In my experience, the vast majority of the very fat people I’ve known have expressed a dislike for vegetables, especially the uber-healthy stuff like steamed broccoli and asparagus. They will only eat salad if it’s loaded with fatty toppings. Several have scoffed and said things to the effect of “I ain’t eatin’ no rabbit food”.
Wondering if anyone has studied a genetic link, the aversion to healthy foods leading to consumption of excess amounts of the unhealthy, fattening ones, and resulting in obesity?
Uh…a lot of thin people hate veggies too. Wouldn’t they be obese as well if not liking vegetables genetically compelled people to over-indulge in other food groups too?
Sure. But in my observation, the vast majority of healthy weight people I have ever known do not express a hatred for fresh vegetables. The obese ones generally do.
And… uh… of course I’m not claiming that no fat people like veggies, or that all skinny ones do. :rolleyes:
Why would you need a genetic link? People will eat until they’re full, and if they’re not filling up on veggies, they’re filling up on something with more Calories (almost any food has more Calories than most veggies). Isn’t that pretty self-explanatory?
Be careful with the term ‘genetic’. It is vastly overused. A lot of Southern people are really fat because they like sweet tea, pecan pie, and grits made with lard but that is cultural rather than genetic. People may be predisposed to liking or not like certain foods but that can be environmental as well even more plausibly.
You can flip that question around very easily. Are many people fat because they just don’t eat enough fresh vegetables? The answer is yes at to some degree. Vegetables don’t have many calories in their pure forms and eating them while excluding other more calorie dense foods will always result in a lower body weight over time. Some people just eat whatever pleases them most and fresh vegetables don’t always provide the satisfaction or convenience of Ho-Ho’s, Cheetos, and Big Mac’s. They take time to prepare and aren’t convenient for quick meals.
I am about 5% overweight. I have no aversion to vegetables, but I notice that when I eat a meal with lots of fresh vegetables I get hungry again much sooner than when I eat a meal high in calories, protein, and fat. A big, fatty steak can literally satisfy me for a day, but the equivalent weight of zuccinni, cucumber, carrot, broccoli, lettuce and celery salad won’t satisfy me for even a few hours.
Why does low calorie food satisfy me for a much shorter time? Am I actually burning through food faster if it’s low in calories? Would I need 2,500 calories of vegetables (a truly huge number) to feel satisfied for as long as the 2500 calorie steak dinner would last?
I was thin for most of my life, and I’m not fat now, and I am not a real big fan of veggies. When I think “Hmmm, what sounds good to eat?” the answer is almost never something that grew in the ground.
I also know a lot of plump vegetarians. They eat healthy food, just too much of it.
The fat burns slower than most of the carbs…and your veggie examples are low or no carb foods. In other words, while you might be eating the equivalent weight of food, you aren’t eating the same number of calories. All of the vegetables that you listed are considered “free” foods in the diabetic diet, meaning that diabetics can eat as much of them as they want, without having to count the carbs in them. If you don’t have many calories to burn from a meal, of course you’re going to feel hungry sooner. If you only put a gallon of gas in your car, you’re going to run out of gas much sooner than if you’d filled up the tank.
Incidentally, fat weighs in at about 9 calories per gram, and carbs and proteins at about 4 calories per gram. You specify a “fatty” steak.
I’m fat, incidentally, and I LOVE steamed veggies. They’re much nicer than boiled veggies. I started putting on weight when I started taking anti depressants. Now that I’ve quit taking the anti depressants, I’m slowly but surely losing weight, and I’m not really eating that differently.
“Veggies” is a real big group. I don’t think that if you don’t like something you should keep trying and trying because “it’s a matter of getting used to it” or similar arguments, but first of all we do vegetables a disservice by dumping them into this big vat: there is very little relation between cooked-within-a-micron-of-nothing string beans and fresh, raw carrots; and second, there’s a difference between not liking certain ingredients the way you have encountered them and “I would never ever find a [insert food damily here] I would like”. Salads drenched in sauce make me gag but I know other people who break any “low cal” value of theirs by adding dressing until the lettuce floats and put white sauce on any green cooked vegetable: those people may “like veggies” but I don’t think their veggies are particularly healthy.
It took me a long time and a serendipitous encounter with parboiled vegetables to discover they can be tasty and un-gooey when cooked.
Sorry, fat here, and I adore veggies - raw ones, cooked ones, and I detest them drenched in sauces, it fucks with the flavors of them. Though a squeeze of lemon on steamed cauliflower and a sprinkle of sea salt is one of my favorites, I adore asparagus, despite the smelly pee problem, and artichokes vinaigrette is amazing.
Don’t paint the world with a broad brush as you will start finding more exceptions than ones that adhere to your rule.
There are healthy ways to prepare vegetables besides steaming them, you know. I grill just about anything: asparagus, butternut squash, portabella mushrooms, zucchini, crookneck squash, corn, sweet potatoes. Much more flavor than steaming, with no extra calories.
There is indeed a link between genetics and a certain group of veggies - those of the cauliflower family, and broccoli, taste bitter to people with the gene. It’s called supertaster or something. Here’s a cracked article, number 3.
But generally, I, too, doubt the link to obesity. If somebody tells you that you should eat veggies, and you don’t like them, so you smother them with cream sauce, then that will obviously lead to gaining weight.
As for the term rabbit food, which I think really stupid, that’s thrown around a lot by fat and non-fat eaters. You can eat a steak with lots of protein, but not much fat, and some potatoes without cream or butter, and then work it off, without gaining weight.
The only link I see is that more women eat salad than men, and are thin, but there the overlap is not genetics, but peer pressure (society expects women to be thin and beautiful, while men can be fat, ugly and even bald) or education: women of a certain group know much more about nutrition and therefore take care to both maximize vitamins etc and minimize calories.
Don’t know if you’re serious, but changes both in metabolism and appetite are a well-known side-effect of several medications. And people who have trouble enough so that they need pills may not have the necessary strength to adjust their eating habits quickly enough.
Well, I’ve been on and off a various range of antidepressants in my life, and I kept the same weight. Though it came at times mostly from those Grafenwalder strong beers bought in Lidl.
Obese people are, as always, just looking for an excuse to eat 4 times a day that midnight pie.
You do know that a case of one does not make any datapoints? That the side-effects I talk about happened often enough during studies and later that they reach the reporting threshold and are put on the medication leaflets or told to the doctors?
Oh, I see you are only interested in painting with a big brush and not in any, you know, scientific data. Maybe you’d like another place, like the Pit or IMHO then - this is GD, where we like facts, not clichees.
