UC TV: The skinny on fat (Part 1)

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
User avatar
Zute
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: UC TV: The skinny on fat (Part 1)

Post by Zute » Mon May 07, 2012 11:54 am

I always noticed most dietitians are fat. Perhaps they follow their own advice too closely?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... iling.html

Snippet:
Absent, for instance, is the fact that the very first childhood-obesity clinic in the United States was founded in the late 1930s at Columbia University by a young German physician, Hilde Bruch. As Bruch later told it, her inspiration was simple: she arrived in New York in 1934 and was “startled” by the number of fat kids she saw—“really fat ones, not only in clinics, but on the streets and subways, and in schools.”

What makes Bruch’s story relevant to the obesity problem today is that this was New York in the worst year of the Great Depression, an era of bread lines and soup kitchens, when 6 in 10 Americans were living in poverty. The conventional wisdom these days—promoted by government, obesity researchers, physicians, and probably your personal trainer as well—is that we get fat because we have too much to eat and not enough reasons to be physically active. But then why were the PC- and Big Mac–-deprived Depression-era kids fat? How can we blame the obesity epidemic on gluttony and sloth if we easily find epidemics of obesity throughout the past century in populations that barely had food to survive and had to work hard to earn it?

These seem like obvious questions to ask, but you won’t get the answers from the anti-obesity establishment, which this month has come together to unfold a major anti-fat effort, including The Weight of the Nation, which begins airing May 14 and “a nationwide community-based outreach campaign.” The project was created by a coalition among HBO and three key public-health institutions: the nonprofit Institute of Medicine, and two federal agencies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Indeed, it is unprecedented to have the IOM, CDC, and NIH all supporting a single television documentary, says producer John Hoffmann. The idea is to “sound the alarm” and motivate the nation to act.

At its heart is a simple “energy balance” idea: we get fat because we consume too many calories and expend too few. If we could just control our impulses—or at least control our environment, thereby removing temptation—and push ourselves to exercise, we’d be fine. This logic is everywhere you look in the official guidelines, commentary, and advice. “The same amount of energy IN and energy OUT over time = weight stays the same,” the NIH website counsels Americans, while the CDC site tells us, “Overweight and obesity result from an energy imbalance.”
Formerly known as Panamah

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: UC TV: The skinny on fat (Part 1)

Post by Tudamorf » Mon May 07, 2012 12:44 pm

Zute wrote:I always noticed most dietitians are fat. Perhaps they follow their own advice too closely?
Especially Gary Taubes, the author of your article.

Image

Funny how, for all his nonsense anti-insulin, anti-carb ranting (most of which is demonstrably false), he struggles to be lean himself. Why anyone would take advice from this guy (or any of the other fat self-appointed diet experts) is beyond me.

When I went to school in the early 80s, the cafeteria routinely served french fries, hot dogs, tater tots, mashed potatoes, burgers, and fried chicken. And there was maybe ONE fat kid in the entire school. And even the typical "fat kid" from those days was quite lean compared to today's fat kids. Explain this, if you deny the laws of thermodynamics.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: UC TV: The skinny on fat (Part 1)

Post by AbyssalMage » Tue May 08, 2012 11:32 am

Tudamorf wrote:Funny how, for all his nonsense anti-insulin, anti-carb ranting (most of which is demonstrably false), he struggles to be lean himself. Why anyone would take advice from this guy (or any of the other fat self-appointed diet experts) is beyond me.
I wouldn't call the guy fat, but unhealthy yes. But, yeah, he could be a whole lot healthier if he is going to talk about obesity.
When I went to school in the early 80s, the cafeteria routinely served french fries, hot dogs, tater tots, mashed potatoes, burgers, and fried chicken. And there was maybe ONE fat kid in the entire school. And even the typical "fat kid" from those days was quite lean compared to today's fat kids. Explain this, if you deny the laws of thermodynamics.
The only things on your list that are unhealthy are french Fries, tater tots, and fried chicken. All three are deep fried at one point.

Hot dogs, mashed potatoes, and burgers are all fine (depending on your views of pork and red meat which is another subject) until you add the condiments (mustard, ketchup, butter, ect...) to the meal. Or what we have learned about white bread vs. whole grain bread and you may be onto something with hotdog buns (that are usually served with hotdogs) and hamburger buns (that are usually served with hamburgers) and you could probably say its all unhealthy except the potatoes before they add salt and butter.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: UC TV: The skinny on fat (Part 1)

Post by Tudamorf » Tue May 08, 2012 1:49 pm

AbyssalMage wrote:Hot dogs, mashed potatoes, and burgers are all fine
Seriously? A typical recipe for mashed potatoes calls for half a stick of butter and a half cup of heavy cream (in addition to the potatoes, of course). And you make the gravy by taking pan drippings from your roast (watery animal fat) and mixing with white flour.

Now if you don't believe a calorie is a calorie, I want you to explain to me how Americans ate these recipes as staple foods for decades yet stayed reasonably lean.

The answer is staring everyone right in the face, yet they refuse to acknowledge it, and prefer to listen to fat "diet experts" who tell them how their obesity isn't their fault. An astounding phenomenon, worthy of a serious psychological study on the depths of denial.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: UC TV: The skinny on fat (Part 1)

Post by AbyssalMage » Mon May 14, 2012 9:49 am

Tudamorf wrote:
AbyssalMage wrote:Hot dogs, mashed potatoes, and burgers are all fine
Seriously? A typical recipe for mashed potatoes calls for half a stick of butter and a half cup of heavy cream (in addition to the potatoes, of course). And you make the gravy by taking pan drippings from your roast (watery animal fat) and mixing with white flour.
Well, you could take a potato w/o skin to boil. Drain. Add milk (2%). Mix and serve. Not nearly as unhealthy as the recipe you have and the fat from the 2% replaces the butter. There are some other, more nutritious, versions but as a family we do the above because it is nice and simple.

Add green onion, ham, cheddar cheese, and pepper and MMMMMMmmmmm.... :D

User avatar
Zute
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: UC TV: The skinny on fat (Part 1)

Post by Zute » Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:20 pm

Insulin and the Rewards of overfeeding. A bit technical, but interesting.
Otherwise how you can eat 2000kcal over your energy expenditure, equivalent to nearly 200g of fat gain per day, and gain a kilo of fat in the first week, then continue to eat an excess 2000kcal/d for a second week and only gain half a kilo of fat? Calories in, calories out, you know the rules. Hmmm, in the second week there are 14,000 excess calories-in, 5,000 stored, very interesting.

We all know the obese lie about calories. It seems probable that so too must experimental subjects, in direct proportion to the duration of their over eating! Now we know. Bit of a milestone paper this one.
(That last was sarcasm).

The review is about the mistaken assumption of which way the causality arrow points.
Formerly known as Panamah

erianaiel
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:33 am

Re: UC TV: The skinny on fat (Part 1)

Post by erianaiel » Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:46 am

Tudamorf wrote:
AbyssalMage wrote:But HFCS is part of the problem, not the solution when it comes to wait gain. Sugar on the other hand is neutral when it comes to wait gain/loss.
No. They are the same when it comes to weight maintenance. The same. HFCS is just the current scapegoat for American gluttony, sloth, and ignorance. Once HFCS is replaced with sugar or the next magic diet fix, the problem will remain and the media will find a new scapegoat.
AbyssalMage wrote:Losing weight isn't easy, period.
Actually, it is very easy to lose weight, or maintain a healthy weight. Trivial really, compared to real athletic conditioning. I can lose or gain weight very easily by altering food quantity. Billions of humans have done it successfully for millennia, until 30 years ago in America when they were told nothing is their own fault, and there's always a magical pill around the corner that will cure their faults, and oh, would you like to supersize that?
You are correct only up to a certain point Tudamorf.

The laws of physics say that a calorie the same regardless of the source. That is because it is defined as how much heat is generated when you burn it.
It is also undeniably true that if you eat more food than you burn you will gain weight, and if you eat less you will lose weight.
But the problem is that there are two more sciences involved: chemistry and biology.
We do not directly burn our food in a little oven, but instead use a complex combination of mechanical actions and chemical reactions to break down the food to the base stuff that our body needs to function. Some of it goes into building new cells, some of it into the chemical reactions that keep the cells functioning. And most of it can not be processed and leaves the body in a fairly expedient way.
Food that is too difficult to break down mechanically will not be used to nourish the body (i.e. if you swallow a peanut hole it will remain unused regardless of its high caloric value). Food that can not easily be broken down further chemically will also remain unused. E.g. if you eat 100kCal of grass you will get no nourishment out of it because our digestive system is not set up to break it down. If it were we would have several stomachs and regurgitate the half digested grass a few times to further chew it and soak it in a different batch of chemicals.
Things get more complicated still because our biologies are set up to handle certain chemicals more easily than others. This is also where current research gets a bit uncertain. E.g. Glucose and Fructose are not exactly the same molecules even if they are of the same family, and what breaks down one may not work quite so well on the other. This is not much of a problem when it comes to only breaking down, but these molecules are small enough that they are transported by blood and rely on other molecules in our body to bind them and move them to where they need to go. If these receptors react better to one form of these molecules than to the other it may disrupt control processes in the body (e.g. it will not trigger the feeling of having had enough food, or it will enter an organ but that does can not handle it, leaving a residue to build up over time).
Most of this is insights that are fairly new as our understanding of how our bodies function on a molecular level slowly increases (just the ability to make images of and simulate how complex molecules 'fit' together both chemically and physically requires a degree of computing power that is only available these last two decades). Because it is new there are a lot of uncertainties and some (many) of the 'discoveries' will later turn out to be wrong after all.

Which in a very convoluted and roundabout way leads me back to the conclusion that if somebody wants to lose weight they will have to eat less, but they will also have to eat -better- because getting your calories from sugar or from proteines makes a big difference biochemically speaking. We tend to eat too much, and on top of that too much sugar and fat (because those are historically hard to come by and we are therefore genetically predisposed to like to eat them when available) and unless we do something about that we will continue to grow rounder. But at the same time is there enough empirical evidence that, even if we do not know why or how, our bodies react to fructose in a manner that is even more detrimental than it does to glucose. Cutting down on the hfcs does not replace the need for a better diet, but it reduces the incidence of the worst effects of our unhealthy diets.


Eri

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: UC TV: The skinny on fat (Part 1)

Post by Tudamorf » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:10 pm

erianaiel wrote:Which in a very convoluted and roundabout way leads me back to the conclusion that if somebody wants to lose weight they will have to eat less, but they will also have to eat -better- because getting your calories from sugar or from proteines makes a big difference biochemically speaking.
It can make a difference in your health, but not in your overall weight.

Obesity is caused by taking in more energy than you consume, over time, regardless of the form of the energy.

However, modern day Americans refuse to accept personal responsibility, and therefore continue to seek out each new diet fad that tells them that their obesity is not their fault.
erianaiel wrote:We tend to eat too much, and on top of that too much sugar and fat (because those are historically hard to come by and we are therefore genetically predisposed to like to eat them when available) and unless we do something about that we will continue to grow rounder. But at the same time is there enough empirical evidence that, even if we do not know why or how, our bodies react to fructose in a manner that is even more detrimental than it does to glucose.
We are primates. Our ancestors, for tens of millions of years, have gorged on fruit, and even evolved enhanced color vision to detect ripe fruit. Ripe fruit is full of sugar, usually at least half fructose, and is palatable and edible raw. (Other natural sugar sources, such as honey and coconut water, also contain fructose.)

If fructose were toxic to us in such doses, evolution would have directed us away from it, not toward it. Then maybe we'd find green rock hard bananas delicious, and soft yellow ones disgusting.

It certainly makes no sense to say that we evolved to eat only glucose, without fructose. That comes from cereal grains, requires processing to be palatable, and has only been part of our diet for a very short time.

So you have it backwards: It is the fructose that's easy to come by, and the glucose (at least standing alone) that isn't.

User avatar
Zute
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: UC TV: The skinny on fat (Part 1)

Post by Zute » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:36 am

There are 4 well-controlled, inpatient, metabolic ward studies (the gold standard for human research) published from 1982 thru 1997 that showed statistically significant reductions in resting metabolic rate when overweight subjects performed 300-600 Calories per day of endurance exercise for weeks at a time [1-4]. There are no equally rigorous human studies showing the opposite. There are animal (rat) studies that show the opposite, and there are human studies done under less controlled conditions that show the opposite. However there are also similarly less rigorous studies that agree with the above four gold-standard studies. When the quality/rigor of the studies is taken into account, the weight of the evidence supports two main conclusions:

1. Humans vary one-from-another in how their metabolism responds to endurance exercise, and much of this inter-individual variation is inherited (genetic). Given this wide individual variance, studies involving small numbers of subjects could get differing results based on random chance.
2. Although genetically lean people as a group may respond differently, when overweight humans do more than one hour of endurance exercise daily, resting metabolism on average declines between 5 and 15%.

The fascinating question is, if our interpretation of this published literature turns out to be correct, then how come most doctors, dietitians, and sports scientists think the opposite? Part of the answer is that there is a lot of simple logic suggesting that exercise speeds resting metabolism. First, exercise builds muscle, and muscle burns energy even at rest. Second, there are a lot of skinny athletes out there who think they are skinny because they train hard (as opposed to being able to train hard because they are skinny). Third, it is a common observation that heavy people tend not to exercise much, so it is easy to blame their weight problem on a lack of exercise. And finally, everyone loves a ‘2-for-the-price-of-one’ sale. It’s just way too tempting to think that you could burn 600 Calories during a 1-hour run and then, as a result, burn another 600 Calories over the course of the next day?

They go on to say that:

We are not saying that exercise isn’t good for people. Both of us are personally committed to leading vigorous lives, and encouraging others to consider doing the same. What we object to, however, is mis-informing the public as to what and how much benefit they can expect from exercise, particularly as it pertains to weight loss. From our perspective, telling heavy people to exercise because it speeds resting metabolism (and thus markedly increasing one’s rate of weight loss) is about as credible as selling them the Brooklyn Bridge.
Excerpted from here.
Formerly known as Panamah

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: UC TV: The skinny on fat (Part 1)

Post by Tudamorf » Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:25 pm

How many fat endurance athletes do you know?

There are plenty of fat ex-athletes, so no, it's not magic anti-obesity genes.

And real athletes (unlike out of shape middle aged white men who pretend to know about the topic while pimping their new book about how being fat is not your fault) eat tons of carbohydrates, which are absolutely essential to performance.

Post Reply