63 replies to this topic

[Centurion]

I wanna be fat... where's the maple syrup?

[xanadu]

Pablo, ranting against the USA may be fashionable among the left but we are the most prosperous and successful country so far in history. We may not hold onto that position if we continue certain policies. However, at this point in time it's easier to succeed here than anywhere else. If you can't make it here then maybe you just can't make it.

[Pablo M]

Pablo, ranting against the USA may be fashionable among the left

I don't know if it's fashionable among the left, although it may be fashionable among the right to say that.

but we are the most prosperous and successful country so far in history. We may not hold onto that position if we continue certain policies.

Well, I guess I can only hope beyond all hope that certain policies ARE continued.

However, at this point in time it's easier to succeed here than anywhere else.  If you can't make it here then maybe you just can't make it.

I dunno. I "made" it allright in Canada. To quote The Simpsons: "Where else but in America, or possibly Canada, could our family find such opportunity?"

[doug123]

To stay off topic:

Pablo: The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) has 350 temples all around the world. You can visit any one and they will offer you prasadam. It's great food!

Better known as the Hare Krishna movement, ISKCON is comprised of more than 350 centres, 60 rural communities, 50 schools and 60 restaurants worldwide.

The temples for Canada can be found here. (there are quite a few). For a list of the entire world's temples, click here

Edited by nootropikamil, 19 September 2006 - 12:54 AM.

[Centurion]

Pablo, ranting against the USA may be fashionable among the left but we are the most prosperous and successful country so far in history. We may not hold onto that position if we continue certain policies. However, at this point in time it's easier to succeed here than anywhere else. If you can't make it here then maybe you just can't make it.

Two words: Trade deficit.

[doug123]

Something to else to add to your diet: Fatty Fish. JAMA: Fish can reduce kindey cancer

Wait, I am a vegetarian! I can't do that!

[Brainbox]

If you can't make it here then maybe you just can't make it.

Make what? I like Ben & Jerry's icecream, made in the USA. But most American car's are crap, sorry...

[DukeNukem]

Off-topic: When I was in Italy a few weeks ago, for two weeks, I talked to a LOT of Italians who really admired the USA, mostly because it was the land of opportunity. For example, a cab driver mentioned how he had gone to college in Florida and couldn't wait to move back (once he married his GF) because only in America can you have a great chance of starting your own business and not always work for someone else. He says that so many Americans have no idea how good we have it, as far as being able to get ahead here. In Italy, for example, getting a new business requires outrageous taxes, and then you will not have full control of your building, and getting a loan requires a 50% plus down payment, and on and on. There are so many roadblocks. And in so many countries it is like this.

[Brainbox]

Well, Italy is a bit extreme within the EU, having a huge budget deficit and inflation. This is accompanied by the very strict financial rules of the EU, which doesn't make the life of Italians easy. A dead end so to speak, imho. The more northern countries in the EU are far better of. But still, regulation is at a high level all over the EU. I've never been working in the USA, but according to my "sit on the bench and watch foreign society" information the big difference between Europe and the USA is the level of regulation. And taxes probably. I have a reasonable good job and therefore I have to pay in excess of 50% income taxes. I think that's HUGE compared to the USA, but I'm not sure to be honest. In addition, the flexibility of getting / loosing jobs is better in the USA, at least from the employers view and probably as well from the employee's view, although the latter may depend a lot on the kind of education you have.
I think at macro economy level the differences between Holland (where I live) and the USA are not to big. Holland has a reasonable economical growth. This growth in the USA seems to be compensated by the high cost of warfare and accompanying inflation. But no shocking differences. It's the difference at micro level, i.e. the ability of individuals to start businesses etc. that makes the difference in perception imo.

Edited by brainbox, 19 September 2006 - 11:28 PM.

[xanadu]

"make it" is a phrase meaning to suceed. Here, we have so many programs to help the disadvantaged that the only ones who are disadvantaged anymore are those not getting a handout. If you are or can claim to be one of a certain group of minorities including females (which are in the majority but still get minority status), then you get a break on government programs. Even besides that, business is wide open, anyone can jump in and compete, subject to needing licences and showing competence. It's so easy to start your own business that it isn't funny. High school and college students have been known to start up companies in their relatives garages and some of them make really decent money. A few get rich and they never risk anything more than their time. Try doing that in Mexico, Russia, China, South America and so on. You will find that it's about 10 times as hard and maybe impossible some places. If you can't succeed here then you are pretty much helpless. If that's the case then get your act together or find a relative you can mooch off of or get a job from.

[doug123]

According to new research in the news today, Diabetes to Blame for Obesity Deaths: Weight Alone Doesn't Increase Risk, Study Shows .

[DukeNukem]

Additional fat mass definitely degrades health. It's a burden to the body, and the fat itself invades other organs causing less-than-optimal functioning. Fat itself also releases hormones that send detrimental signals to the body.

I'm not sure how being fat, on its own, cannot be considered unhealthy.

[xanadu]

Of course overweight degrades health and increases the chances of dying. That has been proven unequivically with decades of research. Overweight causes bad backs, arthritis and increases your chances of getting a host of other diseases including cancer. Scientists are like any group, there will be a few who go astray or simply try to make a name for themselves with flimsy research. Those who believe the premise of that study in the face of so much evidence to the contrary are easily mislead.

[doug123]

[quote name='dukenukem']Additional fat mass definitely degrades health.  It's a burden to the body, and the fat itself invades other organs causing less-than-optimal functioning.  Fat itself also releases hormones that send detrimental signals to the body.

I'm not sure how being fat, on its own, cannot be considered unhealthy.[/quote]

Well; taking a closer look at the article, we see that there are contradictory findings and a pretty intense debate that supports your viewpoint -- the article above also reported on other findings that are not necessarily congruent with the one just published by the University of Kentucky Chandler Hospital and Atlanta's Emory University School of Medicine:

[quote name='http://www.webmd.com/content/article/127/116811.htm?printing=true']Contradictory Findings

The new findings are not likely to end the medical debate about whether obesity is a direct or indirect cause of early death.

The issue made headlines a year ago last spring, when CDC researchers reported that the risk of obesity-related death was much lower than had been previously believed.

Researchers also reported no increase in death risk among people who were overweight but not obese.

The report was widely criticized, and a reanalysis of the same data by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health showed a strong association between obesity and early mortality.

Just last month, two new studies were published which seemed to further confuse the issue.

In one, researchers from the Mayo Clinic concluded that obesity, as measured by BMI, was a poor predictor of death from heart diseaseheart disease.

The other, conducted by researchers from the National Cancer Institute, suggested that being even slightly overweight in middle age is a risk factor for early death.

Obesity-Related Diseases

Cardiologist Richard A. Stein, MD, says the new study may give physicians a more nuanced understanding of the role of obesity and obesity-related conditions like diabetesdiabetes in early death.

Stein is director of cardiology at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City. He is also a spokesman for the American Heart Association.

"It has become a mantra in the U.S. that being overweight will kill you," he tells WebMD. "This study suggests that it is not obesity per se, but the company it keeps that is to blame."

The distinction is important, he says, because even if someone can't manage to lose weight they can take steps to keep obesity-related diseases under control.

"Telling an overweight person that they either need to lose weight or they will die is the wrong message," he says. "There is increasing evidence that aggressively treating diabetes and other risk factors that go along with obesity, like cholesterol and high blood pressurehigh blood pressure, is even more important than losing weight."

But JoAnn Manson, MD, of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, doesn't buy the idea that diabetes alone is responsible for the increased risk of early death in people who are obese. Manson led the team which reanalyzed the CDC data.

She tells WebMD that there is plenty of good evidence implicating obesity in death from cardiovascular disease and several types of cancer, as well as diabetes.

"There are clearly pathways through which obesity increases the risk of death that do not involve type 2 diabetes," she says.[/quote]

[Shepard]

Yeah, I'm with them. The inflammation and hormonal situation in obese people is not conducive to longevity. Not to mention all the other social issues you have to deal with, which could also impact longevity.

[doug123]

Yeah, I'm with them. The inflammation and hormonal situation in obese people is not conducive to longevity. Not to mention all the other social issues you have to deal with, which could also impact longevity.

On the topic of the threat of being fat and its negative effects on longevity, here's an editorial that fits here:

Source

Don't fret about spinach-- obesity is the real threat

John McCarron who writes, teaches and consults on urban affairs

Published September 25, 2006

Diet and exercise.

Forget about the bad spinach. Never mind the mosquitoes that might carry West Nile virus. Don't lose precious sleep over the danger posed by bird flu.

The disease most apt to kill us, the epidemic that most threatens to ravage our bodies and those of our children, is already among us and ballooning out of control.

It's just not getting all that much press, which is a shame, because our only hope of turning around the obesity epidemic is convincing ourselves that it's our own bad habits--eating fatty foods loaded with salt and sugar and not getting enough exercise--that will cut short our lives, not some tainted bag of greens.

But nobody likes a nag, and habits, good or bad, get to be habits because human beings resist change. So we distract ourselves with health concerns that are, relative to our real problems, not that big a deal.

E. coli in the spinach? With due sympathy for the fewer than 200 Americans so far infected, and especially for the family of the Wisconsin woman who died, you can bet your balsamic vinegar dressing that fewer than 1,000 cases will be reported by the time public attention gets focused on the next big scare. This one used to be called food poisoning. Some forms are more severe than others, causing stomach aches, diarrhea and vomiting, but the human body is designed to get over it. So should the media.

West Nile virus? Again, with due sympathy for the afflicted, we're talking about a viral infection that millions of Americans already have had, most never realizing they had it, with about 20 percent of those infected experiencing a mild fever. Less than 1 percent of those infected become seriously ill with life-threatening encephalitis or meningitis, and only a small fraction of those cases prove fatal. This doesn't mean we should stop trying to eradicate the mosquitoes that carry the virus. But getting rid of backyard bird baths? Bringing kids inside at dusk? Temporarily closing a popular public park, as was done earlier this month in suburban Norridge?

If anything, the mounting evidence on obesity and its consequences shows we ought to be shooing our kids outside, to the parks, perhaps jogging after them with some bug repellent and a sugar-free drink.

Consider these recent warnings:

American Medical Association: "Obesity is the fastest growing health problem in the United States. ... Approximately 64 percent of the adult population is either overweight or obese. These statistics herald potentially devastating health, economic and social consequences for our nation. People who are overweight or obese have a greater probability of developing high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol or other lipid disorders, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke and certain cancers. ... Approximately 300,000 U.S. deaths a year are associated with this condition."

Institute of Medicine: "Over the past three decades, the childhood obesity rate has more than doubled for pre-school children ... and it has more than tripled for children aged 6 to 11 years."

National Institutes of Health: "Nearly 21 million people in the United States--7 percent of the population--have diabetes, the most common cause of blindness, kidney failure and amputations in adults and a major cause of heart disease and stroke. ... The prevalence of Type 2 diabetes has risen dramatically in the last 30 years, due mostly to the upsurge in obesity."

Surgeon general of the United States: "Health problems resulting from overweight and obesity could reverse many of the health gains achieved in the U.S. in recent decades. ... The total direct and indirect costs attributed to obesity amounted to $117 billion in the year 2000."

In other words, a genuine public health crisis is upon us, one that is sickening and killing millions, one that threatens to overwhelm both public and private medical insurance programs.

There has been some good reporting on the obesity crisis, to be sure. Last year the Tribune did an engaging series on junk food that traced our love affair with the Oreo cookie. In general, however, the danger of gradually growing fat doesn't match the random menace of getting a bad bag of spinach or the bite of a mosquito with an exotic-sounding virus.

When someone tries to make fat an issue, as when Chicago Ald. Edward Burke (14th) proposed a city ban on the use of trans-fat oils by restaurants, we tend to roll our eyes and cluck that politicians need to find real work.

Fact is, when it comes to public health, we in the media too often keep our eyes on the wrong balls. Sure, we should insist on uncontaminated produce, mercury-free tuna and mosquito abatement. But if we really want to help folks live longer and healthier lives, more headlines ought to scream just two words: "Diet" and "exercise"!

----------

John McCarron writes, teaches and consults on urban affairs.





Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

[cmorera]

Wrote this for another group, sharing here, no charge...

~~~~~~~~~~~

Want to be fat?  Here's what to do...

o Eat fried foods.  Fried foods like the appropriately name french fries soak up fat/oil like a sponge. Making matters worse is that the oil used for nearly all fried cooking is hydrogenated oil (a.k.a. trans fat -- the bad stuff, banned in many countries). Even frying in non-trans-fat oil is recklessly fattening, and damaging to health because excessive heat damages fat molecules causing them to go rancid, and improperly integrated within the body (thus leading to higher cholesterol, inflammation, and even cancer in the long term).

o Eat processed grains/breads (versus whole grains). Practically all bread, rice, and pasta that American's consume falls into this category -- if it's white, you can be almost be sure it's processed and fattening. If you eat out, it's nearly impossible to find whole grain bread, whole grain brown rice, or whole grain pasta. And even when you see whole grain bread on a menu, as I sometimes do, four of five times it is not, and the restaurant is too clueless to know the real difference (I have verified this countless times at a long list of restaurants). Processed grains are essentially no different that pure sugar as far as your body is concerned. So, when you eat white bread, or white rice, know that you're really eating sugar -- in fact, many white breads have a higher glycemic index rating that table sugar! Processed grains are a terrific way to pack on the fat.

o Don't eat enough low-fat protein with you main meals. In other words, if you really want to be fat, avoid lean protein because protein slows down the insulin reaction to your meal, reducing how quickly the sugar and simple carbs in your meal are stored as bodyfat. Meals that consist of too little protein are more quickly converted into fat. It's that simple.

o Consume foods/drinks with fructose. Fructose is often touted as nature's (or natural) sugar because it occurs in fruits. But, humans ate only whole fruits throughout evolution, not foods with added fructose and without the nutritional benefits (and fiber) of whole fruits. Most breads have added fructose, as do most processed foods of ANY kind (especially foods touted as health foods, like Gator-Ade and health/protein bars). And especially fattening is a man-made super concentrated version of fructose called high-fructose corn syrup. A key reason fructose is perfect for weight gain is that it is not digested normally, and is instead processed by the liver.  This is why it does not cause an insulin reaction like other sugars, and therefore wrongly positioned as a healthy sugar, especially for diabetics.  But the truth is that fructose is very quickly converted by the liver into triglyceride, and then stored in fat cells. Fructose is a leading contributed to fatness, so if that's your goal, it won't be hard to find in foods.

o Skip breakfast. When you skip breakfast, you allow your body to maintain its self-imposed overnight fasting-protection mode, where it prefers to cannibalize muscle tissue for energy rather than fat cells. When the body gets low on blood glucose, as it does overnight as we sleep, it switches to a fasting mode that hangs onto fat cells, because the body is unsure when it's next meal will come and so survival is best assured by using metabolically costly muscle tissue as a food source, before turning to metabolically cheap fat cells for energy. When we eat, we break this fasting state, and stop burning precious muscle tissue. To grow fat, delay eating for as long as possible awake you wake up.

Need more help getting fat, try these made-to-order foods:

o Sodas.  Most people drink about 320 calories of soda each day (two cans). A pound of fat is 3500 calories. Drinking this average is an automatic 32 pounds fat per year.  And sodas are a great source of fructose.

[Note: Edited #'s above thanks to Shepard.]

o French fries:  The perfect blend of fat (typically trans-fat) and sugar. Sugar you ask?  Yes.  Potatoes are basically sugar as far as your body treats it.  In this respect, french fries are no different than another highly fattening food: donuts.  Mmmmm...donuts.

o Salad dressing.  The vast majority of salad dressing is perfectly fattening. They are made of fructose and rancid vegetable oils (or hydrogenated oils).  Avoid olive oil and vinaigrette if your goal is fat padding, instead go for the blue cheese, Italian or ranch.

o Cereal.  Most is over-processed, non-whole-grain, low protein, high sugar candy. Add milk and it's high fat, too.

o Snack chips & potato chips. Like fries, a brilliantly fattening blend of fat and sugar-like processed grain with no protein or fiber, and no nutritional value.

o Fruit juice.  Any kind, including fresh squeezed. The problem is that fruit juice is stripped of the fiber, protein and complex carbs that slow down the insulin reaction.  Pure fruit juice is like a quick high of sugar, and the body must react quick with a high insulin burst to store the sugar as fat. Making matters worse is that much of the sugar is fructose, which is also easily and quickly converted to fat by the liver. Bottom-line for fat seekers: Drink fruits, don't eat them.

Although the OP makes many good points, I will add the following.

Often controlling obesity is more than a matter of simply eating different foods, but a complicated imbalance inthe body or due to long lasting emotional problems, or other stress factors ext ...

it should be added that stress and lack of sleep can affect insulin levels and contribute to obesity also, so get your sleep and dont stress out !

Yes, there are some people probably in poorer/educated parts that dont know crap about health, but i think the majority of people who are fat KONW they are eating the wrong foods, and too much of them. but continue to do so for ???? reasons, which is probably a bigger governing problem.

but nonetheless nice post about fried foods and grains/sugars to heed caution.

[doug123]

More reason not to be fat [huh] :

News source


Obesity costs the nation more than £3 billion a year

Obesity 'worse than drinking or smoking'
By Celia Hall, Medical Editor
Last Updated: 4:04am GMT 14/12/2006

Obesity is more damaging to health than smoking, heavy drinking or poverty, a Government agency said yesterday as it launched guidance on how an increasingly fat nation can get back into shape.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) said the prevalence of overweightness and obesity in England had trebled in 25 years with a third of women and nearly half of men overweight.

In total, 24 million adults are overweight or obese. Among children, 16 per cent are obese compared with 11 per cent in 1995. A fifth of all children is expected to be obese within four years.

Nice added that the obesity epidemic costs the nation between £3.3 billion and £3.7 billion a year in health and economic costs.

"Obesity is the most serious threat to the future health of our nation," said Prof Peter Littlejohns, the director of clinical and public health at Nice.

"The risks of obesity are as serious as smoking and urgent action is needed to tackle it. For the first time, we have bought together all the people who can help solve the obesity problem, not just health professionals but local councils, employers and schools to produce a piece of work that sets out the steps we must take," he said.

The guidance recommends a combination of diet and exercise for the overweight, with professional help to find a programme which is enjoyable and easy to follow.

Dr Ken Snider, the director of public health for County Durham, said the epidemic led to decreased quality of life, bullying at school, shortened life span and significant economic cost. "It is more harmful than smoking, heavy drinking or poverty," he said.

American public health research has shown that for every 100 obese men and women, compared with people of normal weight, there would be 50 extra chronic diseases compared with about 20 among those who had ever smoked, nearly 60 among people living in poverty and a similar number for drinkers.

The wide-ranging guidance sets out best practice for nursery schools, schools and employers. It has advice for doctors, local authorities, planners, parents and members of the public.

It encourages the use of slimming drugs, Xenical (orlistat) or Reductil (sibutramine) when diets fail, including prescribing drugs to children.

Surgery to restrict the amount of food the stomach can contain may be considered when other weight loss methods have failed.

Employers, schools and local authorities will be encouraged to look at meals and canteen policies and ways of encouraging children and adults to be more active by making it easier and safer to cycle or walk to work.

Parents are encouraged to take part in physical activities with their children and to eat with them.

Dieters should aim to cut calories by 600 a day and are advised to join slimming clubs. Very low-calorie diets are only recommended for periods of 12 weeks.

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the head of science and ethics at the British Medical Association said: "We are in the midst of an obesity epidemic and while these guidelines are welcome, they must be properly resourced if they are to have any impact.

"Obesity has so many different causes that it cannot be tackled by guidelines alone. The Government must work with food manufacturers and advertisers to help people improve their diets. People need to be given more opportunities to take regular exercise. What we should aim for is a society where all of us can make healthy choices."

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

[Ghostrider]

Skip breakfast. When you skip breakfast, you allow your body to maintain its self-imposed overnight fasting-protection mode, where it prefers to cannibalize muscle tissue for energy rather than fat cells. When the body gets low on blood glucose, as it does overnight as we sleep, it switches to a fasting mode that hangs onto fat cells, because the body is unsure when it's next meal will come and so survival is best assured by using metabolically costly muscle tissue as a food source, before turning to metabolically cheap fat cells for energy. When we eat, we break this fasting state, and stop burning precious muscle tissue. To grow fat, delay eating for as long as possible awake you wake up.

Where are you getting this information? Seems that people on CR would be interested in hearing this...

[DukeNukem]

Ghostrider,

I think this is generally well accepted knowledge, and it has been gleaned from numerous studies, AFAIK. Humans have evolved to survive during lean times, and to best survive we burn muscles first, and fat second. Unfortunately, now that cheap calories are overly abundant to us (in modern nations) this evolutionary survival system has backfired on us -- now we'd be much better off burning fat as the preferred energy source rather than muscle. One of the best ways to trick our system is to eat frequently (as counter-intuitive as that sounds), and the one everyone hates to hear: exercise.

[Shepard]

At one point, I did the breakfast immediately upon rising, meat/casein right before bed, etc. Then I decided it didn't make much difference for most people.

I'm now skeptical about the necessity of breakfast, or the need for a large breakfast. It seems now that frequent meals probably do help partitioning to some degree (although maybe not so much in trained athletes), but I think this is definitely an issue of food control later in the day instead of the magic of breakfast.

[porthose]

how to get your computer fat:

install Vista!

[doug123]

Source: http://www.dailyreco...-name_page.html

20 December 2006

FAT AT FIVE
By Dave King

SCOTS parents were urged yesterday to take action to stem the tide of obesity among kids.

The call came after the latest figures showed the battle is not being won.

Statistics from the NHS in Scotland revealed that last year 21.8 per cent of primary one school kids were officially overweight - up from 21.5 per cent the previous year.

Opposition politicians said more should be done - despite the Executive and officials saying that the figures were "stabilising".

Scottish Tory spokeswoman on health Nanette Milne said: "One year on from some appalling figures, they have got no better.

"To have nearly a quarter of primary one schoolchildren in Scotland classed as overweight and one in 10 deemed obese is very worrying indeed."

Despite all the money that has been thrown at healthy eating initiatives, the situation has not improved.

"This sends a clear message that we need to start educating people about the dangers of an unhealthy lifestyle, starting with mothers in ante-natal classes. '

"It is a parental duty to provide balanced, nutritional meals and to encourage an active lifestyle."

The call was echoed by SNP health spokeswoman Shona Robison, who said: "It's time to halt the increasing trend of obesity among our children.

"The SNP are determined to stop almost one in four children becoming overweight by introducing annual health checks and individual health plans throughout primary school years.

"By doubling the number of nurses in our schools, we can focus on preventing ill-health and obesity, particularly in areas of deprivation."

The research covered eight health board areas and showed the growing trend in fat kids.

Five-year-olds classed as obese went up from nine per cent to 9.1 per cent, while those "severely obese" rose from 4.3 to 4.4 per cent. In 2000, the proportion classed as overweight was 19.7 per cent, eight per cent were obese and 3.9 per cent were severely obese.

The problem is at its worst in Fife, where the number of overweight kids was 26.1 per cent, compared with the lowest figure of 19.6 per cent in NHS Argyll and Clyde.

Boys tend to be more more overweight than girls - 23 per cent, compared to 20.7 per cent. Officials warned: "Figures for 2005-06 show that levels of obesity in primary one children continue to be a cause for concern.

"However, the levels appear to have stabilised over the last three years following increases in 2000-01 and 2001-02."

Deputy Health Minister Lewis Macdonald said he believed parents had a key role to play in the fight against obesity. He said: "Obesity cannot be tackled through government action alone - it is everyone's responsibility to eat a healthy balanced diet and take exercise."

Macdonald said the rise in Scotland was in line with the rest of Europe.

And he added: "These statistics demonstrate the sheer scale of the problem but there are encouraging signs that the figures are beginning to stabilise."

[doug123]

Nigerian Tribune: News source

OBESITY May reduce your lifespan

By Festus Ojudun

“An obese person falls ill often and loses quite a large sum of man hours which, in turn, affects the economy of a country.”

GOOD health is a fundamental necessity for living a meaningful life. Based on this, many individuals are quite conversant with ways to ensure that they stay healthy. This notwithstanding, many more individuals are yet to appreciate the need for a healthy lifestyle; they still indulge in the consumption of foods that could cause or trigger certain ailments and exhibit behaviours that do not promote healthy living.

Obesity is one of the numerous conditions that have been proven to cause ill-health. Simply put, it implies a condition of being overweight in which an individual’s Body Mass Index (BMI) is on the high side. The summation of the quality of life spent and the duration of such is termed life expectancy. In the United States of America, life expectancy stands at an all-time high of 77.6 years, unlike in Nigeria and many other developing countries where it is below 50 years. Prominent among those that have warned on the impact of obesity is Dr. William Klish of Texas Children’s Hospital, in the United States of America. According to him, “if we don’t get this epidemic of childhood obesity in check, for the first time in a century, children will be looking forward to a shorter life expectancy than their parents.”

A similar line of argument was reported in the March 17, 2005 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine where it was submitted that the “youth of today may, on average, live less healthy and possibly even shorter lives than their parents,” due to obesity. This was observed in a research carried out by Dr. S. Jay Olshansky and his team. In the journal, it was predicted that life expectancy will decline over the next 50 years due to the epidemic of obesity. The team of experts who undertook the research concluded that obesity currently reduces life expectancy by approximately four to nine months and that the problem of obesity has a negative effect on life span that is greater than that of homicide and accidental death combined. It is predicted that in the next 50 years, life expectancies may drop from two to five years due to obesity.

So, do you eat a lot without the corresponding required exercise? Are you desirous of fatness? Do you have a bad eating habit? Or are you among those men and women who still believe that being fat is a sign of good living or that it confers a status of well-being, affluence or luxury on an individual? Then the answer to these questions in the opinion of experts like Dr. (Mrs.) Kofo Soyinka a medical expert and medical director of Eni Ayo Hospital, Gbagi, Ibadan, was that “obesity makes one prone to diabetes, stroke, hypertension and even arthritis by virtue of excessive weight.” According to her “obesity does not only shorten life expectancy, it affects the overall quality of life of an individual. The relationship between obesity and high blood pressure has long been established. It is known that an obese person is likely to have low density cholesterol (LDC) and when this type of cholesterol is very high in the blood system, it has a way of affecting blood vessels and so the mechanisms and dynamics of reducing high blood pressure. Obesity increases the pressure on veins and arteries”.

For diabetes and hypertension, it has been shown that when patients lose weight, they may not need drugs to control their condition any longer or would have their drugs reduced in amount. “The bottom-line is that when they lose weight, the overall quality of life improves.” Stroke, on its part, has a lot to do with the cholesterol level. There are some people who have stroke and are not hypertensive. That is, not all strokes are due to hypertension. There are some strokes we call invective strokes, they are usually secondary to people who have high cholesterol and people with high cholesterol tend to be obese with huge deposits of fat in their blood vessels. Even in terms of morbidity (frequency of illness), an obese person falls ill often and loses quite a large sum of man hours which, in turn, affects the economy of a country.

Some people are genetically predisposed to obesity. However, secondary obesity could be as a result of bad eating habit like excessive eating, consumption of high cholesterol foods, physical inactivity or lack of exercise, increased intake of processed foods and large amounts of refined sugar. Indeed, Harvey Diamond and Marilyn Diamond, co-authors of the best-selling book, Fit for Life, recommended diet control as an ingenious way to healthy living. Hence, it beholds on all of us to change our attitudes. Even in young children, childhood obesity occurs in those that are overweight. Obesity could also shorten the lifespan of an entire generation by two to five years. About 16 per cent of kids today are overweight and another 15 per cent are at risk of becoming too heavy which increases their chances of ailments such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

Dr. Bayo Agunbiade, a medical expert based in Yola said “obesity may rarely be genetic in cause, but has a lot to do with environmental factors among which sedentary lifestyle and consumption of large amounts of refined high-calorie diet.” In his explanation, obesity is associated with thickening in the blood vessels. This leads to a spectrum of cardiovascular diseases which in turn have an effect on the kidneys, the respiratory system and ultimately the central nervous system. “When these five- star systems are damaged via the irreparable processes involved in obesity, it ultimately shortens the length of life,” he stated. In the January 8, 2003 edition of the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), a research to determine the number of years of life lost (YLL) due to obesity was conducted. The conclusion reached by the team of researchers was that “for any given degree of overweight, younger adults generally had greater years of life lost than older adults. Blacks at younger ages with severe levels of obesity had a maximum years of life lost of 20 years for men and 5 for women”.

Some Nigerians also commented on this for example, Mr. Olugbenga Bamigbola, a fresh graduate based in Lagos said “I do not like to be fat because I will not be smart and there are situations whereby I will be at a disadvantage. When one is in a rowdy situation, you will find movement difficult and any little stress, one will get tired very easily. In fact, I feel obesity affects every aspect of an individual’s life”. The comment of Mrs Bukky Babasola is even more striking. In her opinion, “a lot of poeple in Nigeria tend to associate fatness with a status of affluence or well-being. It seems to me that it has become a culture among our poeple to allow themselves to get fat so that other people would believe they are feeding very well. Little do they know that over-eating as well as obesity does more harm than good.”

In all, it will be agreed that obesity is indeed a threat to human existence. While it affects life expectancy and overall quality of life, it causes if closely monitored can help reduce type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart diseases cases. However, reduction of weight puts an individual in a fair condition for living a healthy active life.

[icyT]

I'm going to come to the defense of processed grains:

Some of them are fortified. While being fortified doesn't mean they'll have all the vitamins they'd have if they wouldn't, it's also possible for them to have an equal or greater amount depending on how much it's fortified.

Honestly, better off to criticize grains in general.

[doug123]

Support for Duke's theory in today's news (on sodas)...

Want to be fat?  Drink lots of sodas...

http://www.commonvoi....asp?colid=5784

Coca-Cola in denial about it's role in the Obesity pandemic
Julia Havey
September 3, 2006

reprinted from my blog: www.JuliaHavey.typepad.com

I read this article today and have to share it with you:

More than 3000 experts are in Sydney for the International Congress on Obesity - one of medicine's most rapidly advancing fields. But an elite 35 delegates have also been invited to hear a very different, pre-conference spin on the science of weight gain, delivered by members of the so-called Beverage Institute for Health & Wellness.

If the institute's trademark looks familiar, this is because it is wholly owned by Coca-Cola, whose branding it unabashedly mirrors. And its science, too, is a selective echo of the learned literature on obesity - addressing one of the hottest questions in the weight debate: whether sugar, and sugar-laden soft drinks in particular, must shoulder a super-sized serving of the blame for the health crisis.

Abundant, cheap and extraordinarily tasty, especially to children, sugar is shaping up ahead of even fat and inactivity as a leading factor behind the upward spiralling worldwide epidemic of weight gain.

Ian Caterson, the conference co-chairman and the Boden Professor of Human Nutrition at the University of Sydney, said: "Soft drinks are probably a special case because they're high in energy and they're also liquid, and it seems that getting energy as a liquid, you don't get the same satiety [feeling of fullness]."

Sweetened drinks account for half the 150 to 300 extra calories Americans consume daily, a national survey of more than 75,000 people found. In Australia, roughly half of 16- to 18-year-old boys consume nearly a litre of soft drink a day, according to analysis by Tim Gill from the NSW Centre for Public Health Nutrition at the University of Sydney.

But Coke remains more concerned about the difficulties of getting enough fluids into recalcitrant children. The website of its Beverage Institute subtly plays on parents' worries that their children may become dehydrated or undernourished.

"Several studies show that children consume about 45 to 50 per cent more liquid when it's flavoured," the site says.

"Beverages like milk, some soy beverages and some fortified juices provide a convenient way for children to get nutrients like bone-building calcium and vitamin D [giving] picky eaters choice and parents peace of mind."

John Foreyt, director of the Behavioural Medicine Research Centre at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, is one of four scientists who will address Monday's breakfast guests. Sweetened drinks, he told the Herald this week, had been "demonised … it's a single-culprit theory". He rejected the US findings that most excess calories were coming from soft drinks. "That's looking at the epidemiology. That's correlation, not causation," Dr Foreyt said. "Epidemiology is not science."

The bottom line, Dr Foreyt said, is personal responsibility. "We're getting heavier, we're a fat world. The way to go is balance, variety and moderation."

Dr Foreyt was unapologetic about his financial links with Coca-Cola. "I'm a consultant to them. I also do lots of work with drug companies … I write grants and get them funded. I run a research institute. That's what I do."

Adam Drewnowski, professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington and director of its Centre for Public Health Nutrition, is also on the breakfast meeting ticket.

He believes policy-makers need to look closely at weight patterns in different suburbs of the same town; obesity may be five times more common in poorer areas.

"Foods we used to think of as staples are slipping out of reach, never mind cherries and tomatoes," Professor Drewnowski said. "What's staying in people's price range is things like doughnuts … Fruit juice has not been associated with obesity and yet the sugar content is much the same. How come? Juice is drunk by rich people. Is sugar evil or is it merely cheap?"

A related story:

Soft drinks associated with diabetes, report finds

Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:35PM GMT
By Megan Rauscher

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A review of published studies shows a clear and consistent relationship between drinking sugary (non-diet) soft drinks and poor nutrition, increased risk for obesity -- and increased risk for diabetes.

There is no denying that sugar-loaded soft drinks are having "a negative impact on health," Dr. Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, said in a telephone interview with Reuters Health.

Having analyzed and reviewed 88 studies on the issue, Brownell and his colleagues conclude that recommendations to curb soft drink consumption on a population level are strongly supported by the available scientific evidence.

Results of a study of more than 91,000 women followed for 8 years provides one of the "most striking" links between soft drinks and health outcomes, the investigators note in the American Journal of Public Health.

In the study, women who drank one or more sodas per day -- an amount less than the US national average -- were twice as likely as those who drank less than one soda per month to develop diabetes over the course of the study.

When diet soda replaced regular soda in the analysis, there was no increased risk, "suggesting that the risk was specific to sugar-sweetened soft drinks," note the authors.

"This result alone," they assert, "warrants serious concern about soft drink intake, particularly in light of the unprecedented rise in type 2 diabetes in children."

The data reviewed by Brownell's team also show that higher intake of sugary sodas goes hand-in-hand with lower intake of milk, calcium and other essential nutrients, fruit and fiber, and higher intake of carbohydrates.

Furthermore, there was a "remarkable difference" in results from industry-funded and non-industry-funded studies on soft drink consumption and health outcomes, Brownell said, "with the industry-funded studies much more likely to find the results favorable to industry."

"The bigger issue here, in this arena in particular but in science in general," Brownell said, "is how you can get a distorted view of reality if industry-funded studies are considered in the mix -- and usually they are -- especially, when industry uses these studies in advertising, lobbying, and in talking to the press."

When it comes to soft drink consumption among America's youth, Brownell added, "the decisions parents make are one thing, but the relentless marketing to children is another."

He supports the growing trend toward banning soda sales in schools. "I believe schools should be a commercial-free zone and that beverages that are contributing to ill health should not be sold there," Brownell said.

SOURCE: American Journal of Public Health, April 2007.

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

[wayside]

Interesting article: http://www.foodnavig...ng.asp?id=73247

It seems in the US, the average person now drinks 22% of their total calories. If you subtract out the people who don't drink sweetened beverages, the % of total calories among those who do is much higher.

That can't be good for you.

[doug123]

Well, some might call me "biased" or whatever because this study came from UCSD...however...

News Source: BBC




Leptin is stored in fat tissue

Fat hormone 'boosts colon cancer'

A chemical produced by fat cells makes colon cancers grow faster, a US study has suggested.

The British Journal of Surgery study could help explain why severely overweight people appear to be at far greater risk of the disease.

A team at the University of California, San Diego found that the hormone leptin triggered increased growth in human colon cancer cells.

Obese people are up to three times more likely to develop colorectal cancer.

Other researchers have already found that some colon cancer cells appear to be set up to respond to leptin, with "receptors" for the chemical on their surfaces.

These results may explain why obesity increases a person's risk of colonic cancer
Dr Kim Barrett
University of California, San Diego

The more fat cells a person has, the more leptin will be in their bloodstream.

The San Diego team wanted to find further evidence of the link by watching what happened to human cancer cells exposed to the hormone.

In a laboratory, they added the hormone to different varieties of cancer cell.

Growth was stimulated in all the cell lines - and in two out of three tested, the hormone also hampered the usual process of programmed death that allows the body to replace normal cells, but which often malfunctions in cancers.

Dr Kim Barrett, who led the research, said: "These results may explain why obesity increases a person's risk of colonic cancer.

"The fact we have shown how leptin stimulates these cells means that drug companies may be in a better position to develop new treatments against the disease."

Obesity increasing

In the UK it is currently estimated that one in five men and a quarter of women are obese, with as many as 30,000 people a year dying prematurely from obesity-related conditions, including cancers.

Britain now has the most obese population in Europe.

A study published this week suggested that severely obese men doubled their risk of dying from prostate cancer, and obesity is also believed to increase the chance of developing breast cancer.

Body Mass Index
Underweight: less than 20
Normal weight: 20-25
Overweight: 25 - 29.9
Obese: over 30
Morbidly obese: over 40

Professor Alan Clarke said: "This research builds on previous work suggesting that leptin, a hormone released from fat cells, may play a role in the link between obesity and cancer.

"The researchers have shown that leptin is involved in two molecular pathways known to play a role in bowel cancer development."

"Although at an early stage, the findings shed light both on the development of bowel cancer and the link between obesity and cancer."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/6529677.stm

Published: 2007/04/07 23:03:40 GMT

© BBC MMVII

I guess this gives me another chance to discuss everyone's favorite topic, colonoscopies... [sick]

Take care.

[doug123]

News.Medical.Net: News Source



Explosion in severly overweight Americans

Medical Studies/Trials

Published: Tuesday, 10-Apr-2007

The proportion of Americans who are severely obese -- about 100 pounds or more overweight -- increased by 50 percent from 2000 to 2005, twice as fast as the growth seen in moderate obesity, according to a RAND Corporation study.

"The proportion of people at the high end of the weight scale continues to increase at a brisk rate despite increased public attention on the risks of obesity and the increased use of drastic weight loss strategies such as bariatric surgery," said Roland Sturm, author of the report and an economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization.

The findings will be published later this year in the journal Public Health.

To be classified as severely obese, a person must have a body mass index (a ratio of weight to height) of 40 or higher -- roughly 100 pounds or more overweight for an average adult man. The typical severely obese man weighs 300 pounds at a height of 5 feet 10 inches tall, while the typical severely obese woman weighs 250 pounds at a height of 5 feet 4 inches.

People with a BMI of 25 to 29 are considered overweight, while a BMI of 30 or more classifies a person as being obese. For a 5-foot-10 inch male, a BMI of 30 translates into being 35 pounds overweight.

Sturm found that from 2000 to 2005, the proportion of Americans with a BMI of 30 or more increased by 24 percent, the proportion of people with a BMI of 40 or more increased by 50 percent and the proportion of Americans with a BMI of 50 or more increased by 75 percent. The heaviest groups have been increasing at the fastest rates for the past 20 years.

The RAND Health study found that based on self-reported height and weight, which tends to understate actual BMI, 3 percent of Americans are already severely obese. Since that is the fastest growing group of obese Americans, widely published trends for obesity underestimate the consequences of the obesity epidemic because illness and service use are much higher among severely obese individuals.

Among middle-aged adults, people with a BMI over 40 are expected to have health costs that are double those experienced by normal weight peers, while moderate obesity (a BMI of 30-35) is associated with only a 25 percent increase.

The prevalence of severe obesity continues to surge despite a rapid increase in the use of bariatric procedures, which are surgeries that limit the amount of food patients can eat. The number of bariatric surgeries increased from an estimated 13,000 in 1998 to more than 100,000 in 2003. Experts estimate that as many as 200,000 of the procedures were performed in 2006.

"The explosion in the use of bariatric surgery has made no noticeable dent in the trend of morbid obesity," Sturm said.

Sturm said the latest findings challenge a common belief held by physicians that people who are obese are a fixed proportion of the population and are not affected by changes in eating and physical activity patterns in the general population.

The study suggests that clinically severe obesity, instead of being a rare pathological condition among genetically vulnerable individuals, is an integral part of the population's weight distribution. As the whole population becomes heavier, the extreme category -- the severely obese -- increases the fastest.

The body mass index allows researchers to define obesity and severe obesity over a population of people with varied heights and weights. The index is defined as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters. The standard cut-off point for obesity is a body mass index of 30 or more, corresponding to a person 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighing 174 pounds, or 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighing 209 pounds or more.

http://www.rand.org

News-Medical.Net provides this medical news service in accordance with these terms and conditions. Please note that medical information found on this website is designed to support, not to replace the relationship between patient and physician/doctor and the medical advice they may provide.

[doug123]

It seems there's a genetic factor in being obese...so I guess that means some of us might need to exercise more and/or regulate diet more efficiently?

News Source: Science Daily



Source: Wellcome Trust
Date: April 12, 2007

Obesity Risk: New Research Shows Clearest Genetic Link Yet

Science Daily — Scientists have identified the most clear genetic link yet to obesity in the general population as part of a major study of diseases funded by the Wellcome Trust, the UK's largest medical research charity. People with two copies of a particular gene variant have a 70% higher risk of being obese than those with no copies.

Obesity is a major cause of disease, associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer. It is typically measured using body mass index (BMI). As a result of reduced physical activity and increased food consumption, the prevalence of obesity is increasing worldwide. According to the 2001 Health Survey for England, over a fifth of males and a similar proportion of females aged 16 and over in England were classified as obese. Half of men and a third of women were classified as overweight.

Scientists from the Peninsula Medical School, Exeter, and the University of Oxford first identified a genetic link to obesity through a genome-wide study of 2,000 people with type 2 diabetes and 3,000 controls. This study was part of the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, one of the biggest projects ever undertaken to identify the genetic variations that may predispose people to or protect them from major diseases. Through this genome-wide study, the researchers identified a strong association between an increase in BMI and a variation, or "allele", of the gene FTO. Their findings are published online today in the journal Science

The researchers then tested a further 37,000 samples for this gene from Bristol, Dundee and Exeter as well as a number of other regions in the UK and Finland.

The study found that people carrying one copy of the FTO allele have a 30% increased risk of being obese compared to a person with no copies. However, a person carrying two copies of the allele has a 70% increased risk of being obese, being on average 3kg heavier than a similar person with no copies. Amongst white Europeans, approximately one in six people carry both copies of the allele.

"As a nation, we are eating more but doing less exercise, and so the average weight is increasing, but within the population some people seem to put on more weight than others," explains Professor Andrew Hattersley from the Peninsula Medical School. "Our findings suggest a possible answer to someone who might ask 'I eat the same and do as much exercise as my friend next door, so why am I fatter?' There is clearly a component to obesity that is genetic."

The researchers currently do not know why people with copies of the FTO allele have an increased BMI and rates of obesity. "Even though we have yet to fully understand the role played by the FTO gene in obesity, our findings are a source of great excitement," says Professor Mark McCarthy from the University of Oxford. "By identifying this genetic link, it should be possible to improve our understanding of why some people are more obese, with all the associated implications such as increased risk of diabetes and heart disease. New scientific insights will hopefully pave the way for us to explore novel ways of treating this condition."

The findings were welcomed by Dr Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust. "This is an exciting piece of work that illustrates why it was so important to sequence the human genome," says Dr Walport. "Obesity is one of the most challenging problems for public health in the UK. The discovery of a gene that influences the development of obesity in the general population provides a new tool for understanding how some people appear to gain weight more easily than others. This discovery, along with further results expected from the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium later this year, will open up a wealth of new avenues to understand and treat common diseases."

The FTO gene was first discovered whilst studying the DNA of a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes increases significantly for obese people. Through its effect on BMI, having one copy of the FTO allele increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 25%, having two by 50%.

"We welcome this result, which holds promise for tackling rising levels of obesity and the associated risk of developing type 2 diabetes," says Professor Simon Howell, Chair of Diabetes UK, which funded the original collection of samples from people with diabetes. "The discovery has been possible not only because of exemplary team work of scientists from a large number of institutions but also because of the cooperation of the 5,000 diabetes patients and 37,000 people without diabetes who gave blood samples for the study."

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Wellcome Trust.