AOLNews: Are Americans Too Big To Drive Small?

[Redskins Diehard]

I'll try again ... it's really not a difficult concept. BMI is a screening tool. It is not a tool for diagnosis.

Yes, a poor screening tool.

[shk75]

BMI is a population level tool and not something that will apply to every single individual. However, on a population-based level it is a very good tool and does what it should.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I am not a scientist, only a public health practitioner, so I will defer to what the specialists in my coursework have told me.

Okay...

They have said that sucrose (aka table sugar) is just as bad as HFCS because of how quickly it is taken in by your body. They argued that fructose and natural sugars like carbohydrates were much healthier in moderation than HFCS and sucrose. They did not identify different types of HFCS so I cannot comment on that part. Basically, the main crux of their argument was avoid sucrose and HFCS if you can (they are for all intents and purposes the same) and try to limit juice consumption.

In health there are two ways to explain concepts to someone, there's the simple way and there's the scientific way. The simple way gives you a hard and fast guideline of what's bad and what's good in the most broad, general possible terms. The scientific way is much more detailed and wrought with various conditions, exceptions to those conditions, and all sorts of metrics that come up with an answer that is not 100% conclusive and, ergo, subject to debate. These folks kept it simple for you.

In fact, they didn't even need to mention HFCS or sucrose or anything that detailed to make the point that they made: natural foods are good for you, processed foods are not.

Instead eat fresh fruit, vegetables, and carbohydrates and you will get all the sugar your body needs.

What is implied by "and carbohydrates"? This is probably hitting on a pet peeve of mine :pfft:

[Redskins Diehard]

BMI is a population level tool and not something that will apply to every single individual. However, on a population-based level it is a very good tool and does what it should.

I guess as long as it's purpose isn't to predict cardiovascular risk and mortality...

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/95/4/1777.full

[shk75]

:pfft:

Okay...

In health there are two ways to explain concepts to someone, there's the simple way and there's the scientific way. The simple way gives you a hard and fast guideline of what's bad and what's good in the most broad, general possible terms. The scientific way is much more detailed and wrought with various conditions, exceptions to those conditions, and all sorts of metrics that come up with an answer that is not 100% conclusive and, ergo, subject to debate. These folks kept it simple for you.

In fact, they didn't even need to mention HFCS or sucrose or anything that detailed to make the point that they made: natural foods are good for you, processed foods are not.

What is implied by "and carbohydrates"? This is probably hitting on a pet peeve of mine :pfft:

Well the course was a little more complicated than that :pfft: It was pretty scientific in terms of the details of why highly refined sugars and HFCS were dangerous and the main reason detailed was the speed in which these sugars entered your body and the extreme amounts that are present in beverages and certain foods. In detailing this process they diagramed how your body was not able to distinguish HFCS from sucrose but how it was able to determine the difference between those and fructose.

The reason that carbohydrates were mentioned was that they took longer to break down and metabolize and were thus not as dangerous. They did not make a difference between pasta, potatoes, whole grain bread, etc. They just used the term carbohydrates as in the sugar.

---------- Post added June-2nd-2011 at 05:53 PM ----------

I guess as long as it's purpose isn't to predict cardiovascular risk and mortality...

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/95/4/1777.full

And that is supported by the Flegal et al., 2005 study based on NHANES I, II & III data. When it comes to excess mortality it is actually beneficial to be in the range of 25-29 in terms of BMI. Once you reach over 30 is where this trend reverses.

[Corcaigh]

Yes, a poor screening tool.

You could recommend a better one that could be administered so quickly (clinics already measure weight and height), and that is backed up by decades of studies?

What's the issue? Does your BMI place you somewhere on the chart you don't like?

There are slightly more elaborate versions that make bone measurements and based on three body types use a revised chart. But someone with a BMI of 37 who isn't a professional footballer probably has weight management issues, even if they are big boned.

[Darth Tater]

Evidence seems to point that yes, it is very difficult and is the reason we are facing this problem in the first place. If it were not so difficult people would not be obese because trust me nobody WANTS to be obese.

That you are wrong here is self-evident.

[Rudechain]

The point is not to say that this woman is a professional athlete. Or could possibly be a professional athlete. Throw this particular woman out of the equation. In fact throw these 2 pro bowl football players out of the equation. I don't think it would be that difficult to find a 6' 220 pound in shape guy at any gym in the area. Now he may not be winning many 5k's but doesn't mean he is "obese" as his BMI would indicate.

My guess is that your additional tests would actually not change the "BMI" at all. It will most likely highlight that London and Brian have pretty lean body composition. My guess is that most of the recreational athletes that you would find in any gym probably do not consult a nutritionist or a doctor. I went for a yearly physical last year and the doctor was stunned that I just went there for a check up and no other reason. Anecdotal I know.

---------- Post added June-2nd-2011 at 05:08 PM ----------

According to your first statement the BMI is not a tool to diagnose anything so I am guessing that you include professional athletes who spend hours a day lifting weights into the category of "anything".

so with this whole thread, the only thing you find a problem is BMI?

OK, I am going to say this for you one more time. I don't know if I should type it in spanish, german, russian or pig latin but I do hope you can finally understand my point.

BMI IS JUST A TOOL. It gives you an idea, and it gives the doctor an idea what weight ranges fall within particular heights and genders. It's not the be all end all, but it does provide the GENERAL POPULATION a tool that gives them an idea if they are within what is reasonably considered a healthy weight for height. It's not something that is a complete authority but it's a tool. If you or your doctor finds that you don't fall within the normal range, they or you should investigate further. ( hence the reasons athletes in particular have so many more tests to give an accurate indication of just how much fat they are carrying in regards to total body mass)

The whole point started because a woman with a body mass index of 37 falls into the obese category. You then stated, quite correctly, that some athletes have high BMI and would be considered obese. It was then explained that there are several tests and BMI is simply a tool. No doctor, no nutritionist and nobody in their right mind would make health decisions based solely on one factor. WE GET THIS!!!!!

And yes, additional test on London or Orakpo would. BMI is a tool that helps you determine the amount of body fat. So if someone were to actually have a lot of dense muscle mass the chart would show high BMI but additional tests would reveal the weight is not fat and is actually solid mass. Thus the BMI count would logically drop. And Corcaigh was correct also, he said it's a screening tool. That's how it's used. If something falls out of the normal range, it requires further investigation.

Now, can we actually talk about the subject at hand. I am not sure what you have against the use of BMI as a tool but we get it. You don't like BMI. It's been stated on a public forum for the whole world to know. Let's move on now. OK?

[Mickalino]

Good to know. Did they tell you about this:

All HFCS is not the same. Let's look at three:

HFCS 42

HFCS 55

HFCS 90

The number indicates the percentage of fructose versus glucose. So 42 is 42% fructose 58% glucose and 90 is 90% fructose 10% glucose. Sugar (table) is sucrose or 50% fructose 50% glucose.

Why this matters:

http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070625/fructose-sugars-dark-side

Fructose is much worse for you. This appears to be accepted in the scientific community. Thus HFCS 42 actually has less of the bad stuff than table sugar and HFCS only has slightly more. Simple enough so far right?

Now let's talk about HFCS 90. It's incredibly high in the bad stuff and the industry says it's highly specialized and rare. Yet if you go to ADM's site (largest producer of HFCS) you find this:

http://www.adm.com/_layouts/ProductDetails.aspx?productId=11

and worse 100% fructose:

http://www.adm.com/_layouts/ProductDetails.aspx?productid=12

Now the fun part. Tell me what products contain HFCS 80, 90, or the crystalline stuff. Good luck.

I am not a scientist, only a public health practitioner, so I will defer to what the specialists in my coursework have told me. They have said that sucrose (aka table sugar) is just as bad as HFCS because of how quickly it is taken in by your body. They argued that fructose and natural sugars like carbohydrates were much healthier in moderation than HFCS and sucrose. They did not identify different types of HFCS so I cannot comment on that part. Basically, the main crux of their argument was avoid sucrose and HFCS if you can (they are for all intents and purposes the same) and try to limit juice consumption. Instead eat fresh fruit, vegetables, and carbohydrates and you will get all the sugar your body needs.

I'm curious, how about just regular Corn Syrup ?

I assume it's bad, but is there a big difference between the un-healthy aspects of Corn Syrup & HFCS ?

[Darth Tater]

Also, death panels for the criminally obese.

That would be necessary in shk75's world.

[shk75]

That would be necessary in shk75's world.

I don't really know what you mean by this?

[Rudechain]

Wow Des, good stuff on fructose levels. The long term effects of that stuff are frightening.

That's just another reason to try to stay away from processed foods.

[Mickalino]

Wow Des, good stuff on fructose levels. The long term effects of that stuff are frightening.

That's just another reason to try to stay away from processed foods.

Pretty much everything that is NOT homemade or raw is unhealthy. (not that all homemade foods are healthy, just that almost all the ones that are not homemade are unhealthy)

It all results from Food Manufacturers and Restaurants looking out for # 1, which is profits and reducing costs, which almost always means use the cheapest ingredients possible, and the cheapest are usually the unhealthiest.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Well the course was a little more complicated than that :pfft:

That's probably a good thing

The reason that carbohydrates were mentioned was that they took longer to break down and metabolize and were thus not as dangerous. They did not make a difference between pasta, potatoes, whole grain bread, etc. They just used the term carbohydrates as in the sugar.

Of course. What bothers me here is the tendency for people to separate food groups out into the categories of fruits, vegetables, and carbohydrates. Considering that fruits and vegetables are primarily carbohydrates, it's either terribly redundant or not specific enough to be a helpful distinction. Fruits, vegetables, and grains would be a dramatic improvement if you wanted to keep it simple.

It would probably bug me less if it didn't cause some people to not make a connection between fruits, vegetables, and total carb intake.

Pretty much everything that is NOT homemade or raw is unhealthy. (not that all homemade foods are healthy, just that almost all the ones that are not homemade are unhealthy)

It all results from Food Manufacturers and Restaurants looking out for # 1, which is profits and reducing costs, which almost always means use the cheapest ingredients possible, and the cheapest are usually the unhealthiest.

You're using too many broad, sweeping statements for one post, Mick.

[Redskins Diehard]

You could recommend a better one that could be administered so quickly (clinics already measure weight and height), and that is backed up by decades of studies?

What's the issue? Does your BMI place you somewhere on the chart you don't like?

There are slightly more elaborate versions that make bone measurements and based on three body types use a revised chart. But someone with a BMI of 37 who isn't a professional footballer probably has weight management issues, even if they are big boned.

I knew it was a matter of time. No, my BMI is fine. So is my body comp. And so are my blood lipids. But my family history sucks...not much I can do about that so really need to pay attention to the others.

I personally would recommend a body comp assessment or the waist to height ratio. Probably wouldn't be much more expensive either...the cost of a tape measure

[Darth Tater]

That is why BMI I have never liked BMI. BMI subscribers would tell Andre Carter that he needs to get leaner.

Best quick and dirty estimate that I know of is your waist to height ratio. Your waist should be no bigger than 1/2 your height. I'm 6-2, so my waist should be no larger than 37 if it is than I'm overweight (it's just about 34 now if your interested). Smallest as an adult was just above 33 while the largest was just above 40 (about 3 years ago).

[PeterMP]

I guess as long as it's purpose isn't to predict cardiovascular risk and mortality...

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/95/4/1777.full

This is again an area where different studies have different findings:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19809330

---------- Post added June-2nd-2011 at 06:43 PM ----------

Any respectable peer review scientific study must divulge any conflict of interest in the conflicts of interest section.

Also, all my professors and lecturers that have told me that HFCS is the same as sucrose are DEFINITELY not part of the HFCS lobby.

Conflict of interests are self-reported. If you don't think there is room for abuse there, you are dillusional. Though I don't know of that being an issue in the HFCS case.

I don't want to disparage your professors, but if they told that we enough about fructose metabolism and the resulting signaling on the whole body to draw the conclusion it is exactly the same as sucrose, they are either ignorant or liars.

It might be, but there is a lot that we don't know yet, and there are studies that suggests that there are differences (and there are studies that suggest that there aren't (we don't know.)).

(I'd hope that they were also teaching you some critical thinking skills that would allow you to go to something like a well referenced wiki page and draw the conclusion that 'Hey, maybe what I learned wasn't exactly right.' (because either they people that taught it to you were wrong or new information came out on the topic) and aren't just leaving you with the 'What I learned is the absolute truth and always will be.')

[Darth Tater]

There needs to be a law passed that every scientific study published must BEGIN by stating if those behind it have taken any money at all from people directly effected by the outcome of their study. Way too much of the information on HFCS is coming from doctors working for the industry and conflicts of interest should be known up front.

The real problem with HFCS is that it is so relatively cheap it to the producer (and, yes, subsidies do have something to do with that) that it shows up in foods that really don't need extra sweetening or as a replacement for the right but more expensive ingredients. You can make sweet cardboard cheaper than real bread and eventually people like the sweet cardboard more than the real bread. While not HFCS specific, I think this does work as an example. When white bread first came out, only the wealthy could afford it and dark bread was cheap. During the depression and through WW2, my parents ate dark bread. After WW2, white bread became relatively cheap and more people could afford it and they also actually ate more bread overall. Thank God for me, my parents never liked white bread and about the only time I had white bread is when my friend's parents fed me.

[Redskins Diehard]

This is again an area where different studies have different findings:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19809330

---------- Post added June-2nd-2011 at 06:43 PM ----------

Conflict of interests are self-reported. If you don't think there is room for abuse there, you are dillusional. Though I don't know of that being an issue in the HFCS case.

I don't want to disparage your professors, but if they told that we enough about fructose metabolism and the resulting signaling on the whole body to draw the conclusion it is exactly the same as sucrose, they are either ignorant or liars.

It might be, but there is a lot that we don't know yet, and there are studies that suggests that there are differences (and there are studies that suggest that there aren't (we don't know.)).

(I'd hope that they were also teaching you some critical thinking skills that would allow you to go to something like a well referenced wiki page and draw the conclusion that 'Hey, maybe what I learned wasn't exactly right.' (because either they people that taught it to you were wrong or new information came out on the topic) and aren't just leaving you with the 'What I learned is the absolute truth and always will be.')

Doesn't look like that studied considered Waist to Height. Only BMI and Waist circumference

[PeterMP]

Doesn't look like that studied considered Waist to Height. Only BMI and Waist circumference

Doesn't matter. If BMI is a good predictor, it is a good predictor independent of what else I considered. If I ONLY look at BMI and find it is a significant predictor adding other things doesn't and won't change that.

Certainly, other things are better, but BMI is nice because most people have a pretty good idea of their height and weight so you can do a quick survey of a lot of people. Fewer people know their hip and waist measurements.

[Redskins Diehard]

Doesn't matter. If BMI is a good predictor, it is a good predictor independent of what else I considered. If I ONLY look at BMI and find it is a significant predictor adding other things doesn't and won't change that.

Certainly, other things are better, but BMI is nice because most people have a pretty good idea of their height and weight so you can do a quick survey of a lot of people. Fewer people know their hip and waist measurements.

Maybe they should? They just need to know their height and their waist. Would be useful data for purchasing pants that fit also.

As far as the study. Does it say significant or good predictor? Looks to me like it essentially says that it is a predictor on par with waist circumference. Whatever the case...folks can use whatever methods they choose to assess their risk..BMI, Waist to height, whatever makes them feel better.

[shk75]

This is again an area where different studies have different findings:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19809330

---------- Post added June-2nd-2011 at 06:43 PM ----------

Conflict of interests are self-reported. If you don't think there is room for abuse there, you are dillusional. Though I don't know of that being an issue in the HFCS case.

I don't want to disparage your professors, but if they told that we enough about fructose metabolism and the resulting signaling on the whole body to draw the conclusion it is exactly the same as sucrose, they are either ignorant or liars.

It might be, but there is a lot that we don't know yet, and there are studies that suggests that there are differences (and there are studies that suggest that there aren't (we don't know.)).

(I'd hope that they were also teaching you some critical thinking skills that would allow you to go to something like a well referenced wiki page and draw the conclusion that 'Hey, maybe what I learned wasn't exactly right.' (because either they people that taught it to you were wrong or new information came out on the topic) and aren't just leaving you with the 'What I learned is the absolute truth and always will be.')

There are studies that suggest almost anything so of course there will be differing points of view. We looked at those studies and also examined the science behind how bodies process these sugars and the risks they each pose.

I am not going to talk about each unit of a 4-month long class so I was just trying to summarize the main conclusions that were reached. After carefully examining the literature and listening to each different lecturers studies and professional experiences, it seems that there is not much difference between the way in which these sugars are processed. The dangers seem to be the vast quantities taken in. If you are consuming 24 teaspoons of HFCS or sucrose, as many people are, your body will be harmed and it won't matter which of these substances you are inhaling since the amounts are so astronomically high right now.

Are there certain types of HFCS that are worse than sugars? Some believe so and it is entirely possible I am not experienced enough in that area to tell. However, I do know that those railing on HFCS as an ingredient need to understand that sucrose and fructose can be just as dangerous.

Edit: also here are some of the professor names that lectured if you want to look into their credentials.

Dr. Youfa Wang

Dr. Greg A. Freyer

Dr. James M. Rippe.

Dr. Robert Lustig

and some others I can't remember off the top of my head

[Darth Tater]

That's probably a good thing

Of course. What bothers me here is the tendency for people to separate food groups out into the categories of fruits, vegetables, and carbohydrates. Considering that fruits and vegetables are primarily carbohydrates, it's either terribly redundant or not specific enough to be a helpful distinction. Fruits, vegetables, and grains would be a dramatic improvement if you wanted to keep it simple.

It would probably bug me less if it didn't cause some people to not make a connection between fruits, vegetables, and total carb intake.

You're using too many broad, sweeping statements for one post, Mick.

Many people seem to have a rigid rules based mind-set and wants those rules to be simple and broad while coming from the mouth of an "expert" (one that learns and spouts orthodoxy but often in a seemingly new way). That way, once they see the exception, they can "throw the baby out with the bath water" and complain they "don't know what to do".

[Mickalino]

Pretty much everything that is NOT homemade or raw is unhealthy. (not that all homemade foods are healthy, just that almost all the ones that are not homemade are unhealthy)

It all results from Food Manufacturers and Restaurants looking out for # 1, which is profits and reducing costs, which almost always means use the cheapest ingredients possible, and the cheapest are usually the unhealthiest.

You're using too many broad, sweeping statements for one post, Mick.

Not when my post is full of words like "Pretty much, almost all, almost always, and usually"

people seem to have a rigid rules based mind-set and wants those rules to be simple and broad while coming from the mouth of an "expert" (one that learns and spouts orthodoxy but often in a seemingly new way). That way, once they see the exception, they can "throw the baby out with the bath water" and complain they "don't know what to do".

You're using too many broad, sweeping statements for one post, Darth.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Not when my post is full of words like "Pretty much, almost all, almost always, and usually"

Those qualifiers aren't really strong enough to properly... oh, the hell with it. Even I can't care that much.

Many people seem to have a rigid rules based mind-set and wants those rules to be simple and broad while coming from the mouth of an "expert" (one that learns and spouts orthodoxy but often in a seemingly new way). That way, once they see the exception, they can "throw the baby out with the bath water" and complain they "don't know what to do".

You see this a lot in The Stadium