"... Could Be Linked to Obesity..."
Replies
-
LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
We typically lived in an environment of scarcity, where it would have been advantageous to be able to overeat when food was available and to withstand periods of scarcity. It would not have been an advantage to eat only when under one's TDEE for the day.
Most of human history avoiding overweight was not a concern in the evolutionary sense (overeating wouldn't have prevented reproduction). We have mostly had scarcity plus cultural habits that precluded the kind of overeating that happens now. We have no experience with an environmental where food is always available and there are no checks on eating it. Why on earth would we have evolved to be naturally able to stop eating without thinking about it in the face of all that?
If I eat 3000 calories today, I will still end up feeling hungry tomorrow. I don't think the human body was made to eat a large amount of food then store it which would then make it easier to starve later. The normal thing your body is supposed to do is eat when you are hungry and you stop when you feel full or satisfied.
Your relationship with food and appetite isn't evolution.
Even during times of scarcity or during times humans hunted for their food, when these people ate mechanisms inside their bodies such as: feeling too full to keep eating or stomach starting to hurt prevented them from "stocking up on food" so that they can endure starvation better later. Of course the body has natural checks on when to stop eating. And natural checks in today's world can be affected by many different things.
0 -
Another issue is the speed of eating. I'll be in a restaurant & watch people wait 20 minutes, for a meal; that they'll consume in only 5 minutes. It takes approximately 20 minutes, for us to know; that we've eaten enough. This is why I allow my nephews, to play with their food because since it takes longer for them to eat it; they'll eat less of it as well.
Also I was in my single digits, in the 1980's & after the massive effort to raise money, by many popular singers for the starving in Africa; we were then guilt tripped into overeating because if you wasted food, it meant that you didn't appreciate that you weren't also; a starving child in Africa. This is why I also never force my nephews, to finish their food; if they don't decide to by themselves. It then becomes my responsibility, to put less on their plates; to avoid any waste.
Many habits die hard, whether they're positive or negative. The best way to study how someone consumed food, 50 years ago; is to consume food with them currently. My Grandmother only had food out, long enough for all of us during Thanksgiving/Christmas; to fill our plates once. There was no 2nd's or 3rd's, anything left; went right into the refrigerator. It didn't stay in the middle of the table, as if it were a buffet & the only thing that usually was left was some turkey/ham because she also didn't buy/prepare an abundance, it was enough but just enough. We talked between bites too, which consumed time; that otherwise would've been spent eating & thus eliminated the need, for 2nd's or 3rd's; before we were satisfied.0 -
Kimegatron wrote: »So I'm reading the new issue of Parents magazine... Not even 1/2 way in, I have read 3 articles already saying "such and such" is or could be linked to obesity...
Isn't what you feed yourself, or your children, as in quantity, the only thing linked to obesity, aside from medical issues??? What is going on?!
Drinking more than 12oz of caffeine a day COULD be linked to obesity
Giving antiobotics can cause tummy troubles and have been linked to obesity
What you talk about at the dinner table COULD/IS linked to obesity...
Haha, yep, Correlation is not Causation.
I made a note of similar headlines on Google News about a month ago.
These all "could cause obesity" according to various news outlets:
Salt
Super-sized supermarkets
Brain wiring
Market greed
Being an older sister
Having fewer children
Eating 'on the go'
A genetic "master switch"
Young adulthood TV time
Food addiction.
I guess "too many calories" is too hard to understand, or not the latest soundbite?0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
We typically lived in an environment of scarcity, where it would have been advantageous to be able to overeat when food was available and to withstand periods of scarcity. It would not have been an advantage to eat only when under one's TDEE for the day.
Most of human history avoiding overweight was not a concern in the evolutionary sense (overeating wouldn't have prevented reproduction). We have mostly had scarcity plus cultural habits that precluded the kind of overeating that happens now. We have no experience with an environmental where food is always available and there are no checks on eating it. Why on earth would we have evolved to be naturally able to stop eating without thinking about it in the face of all that?
If I eat 3000 calories today, I will still end up feeling hungry tomorrow. I don't think the human body was made to eat a large amount of food then store it which would then make it easier to starve later. The normal thing your body is supposed to do is eat when you are hungry and you stop when you feel full or satisfied.
Your relationship with food and appetite isn't evolution.
Even during times of scarcity or during times humans hunted for their food, when these people ate mechanisms inside their bodies such as: feeling too full to keep eating or stomach starting to hurt prevented them from "stocking up on food" so that they can endure starvation better later. Of course the body has natural checks on when to stop eating. And natural checks in today's world can be affected by many different things.
Look up how wolves eat sometime. Like humans, they're cursorial hunters (they chase down their prey until it is tired rather than be faster than their prey). When they finally take down a large kill, they gorge and grow very distended bellies towards the limits of what is physically possible. They also go into a food coma. It looks pretty Thanksgiving.
I'll reiterate satiety is primarily about keeping the risk / reward equation of looking for food in check, not about keeping a human from becoming fat. Avoiding becoming overweight is a rather new phenomena in the world.0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
We typically lived in an environment of scarcity, where it would have been advantageous to be able to overeat when food was available and to withstand periods of scarcity. It would not have been an advantage to eat only when under one's TDEE for the day.
Most of human history avoiding overweight was not a concern in the evolutionary sense (overeating wouldn't have prevented reproduction). We have mostly had scarcity plus cultural habits that precluded the kind of overeating that happens now. We have no experience with an environmental where food is always available and there are no checks on eating it. Why on earth would we have evolved to be naturally able to stop eating without thinking about it in the face of all that?
If I eat 3000 calories today, I will still end up feeling hungry tomorrow. I don't think the human body was made to eat a large amount of food then store it which would then make it easier to starve later. The normal thing your body is supposed to do is eat when you are hungry and you stop when you feel full or satisfied.
Your relationship with food and appetite isn't evolution.
Even during times of scarcity or during times humans hunted for their food, when these people ate mechanisms inside their bodies such as: feeling too full to keep eating or stomach starting to hurt prevented them from "stocking up on food" so that they can endure starvation better later. Of course the body has natural checks on when to stop eating. And natural checks in today's world can be affected by many different things.
Look up how wolves eat sometime. Like humans, they're cursorial hunters (they chase down their prey until it is tired rather than be faster than their prey). When they finally take down a large kill, they gorge and grow very distended bellies towards the limits of what is physically possible. They also go into a food coma. It looks pretty Thanksgiving.
I'll reiterate satiety is primarily about keeping the risk / reward equation of looking for food in check, not about keeping a human from becoming fat. Avoiding becoming overweight is a rather new phenomena in the world.
Maybe you are right and overweight problems are a new phenomena but you have to admit too much weight can be the root to many health problems.. Otherwise you wouldnt be on MFP counting calories
Also 2 people can be overweight and the same weight but not have the same health problems, so there has to be other factors here besides JUST calories. So I am just glad there is research being done to help these health problems. I think there are so many health problems without exact answers as to why it happens so to me all research is good research and a step in the right direction.
i honestly dont know details about how humans eating habits evolved or the similarities between wolves and human eating habits. And you seem to know a lot about it so I will trust you and leave it at that you probably are right.0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
We typically lived in an environment of scarcity, where it would have been advantageous to be able to overeat when food was available and to withstand periods of scarcity. It would not have been an advantage to eat only when under one's TDEE for the day.
Most of human history avoiding overweight was not a concern in the evolutionary sense (overeating wouldn't have prevented reproduction). We have mostly had scarcity plus cultural habits that precluded the kind of overeating that happens now. We have no experience with an environmental where food is always available and there are no checks on eating it. Why on earth would we have evolved to be naturally able to stop eating without thinking about it in the face of all that?
If I eat 3000 calories today, I will still end up feeling hungry tomorrow. I don't think the human body was made to eat a large amount of food then store it which would then make it easier to starve later. The normal thing your body is supposed to do is eat when you are hungry and you stop when you feel full or satisfied.
Your relationship with food and appetite isn't evolution.
Even during times of scarcity or during times humans hunted for their food, when these people ate mechanisms inside their bodies such as: feeling too full to keep eating or stomach starting to hurt prevented them from "stocking up on food" so that they can endure starvation better later. Of course the body has natural checks on when to stop eating. And natural checks in today's world can be affected by many different things.
No, we commonly experienced fasting and feasting periods.
Overweight people in food-rich societies like ours typically don't overeat because they are really hungry, IMO--they objectively should not be. They eat because humans want to eat when food is around (normal given what's evolutionarily beneficial or at least not harmful). People who claim to be starving despite being objectively overfed -- as in your example -- are dealing with mental issues, not physical hunger.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
We typically lived in an environment of scarcity, where it would have been advantageous to be able to overeat when food was available and to withstand periods of scarcity. It would not have been an advantage to eat only when under one's TDEE for the day.
Most of human history avoiding overweight was not a concern in the evolutionary sense (overeating wouldn't have prevented reproduction). We have mostly had scarcity plus cultural habits that precluded the kind of overeating that happens now. We have no experience with an environmental where food is always available and there are no checks on eating it. Why on earth would we have evolved to be naturally able to stop eating without thinking about it in the face of all that?
If I eat 3000 calories today, I will still end up feeling hungry tomorrow. I don't think the human body was made to eat a large amount of food then store it which would then make it easier to starve later. The normal thing your body is supposed to do is eat when you are hungry and you stop when you feel full or satisfied.
Your relationship with food and appetite isn't evolution.
Even during times of scarcity or during times humans hunted for their food, when these people ate mechanisms inside their bodies such as: feeling too full to keep eating or stomach starting to hurt prevented them from "stocking up on food" so that they can endure starvation better later. Of course the body has natural checks on when to stop eating. And natural checks in today's world can be affected by many different things.
No, we commonly experienced fasting and feasting periods.
Overweight people in food-rich societies like ours typically don't overeat because they are really hungry, IMO--they objectively should not be. They eat because humans want to eat when food is around (normal given what's evolutionarily beneficial or at least not harmful). People who claim to be starving despite being objectively overfed -- as in your example -- are dealing with mental issues, not physical hunger.
Mental issues? Really? My example was that when the gherlin hormone is affected you dont feel full as quick as usual and instead the feeling of satiety becomes delayed causing you to eat more than usual until you feel full. These are not mental issues these are disruptions to a body's normal mechanisms, metabolism, processes, whatever you want to call it. Basically you just called all obese or overweight people mental. Not everyone overeats because they have a mental issue.
Also people that are overweight and eat more than they should often do so because they feel hungry. Yes sometimes it is for the enjoyment of food but some of them are also actually feeling hungry.0 -
A person with disrupted levels of gherlin.. Unless they are counting calories like we are, will have no idea if theyve eaten enough or not. Which is not exactly normal, its not natural to count calories, although there is nothing wrong with it but its just not a natural process.0
-
LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
We typically lived in an environment of scarcity, where it would have been advantageous to be able to overeat when food was available and to withstand periods of scarcity. It would not have been an advantage to eat only when under one's TDEE for the day.
Most of human history avoiding overweight was not a concern in the evolutionary sense (overeating wouldn't have prevented reproduction). We have mostly had scarcity plus cultural habits that precluded the kind of overeating that happens now. We have no experience with an environmental where food is always available and there are no checks on eating it. Why on earth would we have evolved to be naturally able to stop eating without thinking about it in the face of all that?
If I eat 3000 calories today, I will still end up feeling hungry tomorrow. I don't think the human body was made to eat a large amount of food then store it which would then make it easier to starve later. The normal thing your body is supposed to do is eat when you are hungry and you stop when you feel full or satisfied.
Your relationship with food and appetite isn't evolution.
Even during times of scarcity or during times humans hunted for their food, when these people ate mechanisms inside their bodies such as: feeling too full to keep eating or stomach starting to hurt prevented them from "stocking up on food" so that they can endure starvation better later. Of course the body has natural checks on when to stop eating. And natural checks in today's world can be affected by many different things.
No, we commonly experienced fasting and feasting periods.
Overweight people in food-rich societies like ours typically don't overeat because they are really hungry, IMO--they objectively should not be. They eat because humans want to eat when food is around (normal given what's evolutionarily beneficial or at least not harmful). People who claim to be starving despite being objectively overfed -- as in your example -- are dealing with mental issues, not physical hunger.
Mental issues? Really? My example was that when the gherlin hormone is affected you dont feel full as quick as usual and instead the feeling of satiety becomes delayed causing you to eat more than usual until you feel full. These are not mental issues these are disruptions to a body's normal mechanisms, metabolism, processes, whatever you want to call it. Basically you just called all obese or overweight people mental. Not everyone overeats because they have a mental issue.
Also people that are overweight and eat more than they should often do so because they feel hungry. Yes sometimes it is for the enjoyment of food but some of them are also actually feeling hungry.
Agreed. Will I and have I eaten out of boredom or stress? Sure. But there are some foods that make me hungry. And so far there are some foods I like that are healthy that I'm just not going to overeat on no matter how stressed or bored I am.
Funny how those foods tend to all be in the meat and produce aisle.0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
We typically lived in an environment of scarcity, where it would have been advantageous to be able to overeat when food was available and to withstand periods of scarcity. It would not have been an advantage to eat only when under one's TDEE for the day.
Most of human history avoiding overweight was not a concern in the evolutionary sense (overeating wouldn't have prevented reproduction). We have mostly had scarcity plus cultural habits that precluded the kind of overeating that happens now. We have no experience with an environmental where food is always available and there are no checks on eating it. Why on earth would we have evolved to be naturally able to stop eating without thinking about it in the face of all that?
If I eat 3000 calories today, I will still end up feeling hungry tomorrow. I don't think the human body was made to eat a large amount of food then store it which would then make it easier to starve later. The normal thing your body is supposed to do is eat when you are hungry and you stop when you feel full or satisfied.
Your relationship with food and appetite isn't evolution.
Even during times of scarcity or during times humans hunted for their food, when these people ate mechanisms inside their bodies such as: feeling too full to keep eating or stomach starting to hurt prevented them from "stocking up on food" so that they can endure starvation better later. Of course the body has natural checks on when to stop eating. And natural checks in today's world can be affected by many different things.
No, we commonly experienced fasting and feasting periods.
Overweight people in food-rich societies like ours typically don't overeat because they are really hungry, IMO--they objectively should not be. They eat because humans want to eat when food is around (normal given what's evolutionarily beneficial or at least not harmful). People who claim to be starving despite being objectively overfed -- as in your example -- are dealing with mental issues, not physical hunger.
Mental issues? Really? My example was that when the gherlin hormone is affected you dont feel full as quick as usual and instead the feeling of satiety becomes delayed causing you to eat more than usual until you feel full. These are not mental issues these are disruptions to a body's normal mechanisms, metabolism, processes, whatever you want to call it. Basically you just called all obese or overweight people mental. Not everyone overeats because they have a mental issue.
Also people that are overweight and eat more than they should often do so because they feel hungry. Yes sometimes it is for the enjoyment of food but some of them are also actually feeling hungry.
Agreed. Will I and have I eaten out of boredom or stress? Sure. But there are some foods that make me hungry. And so far there are some foods I like that are healthy that I'm just not going to overeat on no matter how stressed or bored I am.
Funny how those foods tend to all be in the meat and produce aisle.
Spot on.
0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »A person with disrupted levels of gherlin.. Unless they are counting calories like we are, will have no idea if theyve eaten enough or not. Which is not exactly normal, its not natural to count calories, although there is nothing wrong with it but its just not a natural process.
Avoiding becoming fat isn't a natural process.0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
We typically lived in an environment of scarcity, where it would have been advantageous to be able to overeat when food was available and to withstand periods of scarcity. It would not have been an advantage to eat only when under one's TDEE for the day.
Most of human history avoiding overweight was not a concern in the evolutionary sense (overeating wouldn't have prevented reproduction). We have mostly had scarcity plus cultural habits that precluded the kind of overeating that happens now. We have no experience with an environmental where food is always available and there are no checks on eating it. Why on earth would we have evolved to be naturally able to stop eating without thinking about it in the face of all that?
If I eat 3000 calories today, I will still end up feeling hungry tomorrow. I don't think the human body was made to eat a large amount of food then store it which would then make it easier to starve later. The normal thing your body is supposed to do is eat when you are hungry and you stop when you feel full or satisfied.
Your relationship with food and appetite isn't evolution.
Even during times of scarcity or during times humans hunted for their food, when these people ate mechanisms inside their bodies such as: feeling too full to keep eating or stomach starting to hurt prevented them from "stocking up on food" so that they can endure starvation better later. Of course the body has natural checks on when to stop eating. And natural checks in today's world can be affected by many different things.
Look up how wolves eat sometime. Like humans, they're cursorial hunters (they chase down their prey until it is tired rather than be faster than their prey). When they finally take down a large kill, they gorge and grow very distended bellies towards the limits of what is physically possible. They also go into a food coma. It looks pretty Thanksgiving.
I'll reiterate satiety is primarily about keeping the risk / reward equation of looking for food in check, not about keeping a human from becoming fat. Avoiding becoming overweight is a rather new phenomena in the world.
Maybe you are right and overweight problems are a new phenomena but you have to admit too much weight can be the root to many health problems.. Otherwise you wouldnt be on MFP counting calories Also 2 people can be overweight and the same weight but not have the same health problems, so there has to be other factors here besides JUST calories. So I am just glad there is research being done to help these health problems. I think there are so many health problems without exact answers as to why it happens so to me all research is good research and a step in the right direction.
i honestly dont know details about how humans eating habits evolved or the similarities between wolves and human eating habits. And you seem to know a lot about it so I will trust you and leave it at that you probably are right.
Most health issues from overweight happen past the age of reproductive success, so evolution really affect it.
And I could be here just for vanity reasons, not health. Maybe I want to one day think that song is about me.
Though in my case, yes, it would probably be akin to health. Doing it for vanity would be lipstick on a pig.0 -
Pardon if it's been said, I didn't read the whole thing!
As a scientist I can say there are big problems with the way science is reported in the media. There are a few writers who do it right but most seem as if they haven't taken a science class since 3rd grade.
There are also limitations in nutritional science that the rest of us don't always have. You can't really do heavy experimentation on people, it's all self reported, so what you want is a lot of studies pointing in one direction, not just a single study, that means nothing.
I suggest you read this article. It's a real eye opener to problems on both sides of the bench. http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-17072518000 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »
Well, the fact that for thousands of years, we were hunter-gatherers and then laboured in the fields and then laboured in the factories might have something to do with it. For most of human history, we were very active, and we didn't have enough food. So we became very efficient at using energy.
Evolution hasn't caught up to the 21st century internet age, where we do everything at the touch of a smartphone and sit on our butts at a desk for 8, 10, 15 hours a day, and where we have access to all the food we could possibly want. Our bodies weren't designed for that.
That's certainly true and doubtlessly plays some part, but there's likely more to it - the baby boomers had sedentary lifestyles and availability of lots of calories yet much lower obesity rates compared to today. Each generation of the past four is significantly more obese than the preceding generation, without that significant of lifestyle changes.
Not that significant of changes? Who told you that?
Baby boomers were engineered for war through the school systems. JFK made PE a priority as a way to make 18 year olds physically ready for military-grade endurance.
They didn't have devices like today. Their entertainment was all outdoors, hardly ever indoors.
Today, PE is put on the backburner because we are too burdened with paying for everyone else's convenience and comfort in society. Fitness and nutrition were always unimportant since the 70s/80s. Now that everyone has diseases (which a good majority are linked to obesity), everyone needs a pill for something, and most jobs are either sedentary, enveloped in highly accessible horribly overpriced food (people dont cook in this century), or both. I speak in generalities, but these are things baby boomers didn't have to deal with.
We are creating diseases that are highly linked to nutrition, and obesity is directly related to nutrition. For most of these people, they are preventable if some doctor doesn't give them a babdaid (a pill) and educates them on nutrition and tells them to move their *kitten*. Problem is...advice isnt profitable, and we live in a society that likes profit too much. Just check out the names of Bowl Games this year. Ridiculous.
If a person eats right for their physical output, he/she will never become overweight/obese, or have most these diseases that are linked to something.
I eat tons of fatty meats, tons of coffee, have had tons of fast food, and I am on the upper end of overweight...I don't have one disease, or take one gosh damn pill. My cholesterol levels are better than 90% of "healthy" people.
The difference is...I move my *kitten*. So long as you move, your body knows what to do. Its Darwinian. Like a person said before me here: our bodies haven't evolved to handle unlimited food source with less energy expenditure.
That's it.
Drugs are profitable while advice isn't. Do these 2 images help?
Isn't everything liked to obesity and cancer nowadays? Always through oddly biased studies. Where they reach so far they could teach yoga classes.
Apples linked to obesity. This study paid for by the citrus fruit coalition.
Well chiro is BS but otherwise spot on.0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »
Well, the fact that for thousands of years, we were hunter-gatherers and then laboured in the fields and then laboured in the factories might have something to do with it. For most of human history, we were very active, and we didn't have enough food. So we became very efficient at using energy.
Evolution hasn't caught up to the 21st century internet age, where we do everything at the touch of a smartphone and sit on our butts at a desk for 8, 10, 15 hours a day, and where we have access to all the food we could possibly want. Our bodies weren't designed for that.
That's certainly true and doubtlessly plays some part, but there's likely more to it - the baby boomers had sedentary lifestyles and availability of lots of calories yet much lower obesity rates compared to today. Each generation of the past four is significantly more obese than the preceding generation, without that significant of lifestyle changes.
Not that significant of changes? Who told you that?
Baby boomers were engineered for war through the school systems. JFK made PE a priority as a way to make 18 year olds physically ready for military-grade endurance.
They didn't have devices like today. Their entertainment was all outdoors, hardly ever indoors.
Today, PE is put on the backburner because we are too burdened with paying for everyone else's convenience and comfort in society. Fitness and nutrition were always unimportant since the 70s/80s. Now that everyone has diseases (which a good majority are linked to obesity), everyone needs a pill for something, and most jobs are either sedentary, enveloped in highly accessible horribly overpriced food (people dont cook in this century), or both. I speak in generalities, but these are things baby boomers didn't have to deal with.
We are creating diseases that are highly linked to nutrition, and obesity is directly related to nutrition. For most of these people, they are preventable if some doctor doesn't give them a babdaid (a pill) and educates them on nutrition and tells them to move their *kitten*. Problem is...advice isnt profitable, and we live in a society that likes profit too much. Just check out the names of Bowl Games this year. Ridiculous.
If a person eats right for their physical output, he/she will never become overweight/obese, or have most these diseases that are linked to something.
I eat tons of fatty meats, tons of coffee, have had tons of fast food, and I am on the upper end of overweight...I don't have one disease, or take one gosh damn pill. My cholesterol levels are better than 90% of "healthy" people.
The difference is...I move my *kitten*. So long as you move, your body knows what to do. Its Darwinian. Like a person said before me here: our bodies haven't evolved to handle unlimited food source with less energy expenditure.
That's it.
Drugs are profitable while advice isn't. Do these 2 images help?
Isn't everything liked to obesity and cancer nowadays? Always through oddly biased studies. Where they reach so far they could teach yoga classes.
Apples linked to obesity. This study paid for by the citrus fruit coalition.
Well chiro is BS but otherwise spot on.
I enjoy the irony of that part: "Big pharma doesn't create cures, it creates patients. My chiro who I visit every week told me so!"0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »
Well, the fact that for thousands of years, we were hunter-gatherers and then laboured in the fields and then laboured in the factories might have something to do with it. For most of human history, we were very active, and we didn't have enough food. So we became very efficient at using energy.
Evolution hasn't caught up to the 21st century internet age, where we do everything at the touch of a smartphone and sit on our butts at a desk for 8, 10, 15 hours a day, and where we have access to all the food we could possibly want. Our bodies weren't designed for that.
That's certainly true and doubtlessly plays some part, but there's likely more to it - the baby boomers had sedentary lifestyles and availability of lots of calories yet much lower obesity rates compared to today. Each generation of the past four is significantly more obese than the preceding generation, without that significant of lifestyle changes.
Not that significant of changes? Who told you that?
Baby boomers were engineered for war through the school systems. JFK made PE a priority as a way to make 18 year olds physically ready for military-grade endurance.
They didn't have devices like today. Their entertainment was all outdoors, hardly ever indoors.
Today, PE is put on the backburner because we are too burdened with paying for everyone else's convenience and comfort in society. Fitness and nutrition were always unimportant since the 70s/80s. Now that everyone has diseases (which a good majority are linked to obesity), everyone needs a pill for something, and most jobs are either sedentary, enveloped in highly accessible horribly overpriced food (people dont cook in this century), or both. I speak in generalities, but these are things baby boomers didn't have to deal with.
We are creating diseases that are highly linked to nutrition, and obesity is directly related to nutrition. For most of these people, they are preventable if some doctor doesn't give them a babdaid (a pill) and educates them on nutrition and tells them to move their *kitten*. Problem is...advice isnt profitable, and we live in a society that likes profit too much. Just check out the names of Bowl Games this year. Ridiculous.
If a person eats right for their physical output, he/she will never become overweight/obese, or have most these diseases that are linked to something.
I eat tons of fatty meats, tons of coffee, have had tons of fast food, and I am on the upper end of overweight...I don't have one disease, or take one gosh damn pill. My cholesterol levels are better than 90% of "healthy" people.
The difference is...I move my *kitten*. So long as you move, your body knows what to do. Its Darwinian. Like a person said before me here: our bodies haven't evolved to handle unlimited food source with less energy expenditure.
That's it.
Drugs are profitable while advice isn't. Do these 2 images help?
Isn't everything liked to obesity and cancer nowadays? Always through oddly biased studies. Where they reach so far they could teach yoga classes.
Apples linked to obesity. This study paid for by the citrus fruit coalition.
Well chiro is BS but otherwise spot on.
I enjoy the irony of that part: "Big pharma doesn't create cures, it creates patients. My chiro who I visit every week told me so!"
That's true because on average, it seems that every medication that treats 1 problem; causes 2 more problems. Unless it's absolutely necessary to survive/thrive, I avoid taking medication; as much as possible.0 -
WARNING ... science programme alert - fast forward if phobic to obesity scare links
So, well
here's the thing; I do trust the science in this programme and I do trust Prof.Wilkin:
Worth a listen even if you are not obese - interesting facts on the hormone IGF1 and immunity to disease.
Inside Health - Obesity and cancer – IGF1 in the blood - Prof. Wilkin+ Dr Macaulay at -7 minutes and 30 seconds
bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rl8nq
0 -
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »
Well, the fact that for thousands of years, we were hunter-gatherers and then laboured in the fields and then laboured in the factories might have something to do with it. For most of human history, we were very active, and we didn't have enough food. So we became very efficient at using energy.
Evolution hasn't caught up to the 21st century internet age, where we do everything at the touch of a smartphone and sit on our butts at a desk for 8, 10, 15 hours a day, and where we have access to all the food we could possibly want. Our bodies weren't designed for that.
That's certainly true and doubtlessly plays some part, but there's likely more to it - the baby boomers had sedentary lifestyles and availability of lots of calories yet much lower obesity rates compared to today. Each generation of the past four is significantly more obese than the preceding generation, without that significant of lifestyle changes.
Not that significant of changes? Who told you that?
Baby boomers were engineered for war through the school systems. JFK made PE a priority as a way to make 18 year olds physically ready for military-grade endurance.
They didn't have devices like today. Their entertainment was all outdoors, hardly ever indoors.
Today, PE is put on the backburner because we are too burdened with paying for everyone else's convenience and comfort in society. Fitness and nutrition were always unimportant since the 70s/80s. Now that everyone has diseases (which a good majority are linked to obesity), everyone needs a pill for something, and most jobs are either sedentary, enveloped in highly accessible horribly overpriced food (people dont cook in this century), or both. I speak in generalities, but these are things baby boomers didn't have to deal with.
We are creating diseases that are highly linked to nutrition, and obesity is directly related to nutrition. For most of these people, they are preventable if some doctor doesn't give them a babdaid (a pill) and educates them on nutrition and tells them to move their *kitten*. Problem is...advice isnt profitable, and we live in a society that likes profit too much. Just check out the names of Bowl Games this year. Ridiculous.
If a person eats right for their physical output, he/she will never become overweight/obese, or have most these diseases that are linked to something.
I eat tons of fatty meats, tons of coffee, have had tons of fast food, and I am on the upper end of overweight...I don't have one disease, or take one gosh damn pill. My cholesterol levels are better than 90% of "healthy" people.
The difference is...I move my *kitten*. So long as you move, your body knows what to do. Its Darwinian. Like a person said before me here: our bodies haven't evolved to handle unlimited food source with less energy expenditure.
That's it.
Drugs are profitable while advice isn't. Do these 2 images help?
Isn't everything liked to obesity and cancer nowadays? Always through oddly biased studies. Where they reach so far they could teach yoga classes.
Apples linked to obesity. This study paid for by the citrus fruit coalition.
Well chiro is BS but otherwise spot on.
I enjoy the irony of that part: "Big pharma doesn't create cures, it creates patients. My chiro who I visit every week told me so!"
That's true because on average, it seems that every medication that treats 1 problem; causes 2 more problems. Unless it's absolutely necessary to survive/thrive, I avoid taking medication; as much as possible.
I think you completely missed the part that chiro's, naturopaths, herbalist, etc call them holistic prevention and expect people to be repeat customers. Even saying diet and exercise are cures rather than treatment is hypocritical - stop exercising and watching what one eats and all the overweight and associated problems return.0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »
Well, the fact that for thousands of years, we were hunter-gatherers and then laboured in the fields and then laboured in the factories might have something to do with it. For most of human history, we were very active, and we didn't have enough food. So we became very efficient at using energy.
Evolution hasn't caught up to the 21st century internet age, where we do everything at the touch of a smartphone and sit on our butts at a desk for 8, 10, 15 hours a day, and where we have access to all the food we could possibly want. Our bodies weren't designed for that.
That's certainly true and doubtlessly plays some part, but there's likely more to it - the baby boomers had sedentary lifestyles and availability of lots of calories yet much lower obesity rates compared to today. Each generation of the past four is significantly more obese than the preceding generation, without that significant of lifestyle changes.
Not that significant of changes? Who told you that?
Baby boomers were engineered for war through the school systems. JFK made PE a priority as a way to make 18 year olds physically ready for military-grade endurance.
They didn't have devices like today. Their entertainment was all outdoors, hardly ever indoors.
Today, PE is put on the backburner because we are too burdened with paying for everyone else's convenience and comfort in society. Fitness and nutrition were always unimportant since the 70s/80s. Now that everyone has diseases (which a good majority are linked to obesity), everyone needs a pill for something, and most jobs are either sedentary, enveloped in highly accessible horribly overpriced food (people dont cook in this century), or both. I speak in generalities, but these are things baby boomers didn't have to deal with.
We are creating diseases that are highly linked to nutrition, and obesity is directly related to nutrition. For most of these people, they are preventable if some doctor doesn't give them a babdaid (a pill) and educates them on nutrition and tells them to move their *kitten*. Problem is...advice isnt profitable, and we live in a society that likes profit too much. Just check out the names of Bowl Games this year. Ridiculous.
If a person eats right for their physical output, he/she will never become overweight/obese, or have most these diseases that are linked to something.
I eat tons of fatty meats, tons of coffee, have had tons of fast food, and I am on the upper end of overweight...I don't have one disease, or take one gosh damn pill. My cholesterol levels are better than 90% of "healthy" people.
The difference is...I move my *kitten*. So long as you move, your body knows what to do. Its Darwinian. Like a person said before me here: our bodies haven't evolved to handle unlimited food source with less energy expenditure.
That's it.
Drugs are profitable while advice isn't. Do these 2 images help?
Isn't everything liked to obesity and cancer nowadays? Always through oddly biased studies. Where they reach so far they could teach yoga classes.
Apples linked to obesity. This study paid for by the citrus fruit coalition.
Well chiro is BS but otherwise spot on.
I enjoy the irony of that part: "Big pharma doesn't create cures, it creates patients. My chiro who I visit every week told me so!"
A chiro tried to tell my dad that he could cure his Chrons with back cracking.
Luckily my dad is a smart guy and found a new one that sticks to making his back feel better.0 -
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »
Well, the fact that for thousands of years, we were hunter-gatherers and then laboured in the fields and then laboured in the factories might have something to do with it. For most of human history, we were very active, and we didn't have enough food. So we became very efficient at using energy.
Evolution hasn't caught up to the 21st century internet age, where we do everything at the touch of a smartphone and sit on our butts at a desk for 8, 10, 15 hours a day, and where we have access to all the food we could possibly want. Our bodies weren't designed for that.
That's certainly true and doubtlessly plays some part, but there's likely more to it - the baby boomers had sedentary lifestyles and availability of lots of calories yet much lower obesity rates compared to today. Each generation of the past four is significantly more obese than the preceding generation, without that significant of lifestyle changes.
Not that significant of changes? Who told you that?
Baby boomers were engineered for war through the school systems. JFK made PE a priority as a way to make 18 year olds physically ready for military-grade endurance.
They didn't have devices like today. Their entertainment was all outdoors, hardly ever indoors.
Today, PE is put on the backburner because we are too burdened with paying for everyone else's convenience and comfort in society. Fitness and nutrition were always unimportant since the 70s/80s. Now that everyone has diseases (which a good majority are linked to obesity), everyone needs a pill for something, and most jobs are either sedentary, enveloped in highly accessible horribly overpriced food (people dont cook in this century), or both. I speak in generalities, but these are things baby boomers didn't have to deal with.
We are creating diseases that are highly linked to nutrition, and obesity is directly related to nutrition. For most of these people, they are preventable if some doctor doesn't give them a babdaid (a pill) and educates them on nutrition and tells them to move their *kitten*. Problem is...advice isnt profitable, and we live in a society that likes profit too much. Just check out the names of Bowl Games this year. Ridiculous.
If a person eats right for their physical output, he/she will never become overweight/obese, or have most these diseases that are linked to something.
I eat tons of fatty meats, tons of coffee, have had tons of fast food, and I am on the upper end of overweight...I don't have one disease, or take one gosh damn pill. My cholesterol levels are better than 90% of "healthy" people.
The difference is...I move my *kitten*. So long as you move, your body knows what to do. Its Darwinian. Like a person said before me here: our bodies haven't evolved to handle unlimited food source with less energy expenditure.
That's it.
Drugs are profitable while advice isn't. Do these 2 images help?
Isn't everything liked to obesity and cancer nowadays? Always through oddly biased studies. Where they reach so far they could teach yoga classes.
Apples linked to obesity. This study paid for by the citrus fruit coalition.
Well chiro is BS but otherwise spot on.
I enjoy the irony of that part: "Big pharma doesn't create cures, it creates patients. My chiro who I visit every week told me so!"
That's true because on average, it seems that every medication that treats 1 problem; causes 2 more problems. Unless it's absolutely necessary to survive/thrive, I avoid taking medication; as much as possible.
And that's pretty much how it should be. Doesn't make chiro (or many supplements for that matter) legit.
I work in a pharm company and rarely if ever take drugs, just not nec in my case0 -
LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
We typically lived in an environment of scarcity, where it would have been advantageous to be able to overeat when food was available and to withstand periods of scarcity. It would not have been an advantage to eat only when under one's TDEE for the day.
Most of human history avoiding overweight was not a concern in the evolutionary sense (overeating wouldn't have prevented reproduction). We have mostly had scarcity plus cultural habits that precluded the kind of overeating that happens now. We have no experience with an environmental where food is always available and there are no checks on eating it. Why on earth would we have evolved to be naturally able to stop eating without thinking about it in the face of all that?
If I eat 3000 calories today, I will still end up feeling hungry tomorrow. I don't think the human body was made to eat a large amount of food then store it which would then make it easier to starve later. The normal thing your body is supposed to do is eat when you are hungry and you stop when you feel full or satisfied.
Your relationship with food and appetite isn't evolution.
Even during times of scarcity or during times humans hunted for their food, when these people ate mechanisms inside their bodies such as: feeling too full to keep eating or stomach starting to hurt prevented them from "stocking up on food" so that they can endure starvation better later. Of course the body has natural checks on when to stop eating. And natural checks in today's world can be affected by many different things.
No, we commonly experienced fasting and feasting periods.
Overweight people in food-rich societies like ours typically don't overeat because they are really hungry, IMO--they objectively should not be. They eat because humans want to eat when food is around (normal given what's evolutionarily beneficial or at least not harmful). People who claim to be starving despite being objectively overfed -- as in your example -- are dealing with mental issues, not physical hunger.
Mental issues? Really? My example was that when the gherlin hormone is affected you dont feel full as quick as usual and instead the feeling of satiety becomes delayed causing you to eat more than usual until you feel full. These are not mental issues these are disruptions to a body's normal mechanisms, metabolism, processes, whatever you want to call it. Basically you just called all obese or overweight people mental. Not everyone overeats because they have a mental issue.
Also people that are overweight and eat more than they should often do so because they feel hungry. Yes sometimes it is for the enjoyment of food but some of them are also actually feeling hungry.
Mental issues in the sense that you feel like you want to eat or would enjoy eating. It's not real hunger like someone who is starving. In fact, for most I suspect that the desire to eat is a response to being around food and would not be experienced if they were in a situation where eating is not possible (if they were focused on working out where food is not available or the like) or even where they weren't in a habit of eating or expecting to eat. One difference between the '80s and today that I recall is that in the '80s people didn't think it was normal to be eating all the time.
And the proof of this is easy: if it's truly hunger that causes you to overeat and you don't want to gain weight, why not deal with hunger by eating low calorie vegetables when you experience it? (And that's of you think it's too burdensome to deal with hunger by waiting a few hours until dinner time and eating extra vegetables then if you need more food.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
We typically lived in an environment of scarcity, where it would have been advantageous to be able to overeat when food was available and to withstand periods of scarcity. It would not have been an advantage to eat only when under one's TDEE for the day.
Most of human history avoiding overweight was not a concern in the evolutionary sense (overeating wouldn't have prevented reproduction). We have mostly had scarcity plus cultural habits that precluded the kind of overeating that happens now. We have no experience with an environmental where food is always available and there are no checks on eating it. Why on earth would we have evolved to be naturally able to stop eating without thinking about it in the face of all that?
If I eat 3000 calories today, I will still end up feeling hungry tomorrow. I don't think the human body was made to eat a large amount of food then store it which would then make it easier to starve later. The normal thing your body is supposed to do is eat when you are hungry and you stop when you feel full or satisfied.
Your relationship with food and appetite isn't evolution.
Even during times of scarcity or during times humans hunted for their food, when these people ate mechanisms inside their bodies such as: feeling too full to keep eating or stomach starting to hurt prevented them from "stocking up on food" so that they can endure starvation better later. Of course the body has natural checks on when to stop eating. And natural checks in today's world can be affected by many different things.
No, we commonly experienced fasting and feasting periods.
Overweight people in food-rich societies like ours typically don't overeat because they are really hungry, IMO--they objectively should not be. They eat because humans want to eat when food is around (normal given what's evolutionarily beneficial or at least not harmful). People who claim to be starving despite being objectively overfed -- as in your example -- are dealing with mental issues, not physical hunger.
Mental issues? Really? My example was that when the gherlin hormone is affected you dont feel full as quick as usual and instead the feeling of satiety becomes delayed causing you to eat more than usual until you feel full. These are not mental issues these are disruptions to a body's normal mechanisms, metabolism, processes, whatever you want to call it. Basically you just called all obese or overweight people mental. Not everyone overeats because they have a mental issue.
Also people that are overweight and eat more than they should often do so because they feel hungry. Yes sometimes it is for the enjoyment of food but some of them are also actually feeling hungry.
Mental issues in the sense that you feel like you want to eat or would enjoy eating. It's not real hunger like someone who is starving. In fact, for most I suspect that the desire to eat is a response to being around food and would not be experienced if they were in a situation where eating is not possible (if they were focused on working out where food is not available or the like) or even where they weren't in a habit of eating or expecting to eat. One difference between the '80s and today that I recall is that in the '80s people didn't think it was normal to be eating all the time.
And the proof of this is easy: if it's truly hunger that causes you to overeat and you don't want to gain weight, why not deal with hunger by eating low calorie vegetables when you experience it? (And that's of you think it's too burdensome to deal with hunger by waiting a few hours until dinner time and eating extra vegetables then if you need more food.)
I saw an experiment on television once, in which they gave a woman at different times; a bowl of soup.
The 1st bowl was average & she didn't have 2nd's but was satisfied, with what she was given; to not still be hungry.
The 2nd bowl was connected to a tube beneath the table; in which they periodically; put more soup into her bowl.
She ate about 3 1/2 bowls worth of soup the 2nd time, which proved that people will continue to eat; if the food is there for them too.0 -
Or, at most, it proved that that one woman would.MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »Ashtoretet wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, obesity is about what you eat, but consider this - your body is supposed to be able to keep you at a reasonable weight without extra help. That is, the whole point of hunger and satiety is to keep you at a healthy body weight, and your body has mechanisms to regulate these.
The fact that so many of us need to resort to artificial methods like calorie counting just to not be obese anymore tells you something about that weight regulation system is broken. It's true that we can use technology to augment our lives and achieve the results we want, but it would be better if our bodies could do that on their own - if we could just use hunger and satiety to keep our weight in line.
I think research into why obesity is on such a huge rise is useful so not everyone needs to go through what we are to be healthy.
Just wanted to say this was very well-stated and refreshing to read.
I seemed to have missed this post. You are right, this is a really good point that didn't even occur to me. It isn't really "natural" to count calories, we should be able to regulate this naturally without gaining weight.
Why? As I wrote above, there's no evolutionary reason that we would have selected for that skill.
Yeah. I'd say satiety is more about balancing the energy expended looking for food and danger of searching. I don't see the evolutionary advantage of avoiding becoming overweight outside of those things.
Well or more specifically against consuming calories. I'd imagine regular access to a high calorie low work environment could lead to supporting more expensive tissue than fat.
really?
We typically lived in an environment of scarcity, where it would have been advantageous to be able to overeat when food was available and to withstand periods of scarcity. It would not have been an advantage to eat only when under one's TDEE for the day.
Most of human history avoiding overweight was not a concern in the evolutionary sense (overeating wouldn't have prevented reproduction). We have mostly had scarcity plus cultural habits that precluded the kind of overeating that happens now. We have no experience with an environmental where food is always available and there are no checks on eating it. Why on earth would we have evolved to be naturally able to stop eating without thinking about it in the face of all that?
If I eat 3000 calories today, I will still end up feeling hungry tomorrow. I don't think the human body was made to eat a large amount of food then store it which would then make it easier to starve later. The normal thing your body is supposed to do is eat when you are hungry and you stop when you feel full or satisfied.
Your relationship with food and appetite isn't evolution.
Even during times of scarcity or during times humans hunted for their food, when these people ate mechanisms inside their bodies such as: feeling too full to keep eating or stomach starting to hurt prevented them from "stocking up on food" so that they can endure starvation better later. Of course the body has natural checks on when to stop eating. And natural checks in today's world can be affected by many different things.
No, we commonly experienced fasting and feasting periods.
Overweight people in food-rich societies like ours typically don't overeat because they are really hungry, IMO--they objectively should not be. They eat because humans want to eat when food is around (normal given what's evolutionarily beneficial or at least not harmful). People who claim to be starving despite being objectively overfed -- as in your example -- are dealing with mental issues, not physical hunger.
Mental issues? Really? My example was that when the gherlin hormone is affected you dont feel full as quick as usual and instead the feeling of satiety becomes delayed causing you to eat more than usual until you feel full. These are not mental issues these are disruptions to a body's normal mechanisms, metabolism, processes, whatever you want to call it. Basically you just called all obese or overweight people mental. Not everyone overeats because they have a mental issue.
Also people that are overweight and eat more than they should often do so because they feel hungry. Yes sometimes it is for the enjoyment of food but some of them are also actually feeling hungry.
Mental issues in the sense that you feel like you want to eat or would enjoy eating. It's not real hunger like someone who is starving. In fact, for most I suspect that the desire to eat is a response to being around food and would not be experienced if they were in a situation where eating is not possible (if they were focused on working out where food is not available or the like) or even where they weren't in a habit of eating or expecting to eat. One difference between the '80s and today that I recall is that in the '80s people didn't think it was normal to be eating all the time.
And the proof of this is easy: if it's truly hunger that causes you to overeat and you don't want to gain weight, why not deal with hunger by eating low calorie vegetables when you experience it? (And that's of you think it's too burdensome to deal with hunger by waiting a few hours until dinner time and eating extra vegetables then if you need more food.)
I saw an experiment on television once, in which they gave a woman at different times; a bowl of soup.
The 1st bowl was average & she didn't have 2nd's but was satisfied, with what she was given; to not still be hungry.
The 2nd bowl was connected to a tube beneath the table; in which they periodically; put more soup into her bowl.
She ate about 3 1/2 bowls worth of soup the 2nd time, which proved that people will continue to eat; if the food is there for them too.
0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »
Well, the fact that for thousands of years, we were hunter-gatherers and then laboured in the fields and then laboured in the factories might have something to do with it. For most of human history, we were very active, and we didn't have enough food. So we became very efficient at using energy.
Evolution hasn't caught up to the 21st century internet age, where we do everything at the touch of a smartphone and sit on our butts at a desk for 8, 10, 15 hours a day, and where we have access to all the food we could possibly want. Our bodies weren't designed for that.
That's certainly true and doubtlessly plays some part, but there's likely more to it - the baby boomers had sedentary lifestyles and availability of lots of calories yet much lower obesity rates compared to today. Each generation of the past four is significantly more obese than the preceding generation, without that significant of lifestyle changes.
Not that significant of changes? Who told you that?
Baby boomers were engineered for war through the school systems. JFK made PE a priority as a way to make 18 year olds physically ready for military-grade endurance.
They didn't have devices like today. Their entertainment was all outdoors, hardly ever indoors.
Today, PE is put on the backburner because we are too burdened with paying for everyone else's convenience and comfort in society. Fitness and nutrition were always unimportant since the 70s/80s. Now that everyone has diseases (which a good majority are linked to obesity), everyone needs a pill for something, and most jobs are either sedentary, enveloped in highly accessible horribly overpriced food (people dont cook in this century), or both. I speak in generalities, but these are things baby boomers didn't have to deal with.
We are creating diseases that are highly linked to nutrition, and obesity is directly related to nutrition. For most of these people, they are preventable if some doctor doesn't give them a babdaid (a pill) and educates them on nutrition and tells them to move their *kitten*. Problem is...advice isnt profitable, and we live in a society that likes profit too much. Just check out the names of Bowl Games this year. Ridiculous.
If a person eats right for their physical output, he/she will never become overweight/obese, or have most these diseases that are linked to something.
I eat tons of fatty meats, tons of coffee, have had tons of fast food, and I am on the upper end of overweight...I don't have one disease, or take one gosh damn pill. My cholesterol levels are better than 90% of "healthy" people.
The difference is...I move my *kitten*. So long as you move, your body knows what to do. Its Darwinian. Like a person said before me here: our bodies haven't evolved to handle unlimited food source with less energy expenditure.
That's it.
Drugs are profitable while advice isn't. Do these 2 images help?
Isn't everything liked to obesity and cancer nowadays? Always through oddly biased studies. Where they reach so far they could teach yoga classes.
Apples linked to obesity. This study paid for by the citrus fruit coalition.
Well chiro is BS but otherwise spot on.
This is why we're friends. 0 -
Eating too much fiber & farting could lead to obesity.0
-
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »
Well, the fact that for thousands of years, we were hunter-gatherers and then laboured in the fields and then laboured in the factories might have something to do with it. For most of human history, we were very active, and we didn't have enough food. So we became very efficient at using energy.
Evolution hasn't caught up to the 21st century internet age, where we do everything at the touch of a smartphone and sit on our butts at a desk for 8, 10, 15 hours a day, and where we have access to all the food we could possibly want. Our bodies weren't designed for that.
That's certainly true and doubtlessly plays some part, but there's likely more to it - the baby boomers had sedentary lifestyles and availability of lots of calories yet much lower obesity rates compared to today. Each generation of the past four is significantly more obese than the preceding generation, without that significant of lifestyle changes.
Not that significant of changes? Who told you that?
Baby boomers were engineered for war through the school systems. JFK made PE a priority as a way to make 18 year olds physically ready for military-grade endurance.
They didn't have devices like today. Their entertainment was all outdoors, hardly ever indoors.
Today, PE is put on the backburner because we are too burdened with paying for everyone else's convenience and comfort in society. Fitness and nutrition were always unimportant since the 70s/80s. Now that everyone has diseases (which a good majority are linked to obesity), everyone needs a pill for something, and most jobs are either sedentary, enveloped in highly accessible horribly overpriced food (people dont cook in this century), or both. I speak in generalities, but these are things baby boomers didn't have to deal with.
We are creating diseases that are highly linked to nutrition, and obesity is directly related to nutrition. For most of these people, they are preventable if some doctor doesn't give them a babdaid (a pill) and educates them on nutrition and tells them to move their *kitten*. Problem is...advice isnt profitable, and we live in a society that likes profit too much. Just check out the names of Bowl Games this year. Ridiculous.
If a person eats right for their physical output, he/she will never become overweight/obese, or have most these diseases that are linked to something.
I eat tons of fatty meats, tons of coffee, have had tons of fast food, and I am on the upper end of overweight...I don't have one disease, or take one gosh damn pill. My cholesterol levels are better than 90% of "healthy" people.
The difference is...I move my *kitten*. So long as you move, your body knows what to do. Its Darwinian. Like a person said before me here: our bodies haven't evolved to handle unlimited food source with less energy expenditure.
That's it.
Drugs are profitable while advice isn't. Do these 2 images help?
Isn't everything liked to obesity and cancer nowadays? Always through oddly biased studies. Where they reach so far they could teach yoga classes.
Apples linked to obesity. This study paid for by the citrus fruit coalition.
Well chiro is BS but otherwise spot on.
I enjoy the irony of that part: "Big pharma doesn't create cures, it creates patients. My chiro who I visit every week told me so!"
A chiro tried to tell my dad that he could cure his Chrons with back cracking.
Luckily my dad is a smart guy and found a new one that sticks to making his back feel better.
Yup. My dad went to a chiropractor for back stuff, made him feel better. He did not routinely get "adjusted" for other things though.
I teach political science. Sometimes, I want to scream at textbooks, "CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION." This is likely from my psychology background, though.
When I was obese, I drank diet soda. Some people would like me to believe that the diet soda made me obese. Now that I'm no longer obese, I still drink diet soda. So...
0 -
Direct CAUSE to obesity........................eating more calories than you need to.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »
Well, the fact that for thousands of years, we were hunter-gatherers and then laboured in the fields and then laboured in the factories might have something to do with it. For most of human history, we were very active, and we didn't have enough food. So we became very efficient at using energy.
Evolution hasn't caught up to the 21st century internet age, where we do everything at the touch of a smartphone and sit on our butts at a desk for 8, 10, 15 hours a day, and where we have access to all the food we could possibly want. Our bodies weren't designed for that.
That's certainly true and doubtlessly plays some part, but there's likely more to it - the baby boomers had sedentary lifestyles and availability of lots of calories yet much lower obesity rates compared to today. Each generation of the past four is significantly more obese than the preceding generation, without that significant of lifestyle changes.
Not that significant of changes? Who told you that?
Baby boomers were engineered for war through the school systems. JFK made PE a priority as a way to make 18 year olds physically ready for military-grade endurance.
They didn't have devices like today. Their entertainment was all outdoors, hardly ever indoors.
Today, PE is put on the backburner because we are too burdened with paying for everyone else's convenience and comfort in society. Fitness and nutrition were always unimportant since the 70s/80s. Now that everyone has diseases (which a good majority are linked to obesity), everyone needs a pill for something, and most jobs are either sedentary, enveloped in highly accessible horribly overpriced food (people dont cook in this century), or both. I speak in generalities, but these are things baby boomers didn't have to deal with.
We are creating diseases that are highly linked to nutrition, and obesity is directly related to nutrition. For most of these people, they are preventable if some doctor doesn't give them a babdaid (a pill) and educates them on nutrition and tells them to move their *kitten*. Problem is...advice isnt profitable, and we live in a society that likes profit too much. Just check out the names of Bowl Games this year. Ridiculous.
If a person eats right for their physical output, he/she will never become overweight/obese, or have most these diseases that are linked to something.
I eat tons of fatty meats, tons of coffee, have had tons of fast food, and I am on the upper end of overweight...I don't have one disease, or take one gosh damn pill. My cholesterol levels are better than 90% of "healthy" people.
The difference is...I move my *kitten*. So long as you move, your body knows what to do. Its Darwinian. Like a person said before me here: our bodies haven't evolved to handle unlimited food source with less energy expenditure.
That's it.
Drugs are profitable while advice isn't. Do these 2 images help?
Isn't everything liked to obesity and cancer nowadays? Always through oddly biased studies. Where they reach so far they could teach yoga classes.
Apples linked to obesity. This study paid for by the citrus fruit coalition.
Well chiro is BS but otherwise spot on.
I enjoy the irony of that part: "Big pharma doesn't create cures, it creates patients. My chiro who I visit every week told me so!"
A chiro tried to tell my dad that he could cure his Chrons with back cracking.
Luckily my dad is a smart guy and found a new one that sticks to making his back feel better.
Yup. My dad went to a chiropractor for back stuff, made him feel better. He did not routinely get "adjusted" for other things though.
I teach political science. Sometimes, I want to scream at textbooks, "CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION." This is likely from my psychology background, though.
When I was obese, I drank diet soda. Some people would like me to believe that the diet soda made me obese. Now that I'm no longer obese, I still drink diet soda. So...
What you need is the Pirates vs. Global Temperature graph. No really, it exists.
We need more pirates.0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »
Well, the fact that for thousands of years, we were hunter-gatherers and then laboured in the fields and then laboured in the factories might have something to do with it. For most of human history, we were very active, and we didn't have enough food. So we became very efficient at using energy.
Evolution hasn't caught up to the 21st century internet age, where we do everything at the touch of a smartphone and sit on our butts at a desk for 8, 10, 15 hours a day, and where we have access to all the food we could possibly want. Our bodies weren't designed for that.
That's certainly true and doubtlessly plays some part, but there's likely more to it - the baby boomers had sedentary lifestyles and availability of lots of calories yet much lower obesity rates compared to today. Each generation of the past four is significantly more obese than the preceding generation, without that significant of lifestyle changes.
Not that significant of changes? Who told you that?
Baby boomers were engineered for war through the school systems. JFK made PE a priority as a way to make 18 year olds physically ready for military-grade endurance.
They didn't have devices like today. Their entertainment was all outdoors, hardly ever indoors.
Today, PE is put on the backburner because we are too burdened with paying for everyone else's convenience and comfort in society. Fitness and nutrition were always unimportant since the 70s/80s. Now that everyone has diseases (which a good majority are linked to obesity), everyone needs a pill for something, and most jobs are either sedentary, enveloped in highly accessible horribly overpriced food (people dont cook in this century), or both. I speak in generalities, but these are things baby boomers didn't have to deal with.
We are creating diseases that are highly linked to nutrition, and obesity is directly related to nutrition. For most of these people, they are preventable if some doctor doesn't give them a babdaid (a pill) and educates them on nutrition and tells them to move their *kitten*. Problem is...advice isnt profitable, and we live in a society that likes profit too much. Just check out the names of Bowl Games this year. Ridiculous.
If a person eats right for their physical output, he/she will never become overweight/obese, or have most these diseases that are linked to something.
I eat tons of fatty meats, tons of coffee, have had tons of fast food, and I am on the upper end of overweight...I don't have one disease, or take one gosh damn pill. My cholesterol levels are better than 90% of "healthy" people.
The difference is...I move my *kitten*. So long as you move, your body knows what to do. Its Darwinian. Like a person said before me here: our bodies haven't evolved to handle unlimited food source with less energy expenditure.
That's it.
Drugs are profitable while advice isn't. Do these 2 images help?
Isn't everything liked to obesity and cancer nowadays? Always through oddly biased studies. Where they reach so far they could teach yoga classes.
Apples linked to obesity. This study paid for by the citrus fruit coalition.
Well chiro is BS but otherwise spot on.
This is why we're friends.
Ha! Yeah!0 -
I'll leave the pirates graph for another poster, and instead post my favourite:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions