<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Obesity in the u.s.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/</link>
	<description>Just another EarthSky Blogs weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 04:24:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Beverly Spicer</title>
		<link>http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-1197</link>
		<dc:creator>Beverly Spicer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-1197</guid>
		<description>Steve,

Thanks for you very long and personal comment.  I could agree more in theory, and it is nice to hear from someone who in practice has verified the differences in our food and food produced in other countries where hormones and other additives are forbidden.  I have long thought that it is not really our behavior, that it is in the food we eat.  Once we become obese, perhaps then we change our behavior -- who knows -- but I have not thought that are fundamentally lazier or that we eat more than we ever have.  I especially like looking at old movies and old photographs from our grandparent's times.  They simply did not expand the way we do.  Thanks for relating your personal experiences.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve,</p>
<p>Thanks for you very long and personal comment.  I could agree more in theory, and it is nice to hear from someone who in practice has verified the differences in our food and food produced in other countries where hormones and other additives are forbidden.  I have long thought that it is not really our behavior, that it is in the food we eat.  Once we become obese, perhaps then we change our behavior &#8212; who knows &#8212; but I have not thought that are fundamentally lazier or that we eat more than we ever have.  I especially like looking at old movies and old photographs from our grandparent&#8217;s times.  They simply did not expand the way we do.  Thanks for relating your personal experiences.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-1196</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-1196</guid>
		<description>It easn't what we eat, or that americans eat too much..  Its the artifically tampering of our food sources that the American food industry allows.  I've actually test this (I lived in Europe on three different occasions for about 5 years total).  I honestly don't believe the cr*p about us Americans eat too large of portions and fatty foods..  Compared to most countries, this isn't really the case..  They just don't add or process their foods like we do in the US..  In Europe and even China, they eat more fatty protein (mostly pork) oils, large amounts of potatos (including french fries or pommes frites) and rice or bread..  In the US, these are exactly the things that supposively make us fat, yet thats pretty much what composes over 80% of the diet in Europe and many other countries thorughout around the world.  Only the US and Canada allow and eat these steroid and growth hormone enriched cattle, pork, and pultry protein.  Think about it, if it makes the lifestock/cattle grow faster and fatter, and byproducts remain in the meat we eat, it will of course also have an effect on our bodies..


I've lived in Europe, and tested this theory. I honestly think its a "Steroid", "Growth hormone" issue thats added to our protein sources, and the refined sugars that compose our carbohydrate sources!  What about all the Steriods and Growth Hormones that are fed and/or injected into only US and Canadian meat/cattle.. to make them grow faster and fatter?   Many countries are starving, yet their government will not allow unhealthly producedure done to their own cattle to produce more meat, nor will they except meat from the US due to such.  


Most Americans don't know that these byproducts are passed on to us, and its in 95% of our meat sources!  Natural food (meat and sugars) will keep us healthy, its what American business adds to our food sources (refined sugars and steriod and growth hormone injected meat) that is the real culprit..  


Ever wonder why most countries that don't have enough beef, pork, and/or chicken meat sources, still reject meat from the US (even China)  America has the highest cattle producing potential than any other country, however no other countries will accept our meat..  Why of all countries, does our country allow this, and why isn't there any publicity about this..  I'm sure if more Americans really knew what they fed and inject into our cattle, pork, chicken, and other US meet sources, there would be more concern about this..  Where is the FDA on this??  

I actually did a test on this..  I lived in Germany for 9 months.  Germany is like a second home to me.  In the US I worked out 4 days a week, I watched what at ate, but still ate high fat meals at times did eat fast food, beef, chicken..   I was 6' 260lbs..  Although I admit I did not always eat the best in the US, i was pretty active..  I have a hard time losing weight, even with doing 90 mins of mixed cardio and weight training workouts 4 times a week.


While in Europe (Germany), I ate what the Germans did..(which was losts of bread, and meets.. mainly pork..)..  Their breat is a harder more filling bread which is probably also has less refined sugar, so its probably better for you too..   I ate pork, beef, and only sometimes lean meet..  I never worked out while I was there, but did walk around the cities..  The walking was not more than what I jogged in the US.  


Guess what, when I came back, I lost 40lbs and never went to a fitness center or watched what I ate!!!  I was always intrigued by how and why Europeans are thinner and I could never put my finger on it..  They eat more than the average Americans and they drink lots of beer..   Did you know that many french spend 6 hours of their day with just eating!  They have bakeries at every corner, they never seem to watch what they eat, they eat tons of pork and beef, yet they are much skinner!!!


I encourage anyone to try this, and you will see for yourself..  Don't change how you eat while in Europe or abroad some other country, or the amount of physical activity, and I bet you will still lose weight..  Think about it, if these Steroids, growth hormones make our livestock fatter, think what they will do to people..  If we eat our food as nature intended with wich natural raised beef and natural sugars, America wouldn't have the obesity problem it has today guaranteed!!


Our supposive US diet is not any "fatter" than the majority of the other countries..  In fact in Europe (france, GErmany, Russia..) and even in China, they eat "pork" than any other protein..  Pork has the highest fat content of any any protein, yet they are all skinny compared to americans..  The raw difference, is that foreign chemicals that our own food/cattle industry adds to them, that causes the animals to get bigger and fatter..  They do this to increase profits..  We have enough cattle, why do we need to artifically and chemically treat our cattle/lifestock to make them fatter??  We injest these byproducts..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It easn&#8217;t what we eat, or that americans eat too much..  Its the artifically tampering of our food sources that the American food industry allows.  I&#8217;ve actually test this (I lived in Europe on three different occasions for about 5 years total).  I honestly don&#8217;t believe the cr*p about us Americans eat too large of portions and fatty foods..  Compared to most countries, this isn&#8217;t really the case..  They just don&#8217;t add or process their foods like we do in the US..  In Europe and even China, they eat more fatty protein (mostly pork) oils, large amounts of potatos (including french fries or pommes frites) and rice or bread..  In the US, these are exactly the things that supposively make us fat, yet thats pretty much what composes over 80% of the diet in Europe and many other countries thorughout around the world.  Only the US and Canada allow and eat these steroid and growth hormone enriched cattle, pork, and pultry protein.  Think about it, if it makes the lifestock/cattle grow faster and fatter, and byproducts remain in the meat we eat, it will of course also have an effect on our bodies..</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve lived in Europe, and tested this theory. I honestly think its a &#8220;Steroid&#8221;, &#8220;Growth hormone&#8221; issue thats added to our protein sources, and the refined sugars that compose our carbohydrate sources!  What about all the Steriods and Growth Hormones that are fed and/or injected into only US and Canadian meat/cattle.. to make them grow faster and fatter?   Many countries are starving, yet their government will not allow unhealthly producedure done to their own cattle to produce more meat, nor will they except meat from the US due to such.  </p>
<p>Most Americans don&#8217;t know that these byproducts are passed on to us, and its in 95% of our meat sources!  Natural food (meat and sugars) will keep us healthy, its what American business adds to our food sources (refined sugars and steriod and growth hormone injected meat) that is the real culprit..  </p>
<p>Ever wonder why most countries that don&#8217;t have enough beef, pork, and/or chicken meat sources, still reject meat from the US (even China)  America has the highest cattle producing potential than any other country, however no other countries will accept our meat..  Why of all countries, does our country allow this, and why isn&#8217;t there any publicity about this..  I&#8217;m sure if more Americans really knew what they fed and inject into our cattle, pork, chicken, and other US meet sources, there would be more concern about this..  Where is the FDA on this??  </p>
<p>I actually did a test on this..  I lived in Germany for 9 months.  Germany is like a second home to me.  In the US I worked out 4 days a week, I watched what at ate, but still ate high fat meals at times did eat fast food, beef, chicken..   I was 6&#8242; 260lbs..  Although I admit I did not always eat the best in the US, i was pretty active..  I have a hard time losing weight, even with doing 90 mins of mixed cardio and weight training workouts 4 times a week.</p>
<p>While in Europe (Germany), I ate what the Germans did..(which was losts of bread, and meets.. mainly pork..)..  Their breat is a harder more filling bread which is probably also has less refined sugar, so its probably better for you too..   I ate pork, beef, and only sometimes lean meet..  I never worked out while I was there, but did walk around the cities..  The walking was not more than what I jogged in the US.  </p>
<p>Guess what, when I came back, I lost 40lbs and never went to a fitness center or watched what I ate!!!  I was always intrigued by how and why Europeans are thinner and I could never put my finger on it..  They eat more than the average Americans and they drink lots of beer..   Did you know that many french spend 6 hours of their day with just eating!  They have bakeries at every corner, they never seem to watch what they eat, they eat tons of pork and beef, yet they are much skinner!!!</p>
<p>I encourage anyone to try this, and you will see for yourself..  Don&#8217;t change how you eat while in Europe or abroad some other country, or the amount of physical activity, and I bet you will still lose weight..  Think about it, if these Steroids, growth hormones make our livestock fatter, think what they will do to people..  If we eat our food as nature intended with wich natural raised beef and natural sugars, America wouldn&#8217;t have the obesity problem it has today guaranteed!!</p>
<p>Our supposive US diet is not any &#8220;fatter&#8221; than the majority of the other countries..  In fact in Europe (france, GErmany, Russia..) and even in China, they eat &#8220;pork&#8221; than any other protein..  Pork has the highest fat content of any any protein, yet they are all skinny compared to americans..  The raw difference, is that foreign chemicals that our own food/cattle industry adds to them, that causes the animals to get bigger and fatter..  They do this to increase profits..  We have enough cattle, why do we need to artifically and chemically treat our cattle/lifestock to make them fatter??  We injest these byproducts..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eileen</title>
		<link>http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-243</link>
		<dc:creator>Eileen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:28:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-243</guid>
		<description>Dear Beverly,

I think this has to do mostly with the more stressful lifestyle since the 1970's.  If you recall, in the 1970's women were starting to go out to work.  By the 1980's most women were working.  By the 1990's it became a real necessity for a two-earner household.  Homes and jobs were further away, more and more women didn't have time to make healthy, home-cooked meals.  More families started to go to take-out or restaurants, or picking up something at the deli on the way home.  If you think back to the portions at home we ate growing up in the 1950's and 1960's and compare them with today's much larger portions (and greater availablity of many foods, and when choice is increased, most people eat more, too), we must ask WHY the change in portions?  Restaurant portions were larger (as they should be for the price), but I guess people aren't taking much home any more in Doggie Bags, they are probably eating it all, and going out a lot more.  Everyone who is stressed eats a lot more (those were the times I gained the most weight, too), and then it's very hard to lose.  And those French women who "don't get fat" (according to the book) are probably buying protein powder at the pharmacy which is not sold over the counter in America.  You have to go to a very expensive diet doctor who sells you the powder only if you take a whole rash of monthly blood tests, etc.   And it's imported to the American doctors from Canada (which the idea probably came from France).  I think the stress level in American society since Sept. 11 twin towers has skyrocketed, the economy is difficult, and all this is contributing to obesity.

Eileen, Overseas American Teacher</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Beverly,</p>
<p>I think this has to do mostly with the more stressful lifestyle since the 1970&#8217;s.  If you recall, in the 1970&#8217;s women were starting to go out to work.  By the 1980&#8217;s most women were working.  By the 1990&#8217;s it became a real necessity for a two-earner household.  Homes and jobs were further away, more and more women didn&#8217;t have time to make healthy, home-cooked meals.  More families started to go to take-out or restaurants, or picking up something at the deli on the way home.  If you think back to the portions at home we ate growing up in the 1950&#8217;s and 1960&#8217;s and compare them with today&#8217;s much larger portions (and greater availablity of many foods, and when choice is increased, most people eat more, too), we must ask WHY the change in portions?  Restaurant portions were larger (as they should be for the price), but I guess people aren&#8217;t taking much home any more in Doggie Bags, they are probably eating it all, and going out a lot more.  Everyone who is stressed eats a lot more (those were the times I gained the most weight, too), and then it&#8217;s very hard to lose.  And those French women who &#8220;don&#8217;t get fat&#8221; (according to the book) are probably buying protein powder at the pharmacy which is not sold over the counter in America.  You have to go to a very expensive diet doctor who sells you the powder only if you take a whole rash of monthly blood tests, etc.   And it&#8217;s imported to the American doctors from Canada (which the idea probably came from France).  I think the stress level in American society since Sept. 11 twin towers has skyrocketed, the economy is difficult, and all this is contributing to obesity.</p>
<p>Eileen, Overseas American Teacher</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa</title>
		<link>http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-142</link>
		<dc:creator>Lisa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:04:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-142</guid>
		<description>I think obesity can be controlled.  Kids today are very lazy compared to kids of long ago.  And most people in general, eat to be happy.  Totally wrong.  Because then when we see the weight that we have put on, we are even more unhappy. And watching tv and snacking at the same time causes you to keep eating and eating, even when you are full.  We need to have more control of our eating habits, select carefully and decrease our portions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think obesity can be controlled.  Kids today are very lazy compared to kids of long ago.  And most people in general, eat to be happy.  Totally wrong.  Because then when we see the weight that we have put on, we are even more unhappy. And watching tv and snacking at the same time causes you to keep eating and eating, even when you are full.  We need to have more control of our eating habits, select carefully and decrease our portions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-134</link>
		<dc:creator>Evan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:09:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-134</guid>
		<description>One factor is that almost twenty-five percent of people are what is known as Supertasters.  We have an extra large amount of fungiform papilla on our tongues, containing taste buds.  We pick up much more of the sour and bitter tastes in foods than most people.  I can tell the taste of one fruit or vegatable from another, but about all I sense is sourness or bitterness.  So, I eat very little of them.  There are many people like this.
A scientist at Yale University is working with food companies to develop a substance to mask this problem in foods, but it is not developed yet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One factor is that almost twenty-five percent of people are what is known as Supertasters.  We have an extra large amount of fungiform papilla on our tongues, containing taste buds.  We pick up much more of the sour and bitter tastes in foods than most people.  I can tell the taste of one fruit or vegatable from another, but about all I sense is sourness or bitterness.  So, I eat very little of them.  There are many people like this.<br />
A scientist at Yale University is working with food companies to develop a substance to mask this problem in foods, but it is not developed yet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: charlotte</title>
		<link>http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-128</link>
		<dc:creator>charlotte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:58:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-128</guid>
		<description>The foundation for this trend was set in the early 1980's when high fructose corn syrup was approved by the FDA as a substitute for sugar. At the time, the sugar industry was very unstable and costs were skyrocketing throughout the country/world. Central American governments were very unstable - the "wrong" leaders were gaining economic power and influence.  There was a threat to the availability of CHEAP sugar. If you are 50  years of age, you remember the sugar shortages of the 80's in the grocery stores? and you remember it came on the heals of the gasoline shortage of the 70's - which was an 'eye opening' moment in our modern history. Could food supply become the next national emergency?
If you're over 50 years of age, you can clearly remember the negative PR suddenly given to sugar during the 80's, and the introduction of the great laboratory substitutes - all of which have prospered because of little known decisions by politicians who have been appointed to head government agencies - such as the FDA.  If you do a little research of the changes in the FDA's enforcement and regulatory powers during the 80's, you'll see that the FDA lost it's 'independence' in making decisions about food products introduced into our food supply. The key players shifted the food sweetener industry from sugar based to corn based, and those key players are currently in the executive office, Supreme Court, and leading the Department of Defense(with a $400  billion annual budget.
Political appointees of elected officials have extensive backgrounds on corporate boards - as experts and leaders. Granted I wouldn't want a dimbo in a high national government office, but the 'paybacks' to their base, has altered the chemical composition of our daily food supply.
The current agriculture giants - ADM, Cargill, ConAgra, Monsanto - all have a high vested interest in one product - CORN. ADM controls the high fructose corn syrup industry. Cargill controls livestock feed and pharmaceuticals. ConAgra controls the processed flour, corn meal, and prepackage meat industry. Monsanto controls the seed supply and herbicide industry. CORN is the new industrial monopoly.
So, who are we to complain? We have lots of food choices in the grocery store, and it's realtively cheap. Cheap food is good for everyone, but especially good when you're in a low socio-economic income bracket. Processed foods have large concentrations of high fructose corn syrup in their ingredients list. It's clear to me that the current RED states on the map you've referenced in your column have an economic addiction to corn based sugar.
It's amazing that one product could turned our country's populace into high fructose corn syrup sugar addicts in such a short period of time, but that's how addictions occur; slow at first, then moving exponentially in a short period of time...ask any alcoholic...ask any food-oholic.
So what happens when (not, if) our country becomes dependent on corn as fuel at the same time that it is addicted to corn as sugar?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The foundation for this trend was set in the early 1980&#8217;s when high fructose corn syrup was approved by the FDA as a substitute for sugar. At the time, the sugar industry was very unstable and costs were skyrocketing throughout the country/world. Central American governments were very unstable - the &#8220;wrong&#8221; leaders were gaining economic power and influence.  There was a threat to the availability of CHEAP sugar. If you are 50  years of age, you remember the sugar shortages of the 80&#8217;s in the grocery stores? and you remember it came on the heals of the gasoline shortage of the 70&#8217;s - which was an &#8216;eye opening&#8217; moment in our modern history. Could food supply become the next national emergency?<br />
If you&#8217;re over 50 years of age, you can clearly remember the negative PR suddenly given to sugar during the 80&#8217;s, and the introduction of the great laboratory substitutes - all of which have prospered because of little known decisions by politicians who have been appointed to head government agencies - such as the FDA.  If you do a little research of the changes in the FDA&#8217;s enforcement and regulatory powers during the 80&#8217;s, you&#8217;ll see that the FDA lost it&#8217;s &#8216;independence&#8217; in making decisions about food products introduced into our food supply. The key players shifted the food sweetener industry from sugar based to corn based, and those key players are currently in the executive office, Supreme Court, and leading the Department of Defense(with a $400  billion annual budget.<br />
Political appointees of elected officials have extensive backgrounds on corporate boards - as experts and leaders. Granted I wouldn&#8217;t want a dimbo in a high national government office, but the &#8216;paybacks&#8217; to their base, has altered the chemical composition of our daily food supply.<br />
The current agriculture giants - ADM, Cargill, ConAgra, Monsanto - all have a high vested interest in one product - CORN. ADM controls the high fructose corn syrup industry. Cargill controls livestock feed and pharmaceuticals. ConAgra controls the processed flour, corn meal, and prepackage meat industry. Monsanto controls the seed supply and herbicide industry. CORN is the new industrial monopoly.<br />
So, who are we to complain? We have lots of food choices in the grocery store, and it&#8217;s realtively cheap. Cheap food is good for everyone, but especially good when you&#8217;re in a low socio-economic income bracket. Processed foods have large concentrations of high fructose corn syrup in their ingredients list. It&#8217;s clear to me that the current RED states on the map you&#8217;ve referenced in your column have an economic addiction to corn based sugar.<br />
It&#8217;s amazing that one product could turned our country&#8217;s populace into high fructose corn syrup sugar addicts in such a short period of time, but that&#8217;s how addictions occur; slow at first, then moving exponentially in a short period of time&#8230;ask any alcoholic&#8230;ask any food-oholic.<br />
So what happens when (not, if) our country becomes dependent on corn as fuel at the same time that it is addicted to corn as sugar?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carol</title>
		<link>http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-114</link>
		<dc:creator>Carol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:39:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-114</guid>
		<description>Mindfulness must be the key.
I like junk, fat and sweets as much as the next guy, I just don't eat too much of it.

Was it Ghandi who said,
"We should eat to live,
not live to eat.".</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mindfulness must be the key.<br />
I like junk, fat and sweets as much as the next guy, I just don&#8217;t eat too much of it.</p>
<p>Was it Ghandi who said,<br />
&#8220;We should eat to live,<br />
not live to eat.&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mqr</title>
		<link>http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-113</link>
		<dc:creator>mqr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:27:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-113</guid>
		<description>Just based on your chart showing the rise in obesity throughout the US, I'd also venture to say preservatives, additives and high fat content in cheap, easy to obtain foods are the main culprits causing this condition. All of these people (more than 1 in 4!) can't possibly have a genetic propensity for obesity, especially considering previous generations on the whole weren't as obese. Of course, a more sedentary lifestyle and the acceptance of obesity as the norm are contributing to a stockier generation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just based on your chart showing the rise in obesity throughout the US, I&#8217;d also venture to say preservatives, additives and high fat content in cheap, easy to obtain foods are the main culprits causing this condition. All of these people (more than 1 in 4!) can&#8217;t possibly have a genetic propensity for obesity, especially considering previous generations on the whole weren&#8217;t as obese. Of course, a more sedentary lifestyle and the acceptance of obesity as the norm are contributing to a stockier generation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Beverly Spicer</title>
		<link>http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-111</link>
		<dc:creator>Beverly Spicer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:08:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-111</guid>
		<description>Whenever I think about what the normal relationship between humans and the environment should be, I always go back to pondering cave days, when man and his environment were pretty much co-evolving.  It is no small factor that our food sources and means of production have changed enormously over a period of only a few years, just a speck on the timeline of normal adaptation processes.  Having been born in 1948, I remember when the first frozen food craze hit, and canned foods stopped exploding with great regularity if they sat too long on the shelves.  Packaging, preservatives, additives-- --all of these things emerged during the lives of the boomer generation.  Mass food production came along, as now has genetic modification, irradiation to eliminate bacteria (good and bad), so that availability of food could increase and the shelf life of foods could be extended.  Such has been the evolution of food production as the food industry became more and more responsive to consumers and profitable as businesses.  

Competition played out through attractive packaging and entertaining advertising.  I remember when oleomargarine first came out and was touted as the best thing ever.  Despite the warning that "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature," the consensus was that we, and our bodies, could not tell the difference.  As food production became bigger and better and more profitable, and consumers became more satiated and eager for more sophisticated tastes, the industry responded with more and more competition, and so more flavorful, attractive foods vied for preference on the grocery shelves.  Hormones  were added to increase milk production and growth of animals, and a real competitive edge was gained with the addition of artificial flavors and taste enhancers to stimulate interest in food products.  Fats were reduced and sugars substituted, and articial sweeteners made a cornucopia of diet products availble.  

Unfortunately, the array of new products incorporating treatments -- -- ranging from chemical pesticides before harvest to the addition of taste enhancers in final processing -- -- have biological effects on sensitive organisms.  Our bodily organs evolved for simple foods, yet we are stressing our systems every single day with any edibles that are not simple and natural, that have additives which can only be cleared from our systems by our natural and perhaps now outmoded physiological waste eliminating organs.  Coupled with supplements and drugs of every kind that are popular to take for every reason imaginable, it seems a simple conclusion that we are requiring too much, too fast, and too often from our bodies' abilities to adapt to such sweeping changes in the nature of our foods.  

If were were still in the cave -- and in a physiological sense we still are -- it would not be too difficult to guess that these new impositions on our digestive systems are simply too much to assimilate.  Some of respond better than others, but I do not know anyone who is achieving a normal weight who is not mindful of how and what they eat.  

All comments appreciated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whenever I think about what the normal relationship between humans and the environment should be, I always go back to pondering cave days, when man and his environment were pretty much co-evolving.  It is no small factor that our food sources and means of production have changed enormously over a period of only a few years, just a speck on the timeline of normal adaptation processes.  Having been born in 1948, I remember when the first frozen food craze hit, and canned foods stopped exploding with great regularity if they sat too long on the shelves.  Packaging, preservatives, additives&#8211; &#8211;all of these things emerged during the lives of the boomer generation.  Mass food production came along, as now has genetic modification, irradiation to eliminate bacteria (good and bad), so that availability of food could increase and the shelf life of foods could be extended.  Such has been the evolution of food production as the food industry became more and more responsive to consumers and profitable as businesses.  </p>
<p>Competition played out through attractive packaging and entertaining advertising.  I remember when oleomargarine first came out and was touted as the best thing ever.  Despite the warning that &#8220;It&#8217;s not nice to fool Mother Nature,&#8221; the consensus was that we, and our bodies, could not tell the difference.  As food production became bigger and better and more profitable, and consumers became more satiated and eager for more sophisticated tastes, the industry responded with more and more competition, and so more flavorful, attractive foods vied for preference on the grocery shelves.  Hormones  were added to increase milk production and growth of animals, and a real competitive edge was gained with the addition of artificial flavors and taste enhancers to stimulate interest in food products.  Fats were reduced and sugars substituted, and articial sweeteners made a cornucopia of diet products availble.  </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the array of new products incorporating treatments &#8212; &#8211; ranging from chemical pesticides before harvest to the addition of taste enhancers in final processing &#8212; &#8211; have biological effects on sensitive organisms.  Our bodily organs evolved for simple foods, yet we are stressing our systems every single day with any edibles that are not simple and natural, that have additives which can only be cleared from our systems by our natural and perhaps now outmoded physiological waste eliminating organs.  Coupled with supplements and drugs of every kind that are popular to take for every reason imaginable, it seems a simple conclusion that we are requiring too much, too fast, and too often from our bodies&#8217; abilities to adapt to such sweeping changes in the nature of our foods.  </p>
<p>If were were still in the cave &#8212; and in a physiological sense we still are &#8212; it would not be too difficult to guess that these new impositions on our digestive systems are simply too much to assimilate.  Some of respond better than others, but I do not know anyone who is achieving a normal weight who is not mindful of how and what they eat.  </p>
<p>All comments appreciated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick</title>
		<link>http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-110</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:53:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.earthsky.org/beverlyspicer/2007/07/27/obesity-in-the-us/#comment-110</guid>
		<description>Obesity is always caused by fewer calories burned than consumed.  A healthy 30 year old man that weighs 160 lb. consumes approx. 1700 calories/day without exercise (Your milage may vary. See your doctor for details).  A MacDonalds hamburger (not a Big Mac) has 500 calories.  Fries: 370.  Diet Coke: 1.  871 x 3: 2613.  You're getting fatter even before you eat that bag of spicy Cheetos and that other bag of M&#38;M's while you sit in your cubicle helping Kaiser P. scam its "customers."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obesity is always caused by fewer calories burned than consumed.  A healthy 30 year old man that weighs 160 lb. consumes approx. 1700 calories/day without exercise (Your milage may vary. See your doctor for details).  A MacDonalds hamburger (not a Big Mac) has 500 calories.  Fries: 370.  Diet Coke: 1.  871 x 3: 2613.  You&#8217;re getting fatter even before you eat that bag of spicy Cheetos and that other bag of M&amp;M&#8217;s while you sit in your cubicle helping Kaiser P. scam its &#8220;customers.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
