It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Gryphon66
Hi ... I can understand how you can not make the link ... You would need to read the book which of course is not practical
.... She worked at the highest level in Education ... the policy's perused have slowly impacted what is taught in schools ...
Eroding independent thinking and also skills ...
I am sorry I will not be able to enter further discussion as I am going away and will not be in front of computer for two weeks
... I don,t have a lap top
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: grandmakdw
Do you have any examples for your developing country -----> obesity epidemic? I'd love to see what you're basing your thought on.
That's an interesting report you linked to one study. The authors of the study presented their findings, not to challenge per se the existing standards of healthy weight, but rather, as they said, "to provoke discussion."
And I think that's healthy. I think we should always return to the evidence.
That single report is a far cry from suggesting that what now is recognized as a more critical global health issue than hunger.
CNN - Obesity Bigger Heatlh Risk than Hunger
Nearly 500 researchers from 50 countries compared health data from 1990 through 2010 for the Global Burden of Disease report, revealing what they call a massive shift in global health trends.
"We discovered that there's been a huge shift in mortality. Kids who used to die from infectious disease are now doing extremely well with immunization," said Ali Mokdad, co-author of the study and professor of global health at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, which led the collaborative project.
"However, the world is now obese and we're seeing the impact of that."
The report revealed that every country, with the exception of those in sub-Saharan Africa, faces alarming obesity rates -- an increase of 82% globally in the past two decades. Middle Eastern countries are more obese than ever, seeing a 100% increase since 1990.
"The so-called 'Western lifestyle' is being adapted all around the world, and the impacts are all the same," Mokdad said.
SO ... data from one study as compared with 20 years of data from 500 researchers around the world.
Even though I hesitate to use the term "scientific consensus" ... it seems pretty clear that there's a problem not connected soley with how we think about our body images in the US.
And I think you'd agree that the issue is a matter of degree ... sure, people's individual metabolisms might vary within 10-20 lbs of a standard weight, but more than 50? 100?
There's a problem that will have to be addressed some way somehow.
Obesity has reached epidemic proportions globally, with more than 1 billion adults overweight - at least 300 million of them [b]clinically obese[/b] - ..... Often coexisting in developing countries with under-nutrition, obesity is a complex condition, with serious social and psychological dimensions, affecting virtually all ages and socioeconomic groups. Increased consumption of more energy-dense, nutrient- poor foods with high levels of sugar and saturated fats, combined with reduced physical activity, have led to obesity rates that have risen three-fold or more since 1980 in some areas of North America, the United Kingdom, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific Islands, Australasia and China.The obesity epidemic is not restricted to industrialized societies; this increase is often faster in developing countries than in the developed world.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe
HOme economics was also destroyed by the feminist movement.
They saw teaching people how to do "things housewives do" as degrading.
So out of political correctness, we no longer teach children how to cook, how to sew, how to care for themselves. Nutrition was one of the hallmarks of home economics, which is not longer taught. Why? Political correctness, it is a un-liberal thing to do, very un-progresive - to teach the skills of the "homemaker".
Which in my opinion are the basic survival skills for all human beings.
You're very caught up in blaming everything on liberals and progressives, and of course, feminists as above. And that's fine, that's your opinion, and I don't want to debate that with you at all, here.
But honestly, do you have any actual information that demonstrates that any of that had anything to do with changes in the educational system? Isn't it possible that changing priorities (with more families having to have both parents working, etc.) in economic requirements had a bigger impact on home life (and therefore what was being taught in schools) than simple statements that challenged traditional gender roles and encouraged women to seek their own independence?
originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Does freedom come with responsibilities, the fat and un healty people, shouldent they have to pay extra for the strain on the healthcare.
Oh and op i dont think you understand what starvation really means.
The modern term "body mass index" (BMI) for the ratio of weight to squared height owes its popularity to a paper published in the July 1972 edition of the Journal of Chronic Diseases by Ancel Keys.
In the United States, most states still require Family & Consumer Sciences as a required course for middle school courses, while high school students choose to take it as an elective. Approximately 5 million students in US secondary education take FCS each year.
The History of BMI Using a formula to calculate obesity is not a new concept. In the nineteenth century, a Belgian statistician named Adolphe Quetelet came up with the Quetelet Index of Obesity, which measured obesity by dividing a person's weight (in kilograms) by the square of his or her height (in inches).
In 1998, the National Institutes of Health lowered the overweight threshold for BMI 27.8 to 25 to match international guidelines. The move added 30 million Americans who were previously in the "healthy weight" category to the "overweight" category.
the body mass index fails on 10 grounds:
1. The person who dreamed up the BMI said explicitly that it could not and should not be used to indicate the level of fatness in an individual. The BMI was introduced in the early 19th century by a Belgian named Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet. He was a mathematician, not a physician. He produced the formula to give a quick and easy way to measure the degree of obesity of the general population to assist the government in allocating resources. In other words, it is a 200-year-old hack.
2. It is scientifically nonsensical. There is no physiological reason to square a person's height (Quetelet had to square the height to get a formula that matched the overall data. If you can't fix the data, rig the formula!). Moreover, it ignores waist size, which is a clear indicator of obesity level.
3. It is physiologically wrong. It makes no allowance for the relative proportions of bone, muscle and fat in the body. But bone is denser than muscle and twice as dense as fat, so a person with strong bones, good muscle tone and low fat will have a high BMI. Thus, athletes and fit, health-conscious movie stars who work out a lot tend to find themselves classified as overweight or even obese.
4. It gets the logic wrong. The CDC says on its Web site that "the BMI is a reliable indicator of body fatness for people." This is a fundamental error of logic. For example, if I tell you my birthday present is a bicycle, you can conclude that my present has wheels. That's correct logic. But it does not work the other way round. If I tell you my birthday present has wheels, you cannot conclude I got a bicycle. I could have received a car. Because of how Quetelet came up with it, if a person is fat or obese, he or she will have a high BMI. But as with my birthday present, it doesn't work the other way round. A high BMI does not mean an individual is even overweight, let alone obese. It could mean the person is fit and healthy, with very little fat.
5. It's bad statistics. Because the majority of people today (and in Quetelet's time) lead fairly sedentary lives and are not particularly active, the formula tacitly assumes low muscle mass and high relative fat content. It applies moderately well when applied to such people because it was formulated by focusing on them. But it gives exactly the wrong answer for a large and significant section of the population, namely the lean, fit and healthy. Quetelet is also the person who came up with the idea of "the average man." That's a useful concept, but if you try to apply it to any one person, you come up with the absurdity of a person with 2.4 children. Averages measure entire populations and often don't apply to individuals.
6. It is lying by scientific authority. Because the BMI is a single number between 1 and 100 (like a percentage) that comes from a mathematical formula, it carries an air of scientific authority. But it is mathematical snake oil.
7. It suggests there are distinct categories of underweight, ideal, overweight and obese, with sharp boundaries that hinge on a decimal place. That's total nonsense.
8. It makes the more cynical members of society suspect that the medical insurance industry lobbies for the continued use of the BMI to keep their profits high. Insurance companies sometimes charge higher premiums for people with a high BMI. Among such people are all those fit individuals with good bone and muscle and little fat, who will live long, healthy lives during which they will have to pay those greater premiums.
9. Continued reliance on the BMI means doctors don't feel the need to use one of the more scientifically sound methods that are available to measure obesity levels. Those alternatives cost a little bit more, but they give far more reliable results.
10. It embarrasses the U.S. It is embarrassing for one of the most scientifically, technologically and medicinally advanced nations in the world to base advice on how to prevent one of the leading causes of poor health and premature death (obesity) on a 200-year-old numerical hack developed by a mathematician who was not even an expert in what little was known about the human body back then.