Unfounded Obesity Panic Is Hurting Us

[Parrot]

Wanna know something that they're not telling you? There is no epidemic of obesity! I know you've been deluged with all sorts of figures and claims to the contrary, so I can't blame you for being a little skeptical of this. But what I'm saying is based on actual fact. Obesity is the panic of the day. These kind of popular scare tactics are almost always overblown, and this is no exception.

Remember the huge headlines proclaiming that obesity causes 400,000 deaths per year? This figure was released by the CDC, and it turns out it was based on a deeply flawed and almost universally discredited meta-study. The study wasn't done by the CDC's top experts, but rather by the CDC's director and a few aids who were under pressure from industry groups to deliver numbers that backed them up.

Heck, not only was the study's methodology flawed, they actually made a mathematical error in doing their calculations that inflated the number by several tens of thousands. The document was peer reviewed before publication, and even people inside the CDC were able to tell them that this study was complete bunk. But they bullheadedly went on and published the attention-grabbing headlines. In later internal reviews the CDC concluded that the flawed methodology and mistakes drastically inflated what would be a more realistic figure - by a whopping 94%!!

And when the authors of the study are called on it, do you know what they say? "It's too early in the science" and "This shouldn't detract from the message.". Well, it wasn't too early in the science for you to release that study in the first place. And I can't trust anybody who believes that the message is more important than the facts.

The diet industry has been doing it's utmost to fiddle with the numbers and convince everybody that there's a crisis. In 1998 they convinced politicians to change the BMI formula for measuring obesity. There was no good scientific reason for this change, but they managed to BS their way into making it happen. Before the change 15% of Americans were considered overweight. Overnight that amount more than doubled, to 37% - without a single one of those people even gaining a pound. Not to mention all the people who suddenly found themselves upgraded to "Obese".

And now they're saying we have an "epidemic"? The only thing that's changed are formulas used to calculate this!

The BMI may be a useful rule of thumb to use if you're trying to lose weight, but it's not an accurate measurement of health on the whole. Under the current definitions, Brad Pitt, Michael Jordan and Mel Gibson are all ‘overweight’, while Russell Crowe, George Clooney and Sammy Sosa are ‘obese’. People say "Well, it's not meant to apply to people who are actually in good shape!" - but that's just the problem! The system is so inexact that it can't make that distinction! Measuring the health of a population as a whole based on BMI is ridiculous!

But that's exactly what people are doing. When you hear figures like "65% of the people in this country are overweight or obese", they're not only relying on a faulty measuring system, they're also lumping in people who are 5 - 10 pounds "overweight" with those who are 100 pounds overweight.

And for all the hype do you know what the increase in weight in the past 30 years averages out to per person? About 10 pounds. That's it. But they justify it by saying that no amount of excess weight is safe, and if you're even 10 pounds overweight you're doomed! Do you believe that? Don't! The most reliable studies show that some extra weight actually correlates with an increase in life span.

Of course, this is not to say that extreme obesity is in any way healthy, but if you're only 10 pounds into the "overweight" category, that's really not a problem. And then people blame the kind of diet we have in this country, and fail to consider that less than a century ago the kind of diet we enjoy today would have saved many, many lives! The availability of high calorie foods is solid progress that has helped people lead longer, fuller lives. To spin it as some kind of detriment to society is a grave injustice.

The fear mongering that's going on is ridiculous. And it's hurting us. Especially our children.

Studies show that 90% of schoolgirls are on a diet. No matter which statistics you believe, that is far above the percentage of overweight and obese people in our society. The message that this "obesity epidemic" is propagating is one that we must be thin at any cost, and being even slightly overweight is necessarily and unequivocally unhealthy.

15% of schoolgirls have tried weight loss pills. 11% have tried laxatives as a weight loss measure. 9% have tried making themselves vomit after eating. Many people have blamed girl's magazines for propagating an unrealistic body image. Perhaps there's something to that... but it's only a very passive message.

How much more insidious is the active message being generated by the diet industry and well meaning but misguided activists? These people are trying to propagate the notion that there's a crisis of obesity in children. They're actively telling our kids that their weight is the absolute most important measure of their health and well-being. That statement is not only patently untrue, but also very confusing to young minds.

And how come nobody seems to recognize the facts about nutrition for humans that we've known about in dogs for a very long time? I'm assuming you've all seen the commercials advertising different types of dog foods based on the age of the dogs? Younger dogs need denser, more calorie rich foods to help them grow. Older dogs require a different diet to help maintain their health as they age.

It's exactly the same for humans! Children NEED more calorie dense foods than do adults. Human breast milk is densely packed with more fat and calories than is considered healthy for adults. Growing bodies require a lot of energy, that's just common sense!

Of course, that's not a carte-blanche permission to let children eat whatever they want. Sound nutrition is still advised. But trying to determine the exact right weight for any child based on the overly simplistic BMI model is the height of folly. Children mature at different rates, have different body types, different rates of growth.... and what's more THEY'RE ALWAYS GROWING!! How can you possibly say to any child "Okay, this is your ideal weight right now... maintain that until next year when we'll maybe revise that for your new age and height".

If a teenager steps on the scale and sees a weight increase of 5 pounds - it's probably due to natural growth! Yet many of them see it as a crisis and they must immediately buckle down to shed those extra pounds that they've "negligently" let build up.

And by the way, if we're so concerned about the calorie intake of our children, why are we also banning DIET soda from schools? Diet soda has no calories, it does not contribute to obesity. And then they go ahead and recommend fruit juice instead... I guess they didn't realize that fruit juice has the same or more calories than your average soda pop.

And here's the kicker - revenue from those pop machines was often being used to fund after-school athletic activities for the children. Now many of those activities have had to be shut down. So much for encouraging a healthy, active lifestyle!

That's a real shame too, because I think children should be encouraged to have an active lifestyle. Getting out and exercising makes you feel good and is conductive to your general health. And health should really be what it's about, not reaching some arbitrary weight. If there is an increase in overweight and obesity, it's not because of what we're eating. The average calorie intake hasn't increased in decades, whereas there has been some decrease in physical activity.

If people want to promote good health, recommending that children watch their weight is not the right way to go about it. In fact, I'd say it was counter productive, perhaps even causing more people to BECOME overweight.

It's a known fact that diets don't work. 95-98% of people who successfully diet end up gaining the weight back within a couple of years - and then some! The truth is that we just don't know how to effectively bring about sustainable weight loss in a population, and it does no good to blame the people affected. It may be popular to say "If they only had proper willpower to stick with it they could succeed", but I find that kind of statement to be disgustingly condescending.

This kind of yo-yo dieting is actually more harmful than if the individual had maintained their body weight for the same period of time. The truth is that diets end up causing weight gain, and decreasing health.

People need to know that an active overweight person is likely to be far healthier than a thin, sedentary person. People also need to know that the risk of death from being underweight is much more acute than that of obesity. Why aren't these messages getting the attention that they deserve?

And please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that an obese child is not a concern. Encouraging obese children to eat right and exercise is important. But we need to stop spinning this as some sort of crisis that's spiraling out of control. These exaggerations only hurt, not help us.

Disclaimer: I know I've just got off of a very long rant. Now that I'm off my soap box, I want to say that you don't have to take my word for any of this. I'm just some dumbass who's done a lot of research on both sides of this issue and have come to these conclusions. If you think that I've got some facts wrong, feel free to call me on it. If you disagree with me, I welcome the debate. I appreciate the opportunity to fine-tune and hone my arguments with dissenters.

[rover1]

Well, it's regrettably common that popular campaigns overstate the case. What is wrong, in my view, is that scientists allow to go forward statements which they know, or ought to know, are false or misleading. When asked about this they often say something about good ends justifying the lie. If they wish to do that, let them call themselves 'social philosophers' or similar.

Having said that, let me say that my observation is that people in general seem to be a bit 'chunkier' than previously, with Americans leading the pack by some distance. Even in 'poor countries' an increase in weight, and overweight is observed.

To a degree we seem to be suffering from affluence, with more food available, and people eating more.

My guess is that in the end, trans fatty acids will be found to play a part in this phenomenon as well.

Parrot makes some good points.

[guyser]

It seems that everyone is fatter these days. Look at old pics of your parents, in group settings when they were much younger, and , at least from my experience, you will see fit appearing people, and hardly any chunkies.

Part of that has to do with the depression and the habits that followed in good times. (Dont waste) The consumerism was not what it is now either.

But there are studies and I am an advocate as well , that the rise in childhood obesity is due to the approval of High Fructose Corn Syrup made available around the late 70's . The change in children can be traced to this approval. The products that use are....pop.cereal.breads,cookies, condiments. In most forms used it is far sweeter than sugar, and was a good substitute due to the sugar embargoes.

This is bad stuff. If you can avoid it, do so. (of course my beloved Coke....well I have to have one every now and then)

Check the packaging on anything you buy. You will be very surprised.

Having said that, let me say that my observation is that people in general seem to be a bit 'chunkier' than previously, with Americans leading the pack by some distance. Even in 'poor countries' an increase in weight, and overweight is observed.

Leading the pack? Canada is right behind, and negligible difference.

My guess is that in the end, trans fatty acids will be found to play a part in this phenomenon as well.

Parrot makes some good points.

Fats arent the problem as I see it. Our parents and Gparents used to eat and cook using quite a high amount of fat. Pure lard was always used in baking, frying etc.

The sugars on the other hand were not available to our parents as much.

After all the Atkins Diet does work!!

Fats clog arteries . So really we cannot "see" this in our population.

Sugars, if unburned are stored as fat, and if one does not ingest enough fuel to run a body, the body will go into survival mode and "store" any incoming fuel (read sweet) as fat.

That is why you will see a friend who claims they are on a diet getting fatter. They are not ingesting enough calories to fuel the body, thus the body will convert glycogin stores in muscle into starches (sugar) to fuel the body. They become "thinner" only because their muscles are being weakened, thus smaller.

Think about you or a friend who has gone on a regime of fitness abd diet.. If they eat right, and they exercise right, they will gain weight (fat loss + muscle gain) but look thinner.

[rover1]

It seems that everyone is fatter these days. Look at old pics of your parents, in group settings when they were much younger, and , at least from my experience, you will see fit appearing people, and hardly any chunkies.

Part of that has to do with the depression and the habits that followed in good times. (Dont waste) The consumerism was not what it is now either.

But there are studies and I am an advocate as well , that the rise in childhood obesity is due to the approval of High Fructose Corn Syrup made available around the late 70's . The change in children can be traced to this approval. The products that use are....pop.cereal.breads,cookies, condiments. In most forms used it is far sweeter than sugar, and was a good substitute due to the sugar embargoes.

This is bad stuff. If you can avoid it, do so. (of course my beloved Coke....well I have to have one every now and then)

Check the packaging on anything you buy. You will be very surprised.

Having said that, let me say that my observation is that people in general seem to be a bit 'chunkier' than previously, with Americans leading the pack by some distance. Even in 'poor countries' an increase in weight, and overweight is observed.

Leading the pack? Canada is right behind, and negligible difference.

My guess is that in the end, trans fatty acids will be found to play a part in this phenomenon as well.

Parrot makes some good points.

Fats arent the problem as I see it. Our parents and Gparents used to eat and cook using quite a high amount of fat. Pure lard was always used in baking, frying etc.

The sugars on the other hand were not available to our parents as much.

After all the Atkins Diet does work!!

These high density fructose preparations are not available in Canada, so far as I know. I agree that they probably play a role in the US however.

In so far as fats are concerned, the fats so lavishly consumed by our parents were natural fats, not the partially hydrogenated ones so common now. Trans fats, have already been shown to play a part in heart disease and other maladies, and I guess that they will be shown to be a causative factor in obesity as well.

[guyser]

These high density fructose preparations are not available in Canada, so far as I know. I agree that they probably play a role in the US however.

In so far as fats are concerned, the fats so lavishly consumed by our parents were natural fats, not the partially hydrogenated ones so common now. Trans fats, have already been shown to play a part in heart disease and other maladies, and I guess that they will be shown to be a causative factor in obesity as well.

You may be correct, and I just checked some products here at work. They do list Glucose fructose, but that may not be the same.

Fats will show as a culprit to lots of things, I agree.

Just eat right I guess... 70.30.30 protein fat sugar

[betsy]

Just look at the children and teens....a lot are not just "chunky"....but actually fat!

But what I find odd is that nobody is raising any voice against the loads of sugar and glucose-fructose on juices and other stuffs.

They still maintain that we should eat several servings of fruits and vegetables. Fruits grown twenty years ago do not have the same sugar content that a lot of fruits have now. Fruits now have been grown to be sweeter and/or bigger!

The most recent study among the popular diet shows that Atkins (which is high-protein/low-carbs) seems to have yielded healthier results (was announced on CTV news sometime last month).

Carbohydrate is the culprit. If we should get any carbohydrate at all, it should mostly come from vegetables. And if we have to eat fruits...it's got to be fruits that really counts...or make it all worth it!

[geoffrey]

Just eat right I guess... 70.30.30 protein fat sugar

Is that supposed to add to 100?

70% protein? Oh dear.

As an endurance athelte, my diet stays around 60-30-10, carbs, protein, fat at about 4500 calories a day (that's actually suprisingly hard for a little guy like me to eat, I'm only 145 pounds). Scale that back for the average active person in total consumption and I think it'd work pretty well.

The issue is that sitting down to a big filling meal of chicken, potatos and a vegetable is going to run you about 1000 calories. You can do that in two cans of pop and a jumbo cookie. The problem is the little snacks we eat during the day are actually alot of calories. If your on your bike 2 hours a day, by all means, but most people aren't.

It's all balance, sedentary people are going to run into major problems regardless, but they need to scale back their consumption. The 2100 calorie diet is for someone with average activity, a dedicated 1/2 hour a day. I bet most Canadians don't do 30 mins of activity outside of their walk to work and to the coffee shop. And that's why we have an obesity issue in the West. Someone that doesn't do any extra activity may need to be down around 1500 calories... that's a bottle of Coke, a bag of chips and a Tim hortons bagel per day (with cream cheese). Pretty rough.

The key to eliminating obesity is activity, not food. You simply can't cut the lazy person's diet enough, instead you have to have them working out more eatting their food.

Tomorrow is ride your bike to work day (at least in Calgary... don't know if elsewhere), I suggest everyone give it a try that can (and almost all of you can if you really want to, very few cities are so anti-bike that it's impossible, even in Calgary I can). You'll find you have way more energy at work, and sometimes you can even get to work faster (I can generally get home the in the same time it takes me to drive from work or school, 30km away). It also counts for your Greenpeace save the whales pin for the week.

You'd be suprised how easy it is to make riding to work a habit. If you have a 10km commute, you can bike that in 1/2 an hour if your in any kind of shape... there's one hour of activity over the day and around 450 calories burnt. Higher productivity at work, 5 hours of activity a week, a smaller waistline, lower risks of heart disease and various cancers and zero emissions. Why not do this?

[guyser]

Just look at the children and teens....a lot are not just "chunky"....but actually fat!

Ok....

But what I find odd is that nobody is raising any voice against the loads of sugar and glucose-fructose on juices and other stuffs.

I was but the post got too long. You are correct. But might I add that Milk should be included too. Check out the facts on the back of the carton and compare Skim to homo to 10% cream. More sugar in skim isnt there? And this is for another thread, but milk is NOT needed in anyone over age two or three. Beyond that,no milk should be fed to a kid.

Fruit drinks are a misnomer in my mind. They have neither sufficient amount of fruit , or say 100% fruit concentrate, which means "of the juice we put in, it is 100%" They can and do add more in there that isnt fruit. It is the same with hot dogs. 100% beef hot dogs have I think it is 70% beef, the rest is binders, nitrates and filler. 100% means of the meat that went in, it was 100% beef. Might be beef jowls, beef trimmings or whathave you.

Fruit drinks....might as well give them a coke.

The worst possible drink to give a kid is Sunny D. That crap is horrible for them.

They still maintain that we should eat several servings of fruits and vegetables. Fruits grown twenty years ago do not have the same sugar content that a lot of fruits have now. Fruits now have been grown to be sweeter and/or bigger!

True but real fruit is real fruit and same goes for veggies. Good for anyone of any age.

Carbohydrate is the culprit. If we should get any carbohydrate at all, it should mostly come from vegetables. And if we have to eat fruits...it's got to be fruits that really counts...or make it all worth it!

Complex carbohydrates is the key. Slow release carbs, not white flour carbs, which is why we crash 20 mins later after eating high carbs full of sugars. White bread, pastry, cakles...all white flour.

If you want to have fruit and veggies that are good for you, just eat the dark green ones. Anything dark green is good.

Stay away from strawberries, pineapple,oranges .

[geoffrey]

Complex carbohydrates is the key. Slow release carbs, not white flour carbs, which is why we crash 20 mins later after eating high carbs full of sugars. White bread, pastry, cakles...all white flour.

If you want to have fruit and veggies that are good for you, just eat the dark green ones. Anything dark green is good.

Stay away from strawberries, pineapple,oranges .

Exactly right. Focus on the whole grains too. Fibre is your friend, eat enough and calories won't be the issue .

And don't eat breakfast cereals unless it's bran. They are full of simple carbs.

[Parrot]

Having said that, let me say that my observation is that people in general seem to be a bit 'chunkier' than previously, with Americans leading the pack by some distance. Even in 'poor countries' an increase in weight, and overweight is observed.

Thanks for the thoughts Rover1. You make an interesting point regarding your first-hand observations. I hope you don't find it rude of me to question your conclusions, please know that I mean no aspersions on your observational skills.

But I would like to point out that these kinds of observations are not scientific evidence. Your observations could be coloured by many factors. For example, you know how you maybe buy a new car, and you've never really noticed that type of car before. But now that you own one, you're suddenly noticing a lot of other people driving your make of car on the roads. Did the number of people driving those cars increase? Probably not, but your awareness of it did.

The "we're all too fat" message is everywhere these days. I'd suggest that it's only natural with this message playing loud in your ears that you'd be more likely to notice overweight people when you're out and about. I'm not sure how well they would appreciate the term "chunky" though.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you're not right. I just wanted to add in that little caveat against us accepting this kind of data as in any way final. I personally think that there has possibly been a small increase in how much people weigh. The difference with me, though, is that I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.

From the research I've been seeing, I think perhaps many of us should possibly be aiming to be about 10 or 15 pounds "overweight" under the BMI scale. A little extra fat on your bones seems to correlate with increased life expectancy. And let face it, really thin models appeal mostly to girls. Us guys prefer girls with a few curves.

Or maybe me and my friends are just freaks.

Anyway, as for people in "poor countries" increasing in weight.... shouldn't we at least be considering THAT to be a good thing?

[rover1]

Actually, I think that strawberries are ok, as are blueberries. Relatively low carb and high fibre.

[marcinmoka]

Wanna know something that they're not telling you? There is no epidemic of obesity!

I take it you've never taken a Greyhound to Kentucky?

And I'm not even talking about Alabama.

[blueblood]

Geoff is right on this. If any of you remember that show on the history channel where a couple gets to live like pioneers for a year is a testament to this. The guy works his ass off and eats food straight out of the garden/cow. The guy and woman both lost a pile of weight and got much stronger.

Even out in the country there are a bunch of porkers running around, mostly town kids though. That having been said we have been spoiled by technology, farm kids aren't as tough as they were 50-60 yrs. ago, but they aren't obese (yet). I myself am in not as near good as shape as my dad's generation (those bastards are tough).

For town/city boys, hard to say; get those gym classes back in order 1hr. a day every day for the school kids. I don't know what a person would do at an office job. People in general just need more physical activity.

[Slavik44]

Wow, I am almost a little shocked; I can't believe some of the stuff people are saying...

I am going to start simplifying this as much as possible...

Weight gain, Weight loss, and even weight maintenance is a factor of calories in, calories out. It is about as simple as you can make it, Calories in and calories out. A surplus leads to weight gain, a deficit to weight loss, and a balance to weight maintenance. It is that simple.

From this point we can expand on the first principle by introducing a second, that one pound roughly equals 3,500 calories. So to gain or loose one pound is a function of creating a caloric imbalance of 3,500 calories.

Third principle involves your metabolism, it is always fluctuating it is not always operating at a constant level. It slows down when you go long periods of time in a day with out food, and speeds up when your food intake increase. In order to maximize your weight loss potential eating meals spread through out the day has a knock on effect of keeping your metabolism at a higher rate.

Fourth principle is that cardio causes a higher proportion of fat loss to muscle loss when compared to just cutting calories alone.

All of these steps can be done with out picking any enemies, or eliminating any food groups, in fact it is probably best if you didn't. It is one of the greatest myths of the diet industry that, depravation leads to a healthier lifestyle. A healthier body is achieved through changes that can be maintained in the long term, unhealthy depravation rarely works in the long-term, and it rarely works for in the short term either. Cutting out an entire macronutrient group is just not advisable; they all play important roles in the health of your body. Instead the issue of weight shouldn't even be seen as one that involves enemies, wars, or battles. It involves management and decision making. Not some sort of culture of war and destruction propagated by the diet industry.

We could add a fifth principle if you like and that is that foods differ in relation to the calorie density, and it may be easier to create a caloric deficit by eating foods that are less calorie dense, usually liquids like Juices or soft drinks are packed full of calories. But calories are not the enemy, and you can still lose weight, consuming such things, if you practice proper management. Your health and your weight are not some sort of battle or ongoing epic war, and the enemy is not calories, it is not carbohydrates, it is not protein, they are your employees in this management issue, it is not advisable to fire any of them, only to utilize them properly.

Carbohydrates form your bodies primary energy source, in absence of carbohydrates your body turns on itself and basically eats away at your muscle, your glycogen stores, and your primary loss of weight is water, not fat. Usually this will result in an individual being in a very fatigued state after a while.

Likewise fat is not necessarily the enemy, crazy right? Wrong, most people have a number of misconceptions about fat. Often times the right kind can have health benefits. Take ALA it is a type of EFA and is associated with leading to a low/lower risk of cardio vascular disease. Omega-3 fatty acids can lower your bad cholesterol and raise your good cholesterol; there is some evidence although not conclusive that it can have an anti-inflammatory affect. Now that doesn't exactly sound like an enemy, it just sounds like maybe we need to be looking at what type of fats we are actually consuming, before we decide to write them off entirely. Fat intake is very important when it comes to issues of hormone regulation

Protein is the building blocks of your body, usually not something that needs to be explained. However, 70% protein is a bit excessive and unnecessary. (Although 70-30-30 is not 100%, so I am a little confused there). After all your body usually can only deal with about 30-40 grams of protein at once. If we assumed a 2,500 calorie diet, we are talking about 1,700 calories of protein or roughly 430 grams. Needless to say, to ensure that protein didn't go to waste and its utilizations was maximized, you would be consuming protein non-stop, your average male theoretically would not be able to fully utilize all that protein in a day.

----------------------------------

As for the OP, Obviously it is very hard to truly quantify whether or not there is an obesity epidemic, and for that matter what it means to be obese and what it means for there to be an epidemic. Your points on BMI are well noted, and they do need to be taken into consideration.

However, as you yourself have said, average weight has increased by 10 pounds. That is actually a fair amount of weight, 10 pounds on an adult is no laughing matter. As well we would also need to recognize that this is not spread evenly through out the population, it might be that a fair sized group of people are seriously over weight. And a quick walk through the mall, the park, and just about anywhere else there is people seems to indicate that a number of individuals are far from their ideal bodyweight.

I would also agree with your point that the yo-yo diets of today’s teenagers can and do have negative and adverse effects. However, that does not mean that we should give a carte blanche out to children and teens to do and eat however and whatever they feel.

You have railed against diets as ineffective, and I couldn’t agree more. Weight is a dynamic factor, that is constantly changing and to manage it requires constant attention and change. Permanent weightless, is permanent, it is long term. Diets are not long term, they are short term changes and once reversed and abandoned the changes they brought about will also be reversed and abandoned. Diet is a short term solution to a long term issue, and by definition, by their own virtue they cannot work and cannot be the answer in the long term.

Technically diets are incredibly successful; they do result in weight loss, but keeping that weight off requires a permanent effort. If we want to make a war analogy, we only need to remember that WW1 (the war to end all wars) was followed by WW2, and it was followed by…..etc. The whole notion that you can lose weight once and not have to worry about it ever again is disgustingly false.

As you have pointed out, people’s calorie intake over the years has remained relatively stable. And while I do not view foods as the enemy when it comes specifically to weight, I wonder if the nutritional value of the calories we do consume has remained the same, are we still getting enough of the foods we need to keep our bodies operating properly and at their capacity.

Likewise a drop in activity level is a problem, and it should be something that people are encouraged to address. Directly physical activity leads to a number of health benefits, and indirectly it is strongly correlated to a healthier bodyweight.

[Parrot]

But there are studies and I am an advocate as well , that the rise in childhood obesity is due to the approval of High Fructose Corn Syrup made available around the late 70's . The change in children can be traced to this approval. The products that use are....pop.cereal.breads,cookies, condiments. In most forms used it is far sweeter than sugar, and was a good substitute due to the sugar embargoes.

I believe that you are referring to a small meta study done using data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture combined with previous research and other analyses. I know that many people have jumped on this study, however, I should mention a few points.

This particular study has received some criticism. There is some debate over how the body handles different sugars, but I believe it's the common consensus that weight depends on how many calories you take in, not what types of calories they are.

Even the authors of this study have admitted that their research is not conclusive. It should be noted that none of the data from this study on how HFCS is processed actually came from human trials.

I'd also like to point out that there have been some studies looking for a link between HFCS and excess weight but found no correlation. A University of Washington study tried to see if there was a difference between how satiated people were with cola sweetened with HFCS, cola with sugar, diet cola and 1 percent milk. They found no significant difference.

Another joint study between the Rhode Island University and Rippe Lifestyle Institute in Florida tried to examine whether there was a difference between how HFCS was metabolized as opposed to plain sugar. They also failed to find any difference.

Given this, and the fact that I'm always suspicious of meta studies in general, I have doubts that your study concerning the dangers of HFCS really hold any water.

Sugars, if unburned are stored as fat, and if one does not ingest enough fuel to run a body, the body will go into survival mode and "store" any incoming fuel (read sweet) as fat.

I think you may be technically wrong here. I believe that all calories are converted into fat if they're unused, whether those calories come from sugar or not.

[Parrot]

My guess is that in the end, trans fatty acids will be found to play a part in this phenomenon as well.

Trans fatty acids have indeed now been classified as perhaps the most dangerous forms of fat. It makes up about 3% of the typical American diet, but many people are saying that even that is too much.

I think the claimed effects of trans fats have more to do with clogging your arteries than with actually causing you to gain weight, though. So I don't think they even enter into the picture on that level.

But let me tell you something shocking. Have you heard of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)? It's pretty much one of the most vile, panic-mongering organizations out there. You'll often see them quoted in articles about the "Obesity Epidemic" advocating draconian measures in order to protect us from ourselves.

Anyway, pack in the 1980's the big panic was over Saturated Fats. The CSPI lead the charge to force restaurants to stop using beef tallow to cook their foods. The solution? Of course, switch to much "healthier" partially-hydrogenated oils. (partially-hydrogenated = trans fats)

And when the CSPI was confronted with research on the dangers of Trans Fats, they just brushed it off saying that it was bad science. Of course, now that the scientific evidence has mounted to the point that it has, they've done a complete 180. Now they're calling for a complete ban on trans-fats, and suggesting that somehow companies are irresponsible for hoisting this menace onto the population. A menace that was introduced in large part BECAUSE THE CSPI PRESSURED THEM INTO IT

Damn! Doesn't that just make your blood boil?

[rover1]

Wow, I am almost a little shocked; I can't believe some of the stuff people are saying...

I am going to start simplifying this as much as possible...

Weight gain, Weight loss, and even weight maintenance is a factor of calories in, calories out. It is about as simple as you can make it, Calories in and calories out. A surplus leads to weight gain, a deficit to weight loss, and a balance to weight maintenance. It is that simple.

From this point we can expand on the first principle by introducing a second, that one pound roughly equals 3,500 calories. So to gain or loose one pound is a function of creating a caloric imbalance of 3,500 calories.

Third principle involves your metabolism, it is always fluctuating it is not always operating at a constant level. It slows down when you go long periods of time in a day with out food, and speeds up when your food intake increase. In order to maximize your weight loss potential eating meals spread through out the day has a knock on effect of keeping your metabolism at a higher rate.

Fourth principle is that cardio causes a higher proportion of fat loss to muscle loss when compared to just cutting calories alone.

All of these steps can be done with out picking any enemies, or eliminating any food groups, in fact it is probably best if you didn't. It is one of the greatest myths of the diet industry that, depravation leads to a healthier lifestyle. A healthier body is achieved through changes that can be maintained in the long term, unhealthy depravation rarely works in the long-term, and it rarely works for in the short term either. Cutting out an entire macronutrient group is just not advisable; they all play important roles in the health of your body. Instead the issue of weight shouldn't even be seen as one that involves enemies, wars, or battles. It involves management and decision making. Not some sort of culture of war and destruction propagated by the diet industry.

We could add a fifth principle if you like and that is that foods differ in relation to the calorie density, and it may be easier to create a caloric deficit by eating foods that are less calorie dense, usually liquids like Juices or soft drinks are packed full of calories. But calories are not the enemy, and you can still lose weight, consuming such things, if you practice proper management. Your health and your weight are not some sort of battle or ongoing epic war, and the enemy is not calories, it is not carbohydrates, it is not protein, they are your employees in this management issue, it is not advisable to fire any of them, only to utilize them properly.

Carbohydrates form your bodies primary energy source, in absence of carbohydrates your body turns on itself and basically eats away at your muscle, your glycogen stores, and your primary loss of weight is water, not fat. Usually this will result in an individual being in a very fatigued state after a while.

Likewise fat is not necessarily the enemy, crazy right? Wrong, most people have a number of misconceptions about fat. Often times the right kind can have health benefits. Take ALA it is a type of EFA and is associated with leading to a low/lower risk of cardio vascular disease. Omega-3 fatty acids can lower your bad cholesterol and raise your good cholesterol; there is some evidence although not conclusive that it can have an anti-inflammatory affect. Now that doesn't exactly sound like an enemy, it just sounds like maybe we need to be looking at what type of fats we are actually consuming, before we decide to write them off entirely. Fat intake is very important when it comes to issues of hormone regulation

Protein is the building blocks of your body, usually not something that needs to be explained. However, 70% protein is a bit excessive and unnecessary. (Although 70-30-30 is not 100%, so I am a little confused there). After all your body usually can only deal with about 30-40 grams of protein at once. If we assumed a 2,500 calorie diet, we are talking about 1,700 calories of protein or roughly 430 grams. Needless to say, to ensure that protein didn't go to waste and its utilizations was maximized, you would be consuming protein non-stop, your average male theoretically would not be able to fully utilize all that protein in a day.

----------------------------------

As for the OP, Obviously it is very hard to truly quantify whether or not there is an obesity epidemic, and for that matter what it means to be obese and what it means for there to be an epidemic. Your points on BMI are well noted, and they do need to be taken into consideration.

However, as you yourself have said, average weight has increased by 10 pounds. That is actually a fair amount of weight, 10 pounds on an adult is no laughing matter. As well we would also need to recognize that this is not spread evenly through out the population, it might be that a fair sized group of people are seriously over weight. And a quick walk through the mall, the park, and just about anywhere else there is people seems to indicate that a number of individuals are far from their ideal bodyweight.

I would also agree with your point that the yo-yo diets of today’s teenagers can and do have negative and adverse effects. However, that does not mean that we should give a carte blanche out to children and teens to do and eat however and whatever they feel.

You have railed against diets as ineffective, and I couldn’t agree more. Weight is a dynamic factor, that is constantly changing and to manage it requires constant attention and change. Permanent weightless, is permanent, it is long term. Diets are not long term, they are short term changes and once reversed and abandoned the changes they brought about will also be reversed and abandoned. Diet is a short term solution to a long term issue, and by definition, by their own virtue they cannot work and cannot be the answer in the long term.

Technically diets are incredibly successful; they do result in weight loss, but keeping that weight off requires a permanent effort. If we want to make a war analogy, we only need to remember that WW1 (the war to end all wars) was followed by WW2, and it was followed by…..etc. The whole notion that you can lose weight once and not have to worry about it ever again is disgustingly false.

As you have pointed out, people’s calorie intake over the years has remained relatively stable. And while I do not view foods as the enemy when it comes specifically to weight, I wonder if the nutritional value of the calories we do consume has remained the same, are we still getting enough of the foods we need to keep our bodies operating properly and at their capacity.

Likewise a drop in activity level is a problem, and it should be something that people are encouraged to address. Directly physical activity leads to a number of health benefits, and indirectly it is strongly correlated to a healthier bodyweight.

Well, that's a bit simplistic, I think. It has been know since the 1860's that the calories-in, calories-out theory while it may be true in the lab, doesn't function that way in human beings. Briefly, whatever calories go in, are affected with what the body does with the excess. In some cases, what is necessary is used, and the excess is disposed of as heat. In other cases, the necessary is used, and the excess is mostly deposited in fat, with only a small amount disposed of as heat. This balance is probably mostly affected by genetic factors, but also has to do with food composition, the respective amounts of carbohydrates, fat, and protein. All this involves things like pyruvates and their effect on body chemistry in different people. In other words some people can eat like a horse and not gain weight, while others can eat a more or less normal diet, and gain weight, exercise remaining constant. There are a lot of complications, but that is the inconvenient truth.

[Slavik44]

Well, that's a bit simplistic, I think. It has been know since the 1860's that the calories-in, calories-out theory while it may be true in the lab, doesn't function that way in human beings. Briefly, whatever calories go in, are affected with what the body does with the excess. In some cases, what is necessary is used, and the excess is disposed of as heat. In other cases, the necessary is used, and the excess is mostly deposited in fat, with only a small amount disposed of as heat. This balance is probably mostly affected by genetic factors, but also has to do with food composition, the respective amounts of carbohydrates, fat, and protein. All this involves things like pyruvates and their effect on body chemistry in different people. In other words some people can eat like a horse and not gain weight, while others can eat a more or less normal diet, and gain weight, exercise remaining constant. There are a lot of complications, but that is the inconvenient truth.

Well I am almost positive I said I was going to simplify it as much as possible, and as such it would be easy to point out, hey thats to simple, because even I acknowledge that. But at as a principle it remains sound and highly effective when properly implemented. There are a plethora of factors we could be taking into consideration, but it leads to a convoluted mess. And I would challange anyone who is over weight to give it a try. Spend a week and write out EXACTLY what you eat, every little thing, and the time you eat it. Do this at a point where you know your weight will remain stable, where you are maintaining your current weight. From there every week make 1 change. One week add a day of cardio, another remove one food item, another substitute a low calorie item for a high calorie item.

I would be willing to almost gurantee that if you can proove that your current lifestyle maintains your weight level, that by changing this lifestyle to produce a deficit you will also produce changes.

Obviously there are so many factors that can go into these equations, Muscle increases your BMR, your physical activity increases your BMR, different nutrients require different amounts of energy to be digested, some foods requir emore energy to digest than they actually contain, water requires energy to heat up. Yes their is a shit load of factors that need to be considered. BUT as a basic principle I would rate it far superior to any of this bullshit where we label an entire macronutrient group as an enemy, or any of these bullshit diets where we attempt to deprive individuals.

As I said simplified, we could expand it and make it more complicated, but the principle remains, and is effective, and I have had no true problems implementing it, it does require tweaking and personalization and it does require you to be on the ball and honest. But it is a sound principle, that people should implement before trying to fight some god forsaken war against an enemy that should really be your ally.

[betsy]

Complex carbohydrates is the key. Slow release carbs, not white flour carbs, which is why we crash 20 mins later after eating high carbs full of sugars. White bread, pastry, cakles...all white flour.

Oh yeah! Those "shakes" that we get means crashing down. Due to sugar and high carbos. I always get the shakes after eating cereals (after about 2 or 3 hours)...and boy, when you get to that point, you end up stuffinf just about anything in your mouth!

High protein don't give me any of those.

If you want to have fruit and veggies that are good for you, just eat the dark green ones. Anything dark green is good.

Stay away from strawberries, pineapple,oranges .

But the thing is, you don't have to actually give up on fruits. Some fruits have something that others don't.

Strawberries and oranges are loaded with vitamin A, roughage/fiber and vitamin C. I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. It's all about moderation.

A small slice of papaya gives mega-dose of vitamin A (Beta carotene).....vitamins I'd rather get from the real thing!

Studies show that it is highly questionable if synthetic vitamin supplements does any good at all. And studies show that synthetic vitamin A can actually be bad for you.

[Parrot]

But what I find odd is that nobody is raising any voice against the loads of sugar and glucose-fructose on juices and other stuffs.

If that's what you believe, then I'm not sure that you've been paying attention. Lots of people are raising their voices about this, particularly in the "health foods" industry.

The problem is that they don't have much scientific backing. Sugar and glucose/fructose are only simple carbohydrates. There's absolutely nothing sinister about their presence in food, they make it taste good. Of course, the more of it you inject the more calories the food is going to contain.

But overall the levels are not too high. And if a food or drink item has more calories than you're comfortable with you can make the informed decision not to eat it or only eat it on rare occasions.

They still maintain that we should eat several servings of fruits and vegetables. Fruits grown twenty years ago do not have the same sugar content that a lot of fruits have now. Fruits now have been grown to be sweeter and/or bigger!

Betsy, I hope you don't think this is impertinent of me, but I'm not sure that you're correct here. I can't find any information corroborating what you're saying. And on a biological level it doesn't make much sense to me.

Why would increased size and sweetness be only prevalent in the last 20 years? Fruit growers have always wanted bigger and sweeter fruits, they wouldn't have just started selecting for that. I believe that fruits gained an increase in size and possibly sweetness when they first began to be cultivated a long, long time ago. That's natural when you cultivate any crop or domesticate any animal for that matter.

I think you might be confused about your information. I could be wrong though, if you know of some studies showing this then please let me know.

Carbohydrate is the culprit. If we should get any carbohydrate at all, it should mostly come from vegetables. And if we have to eat fruits...it's got to be fruits that really counts...or make it all worth it!

I believe that a lot of nutrition experts agree that the reason the Atkins diet helps people lose weight has more to do with the fact that it's a low-calorie diet than anything else. But the diet industry is constantly bickering amongst the different factions over which diet is the best.

The truth is that no diet really works, and they all do your body harm. That includes the Atkins diet, I'm sorry to say. Carbohydrates are not an evil to be avoided. When Health Canada puts grains as the most important food group, they're not just making stuff up off the top of their heads.

[M.Dancer]

I'm fat

[Parrot]

But might I add that Milk should be included too. Check out the facts on the back of the carton and compare Skim to homo to 10% cream. More sugar in skim isnt there? And this is for another thread, but milk is NOT needed in anyone over age two or three. Beyond that,no milk should be fed to a kid.

Oh dear. You've been listening to PETA, haven't you? I know you mean well, but you should be aware that PETA lies and distorts the facts like nobody's business.

I've already talked to a small extent about the demonization of sugar. It's really not justified, the amount of sugar in milk is not a concern.

Milk is a very nutritious drink that can benefit anybody. PETA relies of junk science and highly speculative "scientific" reports. But the truth is that science has not been able to determine any concrete health dangers related to it's ingestion.

That's not to say that you should drink the stuff like water, but Health Canada doesn't recommend 2 - 4 servings per day just for kicks.

Fruit drinks are a misnomer in my mind. They have neither sufficient amount of fruit , or say 100% fruit concentrate, which means "of the juice we put in, it is 100%" They can and do add more in there that isnt fruit.

I'm afraid you've been laboring under some misconceptions. The FDA has had regulations in place on juice labeling for close to 20 years now. Suffice it to say that 100% juice MEANS 100% juice. Before that there were some arguments as to what actually constituted 100% and the like, but the issue has been laid to rest now.

Stay away from strawberries, pineapple,oranges .

I have never actually heard this brand of bad nutrition science before. I'm actually shocked that there are people out there advocating staying away from certain fruits.

I don't quite know what to say to this. If anybody can show me a single credible study linking strawberries to poor health, I'll give them a prize.

(how does some strawberry yogurt sound?)

[M.Dancer]

Your butt is wide, well mine is too

Just watch your mouth or I'll sit on you

The word is out, better treat me right

'Cause I'm the king of cellulite

Ham on, ham on, ham on whole wheat, all right

My zippers bust, my buckles break

I'm too much man for you to take

The pavement cracks when I fall down

I've got more chins than chinatown

Well, I've never used a phone booth

And I've never seen my toes

When I'm goin' to the movies

I take up seven rows

Because I'm fat, I'm fat, come on <-- this is supposed to be "sha mone"

(fat, fat, really really fat)

You know I'm fat, I'm fat, you know it

(fat, fat, really really fat)

You know I'm fat, I'm fat, come on you know

(fat, fat, really really fat)

Don'tcha call me pudgy, portly or stout

Just now tell me once again who’s fat

When I walk out to get my mail

It measures on the Richter scale

Down at the beach I'm a lucky man

I'm the only one who gets a tan

If I have one more pie ala mode

I'm gonna need my own ZIP code

When you're only having seconds

I'm having twenty-thirds

When I go to get my shoes shined

I gotta take their word

Because I'm fat, I'm fat, sha mone

(fat, fat, really really fat)

You know I'm fat, I'm fat, you know it

(fat, fat, really really fat)

You know I'm fat, I'm fat, you know it you know

(fat, fat, really really fat)

And my shadow weighs forty-two pounds

Lemme tell you once again who's fat

If you see me comin' your way

Better give me plenty space

If I tell you that I'm hungry

Then won't you feed my face

Because I'm fat, I'm fat, come on

(fat, fat, really really fat)

You know I'm fat, I'm fat, you know it

(fat, fat, really really fat)

You know I'm fat, I'm fat, you know it, you know

(fat, fat, really really fat)

Woo woo woo

(when I sit around the house

I really sit around the house)

You know I'm fat, I'm fat, come on

(fat, fat, really really fat)

You know I'm fat, I'm fat, you know it, you know it

(fat, fat, really really fat)

You know, you know, you know, come on

(fat, fat, really really fat)

And you know all by myself I’m a crowd

Lemme tell you once again

You know I'm huge, I'm fat, you know it

(fat, fat, really really fat)

You know I'm fat, you know, hoo

(fat, fat, really really fat)

You know I'm fat, I'm fat, you know it, you know

(fat, fat, really really fat)

And the whole world knows I'm fat and I'm proud

Just tell me once again who’s fat

Brilliant...pure genius

[guyser]

But might I add that Milk should be included too. Check out the facts on the back of the carton and compare Skim to homo to 10% cream. More sugar in skim isnt there? And this is for another thread, but milk is NOT needed in anyone over age two or three. Beyond that,no milk should be fed to a kid.

Oh dear. You've been listening to PETA, haven't you? I know you mean well, but you should be aware that PETA lies and distorts the facts like nobody's business.

I have never read , been to, talk about , looked at, anything involving PETA.

I've already talked to a small extent about the demonization of sugar. It's really not justified, the amount of sugar in milk is not a concern.

Ok, keep feeding and drinking it. I wont.

Milk is a very nutritious drink that can benefit anybody. PETA relies of junk science and highly speculative "scientific" reports. But the truth is that science has not been able to determine any concrete health dangers related to it's ingestion.

Name me another animal that drinks milk after being weaned. Why is that? If it so good.......

I have not had a glass of milk since sometime in 1987.

I'm afraid you've been laboring under some misconceptions. The FDA has had regulations in place on juice labeling for close to 20 years now. Suffice it to say that 100% juice MEANS 100% juice. Before that there were some arguments as to what actually constituted 100% and the like, but the issue has been laid to rest now.

And I am afraid that the FDA is not in this country. Also, 100% juice does not mean the drink IS 100% juice , merely that the juice that went in is 100% juice.

As for proof, go look at any drink. I just looked at Minute Maid , and since in this country you must label products in the order of most to least, water was the first thing listed on MM and on Apple Juice.The second was sugar.

The food industry can be quite scammy. My post yesterday about the 100% all beef hot dogs backs this up, and they are all guilty.

Stay away from strawberries, pineapple,oranges .

I have never actually heard this brand of bad nutrition science before. I'm actually shocked that there are people out there advocating staying away from certain fruits.

Taken out of context and you would get that impression. However , it was not said that way. In the discussion of diets and low carb, those three fruits should be avoided. They are wonderful to eat and I quite like them, and do eat plenty of that stuff, once my optimum weight and fitness are achieved. If the goal is weight loss, than that is not bad advice. Not great to go without them, but the idea is short term.

I don't quite know what to say to this. If anybody can show me a single credible study linking strawberries to poor health, I'll give them a prize.

(how does some strawberry yogurt sound?)

Now that I agree with.

Did someone say that?

[betsy]

But what I find odd is that nobody is raising any voice against the loads of sugar and glucose-fructose on juices and other stuffs.

If that's what you believe, then I'm not sure that you've been paying attention. Lots of people are raising their voices about this, particularly in the "health foods" industry.

But not as loud and robust as those who had declared war to fat....and I don't mean just trans fat either.

Remember the low-fat craze? There was a time when it's hard to find pure, normal-fat content yogurt. Everything is either low-fat, light and non-fat.

Sugar and glucose/fructose are only simple carbohydrates. There's absolutely nothing sinister about their presence in food, they make it taste good. Of course, the more of it you inject the more calories the food is going to contain. But overall the levels are not too high. And if a food or drink item has more calories than you're comfortable with you can make the informed decision not to eat it or only eat it on rare occasions.

There is nothing "sinister" of their presence in food IF they NATURALLY come with the food...such as fresh fruits have natural sugars in them.

There is a problem however if our children are moulded and MIS-GUIDED to develop a taste for sweets! Pop Tarts....and those sugary-coated cereals....have you tasted those BREAKFAST items, btw?

And that's just for breakfast! Then there are the juices consumed throughout the day...and the muffins, or the donuts or the cookies....and who knows what else!

On top of that, some fruits are developed now to be more sweet...and since some are made bigger or jumbo in size, of course the serving size changes too, not to mention the amount of natural sugars in them.

There is an overload of sugars in our products, and in what children consume in one day!

Then there are the starchy items like the breads, pasta, fries....

Just imagine all the carbohydrates from sugars and those starchy items....how much do the children consume in one day? The accumulation of all those things!

ON TOP OF THAT, we've got these children becoming more sedentary....not enough physical activities.

And we wonder why there are lots of children developing diabetes. Can't they see the co-relation?

Betsy, I hope you don't think this is impertinent of me, but I'm not sure that you're correct here. I can't find any information corroborating what you're saying. And on a biological level it doesn't make much sense to me.

Why would increased size and sweetness be only prevalent in the last 20 years? Fruit growers have always wanted bigger and sweeter fruits, they wouldn't have just started selecting for that. I believe that fruits gained an increase in size and possibly sweetness when they first began to be cultivated a long, long time ago. That's natural when you cultivate any crop or domesticate any animal for that matter.

I think you might be confused about your information. I could be wrong though, if you know of some studies showing this then please let me know.

Yes, growers have been developing and improving plants and fruits for a long time. But I think, it's only in the recent 20 years or so (not the exact number of years) that there seemed to have been a more attraction for bigger and sweeter fruits. Have you seen the various kinds of apples lately for example?

They come in varying degrees of sweetness and sizes. There are jumbo granny smith and jumbo fuji...there are honey-something varieties. I don't know the exact term used (is it hybrid?).

I have seen mammoth strawberries!

The truth is that no diet really works, and they all do your body harm. That includes the Atkins diet, I'm sorry to say. Carbohydrates are not an evil to be avoided. When Health Canada puts grains as the most important food group, they're not just making stuff up off the top of their heads.

Atkins does not eliminate carbohydrates from your diet.

It's only during the first two weeks when you're in the induction period that you're allowed only 20 grams of carbos (those that comes from fiber do not count in that 20 grams).

Induction is hard. Because you go through withdrawal syndrome from sugars.

If you're trying to lose weight, you have to find how much carbos you can eat that still makes you lose weight.

If you're just maintaining your weight, you've got to find the ceiling amount of carbos you can eat without gaining weight. It varies from individual to individual. I can eat as much as 100 grams of carbs without gaining any weight. And if I do my power walk in that same day, I even still lose weight on that amount of carbs.

But you're right, no diet really works UNLESS YOU MAKE IT YOUR NEW LIFESTYLE. I find it easier to stick to the Atkins method because really, I'm not being deprived of anything. And I do love the steaks with all its marbled fat!

If we go back to the same eating habits that we've had before we'd lost the weight, of course we gain it all back!

And yes, TOO MUCH carbohydrates are evils to be avoided. Why on earth when the whole world was on the low-fat bandwagon...and everyone's just pigging out on pasta and breads...did obesity really become a problem??? I don't even remember hearing that word "obesity" as a teener (because obese people were not a common sight then). Now, you can even easily spot a three-generation family, all obese....and guess what, usually, it's the grandmother who seeemed the least fat of the three!