Historically, for the majority, food was expensive and exercise was a freebie that was thrown in with working to earn your crust. Now food - especially low quality food - is astonishingly cheap and exercise is a luxury we wear special clothes and pay for. We aren't really optimised for the change in that equation.
Fat makes you fat? Or not?
- Thread starter bozmandb9
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Historically, for the majority, food was expensive and exercise was a freebie that was thrown in with working to earn your crust. Now food - especially low quality food - is astonishingly cheap and exercise is a luxury we wear special clothes and pay for. We aren't really optimised for the change in that equation.
It's not emotive, or at least not intended to be. We tend to have ridiculously simplistic views about weight and health sometimes. It was mostly in response to
I don't think I've ever been thin and at my lightest points in the last 20 years I was probably still clinically obese. There have however been several points in those 20 years that I've been fat but pretty fit. Those times have pretty much all been when I was in a position to prioritise my well-being and give myself the luxury of time or when I was employed in role that involved large amounts of physical labour. I'm unsure myself to what extent that relates to the positive effect on mental health of those things.
The Jogger
Legendary Member
- Location
- Spain
Now you're just being silly.
Did you read how the different types of food, effects the metabolism as in refined carbs how this can and does make people obese. You just need to look at all the low calorie, low sugar food that has been introduced to combat obesity and watch people getting fatter year on year. It's not as if we haven't seen a rise in gym membership, running , cycling etc, we have but we have also seen massive increases of obese people.
The Jogger
Legendary Member
- Location
- Spain
presta
Guru
The human body hasn't changed in 50,000 years, let alone the last 50.
...and as Mike Gs reference shows, dietary composition is irrelevant.What people were consuming in 1964 bears no relation to what people are consuming today.
You need to learn how to be more discriminating in your choice of references. A quack chiropractor blogging on You Tube doesn't trump peer reviewed science published in an academic journal.
presta
Guru
About 10 years ago I developed a xanthelasma (lump of cholesterol under the skin in the corner of the eye). I put it down to the recent acquisition of a serious cheese sandwich habit, and sure enough, it disappeared within a year after I reduced my fat intake. Interestingly though, my fat intake was already below the recommended level before I reduced it, so god knows how high my cholesterol would be if I were to eat a 'high' fat diet.
Thanks. You've just made my point for me. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote.
Yeah, it informs me a lot. Particularly about people who think that science is a Youtube thing, and that chiropractors are experts on diet. He also flat out lies in the first minute, which means you can completely disregard everything he says. Oh, and if you check him out using your favourite search engine, you'll find that he runs a business trying to help people to lose weight, (a field in which he has no qualifications) so he is not a disinterested third party as required of proper science. Finally, he may call himself doctor, but he wouldn't be regarded as such here, as he is a Doctor of Chiropractics. Here is what Chiropractors are trained in:
From Wiki
So, if you are into alternative medicine (by definition, without an evidence base backing it up), you think that someone whose "expertise" is musculo-skeletal injuries is the first port of call for advise on weight disorders, and you think Youtube clips trump peer reviewed science, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Last edited:
Our understanding of it has though... As an example, my mum sat on the maternity ward rolling her own cigarettes. Her mum was of a generation who thought smoking could be actively good for you.
Here is a direct explanation of the apparent conflict between reported calorie consumption and weight gain. It's a piece of research which shows that individual and national calorie consumption is vastly under-stated:
Think about that a second. It entirely explains the study quoted by The Jogger, above (I wish posts here had numbers!!).
Think about that a second. It entirely explains the study quoted by The Jogger, above (I wish posts here had numbers!!).
vickster
Legendary Member
They should do, put your phone or tablet in landscape
They should do, put your phone or tablet in landscape
My phone has a crinkly chord attached, probably too short for it to reach the landscape from where it is plugged into the wall socket. Tablets? Mercifully, I'm pill-free.
I'm at a PC.............and I've found the post numbers! It would be hard to make them more obscure if one tried. The post I was referring to was #47.
presta
Guru
[QUOTE 5011366, member: 10119"]Her mum was of a generation who thought smoking could be actively good for you.[/QUOTE]
That wasn't peer reviewed science, though.
Smoking is quite a good example actually, it was known that smoking causes lung cancer for about a decade before the famous research done by Richard Doll, but people didn't want to listen before Doll's work because the first research was done by the Nazis. People only listen when someone they like is telling them what they want to hear.
That wasn't peer reviewed science, though.
Smoking is quite a good example actually, it was known that smoking causes lung cancer for about a decade before the famous research done by Richard Doll, but people didn't want to listen before Doll's work because the first research was done by the Nazis. People only listen when someone they like is telling them what they want to hear.
