Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Jan-18-23, 03:19
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,731
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default Cake in the office should be viewed like passive smoking

Quote:
Cake in the office should be viewed like passive smoking, says food regulator

Bringing cake into the office should be seen as harmful to your colleagues in the same way as passive smoking, Britain’s top food watchdog has said.

Professor Susan Jebb, chairwoman of the Food Standards Agency, also expressed frustration with ministers’ decision to delay a television watershed for junk food advertising, which she said led to a “complete market failure” that marginalised healthy products.

She urged doctors to be more willing to broach the topic of patients’ weight and offer diet help, saying it was bad for the nation’s health that medics “mostly ignore it”.

Jebb, professor of diet and population health at the University of Oxford and a member of The Times Health Commission, said it was not enough to rely on the “extraordinary efforts” of personal willpower needed to avoid overeating in a society that is constantly plying people with food.

Speaking in a personal capacity, she said: “We all like to think we’re rational, intelligent, educated people who make informed choices the whole time and we undervalue the impact of the environment,” she said. “If nobody brought in cakes into the office, I would not eat cakes in the day, but because people do bring cakes in, I eat them. Now, OK, I have made a choice, but people were making a choice to go into a smoky pub.”

While saying the two issues were not identical, Jebb argued that passive smoking inflicted harm on others “and exactly the same is true of food”.

She argued: “With smoking, after a very long time, we have got to a place where we understand that individuals have to make some effort but that we can make their efforts more successful by having a supportive environment. But we still don’t feel like that about food.”

The Times Health Commission is a year-long inquiry into the NHS and social care in England, which launched this week.

At its first meeting on Monday night, Lord Rose of Monewden, the chairman of Asda and former head of Marks & Spencer, suggested that workplaces should do more for people’s health. Rose, who undertook a review of the NHS for David Cameron, said that businesses already had to report efforts on equality, diversity and pay, asking: “Why don’t we lobby to say that also in that process as employers, we have a legal obligation to do something about our employees’ health?”

Two thirds of adults are overweight, including a quarter who are obese, a proportion that has doubled in the past three decades. By the time they start school, a fifth of children are already overweight, with most people in Britain now too heavy by the age of 25.

A succession of prime ministers have repeatedly rowed back on anti-obesity measures because of the apparent difficulty of reconciling the need to improve the nation’s health and reduce pressure on the NHS with Conservative hostility to “nanny state” measures.

Boris Johnson initially derided such policies but announced a crackdown on obesity in 2020 after accepting that being “way overweight” had contributed to his near-death experience with Covid. He set out plans to ban junk food advertising on television before the 9pm watershed and end “buy one get one free” (Bogof) deals on unhealthy products.

However, last month Steve Barclay, the health secretary, kicked the advertising ban into the long grass, pushing an implementation date back to 2025, beyond the next election.

Barclay, who is said to be resistant to bans and wants “more positive ways to promote healthy living”, must now consider whether to press ahead with the Bogof ban due to take effect in October. Labour has said it should not go ahead during a cost of living crisis.

Jebb told The Times that advertising of junk food was “undermining people’s free will” and insisted restrictions were “not about the nanny state”.

She said: “Advertising means that the businesses with the most money have the biggest influence on people’s behaviour. That’s not fair. At the moment we allow advertising for commercial gain with no health controls on it whatsoever and we’ve ended up with a complete market failure because what you get advertised is chocolate and not cauliflower.”

She said that the health service was so busy fighting crises in A&E, ambulances and waiting lists that we “never get into the root causes”, adding: “ We’re so busy mopping up the overflow from the butt that’s overflowing, we never get around to turning off the tap.”

Jebb urged the medical profession to warn patients when they needed to lose weight and offer them help in doing so.

“If a doctor comes across somebody with high blood pressure, they would feel, culturally, by training, by guidelines, by practice, that they must offer this patient treatment for their high blood pressure and explain to them why it was important,” she said. “At the moment, if a doctor comes across a patient who is overweight, they mostly ignore it ... The status in medicine comes from treating rare diseases with very expensive medicine and technology, and obesity isn’t either of those.”

However, Jebb insisted that obesity could be treated, citing “pretty cheap interventions [that] yield huge benefits”, such as NHS weight management programmes that have put type 2 diabetics into remission.

The problem, she said, was to change a “culture in which people, health professionals, doctors, and particularly the sort of powerbrokers in the system, are pretty reluctant to go there”. She added: “We can change that. We’ve changed it with smoking. It took a very long time.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...oking-5s3bzb3dn
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Jan-18-23, 06:27
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,675
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
She said that the health service was so busy fighting crises in A&E, ambulances and waiting lists that we “never get into the root causes”, adding: “ We’re so busy mopping up the overflow from the butt that’s overflowing, we never get around to turning off the tap.”


This is not the same meaning in American English, but she's right.

From my viewpoint, the US is even worse off because of our ridiculous health care system, the equivalent of an old car held together with duct tape. But medicine itself has become a patchwork mess. Because while medicine has been trying to advance, industrialized food has been changing our biology.

How can anyone study a population which averages malnourished, overweight, and inflamed? How can any science study the "normal" population now? They can't even be recruited from as a comparison, when there are so few actually healthy people left.

"Healthy" now means a person doesn't have any renewable prescriptions. Yet. Because nobody pushes drugs like the doctor who wants to get this middle-aged woman with her mysterious complaints out of his office. Dear heavens, no one has given her Lipitor, Prozac, and Ambien yet!

Yes, people are living longer than ever... but so often they aren't living like people. It's simply a testament to the toughness of the human spirit at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Jan-18-23, 09:57
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,764
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 116%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
How can anyone study a population which averages malnourished, overweight, and inflamed? How can any science study the "normal" population now? They can't even be recruited from as a comparison, when there are so few actually healthy people left.

There is the problem of our medical system being based on evidence collected on carb eaters. Burning carbs requires different amounts of vitamins and hormones than burning fat.
The same goes for our drug trials which could be much better if genetic testing was done to determine if the disease being treated is gene-related.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Jan-18-23, 11:02
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,863
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I agree about cake being like second-hand smoke. It was pretty awful in my office with all the sweets. Really took a lot of self-control to pass them by. Glad I'm retired now!
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Jan-19-23, 03:14
Ambulo's Avatar
Ambulo Ambulo is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,194
 
Plan: LerC, TRE, IF
Stats: 150/120/120 Female 64 inches
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: the North, England
Default

As someone who suffered a lot of passive smoking in my childhood (thank you parents, their friends and neighbours) both at home and in cars (vilest stink!), I find the analogy ridiculous. Calories, fat and carbs do not force their way into your stomach by walking past a plate. I also remember even 20 years ago some people requested a piece of fruit instead of the traditional cream cake for birthdays.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Jan-19-23, 05:20
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,675
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulo
As someone who suffered a lot of passive smoking in my childhood (thank you parents, their friends and neighbours) both at home and in cars (vilest stink!), I find the analogy ridiculous.


Yes, headlines were once to lure us in, but now they are merely something a person clicks on and doesn't read. Then they think they know stuff. It's a sad state of affairs.

But while I do agree "cake is passive smoking" is certainly an exaggeration, our food is a giant percentage of our problem: eating for my health has let me dodge drugs like this one:

Quote:
If you don't have prescription drug coverage, the list or wholesale price of COSENTYX as of July 2022 is $6,471.27 a month for either 150-mg or 300-mg dose strength packages, and as of July 2022, $3,235.64 for the 75-mg dose strength package.


But it's also the fact that such drugs relieve certain symptoms, but create new ones. There's lots of side effects, which the company website helpfully explains can be handled by taking more drugs, both OTC and prescription. The side effects which will kill you are described as "rare."

I even read a bizarrely cheerful study which concluded that patients on these drugs "usually acquire a secondary condition. But they die with it. It won't be what kills them."

Usually. However, there's always the chance an infection will get bigger because the immune system has been blocked from acting on a threat. By the time the patient realizes it's serious, it can already be too late. While many of the side effects are digestive, which is only going to make matters worse.

I have been reading a lot of women's illness memoirs (only because men rarely write them) and the latest crop shows that things have gotten worse out there. At least 75% of them were vegan/meat-avoiding, one while training for a marathon. That's the saddest part: they were trying to "eat healthy."

Some of them even noted the irony of them eating so healthy and then getting sick... but few actually explored malnutrition. They would go to dieticians and be told, "Welp, can't be your diet, you are so good."

One freelance writer had already been diagnosed by a national multiple sclerosis expert. He showed her a lesion on her spine on a scan. Then he offered a range of drug pamphlets. "Pick one and get started," she was told. And that was the extent of her "doctoring."

But like me, the side effects of all of them scared her into alternatives. She did get fast relief from her symptoms when she got a doctor who actually tested, and revealed a B-12 deficiency. Which is more than enough to cause her symptoms. She ate differently, and her symptoms went away.

The usual response would be "so then you never had multiple sclerosis!" Which is a good thing for her. Even though -- officially and for insurance purposes -- she still has it.

She discovered that she can't be UNdiagnosed. Because if she paid for another scan herself (the only solution since she no longer has symptoms) and it shows the lesion was gone it would still not be enough.

MS has remission periods and forever now, she still has it.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Jan-19-23, 13:25
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,863
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Yeah, cake (or sweets) is a drug to many people. I think it is fair to say you wouldn't leave opioids sitting around an office. They also don't provide cigarettes for employees either (to smoke outside). It is harmful and not everyone can control their response to such things. Having quit smoking leaving that temptation out and about while I was dealing with withdrawals would've been terrible.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Jan-24-23, 09:36
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,731
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

A couple of follow up articles in The Times:


Quote:
Cake debate is no laughing matter — seriously

Snigger at comparisons with passive smoking if you must, but only if you’re blind to the scale of our obesity crisis

Giles Coren


Yes, ban the office cakes. Obviously. The parallel with passive smoking made this week by the chairwoman of the Food Standards Agency, Professor Susan Jebb, is illuminating and apposite and I don’t understand the general outrage. Or the bizarre collective sense from the media that somehow the obesity crisis is funny.

Cancer isn’t funny, famously, and obesity is the second-biggest cause of preventable cancer in Britain. It increases the risk of 13 types of the disease we’re all most hysterical about and waste so much money trying to “cure”, including breast, bowel, womb, oesophageal, pancreatic . . . so why on earth, when a distinguished Oxford professor of diet and population health says bringing cakes into the office inflicts harm on others, is the universal response “Ha, ha, ha, but I like cakes, cakes make me happy”, and a load of stodgy pink recipes from desperate ex Bake Off contestants all over the TV news?

I have never been a big fan of cakes. Haven’t got a sweet tooth, although I do like cigarettes, illegal drugs and driving much too fast. But I don’t do them because they are dangerous for me and those around me. Although they don’t kill as many people in this country PUT TOGETHER as obesity.

You weep for the NHS in crisis, support the striking nurses and ambulance drivers (well, I do) and call for more money to be poured into the broken old socialist health dinosaur, but you don’t care that obesity costs it £6 billion (£6,000,000,000) every year, a total predicted to rise to nearly £10 billion by 2050. Which is an awful lot of nurses — 250,000, give or take. But, ha ha ha, you like a nice bit of cake in the office. So forget it.

Even people who are broadly cognisant of the scale of the obesity problem have argued with Jebb, saying: “But you don’t have to eat the cake, it doesn’t kill you by just sitting there in the same way passive smoking does.” But, a) I was never convinced by the passive smoking argument anyway — always reckoned it was a semi-fallacy whipped up (quite rightly) to hasten the end of smoking as a socially acceptable pastime; and, b) it does! It absolutely does.

Obesity kills by a conspiracy of silence, ignorance, corporate greed and corruption at all levels of business and government, just as tobacco once did. Despite all advice, there’s no movement on watersheds for TV junk-food advertising, product placement in shops or changes in packaging. All they’ve done is put calorie numbers on restaurant dishes which don’t mean a thing.

Look at the state we are in. This week alone we read in The Times about 16-year-old Kaylea Titford whose parents allegedly “killed her by letting her grow morbidly obese”, ordering five takeaways a week until she had a body mass index (BMI) of 70 and died “with maggots and flies on her body and milk bottles filled with urine around her bed”. And of Jeremy Clarkson, in his Sunday Times column, injecting himself weekly with a diabetes drug called Ozempic that has side-effects such as severe abdominal pain, gallstones and cancer and which some private quack has told him will suppress his appetite and help him lose weight.

That’s two people from the very top and the very bottom of the socioeconomic ladder dying, or misusing prescription drugs in the hope of not dying, from food they would prefer — if they could choose — not to eat. How is that not the same as passive smoking?

I have been campaigning about this for more than 20 years. Well, I say “campaigning”. I mean writing and making television programmes about it, always for money. I don’t do marching and shouting and civil disobedience. Partly because I have mouths to feed and partly because I think I reach more people my way. I’ve been doing it since half of British adults were overweight and a fifth were obese; now it’s two thirds and a quarter, respectively. And all I have met is anger, abuse and accusations of “fat-shaming”. From the right, because I seem to be after restricting people’s right to choose how they live; and from the left because, since obesity disproportionately affects the poor, I must be motivated by class hatred and snobbery.

In the main, I have tried to use humour and satire to make my point. In a documentary called Tax the Fat for Channel 4 in 2006, I advocated (quite preposterously) multiplying every UK adult’s annual tax liability by the square root of his BMI over 100 so that, literally, the fatter you are the more you pay. But it’s such an emotive issue that people go crazy and lose all critical faculty. The left took me seriously and said this would unfairly target the poor; the right took me seriously and said: “No new taxes.” But I was joking! Obviously! I was trying to say: “Look, it’s so bad we have to do something. This is clearly not it, so show me what you’ve got.” None of them had anything. They just went back to scoffing their office cake and complaining about funding.

In all the online lists of The Ten Worst Things About Giles Coren, “fat-shaming his son” is always around five or six (depending on what else I’ve been up to) because when Sam was four I wrote a column in Esquire magazine saying I didn’t care whom he ended up marrying or if he was gay or straight or what he did for a living, as long as he wasn’t fat. Again, it was satire, a look at where obesity sits in our plans for the future and our hopes for our children. But, at the most basic level, it is also true that I hope my child never suffers from a disease that will impoverish and weaken him and shorten his life. To say so was, and still is, considered outrageous. We are expected to show sympathy for fat people, above all. And I do! I have moved on from any notion I might once have had about personal culpability and now hold the government and “big sugar” (which pulled a nefarious con on the public by repositioning sugar as “energy” when it is, in fact, sloth, weakness and depression) entirely responsible. Which is why I am with Jebb all the way in calling on people to stop buying this poisonous shite in pretty packaging and forcing it into their ailing colleagues like corn down the diseased gullet of a Perigord goose.

An unrelated story in The Times on Wednesday celebrated a new wonder-drug proven to prolong the lives of mice, inspiring the dream (assuming we do all want to live longer) that it might work on humans. But do you know what is also proven to prolong the life of mice? Severe calorie restriction. Cut their intake by a third and they live up to 40 per cent longer. Before we plough billions into yet more drugs, shouldn’t we at least give that a go?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ously-wtshl0zw9



Quote:
Forget cakegate! We need to take obesity seriously

Susan Jebb, professor of diet and population health at Oxford, compared cake in the office to passive smoking. Here she explains what she meant and why we must break the pattern of overeating


I'm looking forward to watching the new BBC drama Marie Antoinette but was a little dismayed this week to discover that I have been labelled as her antithesis (“Don’t let them eat cake”, Jan 18). The article emerged from a new health commission being run by The Times explicitly aimed at trying to encourage new thinking and to identify solutions to the long-term problems in the NHS. Key to this is to prevent ill health before it happens. That has to start by our being able to discuss ideas — which has certainly happened regarding cake culture in the office.

We can’t escape the fact that we eat too much. There’s little dispute about that. The laws of physics tell us that when we put on fat, it’s because we’ve eaten more energy than we have burnt. But why has this happened? It’s easy to forget that, as a society, we did not always look this way. Pictures from the postwar years, or our own old school photographs, provide a striking contrast to the way we look today. Yet we have not substantively changed our genetic make-up in this time and it seems unlikely we have had a national collapse of willpower.

In fact we’ve gained weight despite our individual efforts to avoid it. In the Health Survey for England, about half of all adults report trying to lose weight and there is a booming weight loss industry. Yes, we make choices, but these are shaped by the world in which we live. Long working hours and extended commuting leaving less time to prepare food at home have been blamed for the rise in convenience foods at home — an argument given further credence by the increase in cooking from scratch during the pandemic when people were working from home. We eat out more, where meals have more calories than similar items at home. Coffee shops have sprung up on high streets, vending machines have proliferated in public places and it seems we are never more than a few strides from a bite to eat. Hungry or not, the sight and smell of food primes us to eat.

Alongside these macro-environmental trends, research conducted by my team in Oxford, and others, shows the effect of our micro-environment on food-purchasing choices in the moment. In one of our experiments, a supermarket removed Easter eggs and related products from the most prominent places in selected shops in the run-up to Easter, although the products were still available for sale elsewhere in the store. In other matched stores, these items were available as usual, including on the end of aisles by the tills. Prior to the experiment, sales of chocolate in both groups of stores were similar and in both stores, people were free to choose throughout. In the stores with less prominent positioning, people bought 12 per cent more chocolate leading up to Easter than during the preceding period, while in the stores with (typical) layouts they bought 31 per cent more. This translated into fewer calories in the baskets of people in the trial stores.

Would you perceive that you had made a different choice because of this change in the store layout? Of course not. We all like to think we are rational, intelligent people who make free choices, yet this and other careful trials show that our choices are often strongly shaped by the environment, even though as consumers we are unaware. And this has locked us into thinking that if we educate people more they will make healthier choices — and to overlook the idea that if we change the environment we might get changes in behaviour.

The importance of changing the environment may also help to reduce the marked inequalities in health. People with an underlying vulnerability to weight gain, perhaps due to their genetic make-up, are more susceptible to these effects of the environment. Take another experiment: children watched food or toy advertisements prior to a cartoon. Afterwards children were offered a choice of foods to eat before returning home. Compared with children who had watched TV with toy adverts, children who had seen food advertisements ate more. This priming effect was stronger in children who were overweight or obese than children with a healthy weight.

This vulnerability to the environment is also revealed when people are overburdened with other pressures. When we are stressed or distracted we make fewer healthy food “choices” and, in the moment, don’t have the brain space to consciously think what we are eating. For some this might be an occasional episode, for others it’s the reality of their everyday lives. Attention to what we are eating is a finite resource.

Many people blame the food industry for tempting us into poor diets, but it’s more complex than that. As Henry Dimbleby described in the National Food Strategy, we are locked into a “junk food cycle” where we eagerly purchase more of some things, perhaps due to our biological drive to select high-energy, hyperpalatable foods, and so the industry promotes these foods because they are commercially successful. New food habits develop and our social norms and food culture shift — that may be imperceptible in the moment but it is very evident if we cast our minds back a decade or two.

Research and detailed policy work has identified a raft of interventions that could be deployed to help to prevent obesity. Rightly, many of these policies aim to change the commercial environment, which is likely to need laws to protect the most progressive businesses from competitive disadvantage. But in large part these are opposed because we persist in believing that individuals have free choice — forgetting, perhaps, that the marketing and advertising of food is explicitly designed to manipulate that choice, but for commercial rather than health reasons. Nudges to reposition foods, reduce portion sizes or increase the availability of healthier options are all, in effect, attempts to protect us from the unconscious drivers of our own behaviour.

The thought I offer is that if we considered obesity as something that, at least in part, happens to us, we would know ourselves better and find a more effective way to tackle the problem than the simplistic and largely ineffective rhetoric that relies on telling people to eat less and do more.

Rates of obesity have more than trebled since the 1980s. Obesity is putting a strain on our bodies and a burden on our overstretched NHS with higher rates of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and an increased risk of at least 13 types of cancer. During the pandemic we saw that people living with obesity were significantly more likely to be admitted to intensive care with severe Covid infections. Obesity is a serious health risk.

Of course I’m not arguing that cutting back on cake in the office is the solution to obesity on its own, but it’s symptomatic of a culture where cake is no longer an occasional treat. Sweet treats are embedded in our micro-environments and are no longer occasional indulgences but the norm.

We need to talk about how we, as a society rather than as individuals, can break out of this ingrained pattern of overconsumption. Perhaps we might start by knowing more about what drives us — against most of our best intentions — to eat more cake than is good for us.


Susan Jebb is professor of diet and population health at the University of Oxford

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-2023-cgjnrkpw6

Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Tue, Jan-24-23, 19:37
Kristine's Avatar
Kristine Kristine is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25,647
 
Plan: Primal/P:E
Stats: 171/145/145 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Default

I really like her clarification and I've harped on "control your environment" for a long time. The hard part is what's out of your control - stores, your workplace, and other public and shared spaces.
Quote:
We can’t escape the fact that we eat too much. There’s little dispute about that. The laws of physics tell us that when we put on fat, it’s because we’ve eaten more energy than we have burnt. But why has this happened? It’s easy to forget that, as a society, we did not always look this way. Pictures from the postwar years, or our own old school photographs, provide a striking contrast to the way we look today. Yet we have not substantively changed our genetic make-up in this time and it seems unlikely we have had a national collapse of willpower.
Bold mine. I really like how Gary Taubes summed this up a while back - he said (to paraphrase) just saying people are obese because they eat too much and move too little is like the results of an FAA plane crash investigation simply saying, "obviously, the plane crashed because there was insufficient lift on the wings." No one would be satisfied with that. It doesn't answer the question, WHY?

Obesity isn't taken seriously as a societal/environment problem ("it's your choice/you're the one putting the food in your mouth") because it isn't catastrophic enough. Lung cancer is horrific, so we declared a societal war on smoking, personal choice be damned. You can still smoke, you just can't do it when/wherever you want anymore. Obesity, OTOH, is more insidious and accepted as inevitible, and there seems to be insufficient societal will to change culture back to declaring it rude to just eat anything, anywhere, any time.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Wed, Jan-25-23, 04:25
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,675
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

When the environment is nothing but "binge foods" it's no surprise when people develop an eating disorder. Dr Atkins observed, in all his books, that no one overeats steak.

This gave me new insight into how my body works, which is still paying off today.

Last edited by WereBear : Wed, Jan-25-23 at 05:53.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Wed, Jan-25-23, 04:49
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,433
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

To add to the outrage on the other side of the pond over The Times article about cake in the office: In the US on the news feature TV show 60 minutes, Leslie Stahl interviewed a doctor who blamed childhood obesity on “genetics” "it’s a disease" and advocated the prescription of Surgery! And Medication starting around age 13. Since it is a "disease" the new drugs that cost some outrageous amount should be prescribed like candy.

The reaction at first from low carbers was as you might expect. But it really blew up on Twitter a few days ago when this same "expert" was placed on the Committee for the 2025 Dietary Guidelines!!

From Dr Eenfeldt:

"Dr. Stanford will be shaping diet advice for Americans via DGA. She says obesity is genetic & eating better won't change it.

In the 80s US obesity was only 1/3 of today. Those obesity genes must have been far less common then.

Wonder how that works?"


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/weight...rug-2023-01-01/
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Wed, Jan-25-23, 09:06
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,308
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

There was as article in the Washington Post about these new guidelines. You probably need a subscription to read it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...tment-backlash/

To my mind these guidelines are criminal. amounting to child abuse on the part of the medical profession.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Thu, Jan-26-23, 08:17
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,433
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

File this under why am I not surprised:

Drug maker paid for “news” story on CBS’s 60 Minutes, doctors’ group alleges
Group alleges segment only had experts paid by drug maker, didn't mention risks.



https://arstechnica.com/science/202...-group-alleges/
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Thu, Jan-26-23, 12:44
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,863
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Jean, if you have a subscription you can gift an article. So here's the article Jean linked to on WaPo. https://wapo.st/3DkSOIq

As far as genetics and weight are concerned, maybe the genetics are about why doesn't everyone get fat eating all that sugar and starch? That is probably genetics.

Genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger. Most of us grew up eating lots of stuff that, combined with our genetics, made us fat. Some of us never had a chance since we were gestated in an mother that set up some of our epigenome to ensure we'd grow up fat. The epigenome can be influenced for generations.

It is all probably lots more complicated than people generally think about.

https://www.sciencealert.com/scient...ons-most-animal

Epigenetics is fascinating, forgive my pontifications. :-)

Last edited by Nancy LC : Thu, Jan-26-23 at 12:53.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Fri, Jan-27-23, 06:42
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,675
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC
Epigenetics is fascinating, forgive my pontifications. :-)


It's hugely fascinating, no worries

The New Zealand documentaries with Simon Gault (on Youtube,) on how their Indigenous peoples suffer more on the SAD, supports your comment. Our Southwestern Native Americans likewise found relief going back to their traditional diet.

Human powered methods, like Winston Price outlines in his work, seems to be the best way to treat plant sources. Sprouting and fermenting neutralize lectins, and I suspect that our industrialized foods probably skimp on that.

In addition to my issues with artificial anything, I have a similar low threshold with lectins and fiber. And we still don't really know what it means for a million year machine to run on the wrong fuel.

At this point, all we know is that it has been nothing but BAD so far.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:10.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.