Obesity Increasing; Is NOT Due To The Cliche Urban, Gluttonous, Sedentary Lifestyle

[ecstatichamster]

One reason I accepted this at face value is that I've heard another researcher who has looked extensively into obsesity -- Paul Jaminet -- make the same point. IIRC he has said that wild animals are becoming obese, even in remote areas. I doubt anyone is suggesting this is to the same extent as modern humans. If you looked at humans in, say, the mid-60's, you would find lots of normal looking individuals but just a slightly higher proportion of fat ones. Maybe it would be hard to detect this stage in animals through casual observation.

However, I went Googling for some evidence that wild animals in remote areas are becoming obese... and couldn't find anything.

Anecdotally, we had an unusually good season for acorns where I live, last year. And ALL the squirrels got fat, I mean comically fat. And there were also dead squirrels just littering every road (probably more due to the population boom than reduced dodging speed lol).

Great point. I mean, who knows.

Hunters would know, right?

Ask A Hunter.

 

[danielbb]

There is a personal responsibility factor related to this issue in my opinion. I can only speak for myself. When I changed my mind about things (changed my instant gratification lifestyle), things started to get better. It did not happen over night. I started to slowly walk again and learned over time that basically eating whole-foods (in place of processed food) would restore me along with moderate exercise. Looking for magic pills, supplements, hormone therapies, or magic work-out programs was not the answer for me. Applying simple principles with a goal in mind, and applied mindfully over a reasonable amount of time (a year or two), has restored/healed every system in my body (except my bald head which also seems to be making a wee-bit of a recovery). I am like new again at 58 years old and in better shape than at 18 years old. I am grateful. Healing starts in the mind.

 

[sunraiser]

I'm not bashing homosexuals here, but the media for reporting distortions. Rather than saying the reported obesity in wildlife do happen occasionally, they bring out the exceptional case of obese wild life to prove something which isn't - that it's normal. Look at that orangutan - is that a wild orangutan, or is that an orangutan fed by keepers who don't really understand nutrition for the orangutan? Or maybe the orangutan is being fed by visitors with "healthy" granola bars?

So much of the homosexuality being normal crap fails to mention the effect of food and substances that bring about changes in the hormones of the person. Instead of keeping these foods and substances away from human development, the culture is bringing these things more into the mainstream, and so goes the increase in people turning into homosexuals and becoming a larger percentage of the population. And saying that it's normal for homosexuals to exist in the animal population is just another way of making homosexuality just another very normal thing.

It's a really difficult question though.

I know what you mean and agree from the perspective of; "the male and female organism are striving for different hormonal equilibriums, and something is likely to be out of line during homosexuality". You often see non-straight people looking like they don't have a fantastic hormonal profile - - - HOWEVER, it's possible their body is just fighting for some kind of "middle ground" equilibrium because of some kind of different physiological make up.

Also, I've seen the occasional gay guy that seems extremely androgenic and functioning extremely well - so who are we to say they're physiologically suboptimal. The problem is you need to try and create acceptance for people because the situation DOES exist - and saying they're sick or broken is always going to cause alienation and further developmental challenges for the person.

Also, we don't necessarily fully understand what's going on, and while there are some people that might turn straight (or turn gay) depending on their hormonal health, others seem extremely healthy and high functioning, yet not straight - I don't think we understand the full context.

It's a really nuanced and complex message that needs to be put across, and especially when it comes to children it's difficult. Also, as you mentioned, media culture in the modern day doesn't deal with nuance or really wholesome messages at all. People are too wired to instant gratification, shock/outrage culture, and dogma.

I don't have the answers and I understand your frustration but it's also important to remember we're dealing with human beings and we don't necessarily have the understanding we might desire.

 

[Energizer]

Actually, being sedentary, eating healing foods in ample quantities and ample rest are the quickest ways to recover from hypothyroidism and my experience has showed me any attempts to be active while still sick just makes me more sick. Whenever I have like a week off and can just rest, my waking temps are consistently good and I feel a lot better and typically weekends I have my best waking temps/pulses and moods.

The fitness industry has horribly misinformed people. In RP's latest podcast with Jodelle, Ray basically says all it takes is a couple of dumb bell exercises followed by one or two sets of squats and you can already start to be in a stress response and tanking T3, especially if you're hypo.

Hormones drive muscle gain more than arbitrarily performing exercises in the gym. Just look at people taking steroids, they can gain muscle mass without even going to the gym. Sure, if you want to compete in bodybuilding or powerlifting you'll have to touch a weight now and then of course. However, I think by definition BB and powerlifting is stressful and not a good idea to professionally compete in if being optimally healthy is your goal. But if you eat and train smart, and keep a very low stress lifestyle, I am sure you can make incredible gains with very little effort... Probably with weightlifting sessions 15 minutes or less even. It doesn't take much signalling (sets) for your muscles for them to grow and become a testosterone "organ" as RP put it (that was rather interesting when he said that, I hadn't quite considered it like that). When I start to get well I'm probably gonna design my own program that has me doing just a few key sets, just enough to signal my body to increase testosterone but not enough for cortisol to rise or T3 to drop.

Minor nitpick, but he actually said, "A woman doing just one or two minutes of mild dumbell lifts and a few squats for the big leg muscles can shift her balance from cortisol to testosterone... and it just takes a minute or two, two or three times a day and whatever it takes to increase the muscle mass, it's really a very small amount of muscle lifting type exercise" Around the 14:20 mark (Title of the video on Youtube:
Dr Ray Peat - Cortisol, Low Testosterone, Dangers of a Sugar-less Diet!)

Overall though I agree with your main point, that less is more when it comes to strength training.

 

[yerrag]

It's a really difficult question though.

I know what you mean and agree from the perspective of; "the male and female organism are striving for different hormonal equilibriums, and something is likely to be out of line during homosexuality". You often see non-straight people looking like they don't have a fantastic hormonal profile - - - HOWEVER, it's possible their body is just fighting for some kind of "middle ground" equilibrium because of some kind of different physiological make up.

Also, I've seen the occasional gay guy that seems extremely androgenic and functioning extremely well - so who are we to say they're physiologically suboptimal. The problem is you need to try and create acceptance for people because the situation DOES exist - and saying they're sick or broken is always going to cause alienation and further developmental challenges for the person.

Also, we don't necessarily fully understand what's going on, and while there are some people that might turn straight (or turn gay) depending on their hormonal health, others seem extremely healthy and high functioning, yet not straight - I don't think we understand the full context.

It's a really nuanced and complex message that needs to be put across, and especially when it comes to children it's difficult. Also, as you mentioned, media culture in the modern day doesn't deal with nuance or really wholesome messages at all. People are too wired to instant gratification, shock/outrage culture, and dogma.

I don't have the answers and I understand your frustration but it's also important to remember we're dealing with human beings and we don't necessarily have the understanding we might desire.

It's not that I'm denying the existence of homosexuality, it's that I see broaching the subject of some environmental aberration involved in its putative increase in society is considered taboo. If I were a homosexual, I would be interested in knowing whether I was born a homosexual, or whether I was slowly turned into a homosexual by a continual exposure to contaminants in the food supply that shifts my sense of my sexuality. But this subject is taboo for two reasons.

One is that the mere act of investigating the increase in homosexuality already posits that there is a problem with the increase in homosexuality, and the subject is thus quashed because it isn't politically correct. Society would rather take the path of least resistance and not deal with the issue. A lead investigator of the study would be doxxed and his house set on fire. Meanwhile, the hard questions that need to be asked are suppressed and finding the causes to the problem is not identified. I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone in experiencing a moment in my sexual development that I question my sexuality, and I feel that the hormonal balance would have tipped towards me becoming a homosexual had I been exposed to influences that may have caused others to turn homosexual. I have to ask myself whether I would prefer to have my sexuality be free from the influence of contaminating influences of modern day life or would I prefer to be simply denied the chance to know I'm being exposed to such influences. And the influence could be chemical or psychological.

Another is that perhaps a lot of these influences are brought upon us by big corporations and that these corporations profit a lot from selling products and services that promote these influences. The existence of phytoestrogens in the food supply is one. Products such as soy is one example. BPA in plastic bottles is another. How about the chemicals in diapers, to which a child is exposed to throughout infancy? And then the programming on TV. How about Barney? The teletubbies (did I say that right?) How about the shrinking of briefs to bikini size where it used to be the size of boxers? How about the current balls-squeezing style of pants men wear to be fashionable? No wonder sperm counts of men have been going down over the recent decades.

I think that it's fair to say that this goes much beyond having to conform to being sensitive to homosexuals. To merely stay silent out of deferring to people's sensitivities simply becomes an act of cowardice because this subject affects the entire human race. To simply ride shotgun through the wrong headwind because it's the easy way out misses the big picture. But I think this headwind is just building steam, as the exposure to these influences keeps growing and no one is there to arrest it. All I can say is good luck to humanity. Be happy where you will be and what you'll become. Those who are able to weather the influences may possibly become the minority in the dawn of a new age. I don't walk in trepidation. I'll be long dead.

 

[Hildy]

I think it could be the increased use of glyphosate. And it's every where. You can minimize it by buying organic produce, but I've read it still spreads, to a lesser degree, to organic products too.

Just try to do the best you can with food choices i.e.: organic as opposed to heavily sprayed.

My feeling is this is why so many of us have gut issues nowadays. It's the glyphosate IMO. And think about all the white flour, grain products being sprayed with this evil stuff......I think it has an accumulative affect.

It effects the gut balance : Monsanto genes: How glyphosate makes you fat -- Sott.net

"Glyphosate is an antibiotic, says Pearlmutter, and it destroys good gut bugs in a way that leads to weight gain- much like antibiotics are used to fatten up livestock" https://www.betternutrition.com/news-flash/weed-killer-weight-gain

 

[Hildy]

Another interesting article on the detrimental affects of glyphosate: What's your "Daily Value" of Glyphosate? -- Sott.net

 

[energyandstruct]

Since those wild animals do not really munch on PUFA all day long, then it must be something else in the environment. Whatever that is something is, it has been increasing in effects since the early 1970s, which is when the steep trends of decline of testosterone levels and sperm count in males, IQ in both sexes, and rise in chronic disease in all age groups (but especially the youngest) started.

Atrazine? Estrogenic molds that grow in the wake of glyphosate such as fusarium?

 

[Dr. B]

I think it’s pufa consumption.

there are other things that can have toxic effects similar to pufa. serotonin boosting drugs, potentially even vitamin D if youre overdoing it and not getting much A.

But this misses @haidut's point that wild animal obesity is also going up. Wild animals haven't had an increase in PUFA consumption (except for those that eat human trash, which can be super-fat).

While I think there is good evidence the obesity epidemic (among people and animals) is multi-factorial, I suspect EMF is a big piece of the puzzle. That is the a variable that has changed for even the wild animals.

Is it possible that the increase in obesity in rural areas is due to advances in technology making people more sedentary.

Think on a farm how much technology has lessened the need for physical labour. You need less workers doing less physical tasks. Many of the physical labour jobs in rural areas have disappeared to the point where many of these rurual towns are no different to a city just less densely populated.

I'm sure there are other factors at play but I would wager the change in the type of work people do in the rural areas is a big factor also.

i dont think its related to being sedentary the key factor is how fast your metabolism is running when youre sedentary.

isnt pufa consumption extremely common in the southern states which are also more rural. a lot of the farmers or rural people may be eating lots of pufa. the obesity is both present and lacking across all social classes. theres multiple reasons for it. one person may be eating healthy but using some serotonin boosters or some supplements that are driving the obesity. some people may not be using any supplements or medications but are eating lots of PUFA or toxic foods.

 

[Risingfire]

I know I'm late to the party but I've been pondering this for quite a bit recently. I'm convinced emf/wifi/cell phone usage is reducing progesterone and increasing cortisol and estrogen and other stress mediators by default.

@haidut do you know of any studies where people with lower emf exposure tend to be less obese?

Here's an interesting study on rats:

Effects of electromagnetic fields of low frequency and low intensity on rat metabolism

A series of experiments on rats have been performed, to study the effects of long time (50 days) exposure to electromagnetic fields of extremely low frequency (ELF, i.e. less than 100 Hz) and amplitude (non thermal), testing whether the metabolic processes ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[haidut]

I know I'm late to the party but I've been pondering this for quite a bit recently. I'm convinced emf/wifi/cell phone usage is reducing progesterone and increasing cortisol and estrogen and other stress mediators by default.

@haidut do you know of any studies where people with lower emf exposure tend to be less obese?

Here's an interesting study on rats:

Effects of electromagnetic fields of low frequency and low intensity on rat metabolism

A series of experiments on rats have been performed, to study the effects of long time (50 days) exposure to electromagnetic fields of extremely low frequency (ELF, i.e. less than 100 Hz) and amplitude (non thermal), testing whether the metabolic processes ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I am not aware of any such specific studies as measuring EMF exposure in humans in a controlled manner is hard. Unlike rats, one can't just pick some people, lock them up in a controlled, EMF-shileded cages and blast them with EMF all day in a controlled, measurable manner. It is considered unethical and such studies won't be allowed and even if somebody does it in a dictatorial country, journals won't publish the results. So, the human studies are always (poor) estimates of ambient EMF exposure from phones, computers, power lines, etc. and this is probably why there is no much interest in doing them as it would be hard to do a good study where one can show cause/effect relationship, on a randomly selected population, with quantifiable results.
That being said, there was an AMA discussion on Reddit some years ago with the world's most established expert on EMF health effects. He was brutally mocked on Reddit as the latter does not belief EMF is even remotely dangerous, but he kept repeating that the primary effects of EMF are lowering OXPHOS and as such the main immediate effects of EMF are expected to be related to obesity/diabetes. Also, though Reddit did not allow him to elaborate more, he stated that inhibiting OXPHOS chronically will likely cause all sorts of serious chronic diseases later on, which Reddit immediately countered with "but but but...only in the genetically susceptible, for healthy people EMF is perfectly safe". Anyways, here is the discussion, so you can judge for yourself, but your intuition is right and obesity if the least of the problems EMF may cause.

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2aul2e/science_ama_series_im_paul_h%C3%A9roux_a_professor_of/

 

[Risingfire]

I am not aware of any such specific studies as measuring EMF exposure in humans in a controlled manner is hard. Unlike rats, one can't just pick some people, lock them up in a controlled, EMF-shileded cages and blast them with EMF all day in a controlled, measurable manner. It is considered unethical and such studies won't be allowed and even if somebody does it in a dictatorial country, journals won't publish the results. So, the human studies are always (poor) estimates of ambient EMF exposure from phones, computers, power lines, etc. and this is probably why there is no much interest in doing them as it would be hard to do a good study where one can show cause/effect relationship, on a randomly selected population, with quantifiable results.
That being said, there was an AMA discussion on Reddit some years ago with the world's most established expert on EMF health effects. He was brutally mocked on Reddit as the latter does not belief EMF is even remotely dangerous, but he kept repeating that the primary effects of EMF are lowering OXPHOS and as such the main immediate effects of EMF are expected to be related to obesity/diabetes. Also, though Reddit did not allow him to elaborate more, he stated that inhibiting OXPHOS chronically will likely cause all sorts of serious chronic diseases later on, which Reddit immediately countered with "but but but...only in the genetically susceptible, for healthy people EMF is perfectly safe". Anyways, here is the discussion, so you can judge for yourself, but your intuition is right and obesity if the least of the problems EMF may cause.

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2aul2e/science_ama_series_im_paul_h%C3%A9roux_a_professor_of/

Very interesting! Thanks! I'm going to reach out to him and see if he agrees with my theory. And if he has any further insight.

You posted a study where taking pregnenolone might increase OXPHOS a few months ago. I'm considering taking all three youth associated hormones every single day to combat EMF exposure.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

The study below shows that obesity rates are rising worldwide. A doctor would immediately suggest that this is due to urban overpopulation, with hordes of gluttonous, chips-eating, video-game-playing, sedentary, bored people who do little more than eat and sleep. However, the study below found the exact opposite to be true. In other words, the rise of global obesity rates is driven by dramatically increasing obesity in rural populations that tend to eat a lot less than their urban cousins AND also move a lot more. So, obviously something other than gluttonous laziness is driving this process, and the authors think it is food quality. While I agree that the food supply is incredibly compromised, rural populations still enjoy access to relatively better food than their urban cousins, even though they may choose not to eat it and gorge on the PUFA-laden "goodies". But on average, rural and urban dwellers have about the same access to crappy, processed foods so it is not all bad food driving this. I suspect that endocrine disruptors, and environmental pollution (including EMF) are taking a big toll on the health of people in developed countries and rural people may be even more exposed due to more lax control/oversight. Over the last decade, whenever news about toxic chemical exposure, toxins in tap water, contaminated food/drugs/air, etc broke, it was always in small towns located in remote rural areas that many urban dwellers had never even heard about. In confirmation of the environmental quality decline hypothesis, there is quite a bit of evidence that wild animals are also becoming obese. Since those wild animals do not really munch on PUFA all day long, then it must be something else in the environment.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/just-people-getting-fatter-65342

Since those wild animals do not really munch on PUFA all day long, then it must be something else in the environment. Whatever that is something is, it has been increasing in effects since the early 1970s, which is when the steep trends of decline of testosterone levels and sperm count in males, IQ in both sexes, and rise in chronic disease in all age groups (but especially the youngest) started.

Rising rural body-mass index is the main driver of the global obesity epidemic in adults | Nature
Worldwide rise in obesity driven by country dwellers, study finds
Study Shatters Preconceived Notions About Urban Vs. Rural Obesity
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2019/05/09/obesity-is-rising-fastest-in-rural-populations/

"...Around the world, obesity is on the rise. A global uptick in body mass index, or BMI — a measure of whether a person’s weight is healthy for how tall they are — has coincided with rapid urbanization, leading to the assumption that urbanization is the main reason behind the global obesity epidemic. Now, a large new report reveals the rise of global BMI comes from people living in rural areas rather than people living in urban areas. The finding contrasts theories that urban lifestyles contribute to the rise in obesity and suggests public health policies that stress food quality are needed." “More than 55 percent of the rise in BMI in the world in men and women has been due to a rise in rural populations, so this is entirely opposite to the current paradigm,” Majid Ezzati, a public health expert at the Imperial College London in the United Kingdom, who led the new research, said in a press briefing.

Maybe boredom is a contributor?…

“While jogging became popular for preventing heart disease, we were frequently told by experts how many miles a person has to run to burn off a pound of fat. However, in Russia, physiologists always remember to include the brain in their calculations, and it turns out that a walk through interesting and pleasant surroundings consumes more energy than does harder but more boring exercise. An active brain consumes a tremendous amount of fuel.” Ray Peat

 

[Dr. B]

Maybe boredom is a contributor?…

“While jogging became popular for preventing heart disease, we were frequently told by experts how many miles a person has to run to burn off a pound of fat. However, in Russia, physiologists always remember to include the brain in their calculations, and it turns out that a walk through interesting and pleasant surroundings consumes more energy than does harder but more boring exercise. An active brain consumes a tremendous amount of fuel.” Ray Peat

what kinds of things make the brain burn more fuel? Like if you just think about different topics more, spend a lot of time reading or watching youtube videos would that also lead the brain to burn more fuel? How do you know which activities are burning more fuel

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

what kinds of things make the brain burn more fuel? Like if you just think about different topics more, spend a lot of time reading or watching youtube videos would that also lead the brain to burn more fuel? How do you know which activities are burning more fuel

Thinking and concentrating activities, like reading, puzzles or building things, the opposite of watching television, and being entertained.

 

[lvysaur]

Since those wild animals do not really munch on PUFA all day long

well the study says the effect is mainly driven by poor countries

We show that, contrary to the dominant paradigm, more than 55% of the global rise in mean BMI from 1985 to 2017—and more than 80% in some low- and middle-income regions—was due to increases in BMI in rural areas. This large contribution stems from the fact that, with the exception of women in sub-Saharan Africa, BMI is increasing at the same rate or faster in rural areas than in cities in low- and middle-income regions.

Most poor countries (except in Africa and South America) are very densely populated. And dense population = more animals in contact with human PUFA garbage

it wouldn't surprise me if wild animals in India, Southeast Asia, and China were getting more obese than wild animals in Africa and South America