Obesity fight must shift from personal blame-U.S. panel

Reuters ^ | 5/8/12 | Sharon Begley

[EBH]

America's obesity epidemic is so deeply rooted that it will take dramatic and systemic measures - from overhauling farm policies and zoning laws to, possibly, introducing a soda tax - to fix it, the influential Institute of Medicine said on Tuesday.

In an ambitious 478-page report, the IOM refutes the idea that obesity is largely the result of a lack of willpower on the part of individuals. Instead, it embraces policy proposals that have met with stiff resistance from the food industry and lawmakers, arguing that multiple strategies will be needed to make the U.S. environment less "obesogenic."

The IOM, part of the Washington-based National Academies, offers advice to the government and others on health issues. Its report was released at the Weight of the Nation conference, a three-day meeting hosted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cable channel HBO will air a documentary of the same name next week.

"People have heard the advice to eat less and move more for years, and during that time a large number of Americans have become obese," IOM committee member Shiriki Kumanyika of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine told Reuters. "That advice will never be out of date. But when you see the increase in obesity you ask, what changed? And the answer is, the environment. The average person cannot maintain a healthy weight in this obesity-promoting environment."

Shortly after the report was released, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is funded by restaurant, food and other industries, condemned the IOM as joining forces with the nation's "food nannies."

[EBH]

Oh and PS...just imagine being the dogs in the governments reduced calorie and increased exercise scheme....

[dagogo redux]

Biochemist? Really? Time to head back to the books!

Your “simple” question is indeed simple, and simple in the extreme given the number and complexity of the factors involved.

Start off, please, by defining your terms: define “metabolism” in all it’s intricacies in sickness and health, then define “burned.” Then explain the complexities of the physiology whereby energy “consumed” from internal or external sources, is transformed into weight lost or gained in some supposed 1:1 correlation.

Then go back and define exactly what everybody means by “consumed,” which lies at the heart of this discussion.

Explain real-world phenomena that fly in the face of your argument like low-carb diets and “rabbit starvation,” or the “empty calories” in alcohol, or the weight loss sometimes seen in diabetics eating ravenously.

Biochemist. Hmpph.

[going hot]

or the weight loss sometimes seen in diabetics eating ravenously.

Biochemist. Hmpph.

MD?

Bwahahaha

[upcountryhorseman]

Shifting this from personal responsiblity makes an opening
for government to step in!

[EBH]

And if your two arguments about weight-loss are any example of the government trying to manage the NATION’S weight problem, we’ve just seen a glimpse into why this won’t work and why it is so dangerous to hand this much authority over to them. LOL...

Thank you both.

[Codeflier]

First let's define what I think we are arguing. I posit the simple formula that the human body gains weight when it's net caloric input exceeds net caloric output. Inversely, when net caloric input is lower than net caloric output there is a net loss in body weight.

You seem to disagree with this simple relationship. Now metabolic rate and other physiological variables can affect the output side of the equation, but they do not change the basic relationship between caloric input vs. output

To put it another way, you seem to be arguing that you believe it is possible for someone to consume less calories than they use and still gain weight. I argue that formula is biochemically impossible. Or are you one of those that believe the human body can use sunlight as a caloric food source?

[EBH]

ping and bump!