ExiledInIllinois Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Interesting stuff here: Plastics... and other unusual explanations for the obesity epidemic Caloric Chemicals Another non-traditional explanation of weight gain is the environmental abundance of estrogen-mimicking chemicals, which are found in everything from shampoo to plastic water bottles. Known as obesogens, these foreign chemicals are thought to disrupt normal developmental control over energy balance and fat storage. Although still an emerging hypothesis, researchers know that widely used chemicals such as bisphenol A (BPA) can disrupt endocrine function. Toxicology data, all of it done on laboratory animals, has found that low doses of BPA, which is used in plastics, lining of cans, and baby bottles, can lead to adipogenesis, or fat cell accumulation. Other potential adverse effects of BPA have led places like San Francisco to ban it. Another potential class of obesogens is organotins, which are widely persistent organic pollutants. Because of their effect on the reproductive systems of marine wildlife, there is an international ban on their use in ship paint. However, they're still used in other applications, but their affects on humans health haven't been studied. Much more research on the role of obesogens in obesity needs to be done. A 2006 article on obesogens and health notes, "the roles of environmental chemicals in the etiology of complex diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease are currently poorly understood." Not time to seal yourself in a (paper) bubble just yet. While certainly these theories are just that -- theories, still in discovery mode -- they do present interesting hypotheses for why some people might pack on the pounds while others don't. While we know that food, exercise, and genetics are the crux of body size, we've also found other factors -- exposure to advertising, living in an unsafe neighborhood, and sleep patterns -- that contribute to weight gain. Like with many diseases, there could be many routes to the same outcome. But until they're figured out, I'll stick with the tried and true: exercising and eating my veggies.
RayFinkle Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Cut down on the high-fructose corn syrup, eat moderate portions, and excercise. WTF is with folks looking to blame sh--.
KD in CA Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Anything to mask the real causes of 99% of obesity: sloth and gluttony.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 17, 2009 Author Posted August 17, 2009 It is also people's economic sense... You get a lot of bang for one's buck eating cheaply! That is a natural consequence (feast and famine mentality) that people have to avoid.
BuffaloBill Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 this fails to explain why other cultures with access to "modern" plastics do not have the same levels of obesity as the US does. Let's not ignore the possibility that there are multiple contributors but the bottom line is that if you eat more calories than you burn over time you will become obese. It is as simple as that.
X. Benedict Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Anything to mask the real causes of 99% of obesity: sloth and gluttony. Did you just call Oprah lazy?
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 17, 2009 Author Posted August 17, 2009 this fails to explain why other cultures with access to "modern" plastics do not have the same levels of obesity as the US does. Let's not ignore the possibility that there are multiple contributors but the bottom line is that if you eat more calories than you burn over time you will become obese. It is as simple as that. Ya... Even the article says not to take it out of context. Even that, people react differently. With regard to other cultures, I say give it time... Already the problem (obesity) is rearing its ugly head in other culture.
Just Jack Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Anything to mask the real causes of 99% of obesity: sloth and gluttony. Now that's not true, it's really because..... oops, gotta go answer the door, pizza guy is here with my three larges for tonights dinner.
BuffaloBill Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Now that's not true, it's really because..... oops, gotta go answer the door, pizza guy is here with my three larges for tonights dinner. Is walking to the door the extent of your daily workout? .... excluding the beer lifts of course.
Fezmid Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Anything to mask the real causes of 99% of obesity: sloth and gluttony. It's funny that people realize there's an issue if someone has anorexia or bulimia, but people say overeating is purely a case of being lazy. I'm not sure how much of an issue plastic is, but who knows. I bet nobody would've thought red M&Ms caused cancer back in the day either. On top of the genetic issues, culture/society is a huge cause. Everyone's expected to cram so much into their day that eating a nutritious meal and finding time to exercise are very difficult. I know I work 10-12 hours a day, spend over an hour in the car commuting, and I need 6-8 hours of sleep -- so that leaves less than 3 hours of "free time," in which I'm supposed to eat and exercise... So people turn to quick meals -- stop at McDonalds or Burger King and you can eat while driving! Super size for only 30 cents? Sure, it's a deal! And deals like, "2 breakfast sandwiches for $2," only adds to the issue. There's some work being done to educate people with some nutritional value printed on bags and such -- but I guarantee that if you talk to people and tell them that a McDonalds bacon, egg, and cheese biscuit has 23g of fat and 1,160mg of sodium, most of them would be shocked. I know I was when I read that last year. And then, like Ray said, everything has high fructose corn syrup because it's cheap to produce. Let's face it, eating healthy takes a lot of time and planning, and it costs a lot more as well.
Booster4324 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 And then, like Ray said, everything has high fructose corn syrup because it's cheap to produce. The fact it is cheap to produce is why it is a problem. From what I have read, there is no other difference as far as how you metabolize it etc.
The Dean Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 The fact is it cheap to produce is why it is a problem. From what I have read, there is no other difference as far as how you metabolize it etc. There may be slight differences, but it is far from the only reason for obesity. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2...rise-in-obesity Fructose affects the body differently from glucose, another common form of sugar--for one thing, it doesn't stimulate a rise in blood insulin levels (diabetics use it for that reason). The researchers speculated that people tend to use more HFCS because it doesn't trigger the "I'm full" hormonal response produced by traditional forms of sugar (e.g., cane sugar, known as sucrose). I've also seen claims that it lowers levels of good cholesterol and raises the bad levels. I have no idea if this is true, though.
Chef Jim Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 It's funny that people realize there's an issue if someone has anorexia or bulimia, but people say overeating is purely a case of being lazy. I'm not sure how much of an issue plastic is, but who knows. I bet nobody would've thought red M&Ms caused cancer back in the day either. On top of the genetic issues, culture/society is a huge cause. Everyone's expected to cram so much into their day that eating a nutritious meal and finding time to exercise are very difficult. I know I work 10-12 hours a day, spend over an hour in the car commuting, and I need 6-8 hours of sleep -- so that leaves less than 3 hours of "free time," in which I'm supposed to eat and exercise... So people turn to quick meals -- stop at McDonalds or Burger King and you can eat while driving! Super size for only 30 cents? Sure, it's a deal! And deals like, "2 breakfast sandwiches for $2," only adds to the issue. There's some work being done to educate people with some nutritional value printed on bags and such -- but I guarantee that if you talk to people and tell them that a McDonalds bacon, egg, and cheese biscuit has 23g of fat and 1,160mg of sodium, most of them would be shocked. I know I was when I read that last year. And then, like Ray said, everything has high fructose corn syrup because it's cheap to produce. Let's face it, eating healthy takes a lot of time and planning, and it costs a lot more as well. So people go to fast food drive-thru so they can do what exactly with those three hours? And that's if they work 10-12 hours and commute an hour. Major !@#$ing cop out. And I sure see an awful lot of fat ass people that work no hours a day. What's their excuse?
Booster4324 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 There may be slight differences, but it is far from the only reason for obesity. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2...rise-in-obesity I've also seen claims that it lowers levels of good cholesterol and raises the bad levels. I have no idea if this is true, though. Whatever chemical differences there may be between fructose and glucose, the difference between HFCS and traditional sugar is slight. Both sweeteners contain both compounds, and in roughly similar amounts--table sugar is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose, whereas the most common form of HFCS is 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose. For what it's worth, Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and a frequent critic of the food industry, dismisses contentions that HFCS is uniquely to blame for the fact that we're fat. The researchers speculated that people tend to use more HFCS because it doesn't trigger the "I'm full" hormonal response produced by traditional forms of sugar (e.g., cane sugar, known as sucrose). I guess the less full thing could be an aspect, but I have no real clue. Seems like a small change in proportions to me though.
KD in CA Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 So people go to fast food drive-thru so they can do what exactly with those three hours? And that's if they work 10-12 hours and commute an hour. Major !@#$ing cop out. And I sure see an awful lot of fat ass people that work no hours a day. What's their excuse? Not to mention that it's just as easy to order a salad from McDs as a double bacon cheeseburger and giant fries. The 'it's society's fault' is pathetic bullsh--.
Just Jack Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 And I sure see an awful lot of fat ass people that work no hours a day. What's their excuse? Not knowing how to eat healthy. Saw it at the beginning of every month when people would get their new supply of food stamps when I worked at the grocery store. Carts piled high with chips, soda, very few fruits and vegetables.
Chef Jim Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Not knowing how to eat healthy. Saw it at the beginning of every month when people would get their new supply of food stamps when I worked at the grocery store. Carts piled high with chips, soda, very few fruits and vegetables. What's to know. Jesus !@#$ing Christ!! The government forces every food manufacturer to list the nutritional value on the package. It's laziness. It's easier to open a bag of chips than turn on the stove and actually cook something.
The Dean Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I guess the less full thing could be an aspect, but I have no real clue. Seems like a small change in proportions to me though. I don't have much info on this particular subject, but in general I find it a little misleading to compare the quantities of one ingredient in a natural or minimally processed item, to that in a highly processed or synthetic item. For example, the amount of ascorbic acid in a vitamin C pill may be the same as in an orange (for example), but it may be missing the natural excipients that occur naturally with the vitamins in the orange. So the vitamin C in the pill may not be as valuable as that in the orange, even though they are the same amount of ascorbic acid. It seems to me that, in general, there are likely some real differences in how the body reacts to highly processed and synthetic foods. But table sugar is fairly processed to begin with, so I imagine if there is a difference in this case, table sugar shares some of the problems of HFCS. Of course, this is all pretty much unfounded speculation on my part.
Fezmid Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Not to mention that it's just as easy to order a salad from McDs as a double bacon cheeseburger and giant fries. The 'it's society's fault' is pathetic bullsh--. Oh, you mean the salad that has 20 grams of fat and 920mg of sodium? http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionex...emDetailInfo.do Or maybe the salad that, while only has 9 grams of fat, has 90mg of cholesterol and 1,010 mg of sodium? http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionex...emDetailInfo.do Or how about the Burger King salad with 670 calories, 45g of fat, and 1,740mg of sodium! Or go "healthy" and get the grilled chicken salad instead of the crispy one and reduce your calories down to only 460, and your fat down to "only" 29g, your cholesterol to 95mg and your sodium to 1,450. Just because it's a salad doesn't mean it's good for you.
Fezmid Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 So people go to fast food drive-thru so they can do what exactly with those three hours? And that's if they work 10-12 hours and commute an hour. Major !@#$ing cop out. And I sure see an awful lot of fat ass people that work no hours a day. What's their excuse? What's to know. Jesus !@#$ing Christ!! The government forces every food manufacturer to list the nutritional value on the package. It's laziness. It's easier to open a bag of chips than turn on the stove and actually cook something. It's much more expensive to eat healthy than it is to eat unhealthy and as Jack said, a lot of people don't know how to buy healthy anyway. Not everyone's a chef, you know. Why are you getting so bent out of shape with the "!@#{:content:}quot; comments, anyway? Would you say the same thing about someone with anorexia? "Just get off your bony ass and eat a damn sandwich!" If you honestly believe that society/advertising/companies have no impact at all, then you're living in a dream world. There's blame to go all around.
Recommended Posts