IMO, there is ample evidence linking sugar and obeseity.
This guy 
doesn't look obese.
Posted on 08/24/2004 3:48:46 PM PDT by Still Thinking
Washington, DC -- Attention parents and teachers! The food police have added whole and two-percent milk to the list of "poor nutritional quality" beverages in their crosshairs, recommending that they be removed from American's schools. This and other ridiculous assertions are contained in a report being circulated by the self-described "food police" at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). The draft report, rumored to be released this month, bears the name of CSPI's activist coalition, the National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity (NANA). NANA is part of an anti-soda crusade which advocates taxing sodas and restricting their availability in order to eliminate fizzy drinks from the diets of both children and adults.
"Anyone who would suggest that milk is unhealthy for kids is out to lunch," said Richard Berman, executive director of the Center for Consumer Freedom. "CSPI once boasted that it was 'proud about finding something wrong with practically everything.' Now it's proven it."
The report concludes that school districts and local, state and federal governments should banish beverages and snacks that CSPI claims are contributing to the nation's obesity. But evidence linking childhood obesity to sodas and snacks is utterly lacking.
Suggesting a causal link between soda consumption and childhood obesity, the CSPI/NANA report relies solely on a flawed study by Harvard University researcher and "fat tax" advocate David Ludwig. Ludwig admitted in his own conclusion that, "there is no clear evidence that consumption of sugar per se ... causes obesity." The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention echoed Ludwig's conclusion: "There are no data from the Harvard study that allow us to make an estimate of what proportion of obesity might be accounted for by changes in soft drink consumption."
This is not the first time the anti-soda movement has relied on faulty science to make their case. In 1998 CSPI issued a report titled "Liquid Candy," which claimed that some teenagers get up to 25 percent of their calories from soda. Just one week later, following massive media attention, CSPI admitted that it had overstated this figure by a whopping 100 percent. In fact, American boys drink less than half the amount of soft drinks initially claimed by CSPI. While CSPI quietly made a correction (after the media fracas died down), it still heavily promotes its "Liquid Candy" report.
"NANA should rename itself NANNY," added Mr. Berman. "Nagging Americans with a finger-wagging 'no no' won't shrink anyone's waistline. This is just another attempt by CSPI's Puritans to restrict foods they don't like. And as usual, there's no science in the public interest to back them up."
This guy doesn't look obese.
Or, God forbid, in the empty lot on the next block. Those were much better times.
Captain Morgan would go nicely.
No, a nice espresso martini/ :-0
If you are allergic to milk then you should not drink it, but to believe this rubbish that milk is bad for everyone is wrong. I am allergic to corn should I advise everyone to stop eating corn? I don't think so.
How much milk does he consume? And how much sugar is in that milk? And how ACTIVE is he?
Too much sugar................BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
FMCDH(BITS)
My wife thinks I'm "Pop" (Burgess Merideth) in "Grumpy Old Men"......I think she's right.
FMCDH(BITS)
Until I was about 10 we had a milk cow. We drank milk instead of water because we had so much milk mother had to throw it out. Then she started making butter & cottage cheese. I don't remember her ever making yogurt.
I am a huge yogurt fan now, plain low fat. I eat it almost every morning. I get a bone scan every 2 years & the doctor always writes "WOW!" on the report he sends. I think at some point he will quit ordering that test for me.
Of course, he's in poor health now with diabetes, failing kindneys, and suffering from Alzheimers-- not that I'm saying it's related, but...
I'll put vinegar on my greens, drink apple juice and eat oranges -- but I've got enough sense not to drink battery acid.
Guess you didn't, huh?
The problem is kids and some adults are drinking 8-10 sodas a day.
Neither of my boys drink milk. They don't like it.
So what? They're not making you do it, too. Indeed, you don't have to, if you don't want to.
I think living to be 140 would be too long but 116, like my great aunt might be OK. ;9)
Quite a bit
And how much sugar is in that milk?
Not sure. But it's high fat milk, and honey is also eaten
And how ACTIVE is he? Well that's different to saying "milk, fat, sugar bad for you!"
The Center for Science in the Public Interest is a PETA front group. They have an animal rights agenda. They are not objective. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is also a PETA front group. Anything you hear from these groups is slanted. It's junk science.
Yes, you can survive without dairy products, but that is a personal choice. These food nannies want to force their lifestyle on everyone else because of their radical animal "rights" agenda (not referring to you personally).
Doc
>>Well that's different to saying "milk, fat, sugar bad for you!"
I never claimed that. I said sugar was linked to obesity. Obviously if you are active, it isn't a problem. This guy is probably on his feet all day walking around, versus some chunky kid sitting at a desk in school doing nothing to burn off the ingested calories.
Obviously, we aren't gonna make our kids exercise all day in school, so the most obvious thing is to eliminate/reduce sugar.
BTW, "low carb friendly" milk has way less sugar than typical milk. This might be a good replacement.
That's the point. It is a free country. Of course if you drink soda excessively, or milk excessively (or anything excessively) then it will be bad for you. The point is that these animal rights groups want to infringe on the rights of individuals to choose for themselves.They wish to force everyone to adhere to their diet choices under the ridiculous premise that animals somehow have "rights." When they show me an animal that can invent the computer, fly a spacecraft, cure cancer, write great works of literature, particpate in economic commerce, make laws, hold a job, etc, then maybe we can talk about rights. Animals do not have rights. We are the dominate species on the planet. We make the rules. If animals have rights, then they must also be responsible for their behavior. Under that scenario, we can jail the lion for killing its prey.
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.