"Health warnings printed on flights of stairs, encouraging people to walk rather than take the elevator, could prove a potent weapon in the battle against obesity, researchers say.Now, if "care for your teeth" were printed on UK stair risers...
Over the course of a six-week study researchers monitored the behaviour of 82,000 pedestrians.
Messages like "take the stairs" and "seven minutes of stair climbing daily protects your heart" were printed on stair risers in a UK shopping centre. This led to a 190% increase in the number of people passing up the stairs each day."
An Oprah threat to your health and the health of your children? Have you been misled?
See FTC complaints about Oprah and her diet experts at www.JailForOprah.com
Friday, August 31, 2007
"The government should impose 'traffic light' labeling to warn consumers about obesity-causing food and drink products if New Zealand companies won't do it voluntarily, a parliamentary committee said Friday...And now, the fatal blow to any possibility of this scheme working - application of conventional stupidity by the forces of government:
The red label — to be used for food such as cakes, pies and chocolates — would warn that the products should only be consumed occasionally. Yellow-labeled foods such as pizza should be eaten 'sometimes,' while green-labeled products such as low-fat yogurt could be eaten daily."
"'Tackling the obesity epidemic in New Zealand is imperative,' the committee said. 'Comprehensive, coordinated action by the government is needed.'..C'est la vie.
'The time for asking the industry nicely is over,' coalition director Leigh Sturgiss said. 'We need a ban on the marketing of unhealthy food and drinks to children.'"
"In obese individuals, fat cells are bloated and inflamed because they receive too many nutrients, including lipids."In other words, fat cells are filled in fat people because fat people eat too much.
An epiphany of this magnitude can lead to a "cure" for obesity and overweight.
Further research may reveal that eating fewer Calories than one burns will result in fat cells that are not "bloated."
But before we jump to any rash conclusions, let's spend more time and money on further research.
Perhaps it isn't Grant after all.
Only more grant money will tell.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
"'The problem is that while many states across the nation have excellent obesity plans, they are starving for resources as our citizens get fatter.'"It is not a "problem."
It is a gift that they "are starving for resources," so the citizens can be protected from them.
That "many states across the nation have excellent obesity plans" is crap.
The plans are by and large likely to be based on the mistaken assumptions of the past and if implemented will fail with certainty.
"'As this report points out, we now have a growing evidence base to take on this important public health problem,' said Dr. Marcus Plescia, NACDD board member and North Carolina representative member, who was involved in the report's review.""...we NOW have a growing evidence base to take on this important public health problem"?
Where have this unaware expert and the rest of them been for the last couple of decades?
Or this one.
"'Obesity is a complex disease and it will only get better when communities have multi-faceted interventions in place to help people make better choices related to exercise and diet,' said John Robitscher, NACDD executive director. 'The time to act is now, before too long the compounding costs of this epidemic will overwhelm an already fragile and fragmented healthcare system.'"Hey, John. Obesity is neither a "disease" nor is it "complex."
You don't understand it. You will never overcome it.
The time to act was long ago, not "the time to act is now."
You persist in screwing up.
And these conditions will only "overwhelm an already fragile and fragmented healthcare system," if we pay for them.
If you don't want to "cripple the U.S. health care system," stop wasting misdirected resources on these folks and give them the truth and tools to get un-overweight and un-obese.
Do the country a favor and step aside.
Overweight and obesity are not diseases.
You and the rest of the experts are the disease, not the cure.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
"Australia's leading nutrition organisation, the Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA), is launching a major campaign to tackle Australia's obesity and its related diseases, which costs the nation 21 billion dollars1 or one thousand dollars per person per year. (typo in the original)And where were the dietitians while obesity was "skyrocketing"?
The latest statistics show that obesity has been skyrocketing with 7.4 million adults or 54% of the adult population - and around 25% of Australian kids now classified as overweight or obese."
"'We could stop this terrible tragedy if people get the right help,' says DAA Executive Director and Accredited Practising Dietitian (APD), Ms Claire Hewat."Which will not come from these folk.
As if they were unavailable all the while. Suddenly they have appeared to save the fat folk down under.
"'Too many people waste time and money by following fads. APDs are university qualified in food, nutrition and health and just like you go to the dentist if you have a sore tooth. it makes sense to see an APD if you want to lose weight or manage other diet-related problems.' says Claire Hewat. "Now they can "waste time and money by following" APDs.
At least the APDs will make money. An important end result to an APD.
"Dietitians are experts in nutrition and a public guarantee of this expertise is provided through the Accredited Practising Dietitian (APD) program - a national system for recognition of professionals who have the qualifications and expertise to provide expert nutrition and dietary advice."Or, possibly they are conduits for the conventional stupidity and crooked people who sense an opportunity to steal from their public by offering services of limited to no utility.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Fact is, the real name of the study should be "F as in Fantasy, Foolishness and Failure: How The Trust for America's Health is Failing America."
The study and its conclusions are fantasies, foolishness and doomed to fail.
Its recommendations will mislead us down really expensive paths for years to come.
The Trust for America's Health, the group responsible for the study, cannot be trusted with America's health.
"Children burn more body fat day-to-day than adults do, underscoring their need for a little extra fat in their diets, according to researchers."There is zero need to feed kids "a little extra fat in their diets" if they are already extra fat in their bodies.
If they need fat, they will use the stored stuff.
If they are not already too fat, it is most likely that the body fat they have will suffice.
The advice of these researcher is dangerous, IMHO and further underscores the need to shut out the noise of the experts.
Monday, August 27, 2007
See here for the full report.
Now are you ready to understand why diets fail, how much failed dieting costs you and how stupid expert fitness advice is, how to eat right and train properly?
Or would you rather keep failing? And getting fatter? And getting sicker? And going broke? And bankrupting the sick care system? And buying more drugs? And killing your kids?
If you would rather do the above, then listen to your experts.
BTW, a lot of the study is trash as are its recommendations. They have no hope of succeeding.
If you want to fight back go here, here, and here.
"A new long term study, led by Professor Henry at Oxford Brookes University, UK, has shown that children eat approximately 60 kcal less during the day following a low-GI breakfast, than after a high-GI breakfast...""Long-term" was "two non-consecutive weekdays over 10 weeks."
The lie: "Low-GI Breakfast Reduces Children's Appetite For The Rest Of The Day"
The truth: "...this difference could have happened by chance..."
Interesting study design in that it cannot distinguish between chance and cause and effect.
Also seems not to have addressed Calories burned following the different meals. So, for example, if a high-GI meal caused these kids to run around more and burn off 100 more Calories, then the high-GI diet resulted in a net 40 Calorie decrease per day.
Either way, studies whose results "could have happened by chance" are useless.
As is using the GI as the approach to overweight/obesity.
It is all about Calories in vs. Calories out. How you get there makes no difference.
More Einsteins at work.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Huckabee is one of those characters who achieved some success despite not having a good understanding of why.
This makes him incompetent to offer advice and dangerous when he does.
Don't listen to him when it comes to weight loss and weight loss policy.
Nonetheless, this observation has some merits.
Obesity Action Coalition Calls On Insurers And Employers To Increase Access To Obesity Management Services
These folks are disgustingly stupid, self-serving morons and unworthy members of society, IMHO.
They should be shut down.
"In light of recent studies in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) demonstrating a powerful connection between obesity interventions and reduced deaths, the Obesity Action Coalition (OAC) calls on insurers and employers to increase access to the treatments of obesity and morbid obesity.First, they only mention "one study," not "recent studies," a result of the innumeracy of the fat.
In one study, led by Ted D. Adams, PhD, MPH, staggering results were reported in regards to the occurrence of death due to cancer, cardiovascular events and diabetes. The study concluded that long-term total mortality after gastric bypass was significantly reduced. This is one of the first major studies demonstrating that intentional weight-loss leads to improved life expectancy."
Second, they have it all wrong. "Intentional" weight loss is what one does by making MINOR changes in their diet. Gastric surgery forces weight-loss.
Third, if decreases in "the occurrence of death due to cancer, cardiovascular events and diabetes" were important to these porkers, they would consume fewer Calories or burn more.
Fourth, the only saving grace for these self-serving fat people is that expert diet advice is all wrong and prevents them from losing weight. Instead of clamoring for the rest of us to pay for their intentional and conscious choice to continue shoving food down their pie-holes, the OAC, if it is not extincted as it ought to be, should lobby for an investigation into expert diet advice, a moratorium on the wasteful research into overweight/obesity and a cessation of the malpractice known as bariatric surgery.
"'Obesity is not a cosmetic problem. As demonstrated in the NEJM studies, obesity interventions such as bariatric surgery save lives. It is now time for all insurers and employers to make obesity management services a priority and widely available to those affected by the diseases of obesity and morbid obesity. By doing so, those affected by obesity and their healthcare providers will have the necessary tools to combat this lifelong disease and improve the longevity and quality of health and life for all those affected by obesity,' said Joseph Nadglowski, Jr., OAC President and CEO."Uber-moron, Nadglowski, is too stupid and/or selfish to say what is really happening - weight loss saves lives, not bariatric surgery.
"It is now time for all fat people to make obesity management services a priority" and eat fewer Calories than they burn, Joe.
"Obesity is a serious health epidemic that targets one in four Americans. It is estimated that more than 93 million Americans are obese, with that number predicted to climb to 120 million in the next five years. In order to address this epidemic, the OAC recognizes and promotes increasing prevention efforts and improving access to safe and effective treatment options, such as nutrition counseling, physician supervised weight-loss (with or without pharmaceuticals) and for appropriately selected candidates, bariatric surgery."Neither obesity nor overweight are medical problems.
They may be math problems in that fat people are too innumerate to understand how to count Calories in and Calories out. They may be physics problems and fat people are too dumb to understand energy balance and that the Law of Thermodynamics which makes weight loss a 100% percent certainty when Calories in are less than Calories out. But they are surely not medical problems.
If anything, it is "nutrition counseling, physician supervised weight-loss" and other expert diet advice that PREVENTS weight loss.
"The mission of the OAC is to elevate and empower those affected by obesity through education, advocacy and support. The OAC strives to educate obese individuals, family members and the public on obesity. In addition, the OAC will increase obesity education, work to improve access to medical treatments for the obese, advocate for safe and effective treatments and strive to eliminate the negative stigma associated with obesity."Clearly the "mission of the OAC" is to siphon every last penny from society to pay for the weak wills and irresponsibility of their constituents instead of promoting meaningful change.
To really effect change, "insurers and employers" should DECREASE "access to the treatments of obesity and morbid obesity" since these are the real killers.
Do not believe it for an instant.
It is a physical IMPOSSIBILITY for resistance training to result in weight loss.
"'Many severely obese persons, needing to lose more than 100 pounds, become frustrated and turn to surgery,' Anderson said. 'This study shows that one in four persons who participate in an intensive weight loss program for 12 weeks can go on to lose over 100 pounds.'"It is NOT just one in four. It is 100% of dieters who can avoid the malpractice known as bariatric surgery, if they are willing to make MINOR changes.
This MUST work 100% of the time.
Though this message of successful weight loss is of some value, the means were Draconian, cruel, difficult and sadistic:
"Study participants were enrolled in the Health Management Resources (HMR) Weight Management Program, an intensive behavioral program, which is a partnership between HMR and UK. The program is based on limited calorie intake 1,000 to 1,200 calories daily through specialty entrees and meal replacements such as protein shakes."Special foods are NEVER needed and is a con. It is, unfortunately, overkill and a way to cause needless suffering and dependence on an unnecessary support system.
"The weight loss was accompanied by improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol levels, diabetes, sleep apnea and other ails. Sixty-six percent of the participants on medications for high blood lipids, high blood pressure, diabetes or degenerative joint disease were able to discontinue those medications, saving an average of $100 a month and netting a priceless return in health."Any amount of weight loss can be done and you can do it much more reasonably.
"'Losing more than 100 pounds is a great achievement,' Anderson said. 'But the overall benefits in ability to enjoy life and be a full participant in activities with family and friends are more important to most people than are the reduced need to take medicine and worry about health issues.'""Health is a function of participation. Participation is a function of fitness (tm)."
"A researcher at the University of Adelaide, Australia, has discovered scientific evidence that obesity is a key factor in infertility because of how it affects women's eggs."Here is the just plain wrong part:
"Importantly, her research has also discovered a way to completely reverse the effects of obesity on mouse eggs, enabling afflicted eggs to develop into healthy embryos."This is important only because the consequence of the research could be more fat kids, who are sicker kids, who are abused kids (per CAPTA).
The medical community's participation in promoting nutritional child abuse should be reevaluated.
Complicit docs and researchers should be held accountable.
Sick care workers are supposed to be mandatory reporters of child abuse, not mandatory causers.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
But there appear to be innumerable ways for the machinery of sick care and its allied conspirators to kill you or, at the very least, screw you up real bad.
"In a series of animal experiments described at the 234th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society, researchers showed how estrogen receptors located in the hypothalamus serve as a master switch to control food intake, energy expenditure and body fat distribution. When these receptors are destroyed, the animals immediately begin to eat more food, burn less energy and pack on pounds...Just what you want, those who still cannot cure toenail fungus messing with your brain's "master switch (that) control(s) food intake, energy expenditure and body fat distribution."
The findings may also help scientists develop more targeted hormone replacement therapies, capable of stimulating estrogen receptors in one part of the brain or body while dampening it in the next, Clegg says."
What harm could there be in that?
"Bariatric surgery is known to be the most effective and long lasting treatment for morbid obesity and many related conditions, but now mounting evidence suggests it may be among the most effective treatments for metabolic diseases and conditions including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and obstructive sleep apnea."Crap.
Weight loss is "the most effective treatment for metabolic diseases and conditions including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and obstructive sleep apnea."
"'Surgery for severe obesity goes way beyond weight loss. This surgery results in the complete remission or significant improvement of type 2 diabetes and other life-threatening diseases in most patients. The Society's new name and mission reflects this expanded and evolving view of surgery,' said Kelvin Higa, MD, clinical professor of surgery, UCSF- Fresno and president of the newly named American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS). 'People generally don't think of surgery as a treatment for diabetes or high blood pressure, but it is, and we expect metabolic surgery to play an ever increasing role in managing these diseases.'"So now, these folks are assuming aliases.
Perhaps this is in keeping with the techniques used by such notables as terrorists and criminals to cover their tracks.
Friday, August 24, 2007
The one thing that this article does NOT prove is that Gastric Bypass Reduces Disease Related Deaths Among Severely Obese.
What it can prove is that Weight Loss Reduces Disease Related Deaths Among Severely Obese.
Here is the con:
1. The result of this unnecessary surgical mutilation was weight loss.
2. The weight loss caused the reduction in disease related deaths.
3. The surgery was just the means to the weight loss.
4. Had the subjects lost their weight without surgery, then they still would have had a reduction in disease related deaths.
Here is an analogy:
If I took the cars away from 1000 people, then those car owners would have fewer car accidents than people who still had their cars (since they could not drive).
If, on the other hand, 1000 cars were vandalized and could not be driven, then those car owners would have fewer car accidents than people who still had their cars (since they could not drive).
In reporting this, I have a choice.
I can headline the article, "If You Cannot Drive, You Cannot Get Into A Car Accident." Not very sexy.
Or I can headline the article, "Vandalism Reduces Car Accident Deaths Among Automobile Drivers." Sexier.
If I am a slithering promoter of vandalism, then I choose the second headline.
This is what the belly-crawling proponents of the malpractice known as bariatric surgery have done in this instance.
The subjects in this exercise in mutilation would have improved with simple weight loss and without any of the related harms and huge costs associated with this terrible surgical malpractice.
For your own well-being, don't be a slave to the headlines, the diet gurus or the sick care system.
This stuff can and does kill.
Another example of your doc being your executioner.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
"Scientists have reported new evidence that infection with a common virus may be a contributing factor to the obesity epidemic sweeping through the United States and other countries. In laboratory experiments they showed that infection with human adenovirus-36 (Ad-36), long recognized as a cause of respiratory and eye infections in humans, transforms adult stem cells obtained from fat tissue into fat cells. Stem cells not exposed to the virus, in contrast, were unchanged."Here is their problem.
Even if it was true, you still have to fill the fat cells fat.
The only way to do that is, guess what?, to consume more Calories than you burn.
In other words, more Calories in than out.
In other words, overeat.
"Pasarica and her associates are now in the process of trying to identify the factors that predispose some people with the virus to develop obesity while others do not, but results of this investigation are not yet available, they say."There is one factor and one factor only.
Overeating, i.e., more Calories in than out.
Open your eyes morons.
And who is paying for this nonsense?
" Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)..."This is the same NIH that is too stupid to realize that there is no way that a 500-1000 daily Calorie deficit can ever lead to a 1-2 pound weekly weight loss.
What do you expect?
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
"Upper trunk fat -- deposits of fat on the chest and back -- is associated with an increased risk of insulin resistance, a condition that is a precursor of type 2 diabetes, according to a study led by researchers at the San Francisco VA Medical Center (SFVAMC)...If you are fat it is bad for you and we have known that for years.
The presence of visceral fat, which is located between and around the internal organs, was also associated with an increased risk of insulin resistance in both populations. The researchers found that each type of fat contributes independently to insulin resistance whether or not the other type is present...
'We knew about the insulin resistance risk associated with visceral fat, which has been shown in previous studies, but no one had ever looked at the contribution of upper trunk fat,' says lead author and FRAM principal investigator Carl Grunfeld, MD, PhD, chief of the metabolism and endocrine sections at SFVAMC. '...If you have fat up top, it's bad for you.'"
To paraphrase the title, "Risk Of Insulin Resistance Increases With Fat Build-Up. Period."
"Researchers in the Department of Neuroscience at Mount Sinai School of Medicine have identified taste receptors in the human intestines. The taste receptor T1R3 and the taste G protein gustducin are critical to sweet taste in the tongue."This is one of those great examples of why medicalizing weight loss will prevent it from ever happening.
In trying to "understand" why people get fat, the research community will "study" this matter to death, all the while ignoring the facts that we know exactly why people get fat, more Calories In than Out and that we know exactly how to people get less fat, more Calories Out than In.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
"A COMMON cold virus can help make scientists who reckon stupid, the latest research suggests."
Monday, August 20, 2007
"David Walker, comptroller general of the US, issued the unusually downbeat assessment of his country’s future in a report that lays out what he called 'chilling long-term simulations'.Just makes you want to shout, doesn't it?
These include “dramatic” tax rises, slashed government services and the large-scale dumping by foreign governments of holdings of US debt.
Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome...'With the looming retirement of baby boomers, spiralling healthcare costs, plummeting savings rates and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks,' said Mr Walker, a former senior executive at PwC auditing firm."
From the BBC:
"Researchers have found middle-age spread occurs in two distinct phases - casting doubt on the merits of using weight as a guide to health.
They found a thickening waistline in early middle age is accompanied by a rise in weight.
But although waists continue to expand with age, weight gain levelled off in later years as muscle turned to fat."
Welcome to the world of alchemy, where lead turns into gold and muscle turns into fat.As far as we know, both are impossible.
Except in the world of the experts.
“Those in the older age group gained least weight in the second half of the study. Although their overall weight may not have changed, however, their waist circumference did.”
We need to study this further by determining the slouch-to-waist circumference ratio since people's posture seems to worsen over time (though it is possible to get fatter and weigh less).
"The MRC study is the second in quick succession to question the use of BMI.
A University of Texas study found measuring the difference between the waist and hips was a more accurate way to identify people with the early signs of heart disease."
This only shows that the experts do not know how to use the BMI properly. Again.
Maybe lightning struck twice and next time they will get it right. After all, the third time is a charm, right?
Probably not since experts are involved.
"'It is important for kids to start eating healthy early in life for many reasons said Kristen Bardon, R.D.., L.D., senior clinical dietician in the Department of Clinical Nutrition at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. 'One reason is to help prevent the long-term consequences of a poor diet such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease and certain types of cancer.' (typo in original)So let's make sure we have this straight.
Allowing your child to become involved in the grocery shopping process is a creative and fun way to help them learn more about consuming a healthy diet and keeps them entertained."
Parents are mostly overweight or obese fat adults who do the grocery shopping.
They are to set the example to their children on how to grocery shop.
By following the grocery shopping example set by parents, kids won't grow up to be overweight or obese fat adults.
Even though their parents did.
More expert advice. More crap.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
This is the way it is, "Health is a function of participation. Participation is a function of fitness. (tm)"
There is no direct one-to-one relationship between fitness and health.
This is despite the propaganda of the sick care, diet and fitness industries, the gurus and the rest of them.
It is best to be fit so you can enjoy your life more fully through greater participation.
At the very least you will have a better life.
Perhaps you will buy more time and it appears likely that you will decrease your chances of getting some pretty bad illnesses.
But the real goal of fitness, the true goal of fitness, the fitness goal to which the sick care industry and the diet/fitness guru predators cannot afford to admit, is a better life.
That is a much higher goal than all of sick care can ever and will ever achieve.
If you are going to do the fitness thing, i.e., manage your weight and the relative amounts of fat and lean in your body, then you have to do it smartly.
"Research shows that exercise:so
- does not reverse ageing
- may make old hearts less stable
- could actually increase chances of arrhythmia (change in heartbeat)
- does bring protection against heart attacks, but this protection is gained and lost rapidly. "
" The summary messages from the work presented are therefore:Fitness allows you to make the most of what you have. Anything else is gravy.
1. Don't expect exercise to make the old young again
2. Exercise in the elderly is not necessarily always good for the heart
3. It's never too late to start regular exercise since the heart rapidly adapts becoming indistinguishable in many measures from the heart of someone who has engaged in lifelong exercise
4. Exercise can protect against damage from a heart attack, but this protection is gained rapidly and lost rapidly."
Just be intelligent about how you do it.
And, oh yeah, eschew all the crap spouted by the anti-aging medicine nut cases (e.g., here and here) and the "longevity expert" pretenders (e.g., here).
Pancreatic cancer is a baddie.
"A protein that dwindles in response to obesity and a sedentary lifestyle may one day help doctors predict which people are at increased risk for pancreatic cancer, new research by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and collaborating scientists indicates."Though "work remains to determine if the protein -- whose acronym stands for insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 -- is a reliable indicator of pancreatic cancer risk," seems as if there are still many, more immediate reasons not to be a porker.
Depends on your threshold for concern.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
More peculiar science.
"Royal Veterinary College researchers found that when pregnant rats were fed a diet of biscuits, crisps and sweets, their babies ate more unhealthy food.
They said the British Journal of Nutrition study showed the rats' behaviour was 'programmed' in the womb.
Dieticians have stressed the importance of a balanced diet for mothers-to-be.
Scientists have already shown that, in humans, diet in early life can literally shape your future, setting your risk of obesity and heart disease.
However, the latest research suggests that, in rats at least, eating too much of the wrong food while carrying a child could be potentially harmful."
So how do they propose the initial, the very first, “craving” for “junk food” started?
Some sort of spontaneous genetic mutation? Have they found the “junk food” mutation?
“The female rats used in the Wellcome Trust funded research were either given a balanced diet of ‘rat chow’ - an unappealing but reasonably healthy diet - or access to as many doughnuts, biscuits, muffins, sweets and crisps as they could consume.”
“Unappealing” to whom, BTW?
So here is the real meat of the story - no one will come out and say this stuff is of value, but will suggest that they receive more money for additional research.
"...Fiona Ford, a research nutritionist from the University of Sheffield, said...'While this is interesting research, these mechanisms are so finely tuned that I don't think we understand them yet.'
Dr Atul Singham, from the Institute of Child Health in London, also said that he was slightly sceptical about the likely scale of "foetal programming" in child diet until it could be proven in human studies.
He said: 'This is what we are looking into - but at the moment there is no data in humans to support this, and obviously it is very difficult to carry out intervention studies such as these in pregnancy.'
Tracy Kelly, of the charity Diabetes UK, cautioned against extrapolating to humans from studies on rats.
'Much more work needs to be done before we draw any firm conclusions on how a junk food diet in pregnancy can affect the baby?s craving for the same diet.'"
No more work, let alone "much more work needs to be done."You just need to manage your Calories in and your Calories out.
Then success happens.
"Deer hunting could be a dangerous endeavor for men with heart disease or risk factors for it, research findings suggest.
In a study of 25 middle-aged male deer hunters, researchers found that the activities inherent to hunting -- like walking over rough terrain, shooting an animal and dragging its carcass -- sent the men's heart rates up significantly."
That certainly was a compelling argument against physical activity.
BTW, "male deer hunters?" Are they still at risk if they only hunt does?
"In some cases, this led to potentially dangerous heart-rhythm disturbances, or diminished oxygen supply to the heart.
Of the 25 hunters, 17 had established coronary heart disease, while the rest had risk factors such as being overweight, smoking or having high blood pressure or cholesterol."
Is it the deer hunting or could it possibly be the "established coronary heart disease, while the rest had risk factors such as being overweight, smoking or having high blood pressure or cholesterol"?
"Premenopausal women who are very physically active --especially those who put in the most work around the house -- may be cutting their risk of developing cancer of the uterine lining."You do all the chores, honey. Why? Because I love you and want you to live longer. While you are up, get me another beer, sweetie."
Among 253,023 women followed for more than six years, those who had not yet reached menopause at the study's outset and were the most physically active were 34 percent less likely to develop endometrial cancer than their more sedentary peers. Three to four hours of household or recreational activity each day produced the greatest benefit."
If it has not become apparent by now, that the experts are:
self-contradictorythen you must be brain dead.
full of it
always changing their little minds
misleading us with great frequency
feeding us mucho crap
Give up following them and move on to a successful, immutable, eternal approach to achieving your weight loss and fitness goals. See here, here, here, here and here.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Simply exercising will fail with 100% certainty.
"American College of Sports Medicine members are concerned official advice to do 30 minutes of gentle exercise each day is being misconstrued.
Some may take this to include a mere stroll to the car, Circulation reports."
The fact that these idiots could not foresee this, is further proof of their incompetence to offer advice. BTW, what is "gentle exercise"?
"There is confusion about what is the ideal amount and intensity of exercise to improve health."
There is no "confusion about what is the ideal amount and intensity of exercise to improve health"
Simply put, any ideal is unknowable and exercise will not do it, anyway. Training will.
The distinction is critical to an understanding of how to approach the matter if you want to succeed.
Also, there is no way to know if improved physical fitness will “improve health” per se.
There is no one-to-one relationship between health and fitness.
Walter was built like a rock, William like a mountain of Jell-o.
Walter is dead. William lives on.
Who was fitter? Who was healthier?
Bottom line: fitness will improve one’s ability to participate in life and may make one healthier.
"Obese middle-age and older women appear no more likely to report migraine than their non-obese counterparts, a new study suggests.
Some previous studies have suggested that there is a relationship between obesity and migraine, while others have found no connection."
Fat people give the sick care system and the rest of us headaches.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
This is the part where you perjure yourself by not telling the whole truth.
"The advice for people with diabetes is similar to that for the general population, but with extra emphasis on controlling weight, blood sugar, and risk factors for heart disease, explains the report, Healthy Eating for Type 2 Diabetes."The punchline - Type 2 Diabetes, not "people with diabetes."
There is a "Type 1." Type 2 is the diabetes you get primarily because you are fat.
So in order to get a headline, the good folks at Harvard have to mislead people.
That is, IMHO, par for their course when it comes to diet advice.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
"Few obese adults receive a formal weight-management plan from their doctors, despite the proven health benefits of even modest weight loss, a new study suggests."Good news for modern fat people.
Since expert diet advice, including that from physicians, almost always results in diet failure and increased overweight/obesity, this is life-saving. See here,here, here, here and here.
Of course, the real reason that doctors do not offer weight loss advice has nothing to do with what is best for the patient.
It has everything to do with what is best for the doc.
Physicians make money when they see people. Docs are afraid to inform you that you are fat, because you will be offended and not come back to see them. If you do not come back, they cannot charge you. If they cannot charge you, then they cannot afford a luxury car. This is a bad thing for the medical professional.
As an aside, this is precisely the resistance I encountered years ago when trying to implement the Fit to Parent (tm) Program.
Still, the unwillingness of physicians to offer up weight loss advice is a plus for you.
Don't squander the opportunity.
Celebrate your good fortune and follow weight loss and fitness approaches that will work. See here, here, here, here and here.
"Sky rocketing obesity rates in certain segments of the population are heightening the demand for efficient percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). High patient volumes have increased the clinical preference for simple outpatient PCI procedures over more complicated open heart procedures. The premier product in PCI therapy is the drug eluting stent.Your choice, bronto sapiens - money in your pocket or in your coronary arteries.
New analysis from Frost & Sullivan (http://www.medicaldevices.frost.com), U.S. Coronary Stent Market, reveals that the market earned revenues of $3.27 billion in 2006 and estimates this to reach $4 billion in 2013."
Framingham Observational Study Notes Greater Incidence Of Metabolic Syndrome Among Adults Consuming Soft Drinks
Understand that there is a big difference between "association" and "cause and effect."
Most of the research into overweight/obesity is "association." That is what garners headlines.
It is also what makes careers misleading, mistreating, drugging and mutilating the public.
The only cause and effect in overweight/obesity is too many Calories in, too few out.
Working from this understanding of true cause and effect leads to real resolution of the matter.
This is precisely how we at FitnessMed work with people to develop weight loss and fitness programs that absolutely must work, except for those committed to self-sabotage.
"While the authors acknowledge that the increased risk of metabolic syndrome associated with high-calorie, high-sugar regular soft drinks might be expected, the similar risk found among those drinking diet sodas is more challenging to understand, they say. It is worth noting that dietary patterns are similar across drinkers of both regular and diet soft drinks.(I added the emphasis.)
'Although our study adjusted for lifestyle factors, it is known that people who regularly drink soft drinks-even diet sodas-are also known to eat foods that are higher in calories and fat, and get less physical activity,' said Ramachandran Vasan, M.D, professor of medicine at Boston School of Medicine, and senior author of the paper."
Too bad this will be buried beneath the heap of weight loss/fitness crap because it is too un-Oprah-like.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
"Understanding eating behaviour therefore means that we must take into account physiological and hormonal pathways and also the brain processes evoked by the sight, smell, taste, or even just the thought, of food. More challenging still is to develop an understanding of the ways in which these two sets of processes -- the physiological and the brain/neural -- interact to shape our patterns of eating."If you have not figured it out, this translates into billions of dollars in research, lifelong work for these researchers (plus the next generations of researchers) and grants to institutions that will keep them in the black for decades to come.
Just think about how cancer, baldness and the common cold have been cured. Oh they haven't?
And these research efforts, in one form or another, have been ongoing for periods of time measured in decades to centuries.
It appears as if you can fool some people all the time.
Fat people. And fat-brained politicians who support this nonsense.
"According to a new study in Economic Inquiry, an individual's body weight depends not just on physiology and economic circumstances, but also on average body weight of the population at large."So, in societies where fat people are common, it is common to find fat people.
"'Behavior governing weight depends not just on health considerations but also on the desire to appear normal and attractive,' say authors Mary Burke and Frank Heiland."Attractive? You decide. (These images were obtained via Google image searches. If there is a copyright holder, please contact me and I will credit you or remove the image, whichever you prefer. Each image links to the file from which it was taken.)
No matter what is written, no matter what is researched, no matter what is devised, no matter what is blamed, unless one consumes fewer Calories than one burns, weight will never, ever come off.
Despite what the moron experts say, like David Katz and Jorge Cruise in their 3-Hour Diet book (see page 55).
Value: what this leads to is a warning. For example, if math test scores are heading south for the population at large, then it is to be expected that mediocre math competence will be recognized as good, if a standard form of a national language is used by fewer members of a society, then it is to be expected that communications among people will suffer from less consistency, etc.
Monday, August 13, 2007
"Overweight residents of an Italian town will be paid to lose weight, the mayor said on Monday."Besides the fact that it will not work (I predict), why not pay normal weight people for being good and impose a luxury tax on the calorically rich?
The fat will only spend the euros on more Calories anyway once the pathetically minimalist communal weight loss experiment is over.
"...18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger, who died in 1999 in his fourth day of agene therapy experiment at the University of Pennsylvania. Gelsinger had suffered from an inherited disorder that blocks the body from properly processing nitrogen. The Food and Drug Administration concluded that the gene therapy injection intended to try to cure him instead killed him."Here is more of what you can expect.
" A woman whose death in a gene therapy study shut it down and prompted a review of the safety of 28 other studies was experiencing multiple organ failure when she got to the hospital, a spokesman said.Bon appetit.
Jolee Mohr, 36, died July 24, 22 days after receiving her second injection of an experimental drug made of genetically engineered viruses she hoped would help her arthritis.
Robb Mohr said he believes his wife thought the drug would help her, even though the research was to determine the drug's safety, rather than its effectiveness. The University of Chicago Medical Center, where Jolee Mohr died, is investigating the cause of death.'By the time she got to us, she was in liver failure and kidney failure, she was on a ventilator and she was septic' or responding to severe infection, hospital spokesman John Easton told The Associated Press."
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Maybe it helps answer the question, "Why are kids fat?"
"Take The Blender, a 1,270-calorie whopper made with chocolate or vanilla protein, peanut butter, banana, milk and ice cream, made by Emerald City. And there's Anne Kessler's favorite, the Mocha Bliss, another of the chain's more indulgent offerings.Here is what Anne is feeding her 2-year-old - 220 Kcal, 55 gm carb, 31 gm sugar, 6 gm fiber (the label is a link):
'It just tastes good,' she said, sipping down a tall one recently in her neighborhood smoothie shop.
But for her 2-year-old daughter, Kessler only orders from the low-sugar menu. Usually it's a banana-strawberry-papaya concoction with less than half the calories of her chocolatey choice."
"Obese people underestimate the amount of sugar they eat, making studies into the condition based on self-reporting very unreliable, UK researchers say."Shudder.
This might mean that they also underestimate other intakes.
Like the way too many Calories they shove into their overweight/obese pieholes and the way too many Calories they encourage their abused children to swallow, for examples.
"'These results show what many have suspected for some time: obese people are not able to tell us what they actually eat,' said Professor Sheila Bingham who led the team from the Medical Research Council and University of Cambridge."How can this be?
But do not fear, fat folk.
The fat rescue industries will stop way short of acknowledging the true cause of overweight/obesity and that they have no roles to play in "treating" the epidemic.
You will have pity and excuses to milk for years to come.
"Scientists at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston have good news for people who want to stay strong in their old age: older bodies are just as good as young ones at turning protein-rich food into muscle.Here is the problem.
A newly published study suggests that a diet containing a moderate amount of protein-rich food such as beef, fish, pork, chicken, dairy or nuts may help slow the deterioration of elderly people's muscles."
If simply eating protein added muscle mass, then there would be little need for resistance training to get stronger and men on ketogenic diets would all be Adonis-like, the women Amazon-like.
This is not the case.
And never will be.
"Even among the elders who volunteered for the study, whom Paddon-Jones described as typically more physically active than most others in the elderly population, 'a disturbing thing was that on average they had 12 kilograms (26.5 pounds) less lean muscle mass than the younger people we tested.' That difference, he said, would probably be even greater in the general population. In other words, compared to a young adult, a typical elderly person lacks the advantages provided by more than 26 pounds of muscle -- a deficit that in some cases could lead an older person to being permanently bedridden by an injury or illness. "If these morons actually believe that eating more protein will add 26.5 pounds of lean muscle mass to the body of a person, old or young, then I have a bridge to sell to them.
If you believe them, you can bid against them.
Of course, it really starts with the child abusing parents who let their kids become fat and stupid.
"Obese elementary schoolchildren miss a couple more school days on average than their normal-weight classmates, according to a study that says being fat is a better predictor for absenteeism than any other factor.And with lasting effects:
Researchers said their results suggest that childhood obesity, in addition to serious medical issues, can lead to a plethora of additional problems down the road.
'It's clear in all the literature that the more days of school you miss, it really sets you up for such negative outcomes: drugs and AIDS and (teen) pregnancy," said Andrew B. Geier, a doctoral candidate at the University of Pennsylvania and lead author of the study released Friday.'"
"The study adds to growing research into non-medical complications of being fat, including data suggesting that obese adults miss more workdays and go to college less frequently than people of normal weight, Geier said."
Saturday, August 11, 2007
This is the story of two porko sapiens.
"Two months ago, Phoenix residents Marlene Zytcer, 57, and her daughter Aimee, 31, traveled to the University of California, San Diego Medical Center for a minimally invasive surgery to lose weight."Get that it is a "surgery."
"Called gastric banding, the simple procedure has life-saving potential by helping the mother-daughter team successfully fight their genetic tendency toward diabetes and cardiovascular disease."This is the second sentence in the press release and already the lies are coming fast and furious.
People die from surgery. This "simple procedure" also has "life-ending potential."
More importantly, though, where is the proof of the alleged "genetic tendency toward diabetes and cardiovascular disease"?
Fat people have these problems. To suggest a genetic tendency without proof is, of course, misleading.
Then what do you expect? These are the same people who perform surgeries that are, IMHO, clearly malpractice. Why would they care about the truth?
They would not.
"'My mother is diabetic and going blind. If I did not go to UC San Diego Medical Center, this would be my future too,' said Marlene, a retired kindergarten teacher who was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 40. "No, Marlene. Going to UCSD made no difference. Yo could have gone anywhere for your malpractice.
One should wonder what these women were paid for their testimonial.
"'By working side-by-side to lose weight, we are turning the tide against a family history of disease. We have strength in numbers, even if the number is two.'""Working"? Garbage.
If these porkers had "worked...to lose weight," they would not have opted for surgery. They would have eaten fewer Calories.
"'Together, we solve ways to cook light and eat lots of protein,' said Marlene."You're not eating "lots" of anything, Marlene. Your stomach is too small. Now it matches your brain.
"During the 40-minute outpatient procedure, Horgan places an adjustable band around the upper stomach to form a small gastric pouch. The band creates an hourglass shaped stomach, limiting food intake. If necessary, the belt-like band can be adjusted or removed any time...Despite the fact that UCSD recruited two patients to prostitute themselves and act as shills for their malpractice surgery clinic, do not fall for the tale.
Two months after the procedure, Marlene and Aimee visited Dr. Horgan for an adjustment to their gastric band. After numbing the skin, a thin needle is inserted into the band to inject a saline solution to continue to limit the amount of food that can be ingested."
This is not warm and fuzzy stuff.
Except in the misleading world of medical advertising.
Here is the grossly stupid part:
"Scientists at the Medical Research Council have found that eating more sugar is associated with obesity...This is important in establishing the cause of the UK's epidemic of obesity: lack of exercise or over-eating."The "cause of the UK's epidemic of obesity" is more Calories in than out. Nothing else.
How you got there makes no difference. Period.
Here is the okay part:
"They found that obese people underestimated the amount of sugar they consumed, while overestimating the amount of vitamin C they took in each day...I think it is useful to reiterate that fat people are basically liars when it comes to reporting how many Calories they eat and how few they burn.
Professor Bingham, from the MRC Dunn Human Nutrition Unit and EPIC study continued: "These results show what many have suspected for some time: obese people are not able to tell us what they actually eat. If we are to tackle the scourge of obesity, both exercise and diet need to be taken into account."
The fat folk who eat "only a salad with little or no dressing all day" and the moron researchers who fall for that need to be exposed occasionally.
This is one such occasion.
You're fat because you eat too much. No other reason.
And on top of that, you lie about it.
This one should really prove to you just how little the experts understand about this stuff and what a terrible frittering away of research resources most of this crap truly is.
"Researchers have discovered that middle age spread seems to have an effect on waistlines but not weight as people get older. "There is no "discovery" here.
This is simply how it works and has always worked.
Here is the explanation:
Fat is the most concentrated storage form of Calories in the body. Storing 3500 Calories as fat only adds one pound to the body.
Storing 600 Calories as muscle adds about one pound to your body.
One pound of fat occupies more space than one pound of muscle.
"'As people get older it seems that their bodies change… they lose muscle and get fatter - this explains why middle-age spread might not be reflected on the bathroom scales.'"Duh. Just explained it to you, stupid.
Next time, ask me first and save the research money for something useful. That is, if you can figure out how to do useful research.
"The researchers carried out a nine-year study of 1044 people aged either 39 or 59 in 1991. The height, waist circumference and weight of each participant was measured in 1991, 1995 and 2000, and used to measure changes in body mass index over time."Nine years to "discover"what is already known.
Here's a tip. There is no such thing as "mini-starvation mode" so don't go researching that.
Repeat the mantra, "The experts cannot be believed. The experts cannot be believed."
Thursday, August 09, 2007
"The hormone that tells us we are full also regulates our desire for certain foods, researchers said on Thursday, in a finding that sheds light on why people gain weight and could lead to new treatments for obesity."Sheds no light at all. People gain weight because they consume more Calories than they burn.There is no other reason.
"The study showed that patients with a rare genetic disorder who lacked the hormone called leptin ate less after receiving injections of the hormone, said I.S. Farooqi, a researcher at Cambridge University who led the study."Farooqi is all faraqed-up.
"Previous research has shown the hormone does not help people with normal leptin levels lose weight, but scientists still do not completely understand how it works, Farooqi said."He got that right. It does not help and he sure does not understand.
"To see how the hormone worked, the researchers showed the patients pictures of different types of food, ranging from tasty fare like chocolate cake and pizza to blander choices such as cauliflower and broccoli.Farooqi is a moron. The study showed nothing of the sort.
The patients with the genetic disorder -- of which there are about a dozen known cases in the world -- liked all types of food, ate excessively and were obese, the researchers said.
Using magnetic resonance imaging technology, the researchers tracked the patients' brain activity as they responded to the pictures and pinpointed several key areas that play an important role when it comes to a desire for food.
After the patients received leptin injections, the areas that had previously shown activity all the time at the sight of food were only active if the people had not eaten the night before, which was a normal response, Farooqi said.It showed desire for food is driven by biology -- not greed -- which causes overeating and obesity, Farooqi said."
This imbecilic thinking is similar to saying that if you show pictures of naked women to rapists and their brains light-up, then inject them with rapetin and the hot spots cool down, you have showed desire for forced sex is driven by biology -- not unacceptable behavior -- which causes rape.
Or murder. Or robbery. Or arson. Or...pick your behavior. Welcome to the nutritional bootstrap to get out of jail free cards.
The whole study is crap-tin.
"Too much food, alcohol and sun has fuelled a massive rise in some forms of cancer, warn UK experts…
Rates of kidney cancer and womb cancer - both linked to obesity - have also shown rapid increases over the past 10 years.
Overweight and obese women are twice as likely to develop womb cancer as women of a healthy weight due to higher than normal exposure to the hormone oestrogen…
‘Obesity is linked with a number of cancers - post-menopausal breast cancer and endometrial cancer are the main ones in women and bowel cancer in men - and that's something we've known for a while.’"
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
"Adults who had so-called metabolic syndrome when they were children have a substantially increased risk of having heart disease in their 30s, researchers report."This research claims the results of the abuse were this bad:
Isn't it time to consider stopping the killing of your children?
"In the entire adult group, there were 17 cases of cardiovascular disease; six of these occurred in the group that had childhood metabolic syndrome -- a rate almost 15 times higher than among subjects without metabolic syndrome as children.Increases in weight were the main factor driving in the development of metabolic syndrome, Morrison's team found."
Another non-surprise and waste of research efforts.
"People often choose partners with similar body fatness to their own, according to new research....
However, they have now found those with about the same amount of fat are likely to be attracted to each other...
...assortive mating for body fat was relatively new as in the 1940s and 50s people got married in their early 20s, often before they were overweight or obese."
As if rich people don't generally choose rich people, famous types don't generally choose other famous types and poor people don't generally choose other poor people as partners.
Of course, it may not be a matter of choice.
Maybe some of these types simply cannot do "better."
Here's an investment opportunity.
"The more weight a woman puts on after her teen years, the more likely she is to develop urinary incontinence in her late 30s to early 50s, a new study shows...
The more weight women gained after age 18, the greater their risk of developing urinary control problems. Women who gained from 5.1 to 10 kilograms (11.2 to 22 pounds) were 44 percent more likely to become incontinent than those who kept their weight within 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) of what it was at age 18, while those who gained more than 30 kilograms (66 pounds) were at more than fourfold increased risk of incontinence compared to those who put on fewer than 2 kilograms."
Put your money in adult diapers, the same place fat women apparently put their urine.
The brand that seems most logical - Depounds.
Bridge for sale. Maybe.
Any research paid for by an interested party is suspect.
"The study, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, received funding from the National Dairy Council."
Especially when it comes from Big White.
Don't believe it. Wait for confirmation from a reliable, uninterested source.
"Diet foods and drinks for children may inadvertently lead to overeating and obesity, says a new report from the University of Alberta.Here, here and here is more about nutritional child abuse.
A team of researchers contends that animals learn to connect the taste of food with the amount of caloric energy it provides, and children who consume low-calorie versions of foods that are normally high in calories may develop distorted connections between taste and calorie content, leading them to overeat as they grow up."
Here is info on government-sponsored child abuse.
When you are ready to stop killiing your children, visit here, here, here, here, here and here.
Fat Is The New Normal, FSU Researcher Says - Changing Perceptions Of Body Weight Feed Rise In Obesity
"American women have gotten fatter as it has become more socially acceptable to carry a few extra pounds, according to a new study. Florida State University Assistant Professor of Economics Frank Heiland and Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Economist Mary Burke are the co-authors of a paper published in the academic journal Economic Inquiry that argues that the ballooning weight of the population has fed even more collective weight gain as our perception of what is considered a normal body size has changed. "How can this be?
"Many economists believe that people eat more -- and thus gain weight -- when food prices drop, but that's just part of the story behind the nation's dramatic weight gain since the late 1970s, according to the researchers. The full price of a calorie has dropped by about 36 percent relative to the price of consumer goods since 1977, but prices leveled off in the mid-1990s. And yet American women continued to get bigger."To get a handle on these and other important, useful numbers in a user-friendly way, read MASSematics (tm).
Oh, I guess that means I saw it coming.
Being a homo corpulent is the new vision of proper weight. Oh, I guess I saw that coming, too.
"The researchers also looked at self-reports of women's real weights and desired weights. In 1994, the average woman said she weighed 147 pounds but wanted to weigh 132 pounds. By 2002, the average woman weighed 153 pounds but wanted the scales to register 135 pounds, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.Let's not forget the boys.
The fact that even the desired weight of women has increased suggests there is less social pressure to lose weight, Heiland said, citing a previous study that 87 percent of Americans, including 48 percent of obese Americans, believe that their body weight falls in the "socially acceptable" range. "
"The researchers focused this study on women partly because their weight gains have been so dramatic, Heiland said, citing a whopper of a statistic: 33.2 percent of American women over age 20 are classified as obese, according to 2001-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. However, men also have become heavier, and the researchers believe the same economic, social and biological forces are to blame. "So if you are ready to cease being a diet and fitness pawn, read the books found here, here, here, here and here.
Don't let stupid become your new smart.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
"The essential nutrient choline -- found in red meat, poultry, eggs and milk -- may increase the risk of colon polyps, at least for women, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday."This is a bum bummer.
"Cho and colleagues analyzed the diet and colon health of nearly 40,000 female nurses whom they followed since 1984.Now for the sage advice:
Women who ate the most choline -- based on food questionnaires filled out every two years -- were 45 percent more likely to develop polyps than those who consumed the smallest amount.
Choline has a number of important functions in the body, including roles in brain development and memory function. Less is known about its association with cancer."
"It's probably too early to worry about choline," added Cho, who is now looking for a similar association in men."
Then it will be time to worry.
Monday, August 06, 2007
"Women who are obese when they conceive are more likely to have babies with birth defects than are mothers of normal weight, a US study suggests.Not new stuff, though.
The relevant birth defects include missing limbs and malformed hearts."
"Smaller scale studies in the past have suggested this link, but this is said to be the largest and most comprehensive study to date."
"Researchers stress the risk of having a baby with birth defects is low, even for obese women."
Those are some good, caring researchers. More don't worry, be happy and fat.
"The results suggested that seven different types of birth defect were more common when the mother was obese."C'mon, admit it, those extra desserts were worth the risk to your children, right?
"More than two-thirds of Australians living outside major cities are overweight or obese, and extremely obese corpses are creating a safety hazard at mortuaries, according to two studies released on Sunday."How to fix the problem.
Of corpse, "heavy duty" "lifting hoists," so they can fly through the air with the greatest of grease, the fat dead young man/woman on the flying...
"Meanwhile, pathologists are calling for new 'heavy-duty' autopsy facilities to cope with obese corpses that are difficult to move and dangerously heavy for standard-size trolleys and lifting hoists.
The bodies presented 'major logistical problems' and 'significant occupational health and safety issues,' according to a separate study, which found the number of obese and morbidly obese bodies had doubled in the past 20 years.
Specially designed mortuaries would soon be required if the nation failed to curb its fat epidemic, providing 'larger storage and dissection rooms, and more robust equipment,' said Professor Roger Byard, a pathologist at the University of Adelaide."
BTW, read this.
From the 2007 Institute of Food Technologists Annual Meeting & Food Expo in Chicago:
"It could be decades before science can accurately measure the body's systems to determine which foods, in what quantities and combinations, will best combat against disease and illness, experts say.I contend the IFT is bad at predicting the future.
More than decades, I'll wager. Closer to never (unless we make humans the same through genetic modification or fudge the definition of "best.")
"But when that time comes, expect each diet to be as individual as the person. That's the general consensus among food scientists gathered here ..."The IFT is not bad at predicting the past.
That time is now. People already do diets as "individual as the person." Except in institutions like prisons where people are fed similar diets.
At least one speaker got one thing right.
"While functional food appears today to be a popular means for individuals to craft their own healthy diet, Peter Clifton, Ph.D., a professor at Adelaide University in Australia and researcher with the country's national science agency, called functional foods 'a myth.'"IFT appears to be a trade organization masquerading as a consumer advocacy group, much like the AMA. Here is its mission statement.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Here is the idea behind this brilliant approach.
We are programmed soon before and shortly after we are born. This programming determines our appetites.
"Why do people get fat? We habitually divide the causes of obesity into two categories: genetic predisposition (having lots of overweight relatives) and lifestyle choices (eating too many chips or even, according to a recent study, having fat friends). A new field called developmental programming maintains a third possibility: that obesity, like many aspects of our physiology, can be traced to the months just before and after birth, when the brain and other organs are still fine-tuning themselves."Where does this thinking take us?
"But what if it is possible to change the settings? Michael Cawthorne, director of metabolic research at the Clore Laboratory at Britain’s University of Buckingham, argues that if we act early enough, we may be able to program babies’ metabolisms to provide permanent resistance to excess pounds. He and his colleagues are trying to develop a baby formula with an astonishing property: to turn newborns into those enviable people who can eat what they want without getting fat."So what can we do?
"Cawthorne would supplement infants’ formula with leptin during the period in which their metabolisms are being calibrated. He speculates that this kind of treatment 'will help people cope better with an abundant food environment.' Experiments with animals provide support. A study led by Cawthorne’s associate Claire Stocker found that rat mothers given leptin during pregnancy and lactation produced offspring that were resistant to obesity. "This concept has legs.
Off-the-shelf solutions to current social problems are already available.Now, if they could only come up with an anti-stupid idea hormone.
To prevent unwanted pregnancies, researchers suggest that all female infants be fed anti-ovarian hormone (AVH) in formula. "By wrapping AVH in micellular envelopes, digestive acids would be rendered ineffective in deactivating AVH. Ovarian development can be prohibited and the societal disease of unwanted pregnancies can be eliminated, together with fertility."
Other social problems, such as rape are similarly treatable, researchers say. "Male infants, fed saltpeter would be rendered incapable of having, let alone maintaining an erection, the usual prerequisite for rape."
Friday, August 03, 2007
If you have to medicalize overweight/obesity, it is about time that the people with large animal experience got involved.
Not a moment too soon.
After all these years, have I finally found a soul-mate, of sorts?
Here is a medical doctor who also realizes that overweight/obesity are not medical problems.
"Dr Hamish Meldrum, head of the British Medical Association, argued that the 'over-medicalisation' of weight gain meant that many individuals failed to take responsibility for their own health."and
"Obesity is in danger of becoming overmedicalised.""In danger"?
It already is.
Though he did not take his argument far enough, there was resistance from those docs who can make money "treating" fat people.
Wanna bet that Harnish will not be head of the British Medical Association much longer?
There is something oxymoronic about having a sensible head of a medical association.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
"People with dieting blues should try swapping white corn tortillas for blue. A recent study suggests that the coloured flatbreads are healthier, especially for diabetics and dieters, Sara Jensen reports in Chemistry & Industry, the magazine of the SCI."People who diet should try eating fewer Calories than they burn.
"Scientists in Mexico, home of the taco, found that tortillas made from blue corn had less starch and a lower glycæmic index than their white counter parts."Which has been shown to make no significant difference in weight lost.
"The blue colouring is due to the presence of anthocyanins in the corn."The brown coloring is due to the presence of crap in the information.
1. Issued new exercise guidelines for the CDC and ACSM.
2. Took a job at Consumer Reports evaluating diets.
3. Became a diet and fitness guru.
4. Got an Oprah endorsement for the diet and fitness programs.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
"The recommendations are an update and clarification of the 1995 recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and ACSM on the types and amounts of physical activity needed by healthy adults to improve and maintain health. The intent is to provide a more comprehensive and explicit public health recommendation for adults based upon available evidence of the health benefits of physical activity."Here is what is "more comprehensive and explicit."
"The core recommendation remains fundamentally unchanged despite more than 10 years passing since it was issued. New science has been evaluated...""...fundamentally unchanged despite" utter failure to make a positive difference over the past 12 years.
Thank God for "new science."
"The updated recommendation for adults is improved in several ways.Big improvement.
1. Moderate-intensity physical activity has been clarified.
The 1995 document specified "most, preferably all days per week" as the recommended frequency while the new recommendation identifies five days per week as the recommended minimum."
By the way, number of days per week bears no relationship to intensity. Duh.
Here's another improvement:
"8. Wording has been clarified.All uncertainty removed. What could be clearer than "brisk" or "noticeably accelerates"?
Minor wording changes in the recommendation have been made to enhance clarity in communications. For example, the term "aerobic," or endurance, has been added to clarify the type of physical activity being recommended and to differentiate it from muscle-strengthening exercises, which are now part of the core recommendation.
The updates also provide a clearer sketch of what combinations of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity can be performed to meet this recommendation. Moderate-intensity aerobic activity is described as generally equivalent to a brisk walk, or activity that noticeably accelerates the heart rate."
The thing is full of this drivel.
Read it all. And weep. It is your tax dollars.
His/her lips are moving!
But seriously though, folks...
"The 1995 recommendations, issued by the American College of Sports Medicine with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, had stated, 'Every U.S. adult should accumulate 30 minutes or more of moderate-intensity physical activity on most, preferably all, days of the week.'Now there is a change worth the 12 year wait.
The new guidelines call for healthy adults to engage in moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity for at least 30 minutes five days each week, or vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise for at least 20 minutes three days a week."
"The guidelines called for weightlifting exercise to work on muscular strength and endurance, with eight to 10 different exercises on two nonconsecutive days a week."Not even a prayer of succeeding. Simply not the way weightlifting progress happens.
But then again, why should they care about getting it right? They will take another dozen years to revise the guidelines and by then the current fools won't even be around.