Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Junk science about obesity
Washington Times ^ | Thursday, June 20, 2002 | Paul Campos

Posted on 06/19/2002 11:21:13 PM PDT by JohnHuang2

Edited on 07/12/2004 3:54:50 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

An abiding weakness of the conventional wisdom is that, once a supposed fact has become part of that wisdom, it becomes almost impossible to dislodge it.

Contemporary journalism contributes to this problem by relying on technologies that help ensure an assertion, once it is repeated enough times, will never be checked against the actual evidence. Consider for example the claim that fat kills 300,000 Americans per year, and is thus the nation's second leading cause of premature death, trailing only cigarettes. A Lexis database search reveals that this "fact" has been repeated in more than one thousand news stories over the past three years alone. Yet the evidence for this claim is so slim as to be practically nonexistent.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: junkscience; obesity; pufflist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-159 next last
To: DB
Okay---now I understand. My suggestion as to the warning regarding fast food was based on:

The fact that excess weight is correlated to various illnesses as posted elsewhere on this thread;

The high fat, high calorie, low nutrient value of most fast foods. Fat and caloric values are available at all fast food restaurants. For example, one Whopper has approximately 800 calories (without the fries or softdrink) which is an absurd amount of the total daily caloric need of an adult, nevermind a child, for one sandwich.

It is impossible to have a nutritionally balanced diet eating regularly at fast food restaurants and will, in fact, result in a high fat, high calorie diet. Since it is a well established fact that excess calories are what cause an increase in weight and fast food restaurants are excessively high in fat calories......hopefully you get the point.

101 posted on 06/21/2002 8:13:13 PM PDT by LoneGreenEyeshade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: LoneGreenEyeshade
First you make the assumption that these same people wouldn't eat excessive calories at home if there were no fast food restaurants.

Second, "excessive" calories directly relates to ones activity level. Many, many more people sit in front of a computer's these day than they did just 10 years ago. My point is that this inactivity is closer related to bad health as the subject of this post states and has been increasing rapidly in the age of the Internet and computer.

You blame fast food, I think there are other more significant factors.

102 posted on 06/21/2002 9:15:44 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: LoneGreenEyeshade
Since it is a well established fact that excess calories are what cause an increase in weight and fast food restaurants are excessively high in fat calories.

Ever read Atkins?

Because something is high in calories does not mean it is absorbed well into the body. You statement is way over simplified.

103 posted on 06/21/2002 9:23:38 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: LoneGreenEyeshade
As a stupid example, one could eat endless Styrofoam cups; they have significant caloric content and yet your body will absorb practically nothing leaving you starved for calories.

"Food" is complex and not all calories are equal when it comes to the human body.
104 posted on 06/21/2002 9:30:25 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: oldironsides
"I am really upset that Democrat Congressman Gerold Nadler will be buying 2 seats with taxpayer money. This type of pork has to stop. I suppose they will tell us to be happy they do not charge extra for chins? Grrrrrrrr.

Nadler needs at least four seats. Watch your wallet. And another word of warning, don't get between Nadler and a pork chop! It could be dangerous.

105 posted on 06/21/2002 10:00:39 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
"Even so, using these definitions, fat people are in the majority now, so if they all vote as a group on these issues, look out."

I'm not worried in the least.

106 posted on 06/21/2002 10:04:17 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
"BTW, although I don't have a definitive study to point to, I think the "fat problem" in this country really skyrocketed when low-fat diets and no-fat products began to predominate the shelves and the airwaves in the 80s."

And how is that possible? You can't become fat if you follow a low fat diet. Don't get me wrong here. I don't want the government dictating what one should eat. That's a personal choice and is no one elses business. But you kid yourself if you think a low fat diet contributes to obesity.

107 posted on 06/21/2002 10:13:22 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
Because many of the low-fat and no-fat products are HIGH CALORIE products and people have been eating tons of them because they're, woo-hoo, low- or no-fat. That's why.

A diet that's too low in fat will cause other health problems, I understand.

108 posted on 06/22/2002 5:44:36 AM PDT by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
You can't become fat if you follow a low fat diet.

Au contrare mi amigo.
Bread, pasta, and sugar - carbohydrates - are the main culprits.
"Low-fat" foods, dressings, etc. are loaded with carbs.
Your body has to produce hyper amounts of insulin to break 'em down into glucose (that causes a whole lot of other "fat folk" problems)
and what your body cannot use gets turned into fat and stored.
It is a gross misconception, fostered by the USDA government "food pyramid" that fat in foods makes us fat.
On the contrary - it is the carbohydrates.
That's why there is an epidemic of obesity in school aged children which began when the "food pyramid" was first published and public school breakfast and lunch programs started following it to a "T".

109 posted on 06/22/2002 8:59:33 AM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
You hit it dead bang brother. Plus we started having fat kids the day we started busing them to school instead of making them walk. Add to that no activity between 3 & 6 PM while they are locked in the house stuffing their faces with potato chips, waiting for "Mom" to get home. BINGO--you raised a fat ass!

Just for general info, the April edition of Health magazine has a great article on what does/doesn't work with diet programs.

For those who are hungry all the time, try this site for information:

http://www.glycemicfoodlist.co m/Default.asp

For general info try here:

http://www.foodfit.com


110 posted on 06/22/2002 9:54:19 AM PDT by SpeakLittle_ThinkMuch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: All
I forgot to add these guys. I think they are the best.


http://www.cooperwellness.com/
111 posted on 06/22/2002 9:58:24 AM PDT by SpeakLittle_ThinkMuch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
"That's why there is an epidemic of obesity in school aged children which began when the "food pyramid" was first published and public school breakfast and lunch programs started following it to a "T"."

I hate to disagree with you, but if there is an obesity problem with school children it is a result of McDonalds happy meals or whatever they call them. Don't get me wrong here, people should eat whatever they want without some government nanny telling them otherwise. But most people are obese because of eating the wrong food and sitting on their butts. That's their God givin choice. But don't blind yourself from the truth.

112 posted on 06/22/2002 8:40:11 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
"Because many of the low-fat and no-fat products are HIGH CALORIE products and people have been eating tons of them because they're, woo-hoo, low- or no-fat. That's why."

That is not true. Most low fat diets tend to not supply enough calories to normal weight people. That is a fact. That's why it is imprudent for most people to go on one. One the other hand, if you are overweight or have high cholesterol you are probably eating too much fat. Let me be clear on this, how you eat is your business, not mine or Uncle Sams. But don't kid yourself.

113 posted on 06/22/2002 8:58:04 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: DB
The fact that food is plentiful and cheap is a bigger factor.

Which food is cheap? Macaroni? Pasta? Potatoes? Bread? STARCHES, which convert to sugar in the body.....

I think Dr. Atkins is on to something in his latest book, where he suggests that these insulin producing foods are part of the problem and how many dieters eating low fat which just happens to include lots of rice/pasta dishes are gaining weight. And yeah, fast foods are big problem. Research has shown that the US didn't have an obesity problem until AFTER Coke a cola hit the market along with gulp, McDonald's. And that Europe didn't have a problem until we exported coke and fast food restaurants to them.

His book is a very interesting read. Unfortunately, he suggests a high protein diet (which is NOT cheap, supplemented by vegetables which again are not cheap in most areas) And oddly enough one would think that all that cholesterol in a high protein diet would play havoc with one's cholesterol, but being a cardiologist who has put his heart patient's on this type of diet has seen great results in LOWERING their cholesterol. Cholesterol like insulin will be produced by the body if you do not eat enough of it. The veggies being a complex carbohydrate will convert to sugar thus helping to keep the body from having to manufacture it. Same with the choloesterol.

Who would stand to gain by having more and more diabetics, needing insulin? And yes, Atkins does allude to this as well in his book.

114 posted on 06/22/2002 9:01:27 PM PDT by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
BTW, although I don't have a definitive study to point to, I think the "fat problem" in this country really skyrocketed when low-fat diets and no-fat products began to predominate the shelves and the airwaves in the 80s.

Exactly! Another problem is that some products use 'created' ingredients. Meaning they are not a natural food product. It's quite possible that out bodies do not know what to do with these items, so instead of digesting and getting rid of it, they store it as fat. One needs to be careful on 'synthetic' foods in my opinion.

Add to that the fact that sugar is added toalmost everything. Then consider that when fat is reduced, salt is increased, and when salt is reduced then fat is increasded. A no win situation, for those trying to watch fat, salt and sugar intake.

115 posted on 06/22/2002 9:06:26 PM PDT by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: oldironsides
I am really upset that Democrat Congressman Gerold Nadler will be buying 2 seats with taxpayer money.

Ahhh but look at the bright side for Nadler. He now get two meals because of purchasing two seats. Bet he'd be in hog heaven!! LOL

116 posted on 06/22/2002 9:10:05 PM PDT by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: LoneGreenEyeshade
The high fat, high calorie, low nutrient value of most fast foods.

Do you REALLY think the government is going to target fast food chains??? LOL Think of the unemployment! After all, this is the area they target when they say unemployment dropped. We have given away our manufacturing base and have become a nation of fast food restaurants!

They will simply make the stuff so costly, its a money maker!

What's the nutritional analysis of booze, beer and wine? Which all convert to sugar almost immediately in the body. Will they target and tax the heck out of these? Somehow I doubt it. Selective sin taxation.

117 posted on 06/22/2002 9:33:25 PM PDT by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: ET(end tyranny)
The cost of food relative to our incomes is very low today. I would strongly guess the lowest in the history of man.

I would also add that there have been many other changes to our lives since Coke and McDonald's came a long...

Computers, cars and a zillion more desk jobs.

And I agree with you on Dr. Atkins.


118 posted on 06/22/2002 9:38:34 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ET(end tyranny)
Unfortunately, he suggests a high protein diet (which is NOT cheap, supplemented by vegetables which again are not cheap in most areas)

What would you suggest, eh?
I'd rather spend a little more on good food - and look and feel better,
than go cheap and look like a fat slob.
And, have to pay more for clothes in XXL and XXXL sizes!

119 posted on 06/22/2002 10:37:08 PM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: DB
Yes, I know Atkin's. Did his diet for six weeks and spent the next 2 weeks in the cardiac unit of the local hospital, attributed solely to his diet. Beware.
120 posted on 06/22/2002 11:01:41 PM PDT by LoneGreenEyeshade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-159 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson