Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Food Industry-Funded Study Says Childhood Obesity "Hype" - BBC

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 01:35 PM
Original message
Food Industry-Funded Study Says Childhood Obesity "Hype" - BBC
The scale of childhood obesity has been exaggerated, researchers have claimed. The Social Issues Research Council, which is funded by food companies as well as the government, said average child weights have only risen slightly.

SIRC, which compared average weights in 1995 and 2003, said obesity levels have started to rise among older teenagers but the middle-aged were most at risk. However, the National Obesity Forum insisted childhood obesity was increasing and had to be addressed.

EDIT

The SIRC's report says: "We can conclude from these figures that there have been no significant changes in the average weights of children over nearly a decade.

"This can be taken as evidence that there has been no 'epidemic' of weight gain, since an epidemic would certainly have affected average weights."

EDIT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4267949.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. Malnourished fat kids might weigh what healthy normal kids weigh
Edited on Wed Feb-16-05 01:38 PM by jpgray
Shorter, less muscle mass, &c. Average weight is not a great statistic to make an argument on obesity with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. It certainly isn't.
Body mass index, fat percentages, all are better.

I'd suggest these smug characters stand outside any school. Too many of those kids are FAT. It's not because they're lazy and it's not because they're overeating. It's because they have to eat a lot more of low quality foodstuffs to get adequate nutrition.

Just looking at height/weight tables only tells you minimal information. Bone and muscle weigh a lot more than fat does, so unless you're looking at the whole picture, you're going to see a lot of seriously malnourished kids with rolls of fatty tissue and "normal range" weight.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TO Kid Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. It ain't the food
Go to any residential street or public park and you'll see why so many kids no are overweight. When I was a kid there were always a couple of hockey games or a round of hide-and-seek going on and the local playground was always full, and our parents never drove us anywhere (it was walk or ride the bike). It doesn't matter what you feed your kids, the TV every night plus weekly soccer practice will not burn nearly as many calories as a couple of hours outdoors every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. The fat Repuke kids are offset by the healthy Liberal kids like mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TO Kid Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. You're deluded
I've seen plenty of healthy "repuke" kids and lots of overweight "liberals" in my time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vpigrad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. The problem is the statistics!
In the US there have been no large-scale studies of the weights of children in the past 50 years. The height and weight charts the CDC uses are over 50 years-old. Kids are taller, stronger, and heavier than they were 50 years ago. They're heavier without being fatter. Too bad the admin hates children and won't allocate the funds to collect better data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnowGoose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. In the WTC on 9/11, some 'listened' and others left...
Some listened to the message 'return to your desks, the situation is under control.' Some said "Eff that," stood right up and left the building. Which people are alive now?

Industry will always find someone willing to tell you that what it's doing is just hunky-dory, lead in gasoline isn't hurting anyone, you're not too fat, you don't watch too much mindless crap on TV, DES isn't bad for you, cigarettes don't give you cancer, we'll never run out of cheap oil, we'll never run out of cheap water, there's nothing wrong with the ozone layer, there's no climate change....

We're reaching a moment of truth, both as individuals, as a culture, and even as a species. Listen to the soothing voices and go back to sleep and you will die in this tower.

Or, take ownership of your life, do the work necessary to understand what's going on, and armed with that knowledge, save yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
8. Truth is probably in the middle
The National Obesity Forum probably has something to gain from having the problem portrayed as larger. While we know what the food industry thinks. One wants it rated High the other Low. Truth is most likely in the middle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TO Kid Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-18-05 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Food biz is morally neutral
They make a buck by figuring out what consumers want then delivering it. Hence the trend of all the "low fat" and "low carb" foods on the market now. Even McD's is in on it- even ten years ago could anyone imagine them promoting deli sandwiches?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
9. Obesity is probably a second-order problem
We’re finding that obesity is promoted by a number of non-obvious factors.

1. Emergence of a universal high-stress lifestyle that punishes all non-“winners”. Unremediated stress promotes obesity in all animals except those which are starving.

2. Ancient biological responses to stress: both compulsive feeding and compulsive sexual behavior.

3. Increased incidence of “subclinical” and “mysterious” fatigue-causing illnesses -- viral, allergenic, chemical-sensitivity disorders.

4. Widespread over-use of antibiotics (most of which are associated with or cause obesity) in medical treatment, animal husbandry.

5. Universal distribution of xenoestrogenic by-products of plastic manufacture in the biosphere.

6. Extensive use of soy derivatives in foodstuffs. Soy contains a number of “xenoestrogenic” compounds that promote obesity, cancer, and allergic reactions.

7. Decline in the quality of food available to most people. Higher intake of simple carbohydrates, which increases insulin, a hormone that potentiates physical reactions to stress, and as a side-effect, stores glucose as fat.

8. Decline in the amount of, and quality of, sleep.

9. Emergence of electromagnetic fields as a source of physical stress. Devices which radiate EMF -- especially microwave EMF -- have become ubiquitous.

10. Longer periods of enforced physical idleness.

11. Fear of going outside (from crime, etc.); social isolation, agoraphobia, withdrawl.

12. The Lord’s jus’ been whuppin’ our behinds.

13. We are committing racial (as in the Human Race) suicide.

--p!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC