Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Forget BMI, "standards", definitions of obesity vs. non-obesity, etc.
(1) Are you disputing that the average weight of an American citizen has increased over the last 50-100 years?
No.
Quote:
(2) Are you disputing that being heavier, in general, increases your chances for heart attacks and other negative health ailments?
Increases the chances? No. Always results in that? Yes.
Quote:
(3) Are you disputing that ingestion of large amounts of sugar (i.e., lots of calories in whatever form - cane sugar or HFCS) causes people to get fat?
Yes. Weight is determined by calories ingested minus calories burned and it matters little where those ingested calories come from.
Quote:
(4) Are you disputing that today's children have much higher rates of diabetes than previous generations?
I'd have to research how, or if, the definition of diabetes has changed before answering that.
What I AM saying is that the so-called "crisis" is a manufactured crisis, created by shifting standards of measurement. Just because more people may be overweight does not necessarily indicate a crisis. That designation was created by lowering the BMI to a point where an artificial "crisis" can be claimed. Before the BMI definitions were lowered, there was no "crisis" because people who fell within the ranges now considered obese were considered as healthy.
The point is that along with the perception of a "crisis," comes more regulation, more intrusiveness, more taxes and that's what's troublesome to me, along with how easily and readily people have accepted that a "crisis" really exists, without examining how, and why, it got that way.
I'd have to research how, or if, the definition of diabetes has changed before answering that.
What I AM saying is that the so-called "crisis" is a manufactured crisis, created by shifting standards of measurement. Just because more people may be overweight does not necessarily indicate a crisis. That designation was created by lowering the BMI to a point where an artificial "crisis" can be claimed. Before the BMI definitions were lowered, there was no "crisis" because people who fell within the ranges now considered obese were considered as healthy.
The point is that along with the perception of a "crisis,"
the crisis is real, look around a bit and be honest with yourself. America is getting fat.
Quote:
comes more regulation, more intrusiveness,
i wouldn't suggest we "regulate" what we eat, rather I would nudge the food and drug industries toward producing healthy alternatives. walk down the cereal isle of your store and try to find a cereal that doesn't have HFCS. Look closely, you won't find many. Half the bread they make is loaded with HFCS, really? do we really need pre-sweetened bread?
Quote:
more taxes and that's what's troublesome to me, along with how easily and readily people have accepted that a "crisis" really exists, without examining how, and why, it got that way.
because we have passively allowed the food and drug industries to produce "good tasting" garbage. we have allowed them to put their profits ahead of the health of this country. we have become their "pigs at the trough" and they are not about to give up the cash flow without a nudge or two.
it is just like the tobacco industry, deny the problem and buy science deniers until the government nudged them enough to cause a change...
If you notice, there is a come back of "cane sugar" products. They cost a bit more but there seems to be the demand.
I've been buying the cane sugar products (store brands) which are still cheaper than the name brands.
The soda is what I remember soda tasting like when I was a kid.
And the Corn Refiners fought back with multi-million dollar media blitz.
Well of course they could with members like Archer Daniels and Cargill among them.
And the government has declared HFCS a "natural" sugar even though it's a processed sweetner.
If you want to become really agitated try and find a prepared food that is not loaded with salt. I have heard, and experienced, the phenomena that the body when fed a combination of fat, salt and sugar loses control of the appetite satisfaction system. This is the "magic" combination for the folks selling food. If you cannot increase the numbers of people eating your product then increase the amount of product they eat. The food pushers must be proud.
IMHO – I wonder if that sugars are as addictive as alcohol. Possibly the sugars created when the body metabolizes alcohol is the source of alcohol addiction. Is there a 12 step program for Dunkin Doughnuts?
Increases the chances? No. Always results in that? Yes.
What scientific study says that all people with high body weight/body fat have heart attacks? That's just a silly statement.
Quote:
Yes. Weight is determined by calories ingested minus calories burned and it matters little where those ingested calories come from.
So, all other things being equal, consuming 2000 calories of soda or pure cane sugar a day vs. consuming 2000 calories of fruits, vegetables, meats, breads, and water will result in the same person with the same health and same weight?
I think it is very true that how your body processes calories is not equivalent for every food and likewise the health of a person will be very different. But I am open to hear a counterargument to this.
Quote:
What I AM saying is that the so-called "crisis" is a manufactured crisis, created by shifting standards of measurement. Just because more people may be overweight does not necessarily indicate a crisis.
Your own answers above negate this. The "crisis" is that Americans are getting heavier and having more health problems. You admit that this happens in the answers to (1) and (2) above. When a person has increased chances of having a heart attack, diabetes, and other ailments related to increased weight, and as a population the average weight is increasing, then you are indeed increasing the risk for the population in general. It is irrelevant whether a BMI of 25 today was really a BMI of 20 or 40 30 years ago.
I find it very silly you are trying to downplay a serious health concern for Americans (and others in the world, but here we are focused on the US) simply because of a change in a number or an index. That's not smart.
Quote:
The point is that along with the perception of a "crisis," comes more regulation, more intrusiveness, more taxes and that's what's troublesome to me, along with how easily and readily people have accepted that a "crisis" really exists, without examining how, and why, it got that way.
I don't agree with regulation of food intake by the government or taxes on sugary drinks. However, I have no problem about more education on the subject or having campaigns for Americans eating healthier. One of the main functions of government is to protect its citizens and the safety and security of this nation. That just doesn't mean militarily - that means making sure our nation is vibrant and growing in a healthy way. There is a difference between dictating what you shall and shall not eat and having awareness campaigns on a healthy diet and exercise.
FDA responded that HFCS is prepared from a high dextrose equivalent corn starch hydrolysate by partial enzymatic conversion of glucose (dextrose) to fructose using an insoluble glucose isomerase enzyme preparation.
The glucose isomerase enzyme preparation is fixed (rendered insoluble) using safe and suitable immobilization/fixing agents, it said.
"The use of synthetic fixing agents in the enzyme preparation, which is then used to produce HFCS, would not be consistent with our (…) policy regarding the use of the term 'natural'," said Geraldine June.
"Moreover, the corn starch hydrolysate, which is the substrate used in the production of HFCS, may be obtained through the use of safe and suitable acids or enzymes. Depending on the type of acid(s) used to obtain the corn starch hydrolysate, this substrate itself may not fit within the description of 'natural' and, therefore, HCFS produced from such corn starch hydrolysate would not qualify for a 'natural' labeling term," she concluded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
And the government has declared HFCS a "natural" sugar even though it's a processed sweetner.
Poor parenting
High fructose corn syrup
Fast food
Monster portions in our restaurants
Poor access to health care
The internet
Video games
Cable and satellite TV
Poor parenting
High fructose corn syrup
Fast food
Monster portions in our restaurants
Poor access to health care
The internet
Video games
Cable and satellite TV
What Ozzie said plus too much pre-packaged, over-refined garbage. People not eating enough fresh veggies and fruit.
We need to reinstate home economics in the schools and TEACH children what good nutrition is. IMHO
i missed that one, you got a citation that says the government has allowed the food industry to call HFCS "natural".
Last I heard the corn industry voluntarily withdrew the use of "natural" in their ads, in 2006 I believe.. or 2008... HFCS is not 'natural', says FDA
Yes, Archer Daniels submitted a process whereby the synthetic enzymes didn't "touch" the corn and the FDA said "OK". The FDA did a backtrack.
But soon HFCS will be relabeled as "corn syrup" obfuscating it even more.
HFCS is natural, says FDA in a letter
"However, June has now said that when HFCS is made using the process presented by Archer Daniels Midland Company, it can be considered natural.
The process sees the enzymes for making HFCS being fixed to a column by the use of a synthetic fixing agent called glutaraldehyde. However, this agent does not come into contact with the high dextrose equivalent corn starch hydrolysate and so it is not "considered to be included or added to the HFCS," said June."
What Ozzie said plus too much pre-packaged, over-refined garbage. People not eating enough fresh veggies and fruit.
We need to reinstate home economics in the schools and TEACH children what good nutrition is. IMHO
20yrsinBranson
Agreed. Also, school cafeterias shouldn't be serving garbage and there should be no vending machines on school property.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
