 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / December 2008Greener Neighborhoods Mean Slimmer Children
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403128.html FRIDAY, Nov. 14 (HealthDay News) - Greener neighborhoods, with lots of trees, help inner city kids keep excess pounds at bay, according to a U.S. study. "Previous work, including our own, has provided snapshots in time, and shown that for children in densely population cities, the greener the neighborhood, the lower the risk of obesity. Our new study of over 3,800 inner-city children revealed that living in areas with green space has a long-term positive impact on children's weight and thus health," study senior author Gilbert C. Liu, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine, said in a school news release. The children in the study, ages 3 to 18 years, were in the same residence for more than 24 consecutive months. Higher neighborhood "greenness" was associated with slower increases in body mass index (BMI) over time, regardless of age, race or sex, said the researchers. They added this slowing of BMI could reduce the risk of child obesity in the long term. The findings were published in the December issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Trees and other urban vegetation improve a neighborhood's appearance, reduce pollution, and keep the area cooler in the summer -- all of which encourage children to be outside playing, walking and running, the team said. Being active reduces the risk of obesity, which is associated with a number of health problems including type 2 diabetes, asthma, hypertension, sleep apnea and emotional distress. Obese children are likely to become obese adults. "Obesity is a national epidemic necessitating the involvement of health-care providers, parents, and the community," Liu said. "Our lifestyle makes us sedentary and less healthy. For children, physical activity is active play, and that usually takes place outdoors. We need to encourage them to go outside and play. I love the idea that we can landscape for health." More information The Nemours Foundation has more about overweight and obesity in children. SOURCE: Indiana University, news release, Oct. 28, 2008 > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- > dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403128.html [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > SOURCE: Indiana University, news release, Oct. 28, 2008 Obesity reduces the risk of being active. >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- >> dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403128.html [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Obesity reduces the risk of being active. Obesity increases the risk of sedentary behavior. These are just associations. We can flip them around any way we want. Carbohydrates drive insulin drives fat accumulation. The cause is not obesity or sedentary behavior. The cause is carbohydrates. The consequence is obesity and sedentary behavior. >Obesity increases the risk of sedentary behavior. These are just >associations. We can flip them around any way we want. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The cause is not obesity or sedentary behavior. The cause is >carbohydrates. The consequence is obesity and sedentary behavior. Insulin is produced to regulate carbohydrate concentration in the blood. Unless you eat some excessive amount at once and/or you are already in bad shape, you don't decrease your blood sugar by eating carbohydrates. Eat excessive calories in the form of carbohydrates, and insulin pushes the body to convert them to body fat. Eat excessive calories in other forms, and by other mechanisms they also get converted to body fat. Eat excessive calories and you get fat, whether the excessive calories are or are not in the form of carbohydrates. Sedentary behavior is a cause of obesity. Sedentary behavior is also of problems that have positive correlation with obesity, even to some extent among those who manage to be sedentary without gaining weight (due to low calorie consumption). - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) >> Obesity increases the risk of sedentary behavior. These are just >> associations. We can flip them around any way we want. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) The calorie concept is flawed. The calorie in/calorie out hypothesis is called the Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis. It is based on the First Law of Thermodynamics. This Law states that no energy can be created or destroyed. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that no system is perfect. The human body functions more closely according to the Second Law than according to the First Law. What's a calorie? It's a measure of heat. How do we measure a calorie in food? In a bomb caloriemeter i.e. we set the food afire. Does the body use a calorie the same way we measure it? No, the body does not set the food afire to use it. The human body deals with food on a molecular level with hormones and enzymes. Carbohydrates, protein and fat are not the same molecules and don't act the same way nor do they get used the same way nor do they stimulate the same pathways. The primary function of insulin is nutrients storage. That it controls blood glucose as it stores nutrients is merely incidental. Fat cells is the organ used for nutrients storage. Fat cells are now collectively seen as an endocrine organ because of the various hormones that it secretes. The primary regulator of fat cells is insulin. The primary regulator of insulin is carbohydrates. However, no matter how we look at it, the mechanism of insulin remains the same: Carbohydrates drive insulin drives fat accumulation. Fat is transported and stored as triglycerides. Fat enters and exists fat cells as fatty acids. Alpha glycerol phosphate i.e. glycerol, is the molecule that binds three fatty acid molecules to form one trygliceride molecule. This is critical to understanding how we accumulate fat. As fat cells use glucose, they produce glycerol as a by-product. This glycerol is then used to bind fatty acids into triglycerides for storage. As we eat carbohydrates, blood glucose rises, insulin rises, glucose is pushed in fat cells (along with fatty acids), fat cells use glucose, produce glycerol, then use that to bind the fatty acids, fat accumulates, we grow fat. Protein also causes insulin to rise but it lacks that ability to cause blood glucose to rise. So, it while it can prevent fat from being released from fat cells temporarily due to the temporary rise in insulin, it can't cause fat to accumulate because the mechanism of glycerol production fat cells is not driven as it is with carbs. Fat doesn't cause insulin or blood glucose to rise so it lacks any mechanism to drive fat accumulation. It's all the carbohydrates and only the carbohydrates. This looks like we could avoid accumulating fat by not eating it, doesn't it? The problem is that carbohydrates can also be converted to fat. Fructose is readily converted into triglycerides inside the liver. Glucose causes blood glucose and insulin to rise. Table sugar (sucrose) is half glucose half fructose. HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) is most commonly 55% fructose however this kind of sugar is not bound like sucrose is. It's just two liquids (glucose and fructose) mixed in so it's even more readily absorbed separately. This is probably why we still grow fat even though we eat low fat food. Especially considering that almost all low fat food is also high sugar and/or high HFCS. >>> Obesity increases the risk of sedentary behavior. These are just >>> associations. We can flip them around any way we want. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >perfect. The human body functions more closely according to the Second >Law than according to the First Law. The Second Law actually states that entropy increases, and does not invalidate the First Law. >What's a calorie? It's a measure of heat. How do we measure a calorie in >food? In a bomb caloriemeter i.e. we set the food afire. One of a few different permitted methods. Much more commonly done is to analyze the food and add up calories according to official tables of how many calories the body extracts from each gram of various components of food. >Does the body use a calorie the same way we measure it? No, the body does >not set the food afire to use it. That is why protein is usually counted as having 4 calories per gram when the bomb calorimeter says 5.3 (give or take a bit depending on amino acid breakdown), and fiber is usually counted as having zero calories per gram when a bomb calorimeter says about 4-4.5. >The human body deals with food on a molecular level with hormones and >enzymes. Carbohydrates, protein and fat are not the same molecules and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The primary function of insulin is nutrients storage. That it controls >blood glucose as it stores nutrients is merely incidental. Where do you get that? And how can diabetics gain weight? > Fat cells is the organ used for nutrients storage. Fat cells are now >collectively seen as an endocrine organ because of the various hormones >that it secretes. Can you name some hormones secreted by fat cells? And why would they affect dietary needs of people who have not yet become fat? > The primary regulator of fat cells is insulin. Where do you get that? > The primary regulator of insulin is carbohydrates. However, no matter > how we look at it, the mechanism of insulin remains the same: > Carbohydrates drive insulin drives fat accumulation. Than how do Type I diabetics get fat without a pancreas making insulin? And why do I see people eating everything but carbohydrates (and often also less vegetables whether carb-rich or not) getting fat? >Fat is transported and stored as triglycerides. True. > Fat enters and exists fat cells as fatty acids. Where do you get that? While it is true that information sources such as Wikipedia articles on specific forms of fat mention the fatty acid breakdown, they merely omit rather than counter the fact that tryglycerides are the main constituent of animal fats (and vegetable oils) - and that includes body fat on humans (which is what fat cells store). Triglycerides are combos of 1 glycerol molecule and 3 fatty acid molecules. > Alpha glycerol phosphate i.e. glycerol, is the >molecule that binds three fatty acid molecules to form one trygliceride >molecule. This is critical to understanding how we accumulate fat. > >As fat cells use glucose, they produce glycerol as a by-product. Where do you get that, as opposed to how glucose is metabolized by the Krebs cycle, or turned into pyruvic acid and then lactic acid when muscles do anaerobic work? And where do you get that, as opposed to fat stored in fat cells being triglycerides? Articles that mention fatty acid breakdown and not saying whether or not the fatty acids are actually components of triglycerides? The body's main source of glycerol is normally from digestion of fats into fatty acids and glycerol to enable absorption through the intestinal wall. The liver then recombines those into triglycerides, or uses those to manufacture glucose when carb intake is low and blood glocose level is low. The liver makes tryglycerides, and does so from any source of calories. The liver turns glucose into triglycerides when the pancreas detects excessive blood glucose level (and secretes insulin) as part of regulating blood glucose level. The liver turns other forms of calories into tryglycerides, especially when present in the blood in excessive concentration, and does not need insulin to make it do so. > This glycerol is then used to bind fatty acids into triglycerides for >storage. You said earlier in this article that fat exists in fat cells as fatty acids. Which is it now - fatty acids or triglycerides? Or did you mean transportation to fat cells? Certainly triglyceride is more favorable for ultimate form for storage - free fatty acids are more soluble in water and blood than triglycerides are. Even should it be true that fats are transported into fat cells as triglycerides but stored as fatty acids and the storage as fatty acid releases glycerol, that would be from glycerol being liberated from triglycerides - not manufactured from glucose. And converting triglycerides in the body into free fatty acids and glycerol is something better to do in order to metabolize fat. Yes, that happens more when the body is deprived of non-fat calories, but in order for stored body fat to be metabolized like that the body requires total calorie intake to be less than its calorie expenditure. > As we eat carbohydrates, blood glucose rises, insulin rises, >glucose is pushed in fat cells (along with fatty acids), fat cells use [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Protein also causes insulin to rise but it lacks that ability to cause >blood glucose to rise. The liver can convert protein to glucose when the body is deprived of carbs. And excessive calories in form of protein are remanufactured into triglycerides by the liver, and the liver does not need any steenkin' insulin to do that. > So, it while it can prevent fat from being released from fat cells >temporarily due to the temporary rise in insulin, it can't cause fat to >accumulate because the mechanism of glycerol production fat cells is not >driven as it is with carbs. As I said above about fat cells producing glycerin? Fat is transported to fat cells in form of triglycerides, which the liver readily manufactures from excessive calories in any form. > Fat doesn't cause insulin or blood glucose to >rise so it lacks any mechanism to drive fat accumulation. The liver can convert fat (body fat or dietary fat) to glucose when the body is deprived of carbs. The liver readily produces triglycerides from excessive calories in any form, and fat stored in fat cells is actually mostly triglycerides. Also, you don't need insulin to make the body store fat. Diabetics have proved that. High triglyceride level in the blood favors fat moving into fat cells. Excessive calorie intake means more blood triglyceride content regardless of calorie form. It's just that when excessive calorie intake includes carbs, insulin is involved in the pathway to body fat (except in Type I diabetics) to regulate blood glucose level. > It's all the carbohydrates and only the carbohydrates. As I said, why have I seen people eating anything other than carbs gain weight? How have I managed to see people manage to get thin or stay thin while eating lower calorie content foods, even when percentage of calories in the form of carbs is high? >This looks like we could avoid accumulating fat by not eating it, >doesn't it? The problem is that carbohydrates can also be converted to fat. Excessive calories in any form get converted to fat. >Fructose is readily converted into triglycerides inside the liver. >Glucose causes blood glucose and insulin to rise. Table sugar (sucrose) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it's even more readily absorbed separately. This is probably why we >still grow fat even though we eat low fat food. Or how about because Americans have eaten large amounts of fat even during the "low fat fad", as part of the important increasing excessive calorie intake? And increased their caloric intake and become more sedentary over the past few decades? > Especially considering that almost all low fat food is also high sugar > and/or high HFCS. Except bread, pasta, unsugared cereal/grains, vegetables, and truly lean meat and truly low calorie salad dressings. And some of those gain fat (and plenty of calories) when condiments such as butter and salad dressings are added. Whole grain bread is a little lower density in calories than stuff made with refined grains. Rice lacks sugar, and brown rice has its caloric content diluted a little with fiber. Americans are generally eating insufficient vegetables, too much of almost everything else (higher calorie density), and too much of their grain products being deprived of their fiber. Along with being excessively sedentary. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) > In article <e43cd$492160eb$4c0aad3d$14...@TEKSAVVY.COM>, Martin Levac wrote: > >Obesity increases the risk of sedentary behavior. These are just [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com) thanks alot very commonsense info excess calories intake is the culprit >thanks alot very commonsense info >excess calories intake is the culprit Pudgy little children in the green suburbs getting shuttled around by their mothers is a big culprit. My mother's music teacher said the little kids he teaches get driven to their lessons even if it's a 3-block walk. The car/laziness culture pays a big part in this.  Signaturehttp://cashcuddler.com "Thrift is sexy." >>thanks alot very commonsense info >>excess calories intake is the culprit [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > little kids he teaches get driven to their lessons even if it's a > 3-block walk. The car/laziness culture pays a big part in this. Interestingly enough, that's precisely the opposite of what the study actually says. It's the poor kids (you know, the ones that don't have private music lessons) that are far more likely statistically to be overweight. I am not saying that there aren't pudgy kids in the suburbs, but this study suggests that the kids below the poverty level are far more likely to be overweight. Jason |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.