Study finds Americans are too fat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3496918.stm

A new study in the United States says obesity is likely to become the country's biggest preventable killer. The research, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the latest work showing widespread weight gain among Americans of all ages.

"We're just too fat," Health Secretary Tommy Thompson said at the unveiling of the study.

It found that poor diet and lack of exercise caused 400,000 deaths in the US in the year 2000. That figure represents a 33% jump since 1990.

If current trends continue, then obesity will shortly overtake smoking as the single biggest cause of preventable deaths in the United States.

... it means that fat people must be ridiculed, lectured, and humiliated at every opportunity.

--bkl

...like they aren't already?

..it means that if you do nothing but eat too much crappy food, and sit around every night watching t.v., you're going to die. Until you die, you'll be tortured by a variety of health ailments, until you wish you'd die.

Kill your t.v., lose the fast food, lose the jumbo portions.. live past 50.

as sitting in front of the tee vee?

My girlfriend is considered by studies as "fat" so don't assume i'm some kind of obese person hater.

As an expat i can say that the U.S does have a reputation world wide of being a "fat" nation.

Fat 'fact' takes on life of its own
Paul Campos, Rocky Mt. News
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_1213969,00.html
June 18, 2002

An abiding weakness of the conventional wisdom is that, once a supposed fact has become part of that wisdom, it becomes almost impossible to dislodge it. Contemporary journalism contributes to this problem by relying on technologies that help ensure an assertion, once it is repeated enough times, will never be checked against the actual evidence. Consider for example the claim that fat kills 300,000 Americans per year, and is thus the nation's second-leading cause of premature death, trailing only cigarettes.

A Lexis database search reveals that this "fact" has been repeated in more than 1,000 news stories over the past three years alone. Yet the evidence for this claim is so slim as to be practically nonexistent.

As University of Virginia professor Glen Gaesser points out in the forthcoming revised edition of his book Big Fat Lies, the supposed source for this claim was a 1993 medical study that made no such assertion. That study attributed around 300,000 extra deaths per year to sedentary lifestyle and poor dietary habits, not to weight, which was not even evaluated as a risk factor. Indeed the authors of the study, Michael McGinnis and William Foege, became so frustrated by the chronic miscitation of their data that in 1998 they published a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine, objecting to the misuse of their study.

A year later the journal published an article which actually did assert that obesity causes approximately 300,000 deaths annually. This article, "Annual Deaths Attributable to Obesity in the United States," is a classic example of junk science at its worst. After calculating the death risk associated with various weight levels derived from six epidemiological studies, the authors employed the following assumption: "Our calculations assume that all excess mortality in obese people is due to their obesity" (emphasis added). That was, to put it mildly, a remarkable assumption. As Gaesser points out, "the authors made no attempt to determine whether other factors -- such as physical inactivity, low fitness levels, poor diet, risky weight loss practices, and less-than-adequate access to health care, just to name a few -- could have explained some, or all, of the excess mortality in fat people."

In fact there is a great deal of evidence that such factors are far more relevant to mortality than weight. Indeed, long-term studies conducted at Dallas' Cooper Institute, involving tens of thousands of subjects tracked for a decade or more, have concluded that all of the excess mortality associated with increasing weight is accounted for by activity levels, not weight. These studies show moderately active fat people have far lower mortality rates than thin sedentary people, and essentially the same mortality rates as thin active people. In other words, adding just one variable to the mix -- activity levels -- eliminates fat as a risk factor (the activity levels associated with optimum mortality rates are quite modest -- a brisk daily half-hour walk will by itself put a person in these categories).

Furthermore the 300,000-deaths-per-year figure was derived without taking into account factors such as yo-yo dieting and diet drug use, both of which have been shown to have devastating effects on health. Nor were variables such as class -- poor people die sooner than the well-off -- and social discrimination, which has been shown to have a very negative impact on health, taken into account. In short, the claim that fat causes 300,000 deaths per year should be dismissed as an assertion for which there is essentially no evidence. Journalists in particular ought to start noticing that fact, rather than endlessly reprinting the same piece of junk science.

Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be contacted at paul.campos@colorado.edu.

I've heard of similar studies as well that back up this assertion. IIRC a woman in CA filed a lawsuit after she tried to get a job as a fitness instructor, but was turned down for the job because she was overweight. They won the lawsuit, due to the fact that she didn't fit the image they wanted to project (that if you work out you will be thin). She was fit and qualified to lead an aerobics class but was still overweight.

I think we need more focus on this. There are many young girls who will work out regularly, but if they don't get the flat tummy they expect then sometimes that leads to unhealthy ways of trying to achieve the look that's marketed as acceptable.

They're talking about obesity. There is a reason it's called "morbid obesity". Real obesity does kill. A few extra pounds do not. I have been seeing more and more people (entire extended families) out there that are obese... from the 4 year old, up to the 60 year old. You rarely see a truly obese elderly person.. because they don't live that long. It kills... just as smoking kills. We aren't designed to EAT that much food! And to be sedentary.

ADDING JUST ONE VARIABLE TO THE MIX--ACTIVITY LEVELS--ELIMINATES FAT AS A RISK FACTOR is it that you didn't understand?

In fact there is a great deal of evidence that such factors are far more relevant to mortality than weight. Indeed, long-term studies conducted at Dallas' Cooper Institute, involving tens of thousands of subjects tracked for a decade or more, have concluded that all of the excess mortality associated with increasing weight is accounted for by activity levels, not weight. These studies show moderately active fat people have far lower mortality rates than thin sedentary people, and essentially the same mortality rates as thin active people. In other words, adding just one variable to the mix -- activity levels -- eliminates fat as a risk factor (the activity levels associated with optimum mortality rates are quite modest -- a brisk daily half-hour walk will by itself put a person in these categories).

When did he figure this out. Oh I get it. It wasn't important to get Americans to quit eating fast food before. Now that we're going to privatize all of the health care system and the insurance companies have to pay, it's all of a sudden a problem. Well good luck. After a lifetime of hearing "junkfood" is healthy, fun and cool, it's going to be impossible to get them to eat right. Besides, vegetables are UNAMERICAN don't ya know. It's bigger than food, "it's their idenity. My SUV, my big Mac and my "merican" flag sticking out of my dumb fat ass. " Hey Betty, get the kids ready and let's go to the Wal Mart".
That great "merican" store. Uggggghhhhhhhh

I keep reading the word "preventable" disease, this one says "preventable killer" a lot more in the past year than I have before. I wonder why--and I think at some point these "slackers" who "refuse" to "prevent" a "possible disease" will be punished by insurance companies in some way-

like the poverty/minority/access to health care study.

Also, wait for the other shoe to drop. A 33% increase during the 1990's. It will all be Clinton's fault. The economy was booming, the US was at relative peace, and we got fat. I can see the spinning now.

....when the energy crisis gets worse. We do everything with fossil fuels. We don't even bend over to pick up a frickin' leaf. I've seen people actually get out a leaf blower to blow one leaf off a driveway!

When it becomes cost prohibitive to keep a home at 70 degrees, that's when we'll start burning off some of this fat.


Cher

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Pointing out that this info only provides ammo for those bullies.

too fat how come they fight tooth and nail to keep nutritional information off of fast food menus??? (rhetorical question) I know the answer, it's because the fast food industry lobbies to keep that from happening. They are afraid it might hurt sales if people knew how chucked full of fat and calories the crap is. :puke:

My dad is a nutritionist who consults with the government and he was BURNIN Mad about the last food pyramid they set up-the meat and dairy industry totally revised what the scientists came up with to push meat and dairy higher up. Then the dairy people got a bunch of tax money to market cheese to fast food so they can add calories with double cheese this and stuffed crust that it is a propaganda campaign for everyone to take the guilt-you just don't exercise enough (well that is propbably true) but it doesn't excuse BushCo's deconstruction of science-that is a crime! Last week they declared there is "no difference" between wild salmon and hatchery fish so we don't have to protect them (look for major zoo-expansion-maybe we don't have to protect any habitat if we can raise enough wild animals!)

don't be ridiculous, ever see someone eating a double bacon cheeseburger with the sauce dripping off their wrist drinking a diet coke? that's called a balanced meal.

Can we stand up for individual responsibility, or are we a nation of dupes who will eat what we see on tv? Fat tastes good, pork fat is my favorite! I don't see a line of people at Mcburgers studying the nutritional info before ordering (it's there!). People make choices, and we are damn lucky to have the choice to be fat. Not many problems dealing with eating disorders like bulimia, anorexia, or obesity in sub-saharan countries or third world countries in general. Hell in this country we send our pets to the fat farm. Choice, people! We can choose what to eat and choose what to do or not do for physical activity. This rant is making me hungry! Gotta order a pepperoni,sausage, double cheese pizza AND have it delivered so I don't have to walk to my damn car..... hey, maybe I'll have them throw some of those yummy buffalo wings in too..

apparently the fast food industry thinks that the public is stupid because they are the ones who are afraid it will lose them business if they give people the information. They are the ones who are stupid because people already know the stuff is fattening but they go there anyway. IF the government was serious they would give more than lip service to the issue, that's the point.

The people who came in there.. the obese people were ordering almost daily.. 2 to 4 Quarter Pounders with super-size fries and two cokes. It happened daily.. and with the same people and their kids. Fast food will kill you.

http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0744/index.html
(Warning - Don't read while eating)

...it's not that surprising. Seriously, do people eat that stuff? (And I thought adding parmesan to roast parsnips was bad.)
:puke:

"Over a POUND of FOOD!"
and they have other versions of it, too, like 1/2 a chicken, and 3 hamburger patties.

Lance Armstrong couldn't burn that much saturated fat climbing Mt. Ventoux AND Col du Calibre!

Oh, BTW, I finished up my sushi lunch while looking at that site. I have a strong constitution.
:7

i passed it along immediately...

send the college intern down to the local shopping mall to look around and snap some pics?

I have studied nutrition for many years after my doctors couldn't help with chronic illness with my son. If people really know what is in the food or understood how much food effects every part of our life, maybe they would force the industry to do something about it.

Right now I pay more for almost all my organic food(even at a local coop). Our food has so much artificial, unnatural crap in it, no wonder we have so many new diseases like ADD and Obesity. What happened to growing food and eating it in its basic form.

It is sad that we have so many drugs to help with these issues, and most of it could be helped with a better understanding and willingness to change the food. It changed my sons life.

When the calories in your diet are nutrient dense all aspects of your health will improve. This comes from eating low on the food chain.

http://www.pcrm.org/

after controlling for activity levels, there is no relationship between fat and disease is it that you don't understand? Healthy eating and exercise will make everyone healthier, not necessarily (very much) thinner.

I agree with you one hundred percent that growing your own is the best , and learning t preserve it is also quite an experience--it gives you excercise, hope and a certain amount of a spirituality, but that also can get to be somewhat like a religion--did you know that almost all, if not all, American soybeans and soybean products made from those soybeans have been altererd genetically? That is why I sometimes want to challenge those vegetarians who insist that eating meat is bad for you. Well, so is eating vegetarian and eating a basic like soy, can also be deterimental to your health if you are sensitive to the altered product.

It is only the foreign soybean products that have not been affected by Monsanto.

So, that means every bit of tofu, every soybean product sold as organic, may be organic, but has been genetically altered already.

Grow your own --if you do not have a piece of land big eneough , try to form community farming. If you really want to do it you can.

at the guy unveiling the study, Tommy Thompson. He ain't exactly Mr skinny is he?

Here's another article on the matter I've found about somebody who's written a book on obesity

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0,9950,907894,00.html

The statistics were shocking - 26 per cent of Americans are now clinically obese - but more shocking still was the fact that people were, and continue to be, in denial of this fact. For the middle classes in particular, any discussion of obesity, or even fat, soon leads to aesthetic and gender issues - the idea that talking about it will give children 'low self-esteem' or, worse, anorexia.

Doctors also remain either in ignorance or outright denial about the dangers of obesity to the poor and the young. A patient earning more than $50,000 is more likely to be advised to lose weight than one with a lower income. Since it is the urban poor who suffer the highest rates of obesity and consequent ill-health, this is worrying. The fat just get sicker and sicker. In the US, the annual cost of treating diabetics, the majority of new cases being a direct result of excess weight, stands at more than $100 billion. Between 1988 and 1994, 39 million working days were lost due to obesity, with a value of $3.9 billion to the economy.

'Most of us are fat because we are slothful and gluttonous,' he says. 'People don't want to hear that. In the course of researching my book, I came to believe that, morally, over-eating is wrong. Look at Bosch's depiction of gluttony: a man is eating; his child is tugging at his shirt; another man sits at the end of the table with nothing on his plate; his wife is waiting at the door for his next demand. Act the glutton, and you're not only worshipping your belly as a false god; you're involved in the dereliction of your secular duties as well. You're not taking care of your child; you're taking the food off somebody else's plate; you're neglecting your duties at work; you're not taking care of your body.'

That Critser is a liberal and a Democrat, rather than some toothy bible basher from the Mid-West, somehow serves to make his assertions all the more forceful. 'All of this does have spiritual, religious overtones,' he says. 'But I think we can agree that, even in a secular sense, these things are morally wrong. I come from a generation that wants to avoid talking about moral absolutes, preferring instead to put the emphasis always on context. But I now think that there ARE absolutes, and the question is: what is a compassionate way to educate people about them? The people who accuse me of wanting to stigmatise fat people are just confused; I want to stigmatise gluttony, not the fat per se.'

There IS a difference.

Doesn't anyone wonder WHY the urban poor have the highest rates of obesity? JUNK FOOD IS CHEAP.

*sigh*

I should just give up now.

Sorry, but the focus should be on exercise, not looks.

How many marathon runners do you know who are obese? Why is there an assumption that this is about looks?
How to lose weight= eat less calories than you use. Not rocket science.

Eat less, and your systems automatically adjust to 'need' less. Whether you can get ahead of the game depends 100% on factors beyond your control. You'd know that if you knew anything about complex systems with feedback loops that have no resemblance to bank accounts.

It's all about looks--the dull normals who aren't fat, but have lives of no particular distinction can always pat themselves on the back for something. (Do you know any power lifters who are skinny?)

The real thermodynamic balance of human metabolism is this.

C - N - S - I - H - E - V = 0


C = calories eaten
N = non-absorbed calories excreted in bowels
S = calories stored
I = calories calories used involuntarily (muscle maintenance, involuntary motion)
H = calories used for heat generation
V = calories used voluntarily (exercise, for example)
E = calories excreted in urine (Examples: fat converted to glucose in the liver and excreted in the urine, incompletely burned triglycerides which are excreted in the urine, and albumin excreted in the urine)

It should be noted that there is 'manual' control only on C and V. People who think of human metabolism as a bank account are willfully ignorant that these other variables adjust automatically within an active control system. All adjust when some of them change. When C and V are changed 'manually', there may be permanent alteration to the control system (as in long-term dieting).

The amount of energy stored is not 'whatever is left over'. The body actively stores or mobilizes energy from its energy store. If there is a resulting energy deficit, it tries to increase C, causes a reduction in I, H, and E, and even actively prevents V. If there is an energy surplus, it tries to decrease C, increases I and H, encourages V, and, as a last resort, increases E.

The control system for these actions is decentralized. So, it is possible for the energy store to believe that it needs to increase S, while simultaneously, the liver believes that it is necessary to increase E. This leaves I, H, and V at an extreme disadvantage.

If an individual is not lethargic and ravenous, then the control system is notimbalanced, but may have a different equilibrium than the average. One may wish that the equilibrium were different, but the system is not amenable to manual control (especially by manually varying C), but there are strict limits to an individual's ability to change it.

Decreasing C (dieting) has been shown to cause a long-term decrease in H and a long term increase in S, and to prevent I from increasing when V is increased. Millions of dieters have experienced this. Obesity researchers have verified this. The dull normals should fuck off and try to do something real with their lives instead of cheap shots boosting their self-image at the expense of people who are different.

choices are available obesity rates go up. Try not to attack the messengers.-

Diabetes and its complications must be reduced because they are the main cause of heart disease, blindness, amputation of the foot and renal failure, said Dr Al Mahroos.
"Diabetes is related to obesity and this is related to lifestyle. Lifestyle in the Gulf has changed dramatically since the discovery of oil in Bahrain in 1932," he said. http://www.tradearabia.com/routes/sections/News.asp?Article=64721&Sn=HEAL

      The enormous gap between the have and the have-nots is the result of undernutrition among the poor and overnutrition among those who are better off.  According to the report there are 170 million children in poor countries who are underweight, and three million of these children die annually.  There are more than one billion adults worldwide who are overweight, and at least 300 million of them are clinically obese.  About a half a million people in North American and Western Europe die from obesity-related diseases every year http://www.aaphp.org/bottle/dec2902GlobalHealth.htm

``Because of falling real prices for food, rising incomes and rapidly increasing urbanization, diets in many developing countries are approaching energy and protein intake levels that have for long been limited to consumers in developed countries,'' the agency said in the statement. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=ao8EYcQTD0dc&refer=latin_america

Obesity is not a problem everywhere in the developing world, but it appears to become a problem as income increases.Developing countries need to take a number of measures to prevent obesity and related chronic diseases. http://www.ifpri.org/2020/focus/focus05/focus05_07.htm

Please quit repeating the bullshit about dying from obesity. That nonsense spewers make big profits from playing on human insecurity is old news. It is snottiness, period. Controlling for activity levels alone TOTALLY ELIMATES ANY CORRELATION WHATSOEVER with fat per se. What part of that don't you understand?

That diabetes gene expression can be modified by diet and exercise does not mean that the disease itself is not 100% genetic. Phenylketonuria is an exact analogy. It is 100% genetic, yet its only (and very effective) treatment is limiting phenylalanine in the diet. What is the equivalent regimen for never becoming diabetic or fat? Really, really easy. All you have to do is do physical hard labor all day on a semistarvation diet for your entire life. As for the snots that insist this is feasible for everybody in an industrialized society, fuck all of them and the horses they rode in on.

When my grandmother was my age, she had been dead for five years of diabetic complications. My hemoglobin a1c values are still around 6, though trending upward with age. My secret for postponing the nasty effects of my genetic heritage?

1. Being careful of ingesting too many foods with high glycemic index.
2. Staying physically active (a class privilege, as I am paid well enough to have the spare time for it).
3. Going on metformin well before actual symptoms appear
4. Accepting that the above just makes me healthier, and has had no effect on my heavier than average weight, and is never likely to.
5. Telling the dull normal shitstains who want to feel better about themselves at my expense to go piss up a rope.

Tell me, that is there in this that focus's on looks? From the article

Doctors also remain either in ignorance or outright denial about the dangers of obesity to the poor and the young. A patient earning more than $50,000 is more likely to be advised to lose weight than one with a lower income. Since it is the urban poor who suffer the highest rates of obesity and consequent ill-health, this is worrying. The fat just get sicker and sicker. In the US, the annual cost of treating diabetics, the majority of new cases being a direct result of excess weight, stands at more than $100 billion. Between 1988 and 1994, 39 million working days were lost due to obesity, with a value of $3.9 billion to the economy.

Not long after he met Hill, however, he was visiting a relative in a Los Angeles hospital when he saw something so shocking that he determined to devote the next four years to writing a book about obesity. A gaggle of nurses was pushing a gurney through the ward. On it lay a young man. He weighed around 32 stone, and had just undergone emergency gastroplasty repair (gastroplasty is a surgical procedure that reduces the size of a patient's stomach and, theoretically, his or her appetite). 'Second time in three months,' said the man's mother, as she watched him being attached to the requisite machinery. 'His stomach keeps coming unstapled. My boy.' As Critser watched this scene, it dawned on him that here was a person - somebody's son, somebody's brother - who was literally being killed by his own fat.

'Most of us are fat because we are slothful and gluttonous,' he says. 'People don't want to hear that. In the course of researching my book, I came to believe that, morally, over-eating is wrong. Look at Bosch's depiction of gluttony: a man is eating; his child is tugging at his shirt; another man sits at the end of the table with nothing on his plate; his wife is waiting at the door for his next demand. Act the glutton, and you're not only worshipping your belly as a false god; you're involved in the dereliction of your secular duties as well. You're not taking care of your child; you're taking the food off somebody else's plate; you're neglecting your duties at work; you're not taking care of your body.'

All you had to do is ask my ass cheeks........

and their satiation point is far above what it should be. Huge servings are a pride and joy and denote abundance and wealth--continuous snacking on sugar laden cakes and candies is expected--vendor machines are all over the schools.

When I went to school, there were no machines that contained juice, candy, potatoe chips, cookies and other little treats. We survived and we were not a fat generation.

Walk down the cereal aisle and count, if you are as compulsive as I am, the number of cereals there-more than two hundred--all jumping with appealing cartoons, Nascar cars and bright color and beckoning to the little children-every single one of them contains added sugar-- a lot of it. If it were not for the added vitamins, it would really be a worthless food. Yet, we are told that cereal is a good thing to feed your child and yourself. Add some milk to the fruity o's and you get the heart award. Many advertise they are "heart healthy" and that is because they are low fat. Most breads and grains are, but it says nothing about the deteriment to the health of the sugar added to almost everything on the supermarket shelf .

The entire food corporate industry is dedicated to selling food to the American people any way they can sell it. Mostly advertising appeals to those who are fulfilling an image of the concerned mom who wants to feed her child the best there is. We think it just fine to eat and eat and eat because they tell us, subliminally, it is so wonderful to do so.
And then we eat the sugar and indeed, feel wonderful.

In other countries, this is not the case, but in America, and it is quite obvious we do have a lot of fat people here,they is no denying that, it is considered the normal way of eating. It is a constant eating and eating and giving the stomach little rest.

One does not have a normal portion of french fries, containing maybe half a cup--you want, and think you deserve for your money, three times the serving size. And soon, even that does not "fill you up"

Most people do not realize what a 'serving" consists of. Most cannot at this point discipline themself to eat only one serving of anything.

or not enough. I think it's just like smoking. I don't know a single smoker who doesn't know it's just plain bad for you; I can't imagine there are consumers who think a big ol' drippy cheeseburger and fries is good for you.

It's just both groups are very, very good at not thinking about it while they're partaking. And society has largely been pretty good at not pointing it out to them in the moment.

I was shocked when I found out what a "serving" was. It is half a cup, usually. That is, when one sees five servings of bread, pasta or whatever starches on the food pyramid, that is a half cup serving. If you eat two cups of pasta at one sitting, which I think is pretty much what people pile on their plate that is already four servings for the day. If the daily requirement on that pyramid is five servings and you had two pieces of toast in the morning, and bread with the pasta, and a sandwich for supper, you are way over the guidelines not to mention any starchy vegetables that you may have had, like potatoe salad with the sandwich. Now try measuring out half a cup of pasta and being satisfied with it. That is what I mean--we get a satiation tolerance far over what is recommended. In other words, if we do not have two cups of pasta we feel cheated.

and lost 20 lbs. He misses them, but I don't miss the 20 lbs!!

I have a friend who lost 100 pounds, mainly by exercising moderately for a couple of years and being more conscious of glycemic index. She now only needs insulin for when she has the flu, or other life disruption.

She used to weigh 375 and now weighs 275. Naturally the dull normal shitstains can't tell the difference, and abuse her in public just as much as they used to.

I'm the only one that needs to be impressed.

Or do our grade schools and high schools no longer teach nutrition?

We know how to eat healthy, but we like to take shortcuts, even more.

It's easier to do up a box of Kraft macaroni & cheese than it is to make a butter/flour rue and mix it into warm milk, then throw in the various cheeses you need to grate.

It's easier and cheaper to buy a Big Mac than it is to buy a roast and grind it.

Then there's the business of 30 minute or longer commutes to work. Hmm, the choice for lunch? Microwave pre-packaged or leftovers (oh, yum) versus going to a local fast-food joint or semi-fast food restaurant/deli/pizza joint.

Couple of years ago, I was on a work schedule where I got to come home early, so I cooked dinner from scratch, more or less, every day. Without even trying, I lost nearly 30 pounds over the course of 6 months. No real difference in the foods I was eating except that I controlled in indgredients and the serving size.

When I went back to my old, regular schedule, the pounds came right back.

Look, advertising works. It's as simple as that. The corporate shills love to go on about Personal Responsibility, but the sad fact is that we're raised from infancy being told by business what to eat, what to drink, what to wear, what to watch, what to do, and what to think. It really isn't surprising that when they tell us to spend our wealth on poison and dump it into our bodies, the masses respond like trained sheep.

Have you heard the latest? The neocons are arguing in the senate, right now, that we need a law protecting Big Heart Attack from legal action. Well, hell, I wonder who paid for that...?

give us all a break. you are responsible for what you put in your mouth.
wanna sue burgermeister because your ass is fat? We have more nutritional information available to us than any other era in human history. the corporate geniuses also want to sell the sexy body as young, lean and athletic. if they want to sell us that why do we super size our frozen burrito meal at 7/11? why is it that everyone who talks about this says they aren't stupid enough to fall for the selling of unhealthy foods but everyone else is? look, I smoke and nobody stuck a cigarette in my mouth and made me inhale. I enjoy smoking and will take my chances.
if you want nothing bad to happen to you hide under your bed and pray there isn't an earthquake today, otherwise get in your car and travel faster than walking speed and you might get hurt.

Couple of things:

give us all a break. you are responsible for what you put in your mouth

No argument. And bully for you for being a smoker who takes responsibility. But every time Mattel advertises a new Barbie or something, a million kids want it. Come on, can you keep a straight face and tell me that every time Pauly Shore makes a movie, a million people just wake up one day and decide to waste ten bucks on it?

the corporate geniuses also want to sell the sexy body as young, lean and athletic

Almost everything the masses are sold involves instant gratification. We're conditioned to believe that our worst problems should all be solved in a half-hour, the way they are in Archie Bunker's house. You can't run out and buy fitness in ten minutes, but you can sure as shit run out and buy a Big Mac in ten minutes. Even the phony fitness corporate Amerikkka tries to sell us is geared toward pills that melt off fat, or electric belts, or instant-gratification crap like that. Real fitness isn't microwave-quick like Little Debbie is, so it loses the game most of the time. But only a sap would believe that the masses don't buy what they're sold.

jim carrey some like steve martin, or adam sandler, or eddie murphy,or jackie chan. oh well , who are we to tell them what's funny. they go see the sequels , is that advertising hypnotizing them to go throw away another 10 dollars on dumberererer and dumbereresest ?( I liked Punch Drunk Love by the way and the box office sucked) big stars and ad budgets didn't save gigli, or the the last few madonna movies, or speed 2,Marci X, From Justin to Kelly, Sinbad, how about cuba gooding jr and viveca fox in boat trip in '03. you are correct that we as "human beings" shy away from pain and difficulty, that is not corporate America"s fault that is a part of our makeup. teaching responsibility involves some pain, blaming others for our problems is the easy way out.

forty years. I have now, athrosclerosis due to smoking--my arteries are shot in my legs and I have intermittant claudication and cannot walk more than two hundred feet without feeling pain in the calf of one of my legs.

I gave it up and promptly gained forty pounds too.

Did not eat a single piece of pizza, or a spoonful of sugar, or cake or potatoes or bread or anything really full of sugar and rich. I just ate a lot of food--low carb stuff that I bought from the super market. Now it will take another year to probably lose that weight.

It has been a year and I still want to smoke until I consider the cost per week and I smoked almost three packs a day. Then I forget about it because I do not have that kind of money to spend on it, really and I am glad I did stop.

But my arteries are permanently damaged from all that smoking. It will get you in some way, sooner or later. Few will escape without some damage.

Welcome to Du! :hi:
Enjoy your membership here.

http://web.jadeinc.com/bigbeautifulpeople/words.htm

"WORDS"

By Sandie Weber-Zitkus

When Wayne and I were on the Channel 11 News at Noon with Wayne and Sylvia
Jennings, the subject of what would I like to be called came up. Sylvia,
the anchor, asked if I preferred being called fat. I said "Yes, of course,"
and they asked why, seeming somewhat surprised. I felt that both Wayne and
Sylvia were uncomfortable using the word and I also felt our other
representative, Sandra Mourn, was uncomfortable. Their reactions are exactly
why I use the term so often, and why I feel the word "fat" needs to be taken
back by us fat folk and "de-stigmatized."

...

Think about it - if I use the word "fat" in my everyday language to describe
myself and other people of size, then am I going to be upset if someone else
calls me fat? Probably not, because I know I'm fat - I have come to terms
with my size and the word. People can no longer hurt me in that way, and I
have achieved a small victory in my fight to have good self-esteem and to
love myself.

Let's discuss some other words used to describe us:

OBESE: My most "un-favorite" word. Why? Because it's the word the medical
society uses to bully us into thinking we are unhealthy, even though we may
not be.

...

Remember that childhood rhyme: "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me."

Words to live by!

it seems such a total denial to me.

I don't want to cast stones, I have a beer gut and so I'm not holier-than-thou about being overweight. But I really think this 'Fat is Beautiful' thing some obese people get onto is very destructive. Obesity is unhealthy. It's important to feel good about yourself, but we need to face the real world. Obese people should always have it in their mind that it's bad for them, not that it's great to be fat.

Poor diet and inactivity are unhealthy.

ADDING JUST ONE VARIABLE TO THE MIX--ACTIVITY LEVELS--ELIMINATES FAT AS A RISK FACTOR is it that you didn't understand?

In fact there is a great deal of evidence that such factors are far more relevant to mortality than weight. Indeed, long-term studies conducted at Dallas' Cooper Institute, involving tens of thousands of subjects tracked for a decade or more, have concluded that all of the excess mortality associated with increasing weight is accounted for by activity levels, not weight. These studies show moderately active fat people have far lower mortality rates than thin sedentary people, and essentially the same mortality rates as thin active people. In other words, adding just one variable to the mix -- activity levels -- eliminates fat as a risk factor (the activity levels associated with optimum mortality rates are quite modest -- a brisk daily half-hour walk will by itself put a person in these categories).

of the obvious fact is that lifetime semistarvation is not an option if you live in a society with enough to eat, and in which just about every way of earning a living is sendentary. On average, if you eat healthier, you weigh less. However 'weighing less' DOES NOT EQUAL 'achieving socially ideal weight.' All fat people would be fat people who weighed somewhat less and were healthier, if it weren't for all the public abuse by the dull normal gang.

If anyone thinks they are "semi starving"if they go on a decent diet, then I submit that that resistance and denial is part of the obesity problem. No one is semi-starving if they eat the number of calories necessary to maintain normal weight. If there is a perception that that normal eating is "semi-starvation", then that is part of the obesity problem and maybe should be addressed as a psychological barrier toward losing weight-- --or denial.

-It's not my problem-and I am not getting into any more discussions about this with people who are is such denial over their obesity that they attack those who are making factual observations who dare to suggest there is something they can do about their obesity- really it is the choice of the fat person what to do about their obesity-- unless this epidemic of obesity and their choice to continue their unhealthy eating habits, does affect my insurance costs in some way --I suspect it will eventually

after controlling for activity levels, there is no relationship between fat and disease is it that you don't understand? Healthy eating and exercise will make everyone healthier, not necessarily (very much) thinner. True, arguing with people who don't understand the basics of homeostatic feedback mechanisms, or what a 'control' is in a scientific study, can be tedious.

Perhaps a simple story will better illustrate the point.

The following is a quote from an article in the New York Review of Books "Godot Comes to Sarajevo" (Vol XL #17, pp 52-59, October 21, 1993) by Susan Sontag. She went there to put on the play "Waiting for Godot" when Sarajevo was under daily bombardment--people wanted artistic diversion as much as they wanted food. The quote is an aside from the main topic.

The only actor who seemed to have normal stamina was the oldest member of the cast. Ines Fancovic, who is 68. Still a stout woman, she has lost more than 60 pounds since the beginning of the siege, and this may have accounted for her remarkable energy. The other actors were visibly underweight and tired easily. Lucky must stand motionless through most of his long scene but never sets down the heavy bag he carries. Atko, who plays him (and now weighs no more than 100 pounds) asked me to excuse him if he occasionally rested his empty suitcase on the floor throughout the rehearsal period. Whenever I halted the run-through for a few minutes to change a movement or a line reading, all the actors, with the exception of Ines, would instantly lie down on the stage.

Another symptom of fatigue: the actors were slower to memorize their lines than any I have ever worked with. Ten days before the opening they still needed to consult their scripts, and were not word-perfect until the day before the dress rehersal.

Comment--it ought to be obvious to anyone that Ines is energetic not because of weight loss, but because she had the weight to lose. Note that she is still fat after having endured famine conditions for a couple of years, conditions which made her colleagues physically inadequate and mentally subnormal. It seems to have been much easier for her to tolerate going from 320# to 260# (my guess) than for Atko to go from 150# to 100#.

This is a good illustration of why people are fat--more of their ancestors than usual had to withstand conditions like this. It pays to have at least a few people in every society who are still mentally alert and physically capable under high stress conditions, even if they are comparatively disadvantaged when times are good. (An analogy-sickle cell anemia and malaria resistance.)

If you have a metabolism like Ines, the only hope for coming close to "normal" weight is a lifetime commitment to recreating the famine conditions their ancestors adapted to, and for some people even that may not work. The dull normals in general seems to think that fat people ought to be required to live under a lifelong state of siege--many fat people would rather have a real life. I'd suggest that people who don't think that Ines was starving along with everyone else go piss up a rope.

and neither do you except that she seems to reinforce your notion that fat is good.


the story sounds like an urban legend to boot

If that story makes you feel better by all means embrace it to eschew , excuse and eulogize obesity.

Today, one out of three children are projected to succumb to diabetes becasue of obesity. I suggest you tell that to them when at the age of twenty or so, they need to have their leg amputed, or their kidney removed --I mean just bring up all those little kiddes to believe that if they are fat it is not because they eat too much--is because they have the fat gene. That oughta help them develop a very strong denial coping mechanism.

I am sorry this happens to children. Adults who choose to overeat, get obese, wel that is their problem--they lash out at anything in order to defend their obesity, but children put into that position because of the attitudes of parents, are really victims.

Not known for lying about her experiences, AFAIK. The New York Review of Books is not exactly the National Enquirer, either.

Diabetes is genetic, period. If you are too ignorant to get that, read up on the subject. This genetic tendency will make you fat if you live in a society where daily physical labor is not the norm. There is nothing you can do about the gene. However, you can learn to avoid eating too many foods with high glycemic index and get into an early habit of being active. Dull normal shitstains abusing fat kids for being active in public are ever so much help. They thank you for making it ever so much easier to stick to their exercise goals. Obviously their fault if they just give up and hide in their rooms with the teevee.

You want to know about fat kids' coping mechanisms? Here are three fat kids who will never be diabetic, guaranteed.

http://homepage.interaccess.com/~harryusa/comments/Yeomans.html
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1994/143/143p12c.htm
http://www.s-t.com/daily/03-97/03-30-97/a02wn010.htm

The dull normals have more blood on their hands than they know.

Although our culture may not kill people with stones, we sure as hell persecute them emotionally, psychologically and spiritually. Our bodies are merely "containers" of the most precious aspects of our being. Until we cultivate what is within humanity, instead of polishing appearances,...whatever we "see" will simply reflect the symptoms of what we fail to nurture and protect. I say this as a person who may not be persecuted per this particular "focus group",...but who has connected with those who have and whose precious aspects I revere.

But it does help dull normals with no real accomplishments other than being of average weight feel better about themselves.

love your vocabulary!! (really) I'll have to remember dull normals ... I already knew shitstains!

If so, I don't think attacking other people who are discussing healthy eating habits is going to cure you.

I can bench press 130 lbs. My family history of diabetes has not yet kicked in. My postmenopausal bone density scan puts me two full standard deviations higher than 'normal' women in their 20s. I've worked a 12 hour day and put a 40 mile round trip bike commute on top of it on one occasion. I do 300-400 mile fully loaded bike tours which occasionally involves hauling the 60 lbs panniers + bike up a flight of stairs to put it on the train. I have thwarted an attempted rape by beating the shit out of the attacker (extra physical mass can often be helpful), and will cheerfully threaten to do the same to testosterone poisoned pustules or simpering little twits that hassle me about my weight. You have zilch to teach me about eating or conditioning programs. Capishe?

And all that has not made me average in weight, though if I had spent much time in my life paying attention to dull normal shitstains, I might well have dieted myself into weighing 50-100 lbs more than I do. Try to 'cure' me and I'll throw you against a wall.

What a beautiful attack.

It looks like a flower, but it feels like a knife.

Nowhere near as strong, fast and flexible. Whenever I get inordinately pleased with myself for benching 130 (and that's a machine--I'm not coordinated enough to do free weights), I check out Cheryl. I have no artistic talent either.

http://www.usoc.org/cfdocs/athlete_bios/bio_template.cfm?ID=295&Sport=Weightlifting

http://www.cnn.com/2000/fyi/news/08/30/haworth.profile/

In between her studies at Savannah Arts Academy, Haworth has earned considerable success -- and prize money -- weightlifting. In addition to three consecutive national championships, Haworth has received medals at the 1999 World Championship (third in the snatch) and Pan American Games (first overall). She's also placed second overall at the last two Junior World Championships.

At 5 feet 9 inches and more than 300 pounds, Haworth stands head and shoulders above all other female weightlifters in the United States. She's broken and re-broken the national record several times during the last few years. At the U.S. National Championships in March, Haworth re-set all three heavyweight marks -- 264 pounds (120 kilograms) in the snatch, 319 pounds (145 kilograms) in the clean and jerk and 583 pounds (265 kilograms) overall.

She currently can run the 40-yard dash in 5.5 seconds, do the splits and jump 30-inches for her vertical leap.

(Almost fast enough to be a pro middle linebacker)

http://www.beezodogsplace.com/Pages/Articles/FitandFat/FitandFat.html
Here are some numbers on Dave Alexander, triathlete.

- Finished 276 triathlons in 37 countries in 17 years.

- Swam 9.6 miles, cycled 448 miles, ran 104.8 miles in a recent super-triathlon in eastern Hungary. His time, he says with perfect recall, was 85 hours, 46 minutes, 38 seconds.

Those are pretty remarkable numbers. But Alexander has a few more: He's 55 years old, 5 feet, 8 inches tall and 260 pounds heavy.

"I am fat," he says. "I was born a big boy, and I'm always going to be big. But I'm healthy."

Alexander's silver hair is thinning. His bright blue eyes are going bad. His barrel stomach is getting bigger. Other triathletes often mistake him for a race organizer.

"I'm a great bar bet," he says with a laugh. "I don't look like I can walk across the street, let alone run a triathlon."

Alexander, who lives in Phoenix, attributes his great shape - corroborated by his doctor and others - to plain doggedness. He sometimes completes two triathlons in a week. He sleeps about 4 1/2 hours a night so he can put in long hours of training and work at the oil company he co-owns.

Experts say he's just what the world needs: Someone who doesn't let weight get in the way of physical fitness.

I don't get it. Is this some soapbox for people who might consider themselves overweight, and are in denial that it's a health problem? All I'm seeing tonight here, are people attacking the fact that if you are obese, you'll die early.. just as smoking will kill you, and those that breath your smoke.

Of course, just as with smokers on DU. Anytime something negative is posted about smoking, they are in attack mode.

Obesity is a serious medical issue. The point of the study was not to dehumanize or stigmatize anyone.. it was a wake up call to people that continue to eat themselves to death.. while living a sedentary lifestyle. Why is that so threatening??

Only the scientifically illiterate think so. Those of us who have heard of the principle "Correlation is not causation" immediately know that there are at least two models for what is going on.

1. Poor eating + inactivity ---------->weight gain---------> disease

2. Poor eating + inactivity ---------->weight gain
and also
Poor eating + inactivity ---------->disease

All studies with controls for more variables than fat back #2, not #1.

This is beginning to fuck me off.

"Smoking kills, if you smoke your body will likely fail you prematurely"

Is that persecution?

"Being massively fat will adversely affect your quality of life."

Is that persecution?

This is not about appearance it's about health. I note there are disagreements about the health impacts of fat but to raise questions is not "persecution".

I agree Spentastic. It's not like anyone bats an eyelid when we go after Rush Limbaugh for eating all the pies on here. Obesity does have adverse side effects so it's not like we should try to brush the matter under the carpet.

I fully expect to be branded a "dull normal" any minute now.

There's an element of righteous indignation about the treatment of fat people which I agree with. But to listen to some here, it would appear that people who eat loads and do not exercise are being persecuted by those pointing out that their health will suffer.

20 or so lbs heavier than they would otherwise be is not 'fat.'

("Dull normal" is getting old--how about 'functionally illiterate?' Repeat the bolded sentence a few times, and perhaps the meaning will sink in.)

In fact there is a great deal of evidence that such factors are far more relevant to mortality than weight. Indeed, long-term studies conducted at Dallas' Cooper Institute, involving tens of thousands of subjects tracked for a decade or more, have concluded that all of the excess mortality associated with increasing weight is accounted for by activity levels, not weight. These studies show moderately active fat people have far lower mortality rates than thin sedentary people, and essentially the same mortality rates as thin active people. In other words, adding just one variable to the mix -- activity levels -- eliminates fat as a risk factor (the activity levels associated with optimum mortality rates are quite modest -- a brisk daily half-hour walk will by itself put a person in these categories).

after controlling for activity levels, there is no relationship between fat and disease is it that you don't understand?

My friend who went from 375 to 275 is still considered 'massively fat,' but the quality of her life has improved dramatically with exercise and better food. And I really wish that the dull normal shitstains would quit persecuting her.

How did you guess that you would get insulted for telling it like it is Spen? It took 2 minuites before eridani came out with the "dull normal" crap in reply to one of your posts.

Paranoids are predicatble.

I'd like to congratulate eradani's friend for improving their health. However, there are many people who couldn't care less about their health. It's not persectuion to point out the possible impact of their inaction.

What would fir the definition of bigotry would be the classification of "dull normnals" and "shitstains"

Are you functionally illiterate as well?

In fact there is a great deal of evidence that such factors are far more relevant to mortality than weight. Indeed, long-term studies conducted at Dallas' Cooper Institute, involving tens of thousands of subjects tracked for a decade or more, have concluded that all of the excess mortality associated with increasing weight is accounted for by activity levels, not weight. These studies show moderately active fat people have far lower mortality rates than thin sedentary people, and essentially the same mortality rates as thin active people. In other words, adding just one variable to the mix -- activity levels -- eliminates fat as a risk factor (the activity levels associated with optimum mortality rates are quite modest -- a brisk daily half-hour walk will by itself put a person in these categories).

Most of them are paranoid about other things, such as whether or not the government/ ex-girlfriend/ boss etc is out to get them. :eyes:

Usually just carloads of testosterone poisoned pustules.

How many fat people are "moderately active fat people"?

Does fat have an impact on your ability to excercise?

If more fat people are dying than thin people does it not follow that fat people are dying because they are lazy as well as fat? Is that really what you're saying?

Your insistence that you are entirely correct reeks of bigotry, inflexibility and a severe lack of critical thinking skills.

Additionally these quotes appear to be coming from just one study. Whilst interesting, has it been peer reviewed and accepted?

One impact fat has on my ability to exercise is not covering ground as fast as thinner people. Slow but steady wins the day. If I weighed less, I could bike up hills faster-- but then if only I were smarter I would have won a Nobel Prize by now. Pointless to feel bad about either of those facts.

An advantage I have is far superior resistance to trauma. Fat around my knees once saved me from getting a tendon sliced and ending my biking for good--the glass made it almost through the fat, but not quite.

The Cooper Aerobics Institute has been doing ongoing work on this for 20 years--it isn't just one study.

If you put all active people on one bell curve, and inactive people on another, the mode for the latter curve is about 10-15 lbs higher. The difference in the modes is attributable to lifestyle. The difference between one end of each curve and the other is about 150 lbs., and that is attributable to genetics. Overlapping the curves will result in a larger number of fat people past the 'unhealthily inactive' cutoff point, but whothehell cares? The point is which curve you are on, not how far from the mode in either direction.

BTW, for many, constant public harassment is a major disincentive for being more active. I'm a geek with a thick skin, so I don't care. Others aren't that lucky.

I hate people who decry the efforts of others to improve their health. The laughing at fat people crowd do need to shut up and grow up.

In fairness I've in several of my previous posts I HAVE mentioned activity as important. A fact that you have ignored.

I'd be interested to know how extra weight affects the ability to undertake useful (from a medical point of view) aerobic activity.

Unless you weigh something like 500 lbs or something, and those people have deranged regulatory systems. I don't have to bother with ankle weights or hand weights doing aerobic exercise--in my case, those are built in. ;)

Isnt that like being "bad?"

It's good fat- "ph" Phat...

I swear.. lately everyone I see is obese. Not chubby, but obese! America is becoming more and more obese. It's not carbs, it's not metabolism, it's bad eating habits and too much t.v., computer, video games, etc. Buncha couch potatoes!