A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Calorie
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Evolutionary approach to weight



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 30th, 2007, 10:43 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-calorie
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Evolutionary approach to weight

27/09/2007 UK Daily Telegraph

William Leith reviews Waistland: the (R)evolutionary Science behind
our Weight and Fitness Crises by Deirdre Barrett

At the start of this sensible book about the "weight and fitness
crisis" in America, the Harvard psychologist Deirdre Barrett tells us
some shocking things. By 1995, she says, two-thirds of Americans were
overweight, hundreds of thousands were dying fat-related deaths, being
overweight was people's most common gripe and obesity was poised to
overtake smoking as the biggest cause of preventable death. All of
this, she says, accounted for $99 billion in medical costs.

What's more shocking is that, as she points out, in the decade since
then, things have got much worse - by 2004, people were eating 50 per
cent more fast food, and the annual medical bill had risen to $117
billion. The problem, in other words, is bad, and it's getting worse,
and we can't seem to stop it. So why does fattening food - sugar,
starch and fat itself - have such a grip on us?

The answer, says Barrett, lies in the study of evolution. As animals,
we are genetically almost identical to our Stone Age ancestors. We
live in advanced societies, with supermarkets and cars and lifts, but
we are built to be hunter-gatherers. We are programmed to seek out
fat, sugar, starch and salt, because, in the Stone Age, these things
were hard to come by. When they turn up in abundance, our bodies, for
the most part, can't say no.

She tells us lots of interesting things about our hunter-gatherer
ancestors, who immediately preceded the first farmers. The point about
farming, she says, is that, although it makes populations bigger and
tribes more powerful, it's not necessarily healthier for the
individual.

Rest of article he http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...7/bobar122.xml

Book he
http://www.amazon.com/Waistland-evol...1089117&sr=8-1

  #2  
Old October 5th, 2007, 01:11 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-calorie
Adak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Evolutionary approach to weight

On Sep 30, 2:43 pm, wrote:
27/09/2007 UK Daily Telegraph

William Leith reviews Waistland: the (R)evolutionary Science behind
our Weight and Fitness Crises by Deirdre Barrett

At the start of this sensible book about the "weight and fitness
crisis" in America, the Harvard psychologist Deirdre Barrett tells us
some shocking things. By 1995, she says, two-thirds of Americans were
overweight, hundreds of thousands were dying fat-related deaths, being
overweight was people's most common gripe and obesity was poised to
overtake smoking as the biggest cause of preventable death. All of
this, she says, accounted for $99 billion in medical costs.

What's more shocking is that, as she points out, in the decade since
then, things have got much worse - by 2004, people were eating 50 per
cent more fast food, and the annual medical bill had risen to $117
billion. The problem, in other words, is bad, and it's getting worse,
and we can't seem to stop it. So why does fattening food - sugar,
starch and fat itself - have such a grip on us?

The answer, says Barrett, lies in the study of evolution. As animals,
we are genetically almost identical to our Stone Age ancestors. We
live in advanced societies, with supermarkets and cars and lifts, but
we are built to be hunter-gatherers. We are programmed to seek out
fat, sugar, starch and salt, because, in the Stone Age, these things
were hard to come by. When they turn up in abundance, our bodies, for
the most part, can't say no.

She tells us lots of interesting things about our hunter-gatherer
ancestors, who immediately preceded the first farmers. The point about
farming, she says, is that, although it makes populations bigger and
tribes more powerful, it's not necessarily healthier for the
individual.

Rest of article hehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...07/09/27/bobar...

Book hehttp://www.amazon.com/Waistland-evol...hind-Fitness/d...


I agree that we are genetically set up to be hunter-gatherers, and not
farmers, (let alone office workers, lol). The problem with the hunter-
gatherer society is simply that it doesn't allow for much time/effort
in areas of specialization. Without this specialization,
we would be VERY much behind in our development of science and
industry - in every field.

In fact, we would be still quite primitive without the benefit of
farming and animal husbandry. These are the two benefits most
responsible for the rise of civilization, as a whole. Compare our
society with that of any hunter-gatherer tribe.

Another side to this is famine - a big killer in the hunter-gatherer
societies. Game animals move on, and can't always be followed
(typically they move into another tribe's land. If you enter that land
to hunt, you're likely to be killed). Native plants have times when
they will not produce due to lack of rain, (or too much rain),
infestation of grasshoppers/locusts, mites, mice, etc. In earlier
times, and even today in third world countries, famine is a big threat
to life. Even strong tribes of native american indians, like the
Lakota (Sioux), faced dreadful periods when they had to eat grass,
etc., just to stay alive. Despite the fact that the buffalo herds had
not been hunted yet by the white man.

No doubt, we are made to be moving and exercising/working a lot harder
than we do in our sedentary lifestyle, today. As we use our muscles
less, we also have less muscle mass, which causes us to need still
fewer calories to maintain ourselves. This, at the same time that we
have so many more quick and easy prepared foods which are not just
good tasting, but attractively packaged and marketed, with especially
heavy advertising.

Is there anyone in the modern world who doesn't know what a Big Mac
is?

Yet one Big Mac, with "regular fries", and a milk shake, has more
calories than most of us can eat in a whole day, without gaining fat.
We just aren't that active: we play video games, not ride bicycles; we
watch TV/Movies, or others playing sports - but we're not playing
them, we're just sitting on our butts, watching them, sedentary as you
please. We don't push the lawnmower to make it cut grass, we sit on
our butts, and have it push us around the yard.

It's stunning watching old film from the 40's and 50's. Right away,
you see how thin nearly everybody is - and strong, too. Our houses,
vehicles, even our airplanes, have all been re-designed to accommodate
not just an aging population, but a fatter and weaker one, as well.

It's a sad thing to see how our fitness and well-being, have gone
straight down the toilet.









  #3  
Old October 5th, 2007, 07:15 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-calorie
Cubit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 653
Default Evolutionary approach to weight

I like Paleo ideas too. However, the theories on what a hunter gatherer
diet should be seem questionable. There is too much guesswork involved.
Also, I wonder if the correct diet might be the diet of ancestors of 20
million years ago. Thee is no logical basis for picking the period just
prior to agriculture, IMHO.


wrote in message
ups.com...
27/09/2007 UK Daily Telegraph

William Leith reviews Waistland: the (R)evolutionary Science behind
our Weight and Fitness Crises by Deirdre Barrett

At the start of this sensible book about the "weight and fitness
crisis" in America, the Harvard psychologist Deirdre Barrett tells us
some shocking things. By 1995, she says, two-thirds of Americans were
overweight, hundreds of thousands were dying fat-related deaths, being
overweight was people's most common gripe and obesity was poised to
overtake smoking as the biggest cause of preventable death. All of
this, she says, accounted for $99 billion in medical costs.

What's more shocking is that, as she points out, in the decade since
then, things have got much worse - by 2004, people were eating 50 per
cent more fast food, and the annual medical bill had risen to $117
billion. The problem, in other words, is bad, and it's getting worse,
and we can't seem to stop it. So why does fattening food - sugar,
starch and fat itself - have such a grip on us?

The answer, says Barrett, lies in the study of evolution. As animals,
we are genetically almost identical to our Stone Age ancestors. We
live in advanced societies, with supermarkets and cars and lifts, but
we are built to be hunter-gatherers. We are programmed to seek out
fat, sugar, starch and salt, because, in the Stone Age, these things
were hard to come by. When they turn up in abundance, our bodies, for
the most part, can't say no.

She tells us lots of interesting things about our hunter-gatherer
ancestors, who immediately preceded the first farmers. The point about
farming, she says, is that, although it makes populations bigger and
tribes more powerful, it's not necessarily healthier for the
individual.

Rest of article he
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...7/bobar122.xml

Book he
http://www.amazon.com/Waistland-evol...1089117&sr=8-1



  #4  
Old October 7th, 2007, 05:19 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-calorie
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default Evolutionary approach to weight

"It's stunning watching old film from the 40's and 50's. Right away,
you see how thin nearly everybody is - and strong, too. "

True. I notice that when you do see a fat guy, he's an idiot or a
person without moral. I would be interested in knowing at around what
years we started seeing much more fat persons on TV.

  #5  
Old October 7th, 2007, 07:22 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-calorie
Adak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Evolutionary approach to weight

Fat "character" actors have been around for a long time, in
Hollywood.

Jackie Gleason, on "The Honeymooner's",
Chill Will, the raspy voiced comedy sidekick in a lot of early Western
movies. (Stagecoach was one).

More recently, the black fat kid on "What's Happening?", both Jim and
John Belushi, Star Jones, (just had her stomach stapled finally, this
year), Mama Cass, (of the Mama'a and the Papa's), and Carol Mannheim
(excellent actress, but really big).

Oprah Winfrey is probably the most famous, and most visible,
overweight person. She worked like crazy to lose all her fat (very
successful), but then slid back to a more comfortable weight because
it took so much effort and time to stay slim, she said. She actually
ran in the NYC marathon one year, in a very tight spandex track suit.

Richard Simmons used to be the fat grape in the Hanes Underwear
commercials, and has made a career out of helping people avoid his own
dieting mistakes (he lost most of the hair on his head from too little
protein and vitamins on a crash diet he undertook).

I'm sure I've missed a bunch, though. It's always been easy for
Hollywood to stereotype fat actors. Perhaps because there are so few
roles available for them, unless you're already a well known talent.
Seems it's a common screenwriter's crutch. Can't remember but two
"heroic" roles for a fat person. Carol Mannheim's character as a TV
lawyer, and Steven Seagall is pretty heavy in "Belly of the Beast".

I take that back, John Wayne had a lot of weight in his last few
films, like "The Cowboys", etc. I felt sorry for the horse that had to
carry him
around, he must have been 300 lbs., plus with a gut like that, and
being 6' 4" tall.

In the population itself, I'd have to give the nod to the early 1980's
as the real start of the fat parade in the USA. Gym classes were
changed from being fitness oriented, to just being "activities", like
walking around in your street clothes for 20-30 minutes. (No kidding).
Most coaches were let go to save money, unless they were involved in
an "essential" varsity team (baseball, basketball, football). Fast
food was all the rage, kids were bombarded with "Sugary" cereals
during kid's cartoons on Saturday morning. Video /Computer games were
becoming popular as well.

I believe the only thing that slowed down the spread of the fat, was
the incredible popularity of Running, in the 1970's and
1980's.Unfortunately, that exercise, while great for burning calories,
(and it's own source of a high), also left you prone to injuries,
before too long.

During WWII, Hermann Goering (Head of the German Luftwaffe), was huge.
People blamed him for the blitz in London, etc. Naturally, it was the
very thin Heinrich Himmler and his very handsome and thin assistant
who came up with the plan to round up and murder all the jews,
communists, defeatists, etc., from Adolph Hitler's idea's. The sight
of Goering trying to waddle around in his pretty uniform and leather
coat, or worse yet, to see him actually try to shoehorn himself into a
plane was a bit of a howl.

Worse image I've seen for stereotype of a fat person:

Norbrett and Big Mamma, (Big Mamma's House, maybe?)

Those were all done with costumes, but they look VERY real, right down
to the dimpled fatty thighs, and they're the worst stereotypes I can
even imagine.











  #6  
Old October 7th, 2007, 05:12 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-calorie
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default Evolutionary approach to weight

On 7 oct, 03:22, Adak wrote:

Thanks for this history lesson.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
evolutionary approach to diet [email protected] Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 September 21st, 2007 03:12 PM
Huge Evolutionary Gap Between Whites & Africans Deeandre' Babydaddy Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 August 18th, 2006 06:37 PM
the positive weight loss approach brenda001 Weightwatchers 0 April 5th, 2005 03:31 PM
the positive weight loss approach brenda001 Weightwatchers 0 April 5th, 2005 03:29 PM
Holistic Approach To Weight Loss Ronald Pelleteri Weightwatchers 7 May 31st, 2004 11:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.