Look How Quickly the US Got Fat? (1985-2010)

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by F4mandolin Fries just aren't the same since they took the addicting loving flavoring out...

This reminds me of a local place that proudly states its fish and chips are fried in nothing but pork and beef fat.

[DeborahB]

Thanks to a glance at books at Costco, I'm reading "Wheat Belly". The thing that really struck me was this:

"... women of that era [1950s and 1960s] typically weighed in at 110 to 115 pounds, men at 150 or 165 pounds..." "The women of that world didn't exercise much at all." "...the increased consumption of....this genetically altered thing called modern wheat - explains the contrast between slender, sedentary people of the fifties and overweight twenty-first century people, triathletes included."

I am only 1/3 of the way through the book so forgive me. But the point he's made so far is that they genetically engineered wheat to be shorter and produce more per acre. It staved off famine but it did something to the grain. It affects our metabolism in ways that 1950s wheat did not.

There's a lot of info and data in the book but basically he says that the wheat we are eating is different in some serious ways. I haven't figured out if he's okay with organic brown rice.

So - anyhow I'm slowly losing weight on a very low carb diet. But when I went on vacation for a few days, despite seriously eating only what I should (in restaurants) - I stopped losing completely. What they put on the food is a mystery - steak and salad? But it stopped the diet (not because of calories). So it works when I'm home but not otherwise which is a real pain.

I have become one of those people who can't lose without cutting carbs out. A pity, I bake great bread.

[sengsational]

Interesting point that Davis makes about wheat. Maybe there's a market for heirloom wheat, hehe. I wonder if anybody saved any seeds. We could do a study! Who says there's nothing to do in retirement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinker25 .. I'm slowly losing weight on a very low carb diet. But when I went on vacation for a few days, despite seriously eating only what I should (in restaurants) - I stopped losing completely. What they put on the food is a mystery - steak and salad? But it stopped the diet (not because of calories). So it works when I'm home but not otherwise which is a real pain.

They could have slipped sugar into things, but you sound like you're an experienced enough VLC'er to not get fooled by that. I'd say, then, that you're probably still burning the same amount of fat, but your fluids are probably just getting jacked around a bit. At home, it's stable, but when you're on vacation, it's changed. Also, if you're exercising more, muscles that are used more get more puffed up and weight a bit more. I try to ignore the single measurement on the scale, and instead read the five day moving average.

[JoeWras]

Doesn't smoking factor into this somewhere? 50's and 60's were huge smoking times. "Have a Lucky instead of a sweet."

I don't think it is simple as one item. There's a combination of many things converging on this obesity epidemic.

[DeborahB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sengsational Interesting point that Davis makes about wheat. Maybe there's a market for heirloom wheat, hehe. I wonder if anybody saved any seeds. We could do a study! Who says there's nothing to do in retirement.

Actually there is someone with an organic farm growing heirloom wheat. I don't know that it's for sale but I have a grain grinder attachment for the kitchenaid mixer.... That's where Davis got the wheat to study.

[DeborahB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWras Doesn't smoking factor into this somewhere? 50's and 60's were huge smoking times. "Have a Lucky instead of a sweet." I don't think it is simple as one item. There's a combination of many things converging on this obesity epidemic.

Nothing's simple in obesity. But this guy talks about marathon runners who have to watch their weight...

I just discovered if I'm 5'2" I'm obese and if I'm 5'3" I'm "overweight" per BMI - no way to enter 5'2 1/2" which is what I am. I shrank.

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinker25 Thanks to a glance at books at Costco, I'm reading "Wheat Belly". The thing that really struck me was this: "... women of that era [1950s and 1960s] typically weighed in at 110 to 115 pounds, men at 150 or 165 pounds..." "The women of that world didn't exercise much at all." "...the increased consumption of....this genetically altered thing called modern wheat - explains the contrast between slender, sedentary people of the fifties and overweight twenty-first century people, triathletes included."

Is there any scientific proof of these claims?

Correlation is not Causation. Often people who have a desire to prove something make the mistake of assuming Correlation is Causation.

[DeborahB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut Is there any scientific proof of these claims? Correlation is not Causation. Often people who have a desire to prove something make the mistake of assuming Correlation is Causation.

There is a lot of scientific data in the book. I'm not a biochemist and have no idea what it means. But the author is an MD. It's pretty convincing.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinker25 Quote: Originally Posted by Chuckanut Is there any scientific proof of these claims? Correlation is not Causation. Often people who have a desire to prove something make the mistake of assuming Correlation is Causation. There is a lot of scientific data in the book. I'm not a biochemist and have no idea what it means. But the author is an MD. It's pretty convincing.

Gotta agree with Chuckanut here. There may be a lot of data, but that doesn't mean that the data leads to any firm conclusions. I've found that many of these books like to present a LOT of data, seems that it impresses a lot of people. But does it mean anything?

It smells very fishy to me. OK, so the wheat has been bred to be shorter/sturdier for a bigger crop. Did the grain itself change in any measurable way? Can we measure a change in the digestion of this wheat in humans?

If it is responsible for a measurable weight gain, there ought to be something we can measure in the grain itself. And how many calories worth of wheat do I eat in a day? An adult might take in 2000 calories, and I'll guess I eat the equiv of ~ 3 slices of bread a day (sometimes at breakfast, sometimes a sandwich at lunch, sometimes pasta or bread with dinner - but not every time or every meal). So maybe 300 calories out of 2000 from wheat? That would have to have some big effect. Doesn't make sense to me.

Dean Ornish is an MD too. Does he say to cut out wheat? Other MDs promote a low carb diet. I don't think being an MD is 'proof' that one approach is better than another.

-ERD50

[DeborahB]

Please don't shoot the messenger! But the book is interesting. Try it. As I said, I've only read 1/3 or so of it.

I saw a PBS special recently on the women's movement and there was old footage - and we were THIN then. It was really apparent. Not just the young college kids.

Of course, I grew up with a mom who stayed her college weight her whole life (don't you hate people like that?). I got my dad's genes and easy weight gain.

[braumeister]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinker25 "... women of that era [1950s and 1960s] typically weighed in at 110 to 115 pounds, men at 150 or 165 pounds..." "The women of that world didn't exercise much at all."

So what has changed since then?

Again, the answer is obvious if you look at published photographs in any newspaper or magazine. Back then, nearly everyone wore a hat whenever they went outdoors. That changed completely, as any glance along a busy street will show.

Put your hat back on and the weight will quickly melt away. Surely that's obvious?

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinker25 Please don't shoot the messenger! But the book is interesting. Try it. As I said, I've only read 1/3 or so of it. I saw a PBS special recently on the women's movement and there was old footage - and we were THIN then. It was really apparent. Not just the young college kids.

Who is 'shooting the messenger'? It pays to be skeptical. There are all sorts of claims being made on all sides.

As was said - "Correlation is not Causation". You seem to make a lot of the supposed correlations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinker25 There is a lot of scientific data in the book. I'm not a biochemist and have no idea what it means. But the author is an MD. It's pretty convincing.

This confuses me. If you have no idea what it means (you are not alone - most of us are not capable of understanding a lot of this), how can it be convincing?

-ERD50

[Notmuchlonger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sengsational I might have thrown a "refined" in front of it, but yeah. Things that ARE poison are hydrogenated fats. My personal (unsubstantiated) theory as to why the low fat thing got such traction (and made so many people obese and diabetic) is that dietary fat WAS making people sick and killing them! But in order to keep it simple, and to keep food producers happy, the message became "all dietary fat is bad", even though just the hydrodenated transfats were what was killing people.

I agree. Its incredible to me. I was on a high eat whatever diet. I got obese and out of shape. Then I switched to low fat and lost a great deal of it but it was a struggle. I always craved a fat of some sort. Once I switched to more fats and proteins along with green vegetables. I have done amazing. I have more energy and never feel the need that I need a carb like snack.

But to each to their own. Took me awhile to figure out what worked for me.

[Amethyst]

So did my Mother, but she worked at it. She was very petite, so she was careful about what she ate, and weighed herself often. She willed me her "beauty books" from the mid-20th century and they are full of diet and exercise tips. The main difference between her books and what women are told today? Back then, women were instructed to exercise, put on makeup, do hair, etc. in SECRET so that your man would think it was all effortless. (And remember in Gone with the Wind, Scarlett O'hara's Mammy feeding her a big dinner BEFORE the barbecue, so Scarlett would not be tempted to eat in front of men?)

Oh, and mom also smoked. She told me she took up the habit to control her appetite.

I continue to think that a big factor in today's obesity is that people no longer care if they are fat, and they have Internet support groups telling them they're right.

Amethyst

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinker25 Of course, I grew up with a mom who stayed her college weight her whole life (don't you hate people like that?). I got my dad's genes and easy weight gain.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amethyst I continue to think that a big factor in today's obesity is that people no longer care if they are fat, and they have Internet support groups telling them they're right. Amethyst

There are probably internet support groups supporting cannibalism. However weird someone is, the internet can show them how to become even weirder.

Ha

[sengsational]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha There are probably internet support groups supporting cannibalism. However weird someone is, the internet can show them how to become even weirder.

What do they call it? The "long tail"?

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sengsational What do they call it? The "long tail"?

That would be weird. A support group for those with long tails, or who imagine or are afraid that they may have long tails.

Whew! Glad I don't have that problem.

Ha

[DeborahB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Who is 'shooting the messenger'? It pays to be skeptical. There are all sorts of claims being made on all sides. As was said - "Correlation is not Causation". You seem to make a lot of the supposed correlations. This confuses me. If you have no idea what it means (you are not alone - most of us are not capable of understanding a lot of this), how can it be convincing? -ERD50

I'm not making correlations. I'm quoting. I'm not even making claims.

I can't explain the biochemistry to anyone but it is making sense to me, as far as I can understand it. So instead of this - "skepticism"? - read the book and draw your own conclusions. Or don't.

You're telling me it can't be true because I have not included a book here. I'm just sharing something I'm reading. I haven't said it's true. I've said I'm reading a book and this is what it says.

SHEESH!!!!!

And yes, I do feel somewhat attacked.

[JoeWras]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha There are probably internet support groups supporting cannibalism. However weird someone is, the internet can show them how to become even weirder. Ha

You guys are scaring me. I hope we're not a group of a bunch of weirdos.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinker25 I'm not making correlations. I'm quoting. I'm not even making claims. I can't explain the biochemistry to anyone but it is making sense to me, as far as I can understand it. So instead of this - "skepticism"? - read the book and draw your own conclusions. Or don't. You're telling me it can't be true because I have not included a book here. I'm just sharing something I'm reading. I haven't said it's true. I've said I'm reading a book and this is what it says. SHEESH!!!!! And yes, I do feel somewhat attacked.

You said: "It's pretty convincing." I was going by that. What else does that mean?

And I never said " it can't be true", I said I was skeptical. I'm the one who should feel 'attacked' - you are putting words in my mouth.

-ERD50