Two thirds of all Americans are overweight or rotund. That means when you attend the mall for every ten people you see six will be overweight or rotund. Amazing! This number is growing. Soon seven out of ten people will be overweight or rotund. It is now more common for adults in our society to be overweight and rotund than in a healthy weight range. It's not just adults, however. Obesity in children is also growing at horrific rates. The health consequences that these children face and are going to continue to face in their futures is a true tragedy.
Of course the axiomatic problem with corpulency is that it causes major health problems. Obesity drastically increases one's risk for Type II diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, cancer, likewise as psychological illnesses such as severe depression and complete withdraw from family/society.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, expressed that corpulency will soon take over tobacco as the leading preventable cause of death. Harvard School of Public Health discovered that one third of all cancers are due to issues of nutrition, mostly corpulency. It has also determined that corpulency will soon be responsible more cancers than smoking.
It is no exaggeration that in 100 years people will look back at this time and talk about the corpulency epidemic and how it destroyed more people than any epidemic in chronicle. Epidemics like the Black Plague and AIDS will pale in comparison to the devastation caused by corpulency.
We know fighting fat is not simple. We know that there is no one magical diet that will work for all. If there was a magic diet or pill there would not be an epidemic. There does not exist an isolated answer (such as, a single diet, a single pill, a single exercise routine, a single self-help tape) to fighting fat, because fighting fat is such a complex problem.
Fighting fat with these methods - a single diet, a single pill, a single exercise routine, a single self-help tape, and surgery - has done two affairs. First it has failing to result in permanent weight loss, and second it has made a deal of people very rich.
Billions of dollars are spent by consumers each and yearly in hope of determination the solution to fighting fat. Unfortunately, all that is truly being purchased is the equivalent of a Band-Aid to fix a bullet wound. They are superficial fixes that do not attack the problem at the root, and therefore offer either temporary fixes or no fix at all. These are not profound observations. All you have to do is look at the problem at hand, then look at the solutions offered and employed, and finally look at the results these solutions have provided thus far.
Let's look at the problem at hand first. Obesity is an epidemic that will soon be responsible more deaths yearly than any other preventable cause of death. This epidemic has been growing like wildfire over the past two decades, and continues to grow with no end in sight.
Next, we will look at the three most common solutions offered and employed to fix the problem. The first one is Fad Diets. Here is a short list of fad diets you may have detected of before: cabbage diet, grapeyield diet, lazy diet, Atkins diet, 3 day diet, 7 day diet, 30 day diet, chocolate diet, yield juice diet, low fat diet, South Beach diet, negative calorie diet, sixfold a day diet, one good meal diet, Hollywood diet, The Zone, Sugar Busters, Carb Addicts, Sugar Addicts, Jenny Craig, Dr. Phil, metabolism diet, protein power, glycemic index diet, fast food diet, Alien diet, etc.
The second common way offered to fix the corpulency epidemic is with drugs, a.k.a. diet pills. There are two classes of drugs. They are well-known as the ever popular All Natural drugs, and the growing in popularity pharmaceutical factory-made drugs.
The third way offered to fix the corpulency epidemic is with surgeries such as liposuction and internal organ bypass.
Now let's look at the results. We'll start with fad diets. Fad diets commonly result in an first weight loss, followed by a cycle of frustration, loss of motivation, and weight gain. The diets plans do not let in how to change behavior, therefore they fail. In order for an individual to attain permanent weight loss they must change their 'frame of mind'. These fad diets do not do this.
How about drugs? Let's start with the all natural pills, drinks, powders, etc. One of the biggest money making marketing maneuvers over the past 10 years has been to attach the words "All Natural" to everyaffair. For some crazy reason people think that just because someaffair is from nature that it is, not only not harmful, but salubrious. In addition, for this marketing proficiency to be really effective it must attack everyaffair else as being a harmful chemical. You hear this all the nonce expressed as, Don't put those chemicals into your body, instead use this all natural subposture. The whole affair is not supported any truth and possibly very dangerous.
First of all, everyaffair is a chemical. Have you every tried diatomic first oxide? Diatomic first oxide sounds like a pretty serious chemical doesn't it. Well its common name is water. Water is made when 2 atomic first atoms are chemically secure to an atomic number 8 atom - H2O. Life cannot exist without water. However, if you drink overmuch water you will die from water toxicity. Of course water can be toxic. Anyaffair can be toxic, and everyaffair is a chemical.
Would you eat arsenic, plutonium, mercury, or lead? Why not, they are all natural. Each one is a fundamental element found in nature. If you're really interested in acquiring some arsenic you can find it in Malus pumila seeds. Do you know how many deadly poisons are produced in nature by plants alone? Many of your backyards are full of them.
The bottom line is that it is insane and very dangerous to think someaffair is salubrious and not harmful just because it can be found naturally. Do not let the All Natural marketing maneuver ever carry you again! You know what I say about the All Natural diet pills and all the other All Natural marketing that is promoted by the powerful multi-billion dollar health industry - caveat emptor which means emptor beware.
The truth is that the mechanism of most of the diet pills is that they contain some stimulant, most often a form of caffein. For example, guarana is a very popular ingredient in many diet aids. Guarana is a climbing plant common to Brazil that produces a yield that has about threefold the amount of caffein as typical coffee beans. The bottom line is that guarana is all natura' and it contains the stimulant caffein. There are many name calling for caffein. When found in guarana its called guaranine. When it's found in the yerba mate plant it's called mateine, and in common tea leaves the caffein is called theine. They are all synonyms for the same chemical compound. All of these different name calling allow marketers to hide the fact that their products just contain a bunch of caffein or caffein metabolites.
Overall, stimulants do increase your metabolism which does result in burning more calories. Stimulants also raise your blood pressure, annoy your nervous system, cause your heart to work harder, and stress your vas system. In addition, over time, your body grows a tolerance to the stimulant and the only way to get the same mortalal effects is to increase the amount taken. As you can imagine, this can become very dangerous. Oh by the way, there is another popular plant leaf that contains an all natural stimulant that increases your metabolism and helps burn calories. It's well-known as cocaine. Are you acquiring my point?
Are the pharmaceutical factory-made diet pills any better? Since weight loss is a multi-billion dollar industry, everyone wants to be involved. Big pharmaceutical companies are no different. They have big budgets earmarked for weight loss research and development. Their goal is to find a chemical that can be taken by overweight and rotund individuals that will result in weight loss.
The process to find a chemical such as this begins with research on lab animals, such as rats. If they find a chemical that shows positive results in the animals without causation evident harm, they move to the next phase which is human trials. Initially, the chemical will be tested on small groups of volunteers, or paid participants. If these early experiments show promise, then the studies become large. If over time and over many studies, the chemical is shown to be effective - statistically - and not harmful - inside reason - then the chemical will be deemed safe and effective for use by the general universe. It will afterward be marketed, prescribed, and sold.
This all sounds reasonable, but here is why this hasn't led to resolution the corpulency epidemic. The studies are limited to a comparatively small sample of the universe. Just because there was positive results and ostensibly no harmful side mortalal effects to this comparatively small segment of the universe does not mean it is going to be safe and effective for the universe at large. Everyone is physiologically and genetically different. There are too many differences between people in the general universe for one drug to be safe and effective for everyone.
Have you ever detected of Fen-Phen? Fen-Phen is a combination treatment of two drugs Fenfluramine and Dexfenfluramine that was designed and touted as an effective and safe weight loss medicine. Well it wasn't long before physiological difference among the universe popped up, and the FDA was bombarded with reports of Fen-Phen causation cardiac valve disease. The final result, Fen-Phen was taken off the market, big law suits ensued, people were physically damaged, and corpulency is still an epidemic.
The third unsuccessful attempt at hardening the corpulency epidemic is through surgeries, such as liposuction and internal organ bypass. Liposuction is a surgery where fat is sucked out from where it accumulates under the skin. This sounds pretty cool except for the fact that it is not a permanent solution. As soon as the individual begins to take in more energy than is being used their body very efficiently begins to make brand new fat cells to store the excess energy. In other words, this 'solution' ain't going to last long if the feeding behavior that got them to this point in the place is resumed after the surgery. Liposuction is simply a temporary solution.
Gastric Bypass is an extreme surgery that in essence removes and re-routes portions of your GI tract to physically limit the amount of food that can be used-up and absorbed. This surgery is extreme, painful, and very dangerous, as many people have died from the surgery itself. If the surgery is successful, the individual does commonly slenderize. They slenderize because they are physically limited to what they can eat. If they overeat, which often means more than few tablespoons of food at a time, they will vomit it up.
One problem that arises is that it is difficult to get proper nutrient absorption. In addition, what happens is that, through force feeding, the GI tract grows to accommodate large and large amounts of food. Before not too long these individuals can eat as a good deal like they had in the past, which translates into gaining all the weight back. Gastric bypass, by itself, is not a permanent solution.
What do all these 'Solutions' have in common? They are all a quick fix, they require very little effort on the part of the mortal attempting to slenderize, individual else is making money, and they are not effective in producing permanent weight loss.
In all fairness, a solution to any problem that is a quick fix and requires little effort is ne'er going to be a permanent solution. Once again, there really is noaffair profound being determined here.
What is being done by the Government and Schools? Never in the chronicle of human existence has the rate of corpulency augmented more than it has over just the past two decades. Of course, the axiomatic question is - Why? Well, the correct answer is that there is no single reason. I'd like to point out some of the major causes.
In the September 2007 edition of Scientific American, NYU prof Marion Nestle pointed to a political cause of corpulency. She noted that in 1980 the Reagan administration's deregulating of industry freed up agricultural production. This bucked up farmers to grow more food. The calories available per capita in the U.S. augmented from 3,200 a day in 1980 to 3,900 a day two decades later. That is a difference of 700 calories available in the U.S. food supply per mortal per day.
Let's put this in perspective. With everyaffair else staying constant, if you eat 500 less calories per day, you will lose one pound of fat every week. Based on this, if you used-up 700 extra calories per day for a year you would gain 73 pounds. Now most people don't gain this much weight in a year because there are a deal of other variables that must be let ind, but you get the idea of the significance this political move had on the corpulency epidemic.
This led to one of the most significant causes of corpulency - augmented portion size! Professor Nestle further exposed the following: The early 1980's also marked the advent of the shareowner value movement on Wall Street. Stockholder demands for higher short-term returns on investments forced food companies to expand gross sales in a marketplace that already contained excessive calories. Food companies responded by quest new gross sales and marketing opportunities. They bucked up at once shunned practices that eventually changed social norms, such as frequent between-meal snacking, feeding in book and wear stores, and serving large portions.
There is much food available that food establishments, such as restaurants, use huge portion sizes as a marketing tool. We have adult conditioned and accustomed to these big portions of food. The bottom line is that these portions are simply overmuch. It's sadly ironic that there are people literally starving around the world and yet truth be told there is a surplus of food. The problem of starvation around the world is not adequate food production. The problem is food distribution. It's an economic and logistics problem.
Since we're on the government, let's talk about the Food Guide Pyramid. The Food Guide Pyramid, developed in 1991, was the government's underhanded attempt to educate people on how to eat a balanced and healthy diet. The branch of government responsible producing the Food Guide Pyramid is the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). First of all, don't you think that there is a more qualified branch of the government to determine what a healthy diet constitutes - like a medical or health branch? You know, a branch that actually has individuals extremely qualified to talk about medical and health issues. When I want to know how to plant corn I'll call the Department of Agriculture, not when I want to know what diet will keep me healthy.
Walter Willett, chair of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, states that the government's Pyramid is built on "shaky scientific ground and that it is staggeringly flawed". Dr. Willett is basing his response on the very best science and controlled studies we have available today. And when he was asked about the government's food Pyramid posture on fats, protein, dairy, and carbohydrates, Willett said none of this is accurate, and the Pyramid is so out of sync with scientific evidence that it all but has to be altogether demolished and rebuilt from the ground up.
Why would the Department of Agriculture do this? If you study the Food Guide Pyramid, you would see that it recommends that individuals, by far, get the majority of their daily calories from agricultural products such as rice, pasta, bread, and potatoes. Yes, it is a self serving guide that benefits lobbying groups such as the U.S. Potato Board and other farming interest groups. This has noaffair to do with a conspiracy theory, but everyaffair to do with simply lining pockets and serving political agendas. Sad, but true.
In 2005, the government discharged a new version of the Pyramid called My Pyramid. It's just more ambiguous, and therefore is less able to be directly attacked. All you have to know about the new Pyramid is that it is still put out by the Department of Agriculture.
Are our schools doing a better job? Let's start with the basics - school dejeuneres. Read the following guidelines from the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding school dejeuneres. Then you can be the judge of whose best interests are in mind. I don't think you will conclude that it is our children's best interest.
This is a direct quote from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Generally, public or nonprofit private schools of high grade or under and public or nonprofit private act child care institutions may participate in the school dejeuner program. School districts and independent schools that choose to participate in the dejeuner program get cash subsidies and given commodities from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for each meal they serve. In return, they must serve dejeuneres that meet Federal requirements. In addition to cash reimbursements, schools are entitled by law to receive commodity foods, called "entitlement" foods. Schools can also get "bonus" commodities as they are available from surplus agricultural stocks. School food government can also be reimbursed for snacks served to children through age 18 in after school educational or enrichment programs. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Another inexcusable act being committed by schools is the strategic placement and accessibility of peddling machines. These peddling machines are filled with soda, candy, caffein and sugar laden energy drinks, chips, and cupcakes. Food and peddling companies bid to have their machines placed in the cafeteria, halls, and even the gym. The companies get money, the school gets money, and the kids get overweight and unhealthy.
Perhaps the most sinful act of all, however, is the reduction / elimination of physical activity in the curriculum. Gym class and recess are disappearing. Child corpulency, diabetes in children, high blood pressure in children, and restlessness in children are all increasing. You don't have to have a medical background to see the connection here. It's more of just perceptive and having common sense.
As a college prof who teaches freshman and sophomores, I see first hand the level at which our students are prepared after they leave high. I'm not going to discuss math and writing skills, but I am going to point out the lack of real life preparation that these students have. Bottom line is that our secondary education system is falling the ball when is comes to real life preparation. This let ins affairs like: writing a resume and interviewing for a job, understanding different types of mortgages and other basic information when buying a home, understanding contracts such as lease agreements, understanding charge cards, bank loans, car loans, and credit scores, understanding how to leverage and invest money; stocks and real estate, understanding the grandness of basic health maintenance such as regular dental and doctor visits, regular self breast and gonad exams, understanding the basics of carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, and minerals, understanding the real health issues associated with corpulency, and understanding how to read food labels and serving size.
This list could go on and on. From the above list I can guarantee you that if properly educated the following tragedies would have been limited: U.S. Foreclosure Explosion of 2008, massive charge card debt, and course the Obesity Epidemic of the 21 century.
H.G. Wells said that human chronicle becomes increasingly a race between education and catastrophe. I hate to say it but I think our education system is losing. We need change! If we are going to conquer this epidemic, we need to start doing affairs differently. We cannot attack this problem as we have been, because it axiomaticly is just not working.
