Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why We Get Fat
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Immortalist
Apr 23, 2013, 12:54:58 PM4/23/13
to
Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are foods that
activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
Now the criminals have been found and it is the fake super foods of
civilization! Whatever controls insulin production and metabolism is
better supported by evidence than the old calories in calories out
defunct 1900s idea that has dominated till now.
"...Insulin is the primary hormone that fixes fat in the fat cells.
This is why Type I diabetics lose weight: they're not producing enough
insulin. Since insulin is manufactured in direct response to
carbohydrates, if you don't eat them, you won't have a mechanism by
which to store fat. ...any success in standard diets can be attributed
directly to the dieter's reduced intake of carbohydrates, especially
sugars and particularly fructose..."
-the old "calories in - calories out" steam engine view of obesity is
not only mildly incorrect, it is so very obviously wrong on so many
levels as to completely defy rational thought.
-fat metabolism versus carbohydrate metabolism; carbs disturb the
delicately balanced fat storage mechanism and cause obesity. ...the
research which backs this up, and has for decades and decades, is
being totally ignored by most medical and public health officials.
--That's right - carbs. Not dietary fat, not sloth, not moral
weakness, not any other of the fad social mythology which passes for
"evidence" driven policies and public stances.
-our great-grandmothers had a better sense of healthy food than almost
all the scientists, dieticians, health agency spokescritters, and
gurus who have filled our heads with lies for at least 60 years. (And
been accessories to the pain and death of millions of wrongly informed
people...)
---
The brilliant thing about science is that when something is disproved
once, it's disproved forever. The not-so-brilliant thing about public
health policy is that it has little to do with science.
Everyone in the developed world knows what's causing our obesity
epidemic. BBC nailed it: "We eat too much, and too much of the wrong
things," and Michelle Obama tells us "We have to move more." Clearly
what we need is a balanced diet of lean meats, some good fats, and
complex carbohydrates like fruit, vegetables and whole grain bread,
and exercise of 30 to 90 minutes per day. Their prescription is
completely reasonable and makes intuitive sense.
It is neat, plausible, and wrong. It has in fact been disproved, as
nearly as "disproof" can exist in nutrition science...
...all those public recommendations -- the food pyramid, the "eat
food, not too much" approach, everything we know about a balanced
lifestyle -- is founded on the premise of Calories In vs. Calories
Out. That we get fat because we eat too many calories, or we don't
burn enough of them through movement. But this is nonsense. It's not
just wrong, it is actually not a statement about what causes obesity
at all (or heart disease, cancer or diabetes, for that matter.) It is,
in Taubes' words, a "junior high level mistake," because it tells us
nothing about fat accumulation. If we get fat, by definition we have
taken in more calories than we've put out -- but WHY we took in those
calories, or didn't burn them, is the key point.
Taubes reviews the scientific literature (rather than the popular
press) and presents a conclusion that was common knowledge before
WWII, and heresy afterward:
we get fat because our fat cells
have become disregulated
and are taking nutrients that
should be available to other tissues.
Like a tumor, the cells live for themselves rather than in balance
with the rest of the body. And since those nutrients aren't available,
we become hungry and tired. Therefore we eat more, and move less.
For the chronic dieters among us, one passage about animal models will
explain decades of frustration. Rodents with a particular part of the
hypothalamus destroyed would become obese and/or sedentary *as a
consequence* of their bodies putting on more fat. "After the surgery,
their fat tissue sucks up calories to make more fat; this leaves
insufficient fuel for the rest of the body...The only way to prevent
these animals from getting obese is to starve them...they get fat not
by overeating but by eating at all." Sound familiar?
The problem isn't one of gluttony and sloth, as Taubes refers to it,
but of hormone balance. Simply put, some people are more sensitive to
the hormone effects of insulin, cortisol, and a few other -ols, than
other people are. The more sensitive you are, the more you're likely
to get fat, and the more fat you're likely to get, in the presence of
even small amounts of carbohydrate -- and in the absence of enough
fat.
That's right, this book advocates eating fat. Not just moderately, but
as much fat as possible, up to 78% of calories. Not lean meats, not
Jenny-O 99.6% fat-free turkey, not skinless chicken breasts, but lard.
Yes, lard. The healthy way of eating, according to Taubes, is
moderately high protein and high fat. Yes, high fat. About a 3:1 ratio
of fat to protein, and almost no carbohydrates. (Telling people to eat
a balanced diet containing carbohydrates is, he says, equivalent to
telling smokers to include a balanced serving of cigarettes.) And he
demonstrates exactly why a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet is the most
heart-healthy approach, as borne out by several dozen recent studies.
While Taubes acknowledges that exercise seems to be good for us for a
variety of reasons, weight control isn't one of them. Study after
study conducted by proponents of exercise have admitted that they see
no compelling evidence for exercise as a weight-loss tool. And it
makes sense if you throw out the calories in/calories out model of why
we get fat. If we're fat because our fat tissues are starving the rest
of our cells of fuel, exercise is just going to make us hungrier and
more tired, not leaner and more fit. (It's worth noting that according
to Taubes, in the 1930s obese patients were treated with bed rest.)
The main thrust of Taubes' argument, however, surrounds sugar and to a
lesser extent any carbohydrate. Insulin is the primary hormone that
fixes fat in the fat cells. This is why Type I diabetics lose weight:
they're not producing enough insulin. Since insulin is manufactured in
direct response to carbohydrates, if you don't eat them, you won't
have a mechanism by which to store fat. (Taubes notes that this
mechanism is not controversial; it simply hasn't had an impact on
nutrition policy.) Taubes argues that any success in standard diets
can be attributed directly to the dieter's reduced intake of
carbohydrates, especially sugars and particularly fructose.
Once the underlying cause of obesity is understood (hormone balance,
not gluttony/sloth) the recommendations on what to do about it are
surprisingly simple and therefore brief. This is a book about the
science of nutrition, not a diet book, but there is a list of
recommended foods in the Appendix. The book does not tell you how to
eat in a restaurant. But it does tell you that the issue isn't in your
brain, your willpower, your character, your job, your environment or
even (except to the extent that you're sensitive to carbohydrate) in
your genes. The problem with fat is in your fat cells.
For a lay audience, this book is as good as it gets if you want to
read actual science about health and nutrition. If you're of
scientific or technical bent, read Good Calories Bad Calories first,
then give Why We Get Fat to your parents.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307949435
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_lifestyle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
Now the criminals have been found and it is the fake super foods of
civilization! Whatever controls insulin production and metabolism is
better supported by evidence than the old calories in calories out
defunct 1900s idea that has dominated till now.
"...Insulin is the primary hormone that fixes fat in the fat cells.
This is why Type I diabetics lose weight: they're not producing enough
insulin. Since insulin is manufactured in direct response to
carbohydrates, if you don't eat them, you won't have a mechanism by
which to store fat. ...any success in standard diets can be attributed
directly to the dieter's reduced intake of carbohydrates, especially
sugars and particularly fructose..."
-the old "calories in - calories out" steam engine view of obesity is
not only mildly incorrect, it is so very obviously wrong on so many
levels as to completely defy rational thought.
-fat metabolism versus carbohydrate metabolism; carbs disturb the
delicately balanced fat storage mechanism and cause obesity. ...the
research which backs this up, and has for decades and decades, is
being totally ignored by most medical and public health officials.
--That's right - carbs. Not dietary fat, not sloth, not moral
weakness, not any other of the fad social mythology which passes for
"evidence" driven policies and public stances.
-our great-grandmothers had a better sense of healthy food than almost
all the scientists, dieticians, health agency spokescritters, and
gurus who have filled our heads with lies for at least 60 years. (And
been accessories to the pain and death of millions of wrongly informed
people...)
---
The brilliant thing about science is that when something is disproved
once, it's disproved forever. The not-so-brilliant thing about public
health policy is that it has little to do with science.
Everyone in the developed world knows what's causing our obesity
epidemic. BBC nailed it: "We eat too much, and too much of the wrong
things," and Michelle Obama tells us "We have to move more." Clearly
what we need is a balanced diet of lean meats, some good fats, and
complex carbohydrates like fruit, vegetables and whole grain bread,
and exercise of 30 to 90 minutes per day. Their prescription is
completely reasonable and makes intuitive sense.
It is neat, plausible, and wrong. It has in fact been disproved, as
nearly as "disproof" can exist in nutrition science...
...all those public recommendations -- the food pyramid, the "eat
food, not too much" approach, everything we know about a balanced
lifestyle -- is founded on the premise of Calories In vs. Calories
Out. That we get fat because we eat too many calories, or we don't
burn enough of them through movement. But this is nonsense. It's not
just wrong, it is actually not a statement about what causes obesity
at all (or heart disease, cancer or diabetes, for that matter.) It is,
in Taubes' words, a "junior high level mistake," because it tells us
nothing about fat accumulation. If we get fat, by definition we have
taken in more calories than we've put out -- but WHY we took in those
calories, or didn't burn them, is the key point.
Taubes reviews the scientific literature (rather than the popular
press) and presents a conclusion that was common knowledge before
WWII, and heresy afterward:
we get fat because our fat cells
have become disregulated
and are taking nutrients that
should be available to other tissues.
Like a tumor, the cells live for themselves rather than in balance
with the rest of the body. And since those nutrients aren't available,
we become hungry and tired. Therefore we eat more, and move less.
For the chronic dieters among us, one passage about animal models will
explain decades of frustration. Rodents with a particular part of the
hypothalamus destroyed would become obese and/or sedentary *as a
consequence* of their bodies putting on more fat. "After the surgery,
their fat tissue sucks up calories to make more fat; this leaves
insufficient fuel for the rest of the body...The only way to prevent
these animals from getting obese is to starve them...they get fat not
by overeating but by eating at all." Sound familiar?
The problem isn't one of gluttony and sloth, as Taubes refers to it,
but of hormone balance. Simply put, some people are more sensitive to
the hormone effects of insulin, cortisol, and a few other -ols, than
other people are. The more sensitive you are, the more you're likely
to get fat, and the more fat you're likely to get, in the presence of
even small amounts of carbohydrate -- and in the absence of enough
fat.
That's right, this book advocates eating fat. Not just moderately, but
as much fat as possible, up to 78% of calories. Not lean meats, not
Jenny-O 99.6% fat-free turkey, not skinless chicken breasts, but lard.
Yes, lard. The healthy way of eating, according to Taubes, is
moderately high protein and high fat. Yes, high fat. About a 3:1 ratio
of fat to protein, and almost no carbohydrates. (Telling people to eat
a balanced diet containing carbohydrates is, he says, equivalent to
telling smokers to include a balanced serving of cigarettes.) And he
demonstrates exactly why a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet is the most
heart-healthy approach, as borne out by several dozen recent studies.
While Taubes acknowledges that exercise seems to be good for us for a
variety of reasons, weight control isn't one of them. Study after
study conducted by proponents of exercise have admitted that they see
no compelling evidence for exercise as a weight-loss tool. And it
makes sense if you throw out the calories in/calories out model of why
we get fat. If we're fat because our fat tissues are starving the rest
of our cells of fuel, exercise is just going to make us hungrier and
more tired, not leaner and more fit. (It's worth noting that according
to Taubes, in the 1930s obese patients were treated with bed rest.)
The main thrust of Taubes' argument, however, surrounds sugar and to a
lesser extent any carbohydrate. Insulin is the primary hormone that
fixes fat in the fat cells. This is why Type I diabetics lose weight:
they're not producing enough insulin. Since insulin is manufactured in
direct response to carbohydrates, if you don't eat them, you won't
have a mechanism by which to store fat. (Taubes notes that this
mechanism is not controversial; it simply hasn't had an impact on
nutrition policy.) Taubes argues that any success in standard diets
can be attributed directly to the dieter's reduced intake of
carbohydrates, especially sugars and particularly fructose.
Once the underlying cause of obesity is understood (hormone balance,
not gluttony/sloth) the recommendations on what to do about it are
surprisingly simple and therefore brief. This is a book about the
science of nutrition, not a diet book, but there is a list of
recommended foods in the Appendix. The book does not tell you how to
eat in a restaurant. But it does tell you that the issue isn't in your
brain, your willpower, your character, your job, your environment or
even (except to the extent that you're sensitive to carbohydrate) in
your genes. The problem with fat is in your fat cells.
For a lay audience, this book is as good as it gets if you want to
read actual science about health and nutrition. If you're of
scientific or technical bent, read Good Calories Bad Calories first,
then give Why We Get Fat to your parents.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307949435
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_lifestyle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
George Plimpton
Apr 23, 2013, 1:22:22 PM4/23/13
to
On 4/23/2013 9:54 AM, Immortalist wrote:
> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are
IS...the main cause of fat buildup is eating TOO MUCH FUCKING FOOD!
> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are
Kicking Ass and Taking Names
Apr 23, 2013, 2:31:45 PM4/23/13
to
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:22:22 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:
>On 4/23/2013 9:54 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are
>
>IS...the main cause of fat buildup is eating TOO MUCH FUCKING FOOD!
No shit!!!
Congratulations, George . . . you broke the code!!!
Sit around, punching the TV remote, stuffing your face and the next
thing you know, you can't move your lard-filled ass off the goddam
sofa.
But try telling that to any lardass fatboy you know. According to
them it's all genetics.
wrote:
>On 4/23/2013 9:54 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are
>
>IS...the main cause of fat buildup is eating TOO MUCH FUCKING FOOD!
Congratulations, George . . . you broke the code!!!
Sit around, punching the TV remote, stuffing your face and the next
thing you know, you can't move your lard-filled ass off the goddam
sofa.
But try telling that to any lardass fatboy you know. According to
them it's all genetics.
Tom Sr.
Apr 23, 2013, 2:43:17 PM4/23/13
to
On Apr 23, 2:31 pm, Kicking Ass and Taking Names
.
-----
-----
Please Note:
In select newsgroups my post will be followed by an out-of-date, cut-
and-paste, SHRIEKING ranting and raving post by Bob Milby Jr., aka
Patriot Games, aka Buster Norris, aka 10,000s of Sockpuppets -- Winner
of The alt.usenet.kooks Awards: Palmjob Paddle (July 2008)*, KO0k of
the Month (Sept. 2012)**, and the Order of the Holey Sockpuppet (Oct.
2012)!***
* This award is given to the person who gets spanked (as in,
thrashed) the most in a given month by other posters or even himself.
** Given to someone whose Kookery is judged to have surpassed all
others.
*** For those most prolific in the art of, abiet thinly,
disguising their net.presence behind whatever nose and glasses they
can concoct.
We hope to return you to more rational posting after this brief,
psychotic interruption.
------
------
<PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:22:22 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
> >On 4/23/2013 9:54 AM, Immortalist wrote:
> >> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are
> >IS...the main cause of fat buildup is eating TOO MUCH FUCKING FOOD!
> --
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:22:22 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
> >On 4/23/2013 9:54 AM, Immortalist wrote:
> >> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are
> >IS...the main cause of fat buildup is eating TOO MUCH FUCKING FOOD!
> No shit!!!
> Congratulations, George . . . you broke the code!!!
> Sit around, punching the TV remote, stuffing your face and the next
> thing you know, you can't move your lard-filled ass off the goddam
> sofa.
Eating Blue Bunny ice cream doesn't help either.
> Congratulations, George . . . you broke the code!!!
> Sit around, punching the TV remote, stuffing your face and the next
> thing you know, you can't move your lard-filled ass off the goddam
> sofa.
.
-----
-----
Please Note:
In select newsgroups my post will be followed by an out-of-date, cut-
and-paste, SHRIEKING ranting and raving post by Bob Milby Jr., aka
Patriot Games, aka Buster Norris, aka 10,000s of Sockpuppets -- Winner
of The alt.usenet.kooks Awards: Palmjob Paddle (July 2008)*, KO0k of
the Month (Sept. 2012)**, and the Order of the Holey Sockpuppet (Oct.
2012)!***
* This award is given to the person who gets spanked (as in,
thrashed) the most in a given month by other posters or even himself.
** Given to someone whose Kookery is judged to have surpassed all
others.
*** For those most prolific in the art of, abiet thinly,
disguising their net.presence behind whatever nose and glasses they
can concoct.
We hope to return you to more rational posting after this brief,
psychotic interruption.
------
------
Dare
Apr 23, 2013, 7:16:59 PM4/23/13
to
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:16744e24-f49b-4570...@mf10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Is " bad" (LDL) cholesterol a problem?
If humans are living much longer now than in
paleolithic days, seems there is more time for
for plaque build up in arteries.
news:16744e24-f49b-4570...@mf10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> That's right, this book advocates eating fat. Not just moderately, but
> as much fat as possible, up to 78% of calories. Not lean meats, not
> Jenny-O 99.6% fat-free turkey, not skinless chicken breasts, but lard.
> Yes, lard. The healthy way of eating, according to Taubes, is
> moderately high protein and high fat. Yes, high fat. About a 3:1 ratio
> of fat to protein, and almost no carbohydrates. (Telling people to eat
> a balanced diet containing carbohydrates is, he says, equivalent to
> telling smokers to include a balanced serving of cigarettes.) And he
> demonstrates exactly why a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet is the most
> heart-healthy approach, as borne out by several dozen recent studies.
Lard?
> That's right, this book advocates eating fat. Not just moderately, but
> as much fat as possible, up to 78% of calories. Not lean meats, not
> Jenny-O 99.6% fat-free turkey, not skinless chicken breasts, but lard.
> Yes, lard. The healthy way of eating, according to Taubes, is
> moderately high protein and high fat. Yes, high fat. About a 3:1 ratio
> of fat to protein, and almost no carbohydrates. (Telling people to eat
> a balanced diet containing carbohydrates is, he says, equivalent to
> telling smokers to include a balanced serving of cigarettes.) And he
> demonstrates exactly why a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet is the most
> heart-healthy approach, as borne out by several dozen recent studies.
Is " bad" (LDL) cholesterol a problem?
If humans are living much longer now than in
paleolithic days, seems there is more time for
for plaque build up in arteries.
Bret Cahill
Apr 23, 2013, 11:02:26 PM4/23/13
to
> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are foods that
> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
Americans are fat because time = money, fatty foods save time and
> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
Americans are greedy.
I just swam a mile in 30:25 and tomorrow I'll regret it because I only
eat healthy foods which waste time.
I'll be in a hurry Wednesday and then have to stop to eat an entire
extra meal because I wanted to shave a minute or two from time in the
pool..
In fact I'm already hungry and pissed that I'm hungry.
I keep matso crackers in my truck because they save time. You can eat
those crackers while you drive and just brush off the crumbs.
Bret Cahill
George Plimpton
Apr 24, 2013, 1:58:28 AM4/24/13
to
On 4/23/2013 8:02 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are foods that
>> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
>> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
>> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
>
> Americans are fat because
Bret Cahill, who notoriously lost a case against the US Dept of Labor
>> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are foods that
>> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
>> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
>> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
>
> Americans are fat because
when he represented himself in a stupid lawsuit, is fat - and a fat fuck
- because it's the natural order of things.
Bret Cahill
Apr 24, 2013, 3:20:58 AM4/24/13
to
In order to solve your weight problem you must first understand the
problem.
Americans are fat because time = money, fatty foods save time and
Americans are greedy.
of.
Just don't violate the Gipper's 11th Commandment.
Bret Cahill
Dare
Apr 24, 2013, 9:23:56 AM4/24/13
to
"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dcf0cf41-15a4-4534...@ka6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
You could add some nuts or seeds for extra fat that would
keep you satisfied and not feeling hungry longer.
I get them in bulk on sale...you can freeze them for longer storage.
Sometimes I make nut butters with a food processor.
Walnut butter....wow....very good, but VERY high fat..
nutritional data (select appropriate serving size):
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3138/2
keep you satisfied and not feeling hungry longer.
I get them in bulk on sale...you can freeze them for longer storage.
Sometimes I make nut butters with a food processor.
Walnut butter....wow....very good, but VERY high fat..
nutritional data (select appropriate serving size):
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3138/2
George Plimpton
Apr 24, 2013, 11:34:03 AM4/24/13
to
On 4/24/2013 12:20 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are foods that
>>>> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
>>>> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
>>>> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
>>
>>> Americans are fat because
>>
>> Bret Cahill, who notoriously lost a case against the US Dept of Labor
>> when he represented himself in a stupid lawsuit, is fat - and a fat fuck
>> - because it's the natural order of things.
>
> You're projecting.
I'm describing you. You *did* lose a silly, doomed-to-fail case against
>>>> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are foods that
>>>> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
>>>> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
>>>> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
>>
>>> Americans are fat because
>>
>> Bret Cahill, who notoriously lost a case against the US Dept of Labor
>> when he represented himself in a stupid lawsuit, is fat - and a fat fuck
>> - because it's the natural order of things.
>
> You're projecting.
the Dept. of Labor, and you *did* stupidly act as your own lawyer in it.
You *are* a fat fuck, and that is the natural order of things.
> In order to solve your weight problem you must first understand the
> problem.
> Americans are fat because time = money, fatty foods save time and
> Americans are greedy.
Zerkon
Apr 25, 2013, 8:35:47 AM4/25/13
to
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:54:58 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
> the main causes of fat
x in, {x-1} out.
If We then a society. If society then an economy. If economy then buying
selling. In the economic reality of today's We, if buying and selling
then the economic weight of marketing.
In considering one of the main causes then, how fat are high fat food
advertising budgets? How fat are the economic incentives for a person
with a PhD in marketing and/or mass psychology in designing commercials
for a multi billion dollar corporation that sells high fat foods and
drinks to the 5-15 year olds of the We? Are the scientists who help
design the foods well paid? Are the universities and politicians who get
fat grants and donations from the fat food corporations an aspect of
cause?
> the main causes of fat
x in, {x-1} out.
If We then a society. If society then an economy. If economy then buying
selling. In the economic reality of today's We, if buying and selling
then the economic weight of marketing.
In considering one of the main causes then, how fat are high fat food
advertising budgets? How fat are the economic incentives for a person
with a PhD in marketing and/or mass psychology in designing commercials
for a multi billion dollar corporation that sells high fat foods and
drinks to the 5-15 year olds of the We? Are the scientists who help
design the foods well paid? Are the universities and politicians who get
fat grants and donations from the fat food corporations an aspect of
cause?
Dare
Apr 25, 2013, 9:24:12 AM4/25/13
to
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:16744e24-f49b-4570...@mf10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
news:16744e24-f49b-4570...@mf10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are foods that
> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
> Now the criminals have been found and it is the fake super foods of
> civilization! Whatever controls insulin production and metabolism is
> better supported by evidence than the old calories in calories out
> defunct 1900s idea that has dominated till now.
>
> "...Insulin is the primary hormone that fixes fat in the fat cells.
> This is why Type I diabetics lose weight: they're not producing enough
> insulin. Since insulin is manufactured in direct response to
> carbohydrates, if you don't eat them, you won't have a mechanism by
> which to store fat. ...any success in standard diets can be attributed
> directly to the dieter's reduced intake of carbohydrates, especially
> sugars and particularly fructose..."
>
> -the old "calories in - calories out" steam engine view of obesity is
> not only mildly incorrect, it is so very obviously wrong on so many
> levels as to completely defy rational thought.
So, do calories count at all?
> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
> Now the criminals have been found and it is the fake super foods of
> civilization! Whatever controls insulin production and metabolism is
> better supported by evidence than the old calories in calories out
> defunct 1900s idea that has dominated till now.
>
> "...Insulin is the primary hormone that fixes fat in the fat cells.
> This is why Type I diabetics lose weight: they're not producing enough
> insulin. Since insulin is manufactured in direct response to
> carbohydrates, if you don't eat them, you won't have a mechanism by
> which to store fat. ...any success in standard diets can be attributed
> directly to the dieter's reduced intake of carbohydrates, especially
> sugars and particularly fructose..."
>
> -the old "calories in - calories out" steam engine view of obesity is
> not only mildly incorrect, it is so very obviously wrong on so many
> levels as to completely defy rational thought.
What happens to the calories from fat/protein that are not
used or "burned" by the body...are they excreted without
any effect on the body(or increase in body fat/weight)?
Bret Cahill
Apr 25, 2013, 11:22:29 AM4/25/13
to
> > In order to solve your weight problem you must first understand the
> > problem.
>
> I don't have a weight problem.
What else besides lack of exercise and greasy salt is causing
> > problem.
>
> I don't have a weight problem.
teabaggers to get duped into believing the Federalist # 10 was written
by Karlo Marx?
Or buying gold?
> > Americans are fat because time = money, fatty foods save time and
> > Americans are greedy.
>
> You have no insight into America's prevalence of obesity.
Bret Cahill
Dare
Apr 25, 2013, 2:24:07 PM4/25/13
to
"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:033a2762-1d28-4893...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Why does it make people obese?
Is there a difference in any connection between a particular individual
who is obese being a Republican and that of an individual who is
obese being a Democrat?
>
>> > Americans are fat because time = money, fatty foods save time and
>> > Americans are greedy.
>>
>> You have no insight into America's prevalence of obesity.
>
> Just look at the red states. Just look at the GOP base.
What do you see as the connection between the GOP and obesity?
>> > Americans are fat because time = money, fatty foods save time and
>> > Americans are greedy.
>>
>> You have no insight into America's prevalence of obesity.
>
> Just look at the red states. Just look at the GOP base.
Why does it make people obese?
Is there a difference in any connection between a particular individual
who is obese being a Republican and that of an individual who is
obese being a Democrat?
Bret Cahill
Apr 25, 2013, 11:56:02 PM4/25/13
to
> >> > Americans are fat because time = money, fatty foods save time and
> >> > Americans are greedy.
>
> >> You have no insight into America's prevalence of obesity.
>
> > Just look at the red states. Just look at the GOP base.
>
> What do you see as the connection between the GOP and obesity?
Time = money, fatty foods save time and wage slaves cannot control
> >> > Americans are greedy.
>
> >> You have no insight into America's prevalence of obesity.
>
> > Just look at the red states. Just look at the GOP base.
>
> What do you see as the connection between the GOP and obesity?
their lifestyle because they are too busy working unpaid overtime..
Unemployment and health care costs are high right now so it's a good
time to rethink everything regarding employment.
Design the work place around a healthy life style. All work places.
The savings in health care costs will make up for any inconvience to
employers.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Apr 25, 2013, 11:57:42 PM4/25/13
to
> >> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are foods that
> >> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
> >> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
> >> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
>
> > Americans are fat because time = money, fatty foods save time and
> > Americans are greedy.
>
> > I just swam a mile in 30:25 and tomorrow I'll regret it because I only
> > eat healthy foods which waste time.
>
> > I'll be in a hurry Wednesday and then have to stop to eat an entire
> > extra meal because I wanted to shave a minute or two from time in the
> > pool..
>
> > In fact I'm already hungry and pissed that I'm hungry.
>
> > I keep matso crackers in my truck because they save time. You can eat
> > those crackers while you drive and just brush off the crumbs.
>
> You could add some nuts or seeds for extra fat that would
> keep you satisfied and not feeling hungry longer.
With matzahs you don't have to worry about oil getting onto your
> >> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
> >> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
> >> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
>
> > Americans are fat because time = money, fatty foods save time and
> > Americans are greedy.
>
> > I just swam a mile in 30:25 and tomorrow I'll regret it because I only
> > eat healthy foods which waste time.
>
> > I'll be in a hurry Wednesday and then have to stop to eat an entire
> > extra meal because I wanted to shave a minute or two from time in the
> > pool..
>
> > In fact I'm already hungry and pissed that I'm hungry.
>
> > I keep matso crackers in my truck because they save time. You can eat
> > those crackers while you drive and just brush off the crumbs.
>
> You could add some nuts or seeds for extra fat that would
> keep you satisfied and not feeling hungry longer.
clothes.
Bret Cahill
George Plimpton
Apr 26, 2013, 12:19:19 PM4/26/13
to
On 4/25/2013 8:56 PM, Bret Cahill lied:
world to cook nutritious and healthful food.
>>>>> Americans are fat because time = money, fatty foods save time and
>>>>> Americans are greedy.
>>
>>>> You have no insight into America's prevalence of obesity.
>>
>>> Just look at the red states. Just look at the GOP base.
>>
>> What do you see as the connection between the GOP and obesity?
>
> Time = money
Not for poor people who vote Democrat. They have all the time in the
>>>>> Americans are greedy.
>>
>>>> You have no insight into America's prevalence of obesity.
>>
>>> Just look at the red states. Just look at the GOP base.
>>
>> What do you see as the connection between the GOP and obesity?
>
> Time = money
world to cook nutritious and healthful food.
Bret Cahill
Apr 26, 2013, 12:46:55 PM4/26/13
to
from the food stamp program.
Healthy food tends to cost less -- about $1/lb -- so it'll save
everyone money except Con Agra and Coca Cola.
California farmers, often smart when it comes to state and local
politics, don't have a clue as to how easy it is to hire DC lobbyests
with suitcases full of cash.
Bret Cahill
Harold Burton
Apr 26, 2013, 9:25:48 PM4/26/13
to
In article
<91379397-129d-4dff...@ka6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
challenge from me to see if you could bicycle 60 miles a day for several
days in a row.
laugh . . . laugh . . . laugh
<91379397-129d-4dff...@ka6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are foods that
> > >> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
> > >> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
> > >> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
> >
> > > Americans are fat because
> >
> > Bret Cahill, who notoriously lost a case against the US Dept of Labor
> > when he represented himself in a stupid lawsuit, is fat - and a fat fuck
> > - because it's the natural order of things.
>
> You're projecting.
Nope, he's got you pegged. I remember when you ran away from a
> > >> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are foods that
> > >> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
> > >> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
> > >> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
> >
> > > Americans are fat because
> >
> > Bret Cahill, who notoriously lost a case against the US Dept of Labor
> > when he represented himself in a stupid lawsuit, is fat - and a fat fuck
> > - because it's the natural order of things.
>
> You're projecting.
challenge from me to see if you could bicycle 60 miles a day for several
days in a row.
laugh . . . laugh . . . laugh
BruceS
Apr 27, 2013, 4:05:10 PM4/27/13
to
to this is not being fat. The main problem with this is that, after the
first day, the saddle becomes increasingly uncomfortable. Aside from
that, I saw plenty of fellow cyclists who were fat, but able to do two
days of 70+ miles each back-to-back, and plenty of thin cyclists who had
to take the sag wagon.
This isn't to say whether a particular person in this thread is fat or
not; I simply don't know. But a lack of ability or willingness to ride
repeated metric centuries has little bearing on it.
Bret Cahill
Apr 27, 2013, 8:17:22 PM4/27/13
to
> >>>>> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are foods that
> >>>>> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
> >>>>> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
> >>>>> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
>
> >>>> Americans are fat because
>
> >>> Bret Cahill, who notoriously lost a case against the US Dept of Labor
> >>> when he represented himself in a stupid lawsuit, is fat - and a fat fuck
> >>> - because it's the natural order of things.
>
> >> You're projecting.
>
> > Nope, he's got you pegged. I remember when you ran away from a
> > challenge from me to see if you could bicycle 60 miles a day for several
> > days in a row.
>
> Having done a bit of bicycling, I'd like to point out that the barrier
> to this is not being fat. The main problem with this is that, after the
> first day, the saddle becomes increasingly uncomfortable. Aside from
> that, I saw plenty of fellow cyclists who were fat, but able to do two
> days of 70+ miles each back-to-back, and plenty of thin cyclists who had
> to take the sag wagon.
>
> This isn't to say whether a particular person in this thread is fat or
> not; I simply don't know. But a lack of ability or willingness to ride
> repeated metric centuries has little bearing on it.
On flat land. A heavy person will never be able to climb fast for
> >>>>> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
> >>>>> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
> >>>>> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
>
> >>>> Americans are fat because
>
> >>> Bret Cahill, who notoriously lost a case against the US Dept of Labor
> >>> when he represented himself in a stupid lawsuit, is fat - and a fat fuck
> >>> - because it's the natural order of things.
>
> >> You're projecting.
>
> > Nope, he's got you pegged. I remember when you ran away from a
> > challenge from me to see if you could bicycle 60 miles a day for several
> > days in a row.
>
> Having done a bit of bicycling, I'd like to point out that the barrier
> to this is not being fat. The main problem with this is that, after the
> first day, the saddle becomes increasingly uncomfortable. Aside from
> that, I saw plenty of fellow cyclists who were fat, but able to do two
> days of 70+ miles each back-to-back, and plenty of thin cyclists who had
> to take the sag wagon.
>
> This isn't to say whether a particular person in this thread is fat or
> not; I simply don't know. But a lack of ability or willingness to ride
> repeated metric centuries has little bearing on it.
long. Tour de France officials use a lot of mountain stages when they
want to favor light riders over time trialists. The French call time
trials, "the race of truth."
Being big is generally an advantage swimming because drag doesn't
increase with size as fast as power.
But from the way he's projecting it's already clear the looneytarian
would do even worse in the water than on a mountain.
Bret Cahill
BruceS
Apr 27, 2013, 10:55:10 PM4/27/13
to
of flat land. The group rides I've participated in include a good bit
of climbing, and I see fairly big riders do just fine. For a heavier
person to pedal a bicycle up a mountain just requires more muscle;
plenty of skinny people have too little muscle to pedal their light
selves up the mountain. Again, doing back-to-back metric centuries is
not a matter of how fat one is. I say this as someone who has (to my
knowledge) never been called "big" by an adult. It amuses me seeing
some fat slob on an old ten-speed, wearing street clothes, ride up a
good slope past some out-of-breath skinny guy wearing lots of spandex
and riding a sweet modern bike.
> Being big is generally an advantage swimming because drag doesn't
> increase with size as fast as power.
>
> But from the way he's projecting it's already clear the looneytarian
> would do even worse in the water than on a mountain.
assumptions, and I have to wonder if that's a habit.
Harold Burton
Apr 28, 2013, 11:05:24 PM4/28/13
to
In article <klharl$92f$1...@dont-email.me>, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
But in the case of Bret, he claimed that conservatives were lazy and
fat. Broad claim. I challenged him to put up or shut up. Simple
challenge - put together 3 days of 60+ miles of bike riding. He shut up.
Actually he didn't just shut up, he ran away.
wrote:
fat. Broad claim. I challenged him to put up or shut up. Simple
challenge - put together 3 days of 60+ miles of bike riding. He shut up.
Actually he didn't just shut up, he ran away.
Harold Burton
Apr 28, 2013, 11:08:15 PM4/28/13
to
In article
<8ea8e5de-ad3e-4d49...@ot10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
The challenge was the hills (mountains) of western Massachusetts.
Plenty of vertical challenge that doesn't favor the fat.
You wimped out. No surprise.
snicker
<8ea8e5de-ad3e-4d49...@ot10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Plenty of vertical challenge that doesn't favor the fat.
You wimped out. No surprise.
snicker
Harold Burton
Apr 28, 2013, 11:12:09 PM4/28/13
to
In article <kli2sd$fps$1...@dont-email.me>, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bottom line, Bret claimed conservatives were fat and lazy. As a
conservative I challenged him to keep up with me over a 4 day bike ride
in Central/western Massachusetts where there are plenty of hills, even a
"mountain or two". He wimped out.
He talks the talk, but can't walk the walk. He's a true leftard.
snicker
wrote:
conservative I challenged him to keep up with me over a 4 day bike ride
in Central/western Massachusetts where there are plenty of hills, even a
"mountain or two". He wimped out.
He talks the talk, but can't walk the walk. He's a true leftard.
snicker
Bret Cahill
Apr 29, 2013, 12:54:56 AM4/29/13
to
On Apr 28, 8:05 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <klharl$92...@dont-email.me>, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com>
show that religious fundies have the highest obesity rate of all.
Even ignoring chain smoking randroids, the looneytarian "community"
cannot possibly be functional enough to get any exercise.
> In article <klharl$92...@dont-email.me>, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 04/26/2013 07:25 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <91379397-129d-4dff-8495-cffe74108...@ka6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 04/26/2013 07:25 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
> > > In article
> > > Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are foods that
> > >>>>> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
> > >>>>> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
> > >>>>> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
>
> > >>>> Americans are fat because
>
> > >>> Bret Cahill, who notoriously lost a case against the US Dept of Labor
> > >>> when he represented himself in a stupid lawsuit, is fat - and a fat fuck
> > >>> - because it's the natural order of things.
>
> > >> You're projecting.
>
> > > Nope, he's got you pegged. I remember when you ran away from a
> > > challenge from me to see if you could bicycle 60 miles a day for several
> > > days in a row.
>
> > Having done a bit of bicycling, I'd like to point out that the barrier
> > to this is not being fat. The main problem with this is that, after the
> > first day, the saddle becomes increasingly uncomfortable. Aside from
> > that, I saw plenty of fellow cyclists who were fat, but able to do two
> > days of 70+ miles each back-to-back, and plenty of thin cyclists who had
> > to take the sag wagon.
>
> > This isn't to say whether a particular person in this thread is fat or
> > not; I simply don't know. But a lack of ability or willingness to ride
> > repeated metric centuries has little bearing on it.
>
> But in the case of Bret, he claimed that conservatives were lazy and
> fat. Broad claim.
The CDC is clear: Red states have the obesity problem. Other studies
>
> > >>>>> Why We Get Fat -...the main causes of fat buildup are foods that
> > >>>>> activate {[INSULIN]} not necessarily how much food is eaten. Once this
> > >>>>> stuff hits adipose tissue the cells open up spread Eagled and absorb
> > >>>>> fat in the blood that was before just happily passing them right by.
>
> > >>>> Americans are fat because
>
> > >>> Bret Cahill, who notoriously lost a case against the US Dept of Labor
> > >>> when he represented himself in a stupid lawsuit, is fat - and a fat fuck
> > >>> - because it's the natural order of things.
>
> > >> You're projecting.
>
> > > Nope, he's got you pegged. I remember when you ran away from a
> > > challenge from me to see if you could bicycle 60 miles a day for several
> > > days in a row.
>
> > Having done a bit of bicycling, I'd like to point out that the barrier
> > to this is not being fat. The main problem with this is that, after the
> > first day, the saddle becomes increasingly uncomfortable. Aside from
> > that, I saw plenty of fellow cyclists who were fat, but able to do two
> > days of 70+ miles each back-to-back, and plenty of thin cyclists who had
> > to take the sag wagon.
>
> > This isn't to say whether a particular person in this thread is fat or
> > not; I simply don't know. But a lack of ability or willingness to ride
> > repeated metric centuries has little bearing on it.
>
> But in the case of Bret, he claimed that conservatives were lazy and
> fat. Broad claim.
show that religious fundies have the highest obesity rate of all.
Even ignoring chain smoking randroids, the looneytarian "community"
cannot possibly be functional enough to get any exercise.
BruceS
Apr 29, 2013, 9:06:04 AM4/29/13
to
ignore such a "challenge" from someone on Usenet. I'm also a pretty
decent shot, but wouldn't be interested in a marksmanship contest from a
Usenet challenger. Of course, it also doesn't mean he *isn't* fat; it
has no bearing one way or the other.
Harold Burton
Apr 29, 2013, 10:42:26 PM4/29/13
to
In article <kllr1n$ttv$1...@dont-email.me>, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com>
That's fine, but Bret didn't, he agreed to a time and general location,
only backing when he was faced with a concrete proposal.
only backing when he was faced with a concrete proposal.
Harold Burton
Apr 29, 2013, 10:42:55 PM4/29/13
to
Bret Cahill
Apr 29, 2013, 11:45:42 PM4/29/13
to
just some friendly contests so the blowhards in fantasy land get some
fresh air.
The more time teabagger are spending getting some physical exercise
the less time they will spend mailing poison letters and spree
shooting.
Bret Cahill
"An idle body is the devil's workshop."
-- anon
Bret Cahill
Apr 29, 2013, 11:55:33 PM4/29/13
to
If they spent much time training in the mountains they wouldn't be be
fat in the first place, now would they?
> plenty of skinny people have too little muscle to pedal their light
> selves up the mountain.
> Again, doing back-to-back metric centuries is
> not a matter of how fat one is.
> I say this as someone who has (to my
> knowledge) never been called "big" by an adult. It amuses me seeing
> some fat slob on an old ten-speed, wearing street clothes, ride up a
> good slope past some out-of-breath skinny guy wearing lots of spandex
> and riding a sweet modern bike.
altitude at 1 foot / sec.
Short, but interesting.
> > Being big is generally an advantage swimming because drag doesn't
> > increase with size as fast as power.
>
> > But from the way he's projecting it's already clear the looneytarian
> > would do even worse in the water than on a mountain.
>
> As to that, I have no idea.
> It sounds like you're making some very bad
> assumptions, and I have to wonder if that's a habit.
country, i.e., _Spirit of Laws_, and you'll be surprised at the
assumptions you can make.
Bret Cahill
BruceS
Apr 30, 2013, 10:52:05 AM4/30/13
to
as enough muscle to move the bicycle and self.
> If they spent much time training in the mountains they wouldn't be be
> fat in the first place, now would they?
who do well, and even take the optional extra miles on the group rides,
are fat. They could be doing plenty of training (how else are they able
to handle the mountains?), but still eating more than they need.
>> plenty of skinny people have too little muscle to pedal their light
>> selves up the mountain.
>
> Use lower gears.
won't be able to handle the big climbs, even in your lowest gear.
>> Again, doing back-to-back metric centuries is
>> not a matter of how fat one is.
>
> Depends on the change in elevation.
>
>> I say this as someone who has (to my
>> knowledge) never been called "big" by an adult. It amuses me seeing
>> some fat slob on an old ten-speed, wearing street clothes, ride up a
>> good slope past some out-of-breath skinny guy wearing lots of spandex
>> and riding a sweet modern bike.
>
> It would be an interesting youtube video to see fat guys gaining
> altitude at 1 foot / sec.
>
> Short, but interesting.
halfway up a big climb, with your camera. You'll see plenty of people
climbing that hill, and some of them definitely overweight. I don't
know about the 1'/s, but you'll also get to see skinnier people among
those failing the climb. I'm not saying fat people are at an advantage,
of course, just that it isn't a barrier to being fit and able to cycle
up mountains.
>>> Being big is generally an advantage swimming because drag doesn't
>>> increase with size as fast as power.
>>
>>> But from the way he's projecting it's already clear the looneytarian
>>> would do even worse in the water than on a mountain.
>>
>> As to that, I have no idea.
>
> You haven't studied looneytarians.
arguments come up with to attempt insult at people whose opinions differ
from theirs. No thanks; I don't have a lot of time to waste on fascist
bigots.
>> It sounds like you're making some very bad
>> assumptions, and I have to wonder if that's a habit.
>
> Read the political classics that influenced the founders of the
> country, i.e., _Spirit of Laws_, and you'll be surprised at the
> assumptions you can make.
the political spectrum?
0 new messages