230 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

Excellent, then you understand that they can roughly approximate the composition of the diet in terms of macro-nutrients.

The diet of modern humans, yes. The diet of people who lived a hundred thousand years ago based on bone fragment analysis? No. I think what they do is take chemical analyses and ultimately assume things from them. You want to know what I find the most sketchy about so called isotope evidence? They use nitrogen as a determinant to say most of the diet was meat based when Nitrogen is one of several elements that comprise the human body. How the FUCK can they differentiate between endogenous nitrogen and that which built up from a life of meat consumption? Bullshit I say! I bet you if they analyzed the skeleten of a vegetarian they would find the same amount of nitrogen and the same ratio of types of nitrogen.

Isotope ratios can be measured with extreme precision. To the extent that a particular nutrient source has a unique isotopic signature, and if that isotopic signature is deposited in bone, then we can read it. Your argument against the validity of isotopes in determining characteristics of diet boils down to "I don't believe it". That isn't going to convince anyone here that it's invalid. Even if you drop F-bombs. Even uppercase.

I think I said a little more than I don't believe it. I think i provided a well thought-out argument to the contrary of trusting isotope measurements. Especially when we consider the elements of the human body and the role they play in keeping the human form stable. Nitrogen IS a human bodily element. Therefor it is folly to conclude that these nitrogen deposits cannot be from endogenous elemental presence. Again, I think isotope studies are good for various aspects of measuring what is going on inside of living organisms. Bad for measuring dietary patterns of long dead peoples.

Yes, there's nitrogen in the human body, but the point is that all that nitrogen comes from the food you eat, thus it will all have the isotopic signature of the food.

All nitrogen does not come from the food we eat. Elemental nitrogen is inherent in the human body. Have vegetarian bone fragments been subjected to isotope measurements?

[rwac]

FUCK

Thread winner right there.

You sir, have won the intra-webs.

Having won, could you please desist from attacking us with your razor sharp wit.

[niner]

Excellent, then you understand that they can roughly approximate the composition of the diet in terms of macro-nutrients.

The diet of modern humans, yes. The diet of people who lived a hundred thousand years ago based on bone fragment analysis? No. I think what they do is take chemical analyses and ultimately assume things from them. You want to know what I find the most sketchy about so called isotope evidence? They use nitrogen as a determinant to say most of the diet was meat based when Nitrogen is one of several elements that comprise the human body. How the FUCK can they differentiate between endogenous nitrogen and that which built up from a life of meat consumption? Bullshit I say! I bet you if they analyzed the skeleten of a vegetarian they would find the same amount of nitrogen and the same ratio of types of nitrogen.

Isotope ratios can be measured with extreme precision. To the extent that a particular nutrient source has a unique isotopic signature, and if that isotopic signature is deposited in bone, then we can read it. Your argument against the validity of isotopes in determining characteristics of diet boils down to "I don't believe it". That isn't going to convince anyone here that it's invalid. Even if you drop F-bombs. Even uppercase.

I think I said a little more than I don't believe it. I think i provided a well thought-out argument to the contrary of trusting isotope measurements. Especially when we consider the elements of the human body and the role they play in keeping the human form stable. Nitrogen IS a human bodily element. Therefor it is folly to conclude that these nitrogen deposits cannot be from endogenous elemental presence. Again, I think isotope studies are good for various aspects of measuring what is going on inside of living organisms. Bad for measuring dietary patterns of long dead peoples.

Yes, there's nitrogen in the human body, but the point is that all that nitrogen comes from the food you eat, thus it will all have the isotopic signature of the food.

All nitrogen does not come from the food we eat. Elemental nitrogen is inherent in the human body. Have vegetarian bone fragments been subjected to isotope measurements?

You start out with a little bit that came from the food your mom ate, but after that, it's all from food. We can't fix nitrogen from air. There would be a little bit in our water, I suppose, but that's kind of negligible. Could there be nitrogen fixing bacteria in our gut? I kinda doubt it, but if there were, it wouldn't be anywhere near what we'd get from protein. So I think it's really essentially all from food. We recycle our biomolecules and excrete excess nitrogen, so over time, we would lose some or most of the nitrogen that came from our mothers.

[rwac]

All nitrogen does not come from the food we eat. Elemental nitrogen is inherent in the human body. Have vegetarian bone fragments been subjected to isotope measurements?

Wait, are you saying that we're born with a lifetime supply of nitrogen ?
Or that humans fix nitrogen from the atmosphere ?

[TheFountain]

FUCK

Thread winner right there.

You sir, have won the intra-webs.

Having won, could you please desist from attacking us with your razor sharp wit.

You would have a better ground to stand on if you did not just quote the words which have upset you.

[TheFountain]

All nitrogen does not come from the food we eat. Elemental nitrogen is inherent in the human body. Have vegetarian bone fragments been subjected to isotope measurements?

Wait, are you saying that we're born with a lifetime supply of nitrogen ?
Or that humans fix nitrogen from the atmosphere ?

Well now that you mention it there are strong concentrations of Nitrogen in the lungs, because it is abundant in the atmosphere. But that is beside the point. 99% of our bodies is composed of just 6 elements. One of which being Nitrogen. As people age they get calcium deposits on their bones and joints. Why not Nitrogen deposits as well? Furthermore why not Nitrogen-15 deposits? Again, have bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements?

Edited by TheFountain, 15 December 2009 - 05:09 AM.

[TheFountain]

Excellent, then you understand that they can roughly approximate the composition of the diet in terms of macro-nutrients.

The diet of modern humans, yes. The diet of people who lived a hundred thousand years ago based on bone fragment analysis? No. I think what they do is take chemical analyses and ultimately assume things from them. You want to know what I find the most sketchy about so called isotope evidence? They use nitrogen as a determinant to say most of the diet was meat based when Nitrogen is one of several elements that comprise the human body. How the FUCK can they differentiate between endogenous nitrogen and that which built up from a life of meat consumption? Bullshit I say! I bet you if they analyzed the skeleten of a vegetarian they would find the same amount of nitrogen and the same ratio of types of nitrogen.

Isotope ratios can be measured with extreme precision. To the extent that a particular nutrient source has a unique isotopic signature, and if that isotopic signature is deposited in bone, then we can read it. Your argument against the validity of isotopes in determining characteristics of diet boils down to "I don't believe it". That isn't going to convince anyone here that it's invalid. Even if you drop F-bombs. Even uppercase.

I think I said a little more than I don't believe it. I think i provided a well thought-out argument to the contrary of trusting isotope measurements. Especially when we consider the elements of the human body and the role they play in keeping the human form stable. Nitrogen IS a human bodily element. Therefor it is folly to conclude that these nitrogen deposits cannot be from endogenous elemental presence. Again, I think isotope studies are good for various aspects of measuring what is going on inside of living organisms. Bad for measuring dietary patterns of long dead peoples.

Yes, there's nitrogen in the human body, but the point is that all that nitrogen comes from the food you eat, thus it will all have the isotopic signature of the food.

All nitrogen does not come from the food we eat. Elemental nitrogen is inherent in the human body. Have vegetarian bone fragments been subjected to isotope measurements?

You start out with a little bit that came from the food your mom ate, but after that, it's all from food. We can't fix nitrogen from air. There would be a little bit in our water, I suppose, but that's kind of negligible. Could there be nitrogen fixing bacteria in our gut? I kinda doubt it, but if there were, it wouldn't be anywhere near what we'd get from protein. So I think it's really essentially all from food. We recycle our biomolecules and excrete excess nitrogen, so over time, we would lose some or most of the nitrogen that came from our mothers.

This is ridiculous, it's like saying all protein is dietary in origin. It is an oxymoron. You can't base an argument on what humans need to keep living and then hope to convince someone that it is all from outside the organism when the truth is they go hand in hand.

[TheFountain]

All nitrogen does not come from the food we eat. Elemental nitrogen is inherent in the human body. Have vegetarian bone fragments been subjected to isotope measurements?

Wait, are you saying that we're born with a lifetime supply of nitrogen ?
Or that humans fix nitrogen from the atmosphere ?

No, but I am saying that Nitrogen is obviously an element of the human body for a reason. I.E evolutionary survival.

[rwac]

Well now that you mention it there are strong concentrations of Nitrogen in the lungs, because it is abundant in the atmosphere. ...
Why not Nitrogen deposits as well?

Um, Nitrogen is a pretty inert gas.
Only specific plants and microorganisms are capable of "fixing" nitrogen into usable nitro-compounds like ammonia, urea, NO, etc.

[TheFountain]

Well now that you mention it there are strong concentrations of Nitrogen in the lungs, because it is abundant in the atmosphere. ...
Why not Nitrogen deposits as well?

Um, Nitrogen is a pretty inert gas.
Only specific plants and microorganisms are capable of "fixing" nitrogen into usable nitro-compounds like ammonia, urea, NO, etc.

The human body houses several types of micro-organisms. Just saying. And these are just the identified ones.

Edited by TheFountain, 15 December 2009 - 06:03 AM.

[Skötkonung]

All nitrogen does not come from the food we eat. Elemental nitrogen is inherent in the human body. Have vegetarian bone fragments been subjected to isotope measurements?

Wait, are you saying that we're born with a lifetime supply of nitrogen ?
Or that humans fix nitrogen from the atmosphere ?

No, but I am saying that Nitrogen is obviously an element of the human body for a reason. I.E evolutionary survival.

Wow, I am so glad somebody finally did it! You totally debunked all those idiot egg-head scientists using isotopic analysis. You better write the journal of Osteoarchaeology and let them know how misguided they have been for publishing all those flawed studies. I bet you will be the next Darwin, providing the scientific community with such valuable insight. I can't believe no one thought of it before, there isn't even controversy over the method. You have such a deep grasp of their research, I bet you will make them all look like fools.

Or maybe you have just have a confused understanding of an isotope. Lets go over the definition:

Stable isotopes are chemical isotopes that are not radioactive (they have not been observed to decay, though a few of them may be theoretically unstable with exceedingly long half-lives). By this definition, there are 256 known stable isotopes of the 80 elements, which have one or more stable nuclides. A list of these is given at the end of this article. About two thirds of the elements have more than one stable isotope. One element (tin) has ten stable isotopes.

Different isotopes of the same element (whether stable or unstable) have nearly the same chemical characteristics and therefore behave almost identically in biology (a notable exception is the isotopes of hydrogen—see heavy water). The mass differences, due to a difference in the number of neutrons, will result in partial separation of the light isotopes from the heavy isotopes during chemical reactions and during physical processes such as diffusion and vaporization. This process is called isotope fractionation. For example, the difference in mass between the two stable isotopes of hydrogen, ¹H (1 proton, no neutron, also known as protium) and ²H (1 proton, 1 neutron, also known as deuterium) is almost 100%. Therefore, a significant fractionation will occur.

Commonly analysed stable isotopes include oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and sulfur. These isotope systems have been under investigation for many years in order to study processes of isotope fractionation in natural systems because they are relatively simple to measure. Recent advances in mass spectrometry (i.e. multiple-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry) now enable the measurement of heavier stable isotopes, such as iron, copper, zinc, molybdenum, etc.

Stable isotopes have been used in botanical and plant biological investigations for many years, and more and more ecological and biological studies are finding stable isotopes (mostly carbon, nitrogen and oxygen) to be extremely useful. Other workers have used oxygen isotopes to reconstruct historical atmospheric temperatures, making them important tools for climate research.

You see, there is such a thing as isotopic signatures, the distribution of certain stable isotopes (there are 256 known stable isotopes of the 80 elements) and chemical elements within chemical compounds. This can be applied to a food web to make it possible to draw direct inferences regarding diet, trophic level, and subsistence. Isotope ratios are measured using mass spectrometry, which separates the different isotopes of an element on the basis of their mass-to-charge ratio. Bone recovered from archaeological sites can be analyzed isotopically for information regarding diet and migration. Tooth enamel and soil surrounding or clinging to the remains may also be used in isotopic analysis. To obtain an accurate picture of palaeodiets, it is important to understand processes of diagenesis (no doubt something you have mastered) that may affect the original isotopic signal. Carbon and nitrogen isotope composition are used to reconstruct diet, and oxygen isotopes are used to determine geographic origin. Strontium and lead isotopes in teeth and bone can sometimes be used to reconstruct migration in human populations and cultural affinity.

Perhaps next time, instead of being so abrasive and rude, you could simply say, "Hey, I am having some trouble understanding how researchers use nitrogen isotopes to differentiate between food sources. Could someone explain it for me?" Those types of approaches tend to be better received.

Edited by Skotkonung, 15 December 2009 - 07:26 AM.

[JLL]

Perhaps next time, instead of being so abrasive and rude, you could simply say, "Hey, I am having some trouble understanding how researchers use nitrogen isotopes to differentiate between food sources. Could someone explain it for me?" Those types of approaches tend to be better received.

Somehow I don't see that happening!

[sentrysnipe]

I don't have time for this online drama, but I'll go eat my e-popcorn snap

[TheFountain]

People just do not get it. They are too indoctrinated.

[JLL]

Maybe a couple of carefully placed "fuck you's" will snap them right out of their isotope indoctrination.

[Mind]

i thought most american were fat because they ate insane amounts of animal meat + carbs, not just cuz of carbs themselves. i've yet to see a 'fat ass' vegetarian who lives on rice, lentils or carbs + veggies, etc.

Prince Fielder, vegetarian, 5'11", 270 pounds! Just think how heavy he would be if he didn't play professional baseball. I would say most vegetarians are in good shape wrt BMI, but I personally know a few that are definitely overweight.

Attached Files

•  Prince_Fielder.jpg   22.22KB   20 downloads

[ajnast4r]

Perhaps next time, instead of being so abrasive and rude, you could simply say, "Hey, I am having some trouble understanding how researchers use nitrogen isotopes to differentiate between food sources. Could someone explain it for me?" Those types of approaches tend to be better received.

[Skötkonung]

Perhaps next time, instead of being so abrasive and rude, you could simply say, "Hey, I am having some trouble understanding how researchers use nitrogen isotopes to differentiate between food sources. Could someone explain it for me?" Those types of approaches tend to be better received.

Maybe it is just the holiday season, but I feel the forums have been taking a turn for the worse lately.

[DukeNukem]

Dr. Davis made a relevant post today:

Overweight, hungry, diabetic, and fat-free
I eliminated all oils; I removed all meat, eggs, and fish from my diet. I shunned all nuts. I ate only low-fat products like low-fat yogurt and cottage cheese; and focused on vegetables, fruit, and whole grains. Beans and brown or wild rice were a frequent staple. I loved oatmeal cookies--low-fat, of course!

After one year of this low-fat program, I had gained a total of 31 lbs, going from 155 lbs to 186 lbs. I reassessed some basic labs:

HDL 28 mg/dl
Triglycerides 336 mg/dl
Blood sugar 151 mg/dl (fasting)


I became a diabetic. All through this time, I was also jogging. I ran on the beautiful paths along the Chagrin River in suburban Cleveland for miles north and south. I ran 5 miles per day most days of the week.
http://heartscanblog...d-fat-free.html

[ajnast4r]

Maybe it is just the holiday season, but I feel the forums have been taking a turn for the worse lately.

it goes through cycles... this time of year is a double edge sword, finals & holidays... puts everyone on edge

[DukeNukem]

It's been fun follow April's calorie restriction blog. She finally decided to blend CRON with carb-restriction, and if you read her posts over the last 4-6 weeks, she's estatic with how much easier it is to stick to a calorie restricted diet. For example, she recently wrote:

Carbohydrate restriction both intensifies the effect and brings it on quicker. It took a few weeks on CR for the first euphoric effects to kick in, the first time. Just one day on carb restriction and I'm sailing.
http://www.mprize.org/blogs/

The reason carbs make us carb-asses is because carbs = hunger. And, we can only fight ongoing gnawing hunger for so long, and then we fail, and give in. Eating high glycemic carbs, like grains and starches (which are also nutritionally lacking, forcing an even stronger hunger response), leave us hungry. Plus, these carbs are quickly stored as fat thanks to insulin doing its well-paid job -- at least until chronic carb consumption even causes this system to break down.

[ajnast4r]

The reason carbs make us carb-asses is because carbs = hunger. And, we can only fight ongoing gnawing hunger for so long, and then we fail, and give in. Eating high glycemic carbs, like grains and starches (which are also nutritionally lacking, forcing an even stronger hunger response), leave us hungry. Plus, these carbs are quickly stored as fat thanks to insulin doing its well-paid job -- at least until chronic carb consumption even causes this system to break down.

where do i even start?

carbs dont = hunger... in most carb restrictions induces hunger.

most grains are not high glycemic & are extremely nutrient dense... you say that ALL the time and its just not true. why do you keep saying things that ARENT TRUE?!


carbs arent quickly or just stored as fat... they do have uses other than adpiose production

Edited by ajnast4r, 15 December 2009 - 08:41 PM.

[DukeNukem]

carbs arent quickly or just stored as fat

With this part, I agree. But, for the most part, it's not fat or protein that has lead to the obesity epidemic in the States, it is carbs. And mostly, grains and fructose. Anyone following the food pyramid is doomed to be overweight.

[oehaut]

Are we talking about De Nevo Lipogenesis here? I thought that carbs were rarely turned into fat, unless someone overeat on carbs for days. I only thought that more carbs = less fat oxidation.

Use and storage of carbohydrate and fat


But I think I don't understand well the difference between de novo lipogenesis and simple lipogenesis. Could anybody explain to me to what degree insulin promote lipogenesis?

[ajnast4r]

With this part, I agree. But, for the most part, it's not fat or protein that has lead to the obesity epidemic in the States, it is carbs. And mostly, grains and fructose. Anyone following the food pyramid is doomed to be overweight.

thats not true either... the obsesity epidemic is rooted mainly in 3 things: 1) extremely energy dense food. satiety is based on volume... foods with huge amounts of energy and low volume make it easy to achieve caloric excess. 2) decrease in activity / increase in sedentary jobs 3) wealth increasing portion size

[DukeNukem]

With this part, I agree. But, for the most part, it's not fat or protein that has lead to the obesity epidemic in the States, it is carbs. And mostly, grains and fructose. Anyone following the food pyramid is doomed to be overweight.

thats not true either... the obsesity epidemic is rooted mainly in 3 things: 1) extremely energy dense food. satiety is based on volume... foods with huge amounts of energy and low volume make it easy to achieve caloric excess. 2) decrease in activity / increase in sedentary jobs 3) wealth increasing portion size

1) High-fat, energy dense food -- meat -- has always been around. But, high-fat (or low-fat) meat doesn't affect insulin much.

2) Far too many people lead active lives, yet cannot keep off the body fat. My last six martial arts instructors, all under 45, are great examples. Dr. Davis is another example a few posts above (I linked to his most recent blog entry). Exercise is significantly overrated as a tactic to maintain low body fat -- unless you exercise at athletic and pro levels. I barely exercise at all -- body fat = 10%, exactly where I want it to be.

3) People cannot eat large portions of a low-carb meal. This has been shown in numerous studies. When we in the USA are served in restaurants, yes we get large portions. Note that the bulk of what we're served is cheap starches and grains.

[niner]

With this part, I agree. But, for the most part, it's not fat or protein that has lead to the obesity epidemic in the States, it is carbs. And mostly, grains and fructose. Anyone following the food pyramid is doomed to be overweight.

thats not true either... the obsesity epidemic is rooted mainly in 3 things: 1) extremely energy dense food. satiety is based on volume... foods with huge amounts of energy and low volume make it easy to achieve caloric excess. 2) decrease in activity / increase in sedentary jobs 3) wealth increasing portion size

I think there's something to what Duke is saying, particularly with respect to fructose. Isn't fructose a low-satiety food? I'm to lazy to figure out where I saw it, but fructose was said to at least be worse than sucrose in that regard. Also, it's not just wealth that's increasing portion size, it's your tax dollars being handed over to well-heeled farmers and agribusinessmen for the purpose of growing corn, leading to dirt-cheap high fructose sweeteners. The cost of soft drinks has plummeted in real dollars since the 1960's. They are often cheaper than the equivalent volume of bottled water.

[DukeNukem]

Fructose in the news:

Child diabetes blamed on food sweetener
Scientists have proved for the first time that a cheap form of sugar used in thousands of food products and soft drinks can damage human metabolism and is fuelling the obesity crisis.

Fructose, a sweetener derived from corn, can cause dangerous growths of fat cells around vital organs and is able to trigger the early stages of diabetes and heart disease.

It has increasingly been used as a substitute for more expensive types of sugar in yoghurts, cakes, salad dressing and cereals. Even some fruit drinks that sound healthy contain fructose.

Experts believe that the sweetener — which is found naturally in small quantities in fruit — could be a factor in the emergence of diabetes among children. This week, a new report is expected to claim that about one in 10 children in England will be obese by 2015.

Previous studies of the potentially adverse impact of fructose have focused on rats, but the first experiment involving humans has now revealed serious health concerns.

Over 10 weeks, 16 volunteers on a strictly controlled diet, including high levels of fructose, produced new fat cells around their heart, liver and other digestive organs. They also showed signs of food-processing abnormalities linked to diabetes and heart disease. Another group of volunteers on the same diet, but with glucose sugar replacing fructose, did not have these problems.

People in both groups put on a similar amount of weight. However, researchers at the University of California who conducted the trial, said the levels of weight gain among the fructose consumers would be greater over the long term.

Fructose bypasses the digestive process that breaks down other forms of sugar. It arrives intact in the liver where it causes a variety of abnormal reactions, including the disruption of mechanisms that instruct the body whether to burn or store fat.

“This is the first evidence we have that fructose increases diabetes and heart disease independently from causing simple weight gain,” said Kimber Stanhope, a molecular biologist who led the study. “We didn’t see any of these changes in the people eating glucose.”

Natural fructose represents 5%-10% of the weight of any fruit. Its use in processed foods stems from a discovery in 1971 that synthesised a 55% fructose and 45% glucose syrup from maize, creating an ingredient cheaper and six times sweeter than cane sugar.

High-fructose corn syrup, or glucose-fructose syrup, is listed as an ingredient in many food and drink products in Britain, although it is virtually impossible for consumers to know the quantity and ratio of fructose used. Barry Popkin, professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina, and a US government adviser on health policy, said: “Historically, we never consumed much sugar. We’re not built to process it. ”

Rejecting the California research, a spokesman for the Food and Drink Federation, a UK industry trade group, said: “It makes no sense to highlight one single ingredient as a cause of obesity.”
http://www.timesonli...icle6954603.ece

Well golly, now there's a shocker. What did we expect him to say: "Holy fuck, you're right! Fructose is one of the least healthy ingredients a human can consume -- we better drop it from all of our drinks and sodas pronto, regardless of the cost involved! I'm making the calls now..."

More and more, the Devil's trifecta of food -- fructose, gluten grains, processed oils -- is being exposed for the health hazard they truly impose. Maybe in a decade or two, even the nutritional and medical establishment will jump on bandwagon. We can only hope.

Sadly, we have "health" sites telling people, for example, that agave syrup (80% fructose -- higher than even HFCS!) is "one alternative that is used by health conscious consumers" (fourth paragraph down):
http://www.naturalne...ealth_food.html

If health sites can't get it right, doctors have no chance.

[ajnast4r]

1) High-fat, energy dense food -- meat -- has always been around. But, high-fat (or low-fat) meat doesn't affect insulin much.

most meats have an insulin index similar to whole grains... there isnt a huge difference between the effects of meat and grain on insulin. energy dense meat has always been around, but only in unlimited/larger portions in modern western society.

2) Far too many people lead active lives, yet cannot keep off the body fat. My last six martial arts instructors, all under 45, are great examples. Dr.

activity + caloric balance = healthy bodyfat. your martial art instructors were most likely overeating...

Exercise is significantly overrated as a tactic to maintain low body fat -- unless you exercise at athletic and pro levels.

that is absolutely not true... very unscientific thing to say

3) People cannot eat large portions of a low-carb meal. This has been shown in numerous studies.

i beg to differ...i've seen many a man wolf down huge amounts of meat with no carbs. if youre talking about the military studies, im familiar... people have trouble eating large portions of high fat meals.

particularly with respect to fructose.

fructose is unique vs other carbs... it is metabolized differently & enters into glycolysis in a way glucose does not, by-passing certain rate limiting steps.

Edited by ajnast4r, 15 December 2009 - 10:13 PM.

[Mind]

With this part, I agree. But, for the most part, it's not fat or protein that has lead to the obesity epidemic in the States, it is carbs. And mostly, grains and fructose. Anyone following the food pyramid is doomed to be overweight.

thats not true either... the obsesity epidemic is rooted mainly in 3 things: 1) extremely energy dense food. satiety is based on volume... foods with huge amounts of energy and low volume make it easy to achieve caloric excess. 2) decrease in activity / increase in sedentary jobs 3) wealth increasing portion size

I like reading your posts Marc and I have a high opinion of your nutrition knowledge, but I have to wonder what country you live in. My observations in the States is that the majority of the obesity epidemic is the result of carb consumption. I know someone posted here a graph of carb consumption vs. obesity and the two matched nearly perfectly. I'll look around.

Also for me, carb consumption=hunger. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Eat 1 cookie and I am very soon hungry for 2 or 3 more. Eat a small portion of spaghetti and I am very soon hungry for 2 or 3 more servings. When I eat my moderate fat/moderate protein main course with a big helping of leafy greens, broccoli, whatever, then I am full and I stay full.