What have we here? You mean the CDC (center for disease control)
made some miscalucation about the death rate caused by obesity?

Whoda thought that could happen.

nancy

On Wed 19 Jan 2005 06:34:39a, Nancy Young tittered and giggled, and giggled
and tittered, and finally blurted out...

> What have we here? You mean the CDC (center for disease control)
> made some miscalucation about the death rate caused by obesity?
>
> Whoda thought that could happen.
>
> nancy

I must have missed that. What's that all about?

Wayne

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed 19 Jan 2005 06:34:39a, Nancy Young tittered and giggled, and
> giggled
> and tittered, and finally blurted out...
>
>> What have we here? You mean the CDC (center for disease control)
>> made some miscalucation about the death rate caused by obesity?
>>
>> Whoda thought that could happen.

> I must have missed that. What's that all about?

It was just a blurb on the news on Good Morning America. No details, I'm
sure
we'll see more about that in the near future. It's just amusing to me,
another
example of the sky is falling, wait, no it isn't ... eggs are bad for you
.... wait,
eggs are good for you. It's as if they can't wait to deliver bad news
without
enough study of the subject.

nancy

On Wed 19 Jan 2005 07:00:37a, Nancy Young tittered and giggled, and giggled
and tittered, and finally blurted out...

>
> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed 19 Jan 2005 06:34:39a, Nancy Young tittered and giggled, and
>> giggled and tittered, and finally blurted out...
>>
>>> What have we here? You mean the CDC (center for disease control)
>>> made some miscalucation about the death rate caused by obesity?
>>>
>>> Whoda thought that could happen.
>
>> I must have missed that. What's that all about?
>
> It was just a blurb on the news on Good Morning America. No details, I'm
> sure
> we'll see more about that in the near future. It's just amusing to me,
> another
> example of the sky is falling, wait, no it isn't ... eggs are bad for you
> ... wait,
> eggs are good for you. It's as if they can't wait to deliver bad news
> without
> enough study of the subject.
>
> nancy

Gotcha, thanks. I always thought the egg thing was funny.

Wayne

I haven't seen the whole thread, but Nancy (I think) wrote:

> What have we here? You mean the CDC (center for disease
>control) made some miscalucation about the death rate caused by >obesity?

> Whoda thought that could happen.

Apologies in advance if I have misattributed.

So, is the drift that CDC hugely overstated or somewhat overstated?
Death rate is one issue. But persistent health issues for the living
are also an issue. And given all that has been posted in this group
about various iterations of low carbohydrate diets (Lord knows that
their partisans are nothing if not avid - almost as intense as BQ
people), I'm not yet ready to accept that weight/obesity issues
were a problem yesterday and are not a problem today. From
watching CNBC or C-SPAN, I see someone has a book or maga-
zine article with a title of "The Myth of Obesity" (or something like
that). This post prompts me to try to find and read it. I'll try to ap-
proach it with an open mind, but I start with a sense of skepticism.
Until demonstrated otherwise, I think that obesity remains an
issue for Americans (USAians, if you prefer).

Regards,

Kevin (who lives in Portland, OR, aka PDX)

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed 19 Jan 2005 07:00:37a, Nancy Young tittered and giggled, and
> giggled
> and tittered, and finally blurted out...

>> It was just a blurb on the news on Good Morning America. No details, I'm
>> sure
>> we'll see more about that in the near future. It's just amusing to me,
>> another
>> example of the sky is falling, wait, no it isn't ... eggs are bad for you
>> ... wait,
>> eggs are good for you. It's as if they can't wait to deliver bad news
>> without
>> enough study of the subject.

> Gotcha, thanks. I always thought the egg thing was funny.

Actually, it goes sorta back to something I've talked about in the past.
People from a certain country down under would troll us about our
weight, and my thing was ... exactly where are (whoever they are)
they (the people who study stuff like that) getting these statistics.
Like ... I don't know how much I weigh, they sure as hell don't.
I actually took to looking around to observe. Didn't seem to me
that 65% of people were obese.

That's why I thought it was funny that they miscalculated
something.

Then there is ... Americans eat 300 pounds of (whatever) a year.
Exactly how do you know this? I would sincerely like to see the
methodology behind this one. Say it's lettuce. I might buy that
much, are they there weighing the lettuce I wind up throwing out?
No. Because I bought a fast food burger and fries, do they know
I split it with the old man or just had a few bites and threw out
the rest? No. It's just a subject that amuses me. That's all.

nancy

On Wed 19 Jan 2005 09:22:02a, Nancy Young tittered and giggled, and
giggled and tittered, and finally blurted out...

>
> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed 19 Jan 2005 07:00:37a, Nancy Young tittered and giggled, and
>> giggled and tittered, and finally blurted out...
>
>>> It was just a blurb on the news on Good Morning America. No details,
>>> I'm sure we'll see more about that in the near future. It's just
>>> amusing to me, another example of the sky is falling, wait, no it
>>> isn't ... eggs are bad for you ... wait,
>>> eggs are good for you. It's as if they can't wait to deliver bad news
>>> without enough study of the subject.
>
>> Gotcha, thanks. I always thought the egg thing was funny.
>
> Actually, it goes sorta back to something I've talked about in the past.
> People from a certain country down under would troll us about our
> weight, and my thing was ... exactly where are (whoever they are)
> they (the people who study stuff like that) getting these statistics.
> Like ... I don't know how much I weigh, they sure as hell don't.
> I actually took to looking around to observe. Didn't seem to me
> that 65% of people were obese.
>
> That's why I thought it was funny that they miscalculated
> something.
>
> Then there is ... Americans eat 300 pounds of (whatever) a year.
> Exactly how do you know this? I would sincerely like to see the
> methodology behind this one. Say it's lettuce. I might buy that
> much, are they there weighing the lettuce I wind up throwing out?
> No. Because I bought a fast food burger and fries, do they know
> I split it with the old man or just had a few bites and threw out
> the rest? No. It's just a subject that amuses me. That's all.
>
> nancy

That's the trouble with "statistics" in general, don't you think? I mean,
when it comes to studying the populace, how can anyone know for sure what
people are "really" doing?

Wayne

"Kevintsheehy" > wrote in message
...
>I haven't seen the whole thread, but Nancy (I think) wrote:
>
>> What have we here? You mean the CDC (center for disease
>>control) made some miscalucation about the death rate caused by >obesity?
>
>> Whoda thought that could happen.
>
> Apologies in advance if I have misattributed.

You did fine. (laugh)

> So, is the drift that CDC hugely overstated or somewhat overstated?

You will have to read about it in the paper tomorrow or something.
Maybe the story is online somewhere. Probably.

> Death rate is one issue. But persistent health issues for the living
> are also an issue.

I am so seriously not disagreeing about that. Don't take it that way.

> watching CNBC or C-SPAN, I see someone has a book or maga-
> zine article with a title of "The Myth of Obesity" (or something like
> that). This post prompts me to try to find and read it.

I'd be happy if you report back on what it said. But I want you to
know that I never said there isn't an obesity problem. That wasn't
my point at all.

> I'll try to ap-
> proach it with an open mind, but I start with a sense of skepticism.
> Until demonstrated otherwise, I think that obesity remains an
> issue for Americans (USAians, if you prefer).

I SINCERELY do not prefer. Believe me.

My point was that there are agencies (whatever) that like to throw
around numbers they cannot support, and almost inevitably, it seems,
wind up modifying or retracting them. I'm tired of it.

nancy

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

>
> That's the trouble with "statistics" in general, don't you think? I mean,
> when it comes to studying the populace, how can anyone know for sure what
> people are "really" doing?
>
> Wayne

I gave up listening to that crap back sometime in the '70's when I heard
a report that you shouldn't eat bacon and have coffee during the same
meal as it could cause cancer. That was enough for me.

--
Steve

Every job is a self-portrait of the person who did it.
Autograph your work with excellence.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:22:02 -0500, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>Then there is ... Americans eat 300 pounds of (whatever) a year.
>Exactly how do you know this? I would sincerely like to see the
>methodology behind this one. Say it's lettuce. I might buy that
>much, are they there weighing the lettuce I wind up throwing out?
>No. Because I bought a fast food burger and fries, do they know
>I split it with the old man or just had a few bites and threw out
>the rest? No. It's just a subject that amuses me. That's all.

None of this is personal, it's all aggregate.

They know how much food is produced, usually to a high degree of accuracy
(because the food producers make a living at this, they know how much it
costs to produce what they produce, how much they make, how much money they
get for it, it's their JOB).

They know how much of that food gets turned into other foods. They know how
much of that processed and unprocessed food gets purchased. They study our
garbage and know what percentage of what we purchase ends up in the
garbage. They study sewage and the know exactly what capacity their
treatment plants need to have to process the waste from our food
consumption.

So from this they know, to a reasonable rate of accuracy, how much food we
actually consume, and how much we don't.

Once you have the total amount of X (say, chicken) that is consumed in a
year, the rest is simple mathematics. Divide X by the total population of,
say, everyone over the age of 10 (which is yet another figure that they
have a fairly good grasp on), and you get a per capita consumption rate.

So that YOU might share something with the older person who takes a few
bites and throws it away doesn't mean that there isn't someone else
somewhere else who is consuming twice as much, and thus shifting the curve
as far in the other direction.

--
Siobhan Perricone
Humans wrote the bible,
God wrote the rocks
-- Word of God by Kathy Mar

On 19 Jan 2005 16:28:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

>That's the trouble with "statistics" in general, don't you think? I mean,
>when it comes to studying the populace, how can anyone know for sure what
>people are "really" doing?

That people don't take the time to learn and understand how statistics
works doesn't mean that it doesn't work or is inaccurate.

There are, literally, thousands of things that happen around you every day
that you don't know about or understand, but that doesn't mean they don't
work just fine without your understanding them.

--
Siobhan Perricone
Humans wrote the bible,
God wrote the rocks
-- Word of God by Kathy Mar

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:42:11 -0800, "Nexis" > wrote:

>you'll be okay most of the time. My grandpa ate whatever the heck he wanted,
>including lots of old fashioned fat ladened pork, coffee strong enough to
>stand a spoon in it, and eggs every morning....but he also worked his tail
>off on a farm every day right up until he passed away at 93 from pneumonia.
>(Chest cold my as*, but I digress). My grandma, his wife, lived to 98 the
>same way.

There is a significant body of evidence that supports the theory that
longevity is a question of genetics, and that good genetics can make up for
years of personal abuse in the form of poor diet and exercise.

--
Siobhan Perricone
Humans wrote the bible,
God wrote the rocks
-- Word of God by Kathy Mar

"Siobhan Perricone" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:42:11 -0800, "Nexis" > wrote:
>
> >you'll be okay most of the time. My grandpa ate whatever the heck he
wanted,
> >including lots of old fashioned fat ladened pork, coffee strong enough to
> >stand a spoon in it, and eggs every morning....but he also worked his
tail
> >off on a farm every day right up until he passed away at 93 from
pneumonia.
> >(Chest cold my as*, but I digress). My grandma, his wife, lived to 98 the
> >same way.
>
> There is a significant body of evidence that supports the theory that
> longevity is a question of genetics, and that good genetics can make up
for
> years of personal abuse in the form of poor diet and exercise.
>
> --
> Siobhan Perricone

Well since they were married, not brother and sister, they don't share the
same genetics. Also, I said they ate what they wanted; that doesn't mean
they ate poorly. What they ate did not contain tons of hormones, chemicals,
preservatives. And as for exercise, it's pretty hard to beat farming.
This is not to say that there is no such thing as good genetics...just that
genetics aren't the only reason people live long healthy lives. It's choice
sometimes.
kimberly

On Wed 19 Jan 2005 04:24:06p, Siobhan Perricone tittered and giggled, and
giggled and tittered, and finally blurted out...

> On 19 Jan 2005 16:28:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>>That's the trouble with "statistics" in general, don't you think? I mean,
>>when it comes to studying the populace, how can anyone know for sure what
>>people are "really" doing?
>
> That people don't take the time to learn and understand how statistics
> works doesn't mean that it doesn't work or is inaccurate.

Statistics have their place, but it doesn't always represent reality.

> There are, literally, thousands of things that happen around you every day
> that you don't know about or understand, but that doesn't mean they don't
> work just fine without your understanding them.
>

Agreed. I'll be the first to admit that I have no clue how many things work.

Wayne

>>>That's the trouble with "statistics" in general, don't you think? I
>>>mean,
>>>when it comes to studying the populace, how can anyone know for sure what
>>>people are "really" doing?
>>

Well, as they say, you don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the
wind is blowing. Look around, and tell me if you think even 4 out of 10
Americans *in your neighborhood* look like they are ideal weight. As for
genetics, even for those long-lived who practiced poor health habits, do you
think they could not have lived even longer?

On Wed 19 Jan 2005 08:49:21p, zuuum tittered and giggled, and giggled and
tittered, and finally blurted out...

>>>>That's the trouble with "statistics" in general, don't you think? I
>>>>mean, when it comes to studying the populace, how can anyone know for
>>>>sure what people are "really" doing?
>>>
>
> Well, as they say, you don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the
> wind is blowing. Look around, and tell me if you think even 4 out of 10
> Americans *in your neighborhood* look like they are ideal weight. As
> for genetics, even for those long-lived who practiced poor health
> habits, do you think they could not have lived even longer?

Yes, some things are obvious.

On 20 Jan 2005 01:49:10 GMT, Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

>On Wed 19 Jan 2005 04:24:06p, Siobhan Perricone tittered and giggled, and
>giggled and tittered, and finally blurted out...
>
>> On 19 Jan 2005 16:28:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>>
>>>That's the trouble with "statistics" in general, don't you think? I mean,
>>>when it comes to studying the populace, how can anyone know for sure what
>>>people are "really" doing?
>>
>> That people don't take the time to learn and understand how statistics
>> works doesn't mean that it doesn't work or is inaccurate.
>
>Statistics have their place, but it doesn't always represent reality.

It is certainly true that the numbers can be manipulated. However, most of
the time they represent reality in one particular light, for a particular
use, and seldom do they represent anyone's personal reality. But
representing personal realities is not the purpose of statistics, which is
sorta my point.

It's important to know how much food is consumed in a nation, in order to
plan for stockpiles in the case of extreme emergencies or serious food
shortfalls. It's good to know which populations consume which products and
in what quantities if you're going to be distributing foods in such cases.
this is certainly a representation of reality that has its use.

This information is even marginally useful when presented in an attempt to
encourage certain changes within a particular society or culture. If you
hear the figure (numbers are made up just for example purposes) "the USA
consumes 25% of all the oil in the world had only has 5% of the world's
population", it might have the effect of opening some individual minds to
the possibility that they really don't want to buy an SUV. If enough
individuals modify their choices, then that figure gets modified over time.

However, it is a misuse to try and use such figures to say "individuals
consume X of Y in a year" and expect it to accomplish much more than have
most people say "no I don't". It's just not a useful figure on a personal
level.

--
Siobhan Perricone
Humans wrote the bible,
God wrote the rocks
-- Word of God by Kathy Mar

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:45:10 -0800, "Nexis" > wrote:

>Well since they were married, not brother and sister, they don't share the
>same genetics.

That doesn't mean that they didn't both have good genetics.

I wasn't saying that they ate poorly or commenting on their personal habits
at all, just pointing out that longevity is more based on good genetics
than behaviour.

--
Siobhan Perricone
Humans wrote the bible,
God wrote the rocks
-- Word of God by Kathy Mar

On Thu 20 Jan 2005 04:50:59a, Siobhan Perricone tittered and giggled, and
giggled and tittered, and finally blurted out...

> On 20 Jan 2005 01:49:10 GMT, Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>>On Wed 19 Jan 2005 04:24:06p, Siobhan Perricone tittered and giggled,
>>and giggled and tittered, and finally blurted out...
>>
>>> On 19 Jan 2005 16:28:18 GMT, Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>>>
>>>>That's the trouble with "statistics" in general, don't you think? I
>>>>mean, when it comes to studying the populace, how can anyone know for
>>>>sure what people are "really" doing?
>>>
>>> That people don't take the time to learn and understand how statistics
>>> works doesn't mean that it doesn't work or is inaccurate.
>>
>>Statistics have their place, but it doesn't always represent reality.
>
> It is certainly true that the numbers can be manipulated. However, most
> of the time they represent reality in one particular light, for a
> particular use, and seldom do they represent anyone's personal reality.
> But representing personal realities is not the purpose of statistics,
> which is sorta my point.

Yes, I realize that.

> It's important to know how much food is consumed in a nation, in order
> to plan for stockpiles in the case of extreme emergencies or serious
> food shortfalls. It's good to know which populations consume which
> products and in what quantities if you're going to be distributing foods
> in such cases. this is certainly a representation of reality that has
> its use.
>
> This information is even marginally useful when presented in an attempt
> to encourage certain changes within a particular society or culture. If
> you hear the figure (numbers are made up just for example purposes) "the
> USA consumes 25% of all the oil in the world had only has 5% of the
> world's population", it might have the effect of opening some individual
> minds to the possibility that they really don't want to buy an SUV. If
> enough individuals modify their choices, then that figure gets modified
> over time.

All good points.

> However, it is a misuse to try and use such figures to say "individuals
> consume X of Y in a year" and expect it to accomplish much more than
> have most people say "no I don't". It's just not a useful figure on a
> personal level.

That was MY point.

Wayne

Nancy wrote (1/19/2005):

<snip>

>My point was that there are agencies (whatever) that like to throw
>around numbers they cannot support, and almost inevitably, it seems,
>wind up modifying or retracting them. I'm tired of it.

Got it. If I can locate the book/article, I'll report back on what
it says and whether it comes across as credible.

"zuuum" > wrote in message
...
>>>>That's the trouble with "statistics" in general, don't you think? I
>>>>mean,
>>>>when it comes to studying the populace, how can anyone know for sure
>>>>what
>>>>people are "really" doing?
>>>
>
> Well, as they say, you don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the
> wind is blowing. Look around, and tell me if you think even 4 out of 10
> Americans *in your neighborhood* look like they are ideal weight. As for
> genetics, even for those long-lived who practiced poor health habits, do
> you think they could not have lived even longer?

Actually, I conducted such a survey at one time because of this subject.
From
all the neighbors I can see ... only 3 could used to drop some weight, and I
don't mean tonnage.

I paid attention at the mall, at football games ... not so many very
overweight
people, relatively. At any rate, when I was younger, the charts said I
should
be between 108 and 115. Yeah, maybe if I starved myself (which I did, but
that's a story for another day), but if 10 percent over that is still the
yardstick
for obese, I bet most of us are. 115 + 11.5 = 126.5 pounds is obese?

These people who put out these figures never say what their definition of
obese is, or it's not reported on the 'news' ... either way. I'm just
skeptical
of such pronouncements.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> "zuuum" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Look around, and tell me if you think even 4 out of 10 Americans *in your
>> neighborhood* look like they are ideal weight. As for genetics, even for
>> those long-lived who practiced poor health habits, do you think they
>> could not have lived even longer?
>
> Actually, I conducted such a survey at one time because of this subject.
> From
> all the neighbors I can see ... only 3 could used to drop some weight, and
> I
> don't mean tonnage.
>
> I paid attention at the mall, at football games ... not so many very
> overweight
> people, relatively. At any rate, when I was younger, the charts said I
> should
> be between 108 and 115. Yeah, maybe if I starved myself (which I did, but
> that's a story for another day), but if 10 percent over that is still the
> yardstick
> for obese, I bet most of us are. 115 + 11.5 = 126.5 pounds is obese?
>
> These people who put out these figures never say what their definition of
> obese is, or it's not reported on the 'news' ... either way. I'm just
> skeptical
> of such pronouncements.

Yes, "ideal" and "obese" are sort of elusive, using age, height, sex, etc
charts. But I think fat/body mass index is gauged by how thick a pinch of
flab you can grab. It clearly shows how thick a layer of fat/flab a person
is carrying around regardless of whether they claim to be "big-boned",
"petite,"or "large builded". The exact threshold between "overweight" and
"unhealthily obese" is sort of unreal, especially as a "one-size-fits-all".
But once you get up in the 50+ pounds overweight, especially if the gain is
from what a person historically weighed, we can assume it is substantially
increasing health risks. In other words, John Doe weighed 185 for many of
his adult years, but lately is toting 250, and climbing. I can't say we are
seeing that kind of trend at epidemic levels, but I can't disprove it. 10%
overweight isn't my picture of "obese" either. But I can say every member
of my family and old classmates, except myself, and others who have lived
very non-sedentary life-styles, are obviously very overweight... as in
corpulent. That is why I thought the experimental pyramid was wise to put
*regular exercise* at the base, though it isn't food consumed. Just having
it there reminds us there is no healthy "diet" that doesn't include BURNING
caloric intake. Our kids don't even have a physical exercise class for 50
minutes every day, as I did in secondary school. I wonder what effect it
would have on our population if we reintroduced it. LOL, I mean other than
increase truancy.

"zuuum" > wrote in message news:...
>
.......
> overweight isn't my picture of "obese" either. But I can say every member
> of my family and old classmates, except myself, and others who have lived
> very non-sedentary life-styles, are obviously very overweight... as in
> corpulent.

Of course, that was a very sweeping generalization. "Every", "always" and
"never" are seldom acurate terms, but I was guilty of using them. There are
surely exceptions, but it did "seem" so. But upon reading it, the statement
sounded as propagandist as what we were commenting on. <g>