Fast Food Vs Home Cooking

[Kittenlady]

There's such a thing as free will. Plenty of people live in the same environment without becoming obese, because exerting a little self-control can go a long way.

[WBoon]

There's a phrase we use around here: "Self-control is expensive." lol

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Kittenlady

There's such a thing as free will. Plenty of people live in the same environment without becoming obese, because exerting a little self-control can go a long way.

Though it takes more willpower for some than others. I don't buy the argument that every overweight individual is lazy because it is more complicated than that.

As I wrote a few pages back, hormones, which many people overlook, are the real key to weight gain (whether it be fat or muscle). Different foods trigger different hormonal responses in different individuals.

[Kittenlady]

In which case, it would be beneficial for people to find out what foods trigger which hormonal responses in their body. In a situation like your weight and health, making excuses like "Oh, it's my hormones" isn't going to do you any favours.

True, it's much easier for some people than others, but that's life - tough shit. Unless you have an actual problem like an under-active thyroid, which is much less common than there are obese people, you have no excuse other than laziness.

If you want to lose weight, always try and look at the bad stuff you yourself are doing rather than things you can't control. More often than not "Oh I'm fat because it's in my genes" is not only bullshit, but a total cop-out of actually trying.

/lol off-topic - and wow, that came off as much more antagonistic than I intended. Oh well.

[Kyero Fox]

Originally Posted by technomo12

um guys pls dont blame the food

BLAME the environment the people are living in

because stress and other negative influences triggers uninhabitable eating

On TV this fat person was "trying" to sue Mc Donalds i think or KFC because it made them Fat

I think the judge told him off by saying "they didn't make you fat, you did"

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Kittenlady

In which case, it would be beneficial for people to find out what foods trigger which hormonal responses in their body. In a situation like your weight and health, making excuses like "Oh, it's my hormones" isn't going to do you any favours.

True, it's much easier for some people than others, but that's life - tough shit. Unless you have an actual problem like an under-active thyroid, which is much less common than there are obese people, you have no excuse other than laziness.

If you want to lose weight, always try and look at the bad stuff you yourself are doing rather than things you can't control. More often than not "Oh I'm fat because it's in my genes" is not only bullshit, but a total cop-out of actually trying.

/lol off-topic - and wow, that came off as much more antagonistic than I intended. Oh well.

Take my words at face value. I never implied it was an excuse. More accurately, I'm just tired of people oversimplifying the issue because I am somewhat of a nutrition buff myself and due to that fact I understand how much misinformation is circulated about the issue. You can't expect people with a genetic predisposition towards gaining weight from carbohydrate intake, to lose weight on 'low-fat' diets. And yet 'low-fat' was the recommendation from many so called experts including the US government for years. What about those people who try to lose weight but don't understand the nitty gritty of nutrition? Are they just lazy? I have a hard time accepting that.

[technomo12]

Originally Posted by Kyero Fox

On TV this fat person was "trying" to sue Mc Donalds i think or KFC because it made them Fat

I think the judge told him off by saying "they didn't make you fat, you did"

yeah that what im trying to say

if you dont wanna get fat

LAY OFF THE FATTY FOODS

christ sake i used to be fat by over eating sweet food but after moving out of the city into a more of a rural area i got nothing to eat but fruits and veggies and now im in the city i lost my appetite on sweet foods

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Take my words at face value. I never implied it was an excuse. More accurately, I'm just tired of people oversimplifying the issue because I am somewhat of a nutrition buff myself and due to that fact I understand how much misinformation is circulated about the issue. You can't expect people with a genetic predisposition towards gaining weight from carbohydrate intake, to lose weight on 'low-fat' diets. And yet 'low-fat' was the recommendation from many so called experts including the US government for years. What about those people who try to lose weight but don't understand the nitty gritty of nutrition? Are they just lazy? I have a hard time accepting that.

Isn't the official promotion of low fat diets more about cardio vascular diseases? And weight more linked to all the forms (and volumes) of carbohydrates that have gained a disproportionate place in our alimentation?

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by JMvS

Isn't the official promotion of low fat diets more about cardio vascular diseases? And weight more linked to all the forms (and volumes) of carbohydrates that have gained a disproportionate place in our alimentation?

There is no definitive link between fat intake (naturally occurring fats, excluding trans) and cardiovascular disease. See the last of my quotes for specific information on the subject. Even discounting that fact, I don't agree with what you are saying. I saw 'low fat' tied to fat loss for years. Maybe not where you live, but definitely here in America. Read this for more information:

Spoiler for About low-fat diets, the FDA, and grain intake:

Originally Posted by The Media tells you that you need to eat grains because they are
recommended on the FDA food pyramid.

What does the research say?
6-11 servings per day! It is interesting to note that as the carbohydrates increased in our diets (209 g/day in 1988-1990 to 241 g/day in 2003-2004)(12), so too did our waist sizes, bodyfat percentages, obesity rates, use of cholesterol lowering drugs, rate of type II diabetes as well as increased rates in metabolic syndrome. “To many nutritional experts, the 1992 pyramid did not reflect the latest research on dietetics (1).” There is much controversy surrounding the role of food lobbyists and their role in the development of recommended portion sizes for their respective clients (ie; the companies with the highest profits have the most lobbyists, therefore the most servings.)

A 2004 study drew direct parallels between the increased consumption of refined carbohydrates and the increasing rates of type II diabetes. In this study the researchers concluded “Increasing intakes of refined carbohydrate (corn syrup) concomitant with decreasing intakes of fiber paralleled the upward trend in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes observed in the United States during the 20th century (11).” A similar study showed “subjects in the highest quintile of energy-adjusted fructose intake had 13.9% higher C-peptide concentrations (P for
trend = 0.01) than did subjects in the lowest quintile (12).” In other words, C-peptide concentrations (which are reflective of insulin resistance and the development of type II diabetes) were much higher in those consuming larger quantities of refined carbohydrates.

Perhaps Bell and Sears (2003) were on track when they proposed “a science-based diet approach (13)” based on research and independent scientific studies, free of financial ties and political agendas.

References
2. Mullins A. Average dress size of a woman increases to 14. The Independent, UK., June 26,
2000.
3. NHANES data on the Prevalence of Overweight Among Children and Adolescents: United
States, 2003–2006. CDC National Center for Health Statistics, Health E-Stat.
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pub...ht_child_03.ht
m)
4. 46. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Flegal KM. High Body Mass Index for Age Among US Children and
Adolescents, 2003–2006. JAMA 2008;299:2401–2405.
5. Reuters. Obese Americans now outweigh the merely overweight. January 9, 2009.
6. Reinberg S. Rate of diabetes cases doubles in 10 years: CDC. US NEWS. October 30, 2008.
7. Nestle M. Food lobbies, the food pyramid, and U.S. nutrition policy. Int J Health Serv. 23(3);
Pp 483-496. 1993.
8. Nestle M. The ironic politics of obesity. Science. 299(5608); Pp 781. 2003.
9. Nestle M. Nutrition and women’s health: the politics of dietary advice. J Am Med Womens
Assoc. 56(2); Pp42-43. 2001
10. Nestle M. Dietary advice for the 1990’s: the political history of the Food Guide Pyramid.
Cadeceus. 9(3); Pp 136-153. 1993.
11. Gross L, Li L, Ford E, Liu S. Food pyramid increased consumption of refined carbohydrates
and the epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the United States: an ecologic assessment.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 79(5); Pp 774-779. 2004
“corn syrup was positively associated with the prevalence of type 2 diabetes (beta =
0.0132, P = 0.038). Fiber (beta = -13.86, P < 0.01) was negatively associated with the
prevalence of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, protein (P = 0.084) and fat (P = 0.79) were
not associated with the prevalence of type 2 diabetes when total energy was
controlled for.”
12. Oza Frank R, Cheng Y, Naravan K, Gregg E. Trends in nutrient intake among adults with
diabetes in the United States: 1988-2004. J Am Diet Assoc. 109(7); Pp 1173-1178. 2009.
13. Wu T, Giovannucci E, Pischon T, Hankinson S, Ma J, Rifai N, Rimm E. Fructose, glycemic load,
and quantity and quality of carbohydrates in relation to plasma C-peptide concentrations
in US women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 80(4); Pp 1043-1049. 2004.
14. Bell S, Sears B. A proposal for a new national diet: a low glycemic load diet with a unique
macronutrient composition. Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 1(3); Pp 199-2008. 2003.

Here's some snippets regarding paleolithic nutrition:

Okeefe J, Cordain L. Cardiovascular disease resulting from a diet and lifestyle at odds with our Paleolithic genome: how to become a 21st-century hunter-gatherer. Mayo Clin Proc. 79(1); Pp 101-108. 2004.:
“Accumulating evidence suggests that this mismatch between our modern diet and
lifestyle and our Paleolithic genome is playing a substantial role in the ongoing epidemics of obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

Cordain L, Eaton S, Miller J, Mann N, Hill K. The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat based, yet non-atherogenic. Eur J Clin Nutr. 56; Pp 42-52. 2002:
“The high reliance upon animal-based foods would not have necessarily elicited
unfavorable blood lipid profiles because of the hypolipidemic effects of high dietary protein (19-35%
energy) and the relatively low level of dietary carbohydrate (22-40% energy).”

Finally (sorry for the tl;dr, but hopefully some will be interested enough to read through), information on cardiovascular disease and carbs:

Manninen A. High protein weight loss diets and purported adverse effects: Where is the evidence? J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 1(1); Pp 45-51. 2004.
“Recent findings by Hu et al. suggests that replacing carbohydrates with protein may be associated with a lower risk of ischemic heart disease.[25] This result is consistent with evidence from metabolic studies that replacement of dietary carbohydrate with protein has favorable effect on plasma lipoprotein and lipid concentrations”

Volek J, Sharman M, Gomez A, Dipasquale C, Roti M, Pumerantz A, Kraemer W. Comparison of a very low carbohydrate and low fat diet on fasting lipids, LDL
subclasses, insulin resistance, and postprandial lipemic responses in overweight
women. J Am Coll Nutr. 23(2); Pp 177-184. 2004.
“the very low-carbohydrate diet, fasting total cholesterol, LDL-C, and HDL-C were
significantly (p < or = 0.05) lower, whereas fasting glucose, insulin, and insulin
resistance (calculated using the homeostatic model assessment) were significantly
higher after the low-fat diet.”

[technomo12]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

There is no definitive link between fat intake (naturally occurring fats, excluding trans) and cardiovascular disease. See the last of my quotes for specific information on the subject. Even discounting that fact, I don't agree with what you are saying. I saw 'low fat' tied to fat loss for years. Maybe not where you live, but definitely here in America. Read this for more information:



Here's some snippets regarding paleolithic nutrition:



Finally (sorry for the tl;dr, but hopefully some will be interested enough to read through), information on cardiovascular disease and carbs:

all i see is people trying to force their fact upon people

as for me i eat what my guts tells me to eat

if it wants meat then eat meat
if it wants carbs eat CARBs
if it want veggies eat veggies
if it wants fatty sugary food eat fatty sugary foods

by doing that i have kep my weight in an astounding 180 lbs for 6 yrs straight

[Unos Hambalos]

I would choose Fastfood because my mom's cooking is bad.

Though, if I choose between homemade food (that can be bought) and fastfood, I'll choose the homemade

[TinyRedLeaf]

You know what? This thread is in serious need of recipes.

All you healthy-eating freaks, time to show that you really know your stuff.

[Kusa-San]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

You know what? This thread is in serious need of recipes.

All you healthy-eating freaks, time to show that you really know your stuff.

There is already one thread about that and there is also one club

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by technomo12

all i see is people trying to force their fact upon people

as for me i eat what my guts tells me to eat

if it wants meat then eat meat
if it wants carbs eat CARBs
if it want veggies eat veggies
if it wants fatty sugary food eat fatty sugary foods

by doing that i have kep my weight in an astounding 180 lbs for 6 yrs straight

Good for you. But lots of people don't have that luxury. I'm not forcing my facts on anyone. Hell, if someone wants to be obese I don't really care. The subject itself is interesting and many people can benefit from the information if they have the initiative.

[WBoon]

I've had McD's and Long John's all my life, and the only things that got fatter are my thighs. Hell, they aren't even obese-fat, yet. Perhaps I'm just born to be underweight. A good thing, probably.

[Liddo-kun]

Will always choose home cooking over fast food.
I have a goal of building up muscles in my abs (currently enrolled at Slimmer's World), and eating at fast-food will probably ruin that.

Have some boneless fish stocked up at the freezer, I cook some every morning for breakfast and pack some with rice for eating at office lunchtime. Also have some canned mushrooms at my cupboard, along with some cans of young corn which I can cook and serve with rice for a fast meal, on days when the time to prepare a meal is short.

If I absolutely have no time to cook a meal at home (yes, it still happens), then I will eat canned tuna instead of ordering at fastfood.

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

There is no definitive link between fat intake (naturally occurring fats, excluding trans) and cardiovascular disease. See the last of my quotes for specific information on the subject. Even discounting that fact, I don't agree with what you are saying. I saw 'low fat' tied to fat loss for years. Maybe not where you live, but definitely here in America. Read this for more information:

Well I was actually referring to two context, both of which are relatively distant from America (in eating habits if not genetics): Switzerland, and the Philippines.
I haven't delved into research material, so I was only referring to public perception and policies in those countries.

In Switzerland, as in other European countries, the emphasize is mostly on promoting fiber intake, and culling hidden sugars. Via cafeteria labels (guaranteeing the availability of the approved proportion of meat, carbs and vegetables in proposed dishes), PR campaigns (5 fruits and vegetables a day) or regulations (calls for forbidding sale of junk food in schools). Of course, this is within a broader health promotion context. Also, sugar here is sugar beet.

In the Philippines, first of all, genetics are different, as the peoples of Austronesian and Chinese origin which populates this part of the World are more adapted to a high carb diet, per their adoption of rice agriculture more than 10k year ago. There concerns are mostly about coronary diseases, associated with the peoples love of deep fried food, and their high salt intake. Of course, a more westernized diet (read: sugar, pure carbs, more meat, more frying and less vegetables) is taking it's toll on the younger generations as elsewhere. And here, sugar is sugar cane.

About low-fat diets, the FDA, and grain intake:

Yeah I recon there's a serious problem with agro-industrial lobbyists in the US. But the trends in the US are not to be compared with those in the rest of the World (especially the Old World), for in the context of those last two centuries, food availability and habits were different on both sides of the Atlantic.

In a historical perspective, Europe has fed almost exclusively on carbs for centuries, or more precisely, on grain and later potatoes, with meat, dairy and vegetables representing a relatively small share of the diet (the figure of the laborer with his daily ration of a pound of bread is recurring in the literature).
On the other hand, nature's bounty and the vast tracts of land available for both grazing and agriculture made meat more available in the American's diet, and actually necessary, for the staple there, maize, is almost pure carbs compared to wheat (25% protein in whole wheat) or rice (10% protein in whole rice).

So the big problem is not as much as the share of carb-type food, but the changes in their nature, for there is a whole world in grains and potatoes. Essentially, the problem is that what wasn't pure carb is becoming pure carb, for modern grain and potato products exclude the fiber and protein rich part which used to be consumed.

And of course there's the problem of sugar (and worst, corn syrup in the US).

[ChainLegacy]

Yeah, there is definitely some leeway between the paleolithic diet I suggest and simple baseline health. As you said, Europe has had carbohydrates for centuries however certain populations were relatively slow in adopting agriculture (such as Ireland, where I trace my ancestry). As a result, Europe is kind of an in-between in terms of carbohydrate tolerance. In Asia, starchy and grainy carbs have been a staple for so long that there is adaptation. In Europe, some people can eat carbs without many health effects and some people can't. Then, when you look at hunter-gatherer peoples that only very recently began consuming an agriculturally influenced diet, such as Australian Aborigines or Inuits, they have very little tolerance and the highest levels of diabetes and hypertension. Real fascinating stuff.

But like you say the worst problems arise from the relatively modern additions to our diet like corn syrup and sugar. Those individuals who already were probably better off not eating carbohydrates get hit doubly hard with the modern diet.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by JMvS

...

So the big problem is not as much as the share of carb-type food, but the changes in their nature, for there is a whole world in grains and potatoes. Essentially, the problem is that what wasn't pure carb is becoming pure carb, for modern grain and potato products exclude the fiber and protein rich part which used to be consumed.

And of course there's the problem of sugar (and worst, corn syrup in the US).

Aye, if it doesn't say "100% whole grain" you're being served poorly by a processed food industry that is less concerned with the consumer than in minimizing their costs. Processed grains have lost all the complexity that makes a carbohydrate a Good Idea to eat.
Also, if it says "corn syrup", "high fructose corn syrup", or "HFCS" then you're being sold something that just LOOKS like the food they're calling it.

I've come to the opinion that they shouldn't be allowed to call HFCS products the food they're simulating. It isn't ketchup if one of the first 3 ingredients is HFCS. It isn't ice cream, etc.

I don't recall a single recipe I've ever seen that says "Add 3 cups of HFCS and mix". I'll put up with a few binder agents or even color additives but this has gotten insane.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Aye, if it doesn't say "100% whole grain" you're being served poorly by a processed food industry that is less concerned with the consumer than in minimizing their costs. Processed grains have lost all the complexity that makes a carbohydrate a Good Idea to eat.
Also, if it says "corn syrup", "high fructose corn syrup", or "HFCS" then you're being sold something that just LOOKS like the food they're calling it.

I've come to the opinion that they shouldn't be allowed to call HFCS products the food they're simulating. It isn't ketchup if one of the first 3 ingredients is HFCS. It isn't ice cream, etc.

I don't recall a single recipe I've ever seen that says "Add 3 cups of HFCS and mix". I'll put up with a few binder agents or even color additives but this has gotten insane.

3 cups is a lot....around 100ml of caramel from ordinary sugar only has a third of sugars (whatever -cose) to a similar amount of corn syrup.

If it is a recipe for sweettooths, I would rather you add Thaumatin (branded as Talin on shelves) to it. It is 24000 times sweeter an ordinary sugar in a same mass.

Though it makes me wonder how can people eat something so disgustingly sweet. I dislike sweet stuff like cakes and sugared tea.