4 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Joan Breibart's avatar

Obesity is the result of over consumption. People own 20 pairs of sneakers and they are sneaker "obese" but the only drawback is credit card debt unless they are rich. Our entire economy is built on overconsumption of cheap goods. We can't get quality food while we produce twice the amount we need. Cant' make 100,000 good dresses or millions of good peaches. Just bit into one I bought at Whole Foods and it is tasteless. YET all the pols talk about inflation and "the American family can't put food on the table"-- but we don't need too much food since we have overeaten for decades. WE have eaten future meals. 70% of the population is too big and since we NEVER connect the dots, we cannot admit that Expensive food in small quantities is better for us and won't hurt the economy. Most Americans have no idea why we fattened up.

Because of the pretty wellness word, most don't even know they are fat. 35 inch waistline is obese. Ozempic is our only solution to this current issue even if it has issues in the future. NO ONE needs to stay on the drug forever. They just need 80 BITES

Expand full comment
Matt Cook's avatar

This is entirely incorrect. Obese people do not necessarily over consume and in fact, when they cut calories, they do not lose body fat because their bodies are adapted to a very low metabolic rate and low calorie drops their metabolic rate even further.

The true reason is probably due to high PUFA fats int the diet. Of course, medicine is only willing to indict omega 6 fatty acids. Omega 3 are supposedly benevolent, and ratios are supposedly everything.

I hate to cite review articles and meta studies, but this is a highly charged political topic and difficult to find well structured studies.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/3/128

Prospective studies clearly show an increase in the risk of obesity as the level of omega-6 fatty acids and the omega-6/omega-3 ratio increase in red blood cell (RBC)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523279186

Maximal weight loss observed in low-calorie diet (LCD) studies tends to be small, and the mechanisms leading to this low treatment efficacy have not been clarified. Less-than-expected weight loss with LCDs can arise from an increase in fractional energy absorption (FEA), adaptations in energy expenditure, or incomplete patient diet adherence.

Expand full comment
TerriM's avatar

Don't forget that dietary fat has been an evil word for the last couple of decades. Which is why sugar is added to everything to make it taste good. So you combined highly processed, sugar laden diets, with low-quality foods, and it's a recipe for disaster.

Joan's right about this " Expensive food in small quantities is better for us." One avocado would be a better meal than 2 Big macs.

Expand full comment
Joan Breibart's avatar

Why don't you think about the ONE BILLION who are actually starving and another billion who need food. STOP PLAYING WITH FOOD. If you had taste, you would understand that reducing QUANTITY doesn't mean reducing calories. Think about your beloved avocado. YOU FOOD NUTS HAVE LOST. Everyone will eat less of everything which is the sophisticated way to eat before people became gluttons thinking they could get away with it if they ate the"right " foods. Diets and exercise made people FAT. Before that they were slim and some just chubby. YOU have no idea why we got fat.

Expand full comment