Report: National strategy needed to fight fat

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....udy/index.html

Report: National strategy needed to fight fat
Story Highlights
Report: Obesity rates swelled over last year in 31 states; no states saw
decline

First time a state has more than 30 percent obese: Mississippi

Recommendation: National strategy needed to attack obesity

(CNN) -- Americans are already among the fattest people in the world and
they just keep packing on the pounds. A new report finds that obesity rates
have swelled during the last year in 31 states with not one state reporting
that its obesity rate shrank. And, for the first time, more than 30 percent
of residents in one state -- Mississippi -- are classified as obese.

Nationwide, two-thirds of U.S. adults are obese or overweight, according to
the fourth annual report from the Trust for America's Health, titled "F as
in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America." The report's
co-author says the government needs to treat this trend as an epidemic that
threatens the health of Americans and put in place a national plan in place
to combat obesity.

"The key recommendation in the report is we need a national strategy," said
report co-author Jeffrey Levi.

He noted that the federal government has created a comprehensive plan to be
implemented in the event of an outbreak of pandemic flu.

"We need something like that in obesity that says this is what every agency
of the federal government is doing. [It's] what we can do to directly
affect this problem and motivate individual communities and businesses to
play their role as well," Levi said.

In 32 states, 60 percent of the population is either overweight or obese.
West Virginia ranks highest in the combined statistic, with nearly
two-thirds of its adults obese or overweight.

Mississippi, where almost one in three adults are obese, also ranks highest
in adult hypertension and physical inactivity. It's tied with the District
of Columbia in poverty and ranks second-highest in adult diabetes.

West Virginia came in second in the obesity ranking, followed by Alabama,
Louisiana, South Carolina and Tennessee.

Nationwide, more than 25 percent of adults in 19 states are obese, up from
14 states last year.

"If you go back to 1991, only four states had obesity rates above 15
percent, and none exceeded 20 percent," said Levi.

Physical activity is linked to a reduced risk of dying prematurely. It also
lowers one's risk of developing a host of diseases, including heart
disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and colon cancer.

Obesity also affects the health of the nation's economy. Fat employees
translate into fat medical bills for U.S. businesses trying to compete in
an international marketplace.

A Duke University study that appeared in the Archives of Internal Medicine
found 184 lost workdays per 100 obese full-time employees versus 14 lost
workdays per 100 normal-weight full-time employees.

The average obese worker has up to 21 percent higher health care costs, the
Duke report said.

A Medicare study found that obese patients cost the agency 15 percent more
than normal or overweight patients.

Levi says individuals need the government's help to take control of their
weight.

"People can't exercise personal responsibility in a vacuum," he said. "If
you're telling people to eat healthier food and there are no grocery stores
in the neighborhood; if you're telling them to be more physically active,
and they live in poor, unsafe neighborhoods or in suburban neighborhoods
with no sidewalks, then you've created an environment that doesn't make it
possible for people to exercise that personal responsibility. That's where
government plays a role."

And it's not just government agencies involved in public health that need
to play a role, he said. Zoning boards are involved in building the
sidewalks that encourage people to walk; school boards are involved in
ensuring students get nutritious meals and physical education programs, he
said.

"Everyone has a role to play, starting with though not ending with the
federal government," he said, noting that funding for relevant federal
programs has been flat in recent years.

"The resources are definitely not commensurate with the problem," he said.
"Lots of people share the blame here."

The CDC's point man on obesity, Dr. William Dietz, said he could see no
drawbacks to the appointment of an obesity czar who would coordinate
federal programs.

But, he added, "That's a difficult issue for me to comment on because it's
a recommendation for the administration that I'm part of."

Still, no single strategy will solve the problem, he said, noting that
dozens of societal changes are linked to the nation's expanding waistline
-- the greater availability of food, an increase in television viewing,
cheaper prices for food, and more availability of soft drinks.

But diabetes specialist Dr. Richard K. Bernstein worried that an obesity
czar might lead the nation down the wrong path.

The New York-based author of "Diabetes Solution," contends that the
popularity of low-fat diets is related to the increase in diabetes and
obesity.

"Insulin stores fat," he said. "Eat very little carbohydrate, you're gong
to make very little insulin. Not only will you not store fat, you'll
metabolize it."

A senior analyst for The Center for Consumer Freedom, a food industry trade
group, said government involvement is not needed. "Obesity is a private
issue and we do not need Big Brother wagging his finger at us every time
somebody wants to eat a doughnut," said Justin Wilson. "If someone wants to
be a little heavier because they enjoy eating food that tastes good, that's
a person's personal right."

He cited two simple ways for people to lose weight -- "closing their mouth,
going for a walk. It's the world's easiest diet plan."

The study was carried out by the Trust for America's Health, which Levi
directs. It describes itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and
working to make disease prevention a national priority."

The report was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

On Aug 27, 7:26 pm, pennyfory...@thoughts.com (Penny) wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....ty.study/index...
>
> Report: National strategy needed to fight fat
> Story Highlights
> Report: Obesity rates swelled over last year in 31 states; no states saw
> decline
>
> First time a state has more than 30 percent obese: Mississippi
>
> Recommendation: National strategy needed to attack obesity
>
> (CNN) -- Americans are already among the fattest people in the world and
> they just keep packing on the pounds. A new report finds that obesity rates
> have swelled during the last year in 31 states with not one state reporting
> that its obesity rate shrank. And, for the first time, more than 30 percent
> of residents in one state -- Mississippi -- are classified as obese.
>
> Nationwide, two-thirds of U.S. adults are obese or overweight, according to
> the fourth annual report from the Trust for America's Health, titled "F as
> in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America." The report's
> co-author says the government needs to treat this trend as an epidemic that
> threatens the health of Americans and put in place a national plan in place
> to combat obesity.
>
> "The key recommendation in the report is we need a national strategy," said
> report co-author Jeffrey Levi.
>
> He noted that the federal government has created a comprehensive plan to be
> implemented in the event of an outbreak of pandemic flu.
>
> "We need something like that in obesity that says this is what every agency
> of the federal government is doing. [It's] what we can do to directly
> affect this problem and motivate individual communities and businesses to
> play their role as well," Levi said.
>
> In 32 states, 60 percent of the population is either overweight or obese.
> West Virginia ranks highest in the combined statistic, with nearly
> two-thirds of its adults obese or overweight.
>
> Mississippi, where almost one in three adults are obese, also ranks highest
> in adult hypertension and physical inactivity. It's tied with the District
> of Columbia in poverty and ranks second-highest in adult diabetes.
>
> West Virginia came in second in the obesity ranking, followed by Alabama,
> Louisiana, South Carolina and Tennessee.
>
> Nationwide, more than 25 percent of adults in 19 states are obese, up from
> 14 states last year.
>
> "If you go back to 1991, only four states had obesity rates above 15
> percent, and none exceeded 20 percent," said Levi.
>
> Physical activity is linked to a reduced risk of dying prematurely. It also
> lowers one's risk of developing a host of diseases, including heart
> disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and colon cancer.
>
> Obesity also affects the health of the nation's economy. Fat employees
> translate into fat medical bills for U.S. businesses trying to compete in
> an international marketplace.
>
> A Duke University study that appeared in the Archives of Internal Medicine
> found 184 lost workdays per 100 obese full-time employees versus 14 lost
> workdays per 100 normal-weight full-time employees.
>
> The average obese worker has up to 21 percent higher health care costs, the
> Duke report said.
>
> A Medicare study found that obese patients cost the agency 15 percent more
> than normal or overweight patients.
>
> Levi says individuals need the government's help to take control of their
> weight.
>
> "People can't exercise personal responsibility in a vacuum," he said. "If
> you're telling people to eat healthier food and there are no grocery stores
> in the neighborhood; if you're telling them to be more physically active,
> and they live in poor, unsafe neighborhoods or in suburban neighborhoods
> with no sidewalks, then you've created an environment that doesn't make it
> possible for people to exercise that personal responsibility. That's where
> government plays a role."
>
> And it's not just government agencies involved in public health that need
> to play a role, he said. Zoning boards are involved in building the
> sidewalks that encourage people to walk; school boards are involved in
> ensuring students get nutritious meals and physical education programs, he
> said.
>
> "Everyone has a role to play, starting with though not ending with the
> federal government," he said, noting that funding for relevant federal
> programs has been flat in recent years.
>
> "The resources are definitely not commensurate with the problem," he said.
> "Lots of people share the blame here."
>
> The CDC's point man on obesity, Dr. William Dietz, said he could see no
> drawbacks to the appointment of an obesity czar who would coordinate
> federal programs.
>
> But, he added, "That's a difficult issue for me to comment on because it's
> a recommendation for the administration that I'm part of."
>
> Still, no single strategy will solve the problem, he said, noting that
> dozens of societal changes are linked to the nation's expanding waistline
> -- the greater availability of food, an increase in television viewing,
> cheaper prices for food, and more availability of soft drinks.
>
> But diabetes specialist Dr. Richard K. Bernstein worried that an obesity
> czar might lead the nation down the wrong path.
>
> The New York-based author of "Diabetes Solution," contends that the
> popularity of low-fat diets is related to the increase in diabetes and
> obesity.
>
> "Insulin stores fat," he said. "Eat very little carbohydrate, you're gong
> to make very little insulin. Not only will you not store fat, you'll
> metabolize it."
>
> A senior analyst for The Center for Consumer Freedom, a food industry trade
> group, said government involvement is not needed. "Obesity is a private
> issue and we do not need Big Brother wagging his finger at us every time
> somebody wants to eat a doughnut," said Justin Wilson. "If someone wants to
> be a little heavier because they enjoy eating food that tastes good, that's
> a person's personal right."
>
> He cited two simple ways for people to lose weight -- "closing their mouth,
> going for a walk. It's the world's easiest diet plan."
>
> The study was carried out by the Trust for America's Health, which Levi
> directs. It describes itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
> dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and
> working to make disease prevention a national priority."
>
> The report was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

I don't think the problem is lack of sidewalks. Safe neighborhoods
might be a problem though. In my town we don't have many sidewalks and
people just walk in the street. It's safer there anyway cause people
are less likely to back over you crossing their driveways. When people
value good health, they find a way. You could always buy lots of
healthy food even in a can...green beans, squash, corn, peas, etc.

When I lived in Galena, Alaska there were no grocery stores. I drank
powdered milk (nonfat), ate well, but from cans often, and jogged,
even in -40 degree F. weather.

My point is that if you provide all kinds of healthy alternatives,
there are many people who will not use them and conversely, people
wanting good health find it even with adverse conditions. Lots of
fatties around here and we have tons of fresh produce, but many people
prefer to eat junk food and too much food period. Throwing lots of
govt. money at a problem like that is not a good answer. dkw

dkw12002@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> My point is that if you provide all kinds of healthy alternatives,
> there are many people who will not use them and conversely, people
> wanting good health find it even with adverse conditions. Lots of
> fatties around here and we have tons of fresh produce, but many people
> prefer to eat junk food and too much food period. Throwing lots of
> govt. money at a problem like that is not a good answer. dkw

Simple answer - they need to stop shoveling VAST quantities of junk food in
their pie holes.

"Manco" <manco_dollars@net2blah.com> wrote in message
news:Sm4Bi.424$9T5.138@trndny02...
> dkw12002@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> My point is that if you provide all kinds of healthy alternatives,
>> there are many people who will not use them and conversely, people
>> wanting good health find it even with adverse conditions. Lots of
>> fatties around here and we have tons of fresh produce, but many people
>> prefer to eat junk food and too much food period. Throwing lots of
>> govt. money at a problem like that is not a good answer. dkw
>
> Simple answer - they need to stop shoveling VAST quantities of junk food
> in their pie holes.

Agreed. You are what you eat and the vast majority of Americans eat nothing
but packaged junk unfit for human consumption. They sit in front of a TV
and park their kids in front of DVD players with bowls of fat laden crap.
It's disgusting and criminal on the part of American food manufacturers.

Manco wrote:
> dkw12002@yahoo.com wrote:
>> My point is that if you provide all kinds of healthy alternatives,
>> there are many people who will not use them and conversely, people
>> wanting good health find it even with adverse conditions. Lots of
>> fatties around here and we have tons of fresh produce, but many people
>> prefer to eat junk food and too much food period. Throwing lots of
>> govt. money at a problem like that is not a good answer. dkw
>
> Simple answer - they need to stop shoveling VAST quantities of junk food in
> their pie holes.
>
>

Yeah, it's nothing the government should be involved with, other than
maybe nutrition education in schools, or as below. A better approach
would be to boycott the foods that are unhealthy, if such a thing could
be organized. Think of who would profit from that and that's who would
organize it.

Question we should ask is what changed in the American diet or way of
living to cause this epidemic? Perhaps we need some dietitian activists
at work, like there are political activists.

First thing would be to decide what's causing the fat-on. There will be
lots of opinions on that. Then we need someone who will fight the sugar
lobby or whoever is causing the problem. No good getting a politician -
they get money from manufacturers and mostly they don't give a real hoot
anyway. What about someone who believes in the cause and is maybe an
active environmentalist? They would have the experience and zeal to
attack the problem. Maybe they are frustrated with saving the spotted
owl and ready for a new cause. Then, how are they going to get funded
for the good fight?

Here's a serious suggestion for discussion. Lawsuits. It is against the
law (Americans with Disabilities Act) to discriminate against someone
with a perceived disability. Precedent includes obese people in this
category. The ADA law is enforced through the courts with prosecution by
the Justice department and suit proceeds going to the victim, less
expenses.

For instance, one of the major airlines is making obese people pay for
two seats on their airline or refusing them service. That would be a
real obvious suit and there are others. Having the Justice dept front
the lawsuits costs nothing, the main risk would be cross filing and
there should be some protection available for that from the Justice
department. Any civil rights attorneys on this forum? Is this practical?

Mal

"Mal" <malhamilton@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hQ5Bi.2042$_A5.439@trndny03...

>
> For instance, one of the major airlines is making obese people pay for two
> seats on their airline or refusing them service. That would be a real
> obvious suit and there are others. Having the Justice dept front the
> lawsuits costs nothing, the main risk would be cross filing and there
> should be some protection available for that from the Justice department.
> Any civil rights attorneys on this forum? Is this practical?
>
> Mal

The airlines have every right to do this for safety reasons. A fat person
becomes a hazardous obstruction in the event of an emergency and could cost
the lives of more worthy passengers. What if the plane is on fire and an
injured blob is blocking the only exit and cannot be moved because of their
bulk? What if a 400 pounder cannot fit through an emergency escape, gets
stuck and blocks it, thus preventing innocent people from saving themselves?
Fat people are discourteous types by nature. They deliberately block common
walkways and lumber along preventing others from getting past them. These
are real concerns for airlines because of the potential for greater losses
of passengers who would otherwise live if there were no fat people to deal
with. Tell you fatties what, if it comes down to you and me getting off a
burning jet, you're getting as many big boots in your ass as it takes to get
you through, or if you don't look like you'll fit - away from the escape
exit. They should pass a law restricting fat people of a certain size from
flying anyway.

Sata wrote:
> "Mal" <malhamilton@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hQ5Bi.2042$_A5.439@trndny03...
>
>> For instance, one of the major airlines is making obese people pay for two
>> seats on their airline or refusing them service. That would be a real
>> obvious suit and there are others. Having the Justice dept front the
>> lawsuits costs nothing, the main risk would be cross filing and there
>> should be some protection available for that from the Justice department.
>> Any civil rights attorneys on this forum? Is this practical?
>>
>> Mal
>
> The airlines have every right to do this for safety reasons. A fat person
> becomes a hazardous obstruction in the event of an emergency and could cost
> the lives of more worthy passengers. What if the plane is on fire and an
> injured blob is blocking the only exit and cannot be moved because of their
> bulk? What if a 400 pounder cannot fit through an emergency escape, gets
> stuck and blocks it, thus preventing innocent people from saving themselves?
> Fat people are discourteous types by nature. They deliberately block common
> walkways and lumber along preventing others from getting past them. These
> are real concerns for airlines because of the potential for greater losses
> of passengers who would otherwise live if there were no fat people to deal
> with. Tell you fatties what, if it comes down to you and me getting off a
> burning jet, you're getting as many big boots in your ass as it takes to get
> you through, or if you don't look like you'll fit - away from the escape
> exit. They should pass a law restricting fat people of a certain size from
> flying anyway.
>
>

I suppose you have a point about airline safety. Of course the same
would apply to someone wheelchair bound or slow because they are
elderly. But don't call me a fatty, I'm not and I can boot too. Anyway,
that would seem like a justification for the rule the airline has, but
it isn't the reason they enforce it. Fat people cost more gas to haul
and inconvenience other passengers. I doubt it is a defense that would
prevail, but I'm no expert. I sure would like to hear comments from a
legal specialist in civil rights.

Mal

It doesn't take vast quantities of junk food to make one fat, all it takes
is a few extra calories every day beyond what the body uses.

Manco wrote:
| dkw12002@yahoo.com wrote:
||
|| My point is that if you provide all kinds of healthy alternatives,
|| there are many people who will not use them and conversely, people
|| wanting good health find it even with adverse conditions. Lots of
|| fatties around here and we have tons of fresh produce, but many
|| people prefer to eat junk food and too much food period. Throwing
|| lots of govt. money at a problem like that is not a good answer. dkw
|
| Simple answer - they need to stop shoveling VAST quantities of junk
| food in their pie holes.

On Aug 28, 9:02 pm, "Sata" <send.them.h...@in.a.box> wrote:
> "Mal" <malhamil...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hQ5Bi.2042$_A5.439@trndny03...
>
>
>
> > For instance, one of the major airlines is making obese people pay for two
> > seats on their airline or refusing them service. That would be a real
> > obvious suit and there are others. Having the Justice dept front the
> > lawsuits costs nothing, the main risk would be cross filing and there
> > should be some protection available for that from the Justice department.
> > Any civil rights attorneys on this forum? Is this practical?
>
> > Mal
>
> The airlines have every right to do this for safety reasons. A fat person
> becomes a hazardous obstruction in the event of an emergency and could cost
> the lives of more worthy passengers. What if the plane is on fire and an
> injured blob is blocking the only exit and cannot be moved because of their
> bulk? What if a 400 pounder cannot fit through an emergency escape, gets
> stuck and blocks it, thus preventing innocent people from saving themselves?
> Fat people are discourteous types by nature. They deliberately block common
> walkways and lumber along preventing others from getting past them. These
> are real concerns for airlines because of the potential for greater losses
> of passengers who would otherwise live if there were no fat people to deal
> with. Tell you fatties what, if it comes down to you and me getting off a
> burning jet, you're getting as many big boots in your ass as it takes to get
> you through, or if you don't look like you'll fit - away from the escape
> exit. They should pass a law restricting fat people of a certain size from
> flying anyway.

Well passenger weight is also very important in terms of fuel use and
other things the plane might take, so airlines should charge on the
basis of weight anyway.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is a foundation that often provides
money for health care to community health clinics and other areas
where access is a problem, and they can throw all the money they want
at the problem. Probably just funding education about healthy eating
and exercise would be as far as they will get and might be the best
use of their money though. dkw

"Sata" <send.them.home@in.a.box> wrote in message
news:46d4da61$0$1346$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere. com...
>
> "Manco" <manco_dollars@net2blah.com> wrote in message
> news:Sm4Bi.424$9T5.138@trndny02...
>> dkw12002@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>> My point is that if you provide all kinds of healthy alternatives,
>>> there are many people who will not use them and conversely, people
>>> wanting good health find it even with adverse conditions. Lots of
>>> fatties around here and we have tons of fresh produce, but many people
>>> prefer to eat junk food and too much food period. Throwing lots of
>>> govt. money at a problem like that is not a good answer. dkw
>>
>> Simple answer - they need to stop shoveling VAST quantities of junk food
>> in their pie holes.
>
> Agreed. You are what you eat and the vast majority of Americans eat
> nothing but packaged junk unfit for human consumption. They sit in
> front of a TV and park their kids in front of DVD players with bowls of
> fat laden crap. It's disgusting and criminal on the part of American food
> manufacturers.

Pictures are worth a 1000 words, but satire makes them even better
http://www.newstarget.com/021659.html
http://www.newstarget.com/021505.html
http://www.newstarget.com/021218.html
http://www.newstarget.com/020656.html

IMHO: Some government money could go to research. However, these government
people are the same idiots that came up with the food pyramid. I don't want
a nannying government interfering with my healthy eating, which does not
match their faulty theories.


"Penny" <pennyforyour@thoughts.com> wrote in message
news:20070828022609.103434E4AA@outpost.zedz.net...
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....udy/index.html
>
> Report: National strategy needed to fight fat
> Story Highlights
> Report: Obesity rates swelled over last year in 31 states; no states saw
> decline
>
> First time a state has more than 30 percent obese: Mississippi
>
> Recommendation: National strategy needed to attack obesity
>
> (CNN) -- Americans are already among the fattest people in the world and
> they just keep packing on the pounds. A new report finds that obesity
> rates
> have swelled during the last year in 31 states with not one state
> reporting
> that its obesity rate shrank. And, for the first time, more than 30
> percent
> of residents in one state -- Mississippi -- are classified as obese.
>
> Nationwide, two-thirds of U.S. adults are obese or overweight, according
> to
> the fourth annual report from the Trust for America's Health, titled "F as
> in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America." The report's
> co-author says the government needs to treat this trend as an epidemic
> that
> threatens the health of Americans and put in place a national plan in
> place
> to combat obesity.
>
> "The key recommendation in the report is we need a national strategy,"
> said
> report co-author Jeffrey Levi.
>
> He noted that the federal government has created a comprehensive plan to
> be
> implemented in the event of an outbreak of pandemic flu.
>
> "We need something like that in obesity that says this is what every
> agency
> of the federal government is doing. [It's] what we can do to directly
> affect this problem and motivate individual communities and businesses to
> play their role as well," Levi said.
>
> In 32 states, 60 percent of the population is either overweight or obese.
> West Virginia ranks highest in the combined statistic, with nearly
> two-thirds of its adults obese or overweight.
>
> Mississippi, where almost one in three adults are obese, also ranks
> highest
> in adult hypertension and physical inactivity. It's tied with the District
> of Columbia in poverty and ranks second-highest in adult diabetes.
>
> West Virginia came in second in the obesity ranking, followed by Alabama,
> Louisiana, South Carolina and Tennessee.
>
> Nationwide, more than 25 percent of adults in 19 states are obese, up from
> 14 states last year.
>
> "If you go back to 1991, only four states had obesity rates above 15
> percent, and none exceeded 20 percent," said Levi.
>
> Physical activity is linked to a reduced risk of dying prematurely. It
> also
> lowers one's risk of developing a host of diseases, including heart
> disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and colon cancer.
>
> Obesity also affects the health of the nation's economy. Fat employees
> translate into fat medical bills for U.S. businesses trying to compete in
> an international marketplace.
>
> A Duke University study that appeared in the Archives of Internal Medicine
> found 184 lost workdays per 100 obese full-time employees versus 14 lost
> workdays per 100 normal-weight full-time employees.
>
> The average obese worker has up to 21 percent higher health care costs,
> the
> Duke report said.
>
> A Medicare study found that obese patients cost the agency 15 percent more
> than normal or overweight patients.
>
> Levi says individuals need the government's help to take control of their
> weight.
>
> "People can't exercise personal responsibility in a vacuum," he said. "If
> you're telling people to eat healthier food and there are no grocery
> stores
> in the neighborhood; if you're telling them to be more physically active,
> and they live in poor, unsafe neighborhoods or in suburban neighborhoods
> with no sidewalks, then you've created an environment that doesn't make it
> possible for people to exercise that personal responsibility. That's where
> government plays a role."
>
> And it's not just government agencies involved in public health that need
> to play a role, he said. Zoning boards are involved in building the
> sidewalks that encourage people to walk; school boards are involved in
> ensuring students get nutritious meals and physical education programs, he
> said.
>
> "Everyone has a role to play, starting with though not ending with the
> federal government," he said, noting that funding for relevant federal
> programs has been flat in recent years.
>
> "The resources are definitely not commensurate with the problem," he said.
> "Lots of people share the blame here."
>
> The CDC's point man on obesity, Dr. William Dietz, said he could see no
> drawbacks to the appointment of an obesity czar who would coordinate
> federal programs.
>
> But, he added, "That's a difficult issue for me to comment on because it's
> a recommendation for the administration that I'm part of."
>
> Still, no single strategy will solve the problem, he said, noting that
> dozens of societal changes are linked to the nation's expanding waistline
> -- the greater availability of food, an increase in television viewing,
> cheaper prices for food, and more availability of soft drinks.
>
> But diabetes specialist Dr. Richard K. Bernstein worried that an obesity
> czar might lead the nation down the wrong path.
>
> The New York-based author of "Diabetes Solution," contends that the
> popularity of low-fat diets is related to the increase in diabetes and
> obesity.
>
> "Insulin stores fat," he said. "Eat very little carbohydrate, you're gong
> to make very little insulin. Not only will you not store fat, you'll
> metabolize it."
>
> A senior analyst for The Center for Consumer Freedom, a food industry
> trade
> group, said government involvement is not needed. "Obesity is a private
> issue and we do not need Big Brother wagging his finger at us every time
> somebody wants to eat a doughnut," said Justin Wilson. "If someone wants
> to
> be a little heavier because they enjoy eating food that tastes good,
> that's
> a person's personal right."
>
> He cited two simple ways for people to lose weight -- "closing their
> mouth,
> going for a walk. It's the world's easiest diet plan."
>
> The study was carried out by the Trust for America's Health, which Levi
> directs. It describes itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
> dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and
> working to make disease prevention a national priority."
>
> The report was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
>
>
>