It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Nanny State: Feds propose monitoring how long you watch TV to control obesity

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 03:17 AM
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
but briefly
.... 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

Regards a/p

posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 04:24 AM

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
but briefly
.... 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

Regards a/p

Have a great journey and return to us safely!

I don't really have to read Ms. Iserbyt's book in full to realize that 1) her thesis is biased and unfounded and 2) that her "ideas" do not prove that the feminist movement is the prime actor in removing classes like Home Economics from the American secondary school curriculum. Ms. Iserbyt believes that there is a world-wide conspiracy (including such actors as the Vatican) to implement old-school communism (ala Soviet Union style) and that, to my mind at least, is preposterous. Ms. Iserbyt worked for Ronald Reagan (who dismissed her from her post, btw) and then she started claiming that Reagan, Bush, et. al. were also part of this world-wide Communist plot.

Frankly, her work sounds like she's transcribing a session of the Illuminati card game ...

edit on 4Mon, 23 Feb 2015 04:26:07 -060015p042015266 by Gryphon66 because: spelling

posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 06:06 AM
this goes right along with what I heard on the radio just three days ago that samsung admitted their tv's all record the occupants in their home but not to worry cause only third parties will access it.....true report....oh .man....

edit on 23-2-2015 by GBP/JPY because: yahushua, our new King

edit on 23-2-2015 by GBP/JPY because: the ten virgins parable gives us a heads-up about being being one with God.....and telling others, too!!!

posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 09:22 AM

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.

The "massive problem" may be caused by the variation from standard.
I checked it out and the standards for defining overweight and obesity were set between 1830 and 1850

A time period I think we can all agree was not a time when most people were not only food insecure, but
the majority of people barely had enough to eat and nutrition was very poor in urban areas

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. (from World Health Organization)

I noticed the emphasis on clinically obese, which I highlighted.
That says to me the majority are on the lower end of clinically obese.
Could it be that the definition of obese which was set nearly 200 years ago is wrong?

Could it be that our thin obsessed society which has produced anorexia in both males and female
and is perpetuated by the fashion industry and the entertainment industry:

has actually caused us to define malnourished underweight as the lower end of normal

and the upper end of true normal when properly nourished as obese?

Why are we accepting as unchangeable truth a standard set 200 years ago
which has never been challenged by any scientific research
nor was it set using scientific research on longevity and disease resistance
rather it was set using higher mathematics
and subjective standards of "what appeared normal" to the person who created it?

edit on 10Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:14:16 -0600am22302amk231 by grandmakdw because: addition

posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 09:38 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 09:45 AM

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?

Well I suppose living through it, through the change and through the times when it was done and seeing it firsthand and the reasoning first hand, that is my #1 source.

Also, my mother and sister were both teachers and I taught in colleges and universities, and so had first hand knowledge of the reasoning that was happening.

But I suppose being there, hearing the discussions, and the reasoning, isn't really the proof you are after, but that's all I have - multiple first hand accounts of why Home Economics died in the schools.

Oops forgot to mention, I got my advanced degree in the Home Economics Department of a major university school of agriculture, in human development, parenting, marriage. I also taught within the departments of Home Economics in the schools of agriculture, at several major universities in my travels as a military spouse. So I suppose being there in University Home Economics Departments, well that is sort of first hand knowledge isn't it?

edit on 9Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:49:09 -0600am22302amk231 by grandmakdw because: addition

(post by grandmakdw removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 01:55 PM

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.

No, freedom comes with consequences. In a free society, if you make bad choices that lead to negative consequences which you are unable to pay the cost of mitigation of, then you should be prepared to also pay that consequence. Socialism is antifreedom, and that includes socialized medical care, socialized welfare, and socialized economic safety nets.

Freedom in the USA is a complete illusion and has been for awhile now.

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 12:18 PM
a reply to: grandmakdw

Let's see ... what's left?

Your claim is that the standards for height and weight were set "nearly 200 years ago"?

I find it difficult to think you're actually serious about that. So, no nutritionists, doctors, public health researchers, ... indeed no one has considered, contemplated, revised or expanding the information since the 1830s?

I would REALLY LOVE to see your evidence on that one. Care to link?

Meanwhile, since most medical professionals consider the Body Mass Index these days to determine obesity ...

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.

Journal of Chronic Diseases

There may indeed be slight variations from person to person. Some heavier people are healthier than others, some lighter people are healthier than others; in short, I think it's quite reasonable to state that relative health slightly varies from individual to individual.

BUT, the idea that these slight variations invalidate all modern medical understandings regarding the health consequences of being overweight or obese ... seems utterly spurious to me.

Surely, that's not what you're claiming here?

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 12:34 PM
a reply to: grandmakdw

Interesting academic pedigree indeed!

You're right, I had no idea. You never know just who the actual person is behind that screen-name, do you?

However, being an academic of that kind of experience and standing, I'm sure you understand the value of solid research, measurable objectives, reference to standard published research materials ... so, as awesome as your background is, I just wonder that you can't offer solid evidence that the activities of "feminists" resulted in the loss of Home Ec. from our schools.

Since only 30 years ago (long after the strongest feminist activism of the 70s) Home Ec. Departments and teachers were still prevalent ...

Surely, you aren't the only one in your field to put two-and-two together and get feminism, are you?


Er, uh ... not to mention ...

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.

per the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences

I'm sure you're a member of that professional group though, given your credentials and standing.

So ... 5 million huh?
edit on 12Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:44:21 -060015p122015266 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 04:05 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

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.

So in 1998 suddenly a WHOLE bunch more people were considered overweight and obese.

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.

edit on 4Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:16:38 -0600pm22402pmk242 by grandmakdw because: format

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 04:13 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

There was during the height of the feminist movement quite a bit of discussion in our field.

I'm retired now and don't go to professional meetings etc any more.

The discipline of Home Ec - Family Studies and Human Growth and Development - is not feminist friendly.
I had a student who was taking a women's studies class at the same time she was taking classes from me. She said the things we said were often diametrically opposed and asked who was right. I told her when taking my test; I was right: when taking the other prof's test; she was right. Then I told her college was supposed to teach her how to think, so for the rest of the time she would have to think for herself and decide who to believe.
Lots of "stats" and research in college are skewed through creative statistics to end up the way the researcher wants, either for or against a certain thing. So thinking for oneself, as far as I am concerned and not falling hook line and sinker for "research" is the mark of a true intellect.

Best I can give you on that issue.

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 04:35 PM
You know, you got this thread then you got Officials Declare ‘Eating Healthy’ A Mental Disorder thread, so now I'm scratching my head, what am I supposed to do????

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 04:41 PM
a reply to: HomerinNC

Decide for yourself!

Read all of both threads

then think for yourself!

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 04:57 PM
a reply to: grandmakdw

I'm glad I could introduce you to the modern concept of BMI! I see you did a Google!

That's the thing about scientists and many medical professionals ... they're hooked on data and facts instead of opinions.

So, in Keith Devlin's opinion, BMI is worthless. Fair enough. Yet, the CDC, doctors, nutritionists, medical professionals, AMA etc. all believe it is a useful measure as part of a constellation of measures.

Is Keith Devlin a doctor or medical professional? What are his credentials in health?

Turns out he's a mathematics professor at Stanford.

Did you happen to look at Dr. Keys research that I linked? That's the starting place for the modern ideas about using BMI as one measure in treatment. Dr. Keys had two Ph D's, one in physiology from Cambridge.

But I'm sure a math professor knows more about medicine ... right? Particularly one who moonlights as the resident "Math Guy" on NPR.

I'll have to remember that you value NPR as a reliable source though.

I feel like we're quibbling.

What is your point again? That people are different? Let's save some screen time. Given.

Are you arguing that our current medical profession does not have metrics that can guide diagnosis of weight issues?

I believe you are incorrect on that point.

You don't believe that the government should be acting to improve the health of the American people?

Fair enough, I do.

Does that tidy everything up?

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 05:02 PM
a reply to: grandmakdw

But, 5 million kids a year though being taught these lessons in American schools! That's great!

I thought the feminists eradicated this kind of education?

I think you're the first academic I've ever met that didn't value research, though.

Common sense solutions?

That's probably fine if one is talking about baking, ironing clothes, or balancing a checkbook, but I think if my health is at stake, I'd rather have the opinions of medical professionals with some reputable science behind their "thoughts."

Good for you though! Thanks for answering!


edit on 17Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:05:39 -060015p052015266 by Gryphon66 because: -snark

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 05:46 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why don't I value research as highly as you think I should?

I also taught Research Methods within our discipline. That made me quite cynical about what passes for research the vast majority of the time.

There are so very many really bad studies out there!
The students I had in my graduate class had to get actual studies that were good for us to discuss in one of my classes,
they had an extremely difficult time. I shot down most of the studies they brought in for discussion as poor research for one reason or another. It finally got to the point where they would say before I did, I know this study is bad for this or that reason, but we can still learn ___ from it, but we have to be careful in thinking it is fact due to the faulty method or the faulty method of using statistics.

There are also way too many ways to manipulate data and statistics to get the desired result, not the real result.

Looks like for whatever reason, the people whose jobs relied on BMI, decided to make it so it looked like the obesity rate skyrocketed in 1998 and beyond, when in reality, they lowered the BMI standards. One has to think, why?

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 10:27 PM
a reply to: grandmakdw

Thanks for continuing to share your anecdotal evidence in order to clarify your position.

You know as well as I do, at least I believe (or hope) you do, that the answer to "bad studies" is not to dismiss collectively all structured research, but rather to answer the publication with attention to the inherent flaws, errors, misrepresentations, etc.

You completely ignore the validity of the peer review process, among other strict controls.

In essence, you're saying that because you can find fault with any findings presented, you believe that means that your "personal ideas and thoughts" are just as valid.

You are obviously offering yourself as an authority with vague references to your past career, etc. However, with no objective way to validate any of that, I can only go on your comments here.

Without resort to concrete evidence, ideas are just opinions. As far as the specifics of our discussion, you're merely over-generalizing 20-30 years of history into a simplistic or binary conceptualization, an "either/or" ... and in my opinion, it's clearly fallacious.
edit on 22Tue, 24 Feb 2015 22:30:22 -060015p102015266 by Gryphon66 because: Formatting

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 10:36 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not at all.

There is some good research,
Diana Baumrind's research is for example among the best social science has to offer.
Also, David Olson is an excellent social science researcher.
But in the social sciences, especially in "surveys"
the way the study is worded can lead to extreme bias in the findings.
The peer reviewers rarely get access to the actual instruments
(survey's) used when reviewing an article for publication.

However, peer reviewed, in practice often means that the peers often read and rubber stamp each other's work,
especially in the social sciences where math and statistics are often seen as the "stinky" part of research.

I do not hold this type of contempt for research in the hard sciences
where they understand math and statistics
and the people doing the peer reviews actually look at the math and review it.

That said, in hard science when one has an agenda to fulfill,
the ability to manipulate data is astounding
and in fact if well done is very difficult for a peer reviewer to discover.

Or when a researcher uses what was simply one man's opinion (as was the case with BMI),
and something someone set down 200 years ago
as blindly accepted baseline fact (prevailing accepted theory)
for the starting point of the research.

For example, look at salt in the diet, for the longest time everyone was harped on about cutting back on salt, eliminating salt. You rarely hear that anymore because someone who thought outside the box noticed that people who cut back drastically on salt actually had increased risk of heart attacks and impaired brain activity.
We see this sort of, bad for you today, good for you tomorrow in all kinds of research on foods.

What, in my opinion, one must do with any subject.
Is look at all the studies, look for their flaws,
which also will show their strengths.
Look at opposing viewpoints and studies that hold opposing viewpoints,
again evaluate the studies.
Look for a preponderance of evidence based on multiple good studies.
However, no great intellectual leaps or discoveries were ever made
by accepting the "accepted scientific theory" or popular scientific model.
Great leaps and great discoveries are made by challenging the accepted theory of the day.

I frequently found that my personal method of evaluating research
often led me to conclusions that were later confirmed again and again with good research.

Thinking for oneself is a much better way of learning the truth
than ever blindly accepting what "experts" say is truth.
In order to learn the truth, in my opinion, one must
study opposing views on any subject
not blindly accepting either view as truth,
and then decide for oneself where you think the truth lies.
Because what is truth today frequently is not tomorrow.
Frequently enough, that to blindly accept popular ideas
is to condemn oneself to banality of thought and intellect.

No one should "believe" any study on any subject as definitive.
Especially when there is something to gain in the outcome.
Such as control over a population through 24/7 surveillance
by saying it is necessary to monitor their health "for the good of society."

edit on 11Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:19:46 -0600pm22402pmk242 by grandmakdw because: grammar format addition

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 10:45 PM
a reply to: grandmakdw

The fields under discussion in the primary question here are medical studies, anatomical, biological ... not social sciences.

You're trying to dig down to epistemology. "How do we know that we know anything?"

Of course, studies can be rigged. But again, you're willfully ignoring the process of controls in place in the medical sciences particularly.

Nothing is or has been or would be decided based soley on the concept of BMI. Not in 1830, not in 1972 and not now.

And further, it's specious in the extreme for you to present that no one has done any additional research in the area of obesity since "200 years ago."


Again, is your point that there is such an absolute difference in individual body types that there is no reasonable, medical, scientific way to determine whether a given individual is overweight or obese?

What are you now arguing? And how does it relate to your OP?
edit on 22Tue, 24 Feb 2015 22:48:24 -060015p102015266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in