Why is there an obesity epidemic?

Options
1…6791112

Replies

  • julianpoutram
    julianpoutram Posts: 331 Member
    Options
    I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.
    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!

    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.
    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...
  • julianpoutram
    julianpoutram Posts: 331 Member
    Options
    I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.
    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!
    There's a big difference between "addictive" and "instinctive/essential".
    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.
  • RobynC79
    RobynC79 Posts: 331 Member
    Options
    I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.
    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!

    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.
    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 ADDICTION

    Or a more detailed view:
    http://www.nel.edu/pdf_/NEL250404R01_Esch-Stefano_p_.pdf
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    Options
    I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.
    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!

    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.
    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...

    ummm.....what brain chemicals are being activated? I have plenty of evidence, not needed here.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    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 ADDICTION
    Oh, I was so looking forward to your response. :bigsmile:
  • julianpoutram
    julianpoutram Posts: 331 Member
    Options
    I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.
    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!

    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.
    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 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? :)
  • gettingontrack126
    gettingontrack126 Posts: 23
    Options
    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.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    I don't. Guyunet just grabbed a theory. There is nothing in your food that's addictive.
    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!

    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.
    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 ADDICTION

    Or a more detailed view:
    http://www.nel.edu/pdf_/NEL250404R01_Esch-Stefano_p_.pdf
    BUUUUUUURRRRRRRNNNNNNN!!!!!![/Kelso] :laugh:
  • kdeaux1959
    kdeaux1959 Posts: 2,675 Member
    Options
    Because we eat too much and don't do enough.
  • redheaddee
    redheaddee Posts: 2,005 Member
    Options
    Or could be this...Taken at a local McDs (seriously, I took this picture myself.)
    mcdonalds_zps0f29316f.jpg

    That is what you call "truth in advertising"!
  • redheaddee
    redheaddee Posts: 2,005 Member
    Options
    biblebeltobese_zpsdec3b61d.jpg

    reposting thanks to trolls.
  • 366to266
    366to266 Posts: 473 Member
    Options

    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.
  • volume77
    volume77 Posts: 670 Member
    Options
    because of mcdonalds......
  • volume77
    volume77 Posts: 670 Member
    Options
    i once gained ten pounds just by saying mcdonalds. true story
  • meshashesha2012
    meshashesha2012 Posts: 8,326 Member
    Options
    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:
  • volume77
    volume77 Posts: 670 Member
    Options
    o i was kidding. i eat mcdonalds everyday and ive lost 59 lbs.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options

    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 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."

    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. :smile:
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    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. :smile:
    Exaaactly.

    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.
  • MsPudding
    MsPudding Posts: 562 Member
    Options
    '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.
  • Arsenal1919
    Arsenal1919 Posts: 211 Member
    Options

    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.com

Categories