Health Considerations - Post Peak Oil / Climate Change

[boisdevie]

I think there's a reporting bias going on there! You hear about it because folk don't expect it. Elite sports people do have a lower death rate than the general population... I think I saw recently that 18 of the London 2012 athletes have subsequently died - which is around half the age-equivalent general population death rate.

So yes, some very fit young men drop dead... but not as many as unfit folk.

I think these stories are put around by fat people to make themselves feel less bad about being fat.

They would only feel bad about being fat because of social pressures from people who a) live in societies who think being slim is desirable or b) have little understanding of why people get fat.
If you think it is because of over eating, or inactivity, think again.

I weigh 12st just in case you are starting another thought train.

Having a good BMI is desirable. Being overweight isn't desirable or sensible. And most people are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little. There's an awful lot of denial going on re peoples weight. I don't do denial. I'm an alcoholic but haven't had a drop in over 3 years. Who'se fault was that? Mine, all mine. No society, not DNA, mine.

[nexus]

Going back to historical average lifespans, in addition to the high childhood mortality level, large numbers of women died in childbirth (one woman per 100 births). This obviously massively impacts death rates, but is only relevant to a subsection of population. So in answer the OP, I would include higher maternal (and baby) death rates as sadly being a feature of living in the future

[Little John]

I think these stories are put around by fat people to make themselves feel less bad about being fat.

They would only feel bad about being fat because of social pressures from people who a) live in societies who think being slim is desirable or b) have little understanding of why people get fat.
If you think it is because of over eating, or inactivity, think again.

I weigh 12st just in case you are starting another thought train.

Having a good BMI is desirable. Being overweight isn't desirable or sensible. And most people are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little. There's an awful lot of denial going on re peoples weight. I don't do denial. I'm an alcoholic but haven't had a drop in over 3 years. Who'se fault was that? Mine, all mine. No society, not DNA, mine.

Are you sure there is a not a bit of denial going on there? Sometimes, life is meaninglessly unfair. Sometimes, the class you are born into and the genes you inherit have a far bigger influence on one's behaviour and lifestyle "choices" than one might care to admit. Put bluntly, sometimes it just comes down to the lottery of whose vagina you happened to come out of.

In other words, it's both personal choices and genetic/environmental influences and rarely, if ever, exclusively one or the other. The only kind of people who say it is are people who are in a bad place and want to absolve themselves of any responsibility and people who are in a good place and want to claim full responsibility. Both are in denial. Though, I know who I instinctively have most sympathy for.

[vtsnowedin]

A comic strip in today's paper had it about right. Tag line said: "Its hard to stay fit as a fiddle when you're shaped like a cello."
pluggermail@aol.com

[woodburner]

Having a good BMI is desirable. Being overweight isn't desirable or sensible. And most people are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little. There's an awful lot of denial going on re peoples weight.

I accept it WHAT people eat which has a big effect on their weight, but given the lies that have been broadcast since the 1970s this is hardly surprising they eat the wrong stuff, as most people do. Prior to that it was generally accepted that carbohydrates had a fattening effect. Then the message was changed to say that fat was the demon and everybody should switch to healthy carbohydrates, which just happened to be bigger profit earners for the manufacturers.

The simple explanation is that insulin is the fat storing hormone, and this is secreted when there is a higher than required level of glucose in the blood. It gets there if carbohydrates have been eaten. Sugar or starch, it's all the same when digested. The effect of the insulin's action is that people feel hungry, so they eat more. This is now a vicious circle.

People who get fat have a homeostatic state which predisposes them to reach a fat carrying level, but normally it will be self limiting. It is a little unwise to accuse people who are overweight of overeating and being lazy, when you have no evidence that that is the reason. I know that because there is no evidence. Overeating is the effect, not the cause. The carbohydrates are also the reason why most diets fail to achieve a weight reduction.

I have said before in posts that some reading is required, so can I suggest you read Gary Taubes' book "Good Calories Bad Calories"? Come back when you have read it and discuss.

A lazy alternative might be to subscribe to his blog. http://garytaubes.com

[Automaton]

To qualify what I'm about to say, yes, there are as minority of people who have genetic or other biological reasons that contribute to their obesity. But I'm talking about the majority here:

The effect of the insulin's action is that people feel hungry, so they eat more. This is now a vicious circle.

So you agree then, that people are overweight because they eat too much.

For the most part it doesn't really matter much what people eat (as long as the essential dietary elements are there), as proven by the human ability to survive on a wide variety of diets. You can argue fats/carbs all you like (and lots of people have made a living from doing so), but we all know that if we eat less, we will lose weight. It is about quantity, not quality. The biological process you describe is correct; when blood sugar rises, insulin is produces to store the excess as fat. When we begin to get hungry, that fat is taken out of storage to maintain adequate blood glucose levels; or at least it should be. But in overweight people that happens less, simply because they raise their blood glucose by eating more instead, as you describe.

It's like they have an extreme hunger aversion. If they still feel hungry after they've eaten a meal, they eat some more. They snack throughout the day as well as having large meals at set times. And to mangle the old joke, they are already on a diet, the see-food diet ("If I see food, I eat it"). Unless they are very physically active, then of course they will be overweight.

The question to my mind, is why they are so hunger averse. I'd say that part of this is cultural (ready availability of food at all times, encouragement to 'consume', peer pressure, etc), and part habitual (they start doing it, then stop thinking about it, and practice that well-developed human skill of turning a blind eye to it's negative consequences).

What I think we can say, pretty much for sure, is that obesity is not going to be much of a problem in the future (not the one we're all expecting, anyway). So in the meantime eat well, in moderation, and stay active. Instead of eating more, store that food in the cupboard for when the supermarkets become ghostly shells, in the not-too-distant future.... And if you are currently overweight, 'make hunger your friend' for a while.

[Automaton]

To get back on post :

I think a massive problem we face right now is antibiotic resistance. We're getting close to the point where none of them will work anymore, and then we'll really have.... nothing. Hygiene and antibiotics are pretty much all modern medicine has in it's bag of tricks, apart from surgery (which also depends highly on antibiotics). We'll be back to the days of people dying from a tooth infection, or a cut. I'd imagine that the pharmaceutical industry will be toast when the price of oil shoots back up, just like everything else, so if they don't find alternatives soon...

Will this happen before everything collapses, or will it just be part of the convergence of disasters?

How effective are the natural antibiotics found in plants such as garlic? Can herbal medicine fill (some of) the gap?

[Little John]

Funny you should mention herbal medicines; on that point I have been thinking quite a bit recently. I have been wondering how to extract essential medicine concentrates from plants in the event of the NHS going completely private over the coming decades, as now seems likely, and the price of commercial medicines becoming prohibitive.

I am thinking about the basics like painkillers, anti-allergy, anti-infection, anti-inflammatory, perhaps even heart regulatory medicines like beta blockers etc.

[woodburner]

To qualify what I'm about to say, yes, there are as minority of people who have genetic or other biological reasons that contribute to their obesity. But I'm talking about the majority here:

The effect of the insulin's action is that people feel hungry, so they eat more. This is now a vicious circle.

So you agree then, that people are overweight because they eat too much.

No I do not agree. I have said that people eat too much because they are given hunger signals because insulin has made the fuel from the food unavailable to them. This drives them to eat more. I am banging my head gainst a wall here since I detect you have belief (as I once did) that people get fat because they are gluttons. Until you go and read up on the subject there is o point in discussing it.

For the most part it doesn't really matter much what people eat (as long as the essential dietary elements are there), as proven by the human ability to survive on a wide variety of diets. You can argue fats/carbs all you like (and lots of people have made a living from doing so), but we all know that if we eat less, we will lose weight. It is about quantity, not quality.

It matters a lot what people eat. On a starvation diet ie one that does not provide all the calories expended, people will lose weight (both lean and fat people) but then if the amount of calories is returned to the amount of calories expended their weights will return to the original weight and will even overshoot. It most definitely IS about quality and not just quantity. Go and read " Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects" by Weston Price.

The biological process you describe is correct; when blood sugar rises, insulin is produces to store the excess as fat. When we begin to get hungry, that fat is taken out of storage to maintain adequate blood glucose levels; or at least it should be. But in overweight people that happens less, simply because they raise their blood glucose by eating more instead, as you describe.

Once the glucose is stored as adipose fat, it is effectively removed from circulation while insulin is present, any energy will have to come from other sources one of which is protein ie muscles. Fat will not be available from adipose tissue until insulin has fallen sufficiently. The problem is insulin willl make the blood glucose fall below the point where people feel hungry, and so they will eat more.

It's like they have an extreme hunger aversion. If they still feel hungry after they've eaten a meal, they eat some more. They snack throughout the day as well as having large meals at set times. And to mangle the old joke, they are already on a diet, the see-food diet ("If I see food, I eat it"). Unless they are very physically active, then of course they will be overweight.

You are displaying a marked lack of knowledge about the subject, try reading something relevant

The question to my mind, is why they are so hunger averse. I'd say that part of this is cultural (ready availability of food at all times, encouragement to 'consume', peer pressure, etc), and part habitual (they start doing it, then stop thinking about it, and practice that well-developed human skill of turning a blind eye to it's negative consequences).

This is exactly what carbohydrates will do, and especially gliadin which is found in the tryticum varieties of wheat. Read "Wheat Belly" by William Davis.

What I think we can say, pretty much for sure, is that obesity is not going to be much of a problem in the future (not the one we're all expecting, anyway). So in the meantime eat well, in moderation, and stay active. Instead of eating more, store that food in the cupboard for when the supermarkets become ghostly shells, in the not-too-distant future.... And if you are currently overweight, 'make hunger your friend' for a while.

You have a way to go to understand obesity. If you go to the US, it is the poorest which are most obese because of their diet which consists mostly of cheap carbohydrates.

Those who think people are fat merely because they over eat and are under active really need to do some research to understand the subject.

[vtsnowedin]

Those who think people are fat merely because they over eat and are under active really need to do some research to understand the subject.

Are you proposing that those that over eat and are under active do not get fat because of those two factors? Are there examples of populations that behaved accordingly that did not get fat?

[Little John]

He is making a somewhat more complicated argument than that. He is suggesting, among other things, that the overeating is a consequence of the diet they are on. With regards to sedentary lifestyles, the middle and upper classes are at least as sedentary as their more overweight counterparts in the lower classes and yet they do not get as overweight. which, leaves us with two possible explanations. Either the middle and upper classes are exercising greater self-restraint in the amount they consume. Or, the lower classes are having their appetites negatively raised by virtue of the type of food they can afford to eat. Namely, primarily carbohydrates.

[fuzzy]

Those who think people are fat merely because they over eat and are under active really need to do some research to understand the subject.

Are you proposing that those that over eat and are under active do not get fat because of those two factors? Are there examples of populations that behaved accordingly that did not get fat?

VT you must know people who can shovel anything in their mouth and not get fat? There are plenty about in the UK, about 5-10% of males I would guess. Woodburner is right, and moreover the argument is seen backwards. We live in an unnatural time of excess - the adapted state for man in high latitudes is to be short of food except for lucky times. So people who do not put on weight in todays heated/low exercise/high food intake system, or who lose it rapidly when dieting, are at an evolutionary disadvantage. That group includes most of the ADHD, sociopaths and criminals, which makes sense if you aren't designed for shortages. Obesity will be gone when food is harder to get.

[boisdevie]

You can talk about evolution all you like but I have a brain and know that if I begin to put on weight then I exercise more or eat less. We don't wake up one day suddenly 3 stone overweight as if by magic.

[woodburner]

Thank you Little John and fuzzy, getting things over to dis-believers can be frustrating.

boisdevie, not everyone has the same make up. I am "lucky" in that often I can decide I will change a habit and just do it. I have now got past the stage where, for the most part, seeing smelling or thinking about food makes me feel hungry. Quite a few people can't do this, and eating carbohydrates raises insulin, using low-calorie sweetners raises insulin, smelling food raises insulin, seeing food raises insulin, even thinking about food raises insulin. Any or any combination or all of the above can cause this response. Insulin's action is to store fats and blood glucose so the blood is depleted of nutirent and so the person feels hungry. Hunger is a primitive and powerful driver, fortunately so in the natural world, where taking the opportunity to eat at probably limited opportunities is vital to survival. In todays world of excess for most of the people able to read this forum, becoming overweight is easy.

No, of course people don't wake up suddenly over weight by magic, but then neither did you wake up after having suddenly written 170+ posts by magic, or Little John wake up after having suddenly writtten 4700+ posts by magic. It happens little by little. For example walking a thousand miles, one step at a time. Integration allows you to achieve enormous effects bit by bit.

For the sake of a few £s and a few weeks of reading you could find enlightenment, I have suggested books, why live in denial?

[emordnilap]

https://youtu.be/B_P8j4Zyqug?t=3m10s