BS: Fat as a political statement

Subject: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:40 AM

From the Washington Post:

Politics by the Pound

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, May 15, 2007; Page A15

The sum total of pounds lost in the great cause of democracy has now clearly exceeded 150. Mike Huckabee is down about 110, Bill Richardson is down more than 30, Rudy's looking trim, and, as pundits galore have told us, if Al Gore sheds more than a pound and a half, it will be universally taken as a declaration of candidacy. What Winston Churchill would make of this I cannot say. He might reach for yet another drink.

The great American pastime is not baseball but moral crusades. This accounts for why we once made booze illegal, why we continue to make war on drugs and why we have turned our attention to obesity -- morbid obesity, as the worst cases are morbidly called. Town after town is virtually outlawing the overweight -- "Fatty, don't let the sun set on you in this town" -- and schools have changed their lunchroom offerings in response. It is a crusade for health, but it is also one about free choice.

The incessant message is that you are overweight because you lack willpower. Willpower is, of course, right up there with morality -- the two being almost synonymous in the minds of many people. Do you have the willpower to turn down bread, butter, sugar, pasta, drugs, recreational sex and money that's not your own? It's all the same, you see -- a slippery slope to Hades, the land of eternal fires. No, please! Take away that bagel.

This explains why a presidential candidate must be trim. To be overweight, even pleasantly so, suggests a lack of self-discipline. That, of course, is utter nonsense, the previous president being an example of all such. Bill Clinton went on his daily jog, more or less maintained his weight, and yet strayed morally in ways that two entire congressional committees and a special prosecutor documented for no really good reason. Maybe Clinton should have stayed fat.

As for the present occupant of the White House, he is as fit as the proverbial fiddle -- albeit an instrument woefully out of tune. George W. Bush used to run; now he bikes. It looks to me that he has gained almost no weight in the past decade. But the discipline he has brought to his body has been missing when it comes to his mind. Not only does he subscribe to silly nostrums -- celibacy instead of condoms for the young and restless, for instance -- but he has also led us into a disastrous war for which there appears to be no end in sight. Still, the man looks good.

Now, though, comes the exciting news that some people -- and you know who you are -- are supposed to be fat. This is what nature intended, what the body wants, what the genes demand. This incredibly good news is contained in a new book by New York Times writer Gina Kolata, "Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss -- and the Myths and Realities of Dieting." She calls the current campaign to make everyone feel guilty and to fill the TV screens with waddling people a "moral panic." In this she is surely right. Most dieters fail, not because they are bad people but because -- brace yourself -- they're hungry.

The sad truth is that fat is all we have left. When it comes to free choice, we have slowly eliminated category after category: People do awful things because they cannot help themselves. They are mentally ill. They were abused as children. Their mothers smoked. Their fathers drank. All that's left to condemn is fat, and maybe insider trading, the last frontiers of pure morality and willpower.

But the aforementioned Churchill smoked, drank and was overweight. Teddy Roosevelt, a remarkable president, was a wee 5 feet 8 and weighed about 200 pounds. Helmut Kohl, the former German chancellor who presided over the peaceful reunification of his country, favored a dish called saumagen -- pig's stomach stuffed with potatoes, carrots and pork. His tenure was the longest of any chancellor since Otto von Bismarck, hardly a skinny himself.

I recognize, of course, that for most of us, willpower is what we sadly lack, and nothing in our genes commands pasta instead of veggies. But I would still choose a TR or a Churchill over the trim Mr. Bush any day; and I would point out that Al Gore, overweight though he may be, was right about Iraq and global warming; and I would say that Huckabee, no matter what his weight, remains wrong about just about everything.

But more to the point, I admonish you to remember your Shakespeare and recall that "lean and hungry" is not a compliment but a dire warning about ruthless ambition -- and only half the story at that. There is, alas, not lean and still hungry.

I'm starved.

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: GUEST,redhorse at work
Date: 15 May 07 - 08:15 AM

yet another tedious bb cut-and-paste

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:58 AM

Gee, Redhorse, I thought it was pretty funny. What's your point in bothering to read it if all you have to say about it is to call it tedious?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: jacqui.c
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:04 AM

Amos - you got there first - he's done the same thing on

BS: Thoughts on affirmative action- discuss?

Looks like some kind of stalker!

I liked this article - makes me feel better!

jacqui.c - probably 40lbs over what would be considered a desirable weight.

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:06 AM

just more of you to appreciate...

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Peace
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:07 AM

Fat is nature's way of making sure ya don't starve to death in the lean times.

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:32 AM

Some years back a local State politician couldn't be a candidate for party leader as he was not only very overweight, but he also had a beard!!

The idiot leading said party did so badly that they lost yet another election a few weeks ago, so he resigned as leader & the other bloke is now leader. I don't have a TV & haven't taken notice of him in any paper I've read, so I don't know what he weighs, but I think he removed his beard some time back.

One of the things against the previous leader of our Federal Labour Party was his size.

And people had a field day with another Federal (conservative) politician because of her size & preference for bright clothing. Her policies would have been a better target as she was the Minister for Imprisoning & Demonising Refugees.

sandra

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Bee
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:40 AM

The Fat Police have even found another sin for us to contemplate: even skinny people who don't exercise enough have evil fat hidden inside near their hearts and arteries! (Saw this on the news a couple days ago).

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:31 AM

I like to keep in shape.
Round is a shape.

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: gnu
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:02 PM

"....but he also had a beard!!"

I'm screwed!

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:21 PM

George W. Bush used to run; now he bikes.

This has nothing to do with his health. When he ran over that cop while trying to ride a bicycle some time ago, on reflection he decided

          "HEY, THIS IS FUN!"

No Secret Service agent has ever been known to wear a blue suit but it would probably be hazardous.

[note: I'm really just joking about it.]

John

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:57 AM

right on, Gnu, you can never lead an Oz political party! Unless you shave your beard. Apparently Oz folks don't vote for blokes wearing beards.

Do you have any bearded politicians in your neck of the woods?

sandra

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:00 AM

The US hasn't elected anyone with a beard for quite some time either.....

It seems people just don't like beards. Leaves more for me!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:04 AM

Liz, what are you doing chasing bearded American men? Don't you have enough bearded blokes in the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Grab
Date: 16 May 07 - 08:50 AM

Fat certainly is a statement. It says loud and clear, "I'm not taking care of my body, and I'm going to die early." So be it.

Most dieters fail, not because they are bad people but because -- brace yourself -- they're hungry.

"Hungry" is relative. Your stomach and brain both adapt to expectations. If you regularly eat until you're bloated, "hunger" will take more to fulfill. But you can adapt your intake gradually to reduce what you consume, and "hunger" will then be satisfied with less food. Crash diets are a failure because they try to change it too fast.

Don't neglect the impact of exercise either. Dieters who think just dieting will fix the problem are wasting their time. Not only does it not give them a better body, but the "healthy" calorie intake for someone doing regular exercise is significantly higher than for someone who never walks more than the distance from their front door to the car.

And there's *what* you eat as well. You can fill yourself up with a plate of chips or two wholemeal bread sandwiches, but the plate of chips has a damn sight more calories in it. Not to mention crisps, chocolate, fizzy drinks and other "empty" calories.

Now, though, comes the exciting news that some people -- and you know who you are -- are supposed to be fat

Yes, there are some such people who have genetic disorders or injuries to their internal organs such that they can't properly process fats and sugars. Proportionately it's well under 1% of the population. If you think you're suffering from this, three questions:-

* Did you eat any sweets, chocolate, crisps or fried food last week?
* Did you drink any fizzy drinks or beer last week?
* Did you do less than 90 minutes of strenuous exercise (jogging, cycling, etc) last week?

If you can answer "yes" to one or more, this is not you. You are fat either because you've chosen to be fat, or because you've chosen not to do anything about it.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: mg
Date: 17 May 07 - 12:15 AM

No. Not true. But that is the sort of nonsense that is being put out by the medical people, and that more than anything else is keeping people fat and getting them fat. Surely if you have enough background in biochemistry or medicine to make these pronouncements you know about metabolic syndrome, which they say is involved in perhaps 80% of overweight people, not 1%. The reality is that many of us, myself certainly included, can not process carbohydrates to the extent we are told to eat them, and were fed them by parents trying to save money etc. We did not evolve to have a high carbohydrate diet, many of us, particularly northern Europeans, Inuiet, Native American etc. (By carbohydrate I mean those with calories such as starches and sugars). Some people do better, particularly those of Mediterranean heritage because they were the first to grow grains etc. and have had longer to adapt. Because of famines in our heritage, we developed the insulin response, and now they are saying the purpose of insulin is to store fat..not to regulate blood sugar. If you chronically eat too many carbs, particularly refined and ground up, like flour, you produce more and more insulin which wants you to store more and more fat. The famine never comes and it doesn't get burned off. Once you start burning out your pancreatic cells, you can eat fewer and fewer carbs to maintain your weight but the doctors and "nutritionists" keep telling you to eat more. Look at what they tell diabetics to eat, which people in this cycle essentially are, whether they reach a certain blood sugar number or not.

Check your blood sugar and then just try to get someone to check your insulin level. You need to know both of them. Look at the ratio of them. It is one of the most crucial scores you need--the insulin level -- correlated to everything, and doctors don't even request it and will deny you if you do request it.

Once this information, which is available in best sellers, reaches the medical profession, obesity will decline, people will be told to eat healthy fats and proteins and almost unlimited amounts of green vegetables and berries and our basic ancestral diet, and prescription medications will go skyrocketing down down down. I am not saying this applies to everyone..some do fine on a higher carb diet, but some do just absolutely awful. Of course some of the problem is, as mentioned above, sweets and fizzies...but chocolate itself is not really a problem for some people. You have to know what metabolic type you are..there are generally 4 types..one does well on vegetarian, very high carb diets. One does well on the mixed balanced diet that everyone recommends..one does well with higher lean protein and fewer carbs..and the fourth, highly denounced group, gets diabetes unless they eat right for their type, which is high amounts of heavier, darker proteins and more FATS FATS FATS.   

But we have to quit passing on bad advice...read Dr. Rob Thompson..forget the name of his book..he takes the pretty standard approach to this but adds a few twists... mg

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:44 AM

Bearing in mind the sort of foods available now and 60 years ago, during WWII and rationing etc, family photos show that I am the thinnest member for 4 generations, but my doctor still insists I'm obese. Wonder what he'd've said if he ever met my granfer who never touched alcohol or fizzy drinks, ate organic, home produced meat and vegetables, walked over 8 miles a day on the farm, worked hard at manual labour and whose only vice was a peppermint or two of an evening and glace fruits at Christmas. He tipped the scales at 19 stones and was shaped like an orange.

Even my sister, who started out as a size 8 (UK sizes) when she was 20, is now closing in on size 20, without any major change in her diet.

It looks like I'm the low carb, high lean protein variety. I don't have a high fat content in my diet - as proved by some pills the doctor gave me to prevent absorption of fats into my system... they didn't work but they did make me feel very unwell. If they could make a pill that prevents sugar absorption, I'm sure a lot of people would be takers.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:55 AM

Thanks, mg: can not process [x] to the extent we are told to eat them

In amongst all those correct, reality-based statements you made, you hit the nail right on the head-- I'm carrying about 150 pounds of medical mismanagement (some malpractice) myself, from doing what I was told to do. It has ONLY changed when I have decided to go against what medical personnel, physiatrist, dieticians, Jenny Criag counselors, endocrinologits, etc ETC have laid out for me to faithfully follow.

I'd love to have had the help I paid for. I'd love to have the money back to do what I have learned I need to do, now. Instead I'm doing it on my own with no professional help. AND being insulted about it!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 17 May 07 - 01:37 PM

here is something I hope takes you to dr. Thompson's book..by the way, I found him when a book hit my eye in the local library..it was by him..I thought..gee..I would like to see him..turns out he is in Seattle and I did and he said I could be his poster child for metabolic syndrome...which I have stabilized but not reversed...I might be too damaged by now...he is with Swedish Hospital and getting outstanding results with heart patients...

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&endeca=1&isbn=0071462694&itm=9

If that link doesn't work go to Amazon.com and search under Rob Thompson.

He also says that too much sugar will candy-coat the cells in our muscles...which might help to explain insulin resistance...we are on the right track...also read Dr. Gerald Raven, former chair of endocrinology at Sanford University...confirms what the "quacks" like Dr. Atkins have been saying for decades. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 May 07 - 03:00 PM

Actually, I'm working it from the activity-level end of the equation, where the docs and the professionals are as screwed up as the dieticians.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 17 May 07 - 03:03 PM

It is hopeless to depend on the medical establishment for this. I hate to think conspiracy but there is so much money to be had treating not just diabetics, but those with high blood pressure, high cholesterol etc. This stuff is all related. Read what biochemists have to say, evolutionary biologists etc. Don't get all info from doctors because something is really really wrong somewhere. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:52 PM

WYSIWYG you got it right! Hey, 150 ain't bad unless you're two feet tall which I doubt.

Doctors are ignorant about food. Dieticians miss the boat. There is no diet that works.

All the crap the FDA allows in commercial salad dressings, cereals, etc. should give someone nightmares if you eat 'em.

BB, Bush may look great on the outside but like Bing Crosby, his blood is pure alcohol.
They don't call him DUI Bush for nothing.

WYSIWYG, wanna' know the enemy here? M*E*A*T and other animal products. Kucinich looks damned better than Bush and would make a better "Chief" too.

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: mg
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:39 PM

Kucinich doesn't look healthy to me. I'd say the healthiest looking one is Obama. Romney perhaps but there is something quite unsettling about him...Biden perhaps...

And meat and animal products are just AOK for some people, assuming, and this is of course not the case, that there is good animal husbandry, hygiene, slaughterhouse practices etc. I doubt homogenization and pasteurization are good for people. Not everyone needs meat, but those who do, do. We need to employ a lot more people in agriculture and revert back to smaller farms and healthier practices though. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 04 Oct 11 - 06:56 PM

Glad to see the Government is to consider introducing a 'fat tax,' in a bid to combat rising obesity and soaring healthcare costs here in the UK.

Only this week, Denmark introduced a tax on foods that contain more than 2.3 per cent saturated fat including meats, cheese, butter, edible oils, margarine and other spreads, and processed foods.

The Danish government hope to reduce saturated fat consumption by up to 10 per cent, as well as cutting healthcare costs.

Do we have a problem with the growing level of obesity? Yes. Look at America how bad things have got there.

The UK now has the highest obesity rates in Europe, with nearly 25 per cent of the adult population obese, according to EU figures. This is more than twice the rate in Denmark, which has one of the lowest obesity rates in Europe (11.4%). Average EU obesity rates are running at 15 per cent.

An estimated £4.2 billion is spent by the NHS each year treating obesity and obesity-related illnesses including some cancers, diabetes, strokes and heart disease.

The figure is expected to rise to £6.4 billion by 2015, according to the Department of Health.

I am pleased to see this finally being addressed. We all know them, there was an old tiger in the garden centre here last Saturday, I watched as her fat ass took out a shelf of plastic pots and she was totally unaware she did it, one crack of a hip and the lot was down. No doubt another one of those that can't work due to her weight. She needed her fat ass put in a bacon slicer.

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 04 Oct 11 - 07:11 PM

We would be way more likely to decrease weight and improve health by having a starch tax..that is the real culprit for probably most overweight people. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Musket
Date: 05 Oct 11 - 08:01 AM

They don't put bay windows on shithouses.

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: theleveller
Date: 05 Oct 11 - 08:49 AM

I am genuinely perplexed as to how, often intelligent, people can allow themselves to become obese. It's one thing discovering you've inadvertently put on a pound or two, especially as you get older, but younger people cramming on stone after stone - that I find hard to comprehend.

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Oct 11 - 08:52 AM

Obesity costs American taxpayers billion$$$ every year in Medicaid... Hey, if I'm going to be asked to participate in paying for medical treatment for people who decided they wanted to poison their bodies with bad food then I'm all for them paying their own way...

Note: Not all people who are obese have bad diets... Many eat sensibly but just have DNA that gets in the way of them keeping the weight off... These people don't buy junk to eat so those folks wouldn't pay taxes on junk food...

I mean, it's a lot like smoking... Medicaid, the payer of last resort, ends up paying for millions of smoking related diseases...

These people think they deserve a free ride... They don't... There is a reason why bad drivers pay more for insurance...

Taxing junk food is the most logical way to fund Medicaid related disease from junk food...

And, no... Ron Paul would have people being turned away at the hospitals... That ain't America... That's Somalia...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 05 Oct 11 - 02:50 PM

Whether from meat, fizzy drinks, sugary cakes, turnips, haggis or anything else, calories are calories. It's the ratio between calories IN and calories OUT (through exercise) which results in fat storage or skinniness. Metabolism is not a significant factor, no fat people were found among the survivors of the death camps.

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Oct 11 - 03:40 PM

Being a pretty skinny dude myself, the main fat that I'm concerned about is in the heads of our political leaders.

And aspiring political leaders.

Frightening!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: gnu
Date: 05 Oct 11 - 04:40 PM

Tax on "meats, cheese, butter, edible oils, margarine"

WTF? A tax on meat? cheese? butter?... lunacy! Vegans deluded from not having a balanced diet wanna shove rabbit food down everyone's throat? Talk about big brother! Telling people what they can and cannot eat? That is unreal. Beyond comprehension. (Junk food is already taxed here in Canada.) Don't deny a child a well balanced diet. And don't tell me I can't have a steak if I want one a few times a year. Things are gettin outta hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Oct 11 - 05:22 PM

Not all calories are the same, Eliza... Ask any nutritionist...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 11:40 AM

Ah, but they should be treated as equal under the law, right?

Sez someone on a kind of permanent diet... um, sorry, with a new lifestyle.

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 02:36 PM

I understand a calorie to mean a certain measurement of energy produced when food is processed by the body. There are certainly different types of food, proteins, carbs etc. But the measurement unit of a calorie can't change. It's like saying there are different types of degrees Centigrade. Fats, for example, are high in calorific content, but they're the same units of measurement as the far fewer calories in, say, lemon juice. The more calories left over after energy is exerted, the more are stored as fat in the body. If one ate tons and tons of a low-calorie food, one would still get fat. If one ate only a tiny lump of, say, lard, every day, one would still get thinner and thinner.

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Oct 11 - 03:05 PM

Back around the century, prosperous business men referred to their swollen bellies as their "corporation."

Farmers back then used to look for broad-shouldered meaty wives- Good for to pull plow when mule is sick, and easy riding.




(Ducking behind the outhouse)

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 01:46 PM

In West Africa, they still view skinny women with abhorrence. You need some flesh on you to get by out there. Big bottoms are favourite....HOORAY!!

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 08:41 PM

somewhere in my Historic Costume books, I have an ad from c1910 where the fashionable curvy young lady says that by using (the product) she got back to her sylph-like weight of 11 stone (154 pounds)

sandra (once a sylph-like 11 stone but now 30 pounds over)

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 09:16 PM

Calories from veggies don't cause diabetes...

Calories from pure sugar do...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 09:27 PM

I don't hav to worry, Bobert, since I never eat pure sugar. I always add it to something.

Subject: RE: BS: Fat as a political statement
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 07:08 AM

A too-high glucose level in the blood stimulates the pancreas to produce insulin. It isn't the calories but the structure of the glucose molecule and its concentration in the blood which needs insulin to modify it. One could actually become a Type 2 diabetic having never eaten sugar or sugary foods in one's life. 'Calories' are not specifically any particular food or substance. They are units of measurement.