Skip to comments.Obesity fight must shift from personal blame: U.S. panel [Gov't Regulation is their solution]
Posted on 05/08/2012 7:02:05 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.yahoo.com ...
If so, then you'll believe just about anything -- like there's a gay gene. Excuses are made by people who will not take responsibility for their condition/lives. Same as it ever was.....
>>Thermodynamics? It’s a government plot!!! <<
The problem is the body is a bit different from your fireplace. It doesn’t “burn” if it doesn’t have the muscle to do the burning. It’s like Oxygen in a fire. You need it to make heat. Without the muscle to burn the calories, they are stored.
The problem with “calorie in/calorie out” is that young people think that all they have to do is stop eating and they lose weight, but don’t know what weight they are losing. It’s muscle, because they aren’t getting enough protein so the body burns it’s own. Why do you think anorexics die of heart attacks?
A young person stops eating. They lose 20 pounds. (don’t think it doesn’t happen) Now they go back to eating 2000 calories. The body comes off starvation mode and stores what it can. There is less muscle to burn it. They gain more weight.
We need to educate. Restrict the RIGHT calories and stop telling people that they can take a walk or do 30 minutes of aerobics three times a week and they miraculously lose weight. It ain’t happening. At least not as the panacea they make it out to be.
Husband and I were watching our 8 and 5 year old grandsons playing the no score version of baseball. We got to talking how the boys didn’t know how to play ‘work-up’ or ‘500’. No bats allowed at school recess and no playing anything but parent organized sports after school.
Our son (about 25 years ago) never went hardly anywhere without a basketball to be shooting and dribbling. That is until we bought him an atari game system for Christmas. He quickly changed into a chubby little boy. And still fights weight gain. His dad and I have never been good examples either-sadly we eat too much for all the wrong reasons and watch way too much tv instead of exercising.
It's not all that different.
It doesnt burn if it doesnt have the muscle to do the burning.
You bet. If two people each eat 1800 calories and one burns 1600 calories while the other burns 2000, the first will gain while the second will lose weight.
Like I said, thermodynamics.
The problem with calorie in/calorie out is that young people think that all they have to do is stop eating and they lose weight
It's true, a lot of stupid people believe a lot of stupid things.
stop telling people that they can take a walk or do 30 minutes of aerobics three times a week and they miraculously lose weight.
Nothing miraculous, thermodynamics.
“The whole point of this country is if you wanna eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds and die of a heart attack at 43, you can! You are free to do so! To me, that’s beautiful.” - Ron Swanson
How do all of you who say exercise and reduce intake respond to tht fact that I am 6’2” and 155lb at age 55, with no exercise and always made fun of because I am always eating? That is lots of fats also.
Yes, in general for the whole population it is best to avoid starch and sugar, exercise regularly. But there is more to it when it comes to individuals.
Your metabolism sounds like that of my friend Larry, ate all the wanted all his life, lots of it, and stayed skinny anyway.
We buried him last week. His heart. He didn’t make it to 70.
Don’t take anything for granted.
EVERY female that I have ever known has at one time or another thought her butt was to big and needed reshaping. That includes standing there naked or in jean or with a nice tight skirt on.
One of my daughters is a professional model and she tells her mom of the benefits behind each exercise. Want to lift it, climb up the stairs and take the elevator down or walk a treadmill that is angled. Want to tighten it, swim. Then there’s the various leg exercises that will reshape it. These ladies know all the tricks to resizing and reshaping.
As I said, the shape of your butt is YOUR choice.
No oxygen, no fire.
Simple as that.
>>Just a few generations ago obesity was almost nonexistent.<<
Just a few generations ago, people worked a lot in the summer and sat on their butts all winter long, starving.
Read the Little House books. They went an entire winter with little to nothing to eat. The ‘obesity gene’ WAS a survival gene for times when there was no food. How did anyone survive the Death Camps? Some of them just had a gene that let them “power down” when they had little to eat.
Oh, and obesity was far from non-existant. Check out pictures of the Eskimos and Eastern Europeans. People naturally bulked up. They had to.
I would agree that the grossly obese are new to the scene, but to say that no one was obese is silly.
>>As I said, the shape of your butt is YOUR choice.<<
No actually, this is what you said.
“Dont be blaming God for your fat butt”
You have no clue about my butt.
>>Yes, in general for the whole population it is best to avoid starch and sugar, exercise regularly. But there is more to it when it comes to individuals.<<
See my post about the Fat gene. You didn’t get it. (lucky you)
Yes, eat more than you burn, gain weight.
>>Yes, eat more than you burn, gain weight.<<
And taking away the muscle that burns, along with the body shifting into “starvation mode” because of lack of calories, and nothing burns.
You’ve never worked with overweight patients, have you?
You bet. Slow down the rate of burn and it's harder to lose, easier to gain, assuming the same intake.
Youve never worked with overweight patients, have you?
Thermodynamics doesn't work for them? Please explain further.
Your idea of simple Thermodynamics? No, it doesn’t.
Because you are thinking one food is the same as any other food. Like a fire from pine will burn the same as a fire from maple. They will both burn, both will burn to nothing, but how long does it take? And when the maple logs are still around the next day, they pile up. That is food in your body.
Here is an easy experiment for you. Live for two weeks on Karo Syrup and a OneaDay vitamin. Forty TBSP (2.5 cups) will give you 2400 calories. By your theory, you should gain weight.
Come on back and tell me if that works. Then we’ll continue the discussion.
Exercise IS NOT the only thing....too many carbs and calories for energy expended for many...my ancestors (in the pictures I mentioned) are German and English...but, yes, building and using MUSCLES helps minimize weight gain...which may be why I weigh near where I weighed in Sr year of high school...altho I am still more than I should be (and have been in the past). Actually I think we are conditioned culturally to eat MORE than we need.
You have an overweight patient who eats 3000 calories/day but only burns 2000. He'll gain weight.
He decides to make a change and with lots of hard work, he reduces his intake to 2500 calories/day and boosts his burn to 2500 calories a day. Great job! But he gets frustrated, because he isn't losing any weight.
He decides to go overboard and drops his intake to 1200 calories/day while keeping his burn at 2500 calories/day.
Progress! He loses about 2.5 lbs/week.
At a certain point, he starts to plateau. His metabolism begins to slow to compensate for his starvation diet. He works out just as much, but now he only burns 2000 calories a day. He's losing less than 2 lbs/week. Then his burn drops to 1500 calories/day. He's losing just over 0.5 lbs/week.
He continues to lose muscle mass and eventually his burn drops to 1200 calories.
At every point, he loses weight when he burns more than he takes in.
Now he gets off the dangerous diet and eats 2000 calories/day, which was his original burn rate. He begins to regain weight, because his new burn rate is less than his 2000 calorie intake.
At every point when he took in more than he burned, he gained weight.
Please let me know which of my scenarios is incorrect. Thanks.
Nobody pushes calories in/ out as the WHOLE solution. It’s a shorthand. Everybody that pushes it knows, and explains when necessary, that underneath all that calories in/ out is nutrition, vitamins, protein, and not reducing calories in to starving. There’s a reason why all the organizations that help people manage calories in/ out all say healthy weight loss averages 2 pounds a week, because they are pushing people AWAY from starvation level. Pretty much you’re the only one out there saying it’s simple with no other stuff, out here in reality where people actually USE IT to successfully remove and keep gone 70 pounds (me) we understand that’s the quick way to say it but there’s a lot more to it.
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.