http://www.cracked.com/article_20601_6-ridiculous-myths-you-believe-about-stuff-you-use-every-day.html
Given what Stef, Shane (even the Mises Institute) have pointed out, I can't help but think #6 is either bullshit or at least not telling the whole story.
Quote from: T dog on December 31, 2013, 04:56:27 PM
http://www.cracked.com/article_20601_6-ridiculous-myths-you-believe-about-stuff-you-use-every-day.html
Given what Stef, Shane (even the Mises Institute) have pointed out, I can't help but think #6 is either bullshit or at least not telling the whole story.
I think it's the word "much." In all honesty, they probably aren't THAT different, although the difference is significant. If you have a reason to eliminate or reduce HFCS from your diet you probably need to eliminate or reduce sugar, too. The reason why we spoke out about it was to combat the misinformation from the corn growers that HFCS was all natural and completely healthy, unlike sugar. THAT is what's bogus.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 31, 2013, 05:00:12 PM
I think it's the word "much." In all honesty, they probably aren't THAT different, although the difference is significant. If you have a reason to eliminate or reduce HFCS from your diet you probably need to eliminate or reduce sugar, too. The reason why we spoke out about it was to combat the misinformation from the corn growers that HFCS was all natural and completely healthy, unlike sugar. THAT is what's bogus.
Ah. I see. I bring it up because of this: https://mises.org/daily/4434 Specifically:
Quote from: OPRecent research has uncovered the baneful influence that corn-based sweeteners have had on America's obesity epidemic. It is estimated that Americans consume 73 pounds of corn-derived sweetener per person per year,[14] and as Michael Pollan points out, the growth of corn-based sweeteners is a direct result of the government's farm policy, which subsidizes corn production.[15] A basic consequence of economic law is that when something is subsidized, more of it will be produced. Pollan writes,
Quote from: PollanVery simply, we subsidize high-fructose corn syrup in this country, but not carrots. While the surgeon general is raising alarms over the epidemic of obesity, the president is signing farm bills designed to keep the river of cheap corn flowing, guaranteeing that the cheapest calories in the supermarket will continue to be the unhealthiest.
Pollan also correctly notes that the calories from high-fructose corn syrup are unhealthier than those from natural sweeteners such as sugar. Research by Powell et al. concludes that "[r]ats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same."[16] Avena, commenting on their study, said that "- ur findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic."
With the sources being:
[14] "Sugarcane Profile," Agricultural Marketing Resource Center.p (http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/grains__oilseeds/sugarcane_profile.cfm)
[15] Michael Pollan, The Omnivore's Dilemma (New York: Penguin, 2006), p. 108.
[16] M.E. Bocarsly, E.S. Powell, N.M. Avena, and B.G. Hoebel, "High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of obesity in rats: Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels," Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior (2010). (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20219526)
And IIRC, they did post more than that on the subject
Yes, corn subsidies result in HFCS being in LOTS of foods that wouldn't have had ANY sweetener put in if they had to pay the full costs for it.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 31, 2013, 05:11:54 PM
Yes, corn subsidies result in HFCS being in LOTS of foods that wouldn't have had ANY sweetener put in if they had to pay the full costs for it.
Which would explain a lot. But if the HFCS insanity isn't the cause--or at least a contributing factor, what exactly *is/are* causing the USA's obesity problem?
I've heard many other ideas that...kinda don't really hold water.
1) Some say, "it's because of our wealth that we can afford more food". Okay, but last I checked, there are wealthier countries than the USA, and who don't have this problem. Hell, this source--http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/517210/20131027/top-10-obese-countries-world-obesity.htm says that Mexico is the second fattest country in the world, last I checked extreme wealth isn't something they're known for. Hell, you'd need only look at our population for a refutation of this strange idea. Is it the rich who are the fattest? No, it's the poor, because the cheaper food tends to be worse for you, and make you fat.
2) Other say "because culture!" which is kind of a non-answer. Especially considering we get our culture as a melting pot from the rest of the world, and we weren't always this fat as a group/on average.
3) "Fast food!" has been around far longer than this obesity problem has been. Hell, freakin' Japan has fast food--even crazier stuff than we have, yet they're generally thinner than the US by a freakin' mile. And as Hawkeye (and Penn & Teller) have pointed out, the calories/servings of other food places are often much bigger/fattier. Next!
4) "because Americans are lazy" *yawn* see 2); if that were true, why haven't we ALWAYS been this fat, instead of just relatively recently?
Probably others, but yeah, ones I first thought of.
Quote from: T dog on December 31, 2013, 05:16:16 PM
Which would explain a lot. But if the HFCS insanity isn't the cause--or at least a contributing factor, what exactly *is/are* causing the USA's obesity problem?
Taking in more calories than their bodies can burn on a consistent basis. Something that wasn't possible for most people until modern agriculture.
Quote from: dallen68 on December 31, 2013, 05:23:08 PM
Taking in more calories than their bodies can burn on a consistent basis. Something that wasn't possible for most people until modern agriculture.
A point that was addressed--at least indirectly in 1). Since agriculture is a part of our wealth. And again, as far as basic physics is concerned, true, but then why not 100 years ago? Why not 60 years ago? We've had agriculture since then, and we even conquered starvation 100 years ago (well, with the exception of the Great Depression).
As with the other stuff that's kind of a non-answer, because I'm past that--like saying fire and gravity is the real culprit of 9/11. I want to know *WHY* we are doing that as a nation to the point of people calling it a modern day obesity crisis.
Quote from: T dog on December 31, 2013, 05:28:56 PM
A point that was addressed--at least indirectly in 1). Since agriculture is a part of our wealth. And again, as far as basic physics is concerned, true, but then why not 100 years ago? Why not 60 years ago? We've had agriculture since then, and we even conquered starvation 100 years ago (well, with the exception of the Great Depression).
As with the other stuff that's kind of a non-answer, because I'm past that. I want to know *WHY* we are doing that as a nation to the point of people calling it a modern day obesity crisis.
100 or 60 years ago, production costs were still sufficient that working class people couldn't afford to over-indulge. As for "why?", I guess that depends on which your asking about, so I'll go for both. 1. Because food is now abundant and cheap, at least in this country. 2. Because some twits that thinks they no better than some other people how to live their lives are calling it a "modern day obesity crises."
Quote from: dallen68 on December 31, 2013, 05:38:18 PM
100 or 60 years ago, production costs were still sufficient that working class people couldn't afford to over-indulge. As for "why?", I guess that depends on which your asking about, so I'll go for both. 1. Because food is now abundant and cheap, at least in this country. 2. Because some twits that thinks they no better than some other people how to live their lives are calling it a "modern day obesity crises."
I don't buy that. Yet the middle class was at its best in the 1950s, yet they couldn't afford some overindulgence? Preposterous.
Also, what about countries like Japan? They are very productive/wealthy and therefore can afford even more food, yet Obesity isn't the problem there that it is here.
The only other reason besides the HFCS subsidies/sugar tariffs that makes any sense would be the huge amount of open spaces in the country (given that Australia is also far up the list too), making it more difficult to exercise (either at a gym or walking on roads/to places like in cities). Hell, even where I live, you can't really bike on the main road because of a lack of bike lanes, street lights; and an abundance of turns, trees blocking the view and horrible drivers. If you live on a cul-da-sac, you can use that, but if your neighbor(s) have a dog that isn't fenced in, you could be risking a bite. Compared to a city like, say NYC, where you pretty much just walk everywhere as a normal part of your day.
Quote from: T dog on December 31, 2013, 05:46:12 PM
I don't buy that. Yet the middle class was at its best in the 1950s, yet they couldn't afford some overindulgence? Preposterous.
Also, what about countries like Japan? They are very productive/wealthy and therefore can afford even more food, yet Obesity isn't the problem there that it is here.
First off: Wasn't talking about the middle class. Was talking about the working/welfare class, which is where the pretend obesity "crises" is. Also, the middle class is at it's best now, not the 1950's.
Japan can be explained by cultural differences. Like, they have other forms of entertainment...like hookers.
edit:
Probably should have been more specific and said "shit we call food is more affordable" -and yes, HFCS subsidies are a big reason for that.
As for the rest of it, it would seem to me that the "huge open spaces" would make it easier to excercize, not harder. And yeah, people not restraining their dogs is a problem
Quote from: dallen68 on December 31, 2013, 05:56:57 PM
First off: Wasn't talking about the middle class. Was talking about the working/welfare class, which is where the pretend obesity "crises" is. Also, the middle class is at it's best now, not the 1950's.
>>The middle class is at it's best now
I don't buy that. Especially in light of these facts: http://lordthawkeye.deviantart.com/journal/So-how-s-that-statist-working-out-for-ya-224810132
Quote from: dallen68 on December 31, 2013, 05:56:57 PM
Japan can be explained by cultural differences. Like, they have other forms of entertainment...like hookers.
/sigh
Addressed in my post on the matter with numbers. Once again, culture is a non answer. The USA shares culture as a melting pot with all countries it gets immigrants from.
And if you're referring to Geisha, those aren't hookers. That's a misnomer.
Quote from: T dog on December 31, 2013, 06:01:15 PM
>>The middle class is at it's best now
I don't buy that. Especially in light of these facts: http://lordthawkeye.deviantart.com/journal/So-how-s-that-statist-working-out-for-ya-224810132
/sigh
Addressed in my post on the matter with numbers. Once again, culture is a non answer. The USA shares culture as a melting pot with all countries it gets immigrants from.
And if you're referring to Geisha, those aren't hookers. That's a misnomer.
Actually, I wasn't referring to Geisha.
But anyway, the melting pot isn't really an answer, either, because the "epidemic" seems to be only Caucasian/African Americans. Everyone else seems pretty close to ideal weight, if not under.
Also, suspect that if we had a way of poofing our selves to 1953, and measured peoples body fat, we'd find they were just as "obese" as now; except they weren't acting like it was apocalyptical.
Quote from: dallen68 on December 31, 2013, 06:16:48 PM
Actually, I wasn't referring to Geisha.
But anyway, the melting pot isn't really an answer, either, because the "epidemic" seems to be only Caucasian/African Americans. Everyone else seems pretty close to ideal weight, if not under.
Also, suspect that if we had a way of poofing our selves to 1953, and measured peoples body fat, we'd find they were just as "obese" as now; except they weren't acting like it was apocalyptical.
There was a guy studying virus-transmitted oncogenes in chickens who noticed an anomaly: Chickens with cancer that were laying down fat. (Normally, the immune response that cancers trigger blocks laying down fat to liberate energy for the immune response itself.) Work on the virus led him to the conclusion that the virus itself caused the chickens to lay down fat.
He did some checking, and found evidence that a related virus (without oncogenes) swept much of the human population in the later 70's/early 80's (which other studies identify as something of a tipping point in terms of obesity), possibly with similar results.
Quote from: evensgrey on December 31, 2013, 06:22:55 PM
There was a guy studying virus-transmitted oncogenes in chickens who noticed an anomaly: Chickens with cancer that were laying down fat. (Normally, the immune response that cancers trigger blocks laying down fat to liberate energy for the immune response itself.) Work on the virus led him to the conclusion that the virus itself caused the chickens to lay down fat.
He did some checking, and found evidence that a related virus (without oncogenes) swept much of the human population in the later 70's/early 80's (which other studies identify as something of a tipping point in terms of obesity), possibly with similar results.
Yeah, it's possible.
Quote from: dallen68 on December 31, 2013, 06:16:48 PM
Actually, I wasn't referring to Geisha.
Oh, okay. Just a reaction as a lot of people have that misconception in my experience.
Quote from: dallen68 on December 31, 2013, 06:16:48 PM
But anyway, the melting pot isn't really an answer, either, because the "epidemic" seems to be only Caucasian/African Americans. Everyone else seems pretty close to ideal weight, if not under.
Isn't that a contradiction? If it's "culture" then wouldn't they get fat when they move here and shift culture?
Quote from: dallen68 on December 31, 2013, 06:16:48 PM
Also, suspect that if we had a way of poofing our selves to 1953, and measured peoples body fat, we'd find they were just as "obese" as now; except they weren't acting like it was apocalyptical.
Probably. I do know that people back then had lower life expectancy because we didn't grow or eat as many fruits/veggies.
Quote from: T dog on December 31, 2013, 07:09:26 PM
Isn't that a contradiction? If it's "culture" then wouldn't they get fat when they move here and shift culture?
Well, sort of, it is yes. Unless, if by "culture" I mean "not sit in front of a plasma screen stuffing your face with doritos and hotpockets all day" and they not shift culture.
Quote from: dallen68 on December 31, 2013, 07:20:34 PM
Well, sort of, it is yes. Unless, if by "culture" I mean "not sit in front of a plasma screen stuffing your face with doritos and hotpockets all day" and they not shift culture.
Nice dodge/evasion. Again, if culture really were an answer, if would effect them too, not just blacks/Caucasians, would it not?
Quote from: dallen68 on December 31, 2013, 07:27:38 PM
Tahnk you.
No joke. Again, if culture really were an answer, if would effect them too, not just blacks/Caucasians.
Quote from: T dog on December 31, 2013, 07:28:47 PM
No joke. Again, if culture really were an answer, if would effect them too, not just blacks/Caucasians.
I would presume so, yes. But I may have accidentally stumbled on part of the answer in the midst of making bad joke. Over the last 30 years or so, our lifestyles have become much more sedentary, as things like televisions, computers, etc have increasingly become part of our lives. This conversation is an example of that, as recently as 1990, either one of us would have had to go to the others house, or we would have both had to go to our local; as the phone bill would have been astronomical otherwise.
It's possible genetic predispositions have a part to play as well, and what evensgrey said. I don't think there's any one answer. Culture? Maybe part of an answer. Lifestyle? Maybe part of an answer. People being concerned about something that doesn't actually exist? Maybe. Some fat causing virus? why not?
Quote from: dallen68 on December 31, 2013, 07:36:12 PM
I would presume so, yes. But I may have accidentally stumbled on part of the answer in the midst of making bad joke. Over the last 30 years or so, our lifestyles have become much more sedentary, as things like televisions, computers, etc have increasingly become part of our lives. This conversation is an example of that, as recently as 1990, either one of us would have had to go to the others house, or we would have both had to go to our local; as the phone bill would have been astronomical otherwise.
It's possible genetic predispositions have a part to play as well, and what evensgrey said. I don't think there's any one answer. Culture? Maybe part of an answer. Lifestyle? Maybe part of an answer. People being concerned about something that doesn't actually exist? Maybe. Some fat causing virus? why not?
It wasn't a virus. If it was, the media and government would have been all over it, hyping it and using it to scare people and accept even more control. Hell, just look at swine flu and the media circus--and talk of forced vaccines--with that. But with something many people consider to be the biggest cause of death (obesity and obesity related illness)? Forget field day, they'd have a field year. And I doubt so as many people were obese in the 1950s or whatever as they are now. absent evidence, I will not accept that.
I will personally always admire a (win) quote Harry Browne made that I think applies here:
"Whenever everyone in an industry seems to be doing the same thing, it's usually because of a technological breakthrough (as in the rise of computers during the past decade or so) or because of government pressures (as in the case of the litigation explosion or companies fleeing the U.S.)."--
Why Government Doesn't Work, p. 87
I don't see any reason why same logic wouldn't apply to sociological/societal results like the increase in Obesity over the last several decades.
Technology and especially government seem like the most probable causes. Like the government giving corn growers subsidies having them put the HFCS in stuff that normally wouldn't even have sweetener. Especially considering in the Mises Institute article I cited and sourced, they controlled for calories consumed (and exercise IIRC) of groups of lab rats. One group taking HFCS, and another sugar and the the rats taking the HFCS still gained more weight. The government being at least a prime suspect makes even more sense when you take into account the money saved over a lifetime by living a healthier life. Like smaller insurance premiums, less disease later and few hospital bills in life--and govco controls the healthcare and insurance/banking systems. People like saving money. You don't have to force or trick them into doing that; and that's why I can't not consider government at least *partially* responsible for this.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Shane's input on this, since the original posts I made on this were originally meant for him to begin with. :P Not that I don't mind others chiming in.
Yeah, your probably right about the subsidies.
As far as the bit about people being as fat back then, I was stretching for possibilities and I don't blame you for not just accepting it. Anyway, I got in the time machine (other wise known as the CDC website) and that hypothesis is falsified. (In the 1950's the percentage of Americans who were obese was 5% vs. 20% today).
Interestingly, the reason they started using HFCS in everything in the first place was because it was supposed to be healthier than sugar. And then subsidies happened and...
Well, I'll let you get back to waiting on Shane.
Sorry you've been waiting for an answer from me, because I really just don't know. It may be a variety of factors. The race thing is interesting.
More and more, we're doing professions that require less manual labor and more sitting in offices in front of computers. That may be another contributing factor.
I blame zoning for the sprawl that makes it virtually impossible for most of us to walk or bike to places. Like, residences all have to be bunched over here, and you can only have commercial businesses way over here. A situation that, as far as I can tell, never existed at any other time in history ever. I really wonder why government thought it was so necessary to do that. But no more can you just walk down the street to the grocery store or the hardware store and smile at the owners of these small businesses; you have to drive to the big box franchises of enormous corporations. Zoning is DEFINITELY a small-business killer, and therefore a job-killer to boot.
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 01, 2014, 10:04:57 AM
Sorry you've been waiting for an answer from me, because I really just don't know. It may be a variety of factors. The race thing is interesting.
More and more, we're doing professions that require less manual labor and more sitting in offices in front of computers. That may be another contributing factor.
I blame zoning for the sprawl that makes it virtually impossible for most of us to walk or bike to places. Like, residences all have to be bunched over here, and you can only have commercial businesses way over here. A situation that, as far as I can tell, never existed at any other time in history ever. I really wonder why government thought it was so necessary to do that. But no more can you just walk down the street to the grocery store or the hardware store and smile at the owners of these small businesses; you have to drive to the big box franchises of enormous corporations. Zoning is DEFINITELY a small-business killer, and therefore a job-killer to boot.
Glad to get a response. :) And yeah, as any skeptic would say, "I don't know" is a valid response too.
Zoning laws and distances and roads and stuff? Oy. To give you an idea, the nearest bus stop alone is like, 10 miles from my house. And good luck walking (unless you stay in the cul-da-sac area--and even then, we have neighbors we have dogs they let outside without a fence so...) with our windy country roads with trees blocking the view, no sidewalk or shoulder, no streetlights for night/early morning stuff; and our tons of horrible drivers...well, you do that at your own risk. But yeah, that would explain why it's so rare that we can just walk to businesses now instead of having to drive because of the shear distance. I always wondered what was up with that.
And yes, if my posts haven't made it obvious, I have spent a lot of time thinking about this.
Thought people reading this thread might be interested in this:
[yt]raCIUeGUr3s[/yt]
Part of me wants to scream "Bogus!", because I'd bet dollars to donuts the magazine was using BMI as a metric, but still, some nice ideas.
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 02, 2014, 02:36:41 PM
Thought people reading this thread might be interested in this:
[yt]raCIUeGUr3s[/yt]
Part of me wants to scream "Bogus!", because I'd bet dollars to donuts the magazine was using BMI as a metric, but still, some nice ideas.
Well, yeah, BMI is the metric used to determine obesity. Obesity is different than overweight because it's possible to be overweight because of things like muscle mass. BMI, in theory, measures what amount of your body weight is FAT. If over a certain percentage (I don't recall what it is) of it is fat, you're obese, regardless of your physical weight.
Quote from: dallen68 on January 07, 2014, 03:48:59 PM
Well, yeah, BMI is the metric used to determine obesity.
Not by anyone who knows what they're doing. Obesity is determined by percent body fat. Not only does BMI make no distinction between fat and lean body mass, it also uses height, which has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. BMI was not developed to be a measure of obesity, or indeed to have any diagnostic value whatsoever.
QuoteBMI, in theory, measures what amount of your body weight is FAT.
No. Not in theory, not in reality. It is ONLY a ratio of a person's weight to (the square of) their height. That's IT.
Here's the YMCA's body fat calculator, which, while far from perfect, is MUCH better than BMI. Note that height appears NOWHERE: http://fitness.bizcalcs.com/Calculator.asp?Calc=Body-Fat-YMCA