Posted on 06/08/2012 9:07:28 AM PDT by re_tail20
Most of my favorite factoids about obesity are historical ones, and they don’t make it into the new, four-part HBO documentary on the subject, The Weight of the Nation. Absent, for instance, is the fact that the very first childhood-obesity clinic in the United States was founded in the late 1930s at Columbia University by a young German physician, Hilde Bruch. As Bruch later told it, her inspiration was simple: she arrived in New York in 1934 and was “startled” by the number of fat kids she saw—“really fat ones, not only in clinics, but on the streets and subways, and in schools.”
What makes Bruch’s story relevant to the obesity problem today is that this was New York in the worst year of the Great Depression, an era of bread lines and soup kitchens, when 6 in 10 Americans were living in poverty. The conventional wisdom these days—promoted by government, obesity researchers, physicians, and probably your personal trainer as well—is that we get fat because we have too much to eat and not enough reasons to be physically active. But then why were the PC- and Big Mac–-deprived Depression-era kids fat? How can we blame the obesity epidemic on gluttony and sloth if we easily find epidemics of obesity throughout the past century in populations that barely had food to survive and had to work hard to earn it?
These seem like obvious questions to ask, but you won’t get the answers from the anti-obesity establishment, which this month has come together to unfold a major anti-fat effort, including The Weight of the Nation, which begins airing May 14 and “a nationwide community-based outreach campaign.” The project was created by a coalition among HBO and three key public-health institutions: the nonprofit Institute of Medicine, and two federal agencies...
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
What is a “good carb?” All carbs contribute to your diet is energy in the form of glucose. Your body can also get energy from protein which will not trip the insulin switch resulting in fat.
Who was Hilde Bruch? She was a German-born research physician. She was also 100% Jewish. When the Nazis came to power in 1933, she was no longer allowed to have a job in her field, so she emigrated to London and from London to the USA.
All of her research and work in the field of obesity was conducted in the United States observing American subjects and patients.
DOH! bet you feel stupid
Not at all. But if I were the clown who accused a victim of the Nazis of being a Nazi, I would probably feel stupid - and also a little ashamed of myself.
See post 22.
Before the rationing of the two world wars, sandwiching the great depression people ate well and a whole lot of them were fat. If you only have a mental picture, rather than inconvenient empirical evidence then you can imagine they were all fit and trim.
Ha Ha!. I based my response on a simple(and complete) reading of the article. You smacked him with facts. Good job.
Ha Ha!. I based my response on a simple(and complete) reading of the article. You smacked him with facts. Good job.
There’s nothing innately wrong with carbs, Atkins gave them a bad rap but the real “problem” we have with carbs in this country is the ones we eat generally are not in food that has anything of nutritional value in it and are consumed on the couch. Carbs that have proteins and vitamins and consumed in a period when you will burn the energy are perfectly fine. It’s the trail mix conundrum, trail mix tends to be lots of carbs but also lots of protein, if you eat the trail mix on the trail doing trail type stuff it’s perfectly healthy, if you eat it on the couch it gives you a fat ass (though at least you’re getting some protein so you’re doing better than doritos).
Seems like a simple method. Grow your own crops and gardens. Trade with or sell products to like minded persons.
Have a strong work ethic. Work outside, teach that to the younger generation, spend activities getting dirty, be around germs. Go to church.
When you have Wookie Wide Load and Bloomy Pants running it; there’s your answer.
Government intervention on this, and other personal issues, fail because the citizens say, very loudly, “Mind your own F’ing business!”
Here it is in a nuthell. Carbs are good or bad based upon its response to insulin in the body. Bad carbs spike insulin then blood sugar plummets causing hunger low blood sugar, good carbs release insulin slowly which gives stable blood sugar and nice long steady energy.
Good carbs adequately and positively address 1) Insulin Balance and 2) Nutrition. Bad carbs cause your insulin levels to swing, and provide no nutrition. If given the choice, of course one should go with good (complex) carbs like oats, potatoes, etc
Also according to the Institute of Medicine, the brain needs at least 130 grams of carbohydrates per day in order to function properly.
GOOD CARBS:
Oatmeal, Brown Rice, Sweet Potato, Vegetables, Whole Grain Bread, Quinoa,
BAD CARBS:
White Bread, Any type of sugar, Syrup, Soda,
Interesting point. I have been doing tae kwon do for 3 years. It is a very vigourous workout. At the same time, I was doing Weight Watchers. I lost maybe 5 pounds. I cut out carbs on January 3, 2012 and have lost 33 pounds. I think Taubes point is valid , that it is not simply an issue of “eat less, exercise more.” The chemical impact of what we eat on our bodies is important. The normal diet of American is heavily carbohydrate. Even Weight Watchers reduces fat but not carbs. The day’s calorie intake is reduced, but it is still proportinally high in carbs. That is why I wasn’t losing weight. Perhaps I am more Insulin sensitive or something but removing carbs has worked for me.
reading comprehension is key
I didnt call her a nazi.
Come on - take the next step: Dr. Atkins was absolutely right, and Archer Daniels Midland bought off the government to say otherwise.
Good for you but don't cut out carbs or go low carb...
The general accepted rule of thumb is 40% protein, 40% good carbs and 20% good fats per day.
Everybody’s body is different, your metabolism is different, how efficiently you process different foods is different, how ready your body is to burn calories from your stored fat is different, what kind of exercise your body is most responsive to is different. Which is why all the programs should come with the old car commercial asterisk “your millage may vary”. A lot of people have a lot of success on WW, some their body just doesn’t handle things the way they structured things. It does seem to work better for women. That’s why my biggest piece of advice to people trying to drop pounds is “know who you are”, not only do you need to figure out how your body interacts with food and exercise, you gotta figure out how your brain does it. When I was constructing my “program” there were certain things I wasn’t willing to do, high on the list was beer, bread and greasy meats, I was willing to cut back on all of them but I wasn’t willing to give them up, I like them too much a life without them would be punishment, I refused to be punished for getting healthier. I’m also way too lazy to count stuff, points, carbs, calories, not happening. So I constructed a system with less of everything except fresh fruits and vegetables and exercise, burned off 70 pounds and have kept it off. Lots of portion control, lots of “no I had Lukes last week better get the salad”, lots of gym and trail time. You found the gap between you and WW, that’s perfect.
However, I think we need more specific definition of what obese is rather than on a bmi number. I have been labeled as “obese” but I doubt any one who truly obese could do the workout I do every week.
Bingo!
The metabolic effect of an hour of cardio is 3-4 hours while an hour lifting hard is 8-10 hours.
Increased muscle increases testosterone. You will also find out once you lose your weight your testosterone will increase somewhat which will help keep the weight off as excess fat decreases testosterone production.
Cardio is very important for cardiovascular and joint health and you need to do it also and I try to do it 5-6 days per week.
The irony of this statement is breathtaking. Let's revisit it in just a moment.
I didnt call her a nazi.
Still digging, are we?
Your original complaint against the article, as per post 5, was that it was "actually using WWII nazi culture as an example."
When I pointed out how ridiculous this was, since the article did absolutely no such thing you responded in post 17 as follows: "in the late 1930s .... by a young German physician, Hilde Bruch” - as if this quote proved your original false accusation.
That's an interesting use of ellipsis, there. What did you leave out? Let's see: "in the late 1930s at Columbia University by a young German physician, Hilde Bruch”.
Now, since the article clearly states that the research took place at Columbia, yet you cite this quote as proof of a Nazi connection this can mean one of several things:
(1) That you were unaware that Columbia University is located in the US.
(2) That your reading comprehension is so poor that you didn't pay attention to where the research was done.
(3) That you automatically assumed that since the research was done by someone born in Germany, it was part of "nazi culture." Which in itself is poor reading comprehension.
The reality is that you read the article sloppily, and because you were sloppy you accused Hilde Bruch of being a Nazi, which she emphatically was not, and you implicitly accused Taubes of relying on Nazi research, which he clearly wasn't.
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.