Is the Obesity Epidemic fact or fiction?

Wibbs

fishy fishy wrote: »

lol wibbs - you would be the typical example of why people would give up on trying to eat healthy - you have a negative for everything. I hope you don't teach classes on it.

I agreed with you, but pointed out tuna as an example of "this whole subject can be an effin minefield".

Uriah Bald Waterfall wrote: »

Japan is an unfair comparison as they have a much smaller body structure than Europeans. Most normal, healthy Europeans would be borderline obese by Japanese standards. I think anything over waist size 30 triggers an employer to have to pay the employee "fat fine" over there.

There is an element of that alright N, but not to the degree we might think.

Uriah Bald Waterfall wrote: »

I don't disagree with this however, eating poor food like mcd's would be a much bigger problem. Its also easier for a person who already eats a healthy diet to reduce the amount than for a person on a poor diet to change to a healthy diet.

True. The fat and sugar laden foods trigger cravings where the healthy stuff doesn't tend to.

I cant function when I'm hungry, especially when I'm working on things that require high levels of concentration. If I know I will be working late I will bring dinner with me and eat it in the evening at work otherwise I will get nothing done.

I found it more psychological at first(many moons ago). Physically not so much. In fact my brain runs better on a one day fast type thing. I drink black tea and water mind you as I reckon many people mistake thirst for hunger. I'd also be concerned if I couldn't go say 12 hours without grub. We're designed to do this. If it wasn't psychological it could well be a blood sugar issue and the body has lost it's ability to regulate it.

fishy fishy wrote:

you can stick to your fat cholesterol laden eggs and cheese.

As has been pointed out FF, there is a major diff between dietary cholesterol and the cholesterol your body produces. A high sugar diet increases it far more than a high fat diet. With some caveats IMH. Dietary cholesterol can and does impact liver production in some people and especially as people age, so it's not black and white. In any case I'd be looking at triglyceride levels rather than cholesterol as an indicator. cholesterol is as much an indicator that an underlying unhelathy process is going on. Like if you see firemen at a burning building, they didn't start the fire. cholesterol may even act as an anti oxidant, so if your liver is over producing it, maybe it's your body trying to fix the problem.

Sea Filly

fishy fishy wrote: »

muesli is full of sugar as it is - look at the back of the pack.

Hence why I said homemade.

I'm not BMI-overweight but could do with losing some, which I am working on

I don't know about an obesity epidemic though

the intermittent fasting is interesting
starting off on a basic 16/8 out of pure curiosity and i reckon im about the same in the mornings as i am with breakfast, probably less hungry if i dont eat, oddly enough
seems to have a load of health benefits
might work it up a bit

Sea Filly

seamus wrote: »

I don't entirely understand that tbh. But maybe because not eating for hours on end isn't that big a deal for me. Back in my college days, when I ate far too much, conversely I would also go quite long periods without eating anything. Probably have the last thing to eat around 10pm, then into college late, rushing into a lecture and eating nothing till 12pm or maybe later. Another ten hours without eating, and that's 24 hours. And aside from the hunger I wouldn't have had a bad day. I never did it, because "not eating" wasn't in my vocabulary back then

While I can acknowledge the existence of hunger, I can ignore it. I know other people can't, they have to eat when they get hungry.
I'm considering giving the intermittent fasting thing a go, but it's quite difficult unless you can arrange to have a relatively solitary life for a couple of days. If you're arranging to meet people, or simply going home to your family, we structure our days around eating which makes it hard to interact with people if you're not eating.

But intermittent fasting = no life? Don't really get that.

Not everyone would find it as easy as you, people differ on this.

Duggys Housemate

I had actually watched the Horizon program sceptically, and before I found this thread. The premise was that calorie restriction would add longevity to humans as it did to mice. I wasn't impressed. Who wants to live forever hungry?

The presenter, however, was also a kind of sceptic. After explaining the mice studies - a forty percent increase in life span, he then moved onto humans.

1) A guy is on a calorie controlled diet every day. Looks like ****e food, mostly low cal fruit. The presenter - who looks far from heavy by modern standards does a blood test with this chap. His IGF - which is a carcinogenic indicator - is twice that of the fasting guy, cholesterol is twice as high, normal for his age though; and his body fat is 30 percent, compared to 10. That makes him obese, and he really didn't look it.

2) Anyway, despite these findings he couldn't imagine doing that for life. So he moved on. Another scientist mentioned a periodic four day 0 calorie fast. He did that and after the fast, IGF levels halved, cholesterol reduced massively, body fat dropped.

He found that hard though, and it needs to be repeated regularly, so he moved on.

3) The last topic was intermittent fasting. One day at 500 calories, followed by one at anything you like. The female scientists said they had a group which did the intermittent fasting, but the feed days were restricted to less fattening items as a control; and another group who ate anything. There was no difference.

In both groups cholesterol dropped, IGF dropped, body fat saw massive declines. And this happened fast, too.

4) The presenter didn't even bother his arse doing that. He did a month of 5 days feed, 2 days fast. And he got results almost as good as post 4 day fast in term of the IGF, cholesterol etc, and body fat was at 19%. Lost a stone. It was clearly visible.

They didn't explain this in evolutionary terms, so I will invent my own. For most of history as hunter gatherers, humans didnt eat every day. Or they ate small amounts on they unsuccessful days. Berries etc.

They ate every time they got a kill and when they got a kill they ate well. If they had a few days, or weeks of food, the body stored fat because it realised was in good times. Mostly though it was intermittent feeding, and the body didnt go into either starvation mode where it piles on fat with small intakes because the intermittent feeding stopped it from flicking that switch, or plenty mode where it stores fat anyway because there is lots coming in.

There is one other thing, though. People could eat what they want, but generally ate about 110 percent on the feast days, on average. However there was no restriction. That alone will drop weight, as its the equivalent of 1000 calories a day. However, as I said, it didnt seem to matter what you did on feed days.

fishy fishy

Deleted User wrote: »

and as I've explained before, and has been addressed in the Nutrition101 thread which I've asked you to read, eating fat, and eating cholesterol do not have a significant effect on a body's cholesterol or fat content.

Cholesterol content in the body is a function of overall diet and exercise.
Fat content in the body is a function of overall diet and exercise.

I'm very easily able to keep both my fat and cholesterol levels very low while consuming approximately 45% of my calories from fat, and eating 15+ eggs per week.

Again, the Food myths perpetuate.

until they change the "nutrition 101" and decide that something that was good for you is now killing you.

Stick to the basics I say - tried and tested for centuries.

Stench Blossoms

fishy fishy wrote: »

until they change the "nutrition 101" and decide that something that was good for you is now killing you.

Stick to the basics I say - tried and tested for centuries.

Oh I didn't know the caveman ate porridge

Eggs yes but porridge?

fishy fishy

fishy fishy wrote: »

until they change the "nutrition 101" and decide that something that was good for you is now killing you.

Stick to the basics I say - tried and tested for centuries.

remain ignorant so. (but try not to spread the ignorance)

What you eat today is not what has been eaten for centuries by the way.

The modern diet has almost wholesale changes across the board from one of even 45 years ago, let alone centuries as you say.

Scanlas The 2nd

fishy fishy wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

and as I've explained before, and has been addressed in the Nutrition101 thread which I've asked you to read, eating fat, and eating cholesterol do not have a significant effect on a body's cholesterol or fat content.

Cholesterol content in the body is a function of overall diet and exercise.
Fat content in the body is a function of overall diet and exercise.

I'm very easily able to keep both my fat and cholesterol levels very low while consuming approximately 45% of my calories from fat, and eating 15+ eggs per week.

Again, the Food myths perpetuate.

until they change the "nutrition 101" and decide that something that was good for you is now killing you.

Stick to the basics I say - tried and tested for centuries.

Yes for centuries we've been unhealthy with diseases unheard of in hunter gatherer societies.

--Kaiser--

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yes for centuries we've been unhealthy with diseases unheard of in hunter gatherer societies.

It's amazing what someone people interpret the word healthy as. As in 'I'm healthy except I'm sick a few times a year, my joints hurt sometimes, I have trouble sleeping, I lack energy, I get headaches all the time, I can't run to save my life ....other than that I'm fine'

foxyboxer

Lot's of people try intermittent fasting, not calorie restriction.

Such as not eating after 6pm, plenty of water though.