Text 3691, 151 rader
Skriven 2006-07-08 01:06:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4164.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <emqta25gmhasfvr1ms2sj28het1pt2ff2h@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <16a7c$44a9e9d9$18d64cf6$13538@KNOLOGY.NET>
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 22:56:15 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <0001HW.C0D2F66E00DF0698F0284530@news.verizon.net>,
> Amy Guskin <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
>> >> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:45:36 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote
>> (in article <kurtullman-4586A2.13453506072006@news.west.earthlink.net>):
>> 
>> > In article <1152195870.122796.120610@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> >  "ravend03x" <rkimd3@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> 
>> >> When you start with setting insurance rates by virtue of a patient's
>> >> weight, you start getting into bias against those who live at lower
>> >> incomes.
>> >   Not really. It is still possible to eat well even with the cheaper 
>> > foods available. <<
>> 
>> Kurt, there have been _so_ many studies on this, and feature article after 
>> feature article that I've read in just about every publication I've perused 
>> in the past several years.  It's all well and good to say that the single 
>> mother of five in a marginal urban area, who works two jobs, should take her

>> meager salary and limited time and buy produce and rice and stuff and cook 
>> for her kids; in actuality, what usually happens is the kids order off the 
>> dollar menu at McDonald's.  Which gives you fat kids, diabetes on the rise, 
>> etc. etc.
>        
>       So, we just write them off and pat them on the head and send them 
>to an early grave?   I am wondering if the changes in the dollar menu at 
>McD's and similar places would make a difference, then. I also wonder if 
>the existance of the healthier stuff is taken advantage of or if they 
>stay with the lousy choices even when the other stuff is available? 

The lousy choices, according to the articles I've read, anyway. They
taste "better" and the people who are eating them don't really know
how harmful they are, or in the case of kids would probably eat them
anyway. 

In many cases, the parents don't speak English or are functionally
illiterate. They know how to handle the foods they ate at home, but
they're unfamiliar with the effects of the new, richer cuisine, and
their children want the new foods rather than the old because they've
been programmed by TV ads.

>      Actually portion control may be at least as important in this. 
>"Larger portion sizes of foods low in fat and commercial energy-dense 
>foods and beverages could be important factors in maintaining a high 
>energy intake, causing over-consumption and enhancing the prevalence of 
>obesity in the population. In light of this development, portion size 
>ought to take central place in dietary guidelines and public campaigns."

>     Portion size was an important determinant of obesity even within 
>the cheaper items.

Part of the problem with the rich foods we eat today -- the main
problem, really -- is apparently that by the time their bulk has
filled you up, you've taken in too many calories. We all suffer from
this: it's virtually impossible to get fat on a Paleolithic diet,
because your stomach distends and you stop eating before you've taken
in too much fat and too many calories.

Even with a rich western diet, our parents hewed to traditions that
kept us reasonably thin: leisurely multi-course meals with reasonable
servings, discouragement of between-meals snacks, most energy-dense
foods reserved for the end of the meal. But fast food and convenience
foods and modern family structures aren't conducive to that sort of
care.

Anyway, you really shouldn't have to worry about portion control. If
you compare the fat in some game meat -- what our ancestors ate --
with the fat in a McDonald's hamburger, you see that you can take in
something like /ten or twenty times/ as much of the lean game before
you take in as much fat. So if you stick to a good diet, you leave the
table feeling hungry.

>    The French also have noted that it is possible to eat healthier even 
>on low cost meals. 
>For the lowest cost diet (ie, 3.18 euros/d), marked changes from the 
>"mean observed diet" were required, including a marked reduction in the 
>amount of energy from fresh fruits (-85%) and green vegetables (-70%), 
>and an increase in the amount of energy from nuts, dried fruits, roots, 
>legumes, and fruit juices. IMPLICATIONS: Nutrition education for 
>low-income French women must emphasize these affordable food choices.
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt
>=Abstract&list_uids=16595286&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt
>=Abstract&list_uids=12581467&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>   There are also a few emerging studies suggesting, that even with 
>lower socioeconomic strata (doncha just love sociologist-speak), 
>education may influence this, too. 
>   "In the lower social class group, overall food knowledge appeared 
>superior in the leaner subject group (BMI<30 kg/m2)." 
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt
>=Abstract&list_uids=16030520&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
>Another article suggested that "a diet that meets all of the nutritional 
>recommendations need not cost much can be illustrated by the Thrifty 
>Food Plan, a low cost food plan developed by the U.S. Department of 
>Agriculture that meets current nutritional standards (including Food 
>Guide Pyramid servings recommendations) and can therefore be considered 
>a "healthy" diet (16 ). Compared with the average diet in 19891991, the 
>Thrifty Food Plan included more grains, vegetables, fruit and dairy and 
>less fats, oils and meats (Fig. 3 ). In February 2002, the Thrifty Food 
>Plan cost an estimated $107/wk for a family of four (17 ), or 
>approximately $3.80 per person per day." This is close to the French 
>diet suggested above in cost .
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt
>=Abstract&list_uids=12612166&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_DocSum
>
>  Finally I suggest this rather interesting review article.
>http://jn.nutrition.org:80/cgi/content/full/135/4/905
>    Among the more interesting findings is one that suggestion portion 
>size is an important distinguishing factor for obesity even in cheaper 
>diets.
>     What all this means, is that we shouldn't just write off these 
>folks.

Problem is, I think, that a) we don't get this information to them,
while McDonald's bombards them with smiling faces and b) even if we
did, I've noticed that dieticians and researchers tend to be on
another planet when it comes to the realities of what people can and
will do after their second shift.

That being said, I've read some articles about successful
interventions lately. One thing that apparently helps is measuring BMI
at school, notifying parents that their kids are too fat, and offering
nutritional advice.

-- 
Josh

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about
the debilitating
effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a
lifetime and beyond
of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer.
And instead
of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

- Warren Buffett
                               
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)