The Obesity Epidemic: What Can Be Done to Stop It?

[DanP]

No, as DanP said, that's not what I meant. Look, there is a difference between "jogging" and "running". I work out almost every day for 25 minutes at quite a fast speed, but of course not "sprinting speed".

I'm sure most people will not be able to keep up with my pace. People who are not fit could perhaps keep up with me for 2 minutes and then have to stop. They could also run for 30 minutes at slow jogging speed and then, as whs said, feel horrible afterwards.

I never said that. When did I specify over 30 minutes?

I know exactly what sprinting events are. You don't have to compete in them to know that they're short distance.
Anyone who thinks sprinters sprint for 30 minutes is living on another planet.

First quote below suggest you believe that a 10 km run can be sprinted by several ppl in the world. Noone can.

Second quote was a reply to exchange which *discussed 30 mins running intensities*. It also contains the statement that "fast jogging" is getting into the realm of sprinting. Actually, fast jogging running is way under 10km race intensity. Hence, your post contains the very nice issue of comparing 10km pace with sprinting.

I will end this dialogue now, I don't consider it productive for anyone. It will just end like in Kate Moss thread where ppl , including some PhDs in biology, tried to tell you simplistically how complex is apetite regulation, and you failed to hear anything.

Walk the walk before talking the talk.

So sprinting for 30 minutes? There's probably very few people in the world who can do that.

You said "really running and not just fast jogging". That implies faster than "fast jogging", which is starting to get into the realm of sprinting.

 

[Count Iblis]

Anyway, the point about physical fitness is that your weight will remain the same even if you increase your calorie intake and keep the amount of energy you expend during physical exertion the same.

This was put to the test in a BBC Horizon documentary last year. They took some volunteers (young students) and put them on a diet of about 5000 kcal per day for a month, about double their normal daily energy intake. They were not allowed to exercise.

Naively you would expect that the weight of the test persons would increase rapidly and roughly linearly with time. But what happened was that the weight only increased by some lmited amount, 5 to 10 kg, I think, and then stabilized at that level after a few weeks.

The people with the least weight increase had grown more muscles, even though they did not exercise. Muscles burn energy even if they are not used, so this then leads to an increase in the metabolic rate.

It was also explained in the documentary that the fact that calorie intake is irrelevant for weight control should be obvious even without the results of the experiment. 1 kg of fat contains about 8,000 kcal of energy. Many people have a constant weight over a period of 20 years. A weight increase of a few kg from the age of 25 to 45 is not that uncommon. But that requires a fine tuning between energy use and energy intake to the level of about the energy contained in a single French fry per day. There is no way you could consciously maintain the balance between energy intake and energy use to this level.

In the documentary it was mentioned that what matters is the nnumber of fat cells you have when you are an adult. This sets your weight. You can diet all you want, but as soon as you return to eating a normal diet (instead of, say, a 1000 Kcal starving diet to lose weight), the fat cells will start to refill until they are full. When they are full, your body will keep its weight stable by burning off any extra energy it absorbs from food. If you eat a little less than you burn, your body will lower its metabolic rate.

It is not known exactly how this mechanism functions. It could be that fat cells produce hormones such that when they are filled below a certain threshold level, they'll send signals to slow the metabolic rate while if they are filled above that level they'll send signals to the brain to increase the metabolic rate.

The cause of obesity must be sought at children eating too much. Children will increase the number of fat cells when they grow up. The more they eat, the more fat cells they will have as an adult.

Once you are an adult you won't change your number of fat cells as easily anymore. It could be that if you are not fit then the feedback mechanism as far as increasing metabolic rate is concerned fails and then the energy imbalance leads the body to create new fat cells.

 

[GeorginaS]

yes, I'm suggesting higher stealing.

So your opinion, then, is that lower-income people have a larger portion of criminals or people predisposed to crime in their population. I think there's some bigotry there.

i'd also suggest a lower sales volume in lower income neighborhoods that adds to the expense of doing business there.

Not when they're the only large-chain grocery store in the area. There are several examples scattered through the city where I live.

in any case, there certainly valid reasons for the prices being higher, i'd think.

Why is "captive audience" an invalid reason? Ever check out the cost of a very bad sandwich on an airplane?

the captive audience theory sounds appealing if you think companies are just mean,

Earning maximum profit by any means available, including using information such as demographics, has no moral compass. It's simply capitalism. There is no assumption of "nice" or "mean" involved.

but around here, wherever Home Depot has opened a store, Lowes locates nearby. it's almost as if capitalism is captive to its consumers.

And again, those are big box stores, are they not? And where are the located? And what is the best way to access those stores?

 

[leroyjenkens]

First quote below suggest you believe that a 10 km run can be sprinted by several ppl in the world. Noone can.

I have no idea if anyone can do that, so I didn't want to say positively that no one can when I don't have that information. But that statement proves that I don't believe sprinting EVENTS are long distance, which is the point. Not that some people MAYBE could do it.
Saying "probably very few" doesn't suggest I believe anyone can do it. You're reaching.

Second quote was a reply to exchange which *discussed 30 mins running intensities*. It also contains the statement that "fast jogging" is getting into the realm of sprinting. Actually, fast jogging running is way under 10km race intensity. Hence, your post contains the very nice issue of comparing 10km pace with sprinting.

You're using your interpretation of "fast jogging" as proof that I'm saying something I'm not saying. You've lost the original point.

I will end this dialogue now, I don't consider it productive for anyone. It will just end like in Kate Moss thread where ppl , including some PhDs in biology, tried to tell you simplistically how complex is apetite regulation, and you failed to hear anything.

You're don't know the whole story, you just want to insult me. Your bias has prevented you from accurately explaining what happened in that other thread, so this comment you made is futile.

Walk the walk before talking the talk.

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make here is. You're misconstruing what I said, making assumptions, using fallacies, and getting upset about this for no apparent reason. If you're right, you're right, no problem. If you're wrong, you tend to get upset.

 

[dreiter]

This was put to the test in a BBC Horizon documentary last year. They took some volunteers (young students) and put them on a diet of about 5000 kcal per day for a month, about double their normal daily energy intake. They were not allowed to exercise.

Naively you would expect that the weight of the test persons would increase rapidly and roughly linearly with time. But what happened was that the weight only increased by some lmited amount, 5 to 10 kg, I think, and then stabilized at that level after a few weeks.

The people with the least weight increase had grown more muscles, even though they did not exercise. Muscles burn energy even if they are not used, so this then leads to an increase in the metabolic rate.

Nothing against you Count, but this study was flawed. An increased muscle mass (and metabolic rate) in that amount of time can account for a few hundred calories at most. If you eat double the Calories you are normally eating, you will gain fat, and continue to gain fat. Perhaps at a certain weight (very heavy) your body will have to work so hard for basic life and motion that you will start burning all of those 5000 Calories, but at the end of the month the people in the study will still be gaining weight.

The body can't violate the laws of thermodynamics. :)



Also, as an aside, I have noticed that BBC documentaries are rather light on the background/study information. Perhaps if you have a link to the published paper? Controls, variables, etc?

 

[DanP]

Anyway, the point about physical fitness is that your weight will remain the same even if you increase your calorie intake and keep the amount of energy you expend during physical exertion the same.

It was also explained in the documentary that the fact that calorie intake is irrelevant for weight control should be obvious even without the results of the experiment. 1 kg of fat contains about 8,000 kcal of energy. Many people have a constant weight over a period of 20 years. A weight increase of a few kg from the age of 25 to 45 is not that uncommon. But that requires a fine tuning between energy use and energy intake to the level of about the energy contained in a single French fry per day. There is no way you could consciously maintain the balance between energy intake and energy use to this level.

In the documentary it was mentioned that what matters is the nnumber of fat cells you have when you are an adult. This sets your weight. You can diet all you want, but as soon as you return to eating a normal diet (instead of, say, a 1000 Kcal starving diet to lose weight), the fat cells will start to refill until they are full. When they are full, your body will keep its weight stable by burning off any extra energy it absorbs from food. If you eat a little less than you burn, your body will lower its metabolic rate.
.

This is unfortunately full of partial truths. Documentaries are in permanent searching of sensational, and hence they may take on sound scientific facts and twist them to hell.

Your weight will **not** remain the same if you increase the calories intake and keep the amount the energy the same during physical exertion. This is how athletes move up weight classes. This is how ppl get fat :P

The statement that the number of calories you ingest is irrelevant for weight control is highly incorrect.

The statement that once you have finished a diet and return to normal feeding, your body will put all the fat back is also highly incorrect. It will only happen when "ad libitum" feeding occurs in persons which present deficiencies in appetite regulation. Those persons will return to overfeeding instantly. Nota bene, this is not normal feeding. In the case of normal feeding, such a person will NOT return to the previous weight, despite the flaws in regulation. Said flaws cause "ad libitum" to constitute overfeeding.

 

[dreiter]

Should governments, through their healthcare policies, get involved in this issue ?

To answer the OP, unfortunately the government is already involved in this issue, and in the wrong way...

http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/images/pyramid.jpg

 

[Count Iblis]

It was this documentary:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hbsk2

 

[Count Iblis]

What about this thought experiment. Suppose that in a prison an inmate is given a diet of 2500 kcal and his weight is constant. We then decide to feed the same inmate 2400 kcal while we keep all his activities the same. Will the inmate eventually starve to death?

 

[DanP]

What about this thought experiment. Suppose that in a prison an inmate is given a diet of 2500 kcal and his weight is constant. We then decide to feed the same inmate 2400 kcal while we keep all his activities the same. Will the inmate eventually starve to death?

No. If his maintenance is 2500, he will compensate by lowering his metabolic rate. It will happen usually by loosing some weight, or in case of small differences by hormonal adjustments. The body will be in energy balance again after loosing a small body mass. The new equilibrium will be at 2400.

But what happens if after you reduce the caloric intake to 2000 ? Then 1600 ? Then 1200 ?

The body can compensate for a while but the limits are quite small. You can run calculations and see how much a increase of say several kg in body mass will change your basal metabolic rate. Most of ppl which end up being obese overfeed way over it. They end up obese before nearing a new energetic equilibriumHitler and the SS tried your experiment in KZ lagers. The result is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buchenwald_Slave_Laborers_Liberation.jpg

Those ppl where fed to the limit of subsistence. Further reduction of caloric intake would result most likely in death from respiratory failure.

 

[mgb_phys]

Nothing against you Count, but this study was flawed.
...
The body can't violate the laws of thermodynamics. :)

Especially if they didn't measure the calorific content of the 'output' - you can feed someone an extra 5000 calories, it doesn't mean they can metabolise them
Over a short timescale they will only be able to metabolise enough of the extra calories to put on an extra 10kg, if you continue feeding them 5000 calories for many years they will adapt to the diet and soon reach an impressive new body size.

 

[DanP]

...if you continue feeding them 5000 calories for many years they will adapt to the diet and soon reach an impressive new body size.

Which, if I may add, will mostly, but not entirely consist of body-fat. I have yet to see a single human which, while being overfeed constantly and not exercising , will end up looking like a power athlete or a bodybuilder. But by some sick twist of nature, they end up fat slobs.

That being said, there are 3 things which should be noted about adipocytes.

- adypocites manifest a strong preference for hypertrophy, instead of hyperplasia, exactly as the documentary notes. However, prof. K.N Frayn (Human metabolism, Oxford university) notes that once the capacity of storage of fat is exceeded, due to long time overfeeding hyperplasia will occur in adults as well. It basically occurs through differentiation of pre-adipocites into new adipocytes.

- liposuction surgery does extract physically from body large quantities of adypocites. This results in a lower number of fat cells, which may have additional short term benefits, to just loosing the 'fat'

- white adipose tissue has very low oxygen consumption requirements. While it is certainly incorrect to label adipose tissue as "metabolically inert" , since it is involved in a large multitude of metabolic processes and even functions as a endocrine organ, the effect of this is that a large increase in weight through fat storage does not alter very much the basal metabolic rates.

 

[DanP]

Naively you would expect that the weight of the test persons would increase rapidly and roughly linearly with time. But what happened was that the weight only increased by some lmited amount, 5 to 10 kg, I think, and then stabilized at that level after a few weeks.

1 kg of bodyfat = ~7700 kcal. 10Kg = 77000 kcal

2500 kcal excess over 30 days 75000kcal .

It accounts for less than 10kg. Which you said is in the limit of variance in weight gained .This , only looking at the raw numbers, and not counting for increases in basal metabolic rate. If you count those, less than 10kg should be expected. So I really don't
wonder that the weight of subjects didn't exceeded the maximum physically possible. Let's continue the "study" for another half a year...Rest of variance seen can be explained through many factors. for once, I doubt that everyone had the same RMR, same daily activity levels (even if they didnt "exercised"), same hormonal profiles. I would also very much like to know details on how the feeding of test subjects over those 30 days was organized and supervised. Did the study accounted for variations in body mass due to, let's say, fluid retention ?

 

[edward]

Most of the documentary, FOOD INC is on youtube. It deals primarily with the quality of food. Parts of it are pretty gruesome.




Then we can't leave out SUPERSIZE ME also on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfBc-Rla0uI&feature=PlayList&p=A5CB4CD93FB2A4C7&index=0&playnext=1


As far as obesity and our diets just look at what many people are eating.

We had a big fight with the local school district to get them to pull the junk food vending machines from the schools. They didn't want to lose the revenue.

Whether or not there is a connection between obesity and high fructose corn sweetener is still being debated but a lot of food manufactures are replacing it with regular sugar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/dining/21sugar.html

 

[leroyjenkens]

Whether or not there is a connection between obesity and high fructose corn sweetener is still being debated but a lot of food manufactures are replacing it with regular sugar.

Wouldn't replacing it with an equal amount of sugar do nothing?

 

[DanP]

Wouldn't replacing it with an equal amount of sugar do nothing?

Both leptin and insulin have important roles in appetite regulation and long term homeostasis.

One of the main issues which is studied today is the fact that fructose does not cause directly a release of insulin from the pancreas beta cells. Since insulin levels are one of the regulators of plasma leptin levels after a meal, using fructose as a source of CHO will result in lower leptin levels as well.

The concern is that the combined effect will negatively impact appetite regulation, and even long term homeostasis, cause insulin resistance, lower glucose tolerance and so on.

There are other negative effects associated with fructose, when consumed after a meal containing glucose. Normally, fructose would be converted to glucose in liver and stored as glycogen. But after a rich CHO meal, the time when you would most likely have a soft drink with a high content of fructose, the insulin / glucagon ratio in plasma is unfavorable to the onset of gluconeogenesis. Hence, fructose used in such conditions may end being preferentially metabolized to fats.

There is a lot of ongoing research on this.

 

[lisab]

Whether or not there is a connection between obesity and high fructose corn sweetener is still being debated but a lot of food manufactures are replacing it with regular sugar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/dining/21sugar.html

Over the last ~1.5 years I've gradually been getting rid of high fructose corn syrup from my diet. I agree that the link is debatable, but I've found that when you get rid of HFCS you also get rid of processed junk and fast foods.

So whether HFCS causes obesity is irrelevant, because it acts as a proxy for a class that I'll call "foods you shouldn't be eating much of anyway".

I noticed a big improvement in my health since I've made the change.

 

[Proton Soup]

HFCS is better for you than it used to be, because the mercury cell process used to manufacture the acids and bases that control the acidity of the reaction have been mostly phased out.

 

[Count Iblis]

Perhaps that BBC documentary is still available online, I may have gotten some details wrong.

Anyway, I've just made dinner for myself so I'm off to eat. On the menu today: 1 kg of potatoes, 400 grams vegetables (beans and broccoli) and 100 grams of meat (chicken).

I can recommend this high carb, low fat diet to everyone. My weight is very stable and I have plenty of energy to exercise has hard as I want. I weigh 62 kg, exactly the same as I weighed 4 years ago. I eat a lot; I don't have to go hungry to manage my weight.

You do have to get used to the high volume of food. Most people eat minuscule amounts of high fat foods. Their stomachs will be too small to eat what I am used to eating.

 

[DanP]

Perhaps that BBC documentary is still available online, I may have gotten some details wrong.

Anyway, I've just made dinner for myself so I'm off to eat. On the menu today: 1 kg of potatoes, 400 grams vegetables (beans and broccoli) and 100 grams of meat (chicken).

Let us see ...

potatoes 80kcal/100g * 10 = 800 kcal
chicken 220 kcal/100g*1 = 220kcal
beans 80kcal / 100 * 2 = 160 kcal
brocolli 30kcal/ 100g * 2 = 60 kcal

grand total = 1240 kcal

I really do hope 1240 kcal is not your usual daily intake.

 

[Proton Soup]

So your opinion, then, is that lower-income people have a larger portion of criminals or people predisposed to crime in their population. I think there's some bigotry there.

it's only one element, but it's not bigotry if it's true. i actually worked in a grocery store once, one that many of the customers walked (not drove) to. you would not believe the number of people that shove steaks under their clothes and run out the door.

Not when they're the only large-chain grocery store in the area. There are several examples scattered through the city where I live.

there's obviously not much profit potential where you live.

Why is "captive audience" an invalid reason? Ever check out the cost of a very bad sandwich on an airplane?

i've never paid for a sandwich on a plane. whatever wasn't part of the package, i waited until my destination.

Earning maximum profit by any means available, including using information such as demographics, has no moral compass. It's simply capitalism. There is no assumption of "nice" or "mean" involved.

And again, those are big box stores, are they not? And where are the located? And what is the best way to access those stores?

i think cities have these things called buses and trains.

 

[edward]

Over the last ~1.5 years I've gradually been getting rid of high fructose corn syrup from my diet. I agree that the link is debatable, but I've found that when you get rid of HFCS you also get rid of processed junk and fast foods.

So whether HFCS causes obesity is irrelevant, because it acts as a proxy for a class that I'll call "foods you shouldn't be eating much of anyway".

I noticed a big improvement in my health since I've made the change.

There are a lot of products that have high fructose corn sweetener where a person might not expect it. Most children's fruit drinks or fruit flavored drinks are loaded with it. Ocean Spray has pulled it from their cranberry juice products.

It is also used as a preservative.

Because it extends the shelf life of processed foods and is cheaper than sugar, high-fructose corn syrup has become a popular ingredient in many sodas, fruit-flavored drinks and other processed foods.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588

 

[Count Iblis]

Let us see ...

potatoes 80kcal/100g * 10 = 800 kcal
chicken 220 kcal/100g*1 = 220kcal
beans 80kcal / 100 * 2 = 160 kcal
brocolli 30kcal/ 100g * 2 = 60 kcal

grand total = 1240 kcal

I really do hope 1240 kcal is not your usual daily intake.

I eat 6 times per day: Breakfast, second breakfast, lunch, second lunch, dinner, and then a meal before sleeping. In the other meals I eat in total 400 grams of bread, some meat, cheese, fruit, yoghurt etc.

Also, in the above calculation, you did not account for the gravy. Even I cannot eat dry potatoes (at least not this much). I think this adds another 250 kcal.

 

[DanP]

I eat 6 times per day: Breakfast, second breakfast, lunch, second lunch, dinner, and then a meal before sleeping. In the other meals I eat in total 400 grams of bread, some meat, cheese, fruit, yoghurt etc.

Also, in the above calculation, you did not account for the gravy. Even I cannot eat dry potatoes (at least not this much). I think this adds another 250 kcal.

O good, you got my scared for a second !

 

[Critical]

Of course Americans are fat whales when feed troughs such as the Cheesecake Factory are wildly popular all over the country.

http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/cheesecake-factory-nutrition-facts-calories-01.gif
http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/cheesecake-factory-nutrition-facts-calories-02.gif
http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/cheesecake-factory-nutrition-facts-calories-03.gif
http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/cheesecake-factory-nutrition-facts-calories-04.gif
http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/cheesecake-factory-nutrition-facts-calories-05.gif
http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/cheesecake-factory-nutrition-facts-calories-06.gif
http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/cheesecake-factory-nutrition-facts-calories-07.gif
http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/cheesecake-factory-nutrition-facts-calories-08.gif
http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/cheesecake-factory-nutrition-facts-calories-09.gif
http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/cheesecake-factory-nutrition-facts-calories-10.gif

It is incredibly irresponsible to offer meals exceeding 2,000 calories (and that ignores the 1,300 calorie cheesecake desserts that many consumers would ask for after their meal) and hide that information from consumers. The only reason CF's nutrition info is available is because it is brand new state law in WA, that it must be revealed. CF hides this nutrition info from consumers in every other state. CF also isn't the only restaurant that does this. Almost every chain restaurant out there makes it extremely difficult for consumers to find nutrition info or offers no info at all. Americans eat out more than ever, if they knew what they were really eating they'd probably change, at least a little bit. Fat Americans are from a combination of things such as personal irresponsibility, corporate irresponsibility, terrible agricultural policies, and awful quality food at supermarkets. I've never eaten more poor and highly manufactured produce anywhere else than as I have in the US. Produce in the US is "grown" for mass production, as cheap as possible, and as quick as possible. No wonder Americans don't like to eat their fruits and veggies, their produce is flavorless trash. It's quite poor to the real fresh stuff you can buy in small markets in Asia and Europe. They don't have fake produce that was ripened with ethylene gas there.

 

[Galteeth]

Most of the documentary, FOOD INC is on youtube. It deals primarily with the quality of food. Parts of it are pretty gruesome.




Then we can't leave out SUPERSIZE ME also on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfBc-Rla0uI&feature=PlayList&p=A5CB4CD93FB2A4C7&index=0&playnext=1


As far as obesity and our diets just look at what many people are eating.

We had a big fight with the local school district to get them to pull the junk food vending machines from the schools. They didn't want to lose the revenue.

Whether or not there is a connection between obesity and high fructose corn sweetener is still being debated but a lot of food manufactures are replacing it with regular sugar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/dining/21sugar.html

Yeah, one way the government could help is by stopping their agricultural subsidies, which hides the true cost of grain and corn, creating an economic incentive to use HFCS in everything.

 

[Count Iblis]

I almost never eat in restaurants. It is just not convenient for me.

I once ordered a steak and potatoes dish. What I got was one huge steak and a few tiny potatoes. I asked for more potatoes. I was given a few more potatoes. That was not what I wanted, so I made myself more clear. I said: "I want to have a few plates full of potatoes." The waiter who was very obese, was shocked: "What! So many potatoes? That is very unhealthy!"

After half an hour I got what I ordered. I ate all the potatoes and just a small part of the steak. When I left the restaurant, I was still feeling hungry. Back at home I still had to prepare a meal. So, the visit to the restaurant only costed time and money.

Usually, if I attend lunch or dinner meetings, I only order some drinks for myself. I will eat later at home.

 

[DanP]

... creating an economic incentive to use HFCS in everything.

I agree, but we have a multifaceted problem. On one side we have an overabundance of food, from which a sizable chunk is junk. On the other side, we face a very easy life, most manual work is automatized, and save for a handful of jobs, the work we do doesn't account for a significant energy expenditure. Lastly, the attitude towards voluntary physical effort in most adults in West is lamentable.

Research in genetics and regulation of body-weight is viewed by obese populations more and more as an excuse. The word of the day is ... "its in my genes, I can't do anything for it"
In fact, the LoTek kit of the fat guy (even if his appetite regulation is gone to hell) can consist only of as little as: a MD clearance for light effort, enough education to read governments food pyramid sites, a weight scale and a mirror. Mirror is very important, if you look fat, then yes you are a fat pig. Chances are if you have health issues, youll never perform like a master athlete or look like an action movie star, but a modest reduction of 10 - 15% of your bw can save your *** from a lot of issues.

Perhaps the states should look at the issue as a threat to national health and aggressively start to combat it on multiple fronts:

- regulating strict labeling uses containing nutritional information for any product
- bans on nutrients which have over them a reasonable suspicion that they can cause unwanted effects on health (NY transfat bans enter my mind)
- an aggressive media campaign educating the public at large, coupled with promotion of physical activities in schools.
- a reform of the health system focused in prevention

My personal opinion is that a sensible education would go a long way in helping many of the innocents cursed with the lard of doom

 

[DanP]

The waiter who was very obese, was shocked: "What! So many potatoes? That is very unhealthy!"

Well, you should have told him "Look at me, then look in the mirror". And forfeit your order and leave, else the bastard would most likely do something nasty to your potatoes :P

Anyway, I don't eat in restaurants except with special occasions. The reason is more mundane than me being very worried about the food I get, but I simply find homemade food tasting so much better. One of the minor advantages of a very active life is the fact that you can indulge yourself in that french chocolate desert or other savory high calorie dish with no side effects.

 

[mgb_phys]

if you look fat, then yes you are a fat pig.

That's the best definition, rather than arguing about the exponents in the BMI, or population trends - if you suck your stomach in at the pool when a member of the appropriate sex goes past = you are overweight.

- regulating strict labeling uses containing nutritional information for any product

All foods or are we going to decide there is a difference between fast food and 'real food'?
Are small restaurants going to be shut down because they can't know precisely how much sodium is in their home made vegan quiche? While McDs will be able to comply easily.
No farmers markets/small veg stores - because they won't have the infrastructure to print a calorie/carbs/sugar label for each potato

- bans on nutrients which have over them a reasonable suspicion that they can cause unwanted effects on health (NY transfat bans enter my mind)

And Ca bans unpasterised cheese - you will take my Brie from my cold dead fingers.
It's not what you eat so much as how much / how often. The French and Italians manage to survive eating cream.

- an aggressive media campaign educating the public at large, coupled with promotion of physical activities in schools.

Running anti-hamburger ads like the anti-drug ads is likely to be about as succesfull.
I think Phys Ed in schools has to take some of the blame. For most people it was an hour a week for them to be kicked around by the jocks, or be made to run around a muddy football pitch in the rain while being shouted at. Pretty much like basic training it's result wasn't to instill a life long love of exercise so much as a vow never to have to do that again.
(Pretty much the same can be said about schools approach to music, poetry, literature, maths ...)

- a reform of the health system focused in prevention

Good luck with that!

 

[DanP]

All foods or are we going to decide there is a difference between fast food and 'real food'?
Are small restaurants going to be shut down because they can't know precisely how much sodium is in their home made vegan quiche? While McDs will be able to comply easily.
No farmers markets/small veg stores - because they won't have the infrastructure to print a calorie/carbs/sugar label for each potato

This is a very good point.

 

[mgb_phys]

This is a very good point.

These health rules always end up having stupid consequences.
There was a story of NY banning something like imported Truffle oil because it contained more mercury than the EPA limit - the limit of course being set for drinking water and the recipe only using a few drops of the oil.

 

[Galteeth]

I agree, but we have a multifaceted problem. On one side we have an overabundance of food, from which a sizable chunk is junk. On the other side, we face a very easy life, most manual work is automatized, and save for a handful of jobs, the work we do doesn't account for a significant energy expenditure. Lastly, the attitude towards voluntary physical effort in most adults in West is lamentable.

Research in genetics and regulation of body-weight is viewed by obese populations more and more as an excuse. The word of the day is ... "its in my genes, I can't do anything for it"
In fact, the LoTek kit of the fat guy (even if his appetite regulation is gone to hell) can consist only of as little as: a MD clearance for light effort, enough education to read governments food pyramid sites, a weight scale and a mirror. Mirror is very important, if you look fat, then yes you are a fat pig. Chances are if you have health issues, youll never perform like a master athlete or look like an action movie star, but a modest reduction of 10 - 15% of your bw can save your *** from a lot of issues.

Perhaps the states should look at the issue as a threat to national health and aggressively start to combat it on multiple fronts:

- regulating strict labeling uses containing nutritional information for any product
- bans on nutrients which have over them a reasonable suspicion that they can cause unwanted effects on health (NY transfat bans enter my mind)
- an aggressive media campaign educating the public at large, coupled with promotion of physical activities in schools.
- a reform of the health system focused in prevention

My personal opinion is that a sensible education would go a long way in helping many of the innocents cursed with the lard of doom

Fair enough, but on the other side, I eat fairly poorly but have always been skinny.

EDIT: oh and also, I vehemently disagree with you since I hate government, but that's not relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[DanP]

Fair enough, but on the other side, I eat fairly poorly but have always been skinny.

It's not so much about you and me, but about the hundred thousands who are in the brink of diabetes , cholesterol and correlated indicators are off the scale , have high CVD risk, children who are getting obese even before the onset of puberty. For them, *what* they eat is quite more critical.

This whole issue is about of protecting the ones who need it, not the ones who are in good health and excellent physical condition.

 

[mgb_phys]

Fair enough, but on the other side, I eat fairly poorly but have always been skinny.

That works when you're 19 but not when you're 45

 

[Astronuc]

What are the steps the medical system takes nowadays to raise awareness in the public regarding obesity epidemic who rages through the western world , and to put an end to it ?
Is there a concerted effort to put it at an end ?

Should governments, through their healthcare policies, get involved in this issue ?

Interestingly - Local Government Actions to Prevent Childhood Obesity
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12674

A number of local schools have gardening programs for students, in addition to lessons in nutrition and programs in physical education.

The problem can be with parents who do not encourage children to eat well or exercise. The school where my wife teaches has a sizeable population of children from families living with government assistance. Their diets are often of poor quality.

 

[whs]

I almost never eat in restaurants. It is just not convenient for me.

I once ordered a steak and potatoes dish. What I got was one huge steak and a few tiny potatoes. I asked for more potatoes. I was given a few more potatoes. That was not what I wanted, so I made myself more clear. I said: "I want to have a few plates full of potatoes." The waiter who was very obese, was shocked: "What! So many potatoes? That is very unhealthy!"

After half an hour I got what I ordered. I ate all the potatoes and just a small part of the steak. When I left the restaurant, I was still feeling hungry. Back at home I still had to prepare a meal. So, the visit to the restaurant only costed time and money.

Usually, if I attend lunch or dinner meetings, I only order some drinks for myself. I will eat later at home.

Haha. Nice joke. You really went to a restaurant expecting a ton of potatoes, asked for more and expected several plates? Usually one (with common sense) would order a steak dish at a restaurant for the steak, not plates and plates of potatoes...

Don't get out much?

 

[vaatc]

For those arguing what is running and sprinting. The world record for a marathon, 26.2 miles, is 2 hours 3 minutes and 53 seconds. That comes out to an approximate 4 minute 45 second mile race pace. That is fast running and not sprinting. Regular running would put you around the 2 hour and 45 minute plus time range.


Back to the OP. I have found in my practice that one of the best tools for explaining behavior change, which is required for any long term weight change, is the http://www.aafp.org/afp/20000301/1409.html".

This explanation of the behavior change process is the one that I find the most succent in explaining how the mind and body work together/against each other when it comes to changing behaviors.

One of the major issues I find with weight loss, as it is seen by the general population, is the fact that everyone is trying to say that obese people need to change their eating and exercise habits. This is true, but the "professionals" make it out like the changes need to be done in unison. I personally think the mainstream concepts set up a majority of obese people for lifelong failure rates.

The example I use with people is that you would never instruct an alcoholic to go to Alcoholics Anonomous and to quit smoking at the same time. That would set the individual up for failure since both behaviors are so intertwined that trying to remove both at the same time creates a very steep and negatively cued slope to climb. Not to mention that most AA meetings are glorified smoke stacks.

The Stages of Change states that it takes 6 months to 1 year of solid activation before one goes into a maintanence phase. So when it comes to helping obese people I instruct them to focus primarily on one or the other behavior. Around the 6th month we would start to focus more on the secondary behavior. Usually I suggest starting with exercise, with either, no modification to their diet, or eat the same content but slightly less at each bout of eating. That way the people are not increasing their energy expenditure and decreasing their energy intake, when the body is naturally triggered to increase appetite when activity levels increase.

The above is a very simple explantion of my process.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That's why I specified beans. They're a great source of protein. And there's reduced sodium versions, too. They have more sodium, but that doesn't automatically make the food bad, especially if you're not getting enough sodium from other things. I think most of that sodium comes from the thick syrup stuff that they put it in. I pour that out anyway.
And besides all that, we're talking about calorie dense foods.

Seems like you're estimating a little low for the unhealthy foods and a little high for the fruits and vegetables. I've never seen grapes, oranges and apples that expensive. And 25 cents per burrito is extremely cheap.
You could make your own burritos which could be healthy for not much more than the pre-made ones. My friend and I made a healthy pizza with whole wheat crust, low fat cheese and vegetables on it for cheaper than it would be to buy from Dominos.
Chips are expensive. I love Doritos, but 4 dollars for a bag of them isn't worth it. There's other, cheaper brands, but I'm not paying that much for a bag full of mostly air.

What about other foods that are healthy and cheap? Like eggs. I once bought a dozen eggs for 75 cents from Walgreens. Cereal is sometimes expensive, but when you notice you get at least three meals out of one box, it's not that expensive. The least sugary ones are usually the least expensive too. Just look for sales. Like a huge box of plain mini wheats for two dollars. Put a little honey on it and it tastes fine.

It's just most people don't want to find the healthy, cheap alternatives. They reason that they can either buy 50 burritos for 25 cents each, or they can buy all organic foods. Since obviously those must be the only two options.

Well if you hold it to the same standard you do for the canned beans, then it's horrible for you.

I almost forgot about this. You're right about the beans (as far as I know), they are likely not very much less in nutrition when canned, being that you mentioned them in conjunction with vegetables I was unsure if you meant canned vegetables. As far as I understand the preserving and canning process adds large quantities of sodium and removes a significant amount of the nutrients and vitamins that make them healthy.

As far as my prices you were right about the grapes at least, I am not sure what I was remembering though I just saw grapes on sale the other day for $3 a bunch.

You can go here and look at prices...
http://shop.safeway.com/superstore/

The cheap apples are about $.90 a piece. I was talking about large bags of apples which would have at least a dozen and I don't think that $8-10 is very off. Large oranges are about $.70 a piece. Not too off there. Seedless grapes are $3-4 a pound. I was definitely off there but the usual couple pound bag is still not much under $8. It seems that everything else I was about right on except maybe the pasta though I am unsure if cheaper pasta is not as healthy as the more expensive kind which I was sort of assuming.

Unfortunately they do not have some of the cheapest of alternatives. There are in fact frozen burritos which you can usually buy 3-4 for a dollar and are cheaper if you purchase a box of a dozen or so. I have bought them and they are absolutely horrible. You can also buy very large packages of really cheap hot dogs for only about $5-6 dollars.

All in all I was comparing the cheapest of foods, which are mostly junk, to the average healthy alternative. You can find cheap canned pasta sauce for only a buck or so but it is not very good and I doubt very healthy. There are fairly expensive hotdogs but the cheaper ones are the usual cheap alternative to real meat.

Oh and spices can be fairly expensive too. The great thing about say a cheap packaged red beans and rice from Mahatma, other than costing only about $2, is that you don't have to buy any of the spices to season it with. Probably my most expensive kitchen necessity is olive oil which costs about $14 a liter for even the cheap stuff. Once you stray from the basic salt and pepper things start to get a bit pricey.

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6954603.ece"

Scientists have proved for the first time that a cheap form of sugar used in thousands of food products and soft drinks can damage human metabolism and is fuelling the obesity crisis.

Fructose, a sweetener derived from corn, can cause dangerous growths of fat cells around vital organs and is able to trigger the early stages of diabetes and heart disease.

...

would be nice if they linked the study. maybe not released yet.

 

[mugaliens]

The study makes sense, and is in accordance with known glucose/fructose metabolism...

 

[Zubin]

By BMI I am obese, however, my blood test results indicate that I'm perfectly healthy. I lift weights regularly and I eat healthy foods but I just have a slow metabolism. Wasn't there a study suggesting "healthy" people with slow metabolisms tend to live longer?

 

[rolerbe]

The medical system will reimburse for your leg amputation due to the long term effects of out of control type II Diabetes (a disease highly mediated by obesity), but not for nutritional counselling by a Registered Dietitian that has been proven to reduce the overall incidence of such surgery being needed. Medicare is the worst in this regard.

That's just one example, 'nuff said.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My bmi, at 30.7 is just over the mark for class 1 obesity. My wife has been encouraging me to slim down. That means nagging while cooking the best Chinese food you can imagine. There is a pool at work now with about a dozen of us fatties to see who can lose the most weight by percentage. We have until late May for the final weigh in. We each put in $20 so there's a nice incentive. I expect to do well, but winning is probably out of the question since there is a ringer in the bunch. He is morbidly obese with a bmi over 40.

 

[Proton Soup]

My bmi, at 30.7 is just over the mark for class 1 obesity. My wife has been encouraging me to slim down. That means nagging while cooking the best Chinese food you can imagine. There is a pool at work now with about a dozen of us fatties to see who can lose the most weight by percentage. We have until late May for the final weigh in. We each put in $20 so there's a nice incentive. I expect to do well, but winning is probably out of the question since there is a ringer in the bunch. He is morbidly obese with a bmi over 40.

sure, if he really wants it. but there is also a thing called the Protein-Sparing Modified Fast, and if he's like most people, he wouldn't know about this secret weapon.

 

[mugaliens]

BMI is not to be used as any sort of prediction for overall health. It's nothing more than a ratio between one's mass and one's height, and only a vague means of estimating adiposity. If you're at 6% body fat, but built like a tank, your BMI will be through the roof (obese). But you can be above 30% body fat, but with little muscle and small bones, and still fall in the Normal range.

It should never be used as anything more than a very quick, and very dirty means of getting a general idea of one's adiposity. The fact that "it is the most widely used diagnostic tool to identify weight problems within a population" isn't surprising, however, as it is ridiculously easy and impossible to cheat.

I strongly object to it's use to "identify weight problems" and would rather see it being used to "screen for potential weight problems."

Furthermore, it excludes these four key factors:

1. Body fat percentage

2. Muscle strength

3. Muscle endurance

4. VO2 max

The first and the last are very easy to measure. Body fat is easily measured in less than a minute by means of an electronic device. The hand-held ones are ok, but for professional results, you lay down for about 3 minutes on a non-conducting mat with electrodes attached to wrists and ankles.

VO2 max is easily measured by means of a 5 to 15 minute sub-maximal treadmill elevation test. Your height, weight, gender, and percentage body fat are put into a computer. You wear a heart monitor, also tied to the computer. You select a comfortable walking pace. After a two-minute warmup, the elevation is increased one degree per minute until your heart rate reaches either 80%, 85%, or 90% (depending on how much risk the testers wish to accept) of your 220-age derivation for your max heart rate. The greater the risk, the greater the accuracy.

The computer uses your velocity, elevation angle, and your weight to computer how much work you're doing. It next compares your lean body mass and your heart rate to profiles obtained under actual VO2 max walk tests (tens of thousands have been done, so the parameters are fairly tight) to estimate your VO2 max/kg lean body mass.

Unfortunately, many VO2 max sub-max tests remain out there which determine VO2 max/kg total body mass, which will cause even the best of atheletes to score low if they're sporting love handles. The reason for this is that they were derived primarily for athletes for whom body fat isn't an issue, so simply using total body mass allows for good comparisons between those tested. The problem is when you attempt to use the results per total body mass for someone with extra adipose tissue: it seriously skews the results downward.

Let's consider a test case: A serious, daily cyclist weighs 167 lbs, and scores 70 ml/kg/min. The cyclist is put on a medication which causes weight gain, but he continues training at the same calories per hour level as before (and duration, frequency, etc.) but when he hits 210 lb, he'll measure 55.6 ml/kg/min.

Now: If we knew the cyclist began with 6% body fat, and ended with 25% body fat, we would also know his lean body mass never changes. Since his lean body mass is 157 lbs, his VO2 of lean body mass is 65.8 ml/kglean/min, both before and after his weight gain. It's just that the test results of 55.6 ml/kg/min are incorrectly calculate as it divides the raw score by non-contibuting, and therefore penalizing, fat.

Thus, we see, like BMI, the practice of calculating VO2 max by dividing by body weight in attempt to gain a score comparable between people of different sizes, was originally done for expedience, on atheltes of similar fat content, and thereby introduces a serious error when that practice is wrongly used to compare people of differing body fat.

Muscle strength and muscle endurance are not objective, comparable measures between individuals and are highly task dependant. They may be useful measures of one's ability to carry a 150-lb person in a fireman's carry for 50 yrds, or for toting 20 lbs of body armor along with a 40 lb pack, but only if those tests match the tasks for which one is being tested.

 

[Count Iblis]

My BMI is 22 now. When I was younger, I was borderline underweight (BMI of 18.1).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

sure, if he really wants it. but there is also a thing called the Protein-Sparing Modified Fast, and if he's like most people, he wouldn't know about this secret weapon.

I don't need to fast. If I lose 3 lbs a week, I will go to underweight, a condition I have no intention of reaching.

 

[Proton Soup]

I don't need to fast. If I lose 3 lbs a week, I will go to underweight, a condition I have no intention of reaching.

you could easily lose a pound a week just on calorie restriction. boring old "eat less and exercise more" really does work, but you'll probably want to do some calorie counting to make sure you're not fooling yourself. but if you are intent to win, a ketogenic (no carbs) diet in the last few days will cause you to temporarily lose some body water and lose a few extra pounds.

thing is, you're right that the other guy has an advantage. even his basal metabolic rate is probably higher from carrying around all that fat, so he can shed pounds fast if he wants. at least initially. but he also didn't get where he is by having more self control than you, so you've got that advantage.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This morning I passed from class 1 obese to merely overweight. That is, according to the bmi calculation.