Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's keep in mind that the propensity to store excess calories as fat, which has a very strong genetic component, is NOT the same thing as obesity.
Obesity is what happens when (generally) the propensity to store excess calories as fat intersects with the consumption of too many calories and the expenditure of too few calories.
There's a middle ground which we could call "overweight" or "chubby" which in going to be inhabited by those who have the genetic propensity, but who consume and expend a reasonably appropriate balance of calories; and also by those who wouldn't naturally be fat, but who insist on consuming too many and expending too few calories.
Then there's "lean" which requires almost no effort on the part of those who don't genetically store calories as fat unless the consume/expend balance is WAY out of whack, but which requires extreme effort on the part of those who do tend to accumulate fat.
There is exactly no one whose genetics are forcing them to be 100 lbs overweight. That's consumption and exercise out of balance. There are many people whose genetics are forcing them to be 10-20 lbs heavier than "lean".
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,347 posts, read 8,563,021 times
Reputation: 16684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Another point to understand is that losing fat is really just, for a good amount of time, merely reducing the size of the fat cells. Those cells are still there like deflated tires...waiting to store unused energy.
It's going to take three or so years for the body to actually slough off those fat cells...you have to maintain control of your calorie intake and exercise for that long.
I knew about fat cells expanding and that we had a fixed number, but I didn’t know that after a while we could lose some. Can you point out any articles about this. I’d like to research it more.
Following up with my last post, look at this video footage from a McDonald's restaurant in 1984. Hardly anyone was overweight or obese. The one downside of course being indoor smoking at that time.
In addition to the great info posted by Granite Stater, I'll add one from personal experience. Sugar.
I worked for Domino Sugar in Baltimore from 1969-1972 and at that time Domino, aka Amstar, had major cane sugar refineries in Boston, Brooklyn, Philadelphia and Baltimore. At the Baltimore plant we used to send one million pounds of sugar, every day, to the Coca Cola syrup plant over on Fort Avenue in south Baltimore, not far from Fort McHenry. Million pounds a day, at least five days per week. Coca Cola bought their own raw sugar directly from Brazil, the Philippines or elsewhere and simply paid Domino to refine it for them. At first it went out the door as sugar syrup, 25 semi-truck loads a day, in food-grade stainless steel semi-tankers in which we put about 45,000 pounds of syrup. Five days a week. Later, that sugar went out of the plant as simple dry granulated sugar, in food-grade railroad covered hopper cars, with 200,000 pounds of granulated sugar in each railcar. The B&O railroad took the railcars from our plant to the Coca Cola plant a few blocks over. Domino sold syrup to other bottlers as well, but in far smaller amounts.
From 1975-1985, the growth of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) damn near put Domino Sugar out of business. All their east coast refineries are gone now, except for Baltimore.
That was a key moment in time, when HFCS displaced cane sugar in our national diet. We've become obese since.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
When you look at how the situation changed in so short a time, you realize that it isn't genetic, it's environmental. Are there some genetic influences...yes. But clearly, whatever those genetic influences are, we only lost control of them because of relatively sudden environmental changes. And when these changes have occurred so quickly that people in one generation can observe them, that is sudden.
I agree with all of that. I've mentioned before, also, that eating habits have changed from the consumption of calories only three times a day to the consumption of calories for many people every waking hour of the day. Many people never go an hour without consuming calories of some sort.
Exactly, the changes to our food supply literally happened overnight, and the healthcare costs have been extreme. It took me 15-20 years to connect all the dots. My peak weight was in 2006, and I've been following the approach I outlined for the last 15 years, not deviating from it the entire time.
Following up with my last post, look at this video footage from a McDonald's restaurant in 1984. Hardly anyone was overweight or obese. The one downside of course being indoor smoking at that time.
You can look at practically any picture you want of the general public prior to the 80s, and obese people will be the great minority.
Young black women today are known for being "thicc." In just a couple of decades, it's become an aestethic. Google this and notice how few "thicc" young black women there were in the 60s (within my own memory).
In addition to the great info posted by Granite Stater, I'll add one from personal experience. Sugar.
I worked for Domino Sugar in Baltimore from 1969-1972 and at that time Domino, aka Amstar, had major cane sugar refineries in Boston, Brooklyn, Philadelphia and Baltimore. At the Baltimore plant we used to send one million pounds of sugar, every day, to the Coca Cola syrup plant over on Fort Avenue in south Baltimore, not far from Fort McHenry. Million pounds a day, at least five days per week. Coca Cola bought their own raw sugar directly from Brazil, the Philippines or elsewhere and simply paid Domino to refine it for them. At first it went out the door as sugar syrup, 25 semi-truck loads a day, in food-grade stainless steel semi-tankers in which we put about 45,000 pounds of syrup. Five days a week. Later, that sugar went out of the plant as simple dry granulated sugar, in food-grade railroad covered hopper cars, with 200,000 pounds of granulated sugar in each railcar. The B&O railroad took the railcars from our plant to the Coca Cola plant a few blocks over. Domino sold syrup to other bottlers as well, but in far smaller amounts.
From 1975-1985, the growth of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) damn near put Domino Sugar out of business. All their east coast refineries are gone now, except for Baltimore.
That was a key moment in time, when HFCS displaced cane sugar in our national diet. We've become obese since.
That is very interesting Mike, do you have a more specific link showing the transition from cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup in the US? The reason I ask is that Crush soda in the early 1990's still used cane sugar, and did not use high fructose corn syrup. It could boil down to major brands compared to minor brands.
That is very interesting Mike, do you have a more specific link showing the transition from cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup in the US? The reason I ask is that Crush soda in the early 1990's still used cane sugar, and did not use high fructose corn syrup. It could boil down to major brands compared to minor brands.
That's about all I have.
HFCS is cheap as our ag industry has a lot of taxpayer subsidies. Conversely, cane sugar is more expensive because decades-old import quotas work to hold down imports which causes the cost of cane sugar (grown in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Hawaii) to increase in price. It's part of the U.S. Sugar program.
HFCS was first produced by Richard O. Marshall and Earl R. Kooi in 1957 after they created the enzyme glucose isomerase. The enzyme rearranged the composition of glucose in corn syrup and made it into fructose. (Isn't this the very definition of a GMO?)
HFCS is produced from corn that was milled into corn starch. Which is then turned into corn syrup. The glucose isomerase enzymes are then added to turn the some of the glucose in the corn syrup into fructose. Then you’ve got HFCS.
HFCS was rapidly introduced to many processed foods and soft drinks in the U.S. from about 1975 to 1985. Soft drink makers such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi still use sugar in other nations but switched to HFCS in the U.S. due to higher (cane) sugar costs.
HFCS is used in almost every packaged food and soft drink American consumers see today. HFCS has replaced more expensively priced sugar in a variety of uses including; the beverage industry (41%), processed food manufacturers (22%), cereal and bakery producers (14%), multiple-use food manufacturers (12%), the dairy industry (9%), and the confectionery industry (1%).
Consumption of HFCS in the U.S. has been slowly and steadily declining since 1999 when 37.5 lbs were consumed per person. In 2012 that number was down to 27.1 lbs per person.
In 2010, The Corn Refiners Association tried to change the name “high fructose corn syrup” to “corn sugar” due to HFCS’s bad reputation. In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration rejected the name change.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
I don't know that I buy the idea of HFCS being that much worse than cane/beet sugar. But it seems as though it's more widely used (that more products are sweetened) than they used to be. A holdover from the low-fat "all fat is bad" campaign, maybe?
This is not true. Kevin Hall did studies on this and found a massive drop on the biggest loser contestants. Further Herman Ponzer found that both humans and animals that did a ton of exercise in "the wild" had no greater TDEE than office workers in the USA.
Cutting calories for any period of time can drop some people's TDEE massively and it never comes back, these are the facts that people just continue to ignore because it doesn't happen to them.
The fact is 80% of people gain it back but it is always put own to lack of control and eating too much. But that doesn't make sense any longer.
People gain the weight back because they didn't change their lifestyle for good. Anybody can go to extreme diet that forces them to change temporarily. But without the sustain change in diet the weight can be gained back easily.
Start by getting rid of foods that spike insulin which control hunger and cravings. Even foods like proteins and fats spike insulin in certain quantities. It's more important to eat foods that do not spike insulin much that will lead to lower cravings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
