Real Reasons for Obesity

13567

Replies

  • besaro
    besaro Posts: 1,858 Member
    i couldn't get past bingeing. it kept nagging me as i read further. is it really spelled with an e? that caused me to stop reading and google the answer. I'm no better off now. i feel it should be spelled without the e, but i guess both are acceptable. GAH! GRAMMAR!
  • TheBeachgod
    TheBeachgod Posts: 825 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    I thought this was an interesting response to his new book (there will be lots of articles as he is media savvy and hawking his wares)

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/always-hungry-its-probably-not-your.html

    #2 on his list - - Hunger is only one of the reasons we eat. We don't generally eat dessert because we're still hungry at the end of a meal. We don't drink alcohol or put cream and sugar in our coffee because we're hungry. Much of the eating we do in the affluent world has little to do with hunger-- a phenomenon researchers call "non-homeostatic eating".

    I think this is the big one for many people. I think hunger is the least of our problems. If we only ate when were hungry there would be very few of us overweight.

    This is what I think too, and it's why I think the argument that it's not calories is crazy. It's that calories are so easily and cheaply available and often around all the time. In that environment, it takes some effort or the development of structure or habits for many of us to avoid overeating.

    There you go. Personal accountability has everything to do with whether people eat too many calories or not. So-called "bad foods", "non-homeostatic eating" or any such malarky are just scapegoats for people to blame their own lack of self-control on.
  • xmichaelyx
    xmichaelyx Posts: 883 Member
    I couldn't get past these two little gems right up front:

    "The basic premise is that overeating doesn’t make you fat."

    and

    "Simply cutting back on calories as we’ve been told actually makes the situation worse."

    I'd say the millions of pounds lost by the users of this site would disagree.

    But haven't you seen pictures of all those people in Africa with no body fat, just skin and bones? They eat plenty of food, they just cut out the processed carbs.

    /s
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Pawsforme wrote: »
    I don't believe he's entirely wrong.

    Often the mantra on here of CICO is overly simplistic, IMO. (Well, I actually think lots of posts on here are overly simplistic.)

    While I don't disagree that CICO does work ('cause thermodynamics), I think how easily/effortlessly it works can vary a lot depending on the individual and the types of food being eaten.

    That's not expressed well. I'm in a hurry and shouldn't even be on here right now. And not interested in/don't have time to debate, either. But I predict within the next few years we'll get more and more research that will prove Ludwig to be more right than wrong.

    I think what you choose to eat can make it more or less easy to not overeat (but the same is true for habits about eating, which I think can be as big a problem for many people).

    But that's different than the claim that people get fat not from overeating, but from eating the wrong foods. Essentially that claim goes along with people who assert that they gain weight on low calories if they eat sugar or whatever, which is of course absurd. I think it's a popular message because some people don't want to admit they overeat (or are responsible for overeating).

    I suspect a lot of the benefit of eating whole foods and cooking is from avoiding hidden calories (that aren't really hidden but we can avoid thinking about) and especially because it becomes harder to snack all the time and food is less available. For myself, I am perfectly sure that if I ate at high end restaurants all the time (with the same kinds of food I prepare at home, but restaurant-type preparations), I'd gain weight, because of all the calories and the fact I find those foods delicious, even if I didn't focus on "processed carbs" and ate lots of vegetables and protein.
  • msharrington315
    msharrington315 Posts: 200 Member
    edited January 2016
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    I couldn't get past these two little gems right up front:

    "The basic premise is that overeating doesn’t make you fat."

    and

    "Simply cutting back on calories as we’ve been told actually makes the situation worse."

    I'd say the millions of pounds lost by the users of this site would disagree.

    But haven't you seen pictures of all those people in Africa with no body fat, just skin and bones? They eat plenty of food, they just cut out the processed carbs.

    /s

    True, they may not have access to these types of foods. They probably eat to satiation, not to excess.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    besaro wrote: »
    i couldn't get past bingeing. it kept nagging me as i read further. is it really spelled with an e? that caused me to stop reading and google the answer. I'm no better off now. i feel it should be spelled without the e, but i guess both are acceptable. GAH! GRAMMAR!

    LOL I always spell it with an "e". If not it looks to me like an internet search by someone that doesn't use Google. :p
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    He's a genius (sarcasm):
    The quickest way to lower insulin is to cut back on processed carbohydrates and to get the right balance of protein and fat in your diet.
    Can you really make money writing books that easily?

    Plenty desperate people willing to eat up whatever "easy fast weightloss" promises are made.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    edited January 2016
    I stopped at "Dr. Ludwig"...

    He definitely goes in the 'crackpot' file, along with Lustig, Taubes, MercoLOLa, et. al.

    What a load of unmitigated bull manure. You'd think as a PhD he would have learned something about thermodynamics and basic physiology somewhere along the way.
  • DrifterBear
    DrifterBear Posts: 265 Member
    edited January 2016
    It sounds pretty on point to me. High glycemic foods digest really quickly. Think about having just a baked potato or bottle of Gatorade. You'd get a lot of cals but barely feel any fullness. White bread, white potato, baked chips, soda, etc are all severely empty calories. If you have a lot of these in your diet and just cut back on calories you'll be super hungry and less likely to be successful. Substituting lower GI foods with more protein and fat or complex carbs helps you feel full.

    Some of the statements seem to suggest that total calories don't really matter. While that's a bit extreme I think it's saying calories don't matter as much as what foods they come from. And that if you're getting quality nutrient dense foods, you'll probably require fewer calories anyway.
  • Bonny132
    Bonny132 Posts: 3,617 Member
    Since I do not eat much processed food, never have, and I generally do eat low carb and high protein, how did I become overweight? I thought I had this whole thing understood, and that my portion sizes and lack of exercise was to blame. Not the little carbs and processed food I eat. (surely the wine was not to blame, it's been around for thousands of years) :wink: :wink: :wink:
  • missblondi2u
    missblondi2u Posts: 851 Member
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    I couldn't get past these two little gems right up front:

    "The basic premise is that overeating doesn’t make you fat."

    and

    "Simply cutting back on calories as we’ve been told actually makes the situation worse."

    I'd say the millions of pounds lost by the users of this site would disagree.

    But haven't you seen pictures of all those people in Africa with no body fat, just skin and bones? They eat plenty of food, they just cut out the processed carbs.

    /s

    True, they may not have access to these types of foods. They probably eat to satiation, not to excess.

    Hmm...either that or they are actually starving.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    brower47 wrote: »
    rosebette wrote: »
    This was posted in the NY Times wellness blog this week. According to Dr. Ludwig, weight loss/gain is not about CICO, but the real causes for obesity is our increasing reliance on processed carbs. Any thoughts? http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/rethinking-weight-loss-and-the-reasons-were-always-hungry/?ref=health&_r=0

    My thoughts:

    Ludwig = bad science

    It is about CI/CO. That moron has had the audacity to state that someone eating I've 5000 calories will not gain weight if they don't eat the wrong foods. Trust nothing he says. Find a new source for information.

    cosigned. While it is technically a fallacy, I think it is acceptable to outright ignore anything on nutrition that man says based on previous experience.
  • msharrington315
    msharrington315 Posts: 200 Member
    edited January 2016
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    I couldn't get past these two little gems right up front:

    "The basic premise is that overeating doesn’t make you fat."

    and

    "Simply cutting back on calories as we’ve been told actually makes the situation worse."

    I'd say the millions of pounds lost by the users of this site would disagree.

    But haven't you seen pictures of all those people in Africa with no body fat, just skin and bones? They eat plenty of food, they just cut out the processed carbs.

    /s

    True, they may not have access to these types of foods. They probably eat to satiation, not to excess.

    Hmm...either that or they are actually starving.

    I think so too, but the poster was assuming they eat "plenty of food". Probably just enough to sustain life...
  • larali1980
    larali1980 Posts: 162 Member
    edited January 2016
    I guess Harvard people are smarter than I am, but all I know is I am fat and I eat too much. :p

    Having said that, I know that carbs will be the death of me and cutting back on processed carbs can only be a good thing in my case.

    People need more veggies.
  • __Wolf__
    __Wolf__ Posts: 137 Member
    I can buy that throwing off the balance between carbs and other macronutrients can make it harder to lose weight and may even impact the way our metabolism processes food but to suggest that losing weight isn't about calories is just really stupid.
  • msharrington315
    msharrington315 Posts: 200 Member
    I think the "real reason" we are obese is a complex issue - food quality, emotional eating, advertising, portion distortion / control, metabolism, activity level / less active lifestyles... to name a few.

    Again, I think the real answer is complex. The US Centers for Disease control has listed obesity as an epidemic...

    http://www.cdc.gov/cdctv/diseaseandconditions/lifestyle/obesity-epidemic.html

    "This video explains the many factors that have contributed to the obesity epidemic, and showcases several community initiatives taking place to prevent and reduce obesity. Obesity is a national epidemic and a major contributor to some of the leading causes of death in the U.S., including heart disease, stroke, diabetes and some types of cancer. We need to change our communities into places that strongly support healthy eating and active living."
  • spoonyspork
    spoonyspork Posts: 238 Member
    The 'reasoning' for it is completely bass-akwards, but it's not... wholly wrong? I mean, some processed carbs leave one feeling like they'll never be satisfied, but that still turns into overeating/CICO...

    I mean, I could eat a whole loaf of cuban bread (960 cal) and still want more... but a nice big bowl of beef n noodle soup (140 cal) or hot cereal with vanilla almond milk (130-200 cal) leaves me satisfied for hours and hours and the hunger is slow to come back (unlike a bread crash where I could still say I'm hungry for an hour or so, then suddenly get the shakes). Yes, both 'whole grain' and 'white bread' do this, though I get the added benefit of feeling shaky and hungry with a rock hanging out in my stomach if I eat a whole loaf of whole grain bread. XD
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Trying to diet according to the latest guru is like raising your children by listening to the "experts" -- you need to be flexible because they change their minds every few years, if not more frequently. The reason why we get all of these rediculous books is because the market is flooded and the rocksteady advice by established science, which is eat less and exercise more, is just not going to line these gurus' pockets. It's like selling air and water and... oh wait... never mind I forgot how gullable people really are.

    We've had a ton of diets from high protein, high carb and high fat and none of these have done anything because all diets work in the short-term and will fail in the long-term unless you adjust the lifestyle that caused the problem in the first place. There is no secret there is only constant work to maintain proper nutrition, avoid overeating, and a avoid a sedentary lifestyle and that's the long and short of it.