Sop Fighting About Goreball Warming And Start Fighting About Food ;-)

Search

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
10,180
Tokens
I hear ya guys, Obesity is multi-factorial for sure. A sedentary lifestyle is asking for trouble. That said, the science is slowly pointing its fingers at a major culprit. Health Canada, FDA are failing. The World Health Organization (WHO) is recommending 10% of daily caloric intake from sugars. 25 mg for an ADULT (of normal BMI)? One bowl of Captains Crunch gets a kid past his daily total and its only 9:00am, his/her day just started.......are u kidding? End of their day the average N American kid is 3x-5x that number--insane. If the child, genetically, is an endomorph (easily builds fat) ? DOESN'T stand a chance. He/she will need informed parents. Insulin is the fat-storing hormone-- massive spikes of blood sugar, translates to massive blood insulin..due it long enough and the system breaks down. Insulin insensitivity - diabetes,.............and punish the health care system with gross costs.

why would food companies change? no fucking way, $. Govt agencies have to step up-- its their mandate. Guidelines? limits to amount per serving? how much added sugar to product, how much natural?


we are talking about kids here. They add sugar to everything. The planet is getting fatter. I'd start to repair with QUALITY of food. Going to a grocery store, you're kinda hangcuffed.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
I’ve got a solution for obesity and this goes for both guys and gals, young or old.

Eat more pussy!


:homer:
 

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
10,180
Tokens
:)

it could only help

Stay good
 

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
10,180
Tokens
great article below, clearly we had it wrong. A landmark study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. For so long health agencies/practitioners in N America had linked obesity/heart disease with increased fat consumption. Decrease fats and you'll be healthier!! The 'non-fat' or 'low-fat' products are abundant in our supermarkets( Of course, take the fat away and it tastes like shit, so the companies ADD SUGAR to these products ).

summarizing the study:

two groups, followed for a year. NO caloric restriction for either group--this is HUGE!! as statiety is related to the type of foods we eat. One group eats low carbs (INCREASED fat consumption including saturated fats!!) . The other group eats a low fat diet.

here's the data :

-people in the low carb diet had lost 8 lbs more on average than people on the low fat diet.
-people in the low carb diet lost more BODY FAT than people in the low fat diet. In fact, people in the low fat diet lost lean muscle mass--OUCH.
-people in the low carb diet cardiovascular profile changes for the good, becomes healthier!!!!-- as measured by triglyerides, markers of inflammation ,HDL. The changes are so dramatic that this groups Framingham risk scores (measures chances of having a heart attack within 10 yrs) DROPPED.

keep in mind, both groups were told not change any exercise activity levels and again there were NO CALORIC RESTRICTIONS for either group.

"Dr. Mozaffarian said the research suggested that health authorities should pivot away from fat restrictions and encourage people to eat fewer processed foods, particularly those with refined carbohydrates.
The average person may not pay much attention to the federal dietary guidelines, but their influence can be seen, for example, in school lunch programs, which is why many schools forbid whole milk but serve their students fat-free chocolate milk loaded with sugar, Dr. Mozaffarian said"


time for changes in N America


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
 

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
10,180
Tokens
game on.....:)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...urges-limits-to-sugar-intake/article20505863/





'Mounting research has linked even moderate amounts of sugar consumption to heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other major health problems

The Heart and Stroke Foundation is urging the federal government to reconsider its position and take a tougher stand by adopting its and the WHO’s recommended sugar limits. It’s also asking the food industry to consider the evidence linking sugar to chronic disease and reformulate products to have reduced sugar content'
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Here’s how to save America $250 billion: Rep. Tim Ryan

Diet-related health conditions cost the United States $250 billion annually, self-reported weight in the U.S. is now 20 pounds higher than it was in 1990 and half of all Americans are expected to have diabetes or pre-diabetes by 2020. Food is clearly a problem in the U.S., and a costly problem at that. That’s why Congressman Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) wrote “The Real Food Revolution,” where he outlines what he believes is wrong with our food system and how we can correct it.

“When you think about how we’re going to fund Medicare and Medicaid and how private businesses will be able to fund healthcare if half the country has diabetes, it becomes unsustainable,” says Rep. Ryan. “It’s something we need to address if we want a vibrant workforce.”

Three-quarters of all processed food in the U.S. has added sugar to it, and American children see around 13 ads for sugary foods each day.

If the obesity epidemic continues at its current rate, American children could be the first generation of people to live a shorter lifespan than their predecessors. “I don’t think that’s a legacy we want to leave,” says Rep. Ryan.

But how does a country change its eating habits on a fundamental level?

Rep. Ryan believes the way to retool the system is by funding and supporting urban agriculture, subsidizing farmers who produce fruits and vegetables and creating markets for local growers. Ryan also believes that schools need to make changes.

“There should be a garden in every schoolyard, a kitchen in every school and a salad bar in every cafeteria so we can begin to teach our young people how to eat,” he says.

Of course, changing the agricultural industry isn’t easy. Agribusiness lobbyists have spent over $63 million so far this year and have contributed quite a bit to the campaigns of house members, including $694,007 to Ohio representative John Boehner. Going against big agriculture seems a bit like David going up against Goliath.

“A lot of people want to throw farmers under the bus on this,” says Ryan. “But farmers are doing what their incentives are, to grow the big row crops like wheat, corn and soy. They have mortgages, they have big investments and kids in college. They’re business people. We have to reduce the risk for farmers.” Ryan wants to create a market with public institutions purchasing fruit and vegetables from local farms; he also wants to help aid farms that switch from row crops to less profitable but healthier crops.

“Shifting farm subsidies,” towards supporting healthier crops “will reduce expenditures,” says Ryan. “It will bring down costs for Medicare and Medicaid.”

Ryan disagrees with those who might say that with the threats of ISIS, Ebola and more this isn’t a good time to talk about food.

“The most important thing in the U.S. is a vibrant economy because we need to fund all of these military operations that we have going on,” says Ryan. “We need to fund the Center for Diseases Control, we need to do research on Ebola at the National Institutes of Health and you better have revenue coming into the coffers.” He believes we’re wasting a large amount of money for diet-related diseases which is costing the government not only money but also productivity.

“If we want to be a strong country then we’ve got to have strong people,” he says.
 

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
10,180
Tokens
with research showing chronic excess refined carbs associated with diabetes, heart disease, and obesity it's no wonder science is now showing its effect of inflammation via chronic high blood sugar can target another organ of the body-- the brain. Dr Perelmuter is a MD, a neuroloist and Fellow of the American College of Nutrition. A rare bird. I've edited the article, :), can read in full from link.

...........some revelations :)

Several years ago my family’s beloved terrier, Teako, began losing his fur, so my wife and I took him to the veterinarian. The first question the vet asked was simply, “What are you feeding your dog?” I was struck by this question. After all, it’s fairly unusual for a doctor to ask an ailing human patient, “What are you eating?”
Most people might be taken aback by such an inquiry. They expect queries about their medications and symptoms, not their dietary choices. And, yet, as I explained in my previous book, Grain Brain, what we eat is the most important decision we make every day in terms of health and our ability to resist and combat disease.
I believe that the standard American diet, which is high in carbohydrates and low in fat, is at the root of many of the modern scourges linked to the brain, including chronic headaches, insomnia, anxiety, depression, epilepsy, movement disorders, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s.
The idea that our brains are sensitive to what we eat has been quietly circulating in our most prestigious medical literature recently. While it’s common knowledge now that “heart smart” diets can help support the cardiovascular system, we are just starting to learn that what we put in our mouths can similarly affect our brains’ health — for better or worse.

Recently, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study showing that the costs for dementia care in 2010 were estimated to be as high as $200 billion, far outpacing expenses related to heart disease and cancer. By some estimates, 2.7 million Alzheimer’s patients in America today might not have developed this disease if only they had learned that food matters.


[h=2]Inflammation: The Silent Killer[/h]As a practicing neurologist, I’ve dealt with a wide array of brain disorders for more than 30 years. Unfortunately, I work in a medical system that’s still trying to treat patients with strong drugs rather than by focusing on disease prevention. In today’s world, we’re told that we can live our lives however we like, and then, if our health is affected, we just turn to our doctors to provide us with “magic pills.”
These drugs focus squarely on symptoms (in addition to altering the natural chemistry of the body and causing many side effects). They basically treat the smoke while ignoring the fire — in this case, inflammation.
Researchers have known for some time that the essence of all degenerative conditions, including brain disorders, is inflammation. In other words, the inflammatory process that’s involved in the degeneration of your arthritic knee or your coronary arteries is the same one that leads to the deterioration of the human brain. But until now, scientists didn’t know what triggered that inflammation.
To me and many of my forward-thinking colleagues, it has become clear that gluten (a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye) and a high-carbohydrate diet are among the most prominent stimulators of brain-based inflammation.
It has become clear that gluten (a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye) and a high-carbohydrate diet are among the most prominent stimulators of brain-based inflammation.


Digestive disorders and food allergies are relatively easy to spot because symptoms such as gas, bloating, pain, constipation, and diarrhea emerge relatively quickly. But the brain is a more complex organ. It could be enduring assaults at a molecular level without your feeling it. Unless you’re nursing a headache or managing an obvious neurological problem, it can be difficult to know what’s going on in your brain until it’s too late.
The upside is that our food choices can directly affect inflammation. And when you consider inflammation’s role in cancer, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and virtually every other chronic condition common in Western cultures, the implications of what you eat are nothing short of life changing.


[h=2]The Blood-Sugar Connection[/h]If you live to be 85 years old, and you do nothing to change your risk for brain disease today, you have a 50/50 chance of developing Alzheimer’s disease. That’s a mere flip of a coin. If you have a family history of Alzheimer’s, your risk is dramatically increased. And if you’re a type 2 diabetic, your liability doubles.
Many doctors are now actually referring to Alzheimer’s as “type 3 diabetes.” The idea that your risk for Alzheimer’s is tied to diabetes may seem inconceivable at first. But it makes sense when you consider the relationship between these two ailments.
Diabetes is characterized by elevated blood sugar. And elevated blood sugar is directly toxic to brain cells. In fact, in a recent report in the top journal Neurology, researchers found that higher blood-sugar levels translate directly to more aggressive brain shrinkage, specifically in areas that determine our cognitive and memory function.
There’s no question that your blood-sugar levels are a reflection of your consumption of carbohydrates and sugars. This knowledge is what informs every recipe in my book.
In order to achieve ideal blood-sugar levels, you need to cut back on many carbohydrates, especially plain sugar, foods that contain starches (such as breads, pastas, and potatoes), and the liquid sugar found in juices and sodas. (A 12-ounce glass of orange juice contains up to 10 teaspoons of sugar, about the same found in a can of cola.)
Fruit also represents a significant source of carbohydrates. It’s perfectly fine to have a handful of blueberries or an apple a day, but the four to six servings that are often recommended by “health experts” may wreak havoc with your body’s ability to process sugar.
Our goal is to keep total carbs at or below 60 to 80 grams per day.


[h=2]Why Fat Can Make You Smart[/h]If there’s one thing about my diet protocol that sets it apart from others, it’s that it derives a lot of flavors from fat. That’s right: fat. Along with a substantial reduction in carb consumption, the best thing you can do for your brain is to eat wonderful, healthful, life-sustaining fat.
Dietary fat, demonized over the last several decades, is actually a superfuel for the brain. A 2012 report from the Mayo Clinic published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease showed that the risk of dementia was reduced by an astounding 44 percent in people eating a high-fat, low-carb diet. Those favoring the most carbs in their diet actually experienced an increased risk for dementia — by a whopping 89 percent.
Now, not all fats are created equal. You shouldn’t be eating any trans fats or cooking with highly processed, industrial vegetable oils.


For years, we’ve shied away from fat, including saturated fat, under the misguided idea that dietary fat leads to cardiovascular disease.
The truth is that we’ve been eating saturated fat for more than 2 million years. And the science is now showing that sugar and other carbs — not saturated fat — are the true culprits when it comes to heart disease.
In fact, the best lab test to determine your health status is not cholesterol levels; it’s hemoglobin A1c, a snapshot of your average blood-sugar level over the previous three months. The higher your A1c level — regardless of cholesterol — the higher your risk for brain disease.


https://experiencelife.com/article/overcoming-grain-brain/
 

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
10,180
Tokens
to quickly review the soda companies concede their product involvement in the sad rise of global obesity ;

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-soda-companies-to-cut-calories-by-20-percent-by-2025-in-us-2014-9


The largest soda makers in the United States promised on Tuesday to cut the calories in soft drinks nationwide by 20 percent by 2025.
The pledge, announced at the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting, follows an agreement between the American Beverage Association, an industry trade group that includes companies like Coca-Cola Co, PepsiCo Inc, and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc, and the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, founded by the American Heart Association and the Clinton Foundation


so here's their idea, one of them for now..... :)

make smaller cans , which is cool (less volume less sugar) , BUT charge the consumer more money for it! You pay for moderation, :) hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........are they insane?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/maki...-see-way-to-grow-in-shrinking-sodas-1.2187075


NEW YORK -- Americans want to cut back on soda, and they're willing to pay more to do it.
With people drinking less soda amid health concerns, Coke and Pepsi are pushing smaller cans and bottles that contain fewer calories and, they say, induce less guilt. That all comes at a price: Those cute little cans can cost more than twice as much per ounce.




During a presentation in November, Coke's North American president Sandy Douglas said the health and wellness trend has set up "a tremendous opportunity for the Coca-Cola brand with our smaller packages."
He noted a regular 12-ounce can of Coke on average sell for 31 cents. By comparison, a 7.5-ounce mini-can sells for 40 cents. That translates to 2.6 cents-per-ounce for a regular can, versus 5.3 cents-per ounce for the mini version.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
(Bloomberg) -- Obesity is weighing on the U.S. economy.

As a panel of scientists considers ways to help Americans trim down, unpublished research shows medical expenses linked to being extremely overweight have skyrocketed. Experts say the damage is augmented by reduced productivity, wider gender and income inequality, higher transportation costs, and spending all day posting at Rx from your igloo.

While the biggest consequence is still on an individual’s well-being, “there are some significant economic costs associated with obesity,” said Ross Hammond, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “Unfortunately, it’s not an outcome that’s rare anymore.”

Some 35.7 percent of Americans 20 to 74 years old were obese in the period from 2009 to 2012, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. That’s up from 31.1 percent a decade earlier and 13.3 percent in 1960-1962. The CDC considers adults obese when their body mass index, which takes into account weight and height, is 30 or higher.

As a result, there is growing urgency to come up with plans to check the trend. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the panel of scientists that counsels government agencies, last month recommended that sugary drinks and foods be taxed to reduce their consumption. The report, released Feb. 19, went on to advise that the revenue generated could be used to promote healthier behavior or subsidize the cost of fruits and vegetables.

“This really is a situation that’s beyond business as usual,” said Walter Willett, a professor and chairman of the department of nutrition at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts. “We have to think about serious interventions that go beyond the norm.”

Unaddressed, the costs could continue to mount, with health-care expenses being the most direct economic consequence.

Widespread obesity raised medical-care costs by $315.8 billion in 2010, according to John Cawley, an economics professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. That amounted to about $3,508 a year for each obese person, the latest available data showed. The expenses, which include doctors’ appointments, hospital stays, prescription drugs and home health care, were up 48 percent from 2005’s $213 billion after adjusting for inflation, the researchers found.

The findings, to be published later this year in the journal PharmacoEconomics, represent the combined work of fellow researchers Chad Meyerhoefer, Adam Biener, Mette Hammer and Neil Wintfeld.

Chronic illnesses linked to obesity, such as diabetes and heart disease, as well as stroke and cancer, are expensive to treat, Cawley said. Moreover, the costs are usually paid by private and public health insurance, meaning that leaner people are subsidizing those with less healthy diets, he said. “All of us are paying these costs.”

While such spending doesn’t directly reduce economic growth, it does represent a shift in priorities toward health care and away from things such as business investment in other industries that could boost output down the road.

Obesity also poses problems in less direct ways. Excessive fat is correlated with an increase in absenteeism from work because of health issues, said Tatiana Andreyeva, director of economic initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut in Hartford.

That costs the nation about $8.65 billion a year, Andreyeva found with fellow researchers Joerg Luedicke and Y. Claire Wang. Obese employees miss an extra 1.1 to 1.7 days of work a year compared to their normal-weight counterparts.

“The employee is most likely getting paid for it, but there was no work done on it, and there was a cost to the employer,” Andreyeva said. Diminished productivity is a major source of drag on the economy as it leads to higher production costs and a less competitive workforce, she said.

That could worsen a recent slowing in efficiency as the 18-month economic slump that ended in June 2009 prompted companies to curb spending on more sophisticated machinery and time-saving devices such as faster computers that help boost productivity. Output per hour has climbed by an average 1.3 percent a quarter since the recession ended, compared with 3 percent in the decade through 2005.

On an individual level, obesity also can limit how much workers earn and what types of occupations they take on, research shows. Morbidly obese women, or those with a body mass index greater than 40, in occupations that involve interacting with other people will earn about 5 percent less than their normal-weight counterparts, according to a study by Jennifer Shinall, an assistant professor at the Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee.

That more than offsets a wage premium that generally exists in such fields, Shinall found.

Furthermore, obesity’s effects may fall disproportionately on those who can least afford it, Shinall said. Minority and less-educated workers are more likely to be overweight, compounding the wage difference that already exists for those groups in the workforce, she said.

Black workers -- almost 1.5 times as likely to be obese as white employees -- in full-time jobs reported median earnings of $263 a week in the fourth quarter, according to data from the Labor Department. That compares with $349 for whites.

The costs of obesity also manifest themselves in less obvious ways. Heavier people use more gasoline and jet fuel to move from place to place and require the support of stronger infrastructure.
More Gasoline

As many as one billion additional gallons of gasoline are consumed each year transporting overweight and obese Americans, according to research from Sheldon Jacobson and Douglas King at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. That would amount to about $2.5 billion, according to the average cost of regular gasoline as of March 3.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture will host a public meeting this month on the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s recommendations, and will accept comments though April 8. The resulting policy document -- the eighth edition of Dietary Guidelines for Americans -- is expected to be published by the agencies toward the end of 2015.

The taxation lever isn’t a cure-all for the obesity problem, Cornell’s Cawley said, since consumers may just substitute one unhealthy product for another. And some early efforts to curb consumption, such as the 16-ounce limit on soft drinks sold in restaurants and movie theaters backed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP, have failed at ballot boxes or in courtrooms.

“It’s a misreading of the evidence to think that a modest tax on a narrow category of food or drinks would have a substantial impact on calories or weight,” Cawley said. “It would probably have to be a broader and bigger tax to really change people’s behavior, and I don’t know whether that’s politically feasible.”

Nonetheless, in combination with other policies such as increasing physical activity and improving access to quality food, a multifaceted approach that includes a financial lever could make a difference, Harvard’s Willett said.

An obesity rate of less than 5 percent would be ideal, while one around 10 percent would be more realistic, he said. A genetic predisposition to being overweight afflicts only about 1 percent to 2 percent of the population, he said.

“It looks like we are starting to make a little dent in the problem, but we have a huge way to go,” Willett said. Obesity is “massively affecting our children and our future, shortening our lives, and the consequences are not trivial.”
 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
UPDATED: 20:08, 12 August 2014

According to WebMD, women should consume about 2,000 calories per day while men should have no more than 2,400.






article-2722815-2078C99000000578-6_634x450.jpg

+5


Biggest eaters: A new infographic shows how many calories residents of various countries eat per day, with the U.S. coming in first place at 3,770 calories, followed closely by Austria at 3,760



article-2722815-2078C99000000578-785_634x859.jpg


Compare and contrast: Another fascinating section of the chart shows how much 200 calories is worth in healthy foods compared to unhealthier ones
article-2722815-2078C99000000578-174_634x630.jpg


Good and bad: For instance, while it would take 570 grams of baby carrots to reach an intake of 200 calories, just 34 grams of fried bacon has the same calorific value



article-2722815-2078C99000000578-84_634x520.jpg

+5


Work out: The infographic also shows just how much physical activity it takes to burn 200 calories, with some surprising results


article-2722815-2078C99000000578-822_634x710.jpg

+5


Unreliable: Be wary of relying too heavily on machines at the gym; exercise machines reportedly overestimate calories burned by 19per cent on average


 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Last sentence in first paragraph of post #32 is proof nobody reads articles posted in here.
 

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
10,180
Tokens
nah, i got it. :). Thks for posting the article Scott , was a good read. Not a fan of this 'tax sugary foods and drinks' as a deterrent . Nonsense, insulting. If they are serious, they wage war with the food/drink producers -- to DECREASE sugar amts in drinks, set limits. and/or consider sugar substitutes. Furthur research into the polyols ?
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,656
Tokens
Saw the movie after I downloaded it. Pretty good, I think it was smart to take the conversation in a different direction than the GMO/Monsanto are evil route that has been more prevalent the last few years. The real issue is too many people are eating terrible food, not that they are eating chickens shotup with antibiotics and raised in bad conditions.

Other than raise awareness there really isn't much you can do. Not like we're gonna tax a can of soda like we tax a pack of cigs.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
Testosterone 'could prevent heart and diabetes deaths'

James GallagherHealth editor, BBC News website, San Diego

_81628526_sb10063522o-001.jpg



Boosting men's testosterone levels could potentially reduce deaths from heart disease and type 2 diabetes, UK doctors and scientists say.


A team in Sheffield has shown the sex hormone has a "major impact" on the way sugar and fat are handled by the body.


At the Endocrine Society's annual meeting, they said low testosterone was common in type 2 diabetes.


Experts said the field was being "turned upside down" as testosterone was previously considered a villain.
It was thought to explain why men are more prone to heart disease. There are also concerns about the damaging impact of testosterone, as seen in bodybuilders who abuse the hormone.




Fatty issue

Type 2 diabetes is often related to obesity. Piling on the pounds has a negative impact on testosterone as the fat launches a twin attack on the hormone.


It releases chemical signals to reduce production and it actively breaks down the hormone into oestrogen.
A fifth of people with type 2 have symptoms of low testosterone affecting mood, energy and sexual performance, the researchers said.


Dr Daniel Kelly, of the University of Sheffield, won the Endocrine Society's presidential award for the findings he presented at the conference.


He used testosterone-deficient mice to show that the hormone was heavily involved in how sugar and fat were processed.


With no testosterone, the liver and muscles were less able to take up sugar, and fat was diverted from under the skin to clog up the liver and arteries.





Dr Kelly told the BBC News website: "We know men with low testosterone are at greatly increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease as well."


His findings start to explain why, as well as suggesting that hormone replacement therapy to restore testosterone to its normal level or "physiological window" could improve health.


"It's detrimental to have testosterone levels that are too low, but if we go above the physiological window then there are effects there as well, so it would require careful monitoring," Dr Kelly added.





Massive burden
Prof Hugh Jones, a consultant physician at Barnsley Hospital who was also involved in the work, describes diabetes as the "cancer of the 21st century" that is going to be a "massive" burden on healthcare systems.
He said: "What we're trying to show is that testosterone significantly affects the way sugars and fats are used within the body and has a positive effect when you return testosterone to normal.


"If studies do show that replacing testosterone to normal is safe, and that is key, then it would increase the lifespan of many men."


The research, however, missed out on half the population. No-one is contemplating testosterone therapy in women as it would lead to masculinisation.
How similar biological processes are controlled in women has not yet been uncovered, although a prominent role for oestrogen is suspected.





'Replacement therapy'
Prof Ashley Grossman, an endocrinologist at the University of Oxford, said: "We used to think that testosterone was one of the 'bad guys' and accounted for the adverse metabolic phenotype of men compared to women, and their tendency to more heart disease.
"Now the field is turned upside down as testosterone is seen to have majorly positive effects.


"However, there is a commercial push for older men to have testosterone replacement therapy, and there is some scepticism among clinicians that this is more financially rather than clinically driven.


"Nevertheless, these data do suggest that very low levels of testosterone in ageing males might not be good."

 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
As this shocking graphic reveals, millions of us are unwittingly eating everyday foods packed with sugar - and getting fatter in the process. While some culprits, such as Coca-Cola and ice cream are well known (and used here for comparison purposes), there are many other less obvious foods - such as pasta sauce, soup and so-called healthy granola - that are loaded with the white stuff. For example, a 500g jar of Dolmio bolognaise sauce contains more than six cubes of sugar - the same as a Mars bar. Meanwhile Heinz tomato soup is on par with Bulmer's cider in the sweetness stakes, with five cubes.Even a 'healthy' fruit such as a mango contains nine cubes.
 

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
10,180
Tokens
it's added to everything beets, EVERYTHING. Sugar is addictive. It pleases the pleasure centers of the brain. 2 out of 3 Americans are either overweight or OBESE, sadly health agencies appear to be failing in their fight vs rising percentage of 'fatties'. Collateral damage ? massive health care costs :)

as a recall WHO recommends the average diet take in 10% limit of caloric intake of 'free' sugars. That is added sugar. The data on sugars effect on heart disease, metabolic syndrome and obesity is conclusive. Keys lipid hypothesis was wrong, we know this now. It's time for govt agencies to have balls and change recommendations. The American Heart Association statement is below

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.pdf




wouldnt it be 'fair' for food companies to have to list on product packaging the AMOUNT OF ADDED SUGAR ? This way the informed consumer can decide between products. Logical, no?


well, the world ain't rational.....

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sugar-limits-20150317-story.html

Of all the issues the Obama administration is grappling with, a modest redesign of what food labels say about sweeteners might not have seemed among the more controversial. But ever since First Lady Michelle Obama unveiled the plan last year, a lobbying frenzy has ensued.
The objections have come not only from candy makers and bottlers of soft drinks.
The governor of Massachusetts implored the administration to rethink its proposal. The governor of Wisconsin protested too. So did the government of Australia, which warned the move could violate international trade agreements.
The proposal being considered by the Food and Drug Administration would add a new line to labels on packaged products noting how many teaspoons of sugar had been added.


The furor over the idea reveals the extent to which extra sugar is infused into even the most unlikely foods and the concerns that manufacturers have about consumers finding out. The FDA has received 287,889 public comments on the plan, including many from major food companies and trade associations.
Nutrition advocates say the strong reaction shows just how much is at stake.
"They know this will impact how people choose their products, and that terrifies them," said Renee Sharp, director of research for the Environmental Working Group, one of several advocacy groups campaigning for the label change.
But food industry representatives say the proposal is unwarranted. Current labels disclose the total amount of sugar in a product, combining what occurs naturally in a food and what is added during processing. Sugar is sugar, and no evidence justifies singling out one type for added labeling requirements, industry officials say.


"The lack of science to justify 'added sugar' labeling sets an alarming precedent," the president of the Sugar Assn., Andrew Briscoe, wrote the administration. (LMFAO!!!!!!!!!! get atta here ya bum... what r you REALLY afraid of? ):)
Opponents warn of a slippery slope that starts with sugar but doesn't end there. Any number of ingredients could be targeted next as a de facto warning to consumers, they say.
The issue has taken on outsized importance for the administration as well. Diet is a signature issue for the first couple, and food labels that could tell consumers more about what they're eating are a legacy the Obamas would like to leave along with the White House vegetable garden.
Dessert makers are but a sliver of the coalition opposed to added label mandates.


"Consumers already have the information they need to make healthy dietary choices," the Dairy Institute of California wrote in lengthy objections to the administration's plan. Among the trade association's many warnings to the FDA is that coveted trade secrets of the flavored-milk industry would be disclosed if dairies were forced to reveal how many teaspoons of sugar were added to each carton.
The loudest alarm is being rung by the cranberry industry, which over the summer enlisted Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and then-Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat. The governors wrote the FDA that forcing disclosure of the added sugar in cranberry products would be unfair because, unlike other fruits, cranberries are so bitter that they are unpalatable without it.
The Campbell Soup Co. argued that revealing how much sugar they pour into their cans could help make Americans more obese.


"Such information could confuse consumers by taking their focus off of calories," the company's director of regulatory affairs wrote to the agency.
Another of the dozens of companies calling on the FDA to scrap the sugar plan is the Roman Meal Co., which makes whole-grain breads. The American Nutrition Society also joined the fight. Its sustaining partner donors include Kellog Co., Coca-Cola and Dannon.
Nutrition advocates say the uproar only bolsters their argument that unhealthy amounts of sweeteners are infiltrating unlikely corners of the food supply.
"That one line on a label seems like a small thing," said Deborah Bailin, an analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "But not having it covers up a very big fact that the food industry does not want people to know."
"Things they want you to think are healthy are full of sugar."

When the Environmental Working Group analyzed 80,000 food products, it found that 58% had extra sugar added. That included even most deli meats on supermarket shelves.
"I was shocked," Sharp said. "I mean, it's turkey. Why is there sugar in it?"
The FDA says its only agenda is transparency. But for advocacy groups, the effort is part of a crusade to get companies to lower the sugar content of products. They are pleased to see so many food manufacturers warn that additional disclosure would prompt consumers to stop buying products with so much added sugar.
On that point, at least, the food industry and nutrition advocates agree: What starts as simply a move for transparency could evolve into something more.


"When you pick up a bottle of salad dressing, you can already see there are 47 different kinds of sugar in it," said Baylen Linnekin, executive director of the Washington-based Keep Food Legal Foundation. "By forcing what amounts to an added-sugar warning on the label, the government is attempting to skew consumer demand."
He warned of what could come next.
"Look at transfats," he said. "First there was a requirement they be labeled. Now the FDA is moving to ban them."
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
I thought I was safe from weight gain on the Pussy Diet.
Then I read researchers discovered it was 38 calories a lick.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,967
Messages
13,575,619
Members
100,888
Latest member
bj88gameslife
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com