Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-21-2011, 02:47 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,532,927 times
Reputation: 7807

Advertisements

Did you know that obesity was rare before the 20th century?

In part, that's because the definition of obesity was commonly held to be a person who was 100% heavier than people of the same age who died.

Later, most of the US used the Metropolitan Insurance Company height and weight charts to determine whether or not a person was too heavy. Most of us fit within that chart at an acceptable weight. Eventually, Body Mass Index (BMI) came to be used as a better measurement, though it does not account for the difference between fat and muscle.

Then, in 1995, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended a classification for three "grades" of overweight using BMI cutoff points of 25, 30, and 40.

Discovery Health "The History of BMI"

In 1997 the WHO formally recognized obesity as a global epidemic.

In 1998, the National Institutes of Health lowered the overweight threshold for BMI 27.8 to 25 to match international guidelines (WHO). The move added 30 million Americans who were previously in the "healthy weight" category to the "overweight" category.

Discovery Health "The History of BMI"

Did you catch that? We have an obesity "crisis" BECAUSE THE STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT WAS CHANGED, which made more of us "fat!"

In other words, it's little more than a manufactured crisis, one achieved by moving the goal posts, but one which is already resulting in higher taxes on "unhealthy" foods and more government interference in our lifestyle choices.

Moreover, there is no physical evidence to support changing the standards and recent "studies" merely quote previous "studies" without any indication as to why the standard was lowered. It's precisely the same kind of "science" which resulted in the second-hand smoke hysteria.

Is this alright with you? Are you still willing to support higher taxes on "junk food" and restrictive laws such as the banning of trans-fats or new fast food stores or salt-less kitchens? Do you think schools teaching "body awareness" in Kindergarten to combat the "obesity crisis" is justified?

How much liberty will you surrender to fight a non-existant "crisis?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-21-2011, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,495,743 times
Reputation: 27720
We have also switched from sugar to corn for sweetner.
HFCS is a major contributor but you'll never get the corn industry to admit that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2011, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,532,927 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
We have also switched from sugar to corn for sweetner.
HFCS is a major contributor but you'll never get the corn industry to admit that.

Yes, and now we have a "scientist" out in San Francisco claiming sugar is as poisonous as tobacco and alcohol.

You can see where that's leading, can't you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2011, 03:03 PM
 
12,905 posts, read 15,662,473 times
Reputation: 9394
I don't need studies to tell me what I see.

We are fatter. I'm 47 years old and the "fatness" today is noticeably more so than when I was a kid. Back then you had that ONE overweight kid in class that was horribly teased and ridiculed because he stood out so much more than others. When I look at my kids' classrooms now, it seems that half the class is overweight. It's sad. Adults are HUGE. Back then, that type of largeness was not the norm.

I chuckled a few years ago when a picture was posted of one of the earlier "fat men" in the Ringling Brother's and Barnum Bailey Circus. He was a freak people paid money to see and he weighed 300 lbs. Don't need to go to the circus anymore to see that.

As with anything, there probably isn't just one cause for the obesity epidemic. I've bought into the HFCS theory as well as firmly believe in the data presented in "Why We Get Fat" by Gary Taubes.

As for taxing junk food, I don't really believe it is a deterrant for bad eating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2011, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,822,592 times
Reputation: 12341
The mentality along the lines that ketchup is a vegetable, is responsible for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2011, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Limbo
6,512 posts, read 7,550,899 times
Reputation: 6319
Yup. It correlates almost exactly with the rise of high-fructose corn syrup and artificial sweetners. I'm sure there are other factors, but I think those are some main ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2011, 03:09 PM
 
2,085 posts, read 2,469,400 times
Reputation: 877
There is a lot that plays into it, but it boils down to people needing to take responsibility for what they put in their mouths. And what they feed their kids. I know a mom that takes her kids to McDonlads every single day for lunch. EVERY DAY. Now she and her kids are skinny, and just petit, the whole family, but how long will that last? What will those kids grow up to look like? There is no need to eat junk everyday. She also bribes her kids with sweets, if they are good, which they rarely are. Her kids punch her in the back and kick her. They cuss up a storm and they are 17 months, 2 and 4 years old!!! These kids run her ragged, although that is definately her fault, for letting that happen, but she is a perfect example of why America is fat. Daily fast food, and sweet treats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2011, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,532,927 times
Reputation: 7807
Y'all are not getting it.

You're talking about what should be done to fight a crisis which doesn't exist. You're accepting the notion that it even IS a crisis when, in fact, it's mostly manufactured by changing the standards.

So what if people are heavy? There's no evidence to suggest people are heavier today than they were just before the "crisis" was announced, nor that they're UN-healthy if they are a little overweight. They weren't considered unhealthy before the standards were changed. Why are they considered so now? And, why is it suddenly something government should be involved in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2011, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,532,927 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by maria2388 View Post
For the first time in over 200 years, our children have a lower life expectancy than their parents. Public health officials say the number one reason is our diet.

Yeah, no big deal.

So, "public health officials," (the same ones who lowered the standards and made us all "obese") are peering into their chrystal balls and guessing how long todays kids will live and you believe them?

Why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2011, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,532,927 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by maria2388 View Post
Now that you've edited your post with an elaboration, I wish you had just stuck with the one-liner. Honestly, I'm busy right now and can't go line-for-line, but suffice to say literally every single thought you just wrote down is factually incorrect. Literally.

Start here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/he...bese.html?_r=1

I know, I know; it's not Foxnews so it's liberal propaganda. But try to suffer through it.
I wish you could cut and paste the relevant parts because the NYT wants me to create an account and log in to see it. I'd rather not do that.

In any case, just because the New York Times says something doesn't necessarily make it true. Granted, the Times is generally more honest and truthful than Fox Noise (which I avoid like the plague), but even they have an editorial position to support and can be wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:13 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top