Why is there an obesity epidemic?
Replies
-
Television. Simple as that.
People started to sit on their *kitten* instead of spending time doing productive things.
Wrong.
Millions of THIN people sit around watching TV, playing computer games, working at desk jobs, driving to and from work.
I have four sisters and a brother, all now in their 60s, all of them thin, and they have never dieted in their lives. One sister is a chocoholic. None of them ever exercise. In fact, out of the six of us, I am the ONLY one who does regular exercise. I don't think any of the others even own a pair of trainers.
My boyfriend has a desk job, has never been to a gym, never been for a run, never done any pressups and cannot swim. He eats and drinks whatever he likes including fry-ups, crisps, sugar in his coffee, plenty of wine, and he is more or less the same weight as he was 30 years ago - currently 144 pounds @ 5ft 8. (That is him on my profile photos - and yeah, both is parents worked!.)
How does my family and boyfriend fit in with the hypotheses of most of the posters above who blame obesity on laziness and eating the wrong foods? According to your theories, all my siblings and my boyfriend should be obese.0 -
Oh for pete's sake, James Neal proposed the thrifty theory and then denounced once he had done more studies. Just listen to ninerbuff.0
-
Because we all work so much that we cannot be bothered to cook properly and all that is available are the quick fixes like cheese sarnies and crisps and coke, subway meals at lunch, ordering chinese in the evenings, putting sausage and chips in the oven, eating it and going to bed, waking up early, driving to work, sitting at your desk all day it all starts again.... Well, there's some answers. Not all, but it contributes. Hasn't obesity rocketed since we have needed to be two working parent families?0
-
Saying that, I'm lucky enough to be a stay at home mum, but both my parents worked and I grew up on quick sausage egg and chips in the evenings........0
-
"People spend too much time finding other people to blame, too much energy finding excuses for not being what they are capable of being, and not enough energy putting themselves on the line, growing out of the past, and getting on with their lives."
J. Michael Straczynski0 -
You'd probably have a heart attack if you saw the things in my diary, then. I eat Big Macs, candy bars, pizza, potato chips, cookies, pie, cake, beer, hard alcohol, ice cream and all kinds of other "unhealthy" things. On the other hand, I eat all those things in moderation within the context of a mostly "healthy" diet including lean meats, vegetables, fruits, whole grains, lots of water, etc. My weight loss ticker keeps moving downward, I've lost about 12% body fat and have absolutely no known medical/health issues.I have received about 30 new friend requests on here in the last few days. Before adding people as friends I look at their food diaries if possible. I have today seen several instances of MFPers eating all the things you describe - and worse. One lady's diary showed that she drank a whole bottle of Coke and I could not help calculating in my head just how much nutritious, filling FOOD she could have had for the same calorie/carb count!
I didn't get overweight because of some government conspiracy, or the food industry, or anybody else. It wasn't my "hormones", or my "body type". I got overweight because I sat on my butt, didn't exercise and ate a lot more than I should a lot of the time. With the exact same government, exact same food industry, exact same hormones and exact same body type still in place, I've fixed my problems and lost the weight. I did that by moving more, eating less and making good choices.0 -
You'd probably have a heart attack if you saw the things in my diary, then. I eat Big Macs, candy bars, pizza, potato chips, cookies, pie, cake, beer, hard alcohol, ice cream and all kinds of other "unhealthy" things.
Quick - somebody call me an ambulance!0 -
This is just an entirely wrong statement. If food wasn't addictive or didn't have something inside it that was, would we eat it at all? The answer is undoubtedly no. We require an addiction to food so that we do not die out, it is so integral to our survival that it would be silly to even make a statement like yours without first thinking about what you're saying!I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.0 -
There's a big difference between "addictive" and "instinctive/essential".
This is just an entirely wrong statement. If food wasn't addictive or didn't have something inside it that was, would we eat it at all? The answer is undoubtedly no. We require an addiction to food so that we do not die out, it is so integral to our survival that it would be silly to even make a statement like yours without first thinking about what you're saying!I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.0 -
This is just an entirely wrong statement. If food wasn't addictive or didn't have something inside it that was, would we eat it at all? The answer is undoubtedly no. We require an addiction to food so that we do not die out, it is so integral to our survival that it would be silly to even make a statement like yours without first thinking about what you're saying!I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.
Reward and addiction are two different things - one is a pathalogical dysregulation of the other (like cell division vs cancer - one is normal, the other is a pathalogical, uncontrolled state of that process). Just because the brain offers a neurochemical reward for certain actions does not imply 'addiction' to those same actions. The brain rewards eating (and many other actions) by releasing various neurotransmitters that activate the reward pathways that provide a happy or pleasurable feeling, but this is not addiction. Not even close.
Perhaps you should consider some thinking prior to making incorrect statements too.0 -
We are addicted to foods because we receive a neurochemical reward for eating them. At the route is the food, if you want to pick hairs then the addiction comes from the brain chemicals themselves. You are definitely not right, and your statement of how I am wrong makes you look extremely narrow minded. If I don't agree with you, what will you do to make me believe you? After all you make a statement with no evidence, as did I. This argument will go nowhere...
This is just an entirely wrong statement. If food wasn't addictive or didn't have something inside it that was, would we eat it at all? The answer is undoubtedly no. We require an addiction to food so that we do not die out, it is so integral to our survival that it would be silly to even make a statement like yours without first thinking about what you're saying!I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.
Reward and addiction are two different things - one is a pathalogical dysregulation of the other (like cell division vs cancer - one is normal, the other is a pathalogical, uncontrolled state of that process). Just because the brain offers a neurochemical reward for certain actions does not imply 'addiction' to those same actions. The brain rewards eating (and many other actions) by releasing various neurotransmitters that activate the reward pathways that provide a happy or pleasurable feeling, but this is not addiction. Not even close.
Perhaps you should consider some thinking prior to making incorrect statements too.0 -
Is there? I love it when people try to define things so clearly, what makes you think anything in life is quite so clean cut? Everything has it's grey area.
There's a big difference between "addictive" and "instinctive/essential".
This is just an entirely wrong statement. If food wasn't addictive or didn't have something inside it that was, would we eat it at all? The answer is undoubtedly no. We require an addiction to food so that we do not die out, it is so integral to our survival that it would be silly to even make a statement like yours without first thinking about what you're saying!I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.0 -
We are addicted to foods because we receive a neurochemical reward for eating them. At the route is the food, if you want to pick hairs then the addiction comes from the brain chemicals themselves. You are definitely not right, and your statement of how I am wrong makes you look extremely narrow minded. If I don't agree with you, what will you do to make me believe you? After all you make a statement with no evidence as did I. This argument will go nowhere...
This is just an entirely wrong statement. If food wasn't addictive or didn't have something inside it that was, would we eat it at all? The answer is undoubtedly no. We require an addiction to food so that we do not die out, it is so integral to our survival that it would be silly to even make a statement like yours without first thinking about what you're saying!I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.
Reward and addiction are two different things - one is a pathalogical dysregulation of the other (like cell division vs cancer - one is normal, the other is a pathalogical, uncontrolled state of that process). Just because the brain offers a neurochemical reward for certain actions does not imply 'addiction' to those same actions. The brain rewards eating (and many other actions) by releasing various neurotransmitters that activate the reward pathways that provide a happy or pleasurable feeling, but this is not addiction. Not even close.
Perhaps you should consider some thinking prior to making incorrect statements too.
Hmm, if you''d care for some evidence you may want to check a basic neurobiology or biochemistry textbook. You are welcome to disagree with me if you choose, but since you tell me I am narrow-minded, I feel it's only reasonable to counter by letting you know I am professional neuroscientist, fairly well versed in neurochemistry, physiology and the science of emotive processing. My specialty is pain and learning associated with negative reward. I'm also an evolutionary biologist and behaviouralist, so I have more than a passing acquaintance with the physiology and evolution of reward learning. But feel free to tell me otherwise.
If you'd like a basic paragraph delineating reward and additiction, try here:
http://www.panlab.com/panlabWeb/Solution/php/displaySol.php?nameSolution=REWARD AND ADDICTION
Or a more detailed view:
http://www.nel.edu/pdf_/NEL250404R01_Esch-Stefano_p_.pdf0 -
We are addicted to foods because we receive a neurochemical reward for eating them. At the route is the food, if you want to pick hairs then the addiction comes from the brain chemicals themselves. You are definitely not right, and your statement of how I am wrong makes you look extremely narrow minded. If I don't agree with you, what will you do to make me believe you? After all you make a statement with no evidence, as did I. This argument will go nowhere...
This is just an entirely wrong statement. If food wasn't addictive or didn't have something inside it that was, would we eat it at all? The answer is undoubtedly no. We require an addiction to food so that we do not die out, it is so integral to our survival that it would be silly to even make a statement like yours without first thinking about what you're saying!I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.
Reward and addiction are two different things - one is a pathalogical dysregulation of the other (like cell division vs cancer - one is normal, the other is a pathalogical, uncontrolled state of that process). Just because the brain offers a neurochemical reward for certain actions does not imply 'addiction' to those same actions. The brain rewards eating (and many other actions) by releasing various neurotransmitters that activate the reward pathways that provide a happy or pleasurable feeling, but this is not addiction. Not even close.
Perhaps you should consider some thinking prior to making incorrect statements too.
ummm.....what brain chemicals are being activated? I have plenty of evidence, not needed here.0 -
Oh, I was so looking forward to your response. :bigsmile:We are addicted to foods because we receive a neurochemical reward for eating them. At the route is the food, if you want to pick hairs then the addiction comes from the brain chemicals themselves. You are definitely not right, and your statement of how I am wrong makes you look extremely narrow minded. If I don't agree with you, what will you do to make me believe you? After all you make a statement with no evidence as did I. This argument will go nowhere...
Hmm, if you''d care for some evidence you may want to check a basic neurobiology or biochemistry textbook. You are welcome to disagree with me if you choose, but since you tell me I am narrow-minded, I feel it's only reasonable to counter by letting you know I am professional neuroscientist, fairly well versed in neurochemistry, physiology and the science of emotive processing. My specialty is pain and learning associated with negative reward. I'm also an evolutionary biologist and behaviouralist, so I have more than a passing acquaintance with the physiology and evolution of reward learning. But feel free to tell me otherwise.
If you'd like a basic paragraph delineating reward and additiction, try here:
http://www.panlab.com/panlabWeb/Solution/php/displaySol.php?nameSolution=REWARD AND ADDICTION0 -
We are addicted to foods because we receive a neurochemical reward for eating them. At the route is the food, if you want to pick hairs then the addiction comes from the brain chemicals themselves. You are definitely not right, and your statement of how I am wrong makes you look extremely narrow minded. If I don't agree with you, what will you do to make me believe you? After all you make a statement with no evidence as did I. This argument will go nowhere...
This is just an entirely wrong statement. If food wasn't addictive or didn't have something inside it that was, would we eat it at all? The answer is undoubtedly no. We require an addiction to food so that we do not die out, it is so integral to our survival that it would be silly to even make a statement like yours without first thinking about what you're saying!I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.
Reward and addiction are two different things - one is a pathalogical dysregulation of the other (like cell division vs cancer - one is normal, the other is a pathalogical, uncontrolled state of that process). Just because the brain offers a neurochemical reward for certain actions does not imply 'addiction' to those same actions. The brain rewards eating (and many other actions) by releasing various neurotransmitters that activate the reward pathways that provide a happy or pleasurable feeling, but this is not addiction. Not even close.
Perhaps you should consider some thinking prior to making incorrect statements too.
Hmm, if you''d care for some evidence you may want to check a basic neurobiology or biochemistry textbook. You are welcome to disagree with me if you choose, but since you tell me I am narrow-minded, I feel it's only reasonable to counter by letting you know I am professional neuroscientist, fairly well versed in neurochemistry, physiology and the science of emotive processing. My specialty is pain and learning associated with negative reward. I'm also an evolutionary biologist and behaviouralist, so I have more than a passing acquaintance with the physiology and evolution of reward learning. But feel free to tell me otherwise.
If you'd like a basic paragraph delineating reward and additiction, try here:
http://www.panlab.com/panlabWeb/Solution/php/displaySol.php?nameSolution=REWARD AND ADDICTION
Or a more detailed view:
http://www.nel.edu/pdf_/NEL250404R01_Esch-Stefano_p_.pdf
Haha fair enough, I admit defeat. Who am I to question such a well respected professional?
0 -
its because much of the food here is processed with high calories but low nutritional benfit. you could eat 5 apples, or one snickers bar. the obvious answer to someone whos hungry is the apples, but because the candy is cheaper, faster, tastier, and crave-inducing most people would choose it. but it doesnt stop there. often times that one bar isnt enough, you want more and more, and we end up eating more that is recommended and accumualting the extra calories leading to weight gain. have you ever wondered why on some packaged of food like sodas or chips, they will say "2 servings per bag" or "1,5 servings"? do you really think they meant for you to count out exactly half of those chps and save the rest for the next day? if so,then why not just put one serving per bag and leave it at that? because they know you'l want more, and they dont mind gaining a couple of dollars in helping you get them.
Thats why portion control is so important nowadays becaue alot of times, you have to take the extra effort to count out exactly how much you can have, and deciding on whether its worth the amount of calores and nutritional value you will get from it.0 -
BUUUUUUURRRRRRRNNNNNNN!!!!!![/Kelso] :laugh:
We are addicted to foods because we receive a neurochemical reward for eating them. At the route is the food, if you want to pick hairs then the addiction comes from the brain chemicals themselves. You are definitely not right, and your statement of how I am wrong makes you look extremely narrow minded. If I don't agree with you, what will you do to make me believe you? After all you make a statement with no evidence as did I. This argument will go nowhere...
This is just an entirely wrong statement. If food wasn't addictive or didn't have something inside it that was, would we eat it at all? The answer is undoubtedly no. We require an addiction to food so that we do not die out, it is so integral to our survival that it would be silly to even make a statement like yours without first thinking about what you're saying!I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.
Reward and addiction are two different things - one is a pathalogical dysregulation of the other (like cell division vs cancer - one is normal, the other is a pathalogical, uncontrolled state of that process). Just because the brain offers a neurochemical reward for certain actions does not imply 'addiction' to those same actions. The brain rewards eating (and many other actions) by releasing various neurotransmitters that activate the reward pathways that provide a happy or pleasurable feeling, but this is not addiction. Not even close.
Perhaps you should consider some thinking prior to making incorrect statements too.
Hmm, if you''d care for some evidence you may want to check a basic neurobiology or biochemistry textbook. You are welcome to disagree with me if you choose, but since you tell me I am narrow-minded, I feel it's only reasonable to counter by letting you know I am professional neuroscientist, fairly well versed in neurochemistry, physiology and the science of emotive processing. My specialty is pain and learning associated with negative reward. I'm also an evolutionary biologist and behaviouralist, so I have more than a passing acquaintance with the physiology and evolution of reward learning. But feel free to tell me otherwise.
If you'd like a basic paragraph delineating reward and additiction, try here:
http://www.panlab.com/panlabWeb/Solution/php/displaySol.php?nameSolution=REWARD AND ADDICTION
Or a more detailed view:
http://www.nel.edu/pdf_/NEL250404R01_Esch-Stefano_p_.pdf0 -
Because we eat too much and don't do enough.0
-
Or could be this...Taken at a local McDs (seriously, I took this picture myself.)
That is what you call "truth in advertising"!0 -
reposting thanks to trolls.0 -
How does my family and boyfriend fit in with the hypotheses of most of the posters above who blame obesity on laziness and eating the wrong foods? According to your theories, all my siblings and my boyfriend should be obese.
See?
I KNEW nobody would be able to answer my question.
Easier to pretend that all lean people count calories and work out, and the rest are lazy and greedy.0 -
because of mcdonalds......0
-
i once gained ten pounds just by saying mcdonalds. true story0
-
too much eating high calorie foods and not enough moving which leads to consuming way more calories than your body needs.
and laziness is an issue. i frequently get warned offline by people telling me to be careful i dont overtrain because i workout 45-60 minutes 6 days a week :laugh:0 -
o i was kidding. i eat mcdonalds everyday and ive lost 59 lbs.0
-
I used to eat tons of calories a day (e.g. a whole box of EL fudge, that's 2800 calories for a snack) and people would get fat watching me eat while I stayed thin. But then for me it was completely normal (and not even a second thought was given) to ride my bicycle 18 miles -- at full speed the whole time -- just to go hang out at my friend's house. I'd ride 3 miles each way to school every day, again full speed. I was constantly doing things like that. I never counted calories or "worked out."
How does my family and boyfriend fit in with the hypotheses of most of the posters above who blame obesity on laziness and eating the wrong foods? According to your theories, all my siblings and my boyfriend should be obese.
See?
I KNEW nobody would be able to answer my question.
Easier to pretend that all lean people count calories and work out, and the rest are lazy and greedy.
I suspect much of the problem is that people think the only way to be active is to "work out" which means stuff like treadmills and ellipticals and Jane Fonda and Richard Simmons videos etc where you do something that only moves your body for the sole purpose of burning calories, designed with no consideration as to whether it's actually enjoyable, at least for me. I'd rather be fat than do any of that crap ever. Fortunately I don't have to make that choice.
Anyway, have you actually counted his calorie intake over the course of a month, along with estimating his BMR + activity/exercise? Try it and then come back showing that he's in a massive surplus but not gaining, and then we can continue this discussion. 0 -
Exaaactly.Anyway, have you actually counted his calorie intake over the course of a month, along with estimating his BMR + activity/exercise? Try it and then come back showing that he's in a massive surplus but not gaining, and then we can continue this discussion.
Most "naturally skinny" people eat a lot less and move a lot more than people think. They may not "exercise" in the formal sense, but their NEAT (Non-exercise Activity Thermogenesis) is through the roof - highly active, with a TDEE much higher than is apparent. Seeing how they eat at the occasional family holiday meal is no indication of how they eat on a day-to-day basis. Some people eat one huge meal per day (which may be the one you're seeing), but very little throughout the rest of the day.0 -
'Addictive' probably isn't the right word, but nutrient-poor, calorie-dense foods do lead to over-eating if they comprise the main part of your diet because they tend to be foods that cause blood glucose levels to rise high and rise quickly and then drop quickly, leaving you hungry again. Foods that don't cause hugh spikes in blood glucose - the proteins, fats, whole grains - keep us sated longer and so we're likely to eat less, thereby consuming fewer calories.
Almost all pre-prepared food has sugar added so is going to have a pretty significant impact on blood glucose levels and if you mostly eat nutrient-poor, calorie-dense foods then your blood glucose is going to be pinging up and down faster than a hooker's knickers and that is going to result in more periods of hunger and therefore far more likelihood that you over-consume.0 -
3. over consumption of processed sugar since it's added to absolutely everything now. only 40 years ago people consumed about 100 pounds of sugar a year now it's closer to 200 pounds.
In his book, "Sweet Poison", author David Gillespie says that over-processing of food has taken Australia's per capita consumption of processed/added sugar in foods from 1.1 kg (2.4lbs) per annum in 1855 to 55kg (122lbs) per person per annum in 2007.
Just look at the amount of soft drink (soda pop) in supermarket trolleys as you pass others in the aisles or near the checkouts.
- - - - -
Regards,
Green Peace …
THE RAINBOW WARRIOR
TORONTO, New South Wales,
(East Coast) AUSTRALIA
r_a_i_n_b_o_w__w_a_r_r_i_o_r@hotmail.com0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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