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.

 

The Coca Cola Conspiracy: The secret cause for the U.S. obesity epidemic

page: 24
141
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 

Maybe we should make a distinction between the person that is 30 pounds overweight and the person that ways 400lbs. One is indeed physiological and the other is more of a result of lifstyle choice which can be brought back into balance with eating healthy. Also the whole exercise thing is more than just for weight loss.




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by BBalazs
 


The problem is that the scientific truth is that huge amounts of sugar can be harmful to the body but in moderation the body is quite capable of handling them. That is not the meassage in the OP.

Using words like toxic and poison is indeed alarmist. People have consumed different forms of free fructose for thousand of years without the obesity or metobolic syndrome rates seen today. That would imply that the reason for the increase in these ailments is more than just the availabilty.

Also, the fact that most people do consume or have consumed soda at some point in their life and did not become addicted or did not sonsume in quantities that led to this type of ailments negates the OP's claim that it is like heroin and that people become powerless to make healthier choices. This seems to be true for at least a large portion of the population and in cases like Japan this is even more pronounced.
edit on 1-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


Impaired Mitochondrial Function and Obesity, Part One




Since the early 1990’s, evidence has been accumulating that obese individuals have a depressed ability to oxidize free fatty acids in skeletal muscle. It further appears that defects in the mitochondria of skeletal muscle are responsible for this impaired lipid oxidation. Two review articles that discuss these phenomena are Intramuscular lipid oxidation and obesity by J.A. Houmard and The role of impaired mitochondrial lipid oxidation in obesity by M.M. Rogge.


Impaired Mitochondrial Function and Obesity, Part Two




Mitochondrial dysfunction may be a plausible explanation for some forms of obesity. If mitochondria fail to oxidize fatty acids, both ingested and de-novo synthesized fatty acids will be preferentially routed to and will tend to remain in storage. The fact that weight loss by itself does not improve fatty acid oxidation in mitochondria explains why it is so easy to regain weight on a diet that is fairly high in carbohydrate.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
here's a related article on what ideas that Dr. Lustig has for curbing the sugar / health concenrs..


Americans Sweet on Sugar: Time to Regulate?

...Sugar: How to Regulate?
Models used to regulate alcohol and tobacco could work for sugar, Lustig says.

His suggestions:

Tax sugary foods. (The soda tax is already being considered, he notes. To work, he says the tax must be hefty, such as a $1 tax on a $1 can of soda.)
Limit availability. Licensing requirements on vending machines could be stricter.
Set an age limit for the purchase of sugary drinks and foods.
The FDA could help, he says, by removing fructose from its GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) list. This allows food makers to add it without premarket review and approval.

Spelling out the amount of added sugars on the Nutrition Facts label would also help, Lustig says. Although total sugars are listed on the label, it does not spell out the amount of added and the amount of natural.



Sorry, but I can't jump on board with any proposed solution that includes Fed regulation on the consumers..

First thought was, "why not put the pressure on the manufacturers?", but that would only lead to them passing it on to the consumers anyway..

How about a little personal responsibility? educate the folks and let them make their own decisions..



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 

We have already been over it and nothing that you have posted has made me believe that moderate sugar intake is killing anyone. Even the princeton study shows that the 12-h hfcs group with controlled portions weighed less and had only slightly higher TG levels and no differences in serum insulin levels than the ones given only water and chow. That is the whole truth and not the half truth that you keep presenting.


edit on 1-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by fleabit

That's ridiculous - if you eat smarter (and NORMAL portions - not the oversized portions served), and exercise regularly, you will most certainly maintain a healthy weight and body. Long term reality is people get lazy again. Being healthy is a lifestyle choice - not an 12 week program where you can go back to bad habits once you reach a weight goal. That's what people don't seem to get. They want fast solutions, easy solutions, with long standing results.


Ignore my sources as you will, but the data doesn't lie.


And I do get it - I've been healthy for years and years. I was overweight for a couple years after I got out of the Army. I, like everyone else, am not immune to laziness and eating smart. But I simply did a bit of research, developed a smart workout plan, ate a little better, and reached my goal weight, which I maintained without a problem. It is NOT impossible.


Although I'm glad you were able to achieve your goal, your results are irrelevant in this discussion.


And yes, people don't see results because they think 20 minute workouts 3 days a week is the answer. It's not. Burning 280 calories, 3 days a week isn't going to do much. But that's what people do, and are unhappy they don't see results. I guarantee if someone has a solid workout plan and a reasonable diet, they will lose the weight. And as much as 3 pounds a week. And if they maintain a healthy lifestyle, they will keep it off.


You're still not getting it. Jesus christ.

20 minute workouts 3 days a week can be sufficient. It depends on what you're doing. However, once again, working out has little effect on weight loss in obese/overweight subjects. Do I need to dig up the mounds of research that says so?

Working out with the objective of burning calories is absolutely horse sh!t. Every single expert that has any knowledge of biochemistry and exercise physiology knows this. I don't know how to make this much clearer than saying:

For weight loss: We exercise to increase insulin sensitivity, which, subsequently, leads to fat loss in the following days after the workout.

For muscle gain: We lift heavy weights, tear muscles and through diet, mainly, we build muscle in the following days after the workout..

It's the same principle.

Would you like an anecdote, since you're so willing to provide your own? The gym at which I train people is full of guys who play basketball daily. I play with them....daily. Many of these guys play 5+ days a week of full court basketball for 2+ hours. Now, if you were to total the number of calories these guys burned.... you'd probably assume, based on the numbers, that these guys are in perfect physical shape....

Well, I've got news for ya... They're not.. I've seen the same guys for the past few years, playing basketball for multiple days a week...burning who knows how many calories a day, and half of them are still overweight.

You idiots who think exercise is an answer have no clue what you're talking about.

Exercise can help, but it's not the answer. Diet is the answer. Not eating less; but eating right. Eating less has the same effect as does working out more.

The dumbass who says a calorie is a calorie should look at the OP in more depth. 1gm of Fructose has a completely different effect as does 1gm of Glucose. One is used as fuel by every cell in the body and the other is only used by the liver.

There is a such thing as a good calorie and a bad calorie (see the difference between one calorie of protein digestion/absorption and one calorie of carbohydrate digestion/absorption).

edit on 1-2-2012 by DevolutionEvolvd because: (no reason given)


THANK YOU!

Why is this message so hard to get across?

And to the poster who suggested that people read labels and shop smart: Two things.
One, the food you ought to be buying mostly should contain one ingredient- itself.
Two, people could make better choices if the dang GMOs were labeled. We are kept in the dark. Our only recourse is to avoid buying anything but organic, or grow it ourselves. So much for making smart choices. The grocery store is a mine field.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 

Maybe we should make a distinction between the person that is 30 pounds overweight and the person that ways 400lbs. One is indeed physiological and the other is more of a result of lifstyle choice which can be brought back into balance with eating healthy. Also the whole exercise thing is more than just for weight loss.


...but this thread is about obesity. So, given the context, this whole exercise discussion IS about weight loss.

I really don't care if you're 30 lbs overweight (which is obese) or 400. It's still a physiological process that is driving the "lifestyle choices" that we so easily label a psychological issue.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
...but this thread is about obesity. So, given the context, this whole exercise discussion IS about weight loss.

I really don't care if you're 30 lbs overweight (which is obese) or 400. It's still a physiological process that is driving the "lifestyle choices" that we so easily label a psychological issue.

Actually the OP has made it quite clear that the thread is about demonizing hfcs.

Looking at a BMI chart a six foot person 30 lbs overweight is still under the obese range but even if 30 lbs over weight is obese can we agree that there is a difference between that obese person and the 400lbs one?

Maybe a physiological process that is driving the "lifestyle choices" but this doesn't keep other people from choosing different so maybe it isn't 100% physiological or at least not in every case?

All I'm saying is that a one size fits all, ban this or that, for an entire population is going to be effective.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
here's a related article on what ideas that Dr. Lustig has for curbing the sugar / health concenrs..


Americans Sweet on Sugar: Time to Regulate?

...Sugar: How to Regulate?
Models used to regulate alcohol and tobacco could work for sugar, Lustig says.

His suggestions:

Tax sugary foods. (The soda tax is already being considered, he notes. To work, he says the tax must be hefty, such as a $1 tax on a $1 can of soda.)
Limit availability. Licensing requirements on vending machines could be stricter.
Set an age limit for the purchase of sugary drinks and foods.
The FDA could help, he says, by removing fructose from its GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) list. This allows food makers to add it without premarket review and approval.

Spelling out the amount of added sugars on the Nutrition Facts label would also help, Lustig says. Although total sugars are listed on the label, it does not spell out the amount of added and the amount of natural.



Sorry, but I can't jump on board with any proposed solution that includes Fed regulation on the consumers..

First thought was, "why not put the pressure on the manufacturers?", but that would only lead to them passing it on to the consumers anyway..

How about a little personal responsibility? educate the folks and let them make their own decisions..


Integrative Physiology Obesity (2009) 17 11, 2003–2013. doi:10.1038/oby.2009.58 Diabetes of the Liver: The Link Between Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and HFCS-55




Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common hepatic disorder of industrialized countries, affecting ~15–25% of the general population (1). Previously unrecognized until the early 1980s, NAFLD has an etiology related to recent changes in diet and lifestyle. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), the more severe form of NAFLD, is associated with obesity, insulin resistance (2), and mitochondrial dysfunction (3). Estimations of the incidence of NASH in the general population vary from 2 to 3% (4), with indications that this condition is becoming increasingly prevalent (5). The limited data, existing on the incidence of pediatric NASH in the United States and Asia, suggest an overall prevalence of at least 3% (6). Overconsumption of simple carbohydrates is associated with the incidence of NASH (7), and the bulk of these carbohydrates are in the form of various sugars (8). Dietary components have been demonstrated to play an important role in the development of the metabolic syndrome (9), obesity (10), and type 2 diabetes (11). Insulin resistance is a common occurrence in all three diseases and occurs primarily in the liver and in skeletal muscle (12). Insulin resistance can be induced by diets overrepresented with fats (13) or simple sugars (14). Intake of dietary fructose, either as a free monosaccharide or bound to glucose in the form of sucrose, has increased 1,000% during the past 40 years (15), and the majority of this is consumed in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a refined product of corn that was introduced into the human diet from 1970 onwards. HFCS consumption during the past decade accounts for a per capita mean of 53.8 g per day (~200 calories or 10% of caloric food intake), according to data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) (16). This figure was recently confirmed in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which estimated the mean consumption of fructose to be 54.7 g/day (17). HFCS can be a mixture of various concentrations of free fructose and free glucose, and according to the USDA (16), around 60% of HFCS is in the form of 55% fructose (termed HFCS-55), with the remainder being typically 42% fructose (HFCS-42). Dietary fructose is primarily metabolized in the liver, where it has been demonstrated to induce elevated plasma triglyceride (TG) (13) and increased adiposity (18). Epidemiological studies have indicated that the development of NAFLD may be associated with excessive dietary fructose consumption (4,19,20). Whereas several animal models of hepatic lipogenesis and insulin resistance have used high amounts of fructose not typically encountered in the daily diet (21,22) or combination diets involving a mixture of sugars and fats (23,24), HFCS-55 on its own has not previously been directly linked to liver dysfunction. In humans, short-term dietary consumption of 30% total of daily kilocalories as fructose results in higher TG and ghrelin levels and lower plasma insulin and leptin levels, when compared to glucose (25). In recent epidemiological studies, HFCS consumption has been linked to a rise in obesity (15,26), however other studies have suggested that HFCS does not contribute to obesity any differently than other types of energy sources (27). In view of the global increase in fructose consumption (16,17), ~50% of which is in the form of sugar-sweetened beverages and fruit juices (17), and due to the paucity of data addressing the effect of HFCS-55 on hepatic metabolism, we set out to investigate the effect of HFCS-55 on TG production and hepatic function in vitro together with hepatic steatosis and markers of insulin resistance in vivo. The amount of HFCS-55 used in our animal model (20% wt/wt, corresponding to roughly 10% fructose and 10% glucose) is comparable with the estimated average daily per capita intake of fructose-containing carbohydrates (16,17). The aim is to establish whether or not HFCS-55 could contribute to the pathogenesis of NAFLD and NASH—conditions which are associated with obesity, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


What are your thoughts?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Actually the OP has made it quite clear that the thread is about demonizing hfcs.


Sure. But the title does say U.S. Obesity epidemic. In any case, I've been referring to exercise as it relates to weight/fat loss, not health.


Looking at a BMI chart a six foot person 30 lbs overweight is still under the obese range but even if 30 lbs over weight is obese can we agree that there is a difference between that obese person and the 400lbs one?


For the average American, 30lbs overweight is obese...even according to the BMI, which is pretty bogus scale.

Of course there's a difference. Someone who's massively, morbidly obese doesn't really have the option of exercising. But the same rules apply to someone extremely obese as they do to someone who's merely on the verge of obesity.


Maybe a physiological process that is driving the "lifestyle choices" but this doesn't keep other people from choosing different so maybe it isn't 100% physiological or at least not in every case?


It's not 100% physiological because the physiological processes are driving the psyche. People can try and be successful at addressing this as a psychological issue...by choosing to eat less or exercise more. But those results are short lived. Once the body begins to compensate, it makes it harder and harder to adhere to such a "lifestyle".

It's like this: When a person gets hypoglycemic, they crave sugar/carbohydrates. Pregnant women crave certain foods that contain nutrients that they may be lacking. Rats whose adrenal gland are removed can't retain salt; in experiments, rats with no adrenal gland will chose salt water/salt food over their normal chow to sustain life (the develop a craving). The same is true with rats who have a calcium deficiency from removal of the parathyroid glands; they develop a taste for the rat chow that is calcium saturated.

Pre-World War II, scientists understood this concept well. And it was littered throughout nutrition textbooks. This discipline is based on physiological psychology; the notion that behavior is the fundamental mechanism through which we maintain homeostasis..such as energy balance.

Curt Richter of John Hopkins University, who was one of the central figures in the field, had this to say about it:


In human beings and animals, the effort to maintain a constant internal environment or homeostasis constitutes one of the most inveral and powerful of all behavior urges or drives

- Source: Good Calories, Bad Calories, Gary Taubes



All I'm saying is that a one size fits all, ban this or that, for an entire population is going to be effective.


I'm not suggesting a ban.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
It's like this: When a person gets hypoglycemic, they crave sugar/carbohydrates. Pregnant women crave certain foods that contain nutrients that they may be lacking. Rats whose adrenal gland are removed can't retain salt; in experiments, rats with no adrenal gland will chose salt water/salt food over their normal chow to sustain life (the develop a craving). The same is true with rats who have a calcium deficiency from removal of the parathyroid glands; they develop a taste for the rat chow that is calcium saturated.

This makes sense but once you know that soda is empty calories why would you keep craving them. Other than sugar their is no other nutrient in them. I understand the argument that fructose causes the body to feel that it isn't getting it's sugar fix so it asks for more but this doesn't happen with everyone. Why?

Also, if the body is craving different things why wouldn't the craving lead them to a fruit which would satisfy more than one craving? At what point does the body start ignoring all the other needs and focuses on just consuming sugar?

Maybe it doesn't work like that maybe the body just feels hunger and the person has to chose what to eat. In this case the choice is a matter of personal preference. This is where choosing what is right often looses out to choosing what a person likes or is in the habit of eating.


I'm not suggesting a ban.

But the OP does which is why I said that the topic of the thread is demonizing hfcs.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


What are your thoughts?


I don't think he actually has any of his own. Sad, really.

btw - seems to me you equate regulating industry with regulating 'consumers.' Or did I miss a subtle distinction?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


What are your thoughts?


I don't think he actually has any of his own. Sad, really.



Haha. Besides my OP I have 109 distinct external links (studies and vids) on this thread.

109.

Yet somehow I don't have any thoughts on the subject.

Hilarious. haha.

Maybe people want to go through the 111 links I've given.

I think you'll find my thoughts obvious from my 111 links.

111 hypertext links I've posted on this thread.

Yep it is sad isn't it. haha.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Apologies, it's a big thread and I just saw you respond to me with just linked stuff... I will check into your input tomorrow and see where you stand...

Personally, despite whatever findings may be evident, as soon as the talk shifts to the Fed regulating, I will be against it...

I stick by education, and letting the citizens' make up their own minds..

The education part used to be pretty easy, until they started the move to eliminate Phys Ed/ Health Ed from the public schools..

I would say bringing that back would be a first step towards making sure the next generation has the information...

If the gov't wants a part, let them start there..



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
This thread cracks me up. Americans are lazy. End.Of.Story. They don't like being patient, they want it NOW, they want it easy. And I am speaking generally, I know everyone is not like this... but many are. Check out a show like the Biggest Loser. Hardly a regimen I would recommend, it's too harsh, but it shows that even horribly obese people can ALL lose weight in great amounts with better eating and hard exercise. The exercise is the key to their weight loss. Not a single person has gone through that show and NOT dropped a whole bunch of weight. Sort of shattering the "fat people can't lose weight with exercise" theory.

And some exercises are not as conducive to weight loss. Basketball someone said, doesn't mean someone will lose weight, even if you do it many times a week! Yes.. because that isn't the best exercise to burn fat. Your HR is much too high playing BB. And racquetball (I used to play with some excellent, but rather plump players), and such sports. If you burn at a lower heart rate for at LEAST 45 mins.. and an hour is better, and you do it several times a week.. and you do some weight lifting to build some muscles (which having burns further fat), and you will lose weight, even if you are not on a super strict diet.

I know there have been studies.. but I think many are misleading. Read about one in the NY Times today. They did a study with obese people.. exercising 3 days a week, burning 300 calories. They were on their same regular diet. They only lost 7 pounds over a period of several weeks. Really?
That is one sad study, and anyone who thinks they can burn a sad 900 calories a week exercising and actually lose some solid weight are fooling themselves. If someone takes about 10 hours a week to exercise seriously, they can burn some 6,000 + calories, AND build muscle, AND build cardio. That is what those people need. They are lazy. They don't want to do it. That is why they are overweight. They could lose it, if they wanted to.

For the record, did an hour and 20 minutes in the gym tonight again in my complex - just like last night and the night before, there were exactly 0 people in the gym. NONE. That's why people are overweight. Keep thinking evil corporations are trying to kill people. Truth is people are killing themselves, and won't take responsibility for their own health.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

This makes sense but once you know that soda is empty calories why would you keep craving them.
Other than sugar their is no other nutrient in them. I understand the argument that fructose causes the body to feel that it isn't getting it's sugar fix so it asks for more but this doesn't happen with everyone. Why?


There's Sodium! But that's irrelevant. I don't know why everyone keeps pushing this term "empty calories". I mean, I know why. It's because there aren't any substantial amounts of vitamins and minerals.

Here's the dumbed down answer to your question (I say that because biochemistry is hard to follow if it's too detailed):

Fructose has always been known as a lipogenic (fattening and fat creating) sugar. This video by Dr. Lustig has been around for quite some time and it describes, in relatively layman terms, just how lipogenic fructose is. Not only does fructose metabolism end in VLDL, or Triglycerides (fat), but, in large amounts, it begins hepatic insulin resistance (the liver begins to become numb to the effects of insulin).

At this point, in order for insulin to do it's job, the pancreas begins secreting more insulin. Eventually, if the cycle continues and diet remains detrimental, insulin resistance becomes systemic, spreading to other organs (muscle and, if given enough time, fat cells). Once this happens, the homeostasis has been broken. Metabolism has been broken.

Now hyperinsulinlemia is the problem. Insulin's job is to shuttle fat and glucose from the blood to the cells. When insulin is chronically high, fat is locked in the fat cells (not literally, but essentially). So, when Soda is consumed, fructose goes to the liver (perpetuating insulin resistance) and is turned into fat while glucose spikes insulin even more and is burned were it's needed and the leftover is shuttled to the liver to become fat, at which point it's shuttled to the fat cells. Because insulin is so high, when food, or carbs, isn't being ingested, fat isn't being released from the cells as fuel. Therefore, the sugar and hunger craving ensues.

In short, fat people who eat less or workout more yet still eat the same types of food will starve at the cellular level because fat isn't being released from the cells. This causes a down regulation of metabolism and hunger, lethargy and lazines ensues. It's the same principle as the lab rats I mentioned above.


At what point does the body start ignoring all the other needs and focuses on just consuming sugar?


Once insulin resistance runs away and there is a cycle of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. This is the problem that type II diabetics have to deal with.


Maybe it doesn't work like that maybe the body just feels hunger and the person has to chose what to eat. In this case the choice is a matter of personal preference. This is where choosing what is right often looses out to choosing what a person likes or is in the habit of eating.


Well, no. Ask anyone who's ever been hypoglycemic. It's a clear craving for sugar. Or carbs.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
This thread cracks me up. Americans are lazy. End.Of.Story. They don't like being patient, they want it NOW, they want it easy. And I am speaking generally, I know everyone is not like this... but many are. Check out a show like the Biggest Loser. Hardly a regimen I would recommend, it's too harsh, but it shows that even horribly obese people can ALL lose weight in great amounts with better eating and hard exercise. The exercise is the key to their weight loss. Not a single person has gone through that show and NOT dropped a whole bunch of weight. Sort of shattering the "fat people can't lose weight with exercise" theory.


Are you seriously comparing a reality TV show that's been on the air for a few years to medical research that's been going on over 100 years?
Ok. Nice try.

By the way, you're again missing the point. If I go run a mile everyday for a week, I will probably lose weight. However, the point of weight loss is to lose it and keep it off. My point is that working out doesn't work in the long term.


And some exercises are not as conducive to weight loss. Basketball someone said, doesn't mean someone will lose weight, even if you do it many times a week! Yes.. because that isn't the best exercise to burn fat. Your HR is much too high playing BB. And racquetball (I used to play with some excellent, but rather plump players), and such sports. If you burn at a lower heart rate for at LEAST 45 mins.. and an hour is better, and you do it several times a week.. and you do some weight lifting to build some muscles (which having burns further fat), and you will lose weight, even if you are not on a super strict diet.


That's funny, too. Basketball is about sprinting down court and then resting and then sprinting and then resting. This is the best weightloss exercise. How many flabby sprinters have you ever seen? Zero I'm sure. But long distance runners? They're all kinds of flabby. And should I again link the source about long distance runners who were studied for over a year and lost 0lbs.


I know there have been studies.. but I think many are misleading. Read about one in the NY Times today. They did a study with obese people.. exercising 3 days a week, burning 300 calories. They were on their same regular diet. They only lost 7 pounds over a period of several weeks. Really?
That is one sad study, and anyone who thinks they can burn a sad 900 calories a week exercising and actually lose some solid weight are fooling themselves. If someone takes about 10 hours a week to exercise seriously, they can burn some 6,000 + calories, AND build muscle, AND build cardio. That is what those people need. They are lazy. They don't want to do it. That is why they are overweight. They could lose it, if they wanted to.


I'll say this one more time. The calories burned during a workout are irrelevant. It's about post workout. It's about what the workout is, as you've already agreed.

10 hours a week, if working out 5 days a week (which is pushing it) is 2 hours per day for 5 days. That's ridiculous. There's no reason for the average person to spend that much time working out. Not to mention people have families and jobs and a life and can hardly devote that much time to working out (I know because I work with these people).


For the record, did an hour and 20 minutes in the gym tonight again in my complex - just like last night and the night before, there were exactly 0 people in the gym. NONE. That's why people are overweight. Keep thinking evil corporations are trying to kill people. Truth is people are killing themselves, and won't take responsibility for their own health.


Exercising the right way is simply an aid to losing weight. The way to lose it and keep it off is to fix the broken metabolism and restore hormonal homeostasis. Exercise can help but diet is 80% of it.

You have a terrible bias because you assume that fat people want to be fat and yet complain about being fat. You assume that it's easy to just go workout but you don't realize that their bodies are driving their cravings, not their will or mind set or laziness. You assume that they can't put the fork down because they're glutinous but you disregard the physiological reasons for such behavior.

Take some time to do some research and stop comparing everybody to your own anecdotal experiences. There's a reason why I've not once discussed what works for me or clients of mine. I'm going by the science, not my own experiences.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 

Again that all sounds great and I follow but you seem to be talking about people that have gone past a certain stage of metabolic syndrome.

Craving sugar because your hypoglycemic and craving it because you had a coke for lunch isn't the same. That is what the OP seems to be saying. Having one coke makes you crave another. It started off with the 55 mg of sodium making you thirsty but then it turned into hfcs is as addictive as heroin.

Then came the Princeton study as scientific proof. Problem is that they, as you also seem to be doing, only focus on the rats given hfcs+water 24 hours a day. Of course this poor animals where sick by the end of the trial but the ones with limited hfcs+water, limited food and plain water did about the same.

The most noticable thing in that trial was that all the animals despite having had up to 7 months of daily hfcs had normal insulin levels. So even daily intake of hfcs didn't get them to the stage that you are describing in your previous post.

I'm sure that some people would show damage in less time then others but then you are getting into individual cases. People with celiac disease are not going around calling for the banning of products with gluten just because their body can't handle it.


edit on 1-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 

Again that all sounds great and I follow but you seem to be talking about people that have gone past a certain stage of metabolic syndrome.

Craving sugar because your hypoglycemic and craving it because you had a coke for lunch isn't the same. That is what the OP seems to be saying. Having one coke makes you crave another. It started off with the 55 mg of sodium making you thirsty but then it turned into hfcs is as addictive as heroin.

Then came the Princeton study as scientific proof. Problem is that they, as you also seem to be doing, only focus on the rats given hfcs+water 24 hours a day. Of course this poor animals where sick by the end of the trial but the ones with limited hfcs+water, limited food and plain water did about the same.

The most noticable thing in that trial was that all the animals despite having had up to 7 months of daily hfcs had normal insulin levels. So even daily intake of hfcs didn't get them to the stage that you are describing in your previous post.

I'm sure that some people would show damage in less time then others but then you are getting into individual cases. People with celiac disease are not going around calling for the banning of products with gluten just becausetheir body can't handle it.


edit on 1-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


Societal Control of Sugar Essential to Ease Public Health Burden






In the Feb. 2 issue of Nature, Robert Lustig, MD, Laura Schmidt, PhD, MSW, MPH, and Claire Brindis, DPH, colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), argue that sugar’s potential for abuse, coupled with its toxicity and pervasiveness in the Western diet, make it a primary culprit of this worldwide health crisis. This partnership of scientists trained in endocrinology, sociology and public health took a new look at the accumulating scientific evidence on sugar. Such interdisciplinary liaisons underscore the power of academic health sciences institutions like UCSF. Sugar, they argue, is far from just “empty calories” that make people fat. At the levels consumed by most Americans, sugar changes metabolism, raises blood pressure, critically alters the signaling of hormones and causes significant damage to the liver – the least understood of sugar’s damages. These health hazards largely mirror the effects of drinking too much alcohol, which they point out in their commentary is the distillation of sugar.





Many of the interventions that have reduced alcohol and tobacco consumption can be models for addressing the sugar problem, such as levying special sales taxes, controlling access, and tightening licensing requirements on vending machines and snack bars that sell high sugar products in schools and workplaces. “We’re not talking prohibition,” Schmidt said. “We’re not advocating a major imposition of the government into people’s lives. We’re talking about gentle ways to make sugar consumption slightly less convenient, thereby moving people away from the concentrated dose. What we want is to actually increase people’s choices by making foods that aren’t loaded with sugar comparatively easier and cheaper to get.”

edit on 1-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 

What you quoted doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.

Making sugar harder to get will not make obesity go away because it isn't the only cause. As DevolutionEvolvd pointed out, all souces of carbs play a part. Don't tell me that grains, potatos and rice are next on your hit list.

edit on 1-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join