-
1
07/01/10 | Report as spam
Very refreshing...
Dana, you nailed it. Thank you.
-
2
07/01/10 | Report as spam
BMI is bogus
It was developed as a quick and dirty measure in pre WWI Belgium. Hmm lets see - Agrarian generally undernourished source pool. A case in point - look at what a "Healthy BMI" person looks like. If you aren't an anorexic marathoner, you wont match up. I'm fat by the BMI. I need to loose 40 lbs to meet my health goals and control my diabeties, but to get down to a "healthy" BMI I would have to go back to a pre highschool weight when I was running cross country 40 years ago. Sorry, I don't want to look like a stick again.
-
3
07/01/10 | Report as spam
AGREE BMI is BOGUS!
Put simply, BMI does not differentiate between fat and muscle.
Nevertheless, reducing/removing corn and grain subsidies is the
way to at least begin to solve the problem. These subsidies enable
a vast array of problems -- both physically for consumers and
economically for the world as a whole.
-
4
07/01/10 | Report as spam
BMI works, it's the ranges that are objectionable
See, I currently have a BMI of 30. 5' 11", 215 pounds. I'm definately overweight. My knees and ankles feel it. If I go to 220, my back starts kicking in with aches and spasms too. I'm also 52 years old.
I was at my healthiest when I was 30, taking Tae Kwon Do 3 days a week for 90 minutes each and eating a Weight Watchers' diet. My weight was 185 pounds; my cholesterol was like 150, my BP was fantastic, and I could outrun 95% of the population.
BMI says I'm not in a healthy range unless I'm under 180 pounds. Not true. For me to be under 180 pounds, while there wouldn't be an ounce of fat on me and I'd have washboard abs, I'd have to be aerobically exercising at least 90 minutes per day, and I'd also have no reserves for when I do get sick. Unfortunately, there's no guarrantee that my BP and cholesterol levels would improve.
And I'd still be eating under a Weight Watchers plan.
-
5
07/01/10 | Report as spam
AGREED! In fact, ...
... since government intervention in the market caused this mess, let's get government out of as much as possible.
-
6
07/01/10 | Report as spam
RE: Mass fat production leads to mass fat consumption
Bingo! Watch Food, Inc for an interesting documentary on the issue.
Just attempt to go a day without HFCS in your food. Unless you make it yourself, you are going to have difficulty.
-
7
07/01/10 | Report as spam
RE: Mass fat production leads to mass fat consumption
Dana sounds sensible with:
"Take the price supports off mass produced grain and feed, "
but then he gets to this:
"give them to small local truck farms and sustainable production methods."
-
8
07/01/10 | Report as spam
RE: Mass fat production leads to mass fat consumption
Once an industry gets entrenched in their subsidies it is very difficult
to change because they can afford a lot of lobbyist and can afford
big campaign contributions.
-
9
07/01/10 | Report as spam
RE: Mass fat production leads to mass fat consumption
I'm glad to see an article of this type and i hope to see more.
Since I've started choose to eat healthy, it just makes me sick to
see what people are putting into their bodies, and knowing I
used to do the same. I hear complaints from people all the time
that organic and natural foods are too expensive. No, you've
just gotten used to cheap food. And I mean cheap in every
sense of the word. Everyone benefits if we switch to more local
produce, sustainable farming methods and healthy diets that
aren't filled with chemically-produced "food". Sickness rates
drop, health care costs plummet and I bet a lot of depression
would be eliminated because health is more than just the body.
If demand for quality food goes up, the prices will come down
as well. Nevertheless, my income is quite low and I manage to
eat healthy just fine even now. I save money by riding my bike to
work and church and so on. That has an impact on the
environment as well so your good choices go beyond just
yourself.
I'm 5'11" and 138 pounds and I'll turn 40 next year so don't let
the "I'm too old" excuse get in your way. Just get your lazy butt
in gear and do something about it now before you're even older!
-
10
07/02/10 | Report as spam
RE: Mass fat production leads to mass fat consumption
I so agree with masonmouse we should also have Doctors who send some of the people to see dietitian from their Doctors advise and a little help for the people who are older and disabled like my self and we would have allot more people who would be able to learn to eat what is good for them rather then some of the garbage that is out their and we would need allot less meds and many more people would also need less Doctor visits as well.I wish i had the chance to see a Dietitian so i would know what to eat that would help me get on the right track.I am sure all of us could use that extra help and you would have much less sick people out their who would feel allot better and have to take less medications and would be going in the right Direction as far as their weight and Health.But i don't see that any time soon.Thanks Deb
-
11
07/02/10 | Report as spam
BMI sux
As a tall person, I hate BMI. Because it goes with 1/(height sq), but
volume (and thus mass) goes with (length cubed), it is pessimistic
over 5ft 11.
Other indices use 1/(height cubed), but apparently that's optimistic
for many tall people because we tend to be longer-limbed.
So I made my own one up which goes with 1/(height ^ 2.7).
Much better.
-
12
07/02/10 | Report as spam
It's not that simple
First and foremost, growing up my family had an unsubsidized hog farm. Unlike most farmers, I'm against welfare for farmers.
But it's not that simple. Removing subsidies won't cause farmers to switch to organic farming or producing "quality" food. From 1996 until 2002, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 made great strides in reducing subsidies. Six years is forever in farming; many farms can go from boom to bust in just one or two years. As a result, any effect of removing subsidies would have been almost immediately felt. Yet removing the subsidies for six years did little to change the type of food produced. I don't recall anybody heralding the golden years of the late '90s when everybody was eating "quality" food.
Many farmers have little control over the types of crops they grow. Agribusiness dictates what they will buy. For example. McDonald's purchases a significant percentage of the potatoes produced in the US, and they have total contractual control over what kind of potatoes are produced by the farmers that grow them. For other crops the situation is the same with ADM and other big agribusiness companies calling the shots. The type of hogs my family farm produced, for example, was totally under the control of the meat packers. If we didn't meet their standards, we couldn't sell hogs and we were out of business. Removing subsidies will not change this relationship one bit (once more for emphasis, the hogs from my family's farm were unsubsidized).
It's also a total myth that foreign agriculture is stifled by American farms producing too much. Transportation costs from America, say, to Africa would render American crops uncompetitive if Africa was at all efficient in agricultural production. Many of these countries lack adequate financing mechanisms (agriculture lives year-to-year on bank financing), poor internal transportation systems, lack of educational resources, poor infrastructure to support mechanized farming, etc. If America no longer has surplus food to sell them, many in these countries will simply starve. It's wishful thinking to believe that these countries will suddenly start producing enough food for their own needs. It's not America's fault if these countries cannot develop the infrastructure necessary for efficient agricultural production.
Just look at what Mugabe did to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has some of the richest agricultural land in the world. When Mugabe took office, Zimbabwe was exporting food to other countries in Africa. Of course, most farms were in the hands of a few white farmers, so in the name of reform Mugabe confiscated these lands, broke them up, and gave them to poor African farmers who were ill-equipped to farm. Now Zimbabwe can't feed itself, much less the rest of Africa. Whether or not this action was justified or fair is a subject of great controversy (the issue is clouded by accusations of corruption by Mugabe in this process as in everything else he has done), but my point here is that just giving land to the peasant farmer seldom works. Agriculture is a highly technological process requiring a sophisticated infrastructure and just giving away land to the average farm worker won't work any better than giving the keys to one of Intel's chip foundries to an average computer owner will.
Organic farmers, truck farmers, and other producers of what you call "quality" food may eschew pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, but in all other respects they use the same methods as regular farmers. They still depend on highly mechanized methods, still depend on sophisticated irrigation, etc. Producers of range-raised chickens, pigs, and cattle may not put antibiotics in their feed, but when their animals become sick they still inject them with antibiotics. If anything, these farmers have to be better managers and technicians than their conventional neighbors because their margin of error is less. For marketing purposes these farmers like to project a bucolic family farm image, but their operations are just as complex as any farm.
-
13
07/02/10 | Report as spam
RE: Mass fat production leads to mass fat consumption
all this utopian idea of locally grown food is great if it were both poissible to produce enough and if the food(healty food) were what most people wanted to eat.
first, locally grown food would only be available during the part of the year that food could be grown. fo most of the country, that is not all year, so who starves during winter? there are also portions of the country in which food cannot be grown because there is not enough water. who starves in those sections of the country?
what of the foods that people en mass dislike? the first president bush pointed out that he hated broccoli and because he was president did not have to eat it. many of us feel the same way about that vegetable and many others. they do not taste good, they do not satisfy, and we do not want to eat them. for many food is not just survival. it is a pleasure. for those for whom food is survival, we and other countries need to keep growing as much as we can.
-
14
07/02/10 | Report as spam
RE: Mass fat production leads to mass fat consumption
God bless you Dana.
I raise organic beef and chicken on a farm at the edge of a major
metropolitan area. However, the only reason that I am able to
farm, is because I subsidize the effort with my IT job.
Small farmers struggle due to the lack of market infrastructure
required to bring our produce to market. Most small farmers do
not have access to a slaughter house that can package for
individual re-sale, or a store willing to sell their chicken and eggs.
Small scale local farmers do not need government hand-outs.
However, we do need important market enabling infrastructure, or
we are not going to be able to grow. Increased funding for
innovative county-based agricultural programs is essential. Such
programs can help create the market conditions essential to a flourishing local food economy.
Small local farming is in every American's best interest. It can
help reduce our dependence on government supported
corporate farming. In turn, that will also reduce our use of fossil
fuels and our consumption of unhealthy foods. And, finally, it can
help places like my county, where there are lot of people are out
of work. Innovative programs can help people start new
agricultural-based small businesses.
-
15
07/02/10 | Report as spam
zclayton3
I once thought BMI was bogus. Fat weighs less than muscle. My
YMCA coach is built like a tank and has a high BMI as a result of
being muscular.
Then, a few months ago, he came up with hypertension. Really bad.
Nearly died. In his 30s. He has been cutting back on his weight,
without adding fat, and is now healthier.
-
16
07/02/10 | Report as spam
dc.martin@...
Eliminating all agricultural subsidies will lead to wild fluctuations in
supply -- it always has in the past. That's why they're there. To
maintain something like a stable price, a sustainable price, so
people will stay in farming.
Unfortunately the current system gives all that money to huge
corporate farms that could take a loss, and nothing to the kind of
people for whom the program was intended.
-
17
07/02/10 | Report as spam
stilt21
There is an enormous amount of technological change taking
place in food production, and an updated farm program could
take advantage.
Example. At my local farmers market the other day I saw some
hydroponic basil, grown not 40 miles from my home in Atlanta.
Hydroponic solutions can be built into ordinary shipping
containers. Put solar panels on the top and you essentially gain
more control over the light hitting the crop.
Zackers has a point in that the solution may not look like the past,
of small family truck farms and the like taking their corn to market.
But we can produce a lot more vegetables, and for a lot less
money, if we have market incentives.
Those who say government should get out of agriculture forget,
or ignore, that it is currently heavily in agriculture. For a reason.
-
18
07/02/10 | Report as spam
stilt21
Today's diet and food preferences are of very recent vintage. I
believe that they can and will change in reaction to changes in
supply patterns, as markets and market incentives cause more
supply to arrive of better food at more attractive prices.
I would like to lose 25 pounds. I know it's hard. But yesterday I saw
an old friend in Houston. He is a baker. He lost 100. And kept it off.
So it's possible.
-
19
07/02/10 | Report as spam
Let's focus on solutions...
BMI has issues for many; one size fits all is seldom a good idea. But it's a start, and can easily be shaped towards something less irritating. And yes, it irritates me: at 6'1" and a struggling 275 my ~36 reading will only go to ~31, if I ever get to my target 240 as my doctor urges. But BMI is just a way to neatly observe our own personal situation.
What might REALLY help is to means-test all agricultural subsidies, and condition them to healthy outcomes. This is just the natural application of your points that (1) there is a lot of money in the farm game, (2) the money is necessary to smooth the game over time, and (3) most of the money goes to those who don't actually farm. Change (3). ADM should not be too big to fail, either. When the money can be attached to actual producers, and at that the production of healthy alternatives is emphasized, then perhaps the profit uber alles game can be ended.
-
20
07/02/10 | Report as spam
RE: Mass fat production leads to mass fat consumption
It is not about EATING fat foods but about the
carbs and sugars associated with it. It is not the
hamburger but it is about the bun, the fries and the
sweetened soft drinks, fruit juices and candy and
so called health bars loaded also with carbs that
make people pre-diabetic, obese and unhealthy.
Cut out that subsidised corn and carb
consumption and weight will fall away. Saturated
fats such as found in meat ( as differentiated from
Trans Fats..industrially manufactured artificial fats)
are not heart damaging unlike the transfats. They
in reasonable quantities do not make one fat either
but for certain the giant drink sugared to death
with corn based sweeteners will kill you in the end.
There is plenty to read on the subject. Eat the
bunless burger and a salad and you will lose
weight. Think to yourself when out at a fast food
world..it's the bun..stupid..it's the fries and the
drink. Enjoy the cheeseburger sans the rest and
get a side salad and be healthy.
-
21
07/02/10 | Report as spam
RE: Mass fat production leads to mass fat consumption
It seems to me, that it should be apparent, that the way food is being mass produced must be the problem since obesity is effecting a large part of the populations. Let's face the fact that eating habits are individualize as personalities. To find the common factor should be where the factors are the largest.
-
22
07/03/10 | Report as spam
Subsidies were not designed to control output
@DanaBlankenhorn: Actually, farm subsidies started out in the Depression as a way of giving public assistance to farmers, just as public assistance was started for other sectors of the economy. They were not started as a way of regulating output or providing a stable supply of food, though of course that was the official PR story.
The truth is that in any given year, the weather can outfox even the brightest Washington planners. Subsidies do nothing to solve that problem. And even with government-owned surpluses generated by subsidies, planners can still get it wrong.
The most notorious case was around 1980 when the USSR made a deal with the US government to buy large amounts of our surplus grain at a relatively low price (we didn't realize it at the time, but the USSR was very close to famine). Unfortunately, the bureaucrats in Washington sold too much grain. That year we almost ran out ourselves because of crop failures and because farmers didn't realize the extent of the USSR's purchases. I remember that most breakfast cereals had little dark weevils in them the size of rice grains that came from scraping the bottom of our storage silos. The darn things would float in your milk (not very appetizing) and would infect all the other open boxes of cereal in your pantry. It would have been much better if the USSR had been forced to buy grain on the open market; the rise in price as they purchased more would have slowed them down and let farmers know they should increase their acreage.
-
23
07/13/10 | Report as spam
Dana Blankenhorn. Thank you!
Dana Blankenhorn. Thank you!
Great article!
I didn't came around to read it before now but it was well worth it. I think you are right. I don't like the less freedom part but we are killing ourselves are a people!
Thank you!
I’m fat. 
