[Semaphore (OP)]

The latest print edition of SciAm shows some research that indicates that energy expenditure remains broadly the same no matter the amount of activity, which is counter-intuitive. This would explain why exercise is so ineffective in shifting the pounds (or kilos). The conclusion was that gluttony is the real sin. What do you think?

[zx16]

I think that obesity must be the result of eating too much food. And the excessive food-consumption is caused by gluttony.
I mean, if you weren't gluttonous, you wouldn't eat so much.  Then, surely you wouldn't get unnaturally fat?

[Bored chemist]

I think that obesity must be the result of eating too much food. And the excessive food-consumption is caused by gluttony.
I mean, if you weren't gluttonous, you wouldn't eat so much.  Then, surely you wouldn't get unnaturally fat?

"I think that obesity must be the result of eating too much food. "
well done  on abject failure to understand   the concept of balance.
"Then, surely you wouldn't get unnaturally fat?"
Way to go on not understanding the word "unnaturally"

[alancalverd]

Nothing counterintuitive or even new about the "research" findings.

We need to eat about 10,000,000 joules of food energy per day. At most, we can do about 1,000,000 joules of "useful" work in a day, whether strenuous pointless exercise or productive manual labout. Nearly all the rest goes into keeping us warm, pumping blood around the body, and thinking: our internal temperature needs to be around 37 deg C  for the enzymes to work converting food into energy, and it takes around 80% of the energy to maintain that temperature in a temperate climate.  1,000,000 joules is about 240 nutritional calories - one cheese sandwich provides all the exercise energy a professional athlete will burn up in a football match or twelve rounds of boxing, or a bricklayer will use in a day's work.

Modern obesity is due to the fact that we never get cold. The UK population actually eats fewer calories than we did 70 years ago, but we live in airconditioned and centrally heated  environments and children don't spend time outdoors - it wasn't the compulsory games that kept my cohort skinny so much as the fact that we walked to school and played in shorts and a shirt in all weathers. And if you ask any 70-year-old what he most remembers about childhood, it is probably warming clothes in front of a fire before getting dressed, hot water bottles to take the chill off a bed, drying coats on a school radiator, and generally being cld all the time. 

Skiing in the Arctic, I have eaten  20,000,000 joules per day and lost weight, not through the effort of skiing but through lost heat. A friend who spent two days roped to an Alp in a blizzard ate  his emergency ration of 30,000,000 joules and lost weight without moving at all.

The obesity "epidemic" is caused by central heating and efficient clothes.

[evan_au]

In the West we have a ready supply of high-calorie food for which most of us don't need to do physical work at all.

We are bombarded by advertising giving us an idea of how much of this food is "normal" to eat. (In this respect, the UK idea of having minimal nutritional standards for food advertisements on TV during "childrens" hours sounded like a good idea! But did it make it into law?)

Foods are scientifically designed to prevent a feeling of satiety (ie "I've had enough, now!").

And different people have different genetic sensitivity to satiety, and a different genetic propensity to pack away fat.

Which parts of this picture do you think is a "sin"?

[Bored chemist]

Foods are scientifically designed to prevent a feeling of satiety (ie "I've had enough, now!").

Got any evidence for that?
Is it not sufficient to make food tasty?
The "design" of chocolate hasn't really changed in 200 years.

[vhfpmr]

I have a daily record of calorie intake, exercise hours and bodyweight going back nearly 15 years. Exercise definitely increases your metabolism substantially:

[zx16]

If you get fat, it's because you've eaten too much food. 

[evan_au]

Foods are scientifically designed to prevent a feeling of satiety (ie "I've had enough, now!").

Got any evidence for that?

• Feel thirsty? Have a beer! The alcohol in beer dehydrates you, so have another one!
• Feel hungry? Have some salted nuts with your beer! The salt in nuts dehydrates you even more, so have another beer!
• The mix of high fat and high sugar in foods presses our subconscious buttons that say "high-calorific-value food here!".

Is it not sufficient to make food tasty?

That's not the most effective nor the most economical way to increase sales.

• Salt tends to suppress bitter flavors. So our food gets loaded down with more salt to "improve" (read "mask") the taste. Excess salt increases water retention and increases blood pressure.
• The sound of sweets packaging is designed to elicit a particular response.
• The sight of [insert any well-known logo here] triggers reactions that are preprogrammed by TV advertising.

The "design" of chocolate hasn't really changed in 200 years.

I understand that the original drinking chocolate in South America was a rather bitter brew.

• Combine it with sugar from New Guinea (on the other side of the planet), and you have a much more palatable (and higher calorie) blend.
• Deliver it as a solid block, and it is much more portable.
• Conch it, and it has a much better "mouth feel".

The food industry does a lot of research - and you know whose income is paying dividends from that research.
In the end, it is governments that must make a call on what is safe for their citizens.
I read today that France has banned free refills (sometimes called "bottomless cups") of sweetened drinks. Lets see if it is overturned, as were previous laws in New York attempting to restrain the number of calories you could consume in sweetened drinks.

[Bored chemist]

Foods are scientifically designed to prevent a feeling of satiety (ie "I've had enough, now!").

Got any evidence for that?

• Feel thirsty? Have a beer! The alcohol in beer dehydrates you, so have another one!

   

I got this far and gave up.
Beer doesn't dehydrate you- it certainly doesn't do it fast enough to materially influence your decision to have another beer.

While I'm at it
"I understand that the original drinking chocolate in South America was a rather bitter brew."
Know anyone who still drinks it?
Do you think that's what Cadburys and Frys were making 200 years ago?
Did you somehow think it was relevant?


"Salt tends to suppress bitter flavors. So our food gets loaded down with more salt to "improve" (read "mask") the taste. Excess salt increases water retention and increases blood pressure."
OK that's them making it tasty- like I said

"The sound of sweets packaging is designed to elicit a particular response."
and "The sight of [insert any well-known logo here] triggers reactions that are preprogrammed by TV advertising."
Are not about food or satiety.
"I read today that France has banned free refills (sometimes called "bottomless cups") of sweetened drinks. Lets see if it is overturned, as were previous laws in New York attempting to restrain the number of calories you could consume in sweetened drinks."

Ditto.
So, once again, re the claim that "Foods are scientifically designed to prevent a feeling of satiety (ie "I've had enough, now!")."
Got any evidence?
[/list]

[vhfpmr]

If you get fat, it's because you've eaten too much food. 

Or done too little exercise. We are eating far less now than we were 50-100 years ago, navvies ate 6000-8000kcals/day digging canals.

[Semaphore (OP)]

If you get fat, it's because you've eaten too much food. 

Or done too little exercise. We are eating far less now than we were 50-100 years ago, navvies ate 6000-8000kcals/day digging canals.

The conclusion from the study I quoted was that exercise is very inefficient at shifting weight, which is counter-intuitive since we've been told repeatedly that it does. The summary was that exercise is good for you, but eating less shifts weight.

[evan_au]

Beer doesn't dehydrate you- it certainly doesn't do it fast enough to materially influence your decision to have another beer

Maybe Australians take their beer-drinking more seriously? 

Slang:

• "pissed" = someone who has had a bit too much to drink...
• "beer gut" = excess fat around the abdomen and internal organs

...but that is only one food group!

[evan_au]

But seriously, we are not Pavlovian robots, mindlessly pushing buttons on the vending machines to get preprocessed food pellets in response to external stimuli.

We each have a responsibility to be informed on healthy eating

• to exercise self-control so that the attraction of easy calories don't overwhelm us.
• to persist in exercise so we build up a healthy circulation, bones and musculature

The budget of a government-run "healthy-eating" campaign can't possibly match the billions spent annually on advertising by the food industry. So the best that the government can do is require some basic healthy eating instruction in the school curriculum, and to place constraints on how and when particularly unhealthy options are advertised.

Shareholders in the food industry expect a return on their investment, and the food industry does their best to achieve it. In many cases, community health is just collateral damage (although some companies actively sell the health aspect of their products).

Governments and health insurance companies have more of an interest in keeping us healthy.

We need to eat about 10,000,000 joules of food energy per day. At most, we can do about 1,000,000 joules of "useful" work in a day

On this basis:

• a 10% increase in exercise will make a 1% change in our daily balance of energy intake and expenditure.
• a 10% decrease in food will make a 10% change  in our daily balance of energy intake and expenditure.
• so a slight decrease in food intake will have a much larger impact than a slight increase in an existing exercise programme.

Of course, if you don't currently do any exercise, you should start some for the other health benefits it brings...

[Semaphore (OP)]

But seriously, we are not Pavlovian robots, mindlessly pushing buttons on the vending machines to get preprocessed food pellets in response to external stimuli.

We each have a responsibility to be informed on healthy eating

• to exercise self-control so that the attraction of easy calories don't overwhelm us.
• to persist in exercise so we build up a healthy circulation, bones and musculature

The budget of a government-run "healthy-eating" campaign can't possibly match the billions spent annually on advertising by the food industry. So the best that the government can do is require some basic healthy eating instruction in the school curriculum, and to place constraints on how and when particularly unhealthy options are advertised.

Shareholders in the food industry expect a return on their investment, and the food industry does their best to achieve it. In many cases, community health is just collateral damage (although some companies actively sell the health aspect of their products).

Governments and health insurance companies have more of an interest in keeping us healthy.

We need to eat about 10,000,000 joules of food energy per day. At most, we can do about 1,000,000 joules of "useful" work in a day

On this basis:

• a 10% increase in exercise will make a 1% change in our daily balance of energy intake and expenditure.
• a 10% decrease in food will make a 10% change  in our daily balance of energy intake and expenditure.
• so a slight decrease in food intake will have a much larger impact than a slight increase in an existing exercise programme.

Of course, if you don't currently do any exercise, you should start some for the other health benefits it brings...

Tobacco caused plenty of collateral damage too. Maybe the same kind of actions should be taken against irresposible food companies as were taken against the big tobacco companies. A few large fines might change their minds about selling unhealthy food.

[alancalverd]

Simple rule: if it has a brand name, don't eat it. Packaged  generics (Tesco's fresh chicken, Sainsburys baked beans...) are excepted, but anything calling itself Wizzo Crunchy Nibbles is expensive crap.

Tobacco is interesting. Many years ago a Texas judge ruled that a cigarette is an inherently defective product but the case never received Federal support.   

[Semaphore (OP)]

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that any company selling products which are harmful to health should be open to law suits, just as the tobacco companies were, just as VW have been recently. Garbage food with too much salt, sugar and fat comes into that category. There should be much more accountability for those who harm people's health. Then there are the gun manufacturers..... whoops!

[alancalverd]

The sole function of a gun is to kill people. The advertisement tells you its lethal range and rate of fire.  You can only get your money back if it doesn't work, or harms the user. I understand that the standard British Army rifle ejects the hot cartridge into your eye if you are lefthanded, but I don't know of any other inherently defective gun, and it explains why soldiers wear helmets and goggles!

Rat poison is harmful to health. I wouldn't buy a safe rat poison.

"Too much" salt, sugar or fat is a nonsense. These essential dietary components are sold at 100% concentration. Indeed you would be prosecuted if you advertised something as salt, sugar or fat and it contained anything else.

The difference with cigarettes is that they kill the user and have no other use.

VW fire engines and ambulances have saved countless lives. VW camper vans are responsible for half the population of Cornwall. VW trucks deliver food and medical supplies. There is nothing inherently defective about  VW products, apart from the company's appalling history. They were fined for playing to the whistle on an emissions test, when clearly the fault was with whoever specified the test. And it wasn't only VW but pretty well every manufacturer who uses AdBlue to meet Californian emission standards.

[Semaphore (OP)]

It's not true that the sole function is to kill people. Many people cite having a gun as a deterrant. If manufacturers fitted guns with proper safety features such as locks then stolen weapons couldn't be used to commit crimes. There would be a case that the gun manufacturer was negligent and could be sued.

If the rat poison didn't include proper safety instructions then it would not be safe and the manufacturer could be sued.

A sugar tax has been mooted and would probably be a good thing. Obesity kills a a lot of people and blights the lives of many others. Too much salt is bad for you and so are some fats.

Do you own shares in VW?  Their excess emissions, caused by deliberate fraud, undoubtedly put at risk the health of those unfortunate enough to breath the fumes. That's why emission standards were introduced. If others are guilty too then of course they should be prosecuted.

Imo, manufacturers should be made responsible for the effects of their products.

[zx16]

Why are people so fat these days?  Does it result from a conspiracy to undermine our health? Who could be responsible for such a conspiracy?