There's a movie or two about that.
Posted on 07/14/2010 8:39:04 AM PDT by HandsOffMyFreedom
While addressing the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) this week, First Lady Michelle Obama declared obesity a threat to black Americans comparable to oppressive racial policies of the past. Instead of citing positive black role models who refuse to fall victim to a supposed threat that is ‘terrorizing’ their race, Mrs. Obama instigated another racial struggle for the civil rights organization to unnecessarily embed itself.
“We are living today in a time where we’re decades beyond slavery, we are decades beyond Jim Crow; when one of the greatest risks to our children’s future is their own health,” Mrs. Obama told the NAACP on July 12. “African American children are significantly more likely to be obese than are white children.”
One African American who did not allow herself to fall victim to the so called obesity ‘epidemic’ is Venus Williams, a professional tennis player who has won three Olympic gold medals and seven Grand Slam singles titles. Williams is a shining example of a black American child who thwarted the health threats posed by foods Mrs. Obama and her fellow food cops claim are this generation’s most notorious genocidal murderers.
In the July issue of Bon Appétit magazine, Williams shares her secrets for how she “fuels up for her work on and off the court.” Williams reveals she is not afraid of the poisonous foods that Mrs. Obama and radical food “watchdog” groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) are waging war against.
“Ruth’s Chris is my favorite restaurant, and I always order the rib eye, medium-rare,” said Williams, which undoubtedly makes the anti-meat PCRM cringe in fear for the tennis star’s life. According to the PCRM ...
(Excerpt) Read more at nannystateliberationfront.net ...
There's a movie or two about that.
Venus obviously has no weight worries at this stage of her life.
“I don’t remember liberals pushing fast food on society back then.”
The post you’re responding to mentions prepared food as well as fast food. That’s what I remember most. More prepared meals became available in grocery stores so working women didn’t have to cook for their husbands and/or kids. It was marketed that way.
>>Burn more energy than you consume and you will lose weight. Nothing else matters.....unless someone has repealed the laws of thermodynamics, anyway.<<
Yeah, talk to anyone who has been on steroids and see if it’s all calorie in calorie out. Talk to a parent of a child with a brain tumor who watch a child on steroids balloon up with the inability to eat normally.
Sorry friend, watched my dear friend’s 10 year old do this. She weighed nearly 150 when she died after puking every day.
Along with that, eat 1500 calories of only little debbie’s and I guarantee you won’t lose weight. We have been snowed by the diet industry that told us that the way to lose weight is to eat high carb and low fat. That a calorie is a calorie, with no differences. You can see how well that worked.
Never thought about it that way.
Makes sense to me.
I remember some discussion about "timesaver" foods or partially-prepared foods (mixes, that kind of thing -- add water and stir, heat to 240F or whatever). Frozen foods.
I guess that all had a big time-saving pitch, and would let Mom go looking for a part-time job after the kids had all started school. When we were all in school, when my baby sister turned six, my mom went back to work as a nurse. She'd been an RN in England during the War. Just an office nurse-helper, sort of a nurse's aide in the States, but she could pull in an extra $300/month when the old man's pay (before he retired) was bumping along about $600 as an active-duty USAFR officer with 12-14 years or so in grade, back in 1961. After he retired, that extra paycheck really helped. Millions of women were pulled out of the home like that, by the need to save up for kids' college tuition and their own retirement.
Because they take steroids they can defy the first law of thermodynamics? How does that work?
eat 1500 calories of only little debbie’s and I guarantee you won’t lose weight.
If someone eats 1500 calories a day of Little Debbie snacks, but burns 3000 calories a day, they will lose weight. They won't be very healthy, but they will lose weight.
We have been snowed by the diet industry that told us that the way to lose weight is to eat high carb and low fat. That a calorie is a calorie, with no differences. You can see how well that worked.
The diet industry tells us all sorts of things. They're as ignorant about nutrition as most others. A calorie is a calorie. We know that to be a fact. We also know the best way to lose weight is to burn more energy than you consume. Same as it ever was.
I have a PhD in Naturopathic Medicine and was underwritten by an MD.
Calories are different in the way that they are processed. What blood levels they effect and how the body stores them. It’s not all thermodynamics. When one eats and what they eat in certain times are also a factor. A person can chow on 1500 calories in one sitting, not eating the rest of the day and they will not lose weight. I saw it in my practice. Once they split it up and graze, they will. Same calories.
Perhaps a little study of nutrition is in order. Start with a Pediatric diabetic diet. Then we’ll talk about a calorie just being a calorie.
A calorie is not a calorie - but weight control can come down to “Eat less. More more. Repeat as needed.”
There WILL come a point when the body burns off the fat...but many of us may choose not to reach that point. Me? I can go around being fairly active and not eating a lot, and I’ll still have about 25 lbs on my waist. I can get rid of it, but the dieting and exercise required gives me daily headaches. I prefer to be a bit fat and live without the pain.
One day, society will look back at this time of “Low Fat/high carb” and “a calorie is a calorie” like we do Global Climate Change.
I’ve know people who were on different Psych meds who would exercise to the point of being treated for OCD and go on MediSystem but still didn’t lose weight. My boss began to research it, but pitifully left and went out of practice.
One would be surprised at how little a human can eat and still remain alive. Studies are showing that one’s metabolism drops as starvation mode kicks in. And the funny thing is that tons of studies are being done on eating less calories for life extension.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/07/09/calorierestriction.php
If a calorie were a calorie, those on 1000 calories a day would not be able to live for years. Humans are known to need 2500 a day.
And if reducing what we eat didn’t result in 100% of people losing weight, if reduced enough, there would have been fat people in the concentration camps.
When I was in high school, I lost 50 lbs over 9 months. I was eating 1000-1200 calories a day and jogging...so yes, you WILL take the weight off, but at what cost? At 50, I lost 10 lbs over a couple of months, but had daily headaches doing it. It just wasn’t worth it to me.
Sometimes people need to look at their balance of exercise & eating and decide what is acceptable to them. They also need to think of lifestyle - you change weight by changing how you live, not by dieting. That may mean accepting some extra weight because you don’t want to live in a way to remove it.
>>there would have been fat people in the concentration camps.<<
No my FRiend. The people that survived on that very restricted diet, prove the point.
Our bodies work to store fat. Some do it better than others. At one point this was a blessing. Remember, abundant food has only been around for about a century. Those that could store the most fat from the calories they consumed, survived. Those who couldn’t, starved.
Statistical averages linked to race or culture are a whole other, controversial matter, but exceptions abound. That's why people should be judged by their character, but absent any other information, Jesse Jackson would rather look over his shoulder on the streeat at night and see a group of white guys than a group of blacks (look up the quote).
I don't have any idea what Naturopathic Medicine is, but if you have a PhD in any field related to science then you should have had some physics and biochemistry in your curriculum. Anyone completing these courses shouldn't have your misunderstandings.
Calories are different in the way that they are processed.
What does that mean? It makes no sense.
A calorie is a measure of the amount of energy. It is always the same no matter what.
Are you trying to say the amount of energy you get out of a calorie can be different?
We know that the breakdown of fat requires a different pathway than the breakdown of carbohydrates. We know the breakdown of protein utilizes a different pathway than the breakdown of fat and carbs. The efficiencies are not the same for all of these processes. This is understood but it doesn't change the fact that a calorie is a calorie.
Different amounts of ATP's will be formed for each step - on a carbon basis. Burning a calorie of fat will not form the same amount of ATP as burning a calorie of carbohydrate. As I said, different efficiencies.
A person can chow on 1500 calories in one sitting, not eating the rest of the day and they will not lose weight. I saw it in my practice. Once they split it up and graze, they will. Same calories.
This has nothing to do with whether or not a calorie is a calorie. This is an anecdote and you have no way of knowing how small meals may have affected these individuals. Maybe the 1500 calories consumed by the person in one sitting weren't absorbed as efficiently as those consumed in small meals. You'd have to measure the amount of calories defecated to know for sure. I wouldn't want to do that either. The utilization of calories may be more efficient. It may not be. You're drawing conclusions based on your observations but you don't know enough details to draw any conclusions -- any conclusions that matter, that is. But here they are.
Before I could enroll in graduate level biochemistry, I had to first take (and do well) courses in chemistry, nutrition, physiology, physics and so on. We were taught that a calorie is a measure of the amount of energy and that it is always the same no matter what. That's the way it's defined. We were also taught that you cannot get something from nothing. That being true, if you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight. It is really very simple. I don't understand why people work so hard to complicate it.
Like I said, do a little study in actual nutrition.
Start with Pediatric Diabetes and the diet connected with it.
A starch calorie is not the same as a protein calorie to the body, my FRiend. By taking it down to thermodynamics, you overlook how the body reacts to it. People work hard to complicate it, because it’s much more complicated than you make out.
If all we needed was a formula of “calorie in/calorie out” and understanding that the average human needs 2000 calories to maintain weight, those people who have lived for years on 1000 calories a day (linked in 111) would have starved to death. It’s what they ate that kept them alive and healthy.
Burning it on a dish is not feeding it to a human.
I don't know from where you received your PhD, but if Naturopathy has anything to do with nutrition, they shortchanged you on this subject. Anyone studying graduate level human nutrition will understand what I've posted. Unfortunately, and for reasons I don't fully understand, nutrition today has become a convoluted mess. I think some if it has to do with the process of obtaining grants but there is more to it than that. Whatever the cause, what passes for science, especially nutrition, these days is disturbing.
Where did you study?
>>You don’t understand the difference between the amount of energy and energy efficiency.<<
You don’t understand that a Protein calorie is used by the body in a different way than a Carb calorie.
I’m done here. Whatever university you went to apparently closed your mind. It’s okay. The libs took over and it’s not your fault.
“You know, part of the problem in this country is that when something is shown to aid weight loss, it’s pulled off the market as unsafe.”
Romaine lettuce, sliced tomatoes, strawberries and vinaigrette are still around...
Throw in some grilled chicken breast, while you’re at it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.