"Eating fat makes you fat"

Status
Not open for further replies.
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Apr. 27 2008,8:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So even if the sweetener of today was sucrose and not HFCS the obesity epidemic would more than likely still exist.</div>
Look at hte obesity figures for hte rest of the world. HFCS is predominantly an American thing (cheap corn starch).
 
I've only focused on America. Are you saying that we are fattest or that Europe and a couple other countries equal our epidemic despite lacking HFCS?

Side note: New Orleans is our fattest city and Seattle Wa. our leanest per capita.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Apr. 26 2008,9:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Dan Moore @ Apr. 27 2008,8:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So even if the sweetener of today was sucrose and not HFCS the obesity epidemic would more than likely still exist.</div>
Look at hte obesity figures for hte rest of the world.  HFCS is predominantly an American thing (cheap corn starch).</div>
I agree, so is the huge amount of Americans overeating. This is the main problem and whether soft drinks are sweetened with HFCS or sucrose wouldn't make a difference when so many are drinking liters of soft drinks per day plus eating way above energy needs.

The cost of HFCS to sucrose is about 1/3, that's why Americans use it so heavily but still the occassional soft drink isn't going to cause harm, it's the constant ingestion and the overall quantity that the avg Joe ingests.
 
Isn't obesity a first world country problem rather than just an American problem? I'm pretty sure I recall hearing this, and hearing how the UK has the fattest children in the world or something like that.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Apr. 27 2008,9:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Aaron_F @ Apr. 26 2008,9:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Dan Moore @ Apr. 27 2008,8:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So even if the sweetener of today was sucrose and not HFCS the obesity epidemic would more than likely still exist.</div>
Look at hte obesity figures for hte rest of the world. HFCS is predominantly an American thing (cheap corn starch).</div>
I agree, so is the huge amount of Americans overeating. This is the main problem and whether soft drinks are sweetened with HFCS or sucrose wouldn't make a difference when so many are drinking liters of soft drinks per day plus eating way above energy needs.

The cost of HFCS to sucrose is about 1/3, that's why Americans use it so heavily but still the occassional soft drink isn't going to cause harm, it's the constant ingestion and the overall quantity that the avg Joe ingests.</div>
If overeating was a psychological problem and if overeating was the cause of obesity, then that would mean that over 66% of US adults suffer from the same behavioral problem.

Why are they obese? It's not because they overeat since not all eat more than they need.

Why do those who overeat do so? It's not because they have the same psychological problem because then we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic, we'd have a psychological disorder epidemic. But then that couldn't be the cause of the obesity epidemic since the other obese who don't overeat thus don't have a psychological disorder are still obese.

So overeating can't be the cause of obesity, epidemic or not. For all we know, obesity is the cause of overeating. So what's the cause of obesity? Obesity is a disorder of fat accumulation. But that statement leads to confusion so let's use one that makes it clear what's wrong with obesity. Obesity is a disorder of adipose tissue.

What makes adipose tissue not work as it's supposed to?


For Spurlock vs Chaz, Spurlock developed fatty liver disease. Chaz did not. Note that both ate about the same amount of food. The difference is in what they drank. If you wanted to point out how much it took for HFCS to cause harm, then that would be it.
 
we are fat because: food is so cheap,food is in abundence,because many of us are couch potatoes and because we are greedy.also we have psychological problems which for some people feel eleviated through eating.obesity is mainly but not exclusively a first world problem period.
 
<div>
(lcars @ Apr. 27 2008,11:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">we are fat because: food is so cheap,food is in abundence,because many of us are couch potatoes and because we are greedy.also we have psychological problems which for some people feel eleviated through eating.obesity is mainly but not exclusively a first world problem period.</div>
So the cause of obesity is overeating? I just explained how it's not. I also explained how it's not a psychological nor a behavioral problem either. By blaming our behavior or some psychological problem, we imply that our body is stupid and will just stuff our adipose tissue without it having some say over its own function. We also imply that we have some sort of control over our autonomous systems such as digestion, nutrient distribution and utilization.

Is our adipose tissue so dumb that it will allow itself to be mistreated like this? Is our body so stupid that it can't regulate itself?
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 27 2008,11:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(lcars @ Apr. 27 2008,11:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">we are fat because: food is so cheap,food is in abundence,because many of us are couch potatoes and because we are greedy.also we have psychological problems which for some people feel eleviated through eating.obesity is mainly but not exclusively a first world problem period.</div>
So the cause of obesity is overeating? I just explained how it's not. I also explained how it's not a psychological nor a behavioral problem either. By blaming our behavior or some psychological problem, we imply that our body is stupid and will just stuff our adipose tissue without it having some say over its own function. We also imply that we have some sort of control over our autonomous systems such as digestion, nutrient distribution and utilization.

Is our adipose tissue so dumb that it will allow itself to be mistreated like this? Is our body so stupid that it can't regulate itself?</div>
Your explanation is weak.
Still trolling your low-carb fanaticism as usual.
 
Why is the developed world obese?


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Sara Bleich, David Cutler, Christopher Murray, Alyce Adams

NBER Working Paper No. 12954*
Issued in February 2007
NBER Program(s):   HC    HE
An NBER digest for this paper is available.

The NBER Bulletin on Aging and Health provides summaries of publications like this.  You can sign up to receive the NBER Bulletin on Aging and Health by email.

---- Abstract -----

Obesity has risen dramatically in the past few decades. However, the relative contribution of energy intake and energy expenditure to rising obesity is not known. Moreover, the extent to which social and economic factors tip the energy balance is not well understood. In this longitudinal analysis of developed countries, we estimate the relative contribution of increased caloric intake and reduced physical activity to obesity using two methods of energy accounting. Results show that rising obesity is primarily the result of consuming more calories. We estimate multivariate regression models and use simulation analysis to explore technological and sociodemographic determinants of this dietary excess. Results indicate that the increase in caloric intake is associated with technological innovations such as reduced food prices as well as changing sociodemographic factors such as increased urbanization and increased female labor force participation. The study findings offer useful insights to future research concerned with the etiology of obesity and may help inform the development of obesity-related policy. In particular, our results suggest that policies to encourage less caloric intake may help reverse past trends in increased consumption.

*Published: Posted with permission from the Annual Review of Public Health, Volume 29, copyright 2008 by Annual Reviews, ]www.annualreviews.org</div>
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Apr. 27 2008,11:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Why is the developed world obese?
...</div>
Correlation does not equal causation.

The paper you linked to is an epidemiological study. Statistics. The only thing this kind of study can show us is correlation. The purpose of epidemiological studies is to look for associations from which to formulate hypotheses that we then test in the lab using clinical trials.

See where they say &quot;Results show that rising obesity is primarily the result of consuming more calories.&quot;? Well that's an assumption based on the correlation between obesity and increased caloric consumption. They assume that overeating causes obesity because that's their working hypothesis. They don't consider that the cause and effect can be reversed because their hypothesis does not allow for it. It can't be an outright result of the study since epidemiological studies can't show causation directly. For all they know, increased caloric consumption is caused by obesity. Or increased caloric consumption and obesity are caused by the same agent that has not yet been named.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So the cause of obesity is overeating? I just explained how it's not.</div>

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Our diet, on the other hand, has everything to do with our body composition. Regardless of our activity level and activity quality. </div>

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Had Chaz drank regular Coke instead, he'd have gotten just as fat. </div>

So if excess energy has nothing to do with obesity then how does our diet affect our body comp and why would Chaz have gotten fat from the sweetened cola?

Never mind don't answer that. You all can continue this without me but keep it civil or I'll close this one down as well.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Apr. 26 2008,8:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 25 2008,8:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There are major differences between the two &quot;experiments&quot;. One ate over 6k calories per day while he walked a couple miles a day. The other ate about 3k calories per day while he spent, and exercised, over an hour in the gym every day.</div>
Yes there were and this is my point exactly as it was both of theirs.

Spurlock only tried to walk 5000 steps per day which is the average steps taken by most american. Yes this equates to roughly 2 miles but it is the normal amount and not additional to the normal average.

Spurlock averaged 5000 Kcals per day with no additional exercise above the normal average steps per day.

Chazz averaged 4412 Kcals/day and 64.5 minutes exercise/day above his normal activity. His max was 5710 kcals/day and min was 2620 Kcal/day. THere were 3 days he did not go to the gym at all. His max exercise time was 115 minutes/day and as I've said his min was 0.

I'm not trying to debate anyone or change anyone's views because I simply don't care, I just wanted to set the facts straight.</div>
Let's use your figures.

Spurlock gained 25lbs. Chaz lost 8lbs. That's a total difference of 33lbs. Translated, this comes up to 132,000 calories of fat or 4400 calories per day on average. There's a difference of 600 calories of food intake. That leaves us with 3800 calories. Let's say Chaz spent 1000 calories per day with his 64 minutes of exercise in the gym. That leaves us with 2800 calories not accounted for every single day.

If you have better math, please be my guest.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Apr. 27 2008,12:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So the cause of obesity is overeating? I just explained how it's not.</div>

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Our diet, on the other hand, has everything to do with our body composition. Regardless of our activity level and activity quality. </div>

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Had Chaz drank regular Coke instead, he'd have gotten just as fat. </div>

So if excess energy has nothing to do with obesity then how does our diet affect our body comp and why would Chaz have gotten fat from the sweetened cola?

Never mind don't answer that.
...</div>
I will answer it anyway.

I did not say that excess energy had nothing to do with obesity. They certainly do have something to do with each other, just not the way you think they do.

Our diet affects our body composition not quantitatively, but qualitatively. It's not how much, it's what. The Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis assumes that all forms of food, protein fat and carbohydrate, are processed equally efficiently, are used to the same end and their caloric content can be used with equal efficiency. So it's only natural that it only looks at how much of that food we eat. The reality is that we don't process protein, fat and carbohydrate equally efficiently, we don't use them to the same end, their caloric content can't be used with equal efficiency. And so it's not how much we eat that makes a difference in our body composition, it's what we eat. The main agents are carbohydrate, insulin and subsequently insulin resistance. The ultimate consequence is Metabolic Syndrome which leads to obesity and diabetes type 2 for starters.

Since dietary fat does not cause an insulin secretion and release, it can't be the cause of obesity. We can't grow fat by eating fat. Protein causes an insulin secretion and release but does not cause a blood glucose increase so it can't cause us to grow fat either. Only carbohydrate, with its ability to both cause an insulin secretion and release and a blood glucose increase has the ability to cause us to grow fat.

As we eat carbohydrate, insulin is secreted and released. Nutrients are taken out of the bloodstream and stored in adipose tissue. That's the primary function of adipose tissue: Nutrient storage. That's the primary function of insulin too: Nutrient storage. The same mechanism occurs when we eat anything else but to a much lesser extent and only temporarily. The main difference with carbohydrate is its ability to drive insulin levels higher permanently and thus trap fat in adipose tissue. Once we cut out carbohydrate from our diet, insulin levels drop and adipose tissue can release its store of nutrients, including fat. It is for this reason, for instance, that people mistakenly conclude that when they cut total calories, which invariably includes a great deal of carbohydrates, they can lose fat thereby further reinforcing their belief in the Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis.

Chaz would have gotten just as fat because he would have eaten the same extra carbohydrate Spurlock did.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 27 2008,11:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(lcars @ Apr. 27 2008,11:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">we are fat because: food is so cheap,food is in abundence,because many of us are couch potatoes and because we are greedy.also we have psychological problems which for some people feel eleviated through eating.obesity is mainly but not exclusively a first world problem period.</div>
So the cause of obesity is overeating? I just explained how it's not. I also explained how it's not a psychological nor a behavioral problem either. By blaming our behavior or some psychological problem, we imply that our body is stupid and will just stuff our adipose tissue without it having some say over its own function. We also imply that we have some sort of control over our autonomous systems such as digestion, nutrient distribution and utilization.

Is our adipose tissue so dumb that it will allow itself to be mistreated like this? Is our body so stupid that it can't regulate itself?</div>
did you read the part about us being inactive? and im sorry but psychological problems do play a part.

another point is that we are less active than many of our 3rd world counterparts which is a contributing factor. i mean look at the countries which have obesity problems and look at the ones that dont there is such an obvious connection that anyone would have to be dumb not to notice.

there are a number of factors not just one.
 
in fact you only have to consider the types of foods which we are able to get hold of.you dont see africans nipping to the shops for a hand full of mars bars and a burger and chips. again this is one reason.
 
dont get me wrong i understand that carbohydrates cause insulin spikes.and this leads to uptake in adipose tissue . but thats not the sole reason for obesity.
 
<div>
(lcars @ Apr. 27 2008,1:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 27 2008,11:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(lcars @ Apr. 27 2008,11:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">we are fat because: food is so cheap,food is in abundence,because many of us are couch potatoes and because we are greedy.also we have psychological problems which for some people feel eleviated through eating.obesity is mainly but not exclusively a first world problem period.</div>
So the cause of obesity is overeating? I just explained how it's not. I also explained how it's not a psychological nor a behavioral problem either. By blaming our behavior or some psychological problem, we imply that our body is stupid and will just stuff our adipose tissue without it having some say over its own function. We also imply that we have some sort of control over our autonomous systems such as digestion, nutrient distribution and utilization.

Is our adipose tissue so dumb that it will allow itself to be mistreated like this? Is our body so stupid that it can't regulate itself?</div>
did you read the part about us being inactive? and im sorry but psychological problems do play a part.

another point is that we are less active than many of our 3rd world counterparts which is a contributing factor. i mean look at the countries which have obesity problems and look at the ones that dont there is such an obvious connection that anyone would have to be dumb not to notice.

there are a number of factors not just one.</div>
The term &quot;factors&quot; come from epidemiological studies to explain the various correlative agents. The long term is &quot;risk factor&quot;. A risk factor is still not a causative agent. The term &quot;contributing factor&quot; means the same thing and it's not a causative agent either. Indeed, there are many factors that correlate to each other. This should tell us that there is one common agent that is the cause to all of them yet we're not looking at the data this way.

Being inactive is the same as eating too much. It's the other side of the Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis. If anything, psychological problems that are correlated with obesity are probably caused by the same agent that causes obesity in the first place. So yes in that sense, psychological problems do play a part.

We may look at the number of hours we spend in front of the TV as a way to judge how active we are. But then we can also look at how many hours we spend in the gym. Both have increased dramatically over the last 30 years or so. If they have any effect, maybe they cancel each other out.
 
<div>
(lcars @ Apr. 27 2008,1:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">dont get me wrong i understand that carbohydrates cause insulin spikes.and this leads to uptake in adipose tissue . but thats not the sole reason for obesity.</div>
Actually, it is. Once we cut out carbohydrate entirely from our diet, insulin levels drop and nutrients including fat stored in adipose tissue are released in the bloodstream.
 
All pro bicyclists consume a huge amount of calories (up to 7k and over during events like the tour of de france), and most of those calories are from carbohydrates.  They need the glycogen to use as energy.  All pro bicyclists have three things in common---they're thin as rails, have small torsos, and big legs.   Their body composiiton is that way because they expend so much energy working their legs very hard, bit their upper bodies much less.  How does this not show that your carbohydrate intake does not matter if you burn the calories off?  How does it not show that your body composition has a lot to do with how you exercise....just because many of them use steroids?  I don't get it.  


Also, doesn't the brain use glucose as fuel?  What happens when you stop providing that fuel for a long period of time?  I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed even when my brain is getting plenty of glucose.  I hate to imagine what I'd be like without it.  Many professional bbers go on low to zero carb diets during the final stages of their preparation for a show.  They report being sluggish, light headed, weak, etc. etc.  Would they not stay this way if they were on their low carb diets for an extended period of time?

Thanks for the info
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 27 2008,1:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(lcars @ Apr. 27 2008,1:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">dont get me wrong i understand that carbohydrates cause insulin spikes.and this leads to uptake in adipose tissue . but thats not the sole reason for obesity.</div>
Actually, it is. Once we cut out carbohydrate entirely from our diet, insulin levels drop and nutrients including fat stored in adipose tissue are released in the bloodstream.</div>
so what your saying is that if we cut carbs out of our diets the obesity problem will be solved?

and im not being facetious here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top