I know the answer to this! Please teacher, please! Ooooh! Oooooh!

A diet laden with burgers and fries, dripping with sweet treats and saturated in pies could kill our appetite for healthy foods, scientists warn.

A new Australian study has found living on junk food not only makes rats fat, but also suppresses their desires to eat a balanced diet.

Scientists believe their findings help explain how excessive consumption of unhealthy foods, can change a person’s behaviour, weaken their self-control and lead to overeating and obesity.

Because burgers
taste lovely and fatty and meaty while organic kale tastes of the manure it is fertilised with. Thus once we’ve actually had something that tastes good we’ll leave the shite for the prodnoses.

17 thoughts on “I know the answer to this! Please teacher, please! Ooooh! Oooooh!”

  1. It was a terrible mistake to let the proles have a taste of the good life. Socialists see that now and deeply regret their embarrassing past insistence on material progress for the working classes. Getting that genie back in the bottle will be a struggle.

  2. Sounds like something from Daily Mash’s Institute of Studies. If you eat lots of sugar, your taste buds adapt and non sweetened stuff tastes bland. Stop eating lots of sugar, and after a few days apples taste sweet again. S’not rocket science.

  3. Er, no.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, the Mail and the Telegraph are not reliable authorities on diet, any more than they are on house prices.

    The argument is that human beings are conditioned by the evolutionary process to prefer high-fat and high-sugar foodstuffs. Which is why, Tim, you think that burgers “taste lovely”.

    This was fine when we were all eating mammoths and chewing sugar cane. But while the industrialisation of food production has resulted in a pretty much unlimited supply of fats and sugars, evolution has not kept up ( a few million years might suffice),

    In the meantime we binge on these foodstuffs. And that’s what the Australian study is all about.

  4. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/science/our-microbiome-may-be-looking-out-for-itself.html?ref=science&_r=1

    “Your body is home to about 100 trillion bacteria and other microbes, collectively known as your microbiome. Naturalists first became aware of our invisible lodgers in the 1600s, but it wasn’t until the past few years that we’ve become really familiar with them.

    This recent research has given the microbiome a cuddly kind of fame. We’ve come to appreciate how beneficial our microbes are — breaking down our food, fighting off infections and nurturing our immune system. It’s a lovely, invisible garden we should be tending for our own well-being.

    But in the journal Bioessays, a team of scientists has raised a creepier possibility. Perhaps our menagerie of germs is also influencing our behavior in order to advance its own evolutionary success — giving us cravings for certain foods, for example.

    Maybe the microbiome is our puppet master.”

  5. I doubt this comes down to a ‘craving’ (I.e. a real overwhelming physical need) in more than one in five hundred people. For the rest, these bacteria seem to be really good at making their host a bit of a lazy bastard who can’t be arsed to cook.

  6. Rob, hey I resemble that remark.
    Seriously I happen to like takeaways and ‘junk’ food. If women have the right to say ‘my body my choice’ why is the same not applied to other aspects of life – my taste buds my choice. If I want to enjoy eating for a lifetime and die aged 60 is that not my choice? Compared to eating stuff I don’t like, don’t enjoy and staying alive until age 61?

  7. “( a few million years might suffice)”: probably a few thousand would do – consider lactose tolerance.

  8. Scientists have discovered that after being fed a diet of horse shit all their life by mainstream politicians, nearly all of them come back for more.

    Those turning to UKIP are thought to have a rare allergy, and will be sterilised.

  9. All this diet stuff is nonsense.

    My gran never did a second’s exercise, smoked 40 fags a day, used to have chips with everything and started drinking beer at breakfast time and didn’t stop until she passed out in the evening.

    Mind you, she did die of a massive heart attack aged 46.

  10. Anyway, what’s wrong with kale? One of my favourite vegetables. Just don’t cook it until it turns into school-dinners cabbage.

  11. Has *anyone* noticed that human beings are not quite identical to each other. Even the identical twins who always lap me when I am following them round (“race against them” would be unduly flattering) do not dead-heat.
    Almost anyone with willpower and an incentive can switch from an unhealthy diet to a healthy one if they choose to do so.
    A healthy diet does not need to include kale – I have survived more than 60 years without touching the stuff, largely because no-one has ever asked me to eat it!

  12. bloke (not) in spain

    To me it’s remarkably simple. The digestive system uses two sets of enzymes. One lot digests proteins. The other carbohydrates. That accounts for everything I eat apart from the odd mineral or four. And, like me, they don’t much care in what form they arrive.
    I’d need a helluva lot of convincing there’s anything more to it.

  13. “This was fine when we were all eating mammoths and chewing sugar cane. But while the industrialisation of food production has resulted in a pretty much unlimited supply of fats and sugars, evolution has not kept up ( a few million years might suffice),”

    Evolution already got there, although it’s quite complicated.

    Roughly speaking, the body has an ideal weight range that is determined by genetics, age, gut flora, and the number of fat cells developed during childhood. Within about 20% of body mass, and over the short term, weight changes fairly easily and rapidly. Outside this range various hormonal systems are activated to try to push the weight back. At the top end, people lose their appetite, and their basal metabolic rate skyrockets. When they’ve done experiments, people found it hard to force themselves to stick to the high calorie diet, and there were people eating 10,000 calories a day and not putting any more weight on. This was at about 20% over their initial weight.

    At the bottom end, people become constantly hungry, obsessed with food, lethargic, and with a weakened immune response. People initially lose weight but then stabilise at a lower level – maintaining a constant weight on what would normally be a starvation diet. Their bodies reduce their metabolism and start burning protein.

    Diets generally work for about six months, plateau, and then weight returns to normal over about 5 years. The body controls and precisely maintains energy balance, just as it controls every other biochemical system – salt, water, oxygen, pH, … In fact, it would be really weird if it didn’t.

    Energy usage varies widely. In winter you expend a lot more energy keeping warm. Sometimes the hunting is easy and there is a glut (they used to stampede mammoths over cliffs). Sometimes there is a long lean period. And even small imbalances would accumulate rapidly.

    10 grams a day adds up to 36 kg over 10 years, and yet that’s less than 1% of our daily intake. Does anyone really think you can hit a 1% target without trying, without even being aware of it, unless there was some mechanism at work keeping track? Does anyone think it is by luck, or accident, that you hit the balance point so precisely? Hasn’t anyone ever wondered what those ‘hungry’ and ‘not hungry’ signals were for?

    Over the past 60 years, we have moved from wartime austerity to universal prosperity, and our weights have tended to move from the bottom of the target range to the top. That’s not unhealthy – statistics indicates the lowest mortality occurs for the overweight and mildly obese, while higher mortality (but not alarmingly so) occurs for those of ‘normal’ weight, and the more heavily obese. The underweight and the extremely obese have the highest mortalities. There is such a thing as being unhealthily overweight. But it’s been known for a long time that the healthy minimum of the U-shaped mortality curve is rather higher than the diet industry claims, and that overweight is better than underweight.

    Generally speaking, most people don’t need to think about it or worry about it, any more than they worry about getting precisely the right amount of water or air. The body manages it automatically. The primary reason for it is cosmetic – people put on weight with age, so being slim is a sign that you are young, and therefore fertile and attractive. Older people try to look younger than they are, and diets are one way to do that.

    But mostly nowadays its an excuse for the prodnoses to take control of people’s lives “for their own good”, and to regulate every aspect of life, because millions of years of evolution is obviously not as good at balancing individual needs as a government bureaucrat. Once they’ve set the precedent with foods that are ‘bad’ for you, it’s but a small step to regulate everything else. And that’s a much bigger danger. Quite frankly, I’d much rather take the risk of getting a bit tubby than allow those idiots to have absolute control over what I am allowed to eat, drink, smoke, or do. No, not even “for my own good”! Where do you think it will end?

  14. Methinks Churm needs to look up carb loading, and the way the US government diet nannies have encouraged it over the years.

    Or do a google search for how the assholes at the CSPI bitched about lard being used to fry things, so the restaurants replaced it with less tasty trans-fats, which caused CSPI to bitch again. (It’s pretty much the same nonsense argument as butter or whole milk being bad for you, but margarine and skim milk being virtuous.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *