Slashdot Mirror
First Signs of Obesity In Some Arctic Groups Have Been Linked To Instant Noodles (sciencealert.com)
schwit1 quotes a report from ScienceAlert: Researchers have noted the first signs of obesity in the native ethnic groups of the Yamalo-Nenets region -- an autonomous district that sits on the coast of the Arctic Ocean in Northwest Siberia. According to local experts, obesity has not previously existed in these indigenous populations, but the first cases are now being reported, and a marked change in diet -- including instant noodles and pasta -- appears to be responsible. The Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug has a population of just over 522,000 people, whose ancestors have survived the permafrost for millennia. The nomadic Nenets and Khanty peoples have been herding reindeer up and down the Yamal tundra -- a 700-km-long peninsula that stretches deep into the Arctic Ocean -- for 1,000 years, with diets heavily based on venison and fish. But that appears to be changing fast, as researchers note the increasing uptake of chemically processed foods, such as instant noodles and pasta, and the addition of sugar, pastry, and bread to their diets. According to Titovsky, these changes -- which have only been occurring over the past few years -- have seen the intake of venison and river fish cut by half.
meat good, grain bad.
I always knew they were bad for you. Wanna know how? They taste good. Taste is inversely proportional to nutritional value.
Yeah, I know there are caveats, but in general it's one of the truest rules of life. The closer the taste is to cardboard, grass, soil, or liver; the better it is for you.
Table-ized A.I.
Noodles for nerds?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Ingested carbs need to go somewhere. Brain consumes a bit, and the remaining part is the problem. If one has enough physical activity, carbs get burned in muscles. Otherwise, they are converted into fat, or remain in bloodstream (this is diabetes) until cleared by kidneys. Of course it is also possible to get both fat and diabetes.
Nowhere in the article does it mention how many of these villagers were on the constant edge of starvation prior to having access to a more varied diet. It does mention they do shorter foraging routes than they did 25 years ago, but doesn't mention how that would reasonably mean they would starve without outside sources of food. Oh, and then there's the nugget that they are BETTER at digesting carbs and sugars than Europeans, which leads them to eat significantly more..
This article is full of lies and half truths subby!
scientists: sugary soda causes obesity.
soda companies: no no. you misunderstand. people need to balance their choices with exercise and a healthy lifestyle of exercise. did we mention they should exercise instead?? also no soda tax.
scientists: potato chips and junk food are causing obesity.
snack food companies: no no. you misunderstand. people need to control their portions! nevermind that we spend millions per year on cognitive neuroscientists to make our products addictive, and market directly to children with colourful animal mascots.
scientists: fried food in schools is causing obesity
senators: no no. you misunderstand. badmouth my farm subsidy bill and ill buy a cruise missiles with your grant money.
scientists: pre-fried pot noodle is causing obesity
pot noodle manufacturers: didnt soda answer this? people need to exercise their portions...control their uh...lifestyle health...whatever fuck off.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Well it's been around half a century of that diet now. Around 50 million people have tried it and we aren't hearing any complaints from them. But it's still possible that Atkins was wrong about the evils of the overwhelming excess of carbohydrates in our diet.
Feel free to argue against those 50 million. Rant and rave! Your opinion is surely equal to theirs.
...omphaloskepsis often...
They actually are very fat, you know. Always have been. Can you imagine a skinny eskimo? I can't.
The weight gain could be due to the processed food; it could be due to a change in exercise, or it could be that they are consuming a greater amount of food. The amount of exercise needs to be checked to see if the processed food leads to less exercise since the food prep is easier. Also, the amount of food eaten needs to be checked for amount of food and caloric intake. Until all these factors are checked, it is impossible to know the actual cause of the obesity.
Meat not that great; grains fucking terrible. There's your anthropologically-accurate corrected version... whether those [who get Paleo confused with Atkins] agree with it or not.
Blames pieces of paper.
The extent of sugars damage globally has always been severely downplayed as a problem primarily with something else, however stupid it may be.
So Ketogenic diet does work......
https://www.amazon.com/Eat-Fat...
"Many of us have long been told that fat makes us fat, contributes to heart disease, and generally erodes our health. Now a growing body of research is debunking our fat-phobia, revealing the immense health and weight-loss benefits of a high-fat diet rich in eggs, nuts, oils, avocados, and other delicious super-foods."
Don't forget your veggies though!!! And there are many plant sources of protein and fat...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
so, you have a society with a standard established diet, in this case: deer,fish and vegi's.
so year after year, intake of the same, the body processes the same and thus the health aspects do not surface.. so now you introduce foreign stuff into their diet, sure your going to see weird things happening.
simply put, over the course of time these events will even out as the process of metabolism runs its course..
Please guys, slow news day??
So I can still eat all the Slim Jims and beef jerky I want (which is a lot) but I have to give up my fire noodles and cup ramen?
Dammit.
Seriously, I am not sure how to take this. Instant noodles are hugely popular across asia, consumed in vast quantities every day, and yet asia still has low obesity rates. So is it the noodles that are the problem OR how the people respond to what they eat?
Or is it not the people as much as it is their gut bacteria?
Living where they do and eating what they have eaten for centuries has probably left them with a fairly specialized set of gut bacteria good at extracting maximum nutrition from meager food, and perhaps pasta and noodles are just the wrong thing for those people to eat. Perhaps their bodies are TOO good at retaining the calories from the food, because they had to be good to survive. Now, with caloric food in good supply, they no longer need that ability as much, but it's not like we can reprogram our guts.
Sig for hire.
By that logic, cardboard, grass, and soil must be really great for you. I like pears better than apples and like eating peaches. I would buy them in cans in water, but they like packaging them in syrup for stupid reasons. I eat tuna more than I eat Doritos. I buy Doritos in runs every so often, but I get burnt out on them. Vhili is good and the soups that are essentially single serve are better for you and better tasting.
That's all you can say? One lousy paragraph? Lame. The quality of trolls on here are getting worse and worse. It used to be that trolls would write entire walls of text even the Mexican border would have been proud to have.
It's been known since the 1930s, that a high starch diet was worse than a meat and vegetables diet. But in the 1980s, the US FDA recommended high-starch foods as the primary component of a diet. It was made worse in the 2000s, when medium-fat foods were vilified, causing people to eat more starch.
Still there are cultures where meals contain extra sugar and fat, yet people are thin. Explanations include; meal sizes being smaller, meals include lipid-neutralizing foods (eg. red wine) and low-impact exercise (eg. walking) is widely practiced.
So now they're fat, which has its health downsides.
I'd be interested to know if the population has typical negative effects of a high meat diet before the changes.
Er,not if they are involved in heavy manual labour they can't..
I'm 57,have worked all my life up to 2007(accident) and have usually worked in heavy manual labour jobs,and I mean real heavy labour,at one time for 3 years,I had to work with a variety of "triers"vegetarians,vegans,fasters,supposed keep fitters,I never found one that could stick in my 8 man work squad for more than 14 days,and you know why,because they couldn't take in enough energy (calories) to keep up with us,the average intake for a member of my squad was 14.500 calories PER DAY,mine was 21.000 calories PER DAY,something like 7 times the daily intake that manual workers are said to need,guess what,between the 8 of us we had about no spare body fat,even at 21.000 calories,I was found to only have 1.5/2%Brown fat and about the same for normal yellow fat.
We ate anything that didn't move fast enough,vegetables,grains,nuts,meat,beer,anything..
It's a simple equation,energy in,work out..
Your chosen diet may be "healthy" but you couldn't work very hard for very long on it,once you had used up your spare fats you would collapse if you tried to keep up the work rate,which is precisely what happened to those "triers".
I'm still only 5foot 6,I still only weigh 120 pounds,exactly the same as I did then,but I was lifting and moving 200lbs at a time all day long..
Energy in,work out.simple..
Ingested carbs need to go somewhere. Brain consumes a bit, and the remaining part is the problem. If one has enough physical activity, carbs get burned in muscles. Otherwise, they are converted into fat,
not quite.
carbs don't just stay here waiting (like gaz in a car's tank)
body will process them, depending on tons of hormonal messages.
carbs will get used and making fat is only one of the possibility the body will choose.
e.g.: if you do sports, not only will you burn carbs for energy during the sport, but you will raise the level of some growth hormone, encouraging your body to use the available resources to build more mudcles instead of storing them in long term.
remain in bloodstream (this is diabetes) until cleared by kidneys.
huh.. Nope. not at all.
diabetis is absolutely not "the excess sugar in the blood".
diabetes is mainly the signaling pathway that normally orders the uptake of the sugar being broken.
the two types of diabetis are due to which step of the pathway is broken .
(either the production of insulin, or the receptors that should.detect it)
the fact that people who overeat have an increased risk of diabetis isnt due to extra sugar staying in the blood, it's due to the body getting desensitized tobthe insuline (mainly because to avoid having extra sugar in the blood the body will secrete extra insulin, but over time that extra insulin will down regulate the receptors, leading to the oathway not working that well anymore) (also fat tissue also secrete it's own signaling hormones. obese patients have so much of fat, that they produce excessive amiunt of some hormone and their signaling disturbs other pathway)
so excess sugar isn't the cause of diabetes (and is actually correctly compensated at the beginning) it's the result of an insulin pathway that got fucked up, e.g. by the bad eating habits.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
When you cure it with nitrates and/or nitrites to kill off any bacteria, then it's definitely not healthy, as these preservatives, that are meant to kill bacteria, continue to do so in your intestines, wreaking havoc on your beneficial intestinal flora's bacteria.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
https://www.amazon.com/Eat-Fat...
"Many of us have long been told that fat makes us fat, contributes to heart disease, and generally erodes our health. Now a growing body of research is debunking our fat-phobia, revealing the immense health and weight-loss benefits of a high-fat diet rich in eggs, nuts, oils, avocados, and other delicious super-foods."
Don't forget your veggies though!!! And there are many plant sources of protein and fat...
Most plant sources of fats and proteins are also full of carbohydrates, putting them in the same position.
Another good book is "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" by Gary Taubes:
https://www.amazon.com/Good-Ca...
In it, he shows that the research has *always* showed that carbs make you fat, and dietary fat isn't the culprit. Not only research, but a body of circumstantial evidence so huge that it can't be ignored. The linked article here is the sort of circumstantial evidence that I mean: indigenous populations do just fine until western food shows up - first comes obesity and 10 or 20 years later their teeth are falling out and they're all getting diabetes.
Do you have ESP?
I wouldn't trust Taubes any further than I could throw up on him. He is a partisan with an axe to grind and cherry-picks relentlessly.
Starch + Salt both cause the body to retain water. Nothing to do with sugar which just creates energy. Someone should do what really matters and count their calorie intake and compare the amount of exercise they get now to what they used to.
No fucking way! I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!
However, that is not the only means to curing it. It can be solely salt cured and hung to dry. That's how I prefer my bacon. (I lie, I also heavily pepper it.)
From what I understand, the smoke ring created when smoking a meat creates some level of nitrites/nitrates in the meat, but rather than being through the meat, it is just near the surface which implies fewer nitrates/nitrites. In either case, if I want to add a smoky flavor to the bacon, then I will lightly smoke it (smoke it at a very low temp for approx 4hrs) before I salt and hang it.
In the end, I end up with something much less salty than the store bought stuff. It leaves a less lingering taste in the mouth, and for some reason doesn't make me feel nearly as thirsty.
All of that work can be done in a small apartment with a patio. If you're good at bartering, it can definitely help your neighborhood relationships as well.
It is in instant noodles.
Why limit the study to 5 year olds? Is this so the result matches your expectations?
Animal fat gives you heart disease.
Don't eat animal fat.
Vegetable fat is fine.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
How do you actually get 80% of your calories from fat? 50% is easy, but outside of processed food and raw macro nutrients (drinking vegetable oil etc), I can't envision how 80% can come from fat.
bad eating habits = too much sugar,
When you eat too much sugar, the body produces more insulin to force the sugar into the cells, cells get too much sugar, and reduce their insulin sensitivity. After a while, you see blood sugar rise, but the damage has already been going on for years, usually.
For added precision :
bad eating habits :
- high calorie intake (too much sugar and fat) : drives obesity up.
- too much *glucose*, i.e. *processed* sugar (In everyday's terms: pure sugar. Like the sugar-cubes equivalent in a soda can. As opposed to complex glucose polymers fibers, as found in nuts) and/or *very small low complexity oligomers* (starch. Like white bread. It doesn't taste sweet at all (there's very little actual pure sugar inside) but the starch gets broken up *extemely fast into glucose* during digestion. As opposed to whole grain bread which takes a bit more time. And as opposed to nuts, as mentionned above : their fibers takes a long time to digest).
When the glucose absoption is too fast (because the sugar is alredy processed as glucose, or because the starch gets digested too quickly),
the body keeps the blood glucose concentration low by quickly releasing peaks of insulin.
(Compare with eating nuts : they get digested into glucose extremely slowly and thus the glucose only enters the body drip by drip. Insulin only needs to be raised very slightly above basal level) (As a consequence, a type 1 diabetic doesn't usually give a fuck about nuts and doesn't need to take them into account when computing insulin injection dose)
This *very sudden* and *very high* rise of insulin causes :
- nearly all cells in the body will down-regulate their insulin receptors. They become more insulin resisting (eventually devolving into type 2 diabetes). And eventually glucose rises as a consequence.
The lone exception is the brain which use an entire different pathway (does not depend on insulin at all) and still keeps getting its sugar. (And this is part of the reasons why diabetes is much more destructive than fasting / any other protein-high diets)
- the high level of insulin also work as hormone and signal to the body. It encourages creating even more fat tissue storage (as opposed to use the sugar to build muscle mass). This worsens the obesity, which in turn works as a positive feedback, and is also a cause of heart diseases.
Once insulin resistance sets in :
- glucose remain in excess in the blood
- due to high concerntration you pee a lot (hence the name diabetis)
- as it doesn't enter in the cells (except the brain) the rest of the body thinks that it doesn't have any, and thus bruns fat and proteins instead, tries to synthetise glucose out of these, and asks the liver (through glucagon) to release some of the glucose from the reserves in the liver.
- but non of this extra glucose (synthetised or release) is of any help : the insulin still won't bring it in.
Damage comes from :
- High concentration of glucose. (Body has problems keeping the osmolarity of the blood). This eventually leads to blood vessels walls being damaged.
(Diabetes is mainly a blood vessel disease, mediated by the glucose concentration).
- Ketonic bodies toxicity. Because glucose can't enter most of the body, it's as if there was none and the body was fasting. In absence of (available) glucose, the body cells start to burn fat as an energy source (this requires to burn proteins as a by product of a missing reaction)
(this also produces ketonic bodies. These are toxic. Under normal circumstance (someone on a high protein, low carb diet), the brain cell would eat it and burn it as fuel source. But here the brain has access to plenty of glucose (remember : brain uses a different pathway to get its glucose and isn't affected by glucose) and thus will keep burning glucose, instead of burning ketonic bodies. These therefore accumulate and they end up being toxic)
Note:
- The above only concerns *glucose*.
- This doesn't concern al
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
...has nothing to do with it. It's a stupid phrase used by ignorant people to describe something that is ubiquitous in food preparation. Even a chunk of venison cooked over a fire is chemically processed. What matters is the macronutrient composition of the food.
Interesting. Instant ramen is cooked in vegetable fat before is is packaged and sold.
What if you soak it in beet or celery juice? Have you ever had a spinach salad? Were you concerned about the large amount of nitrates in that?
Cheap processed crap. Same dynamics could be seen in remote areas of Nepal, Tibet and North India.
Of course, sticking with a diet loaded with saturated fat, salt and red meat will likely lead to heart disease, but hey, at least you'll be a skinny corpse.
What are you basing this assertion on?
I really want to know.
There has been no definitive link between saturated fat, salt, and red meat and heart disease. None. If you have information, please point it out.
And don't give me the "everyone knows that", or "that is what the American Heart Association says". Tell me what scientific research you have read. I know what I have read, and none of it says that. All of these conclusions were made, and dietary direction has been given, DESPITE the scientific research on these topics. Here's a good intro for you: Dr Peter Attia on the limits of scientific research.
I can tell you, that link isn't there. And you forgot the other nugget of "conventional wisdom" that isn't supported by science either - that high cholesterol is a direct cause of heart disease. Because half - yes HALF - of people who have heart attacks have what is considered to be normal cholesterol. Yes, there is old standby that there is "good cholesterol and bad cholesterol" but it's much more complex than just that. And over 90% of the cholesterol in your blood does not come from what you eat - your body produces it. Now, what you eat can impact your blood cholesterol composition, but it does not come from eating saturated fat.
You talk about what we've learned in the last 100 years. Do you have any concept of how long humans have been around? 100 years is a blink of the eye. How do you think we got here? How did we not only survive, but thrive? By whatever you consider to be "healthy eating"? Let me guess.... low fat, high carb diet, lots of fiber, and filler like beans, fruits and vegetables. The reason obesity is so rampant, and people are looking to fads, is because of the misinformation we have all been given, and have been propagating, for years.
Science tells us the real story.
Good Calories Bad Calories
The Primal Blueprint
Grain Brain
http://eatingacademy.com/
And yes, I have bet my life in all of this. 4+ years of eating a high-saturated fat, low carb diet, minimal sugar, minimal inflammation foods. By choice. I am in my upper 40s and I have never felt better. It sounds daunting, but once you learn how your body works and why to eat certain things and not others it is not. It doesn't take will power either. Once you break that physical addiction to those things that put your body through the chemical roller-coaster, it is easy. And simple. And you'll wonder why nobody told you these things sooner.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Trying to boil diet down to some kind of simplistic equation, this=good, that = bad, doesn't work
My personal anecdote, my grandmother, of eastern European descent, ate potatoes, in some form, with nearly every meal (EWWW CARBS), and nearly every day would eat sausage or low grade, hi fat cuts of pork or beef (jowls etc...), for lunch and dinner... Also lots of cabbage, turnips, and vegetables of that type...
lived to be 98, and was physically and cognitively intact all but the last 5 years or so.
There is no simple equation, except maybe, don't be a fatass, and try to not eat food that comes off an assembly line.
Animal fat does not give you heart disease. Sugar and carbohydrates do. Many vegetable fats (e.g. corn and soybean oil) have the wrong balance of Omega-6/Omega-3 fatty acids and thus are horrible for you. Only palm, coconut, and olive oil have the proper ratios.
So my transatlantic diet of American chips and English chips is perfect thing.
You'll need to eat 8kg of cabbage a day to get up to 2,000kcal/day. Or over 10kg of tomatoes. Most vegetables are not that calorie dense.
Animal fat gives you heart disease.
Science does not support your claim, though there are plenty of people who think it does.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
>Animal fat gives you heart disease.
A myth. There is no link http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/Saturated-fats-and-heart-disease-link-unproven.aspx
If you trace back, sponsored research by sugar companies has been responsible for promulgating it.
... or is it because you don't have to chase them like a reindeer?
I remember reading about Sylvester Stallone that during the filming of one of his movies (this was like 30 years ago), that he had so little body fat that he had to eat candy bars on the set to stop from passing out.
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
tastes great
less filing
tastes great
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Since you don't seem to be able (or willing) to google this, here are a few results from the first page:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/...
http://cardiobrief.org/2016/11...
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...
Note that these are from science based publications... not fake news sites.
Also, animal saturated fat causes cancer:
http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/ind...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
This. Dry aging is almost always the way to go. Only sea salt and the air.
.... Suggests that since they are eating more Ramen, they are spending less time hunting out in the cold (both of which force a body to utilize calories).
Less activity, spending more time indoors, and easier access to food, and they get fatter?
#NotASurpriseAtAll. #LetsBlameItOnRamen
Nowhere in your post did you mention this, either.
Jon Stewart Explains the 'Cavuto Mark'
All questions aside, nowhere does it mention your father's vig.
Here's the problem: if cover exists, someone will fly under it. So in the name of infallible subtext, please knock it off.
Humans are NOT designed to eat mostly Carbohydrates. we are meat eaters and we keep finding evidence of this.
Instead we have "nutritionists" that still preach the diet that makes everyone fat as hell.
Meat, low glycemic veggies, fruits, nuts, then grains down there with sugar. THAT is how humans are supposed to eat.
M E A T !
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Yeah, well, I don't exactly know the nature of the nitrates in beet, celery or spinach, but I think I remember some research saying that people who eat a lot of processed meat, i.e.: with nitrates in it, have a much higher chance of colon cancer than people who don't.
I don't know whether the same has been done with people who regularly eat spinach versus those who don't.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Thanks for injecting more evidence from notable sources into this discussion.
Because animal fast concentrates pesticides more than plant fat, I'd agree protein and fast from meat is riskier in our society especially for cancer. That said, have these studies you cited made a clear distinction between processed meets (e.g. frankfurters) and factory-farmed meat raised on grain and *also* grass-fed organic meat? From other discussion of such studies, I doubt they have. The subject pool of people who eat cleaner meats these days is so small to begin with...
And there are counterstudies (responding to the one link you supplied that villifies saturated fats):
http://www.webmd.com/cholester...
"New research questions that belief. A recent review of 72 studies found no link between saturated fat and heart disease. The review also showed that monounsaturated fats like those in olive oil, nuts, and avocados don't protect against heart disease."
The good news is, more and more people are aware of the many nuances here, and we can expect better and better studies to come out on all this. Some of this depends on what you focus on -- cancer, hearty disease, dementia, daily energy level, overall resistance to infection, and so on. It also matters whether we are talking what growing kids need, what active adults need, and what sedentary adults need, and what older adults need since needs and risks may be different in all these cases.
And one has to put any risk in context. As it says here from one study showing the dangers of processed meats:
http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...
"In absolute terms, the increased risk is pretty small. For example, the risk that a man will get colorectal cancer during the course of his lifetime is about 4.8%, on average -- or said differently, about 1 in 21 men will develop it in his lifetime. A 17% increase in that risk bumps it up to 5.6%, or changes that risk to about 1 in 18 men. By comparison, a 2005 study determined that smoking a single daily cigarette could increase a person's risk of lung cancer by about 200% to 400%."
However, the health effects of "diabesity" (Dr. Hyman's term for diabetes+obesity) from eating refined sugar and refined carbohydrates are enormous and devastating to out society. So while I tend towards vegetarian/vegan foods myself for both health and ethical reasons, I have to concede that the risks of even processes meat consumption may be much lower risk than eating a lot of refined sugars and refined carbs which many people do (including many vegans and vegetarians for whom "vegetables" may not be a big part of their diets). In this case, many people might be choosing between a 20% increased risk of cancer vs. hugely increased risk of heart disease from refined carbs and a much less fulfilling low-energy life.
But even Dr. Fuhrman, who promotes a mostly vegan diet, says that people who get 10% of calories from meat and eat a lot of vegetables are going to be much healthier than a 100% vegetarian who does not eat many vegetables.
So someone like Marshall Brain may have benefited enormously from going on the meat-heavy Dukan diet and losing 50 lbs to even as I tried to encourage him (in blog comments) towards eating more vegetables instead (precisely because of cancer risks and other health risks).
http://marshallbrain.com/dukan...
That said, eating lower on the food chain makes sense for many reasons -- including ethical ones beyond the concentration of pesticides and heavy metals like mercury in animal fats. And Marshall Brain probably could have done the same using Dr. Hyman's or Dr. Fuhrman's approaches with greater long-term health benefits and a permanent shift to a new sustainable eating plan.
Also, different people may respond differently to the same food (i.e. "Nutrigenomics")
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose is a book by Deirdre Barrett published by W. W. Norton & Company in 2010. Barrett is a psychologist on the faculty of Harvard Medical School. The book argues that human instincts for food, sex, and territorial protection evolved for life on the savannah 10,000 years ago, not for todayâ(TM)s densely populated technological world. Our instincts have not had time to adapt to the rapid changes of modern life.[1] The book takes its title from Nikolaas Tinbergen's concept in animal ethology of the supernormal stimulus, the phenomena by which insects, birds, and fish in his experiments could be lured by a dummy object which exaggerated one or more characteristic of the natural stimulus object such as giant brilliant blue plaster eggs which birds preferred to sit on in preference to their own.[2] Barrett extends the concept to humans and outlines how supernormal stimuli are a driving force behind todayâ(TM)s most pressing problems, including modern warfare, obesity and other fitness problems, while also explaining the appeal of television, video games, and pornography as social outlets.[3]"
And also:
http://web.archive.org/web/201...
"Tragically, most people are totally unaware that they are only a few weeks of discipline away from being able to comfortably maintain healthful dietary habitsâ"and to keep away from the products that can result in the destruction of their health. Instead, most people think that if they were to eat more healthfully, they would be condemned to a life of greatly reduced gustatory pleasureâ"thinking that the process of Phase IV will last forever. In our new book, The Pleasure Trap, we explain this extraordinarily deceptive and problematic situation â" and how to master this hidden force that undermines health and happiness."
In the 1980s, involved in the organic agriculture movement in NJ, I visited Rutgers Food Science library expecting to find a lot of resources (and people) concerned about health and nutrition. In my naivete I was shocked to see so many resources (including journals) seemed to focus on essentially how to addict people to ever more compelling processed foods with synthetic taste. Of course, now that academic emphasis makes sense if you think about where the money is -- in addiction and maintenance instead of prevention and cure. And that is very sad.
The good new is, many people are trying to make a difference to resist that. It's a tough battle. Our society may not win it. But we can hope.
A related movie:
http://fedupmovie.com/#/page/h...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Fed Up is a 2014 American documentary film directed, written and produced by Stephanie Soechtig.[1] The film focuses on the causes of obesity in the US, presenting evidence showing that the large quantities of sugar in processed foods are an overlooked root of the problem, and points to the monied lobbying power of "Big Sugar" in blocking attempts to enact policies to address the issue."
Another pair of movies focusing on individual and community empowerment to make nutritional changes:
http://www.fatsickandnearlydea...
http://www.fatsickandnearlydea...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
My wife showed me this yesterday to make a point about exercise: http://www.refinery29.com/2017...
"To assist us in our ongoing battle to show the world that weight is just a number -- and that yes, for crissakes, women can and should lift heavy weights -- badass fit mom Adrienne Osuna is here with proof. The blogger posted a few before-and-after fitness pics on Instagram this week; her transformation is noticeable, but her weight is almost exactly the same.
"I lost 60 pounds then I quit dieting (always gaining and losing weight and yo-yo dieting and I was so over it)," Osuna wrote on her blog. "I started heavy lifting and feel in love. I recompositioned my body with out dieting. I lifted heavy 4x a week...Within a year or so...I was down 3 dress sizes and the scale still hadn't moved. But everyone kept telling me how I looked so good.""
On the move to settled agriculture 10000 years ago:
http://press.princeton.edu/tit...
"For instance, the shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago has commonly been seen as a major advancement in the course of human evolution. However, as Larsen provocatively shows, this change may not have been so positive. Compared to their hunter-gatherer ancestors, many early farmers suffered more disease, had to work harder, and endured a poorer quality of life due to poorer diets and more marginal living conditions. Moreover, the past 10,000 years have seen dramatic changes in the human physiognomy as a result of alterations in our diet and lifestyle. Some modern health problems, including obesity and chronic disease, may also have their roots in these earlier changes."
See also my other comment on nutrigenomics and how different people may respond differently to the same food. One simple example is being lactose intolerant...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Taubes provides cites and sources. You provide unsubstantiated character attacks.
But reindeer don't eat much grains and neither do wild fish.
It's like "climate change / global warming": the science is settled...
You failed to mention time. This is an important consideration. What was the average lifespan of Neanderthal man? Lifespan has increased since then.
That belief is so 20th century
Most plant sources of fats and proteins are also full of carbohydrates, putting them in the same position.
It's not necessarily being full of carbs, it's what form those carbs are in, and whether they come with sugar-countering dietary fiber.
IE, an apple is good. Apple juice, separated from the fiber, is not that good.
Taubes provides cites and sources that agree with him, or at least can be spun to seem to agree with him. He conveniently ignores anything that doesn't.
I'm not concerned about his character, I'm concerned about his integrity. He has none.