Why is being fat/obese socially acceptable?

OutlawPete

Wibbs wrote: »

Look at skulls of our caveman ancestors. No dental caries. Stronger bones too. Much higher bone densities going on Dentistry 20,000 ago would be a crap career choice. Look closer to home. Pets. Dogs and cats more and more require vet dentistry, because they've added more sugar and carbs to their diet.

Fats? we've evolved to eat animal fats and protein so the atkins success should hardly be a shock. The inuit consume a lot of animal fats yet dont show heart disease etc until they go onto a more modern diet.

Quality post.

Domestic pets all have "human diseases" now more than ever.

Also, the 'right' cardiologists have been screaming there heads of for twenty years saying eating fat did not effect heart disease and they have and are being ignored while the medical profession still have their heads up their ass.

It is only very recently that they have excepted that 90% of the fat in the blood is made by the liver and has zero to do with diet.

It is astonishing that, because they found fatty deposits in arterial walls that for years the advice was: AVOID FAT, AVOID FAT!

Many people are dead because of that advice as they eat pure crap like 'fat-free- Bagals with "fat free" spreads loaded with trans fats and gulped down their 'fat-free' sodas.

All these "fat-free' foods raise bad fats like LDL in the blood. They also send Triglycerides sky high. The body has to convert these excess 'Fat-free' calories into fat in order to store them.

Is it any wonder that the average age of first heart attack is dropping year by year in or 'carb addicted society.

I'd rather rob heroin of a junkie than take tell someone they shouldn't really be having that SubWay lunch or that they should cut down on Pizza, Chips or Sandwiches.

They'd take your fcuking head off

All joking aside, the opiates associated with eating such foods have been shown to be highly addictive.

I was told I was showing signs of Coeliac Disease after a biopsy and coming off foods containing Gluten felt like coming off crack.

It's only when you try to do that that you realise just how much society depends on Wheat as a stable in our diet, the fcuker is everywhere; Pizza, Sandwiches, Biscuits, Fish & Chips (not the chips) Burgers, Pasta, KFC etc.

One of the pioneers in nutritional research was Major McCarrison who in 1920's did studies with rats and showed that processed food was determental to health. Also Weston Price, far and away the two greatest researchers in the field of nutrition.

Unfortunately, even though they both made remarkable discoveries, their findings were virtual ignored.

http://www.foodforhealthscotland.org/nutritionandnationalhealth.html

http://www.westonaprice.org/

PeakOutput

Wibbs wrote: »

IMHO sugars(corn syrup, fructose etc) are our biggest worry. I'd even go so far as to say it causes as much illness, both low level and obvious as tobacco. We're simple not designed to eat that much sugar. Its very rare in the wild in the concentrations(and type) we find in the western diet. You would have to eat a helluva lot of fruit to take in the same amount of sugar you'll get in an average sized cup of coke in a fast food place. Add in the sugars added to the meal and its a huge amount. And fruit in the wild is seasonal.

ye sorry your right of course i was thinking literally of sugar ie what goes in your teas forgot about all the high fructose corn syrup and all the jazz and their affect on insulin

Sapsorrow

Yep but the interesting point is that its fructose that exerts the most profound effects not glucose! Even in diabeties, the biochemical pathway (advanced glycation end product formation) that results in the microvascular complications (nephropathy, neuronopathy, retinopathy etc) is accelerated much more by a fructose molecule than one of glucose!

PeakOutput

OutlawPete wrote: »

I was told I was showing signs of Coeliac Disease after a biopsy and coming off foods containing Gluten felt like coming off crack.

a friend in teh states is coeliac and was literally miserable and sickly most of the time until she got to around 27 and it was diagnosed as coeliac. cutting out gluten automatically means you cant eat most (if not all) of the **** food thats around and her quality of life is imeasurably better as a result

Wibbs

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Big time learning about the role of fructose in hyperlipidemia, dyslipidemia and heart disease has been the most profound nutritional insight I've ever had!

Yep remember that guy who made the "supersize me" movie? His liver damage after just 12 weeks of eating that crap was likened to a chronic alco's and it took him a year of eating mung beans etc to bring his levels down. and they put in everything. Why? because its far more sweet to taste than sucrose or glucose per volume so its dirt cheap. Plus the corn industry fires it out as a byproduct.

The corn industry alone is the cause of so many woes in the western diet. Corn fed beef and corn fed chicken is held up as a healthy food and its not. Cattle are not meant to eat corn, neither are chickens and they have to add various additives to the feed to keep the animals alive. But it packs on bulk much faster than a natural diet and you can corral the poor animals in huge feed pens. Then with the surplus crap they put it into sauces and drinks. Then we have the "healthy" veg oils. Yes cold pressed Olive oil is great, but read the labels. How many think they're getting olive oil, but instead are getting some olive oil diluted with the cheap crap like sunflower oil? Then trans fats. The industry copped on long ago that producing margarine as an example is much easier than producing butter. Veg oils are easier to liquidise and fire down pipes so and cheaper to start with and then we get "butter baaad, marg better".

We've been bulshítted for so long. It started in america where the food industry has a lot of leverage. Look at the shítstorm that befell Oprah Winfrey when she suggested that teh US heard may have BSE. She won, but she has the resources. European standards are far higher, but we're being bullshítted here too. See how twitchy the food companies get when faced with legislation to make the labeling more clear for people.

Closer to home "Healthy farmed salmon"? Beyond the fact that farms are beyond heavily implicated in the massive reduction and near extinction of wild salmon and sea trout stocks on our coasts, I wouldnt be eating that every day. Higher levels of mercury, dioxins never mind the other crap they feed them, including dyes to make them "salmon pink". Again quite a few railed against this, but you hear little about it. Why? Revenue and local jobs are not something a politico will risk losing.

opinion guy

candlelover wrote: »

i think we're gone off topic somewhat you said


im making the point that you cannot blame obesity on certain types of food! and the government cannot put a tax on Junk food just because a few people cannot handle it, if thats the case we'd have a higher tax on television sets to stop people buying those, or add higher taxes to scratch cards to stop gamblers, if someone is obese they will eat 100 carrots if mc donalds isnt available, they will still eat 100 homemade lasagnas if they want. they need professional help not blanket goverment regulation!

Oh my God your complete failure to understand even the most basic nutritional concepts is just monumentally shocking. I'm not even gonna bother spelling it out. Simply - YOU ARE WRONG.
Go read those books I linked earlier and educate yourself and then come back to the discussion.

OutlawPete wrote: »

I was told I was showing signs of Coeliac Disease after a biopsy and coming off foods containing Gluten felt like coming off crack.

At last a topic we agree on Pete:D

Ho yeah. Been there done that. In fact more, I went off dairy, gluten, simple carbs and other stuff all at once on Doc's orders. Holy moley it was tough. Pretty much all I could eat was meat and veggies. Its staggering how many products have either gluten, or dairy , or both in them. That almost instantly rules out most things. The other thing I found frustrating was eating out in restaurants. I felt like none of the staff took you seriously and you couldn't trust them to tell you what was in stuff - you'd find out after when you react or not. Happliy now I mostly eat what, thou my dairy tolerance is limited

Sapsorrow

opinion guy wrote: »

Ho yeah. Been there done that. In fact more, I went off dairy, gluten, simple carbs and other stuff all at once on Doc's orders. Holy moley it was tough. Pretty much all I could eat was meat and veggies.

I'm doing this at the minute in an attempt to sort out my IBS which I strongly suspect is donw to allergies/intolerances, had to break 12+ year of vegetarianism and go onto fish instead now which sucks. Cutting out lots of major sources of allergens at the minute: dairy, grains (barr oats which I seem resiliant too), beans and legumes and eggs. Leaving me with fish (which I dont like but have to eat now), fruit, veg, nuts and seeds (basically the paleo diet without the mammal meat) and me not very happy at all. I'm the same stopped going for coffee etc cos I cant have cream in it or have anything nice to eat with it. I hope it gets easier soon even going to the supermarket depresses the sh*t out of me cos I can't buy so many things.

juuge

OutlawPete wrote: »

.... while the medical profession still have their heads up their ass.

Maybe they are the urologists!:)

opinion guy

khrystyna100 wrote: »

I'm doing this at the minute in an attempt to sort out my IBS which I strongly suspect is donw to allergies/intolerances, had to break 12+ year of vegetarianism and go onto fish instead now which sucks. Cutting out lots of major sources of allergens at the minute: dairy, grains (barr oats which I seem resiliant too), beans and legumes and eggs. Leaving me with fish (which I dont like but have to eat now), fruit, veg, nuts and seeds (basically the paleo diet without the mammal meat) and me not very happy at all. I'm the same stopped going for coffee etc cos I cant have cream in it or have anything nice to eat with it. I hope it gets easier soon even going to the supermarket depresses the sh*t out of me cos I can't buy so many things.

PMing you on this

juuge wrote:

Maybe they are the urologists!

Wrong organ Edit: oh wait....ignore me I see what you are going for there

J2D2

opinion guy wrote: »

Oh my God your complete failure to understand even the most basic nutritional concepts is just monumentally shocking. I'm not even gonna bother spelling it out. Simply - YOU ARE WRONG.
Go read those books I linked earlier and educate yourself and then come back to the discussion.

I think candlelover makes a valid point. People with eating disorders will eat regardless of whats available. Fast food is the easiest to access, so even cutting down on the fats/sugars and whatnot won't stop them eating. These people need help and need to address their problem.

Oddly enough the topic is titled "why is being fat/obese socially acceptable?" yet you all come here on your high horses with your unrivalled dietary knowledge and condemn other peoples opinions. It is not socially acceptable to be a lard ass, people with genetic obesity or some health related problem are fine, but those who eat when they know their getting fat are a problem and a drain on the health service and need to be culled.

That's what we're here to discuss, I don't care for your dietary woes and general whinyness.

opinion guy

J2D2 wrote: »

I think candlelover makes a valid point. People with eating disorders will eat regardless of whats available. Fast food is the easiest to access, so even cutting down on the fats/sugars and whatnot won't stop them eating. These people need help and need to address their problem.

No. You share candlelovers lack of knowledge. Obesity is NOT an eating disorder. Its an addicton. The stuff they put into the fast food is addictive - massively so. When you say need help -what do you mean ? You make it sonuds like its a mental disorder or something. No these people need one thing - they need the government to make it illegal to put unhealthy, addictive (yet VERY profitable) ingredients into the food supply. I mean simply banning things like transfats and high fructose corn syrup completely. That alone would make a huge difference. The food companies can then go use more healthy ingredients and still sell fast food if they want, which people can still eat if they want - they just won't get addicted. You get the ingredients right, and you can still ahve tasty fast food and at the same time vastly reduce the obesity problem.

Oddly enough the topic is titled "why is being fat/obese socially acceptable?" yet you all come here on your high horses with your unrivalled dietary knowledge and condemn other peoples opinions. It is not socially acceptable to be a lard ass, people with genetic obesity or some health related problem are fine, but those who eat when they know their getting fat are a problem and a drain on the health service and need to be culled.

That's what we're here to discuss, I don't care for your dietary woes and general whinyness.

High horse because of our knowledge ? Are you for real ? If anything I would think the people who come on spouting about choice from a point of view of a lack of knowledge are the ones who are on their high horses.

Seriously read some of the material myself and others have posted. I do think the most eye-opening book to read is Fatlands. How americans became the fattest people on earth. When you read this book, you will realise the complete LACK of choice it is that you and others are arguing in favour of. Fact is the modern day food industry is built on f**king dodgy shady deals done in the 60's and 70's that are actually the real cause of both a) the obesity epidemic and b) the LACK of CHOICE you and others have in what exactly you are eating ingredients wise. (Honestly its almost farcical the way the word choice is used in the context of this discussion)

Jaxxy

opinion guy wrote: »

No. You share candlelovers lack of knowledge. Obesity is NOT an eating disorder. Its an addicton. The stuff they put into the fast food is addictive - massively so. When you say need help -what do you mean ? You make it sonuds like its a mental disorder or something. No these people need one thing - they need the government to make it illegal to put unhealthy, addictive (yet VERY profitable) ingredients into the food supply. I mean simply banning things like transfats and high fructose corn syrup completely. That alone would make a huge difference. The food companies can then go use more healthy ingredients and still sell fast food if they want, which people can still eat if they want - they just won't get addicted. You get the ingredients right, and you can still ahve tasty fast food and at the same time vastly reduce the obesity problem.

In fairness addiction can manifest itself in other ways, not just physically. There can be mental and emotional underlying issues too. Some people eat when they feel depressed. Some people eat to fill a "hole". It can be habitual for them. These are the people who need psychological help. These are the people who will be unaffected by linking all sorts of information about the dangers of unhealthy food.

Of course junk foods are being pumped full of addictive ingredients, that's not in question and it's quite sinister. But the point is if someone wants to overeat (if it's as a result of eating certain addictive foods or emotional problems) they will.

J2D2

opinion guy wrote: »

No. You share candlelovers lack of knowledge. Obesity is NOT an eating disorder. Its an addicton. The stuff they put into the fast food is addictive - massively so. When you say need help -what do you mean ? You make it sonuds like its a mental disorder or something. No these people need one thing - they need the government to make it illegal to put unhealthy, addictive (yet VERY profitable) ingredients into the food supply. I mean simply banning things like transfats and high fructose corn syrup completely. That alone would make a huge difference. The food companies can then go use more healthy ingredients and still sell fast food if they want, which people can still eat if they want - they just won't get addicted. You get the ingredients right, and you can still ahve tasty fast food and at the same time vastly reduce the obesity problem.



High horse because of our knowledge ? Are you for real ? If anything I would think the people who come on spouting about choice from a point of view of a lack of knowledge are the ones who are on their high horses.

Seriously read some of the material myself and others have posted. I do think the most eye-opening book to read is Fatlands. How americans became the fattest people on earth. When you read this book, you will realise the complete LACK of choice it is that you and others are arguing in favour of. Fact is the modern day food industry is built on f**king dodgy shady deals done in the 60's and 70's that are actually the real cause of both a) the obesity epidemic and b) the LACK of CHOICE you and others have in what exactly you are eating ingredients wise. (Honestly its almost farcical the way the word choice is used in the context of this discussion)

eating disorders can sometimes be classed as mental disorders (although this makes it sounds more akin to craziness), bulimia is an example of the opposite end of things, whereby they won't eat due to self image issues. On the other hand you have others who will not stop eating, which can be caused by genetic problems, where the brain doesn't recognise that the stomach is full, or only somewhat full. Then the person eats and eats because they are hungry. There are psychological effects at play here. So thats why I think that chronic overeaters (or undereaters) need to seek some professional help. It can be an addiction of course but generally only people who allow themselves to eat this stuff on a very regular basis will be likely to want more.

Hence why I believe that while the ingredients lend themselves to an addictive foodstuff there is the simple issue of self control and self regulation. Fast food can't be labelled as the soul cause for obesity and weight problems. It doesn't help when eaten in large quantities but provided you have a good diet based outside of that, then you shouldn't have a problem. Thats why I think that its the people who are at fault, it's all too easy to blame the industry and point the finger.

So long as people actually cook regular dinners with meat/veg/potato/pasta and so on then I think fast foods are perfectly acceptable, teaching people to eat it in moderation is what's needed tbh. This country has become to lazy and unwilling to look after themselves. I think people need to stand up and admit to being unhealthy eaters.

Sapsorrow

In public health there are 2 ways you promote the health of the population: by changing the attitudes of the consumer and educating them or by changing the nature of the food supply. Obviously healthy eating awareness campaigns are doing feck all so maybe now its time to step in and alter what's available to people, its worked wonders for micronutrient deficiency through mandatory fortification of staples like cereals, breads etc.

Wibbs

J2D2 wrote: »

I think candlelover makes a valid point.

He makes a point, yes, the validity of his understanding is whats at issue. I actually agree with him when he says that banning will likely do little good. His examples of the scratch cards etc is a valid one.

People with eating disorders will eat regardless of whats available. Fast food is the easiest to access, so even cutting down on the fats/sugars and whatnot won't stop them eating. These people need help and need to address their problem.

Agreed again, but if you reduce or remove the transfats and fructose they'll do themselves less physical damage in the long term and take whatever forecasted pressure off the health services. To take candlelovers example, if no maccy dees is available and someone chows down on 100 carrots, other than a slightly orange skin and the liquid sit down for a week, they'll not damage their liver, they won't spike their insulin or raise blood pressure. Indeed there was an experiment done a year or so ago, where they got volunteers who were overweight, insulin resistant with high cholesterol(and BP) and fed them on a raw fruit and veg diet. A number of results came in. 1. cooking food releases way more nutrients than raw 2. we started to eat meat as a species cos it gave the best bang for the buck and meant we didnt sit around all day eating low value raw veg which freed us up. 3 and most interestingly the volunteers within 14 days started to drop blood pressure, cholesterol(raised good cholesterol) become much less insulin resistant and lost weight. All without medication.

It is not socially acceptable to be a lard ass, people with genetic obesity or some health related problem are fine, but those who eat when they know their getting fat are a problem and a drain on the health service and need to be culled.

Culled? sweet zombie jesus. Bit strong dontcha think? And as for the dietary opinions expressed herein, if an obese person followed them or better we educated our kids early on and hit the food industry with legislation, then we wouldn't be having this debate on fat/obesity to nearly the same degree in the first place.

Sapsorrow

Do you know what culled actually means? I feel another Hitler reference coming on....

dellas1979

I guess there are different ways/reasons why people can be overweight:

A) Genetic
Health problems
C) Emotionally over eat (boredom, stress etc)
D) Eating too much junk for convenience i.e. its easier to grab a burger than make something
E) Eating too much junk because its cheaper. Fruit/veg etc can be very expensive.
f) Snacker syndrome where the "ah one more wont do any harm"
G) Dont care bout the effects of junk food/over eating

At some stage in their lives, I think every person on the planet falls into one of those points.

My canteen at work for example, despite pleas from the workers, will not put healthy dishes on the menu. It seems to be cheaper for them to put on crappy stuff. My role then should be to be proactive and bring in my lunch or go somewhere else, but its inconvenient. So who is to blame? me for not being proactive enough, or the restaurant for providing ****e meals?

Wibbs

khrystyna100 wrote: »

its worked wonders for micronutrient deficiency through mandatory fortification of staples like cereals, breads etc.

I agree but would have a bit of a worry there. Often times the natural food has the nutrients before it gets processed, so they then have to add it back. My worry is the increasing industrialisation and letting some sections of the food industry off the hook. plus what would the quality of the fortification be. Adding calcium is an example. The body needs a particular type, just adding chalk say, which would have calium in it wouldnt be the same. Or what about other co factors? Diets high in beta carotene have proven health benefits. Yet a study of beta carotene supplementation had to be halted two years in because of the clear jump in the rates of lung cancers in smokers though smokers with a diet high in beta carotene had lower rates and a seemingly positive effect(hence the shock when the study had to be halted). EG If they added that as a fortification you could have problems down the line.

I am not one of these hippies that thinks a "chemical" vitamin is baaad OK. They're all bloody chemicals, but we have a tendency as a species to be reductive and look to one simple mineral or vitamin and run with that, not taking into account all the 100's of other chemicals that may increase, decrease or entirely change the effect of that one. Pure ascorbic acid in a pill is not the same as getting the same amount from an orange.

J2D2

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Do you know what culled actually means? I feel another Hitler reference coming on....

I am aware of what culled means. I used it as a means to express my distaste for people who willingly do this to themselves... sheesh.

opinion guy

J2D2 wrote: »

eating disorders can sometimes be classed as mental disorders (although this makes it sounds more akin to craziness), bulimia is an example of the opposite end of things, whereby they won't eat due to self image issues. On the other hand you have others who will not stop eating, which can be caused by genetic problems, where the brain doesn't recognise that the stomach is full, or only somewhat full. Then the person eats and eats because they are hungry. There are psychological effects at play here. So thats why I think that chronic overeaters (or undereaters) need to seek some professional help. It can be an addiction of course but generally only people who allow themselves to eat this stuff on a very regular basis will be likely to want more.

Ok I'm not denying that there is a psycological/behavioural element to overeating - of course there is. But I don't think sending all obese people to shrinks will achieve anything other than to obesify the bank balance of the shrinks. On the point of the person eating an eating because they are hungry. Hmm don't buy it. Now at this point I will say that sometimes this happens to me. I get ravenously hungry and am not satisfied by what I am eating. BUT - there is a reason. My body wants something. A particular nutrient and when I cop on and eat the right thing the hunger goes away. Now they only reason I'm aware of this is because I experimented with my diet alot over the years. So I suspect there is a subset of people out there who eat for these reasons. BUT i can promise you this - eating fast food is not giving them these nutrients whilst at the same time addicting them.

Hence why I believe that while the ingredients lend themselves to an addictive foodstuff there is the simple issue of self control and self regulation. Fast food can't be labelled as the soul cause for obesity and weight problems. It doesn't help when eaten in large quantities but provided you have a good diet based outside of that, then you shouldn't have a problem. Thats why I think that its the people who are at fault, it's all too easy to blame the industry and point the finger.

Ok suppose they were putting heroin in the food - would you still apply this logic. Well they are not putting in heroin, but they are putting in addictive substances. Throw into this that the very often the junk food is fast is actually cheaper - then you are completing the picture.

So long as people actually cook regular dinners with meat/veg/potato/pasta and so on then I think fast foods are perfectly acceptable, teaching people to eat it in moderation is what's needed tbh. This country has become to lazy and unwilling to look after themselves. I think people need to stand up and admit to being unhealthy eaters.

Lets be clear here. Its not just about fast foods. Many of the things people buy in supermarkets have transfats and HFCS in them too. Frankly many people simply don't have the knowledge to know whats in what (mainly because the industry are very good at hiding it and making it confusing)

opinion guy

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree but would have a bit of a worry there. Often times the natural food has the nutrients before it gets processed, so they then have to add it back. My worry is the increasing industrialisation and letting some sections of the food industry off the hook. plus what would the quality of the fortification be. Adding calcium is an example. The body needs a particular type, just adding chalk say, which would have calium in it wouldnt be the same. Or what about other co factors? Diets high in beta carotene have proven health benefits. Yet a study of beta carotene supplementation had to be halted two years in because of the clear jump in the rates of lung cancers in smokers though smokers with a diet high in beta carotene had lower rates and a seemingly positive effect(hence the shock when the study had to be halted). EG If they added that as a fortification you could have problems down the line.

I am not one of these hippies that thinks a "chemical" vitamin is baaad OK. They're all bloody chemicals, but we have a tendency as a species to be reductive and look to one simple mineral or vitamin and run with that, not taking into account all the 100's of other chemicals that may increase, decrease or entirely change the effect of that one. Pure ascorbic acid in a pill is not the same as getting the same amount from an orange.

Agreed. Things like this are very complicated and unfortunately reductionism is rife.

Penny Dreadful

dellas1979 wrote: »

I guess there are different ways/reasons why people can be overweight:

A) Genetic
Health problems
C) Emotionally over eat (boredom, stress etc)
D) Eating too much junk for convenience i.e. its easier to grab a burger than make something
E) Eating too much junk because its cheaper. Fruit/veg etc can be very expensive.
f) Snacker syndrome where the "ah one more wont do any harm"
G) Dont care bout the effects of junk food/over eating

At some stage in their lives, I think every person on the planet falls into one of those points.

My canteen at work for example, despite pleas from the workers, will not put healthy dishes on the menu. It seems to be cheaper for them to put on crappy stuff. My role then should be to be proactive and bring in my lunch or go somewhere else, but its inconvenient. So who is to blame? me for not being proactive enough, or the restaurant for providing ****e meals?

Agree with all of those except A, the first one. I really and truly do not for a single second believe that there is any such thing a an obesity gene. IF there is where the hell has it been hiding for so many years? People have passed on hereditary diseases for millennia (e.g Huntingtons, breast and/or ovarian cancer, dwarfism, hypertension, a myriad of cardiac diseases and endocrine diseases) and there is clear cut evidence to back this up. There is not such a back catalogue of history to explain how in almost a single generation the so called obesity gene has decided to make itself known.

Sapsorrow

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree but would have a bit of a worry there. Often times the natural food has the nutrients before it gets processed, so they then have to add it back. My worry is the increasing industrialisation and letting some sections of the food industry off the hook. plus what would the quality of the fortification be. Adding calcium is an example. The body needs a particular type, just adding chalk say, which would have calium in it wouldnt be the same. Or what about other co factors? Diets high in beta carotene have proven health benefits. Yet a study of beta carotene supplementation had to be halted two years in because of the clear jump in the rates of lung cancers in smokers though smokers with a diet high in beta carotene had lower rates and a seemingly positive effect(hence the shock when the study had to be halted). EG If they added that as a fortification you could have problems down the line.

I am not one of these hippies that thinks a "chemical" vitamin is baaad OK. They're all bloody chemicals, but we have a tendency as a species to be reductive and look to one simple mineral or vitamin and run with that, not taking into account all the 100's of other chemicals that may increase, decrease or entirely change the effect of that one. Pure ascorbic acid in a pill is not the same as getting the same amount from an orange.

I see where your coming from but it the public health sphere they are trying to help as many people as possible and that has natural limitations, telling people to eat an orange siply doesn't work well enough statistically to significantly reduce risk of vitamin C intake (hypothetical example) whereas fortification will target a large number of people effectively gauranteed. Its not perfect but then its better to be a little bit closer to perfect than not, and most of the population eat very very badly and so fortification is an improvement for them.

I worked for six months last year on the national adult nutrition survey under a professor whos one of the most prominant figures in EU fortification policy and research and did a lot of work on fortification in the Irish consumer market and you wouldn't believe how stringent the safety testing, risk-benifit analysis etc is. For a lot of people fortified foods are their primary sources of lots of essential nutrients that they wouldn't get any other way no matter what health promotion campiagns were being pushed in their faces. Some people just will not eat a plate of veg and so you have to make their food of choice healthier.

The primary issues EFSA addresses before it gives the go ahead of any type of fortification is safety analysis, dosage levels (to provide sufficient benefit to the target group but not overstep upper tolerable limits in though at risk of excess intake), determining food consumption patterns and doing surveys, surveying national intake levels of the nutrient of interest, determinging the appropriate form of a nutrient thats both effective and stable, drug-nutrient interactions, nutrient-nutrient interactions etc no stone is left uncovered basically.

They wouldn't even introduce mandatory fortiification with folic acid due to the potential risk of masking B12 deficiency in a tiny tiny fraction of the population despite the potential to save hundreds of babies from being born with birth defects. If theres any any risk at all you can be gauranteed they won't have the balls to implement it in this country at least.

Lol I'm actually just reading that finnish beta carotene study now coincidence or what!

Sapsorrow

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Agree with all of those except A, the first one. I really and truly do not for a single second believe that there is any such thing a an obesity gene.

Are you serious? They've identified quite a few you know! Pubmed it and you'll find loads on them.

Sapsorrow

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Agree with all of those except A, the first one. I really and truly do not for a single second believe that there is any such thing a an obesity gene. IF there is where the hell has it been hiding for so many years? People have passed on hereditary diseases for millennia (e.g Huntingtons, breast and/or ovarian cancer, dwarfism, hypertension, a myriad of cardiac diseases and endocrine diseases) and there is clear cut evidence to back this up. There is not such a back catalogue of history to explain how in almost a single generation the so called obesity gene has decided to make itself known.

A genetic background by itself isn't necessarily enough to initiaite the manifestation of a gene variation or halotype into a phenotype, you need triggers or promoters, in this case an obesogenic environment. It's not that they're necessarily hardwired to eat more (although some are in rare conditions) is that they are gentically predisposed to put on weight a lot more easily for any number of metabolic reasons when in an obesogenic environment. It's fairly indisputable stuff at this stage. Thats why those genes were 'latent' in other times but now the nature of the food supply and our lifestyle has changed in a way that means their are making themselves evident.

dellas1979

Well, we inherit gene and characteristics from parentage/lineage so why is it not possible to pass on a "fat" gene?

There has to be some link there why some people are prone to putting on weight.

RacoonQueen

dellas1979 wrote: »

Well, we inherit genetics and characteristics from parentage/lineage so why is it not possible to pass on a "fat" gene?

There has to be some link there why some people are prone to putting on weight.

There is no such thing as a 'fat' gene. There ARE different body types, some people are naturally skinny and lanky, some people build muscle easier than others and some people gain fat easier than the other two types but not THAT much easier. Eat the correct foods and you won't end up 25 stone, unable to walk 50 metres without a break panting and wheezing...

Sapsorrow

dellas1979 wrote: »

Well, we inherit gene and characteristics from parentage/lineage so why is it not possible to pass on a "fat" gene?

There has to be some link there why some people are prone to putting on weight.

There is and loads of great research has been done on it, some people are defensive to the idea for some reason. It may not key the key to the epidemic but it is another factor out of many having an influence and will be incorporated more and more into our understanding and treatment of obesity in the future.

Sapsorrow

RacoonQueen wrote: »

There is no such thing as a 'fat' gene.

Have you ever even read a paper on genetics and obesity are are you just repeated something you've heard? There may not be a definable fat gene but there are many variations of different genes that have metabolic effects related to obesity and weight gain, appetite control, satiety etc.. they've done loads of work on knock out mice (where they silence certain genes to see what happens) on this stuff.

Sapsorrow

RacoonQueen wrote: »

There ARE different body types, some people are naturally skinny and lanky, some people build muscle easier than others and some people gain fat easier than the other two types but not THAT much easier.

What exactly do you think determines what body type you are? Your DNA!