15 Year Study - Fast Food , Obesity and Insulin Resistance

15-year study shows strong link between fast food, obesity and insulin
resistance



Researchers have shown a correlation between fast food, weight gain, and
insulin resistance in what appears to be the first long-term study on
this subject. The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults
(CARDIA) study by Mark Pereira, Ph.D., assistant professor in
epidemiology, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, and David
Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Obesity Program at Children's
Hospital Boston, reported that fast food increases the risk of obesity
and type 2 diabetes. The results of this 15-year study will be published
in the Jan. 1 issue of The Lancet.

This study of cardiovascular disease risk factor evolution included
3,031 young (age 18-30 years in 1985) African-American and white adults
whose frequency of fast-food visits, changes in body weight and insulin
resistance were monitored and measured for 15 years. This was a
multi-center, population-based study with study centers in
Birmingham, Ala., Chicago, Ill., Minneapolis, Minn., and Oakland, Calif.


Participants who consumed fast food two or more times a week gained
approximately 10 more pounds and had twice as great increase in insulin
resistance in the 15-year period than participants who consumed fast
food less than once per week.

"Fast-food consumption has increased in the United States during the
past three decades," said Pereira. "While there have been many
discussions about fast-food's effects on obesity, this appears to be the
first scientific, comprehensive long-term study to show a strong
connection between fast-food consumption, obesity, and risk for type 2
diabetes."

"The CARDIA study factored in and monitored lifestyle factors including
television viewing, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and smoking,
but determined that increase in body weight and insulin resistance from
fast-food intake seemed to be largely independent of these other
lifestyle factors," said Ludwig.

Fast-food frequency was lowest for white women (about 1.3 times per
week) compared with the other ethnic and gender groups (about twice a
week). Frequency was higher in African-Americans than in whites and in
men than in women for every examination year. Age- adjusted fast-food
frequency was relatively stable over time among African-Americans but
fell in those who were white.

This study of cardiovascular disease risk factor evolution included
3,031 young (age 18-30 years in 1985) African-American and white adults
whose frequency of fast-food visits, changes in body weight and insulin
resistance were monitored and measured for 15 years. This was a
multi-center, population-based study with study centers in Birmingham,
Ala., Chicago, Ill., Minneapolis, Minn., and Oakland, Calif.

###

"jbuch" wrote in message

|| 15-year study shows strong link between fast food, obesity and
|| insulin resistance
||

DUH!

lol
--
Peter
270/219/180
website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo

Dominic Shields wrote:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:34:42 -0600, jbuch
wrote:

15-year study shows strong link between fast food, obesity and insulin
resistance

Can we look forward to the results on similar studies into
The defecatory habits of Bears in a forest environment.
The religious convictions of Karol Joseph Wojtyla.
Whether Glenn Miller can be safely posted as "missing".

Studies that show what we consider obvious are easy to make fun of, but
it's very important that they are being done since this is what it takes
to get people's attention and shift conventional thinking.

Dan
325/192/190
Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution)
Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes

Dominic Shields wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 23:40:36 +0000 (UTC), Daniel Hoffmeister
wrote:

Studies that show what we consider obvious are easy to make fun of, but
it's very important that they are being done since this is what it takes
to get people's attention and shift conventional thinking.

Its utterly obvious that taking in more calories than are expended
results in an increase in weight, but the fad diet industry and their
followers pretend that this is not true. People are highly selective
in what they treat as obvious.

It's the mix of calories in fast food that particularly dangerous (high
sugar, high 'complex' carb, high fat). If people were overeating a
healthier balance, the negative health results wouldn't be nearly as dire.

I would be very interested to see what percentage of calories were drunk
vs. eaten in this study. The volume of sugar-filled soft drinks kids will
consume if left to themselves is truly frightening. Our boys were all
very active and they got away with it without getting fat, but they all
found that their teenage drinking habits got them in trouble as they got
older and they've all dropped sugary soft drinks now.

Dan
325/192/190
Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution)
Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes

"Dominic Shields" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 23:40:36 +0000 (UTC), Daniel Hoffmeister
wrote:

Studies that show what we consider obvious are easy to make fun of, but
it's very important that they are being done since this is what it takes
to get people's attention and shift conventional thinking.

Its utterly obvious that taking in more calories than are expended
results in an increase in weight, but the fad diet industry and their
followers pretend that this is not true. People are highly selective
in what they treat as obvious.

Explain the second part of the first sentence, please. You're claiming that
the so-called fad diet industry and their followers prentend that a person
won't gain weight if they eat more calories than they expend? Kindly,
provide some examples of this.

"Dominic Shields" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 09:38:52 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

Explain the second part of the first sentence, please. You're claiming
that
the so-called fad diet industry and their followers prentend that a
person
won't gain weight if they eat more calories than they expend? Kindly,
provide some examples of this.

The claims I have read fall into two camps, firstly the idea that
certain kinds of foods or combinations of foods have some kind of
"calorific advantage" and dodge the issue that you may lose weight
folowing this plan due to the fact that there are actually less
calories in the food.

I personally am not familiar with this camp, so I won't comment.

The second kind of claim is that if you cut out certain food groups,
you can "lose weight while eating all you want", pseudoscientific
mumbo-jumbo is often employed to explain why one food group is "bad".
All the mumbo-jumbo attempts to do is conceal that given less choice,
if followed you will take in fewer calories.

Those who lose weight on low carb have plenty of choice, they simply eat
less to lose weight. They eat less because they want less. It is not at all
about less choice, because people can always eat whatever the hell they want
and they can eat all they want, too.

Low carbers generally don't make claims that one food group is 'bad', but
claims are made for certain so-called "food" beings bad.

I think you speak from the POV of someone who has no first-hand experience
with low carb. Is that true?

"Dominic Shields" wrote in message

|| The claims I have read fall into two camps, firstly the idea that
|| certain kinds of foods or combinations of foods have some kind of
|| "calorific advantage" and dodge the issue that you may lose weight
|| folowing this plan due to the fact that there are actually less
|| calories in the food.
|| The second kind of claim is that if you cut out certain food groups,
|| you can "lose weight while eating all you want", pseudoscientific
|| mumbo-jumbo is often employed to explain why one food group is "bad".
|| All the mumbo-jumbo attempts to do is conceal that given less choice,
|| if followed you will take in fewer calories.


The advantage of low-carb eating is that the appetite is suppressed due to
the constant source of fuel provided by ketosis. So when someone reduces
their carbohydrate intake they do not get hungy, eat less and lose weight.

The advantage in eating a diet low in a carbohydrates has nothing to do with
pretending that "a person won't gain weight if they eat more calories than
they expend" as you mistakenly stated. And I have never seen any statement
by anyone promoting a low carb diet that "if you cut out certain food groups
you can lose weight while eating all you want." Your stating this in a
low-carb newsgroup leads me to believe that either
(a) you are a troll, purposely misstating the facts,
(b) you are grossly ignorant and need to educate yourself, or
(c) you are extremely gullible and believe anything you hear without
checking the facts, or
(c) you are too stupid to understand the true facts that are
well-established

We who lose weight and enjoy the multiple health benefits of a low-carb way
of eating know that the benefits are ultimately from eating fewwer
calories.
Of course.
--
Peter
270/219/180
website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo

marengo wrote:

And I have
never seen any statement by anyone promoting a low carb diet that "if
you cut out certain food groups you can lose weight while eating all
you want."

Nanny-types tend to equate "eat until satisfied" with "all you want" or
"gorging". They're afraid that without externally imposed limits nobody
(who needs to diet) will behave sensibly. Which says a lot more about them
than those they purport to care about. Plus, as you note further on, it
signals a lack of familiarity with lowcarb and how it works.

--�
revek
There are three types of people in the world. Those that are good at
math and those that are not.

Dominic Shields wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:51:03 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:


I think you speak from the POV of someone who has no first-hand experience
with low carb. Is that true?


Absolutely, just as I speak about the health benefits of not smoking
from the POV of someone who has never once even held a cigarette



Your viewpoint on quitting smoking would be that of a "virgin", and
would be rightly discounted by amokers.... who would prefer to hear a
personal story of how another individual had finally managed to quit
smoking.... and atay quit.

"Quitting smoking is easy, I've done it hundreds of times". Mark Twain.

"Dominic Shields" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:51:03 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

I think you speak from the POV of someone who has no first-hand
experience
with low carb. Is that true?

Absolutely, just as I speak about the health benefits of not smoking
from the POV of someone who has never once even held a cigarette

Which, of course, means you're completely ignorant of low carb and basing
your opinion only upon anti-low carb propaganda spewed forth by those who
feel they have something to lose.