Obesity risks higher than thought
in [Low-Carb]
|
From: John A. Weeks III on 22 Aug 2008 12:44 In article <0bedb2b9-f51e-4229-82c5-a865f2feb24d(a)k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Caleb <calebb(a)teleport.com> wrote: > Are you saying that obesity is NOT related to many health problems, > that it would make no difference whatsoever if a person was morbidly > obese, everything else being equal? That cancer risks would not be > higher? etc. Being both a large person and a health care professional, I think it is pretty clear that their is a link between obesity and health issues. But saying that their is a link is huge difference from saying that there is a cause-effect relationship. In fact, some of the more recent legitimate peer-reviewed research is starting to suggest that for many overweight people, being large is the result of a health problem, not the cause of the health problems. -john- -- ====================================================================== John A. Weeks III � � � � � 612-720-2854 � � � � � �john(a)johnweeks.com Newave Communications � � � � � � � � � � � � http://www.johnweeks.com ======================================================================
From: Pramesh Rutaji on 22 Aug 2008 13:38 The Master wrote: > On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, MacKenzie wrote: > >> AUSTRALIANS with obesity are at significantly higher risk than previously >> thought of suffering illness, including diabetes, heart attack, stroke >> and >> osteoarthritis, a new study has found. > > That's because Doctors believe every problem a fat person has is due to > their weight. So when we have a legitimate problem, it is ignored by > medical professionals. Once it becomes obvious that there is a major > problem, it is too late since the Doctor ignored the early warning signs. > Weight is an issue because the diet is probably full of modern processed foods and eating options introduced at and since the advent of agriculture along with chemical exposure from multiple sources including air quality. Lack of regular vigorous exercise (running and prey, etc.) and food constantly available (never any fasting) I think plays a large role in the disease and aging process. And, I haven't looked at it recently but anyone have any good URLs that graph the estimated percentage oxygen content in the atmosphere over the past million years or so? -- Pramesh Rutaji p297tongue6221(a)newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
From: Dee Flint on 22 Aug 2008 16:58 "Always Learning" <noPublicEmail(a)this.time> wrote in message news:t67ua49h84tpfavds0u78ldouh13ot3crf(a)zzz.com... > On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Ragnar > <Ragnarsghost(a)hotmail.com> wrote this stuff here : > >>Even though >>it is an Australian study, think 400,000 deaths yearly from the CDC. >>It's just propaganda as usual. > > Yes the CDC is a propaganda machine and has been for years. > Many people fall for those CDC statistics like the one that says > smoking causes lung cancer. I've smoked 3.5 packs per day for more > than 22 years and have never even as much as coughed before. > > Yeah so did my dad. However he developed lung cancer and other cancers in his late 60s. You just haven't been at it long enough for your particular body to rebel.
From: Robin King on 22 Aug 2008 17:12 "Caleb" <calebb(a)teleport.com> wrote in message news:a92655e8-fcd7-4a1b-8b12-c612ec8756e6(a)k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 22, 11:59 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > And have fun explaining how their weight problem goes away > > with the most aggressive weight control like lap banding etc. Does it really? Do they get healthier from the removal of a non-diseased organ? What's the rate of regain? It must be high, if many go in for a second surgery. You don't hear a lot about the downside of the surgery, (somebody's making a lot of $$$ off it), but it's most definitely there. > There's a Reuter's report of July 2008 which noted that the average > calorie intake for Americans is 3,770 calories a day. Aside from > whatever health problems people may have, a huge surplus in calories > explains almost all (if not all) of the increase in obesity over the > last few decades. I am genuinely curious as to how this study was conducted. Everybody seems to have an explanation for the so-called obesity epidemic of which they're dead certain, and meanwhile nobody really knows. As The Master said in another post, you can't tell what obesity causes until you eliminate confounding factors like shoddy medical treatment. You folks out there, fat and thin, should be fighting for better medical treatment, since this would save us all some health care bux. > "If there's a hoofprint on the beach, look for a horse." > > Yours, > > Caleb Robin
From: Caleb on 22 Aug 2008 17:28
On Aug 22, 2:12 pm, "Robin King" <maplet...(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > "Caleb" <cal...(a)teleport.com> wrote in message > > news:a92655e8-fcd7-4a1b-8b12-c612ec8756e6(a)k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > On Aug 22, 11:59 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > And have fun explaining how their weight problem goes away > > > with the most aggressive weight control like lap banding etc. > > Does it really? > Do they get healthier from the removal of a non-diseased > organ? > What's the rate of regain? It must be high, if many go in for > a second surgery. > > You don't hear a lot about the downside of the surgery, > (somebody's making a lot of $$$ off it), but it's most definitely > there. > > > There's a Reuter's report of July 2008 which noted that the average > > calorie intake for Americans is 3,770 calories a day. Aside from > > whatever health problems people may have, a huge surplus in calories > > explains almost all (if not all) of the increase in obesity over the > > last few decades. > > I am genuinely curious as to how this study was conducted. > Everybody seems to have an explanation for the so-called obesity > epidemic of which they're dead certain, and meanwhile nobody really > knows. As The Master said in another post, you can't tell what > obesity causes until you eliminate confounding factors like shoddy > medical treatment. You folks out there, fat and thin, should be > fighting for better medical treatment, since this would save us all > some health care bux. > > > "If there's a hoofprint on the beach, look for a horse." > > > Yours, > > > Caleb > > Robin Robin - - The early citation you had -- about a lapband approach -- was not by me, although I agree with the poster's views. Again the basic equation is -- too many calories in and one puts on weight. Few enough calories and one loses weight. I'm a little surprised at the high number of calories too. But the basic reasoning makes a lot of sense to me -- Americans and many others are just taking in way, way too many calories. Overfeeding animals works the same way -- they put on weight. Don't feed them and they lose weight. Nothing mysterious. Lots more snack foods these days. (Lotsa stuff that didn't exist in the 50's and 40's.) Lots more fast foods with people eating out about 5 to 6 times a week. Calories are cheap for BK, McDonald's, etc., to produce and all too fun for us to consume. About the smoking business -- yup! My mother died of Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome almost certainly caused by her many years of cigarette smoking. Lotsa people denied the link between tobacco and health problems, as was so humorously pointed out earlier. (cough! cough!) If we have to wait for the overweight-is-risky-deniers to agree on any given study, we're going to have to wait for a long time. Until then, more obesity, more diabetes 2, more heart disease, apnea, hypertension, etc., etc. Yours, Caleb |