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 ...
LOLOLOL!!! The Atkins Diet was a joke in our family when it first came out, because that's the way my Mom always fed us, and the way her trim, svelte mother fed her and my mom's four svelte aunts fed their kids and the way Grandma taught THEM all how to "eat right" -- we never even realized that we were all "Atkins diet" people!! {^)
Right, because if you go the starvation route metabolism slows and the rate of burning calories slows down. Weight loss can come from muscle loss, bone loss, fat loss, or water loss. I am talking about losing fat. Most people are not interested in losing muscle, bone, or water.
No, that's incorrect. Because so many of our food choices come from carbohydrates, restricting them results in a lower calorie diet. The Atkins diet is just a lower calorie diet in disguise.
Now, about ketosis, you can get super lean on a diet loaded with carbs (Michael Phelps eats 12,000 calories a day when he's in training, most of which come from carbs) and you can get fat as a pig on a ketogenic diet. This is a recurring theme. It's all about how much energy you consume vs. what you expend. Ketosis places a great deal of strain on the kidneys and the body ends up excreting a great deal of water. This is why people lose weight quickly from the Atkins diet, but are not able to keep it off.
No controlled calorie study supports the notion that carbohydrates, fats or proteins offer any metabolic advantage over the minor differences in their TEF - thermic effects of food/feeding, which is the amount of energy required to digest.
I know about thermo and for calorie consumption calculations, the body is a closed system.
Yes, but the 24O calories is nice, but what are you eating at night. We are talking about total calorie consumption on a daily basis. High protein, low carb is a good way to cut calories and lose weight.
Nobody is saying that couldn't work. What we are saying is that a diet low in carbs, while even consuming more calories, said person could lose even MORE weight and faster! When it comes to burning fat cells, a calories is not a calorie. On top of that, the blood work would be improved and the threat of heart disease lessened.
To me -- and I may be totally incorrect -- the Atkins Diet basically represents the general approach of: One starchy carb dish per meal, as in bread, OR rice, OR pasta, OR corn, OR potatoes, OR chips, OR tortillas. It's when you pull up to a table where the meal includes bread AND rice AND pasta AND corn that you're probably joining a family that has many battles with weight.
Like “poverty”, I don’t trust how they caculate “obesity”.
Look something is missing here. If an animal, a human, a penguin, consumes X calories more than it burns, they gain weight and vica versa. The calorie source is not relevant.
I know about hormonal influences, I know about BMR, I know about differences in metabolism. I think you are losing sight of what I said.
Metabolic pathways has nothing to do with the discussion of calories in, calories out. If you consume 1000 per day and you burn 1100 per day from whatever source, you can’t maintain your weight. What is so difficult about fathoming such a simple concept?
LOL!! I am amazed that too many people hear do not recognize the soundness of your logic. It’s hopeless. I have been teaching and doing research for more than 3 decades and there is simply no way to compete with the snake oil and the lay press, both of which are highly unreliable sources. Go figure.
Now, about ketosis, you can get super lean on a diet loaded with carbs (Michael Phelps eats 12,000 calories a day when he's in training, most of which come from carbs) and you can get fat as a pig on a ketogenic diet. This is a recurring theme. It's all about how much energy you consume vs. what you expend. Ketosis places a great deal of strain on the kidneys and the body ends up excreting a great deal of water. This is why people lose weight quickly from the Atkins diet, but are not able to keep it off.
No controlled calorie study supports the notion that carbohydrates, fats or proteins offer any metabolic advantage over the minor differences in their TEF - thermic effects of food/feeding, which is the amount of energy required to digest.
These days there are fewer and fewer of you standing on that island and the sea of evidence is overtaking you. What you say about low-carb diets simply being lower calorie diets in disguise isn't true. If you are happy believing what you do, that is fine. I'll leave it at that. I'm off to have a nice salad, a chicken breast, and some iced tea. Take care....
Your comments, unfortunately, don't support what we know to be true about human nutrition and chemistry.
Michael Phelps consumes, on average, 12,000 calories a day when he's in training. He's an admitted junk food junkie who loves processed food. If what you say were true, he'd be obese. But he's not exactly the poster boy for the low carb diet. You can feed a lab rat anything you want, but he won't get fat if you keep him on the treadmill for eight hours a day.
Just a few generations ago, obesity in this country was rare, even though our diet was heavily carbohydrate in make up. As a matter of fact, much of what we ate contained the evil, high GI white flour. But we didn't get fat because we worked like mad. Our genetics haven't changed, but our lifestyle certainly has. This is much simpler than you want to make it. Like I said about there being a serious lack of common sense today.
You can believe what you want to believe, but you cannot not repeal the first law of thermodynamics. And no amount of anecdotes or unscientific examples can make it so.
You may be doing a similar exercise routine but if you measure the quantity of calories burned, and it is still 3000, then where do the extra calories come in for the fat deposition. Fat is a very calorie dense tissue. Perhaps you simply slowed your metabolism and didn’t burn the 3000 calories you thought you were burning. No question that different foodstuffs are metabolized by different pathways.
See my post number #85 above...
Finny, you get weak and pudgy because you are not getting adequate protein. You were also losing muscle mass which uses calories at a more rapid rate than fat and some other tissues.
Hear this man and thank you for citing a scientific, refereed journal and not some tabloid like the NYTimes.
If you’re eating fewer calories than you’re burning you will lose weight. Period.
Strip away the fancy stuff, all the debate about this or that source of caloric intake, it honestly matters naught if you’re eating less than you’re burning, and it matters naught how you’re burning it.
Where do you think the fat is coming from, osmosis? Some sort of strange humanoid air fern absorbing fat from the atmosphere? You’re not going to get to an obese state without feeding it, well above the basic requirements for bodily function.
What does work with roughly similar caloric intake is shifting almost completely away from carbs in favor of animal protein and moving around more.
I exercise long and vigorously mostly because I enjoy it. I'm very consistent in that exercise. I know for certain sure that I will gain weight doing the exact same amount of exercise and eating very likely the SAME amount of calories per day if those calories come primarily from extended binges of junk food, as I have indulged out of laziness or weakness in the past, same exercise, and extra pounds on the scale to prove it.
When I switch to equally calorie-heavy things like cheese, carrot juice, sweet fruits, fatty meat like bacon and lamb (preferred over lean!!), heavily buttered veggies, mayo-heavy tuna salad, and egg-and-milk-based low-sugar fat-heavy treats like tapioca pudding, and put in the same amount of calorie-burn in exercise, the same exercise keeps my middle from getting pudgy.
No, it's not fewer calories -- just calories from different sources. What the books say and what the body does are two different things sometimes, and I trust what I experience more than what I read.
It is true that in hypercaloric diet excessive carb consumption can lead to weight gain because of how the body shifts its usage from fat to carbohydrates, and as a result, more fat goes to storage. But to claim that that you can consume more calories and lose more weight as long as those calories don't come from carbohydrates just doesn't make sense.
When it comes to burning fat cells, a calories is not a calorie.
You keep changing your story. Now you're off on the burning of fat cells. A calorie is always a calorie. It is a measure of energy. Why people don't understand this is a mystery.
On top of that, the blood work would be improved and the threat of heart disease lessened.
Huh? A low carb diet results in a reduction in CHD? The Japanese have a had a diet high in carbohydrates for centuries, but until recently, they were relatively free from heart disease. You guys like making claims that defy simple observation. Our side isn't the only one lacking common sense sometimes.
Overeating is a learned behavior. It can also be unlearned. Our society has become increasingly sedentary and no longer possesses a basic understanding of science, especially human nutrition. This is the problem, not some unknown physiological mechanism.
Obesity in the US is a phenomenon that has risen since WWII and our lifestyles since then have become more dramatically lethargic. Meanwhile, science and technology have combined to make food production and distribution much more efficient so that the average adult spends much less than 20% of their income on food and they have buying power to purchase more than the bare necessity. Nutritional education is lacking and the stigma attached to obesity has been removed so it's OK to be obese.
The genetic basis that was in our recent ancestors who were relatively trim are the same genes that are in us producing the same enzymes and controlled by the same hormones, yet we are obese. It seems to me that the answer for the majority of us is that we eat too damn much for the calories we burn.
“I know about thermo and for calorie consumption calculations, the body is a closed system.”
Really? You don’t poop? Ever? And you have 100% absorption of everything? If so, you are not human.
“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?”
He will eventually lose weight, but it may well be as much muscle loss as fat. Fat people want to lose fat, and that means using the fat on the body to make up the caloric difference.
Further, if you include fat in your diet and eat less carb, you are more likely to get DOWN to a 1,200 calorie diet because you won’t be craving food constantly.
In my case, trying low-fat diets gave me incredible headaches and no energy at all. With a low carb diet, I can eat 3 eggs in the morning, go jogging or riding horses in the afternoon, and then eat a hamburger and some mixed veggies at night - all without getting headaches or feeling weak.
Humans are not machines. Portion control works a lot better when you are not craving things. And having tried it, I find I can drop inches off my waist easily on a low carb diet. Low fat diets have never worked for me.
BTW - my blood pressure is now less without medication than it was with medication before. If that means I”m eating wrong, then long live wrong eating!
BTW - since Americans have cut fat from their diets and gotten fatter doing so, what is your explanation? I don’t recall a lot of joggers when I was young...or health clubs.
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.