T Nation

Why We Get Fat


#1

yet another reason I feel it's not all personal responsibility like some say

keep giving those high carb recommendations gov't, docs, RDs, ain't nothin broken with those reocmmendations


#2

Thought you were gonna say wheat…

:wink:


#3

I get hungry everytime I see one of these videos >:(

Seriously though, good video. I wish it went on to explain a bit more specifically what foods so I could pass it on to my family members that are not so good with understanding nutrition because I don’t think they’ll make the connection and will assume it just means fatty food.


#4

inb4moderationarguments


#5

cool story. What do you look like btw?


#6

Global Nutrition Consumption and BMI
http://chartsbin.com/view/1162

Compare that chart to the attached image.

Note that, in response to the objections of “that’s for food availability!”, I have now provided a link for macronutrient intake in the United States.

Now, the percentages do not match up exactly; however, 49/38/12 vs. 52/33/15 (c/f/p) is, nevertheless, very much in the ballpark of ‘close enough’.

I would say the trend matches up closer to kcal than carbs.


#7

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
inb4moderationarguments[/quote]

lol, debraD… basically, if you think of insulin and what will chronically elevate it, think Food Guide pyramid :wink:


#8

still checking it out… so we have an obesity problem b/c women are consuming on avg 2,000 cals and males 2500 cals?


#9

thanks for that link Anonym, saved it…

sorry, 1800 cals/day for women, hardly seems high even for non active ones… 52% CHO, would you agree that’s too high for the avg person?


#10

An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods

I won’t be able to read this more thoroughly until later tonight, but what do you carbs --> insulin --> fat proponents make of things like fish, cheese and beef having a higher II than white pasta?


#11

[quote]anonym wrote:
An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods

I won’t be able to read this more thoroughly until later tonight, but what do you carbs --> insulin --> fat proponents make of things like fish, cheese and beef having a higher II than white pasta?[/quote]

good question. Perhaps in the absence of sugar to be shuttled into fat cells? Or the fact those foods are more satiating? Which may lead to lower overall consumption? Better long-term leptin sensitivity?


#12

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods

I won’t be able to read this more thoroughly until later tonight, but what do you carbs --> insulin --> fat proponents make of things like fish, cheese and beef having a higher II than white pasta?[/quote]

good question. Perhaps in the absence of sugar to be shuttled into fat cells? Or the fact those foods are more satiating? Which may lead to lower overall consumption? Better long-term leptin sensitivity?[/quote]

Well, the increased ‘satiety’ from these foods doesn’t jive with the implication that the decreased satiety seen from carbs is the result of elevated insulin… which would lead to GREATER overall consumption.

Unless the answer just isn’t that simple??


#13

Just skimmed through “Wheat belly”.

So am I right to conclude that the book promotes eating low GI and especially avoiding wheat?

Do you “wheat belly” advocates beleive there is any benefit of eating high GI before/after working out?

tweet


#14

Here’s an interesting graph from the USDA.
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/foodsupply/foodsupply1909-2000.pdf

It looks like carbohydrate was the predominant macronutrient in the US diet as far back as 1909.

And yet, why didn’t the obesity explosion begin AT LEAST 103 years ago??


#15

[quote]theBird wrote:
So am I right to conclude that the book promotes eating low GI and especially avoiding wheat?[/quote]

Towards the end I believe it turns into another “low carb” manifesto.


#16

[quote]anonym wrote:
Here’s an interesting graph from the USDA.
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/foodsupply/foodsupply1909-2000.pdf

It looks like carbohydrate was the predominant macronutrient in the US diet as far back as 1909.

And yet, why didn’t the obesity explosion begin AT LEAST 103 years ago??[/quote]

they used to put iodine in bread until the 1960s-1970s. one slice of bread had 150mcg of iodine. they also conditioned flour with iodine, so im guessing pastas also had iodine in it too. then they replaced the iodine with bromide. bromide binds to the iodine receptors in the body if in excess, which leads to a host of ailments including decreased thyroid function. the thyroid (and the entire body) needs iodine in order to function.

there was actually a study where rabbits fed a high cholesterol diet developed clogged arteries, but when the rabbits were fed a high cholesterol diet and iodine they had zero clogged arteries.

im not saying thats the reason, ive just been reading up on it lately and it sort of makes sense why the weight problems started in the 60s and 70s.


#17

anonym- based upon talking to people and just my inclination, were carbs really the predominant part of the diet way back then?

Think of a typical breakfast in the 1940s/50s and today, do you think they’re the same macro wise.

BTW- Carb type matters as well, no matter what the “calorie is a calorie” folks say. Carb sources 100 yrs ago (while some bread) are not the same as what most people consume today as far as carbs.

what are your thoughts on what is driving the obesity epidemic?


#18

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]theBird wrote:
So am I right to conclude that the book promotes eating low GI and especially avoiding wheat?[/quote]

Towards the end I believe it turns into another “low carb” manifesto.[/quote]

Agree on that note, if anything he should have just stuck to the task at hand, but I guess if you’re righting a book in relation to nutrition and saying to avoid certain things you need to make some notes on what people should be eating.


#19

So, that graph shows that Americans consumed more carbs, less fat in 1909, compared to today? I find this intriguing, yet odd.

Beef, eggs, butter, lard, hardly any sugar, no HFCS, yet somehow now we’re consuming less carbs and more fat? I don’t buy it.

I’ve seen other graphs that show fat consumption increasing slightly but only when certain tracking stats started being measured, and carb consumption increasing… I’ll see if I can take a pic of the article this week when I’m back at work


#20

I think it’s largely due to our lifestyle changes – 24/7 access to calorically-dense foods, introduction of TV/video games/computers, automatic this that and everything. There’s a lot of nasty additives like HFCS that really screws with you.

Overall, good video and very well communicated. So this guy is from U Cal? Anyone know his credentials?