 |
 | 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 / April 2005More European men getting supersized
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7197750/ Obesity a bigger problem in some countries than in U.S. The Associated Press Updated: 4:51 p.m. ET March 28, 2005 BRUSSELS, Belgium - At least seven European countries now challenge the United States in size — at least around the waistline. In a group of nations from Greece to Germany, the proportion of overweight or obese men is higher than in the United States, experts said Tuesday in a major analysis of expanding girth on the European continent. “The time when obesity was thought to be a problem on the other side of the Atlantic has gone by,” said Mars Di Bartolomeo, Luxembourg’s Minister of Health. In Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Malta and Slovakia, a higher percentage of men are obese or overweight than the estimated 67 percent of men in the United States, according to a report from the International Obesity Task Force, a coalition of researchers and institutions. The analysis was released as the 25-nation European Union announced an initiative to enlist the food and marketing industries in the fight against fat. Problem worst in Mediterranean countries Obesity is especially acute in Mediterranean countries, underscoring concerns that people in the southern region are turning away from the traditional diet of fish, fruits and vegetables to fast food high in fat and refined carbohydrates. ------ Ok, these people have access to all the great food in the world. Yet they are turning to FF? Why could that possibly be? > Obesity is especially acute in Mediterranean countries, underscoring > concerns that people in the southern region are turning away from the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ok, these people have access to all the great food in the world. Yet > they are turning to FF? Why could that possibly be? I have hard times believing that those people used to really subsist on a diet of fish, fruits and vegetables. Sounds highly unlikely for a variety of economic reasons. Probably an invention of the journalist who wrote the article.  Signature223/175.9/180 > I have hard times believing that those people used to really subsist > on a diet of fish, fruits and vegetables. Sounds highly unlikely for a > variety of economic reasons. Probably an invention of the journalist > who wrote the article. I hope you are kidding. But in case not, what else what they have eaten because that's what was around them. Now they are getting a choice. And FF has it. >> I have hard times believing that those people used to really subsist >> on a diet of fish, fruits and vegetables. Sounds highly unlikely for a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > because that's what was around them. Now they are getting a choice. And > FF has it. Check out this link: http://www.a-nutritional-supplements.com/conf04a58.htm ``we have collected consumption data for 15 major commodities from FAO Food Balance Sheets for the years 1962-1998 and calculated the averages all in kg/head/year over this 37 yr period for Spain, France, Italy, Malta, Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco'' Countries Potato Rice Wheat Cereals Maize Fruits Vegetables Middle Mediterranean countries 35.5 4.5 146.5 173 4 81.5 143 Countries Animal fat Vegetable oils Olive oil Fish Meat Milk Pulses Wine Middle Mediterranean countries 4.5 10 2.15 6 32.5 145.5 6.5 3 As you can see, they eat a small quantity of fish (as it should be, there is no enough fish to feed everyone), and a modest but respectable quantity of vegetables. The vegetables are, as it should be for obvious economic reasons, surpassed by wheat and other cereals. Since a pound of dry cereal contains much more calories than a pound of vegetables, contribution of cereals to calories eaten is even more magnified. Amount of meat that they eat exceeds the amount of fish that they eat, by 5.5 times. Hardly nations of fish eaters. Signature223/175.9/180 > Amount of meat that they eat exceeds the amount of fish that they eat, > by 5.5 times. Hardly nations of fish eaters. So why would they be switching to FF? > > Amount of meat that they eat exceeds the amount of fish that they eat, > > by 5.5 times. Hardly nations of fish eaters. > > So why would they be switching to FF? Because they are lazy, ignorant, and just plain stupid like most people are. What is your point? SignatureDr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov >>So why would they be switching to FF? > > Because they are lazy, ignorant, and just plain stupid like most people are. > What is your point? Well good, at least it's not just americans then. I guess were just the laziest and stupidest. So you really think it's just laziness, ignorance, and stupidity? I might say your superficial analysis shows all the same qualities. And again, what's YOUR point? People eat fast food because it is easy (hence the laziness) and we are evolutionarily programmed to desire high calorie (i.e. fatty and sugary) foods. To give in to that desire is ignorant, or stupid, considering the consequences. YOUR point is? SignatureDr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov > >>So why would they be switching to FF? > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So you really think it's just laziness, ignorance, and stupidity? I > might say your superficial analysis shows all the same qualities. > And again, what's YOUR point? > People eat fast food because it is easy (hence the laziness) and we are > evolutionarily programmed to desire high calorie (i.e. fatty and sugary) > foods. So that's not lazy and stupid, no more than it for a car to burn gas. >To give in to that desire is ignorant, or stupid, considering the > consequences. If you are designed a certain way then not being successful at acting the complete opposite cannot be considered ignorant and stupid. Consequences don't change out nature. When falling off a building the consequence of gravity is death, yet that does not change the nature of gravity. > YOUR point is? I am too lazy and stupid to have one. > > And again, what's YOUR point? > > People eat fast food because it is easy (hence the laziness) and we are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > consequence of gravity is death, yet that does not change the nature of > gravity. Your ability to use logic and reasoning is impaired. Times have changed from when our genes were designed (and too quickly for them to change with the times). To act in a way that results in illness, impairment, or early death is ignorant or stupid. We were designed to die at about 30-40 years of age, so if you persist in living past that time, you are acting contray to your body's design. What are you going to do? SignatureDr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov > > YOUR point is? > > I am too lazy and stupid to have one. I am coming around to your way of thinking on this! > Your ability to use logic and reasoning is impaired. Comming from you i must infer then my logic and reasoning are excellent. > Times have changed from when our genes were designed (and too quickly for > them to change with the times). To act in a way that results in illness, > impairment, or early death is ignorant or stupid. Not if people value something else more. There's no objective reason to value the future threat of illness over the current guarantee of pleasure. > We were designed to die at about 30-40 years of age, so if you persist in > living past that time, you are acting contray to your body's design. What > are you going to do? Decay. We weren't designed to die at that time, we just weren't designed to live. You could make an argument that grand parents also contribute to the fitness of the group so there is a reason for longer lifetimes. > > Your ability to use logic and reasoning is impaired. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not if people value something else more. There's no objective reason to > value the future threat of illness over the current guarantee of pleasure. Ohh, that is kina what cilivilazation is based on. Why not bash in your neighbors head, take his house if it is better than yours. Take his food if it is better than yours. If if feels good do it! The '60's are over, man. Move on. > > We were designed to die at about 30-40 years of age, so if you persist in > > living past that time, you are acting contray to your body's design. What > > are you going to do? > > Decay. We weren't designed to die at that time, we just weren't designed > to live. True enough, poor choice of words on my part. Not designed to die, just not live longer than. >You could make an argument that grand parents also contribute > to the fitness of the group so there is a reason for longer lifetimes. Today, yeah, 15,000 years ago. Nope. The old slowed you down, the sick slowed you down, make you more susceptible to prey. They were not contributing to the fitness of the group. SignatureDr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov >>Not if people value something else more. There's no objective reason to >>value the future threat of illness over the current guarantee of pleasure. > > Ohh, that is kina what cilivilazation is based on. Civilization is based on not getting fat? What history have you been smoking? >Why not bash in your > neighbors head, take his house if it is better than yours. Take his food if > it is better than yours. If if feels good do it! > The '60's are over, man. Move on. Apples and oranges. Bashing heads may be a pleasure to you, but not to me. > Today, yeah, 15,000 years ago. Nope. The old slowed you down, the sick > slowed you down, make you more susceptible to prey. They were not > contributing to the fitness of the group. Once out of child birth people 15,000 years ago were pretty healthy. They were as large and more muscular than we are today. So it may not be as bad as you have portrayed, but we really don't know. The !Kung don't look that feeble to me. >> Today, yeah, 15,000 years ago. Nope. The old slowed you down, the sick >> slowed you down, make you more susceptible to prey. They were not >> contributing to the fitness of the group. > > Once out of child birth people 15,000 years ago were pretty healthy. Stacey, you're truly amazing. Not only can you see across thousands of miles of ocean to find us all in the Mediterranean resorts eating fast food, you also have a time tunnel and can see 15,000 years into the past! > They were as large and more muscular than we are today. So it may not be > as bad as you have portrayed, but we really don't know. Finally, you admit there's something you don't know. Is your special Net connection down? > Finally, you admit there's something you don't know. Is your special Net > connection down? Uh, there's a lot i don't know. But when i have done a lot reasearch in area i don't back down either. But i am also willing to be convinced otherwise with good arguments. I would be a little more fun if you didn't see it so much as competition. >> > Amount of meat that they eat exceeds the amount of fish that they eat, >> > by 5.5 times. Hardly nations of fish eaters. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are. > What is your point? So you guys not only know exactly the rate of fast food consumption in Mediterranean countries but also the reasons for that *hypothetical* consumption. You guys must have some extraordinary sources, since I'm sitting here, less than 100 yards from the Med & I don't have a clue! You guys are thousands of miles away and have all the answers, could it be that your internet connections give you access to privileged information? or is it a natural gift? What have seen is that FF in the Med is nowhere nearly as popular as it is in the US & the UK. Most people eating FF appear to be tourists rather than natives. God knows where they're from, as these are truly international tourist resorts. FF is also popular mostly amongst the young, teenagers in particular. But these teens are mostly slim and very active. I also don't think it's only men who are overweight, women are just as plump. This is not a theory or a study but observations straight from the street & the beach, where you *really* see how fat people are. I wouldn't say people here are getting supersized, although I'm not sure where the threshold is, I take 'supersized' to mean over 300lbs. or thereabouts. What you have seen is a report on the increasing numbers of overweight people in Europe, which, judging by what I could see on the beach today, is the truth. However, you don't see morbidly obese people around here, herein lies the difference. America is not the only country with fat people, it's just that the fat are fatter over there. Before you ask, yes, I do know the US quite well. > >> > Amount of meat that they eat exceeds the amount of fish that they eat, > >> > by 5.5 times. Hardly nations of fish eaters. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > consumption. You guys must have some extraordinary sources, since I'm > sitting here, less than 100 yards from the Med & I don't have a clue! Shouldn't that be meters? :-) GG > You > guys are thousands of miles away and have all the answers, could it be that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > just that the fat are fatter over there. Before you ask, yes, I do know the > US quite well. >> So you guys not only know exactly the rate of fast food consumption in >> Mediterranean countries but also the reasons for that *hypothetical* >> consumption. You guys must have some extraordinary sources, since I'm >> sitting here, less than 100 yards from the Med & I don't have a clue! > > Shouldn't that be meters? :-) Good point, I'm also struggling with the pedometer units, not to mention steps'n'strides... > >> > Amount of meat that they eat exceeds the amount of fish that they eat, > >> > by 5.5 times. Hardly nations of fish eaters. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > just that the fat are fatter over there. Before you ask, yes, I do know the > US quite well. I have no clue as to the specific reason any individual eats fast food to the extent that they get fat; however, I think that generally speaking fast food has caught on because it is...well, fast (i.e. easy to get) and the fact that it taps into our pleasure centers with fat and sugar. Is there a more logical explanation? If so, I haven't heard one yet. SignatureDr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov > What you have seen is a report on the increasing numbers of overweight > people in Europe, which, judging by what I could see on the beach today, is > the truth. I'd imagine that the same non-eating trends are occurring in many places- more private ownership of cars, less walking, less public transport, more use of computers/video games/TV/sitting in front of screens for all ages, more jobs including sitting and fewer including physical labor. Ilene B >> Amount of meat that they eat exceeds the amount of fish that they eat, >> by 5.5 times. Hardly nations of fish eaters. > > So why would they be switching to FF? You are changing the subject. It is not the issue that I originally pointed out. The article was likely wrong in describing their previous diet, and that's what I brought to attention. I wonder whether there is a basis in fact (as in, annual consumption) to blame FF for their current weight gain. I do not particularly trust that article. I doubt veracity of that article altogether. What is the magnitude of their "switching to FF" and is the amount of FF that they eat enough to account for their weight gain. Maybe the fat mediterraneans simply eat more of their regular food these days, or more of some other type of food. And, also, remember that a typical FF meal is composed of ingredients similar to their normal meals: meat and grains. Just packaged slightly differently and wrapped in paper. Signature223/175.9/180 > You are changing the subject. It is not the issue that I originally > pointed out. > > The article was likely wrong in describing their previous diet, and > that's what I brought to attention. In the big mediteranian diet hub bub i heard a number of reports that the diets are very different in different regions, so it may be hard to abstract out a general picture of "the" diet. > I wonder whether there is a basis in fact (as in, annual consumption) > to blame FF for their current weight gain. Me too. But i know any claim of fact is easily explained away by this or that. > I doubt veracity of that article altogether. What is the magnitude of > their "switching to FF" and is the amount of FF that they eat enough > to account for their weight gain. Maybe the fat mediterraneans simply > eat more of their regular food these days, or more of some other type > of food. I am sure we will be seeing more on the subject. > And, also, remember that a typical FF meal is composed of ingredients > similar to their normal meals: meat and grains. Just packaged slightly > differently and wrapped in paper. The jolt of calories, fat, and sugar in a FF meal is nothing like a real meal. That's would puts FF in the same league as drugs for addiction purposes. >> You are changing the subject. It is not the issue that I originally >> pointed out. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the diets are very different in different regions, so it may be hard to > abstract out a general picture of "the" diet. I agree with that. I consider the whole "mediterranean diet" concept to be a huge hoax. Someone was trying to become famous to make $$. We had a hydration hoax, mediterranean hoax, fiber is good against IBS hoax, etc. >> I wonder whether there is a basis in fact (as in, annual consumption) >> to blame FF for their current weight gain. > > Me too. But i know any claim of fact is easily explained away by > this or that. You see, coming back to the article you posted, the only real fact reported was that europeans were getting fatter. That was the fact. The mention of FF and fruits and vegetables was not a fact, but speculation and fluff. Read it again: > Obesity is especially acute in Mediterranean countries that's a statement of fact > , underscoring concerns that people in the southern region are > turning away from the traditional diet of fish, fruits and > vegetables to fast food high in fat and refined carbohydrates. "underscoring concerns" is a statement of speculation. Fluff. A few years ago, I spent a long time preparing for a GMAT test (for admission to business schools). As part of that test, I had to do a "critical reading skills" section, or whatever it was called, that tested our ability to discern where there is a statement of fact, where there is speculation, and where are hidden misstatements or misleading statements. Preparing for that section turned out to be highly valuable in life. >> I doubt veracity of that article altogether. What is the magnitude of >> their "switching to FF" and is the amount of FF that they eat enough [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I am sure we will be seeing more on the subject. Agreed. >> And, also, remember that a typical FF meal is composed of ingredients >> similar to their normal meals: meat and grains. Just packaged slightly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > meal. That's would puts FF in the same league as drugs for addiction > purposes. That is, possibly, true. Signature223/175.9/180 >> I have hard times believing that those people used to really subsist >> on a diet of fish, fruits and vegetables. Sounds highly unlikely for a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I hope you are kidding. But in case not, what else what they have eaten > because that's what was around them. Have you ever been near the Mediterranean? I ask this 'coz I've been swimming in it earlier in the day, it's a very popular destination for people living in colder parts of Europe. I remarked on the number of overweight people on the beach, who seemed the majority. A few could even be considered obese, however, what you don't see is morbid obesity. Very few people seem to fall into that category. The US may not have a larger percentage of overweight people but those who are fat are a lot fatter, probably a consequence of the super-sized portions offered everywhere, not just in FF places, also in proper restaurants. Ask for a single ice-cream around here & you get less than half the size of a single ice-cream in the US, which is the amount a child would eat. Countries in the Mediterranean region produce all sorts of food, including meat, grains and dairy products. The so-called 'healthy Mediterranean diet' is largely a myth. As an example, in Spain people consume an awful lot of fat, especially saturated fat from highly processed pork products, many of them laden with chemicals so as to make them last for months. Salads are often drowned in mayo. French fries rule. Fresh fruit is available in supermarkets but not as ubiquitous as you may think. > Now they are getting a choice. There's always been a choice, the Mediterranean has been 'civilised' for thousands of years and people have been travelling around importing food from other places even before Biblical times. Marco Polo brought pasta to Italy from the Far East. Columbus discovered America trying to find a shorter way to India to import condiments & species from there. > And FF has it. Fast food is everywhere but it's not the only cause of obesity. European food (fast or otherwise) portions are not as excessive as US portions and there are many kinds of fast food, not just the McD's variety we all know so well. But home cooked or proper restaurant food can also be fattening and eating a heavy lunch followed by siesta, a very late dinner just before bedtime and a breakfast consisting only of coffee & refined carbs (baked goods) is far from ideal. Welcome to the real Mediterranean. >>> I have hard times believing that those people used to really subsist >>> on a diet of fish, fruits and vegetables. Sounds highly unlikely for a [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > bedtime and a breakfast consisting only of coffee & refined carbs (baked > goods) is far from ideal. Welcome to the real Mediterranean. Thanks for a great post. Signature223/175.9/180 > > Obesity is especially acute in Mediterranean countries, underscoring > > concerns that people in the southern region are turning away from the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > variety of economic reasons. Probably an invention of the journalist > who wrote the article. What?? Lol! Of course they do. They have for centuries. Fish is cheap, especially if you live along the ocean as much of the countries of Italy and Greece do. Look at a map, you might get a clue. Martha |
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.