Posted on 07/16/2003 11:57:41 AM PDT by Timesink
Edited on 07/22/2003 2:46:46 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A host of sinful foods have been demonized as the root of obesity and poor health of American adults and children. Fast food restaurants have been sued, accused of contributing to customers' obesity because their food tastes too good and they tempt us by advertising. Taxes are being proposed on foods deemed fattening or bad for us, namely, anything with meat or fat, that is fried or processed or that is sweet.
I challenge anyone reading this to go four days without any food that has sugar in it. Bet you can't make it.
With no more foods than I eat that contain any type of sugar even naturally (which BTW he did not specify), I could easily take that bet and win, my metabolism is used to it. My point was - he is basing weight gain on sugar addiction and lack of exercise...just not true in my case...I abhor anything sweet and exercise daily and still bounce between 10-15 lbs. above my recommended weight of 145.
I just wanted to weigh in on the "news" from The Sunday Times in the UK this weekend that "burgers can be as addictive as drugs".
The article stated:"The research found that foods which are high in fat and sugar can cause significant changes in brain biochemistry similar to those from drugs such as heroin and cocaine."
The story misses the point. If these macronutrients (from whatever source, Burger King or one's own kitchen*) have such an effect, it's because they're supposed to. It's not because there's something inherently dangerous about "fast food". The food doesn't mimic drugs; certain drugs mimic food. Addictive drugs keep one coming back for something that, unlike food, is not necessary for survival.
If there is such a "change" in brain chemistry, it makes sense in terms of survival. It makes especially good sense in the context of feast or famine--the default condition apart from an agricultural society: When you're not sure when your next meal is coming, you're highly motivated to track it down or dig it up and eat as much of it as you can. Any sort of "high" from the big nutrient influx would do two things: reward you for getting the food and motivate you to get more.
The danger from obesity comes from having a lot of food of high energy content easily available combined with little physical activity. If wild animals are given unfettered access to an unlimited supply of food, they also become obese. Obesity is simply a consequence of a wealthy society. The outcome shouldn't be a mystery to anyone. There's nothing that the government can do to fix it short of making everyone too poor to buy enough food to get fat, criminalizing food consumption and provision, or creating non-nutritive "food". In any case, the result will be an oppressive society rivaling anything experienced under Stalin or Mao.
Linking food to addictive drugs is polemics pure and simple and should be laughed to scorn. Remember as a child saying after an anti-drug class that luridly warned you about the addictive dangers of heroin, "Ha ha, I'm addicted to food. I just can't stop eating"? It's only because people have become so ignorant and looking for someone to blame or so greedy (trial lawyers) that this story has any traction at all.
Dr. aruanan
*There is NO difference in the chemical composition of macronutrients provided by McDonalds or home cooking or Charlie Trotter's. The only difference is taste and cost. All food is broken down in the digestive tract into the macronutrients of protein (amino acids), fats, and carbohydrates (glucose, galactose, and fructose--galactose and fructose enter the glycolytic pathway and are converted into the same thing glucose is--fructose 1,6 diphosphate). Of these three, fats and carbohydrates are the most immediately useful in meeting the body's energy needs. The reason? It takes less energy to use them because they're all ready to go; amino acids have to be deaminated before being used as fuel.
So do I. The "food pyramid" from the USDA is exactly inverted.
And the claim above that sugar is no more of a villain than other food substances is just ridiculous.
There is no dispute that foods like sugar, and processed carbs containing sugar spike insulin levels, which causes the body to store fat. No dispute whatsoever.
Now, some people exercise enough or have high metabolisms that burn these off before they can be stored.
Most people don't have the time to exercise for two hours a day and their metabolism slows as they age.
Carbs and sugar are the culprit, not fat, not protein.
You mean the touchy-feelie/progressive device used to deflect discussion and to change the subject?
Actually no.
:)
I consciously evade it. Thankyouverymuch.
Analogy is a different animal altogether.
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.