RoR: Forum

I think that disparate obesity rates explain a third -- if not 2 thirds -- of this noted health disparity between somewhat similar nations. And I think that I can explain at least 1-2 thirds of the original obesity disparity (fascist nutritional policies in the US).

Ed
[you always got to leave a least a third for 'personal accountability' -- I always say]

Post 1

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 5:35am

Ed, please name some of the fascist nutritional policies that contribute to obesity in America.

Post 2

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 8:34am

Luke, how about national corn subsidies? I'm pretty sure that's the reason we see corn syrup instead of sugar in Coke and Pepsi products. I'm not sure if that actually contributes to the obesity problem but I think it qualifies as "fascist nutritional policy".

Post 3

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 10:05am

Luke, Greg's right about the corn-syrup ...

====================
The epidemic of obesity and changes in food intake: the Fluoride Hypothesis. Physiol Behav. 2004 Aug;82(1):115-21.

The consumption patterns for many foods have changed over the past 30 years, but the increase in the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) for soft drinks is far and away the largest. Moreover, the rise in HFCS intake is an environmental insult that has occurred at exactly the same time as obesity began to increase in prevalence. Rising soft drink consumption is associated with a decrease in milk consumption and a decrease in calcium intake, which has an inverse relationship to body mass index (BMI). To combat the epidemic of obesity, we need new strategies that flow from the epidemiological model.
====================

====================
Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Apr;79(4):537-43.

In this article, we investigate the relation between the intake of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and the development of obesity. We analyzed food consumption patterns by using US Department of Agriculture food consumption tables from 1967 to 2000. The consumption of HFCS increased > 1000% between 1970 and 1990, far exceeding the changes in intake of any other food or food group.

HFCS now represents > 40% of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages and is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the United States. Our most conservative estimate of the consumption of HFCS indicates a daily average of 132 kcal for all Americans aged > or = 2 y, and the top 20% of consumers of caloric sweeteners ingest 316 kcal from HFCS/d. The increased use of HFCS in the United States mirrors the rapid increase in obesity.
====================

... but that's not the only fascist policy fattening us up -- on this animal farm (more later).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/03, 10:07am)

Post 4

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 7:05am

Perhaps you didn't read the article?

The abstract published by JAMA states: "This conclusion is generally robust to control for a standard set of behavioral risk factors, including smoking, overweight, obesity, and alcohol drinking, which explain very little of these health differences."

The AP summary puts this more verbosely:

"Just why the United States fared so miserably wasn't clear. Answers ranging from too little exercise to too little money and too much stress were offered.

"Even the U.S. obesity epidemic couldn't solve the mystery. The researchers crunched numbers to create a hypothetical statistical world in which the English had American lifestyle risk factors, including being as fat as Americans. In that model, Americans were still sicker.

"Smoking rates are about the same on both sides of the pond. The English have a higher rate of heavy drinking."

(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060503/ap_on_he_me/sick_america)

Post 5

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 11:21am

A possible explanation is that the unhealthy in England die before they reach middle age.

Peter

Post 6

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 11:46pm

Good one, Peter!

Ed

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 11:54pm

Raggedy Andy wrote ...

===============
"Even the U.S. obesity epidemic couldn't solve the mystery. The researchers crunched numbers to create a hypothetical statistical world in which the English had American lifestyle risk factors, including being as fat as Americans. In that model, Americans were still sicker."
===============

I never said we wouldn't be sicker despite obesity disparity. I said that 1-to-2-thirds of the disparate obesity and diabetes rates stems from disparate obesity rates (do you deny this conjecture?). I think that you -- because you realize that you can be proven wrong -- don't (but I also think that you are too afraid to take a scientific stand on the matter -- one way or the other). It's not all-or-nothing, it's a parsimonious explanation of the noted disparity.

Ed

Post 8

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 11:57pm

Raggedy Andy, do YOU have an explanation for the noted disparity (or just mere obfuscation and appeal to authority)?

Happy to hear from you on this, trooper.

Ed

Post 9

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 9:53am

Here you go, Luke ...

=============

More on corn:

Besides the corn subsidies, there are price controls on sugar (the natural competitor to corn-syrup) -- here in the US, we are forced to pay twice the 'world market' price for sugar.

=============

On trans fats:

Food companies in Europe have been listing trans fats on their labels for many years. Trans fats lead to diabetes, and the evidence backing this up is not "new". Though the scientific community has been pretty much speaking with a single voice on the hazards of trans fats -- national nutritional policy (until just recently) has been silent on the matter; protecting the interests of Big Food.

=============

On growth hormones in milk:

It's illegal to label your milk 'hormone-free' (think about that for a minute).

=============

On the 'old' Pyramid:

There's a new Pyramid in town (myPyramid.gov), but it took a full decade to implement. The old Pyramid (which we had for a decade too long), increased obesity and Big Food profits in this country.

=============

On the disparaty of science and policy:

The National Academy of Science has published dietary reference intakes on calorie sources -- info true to the literature (allowing for much more protein, less carbohydrates, and more fats -- than previously). However, organizations like the FDA, USDA, and ADtA -- years after this official, scientific publication -- still speak out against protein and fat, and still sing appraisals of carbohydrate.

=============

Those were just off the top of my head, Luke. I could probably double this amount of data (of centrally-planned obesity), if I were to do research. Let me know if you want finer detail or if you would like to challenge any of these talking points.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/04, 9:54am)

Post 10

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 12:37pm

Ed, this is very interesting and it all rings true as far as I can tell.

Would it be safe to say that the general public would be much better educated -- and more fit -- if the various alphabet soup agencies you named never existed?

I am sure the answer is yes, but my follow-up questions are:

What sorts of government and private funding does the National Academy of Science get?

How do you account for the discrepancies between their statements and those of the regulators?

Finally, given how regulatory the nations of Europe tend to be, why do they not have the same problems the Americans have?

This all ties back to my thread in the SOLO Fitness Forum on "Fitness and Fascism" about the so-called Center for Science in the Public Interest and their campaign for sin taxes on so-called luxury foods.

Post 11

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 7:55pm

Luke, you're right (we'd be thinner without alphabet soup). ;-)

Your follow-up questions ...

============
What sorts of government and private funding does the National Academy of Science get?
============

The branch of which I speak is the Institute of Medicine (they provided the RDAs for nutrients, etc) ...

============
Is IOM part of the government or quasi-government? Who does IOM work for; where does your funding come from?

The National Academy of Sciences was created by the federal government to be an adviser on scientific and technological matters. However, the Academy and its associated organizations (e.g., the Institute of Medicine) are private, non-governmental, organizations and do not receive direct federal appropriations for their work. Studies undertaken for the government by the Academy complex usually are funded out of appropriations made available to federal agencies. Most of the studies carried out by the Academy complex are at the request of government agencies.
============
from:
http://www.iom.edu/CMS/6008.aspx

Luke, you continue ...

============
How do you account for the discrepancies between their statements and those of the regulators?
============

Since IOM scientists are a diverse group of experts (peer-reviewing each other's work), and basically are working for free (pro bono), they're less curruptible then an agency -- like the FDA -- that not only gets direct federal appropriations, but collects handsome ("half-million dollar"-plus) fees for things that they, themselves, came up with (like "fast-track"-ing drugs through the approval process).

Luke, you finish ...

============
Finally, given how regulatory the nations of Europe tend to be, why do they not have the same problems the Americans have?
============

Because of the USDA. The USDA is beholden not only to the citizens of this country -- it is equally beholden to Agribusiness. This is not true in other nations. They realize the fascist folly in that.

Their national nutritional policies are not put forward by food corporations (or agencies tied or beholden to food corporations). Think about it for a minute. Here's some illustrative analogies ...

-Exxon-Mobile running the Environmental Protection Agency

-Merck Pharmaceuticals running the FDA

-Mr. Rogers running the Public Broadcasting System

-Illegal aliens running the US Dept of Immigration

-Shiite Muslims running the ACLU

-Halliburton running the Dept of Defense

In all of these others areas -- US citizens -- like the Brits -- seem to "get it." But this is not true of nutrition, go figure.

Ed

Post 12

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 5:26am

Ed, thanks for the clarifications. Such corporate fascism is like modern feudalism and explains recent decisions like Kelo.

I can see why people who think that is capitalism would oppose the concept.

Post 13

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 5:40am

Think about it for a minute. Here's some illustrative analogies ...

-Exxon-Mobile running the Environmental Protection Agency

-Merck Pharmaceuticals running the FDA

-Mr. Rogers running the Public Broadcasting System

-Illegal aliens running the US Dept of Immigration

-Shiite Muslims running the ACLU

-Halliburton running the Dept of Defense

Gee, Ed - ye mean they don't? [;-)]

Post 14

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 7:31am

This report is from "an analysis of health surveys". Meaning they simply ASKED people about their health. It may be that Americans complain more about health related matters because they can actually do something about it if they have a health related problem.

Perhaps the brits don't complain about their health because they know it's useless to complain?

Are these health survey analysis results an indication the United States has a BETTER health care system than Britain?

Post 15

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 9:01am

Good critical thinking question, Mike (to which I don't have an answer).

Another possibility is that -- due to our medical superiority -- we are able to detect cancer and diabetes much better than the Brits. In the final analysis though, the comparative healthspan (# of healthy years) is the deal breaker. The question that would settle this debate would be: Who's healthy longer?

Ed

Post 16

Saturday, May 6, 2006 - 12:55am

Some counter-evidence that shows it's not our medicine that's at fault (ie. therefore, it's our nutrition/lifestyle) ...

===============
Significant variation in mortality and functional outcome after acute ischaemic stroke between Western countries: data from the tinzaparin in acute ischaemic stroke trial (TAIST). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006 Mar;77(3):327-33. Epub 2005 Jul 26.

Significant differences in outcome were present between the countries. When assessed by geographical region, death or dependency were lower in North America (odds ratio (OR) adjusted for treatment group only = 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.71) and north west Europe (OR = 0.54 (0.37 to 0.78)) relative to the British Isles; similar reductions were found when adjustments were made for 11 case mix variables and five service quality measures.

Similarly, case fatality rates were lower in North America (OR = 0.44 (0.30 to 0.66)) and Scandinavia (OR = 0.50 (0.33 to 0.74)) relative to the British Isles, whether crude or adjusted for case mix and service quality.
===============

Ed

Post 17

Saturday, May 6, 2006 - 5:09am

Ed,

"Some counter-evidence that shows it's not our medicine that's at fault (ie. therefore, it's our nutrition/lifestyle) ..."

It sounds like you're buying into the articles interpretation of the study. You really think middle age brits are healthier than americans?

As an example of "self assessment" having warped perceptions, think of the "self assessment" of American students and their real abilities in math. They rank very low in math skills, compared to Japanese students, for instance, but the "self assessment" of the American students is MUCH higher.

You are right, we need REAL data on things like survival rates from diseases, comparative lifestyles of middle age Brits and Americans, life expectancy, etc, before we can talk about what's at "fault" (that is, accepting the premise that Americans are less healthy than Brits).

Of course, it doesn't hurt to be self critical in the interest of improving ones health, no matter what the starting point. Thanks for the information!

Post 18

Saturday, May 6, 2006 - 8:48am

Mike,

I AM buying into the "self-assessment" (in spite of the real pitfalls of that). A doubled rate requires a LOT of explanation. My explanation for the doubled rates of cancer and diabetes reported here is:

-one-half due to increased ability to detect disease (actually a medical superiority)

-one-half due to increased corn-syrup, trans fatty acid, etc (nutritional inferiority)

Ed

Post 19

Saturday, May 6, 2006 - 4:37pm