More From Captain Obvious
A new medical study proves that eating fast food and watching too much TV increase the likelihood of obesity in whites.
Bulletin from the medical front: Eating fast food and sitting for hours in front of the television are really terrible for the waistline.As obvious as this might sound, there has been little firm scientific data to prove the point, especially about fast food. But a large study released today shows how bad super-sized burgers and nonstop tube time can be for health.
I hate to differ (ok, I really don't), but there has long been firm scientific data to prove the point. It is actually unnecessary to test every food known to man to draw a causal link between it and weight. We know for a scientific fact that eating 3,500 calories more than you require to maintain your current weight will cause you to gain one pound. We also know that exercising burns calories and that weight-bearing exercise increases the metabolism. Fast food is high in calories. Combine that with watching 2 1/2 or more hours of TV a day, which leaves no real time for exercise (and burning some of those excess calories), and, amazingly, people who regularly partake in eating fast food and watching 2 1/2 hours of TV a day will gain weight. Wow.
The study did turn up one thing which is not immediately obvious - that eating a lot of fast food is not linked to poor health in blacks. However, upon more thought, that is not terribly surprising either. We know that a greater percentage of blacks live near or below the poverty line than whites. People who live near or below the poverty line tend to eat cheaper foods, which are generally higher in carbohydrates. Put it all together, and you get that whites probably are eating healthier, lower calorie meals when they cut out the fast foods, whereas blacks are probably still eating cheaper, higher calorie meals anyway. Perhaps a more useful study would be about the eating habits of whites and blacks in general with an eye towards helping Americans eat better overall.
Via The Daily Pundit
Comments
But but but...
I thought those high carb diets were supposed to be better for us because they were lower in calories and fat.
At least, that's what the heart quacks have been peddling the last couple of decades.
Posted by: Bill Quick | March 10, 2003 12:09 AM
Bill, that is like so 5 years ago!
Posted by: Lesley | March 10, 2003 01:42 PM
5 years ago? Watch the latest and greatest fads of the next few years. Fad diets seem to follow a 7 year cycle, and the Atkins high fat diet is starting to take the hits it so richly deserves. High carb diets may be on their way back
Michael Fumento took on Atkins, no Gary Taubes and his espousal of the Atkins diet recently.
Reason Mag, Big Fat Fake http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml
And the rebuttal
http://www.reason.com/0303/taubes.shtml
I wonder if a diet will ever come out that really works? Moderation in intake & excercise.
Posted by: Justin | March 10, 2003 06:25 PM
I've always thought it interesting how in the 'old days' (say, pre-1960-ish), people didn't diet...they just ate.
They ate butter, eggs, cream, and drank whole milk. They ate bread and potatoes and gravy and red meat. They ate in order to satisfy hunger, not out of boredom or to fill an emotional void. They didn't concern themselves with the consequences; I'm not sure they realized there were any to worry about. Now, I don't know the stats on heart disease, high blood pressure, or cancers of various types that were prevalent then vs. now, but I'd wager that they were not anywhere near the levels found today.
So what's different? Offhand, I can think of these things:
1) Food products then didn't contain chemical preservatives, growth-enhancing hormones, or pesticides.
2) Meals were prepared at home, from fresh ingredients; many times with vegetables that were home grown. Fast food hadn't become an alternative to home-cooking.
3) The lifestyle then was anything but sedentary.
So.....you could have your cake and eat it, too.
I don't know if it's possible to remove the chemical preservatives, growth-enhancing hormones, and pesticides from the food chain at this point. Both the soil and water supplies are compromised. The best thing the scientific researchers could do for the world is find a way to eliminate these and for us to be able to consume pure, unadulterated food for once.
Posted by: Tricia | March 11, 2003 02:54 AM
Justin - Atkins is actually a dangerous diet, IMO. It definitely deserves to take some hits. His original diet was really bad for you. Truth is, you need carbs to break down the ketones in the protein. While being in ketosis for short periods of time will cause you to lose weight quickly, ketones are toxic to the system. Without the carbs to break them down, they will, eventually, poison you. That is why he had to modify his original diet to eventually add back carbs.
Missus - All true. The only thing I would add is that ideas of what was thin then were different. You could eat a normal diet and be a normal size. The waif-like look wasn't in. Historically the relationship between weight and the state of the economy has been inverse. In boom times, thin is in. In bad times, fatter is in. Nowadays we know the health risks of being overweight, so I don't think we'll ever see a return to the days of the Rubens models. This does, however, lead to the ideal thin being thinner than in the past.
Posted by: Lesley | March 11, 2003 06:37 AM
Tricia,
one of the reasons we seem to see more heart desease and cancer and other health problems is that we are living long enough to actually contract the deseases. Way back in the (not so) good old days life expectancies were shorter due to many factors. Now we live long enough for our bodies to wear out. The risks associated with the pesticides, chemicals and hormones are insignificant when compaired to many other risks we willingly subject ourselves to. Driving for instance. Not excercising. Eating a milkyway instead of a pesticide treated apple.
In addition we have an aging population who pays attention to news and (pseudo news) stories about age related health problems, the network programmers know this and cater to the market.
The level of chemicals on our food are insignificant especially if weighed against the nutritional benefits of the food, if prepared properly and eaten in appropriate quantities.
Posted by: Justin | March 11, 2003 04:35 PM