What is causing the obesity epidemic?

[HeyYou]

I can't comment on why so many Americans are obese, although I personally believe the biggest culprit is processed sugar and foods. What I can say from experience is this: I've been on a diet consisting mainly of vegetables, fruits, grains and seeds, and meat and eliminating all processed foods, sugars, and dairy. I've been on this diet for two months now and have lost 20 lbs, at least. This is without exercise. Now that I've started jogging every morning, I think I've lost even more weight and I feel better than ever.

 

My point is this: If eating whole foods that aren't processed is having the positive effect its having on me, than I surmise that the opposite kind of foods (the ones that are heavily processed with a lot of different chemicals and things) are a huge reason people are obese today. I know this is a complicated issue, so what I'm saying doesn't answer anything completely, but it still plays a major role.

I would tend to agree with you. Between seriously over-processed food, genetically modified foods, and the pesticides they are finding in our food..... Is it any wonder that we are unhealthy?

[Deleted54170User]

Ooo! Pure refined cane sugar!

 

The whitest of the sugar types refined from sugar cane. It so sweet it has turned the world upside down mixing it in everything that is made, baked, and candied.

[HadToRegister]

Corn, and it's byproducts like "High Fructose Corn Syrup" and how the Government subsidizes it are the problem.

GMOs aren't a problem, I have worked with DNA, extracted it from one organism, grew it in some E.Coli, extracted that bit of new DNA and spliced it into another organism's DNA, it's not dangerous.
It's like playing with LEGOS, and is NOTHING like your Sci-Fi and Horror movies and Evangelicals and other people who are completely ignorant of Science would have you believe.

[Deleted54170User]

Corn Syrup! Yup. Another round of sweetness.

 

The same stuff the server at a famous ice cream shop wanted to add to a milk shake to give it a sweeter flavor. I told them I didn't want any extra stuff in the milk shake. The ice cream is sweet enough without adding corn syrup.

[cfly42]

Corn, and it's byproducts like "High Fructose Corn Syrup" and how the Government subsidizes it are the problem.

 

GMOs aren't a problem, I have worked with DNA, extracted it from one organism, grew it in some E.Coli, extracted that bit of new DNA and spliced it into another organism's DNA, it's not dangerous.

It's like playing with LEGOS, and is NOTHING like your Sci-Fi and Horror movies and Evangelicals and other people who are completely ignorant of Science would have you believe.

 

 

Could you comment more on why GMOs aren't as dangerous as people believe? Or if you know of a good article or research paper that provides solid evidence to back-up this claim, could you share it? I'm currently on the fence about GMOs because I haven't read or heard anything beyond "the more natural something is, the better it is for you."

 

On one hand, I have experience eating only non-gmo foods that come straight from the earth as is. I feel loads better eating these foods.

(No, I haven't tried GMO foods, so I can't comment on whether they make me feel the same way, but I've been scared off of GMOs for a long time, now)

On the other hand, I have enough experience to know that there is always more to things we think are dangerous and other angles to see these "dangerous" things that show they're not what we think they are.

I'm open-minded enough to change my viewpoint if there is enough evidence to back-up the opposing viewpoint, so if you can provide some evidence for your claim, I would love to have my view challenged!

 

Also, Bill Nye made the same claim after he visited Monsanto and that screams "corporate shill" in my book. It does not lend creedence to the claim that GMOs are not unhealthy as I do not believe Monsanto has the interests of human health in mind.

[Deleted54170User]

Because we are prone to relax after we eat.

 

We don't need an exercise program for the first stage of digestion and it doesn't help our digestion if we cramp our stomach or dance away from our table. Cramping or dancing may lend to poor digestion.

 

We tend to lean back in the chair, lay back or lay down immediately after we eat, and that doesn't let the stomach fully vent and allow the mashed food production to release the first stage digestive gases through our mouth.

 

We burp a little and sometimes allot when we sit up straight, or stand up still. The digestion usually takes a quarter of an hour after we eat to fully get the best results. Fifteen minutes makes the difference between a good internal digestive action completed and a poor cramped esophagus keeping the fumes in forcing them into the large intestine where most foods are ready for where gases also get created which are less corrosive then the stomach fluids. The gases get forced into the intestines because the stomach is cramped down on by our rib cage. Which makes for painful indigestion as well.

 

Sitting up straight and/or standing up with are backs so we are not crouching, are not hunched over, sitting up straight is best for the first fifteen minutes. Just to prove to myself what was happening when sitting cramping my esophagus I drank four swigs of a carbonated drink. While sitting up straight I burped ferociously shortly after I drank it. I drank four more swigs, leaned back on the couch with my esophagus cramped that way I did not release the carbonation even fifteen minutes later, an hour later, not at all. I felt it being forced down my intestine track along my Liver. And No! I didn't even fart ferociously later. (1.)

 

When we cramp our stomach we cause the esophagus to be strangled at the top of the stomach which traps some fumes I think is best burped out, which shouldn't be forced through the rest our intestinal track. Known to most of us as BAD BREATH gases. Digestion may be improved just by sitting up straight. It makes good sense to me now-a-days.

 

When we sit up, stand up straight, we vent a little, unnoticeable at times and clearly burping at other times for fifteen minutes. Later, drink four to six ounces of water after fifteen minutes, imo, it makes for much better continued digestion and comfortable relief too.

 

Go no where, sit up straight, and I mean so you feel the weight on your back straight down on your spine and none on your abdomen.

When finished with our meal, we need to give the stomach time to get a good start before we move out.

 

In peoples homes who have the meals with main dishes followed by a desert; the time it takes to eat then wait for the desert gives our stomach time to work, and waiting for the desert excites us so we tend to sit up straight, lean forward and back repeatedly and assists the stomach because we are excited and breath deeper. The raising and dropping of our rib cage helps agitate the food in our stomach a little bit more too.

 

After the digestion has engaged fully we are, so to speak, pumped up with energy. The body is ready to run, even if we never need to. In most cases we don't need to run around, but if we had to, the juices our body reserves are like having a fuel injection system ready to pump in the high octane; if we need it.

 

Other wise we use up the extra octane by flushing it out of our system. Burning more carbs relieves us of the fat which would be used to be made into muscle and gets stored.

 

footnotes

 

1. My carbonated burping test is a known fact to me now. I got a Soda Stream machine and have had a lot of fun getting the experiences with carbonated water.

 

 

(Please! With any wisdom you have, or gain, revise any of this if you are a physical analyst or a physician of sports body building work outs, or have a copy of Physical diagnosis by John A. Prior and Jack S. Silberstein 1973 which may have something I missed while speed reading through it before I started getting bored.)

 

Hey! If you are really one of those serious book editors, and you find my notes useful, put a footnote mark in your own book directing people who, really, read footnotes and find the authors resources, so I get a little credit for working to find out the marvelous experiences of getting fat, and finding out about how carbonated drinks actually can demonstrate to show what kind of burping, farting, stinkers we really are. :geek:

[HadToRegister]

 

Corn, and it's byproducts like "High Fructose Corn Syrup" and how the Government subsidizes it are the problem.

 

GMOs aren't a problem, I have worked with DNA, extracted it from one organism, grew it in some E.Coli, extracted that bit of new DNA and spliced it into another organism's DNA, it's not dangerous.

It's like playing with LEGOS, and is NOTHING like your Sci-Fi and Horror movies and Evangelicals and other people who are completely ignorant of Science would have you believe.

 

 

Could you comment more on why GMOs aren't as dangerous as people believe? Or if you know of a good article or research paper that provides solid evidence to back-up this claim, could you share it? I'm currently on the fence about GMOs because I haven't read or heard anything beyond "the more natural something is, the better it is for you."

 

On one hand, I have experience eating only non-gmo foods that come straight from the earth as is. I feel loads better eating these foods.

(No, I haven't tried GMO foods, so I can't comment on whether they make me feel the same way, but I've been scared off of GMOs for a long time, now)

On the other hand, I have enough experience to know that there is always more to things we think are dangerous and other angles to see these "dangerous" things that show they're not what we think they are.

I'm open-minded enough to change my viewpoint if there is enough evidence to back-up the opposing viewpoint, so if you can provide some evidence for your claim, I would love to have my view challenged!

 

Also, Bill Nye made the same claim after he visited Monsanto and that screams "corporate shill" in my book. It does not lend creedence to the claim that GMOs are not unhealthy as I do not believe Monsanto has the interests of human health in mind.

 

 

 

Are ‘OMICS’ Contributing to the Identification of Unintended Effects in Genetically Modified Crops?

 

-ALSO-

 

I know I shouldn't use wikipedia, we weren't allowed to use wikipedia for our papers/presentations

GTenetically modified tomato "Flavr Savr"

 

People seem to think that they're gene splicing crabs, and lobsters etc into Corn or something like that, when they're usually splicing the hardiness of one type of plant/crop, into another more fragile crop, or altering that crop to grow in harsher environments etc.

You can't just go splicing genes willy-nilly, there are certain restriction enzymes that can cut DNA at certain spots.

SAC I will cut DNA at any spot that has the sequence GAGCTC

Hinfl will cut DNA that starts with the sequence GA and ends with TC

Hind III will cut at AAGCTT etc etc..

 

We cut the DNA from a Jellyfish, like a LEGO piece, the DNA part that made the jellyfish glow, then we spliced it into some fish DNA and grew the sequence in some bacteria, then injected it into a fish egg.

Glowing Fish!!!

 

The Flavr Savr tomato, was genetically modified (akin to cross-breeding) to have a longer shelf-life, using ACC synthase, (synthase doesn't mean Synthetic, it means an enzyme that catalazes the linking of two molecules and is completely organic in nature) in this instance, it was used as rate limiting device to slow down the production of ethylene which causes the ripening of fruits which in turn, increased the shelf life of the tomato. (Like how you can put some unripe fruit in a bag with Apples, and the gas the apple gives off, causes the other fruit to ripen, they ship some fruits that way with apples so they'll ripen by the time they get to the store. try it at home by buying some green bananas and putting them in a bag with apples, they give off the same Ethylene gas, the same as the enzyme that's altered in the GMO tomato Ethylene, the Ripening Hormone ) but people freaked out anyway, even though the tomato was labelled as such, and the company sold their tomato to Monsanto, and it was taken off the shelves, because people watch too many horror and sci-fi movies.

 

The other methods of "Genetically" Modifying crops is through cross-breeding, or "Mutation Breeding" which is through purposeful mutation through exposure to radiation or chemicals (Which people don't seem to give a damn about, but are completely afraid of GMOs) .

Which is odd, considering that you would think people would be more worried about exposing crops to Radiation or Chemicals in order to mutate them, and be ok with taking part of one plant's DNA and putting it into another plant's DNA

[cfly42]

 

 

 

Could you comment more on why GMOs aren't as dangerous as people believe? Or if you know of a good article or research paper that provides solid evidence to back-up this claim, could you share it? I'm currently on the fence about GMOs because I haven't read or heard anything beyond "the more natural something is, the better it is for you."

 

On one hand, I have experience eating only non-gmo foods that come straight from the earth as is. I feel loads better eating these foods.

(No, I haven't tried GMO foods, so I can't comment on whether they make me feel the same way, but I've been scared off of GMOs for a long time, now)

On the other hand, I have enough experience to know that there is always more to things we think are dangerous and other angles to see these "dangerous" things that show they're not what we think they are.

I'm open-minded enough to change my viewpoint if there is enough evidence to back-up the opposing viewpoint, so if you can provide some evidence for your claim, I would love to have my view challenged!

 

Also, Bill Nye made the same claim after he visited Monsanto and that screams "corporate shill" in my book. It does not lend creedence to the claim that GMOs are not unhealthy as I do not believe Monsanto has the interests of human health in mind.

 

 

 

Are ‘OMICS’ Contributing to the Identification of Unintended Effects in Genetically Modified Crops?

 

-ALSO-

 

I know I shouldn't use wikipedia, we weren't allowed to use wikipedia for our papers/presentations

GTenetically modified tomato "Flavr Savr"

 

People seem to think that they're gene splicing crabs, and lobsters etc into Corn or something like that, when they're usually splicing the hardiness of one type of plant/crop, into another more fragile crop, or altering that crop to grow in harsher environments etc.

You can't just go splicing genes willy-nilly, there are certain restriction enzymes that can cut DNA at certain spots.

SAC I will cut DNA at any spot that has the sequence GAGCTC

Hinfl will cut DNA that starts with the sequence GA and ends with TC

Hind III will cut at AAGCTT etc etc..

 

We cut the DNA from a Jellyfish, like a LEGO piece, the DNA part that made the jellyfish glow, then we spliced it into some fish DNA and grew the sequence in some bacteria, then injected it into a fish egg.

Glowing Fish!!!

 

The Flavr Savr tomato, was genetically modified (akin to cross-breeding) to have a longer shelf-life, using ACC synthase, (synthase doesn't mean Synthetic, it means an enzyme that catalazes the linking of two molecules and is completely organic in nature) in this instance, it was used as rate limiting device to slow down the production of ethylene which causes the ripening of fruits which in turn, increased the shelf life of the tomato. (Like how you can put some unripe fruit in a bag with Apples, and the gas the apple gives off, causes the other fruit to ripen, they ship some fruits that way with apples so they'll ripen by the time they get to the store. try it at home by buying some green bananas and putting them in a bag with apples, they give off the same Ethylene gas, the same as the enzyme that's altered in the GMO tomato Ethylene, the Ripening Hormone ) but people freaked out anyway, even though the tomato was labelled as such, and the company sold their tomato to Monsanto, and it was taken off the shelves, because people watch too many horror and sci-fi movies.

 

The other methods of "Genetically" Modifying crops is through cross-breeding, or "Mutation Breeding" which is through purposeful mutation through exposure to radiation or chemicals (Which people don't seem to give a damn about, but are completely afraid of GMOs) .

Which is odd, considering that you would think people would be more worried about exposing crops to Radiation or Chemicals in order to mutate them, and be ok with taking part of one plant's DNA and putting it into another plant's DNA

 

 

First off, props for following through on all this. I really appreciate someone who makes the effort to show evidence and explain things in a rational and reasonable way. I'm going to need time to parse through all this in order to really understand it, but I won't be so quick to judge all gmo products in the future. Thank you! I like having my world views challenged with actual scientific evidence. :D

 

One thing I'm feeling confused about is cross-breeding or "mutation breeding". I thought cross-breeding was when you pollinated one plant with a completely different plant to get another new type of plant. There was no radiation or chemicals involved in that process, or am I thinking about something different?

 

Also, can you give me an example of a product that was made using the radiation or chemicals from mutation breeding? I'd like to get a firm grasp on what it is that people don't seem to mind despite chemicals and radiation being used.

 

I'm learning so much here! Thank you again for your time!

[HadToRegister]

 

 

 

 

First off, props for following through on all this. I really appreciate someone who makes the effort to show evidence and explain things in a rational and reasonable way. I'm going to need time to parse through all this in order to really understand it, but I won't be so quick to judge all gmo products in the future. Thank you! I like having my world views challenged with actual scientific evidence. :D

 

One thing I'm feeling confused about is cross-breeding or "mutation breeding". I thought cross-breeding was when you pollinated one plant with a completely different plant to get another new type of plant. There was no radiation or chemicals involved in that process, or am I thinking about something different?

 

Also, can you give me an example of a product that was made using the radiation or chemicals from mutation breeding? I'd like to get a firm grasp on what it is that people don't seem to mind despite chemicals and radiation being used.

 

I'm learning so much here! Thank you again for your time!

 

 

Cross breeding is what the monk Gregor Mendel did with peas, starting out with 34 subspecies of peas that varied in length, color, leaves, and flower types, then he'd cross breed one type of pea with white flowers with another type of pea with a different color flower etc.

That way he was able to discover which traits from which set of peas was dominant.

(IE crossing a pea with a white flower with one with a yellow flower always produced a pea with a white flower etc showed the "White Flower" gene was dominant.)

This is where "Hybrids" come from, like "Hybrid Tomatoes", people cross bred different types of Tomatoes with the most favorable characteristics.

It's how you get Dachshunds from Wolves.

Selective breeding for the traits and features you want.

Long back, tiny legs etc

 

 

Chemical and Mutation breeding purposely mutates the DNA and causes it to either encode incorrectly or delete segments which causes a mutation.

So it's basically crossing your fingers and hoping the random result is favorable.

Mutation Breeding

With GMOs you know exactly what traits you're going for by inserting that trait into the plant through DNA

DNA is two strips like a zipper, one strip is forward encoded the other is reverse encoded and they match up through transcription and translation

 

T on one strip is supposed to match with A on the other, G with C

 

GATTCGGA should match up with

CTAAGCCT

With Radiation or Chemical mutation is can cause a 'deletion' or addition so you get two strips like

 

GATTCGGA matching with

GATTGATT which causes the mutation, same with chemicals.

[cfly42]

 

Cross breeding is what the monk Gregor Mendel did with peas, starting out with 34 subspecies of peas that varied in length, color, leaves, and flower types, then he'd cross breed one type of pea with white flowers with another type of pea with a different color flower etc.

That way he was able to discover which traits from which set of peas was dominant.

(IE crossing a pea with a white flower with one with a yellow flower always produced a pea with a white flower etc showed the "White Flower" gene was dominant.)

This is where "Hybrids" come from, like "Hybrid Tomatoes", people cross bred different types of Tomatoes with the most favorable characteristics.

It's how you get Dachshunds from Wolves.

Selective breeding for the traits and features you want.

Long back, tiny legs etc

 

 

Chemical and Mutation breeding purposely mutates the DNA and causes it to either encode incorrectly or delete segments which causes a mutation.

So it's basically crossing your fingers and hoping the random result is favorable.

Mutation Breeding

With GMOs you know exactly what traits you're going for by inserting that trait into the plant through DNA

DNA is two strips like a zipper, one strip is forward encoded the other is reverse encoded and they match up through transcription and translation

 

T on one strip is supposed to match with A on the other, G with C

 

GATTCGGA should match up with

CTAAGCCT

With Radiation or Chemical mutation is can cause a 'deletion' or addition so you get two strips like

 

GATTCGGA matching with

GATTGATT which causes the mutation, same with chemicals.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cool, I didn't get cross-breeding wrong.

 

Eating foods made from radiation and chemical mutation seems like it would be dangerous to people. They're using radiation and chemicals!

 

Do you know if mutation breeding is the main source of GMO foods, these days? And do you also know if there is a way the consumer can tell if the GMO product was created using mutation breeding or cross-breeding?

 

I would be fine with eating produce that was cross-breeded like Mendel did, but mutation breeding freaks me out a bit.