What do you think is the reason for our high rate of obesity?

Sapsorrow

Ice. wrote: »

Dr. Mercola. Lol. Another snakeoil salesman. No thanks.

Did you even bother looking at the link? It's an interview with Chris Masterjohn, an independent researcher so whatever one thinks of Mercola is irrelevant, he's just the one asking the questions.

Ice.

Sapsorrow wrote: »

Did you even bother looking at the link? It's an interview with Chris Masterjohn, an independent researcher so whatever one thinks of Mercola is irrelevant, he's just the one asking the questions.

Chris Masterjohn is hardly unbiased. He is a member of the WAPF, who advocate and push for a meat and dairy centred diet. Conflict of interest? You decide.

Amtmann

From the outside looking in, this thread has become very confusing. Lots of name dropping, lots of conflicting information.

Nutrition is a science, right? So why are nutritionists seemingly so divided over what should and should not be avoided, etc.? Perhaps this is also why some people haven't a clue about what food they should eat.

"Lots of meat gives you cancer." "No, it doesn't."
"Dairy is bad. No, it isn't."

If nutrition is a science, why aren't its findings more conclusive?

El_Dangeroso

Ice. wrote: »

Chris Masterjohn is hardly unbiased. He is a member of the WAPF, who advocate and push for a meat and dairy centred diet. Conflict of interest? You decide.

You're a vegetarian, that makes you biased. Also WAPF don't 'push' for a meat and dairy centered diet, they push for a whole foods diet rich in fat soluble vitamins and traditional preparation methods for plants because this is the diet that has sustained healthy children and adults for millenia. It just so happens there are more nutrients in animals than plants, sorry but it's true. Plants are necessary but find me a plant more nutritious than liver and we'll talk.

But I think I'm bored of this thread now, it has gone beyond silly, and I've had my fun.:D Anyone who want's to know what I eat check out the forum where I've posted my what I eat several times before.

Off to open the Taittinger and eat some baby kittens for dinner *Hannibal Lecter noise*:pac:

Note to self: must update picture thread again soon, that goes for you too sapsorrow!

Sapsorrow

Tremelo wrote: »

From the outside looking in, this thread has become very confusing. Lots of name dropping, lots of conflicting information.

Nutrition is a science, right? So why are nutritionists seemingly so divided over what should and should not be avoided, etc.? Perhaps this is also why some people haven't a clue about what food they should eat.

"Lots of meat gives you cancer." "No, it doesn't."
"Dairy is bad. No, it isn't."

If nutrition is a science, why aren't its findings more conclusive?

Because some choose to use good science and some choose to use bad science to make their points heard, and unfortunately as long as money and politics are involved in the industry, a lot more of the bad stuff will be employed, especially if it get's people what they want. Sad but true, nutrition is an extremely corrupt game.

Sapsorrow

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You're a vegetarian, that makes you biased. Also WAPF don't 'push' for a meat and dairy centered diet, they push for a whole foods diet rich in fat soluble vitamins and traditional preparation methods for plants because this is the diet that has sustained healthy children and adults for millenia. It just so happens there are more nutrients in animals than plants, sorry but it's true. Plants are necessary but find me a plant more nutritious than liver and we'll talk.

But I think I'm bored of this thread now, it has gone beyond silly, and I've had my fun.:D Anyone who want's to know what I eat check out the forum where I've posted my what I eat several times before.

Off to open the Taittinger and eat some baby kittens for dinner *Hannibal Lecter noise*:pac:

Note to self: must update picture thread again soon, that goes for you too sapsorrow!

Lol great post to finish off another train wreck, I'm bored of trying to talk sense to brick walls too. My cat talks more sense than some of the crap that pops up here, must be all the omega threes in her whiskas growing her brain all nice and big.

eilo1

Tremelo wrote: »

From the outside looking in, this thread has become very confusing. Lots of name dropping, lots of conflicting information.

Nutrition is a science, right? So why are nutritionists seemingly so divided over what should and should not be avoided, etc.? Perhaps this is also why some people haven't a clue about what food they should eat.

"Lots of meat gives you cancer." "No, it doesn't."
"Dairy is bad. No, it isn't."

If nutrition is a science, why aren't its findings more conclusive?

Hi Tremelo, as far as I understand it Nutrition is a very difficult thing to be scientific about. For example dieticians cant just take 100 people and ask them to eat nothing but a low carb (lets say less than 50 grams a day) diet for 10 years. It is unethical and unrealistic to try and verify that they had followed said diet and also that any health changes good or bad where related to this diet and not, smoking, genetics or other foods that they ate etc.

They can only really look at population trends and animal studies for long term affects of various diets.
Obviously they can look at insulin spikes and blood sugars through blood test etc. But again they can only really hypothesize about the long term affects.

There is also a huge industry selling us "super foods" wrapped up in scientific packaging. Which is very confusing to the public who may not see the line between marketing and medical advice.

And then to top it all off you have Nutrition courses being run from colleges and unaccredited universities that are producing supposed Nutritionist's that come out and say ridiculous statements (Gillian McKeith) that directly contradict what Dietitions and Nutritionist from accredited universities and hospitals say.

Sorry for rambling but basically its a mind field out there!

Ice.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You're a vegetarian, that makes you biased.

Thanks for assuming but I'm not a vegetarian.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Also WAPF don't 'push' for a meat and dairy centered diet, they push for a whole foods diet rich in fat soluble vitamins and traditional preparation methods for plants because this is the diet that has sustained healthy children and adults for millenia.

They do push for a meat and dairy centred diet. Thats the sole reason for their existence. Their chairperson, Sally Fallon, has authored a book called 'Nourishing Traditions' which is full of waffle, bad science and half truths. It contains over 200 references ( most of which is quoting their own articles or other WAPF authors ) of which only 14 are from peer reviewed publications and Fallon has misrepresented the data in those. Hardly inspiring.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

It just so happens there are more nutrients in animals than plants, sorry but it's true.

If thats what you want to believe...

pecker1992

Sapsorrow wrote: »

Lol great post to finish off another train wreck, I'm bored of trying to talk sense to brick walls too. My cat talks more sense than some of the crap that pops up here, must be all the omega threes in her whiskas growing her brain all nice and big.

hardly seeing as well over half teh questions posed to the person in question were avoided.....i think more of a ''i actualy dont have all the answers i better stop before i slip up kind of post''

eilo1 wrote: »

Hi Tremelo, as far as I understand it Nutrition is a very difficult thing to be scientific about. For example dieticians cant just take 100 people and ask them to eat nothing but a low carb (lets say less than 50 grams a day) diet for 10 years. It is unethical and unrealistic to try and verify that they had followed said diet and also that any health changes good or bad where related to this diet and not, smoking, genetics or other foods that they ate etc.

They can only really look at population trends and animal studies for long term affects of various diets.
Obviously they can look at insulin spikes and blood sugars through blood test etc. But again they can only really hypothesize about the long term affects.

There is also a huge industry selling us "super foods" wrapped up in scientific packaging. Which is very confusing to the public who may not see the line between marketing and medical advice.

And then to top it all off you have Nutrition courses being run from colleges and unaccredited universities that are producing supposed Nutritionist's that come out and say ridiculous statements (Gillian McKeith) that directly contradict what Dietitions and Nutritionist from accredited universities and hospitals say.

Sorry for rambling but basically its a mind field out there!

true story

Ice. wrote: »

Thanks for assuming but I'm not a vegetarian.



They do push for a meat and dairy centred diet. Thats the sole reason for their existence. Their chairperson, Sally Fallon, has authored a book called 'Nourishing Traditions' which is full of waffle, bad science and half truths. It contains over 200 references ( most of which is quoting their own articles or other WAPF authors ) of which only 14 are from peer reviewed publications and Fallon has misrepresented the data in those. Hardly inspiring.



If thats what you want to believe...

burned :P haha..and upon a bit of snooping its quite obvious that they do indeed push for a meat & dairy centred diet...especially since there;s no fat in carbs......and none in fruit & veg either ( bar avacado's)..leaving only meat & dairy as major groups ( oils & nuts smaller)...you pretty much handed hin that one..so knowledgeable indeed:rolleyes:

Ice. wrote: »

Lol.



Well, a previous poster did ask you to post up your diet but you still haven't done so. Might be an idea?



Dr. Mercola. Lol. Another snakeoil salesman. No thanks.

again true...question was ignored several times

rocky

Let the studies speak for themselves, stop defaming the people at the source of information.

Sapsorrow

yawn.. this is getting so repetitive. According to you we should only pay heed to the professionals anyway, so I don't see much point in paying attention to your silly uneducated notions. You don't have any comprehension of what good science is or what the scientific method means so it's literally impossible to have an intelligent debate about these things anyway. Go and learn what things like confounding variables are, what confirmation bias is, what an observational study is and what it's flaws are and come back to us and maybe we can get some where. Signing off.

eilo1

^^^ wow just wow

slum dog

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

It just so happens there are more nutrients in animals than plants, sorry but it's true. Plants are necessary but find me a plant more nutritious than liver and we'll talk.

that says it all for me. do you recommend raw or cooked liver? which appeals most to you?

Ice.

Sapsorrow wrote: »

yawn.. this is getting so repetitive. According to you we should only pay heed to the professionals anyway, so I don't see much point in paying attention to your silly uneducated notions. You don't have any comprehension of what good science is or what the scientific method means so it's literally impossible to have an intelligent debate about these things anyway. Go and learn what things like confounding variables are, what confirmation bias is, what an observational study is and what it's flaws are and come back to us and maybe we can get some where. Signing off.

Lol.

Talk about spitting the dummy. Just because people don't agree with you you're talking your ball and going home. Speaks volumes.

pecker1992

Sapsorrow wrote: »

yawn.. this is getting so repetitive. According to you we should only pay heed to the professionals anyway, so I don't see much point in paying attention to your silly uneducated notions. You don't have any comprehension of what good science is or what the scientific method means so it's literally impossible to have an intelligent debate about these things anyway. Go and learn what things like confounding variables are, what confirmation bias is, what an observational study is and what it's flaws are and come back to us and maybe we can get some where. Signing off.

ok so i take advice from educated people a.k.a professionals doctors nutritionists etc yet my notions are uneducated....forget nutrition your contradicting basic knowledge that a 12 year old would have....jsut what gives you any right to think you know more than these people.....seriously pull your head together and fast...you are not more intelligent that these people in this subject...there paid hundreds of thousands to do there jobs..otherwise you'd be the one people pay to see for advice instead of sitting here trying to argue a lazy persons diet with people who have got real genuine advice..and on a bit of research ive seen posts from you and ''el d'' where low carb is praised..yet you both claim not to follow it.....i have no need to learn anything i believe its you that needs to learn that an educated person gives educated advice...and as for studies...there laughable.......they mean nothing to the individual and never will....theres just as many studies proving the opposite too..shame you never cared to mention those..this forum is low carb atkins based primarily and its very plain to see it......and for the 1,00000 time a well balanced diet including wholegrains including fats including everything is best..theres no argument or study that can prove otherwise

**Portia**

pecker1992 wrote: »

ok so i take advice from educated people a.k.a professionals doctors nutritionists etc yet my notions are uneducated....forget nutrition your contradicting basic knowledge that a 12 year old would have....jsut what gives you any right to think you know more than these people.....seriously pull your head together and fast...you are not more intelligent that these people in this subject...there paid hundreds of thousands to do there jobs..otherwise you'd be the one people pay to see for advice instead of sitting here trying to argue a lazy persons diet with people who have got real genuine advice..and on a bit of research ive seen posts from you and ''el d'' where low carb is praised..yet you both claim not to follow it.....i have no need to learn anything i believe its you that needs to learn that an educated person gives educated advice...and as for studies...there laughable.......they mean nothing to the individual and never will....theres just as many studies proving the opposite too..shame you never cared to mention those..this forum is low carb atkins based primarily and its very plain to see it......and for the 1,00000 time a well balanced diet including wholegrains including fats including everything is best..theres no argument or study that can prove otherwise

Aggh make it stop!!! Seriously my eyes are bleeding, your arguments are moronic and not backed up with a shred of evidence. You are saying that doctors are right - FINE, believe that - but let other people have their own thoughts. You can't just keep coming back and spouting off more rubbish every time your rants are rebutted, it's not a case of the person who shouts loudest and longest being right! You are not a nutritional scientist, why are you fighting your doctor's corner? Let a qualified doctor come on and defend medical guidelines re nutritional advice, at least they might have a more rational, scientific mind.

metamorphosis

If i wasn't a mod, I would have had soooo much fun in this thread but that's off topic

Anyway, seems we cannot play nice with each other.

Play nicer please! I don't want to have to lock this thread but it's getting there

**Portia**

Please do!! I won't be adding any further fuel to this madness anyway.

Laisurg

I think its due to people being to lazy to properly cook and eating to many ready made food, but i think the fact that a LOT of people do no exercise whatsoever has a huge amount to do with it too, genetics are also quite a big factor, however even if you are prone to gaining weight exercise and a good diet could fix it without too much hassle for most people, so general laziness is the biggest factor i'd say.

metamorphosis

pecker1992 wrote: »

....theres just as many studies proving the opposite too..shame you never cared to mention those..this forum is low carb atkins based primarily and its very plain to see it......and for the 1,00000 time a well balanced diet including wholegrains including fats including everything is best..theres no argument or study that can prove otherwise

See, you're contradicting yourself here a little. You say that there's a rebuttle type study for every other study - this is true. example by what I mean: For a scientific study saying low carb is great, there will be another saying it isn't.

I just think it funny that you call out other posters here for not providing those rebuttles when you yourself have done the exact same thing.

Next point, I agree that there is sometimes a low carb faveroutism seen in the thread and this thread is known for it throughout other forums. But there lies confusion here. the regulars are very much moderate carb, some even high carb, some paleo. It just seems to be articulated as low carb. This is where you have to read between the lines.

Also the lads never said moderation is bad, they said anything but that. sapsarrow highlighted that point in more than one post in this thread already, that moderation is in fact great.

thing is, different strokes for different folks - some people will do great all their lives on a high carb diet, some wont. Some will thrive on a low carb diet, some won't. Some will thrive on a high fat diet, some won't. I think it is silly and foolish to think that guidelines are suited to every person on this planet. And for what's worth - i am anything but low carb!

Sapsorrow

Do mods of health and nutrition forums count as figureheads of authority little pecker? Cos maybe you shouldn't mess with the met man himself

patar

Personally I think obesity is an urban vs. rural thing. I live in the country and most of the people in my school are from the country and I'd swear in a school of about 450 lads there's only about 20 who are overweight.

Killmurf

Interesting debate on here on effect of diet and exercise on obesity. The two are clearly linked in that if you eat too much and don't get enough exercise you are going to put on weight. I would agree with pecker1992 in that a well balanced diet is best, and I think most would agree with this point as well, but what constitutes a a well balanced diet is different for everyone - metamorphosis makes the point well

metamorphosis:

thing is, different strokes for different folks - some people will do great all their lives on a high carb diet, some wont. Some will thrive on a low carb diet, some won't. Some will thrive on a high fat diet, some won't. I think it is silly and foolish to think that guidelines are suited to every person on this planet. And for what's worth - i am anything but low carb!

Personally, I do quite a lot of exercise and I would consider carbs as energy. I don't have studies to hand as to what different sports people eat and how much carbs are in their diet, but I am happy to share my own details. Before Christmas, I tracked what I ate for about a month on the Fitday website (some of you may be familiar with it). On average, I have about 300 grams of carbs, and about 100 - 150 grams of both fats and protein, so I would say I have a high carb.

For exercise, I typically swim for about 40 minutes in the morning and run or cycle in the evening - from 45 minutes to 75 minutes. I may also do some weights as well. So I would probably do around 90 - 120 minutes a day, with a bit more at the weekends. I see the carbs as necessary to fuel the exercise, so that what works for me. I don't think it would be too difficult to understand that someone with a completely different exercise regime would need a very different diet.

I am also happy enough with my weight at the moment - I'm 5 3" and weigh 8 1/2 stone - pretty much stayed at that for the last few years (I'm in my mid 30's).

metamorphosis

Killmurf wrote: »

Interesting debate on here on effect of diet and exercise on obesity. The two are clearly linked in that if you eat too much and don't get enough exercise you are going to put on weight. I would agree with pecker1992 in that a well balanced diet is best, and I think most would agree with this point as well, but what constitutes a a well balanced diet is different for everyone - metamorphosis makes the point well

metamorphosis:


Personally, I do quite a lot of exercise and I would consider carbs as energy. I don't have studies to hand as to what different sports people eat and how much carbs are in their diet, but I am happy to share my own details. Before Christmas, I tracked what I ate for about a month on the Fitday website (some of you may be familiar with it). On average, I have about 300 grams of carbs, and about 100 - 150 grams of both fats and protein, so I would say I have a high carb.

For exercise, I typically swim for about 40 minutes in the morning and run or cycle in the evening - from 45 minutes to 75 minutes. I may also do some weights as well. So I would probably do around 90 - 120 minutes a day, with a bit more at the weekends. I see the carbs as necessary to fuel the exercise, so that what works for me. I don't think it would be too difficult to understand that someone with a completely different exercise regime would need a very different diet.

I am also happy enough with my weight at the moment - I'm 5 3" and weigh 8 1/2 stone - pretty much stayed at that for the last few years (I'm in my mid 30's).

I expand huge amounts of energy too - i race a lot (running, cycling), train long distance year round and my job has me teaching lots of indoor cycling and bootcamp classes.

Carbs are my main source of energy, sometimes i exceed 400gms on days that i am crazily active, my diet would generally be even between carbs and fat and the remainder protein. I also lost 6 stone this way, although sometimes my diet may naturally gravitate towards more fat. Depends really.

I should point out though that if you are eating 300gms carbs, 150gms of protein and fat, then your diet is actually high fat. Fat has double the calores of carbs and protein at 9 cals a gram, whereas protein and carbs have 4 cals a gram.

And fwiw - Im 5ft11 and between 67-68kg

pecker1992

metamorphosis wrote: »

See, you're contradicting yourself here a little. You say that there's a rebuttle type study for every other study - this is true. example by what I mean: For a scientific study saying low carb is great, there will be another saying it isn't.

I just think it funny that you call out other posters here for not providing those rebuttles when you yourself have done the exact same thing.

Next point, I agree that there is sometimes a low carb faveroutism seen in the thread and this thread is known for it throughout other forums. But there lies confusion here. the regulars are very much moderate carb, some even high carb, some paleo. It just seems to be articulated as low carb. This is where you have to read between the lines.

id be more than happy to do some digging and find these study's..if anyones interested..i just thought there wasnt much need as its well known that there's almost always a study to argue with another study

well im actually starting to see what you mean...ive noticed its more of a wholegrain thing in this particular case.....but i can honestly say ive never heard of anyone say a bowl of porridge and a drizzle of honey is a bad breakfast

Killmurf wrote: »

Interesting debate on here on effect of diet and exercise on obesity. The two are clearly linked in that if you eat too much and don't get enough exercise you are going to put on weight. I would agree with pecker1992 in that a well balanced diet is best, and I think most would agree with this point as well, but what constitutes a a well balanced diet is different for everyone

finally someone that agrees

Sapsorrow wrote: »

Do mods of health and nutrition forums count as figureheads of authority little pecker? Cos maybe you shouldn't mess with the met man himself

ive absolutely no idea what was meant by this???

Sapsorrow

pecker1992 wrote: »

id be more than happy to do some digging and find these study's..if anyones interested..i just thought there wasnt much need as its well known that there's almost always a study to argue with another study

See that is just some lame ass logic right there, surely you understand that there is a whole hierarchy of studies that can be conducted in biological sciences?

Observational studies (like the china study) are the weakest, and can only form the basis for a hypothesis (for example, Campells claim that meat causes cancer) and can no way prove cause and effect. These are ones where you look at different groups of people (say from different countries) and measure things that you consider relevant like incidence of a certain disease and other lifestlye and diet variables to see if any relationships exist between them.

What Campell should have done before writing a book demonizing animal products is taken the data to form a hypothesis and then continued on to do Randomised controlled trials to see if the hypothesis was correct. He just skipped this bit and spouted his hypothesis of as fact and made his bucks before anyone had a chance to check if he was telling the truth or not.

The only way one could prove meat causes cancer would be to do a randomised controlled trial, which is the most important type of study from which one can actually derived a conclusion on cause and effect.

So say you have to groups or people, randomly selected, with all variables controlled for and you lock em up and feed one group loads of red meat and the other none for ten years. If the red meat group, after ten years on a controlled high red meat diet has a statistically significant higher incidence of colon cancer (and if the study groups are large enough) you can be sure enough that there is a correlation between meat consumption and cancer.

A lot of the misinformation regarding meat consumption and disease incidence comes from comparing people eating the SAD (standard american diet) packed full of refined carbs, processed meats, toxic trans and denatured fats and low in high nutrient density foods with vegetarians. The problem here is vegetarians tend to be more health conscious over all and rarely just eat a SAD minus the meat, rather they are much much more likely to adopt a healthy whole foods diet, pay more attention to exercise, to not smoke and to practice relaxation techniques so a valid comparison is nearly impossible.

But the results of one well designed RCT is still not enough, the results have to be repeatable to really prove cause and effect, so you've got to repeat the study on as many people as possible to make really sure your initial results weren't a fluke. This is why nutritional research is so ambiguous and contradictory. Designing proper studies is extremely difficult, expensive and largely just completely impractical when dealing with the lives and diets of human beings.

Furthermore not all studies of any one type are designed the same, there is infinite room for variation, bad design, lack of control for variables, bad interpretation, crap stats etc so of course there will be a study to contradict every opinion.

That doesn't mean it's a good, well designed/conducted study that found valid, unbiased and statistically relevant results. What matters is comparing the good studies (especially the randomised controlled trials) to one another, there's a lot less conflict in the evidence when you only pay attention to the really good studies.

Sorry for the rant but it's impossible to talk about science when people don't even understand the basics of the scientific method!

pecker1992

Sapsorrow wrote: »

The problem here is vegetarians tend to be more health conscious over all and rarely just eat a SAD minus the meat, rather they are much much more likely to adopt a healthy whole foods diet, pay more attention to exercise, to not smoke and to practice relaxation techniques so a valid comparison is nearly impossible.

yes and i would go further to say that most people who adapt to a particular diet tend to change there whole regime..(that goes for low carbers,low fat & vegetarians).....eg exercise habits even pastimes etc..im not saying its fact but its clearly noticeable..so of course when these people are examined they've made significant changes to there lifestyle rather than minor ( well the majority of them anyway) so in saying that of course a bunch of studies done on these people will show these effects and in turn prove there chosen diet right. they've adapted a healthier lifestyle overall as opposed to a diet alone. This factor's taken into account in how many of those studies?????