Snacking Clue to Obesity Epidemic..BBC

[Stuart G]

29 June 2011 Last updated at 06:50 ET

Snacking clue to obesity epidemic
By Helen Briggs

Health editor, BBC News website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13948071
_______________________________________________________________________

Snacking and super sizing are two of the dieter's worst enemies, research suggests.

The average daily calorie intake in the US has increased by almost a third in 30 years, reaching 2,374 kilocalories.

The influence of bigger portion sizes and excessive snacking outweighs the shift towards high-calorie foods, say experts.

Focusing on reducing how much and how often people eat could help tackle obesity, they report in PLoS Medicine.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think this is a good story. Got a friend who needs to loose weight? or obese? probably snacks.
People in the U.S. love snacks. and how about "Big Macs"..Big this, Big that?

[LaurenG]

1. When I think back at the smaller sized people from my childhood

I remember having to eat meals sitting down at home. Breakfast was oatmeal or eggs, lunch was soup and a sandwich (pb and j or bologna type lunch meat) and dinner was meat, starch and veggies. Desert was rare and snacking was fruit, veggies or if we could sneak it, cinnamon toast or just sugar bread. We also stayed outside all day in the summer and as long as possible in the winter. We had bikes and balls and bats and we ran or walked to the circle K to get a pop if we had the money, otherwise most of us never got pop. Our lifestyles are so different now and most of the 20 to early 30 something people I work with really don't know how to cook so its fast food or microwave meals for them and their families.

I think our lifestyles are too busy and none of us have enough time to cook let alone just go out and play and our kids aren't allowed out because there are too many bad people who could snatch them.

[azul]

5. Ah, fear of each other.

Might lead to a siege mentality to build up fat reserves in case someone tries to starve you out of the fortress?

Like less gun deaths and unlocked doors in defiance of the fear of strangers, are Canadians less hefty than Americans?

[snagglepuss]

11. That is pretty much identical to how I grew up. I remember that an occasional treat for

a Friday night was a bag of chips and dip, one bag of chips for 5 people. Its almost unbelievable. Now I eat a large bag of chips myself as my eating habits have unfortunately changed. The only way to control what I eat now is simply not buying snack foods as I simply couldn't just eat a couple of handfuls of chips.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. "because there are too many bad people who could snatch them"

the percentage of bad people hasn't increased, it is the coverage they receive on the news that has increased.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. +1

There were some horrific kidnappings in the 1950s and 1960s, but they didn't get 24-hour coverage on TV. (There was no 24-hour TV.)

[truth2power]

61. Heh heh...Remember the test pattern?

:P

[LaurenG]

37. This is the excuse parents use around here.

My kids are grown and played outside without incident.

[awoke_in_2003]

45. agreed...

it is the same thing here, too. Hell, if it was daylight out and I was in the house, I was asked what the hell I was doing inside. :)

[hay rick]

43. +2

[no_hypocrisy]

2. I believe it. Do your own research. Go to the supermarket and glance

at the contents of your fellow shoppers' carts. Potato chips, soda, cookies, nachos with cheese, crackers, donuts, cakes, etc. Not just one item but at least 5-6 from my list with maybe one item of fresh vegetables and/or fruit, fish, meat/poultry/pork, etc. Also unusually heavy dependence on prepared food.

[sense]

27. Did you notice that all of the items you

mentioned are carbs? All things we should not be eating.

[no_hypocrisy]

47. Exactly!

The last place you should be shopping for sustenance is the supermarket.

[sense]

50. Did you read the post or just

knee jerk react? Potato chips, soda, cookies, nachos, crackers, donuts, cakes???? Really. That's what you think we should eat? I said nothing about where to shop, nor did I comment on that. No hypocrisy? Guess that's a joke.

[no_hypocrisy]

62. Crossed wires.

I commented on how the shopping carts are loaded up with the most unhealthy items in the store. By the choice of the consumers.

[azul]

3. But why are people eating more?

Are the hungrier because something in the diet or environment has messed up the hunger and satiety brain signals?

Are people eating more because they are depressed since the world gets more complex and unbalanced than they can handle?

Or do people just want to get bigger to match their self-image?

Since the epidemic seems to follow the spread of the modern western diet around the world, I'm guessing that it is from chemical hormone disrupters acting on the controls of gene expression.

[PADemD]

6. Too much mindless eating in front of the TV.

[Zoeisright]

14. Ever hear of oversimplification?

Because that's your post.

[Kurmudgeon]

58. Or in front of the computer, or while playing video games, or in the car, etc, etc...n/t

[Kali]

9. because it is there

biological/evolutionary imperative: fill up on calories when they are available because they might not be there until the next rainy season (or whatever) - why high calorie foods taste so good

[sense]

28. Our hormones are being adversely

affected by all the processed foods, msg, artificial sweeteners, anti-depressants, statins, blood pressure meds, pesticides.... Insulin is being so adversely affected that there's an epidemic of type II diabetes. Then we get to take more drugs that harm us if we don't get the correct information that we can control it by eating real, unprocessed food with plenty of the good fats.

[Hestia]

64. Doesn't HFCS do that - trigger the brain to eat more? I agree about the US lifestyle

constantly having to work just to keep the lights on & crappy food on the table. I am sure 1 parent would love to stay at home but can't because it takes 2 paychecks just to live in a low middle-class lifestyle. They've hoisted us on our own petard - women wanted to work, 25 years later women *have* to work.

[w0nderer]

65. multiple reasons

more fast carbs and less slow carbs gets people sugar spiked whilst not giving a lasting 'filled feeling' so hungry faster
so they confuse the lack of a sugar spike with 'hunger'
and eat again

slow carbs and fibers will keep you feeling full a lot longer and give a more even energy curve

locally (tropics) a lot of people misinterpret hunger for thirst, so they eat when they should drink
it's painfully obvious when people just eat, don't drink water then
go outside in 95F high humidity, spend an hour outside, they don't drink and
when they go inside they eat 2 burgers and fries and drink half a glass of soda

then repeat that a few hours later

some people with ulcers or heartburn (i was one of them) mistake the acid in stomach for hunger

also larger portions if one eats them, temporarily at least extends the stomach


if people were to go 1 day on 600-1200 calories per week 2+ liters of water that day
the stomach would get a chance to 'tighten down'
and the person a chance to re-learn what 'hunger' feels like

real 'hunger' isn't just 'i haven't eaten today'
most western industrial world (most..not all) people today wouldn't know strong hunger if it bit them

remember humans originally were hunter gatherers, sometimes going multiple days with little to nothing in food
(yeah, i know they also died young then)

many lifestyles largely are sedimentary
a person parked in a sofa watching tv, or playing videogames or surfing the net doesn't burn a lot of calories

don't get me wrong, i spend a lot of time working with my computers
but i also usually burn 3500+ calories per day due to walking to from work/stores with a backpack and having a physical job

[sharesunited]

4. 2,374 calories or 2.374 kilocalories. BMR is 2,000 calories in round numbers.

[awoke_in_2003]

20. Glad I wasn't the only one...

who caught the 2374 kilocalories- even Mr. Creosote (Meaning of Life) couldn't ingest that in a day.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. What is commonly called a 'Calorie' is a kilocalorie

2374 kilocalories is indeed a normal intake. A 'calorie' is the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celsius. A kilocalorie is the energy for a kilogram by 1 degree, and sometimes called a 'large calorie' or 'Calorie' with a capital C.

In a popular use of the term calorie, dietitians loosely use it to mean the kilocalorie, sometimes called the kilogram calorie, or large Calorie (equal to 1,000 calories), in measuring the calorific, heating, or metabolizing value of foods. Thus, the “calories” counted for dietary reasons are in fact kilocalories, with the “kilo-” prefix omitted ...

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/317821/kilocalorie

It's not surprising to see an article based on a bit of research to use the strictly correct sense, rather than the loose everyday one. And British food labels are marked in kcal units, so, again, it's not surprising to see the BBC use kilocalories.

[awoke_in_2003]

44. well, biology wasn't my strong suit...

(more of a math guy), and too many years hearing it as calories. Thanks for the correction :hi:

[sharesunited]

46. Oh damn. I will try to adjust my thinking by a factor of a thousand!

[w0nderer]

66. it's a common one

confused the *top row of keyboard shifted* out of me when i arrived in the US

calorie = 1/1000 of a Calorie
1 Calorie = 1000 calories == 1 kcal

http://caloriecount.about.com/cal-vs-kcal-ft26383
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

so kilocalories(kcal) is what one often consumes 2000+ of daily
a kilo Calorie would be 1000 000 calories
or a Mega calorie and probably impossible for a human to consume in one day

[HockeyMom]

7. I weigh 100 lbs. and my husband is 250 lbs.

Ok, I am 5'1" and he is 6'1". He says all the time that it is my dinners that make him fat. Hmm. If that is so, why am I not fat too? No, you have to look at the big picture and not just one aspect of it.

Number one has to be your genes. My entire family is small. My Dad was 5'8" and weighed 135 lbs. his entire life. My husband's family are all overweight. His sister is at 5'6" weighs 170 lbs.

Second, what type of personality are you? I a very hyper person who cannot sit for long periods of time. I quit working in an office years ago because I couldn't take just sitting it a desk for hours and hours. I work with disabled children and adults. It's a very physical job and I get a lot of exercise. My husband sits at a desk all day. When he gets home he turns on the TV and sits in front of it for hours and hours, except to get SNACKS. Later on that one. He thinks that physcial exercise ONLY means working out at a gym, riding a bike, etc. That is not true, just walking and moving is exercise.

Third, as somebody said, is home cooked meals and portion sizes. Yes, I do cook and have my entire life even with working and raising two kids. It can be done. Many things can be prepped ahead of time. I also vary it during the week from pasta, to meat, to salads. Portion size difference. He eats seconds, even thirds. I eat about a quarter of what he does. He also was "taught" as a child to finish EVERYTHING on your plate. That is a problem with going out with those HUGE portions. I look at what they serve and think are they crazy? I cannot possibly eat all that. Many times when I go out with my daughter we will order ONE PLATE and share it. Even with that we still end up with a doggie bag.

Fourth, again which was said, are snacks. I just plain don't snack in between meals. At work I am lucky I can grab a drink of water. I am constantly moving and doing things. My husband, sitting at his desk, eats snacks all day. When he is home in front the TV, he only gets up at commerical times to get something to eat. I have also found that the more exercise you get, whatever form that takes, the LESS hungry you will be. Sitting for hours in front of a TV apparently makes people want to eat.

Why don't any of these studies ever ask thin people what they do to stay thin? I am 62 and weight the same as I did at 22.

[Stuart G]

18. In answer to the last question you asked...

Why don't any of these studies ever ask thin people what they do to stay thin?

You have answered this already..see paragraphs 3,4, and 5

In those paragraphs are your answers, and the answers are those answers that most thin and normal weight people give.
To paraphrase you...(not exact words, just ideas)
3)It is a physical job, and I get lots of exercize
4)portion size means something, he eats seconds, and thirds.
5)I don't snack between meals, he does a lot of that.

That is it, you have answered why people stay normal weight.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Oh and by the way, this obesity thing, is the single biggest health problem (no pun indended) in the U.S. today.
Just look at incidents of heart disease and diabetes to find that out..

[sense]

30. You are very fortunate. Unfortunately

you're blaming your husband's lack of good fortune on the wrong things. Read some of my links further down.

Snacking on processed foods is really harmful, no doubt. The fact that genetics play a role is also important. Portion size actually doesn't matter is you're not eating all those simply carbs and starches. Eating the good fats and very little carbs, except for the green, low glycemic index vegetables is the way to go. Very difficult to convince people to change....especially when they won't question the ptb.

Good fats are coconut, fish oil, nuts, hemp seeds, olive oil, avocados, butter and the fat in grass fed beef. Some others too. Not corn oil, hydrogenated fats, canola....

[HockeyMom]

36. Example tonight's dinner

I made grilled veggies (red & green peppers, yellow squash, mushrooms and red onions) brushed with olive oil and from the garden oregano. I had couscous and made a dressing of greek yogurt, red pepper, and crushed garlic. I like to have at least one dinner a week without meat, since I don't particularly like meat.

I didn't like the couscous, and ate all the veggies with the dressing. My husband didn't like the veggies, but ate the couscous with BUTTER on it.

See our different tastes?

[sense]

42. Yes. I see.

Try Quinoa instead of couscous. It's a seed and low glycemic and makes a great substitute for rice or pasta. Good for your husband and butter is good too. I have mine with coconut oil and it's great. That's another fat that is really good for you, but has gotten a bad rap because of the corn lobby. Different tastes are the norm. I wouldn't have eaten most of those veggies....and if I did, I'd eat them without the dressing. Different tastes. Not having enough of the good fats in your or his diet isn't good. We need them and they make a lot of things that he may not like more palatable. Processed food are the enemy. My dinner tonight is a handful of walnuts ( the best nut for you, nutrient wise) and a bowl of broccoli with shaved parmesan. Yummy! I could add quinoa, as I have some made but I so love broccoli, I'm sure I'll fill up on that! Read some of my links... in post #26....
or better yet. Read the consumer version of Gary Taubes' (punctuation?) book Good Calories, Bad Calories. It's here: http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307272702/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309477923&sr=8-1

It's not a diet book. It's about the research of the last at least 100 years..... great stuff. Plus he's on youtube with quite a few lectures.

[swilton]

8. Related to this is the processed food industry

which supplies the snack foods. This processing is not only at the expense of the obese who consume the junk food addictively - it is at the expense of the developing world which has been taken over in the interest of palm oil which furnishes the fast food industries primary preservative. Another critical component of this food syndicate is corn - corn additives go into the chemicals that make up another large component feeding this industry. And of course all of this is subsidized by US tax dollars - the foreign policy that co-opts the developing world to destroy their coastal habitats so they can produce the palms for palm oil - and agro-businesses to support big corn.

[sense]

31. Palm oil is one of the good

oils. Not according to the ptb though. Must look elsewhere to get the truth.

[swilton]

34. Not According to

the Center for Science in the Public Interest which has found that palm oil, an inexpensive replacement for hydrgenated oils, has a negative impact on health and the environment.

http://www.cspinet.org/new/200506021.html

Though less harmful than partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, it is far more conducive to heart
disease than such heart-protective liquid oils as olive, soy, and canola......

One reason some food processors use palm oil is that it is semi-solid at room temperature, making it useful in products such as cookies, crackers, spreads, and bars. Palm oil is also less expensive than soy and other vegetable oils. Some of the products that use palm oil, sometimes in combination with other oils, include Pepperidge Farm Oatmeal Cranberry cookies, Voortman Vanilla Wafers, Nabisco Golden Oreo cookies, Cadbury Finger Dark Cookies, and many products sold at "health food" stores.

Their report which emphasizes the devastating environmental impact of palm oil production is here

http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/palm_oil_final_5-27-05.pdf

[sense]

35. Not what the research shows.

You really will have to read the actual research. You cannot believe the spin. Canola oil is very bad for us, soy, not much better. Question the source. Read the latest research that doesn't simply rely on years and years of lousy, ego driven interpretations of research.

I do agree that many, many products sold at "health food stores" are anything but healthy. We need real, unadulterated food. Processed and packaged foods are not the way to go.

[bhikkhu]

10. Too much food intake, too little exercise - good to hear it affirmed again

I'm in good shape myself, and tend to get flack about my "skinny genes" from various people.

I always explain its not genetics - I eat small portions by choice (I hate that "stuffed full" feeling) and avoid sugary and fatty "fake" foods by choice, and exercise daily by choice as well. Its very worthwhile, and at 47 I feel fine - back, knees, joints, mind, attitude, all holding up well.

Others (who shall remain nameless) always seem to have some new theory about some new screwy "eat all you want diet" or other, or about food additives being the cause, or about genetics or glands or hormones, etc...all the while eating too much and exercising not at all.

[sense]

32. Sad.

Not true. Read the research, not what we've been told the research says. Calories in, calories out is just ridiculous. Your body is not an empty box! We're extremely complicated organisms creatures.

It is genetics, along with other things. Quit trying to hard to pat yourself on the back. Fat is good for you, just not the fat most people eat. Carbs and processed foods are bad. Quit trying to make this an issue of gluttony and sloth. It's a physical issue, easily explained and something we've known for more than 200 years. The last 40 years we've simply been lied to and the meme of gluttony and sloth has taken hold because it's so nice to feel superior.

[bhikkhu]

48. Calories in-calories out probably works for 95% of the population

along with having a balanced diet such as the "Food Pyramid" model, or whatever is current.

I know many people who are in good shape, and many people who are falling apart. From what I've seen, calories in-calories out applies pretty generally. Balanced diets, exercise and moderation describes the ones in good shape well; eating too much, eating crappy foods, no exercise, and substance abuse describes the ones who are falling apart very well.

The older we get, the more we are the sum of our choices in life.

[sense]

51. No, it doesn't.

Food pyramid is a joke. You're just repeating mythology, not fact. Update your knowledge bank. Quit trying to vilify people and try to learn something. Why not comment in an area you've researched or have some knowledge about instead of just revealing your biases? We've been lied to in so many areas and you can't fathom that this might be one or them or that you might not have all the answers. Your anecdotal, biased and research free opinion should not be presented as fact. The older we get the wiser we should get....

[bhikkhu]

54. Yes, it does.

We could do this for days, I imagine.

Back in the 70's I read everything I could find at the library on healthy foods and nutrition, and I have regularly updated my "knowledge base" with books, two college courses on nutrition, and personal experience combined with a good memory. I've cooked for myself for 35 years. I have cooked for my wife and children for 15 years as well.

Being lied to is one thing (and an attention to experience is the best antidote for that), but why is it that the simplest solution - a sound diet and exercise - is rejected by so many in favor of things that don't work? How much research should one do before trying a healthy and moderate diet, and getting out for some exercise?

[sense]

55. Why?

I don't question a sound diet and exercise. I simply don't believe we've been told the truth about what that is. If you've only been researching since the seventies then you missed the research that came before that and believe the ego laden misinformation that's been perpetrated since the 60's. Read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. He explains the research for at least the last 100 years and where we went off track and the conclusions about the research started being so adversely affected by scientists who were more interested in their hypothesis' being correct than in reporting what the research actually showed. There are others who're discovering what he's reporting and in looking at the research have acknowledged what he's reported the truth.

The message will eventually get out as more and more people become aware of the deception, but people who simply continue to repeat things that are not supported by the research (the actual research, not the false conclusions we've been propagandized about) aren't helping. Low fat diets, that we've been told to follow for the last 40 years have resulted in an enormous increase in obesity, diabetes, heart disease and others. The false messaging about cholesterol and statins, anti-depressants and so many other drugs also contributes. We've been told that we're all so ill that we must medicate ourselves to an early death by pharma, so they can profit. I think 40 years of deception is enough.

I could provide anecdotal evidence, but that's really worth nothing. Read my links, or google your own. Don't just take the word of AMA, ADA or AHA. Look for the research outside this country or for the research that so often goes unreported because it doesn't profit big companies.

[bhikkhu]

56. I still like the food pyramid, moderation and exercise as a starting point

I think the most important thing a person can do is decide to be healthy - not just this week, but for decades - and then apply themselves to the goal. There's a whole lot more to that than just food.

I still think that most people would be fine if they just stuck to the recommendations of the Surgeon General, and the food pyramid ("food plate" now?) is the sum of knowledge gained through an enormous amount of research.

But with all that said, I would agree that there is deception, false-messages, misinformation, and some seriously damaging stuff around. Even the food pyramid was subject to heavy lobbying to adjust its contents. My fine-tuning of the balance is: I avoid corn syrup like the plague, avoid processed sugar, don't drink soda, wouldn't touch aspartame, take no drugs whatsoever, don't touch anything with MSG - which rules out almost all fast foods, and I eat very little besides breads that I haven't cooked myself. All that still amounts to avoiding a few things, fixing my own meals, and having a normal diet without worrying about it much.

I haven't read Taubes book, but I will look it up - thanks.

[sense]

57. Thanks for considering Taubes book

I agree with your approach "I avoid corn syrup like the plague, avoid processed sugar, don't drink soda, wouldn't touch aspartame, take no drugs whatsoever, don't touch anything with MSG - which rules out almost all fast foods, and I eat very little besides breads that I haven't cooked myself. All that still amounts to avoiding a few things, fixing my own meals, and having a normal diet without worrying about it much."

What you've listed is excellent. I'm sure we'd have things to argue about beyond that, but most people would find what you've laid out so far to be completely undoable and that is very sad. I'm still working on eliminating two more prescription drugs that I got bullied into years ago. Still doing some more research to be sure I'm making an informed decision about them. I've quit several already and feel enormously better and am fitter and healthier than I've been in more than 20 years.

[sense]

12. right, snacking....that's the key

to it all. What an idiotic thing to say. Let's take a look at the science of the last 200 years, the unadulterated and unspun science and get a grip. Carbs make you fat. All the unnecessary prescribed drugs cause your body to store fat. Let's look at that. Big Pharma can't make money if we're all not "sick" in some way. Links later.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. We'll look forward to your links

because you need some good science to back up your claims that this is because of prescribed drugs (that'll be interesting to see, when many people point out that poorer people, who are far less likely to be able to afford prescription drugs, are more prone to obesity).

Yes, 'carbs make you fat' (though fat does as well, of course). That's why snacking makes you fat.

[LaurenG]

16. Wait - science says if you eat more calories than your body needs

you will store those calories as fat, it doesn't discriminate between fat, carbs or protein calories. And what in the world does "big pharma" have to do with it? The food industry is almost entirely "owned" by 4 large companies. Their bottom line is to make food quickly, and sell what people are buying.

We are buying crap that is full of sugar and fats with little nutritional value, they are selling us what we demand so how does the pharmaceutical industry get have anything to do with this?

edit:typo

[sense]

26. Yes, our bodies do discriminate. Links

We are very, very complex and we're not putting calories into an empty box and using them from that box. Science doesn't say that. We've been propagandized to believe that, but it you actually go back to the research, that's not true. Big egos = big lies. Research actually tells us that carbs make us fatten. That's unpopular with "scientists" who are more concerned about their hypothesis' being correct than in discovering the truth. Unfortunate, but true in the area's of research surrounding diet. Read Gary Taubes book, Good Calories, Bad Calories. He goes through the research (not simply the erroneous "conclusions") to show us that what we've been told for the past 40 years is the opposite of what the actual research shows.

Big pharma wants to make us all ill, even though we're not, so they can make big money. Unfortunately statins, anti-depressants and other drugs that not only don't work but are harmful, also cause us to store fat. Simple carbs and especially starches cause us to store fat and the good fats do not. Our bodies have not had time to evolve to the way of eating that's become ingrained, so we fatten. If we'd simply eat the way our ancestors did, we wouldn't have the trouble we do now. If you read the actual research on statins, the little that's been done, you'll find that statins do not prevent heart disease, but they are incredibly poisonous and cause cancer and other ailments. There is not a single thread of evidence to support the use of statins in men unless they already have heart disease. There is no evidence to support the use of statins in women. There is also clear evidence that shows that the use of statins in men over 60 confers no benefit at all. We've been lied to. Plus, cholesterol levels have been arbitrarily set, not scientifically and cholesterol is extremely useful to us in almost every organ, especially our brains.

Anti-depressants in most instances work no better than placebo, yet millions are on them and they're very harmful in so many ways. They also cause us to fatten, regardless of what we consume or how much we exercise.

Calories in, Calories out may be simple, but it's not supported by the facts. Don't be fooled by what you're told, read the actual research yourself.

I'm well aware of what we've been told for the past 30-40 years, but the ptb are simply lying. The ADA, AHA and others are killing us. Before the sixties we knew that simply carbs and processed foods were making us fat, but then some scientists decided that obesity was an illness of sloth and gluttony and decided that the research didn't matter and started pushing that meme.

Don't even get me started on Splenda and other artificial sweeteners. MSG, Diabetes drugs and so many other poisons. We've become horribly complacent about so many things. We know the politicians are bought and paid for, so why would it surprised anyone that we need to look at every other area of our shortened lives?

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-Taubes/dp/1400040787


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes

http://www.garytaubes.com/writing/articles/

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/do-you-have-depression-57602.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/28/the-depressing-news-about-antidepressants.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antidepressants-do-they-work-or-dont-they

http://drhyman.com/why-antidepressants-dont-work-for-treating-depression-497/

http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/01/antidepressants-still-dont-work-in-mild.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/health/newsid_7264000/7264573.stm

://www.metabolichealing.com/key-integrated-functions-of-your-body/cardiovascular/total-cholesterol-lies-what-you-are-not-being-told/

http://www.byebyecarbs.com/cholesterol-lies-continue-to-plague-american-consumers/

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/the-cholesterol-deception-part-1-57830.html

http://www.dietheartpublishing.com/The-Truth-About-the-Crestor-Drug-Study

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/new-report-risks-of-cholesterol-drugs-56156.html

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/the-cholesterol-deception-part-2-58252.html

http://www.westonaprice.org/food-features/268-its-the-beef

http://www.amazon.com/Fat-Cholesterol-are-Good-You/dp/919755538X

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CAE78.htm

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/kosloff13.htm

http://thecholesterollie.com/

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=496853&publicationSubCategoryId=80

http://www.gaia-health.com/articles251/000262-big-fat-lies-how-the-cholesterol-myth-was-started.shtml

http://www.wellnessprescription.net/blog/34-Sex-Lies-and-Cholesterol

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/590844

http://www.naturalnews.com/024448_diabetes_risk_drugs.html

http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/news/20100217/statins-may-be-linked-to-diabetes-risk

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/man-with-type-1-diabetes-lives-for-90-years-57456.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/do-statins-cause-diabetes_b_712929.html

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/paleolithic-diet-good-for-diabetics-56785.html

http://www.france24.com/en/20110621-high-dose-anti-cholesterol-drugs-linked-diabetes#

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/29/us-antidepressant-diabetes-idUSTRE68S57X20100929

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43385827/ns/health-health_care/?ocid=twitter

http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/do-antidepressants-make-you-sad/

http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/pulitzer-winning-journalists-uncover-shocking-truth-of-how-drugs-are-approved/

http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/study-of-nearly-4-million-people-shows-that-statins-do-not-prevent-heart-attacks/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6anV4z5Oi-k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCBMV6d9HSg&NR=1

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR3FVvEJ-Nk&feature=related

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myyOD1W1DPg&feature=related

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HxLeGvFVsM&feature=related

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/carbs-are-bad-news-for-the-brain-54799.html

[LaurenG]

39. There is no way I'm going through each of these links so I randomly

chose one and it links to a story about statins.

We are talking about over eating not medications. No doubt chemicals effect metabolism but to generically state big pharma causes weight gain is utter crap. I have no use for this conversation.

[sense]

52. Statins are part of the obesity problem and

a huge contributor to Diabetes, which you'd know if you'd done the research or bothered to read any of it. You have no use for the research? Don't want your faulty beliefs challenged? Very revealing.

[LaurenG]

63. Actually statins can kill and cause liver failure if taken in large dosages

This is still about weight gain though and the reason for it. If you remember many diabetics can reverse their disease if they lose weight.

We are creatures seeking comfort from the stress of living. Our lack of control and lack of emotional satisfaction are some of the reasons that we overeat and over-eating is what causes weight gain in most of us. Though hypothyroidism and aging will slow the metabolism and cause us to gain weight. There are some things we can do to help with this but pharmaceuticals are important to re-establish normal thyroid levels in hypothyroidism.

As with everything we need to be aware and manage our health in partnership with our physician or other health care provider. No health care provider wants to kill their patient by prescribing medication that will cause disease or death.

Please use common sense when building an argument against all pharmaceuticals. All of us are aware that there is a need to closely monitor blood levels in patient's on certain drugs whose benefits are outstanding when used and monitored properly.

I won't bother with the rest of your post since you are again generically name calling and building your argument on false conclusions.

[sense]

67. It's not about lack of control!

You're buying in to blaming the victim. You're spouting the party-line of those that seek to profit from our lack of understanding and dependence on the ptb. Statins and other drugs are linked to fat storage. Yes, they can kill, cause liver failure, cancer, weakened heart muscles, all sorts of things.

I managed my health care with my physician for 30 years and what I got was statins, anti-depressants and plenty of other drugs I did not need and that caused all sorts of health problems and weight gain. Once I quit listening to the very people who don't ever challenge what is put out by pharma, the ama, ada and aha ("research designed and results manipulated to line their own pockets) I got well and healthy and simply dropped weight without dieting. Pharmaceutical companies know that 99 percent of people will not read the actual research or look into what they're being told, they'll just blindly listen to their doctor (as I did :-( ) so they'll be able to profit from our complacency. We'll die before we ever discover that they've killed us to make a profit.

I don't know why you brought up thyroid, as a distraction, because that isn't a part of the problem.

Health care providers don't know they're killing their patients! They're doing what they were taught and what was drilled into them in med school. Believe the research the ama sanctions and tells them is credible. Prescribe as we tell you. Unfortunately, like everything else in the last 40 or so years (think politics) that has become a big lie. After 40 years of telling us to eat low fat, that cholesterol is bad (with arbitrarily, not scientifically, set "good" levels), statins are good, we're all depressed and it's easily remedied with drugs, they can't suddenly say... "oops, wrong message"
), even though the latest research and re-examination of the older research shows just that!

I'm not building an argument against all pharmaceuticals! That's a lie and you're obfuscating. Are you a pharmaceutical rep? That's exactly what you sound like. You didn't read any of the links I sent, or you simply want to make sure no one reads them because that will make your snow job easier. Statins provide no benefit to millions who are taking them. They do not delay heart disease, ever according to the research. They are only slightly affective in men who already have heart disease and who are less than 60! They are not affective, nor have the ever been proven to be in women. They are, however, extremely harmful and they cause your body to store fat! We've been fooled and we need to quit blaming people for listening to the "experts".

You won't bother with my post because you shouldn't comment on things you know nothing about or refuse to research. Your commentary simply covers for the perpetrators and skewers the victims of deceit and greed.

[LaurenG]

76. lack of control as in we feel someone else has control over us. Not self control. nt

[sense]

78. Quoting you:

"Our lack of control and lack of emotional satisfaction are some of the reasons that we overeat and over-eating is what causes weight gain in most of us."

Clearly not what you said. You said "our lack of control."

[LaurenG]

83. I KNOW what I meant - I clarified that and you now think you know what I meant better than I?

:rolleyes:

[LaurenG]

77. Oh so now you're a victim, and I'm a liar and pharmaceutical rep?

Just because you had issues doesn't mean everyone who takes certain drugs have the same issue and there are tons of us who take no drugs at all who have issues with weight. I get that you say you have a hard time with drugs, now you know and now you can be your own health advocate but don't try to practice medicine without a license.

[sense]

79. I didn't say that I'm a victim, my point

was millions of people are being victimized.

I said you're blaming the victims of unscrupulous companies who lie and distort the evidence to profit. You're repeating the meme that people just don't control themselves so they're fat.

"Please use common sense when building an argument against all pharmaceuticals." This is what you stated I was doing and since that isn't true, then yes, you lied. I didn't call you a pharmaceutical rep, I simply inquired if you were one and since you refuse to answer that question.... you leave open the possibility.

You've refused to read the links, so you are apparently under the mistaken impression that this is just about what's happened to me. The same things have happened to millions because that's how the drugs interact with the chemicals and hormones in our bodies. My disseminating information is called free speech, not practicing medicine.

You were so interested in the links until I posted them.....

[LaurenG]

82. No I am noit blaming the victim. You are twisting what I said. I tried to clarify yet

to no avail. Some people have trouble with some medications. Oh and no I couldn't care less about your links, you are confusing me with another poster. Go back and check.


Here's an easy link, just one, a list of some meds that can cause weight gain and some alternatives: http://pacmedweightloss.com/docs/medications_that_cause_weight_gain.pdf

[sense]

84. Again, you refuse to answer

the question about whether you're a pharmaceutical rep and cite a mainstream, dope them up, website where we can choose more drugs that don't work (anti-depressants) with more side effects. I offered links that point to the fact that anti-depressants don't work unless you have major depression, and cause fat storage. You didn't read the links, or you wouldn't offer more meds that don't work and are extremely over prescribed.

Losing weight can be done and permanently. Less insistence from pharma that we're all "sick" and must be medicated would make that so much easier. The truth about what we should eat from the AMA, ADA, AHA and others instead of their dearly held, ego-driven, false research conclusions could help millions lose the weight, keep it off and live far better and longer lives.

It's a message that's being covered up because their admitting, after all these years, that they failed to look at the research and just believed people who lied is going to be incredibly damning and no one will trust them again. (deservedly)

[sense]

68. dupe. sorry.

[sense]

69. Links. Some people can be bothered to read.

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-Taubes/dp/...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes

http://www.garytaubes.com/writing/articles /

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/do-you-have-depr...

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/28/the-depressing-news-...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antide...

http://drhyman.com/why-antidepressants-dont-work-for-tr... /

http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/01/antidepressant...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/health/newsid_7264000...

://www.metabolichealing.com/key-integrated-functions-of-yo...

http://www.byebyecarbs.com/cholesterol-lies-continue-to... /

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/the-cholesterol-...

http://www.dietheartpublishing.com/The-Truth-About-the-...

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/new-report-risks...

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/the-cholesterol-...

http://www.westonaprice.org/food-features/268-its-the-b...

http://www.amazon.com/Fat-Cholesterol-are-Good-You/dp/9...

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CAE78.htm

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/kosloff13.htm

http://thecholesterollie.com /

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=496853&p...

http://www.gaia-health.com/articles251/000262-big-fat-l...

http://www.wellnessprescription.net/blog/34-Sex-Lies-an...

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/590844

http://www.naturalnews.com/024448_diabetes_risk_drugs.h...

http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/news/201002...

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/man-with-type-1-...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/do-statins-...

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/paleolithic-diet...

http://www.france24.com/en/20110621-high-dose-anti-chol...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/29/us-antidepres...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43385827/ns/health-health_c...

http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/do-antidepressants-mak... /

http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/pulitzer-winning-journ... /

http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/study-of-nearly-4-mill... /

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6anV4z5Oi-k&feature=rela...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCBMV6d9HSg&NR=1

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR3FVvEJ-Nk&feature=rela...

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myyOD1W1DPg&feature=rela...

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HxLeGvFVsM&feature=rela...

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/carbs-are-bad-ne..

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Among your wall of links, is there one linking prescription drugs to weight gain in the general

population? The first 4 I looked at (Newsweek, SciAm, BBC and neuroskeptic blog)were about anti-depressants, but said nothing whatsoever about weight gain (ie the subject of this thread). I'm not searching all of them to find something on-topic. Which one or ones are?

[sense]

53. Anti-depressant use is one of the

leading causes of obesity and diabetes. Read the links, don't just dismiss them because they didn't start with the "fat" word. Every link is on topic. They're all about obesity and/or diabetes. You have to look further than the titles. I posted these links instead of the actual research into the subjects because I know that almost no one will read even these small articles let alone take the time to read the research. I never understand why people feel compelled to comment on threads where they possess no knowledge. Everyone just wants to keep repeating myths. Where are the people who question? You asked for links and now you complain when you get them. I think I provided plenty. Not reading them won't help.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. No, you obviously haven't read them yourself recently

You must have just saved stuff to do with anti-depressants, and then assumed they were all about what you thought you remembered. They're not. So when you give us multiple off-topic links, we'll do things like give up after searching 4 and still not getting anything to do with the subject at hand.

It's not much to ask you to stick to the topic; which is not about whether anti-depressants have much effect, but about what causes obesity. If you think they are about obesity, or diabetes, then give us a sentence about weight, obesity, diabetes or fat from each of the ones that are. Then we'll know which are relevant. Oh, and the naturalnews one won't count - it's a site for pseudo-scientific scams that just makes things up.

[sense]

70. Natural news is suspect? How sad that

you're so conditioned to believe what big pharma feeds. Try thinking outside of the box.

[sense]

71. The links are linked together.

Most important is reading the book about the re-examination of the false conclusions published in the last 40 years. Read "Good Calories, Bad Calories". It's not a diet book. It's carefully researched over many years and tells the truth. You won't read it, it's a long and hard. Try the links to his lectures. Not nearly as informative and he's rather annoying.... which is why I encourage people to read the book. There's even a consumer friendly, much shorter book titled "Why we get fat and what to do about it". Both books by Gary Taubes. Links:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307272702/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309547267&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2

Some of the links provide information that link to the others that explain further. I provided plenty of links in the foolish assumption that people commenting were actually interesting in learning something out of the mainstream or that question their own mistaken beliefs. My mistake.

People don't like change and they don't like having long held beliefs challenged. I get that. Doesn't mean they shouldn't.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. So you can't be bothered, then? That's a shame.

You say you know what's in the links, but you can't be bothered to tell us which ones have this information. Instead, you want all of us to do your searching for you. Or for one of us to do it, and then post the results you can't be arsed to give us yourself.

Your dedication to your cause is minute.

[sense]

74. Poke, poke. Your interest in the subject

is non-existent. You don't want your biased beliefs challenged. Very, very common. Can't be bothered to click on a link? Wow. My links are all related and related to each other. If you'd read my posts you'd know that and you'd know what they are about. Proving once again you're not even interested. If you bother to look at even the link itself..... the abbreviation just in the little bit you hit to get to the site it'll tell you what's in them.

Read some of the reviews of the book on Amazon. That should be simple enough for anyone.

Aren't we all here because we're challenging the status quo? Why bother if you're not?

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. I've clicked on 4, irrelevant, links, and you've told me to go and buy a book from Amazon

It seems to me you're the one who's supporting Big Business, here.

'The link'? You gave about 40. I have told you which 4 have no information about obesity; you have said nothing about which of the remaining 36 might have some.

[sense]

80. I didn't tell you to buy a book from amazon...

I asked you to read some of the reviews that talk about the book on amazon. You've made it abundantly clear that reading is not your strong suit, so I suggested a short cut. The book is very long and hard to read, no doubt. You can, however, discover a huge amount about what the book says and proves, without having to go through the entire tome.

As I've answered you previously, the links are all interrelated and you can discover their various, interrelated topics by simply looking at the link, before you even have to click. I'm assuming most people could do that. You continue to state that you clicked on 4 irrelevant links, but you clearly haven't read them... or maybe you just read the title and decided you knew what was in the link..... you have special powers???

I don't for a moment believe that you'll read them, but I'll pick out some special ones for you.

[sense]

81. links narrowed down to less than half with a brief intro

obesity is in all of these links..... diabetes is a disease of too much fat storage which isn't caused by eating too much, but by eating the wrong things. We've been told to eat the wrong things and to medicate ourselves to death because we've followed that advice.

An amazing book at Amazon. Don't buy it, just read the reviews:

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-Taubes/dp/1400040787

Two links about the author... see, he's not a flake:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes

http://www.garytaubes.com/writing/articles/

Taubes on Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR3FVvEJ-Nk&feature=related

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myyOD1W1DPg&feature=related

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HxLeGvFVsM&feature=related

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/man-with-type-1-diabetes-lives-for-90-years-57456.html eat fat, not carbs

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/do-statins-cause-diabetes_b_712929.html statins, diabetes, insulin

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/paleolithic-diet-good-for-diabetics-56785.html paleolithic diet good for diabetics

http://www.france24.com/en/20110621-high-dose-anti-cholesterol-drugs-linked-diabetes# published in france, not here... statins linked to diabetes

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/29/us-antidepressant-diabetes-idUSTRE68S57X20100929 anti-depressants tied to increased diabetes

http://www.naturalnews.com/024448_diabetes_risk_drugs.html anti-depressants raise diabetes risk

http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/news/20100217/statins-may-be-linked-to-diabetes-risk statins may be linked to diabetes

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=496853&publicationSubCategoryId=80

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/kosloff13.htm

[bemildred]

13. I suspect total caloric intake could offer even better "clues",

probably much more important than how you spread it out over the day.

[Fire1]

17. Obesity is now regarded as "BIG SEXY!" n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

21. probably blowback...

from years of being told that anorexic women were sexy.

[Fire1]

22. Not really. It's from hypocritical celebrities like Monique telling

women that fat is sexy, too! "Don't you worry, Boo, there's more of you to love!!" It's sickening.

[awoke_in_2003]

23. I don't watch regular TV...

or so called "reality" TV, so I have not been exposed to what you speak of.

[Fire1]

24. Then you just got a free lesson. Live and learn. LOL!! n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

25. Yeah...

I am not much up on pop culture- hell, music died when John Bonham did, IMO :)

[Cobalt-60]

33. grazing

The mindless chomping on snacks while focused on something else.
I work in a call center which is stressful but not physical.
Many of my co workers risk health and employment - because they're not supposed to do it - by shoveling food into their mouths every moment they're not talking through them.
I'm a big boy myself, but I'd be much bigger one if I were to snack 8 hours a day.

[HockeyMom]

38. Your eating habits start in childhood

I do believe that. As an adult, you may modify it, for better or worse, but you just continue it. As a child I never liked meat, fried foods, fast foods (yes we had that), etc. I snacked on raw veggies (detested COOKED ones), so much so the kids called me Bugs Bunny. My tastes today haven't changed much except that I have discovered grilled veggies and stir fry. I force myself to eat some meat because I know I need some meat. Yes, I do eat fast food, maybe once every few months or so, when the mood strikes me, although I will get a Whopper Jr. and kid size fries over the Big Mac meal simply because I cannot eat all that food.

[Fire1]

49. We sound alot alike and my tastes remain pretty much the

same. Love veggies, fruits and seafood. Never been much of a meat eater. Not even chicken (poultry category). I do like bacon and ham during the holidays. That's about it.

[unc70]

60. Other causes: adenovirus, soy protein, folates, immunizations, demographics, misremembered past

No arguing that portion sizes, prepared foods, lack of exercise, and other lifestyle changes are important factors all contribute to the obesity "epidemic". But other, rarely reported factors are responsible for a far greater percentage of the increase in obesity in the US and around the world.

Most of this thread has reflected the "blame the victim" - "moral superiority" viewpoint that dominates the MSM and drives various industry segments: diet, exercise, weight loss, publishing, TV, and more. Yes, if they consume more calories SOME people gain considerable weight; but OTHER people gain little if any.

As much as a third of the increase in obesity and much more for morbid obesity is likely caused by an infection -- an adenovirus that jumped from birds to mammals around 1978. This virus causes slight respiratory symptoms barely noticed; but infected lab animals gain nearly twice the weight on the same rations compared to uninfected animals. Recent studies around the world are finding dramatically higher rates of antibodies to this virus (indicating a previous infection) among people who are obese and morbidly obese when compared to the general population.

This adenovirus "epidemic" is affecting regions of the world with widely different diets, food industries, genetics, lifestyles, or other usual suspects. It also involves other species including dogs and horses, where owners have been blamed for overfeeding and then not taking the time to exercise their animals properly.

Maybe the biggest change over the last 25 years in our diet has been the sudden widespread use of soy protein in so many of our food products, including those we rarely think of as being "processed" foods (e.g. ground meats). Despite the marketing hype regarding soy, tofu, etc. being safely consumed for centuries in Asia, most of us now consume 10 or even a 100 times more soy protein a year than has any group anywhere at any time in the past. We suspect that things like its estrogen-like components could have large effects on human development, particularly in utero, during early development, and during puberty. Unfortunately, we are all unwilling subjects in the research to find out these effects. Modest weight gain is probably the least of our worries about soy protein.

Folates, primarily from green leafy vegetables, are important for a health diet. This is particularly true for women during pregnancy. Low levels of folates (B vitamins, particularly B9) are a primary cause of neural tube and other birth defects. Grains and flours are now enriched with folic acid, leading to a dramatic decline in related birth defects. While great for women likely to become pregnant, not so great for older men -- research now shows a likely doubling of rates for prostate cancer among those receiving supplemental folic acid. Folate deficiency delays the onset of puberty for girls. This might explain the later onset of puberty in colder climates historically, in part a shorter season where fresh vegetables were generally available. Earlier onset generally correlates with more fat retention in cells and slightly higher weights.

The near elimination of many childhood diseases means that few children now have "stunted growth". Animals, including humans, who are sick when they are young and should be growing the most, are rarely able to recover and reach the equivalent size and level of development otherwise expected. A similar effect is seen in those malnourished when young.

Changing demographics in the population affect height and weight. For example, the increasing percentage who are latino has resulted in a slight decrease in the average height of Americans.

Finally, we misremember how things were in the past, what we think we did individually and collectively versus what we actually did. If you go back and look at typical meals, snacks, etc. in the US in the 1950's when I was growing up, it was far from what has been described previously in this thread. No, there wasn't a lot of prepared food, almost nothing that was frozen, and little variety anywhere. Fruits and vegetables were limited to what was in season locally, otherwise apples, bananas, citrus, potatoes, onions, carrots, cabbage plus dried or canned tomatoes, peas, beans, and corn. Not much else available for anyone.

Look at a Ladies Home Journal from the 1950's and you will likely be shocked by the "healthy" menu suggestions (not to mention the decorating). Mostly meat and potatoes, fish (or fish sticks) on Fridays, fried chicken on Sunday. Four beef meals, one pork. This was the ideal for those days. A Jello congealed salad was inventive.

Large portions, carbs and calories were the norm. Our breakfasts were "shot with sugar through and through". And for me in the rural South, the everyday tedium working in the fields was partially relieved mid-morning and mid-afternoon by someone arriving with a soft drink and a snack for each of us out working there, our individual choices carefully noted. Hard to compare a Coke and a honey bun or maybe an RC and a moon pie with anything discussed above. While they were nutritionally lacking, they were among the high points for that day.

Where I grew up, we ate much less beef and a lot more seafood. We also ate gross things like potato chip and mayo sandwiches (my brother actually). As we say in the South, anything can be better if you add bacon or mayo or both.

BTW In many cases, raw vegetables are not as good for us as they would be when cooked. In other cases, cooking two or more items together is much better than the same things cooked separately. (Beans, corn, tomatoes)

BTW Some of the most obese people are only eating 600-1000 calories a day, essentially starving themselves. If your metabolism and satiation control malfunction, your will power will not be enough. See a doctor; it could be an adenovirous, an endocrine system problem, a brain or other tumor, or one of many other medical conditions.

[sense]

72. Thank you for your well

researched and thoughtful post. Much more helpful than the simplistic "blame the fat folks" approach.