Obesity is classified now as a genetic predisposition

[dontoearth]

      There were many people in this forum  that often were quite rude to people in the forum trying to loose weight.  They insisted those people had no willpower and that weight loss was magically simple.  Eat less and move more!   I always thought this group was full of it and hoped they would face their own weight crisis some day.  Karma is a bitch!   The article I am putting up a link too is long and meaty and weighty.  You might just want to read the boldfaced subject heads of each discussion.  If you don't agree with the finding you can look at their reasoning and sites.  The main idea is that humans are designed for food shortages and because the western world has not known any food shortages since WWII our bodies are storing fat that is never going to be used.  This fat storage is now a big liability where it was once critical to the survival of the species.

       It does say fat distribution is a very important cause of all the metabolic diseases like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver, Type II diabetes etc. and that BMI does not tell doctors the fat distribution of a patient and that the tool is generally lacking some very important information.

        Overall body fat for men in the upper torso is the major cause of metabolic syndrome and most modern diseases.  It doesn't go into methods of weight reduction but makes a call at the end of the paper that this problem is one of the most expensive and pressing the modern world faces today.  And the treatment of each disease caused by obesity individually is unlikely to be successful.  I found that out by having terrible experiences with cholesterol meds and high blood pressure meds.  Working on weight loss for 2 years has been much more enjoyable than the mess those drugs made of my body.

         As some people advise on the forum and some people come seeking advice or giving advice it is important to realize how much of the weight problem is deeply tied to genetics predisposition rather than some character flaw in people that are fat.  This doesn't mean you can't loose weight.  It just means that it is not actually a total personal matter or some kind of character flaw.

          

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079643/    

 

The title is Metabolic syndrome: maladaptation to a modern world:   Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

 

Here are the subject boldfaced for those that never click a link or get informed before a discussion starts.

 

OBESITY IS AFFECTING THE WHOLE OF SOCIETY, NOT JUST A SECTOR OF IT

 

OBESITY IS A TRUE DISEASE INVOLVING GENES AND ENVIRONMENT

 

OBESITY IS LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR INSULIN RESISTANCE

 

INSULIN RESISTANCE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE METABOLIC SYNDROME

 

CANCERS, METABOLIC DYSOVULATION AND PRE-ECLAMPSIA ARE ALSO COMPONENTS OF THE METABOLIC SYNDROME

 

FAT DISTRIBUTION IS KEY TO INSULIN RESISTANCE

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by dontoearth
forgot the link

[FracturedRabbit]

"Five-a-day fruit campaigns and break-time fruit for children for children are not enough" 

Excessive intake of fruit will exacerbate the problem!

[dontoearth]

10 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

"Five-a-day fruit campaigns and break-time fruit for children for children are not enough" 

Excessive intake of fruit will exacerbate the problem!

     I think they are saying that a major change must come about in eating.  That the public health messages are too little, too late and not directed enough at the major offenders like no sugary drinks, no endless snacking etc.

     The 5 a day fruit campaign is to not to meant to add food but to get rid of salty fatty sugary snacks.  It is way underdone.  Same here in the USA for eat less move more.  The whole campaign is paid for by McDonald's, Coke and Frito-lay!  It would be a better campaign if they said, "Don't ever eat McDonald's, Coke or Frito-lay (doritos, fritos etc.).

[dontoearth]

10 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

"Five-a-day fruit campaigns and break-time fruit for children for children are not enough" 

Excessive intake of fruit will exacerbate the problem!

     This was the medical thinking ages ago in restricting fruit for various diseases and diets.   New research shows unlimited fruit has benefits and no real downside.  

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-fruit-is-too-much/

[JSixpack]

To me the article isn't exactly saying that obesity is a genetic predisposition, just that everyone is predisposed to getting overweight w/ concomitant problems if they eat what they now can eat, and the quantity they can now eat, in the modern age.

 

Quote

The main idea is that humans are designed for food shortages and because the western world has not known any food shortages since WWII our bodies are storing fat that is never going to be used. 

 

Right but then begs the question of why people are eating so that their bodies are storing excess fat. "Can" and "are" doesn't mean "must." The rest of the article about the evils consequent is covering standard ground.

 

9 hours ago, dontoearth said:

     This was the medical thinking ages ago in restricting fruit for various diseases and diets.   New research shows unlimited fruit has benefits and no real downside.  

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-fruit-is-too-much/

 

That article seems a bit slippery at a superficial glance. Looks like the studies compared those who limited fruit but weren't restricted to limiting anything else--so why should they necessarily show any benefits? Maybe they ate more of other carbs. It's well-accepted that fructose from fruit isn't so bad but this article doesn't address the question of calories, which do matter. Good calories and bad calories, I know, but excess calories of any kind in some situations, like when trying to lose weight, are to be avoided.

 

Personally I stick to berries nowadays. Friend of mine was doing great then started eating a lot of pineapple and gaining weight. Just an anecdote, may not mean anything, but it didn't seem advisable to me.

 

 

 

[FracturedRabbit]

13 hours ago, dontoearth said:

     This was the medical thinking ages ago in restricting fruit for various diseases and diets.   New research shows unlimited fruit has benefits and no real downside.  

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-fruit-is-too-much/

I used to watch nutrionfacts a lot; but some of his conclusions and justifications seem a little tenuous. 

 Fruit contributes to the sugar load on the body. It may be "good" sugar but it is still sugar. As Jsixpack mentions, berries are the best bet because they are lower in carbs than other fruits.

[dontoearth]

16 minutes ago, FracturedRabbit said:

I used to watch nutrionfacts a lot; but some of his conclusions and justifications seem a little tenuous. 

 Fruit contributes to the sugar load on the body. It may be "good" sugar but it is still sugar. As Jsixpack mentions, berries are the best bet because they are lower in carbs than other fruits.

     There is a whole new field emerging beyond the glycemic index called the glycemic load.   The old index just told you how much sugar was in a food.  This gave lots of fruit a bad rap.   The new glycemic load gives the data on how much sugar is absorbed from food.   It turns out fresh raw fruit with the peels and skins when possible is a low glycemic load food.   I was amazed as I had been told quite a different story.

       As science marches on most of what we have been told and what we have painstakingly come to believe will probably not hold up as true.  The previous science did not take into account the bodies own unique processing systems  it didn't have that level of sophistication and couldn't.   I guess we can thank the Type II diabetics for getting us better science.   I don't put any faith into nutritionist and dietitians.  I just follow the science.

         I think Greger lets his veganism cloud his presentations at times but I still enjoy the site.

         And I do enjoy the cherries and berries here in TH.   We have such short seasons in the midwest where I am from and don't import berries or cherries.  

[JSixpack]

13 hours ago, dontoearth said:

 And I do enjoy the cherries and berries here in TH.   We have such short seasons in the midwest where I am from and don't import berries or cherries.  

 

Makro has the best deal on frozen berries in case that's of interest to anyone.

[Jingthing]

I think this article is worth posting.

Obviously genetics plays a role in a lot of things including propensity towards obesity.

But whatever our genetics, there are things we can do. 

This article suggests an approach that makes sense to me --

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calories-weight-loss-diet-dieting-low-carb-low-fat.html
 

Quote

The Key to Weight Loss Is Diet Quality, Not Quantity, a New Study Finds

...

The strategy worked for people whether they followed diets that were mostly low in fat or mostly low in carbohydrates. And their success did not appear to be influenced by their genetics or their insulin-response to carbohydrates, a finding that casts doubt on the increasingly popular idea that different diets should be recommended to people based on their DNA makeup or on their tolerance for carbs or fat.

 

 

[dontoearth]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I think this article is worth posting.

Obviously genetics plays a role in a lot of things including propensity towards obesity.

But whatever our genetics, there are things we can do. 

This article suggests an approach that makes sense to me --

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calories-weight-loss-diet-dieting-low-carb-low-fat.html
 

 

     It is a good article but I had read a criticism of the study a few days ago.  The low carb group actually ended up consuming about 131 g of carbs a day.   Way beyond what the lo-carb diet would allow.  And the low-fat group was told to avoid low-fat processed food.  Right now so many go wrong with stocking the frig with low-fat food that is loaded with sugar and sweeteners and far too many calories.  JSixPack pointed out all the fat ladies are always buying low-fat yogurt at the grocery store.   I sort of feel sorry for them.  They have been hood-winked by the food processing industry marketing.  They probably buy low calorie snacks too and then the miracle doesn't happen they don't loose a pound.  Even tho.' many may also religiously count calories.

     All that said.  I think the study is right on.  I have lost 36 lbs in the last year and have not EVER counted a calorie or looked at a portion size.  I got rid of a lot of food that didn't really have any nutritional value.  I got rid of milk, soda, chips, cookies, pizza, most breads, breakfast cereals snack bars etc.  I eat lots of vegetables, fruit and lean meats.  I think the article would refer to it as whole foods.  BTW, whole wheat bread is processed garbage it is not a whole food.  Oh I eat nuts which before I was scared of because of all the nonsense about avoiding fat.

      I do a morning fast and never eat before noon.  As I came into this group I learned about the glycemic load (I read a book) and it helped me realize that processed carbs are the enemy!  

       I don't preach.  If people are having success with any other diet.  GOOD!  I just now I have found something that works very well. It helps to be bangkok where I can get so much fresh fruit.  And it helps that the bakery at tops SUCKS.  That stuff is awful.   A taste of this and that and I was cured of my pastry addictions.  Somehow I think they mix mayonnaise and sugar together in place of cheese.  I thought I would gag to death.  Anyway, it helps steer clear of all those sticky buns.

[JSixpack]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I think this article is worth posting.

Obviously genetics plays a role in a lot of things including propensity towards obesity.

But whatever our genetics, there are things we can do. 

This article suggests an approach that makes sense to me --

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calories-weight-loss-diet-dieting-low-carb-low-fat.html
 

 

 

I noticed that study. As dontoearth says, the study has its flaws. But yes most any diet will work for losing weight if you stick to it religously. So then it becomes a question of which diet is that? Weight Watchers works great so long as you can afford it and keep going to the meetings.

 

Low carb has one of the highest, and in some cases the highest, rates of compliance long term. It's one of the simplest, no calorie couting (though you can't just pig out beyond the limits of all common sense). 

 

Intermittent fasting can lessen the burden of dieting and is a good thing but then it's a burden in itself that many can't make themselves shoulder.

[tropo]

On 2/21/2018 at 9:55 PM, FracturedRabbit said:

I used to watch nutrionfacts a lot; but some of his conclusions and justifications seem a little tenuous. 

 Fruit contributes to the sugar load on the body. It may be "good" sugar but it is still sugar. As Jsixpack mentions, berries are the best bet because they are lower in carbs than other fruits.

"fruits ain't fruit" is a much better way to look at it. For example, you can't compare the sugar content of ripe mangoes and bananas with kiwifruits and apples. There are a lot of low GI fruits of minor carbohydrate content.\

 

If you're really concerned about your body's ability to handle fruit, get a glucometer and test how it affects your BG. I eat quite a bit of fruit including high GI fruit and don't have spiking problems from it. Most people when they eat fruit have only 1 or 2 pieces at a sitting, so that's probably a safe level for most. The GL is probably quite low despite the sugar content.

[tropo]

On 2/21/2018 at 10:23 PM, dontoearth said:

     There is a whole new field emerging beyond the glycemic index called the glycemic load.   The old index just told you how much sugar was in a food.  This gave lots of fruit a bad rap.   The new glycemic load gives the data on how much sugar is absorbed from food.   It turns out fresh raw fruit with the peels and skins when possible is a low glycemic load food.   I was amazed as I had been told quite a different story.

       As science marches on most of what we have been told and what we have painstakingly come to believe will probably not hold up as true.  The previous science did not take into account the bodies own unique processing systems  it didn't have that level of sophistication and couldn't.   I guess we can thank the Type II diabetics for getting us better science.   I don't put any faith into nutritionist and dietitians.  I just follow the science.

         I think Greger lets his veganism cloud his presentations at times but I still enjoy the site.

         And I do enjoy the cherries and berries here in TH.   We have such short seasons in the midwest where I am from and don't import berries or cherries.  

GL is not new science at all. I've been reading about it for 20 years at least. GI came out in 1981, and GL not that long after. 

 

Here's a good read that may help your understanding about it. 

 

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/22168291.php

 

Here's a catchy opener just to attract some interest in the blog...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW! Conclusive Proof that Low Glycemic Foods Do Not Improve Health in Normal People

For years I bought into the idea that low glycemic index might have some usefulness for people with normal blood sugar. But research published in 2015 has found that eating low glycemic foods does nothing to improve the health of people with normal blood sugars. Carbs, it turns out are carbs for them, too. Fast or slow, doesn't matter. Eating lower GI foods did not produce better health outcomes. To learn more about this study, ignore the headline and read the report about this research here: Glycemic Index Shouldn't Concern People Without Diabetes

Bottom line, the Glycemic index shouldn't concern ANYONE. It's junk science made popular by grain companies afraid of losing customers to healthier, lower carb diets.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited February 22, 2018 by tropo

[tropo]

16 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

Makro has the best deal on frozen berries in case that's of interest to anyone.

Can they beat 1kg of blueberries for about 350 baht at Friendship? The strawberries are about 75 baht per kilo. I use frozen berries in my post workout protein shakes with bananas.  

[tropo]

On 2/20/2018 at 8:01 PM, dontoearth said:

There were many people in this forum  that often were quite rude to people in the forum trying to loose weight.  They insisted those people had no willpower and that weight loss was magically simple.  Eat less and move more!   I always thought this group was full of it and hoped they would face their own weight crisis some day. 

If you have good willpower, determination, and motivation, it's still not easy, but doable. If you don't have them, you'll never lose weight.

 

Staying in shape is a lot more difficult than getting fat, that's for sure. The only reason I stay in shape is through willpower with motivation. Getting fat is easy.  

 

Declining testosterone levels and increasing estrogen levels are a big factor in putting on the pounds as people age. Losing muscle makes it even easier. Nothing causes decrepitude quite like low testosterone levels. Eventually, you'll lose your motivation to even try.

Edited February 22, 2018 by tropo

[poanoi]

what are some of the better fruits to eat that i can buy in nearest big C ?

[dontoearth]

2 hours ago, tropo said:

If you have good willpower, determination, and motivation, it's still not easy, but doable. If you don't have them, you'll never lose weight.

 

Staying in shape is a lot more difficult than getting fat, that's for sure. The only reason I stay in shape is through willpower with motivation. Getting fat is easy.  

 

Declining testosterone levels and increasing estrogen levels are a big factor in putting on the pounds as people age. Losing muscle makes it even easier. Nothing causes decrepitude quite like low testosterone levels. Eventually, you'll lose your motivation to even try.

     I was thinking about that the other day when I heard a doctor advocating fasting by saying it had some advantages for those with little willpower and with a disdain to do lots of extra work.

      1.  You don't need to learn to cook special meals.

      2.  You don't have to buy special foods.

      3.  No messy blenders or juicers to wash out.

      4.  Time saving you don't have to devote anytime time to eating at all. And no clean-up.

      5.   No journals to keep.

       6.  No software or expensive tracking devices needed.

      So, fasting meets my laziness needs!

      Exercise on the other hand requires me to have a gym and appointments and a trainer.  And I do this like its a religion.  And without all this special attention I could not do it.

       TRT is a must for me as I will be 62 in a few weeks.  In fact, I am thinking I need a measurement now in the middle of my TRT program as I am not getting the results I got last time. My own natural test may have slipped further down the range.  Or the TRT injections are not giving as much boost.  Time for a blood panel.

       I would say rather than willpower it may be commitment.  When you start asking people to get medical test and think about their eating and sleeping and to get lots of special measurements they seem to back away pretty fast even tho.' the programs can be quite successful.  I have a 33 year old friend who has decided he would rather take HB pills and Type II diabetes meds because he won't go the gym and won't rearrange his diet.  SAD.

       It may also be the false sense of security doctors give people about these treatments.  My doc pushes the treatments on everyone.  He is a fat little man.  And he is also no longer my doc after he lied about meds having side effects and wanted to add multiple med therapies and told my ideas on food and exercise were good but would not help.

[dontoearth]

    One thing to consider about willpower and motivation is that if you try a diet plan that doesn't work GET RID OF IT.  There are plenty of options.  I think this is where a lot of people get discouraged.  I found portion control and calorie counting creating a long worthless plateau in my body.  So I went on to the next program and the next until I got results.  I do believe people need to give things a try and abandon them if they don't work for their lifestyle and body.

     I don't believe in the TRY IT HARDER LONGER advocates.  There are simply too many other options.

[TomAikins]

So what you're saying is that in the last 40 years or so, when the obesity problem -- at least in the U.S -- really started, that somehow magically people's genes changed and made them susceptible to weight gain? This is an absurd proposition. The percentage of people in the U.S. that are fat or overweight is about 67%. In the 1950s, on the other hand, the percentage was 10%. So in 60 years somehow the genes of a huge number of people somehow caused them to become obese. Keep believing this idea of yours if it makes you feel better but it sounds like a fairy tale to me.   

[dontoearth]

15 minutes ago, TomAikins said:

So what you're saying is that in the last 40 years or so, when the obesity problem -- at least in the U.S -- really started, that somehow magically people's genes changed and made them susceptible to weight gain? This is an absurd proposition. The percentage of people in the U.S. that are fat or overweight is about 67%. In the 1950s, on the other hand, the percentage was 10%. So in 60 years somehow the genes of a huge number of people somehow caused them to become obese. Keep believing this idea of yours if it makes you feel better but it sounds like a fairy tale to me.   

     No the article is stating that the food supply changed!  Endless cheap high calorie food caused the genes to kick-in as they are supposed too.

      The article doesn't say genes changed they say the environment changed.  

[Enoon]

" Metabolic syndrome: maladaptation to a modern world: "

 

And what does Darwinism say about creatures that are not "adapted"?

 

I wrote this three years ago but declined to post it at the time:

 

Modern "Progress" has produced all sorts of new situations in which the inability to adapt in a Darwinistic sense can lead to premature death.  One being obesity as a result of the inability to adapt to a Western overabundance of food and failing to self moderate consumption.

 

The craving to confound Darwinism (expressed as a determination to create a perfect world in which everyone lives "forever") by compensating for such adaptive inabilities is, paradoxically, putting an increasingly intolerable strain on the ability of the Human Race to maintain itself.

 

Population increase has resulted not just in the absolute (growing) "thinness" of resource, but in disputes over those resources, and friction between multiplying masses of people forced into ever closer proximity to each other.

 

In truth adaptation is not something that creatures "do".

 

Creatures that are born with a difference that "works" survive and flourish........others don't.

 

Let it be.

 

One thing that the world is not short of is......people.

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Enoon

[Enoon]

1 hour ago, TomAikins said:

So what you're saying is that in the last 40 years or so, when the obesity problem -- at least in the U.S -- really started, that somehow magically people's genes changed and made them susceptible to weight gain? This is an absurd proposition. The percentage of people in the U.S. that are fat or overweight is about 67%. In the 1950s, on the other hand, the percentage was 10%. So in 60 years somehow the genes of a huge number of people somehow caused them to become obese. Keep believing this idea of yours if it makes you feel better but it sounds like a fairy tale to me.   

 

Because the cost of self indulgence fell during that period.

 

Because people took less and less exercise during that period.

 

That is when the inability to deal with abundance (an abundance that, for the West, has grown exponentially during that period) started to manifest itself among those not adapted (not everyone with the opportunity to become fat is fat) in the nation for which overabundance has become the objective of existence.

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Enoon

[ignis]

5 hours ago, tropo said:

Can they beat 1kg of blueberries for about 350 baht at Friendship? The strawberries are about 75 baht per kilo. I use frozen berries in my post workout protein shakes with bananas.  

Yes...........  1kg of blueberries 280 baht...... 1kg of blackberries 76 baht............ 1kg of Strawberries 48 baht or the big ones are 65 baht.......  there again the local fresh market have 1kg of Fresh big and juicy Strawberries at 70 baht as 'in' season + small ones for 50 baht.

 

Edit: all bought this week so price up to date

Edited February 23, 2018 by ignis

[JSixpack]

4 hours ago, ignis said:

Yes...........  1kg of blueberries 280 baht...... 1kg of blackberries 76 baht............ 1kg of Strawberries 48 baht or the big ones are 65 baht.......  there again the local fresh market have 1kg of Fresh big and juicy Strawberries at 70 baht as 'in' season + small ones for 50 baht.

 

Edit: all bought this week so price up to date

 

Makro a bit out of the way but prices are some of the best around for a lot of items so it can be worth getting there. I get fresh veggies there too. Prices about same as those in Thai fresh markets and posted.

[Grusa]

There were no fat people in Auschwitz.

 

Todays obesity epidemic is due to the food industry pushing huge quantities of sugars, and carbohydrates which become sugar, into absolutely everything. It is exacerbated by the ignorance of doctors who do not understand the science, but accept at face value what they are told when training, and by Big Pharma afterwards. BP has a vested interest in not making people better, but condemning them to a lifetime on expensive medication, most of which simply does not work, some of which has serious and/or addictive side effects.

 

The food industry has a vested interest in selling an addictive drug which the body does not need at all....sugar. The body is perfectly capable of making all the sugar it needs, on demand from fats, proteins,  etc., but the process is (reperably) damaged by excessive consumption of dietary sugar. There are those who can cope with the excess sugar, most cannot, and can end up with a perfectly curable disease: Type 2 diabetes, with all the consequences, heart disease, blindness, amputations are all common sequelae.

 

Much of the published research is tainted by lack of independent funding, biased recording of data, and downright academic dishonesty. Only now is it becoming clear just how corrupt are the big three industries: -  Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Tobacco.

[dontoearth]

38 minutes ago, Grusa said:

There were no fat people in Auschwitz.

 

Todays obesity epidemic is due to the food industry pushing huge quantities of sugars, and carbohydrates which become sugar, into absolutely everything. It is exacerbated by the ignorance of doctors who do not understand the science, but accept at face value what they are told when training, and by Big Pharma afterwards. BP has a vested interest in not making people better, but condemning them to a lifetime on expensive medication, most of which simply does not work, some of which has serious and/or addictive side effects.

 

The food industry has a vested interest in selling an addictive drug which the body does not need at all....sugar. The body is perfectly capable of making all the sugar it needs, on demand from fats, proteins,  etc., but the process is (reperably) damaged by excessive consumption of dietary sugar. There are those who can cope with the excess sugar, most cannot, and can end up with a perfectly curable disease: Type 2 diabetes, with all the consequences, heart disease, blindness, amputations are all common sequelae.

 

Much of the published research is tainted by lack of independent funding, biased recording of data, and downright academic dishonesty. Only now is it becoming clear just how corrupt are the big three industries: -  Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Tobacco.

    AMEN!  Brother!  I wish more people understood this for what it really is!  Thanks!

[InnerCynic]

I found that simple diet modification worked. Staying away from dead carbs, sugary drinks, fast food of any sort, etc.  My test was that I would change my eating habits and NOT exercise.  That way I could gauge if it was the change in food intake  without the results being skewed by an exercise regimen.  What I found was that over the course of a year that I steadily lost weight at an average of 3 to 4 pounds per month until I reached an ideal body weight.  Felt and looked better than ever.   Pant sizes went down dramatically.  If I had  exercised I wouldn't have been able to determine if I was losing fat/water or adding additional muscle.  Now that I have a reasonable baseline to work with I can focus on starting an exercise course and building muscle mass.  But one thing is absolutely dead certain... stay away from junk foods as much as possible.  

Edited February 23, 2018 by InnerCynic

[tropo]

8 hours ago, dontoearth said:

    One thing to consider about willpower and motivation is that if you try a diet plan that doesn't work GET RID OF IT.  There are plenty of options.  I think this is where a lot of people get discouraged.  I found portion control and calorie counting creating a long worthless plateau in my body.  So I went on to the next program and the next until I got results.  I do believe people need to give things a try and abandon them if they don't work for their lifestyle and body.

     I don't believe in the TRY IT HARDER LONGER advocates.  There are simply too many other options.

At least if one has the willpower and motivation to keep exercising you're getting a lot of benefits even if your current diet program is not returning the results you desire.

 

My suggestion would be to always keep a regular exercise program going while you fine tune the diet. Exercise heightens the mood and will increase motivation to succeed in a diet program.

[InnerCynic]

48 minutes ago, Grusa said:

Much of the published research is tainted by lack of independent funding, biased recording of data, and downright academic dishonesty. Only now is it becoming clear just how corrupt are the big three industries: -  Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Tobacco.

There was a film on Netflix detailing the history of Big Sugar and the outright lies they promote in order to pimp their products.  Be it corn syrup, sugars, grains, etc... someone out their has a vested interest in pimping their warez and they sure as hell don't care about you.

[tropo]

7 hours ago, Enoon said:

" Metabolic syndrome: maladaptation to a modern world: "

 

And what does Darwinism say about creatures that are not "adapted"?

 

I wrote this three years ago but declined to post it at the time:

 

Modern "Progress" has produced all sorts of new situations in which the inability to adapt in a Darwinistic sense can lead to premature death.  One being obesity as a result of the inability to adapt to a Western overabundance of food and failing to self moderate consumption.

 

The craving to confound Darwinism (expressed as a determination to create a perfect world in which everyone lives "forever") by compensating for such adaptive inabilities is, paradoxically, putting an increasingly intolerable strain on the ability of the Human Race to maintain itself.

 

Population increase has resulted not just in the absolute (growing) "thinness" of resource, but in disputes over those resources, and friction between multiplying masses of people forced into ever closer proximity to each other.

 

In truth adaptation is not something that creatures "do".

 

Creatures that are born with a difference that "works" survive and flourish........others don't.

 

Let it be.

 

One thing that the world is not short of is......people.

 

1

Actually, in most developed countries, there is a major shortage of people as populations age due to a sub-maintenance fertility rate below 2.1. China is in big trouble.

 

Check this out:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)

 

The population explosion theory is wrong. The world population will decline due to dropping fertility rates. Of course, obesity will speed it along in developed nations.