Being Fat...Is it a Choice

[TallFatSue]

Originally Posted by Carrie

Sue, I'm glad you're so positive about being fat. It's a good thing! The world needs more fat positivity. But I wish you'd understand that you can be fat positive without being thin negative. How do you think the thin members of this community, many of whom are also fat positive and supportive of us fat people, feel when reading statements like the one you've made here? You do not have to take someone down in order to lift yourself up. There's room for everyone up here.

Sorry if I gave that impression. I honestly try not to tear down others to build myself up, but I'm only human. Maybe I took one of her comments too personally. When we were visiting them, her husband complained that she eats only one skimpy meal a day, so she's probably malnourished too. To break the tension, I joked that a few extra pounds might make her look younger. Can you say faux pas? She said she didn't want to turn into a water buffalo. Ouch! Methinx some issues there, so we've decided to butt out.

Oh well, this wasn't our only mishap as we've reconnected with other long-lost friends in the age of Facebook etc. Some have been downright funny, but thankfully we've had more hits than misses. I'll spare you the details.

[joswitch]

Originally Posted by James

Another thing to remember is that obesity (as a medical term and a medical condition) only exists because of the invention of a metric (BMI) to measure it quantitatively. Before 'obesity' was invented as a disease, there was no medical imperative to commoditize medical 'solutions' for it. The idea that BMI 20, BMI 25 and BMI 30 are the medical thresholds for 'normal', 'overweight' and 'obese' didn't exist before 1995. These numbers were not based on any medical epidemiology. They were instead recommended as a 'guideline' by a group called the IOTF (International Obesity Task Force... yes really) to the WHO who then formalized the various points on the BMI scale to provide a medical metric for measuring Obesity as a disease. The IOTF were a group that was uniquely funded by Hoffman - La Roche and Abbott Laboratories (the manufacturers of weight loss drugs Xenical and Meridia). Through the setting of fixed BMI standards, Hoffman - La Roche and Abbott Laboratories created a medical definition of 'obesity' and thus a medical imperative to sell their products as treatments. Anyway... point being to all this is that being labeled as 'normal, 'overweight' or 'obese' was a choice that was made, on our behalf, by these two companies when they decided to invest in creating standards to define those words.

Yes! This^! Dude! Somebody REP this man for me!

[JoyJoy]

Originally Posted by TallFatSue

Sorry if I gave that impression. I honestly try not to tear down others to build myself up, but I'm only human. Maybe I took one of her comments too personally. When we were visiting them, her husband complained that she eats only one skimpy meal a day, so she's probably malnourished too. To break the tension, I joked that a few extra pounds might make her look younger. Can you say faux pas? She said she didn't want to turn into a water buffalo. Ouch! Methinx some issues there, so we've decided to butt out.

Wow...even in your "apology" you take swipes at the thinner woman. Sorry, but I call bs.

I'm not going to pretend like I haven't made cutting remarks about another person's appearance - in private. I'm sure most of us have - in private. However, Sue, discretion is a very good thing. Comments you would make in private with your partner aren't always appropriate to share publicly, especially comments cutting down someone for their size on a "size acceptance" website. But then....you've had similar things said to you before about such comments and yet you still make them, so I'm thinking it's rather obvious you don't give a rat's ass and are going to say whatever cute-sy little story you feel like sharing, to hell with discretion.

[TallFatSue]

Oky doky. I'll keep my private life private.

[fat hiker]

Originally Posted by chicken legs

50 years ago, no one could have imagined someone growing to the size of Manuel Uribe. What has changed in 50 years? or What happened 50 years ago to have caused that change? What is going to happen 50 years from now...something like Wall-E?

What? Robert Earl Hughes didn't exist? Boy, all those year of looking for his picture in the Guinness Book of World Records were wasted?

Robert Earl Hughes made it to 1069 pounds 51 years ago this year.

[orin]

.... I think some people ... are genetically prone towards being bigger ... like me

but I chose not to let my genetics win and workout and pump up

i think STAYING FAT IS A CHOICE !!!

[orin]

Staying FAT is a bad choice ... if it is causing problems ... if it is not then ... i feel that if that person is comfortable being bigger ... there is no reason to change PERIOD

[name2come]

Originally Posted by orin

.... I think some people ... are genetically prone towards being bigger ... like me

but I chose not to let my genetics win and workout and pump up

i think STAYING FAT IS A CHOICE !!!

And that's where you would horribly wrong. Oh, I'm sorry. I meant HORRIBLY WRONG !!!

Being fat is not a choice quite precisely because fat people cannot choose to be not fat. An extremely small number of fat people become not fat people semi-permanently, but there is no true choice involved in any of that. When the supposed means of making us not-fat fails over 95% of the time, there is no choice. "I did, so can you" isn't a proof. Its just a way of trying to enforce your perceived moral superiority and your fantasy of accomplishment.

My fat is not a disease, nor did I choose to be fat. I choose not to hate myself, though, and that's been an amazingly healthy and achievable choice to make.

[orin]

Originally Posted by name2come

And that's where you would horribly wrong. Oh, I'm sorry. I meant HORRIBLY WRONG !!!

Being fat is not a choice quite precisely because fat people cannot choose to be not fat. An extremely small number of fat people become not fat people semi-permanently, but there is no true choice involved in any of that. When the supposed means of making us not-fat fails over 95% of the time, there is no choice. "I did, so can you" isn't a proof. Its just a way of trying to enforce your perceived moral superiority and your fantasy of accomplishment.

My fat is not a disease, nor did I choose to be fat. I choose not to hate myself, though, and that's been an amazingly healthy and achievable choice to make.

I am not trying to seem morally superior by any means ... offense was not meant to be given .. so take it as you please ....

FAT does not come out of thin air ... FAT is a result of how our bodies deal with what goes in .. if nothing went in ... well we would waist away ....

FAT is not a permanent thing ... I am short AND THAT IS PERMANENT !!!

FAT can change .. but i am NOT SAYING FAT IS BAD !!!!!!!!

FAT WAS BAD FOR ME BECAUSE IT WAS CAUSING ME SOME PROBLEMS IN MY LIFE ...

to each their own

[Theresa48]

This thread saddens me. Wish I could explain the why...probably if I could explain it...the feelings part, it would be good for me. I'd be able to "intellectualize" the feeling and seize feeling it. To simplify being fat as a choice seems cruel to those of us (to me) who have been working to accept our size and not feel inferior to others because society tells us we are inferior because we are "choosing" fat and fat is ugly...it is unhealthy...it is destructive...we are suicidal...we have lousy will power...we are lazy...we are ... a bane to all others. How lovely to carry that around all our lives. I come to Dimensions sometimes because there are people here who seem to love fat, not to judge fat people as others judge fat people, and to feel more "normal" after a day of feeling quite abnormal. I did not choose fat. I am fat. Was fat, am fat, will always be fat. I've lost weight before. I gained it back. Lost it again. Gained it back again. How did I lose it in the first place? By choosing to do what is un-natural to my body: eating less than 900 calories a day. I am not lazy. I am not inactive. I am not stupid. I gained the weight back. In the end, I gain the weight back. Is that a choice? Guess it appears to be to most people. To me, it isn't a choice. It is the way I am supposed to be. I am sad, because I am frustrated and angry, that the issue of fat is simplified down to being a "choice." More and more, scientists are discovering there is little about us that is truly a "choice."

[Green Eyed Fairy]

I'm with Theresa....this thread makes me sad, as well. Why does it matter if it's "choice" or not? The idea of acceptance doesn't have a lot to do with the "why" all the time, does it?

[musicman]

Originally Posted by Tooz

SA does not separate the "good fatties" ("healthy" eating, exercise, etc.) from the "bad fatties" (eats whatever, OR gained, OR whatever). SA isn't even JUST about fat people. IT IS ABOUT REMOVING SIZE FROM THE EQUATION WHEN EVALUATING A PERSON'S MERIT.

This is EXACTLY right! Well said, Tooz. We don't want decisions to be made on the basis of a person's size or weight when it's not relevant (might be relevant in selecting a jockey for the Kentucky Derby, but in other cases, NOT). This is the same as not wanting decisions to be made on the basis of other characteristics like race, religion, ethnicity, etc. (Race might be relevant in choosing an undercover cop to infiltrate a street gang, but in most other cases, NOT.)

Discussions about the reasons why people are fat can be interesting from an academic viewpoint, but I don't like them because they provide fodder for the enemies of fat people. It makes it easier for these people to rationalize their own fat hatred and discrimination, and easier for them to convince weak-minded people that fat people are inferior. If the reason is genetic, then fat people shouldn't be allowed to breed. If the reason is lifestyle, then fat people must be "re-educated" to change their evil ways. I don't like either of those.

Here's another way I think about it: If fat is a choice, then it's like religion, right? Do we want a society that allows religious discrimination? If fat is not a choice, then it must be like a person's race. Do we prefer racial discrimination?

[joswitch]

Originally Posted by musicman

Here's another way I think about it: If fat is a choice, then it's like religion, right? Do we want a society that allows religious discrimination? If fat is not a choice, then it must be like a person's race. Do we prefer racial discrimination?

Oh very YES! *wild applause* That's the whole argument nailed in a nutshell! Put it on a placard or a T-shirt! Fuckin' A!!!!

[squurp]

Originally Posted by chicken legs

Something that made me ponder was a response to a post I made over in the Fa myths thread. The person likened the Size Acceptance fight to the fight against Racism.

The thing is Most Fat people have become that way because of lifestyle choices not because they come from the land of fat people like African Americans coming from Africa. A person doesnt choose their genetics..but they do choose ..via lifestyle..how those genetics express themselves.

When looking at Size discrimination..is it really Size or just Fat that the fight is about. If it were about Size only shouldn't people of extremely small stature be included? On the other end of the spectrum, shouldn't people like Shaq be included as well...considering he has everthing altered for his size?

Another side I was looking up was the effect of industrialization on the human body..basically the side effects of living in a modern society.

Epigenetics, or the science of how genes are expressed is young yet. But, already we know that period where it is determined how most genes are expressed, happens between conception and birth. You must have been a very precocious fetus, to make those kinds of choices in the womb.

[chicken legs]

Originally Posted by fat hiker

What? Robert Earl Hughes didn't exist? Boy, all those year of looking for his picture in the Guinness Book of World Records were wasted?

Robert Earl Hughes made it to 1069 pounds 51 years ago this year.

Man it only took me 2 days to find his picture, but I didnt know he was 1069..did he have kids?

I wonder..if he did have kids..did any of them get as huge?

Anywho wasnt he a very rich man? and therefore had the luxury of being huge?

[chicken legs]

Originally Posted by squurp

Epigenetics, or the science of how genes are expressed is young yet. But, already we know that period where it is determined how most genes are expressed, happens between conception and birth. You must have been a very precocious fetus, to make those kinds of choices in the womb.

***looks up Epigenetics***


LOL...yes I was. (firm believer of mind over matter...just depends on what is on the mind..)

You know while I was pregnant with my son..I used to meditate on the traits I wanted him to have. His father has fantastic legs/cardio ability and I sooo wanted him to have his instead of mine..i cant run to save my life..lol..and it doesnt matter what weight I'm at.

[Inhibited]

I make no excuses for being fat, even if it is genetics i know i can be thinner if i worked harder at the gym and ate better, sure i would never be a size 8 but could probably get down to a 14/16 if i worked at it..... So for me i guess it is kinda a choice in away, as I'm not working harder.

There is always talk with in the Government about free WLS, but i don't think that i would take the offer, as the article says most people put the weight back on..

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/nat...-1225719998899

(I know that there are rules about postings in relation to weight loss, but from my understanding of the rules the above does not break the any... if it does please feel free to remove it)

[bigmac]

Some of the arguments put forward in this tread are overly simplistic. The one thing obesity researchers agree upon is that obesity has multiple causes. In this respect obesity is like intelligence.

Most people, I assume, would like to be intelligent and educated. However, not everyone has what it takes to be a physics professor at Princeton. We can act as individuals and as a society to ensure that people maximize their potential (i.e. from prenatal nutrition to reading to our kids to supporting higher education). But in the end some people will be more accomplished than others -- that's just a fact of life. Some kids will unfortunately inherit genes that limit their intellectual potential, some will be exposed to in utero toxins that likewise limit their potential, some will grow up in neighborhoods with crappy schools ... (the list could go on forever).

Do we say its a choice to be less than brilliant -- of course not -- we as a society recognize that not everyone can be an Einstein. This is so even though there are lots of personal choices involved in (i.e. to study hard or not, to go to college or not ...). We only get mad when a person is obviously squandering talent.

Like intelligence, fatness has multiple causations (from genetics, to unavailability of good food, to the lack recreational opportunities ... again the list goes on). So it doesn't really make sense to say being fat is a choice. You may have chosen to eat that extra piece of pie last night (but so did a lot of thin people) but you didn't choose your parents, you didn't choose the food you ate as a child, you probably didn't choose to live in a city where walking is either unsafe or totally impractical ....

As a society we accept that people vary in their intellectual ability (and physical ability for that matter) -- why is it so hard to just accept that people will vary in size.

[SocialbFly]

Originally Posted by orin

.... I think some people ... are genetically prone towards being bigger ... like me

but I chose not to let my genetics win and workout and pump up

i think STAYING FAT IS A CHOICE !!!

wow, such an easy answer, how did i not know this in being 50 years old, that all i need to do is to deny my genetics and my fat ass wouldnt be fat, thank you, now i know.

[fat hiker]

Originally Posted by chicken legs

Man it only took me 2 days to find his picture, but I didnt know he was 1069..did he have kids?

I wonder..if he did have kids..did any of them get as huge?

Anywho wasnt he a very rich man? and therefore had the luxury of being huge?

No, Robert Earl Hughes wasn't rich - he was only one step away from being a hill billy! There is at least one video on Youtube made from a short movie clip of him and his parents, and their house would tell you they weren't rich. He made a living for a time as a side-show attraction, judging by the photographs. I've never seen any mention anywhere of him marrying or having kids - and his own spectacular growth was supposed to be the result of a childhood infection that somehow changed or damaged his hormonal system.

[superodalisque]

Originally Posted by Theresa48

This thread saddens me. Wish I could explain the why...probably if I could explain it...the feelings part, it would be good for me. I'd be able to "intellectualize" the feeling and seize feeling it. To simplify being fat as a choice seems cruel to those of us (to me) who have been working to accept our size and not feel inferior to others because society tells us we are inferior because we are "choosing" fat and fat is ugly...it is unhealthy...it is destructive...we are suicidal...we have lousy will power...we are lazy...we are ... a bane to all others. How lovely to carry that around all our lives. I come to Dimensions sometimes because there are people here who seem to love fat, not to judge fat people as others judge fat people, and to feel more "normal" after a day of feeling quite abnormal. I did not choose fat. I am fat. Was fat, am fat, will always be fat. I've lost weight before. I gained it back. Lost it again. Gained it back again. How did I lose it in the first place? By choosing to do what is un-natural to my body: eating less than 900 calories a day. I am not lazy. I am not inactive. I am not stupid. I gained the weight back. In the end, I gain the weight back. Is that a choice? Guess it appears to be to most people. To me, it isn't a choice. It is the way I am supposed to be. I am sad, because I am frustrated and angry, that the issue of fat is simplified down to being a "choice." More and more, scientists are discovering there is little about us that is truly a "choice."

in my opinion it shouldn't really matter why you are fat in terms of a personal value judgement of yourself. i'm not dismissing how you feel. i'm just putting another alternative out there. no matter what, you are a beautiful person and well worth knowing and loving just like you are. the things you or society feels are negative about being fat need to be pushed aside because even if the very worst was true you'd still be wonderful. it doesn't matter if you eat a lot. it does not matter if somewhere deep down in your subconscious you've decided you'd rather be fat. it wouldn't matter if you'd rather eat more than diet. it does not matter that you'd rather be inactive or "lazy" or why that might or might not be true. it doesn't make any real difference why in the long run. maybe you could play a little game with yourself and even assume the worst was true. how would you go about loving yourself even then?

we are all so hard on ourselves. we spend so much time listening to the negative little voices in our head that we forget what a miracle we are and how much we mean to other people without ever changing anything about ourselves. we are always comparing ourselves to some "ideal " thing thats out there somewhere and internalizing the belief that we don't measure up. you are the standard already. you are the ideal. all of us have to learn to love and appreciate the stuff we think is bad inside of us along with that we think is good. its part of us. its part of our journey. we might just not understand why yet. we need to let go of our own guilt and shame over just being who we are. then no matter how you got where you are, you are in a good place.

as for normal. you are already normal. its just that other people can hide thier differences better. people like putting on to you what they really see and believe about themselves. its not really you they are thinking of when they act disgusted. they are thinking of thier own issues that they feel out of control of that fat eople seem to embody physically for them. people did the same thing regarding black people. it reminds me of what Joseph Conrad was trying to get across in Heart of Darkness. don't take everyone's negative feelings about themselves into you. don't do that to yourself. you don't deserve it.

you are exactly right though when you say that you are who you are supposed to be. that was really truth and beauty all together right there.

[Theresa48]

Thank you! Your words make a lot of sense to me and I appreciate the time it took to make the response.

[squurp]

Originally Posted by bigmac

Some of the arguments put forward in this tread are overly simplistic. The one thing obesity researchers agree upon is that obesity has multiple causes. In this respect obesity is like intelligence.

Most people, I assume, would like to be intelligent and educated. However, not everyone has what it takes to be a physics professor at Princeton. We can act as individuals and as a society to ensure that people maximize their potential (i.e. from prenatal nutrition to reading to our kids to supporting higher education). But in the end some people will be more accomplished than others -- that's just a fact of life. Some kids will unfortunately inherit genes that limit their intellectual potential, some will be exposed to in utero toxins that likewise limit their potential, some will grow up in neighborhoods with crappy schools ... (the list could go on forever).

Do we say its a choice to be less than brilliant -- of course not -- we as a society recognize that not everyone can be an Einstein. This is so even though there are lots of personal choices involved in (i.e. to study hard or not, to go to college or not ...). We only get mad when a person is obviously squandering talent.

Like intelligence, fatness has multiple causations (from genetics, to unavailability of good food, to the lack recreational opportunities ... again the list goes on). So it doesn't really make sense to say being fat is a choice. You may have chosen to eat that extra piece of pie last night (but so did a lot of thin people) but you didn't choose your parents, you didn't choose the food you ate as a child, you probably didn't choose to live in a city where walking is either unsafe or totally impractical ....

As a society we accept that people vary in their intellectual ability (and physical ability for that matter) -- why is it so hard to just accept that people will vary in size.

Obesity is not a simplistic issue. unavailability of good food, lack of recreational opportunities, and related issues, has in research only been able to account for moderate weight gain in subjects. To test this, they've had participants who are normally thin, follow these lifestyle choices. Usually, a gain of around 30 lbs is the high, at which point, a normally thin person becomes physically ill and is unable to gain.

Predominantly, obesity greater than slight or moderate obesity is caused exclusively by genetics or epigenetics (with one key exception being psychological disorders such as compulsive eating, though that is usually not responsible for extreme weight gain even then unless paired with genetic tendency).

This is not to say it is simple. In breeding rats, scientists have determined that obesity inheritance is a complex mixture of 15-20 genes, comprised of recessive, dominant, double dominant, and double recessive(that gets into epigenetics). So, for a person to be extremely overweight (say, 75+ lbs or more, there must be a mixture of the appropriate genetic and epigenetic traits. Furthermore, epigenetics is the study of how these genes are expressed. The best illustration of epigenetics is visible in locusts. Usually, locusts are harmless little green grasshoppers, but when pummeled repeatedly, (as happens during overpopulation), they turn in to big brown devouring migrating monsters (same genes! different expression!). Scientists now know that much of this happens in the womb. Recently, Agouti mice, genetically bred to be obese, orange, and diabetic, when fed a high antioxidant diet during pregnancy produced normal offspring, Despite their genetic baggage.

So, what in the last fifty years has caused this horrible epidemic? Well, we understand that oxidants (carcinogens), and antioxidants have an effect. other chemicals may have an effect as well, for example, endocrine disruptors. And, our environment in the last 50 years has changed dramatically, ambient pollution is much much higher. Smoking while pregnant started in the 50's for women as a way to control weight, and smoking is a key carcinogen. Also, artificial sweeteners which are known to be carcinogenic happened primarily in the last 50 years. Flouridated water, and also medications in water supplies has continued to increase. In other words, we are bombarded daily and primarily in the womb, by the very chemicals that force undesirable genes to be expressed.

Do we have control? Sure, we have some. THis is each person's locus of control. Some may have more than others, though, this locus of control is also somewhat genetically regulated. In my experience, each person's locus of control is about 10% of the obesity equation. So, can you lose weight? Sure, but not as easily as another person with a different genetic and epigenetic package.

Hope this clears up stuff. see next post.

[squurp]

Now, let's look at the problem of obesity:
First off, let me say that I have read this study (and am trained in social research) and it is a flawed study, in that it fails to take into account some of the following research:
Appetite shutoff is controlled genetically, in a pretty strong way. We know this, because disorders such as Prader-Willi syndrome exist. In cases of these disorders, sufferers never feel full, even if their stomachs are full to the point of bursting. Clearly, this is not at all environmental, and, it is not eating like pigs, and it is not the fault of poor parenting.
All in all, appetite, though, has only a small part in the obesity complex. How do some people stay thin all their lives, eating the worst junk, while others eat decent, and end up obese? It's not all self control. Scientists know now that obesity is a complex genetic issue, including genetic traits, and environmental triggers. From Discover Magazine (http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may...ouse):Recently Churchill and his Jackson Laboratory colleagues decided to go after some big genetic game, the gene network that controls body weight. "With 300 million people now suffering from obesity worldwide, fat has become a global epidemic.. . .The map they came up with looks like a flowchart from hell. Churchill’s group identified a dozen sites in the mouse genome where genes are influencing the body weight of mice. But the genes have different effects. Some make mice large-bodied, and being big makes mice more likely to get fat. But they also found genes that had separate effects on both body size and fat levels. In some cases, the same gene could make a mouse both big and lean. Other genes influenced only how fat the mice were, with no effect on their body size. Still other genes determined the size of different fat pads. One region of mouse DNA appears to make mice fat overall while actually making the fat pads on their haunches smaller."
Further research is presented in the book "Rethinking Thin", By Gina Kolata(http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Thi...5804371&sr=8-1)
Incidentally, a summary of this article shown on your show was written by Gina Kolata, so I am quite sure it was misrepresented and misinterpretted.
This book presented peer reviewed research linking obesity to exposure to cigarette smoking during gestation, and also presented large government funded research interventions which show massive expensive efforts at dietary change in communities has no effect whatsoever on obesity within a community. Now, back to smoking while pregnant; this gets into epigenomics, a relatively new area of genetics. This link between obesity ad smoking while pregnant has to do with the methylation cycle. Have a look at this article:http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov...rm=epigenomics
So, what your mother does while she is pregnant, makes a huge difference. So, it may be that we are getting fatter, but perhaps the cause of this has more to do with smoking, aspartame, and plenty of other environmental triggers that interrupt the methylation cycle.
However, the diet industry has gotten their fingers into things too. In 1998, after intense lobbying by the diet industry, the BMI was changed so everyone was obese(http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/9806/0...ure/index.html)
therefore providing them with lots more people to sell ineffective diet products to.
However, are we really getting more obese? And, does obesity mean poor health. Well, the CDC published scientific reports and then had to do plenty of retracting. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov23.html)
Good research is hard to find in the obesity world. SO, let's talk about what I think is really going on with this whole obesity and social groups research thing. it is simply this. Due to organizations like Meme Roth, and other people like her, which you all feel like putting on TV, overweight or obese people are socially maligned. In many cases they are like Lepers. SO, who are they going to hang out with? well, with other lepers, or other fat people. If you ask any person who has grown up fat, this is completely obvious. And while genetic tendencies can run in families, obesity may be slightly hereditary, it is NOT contagious. This is bad science, and your presentation does considerable harm to many people all over the country. I hope you can present a more tolerant view on your show in the future, instead of doing your part to ruin people's lives.

Response to the idea that sugar causes diabetes:

This is absolute HOOEY!!!!


You ought to not pay attention to the diet hype. Ok, let's go through this:
Carbs are a basic formula consisting basically of Carbon, Hydrogen and Hydroxyl elements. Sucrose (table sugar) is a Carbohydrate. Sucrose is a composite of Glucose and Fructose.(http://www.biology-online.org/9/1_ch...omposition.htm)
Glucose has a chemical composition is C6H12O6, with a chemical weight of 180. Fructose is a simpler, easier to digest sugar. The ratio between Glucose to Fructose for table sugar (Sucrose) is about 50/50.

Now High Fructose Corn Syrup is also Glucose, and Fructose. Same thing! The ratio for HFCS is about 45% glucose to 55% Fructose.

Now, really, we are talking about a miniscule difference. http://fscn.cfans.umn.edu/pf/outreac...orn_syrup.html

Neither Fructose or Glucose is bad for you. In fact, both are necessary for survival, for the most part. However, it is true, that fructose enters the body faster, sometimes spiking insulin and causing problems for diabetics. Fructose is present in most fruits and fruit juices in much higher percentages than in HFCS, by the way, and we consider that healthy.

Carbohydrates are carbohydrates, not fat.

Now, let's get rid of more hype:

The obesity epidemic, is a product of much lobbying on the part of the diet iindustry. So much so, that millions of people be came obese or overweight overnight! Just have a look at this article:
http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/9806/0...ure/index.html
Now, that happened in 1998. That's about when this whole obesity scare really kicked into high gear. Its not as bad as they make it out to be, but the diet industry needed more customers. They got greedier, and more sneaky which resulted in the CDC issuing statement about there being some 300,000 deaths from obesity. Well, later on, when real scientists started checking data, the CDC had to eat its words:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/2744
Again, it is not as bad as they make it out to be.

But let's not kid ourselves, we are somewhat fatter than generations ago. Where does this come from? Doctors are working on the answer. Appetite is part of the issue. And, we know that appetite has a large genetic element. The existence of Prader-Willi Syndrome, and inherited genetic component represents a simplification of this. Scientists have learned more about taste in recent times, which has an influence on appetite. Do you find broccoli bitter? you probably carry a genetic trait that allows you to taste a very bitter chemical in broccoli. This particular genetic trait is not the only one.

Appetite is not the only obesity gene controlled by genetics. In fact, scientists have their eye on a pretty good estimate of how many there are, though, they don't yet know what they are. Have a look at this article:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/mendel2019s-mouse

But if this is true, then, wouldn't people have been fat all along? Well, maybe. But, maybe these genetic traits have an environmental trigger. That is where the methylation cycle, and epigenomics comes in. This new field REALLY fills in the holes, as to how obesity happens. Take a look:
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov...rm=methylation

So, from this article, did your mother smoke while she was pregnant with you? Smoking, and other factors interrupt the methylation cycle and the epigenomics pattern, and this can lead to obesity and and diabetes.

Well, Ms. Gina Kolata has done some research into all of this. Research shows that what happens in the womb has ALOT more power than what you can do right now. Millions of dollars of government money has been spent on intervention programs, changing the diets of whole towns. The result? Well, nothing. Meaning, nothing changed. No matter how they ate, kids and adults were just as fat or thin as ever. If you'd like to know more about that, you can buy and read her book:
http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Thi...697819-4221567

Anyway, I hope this public service announcement has been informative, and leads you all to a better understanding of obesity, etc. etc.

[thatgirl08]

Originally Posted by orin

.... I think some people ... are genetically prone towards being bigger ... like me

but I chose not to let my genetics win and workout and pump up

i think STAYING FAT IS A CHOICE !!!

Originally Posted by orin

Staying FAT is a bad choice ... if it is causing problems ... if it is not then ... i feel that if that person is comfortable being bigger ... there is no reason to change PERIOD

If you feel this way, why are you here?