Obesity

Discussion in 'Health & Fitness' started by Sorcerer, Jan 13, 2014.

  1. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    Interesting article from the Guardian:

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/13/uk-obesity-worst-case-scenario-underestimate

    Quote:

    Predictions on the number of obese and overweight people in the UK may dramatically underestimate the worst-case scenario, says the National Obesity Forum in a new report.

    The Forum, led by a GP, wants urgent action to tackle obesity. It warns that the seminal Foresight report of 2007 which said that half the population of England could be obese by 2050 if sufficient action was not taken could have been an underestimation of the scale of the obesity crisis. Public Health England recently estimated that 60% of men, 50% of women and 25% of children could be obese by that date.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sciee Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    God. I have played World of Warcraft and eat much food. I feel I am fat obviously. Maybe I should take exercise outside.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    Appropriate place for this subject, it is a ...'big' one that really needs addressing by all of our societies. Unfortunately, I believe that it is a vastly more complex issue than just some people eating too much and not exercising enough.

    Contributing factors must include such things as the routine glorification of female models who have been Photoshopped into something beyond human abilities to become. We compare ourselves to a created ideal and conclude we must try to be that, then we have been set up to fail. Then we give up and throw in the towel. This is just 1 small part of the problem.

    Another is stressing a healthy lifestyle in family and out of the family. If both parents smoke, are fat and sedentary, it will be extremely difficult for the school to address the child's obesity. We can try via education, but that requires installing and maintaining a serious healthy lifestyle program throughout the entirety of the child's public education.

    It begins with rational self valuation though, and that is a personal skill that many of us fail to achieve. :huh:






    Welcome to the Sciforums Sciee. Please consider introducing yourself in the 'About the Members' forum.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    They are not all computer-enhanced. Anorexia and bulimia are common among models. I have a friend who went to modeling school when she was around 20 years old. She was never able to get a job in the industry, but she came away from the experience with the advice of all the other girls to become slimmer. Today she's 55 and she still cannot break the habit; her appetite is genuinely stifled so she can't eat an ordinary meal, and often has only one small meal per day. I have kept my eye on her after meals we eat together and I'm convinced that she never vomited afterward, but I'm sure she does it when no one is there to scold her.

    She's 5'6"/167cm and weighs only 90lb/41kg. She looks like one of those photos of the Auschwitz refugees after WWII: Her body has burned off all of its subcutaneous fat so her features are stark and gaunt.

    Oh yeah: after a lifetime of ejecting stomach acid through her mouth, her teeth rotted. They ALL have caps, and several have been replaced by implants.
     
  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    The biggest issue with Obesity right now is pretty straight forward - it is easier, and in many ways CHEAPER, to eat "bad for you" processed/fast food than it is to buy, store, and cook proper "healthy" wholesome foods... we are so on the go and proper fruits and veggies are so expensive that, well... it's becoming DIFFICULT to eat right because it's so expensive, both in terms of time and money!
     
  9. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    It is, as I said before, a very complex issue and that makes it hard to deal with. Frag's point has a converse application as well which contributes to obesity. There are folks who eat normally when in public, then hit the McDonald's on the way home, order a dozen super - sized meals, then suck them all down unobserved.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Some of us digest food more efficiently than others, some have higher or lower metabolic rates. If a person can be motivated to care enough for themselves to choose being as healthy as they are able a priority then they will profit from that effort. It must be a life style choice though, and that will be based on what is really important to the individual.

    You can pretty much completely avoid eating processed foods if you want to do that, but it will cost you more time in meal prep. It also requires educating yourself about foods and nutrition and doing the shopping yourself. Where you live has much to do with what foodstuffs you can easily access, and you must keep abreast with the science.

    Ex:Brown rice is a nutritious whole grain that comes in a great variety of flavours and aromas, but it tends to leach arsenic from the soil it is grown in. California grown brown rice has much less arsenic than rice grown in fields formerly used to grow cotton, as arsenic was routinely applied to that as insecticide and persists in the soil.
     
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Not only that, but we're so busy trying to "modify" our foodcrops that I have to wonder... how much of this has been really tested?
     
  11. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    GMO's are spurned in Europe and violently 'protested' with acts of anti - science vandalism and the like, but that is mostly powered by a very profitable and powerful organic food growers 'lobby'. Most all of our crop foods have been heavily modified to become those. Also, just being "organic" does not assure that a food is safe or nutritious. I agree that many of the newer GMO's should be tested, but I must decry the propaganda videos done with cancer - prone knock - out rats and the like.

    Science yes, politics no. I am very tired of idiots making every major issue either political or religious, foodstuffs inclusive.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Interesting that the article talks about patients having talks with their doctors about their weight. From the nutrition blogs I follow that are initiated by doctors, their typical observations are that doctors are NOT trained in nutrition. In medical schools it is not a subject that is given any serious attention. So putting the onus on doctors to give advice on nutrition is doomed to fail. And yes the article mentions more training for doctors - hmm, it needs to more than just "more" it needs to be a fundamental re-training. At the moment they tend to tell patients they must lose weight but give little useful advice on how to achieve that. The current dogma of eating less and moving more has spectacularly failed, and not surprising since neither of those initiatives have little if anything to do with the route causes or cures for obesity.

    So yes eating less might help, except that as you eat less your metabolism reacts by slowing down to compensate. It assumes you are beginning to starve and acts to conserve vital resources. The result is that you feel tired, lethargic, and irritable, and HUNGRY. The hunger is a hormone response to tell you to eat. The normal person can only go so long ignoring those powerful signals, and of course as we know, pretty much everyone gives in. This is why the calories in calories out concept is nonsense. The correct advice is to eat the correct foods to satisfy hunger and appropriate nutritional needs.

    Moving more - get more exercise. The theory is that exercise burns calories, and yes it does, slightly, but exercise also makes you hungry since you have just used fuel and nutrients to maintain the exercise - the result is that the hunger makes you eat back the calories just burnt - the result is a zero sum. Also, if you are obese then it can be dangerous to exercise. Use exercise for health - not for weight loss - it doesn't work. People don't become obese because they don't exercise enough, but rather that they don't exercise because they are obese - if you have ever been obese then you will know that trying to exercise in that state is very unpleasant. And as I said it is pointless and fruitless.

    We have two issues - one is to prevent non-obese people becoming obese, and the second is how to get the obese to lose weight easily. This second part is going to be very hard since obese people are now metabolically damaged, so the path back is going to be far harder than the path to obesity.

    The essential guidance should be to understand why we gain fat deposits and why our hunger hormones are continually telling us to eat more than we need.

    I know the answer to both but the solution is radical and goes against almost all official guidelines, food industry marketing, and other overwhelming media propaganda. Sweden appears to be the first country to officially recognize a better path and that country is moving quickly in that direction.

    The essential culprit has always been insulin. This is the hormone that causes fat to be deposited and to prevent it being burned as fuel. The solution is very simple - reduce the amounts of insulin we secrete. The absence of insulin allows stored fat in adipose tissue to be released and burnt as fuel.

    Some insulin is released when we eat anything, but almost none if we eat fat, a little when we eat protein, and huge amounts when we eat carbohydrates. Depending on the metabolic health of the individual some degree of carbohydrate restriction, from light to severe will reduce the conversion of excess carbs to fat and allow fat reserves to be released for energy.

    Essentially replace carbohydrates with fats. Using fat for fuel instead of glucose is the radical solution that will solve the obesity, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimers, and heart disease, epidemics.

    So isn't eating fats bad? Yes if they are allowed to accumulate in the blood which they do if your insulin levels are high. If you have low insulin then those fats can never accumulate since you will be burning them at a rapid rate for fuel.

    But doesn't the brain need all its energy from glucose? No. It needs some of its energy to come from glucose, at least 5%, but its preferred fuel is ketones. And ketones are produced in the liver from the metabolism of fats. OK, so where do we get the glucose? So, fats are stored in a form known as a triglyceride (TAG). Each TAG consists of a glycerol backbone connected to 3 fatty acids (the fats). When TAGs are used for fuel the fats are used directly as fuel as well to produce ketones, and the glycerol is recycled through the liver and becomes the remaining necessary glucose component needed by the brain. The proportions of fats, ketones and glycerol, are elegantly perfect for human energy needs.

    The hunger issues are further resolved because protein and fats satiate hunger rapidly and are not addictive like sugars and other carbohydrates. It is that addictive component of carbs and inadequate fats that pushes people to eat all the time. An interesting experiment recently on rats showed a significantly statistical preference for fructose over another well known addictive narcotic.

    The cancer issue is interesting. For our cells to metabolize fats they need healthy mitochondria, and an essential characteristic of cancer is that the mitochondria are damaged preventing those cells from using fat as a fuel. Glucose can be metabolized through two pathways, via the mitochondria or via lactate outside the cell nucleus, it is this later path that cancer cells depend on for their growth and as such they generate significantly higher numbers of insulin receptors than normal cells. The solution here is very simple and has been known since the 1920s - limit glucose and hence insulin, and use fats for energy - the result is that the cancer cells starve to death. Or for healthy people, the cancer cells cannot gain a hold to begin their growth.

    Heart disease is easy as well - if you are burning fat rather than accumulating it then your entire lipoprotein profile changes - lower LDL, higher HDL, and very low TAGs.

    Alzheimers is often called diabetes of the brain - the very bad thing about glucose is its ability to cause glycation. This is where proteins are damaged and run amok causing further damage. If your brain is running entirely on glucose then some degree of glycation is inevitable and far more likely to be severe. Ketones are often described as neuroprotective in this regard, although it would be appropriate to call ketones healthy, and glucose as neural toxic.

    The current diabetes epidemic is clearly obvious - too much carb intake results in too much insulin trying to push too much glucose into cells and the cells fight back by becoming insulin resistant, which means more insulin is needed. Unfortunately the pancreas only has a few cells to produce insulin and when they are overworked they die and cannot be replaced - and that is diabetes. A natural result of 30 years of dietary guidelines telling people to reduce fats and replace them with carbs. It should be a clue that the pancreas has so few cells for insulin that the human body was never intended to use glucose as a primary fuel.

    A better view on glucose - given glucose and fats the body will use glucose first. This has been erroneously taken to mean that glucose is the preferred fuel. The correct interpretation is that glucose is a deadly toxin outside of a very narrow range and the body does everything it can to destroy any excess glucose and the best way is to burn it as fuel.
    The amount of glucose needed in the bloodstream at any one time is about 5 grams - or about a teaspoonful.

    For the obese - this form of carb restriction known as nutritional ketosis should work fine. For the healthy non-obese who don't want to become obese then some degree of glucose/insulin control will be required. But everyone has different tolerances to carbs and fats so there really is not one size fits all. And if we look closer at the APO-E gene then we can see some of the reasons why.

    A good website from Sweden - this is the English version - http://www.dietdoctor.com/lchf

    Enjoy.
    Cris
     
  13. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    If you could prove that sugar consumption was the cause of cancer and that a sugar restricted diet would then cure cancer if you got it, you would make yourself a fortune indeed! Unfortunately there seems to be a dearth of evidence to support that hypothesis. Yes, cancer cells have messed - up mitochondria, but that doesn't necessarily mean that sugar caused the cancer. I should point out that cancer is many different diseases which have many different causes so any broad brush 'cure' solution is going to miss many of those types - especially cancers that are genetic in origin.

    Diabetics that enter ketoacidosis are in danger of dying outright:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetic_ketoacidosis

    so that probably isn't the cure they would desire.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It has been reported that low/no carb diets can cause or exacerbate diverticulitis as well so there will be a cost for that weight loss if you go that route.

    Thus far the only proven method for extreme weight loss by the super - obese is baryatric surgery.
     
  14. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Stoniphi,

    Except that I didn't claim that. Cancers can be triggered by many things it seems, the causes. My point was that they will have difficulty growing and becoming a serious problem if they are starved of glucose. At the start of the 20th century cancer rates were about 1 in 8, currently they are 1 in 2 and the increased rates correspond very well with the official dietary guidelines that push high carbohydrate diets.

    It is usual for anyone who first hears about ketosis to google and find the references to ketoacidosis. It is entirely irrelevant for anyone who can produce their own insulin, even if just a little.

    In nutriotional ketosis the levels of ketones will average around 0.5 to 2 mmol/l, if you can reach 3 then that is extraordinary. Ketoacidosis starts at around 15 and goes up with increasing levels of toxicity. For normal people they simple cannot approach anything close to the start of ketoacidosis. The reason is very simple. Ketones are produced when trigs are metabolized, that process also releases glycerol that is converted to glucose. When glucose levels rise insulin is triggered and the presense of insluin inhibits lipolyisys, i.e. further metobaolism of trigs is halted while the body uses up the generated glucose until the insulin is dispersed. Like I said the metabolism of triglycerides for energy is very elegant with this perfect feeback loop included that selects for ideal levels of ketones and glucose. As more ketones are produced glucose rises as well and eventually stalls the production of more ketones. That is why it is difficult to go much beyond 2 mmol/l and quite impossible to reach levels needed for the start of ketoacidosis.

    Ketoacidosis is only an issue for type 1 diabetics who cannot produce any insulin, or those in extreme stages of type 2 diabetes. For everyone else it is irrelevant.

    For type 1 diabetics who inject insulin then nutritional ketosis is perfect for weight loss since they can control very precisily the levels of ketones using a ketone meter and the exact amount of insulin needed.

    Do you have a reference? I see there are many conflicting studies around and in my nearly 10 years with low carb and ketosis it is not something that has appeared to be relevant.
     
  15. elte Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,345
    My understanding is that low fiber in the diet is a risk factor for development of diverticulitis. It's probably advisable to eat extra fiber-providing vegetables, or maybe some flax seed meal on the high fat diet. Your presentation on the benefits of a low carbohydrate/high fat diet seems good.
     
  16. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    At the start of the 20th century many people still died young due to stuff like smallpox, polio, diphtheria, cholera and the like. An older population will indeed have higher cancer rates as one of the many things that increases your risk of developing cancer is aging. Also obesity.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I appreciate your testimonial, but I find that eating a diet heavy in meat and saturated fat constipates me, gives me heartburn and indigestion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This appears to be a common problem with an extreme low - carb diet for many people.

    My hemorrhoids don't like it if I get constipated and that hurts, so I avoid it. I chose a diet that allows me to be regular, maintain a lot of muscle, and to be extremely healthy and robust. Lots of fruits, vegetables, nuts, whole grains, fish, poultry etc and lots of variety. No prepared or packaged meals, no carry - out, no restaurants etc.
     
  17. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Stoniphi,

    I think I said somewhere there that I don't think there is one size fits all. So whatever you find that works for you is likely perfectly fine.

    As for low carb being seen as heavy on meat that is also incorrect. The amount of protein needed for anyone is the same regardless of diet type, whether vegan or carnivorous. Protein is needed as a structural resource, muscle maintenance and the supply of amino acids used in many cellular functions, etc. Protein should never be used as fuel, that is a waste. If you consume the optimum amount then it never plays a role in these silly calorie counting diet schemes. If you consume more protein than you need it is converted via gluconeogenesis into glucose, at that point it could be considered calories.

    As for fiber - most low carb schemes are heavy on non starchy veggies. What tends to be dangerous is the use of grains and bran as fiber. These are harsh and damage the intestinal walls. The result is that mucous is generated from the damage, much like a constant runny nose from a cold, and the mucous acts like an efficient lubricant. It is only later in life where your ability to generate that lubricant dries up and then you have real problems.

    To achieve optimum bowel movements you need efficient peristalsis, and adequate fluid. Peristalsis is the intended method of moving anything through our entire digestive tract. Bulk from fiber is not needed or healthy. Some fiber from cruciferous veggies, nuts, seeds, and some fruit, is fine. Plenty of bile tends to generate effective peristalsis, and bile generation comes from fat consumption. Bile is needed to digest fat. And constipation is entirely avoided by maintaining adequate hydration. Unfortunately just drinking fluids doesn't help that very much, that primarily fills the bladder instead. Magnesium is the critical mineral that maintains appropriate levels of osmosis and keeps stools soft and moist. For those who suffer from constipation, magnesium deficiency is a common cause. Supplementation with magnesium works well. Finding the correct dosage takes some experimentation as it can be easily over done. That combined with modest non abrasive fiber should yield optimum results.
     
  18. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    The classic low - carb diet, the Atkins diet, starts with no vegetables or fruit.

    http://www.webmd.com/diet/atkins-diet-what-it-is

    In my humble opinion, a balanced, varied diet with the RDA of nutrients gives a solid foundation. Regular mealtimes, intelligent snacking and adequate water are critical as well.

    As a senior (63 years old) and an athlete (run 7 miles a day 7 days a week, every week, 41 year Taekwondo practitioner, weight training, mountain climbing, backpacking etc) I am real clear that a lack can give you a stumble so I try to cover all of my nutritional bases, supplements as needed.

    I have found that a regular consumption of green leafy vegetables (among other vegetables, mind you) keeps constipation from being a problem for me. My gastroenterologist is extremely happy with my colonic condition, considers me to be extremely robust and healthy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I avoid refined carbs, junk and syn - foods of all kinds.

    I pay attention to The Doctors, Dr Oz and am a Real Age member/participant.

    I agree that calories are calories. If calories in exceeds calories expended the difference ends up on your belly or your butt.
     
  19. Ickyrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    70
    Some interesting reference documentaries. Series of six programs called 'the truth about food' also see Horzon Documentary 'The truth about exercise' and Horizon program called 'Fat vs Sugar'.
     
  20. elte Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,345
  21. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    The Atkins diet does NOT exclude vegetables in his diet

    I know because I followed his diet by READING HIS BOOKS not by internet info
     
  22. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    Thanks Elte, I read Science Daily too.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Good article, needs more research.

    Gee River, that is why I PROVIDED THE LINK. Sorry the Internet fails to meet your requirements.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,532
    I work with a lot of patients and doctors and I agree that doctors aren't very well trained on obesity issues, and nutritionists aren't really consulted (at least in the US) when a patient is obese. The problem with obesity too, is that it often causes depression, and American doctors are mostly trained to treat with medication and not treat the mind and body first and use drugs as a last resort. I see a ton of doctors prescribing anti-depressants at a very high rate to treat obesity, but most of those medications cause weight gain and have sexual side effects that aren't healthy for an already obese person. Mental health isn't often considered, but I've often found that patients who see a social worker regularly along with changes in lifestyle and a nutritionist are healthier and fare much better than anyone treated on medication.

    The root causes are so labyrinthine, that it's hard to get at each issue and squash it. Corn (Montsanto) lobbyists, and big pharma lobbyists are the easiest targets to pin the blame on, but it's also the fundamental way we look at a patient that is a large issue as well. Because the American (and by proxy a lot of other countries due to the influence of pharma) system separated Mental and Physical health as separate issues many many years ago, we treat them separately and we don't get the whole picture. I think to begin to repair these issues patients should see a care team that may consist of a Doctor, a Nutritionist, a Physical Trainer and a Social Worker and the four of them should decide on a method of treatment that would treat the whole patient and provide support for helping the patient get healthy. Our current system is broken because everything is privatized and many roles (nutritionist, physical trainers, social workers) are marginalized as unimportant or even worthless in treating the issues of the patient. If we spent more to prevent and repair the issues of obesity at a patient level, we would end up spending a whole lot less as the patients got older because they would be healthier, possibly not have diabetes or other obesity related illnesses, or die of heart issues related to carrying around all that extra weight.

    I've been in the process or un-processing my foods too, eating nothing that has corn products thrown in as an additive/filler/sugar, and generally watching every label for things that are unnecessary for my health or well being. We eat so much processed crap that is either worthless or even harmful to our system that it's ridiculous. It's even in so called "healthy" and organic foods, so buyers need to be aware. A lot of yogurts have corn starch, milk protein additives (highly undigestible btw), carageenan, and high fructose corn syrup among other crazy things. In general, people don't want to spend time looking at every label in the store so they just don't do it. And that also isn't good for the consumer. Luckily there are sites that analyze and make lists to help consumers be more aware. Someone mentioned a shopping app that does that as well, and helps the consumer eat less processed foods. I give a list to my patients of healthier alternatives to the foods they buy after I've spent a few days with the family and rummaged through their fridges.

    It's just so multi-layered and we are really doing a disservice to people by just calling them fat or obese and laughing at them. The compassionate thing is to get those people involved with you in activities that get them moving and any movement is a step towards whole body healing.
     

Share This Page