Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Unhealthy US Diets Prompt More Calls for Reform
WASHINGTON - The American way of eating is under attack, which could expose the food industry to new junk food taxes, but it's unlikely major reforms are in the offing to quickly alter U.S. food policies.
(Flickr photo by jaycoxfilm) The increasingly unhealthy American diet has contributed to epidemics of obesity and diabetes. The government and the insurance industry, which pay the cost of treatment, may form an unlikely alliance to demand the food industry play a bigger part in getting Americans on a healthier footing.
Food activist Michael Pollan, author of "In Defense of Food," has called America's dietary habits the "elephant in the room" in the debate over healthcare.
"But so far, food system reform has not figured in the national conversation about health care reform. And so the government is poised to go on encouraging America's fast-food diet with its farm policies even as it takes on added responsibilities for covering the medical costs of that diet," Pollan argued in a recent New York Times opinion piece.
Health experts say spiraling health costs are caused in part by maladies that could be prevented by healthier diets.
"Today, chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease (primarily heart disease and stroke), cancer, and diabetes are among the most prevalent, costly, and preventable of all health problems," the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says on its website.
Almost half of all Americans lived with at least one chronic condition in 2005, the CDC said.
Chronic diseases account for 70 percent of all U.S. deaths, and costs for caring for the chronically ill account for more than 75 percent of the nation's $2 trillion health care costs.
PENNY PER OUNCE KEEPS THE DOCTOR AWAY?
Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity argues the government needs to aggressively combat the problem of unhealthful eating with junk food taxes and by rewriting agriculture policies to promote healthier choices.
"We've recommended a tax on sugared beverages with the revenue being used for either subsidizing fruits and vegetables or programs related to nutrition and obesity prevention," said Kelly Brownell, a Yale professor and director at Rudd Center.
A penny-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks would simultaneously help divert people from such drinks while also raising billions of dollars for treating related diseases, proponents argue.
Paul Roberts, author of the "The End of Food," agrees the food industry will face pressure from rising taxes. But he also believes change will have to come from people eating the food.
"The food business is only half of the equation: the real change has to start on the demand side, which means finding ways to change consumer attitudes," he said.
The food industry, including Coca-Cola Co (KO.N), already has formed "Americans Against Food Taxes" and has launched a media blitz to oppose soda taxes.
"We built this coalition because we want people to understand that there is a slippery slope here," said Kevin Keene, senior vice-president of the American Beverage Association. "Once you start with beverages, everything else in the grocery cart is on the chopping block."
Beyond the tax issues, foodie activists would like to see America embrace a range of healthier diet changes, getting people to move away from processed foods and consume more leafy foodstuffs, possibly bought at local markets.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has launched a "Know Your Farmer, Know your Food" initiative and launched a study to assess whether the northeastern United States -- dominated by large cities -- could produce enough food locally to meet market demands.
Skeptics question whether big change is really in the offing. Consumers might not want to stop eating their favorite foods, even with higher taxes, noted Dan Basse, president of the consultant AgResource.
"How do you get them to give up french fries and hamburgers and shift to a healthier diet?" he asked "We just don't have enough availability of spinach, lettuce, the kind of foods you would want to eat if you wanted to shift to something healthy."
There is little support for overhauling U.S. farm supports that subsidize big crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat, which in turn support the big food processing conglomerates.
Author Roberts said the U.S. food sector is entrenched in feeding demand for food that is not raw, healthy and green.
"There will be huge pressure for them to deliver healthier products -- but it's not clear how they will do that without a fundamental change to the business model, which is pretty reliant on the use of heavy processing to add hefty margins to cheap ingredients," he said.
(Editing by David Gregorio)
- Posted in
52 Comments so far
Show AllPeople with food stamp cards cannot use them at most Farmers' markets.Most C.S.A. farms don't have the resources, and the infrastructure is not there to accept food stamp recipients.Most food pantry inventories do not provide fresh vegetables or locally produced food.The poor have the highest incidence of obesity and Diabetes because of a lack of access to a balanced diet.Most renters do not have access to a garden plot rooftop gardening area community garden or a balcony to do container growing in.Fresh fruits and vegetables ,most locally grown Eco-friendly or organic foods are largely out of reach of many of the poor.Michelle Obama are you listening? peas and stay well, please
High JH, are the poor most obese? I believe it, but think we have as much access to good as bad food for the same price. Tuna or hot dogs. OJ or soda pop. Lettuce or fries etc. Cheaper maybe. I go to a food bank sometimes, and I humbly admit I am wierded out by the high percentage of people that come in radically overweight, their already overweight progeny in tow.
Everyone knows how to run a mile to burn calories if they want to. Most choose to videolobotomize themselves, not burn calories, I repeat-not burn calories, it is hard, difficult....while ingesting, by choice, because it tastes/feels good for a minute as much saturated fat, sugar, cholesterol and salt as possible, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW IT IS WRONG, AND THEY POISON THEIR CHILDREN KNOWINGLY.
Bless everyone, but only when health supercedes tastes good will it change. It has. In the Hollywood idiot health club set, here and there, and among the intelligentsia. Find the beauty where you may.
When will health matter more than taste to most? When school lunches or healthy, balanced, organic, with juice, fish mayhap, honey-after the revolucion when agribusiness is history, till then,
This is a New Moon. When the Moon is Full, Guess what?!!!!!?
School lunches are a great place to punch a hole in unhealthy food practices on the consumer side. It won't be easy because buying, storing and preparing good food is a little harder and more expensive than writing a massive contract for highly processed and preserved stuff that can be microwaved. Also, there may be some vested interests around the mass purchase of prepared foods or inferior local produce. (No joke, my kids' school used to get grade "D" NY apples, hard, bitter, sour, bruised and wormy!) Educating parents and the public would be part of the process.
But anything worth doing is generally difficult. We should find models where the lunches were improved, possibly even in private schools, and see what is involved. If there has been a measurable impact on student health in any way, that is a selling point. Someone should study public school lunches in France. What I have seen with my grandchildren who live there - magnifique! But the country of France is much much more child-friendly and serious about good food than the US.
Joe
This is an interesting article. I noticed when reading about the health care bill Baucus released that it allows insurance companies to charge extra fees to smokers, but not to those who indulge in triple bacon cheeseburgers and the like. Despite the fact that heart disease kills more people than lung cancer, and, if I'm not mistaken, is in fact the number one killer in the country (besides the lack of health care itself, which is really the number one killer).
Man, I hate to see the triple bacon cheeseburgers take such a fall.
They are wonderfully healthy - a great centerpiece for health and nutrition....
IF THEY ARE NOT PRODUCED BY THE MAINSTREAM FOOD COMPANIES!!!
Find the documentary "Food Inc."
It shows how feeding cows corn instead of grass basically causes the cows intestines to rot.
The e-coli develops in these rotten intestines.
The cows live in Intensively Managed Feed Lots.
Concentration camps, really, and are then shipped off to processing plants....
COVERED IN E-COLI SHIT!
Then, since there are only about 11 meat processing plants left, these huge factories process the meat and shit.
Your hamburger may contain meat from 1,000 cows or more.
All in one hopper.
And the e-coli is so bad, they drench the end product with ammonia and such other chemicals to give you a "safe" product.
Straight from the movie "Aliens."
On another track, check out Weston Price Foundation.
Back in the early 1900's, this dentist traveled the world over looking for people with healthy teeth.
He reported commonalities about what the healthiest peoples on the planet ate, AND HOW THE FOOD WAS PREPARED.
They ate tons of fat (best is fish, other animals are great, especially RAW dairy.)
They ate lots of ferments (think about it, they didn't have a refrigerator - culturing food works!)
And lots of greens.
Weston Price compared the physical degeneration found in towns people versus the village people.
He predicted that a culture that bases its diet increasingly on CHEAP FATS (corn oil, etc.) and carbs will produce a society of diabetics.
Rest assured, eating a lot of fat doesn't make a person fat.
Our family eats so much fat, we'd each be the size of an elephant.
And check it out, in the old days, they used to CURE HEART DISEASE with the raw milk cure.
Patients had a 100% raw milk diet for a month or 2, and the success rate was near 100%.
Without a good dose of fat, vitamins and minerals cannot even be taken in by the body.
And the carbs and caffein basically leach nutrients from the bones.
This is my understanding.
I'm on the path to raising my own food.
Although the new "Food Safety Bill" wants to make that illegal.
I'll eat weeds before I eat corporate food.
Here's a little known fact...
The greek people in german concentration camps survived past other nationalities.
Why? They ate the weeds around the fence line.
Make a choice - eat as an addict, or eat food.
Literally, injest pastueurized shit, or insist that the powerful minds that can build a nuclear power facility can solve the puzzle of growing food without it being laced with poisonous shit.
(PS - not all shit is bad - its the black gold that feeds our plants and insects. Don't go overboard)
aloha
I love a really juicy burger served in a lettuce leaf! :-)
In order for any changes to occur, Amerikans are going to have to be (re)educated on what is a healthy diet. Like keeping carbs as low as possible and omitting grains entirely. Saturated fat is the healthiest fat, and people should stay away from MUFAs and PUFAs as much as possible. Sugar in all its forms should be avoided, including fructose. There is absolutely no reason to eat fruit, and I avoid it like the plague.
So the poor and the obese need access to good meats and butter and good non-starchy veggies. The obese are not going to get their weight off unless they modify even this, to simply lean proteins and moderate amounts of green veggies.
Keeping people on lower-calorie versions of the SAD is a recipe for disaster. Lower-calorie versions of high carb diets cause blood sugar to jump around, increasing appetite. So omit the grains, fruit, and anything processed like sugar. Eat meats and green veggies. If you have a weight problem, keep it to lean meats like chicken and fish. You will have a problem keeping weight ON if you eat like this. And your TG, HbA1C, and HDL profiles will improve dramatically.
Blair,Sorry but one of your acronyms is a mystery to me I get H.D.L. and TG.The only saturated fats from meats that may have benefit to my knowledge are Omega three rich fats from fish(mercury laden)and grass fed beeef .Why are fruits and grains bad(not a nutritionist or a cereal chemist)as we laymen want to know. How are vegetarians to survive without any grains/pulses/beans/fruits?It seems the longest living cultures on the planet eat the diet that you eschew! peas in and out.
I don't think vegetarians are going to survive very well no matter what they eat! Sorry! :-) That has to be one of the unhealthiest diets to eat. Our bodies run quite nicely on fat and have evolved to do so over millenia. Carbohydrates aren't even needed in ANY amounts to survive.
See my post above. Keeping insulin low is the key. Grains take you away from the goal. I avoid them.
HbA1c - hemoglobin A1C - HBA1c is a measure of glycosylated hemoglobin and a measure of how much your cells and proteins are being damaged by excess glucose. This is valid in all people and not just diabetics. The lower HBA1c the better.
Two very important predictors of mortality are HbA1C and vitamin D levels. Get those checked regularly.
Veggies maintain better health than carnivores, if we remember to get enough protein from non-carbohydrate sources: tofu, other soy, eggs, whey. Any time I've had a problem, it's been because I've run low on protein without noticing.
Eat protein and fats, avoid starches and sugars.
Shit, I wouldn't give tofu to my dog. That stuff isn't fit for consumption by any living thing. Maybe if you left it out overnight, it would dry enough to make spackle out of it, but other than that, I can't think of a single useful reason to have that crap in your house.
can you tell me why there is absolutely no reason to eat fruit?..........
Fructose is a simple sugar. As is sucrose. It's the problems with insulin that it causes. Given that over half the population is overweight or obese, over half the population needs to avoid fruit because of the fructose.
We tell people to avoid sucrose but fructose acts the same way in the body. If you need to eat vegetation, you can get good nutrient profiles from green veggies. There is no need to eat fruit. I only eat fruit on special occasions (that might be 2-3 times a year MAX), and I only eat it with heavy cream.
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a diet that is 10, 15 or 20% carbs, but in the overweights and obese, I would want these people to get into ketosis in order to drop their weight to a healthy level. That's a very low carb intake compared to fat and protein.
There was a study done indicating that anything over about 70 grams of carbs a DAY introduces the cycle of inflammatory damage that underlies heart disease and cancer. Interestingly enough, 50-70 grams a day is about where ketosis kicks in. So I'd say the lower you can go on your carbs, the better.
Vegetarianism makes NO sense. It's nothing more than the residual of a counter-cultural fad begun in the 1960s that had no research behind it as a healthy diet. The lipid hypothesis is dead, and I hope it stays as dead as Ancel Keyes at this point. Insulin levels have more to do with heart disease and cancer than the kinds of fats we are eating. Grains are probably one of the worst things you can put in your body.
'vegetarianism makes NO sense'............
tell that to the chimpanzees and apes who share up to 98% + of our dna........
and who are basically vegetarians..............
fructose btw, is made of fruit and vegetable sugars...............
LOL. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Chimps and apes eat primarily vegetation so we should too? Please. Next you're going to tell us that the primary way we should "transport" ourselves is by swinging from liana vines.
It's true that the gorillas are vegetation eaters, but hominids since H. habilis broke away over 2 million years ago and evolved to eating other animals. Eating the fat stores of other animals, fat being calorically (energy) dense, allowed the development of our brain growth (leaving the gorillas behind, dont'cha know), which obviously allowed development of social organization and technology, including organized hunting coordinated with gathering and techniques in cooking.
This social and technological evolution combined with carnivory fed back into further brain growth in a positive feedback loop over (at least) hundreds of thousands of years - culminating in Homo sapiens.
Sorry, but fat is our preferred energy choice. Insulin research is now revealing that hormonal factors have far more to do with CAD and CA than was previously thought.
Our knowlege of foods, how they are absorbed and used, how they interact with each other and with different people's physiologies is complicated. Human nutrition especially is complicated and less well understood than bovine nutrition, which is studied because cattle are a money making product. Humans are omnivores, so our nutrition patterns are flexible - diet can be based around seals or figs. Knowledge of human nutrition is distorted by fads, half-truths, dogmatism and research sponsored by various industries.
Fructose is only one component of fruit. Fruit contains fiber, minerals, vitamins, enzymes. Fruits and vegetables probably have many still as yet unknown factors that contribute to health. Same with grains. And food from animals.
Naturally individual people will have different allergies and metabolic conditions. So there is no "one type fits all" diet.
So... I think the best advice is to eat a variety of natural and unprocessed foods, organically grown if possible. Don't eat too much. Respect traditional diets that have kept the human race going for centuries, and adapt them to a sedentary lifestyle by cutting amounts. Pay attention to how you feel when eating different foods, not just at the mouth level, but all the through the body, and act accordingly. Cut way down on meats for the sake of the environment and to put factory farms out of business, if nothing else. A healthful vegetarian diet is possible and works well for millions. But if you are sensitive to sugars, then perhaps more animal protien is for you.
Those are my conclusions from a lifetime of reading and from having taken several rigorous courses in organic chemistry, physiology and the chemistry of human nutrition.
Joe
Cutting down on meat would be really bad advice. Increasing fat intake, however, is good advice, and I recommend people increase their saturated fat intake while decreasing their carbohydrate intake. And I'm talking carbs across the board, not just the "junk food" carbs. (Well, to some of us, practically any carbs are junk food.)
The deleterious effects of fructose on the metabolic pathways override fruit's "bioavailability." That argument doesn't work any more, now that we know how damaging high insulin levels are. You're just better off avoiding fructose altogether. And I've not seen any evidence that indigestible carbohydrate (fiber) is necessary.
If you must eat sweets, forget the fruit and eat some Lindt 85% chocolate. It's 52% fat and I think half a bar only has 10 grams of carbs.
I'm not averse to replacing factory farms with some other "humane" way of killing the animals, but until that time, factory farms are all we've got. I would like to see subsidies to the grain industry curtailed completely. We definitely need a way to make beef less expensive, especially the fattier cuts like ribeye.
I don't know of any valid arguments for eating "a variety of food." That is what got us into the predicament we are in today with the overweight and obese, along with all the other degenerative diseases. We need protein and we need fat. The body does not need carbs at all. A diet of 55-60% carbs is just insanity. Nobody can be healthy eating that way.
Saying we should not eat fruit is equivalent to stating we should stop breathing air because the air contains dangerous floating micro organisms or stop drinking water because water brings dangerous mineral concentrations into our bodies. To equate one of nature's basic foods--fruits having nourished through millennia both animal and human kingdoms--with the plague looks rather off balance. And to claim this alongside the praise of meat, declaring a vegetarian diet unhealthy despite mountains of scientific validation and health advice to the contrary, comes through as irresponsible in a time when the presence of cardiovascular disease and an American meat centered diet go hand in hand. The gentleman may be pulling our leg to get a rise, or else speaking through his hat which just might also be be covering his eyes.
We don't have a meat-centered diet in Amerika; we have a carbohydrate-centered diet, and the high PUFAs found in the crap people are eating DOES cause inflammatory changes in the cells of the body, which DOES lead to coronary artery disease and cancer.
I guarantee you that anybody who follows a meat-centered diet and eats very little else other than perhaps some non-starchy veggies will NOT have a weight problem and will NOT have 3- or 4-digit triglyceride levels. TG and HDL levels are the only cholesterol numbers people need to worry about.
And the "gentleman" is a woman, thank you very much.
Blair, give these poor people a break and let them eat what they believe is the healthy diet because if they can't believe that not eating fruits is healthy you and nobody else will be able to change their minds which is the result of giving the msm the power to promote false ideas about most things including diet that is so illogically accepted.
Try turning them on to this little bit of history of a dietary test that has a lot of credibility to it as it has kept me healthier than I was:
http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson2.htm
This is about the 2 european explorers that voluntarily did a test study in a hospital by eating nothing but meat, so here is a valid reason to not eat fruits.
And has it occurred to many that those most obese people believe that potatoes, rice, corn, pasta and cereals are the 'health' foods - oh, and vegetable margarine.
You are citing an article that was written in the 30's. You bible-thumpers will believe just about anything, won't you, as long as it supports your delusions? This article proves nothing.
If you look in magazines published as late as the 50's you'll find ads that feature doctors recommending tobacco as a weight-loss aid. Do you believe that as well?
Oh, for fuck sake, it's not about thumping a bible. It's about evidence based research and basic science. Despite current nutritional dogma dating from the 1970s, carbohydrate consumption is completely unnecessary for your energy (or any other) needs. Fat is the primary way we store energy in our bodies, and eating fat is the evolutionarily preferred food source in a food-abundant environment.
It is possible to eat no carbohydrates at all and still do plenty of physical work. Any carbohydrates needed not provided from glycogen or food can be produced in abundance via gluconeogenesis. Glucose provided this way makes you literally burn fat and keeps your insulin levels low.
On a very low carb diet, you are literally NEVER hungry in that desperate way that people are when they are carb-dependent. Why? Because your insulin levels are kept extremely low.
The evidence that grain-based modern diets don't work is all around you. It can't be lost on you, since over 60% of the population is overweight or obese. I live in San Francisco, where being a "vegetarian" is ALWAYS in vogue. And a lot of vegetarians are just plain fat.
I'm telling you Blair that trying to convince those have been trained to eat the U.S. food pyrimid program way is a way into insanity as they are following the dictates from the time that the agricultural society sprang up that brought masses of people into smaller places to be controlled by the drools that covet power and hegemony over all others and all else.
To me, it has to be a personal experience for a non believer to come around to something like a proper diet and my own was being 45lbs over and unable to lose weight even with the exercising I was doing, resistence and some cardio then my brother told me to read the Drs. Eades'(husband/wife team) book "protein power" and what I read convinced me that I was eating wrong with all those 'healthy' carbs I ate so much of so I stopped eating and drinking(beer) carbs and in 5 months I lost that extra 45lbs and kept it off and the few times I have gained weight, I cut the carbs and it goes away with the modicum amount of exercise I do.
I have no doubt that I was close to becoming diabetic but my brother saved me from it and that is one of the most important times in my life and now from trying to convince those carb addicts that protein and fat is better and safer and their chiding me for even mentioning such, I just let em eat their cake.
I would assume you have read Dr. Michael & Mary Eades books 'Protein Power' and 'Protein Power Life Plan' which does a pretty good history of prehistoric diets and there is another book by Gary Taubes, 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' that is very good with information about what we eat and why, meaning the politics of the carb industries shady dealings in try to promote high carb diets and no fat which is a real killer and Dr. Atkins is good read.
I'm aware of Taubes' book (have read it twice all the way through), and yes, I give up! Talking to vegetarian faddists and other grain/SAD eaters about appropriate human nutrition is like talking to a fundie about atheism. They just cover their ears and sing "la la la la la." Or else they throw out that since we share 95% of our DNA with the apes, we should be eating 100% vegetation and swinging from liana vines just like our chimpanzee cousins.
It's like the hard-core Obama supporters. They honestly don't want to come out of their denial about what a corporate pawn he really is. It's too painful. It would mean their entire worldview collapses.
I mean,think about it. These vegetarians' entire LIFESTYLES revolve around not eating meat and pulling their holier-than-thou crap on the meateaters because of it. It defines their entire world. And all it ever boiled down to was a bunch of hippies in the '60s who said "because the rest of the world is poor, we should not eat meat." That's pretty much it in a nutshell. No science behind it and now mountains of evidence that PUFAs (prevalent in grains) in large quantities cause the inflammation leading to CAD.
To have that world collapse around them would be psychologically catastrophic for them. It would leave them with a huge void, and they wouldn't know how to proceed. So they can't let it go. They have to cling to it even more tightly, like the wingers do to their outdated 16th century ideas about social organization.
As I have said elsewhere, I just don't give a shit about those fools anymore but am still very amazed with the preponderance of physical and visual evidence of these big gut wonders that even as they continue with their carb consumption and the ever distending bellies and those pitful trips to the doctor, that they still don't get it or believe the bigger the belly the more healthy they are.
Hmmm, it's been a while and I think I will read Taubes' book again.
I thought I read about the study in Taubes' book that the inflammatory reactions occur with over 70 grams of carbs a day. I might do a Medline search for that one because I can't remember where I read it.
As I stated in my last comment, mostly to you, I will have to read Taubes' book again but in the other comment on taubes' book I mentioned the 'Protein Power LifePlan' by Drs. Michael and Mary Eades and that has a most interesting chapter called the 'Leaky Gut' which deals with the processes in the intestines when grain and refined carbs are comsumed, very interesting indeed.
But no mistake about this and it involves consuming any carbs, that the pancreas will immediately begin pumping insulin to control the blood sugar and as the Eades state, the leafy green carbs are less stimulating of the insulin from the pancreas and the actions of insulin are very well documented as to the troubles it causes when constantly being pumped into the system just to control carbohydrate consumption of the starchy, refined types, most probably the worst is the high fructose corn syrup.
I love how the grain eaters say "people are all different and require different diets." Bullshit! Unless they are an alien life form that did not evolve the way the rest of H. sapiens evolved, they do not need completely different diets. Do some people have individual food sensitivities or intolerances? Yes, but that does not mitigate that the ovararching cause of disease is insulinemia and the inflammatory effects of YEARS of overworking the pancreas.
I have an intolerance to grains. I will eat them under only one condition -- with a loaded gun to my head.
I would say that if the human species had evolved as a grain or grass eaters(herbivore) that we would have about 3 stomachs to fill with vegetation, sit around in the shade bring what was eaten back into the mouth where we would chew the cud to predigest it, fart a bunch and go back to grazing for the next few hours.
I am with you on the grains but I do like that ocassional fruit or berry but not too much as there are not many carbs that don't make be belch and fart like a cow.
Everything in moderation, my friend. They say if you REALLY want to live longer, DRAMATICALLY cut your overall caloric intake. HOWEVER, your QUALITY of life might suffer due to being hungry all the time, AND doubtful that the opposite sex will be attracted to your bony appearance. I remember seeing a scientist (CBS?), who had a lean muscular physique make himself anorexic (at least in appearance) in an attempt to see if he'll live longer. His wife seemed less than thrilled. Ditto for looking like a pot-belly pig in middle age. Probably a good general rule is to avoid processed foods whenever possible and SUBSTITUTE natural whole foods: grains, complex veggies, fruits, nuts, etc. One might say eat more fish, but alas, most fish is contaminated with heavy metals now. Also, enjoy that cup of coffee--you might be reducing diabetes and Parkinson's Disease as you get the morning lift. Caffeine forces the liver to store glucagon. Sadly, this may increase one's appetite later in the day. Avoid milk and milk products as you age (difficult to do with processed foods). Also, it seems prudent to increase your vitamin D intake. I remember reading a scientific periodical years ago where an experiment showed that vitamin D caused leukemic cells to differentiate and stop dividing. Perhaps most important of all is to remember that no one diet is perfect for EVERYONE. It may be that diets in the future will be tailored in accordance with one's peculiar genetic make up (i.e., where eating a certain food may be beneficial for one and not another). Finally, do not forget the benefits of REGULAR exercise, both aerobic and resistance training. Regular exercise helps lower blood sugar and balance insulin levels, and burn fat for hours afterwards.
MODERATION IN DIET WON'T WORK WHEN PEOPLE ARE INSULIN RESISTANT.
Tell a 300-pound diabetic that in order to lose weight, she must practice "moderation." The blood sugar swings from her "moderate" carb intake will cause her to binge, keeping her in the downward spiral of metabolic syndrome.
A person with insulin resistance simply can't process carbohydrates in even moderate amounts for them to improve their health. In fact, it will be detrimental to them.
These people need to be in ketosis to lose weight and improve their insulin markers. In order to do that, they have to cut the carbs to probably about 50 grams PER DAY. That still gives them some leeway with veggies (if they feel they have to eat veggies--vegetation isn't required by the body to function properly and optimally). The diet should be high in saturated fat and moderate in protein. Not only will this curb their appetite so that they don't ingest more calories than they need, fat has NO effect on insulin, so their blood sugar will be stabilized and they won't feel like chopping off their right arm and eating it because they won't be climbing the walls with the physiologic response of their insulin swings.
If the person still can't lose weight satisfactorily with this diet, all they need to do is switch to lean meats. They can still eat to comfort so that they won't be starving (unlike on a "moderation" low-calorie high-carb diet), and I guarantee the weight will start flying off.
I've been close to zero carb for about 5 years. I've never had a weight problem, my blood sugar levels are always in the low normal range, and my HDL and TG levels are great. Plus I work out regularly and run half marathons and marathons without "bonking."
There's no question that a grain based diet is the worst thing you could possibly eat. Vegetarianism arose as a political statement in the 1960s after people started seeing images of underdeveloped countries on T.V. The response was, "Why do we have so much and they have so little?" The knee jerk reaction was to become "vegetarians" and eat less meat, as if somehow this would do away with the underlying problems: imperialism and capitalism.
There is absolutely no science or research indicating that massive amounts of vegetables and grains are good for you. The lipid hypothesis has been debunked. It is junk science. It's still unbelievable to me that people think the lipid hypothesis is evidence based. And grains are about the worst thing you could put in your mouth.
Americans are unhappy because they are overworked and stressed from the constant threat of being laid off. Americans have found, however, that there is some truth to the saying 'fat people are happy'. Eating too much, drinking too much, and eating unhealthy foods is a great way to reduce your stress levels. Ever heard the term: 'comfort food'? If Americans are NOW going to have to stop eating poorly, along with stopping smoking and stopping drinking, they are going to go to pieces. Which in any case seems to be the new 'American Way'. Americans are wedded to the notion of individual responsibility: its all your fault. They will wreck the greatest country in the search for the greatest individual. I keep telling them: 'imagine that 'survival of the fittest' wasn't referring to individuals, but to communities', but they don't listen.
Single Payer Healthcare would go a long way to remove these hazards from the American environment. But I think that the Republicans, Christian Right and Baucus and his dead-dogs would much prefer that we all suffer and die in poverty.
Americans will not be separated from their beloved junk food and high fructose corn syrup. A few years ago I started eating middle eastern foods and lost a bunch of weight. Instead of lauding that, people of course make fun of me and question my patriotism.
No, we won't pay any tax to subsidize vegetables and fruits...but we allow a special subsidy for pork producers.
Instead, Wal-Mart will have to buy more of those electric buggies that huge people have to use to pile their God-bless-American junk food into.
Red1001, I do agree with you but you maybe need to spend your time with people that are more reasonable and intelligent. I know this is a very difficult task today as for mainstream people it is easier to criricize you when you do something right than laud you. A lot of people out there are afflicted with chronic low self esteem, for them it is cool to be weak.
Anyway as far as I am concern, I congratulate you for your character and courage.
Here is an example of how insidious "framing" is, and from a worldwide news agency, Reuters, no less: "The government and the insurance industry, which pay the cost of treatment..."
I could've sworn that was me paying, but no, it's the "insurance industry", an oxymoron if I ever heard one, and the government, which just prints up some cash when it wants to pay for something...their version of "making money".
The corporate food complex is based on greed; not supplying Americans with healthy food. The FDA is nothing more than their puppet. Please do not fall for the advertising crap put out by the MSM. Do not buy any food advertised on T.V. Grow your own or purchase your healthy food at Farmers Markets. Buy organically grown food.
Is this really going to force people to eat healthier? Why not give everyone a job at a good wage and a free education? Maybe if life was easier, people wouldn't down so much booze, smoke so many cigarettes, and eat junk. If people didn't have to work so many hours, they would have more time to prepare their own food and more energy to exercise. Fruits and vegetables also need to be cheaper. Make life better for ordinary Americans instead of patronizing and scolding them for what they eat. When it's cheaper for someone on welfare to eat at Wendy's than a vegan restaurant, there's a real problem with the system.
Do you people do the same thing to those who use drugs or drink too much? I swear in come circles you're better off being a junkie or an alcoholic than obese. I guess it has something to do with the self-flagellation some lefties like to engage in. Jesus. Plus rockers, actors, authors, and poets hit the bottle and shoot up, so it's cool. Gotta be tortured to be deep y'know?
I can't shake meat. Put me in a detox chamber or some shit. Mom made salmon cakes last night for dinner. Shoot her!
I know, us Americans, we're SOOOOO fat! Damn us! As if half the people I see in the city are rail-thin. As if Europeans don't eat sugary, fatty stuff. Don't people in Africa and Latin America deep fry foods?
Nah, sorry. I think taxing food is a dumb idea. Tax the super-rich instead.
Good post johnny hempseed.
It amazes me that someone would advocate dropping nature foods like oranges, grapes or apples in favor of dead carcasses like beef, chicken or fish. Meat stays in your digestive system up to a week after you ingest it, releasing all kinds of toxins while it's rotting inside you. That's how cancer starts.
If you can kill it or it comes in a package or it doesn't grow, don't eat it. Simple, isn't it? You're only fat because you want to be fat.
I consider it irresponsible to push eating fruits over eating meat and fat.
Excess insulin in humans is linked to diabetes, Alzheimer's dementia, metabolic syndrome, obesity, coronary heart disease, and cancer.
We did not evolve under conditions of insulin excess. Food was intermittently available and not superabundant like today. Scarcity was frequent everywhere until recently in evolutionary time. Preferred foods were available year round and dense in calories and nutrients. Animal products, including organs and bone marrow of mammals, fish, and invertebrates, were the preferred foods, supplemented by edible plants (and NOT grains) until the advent of agriculture. Fruit was seasonal and not yet bred for maximum sweetness. Food was eaten less frequently, had lower carbs than the typical American diet which is about 60% carbs, and was supplemented by often involuntary periods of intermittent fasting and lower calories overall.
Sorry, but humans are simply not adapted to chronic hyperinsulinemia, and when you advocate a high-carb diet like vegetarianism and, worse, veganism, you are by definition promoting hyperinsulinemia. That's irresponsible.
But, hey, knock yourself out eating fruit (just a candy bar that falls from a tree, eh?--all that fructose, yummy!). Me? I'm cooking up a nice ribeye tonight - seared on the outside, "still twitching" inside. Bon appetit! :-)
The earth cannot support large populations of heavy meat eaters, Blair. Also, some people are vegetarian out of their compassion for other living creatures. While I do not dispute that excess Insulin plays a role in disease, consider that there are other factors that come into play. Plants (including fruits, grains, and nuts) are also loaded with fiber and antioxidants, many of which protect against cancer (including those cancer causing compounds that you so relish on your charred red meat [a risk factor for developing colon cancer]). Additionally, according to Gershon, our long alimentary canals are better adapted to eating more veggies as, say, that of a carnivore who's alimentary canal is much shorter. Consider, too, that the Aztec and Mayan civilizations thrived on a corn-based diet.
"Animal products, including organs and bone marrow of mammals, fish, and invertebrates, were the preferred foods, supplemented by edible plants (and NOT grains) until the advent of agriculture."
You seem to more of an adherent to the Atkins diet, which includes lots of saturated fat, green leafy vegetables, and supplements. Probably, the green leafy vegetables have more to do with any benefits here than the heavy meat intake.
I could be wrong, but I think this is the key: as we grow older and our metabolism slows down, we need to REDUCE our caloric intake, and/or INCREASE our physical activity. Yes, less carbs, but less heavy meat as well. Substitute 'high quality' carbs for heavily processed ones. Taking these steps will reduce blood sugar levels, and help prevent insulin resistance.
And no one diet is suitable for everyone. While some people seem to fare perfectly well on less protein, others do not (I am one of those individuals). However, since I've started eating more eggs and less red meat, my overall health and feeling of well-being has improved.
Finally, stress is a deadly and insidious enemy. America is the land of neuroses, and I wonder if we are overeating to compensate for the stress and emptiness we feel within. Rampant materialism, militarism, and selfish individualism has separated us from our spiritual roots, and the ersatz 'spirituality' we value only increases this feeling of separation, while reinforcing the status quo. Americans are caught in a vicious downward spiral of which they are mostly unaware, and their diet supports and reflects this descent. Corporations feed off and profit from this destructive negativity--processed food, environmental destruction, debauched and/or violent entertainment, mind-numbing pharmaceuticals, etc.
It's no wonder then, we're as confused about what is and what is not a healthy diet, as we are with just about everything else.
chessgame56 - I agree with everything you say.
Joe
"The earth cannot support populations of heavy meateaters, Blair[sic]."
Why not just say "the earth cannot support health care for everybody?" Why not say "The earth can't support adequate housing for everybody?"
The world's current food shortage is not happening because I'm eating beef and duck on a regular basis. It is happening because capitalism as an economic system, in using the world's resources, massively overproduces and centralizes wealth into those countries who can fight for it the most. If capitalism did not exist and we were free to organize society for ourselves, the 60+ million who are starving to death would not be starving because we would produce what we needed for everyone. And at the same time have a great big burger grill-up every evening.
It's not rocket science. It is simply about meeting the needs of the population, which can be done if we didn't have capitalism. That seems completely lost on you. If the population needs meat, you produce meat. If the population needs clean water or irrigation systems, you produce them. If the population needs housing, you produce housing. If the population needs playgrounds and parks for the kiddies, you produce them. If the population needs clinics for health care, you build the clinics and train people to work in them.
Stop thinking about problems from a capitalist perspective. You'll run up against a brick wall that way.
As I said somewhere else around here - if you don't want to "kill the animals" out of some issue of "compassion" for non-sentient beings, knock yourself out not eating the meat. Just don't say your decision to avoid meat is based on science. It is based on a personal belief system. Nothing wrong with that, but it's bogus to say it's about science. And I've heard too many carb-eaters in my day try to prop up their magical thinking by insinuating that their decision to eat only carbs is rational and evidence-based.
You know, I've read some Atkins and some of the other popular writers on low carb eating, but I mainly follow the lipid and insulin science and don't worry about "labeling" my diet as Atkins this or protein that, or whatever. What's the point? The bottom line is that the food we eat causes changes in our metabolic pathways, and if we want to avoid degenerative diseases and these other diseases of civilization, we need to control our food intake in a way that avoids that metabolic damage. From everything I have read, that means eating a high fat and moderate protein diet and keeping carbs to a minimum.
Now excuse me while I go fix a sausage and bacon omelette! :-)
I guess when personal responsability is dead one has to come up with new ways. Welcome to the nanny state.
Personally i would encourage everyone to eat whatever they want. Eat unhealthy, you die. Heathy organisoms will survive and procreate. It's called natural selection. Unless you're one of those that thinks the Grand Canyon is 6000 years old.
Taxing food favored by the impoverished and stressed out is the wrong way to start. We should start with schools and spend the time, thought and money to serve at least one healthful meal a day to kids, to educate them and start them on a lifetime of knowing about and enjoying good food. Otherwise, we are all show and no blow.
We have to complain about the vending machines you find in every school, workplace and hospital waiting room - vending machines that sell soda, chips and candy bars so if one is overworked and hungry, that is what he or she will grab. There should be water fountains, and fresh food vendors. And real paid lunch hours, and lunch tables, where people can sit and talk, relax, eat less and digest well.
We have bad food habits because bad food makes money and has become ubiquitous.
Joe
Please--everyone involved in vegetarian vs carnivore take a deep breath. Have you ever heard of biochemical individuality? Every person is different biochemically. People naturally have different levels of digestive enzymes, hcl etc. People of Northern European descent tolerate milk much better than Mediterranean people and Asians, etc.
Although agriculture has only been around 10,000 years and most did not switch to agricultural lifestyles for thousands of years after that, (think Cain and Abel) people did quite well on complex carbs altho they didn't grow as tall. The real problems started with processed and refined grains and sugars.
Corn, beans and squash were the basis of the diet and sustained native peoples in the American Southwest. The Incans ran on potatoes and amaranth. I'm sure they ate meat but carbs were the basis of the diet. Their carbs were much less sweet and much less starchy than those of today. The grains were cooked whole or stone ground
We have so moved away from an unprocessed whole foods diet that sometimes it is necessary to stick with high pro, high fat just to give the system time to repair. And sometimes it is the best diet for you as an individual.
PS--omega 3 fats are unsaturated fats and oxidize easily
And I think taxing food is nuts. Stop the subsidies and let nature take its course.
Thank you Cassandra. We do have serious problem with obesity and environmentally triggered diabetes. But we don't have to make certain foods into "al qaeda" and come up with a simplistic and wrong approach. People have always eaten a variety of foods, if they could get them. So we have to look at what has changed.
There are some new suspects that arrived on the the scene around the same time as the upward weight curve. One is the ubiquitous and totally manufactured high fructose corn syrup. Another is sedentary passtimes, like TV, video games and what I am doing now. Another is the culture of fear, where rightly or wrongly, kids are not allowed to play outside unsupervised. Another is cutbacks in sports and exercise programs for the average non-superstar kid in school. Another is the disappearance of small and medium sized local farms, pushed out by agribusiness and suppliers.
It is not right, in my opinion, to allow and encourage and subsidize unhealthy food production and dissemination at the corporate level. In the free market, these cheap products crowd out fresh, healthful foods that are harder to produce, ship and store. Then to tax people in barrios and poor communities, who may not have access to much else, is doubly unfair.
As you say, cassandra, taxing food is nuts. And where will it stop? There can be many pretexts and good reasons for taxation: This has fat, this has sodium, this has sugar, this has white flour, this was picked by near-slave labor, this was raised under cruel conditions, this has mercury, this has preservatives and a shelf-life of seventeen years etc. etc.
Demonizing and taxing food a certain food is cheezy. Fix the problems at the source. We have seen that unregulated free markets are not so free. They do not self-correct, but unregulated become playgrounds for the Gordon Geckos, the Madoffs, the Fulds. We should start reining them in when they dump junky and misrepresented foods into the market.
For some, school lunch is the only guaranteed meal of the day. As I have said before, school lunch is a good starting place to "change the business model", to educate and nourish kids in the US, to lay the basis for teeth and bones and a lifetime of good nutrition and good choices. Not just in boutique communities, but in average areas. If we cannot do that, then taxing soda really looks like a cheap ploy to raise revenue.
Some areas in the rest of the world could use our assistance in growing good food, any good food, and controlling the likes of Monsanto. But that is a bunch of different stories.
Joe
"Our" assistance? Are you talking about the U.S.? Are you sure you meant to say that?
Any time the U.S. decides to "assist" another country, it usually means that the proletariat of that country will suffer at the expense of the ruling class.
I'd just as soon the U.S. keep the hell out of everybody else's farming issues. The U.S. tends to make a bad situation worse, and that is borne out by the mountains of evidence in how the underdeveloped world is faring, and has fared, in the past when the West decides to "assist" those places.
I love the term "al qaida" as your descriptor, though. Way to go on attempting to marginalize those with whom you are arguing. Yeesh.
For the record, I'm against taxing foods, drugs, cigarettes, and booze. Most foods should be free. People should not have to pay money for an adequate number of daily calories.
Your problem is that you want to single out the quite obvious junk foods as culprits, but because of your own magical belief system you won't look objectively at how the foods you "support" contribute to degenerative diseases.
I've never seen any evidence that a diet higher than about 10-20% of carbs is healthier than this lower amount of carbs. We already know that grains and fructose are metabolic poison, and frankly eating mountains of fruits and vegetables for their so-called nutrient packages of vitamins and minerals or "antioxidants" simply doesn't make any sense given that the insulin effects of eating the stuff is so damaging.
If people have intolerances, they should obviously avoid certain foods. Lactose intolerant people shouldn't use dairy. Have an allergy to shellfish? No problem - just don't eat it. Don't want to "kill the animals?" Great - become a vegan. (Good luck with THAT diet long term.) If you have a fear of butter and cream, don't eat them. Butter and cream are fine for most people. If you have evidence that they are not, then present it.
I just prefer to base my dietary choices on science, rather than on fetishistic cultism.
"I just prefer to base my dietary choices on science, rather than on fetishistic cultism."
Science? Sagan would wince. First, the final word is not out on the subject of diet, and insulin is only one element in a complex metabolic soup. No offense, but your own fetish for meat eating is abundantly clear. Sausage and bacon, loaded with nitrates and nitrites?? Better take a lot of vitamin C and/or drink green tea, since you eschew fruit juice. Nature did not produce these edible foods to poison us, but to enhance our health and eating pleasure (see IP6 phytate in wheat germ and rice bran, which PROCESSING removes).
And you belong to a dietary cult based upon this one line of study--a meat-eating cult. Sorry, sister, but your so-called 'science,' like your diet is narrow and flawed. Flawed, because there is much more to the partial picture it paints.