[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Southtown

. It's amusing that your post contains 7:2 my favor.

I don't understand what you mean.
This is not a competition.

[Southtown]

Yeah, I said most diseases were nutrition-related. In rebuttal, you name two that weren't and seven that were. You see the irony?

[HydrogenBond]

Back in the 1970's-80's, when running, health and thin was the social ideal, obesity was not a problem. The do-gooders concerned about the feelings of a minority of fat people worked had to alter this ideal that decriminated against a few couch tattas. They did studies to show how dangerous running can be and tried to promote the normal full figure woman instead of the supermodel ideal. They spared some feelings but created a bigger problem.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Back in the 1970's-80's, when running, health and thin was the social ideal, obesity was not a problem. The do-gooders concerned about the feelings of a minority of fat people worked had to alter this ideal that decriminated against a few couch tattas. They did studies to show how dangerous running can be and tried to promote the normal full figure woman instead of the supermodel ideal. They spared some feelings but created a bigger problem.

Obese people are still stigmatized by society. I don't think the general social enviornment has changed that much to accept obese people.

I have seen a number of people critical of the stick figure dolls and models. However I would not call that acceptance of obesity as much as criticism of anorexia.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Back in the 1970's-80's, when running, health and thin was the social ideal, obesity was not a problem. The do-gooders concerned about the feelings of a minority of fat people worked had to alter this ideal that decriminated against a few couch tattas. They did studies to show how dangerous running can be and tried to promote the normal full figure woman instead of the supermodel ideal. They spared some feelings but created a bigger problem.

Well, I guess that's one possibility. Another is the increase in sedentary lifestyle coupled with the increased availability of foods the poor nutritional value, and an upsurge in SES which allows for the increased purchase of such food stuffs.

Do-gooders?
Fat people?
Couch tattas?

Please refrain from being so offensive. There are all walks of life walking these halls on Hypography, and there is no need for using such derogatory remarks, especially when your posts are lacking in validity.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Southtown

Yeah, I said most diseases were nutrition-related. In rebuttal, you name two that weren't and seven that were. You see the irony?

No irony.
I was supporting your argument to a point.
It is a silly, semantic argument anyway about the meaning of "most"disease' - which we could probably never resolve.
'Most' in terms of people affected or the number of diseases caused by poor nutrition?

[ThisIsMyName]

If you want to take care of your metabolism function, then try to get decent sleep and don't skip meals (especially breakfast). You start off your day behind the metabolic eight ball if you skip the first meal of the day. Your body spends the rest of the day playing catch up, and you're not functioning at an optimum level. Once you get this system dialed-eating well, exercising, and adding resistance training to your life-it does become easier. It's like priming the water pump. Yes, you have to work hard in the beginning to get the water out, but once things start flowing, then you just have to tap the handle to get a bucket of water. Look at your calorie burning efficient self the same way.

I will say it one more time before I go-it's just science. Granted, overeating is a tricky emotional topic, but the way to stay a certain weight or get down to a desired number is very straightforward.

- http://health.yahoo.com/experts/gabb...s-just-science

That's a small section of the link containing the article. Do you think things like Self Magazing and Teen People make losing weight too easy? Almost like a thought like, "OK, well, since it's so easier I can go off my diet and eat a little junk food because it's so easy to work it off again." ?
People, particularly teenage girls, have taken on more ways to lose weight. Starving themselves and cocain for example.... Where is this going as far as society and weight goes?

[Michaelangelica]

Skipping meals seems to be counter-productive in the research I have read.


This is intersesting:-
http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng...ood-ingredient

Single food ingredient the cause of obesity ? New study has industry up in arm
All news for June 2006

26/04/2004 - Food manufacturers are in the firing line again with scientists suggesting corn syrup and other refined foods could be the cause of the obesity epidemic and the rising rate of type 2 diabetes. The food industry immediately reacts, brandishing recent studies as ‘misleading’, writes Lindsey Partos.

Investigating food consumption patterns over the past 35 years, scientists found that in the 20 years from 1970 to 1990 the consumption of the popular soft drink sweetener, high fructose corn syrup, leapt by a massive 1000 per cent.

"HFCS now represents more that 40 per cent of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages and is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the US," said George Bray and colleagues in a recent issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The researchers suggest that this rapid trajectory of HFCS consumption, and processed carbohydrates in general, through food and drinks could be to blame for the steep rise in obesity.

[Michaelangelica]

besity epidemic costing Australia $3 billion a year
PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
The World Today - Wednesday, 18 October , 2006 12:34:00
Reporter: Chris Uhlmann
ELEANOR HALL: It seems hardly a week goes by without a new study showing we're all getting fatter.

But a report out today has another take on the obesity epidemic, that it's costing Australia well over $3 billion a year.

The Access Economics report into the economic burden of obesity was commissioned by Diabetes Australia, as Chris Uhlmann reports.

CHRIS UHLMANN: It stands to reason that the health costs associated with obesity would add up over time, but $3.7 billion is large number by any standard. Access poured a variety of weight-related costs into the mix to come up with the number.

The report's author is Access Economics director Lynn Pezzullo.

LYNN PEZZULLO: The $3.7 billion were the financial costs of obesity, and on top of that there are about another $17 billion which were the loss of healthy life caused by obesity.

And that's because obesity is linked to cardiovascular diseases, to diabetes type two, and also to osteoarthritis and a number of cancers.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...6/s1768081.htm

[Michaelangelica]

[QUOTE

Lack of Sleep May Lead to Obesity

Bristol University researcher Shahad Taheri has released a new study that links shorter amounts of sleep to obesity in children and adults. The study says that the habit being formed by kids and adults to stay up later and get less sleep is one of the causes in higher obesity rates among the population which is one of the reasons why televisions, computers, mobile phones and other gadgets should be banned from children’s bedrooms.[/quote]

http://www.bloggernews.net/1794