4 ms·

As to (3) obesity, one of the most obvious contributing factors is the increased refined sugar consumption. People are poisoning their mind and bodies. And I

As to (3) obesity, one of the most obvious contributing factors is the increased refined sugar consumption. People are poisoning their mind and bodies. And I know it's controversial and since everyone consumes sugar, everyone gets sensitive and defensive. However, in the 60's/70's nonalcoholic fatty liver disease did not exist in children nor did childhood type 2 diabeties, as to the former the first case in children wasn't diagnosed until 1983 and now 10% of US children have the disease. And to preempt anyone from attacking my comment, as I said above sugar is an obvious contributing factor.

Houshalter 9y ago
This is the common theory but it doesn't really hold up. The weight of lab animals is also increasing. Even though we have records showing they haven't changed their diets or routines significantly. Chimpanzees in particular, the animal most closely related to humans, have increased in weight drastically each decade. EDIT: Source https://aeon.co/essays/blaming-individuals-for-obesity-may-be-altogether-wrong https://aeon.co/essays/blaming-individuals-for-obesity-may-b... >As were laboratory macaques, chimpanzees, vervet monkeys and mice, as well as domestic dogs, domestic cats, and domestic and feral rats from both rural and urban areas. In fact, the researchers examined records on those eight species and found that average weight for every one had increased. The marmosets gained an average of nine per cent per decade. Lab mice gained about 11 per cent per decade. Chimps, for some reason, are doing especially badly: their average body weight had risen 35 per cent per decade. >In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities.
- will_brown 9y ago
  Well I imagine, if true, chimps aren't mysteriously gaining weight it would be related to their diet. Very likely they eat a fruit heavy diet, that's sugar. Unlikely are these wild fruits, but sugar laden industrial farmed fruits. Now if you don't think there is a difference in fruit today versus the fruits of yesteryear just look at the fruit itself. The bananas you eat today are not the same type from 100 years ago which died out do to disease; look at a genetically modified seedless watermelon today vs the nearly hollow watermelons depicted in (fruit bowl) art even a couple hundred years ago; or even a high glycemic vegetable such as a carrot did you know the wild carrots weren't even orange but tiny little white roots looking nothing like the elongated thing you buy in the store today? See the difference for yourself: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3428689/What-fruit-vegetables-look-like-Researchers-banana-watermelon-changed-dramatically-ancestors-ate-them.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3428689/What-...
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    Fruits haven't significantly increased in size or sugar content since the 70s though. And it doesn't explain the increase in weight for other animals that don't eat fruit, e.g. dogs. EDIT: And this article is terrible. E.g. the painting of the watermelon is just a regular watermelon just like those grown today: http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/weird-watermelons-beautiful-hollow-heart-fb__700.jpg http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07... That's just what it looks like when it grows without enough water. Most of those examples are things that happened centuries ago.
    - will_brown 9y ago
      And here is and article about the 90 million obese, not overweight, but obese dogs and cats in the US. Admittedly I don't know much about the pet problem, but Seems to be the PHD from UCDavis suggests the major contributing factor is the increased and added sugar in their food from the major manufacturers and increase in pet treats which too are sugar laden. I mean if all I'm doing is suggesting sugar is a contributing factor as to human obesity and you bring up dogs and cats gaining weight why wouldn't you mention they have sugar added in their pet food and the sugar has been increasing? http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2011/01/18/sugar-in-pet-treats-and-pet-food-lead-to-obesity.aspx http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/201...
  - jl6 9y ago
    My local zoo doesn't feed its gorillas with local fruit because they say the local fruit is much higher in sugar than the fruit they import for this purpose.
- narrator 9y ago
  What's funny is the guy who discovered BPA was an estrogen mimicking chemical[1] kept having his estrogen sensitive cells triggered whenever he would put them in plastic test tubes. He called up Corning to ask them what the test tubes were made of and they told him they don't give that info out. So all this lab equipment and stuff that they use to feed animals and all up and down the food supply chain is probably full of this stuff and we all just think the obesity epidemic happened by magic. [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/1139298/real-story-behind-bisphenol https://www.fastcompany.com/1139298/real-story-behind-bisphe...
  - Tharkun 9y ago
    That's crazy. I wonder if this also has an impact on hospital patients being tube fed!
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      Probably not as bad, PVC tubing uses different plasticizers, silicone does not need that. However, other hardware is not of the hook (e.g. plastic bags) and what they use in these materials as well. The most terrible thing is that this might be partly heritable via epigenetics.
- justboxing 9y ago
  > This is the common theory but it doesn't really hold up. It's not really a 'theory' per sey. 2 independent scientists in UK and US ( I don't remember their names, see the documentary mentioned below) in the 70s came to conclude that Sugar is Toxic and causes fatty liver disease and Cancer. The Sugar Industry in US hired a PR firm comprised of a couple of well known Scientists in the US, and made these scientists who found out that Sugar is Toxic and causes diseases, looks like fools in the media. Then they (Sugar Industry) went 1 step further. The CEO of the Sugar Industry Association (or whatever that entity is called) got onto the FDA committee that was doing research into the toxicity of Sugar at that time, since it was all over the media that Sugar is deemed toxic and causes all kinds of diseases. And surprise, surprise, the committee declared that Sugar is 'GRAS approved by FDA'. GRAS = Generally Recommended as Safe, a label that makes the average consumer feel safe that Sugar is not bad. They (Sugar Industry) also simultaneously transferred the blamed for weight gain on excess consumption of fat * . This is documented at length in the "Sugar Coated" documentary (available on Netflix) - http://sugarcoateddoc.com/ http://sugarcoateddoc.com/ * Source: NPR: "50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat" http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/...
  - will_brown 9y ago
    The most famous line from the special interest groups, "sugar is a healthy and inexpensive source of energy." It's laughable it's even debated or requires modern study. Humans have been force feeding animals grains since at least ancient Egypt for the purpose of fattening animals, but specifically their liver. After a few thousand years of perfecting the practice the most famous dish is goose liver or foie gras, literally French for fat liver, and after thousands of years of best practice what is used to fatten the goose liver...corn, the same thing we concentrate to sweeten softdrinks (and about everything else). Still I'm happy to say it's just a contributing factor for obesity, but certainly there is also correlation between obesity and sedentary life style, and coming full circle to the article there is correlation between sedentary lifestyle and lack of testosterone production (in part created/released to repair muscle As a result of physical activity). But hey, even big tobacco is marketing there product as healthy in many parts of the world, as it used to be promoted in the US, it's just where we are with sugar, "it's a healthy and inexpensive source of energy."
lisper 9y ago
I can give you an anecdotal counter-example: when I was a kid I ate tons of sugar. Ice cream. Twinkies. Hi-C. Foot Loops. You name it. If it had sugar in it, I ate it. I was never overweight, nor was I particularly athletic. If anyone should have suffered negative consequences from eating too much sugar, it was me. But nope, I was perfectly svelte and healthy. I graduated high school in 1982.
- Tharkun 9y ago
  Recently the type of sugar has been the subject of controversy/research. IIRC, most sugar used to be actual sugar, but sweets and soft drinks often contain high fructose corn syrup these days. Apparentlt our body can deal with glucose reasonably well, but sucks at dealing with fructose.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    "Table sugar" (sucrose) is a bonded glucose and fructose molecule. HFCS is roughly the same ratio, though not bonded. The bond breakdown is pretty much instantaneous within the GI tract from my understanding. This suggests little actual difference between sucrose and HFCS.... keep reading ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup ... though Robert Lustig who studies this now seems to be claiming that there are different metabolic effects for sucrose and HFCS: Lustig also confirms what many consumers have intuitively figured out — that “sucrose (sugar) and HFCS have different metabolic effects,” including those that come from the much higher fructose content of HFCS which can range from 55 to 90 percent, and in the case of crystalline fructose to practically 100 percent. (Sucrose, or natural sugar, by contrast is a 50/50 combination of bound glucose and fructose). http://foodidentitytheft.com/obesity-expert-dr-robert-lustig-hfcs-a-significant-factor-in-childs-type-2-diabetes/ http://foodidentitytheft.com/obesity-expert-dr-robert-lustig...
  - DanBC 9y ago
    Sucrose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. HFCS is 42% fructose, 53% glucose and 5% other sugars/polysaccharides. Is it the fructose?
JoshMnem 9y ago
> now 10% of US children have the disease. I don't think that number is correct. It appears to be more like 0.46 kids per 1,000, which is still high. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/03/diabetes-rises-in-kids/8604213/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/03/diabet...
- will_brown 9y ago
  You referencing type 2 diabetes in children. The 10% is children with non alcoholic fatty liver disease, 1% of 2-4 year olds, 17% of 15-19 year olds, about 10% overall. But this is why it's so difficult to discuss, people get so defensive suggesting they are poisoning themselves with sugar, but once you suggest they are poisoning their own children civil discourse goes out the window. But whether or not it's nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or type 2 diabetes in children, they simple truth is they could have been avoided in 100% of cases through diet. And as we know many type 2 diabetes patients would be able to get off insulin and diabetes medication through diet/lifestyle changes. http://www.liverfoundation.org/chapters/rockymountain/doctorsnotes/pediatricnafld/ http://www.liverfoundation.org/chapters/rockymountain/doctor...
  - JoshMnem 9y ago
    Thanks for the correction -- I misread the original comment. It was the end of a long day. :) I agree that kids should not be given refined sugar. I had almost no sugar until I was a teenager. I had my first soda at about age 16 or 17. I consumed sugar as an adult, but eliminated it again about two years ago with great results. Eating refined sugar is irrational behavior -- it has no health benefits and is more like a recreational drug than food.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
Ok, but what caused an increase in sugar consumption?

Houshalter 9y ago

This is the common theory but it doesn't really hold up. The weight of lab animals is also increasing. Even though we have records showing they haven't changed their diets or routines significantly. Chimpanzees in particular, the animal most closely related to humans, have increased in weight drastically each decade. EDIT: Source https://aeon.co/essays/blaming-individuals-for-obesity-may-be-altogether-wrong https://aeon.co/essays/blaming-individuals-for-obesity-may-b... >As were laboratory macaques, chimpanzees, vervet monkeys and mice, as well as domestic dogs, domestic cats, and domestic and feral rats from both rural and urban areas. In fact, the researchers examined records on those eight species and found that average weight for every one had increased. The marmosets gained an average of nine per cent per decade. Lab mice gained about 11 per cent per decade. Chimps, for some reason, are doing especially badly: their average body weight had risen 35 per cent per decade. >In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities.

will_brown 9y ago
Well I imagine, if true, chimps aren't mysteriously gaining weight it would be related to their diet. Very likely they eat a fruit heavy diet, that's sugar. Unlikely are these wild fruits, but sugar laden industrial farmed fruits. Now if you don't think there is a difference in fruit today versus the fruits of yesteryear just look at the fruit itself. The bananas you eat today are not the same type from 100 years ago which died out do to disease; look at a genetically modified seedless watermelon today vs the nearly hollow watermelons depicted in (fruit bowl) art even a couple hundred years ago; or even a high glycemic vegetable such as a carrot did you know the wild carrots weren't even orange but tiny little white roots looking nothing like the elongated thing you buy in the store today? See the difference for yourself: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3428689/What-fruit-vegetables-look-like-Researchers-banana-watermelon-changed-dramatically-ancestors-ate-them.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3428689/What-...
- Houshalter 9y ago
  Fruits haven't significantly increased in size or sugar content since the 70s though. And it doesn't explain the increase in weight for other animals that don't eat fruit, e.g. dogs. EDIT: And this article is terrible. E.g. the painting of the watermelon is just a regular watermelon just like those grown today: http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/weird-watermelons-beautiful-hollow-heart-fb__700.jpg http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07... That's just what it looks like when it grows without enough water. Most of those examples are things that happened centuries ago.
  - will_brown 9y ago
    And here is and article about the 90 million obese, not overweight, but obese dogs and cats in the US. Admittedly I don't know much about the pet problem, but Seems to be the PHD from UCDavis suggests the major contributing factor is the increased and added sugar in their food from the major manufacturers and increase in pet treats which too are sugar laden. I mean if all I'm doing is suggesting sugar is a contributing factor as to human obesity and you bring up dogs and cats gaining weight why wouldn't you mention they have sugar added in their pet food and the sugar has been increasing? http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2011/01/18/sugar-in-pet-treats-and-pet-food-lead-to-obesity.aspx http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/201...
- jl6 9y ago
  My local zoo doesn't feed its gorillas with local fruit because they say the local fruit is much higher in sugar than the fruit they import for this purpose.
narrator 9y ago
What's funny is the guy who discovered BPA was an estrogen mimicking chemical[1] kept having his estrogen sensitive cells triggered whenever he would put them in plastic test tubes. He called up Corning to ask them what the test tubes were made of and they told him they don't give that info out. So all this lab equipment and stuff that they use to feed animals and all up and down the food supply chain is probably full of this stuff and we all just think the obesity epidemic happened by magic. [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/1139298/real-story-behind-bisphenol https://www.fastcompany.com/1139298/real-story-behind-bisphe...
- Tharkun 9y ago
  That's crazy. I wonder if this also has an impact on hospital patients being tube fed!
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    Probably not as bad, PVC tubing uses different plasticizers, silicone does not need that. However, other hardware is not of the hook (e.g. plastic bags) and what they use in these materials as well. The most terrible thing is that this might be partly heritable via epigenetics.
justboxing 9y ago
> This is the common theory but it doesn't really hold up. It's not really a 'theory' per sey. 2 independent scientists in UK and US ( I don't remember their names, see the documentary mentioned below) in the 70s came to conclude that Sugar is Toxic and causes fatty liver disease and Cancer. The Sugar Industry in US hired a PR firm comprised of a couple of well known Scientists in the US, and made these scientists who found out that Sugar is Toxic and causes diseases, looks like fools in the media. Then they (Sugar Industry) went 1 step further. The CEO of the Sugar Industry Association (or whatever that entity is called) got onto the FDA committee that was doing research into the toxicity of Sugar at that time, since it was all over the media that Sugar is deemed toxic and causes all kinds of diseases. And surprise, surprise, the committee declared that Sugar is 'GRAS approved by FDA'. GRAS = Generally Recommended as Safe, a label that makes the average consumer feel safe that Sugar is not bad. They (Sugar Industry) also simultaneously transferred the blamed for weight gain on excess consumption of fat * . This is documented at length in the "Sugar Coated" documentary (available on Netflix) - http://sugarcoateddoc.com/ http://sugarcoateddoc.com/ * Source: NPR: "50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat" http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/...
- will_brown 9y ago
  The most famous line from the special interest groups, "sugar is a healthy and inexpensive source of energy." It's laughable it's even debated or requires modern study. Humans have been force feeding animals grains since at least ancient Egypt for the purpose of fattening animals, but specifically their liver. After a few thousand years of perfecting the practice the most famous dish is goose liver or foie gras, literally French for fat liver, and after thousands of years of best practice what is used to fatten the goose liver...corn, the same thing we concentrate to sweeten softdrinks (and about everything else). Still I'm happy to say it's just a contributing factor for obesity, but certainly there is also correlation between obesity and sedentary life style, and coming full circle to the article there is correlation between sedentary lifestyle and lack of testosterone production (in part created/released to repair muscle As a result of physical activity). But hey, even big tobacco is marketing there product as healthy in many parts of the world, as it used to be promoted in the US, it's just where we are with sugar, "it's a healthy and inexpensive source of energy."

lisper 9y ago

I can give you an anecdotal counter-example: when I was a kid I ate tons of sugar. Ice cream. Twinkies. Hi-C. Foot Loops. You name it. If it had sugar in it, I ate it. I was never overweight, nor was I particularly athletic. If anyone should have suffered negative consequences from eating too much sugar, it was me. But nope, I was perfectly svelte and healthy. I graduated high school in 1982.

Tharkun 9y ago
Recently the type of sugar has been the subject of controversy/research. IIRC, most sugar used to be actual sugar, but sweets and soft drinks often contain high fructose corn syrup these days. Apparentlt our body can deal with glucose reasonably well, but sucks at dealing with fructose.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  "Table sugar" (sucrose) is a bonded glucose and fructose molecule. HFCS is roughly the same ratio, though not bonded. The bond breakdown is pretty much instantaneous within the GI tract from my understanding. This suggests little actual difference between sucrose and HFCS.... keep reading ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup ... though Robert Lustig who studies this now seems to be claiming that there are different metabolic effects for sucrose and HFCS: Lustig also confirms what many consumers have intuitively figured out — that “sucrose (sugar) and HFCS have different metabolic effects,” including those that come from the much higher fructose content of HFCS which can range from 55 to 90 percent, and in the case of crystalline fructose to practically 100 percent. (Sucrose, or natural sugar, by contrast is a 50/50 combination of bound glucose and fructose). http://foodidentitytheft.com/obesity-expert-dr-robert-lustig-hfcs-a-significant-factor-in-childs-type-2-diabetes/ http://foodidentitytheft.com/obesity-expert-dr-robert-lustig...
- DanBC 9y ago
  Sucrose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. HFCS is 42% fructose, 53% glucose and 5% other sugars/polysaccharides. Is it the fructose?

JoshMnem 9y ago

> now 10% of US children have the disease. I don't think that number is correct. It appears to be more like 0.46 kids per 1,000, which is still high. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/03/diabetes-rises-in-kids/8604213/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/03/diabet...

will_brown 9y ago
You referencing type 2 diabetes in children. The 10% is children with non alcoholic fatty liver disease, 1% of 2-4 year olds, 17% of 15-19 year olds, about 10% overall. But this is why it's so difficult to discuss, people get so defensive suggesting they are poisoning themselves with sugar, but once you suggest they are poisoning their own children civil discourse goes out the window. But whether or not it's nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or type 2 diabetes in children, they simple truth is they could have been avoided in 100% of cases through diet. And as we know many type 2 diabetes patients would be able to get off insulin and diabetes medication through diet/lifestyle changes. http://www.liverfoundation.org/chapters/rockymountain/doctorsnotes/pediatricnafld/ http://www.liverfoundation.org/chapters/rockymountain/doctor...
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  Thanks for the correction -- I misread the original comment. It was the end of a long day. :) I agree that kids should not be given refined sugar. I had almost no sugar until I was a teenager. I had my first soda at about age 16 or 17. I consumed sugar as an adult, but eliminated it again about two years ago with great results. Eating refined sugar is irrational behavior -- it has no health benefits and is more like a recreational drug than food.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

Ok, but what caused an increase in sugar consumption?