| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Sumo |
|||
|
Posts: 1581 (10/16/09 08:55:31) |
Serious Strength wrote:Fred, how come you have this hormonal disorder if you follow a sugar free diet? You also mention that your wife is currently losing fat, is she overcoming a hormonal disorder as well? |
||
|
sb413197 |
|||
|
Posts: 625 (10/16/09 10:34:22) |
Serious Strength wrote:Keep in mind that my specialty is not endocrinology, but I think I'll risk wading into this anyway to give my perspective. You and others who hold this opinion may in fact eventually proven right about this Fred (at least in part) but that is far from proven in its intirety, at least at this point, although there certainly seems to be a growing body of evidence indicating that this may be at least part of the culprit. Another prominent viewpoint is that persons with diabetes have a predisposition to their B-cells "burning out" that is not possessed by the general population; certain physiologic states (like pregnancy) are thought to unmask this and point to the development of DM-2 in the future. There is also a reasonably predictable time course for many people with DM-2 - the pancreas generally lives for about another 10 years after diagnosis before it's fried. Now, the american diet probably doesn't help this issue! Let's also not forget the sedentary nature of the public - exercise is a valuable tool in controlling blood sugar and many diabetics will report greatly improved blood sugar control following exercise (some of which unfortunately use this to eat...MORE SUGAR). I also am of the OPINION that the diet in the United States, which is now based heavily on sugar and sugar-like carbohydres (i.e. heavily processed, high GI with low fiber and low nutritional value) probably are contributing to the problem. It does seem rather suspicious that children who grew up in the "age of processed carbohydrates" are diabetics and obese with astonishing frequency. I say OPINION because that is a synthesis of a lot of information and the final word of course isn't out. Obesity and DM-2 are extraordinarily complex problems and we shouldn't pidgeon-hole it to being all the fault of one thing - genetics, diet, exercise, other medical comorbidities, societal factors (many of which dominate the other factors)...they all contribute, and perhaps things we don't even know about yet.
Steve Brose
Last Edited By: sb413197
10/16/09 10:41:26.
Edited 3 times.
|
||
|
Joseph Anderson |
|||
|
Posts: 54 (10/16/09 11:09:24) |
Sumo wrote: Are you seriously implying that Fred (or his wife) is obese??? Read what he said again. "Normal" fat accumulation/storage is not the issue . . . obesity is a disorder of excess accumulation and therein is the hormonal problems he refers to. There is a healthy level of fat accumulation (which is the category I'd put Fred in). Even if his personal goal is to be leaner and he is able to lose fat - doesn't necessarily mean it's healthier for the organism. Joe |
||
|
Sumo |
|||
|
Posts: 1581 (10/16/09 12:02:49) |
Joseph Anderson wrote:Could be! In the 30's or 40's Fred would have been considered a fatty, these days a podgy American is classed as normal. No doubt in the future a completely spherical American will be considered the norm and instead of waif like super models we will have wads of fat rolling down the catwalks. I feel like eating a cake now, I'll just go off and look at stats doughy physique... this will cure me of cake. |
||
|
Lincoln |
|||
|
Posts: 2027 (10/16/09 12:23:43) |
In the computer science field we use a simple trouble-shooting approach. When something breaks, we ask ourselves "what changed?" Start there.
Applying the same methodology to obesity, we see that obesity and Tpe II diabetes rates suddenly spiked in the latter part of last century. So what changed? Did people get lazier? Doubtful. Besides, it's the French that went to 35-hour workweek, not the Americans. The French are skinnier. Did the type of food change? Absolutely, no question. It's the biggest, most obvious change. Look there.
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does
the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." Teddy
Roosevelt
|
||
|
Serious Strength |
|||
|
Posts: 4364 (10/18/09 12:28:38) |
Sumo wrote: Excuse me? OBESITY I said. Neither of us are obese. And, even when you are overfat as we are, it is indeed a hormonal 'disorder.' In her case it's menopause. I am only overfat compared to a bodybuilder. |
||
|
Joseph Anderson |
|||
|
Posts: 54 (10/18/09 13:08:49) |
Serious Strength wrote:Do you consider any fat storage abnormal? If not, at what point do you consider it a disorder? I can see your point about you wife- menopause- definitely some crazy hormone issues. But yourself? At your BF%, do you think losing a pound or two of fat would make you healthier, live longer, etc? Fat storage is part of normal human physiology and only is considered pathology when accumulated in excess (obesity). I agree that all fat storage is controlled/ dictated by hormones, but at what point it becomes a disorder- I'm not so sure. Joe |
||
|
Serious Strength |
|||
|
Posts: 4364 (10/18/09 14:44:02) |
Sumo wrote: Sumo you're daft. In the 30's and 40's Oliver Hardy was considered a fatty. Jackie Gleason was considered a fatty. |
||
|
sb413197 |
|||
|
Posts: 625 (10/18/09 15:42:09) |
Sumo wrote: I think there was just less variation in bodyfat levels at that time. The "bodybuilders" of that time (and in the several decades following - early days of bodybuilding) weren't nearly as lean as the ones today, but the average person was a whole lot leaner than the average person of today obviously. I think that's why there was more talk of actual bodyweight as being an indicator of progress in the early days of lifting - it was assumed to be muscle.
Steve Brose
|
||
|
Sumo |
|||
|
Posts: 1581 (10/19/09 05:31:46) |
Serious Strength wrote:Fred, you are enormous! But don't worry, at 5' 9" 177 lbs I am apparently overweight; http://www.usatoday.com/e.../casestudies/obesity.pdf Soon I will be like you and have difficulty getting in and out of our small European cars, you will be alright for awhile as your cars are bigger. |
||
|
Serious Strength |
|||
|
Posts: 4364 (10/19/09 12:29:14) |
Sumo wrote:Oy vey. Very funny indeed. |
||
|
Kevin40 |
|||
|
Posts: 411 (10/27/09 07:39:33) |
I still say people are eating "a lot" more calories than they used to. The quality of the food is much better today than it was 40 years ago. Maybe
this is part of the problem - LOL! My kids are served breakfast in school - most kids have probably already had something to eat at home, then they have
"snack" and then they have "lunch". The kids go home and have another snack before dinner. Kids who play in the house when they get home
from school are more likely to eat because there's food in the house. If you're outside playing, you're probably not going to run around with food
in your pockets. People used to eat 3 meals a day, now, they eat all day long.
Look at all the celebrity chef's. How many celebrity chefs were there 40 years ago? People are really into food now and eat all day long. Eating has become America's favorite past time. |
||
|
Lincoln |
|||
|
Posts: 2027 (10/27/09 10:31:27) |
The quality of the food is much better today than it was 40 years ago.Disagree. The variety is better, yes, thanks to improved transportation. The availability of organic food and other high-end items is better, if the consumer wants to spend the money. But I believe the average quality is WAY down. The average person is eating more highly processed foods, more cheap simple starches and sugars, and poorer quality fats. Per capita consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and other sugars has risen by about 100 calories per day since the 1970s.* According to most pop-science calculations, that equivalent to 10 lbs. of weight gain per year. I don't know why the glutton switch got flipped, but it's on full tilt. I think the food we eat turns on that glutton switch.
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does
the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." Teddy
Roosevelt
|
||
|
Kevin40 |
|||
|
Posts: 411 (10/28/09 08:28:32) |
I went to a small all boys parochial high school. The food in the cafeteria was so bad that only the heartiest kids could stomach it on most days. On days
when the food was particularly bad, which was about 3 times per week, you would see only "cake" and/or ice cream bars on kids trays. Dark chochlate
sheet cake with white frosting and ice cream sandwiches were the staple in my high school. Sodas? Let's see, we had Grape Fanta, Orange Crush, Coke, RC
Cola, many different brands of Root Beer, Cream Soda, etc.. Everyone drank soda - it was everywhere. Do people even drink grape soda or root beer today?
Ironically, my school was a jock school - hardly any fat kids to be seen. Today, soda and candy are not allowed in schools - my kids aren't even allowed
to bring cookies to school - but the kids are still getting fatter.
|
||
|
Lincoln |
|||
|
Posts: 2027 (10/28/09 08:56:54) |
Anecdotal evidence aside, people are eating more sugar. Consumption of HFCS and sugar has dropped a bit since 2000, but the statistics are clear that it's
a major difference between the diet of the 1970s and today.
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does
the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." Teddy
Roosevelt
|
||
|
Kevin40 |
|||
|
Posts: 411 (10/28/09 11:32:18) |
Anecdotal evidence aside, people are eating more sugar.
They sure are; and they're eating more fats and protiens. More calories period. In the 60's and 70's, they had far fewer watch dogs overseeing the quality of our food. The food was retched compared to the food today. Studies have shown that our the U.S population's eating habits have changed drastically. No more 3 meals a day - today, people eat/snack all day long. Our portion sizes have gone "way up". The shopping malls are packed - no parking spaces to be found but yet the retail stores are hurting bad. So what are people doing at the mall? They're hanging out at the food court and the restaurants stuffing their faces. Cheese Cake Factory, Olive Garden, California Pizza, PF Changs, Mortons etc. etc. all at one shopping mall - one item off the menu from one of these places is enough to feed a family of four. Not many shopping malls around in the 60's and early 70's - definitely no food courts. |
||
|
Lincoln |
|||
|
Posts: 2027 (10/28/09 12:01:18) |
Please quote some evidence that shows that macronutrient percentages have remained the same.
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does
the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." Teddy
Roosevelt
|
||
|
Kevin40 |
|||
|
Posts: 411 (10/28/09 12:48:33) |
The expanding American plate: Could eating less lower food prices and obesity?Americans eating more as they weigh moreAn analysis of food availability data from the Department of Agriculture found that Americans ate about 1.8 pounds more food per week in 2006 compared to 1970. That's just over 18 pounds of food per person per week. Every food group other than dairy showed an increase in consumption since 1970, with people eating 550 percent more fresh spinach, for example, and 322 percent more apple juice. We were also consuming 373 percent more corn sweeteners, 190 percent more salad and cooking oils, and 48 percent more added fat than in 1970.
Consumption of lard dropped by 64 percent, margarine by 58 percent, whole milk by 74 percent and veal by 83 percent. Back in 1980, only 15 percent of American adults were obese, and that number had doubled by 2007; this increase in food consumption probably played a role. Could smaller portions slow food crisis?These huge portions lead to Americans consuming the most calories of any nation in the world, with about 3,770 calories per day on average, according to a recent study (Canadians eat about 3,590 calories, while Indians consume 2,440). Some say that if America cut its portions, there would be more food for others, somewhat lessening the global food crisis. Paul Roberts, author of The End of Food says Americans eating less would put less of a burden on the world's grain supply, lowering prices for staples eaten by millions worldwide. The Food Marketing Institute says 71 percent of Americans are eating out less and 48 percent are buying fewer groceries, and people tend to be buying more off-brand and lower-quality foods (think Spam instead of hamburger) as they try to make their dollars stretch. But Michael Donohue of the National Restaurant Association says the average adult still eats out six times a week, and restaurants provide a great deal because their prices have only risen about 3.9 percent, compared to the 5.8 percent increase in prices at the grocery store. Instead of blaming the increase in food prices on the rising number of people with money to buy more food in India and China, perhaps we should look to our own huge portions and understand that our choices have an impact around the world, too. (By Sarah E. White for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News) Boston (SmartAboutHealth) - Consuming too many calories maybe the reason for the obesity epidemic in America says the researcher of a new study. The study found that on average, compared to 30 years ago, children weigh 9 pounds more than they used too, and adults weigh more than 16 pounds more than those living back in the 70's. According to researcher Australian professor Boyd Swinburn numbers indicate that the amount of physical activity has not dropped when it comes to Americans, but what they are eating has definitely changed for the worse. What this means, is that Americans are consuming far more calories than they used too, and are not taking the time to work them off via exercise. "Weight gain in the American population seems to be virtually all explained by eating more calories," said Boyd Swinburn, M.D., of Deakin University in Australia, lead author of the study. "It appears that changes in physical activity played a minimal role." For children and adults to return to the weight of their peers of yesterday, they would need to cut out of their diets, 300 calories and 500 calories daily, respectively. The study was presented at the 17th European Congress on Obesity, held from May 6-9, 2009, in Amsterdam. |
||
|
Lincoln |
|||
|
Posts: 2027 (10/28/09 14:16:04) |
First off, those statistics do NOT say that food consumption has risen at the same rate across all foods. Quite the contrary.
Secondly, Americans eat 3,770 calories per day? And that adults should be fine if they cut back to 3,270 calories per day? Those are bullshit numbers. Even 3,270 calories a day is a huge amount of food by almost anyone's reckoning. For the average male, most calculations put a weight maintenance diet at about 2,500 calories. For women it's even less. That's an enormous discrepancy. That's like NASA scientist aiming for the moon and hitting Uranus instead. Really now -- does this make sense to you? "In 1970, the average American ate about 16.4 pounds of food a week, or 2.3 pounds daily. By 2006, the average intake grew by an additional 1.8 pounds a week." 2.3 pounds of food, if it had no fat at all, just protein and carbs at 4 kcals per gram, would be over 4,000 calories per day!!! An additional 1.8 pounds of food per week would be an increase of over 3,500 calories per week. Where in hell do they get these numbers? Did the concept of checking your math stop at 9th grade algebra? Really - tell me how these numbers can possibly add up.
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does
the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." Teddy
Roosevelt
Last Edited By: Lincoln
10/28/09 14:21:50.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
Kevin40 |
|||
|
Posts: 411 (10/29/09 05:27:36) |
OK Lincoln - Please post "your" evidence backing up your statement that the "food quality" in the U.S. has diminshed over the past 40
years.
|
||
