It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Big Fat Lie: Overeating is a symptom, not the cause, of Obesity!

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Terrapop
 


This is what I basically do. Many make the mistake of consuming way to much protein to early in the day, and wonder why they are sleepy and hungry all day even though they are eating breakfast and lunch. I typically tip the balance toward more protein toward the end of the day, to help me sleep better. I hit the weights 2-3 times a week, I do work on the track three days a week and I do a bodyweight exercises monday thru friday every morning. In between I practice martial arts and boxing, neither of which I compete professionally, but I do enjoy them. Eating lot of grains and veggies helps too because the slow burning carbs, or complex, control your appetite, provide more energy and trick your body into thinking you've consumed a lot of food. This last part is key for when you are losing weight and trying to fight off the withdrawl symptoms that make you think that you are hungry.




posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darth Lumina
To you my statement "fat little hands" might have been stupid and ignorant, but it is neither, I'm simply stating a fact.


Subjective values, ie opinions are not facts. Fat is a subjective value. Little is a subjective value. Hands are the only factual, non-subjective, element of that little quip as they are in fact standardized by common understanding.


Originally posted by Darth Lumina
As you might have noticed, I don't give a damn about PC, if someone's feelings are hurt by comments, then they should just lock themselves in a room and avoid all contact with the outside world.


So your desire to express a subjective opinion about a person is more important than their desire not to be objectified? In my world I call that selfish and conceited. Though that's my subjective opinion.

But it does express a reversal of values that is illogical to me.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I stay away from anything that is advertised as low fat or fake sugar and I am thin. The medical industry is a fraud. Tinfoil Kathy at Conspiracy Friend Finder.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
AHHHH finally a subject I am an EXPERT on. I am overweight in fact I am clinically obese. And I can tell you for a FACT I am obese because I eat portions that are too large , I drink mostly soda all day and I am not active. Its true there are ingredients being added to foods and liquids that are harmful but that has nothing to do with all the chub you see walking around in America today. We are eating multiple servings everytime we sit down to grub and since most of us jump from our meal to a monitor the calories carbs fat salt and sugar just lingers in our body. I rarely sweat and i know thats the reason I am overweight. And believe me when I say I have friends who eat more than me and appear to be fit as fiddle. They spend more time outside moving around than I do. This should be common knowledge but apparently people have there heads so far up their or someone elses tush that they are simply ignorant and the slightest piece of everyday knowledge seems to be a revelation. The masses truely do sleep.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark

Originally posted by Darth Lumina
To you my statement "fat little hands" might have been stupid and ignorant, but it is neither, I'm simply stating a fact.


Subjective values, ie opinions are not facts. Fat is a subjective value. Little is a subjective value. Hands are the only factual, non-subjective, element of that little quip as they are in fact standardized by common understanding.


Originally posted by Darth Lumina
As you might have noticed, I don't give a damn about PC, if someone's feelings are hurt by comments, then they should just lock themselves in a room and avoid all contact with the outside world.


So your desire to express a subjective opinion about a person is more important than their desire not to be objectified? In my world I call that selfish and conceited. Though that's my subjective opinion.

But it does express a reversal of values that is illogical to me.


So you in your "subjective opinion", I'm selfish and conceited. What's the word for that, oh yeah, duh. I'm selfish and conceited, and rather proud of it. But that doesn't mean I don't care about people either. Answer me this, is it better to help someone by sugar coating things, or telling them straight up how it is? I prefer to tell them how it is, the truth hurts, but it's got to be done. When I gained weight, people started saying I was getting fat, and instead of crying about the jokes, I evaluated myself and got back on the horse.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
it's a screaming shock how many people are coming onto the thread to say "don't be stupid, of course it's over eating" when they clearly haven't taken a blind bit of notice of the video in the OP. watch the first ten minutes of the video at least, ffs. otherwise, don't bother posting. it makes you look like a jerk.

sorry, on topic, it's an interesting standpoint, i hadn't heard the low carb option's reasoning before but he lays out the case very well. decreasing the ability of the body to store fat through reducing carb intake seems like a plan although i have a reservation i was disappointed he didn't address.

the damage to the circulatory system is allegedly caused by fat in the blood stream, it seems to me that, if anything, this lowcarb option will increase the level of fat in the blood stream by not allowing it to be stored in the body. this seems dangerous.

there's an article in the OP support material that kind of skirts the issue but i fear it's misleading.


The fat in the blood stream is cause by intake of simple carbohydrates that have no where to go, an over abundance of them. By introducing a low complex carbohydrate nutrition plan combined with adequate protein and mono or poly unsaturated fats the body actually has less fatty acids to deal with thereby changing the amount of insulin produced which effectively stops fat storage and helps mobilize stored fat into an energy source for the body. Dr. Barry Sears, The Zone Diet harnessed this theory effectively years before anyone else. Read up on it.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Eat food + no exercise = you get fat

Go on diet + exercise = burn calories

Do i get a doctorate for those formulas?


Well said! This is exactly what I was thinking.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darth Lumina
Great, another excuse for people to say they cannot lose weight! To me this is going along the lines of saying an alcohalic has a disease, instead of an addiction. Sorry, but I know a lot of people who have used a simple time proven advice on how to lose weight successfully, all this is just another excuse for people to contintue to drink two cases of coke today and all the take out and junk food they can get their fat little hands on.


I drive 4000 km or more a month for work and when I'm away for work I tended to drink Coke by the Gallon (6 x 500ml bottles a day). Middle of may I cut my snacking 50% and cut all the pop out of my diet. I've lost 10lbs and I feel better, more tired but I used to refer to Coke as liquid sleep.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I watched the video for the first 15 minutes but had to go mow my lawn...I could feel myself gaining weight just sitting there watching it !


No but seriously....

The fact that the British and the US have the highest percentages of obesity doesn't surprise me in looking at the similarities in our diets consisting of White Flour, White Sugar, Starch and FAT.
Whats the most commonly known British Food here in the US ?
Fish and Chips....Fried white flour battered fish and Fried Potatoes !

Within the US, the 10 most obese states are:
Drum Roll Please....

1) Mississippi
2) Alabama
3) W. Virginia
4) Louisiana
5) Kentucky
6) Tennessee
7) Arkansas
8) Indiana (Tied for 8th with S Carolina)
9) S. Carolina
10) Texas

Looking at the southern diet , its great food but it's very high in fat,sugar and white flour.

No Popeyes Fried Chicken here in New Hampshire IMA.


Having lived in Europe(Germany) and the US one of the first things you notice upon arriving back in the States is the sheer number of obese people !
Upon returning back to Europe you notice just the opposite with more adults walking and riding bicycles to/from work whereas in the US it's far less common.

The diet consists of fewer fried foods, though pommes (fries) are common throughout Germany but are considered "Fast Food" and hence aren't eaten daily.

Marathon runners "Carb UP" consuming pasta and beer the night before a race because complex carbohydrates are slowly converted to sugar providing long lasting energy. Whereas Sucrose/Fructose go directly to the blood stream providing immediate energy. But if either aren't fully utilized then they're stored as fat. Plain and simple.

China has almost never had an issue with obesity but is beginning to see it in their children....since Mc Donalds & KFC have arrived on their shores.
Fat(Fried beef, cheese), Carbs (white flour Bun and Fried potatoes) and very little fiber in which to digest the fat...there's your recipe for obesity.


The skinny girl example....no one pointed out the fact that she smoked.
Nicotine is a drug, a stimulant for that matter, as are diet pills which artificially increase the metabolism. Thats why when people quit smoking, they almost always gain weight.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
yeah let's blame mcdonalds and all other food corporations for the obesity epidemic!


seriously... it's a disease of the western world only because we have so much food (most of it portioned in very unhealthy sizes) and so much time off work that we feel the need to stuff our faces with more and more. the rest of the world without 40 hour workweeks, with very low wages don't have such issues. it's actually funny to visit eastern Europe now, almost 20 years after communism has fallen to watch them grow fatter and fatter compared to 20 years ago when they were normal to underweight.

blame the fashion industry for putting skinny women on the cover of all magazines and most TV shows. since when is "normal" morbidly skinny?!

as others have said, going on a low-calorie diet and then jumping back on a "normal" (high calorie) diet will make you very fat because your body "thinks" it's a famine and you just found a big meal that it needs to store as fat for the next months...

if you don't eat the same way daily, it's useless to go on diets, they will just shock your body and harm you more in the long run. best thing (for me at least) is a bigger breakfast, normal lunch, small dinner. that way you get your metabolism going early in the day and keep burning. but most westerners eat the other way around: small or no breakfast, big lunch, huge dinner.

most westerners who drive to work, mall, shopping and have very little physical activity a diet of 1500-2000 cal per day should be more than enough. obviously a body builder or athlete will need more, but how many of us do that?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Darth Lumina
 


I starred your post simply for being honest about yourself, which is a value I find the most lacking in a majority of people. It's easy to be 'honest' about who other people are, but to be honest about ourselves is often difficult.

And I also happen to agree with you to an extent.

I value honesty in all forms of communication. But I don't separate that from compassion. In fact, the only reason I know as valid in being honest with someone is out of a sense of compassion for their situation. Truth and compassion are not diametrically opposed ideals.

So it isn't about 'sugar-coating' and it isn't about 'PC', it's about being socially cooperative which is all about how we treat each other.

And I can tell you from personal experience that cruelty masquerading as honesty is a poor motivator.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by exile1981
 


Since this is a conspiracy website then here goes....

Coca Cola was invented by a Pharmacist using flavor from coca (coc aine) and to many, due to its high caffeine and sugar is still considered a drug.
The coc aine from Coca Cola is sold to the dental industry , called NovoCaine. Even though it's commonly classified as a soft drink there still trace amounts of coc aine in Coke and resultingly there are many addicts to this so called soft drink.

I think that people don't realize the significance or impact of drinking soda.
Its high acidity (the Phosphoric Acid) is commonly used to remove rust from metal parts amongst car enthusiasts. But, this high acid throws your body's Ph out of balance.
The high amount of concentrated sugar coats your teeth leading to decay but also places a burden on your pancreas that has to work overtime to balance your blood sugar due to the high concentration of HIGH FRUCTOSE corn syrup contained within. This is why there exists such a high prevalence of type 2 Diabetes here in the USA.

Diet soda using nutrasweet is even worse for you, NutraSweet aka Aspartaime is a neuro toxin containing Formaldehyde brought to you by Donald Rumsfeld and Searle labs, and now owned by Monsanto.
In fact, Rumsfeld, part of the Reagan administration orchestrated the FDA approval of NutraSweet by replacing the FDA Head with their own head Guy when NutraSweet initially failed approval due to causing seizures in laboratory animals.




posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
To everyone who has willingly skimmed over the OP because it's too much to take in, I'll sum it up, again.

Gary Taubes is asking questions and answering them with mounds of research. That's what investigative journalists do.

He asked: What is obesity? Answer: It is excess fat deposition. Plain and simple.

He then asked: What regulates fat deposition? Answer: A hormone called Insulin. Increased insulin causes fat deposition. Increased insulin levels in the blood will not allow fat to be released from fat cells. Guys, this is basic biochemistry.

He then asked: What increases insulin levels? Answer: Carbohydrates through the process of spiking blood glucose levels. Interestingly enough, there is only one enzyme that converts fat from triglycerides to fatty acids so they are small enough to fit through the cell wall to be stored. That enzyme solely found from carbohydrate consumption.

You see now? The hormone problem is with insulin and can be remedied by decreasing carbohydrate consumption. Some people, because of genetics and because of what their mothers ate while they were in the womb, are more susceptible to developing obesity/excessive fat gain.

Just like many of you have said, it's not rocket science. If this is an energy in vs energy out concept, ask anyone to describe to me how a Type 1 Diabetic can't gain weight, no matter how much they eat, unless they're injecting insulin constantly.

Eating a diet that excludes all processed carbohydrates, cereal grains and potatoes, you can eat as often as you'd like. Two reasons. The lack of carbohydrates will keep cravings down and overeating is unlikely to occur. If an over consumption of calories were to occur, there is very little chance of fat storage due to the lack of insulin, and a certain enzyme, in the blood.

This is supported by mounds of conclusive data. It is not fabricated, it's science. Much of this knowledge about weight loss has been known for almost 200 years and was only recently forgotten in the 60's when fat and cholesterol were falsely labeled killers.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkSecret
 


Yep, I WILL blame the obesity seen by the Chinese on the influx of Fast food from the US.

Not all Americans who eat fast food are obese either.
but obesity is an accumulative process and doesn't occur overnight.


Have you watched the movie "SuperSize Me" by chance ?
The long term effects of McDonalds food is proven in this documentary.
The individual goes from perfect health to ill health in a matter of 30 days.


www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


Super size me is very misleading. The guy was consuming a gross amount of calories that a normal person his size would never do. In fact, he won't even release his dietary logs, so we have no idea how many calories he actually consumed.

In the end, he blamed his rapid decline in health on the amount of fat and calories consumed yet he clearly consumed more carbohydrates that he did fat.

Here's a great documentary, much like super-size me but contains real experts and shows how you can eat at mcdonalds every day for a month and still lose weight. It's called Fat Head.

-Dev



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee
reply to post by DarkSecret
 


Yep, I WILL blame the obesity seen by the Chinese on the influx of Fast food from the US.

Not all Americans who eat fast food are obese either.
but obesity is an accumulative process and doesn't occur overnight.


Have you watched the movie "SuperSize Me" by chance ?
The long term effects of McDonalds food is proven in this documentary.
The individual goes from perfect health to ill health in a matter of 30 days.


www.youtube.com...





yes i've seen the movie when it first came out and i'm not surprised.

maybe i was not clear with my sarcastic remark. i meant blame mcdonalds instead of blaming the people who stuff their bodies (and their kids' bodies) with junk food knowing fully well that the fast food is very bad. if someone sells you poison will you eat it just because it's cheap and smells nice?

you can buy healthy food at most grocery stores for a few bucks more. i'm not rich yet i can afford most organic products and i eat healthy. it's not like mcdonalds is the only food sold in the west! we have choices. being FAT is also a choice (except for very few true hormone imbalances). food addiction is as bad as alcohol or shooting drugs and it takes a lot of will and support to get over it.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Hello there DevolutionEvolvd.

You know i agree with you on quite a number of things and in this thread i find myself agreeing with some things and disagreeing with others.

I think doctors have gotten it wrong for years with the very high carbohydrate intake they recommend. This high intake causes big spikes in insulin if people don't stick to the very complex carbohydrates and this will i believe lead to increased amounts of fat storage. The body, when given large quantities of carbohydrates will start storing the stuff you put in whilst burning your glycogen supplies at an increased rate.

Whilst many will say that this is still even as you have burned the calories either way, i would point out that the next meal a person has will simply replenish the glycogen, the body starts burning it again and continuing to build up it's fat content. Basically the body is being taught to burn less and less of it's fat supply and in place burns the glycogen.

However.

If you use more calories than you expend you will start to lose weight. This isn't even biology, it's physics. You say that calorie balance ideas are going out the door and yet you can't really tell that to a starving person. When starved everyone will lose weight and that is because they're taking in to few calories.

The Atkins diet works for a good reason with those who have trained their bodies to utilize glycogen more. The Atkins diet basically has a start period that completely exhausts the bodies glycogen stores. All that stuff stored in your liver and kidneys, around other organs and the small amount in your muscles gets flushed out of you and your body is forced into turning to adipose tissue.

So whilst i agree that the hormonal role of weight gain has been vastly underestimated, i completely disagree that the basic calorie balance idea is wrong. I disagree because it is based on physics. If humans did not lose weight when in a negative calorie state then we'd have to reinvent physics because they got energy from nowhere.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



Farinaceous and vegetable foods are fattening, and saccharine matters are especially so….In sugar-growing countries the negroes and cattle employed on the plantations grow remarkably stout while the cane is being gathered and the sugar extracted. During this harvest the saccharine juices are freely consumed; but when the season is over, the superabundant adipose tissue is gradually lost.
–Thomas Hawkes Tanner, The Practice of Medicine, 1869

www.randomhouse.com... 780&view=excerpt

That's the prologue of Taubes' new book.

Jean mayer, in 1954, said,


Obesity, too many people believe, is explained by overeating; actually, it should be recognized that this is simply restating the problem in a different way, reaffirming ones faith in the first law of thermodynamics. To 'explain' obesity by overeating is as illuminating a statement as an 'explanation' of alcohol by chronic overdrinking.


It's like saying someone has chronic fatigue syndrome because they don't have enough energy. Where's the causality?


“The great progress in dietary control of obesity,” wrote Hilde Bruch, considered the foremost authority on childhood obesity, in 1957, “was the recognition that meat . . . was not fat producing; but that it was the innocent foodstuffs, such as bread and sweets, which lead to obesity.”


Remember that when one reduces calories, they are typically reducing carbohydrates as well. For instance, if one were to eliminate cola from the diet, one would not only be reducing caloric intake, but also carbohydrate intake.

So, we see people reducing their caloric intake and assuming that alone is the reason for weightloss. In most cases, it's the carbohydrate reduction that has allowed for weight loss, because, as I've stated before, hyperinsulinemia won't allow fat to pour out of fat cells. When insulin overpowers glucagon, you're going to either gain fat or have problems losing it.

-Dev



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Growing kids don't grow because they eat so much. They are eating more because they are growing. Their increase in calorie consumption is the dependent variable and growing is the independent variable.

I'm not going to grow taller by eating more. Hormones control that process. And it just so happens that hormones control fat gain as well. Oh, and bodybuilders understand that Insulin regulates muscle growth. Without it, you can workout and eat as much as you want without growing muscle.

If you eat less than your daily expenditure, you'll get hungry and your body will compensate by slowing the metabolism. Likewise, if you eat more than your daily expenditure, you'll experience a reduced appetite and your metabolism will speed up.

Remember the saying, "working up an appetite"? That saying has meaning, and that is, if you expend more energy(exercise), you're body will adapt by increasing appetite to reach a balance.

Low-carb dieters have shown to lose exactly the same amount of fat as low-fat dieters, even while eating over 300 calories more a day in recent restricted calorie studies. How does energy balance account for this?

Positive caloric balance does not cause obesity and fat gain. This is science that was being taught pre-world war 2, especially in Europe, but was forgotten after the war. Blamed in part on the low-fat researchers that proceeded the war.

-Dev



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
sorry, i wasn't clear. ignoring the details of the mechanism, insulin and all that, as far as i can see, the theory here is that when the body burns carbs, in the form of glucose, a molecule is produced which allows the body to store fat by combining with fatty acids to lock them into a fat cell. the trick is to not burn carbs and therefore the body has to burn fats for energy as well as losing the ability to easily lock these fatty acids into fat cells.

what i am suggesting is that because the fats aren't stored in fat cells and because they are being pumped about for use in the body as energy there are more of them in the blood stream. not from eating more fats but as a normal side effect of a lack of carbs.

conventional wisdom says this is a bad thing. if not, then why not. any ideas?


I do, but they're not mine.

You mentioned something in an earlier post about fat pouring out of the fat cells and into the blood being bad. It can be for type 1 diabetics. Eating a low carb diet will force the body to pull fat from the fat cells and burn them for energy. The byproducts of the process are called Ketones, the process is called Ketosis.

A build-up of Ketones in the blood can be very dangerous for type 1 diabetics and the condition is none as Ketoacidosis.

Low-carb diets, even ones that are high in fat, saturated fat and cholesterol, have repeatedly shown exceptional improvements on lipid profiles and sugar levels. Although it sounds counter-intuitive, these low-carb, moderate/high-fat diets beat low-fat diets hands down in all areas, except one, LDL.

LDL, the "bad" cholesterol, has been shown to rise a small percentage when following a low-carb diet. But, HDL rises even more. So the ratio between the two improves and this is what's important. LDL count and total cholesterol have no real correlation with damage.

The two best indicators we have are LDL particle size, which need to be large, and HDL/Triglycerides ratio, which should be 1/1. Insulin causes LDL particles to shrink, and when they shrink, they get stuck in the arterial wall and oxidize. This is how plaque forms.

In the end, it's carbohydrates once again that are causing damage, not dietary fat and cholesterol.

-Dev



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join