Forums → WEPR → why is america fat
| 170 | 72777 |
is it the lack of exercise stress junk food (go ahead blame the food) or what i think it is technology were so dependant on technology that we stay inside all day with little human contact i am verry fit i go outside everyday run with my dog do 300 pushups a day do benchpresses and curls punch the bag ect. and i joined the navy seals and marine force recon why can no one else do this its the easyest thing in the world tell me about your ideas
- 170 Replies
Get rid of mcdonalds... Problem solved
Wrong! McDonalds isn't what makes people fat. Only a small percentage of overweight and obese people have gained any significant weight because of Mcdonalds.
It's complicated, when you chew gum your brain knows it's only gum and doesn't make you full. But when it's food your brain uses chewing as a meter for food you eat.
Kasic asked for a source, so please do bring one on. You completely ignore the feedback from the gastral tract for example. And I'm pretty sure chewing enhances saliva production, not satiety.
You actually do chew those but differently. You might not notice but you do.
You chew very little when eating those. Also, you don't chew water that you drink, however you definitely can get full of water. I don't see where you got all that?
I've recently read about the possible role of Ghrelin, a hormone that stimulates hunger, in increasing obesity in countries. Advertisements who show food may stimulate ghrelin production, which stimulates hunger etc. Read the article, I think it's quite possible (of course it isn't THE reason for obesity in America, but it certainly plays a non-negligeable role)
Did you even look at the link I gave? It explains that.
You chew very little when eating those.
So just because you walk a little means you don't walk?
Yes, I was ninja'd.
I read the source now and I can immediately see a few things wrong with what you're saying.
1) They gave the same meal to overweight people and to average weight people. The overweight people ate more and chewed less. The average weight people chewed more and ate less.
This by itself is a correlation. It is not definitive.
Perhaps they ate less because they needed less? Perhaps they chewed more because that's just how they eat? Perhaps they simply eat less - they are after all not overweight which shows that they have healthier lifestyles/eating habits to begin with than the overweight people.
2) They did not make clear the conditions under which the study was done. Were the people told to eat everything? Were they simply handed the food? Were they told to eat how much they felt comfortable with? It's quite unclear.
3) As I said before, it takes time for the body to realize that you have sufficient food in your stomach. Logically, if the person is eating faster, ie, chewing less, they will consume more before their brain registers it. This would lead to increased consumption. They did not include in their study (or at least not in the article) the average elapsed time.
Perhaps they ate less because they needed less? Perhaps they chewed more because that's just how they eat? Perhaps they simply eat less - they are after all not overweight which shows that they have healthier lifestyles/eating habits to begin with than the overweight people.
Now all of that seems a little too coincidental. It's a fact that chewing more makes you less hungry. Unless you're calling the teacher who first told me an idiot and all of those research projects a coincidence or wrong then... well that wouldn't mean much.
It's a fact that chewing more makes you less hungry
No it's not. Correlation does not equal causation.
Now all of that seems a little too coincidental
No, it's just as probable as any other explanation.
However, my proposed reason (that it takes time for your brain to register) covers this quite neatly.
Unless you're calling the teacher who first told me an idiot and all of those research projects a coincidence or wrong then...
I've taken classes as well. Health classes and psychology classes, both of which had eating disorders as part of their curriculum and covered basic to more complex bodily functions. What I was told was not contradicting and explains every situation I have come across so far. What you are saying contradicts my current knowledge and also fails to explain people getting full off of drinks and foods which are not chewed.
So just because you walk a little means you don't walk?
You're right there. Still you didn't address the drinking part.
Did you even look at the link I gave? It explains that.
Now I did.
Weeeeeeell..:
""I suppose that if you chew each bite of food 100 times or more you may end up eating less. However, I am not sure that this is a viable obesity prevention measure," said Drewnowski, who was not involved in the current study.
Despite the study's limitations, the authors say the relationship between eating behaviors and obesity is worth studying further, to help slow a growing health problem worldwide."
Let's not take the study's result as illumination on the topic, but as a hint at further research, that is really needed, especially when I see these sort of things:
"Since the study was small and only included young men, it does not necessarily predict how extended chewing will affect the calorie intake of other people, the authors noted."
And in the abstract of the study: "Design: Sixteen lean and 14 obese young men participated in the current research. "
An average of 15 participants per group may only give hints, but you'd definitely need much bigger groups, and take into account more factors, to definitely consolidate the results.
I'm not saying your point is moot; the study is interesting and it might lead to new insights. I'm just saying let's be cautious and british: Wait and See.
So what you are saying is that what you learn is right even if others learn something that contradicts what you learn?
Whatever then, just believe what you want. And it actually now it seems like you are doing anything just to be right. Well I have to go so don't think I gave up or something just because I don't answer. :P
So what you are saying is that what you learn is right even if others learn something that contradicts what you learn?
Where did I say this?
No, quite simply. However, in this case your proposed explanation does not fit whilst mine does. This leads me to stick to my previous knowledge.
If chewing determined whether or not you were full, it would be impossible for people to fill up on drinks and foods which are not chewed.
However, my explanation covers this as well as the study in the article which you provided. The study itself wasn't even definitive by itself, as it only recorded observations.
And it actually now it seems like you are doing anything just to be right
How so? By picking at your argument? It's not personal, I am simply finding flaws in what you are saying. Why don't you do the same? Explain to me how my argument is wrong.
No, that's what I've been trying to say at the end of my post: I'm not discarding what you showed us. But it's a fact that two groups of 15 people result in poor statistical evidence, you need to be able to reproduce the result with a much bigger data base to yield real statistically significant results. That's not me being stubborn, that's me being scientifically critical :P
Anyway the study may be right, I never denied that. But it's just the first step.
In my opinion, I think the reason is that people are pretty much free in America. There's lot of fast-food places which stresses the Americans to eat there, and they want to, cause they can do mostly whenever they want to.
You must be logged in to post a reply!