Obesity: Why are we getting fat? :epizza:

[charles brough]

I am equally concerned Charles, after reading the effects of the flavr savr tomato

I gotta wonder about the plant not dying as a result of over spraying of pesticides and how much of those pesticides have leached into the corn: it just doesn't seem safe to me

 

Some of the genetic engineering actually engineers insecticide right into the corn or other food. That way they don't have to spray it. I wonder about eating it, however.

 

The way to radiate food fascinates me. I once rented a cabin with a full refrigerator. The food had been in it for 3 years! There was a package of meat in it and while it did not look appetizing, it was not spoiled.

 

Needless to say, I ate nothing and threw it all away---even though I hate to waste food though!

[pamela]

yes, my concern was over consumption, although other uses of the product may be beneficial

as much as i hate to throw out food, especially pricey fruit and veggies, i wouldn't have touched that 3 year old stuff either!:phones:

[Moontanman]

Using GM to put insecticide in corn was stupid, any time you cause insecticide to be in the part of the plant we eat it's stupid but no one asked me. flavor saver tomatoes were not harmful in any way they just didn't rot as quickly due to the gene that causes rotting being left out. As for the irradiated food, you probably wouldn't have been harmed, it's much like the canning process where heat is used to kill bacteria and the food is sealed up air tight so no more bacteria can get in. If irradiated food would have harmed you then canned food three years old would have too. Even canned food is reletively inedible after a long period of time. Not harmful just not good.

[pamela]

i think those poor rats with liver, brain, pancreas, immune damage, may have a different take on that moontanman;)

[Moontanman]

i think those poor rats with liver, brain, pancreas, immune damage, may have a different take on that moontanman;)

 

Hmmm, I think I'm going to have to see some evidence on that Pamela. Which studies, which GM foods would be nice.

[pamela]

dr Arpad Puzstai conducted research for the Rowette institute to develop safety protocol for genetically modified foods. These were some of his findings. It was not the insecticide gene that caused the problems but the genetic engineering itself.

[Moontanman]

dr Arpad Puzstai conducted research for the Rowette institute to develop safety protocol for genetically modified foods. These were some of his findings. It was not the insecticide gene that caused the problems but the genetic engineering itself.

 

 

BBC News | Health | Genetics scientist suspended

 

So it was this Dr Arpad Puzstai who was studying GM potatoes that had genes inserted to ward off insects? Could it be the type of genes and not the process it's self? He was canned due to his research being biased, and the only people who backed him were people who were already fiercely against GM foods? I think we need more than this one researcher who is accused of padding the research and fired from his job for it.

[charles brough]

dr Arpad Puzstai conducted research for the Rowette institute to develop safety protocol for genetically modified foods. These were some of his findings. It was not the insecticide gene that caused the problems but the genetic engineering itself.

 

What bothers me about all this is that the agricultural interests provide the funds for a lot of the research. Of course, we are not experts in this and it is not possible at least for me to know really what is going on with our food, but I do read a lot and have good reason to suspect that rat and mice research, as PAMELA mentioned, shows a different picture than the special-interest funded government used research tells us.

 

Despite the most expensive medical system on Earth, we are far from the healthiest of people.

[pamela]

For the potato study, his claim was against the gene itself, for the tomato, it was the engineering.Obviously we need much more testing and research into this field, but i will not disqualify a scientist on suspension due to the strains of media hype. The actual results should be released to clear up this misconception

[Moontanman]

What bothers me about all this is that the agricultural interests provide the funds for a lot of the research. Of course, we are not experts in this and it is not possible at least for me to know really what is going on with our food, but I do read a lot and have good reason to suspect that rat and mice research, as PAMELA mentioned, shows a different picture than the special-interest funded government used research tells us.

 

The entire problem suffers from an obvious lack of independent research. both sides have gone out of their way to pump sunshine up the skirts of anyone who will listen.

 

I know there is no reason what so ever to expect a GM modified food to hurt you in any way as long as it wasn't GM modified to product some type of noxious chemical.

 

The potatoes in this study were indeed GM'ed to produce such chemicals. to do this is so stupid I wonder why anyone would even consider producing food with this type of modification.

 

On the other side you have food that has been modified to produce things that are good for us, IE golden rice or corn with complete proteins or meat high in Omega 3 fatty acids.

 

Of course it might be found that GM does indeed cause some weird effect that makes any and all GM crops a bad idea but if you think about it the idea of Gm being bad all the time makes no real sense unless the modifications intent was cause problems.

 

Even regular cross breeding can in rare instances produce problems. As far as i know (and I readily admit to my knowledge being limited) no really independent study has shown that the process of GM causes any inherent problems with the food it produces.

 

Despite the most expensive medical system on Earth, we are far from the healthiest of people.

 

While this is true we are also no where near the unhealthiest either. In fact we are far healthier than we were a century ago, people live much longer healthier lives today that ever before in the history of mankind. Your statement is nothing but a obfuscation of facts and unnecessarily misleading.

[Michaelangelica]

Hormones in the intestines coordinate the use of food for energy use and storage — sending messages to receptors informing the brain there is enough energy present.

 

"There are receptors for different nutrients," he says. "There is a sugar receptor and there are fat receptors. If you eat sugar without any fat, the stomach will empty very quickly and you will get a big spike of sugar in your blood.

 

"If you add fat to the sugar, the stomach empties more slowly and that spike of sugar is flattened out."

 

Wittert says within this basic system of hunger and satiety there is a hormonal mechanism that monitors fat levels.

 

"Your fat makes a hormone called leptin, which tells the brain how much fat there is in the body," he says. So, theoretically, if we inject obese people with more leptin, we can trick the brain into thinking they have had enough food.

 

Unfortunately the body works in the opposite way as well, because leptin is actually more important to defend against a decrease in fat mass.

 

"If you decrease energy, leptin falls and suddenly all these mechanisms in the brain and body act to say: 'Get food, emergency, we are at risk, hunt'."

How much of hunger is hormonal? - Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

[Michaelangelica]

How much of hunger is hormonal?

Hormones in the intestines coordinate the use of food for energy use and storage — sending messages to receptors informing the brain there is enough energy present.

 

"There are receptors for different nutrients," he says. "There is a sugar receptor and there are fat receptors. If you eat sugar without any fat, the stomach will empty very quickly and you will get a big spike of sugar in your blood.

 

"If you add fat to the sugar, the stomach empties more slowly and that spike of sugar is flattened out."

 

Wittert says within this basic system of hunger and satiety there is a hormonal mechanism that monitors fat levels.

 

"Your fat makes a hormone called leptin, which tells the brain how much fat there is in the body," he says. So, theoretically, if we inject obese people with more leptin, we can trick the brain into thinking they have had enough food.

 

Unfortunately the body works in the opposite way as well, because leptin is actually more important to defend against a decrease in fat mass.

 

"If you decrease energy, leptin falls and suddenly all these mechanisms in the brain and body act to say: 'Get food, emergency, we are at risk, hunt'."

 

Wittert says the body has evolved to store fat when it is available, a fact borne since the dawn of dining. But today, our food source has changed from fleeing game to garlic chicken wings.

 

"That's why we are all getting fat," he says. "About 70 per cent of obesity is heritable, the ability to store food when it is plentiful is in our genes. But we have also learned that the foetus can be programmed in the womb to match its environment. We know that obese pregnant women leave an imprint on their fetuses to prepare it to respond similarly."

 

So what about people who seem to stay thin no matter how much they eat?

 

"Some people burn a lot of energy and don't store it," he says. "They just burn it. They are probably the sort of people who would not have survived originally."

 

Professor Gary Wittert was interviewed by Carmelo Amalfi.

How much of hunger is hormonal? - Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

[charles brough]

While this is true we are also no where near the unhealthiest either. In fact we are far healthier than we were a century ago, people live much longer healthier lives today that ever before in the history of mankind. Your statement is nothing but a obfuscation of facts and unnecessarily misleading.

 

But do you have the "facts?" Do you know if the diabetes rate per 100,000 people is not increasing, especially among children? In the 1960s a war against cancer was launched. Has the cancer rate declined? Could the heart attack rate be increasing per 100.000 people but many live longer because of a medical system so expensive that many Lower-income working people cannot afford it?

 

What is a "healthy" person? Is it someone propped up by drugs for multiple conditions so that he or she is able to live longer than past generations?

[Michaelangelica]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Moontanman again.

 

My main objections to GM foods too.

[Michaelangelica]

But do you have the "facts?" Do you know if the diabetes rate per 100,000 people is not increasing, especially among children? In the 1960s a war against cancer was launched. Has the cancer rate declined? Could the heart attack rate be increasing per 100.000 people but many live longer because of a medical system so expensive that many Lower-income working people cannot afford it?

 

What is a "healthy" person? Is it someone propped up by drugs for multiple conditions so that he or she is able to live longer than past generations?

 

Our diseases have changed over time and are different in different societies. (which tells you something about the food we eat)

Heart disease #1 in the West.

 

The aging population, and better sanitary conditions means we have & die of different diseases.

I heard a middle aged doctor say on TV last night that when he satrted practice he cared for one 90 year old. Now he has three dozen 90 year olds on his books.

 

IMO Bring in voluntary euthanasia!

 

BTW- a bit of trivia-

It is said that China has such a lage population today because of the invention of green tea. Not because of the anti-oxidants it contains, but because the Chinese started to boil their water. While Europeans were dying in droves by water born diseases.

[HydrogenBond]

Some simple and practical considerations are cost, convenience and value. The healthiest foods, such as organic, are not cheap, compared to processed foods. Even if one wanted to eat healthy foods this may not be possible if one is watching their budget and/or has to feed many people day after day on a fixed income. Fresh produce is better for you, than canned or processed, but it also more expensive and more work in terms of the needs of preparation and clean up.

 

Fast foods have low cost, high convenience and taste good. It would be better to buy fresh organic meat and fresh farm grown produce without pesticides and whip up a healthy meal, with fancy spices to compensate for not using cheap old fashion butter and salt. But not everyone has the money or time to do this.

 

I like eating salads but it is often too much trouble, for me, to gather all the ingredients for a well built salad of many veggie colors. I don't like to eat it every day, so I end up having extra veggies that aren't so fresh by the end of the week. It seems like a waste of good food. So I tend to have salad when I go out and this is an option on the menu. But once there, I think to myself, if I also get the salad, I would be eating two meals and I only want one. Then I think, I can make salad at home, easier, than the chef's specialty. My multi-colored salad is better anyway. So I pick the entree and vow to make a salad at home, which is not convenient and more practical to have when I eat out. But then I would have two meals and be a pig.

 

When someone eats out, you are looking for flavor, value, and good size portions. Nobody goes where the food is small, over priced and tastes like crap. The first two variables do have a following. But most restaurants use the three step formula for success. Even if you don't eat it all, you feel better if they give you a good portion. Once it is there, one hates to waste good food, so either we bound it down, or snack later, between other meals.

 

At home I may feel guilty about making this huge mound of french fries covered in fried seafood. There is too much time to think during preparation about being a pig. But at the restaurant I expect a good portion for what I am paying. Also as a good guest, I will show my appreciation to my restaurant host by eating every last french fry. This is where convenience also comes in. You only have to eat. You don't have to shop, prepare and clean for a bunch of people who don't appreciate how much effort this takes. I am free to complain too.

 

With both parents having to work, or in single parent families, where that parent has to work, fast food is always helpful since it saves time and effort and can even save cost. Try to make a healthy home made organic pizza or lasagna from scratch to see the time and the cost. Or I can call ahead and on my way from work, pick thus up in stride and have no cleanup for half the cost. That means I can buy two, so I also have some for later.

 

Once we can make fast, cheap and convenient healthy fast food that tastes good people will go there to feed. As long as it is expensive, inconvenient and tastes marginal without doctoring, people will follow the free market for value and convenience leading to poor eating habits.

[Michaelangelica]

Menopause linked to weight gain

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

Garvan Institute

hrtpatch.jpg

Taking HRT via trans-dermal patches could help women avoid weight gain.

 

Obesity experts from all over the world have found a link between menopause and weight gain and have recommended women stay active in order to keep the extra kilos at bay.

Menopause linked to weight gain*(ScienceAlert)

 

HB

I like eating salads but it is often too much trouble, for me, to gather all the ingredients for a well built salad of many veggie colors.

I love the French salad with heaps of unusual greens.

I saw in my local supermarket greens that looked like they had been swept from the floor at c. $26 a kilo!!!!

 

Asians get most of their calcium from greens. but not at that price!