PDA

View Full Version : Scientists Discover Why People Are Obese.



Truculent Sheep
10th August 07, 06:04 AM
Apart from a poor diet and a lack of exercise, that is:


A new class of drugs to treat obesity could be developed within a decade after a study of a hormone that stops us eating too much.

Those who lack the chemical, called leptin, find less appetising food such as broccoli as mouthwatering as chocolate cake. The result is that they over-eat even when they are not hungry.

Although the hormone is well known to influence appetite by signalling how much fat is in the body, a study today shows that it also controls emotional attachment to food.

The research suggests that it should be possible to design anti-obesity drugs which interfere with the brain's "pleasure" centres - the regions that respond to rewarding emotions and desires.

Leptin has been intensively studied since it was discovered in 1994. But several years ago it was found that injections of the hormone are ineffective as an anti-obesity treatment.

Today's work, published in the journal Science by Dr Sadaf Farooqi and Dr Paul Fletcher of Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, will boost research since it shows that drugs that can mimic leptin's effects in the part of the brain that governs our food cravings could offer a treatment for obesity.

Dr Farooqi said that such drugs are already being studied and, if effective, would over-ride brain signals that regulate hunger. The drugs would not turn people off food but make them more discriminating.

However, she said it was too early to speculate when such drugs would become available, although it is likely to be within a decade.

The study also questions the claim by the head of the British Medical Association that fat people are simply greedy.

"Our work challenges this kind of thinking," she said. "Our finding that the liking of food is biologically-driven should encourage a more sympathetic attitude to people with weight problems."

The insights into the actions of leptin have come from the team's brain-imaging study of two people with a rare, inherited leptin deficiency.

It suggested that this appetite-suppressing hormone acts in part by diminishing the amount of pleasure we get from food. With no leptin, the patients eat excessively, enjoy all types of food - even really bland ones - and develop severe obesity.

After treatment with leptin, their hunger is reduced, they become more choosy about food and they lose weight. The scientists used the brain scanner before and after they received leptin. Dr Farooqi monitored the patients' brain activity while presenting them with images of food at four different times: before and after the leptin treatment and, at each of these stages, before and after a meal.

The part of the brain which governs food cravings, the nucleus accumbens, was especially responsive to pictures of foods that people find more appetising.

In normal people, the nucleus accumbens is stirred into action by appetising foods only when they feel hungry.

In the leptin-deficient patients, it remained active after they had just eaten. But after treatment with the hormone, their response became normal so that the nucleus accumbens was activated mostly by foods they liked and only when they were hungry.

This is the first time that scientists have found a connection between the pathways in the brain that know when you are full and the parts of the brain that are involved in how much you enjoy food.

Dr Farooqi said yesterday that there was still much to learn about how the taste, look and smell of food affects appetite, but the research, funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, brought us a step closer to modifying the brain response to combat obesity.

Which makes sense when you realise that there is no reason to over-eat, but reason has nothing to do with compulsive eating. It also could explain why thin people are such twats about obesity - they've got lots of leptin and don't realise other people don't have it.

Or fat people could simply be the new Nazi Paedophiles. There's that possibility too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/10/scihormone110.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

Teh El Macho
10th August 07, 08:29 AM
I thought we knew why people get fat - compulsive eating.

Scrapper
10th August 07, 08:59 AM
I really, really hate this line of reasoning.

/rant on

Yes...appetite and food addiction are primarily genetic factors; as well as the ability to metabolize food efficiently or inefficiently.

This means that some people find it difficult or impossible to be "thin," while others can so so without effort.

HOWEVER:

YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF WHAT GOES INTO YOUR BODY. THE HANDS MUST BRING THE FOOD TO THE MOUTH, ERGO YOU ARE IN SOME CONTROL.

I've been fat. I am genetically predisposed to being fat. Read my training log and you will see my struggle with diet. That is my life. I will never be a Men's health cover model or an elite athlete.

Boo HOO. But do not for one second tell me I have a disease, or allow me to think that an unhealthy lifestyle is not my fault. Do I get frustrated with my weight? Yes.

Do I allow my genetics to give me an excuse? No. Its just life. It does not have to be fair. It is the stupid attitude of enlightenment and vanity that funnels billions of dollars into researching the magic "thin" pill that should be spent on curing cancer or AIDS. It boggles the mind that someone can be told that weighing 400 pounds will kill them, but they still refuse to alter any aspect of their lifestyle because it's "hard," or they have a "condition."

STOP EATING. GO EXERCISE. I know it sucks. I know it hurts, and it's embarrassing. Do it anyway. Grow a backbone. Take some fucking responsibility. But then again...what self-respecting American would ever take responsibility for their own behavior?

/Rant off


Seriously...I'm sympathetic to a point, but only to a point. It's your ass (fat or otherwise), take care of it.

danno
10th August 07, 09:51 AM
http://3.content.collegehumor.com/d1/ch6/0/9/collegehumor.e869889005d4002b8f32db69234fcf65.jpg

Riddeck
12th August 07, 11:02 AM
I really, really hate this line of reasoning.

/rant on

Yes...appetite and food addiction are primarily genetic factors; as well as the ability to metabolize food efficiently or inefficiently.

This means that some people find it difficult or impossible to be "thin," while others can so so without effort.

HOWEVER:

YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF WHAT GOES INTO YOUR BODY. THE HANDS MUST BRING THE FOOD TO THE MOUTH, ERGO YOU ARE IN SOME CONTROL.

I've been fat. I am genetically predisposed to being fat. Read my training log and you will see my struggle with diet. That is my life. I will never be a Men's health cover model or an elite athlete.

Boo HOO. But do not for one second tell me I have a disease, or allow me to think that an unhealthy lifestyle is not my fault. Do I get frustrated with my weight? Yes.

Do I allow my genetics to give me an excuse? No. Its just life. It does not have to be fair. It is the stupid attitude of enlightenment and vanity that funnels billions of dollars into researching the magic "thin" pill that should be spent on curing cancer or AIDS. It boggles the mind that someone can be told that weighing 400 pounds will kill them, but they still refuse to alter any aspect of their lifestyle because it's "hard," or they have a "condition."

STOP EATING. GO EXERCISE. I know it sucks. I know it hurts, and it's embarrassing. Do it anyway. Grow a backbone. Take some fucking responsibility. But then again...what self-respecting American would ever take responsibility for their own behavior?

/Rant off


Seriously...I'm sympathetic to a point, but only to a point. It's your ass (fat or otherwise), take care of it.


You ultimately make a valid point, but I want to touch on one thing...

"Yes...appetite and food addiction are primarily genetic factors; as well as the ability to metabolize food efficiently or inefficiently."

This is not entirely true. The FDA (Ever wonder why the same entity that regulates food, also regulates drugs?) allows food companies to put is upward to 1500 different chemicals into foods that are not even listed on the ingredients. I say this, because most people eat diets mainly consisting of processed foods. Fast foods are the worst. The point is simply that...chemicals are added and become addictive, thus making the food addictive. It is all about the money, and they want you to eat, and eat, and eat. They manufacture a processed product and call it food, when in reality, it is so far from as nature intended, it can hardly be called food.

This is a slightly sensitive spot for me, and no, I am not fat, and I have a general disdain for people who have no will power, and even more disdain for people who do not care enough to take care of themselves, or their shit. However, when good, honest families are put under duress by 'life' (or the one the system designed for them), they are almost forced to eat this type of food, and will ultimately suffer later in life for doing so.

This also runs back into the FDA's role in all this. Again, only caring about money (the love of), they could care less about the health of the average American. They want you to eat the processed food, which will damage your organs, suppress your immune system, leading to health problems which they will feed you drugs for (they cannot make money off natural cures), then those drug's adverse side effects will lead to later drug use to cure the symptoms of your next disease.

A vicious cycle indeed.

Genetics of course have part in all this, weather it be in your nature to be fat, or to be weak willed. However, I believe, that if you eat properly, and eat pure, health food, and exercise you can get to the best 'shape' your body will offer, and live a much healthier and fulfilling life.

Scrapper
13th August 07, 07:19 AM
You ultimately make a valid point, but I want to touch on one thing...

"Yes...appetite and food addiction are primarily genetic factors; as well as the ability to metabolize food efficiently or inefficiently."

This is not entirely true. The FDA (Ever wonder why the same entity that regulates food, also regulates drugs?) allows food companies to put is upward to 1500 different chemicals into foods that are not even listed on the ingredients. I say this, because most people eat diets mainly consisting of processed foods. Fast foods are the worst. The point is simply that...chemicals are added and become addictive, thus making the food addictive. It is all about the money, and they want you to eat, and eat, and eat. They manufacture a processed product and call it food, when in reality, it is so far from as nature intended, it can hardly be called food.

This is a slightly sensitive spot for me, and no, I am not fat, and I have a general disdain for people who have no will power, and even more disdain for people who do not care enough to take care of themselves, or their shit. However, when good, honest families are put under duress by 'life' (or the one the system designed for them), they are almost forced to eat this type of food, and will ultimately suffer later in life for doing so.

This also runs back into the FDA's role in all this. Again, only caring about money (the love of), they could care less about the health of the average American. They want you to eat the processed food, which will damage your organs, suppress your immune system, leading to health problems which they will feed you drugs for (they cannot make money off natural cures), then those drug's adverse side effects will lead to later drug use to cure the symptoms of your next disease.

A vicious cycle indeed.

Genetics of course have part in all this, weather it be in your nature to be fat, or to be weak willed. However, I believe, that if you eat properly, and eat pure, health food, and exercise you can get to the best 'shape' your body will offer, and live a much healthier and fulfilling life.



Other than caffeine, what addictive substances are allowed in food? (Not being sarcastic...I'd like to know!)

Sugar and other simple carbs have been called "addictive" because people end up craving them, but it is not the same thing. I can't think of any others, though.

I see your point, but I don't buy it. The only thing "addictive" about junk food is that it tastes good. Lots of fats and sugars will do that. Believe me, two of my favorite things are fat and sugar. They are yummy, especially if you can get them at the same time (donuts, anyone? I'll share.).

I agree that no one is really doing anything to help people with unhealthy diets; and that if you are poor, in many cases McDonald's is cheaper than health food. But I only extend my sympathy to a point. I am not talking about becoming health nuts and having <5% bodyfat...I'm talking about reasonable accommodation for your genetics, and realistic eating habits that don't turn 15-year-old kids into 250-pound diabetic blimps.

It's not a huge undertaking, but it does require self-control.

Kein Haar
13th August 07, 09:30 AM
Doritos and ice cream sandwiches make me a believer in ...eh..I don't want to say "addictions", but if they are in the house, they don't last long.

On the other hand, I can make the most delicious food from scratch, and yet when I eat a reasonable amount I am satisfied and no longer hungry.

It's not "drugs" which make food addictive. It's just very carefully engineered for flavor and texture; and to make it cost effective they just the cheapest crap possible.

FDA ALLOWS eM TO PUT DRUGS and CEHMICALS IN FOOD OMG.

That's retarded. Everything is a "chemical". That's a red herring.

Hence, I don't buy ice cream sandwiches and doritos. If Lardy McFatterson can't recognize that step in the process, I don't know what to tell him. Enjoy teh diabeetus?

Cullion
13th August 07, 10:11 AM
Eventually they will reduce every drive, whim and character flaw in man to biochemical or psychological determinism and offer cures for them.

Then we really will be slaves.

Scrapper
13th August 07, 10:17 AM
Soma.

A dram is better than a damn!

WarPhalange
13th August 07, 11:35 AM
Eventually they will reduce every drive, whim and character flaw in man to biochemical or psychological determinism and offer cures for them.

Then we really will be slaves.

Wrong. We will be robots. With the strength of two gorillas!

Cullion
13th August 07, 11:57 AM
Wrong. We will be robots. With the strength of two gorillas!

Could be right. I think they're planning a caste system. At the bottom will be totally soma'd slaves who's only education allows them to choose the right symbols on their McDonald's till or forklift. Above them will be various grades of technical, law enforcement and military staff who's educations allow for expanded ranges of symbols with different meanings and whose dosages allow for varying degrees of aggression, creativity and
alertness.

The over-guardians will be people related by descendants of people who throug h political connections of great wealth avoided gettign 'dosed'. They will still be able to read english phonetically, allowing them access to knowledge outside of a rigidly drilled-in profession.

WarPhalange
13th August 07, 12:05 PM
So it's like the 1700's again?

Cullion
13th August 07, 12:06 PM
So it's like the 1700's again?

More like ancient Egypt, but with speeder-bikes, Nazi uniforms and better drugs.

WarPhalange
13th August 07, 12:07 PM
The difference being it's very likely the Jews will be in charge this time...

Cullion
13th August 07, 12:13 PM
<Rimshot>

Zendetta
13th August 07, 01:12 PM
More like ancient Egypt, but with speeder-bikes, Nazi uniforms and better drugs.

I salute your vision of this Brave New World.

But don't forget the Biometric Identification, Genetically-Engineered Plagues, Toxic Enviro-Hell Forbidden Zones, and Soylent Green, now with More Protein, for Today's Lifestyle!!!

Good thread, more dystopianism please.

For example: think of how fat Americans will be able to get once we've perfected stem cell technology and they can pull you a fresh new colon out of the vat!

Also: Mormonism vs Scientology vs Apathetic Hedonism- which will be the One True Industrial-Strength Church for the Endtimes?!??!

Cullion
13th August 07, 01:26 PM
Biometric identification will be commonplace, as will tracking via the RFID tags in your consumerplex bought disposable clothing.

The revolutionaries will all keep caches of homespun hippy-like clothing with no tags so that love-enforcement officers won't be able to track them as easily when out grafitti'ing walls and replacing people's dosages with harmless placebos.

Cullion
13th August 07, 01:27 PM
They won't need Soylent green. There'll be vast artificial caverns growing genetically engineered fungus which gets shaped and textured in factories.

Cullion
13th August 07, 01:30 PM
The unemployed will be able to make money at the think-tank.

You just lie down, put the skullcap on and go to sleep whilst corporations and the government use your brain as a node in an ad-hoc massively parallised processor to perform complex calculations and sociological projections. It's harmless, and they pay you like, $50 per hour.

Sometimes the dreams get strange though.

Sirc
13th August 07, 01:41 PM
I thought everyone was fully aware that laziness and self-loathing were the reason for fatties.

Cullion
13th August 07, 01:47 PM
Laziness and self-loathing can be cured. Thumbs up to a brighter future.

Zendetta
13th August 07, 01:58 PM
You just lie down, put the skullcap on and go to sleep whilst corporations and the government use your brain as a node in an ad-hoc massively parallised processor to perform complex calculations and sociological projections. It's harmless, and they pay you like, $50 per hour.

Sometimes the dreams get strange though.

Good idea re. the parrallel processing, but think of the marketing possiblities - ZomCom's marketing dept. is going nuts. This is going to be the new focus group!!!

Not to mention the possibility of product placement via direct neuro link!!!

BTW, You probably saw last week's story on crowd farming for kinetic energy.

Riddeck
13th August 07, 03:27 PM
Other than caffeine, what addictive substances are allowed in food? (Not being sarcastic...I'd like to know!)

Sugar and other simple carbs have been called "addictive" because people end up craving them, but it is not the same thing. I can't think of any others, though.

I see your point, but I don't buy it. The only thing "addictive" about junk food is that it tastes good. Lots of fats and sugars will do that. Believe me, two of my favorite things are fat and sugar. They are yummy, especially if you can get them at the same time (donuts, anyone? I'll share.).

I agree that no one is really doing anything to help people with unhealthy diets; and that if you are poor, in many cases McDonald's is cheaper than health food. But I only extend my sympathy to a point. I am not talking about becoming health nuts and having <5% bodyfat...I'm talking about reasonable accommodation for your genetics, and realistic eating habits that don't turn 15-year-old kids into 250-pound diabetic blimps.

It's not a huge undertaking, but it does require self-control.

Now to really get into this I have to run the side of an ideal way of life. This involves eating only foods that are fresh, no preservatives, no genetic altering, no pesticides...meat that is free ranged and slaughtered in a kosher fashion. The idea is simple. You eat properly, all the nutrients your body requires, the 20 amino acids (Average human is deficient in 10 of the 20 needed), you stay away from processed foods, simple sugars, (they suppress the immune system) and you excersize regularly. You will find yourself very rarely getting sick. You will have energy, you will sleep right, be regular, the ideas that come with healthy living. Now this is pushing it a bit. The average person just does not have the means of living this way, but if you could, odds are you would live a long healthy life, free and clear of disease.

The chemicals, in which I speak of, I cannot state specifically. It is like asking me tot ell you everything in a cigarette...you know there is many harmful chemicals, but you cannot name em all...but they are there. Weather they are preservatives, or additives for flavour, they are still man made, processed, and unnatural. That is what makes em harmful for human consumption, and in some cases *like fast food* addictive.

So the only thing addictive is not just the flavour. It is your bodies reaction to the chemicals they call food. They do not want you to be healthy..nor do they want you to eat only what you have to. They want you sick, they want you eating more and more food.

How the fuck else do you sustain a billion dollar industry?

It is always about the money.

WarPhalange
13th August 07, 03:29 PM
Scrapper, I worked at McDonald's for 8 months. A week after I quit and stopped going to work there, I got a sudden craving for a Big n' Tasty. This was a strong craving. I've never had a craving like this for any kind of food before or since. They definately load the food with shit that at least makes you crave the food. And no, it's not "flavor".

Riddeck
13th August 07, 03:34 PM
Doritos and ice cream sandwiches make me a believer in ...eh..I don't want to say "addictions", but if they are in the house, they don't last long.

On the other hand, I can make the most delicious food from scratch, and yet when I eat a reasonable amount I am satisfied and no longer hungry.

It's not "drugs" which make food addictive. It's just very carefully engineered for flavor and texture; and to make it cost effective they just the cheapest crap possible.

FDA ALLOWS eM TO PUT DRUGS and CEHMICALS IN FOOD OMG.

That's retarded. Everything is a "chemical". That's a red herring.

Hence, I don't buy ice cream sandwiches and doritos. If Lardy McFatterson can't recognize that step in the process, I don't know what to tell him. Enjoy teh diabeetus?

So you say it is not drugs they put into food...but then follow that statement with "it's just carefully engineered for flavour and texture"...see, 'carefully engineered for flavour and texture' is a statement about an unnatural product. It is not a 'drug' in the sense that it is going to get you high, or lower your fever, but a drug in the sense that it is not a natural product. THey add chemical compounds to food, to preserve it, to stretch the amount they get from actual growing, and to make it addictive. As I have said, it is always about the money.

As for the comment about the FDA, please, can you be so daft? Why would the same entity that controls the drug manufacturing in this country have to control the food industry? FDA is about as shady as you can get, and with the Pharmaceutical companies paying them off on a daily basis, you can be rest assured that they are not giving a fuck about what is fed to the public, so long as you keep eating it, stay sick, and buy their drugs.

On a side note. The FDA legal mandate states that only 'drugs' can cure diseases. Scurvy is a disease that is caused by a vitamin C deficiency. Oranges cure Scurvy. Oranges are not drugs.

Just a small example, but keep in mind, there are diseases in America that are not curable, but are easily taken care of in other countries.

Harpy
13th August 07, 06:26 PM
I couldn't get past that bit about chocolate cake and broccoli. WTF? I love broccoli and don't eat chocolate/cake etc. Does that make me a candidate to be a fatty? I know when I'm full and as Kein has stated, preparing healthy food well keeps you satisfied much more than junk food does.

Judah Maccabee
14th August 07, 12:00 AM
Fact: Nabisco, Kraft, McDonalds, and other major food producers have hired top authorities in addiction research to consult on food products. See "Fast Food Nation" by Schlossinger and "Food Politics" by Nestle for more info.

There has never been solid evidence (as in, court of law or scientific study) that Oreos or Big Macs, in of themselves, create physical addictions like, say, nicotine or heroin. But there's definitely studies of animals, infants, and adults concerning the types of foods they express great preference for. Sweet, high fat foods reign supreme on taste preference of just about every major organism in Kingdom Animalia.

===

I don't think there is a dispute that obesity is fundamentally linked to calorie intake. But calorie intake is far more than willpower. It's everything from the types of jobs commonly available for the populace to the chemical/nutritional composition of affordable foods to the economic impacts of corporate sponsorship of school infrastructure like textbooks, playing fields, and cafeterias. It's a system of factors, not individual factors.

Adults may be able to wield greater discretion as to their food intake and dietary habits. Children generally do not. They eat what their parents give and they eat what the school provides, plus they'll eat whatever they can whine and beg their parents to get for them which is (as I said), sugary, high-fat foods. Like a cheeseburger from McD's.

Wait, where's the sugar in a cheeseburger? Check the bun, dude. That thing is practically a candy bar in terms of sugar content.

And the habits you develop as a kid will stand into adulthood without intervention.

For me, I grew up on pan-fried hamburgers, fried chicken, ramen noodles, and Pepsi with peanuts in it. I had a black babysitter who provided plenty of that comfort food, and there were always trips to McD's after soccer games every Saturday. Then at jr. high and high school, I got into track and field, and that shit wouldn't stand to provide good energy. On top of that, my mom remarried and my stepdad did a lot of the cooking, and he always made good, healthful stuff; the chicken was baked with breadcrumbs, and the hamburgers were 90/10 ground sirloin cooked on the grill, and so forth.


=====

To conclude, it's disingenuous and ultimately counterproductive to assert that obesity is solely the function of willpower if the objective is to promote good eating and healthy behaviors. That's akin to saying that someone got poor solely because of their own (mis)behaviors. There's PLENTY of legitimate, external factors for these, especially with poverty status, and phrasing a solution solely in individualistic terms neglects societal, institutional, familial, or even global issues that come into play. This isn't to say that "Al Qaeda made me fat," but if a mother of a soldier in Iraq has resorted to comfort eating to cope with her stress, telling her to stop eating so much isn't going to work and it isn't going to address the root causes of her behaviors.

Scrapper
14th August 07, 09:57 AM
You are making my point for me, Judah.

It's not SOLELY a factor of anything. It is the result of several factors working in conjunction either for or against you.

All I ask is that the individual take responsibility for those factors that they CAN control, and be happy with the body that results. Because the truth is, you can always push the plate away.

Much of the problem is unrealistic body images.

Cullion
14th August 07, 10:13 AM
Have a look at the work Jamie Oliver (a british celebrity chef) did on this issue at some UK schools.

His basic findings were that if you forcibly take away the junk options and then offer healthy food made from fresh ingredients they eventually start to prefer it (after a lot of bitching and moaning, including from the parents. They start out eating the healthy stuff because they're hungry and that's all you offer them) and then the teachers, school nurses and local Dr's start reporting dramatic decreases in bad behaviour and ADD-like disorders, physical conditions like Asthma, eczma and a range of allergic reactions and digestive disorders, and the some of the schools that do it start doing better at sports against the schools that still allow junk.

The french, for all their faults, have always understood this. Their school menus read like something you'd expect to see served in a decent sit-down restaurant or healthclub (it's all home cooking or ethnic food with fresh ingredients, local cheeses, salads, fruit juice, milk or water to drink and maybe real steak with fries once a month). They grow up with educated pallets and whilst they still enjoy gourmet high-quality treats like roast meat in an alcohol-based sauce or a creamy cheese, they have lower obesity rates and slightly greater life expectancy (despite smoking and drinking more than brits and americans).

You have to get people young and their food has to be taken care of by firm adults with their best interests at heart who will not buckle when they whine about wanting fries with something, or a big mac instead of a chicken salad.

Adults certainly need to take responsibility for themselves, but it's an awful lot easier if you've been raised being used to the good stuff.

I'm proud to say my daughter doesn't know what coke or bigmacs taste like.

Cullion
14th August 07, 10:22 AM
Sci-fi jokes aside, it's possible that there are addictive chemicals being put in the food, but I don't think they'd need to. Most wild animals are wired to crave high-energy/high-salt foods of any type they can digest because they never know where their next meal is coming from. Sugars, fat and salt are addictive enough to a child's uneducated pallet.

Neildo
14th August 07, 10:24 AM
I'm thinking about a big mac right now. i can fucking taste it. oh god.

Kein Haar
14th August 07, 10:45 AM
see, 'carefully engineered for flavour and texture' is a statement about an unnatural product.

'nother red herring.

Cullion
14th August 07, 10:48 AM
'nother red herring.

Yes to a point. Raw deadly nightshade is 'natural' and a free-range corn-fed chicken that's been processed by removing the internal organs, inserting garlic under the skin and stuffing wedges of orange and lemon inside it, roasting it and then pouring over a white wine-based gravy is unnatural.

Riddeck
14th August 07, 11:36 AM
When I said 'unnatural', I am speaking in which the way it is processed. Flour made from wheat that is bleached, then stripped of all it's nutritional value, then enriched with vitamins made by man, is unnatural. Someone taking and grinding their own wheat and making bread from it, is more natural. If it is in a box, do not eat it, is the general guideline to this.

Simply put, the closer to the way nature intended it, the better. You can poke at this 'red herring' issue, but you are simply wasting your time.

As for chemicals in food, there might not be *insert 15 syllable name here* in your big mac...but there is sugar. Processed white sugar is as much a chemical, as as much unnatural as you would want to believe. And if that is the addictive part of it, or put in there for any intentional reason (which it is...sugar suppresses the immune system, that is why they feed it to you), my point is made.

Check for simple things....High Fructose corn syrup, Hydrogonized*sp* vegetable oil (any veggie) and enriched white flour are definitely things you want you and your children to avoid.

WarPhalange
14th August 07, 11:42 AM
All I ask is that the individual take responsibility for those factors that they CAN control

They do.

By suing the people who gave them the food.

Cullion
14th August 07, 12:17 PM
And if that is the addictive part of it, or put in there for any intentional reason (which it is...sugar suppresses the immune system, that is why they feed it to you), my point is made.

I broadly agree with your view on what's healthy and what's not, but I don't believe that they are deliberately putting white sugar into food to mess up your immune system to sell you drugs, or are otherwise deliberately poisoning people. I think they just put it in there because it's a cheap way of making it taste good and they don't care too much about whether it's bad for you.



Check for simple things....High Fructose corn syrup, Hydrogonized*sp* vegetable oil (any veggie) and enriched white flour are definitely things you want you and your children to avoid.

I agree. Cheap processed meats like burger meat, a lot of sausages and factory made pies etc.. are terrible too.

Neildo
14th August 07, 01:08 PM
how is ground beef or pork 'cheap, processed'? dude its just ground meat.


factory made meat pies are blasphemous anyways. they are not to be consumed.

Riddeck
14th August 07, 05:04 PM
I broadly agree with your view on what's healthy and what's not, but I don't believe that they are deliberately putting white sugar into food to mess up your immune system to sell you drugs, or are otherwise deliberately poisoning people. I think they just put it in there because it's a cheap way of making it taste good and they don't care too much about whether it's bad for you.

They do not care that it is bad for you, thus making it a deliberate action to harm you. Seems a simple line of logic. Weather they sit and plan these things are to be determined, but I am one to believe that, to succeed in Corporate America, you have to be deficient in morality.





how is ground beef or pork 'cheap, processed'? dude its just ground meat.

Well, if you take into consideration that food is essentially building blocks, when you eat ground beef from a cow that was given crappy grain and other dead animals *to build himself with*, well, we are all what we eat.

An animal that is raised free range, fed healthy grass and grains will produce a higher quality meat, and will thus be better for you to put into your body.

Judah Maccabee
14th August 07, 05:24 PM
how is ground beef or pork 'cheap, processed'? dude its just ground meat.

They take the beef slabs and grind it down. They will also add beef fat to batches with a lower lean percentage (say, 75/25). They will also use some kind of antibacterial process to reduce the amount of E. Coli or other organisms on the meat; this can include using radiation.

Read Fast Food Nation for more on beef processing.

Neildo
14th August 07, 05:50 PM
I go to a butcher. I don't buy meat from the grocery store anymore.

mrblackmagic
14th August 07, 08:17 PM
They take the beef slabs and grind it down. They will also add beef fat to batches with a lower lean percentage (say, 75/25). They will also use some kind of antibacterial process to reduce the amount of E. Coli or other organisms on the meat; this can include using radiation.

Read Fast Food Nation for more on beef processing.

Made me eat kosher for about a month, but alas it was too expensive. I stick to lean meat these days.

Cullion
15th August 07, 04:00 AM
It depends on the type of burger. I worked in a burger factory in the UK one summer and it was all mechanically reclaimed meat. After everything else had been taken by butchers, supermarkets and so on, there's a cow skeleton with bits of slightly skanky flesh clinging to it. These get thrown into a grinder where what's left is scraped off and it comes out in a sort of pink sausage down a conveyor belt.

'Economy' batches get a single scoop of white powder every yard and get shaped into small patties by a machine. Other types get different coloured additional powders added. 'Deluxe' burgers got 3 different coloured powders and were shaped into larger patties by the machine.

I very rarely eat burgers now. Only when I'm drunk and very hungry or if I know that they're homemade from good quality meat (i.e. at my house or a decent quality restaurant).

ironlurker
16th August 07, 10:30 AM
This was an interesting article I saw a few weeks ago.
The point about the counter-productive nature of ridicule echoed points made in previous conversations here, but I found the study cited particularly striking.



Taunting may affect health of obese youths

Lasting emotional, physical hurt seen

By Stephen Smith, Globe Staff | July 11, 2007
Remember that time in third grade when you called the pudgy boy in gym class "fatso?"

It wasn't just mean. It might have inflicted lasting wounds, according to a Yale University study released yesterday that found that overweight and obese children who are subjected to verbal taunts and physical bullying are substantially more prone during childhood to suicidal thoughts, eating disorders, and high blood pressure than their peers.

Yale clinical psychologist Rebecca M. Puhl and colleague Janet Latner from the University of Hawaii at Manoa reviewed four decades' worth of psychological, social and medical research on childhood obesity -- more than 100 studies. They discovered that taunts, shoves, and social isolation can wreak emotional and physical harm in childhood and possibly beyond that is distinct from the health consequences of being overweight.


"It's important to distinguish that it's the victimization and the teasing that are leading to these consequences," Puhl said, "and not the obesity itself."
The research, which appears in the July issue of the Psychological Bulletin, also found that the discrimination by children against their overweight peers is breathtaking.


One widely cited 1961 study, replicated 42 years later, asked 10- and 11-year-olds to look at six pictures of other youngsters and rank the order in which they would like to be friends with them. The pictures depicted a child in a wheelchair, one on crutches, another with an amputated hand, a fourth with a facial disfigurement. A fifth photo showed an average-weight child with no disabilities and a sixth showed an overweight youngster.
In both the 1961 study and the 2003 follow-up, the heavy child was resoundingly sixth in order of preference, and spurning of the overweight child was more extreme in the more recent study. Overweight children are regarded with disdain, branded as lazy, ugly, stupid, and sloppy -- with the bias that they should be able to do something about the extra weight.


"There's a high cost for obesity, and it's not just around the physical challenges," said Dr. Nancy Rappaport , director of school programs at Cambridge Health Alliance . "It's also around the corrosive undermining of self-confidence and the ability to see the possibility for change."
The taunts -- and the damage -- appear to be most pronounced among the heaviest children. But the stigma isn't limited to youngsters who are significantly overweight; even children who are just a little bit heavy are subject to teasing, the researchers found.
Too often, specialists said, the teasing begins in the one place that should provide a sanctuary from harm: the home.


Yesterday's study, for example, recounted a survey of 4,746 adolescents. About 47 percent of very overweight girls and 34 percent of the very overweight boys said they had been frequently teased about their weight by family members.
"There's a lot of teasing that goes on in the house, with some parents even who call their children 'fat' or 'pig,' " said Dr. Carine Lenders , medical director of the children's nutrition program at Boston Medical Center .


Overweight adolescent girls and boys who endure frequent episodes of teasing are more likely to engage in unhealthy eating habits, including binging, than equally overweight adolescents who aren't the target of taunts. Obese adolescents who experience bias are two to three times more likely to contemplate suicide than obese teens not victimized by teasing.
And a 2005 study cited in yesterday's report found that taunting was the most likely cause of higher blood pressure in overweight adolescents, even after taking into account an array of other factors, including weight, race, and physical activity.


Data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that children have grown significantly fatter in the past three decades. Among 6- to 11-year-olds, for instance, the percentage of children who are overweight climbed from 6.5 percent in the mid-1970s to 18.8 percent in 2003 and '04.
At the same time, specialists said, American society is more obsessed than ever with idealized images of wafer-thin celebrities, a phenomenon that may be fueling the impulse to ridicule.
"We live in a society that is extraordinarily weight conscious," said Dr. David Ludwig , an obesity specialist at Children's Hospital Boston .
Ludwig and other specialists said that before designing a regimen to help children shed pounds, it's imperative that children and parents address teasing, and acknowledge in a straightforward fashion that the child is, in fact, overweight.
Paradoxically, taunting appears to discourage heavy children from getting exercise , according to studies and physicians.
"A lot of children, because of the teasing, refuse then to go swimming -- they don't want to put a swimming suit on," Lenders said. "A lot of children prefer to stay home, watch TV, and not interact with their peers."

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2007/07/11/taunting_may_affect_health_of_obese_youths/

Kein Haar
16th August 07, 12:38 PM
You can poke at this 'red herring' issue, but you are simply wasting your time.

I know what you're are trying to say, and agree mostly, but the argument is ineffective.

mrblackmagic
17th August 07, 09:24 AM
face hiding article about hands off parenting.


I can only express confusion bordering on alarm.

ironlurker
17th August 07, 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironlurker
face hiding article about hands off parenting.



I can only express confusion bordering on alarm.

The point was that taunting and ostracizing children does not improve their health or "encourage" them to become healthier, especially in the case of losing fat.

And if people bitch and moan about "health care the cost wah mah taxus munney out of my 10.75/hr" it's only logical that they should want all possible barriers to the elimination of the problem removed.
But then again, it's only logical.

I don't know how confusing the study may have appeared, but in essence it said that children consider this:
http://www.lauraknauth.com/MovieCollectibles/Kahn_Chunk.JPG
worse than this:
http://www.periodistadigital.com/imgs/20050629/0609fmn1_1.jpg

Cullion
17th August 07, 01:48 PM
Which considering the huge proportion of them that are going to end up fat is tragi-comic.

Oh well, at least it'll give them a solid grounding in the supressed-self loathing they're going to have to become comfortable with as they schlep their way from their twenties to the grave at some pointless activity they hate to stay one half-step ahead of the hounds of debt.

JimmyTheHutt
17th August 07, 02:56 PM
Children are monsters.

Veritas et Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

ironlurker
17th August 07, 03:27 PM
Children are monsters.

Veritas et Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt
And their dolls. Don't forget the whispering, murmuring, murder-inciting demon possessed dolls. "Mommy likes having plastic bags over her head". Yeah little Tommy, you had no choice but to listen to plush Mr. Finklebones, sure you didn't.

Riddeck
19th August 07, 11:47 PM
It depends on the type of burger. I worked in a burger factory in the UK one summer and it was all mechanically reclaimed meat. After everything else had been taken by butchers, supermarkets and so on, there's a cow skeleton with bits of slightly skanky flesh clinging to it. These get thrown into a grinder where what's left is scraped off and it comes out in a sort of pink sausage down a conveyor belt.

'Economy' batches get a single scoop of white powder every yard and get shaped into small patties by a machine. Other types get different coloured additional powders added. 'Deluxe' burgers got 3 different coloured powders and were shaped into larger patties by the machine.

I very rarely eat burgers now. Only when I'm drunk and very hungry or if I know that they're homemade from good quality meat (i.e. at my house or a decent quality restaurant).


What is in this 'powder' they are mixing with the burgers. Therein lies the question.

Cullion
20th August 07, 03:16 AM
What is in this 'powder' they are mixing with the burgers. Therein lies the question.

They were different seasonings and flavouring agents. Synthetic replacements for the flavours you'd get from chopping up onion and chilli in a real burger mix.

ironlurker
20th August 07, 04:14 PM
What is in this 'powder' they are mixing with the burgers. Therein lies the question.


http://www.cylon.org/images/classic/harvester01web.jpg

Riddeck
20th August 07, 07:16 PM
They were different seasonings and flavouring agents. Synthetic replacements for the flavours you'd get from chopping up onion and chilli in a real burger mix.


And it is their synthetic nature that makes the powder bad for ya 8 )

Cullion
21st August 07, 08:48 AM
And it is their synthetic nature that makes the powder bad for ya 8 )

You're obsessed with this synthetic thing. Some 'synthetic' things are bad for you, some 'natural' things are good for you, and the line between 'synthetic' and natural isn't always clear.

Judah Maccabee
21st August 07, 11:26 AM
Riddeck, perhaps you're unfamiliar with the food industry's historical use of unsafe or unconventional substances in order to cut costs. Unless legally enforced otherwise, cost always comes ahead of safety, be it for the food, consumer, or employee of the food company.

For instance, taking whole milk, skimming it to make it nonfat, then trying to put vegetable or animal fat back in to try to make it "whole milk" again. That's "filled milk"; look it up.

Or look up what they used to make jelly out of for poor people. I believe strawberry jelly contained some measure of TAR.

Or read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.

Or better yet, "Fast Food Nation" because that's more relevant for today's world. They have a section specifically devoted to the flavor and scent industry.

Riddeck
21st August 07, 07:45 PM
Riddeck, perhaps you're unfamiliar with the food industry's historical use of unsafe or unconventional substances in order to cut costs. Unless legally enforced otherwise, cost always comes ahead of safety, be it for the food, consumer, or employee of the food company.

For instance, taking whole milk, skimming it to make it nonfat, then trying to put vegetable or animal fat back in to try to make it "whole milk" again. That's "filled milk"; look it up.

Or look up what they used to make jelly out of for poor people. I believe strawberry jelly contained some measure of TAR.

Or read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.

Or better yet, "Fast Food Nation" because that's more relevant for today's world. They have a section specifically devoted to the flavor and scent industry.

I am aware of all such things, or I would have had nothing to say from the get go. This is why I do not touch fast food, and hardly touch food in a box.



You're obsessed with this synthetic thing. Some 'synthetic' things are bad for you, some 'natural' things are good for you, and the line between 'synthetic' and natural isn't always clear.

I think the line is pretty clear, actually. Fresh, Organically grown food vs. boxed processed food. The funny thing about that stretching of food by adding fillers, or processing it, is that it is not only bad for you, but it is allowed by the government (FDA)...all in the name of profit.

I go as far as shunning pasteurization and homogenization of (most commonly) milk, because a) pasteurization may kill all the bacteria in milk, but it also kills most of the nutrients, and b) homogenization alters the milk, and makes it more difficult for our bodies to digest and utilize.

Much like hydrogenated vegetable oil. Enters the body and gets stored as fat because the body cannot do anything with it.

Money
21st August 07, 11:02 PM
http://www.cylon.org/images/classic/harvester01web.jpg

I'm embarrassed to say I knew immediately what that was.

Here let me put in my $0.02.

I'm thin. 5'8" but I didn't top 100lbs till my sophomore year in high school, and it took another 12 years to top 130. I can't gain weight even if I try, but here's the thing.

I hate fat people. Let me list the reasons why.

* I take the stairs every day from the 4th floor in the parking garage and at the job, while they pile into the elevator to travel one fucking floor.
* I only drink water while they get large cokes with their meals
* I don't snack, while they shovel fucking corn chips, cookies and cheetos in their mouth every 30 minutes
* If I get hungry, I can wait till mealtime while they go find a bucket of ice cream

I spend 4-6 days a week in the gym doing martial arts or working on my cardio/light weights and I have a fucking heart condition that means I have to ride a fine line of exerting enough to increase my capacity while not doing so much as to totally exhaust me, then I have to hear some fat fuck bitch about how exercise is hard while they sit on the goddamn couch eating goddamn cookie dough? Fuck you.

WarPhalange
22nd August 07, 12:28 AM
* If I get hungry, I can wait till mealtime while they go find a bucket of ice cream

I can't. I usually eat breakfast at like 7am, get to work by 8:30ish, then lunch is at noon. But at around 10 I NEED sustenance. One time when I decided to wait it out, I almost fainted. I need to eat very often, but I can't eat too much in one sitting, so I guess that's why I need to eat so often in the first place.

Riddeck
23rd August 07, 07:46 AM
I can't. I usually eat breakfast at like 7am, get to work by 8:30ish, then lunch is at noon. But at around 10 I NEED sustenance. One time when I decided to wait it out, I almost fainted. I need to eat very often, but I can't eat too much in one sitting, so I guess that's why I need to eat so often in the first place.

Simply the best way to feed yourself on a daily basis.

Money
23rd August 07, 08:50 PM
Yeah, lots of smaller meals throughout the day is the way to go. I was bitching about people who eat big meals and snack on crap in between.

Plus I was drunk and ranting, so it's a wonder that I made any sense at all.