 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / July 2009Obesity emerges as new risk factor for severe flu
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1053710520090711 Obesity emerges as new risk factor for severe flu Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:02am EDT By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor WASHINGTON (Reuters) - People who are obese but otherwise healthy may be at special risk of severe complications and death from the new H1N1 swine flu virus, U.S. researchers reported on Friday. They described the cases of 10 patients at a Michigan hospital who were so ill they had to be put on ventilators. Three died. Nine of the 10 were obese, seven were severely obese, including two of the three who died. The study, published in advance in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's weekly report on death and disease, also suggests doctors can safely double the usual dose of oseltamivir, Roche AG's antiviral drug sold under the Tamiflu brand name. "What this suggests is that there can be severe complications associated with this virus infection, especially in severely obese patients," said CDC virus expert Dr. Tim Uyeki. "And five of these patients had ... evidence of blood clots in the lungs. This has not been previously known to occur in patients with severe influenza virus infections," Uyeki said in a telephone interview. Dr. Lena Napolitano of the University of Michigan Medical Center and colleagues studied the cases of 10 patients admitted to the university's intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by infection with H1N1. "Of the 10 patients, nine were obese (body mass index more than 30), including seven who were extremely obese (BMI more than 40)," they wrote in their report. Their study was not designed to see if obesity or anything else poses a special risk factor for flu. But the researchers were surprised to see that seven of the 10 patients were extremely obese. MULTIPLE ORGAN FAILURE Nine had multiple organ failure, which can be seen in influenza, but five had blood clots in the lungs, and six had kidney failure. None has fully recovered, the researchers said. The H1N1 swine flu virus first emerged in Mexico in March and was spreading out of control in the United States by the time it was identified at the end of April. The World Health Organization declared a pandemic in June. While it is causing moderate illness, all influenza viruses can be deadly and this one is no exception. It has killed close to 500 people globally, more than 200 in the United States alone. However, the new virus has a slightly different pattern from seasonal flu -- it spreads in the summer months, attacks young adults and older children, and may affect the body slightly differently. As with H5N1 avian influenza, which only rarely attacks people, patients seem to survive better if they get Tamiflu for longer than the usual five-day treatment course, Uyeki said. "We don't know if it is necessary for a higher dose of the drug to be given to patients who are obese," he said. "The high prevalence of obesity in this case series is striking," the CDC's commentary accompany the report reads. "Whether obesity is an independent risk factor for severe complications of novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection is unknown. Obesity has not been identified previously as a risk factor for severe complications of seasonal influenza." > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - People who are obese but otherwise healthy may > be at special risk of severe complications and death from the new > H1N1 swine flu virus, U.S. researchers reported on Friday. Does anyone else see a certain irony in that statement? -- > > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - People who are obese but otherwise healthy > > may be at special risk of severe complications and death from the > > new H1N1 swine flu virus, U.S. researchers reported on Friday. > > Does anyone else see a certain irony in that statement? You mean fat pigs dying from swine flu? -- > http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1053710520090711 > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > identified previously as a risk factor for severe complications of seasonal > influenza." http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deception-Government-Genetically-Engineered/d p/1903998417/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247189043&sr=1-3 Seeds of Deception: Exposing Corporate and Government Lies About the Safety of Genetically Engineered Food by Jeffrey M. Smith ? Paperback: 304 pages ? Publisher: Green Books (April 22, 2004) ? ISBN-10: 1903998417 ? ISBN-13: 978-1903998410 ? Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.1 x 0.8 inches ? Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds Seeds of Deception pg. 38 The complete body of research on the safety of GM foods also includes: a study published in a non-peer-reviewed journal, which demonstrated that tissue samples from the digestive tract of both humans and monkeys reacted with GM tomatoes in a test tube (33); an unpublished feeding study of a GM corn grown in the U.S., which showed an increased death rate among GM-fed chickens (34); studies comparing the nutritional content of GM foods with their natural counterparts, demonstrating clear differences between the two types of food; research demonstrating that GM foods can produce new allergens (see Chapter 6); highly controversial studies on the GM bovine growth hormone, which apparendy omitted incriminating data (see Chapter 3); and the industry's own studies, such as those submitted to the UK committee that had shocked Pusztai by their inadequacy. In spite of this small body of research, GM foods are a regular part of the U.S. diet. Approximately 80 percent of the soy and 38 percent of the corn planted in the US in 2003 is genetically engineered. Derivatives from these two crops are found in 70 percent of processed foods. In addition, 70 percent of the cotton crop and more than 60 percent of the canola crop, both use for cooking oil, are also genetically modified. About 75 percent of these crops are engineered to withstand otherwise deadly applications of an herbicide, 17 percent produce their own insecticide, and 8 percent are engineered to do both. There are also hundreds of foods produced with genetically engineered cooking agents, food additives, and enzymes, as well as varieties of GM squash and papaya. And there are dairy products from cows injected with a GM bovine growth hormone. All these are sold without labels identifying them as GMOs. The regulations in the U.S. are so lax, there are no required pre-market safety tests. There is no way to determine if these GM foods are creating serious health problems. People get sick all the time without tracking their illness to food, or pesticides, or air or water pollution. The causes remain well hidden. pg. 39 According to a March 2001 article in the New york Times, "The CDC [Center for Disease Control) now says that food is responsible for twice the number of illnesses in the United States as scientists thought just seven years ago. ... At least 80 percent of food-related illnesses are caused by viruses or other pathogens that scientists cannot even identify." (35) The reported cases include 5,000 deaths, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 76 million illnesses per year. This increase roughly corresponds to the period when Americans have been eating GM food. In addition, obesity has skyrocketed. In 1990, no state had 15 percent or more of its population in the obese category. By 2001, only one state didn't. Diabetes rose by 33 percent from 1990 to 1998, lymphatic cancers are up, and many other illnesses are on the rise. Is there a connection to GM foods? We have no way of knowing because no one has looked for one. --  Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn > In article <20090711132245.2B0CA4E...@poisonous.dizum.com>, > According to a March 2001 article in the New york Times, "The CDC [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > percent or more of its population in the obese category. By 2001, only > one state didn't. Umm, no. Obesity has nothing to do with engineered food. Americans are fat because they persist in eating high fructose corn syrup and grains. That stuff should only be fed to livestock. If they could just figure out that carbs are what food eats, they'd be thin. In article <845a24fc-5152-4ec9-a6f4-114546330b9d@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, > > In article <20090711132245.2B0CA4E...@poisonous.dizum.com>, > > According to a March 2001 article in the New york Times, "The CDC [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Umm, no. Obesity has nothing to do with engineered food. Feel free to argue the point, but don't give me your opinion as divine revelation. Citation please. In the mean time, we can all marvel at the coincidence of GMO food flooding the market at the same time as obesity and type II diabetes became an epidemic. http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/May2009-DoctorsWarn/ind ex.cfm > Americans are > fat because they persist in eating high fructose corn syrup and > grains. And why would that be? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html?pagewanted=1 &ei=5090&en=e8328c69f0b3f4be&ex=1334894400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person¹s wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight? Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. (In the typical American supermarket, the fresh foods ‹ dairy, meat, fish and produce ‹ line the perimeter walls, while the imperishable packaged goods dominate the center.) Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice. As a rule, processed foods are more ³energy dense² than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them ³junk.² Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly ‹ and get fat. ---- and http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_health_care/002657.html and Overweight itself constitutes ample evidence that many Americans consumr more calories than they burn off, but other sources of information also confirm the idea that people are eating too much food. The calories provided by the U.S. food supply increased from 3,200 per capita in 1970 to 3,900 in the late 1990s, an increase of 700 per day. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition, and Health, Revised and Expanded Edition (California Studies in Food and Culture) by Marion Nestle http://www.amazon.com/Food-Politics-Influences-Nutrition-California/dp/05 20254031/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244222934&sr=1-2 € ISBN-10: 0520254031 € ISBN-13: 978-0520254039 ---- Then, of course, there is the distribution of wealth thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/27/news/economy/state_of_working_america/ind ex.htm Grow your own? Not if Monsanto can help it. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12309 > That stuff should only be fed to livestock. If they could just > figure out that carbs are what food eats, they'd be thin. Two problems with this argument (?), is 1) the "cheese and pork rinds" Atkins' diet appears to increase LDLs, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090608162426.htm and other trials dumped the high fat in favor of veggies. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/story?id=5389423&page=1 http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=21656 and 2) there is no way that a high animal protein (fat) diet can be maintained with emerging economies wanting to live the American life style (we consume a quarter of the worlds energy) and the 9 billionth inhabitant of this planet is due by 2050. You may gleefully await the "Four Horsemen", I do not. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0421/p15s01-wmgn.html http://countercurrents.org/howden230607.htm Grow your own? Not if Monsanto can help it. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12309 Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn >In article ><845a24fc-5152-4ec9-a6f4-114546330b9d@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >flooding the market at the same time as obesity and type II diabetes >became an epidemic. Nature has been modifying the genes in our food randomly ever since life started. I see people getting/staying fat from non-genetically-modified food as well as with any old food - most of which is non-genetically-modified anyway. What is different from 4 decades ago: 1. People spend more time sitting in front of TVs, video games and computers than they did in the days before Internet, home computers, video games, DVDs and widespread use of VCRs. 2. People consume more mayo and salad dressing than before. And I see that few people are aware that most salad dressings have almost as many calories per ounce as sugar has, and mayo usually has even more calories per ounce than sugar has. 3. People consume more sugary soda and other sugary beverages than before. 4. People eat more at restaurants than before. 5. Bigger fattier burgers such as "Double Whopper", "Triple Whopper", "Double Quarter Pounder w/cheese", Wendy's "Triple", and the pounders available at some advertized restaurant chains became available during the last 3 decades. 6. People eat less veggies than before, and fill themselves up more on stuff with higher calorie density. 7. American jobs are on average more sedentary than they were 40 years ago. 8. Americans on average walk less to buy things from stores and while commuting to work than they did 40 years ago. 9. Fruit juices have more sugar than they had decades ago, mostly for reasons other than genetic modification, such as selective breeding (a means of "gene modification" that is OK with those who are against modifying DNA more directly). I suspect that corn similarly had caloric content increase over the decades, but people are not eating a lot of whole corn nowadays. So, Americans are doing more of what they were told 40 or more years ago would make them fat. And, Type II diabetes is caused primarily by being fat/overweight, distantly secondarily from excessive consumption of specifically surges of carbohydrates, counting mainly glucose portion and giving some more weight to simple rather than complex carbohydrates. A critical auto-immune reaction involves fat cells. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) >8. Americans on average walk less to buy things from stores and while >commuting to work than they did 40 years ago. > > - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) This brings to mind a saying that was common during the great depression. ------------------------------------ During the time of the great depression a common saying was "Did you bring your lunch or walk to work" The meaning - In the cash short days of the depression if one rode the bus to work he might not have enough change left to buy his lunch. --------------------------------------- In our present time some defenders of the fat say that poverty begets fatness. It takes very research to one to determine that during the cash short depression era we, as a nation, had a far less percentage of obesity. Joe > >In article > ><845a24fc-5152-4ec9-a6f4-114546330b9d@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > calories per ounce as sugar has, and mayo usually has even more > calories per ounce than sugar has. I though you were a high fat kind of guy? > 3. People consume more sugary soda and other sugary beverages than > before. Sweetened with high-fructose-corn-syrup. The liver requires a particular enzyme to convert fructose to glucose. When that pool of enzymes is used up, the fructose isn't converted. > 4. People eat more at restaurants than before. > > 5. Bigger fattier burgers such as "Double Whopper", "Triple Whopper", > "Double Quarter Pounder w/cheese", Wendy's "Triple", and the pounders > available at some advertized restaurant chains became available during > the last 3 decades. Again, I thought you were into high fat. > 6. People eat less veggies than before, and fill themselves up more > on stuff with higher calorie density. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > content increase over the decades, but people are not eating a lot of > whole corn nowadays. According to Michael Pollan, Americans eat more corn than Mexicans. The difference is that the corn is fractionated into many food additive products. http://www.vishniac.com/ephraim/corn-bother.html > So, Americans are doing more of what they were told 40 or more years ago > would make them fat. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) Nice anecdotal riff, not that it means anything. Inside a cell, there is a proof reader protein called a spliceosome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spliceosome When the cell sees a protein from another species, it can think that it is a mistake, take it apart and rearrange it, accidentally making a protein that normally doesn't exist in nature. Is this protein structural? part of an enzyme? good questions with no answers that I'm aware of. Part of the assembly of a gene for insertion is an enabler to ensure that the gene expresses itself and doesn't get turned off. One such enabler is the Cabbage Mosaic Virus (CaMV). About 98% of the DNA in our chromosomes has no obvious reason for being there. DNA that is no longer needed, and dormant viruses. Turns out, these CaMVs can separate from the inserted gene and go roaming around. They should be able to turn on latent DNA, that does god knows what, or they could turn on a latent virus. Remember, the CaMV is there to insure that the gene doesn't get turned off. GMOs haven't anything to do with obesity, or type II diabetes, you say? Maybe so, but for the foreseeable future, I'm eating organic. Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn > 5. Bigger fattier burgers such as "Double Whopper", "Triple Whopper", > "Double Quarter Pounder w/cheese", Wendy's "Triple", and the pounders > available at some advertized restaurant chains became available during > the last 3 decades. Used to be a quarter pounder was something special to crow about. Now, its the base. With cheese and 3 or 4 other patties, Russian dressing, french fries and a 32 ounce drink, that, fortunately is half to 3/4 ice, the only healthy part of the meal. Unless, of course, one is *really*, starving. In Russia itself is health food. Snack with vodka is piece of pork fat. > In article > <845a24fc-5152-4ec9-a6f4-114546330...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Feel free to argue the point, but don't give me your opinion as divine > revelation. Citation please. Start with the USDA human food pyramid. It is EXACTLY the same as the hog fattening diet promoted by the Ag department, except the pigs get an extra serving of carbs. So...if it makes pigs fat,..do the math. People who are fat and say they are eating a low-carb diet are either liars or they're cheating. It's simply not possible. I've been low-carbing since the 1980s, and I've put hundreds of clients on the path to good health over the years. Some people, however, prefer eating sugar to being healthy and feeling good. > Start with the USDA human food pyramid. It is EXACTLY the same as the > hog fattening diet promoted by the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Some people, however, prefer eating sugar to being healthy and feeling > good. Agree. Even Weight Watchers has opened its eyes and turned towards the low-carb option. I have nothing against complex carbs, in moderation of course. But potatos, pasta, bread, most cereals, etc. have nothing to offer. Even if you are not diabetic, a low-carb lifestyle is beneficial. It all boils down to one thing - your caloric intake must not be more than your caloric expenditure, no matter what diet you chose to follow. > > Start with the USDA human food pyramid. It is EXACTLY the same as the > > hog fattening diet promoted by the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > not be more than your caloric expenditure, no matter what diet you chose > to follow. Agreed, but what diet can you afford in the near term? There are a lot of financially strapped people right now. It's easy to get lost in keeping your job, doing the shopping, cleaning the house, doing the dishes, paying the bills, helping junior with homework, changing your oil, sometimes you just want to sit down, and not think, have a Coke, eat some chips, and relax (and they gotcha). Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn > > > People who are fat and say they are eating a low-carb diet are either > > > liars or they're cheating. It's simply not possible. > > > I've been low-carbing since the 1980s, and I've put hundreds of > > > clients on the path to good health over the years. > > > Some people, however, prefer eating sugar to being healthy and feeling > > > good. On the Atkins web site there was an example of someone on a confirmed low carb deit who still gained new fat stores over time. When a careful review of all intake was done it turned out the person was eating a stick of butter flavored with cinnamon each night as a snack. That's 100 additional grams of fat in a plan that already had around 100 without the snack. So it's possible to gain when really eating low carb but it takes a rediculous amount of extra fat calories. On the other hand it's not all that hard to eat enough extra fat to not lose - Calories matter and the Atkins book does not say to use the appetite suppression of low carb to taper down portion sizes. I think it's implicit in the plan but many folks want chapter and verse quoted from the book and it doesn't appear in the book. > > Agree. Even Weight Watchers has opened its eyes and turned towards the > > low-carb option. I have nothing against complex carbs, in moderation of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > not be more than your caloric expenditure, no matter what diet you chose > > to follow. For many high carb foods are addictive because of the insulin swings. For many that doesn't happen and we get a constant flow of folks who use the weak minded logic that since eating high carb foods for them does not trigger endless hunger and cravings therefore it doesn't happen with anyone. > Agreed, but what diet can you afford in the near term? When discussing what works it's not about economics. Do not confuse economic need with what actually works. If you are so impoverished that you can't afford enough calories in a day even just eating rice and beans, you'll lose weight and be constantly hungry. It's the same weak minded logic as folks who assert that people in concentration camps always lose weight - Remove any choice in what foods to eat and any type of plan works just fine. > There are a lot > of financially strapped people right now. It's easy to get lost in Many new low carbers have no idea how to shop for low carb food without the expensive options. Ignorance of how to shop does not equal endless expensive meals. It's a skill that gets learned. > keeping your job, doing the shopping, cleaning the house, doing the > dishes, paying the bills, helping junior with homework, changing your > oil, sometimes you just want to sit down, and not think, have a Coke, > eat some chips, and relax (and they gotcha). Life happens. Any plan that doesn't take that into account has a problem. The addictive nature of high carb foods means that some folks have to practice complete avoidance, and yet other people don't get addictive reactions so they don't need to practice complete avoidance. It's necessary to learn what knocks each person off plan and then avoid it. >Many new low carbers have no idea how to shop for low carb >food without the expensive options. Ignorance of how to shop >does not equal endless expensive meals. It's a skill that gets >learned. Most PEOPLE, low-carbers included, have no idea how to shop, period. We buy meat, dairy, nuts, fresh fruit and veggies, and very small amounts of canned or bottled foods like mayo, pickles, tomato sauce, etc. That's it. I am always amazed when I look at the crap in most shopping carts. People think that buying prepared tomato sauce is just as good as buying a can of just tomatoes and adding their own spices, veggies, etc., but they don't know or don't care that many, if not most, commercial "heat-and- eat" sauces contain high fructose corn syrup or other sugar. You can spend $3 on a small jar of sugary junk or you can buy an armload of cans containing just tomatoes and eat for a week. And that's just the first example that popped into my head. Eating low-carb isn't expensive, as long as you make the food from scratch. A home-made steak and salad dinner is less expensive than a frozen pizza or a meal of hamburger helper and rolls. And it takes less time to make, too. People pay for "convenience" with their wallets and their health. Shrug. At least they'll die young from diet-related illnesses thus keeping the population in check. In article <96ca345d-e2f5-465c-ae05-5cb488d0d2b4@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > People who are fat and say they are eating a low-carb diet are either > > > > liars or they're cheating. It's simply not possible. [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > complete avoidance. It's necessary to learn what knocks each > person off plan and then avoid it. I like your lectures better when you don't use ad hominem attacks like "weak minded". It means that you can't explain, so you characterize (denigrate). You can do better than that. Yes, as Pollen and Nestle say, eat around the edges of the store, where the real food is, and avoid the center, where the processed, nutrient poor, food is. But if you are trying to feed your family, and have money left over to house and cloth them, the low price of junk food is seductive. I suggest that you look at this phenomenon in a Skinnerian sense ( a Mahayana sense, if you will) as to what social action can we take to save society, not just ourselves. Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn In article <96ca345d-e2f5-465c-ae05-5cb488d0d2b4@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, > On the other hand it's not all that hard to eat enough extra fat > to not lose - Calories matter and the Atkins book does not say > to use the appetite suppression of low carb to taper down > portion sizes. I think it's implicit in the plan but many folks > want chapter and verse quoted from the book and it doesn't > appear in the book. Doesn't say eat enough to satisfy hunger? In article <62ee6d61-7fa4-4ee8-a39a-4c11121200e4@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <845a24fc-5152-4ec9-a6f4-114546330...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Ag department, except the pigs get an extra serving of carbs. So...if > it makes pigs fat,..do the math. Do you have any idea of how to make an argument? What you pull out of you a.s is insufficient. Can I have a cite on the hog fattening diet or is this just an exercise in making yourself feel good by putting down others. If so, then you may be thin, but it has rotted your brain. Here is how you make an argument. Ibid. pg 10 In comparison to the Pyramid, American diets clearly are out of balance, as shown in Figure 2. Top-heavy as it is (see synopsis below), it underestimates the discrepancy between recommended and actual servings. For one thing, the USDA's serving estimates are based on self-reports of dietary intake, but people tend to underreport the intake of foods considered undesirable and to overestimate the consumption of "healthy" foods. For another, the USDA calculates numbers of servings by adding up the individual components of mixed dishes and assigning them to the appropriate Pyramid categories. This means that the flour in cookies is assigned to the grain category, the apples in pies to the fruit group, and the potatoes in chips to the vegetable group. This method may yield more precise information about nutrient intake, but it makes high-calorie, low-nutrient foods appear as better nutritional choices than they may be. The assignment of the tomatoes in ketchup to the vegetable group only reinforces the absurdity of the USDA's famous attempt during the Reagan administration to count ketchup as a vegetable in the federal school lunch program.(10) The comparison hides other unwelcome observations. USDA nutritionists report that the average consumption of whole-grain foods is just one serving per day, well below recommended levels. And although the number of vegetable servings appears close to recommendations, half the servings come from just three foods: iceberg lettuce, potatoes (frozen, fresh, and those used for chips and fries), and canned tomatoes. When fried potatoes are excluded from the count, vegetable servings fall below three per day. Even though the consumption of reduced-fat dairy products has doubled since 1970, half the dairy servings still come from high-fat, high-calorie cheese and whole milk. Servings of added fats are at least one-third higher than they should be, and servings of caloric sweeteners are half again as high. From such observations, we can conclude that the increased calories in American diets come from eating more food in general, but especially more of foods high in fat (meat, dairy, fried foods, grain dishes with added fat), sugar (soft drinks, juice drinks, desserts), and salt (snack foods).(11) It can hardly be a coincidence that these are just the foods that are most profitable to the food industry and that it most vigorously promotes. (What a coincidence) It appears that advertising works. > People who are fat and say they are eating a low-carb diet are either > liars or they're cheating. It's simply not possible. Well let's see. According to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Americans are eating 3.7 servings of oil, fat, and sweets (suggested: use sparingly) 1.3 servings of dairy (suggested: 2 - 3 servings) 2.6 servings of meat, beans, nuts (suggested: 3 servings) 2.0 servings of vegetables (suggested: 3 - 5 servings) 1.0 servings of fruit (suggested: 2 - 4 servings) 5.1 servings of bread, grain, pasta (suggested: 6 - 11) When you consider that fat, be it from meat or dairy, has been vilified, I would guess that it has been under reported, as would meat. Vegetables, fruits, and whole grain has been praised, so they have probably been over reported. Looks like Mr. and Mrs. America ARE eating a high fat - low carb diet when compared to the recommended diet. > I've been low-carbing since the 1980s, and I've put hundreds of > clients on the path to good health over the years. Right, this is all about you. Good luck with that. Come stand where you are and we can all see the light too (pompous, and has a vested interest). > Some people, however, prefer eating sugar to being healthy and feeling > good. And you obviously are among the elect. Didn't you read the Michael Pollan piece about cheap calories, did you? "Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice. As a rule, processed foods are more ³energy dense² than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them ³junk.² Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly ‹ and get fat." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html?pagewanted=1 &ei=5090&en=e8328c69f0b3f4be&ex=1334894400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss What you could have suggested is that the Farm Subsidy could be amended to produce more vegetables and fruit, and less grain. You could have suggested that until we understand GMO oils (canola, soy, and cotton seed) that they be pulled from the market. They don't produce more oil than standard crops anyway. You could have suggested tighter control of junk food advertising being aimed at children. What do you give us? We should be like you? God help us. Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn In article <845a24fc-5152-4ec9-a6f4-114546330b9d@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, > > In article <20090711132245.2B0CA4E...@poisonous.dizum.com>, > > According to a March 2001 article in the New york Times, "The CDC [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > grains. That stuff should only be fed to livestock. If they could just > figure out that carbs are what food eats, they'd be thin. I forgot to mention that the evils of GMO foods is passed on the the consumer of them. Feed Bossy GMO foods, and then eat Bossy, bim, batta, boom, all the strange allergens and toxins caused by the not-so-carefully-targeted genes are yours to deal with. But that will have to be another post. Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn >> In article <20090711132245.2B0CA4E...@poisonous.dizum.com>, >> According to a March 2001 article in the New york Times, "The CDC [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >grains. That stuff should only be fed to livestock. If they could just >figure out that carbs are what food eats, they'd be thin. I see plenty of fat people eating everything except carbs and staying fat. Most of the few-non-overweight people and successfully-weight-losing people that I see the diets of eat at least about as many carbs as other calorie forms combined. It's the calories. Too many Americans are consuming too many calories of all forms, eating food mostly of higher calorie density than is recommended (mostly due to less veggies and fiber, after that high fat content because fat is more calorie-dense than anything else), and burning a lot fewer calories by exercise than they did decades ago. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) > >> In article <20090711132245.2B0CA4E...@poisonous.dizum.com>, > >> According to a March 2001 article in the New york Times, "The CDC [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) I get the "free will" stuff but you have to understand that advertising works. Q. How does the food industry promote overeating? A. Just by promoting eating. By spending $10 billion a year in direct media advertising. That is so much more than is spent on health and nutrition education, you can't even put them in the same stratosphere. The campaign for fruits and vegetables spends about $2 million a year on public education. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900EFD81E3FF93AA25751C0A9 649C8B63 A CONVERSATION WITH: MARION NESTLE; An 'Eat More' Message For a Fattened America This plus easy access to inexpensive, high calorie, nutrition-poor foods. Moreover, there seems to be a strong argument the the main constituents of these foods are GMOs which have shown in limited lab studies to be toxic. This toxicity is transferable to their consumers, not just in a nutritional way, but in a genetic way as well. I am presently trying to make sense of GMOs by reading Mendel's Kitchen (a pro-GMO book) and Seeds of Deception (an anti GMO book). I agree that people need to take responsibility for their actions, BUT they are following the advice that has been given for the last fifty years, low fat - high carbs. Additionally, we are being gamed by food producers and retailers to their profit. Lastly, a diet high in animal products is not sustainable for a waxing middle class world of nine billion people. Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn "Billy" <wildbilly@without_a.net> wrote in message news:wildbilly- Lastly, a diet high in > animal products is not sustainable for a waxing middle class world of > nine billion people. That's just one of the myriad of reasons that we need to get human population down to 2-3 billion. If we refuse to control human breeding then perhaps the planet will do it for us. What we really need is a good pandemic, not that wussy swine flu. > "Billy" <wildbilly@without_a.net> wrote in message news:wildbilly- > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > perhaps the planet will do it for us. What we really need is a good > pandemic, not that wussy swine flu. I volunteer you first. Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn > "Billy" <wildbilly@without_a.net> wrote in message news:wildbilly- > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's just one of the myriad of reasons that we need to get human > population down to 2-3 billion. That is not going to happen. > If we refuse to control human breeding The modern first world has already done that. Not one modern first world country is even self replacing if you take out migration. > then perhaps the planet will do it for us. Not a chance. > What we really need is a good pandemic, not that wussy swine flu. Even that wont do it. Spanish flu didnt. >> What we really need is a good pandemic, not that wussy swine flu. > > Even that wont do it. Spanish flu didnt. I can hope, though, can't I? >>> What we really need is a good pandemic, not that wussy swine flu. >> >> Even that wont do it. Spanish flu didnt. > I can hope, though, can't I? Pointless. Modern medicine stops that from happening even with the spanish flu. Odd, if you pay attention to the little pointy things on the left, it looks as if, along with Rev. Hagee, I'm calling for divine retribution to be brought down up on us in the form of a pandemic. Uh-uh, not me. > > "Billy" <wildbilly@without_a.net> wrote in message news:wildbilly- > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The modern first world has already done that. Not one modern > first world country is even self replacing if you take out migration. But then, most "modern" countries don't depend on subsistence farming, which needs many hands (economies of size), which is undercut by subsidized American grains that sell for less than the cost of production. > > then perhaps the planet will do it for us. > > Not a chance. Ouais, chance. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00037A5D- A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000 Impact from the Deep Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again? > > What we really need is a good pandemic, not that wussy swine flu. > > Even that wont do it. Spanish flu didnt. Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn > Odd, if you pay attention to the little pointy things on the left, it > looks as if, along with Rev. Hagee, I'm calling for divine retribution > to be brought down up on us in the form of a pandemic. No calling for devine retribution visible. > Uh-uh, not me. >>> "Billy" <wildbilly@without_a.net> wrote in message news:wildbilly- [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> The modern first world has already done that. Not one modern >> first world country is even self replacing if you take out migration. > But then, most "modern" countries don't depend on subsistence farming, > which needs many hands (economies of size), which is undercut by > subsidized American grains that sell for less than the cost of production. Doesn't alter the fact that that's their problem, not ours. They aint the middle class, stupid. >>> then perhaps the planet will do it for us. >> >> Not a chance. > Ouais, chance. Wrong. > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00037A5D-A938-15 0E-A93883414B7F0000 > > Impact from the Deep > > Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not > asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions. Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim. > Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again? You aint established that they ever did. >>> What we really need is a good pandemic, not that wussy swine flu. >> >> Even that wont do it. Spanish flu didnt. > >> In article <20090711132245.2B0CA4E...@poisonous.dizum.com>, > >> According to a March 2001 article in the New york Times, "The CDC [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) Or as some say, "over-fed and under nourished". Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn In addition, obesity has skyrocketed. In 1990, no state had 15 > percent or more of its population in the obese category. By 2001, only > one state didn't. Diabetes rose by 33 percent from 1990 to 1998, > lymphatic cancers are up, and many other illnesses are on the rise. Is > there a connection to GM foods? We have no way of knowing because no one > has looked for one. GM foods do not cause obesity. Overeating and under exercising cause obesity. Don't try and blame GM food or any other food. > In addition, obesity has skyrocketed. In 1990, no state had 15 > > percent or more of its population in the obese category. By 2001, only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > GM foods do not cause obesity. Overeating and under exercising cause > obesity. Don't try and blame GM food or any other food. Do you have a citation for you opinion? So far it is coincidental that GM food (corn, soy, and canola and cotton seed oil) enterd the food chain in quantity just as the obesity epidemic broke out. If you don't have a citation for your opinion why don't you STFU? Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn > Do you have a citation for you opinion? So far it is coincidental that > GM food (corn, soy, and canola and cotton seed oil) enterd the food > chain in quantity just as the obesity epidemic broke out. If you don't > have a citation for your opinion why don't you STFU? As everyone who knows anything about statistics understands, just because two things happen together doesn't mean one caused the other. You want a cite? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation Come back when you've read, and understand, that citation. Cell phones started becoming common just as the obesity epidemic broke out. Ethanol started being added to gasoline just as the obesity epidemic broke out. Leonardo DiCaprio became a popular actor just as the obesity epidemic broke out. Hell, the obesity epidemic _really_ began when homes got TV sets and cars. People are fat because they eat more energy than they burn. > > Do you have a citation for you opinion? So far it is coincidental that > > GM food (corn, soy, and canola and cotton seed oil) enterd the food [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > People are fat because they eat more energy than they burn. Look Hedda has been a troll in other newsgroups, I see no reason to think Hedda has changed. Now if YOU can read, I have made it abundantly clear that this coincidence of GMOs and obesity/type II are connected, but it isn't reassuring either. Now if you want to simplemindedly pick on this one observation, and ignore the rest of the information, knock yourself out. If you want further reading, try http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid= 19381015 Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans This is only pertinent to GMOs because most most high fructose corn syrup (if not all) comes from GMO corn. Signature- Billy There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Will Rogers http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.