation
C. Ekmekcioglu1,*, Y. Touitou2
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00716.x/full
This review nicely lists the studies done on meal timing and weight loss and the jury is still out. Several studies show increased weight loss by eating in the morning as compared to evening, and several also show that there was no effect in weight loss.
So I think we can all relax a little bit because you can argue for either case. But I'm interested in knowing how people feel about meal timing and it's effect on your weight loss. For me, eating all of my calories an hour before I go to bed would be a bad diet because I would experience more hunger throughout the day. I am rarely hungry in the morning before I go to school but get really hungry at 10 if I haven't eaten yet so I try to make sure I eat before I leave the house. Does eating time change your activity level too? I wouldn't want to work out with a big meal in my stomach so I think smaller meals are more favorable for me as well.Good thing we have studies on humans showing that nocturnal eating habits aren't detrimental:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17909674
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35087450 -
The problem with this idea is that you inherit your genes from your parents, who inherited them from your grandparents, etc. You don't inherit your genes from your friends, neighbors, people who like the same sports teams, people who live in your state or country, etc etc. If it were genetic, it would require that a new mutation JUST occurred in the last few decades when this epidemic started, and everyone who is obese would have been children or grandchildren of the original carrier. It would mean that several hundred million humans right now are all first cousins with each other.In spite of the way this thread imploded, I find the idea that weight might be genetically determined is actually hopeful.
Firstly, I think a genetic tendency isn't necessarily determination. It's like being geneticially predisposed to heart disease or cancer - it doesn't mean you have to get these illnesses, it's just a single factor (particularly if you do everything else right). Having this knowledge can make us more careful about other factors.
Secondly, maybe this means a new way of considering that we can be healthy at different weights. Maybe overweight people who are active and eat healthily will begin to be considered healthy instead of automatically dismissed as serious illness waiting to happen, and more healthy than thin people who rarely exercise and eat a lot of junk food. Then the phrase "I'm not doing this to be thin, I'm doing this to be healthy" can ring a little more true.
For those who said "this didn't happen to me so it's not true" might want to consider that just because it's not true for them doesn't mean it's not true at all. I actually had the opposite experience at a retreat where we only had two meals a day, breakfast and lunch, with a piece of fruit for dinner, I ate huge meals because I was so worried about being hungry, there is no way I was eating less calories in my two meals than I normally ate in three, but I lost 7 lbs in 10 days. I'm not suggesting this would work for everyone, but it sure affected my body in a way that made me drop weight.
Where are all these people who are active and eat healthily but are overweight? You mean like all of the obese baseball players, olympic athletes, tennis players, marathon runners, swimmers, ice skaters, bike racers, etc?Maybe overweight people who are active and eat healthily0 -
The problem with this idea is that you inherit your genes from your parents, who inherited them from your grandparents, etc. You don't inherit your genes from your friends, neighbors, people who like the same sports teams, people who live in your state or country, etc etc. If it were genetic, it would require that a new mutation JUST occurred in the last few decades when this epidemic started, and everyone who is obese would have been children or grandchildren of the original carrier. It would mean that several hundred million humans right now are all first cousins with each other.In spite of the way this thread imploded, I find the idea that weight might be genetically determined is actually hopeful.
Firstly, I think a genetic tendency isn't necessarily determination. It's like being geneticially predisposed to heart disease or cancer - it doesn't mean you have to get these illnesses, it's just a single factor (particularly if you do everything else right). Having this knowledge can make us more careful about other factors.
Secondly, maybe this means a new way of considering that we can be healthy at different weights. Maybe overweight people who are active and eat healthily will begin to be considered healthy instead of automatically dismissed as serious illness waiting to happen, and more healthy than thin people who rarely exercise and eat a lot of junk food. Then the phrase "I'm not doing this to be thin, I'm doing this to be healthy" can ring a little more true.
For those who said "this didn't happen to me so it's not true" might want to consider that just because it's not true for them doesn't mean it's not true at all. I actually had the opposite experience at a retreat where we only had two meals a day, breakfast and lunch, with a piece of fruit for dinner, I ate huge meals because I was so worried about being hungry, there is no way I was eating less calories in my two meals than I normally ate in three, but I lost 7 lbs in 10 days. I'm not suggesting this would work for everyone, but it sure affected my body in a way that made me drop weight.
Where are all these people who are active and eat healthily but are overweight? You mean like all of the obese baseball players, olympic athletes, tennis players, marathon runners, swimmers, ice skaters, bike racers, etc?Maybe overweight people who are active and eat healthily
The "obesity epidemic" perfectly tracks the increase in the consumption of sugar (sucrose). In 1900 the average American ate less than 5 pounds of sugar a year. Now the average is about 150 pounds a year. The typical diet that includes lots of processed food, contains about 500 calories a day in added sugar. The food processors use it because a.) it is a cheap filler and b.) more importantly (for them) it is addictive. That isn't the entire problem---the other part of the problem is our sedentary habits. Our ancestors got a lot more exercise---and did heavy manual labor, in particular, which built up their metabolic furnace (their lean muscle mass). In the nineteenth century, it was a status symbol to be "corpulent" because only the wealthy became obese--they could afford to eat lots of sugar (which was originally quite expensive) and they had servants to guarantee that they burned off fewer calories than their "poor relations". Interestingly, the amount of fat in the diet has remained relatively constant (we only eat, at the most, about 1% more fat in our diets). The extra calories that we eat today come from carbohydrates---specifically sugar.
The "fat switch" that causes the body to put on body fat and induces sluggishness, appears to be the fructose component of sugar/sucrose (sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose). Our bodies deal well with glucose and it does not appear to contribute to obesity and other metabolic problems. But fructose is a problem because our bodies do not handle large quantities of it very well. It may well be that those who have a tendency to obesity have a particularly intense reaction to fructose in the diet. While fruit eating isn't particularly problematic because most people simply don't eat that much fruit---eating sugar is a problem. To give you some idea of scale: a small Valencia orange has about 2 grams of fructose but an "orange" soda has about 26 grams of fructose (in a total of 44 grams of high fructose corn syrup). Most people do not gorge on fruit but they will eat a piece of "Carrot cake a la mode" from The Keg restaurant chain. There is 260 grams of sugar in that puppy---130 grams of which would be fructose (when obesity researchers recommend limiting fructose intake to 25 grams or less per day. It is easy to see why "we have a problem, Houston").
Other mammals, in preparation for hibernation, will consume as much fructose as they can get their little paws on. Black bears gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer and put on a lot of body fat in a very short time. But then, they burn off the excess fat over the winter. Unfortunately, we do not hibernate.0 -
[/quote]
The problem with this idea is that you inherit your genes from your parents, who inherited them from your grandparents, etc. You don't inherit your genes from your friends, neighbors, people who like the same sports teams, people who live in your state or country, etc etc. If it were genetic, it would require that a new mutation JUST occurred in the last few decades when this epidemic started, and everyone who is obese would have been children or grandchildren of the original carrier. It would mean that several hundred million humans right now are all first cousins with each other.
[/quote]
Where are all these people who are active and eat healthily but are overweight? You mean like all of the obese baseball players, olympic athletes, tennis players, marathon runners, swimmers, ice skaters, bike racers, etc?
[/quote]
If this is what I conveyed then I wasn't very clear. The idea that there is a tendency to obesity that is genetic doesn't mean there are no other factors. Like genetic tendencies to illnesses, it is just one of many elements.
Regarding overweight healthy people, i said healthy, not elite. I see more visibly overweight people now running in 5 Ks or longer. Closer to home, I have a friend who is more visibly fit than I am, but our cholesterol levels, blood pressure and heartrate couldn't be more different. In terms of these markers, I am much healthier, even carrying some extra pounds. I'm sure this isn't unique to me.0 -
The problem with this idea is that you inherit your genes from your parents, who inherited them from your grandparents, etc. You don't inherit your genes from your friends, neighbors, people who like the same sports teams, people who live in your state or country, etc etc. If it were genetic, it would require that a new mutation JUST occurred in the last few decades when this epidemic started, and everyone who is obese would have been children or grandchildren of the original carrier. It would mean that several hundred million humans right now are all first cousins with each other.
[/quote]
Where are all these people who are active and eat healthily but are overweight? You mean like all of the obese baseball players, olympic athletes, tennis players, marathon runners, swimmers, ice skaters, bike racers, etc?
[/quote]
If this is what I conveyed then I wasn't very clear. The idea that there is a tendency to obesity that is genetic doesn't mean there are no other factors. Like genetic tendencies to illnesses, it is just one of many elements.
Regarding overweight healthy people, i said healthy, not elite. I see more visibly overweight people now running in 5 Ks or longer. Closer to home, I have a friend who is more visibly fit than I am, but our cholesterol levels, blood pressure and heartrate couldn't be more different. In terms of these markers, I am much healthier, even carrying some extra pounds. I'm sure this isn't unique to me.
[/quote]
And you know what the difference may come from? It may be that he/she eats more sugar than you do. Some slender athletes have incredible appetites for sugar. While their high activity level and high lean body mass burns off the sugar, the metabolic effects of eating fructose are going forward all the same. High fructose consumption (from eating lots of sugar) sets off a metabolic cascade that is pretty vicious. Since we do not possess uricase (unlike other animals), our uric acid levels climb and then all sorts of "fun" begins. High blood pressure is just one of the results, along with incipient renal disease. Sugar cane workers in Central America are experiencing a virtual epidemic of renal failure. Researchers expect to find that the renal failure comes from a combination of dehydration (which increases uric acid levels in the body) along with their habit of drinking soda pop and/or sugar-sweetened fruit juices while working in the intensely hot fields. It is thought that that particular combination raises their uric acid levels to the point where the uric acid crystalizes in the kidneys (as the body desperately tries to eliminate the very high levels of uric acid) and does extensive damage to them.0 -
Where are all these people who are active and eat healthily but are overweight? You mean like all of the obese baseball players, olympic athletes, tennis players, marathon runners, swimmers, ice skaters, bike racers, etc?
The problem with this idea is that you inherit your genes from your parents, who inherited them from your grandparents, etc. You don't inherit your genes from your friends, neighbors, people who like the same sports teams, people who live in your state or country, etc etc. If it were genetic, it would require that a new mutation JUST occurred in the last few decades when this epidemic started, and everyone who is obese would have been children or grandchildren of the original carrier. It would mean that several hundred million humans right now are all first cousins with each other.
[/quote]
If this is what I conveyed then I wasn't very clear. The idea that there is a tendency to obesity that is genetic doesn't mean there are no other factors. Like genetic tendencies to illnesses, it is just one of many elements.
Regarding overweight healthy people, i said healthy, not elite. I see more visibly overweight people now running in 5 Ks or longer. Closer to home, I have a friend who is more visibly fit than I am, but our cholesterol levels, blood pressure and heartrate couldn't be more different. In terms of these markers, I am much healthier, even carrying some extra pounds. I'm sure this isn't unique to me.
[/quote]
And you know what the difference may come from? It may be that he/she eats more sugar than you do. Some slender athletes have incredible appetites for sugar. While their high activity level and high lean body mass burns off the sugar, the metabolic effects of eating fructose are going forward all the same. High fructose consumption (from eating lots of sugar) sets off a metabolic cascade that is pretty vicious. Since we do not possess uricase (unlike other animals), our uric acid levels climb and then all sorts of "fun" begins. High blood pressure is just one of the results, along with incipient renal disease. Sugar cane workers in Central America are experiencing a virtual epidemic of renal failure. Researchers expect to find that the renal failure comes from a combination of dehydration (which increases uric acid levels in the body) along with their habit of drinking soda pop and/or sugar-sweetened fruit juices while working in the intensely hot fields. It is thought that that particular combination raises their uric acid levels to the point where the uric acid crystalizes in the kidneys (as the body desperately tries to eliminate the very high levels of uric acid) and does extensive damage to them.
[/quote]
well, yeah. I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't think this is a factor.Didn't I mumble something about about overweight people who are active and eat well can be healthier than thinner people who are sedentary and eat junk? I'm pretty sure I did.0 -
I gained weight eating at night. But not because it wasn't because of when I was eating. It was because I was lazy and didn't watch what I ate, nor did I exercise. Currently, using MFP, correcting my eating habits and getting my lazy butt up and exercising I have lost weight.
Good thing the mice theory doesn't apply to me.0 -
There are a lot more factors in the problems experienced by night shift workers than just what time they are eating. Lack of light, poor sleep, boredom and more all play a role I'm sure. And, like others say, we are not mice. Mice don't get blue because they have to work at night and wish they had a nine to five job for example, then eat crap because there are mouse vending machines nearby ready to help them boost their seratonin with low food value carbs.0
-
So I think we can all relax a little bit because you can argue for either case.
Do you think we can argue for either case in a population that is monitoring energy balance closely? For ad libitum intake I would absolutely agree that this is a massive grey area because a population not tracking intake or expenditure (or even weight, for that matter) has to basically rely on satiety/intuitive eating.0 -
IMO it is overkill trying to apply the laws of thermodynamics to eating. For example, if I were to eat 100 grams of lactose you can be sure I will not get 400 calories out of it, and probably other foods eaten with or before it will not have time to be properly absorbed, LOL. This doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics because my body is not a closed system.
I don't know if there have been any studies to determine how much humans vary in relative efficiency of absorption, but I would guess there is at least some among individuals. Protein and fat digestion is aided by enzymes, which are gene products, which means their structure and thus their effectiveness are at least in part determined by an individual's genes. I'd think it would be pretty unlikely to find all humans identical at all of those loci.
But when it comes down to it, it's still calories in/out. The above may confound our simplistic approach to the "in" part of the equation as far as applying it to everyone exactly the same. But the reality, as shown by many on this site, is that an individual can find what works for them even if they were to have some predisposition.0 -
IMO it is overkill trying to apply the laws of thermodynamics to eating. For example, if I were to eat 100 grams of lactose you can be sure I will not get 400 calories out of it, and probably other foods eaten with or before it will not have time to be properly absorbed, LOL. This doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics because my body is not a closed system.
I don't know if there have been any studies to determine how much humans vary in relative efficiency of absorption, but I would guess there is at least some among individuals. Protein and fat digestion is aided by enzymes, which are gene products, which means their structure and thus their effectiveness are at least in part determined by an individual's genes. I'd think it would be pretty unlikely to find all humans identical at all of those loci.
But when it comes down to it, it's still calories in/out. The above may confound our simplistic approach to the "in" part of the equation as far as applying it to everyone exactly the same. But the reality, as shown by many on this site, is that an individual can find what works for them even if they were to have some predisposition.
I agree totally. I have observed two young women of my acquaintance who both work the night shift (one is a paramedic and the other a nurse). The paramedic is naturally thin (works out with weights in order to stay strong for her job, which often involves rescue work), the nurse is prone to gain weight very easily. The paramedic knows that if she doesn't work out, she loses muscle mass and weight---she frets that her night work schedule often interferes with her workout routines (she has two young children). The nurse, on the other hand, says that working nights make her want to "scarf up carbs" (likely, in an attempt to boost serotonin levels which are lowered by a lack of daylight). She gains body fat working nights unless she strictly follows her diet and exercise plans.0 -
And would you propose that these people were inactive and eating junk food and staying thin, and then became visibly overweight after switching to eating healthy foods and being active? Of course not.Regarding overweight healthy people, i said healthy, not elite. I see more visibly overweight people now running in 5 Ks or longer.
These people are running in 5Ks because they got fat by being sedentary and overeating, they know it, and they are reversing that by changing their eating and being active. How many of them start to eat healthily and are very active and continue to stay overweight for long periods of time? Any of them?0 -
These people are running in 5Ks because they got fat by being sedentary and overeating, they know it, and they are reversing that by changing their eating and being active. How many of them start to eat healthily and are very active and continue to stay overweight for long periods of time? Any of them?
I know you really want me to be wrong, and maybe I am. It's just my opinion. I don't want to fight with you, but I will tell you about my sister.
We did the same activity growing up - we both figure skated nearly 30 hours a week. She was very heavy from early childhood and I was always thin. We ate the same food, the difference being that my parents were constantly putting her on insanely low calorie diets (my father was obese and a fad dieter, and my mom was slender until she neared menopause). My sister was never sedentary, and she ate the same meals I did dexcept for when my parents put her on these insane diets. It's the way her body was, and is. She became bulemic, and still didn't lose weight. She lived with her ED for 20 years.
My sistser has struggled with her weight her entire life. She started running two years ago when she was fifty; she finished a 5 K and is training for a half marathon. She runs nearly every day, but has lost only fifteen pounds. She still looks very heavy. But she is no longer pre-diabetic, and she has reduced her blood pressure and resting heart rate. And she is much, much happier and more energetic.
it may not be your ideal, but it is remarkable for her and a huge accomplishment. She is healthier than she was, and healthy in general.0 -
These people are running in 5Ks because they got fat by being sedentary and overeating, they know it, and they are reversing that by changing their eating and being active. How many of them start to eat healthily and are very active and continue to stay overweight for long periods of time? Any of them?
I know you really want me to be wrong, and maybe I am. It's just my opinion. I don't want to fight with you, but I will tell you about my sister.
We did the same activity growing up - we both figure skated nearly 30 hours a week. She was very heavy from early childhood and I was always thin. We ate the same food, the difference being that my parents were constantly putting her on insanely low calorie diets (my father was obese and a fad dieter, and my mom was slender until she neared menopause). My sister was never sedentary, and she ate the same meals I did dexcept for when my parents put her on these insane diets. It's the way her body was, and is. She became bulemic, and still didn't lose weight. She lived with her ED for 20 years.
My sistser has struggled with her weight her entire life. She started running two years ago when she was fifty; she finished a 5 K and is training for a half marathon. She runs nearly every day, but has lost only fifteen pounds. She still looks very heavy. But she is no longer pre-diabetic, and she has reduced her blood pressure and resting heart rate. And she is much, much happier and more energetic.
it may not be your ideal, but it is remarkable for her and a huge accomplishment. She is healthier than she was, and healthy in general.
Your post here brought a tear to my eye---I hope you tell her how proud of her you are. One day, perhaps they will discover what makes some people overfat. It seems that they are getting closer. Has your sis ever tried cutting out sugar and wheat? They were always somewhat of an addiction for me (duh--that should have been my first clue
) I too have struggled with my weight all my life but just two years ago cut wheat and sugar out of my diet and started exercising. I discovered, to my delight, that it wasn't very difficult to shed 50 pounds over that time. Thanks for sticking up for those who face the constant censure of society. :flowerforyou: 0 -
Thank for this. She knows how proud I am! When she started running her husband and daughter were not supportive, they thought "here we go again." Now, after two years, her husband is changing his diet and is going to the gym with her and my niece is starting to run as well. She has struggled so hard to get here, and now is an example to us around her.
Interesting about wheat and sugar, she has lost lots of weight on Atkins in the past, but has never been able to sustain it. I don't know what the answer is for her.
best,
Janet0 -
Thank for this. She knows how proud I am! When she started running her husband and daughter were not supportive, they thought "here we go again." Now, after two years, her husband is changing his diet and is going to the gym with her and my niece is starting to run as well. She has struggled so hard to get here, and now is an example to us around her.
Interesting about wheat and sugar, she has lost lots of weight on Atkins in the past, but has never been able to sustain it. I don't know what the answer is for her.
best,
Janet
Yes---I too lost a lot of weight on Atkins (years ago) but got sick and had to stop it (and then I gained back all the weight plus more). My problem was that I thought I had to keep the carbs below 60 grams and had to induce "ketosis" in order to keep my appetite under control. What I found out over the last couple of years is that all I had to do was remove sugar and wheat from my diet (but I eat everything else, including a piece or two of 100% whole rye bread every day). I also restrict my fructose consumption to 25 grams or less per day. There's some sound science behind restricting fructose. There is a book called, "The Fat Switch" by cardiologist/renal specialist and researcher, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. that explains the effect of high fructose consumption (through eating sugar--table sugar, i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose). The small amount of fructose that one gets from one or two pieces of low-fructose fruit do not seem to pose a problem. I keep my total carbs between 100-200 grams per day (with the higher amounts on my heavier workout days) and I have no trouble with cravings or appetite control anymore. I finally feel free of the "monkey on my back". :happy:0 -
It's not a fight. There's no reason to get upset about it.These people are running in 5Ks because they got fat by being sedentary and overeating, they know it, and they are reversing that by changing their eating and being active. How many of them start to eat healthily and are very active and continue to stay overweight for long periods of time? Any of them?
I know you really want me to be wrong, and maybe I am. It's just my opinion. I don't want to fight with you, but I will tell you about my sister.
I am talking about the massive epidemic. Lots and lots of people are suddenly way bigger than they were a generation ago, including kids. Since the gene pool doesn't shift that rapidly, it has to be our environment or our behavior. Yep there are going to be exceptions, some people may be more efficient at absorbing/storing energy, and/or have malfunctioning 'hunger' switches, etc. I don't know if your sister is a special snowflake or not, and it's not relevant, really. My point is that the vast majority of what's going on is people not eating right for their body and not burning off enough energy, and that since the cause was not some external event, the solution isn't going to be either.
I really feel bad for the few people who are overweight for legitimate reasons, because they get lumped in with the "gluttonous/lazy" stereotype. If I were overweight for a legitimate medical reason that I couldn't prevent, I would be totally enraged at all the fat people who weren't.Thanks for sticking up for those who face the constant censure of society.0 -
It's not a fight. There's no reason to get upset about it.These people are running in 5Ks because they got fat by being sedentary and overeating, they know it, and they are reversing that by changing their eating and being active. How many of them start to eat healthily and are very active and continue to stay overweight for long periods of time? Any of them?
I know you really want me to be wrong, and maybe I am. It's just my opinion. I don't want to fight with you, but I will tell you about my sister.
I am talking about the massive epidemic. Lots and lots of people are suddenly way bigger than they were a generation ago, including kids. Since the gene pool doesn't shift that rapidly, it has to be our environment or our behavior. Yep there are going to be exceptions, some people may be more efficient at absorbing/storing energy, and/or have malfunctioning 'hunger' switches, etc. I don't know if your sister is a special snowflake or not, and it's not relevant, really. My point is that the vast majority of what's going on is people not eating right for their body and not burning off enough energy, and that since the cause was not some external event, the solution isn't going to be either.
I really feel bad for the few people who are overweight for legitimate reasons, because they get lumped in with the "gluttonous/lazy" stereotype. If I were overweight for a legitimate medical reason that I couldn't prevent, I would be totally enraged at all the fat people who weren't.Thanks for sticking up for those who face the constant censure of society.
Sugar consumption tracks perfectly with the obesity epidemic (and all the diseases that ride with it). After WWII, the rapid expansion of sugar production (and the consequent price drop) meant that sugar was easily accessible to most people. The use of sugar skyrocketed and obesity rates rose at the same pace. I agree that it couldn't be genetic because both my parents were lean as youngsters and young adults. They both went through the Great Depression and were often hungry and emaciated during that period. It was only during the prosperous 50s that we had such easy access to food in general and especially soda pop and sweets of one sort or another. Our parents urged us to eat because, "...there are children starving in Europe!" We ate too much and way too many sweets because we didn't know any better. We all became obese (including my parents). My sister, brother and I all have had major struggles with obesity and my brother has gone on to develop Type II diabetes. I am now the healthiest (I am the middle child). My BF percentage has gone from over 50% (morbidly obese) to 31% over the course of two years. But I really do not think I could have done it without eliminating sucrose and wheat from my diet. It has turned out to be "metabolic magic" for me.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions