Really? I would love a source on this, because it seems that the #1 reason is that the average portion size has increased greatly in the past 30 years while people are exercising less and less.
It would be great if we could find a way to "flip a switch" to make weight-loss easier, but it's downright foolish to pretend that we are gaining weight for any other reason than that we are eating too much and exercising too little.
This "processed foods make you fat" nonsense is infuriating because it just validates people's beliefs that their weight problems have nothing to do with their personal habits, instead placing the blame on the quality of the foods they've been eating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine
The famously banned "red dye number whatever" I think was red dye number 2, banned in 1976 due to suspected carcinogenicity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaranth_(dye)
But there are so many dyes that I can't be sure what you meant.
I will say, though, that although many food additives are ultimately a bad idea in one way or another, historically most of the suspected carcinogens are not, because humans are resilient in ways that mice are not (in part due to two million years of cooked food, and in part due to testing using cancer-prone inbred mice for decades).
Care to explain what you mean by this?
http://www.alternet.org/5-unhealthy-foods-engineered-be-addi...
Obviously you will be able to discern which are credible and which are not. That was sarcasm/cynicism, because it's really hard to discern what is credible, to what degree and what the motive of the author was. There is much propaganda on both sides of the fence, so at this point, it's pretty tough, beyond a religious debate to have any objective discussion.
>a handful of foods that seem to promote ongoing consumption
>people are observed consuming huge numbers of calories in kind of a chain-consumption binge
As I said: It has absolutely nothing to do with the foods or how they are processed; it has everything to do with how much people eat of these foods.
Fatty/Salty foods can promote overconsumption, but blaming the foods for a person's lack of self-control is, as I said previously, incredibly foolish.
Sure, food trends may have increased the amount of fatty/salty foods on the market in the past 30 years, and this certainly would contribute to the obesity epidemic. However, the burden ultimately rests on the consumer to ensure that they are not only consuming healthy foods, but that they are consuming healthy portions of these foods compared to the amount of exercise they get daily.
I could easily eat 3 Big Macs for lunch, but I am aware that that would be 1600+ calories, so I don't.
Not everyone has the same self-control/discipline. Exploitation of this fact by food companies is becoming more visible as time goes on. One that immediately springs to mind are the slogans for products such as Pringles: "Once you pop, you can't stop!"
Certain foods cater to, nay exploit, addiction and human behavioral traits. You can't exploit weaknesses in the human psyche and then say "it's their own fault," without assuming any responsibility or blame.
That's like blaming a drug addict entirely for becoming addicted to crack and not apportioning any of the blame to the dealer... not everything is entirely the fault of the... I'm struggling for a better word than victim, but that's not really the word I mean. Most addicts are at first desensitized, then conditioned and then coerced into trying what they become addicted to long before they become addicted.
Food companies have been slated to add chemicals into their food that have been found to correlate with addiction, to keep people coming back for their product. The media desensitizes, conditions and coerces people into trying their product. Portions are decided not based on what is a scientifically proportionate amount of food, but what is most profitable or will make the "client" keep coming back for more - to feed the addiction - in exactly the same way that dealers cut their drugs with chemicals that feed addiction and keep the addict coming back for more - even though many of them want desperately to quit.
What does this even mean? Barring the more obvious "correlation != causation" issue here, this seems... logically fuzzy at best, and also reeks a bit of the "chemicals are bad" fad. Do you happen to have examples of such chemicals that "have been found [by whom?] to correlate [how strongly?] with addiction [to themselves? to something else? to what?]"?
Why and how have people changed to have less self-control in the past 30-40 years?
The most obvious answer is the proliferation of food that is extremely calorically dense and designed to promote fast and heavy consumption.
Or you could wave your hands and say "People these days are just irresponsible!"
Could it not be both? Food may have gotten more unhealthy, but people have also grown more complacent with what and how much they put into their bodies. You can't expect everyone else to coach you on how to eat healthy, you must do it yourself.
Sure! It definitely could be. I'd be interested to see if there has been some documented cultural shift, independent of marketing by food giants. One generation seems like a short time frame for that kind of thing though.
But for now, the most direct and clear link is between the food available and people's weight.
c.f. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary...
burden ultimately rests on the consumer
Rests on the overworked, underpaid, isolated in food deserts, raising kids in the same environment, consumers. The average human isn't researching nutrition science, they just want to be happy. They eat what tastes good, have no time to exercise—they drive 3 hours a day—and then they go back to eating what tastes good.
Humans aren't brain-rational actors, they are gut-rational actors, and the gut is extremely short sighted and happy to offload trillions in future medical expenses onto future members of society (not to mention the national security risk of having 80% of your population rolling around in Jazzy Scooters and individually running up over a million dollars in weight-related medical bills in their lifetime).
The food industry specifically targets the "bliss point"[1] when figuring out the formula for snack foods.
Right, that's pretty obvious to most observers, but it's not the end of the road. The interesting question is why this is happening. Is the cause purely social (perhaps we're lazier, or perhaps large portion sizes occur purely by normalisation over time), or are there other changes to our society or what we eat that make over-eating and under-exercising more common?
I agree with your statement: Portion size in North American markets is ridiculous; Our consumption and exercise levels are way out of whack and that surely does need correcting; But there does appear to be a not insignificant number of people where despite diet, exercise and unimaginable will-power and discipline, there is little if any change in body mass.
Some people despite eating ridiculous amounts of junk food their entire lives and doing little if any discernible exercise have a disproportionately low body weight; and some people despite eating little store all the fat their bodies can muster. I watch enough of this around me every day to know that these people aren't lying - if they could flip a switch to make their lives easier, why wouldn't/shouldn't they? I would. I know that even having the tine/discipline to lose 10-20lbs is hard. Imagine those that have 100+lbs to get into a healthy range. That's a struggle many of us will hopefully never have to comprehend.
Right, but the question here is why are we eating too much? (why we're exercising too little is easier to answer: it's harder to exercise when you're overweight, and our lifestyles have changed). It seems that the hunger mechanism is out of whack; either because the types of food have changed, or something changed in our internal reactions to calories/fat/etc
Eating garbage food is a personal habit, but the food is also engineered to be not very filling, high in calories, and mildly to strongly addictive (more profit!), so how do we balance personal responsibility in the face of adversaries engineering addiction?
instead placing the blame on the quality of the foods they've been eating.
Except, the food quality/provenance is the problem.
Go to middle america and watch obese people at restaurants. Most of them are ordering more obese-enabling foods. Giant sandwiches, giant cheese fries, giant cokes refilled three times per meal. A lot of people just don't have the training or education to connect what they eat to their physical body—bodies are magical things that "just exist" and "just happen" with no responsibility in any direction.
You can't get an obese person (100+ pounds overweight) down to "normal" just by exercising more and eating less of already addictive bad-for-you foods. You've got to remove all the crap from their diet and essentially de-program them from a lifetime of bad habits. Oh, and we need to do this on a national (even global) scale on the order of hundreds of millions of people.
The article is pretty clear in stating that this new research is novel because it might depose the firmly held belief that diet and exercise is the sole cause/determinant of one's obesity.
I'd be perfectly content with a switch to flip, and have no guilt nor shame in flipping it.
Obesity is directly related to an individual's diet and exercise habits. Gaining/losing weight is easier/harder for different people for different reasons, but ultimately a person's BMI is within their control. To pretend that they are "victims" of some unavoidable outside force misses the point entirely. Obese people do not deserve to be mocked, shamed or blamed for their problems, but one cannot pretend that the power to fight obesity lies anywhere other than with the obese person. People don't "develop" or "catch" obesity, they become obese by allowing body fat to become too large a portion of their body mass. This problem may be harder to tackle for some people than others, which isn't fair, but that's life for you.
>I'd be perfectly content with a switch to flip, and have no guilt nor shame in flipping it.
As an overweight person, I completely agree! It would be great to have a truly reliable method for accelerating weight-loss. However, we can't pretend that this is going to lead to some "eat whatever you want and lose weight" magic diet pill. This research seems like it could lead to promising treatments that one would use alongside lifestyle/dietary changes and exercise.
The thread is about a genetic switch and treatment that could bring more people a higher quality of life. This is a great idea; and unless I misinterpret the article, yes indeed it is a 'magic bullet' at least for those with unfortunate genetics.
Probably this bit will just make you tend to burn fat more often. Which is pretty significant!
I think it's stupid to lie in a tanning bed twice a week to keep tanned. People still do it though, and when they get cancer I don't blame the tanning bed company for it; I blame the idiot who irradiated themselves twice a week.
That's a good way to view any problem having to do with people. People are the same as they've always been--it's ludicrous to think that they're intrinsically any lazier or have less self-control than people a generation or two ago. If they're a lot fatter than prior generations, then something external must be different. You're never going to fix people, so if you want to solve the problem you have to focus on those external things.
Its all tangles up of course. But fixing people was actually the topic of this thread - with gene therapy. That indeed seems to be possible!
First I'll agree with you that most people lack self control, and that the increase in portion sizes is a significant factor contributing to the obesity epidemic we're seeing right now.
That said, as someone who's been tangentially involved in product engineering for years, literally everything from the packaging to the chemical composition is designed the re-enforce addictive behavior (which is intrinsic to human psychology). Serving sizes are also often deceptive as they don't clearly indicate the macronutrient content for an entire package (as they do in many other countries). Sure, 7g of sugar per serving seems ok for cookies, until you realize that's every 2 in a box of 20 and you've eaten the whole thing (70g).
Most preservatives and artificial sweeteners are actually fairly inane, despite scary-looking ingredients lists. What you should be worried about are the cheap forms of sugar, refined carbohydrates, hydrolyzed oils/trans fats (which are thankfully declining in popularity), and HFCS/cane-sugar-based drinks which average 32-68g of sugar per bottle.
All of these things cause a condition called insulin resistance, which leads to obesity and eventually if untreated, acquired diabetes. Insulin is the hormone that extracts glucose (energy) from carbohydrates (food), and turns it into a source of energy for your cells. [It is well established scientifically that the aforementioned "watch-list" all spike your insulin levels, and that instability in your insulin levels relative to blood glucose is bad.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2995635)
In layman's terms, these things make your body release disproportionate amounts of insulin compared to the amount of food you've ingested, and this has a few downstream effects; a large spike can make you feel intensely hungry (why people say "empty" foods make you eat more than you would otherwise), and most importantly insulin becomes less effective at transporting glucose. That's the beginning sign of Insulin Resistance Syndrome, and its correlation to obesity is well established.
Ultimately it's because of the composition of processed foods, not any dangerous chemical additive (with a few notable exceptions) that most long-term complications arise.
Looking back 30 years you may be correct, but looking back 500 to pre-industrial diets, you'll notice sugar was less prevalent in the food of most Anthropocenes, and fiber was much more common. The sugar lobby of the 1900's is largely responsible for its GRAS status and current abundance.
These days we mill our grains into cereals, removing any traces of fiber/micronutrients and inject large amounts of liquid sugar into most beverages for 'flavor,' having the compound effect of up-regulating what we perceive to be "sweet." Both of these things make our bodies release far more insulin than is needed to extract their energy, making us hungrier disproportionally to caloric intake and setting the stage for a diabetic future.
To the unconscious consumer, these forces are silent and automatic. For as little self control as people may have, I personally can't place sole blame on the individual when I know the entire chain of supply to be rigged against their nutritional best interests.
http://www.upworthy.com/no-one-applauds-this-woman-because-t...
Everything from marketing right down to product chemistry is manipulated to keep us coming back.
I always assumed I wouldn't eat much sugar because I don't like sweets and I don't drink soda. But once I started counting added sugars in the processed foods I consumed it became clear I was consuming way too much of the stuff.
Nowadays I just watch out to buy products with 0 sugar in it. Now that's of course no silver bullet but a pretty low hanging fruit when it comes to improving your overall health.
21 libs down in 7 weeks. Blood pressure down a lot. Swelling down, energy up. Feeling better.
And yes I do exercise. Try to do 5 hours a week. Probably average 4.5 hrs / week.
It is frustrating that processors add sugar to virtually everything.
Some environmental factor could be behind all of it
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1712/1626...
Stop eating bread (yes, pizza counts as bread. beer counts as bread. stop it). Stop drinking calories unless you're exercising for 2+ hours at once (yes, fruit juice is bad for you. stop it).
The practice of making "processed foods" is essentially just cramming carbs and salt into everything and making it as highly concentrated as possible. Much processed food (read: basically anything pre-packaged in a wrapper) is more like a high calorie MRE food brick instead of something you should be combining with other foodstuffs.
We know how food interacts with human bodies. Water doesn't cause fat growth. Dietary fat doesn't cause fat growth (the chemical 'fat' isn't human fat tissue, so drinking a gallon of olive oil won't increase your fat stores). High glycemic sugars cause fat growth in non-glycogen depleted bags of bones. Turns out we can stop getting obese just by not eating things causing obesity.
Since I've cut processed food and bread entirely out of my diet I've lost a lot of weight pretty effortlessly. I don't think this experience is unique. I also know people that can eat lots of these foods without weight gain.
The only thing even remotely healthy about my diet is the vegan part.. but that makes me rely even more on the carb-heavy foods you attack.
I eat tons of processed wheat-based food every day.. I drink heavy juices by the liter, and I am still seriously underweight.
There is clearly a metabolic component, the control of which the OP was theorizing.
In the aggregate of society, the hyper-ectomorph phenotype isn't what people are fighting against. But, we must not forget about them either. Excessive school lunch programs of calorie restriction aimed towards stopping "fat kids" just pains the skinny kids who need way more calories than the 8 year old borderline diabetics.
We need individual nutrition knowledge balanced against our body type. We can't say "everybody must do X," but we should say "People with A, B, C traits should really do X and Y to not be a health menace to society."
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_pol...
There you go. We are eating more. As other nations adopt an American diet, they also eat more and get fatter.
There may be other things as well, but far too many people are looking for the magic pill that lets them eat all they want and not get fat.
Make sure you're eating a healthy diet and getting needed exercise, then you can move on. But god damn, act responsibly first.
That might be good for the health side of the crisis, but the graphs of obesity correspond with food waste as calculated by the NIH. Only 30% of the excess calories have gone to making us fat, the rest is waste, so solving the health side alone will not fix the economic or environmental sides of the issue. This issue is discussed in depth at the end of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPi1LQHBWBk
There is, it's called carbohydrates.