….the mystery is: why now, are we faced with ever-growing obesity ? Why weren’t Western people just as fat fifty, sixty or more years ago?

The usual explanation seems to be “today’s sedentary lifestyles”. But there are various serious problems with this. Middle class people lived just as physically undemanding lives in the past as they do today, and many working class factory jobs didn’t involve much physical effort.

Also, it’s well known that excessive eating is a more significant contributor to obesity than lack of normal exercise. People just eat a lot more now than they did in the past.

Yet cheap food has been cheap for a very long time. In the Western world, you have to go back to wartime rationing or the Great Depression to find a time when over-eating was a sign of luxurious indulgence. And before then, for a long time, food was cheap yet most people were slim.

Another possible factor was the ubiquity of tobacco smoking in the 20th century, declining rapidly only towards the end. Nicotine is supposedly an appetite suppressant (not something I’ve noticed, since foolishly re-establishing my nicotine addiction as an e-cig user).

Anyone have any other suggestions?

Bubblecar said:

….the mystery is: why now, are we faced with ever-growing obesity ? Why weren’t Western people just as fat fifty, sixty or more years ago?

The usual explanation seems to be “today’s sedentary lifestyles”. But there are various serious problems with this. Middle class people lived just as physically undemanding lives in the past as they do today, and many working class factory jobs didn’t involve much physical effort.

Also, it’s well known that excessive eating is a more significant contributor to obesity than lack of normal exercise. People just eat a lot more now than they did in the past.

Yet cheap food has been cheap for a very long time. In the Western world, you have to go back to wartime rationing or the Great Depression to find a time when over-eating was a sign of luxurious indulgence. And before then, for a long time, food was cheap yet most people were slim.

Another possible factor was the ubiquity of tobacco smoking in the 20th century, declining rapidly only towards the end. Nicotine is supposedly an appetite suppressant (not something I’ve noticed, since foolishly re-establishing my nicotine addiction as an e-cig user).

Anyone have any other suggestions?

Research strongly suggests the main reason is the abundance of sugar in processed foods and especially drinks, which is why some people are talking about a tax on sugar.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

….the mystery is: why now, are we faced with ever-growing obesity ? Why weren’t Western people just as fat fifty, sixty or more years ago?

The usual explanation seems to be “today’s sedentary lifestyles”. But there are various serious problems with this. Middle class people lived just as physically undemanding lives in the past as they do today, and many working class factory jobs didn’t involve much physical effort.

Also, it’s well known that excessive eating is a more significant contributor to obesity than lack of normal exercise. People just eat a lot more now than they did in the past.

Yet cheap food has been cheap for a very long time. In the Western world, you have to go back to wartime rationing or the Great Depression to find a time when over-eating was a sign of luxurious indulgence. And before then, for a long time, food was cheap yet most people were slim.

Another possible factor was the ubiquity of tobacco smoking in the 20th century, declining rapidly only towards the end. Nicotine is supposedly an appetite suppressant (not something I’ve noticed, since foolishly re-establishing my nicotine addiction as an e-cig user).

Anyone have any other suggestions?

Research strongly suggests the main reason is the abundance of sugar in processed foods and especially drinks, which is why some people are talking about a tax on sugar.

No, people are simply eating too much. Sugar is a red herring.

There was just as much sugar in soft drinks and cheap sweet foods fifty years ago as there is today.

Essentially the mystery is: a much larger proportion of the population eat too much these days than was the case a few decades ago. But there doesn’t seem to be any obvious reason why this should be the case.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

….the mystery is: why now, are we faced with ever-growing obesity ? Why weren’t Western people just as fat fifty, sixty or more years ago?

The usual explanation seems to be “today’s sedentary lifestyles”. But there are various serious problems with this. Middle class people lived just as physically undemanding lives in the past as they do today, and many working class factory jobs didn’t involve much physical effort.

Also, it’s well known that excessive eating is a more significant contributor to obesity than lack of normal exercise. People just eat a lot more now than they did in the past.

Yet cheap food has been cheap for a very long time. In the Western world, you have to go back to wartime rationing or the Great Depression to find a time when over-eating was a sign of luxurious indulgence. And before then, for a long time, food was cheap yet most people were slim.

Another possible factor was the ubiquity of tobacco smoking in the 20th century, declining rapidly only towards the end. Nicotine is supposedly an appetite suppressant (not something I’ve noticed, since foolishly re-establishing my nicotine addiction as an e-cig user).

Anyone have any other suggestions?

Research strongly suggests the main reason is the abundance of sugar in processed foods and especially drinks, which is why some people are talking about a tax on sugar.

No, people are simply eating too much. Sugar is a red herring.

There is a considerable amount of scientific research been done on the matter (much reproduced on the internet and ready for your inspection). Below is a link from the Lancet titled “Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis.” In which the it states “Consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks is associated with obesity in children.” And as I have said there are plenty more.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600040411

PermeateFree said:

There is a considerable amount of scientific research been done on the matter (much reproduced on the internet and ready for your inspection). Below is a link from the Lancet titled “Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis.” In which the it states “Consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks is associated with obesity in children.” And as I have said there are plenty more.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600040411

Merely raises the question: cheap food & drink heavily laden with sugar has been widely available for a very long time. Why are people consuming more of it now than in the past?

And there are plenty of people (like me) who generally avoid sugary stuff but nonetheless get fat due to over-eating a wide range of other foods.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

There is a considerable amount of scientific research been done on the matter (much reproduced on the internet and ready for your inspection). Below is a link from the Lancet titled “Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis.” In which the it states “Consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks is associated with obesity in children.” And as I have said there are plenty more.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600040411

Merely raises the question: cheap food & drink heavily laden with sugar has been widely available for a very long time. Why are people consuming more of it now than in the past?

And there are plenty of people (like me) who generally avoid sugary stuff but nonetheless get fat due to over-eating a wide range of other foods.

Well you drink quite a bit and eat calorie laden meals and fit in at least one extra meal a day compared to most people. People have always got fat with such a lifestyle. Soft drinks are so readily available these days and are very cheap, really kicking off with the production of various sized plastic bottle that started to be produced from 1991.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

There is a considerable amount of scientific research been done on the matter (much reproduced on the internet and ready for your inspection). Below is a link from the Lancet titled “Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis.” In which the it states “Consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks is associated with obesity in children.” And as I have said there are plenty more.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600040411

Merely raises the question: cheap food & drink heavily laden with sugar has been widely available for a very long time. Why are people consuming more of it now than in the past?

And there are plenty of people (like me) who generally avoid sugary stuff but nonetheless get fat due to over-eating a wide range of other foods.

Well you drink quite a bit and eat calorie laden meals and fit in at least one extra meal a day compared to most people. People have always got fat with such a lifestyle. Soft drinks are so readily available these days and are very cheap, really kicking off with the production of various sized plastic bottle that started to be produced from 1991.

Soft drinks have been cheap and readily available for a very long time.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Merely raises the question: cheap food & drink heavily laden with sugar has been widely available for a very long time. Why are people consuming more of it now than in the past?

And there are plenty of people (like me) who generally avoid sugary stuff but nonetheless get fat due to over-eating a wide range of other foods.

Well you drink quite a bit and eat calorie laden meals and fit in at least one extra meal a day compared to most people. People have always got fat with such a lifestyle. Soft drinks are so readily available these days and are very cheap, really kicking off with the production of various sized plastic bottle that started to be produced from 1991.

Soft drinks have been cheap and readily available for a very long time.

Well ignore all the research, modern marketing, supermarkets, etc., etc.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Well you drink quite a bit and eat calorie laden meals and fit in at least one extra meal a day compared to most people. People have always got fat with such a lifestyle. Soft drinks are so readily available these days and are very cheap, really kicking off with the production of various sized plastic bottle that started to be produced from 1991.

Soft drinks have been cheap and readily available for a very long time.

Well ignore all the research, modern marketing, supermarkets, etc., etc.

Supermarkets and mass marketing have been ubiquitous since the 1950s.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Soft drinks have been cheap and readily available for a very long time.

Well ignore all the research, modern marketing, supermarkets, etc., etc.

Supermarkets and mass marketing have been ubiquitous since the 1950s.

Car, you absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Rather than trusting your or my comments, why don’t you just google sugar and obesity, or something like that and you should be able to spend many hours improving your knowledge base.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Well ignore all the research, modern marketing, supermarkets, etc., etc.

Supermarkets and mass marketing have been ubiquitous since the 1950s.

Car, you absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Rather than trusting your or my comments, why don’t you just google sugar and obesity, or something like that and you should be able to spend many hours improving your knowledge base.

You’re falling back on your usual unflinching adversarial approach, Permeate, so I’ll let you do your thing and wait to see what others have to offer :)

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Supermarkets and mass marketing have been ubiquitous since the 1950s.

Car, you absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Rather than trusting your or my comments, why don’t you just google sugar and obesity, or something like that and you should be able to spend many hours improving your knowledge base.

You’re falling back on your usual unflinching adversarial approach, Permeate, so I’ll let you do your thing and wait to see what others have to offer :)

Your trouble car, is you can’t stand anyone contradicting your preconceived ideas.

Interesting subject

I guess once being able to run from a lion and climb the nearest tree was important, but somewhere people conquered all.

Being at the top of the food chain of course wasn’t enough, so now some look like they ate half of it.

> Why weren’t Western people just as fat fifty, sixty or more years ago?

Still recovering from the starvation of WW-II.

In support of that, the only extensive studies of weight vs age were conducted 50 to 60 years ago. Nothing has been published on that since then. There was less starvation in the USA than in Britain, and this shows up in the studies that show that at the same time, people in Britain weighed less than those of the same age at the same time in the USA.

Abundance and cheapness of food in the West. As a child in the sixties, soft drink and fish and chips were a treat, definitely not indulged in every week. Although my father was an engineer and therefore we were not poor, we could not afford processed food often. We had special treat cakes from the bakery for Easter and occasionally at other times. There is far more selection of food now. And the success of KFC, and various hamburger chains attests to the fact that people eat that food. KFC came to my suburb in the mid seventies. There was no Macdonalds. The nearest one was a couple of suburbs away and not until later. There was a Pizza Hut in the seventies also. So there is also an element of availability involved here too.
There was also a lot less of the cafe culture. You only went out for tea and cakes for special occasions.

Of course it could be that kids spend more time indoors. Safe near the TV and fridge etc, in their cages.

Cheap food has never been this cheap, as a portion of income.

buffy said:

There was no Macdonalds.

A what?

If you look back at the ads 50 to 60 years ago, you’ll find that low weight was blamed on “smoking” and “a dissolute lifestyle” which presumably meant hard liquor.

I’m more inclined to blame diseases such as TB and intestinal worms. Other chronic diseases would have played a part as well. And reduced lung capacity due to occupational air pollution.

I’m well aware of the contradiction in the following:
“I’m taller than my grandparents because of better nutrition” vs “I’m heavier than my grandparents because of worse nutrition”. You can’t have it both ways.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/men-who-made-us-fat/

Cymek said:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/men-who-made-us-fat/

Sorry that was a broken link

Cymek said:

Cymek said:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/men-who-made-us-fat/

Sorry that was a broken link

Anyway if I remember correctly part of it mentioned how portion sizes have increase dramatically in the fast food industry and if people got a portion recommend by health officials they would think they are being ripped off and not getting enough

So-called “junk food” is not the reason. I’ve observed zero correlation between junk food intake and obesity among my friends and relatives. There tends to be a correlation between chocolate intake and obesity among my friends and relatives, but one of my obese friends never eats chocolate and doesn’t overindulge at meals.

mollwollfumble said:

So-called “junk food” is not the reason. I’ve observed zero correlation between junk food intake and obesity among my friends and relatives. There tends to be a correlation between chocolate intake and obesity among my friends and relatives, but one of my obese friends never eats chocolate and doesn’t overindulge at meals.

lol

they just magically get fat from one type of food, it has nothing to do with the huge amount of energy intake they have through the day and naff all expenditure.

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

So-called “junk food” is not the reason. I’ve observed zero correlation between junk food intake and obesity among my friends and relatives. There tends to be a correlation between chocolate intake and obesity among my friends and relatives, but one of my obese friends never eats chocolate and doesn’t overindulge at meals.

lol

they just magically get fat from one type of food, it has nothing to do with the huge amount of energy intake they have through the day and naff all expenditure.

Surely it comes down to intake calories versus used calories each day and too much incoming calories, plus I think people hugely over estimate how much exercise burns calories, for example one or two Tim Tams takes probably an hour of moderate exercise to burn off and they eat much more than this quite often along with other snacks

Cymek said:

poikilotherm said:

mollwollfumble said:

So-called “junk food” is not the reason. I’ve observed zero correlation between junk food intake and obesity among my friends and relatives. There tends to be a correlation between chocolate intake and obesity among my friends and relatives, but one of my obese friends never eats chocolate and doesn’t overindulge at meals.

lol

they just magically get fat from one type of food, it has nothing to do with the huge amount of energy intake they have through the day and naff all expenditure.

Surely it comes down to intake calories versus used calories each day and too much incoming calories, plus I think people hugely over estimate how much exercise burns calories, for example one or two Tim Tams takes probably an hour of moderate exercise to burn off and they eat much more than this quite often along with other snacks

People are inherently lazy and food is cheap’n‘easy to get. Plus food that’s salty and sweet sets off all the right reward centres to keep you goin’ back for more.

poikilotherm said:

they just magically get fat from one type of food, it has nothing to do with the huge amount of energy intake they have through the day and naff all expenditure.

You really think that?

One thing I’ve read recently is that an overweight donkey will die if put on a crash diet for even as small a time as two days.

Have you considered that there may be a genetic factor that reduces the rate in some people at which fat cells are depleted when food intake is lowered?

> Anyone have any other suggestions?

I won’t dare mention “survival of the fittest” of course. Darwinian selection will eventually remove obesity as a problem like it removed alcoholism as a problem.

Or mention the musical “fiddler on the roof” with lyrics “I’d see my wife, my Golde, looking like a rich man’s wife with a proper double-chin.”

There was a scientific study that showed that although obesity decreased lifespan, losing weight did not cause fat people to live longer. This study was overturned by a more recent study.

There was of course the study that showed that calorific intake reduction in rats increased lifespan. But extensions of this to humans has not revealed any lifespan increase.

What other true scientific studies can you find, as opposed to media hype, specifically those that measure individual components of food intake of obese people correlated to genetics?

mollwollfumble said:

poikilotherm said:

they just magically get fat from one type of food, it has nothing to do with the huge amount of energy intake they have through the day and naff all expenditure.

You really think that?

One thing I’ve read recently is that an overweight donkey will die if put on a crash diet for even as small a time as two days.

Have you considered that there may be a genetic factor that reduces the rate in some people at which fat cells are depleted when food intake is lowered?

poor donkey, pity we aren’t ruminants eh?

Yes, the proportion of fat arses and the usual prevalence of such genetic diseases suggests this idea for 99% of the population is but a hopeful dream.

mollwollfumble said:

> Anyone have any other suggestions?

I won’t dare mention “survival of the fittest” of course. Darwinian selection will eventually remove obesity as a problem like it removed alcoholism as a problem.

Or mention the musical “fiddler on the roof” with lyrics “I’d see my wife, my Golde, looking like a rich man’s wife with a proper double-chin.”

There was a scientific study that showed that although obesity decreased lifespan, losing weight did not cause fat people to live longer. This study was overturned by a more recent study.

There was of course the study that showed that calorific intake reduction in rats increased lifespan. But extensions of this to humans has not revealed any lifespan increase.

What other true scientific studies can you find, as opposed to media hype, specifically those that measure individual components of food intake of obese people correlated to genetics?

Supposedly child hood obesity sets you up for weight problems for the rest of your life

I think a combination of more physical activity and less food. It was only relatively recently in the richest country of the world that an election promise was a chicken in every pot. Sugar and fats have only very recently become cheap enough to be every day fare for even the poorest people (in developed countries at least). Back in the day most everyone would have started and finished a day with a long walk, nowadays people don’t walk as much.

Also the nature of food has changed, less grains, veggies and bread, more fat, sugar and more energy dense.

I wonder if a study into people with obesity who might benefit from cannabis could lead somewhere?

Munchies. So no.

furious said:

I wonder if a study into people with obesity who might benefit from cannabis could lead somewhere?

To “The Munchies”, I’d wager.

Way too slow…

furious said:

I wonder if a study into people with obesity who might benefit from cannabis could lead somewhere?

For sure

Michael V said:

furious said:

I wonder if a study into people with obesity who might benefit from cannabis could lead somewhere?

To “The Munchies”, I’d wager.

I vaguely remember it helped people who had trouble eating or being motivated to eat, but I can’t remember where I read it

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Anyone have any other suggestions?

I won’t dare mention “survival of the fittest” of course. Darwinian selection will eventually remove obesity as a problem like it removed alcoholism as a problem.

Or mention the musical “fiddler on the roof” with lyrics “I’d see my wife, my Golde, looking like a rich man’s wife with a proper double-chin.”

There was a scientific study that showed that although obesity decreased lifespan, losing weight did not cause fat people to live longer. This study was overturned by a more recent study.

There was of course the study that showed that calorific intake reduction in rats increased lifespan. But extensions of this to humans has not revealed any lifespan increase.

What other true scientific studies can you find, as opposed to media hype, specifically those that measure individual components of food intake of obese people correlated to genetics?

Supposedly child hood obesity sets you up for weight problems for the rest of your life

Yep – it sets your basal metabolic rate apparently. Losing the weight doesn’t alter this when an adult so you apparently need a continued calorie restricted diet to maintain a certain weight.

People seem a lot more preoccupied with food and eating than they used to be. Look at all the TV cookery shows.

The only one TV chef I remember from my childhood was Graham Kerr, The Galloping Gourmet.

poikilotherm said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Anyone have any other suggestions?

I won’t dare mention “survival of the fittest” of course. Darwinian selection will eventually remove obesity as a problem like it removed alcoholism as a problem.

Or mention the musical “fiddler on the roof” with lyrics “I’d see my wife, my Golde, looking like a rich man’s wife with a proper double-chin.”

There was a scientific study that showed that although obesity decreased lifespan, losing weight did not cause fat people to live longer. This study was overturned by a more recent study.

There was of course the study that showed that calorific intake reduction in rats increased lifespan. But extensions of this to humans has not revealed any lifespan increase.

What other true scientific studies can you find, as opposed to media hype, specifically those that measure individual components of food intake of obese people correlated to genetics?

Supposedly child hood obesity sets you up for weight problems for the rest of your life

Yep – it sets your basal metabolic rate apparently. Losing the weight doesn’t alter this when an adult so you apparently need a continued calorie restricted diet to maintain a certain weight.

I was very skinny as a child, and slim up until my 40s, when it started becoming easier to pack on the weight.

Most of the stuff I could say has already been said here, but I have a couple of things:

According to some research done by Elizabeth Warren, while Americans are spending less on food than they were in 1970 (as a proportion of income) the food is several times more energy dense and they’re eating it much more often; And eating home-cooked or raw foods much less often. And I think this is true of Australia, too. Looking at the 2.3-kids-two-parent family, it has become a rare luxury to have one parent at home, so the opportunity to buy, prepare, and cook foods is a thing of the past.

A good deal of the foods we’re buying for immediate consumption are quite different to the products we would normally identify as ‘food’. They’re so highly engineered it might be more appropriate to call them ‘food-shaped objects’. I think it’s fair to say that only a very small proportion of the population would be aware of the extent to which ‘foods’ are manipulated to meet the financial needs of the producer, without any regard for the healthy of the consumer.

poikilotherm said:

Cymek said:

Supposedly child hood obesity sets you up for weight problems for the rest of your life

Yep – it sets your basal metabolic rate apparently. Losing the weight doesn’t alter this when an adult so you apparently need a continued calorie restricted diet to maintain a certain weight.

The way most people reduce fat directly reduces BMR by forcing the body to metabolise its own skeletal muscle, which is part of the yo-yo-diet phenomenon.

Rule 303 said:

Most of the stuff I could say has already been said here, but I have a couple of things:

According to some research done by Elizabeth Warren, while Americans are spending less on food than they were in 1970 (as a proportion of income) the food is several times more energy dense and they’re eating it much more often; And eating home-cooked or raw foods much less often. And I think this is true of Australia, too. Looking at the 2.3-kids-two-parent family, it has become a rare luxury to have one parent at home, so the opportunity to buy, prepare, and cook foods is a thing of the past.

A good deal of the foods we’re buying for immediate consumption are quite different to the products we would normally identify as ‘food’. They’re so highly engineered it might be more appropriate to call them ‘food-shaped objects’. I think it’s fair to say that only a very small proportion of the population would be aware of the extent to which ‘foods’ are manipulated to meet the financial needs of the producer, without any regard for the healthy of the consumer.

The men who makes us fat documentaries covered this and how it was all planned out to sell more and more food not necessarily needed

Daycare offer take-home meals for “busy families”. There’s a choice of about five different dinners, you pick them up when you get the kid/s, and feed them when you get home.

Divine Angel said:

Daycare offer take-home meals for “busy families”. There’s a choice of about five different dinners, you pick them up when you get the kid/s, and feed them when you get home.

These just kids meals?

Peak Warming Man said:

Divine Angel said:

Daycare offer take-home meals for “busy families”. There’s a choice of about five different dinners, you pick them up when you get the kid/s, and feed them when you get home.

These just kids meals?

Dunno, I just assume they are. I’ve never bought them.

Those, and the other meals on the menu, are apparently approved by nutritionists. I don’t know how choc chip cookies got past the nutritionist…

• I don’t know how choc chip cookies got past the nutritionist…

Probably because they aren’t a nutritionist but instead are a “nutritionist”…

furious said:

• I don’t know how choc chip cookies got past the nutritionist…

Probably because they aren’t a nutritionist but instead are a “nutritionist”…

Considering the number of kids who get dropped off eating a Maccas brekky, choc chip cookies aren’t the worst thing they’re eating. Plus treats are always important.

furious said:

I wonder if a study into people with obesity who might benefit from cannabis could lead somewhere?

munchies.

Something else occurred to me about this. I wonder what it was.

Endocrine system comes to mind, but that wasn’t it.

I was thinking reactions to stress, but that wasn’t it. The level of stress would be similar but the causes of stress would appear in different proportions.

Exercise perhaps. People travel a lot further each day than they used to 50 to 60 years ago, but the time taken up with travel each day would be very similar to the time 50 to 60 years ago. But walking and driving are different sorts of exercise.

>But walking and driving are different sorts of exercise

latter comes closer to sensory deprivation.

transition said:

>But walking and driving are different sorts of exercise

latter comes closer to sensory deprivation.

Or sensory overload. For vision.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>But walking and driving are different sorts of exercise

latter comes closer to sensory deprivation.

Or sensory overload. For vision.

can do I guess.

monotony-induced hypo-vigilance sets in quick if not much interesting.

constrained body movement too’s part of it.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>But walking and driving are different sorts of exercise

latter comes closer to sensory deprivation.

Or sensory overload. For vision.

I think it’s very hard work for the brain, driving a car, which means there will be lots of carbohydrates being burnt. To illustrate the complexity of the activity, can you imagine the energy requirement of a computer that is driving a car while scanning for speed cameras while checking Facebook while sending an SMS while worrying about stuff at work while unwrapping a breakfast bar while composing a Facebook post about the flog in the ute near the Greensborough turnoff while checking out the boobs on the women in the car behind?

Rule 303 said:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>But walking and driving are different sorts of exercise

latter comes closer to sensory deprivation.

Or sensory overload. For vision.

I think it’s very hard work for the brain, driving a car, which means there will be lots of carbohydrates being burnt. To illustrate the complexity of the activity, can you imagine the energy requirement of a computer that is driving a car while scanning for speed cameras while checking Facebook while sending an SMS while worrying about stuff at work while unwrapping a breakfast bar while composing a Facebook post about the flog in the ute near the Greensborough turnoff while checking out the boobs on the women in the car behind?

:-)

vigilance is a task, not just the focus on whatever external, but the self-monitoring of vigilance state, if you will.

Another factor, lack of predators – not just four-legged, but also two-legged.

Another factor, there have always been obese people

mollwollfumble said:

Another factor, lack of predators – not just four-legged, but also two-legged.

Another factor, there have always been obese people

Please stop humoring Car.

there’s less nature than ever (ignoring humans for a moment, sorta), there’s more social mediation than ever (of desires). The reality probably is there’s more mediation/influence of/over desires than ever, though simultaneously there’s probably more instinct blindness.

media’s constantly hacking minds, like a fucken virus (excuse my french)