If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
http://www.techcentralstation.com/071403A.html The diet advocates have continuously claimed that by eating less, and less fatty foods, we could all be slim. Americans listened. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, total caloric intake, as well as total fat intake, steadily decreased from 1965 to 1990. During this period, obesity increased dramatically, Steven Blair, P.E.D., president of the Cooper Institute noted in a February 2002 Mayo Clinic Proceedings. "The prevalence of obesity," he concluded, "is unlikely to be due to increases in daily energy intake." We're not the only nation to realize that weight gain can't be explained simply by how much people eat. Between 1980 and 1991, the number of heavyweights in England doubled, while Britons were eating 10 percent fewer calories, according to their government. But American women appear to have been most affected by admonitions to watch what they eat. Before the diet mania, the average American woman took in 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day; today that average woman eats less than 1,600 calories daily and is on some type of weight loss program, according to Frances Berg, M.S., in Women Afraid to Eat -- Breaking Free in Today's Weight-Obsessed World (Healthy Weight Network, 2000). Yet, studies published in peer-reviewed journals from researchers including R.J. Tuschl, Reinhold G. Laessle and Jane Wardle, have found that women who watch what they eat and are light eaters, or who have dieted, actually weigh more than those who don't restrict the foods they eat -- even though they're eating about 620 calories less a day! Many fat individuals have spent their lives restricting what they eat, with valiant willpower and self-control; they just don't look like it. Indeed, after decades of decreasing fat and calorie intakes, 1990 saw a quirky dip especially in men, followed by the recent increase back to 1965 figures; but throughout this entire period, Americans kept getting fatter, while not eating any more than they had before. By the 1990s, it was clear that the low-fat and diet messages weren't working and the USDA, (AHA), and the American Dietetic Association (ADA) began moderating their recommendations, which are reflected in more recent dietary figures. Those trying to convince us of an "obesity crisis" use a common sleight of hand in selectively using only dietary changes since 1990. By taking a narrow sampling to support their claims, these diet proponents exaggerate our bad habits and attribute them to obesity, all the while ignoring why obesity rates soared for decades when we were eating less fat and fewer calories than we are today. ARGH. NR http://www.pat-acceptance.org/kookrant.html http://www.pat-acceptance.org/kookrant2.html If I catch you busting into a mass and vilifying a church, the last thing you'll hear in your entire life, will be the ratatatatat of an automatic. - --Steve Chaney to Mark Ira Kaufman Message-ID: Young Mr. Chaney, the man who has told me that he wants to murder me and sodomize women in my family, has said, repeatedly, that advocates for choice had vandalized churches. - --Mark Ira Kaufman Message-ID: she probably has to have her picture taken by satellite because no normal camera can fit all that whale blubber into one picture. - --Steve Chaney Message-ID: Excessively fat women look ugly. It is impractical to try and have sex when she's 100lbs overweight and the weight is all fat - but most women ain't that big. - --Steve Chaney Message-ID: You of course do know what a lot of Asian women prefer, right? Besides, after ****ing a cute asian chick, experience tells me it isn't all that except that she looks good on your arm. In bed it ain't much at all. If the lights go out, any guy whose hormones are more fixed on performance than looks, is going to go to sleep right there and then. - --Steve Chaney Message-ID: Clarice and Allisson were well beyond a BMI of 25 in their pictures where they were called cows. - --Steve Chaney Message-ID: If Dutton knocked on Steve's door and Steve shot him in the face, I would really not care. - --Crash Street Kidd about Steve Chaney Message-ID: Stephen A Chaney is NR's whipping boy. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: N/A Px0cJ1qaoe221L/JnuWl8ywSRn9MdFJ1UGa7beePMM/Qcl8oAsWUi1GLS+xeMSzn wiil4wwRE1+In8fqnrPqVYbYP =R3tl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
In article , NR wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- http://www.techcentralstation.com/071403A.html The diet advocates have continuously claimed that by eating less, and less fatty foods, we could all be slim. Americans listened. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, total caloric intake, as well as total fat intake, steadily decreased from 1965 to 1990. During this period, obesity increased dramatically, Steven Blair, P.E.D., president of the Cooper Institute noted in a February 2002 Mayo Clinic Proceedings. "The prevalence of obesity," he concluded, "is unlikely to be due to increases in daily energy intake." It appears obvious to me that enough people have lifestyles more sedentary around and after 1990 than around/before 1965 to explain higher prevalence in overweightness and obesity now and in the past several years. - Don Klipstein ) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
In article , napalm-
says... But American women appear to have been most affected by admonitions to watch what they eat. Before the diet mania, the average American woman took in 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day; today that average woman eats less than 1,600 calories daily and is on some type of weight loss program, according to Frances Berg, M.S., in Women Afraid to Eat -- Breaking Free in Today's Weight-Obsessed World (Healthy Weight Network, 2000). It ain't the fat, it's the carbs. See: http://tinyurl.com/p7kc Jeannie -- To reply to me, remove *spamenot* from address. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
In , jean and bill wrote:
It ain't the fat, it's the carbs. See: http://tinyurl.com/p7kc One argument they propose: Against Asians eating more carb and less fat having lower rates of heart disease: Jean/Bill proposes that these carb-eating Asians get more strokes and pancreatic cancer and thyroid cancer. I would say that heart disease is a much bigger killer and even more so a much bigger cause of big-ticket medical bills than strokes, and that pancreatic and thyroid cancers are far down the list of causes of death. Heart disease is a greater cause of death in the USA than all cancers combined, and about half of all USA cancers are attributrable to cigarette smoking. After smoking related cancers comes (probably out of order, but still more significant than thyroid and pancreatic cancer) a *Colon-rectum cancer, with higher fat intake largely believed to slightly favor this *Breast cancer, with slight positive correlation with being overweight and with never (I don't know which of these two) giving birth or breastfeeding (A fact used by anti-abortion forces to suit their agenda) *Skin cancer, with the more common types associated with total sun exposure and with most of the deadlier ones having positive correlation with severe sunburn *Prostate cancer, which normally progresses slowly at first and is easily treatable for a while after being detectable and the main cause seems to be having a prostate and not dying of something else before a cancer gets a chance to develop in the prostate *Lung cancer caused by radon, depending on the source of information. Note that buildings have accumulated more radon in the past 15 years than they did prior to the early 1970's, and also that lung cancers attributed to radon (as well as ones to various particles such as asbestos) are widely claimed to occur more in smokers and recent-smokers than in longtime non-smokers (smokers' lungs retain particles that non-smokers' lungs expel since the lungs' "sweeping cells" are paralyzed in smokers' lungs). - Don Klipstein ) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
On 9/30/2003 4:08 PM, jean and bill wrote:
In article , napalm- says... But American women appear to have been most affected by admonitions to watch what they eat. Before the diet mania, the average American woman took in 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day; today that average woman eats less than 1,600 calories daily and is on some type of weight loss program, according to Frances Berg, M.S., in Women Afraid to Eat -- Breaking Free in Today's Weight-Obsessed World (Healthy Weight Network, 2000). It ain't the fat, it's the carbs. See: http://tinyurl.com/p7kc Then again, it could be the 19% increase in caloric intake over the past 30 years... http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rheto...e/rhecofp.html |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
Then again, it could be the 19% increase in caloric intake over the past
30 years... http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rheto...e/rhecofp.html The statistic is caloric *production*, not "intake". i.e., the world is producing (via agriculture, etc.) 3,000+ calories per person per day. It is not implying those calories are consumed at the same level they are produced. btw, there's a typo in that article, too: the table says "3810" but the text says "3180". |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
"Before the diet mania, the average American woman
took in 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day; today that average woman eats less than 1,600 calories daily and is on some type of weight loss program," It fails to mention an additional factor: various conveniences has made it such that the average person is a lot more sedentary now than they were in the past. i.e., 3000 to 5000 calories a day in the past was a lot less 'damaging' that it is now. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
On 10/1/2003 11:41 AM, Jeeters wrote:
Then again, it could be the 19% increase in caloric intake over the past 30 years... http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rheto...e/rhecofp.html The statistic is caloric *production*, not "intake". i.e., the world is producing (via agriculture, etc.) 3,000+ calories per person per day. It is not implying those calories are consumed at the same level they are produced. btw, there's a typo in that article, too: the table says "3810" but the text says "3180". Oops, sorry about that "A big jump in average calorie intake between 1985 and 2000 without a corresponding increase in the level of physical activity (calorie expenditure) is the prime factor behind America’s soaring rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes." - http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications...frvol25i3a.pdf |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Eating less does not result in weight loss
Eating less does not result in weight loss? Duhhhh.....I'll tell that to the
75 lbs. I've lost so far. They'll be surprised to hear it. G Cat (snickering) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hi - anyone else tried "no dieting" approach to finally getting weight under control? | Jennifer Austin | General Discussion | 9 | September 26th, 2003 04:41 PM |
Some Lapband facts (Can we retire the myths?) | Sharon C | General Discussion | 1 | September 25th, 2003 12:20 PM |
Dr. Phil's weight loss plan | Steve | General Discussion | 6 | September 24th, 2003 10:33 PM |
Medifast diet | Jennifer Austin | General Discussion | 17 | September 23rd, 2003 05:50 AM |
"Ideal weight" followup | beeswing | General Discussion | 8 | September 20th, 2003 01:26 PM |