I think it is, but ok, I'll bite. So if I'm following your argument correctly, because you can't stop eating oreos until the whole row is gone, 'eat less, exercise more' is not valid, or fails to completely take into account the 'complexities' of Oreo nutrition? Here's a wild and crazy thought: don't eat the Oreos. Look, people don't like to hear simple solutions, but the fact is, you burn what you burn and you take in what you take in. Sure, certain foods break down differently, and different people metabolize foods differently, but ultimately, for a given person, if you eat less than you do now, and exercise more - you are going to lose weight. I don't think it's easy by any stretch. I lost 60 lbs several years ago, and it took over a year of being at the gym six days a week and changing what, and how much, I ate. The solution was, and is, quite simple. The effort to do it? Not so much, but just because the effort required is high, doesn't make the solution wrong, or complicated.
Part of the problem is the belief that there IS a simple solution. Why we believe there is a universal pathway to health is beyond me, when it's pretty obvious that there is nothing universal about our psychologies, sexualities, or even fucking fingerprints. <a class="postlink" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catabolism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catabolism</a> This tells us that your body can burn both fat and muscle as well as dozens of other things to supply itself with energy. Which it chooses can depend on a LOT of factors that are chemical, genetic and psychological. Digestion is chemistry, not math. If you consume 4 cokes and 4 snickers a day, it's 2000 calories, but you will feel like shit, get fat and be unsatisfied. Not all calories are the same and the variety of processes the body uses is not well understood, despite decades of research.
Sure... Fatter than 2000 calories of chicken and white rice? Fuck no. Look, building muscle depends on your training routine, macronutrients and caloric surplus, but if you think purely gaining weight* is anything other than calories in calories out, you are wrong. *(hormone disorders, thyroid problems etc notwithstanding) The discerning mind will take this as a caveat; the weak one will take it as an excuse.
I'll admit I didn't know corn was just another type of grass. What little corn my family grows, is in our gardens for us to consume directly as we buy our feed in bulk at the local feed store. The prices like I said, keep going up (as does the price per pound of steer), and our profits here lately haven't been as great as they used to be. The drought out in the Midwest has screwed up a lot of things in terms of agriculture. Our cattle pretty much just roam our pastures and graze most of the time, and we only feed them hay in the wintertime or right before we load them onto the trucks to be shipped off for slaughter. Corn-based grain is doled out every day or two, or when we need to put weight on them quickly (once again, before we ship them). Like you said, they love it and eat the hell out of it. Grass is the base of their diet, but the corn, hay, and grains is what really packs on the weight (and for us, the more the animal weighs the more money we make on each individual as we sell by the pound, not head). I agree we can't sustain the world's population on grass fed livestock alone. Yet I disagree on the lack of farm land... First off, not every acre of farm land is suitable for raising vegetables or fruits. I live smack dab in the middle of the Appalachian mountains, and corn does well around here. It's not unheard of to have a few apple orchids, cabbage fields, and a few other crops. Yet most farm land around here is devoted to cattle because the terrain is so hilly and wooded, we can't have miles upon miles of corn like you'd see in Kansas or Nebraska. The climate isn't conductive to raising certain other crops, or the soil just isn't right. So it's more economical for most farmers in my area to raise cattle than to raise crops. All land isn't equal in ability to produce food. However, there is a lot of fertile land around the world that isn't being used very efficiently or at all. I once read that Rhodesia fed the majority of Africa until political reasons drove out the white farmers and their knowledge and capital. What farming is done today in the former-Rhodesia is generally of the sustenance type, (dirt farmers raising enough to feed themselves and family). Thats the first example that comes to mind; although I'm sure there's more out there.
I'm sorry, but am I the only one kinda disappointed that ballsack hasn't entered this thread and blamed the obesity epidemic on the blacks and jews yet?
Interestingly, the Jews may actually offer a solution to the problem. (NB: solution may not be final). From wikipedia: "Agriculture in Israel is a highly developed industry: Israel is a major exporter of fresh produce and a world-leader in agricultural technologies despite the fact that the geography of Israel is not naturally conducive to agriculture. More than half of the land area is desert, and the climate and lack of water resources do not favor farming. Only 20% of the land area is naturally arable. Today agriculture represents 2.5% of total GDP and 3.6% of exports. While agricultural workers make up only 3.7% of the work force, Israel produces 95% of its own food requirements, supplementing this with imports of grain, oilseeds, meat, coffee, cocoa and sugar." The article goes on to note that Israel has the best, or among the best, yields in the world for a variety of things from milk to citrus fruits. In short, Israel has figured out a way to overcome the limitations of its land via technology. I worked at a University here that focuses heavily on farming-related research, and we were flying Israeli experts in multiple times a year to copy what we could. Obviously a large part of this isn't transferable to cattle farming which I imagine is more complex than farming vegetables (purely because the end product you are getting to is more complex in cattle than in plant farming), but they certainly seem to have the general theory working well for them.
I think you're both right. Yes, less calories in and more burned will result in weight loss. But foods like Oreos etc can and do become addictive. Its really not that much different than alcohol. Chronic use will result in withdrawal (craving) so we reach for something comforting to alleviate te craving and were caught up in the cycle. Breaking the cycle requires serious commitment and effort, just like overcoming any other addiction, but a food addiction is a lot trickier because we still need to eat, and a slip on our diet doesn't have the same immediate consequences as a slip for the alcoholic. In both cases though, it still comes down to choice. I have a much harder time in the soda aisle than the beer aisle these days. I tried to control my soda consumption, just like I tried to control my alcohol consumption, and yielded the same negative results. That's my experience. Your mileage may vary.
So, you think you're smarter than you really are. If socialized medicine is the reason why Americans have become so fat, how do you square that with the following observations: -countries with socialized health care are not as fat as the U.S. -America doesn't really have socialized health care Now, statistical correlation doesn't equal causation, but shit, even a monkey could figure out that socialism isn't the reason that Americans are overweight.
I cited Oreos as the easy example. There are many many other examples I could have used. Note that I didn't say you were wrong. I said that it's not as drastically simple as you make it. Huge difference. Also note that quality of food has an incredible influence. A bagel, fruit, and oatmeal sounds like an incredible breakfast, or coffee and a muffin, or yogurt and a cup of granola...the average person considers those "decent" or "good" breakfasts. I consider them a recipe fr insulin skyrocketing followed by a crash and driving hunger. Theyre all calorically dense - but none are truly satisfying, and NONE are great for your hormone levels. Food isn't JUST FOOD.
Oh, if only Americans would stop eating yogurt, fruit, granola and oatmeal. THEN they'd finally start losing weight.
More on the problem with advertising, I saw a commercial this morning for Hamburger Helper that, in so many words, bascially said: It finishes with the mother looking very satisfied as she watches her family dig in to the steamy, wholesome meal she just prepared in 10 minutes. Now, admittedly, it's better than a sack of Big Macs, but Hamburger Helper is still a mix of highly processed pasta (so that it will last on your shelf through apocalypse) and a hybrid package of salt-cheese powder. It's the nutritional equivalent of Powersauce bars. But because she tossed some shitty pasta into water with some orange dust--well bend over Betty Crocker, there's a new healthy chef in town. I'll hand it to them (puns!), they've done a great job of appealing to their target audience and tricking them into missing the whole point of making a home-cooked meal in the first place--that it's supposed to be a much healthier alternative for your family. The sad part is that 1 lb. of lean ground meat, some whole wheat pasta, a can of diced tomatoes, some chopped onion and fresh basil, and some light seasoning will get you the same results in nearly the same amount of time while actually providing your family with a meal that's more than just pre-shit coursing through their system.
Oh. Because that's exactly what I said. But stop eatin those things and REPLACE THEM with lean meats, eggs, vegetables, and fruits and yes, the overall health of the person in question will drastically improve.
I think the point he was making is that 75% of America isn't even there yet. We're talking about what we need to do to stop people being overweight and while they may not get into crossfit shape, switching to a breakfast like you listed above would serve them WAY better than a bowl of Captain Crunch or a donut/danish/etc... Paleo/Primal/No carb may be the way to go, but thats a big step for people eating well as is, and almost unfathomable for people eating like shit. Hell, I eat better than 95% of people and eat fairly low carb, and I would have to change up quite a few things and inconvenience myself for awhile to get to a more Paleo way of eating. Prime example. My uncle is in his late 40s. Not obese, but has the fairly classic middle aged man beer gut. Last time I saw him, he mentioned how he was trying to eat better and healthier cause he wanted to slim down a bit and some of the revelations and "tips" he had recently learned. -Brown rice, not white rice -Wheat bread, not white bread -Diet soda -He was snacking on the fruit snacks that say "made with real fruit" cause he thought those were better than Doritos I almost instinctively told him "try no bread and no rice", but stopped myself. He's no obese hillbilly or some one from the People of Wal-Mart emails, but these basic things, which still aren't great for you when you get down to it, were big changes and positive steps. I think some of us here, especially in the paleo knowledge game, forget just how unfeasible, at least initially, that is for most people.
Not to attack people in the Paleo game, that's great for you. It is an awesome idea, and yes I could be super healthy, but I'm living one life I know I'm living. I know my grandma who is 94, didn't eat Paleo and didn't die. So if I can eat a certin way and not die, stay relatively healthy and enjoy my meals. Fantastic. I think everyone has a bad trigger (sugar, carbs, red meats), and if they cut back on it, along with scaling everything else properly while working out, can get healthy. Not crossfit healthy, but "hey you won't die of negligent health and be visually appealing to the majority of people" healthy. That is where the current "fatties" need to get to.
Except this is wrong, and was what Shimmered is getting at. Brown rice has more anti-nutrients than white rice. Whole wheat bread will spike your insulin more than white bread. Yet if you ask any nutritionist or doctor not up to date (most of them), they will tell you he is taking steps in the right direction. A lot of people are just blatantly misinformed. He would be far better off starting the day with bacon and eggs and changing nothing else.
Yup. Then again - MOST of what I eat is comprised of elements I combine. If I eat prepared food from somewhere else...I read it.