[HelenM]

Cadcon

Based on what you post when we are exposed to our next "food restriction" everything will improve

That is not what I meant(and I don't think what I said)
I was simply pointing out that doctors had documented an asociation between type 2 diabetes and diet/weight/exercise in the more affluent sectors of society long before the 1950s.
Bourchadat in fact went on to 'treat' it with a strict diet/exercise, daily urine testing regime not by waiting for the next siege. Whether you think its relevent or not its up to you!

[Eddy]

oxidative stress ==> insulin resistance + CHD ?

[REDLAN]

Just to add to the confusion, I don't think that adding refined foods to the mix would have changed anything. The one thing that I think is the over riding factor here is the active lifestyle. Back when the Indians were eating their own food, they had to grow it, harvest it, grind it, and prepare it. Plus they had to hunt, fish, etc. All this activity would have burned up any excess carbs they would have eaten, so diabetes would have been rare.

This is one of the assumptions behind the lifestyle causes diabetes hypothesis. It runs something like this. Our highly sedentary western lifestyles, create an obesogenic environment, and thus making us prone to developing diabetes. Throw in refined foods and our access to lots of calories, it's just common sense that this will cause us problems.

Now prepare to have your myths well and truly busted.

International Journal of Obesity - Abstract of article: Physical activity energy expenditure has not declined since the 1980s and matches energy expenditures of wild mammals

It's only an abstract, I can't afford to subscribe, but the clue is in the title.

Physical activity energy expenditure has not declined since the 1980s and matches energy expenditures of wild mammals

They use a process called the Doubly Labelled Water method to calculate energy expenditure. I understand that the method has been validated, but don't ask me how it works.

they conclude that

Physical activity expenditure in Europe [....] has slightly but significantly increased since the 1980s.

So we're more active than 20 years ago

And my favourite

[Daily Energy Expenditure] of individuals in Europe and North America was not significantly different from individuals measured in the third world.

So much for the all that hard work in the fields protects you from diabetes theory.

They also concluded that the daily energy expenditure of modern humans was in line with wild animals.

They finish by concluding that the current level of energy expenditure by western peoples can not explain the rise in obesity.

It is funny how we all assume that everyone was really physical in the past.

Wise words indeed from Volleyball.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by REDLAN

... They finish by concluding that the current level of energy expenditure by western peoples can not explain the rise in obesity. ....

The article seems to imply that the increase in obesity since the eighties is entirely due to increased calorie intake. While the burgeoning popularity of high calorie processed convenience food has no doubt had a major impact, to say that it is exclusively responsible for obesity seems to me to be an oversimplification.

Without understanding the energy expenditure metrics they used, I can't comment on study findings. But I find it hard to believe that humans are not as active as wild animals. Having grown up in the sixties, I am also very aware of the reduction in activity levels since then, especially amongst children. So I would question the relevance of the energy expenditure calculations. And I still think the positive energy balance that results in weight gain is a combination of both factors.

[Hammer]

I don't see how they can say that we are as physically active today as we were in the 1800's. We have many appliances that do the work for us. I remember reading about a Mennonite family that agreed to keep a diary of their daily activities for this magazine.

They got up at 4am. The mother had to start the wood stove, get the children up, and start breakfast. There was no grabbing the frozen waffles to make breakfast, she had to grind the flour up and churn the butter first, then she could make breakfast. She had to then set the table, cook the food, feed the kids, then get them off to school. While they were gone, she had to wash the dishes. She didn't turn on the faucet, she had to go out and pump the water out of the well, then carry it into the house and wash the dishes. She had to then carry the waste water out to the garden and water the garden with it. She then had to wash clothes...carrying the water in and out of the house to do this. She didn't have a washing machine, she had to wash each piece of clothing by hand on a washboard, then rinse it off. When she was done washing, she had to go out and hang it on the clothesline.

Next she had to begin making lunch, going through the whole thing again. She fed her husband, then cleaned up the dishes the same way. Once the dishes were done, she had to help with the farm chores until the children got home from school. Once they got home, she had to begin dinner. Once dinner was over, she had to do the dishwashing thing again. Once the dinner wash finished, there was clothes mending that she had to do. When she finished that, she helped the kids with their homework or any other school projects they had.

Once the kids were in bed, she'd get things ready for the next day, making the kids lunches for the next day, then she'd go to bed.....usually at around 8pm. The only day they got to enjoy themselves was Sunday. After church they'd go to someone's house for dinner. They'd get the invitation the week before so they knew where they'd be going in advance. Once in a while it would be their turn to have someone over, so even Sunday was a work day for them.

We sit in front of the TV for hours on end every day to watch our favorite programs. There was no time for relaxation back then. You relaxed when you went to bed.


Of course, not everyone back then was a farmer, so I guess if you were a banker or office clerk, you weren't as active as a farmer, but whatever you did back then was a whole lot more active than the same job holder is today. Heck, just getting to work back then meant saddling up a horse and riding it to work. You just didn't get in a car, turn the key and take off.


If they think that we do that much physical work today, then whoever wrote that article needs his head examined.

[volleyball]

What was said was 1980, what was read 1800.
We all read into some of these things what we want, so do the people doing studies and those reporting.
While in the past, there were more labor for jobs, there were less distractions. It was life on a more basic level. But that synopsis is also misleading. Depending on where you are in life, what you had to do did change. Other family members worked together, and children had a lot to do. while they jobs they do may be more physical, there was a slower pace and less stress. Unless it did not rain for a long time.
But it does bring up a good point, Do we know how these groups of people fare with diabetes? Any program to test them? Do they allow their type 1's to die?
With no intermixing of the gene pool, could they have filtered out the diabetes gene through attrition?

[Hammer]

No, I saw the 1980 he mentioned, but he said "This is one of the assumptions behind the lifestyle causes diabetes hypothesis. It runs something like this. Our highly sedentary western lifestyles, create an obesogenic environment, and thus making us prone to developing diabetes." Then he said, "prepare to have your myths well and truly busted".

I took that to mean that what I said about the lifestyle back during the time of the Indians was about to be busted.

[REDLAN]

I took that to mean that what I said about the lifestyle back during the time of the Indians was about to be busted.

the critical point is the comparison between activity levels between individuals from 3rd world countries and western ones - the authors concluded that they were similar. I would assume, that activity levels of 3rd world peoples should be alot higher, if the hypothesis that modern lifestyles are largely sedentary.

This data is suggestive, but in no way conclusive, that activity levels have remained similar over time. There is no way of satisfactorily comparing activity levels with such a time difference and total lack of data.

The important point to note from this study is that it measures total daily energy expenditure. It uses an algorithm to calculate physical energy expenditure, recognised as being accurate to within a few percentage points. What it doesn't do is show how physically hard some was working/exercising at a particular time during the day.

so assuming we could accurately calculate the energy expenditure of the historical indian above - both he and I could have similar energy expenditures, if he spends a few hours each day working hard, and then resting, and I spend my day moving less physically, but for a longer period.

Thinking about this...

the amount of energy that I can expend during the day, will actually depend on the number of calories I have available for consumption. The more calories and the more reliable the source, the more energy I can afford to expend.

Put simply I can be less active but for a longer period.

To clarify further - I can't and nor can anybody else know for sure how active people from historical periods were. I was rather referring to the notion that we have become sedentary compared to some time in the past.

Bluesky referred to high activity levels in the 60's, however this data, which starts in the 1980's shows that activity levels have remained stable over that time. So either the anecdotal decline happened very rapidly and stabilised out prior to 1980's, or the effect is illusory - there was no change in activity levels.

Interestingly for all the angst about obesity in children, activity levels have over the past 10 years remained relatively stable in both the UK and USA. Most studies tend to show a slight rise. Trying to compare activity levels prior to this is all a moot point, because there is no decent data.

[volleyball]

And then we have proof that diabetes is running rampant in India and China. Two countries with well to do and very poor people. Is the increase because of testing more or other factors. If we assume it's the well to do than can afford western (processed) foods, we still don't know if their affluence allows more medical care where it gets addressed. How much a difference in activity level among the two groups?
Having spent time in the far east, I did not see an activity level higher than I would find in the US.
If would be hard to imagine health organizations going into a remote village to spend their resources getting everyones A1C.