Gluttony and Sloth ...
... ain't got nothing on Addict and Uncaring.
I think this is what has really poisoned the discourse when it comes to carbs and food quality vs. calories. The "alternate hypothesis" camp banks heavily on the visceral response and religious/judgmental tone of the terms gluttony and sloth to anger their base.
Gluttony, almost synonymous with greed, is one of the 7 deadly sins (that was just the first link in Google folks). The problem here is that Americans are eating more, and I think most would not be offended were this couched in the terminology of "passive overeating". Here is a Google Scholar search on the term. This, I believe is far more explanatory of this "simple" obesity epidemic than any other single factor. Bottom line, eating too much need not be associated with stuffing one's face to belly bursting.
Sloth ... Well, who wants to be called lazy? And yet again, while it is difficult to quantify, we are less active than we used to be. Everything from transportation to remote controls to motorized everything to wireless everything else. These little things do add up. I mean a large proportion of former athletes? Eat anything ever twig gets desk job in a cubicle? I find the arguments that activity has nothing to do with it to be the most disingenuous.
But if not a Glutton and Sloth, why are "those people" "fat"? Of course it's not anyone's fault, but yet, there's all manner of sinning going on out there. Those promoting some version of "CICO is meaningless" and it's all hormonal magic and nutrition and avoiding toxic stuff ... or the more simple version of carbs drive insulin drive fat ... have a hard time explaining why their approach seems to work no better. The low carbers play the martyr, but that gets old in the face of the extremes folks are willing to go to lose weight. Atkins has been around for over 40 years now (and it wasn't the first LC diet) and yet it did not forestall the obesity epidemic. We didn't cut fat, we added mostly carbs and a little fat, and we are getting fatter on the whole. Paleo has an even more spotty record as they can't even figure out what the diet is/was, but there's no evidence of lasting (and verifiable) obesity reversal just by improving the so-called "quality" of foods. But, if paleo/LC cures all (as we are told repeatedly) why doesn't everyone just stick with it? Why aren't even at least all of the die hards effortlessly ripped and voluptuous only in the right places?
Because they are Addicts and Uncaring. These are the two most often bantied around phrases. You see that carbs are addictive is a "truth" taken at face value. Anyone who dare eat carbs must be doing so because they are an addict and unable to abstain. The athletes get a little dispensation these days, but that wasn't always so (fat was the macro to increase not all that long ago in CrossFit nutrition classes). Everyone who eats carbs is looked upon the same as the drug addict or alcoholic who repeatedly relapses no matter how good they feel sober. Then there are those who "don't care about their health" -- or that of their children or significant others, etc. The purists among the purest of the pure in their ivory towers don't understand why the mere mortals would even want to eat something tasty while out with friends "in moderation". No, moderation is the enemy and it must be judged out of favor.
Calling someone an addict because they can enjoy life and foods in moderation is the ultimate smear. Ditto accusing them of having any less respect or caring for their bodies, families, etc. because they would rather enjoy cultural festivities or just a normal night out with friends than obsess endlessly over whether the eggs came from cage fed or free range hens. These terms are worse than even gluttony and sloth. It's time to remove all such judgments from discourse in this realm. I hold out little hope though.
It all depends! http://nigeepoo.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/diet-nutrition-fitness-whatever.html
This makes me think of how Amber/GoKaleo constantly gets attacked and called an addict and all other sorts of names when she talks about eating carbs, especially sugar. Some people just don't want to believe that she lost all that weight and maintains the loss by eating whatever the hell she wants in reasonable amounts, and that that's okay.
What I don't get with GoKaleo is that she's a tall muscular active woman. If she had never been obese, would anyone who met her on the street question for a minute that she could eat as she does? No ... they would probably assume she's one of those metabolically gifted. So which people are "allowed" to eat sugar, etc.? After all, it's just a different take on the same game. Insert their favorite food and watch the shifting feet!
It appears to be a self-preservation mechanism employed by most cults, and the case to use that term is quite strong. This doesn't make it right, but it seems to be what is behind it. If I say X is bad for you, don't eat X. I don't eat X. Look at all these people who don't eat X. So you have your group of like-minded X-shunners who reinforce each others beliefs -- especially during the weak times -- that X is bad. You can't have that person in a moment of weakness seeing a group of people consuming X together that seem rather healthy. Then they have to drag out the "Bible" to warn how X will catch up to you. I imagine it must suck to abstain from something for a long time only to learn that X isn't bad for you after all.
It should be about behaviour that works to apply scientific law ... finding which behaviours are the easiest way to apply CICO, MINUS the moral judgements.
anyway , hahaha ... I found this funny ;
The only Lyle article without "it depends" or "It's complicated" or "tangentially ..." in every 2nd sentence.
Is he copying me?
We have gone from a state in medicine where diet was not thought to be a large contributor to health issues to where diet is now the end all be all to every ailment known to man, it's simply ludicrous.
Obesity aside, (we know that condition to be pathological to many but not all), our diet in the proper energy balance may not be as all reaching as we think. We need a better dialogue with regards to diet.
A better dialogue that needs to start with the professionals in the field. The amount of crap that comes from people who call themselves Nutritionists, Dietitians, Registered Dietitians etc. Whenever I hear anyone who is supposed to know what they are talking about discuss foods in terms such as "healthy", "unhealthy", "good", "bad", "clean", "dirty", I immediately send up a red flag. How on earth can we expect the average person going through life to increase their understanding of dietary composition when those that should be educating them don't understand themselves and use silly monikers that are irrelevant?
In the end moderation does rule, has always ruled and works virtually every time it's tried, but clearly more is needed.
Last thought, does nobody consider the fact that a large portion of people who are overweight simply don't give a shit? I say this from my daily interactions and discussions on this very topic. (And helping people lose weight) I have many friends, customers and colleagues who are either overweight or obese. Few give a shit quite frankly. Oh they do when it creates a pathological condition, and for some it's too late, they can't simply change overnight, lose weight and be fine, this of course is what we are all researching. But for the majority, I don't think they give a shit! Being fat, overweight, obese or whatever you wan to call it means nothing to them. We constantly discuss all the mechanisms behind what we think of as a problem but we don't have enough discussions about the psychology involved. If people don't mind being fat then all the hand wringing and worrying and education in the world isn't going to change that, nor should it!
What a great label! I've always understood my problem to be "mindless snacking", "nervous nibbling", and "bored munching", but I may begin to use this, as it sounds more technical.
Is Occam"s razor the answer? Survival of the fittest?
I was obese (245 at a low gravity day at 5' 7'' with a waist measurement of 51'') and today I am still 5' 7'' but 161 lbs. with a bodyfat of about 8-10%.
Different protocols at different times. Low carb? Yes. Low calories? Yes. High Carbs? Yes. High protein? Yes? Vegetarian? Yes. Animal protein? Yes? Animal protein? No.
The times that I've been obsessed with weight loss have made me more miserable. I've learned a lot but the pursuit of being thin usually leaves more questions than answers. Plus, there is the undeniable fact that most who lose regain. And so, to the observer, it may appear I "don't give a shit." The reality is you can live your life in pursuit of something you may never, ever have or you can pick up the pieces and work with what you have.
Remember this, fitness trumps fatness! What that means is outcomes are known to be better for someone who is overweight and fit, than someone who is thin and sedentary. Body fat % does not necessarily portend fitness. So stay active, don't become obese and you should be fine!
(I've made many an argument that thin people worry more about overweight or even obese people than the overweight and or obese worry about it, the fact is most I know, and it's many, until they have obesity or weight related problems simply don't give a shit to be quite honest).
Yeah, I think "don't give a shit" is a bit of a stretch as regards most of the overweight people I know. Personally, I may or may not want to lose more weight at any particular time. For me it's just one aspect of my life and I think people presume all people somehow should want to or need to be a certain size, etc. If it impacts health and quality of life that's when it is something to put higher on the priority list, but if it's not, then it's possibly even detrimental to put it there.
I'm definitely NOT convinced of this. There have been a lot of cultures that had to work hard for food all the time but definitely not all cultures have had this.
Take the Pima (please) ... by all reports they had excess calories available, enough to become obese, for long stretches of their history.
Even ignoring the modern societies surviving just fine (food wise) living the traditional lifestyles, I've read archaeological and anthropological reports that the same was true for many cultures ... Hawaiians, various Amazonian tribes, the Indian tribes of Oregon, Washington, BC and ancient Newfoundland.
In many of these instances populations were controlled by infectious disease, probably not by regular starvation.
It is hard to have excess calories in a traditional HG society. Being a Native culture does not mean they are HG.
of being a hunter-gatherer—causing weight loss, plus the healthier diet
and increased physical activity all contributed to their improved
metabolic profiles. In western populations today, we don't have to do
the physical activity and yet we still get the ‘reward’ of a diet rich
in fat, salt, and sugar”, O'Dea told The Lancet.
Seems pretty simple and straightforward. Makes sense. It's repeatable. Appears logical from an evolutionary and survival standpoint. I would argue that it is this (turning our backs to our basic evolutionary lifestyle) that has given us the obesity epidemic. It is not macronutient driven but rather lifestyle driven.
One thing that always bugs people is to bring up family lifestyle. When I was a kid we didn't eat whatever we wanted, we ate what we were given ... mostly at home! The vast majority (like 90+ %) of homes were two parent households with one parent as full time caretaker or at least kids always having one parent at home. We were supervised by family and if not parents, extended family. We didn't eat out often. Nobody seems to want to discuss that :(
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..