More Women Than Men Are Obese in America, and Gap Is Widening (2015)
npr.org
npr.org
Do not eat anything that contains sugar.
To start off, try it for just 1 week. You will realize that sugar is a drug to our brain.
Once you are clean, reduce the "hidden sugar", carbs, to a minimum, and increase vegetables to reach 60% of the volume of your food.
You'll feel great again.
The "withdrawal" and subsequent sustainable diet that people describe sounds to me just like what you would expect from someone making a major diet change.
The great feeling that people talk about having after a few weeks of low/no-carb diets sounds a lot like what people describe after switching to a vegetarian diet. It can be explained in terms of the sense of purity that restricted diets create (as seen in spiritual traditions dating into prehistory), the knowledge that you have the self-discipline to control your diet, and also the repleneshing of nutrients that your old diet lacked and are present in your new diet. Vegetarians often see health issues arise a couple years after ceasing meat consumption. Those who aren't carefully monitoring their nutritional intake, and some who are, get sick. It would be interesting to look at people who ate no-carb diets long-term.
I've seen ketogenic diets work for people close to me, but I'm skeptical that it's so much the lack of carbs that make it work as the self control that it forces people to exert. Maybe a vegetarian diet would be more productive if it achieves the same results, but is arguably more ethical, and definitely not less.
Food quality matters as much as food quantity. Yes you can lose weight on a McDonald's Diet (we've seen a whole documentary on this), but that may not improve your blood markers or other health markers.
Also: http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/usda-defi...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/upshot/giving-the-poor-eas...
Your view as I understand it: research shows that availability doesn't change dietary habits over the short term, therefore something other than availability is the fundamental problem.
My view: the research you've linked shows that availability doesn't change dietary habits over the short term, but that might still mean that availability is a fundamental problem over the longer term or still a necessary but not sufficient fundamental problem over the short term (e.g. maybe it takes availability + education).
Eating vegetarian, or white meat that's quick is very hard to do without sugar. I eat Soylent, and it's super sugary, but easy to consume. On the other hand, I've tried a bunch of protein bars / powders, and literally none of them are savory.
But, yeah, I agree with you, I would kill for an easy, pure vegetable diet.
Keto Chow is the one I use. I definitely prefer the taste of Keto Chow to Soylent. It's more like a milk shake. Also, Soylent gave me consistent acid reflux. https://www.thebairs.net/product-category/ketochow/
No, it's not.
And if you don't eat sugar or carbs at all you can't get diabetes or at least you're working on ketones presumably which means you aren't producing much insulin and when you do it works more effective.
I'd say more research is needed here to draw such absolute conclusions as you do. We used to tell everyone that low fat was the way forward but that has been repeatedly shown for most people to be harmful.
> And if you don't eat sugar or carbs at all you can't get diabetes
Low fat is still the recommended diet. There are a lot of people who can't stick to a low fat diet though. People such as Jimmy Moore don't have discipline and are looking for a scape goat. If carbs are the problem that must mean that eating as much fat as possible is healthy!
There are no studies that prove that low fat is "shown for most people to be harmful." Where did you read that? Reddit?
Are you including fruit in this?
This video[1] explains in greater detail, but essentially all of the hormonal changes a woman goes through on a month-to-month basis can have drastic effects on their ability to lose fat, to keep up performance while exercising, as well as water/nutrient absorption on a week-to-week basis.
These changes do not happen to men, and they are additional considerations when a woman needs to lose weight. Not that they aren't insurmountable, or that the topic itself isn't for more advanced athletes, but we can generalize this to say that it is more difficult for women, so I'm not surprised that the gap would widen given those additional constraints.
Interesting to note that Mexican, Turkish, and especially South African women are quite a bit more obese than the men.
OECD publishes a lot of stats in this area:
http://www.oecd.org/health/Obesity-Update-2014.pdf
Could it be cultural differences? In the countries where the men are more obese, the average obesity rate is much lower.
The study says that more woman are obese: I.E.: Looking at healthy body fat in the two genders (where the healthy body fat levels for woman are already higher then men), more woman are above those levels.
Secondly, with less testosterone, women put on and maintain muscle with less ease than men. Since muscle burns more resting calories than fat, women must restrict their calorie intake more strictly than men do - even at the same weight and activity level - if they want not to gain.
The study conclusion is simple: Obesity in men stabilized, obesity in woman is increasing.
"BMI was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared, rounded to one decimal place. Obesity in adults was defined as a BMI of greater than or equal to 30."
All in all the study is about how these BMI measured obesity levels are stabilizing for men but increasing for woman and there is no rational way to go around the conclusion... so I don't get why people are so against the conclusions of the study.
Isn't that taken into account when drawing the line for what is considered to be obesity?
The reason why it still works for large populations is that very few people are freakishly short or tall, and pretty few are roided-up body builders.
"Data on overweight and obesity among adults are mainly from the Health Survey for England (HSE). Results for 2014 showed that 61.7% of adults were overweight or obese (65.3% of men and 58.1% of women). The prevalence of obesity is similar among men and women, but men are more likely to be overweight."
Projection from WHO:
"74% of men and 64% of women in UK to be overweight by 2030"
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/05/obesity-cris...
I think according to BMI, I'm supposed to weigh like 180 pounds as a healthy weight. The lightest I have ever been was 210, after I spent an entire summer hiking 10-15 miles a day through the White Mountains, packing fifty pounds of tools, building trails and working with a crew that was half-vegan, so we subsisted on starvation rations.
This has the benefit of increasing the quality of your life overall (besides the fact that you don't need to spend money for that).
My recommendation is to be able to opt out, for example via a smart phone setting that shows that an individual has opted out of obesity prescriptivism. As a practical matter, for example this may allow them to be shown menus with 500-1100 calorie entrees (or less), whereas obesity prescriptivism would require that such choices not be shown. I'm careful not to use the language of either side. These are the facts of the current situation.
>It would be so cool to have a high tax on sugar
PS: Glucose and fructose are both C6H12O6 with slightly different shapes.
"All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dosage makes a thing not poison."
But I guess if sugar etc. would get a high tax, the tax money could be used to better educate the people which could possibly turn them away from too much sugar. And if we are at it, remove mc donalds, burger king etc. from the school grounds and sell healtier food.
Or we could consider sugar "food pollution" (which it actually mostly is) and regulate it like air and water pollution.
... Except that saturated fat has been exonerated of the charges leveled against it by the charlatans. Now the experts acknowledge that hydrogenated vegetable oils (trans-fats) are different than naturally-saturated fats. It is convenient for their business models to allow people to continue thinking that the drying oils (which react spontaneously with oxygen to form a hard film) are safe to eat.
The agriculture department should not be in charge of US nutritional guidelines.
Once we see that in some countries one gender is more likely to be obese we can look for reasons. If we're lucky there's something that causes women to become obese that we can eliminate.
If you want to see food scientists at work - look at modernist cuisine - where the goal is to pump the flavor to the max while keeping the calories in check.
Seriously if the food scientists made cheap industrial food with lower levels of sugar, fat and salt it would stop people eating so much and as a population we would be much thinner and healthier. The trouble is each food company is competing against each other leading to them creating an outcome which is sub-optimal for us all.
1. http://scalar.usc.edu/works/uiuc-food-networks/media/Michael...
Anwyays,
> After decades of increases, obesity rates do seem to be flattening out.
> And another note of optimism: The CDC finds childhood obesity has leveled off. In many states, as we've reported, obesity rates are falling among preschool-aged kids.
Good. Maybe in a few years we'll see a drop?
> Across all adult age groups, about 38 percent of women are obese, while 34 percent of men were obese.
4% seems like a pretty small gap.
> And, the divide becomes even greater for some women of color. The obesity rate among African-American women is 57 percent and 46 percent among Hispanic women.
I'm assuming that Asians were the exception? Is it because of genetics? Or income-level?
>4% seems like a pretty small gap.
It's just 4 percentage points, but a different way to phrase it is that women are 10% more likely to be obese than men. That's not a gigantic gap, but it's still quite significant.