Image not available

710x700

obesity chart.png

🧵 What Causes Obesity?

Anonymous No. 16240307

Anonymous No. 16240318

>obesity defined as too much mass for size
>however could people gain more mass if not by consuming sugar
Brainlet retards.

Image not available

1920x1080

Duttons dysgenic ....jpg

Anonymous No. 16240326

>>16240307
Dysgenics.

Anonymous No. 16240338

>>16240307
Environmental factors that affect the way our homeostasis for blood pressure, insulin, thyroid-related hormones, sex hormones, etc. is working.
On that note, did rising rates of body fat have an impact on penis size, not necessarily in long-term?

Anonymous No. 16240348

>>16240307
Erosion of discipline and food being designed to be as addictive as possible.

Anonymous No. 16240414

>>16240307
>mentally disabled blue check

Anonymous No. 16240422

bad food

Anonymous No. 16240561

>>16240307
Malnutrition. It's cells with dead mitochondria.

Anonymous No. 16240628

Too many calories going in. Not enough calories going out.

Image not available

1750x1118

EAT MORE, NOW.jpg

Anonymous No. 16240632

>>16240307
>What Causes Obesity?
capitalism + marketing

Anonymous No. 16240706

>>16240307
Does corn syrup count as sugar?

Image not available

768x673

IMG_7044.png

Anonymous No. 16240709

>>16240706
Answered my own question (yes), meaning that the correct answer is:

>>16240628
This guy.

Now the real question is where are the excess calories coming from, if not from sugar.

Fat?

Anonymous No. 16240713

hey just wondering but if you charted the % of america that isn't white on that chart would it match that line going up?

Anonymous No. 16240718

Delayed effect of excess sugar.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X19301364

Anonymous No. 16240722

the polyol pathway will convert glucose to fructose causing the metabolic effects of fructose on the body if your starch intake is high enough and other factors that trigger it are correct also the body compensates for low nutritional content of food by eating more

Anonymous No. 16240736

>>16240307
you can gain weight by consuming other stuff than sugar so i think people just eat more fat and other carbonhydrates and eat less sugar. what i wonder is what causes people to eat less sugar? i could think that anti sugar sentiment became popular around 1995 which made people avoid sugar but this didnt change anything about the weight, it just made them compensate for it by eating more stuff which has less sugar.

Anonymous No. 16241079

>>16240307
high fructose corn syrup

Bill No. 16241089

>>16241079
Fag

Anonymous No. 16241526

>>16240307
Less physical activity, people sit on desk now more than ever and we have transportation from air, land and sea, there's very little reason to walk even when a vehicle is always carrying you

Anonymous No. 16241529

>>16240307
Walmart

Gas All Communists No. 16241535

>>16240632
You post that bounty of food as though it's something to be ashamed of

Anonymous No. 16242332

Now post seed oil and animal fat/butter etc intake in those years

Anonymous No. 16242355

>>16240307
is this all sugars or just sucrose (aka white sugar)
how does overall carbs intake look on top of this?

Anonymous No. 16242366

Dietary polyunsaturated fats (notably the omega 6 linoleic acid which is particularly bad as it can bio-accumulate in monogastrics, messes with the 3:6 omega ratio in cell makeup and endocannabinoid interactions) drive chronic insulin sensitivity which causes insulin to be more effective at signalling fat storage in adipocytes, obesity. Eventually as the body seeks homeostasis mechanisms like increased basal lipolysis and elevated branched chain amino acids counter this PUFA driven insulin sensitivity by causing pathological insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes.
Historically human exposure to significant dietary amounts of this type of fat has been highly seasonal and been associated with fattening-up/slowing-down for a long cold winter in higher latitudes. Think eating nuts like squirrels or hibernating mammals fattening up in autumn. With the industrial revolution driving the inception of the vegetable oil industry as a replacement to whale oil for machinery and then the rationing of animal fats and some shoddy science and moral idealogues in the 20th century we are now chronically exposed to this type of fat which most people are not genetically adapted for.

Image not available

540x721

1694835465005488.jpg

Anonymous No. 16242401

>>16240307
Video games and television

Anonymous No. 16242402

>>16242366
>It couldn't possibly be that people are eating more calories and exercising much less
>It's gotta be this one fat found in nuts, eggs, and chickens that's been proven to be necessary to live and generally good for you
Everything I read suggests that higher linoleic acid intake reduces type-2 diabetes risk.
Humans have consumed it forever, and compared with other things its intake hasn't increased in recent decades.
Type-2 diabetes and insulin resistance can be totally reversed by losing weight, not by simply reducing consumption of polunsaturated fats.
Calories in, calories out.

Anonymous No. 16242414

>>16242355
probably just sucrose, i doubt people consume less sugar with all the consumption of processed foods

Anonymous No. 16242417

>>16242402
>Everything I read suggests that higher linoleic acid intake reduces type-2 diabetes risk.
... they run an experiment that shows it increases insulin sensitivity without seeing that is the problem causing the issue. Their flawed paradigm has caused the worsening of the problem over the past half century not any relief, everyone knows if you give a diabetic insulin they get fatter.
It is very easy to get something published if it sucks up to "heart healthy" fats are causes a superficially beneficial result on a cheap/easy to measure metric like c reactive protein or insulin/glucose.

>Humans have consumed it forever, and compared with other things its intake hasn't increased in recent decades.
I partially addresed this with the seasonality but really you are just wrong here in terms of scale. If you want a mainstream academic to go on about how much more linoleic acid we a re consuming these days I think the book "omega balance" has the info in it. But you can also find schizo info graphics easily online.

> Type-2 diabetes and insulin resistance can be totally reversed by losing weight
I should have been more clear. Yes losing weight reduces the compensatory up regulated basal lipolysis from he distended adipocytes. It is a band aid and the data plays that out. Weight loss is almost never maintained over several years 95%+ gain it all back with many being fatter. The actual cause of the dysfunction isn't being addressed and metabolism (especially for warm blooded mammals) is more complex than we like to pretend.

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16242419

> Calories in, calories out.
This is just an axiomatic tautology and human biology is so complex with chaotic emergent behaviour that the first law of thermodynamics is out of its weight class for utility. Like all tautogies they should be judged by their fruits. The obvious plan from CICO is "eat less, move more", let's look at the past 50 years for the fruits of that strategy... Also doubly labelled water data pretty much sinks any simple ideas of how to influence either side of the equation.

Anonymous No. 16242420

>>16242414
According to the author, it's all sugar

Anonymous No. 16242421

> Calories in, calories out.
This is just an axiomatic tautology and human biology is so complex with chaotic emergent behaviour that the first law of thermodynamics is out of its weight class for utility. Like all tautologies they should be judged by their fruits. The obvious plan from CICO is "eat less, move more", let's look at the past 50 years for the fruits of that strategy... Also doubly labelled water data pretty much sinks any simple ideas of how to influence either side of the equation.

Anonymous No. 16242432

>>16242420
cool
now do all carbs

Anonymous No. 16242522

>>16240326
Your Andrew Tate level of intellect is dysgenic. A dark age is when being a scumbag is a more successful strategy than being an honest intellectual. That's where your loop already breaks down.

Anonymous No. 16242527

>>16242421
Last 50 years see people move less and eat more and this refutes the notion that eating less and moving more will make you lose weight? Just eat less fatty.

Anonymous No. 16242534

>>16242421
>axiomatic tautology
Don't bother because they don't even know what that means i.e. they don't know whether they're looking at a cause or an effect and at a problem or a symptom. They don't care either and ''solve'' each tautology with another tautology like willpower, discipline and such. It's all about shifting collective and environmental problems onto individuals but don't dare to speak like that because then you look like a woke-left commie and that's bad because...because...blue haired tranny degeneracy okay?

Anonymous No. 16242537

>>16240338
this
also overeating because of a poor diet lacking in vital micronutrients
calories=/=nutritients
cico is for retards

Anonymous No. 16242575

>>16240307
It's just calories in vs. calories out. Wealthy people can get loads of calories in while spending few calories out. All of the west is globally wealthy, so they all have obesity problems.

Anonymous No. 16242577

>>16240307
A culture that tolerate fat people.

Anonymous No. 16242610

>>16242537
>calories=/=nutritients
There're like 40 essential nutrients. It's obvious that calories, Proteins-(essential) Fats-carbohydrates aren't the whole diet. Only boomers thought that you could be healthy eating hamburgers, pastry and drinking beer.


>cico is for retards
says the dysfunctional dipshit.

Anonymous No. 16242613

>>16240307
Over-eating.

>>16242537
>also overeating because of a poor diet
Shut the fuck up retard. Just eat less.

You can lose weight on a diet of McVinegaryShits alone. Fat fucks like you just have excuses all the time.

Image not available

3400x2400

calories-dietary-....png

Anonymous No. 16242636

>>16240307
calories intake

Anonymous No. 16242673

>>16240632
>>16241535
those are gross food you ameritards eat every day. fuck, it shouldn't even be legal to let swines eat them.

Anonymous No. 16242764

>>16240307
>Stop naming it sugar
>Hey look, our sugar overconsumption is gone

Anonymous No. 16242765

>>16240307
People ate more and moved less

Anonymous No. 16242795

they add industrial oils to everything

Anonymous No. 16242840

>>16240307
sneed oils,alcohol,sugar/carbs

Anonymous No. 16243226

>>16242610
>>16242613
found the retards
nobody would be obese if they ate a natural diet because all of their nutritional needs would be fille, they would be satiated and full long before the possibility of reaching a caloric surplus necessary to become a landwhale was ever possible
but do go ahead and do your yoyo cuts and bulks on grains, vegs, processed meats and whatever other slave food retards like you consume while wasting your lives away

Anonymous No. 16243245

>>16242636
Why are people hyperphagic? Why isn't thermogensis being up regulated? Why has the average body temperature actually declined?

Anonymous No. 16243249

>>16240338
>>16242537
What confuses me with the nutritional deficiencies or environmental factors that slow metabolism is. Why are people much taller now?

Anonymous No. 16243392

>>16240326
The genetic process you're describing happens over tens of thousands of years, not in a civilization's lifespan
Like how america became majority obese in only half a century.

Anonymous No. 16244893

>>16240307
You cause it to yourself. Yes (You)

Anonymous No. 16244973

>>16240326
True. There's a reason countries like Japan and Israel aren't having exponential increases in obesity.
>>16243392
You seriously think Travellers evolved to be fucked up over 10k+ years?

Anonymous No. 16245020

>>16242673
>gross
>fresh meats
>fresh vegetables

I will admit the random pile of cheese slices is bizarre but there's nothing wrong with the rest of it in terms of quality, it's just too much food.

Anonymous No. 16245041

Sitting on our asses.

100% is the cause

Image not available

3000x2111

3000.jpg

Anonymous No. 16245052

Mass production of food, mass advertisement, mass lobbying and everything that goes with all of those things
It all boils down to industrialization and its consequences

Anonymous No. 16245060

>>16240307
Nobody can say. Anyone claiming to know is wrong. All you can say is that it's bad luck.

Anonymous No. 16245083

>>16240307
Not exercising.

>Walmart and onions notwithstanding.

Anonymous No. 16245133

>>16242421
>>This is just an axiomatic tautology and human biology is so complex with chaotic emergent behaviour that the first law of thermodynamics is out of its weight class for utility.
well it can't be this complex since for millions of years there was no obesity

Anonymous No. 16245144

>>16245133
>there was definitely no obesity back then, i can prove it
>something not occurring and then beginning to occur means it cannot be complex

Anonymous No. 16245531

>>16240326
So it's just 'strong men create good times' bullshit but with extra steps? Lmao.
Dutton is a retard.

Anonymous No. 16245535

>>16240709
>Now the real question is where are the excess calories coming from, if not from sugar
You can't possibly be this fuckin retarded.

Anonymous No. 16245538

>>16242421
>Also doubly labelled water data pretty much sinks any simple ideas of how to influence either side of the equation.
Wrong. Unlike you I've actually read Pontzers work and (this is the important part) understood it. He explicitly says in his book Burn that CICO is undeniable. All he argued is that it's a dynamic function, which is obvious to anyone who's ever tracked their calories. Instead of whining about how da Jews made you fat or whatever cope you have, accept responsibility that you're a fat pig with no discipline.

Anonymous No. 16245543

>>16245052
>the unabombtard

Anonymous No. 16245572

>>16242421
>This is just an axiomatic tautology
It's still true though.

Image not available

640x424

1677363244572729.jpg

Anonymous No. 16245589

>it's sugar!
>it's high fructose corn syrup!
>if i eat carbs that digest a bit slower, it's fine!
It's all carbs dummy. But most are too weak to shallow the whole redpill.

Anonymous No. 16245594

>>16245589
Explain how I eat all of those things and remain lean & muscular? Natty too.

Anonymous No. 16245601

>humans used to pick seeds and berries, survive on just that. SEEDS and berries.
>fast forward thousands of years.
>make seed superconcentrate so that one tablespoon has 200 calories, in liquid form to make 100% of the calories bioavailable as opposed to limited due to mastication and digestion
>include that oil in EVERYTHING

Its oil. That simple. Stop cooking with oil, stop frying foods, just eat like a normal person.

Anonymous No. 16245610

>>16245594
Fast metabolism, drug/dopamine resistance or whatever. The point is there is a huge percentage of people that can't handle it. I'm convinced most humans are straight up not adapted for it.

>>16245601
You aren't surviving on fucking seeds and berries before the agricultural revolution lmao. They caught/trapped/scavenged animals. If you aren't eating carbs, no amount of fat is going to get you fat because it will get unpalatable and you would feel too full before you could eat enough to make you obese.

Anonymous No. 16245622

>>16245610
>The point is there is a huge percentage of people that can't handle it.
Yes, the people who are unnaturally sedentary. Humans didn't evolve sitting around on their asses all day, driving cars everywhere and working desk jobs. We evolved walking everywhere, hunting prey, gathering plant foods, playing in physical ways, fucking & fighting.
Nowadays we all work sedentary jobs, have sedentary home lives & sedentary "recreation" (vidya/movies/tv). At the same time, hyper-palatable food is overabundant for even the poorest in society.
The rise in obesity is 100% down to our lifestyles. Sure, a zero-carb diet might result in better health outcomes for sedentary people, but the sedentary lifestyle remains the ultimate problem.

Image not available

443x455

1683922339014.png

Anonymous No. 16245623

Any answer that isn't over-eating is just wrong and stupid and an excuse for fatties to blame something other than their own actions.

There was a guy who lost weight on a diet of only McDonalds, so shut the fuck up about saying it's anything other than over-eating. It should be obvious, but since you're all retarded, health is more than just weight and a diet of only McShits isn't healthy.

Anonymous No. 16245630

>>16245622
lmao@this retard who still believes in the fairy tale of evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2Ve--JatAs

Image not available

529x479

picture2_2[1].png

Anonymous No. 16245632

>>16245630
We all have our own fairy tales.

Anonymous No. 16245635

>>16245610
That's bullshit. Your metabolism is fucked up, and you can't use sugar as fuel.

Anonymous No. 16245654

>>16240307
Try eating less, dumb fucks. It is literally, entirely, that simple.

Anonymous No. 16245666

Fatties be like
>Muh slow metabolism
>Yur fast metabolism
Yet can never quantify precisely how fast or slow a normal metabolism is, let alone the difference in rates, not to mention the mechanisms that causes the (small) variations in metabolism. Idiots, the lot of them.

Oldfag No. 16245676

Food.

/Thread

Anonymous No. 16246245

Sneed oils

Anonymous No. 16246576

>>16240709
>everyone buys sugar shit because no one knows better
>per capita sugar and obesity goes up
>non-fatsos get wise and start cutting sugar, despite not being obese (from genetics/lifestyle)
>fatties keep going
>per capita sugar does down
>obesity keeps going

Anonymous No. 16246578

>>16240326
go back to /pol/

Anonymous No. 16246580

>>16242421
>let's look at the past 50 years for the fruits of that strategy
You mean where people moved less, ate more, and got giga-fat? Are you retarded? Factors influencing CICO are complex. CICO itself is straight forward and incontrovertible. How likely someone is to eat like a shit head for example is famously very genetic, but it's still filtered through CICO. It doesn't change CICO, just how you approach its crucible.

Anonymous No. 16246589

>>16240307
the effects of sedentary lifestyle directly correlating with "screen time". Basically the electronic home entertainment which began subtly enough with VCRs and Ataris, but became more and more aggressive time sinks (Nintendo, Internet, Playstations, XBox, and 100" TVs) to the point there is less and less need to leave the home to be entertained.

Anonymous No. 16246593

>>16243392
>The genetic process you're describing happens over tens of thousands of years, not in a civilization's lifespan
You have zero evidence for this statement. You pulled it out of your ass. It's on the same level of intellectualism as flat earthers. The only thing we know for certain about human evolution, gene selection, and gene expression right now is that it is vastly more complex and quixotic than was "known" 20-30 years ago.

Anonymous No. 16246597

>>16245594
Carbs are goated if you're using them. Nothing tops off glycogen better. Using them is key. Eating a ton of pasta because you're skiing like a mad man is vastly different from eating a ton of pasta because you like italian food.

Image not available

4000x1937

seedoilsbraindama....jpg

Anonymous No. 16246622

>>16240307

Anonymous No. 16246812

>>16246622
Chinamen consume söy all the time. Yet they're not.obese.

Take your meds.

Anonymous No. 16246821

>>16240338
>Environmental factors
yeah environmental factors that make people lazy gluttons. You know that feeling you get when your "full"? If you're eating to that point daily you're eating way too much.

Image not available

2295x1950

fhgfh.jpg

Anonymous No. 16246824

>>16242417
I'm the guy you replied to, yes it's complicated, and yes there are things in the environment now that definitely fuck with metabolism and hormones (I'm a T1D, I'm invested in learning these things), but what makes you think Omega-6 is responsible? You could make a better (though not solid) case for many things, like BPA, PFAS, or medicine metabolites in the water and food. What makes you think linoleic acid plays a role?

Anonymous No. 16246846

>>16245133
Yea people weren't autistically tracking calories for thousands of years and they weren't getting morbidly obese and type 2 diabetes. Something changed, something that has been getting worse over the last century. And it isn't just "food availability" there has been food overabundance in history, hell even just pre ww1 america if you want a bunch of sugar eating thin sedentary office workers.

Anonymous No. 16246853

>>16246846
It's food availability. And most foods available now are mostly carbs. It really is that simple. My dad, not grandpa, dad - grew up on a farm in the 50s and food was just not as easy to get or store then.
People are eating more calories and exercising less, it really is that simple.

Anonymous No. 16246924

>>16246853
I blame the food scientists. they figured our how to make really tasty food. have you ever had a Cheez-It cracker? product of millions of dollars of research, and well spent since those things are more addictive than crack.

Anonymous No. 16247029

>>16245020
Deep fried food is pretty bad and doesn't add that much to the flavour. Replace the fries with oven baked potatos, the sugary buns wuth real buns and the food would be ok.

Anonymous No. 16247031

>>16245610
Everyone was eating carbs 100 years ago and they were fine.

Anonymous No. 16247236

>>16243392
I get why you might say this, so let’s suppose the genetic change between an ancestor and their own descendants can only move slowly. We can still observe a rapid change in the average genetics of of such a species if there is a large degree of genetic variance.
E.g in humans we could see average IQ change rapidly in a population if there was a high variance in IQ to start with say 60-130. The way you could force the average IQ to change is by only breeding people with below 85 IQ; within a single generation the average IQ drops to somewhere below 85 IQ. Hope this helps.

Anonymous No. 16247240

>>16242522
Perhaps an easier way to think of it is that if you’ve low intelligence you’re even more fucked than someone with high intelligence. Instead of 80% child mortality you get just 50%.

Anonymous No. 16247275

>>16242522
Why would you assume intelligence is less strongly selected for in dark ages compared to a complex civilisation with stuff like welfare and infrequent famine due to trade routes?

Anonymous No. 16247348

>>16245531
Yes, cycles have feedback loops.
>>16246578
You may not like it but genetic deterioration due to civilization induced relaxation of Darwinian selection pressures leading to the collapse of civilisation is scientific and political. Many things for that matter are both political and scientific.

Anonymous No. 16247353

>>16246589
Industry in the west has been outlawed and made unprofitable by environmental regulations and wage laws. People in the past kept fit incidentally from their job.