Economic growth is making you really, really fat

Tina says:

06:11am | 05/10/11

The authors argument is that we dont know when to stop and then run it to the ground like the Roman Empire. But I guess it will all regulate itself one way or the other.

Tubesteak says:

08:03am | 05/10/11

Firstly, your average is wrong, Erick. Humans had a life expectancy of 30 years because of a high infant mortality rate and greater instance of dying earlier from unnatural causes. If you survived that you could still live easily into your sixties. That’s the problem with averages.

Secondly, this doctor is completely wrong. It’s not economic growth that’s making us fat. It’s the dilution of first world countries and third world countries. We have outgrown our capacity to produce quality food and have turned to cheaper sources. This is not economic growth. We have gone backwards because we always want more for le$$. Therefore, we find short-cuts (corn syrup being a great example). This leads to poorer quality and a spiral downwards.

We are now awatiting the next economic/scientific breakthrough that will enable us to start a new growth pattern with greater returns. Just like plowing did for us. Or machines did for us. Or oil did for us.

I wish I knew what that will be and I wish I were the inventor of it.

Anna C says:

08:39am | 05/10/11

I agree with Erick. I would rather be fat, prosperous sloth living in the West then be thin and starving in Africa.

But a little discipline when it comes to food and lifestyle choices doesn’t go astray either. My personal motto is: everything in moderation and that includes food, exercise, alcohol etc.

gobsmack says:

01:04pm | 05/10/11

The 75 and 80 year olds of today are the people who grew up in the 1930s and 1940s.
There is no guarantee that people who were raised in later times and brought up on highly processed food will achieve similarly high average life spans.

marley says:

01:32pm | 05/10/11

@gobsmack - I grew up in the 50s and 60s (in Canada) and I didn’t grow up on processed food.  I think your time frame is a bit off.

I do think your point is correct, though:  I recall reading somewhere that people are experiencing diseases in their 30s and 40s that their parents are only getting in their 60s and 70s.

Nathan says:

06:36am | 05/10/11

what are you on about

Michael N says:

09:09am | 05/10/11

It’s a response to the OP Nathan - what don’t you understand?

Disagree says:

11:54am | 05/10/11

thanx Michael… I thought it made sense..

Nathan says:

11:46pm | 05/10/11

its irrelevant it discusses economics but not in what is being discussed here. You can’t just have a point an answer any question you want with it….NOT RELATED TO THIS ARTICLE .

I can read and comprehend, even what you wrote was not insightful on any level its a few points everyone knows with fluff written around it oh your projection can’t be possible either a basic economic understand would tell you that

Nathan says:

06:30am | 05/10/11

Super D
yeah and aid provides the foundations for economic growth without infrastructure many of these countries will not have the economic growth. Do you really have much of an understanding as to why the government gives money in Aid its not because we are nice its because we want something out of it in return.

RyaN says:

12:35pm | 05/10/11

@Nathan: typically they give the aid to pad the wallets of the corrupt regimes, thinking it goes anywhere else is naive and laughable.

Nathan says:

11:48pm | 05/10/11

@Ryan
Some cases their is bribery but it is not widespread i don’t think you have a clue what goes on or how the system actually works if you could name 3 or more current australian aid programs i would be surprised

Adam Diver says:

11:06am | 05/10/11

Are you clarifying that comment with “in first-world countries”, or is it a broad statement?

Adam Diver says:

08:11am | 05/10/11

Losing weight is in the mind. That is it. Everyone knows the secret to losing weight; diet and exercise, but obviously knowing the secret is not enough.

If you go on a “diet” you will put the weight back on. You need to change your lifestyle, your habits and your default settings, i.e change your mind.

Tina says:

08:22am | 05/10/11

Mahhrat

Whereas I agree with the basic message in your post, I think 3 weeks of experience with a special diet doesnt really qualify for expert advice. And why do you emphasise that you dont work out? Your diet doesnt require you to work out? Is that supposed to be a positive? Excercise is not only for losing weight. Its making you feel good, strenghten your body, your immune system, etc etc.

Al says:

08:53am | 05/10/11

Just wait untill you hit the diet wall.
Any specific diet will only be effective for around 4 weeks or so, after which unless the diet is changed the body adapts to the diet and the weight loss ceases (or even reverses).
Try changing the type of diet you are on every 3 to 4 weeks and guess what, the changes continue.

Mahhrat says:

08:57am | 05/10/11

@Tina,

I’m really disappointed I have to do this.

I’m not on a “diet”, I am attempting to alter the way I think about food, because how I’ve been eating is unhealthy.

I have been on every “diet” imaginable.  I am a lifetime member of Jenny Craig.  I have done Weight Watchers, Tony Ferguson, Herbalife, Atkins and Diet for LIfe.

I worked for DSTO Scottsdale in 2007.  They’re the nutritionists, biologists and chemists that construct the dietary needs for the ADF.  A more focussed place of dietary and research food sciences you will not find outside of CSIRO.  It is they who taught me that lean meats and fresh produce is what we should be eating - the boffins there call in “Paleolithic eating” - essentially, eating what we can hunt and gather.  The growth of modern crops allows for a fantastic variety of food, but most of it is highly processed with salts, fats and sugars, none of which are good in the quantities we consume.

Oh, and my father’s a chef, and I grew up in restaurants.  So yeah mate, I’ve got a fair idea what I’m on about.

The problem with all the above systems, as you right say, is that they are all “diets”.  So I am trying to do it the hard way, but simply not eating crap any more, eating less of pretty much everything else, and re-starting what used to be pretty regular walking exercise for me.

I don’t exercisse much at the moment because I have a bad back, caused by being morbidly obese.  I need to drop some KG so I can safely up the tempo.  The goal is to play senior football with my brother.  That goal is two years away.

I did forget an important bit above cos I was in a hurry, and that was “Energy in must be less tha Energy out.”

Let me give you an example.  I’m about to invite my brother and his wife over for dinner this weekend.  My first thought was to make pizza.  Realising grand final weekend was a bad one food-wise, I’ve now changed that to salmon with a pear, rocket and walnut salad.

That’s me trying to change my “default” thinking, as Adam cleverly puts it.  It’s a long, slow road ahead, but unless I want to be able to ride my bike again, I have to get the kilos off my back and hips.

Saying all that, fuck I’m hungry

Jade says:

09:44am | 05/10/11

Not true Al, I have lost weight doing the same diet for 3-4 months and never had a gain in that period of time.  I am currently on a high protein low carb food plan and once a week have a two meals of my choice to shake up the metabolism. 

Weight watchers isn’t so bad, that helps you realise what you are actually eating. Tony Ferguson is a crock as you’re screwed once you stop the shakes (saying that I did lose 20kg using this system) and now 4 years later have managed to put 10kg back on which I am trying to lose again (all my own fault though - no exercise and excessive eating does that).

Some things work differently for each person. It shouldn’t be a diet, but a life style change.  Hopefully I can keep up the low carb high protein thing that I am doing now if it does show results.

Good work Mahhrat for making a positive change in your life and good luck.

Kheiron says:

09:57am | 05/10/11

What the hell are you talking about Al?
Your body doesn’t develop an ‘immunity’ to specific diets, that’s stupid. The large weight loss in the first few weeks is your body dumping water. Then it’s a simple case of intake < output, which is the actual work.
If you manage to keep up a weight loss of ~5kg a week for 2 months or longer I can assure you what you’re doing isn’t ‘getting fit and healthy’, it’s tempting death.

Tina says:

10:26am | 05/10/11

The amount of knowledge that you all have with diets and weight loss programmes over so many years is so sad. I assume you need a plan when you are already beyond a few kilos too many, but generally I would just promote an active lifestyle, having fun, enjoying the sun and hold off a little on the crap stuff and processed foods.

Something must be very wrong when people have go through decades of dieting. How did they get into that position in the first place? I hope you manage to get back on track, Mahhrat.

Adam Diver says:

11:10am | 05/10/11

Good Luck Mahrat, the paleolithic diet, is a very good starting point, and reminds me of the Jack Lalane motto to food “If humans made it, then don’t eat it”.

I thought up the default settings thing, when I realised I had a huge number of sub-concious “rules” with my eating in particular. I could still be relatively unhealthy, but there were depths I would never descend. I noticed others had no such qualms, my pet issue being energy drinks in the morning.

Mahhrat says:

11:24am | 05/10/11

@Tina, I was raised on an anglo diet of meat, cheese and three-veg.  I didn’t really know much else existed until I grew up.  That’s hardly my parent’s fault, it was all they knew.  It’s just food smarts.  When we were all farmers, up and moving 12 hours or more a day, you needed irregular, massive feeds.

Sitting at desks like we do now means you just plain need less.

I just enjoyed a lovely salad with marinated mushrooms, fetta-stuffed peppers, roast capsicum, tomato, red onion and two eggs for protein.  I figure I put down about 2000-2500 kilojoules.

At 183cm, I should eat about 8500 to 9000 a day, more if I exercise properly.  If I can keep to that level for 18 months, I’ll lose the weight.

My issues are emotional. I eat when I’m emotional (either high or low) so the truly hard times come when I’m feeling particularly up or down.  I’m just constantly nagging myself to not eat another whatever.

Geoff Russell says:

12:02pm | 05/10/11

Mahhrat:  If your nutritionists were advocating the paleodiet, they weren’t being very scientific. Does anybody have any good data on lifespans of people living on this diet in a modern context? No.  Do they have good data on the lifespans and disease incidence on paleolithic people living on that diet? No. Does lean red meat cause bowel cancer? Yes (World Cancer Research Fund 2007).  Are there any examples of long lived healthy active populations living today? Yes. Do they eat a paleo diet? No. Is the paleodiet sustainable? ... ie., can it feed a substantial proportion of the population? No.  The paleodiet is just pseudo scientific bunkum ... lots of theory, no substantive data.

marley says:

01:26pm | 05/10/11

@Geoff Russell - I don’t know much about the science (or pseudoscience) of the paleodiet, but I do know bunkum when I see it.  Your demand for evidence of life expectancies of populations of people on paleo diets as proof they work is one such. 

If we don’t have any long-lived populations of people on the paleo diet, neither do we have any long-lived populations of vegans.  You use other measurements to establish that the vegan diet is healthy, but deny the paleo supporters anything but life expectancy charts.  Now it’s true we have some vegans who live long lives, as we have some people on just about any diet you could name.  But there is no evidence in the life expectancy tables you demand to support any form of diet (except perhaps the Japanese diet).  And certainly, the life expectancy of the average Hindu vegetarian is well below that of the average Australian meat-eater.  Life expectancy in this context is meaningless, as is incidence of disease.  If you’re paleolithic man, you’re far more likely to die from tetanus, pneumonia, or frostbite than modern man, and that has nothing at all to do with diet.

As for red meat, no, it does not “cause cancer.”  High consumption of red meat is associated with a higher risk of cancer.  There’s a correlation between high consumption of red or processed meat and a higher risk of colon and colorectal cancer, but no significant correlation with increased risk of rectal cancer.  Your take on this issue is simplistic

GreekSnake says:

01:45pm | 05/10/11

On the Mahrat vs Tina debate, I think M is slightly bitter and jaded by the attempts to change using cyclic “diets” and fads. T, I think you have a more pragmatic approach (whatever works right?)... Either way the entire thing can be summed up quite quickly. Unless you want abs like Usher, a serious glance at what you put in your mouth combined with 2-3 one hour sessions of exericse per week will drop weight.

Now for those crazy enough to pursue a 6-pack, you need to go that extra mile. Quite literally track every single calorie you ingest and invest in a heart rate monitor to figure out how many calories you burn where and when. Combine that with a single carb (cabrs NOT fat) loading meal (I think Jade mentioned this in a form of cheat meals) to stimulate leptin production… and THEN drink the right about amount of water and get 10 hours sleep a night (VERY important) and you might be on the way…

I should add that it appears to be a long and draining process that requires months of dedication, not an info-mercial purchase and “15 minutes a day”.

Sean says:

10:17pm | 05/10/11

@Marley

If you want the most comprehensive research in human history on how diet effects life spans and disease, check out the China Study. Plenty of real world info about animal vs plant based diets. The stats are pretty irrefutable, and if you approach it with an unbiased, scientific mind, it will likely change your views on red meat(it did with me, a former omnivore who thought he ‘needed’ meat for athletic reasons).

Geoff Russell says:

08:00am | 06/10/11

@marley: There is plenty of data on disease rates of vegans, vegetarians and omnivores in many contexts. Have a look at pubmed. Standardised mortality rates at all ages for vegetarians has been compared with omnivores in the UK ... typically the former is about 50% of the latter for all major diseases. Hence, they live longer. There is plenty of data. There isn’t as much data on vegans but there is more than enough to show that, generally speaking, they are healthier than the norm. Of course, chips and coke is vegan, so there will be sickly vegans and healthy vegans. With the paleodiet, there is nothing that would pass for data on this lot. Maybe there will be one day if enough people adopt the data, but the environmental impacts would be devastating if large numbers of people did that. Sure you can have sickly vegetarians, there are plenty in India. There are plenty of sickly non-vegetarians in India ... so what. 

As for the correlation/causation debate. The World Cancer Research Fund report is written by epidemiologists who are obsessively careful about the distinction and they define exactly what is required for their use of the phrase “A causes B”.  Having done that, they are explicit ... red and processed meat CAUSE bowel cancer. It’s not my judgment, but the view of that report with its 150+ scientific authors. Google the report and read the relevant section.

marley says:

08:36am | 06/10/11

@Sean - actually, I’ve read several refutations of the statistics and methodology used in the China Study.

Mahhrat says:

07:56am | 05/10/11

Re the school thing, definitely, Geoff.  My kid gets dropped off and catches the bus home.  I remember as a kid walking a mile each way each day.

I asked Em to walk such a distance, she whined.  Of course, I told her to suck it up and get her shoes on, but them I’m nice like that.  Funny thing was, we got into an epic game of number-plate counting, and she’d walked 4 km before she knew it.

Tina says:

11:05am | 05/10/11

I remember the introduction of Red Bull. Noone took them seriously trying to sell something so ridiculously overpriced. But it hit like a bomb. The kids loved it (and still do?).

The problem is that we are programmed to find rich foods and drinks tasty as there was a time we needed to consume whatever we can get our hands on - the richer the better. And now we love Gatorade and Double Down Burgers.

Tina says:

11:26am | 05/10/11

Or maybe incentives for gyms? My gym is so blo*dy expensive.

malohi says:

01:53pm | 05/10/11

My gym is $6 a week. 24 hour entry. Up to 70 kilo dumbells.
Yeeeeahh Boooiiiii

Kika says:

02:50pm | 05/10/11

Or rebates from your health insurance for having a gym membership?