Posted on 06/08/2012 9:07:28 AM PDT by re_tail20
Most of my favorite factoids about obesity are historical ones, and they don’t make it into the new, four-part HBO documentary on the subject, The Weight of the Nation. Absent, for instance, is the fact that the very first childhood-obesity clinic in the United States was founded in the late 1930s at Columbia University by a young German physician, Hilde Bruch. As Bruch later told it, her inspiration was simple: she arrived in New York in 1934 and was “startled” by the number of fat kids she saw—“really fat ones, not only in clinics, but on the streets and subways, and in schools.”
What makes Bruch’s story relevant to the obesity problem today is that this was New York in the worst year of the Great Depression, an era of bread lines and soup kitchens, when 6 in 10 Americans were living in poverty. The conventional wisdom these days—promoted by government, obesity researchers, physicians, and probably your personal trainer as well—is that we get fat because we have too much to eat and not enough reasons to be physically active. But then why were the PC- and Big Mac–-deprived Depression-era kids fat? How can we blame the obesity epidemic on gluttony and sloth if we easily find epidemics of obesity throughout the past century in populations that barely had food to survive and had to work hard to earn it?
These seem like obvious questions to ask, but you won’t get the answers from the anti-obesity establishment, which this month has come together to unfold a major anti-fat effort, including The Weight of the Nation, which begins airing May 14 and “a nationwide community-based outreach campaign.” The project was created by a coalition among HBO and three key public-health institutions: the nonprofit Institute of Medicine, and two federal agencies...
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
I am not trying to be a smart ass (for once); I am interested in the facts.
trailhkr1: Specifically, which nutrients or effects on the body are characteristic of carbohydrates which are not characteristic of fats and would account for this?
*************************************************************
lawdave: Have you been consuming fewer than 130 grams of carbohydrates per day and for how long? Does your brain function properly? (Okay, that last one was a little smart ass, but I'm truly interested in your story.)
LOL. I have no idea how many carbs I am consuming. I was wondering about the claim that I need to eat at least 130 grams of carbs for proper brain function also. None of the books I have read have suggested this is a issue. I eat leafy green vegatables every day but no bread or wheat products. I think my brain is functioning okay. I tried a one week jury trial last month and won.
How closely are you following Taubes’ suggestions?
As closely as I can. I read his book and am following his proposed diet.
That's very encouraging. The real test will be what your diet, weight, and health is like two or three years from now. That's my beef with semi-starvation diets. Everybody gains the weight back.
Why the Brain Needs Carbohydrates While the brain's primary source of fuel is glucose, the brain cannot store it. So once carbs are broken down into glucose by the body, the glucose is then carried to the brain by the bloodstream where it is used immediately as energy by nerve cells. The brain uses glucose to perform many functions including thinking, short-term and long-term memory, and communication with other parts of the body. It stands to reason that when carbohydrates in the diet are restricted, the glucose that's available for the brain to use as energy is reduced. Read more at Suite101: How Low-Carb Diets Can Affect the Brain: The Effects of Carbohydrate Restriction on Memory and Learning | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/how-lowcarb-diets-can-affect-the-brain-a86847#ixzz1xbrY28u0
Excellent point. That is why I hate fad diets including Atkins. Atkins is ok for a short time but should never bee along term diet. Your body needs good carbs. People who want to lose weight(and keep it off) need to make a lifestyle choice and eat right and exercise nearly every day.
Not any different than AA-one day at a time and keep going.I see so many people at the gym they lose a significant amount of weight through a low cal diet and 8-10 months later they are back to their old weight because they can't keep the diet they are on.
Excellent point. That is why I hate fad diets including Atkins. Atkins is ok for a short time but should never bee along term diet. Your body needs good carbs. People who want to lose weight(and keep it off) need to make a lifestyle choice and eat right and exercise nearly every day.
Not any different than AA-one day at a time and keep going.I see so many people at the gym they lose a significant amount of weight through a low cal diet and 8-10 months later they are back to their old weight because they can't keep the diet they are on.
.The RIGHT way to lose weight is 1.0-2 lbs per week max with a 400-500 day calories deficit from your maintence calories-that is the calories you consume every day where you neither gain nor lose weight.
I agree. This diet does not require starvation. In fact it says to eat as much non- carb food as you need to not be hungry. Taubes actually discusses the after diet weight gain, citing to the fact that most diets restrict all calories proportionally but after the diet ends we go back to ingesting a lot of carbs.
So, once I hit my goal weight(somewhere between 190 and 200), I intend to slowly incorporate carbs back into my diet to see how much I can tolerate without gaining.
BTW, the Taubes diet is in the previous post at the link titled "No Sugar, No Starch."
oops. I didn’t notice that you posted the diet.
I read Atkins' book not long ago. Atkins is not a no-carb diet; it is a low-carb diet. And the low carb part of it is exactly that -- good carbs, from vegetables and fruits (provided your body processes fructose well).
I’ve seen that assertion about carbs being necessary for the brain in many places, often verbatum. What I have not seen are primary sources of this assertion. I have also seen assertions that the brain can be fueled without carbs.
Where are the long term studies on the effects of low carb diets? And what about the Inuits? Their diets are almost completely devoid of anything other than animal products. Do their brains not function properly? Then there is lawdave. Has his five months of carbohydrate deprivation rendered him stupid? (He seems coherent to me, but who knows, maybe his caretaker is typing for him.)
Again, I’m not trying be a controversial. I would like to nail this stuff down.
I’ve seen a number of photos from that time and the vast majority of the people in them were very thin.
That sounds reasonable. I would be interested in seeing the results of the scientific studies demonstrating the long-term efficacy of such a regimen, say, a follow-up study of subjects after a period of five years, ten years, twenty years, etc.
Once you lose the weight you go back to your maintenance calories. I know some people who have made a lifestyle change and kept the weight off but TBH most people gain it back within 1-2 years... at least that has been my experience on people I have dealt with. I would say 5% or less keep the weight off. Sad isn't it? Old habits die hard I guess.
Of course not.. it is long term. Most nutritionist agree good carbs are very important in overall long term health.
Then there is no point in taking the weight off, unless it is a life-and-death situation, such as dropping enough lard to be eligible for a vital surgical procedure, or getting in respectable shape for that 25th graduation reunion.
It would be useful to see a comparison of the long-term success rates of various diet regimens.
How about quality of life? Those extra 25-30-50 lbs or more creates havoc on knees, mobility, breathing etc. Those extra lbs might not kill you but can make life more less enjoyable.
People make a choice when they gain the weight back. They give up quality of life to eating their favorite foods in quantity.
And most scientists agree that cow farts and SUVs were causing a catastrophic anteObama rise in sea levels.
Coffee Bad/Coffee Good
Saccharine Bad/Saccharin Fine
Red Wine Good/Oops-Fake Study
Eggs Bad/Eggs Fine (but just in case only eat a few)
You can see why I would like to see real long-term studies on these issues before I buy into any "consensus".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.