Posted on 09/04/2014 8:16:11 AM PDT by detective
Rates of adult obesity increased in six U.S. states and fell in none last year, and in more states than ever - 20 - at least 30 percent of adults are obese, according to an analysis released on Thursday.
The conclusions were reported by the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and were based on federal government data. They suggest the problem may be worsening despite widespread publicity about the nation's obesity epidemic, from First Lady Michelle Obama and many others, plus countless programs to address it.
From 2011 to 2012, by comparison, the rate of obesity increased in only one state.
The 2013 adult obesity rate exceeds 20 percent in every state, while 42 have rates above 25 percent. For the first time two states, Mississippi and West Virginia, rose above 35 percent. The year before, 13 states were above 30 percent and 41 had rates of at least 25 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.msn.com ...
I suspect the same thing. The media and the government are continually praising vegetarians and attacking meat eaters.
Michelle's food dictates seem to prevent growing children from getting enough protein and nutrition to grow into healthy adults.
Great post. I just read your post after my last posting. Thank you for some common logic. I have studied living systems for decades. The issue of fat people is simply not that complicated. I could fix any of them fit enough to follow a routine.
It’s true — thinking solely calories-in, calories-out, is flawed, because not all calories are equal — 100 calories from meat and fat or oil metabolize a lot differently than 100 calories from sugar or starches.””
Obviously they are metabolized differently, but the calorie content is still the same across foodstuffs. What is so difficult to understand about that?
Sure; from a purely mechanical standpoint, if you burn more calories than you consume, you have to lose weight (note that whether the loss is muscle or fat is not specified). However, it isn’t that simple in practice. For example, if your body goes into a conservation mode, you simply don’t have the energy to exercise at a high level.
“Eat fewer calories than you burn, you *WILL* lose weight, anyone saying otherwise is an ignorant idiot.”
Actually, one needs to be an idiot to think a human body is like a car: gas in, miles out.
The types of food you eat and your body’s hormones have a huge impact on how much your body stores and how much it passes thru. That is a big part of why we tend to gain weight as we age - less estrogen and testosterone, both of which tend to use up fat.
The US government has been pushing a low fat, high carb diet since George McGovern - yeah, him - pushed it in the Senate in the 70s. And after 40 years, obesity and diabetes are up. From what I’ve seen, my Mom was right in the 60s: if you want to lose weight or control your weight, eat proteins and fat in moderation and try to minimize carbohydrates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=2
I think the author of that article means well, and I believe he believes what he's written. Even so, much of what he says is just plain wrong and underscores his lack of education and experience.
It's true -- thinking solely calories-in, calories-out, is flawed
No it isn't. It is very simple, total calories is what's important. The ratio of macronutrients is not critical, providing it doesn't lead to malnutrition. The problem here is that telling people the truth, rather than demonizing one macronutrient over another, isn't a very good method for selling diet books and supplements. People don't willingly pay money for common sense advice.
100 calories from meat and fat or oil metabolize a lot differently than 100 calories from sugar or starches
You are stating the obvious and something that you will learn in any basic nutrition course. We have known for a long time that there are differing efficiencies for protein, crabs and fat. However, that doesn't change the fact that a calorie remains a measure of the amount of energy and it is always the same.
I think the big misconception is that eating fat makes you fat
Fat, just like protein and carbohydrates, will make you fat if you eat too much of it. Fat just happens to contain more than twice the number of calories, per gram, than carbs and protein.
Taubes is a quack, pure and simple. He relies on studies to support his opinions that use self reported caloric intake. Beyond that obvious flaw, he is extremely selective about what evidence he chooses to use and even prefers his own hunches over the available scientific evidence. Taubes continues to reference scientists who claim he is misrepresenting their work, and selectively quotes them to make it appear that they support his nonsense. Anything for a buck.
It seems that every dieter who tries to lose weigh, but can't, believes they have some special kind of physiology that defies science. That's when they find their way to charlatans like Taubes who tell them what they want to hear....It's not your fault.....then they come to forums like this to tell us all that it is a scientific fact that the first law of thermodynamics applies to everything on earth but them......because they can't lose weight, and it's not their fault.
“The first law of thermodynamics tells us that energy can not be destroyed, it can only change form. So if the energy that is entering the body is greater than the energy leaving the body, then the body will store the energy, usually as body fat.”
You forgot the part in thermodynamics ABOUT A CLOSED SYSTEM!
It is true that if you cut calories far enough, you will eventually lose weight. None of us can survive on nothing at all. However, the body is not a closed system. It is also influenced in how it functions by hormones, and ignoring that is silliness.
The high carb diet has been pushed by government for a long time, and we can see the results around us. Personally, I find I eat a lot more calories on a high carb diet because I’m never satisfied - but I can eat 3 eggs for breakfast and keep going fine until dinner at 6 PM. Hmmm...240 calories in 3 eggs, and it keeps me going a heck of a lot better than 400 calories in a muffin...
“the first law of thermodynamics applies to everything on earth but them”
Please refrain from discussing laws you know nothing about. The idea that a human functions as a closed system is silly. We have stuff going in and going out - and going out is not just energy expended, unless you never poop or pee.
In addition, machines don’t get to decide when to ‘eat’. Humans do.
“It seems that every dieter who tries to lose weigh, but can’t...”
Ummm...what about those of us who have dieted SUCCESSFULLY? Hmmmm? Why is it you assume those you disagree with have failed?
For the record, I failed when I followed the US government’s advice. I drop weight easily following Atkin’s advice - which sounds a lot like my Mom’s advice in the 60s.
Huh? You're here arguing against calories in vs. calories out and you need someone to tell you whether the human body burns fat or muscle tissue first when it needs energy? Really?
For example, if your body goes into a conservation mode, you simply don’t have the energy to exercise at a high level.
This is just more nonsense. Anyone who has ever lost weight by restricting calories and exercising has worked through what you call "conservation" mode. You act like no one has ever lost weigh by eating less and exercising more. In what world is that the case?
I guarantee you, if someone will follow a reasonable plan with work, discipline, and passion, they will lose weight. There is no magic to it, just stick with the plan and change your ways.
When it comes to losing weight, a calorie is not a calorie. You can eat the right kind of calories and you can lose much more weight and faster than on a low-fat diet. Didn't you see this article posted the other day? Even the New York Times, of all people, is finally getting it.
A Call for a Low-Carb Diet That Embraces Fat
When people, like myself and others, on this thread talk about "calories in, calories out," being nonsense, this is in large part our frame of reference - people losing weight (or not gaining it). Not some laboratory equation or a law that appears to not be really relevant to the discussion.
Just as the type of calories consumed helps determine weight loss, the same could be said of weight gain.
"It (calories in, calories out) is a drastic oversimplification that doesn’t account for the complex metabolic pathways that different foods go through, or the effects that foods have on our brain and hormones."
Right. So you're saying that an overweight person can eat 1,200 calories a day, while burning 1,500 calories a day, and not lose weight? I don't think you understand what you think you understand. You can't get something from nothing, but you are absolutely entitled to believe otherwise. You are not alone, unfortunately, which is why guys like Taubes gets rich from selling books, and internet hustlers like Mercola make millions selling supplements. PT Barnum had no idea how right he was.
what about those of us who have dieted SUCCESSFULLY?
Then you should know better than to post nonsense.
Why is it you assume those you disagree with have failed?
Many fail because they lack discipline. Many others fail because they blame it on something other than the truth. Eat less, exercise more. Same as it ever was.
The Atkins diet is just another diet fad that is not based on scientific evidence, but it does sell diet books. Telling people they can eat as much as they like of some foods and still lose weight is music to the ears of many. The Atkins diet is based on heavily restricting calories from carbohydrates, which is simply a low calorie diet that results in a net reduction of total calories consumed.
Also consider that when you ramp up the exercise routine you also ramp up metabolism and burn calories at a higher rate.
Yes, but to ill effect if you ramp up your exercise routine while cutting down on caloric intake. Then you just overtax the body and make it ill. One of the few actually SMART docs I know pointed that out to me, that I was messing up when I'd swim an extra mile or so without increasing my NUTRITION intake to help my body meet the demands such efforts make on it.
I took his advice and benefitted: if you're going to increase your exercise, be sure to also increase the GOOD NUTRITIOUS foods you eat, primarily proteins, fats, fruits, and non-starch veggies, and maybe even increase the carbs a bit as well. I couldn't figure out why I was getting so tired later in the day, even though I was well hydrated. Once I took that doc's advice and started consciously eating a little more than I might otherwise in the protein and veg. and carb depts., the problem disappeared.
The size 10 of my mother's era, is more like a size 6 of today.
That's incorrect. The idea is to go into ketosis.
"Ketosis Defined: When your diet is depleted of carbs, your glycogen levels drop and you enter ketosis — a process in which your body burns ketone bodies to avoid draining the protein stores in your muscles and instead uses energy from your fat stores."
Yep. You are exactly correctamundo.
What is so difficult to understand about this TRUTH, that I could eat 3,000 calories a day from starchy carb-heavy sweets and I would definitely get fat, fat, fat on doing EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF EXERCISE as I can do consuming 3,000 calories a day -- "the same calorie content" -- from mostly animal protein and fat, non-starch vegetables, fruits, dairy, and low carbs.
How do I know?
Because I have lived it. :^) I understand it very well.
Exactly. And THAT is why old farts who exercise vigorously, like Jack LaLanne and senior Master Swimmers, are youthful -- because vigorous exercise triggers the body to produce hormones, including the ones listed above.
However, nutrition is chemistry. It is not one-size-fits-all simple addition and subtraction in terms of caloric values. As I pointed out above, if I consumed 3,000 calories a day primarily via sweets and carby processed starches and swam my four or five miles a week, I'd get weak and I'd get pudgy. If I consume those same 3,000 calories a day via very few sweets and mostly animal protein, fats, veggies/fruits, and some very basic carbs, I will be lean and vital. Same amount of calories, same amount of exercise, different outcomes.
Thinking solely calories-in, calories-out, is flawed. It is why DIETS DON'T WORK.
A calorie is a measure of the amount of energy and it is always the same. It has always been defined in this manner. Amino acids, carbohydrates and fats are all metabolized using different pathways, and yes, there will be different efficiencies for each. But the untrained person rarely understands the difference between a calorie, and the efficiencies of that calorie.
Not some laboratory equation or a law that appears to not be really relevant to the discussion.
So if an overweight person consumes 1,200 calories a day, while burning 1,500 calories a day, over an extended period of time, they won't lose weight? How does that work?
The article referenced in the NYT's is interesting but it certainly does not deny thermodynamics. Yesterday, a meta-analysis was published in JAMA that indicates the source of the calories doesn't matter when it comes to weight loss. The conclusion of the study was that significant weight loss can occur with any low-carbohydrate or low-fat diet. People should use whatever diet works for them instead of debating which one is best. That's because if you burn more energy than you consume, you will lose weight. Same as it ever was.
... I can eat 3 eggs for breakfast and keep going fine until dinner at 6 PM. Hmmm...240 calories in 3 eggs, and it keeps me going a heck of a lot better than 400 calories in a muffin...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.