Why food is making us fat

[btq96r]

Originally Posted by Guy

I know damn well kids are NOT exercising even close to what we did as kids.

Not just exercise that kids today aren't getting, but just general moving around.

Think about it, how long was anyone sitting in one place as a kid? I'll bet most people on this site were always moving around as a kid, walking around outside with friends, walking to the store for a candy bar, riding a bike (even at a slow pace), playing sports. When I wasn't a kid, I wasn't sweating my ass off or having my heart rate pumped up all the time, but I was damn sure moving around, burning calories and keeping the metabolism working.

We didn't have xBox/PS3, laptops, Netflix, Hulu or any of the other distractions to keep us seated most of the day. I had an original NES, but unless it was pouring rain outside going outside with friends was always the better option.

[smp52]

Originally Posted by KidA

Kid's exercise levels are the same now as they were 50 years ago.

I concur in general with the article and your take (pretty much the same has been discussed in the book Omnivore's Dillema).

However, is the above conclusion based upon the study's subjects locally (the way I read it in passing was Britain), or globally applicable?

Some factors are equally applicable everywhere while others locally vary. The American landscape is much different than more dense European countries that still do lots more walking. Maybe isolated pockes of the United States (say NYC) can track more along European data, but not the US as a whole. Not sure, but we in the United States have very significant variation from state to state/region due to our size and diversity.

CDC's obesity data and our epicenter looks like the bible belt, midwest and south.

Bottom line, there is a massive input vs. output delta with sugar (carbs) being the major driver of an increase in easy calories that aren't filling at all.

[GPC]

Originally Posted by Guy

I know damn well kids are NOT exercising even close to what we did as kids.

They can't even play "dodge" ball any more.

Stay safe.

Don't forget cutting grass and other chores as well.

Minimum on a lazy day for me I at least go for a walk.

[AK49]

This is why I try to kill as much of my food as I can. Fish, four legged animals and the different avian species of Alaska. No hormones, steriods, antibiotics or other bullshit thats pumped into today's food. I have a summer garden that produces root veggies, cabbages and lettuces. A few massive tomato plants, which I can/jar the tomatos as the are vine ripe, and a buddy who has a bunch of different chickens that supplies me with eggs.

I include my two daughters on a lot of my fishing trips and smaller animal hunts. It gets their asses out of the house and exercising and most importantly, it teaches them to rely on themselves, not a grocery store.

[KidA]

Originally Posted by kenshinw3

Several folks have previously stated their disagreement with this statement. I too, disagree as one that raised several boys.

The statement is from the article, backed up by the study linked in the article. I didn't just make it up

Here in CA the kids are up at dawn...to go surfing. I see dozens of them coming back from the beach at 7 am to get ready to be at school at 8. Of course CA is known for being more active.

If your kids aren't exercising, it isn't their fault. If they have a room full of video games, computers, and televisions and cell phones, it isn't their fault.

The bigger point of the article is the influx of sugar into food in order to make us crave and want and even need more and more of it.

Also according to the article:

Children who keep active gain no less weight, but they do become metabolically healthier: The UK and US Governments advise at least 60 minutes moderate physical activity every day. Only 42% of the EarlyBird boys and 11% of the girls met this guideline consistently over the three-year period from 5-8yr. Governments use BMI as their outcome measure, but there were no differences in the trend for BMI in either sex, while the more active children became metabolically healthier.

So the more active ones, the 58% who do meat the at least 60 minutes of moderate physical activity each day, became metabolically healthier, but they didn't gain less weight than the lazy kids who didn't even get that much exercise.

Why? The food itself.

On driving kids to school:

Being driven to school may not be eco-friendly, but it does not reduce a child's overall activity The activity cost at the age of 7y of being driven to and from school during the hours 8am-4pm is 16%, but is nil (<0.1%) over an entire 24h. As in the schools study, those who lack the opportunity for physical activity at one period of the day appear to compensate for it at another (Metcalf BS BMJ 2004)

[Gryfen-FL]

There's a dark side to that 'certified organic' craze. Granted, I don't like the idea of consuming pesticide with my hash browns.....but:

Rather than calling out the practice of putting animals on a steady diet of prophylactic antibiotics. 'Organic' meat cannot be treated with antibiotics. Period.

Once an animal is treated with antibiotics, it cannot be sold as organic. (U.S. Department of Agriculture 7 CFR 205.238 (c))

Animals that are sick or injured are now a stunning liability to the farmer. If they treat with antibiotics, they loose money because then that animal is no longer organic. They can sell it off the property for great loss. Or if it's not contagious, they can let the animal tough it out 'organically'. None of the above are particularly attractive options for a moral and/or conscientious business man. But it's what our food providers are left to contend with because of knee jerk fear based legislation.

Antibiotics are not the devil any more than guns are inherently evil. The trick, whether it's guns or antibiotics is responsible use of assets available. The current legislation does not reward responsible, ethical use of assets.

[KidA]

Originally Posted by Gryfen-FL

The current legislation does not reward responsible, ethical use of assets.

No, the current legislation states that if you inject animals with antibiotics they are no longer organic. Period. That's fair. The label has to mean something else it's worthless.

"Well we only put pesticides down one time, but the slugs were really bad that year, it's still Organic since it was just once, right?"

No.

[kathygator]

It should also be noted that 'organic' food is not certified by the USDA or the FDA. Those agencies merely define organics, and some argue rather ineffectually. There seem to be a few different loop-holes for using pesticides and still being allowed to call yourself organic.

[GirlwithaGlock]

Originally Posted by kathygator

It should also be noted that 'organic' food is not certified by the USDA or the FDA. Those agencies merely define organics, and some argue rather ineffectually. There seem to be a few different loop-holes for using pesticides and still being allowed to call yourself organic.

The farms are the ones that get certified by USDA - my friends just went through this process, so now they can display a USDA Organic seal on their products.

[Gryfen-FL]

No, the current legislation states that if you inject animals with antibiotics they are no longer organic. Period. That's fair. The label has to mean something else it's worthless.

"Fair" or not, I'm not arguing it's clarity or definition. I'm saying legislation that puts ranchers at an ethical dilemma is not reasonable.

[kathygator]

Originally Posted by GirlwithaGlock

The farms are the ones that get certified by USDA - my friends just went through this process, so now they can display a USDA Organic seal on their products.

Have been reading up, G-Girl - trying to get to the truth for the last couple of years.

As I understand it, the USDA provides a list of agencies (mostly private, some state-run) approved to certify growers. There isn't a USDA inspector, per se. I could be wrong in my interpretation, however, apologies if I'm mistaken.

[Fubar]

I have to agree that we've gone too far in the definition of Organic Food. Through the use of AG Science and Technologies we have the most productive farms and ranches in the world. We literally could feed much of the world if we were so inclined. Unfortunately, the enhanced productivity has come at a price that is lost on the masses:

Much of the food just doesn't taste like it should. One can taste this difference today when sampling hot-house versus vine-ripened tomatoes. Another example can be found in corn-fed versus grass-fed beef. Whole Milk vs Organic Whole Milk. Eggs versus Free-Range Organicly fed Eggs...... (My senses taste & see a difference in the products).

That being said - do I want a sick grass-fed cow to come to my table? No. Do I want the farmer to stop producing vine-ripened tomatoes because it is not economically feasible? No.

I'd rather just see a policy of minimization. Use less chemicals, use less anti-biotics, use less other shit that sticks in the filters of our bodies and causes cancer...... it does not have to be all or nothing. Let common sense prevail.

[smp52]

Originally Posted by Fubar

Use less chemicals, use less anti-biotics, use less other shit that sticks in the filters of our bodies and causes cancer...... it does not have to be all or nothing. Let common sense prevail.

I agree with this, however, it becomes increasingly difficult to assess the level of risk to yourself when the food industry fights transparency the consumers desire. The demand for transparency with what we eat has conicided with growth of the long supply chain for food production, obscuring where we get our food from. Industrial agriculture is here to stay and is needed, however, it doesn't have to be monopolistic where, through the influence of government it takes options off the table.

Antibiotics definitely need to be reduced by significant measures. In our short term approach of shotgunning these meds to animals to squeeze out every calorie from the process, we're accerating mutation of bacteria to where resistant strains are popping up all over the place. We will be denying our future generations (until medical research catches up, since there is a lag factor) the conviences we've had with respect to infectious diseases.

This is a double/triple whammy. We're getting fatter, less nutrition, and we're reducing the efficacy of a foundational element in our fight against infectious diseases.

[GirlwithaGlock]

Originally Posted by kathygator

Have been reading up, G-Girl - trying to get to the truth for the last couple of years.

As I understand it, the USDA provides a list of agencies (mostly private, some state-run) approved to certify growers. There isn't a USDA inspector, per se. I could be wrong in my interpretation, however, apologies if I'm mistaken.

No, you are correct: USDA sets up the standards through the National Organic Program and accredits certifying agents. When a farm wants to become certified as organic, it can do it through one of the USDA accredited certifying agents. There is an onsite inspection but it is not conducted by a USDA inspector per se, but by a representative of such agency.

Hope it makes sense

[kathygator]

Indeed, thanks. :)

Sorry for the tangent, OP.

[Amarillo]

Peanut butter might not be your best example of added sugar contributing to the growing American waistline. The USDA limits the amount of sugar that can be added to peanut butter [source] The amount of sweetener added has not changed appreciably since peanut butter has been commercially produced.
The point you made about lowfat foods being high in sugar is spot on. Poor trade-off, if you ask me. (Although some people DO have to severely restrict their fat intake, even at the expense of adding sugar.)

[billdawg]

Originally Posted by RBS

Simple solution. Eat meat (includes eggs), fresh veggies, whole grains, limited dairy, and fruit. Nothing else. Nothing from a box. Nothing "premade". Only exception I make is bread, but only whole grain.

x100 on the whole grain. Not wheat, but whole grain. If it has enriched or bleached wheat flour, it sucks.

[KidA]

Originally Posted by billdawg

x100 on the whole grain. Not wheat, but whole grain. If it has enriched or bleached wheat flour, it sucks.

True, although there are two times a year I eat good old American white bread (i.e., Wonder Bread): Thanksgiving and Christmas. Because there's almost nothing better than a slice of turkey with a little salt and pepper, stuck between two pieces of white bread with mayonnaise.

I used to eat a lot of tomato sandwiches this way, too, but stopped once I started learning about food, esp bread. I hardly ever eat tomatoes now anyway, since they're all mealy and disgusting unless grown locally and organically. That pale pink slice of gross vegetable matter stuck on burgers? Not a tomato. I feel sorry for people who've never had a real one.

[smp52]

Genetic diversity of food is also significantly impacted with industrial agriculture (and not a good thing). One disease can potentially wipe out a large portion. Having a variety of seeds to locally plant and supporting genetic seed diversity is important. People can look into organizations like the Seed Saver's Exchange (one that I am familiar with) to get started. Just bought a house recently, so I'll be giving my farmer ancestry a shout out as I try to grow heirloom varieties. I antcipate errors along the way, but have to start learning somewhere/sometime...

[billdawg]

Originally Posted by btq96r

Not just exercise that kids today aren't getting, but just general moving around.

Think about it, how long was anyone sitting in one place as a kid? I'll bet most people on this site were always moving around as a kid, walking around outside with friends, walking to the store for a candy bar, riding a bike (even at a slow pace), playing sports. When I wasn't a kid, I wasn't sweating my ass off or having my heart rate pumped up all the time, but I was damn sure moving around, burning calories and keeping the metabolism working.

We didn't have xBox/PS3, laptops, Netflix, Hulu or any of the other distractions to keep us seated most of the day. I had an original NES, but unless it was pouring rain outside going outside with friends was always the better option.

My kids don't play video games at all. They are both active in sports. They ride their bikes or scooter(the kind like a skate board with a handle you have to kick along), and I would say they are heavier than we were 35 years ago. We don't have sweets around the house. We never eat fast food, most snacks are fruit of some kind. Yet, they are heavier than my wife & I think they should be. It baffles us. The only thing I can come up with is the preservatives in the food.
We have started to buy more from 'Whole Foods', but Christ you need a small loan to shop there. So I think there is something to the additives/preservatives they put in food these days