Fat Logic

[meg]

Is that a medical diagnosis-- "essentially allergic to processed food"?

 

[rustypouch]

There seems to be a great deal of energy being spent in this thread attempting to show that people can lose weight if they just eat less and move more. I'm certainly not going to argue against that, as it is most obviously true.

However, something I'm not seeing addressed much here is that there is a $160 Billion industry spending approximately $5 Billion/year to convince Americans that they should eat MORE fast food. Counter to the $116 Million spent advertising fruits and vegetables. Every one hour of television, (on most channels) contains 21 minutes of ads offering enticing fast food and crap food, Don't you want tacos right now? How about these crackers? Doesn't a pizza sound good? Crunchy crunchy chips! Our fried chicken is the best! Oooooohhh Ice cream!! $5 Foot longs! And the calorie content of these fast food meals has gone up year by year. Burgers are bigger, the size of the fries gets larger, the pizzas get heavier each year with more toppings and more cheese. (Some of which is due to help and encouragement from our own US Dept of Agriculture: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html )

Add to that the proliferation of frozen ready meals available at the average grocery. Not only can you get PF Changs entrees, or TGIF loaded potato skins, or name brand pizzas in the freezer aisle, the deli now is filled with cooked and ready to eat meals, almost all of which are designed from a seller's point of view, meaning full of hidden fat, salt and sugar, which people gobble up, that are certainly not “healthy alternatives”, even though it's easy to think that they might be better for you. All of these options get extra end space, extra advertising, and better placement in the store in order to make sure people notice them, because there's bigger money in advertising and more profit for the grocers in selling them vs regular old raw meat, fruit and vegetables. Even good old milk is doing its best to make us all just a smidge fatter by offering all sorts of sweetened and flavored products.

I don't think too many people would argue that the better funded campaign usually wins in this country. As I said above, there's almost Five Billion Dollars being spent advertising fast food. Not counting the chips, crackers, sweets and snack food industry, which are all pushing their own version of high calorie low nutrition snacking.

The question is, How does one counter this campaign? Are we really expecting the 70% of our population that is overweight to just individually choose to ignore this constant barrage of messaging and suddenly choose healthy eating? And succeed? Can someone provide an example of any time Billions of dollars were spent on any kind of messaging campaign, but the majority of Americans ignored it or chose against it?

Again, fast food is a $160Billion industry. The entire weight loss industry, including diet books, diet drugs, and weight loss surgeries is $20Billion.

Where and how is this Eat Less Move More message to compete with that?

I'd also like to add that we are working longer hours and have less free time, and that constant budget cuts and higher testing requirements in our schools are making more and more schools reduce PE and recess time, as well as eliminate some after school sports.

Numbers above taken from here:
https://www.franchisehelp.com/industry-reports/fast-food-industry-report/
http://www.fastfoodmarketing.org/
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/100-million-dieters-20-billion-weight-loss-industry/story?id=16297197

Agreed entirely.

While weight control is simple, but often difficult to put into practice, the food industry is trying to get us to eat as much as possible. It can be tricky to avoid processed and commercial food, and not everyone has the knowledge, or desire, to make the best choices.

I'm absolutely intrigued by what goes into commercial food. The recipes, additives, marketing, packaging... how a lot of it is designed to avoid the satiety response, the deceptiveness of some of it (calorie count for one serving on the package, but the package contains 2.5 servings, for example), how much work goes into the mouthfeel... I could go on.

What bothers me is when people avoid responsibility and accountability for their bodies. Weight and body composition is a result of eating and exercise habits, and people who claim that their dietary habits don't correlate to their weight just frustrate me. Blaming excess weight on genetics, conditions, or some factor outside the individual's control seems like making excuses.

 

[meg]

People stridently believe they are smarter than they are, exercise more than they do, and eat less than they actually do. We also resist information that counters our preconceived notions, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that most people blame their weight gain on something else.

What does surprise me is how many people seem to think blaming people for their weight gain will inspire them to change.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Is that a medical diagnosis-- "essentially allergic to processed food"?

I've been meaning to start a thread about this in Community, but I react badly to any kind of alliums (onions, garlic, chives, leeks) in even small amounts; I have reactions to food that is handled in equipment that handles allium products at any point in the equipment life cycle. Bulk bins used for BBQ corn nuts (or whatever) later used for raw cashews, or peanuts roasted in conveyor ovens formerly or occasionally sometimes to toast onions. Any product line such as breadcrumbs, spices, oil or vinegar that includes a garlic variant might get processed, stored, funneled or packaged on equipment that also processes the seasoned variant.

I can't eat store bought bread, I can't eat potatoe chips, I can't eat anything with peanuts, I even reacted yesterday to cold cereal, Honey Bunches Of Oats. The more ingredients a product has the more likely it has an ingredient that has been through something contaminated. Store brand products are more likely to be processed in smaller factories that handle multiple products. I've tossed a couple hundred dollars worth of spices, cooking oils, balsamic vinegars, canned tomatoes, tomato sauce and paste.

I had an allergy test and came up negative, so it isn't an allergy but an intolerance of some kind. Getting a formal medical diagnosis has zero cost benefit at this point, because I've spent several years hunting this particular wumpus already and there's no "cure" or treatment beyond avoidance of triggering foods.

Onion allergy is rare, something like 3% of everyone with allergies; the allergy doc acted like I was wasting his time to begin with, and was told to go somewhere random and pointless when the test came up negative.

/derail (sorry)

 

[meg]

When you say you react badly, or have a reaction, what happens?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

When you say you react badly, or have a reaction, what happens?

Something that feels like indigestion but goes away when I take an antihistamine. Itchy skin, hair follicle irritation, and the next day I get weird elongated hair follicles on my scalp that need to be plucked to end pain similar to having a splinter in your skin; these tend to run in a pattern that seems to correlate to the lymphatic system in the scalp. The inflamed follicles surround a central irritated spot that feels like a pimple but isn't.

Also, irritability and depression, presumably from the intestinal inflammation.

Plus irritability and depression from realizing I can't eat food, and irritability and depression from spending all frigging day on my feet in the kitchen making things like pasta sauce with a limited pallet of seasonings.

 

[GlennB]

Something that feels like indigestion but goes away when I take an antihistamine. Itchy skin, hair follicle irritation, and the next day I get weird elongated hair follicles on my scalp that need to be plucked to end pain similar to having a splinter in your skin; these tend to run in a pattern that seems to correlate to the lymphatic system in the scalp. The inflamed follicles surround a central irritated spot that feels like a pimple but isn't.

Also, irritability and depression, presumably from the intestinal inflammation.

Plus irritability and depression from realizing I can't eat food, and irritability and depression from spending all frigging day on my feet in the kitchen making things like pasta sauce with a limited pallet of seasonings.

I have every sympathy, but would it be fair to say that your rather lengthy series of problems with food shouldn't become a major element of a general discussion on "the fat problem"? If many were in your boat then, yes, fair enough. But they're not.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Yes, dear. Thanks.

 

[The Atheist]

There seems to be a great deal of energy being spent in this thread attempting to show that people can lose weight if they just eat less and move more. I'm certainly not going to argue against that, as it is most obviously true.

However, something I'm not seeing addressed much here is that there is a $160 Billion industry spending approximately $5 Billion/year to convince Americans that they should eat MORE fast food. Counter to the $116 Million spent advertising fruits and vegetables.

Most excellent post and analysis, and I agree with you all the way.

This is why it's so important to counter the myth that fast food is cheaper than fresh.

 

[casebro]

Something that feels like indigestion but goes away when I take an antihistamine. Itchy skin, hair follicle irritation, and the next day I get weird elongated hair follicles on my scalp that need to be plucked to end pain similar to having a splinter in your skin; these tend to run in a pattern that seems to correlate to the lymphatic system in the scalp. The inflamed follicles surround a central irritated spot that feels like a pimple but isn't.

Also, irritability and depression, presumably from the intestinal inflammation.

Plus irritability and depression from realizing I can't eat food, and irritability and depression from spending all frigging day on my feet in the kitchen making things like pasta sauce with a limited pallet of seasonings.

There is a gene for that.

When we eat, the stomach puts out histamine, which triggers the production of acid by other cells in the stomach. The histamine is then neutralized by an enzyme, DAO. (Di-Amine-Oxidase) in yout intestine. If you have the genetic lack for that enzyme, tooo much histamine gets into your system. You might read up on the < low histamine diet> , you may have discovered it experientially. Or a trial bottle of DAO, about $30.

If you think that may prove out, you can get your genes done at 23andme.com, for $100, then get the analysis form Promethease $5, and Livewello.com for $30.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If one of the qualifications is showing up, then they wouldn't be equally qualified.

Even men get sick on occasion. The woman is going to show up - just *statistically* less often than a man. That specific woman might show up more often then the average man... but because women *statistically* show up less often than men, you support denying her a position because of what she *might* do?

Does that seem reasonable or just to you?

 

[theprestige]

Even men get sick on occasion. The woman is going to show up - just *statistically* less often than a man. That specific woman might show up more often then the average man... but because women *statistically* show up less often than men, you support denying her a position because of what she *might* do?

Does that seem reasonable or just to you?

It seems both reasonable and just, when evaluating two candidates who are otherwise equally qualified, to consider statistical likelihood when making a hiring decision. But in the US gender is a protected class, so it's actually illegal to consider statistical differences between the genders when making hiring decisions. Fat people? Play the odds to your heart's content. Women? Better CYA with some non gender-related justification.

 

[marplots]

Even men get sick on occasion. The woman is going to show up - just *statistically* less often than a man. That specific woman might show up more often then the average man... but because women *statistically* show up less often than men, you support denying her a position because of what she *might* do?

Does that seem reasonable or just to you?

Of course not, however, we need to play the tape to the end of the reel. I dismiss those workers who show up less often, capturing both men and women on this basis. I assume you agree this is permissible.

But the effect, overall, is to do the thing I believe you would disagree with - fewer women overall employed, because they show up less often.

So, while it may seem to help when applied to individuals, the result ends up the same. This is, in fact, one of the problems with trying to equalize hiring between races. As an employer, I can say I will (and do) hire some minority, but don't hire people with a particular attribute found at a higher percentage in that minority.

A specific example would be not hiring people who have ever been arrested, knowing the likelihood of an arrest is higher in blacks. I can exclude more blacks on this basis, while escaping a charge of being racist.

We could work it the other way around as well. I may say I will hire anyone of any religion (or no religion at all), but I require my employees to show they donate 10% of their income to a local church. I don't care if they are religious or not, just that they donate. By finding an attribute I expect in one group over another, I am filtering out those I don't like in favor of those I do.

If I don't like fat people, I could stipulate I only hire those who commit to running a company 5K race on a monthly basis - we do this mandatory thing as an important moral builder, essential to our company's vision and mission statement. Now, I will hire someone who is overweight, but I expect this filter will lower the number of both applicants and long-term employees who are obese. It's not that they can't meet my standard, but are less likely to do so than my preferred employee.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If they are burning less than 5000 calories a day, yes..

I'm pretty sure that rabbit starvation is a thing.

Carbohydrates take more energy to convert to fat, than fat does, but fat provides more calories per gram than carbs do.. Eating excess calories in fat will lead to more weight gain than eating the same amount of calories in carbs.

I think you have this backwards. My understanding, which may of course be wrong, is that fat isn't converted to fat in the body. Carbohydrates are easier for the body to convert into energy than fats are - a gram of carbohydrates is more efficient a source of energy than fat is. But excess carbohydrates are stored in the body in the form of fat - consumed fats aren't stored as body fat.

My understanding is that if you eat the same amount of excess calories in carbohydrates, you will gain more body fat than the same calories consumed in the form of fat.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's a special case as the body has limited capacity for burning protein for energy (strictly speaking, a limited capacity for excreting the nitrogen content of protein). A pure protein diet would lead to death by starvation, no matter what the theoretical calorie content.

They're ALL special cases .

Not all calories are the same - not all calories are processed in the same way by our bodies, and not all have the same effect on us. The proper balance is required. Which why it's not *quite* as simple as "eat less and move more".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Homemade bread is very time consuming and only saves money if the baker is already unemployed. Same with dried beans, but less so. Home cooking is very time consuming. I have a food issue that requires me to avoid pretty much anything processed in mass production equipment and its freaking me out how many hours a week I'll need to spend for the rest of my life.

I feel you on this. I'm not quite as bad off as some people, and for that I'm grateful. But a lot of processed foods give me migraines - chocolate, nitrates & nitrites, MSG, pineapple, and wheat are all triggers for me. When I first went through the elimination process to identify them, I was pretty floored at the impact of having to do so much more cooking myself.

I highly recommend crock-pots, as well as bulk cooking on the weekends. I try to make sure that whatever I cook will feed me at least 3 days, and I often make much more than that and freeze it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

{edit to add} the word "mummified" above was not my intended word, but I'll leave it. I was aiming for YUM ified but the word got autocorrected.

Mummified works for me!

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have every sympathy, but would it be fair to say that your rather lengthy series of problems with food shouldn't become a major element of a general discussion on "the fat problem"? If many were in your boat then, yes, fair enough. But they're not.

Yeh - he didn't. he politely responded to a very direct question about his symptoms. His initial post was quite on topic. He simply said that cooking healthy generally means cooking at home - and that is horribly time consuming. He mentioned his intolerance as part of the impetus for him cooking at home, and how much of a shock the prep time has been.

 

[Prometheus]

I'm pretty sure that rabbit starvation is a thing.


I think you have this backwards. My understanding, which may of course be wrong, is that fat isn't converted to fat in the body. Carbohydrates are easier for the body to convert into energy than fats are - a gram of carbohydrates is more efficient a source of energy than fat is. But excess carbohydrates are stored in the body in the form of fat - consumed fats aren't stored as body fat.

My understanding is that if you eat the same amount of excess calories in carbohydrates, you will gain more body fat than the same calories consumed in the form of fat.

My understanding is that there are dozens of different chemical pathways available by which the body might store/burn/convert between macronutrients. Which of those a given individual's body tends to use under which conditions can vary quite a bit. Some people might tend to convert carbs to bodyfat more readily than they do dietary fat,

Regardless, burning more calories than you absorb is a necessary, but not always sufficient, pre-requisite to losing stored bodyfat. A previous poster linked a research review on bodyrecomposition.com . There are a lot of good articles on that site. Long and short of the argument: Both sides are right, and neither presents a complete picture.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

My understanding is that generally speaking the human body uses the easiest to digest calories first and stores the hardest to digest when intake overruns any of various hormonal triggers which vary by all metrics whereby humans vary.

I can attest that I started losing weight when I got out of the Guard and didn't have my monthly beer money. Alcohol is easier to digest than starch carbs and fats get stored.