Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obesity, lets cut to the chase shall we?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:09 PM
Original message
Obesity, lets cut to the chase shall we?
Edited on Tue May-12-09 09:10 PM by nadinbrzezinski
Reality is that we have many causes for this WORLD WIDE epidemic, or at least in the developed world and quite a few of the emerging economies... see Mexico.

Granted for some this is a matter of character and character flaws, so unless you want to actually ask some serious questions, and insist in your character flaw argument, I do ask you read no further since you will not like this at all.

There is a problem, a serious problem. Obesity has gone up to epidemic proportions to the point that our armed forces might have to drop their standards, wait, they did... last year. To the point that countries such as Mexico actually have a higher percentage of the obese than even the United States... yep happened last year.

To the point that for the first time in history the poor, who usually are all but well fed, have this scourge in higher percentages than the well heeled. Talk about paradigms on their heads.

We also have a society that is living under the new paradigm of highly processed foods. No matter how many times you try to tell me that I am dreaming this, our cheap food policy that encourages cheap prices for mac and cheese but oooh boy things like fruits and veggies are off many families reach has a smidgen to do with this. Yes, quite a bit of a smidgen.

Of course there is evolution... we are PROGRAMMED by nature to put on fat when food is available, for those times when food is not... we used to call them ahem famines.

So here is one stat I heard while visiting mexico and I bet it is the same here.

You see consumption of things like oh Sodas has gone up by 50% and fruits and vegies has gone down by 30%... yes, I can see it anecdotally with my niece. I used to eat fruit for desert and vegies for a snack. Like any good americanized diet kid, she has cookies for desert and ice cream for a snack.

So here is the point, we also have added a bunch of crap to our foods... check them labels, you are in for a surprise. Corn Syrup may also play havoc with the body. Yep there are minor differences in the sugars and perhaps how they are processed. And of course there is this thing about restaurant portions, and other issues.

Fact is, you can say whatever about exercise et al... but this has to also be treated as a social problem and a national policy issue. What we have at the food stores, and the prices is part of a national food policy... so get off that damn puritan high horse and realize things are a tad more complex than many folks think. Oh and I am not even getting into the emerging research into genetics, glucagon, glucose, insulin and syndrome X. Just looking at this from the point of view of social policy.

Oh and yes, for those who hold the idea that this is choice... if you are poor... no, it is not. You can choose to eat this crap, or not eat. Hell of a choice huh!

Oh and one final note, see my exercise machine... an investment in myself IS a luxury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. Here's an interesting show from the CBC
which puts some interesting spin on obesity and another possible cause for it: http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2006-2007/mp3/qq-2007-02...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. thanks listening to add
Edited on Tue May-12-09 09:23 PM by nadinbrzezinski
this should be required listening
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Just a brief heads-up . . .
. . . it links bacteria and viruses as possible causes for obesity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Which is one of the emerging elements of research
together with genetics and other stuff.

I know... of course this is several forms of obesity, will not explain all... multifaceted...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dgibby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
42. And I do believe I have all of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. wow that was a brilliant link thanks nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. Very cogent post....I'm sure you will take heat for it though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. every time I know
for some it is just cannot be part of our social policy... and we have free choice :sarcasm: choice is a luxury actually

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
islandgirl808 Donating Member (255 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
5.  "choice is a luxury"
very very true :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
110. It surely is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
7. The Armed Forces do something called "force shaping"--and they sometimes use the shape of their
troops to do it. They choose to enforce DOD regs, or not enforce them, depending on how badly they need them in uniform and doing the job.

There are servicemembers who have been promoted in the last eight years who would have been shown the door in the eight years preceding the Bushmess. The Cheney drawdown, that was crafted by Bush Senior's SECDEF and was fired up right before Clinton came aboard (and continued for a good chunk of that Presidency) used weight control as a specific cornerstone of force reduction. It also used "fitness" as a criterion, and extended the requirement to people over fifty, who used to be exempt from any kind of fatness or fitness requirements. They also made the advancement tests for enlisted much harder.

When personnel are no longer needed in Iraq and the 'Stan, they'll fire up the "Fat Boy" club, start getting serious about the Physical Readiness tests, and even make the advancement hoops harder to jump through. It's how it's done.

One thing they don't do is teach nutrition in boot camp (they're finally teaching "checkbook 101" but that's fairly new in the long range scheme of things, too) and they also could do more in the chow halls to help people make better choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Not even talking about that
the entry standards have been dropped, partly we need people... partly the armed forces are having a hell of a time finding recruits that meet the minimum standards. The Guardian, of course it had to be the Guardian, published the story last year
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Well, I brought it up because you discussed the military standards in your thesis.
With a smaller force, the way they manage the issue is to have the recruiters take a greater role in getting them down to "fighting weight" before they ship. However, in the current environment, the recruiters have to spend all their time beating the bushes to find bodies for the bus.

I noticed, even at the Pentagon, that very quickly post-Nahn Wun Wun that a lot of gundecking with regard to the whole PT nonsense was going on, and no one really gave a shit--and those guys used to be the most obnoxious when it came to that stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Of course the military has an off \ on policy depending on personnel needs
but if our epidemic continues we may have no choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. I think the biggest part of the problem is that people don't MOVE much anymore.
They sit and eat all day. When they go anywhere, they go in a car and park as near the door as possible.

When I go to Europe or elsewhere, where it isn't a "car culture" and people walk all over hell just as a regular way of life, I always lose a few pounds without even trying, and without even reducing my intake, in fairly short order, because I'm walking around like everyone else just as a part of the daily routine.

As a culture, we don't move enough--it's not just the high fructose corn syrup and the "supersizing," and the "too many carbs and shaky saturated fats," though that's a part of it--it's the fact that we don't get off the couch enough. Part of the reason for this is because neighborhoods aren't geared to walking--there's fewer "corner stores" that you can walk to for a jug of milk or a loaf of bread and a newspaper, and shopping is way too often done in massive "trunk fulla food" exercises.

I'm not talking about people going out to "jog," or "to the gym," or to jump on machines and sweat virtuously, I'm talking about walking to the store, walking home, walking to the bus, walking from the bus or train or trolley to work, walking to visit friends, walking to dinner, after dinner, going for a walk in the park....just simple, not-sweating-like-a-pig, walking that doesn't require special clothing or setting aside of "excercise time" to be virtuous. If you're doing that, you're going to be walking off the food you eat, and not even noticing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Yeah but in places like Mexico City where the car culture is not that
endemic the obesity rate makes the US look lame

The same goes for South America, so that is NOT the only answer.

I wish it were... trust me, I wish it was that simple
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. Is Mexico City all that friendly to walkers?
There's also an increase in diabetes due to overly processed food consumption and a huge increase in sugar consumption over the last century (and that's not even counting the HFCS).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. yes, even today
When I go down there to visit there are a couple neighborhood stores within walking distance, for example

And why I say that it is not just urban design (which is part of the problem in the US), but also what we have available such as refined sugars...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #38
128. Most Mexican cities are friendly to walkers
because so many Mexicans can't afford cars. It's still a relative luxury there, a middle class thing. Everybody else walks and takes the bus or subway if they're in one of the larger cities.

In fact, most cities outside this country are a lot friendlier to walkers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #27
48. Europe has a much cooler climate, as well.
Large parts of the US are too hot for people to walk safely for several months out of the year.
As in Texas, where an air conditioned house and air conditioned car are an absolute necessity due to the humidity.

One reason you have to have a car is that waiting for the bus can give you heat exhaustion. And the bus doesn't go where you need to go anyway.

Hell, I was in Fresno once in the summer and rode the bus and came home and got a splitting headache and threw up and felt awful. Heat exhaustion. It happens in dry climates too.

The people I was staying with would not drive me where I wanted to go. But that's another story.

I read about a person in Houston talking about their co-workers who flew in from Germany and had to work in Houston during the summer: "I saw people who nearly passed out on their way from the building to their car in the parking lot".



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #48
75. It gets mighty hot in Spain and Italy. It's scorching in Sicily.
It's hot in the middle east, too, getting over a hundred in many locales, and they do that walking thing in the cities as well.

Our country has a "workday" problem, too. We need to civilize that aspect, as well.

Your day starts early in these countries, before the sun is high in the sky. In the heat of the day, you nap. In the evening, you're back out on the street.

The workday is very different, too. You work early, you nap, you work late. You do two very distinct "shifts" rather than a "full workday."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. And even the eating routine is different
I am lucky, due to my hubby's schedule we eat closer to those countries, with our heavy meal at one to two, instead of at night
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demigoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #75
89. exactly, i lived in spain where it can get to 108 and that was before global warming
and the siesta was a necessity. I walked across town in the heat and scandalized a few people. They lived a much more natural life. Basing their habits on the weather. We need to have different schedules in summer and winter like they did back when people lived on farms and in small towns. We need to stop working like we do. My husband puts in 12 hour days winter and summer. And when we lived in France everyone had a full month off in the summer. August was just one big long vacation for the whole country. We need more of that here. Either that or send kids to school all year round and let them learn more completely than we do now with a 'learn it fast' attitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #75
187. we need a 6 hour workday
i started advocating for this in b school. it would make life so much easier for employers and employees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #48
145. I grew up in Dallas when not everything was completely air conditioned.
And I visited relatives in places like Brownwood and Wichita Falls, who had no air conditioning. Nobody was fat. We all ate fried chicken with cream gravy, ham and marbled beef. It was hotter than the hinges of hell and we put on the lawn sprinkler and ran around it...but there was not one obese person in my entire family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #145
147. Funny they are finding that our temp controlled environments
may also contribute to it, since keeping the house too warm in the winter prevents some caloric burn, and the same goes for the too cold in summer

We short circuit our systems...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #48
162. Many people succumb to heat exhaustion because they have become acclimated
to air conditioning. Air conditioned spaces may be more comfortable, but they are not an absolute necessity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #162
176. And some people succumb to heat exhaustion b/c it's too goddamn hot out there.
Headaches and nausea and all that.

Back in the old days thousands of people died from the heat of summer. But you won't read about that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hyphenate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
9. One of the ways that the poor try to survive
has always been by eating a lot of starches, which go a lot further in their propensity to fill the stomach faster. As a result, they get heavier per pound of carbohydrates in the starchiest category, a direct link to the reason more people seem to be developing type II diabetes. Cut out the starchier foods--a lot of which also fall into that processed food category--and the population won't be so stuck in the slow lane. But when you are trying to make food last longer, it's the starches which get you through a rough winter, or through a larger family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. and that my dear is our national food policy
Our policy has made starches dirt cheap, while fresh fruits, veggies and even whole starches are expensive.

That was my reference to our national food policy. Why we will need to have a huge change in what is encouraged and what is not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzy creemcheeze Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
229. But starches DON'T fill the stomach faster!
This is why Chinese food makes you hungry in an hour: REFINED CARBS in the form of white rice. White bread, stripped of its fiber, will do the same thing. Ditto white pasta...

Actually, people who eat a lot of processed foods are starving themselves. It has been said that the bloated bellies in Ethiopian famines are very much like the bloated bellies of obese people in the USA. The Americans may feel fuller, but they are starving for nutrients!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Believing Is Art Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
14. I have a problem with one thing you said:
"Oh and yes, for those who hold the idea that this is choice... if you are poor... no, it is not. You can choose to eat this crap, or not eat. Hell of a choice huh!"

It has the veneer of truth because eating healthy is trendy, but you can eat well on a small budget. There is a lot of cheap, healthy food out there. Society doesn't want us to believe this because they'd rather have the poor "fatties" keep buying their families buckets of fried chicken instead of making lentil stews and steamed veggies (bought frozen, not fresh - much cheaper).

Calling it an obesity epidemic is inherently flawed. It's true, yes, but then the answer to the problem it poses is for everyone to get thin. This is quite frankly impossible. Some of it is genetics and a lot is behavior (with socioeconomics to blame as much if not more than personal responsibility). We hear about these success stories of people going from 350 to 170, but they're the exception to the rule. Most obese people, even those with little or no genetic predisposition, would not be able to safely achieve and maintain a healthy BMI. To undo the years of poor health that got them there and then the yo-yo dieting that wreaked havoc on their systems is not often possible.

We should instead be focusing on ways to be healthy at any size. With good habits, some may lose a lot, a little, or none at all. But weight is not the only indicator of health. It may not be the ideal solution, but it is a much more achievable one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. While lentils are cheap, one of the few grains that are
for the most part what people can buy on little money is not that good for you, I am not talking of fried chicken, that is expensive actually. I am talking of your pastas, your mac and cheese, your really cheap bread.

Ramens for example, which are loaded with salt and other additives.

This is actually a national food policy. We COULD have fresh fruits and vegies be cheaper, if we chose to, and the same goes for some cheeses, and other good things... like whole grain breads.

This is not trendy, this is a national food policy. Oh and if you are on food stamps, go to the store and see what it will cover.

Just saying, but your apples are not in the list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Believing Is Art Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. It can be done, though
It takes some thought and creativity, I'll admit. Being a vegetarian, it's a bit easier for me. No, I don't get to include fresh fruits and vegetables as often as I would like but I make do with frozen. My point is, it's not impossible.

Being trendy and being a national food policy are not mutually exclusive. And right now, whole grains and "fresh" are trendy. It only exacerbates the price differential.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. But I am talking of a national food policy
We see it reflected in the buck menu at mickey Ds, they can afford that because of the national food policy, I am talking of the 69 cent mac and cheese box at the store... which is almost as bad as eating a stick of butter and a pound of sugar.

I'll go back to mexico for a second. It used to be that you could find affordable fresh fruits and vegies, even for the very poor, mostly they were subsidized, so people had tortillas, beans and chiles (the basis of the national diet for oh 1000 years at least), plus in season fruits and vegies. Not many but they were available

The national food policy went away from those subsidies... mickey ds is cheaper these days than some traditional foods.

We have the same thing happening here. We bring foods, from places all across, while with a different food policy we could have a healthier selection of food stuffs, that is also in season and fresh.

That requires a whole sale revision of our food policy and moving away from the monoculture in the midwest, for example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Believing Is Art Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. I'm not disagreeing that our food policy is hugely flawed
I'm disagreeing with the claim that eating healthy on a very small budget is impossible. It's not. It is hard, much harder than it should be, but it can be done. It should be easier and we should change our food policy to make it so.

The lower class could choose to eat healthier, but it would require much, much more work. So much more that it reflects the flaws of our system. But saying it's impossible is wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. I am not saying it is impossible
but it is so close to impossible that it might as well be. And that is by design... just like having this same group of people fall through the cracks of the medical system. It almost makes me wonder if this on purpose? And that leads to a whole different discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Believing Is Art Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #39
95. Okay, I thought you had said it could not be done in your OP
From my experience - and others in my position - I don't think it might as well be impossible. But it is hard and it takes commitment. It's easier without kids, too. TV tells kids what to like, and it's rarely healthy.

Getting people fat and addicted to the dollar menus is good for the fast food bottom line, but we were on the road to cheap, processed crap-passing-as-food long before we really understood the health implications. And now change would cost a lot of money in the short term even if it would reap bigger rewards in the long term. And it would make some very rich people less rich. The same problem we have with energy, health care in general, education, etc. Even politicians that really want to make things better worry about getting re-elected to their next term and that depends on the support of fat cats who profit off the status quo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #95
99. The emerging science and if we ever get single payer health care
will see changes in our food policy...

Then again there are days I don't think this country will survive, and I do hope to be on the right side of the border...

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #95
188. a lady approached me at the store few months ago
i was outside getting in my car, and i told her i couldn't help her when she asked for money. she walked away and sat on a bench next to a little girl, and my conscience got the best of me. i told her i didn't have cash, but i offered to buy her $40.00 worth of food.
so we go in the store, and she starts shopping. i should have told her that i would pick the food for her, but i didn't.
she picked fatty meats and processed foods...no fresh fruits and no fresh vegetables.
she told me she worked for macdonald's as an assistant manager, so she and her daughter got most of their meals from there. she also told me she didn't make enough money to have food until her next paycheck.
i took her number, but i didn't call her. but clearly this woman needs some information about diet and nutrition.
if i had shopped for her, she would have gotten some beans, rice, a couple of chickens and some fresh fruits and vegetables. i probably should give her a call to check up on her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #188
190. And one reason for her choice of foods
they require little cooking.

Many years ago we went to the lipid clinic, something about family history. One fellow patient worked at B. King, her lipids were scary... due to what that processed junk day in and out did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LooseWilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #39
221. I think it depends a lot on where you are, and where you can shop.
I lived in a Mexican neighborhood in Oakland, and the local produce store consistently sold produce for relatively absurdly low prices, in comparison with chain supermarkets, let alone corner liquor stores. I'm talking about prices like $0.25 for a cucumber, and $0.50 a pound for tomatoes, and $0.79 for a head of lettuce... and so on. Prices were usually at least double, if not treble at the nearby supermarket.
The conclusion I draw, and which I'll throw out for your consideration, is that it's not just a matter of any sort of national policy, or subsidies... it's also hugely an issue of corporate profit motives... I could blame the unions, and benefits for the workers, but I've always been more partial to assuming that the greatest share of blame should fall on the executives who tend to, in my opinion, overvalue their own contributions. Meanwhile, these little produce markets that were probably family run were able to make a profit (presumably) while selling products at substantially lower prices.

Maybe, instead of worrying about government policy, a concerted effort to organize a system of local outlets for locally grown foods might succeed at providing a source of cheaper and healthier foods... and provide more opportunities for local store owners, as well as a chance for growers to get around the probably lower prices they can get from the chains that buy in bulk and demand lower prices as a result.
The only subsidies that would be required would be to get word out that there are new alternatives to the chains that everyone's so accustomed to now...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #221
222. That is part of the national food policy
there is an effort right now to ahem get rid of local markets

Oh and those local markets at Auckland, I am betting are locally sourced... just like the farmer's market is locally sourced too


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LooseWilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #222
225. By national food policy, are you speaking of government policy?
Or are you amalgamating government policy, corporate policy, and entrepreneurial endeavors... and generally labeling all things "food" as national food policy?

When I hear/read the term "policy" I am inclined to think of a "top-down" structure for implementation of "policy"... whereas a farmer's market and/or other system of local marketing of local sources of food, especially produce, would seem like a system that could be coordinated "bottom-up", if there were enough organizers to allow such organization within whatever target timeline that might be dreamed up... in the event that a "top-down policy" was not implementable.

I'm mostly meaning to offer another potential approach, if you (or anyone else) are feeling activist enough to work at it despite inevitable corporate resistance at the "top".
And yes, I also assume that the markets in Oakland are locally sourced. I assume that markets have contacts with the laborers who work in the fields of CA... or maybe some independent farms... and that they are able to skirt the usual supply chains that are established by the agri-businesses and corporate supermarkets... and I presume that that is a model that might be worth investigating... though any involvement of a top-down policy mechanism is likely to insist on a standardized supply chain, which I assume would wind up duplicating all the problems/expenses that already add to the costs of supermarket foodstuffs.

I'm really just guessing though...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
57. Ramen has become huge with the food stamp users
I see it every time I go to the store. They sell Ramen by the case now, and food stamp folks buy a lot of it.
Jiffy Corn Bread mix is now sold in six or eight packs, and where you see Ramen you usually see Jiffy.

These are the folks who are trying to be responsible, and the same ones that some folks look at and say "Well she doesn't look like she's missed a meal." To which I say, "You eat what those people are eating and you'll be as big as a house too. You can't do lo-carb on food stamps."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. Oh trust me I know
every so often I go to the PX.. and more often than not I give a hand, from the special chief's fund... yes it is in the budget, for milk or fresh fruit, for a lower Enlisted with kids that cannot afford such ahem, luxuries. This is especially the case right before pay day.

More than once I am in line and they are literally in tears, putting the milk back... more than once I have put it back, told the cashier to put it on my tab and added a bag of fresh fruit. Hell done that at the regular store too, just far less often and mostly due to where I live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #16
84. Lentils are actually legumes. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #84
87. you are right, but you know the point I was making
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surrealAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #16
127. The problem is not really that we have a bad national food policy ...
... but that we don't have any national food policy (or any urban planning policy either). What we have is what the "invisible hand" of the market place leaves us. A million tiny decisions, no one of which is terrible, but taken as a whole, they are damaging to our society.
We have people in cities who have no access to fresh vegetables, and people in suburbs who can't go anywhere without a car, not because of poor planning, but because of a complete lack of planning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #127
134. Actually we do have a national food policy
and that is encased in the ag bill passed every five years.

In a nutshell it has made the midwest a nonoculture zone, which can and will lead to problems with land productivity sooner or later
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surrealAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #134
151. I disagree.
Our agricultural policy is about keeping farms profitable, without any regard given to what people eat. It's about business, not food.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #151
154. Read the AG bill, it is the US food policy
encouraging monoculture is a food policy.

Discouraging locally sourced food is part of a national food policy

FDA involvement in food is part of the food policy.

So is EPA.

What is driving this policy is the AG business, but it is policy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dgibby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #14
47. There are many poor neighborhoods that have no access to
fresh fruits and veggies due to high crime, drugs, etc. Real grocery stores move out,people can't afford to travel, so they end up buying processed/packaged "food" at the local 7-11. In fact, they don't have a choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonteLukast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #47
60. The odd thing is, a farmer's market in a low-income area...
... may decrease the crime there.

Of course, there's no accounting for conscienceless rotters who want to make everybody else afraid, but the kind of crime that has to do with basic survival would probably see their rates drop like a rock. It would work beautifully for those poor neighborhoods that have tight-kint social and family structures; who wants to rob or assault somebody you know, your friendly neighborhood market farmer? Obviously a lot less optimistic for areas with high disaffection and low social trust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backtoblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #60
119. I live in a low-income area which has a farmer's market.
A few times a year, people who get food stamps or WIC are given "vouchers" for the market. It is a wonderful idea since most of the produce is locally grown by the lower income people anyways!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Believing Is Art Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #47
97. I've managed to eat healthy off 7-11 fare
It sucks. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm lucky because aside from choosing not to eat meat, I'll eat just about anything.

There is still some element of choice, even though eating healthy on little money is a very hard one. But it's a fallacy to say it's impossible. Rather, say it's difficult, more time-consuming, with severely limited choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #14
117. Also, frozen vegetables nowadays are 'fresher' than 'fresh' ones
unless you grow them yourself or find a farmer's market. The "fresh" veggies in a regular grocery store have probably been sitting around for several days...frozen produce is usually frozen within hours of pickingl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
18. I couldn't agree more!
The dollar menu at Mickey D's is mighty tempting when you are poor.

You can easily eat out at a crappy place currently CHEAPER than you can make a decent meal at home.

The only antidote is to grow your own produce and quite frankly that isn't cheap either by the time you buy soil tests, seeds, fertilizers, plants, mulch etc.

We are currently planting veggies and herbs and I keep thinking just buying produce might be cheaper-this shouldn't be so expensive! :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theoldman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
19. When I was a kid during the great depression many people were poor.
There were very few fat people. Today poor people are fat. People are fat for one primary reason, they eat too much. You can throw in all the excuses you want. Very few people can put the blame on anything other than their eating habits. People in Somalia are not fat because they do not have enough to eat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Check your stats for obesity in places like Bolivia, Thailand, Mexico
and yes even Somalia

You may be in for a surprise and the WHO is concerned for a reason

And food policy has a place in the discussion, but I guess you didn't read paragraph two, let me repeat, it is more complex than just what you eat... we are now in the process of finding this out. and puritan excuses will go the way of the dodo. They are in the process of being replaced by this thing called Science, you may have heard of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Add in the diabetic rates
Diabetes was never such a wide spread problem back in the day--now it's like standard.

There is a reason this is happening and it's because we have a bunch of crap shoved at the poor and the middle class that not only makes them overweight -- it poisons them!

The other night I made *hamburger helper* -- I think it's VILE, but my daughter begged me to buy it.

Good God-- it was a dollar for the box but a nightmare in a box...I would not have eaten that under any circumstances (it could be asked why did I let my daughter eat it but she is a beanpole and burns of what she eats plus)

The stuff they market as cheap and easy is not cheap--not particularily easy and is hell on your system.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. When the researchers finally get to a workable answer
it is going to make the puritan types blush (oh no, not them) but it is going to make us wonder how the hell?

It is not just hamburger helper, it is a lot of crap that we have that is on purpose cheap, while the good stuff is not.

It is the plastics,

It is the chemicals

We have fouled the nest and I think we are finally getting sick from that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #36
44. I totally agree
I am of the opinion that if you could afford to eat only homemade mayo-- fry in olive oil -- fill yourself with homemade cultivated butter, cream, cheeses, the finest lean meats -- veggies, wonderful fresh fruits and on and on -- you would NEVER get fat.

Who would? Because every meal would be so rich and fulfilling and flavorful that you wouldn't instinctively WANT anything extra to bulk up with/on.

When I have weighed the least I have eaten the BEST.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
70. When you were a kid you ate real food. Not sodas. Not McDonalds. Not Snackwells
Pasta was not a staple. There was no high fructose corn syrup. No additives. No genetically modified foods. No 20 oz cokes. No 1400 calorie fast food "super value" meals. I will guess that you ate meat and potatoes and vegetables, bacon and eggs, fresh bread, real sugar, real fats, reasonable portions. Livestock wasn't fed antibiotics and growth hormones. There were no artificial sweeteners. The foods you put into your body came from the natural world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hansel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #19
217. And people are alcoholics because they drink too much.
And they can throw in all of the excuses they want. However, the medical community considers alcoholism to be a disease. Compulsive eating is also a medical condition. You need food to survive, but you don't need alcohol. There is no choice to simply not eat. This is a choice alcoholics have and most will tell you that they can't control their drinking if they have even one drink. So imagine a person with compulsive eating disorders having just one bite of food. Do you think that might have anything to do with it?

The bulk of the food we are provided is loaded with garbage that increases appetites and thus food purchases and thus corporate profits. That wasn't going on during the depression and they also don't have a lot of processed foods in Somalia. Do you think that might have anything to do with it?

Simplistic answers are not solutions. It's not about blame, it's about finding a solution. The cure for alcoholism is not to just say you drink too much, stop it. And the cure for obesity is not to just say you eat too much, stop it. Because overcoming obesity is significantly more difficult than overcoming alcoholism for the mere fact that you have to eat.

And people are not fat. People are people and some carry more fat that others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
22. Abstinence education and diet/exercise education have been massive medical failures
Edited on Tue May-12-09 09:51 PM by Juche
Asking people to stop having sex, stop eating high calorie foods and to engage in extra activity as a voluntary lifestyle change doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work is that any animal that does these things goes extinct pretty fast, so we have about 600-3,800 million years of evolution working against us. The biochemical pathways designed to prevent us from dying of starvation and not mating evolved long, long before the prefrontal cortex did, which is where things like higher reasoning and social functioning comes from. The only real cure for obesity is going to come from changing our biochemistry so we cannot get fat.

There is a group called 'health at every size' and they found that if you explain how healthy diet and regular exercise improve almost all physical and mental health parameters totally independent of weight loss, then people actually stick with them even if they don't lose weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_at_Every_Size

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15942543?dopt=abstra...

OBJECTIVE: Examine a model that encourages health at every size as opposed to weight loss. The health at every size concept supports homeostatic regulation and eating intuitively (ie, in response to internal cues of hunger, satiety, and appetite). DESIGN: Six-month, randomized clinical trial; 2-year follow-up. SUBJECTS: White, obese, female chronic dieters, aged 30 to 45 years (N=78). SETTING: Free-living, general community.
INTERVENTIONS: Six months of weekly group intervention (health at every size program or diet program), followed by 6 months of monthly aftercare group support.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anthropometry (weight, body mass index), metabolic fitness (blood pressure, blood lipids), energy expenditure, eating behavior (restraint, eating disorder pathology), and psychology (self-esteem, depression, body image). Attrition, attendance, and participant evaluations of treatment helpfulness were also monitored.

CONCLUSIONS: The health at every size approach enabled participants to maintain long-term behavior change; the diet approach did not. Encouraging size acceptance, reduction in dieting behavior, and heightened awareness and response to body signals resulted in improved health risk indicators for obese women.

So if you want people to improve lifestyle, you will likely have to explain it as a continuum and not an all or nothing intervention. Something as simple as eating fish 3x a week and eating whole grain, high fiber grains for breakfast everyday can make a difference. You also have to explain that almost all mental and physical parameters improve. Asking people to eat healthy and exercise as a vehicle for weight loss, and asking them to engage in changes they cannot sustain for 10+ years doesn't work.

Another possible factor in the obesity epidemic is the fact that we aren't smoking as much. Smoking is a good appetite suppressant, and the numbers who smoke has been cut in half in the last few decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. We are finding that viruses are involved, as well as genetics
additives and other stuff.

Yep the eat less, exercise more model as the ONLY response has failed. It is probably part of the answer, but not a large part.

Now what you suggest is intuitive eating, which does work. That is what naturally thin people do. and many of them graze all day.

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Another possible cause are manmade chemicals that mimic hormones
Edited on Tue May-12-09 09:54 PM by Juche
There are chemicals in plastics and other materials that can change levels of hormones like testosterone and estrogen, which affects bodyweight. People on anabolic steroids tend to lose weight, women on birth control tend to gain weight.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/child-obes... /

Suffice it to say it is complex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Yes, the more I read the more I go... fascinating
we fouled the nest.. and now are paying for it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. This is what I think the problem is
I had relatives when I was a kid who ate like pigs (all the fats, sugars and whatever else they felt like) they drank, they smoked-- they were thin and they lived to be old...but they always ate the heavy home made foods/nothing processed.

There is something that is being done now that is altering the way foods are absorbed-- I mean in reagards to processed foods.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #30
98. Testosterone burns fat. Estrogen builds fat.
Both women and men have declining testosterone as they age. Women need far less testosterone than men, but need it to be healthy just the same. The FDA will not approve a testosterone pill for women. They're afraid of all those strong, muscular, hairy, aggressive women.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #98
107. I'm a guy and I wouldn't want to take estrogen pills either
No thanks. Some of the changes are irreversible when you mess with your hormone levels. Go ask a competitive female bodybuilder for more clarification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildflower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #22
130. You have a really excellent point here
I've been thinking about this more and more lately. It seems to me our genetics are such that when food is available, we are programmed to eat whatever we can, as much as we can, because before food preservation, we didn't know when our next meal might be. And not just eat, but eat the highest calorie things available (sugars, fats, starches). Now, these things are available to excess. But we haven't gotten rid of that powerful biological urge yet.

Add to that attempts to starve ourselves, and the body tries even harder to conserve calories, and the weight eventually comes back on, plus more. It's interesting to note that the more the diet industry grows, the heavier Americans get.

I think there are many other factors involved too, but this is a big one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #130
219. From an evolutionary perspective, dieting should make people fatter
Especially chronic dieting. If your body is convinced that you are starving roughly 30% of the time, it is probably going to respond by getting fatter rather than thinner. Supposedly (don't know how true it is) sumo wrestlers starve themselves for a period before they gorge themselves when they want to gain weight. I guess their bodies have an easier time putting on fat after they deprive themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
23. Thank you very much for this
I've been trying to point out to the temporarily thin with such terribly superior morals for many years that something else is at work besides mere sloth and gluttony.

Epidemiologists have long noted that obesity here and elsewhere is following the classic pattern of an infectious epidemic, starting around the Gulf coast in the US and progressing from there. Obesity patterns around Central America are even higher than those here.

Another thing the temporarily thin with superior morals don't realize is that when obese people diet enough to lose weight, they often have to reduce their calories to a point that they get sick. They also have a hard time realizing that 90% of people who do lose weight, whether through a deficiency diet or even gastric surgery, will gain it back plus more within five years of achieving their ideal weight. We're not talking about the slothful and gluttonous here, we're talking about some of the most abstemious people on the planet.

Even Oprah Winfrey, the poster gal for the personal trainer and personal chef method of weight loss, has gained it all back.

If we are to survive as a species, we need to discard the lax morals argument and work to find the real cause of obesity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. I gave up on ideal weight a long time ago
I am happy with what I have lost already... but the more I read into it the more I find threads that make it a fascinating quilt,

Unthread this was posted, listen to this from CBC

http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2006-2007/mp3/qq-2007-02...

Epidemic disease, one of the threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
45. Oprah admitted finally that she has a thyroid problem.
However she refused to talk about it on her show. Her viewers have begged and pleaded for her to do a show on thyroid problems, particularly low thyroid, but she won't.

17 million people estimated in the U.S. to have hypothyroidism, most of it untreated or undertreated, 27 million total with thyroid problems. She should talk about it.

:banghead:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonteLukast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #45
58. Can you develop thyroid resistance...
... the way Type II diabetics have insulin resistance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. I think so
in the west of the US it is literally in the water...

Let me see if I can find the articles
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonteLukast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. What with all the pharmaceuticals in the water supply...
there's probably a potent goitrogenic stew there.

I also wonder if there's a connection between: BPA plastics and lower thyroid function. As well as between HFCS, trans fats, and the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. ah here we go
Edited on Tue May-12-09 11:15 PM by nadinbrzezinski
http://www.ewg.org/reports/thyroidthreat

http://8thsealcalvary.blogspot.com/2008/09/holy-jet-fue...

http://www.greendaily.com/2008/09/23/epa-wont-act-on-wa... /

Of course there are the actual in lit papers, you know peer reviewed and research is now happening in mice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NOW tense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
24. I changed my diet two months ago.
My Wife has, what we think is a gluten allergy. I got on board, because you should never leave your partner hanging. I have lost about 15 lbs. The best part is I don't think of it as a diet. It is how we eat now. We cut sugar out too, we switched to agave. We have been super busy and we haven't worked out for about a month. I have lost my constant hunger, my mood swings are limited, and I have more energy. We made a choice to do this because of my Wife's health. I have to tell you though, it has impacted my life for the better too.

Quinoa rules!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
33. i changed my diet last week
i gave up all products containing gluten based on a popular new diet book, "The Core Balance Diet".

i did it to stop menopause weight gain.

what i am finding out is that i feel BETTER than i have in quite awhile. like you i also feel more energy.

no more gluten for me!

i have been getting rid of the HFCS for a long time now, but also now abandoning artificial sweetners. me too with the agave, it works just fine.

i think there is something to this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NOW tense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #33
108. There is defintely something to it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roamer65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
37. One of the big problems in the USA is HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup)
Edited on Tue May-12-09 10:00 PM by roamer65
The stuff is POISON. I've given up beverages with the stuff and the difference is amazing. Much less acid reflux, and I feel light years better. I have switched to water and occasional sodas made from real sugar. There is NO substitute for real sugar, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Not only the US, but you are correct
As a diabetic I go for unsweetened teas these days. True story, splenda gives me the runs.

And I think that reaction is my body going... this junk ain't natural you know
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roamer65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. I understand your predicament with Splenda.
HFCS was causing me much more distress than even I realized. These chemicals are not natural and our bodies simply reject them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. Splenda has chlorine in it. Not good.
Equal is a neurotoxin.

I make my own iced tea and put real sugar in it. I stopped using Equal, and I have never used saccharin or splenda, b/c they do not taste like sugar to me -- they are bitter.

I rarely drink sodas b/c of the phosphoric acid which rots your bones.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #46
102. So does table salt
which is composed of a flammable, poisonous metal and a poisonous gas.

Chemicals by themselves might be very toxic, but in combination with others, they're benign.

Or didn't you take high school chemistry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dgibby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #37
51. Have you tried Stevia?
I love it, and you can grow your own in your herb garden. Great stuff!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Didn't like it, but I guess I will have to give it another try
or simply a little raw sugar, I know I can if I am very, very careful
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
handmade34 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #53
79. good post and important topic...
I have cut out all cane sugar and use Xylitol when I want a little sweet in my tea or lemonade - very good and low glycemic.

It isn't all national food policy but corporate marketing - it is very powerful and processed food makes commercial food producers a heck of a lot more money.

All that you have written about our food supply and diet is true and we are paying dearly for allowing ourselves to become so far removed from what is good for us.
It is processed food, additives in the food, chemicals in our water supply, too much fast food (esp.meat), not enough public open space to get out and play, poor sleep, economic oppression, etc... that contributes to obesity and poor health.

Yes, there are ways to eat much better (more cheaply) than most do, but we have not been taught, empowered, allowed, etc. to know how to or to do it. I am very fortunate and have crossed paths with a number of people that have shared their wisdom and I have informally studied food and diet for years. Thank you for talking about the subject and helping to inform others.

I encourage all to join or start co-ops to buy in bulk and share costs, recipes, ideas, walks, encouragement,... maybe even starting non-profits to produce, distribute good, healthy foods and supplies...

and everyone, please use cloth shopping bags!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #79
82. Don't leave home without my shopping bag
i have a nice collection of the damn things...

And I wish it was just the US... but it is not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #79
194. I think sleep is a HUGE factor
Research is showing that poor sleep is associated with overweight.

One reason I believe is that when you are tired, you may eat something - anything - to try to perk yourself up and get more energy. Sugary stuff is especially appealing because of the quick boost. But of course that quickly fades and you're still tired.

But sleep is not simply a matter of good habits, regardless of what some medical folks like to say. Some people can do all of the things that are on the list of good habits and still have trouble falling or staying asleep. There is too little research on sleep disorders and the medications that are out there don't address the staying asleep problem and have side effects, etc.

I think this is a very common problem that is not being adequately addressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonteLukast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. They make a diet soda with Stevia now!
I tried Zevia last week. The flavor still needs work-- it's nearly as bitter as saccharin-- but it has no chemical aftertaste and is a great idea all around. They just need to do some tweaking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #51
85. Don't like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonteLukast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #37
54. Why would HFCS...
Edited on Tue May-12-09 10:55 PM by MonteLukast
... give you heartburn, exactly?

I was always mystified that the foods that were "supposed" to give your heartburn, hot peppers etc., NEVER did with me. But any processed baked good was just about guaranteed to send me into flaming-chest agony with five minutes of consumption.

I'm just curious about the mechanism of it. I've heard something about encouraging the growth of harmful bacteria, but that's it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #54
156. Evil magic joo joo.
It's witchcraft, it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
90-percent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
49. One anecdote
I like drag racing and hot rodding. History is important in both communities. One thing I continually notice in all the old pics is how trim and healthy everyone looks in the circa 40's through 70's pictures. Being significantly overweight back then was unusual and now it's the norm.

Talk about UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES! high fructose corn syrup....eeeeewwwwwww


I'm trying more to eat fruits and vegetables. I notice almost immediately I feel a lot better when I simply eat an apple.

-90% Jimmy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonteLukast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #49
64. And even "thin" people have higher body weights now.
Nobody fits the insurance charts anymore unless they're Hollywood starlets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. There is actual talk of ahem changing the actuarial tables
by the way...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #68
183. they've already changed them at least once. changed the standards for
obesity & healthy weight, too.

also for healthy cholesterol, blood pressure & glucose level.

= more people defined as sick & bigger distribution for pharma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #64
72. Look at old films
Edited on Tue May-12-09 11:33 PM by Stephanie
Those actors were rail thin, and I don't believe it was starvation diets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #72
120. Most of them smoked
The rail-thin actors and actresses today? They smoke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
50. THanks for a mature discussion on this folks
and now to the exercise machine...

Good for the heart you know
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dgibby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Thanks for posting.
Lots of good info here. I've been fighting (and losing) the battle of the bulge since I was 10yrs old. Prior to that, I was so skinny I had to be forced to eat. Back then, people thought if kids were really skinny, then they must be unhealthy. Go figure!

When I was in the Navy, I spent 12wks in an inpatient "fat girls/boys" program based on AA/OA principles. Lost over 70lbs, ran 3miles/day, played tennis, swam laps, worked out, gained it all back + more. Now that I have several auto-immune diseases(including chronic thyroiditis and exercise induced asthma) and degenerative arthritis, it's even worse.

I'm leaning toward the bacterial/viral component, and I also think GM foods are not helping. All those steroids and antibiotics can't possibly be good for us, either.

So, what to do? I'm growing my own fruits/veggies, eating healthier by cutting down on salt, sugar, carbs. Hadn't thought about eliminating gluten, but what the heck, I'll try anything (within reason) that will help me feel better.

Thanks again for the post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. Oh you welcome I also was a very thin kid
as in thin. I started to gain in my teens...

Has been a battle ever since

The last straw was a medication for diabetes, one side effect... weight gain... lucky me

What has worked, has been intuitive eating. It is to the point that I can buy a bag of chips and it last for two to three days with two people at home... was not possible to do that before.

And intuitive also allows me to do shit like go to mickey Ds we no longer order combos or when we do, we share one... between two adults, confuses the living daylights out of the managers but hey...

I also graze throughout the day.

I know that women have a higher rate of thyroid in the US... and in the west it might be related to jet fuel in the water table, literally

Why I say we have spoiled the nest and now we're paying for it

As to my personal battle, gave up on ideal weight, already lost fifty pounds and maintained for three years, if I loose more, sure will take it, if not... well me and the doc are happy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dgibby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #55
62. Good for you. I'm always happy whenever anyone is successful.
It's not easy, so I know you've had to work hard. Keep up the good work! :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. What is funny is that once I adopted this intuitive eating habit
it is not a diet, and it is not work.

Sure I count carbs due to the diabetes, but after that... if I want an apple I have an apple, if I want burger king, I have burger king

Look for two things..

I can make you thin

The Gabriel Method.

It works... and it is not work... oh and it's not a diet either... that drives my sis the dietitian nuts, never mind she should follow the example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #66
122. I've been doing "I can make you thin"
I called a local hypnotherapist. He wanted $150 for half an hour. That's not going to work for us, especially since DH's been out of work since November.

I listen to the "I can make you thin" CD each night before I go to sleep. It's working. Slowly but surely, I see my eating habits changing. I don't feel deprived. I'm thinking about what I'm eating.

It's wonderful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
59. I've always had to fight my weight. I have wondered if it wasn't the milk.
Seriously, I grew up with "drink your milk". I'm not saying that milk is universally bad, just wondering if it doesn't trigger something in some people.

I can also go all day, or days actually without eating, and no problem. But once I start, I'll over do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #59
69. Have you ever been tested for lactose intolerance?
Serious... and it could be that simple... and if it is bad enough you will have interesting problems since a lot of products do have lactose in them

As to not eating you are actually triggering a normal body response, which explains why you binge.

We humans tend to go into starvation mode and then eat all in sight... just pointing this little thing. What works for me now to avoid that is to graze throughout the day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smalll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
71. I at least half agree with you -- when people are fat now, it's not their fault --
Edited on Tue May-12-09 11:29 PM by smalll
it's because society makes it so easy for them to overindluge calorifically -- they are slaves to their cars (and therefore consequentially) rarely even walk more than a few dozen yards at one time a day -- they are forced to work way too long (for many now, almost 19th-century-style factory hours) -- and when they finally get home, there's cable TV, free internet porn, and video games to lock them ever more tightly to their couch-potatoism.

It's NOT their fault AND it's NOT their genes. Don't blame them, but there's things to be blamed, that's for sure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. Please do explain to me the epidemic rates of obesity in
Peru... car culture is not that pervasive... in fact it is not pervasive at all

Try Mexico... same thing... and not just with the middle class and the rich, in fact the worst incidence is among the poor that WALK to work, some for three to five clicks each way.

How about Thailand, cities are built for walking.

There is something going here that the puritan thinking is discounting, thankfully, scientists are no longer discounting it and are finding all kinds of things. Here is a clue for the western US... low thyroid.. you know what that is tied to? apart of genes that is. Jet fuel in the water table... you read right, JET FUEL.

So keep making fun, as people like the World Health Organization and scientists in the western world and other places are now looking for REAL causes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smalll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #73
83. I was trying to be fair and sympathetic, but clearly for some deep-seated reason you just HAVE
to believe your obesity is based on either genetics or the "fat virus" (that's a laugh and a half.) :eyes:

Hey, if there really IS a virus, shouldn't we be isolating it, then giving shots of it to everyone who lives in Darfur, North Korea, etc. etc.?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #83
88. Not only you cannot discuss popular culture in a mature manner but you cannot
discuss science either.

Not surprising

By the way, this virus is real... one of the multiple causes

So is JP-8 in the water table

Or the connection between plastics and changes in humans

As to your jokes on Darfur and North Korea those are what we used to call in history FAMINE conditions. You want to give the virus to death camp survivors while you are at it? Or can you try to explain the source of this epidemic in places like oh Colombia and other nations who are NOT RICH or well developed?

In fact, you have anything worth to contribute here? Or are you a member of the anti science anti intellectual club? Oh wait that is the United States...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #83
123. Considering the fact there's been a study within the past
six months proving there is a virus present in the bodies of the obese and no other member of the population, it's nice to know you're more educated on the subject than a group of research scientists.

>or the "fat virus" (that's a laugh and a half.)<

Keep laughing. You show your own deep-seated bigotry and intolerance every time you do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
74. I think the evidence is mounting that an epidemic is chemical poisoning.
There are critical periods in development that set metabolism, and mulitple hormonal systems that can be disrupted.

So far about 50 genes have been found to be involved in body weight control, and there are thousands of synthetic chemicals that humans are exposed to that may affect them in ways that were unknown up until just about now.

----------

Obesity, Epigenetics, and Gene Regulation

~snip

When gene expression goes awry during development, as in bisphenol-exposed mouse pups, the consequences can cause changes in adult mice that were not seen at birth. This phenomenon, called fetal programming, may play a role in many health conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancer. The yellow agouti mouse has been a great animal model with which to study epigenetics and fetal programming. Recently, it has also been used to show that dietary factors can prevent the agouti gene from being turned on.

More specifically, not only did Jirtle's group find an increased risk of disease with maternal chemical exposure in mice, but they also noted that certain nutrients were protective. In particular, supplementing the mothers' diets with methyl-donating substances, such as folic acid and vitamin B12, was shown to counteract the reduction in DNA methylation caused by bisphenol A. In addition, a constituent of soy products called genistein prevented an increased number of unhealthy offspring. Whether a similar diet might reverse epigenetic effects once they appear, however, is unknown and awaits experimental testing. Despite such uncertainties, this epigenetic mechanism clearly demonstrates how profoundly environment can affect gene expression and phenotype in a long-lasting way

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Obesity-Epigen...




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Yes, I think you are right
to put it simply we fouled the nest.

Nature is amazing, isn't she?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #76
90. Astonishing, yet beckoning somehow, like a puzzle.
Developmental programming of obesity in mammals

1. P. D. Taylor1 and
2. L. Poston1

Converging lines of evidence from epidemiological studies and animal models now indicate that the origins of obesity and related metabolic disorders lie not only in the interaction between genes and traditional adult risk factors, such as unbalanced diet and physical inactivity, but also in the interplay between genes and the embryonic, fetal and early postnatal environment. Whilst studies in man initially focused on the relationship between low birth weight and risk of adult obesity and metabolic syndrome, evidence is also growing to suggest that increased birth weight and/or adiposity at birth can also lead to increased risk for childhood and adult obesity. Hence, there appears to be increased risk of obesity at both ends of the birth weight spectrum. Animal models, including both under- and overnutrition in pregnancy and lactation lend increasing support to the developmental origins of obesity.

~snip

The demographic shift of populations towards a more obese phenotype in a relatively short period, just one or two generations, argues against a major genetic contribution in favour of environmental or epigenetic mechanisms. Recent evidence suggests that the prevention of childhood and adult obesity may need to begin even before conception (Magarey et al. 2003; Danielzik et al. 2004; Salsberry & Reagan, 2005). This review highlights the evidence that nutritional and environmental imbalances in utero and early postnatal life may make a significant contribution to the obesity epidemic.

http://ep.physoc.org/content/92/2/287.full?ck=nck


- a self-perpetuating epidemic, as long as the toxic food is made to be irresistable in taste and cost? And made by whom -the healthcare buzz-saw and associated industries?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raventattoo Donating Member (99 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
78. The reasons are multifactorial
It is not such as simple an answer as processed food is cheap. Although your argument is one item in a long list of reasons why obesity has become such a problem.

Another in the list is physical activity. No one does it anymore. I read somewhere (reliable) that the average female burned over 7000 calories daily from physical activity around the turn of the century.

No one ever talks about how we now burn fossil fuels in place of the physical activity we once did. No one ever seems to think about that. It's all about how some "mystery virus" has infected people and caused obesity. Or just about cheap processed food.

We DRIVER OUR CARS EVERYWHERE people once walked. And god forbid we are unable to get the spot closest to the AUTOMATICALLY opened door (courtesy of some coal that is being burned elsewhere to generate the electricity to do so). When we get so fat that we complain to the doctor that our knees hurt, we get a disabled parking placard so we can park even closer even though we are not really disabled. And when we just can't drag our useless bodies through the isles, we sit on an electric scooter with a large basket attached to the front so we can DRIVE through the store and place unhealthy foods in our carts.

I had a diabetic patient ask me for a disabled placard once because "my knee hurt". Now, this person may have had some knee pain, but it was mild if any. These are pains that people 50 years ago took some aspirin for and moved on. Not just because there was no alternative, but because it worked! Now people just want to lay down with slightest pain and give up. Some pain is a part of life. We are so self absorbed and lazy and fooled into thinking there should be absolutely no hardships ever in life. I told this patient instead that she needed to park in the farthest spot from the door to the grocery store each and every time she went there. That she must exercise. Cartilage in the knee was not made to have 300 pounds pressing down on it. And to not exercise will only add to the problem.

I have been poor and I"m sorry, but one can eat healthy on poor. In medical school, I could take 20 dollars, buy beans, rice, cornmeal, whole head of lettuce, tomato, apples oranges, bread, etc. I could even buy some meat to go in the beans. I could eat for several days on this. It is easy to go to McDonald's, but if you are not lazy, you can eat HEALTHY AND CHEAP.

IT IS A MINDSET OF LAZINESS THIS COUNTRY HAS. And until we get past that, obesity will persist. Period.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #78
81. If it was mindset it would just be the United States
I keep pointing to places that don't have a car culture that also have an epidemic.

It is just not the fact that people are lazy and drive everywhere

Now I take it you are a doctor. To the placard, I would easily quality, for about three weeks of the year... due to some serious issues, that flare up with my knees. Long story. So I'd not be that judgmental. I just don't ask for it.

And yes I pointed to ONE factor... but I suspect that and the chemicals in the soil and food are probably more related to this world wide epydemic than simply the car culture, If it was just the car culture, then Paraguay would not have the rates of obesity it has today, neither would the country side in Mexico where women still burn those 7,000 calories and are now fatter than ever,

Just saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #78
92. Another factor is overwork. It takes time to make rice and beans.
It takes time to shop, to cook. Fast food is epicemic because people are working two jobs, at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #78
93. I eat mostly junk food and work a sendentary job
but I exercise 60 - 80 minutes EVERY DAY and NEVER drive when I can walk (usually anything three miles or less) - and I do just fine - yes INDEED :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coyote_Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #78
121. Take that $20
Edited on Wed May-13-09 09:34 AM by Coyote_Bandit
Make yourself a menu and a shopping list that would offer a daily healthy caloric intake of 1800 calories using a balanced diet.

Remember that you work multiple part-time jobs.

If you are going to have to get up in the morning and spend an hour cooking then you are only going to be able to get five hours of sleep instead of the six you try to get.

Your lunch is going to have to be something portable that you can take with you - and it is going to need to be palatable enough to eat right out of the bag. You don't have access to a microwave or a refrigerator. Same thing is true of any snack you might pack.

You'll return home over 14 hours later after commuting to and from and between your jobs and you'll have worked over 12 hours. Much of what you might have left in a crockpot 14 hours earlier will be mushy and overcooked and not particularly palatable. You'll be tired and hungry but you'll probably still prefer to either cook or prepare something from the freezer rather than use that crockpot.

The mushy food factor isn't the only reason not to make rampant use of the crockpot. Your house is old and you worry about the wiring. You are barely able to meet the utility bills so you already keep the temperature at uncomfortable levels. You certainly don't want to be running the crockpot 14 hours a day everyday. It may not cost much but it adds up.

Your menu must include some quality protein in addition to peanut butter, beans and canned sardines.

Remember when you're making that menu that you are shopping for one - but most groceries are packaged and sold in multiple servings. You're either going to have lots of waste, or you are going to be eating lots of leftovers, or you are going to need to prepare foods that can be frozen and eaten later. This combined with your need for variety in your diet means that you make and keep a rotating six week menu that offers considerable variety.

Now take that menu and shopping list and go to the grocery store. See how much that menu costs these days. And please do report back and let us know.

I'm not holding me breath for a response. It's easy to dish out the condemnation and point fingers. It takes some effort to offer an alternative. And I would certainly hate to suggest that you just might be too lazy to do the very thing you condemn others - most of whom are far less educated and knowledgeable on the topic - for not doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzy creemcheeze Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #121
230. Beans and nuts ARE quality proteins...
Better than animal flesh and far less expensive!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #78
126. Been to the grocery store lately?
>In medical school, I could take 20 dollars, buy beans, rice, cornmeal, whole head of lettuce, tomato, apples oranges, bread, etc. I could even buy some meat to go in the beans.<

The last time I went to the store, a tomato was $1.50. A loaf of nine-grain bread without HFCS? We just paid $3.00 for one at Costco. We can't make the quality of bread they do at home for anywhere near that cost. Apples are now over $2.00 a pound, and we live in Washington State, where they're cheaper. For someone with all the answers, you sure haven't spent any time at all in a grocery store lately.

>IT IS A MINDSET OF LAZINESS THIS COUNTRY HAS. And until we get past that, obesity will persist. Period.<

Your touting of the 7000 calories a day women burned at the turn of the century is pretty funny when one stops to consider the fact that those same women were working in their homes. Laundry formerly took an entire day. Dishes had to be washed by hand. Women are now working outside the home, and have an entire second shift when they arrive home in the evenings. Of course, I'm sure they're "lazy" because they dare to have a dishwasher and a washing machine.

I'm grateful I'm not one of your patients.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
d_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #78
211. ok
"And god forbid we are unable to get the spot closest to the AUTOMATICALLY opened door"

that's good shit right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raventattoo Donating Member (99 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
80. And the real "Let's cut to the chase"
No mass can be obtained without a net "calories stored." No person here or on the face of this planet or universe can go against very basic simple principals of physics.

Energy and mass are constants! You, all of you, are unable to gain weight without consuming more calories than you burn. Fact. Fact. Undisputable. If you can, then you have solved the energy crisis! Harness this power plant, and we can store more and more energy with putting less and less energy into the machine.

I could add a gallon of gasoline to my car, drive for 25 miles, and low and behold, have 2 gallons in my tank!!!!

You can't do it!!!!

MEDICATIONS DO NOT CAUSE PEOPLE TO GAIN WEIGHT!!

They may cause a change in "calories burned" or "calories consumed" but they are devoid of any significant caloric value.

That is just another excuse to roll over and say, "But I can't do it. It's the medicine! WHINE Whine Whoa is me whoa is me!!!!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #80
86. You are wrong, some medis, AVANDIA for example, have
weight gain as a side effect. Uninformed much?

http://diabetes.emedtv.com/avandia/avandia-and-weight-g...

WARNING
CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE AND MYOCARDIAL ISCHEMIA
Thiazolidinediones, including rosiglitazone, cause or exacerbate congestive heart failure in some patients . After initiation of AVANDIA, and after dose increases, observe patients carefully for signs and symptoms of heart failure (including excessive, rapid weight gain, dyspnea, and/or edema). If these signs and symptoms develop, the heart failure should be managed according to current standards of care. Furthermore, discontinuation or dose reduction of AVANDIA must be considered.

http://www.rxlist.com/avandia-drug.htm

Drugs such as rosiglitazone (Avandia) or pioglitazone (Actos) are associated with weight gain. They interact with a receptor on fibrous tissue that may convert it into fat cells, though how this occurs is not yet well understood.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-cholesterol/faqs-heart...

Now please do explain why this is a world wide epidemic?

And it is not just the food you eat, I'd hazard. Do some readying on jet fuel and low thyroid for example.

Plastics are now apearing to have some nasty effects

And even in places in the world with NO car culture and populations that walk obesity is a problem.

I know it is easier to judge, fortunately those wtih PhDs have gone, hmmm something's not right here... and research is leading to some very interesting results, and ones that do not support the puritans amongst us who like to judge... after all they are better and better disciplined and morally superior. And science could have nuthing to do with this.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #86
112. So where does the body's increased mass *come from* then, if not from food eaten?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
handmade34 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #80
94. Woe is us... !!
yes, it is calories in, calories out... but not really that simple. There are things that affect the amount of gas your car uses; temperature, humidity, type of car, quality of gas, etc..

If we were all the same, all living with the same wage, with the same support systems and all had access to the same foods it would be easy to say if I can do it, so can you. But that is not the case. You are much too close-minded to the realities of our physical and socio-economic environment.

and yes, medications can affect how our bodies react to food and energy use. We are a complex society with all kinds of people and situations. I believe the best thing to do is deal with realities and facts and address our serious problems pragmatically and humanely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #80
100. We have a winner.
Dumbest thing I've read on DU today. Pick up your trophy on the way out, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #100
101. There are a couple up thread that are just as stupid
by the way

Some price winners indeed

Noticed after links to avandia he seemed to disapear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #100
116. Another poster wondered, with seemingly good reason, just where does the increase
come from if it isn't from food that is eaten? Is there magic or photosynthesis involved? It's a perfectly legitimate question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #116
135. Read my post re Sinequan
Up until it hit me I never had a problem with controlling my desire to eat sweets. The occasional overindulgence was more than offset by a lifetime of careful and healthy eating. I gave birth to two kids and retained no "baby fat" by their first birthdays, etc. I looked good.

"Insane cravings" were how I finally described my dilemma to my sister. I could not understand what had happened to me. I did not know that a switch had been turned on in my brain by taking this drug. Not until I quit taking it did I realize what had happened -- I felt the difference between one day and the next.

Too bad that prolonged obesity also changes your body chemistry and perpetuates itself.

Just read my other post. It's not fun.

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #135
142. I can sympathacize but it doesn't address the question of where the added mass
comes from other than consumed food. Cravings or other motivation affect, it seems to me, the desire for food, not its caloric content. I'm not trying to start a fight here, I really am trying to learn. As a physicist, any process that appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics is extremely interesting to me. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #142
146. Then as a scientist you may want to learn this
some medicines, like Avandia,, activate the adipose response in the body converting cells from normal to fat cells, a process they are still trying to figure out

They are also finding out that humans don't process those 100 calories in a bowl of cereal the same way. Some are very efficient, and process the whole thing, while others only get 80 calories from the same bowl. Then there is this little aspect of hormones and how they are affected by the crap we add to food products.

As a scientist do yourself a favor and start researching, plenty of peer reviewed lit out there... and you are in for a surprise. It is not as simple as food in and food out... we all know about global warming, but the evidence is showing that perhaps pollution is having interesting effects in human biology, see thyroid function and Jet Fuel in the water for example. And we already knew the disastrous effects heavy metals have on human biology,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #146
148. Yes, that's all pretty basic. What I am trying to learn isn't that, it is how
a person can add x many calories worth of mass without ingesting at least that many in the form of food. There have been some suggestions hereabouts that claim it is possible, I just want to know how.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #148
150. Ok if I eat the same bowl of cereal as you
in the box it says 100 calories, and I absorb the 100 calories and are far less efficient in burning them compared to you, who only take 80 and burn them faster, that is part of your answer.

I cannot make it simpler than that, and research is showing that this is happening
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #150
169. Yes, that addresses the metabolism -rate-...let me try an analogy:
Suppose we have two big buckets. Each one has a hole in the side that is 6 inches up from the
bottom.
We will fill up both buckets with a garden hose until the water level is above the holes in each
one and wait for the 'leak' to stop. The six inches of water that remain, we will call the 'base'
or 'initial' amount and in our experiment corresponds to a starting weight of a person. The water
is 'food' which comes in and goes out. The rate at which it comes IN is under our control...we can
turn on the hose full blast and put in a lot or close the valve down so just a little comes in
just like how we can regulate the quantity of food (calories) we ingest. For this example, we will
pretend that for humans, consistent calories are consumed whether they are in the form of ...say, 5
pounds of broccoli or 1 pint of ice cream---whatever the equivalency is. Okay?

Now, the hole in bucket #1 is small, 1/4 inch in diameter so any water above that hole drains out
pretty slowly down to the level of the hole.

The other (#2) bucket's hole is one inch in diameter and so any water above it will go out WAY
faster than from the other one, right?

So bucket #1 represents a person who burns calories at a slow rate...just a trickle compared to
what flows out of #2 with the large hole which is the 'person' with efficient or 'fast' metabolism.

Now let's turn on our garden hoses and begin to put water into the buckets (let them 'eat')

We will add water to #2 at a rate EXACTLY EQUAL to the amount that will flow out of the one inch
hole.

What happens?...well the level of water in bucket #2 (the bucket's weight or mass) stays exactly

the same...right at the level of the drain hole. That is caloric or thermodynamic equilibrium.
Goes in = goes out.

But putting the same amount into bucket #1 gives a very different result...the level of water goes
up, PAST its small drain hole and keeps rising as long as we continue to add water AT THAT RATE
(or we reach the top of the bucket, obviously.)

How do we keep from overfilling #1?...we reduce the amount of food...er, water we put into it.
This is to illustrate that the RATE of losing mass (burning calories) doesn't really have anything
to do with the overal BALANCE that is observed over a prolonged -time- and that it is physically and mathematically impossible for our bucket, or our human, to contain more fuel than is ingested!

I hope this explains better how I can't seem to grasp how there can be more stuff in a container than went in minus what went out. :-)








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #169
170. Ok you can get what is going on
Edited on Wed May-13-09 03:22 PM by nadinbrzezinski
let me add something to your mental experiment, because you have some of the answer and are actually grasping it

Our research tells us that an average male needs to eat 2000 calories per day. But we know all calories are not made the same

You hit the metabolic rate... lets assume for the moment that this rate has been changed by chemicals in the environment, or that the body rejects some chemicals...

And that is what emerging science is telling us there is a problem. To put it simply we may have fouled the nest and in doing that, we are changing our bodies

Now as to mass appearing, it doesn't.. energy still requires to go in and out, but how that energy is used changes, and the simple in and out theory ain't working, because you are ignoring all other variables in your experiment, these include more holes, less holes and plugged holes.

The food in \ food out school of thought ignores all those variables, and emerging science is pointing to far more variables than we expected.

And when all is said and done I fear we will find out that we have changed our chemistry. The true indicator of this is in places like Peru where diets have not changed, or back breaking work. Only thing that has changed are some chemicals.

Edited for clarity, cannot belief I made that basic mistake, my apologies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #170
174. Thank you very much Nadin for following up so patiently and clearly...
I hope he actually absorbs the information in this thread. My bad, but I begin to lose patience with people when it looks like they know one area of knowledge (i.e. physics in the laboratory--and we've had other posters in the past do this same thing, so I'm not trying to be mean to the current one) and think it applies to all others (i.e. chemistry in the human body) -- and stick to the one line of reasoning. With smiley faces. Like I said, my bad, but I begin to wonder if they're being obtuse on purpose -- and you appear to be getting through.

So thanks.

Hekate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #174
178. Please believe that I have no reason or desire to be obtuse!
I was just trying to get a rational explanation of how a thing can gain weight without adding weight.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #170
177. I must disagree with your first point: calories are calories are calories.
As I attempted to say, it does not matter whether you eat 5000 calories of lettuce or 5000 calories of bacon...they are both identical in terms of total energy. Now, it is true that one might 'burn' one kind of food more efficiently than another, which is to say -faster- but that only results in short-term aggregation of
body mass...over time it will 'even out'. After all, people don't gain 5 pounds from eating 5 pounds of food if they are checked after a day or 2 (of -course- they will gain 5 lb. if you weigh them immediately after eating it)

I still say the chemistry and other variables you mention are unrelated to the simple fact that the laws of physics just don't allow for the mass of any discrete object to increase more than what is added to it. Even though green plants -seem- to do that, they do, just by very different methods.

I guess we just don't have the same approach to or faith in science...thanks for the reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #177
181. But not the way they are used by the body
Edited on Wed May-13-09 04:55 PM by nadinbrzezinski
and that is what is scaring scientists to no end

In the lab fat has nine Kcals\ gram, period, and other calories, 3 Kcals \gram. So if you measures them in the lab it will always repeat.

But human metabolic pathways don't quite do that. That is why your 9 Kcals from butter are not the same to your 9 Kcals from olive oil... not when you are talking of metabolic pathways.

Now energy is not magically created or destroyed. But how ti works in your lab is not exactly how it works in a living being. See there are many peer review articles on simple things like the pathways and energy use of simple things like sugar and HCFS. HCFS is a sugar, it should in theory be used the same way by the body. Surprise, it is not.

I need to add about fat is fat, is fat, butter is saturated fat and how the body transforms it is different from olive oil, also butter is related to the exogenic production of cholesterol, while olive oil helps to lower it, and it does not contain it. Of course there is the function of the liver and enzymes produced that will break down those 9 Kcals, and as I said, I might be extremely efficient in obtaining those 9Kcals, regardless of source, while you might be able to get only five, before the rest is excreted and never used. Those are the variables we are talking about here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:53 PM
Original message
Okay, you win. I should have remembered my discussions with creationists
and quit several posts ago.
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
205. You are comparing science with creationists?
Why instead don't you spend some time in the depth of PEER REVIEWED articles into the use of energy in human pathways?

Here from some creationist sites for you

like National Cancer Institute

http://pid.nci.nih.gov /

Some more creationist sites

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/ann...

Oh lookie here, JAMA

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/18/24...

Of course here is on Cancer... these creationists are amazing

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_ud...

And even some furiener creationists like in the UK

http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-rese...

I doubt you understood what I said, and at this point that you are even a scientist. Which is truly a shame, because if you are... you should stay the fuck out of real biological sciences
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #142
175. I'll explain this again: What part of "insane cravings" was not clear? The caloric intake increased
... due to my inability to control my cravings for sugar products. This is beyond "sweet tooth" -- that I had always had, and that I had always had under control. For over 40 years. At 42 I looked 10 years younger, in part because I was so slender. I had no intention of overeating, no intention of becoming overweight, much less obese. It seemed like a no-brainer.

Then -- because a switch was flipped in my brain, without my knowing how or why -- my caloric intake increased quite a bit. It was incredibly distressing to feel so out of control. Then foot injuries sidelined me for 3 years, making normal exercise impossible.

No one is disputing, dear physicist, that calories get stored as fat. What is increasingly clear to scientists IN OTHER DISCIPLINES THAN YOURS is the multiplicity of ways that intake and storage can go wrong in the human body. The human body is not a bucket, it is a complex biochemical factory.

The posters here who are admitting their problems and their experiences must overcome shame to do so. Open your eyes and your heart and you will learn a lot. Remember: there are other scientific disciplines than yours.

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #175
179. Okay, I never intended to offend anyone. But I'm pretty sure that no other
scientific discipline has a paradigm that allows for the violation of the laws of thermodynamics. If someone can point me to one, I will dedicate my life and savings to get them the Nobel Prize. I'm totally serious.
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #179
180. No one here has asked to violate the laws of thermodynamics. But you are not paying attention...
... to what has been learned about human biochemistry. Are you?

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #180
195. I am aware that some people appear to think that the laws of physics are
determined by popular opinion. I've gotten a tubful of replies, none of which answered my original question.
I wonder what the response would be if I were to assert that biological science has demonstrated that gravity doesn't always work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #195
202. You are being willfully obtuse. At this point I think you're stirring the pot for amusement.
Buh-bye.

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #80
103. Honey, we'll talk after you've been on Prednisone
for twenty years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #80
109. Talk to me after you've been on Sinequan for fibromyalgia for almost 20 years...
It creeps up on you, and you think you must be nuts to not have that old control over cravings. Your doc talks about diet and exercise. You get to 42, a lifetime of effortless slenderness, and by age 50 slenderness is gone for ever: over 50 shameful pounds have been gained.

Your doc says you're shortening your life span. The only thing that works to calm the cravings is fen-phen, but good thing the doc only gives you a short course. The 30 pounds that came off comes right back and brings friends. You develop sleep apnea.

Around 58 you stop the Sinequan and in two weeks the sugar cravings are gone, you just wake up one day and they're gone, although your doc doesn't want to talk about that -- but the weight will not go. An entire year at the YMCA huffing and puffing 3 times a week, and no difference.

Finally at 60 you go to a lecture on fibromyalgia and for the first time *ever* hear a neurologist say that Sinequan and other tricyclics are NOTORIOUS for causing weight gain, and that EVERYONE knows it.

And you start researching online armed with a slew of new keywords, and you find out that your entire body-chemistry is likely changed forever. But your doc just keeps reminding you that diet and exercise are key (really) and oh by the way your blood sugar is rising.

Fibromyalgia hurts like hell and prevents you from ever getting a good night's sleep, but if someone had told me 20 years ago that patients on tricyclics double or triple their chances of developing diabetes, I might have taken a pass.

Try walking a mile in my shoes. Just try it.

Hekate




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
91. Sorry, I didn't have any problem eating healthy when I was poor
When short of money, I drink a lot of tea, milk and water, with less juice than I would like. I don't eat cookies or sweetened snacks. I buy simple and healthy food at local markets, and got on just fine without adding any high fructose corn syrup to my diet - all while keeping my food bill in the range of $20-30 per week. Nobody is forced to eat junk food.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
handmade34 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #91
96. don't be sorry...
just help to educate and inform people... we need to help each other not condemn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
104. No, lets cut to the real chase...nutrition.
When folks take as much interest into what they fuel their own body with as they do their car, we'll be in much better shape.

Nutrition largely went out the window (I suspect) when the cakehole became a pleasure center. Metabolic economics is something that I try to teach.

It stops being choice when folks don't really know better. We don't teach nutrition, and that should be one of our most shameful facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #104
105. National food policy includes things like the
food pyramid...

As well as nutrition classes in home econ classes, which are no longer required.

And how those nutriton food charts, including the dominance of certain food groups over others also have to do with that national food policy.

Now on an individual basis, absolutely, people can be educated.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #105
106. The food pyramid is influenced by large agribusiness corporations.
SO they don't de-emphasize meat and milk, for example, so as not to antagonize the huge corporate farms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
handmade34 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #106
111. yes... of course!
we are much too dependent on milk and meat in our diets... but it makes lots of money for agribusiness
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #106
115. That silly thing has changed a LOT in my lifetime. They move around
what stuff is at the bottom and top of the pyramid every so often.

http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall02/Greene/index.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dugaresa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
113. From my personal experience with weight gain and loss
gradually over the course of 15 years I put on 50lbs of weight, it was gradual and I was able to "wear it well"

However my health was affected and after a high blood pressure scare and an arrythmia, I decided to do something.

So I started to monitor my portions and I cut out all sodas. I have always eaten healthy, lots of fruits and veggies, however portion control was a big problem for me because I like food. I like the way it tastes and if it tastes good, I used to eat more.

How did I control portions? I made up the plates for the folks at that dinner table. No bowls of food on the table. So no way to get an extra spoonful of mashed potatoes or another pork cutlet.

I have also learned to drink more fluids with dinner and to slow down as I eat.

I have subsequently dropped 35lbs.

I have also been seriously exercising for 4 months now and I get tons of compliments on my appearance. I have another 20lbs to go until I am in a comfortable fit zone, but I am determined to do it.

I know it is not easy. I slip up here and there but then I realize that I have to change forever, not just til I reach a goal. I feel better and I have more energy. I know it is much harder for other folks and I empathize because it has not been an easy path for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllieB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
114. The problem is stress, poverty, refined carbs, and access to healthy fresh food.
If you look at the states that are the slimmest, they are among the wealthiest. If you look at the states that are the fattest (MS, AL, LA, etc), they are among the poorest. This is a social problem, and the problem is access to healthy food and a reliance on refined carbs die to their affordability. It's easy for us who aren't working 3 jobs, or have access to farmers markets and good grocery stores to sit here and judge. From Michael Pollan:

"You know, a lot of people talk about the elitism of the food movement. And they think about Whole Foods and people shopping at, you know, upscale farmers markets. But there is another face to this food movement. And that's what you see in that film. And that, there is a real crisis in the inner city with access to fresh produce. And we know, distance from a source of fresh produce is a predictor of health."

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11282008/transcript1....

Definitely watch this Bill Moyers segment-it's truly eye-opening.

Another critic of the food industry is Gary Taubes. Listen to this enlightening interview:

http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/07-08/nov17.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #114
139. This goes beyond US borders
and that is the point I have been trying to make...

Yes in the US the causes are related to poverty... but once again, this goes beyond US borders and the rate is similar to an epidemic


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Love Bug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
118. You make some excellent points!
I recently found an old class photo of mine from when I was in the 2nd Grade, circa 1963. Out of the thirty kids in the photo, only one could be considered overweight and not really by much. He probably wore boy's "Huskies" trousers from Sears. And yet, we all ate lots of meat, potatoes, white bread and drank whole milk. Sure, we played outside and rode our bikes, but we also watched lots of TV every evening and especially cartoons on Saturday mornings.

When I attended one of my 9-year-old grandson's school programs a couple of years ago I couldn't help but notice at least half of the kids were noticeably overweight, and some of them by a significant amount. What's the difference between then and now?

I'm sure less exercise accounts for some of it, although these kids have recess every day just like I did. Both parents nowadays are more likely than not to be working outside the home, too, which makes it difficult to cook like we used to. This means using more convenience foods and eating out more often.

In spite of those factors, I am convinced the biggest difference is all the crap and chemicals in our food supply. Our bodies just don't know what to do with unnatural fats like hydrogenated fats. HFCS is also calorically dense and is in EVERYTHING. (I have a friend who is allergic to corn, and she has a devil of a time finding processed foods she can eat safely. She's not overweight, either -- I wonder why?)

Speaking of allergies, I don't recall kids 40+ years ago having asthma and runny noses to the degree they do now. I wouldn't be surprised if that's caused by our over-processed food supply, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #118
141. When we find the real answer to this,
it will not be easy. It will have to do, I am willing to bet, with the crap we put in the food, and the industrial waste and all those things that nobody wants to take into account.

And yes, the Puritan brigade will keep telling us it is lack of will power from here to eternity.

But what the science is finding is actually quite scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Love Bug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #141
226. I agree. Something about the chemical load we carry
leaves some of us unable to process food efficiently. Either that, or the chemicals mess with our evolutionary ability to store food properly. That would also explain why once one has gained weight and lost it, it then becomes a battle of constant vigilance to not gain it back again. It seems like our metabolism becomes broken somehow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
124. "WORLD WIDE epidemic..."
please.

it's only "epidemic" in SOME industrialized countries. usually the ones where people have become too uneducated and/or lazy to feed themselves a proper diet. quality, healthy, and delicious food can be had just as cheaply as the pre-packaged and fast-food garbage- but it takes just a modicum amount of additional effort that some people just don't want to put towards their own well-being or that of their families.

oh, well... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #124
136. Peru is not advanced, the hinterlands of mexico are not advanced
Thailand is not, china is not

By the way, the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION disagrees with you

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/fa... /

If they are just making this up, tell me what is their angle in this?

Anti-science much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #136
143. fat people have absolutely NOBODY to blame for it other than themselves.
no matter how much they want to wallow in self-pity about the condition that they themselves are responsible for, due mostly to ignorance and laziness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #143
144. Ok now that you got your puritan statement out
Edited on Wed May-13-09 01:36 PM by nadinbrzezinski
answer the question, what is the angle for the WHO to call this an Epidemic?

Why is it that research is showing that indeed there are more causes to this than just EATING?

Again, anti science much?

If you cannot open your eyes, and insist that this is just people eating, then there is no amount of SCIENCE that can be shown to you that will show to you that indeed there is more to this than just fucking EATING or self pity

By the way, the self pity... is that a mirror in front of you? SERIOUS? That is YOUR only answer, while the scientists are finding out that YOU are wrong. So answer the fucking question. How is it possible that people who are still burning 7K calories a day, who have had no significant changes in diet, who STILL walk the same amount their forefathers, who were rail thin, are now fat? Hardly it is what they are eating buddy.

Oh and I will add this, people who work in the fields in places like Mexico still eat a kilo of tortillas in a meal after working all day in the field... like they have been doing for centuries... yet NOW they have an obesity problem and no, there are NO TRACTORS... to be found. still same mule, same back breaking work

Explain the fucking question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #144
149. it's only an 'epidemic' in industrialized countries...
Edited on Wed May-13-09 01:56 PM by dysfunctional press
especially those that have succumbed to the ignorant & lazy american diet that the corporatist take great pride in exporting to the countries that are making our trinkets and appliances.

if more people in this country were to put as much HONEST effort into their eating/lifestyle choices as they do DISHONEST effort into finding quasi/pseudo-scientific excuses for their girth, we wouldn't be part of the world-wide "epidemic", imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #149
152. Peru is industrialized? That will come as a surprise to them
So it will in places like oh Vietnam, and Thailand... not to mention Colombia and Bolivia.

Hey by our fat epidemic we are now industrialized economies, who knew?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #152
153. ALL of those places have industries making products for the american marketplace.
get a clue. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #153
155. They are NOT industrialized, you get a clue
They are NOT eating our highly processed food products..

What they have in some areas is POLLUTION from those factory settings, you get a clue

They have plastics, you get a clue

They are NOT industrialized

People STILL BURN 7000 calories a day working in fields, and are GAINING WEIGHT you get a fucking clue.

Now tell me, what is the angle of the WHO? And are you anti science only on this issue or others as well? Are you also denying global warming while we are at it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #155
158. look- whatever you need to do or believe to be comfortable with yourself is fine with me.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #158
160. And if you do the same fine by me
the puritan brigade will find itself on the short end of the science stick.

It is not about ME by the way... but it is about you. This violates your personal belief system that it is a moral failing.

I am asking a serious question. How come people who are BURNING the same 7K calories\day in back breaking work, like untold generations, are NOW gaining weight. Their diets have not change. So what's up? What's changed? (Free clue chemicals in some food, and in the soils)

You cannot answer the question... so you point at them and go it is their lack of will.. BULLSHIT.. and you know it


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #160
163. i changed my diet and lost 60 lbs in less than three months.
some people just don't have the will to do so.

they'd rather continue to be miserable, while looking for ANYTHING that excuses them from an iota of personal responsibility.

that's my observation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #163
165. Congratulations, so I lost fifty pounds and maintained for three years
I am still INTELLECTUALLY curious as to what the fuck is going on? So are people in places like the WHO... and you know scientists.

And unlike you I am not willing to PASS judgement... after all I DO HAVE a clue. I realize it is more than just a diet change... congrats. You sound like a smoker who quit and points at others, lack of will that's it... could not be that NICOTINE is more addictive than oh CRACK and that is by design.

No, could not be.

You continue to be judgmental ok... by the way this personal responsibility will also transfer to... DOW CHEMICAL... or are you willing to get give them a pass in your effort to judge those who don't have the will power? By the way, will talk over the next few years if you join MOST weight losers who gain it back and then some. Should I laugh and point at you then? After all it is a moral failing you know, and nuthing to do with what we are finding in that pesky thing called the sciences.

So this is about YOU... after all it allows YOU to laugh and point, It is a violation of YOUR world view... which by the way is very conservative... but also releases the responsibility from other POSSIBLE sources. We heard that crap as well with smokers,.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #165
166. whatever you need to believe...that's your prerogative in life.
i've maintained for over 12 years so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #166
168. Again congratulations, you are the exception, congrats
but this is what you need to belief, why you always come to these threads poopoong emerging science that tells us, it is not this simple.

It is YOUR need.. not mine.

And the emerging science threatens your world view

So once again tell me, how come people burning the same 7K calories their forefathers burned doing back breaking work, and eating the same diet their forefathers ate are now gaining weight? Their forefathers were thin by the way

Can you give me an explanation that works? One that is not judgmental? And yes you are like the former smoker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #168
182. you keep spouting 'science...science ...science'...
and yet you want me to answer some hypothetical questions without knowing almost ANY of the variables involved.

"how come people burning the same 7K calories their forefathers burned doing back breaking work, and eating the same diet their forefathers ate are now gaining weight? Their forefathers were thin by the way"

has there suddenly been an explosion of obesity in amish communities that i wasn't aware of? :shrug:

i don't know of too many other groups in the u.s. who come close to doing the same "back breaking work" as their 'forefathers' as well as 'eating the same diet'. if you closely examined the actual work done and actual diet consumed by the average american as compared to the average 'forefather'- you'd find a HUGE difference. another difference would be when throughout the day the calories are consumed- most modern americans eat their largest meal in the evening, which is exactly opposite how it should be.

make your scenario more specific, and provide more factors- and it might be more realistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #182
184. Yes, even the amish are seeing higher rates of obesity
http://heb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/197

It is still lower than the mean in the US, but it is higher than it used to be.

So it is leading to questions among people doing the science... that word you seem to hate. what the hell is going on? And it is not just eating and exercising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #184
191. my first instict would be that it has more to do with childhood factors than anything.
kids lives/diets today are even more different forefather-wise than an adult's. and even in amish communities- the children/teens lead fairly 'normal' lives, even driving cars and eating fast-food, until they reach adulthood.

just as our behaviours are learned/defined as kids- it may be the same way with the physiology of our bodies, and the way they 'learn' to operate on our varying lifestyles/diet patterns as children. the physiology adapts to that pattern, and carries it thru to adulthood. a kid who burns 'fuel' and operates like an suv always will, whereas kids who burn fuel and operate like a prius always will...even if they change the formulation of the fuel down the road.

if any of that makes any sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #191
193. And that is part of what we have been trying to tell you
Edited on Wed May-13-09 06:19 PM by nadinbrzezinski
part of the problem with obesity is what we put in those food products

Take a food item, any food item and read the label

Ok almost I just did that with the frito lay potatoes.. which are potatoes, corn or sunflower oil and salt... We just had some with lunch, so sue us! (And for the record the listing on the oils for things like potato chips do not have to tell us if they are hydrogenated if they are under a certain percentage, so I am willing to bet they are)

But do that with almost any food item, the more processed the better.

Many of them have High Fructose Corn Syrup, which for the record we did NOT have in food two generations ago. It is NOT processed the same way as simple sugar. Your body simply does not process it the same way... (surprised that the producers are pushing commercials telling us how safe this crap is? It could be the research that is tying it to obesity, increased diabetes rates and other problems?)

This is what we are trying to tell you. It is related to whatever is going on in the environment, and why it has become a matter of concern, NOT JUST IN THE UNITED STATES. This is a world wide problem affecting right now over 1 Billion people, which tracks nicely to the US percentage by the way.. actually now that I think the US is a tad higher as to one third of the population is clinically overweight, and about one sixth clinically obese.

Now you said that you were not aware of Amish, there you go, they have higher rates than they used to, NOTHING like PIMA indians, who were the proverbial canary in the mine... and are 180 from the Amish, but the PIMA were the first ones where people following this went WTF? You see on the Arizona side of the border, read processed junk, population is overweight, diabetes prone, the whole nine yards, south of the border, before the pollutants reached, the population was normal to low normal weight... and healthy as horses.

By the way HCFS is just one of the many possible culprits so is JP-8 in the water table, plastics and other pollutants in the environment.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #193
198. Oh and let me add, this does not mean people should wallow
and go, but genes and all that.. people can lose weight, BUT... here is the huge qualifier, if we know the causes of this, it will make it doing it much easier, actually possible.

As I told you above, you are the great exception, and possibly me... but if we know HCFS is part of the problem removing it from the food chain makes sense

If we know low T3 and reverse T-3 are playing a role, it makes sense, as well as finding out why we are having THC reductions and all that metabolic problems

And if part of the problem is the levels of pollution we have to stop laughing at it and take it seriously. Part of what is going on, since now this is world wide, is the rate of pollution, and being puritanical does not help

By the way, here is another area of emerging research. I can blame my mom... well before I was born. See premie babies also have a higher rate of both obesity and diabetes... I bet you didn't know that. (The same goes for kids who are big by the way, which strangely makes some sense) So we are also talking of prenatal care. And don't tell me I had a say in that one.

Don't you love complex problems? I know I do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #193
218. the reason i lost so much weight so quickly was because i had to give up ALL dietary starch...
so i became very good at reading labels. i also found that starch is not a natural part of the human diet- but it makes up the majority of what most people now eat.
cut the starch from your diet entirely, and the pounds will melt off, and stay off.

NO: pasta, potatoes, rice, cakes, breads, corn chips, etc...

it's not fun, it's not easy(at first) but it gets the desired results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #218
220. Ah you did a variation of the low carb diet
but since you read the labels it is not the starch that is the problem (unless there are a series of very specific medical conditions, see Celiacs... which is very specific as to what starch it doesn't like either, wheat)

So you read labels, you got all the crap in there?

I know we cannot go back to an agrarian society... or we might be forced to, but in the modern world we have choices

We can reject some crap in our foods, such as Corn Syrup... what happened to simply using cane or beet sugar? (the expense). What happened to not using hydrogenated oils... time on shelf.

And it is also in the packing we use.

Oh and carbs are part of the human diet, but for 50K years it hasn't been the refined kind... but they are. We have been eating grains for a long time... just the cooked kind for 10K or so. Had an interesting effect... our jaws became smaller, and our teeth reduced in size too. We didn't have to chew as hard. '

And that is what I mean about how our diets are, I suspect, part of the problem, and it is in the additives we add.

And other pollutants.

What is true is that given 10K years of human history, and two generations where this has exploded... there is more than just eating... and when we find the cause, it will astound us. In a small way what happened in a Japanese harbor in the 1950s with heavy metals, is just a preview of what we are doing to the planet, and extension ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #220
223. for me, the starch is a medical issue.
it's not the starch itself, but the enzyme involved in it's digestion by gut flora that causes problems for me- but ultimately, it leads to my body being allergic to the starch. the condition i have is ankylosing spondylitis, an autoimmune disorder that revolves mostly around a slow and painful fusion of the spine.

there is starch in vegetables(in varying degrees- as a rule of thumb- the farther you are from the plant root, the less starchy the vegetable), but it is for the most part 'encased' by cellulose- which the body doesn't digest, and keeps the starch from getting into our systems...UNLESS- the vegetable is cooked, thereby softening the cellulose enough to allow the digestive juices to get to and absorb the starch...

is roughly how it was explained to me :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #223
224. Ah yes, as I said specific medical problems
here is for you some on celiac, as they might have recommended gluten free foods as well

http://www.celiac.com /

Now I can eat starches, I just have to be careful in how much and glycemic indexes.

But most folks, starchy foods are fine... as part of a balanced diet, preferably with few to little preservatives

By the by... the increase in autoimmune might also be related to what is in the food. Or rather what we have added to it. And to me it makes sense, at the most basic of levels your body goes... no thank you to insert additive here, soon the response goes to the source where this comes in.

At the most simple of levels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #168
216. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #163
189. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #189
192. and you're not?
you should learn to play by the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #153
215. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #143
214. what about fat children?
Edited on Wed May-13-09 07:26 PM by CreekDog
nobody to blame but themselves?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
125. These folks don't seem to have a problem with obesity











Some thoughts-

Get thirsty, drink some water-
Learn to cook stews- ( yes, actually cook something from scratch, it's not fucking rocket science )
Last time I checked apples were cheaper than little debbies snack cakes
cut your own damn grass with a push mower
Stop blaming everything but yourself...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #125
131. In western culture, the girls would be called fat and in need of breast implants
The guys would be called "out of shape" because they didn't have "six pack abs" from doing crunches between marathon World of Warcraft sessions.

All would be "in need of makeovers," and new wardrobes. They wouldn't be cool unless they went to the dentist for a Norm Coleman smile, and to the stylist for the lastest hair do. Those older dames would also be told that the "cat whisker" look was like, uhmmmm, yew know, so eighties--and they really needed to update their look.

Why people worry so much about what others think of them, I've no idea. If you're fat and unhealthy, you should take care of business for your OWN self--not because someone else is telling you to do it, or you're feeling peer pressure. Nothing ever "takes" and creates a permanent change, unless it comes from within--from romance to weight issues to acceptance of one's age or place and station in life.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #125
138. And I will say this again, the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
disagrees with you

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/fa... /

Fortunately people who are in the sciences ARE looking at the real causes for the epidemic

And they are finding it is not just what you eat, but in some cases, in the water... for example
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChickMagic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
129. My story of weight gain
I suffer from chronic pain due to spinal arthritis and osteoporosis. I used to be 5'7" but now I'm 5'6". My weight dropped precipitously to double digits. In order to try to gain weight, I started each morning with a scone and sugary coffee. My weight has ballooned to 135 pounds. Now, that may seem normal for my height, but I gained it around my middle. My clothes don't fit anymore and I need to lose 10 pounds. Problem is, now I'm hooked on cinnamon scones.

I think this has a lot to do with obesity. Sugar is addictive and it will put on pounds in a hurry. It's going to be hard to kick the pastry habit and I imagine it would be hard for anyone to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #129
132. Put the cinnamon in your coffee. It's good for diabetes, cinnamon is.
At least so the folk medicine types say....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #132
140. Hey I do... read it in the intertubes
it is done in India and now they are doing some research into it... seems to have some effects

I'm like the taste and does not hurt... it is tree bark after all

I also use chamomille for tummy aches and that one, we know what it does have, a muscle relaxant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #129
137. addicted to cinnamon scones
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

now I have heard it all- and you are being serious as well-

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChickMagic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #137
228. Oh, snooper2
You know I love you. When are we going to share a smoke again? I'm hooked, I tells ya! And I drink fair trade cinnamon coffee as well. Ahhhhh! :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
133. Cheap food and low wages....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gbate Donating Member (900 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
157. Thinking about my weekly grocery bill.
At home, it's my husband, me and our teenage son. We spend about $120/wk here on the East Coast. The only junk we buy is one bag of chips to ration to put in our son's lunch at school 5 times a week and one half-gallon of ice cream which usually lasts about a week.

We both work full time so we probably buy more convenience food, but it's usually stuff like bagged salads or jarred spaghetti spaghetti sauce. We eat lots of whole wheat pasta, lean meat (always more expensive than the cheap meat), chicken and fish. None of that is cheap, plus my 15 year old eats a lot. Whole grain bread is twice as much as white bread and orange juice is more expensive than soda.

Husband and I are both overweight but we try to fight it by eating right and exercising at least 4 times per week. We pay for gym memberships and park passes. We have bikes and a kayak and we take yoga classes. I just bought new shoes for working out and they were $75. I suppose all of those things are optional, but it definitely is more expensive to work in healthy habits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
159. It's not the food, it's the inactivity. The human species is built for a lot more
activity than what we expend.

If you look back at photos prior to the last 50 years (also known as the rise of the car, tv, remote control, and ubiquititous reading material (not to mention automatic everything from dishwashers to laundry machines), people (even here in the fat US) were pretty damn thin. Even then, people ate a fuck of a lot of pie, bread, ham, bacon, red meat.

Our caloric intakes have not as drastically changed as our digression toward extreme inactivity...

"But, but, I chase my kids all day...I word hard walking around the office all day..."

Yeah well, what seems like a lot of activity is nothing compared to what people used to do. We just think it's a lot because it is in such high contrast to most of our lives which is sitting or standing doing some fine motor task or nothing much at all.

Computers contribute to obesity more than McDonald's if you really think about it.

I can't stand all this "blame the diet" and blame the victim talk.

People aren't bad because they gain weight and there's no great fast food conspiracy. Rather, we went from an active species to a very inactive one with the advent of burning fossil fuel instead of burning our own calories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #159
161. If this was JUST the US you'd have a point
but it is not... this is happening in places where people are dong the same back breaking work they've done for generations and are now gaining weight

Thankfully people who are curious, and have more than just a chemistry lab, are asking the question what is going on? And what they are finding is disturbing.

By the way the amount of processed crap has increased exponentially, so that crap could not do a smidgen to do with this, or pollution in the water and the soil.. nope it has to be just a life style change, If this was the case then it would be just car culture countries, but it is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #161
164. you "process" food when you chew it with your teeth...
this all boils down to calories in vs calories out.

My point is that I don't think our caloric intake (from whatever source) has changed as much over the last 100 years compared to our energy expenditure. I know that's not what you are taught in the mass media but "processed food" aka milling and grinding goes back a long ways. So does butter, red meat, cake, pie, bread, pasta, and the rest. What doesn't go back much more than the last 50 to 100 years are ubiquitous motorized transportation and the extreme amounts of inactivity we now experience.

It may be a combination of both but I think it's more due to pervasive inactivity rather than diet changes. But at any rate, I think what's more productive is trying to get people to do more and have more time to exercise rather than yelling at them about what they are naturally inclined to put in their mouthes, as we have all done for eons.

People like food. People like food with calories. Always have, always will.

A "let's get real" talk about obesity should center around activity issues.

The reason we focus on "diet" so much is because it is a commercial goldmine to do so. You've just been sucked into that marketing trap.

There's not a lot of money in telling someone to go outside and play some sports, even if you are 50 but there's a lot of money in selling books that tell you to "cut the fat" or to "cut the carbs" and so on.

This whole diet obsession is a marketing gimmick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #164
167. Read some of the emerging science because it does not
it is not just calories in calories out

Be curious

Google Jet Fuel and thyroid function just for the tip of that iceberg...

As to the diet industry, part of the problem... in my view they have actually stopped the research into what is going on

I will ask the same question I have asked other posters

Tell me, how come a person who is burning the same 7K calories \day that his forefathers did doing back breaking labor, and eating the same diet, his forefathers did, now gaining weight? This is going on in the third world... why this is a concern. Only thing that has changed, some industrial waste.

Chew on that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #167
171. ...lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #171
172. So you can't so poopooing emerging science is your way to deal with this
Edited on Wed May-13-09 03:19 PM by nadinbrzezinski
deny global warming too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
handmade34 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #164
173. when we talk about processed food...
in relation to its affect on health, it is about the compromising of the foodstuff by the addition of "hormones, preservatives, unnatural genetic material, other chemicals or heat treatments that alter or destroy the natural healthy enzymes, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals. It sometimes is also taking away the bran, germ, hull or other part of a food that makes it whole. Usually the goal of processing is to lengthen the shelf life of foods so that larger amounts can be stored and more product can be sold and provide greater profits for the manufacturer/packager.

Grinding or milling by itself does not usually constitute unhealthy processing.

Highly refined foods (primarily carboydrates) are concentrated and have an intense effect on blood sugar levels and insulin production in the body. There are many complex interactions between our bodies and the foods we eat.

From Healthy eating Politics--- "" Constant increased levels of insulin "numb" the bodys normal process of insulin secretion and glucose metabolization, and can lead to a condition known as insulin resistance or Syndrome X. The high levels of circulating insulin inflame the arteries and stress the internal organs. Numerous studies have shown that this inflammation is a major factor in the development of heart disease and other modern illness. In addition, high blood sugar impairs the immune system, causes vitamin uptake dysfunction, inhibits the breakdown of blood clots, and increase glycation, a process which is implicated in aging.""

"Diets" are marketing gimmicks, pushing unhealthy food on us is done with marketing gimmicks, marketing is powerful stuff... Yes people need to take much more responsibility for themselves, but this is a very complex socio-economic problem and it needs to be addressed with some sense of the reality of the world we live in and with some toughness and some compassion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #159
196. Indeed...and (I mention this with great trepidation): I check in to DU at odd hours and days and
notice that no matter what time of day or night it is, I see many of the same names posting...which makes me wonder, really, how it's possible to burn significant calories by typing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #196
199. Some of us work at home... and my exercise machine gets used every day
almost... for at least 20 minutes, I also walk every day.

Oh and typing does burn calories by the way. So does breathing

I notice you did not care for the explanation on how biology is finding that things don't work the same way you thought they did in a lab as they do in biological pathways
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #199
201. Look, I appreciate your attempt but trying to short-circuit the laws of thermodynamics
is every bit as futile as proving creationism by denying the facts of evolution. If you're getting exercise, I commend you. I try to get a fair amount too so the fried chicken and ribeye steaks I love don't end up parking in my middle. So far I'm pretty much keeping a balance, even for an old phart. :-)

I probably hold biology in as much esteem as does anyone with a scientific background...it's just that I won't accept a claim based on that discipline that purports to render basic laws wrong, without rigorous
and repeatable evidence. I really don't think you will find any other competent scientist who will, either.

You think my reluctance to accept a claim that a body can gain more weight than it ingests is just an attempt to insult obese people...I assure you that's nowhere close to the truth. The thing is, we don't know -exactly- how
evolution (or gravity or magnetism, for that matter) work but we are very very confident that they do. Same goes for the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass and energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #201
203. It is simple, in your mind it is short circuiting
Edited on Wed May-13-09 06:51 PM by nadinbrzezinski
but if the calories are not absorbed and the food is excreted before it is used, it never entered the biological system

Yes, it is that simple, if you eat 9 Cals, but only five are aborbed and enter your body system and the other four go into the water when you poop, there you have it. Now that does not mean that the other four are gone, just never used by you.

Why that is so hard to understand I have no clue.

Nobody is violating anything... except perhaps your concept that if something went into your mouth it has to be fully used. You know that is not the case in some lab experiments. I know that... why should nature be more efficient? I'll wait for the answer, because nothing is created out of thin air, or destroyed into thin air.

By the way, extreme examples of this are known as mal absorption.. I forgot to add that


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
185. Article about leptin and reverse T3 research.
Obesity has become a major health epidemic and has dramatically increased over the last decades. Studies show that approximately one-third of the U.S. population is classified as obese and over two-thirds are significantly overweight. While the cause is multifactorial, studies are clear that almost all overweight individuals have metabolic and endocrinological dysfunction that is causing or contributing to their inability to lose weight.

It is not simply a problem that individuals are taking in more calories than they are consuming or lack of exercise or willpower, but rather it is a complex vicious-cycle of endocrinological and metabolic dysfunction. Contemporary medicine has failed to address these dysfunctions in overweight individuals and doctors and patients continue to believe that all cases are a matter of willpower and lifestyle. Thus, it is no surprise that obesity is reaching epidemic proportions.

Research is demonstrating that dysregulation of two key hormones may be a cause or major contributor of weight gain or inability to lose weight in the majority of overweight people. The first is leptin and the second is reverse T3. The exciting part is that doctors can now test for the presence of these physiologic barriers to weight loss and prescribe appropriate treatments with potentially dramatic results.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kent-holtorf/long-term-we...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #185
186. Thanks and more is emerging
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike 03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
197. I'm not quite sure, but I am quite sure I agree with you.
Edited on Wed May-13-09 06:31 PM by Mike 03
Correct me if I'm wrong:

1. There are many causes for obesity
2. Some of them are genetic
3. Some of them are dietary
4. Some of them are metabolic
5. Some of them are the result of our increasingly sedentary lifestyles
6. Some of them are a combination of all of the above

Okay?

What do we do?

Chronic disease is pervasive, and probably all of us either know someone who has, or personally have, a chronic illness like diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, etc...

Solutions?

Ideas?

Who are you angry at?

What is the takeaway message you want us to glean from your post?

(You know I love you and adore your posts. I'm just asking: What do you want us to get from your argument?)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #197
200. Well first we need to start talking about this at the POLICY level
we want single payer, well we need to address our national cheap food policy, and there are many reasons, including the fact that you cannot keep planting the same crop year in and year out and not set yourself for disaster, see Midwest.

Some food aditives are not good for us, they must be removed from food chain, human, animal does not matter.

Yes that will hurt some agro business, both of these will

We also must start treating obesity like the health care crisis it is, which means no more preaching at the doctor and more proactive work, here is a piece of trivia, most insurance companies do NOT cover a visit to the Registered Dietitian and many patients require care that includes a dietitian, see a diabetic for example.

And chiefly we must become aware that in a problem of this scope we need to stop blaming the individual and start asking what is going on and addressing what is going on? We will always have some folks who are going to be overweight, no doubt in my mind. But to the levels we have it right now, we need to find out why and act on it.

Those are just from the top of my head.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike 03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #200
204. I agree with every one of your points except one: I think physicians do have a role
here.

I know many doctors are afraid to bring the weight issue up because they know it so sensitive to so many of their patients.

If we could reduce the stigma of being overweight, I think it would be easier for medical professionals to raise this issue without any fear of hurting anybody's feelings.

Do you agree?

Should doctors and medical professionals discuss this issue with their patients, and perhaps introduce some strategies as to how to combat obesity?

I don't have the answer; I'm just asking what you think, since you have put a lot of thought into this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #204
206. Here is the problem with doctors
they are NOT trained in nutrition, except bariatric specialists

And they tend to be the well don't eat that much, because they got ten hours of nutrition best case in med school.

Now if doctors want to be ahem, helpful sure. But even my doc says, I have no clue about nutrition... and hates the fact that insurance services refuse to pay for the members of the health care team that do, aka your registered dietitian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike 03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #206
207. That is true. They get an hour or two of education about nutrition, except for the docs
who specialize in things like diabetes.

Good points, as usual, Nadine.

:loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #207
208. And those not really, the good ones have in the practice
a certified Diabetes Educator, CDE... who is a nurse practitioner or preferably a dietitian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike 03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #208
209. Okay, okay... I surrender.
You are on a tear tonight.

Be well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #209
210. Brother is a doc, one of the top three Chrohs disease specialists
and sis is a CDE

So lets just say I am also familiar with this.

By the way, Chrohns is a GI tract disease, one that leads to strange things like lots of pain, inflammation and mal absorption of foods...

Yes at one time family dinners were fun for the unintiated.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tutankhamun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
212. Cheap foods. High fructose corn syrup. Video games instead of soccer
or instead of cops 'n robbers for the little ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #212
213. The video games are part of the answer in the US, but not in Peru
and that is the point I have been trying to make.

After that add Jet Fuel, plastics, and other pollutants.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
227. Observations
I see an awful lot of people who have bridge cards (food stamps) at the grocery store with gorcery carts piled high with all sorts of processed, very bad for you, very expensive food. Lots of bags of chips and salty snacks, boxes of pizza rolls and all sorts of stuff like that. I am of very modest means and could never afford that kind of overpriced crap food. I can buy real food for much, much less money.

I know many people who have substantial means who eat better quality food but a great deal of it. They too are overweight.

Sorry but the consumption I see by both rich and poor (and in between) tells me a tale of mass consumption which of course leads to weight problems. Throw in the fact many have jobs that require little movement and spend spare time in front of computer or watching TV/movies and you have the perfect recipe for the problems we are seeing today.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzy creemcheeze Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #227
231. But the truth is that more poor are overweight than higher-income people
Edited on Thu May-14-09 02:23 PM by suzy creemcheeze
And really, I hate to use the term 'poor.' I think 'class' is far more descriptive and accurate because I have seen this issue first-hand.

I recently moved from a blue-collar area to a white-collar one. If you were to walk in my old 'hood, you'd think it was low-income because of the people you'd see. (I don't mean this to sound elitist in the least, but simply the conclusions drawn when people are strangers and make snap judgements.) However, according to the 2000 census, the average income was around $44,000 or so! Hardly qualifies for low-income. But so many people there are overweight. My new community has houses which sell for over $2 million! (LOL- don't get any ideas about my life from that little nugget of info--I rent and am not on that planet.)

I cannot think of having ever seen an obese person here. Yes, I have seen women with some meat on their bones, but they are exercising and they look like they just had a kid or something. People are always walking their dogs, jogging, etc. Very physically active. The kids ride their bikes to school. In my old 'hood, the parents would line up their SUVs and drop off the youngsters. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 18th 2014, 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC