Slashdot Mirror
Obesity 'Explosion' In Young Rural Chinese A Result Of Socioeconomic Changes, Study Warns (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from BBC: Obesity has rapidly increased in young rural Chinese, a study has warned, because of socioeconomic changes. Researchers found 17% of boys and 9% of girls under the age of 19 were obese in 2014, up from 1% for each in 1985. The 29-year study, published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, involved nearly 28,000 students in Shandong province. The study said China's rapid socioeconomic and nutritional transition has led to an increase in energy intake and a decrease in physical activity. The data was taken from six government surveys of rural school children in Shandong aged between seven and 18. The percentage of overweight children has also grown from 0.7% to 16.4% for boys and from 1.5% to nearly 14% for girls, the study said. "It is the worst explosion of childhood and adolescent obesity that I have ever seen," Joep Perk from the European Society of Cardiology told AFP news agency.
They've eaten a lot of rice for centuries. It's not the rice. It's the increase in meat, dairy and processed foods - they want to eat like Westerners.
Ew...
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Mainly the increase in processed foods. Meat and dairy without the massive increase in liver-processed sugars and extremely calorie dense snacks wouldn't cause nearly as much obesity.
Calorie poor countries tend to have relatively wealthy people who are overweight because they can be and poor people can't be.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
"News for Nerds. Stuff That Matters."
This is like browsing the front page of yahoo.com or something. WTF? Why is this even here? And it's not like China is the topic either, as comments will immediately change the subject to America.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The real key here is the decrease in activity. Farmers typically eat diets rich in meats and dairy ( processed or not) , and yet stay thin. Because they burn those calories and convert the protein into muscle.
Processed foods may be a contributing cause,but the basic cause of obesity remains the same: eat more calories than you burn, and you'll gain weight. . .
No. They just have a glandular problem and/or are big boned. Nothing to do with overeating.
Not just rice, the Lo mein is also very high in carbs.
They've eaten a lot of rice for centuries. It's not the rice. It's the increase in meat, dairy and processed foods - they want to eat like Westerners.
Rice IS processed food. Humans couldn't eat it, otherwise.
Why stay in shape?
Rice IS processed food. Humans couldn't eat it, otherwise.
From your response, I can only assume that you've smoked so much meth that your teeth have completely rotted away.
Wild rice is not processed and most humans have no trouble eating it thanks to their innate ability to chew their food. Sucks to be you, gummy.
Mainly the increase in processed foods. Meat and dairy without the massive increase in liver-processed sugars and extremely calorie dense snacks wouldn't cause nearly as much obesity.
The real key here is the decrease in activity. Farmers typically eat diets rich in meats and dairy ( processed or not) , and yet stay thin. Because they burn those calories and convert the protein into muscle.
Farmers don't typically eat diets rich in sugars, which is what has really happened.
Processed foods may be a contributing cause,but the basic cause of obesity remains the same: eat more calories than you burn, and you'll gain weight. . .
Not this ignorant shit again. What you said isn't even fucking true. For one, you don't necessarily fully metabolize all the food you eat. For another, calorie estimates were derived from setting food on fire, which does not give an accurate portrayal of the calorie content derived from actually digesting it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And, they are naturally curved, not fat.
You can't tell a person's health just by looking shitlord! They've clearly gone into starvation mode.
I can tell you the source. McDonalds and other fast food. Ban those and the obesity will drop fast. Also Bad Sodas like Coke, Pepsi,etc...
I love the Bullshit people claiming "adding meat did this" no it's the horridly overprocessed shit that fast food places sell coupled with drinking Gallons of sugar water daily.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Incidentally, wherever an obesity explosion occurs, a similar explosion of the number of Mac Donald's happened a few years earlier.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Thermodynamics is "ignorant shit"?? Eating food in excess of needs does NOT cause weight gain ???
eat more calories than you burn, and you'll gain weight
Yeah, I mean there's about 50 years of research showing it's not remotely as simple as that, but you keep trotting out this tired old aphorism all the same, even though "calorie" isn't even well-defined in this context.
We westerns had been eating processed foods for centuries as well. Pickling, Smoking, Dehydrating, Salting, Fermenting.... However for westerners as well obesity is also still a rather modern problem.
The issue I expect is beyond food. But lack of exercise. Kids use to run around town and play, then stranger danger happened and parents tried keeping their kids closely monitored. So they couldn't run around as much, turn to TV, and Video Games to keep themselves entertained. Then this form of entertainment become common so the kids really don't want to play outside.
I expect modernization of China is creating additional fear in the general public so children are pushed to follow the passive good child behavior. Which also equates to less exercise.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Its amazing how stupid people can get when they see one limited set of facts and don't even bother to think about the other things involved.
Yes, you seem very stupid
Treating the human body as a simple closed thermodynamic system is ignorant shit, yes. Not understanding enough about thermodynamics to understand that you can't do that is ignorant shit too.
Eating food in excess of "needs" does not necessarily cause weight gain, yes.
Any more questions?
Thermodynamics is "ignorant shit"??
This is not simple thermodynamics, and if you think it is, you're a goddamned idiot. It's a wonder you can even find Slashdot. Who created the bookmark on your desktop for you?
Eating food in excess of needs does NOT cause weight gain ???
Moving the goalposts, the sure sign of a stupid fuckhead. The claim was "eat more calories than you burn, and you'll gain weight" and that is a bunch of ignorant cockery. For one thing, how well you chew your food dramatically affects digestion, and you can only metabolize what you can digest.
The fact is that the food intake of the average Chinese has gone more towards rapidly digestible carbohydrates, just as it has done for the whole world. These are basically the worst thing in the world when it comes to weight gain. Not all "calories" are created equal, and suggesting that they are outright proves that you have no idea what you are on about.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
China is less restrained in problem solving than we are. I hate to think just what they might do if obesity officially becomes a problem. Somehow i picture youth being herded into fat camps where they labor and are forced to get into slender shapes. They obviously keep their military people in a very slim form by simply keeping them hungry and requiring exercise.
"Wild rice" isn't actually rice, dumbass. It is a completely different plant.
Gluttony and sloth leave a mark people can see.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Communism is the best cure we have today for obesity. Just ask the North Koreans, or apparently the Chinese kids of 1985.
They have become far less active (focusing on sitting every day due to studies and computers),
in addition to shittier processed food becoming a larger part of the average diet than normal healthier food (in a boom of the popular social wave of appearing "more like Westerners").
In other words, the gradually increasing quality of life is also increasing laziness in terms of food intake (not wanting to make your own proper food), and activity.
I expect that the Commie government will answer with a rigorous overhaul of the education system in China to force cooking classes and increase physical health education.
We gonna get some government sponsored fat shaming to avoid obese whales farting up the already fucked up atmosphere with additional methane.
Gotta think of Global Warming.
it's not remotely as simple as that
Fat-asses tell me that all the time. Thin people disagree.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Rice is pretty dense in calories. Rice is great because it's a good subsistence food but it's not good for controlling weight if there's an abundance of it.
Yeah. You would never believe what fatsos make up as an excuse for being obscene tubs o' lard.
When I was growing up, Mom always was saying 'Eat your vegetables, there's children starving in China."
No, dumbasses that treat weight gain and loss like thermodynamics are ignorant shits. You're very sure of yourself, that's because you are not a smart person.
People are people; there is nothing significantly different in human nature between Chinese and Americans. Given the opportunity, Chinese teenagers will sit on the couch, play video games, and consume junk food at the same rates as American teens. So given similar availability to a steady food supply, and enough wealth allowing their parents to provide leisure time to offspring, we shouldn't be surprised to see roughly the same rates of childhood obesity.
I see this as a way of indirectly measuring food security. It's another indicator of China's wealth, and confirmation that the money the West is sending to their factories is starting to trickle down from the oligarchs to the average citizens. When China's rates of obesity approach those of people in the USA, it'll indicate a similar level of food security. It's much more believable than their official Party-issued reports of economic success.
Of course, this could also be a sinister plot by the Communist Party to manipulate the West. "We need 30% of children to become fat so the American spies believe their parents are successful. Double sugar production, and decrease the price of Doritos by 50%!" They are masters at playing the long game.
John
Because McDonalds.
Muhahahah.
It's coming for everyone.
http://www.techtimes.com/artic...
"WHO Warns Of Upcoming Obesity Epidemic In Europe"
I've said for years that it's not an "American" thing, it's an affluence thing.
-Styopa
This link does a pretty good job of explaining why calories are not all that useful when trying to lose weight. They are a piece of the puzzle, sure, but simply counting them isn't all that effective.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Always believe that sociological problems are simple. Banning fast food and soft drinks does not increase activity, so it does not fix the problem. Soda bans in NYC for example did nothing to curb obesity, not even a little. Similarly, forcing 30 minutes of exercise does not change the source food so has mixed results. Exercise with a shitty diet leads to injury and illness.
The problem is really both diet and exercise. "Western" lifestyle has drastically changed both of those things. Solutions won't come on a Slashdot post, they are way too complex.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Thermodynamics is "ignorant shit"??
Thermodynamics isn't, but the simplistic method of determining caloric content is ignorant shit.
Otherwise, we could all exist on a nice diet of canola oil. 2000 calories a day, and we're set.
Eating food in excess of needs does NOT cause weight gain ???
That's a different argument. And no where near as simple as mere caloric intake. Proteins and carbohydrates affect the body in different ways, and in different individuals.
Long ago, I discovered that I need to limit my carbohydrate intake, when I tried out a vegetarian diet. Completely wrecked my metabolism. Felt like crap, and talk about food induced irritable bowel syndrome. While on the vegetarian train I did lose weight - about 5 pounds. Oddly, my caloric intake was way down. By limiting carbs, I eat many more calories, and while as an ex-jock, I have to watch my eating, my weight is much more stable.
Other people might thrive on a vegetarian diet.
tl:dr version is that people's metabolism and carbohydrate and protein dietary needs make simple calorie/weight expressions useless.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Human Muscle cannot burn more calories than we Eat.. simple physics.
Conservation of Mass..
Gluttony and sloth leave a mark people can see.
And so does self righteous and ignorant condemnation.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What if the stopped eating so much?
eat more calories than you burn, and you'll gain weight. . .
Luckily this is a scientifically testable hypothesis. Go and drink a gallon of gasoline, and report back on your gain weight or better yet have one of your surviving relatives tell us about your calorie based weight gain.
It is a glandular problem, their glands are being over worked. People are eating more and more foods that put the body through the 'hormone roller coaster' where their blood sugar spikes and falls. Increased carbs and sugars elevate insulin levels while overloading the liver with carbs. Your body gets physically addicted to this, which makes you crave it more and the problem only gets worse.
Being fat is not a problem of overeating, calorie in/out, or laziness. It is due to an unbalance in the body's ability to regulate fat storage which is controlled by hormones. (primarily insulin - see roller coaster) People aren't overweight because they eat a lot - they eat a lot because they are overweight! The more fat someone has, the hungrier they will be and the less energy they will have to exercise.
Ever wonder how someone with a true glandular malfunction can grow bigger and bigger no matter what they eat? Why kids shoot up and grow rapidly at a certain age? Hormones run the show.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
For one thing, how well you chew your food dramatically affects digestion, and you can only metabolize what you can digest.
So, in other words, how you eat affects how many calories you burn.
Treating the human body as a simple closed thermodynamic system is ignorant shit, yes.
I'm pretty sure he was considering it as an open system, not a closed one.
In a closed system there would be no in/out to speak of.
I will give you that the way they attempt to decide the optimum weight is flawed as the guy everyone thinks is really skinny but somehow the scale says I weigh just at the upper edge of healthy or a couple lbs over. When I was in my teens I worked a lot of physical jobs in a metals shop, a marina, some farm jobs I've lost weight since then and gained a couple inches on my waist but it would still be difficult to loose very much weight without loosing muscle.
We westerns had been eating processed foods for centuries as well. Pickling, Smoking, Dehydrating, Salting, Fermenting.... However for westerners as well obesity is also still a rather modern problem.
The issue I expect is beyond food. But lack of exercise.
Lack of exercise is one culprit. There are others as well. The push to cut out proteins and fats is one, and of course sugar intake.
Even then, there is a darker element. We are undertaking a sort of econo-social experiment by making huge increases in the amounts of phytoestrogens in our diets. As well, we have been dosing ourselves with Bisphenol A and pthalates. There is even a group word for these chemicals - obesogens.
And in the world of bizzare studies, feral rats living in close proximity to humans are becoming obese along with us: http://www.the-scientist.com/?...
Some interesting links:
http://loe.org/shows/segments....
http://loe.org/shows/segments....
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
But mostly it's the gluttony and sloth. Really.
Thermodynamics
You mean those laws about compressing idealized gases, pressure, heat and such? The laws that are relevant for steam engines and internal combustion engines etc.?
Eating food in excess of needs does NOT cause weight gain ???
Depends actually on the food. If you eat meat combined with carbs, the body will mainly burn the carbs and only (if at all) convert a very low amount of proteins into muscles. All the excess proteins get segregated. While the body could convert proteins into fat, or burn them, it does that only in special circumstances.
To gain weight you need significant to much carbs and/or fat, worst case is pure sugar in combination with fat. Weight gain is mainly depending on insulin levels.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The problem with vegetarian diets are that many people still eat the wrong stuff, e.g. to much raw vegetables. Depends on the person though, for some it is no problem, for others it is.
Also if one is a novice and has the wrong books/receipts it is easy to have an imbalance of nutrition, e.g. lack of essential proteins.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If they're not nutritionists conducting peer-reviewed research, you're a fool to listen to people in either group.
Actually, it doesn't do a good job.
If we eliminate the idea that people are inaccurate at counting the calories in the first place, and that people don't bother to count calories of condiments (both of these items are just simply assuming the calorie counter is a moron, not a very good place to start an argument) we can ignore sections 1, 3, and 5 of infographic 1. Section 4 of infographic 1 is just a randomizer that has nothing to do with food intake, so ignore that as well. So we are left with section 2 of infographic one which would only serve to prove you can eat more calories, not fewer (ie: It's really only useful advice for gaining weight). So that's infographic 1 debunked if you're smart enough to actually put serious effort into counting calories.
Now, on to infographic 2. Section 1 is great if you are planning to exercise. As anyone counting calories quickly realizes upon reading about it, working out doesn't really do much for burning calories. It's for getting into shape. If you just want to lose weight, work only on your sedentary calorie burning stats. These are relatively accurate and, for most people (yes, even people that hit the gym for 30 minutes a day), are 90% of their calories burned anyways. In fact, you can ignore all of infographic 2 except section 4 if you just base your weight loss on your sedentary calorie burn (section 4 is very important, you have to adjust calorie intake with your weight loss).
In fact, the advice given is extra worthless because it suggests starvation mode is going to happen no matter what the moment you take in fewer calories. THIS IS FALSE. It happens when you attempt to lose weight through extreme calorie deficiency. If your goal is moderate, no more than 25 - 30 lbs a year, this will not happen.
So, overall, if this is the argument against calories in/calories out, it's based on arguing against how calorie based diets were done in 1950. Well done. Based on this method of argument, nobody actually went to the moon, either.
nice advertisement disguised as news
hardly a surprise when you look at their pop stars/role models:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The fact is that the food intake of the average Chinese has gone more towards rapidly digestible carbohydrates, just as it has done for the whole world.
Isn't it odd that other countries are trying to adopt western diets when western dieticians are saying that the nutrition in those countries are better than ours. Lots of people want western standards of living but ignore westerners when they say erh, we were wrong on that one.
These are basically the worst thing in the world when it comes to weight gain.
Let's call em for what they are, a molecule or two off being sugar. On processed foods though, I've found that eliminating as much processed food as possible from your diet helps make vegatebles and fruit much more appealing (I wish I could say that pun was intended, but it was an unfortunate accident). I personally found my sense of smell was much more sensitive which made it a lot easier to find, prepare and eat nutrient dense foods. That means you need to eat less and don't feel as hungry.
Not all "calories" are created equal, and suggesting that they are outright proves that you have no idea what you are on about.
I think they forget the energy expenditure to digest different foods. Peoples basal metabolic rate changes throughout the day too, so *when* you eat something is a factor as well. Even then we haven't begun to discuss the microbial activity in the gut and it's role. Fats take less energy to absorb, proteins increase metabolic rates. I think people count calories because it gives them some illusion of control when they don't exercise and continue to eat crap.
I'm sure those crappy carbs are addictive too!
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Not this ignorant shit again. What you said isn't even fucking true.
It doesn't matter. Nobody of the food religion will ever be satisfied until agricultural technology goes back in time 50 years. Thus, when anything goes wrong with somebody, they say "Why, it's the processed food damnit! Even though I don't know what the fuck processed actually means, but the internet says it offends Gaia."
They've eaten a lot of rice for centuries. It's not the rice. It's the increase in meat, dairy and processed foods - they want to eat like Westerners.
The Dutch have been eating meat and dairy for centuries, and they didn't turn out obese - they turned out to be the tallest people in the world. Sudden increases in processed food intake and (equally sudden) changes in physical activity are the culprit.
Otherwise, we could all exist on a nice diet of canola oil. 2000 calories a day, and we're set.
Hmm, no. I used simple calorie restriction to drop 70 lbs (I'm not saying that it will work for everybody, mind you) but even I know better than to assume that all of your macronutrient needs can be found from just one thing.
But at the same time, there is no escaping the fact that, indeed, eating less by using calories as a yard stick does work most of the time, even if the content of your food is mostly macronutrient with little micronutrient. Is that healthy long term? Probably not, but just in the context of weight loss alone, it works.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH...
Way to double down you sanctimonious motherfscker! Despite what your mom told you, eating food in excess of needs will almost ALWAYS cause weight gain. Pointing to conserved energy in excreted shit is not a valid refutation of the concept. That you would attempt to confuse the matter in order to suit your politics of victimhood in the middle of a public health crisis is WICKED.
Remember Command & Conquer Generals?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Seems like obvious reason, less kids working.
It doesn't matter. Nobody of the food religion will ever be satisfied until agricultural technology goes back in time 50 years. Thus, when anything goes wrong with somebody, they say "Why, it's the processed food damnit! Even though I don't know what the fuck processed actually means, but the internet says it offends Gaia."
Yawn. Go ahead and flip out over a bunch of people that don't matter, meanwhile Sinclair Lewis wrote The Jungle over 100 years ago, and even that only highlighted SOME of the problems in the food industry of the time.
Of course, his intent was to depict the labor conditions, but I guess it was something of a victory.
Hmm....
"Yo mamma's so fat, when she's on the can pressing she looks like she's Chinese!"
Would that do?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
LOL, keep looking in the mirror and telling yourself that pal. You have spent a short time in this world and discovered that personal responsibility is only for winners. That you have no agency or self control but it is no fault of your own. But take heart, you still have your Cheetos and your mom will always love you. Maybe. XD
Obesity is better than malnourishment every day of the week.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Obesity is a form of mass poisoning. The food supply is the problem.
What do you call a fat Chinaman?
A Chunk.
Having lost just shy of over a hundred pounds over the past three years, I have a perspective on "overeating".
The stereotype is some greedy, willpower-less person stuffing his face with mounds of food, but really gorging has very little to do with it. It's a very subtle difference between having calorie intake and output in equilibrium, and gaining or losing weight. In the thirty or so years between when I reached my current height and when I reached my maximum weight, I gained 120 pounds. That works out to nearly exactly 5 grams of weight gain per day -- about the weight of a US nickel. Now some of that weight gain was muscle -- I was active in sports all the way up to the point where I hit my maximum weight. I won't bore you with the calculations, but my lean body weight increased by about 45 pounds while I added 75 pounds of fat. But let's assume all of that was fat. How many calories in excess of equilibrium would you have to eat to gain 5 grams of fat? About 45 calories. In comparison a single slice of dry, white bread has about 75 calories. My "overeating" was the equivalent of an extra half an apple a day, every day for thirty years.
It's very easy to gain weight. You don't have to be a pig to do it. Conversely, I have found it's very easy to lose weight. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that's the case. I believe anyone can do it, if they understand how their body works. I think the problem is that people believe the body has a kind of wisdom of its own; in my experience that's rubbish. Your body is a machine; a machine built for killing mammoths that's currently spending its days sitting in a chair churning out code. Of course it's not going to work right.
So screw all that "trust your body's wisdom" nonsense. Your body is dumb. It can't keep track of how much it has eaten; your stomach basically has three fullness settings: eat something right away, I could eat a little more, and I'm going to barf I'm so full. The rest of satiety is your dumb reptilian brain at work. Studies show that if you serve yourself cereal out of a larger box, you'll take a larger serving than if you serve yourself cereal out of a small box, and feel equally full either way. Same thing if you eat off a big plate. Smaller plates (and utensils) mean you feel full after eating less. Chewing more makes you think you've eaten more. Because you're an idiot, at least most of you (everything from your cortex down) is. Stop expecting your body to act reasonably. It can't.
Imagine you're in a space capsule. You've been trained to watch a gauge, and to manipulate a lever so that the gauge stays in a certain narrow range because if it goes out of that range the capsule fails. You'd watch that gauge like a hawk because if the capsule fails, you die. That capsule is your body, and if it fails, you die. So what I do is I (a) wear an activity monitor (b) measure/weigh everything that I am about to eat and log it in a calorie counting app religiously, (c) aim to maintain about a 500 calories deficit every day, and (d) weigh myself and take a body fat measurement every day. That's pretty much it. Oh, there's tricks you can play on your reptilian brain to make achieving calorie deficit easier (small plates, big volume/chewy food; getting choosier about what I eat because I don't get to eat without thinking, putting a timer on to pace myself to no more than 25 calories/min). But those things are peripheral. Measurement is central. You can't get the machine to do what you want unless you measure its inputs and outputs. It's best to maintain your intake and output goals separately, by the way -- that is don't automatically up your calorie intake because you've exercised, but if you've burned 5000 calories in a day (as I did recently) you're going to be hungrier than usual.
Now a to why Chinese kids are getting fat, you need evidence to answer a question like that, but if I were to conjecture I'd look at the availability of cheap, tasty, convenience foods engineered to disappear into your bo
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Looks like a decent study. A little bit of a let down that the discussion section suggests pinning it on shifting to a "high fat low fiber" diet. I would have been interested to see the study track what the typical diet has been over time.
It really is a problem in my country, the food industry funding favorable research. The government recommending what the food industry tells it to recommend without ever doing any honest medical studies to see if there is any truth to it. Pyramid, Guide, Plate, or whatever they call it now is a consumer guide to buying and not connected in any way to what is good for your body.
People are different. There is a genetic segment that responds well to vegetarian/vegan diets. Last study I read suggested it was 6-8% or the general population. Maybe lucky adapters to the "new" agriculture based diet. I am not one of those people, genetically, no matter how much the proponents try to sell it as the best thing for everybody.
The Dr. Sears Zone diet worked well for me in my early 20's, but not so much since. Turns out that the 40-30-30 ratio (carb-protein-fat) is too much carb for me. Even at the suggested 500 kcal meal intake limit it causes insulin spike. Plus with my energy balance being 3000 kcal to not lose weight eating 6 meals a day gets old. (I am not obese, just a large and reasonably athletic man.)
My wife wanted to try Paleo and we did for a while. Still too much carb for me, and way too much protein. The food restrictions were just silly in my opinion. Cavemen weren't particularly picky about eating only what their ancestors ate, they were opportunists and would pretty much eat anything they could get a hold of. Our attempt at Peleo was around 25-30-45, which seems pretty standard.
The Atkins/Keto/Inuit ratio seems to work well for me. I wouldn't want to recommend it to anybody, most people will think you are crazy for voluntarily avoiding fast food and cookies, but genetically my body does well on it. First study I read was by Dr. Phinney, and branched out from there. I eat pretty much everything I like, and never feel hungry. The ratio lately has been 3-17-80. Yes, thats just 3% energy from carbohydrates as a daily average. A protein intake of 17% matched my body's needs well, my muscle mass and strength is not reducing. The remaining 80% of my energy needs come from fat. About 2400 kcal per day, on average. When I don't eat that much, I lose body fat. If I eat more, I store some kinds of fats, but others are not readily storable by the body. The ketogenic metabolic process works far better for my body than glocose-based metabolism.
Anyway, enough old-man ramblings. My point is that people are not all the same, and the recommendations of any establishment are suspect without rigorous well-designed studies behind it. Saying "kids these days are just lazy" doesn't contribute anything to the solutuion. Especially when older people are selling them garbage.
Mainly the increase in processed foods
Is that the same reason they're getting taller?
I'm a thin guy. My daily calorie intake varies between 2000 and 3500. I do not have an active lifestyle, I am a programmer and spend my free time gaming. I'm the guy that my coworkers hate, because when we go out for lunch they eat a salad while I eat a giant plate of spaghetti. If they ate like I did, they would be very much overweight. I am not some medical marvel, nor do I have a malfunctioning digestive system. All my kin on my mother's side are the same. So yes, it's not as simple as that.
...most humans have no trouble eating it thanks to their innate ability to chew their food. Sucks to be you, gummy.
My species has been using stone tools for millions of years, you insensitive clod!
Sucks for you to be from a species that can't even pound some cooked grains. I've seen a chimp who could make instant coffee, after all.
Well, I think you missed the poster's point about the difference between burning food in a calorimeter and converting it into energy the body can use.
It's true that according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy is conserved. But by the Second Law, some of that energy becomes unavailable for work. There is a process called gluconeogenesis in which glucose is created from fats and proteins. Blood glucose is closely regulated by your body; if there's too much it secretes insulin, which causes glucose molecules to be converted into fat. If later on blood glucose falls, gluconeogenesis will create new glucose, in part from fats previously created. But each step in the process of turning glucose into fat and back consumes energy. So even ignoring the calories that pass straight through you because you don't have the digestive equipment to break it down (e.g. cellulose), it's not necessarily true that a 9 calories of excess consumption will result in 1g of fat deposition, or that a nine calorie deficit will mobilize only 1 g of fat. There are losses.
But it's true that as a first approximation we can ignore a lot of this and assume that excess calories simply become fat without any energy loss, because the body is remarkably efficient.
That said, the matter of weight gain and weight loss is difficult for people because the body isn't good at regulating its calorie balance in a situation where you can walk ten feet to a refrigerator and take out a hot pocket with 300 highly refined, easily digestible calories in it. That hot pocket doesn't even register on your body's satiety mechanism in the two minutes it takes to snarf it down, so of course you get another. The food we evolved to eat came into forms. Either you spent hours chasing it down and killing it and it was mostly tough chewing, or you dug it up and it was also tough chewing, as well as being so full of roughage it gave your gut a major workout. Convenience foods are "stealth" foods as far as your body's satiety mechanism is concerned.
When you track everything you eat, you begin to see that the big problem is sugar and refined flour. One of my family's favorite meals is burritos; if I make a burrito with a quarter cup of rice, a quarter cup of beans, a half cup of lettuce, a quarter cup of tomatoes, a quarter cup of grated cheese, and four ounces of chicken, the calories break down this way:
100 rice
147 beans
1 lettuce
8 tomato
105 cheese
300 tortilla
-----
661 total
Almost half the calories come from the tortilla, which while not devoid of nutrition, contributes very little in relation to the large slug of calories it delivers. But most importantly, it's just a wrapper, and it contributes nothing whatsoever to your sensation of satiety. In fact replacing the tortilla with extra large lettuce leaves actually increases the satiation value of the meal because it's trickier and more time consuming to eat. You literally feel equally full while losing almost half the calories. From your body's standpoint it thinks you've eaten just as much, but going by the calorimeter you've eaten much, much less, and in this case the calorimeter has the relevant information.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Mr. Creosote. I can't watch that movie because of that scene. Now I can't read this article about obesity explosions because the title reminds me of him.
Yo mommas so skinny, she had to tie some knots in her legs to make knees!
Yo mommas so ugly, she had to sneak up on her glass to get a drink of water!
Yo mammas so stupid, she thinks Chinese kids don't any food to eat!
In fairness to the mousy cowherd, there's all kinds of stupid in this thread.
The problem with vegetarian diets are that many people still eat the wrong stuff, e.g. to much raw vegetables. Depends on the person though, for some it is no problem, for others it is.
Also if one is a novice and has the wrong books/receipts it is easy to have an imbalance of nutrition, e.g. lack of essential proteins.
And there is where the problem lies with un-natural diets, at least for omnivorous animals such as ourselves. It's so very difficult to get enough nutrition if we cut out a major naturall source of what we need.
Here's a weird example I found a month or so ago. Goldfinches, are a vegan bird. The pretty much live on seeds, and during the summer, eat things like lettuces. Hence the nickname "salad birds".
There is also a bird called a Cowbird, that lay's it's eggs in other bird's nests, and it's chicks hatch and are fed by the host - or victim birds, if you will. Cowbird chick gets big enough, and it pushes the other chicks out of the nest,killing them. But Cowbirds are omnivorous.
So Mom and Pop Goldfinch do feed the Cowbird chick, but it doesn't get the nutrition it needs, so instead of growing large enough to push the Goldfinch chicks out of the nest, it ends up expiring due to lack of nutrition.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Otherwise, we could all exist on a nice diet of canola oil. 2000 calories a day, and we're set.
Hmm, no. I used simple calorie restriction to drop 70 lbs (I'm not saying that it will work for everybody, mind you) but even I know better than to assume that all of your macronutrient needs can be found from just one thing.
Of course not. I was using that obviously ridiculous oil example against the calories in versus calories burnt = weight loss or gain. I suspect using the toilet would be quit ethe experience on an oil diet.
And yes, you can do a control of weight by restricting your caloric intake. But it really isn't as simple as some people portray. I can eat a lot more calories of meat than of potatoes and maintain my weight. Even a high carb breakfast is an issue for me. If I eat cereal, I'm ravenous by 10:00 AM. Eggs and bacon? I can go until dinnertime, skipping lunch because I'm not hungry. A carbish lunch, and I'm ready for a nap at 3:30.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I like to return (somewhat repetitively, I admit) to the Gary Taubes article that really summed it up best in recent history. (meta) Yes, what you eat matters. No, calorie counts aren't the whole story. The story is complicated, and different for everyone. Some people don't get fat even if they pound Twinkies(tm). Some people get fat and stay fat in spite of going to all types of extremes — or even just eating healthy and getting exercise. (Thankfully, I seem to respond fairly well to that combination, when I bother to stick with it...) The science of what precisely makes people fat is not precisely settled, but I leave you with a reminder that poop pills may yet be the answer, even before we're clear on why they work.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Separating causation in a case like this will be fantastically hard. My gut feeling (see what I did there) is that something like a gut bacteria is the route cause of much of the expanding waistlines. Even identifying a gut bacteria can be hard for if the cause were just crappy fast food, there could be bacteria that simply thrive in the presence of crappy fast food.
People of course use data like this to support their favourite issues such as processed food, fast food, sugar, western diets, etc. Not that all these issues are bad, but if my supposition is correct and it were to be gut bacteria, the gut bacteria might be increasing the desire for crappy fast food or whatever. Thus there would be a near perfect correlation of crappy fast food to fatties as the fatties would be demanding the crappy fast food.
The three ways to figure this out would be some fantastic biochemical insights as to how one or more bacteria are spreading and causing this. To do double blind studies where they add bacteria to skinny populations, or to figure out how to eliminate a suspect bacteria and then double blind some people there.
A double blind introduction of suspect bacteria into random skinny populations would probably produce the quickest results, despite the huge ethical issue this does have the advantage that the scientists can outrun the angry mob who weren't in the control group.
Having lost just shy of over a hundred pounds over the past three years,
Awesome! How did you do it?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
some random video on the topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
It is simple. These young chinese get vaccines and so they get problems with hormonal glands (pancreas for example).
It may surprise you to learn that nobody cares about your weight or how much you eat.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I did it by being a more virtuous person than everyone else who tried and failed. I'd tell you all about how great I am, but that would take a long time.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
so instead of growing large enough to push the Goldfinch chicks out of the nest, it ends up expiring due to lack of nutrition. ... perhaps it makes a little sense. The problem of humans is: there are so called "essential amino acids". This are proteins/amino acids the body can not produce by itself, but are needed for growth etc. ... seeds are usually very powerful food, e.g. lentils, beans, rice or most grains.
That does not really make sense.
The question is not if you are an omnivore, herbivore or eat meat. The question is: does the food contain the essential stuff.
Hm
Humans can live perfectly fine as vegetarians, however they have to make sure to get those essential amino acids.
In your story, I wonder why the seeds lack the amino acids the other bird needs. That is unusual. It would imply that the Cowbirds also can not produce all the amino acids they need and that as a rare exceptions seeds don't provide them either.
There is a difference between eating gras or seeds
Anyway I'm not a vegetarian. I can not walk away if I see a steak or a nice fish on the grill or some oysters :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Rice is pretty dense in calories. Rice is great because it's a good subsistence food but it's not good for controlling weight if there's an abundance of it.
I have lost 70 lbs of body fat in a year with this one weird trick:
I stopped eating rice and bread.
so instead of growing large enough to push the Goldfinch chicks out of the nest, it ends up expiring due to lack of nutrition. That does not really make sense. The question is not if you are an omnivore, herbivore or eat meat. The question is: does the food contain the essential stuff. Hm ... perhaps it makes a little sense.
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/...
Humans can live perfectly fine as vegetarians, however they have to make sure to get those essential amino acids. In your story, I wonder why the seeds lack the amino acids the other bird needs. That is unusual. It would imply that the Cowbirds also can not produce all the amino acids they need and that as a rare exceptions seeds don't provide them either.
Quite possibly - I haven't investigated too far. It might be something a little bit like Humans not producing their own vitamin C.
There is a difference between eating gras or seeds ... seeds are usually very powerful food, e.g. lentils, beans, rice or most grains.
Anyway I'm not a vegetarian. I can not walk away if I see a steak or a nice fish on the grill or some oysters :D
As an alpha and predator species, that is completely understandable for humans. Meat simply tastes darn good to us.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Well tbh you are great for achieving it, but I don't think it's because of your virtue, I think you just figured out the puzzle lol
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, but your debating skills do amaze me.
This post by The Guardian, titled "Social media is harming the mental health of teenagers. The state has to act", explains it all. In contrast, the use of social media and internet in general can be really helpful, various hard working doctors run Q/A's on their blog and many at times unique solutions to various health issues like, alternative thyroid remedies are found time to time over the internet.
This post by The Guardian, titled "Social media is harming the mental health of teenagers. The state has to act", explains it all. In contrast, the use of social media and internet in general can be really helpful, various hard working doctors run Q/A's on their blog and many at times unique solutions to various health issues like, alternative thyroid remediesare found time to time over the internet.
This post by The Guardian, titled "Social media is harming the mental health of teenagers. The state has to act", explains it all. In contrast, the use of social media and internet in general can be really helpful, various hard working doctors run Q/A's on their blog and many at times unique solutions to various health issues like, alternative thyroid remedies are found time to time over the internet.
Who's debating? I'm mocking you.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."