Causes and cures for obese people *spawn

Try spending 6 hours on a plane next to one and you'll understand :)

OT:

But you do know that being obese has nothing to do with a sedentary life style and with too little exercise/fitness/workout (there is no scientific evidence published so far that shows any significant influence of workout on the weight, but there are many that show no influence) and that it is not the fault of the obese person.

What has the highest influence is the wrong dietary advice from the US government. Damning dietary fat and increasing energy intake via carbs instead directly leads to obesity, all know the epidemic obesity rate we have.

My last word on this (sorry for OT): restricting the total amount of carbs to 60g a day and at most 20g per meal while increasing your fat intake (saturated fats are good for you) will automatically lead to weight lost. If this guy would get the right advices, he could easily lose his weight, drastically better his blood health markers like triglyceride level, decrease diabetis risk substantially and all this without feeling hungry all the time again.

Keywords: LCHF(low carb high fat), Paelo diet, Ketogenic diet.
 
OT:

But you do know that being obese has nothing to do with a sedentary life style and with too little exercise/fitness/workout (there is no scientific evidence published so far that shows any significant influence of workout on the weight, but there are many that show no influence) and that it is not the fault of the obese person.

What has the highest influence is the wrong dietary advice from the US government. Damning dietary fat and increasing energy intake via carbs instead directly leads to obesity, all know the epidemic obesity rate we have.

My last word on this (sorry for OT): restricting the total amount of carbs to 60g a day and at most 20g per meal while increasing your fat intake (saturated fats are good for you) will automatically lead to weight lost. If this guy would get the right advices, he could easily lose his weight, drastically better his blood health markers like triglyceride level, decrease diabetis risk substantially and all this without feeling hungry all the time again.

Keywords: LCHF(low carb high fat), Paelo diet, Ketogenic diet.

As a medical doctor (but not practicing since almost 20 years) and with some expertise in nutrition, I fully agree with all you said.
 
OT:

But you do know that being obese has nothing to do with a sedentary life style and with too little exercise/fitness/workout (there is no scientific evidence published so far that shows any significant influence of workout on the weight, but there are many that show no influence) and that it is not the fault of the obese person.

What has the highest influence is the wrong dietary advice from the US government. Damning dietary fat and increasing energy intake via carbs instead directly leads to obesity, all know the epidemic obesity rate we have.

My last word on this (sorry for OT): restricting the total amount of carbs to 60g a day and at most 20g per meal while increasing your fat intake (saturated fats are good for you) will automatically lead to weight lost. If this guy would get the right advices, he could easily lose his weight, drastically better his blood health markers like triglyceride level, decrease diabetis risk substantially and all this without feeling hungry all the time again.

Keywords: LCHF(low carb high fat), Paelo diet, Ketogenic diet.

As a medical doctor (but not practicing since almost 20 years) and with some expertise in nutrition, I fully agree with all you said.

Human body works under the same rules as everything else, the laws of physics. If you put less energy in than what the body consumes, you lose weight. Exercise increases energy consumption, though the body is quite efficient and can adapt somewhat, but it cannot break the laws of physics.

The actual dietary guidelines aren't that bad. They are not telling people to eat at Mcdonalds or stuff pizza and ice cream like there is no tomorrow. If people would actually follow them, they'd be ok. The demonization of fat was wrong, but carbs aren't the enemy either if the body hasn't already been broken by obesity induced metabolic conditions and if the carbs are something else than high in fructose. Carbs become a problem when the total energy intake is also too high. When you eat too much for too long the body starts to malfunction in multiple ways. Lack of exercise doesn't help.

There is no automatic weight loss if you substitute carbs for fat while keeping calories the same. Low carb is a good and easier way to lose fat, because eliminating carbs will also typically reduce eaten calories, often people increase protein intake and it takes more energy for the body to convert protein than carbs or fat for the body to use, this gives a bit of metabolic advantage for weight loss. Protein and fat keep satiety better than carbs, probably because they are more essential nutrients to the body. This is very beneficial in real world weight losing, because it lessens the risk to binge eat etc.

Most low carb advocates have the belief that eaten fat wont be stored as body fat, but they don't really know or think that through... In today's world access to food is plentiful, it tastes great and often is engineered to make you want more of it and thus people struggle to keep their weight at a healthy normal levels. Our bodies haven't really evolved to their current states in this type of environment though. The ability of storing energy into fat in a abundant situation is a KEY survival mechanism and to suggest that the body wouldn't be able to convert the most energy dense food into body fat is not only retarded* but just plain wrong. In reality the body stores eaten fat to body fat easiest and most efficiently compared to other macro nutrients, more efficiently than it does with carbs. (look up ASP, acylation stimulation protein. Might have to dig a bit...)


*Retarded because people today see storing fat as a negative, when in fact it is a very good feature.

Yeah sorry for the off topic...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But you do know that being obese has nothing to do with a sedentary life style and with too little exercise/fitness/workout (there is no scientific evidence published so far that shows any significant influence of workout on the weight, but there are many that show no influence) and that it is not the fault of the obese person.
...
My last word on this (sorry for OT): restricting the total amount of carbs to 60g a day and at most 20g per meal while increasing your fat intake (saturated fats are good for you) will automatically lead to weight lost. If this guy would get the right advices, he could easily lose his weight, drastically better his blood health markers like triglyceride level, decrease diabetis risk substantially and all this without feeling hungry all the time again.

Keywords: LCHF(low carb high fat), Paelo diet, Ketogenic diet.

As a medical doctor (but not practicing since almost 20 years) and with some expertise in nutrition, I fully agree with all you said.

So you're both saying if someone who doesn't train hard eats 4000 kcal a day, they won't get obese as long as they only eat a bit of carbs? What happens to the 2000 kcal excess energy their body isn't using?

And how can you say there's no evidence that workout has an influence on weight?? People wanting to lose weight go to the gym or running or whatever, and lose weight. Is that just coincidence??

People get fat because they eat more than they need. Some people in the world live of very high fat, and some live of very high carbs, but they don't get fat as long as they don't overeat.
 
I agree that is definitely the basics - usually people who get fat snack so much that they get a day's worth of calories inbetween meals (which they don't skip). As a side effect, they then eat less of the healthy food.

There is likely a difference between how efficiently the body absorbs and stores different types of fat. And there are clear side effects in how the body/brain reward system responds to different types of food - e.g. some sugars are partly ingested in your mouth already and the resulting boost triggers your brain's reward system directly making you feel happy, which then the brain counter-reacts to by sweeping up the (for instance) serotonine more quickly and lowering your baseline so you don't overdose when you get the next quick boost. This makes sweet foods and snacks very addictive, whereas complex structures take a long time to digest and release their 'good stuff' slowly and steadily, so you get a better baseline influence on your happy neurotransmitter that doesn't cause your brain to counterreact.

For me personally, if I tend to get overweight (and here I'm talking about a 5kg margin of my 75kg baseline) I just exercise a little more and am back at 75kg within a month.

My wife is a notorious snack problem, and she's had weight issues since something like 25, same with her mother (still has issues). In the end what worked for her was a stomach bypass, which reroutes the way the stomach is connected to your digestive system. This has a very happy sideeffect of becoming 'fat and easy carb' intolerant, especially in the first years, which does a great job of recalibrating your eating habits. She went down 40kg and has been the same weight now for 2 years after losing weight for more than a year (though lately she's going up again a slight bit, and again it's primarily snacking that's the cause here - unfortunately regular sweets are still edible, though she at least can't eat a lot of them, so hopefully she should now be able to keep herself below her own set limit of 70kg).

Anyway, if you look at survival shows, it's very clear that storing fat is an important thing for survival, so it's a normal thing for humans to tend towards overeating, especially women, who need a lot more while being pregnant (and face it, they have literrally been built for being pregnant about 50% of their lives, no matter how silly that would now be in our modern economy, just DNA hasn't caught up yet ;) ). Also the Dutch are a nice example - how much we use bicycles is very closely linked to how we are less fat than surrounding countries (though we too are getting worse, and that's actually matched by a decrease in cycling).

The government could do a lot of legislation to make things better.
 
I disagree with needing legislation. It just needs people to stop eating so much. There's no need to snack. There's no need to eat until you feel full to burst. There's no need for massive portions when you go and eat out. It's the culture that's completely screwy. Obviously the commercialisation of food doesn't help, but a lot of people's eating habits are just habits. I eat three meals a day, no breakfast but a late supper, and no snacks in between. I don't get hungry and don't feel the need to eat constantly. I consume about 2000 kcals a day and that's with a 10 mile cycle commute a day, and I've even put on a little weight eating as little as that which just goes to show a calorie can go a long, long way. But I was raised in a poor family with little food, and no opportunity to snack or eat on demand. It's in my nature, and I never overeat - dislike the feeling of eating to excess. I know many kids today just raid the fridge whenever they want, which is fine as they're growing people and that energy is being put to use building their body, but they are developing eating habits that'll likely stay with them. They'll end up eating more energy than they need a day which'll gain weight. The way most of them will tackle this, if they do, is either dieting or exercising. Both of which work.

Nutirionalists and dietitians and a whole industry about food and weight like to complicate things, and there's bound to be certain things one can and can't do to manage one's weight a little better, especially when one's left it too late to make a simple change. But the root issue is dead simple and goes back to when one was a skinny child - eat only as much energy as you need and you won't get fat. It's physically impossible to get fat on the energy you need each day; you'd need a serious medical condition for that to happen (body storing energy when it should be using it for basic metabolism)!

Making excuses that obese people aren't to blame for being obese gets my goat when there are people in world starving to death, that others are overeating themselves to death. Bloody ridiculous state of affairs.
 
The problem is a little more complicated than just counting calories. I will try to find some time this weekend (which will be hard since my PS4 will arrive tomorrow) to explain how this actually works in the body, I'm sure you will find it very interesting.

@Shifty - people getting fat it's definitely thier fault, they have no excuse. Morbid obesity (like Francis which started this discussion) on the other hand is not (entirely) ones fault, it's more of a skew in the metabolism, not an eating disorder per se. As a side-note - not eating in the morning is actually extremely healty. If you think about it - what animal in the wild wakes up an finds his breakfast beside him?

I have a hectic week at work so please excuse that I'm not able to elaborate on this....

The major problem that I see is - eating has become a form of entertainmet these days. There are even shows on TV, like Jaime Oliver and comp.
 
Counting calories is a fundamentally flawed point of view. It leads to obesity. It is typically promoted and pushed by the food industry (especially e.g. Coca Cola).

A calorie is not a calorie!

Why (I'll go into detail later...sorry guys, I have the same problem)???

The answer is: food has an effect on your insulin level. Insulin is the fat storing hormone. Isn't it the most natural and obvious thing to look at what influences your insulin level?

Guess what...eating carbs has drastic effect on insulin level (increase!!)...increasing insulin, leads to fat storing, increasing insulin decreases the abilities of the fat cells to release their fat to fuel the body. In consequence, your body gets inefficient in using energy (all biochemics, well known since decades)...in consequence: your body tells your brain: eat more, I am hungry! A viscous cycle.

Eating to much protein...same effect.

Eating fat...minimal hormonal effect.

So thermodynamics is not the answer...biochemics is. And if you look at the science...the answers are chrystal clear!

Will write more later.
 
So Billy are you claiming it's impossible to gain weight/store fat while in ketosis?
I knew you were fixated on insulin only, which is why I pointed out the ASP for you...
I don't know if I should bother with this as people in general like to believe all sort of stuff. You still think that fat storing is evil...

Yeah you can screw your metabolism by eating too much and carbs play a role there too, but low carb most definitely isn't the only way to live healthy.

Can't wait for the Gary Taubes quotes.
 
Though I've never really been overweight, I used to do the 'Caveman'/Paleo-style diet for a while, eating very few carbs. Of course, I didn't adhere to it too strictly as the idea I should give up all processed foods such as bacon and cheese was just ridiculous! Not to mention the beer... ;)

I lost perhaps 7lbs compared to my previous weight when (mostly) doing the Paleo thing. In the end, I gave it up as my fiancee moved in with me and she has a distinct aversion to green vegetables so it just wasn't workable!

After that I put on around a stone (14lbs) over the course of a few years and I decided I needed to lose a little weight earlier this year. I've now been on the 5:2 intermittent fasting diet for six months or so and have dropped to my lowest weight for about 15 years. This is despite the fact that I've been so busy at work during this period, I've had practically no time to exercise. The diet is simple: two days a week (usually Mondays and Thursdays), I eat practically nothing - just 200 or 300 calories. The rest of the time, I eat and drink pretty much whatever I like, though I don't tend to eat a vast amount of junk food as I enjoy cooking. In theory, on the 5:2 diet, I could be eating up to 600 calories on my fast days (500 calories allowed for women), but I think I might as well just have a small snack in the evening rather than messing around with slightly larger yet still very small meals as many people do. I rarely feel hunger pangs on my 'fast' days and I must say I find it very easy to stick to this diet. Oddly enough, both my fiancee and my sister have attempted the 5:2 diet and they just can't deal with it as they apparently really struggle if they aren't eating throughout the day. Not sure if this is a gender issue or not, but then I've never had any trouble missing out on food for a day in the past so perhaps it depends on the individual?

Now, I just need to sort out the exercise situation. I've just ordered a new rowing machine and this should give me the chance to get some decent aerobic exercise even if it is cold, damp and dark outside, as it invariably is in the UK during the winter!
 
I saw a very interesting piece of research that showed that any diet works, and the more complicated the diet is, the better it works.

So, decide that you are only allowed to eat 7 minutes past the 7th hour (7:07, 14:07,21:07) and that you are only allowed to eat while standing on one leg, and only eat with your non primary hand, while keeping one eye closed.

This will very likely be a successful diet. The upshot is, the more conscious you are dealing with your food, the less likely you are to overeat, snack, etc.

BUT: if you only diet, then you will as likely get a reduced metabolism and sleep more as that you will lose weight permanently. How well you are able to follow routine and have self-discipline determines it success further, etc.

Other diets that tend to really work - buy smaller cups, glasses, pans and plates, order smaller portions, meals, etc.

Legislation works. The human body is engineered for sparsity, not abundance. Those that stored fat more easily and chased food more aggressively used to have an evolutionary advantage, that's now burdening them.

Even self-discipline, something you need to learn from your parents at a young age, is at the very least culturally heriditery. If your parent fail to keep your weight at a decent level during your first 4-5 years, you're close to doomed. Easy to tell them they should just get a grip at later life.
 
As a side-note - not eating in the morning is actually extremely healty. If you think about it - what animal in the wild wakes up an finds his breakfast beside him?
This is the sort of thing where nutrition is so divided that I don't think anyone knows what's what really. I was chatting with a girl a few months back and she had been told by her doctor that not eating breakfast would take five years off her life. So we have two experts giving completely the opposite nutritional advice. One of them, or both, is wrong, but good luck getting either of them to question their POV! ;)

The thing with 'real' science is it results in theories with applicable consequences and obvious proofs. Nutrition has a zillion different people all with different theories and a mess of investigations, all proving and refuting each other, and I think the whole driving point in reality is money. I've seen enough bunk scientific investigations in my time to not trust any info at face value.

My philosophy is very natural. The body needs food. Provide as much as it needs. It's very capable of adapting (current culture loves to try and regulate the body with chemicals and drugs and thinking about things, instead of just letting it be).

The major problem that I see is - eating has become a form of entertainmet these days. There are even shows on TV, like Jaime Oliver and comp.
I don't begrudge the likes of Jamie Oliver who are trying to get busy people to eat good, varied food. Food for foods sake has been a cultural phenomenon for centuries though, for as long as people have been around. It's a social activity. I think there's just more opportunity for people to eat than ever, and with stupidly rich foods. eg. A muffin or cake slice at a Starbucks can weigh in at 500-600 calories. That's a small meal! In a cake! People will eat it as a snack but it carries substantial energy. Eating without an awareness of how much energy one is intaking is definitely part of the problem IMO.

Counting calories is a fundamentally flawed point of view. It leads to obesity. It is typically promoted and pushed by the food industry (especially e.g. Coca Cola).

A calorie is not a calorie!
Although I can agree to some point, because not all calories are equal in terms of dietary value, the principle of only eating as much energy as you need remains regardless what that energy is measured in. Calories on food labels may not be accurate but (I hope!) they are somewhat useful.

Guess what...eating carbs has drastic effect on insulin level (increase!!)...increasing insulin, leads to fat storing, increasing insulin decreases the abilities of the fat cells to release their fat to fuel the body. In consequence, your body gets inefficient in using energy (all biochemics, well known since decades)...in consequence: your body tells your brain: eat more, I am hungry! A viscous cycle.
From personal experience I don't believe you. ;) I eat a hugely carb rich diet. I dislike fatty foods as a norm, except for some really rich junk foods. And there are plenty of civilisations living of carb-rich diets.

So thermodynamics is not the answer...
You can't avoid thermodynamics. ;)

Your body needs xxx amount of energy to run, in whatever measure. Let's say Joules to avoid the calorie issues. Let's say a person needs 7000 kJ to operate their normal metabolic bioactivities, and 3000 kJ for their daily movements and activities. This person needs that energy from their dietary intake, requiring 10,000 kJ of energy within their food. If the body ingests more than that, let's say 12,000 kJ a day, it has three options:

1) Don't absorb the surplus energy
2) Consume the surplus energy then and there
3) Store the surplus energy

There is no mechanism for 1). The body doesn't have a calorie-counting mechanic that's wonderfully accurate and will shut down the digestive tract once 10,000 kJ has been absorbed. 2) would require the energy to be burnt up, which would mean muscular movement and heat generation. People could go into hot spasms to burn of the extra calories and stop when it's over, but that's not a terribly useful state in a dangerous world. 3) The body stores the excess, for which it has a very well developed biochemistry, to be used on those days when either the intake is less than the 10,000 kJ requirement or the daily requirement has been increased (due to running away from wolves).

That's where the thermodynamics comes in. You cannot operate a mechanism without sufficient energy, and an excess has to go somewhere for which there is no mechanism in organisms other than storage. Eating carbs may make one want to eat more, but it isn't necessary to eat more - those calories ingested are going somewhere and being used.

I'm not a nutrition expert by any stretch, and I know there's been a lot of research and new stuff found since I was studying, but I do have a degree in Biochemistry wherein I studied in detail the various metabolic and catabolic processes, the hormones and enzymes and cycles. They all work to balance dietary intake with requirements, storing energy when it's in excess in the bloodstream after eating and recovering it from the stores throughout the rest of the day. This is why I find new-fangled ideas like 'complex carbohydrates slowly releasing energy' to be laughable. Simple carbs will be digested and the energy stored in glycogen. Human beings don't need to regulate their food intake as if everyone was diabetic! I can go without breakfast because my mornings are sedate and my body taps into glycogen and fat reserves, topped up the night before, for operation before the first influx of energy from lunch. The reason insulin goes up when you eat carbs is to store the energy, otherwise it'd be swimming around your blood. But once the energy is stored, the insulin drops again, and then it's the other hormone (can't remember the name and can't be bothered to Google it to pretend I can) that's released to get the energy back out again. If people are getting hungry eating carbs, my guess is that they are snacking carbs. If they eat a big, carb-rich meal, they'll get plenty enough food to switch off the hunger response and then the body can store that energy away. And most importantly IMO, carbs recharge glycogen before fats, which is what you really want. Fats are stored as fat and not glycogen, meaning no decent energy for muscle operation. Starchy foods are extremely numerous (potato, rich, wheat), the staple of all cultures except Inuits eating their whale blubber, and organism biochemistry is highly optimised around using glucose. Avoiding carbs as a 'bad thing' is unnatural. Just don't eat too many of them.
 
Even self-discipline, something you need to learn from your parents at a young age, is at the very least culturally heriditery. If your parent fail to keep your weight at a decent level during your first 4-5 years, you're close to doomed. Easy to tell them they should just get a grip at later life.
I agree with that. Culture has so much influence. Trouble I have is parents looking to new-fangled science to explain why they're all obese, and latching onto fancily named explanations, instead of just recognising, "We eat too much and need to do something about it." It's rare for the subject of obesity to come up and people actually say, "You're eating too much. Eat less." I certainly pity large people trying to lose weight when they've been led inadvertently to that position. It was when I had just a little bit of gut and looked into energy requirements and realised how much energy there is in a kilo of excess baggage that I realised how damn hard it is to remove that weight. Fat has an astounding amount of energy relative to our needs such that one really doesn't want too much, or else they'll have to go to great lengths to burn it off. The truth is just a simple one IMO, despite how the multimillion dollar industry likes to obfuscate it to pedal their wares. Eat no more than you need and you won't get fat.
 
Most overweight people don't eat too much food, they eat too much refined carbohydrates (sugar and starch).
As said before the problem is not about thermodynamics (calories), it's about biochemistry and physiology.
 
One oft overlooked cause is sleeping disorders, overdressing, and sleeping under too warm blankets.
 
Although I can agree to some point, because not all calories are equal in terms of dietary value, the principle of only eating as much energy as you need remains regardless what that energy is measured in. Calories on food labels may not be accurate but (I hope!) they are somewhat useful.

One calorie in isn't equal to another calorie in either.

Some types of food require more energy to digest than others. Refined carbohydrates like white flour are extremely easy to digest and requires very little energy to extract one calorie. A fatty steak on the other hand is more difficult for the body to digest and requires more energy to extract one calorie.

You can lose weight while maintaining the same caloric intake or even increasing your caloric intake with no change in physical activities depending on what you choose to eat. I successfully did just that over the past 2 years. Losing over 50 pounds in the process.

There's also the situation of satiety which influences how much and how often a person eats. Refined carbohydrates have a low satiety factor and hence to feel the same "fullness" for the same duration requires more of it. Fatty foods (like that Steak from above) on the other hand have a high satiety value and hence you'll generally eat less and less often for the same "fullness" feeling.

And then, of course, you have the modern equivalent to dietary poison. Sugar. Whether it is standard sugar or sugar from corn syrup. They both work to bypass and block the satiety circuitry of your body. So not only are you getting increased calories from sugar, you're also eating even more food to reach the same level of satiety (feeling of being full). Not to mention the other bad side effects from consuming too much sugar that go beyond just obesity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

That's a very good primer on the effects of sugar (both regular sugar and corn syrup which is virtually identical as well as refined carbohydrates which are just one step away from sugar). I always got a laugh out of people thinking that table sugar is somehow healthier than corn syrup. It isn't.

And yes, carbohydrates aren't necessarily bad for you. If eaten in moderation or with a significant amount of fiber integrated into it in order to make it more difficult to digest.

Flour made from the whole grain is less likely to lead to weight gain than refined flour (which removes virtually all of the fiber content).

Regards,
SB
 
People get fat because they eat more than they need. Some people in the world live of very high fat, and some live of very high carbs, but they don't get fat as long as they don't overeat.

Amen! This whole 'it's not their fault that their fat' is just another example of the kindergarten mentality that is all too pervasive these days where hard and difficult truths are excised in the favour of 'feel good', self-affirmative BS that ultimately does more harm than good.
 
@Dr Evil: you have some good points. But I personally think the following:

If you start doing a high fat, moderate protein and low carb diet...your hormone levels will start to regulate themselves back to normal...it is not only insulin, but also leptin...which regulates the hunger mechanism.

Again: why is Francis eating this much? It is not his fault. Telling obese people that they are 'lazy' and they don't try hard enough...is really really bad and brutal...and wrong.

Wrong food influences his hormone levels, the biochemistry of his body...and in fact: he is(!) really this hungry. His body needs energy, but due to the high level of insulin, the energy is blocked from getting released from the fat cells (energy storage), the efficiency of his 'batteries' decreases...so the body compensates by constructing more of these inefficient batteries (increase body fat). But they still don't offer enough fuel...so the body screams hungry (leptin resistence).


With respect to thermodynamics, it really doesn't work the way you explained it imo:

dE = E(in) -E(out)

is way to simple. You forget that those variables are not independent for a human body, thus this simple equation is in principle true of course, because it is a fundamental law of thermodynamics. But it does not tell you the story why(!) there is an imbalance and that is the real issue imo.

If you would eat 5k calories in a ketogenic state...you would gain weight. But there are three important things to note:

1) in a ketogenic state you would have really really force yourself to eat 5k calories. Because your body wouldn't be hungry, you would be full, hormones would say to your brain: you ate full.

2) another factor that may increase insulin levels is when you eat a really really big meal at once, this could trigger insulin, and could also kick you out of ketosis, depending on the amount of protein.

3) you will gain weight, but no where near the amount of weight, the simple calorie thermodynamics formula predicts...example?

Here you go: 21 days on low carb 5k calories a day...

http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

and references therein.

PS: a calorie is not a calorie is iirc the book title of the famous book by Taubes.

But I really recommend to watch the two youtube lectures by Dr Lustig.
 
@Shifty: you are one of the part if people that are not sensitive to carbs. Everybody is different, every one has a personal sensitivity to carbs and sugar. You ate lucky, because you can eat way more than your body originally was designed for.

But! There are million people who are sensitive to carbs. And for them, the only solution is to reduce sugar and carbs.

Btw, if you are slim...don't think that this guarantees that you are healthy. Carbs/sugar can also have its really negative effect on your health without the body showing you the side symptom of obesity.
 
Amen! This whole 'it's not their fault that their fat' is just another example of the kindergarten mentality that is all too pervasive these days where hard and difficult truths are excised in the favour of 'feel good', self-affirmative BS that ultimately does more harm than good.

If you would understand the science, you would probably be ashamed of yourself.
 
Back
Top