Mass in Motion
Sandy at Junk Food Science has a great article about a new tax waster [or waister, if you will] in Massachusetts, called Mass in Motion. It's $750,000 in grants for wellness programs. Remember, this is the state which has sent Barney Frank to Congress year after year to supervise Fannie Mae. If employers can tap you on the shoulder and coerce you into a "lifestyle management program" can voters suggest that some of the Congress need to lose pork in order to be returned to Washington?I'm no expert on weight loss, but some of the things in the "tool kit" have already been judged in peer reviewed research to have little affect in long term weight loss--such as Weight Watchers
- There was no difference between the low-carbohydrate approach of Atkins, the high-protein low-glycemic load approach of the Zone diet, the very low-fat approach of Ornish, and the low-calorie/portion-size approach of Weight Watchers, according to a 2005 study published in JAMA
These type of grants (the $750,000 to Massachusetts) are ubiquitous--the only surprise is that it is so modest. They are everywhere, especially from HHS and USDA which props up our farmers, and the private foundations; it keeps the grant writers busy and the bureaucrats and lawyers employed. They often go hand-in-hand with greenies and vegan wannabees--so you throw in a few million for bike lanes, redesigned housing complexes, and community gardens. Mike Huckabee may be one of our most famous former fatties, and he put Arkansas on a diet because it worked positive results for him. The results are quite mixed, and Sandy also reported on this two years ago. There was an increase in underweight children, and the percentage of overweight and at risk African American girls significantly increased as they grew.
I can't prove it, but I'm guessing if you chart the huge weight gains of Americans and the rise in diabetes and other obesity related health problems, you might track it back to government interference 30-40 years ago with our food commodities like corn and sugar. When I was growing up we had real sugar in Coca-cola and candy bars, and I sure didn't see so many obese people. Our legislators and regulators, probably after a few hearings before Congress, slapped tariffs on imported sugar (because it was bad for us and made us dependent on foreign imports), and then paid U.S. farmers to grow more corn to put high fructose corn syrup in everything from soup to soft drinks. And each generation got fatter. Anyone know where there's a chart?
We don't eat oil, but we're dependent on it for everything in our culture. The government has done the same thing in the name of being "independent of foreign oil" and going green. Then when the government botches it up and creates huge industries like carbon exchanges and ethanol that support their mistake, they can tax us again to try to correct it.
Posts
8 comments:
I've been hearing the 8 glases a day since I was a child in the 60's, so the bottled water theory is out the window. In addition, the link you provide simply refers to the myth of such quantities ingested being beneficial to one's health - not in whole as part of a weight loss effort.
You're not a research librarian, are you? Just a thought.
and of course you can't prove your theory - as you said, "When I was growing up we had real sugar in Coca-cola and candy bars, and I sure didn't see so many obese people."
You also had cars made out of thick steel and people licking lead-based paint off of houses, but that didn't make people skinny either.
The fact is this - more people are eating junk as regular food these days than ever before. Simple. Back in the day, a coke was a special treat. These days, it's normal for a lot of people to have a six-pack of cokes before they even get home from work.
I love your blog!
Actually, diabetes isn't increasing because of weight (weight gain is a symptom, BTW, not a cause), but a reflection of diagnosis and aging population. And, oh heavens, sweets don't cause diabetes! This is another one of those myths that seems to have a life of its own.
To my triplet Anons: I did expect readers to follow the links, or to google HFCS + diabetes or HFCS + obesity if they doubted my suggestion. One thing we know about research on food or health (caffeine, chocolate, supplements, water, etc.) is that next year the research will "prove" something else. The tool kit in the story includes: "on site healthy nutrition programs [this changes almost annually]; handouts that offer smiley faces or frowns for food and beverage choices, based on their calories, sugar, fat or salt content; the sample “Beverage Facts” sheet tells employees to carry a water bottle with them and drink 8 glasses of water a day;"
I drink water when I'm thirsty. Period. Now that the landfills are filling up with plastic bottles, this myth is being rethought. But Mass. hasn't caught on yet.
And I didn't say weight caused diabetes, and I don't believe childhood diabetes is a reflection of an aging population. Virtually every diabetic I know has been able to reduce meds or get off completely by changing their diet which reduces the weight.
The point of the entire blog is, do you want your employer making these decisions for you? So the doctor, spouse, mother, kids nagging didn't work, but your supervisor will have the magic touch complete with little rewards?
"HFCS is a sweetener found in many foods and beverages, including non-diet soda pop, baked goods, and condiments. It is has become the sweetener of choice for many food manufacturers because it is considered more economical, sweeter and more easy to blend into beverages than table sugar. Some researchers have suggested that high-fructose corn syrup may contribute to an increased risk of diabetes as well as obesity, a claim which the food industry disputes. Until now, little laboratory evidence has been available on the topic." Science Daily
"Until the 1970s most of the sugar we ate came from sucrose derived from sugar beets or sugar cane. Then sugar from corn--corn syrup, fructose, dextrose, dextrine and especially high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)--began to gain popularity as a sweetener because it was much less expensive to produce. High fructose corn syrup can be manipulated to contain equal amounts of fructose and glucose, or up to 80 percent fructose and 20 percent glucose. Thus, with almost twice the fructose, HFCS delivers a double danger compared to sugar. . .
In 1980 the average person ate 39 pounds of fructose and 84 pounds of sucrose. In 1994 the average person ate 66 pounds of sucrose and 83 pounds of fructose, providing 19 percent of total caloric energy. Today approximately 25 percent of our average caloric intake comes from sugars, with the larger fraction as fructose." Weston A. Price
Obese children also charts well with the rise of the current feminist movement.
Umm, Norma -- most of the money for the Mass In Motion grant program was raised from the major health foundations in the state. So much for "wasting" taxpayer money. Facts are such stubborn things.
Ah Pat, you need to learn the ropes. It's true foundations often test the waters--but that's just to launch a program that will be engorged with government money. Robert Woods Johnson is a good example. Pew is another. Government and non-profits and foundations regularly trade staff. It's life time employment.
Post a Comment