First Reader: Evolution vs Social Stigma

Chapter 9 “Menstrual-Suppressing Oral Contraceptives” presented a large amount of information on MSOCs, but my overall conclusion and opinion on their usage is still torn.  It is difficult for me to comment on the emotion or physical benefits of avoiding menstruation and its symptoms as I am not a woman.  However, from what I have witnessed from my girl friends, avoiding the symptoms of menstruation and PMS might be worth small negative consequences in return.  It appears from the chapter, and I agree, that there don’t seem to be any benefits to avoiding or disrupting natural menstrual cycles.  The theory that they mimic ancestral gaps in menstruation seemed to be completely disproven in the chapter.  I think that the physical effects of disrupting the cycle need to be further studied before they can be considered safe.  I think the effects should be studied more before they are offered to the general public, who is not always accountable for researching the effects of their medications fully.  I also think it would be a good idea to study the effects on individuals to decide if the risks are too great (which is subjective, though).  Users can track their bodily reactions to the medications and aspects of their health can be charted (such as blood and other tests).  Then doctors can evaluate if the risk is deemed appropriate.  Overall, if I was a woman and had to choose, I would choose to not use the medications.  I would choose so not just because there might be risks involved, but because I don’t think it’s a good idea to mess with natural body rhythms.       

Searcher: A New Battle

[Searcher]

While reading through this week's chapter readings and previous blog posts by classmates, I became interested into the topic of oral contraceptives, also known as "the pill". I came across this article titled “BirthControl: Could it be Illegal Again?” by Adam Cohen on Times.com. This article talked about how the debate of abortion has been going on for decades, but now a new battle has emerged. This war is over birth control and if insurance companies or the government should have to pay for it and even if birth control should be legal. Even though this article doesn’t talk about the health/biological aspect of oral contraceptives, it talks about the position birth control is in in today’s society and government/ politics which I believe is important to know.  In today’s society, condoms are being handed out for free at clinics, and many young women are taking birth control pills, sometimes not even to prevent pregnancy but to decrease acne and the frequency of their menstrual cycle. In other words, oral contraceptives are very accessible these days. It is hard to say who is winning and both sides are not backing down. Opponents of birth control such as “Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, warned that if birth control is too readily available it could destroy America. ‘ If we let our birth rate get down below the replacement rate, we’re a dying civilization’ King said” (Cohen).  Opponents are trying to not let the government fund birth control. One New Hampshire lawmaker said “If you want to have a party, have a party, but don’t ask me to pay for it” (as cited in Cohen).

What do you think about this debate? It is very similar to the pro-life and pro-choice debate, but one might believe in pro-life but also be a supporter of birth control. Personally, I believe that birth control is being too easily accessible these days. I believe that the government should not fund birth control, but rather be a personal duty. If one wants to have sex, they should buy it with their own money. I also believe that there should be more strict rules and age restrictions and such. This is just my opinion… if you have any other, please reply :]

Searcher: Is the Pill Affecting Your Brain?

     This week in our readings and class we have discussed hormonal contraception and abortion.  We have more or less discussed how hormonal contraceptives such as The Pill affects progesterone levels and some potential side effects such as break through bleeding.  So when I combed the internet this week to find an article about The Pill, I tried to focus on some of the side effects that we have yet to discuss in any depth.
     In 2010, an article was written on how birth control pills alter brain structure and activity.  The article focuses on how The Pill is still a steroid as it supplies a steady stream of estrogen and progesterone to a woman's body.  This issue with this is that the brain is a sponge for hormones such as estrogen and testosterone.  In men, testosterone causes them to take more risks, promotes aggression, and increases their sex drives.  The lack of testosterone in a woman's body causes her to be more kind and gentle.  The question becomes what happens to women with artificial doses of hormones?
       To answer this question, scientist studied the brains of men, women on the pill, and women not on the pill.  What they found was that men and women not on the pill had large areas of grey matter in regions associated with learning and memory.  Women on the pill had "larger gray matter volumes in the prefrontal cortex, pre- and postcentral gyri, the parahippocampal and fusiform gyri and temporal regions, when compared to naturally cycling women."  While it is still uncertain as to what these grey areas mean, it is agreed that it is a bad idea to play with brain function without further research.    The research was unfortunately vague on the types of hormonal contraceptives used and did not measure the levels of circulating hormones, which could have answered more questions.  Also different birth control hormone mixtures can either raise or lower hormone concentrations in women and these affects are still unknown.

      While I am all for the empowering affects of hormonal contraception for women, it is important that they understand that there are risks involved and that the effects are not fully understood.  It is clear that future research needs to be done because altering brain structure is a cause for concern.

[Searcher] All things Progesterone

Progesterone plays an enormous role in woman's health. No wonder it is being studied, investigated and worked with so much. Here is a few medical studies from pubmed related to this week's topic worth checking out:


Progesterone + cervix screening is a promising way of preterm birth prevention.
This method has proven to be effective and relatively heap.

A non-hepatoxic way of female hormone therapy through Progesterone Receptor Modulation
Pill hormones tend to hurt the liver, and progesterone is no exception. This study has proven how modulating a target receptor rather then directly stimulating it is a safer option for hormone therapy.

Women seek for feminity signs when their progesterone levels are high.
During menstruation, woman seem to look for comfort.

Sodium Fluoride decreases female hormones significally
This chemical is a common additive to toothpaste and causes damage to female reproductive organs.

Electrically switchable polypyrrole film for the tunable release of progesterone.
A new advancement in hormone therapy field: progesterone can be dispensed from a polymer, with release being controlled by

All of these are recent and demonstrate great advancements in medicine; let us hope this trend keeps up.

First Reader: Synthetic Estrogen and Progestin

As I was reading chapter 9 about how oral contraceptives work, I started pondering the question on why are we using synthetic hormones to alter ovulation? In the beginning...Adam was created - after a while he was lonely - and GOD created a help mate (Eve). Both Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth, and they began creating and inhabiting the earth. I do not think we as humans are suppose to interfere with a woman's period, due to this is suppose to happen naturally.

As modern technology have evolved we see synthetic oral hormones in the form of a pill, and using it to trick the body into thinking that everything is still on course. What a huge injustice we have caused to women who have a huge role in creating life.Children are a gift from GOD, and we see thousands of women using oral contraceptives to eliminate; cramping, bloating, inconveniences, bleeding, and to prevent the ability to bring forth a new life.

According to doctor Rock on page 188, oral contraceptives are a way of imitating the natural processes of the female reproductive system. I would like to know what is his definition of natural and synthetic. There is nothing natural about taking oral contraceptives to prevent pregnancies, to produce a period that really is just a synthetic (not real) period, and to allow the withdrawal of the hormone in her body by giving her 7 days of a placebo pill. I wish someone would invent a monthly hormonal pill for men in altering the progesterone in their reproductive system. Oh, wait, someone did invent a hormonal pill for men, "Viagra."

I am not male bashing, but women have received a huge dose of "ungratefulness." Oral contraceptives have been associated with a reduction in ovarian and endometrial cancers, but not breast cancer. The number 1 leading causes of cancers in women is breast cancer, and so not only are oral contraceptives used to prevent pregnancies, but it seem to have 2 faces.

First Reader: Women Know Something You Don't

This article discussed the history of abortion and contraception, focusing on the ways in which women shared information with each other and made decisions regarding their pregnancies without the input of men. The article emphasized the fact that this has been going on for thousands of years. Whether the contraceptives or abortifacents were safe or not, women used them to avoid the risks associated with pregnancy. The author also discusses the legal repercussions of outlawing birth control and abortions. She says that outlawing these things would only increase abortion rates and abortion-related health problems. This claim is supported by the fact that women have been using contraceptives and abortifacents for so long, whether they were legal or not. In fact, she mentions that rates of abortion have been shown to be lower when abortion is legal than when it is not.

I absolutely agree with this article, and I think that it brings up excellent points about the history of contraception and abortion. I believe that women should have the freedom to choose what to do with their bodies, but even someone who considers themselves "pro-life" could see reason in this article. The debate over abortion is not between pro-choice and pro-life, but pro-choice and anti-choice. Being pro-choice is not equivalent to being anti-life. On the contrary, allowing women the freedom of choice actually decreases unwanted pregnancies and abortions, increasing the number of lives saved. "Pro-lifers: would actually find that their agendas are carried out more effectively by using the methods of "pro-choicers."

First Reader: Should Women Menstruate?

As a female young adult, this week’s reading is very interesting as well as useful to me. I have been conditioned not to question menstruation as, which I’m sure many others can agree with, it is generally assumed and taught to be one of the body’s natural processes. However, Chapter 9 persuades me otherwise.

Sievert explores two options: menstruation as adaptation and repeated menstruation as mismatch theory (sedentary lifestyle and greater food security = more menstrual cycles, p. 182) and does so by studying menstrual-suppressing oral contraceptives (MSOCs).

“Ancestral females had fewer periods due to more frequent pregnancies and lactation” and MSOCs cannot mimic the fewer periods experienced by women in the past, nor can it imitate the benefits of “Stone Age life histories” (195) but it seems that modern women are not attempting to do so. Rather, taking MSOCs is a way to increase daily convenience and deter potential negative health effects associated with menstruation.

At first, the argument of inconvenience made me respond in a “deal with it” attitude, although I realized this inconvenience often translates into unnecessary stress that can last half a lifetime until menopause. Additionally, it can cause pain enough to impair daily functioning without the use of medication. But Sievert states that “menstruation is physiologically costly” (185), including risks of endometrial and ovarian cancer and anemia, more extreme cases. Personally, the experience has always been concerning as I have thalassemia, a blood disease with ties to anemia; I have female friends who are anemic that take oral contraceptives because of it. In this case, MSOCs make the best sense.

Based on this evidence (along with the fact that MSOCs don’t interfere with adaptive aspects of menstruation), I am more keen to the idea that women should not menstruate. Although menstruation is one of the primary modes, there are other methods to detecting pregnancy and fertility, especially with the kind of technology available today (which, granted, is not available to all women). Given that MSOCs are not offered to women in their beginning years of menstruation, they should be offered as a solution – but, agreeing with Sievert, this is not to say they should be universally enforced.

Responder: Food Quantity and Obesity

I am responding to Chris's post about how food quantity is related to obesity. He discusses the fact that other countries tend to eat and buy food in smaller portion sizes than we do, and mentioned studying abroad in South Korea and noticing the frequency with which his host family had to attend the store, since the amounts of food they bought with each trip were so small. I noticed the same thing when I was in Germany with a host family--they went shopping more frequently, and as a result, the food they bought was much fresher when they ate it.

Food is something that is naturally supposed to "expire." As Americans though, we seem obsessed with buying things in bulk and therefore, we need them to last us a long time. This leads to the use of artificial preservatives and increased consumption of processed food. So not only supersizing our portion sizes have an adverse effect, supersizing our shopping lists does as well. I understand the idea of convenience and the fact that we don't really have much time, but is it really worth sacrificing our health?

I also like how Chris mentioned that we could benefit from more frequent shopping trips simply because they would require us to be more active. Even if we drove to the store, walking around a store and carrying shopping bags a bit more often would definitely be a beneficial break from our sedentary lives.

Respondent: Birth Size and Obesity

I am responding to the article written by Raia on obesity and diabetics, and it was centered around insulin secretion and responsiveness. This topic is correlated with the information from chapter 17 and the PAR model (predictive adaptive response).

The PAR model states that babies that are born small in size tend to have lower muscle mass, greater fat mass, and more abdominal obesity. Thus, this model explains that this is due to insulin resistance of the muscles while in their mother's womb. Insulin is increase in the body to compensate for the resistance of a hormone. The hormone releases sugar from the blood quickly, this leads to individuals becoming hungry again after eating a meal. Consequently, this leads to overeating, which leads to obesity.

I found this article was very informative and educational. I did not realize that being born small in size could perhaps lead to obesity. The information given by Raia, could perhaps be of some use to the individuals who are predisposed to being overweight.

Searcher- Obesity still not for me

    Speaking honestly I have no interest in gaining weight and being classified as overweight in order to live longer. First of all, that it would be extremely hard given my body type and fast metabolism. Secondly, I am too active and end up burning a majority of the calories I take in. Lastly, I would not be able to do the things I enjoy most such as being extremely active.  

    The article I found talks about how obese people live longer, but weighs in on the negative side of obesity and how it is hazardous to health and can lead to joint problems and/or diabetes. After hearing about the positive effects of obesity in class and that the article mentions I still would not wish to be obese because I could not enjoy doing the things I enjoy most of all. I enjoy playing basketball and being one of if not the quickest guy on the floor. That is a quality I am sure not most obese people have.  Sure obese people may live longer, but I wonder who lives the better life an obese person compared to a healthier person. Life should be more about quality not quantity. People should be more focused on how well they are living their life, rather than how long they live it. Some people who are considered obese may be satisfied with their health conditions and that is fine; however, I think most would rather not be in the category of obese.

Searcher: Cure to Obesity, Diabetes and Muscle Loss...Perhaps

This week and last week in class we have been discussing energy expenditure, obesity and diabetes in class. While preparing for this week’s blog assignment, I cam across and interesting post on scienceblog.com titled, “Preventing Muscles Lose, Obesity, and Diabetes.” The post goes on to describe a research project that is taking place at Nanyang Technological University (NTU).  They are researching a protein, that if suppressed, it can halt muscle loss in chronically ill patients, as well as fight obesity, and combat diabetes.

The protein is called myostatin and it is responsible for the break down of the mitochondria, which is the cell wall. The Article explains that under normal circumstances this is a normal procedure. However the article states  “when a patient is suffering from chronic diseases or is bedridden (and muscles are not used often), this process is disrupted due to high levels of myostatin which results in increased mitochondrial loss and muscle atrophy.”

I found this to be interesting because it once again shows harmful results of a sedentary lifestyle. Granted these people are not sedentary by choice, however it would be interesting to look at people who live highly sedentary life styles and see if this same event is occurring.

Still this study isn’t just related to muscle loss. It also states that inhibiting the protein can help increase fat utilization, which could both help decrease obesity, and can curb the number of people who contract Type II diabetes.

Other interesting results of the study showed, “People who exercise regularly have been found to have lower levels of myostatin as compared to those who do not. Studies have also found that older people have more myostatin and this can explain why when one ages, muscles become weaker.”

It shall be very interesting to see how the further research progresses. It would be interesting to see if this could possibly help people who live much more sedentary lives, whether they are a 9-5 guy who works in a cubicle for eight hours each day, or for those who are bed-ridden and unable to maintain any for of exercise. 

Searcher: Obesity “Diabesity” Epidemic"

    On Friday in class we touched on how to create opportunities for college students to incorporate more exercise throughout their day. On Monday in class we defined obesity in a couple of different ways and discussed the pros and cons in terms of health of being obese.  What I'd like to blog about today has to do with what we discussed on Friday and Monday, as well as the readings we had over the weekend. 

    In non-obese individuals, there's a hormone produced by our body that functions to suppress our appetite. It basically sends a signal saying "Eat less, store less, and metabolize more"! But the amount of leptin that is released is directly proportional to how "full" our adipocytes are. But what about in obese people? They actually have higher levels of leptin! The problem though is that their bodies are insensitive to leptin's effects. They might have something wrong with their leptin receptors or they may just have a fewer number of leptin receptors. Studies show that this issue is a contributing factor to the development of obesity, diabetes, and sterility. 

Type 2 diabetes often develops in obese people due to the combined effects of inadequate insulin secretion/responsiveness. Obesity, however, often leads to pre-diabetic symptoms like hyperglycemia or hyperinsulinemia (and then eventually to type 2 diabetes). The scary part is finding treatment before these conditions persist. 

    So what kind of ways are out there that can ultimately  suppress food intake and increase people's energy expenditure, especially of individuals who have issues with leptin? Besides eating a high-fiber diet with lots of fruits and vegetables and resorting to hormone supplements for receptors, one can simply increase their physical activity. I'd like to share an article on TIME that talks about how profound Facebook has been in increasing the number of marathon runners within the last couple of years. Yesterday in class we mentioned how our friends have a high potential of influencing us when it comes to what we end up ordering/eating and transforming our perception of what the body norm is based on our friends' bodies. Facebook has had such a profound effect that since 2008, marathon finishers in the U.S. have increased by 10%. We're more likely to do something when we see a friend of ours doing it and sharing it online! Click here for article

    Although the influence of Facebook is great, I believe that more should be done in combating this link between obesity and diabetes because the complications that could result are due to vascular damage and the number of organs that can be affected by this are just way too many to list. 

Respondent: Obesity and Diabetes

The two readings we had for the week regarding obesity and diabetes were particularly interesting to me considering that diabetes as well as obesity runs in my family at an alarming rate. According to the reading, the trends in diabesity are expected to continue because “contemporary environments are conducive to a surfeit of calories and fat stores” which can be due to the “hallmarks of global dietary modernization” such as “...processed energy dense foods, increased quantity and increased ingestion frequency."(85) All these traits hold true especially in more developed countries such as the United States where a large percentage of the population are obese as well as diabetic, and trends increasing with childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes.

I can completely agree with Paige where she states that “in a modern world, where food variety is common, sedentism is habitual and the neurological stimulation of physiological hunger is nearly ongoing, the diabesity statistics makes sense.” As other people in their blogs have mentioned, if they see that they have more food surrounding them or have enough money to buy more, people will go buy and consume food despite the fact that they might not actually be hungry.  They’re just satisfying those pleasurable senses associated with eating certain foods despite the fact that they’re increasing their risk for weight gain, especially if there is no physical activity that follows such eating. Sometimes we just believe that we’re hungry, or we can fit more food than what actually is a suggested serving size because of that “lack of sensitivity to internal cues of satiation” and our reliance of what we see in particular.

In contrast to what she believed was most interesting to her, reading into the specific statistics of diabetes was what truly interested me. In chapter 3 under “The Scope of the Problem: Diabetes Global Prevalence”, it was stated that “many small island populations have the highest prevalence estimates of type 2 diabetes.” (85) After learning about how type 2 diabetes tends to increase with countries that undergo rapid demographic changes and become increasingly more industrialized and urban, I figured that the populations with highest prevalence of diabetes would be in the most developed countries, which were also indicated (USA, India, China).  I want to think that perhaps it’s due to these regions not being as populated that perhaps the prevalence percentages would increase. In addition, these regions appear to be more influenced by tourism, which leads to certain areas of the region to be more urbanized and have led to a similar trend as what is going on in the United States with access to processed foods.

I feel that the readings remind us that diabesity is a growing epidemic that severely needs to be addressed, and despite that it cannot be cured it will help prevent further increasing rates of prevalence.

Searcher: Supersizing Gone Too Far?

This post is in response to what Chris had to say this week.

When Coca-Cola products were first introduced, the product was sold in 6.5 ounce bottles. When going to a fast food restaurant, you were served a 7 ounce cup. Today, the children’s cup at McDonald’s is 12 ounces! As the years go on, cup sizes continue to grow. You can go into a fast food restaurant and order a triple cheeseburger, a large order of french fries, and a 42 ounce drink. This so-called meal contains several servings of food, and that does not even count the number of calories such a meal would contain (I would guess this would be well over the standard 2,000 calories per day suggestion).

Even within a chain of restaurants, there is variation in the amount of ounces that makes up a small-, medium-, or large-sized drink.

Cup sizes are significantly larger in America compared to Japan. It does not come as much of a surprise that there is a growing diabetes and obesity epidemic in America. With real portion sizes being completely lost under a sea of fast food, Americans tend to overeat. Fast food is seen as a convenient alternative to a nice home-cooked meal. Personally, I would much rather prepare my own food and have some control over what goes into my food. If the same could be said for much of America, then perhaps we would not see so many people becoming obese, when the amount of food served to a single person at a restaurant could easily serve three.

I got my information from the following article:

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/06/supersize-biggest-sodas-mcdonalds-big-gulp-chart

Respondent: Diabesity

In chapter three under the section, “Diabesity and Darwinian Medicine”, obesity and diabetes is considered to be a current pandemic (World wide). As learned in this chapter, when individuals are overweight it is a chief risk factor for Type 2 diabetes. As I read this chapter, I pondered, “Can skinny people acquire Type 2 diabetes (DM), as well as obese individuals? And can some visually perceived obese people not acquire Type 2 DM?

I’m not a searcher for this week, but check this out…

http://chriskresser.com/think-skinny-people-dont-get-type-2-diabetes-think-again

I personally agree with Paige when she stated, “Hormonally and neurologically our bodies are far more influenced by the drive to eat than the subtleties of satiety”.

Just as Lieberman elucidated, “Hormonal and neurological mechanisms control appetite (i.e., Hunger and Satiety);  Lieberman continues to state that there is “ a drive to eat and a low sensitivity to satiety”.  This may be due to increase in a high dense diet with little nutritional value.  With modern conveniences, low energy expenditure our bodies are adapting to this daunting change.

And even though researchers have proven that we are genetically programmed to eat like our Paleolithic ancestors, we are indeed opposite of this. The Paleo diet is considered to be healthy, but don’t we need to consume carbs for instant energy usage (if there is no carbs in the Paleo diet)?  So why are we so fluffy if we need carbs for energy?  Lieberman stated, “Obesity and diabetes are referred to as inactivity-mediated disease”.  As we have learned in this weeks reading, as well as last week readings more energy in and less energy out can lead to storage of excess energy that can cause a host of medical problems. So carbs are okay, just as long as we as individuals exert our available and stored energy.

As Paige stated, “It seems only natural then that we would face this diabesity problem when we are evolutionarily urged to eat and more is always available”, I completely agree.  I’ve noticed in my personally life, when I have access to more food (healthy and/or unhealthy), and money, I tend to overeat. I tested this theory for a week by limiting the amount of money I spent, and food access. Surprisingly I ate significantly less that usual, and my appetite was diminished. I realized that when I thought about the food that I had access to, I started to salivate and feel somewhat hungry (usually during boredom).  

Overall modern lifestyles of decreased activity levels, and increased consumption of calories has opened an unfortunate doorway for chronic irreversible, but controllable diseased like Type 2 DM. In order to combat this pandemic, individuals need to reduce calorie intake (eat smaller portions), and increase energy expenditure (exercising, with ADLs), to prevent chronic illnesses to stay healthy.

First Reader: Diabesity

Diabetes and obesity together have been climbing to increasingly epidemic proportions throughout the world. Obesity is such a predictive measure for type-2 diabetes, through metabolic processes characteristic of the two, a new term, diabesity, has gain recognition among researchers.

It is easy to understand why these two conditions are becoming frightfully prevalent in our modern society when our metabolic relationship with food is considered. Adaptively, our bodies have been conditioned to deal with fluctuating energy availability under higher energy demands. Hormonally and neurologically our bodies are far more influenced by the drive to eat than the subtleties of satiety.

In a modern world, where food variety is common, sedentism is habitual and the neurological stimulation of physiological hunger is nearly ongoing, the diabesity statistics make sense. That is not to mention that our modern ‘fat-rich, fiber-poor’ diet is abruptly opposite of our ancestors’ Paleolithic diet.

While it makes plenty of sense to blame these conditions for the current crisis, I found it most interesting in the way food is marketed and available to us. Lieberman explains the how the way food is packaged, marketed and enhanced may deceive our bodies’ satiety-related mechanisms into eating more. People often consume a specific amount determined by how much is available. In many cases, what individuals assume to be normal serving sizes, greatly exceed USDA portion sizes (88).

In our society, consumers look for and expect more for their money and this most exceptionally equates to food. Thus ordering a meal in a restaurant that is three times the appropriate portion size is quite normal. It is experimentally expected for the individual to consume more of that meal than what is necessarily appropriate. Lieberman explains that this lack of sensitivity to satiation may have been evolutionarily advantageous so that eating continued whenever food was available (89). It seems only natural then that we would face this diabesity problem when we are evolutionarily urged to eat and more is always available.       

First Reader: Food Quantity and Obesity

In chapter 3 from the textbook it discussed the effects of packaging size/portion size on consumption (p. 88-89). I am interested in what affect the sale of bulk items in the US plays into obesity. Growing up in a suburban and southern context (I don’t know if the latter effects this – but obesity is more prevalent there), I have for most of my life grown up around food being sold in large quantities, so these sizes are what I have grown to consider to be normative. For instance, a few weeks ago I went to Sam’s Club for the first time in years and it is impossible to buy many of their products in small quantities. Even outside of stores that sell products in bulk – I think the average size of products sold in American supermarkets is larger than that of many other countries around the world.

            This is not the standard everywhere in the world. I do not have any way, from my own experience, to compare this with a non-industrialized country. But, I studied abroad in South Korea last year. My host family would make more frequent visits to the super market than I or my family do in the US. My guess is that this stems from food being sold, on average, in smaller sizes as well as storage space of food being limited.

            I cannot really say if this in any way affected my food consumption or if it does anyone in these countries. But it seems quite apparent from the studies listed in the textbook that the sale of food sold in large portions can enable or encourage overeating.

            As well, in talking about the acquisition of food in the suburban American context, I think the potential negative health effects of large portion consumption are compounded by the common practice of driving directly to the supermarket, instead of more frequent trips using public transport, bicycles, or just walking.

First Reader: Obesity

                As I was reading this week’s chapters on obesity, I felt like I was familiar with a lot of information from reading various weight loss and health-related articles. Being pretty conscious about what I eat and how much I eat, I couldn’t help but sympathize with those who go on a healthy-eating streak only to come crashing down a few weeks later. The first time I seriously committed to a healthy eating plan, I went on a heavily-restricted diet consisting of not much more than limp salads and extra lean meat. As you would imagine, the plan backfired and I ended up with immense cravings for fatty, sugary, processed foods within a few weeks. Since then, I’ve learned that if you strip your diet of all fat and sugar—some which your body actually needs—then you’re likely to end up right back at square one. As was mentioned in chapter 3, “when individuals over restrict, they rebound with over consumption and ‘yo-yo’ between weight loss and regain” (Trevathan 80).
                Another topic that I find particularly interesting is the concept of satiety vs. hunger. There is a huge mental component in hunger, and there is a lot of evidence in our society today that suggests we don’t always eat because we are actually hungry. We may be eating for social reasons, because we are distracted, bored, or in many of my cases, stressed. In fact, studies have shown that it takes about 20 minutes for our bodies to recognize satiety. 20 minutes…it takes me half that time to down a meal. So it’s no wonder overeating has become such a problem, especially with larger portion sizes and abundance of food available everywhere. The point was made by Lieberman that we can no longer rely on internal cues to tell us when we’re full; so how exactly do we judge the point of satiety? It’s almost no surprise that obesity rates are climbing when eating has become an activity that requires so much self-control, but yet is made extremely difficult by all the temptations that surround us.