Printable View
Hey,
Bad enough Adults are obese, Really Sad when Kids are obese. My God, I'm having enough ploblems trying to gain 10-20 pouns (that how thin and heatlhy I am) and these kids are 20+ pounds overweight :juggle2: :no:
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15698567/
So, aside from having their tonsils cut out, their appendix removed, and a circumcision performed on males, children born in the US are now going to have their stomaches stapled, I suppose?
I'm sorry to be crude, but this has become an amazing problem. Looking back at the fatty genetics argument a while back, I have to say someone has been recently contributing to the gene pool when they really shouldn't. :juggle2: :no:
Or perhaps parents should stop feeding their children **** and take the time and effort to prepare correctly sized and well balanced meals.:idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
I would assume their parents aren't really underweight either.Quote:
Originally Posted by IRONxMortlock
And here I am, fighting for every kg...that I can gain(muscles of course, no need for fat:2thumbsup: )
Quote:
My God, I'm having enough ploblems trying to gain 10-20 pouns (that how thin and heatlhy I am) and these kids are 20+ pounds overweight
You guys aren't married yet are you?:beam:Quote:
And here I am, fighting for every kg...that I can gain(muscles of course, no need for fat )
God no, the old warhorse of body weight, food and heart disease is trotted out again.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
First of all, there is no connection at all between cholesterol intake per os and cholesterol levels in the blood. None whatsoever. Zilch.
Secondly, reduced intake of either cholesterol, saturated fat or calories does not reduce the risk of heart disease. Most famous are the MRFIT-trials. The 1982 U.S. trial (involving 12.000 men at high risk of heart disease) found that a low fat, low cholesterol diet actually resulted in a higher death rate.
High cholesterol blood levels do not cause a higher incidence of coronary or other diseases either, and in fact, many recent clinical trials show that a low cholesterol level is a higher risk than a high level.
In the 1970s Brown and Goldstein found the gene causing extremely high cholesterol levels and premature heart disease. When will we finally give their research due recognition? In fact, why don't we?
Because health scares are money-makers.
Over 50 years ago, U.S. health officials were already making dire predictions based on the notion that half the American people were over-weight and doomed to succumb to all sorts of horrible diseases. In reality, since then Americas have lived longer and healthier every year.
This a simply a non-issue, brought up by liberal bleeding hearts who want Americans to feel guilty about their 'gluttunous' lifestyle, based on heartless exploitation of the world's riches. The fairytale serves no useful purpose, merely the socially convenient purpose of blaming kids of larger-than-average weight and their parents for anything and everything untoward that befalls them in life. And it helps to finance a huge industry that capitalises on a host of health scares.
Please, let us not give in to this pressure from diet guru's, professional scaremongers (like the American Heart Association in the article) and special interest groups representing the pharmaceutical industry anymore.
"Secondly, reduced intake of either cholesterol, saturated fat or calories does not reduce the risk of heart disease. Most famous are the MRFIT-trials. The 1982 U.S. trial (involving 12.000 men at high risk of heart disease) found that a low fat, low cholesterol diet actually resulted in a higher death rate."
Em,Link please? I never read that before, and hard to believe that would Be Likely..
That is exactly what is wrong about this whole thing. You never get to read the relevant stuff, just the scare messages.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
I no longer do links. I used to, but it leads to nit-picking over words and footnotes.
You're taking it too far Adrian. Yes the pharmacuetical companies are scaring everyone to sell their cholesterol drugs and making it out to be more than it is, but high cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease.
I am not saying this is a conspiracy, mind you. Nobody planned it this way. It is just that the whole obesity scam is so convenient to many parties involved with health, education, parenting, dieting, etcetera.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
And no, there is no connection between high cholesterol blood level and risk of heart disease.
People with low cholesterol blood level, on the other hand, die young. This may be due to all sorts of factors. Nonetheless the Framingham study, the largest longitudinal study in the world which has been running from 1948 and is being continued until this day at Boston University, shows that low blood levels of cholesterol may be the real killer: '‘There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years of the study and mortality over the following 18 years."
I'm having eggs and bacon on well-buttered toast tomorrow morning. It may not help much, but it won't do me any harm.
Sweet! All that crap about eating healthy...
From now on, I'm going to NOT be careful with my diet and give free snacks SUPER hugh in cholesterol to kids and tell them that everything they hear is false....
What causes you to take this stance. I am curious.
I told you: medical research.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
And where did I say that kids should eat only fat and sugar?
Exactly what I was trying to get at a few weeks ago in one of these Americans r fffat threads. Now I have a Dutch journalist and a French intellectual who agree!
:coffeenews: :beatnik:
They need to start by serving better food at the cafeterias in public schools. My god, that is some of the worst food for you I have ever eatten. I try to eat the best I can at university, but sometimes due to a lack of free time I find myself grabbing a slace of pizza for dinner.
Medical research that you cannot even hint at because of an antiOCD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
You said that having low cholesterol is more likely to kill me that having high cholesterol, which according to you will not harm me at all. While having low cholesterol may end up making you sick, having unacceptably high cholesterol will also make you very ill. Why in the world you think hyperlipidemia (which is the main problem associated with hypercholesterolemia) has nothing to do with high cholesterol is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
:stare:Quote:
Originally Posted by Framingham study
Did you notice that the Americans-'R'-Fat notion is a favourite theme of anti-Americanism the world over, capitalising on the supposed symbolism of U.S. imperialism and parables about the ugly American 'guzzling' the world's riches?Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Of course you did.
When trans fats are mentioned, Iraq and Kyoto are never far away.
*lights another fag*
To be fair, the US has the largest percentage of obese people in the world, followed by Mexico, the UK, and a bunch of other western nations. Japan is twenty-seventh on the list. What deep, dark, corner of an arse you picked out Iraq is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I certainly did, but it was the marketing aspects that really sank it home for me. I had my cousin over from Sydney and listening to how shocked she was at how many commercials we have on TV that are aimed at weight loss. No other country has such a huge fast food industry, and a weight loss industry that feeds directly off it. Weight loss of course is the higher leveraged of the two since their claims are loosely backed up by medical opinions so their claims don't look half as foolish as they really are. So what the hell should we do? How about we skew the BMI once again and get a whole new lot into the gyms and hooked on diet shakesQuote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Why aren't any of the people in disbelief about this challenging AdrianII's statement about American life expectancy going up every single generation?
*puffs lazy smoke rings*
Pretty sure it was a reference to anti-Americanism, the Kyoto reference had to do with perceptions of America, not how fat the Japanese are.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
So stating an opinion based on clear valid data is anti-American?Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
I understand where Adrian is coming from, but the approach is flawed in itself.
One of us is misunderstanding here... What clear valid data are you talking about? I thought we were on hyperbolic reactions.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Dude, you haven't been here long. If you're getting flack from Adrian about anti-Americanism, then its gotta be true!!!:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
So far I have been the one providing clear valid data.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
You are confusing things.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
You were talking about snacks and related food. Cholesterol intake does not alter the level of cholesterol in your blood one way or the other.
The Framington study:
"In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol...we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active. Total cholesterol has pretty much outlived its usefulness as a way to predict heart disease and follow its progression." Dr William Castelli 1992 (Director of the Framingham study) in the [i[Journal of the American Medical Association[/i] No 257: (16), pages 2176-80, 1987.Of course there may be an association between some form of cholesterol and heart disease, but as we know correlation does not equal causation.
A study by the Women's Health Initiative into the health effects of low fat diets in 50.000 women has just been concluded, and cholesterol . According to their site: "To study the effect of the WHI low-fat dietary pattern on heart disease, researchers looked at how many participants had coronary heart disease (heart attack or death from heart disease). They found that the low-fat dietary pattern did not reduce the risk of heart disease, although the intervention was not designed specifically to reduce heart disease."
Ack!! Don't make this more confusing, you trouble maker!Quote:
Dude, you haven't been here long. If you're getting flack from Adrian about anti-Americanism, then its gotta be true!!!
:laugh4:
Agree or disagree with the issues themselves, it makes no difference. Kyoto and Iraq and obesity are all tied in with anti-Americanism.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be hopping into my Prius hybrid, wearing my AQ-certified-explosive-vest and I'll make certain to pack enough Twinkies and Big Macs to last my whole final car trip!
'Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
What I perceive as a backward study will be countered with what you will perceive as a backwards study.Here you go. Linky.
Now here's the point. Once you've eaten something, it's not going away on its own. It has to have a reason to go. Sitting around eating salad alone will not undo all those years of trauma you put your poor, putrid body through.
NOTE: If this is another one of those threads where I end up arguing with a senior member about who would look better in a dress, I'm leaving.
I think the message here is that instead of stressing out about every gram of fat ect in your food, eat what you want, eat sensible portions and get off your ass and exercise once in awhile. :yes:
What's so hard to grasp about cholestoral intake not being linked to amount in your bloodstream? Cholestoral is produced inside the body. Also those with low cholestoral over all have lower HDL also, which has been proven to help prevent heart attacks.
Although Adrian I'm sure you wouldnt mind linking a portion of the study pertaining to individuals who ate alot of sat. fat but had little exercise..... Almost every study in the world will tell you that increased body fat % increases your risk of a heart attack. One of the things that contain the most calories is sat./trans fat. Sat fat and heart attacks arent linked directly but there most assuredly is a bit of a path between the two.
As for fat kids, yes it is indeed the parents fault. If they refuse to teach them proper diet's and don't force them to get some exercise. Then your going to end up with a fat child. Whats so sad now is so many parents are now afriad to let their kids play around their neighborhood. It's seems fear mongering of pedo's and violence has finally assisted in the rise of obese children.
Yes, 100% correct. Exercise is by far the most important thing you can do in your day. Something children should be taught from a young age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I'm definately going to have to say Devastatin Dave would.:laugh4: :clown:Quote:
NOTE: If this is another one of those threads where I end up arguing with a senior member about who would look better in a dress, I'm leaving.
MOST cholesterol is normally produced inside the body. Intake does matter. Indeed, HDL is good for you. LDL is what is referred to "bad cholesterol" and ends up making you ill.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Too bad he's not a senior member.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
That is not a study, it is a link to the American Heart Association. And the AHA does not engage in research.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Ah yes, exercise is good for you. Nobody denies that. As Castelli pointed out, the Framingtonians with the highest cholesterol intake were also the most active and energetic.Quote:
Now here's the point. Once you've eaten something, it's not going away on its own. It has to have a reason to go. Sitting around eating salad alone will not undo all those years of trauma you put your poor, putrid body through.
You are beautiful when you are angry. :kiss:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER