More European men getting supersized

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7197750/

Obesity a bigger problem in some countries than in U.S.
The Associated Press
Updated: 4:51 p.m. ET March 28, 2005

BRUSSELS, Belgium - At least seven European countries now challenge the
United States in size — at least around the waistline.

In a group of nations from Greece to Germany, the proportion of
overweight or obese men is higher than in the United States, experts
said Tuesday in a major analysis of expanding girth on the European
continent.

“The time when obesity was thought to be a problem on the other side of
the Atlantic has gone by,” said Mars Di Bartolomeo, Luxembourg’s
Minister of Health.

In Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Malta and
Slovakia, a higher percentage of men are obese or overweight than the
estimated 67 percent of men in the United States, according to a report
from the International Obesity Task Force, a coalition of researchers
and institutions.

The analysis was released as the 25-nation European Union announced an
initiative to enlist the food and marketing industries in the fight
against fat.

Problem worst in Mediterranean countries

Obesity is especially acute in Mediterranean countries, underscoring
concerns that people in the southern region are turning away from the
traditional diet of fish, fruits and vegetables to fast food high in fat
and refined carbohydrates.

------

Ok, these people have access to all the great food in the world. Yet
they are turning to FF? Why could that possibly be?

Ignoramus20994 wrote:
I have hard times believing that those people used to really subsist
on a diet of fish, fruits and vegetables. Sounds highly unlikely for a
variety of economic reasons. Probably an invention of the journalist
who wrote the article.

I hope you are kidding. But in case not, what else what they have eaten
because that's what was around them. Now they are getting a choice. And
FF has it.

Ignoramus20994 wrote:
Amount of meat that they eat exceeds the amount of fish that they eat,
by 5.5 times. Hardly nations of fish eaters.

So why would they be switching to FF?

"Stacey Bender" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus20994 wrote:
Amount of meat that they eat exceeds the amount of fish that they eat,
by 5.5 times. Hardly nations of fish eaters.

So why would they be switching to FF?


Because they are lazy, ignorant, and just plain stupid like most people are.
What is your point?

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

Dr_Dickie wrote:
So why would they be switching to FF?

Because they are lazy, ignorant, and just plain stupid like most people are.
What is your point?

Well good, at least it's not just americans then. I guess were just the
laziest and stupidest.

So you really think it's just laziness, ignorance, and stupidity? I
might say your superficial analysis shows all the same qualities.

Ignoramus20994 wrote:
You are changing the subject. It is not the issue that I originally
pointed out.

The article was likely wrong in describing their previous diet, and
that's what I brought to attention.

In the big mediteranian diet hub bub i heard a number of reports that
the diets are very different in different regions, so it may be hard to
abstract out a general picture of "the" diet.

I wonder whether there is a basis in fact (as in, annual consumption)
to blame FF for their current weight gain.

Me too. But i know any claim of fact is easily explained away by this or
that.


I doubt veracity of that article altogether. What is the magnitude of
their "switching to FF" and is the amount of FF that they eat enough
to account for their weight gain. Maybe the fat mediterraneans simply
eat more of their regular food these days, or more of some other type
of food.

I am sure we will be seeing more on the subject.

And, also, remember that a typical FF meal is composed of ingredients
similar to their normal meals: meat and grains. Just packaged slightly
differently and wrapped in paper.

The jolt of calories, fat, and sugar in a FF meal is nothing like a real
meal. That's would puts FF in the same league as drugs for addiction
purposes.

And again, what's YOUR point?
People eat fast food because it is easy (hence the laziness) and we are
evolutionarily programmed to desire high calorie (i.e. fatty and sugary)
foods. To give in to that desire is ignorant, or stupid, considering the
consequences.
YOUR point is?
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

"Stacey Bender" wrote in message
...
Dr_Dickie wrote:
So why would they be switching to FF?

Because they are lazy, ignorant, and just plain stupid like most people
are.
What is your point?

Well good, at least it's not just americans then. I guess were just the
laziest and stupidest.

So you really think it's just laziness, ignorance, and stupidity? I
might say your superficial analysis shows all the same qualities.

Dr_Dickie wrote:
And again, what's YOUR point?
People eat fast food because it is easy (hence the laziness) and we are
evolutionarily programmed to desire high calorie (i.e. fatty and sugary)
foods.

So that's not lazy and stupid, no more than it for a car to burn gas.

To give in to that desire is ignorant, or stupid, considering the
consequences.

If you are designed a certain way then not being successful at acting
the complete opposite cannot be considered ignorant and stupid.
Consequences don't change out nature. When falling off a building the
consequence of gravity is death, yet that does not change the nature of
gravity.


YOUR point is?

I am too lazy and stupid to have one.

"Stacey Bender" wrote in message
...
Dr_Dickie wrote:
And again, what's YOUR point?
People eat fast food because it is easy (hence the laziness) and we are
evolutionarily programmed to desire high calorie (i.e. fatty and sugary)
foods.

So that's not lazy and stupid, no more than it for a car to burn gas.

To give in to that desire is ignorant, or stupid, considering the
consequences.

If you are designed a certain way then not being successful at acting
the complete opposite cannot be considered ignorant and stupid.
Consequences don't change out nature. When falling off a building the
consequence of gravity is death, yet that does not change the nature of
gravity.



Your ability to use logic and reasoning is impaired.
Times have changed from when our genes were designed (and too quickly for
them to change with the times). To act in a way that results in illness,
impairment, or early death is ignorant or stupid.
We were designed to die at about 30-40 years of age, so if you persist in
living past that time, you are acting contray to your body's design. What
are you going to do?

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov



YOUR point is?

I am too lazy and stupid to have one.

I am coming around to your way of thinking on this!

Dr_Dickie wrote:
Your ability to use logic and reasoning is impaired.

Comming from you i must infer then my logic and reasoning are excellent.

Times have changed from when our genes were designed (and too quickly for
them to change with the times). To act in a way that results in illness,
impairment, or early death is ignorant or stupid.

Not if people value something else more. There's no objective reason to
value the future threat of illness over the current guarantee of pleasure.

We were designed to die at about 30-40 years of age, so if you persist in
living past that time, you are acting contray to your body's design. What
are you going to do?

Decay. We weren't designed to die at that time, we just weren't designed
to live. You could make an argument that grand parents also contribute
to the fitness of the group so there is a reason for longer lifetimes.