Unfounded Obesity Panic Is Hurting Us

[Parrot]

I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with my diet.

All I did was map it out and plan it so I make sure I don't lose out on some important nutrients and anti-oxidants. If there is anything that I'm really eating a lot of, it's vegetables! I easily accomodate 10 servings or so in a day. Which part of it do you think is of concern?

I didn't say that any part was a concern. It just seemed like your plan consists of a bunch of different diet plans thrown together. 10 servings of vegetables is good, I just hope you're also getting your share of the other food groups as well. You seem to be on a very complicated plan, I just hope it's nutritionally sound. I have no way of judging that, though, so please don't consider this a criticism.

Btw, are you in any way trying to lose weight or maintaining? What do you do?

I follow some guidelines in trying to keep healthy. I make sure to eat a lot of whole grains, particularly rice. And I make sure to get fish and other seafood in my diet often. I only have red meat on very rare occasions. I make sure to keep stocked up on veggies, and I take a multivitamin every day.

In addition I go out for long walks or hikes whenever the weather is nice enough, I usually take the stairs instead of the elevator, I do exercises every morning to help invigorate me and get the blood flowing, and I regularly participate in sports.

I've also added a single serving of alcohol and a small serving of very dark chocolate (85% cocoa, bitter stuff) to my diet due to their known health benefits.

[Parrot]

This is why I think that body fat % is a more accurate measure.

It's interesting that this discussion is turning to body fat. I think it should be mentioned that "normal" weight people can often have a very high percentage of body fat. And dieting often causes you to lose muscle tissue at a much faster rate than fat. Often dieters reach their ideal weight and are suddenly declared healthy without even any consideration of this factor.

If extra fat is a concern to overweight people, it should also be a concern to "normal" weight people. It's pretty clear that measures of health need to take a lot more into account than just weight.

[Parrot]

I may sound selfish, and I know that overweight folks suffer from esteem issues, worth etc. but I will never date a fat man. To me it represents lack of responsibility in taking good care of their health, and well being, how can they care for me.

My thoughts exactly, but I'd get stoned for saying I'd never date a fat girl... but I wouldn't. So bring on the stoning.

I disagree with a lot of what has been said here, and I'll eventually get around to addressing everything. But perhaps it would surprise you to know that I don't disagree with this.

Everybody has a preference in the type of person they're attracted to. If you're not attracted to fat people it's pretty much the same as not being attracted to thin people, tall people, short people, redheads, brunettes, blonds, or any number of attributes.

So I'm not going to stone either of you for this. You're not attracted to overweight people, and nobody can force your libido to react when it doesn't want to. I do find RB's stereotyping of overweight people morally reprehensible, but as far as sexual attraction goes I have no complaints if either of you find certain body types more desirable than others.

[betsy]

I didn't say that any part was a concern. It just seemed like your plan consists of a bunch of different diet plans thrown together. 10 servings of vegetables is good, I just hope you're also getting your share of the other food groups as well. You seem to be on a very complicated plan, I just hope it's nutritionally sound. I have no way of judging that, though, so please don't consider this a criticism.

I was very skinny in my teens and early twenties. The best weight I was in was when I was already in my thirties ( 5'3 1/2 in height and weighed around 115 to 117). Now I hover around 125 - 127 lbs. I've read that it's normal to gain 10 lbs when you reach middle age. I used to aim to get back to that ideal weight in the past....however, when I managed to reach 123 lbs....I noticed that I looked haggard. But of course, I'm no longer that young. So I terminated that goal.

My current diet was greatly inspired by Atkins....although I did dabble in low-fat diet in the past.

As I've said, you have to know your body. I know through experience that I really gain weight so fast when I eat a lot of carbs and fat (in one day)....and I've learned from experience that I could get away eating tons of carbs, as long as I go low-fat. However, I didn't feel satisfied or comfortable in the end. There's that bloated feeling about it. Oh boy, I took rolaids practically everyday due to high acid/heartburn. My mom and brother suffered from ulcer....so I'm thinking that I'm a likely candidate.

Atkins...or a milder version of high protein/low carb diet is where I feel most comfortable. I noticed too that it eliminated my high acidity (I don't get any heartburns even though I eat high in fat). And for me, that's really good news! I may not get any ulcers at all (knock on wood).

Sometimes I get tempted to eat high carbs....but I consider those dishes as "treats".....and I try to make sure that I go right back on track afterwards. Once you know how your body and metabolism responds to certain things, it is easier.

My current diet is not a hodge-podge of other diet fads. It is impossible to eat all the things that are said to be good for us in a day. And it is so easy to take them for granted. Like fish for example. I realized that it's been months since I ate any fish. And my dad's been preaching since when I was old enough to know about the benefits of eating beans/lentils (and he's now 93 with no heart-related problems or cholesterol....so I guess I better start listening). Cranberry juice is good for the kidneys...and cabbage is said to be good in cleaning the toxic from the liver.

Planning and sticking to the plan makes it easier not to leave out some things that are quite beneficial.

[Parrot]

My current diet is not a hodge-podge of other diet fads. It is impossible to eat all the things that are said to be good for us in a day. And it is so easy to take them for granted. Like fish for example. I realized that it's been months since I ate any fish.

Well, I'm not going to start preaching to you about what kind of foods you should be eating. There's a lot of conflicting information out there, and you've made your own choices as to what you think is best. I know that there are so many studies trying to tell us that this, that, or the other food is really good for us. You're right, we can't take heed of every single one.

But I think we should make an effort to at least stick generally to healthy eating guidelines and get foods from each of the food groups.

And my dad's been preaching since when I was old enough to know about the benefits of eating beans/lentils (and he's now 93 with no heart-related problems or cholesterol....so I guess I better start listening).

LOL - they contain 53g of carbs per cup, you know.

[Parrot]

I want to address some of the things that have been said in a few of the recent threads. Overweight people have been categorized here as disgusting, delusional, unhealthy, lazy, and lacking in discipline, common sense, and education.

These are all broad stereotypes that if you assigned them to any other group of people you would be labeled a racist. But somehow we consider it okay to say these things about fat people because "it's for their own good" and "they brought this on themselves."

You don't have to find fat people attractive. But please, can't we recognize that these are actual people? Human dignity is not reserved solely for the thin. My mother taught me to treat people with respect. If you see an "overweight" person somewhere, you don't know anything about that person except for their body shape. To paint that person with these attributes based on so little is a grave injustice, and a firm example of our society's unhealthy obsession with body shape and size.

[Parrot]

I would like to take this opportunity to recommend to you all a website run by one Sandy Szwarc, BSN, RN, and CCP. She is a registered nurse with a biological science degree and over 28 years in neonatal intensive care and emergency triage; medical outreach education; health communications; and research. She is also a certified culinary professional, with an expertise in nutrition, cooking and food safety.

She is an experience researcher in many health areas, including obesity and weight issues. She works as a contributor to science and policy institutes in Washington, DC, and is an award winning journalist. Her articles are quite eye opening, I would recommend having a look:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/

Here is an excerpt from her introduction:

The more I’ve learned, the more horrified I’ve become. Science is being misused for marketing and political purposes. Evidence is being distorted and bias has inundated media, research, government policies and clinical guidelines. Unsound information proliferates in professional and advocacy organizations, academic institutions and journals; and even professionals aren’t reaching beyond beliefs to critically examine studies and recognize credible information. So much valuable and critically important information, and the very best science — well documented in careful, objective, evidence-based research — is never reported and never published. Fear sells and unfounded scares, exaggerations and “what-ifs?” are being used to terrify people about their foods, bodies and health.

And all of this is costing, frightening and hurting people.

For years, I have traced virtually every science, food and health story in mainstream media to their original press releases, which are reported verbatim. Literally everything we hear and read today is marketing and created by those trying to sell us something: a belief, cause, product, service, or themselves. That’s why we hear “science” finds something one day, and something entirely different the next. “Pop” science, what is popularly believed and marketed as “science,” is oftentimes really the junk science.

I’ve also gone to the original source, the study behind each of those stories, and been even more alarmed to realize that the evidence is nothing like what we hear, or even what appears in the conclusions of many study abstracts. In fact, it’s often the exact opposite! Simultaneously, I’ve watched the very best science that counters popular beliefs and could put fears to rest, go unreported.

That’s not right. I believe people deserve to know the truth and not be taken advantage of, needlessly terrified or put at risk.

[betsy]

LOL - they contain 53g of carbs per cup, you know.

I know. But as I'm just on maintenance....and I had already found out how much approximately carbs I can take without gaining weight, that amount is well within my boundary. Besides, Atkins method does not include the count of fiber, and beans is also high in fiber.

I've got the recipe of the particular kind of soup my dad's been eating (mung bean soup to be precised)....it's a family recipe. Believe it or not, it's loaded with tomatoes, lots of garlic and parsley!

It's usually cooked with either shrimps, chicken or pork. So it's really a meal in one dish.

I've had it every now and then in the past. It was actually one of my food when I tried the low-fat diet years ago. We're talking not only one bowl of it in one sitting for me then...and PLUS there was rice (lol). I used to eat tons of carbs back then, because I just loved my rice and pasta. Couldn't live without the rice especially.

But Atkins had changed my eating habit. Atkins had "weaned" me off pasta and, especially rice.....that I no longer feel the NEED TO HAVE rice. I don't even eat rice every day....not to mention every meal (like I used to do). And I've changed since doing the induction with Atkins. That was about three years ago.

Yep, there are a lot of pop diets and pop science around......and knowing what is true means experimentation or studies that involved years of practice. Who knows, the sudden rise of obesity now is the consequence of those high-carbs/low-fat (also meaning low-protein) diet that became the bible of all diet world-wide.

Something is wrong when a society that had practiced what practically food guidelines had taught is now suddenly gripped with obesity and diabetes. Diabetes is a very telling disease that is associated with carbohydrate. Yes, I'd say we've been brainwashed. And yes it's all about making money....someone called it the General Mills Diet.

Having started in the 70's, Atkins method had been one, if not the only longest diet regime that not only is still around (and copied and tweaked around)....but as what CTV news had said a few weeks back, studies had shown that among the popular diets around, Atkins had been the one that showed the best results in health benefits. Of course, some critics still say they're "still concerned about the long-term effect." What do they mean by long-term? Atkins had been around for years, and still came on top! That should mean....and prove something!

[Parrot]

Diabetes is a very telling disease that is associated with carbohydrate. Yes, I'd say we've been brainwashed. And yes it's all about making money....someone called it the General Mills Diet.

I believe you have your facts a little mixed up Betsy. Nobody has managed to link diabetes with carbohydrates.

Having started in the 70's, Atkins method had been one, if not the only longest diet regime that not only is still around (and copied and tweaked around)....but as what CTV news had said a few weeks back, studies had shown that among the popular diets around, Atkins had been the one that showed the best results in health benefits. Of course, some critics still say they're "still concerned about the long-term effect." What do they mean by long-term? Atkins had been around for years, and still came on top! That should mean....and prove something!

I would say that Atkins is a fad diet just like all the rest. The reason that it works like it does is mostly because it's low in calories. There are some body chemistry issues that may cause a small degree of extra weight loss, but overall this is just another band-aid fix for weight issues just like any other diet.

And studies of "which diet is best" are notoriously unreliable. Another study done recently showed that the Weight Watchers diet came out on top. I don't mean to play "Dueling Studies" with you here. But I think it's pretty clear that in any discussion of which diet plan is the best, that the truth really isn't that straightforward.

As for health, all fad diets are pretty much a wash when it comes to long term safety. I wouldn't really single Atkins out because it's just like all the rest in that regard. Cutting out vital nutrients is bound to be unhealthy for you, but the point is really moot since few people are able to stick to any of these diets long enough for long term studies to measure their health.

I will give the Atkins diet a little bit of credit though. Atkins successfully challenged the main stream diet and medical industry's long held mantra of "LOW FAT, LOW FAT, LOW FAT!!!". It's really made a lot of difference in the way people think. It's a really good thing that people are starting to realize that fat isn't necessarily bad for you. And nobody would have taken the studies seriously showing the health benefits of Omega 3 Fatty Acids before Atkins came along.

[Parrot]

Some more facts for you all to consider:

In the wake of the ridiculous 400,000 deaths per year fiasco (really just a lie masquerading as science), there has been some actual good science done on this subject.

Katherine Flegal, a senior research scientist with the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics authored a study along with David Williamson, Barry Graubard and Mitchell Gail. This study is acknowledged for using scientifically solid data and methodology, including accounting for many confounding factors that were blatantly overlooked in the previous study.

Guess what the study found? Being in the "overweight" category, having a BMI between 25 and 30, actually correlates with a higher life expectancy. That's right, people who are considered "overweight" are less likely to die in any given year than people of "normal" weight.

In fact, being "overweight" saves approximately 86,094 lives per year!

This is solid science, not the sensational and speculative weak correlations that you see splashed across the headlines. Our bodies store fat for a reason, being 10 or 20 pounds over the arbitrary BMI cutoff point for "overweight" is not a reason to panic - it's a reason to celebrate!

In contrast, the risks of being underweight (BMI less than 18.5) accounts for the most pronounced risks of mortality. This is especially true for people over 60, where we see a 200% increase in mortality over "normal" weight, and a 266% increase in mortality over "overweight" people. Obesity only even catches up to these figures for younger individuals with a BMI greater than 35 (approximately 8% of the population).

Obesity does have it's health concerns, especially extreme obesity. But the science is continually showing us that our focus is directed inappropriately on this matter. We need to sit up and take notice!

[betsy]

Diabetes is a very telling disease that is associated with carbohydrate. Yes, I'd say we've been brainwashed. And yes it's all about making money....someone called it the General Mills Diet.

I believe you have your facts a little mixed up Betsy. Nobody has managed to link diabetes with carbohydrates.

I don't think so. Carbohydrate may not be the only cause of diabetes...but it's definitely associated with diabetes type 2, which is I believe the most common form of diabetes.

"The Simple Explanation.

Other than the genes you inherited, there are two primary causes of diabetes:

1) a long-term diet that has been high in carbohydrates and

2) nutritional deficiencies.

Your body breaks down carbohydrates into sugar (glucose) which then enters your blood stream. The more carbohydrates you eat, the higher your blood sugar goes. In response, your body produces insulin. Insulin's job is to push the blood sugar into the cells.

On the surface of the cells in your body are insulin receptors, which act like little doors that open and close to regulate the inflow of blood sugar.

After many years of consuming a high-carbohydrate diet, your cells have been bombarded with so much insulin that these doors begin to malfunction and shut down."

http://www.realfoodnutrients.com/DB/Causes.htm

"1) Obesity

The number one risk factor for Type 2 diabetes is obesity. The National Center for Health Statistics states that 30 percent of adults are obese. That's 60 million people. Greater weight means a higher risk of insulin resistance, because fat interferes with the body's ability to use insulin. According to the same study, the number of overweight kids has tripled since 1980. The number of children being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes has also risen.

• Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes

2) Sedentary Lifestyle

The Surgeon General's Report on Physical Activity and Health (USA, 1996) states that "a sedentary lifestyle is damaging to health and bears responsibility for the growing obesity problems". Inactivity and being overweight go hand in hand towards a diagnosis of Type 2. Muscle cells have more insulin receptors than fat cells, so a person can decrease insulin resistance by exercising. Being more active also lowers blood sugar levels by helping insulin to be more effective. It's a win-win.

3) Unhealthy Eating Habits

90% of people who have been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes are overweight. Unhealthy eating contributes largely to obesity. Too much fat, not enough fiber, and too many simple carbohydrates all contribute to a diagnosis of diabetes. Eating right is can turn the diagnosis around and reverse or prevent Type 2."

http://diabetes.about.com/od/symptomsdiagn...riskfactors.htm

I would say that Atkins is a fad diet just like all the rest. The reason that it works like it does is mostly because it's low in calories.

Dead wrong!

Your statement shows you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Atkins!.

Atkins is not about counting calories! It's nowhere near to having low in calories. You know how much calories there is in a steak teeming with fat????

If you still stand by your claim that Atkins is low in calories...then back it up with your source.

Anyone here who'd been on Atkins know that we can eat as much meat that we want...and there's no counting the fats or the protein. It's only the amount of carbs that we worry about!

[betsy]

Some more facts for you all to consider:

In the wake of the ridiculous 400,000 deaths per year fiasco (really just a lie masquerading as science), there has been some actual good science done on this subject.

Katherine Flegal, a senior research scientist with the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics authored a study along with David Williamson, Barry Graubard and Mitchell Gail. This study is acknowledged for using scientifically solid data and methodology, including accounting for many confounding factors that were blatantly overlooked in the previous study.

Guess what the study found? Being in the "overweight" category, having a BMI between 25 and 30, actually correlates with a higher life expectancy. That's right, people who are considered "overweight" are less likely to die in any given year than people of "normal" weight.

In fact, being "overweight" saves approximately 86,094 lives per year!

This is solid science, not the sensational and speculative weak correlations that you see splashed across the headlines. Our bodies store fat for a reason, being 10 or 20 pounds over the arbitrary BMI cutoff point for "overweight" is not a reason to panic - it's a reason to celebrate!

In contrast, the risks of being underweight (BMI less than 18.5) accounts for the most pronounced risks of mortality. This is especially true for people over 60, where we see a 200% increase in mortality over "normal" weight, and a 266% increase in mortality over "overweight" people. Obesity only even catches up to these figures for younger individuals with a BMI greater than 35 (approximately 8% of the population).

Obesity does have it's health concerns, especially extreme obesity. But the science is continually showing us that our focus is directed inappropriately on this matter. We need to sit up and take notice!

Your source, please. Can you provide a link?

[betsy]

Some more facts for you all to consider:

In the wake of the ridiculous 400,000 deaths per year fiasco (really just a lie masquerading as science), there has been some actual good science done on this subject.

Katherine Flegal, a senior research scientist with the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics authored a study along with David Williamson, Barry Graubard and Mitchell Gail. This study is acknowledged for using scientifically solid data and methodology, including accounting for many confounding factors that were blatantly overlooked in the previous study.

Guess what the study found? Being in the "overweight" category, having a BMI between 25 and 30, actually correlates with a higher life expectancy. That's right, people who are considered "overweight" are less likely to die in any given year than people of "normal" weight.

I looked it up cause I've never heard of it. This is what I found.

"The new study was conducted by researchers at the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (JAMA, 4/20/05). Dr. Katherine M. Flegal and colleagues based their conclusions on a national survey that is conducted periodically and is broadly representative of the U.S. population. The participants offer a wide range of information about themselves, including weight, smoking, age, race, and alcohol consumption. All of the data for these surveys were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention.

After this study got considerable media attention last month, the nation's pundits went into full gear, gloating over the fact that the "food police" can now get off our backs and let us return to the pleasure of eating whatever we want. So what if I'm overweight--now it's healthy!

That's exactly the take-home message that disturbs Marion Nestle, PhD, the Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition and Food Studies at New York University and author of Food Politics (University of California Press). "I'm floored that the CDC could put out a paper like this without putting it in context for the public," she said in a telephone interview. "People think it's healthy to be overweight, yet there is nothing in this [study] about illness," explained Dr. Nestle. "It's about excess deaths."

Dr. Flegal, the lead author of the new study, was asked in a telephone interview whether she had any trouble with people concluding that it is healthy to be overweight. "We prefer to be cautious about our findings and just say that we found no excess risk of death associated with overweight," she responded., "We did not look at health conditions associated with excess weight." When asked whether it is correct to conclude that people who are overweight but not obese are better off than the people of normal weight, Dr. Flegal said, "It's not unreasonable in terms of mortality," she said. "Overweight people did have fewer deaths than people of normal weight and the differences were statistically significant."

There is a reason that Dr. Flegal speaks in terms of excess risk of death and fewer deaths. The study did not look at causes. Participants were divided into groups according to age and body weights and then compared in terms of mortality. They had provided personal information to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys which were conducted several times from the early 1970s through 2000. Four measures of body mass index, or BMI were used in this survey: underweight (under 18.5), normal (18.5 to 24.9), overweight (25 to 30), obesity (30 to 35), and extremely obese (35 plus).

As for the counterintuitive finding that obesity is associated with only a modestly increased relative risk of mortality, Dr. Flegal and colleagues speculate, within the conclusion of their study, that this could be due to improvements in medical care. As for the excess deaths among the very thin, the researchers were able to rule out illness-induced weight loss as a factor, but offered no speculation about this finding. "The majority of deaths occur among the very old, and it's pretty well established [in other studies] that most people will weigh less as they age beyond 80 years," Dr. Flegal explained. [However,] "our data showed that 50% of the people over 80 were overweight."

Some obesity researchers believe that we have yet to see the full effects of the massive increase in the percentage of Americans, including children, who are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The expected increase in heart-related deaths may very well be years away. The first thing people diagnosed with this condition are told to do is to lose weight. Dr. Nestle, the N.Y. University professor, is concerned that people will not take diabetes 2 seriously as a result of this study. "Overweight is a problem," she said, "Maybe it's not a huge problem, but how risky it is depends on other factors," she said, referring to metabolic response and body shape (an excess of abdominal fat). "Not everyone who is overweight will go on to develop diabetes 2, but the risk for this illness is higher among people who are," she cautioned. "Of the people who get diabetes 2, 85% are overweight."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m081...30/ai_n13774457

[Parrot]

Your source, please. Can you provide a link?

Hey Betsy, good to see somebody challenging my claims. I always do research before saying these things, but I definitely appreciate that you want to see my sources and make up your own mind.

If you want to really dig into this study I recommend this article by Sandy Swarc, whom I have a great deal of respect for and have mentioned before:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=042505D

If you want to look at the technical release, here's a small page on that from the Journal of the American Medical Association:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstr...ourcetype=HWCIT

It's a little dry and technical. But the authors interestingly also speculate that "The impact of obesity on mortality may have decreased over time, perhaps because of improvements in public health and medical care."

I will note that some people have questioned some of the steps they've taken in order to account for a variety of confounding factors. But most agree that their stance on their methodology is defensible, and that these numbers are a huge improvement over the big 400,000 screw-up.

[betsy]

Your source, please. Can you provide a link?

Hey Betsy, good to see somebody challenging my claims. I always do research before saying these things, but I definitely appreciate that you want to see my sources and make up your own mind.

If you want to really dig into this study I recommend this article by Sandy Swarc, whom I have a great deal of respect for and have mentioned before:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=042505D

If you want to look at the technical release, here's a small page on that from the Journal of the American Medical Association:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstr...ourcetype=HWCIT

It's a little dry and technical. But the authors interestingly also speculate that "The impact of obesity on mortality may have decreased over time, perhaps because of improvements in public health and medical care."

I will note that some people have questioned some of the steps they've taken in order to account for a variety of confounding factors. But most agree that their stance on their methodology is defensible, and that these numbers are a huge improvement over the big 400,000 screw-up.

I don't know what to make of it. It's the other side of the coin. Of course, if I am to be paranoid by researches and studies done by one group....what guarantee that the opposite side's reasearches and studies are as how they are touted to be. I mean how can we really identify what is pop science?

You know what I mean?

At the end of the day....I guess we'll just have to rely on common sense. Our own choice to make.

[Parrot]

I looked it up cause I've never heard of it. This is what I found.

Betsy, you are a woman after my own heart. I also feel the need to research information on interesting new claims right away after I hear them.

I read through this article you found. It seems to give a well rounded review of what people have been saying about the study. Like I already mentioned, some people have criticized them for not taking some things into account or question some of the confounding factors that they did take into account. It seems to me to be a lot of quibbling over small details. But I don't think anybody has insinuated that these figures aren't based on solid data.

And this study definitely did take into account a lot of confounding factors that were negligently absent from the earlier study. I think it's fair to say that even if the study didn't take into account all causes of death, that if being even slightly overweight were as harmful to your health as some would have you believe that we would see a corresponding increase in mortality from this study. The fact that we don't is very telling.

If you don't mind, I'd like to address a couple of sections from this article you quoted:

After this study got considerable media attention last month, the nation's pundits went into full gear, gloating over the fact that the "food police" can now get off our backs and let us return to the pleasure of eating whatever we want. So what if I'm overweight--now it's healthy!

This seems to me to be an attempt at a straw-man argument. That's the logical fallacy of trying to put words into your opponent's mouth that they've never said in order to rebuke them on a position that they've never held.

I don't believe any of the pundits that are happy about this study believe that we shouldn't make an effort to eat healthy foods. As far as I know, nobody's taking this study as a green light to pig out on nothing but donuts and cheesecake.

But I think it's safe to say that there is no such thing as an "Obesity Epidemic" and that efforts trying to fight this non-existent threat are thoroughly misguided.

Some obesity researchers believe that we have yet to see the full effects of the massive increase in the percentage of Americans, including children, who are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

This is, of course, referring to the study that purported to show a 61% increase in diabetes between the years of 1991 to 2001. The problem with this study is that it was done entirely through telephone interviews. Many factors can account for huge skewing of that data. Even just the fact that people are becoming more aware of diabetes can account for higher reporting of it in telephone interviews like this.

Luckily, we have actual data on this based on blood samples and laboratory results, not self-reported telephone interviews. This data comes from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). It is much more accurate, and according to the CDC: "indicate that the prevalence of diabetes, either diagnosed or undiagnosed, and impaired fasting glucose did not appear to increase substantially during the 1990s."

For my money, I'm trusting the actual laboratory statistics over some half-baked telephone interview scheme.

[Parrot]

I don't know what to make of it. It's the other side of the coin. Of course, if I am to be paranoid by researches and studies done by one group....what guarantee that the opposite side's reasearches and studies are as how they are touted to be. I mean how can we really identify what is pop science?

You know what I mean?

Betsy, I know EXACTLY what you mean. It's confusing as hell, isn't it? But we know its a sad truth that you just can't trust the headlines to give you the full story. If you want to know what's really going on you have to do some digging. And even then you're not guaranteed to get your hands on absolute truth... but I figure that with research you can at least back up what you're trying to say.

At the end of the day....I guess we'll just have to rely on common sense. Our own choice to make.

I've come to exactly the same realization. Here's how I look at it: We're all full of it, every single one of us. Even the experts can't be trusted to always be right. You're correct not to take what I have to say unquestioningly, I'm just some dumbass trying to promote the truth as I see it. I'm not always right, there's no reason to expect anybody to trust me just because I say so.

The best thing I find is to just tell the truth as you see it and let people decide for themselves. If you're interested in a subject, do your research. But be sure to take everything you read with a grain of salt, including opinions that agree with yours.

That's the standard I try to go by. It doesn't mean that I'm not a dumbass, but at least I'm a more knowledgeable dumbass. I think that's the best any of us can really expect to aspire to.

In thinking about this I've been creating a set of rules for myself in order to try and weed out the truth from the fiction. My rule #1 is to be suspicious of fear-mongering. And this "obesity epidemic" positively reeks of fear mongering.

But yeah, in the end it is completely your choice to make as to what you believe. I hope I've at least given you something to think about, though.

[betsy]

Betsy, I know EXACTLY what you mean. It's confusing as hell, isn't it? But we know its a sad truth that you just can't trust the headlines to give you the full story. If you want to know what's really going on you have to do some digging.

I know. That's why I was surprised that apparently you hardly did any digging at all about Atkins. Lol.

Your opinion was made about it without any researches at all....at least that's what it seemed like.

Go look it up, please.

Just a few facts about Atkins:

It does not count calories.

It does not count fats.

You can eat as much meat and cheese that you want. Atkins advices against processed meat and processed cheese.

It does not totally eliminate carbohydrates.

The amount you eat depends on your own body's response to it. The only time carbohydrate is cut back to its lowest count is during induction (2 weeks)....to help you get the sweets/carbohydrate out of your system. A lot of people go through withdrawal at this time. I did.

Since eventually we'll end up having a boundary as to how much carbohydrate we can consume and still lose weight....or not gain weight (depending on what your goal is)....Atkins advices to plan the kinds of vegetables we eat, that we get more out of it!

You can eat pasta or rice....AS LONG AS YOU DON'T GO BEYOND YOUR LIMIT of how much you can eat. For some, half an cup of rice or pasta is the limit! Because those items are very high in carbs, therefore it is not practical to waste up your carb allowance on those items....especially when you're not getting much out of it in return, nutrition-wise.

Most fruits tend to be high in carbs because of their natural sugars.

Leafy greens like lettuces hardly make a dent on the allowance and yet they gives tons of good benefits.

Atkins went as far as not including the fiber count on the carb allowance.

Yes, it gives you wolf-breath. That's why greens and items high in chlorophyll helps.

You can drink your wine....although Atkins advices to shun from alcohol if you are trying to lose weight since alcohol slows down the metabolism.

Later on, you'll find that you only tend to eat when you are hungry. You'll notice the cravings gone.

And you'll tend to eat less, not because you have to....but because your body says so.

Splenda, a sugar substitute is the preferred choice of a lot of Atkins followers. It's made from real sugar!

And it bakes, cooks like real sugar....measured like real sugar. And most importantly, tastes like real sugar!

And yes, apparently this diet had been used on diabetics! And diabetics do end up living on it....so it is "do-able."

It is a diet...or should I say, a way of eating.... that one can stick to.

[Parrot]

I know. That's why I was surprised that apparently you hardly did any digging at all about Atkins. Lol.

Your opinion was made about it without any researches at all....at least that's what it seemed like.

Go look it up, please.

Well, perhaps I'm misinformed. I haven't been doing as much research on specific diet plans. I assume you're referring here to my statement about the Atkins diet being low in calories. I don't believe I said, though, that Atkins requires counting of calories.

I read that information a while back in an article comparing different diet plans and noting that Atkins dieters lost slightly more. One thing that was noted in addition was that the Atkins dieters did consume a low amount of calories. I'm sure that was as a result of other factors though rather than by any conscious effort on the dieter's part.

I'll see if I can't find that article once more for you.

[Parrot]

Betsy, please forgive me for not addressing this post earlier, somehow I missed it in the midst of responding to your other posts.

I don't think so. Carbohydrate may not be the only cause of diabetes...but it's definitely associated with diabetes type 2, which is I believe the most common form of diabetes.

"The Simple Explanation.

Other than the genes you inherited, there are two primary causes of diabetes:

1) a long-term diet that has been high in carbohydrates and

2) nutritional deficiencies.

Your body breaks down carbohydrates into sugar (glucose) which then enters your blood stream. The more carbohydrates you eat, the higher your blood sugar goes. In response, your body produces insulin. Insulin's job is to push the blood sugar into the cells.

On the surface of the cells in your body are insulin receptors, which act like little doors that open and close to regulate the inflow of blood sugar.

After many years of consuming a high-carbohydrate diet, your cells have been bombarded with so much insulin that these doors begin to malfunction and shut down."

http://www.realfoodnutrients.com/DB/Causes.htm

I wasn't able to view the page that you sent me to, but I did have a look at the realfoodnutrients.com website. It doesn't look very trustworthy to me. They make a lot of unsubstantiated claims and use a heck of a lot of junk science to back them up.

Oh, and they're trying to sell me something. What a surprise!

The idea that carbohydrates cause diabetes is just another version of the "sugar causes diabetes" myth (simple sugars being our most popular carbohydrate - and the form that all carbohydrates are broken down into). This myth is officially rejected by all diabetes organizations (The Diabetes Society, The American Diabetes Association, etc... )

The truth is that medical science hasn't been able to figure out what causes insulin resistance. What we do know is that obesity has been associated as a risk factor, and a lot of speculation has resulted from that. But no credible doctor or scientist will make the statement that diabetes is caused by carbohydrates.

If you still stand by your claim that Atkins is low in calories...then back it up with your source.

Anyone here who'd been on Atkins know that we can eat as much meat that we want...and there's no counting the fats or the protein. It's only the amount of carbs that we worry about!

I was unable to find the original article comparing the Atkins diet plan. However, here is some information from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_Nutritional_Approach

Some of the documents in support of the Atkins diet note that when carbohydrates were reduced, "study subjects spontaneously reduced their caloric intake"

Apparently the Atkins diet naturally causes people to eat less. There have been several reasons advanced for this, some of the most vocal critics of the Atkins diet suggest that the simple restriction of food choice is enough to account for a reduction in calories.

In any case, there's a lot of debate out there over the safety and effectiveness of the Atkins diet. Medical professionals seem to be split on this. I think it's a good thing that the Atkins diet is challenging common medical beliefs, but in the end it hasn't been proven to be any more effective at long term weight loss than any other diet.

Although I do really like the fact that Atkins has pissed of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

[Parrot]

Here's an article that I think illustrates sensationalism and food scares very clearly:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0424?hub=Health

Excerpt:

We all know that eating too many high-fat breakfasts will clog our arteries and increase our heart attack risk.

Now, a study finds that even a single, high-fat meal can be damaging to cardiovascular function by making us more reactive to stress.

Betsy, you should enjoy picking on this one. I've read at least one blogger ranting about how the effects were probably due to carbohydrates instead of fat. I don't know about that, but it is one of the things that indicates to me a lack of consideration for all confounding factors.

It seems that the only confounding factors they even considered were Sodium and Potassium. Couldn't they have put a little more effort into this? What would be more convincing is if they made some sort of special breakfast nutritional bar. Make 2 kinds, with the same level of nutrients and everything - the only variation being the amount of fat in each.

And seriously, this study SHOULD have been double-blind! That's just common sense! Neither the researchers nor the participants should have known whether they were testing the high-fat breakfast or the low-fat breakfast. Science has constantly shown us that health affects can be severely affected by the psychosomatic effect. If people know that the experiment is about the negative effects of a high fat meal, and they know that they've just had a high fat meal.... well, you do the math!

Here's another cute trick: They tested the High Fat breakfast first! Why didn't they think to at least randomize the order for each participant? Of course the stress tests are going to yield completely different results the second time around simply because the participants have experienced it before and know what to expect!

And then they come out and say that an average of 25% increase in blood pressure is "a whopping effect". News Flash: Blood Pressure can vary by as much as 40% during the course of a day! This 25% increase is statistically insignificant!

This study is clearly deeply, deeply flawed. And yet just about everybody has been re-printing it without question!

These scientists should know better.... but they don't.

Journalists should be more critical.... but they aren't.

Doesn't this clearly illustrate how bad science and fear mongering are trying to make you afraid of your food?

Next time you see fear mongering headlines, I encourage you all to look at them with a critical eye.

[gc1765]

Of course obesity is a problem. You dont' have to look very hard to see that. I'm going to have to agree with geoffrey here, excerise is the key, not cutting calories. Biking to work (if you live reasonably close) is the best way to get in shape, IMO. You have to get to work anyways, why not bike? You'll save time not having dedicated exercise time, it's good for the environment, and most of all good for you.

Oh, and Atkins is the biggest scam there is. Eating huge amounts of fat (and cholesterol) is very unhealthy for you and doesn't help you lose weight. Losing weight is a very simple mathematical formula: Calories burnt - Calories consumed. Besides, your brain needs carbs and you won't be at your sharpest without them. Not to mention that if you consume too much protein, your body will break it down into ammonia (hint: ammonia is not good for you). Your body will also break down fat and protein into various ketones like acetone (again not good for you).