Sugar and carb addiction addiction
Options
Replies
-
He's an endocrinologist. That doesn't mean he has any expertise on evolution. I've known doctors that happily don't believe in evolution period.No, sorry, I must have explained poorly, he was saying because sugar was not always available and it was valuable calories for leaner times, perhaps we are prone to overeat it.
Are food and cocaine the same? No. Food and opiates? No. But it is interesting that a drug used to treat opiate abuse reduces overeating. Unfortunately from what I've read they have to couple it with an antidepressant because it damps down all activities that cause the pleasure reward center in the brain.
And that is where the similarity is: The pleasure center in the brain may not be identically affected by different substances, but it is affected. And yes, behaviors, both survival promoting and otherwise, also affect the pleasure centers in the brain. Therefore, there is a chemical component to overeating. And the foods most likely to trigger the brain in this way and also have a detrimental affect on the most people? Not produce and meat. Not in the USA, anyway. It's generally the foods in the snack aisle. The cheap and very heavily subsidized foods.
Fruit not available? Our ancestors were frugivores. That we acquired sugar addiction in the last 500K to maybe 1.5M or so years after probably about 10 million years with it as a staple is ... well odd evolutionary arguments.
You can also give people the the stress hormone cortisol to stop inflammation. I don't consider muscle aches to be related to be too relaxed and unstressed though.
Depends on when you're referring to as far as your ancestors' access to fruits. When and where.
Here is the Lustig talk I referred to, because I don't remember where the primates he referred to specifically live. And well, he has way more degrees than I do, and in a relevant field!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh4JBXaKnmA
To be honest, I'm rather disappointed in Lustig when I hear him try to discuss science, particularly if it begins to move outside of his range. I've seen him write an essay that referred to "Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics", which he acknowledged are true but then went into his spew about a calorie isn't a calorie. I tend to like someone discussing thermodynamics to be knowledgeable that Newton had laws of motion, and was pretty thoroughly done being part of the thermodynamic world (past rotten in the ground) by the time people started formulating the laws of thermodynamics and studying it as a field.0 -
He's an endocrinologist. That doesn't mean he has any expertise on evolution. I've known doctors that happily don't believe in evolution period.No, sorry, I must have explained poorly, he was saying because sugar was not always available and it was valuable calories for leaner times, perhaps we are prone to overeat it.
Are food and cocaine the same? No. Food and opiates? No. But it is interesting that a drug used to treat opiate abuse reduces overeating. Unfortunately from what I've read they have to couple it with an antidepressant because it damps down all activities that cause the pleasure reward center in the brain.
And that is where the similarity is: The pleasure center in the brain may not be identically affected by different substances, but it is affected. And yes, behaviors, both survival promoting and otherwise, also affect the pleasure centers in the brain. Therefore, there is a chemical component to overeating. And the foods most likely to trigger the brain in this way and also have a detrimental affect on the most people? Not produce and meat. Not in the USA, anyway. It's generally the foods in the snack aisle. The cheap and very heavily subsidized foods.
Fruit not available? Our ancestors were frugivores. That we acquired sugar addiction in the last 500K to maybe 1.5M or so years after probably about 10 million years with it as a staple is ... well odd evolutionary arguments.
You can also give people the the stress hormone cortisol to stop inflammation. I don't consider muscle aches to be related to be too relaxed and unstressed though.
Depends on when you're referring to as far as your ancestors' access to fruits. When and where.
Here is the Lustig talk I referred to, because I don't remember where the primates he referred to specifically live. And well, he has way more degrees than I do, and in a relevant field!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh4JBXaKnmA
To be honest, I'm rather disappointed in Lustig when I hear him try to discuss science, particularly if it begins to move outside of his range. I've seen him write an essay that referred to "Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics", which he acknowledged are true but then went into his spew about a calorie isn't a calorie. I tend to like someone discussing thermodynamics to be knowledgeable that Newton had laws of motion, and was pretty thoroughly done being part of the thermodynamic world (past rotten in the ground) by the time people started formulating the laws of thermodynamics and studying it as a field.
I didn't mean he was an expert in evolution. I meant endocrinology, specifically how it all relates to what we consume and its impact on our health.
He fully acknowledges Newton's Laws while saying it doesn't apply as simply to our intake the way people who 'calorie is a calorie' everyone thinks it does because you absorb calories from different sources differently, in the case of almonds, you might not even absorb all the calories available at all. (I think the USDA had something on this recently, calorie count on almonds higher than absorbed). Don't make me do the liver dance, because I can't. I vaguely understand it, but I don't have the chemistry to spell it out. You've listened to Lustig apparently, you understand it or you don't.
In fact obesity isn't his main focus. It's things like metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and NAFLD. And maybe we should also focus on those things more than how much fat we're carrying around, too. It would certainly simplify things up and put the focus more on health. And without health, who cares about thinness? Dying sick, skinny, and young isn't that much better than dying sick, fat, and young.
Edit: I accidentally got off topic. He also discussed high insulin's affect on satiety. And that is a big deal and much more relevant to the discussion.0 -
Last quick post of the night which goes back to a point I made much earlier about how we aren't going to get enough good research until private money is out of the equation:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1586.full
No differences in satiety or energy intake after high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, or milk preloads
Funded by:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/suikerstichting-nederland
We are the expertise centre in the field of sugar in a healthy lifestyle, through research, education and communication.
There will always be a counter study when something comes up about sugar or any other profitable food or industry. Check the funding source!
0 -
I think this article on food addiction is interesting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/food-addiction_b_1085184.html. I'm not sure I agree, but I don't entirely disagree. One of my thoughts about this is that we SHOULD be, and are, evolved to want food, but is this properly called addiction?, or is addiction about replacing something we need for life with something else, putting at the center of your life something that is destructive rather than life sustaining? Thus, of course we want food; it's messed up (addiction) to drop food for heroin.
I'm not convinced eating to satiety (and not beyond) would have been useful for humans for the most part--better to be able to eat when food is available and deal with fasting periods, which is what we seem to be able to do.
Also, the argument that sugar is addictive in a way that fat is not seem unsupported by the science.0 -
It's baffling to turn this into an argument that says all of the first world is fat because of sugar addiction, and that part of the reason is the availability of food, including fresh fruit, during the cold season that in the cave days would have been imposssible to consume.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. Our society is one that is designed about built around eating as a social activity, number one. It's also built around food as a reward system, number two. It's a society that has become almost entirely sedentary, both during childhood play and during adulthood employment, both of which were not the norm almost through the entirety of all of human civilization until the last 20 years or so.
Those three things alone are probably 90% of the reason for the rise in first-world obesity.0 -
He's an endocrinologist. That doesn't mean he has any expertise on evolution. I've known doctors that happily don't believe in evolution period.No, sorry, I must have explained poorly, he was saying because sugar was not always available and it was valuable calories for leaner times, perhaps we are prone to overeat it.
Are food and cocaine the same? No. Food and opiates? No. But it is interesting that a drug used to treat opiate abuse reduces overeating. Unfortunately from what I've read they have to couple it with an antidepressant because it damps down all activities that cause the pleasure reward center in the brain.
And that is where the similarity is: The pleasure center in the brain may not be identically affected by different substances, but it is affected. And yes, behaviors, both survival promoting and otherwise, also affect the pleasure centers in the brain. Therefore, there is a chemical component to overeating. And the foods most likely to trigger the brain in this way and also have a detrimental affect on the most people? Not produce and meat. Not in the USA, anyway. It's generally the foods in the snack aisle. The cheap and very heavily subsidized foods.
Fruit not available? Our ancestors were frugivores. That we acquired sugar addiction in the last 500K to maybe 1.5M or so years after probably about 10 million years with it as a staple is ... well odd evolutionary arguments.
You can also give people the the stress hormone cortisol to stop inflammation. I don't consider muscle aches to be related to be too relaxed and unstressed though.
Depends on when you're referring to as far as your ancestors' access to fruits. When and where.
Here is the Lustig talk I referred to, because I don't remember where the primates he referred to specifically live. And well, he has way more degrees than I do, and in a relevant field!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh4JBXaKnmA
To be honest, I'm rather disappointed in Lustig when I hear him try to discuss science, particularly if it begins to move outside of his range. I've seen him write an essay that referred to "Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics", which he acknowledged are true but then went into his spew about a calorie isn't a calorie. I tend to like someone discussing thermodynamics to be knowledgeable that Newton had laws of motion, and was pretty thoroughly done being part of the thermodynamic world (past rotten in the ground) by the time people started formulating the laws of thermodynamics and studying it as a field.
I just googled to see if it is true.
It seems that in Fat Chance (so, not a scientific paper, but a book addressed to the public) he wrote:
“If you don’t like it, file a grievance with Sir Isaac Newton”
I would like to inform you that's a joke, it is supposed to be funny, not accurate.
0 -
It's baffling to turn this into an argument that says all of the first world is fat because of sugar addiction, and that part of the reason is the availability of food, including fresh fruit, during the cold season that in the cave days would have been imposssible to consume.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. Our society is one that is designed about built around eating as a social activity, number one. It's also built around food as a reward system, number two. It's a society that has become almost entirely sedentary, both during childhood play and during adulthood employment, both of which were not the norm almost through the entirety of all of human civilization until the last 20 years or so.
Those three things alone are probably 90% of the reason for the rise in first-world obesity.
I don't argue any of that. I think it all factors in. My argument is that when we only focus on these factors we ignore not only a large chunk of the problem, but what we really are as human beings, and how much the chemical reactions going on with us every day affect us, including the part of ourselves we call 'I' and attribute decisions, motivations, and traits to. Big pharma isn't ignoring it.
They're working to come up with ways to damp down the overeating with drugs and have been for a long time. I think having to mix their latest attempt with an anti-depressant is a very bad sign.
There is a lecture online called Cut the Killer Carbs that references this drug. It's interesting, especially for keto people. It's in several parts on Youtube and it's long, so maybe not a one-sitting watch.0 -
No, and even the above as joke, doesn't exempt him from having a poor knowledge of what he's criticizing:Gianfranco_R wrote: »
He's an endocrinologist. That doesn't mean he has any expertise on evolution. I've known doctors that happily don't believe in evolution period.No, sorry, I must have explained poorly, he was saying because sugar was not always available and it was valuable calories for leaner times, perhaps we are prone to overeat it.
Are food and cocaine the same? No. Food and opiates? No. But it is interesting that a drug used to treat opiate abuse reduces overeating. Unfortunately from what I've read they have to couple it with an antidepressant because it damps down all activities that cause the pleasure reward center in the brain.
And that is where the similarity is: The pleasure center in the brain may not be identically affected by different substances, but it is affected. And yes, behaviors, both survival promoting and otherwise, also affect the pleasure centers in the brain. Therefore, there is a chemical component to overeating. And the foods most likely to trigger the brain in this way and also have a detrimental affect on the most people? Not produce and meat. Not in the USA, anyway. It's generally the foods in the snack aisle. The cheap and very heavily subsidized foods.
Fruit not available? Our ancestors were frugivores. That we acquired sugar addiction in the last 500K to maybe 1.5M or so years after probably about 10 million years with it as a staple is ... well odd evolutionary arguments.
You can also give people the the stress hormone cortisol to stop inflammation. I don't consider muscle aches to be related to be too relaxed and unstressed though.
Depends on when you're referring to as far as your ancestors' access to fruits. When and where.
Here is the Lustig talk I referred to, because I don't remember where the primates he referred to specifically live. And well, he has way more degrees than I do, and in a relevant field!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh4JBXaKnmA
To be honest, I'm rather disappointed in Lustig when I hear him try to discuss science, particularly if it begins to move outside of his range. I've seen him write an essay that referred to "Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics", which he acknowledged are true but then went into his spew about a calorie isn't a calorie. I tend to like someone discussing thermodynamics to be knowledgeable that Newton had laws of motion, and was pretty thoroughly done being part of the thermodynamic world (past rotten in the ground) by the time people started formulating the laws of thermodynamics and studying it as a field.
I just googled to see if it is true.
It seems that in Fat Chance (so, not a scientific paper, but a book addressed to the public) he wrote:
“If you don’t like it, file a grievance with Sir Isaac Newton”
I would like to inform you that's a joke, it is supposed to be funny, not accurate.
http://pituitary.org/medical-resources/pavilions/pediatric-health/pediatric-health-archive/hypothalamic-obesityObesity has rapidly become the largest (both figuratively and literally) public health problem, both in the U.S. and in numerous Westernized countries. The causes of this epidemic are myriad, but they still must obey Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In human terms,
The man literally is fairly ignorant of thermodynamics, but he's out there criticizing the Atwater method and calorie counting. If I had a child with an edocrine disease, I'd be pleased if he was the physician overseeing treatment. If he tried to my child a single thing on physics, I'd tell my child to listen respectfully, smile, nod his head, and forget all of it and come talk to me about physics afterwards so that he can get the right information.
And the above is in an essay. He had the chance to review what he's doing, this isn't like someone who got him in an ah hah gotcha mistake at lecture. He is that unaware of his own ignorance to not even check that Newton did not write a single law of thermodynamics. That the laws of thermodynamics aren't even a set created by one person like the Newton's laws of motion.
If he wants to make jokes like that I'd rather he Carnot.0 -
Neither he, you, or I can acknowledge Newton's laws of thermodynamics, just as I can't address Steve Jobs's laws of robotics, or Einstein's laws of Comedic timing, or Groucho Marx's laws of Communism. Newton didn't write laws of thermodynamics, he wrote laws of motion.
He's an endocrinologist. That doesn't mean he has any expertise on evolution. I've known doctors that happily don't believe in evolution period.No, sorry, I must have explained poorly, he was saying because sugar was not always available and it was valuable calories for leaner times, perhaps we are prone to overeat it.
Are food and cocaine the same? No. Food and opiates? No. But it is interesting that a drug used to treat opiate abuse reduces overeating. Unfortunately from what I've read they have to couple it with an antidepressant because it damps down all activities that cause the pleasure reward center in the brain.
And that is where the similarity is: The pleasure center in the brain may not be identically affected by different substances, but it is affected. And yes, behaviors, both survival promoting and otherwise, also affect the pleasure centers in the brain. Therefore, there is a chemical component to overeating. And the foods most likely to trigger the brain in this way and also have a detrimental affect on the most people? Not produce and meat. Not in the USA, anyway. It's generally the foods in the snack aisle. The cheap and very heavily subsidized foods.
Fruit not available? Our ancestors were frugivores. That we acquired sugar addiction in the last 500K to maybe 1.5M or so years after probably about 10 million years with it as a staple is ... well odd evolutionary arguments.
You can also give people the the stress hormone cortisol to stop inflammation. I don't consider muscle aches to be related to be too relaxed and unstressed though.
Depends on when you're referring to as far as your ancestors' access to fruits. When and where.
Here is the Lustig talk I referred to, because I don't remember where the primates he referred to specifically live. And well, he has way more degrees than I do, and in a relevant field!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh4JBXaKnmA
To be honest, I'm rather disappointed in Lustig when I hear him try to discuss science, particularly if it begins to move outside of his range. I've seen him write an essay that referred to "Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics", which he acknowledged are true but then went into his spew about a calorie isn't a calorie. I tend to like someone discussing thermodynamics to be knowledgeable that Newton had laws of motion, and was pretty thoroughly done being part of the thermodynamic world (past rotten in the ground) by the time people started formulating the laws of thermodynamics and studying it as a field.
I didn't mean he was an expert in evolution. I meant endocrinology, specifically how it all relates to what we consume and its impact on our health.
He fully acknowledges Newton's Laws while saying it doesn't apply as simply to our intake the way people who 'calorie is a calorie' everyone thinks it does because you absorb calories from different sources differently, in the case of almonds, you might not even absorb all the calories available at all. (I think the USDA had something on this recently, calorie count on almonds higher than absorbed). Don't make me do the liver dance, because I can't. I vaguely understand it, but I don't have the chemistry to spell it out. You've listened to Lustig apparently, you understand it or you don't.
In fact obesity isn't his main focus. It's things like metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and NAFLD. And maybe we should also focus on those things more than how much fat we're carrying around, too. It would certainly simplify things up and put the focus more on health. And without health, who cares about thinness? Dying sick, skinny, and young isn't that much better than dying sick, fat, and young.
Edit: I accidentally got off topic. He also discussed high insulin's affect on satiety. And that is a big deal and much more relevant to the discussion.
0 -
Neither he, you, or I can acknowledge Newton's laws of thermodynamics, just as I can't address Steve Jobs's laws of robotics, or Einstein's laws of Comedic timing, or Groucho Marx's laws of Communism. Newton didn't write laws of thermodynamics, he wrote laws of motion.
He's an endocrinologist. That doesn't mean he has any expertise on evolution. I've known doctors that happily don't believe in evolution period.No, sorry, I must have explained poorly, he was saying because sugar was not always available and it was valuable calories for leaner times, perhaps we are prone to overeat it.
Are food and cocaine the same? No. Food and opiates? No. But it is interesting that a drug used to treat opiate abuse reduces overeating. Unfortunately from what I've read they have to couple it with an antidepressant because it damps down all activities that cause the pleasure reward center in the brain.
And that is where the similarity is: The pleasure center in the brain may not be identically affected by different substances, but it is affected. And yes, behaviors, both survival promoting and otherwise, also affect the pleasure centers in the brain. Therefore, there is a chemical component to overeating. And the foods most likely to trigger the brain in this way and also have a detrimental affect on the most people? Not produce and meat. Not in the USA, anyway. It's generally the foods in the snack aisle. The cheap and very heavily subsidized foods.
Fruit not available? Our ancestors were frugivores. That we acquired sugar addiction in the last 500K to maybe 1.5M or so years after probably about 10 million years with it as a staple is ... well odd evolutionary arguments.
You can also give people the the stress hormone cortisol to stop inflammation. I don't consider muscle aches to be related to be too relaxed and unstressed though.
Depends on when you're referring to as far as your ancestors' access to fruits. When and where.
Here is the Lustig talk I referred to, because I don't remember where the primates he referred to specifically live. And well, he has way more degrees than I do, and in a relevant field!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh4JBXaKnmA
To be honest, I'm rather disappointed in Lustig when I hear him try to discuss science, particularly if it begins to move outside of his range. I've seen him write an essay that referred to "Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics", which he acknowledged are true but then went into his spew about a calorie isn't a calorie. I tend to like someone discussing thermodynamics to be knowledgeable that Newton had laws of motion, and was pretty thoroughly done being part of the thermodynamic world (past rotten in the ground) by the time people started formulating the laws of thermodynamics and studying it as a field.
I didn't mean he was an expert in evolution. I meant endocrinology, specifically how it all relates to what we consume and its impact on our health.
He fully acknowledges Newton's Laws while saying it doesn't apply as simply to our intake the way people who 'calorie is a calorie' everyone thinks it does because you absorb calories from different sources differently, in the case of almonds, you might not even absorb all the calories available at all. (I think the USDA had something on this recently, calorie count on almonds higher than absorbed). Don't make me do the liver dance, because I can't. I vaguely understand it, but I don't have the chemistry to spell it out. You've listened to Lustig apparently, you understand it or you don't.
In fact obesity isn't his main focus. It's things like metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and NAFLD. And maybe we should also focus on those things more than how much fat we're carrying around, too. It would certainly simplify things up and put the focus more on health. And without health, who cares about thinness? Dying sick, skinny, and young isn't that much better than dying sick, fat, and young.
Edit: I accidentally got off topic. He also discussed high insulin's affect on satiety. And that is a big deal and much more relevant to the discussion.
It isn't that he doesn't believe in Newton's Laws, it's that he points out it's not the be all end all of eating for health. And it's not. So what? I can burn what I eat. As someone pointed out in this thread or another, by that yardstick, trans fats are fine, too. Someone else said why not get all her calories from alcohol? But of course that's ridiculous. And that's what he's saying.
Dr Lustig deals with the effects of foods on human health as well as brain damage and medications (such as insulin for diabetes). You're trying to narrow his specialization down, but if anything, he has specialized in the effects of certain foods on the human body. He is very qualified to speak on this. He might not always be correct (who is?) but I doubt there are more than a handful of experts in relevant fields more qualified to address the matter.0 -
No, and even the above as joke, doesn't exempt him from having a poor knowledge of what he's criticizing:Gianfranco_R wrote: »
He's an endocrinologist. That doesn't mean he has any expertise on evolution. I've known doctors that happily don't believe in evolution period.No, sorry, I must have explained poorly, he was saying because sugar was not always available and it was valuable calories for leaner times, perhaps we are prone to overeat it.
Are food and cocaine the same? No. Food and opiates? No. But it is interesting that a drug used to treat opiate abuse reduces overeating. Unfortunately from what I've read they have to couple it with an antidepressant because it damps down all activities that cause the pleasure reward center in the brain.
And that is where the similarity is: The pleasure center in the brain may not be identically affected by different substances, but it is affected. And yes, behaviors, both survival promoting and otherwise, also affect the pleasure centers in the brain. Therefore, there is a chemical component to overeating. And the foods most likely to trigger the brain in this way and also have a detrimental affect on the most people? Not produce and meat. Not in the USA, anyway. It's generally the foods in the snack aisle. The cheap and very heavily subsidized foods.
Fruit not available? Our ancestors were frugivores. That we acquired sugar addiction in the last 500K to maybe 1.5M or so years after probably about 10 million years with it as a staple is ... well odd evolutionary arguments.
You can also give people the the stress hormone cortisol to stop inflammation. I don't consider muscle aches to be related to be too relaxed and unstressed though.
Depends on when you're referring to as far as your ancestors' access to fruits. When and where.
Here is the Lustig talk I referred to, because I don't remember where the primates he referred to specifically live. And well, he has way more degrees than I do, and in a relevant field!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh4JBXaKnmA
To be honest, I'm rather disappointed in Lustig when I hear him try to discuss science, particularly if it begins to move outside of his range. I've seen him write an essay that referred to "Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics", which he acknowledged are true but then went into his spew about a calorie isn't a calorie. I tend to like someone discussing thermodynamics to be knowledgeable that Newton had laws of motion, and was pretty thoroughly done being part of the thermodynamic world (past rotten in the ground) by the time people started formulating the laws of thermodynamics and studying it as a field.
I just googled to see if it is true.
It seems that in Fat Chance (so, not a scientific paper, but a book addressed to the public) he wrote:
“If you don’t like it, file a grievance with Sir Isaac Newton”
I would like to inform you that's a joke, it is supposed to be funny, not accurate.
http://pituitary.org/medical-resources/pavilions/pediatric-health/pediatric-health-archive/hypothalamic-obesityObesity has rapidly become the largest (both figuratively and literally) public health problem, both in the U.S. and in numerous Westernized countries. The causes of this epidemic are myriad, but they still must obey Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In human terms,
The man literally is fairly ignorant of thermodynamics, but he's out there criticizing the Atwater method and calorie counting. If I had a child with an edocrine disease, I'd be pleased if he was the physician overseeing treatment. If he tried to my child a single thing on physics, I'd tell my child to listen respectfully, smile, nod his head, and forget all of it and come talk to me about physics afterwards so that he can get the right information.
And the above is in an essay. He had the chance to review what he's doing, this isn't like someone who got him in an ah hah gotcha mistake at lecture. He is that unaware of his own ignorance to not even check that Newton did not write a single law of thermodynamics. That the laws of thermodynamics aren't even a set created by one person like the Newton's laws of motion.
If he wants to make jokes like that I'd rather he Carnot.
LOL, fair enough, point scored
anyway, when I was searching that quotation, I also came across this, from the lemurcat's favorite author:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/obesity-epidemic_b_2697961.html
"Leaving aside Newton and laws of thermodynamics, ..."
so I think we have simply to acknowledge the doctors in general are not familiar with other disciplines' history.
0 -
I'm confused by your last paragraph though- can you explain?
Now I want to pet a puppy! Moving on:
If we assume every person who is obese and unhealthy is obese and unhealthy due to purely psychological and especially consciously psychological reasons (assuming this is possible with any issue), then no matter how many people we have who sicken, die young, and cost healthcare system trillions, there's no argument for changing subsidies, advertising, or anything else to reduce the problem. It's all 100% conscious choice, or at least 100% you had a bad childhood or a puppy scared you or you were smitten with birthday cake because it was the only time you thought your mommy loved you subconscious choice.
But if it is acknowledged that:
There is a chemical component to the majority of obese people's cravings
And that they want to quit overeating but a chemical component of craving makes quitting more difficult
And that exposure to and easy availability of the foods they are most likely to crave is likely due to pricing
and that advertising of said foods at an early age affects the likelihood that they will over consume these foods (similar to cigarettes but admittedly with differences, as cigarettes were supposed to be restricted to adult use though in reality they were not)
And if all of the above affects how many people will die young, sick, obese, and with great cost to the rest of us, then there is more incentive and legal standing to alter food subsidies in a way that makes the foods most likely to be over consumed to the point of obesity more expensive and not advertised to children and perhaps even to push subsidies toward foods that fewer people have a chemical urge to over consume.
I'm sort of confounded by this argument, to be honest.
Though I understand your intentions, I fundamentally disagree with your reasoning. First, let me see if I'm following you here, are you really asserting that the government/scientific community conclude things which may or may not be true simply to get funding where you think it should be?
Overeating is a hugely complex problem. Your argument is incredibly reductionist, to say the least.
0 -
It's baffling to turn this into an argument that says all of the first world is fat because of sugar addiction, and that part of the reason is the availability of food, including fresh fruit, during the cold season that in the cave days would have been imposssible to consume.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. Our society is one that is designed about built around eating as a social activity, number one. It's also built around food as a reward system, number two. It's a society that has become almost entirely sedentary, both during childhood play and during adulthood employment, both of which were not the norm almost through the entirety of all of human civilization until the last 20 years or so.
Those three things alone are probably 90% of the reason for the rise in first-world obesity.
I don't argue any of that. I think it all factors in. My argument is that when we only focus on these factors we ignore not only a large chunk of the problem, but what we really are as human beings, and how much the chemical reactions going on with us every day affect us, including the part of ourselves we call 'I' and attribute decisions, motivations, and traits to. Big pharma isn't ignoring it.
They're working to come up with ways to damp down the overeating with drugs and have been for a long time. I think having to mix their latest attempt with an anti-depressant is a very bad sign.
There is a lecture online called Cut the Killer Carbs that references this drug. It's interesting, especially for keto people. It's in several parts on Youtube and it's long, so maybe not a one-sitting watch.
Since the problems that are causing obesity all cropped up in the last 20 years and we know what they are, perhaps we should just get everyone to reverse those trends... and stop looking for a pill to 'damp down the overeating'.
It really just destroys me that people keep looking for a miracle pill to make them stop overeating when they can do that themselves.0 -
The amount of things outside their narrow purview doctors can be fairly ignorant of is sometimes shocking, given the things we put in their hands. I've generally avoided one of the doctors at the practice in my area because the last time I saw him, he recommended "try eating less processed food to reduce inflammation" as something to try for depression. The most I got out of that visit was a double down on my desire to restart losing weight because the better my health the less I'd need to see him, and I could have evidence that his advice on nutrition and depression are bad.Gianfranco_R wrote: »
No, and even the above as joke, doesn't exempt him from having a poor knowledge of what he's criticizing:Gianfranco_R wrote: »
He's an endocrinologist. That doesn't mean he has any expertise on evolution. I've known doctors that happily don't believe in evolution period.No, sorry, I must have explained poorly, he was saying because sugar was not always available and it was valuable calories for leaner times, perhaps we are prone to overeat it.
Are food and cocaine the same? No. Food and opiates? No. But it is interesting that a drug used to treat opiate abuse reduces overeating. Unfortunately from what I've read they have to couple it with an antidepressant because it damps down all activities that cause the pleasure reward center in the brain.
And that is where the similarity is: The pleasure center in the brain may not be identically affected by different substances, but it is affected. And yes, behaviors, both survival promoting and otherwise, also affect the pleasure centers in the brain. Therefore, there is a chemical component to overeating. And the foods most likely to trigger the brain in this way and also have a detrimental affect on the most people? Not produce and meat. Not in the USA, anyway. It's generally the foods in the snack aisle. The cheap and very heavily subsidized foods.
Fruit not available? Our ancestors were frugivores. That we acquired sugar addiction in the last 500K to maybe 1.5M or so years after probably about 10 million years with it as a staple is ... well odd evolutionary arguments.
You can also give people the the stress hormone cortisol to stop inflammation. I don't consider muscle aches to be related to be too relaxed and unstressed though.
Depends on when you're referring to as far as your ancestors' access to fruits. When and where.
Here is the Lustig talk I referred to, because I don't remember where the primates he referred to specifically live. And well, he has way more degrees than I do, and in a relevant field!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh4JBXaKnmA
To be honest, I'm rather disappointed in Lustig when I hear him try to discuss science, particularly if it begins to move outside of his range. I've seen him write an essay that referred to "Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics", which he acknowledged are true but then went into his spew about a calorie isn't a calorie. I tend to like someone discussing thermodynamics to be knowledgeable that Newton had laws of motion, and was pretty thoroughly done being part of the thermodynamic world (past rotten in the ground) by the time people started formulating the laws of thermodynamics and studying it as a field.
I just googled to see if it is true.
It seems that in Fat Chance (so, not a scientific paper, but a book addressed to the public) he wrote:
“If you don’t like it, file a grievance with Sir Isaac Newton”
I would like to inform you that's a joke, it is supposed to be funny, not accurate.
http://pituitary.org/medical-resources/pavilions/pediatric-health/pediatric-health-archive/hypothalamic-obesityObesity has rapidly become the largest (both figuratively and literally) public health problem, both in the U.S. and in numerous Westernized countries. The causes of this epidemic are myriad, but they still must obey Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In human terms,
The man literally is fairly ignorant of thermodynamics, but he's out there criticizing the Atwater method and calorie counting. If I had a child with an edocrine disease, I'd be pleased if he was the physician overseeing treatment. If he tried to my child a single thing on physics, I'd tell my child to listen respectfully, smile, nod his head, and forget all of it and come talk to me about physics afterwards so that he can get the right information.
And the above is in an essay. He had the chance to review what he's doing, this isn't like someone who got him in an ah hah gotcha mistake at lecture. He is that unaware of his own ignorance to not even check that Newton did not write a single law of thermodynamics. That the laws of thermodynamics aren't even a set created by one person like the Newton's laws of motion.
If he wants to make jokes like that I'd rather he Carnot.
LOL, fair enough, point scored
anyway, when I was searching that quotation, I also came across this, from the lemurcat's favorite author:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/obesity-epidemic_b_2697961.html
"Leaving aside Newton and laws of thermodynamics, ..."
so I think we have simply to acknowledge the doctors in general are not familiar with other disciplines' history.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
+1
0 -
Still never had a clear explanation of who I mocked with this post.tennisdude2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »Love this post ! It should be a sticky !
Geez, I sure hope MFP wouldn't make such a mocking post a sticky.
+10 -
The amount of things outside their narrow purview doctors can be fairly ignorant of is sometimes shocking, given the things we put in their hands. I've generally avoided one of the doctors at the practice in my area because the last time I saw him, he recommended "try eating less processed food to reduce inflammation" as something to try for depression. The most I got out of that visit was a double down on my desire to restart losing weight because the better my health the less I'd need to see him, and I could have evidence that his advice on nutrition and depression are bad.Gianfranco_R wrote: »
No, and even the above as joke, doesn't exempt him from having a poor knowledge of what he's criticizing:Gianfranco_R wrote: »
He's an endocrinologist. That doesn't mean he has any expertise on evolution. I've known doctors that happily don't believe in evolution period.No, sorry, I must have explained poorly, he was saying because sugar was not always available and it was valuable calories for leaner times, perhaps we are prone to overeat it.
Are food and cocaine the same? No. Food and opiates? No. But it is interesting that a drug used to treat opiate abuse reduces overeating. Unfortunately from what I've read they have to couple it with an antidepressant because it damps down all activities that cause the pleasure reward center in the brain.
And that is where the similarity is: The pleasure center in the brain may not be identically affected by different substances, but it is affected. And yes, behaviors, both survival promoting and otherwise, also affect the pleasure centers in the brain. Therefore, there is a chemical component to overeating. And the foods most likely to trigger the brain in this way and also have a detrimental affect on the most people? Not produce and meat. Not in the USA, anyway. It's generally the foods in the snack aisle. The cheap and very heavily subsidized foods.
Fruit not available? Our ancestors were frugivores. That we acquired sugar addiction in the last 500K to maybe 1.5M or so years after probably about 10 million years with it as a staple is ... well odd evolutionary arguments.
You can also give people the the stress hormone cortisol to stop inflammation. I don't consider muscle aches to be related to be too relaxed and unstressed though.
Depends on when you're referring to as far as your ancestors' access to fruits. When and where.
Here is the Lustig talk I referred to, because I don't remember where the primates he referred to specifically live. And well, he has way more degrees than I do, and in a relevant field!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh4JBXaKnmA
To be honest, I'm rather disappointed in Lustig when I hear him try to discuss science, particularly if it begins to move outside of his range. I've seen him write an essay that referred to "Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics", which he acknowledged are true but then went into his spew about a calorie isn't a calorie. I tend to like someone discussing thermodynamics to be knowledgeable that Newton had laws of motion, and was pretty thoroughly done being part of the thermodynamic world (past rotten in the ground) by the time people started formulating the laws of thermodynamics and studying it as a field.
I just googled to see if it is true.
It seems that in Fat Chance (so, not a scientific paper, but a book addressed to the public) he wrote:
“If you don’t like it, file a grievance with Sir Isaac Newton”
I would like to inform you that's a joke, it is supposed to be funny, not accurate.
http://pituitary.org/medical-resources/pavilions/pediatric-health/pediatric-health-archive/hypothalamic-obesityObesity has rapidly become the largest (both figuratively and literally) public health problem, both in the U.S. and in numerous Westernized countries. The causes of this epidemic are myriad, but they still must obey Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In human terms,
The man literally is fairly ignorant of thermodynamics, but he's out there criticizing the Atwater method and calorie counting. If I had a child with an edocrine disease, I'd be pleased if he was the physician overseeing treatment. If he tried to my child a single thing on physics, I'd tell my child to listen respectfully, smile, nod his head, and forget all of it and come talk to me about physics afterwards so that he can get the right information.
And the above is in an essay. He had the chance to review what he's doing, this isn't like someone who got him in an ah hah gotcha mistake at lecture. He is that unaware of his own ignorance to not even check that Newton did not write a single law of thermodynamics. That the laws of thermodynamics aren't even a set created by one person like the Newton's laws of motion.
If he wants to make jokes like that I'd rather he Carnot.
LOL, fair enough, point scored
anyway, when I was searching that quotation, I also came across this, from the lemurcat's favorite author:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/obesity-epidemic_b_2697961.html
"Leaving aside Newton and laws of thermodynamics, ..."
so I think we have simply to acknowledge the doctors in general are not familiar with other disciplines' history.
Your doctor seems to be up to date with the medical literature:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26317148
0 -
No. Using the term inflammation in a generic sense as a result of processed food is balony. Inflammation is a generic term and it is irresponsible, in my opinion, for a medical professional to use it that way with a patient. Like technically, inflammation is responsible for hypertrophy. Does that mean I should load up on processed food to get sick gainz? Any of the hypothesis of depression as inflammation are far to preliminary to use as a basis for treatment.Gianfranco_R wrote: »
The amount of things outside their narrow purview doctors can be fairly ignorant of is sometimes shocking, given the things we put in their hands. I've generally avoided one of the doctors at the practice in my area because the last time I saw him, he recommended "try eating less processed food to reduce inflammation" as something to try for depression. The most I got out of that visit was a double down on my desire to restart losing weight because the better my health the less I'd need to see him, and I could have evidence that his advice on nutrition and depression are bad.Gianfranco_R wrote: »
No, and even the above as joke, doesn't exempt him from having a poor knowledge of what he's criticizing:Gianfranco_R wrote: »
He's an endocrinologist. That doesn't mean he has any expertise on evolution. I've known doctors that happily don't believe in evolution period.No, sorry, I must have explained poorly, he was saying because sugar was not always available and it was valuable calories for leaner times, perhaps we are prone to overeat it.
Are food and cocaine the same? No. Food and opiates? No. But it is interesting that a drug used to treat opiate abuse reduces overeating. Unfortunately from what I've read they have to couple it with an antidepressant because it damps down all activities that cause the pleasure reward center in the brain.
And that is where the similarity is: The pleasure center in the brain may not be identically affected by different substances, but it is affected. And yes, behaviors, both survival promoting and otherwise, also affect the pleasure centers in the brain. Therefore, there is a chemical component to overeating. And the foods most likely to trigger the brain in this way and also have a detrimental affect on the most people? Not produce and meat. Not in the USA, anyway. It's generally the foods in the snack aisle. The cheap and very heavily subsidized foods.
Fruit not available? Our ancestors were frugivores. That we acquired sugar addiction in the last 500K to maybe 1.5M or so years after probably about 10 million years with it as a staple is ... well odd evolutionary arguments.
You can also give people the the stress hormone cortisol to stop inflammation. I don't consider muscle aches to be related to be too relaxed and unstressed though.
Depends on when you're referring to as far as your ancestors' access to fruits. When and where.
Here is the Lustig talk I referred to, because I don't remember where the primates he referred to specifically live. And well, he has way more degrees than I do, and in a relevant field!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh4JBXaKnmA
To be honest, I'm rather disappointed in Lustig when I hear him try to discuss science, particularly if it begins to move outside of his range. I've seen him write an essay that referred to "Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics", which he acknowledged are true but then went into his spew about a calorie isn't a calorie. I tend to like someone discussing thermodynamics to be knowledgeable that Newton had laws of motion, and was pretty thoroughly done being part of the thermodynamic world (past rotten in the ground) by the time people started formulating the laws of thermodynamics and studying it as a field.
I just googled to see if it is true.
It seems that in Fat Chance (so, not a scientific paper, but a book addressed to the public) he wrote:
“If you don’t like it, file a grievance with Sir Isaac Newton”
I would like to inform you that's a joke, it is supposed to be funny, not accurate.
http://pituitary.org/medical-resources/pavilions/pediatric-health/pediatric-health-archive/hypothalamic-obesityObesity has rapidly become the largest (both figuratively and literally) public health problem, both in the U.S. and in numerous Westernized countries. The causes of this epidemic are myriad, but they still must obey Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In human terms,
The man literally is fairly ignorant of thermodynamics, but he's out there criticizing the Atwater method and calorie counting. If I had a child with an edocrine disease, I'd be pleased if he was the physician overseeing treatment. If he tried to my child a single thing on physics, I'd tell my child to listen respectfully, smile, nod his head, and forget all of it and come talk to me about physics afterwards so that he can get the right information.
And the above is in an essay. He had the chance to review what he's doing, this isn't like someone who got him in an ah hah gotcha mistake at lecture. He is that unaware of his own ignorance to not even check that Newton did not write a single law of thermodynamics. That the laws of thermodynamics aren't even a set created by one person like the Newton's laws of motion.
If he wants to make jokes like that I'd rather he Carnot.
LOL, fair enough, point scored
anyway, when I was searching that quotation, I also came across this, from the lemurcat's favorite author:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/obesity-epidemic_b_2697961.html
"Leaving aside Newton and laws of thermodynamics, ..."
so I think we have simply to acknowledge the doctors in general are not familiar with other disciplines' history.
Your doctor seems to be up to date with the medical literature:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26317148
Their rational against eating "fast-food, commercial bakery goods, and sweets" is that it is a predictor of depression in studies in your link. That's correlative fallacy. Do depressed people eat more processed foods? I wouldn't doubt it, but I'd bet money on the pattern being depressed people give up on cooking, not people give up on cooking and then become depressed.0 -
No, sorry, I must have explained poorly, he was saying because sugar was not always available and it was valuable calories for leaner times, perhaps we are prone to overeat it.
Are food and cocaine the same? No. Food and opiates? No. But it is interesting that a drug used to treat opiate abuse reduces overeating. Unfortunately from what I've read they have to couple it with an antidepressant because it damps down all activities that cause the pleasure reward center in the brain.
And that is where the similarity is: The pleasure center in the brain may not be identically affected by different substances, but it is affected. And yes, behaviors, both survival promoting and otherwise, also affect the pleasure centers in the brain. Therefore, there is a chemical component to overeating. And the foods most likely to trigger the brain in this way and also have a detrimental affect on the most people? Not produce and meat. Not in the USA, anyway. It's generally the foods in the snack aisle. The cheap and very heavily subsidized foods.
Fruit not available? Our ancestors were frugivores. That we acquired sugar addiction in the last 500K to maybe 1.5M or so years after probably about 10 million years with it as a staple is ... well odd evolutionary arguments.
You can also give people the the stress hormone cortisol to stop inflammation. I don't consider muscle aches to be related to be too relaxed and unstressed though.
Surely that is only true of 'some' of our ancestors - certainly those living nearer the equator.
I am not sure my ancestors in northern Europe where primarily frugivores.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »No, sorry, I must have explained poorly, he was saying because sugar was not always available and it was valuable calories for leaner times, perhaps we are prone to overeat it.
Are food and cocaine the same? No. Food and opiates? No. But it is interesting that a drug used to treat opiate abuse reduces overeating. Unfortunately from what I've read they have to couple it with an antidepressant because it damps down all activities that cause the pleasure reward center in the brain.
And that is where the similarity is: The pleasure center in the brain may not be identically affected by different substances, but it is affected. And yes, behaviors, both survival promoting and otherwise, also affect the pleasure centers in the brain. Therefore, there is a chemical component to overeating. And the foods most likely to trigger the brain in this way and also have a detrimental affect on the most people? Not produce and meat. Not in the USA, anyway. It's generally the foods in the snack aisle. The cheap and very heavily subsidized foods.
Fruit not available? Our ancestors were frugivores. That we acquired sugar addiction in the last 500K to maybe 1.5M or so years after probably about 10 million years with it as a staple is ... well odd evolutionary arguments.
You can also give people the the stress hormone cortisol to stop inflammation. I don't consider muscle aches to be related to be too relaxed and unstressed though.
Surely that is only true of 'some' of our ancestors - certainly those living nearer the equator.
I am not sure my ancestors in northern Europe where primarily frugivores.
Look at the timeline I stated. I don't mean our ancestors as in homo sapien, nor even Heidelberg. I mean we are essentially the third chimp, and the odd cousin given chimps and bonobos eat 90% fruit, with meat being a bit of a social status symbol for chimps. Up until our split from them, I'd imagine our diet was pretty similar, and even cooking and scavenging didn't up the meat diet dramatically at first.
By proper accounts, we probably added sedges (grains) to our diets long before we added meat. Yet we have people talking about our evolutionary as a romanticism as if we turned into carnivores for a time and long ago, but that grains are somehow an incredibly modern food that we haven't had time to adapt to.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions