So, I was informed in my last thread that obesity is not a true epidemic.
Well this would be true if it was controllable, however there are three forces that interact to make it a truly uncontrollable trend.
There are two documentary series that explain quite well the theories behind how obesity has happened:
1. "The Skinny on Obesity":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0zD1gj0pXk
2. "The Men Who Made Us Fat":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6nGlLUBkOQ
There are three areas that have been affected. The first is political: as mentioned in the series "the men who made us fat" - we once were opposed to snacking, and the food industry expanded into leading consumers to consume food at new times of the day. This has only recently happened in other countries like India and China, which is why they're playing obesity catch-up to us in Australia, the USA and the UK. This is a cultural change, and a shift in family politics, or if you prefer, family nutrition values.
The second is economic. As is well known, but also talked about in "the men who made us fat", up-selling is a very important method used by takeaways and supermarkets to sell people more food than they want or need to consume.
The third is scientific. Foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar can be addictive, and this is well known. When you consume these types of food dopamine is released in your brain, and that keeps you chasing the dragon just like heroin addicts. This is why it's difficult to put down snack foods without over-consuming them. This is why Coke has added salt - if Coke is supposed to quench your thirst why does Coca Cola add salt to it? The answer is because it keeps you getting thirsty whilst also giving you a sugar-high and releasing dopamine when you drink it.
As Dr. Robert Lustig says, there is an epidemic of obese 6-month olds (in the USA) and if you're going to claim that obesity is not an epidemic or that it only affects "gluttons and sloths", then how do you explain how more 6-month olds are becoming obese?
This fact is one of the things that made me realize that obesity is not the result of a "lazy lifestyle" because so many people are working desk-jobs. If that's true then how come people in the 60's and 70's working desk jobs weren't obese at anywhere near the rate that they are now?
It is physically impossible to burn off all the calories consumed in our western society. The average man needs 2500 calories per day, the average woman needs 2000 calories per day. Yet in 1999-2000, the number of calories available per person per day in the USA reached 3,900 (link), and that represented a 20% increase in available calories from 1982 to 2000. In the same period, Americans consumed less read meat and eggs, but more poultry and fish.
Much of the 3,900 available calories per person per day in the USA ends up as wastage, that's true. However, those extra 650 calories per person, that didn't exist in 1982, are not all going to end up as wastage, if they were they wouldn't be produced in the first place. Many of those foods are highly-processed non-perishables.
The food industry has made claims we should be sceptical about: claims that children need to exercise more (there's research done showing that children do not exercise less than they did 30 years ago, but where's their research showing that children do exercise less?) or that snack foods are not designed for over consuming (how come you can't re-seal the large share/multi-serve potato chips and Doritos if they're not meant to be consumed all at once?), or that Wollies/Coles/Supermarkets don't deliberately make an environment rich for over consuming (why do they always have multi-buy discounts on the high fat, high salt, high sugar snack foods?) Why did they oppose the "traffic light system" (tested all over the world, and as mentioned in the documentary has been found to be the system that consumers prefer over the thumbnail system that the food industries prefer)?
If we all stopped over consuming food this very instant it would have a very real flow-on economic effect. On a larger scale this affects entire industries, it affects communities, it's become integral to society, it becomes very political. Just imagine the economic effect of having 20% less food available. Thousands of people would lose their food-sector jobs, that's a political factor.
Well this would be true if it was controllable, however there are three forces that interact to make it a truly uncontrollable trend.
There are two documentary series that explain quite well the theories behind how obesity has happened:
1. "The Skinny on Obesity":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0zD1gj0pXk
2. "The Men Who Made Us Fat":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6nGlLUBkOQ
There are three areas that have been affected. The first is political: as mentioned in the series "the men who made us fat" - we once were opposed to snacking, and the food industry expanded into leading consumers to consume food at new times of the day. This has only recently happened in other countries like India and China, which is why they're playing obesity catch-up to us in Australia, the USA and the UK. This is a cultural change, and a shift in family politics, or if you prefer, family nutrition values.
The second is economic. As is well known, but also talked about in "the men who made us fat", up-selling is a very important method used by takeaways and supermarkets to sell people more food than they want or need to consume.
The third is scientific. Foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar can be addictive, and this is well known. When you consume these types of food dopamine is released in your brain, and that keeps you chasing the dragon just like heroin addicts. This is why it's difficult to put down snack foods without over-consuming them. This is why Coke has added salt - if Coke is supposed to quench your thirst why does Coca Cola add salt to it? The answer is because it keeps you getting thirsty whilst also giving you a sugar-high and releasing dopamine when you drink it.
As Dr. Robert Lustig says, there is an epidemic of obese 6-month olds (in the USA) and if you're going to claim that obesity is not an epidemic or that it only affects "gluttons and sloths", then how do you explain how more 6-month olds are becoming obese?
This fact is one of the things that made me realize that obesity is not the result of a "lazy lifestyle" because so many people are working desk-jobs. If that's true then how come people in the 60's and 70's working desk jobs weren't obese at anywhere near the rate that they are now?
It is physically impossible to burn off all the calories consumed in our western society. The average man needs 2500 calories per day, the average woman needs 2000 calories per day. Yet in 1999-2000, the number of calories available per person per day in the USA reached 3,900 (link), and that represented a 20% increase in available calories from 1982 to 2000. In the same period, Americans consumed less read meat and eggs, but more poultry and fish.
Much of the 3,900 available calories per person per day in the USA ends up as wastage, that's true. However, those extra 650 calories per person, that didn't exist in 1982, are not all going to end up as wastage, if they were they wouldn't be produced in the first place. Many of those foods are highly-processed non-perishables.
The food industry has made claims we should be sceptical about: claims that children need to exercise more (there's research done showing that children do not exercise less than they did 30 years ago, but where's their research showing that children do exercise less?) or that snack foods are not designed for over consuming (how come you can't re-seal the large share/multi-serve potato chips and Doritos if they're not meant to be consumed all at once?), or that Wollies/Coles/Supermarkets don't deliberately make an environment rich for over consuming (why do they always have multi-buy discounts on the high fat, high salt, high sugar snack foods?) Why did they oppose the "traffic light system" (tested all over the world, and as mentioned in the documentary has been found to be the system that consumers prefer over the thumbnail system that the food industries prefer)?
If we all stopped over consuming food this very instant it would have a very real flow-on economic effect. On a larger scale this affects entire industries, it affects communities, it's become integral to society, it becomes very political. Just imagine the economic effect of having 20% less food available. Thousands of people would lose their food-sector jobs, that's a political factor.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
go figure that out.
