But what also drives overeating is our “sweeth tooth” fixes; we evolved wanting to eat berries (sugar) and hence are drawn to sugary things. I think overeating on carbs is obviously different physiologically than overeating on fats/protein.
Physiologically = profound impact on insulin management, triglycerides (for example)
Saw on Gary Taubes’s blog sight that had wrote a little extra about the NYT’s article, plus added his latest cholesterol test results.
“Before sugar, we were talking about cholesterol”
http://www.garytaubes.com/2011/04/before-sugar-were-talking-about-cholesterol/
From the blog post:
"Iâ??ve been tied up the past month, finishing and closing my New York Times Magazine article on sugar and high fructose corn syrup, It came out in the newspaper today. But before the sugar article took over every spare minute of my life, my wife, Sloane, a source of wisdom and humor (and patience) in the family, strongly suggested I get my blood lipids checked and post the results for those who were dismayed or discouraged by my choice not to do so on the Oz show. Sloane wasnâ??t the only one to suggest this was a good idea. Some of those commenting on my blogs were insistent, to put it mildly.
So it took me awhile to get to a Quest lab with a prescription. Then it took another week for the results to come back. That was three weeks ago. Now I finally have the time to post them. Keep in mind as you go through these that I do indeed eat three eggs with cheese, bacon and sausage for breakfast every morning, typically a couple of cheeseburgers (no bun) or a roast chicken for lunch, and more often than not, a ribeye or New York steak (grass fed) for dinner, usually in the neighborhood of a pound of meat. I cook with butter and, occasionally, olive oil (the sausages). My snacks run to cheese and almonds. So lots of fat and saturated fat and very little carbohydrates. A deadly diet, according to Dr. Oz. Without further ado, here are my numbers,"
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
He says overeating is THE problem…but he says it tells us nothing to help us solve the problem. The question is “what CAUSES these people to overeat?” They certainly aren’t wanting to overeat. [/quote]
I’m really liking your posts. Another great point.
People scream about portion control, self control, willpower. Its not natural. We’re meant to eat until we’re full - to do otherwise is unnatural.
It goes back to sugar being habit forming. People overeat on a diet full of sugar. Obesity rates in america didnt skyrocket till sugar go in eveyrthing - did people “suddenly” lose all their willpower w/r/t food?[/quote]
I don’t have it in front of me right now, but I read some more of Taubes’ stuff last night where he claimed that childhood obesity wasn’t about plummeting activity levels and skyrocketing caloric intakes, but specifically about the amount of sugar and carbohydrate in the diet. If I remember correctly, he also tried to assert that public school PE and health education have kids moving and exercising more now than ever and that children today obese in spite of that. My girlfriend read it (she is halfway through her masters in Phys Ed) and spit up her drink laughing at that notion.
Exercise is actually a shitty way to lose weight, especially with such an overabundant amount of food we have today. Yes I said it, and I will say it again.
The idea that exercise is a main factor at weight loss or management is probably mediocre at best, because the game of “catch-up” never reaches equilibrium. It could take you a few minutes to wolf down a candy bar, but over an hour of hard exercise to burn it off. What I think exercise does it keep our natural weight management machinery working efficiently. I also think that naturally “non-fucked with” food is also the main driver behind a well oiled calorie burning machine. I see this time and time again, when I go home to visit the family.
I see plenty of what would be considered a high carb intake, full-fat cream and milk consumption, smoking, wine consumption, yet lack of gym attendance or Dunlap Syndrome (where the belly done lap over the belt), because sugary consumption is minimal. If you tried a sweet pastry from Europe, you would find it to be more buttery in taste than anything, with a very mild hint of sugar usually from fruit.
It is both my belief, my observation, and my experience, that the lower your circulating insulin levels the better.
Stick with carbs from mother nature, she is a bad bitch, do her wrong and she will wreck your shit.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
He says overeating is THE problem…but he says it tells us nothing to help us solve the problem. The question is “what CAUSES these people to overeat?” They certainly aren’t wanting to overeat. [/quote]
I’m really liking your posts. Another great point.
People scream about portion control, self control, willpower. Its not natural. We’re meant to eat until we’re full - to do otherwise is unnatural.
It goes back to sugar being habit forming. People overeat on a diet full of sugar. Obesity rates in america didnt skyrocket till sugar go in eveyrthing - did people “suddenly” lose all their willpower w/r/t food?[/quote]
I don’t have it in front of me right now, but I read some more of Taubes’ stuff last night where he claimed that childhood obesity wasn’t about plummeting activity levels and skyrocketing caloric intakes, but specifically about the amount of sugar and carbohydrate in the diet. If I remember correctly, he also tried to assert that public school PE and health education have kids moving and exercising more now than ever and that children today obese in spite of that. My girlfriend read it (she is halfway through her masters in Phys Ed) and spit up her drink laughing at that notion.[/quote]
Yeah, nonsense about the schools.
But, yes, people are eating more. And they’re eating more because there’s sugar in everything. Even if sugar didn’t have such a low toxic threshold, the simple fact that it leads to overeating makes it bad.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Exercise is actually a shitty way to lose weight, especially with such an overabundant amount of food we have today. Yes I said it, and I will say it again.
The idea that exercise is a main factor at weight loss or management is probably mediocre at best, because the game of “catch-up” never reaches equilibrium. It could take you a few minutes to wolf down a candy bar, but over an hour of hard exercise to burn it off. What I think exercise does it keep our natural weight management machinery working efficiently. I also think that naturally “non-fucked with” food is also the main driver behind a well oiled calorie burning machine. I see this time and time again, when I go home to visit the family.
I see plenty of what would be considered a high carb intake, full-fat cream and milk consumption, smoking, wine consumption, yet lack of gym attendance or Dunlap Syndrome (where the belly done lap over the belt), because sugary consumption is minimal. If you tried a sweet pastry from Europe, you would find it to be more buttery in taste than anything, with a very mild hint of sugar usually from fruit.
It is both my belief, my observation, and my experience, that the lower your circulating insulin levels the better.
Stick with carbs from mother nature, she is a bad bitch, do her wrong and she will wreck your shit.
[/quote]
Exercise as in getting on a treadmill for 30 minutes a day is a shitty way to lose weight.
However, spending all day in class with no recess or PE (this is happening) and then sitting on your ass playing video games, watching tv, or getting online instead of going out and playing, working menial “kid jobs” like mowing lawns and delivering papers, or participating in sports is an even shittier way to avoid becoming obese, especially when all of the sedentary activities allow and even encourage the consumption of high calorie convenience foods whereas the non-sedentary activities don’t.
I’m not talking about exercise, per se. I’m talking about activity throughout the day. Short and specific bouts of exercise (especially at low intensities) doesn’t do much for fat loss, but the difference that even moderate levels of daily activity make over being totally sedentary (which is what many kids now are) in terms of weight control is huge.
MODOK, here is the article:
http://hive.slate.com/hive/time-to-trim/article/its-not-about-the-calories
Chok full of shitty research (self reported intakes by the overweight and obese over SEVEN YEAR periods? Please.), shaky conclusions, and outright misrepresentations and omission.
"The truth is, the conventional wisdom about why we get fat is simply wrong. It’s not about energy balance; it’s not about “overconsumption of calories” or “taking in more calories than we burn.”’
So energy balance doesn’t apply.
“The fact that this fitness revolution happened to coincide with the beginning of the present obesity epidemic is mostly a coincidence, but it certainly speaks to the idea that getting kids to move more is not the answer.”
Implying that people are getting fatter in spite of increasing activity levels, which is entirely untrue given that American daily activity levels (including but not exclusive to exercise) have plummetted over the past 50 years, ESPECIALLY amongst children.
"A conspicuous example of how these kinds of diets fail is the Women’s Health Initiative, the largest and most expensive nutrition trial ever conducted. The researchers enrolled nearly 50,000 mostly overweight or obese women into the trial, chose roughly 20,000 of them at random, and instructed that group to eat a low-fat diet, rich in fruits, vegetables, and fiber. These women were given regular counseling to motivate them to stay on the diet. If we believe what these women said they were eating, they also cut their average energy intake by well more than 300 calories a day.
The result? After seven-plus years on the diet, these women lost an average of one pound each (PDF). And their average waist circumferenceâ??a measure of what the diet-book authors like to call “belly fat"â??increased. This suggests that whatever weight these women lost was not fat but lean tissueâ??muscle.”
Self report studies (knowing full well that people have been shown time and time again to under report intake)? Check.
Totally unrealistic timeframe? Check.
Trying to draw a conclusion based on a horribly designed study using differences in data that isn’t even statistically significant? Check.
Of course, Taubes ends his article with a statement about how high sugar snacks and sodas should be minimized or eliminated. I’m not interested in arguing with that. It’s the stuff in the middle portion of the article that I’m taking issue with.
Here’s my vote for the most interesting (active) thread on this site in some time.
U’m not picking a side here, though I am liking the what Taubes is saying and Modok you seem to be supporting him quite well.
However, Modok you say “from 1970s-90s men increased their caloric intake 150 cals/day”. That right there 150 cals/day may not seem like much but as you know per day after a year will lead to weight gain regardless where those calories are coming from except maybe if it was protein and all men were hitting the weights hard. Which lets face it, vast majority are not. Granted, the excess is in the form of carbs so, it’s an increase in carbs, but calories as well.
that’s what I get typing before 9am, pardon the bad grammEr
[quote]MODOK wrote:
LOL You aren’t interesting in arguing about the central thesis entire fucking reason the guy picks up a pen ( eliminating refined carbohydrate ), but you want to try and pick apart a study on exercise? Have at it.
This wasn’t just any study, it was the Women’s Health Initiative. He isn’t exaggerating when he said it was the largest and most expensive nutrition study ever conducted at the time. Taubes didn’t design the study, the NIH did. This study was considered extremely important at the time it was conducted in the field of epidemiology and it is still the study that we refer to in treating post-menopausal women with estrogen replacement.
I guess your agenda is that physical activity has declined ( and people eat more of EVERYTHING, which I will shortly dispell) and that has been a main contributor to this obesity “epidemic” we have. At least thats what I’m getting from your trying to go after Taubes on his physical activity point. Well, you are going to have to square that assertion with a few facts. First, the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillence System, the people who actually TRACK physical activity, state that Americans were NO LESS physically active in 1999 than they were in 1990 (the data for 2000-2009 is yet unavailable). Also, this trend of obesity began when we as a country began a huge exercise boom in the 1970’s. In 1975, revenues for the health club industry were 200 million (adjusted for inflation), in 2005 they were 16 billion. That far outpaces population growth.
Furthermore, obesity is the MOST prevalent in the lowest socio-economic class of our country, which by nature must be do the most laborious manual labor to earn a living. Obese women are 6 times more likely in the lowest socio-economic class than the highest. 30 percent of poor women, 5 percent of rich women, with 16 percent middle class obesity. These observations have been confirmed all over the world, in ALL ethnic groups. If exercise were the answer, don’t you think manual laborers would have an advantage in obesity?
One thing I’d like to bring back up that you tried to get away with the other day was you stated that “Taubes says we have been eating LESS fat, but we AREN’T. He’s monkeying with the numbers!” Oh, is he? I found the damn NHANES data (National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys) for the 1970’s-1990’s. American men increased their daily caloric consumption from 1970-2000 by an average of 150 calories per day. BOTH the average percent AND the total fat consumed decreased for men. Men ate 50 calories less of fat in 2000 than they did in 1970. (Women however ate 50 calories more, but their percentage of fat also decreased ).On top of that, saturated fat dropped from 53 g/day in 1970 to 50 g/day in 2000. According to a 2004 report issued by the CDC in regards to this data they said the increase was “attributable primarily to an increased carbohydrate intake”. There you have it, straight from the wolf’s mouth. We are eating, as men, 50 g of carbohydrate more a DAY. That is the change. I have no idea where you got your data, but obviously NHANES and the CDC are pretty damn reputable.
[/quote]
I’m not interested in arguing with his assertion that kids eat too much sugar. I agree. I’m interested in arguing with his out of the ass conclusion that caloric intake matters less than carbohydrate intake and that energy balance does not apply.
Health club revenues are probably the most insignificant statistic you’ve posted in this thread so far, since their preferred method of operation is to enroll members and then not have to see them ever again, reducing wear and tear on their facilities and equipment. I’ve seen figures quoted as high as 80% for nonattendance amongst gym members, but don’t quote me on that as I can track down the actual study. 6 month drop out rates come to roughly 50% and attendance averages out at 4.5 visits per month.
Serious LOL at your implication that the lower class obese are out doing manual labor. Do you not get out much? The unemployment rate for the low end of American incomes is 31%…funny how close that number is to the 30% obesity that you quoted.
According to the CDC, non-leisure physical activity has fallen by 5% from 1988 to 2008 and the CDC statistics you cited only show median percentage, so I don’t see exactly how that is relevant. The USDA reports average calorie consumption has rose by 523 calories/day from 1970-2003, with a 63% increase in fat and oil consumption, 43% increase in grain consumption, and 16% increase in sweetener consumption. Fat intake amongst women actually increased (direct from the report: “Total fat intake in grams increased among women by 6.5 g”). I noticed you only focused on saturated fat consumption, which conveniently lets you sidestep the fact that overall fat calorie consumption rose, from your CDC report: “The decrease in the percentage of kcals from fat during 1971–1991 is attributed to an increase in total kcals consumed; absolute fat intake in grams increased.” Fat intake as a percentage of intake fell, but this is irrelevant given the fact that total intake did not remain constant. Of course, all of these CDC figures are based on dietary recall surveys, which have consistently been shown to result in heavy under reporting of intake. NHANES is the best we’ve got, but that doesn’t mean you can ignore the obvious limitations of the data and given the contradicting data from the USDA (which supports the premise that the CDC self report information is under reported), I think it’s safe to assume that the CDC numbers are low ball figures at best. Under reporting has been shown to occur at anywhere from 21-53% in the obese and even normal bodyweight subjects have been shown to under report up to roughly 40% of the time.
Being that we’re currently building a house and I’ve been around “Mexicans at Home Depot” a good bit, I can tell you for sure that I see “pudgy little Mexicans” at the hole in the wall where I like to get fajitas and NOT at the home depot. None of the workers at the construction site are overweight or obese. I’ve got a close family friend who recently retired from a multimillion dollar landscaping business, and none of the Mexicans he employed were significantly overweight or obese. This is playing into your own personal stereotypes far more than it is reality.
I’m not trying to imply any sort of widespread conspiracy, but it’s cold reality that the more members a health club enrolls that don’t show up and contribute to wear and tear on facilities/equipment, the more money they make. I posted statistics that illustrate the fact that the average attendance amongst gym members is abysmally low at roughly once per week:
Fairly certain we are looking at the same report. I don’t know where you go the “90% of the increase in calories came from carbohydrates” because that’s not what I’m seeing. From 1950 to 2000, the average American’s added fat intake increased from 44.6 to 74.5 lbs per year, an increase of nearly 60%. Consumption of cheese nearly quadrupled. Grains and sugars contributed to roughly half of the 24.5% increase in calories in the American diet, with added fats and oils contributing a little over a third. The 13.5% increase in carbohydrate calories is nowhere near being 90% of 24.5% total increase in calories.
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
A 2002 USDA survey indicates that only 13% of those surveyed even monitor their caloric intake. A 2000 Roper Reports survey indicates that 70% of Americans 18 and up eat entirely ad libitum.
My point is that the obesity epidemic is the result of a plethora of confounding social and physiological factors that all boil down to people being less aware of what they are eating, less concerned with what they are eating, eating more and moving less. Taubes’ general line is that it’s NOT about energy balance and that it all boils down to carbohydrates. That’s the rub.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
U’m not picking a side here, though I am liking the what Taubes is saying and Modok you seem to be supporting him quite well.
However, Modok you say “from 1970s-90s men increased their caloric intake 150 cals/day”. That right there 150 cals/day may not seem like much but as you know per day after a year will lead to weight gain regardless where those calories are coming from except maybe if it was protein and all men were hitting the weights hard. Which lets face it, vast majority are not. Granted, the excess is in the form of carbs so, it’s an increase in carbs, but calories as well.
[/quote]
Thats true on its face, but it isn’t the real premise of Taubes thesis. His assertion is “what is causing the increased consumption?” Hormonal control is “messed up” due to increased refined carbohydrate consumption and its influence on energy storage in the body.[/quote]
makes sense, sugar creates a cyclical pattern of over-consumption.
94% of all statistics are made up 
let’s face it people are consuming more calories these days, and from working with people one on one, I’m going to say those excess calories are primarily from sugar.
It’s everywhere and people if they eat breakfast is carb based, if they eat lunch and they are overweight it’s usually carb heavy (sandwiches), dinner is typical meat, veggie starch.
just my observations
Freakonomics analysis:
Pudgy Mexican contractors = always on the move, overworked with not much time for lunch breaks = fast food! = CHEAP food = poor nutritional quality = fat, carbs that are tasty and gratifying after a long today without much break / not much protein
More caloric intake disproportionate to the amount of physical activity increase = “energy imbalance” = fat accumulation = adipocytes that CANNOT physiologically speaking go away; always there for easier fat storage = higher tendency to store fat
Do you both (MODOK, Stronghold) agree?
Also, with respect to the indigenous tribes, aren’t we just talking about greater access to food (artificially higher yield when compared to subsistence farming > less effort, more food > more consumption) and lower cost due to mass production? That’s all I’m seeing here.
Not saying hormones have nothing to do with it.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
94% of all statistics are made up
let’s face it people are consuming more calories these days, and from working with people one on one, I’m going to say those excess calories are primarily from sugar.
It’s everywhere and people if they eat breakfast is carb based, if they eat lunch and they are overweight it’s usually carb heavy (sandwiches), dinner is typical meat, veggie starch.
just my observations[/quote]
You sound like those diet “gurus” who become guest speakers on Dr. Oz and wake up the soccer moms with “carbs are evil!” talk 
But the way you state that insinuates a false relationship between carbs and obesity. It’s like when Shugart says someone lost 20 lbs of FAT --because his waist SHRUNK!–when, really, they probably lost 6-8 lbs and the rest water, glycogen, muscle. Seriously, you will not be able to tell what proportion of the weight was FAT mass just because your pants are a little looser. That’s absurd. The best way to know for sure is to do the bodpod/dunk tank test, which is at least scientific.
Your observations only illustrate the abundance of carb sources and their prevalence in our diets. Abundance = cheap = easy access, easy to overeat. Technically, if meat was just as cheap and eaten in the same quantities (calorically equal), people should still gain weight, because carbs and protein have the same cals per gram of energy. Well, that’s my thinking and it’s probably not entirely accurate, because protein requires more calories to process it (up to 30%) so higher TEF.
I am going to argue that energy balance in the body is interrupted by the shit food that people eat.
I also think that this debate has some blurred vision when the talk of carbs and sugars is mentioned. When someone mentions carbs, I think of oatmeal, potatoes, yams, stuff we would consider physique and health friendly foods.
When someone mentions sugar, I think of candy, soda, and all that bullshit.
A study that mentions that an increase of 500cals/day from carbs should be more specific in what kind of carbs were consumed. Are we going to assume that it was physique friendly foods that were eaten? Or was it most likely cookies, chips, soda, and shit like that? Most likely it was shit food, but since no accurate info was given, all carbs were lumped into this finding (which is misleading to say the least.) If 90% of those cals were from healthy carbs, we are talking about an extra 112 grams…from healthy carbs? With all the fiber that they have?
That study was flawed to begin with for this very reason. It assumes that all carbs are equal, with equal effects on the body and it’s hormones.
I also would like to argue that this applies to fats too. I have personal seen people eat more lard, yes I said LARD, than anyone should even have to look at, and be as thin as a rail and healthy as a beast.
Come on guys, I am all for science, and I love gettin’ all sciency n’ shit, but let’s keep in mind the foods we should be eating and what we are programmed to eat, versus what some corporate prick says we should eat.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
94% of all statistics are made up
let’s face it people are consuming more calories these days, and from working with people one on one, I’m going to say those excess calories are primarily from sugar.
It’s everywhere and people if they eat breakfast is carb based, if they eat lunch and they are overweight it’s usually carb heavy (sandwiches), dinner is typical meat, veggie starch.
just my observations[/quote]
You sound like those diet “gurus” who become guest speakers on Dr. Oz and wake up the soccer moms with “carbs are evil!” talk
But the way you state that insinuates a false relationship between carbs and obesity. It’s like when Shugart says someone lost 20 lbs of FAT --because his waist SHRUNK!–when, really, they probably lost 6-8 lbs and the rest water, glycogen, muscle. Seriously, you will not be able to tell what proportion of the weight was FAT mass just because your pants are a little looser. That’s absurd. The best way to know for sure is to do the bodpod/dunk tank test, which is at least scientific.
Your observations only illustrate the abundance of carb sources and their prevalence in our diets. Abundance = cheap = easy access, easy to overeat. Technically, if meat was just as cheap and eaten in the same quantities (calorically equal), people should still gain weight, because carbs and protein have the same cals per gram of energy. Well, that’s my thinking and it’s probably not entirely accurate, because protein requires more calories to process it (up to 30%) so higher TEF.[/quote]
good luck overeating protein in comparison to carbs
I can house 2,000 cals easy of chocolate chip cookies, steak not a chance in hell
btw- after reading this thread, my 2 FINiBARs, scoop of SWF and 2 scoops Surge Recovery is makin me feel guilty, guess should workout later huh
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
94% of all statistics are made up
let’s face it people are consuming more calories these days, and from working with people one on one, I’m going to say those excess calories are primarily from sugar.
It’s everywhere and people if they eat breakfast is carb based, if they eat lunch and they are overweight it’s usually carb heavy (sandwiches), dinner is typical meat, veggie starch.
just my observations[/quote]
You sound like those diet “gurus” who become guest speakers on Dr. Oz and wake up the soccer moms with “carbs are evil!” talk
But the way you state that insinuates a false relationship between carbs and obesity. It’s like when Shugart says someone lost 20 lbs of FAT --because his waist SHRUNK!–when, really, they probably lost 6-8 lbs and the rest water, glycogen, muscle. Seriously, you will not be able to tell what proportion of the weight was FAT mass just because your pants are a little looser. That’s absurd. The best way to know for sure is to do the bodpod/dunk tank test, which is at least scientific.
Your observations only illustrate the abundance of carb sources and their prevalence in our diets. Abundance = cheap = easy access, easy to overeat. Technically, if meat was just as cheap and eaten in the same quantities (calorically equal), people should still gain weight, because carbs and protein have the same cals per gram of energy. Well, that’s my thinking and it’s probably not entirely accurate, because protein requires more calories to process it (up to 30%) so higher TEF.[/quote]
If abundance expressed by cheapness were the answer to why people overeat then we wouldn’t see the poor being more obese on average than the wealthy. If I’m rich, then all food is cheap and available to me including meat so naturally I should be eating 9 steaks per day and getting the same diabetes as the person who is poor for whom only soda is cheap and available.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
This is why I didn’t want to bring studies into this debate. I’m looking at the data right in front of me off of OVID. I can’t post a link due to it being restricted to membership. I see no sign of your numbers.
JehovaF makes the best point about statistics. Its just not worth our time if we can look at the same report and see such vastly different numbers. Like I stated pages ago, this will all come out in the wash over the years. Science has a tendency to separate the wheat from the chaff. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens.
You’re a good guy, Strong. Thanks for the discussion over the last few days. I have enjoyed it.[/quote]
It might be possible to take a screen shot of the data on your computer and upload the picture.