It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the West a society of addicts? Or: the change of food

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: YogaGinns

There is little doubt in my mind that people are on alot of drugs but the question I have is this: Are the drugs needed?

For example: Public Health decided that heart disease was associated with high blood pressure. So they turned around in 1998 and lowered what is considered to be "normal" blood pressure. Then they issued guidelines to doctors insisting that anyone who could not meet the new lower standard should be prescribed drugs.

Same thing with diabetes. Now anyone who has ANY of the risk factors for heart disease is automatically prescribed a statin to lower blood cholesteral.

My question is this: Are these drugs needed?

Tired of Control Freaks


Agreed, it is the "business" of health and the more problems the public is perceived to have the more drugs can be prescribed. Thus creating market and profits for the drug companies, not disputed. However the increase in size and weight of the average person is obvious just by looking around...no studies needed...no graphs or charts required for proof. We can see that people are getting fatter everywhere we look. And this creates a nation of unhealthy people who need to have their diseases medicated. Would skinny, active, happy people run to their doctors? Not likely unless they have had a health crisis. But the overweight, sluggish and depressed are their looking for cures and are more apt to seek medical intervention. It is the fact that they are "addicted" or "hooked" on their unhealthy eating patterns that packed on the pounds and made them sick.

As one of my previously links stated that a person would not eat mounds of fruits or vegetables just because they are there, but dump a pile of potato chips or sweets in front of them and they will not likely stop until the last crumb is gone, I can certainly vouch for that fact. I'm not likely to go scrounging through the cupboards for that packet of Quinoa to cook up, but if I have an inkling that there are sweets to be had I can sniff them out like a bloodhound and devour them. I know its not good for me, I don't feel good eating it (and even worse afterwards) but will do it anyway. Is that not the actions of an addict?

Will power be damned in the face of cravings.
Namaste,
YogaGinns




posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: YogaGinns

yogaginns

Every single day we are inundated with news of the "obesity crisis" and how awful it is. That is the power of suggestion.

If you please, let us try an experiement. Without googling anything: Take a guess at what the average 30 year old woman wieghts today and what a 30 year old woman wieghed in the 1950s. Do the same thing for men.

Then look it up. And don't forget that american men are two inches taller today then they were 60 years agao. And remember that you are comparing todays generation with a generation that had just gone through the great depression AND a world war.

Lets see how close you are.

Then we will discuss addiction

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   


If you please, let us try an experiement. Without googling anything: Take a guess at what the average 30 year old woman wieghts today and what a 30 year old woman wieghed in the 1950s. Do the same thing for men.


OK, I took the challenge and went with the first numbers that came to me.
I showed the list to Iwinder before going on a search.

Men in the '50s: 170 and today: 195
Women in the '50s: 125 and today: 168

I am still trying to find a site that does such a comparison, so while I search lets have the other posters "weigh in" with their educated guesses. (bad pun was intended)

Namaste,
YogaGinns



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: YogaGinns

I look forward to what you find - lets see if you can find information about the average hight of the same men and woman.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: YogaGinns

That's a massive difference, even taking in any height differences. Something is causing this change, it wouldn't be the Bovine growth hormone would it? which not only signals cells to divide but also fat cells to divide. Also why is their a height difference, between then and now, and between geographical places where people with lower levels of the hormone are shorter, and places where they have higher levels are taller. If no one can see that the main culprit is this hormone. Coming from Dairy food intake, then all further discussions are a bit pointless.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   
A few extra inches in hight don't explain dozens of pounds extra away though. Are medical professionals wrong about the effects of being overweight or obese?



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Pitou

Some are and some are not. If you found out that if a certain food in general consumption caused 70 % of illness. Then it figures that if withdrawing it would cause a 70% drop in wealth. Totally disrupt the economy and most probably loose the job you have worked hard for over many years. Mental gymnastics would have you saying ," in some people it might cause harm" "To much of anything is harmful" .etc.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

The quoted wieghts are merely speulative. We still have not googled the average wieght and hieght of the men and woman in their 30s.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I would like to post this link:

ahundredyearsago.files.wordpress.com...

Compare what was considered normal wieght at a given height for 100 years ago with what is considered normal wieght in 2011.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I suspect it has something to do with your upbringing, if you have not been taught some discipline in your youth,how can you make good choices if they involve disciplining yourself ? I think realizing that you can shape your life in a conscious manner is something we need to learn as early in life as possible.
And I am not suggesting total control but perhaps just enough to make you aware that food should be consumed sensibly,like everything...



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: simplesurfer
I suspect it has something to do with your upbringing, if you have not been taught some discipline in your youth,how can you make good choices if they involve disciplining yourself ? I think realizing that you can shape your life in a conscious manner is something we need to learn as early in life as possible.
And I am not suggesting total control but perhaps just enough to make you aware that food should be consumed sensibly,like everything...


Quite true none of this is an exact science, and their would be many mitigating factors, exercise, social economics, etc. Common sense being the most important. With the airline industry saying that they will have to charge extra for body weight . It suggests that the increasing weight is hitting the bottom line.

I did a bit of research for some factual science linking Dairy intake with various diseases. Many seemed to be terminated, the data was skewed, the results were from poor samples etc. But I finally got some interesting results, where the research was quoted.

www.nutritionmd.org...
edit on 26-12-2014 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: simplesurfer
I suspect it has something to do with your upbringing, if you have not been taught some discipline in your youth,how can you make good choices if they involve disciplining yourself ? I think realizing that you can shape your life in a conscious manner is something we need to learn as early in life as possible.
And I am not suggesting total control but perhaps just enough to make you aware that food should be consumed sensibly,like everything...


Quite true none of this is an exact science, and their would be many mitigating factors, exercise, social economics, etc. Common sense being the most important. With the airline industry saying that they will have to charge extra for body weight . It suggests that the increasing weight is hitting the bottom line.

I did a bit of research for some factual science linking Dairy intake with various diseases. Many seemed to be terminated, the data was skewed, the results were from poor samples etc. But I finally got some interesting results, where the research was quoted.

www.nutritionmd.org...


Dairy has been consumed by many groups around the world for quite a long time and only very recently are we seeing such an upswing in disease. I could possibly believe that the dairy mainly available today is somehow tainted via hormones or other such things, but this whole fad of making dairy the boogey man is more deflection IMHO. As I mentioned earlier I eat plenty of dairy, definitely more than the recommended amount and I'm still loosing weight and my "stats" continue to improve. If some people are sensitive to dairy it makes sense to cut it out of your diet, but if you eat it and don't have digestion issues I find it really hard to believe it's doing anything bad.

Really the only thing that has risen along with disease is sugar. Looking at graphs from the 50s to the present the upswing in sugar is followed quickly by the upswing in disease. Not to mention how fructose goes directly to tumors. People have been eating food with sugar in it for awhile, but not at the quantity people have in the last 40-50 years, and not high-fructose corn syrup. Cane sugar is glucose and fructose, high fructose corn syrup as the name implies is mostly fructose. There are tons of studies done where people drastically reduce the sugar in their diet, WITHOUT reducing calories, and they loose weight. That proves that the whole idea of simple calories in vs out is bunk, because there is no actual way to determine what calories you are taking in or how your body is using them. Not all calories are created equal yet we are still lied to and told it's all just a matter of reducing calories.

I strongly feel that in the future, either near or far, the current view of diet will seem as ridiculous as the old-timey idea as all illness being caused by "bad humors" in your bod. The food industry has manipulated and corrupted science in this country, and unless we stop that from happening people will keep getting sicker. The people trying to sell you food are the same ones who actually tell the government what to tell you.
edit on 26-12-2014 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

No one seems to have really checked out the link I posted so will talk about it myself.

In 1911 - if you were a woman of 5 ft in height - normal weight was considered to be 108 to 150 pounds
In 2011 - if you were a woman of 5 ft in height - normal weight is considered to be 97 to 128 pounds

Now I am a woman of 5 ft in height, so 100 years ago - I could weigh 150 pounds and any doctor would consider me to be of normal weight but today if I weigh over 128 pounds I am considered overweight. Anything over153 is obese!

No wonder there is an obesity crisis!!! the definitions have changed.

But what changed about human beings that justifies making the standards different.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity



That's a massive difference, even taking in any height differences.


anonentity, sorry if I was confusing in my post. Those numbers were just what I perceived the difference to be not from anything factual. I am still looking for a good site with actual comparisons.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Really the only thing that has risen along with disease is sugar. Looking at graphs from the 50s to the present the upswing in sugar is followed quickly by the upswing in disease. Not to mention how fructose goes directly to tumors. People have been eating food with sugar in it for awhile, but not at the quantity people have in the last 40-50 years, and not high-fructose corn syrup.


James1982, I agree with you that the food we eat has undergone significant change in the past 50 - 60 years and that modified sugars are the main factor in increased body mass. I am also sure that the growth hormones imposed on our meat supplies has a trickle down affect on those who consume it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TiredofControlFreaks

I like that chart of the 100 years, but it still doesn't clarify if that is the "guidelines" for height/weight or the "acutal" weights averaged based on a "census" of a particular region.

So lets take the number on the scale out of the equation for a moment and just go with a visual. How many pictures of large, lumpy, bumpy, bloated individuals with muffin tops and love handles, not to mention double and triple chins would there be a millennium ago. Granted with the fashion of that era it is difficult to tell. I think the number of people today who resemble mascots for the marshmallow and tire industry is indicative the amount of excess fat being carried around.

Yes back in late 1500s to early 1600s Peter Paul Rubens (rubenesque period) nudes were shown as curvy and voluptuous, which was also a sign of upper classes. Those who could afford to eat, and eat well, but they still pale compared to the larger bodies of today. And I'm not just comparing it to sites like the people of W@ll-mart, but even to the video clips in the OPs documentary. I say that is what obesity looks like.

I'm thinking that I am not getting my thoughts across coherently. Today large amounts of food containing high sugar, fat and salt are being touted as the norm, and made affordable to most people. Bodies are getting bigger and bigger and that seems to have become "acceptable" in this society. Lets face it that type of food is not very good but people are drawn to it in droves. The marketing cannot be solely responsible for that, it must have an addictive control over people (maybe not all, but a large enough group), and that is what this thread started out stating.

Am I making any sense?
Namaste,
YogaGinns

edit on 26-12-2014 by YogaGinns because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: James1982

Thanks you make some excellent points. As far as I see it a 2 point rise in blood sugar gives a 25% drop in the efficiency of the immune system. (Diabetics and their immune systems are of constant concern to their doctors.) So the higher the blood sugar is constantly reading, the more weakened the immune system becomes. The page I submitted in my last post, would still put Dairy up there, on a watch list.

I would like to add, that in one section it mentions that those with higher amounts of the bovine growth hormone in their blood samples, were four more times likely to get Ovarian, and Prostate cancer .It didn't mention Breast cancer. But we can assume as its hormone related would figure.

What hits me, is the obviously observed weight gains, over the last two decades. Twenty years ago a person with a weight problem would stand out in any given crowd. Now days its unremarkable. The Industry which is" weight paranoid" is Aviation where record keeping is a priority. When I get some time ill see if I can get some data on passenger weight increases over the past few years.
edit on 26-12-2014 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

No one seems to have really checked out the link I posted so will talk about it myself.

In 1911 - if you were a woman of 5 ft in height - normal weight was considered to be 108 to 150 pounds
In 2011 - if you were a woman of 5 ft in height - normal weight is considered to be 97 to 128 pounds

Now I am a woman of 5 ft in height, so 100 years ago - I could weigh 150 pounds and any doctor would consider me to be of normal weight but today if I weigh over 128 pounds I am considered overweight. Anything over153 is obese!

No wonder there is an obesity crisis!!! the definitions have changed.

But what changed about human beings that justifies making the standards different.

Tired of Control Freaks


I get your point, so you are saying that people these days are not fatter than they were. Just that the medical people have defined what is considered obese, and a lot more people now qualify? If that's the point I agree. But it still leaves me with an observational problem, in that I see more overweight people now days than I did twenty years ago when walking through a mall.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

And that is the effect of propaganda!!!

You were told over and over again that people are fatter and now your eyes and your mind remember only the fatter people that you see.

The lie has become the truth!

Tired of Control Freaks

Let me just look at some links to further prove my point. Then we can discuss how we all became addicts and why!



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: anonentity

And that is the effect of propaganda!!!

You were told over and over again that people are fatter and now your eyes and your mind remember only the fatter people that you see.

The lie has become the truth!

Tired of Control Freaks

Let me just look at some links to further prove my point. Then we can discuss how we all became addicts and why!


I'm afraid I'll have to stop you there, as the statistics disprove your statement. Airline and passenger weights started to increase to the point that fuel requirements for the average passenger started to become inadequate. It started in the decade of the nineties and is a continuing trend. The fact that weight gain impacted airlines in that decade, would coincide with the graph showing the rise in obesity illness during that decade as well. www.seattlepi.com...

Not only does this fact impact airlines, its impacting all forms of transport and seat sizes. quieterelephant.wordpress.com...
edit on 26-12-2014 by anonentity because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-12-2014 by anonentity because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-12-2014 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I think advances in electronics and technology also have played a role. Do you have to get up and go answer a phone, turn the tv channel? Most garages used to be detached from the house and you had to walk to the garage, bathrooms everywhere in a home. All of those small activities add up.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: mugger

They definitely do, and up to the point where the average Joe doesn't get minimal amounts of exercise. Which all have the effect of not burning calories. Plus living in suburbia requires a car to get to the supermarket. It all adds up.




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join