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 "That advice will never be out of date.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."

[HiTech RedNeck]

Regular sucrose sugar, which corn syrup largely replaced, is itself pricey because of other politics... it doesn’t really cost that awfully much to produce.

Some people consider HFCS a creation of Satan, others are more moderate in their views. The few times I have been able to compare a sugar version with an HFCS version of the same soft drink, the sugar one seemed more satisfying, less likely to leave me wanting more and more and more.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Smokin' Joe]

When I was a kid, being 'the fat kid' was a social situation bordering on pariah status. With the advent of 'self esteem' campaigns in schools, being fat got to be 'no biggie'.

If there is no peer pressure to be normally thinner, being fat becomes acceptable on a broader scale.

Keep in mind that anyone who has been carrying those extra pounds will have very well developed leg muscles, and even if they slim down will still likely BMI out as 'overweight', even if they reduce their body fat to Auschwitz levels.

[dagogo redux]

I’m an MD. Do you really want to argue metabolism and physiology with me?

Learn what you’re talking about before you spout off.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Try this one for size. It has actually worked for me.

Wheat Belly

I cut out the wheat and some other things, and have lost 15 pounds so far.

[Ezekiel]

So the government has to fix the problem they created. Nice.

SOP for the government beast system. It's not the healthy who clamour for Obamacare, but the sick.

Look how government has poisoned the minds of generations of school children. The assault on critical thinking skills has worked its magic... many perceive congresscritters and presidents as messiahs.

With a populace eagerly running to catch the gravy train, knowing no sense of alarm over big government, government is going full-force to poison and cripple physical bodies. That's what happens when people allow the beast system to feed the children and play sugardaddy.

If the "nice man" offering candy or asking for help in looking for his lost puppy is a classic stranger danger run-the-other-way-stat example, how much moreso the kindly but malevolent strangers in government.

[Codeflier]

Biochemist here. Yes, I am prepared to argue with you. Answer this simple question: Does metabolism affect the calories burned? If yes, then my statement is valid. If no, you live on a different planet than I.

[RipSawyer]

From around age ten until I finished high school I walked an average of at least ten hours everyday six days a week of every summer plus enormous amounts of walking during the school year. I am a few days away from my 68th birthday and weigh about 255 today without clothing weight included. I am six four and according to the BMI I am “OBESE”. Strangely though people ask me how I look so fit and trim at my age. Most don’t believe I weigh anywhere near what I do unless they see me step on a scale. Body mass index is just numbers, it tells you nothing about body fat percentage. Some, like me, are muscular while some who have a much lower BMI are “skinny, fat men”. Some men are skinny everywhere except for their distended bellies. I have a fourteen inch “drop” between my coat size and my pants waist size. Some who have the same BMI have a waist fourteen inches larger than their chests. Five years ago I had a smaller chest measurement with far more fat and a waist size about six inches larger than what I have now. Five years of regular exercise and a few minor diet changes have made a big difference in how I look with very little change in my weight.

[CSM]

“America’s obesity epidemic is so deeply rooted..”

the planting was the change in measuring obesity. When the standards were changed, then we created an epidimic that “requires government dictates of behaviours.”

[EBH]

You two are funny.

Yes calories matter, but so does nutrition and how the body is able to use those calories for the most efficient burn and overall health of the metabolic system.

Not a Dr., Not a biochemist...just the neighborhood dogwalker who is hired to walk and exercise fat dogs for lazy people.

[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!