HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Sciences (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=245)
-   -   “Fat per se is not as bad as we thought.” (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1314763)

Fugu 01-02-2013 01:30 PM

“Fat per se is not as bad as we thought.”
 
Just in time for the New Year, as everyone once again frets about their weight, resolving to resolve the matter THIS year, unlike all the years of the future past.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/he...d=myyahoo&_r=0
Quote:


Study Suggests Lower Mortality Risk for People Deemed to Be Overweight
By PAM BELLUCK
Published: January 1, 2013
A century ago, Elsie Scheel was the perfect woman. So said a 1912 article in The New York Times about how Miss Scheel, 24, was chosen by the “medical examiner of the 400 ‘co-eds’ ” at Cornell University as a woman “whose very presence bespeaks perfect health.”

Miss Scheel, however, was hardly model-thin. At 5-foot-7 and 171 pounds, she would, by today’s medical standards, be clearly overweight. (Her body mass index was 27; 25 to 29.9 is overweight.)
But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people.
Pause to go get that muffin I was avoiding as it's okay to eat it now...


Quote:

“Body mass index is an imperfect measure of the risk of mortality,” and factors like blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar must be considered, said Dr. Samuel Klein, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
Dr. Steven Heymsfield, executive director of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, said that for overweight people, if indicators like cholesterol “are in the abnormal range, then that weight is affecting you,” but that if indicators are normal, there’s no reason to “go on a crash diet.”



Experts also said the data suggested that the definition of “normal” B.M.I., 18.5 to 24.9, should be revised, excluding its lowest weights, which might be too thin.
We all knew supermodels were unhealthy. Here's the proof. :D

Quote:

The study did show that the two highest obesity categories (B.M.I. of 35 and up) are at high risk. “Once you have higher obesity, the fat’s in the fire,” Dr. Blackburn said.
But experts also suggested that concepts of fat be refined.
“Fat per se is not as bad as we thought,” said Dr. Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, professor of medicine and public health at the University of California, Irvine.
“What is bad is a type of fat that is inside your belly,” he said. “Non-belly fat, underneath your skin in your thigh and your butt area — these are not necessarily bad.”
He added that, to a point, extra fat is accompanied by extra muscle, which can be healthy.
Still, it is possible that overweight or somewhat obese people are less likely to die because they, or their doctors, have identified other conditions associated with weight gain, like high cholesterol or diabetes.
“You’re more likely to be in your doctor’s office and more likely to be treated,” said Dr. Robert Eckel, a past president of the American Heart Association and a professor at University of Colorado.
Some experts said fat could be protective in some cases, although that is unproven and debated. The study did find that people 65 and over had no greater mortality risk even at high obesity.
“There’s something about extra body fat when you’re older that is providing some reserve,” Dr. Eckel said.
And studies on specific illnesses, like heart and kidney disease, have found an “obesity paradox,” that heavier patients are less likely to die.

I'll post a second article that has some interesting new data on why people are fat--- genetics. It's another thing you can blame mainly on your mom.

Fugu 01-02-2013 01:39 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/he...esity-ess.html

Quote:

But the notion that Americans ever ate well is suspect. In 1966, when Americans were still comparatively thin, more than two billion hamburgers already had been sold in McDonald’s restaurants, noted Dr. Barry Glassner, a sociology professor at the University of Southern California. The recent rise in obesity may have more to do with our increasingly sedentary lifestyles than with the quality of our diets.

“The meals we romanticize in the past somehow leave out the reality of what people were eating,” he said. “The average meal had whole milk and ended with pie.... The typical meal had plenty of fat and calories.”
...
Scientists now believe that each individual has a genetically determined weight range spanning perhaps 30 pounds. Those who force their weight below nature’s preassigned levels become hungrier and eat more; several studies also show that their metabolisms slow in a variety of ways as the body tries to conserve energy and regain weight. People trying to exceed their weight range face the opposite situation: eating becomes unappealing, and their metabolisms shift into high gear.

The body’s determination to maintain its composition is why a person can skip a meal, or even fast for short periods, without losing weight. It’s also why burning an extra 100 calories a day will not alter the verdict on the bathroom scales. Struggling against the brain’s innate calorie counters, even strong-willed dieters make up for calories lost on one day with a few extra bites on the next. And they never realize it. “The system operates with 99.6 percent precision,” Dr. Friedman said.


The temptations of our environment — the sedentary living, the ready supply of rich food — may not be entirely to blame for rising obesity rates. In fact, new research suggests that the environment that most strongly influences body composition may be the very first one anybody experiences: the womb.
According to several animal studies, conditions during pregnancy, including the mother’s diet, may determine how fat the offspring are as adults. Human studies have shown that women who eat little in pregnancy, surprisingly, more often have children who grow into fat adults. More than a dozen studies have found that children are more likely to be fat if their mothers smoke during pregnancy.

I always felt that the guidelines about 'what' to eat were going in the wrong direction. It always seemed that the sedentary lifestyle was the culprit from my perspective. Within 2-3 generations, people went from an agricultural or even urban lifestyle that required a lot of walking or moving around in general. The advent of cars and cities not designed for walking or even mass transportation was an initial step away from routine movement just to get through your typical day. Factor in the type of work we moved to (office/seated) and home entertainment, and it becomes a bit clearer about the imbalance. How often do we comment on how kids today play inside vs the days when they ran from home as soon as mom and dad weren't looking?

Now, if they could only figure out a way to tell us our perfect weight range, we could remove one more stress factor from our daily lives.

IkeaMonkey* 01-02-2013 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 57016001)
Just in time for the New Year, as everyone once again frets about their weight, resolving to resolve the matter THIS year, unlike all the years of the future past.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/he...d=myyahoo&_r=0
Pause to go get that muffin I was avoiding as it's okay to eat it now...




We all knew supermodels were unhealthy. Here's the proof. :D




I'll post a second article that has some interesting new data on why people are fat--- genetics. It's another thing you can blame mainly on your mom.

I personally wish the idea that BMI was an effective tool would go away. Putting "fat" and "not-fat" into a basic "numbers / numbers" analysis is in no way accurate.

octopi 01-02-2013 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IkeaMonkey (Post 57016385)
I personally wish the idea that BMI was an effective tool would go away. Putting "fat" and "not-fat" into a basic "numbers / numbers" analysis is in no way accurate.

I think i've said it on here before: I work with elderly people. Physically some of them will fit the same sizes as me, but I have 60-70 pounds on them. I'm more muscle tone, and yes, some extra fat too.

zytz 01-03-2013 12:13 PM

Had to see an endocrinologist recently and he made a. point of of mentioning how healthy I was despite my poor BMI score- and actually cited some of this new research that's been coming out- people in the 25-30 range tend to live longest overall, followed closely by folks in the 31-35 range. Pretty much said drop weight as I can but to otherwise keep doing what Im doing.

Turrican* 01-03-2013 12:50 PM

Yup. I am kinda fat.. But its all the soft fat.
However, my blood work came back as "YOU ARE A HEALTHY BOY"

But this society we live in is ****ed up.
Girls strive to look like starving Somalians and guys want to look like juice pigs.

Hank Chinaski 01-03-2013 12:56 PM

I don't think anyone should take BMI as a reliable indicator of health at the individual level. On a larger scale it can perhaps be used as a blunt instrument to make some general conclusions, ie. those with a BMI of 25-29 are at greater risk of CVD than those at 18.5-25, but that's about it.

Old Man Barking 01-03-2013 03:41 PM

I'm 6'0, 200 pounds and feel miserable. I may live longer but feeling this crappy? No thanks.

invictus 01-03-2013 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Cupcakes (Post 57071439)
I'm 6'0, 200 pounds and feel miserable. I may live longer but feeling this crappy? No thanks.

Really? What did you used to weigh? That height and weight isn't even all that out of whack.

Analyzer 01-03-2013 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Cupcakes (Post 57071439)
I'm 6'0, 200 pounds and feel miserable. I may live longer but feeling this crappy? No thanks.

I'm the same height, but weigh more. I got a mixture of fat and muscle, It sucks.

octopi 01-03-2013 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Analyzer (Post 57083593)
I'm the same height, but weigh more. I got a mixture of fat and muscle, It sucks.

I'm pretty okay with mine, although I wish there were less fat.

I just pretend I'm a very small bear going into hibernation.:D

guest1467 01-04-2013 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 57016277)
I always felt that the guidelines about 'what' to eat were going in the wrong direction. It always seemed that the sedentary lifestyle was the culprit from my perspective. Within 2-3 generations, people went from an agricultural or even urban lifestyle that required a lot of walking or moving around in general. The advent of cars and cities not designed for walking or even mass transportation was an initial step away from routine movement just to get through your typical day. Factor in the type of work we moved to (office/seated) and home entertainment, and it becomes a bit clearer about the imbalance. How often do we comment on how kids today play inside vs the days when they ran from home as soon as mom and dad weren't looking?

Now, if they could only figure out a way to tell us our perfect weight range, we could remove one more stress factor from our daily lives.

I disagree. While sedentary lifestyles are bad for a number of reasons (ie cardiovascular, poor mental development, higher risk of injury) the number 1 cause of obesity by far is overeating and poor nutrition.

One does not even have to exercise to lose or gain weight, they just need to lower or raise their calorie intake.

invictus 01-05-2013 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 (Post 57096507)
I disagree. While sedentary lifestyles are bad for a number of reasons (ie cardiovascular, poor mental development, higher risk of injury) the number 1 cause of obesity by far is overeating and poor nutrition.

One does not even have to exercise to lose or gain weight, they just need to lower or raise their calorie intake.

I believe we had a thread in the Lounge a couple years back about a professor at Kansas State University who went on a "junk food" diet. He ate total garbage (twinkies, candy, etc...) but limited his caloric intake. Not only did he lose weight, but had proportional gains in other metrics of health since being overweight is SO bad in SO many ways. Interesting stuff. I wonder if there was ever any follow-up research.

Fugu 01-05-2013 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 (Post 57096507)
I disagree. While sedentary lifestyles are bad for a number of reasons (ie cardiovascular, poor mental development, higher risk of injury) the number 1 cause of obesity by far is overeating and poor nutrition.

One does not even have to exercise to lose or gain weight, they just need to lower or raise their calorie intake.


How do you account for the differences between Americans in the 1950's-1970's, who ate comparatively fatty, richer foods then, the meatloaf/mashed potatoes/gravy crowd, with pie for dessert and today?

WarriorOfGandhi 01-06-2013 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu (Post 57120473)
How do you account for the differences between Americans in the 1950's-1970's, who ate comparatively fatty, richer foods then, the meatloaf/mashed potatoes/gravy crowd, with pie for dessert and today?

did they drench their meals with ranch dressing and wash it down with a liter of cola?

Dasachtach 01-14-2013 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarriorOfGandhi (Post 57220153)
did they drench their meals with ranch dressing and wash it down with a liter of cola?

This. It's not so much what we're eating it's what we're drinking.

http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-n...quid-calories/

Quote:

Americans now take in more calories from soft drinks than from any other category of food. That’s according to Odilia Bermudez and her colleagues at Tufts University’s Human Nutrition Research Center.

xX Hot Fuss 01-16-2013 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarriorOfGandhi (Post 57220153)
did they drench their meals with ranch dressing and wash it down with a liter of cola?



I think people worry about food too much. I do like the premise of the article though. It goes a long swimmingly with my (extremely uneducated and unprofessional) opinion that for most people, counting calories and types of calories and when you eat those calories, and basically a lot of nutrition is relatively useless information if you want to be a healthy person.

Just stick to the basics. 3 non-gigantic meals a day, 2 small snacks a day (one can even be dessert!), get a good night's sleep, and move your body throughout the day. If you're getting a little chubbier than you want, move your body more throughout the day.

Human's eating and exercising behaviors seem so unnatural to me.

SenorDingDong 01-21-2013 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xX Hot Fuss (Post 57675303)


I think people worry about food too much. I do like the premise of the article though. It goes a long swimmingly with my (extremely uneducated and unprofessional) opinion that for most people, counting calories and types of calories and when you eat those calories, and basically a lot of nutrition is relatively useless information if you want to be a healthy person.

Just stick to the basics. 3 non-gigantic meals a day, 2 small snacks a day (one can even be dessert!), get a good night's sleep, and move your body throughout the day. If you're getting a little chubbier than you want, move your body more throughout the day.

Human's eating and exercising behaviors seem so unnatural to me.

The food we eat is a massive problem in society today, as quite simply its not food anymore. Its "food like products".

Majority of food in grocery stores has become so artificially processed and refined with preseratives and other chemicals in order to maximize its shelf life and reduce productions costs (so companies make more money) that what we eat actually has no real nutrients in it anymore.

Its a huge problem and the reason why North America is over 60% obese and the health care costs only keep rising. I am willing to bet over half of all problems coming into hospitals could be rectified if people understood the important of eating actual food, cutting out all the processed and chemical crap and taking proper multivitamins and anti-oxidants.

People are so used to the thinking "oh if I get a headache just take an advil". This is reactionary thinking, it doesn't solve anything. Just throws more money to pharmceutical companies. If you feed your body all the nutrients it needs, you won't get headaches in the first place.

Don't even get me started on soft drinks, you might as well just go ingest liquid garbage causing drinking pop is quite literally the same thing.

theotis77 01-21-2013 02:43 PM

Also, almost everything we buy in the store except fresh vegetables and meats, are loaded with sugars, because its a cheap preservative with all the government subsidies on corn. Seriously, next time you're in the store, try and find a packaged food that DOESN'T have some form of sugar or HFCS in it.

This is a relatively recent phenomenon (since the 70s, really) and also happens to coincide with the rise of obesity. We made our food cheap by making it cheaply store-able, but also made it really bad for us.

kmad 01-21-2013 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theotis77 (Post 58021143)
Also, almost everything we buy in the store except fresh vegetables and meats, are loaded with sugars, because its a cheap preservative with all the government subsidies on corn. Seriously, next time you're in the store, try and find a packaged food that DOESN'T have some form of sugar or HFCS in it.

This is a relatively recent phenomenon (since the 70s, really) and also happens to coincide with the rise of obesity. We made our food cheap by making it cheaply store-able, but also made it really bad for us.

Fun fact: It was made cheap because the US massively subsidized corn farmers to the point where they were overproducing corn. HFCS was mass produced to use up the surplus and justify the continued farm subsidies.

WPGNYRFan 01-23-2013 03:58 PM

Anyone know a good substitute for drinking carbonated beverages? I try to drink other things but the kick just isn't there and I find most of them extremely boring. I love the carbonation, but I know I need to drastically reduce my intake of those types of drinks. I have started drinking a lot of Mio lately, I really like the fruit punch version and my water consumption has increased greatly due to this, but I'm looking for something with a kick to it.

Eisen 01-24-2013 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WPGNYRFan (Post 58168927)
Anyone know a good substitute for drinking carbonated beverages? I try to drink other things but the kick just isn't there and I find most of them extremely boring. I love the carbonation, but I know I need to drastically reduce my intake of those types of drinks. I have started drinking a lot of Mio lately, I really like the fruit punch version and my water consumption has increased greatly due to this, but I'm looking for something with a kick to it.

I just drink Seltzer water

Teemu 01-25-2013 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WPGNYRFan (Post 58168927)
Anyone know a good substitute for drinking carbonated beverages? I try to drink other things but the kick just isn't there and I find most of them extremely boring. I love the carbonation, but I know I need to drastically reduce my intake of those types of drinks. I have started drinking a lot of Mio lately, I really like the fruit punch version and my water consumption has increased greatly due to this, but I'm looking for something with a kick to it.

I mostly use tea myself. Plus you get a nice dose of catechins.

Finnpin 01-25-2013 12:40 PM

I LOLed at the title as perse means ass in Finnish :laugh:

xX Hot Fuss 01-29-2013 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorDingDong (Post 58008101)
The food we eat is a massive problem in society today, as quite simply its not food anymore. Its "food like products".

Majority of food in grocery stores has become so artificially processed and refined with preseratives and other chemicals in order to maximize its shelf life and reduce productions costs (so companies make more money) that what we eat actually has no real nutrients in it anymore.

Its a huge problem and the reason why North America is over 60% obese and the health care costs only keep rising. I am willing to bet over half of all problems coming into hospitals could be rectified if people understood the important of eating actual food, cutting out all the processed and chemical crap and taking proper multivitamins and anti-oxidants.

People are so used to the thinking "oh if I get a headache just take an advil". This is reactionary thinking, it doesn't solve anything. Just throws more money to pharmceutical companies. If you feed your body all the nutrients it needs, you won't get headaches in the first place.

Don't even get me started on soft drinks, you might as well just go ingest liquid garbage causing drinking pop is quite literally the same thing.

The bolded is the kind of thinking i had when i was 19/20 years old. Its very simple minded, requires little to no evidence to back it up, is dripping with speculation,...and is probably 100% accurate lol.

I'm not a doctor or nutritionist or have any qualifications to justify this opinion but it just seems to make so much sense to say that so many of our health problems are due to the terrible things we do to our bodies. I lack the financial means to go organic but i try and compensate by eating food and not "food" whenever possible. Unfortunately, by not eating totally organic, i'm subject to whatever unnatural things happen to be in my the things i eat, even if i'm eating food and not "food".

Example: For breakfast i have 1 of 3 things almost every day...

-Scrambled eggs, cooked with oil, spinach, a potato, and buttered whole grain toast with a small glass of orange juice

-Fruit smoothie, made with fresh (but frozen) strawberries and blueberries, 1 banana, a cup of milk, and 1-2 spoons of Greek Yorgurt

-Frosted Mini Wheats with a banana

Certainly the above diet should just simply be leaps and bounds more healthy for me than if i go to McDonald's and get a breakfast sandwhich, or Dunkin Donuts, or Starbucks etc...but i still do wonder what exactly i'm eating even when i'm having food and not "food"


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:13 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.