Weight loss support with a spiritual element. I will keep you posted on my journey in the hopes that you will join me in becoming the person God wants you to be. Don't worry about being religious. Come as you are.




Saturday, February 2, 2013

From: The Center for Consumer Freedom



Big Fat Lies

The Truth about the Obesity Debate

A growing number of public health activists are downplaying individual responsibility while blaming food and food companies for rising obesity rates. To make their spurious points, they spread a number of half-truths and myths about obesity.
  • Activists argue that “junk” foods, such as cupcakes, potato chips, and fast food, are uniquely responsible for the obesity epidemic, even though they sometimes deliver fewer calories than the “real foods” activists promote.
  • Kelly Brownell first proposed the idea of a “Twinkie tax” on foods that he deems unhealthy or “bad.” He has directed much of his advocacy towards convincing governments to tax sugar-sweetened drinks.
  • Television’s Dr. Oz argued that there are chemicals called “obesogens” that are uniquely responsible for obesity. Dr. Oz also classified farm-raised salmon as an “obesogen” and recommended that his readers eat the usually more expensive wild variety.
I cannot think of a junk food such as the ones mentioned that would deliver fewer calories than something healthy. Maybe if a person would only eat one potato chip that would do it.
Kelly Brownell sounds like a liberal with too much time on his hands and so wants to run the lives of others.
From me - I really wonder if Dr. Oz has a license to practice medicine sometimes.

What does the research say? A hefty number of studies has shown that the trend of rising obesity rates can be attributed not to increased intake of food in general (or any particular food) or to the influence of restaurants, but rather to less physical activity compounded by a variety of other factors that are constantly being explored.
  • Researchers writing in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism in 2004 found: “It is often assumed that the increase in pediatric obesity has occurred because of an increase in caloric intake. However, the data do not substantiate this.”
  • Researchers writing in the Lancet in a 2005 study discovered: “These results suggest that habitual activity plays an important role in weight gain, with no parallel evidence that energy intake had a similar role … The composite findings from NGHS so far indicate that the drastic decline in habitual activity during adolescence might be a major factor in the doubling of the rate of obesity development in the USA in the past two decades, since no concomitant increase in energy intake was apparent.”
  • In 2003, then-FDA Commissioner Dr. Mark McClellan told audience members in a speech at the National Food Policy Conference: “So it’s perhaps surprising that, in a debate that has often focused on foods alone, actual levels of caloric intake among the young haven’t appreciably changed over the last twenty years.”
  • A 1999 Report of the Surgeon General on Physical Activity and Health found: “Only about one-half of U.S. young people (ages 12-21 years) regularly participate in vigorous physical activity. One-fourth report no vigorous physical activity.”
  • The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation said in 2002, “More than a third of young people in grades 9-12 do not regularly engage in vigorous physical activity. Daily participation in high school physical education classes dropped from 42 percent in 1991 to 29 percent in 1999.”
  • Researchers writing in the publication Diabetes Care in 2004 discovered: “There was a steep inverse gradient between fitness and mortality in this cohort of men with documented diabetes, and this association was independent of BMI … Obese men with fitness levels greater than the lowest quartile were at no increased risk for mortality when compared with men in the reference group.”
  • As society has become much more mechanized, we spend less and less energy on everyday tasks and chores. Researchers at the Mayo Clinic calculated that replacing manual chores — like washing dishes, mowing the lawn, and cleaning the car — with their automated versions can increase monthly energy expenditure by 8,800 calories, which could add up to 30 pounds a year.
  • A 2010 Cato Institute Study challenged the belief that increased restaurant dining is the cause of American obesity and indicated that policies focused on reducing caloric intake at restaurants are unlikely to reduce obesity substantially. The study found that increasing taxes on restaurant food may alter where people eat, but is unlikely to curb an individual’s desire to overeat.
What’s the bottom line for me? Instead of focusing solely on food, focus on physical activity. The obesity equation has two parts: energy intake and energy output. Put another way, weight gain (or loss) is simply a matter of an imbalance of “calories in” and “calories out.”
  • Citizens must encourage schools to increase the frequency and duration of physical education classes and recess, during which kids can expend energy.
  • Being overweight isn’t in and of itself unhealthy. A growing body of research documents that people who are “fit and fat” have a lower mortality rate over a given time period than those who are thin and unfit.
  • Daily tasks have become more and more mechanized over time, reducing the number of calories we spend doing chores. It may be that we’re getting fatter because we’re simply moving less and less in these small ways.
IT IS STILL THE INDIVIDUAL'S RESPONSIBILITY (from me)

Be careful out there today. 

6 comments:

  1. The day it stops being the individual's responsibility for what he/she eats, is the day that Food is mandated. Egads. Heaven help us all. Common sense will have driven off the cliff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are just about there. Too many people have absolutely no clue and only care about their gluttony. From scripture - "Their god is their stomachs." Take care.

      Delete
  2. It is the individual's responsibility. However: you and I both know that rare is the individual who does not rely on advertising (overtly or subconsciously) and "perception" in choosing food (These chips are reduced fat. That means they're okay to eat! This cereal has fiber added. That makes it healthy!) -- and much advertising is intentionally misleading. And you and I both know that exercise/activity is great for health and well-being, but is rendered near-useless if the foods consumed by the individual are poor-quality calories, even if they are less calories than one would consume on a cleaner, whole-foods diet: i.e., my body makes good use of the 1600-1800 clean calories I consume daily. If I replaced my real food with 1000 calories of processed foods, "diet" products, or straight out junk just based on calorie counts, I would neither lose weight nor improve my health or athletic performance. I do put the onus on the individual to be a skeptic and do the research; however, I realize most people will NOT do this, out of complacency or lack of knowledge. I do not agree with the ideas of junk food taxes/bans, etc but I do agree with some stricter controls on the way Big Food can advertise its products...I don't like that many professional associations (RDs, nutritionists, and the like) receive $$$ from the corn industry, the soy industry, Big Food corporations, etc and then promote their processed crap as "part of a healthy diet." I find it disheartening that so many junk foods masquerading as "good for you" are "kid's" foods and pervade advertising and our children's schools. There should be, as well, an onus on Big Food -- as there is on cigarettes and hard liquor (and as there USED to be on prescription drugs) -- to deliver the truth about their crap (the first ingredients in Froot Loops is SUGAR, but right on the box it trumpets WHOLE GRAIN GOODNESS!) and dispense with the smoke-and-mirrors that lulls busy/less savvy/happily oblivious parents/consumers into "feeling good" about what they eat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Americans as a group are so "dumbed down" that critical thinking is rare. Motivation to learn about nutrition is rarer still. People are so used to sitting in front of the idiot box and just absorbing and accepting what they see and hear that they are completely clueless and are passing this on to a generation of children. "If it tastes good, eat it" and that's as far as it goes. I agree with guidelines about advertising and I also agree with schools getting the junk out of the food served and the vending machines. Our athletic department got the profits from the vending machines so kids had access to bottles of sugar all day. Many kids walked in to school with a mountain dew for breakfast. I had one student who sipped on a dr. pepper all day. There has to be some guidance and the example set at home for any of this to stick. Be careful out there today.

      Delete
  3. It's crazy - but when I started this weight loss it was all about strict 1200 calories in - and I could have whatever I wanted! It included all kinds of processed foods, frozen foods, Carnation Instant Breakfast - and it was BAD. Yes, I lost weight, but I've learned so much reading on my own that I know it wasn't the right way. Even now I still make mistakes because of products advertising "natural and organic" and not readin the labels myself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a mine field for sure. It's hard to stay 100% natural/organic/whole but the closer we get the better off we are because if we are consistent and true to our own rules maintenance will also be easier because even if we overeat it will be on the good stuff. A snack a night will be almonds or an apple and even if we eat something like that out of boredom for example rather than hunger there will be little, if any, damage. It's hard to overeat on apples and/or almonds don't you think? Be careful out there today.

      Delete