The Fat Pack Wonders if It's Time to Slim Down

[slkinsey]

Another piece in the Times (this and the preceding column are both by Gina Kolata; article here) talks about Rockefeller University obesity researcher Dr. Jeffrey Friedman:

Dr. Friedman points to careful statistical analyses of the changes in Americans' body weights from 1991 to today by Dr. Katherine Flegal of the National Center for Health Statistics. At the lower end of the weight distribution, nothing has changed, not even by a few pounds. As you move up the scale, a few additional pounds start to show up, but even at midrange, people today are just 6 or 7 pounds heavier than they were in 1991. Only with the massively obese, the very top of the distribution, is there a substantial increase in weight, about 25 to 30 pounds . . .

A few things to point out:

First, while these articles you have cited tend to support the notion that predisposition to a certain range of weight is largely genetically-mediated (something with which I agree) they do not speak to the data showing that certain health issues are strongly associated with being above a certain weight (perhaps better described as "being above a certain amount of fatness," since high weights can sometimes be associated with large muscle mass).

This raises certain issues. For example, plenty of people have reason to believe that they may be genetically predisposed to have certain medical issues in life. Perhaps a close relative or two has developed diabetes or, in my case, heart troubles. That person can then, hopefully, try to mitigate against those genetic predispositions to the greatest extent practicable. Hopefully one doesn't simply just thow hands in the air and declare, "well, I guess I'll get horrible diabetes and have my feet amputated by the time I'm 60" or "nothing I can do about it -- I've got a fatal heart attack waiting for me in my mid-50s." Mitigating against these genetic predispositions can be difficult and, of course, all the mitigating in the world doesn't mean you won't develop some form of diabetes or have to get an arterial stent somewhere down the line.

So, it may be constant and life-long work to regulate one's weight downward, but people do accomplish it. I know any number of people who have lost in the range of 20-30 pounds and kept the weight off more or less permanently. I've made relatively minor adjustments to my diet and lifestyle that have resulted in my weight centering around 12 pounds below where it had previously been (interestingly, and in support of a premise of the article, one of these adjustments has been a reduction in the frequency and extent to which in indulge in "foodie gluttony"). Considering the health and longevity issues associated with a "certain level of fatness," I don't think I'd be comfortable with simply saying "it's genetics" and leaving it there. I'm a pretty big guy already, but if I ate everything I wanted to eat I could easily be 50 pounds heavier.

Second, the Friedman articles,and particularly the parts you quoted, seem to be centered on "how fat the fat people are" rather than "how many people are fat." This is important, in my opinion. An "in-between" passage missing from your quote seems crucial to me: "In 1991, 23 percent of Americans fell into the obese category; now 31 percent do, a more than 30 percent increase." Considering that entry into the obese category is gained by crossing a thresdhold weight (or BMI), I'm not sure how this number could be skewed by a drastic increase in the weight of the "most obese" people in the same period. Rather, it says to me that a substantially greater portion of our population is now across the threshhold weight or BMI compared to 1991. And that is a very short period of time! How about we compare today's percentage to the percentage in 1971? I can tell you that, in my elementary school in the 70s, there were around one to two "fat kids" per grade of around 100 (2%). All you have to do is walk by the school to see that today's figure is at least 30% -- and it's not like we were working in the fields all afternoon when I was a kid.

With all due respect, asserting that a condition is underdiagnosed is a logical impossibility. The only way to obtain facts to back up such a statement is to have, well, diagnosed the condition. In which case . . .

With all due respect, and not speaking to whether anything is or is nor underdiagnosed, I don't think this is what is meant by a "logical impossibility." A statement that something is underdiagnosed (meaning that more people have the condition than are disgnosed with the condition) may be difficult or perhaps impossible to prove, but it is not a "logical impossibility." I would suggest that applying, or seeming to apply rules of logic is not appropriate in this case. One can have very strong reasons to say that a certain condition is underdiagnosed today. Certainly diabetes has historically been underdiagnosed. This is one reason why many people (myself included) don't believe that we are seing a huge explosion in diabetes. Rather, what we are seing is increased diagnosis. It may be true that, as Steven asserts, it is being overdiagnosed. Or it may be true that, as others assert, it is still underdiagnosed. The rules of logic, however, aren't relevant to a discussion of either viewpoint.

ETA: "Underdiagnosis" is discussed all the time in medical research. For example, the researchers take a look at the rate at which "hypertension" is diagnosed in a medical clinic. Then they look at the medical records of that clinic, apply whatever diagnostic criteria they think are relevant, and come up with the number of people they think should have received a diagnosis of hypertension. Then can then say, "based on our

(or commonly accepted, or these new, or whatever) criteria, hypertension was underdiagnosed at the clinic [by this amount]."

Edited March 19, 2008 by slkinsey (log)

[annecros]

With all due respect, asserting that a condition is underdiagnosed is a logical impossibility. The only way to obtain facts to back up such a statement is to have, well, diagnosed the condition. In which case . . .

←

Wouldn't Perlow be an example of an undiagnosed case of diabetes? Dude thinks he's healthy, starts feeling crummy, talks to a doctor who says "Surprise, your 400 pound self has diabetes!". How many people like that are walking around under the impression that everything is fine?

←

But, he was diagnosed and is receiving treatment, because he felt crappy and went to the doctor.

I don't think anyone who has posted in this topic has argued that Diabetes is a myth, or that ignoring the health risks associated with obesity is wise. I can't find it, anyway.

It has been argued that the definition of obesity, and the complexities of the human body, make it difficult to make a blanket statement concerning the diet of every person in the human race.

[cakewalk]

I agree that one of the most important issues is portion control. There's a big difference between eating two cookies and eating the whole darn box, and I certainly know which of those choices I prefer. Mostly I'm successful, but certainly not always, and I could stand to lose a good amount of weight. But the genetic factor cannot be ignored, it is such a major part of everything. This is not to say that watching what we eat and getting exercise is "useless" in the face of genetics. I really don't agree with that take. But I do often wonder how much control it gives us over such a situation as obesity and the illnesses that result from it.

I think of it constantly, in fact: my mother died of colon cancer when she was 54. I am now 53. I am exactly, and I mean exactly, like her. I look like her, walk like her, talk like her, etc., etc. If my doctor would agree to give me a colonoscopy once a month, I'd jump at the chance. (But he won't, damn him.) I am careful, but trust me, this whole picture makes me pretty damn nervous. And most people can think of genetics that defy environmental concerns. For example: my father was a butcher. We ate red meat almost every single day, and I mean that literally. Yet I've been borderline anemic since I was a kid. And no one in my family has high blood pressure. I just took a stress test and my doctor was thrilled with the results. So there's no ignoring the genetics factor, it is a major, major player in this debate. Sometimes I wish it were otherwise.

It's sort of a two-edged sword. The genetics factor does not absolve us of taking responsibility for how we treat our bodies. What we do definitely does make a difference. On the other side, as much as we try to control our eating/exercise environment, the genetics factor is always there, sort of sticking its tongue out at our attempts. It's like a contstant war, and I guess we have to be aware of all sides.

[Dave the Cook]

With all due respect, asserting that a condition is underdiagnosed is a logical impossibility. The only way to obtain facts to back up such a statement is to have, well, diagnosed the condition. In which case . . .

←

Wouldn't Perlow be an example of an undiagnosed case of diabetes? Dude thinks he's healthy, starts feeling crummy, talks to a doctor who says "Surprise, your 400 pound self has diabetes!". How many people like that are walking around under the impression that everything is fine?

←

Perlow has been diagnosed.

ETA: Underdiagnosis might be asserted had Jason gone for a checkup and been told that he didn't have diabetes when in fact he did.

A suspicion that a condition is underdiagnosed is just that -- a suspicion. If you prove that it exists, you remove the underdiagnosis. The Flegal study demonstrates that diabetes was underdiagnosed in the past, but it could only do that in light of historical statistics. The Flegal study also suggests that what people are calling an epidemic is in reality a correction in observation. The same proportion of people had diabetes in 2002 as they did 14 years earlier. All that changed was that in 2002 we knew about them, and in 1988 we didn't.

Edited March 19, 2008 by Dave the Cook (log)

[anthonybishopric]

I just did a pretty hectic food week in New York and didn't really gain any weight because I ran every morning. I think, like weinoo suggested, just doing the math really works in the big picture.

[slkinsey]

With all due respect, asserting that a condition is underdiagnosed is a logical impossibility. The only way to obtain facts to back up such a statement is to have, well, diagnosed the condition. In which case . . .

Wouldn't Perlow be an example of an undiagnosed case of diabetes? Dude thinks he's healthy, starts feeling crummy, talks to a doctor who says "Surprise, your 400 pound self has diabetes!". How many people like that are walking around under the impression that everything is fine?

Perlow has been diagnosed.

One can look at a the diagnosis of someone at a certain stage of diabetes and, with the appropriate medical expertise, reasonably say, "this guy has had diabetes for X amount of time, and it should have been diagnosed already." During the time between when it should have been diagnosed and the time it was diagnosed, he was "undiagnosed." One can make reasonable assumptions and projections about the population to come up at a percentage of "people with undiagnosed diabetes."

Of course, I suppose there are various meanings of "underdiagnosed." What I have outlined above would be one way of describing "underdiagnosis" -- that there is a X number of people who should be diagnosed with diabetes but aren't. One would like to reduce the value of X to the greatest extent possible. Whether they have visited a doctor and been tested or not is irrelevant with respect to this meaning. A visit to the doctor that should have resulted in a diagnosis of diabetes but didn't would be a misdiagnosis.

Another way of looking at it would be, there are people who have tests and are revealed to have a certain kind of blood sugar response. Some people light look at those results and diagnose "not diabetes." If one is making the argument that people with that certain kind of blood sugar response should be diagnosed as "diabetes" but aren't -- that would constitute "underdiagnosis." Similarly, one can take the opposite viewpoint: If the same population is given the diagnosis of "diabetes" and one is making the argument that they shouldn't be -- that would constitute "overdiagnosis." Presumably one would need to have the appropriate medical background, or access to the same, in order to take either position.

Edited March 19, 2008 by slkinsey (log)

[melkor]

Perlow has been diagnosed.

←

Let's try that again:

Perlow was undiagnosed for years. How many people are six months behind the him on this? He's not the only guy who is two hundred pounds over weight and walking around under the impression that there isn't a problem.

On a completely different note -

I'm grateful for those of you who give years of your lives for the community. The thing that brought me to eGullet years ago was Jason's hot dog tasting thread. No person with any regard for their health would eat two dozen hot dogs in a sitting. Without research like that I would have had to purchase countless nasty products before discovering Usingers.

edit: spelling - replaced was with is

Edited March 19, 2008 by melkor (log)

[pax]

So many interesting comments here, it made for some thoughtful reading, thanks everybody.

I have a couple of ymmv snippets to add.

I was diagnosed with gestational diabetes by fasting glocuse tolerance test (which I also believe to be misused). I was about twenty pounds over weight when I got pregnant and probably added another 20 by the time came around to do this test.

I kept a food/blood glucose value record for the next two months and I discovered som odd stuff. One, I can eat anything.....anything......sugar, carbs, anything, without a blip in my blood glucose values. They go up as expected and come down, exactly as expected, well within normal.

No, what killed me was my fasting blood glucose levels IN THE MORNING. I would go to bed at 11 pm after a snack of something, usually cheese and crackers, and at 8 am the next morning my bgvs would be in the 200s. I'd eat breakfast and an hour later, my bgvs are completely normal. I tried playing with it by varying the snack and even having no snack, nothing after dinner, but nothing changed the fact that I would wake up sky high.

They tried putting me on insulin. I continually crashed. (Well, duh, of course, I WAS NORMAL during the day.) They backed it down to glucophage. I was sicker than a dog. Finally I just stopped taking stuff.

It still happens. My insurance company has me listed as a diabetic, but I am not a classic diabetic. There doesn't appear to be a name for my weird blood sugar habits. Was I overdiagnosed? No, I was the fat pregnant chick that fit the bill and it was easier to fob me off with a needle and a pill than it was to find out what the heck was really going on.

So I think there's a lot of room in diabetes dx for weird, misreported stuff and people with vested interests playing with the numbers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In relation to the calories injested vs calories expended theory, I do agree that that's the bottom line, but I think it puts an onus of guilt on overweight people that isn't deserved. I really believe that although there is a segment of the population that justs poisons themselves with huge quantities of junk food, I think that there are other people who DO make good choices, who DO try, and who have something going on with their body chemistry that torpedos them. You know how

[Sabrosita]

Also, there's a bit of me that wonders if the day that I avoid the pork belly will the day I get hit by a choo-choo train.

←

Not to sound flip...But this is my favorite quote from this whole discussion.

[docsconz]

Also, there's a bit of me that wonders if the day that I avoid the pork belly will the day I get hit by a choo-choo train.

←

Not to sound flip...But this is my favorite quote from this whole discussion.

←

This is one big reason not to become too obsessive about any single thing. there are risks and there are reasonable risks. Any individual should balance them for him or herself.

[weinoo]

In relation to the calories injested vs calories expended theory, I do agree that that's the bottom line, but I think it puts an onus of guilt on overweight people that isn't deserved. I really believe that although there is a segment of the population that justs poisons themselves with huge quantities of junk food, I think that there are other people who DO make good choices, who DO try, and who have something going on with their body chemistry that torpedos them. You know how

←

I'm really in no way trying to make anyone feel guilty...and I know that there are people who try to lose weight and make good choices, and still "can't" lose weight. But I guarantee to you that if they counted every single calorie they took in for two months and subtracted the calories they burned up, if there's a positive number they will gain weight, and if there's a negative number they will lose weight. I don't think our bodies can manufacture weight without the calories.

As a matter of fact, here's a web site that we've used to do just that:

Get your free online diet journal and start tracking your foods, exercises, weight loss, and goals. Join over 2 Million FitDay members using our site to take control of their diet and lose weight.

[hummingbirdkiss]

Also, there's a bit of me that wonders if the day that I avoid the pork belly will the day I get hit by a choo-choo train.

←

Not to sound flip...But this is my favorite quote from this whole discussion.

←

me too (I am back ) eat the pork belly and then go for a run, walk, stroll ...eat the freaking pork belly!!! it keeps you full longer than popcorn!!!!

there are so many misunderstandings about obesity and understandings but it is math in the end as mentioned above

we need fat in our diets to keep ourselves content ...I am so glad MB is wanting to drop 40lbs I bet it makes a huge difference ..I also think this conversation is amazing and am so glad it was started and keep sneaking in here between patients .. I printed that article and am giving it out today as needed

it is good for food lovers to talk about this issue ..before you have to sit in front of me clutching your chest!

Edited March 19, 2008 by hummingbirdkiss (log)

[fischwlu]

So I was just wondering what people who try to be healthy yet still enjoy real food like to eat and do to stay within that healthy range...

My husband and I like to eat as healthy as possible during the weekdays and then we eat what we want on the weekends. Salads, chicken breasts, and omlettes are easy and fast during the week, and then we can have long, indulgent meals on the weekend. We also have been trying to exercise 4-5 times a week... it definitely makes you feel better about eating that cannoli, but it also makes you more selective about what is tasty enough to justify the calories.

[docsconz]

With all due respect, asserting that a condition is underdiagnosed is a logical impossibility. The only way to obtain facts to back up such a statement is to have, well, diagnosed the condition. In which case . . .

Wouldn't Perlow be an example of an undiagnosed case of diabetes? Dude thinks he's healthy, starts feeling crummy, talks to a doctor who says "Surprise, your 400 pound self has diabetes!". How many people like that are walking around under the impression that everything is fine?

Perlow has been diagnosed.

One can look at a the diagnosis of someone at a certain stage of diabetes and, with the appropriate medical expertise, reasonably say, "this guy has had diabetes for X amount of time, and it should have been diagnosed already." During the time between when it should have been diagnosed and the time it was diagnosed, he was "undiagnosed." One can make reasonable assumptions and projections about the population to come up at a percentage of "people with undiagnosed diabetes."

Of course, I suppose there are various meanings of "underdiagnosed." What I have outlined above would be one way of describing "underdiagnosis" -- that there is a X number of people who should be diagnosed with diabetes but aren't. One would like to reduce the value of X to the greatest extent possible. Whether they have visited a doctor and been tested or not is irrelevant with respect to this meaning. A visit to the doctor that should have resulted in a diagnosis of diabetes but didn't would be a misdiagnosis.

Another way of looking at it would be, there are people who have tests and are revealed to have a certain kind of blood sugar response. Some people light look at those results and diagnose "not diabetes." If one is making the argument that people with that certain kind of blood sugar response should be diagnosed as "diabetes" but aren't -- that would constitute "underdiagnosis." Similarly, one can take the opposite viewpoint: If the same population is given the diagnosis of "diabetes" and one is making the argument that they shouldn't be -- that would constitute "overdiagnosis." Presumably one would need to have the appropriate medical background, or access to the same, in order to take either position.

←

Sam, as usual, you make a very strong argument, with which I fully agree.

As for underdiagnosis of diabetes, it occurs because people simply do not seek care or ignore their symptoms until something else occurs. It is not uncommon for me as an anesthesiologist to make the diagnosis pre-operatively on a patient coming to surgery for something unrelated. In that situation, unless the surgical procedure is an emergency, I postpone it until the patient has had the illness worked up and under reasonable control.

Denial is a very strong component for this disease and others. people do not want to face the obvious and they put off seeking help.

One of the more interesting elements of modern diabetes is that a great proportion of cases, including my own are not classic. For instance, while I have a fairly strong family history, I developed it at a younger age (one month before I turned forty) and without being obese. I have recently lost twenty pounds, reside at my target weight, yet still am diabetic. It is an interesting phenomenon, that really appears to be relatively new. In the past, most diabetics were either juvenile onset type I at a young age or older, overweight adults developing insulin-resistant type II. More and more patients are showing mixed types for whatever reason.

As for lowering the standards for normal blood pressure, cholesterol, etc., these are due to perceptions of risk and the likelihood for having complications. Diabetics are nowadays counseled (or should be) to aim for low normal BP and lipids. I currently take lipid-lowering agents and antihypertensive agents in addition to low-dose Aspirin prophylactically - especially because I enjoy food and are less willing to cut as many corners there as perhaps I should.

[Katie Meadow]

Wow, this is a very hot issue, especially at eG. It would be foolish to ignore some very hard truths and reasonable generalizations about the rate of obesity in this country, the dangers it presents, its relationship to diabetes and heart disease. Everyone needs to assess his or her own risks; if staying healthy was easy we would see a very different picture in this country. So many things conspire against us: money, resources, access to good foods, time to make good food, lack of education, poor health care, denial and gluttony. At one time or another I have suffered from them all.

Yeah, some people have all the luck: they are overweight, eat pork belly with abandon and live into their nineties. But truthfully, not that many. I wouldn't dispute the idea that there is a genetic predisposition to being overweight, but that doesn't mean you won't fall prey to the many related health problems. It just means, sadly, that you probably have to work harder to keep the weight off. My dad wasn't overweight and swam regularly, but was diagnosed with angina and died of a heart attack. I have high blood pressure and borderline high cholesterol. It's about simple math and risk-taking. I want to see how my kid's life turns out, so if the odds of that happening go up by eating bacon only twice a year and having hummus for an app instead of brie, I've decided that's worth it. My chances of getting run over by a train don't change. But it's always good to look where you are going.

[weinoo]

So I was just wondering what people who try to be healthy yet still enjoy real food like to eat and do to stay within that healthy range...

My husband and I like to eat as healthy as possible during the weekdays and then we eat what we want on the weekends. Salads, chicken breasts, and omlettes are easy and fast during the week, and then we can have long, indulgent meals on the weekend. We also have been trying to exercise 4-5 times a week... it definitely makes you feel better about eating that cannoli, but it also makes you more selective about what is tasty enough to justify the calories.

←

It's certainly a struggle for me, as I love food and wine (oh yeah, and booze) so much. But, by eating smaller portions, foregoing those desserts when they're not really that great, not finishing all those fries at Schiller's or Balthazar and exercising fairly religiously for literally almost 20 years, I've been able to maintain a fairly steady weight. Though certainly it gets more difficult as one gets older.

And today, for lunch, strawberries and blueberries with lo-fat plain Greek yogurt.

[melkor]

So I was just wondering what people who try to be healthy yet still enjoy real food like to eat and do to stay within that healthy range...

My husband and I like to eat as healthy as possible during the weekdays and then we eat what we want on the weekends. Salads, chicken breasts, and omlettes are easy and fast during the week, and then we can have long, indulgent meals on the weekend. We also have been trying to exercise 4-5 times a week... it definitely makes you feel better about eating that cannoli, but it also makes you more selective about what is tasty enough to justify the calories.

←

I go to a rock climbing gym three or four days a week (in case you haven't guessed, I'm a little younger than my photo suggests) for two or three hours at a time. I'm down to twenty pounds heavier than I should be.

Off the top of my head, here's what I've eaten the past several days - I make myself a latte (2% milk) and have a couple of biscotti with it for breakfast, otherwise it's:

Yesterday: Went out for Korean for lunch (kalbi, tofu soup, scallion pancake, panchan), braised lamb shanks with celery root puree and roasted asparagus for dinner along with a red burgundy to drink.

Monday: Lentil soup for lunch, buttermilk fried chicken, corn bread, blackened green beans with aioli, icecream for dessert. 2 1/2 hours at the gym.

Sunday: Went to the Thai temple for lunch - som tam, fried chicken, jungle curry, fish and eggplant stirfry, khanom krok, stickyrice and mango. Taco truck for lunch (cabeza tacos and horchata). 2 1/2 hours at the gym.

Saturday: Roasted asparagus with poached eggs and bread for lunch. Lentil soup, boquerones and aioli on crackers, steak au poivre vert, celery root puree, veg, cheese and bread, ice cream for dessert. Three bottles of wine for the four of us at dinner.

Friday: Tuna sandwiches and salad for lunch, Pakistani restaurant for dinner (naan, tandoori chicken legs, bhuna gosht, chicken karahi, palak paneer, nihari, rice, mili juli subzi), 3 hours at the gym.

[Fat Guy]

FG's claim that diabetes is overdiagnosed seemed defensive. As a former journalist, though, I'm perfectly willing to concede that the comment may have been part of a larger thought/comment of his that the author cherrypicked for exactly that reason. That said, and in the interest of giving Steven the full benefit of the doubt, I wonder if he would mind pointing out what evidence he relies on for his statement.

←

Diabetes in not a hoax. The notion of a massively escalating type 2 diabetes epidemic is. As reported in the New York Times last year, as Dave has already referenced, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey has shown that the rate of diabetes in the population has risen little over time. Rather, detection has increased. To a certain extent, that's a good thing. However, separately, the diagnostic threshold for type 2 diabetes has been lowered over time, such that people are being diagnosed with diabetes today who -- even if tested and evaluated -- would not have been diagnosed as such in the past. Those people -- the ones in the 140 to 126 mg/dL category -- are not being well served by diagnoses of type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc., and especially not by the attendant drug regimens. Of course there are also people out there who have diabetes for real and are undiagnosed. Most every non-fictitious disease, in that regard, is underdiagnosed -- even the overdiagnosed ones.

[docsconz]

To a certain extent, that's a good thing. However, separately, the diagnostic threshold for type 2 diabetes has been lowered over time, such that people are being diagnosed with diabetes today who -- even if tested and evaluated -- would not have been diagnosed as such in the past. Those people -- the ones in the 140 to 126 mg/dL category -- are not being well served by diagnoses of type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc., and especially not by the attendant drug regimens.

←

But they are being well served if early detection and treatment can help ward off more severe disease and complications. The truth, though, is that those people are rarely started out on drug regimens. They are usually treated with dietary modifications.

[hummingbirdkiss]

So I was just wondering what people who try to be healthy yet still enjoy real food like to eat and do to stay within that healthy range...

My husband and I like to eat as healthy as possible during the weekdays and then we eat what we want on the weekends. Salads, chicken breasts, and omlettes are easy and fast during the week, and then we can have long, indulgent meals on the weekend. We also have been trying to exercise 4-5 times a week... it definitely makes you feel better about eating that cannoli, but it also makes you more selective about what is tasty enough to justify the calories.

←

I eat no fast or prepackaged foods ..none at all .avoild all transfats and eat my fat naturally....when my wt goes up ten lbs I eat a pretty low carb diet (avoid all sugar, potatoes, flour, rice anything white I guess you can say) and count calories and carbs until the weight comes off then I try to maintain it as long as I can by being sensible ..and honestly I am not at all sensible for certian periods of the month...and I do move my ass as much as possible although I hate regular exercise.. I garden and do a lot of heavy work ..I am also on my feet all day even in front of the computer were I toss the chair and stand fidgeting all the time ...drink lots of water...eat when hungry stop when content and not full ...

I want to eat pork belly until I die ..but I also do not want to loose the capablity of caring for myself unless I have to ..this is not easy that is for sure and certainly I am not a great example with the up and down 10lb thing...but human and ..I love sugary/white/fatty foods!!!!

[FoodMan]

I can only hope that th NYT article is just framing Steven's words to make him seem like my college idiot friend who believed dinosaurs never existed!!

Beyond what Sam and Doc Sconzo said , I really do not have much to add. If we are predisposed by genetics to get cancer, why even bother getting checkups? Same applies to food. If our parents were obese, that gives us no reason to pig out on cheese covered pork bellies in duck fat sauce every day. Moderation is the key, it makes sense.

Now, if we just want to say 'Oh, frak it...I don't give a shit and I'd rather have my fried pizza everyday in the name of food enjoyment', well then, that is a personal choice.

[melkor]

I eat no fast or prepackaged  foods ..none at all .avoild all transfats and eat my fat naturally...

←

That's a great point, I also eat no packaged/prepared foods.

[docsconz]

I eat no fast or prepackaged  foods ..none at all .avoild all transfats and eat my fat naturally...

←

That's a great point, I also eat no packaged/prepared foods.

←

I certainly don't eat a lot of these, but I can't say I don't eat any. Sometimes, they are actually pretty good.

[melkor]

I eat no fast or prepackaged  foods ..none at all .avoild all transfats and eat my fat naturally...

←

That's a great point, I also eat no packaged/prepared foods.

←

I certainly don't eat a lot of these, but I can't say I don't eat any. Sometimes, they are actually pretty good.

←

True, I do buy a few packages of TimTams a year and sometimes we buy crackers. Otherwise it's pretty much from scratch forus.

[FoodMan]

I eat no fast or prepackaged  foods ..none at all .avoild all transfats and eat my fat naturally...

←

That's a great point, I also eat no packaged/prepared foods.

←

I certainly don't eat a lot of these, but I can't say I don't eat any. Sometimes, they are actually pretty good.

←

I even take my kids to McDonald's every other month ...I never eat anything though. The smell honestly makes me sick. What can I say, those toys just call my sons name...