Why is metabolic dysfunction on the rise in the USA and in other parts of the world?
UFOs, flat earth, and other topics, OK. Why not then, a topic on our collective state of diminishing health, and how much of it is lifestyle choice related that is largely correctable if addressed early enough?
In the last ~50 years, we have become less active, eat too many processed foods, eat way way way too much sugar and carbs, and too few whole (natural) foods.
The end result in my opinion? Childhood and adult obesity is on the rise along with non-alcohol related “fatty liver”, insulin resistance, diabetes, dementia, heart disease, and the list goes on.
I’m NOT suggesting anyone change their diet and exercise routine without consulting their medical physician first. Having said this, most medical physicians have little to no nutritional education or training.
Why not take lifestyle steps to address a growing list of chronic conditions before they become acute ones where we can?
Scooby's note: Warning: This Youtube video is over 2 hours long but worth watching!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sTS2fd3kE9I&pp=ygUcd2F0Y2ggb3V0IHRoZSBmb29kIGkgZHVzdHJ5cw%3D%3D
8 comments:
Some ethnic groups are more prone to obesity and diabetes on a modern diet for partly genetic reasons. Also age has increased due to changing demographics and longer lifespans, and this correlates with diabetes, and the medical system has improved, keeping more unhealthy people alive which also leads to higher incidence, and leading to more diagnoses. But yes, there is a problem apart from that,
https://diabetes.org/about-us/statistics/about-diabetes
7/13/2023 5:41 AM
I heard that a possible driver was that in 50s and 60s there was a big push that "fat is bad" and that the food pyramid was created with the biiggest portion of food you have to eat is bread and grains or carbohydrates, followed by fruits, followed by vegetables and little meat. This lead to a large increase in diabetes. The 5.41 poster is also probably right about ethnic groups, if you are say a native Alaskan, for thousands of years you only eat meat and a few shrubs. In fact they had to ferment meat to get some vitamins. Now 2000s, they get get pizza, cola, twinkkies, pizza, fries, and processed bread all of which was utterly absent from 10-20k of living in that region. Of course eating massive amounts of this stuff is bad for everyone but worse for others. At least in Alaska they probably still have to get some exercise and not be on their iPhones all day.
I predict this stuff is all going to get worse with more people just sitting at home or work on looking at computer screens or posting on Blogs. Speaking of which I am going to put down my supersized Mountain Dew and go outside.
Maybe it is good, to have Darwinian ideas, after all, in the big scheme of things, the Earth may be "overpopulated". After all, living conditions greatly improved after the Black Death, and Social Security is underfunded; we are surely fortunate life expectancy is declining in our country as we will have a brighter future. Once people are "idle" does it indeed make sense to "decrease the surplus population"?
"Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.” “Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.” “If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Vice President Kamala Harris mistakenly spoke about investing to “reduce population” during a speech on climate change on Friday, sparking concern on social media before the White House revealed she had meant to say “reduce pollution.”
“When we invest in clean energy, and electric vehicles, and reduce population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water,” declared Harris during her speech on tackling climate change and creating a “clean energy economy.”
“Maybe it is good, to have Darwinian ideas, after all, in the big scheme of things, the Earth may be "overpopulated". After all, living conditions greatly improved after the Black Death, and Social Security is underfunded; we are surely fortunate life expectancy is declining in our country as we will have a brighter future. Once people are "idle" does it indeed make sense to "decrease the surplus population"?”
“Darwinian Ideas”? A little dark, selfish, and cold don’t you think? The topic question is to acknowledge and correct our collective poor dietary and exercise habits in order to improve our collective life quality and life span. Not “Shhh, let them die off Darwinian style for the benefit of the remaining”.
It isn't "selfish" to let everyone do their own thing and take the consequences. It is the opposite of selfish. To insist on helping people who haven't asked for help is the definition of selfish.
“It isn't "selfish" to let everyone do their own thing and take the consequences. It is the opposite of selfish. To insist on helping people who haven't asked for help is the definition of selfish.”
The only place I see the word “insist” is in your comment. You have inserted a demand like term in the attempt to discredit the commenter and then you responded to yourself.
It’s not about insisting, requiring, or mandating anything. It’s about being in a position to make informed decisions knowing what the likely consequences will be good or bad, that is supported by available data. Your “helping people who haven't asked for help” comment is an unclear concern to the reader.
Are you saying one shouldn’t be forced to have a healthy diet and exercise, or are you saying one should not be informed of the likely consequences of a poor diet and little to no exercise?
Your comments are a close cousin to “Darwinian Ideas”, but this time you are protecting them. Not.
The Darwinian ideas quote, I think, you do not understand properly, as follows. Our government spends much of its money on insurance schemes, and brings in money by taxing healthy working age people. The US life expectancy has been going down for quite a while. The government is short on money. Is that a coincidence?
I would also point out that the current inflation might not really be a surprise, and is in the interest of the United States. Following COVID there was an increase in many asset prices -- for the sake of argument, imagine that housing, gold, stocks, etc went up thirty percent for a ballpark figure. Then, it is somewhat inevitable we will have thirty or so percent inflation in wages as well as various cost of living metrics, at some later date, give or take.
The Fed of course, knows this, inflation means that the GDP has just risen 30% as well. The dollar value of their outstanding debt, is the same, but the debt to GDP ratio which is the only thing to matter, has just dropped about 30%. In effect, all the COVID stimulus and other pandemic measures, have been paid for by printing money.
This should be fine for most people, as most people are net debt, often mortgages and the value of housing has increased, while those with stocks also see an increase as compared to before the pandemic.
There certainly could be some issues, however, with anyone who might have owned government debt. This was the cause of the Silicon Valley Bank bankruptcy as you know, but most banks will be fine. Some people could also lose pensions, and it might be possible that some people are living on "fixed income" which is fixed in the sense that it doesn't keep up with the cost of living they encounter -- as inflation is uneven across various goods and services, and geographical regions.
It all looks like a pretty well thought out plan, in fact, although it is certainly odd that nobody actually ever states this in clear terms. The economic response to COVID was clearly emphasized by the Trump administration in particular, perhaps correctly so, and he deserves credit (or blame as you might personally feel) for much of our current situation.
And of course, all this was possible because we have the world's reserve currency, and foreign countries have been somewhat more impacted than we have. So of course, there have been issues like Liz Truss's failure, the problems in France, and problems in fact with most of the world. Russia was actually in some ways a bright spot, before the war and after, due to their good commodity exports and good fiscal management. India is actually doing relatively well too, as are some other countries like Brazil, that is the origin of this so-called "BRICS movement".
Of course, the strength of the United States now, means that our allies will do well going forward, it strengthens alliances, and could be good for them as well in the long term. So the entire event, in my analysis, is quite paradoxical in terms of its outcome.
Post a Comment