View Full Version : Re: Obesity emerges as new risk factor for severe flu

July 13th 09, 09:16 AM
In article
tmclone > wrote:

> On Jul 12, 3:23*pm, Billy > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *tmclone > wrote:
> > > On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, Billy > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > 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.
> >
> > > 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.
> 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.
Do you have any idea of how to make an argument? What you pull out of
you ass 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
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
> 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."

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.

- 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