Another Article about Toxic Sugar making us age quicker, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 12-4-2012 @ 07:16 PM by strato

It's all freaking propaganda as one poster said already. Look up Alan Aragon. He is good at exposing this crap.

reply posted on 12-4-2012 @ 07:26 PM by Egyptia

reply to post by MrRottenTreats

I have not eaten processed sugar for years with the exception of a very rare occasional 90% dark chocolate bit. I drink water, red wine, coffee and puree juices without any additives or sugar. I will be 45 yet people think I'm between 32-35 yrs old. I'm leaning towards including a partial raw diet also with wheat grass and sprouts.

My blood sugar levels are always normal even though I have excluded it from my diet as of many years.

I have never craved sugar to be honest once I stopped eating it.

edit on 12-4-2012 by Egyptia because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-4-2012 @ 07:52 PM by unityemissions

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
In order for all this to work, the issue has to be "framed". The framing started 10 years ago, when the standards for BMI were changed and the standard for blood sugar was also changed.

This allowed anti-obesity campaigners to start banging on about the "obesity" crisis. Which is exactly like the "smoking" crisis. In both cases, statistics are used to produce theoretical dead bodies. The dead bodies are used to alarm the public and convince them that something MUST be done.

Now Big Pharma and anti-obesity lobbyists start funding scientific studies to PROVE that sugar is bad for you. These studies are then used to support evidence-based laws that will allow the government to tax food in order to limit intake.

Have you any clue how little the BMI numbers changed for each category

This change happened in 1998, yet obesity has continued to rise.

Just look around. Direct observation trumps statistics any day.

As for the rest, me thinks you're a bit too paranoid.

I've decided to not take in your propaganda.

reply posted on 12-4-2012 @ 08:37 PM by TiredofControlFreaks

reply to post by unityemissions

It changed by 20 lbs. Medically speaking, a person who is within 20 lbs of the ideal weight is overwieght but a person who is more than 20 lbs overwieght is obese. Millions of obese people were created overnight by the 1998 change in definition. The article quotes that the change affected 97 million people. So before June 1998, 97 million people were considered fat but healthy - after 1998, 97 million became fat (over wieght).

www.washingtonpost.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

reply posted on 13-4-2012 @ 12:34 AM by unityemissions

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by unityemissions

Medically speaking, a person who is within 20 lbs of the ideal weight is overwieght but a person who is more than 20 lbs overwieght is obese.

Entirely incorrect. I have no clue where you got this figure from.

For instance, my height is 6ft. According to the BMI by current standards, I will have a "normal" BMI of 18.6 @136lbs. I will continue to have a "normal" BMI until reaching a BMI of 25 @184lbs. That would put me in the "overweight" category. I would not reach the "obese" category until reaching a BMI of 30 @221lbs.

221-183= 38lbs.

Millions of obese people were created overnight by the 1998 change in definition.

The people were just as fat as they were before the the standard changed. What changed first was knowledge of health risks at a lower BMI...our understanding of the science is constantly being tweaked...the standards follow accordingly.

The article quotes that the change affected 97 million people.

Sir or Madam, are you incapable of comprehending what was written here, or is it that you are purposefully choosing to obfuscate the truth

This is not what is stated. I quote:

Under the new guidelines, 97 million adults -- nearly 55 percent of the U.S. population -- would be considered overweight, placing them at increased risk of such health problems as diabetes, elevated blood cholesterol, heart disease, stroke and high blood pressure.

It states that the total has increased to 97 million adults, but the vast majority were already considered overweight by the old standards.

Here is another source from 1998:

Someone who is 5 feet, 10 inches (1.8 meters) tall and weighs 185 pounds (83 kg) was considered overweight under the old guidelines. Now, for the same height, 175 pounds (79 kg) is overweight and 209 pounds (94 kg) is obese.

Or, put another way, 25 million Americans who weren't fat before, are now. Even under the previous standards, more than half of all adult Americans are overweight.

CNN

So before June 1998, 97 million people were considered fat but healthy - after 1998, 97 million became fat (over wieght).

www.washingtonpost.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

See above. Just not so.

For a visual representation showing an overall trend upward, regardless of the change in standards, please visit this site and watch the animation of obesity rate by ascending years:

U.S. Obesity Trends

edit on 13-4-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 13-4-2012 @ 05:55 AM by TiredofControlFreaks

reply to post by unityemissions

I stand corrected. Therefore, only 25 million americans were considered healthy before the change are now considered overwieght.

However, let us remember that BMI has absolutely no real meaning. It is simply a wieght to hieght ration and does not take into account the actual composition of the body mass

Tired of Control Freaks

reply posted on 13-4-2012 @ 01:46 PM by unityemissions

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

Agreed. Someone could have a "normal" BMI, yet have a large waist. Someone could also bulk up in lean mass and be considered "overweight", yet have a flat belly.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^