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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Evolutionary approach to weight
On 7 oct, 03:22, Adak wrote:
Thanks for this history lesson. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |