Senior Nutritionists Can Go To Hell

From Dick Puddlecote’s link tank,

Obesity: Selling smaller food portions could solve crisis, say scientists

Radical changes to the way food is served and sold in Britain in order to encourage smaller portion sizes will be needed to tackle the growing obesity crisis, senior nutritionists have warned.

Smaller servings in restaurants, take-aways and canteens, as well as smaller plates, cups and glasses and even smaller cutlery that hold daintier mouthfuls, can all help to prevent overeating, the scientists said.

Packaging sizes also need to be made smaller, with an end to price reductions on larger food and drink products. Typical food portions should revert to those commonly seen in the 1950s, before the era of “supersizing”, they said.

Studies have consistently shown that people consume significantly less food and drink when served smaller portions. The trend towards larger portions is considered to be a major factor in the obesity epidemic.

“The 1950s were healthier in part due to smaller food portions, packages and tableware prevalent at the time,” said Theresa Marteau, professor of behaviour and health at Cambridge University, who led the study.

The average size of portions, packages and tableware has increased significantly over the past 50 years, while the proportion of people diagnosed as overweight or obese has mushroomed, the scientists said.

Measures designed to eliminate larger portion sizes from the diet could reduce the average adult’s daily energy intake through food by between 12 and 16 per cent in Britain, according to the study, published in the British Medical Journal.

The 1940s and 1950s (an era of rationing in the UK, which continued after the war) are regularly given as shining ideals of when people lived oh-so-much ‘healthier’ lives. I remember it well (although not the rationing), as it was in this era that I grew up. Typical breakfast started with porridge oats swamped in milk and syrup, followed by bacon and eggs and tomatoes and black pudding and fried bread (known these days as a Heart-Attack-on-a-Plate), and followed by marmalade on buttered toast, all washed down with cups of hot sweet tea. Lunch a few hours later would be something like lamb chops with boiled potatoes and brussels sprouts and gravy, followed by apple pie and custard. Tea would be lots of cups of tea plus biscuits and cakes and toast and marmalade. And most adult males smoked, of course. These were the people who now live to over 80 or 90 years of age.

But we lived very active lives. The coal-fire-heated (lots of sooty smoke that would get blown back down the chimney on windy days) houses in which we lived were cold and draughty. And we walked for miles to shop or go to school.

I probably eat half of what we ate back then, given my car-borne life, and insulated and double-glazed, low-energy residence, which is mostly so warm that I don’t even bother to turn on any heating at all. If people have been getting fat, it’s probably because many of them don’t get enough exercise, and have stopped smoking.

People were thin back then. I remember my grandfather as a gaunt figure. And my mother was fairly skinny too. As was I. But nobody talked about a ‘Thin Plague’ or ‘Undernourishment Crisis’. Why not? Because it wasn’t a crisis or an epidemic. Epidemics are what happen when communicable diseases spread in communities. And if people now are a lot fatter than back then, it isn’t an ‘obesity epidemic’. Fatness isn’t a communicable disease.  And it isn’t a ‘crisis’ either.

What these interfering bastards want is the return of rationing. They’ll start out with demands for smaller plates and cups and glasses, but what will they do when people get round these mini-meals simply by ordering two or three of them? They’ll start demanding that people only be allowed one helping. They’ll demand rationing.

And it won’t be rationed lamb chops and eggs and bread and butter and marmalade and milk and sugar. None of those things will be obtainable (except from a black market). The government-approved healthy diet will be oats and rice and cabbages and turnips. And it will be rationed.

Who are all these self-appointed ‘experts’ and ‘scientists’? What makes them think that they know better than millions of people who have been cooking and eating for themselves, and smoking cigarettes, for their entire lives? I think it’s vast conceit of theirs to think they know what’s best for everybody else. Why can’t they just mind their own fucking business?

These ‘scientists’ and ‘senior nutritionists ‘ can all go to hell, as far as I am concerned. And so can the British Medical Journal.

 

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Senior Nutritionists Can Go To Hell

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    The Medicalizing of America

    Part I: The Numbers Game

    Medicalize: “To identify or categorize (a condition or behavior) as being a disorder requiring medical treatment or intervention,” American Heritage Dictionary.

    Responses to virtually all questions, medical and otherwise fall into two categories: 1. Those having a finite number of answers, including yes, no, or in-between, for example “are you hungry?” or “are you sick?” and 2. Questions having a range of answers or values. Biologic and other scientific measurements fall into this latter category and include such things as weight, age, height, blood pressure, blood chemical values, such as glucose, cholesterol, PSA, etc. Where we get into trouble is in deciding, particularly in medicine, what is indeed normal and what is not. No matter where we place the dividing line or cutoff point, we are faced with an irresolvable medical dilemma.

    If we make the cutoff between normal and abnormal too low, we include too many normal in the abnormal group (called false positives, a Type I error); if the cutoff is too high, we include an excess of abnormal in the normal group (false negatives, Type II error). In the first instance we call too many well people sick, and in the latter, too many sick people well. (We are assuming the spectrum of low to high corresponds to the range of normal to abnormal; sometimes this range is reversed.)

    Over the years, various cutoff points for normal values have been based on generally accepted statistical and common sense clinical grounds. For example we have “normal” values for fasting and non-fasting blood sugars, upon which the diagnosis of diabetes is based; the “normal” level for blood pressure, defining the condition, hypertension; cutoff points for weight, defining obesity; and “normal” levels of blood lipids (HDL,LDL and total cholesterol) which for some even define the presence of heart disease (sic!). In what appears as a fatally misguided hope of extending treatment benefits to as many citizens as possible, various professional societies as well as Government Agencies have indeed changed our definitions of disease with unforeseen consequences. Specifically, in the present climate of change driven by a perceived need to keep us healthy and long-lived, these cutoff points have been lowered progressively and so drastically as virtually to create a nation of patients.

    In a revealing article in Effective Clinical Practice (March/April 1999) Lisa M. Schwartz and Steven Woloshin conclude that the number of people with at least one of four major medical conditions (actually risk factors) has increased dramatically in the past decade because of changes in the definition of abnormality. Using data abstracted from over 20,700 patients included in this Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, the authors calculated the prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, elevated cholesterol, and being overweight under the old and the new definitions and calculated the net change (i.e., number of new cases). Here are the results reported in the above article.

    Diabetes:

    Old Definition: Blood sugar > 140 mg/dl
    People under old definition: 11.7 million
    New Definition: Blood sugar > 126 mg/dl
    People added under new definition: 1.7 million
    Percent increase: 15%

    The definition was changed in 1997 by the American Diabetes Association and WHO Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus.

    Hypertension:

    High blood pressure is reported as two numbers, systolic or peak pressure and diastolic pressure when heart is at rest) in mm Hg.

    Old Definition: cutoff Blood Pressure > 160/100
    People under old definition: 38.7 million
    New Definition: Blood Pressure > 140/90
    People added under new definition: 13.5 million
    Percent Increase: 35%

    The definition was changed in 1997 by U.S. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.

    Prehypertension, a new category created in 2003: blood pressure from 120/80 to 138/89 includes 45 million additional people! If one includes this category, we have a grand total of 97.2 million total numbers of hypertensives and prehypertensives (whatever that is).

    High (Total) Cholesterol:

    Old Definition: Cholesterol > 240 mg/dl total cholesterol
    People under old definition: 49.5 million
    New Definition: Cholesterol > 200 mg/dl total cholesterol
    People added under new definition: 42.6 million
    Percent increase: 86%

    The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.

    Overweight:

    Body Mass Index (BMI) is defined as the ratio of weight (in kg) to height (in meters) squared and is an inexact measure of body fat, though it supposedly establishes cutoff points of normal weight, overweight, and obesity.

    Old definition: BMI > 28 (men), BMI > 27 (women)
    People under old definition: 70.6 million
    New definition: BMI > 25
    People added under new definition: 30.5 million
    Percent Increase: 43%

    The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

    “The new definitions ultimately label 75 percent of the adult U.S. population as diseased,” conclude the two researchers. They add cautiously that “…the extent to which new ‘patients’ would ultimately benefit from early detection and treatment of these conditions is unknown. Whether they would experience important physical or psychological harm is an open question.”

    We seem to live in an equal opportunity consumer culture tyrannized by the fear of growing “epidemics” going by the leading risk brand names, High Blood Pressure, Obesity, Diabetes, and High Cholesterol. Just read the papers, peruse the Internet, or turn on your TV to learn what the Government watchdogs, the consensus insurgency, and the other image makers have to say about our disastrous state of health.

    Several related questions arise when we consider the implications of these new definitions of disease (actually disease risk-markers). First how did these official and semi-official watchdogs achieve their status of “guideline-makers,”who appoints them and why, and how powerful an influence do they wield in terms of medical practice? Finally, one has to wonder what is the rationale for adding over 86 million new “patients” (not counting 45 million “prehypertensives”) to our already staggering over-the-top healthcare cost.

    Coming soon, these and other issues will be examined in our next newsletter.

    Martin F. Sturman, MD, FACP

    Copyright 2005, Mathemedics, Inc.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Its simple Frank they just invent shit and make it up for whatever their hate goes to next.

    • Jonathan Bagley says:

      Thank you for those changes in definition. I knew something like that had gone on, but it’s useful to see it all written down in one place.

  2. jaxthefirst says:

    OT, Frank, but did you happen to hear on the radio about some dimwit killjoy (don’t know if it was an MP or some medical “expert” or another) who has suggested that it should be made illegal to buy an alcoholic drink for someone else if you think (or if they are obviously) drunk? It’s yet another angle of that slippery slope that all the Healthists still claim doesn’t exist, but in a direction that not a great many people comment on, i.e. that of incorporating into the law a newly-invented crime of “failing to prevent” another crime – thus effectively setting the precedent (through the backdoor, as it were) for one person to be punished for an offence committed by another person. Very dangerous, legally speaking, and I’m astonished that the legal profession haven’t kicked up a stink about it. Maybe they thought, like most of the population, that it was “OK, because it only applied to smoking.” Idiots. But we all knew better, though, didn’t we?

    And, of course, it would put an end to the almost-exclusively British culture of “buying rounds,” thus taking yet another step forward towards fulfilling one of the EU’s aims of erasing all traces of cultures which are unique and special to any one nation and thus steadily eroding any true sense of national identity.

    • waltc says:

      Look what’s already been done to France, and by the French themselves. Used to be a city of wine and smoke. Aside from the smoke ban, haven’t they also banned ads for alcohol aand any “public” speech that obliquely “promotes” the consumption thereof? We are all being homogenized.

  3. Tony says:

    In the 1960s and presumably for a long time before, people used to take slimming pills. I think they may have been prescription only but they were certainly very popular. Mainstream society popular that is, rather than counter culture.

    Known nowadays as amphetamines (or speed) they were banned in the UK in the 1970s (1971?). I think they were still legal in the US in the 1980s and perhaps they still are.

    Anyway, as far as I can remember, they were extremely effective for those who felt they needed to stay or become slim and presumably were enjoyed for their own sake too.

  4. waltc says:

    Don’t drop the plight of Sean Major like it’s just yesterday’s news. In the last thread Frank gave some email addresses to write to. Write. Too.

  5. Twisted Root says:

    It is surely time for proper scientists to form a union. When is the last time a nutritionist contributed anything of value, let alone advanced the sum of human knowledge beyond what your granny already knows? Most ‘studies’ seem to have no more value than a school science project. Tableware has increased in size since the 1950’s? I call bullshit. Shitty, bullshit non-science and nonsense. The result of prizes and pats on the head for all education.

  6. DICK R says:

    Is there nothing that these nannying arseholes don’t stick their noses into ?

  7. magnetic01 says:

    Note the date – 1911

    He Believes Americans Over-eat, Over-drink and Over-everything and Thereby Slowly Kill Themselves: “We Are A Nation of Suicides”, Says Dr. H.W. Wiley
    March 19, 1911

    SUICIDE is self-destruction. Then we are a nation of suicides, for we are continually destroying ourselves.
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9901E6D61331E233A2575AC1A9659C946096D6CF&scp=48&sq=California+smoking&st=p

  8. richard says:

    “None of those things will be obtainable (except from a black market).”
    Maybe, but maybe not! Watch this, it’s only a few minutes long but it doesn’t half make you think.

  9. richard says:

    Oops, ignore that, sorry, it’s this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUi479aWXHk

  10. nisakiman says:

    The government-approved healthy diet will be oats and rice and cabbages and turnips.

    Gawd, if it comes to that, complaints about the smell of tobacco smoke will evaporate. In fact it will probably become mandatory to smoke in ‘public places’ as a defence against the overpowering aroma of sulphurous methane. Which of course will exacerbate the global warming ‘problem’, so we’ll have the warmists wanting to ban cabbage and turnips too…

  11. slugbop007 says:

    ‘Fatness isn’t a communicable disease. And it isn’t a ‘crisis’ either.’

    Although tobacco smoke is a non-communicable disease it is considered a communicable disease.

  12. slugbop007 says:

    Speaking of Nutrition, this might not have come to your attention yet:
    FEAD = FEED THE EU POOR CAMPAIGN:
    CHANCE
    Homepage:
    http://www.chancefood.eu/
    CHANCE SUPER MEALS FOR THE POOR:
    http://www.eufic.org/article/en/page/FTARCHIVE/artid/CHANCE-project-develops-new-foods-tasty-more-nutritious-and-cheaper/
    Meals on Wheels for the poor of Europe:
    There are many items on these menus that have been identified as dangerous to human health in the past few years and months, including cheese (casein). I guess The WHO and the nutrionists union don’t speak to each to other very often. Very funny that.

    https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/opinion/eu-pushes-people-centred-response-extreme-poverty
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years
    http://www.scholarshipportal.com/articles/301/16-billion-euro-worth-of-scholarships-available-in-europe.html
    http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2832
    Dioxins and PCBs in Food and Feed – Europe 2012

    How can we have any health meals when food producing soils are laced with dioxins and PCBs?

  13. smokingscot says:

    O/T

    For those of us who felt disconcerted at the vote rigging that took place in Oldham, there’s rather good news in France where the FN – in the first round – has done spectacularly well.

    The run-off takes place next weekend and already the socialists have backed out in two regions so as to try to keep FN from some key ones.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/front-national-wins-opening-round-in-frances-regional-elections

    And those of us who were astonished at the Latvian governments decision to make smoking in front of children (especially your own) a criminal offence, well that government collapsed this morning. The headline reasons are in this article:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-07/latvian-government-falls-as-prime-minister-steps-down

    however I’d be surprised if some of the numbers seeking payback, notably on the one where the buck stops, included those affected by this extraordinary piece of legislation:

    http://www.euro.who.int/en/countries/latvia/news/news/2015/01/smoking-in-the-presence-of-a-child-is-regarded-as-a-physical-violence,-says-new-law-in-latvia

  14. scot says:

    It is already against the law to serve alcohol to someone inebriated, or for someone else purchasing alcohol for someone already drunk

  15. chris says:

    I wonder what the life expectancy was back in the good old days of thinness and smaller portions…

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s