Posts Tagged ‘Obesity’« Older Entries |
Tuesday, August 6th, 2013
In June of this year the American Medical Association voted to classify obesity as a disease. This was done against the recommendation of the AMA’s own Council of Science and Public Health, which researches and offers its recommendations on these matters. Over 26% of American adults met the criteria of being obese in 2012, meaning a Body Mass Index (BMI) over 30. An additional 36% were officially overweight, with a BMI 25-30. Perhaps an even greater tragedy is that around 25% of children aged 2-5 are overweight or obese, as are a full 1/3 of school-aged children. The number of morbidly obese adults, those with a BMI over 40, is now up to 6%.
Obesity is a scourge, to be sure. It sits stubbornly at the confluence of some moderately influential genetic and hormonal factors, and an absolute deluge of social and environmental assaults. In any respectable court of law, an obese individual offering a defense of their weight could present a rock-solid case that they were framed, completely set up. Billions are spent every year to convince us to consume all manner of substances that masquerade as food. The least healthy of these are also the most easily accessible, whether that is measured by the ubiquitous corner location of the fast food dispensaries, or the eye-level grocery shelves replete with artificially colored, ultra-refined and thoroughly preserved packaged foods.
The greatest mystery is not that so many people are obese, but that more aren’t. Among other reasons, fat accumulates on our bodies in a desperate attempt to encapsulate the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) that perfuse our foods, as well as our home and working environments (source, source). Both diabetic and obese patients frantic to lose their excess weight are often mystified that their most heroic dietary and exercise efforts have no effect.
What is not realized is that the fat stores chemicals that are better kept out of circulation. The POPs sit for years, even decades, quietly acting as endocrine disruptors in their gracious hosts. Accumulation of fat is, in this circumstance, a byproduct of simply living in the modern world. Obesity is the exhaust of an industrial engine that roars on. Evidence of these things can be seen on lab work, but only in hints, so it remains hidden to the eyes of doctors not trained to look for clues regarding environmental contributions to our maladies.
The medical system’s interest in bringing obesity into the land of disease has to do primarily with economics, not health. We should not be appalled by this, even if we’re saddened. Modern medicine does reasonably well with acute illnesses. No one, though, has acute obesity; it is a chronic condition. In fact, as a percentage, those with acute illness are a trifling next to those with chronic illness.
Ironically, we have a medical system that does virtually nothing to reduce the burden of chronic illnesses, or even to alter their course beyond the superficial suppression of symptoms. The system manages, when it works, to poorly manage some of those chronic symptoms into perpetuity. The great majority of health care expense is racked up in the ongoing treatment of chronicity: diabetes, heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, and now obesity officially joins this team.
Like smallpox, asthma and cancer, obesity is now a diagnostic island unto itself. No longer simply a confluence of circumstances, it stands alone, and as such it is calling out for treatment as a billable medical condition. Sure, it was recognized as a problem before, but being billable makes all the difference. Advocates of the change have suggested, apparently with a straight face, that this disease classification will bring doctors to finally give it the attention it deserves.
“(Diagnosing obesity as a disease) acknowledges that obesity is a chronic health condition that has genetic as well as environmental causes that requires lifelong treatment using medical and psychological support,” said Connie Crawley, a University of Georgia Cooperative Extension nutrition and health specialist in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences. (source)
One can imagine an almost palpable wave of renewed compassion sweeping through the medical community as physicians, who once thought obesity to be a problem of self-control, now understand it as a disease that takes hold and, in its chronic way, doesn’t let go of its target.
Would that this were the case. In reality, the new classification means that instead of offering generic advice about exercise and eating healthier, physicians can prescribe medications to their frustrated but hopeful obese patients. What is treatment, after all? In a system of for-profit medicine, it’s hardly noteworthy that the diseas-ification of obesity comes less than a month after FDA approval of two new drugs to “treat” obesity. They each cost about $150/month.
Consuming pills, we should come to believe, will shrink our waistlines, tighten our thighs, and negate a lifetime of exposures and patterns of eating. Our medical system is expert at seeing a raging fire, and finding ways to make money off of the smoke. This is not conspiracy; it is a fact of daily business.
In the conventional model of health and disease, chronic illnesses don’t go away. Obesity is now officially granted a lifelong sanction, the medical seal now firmly in place, tens of millions of obese individuals – men, women and children – are a welcome new market. The commercials are not far behind, where the actor, heavy and moribund, convinces viewers that there is new hope in these pills to manage obesity.
Regardless of its new classification, obesity is still sitting, unchanged, at the tangled intersection of individual and social/environmental influences. Opening it up to management by prescription does little to address these underlying causes except in the most trivial way. But a new market has been created, and enormous amounts of money will be made from obesity’s medical management.
The culprits who have set us up for this disease – through cheap and degraded foods, through the chronic stress of financial and food insecurity, through the obfuscation of basic relevant health information, and through allowing an environment laden with the chemicals that push us toward accumulation – have no reason to fear they will be asked to account for their contributions to this epidemic. Like obesity itself, these circumstances are now permanent, invisible aspects of this modern world.
Tags: medical politics, Obesity
Posted in Alternative medicine, Articles by our Doctors, Chronic disease, Diet, General, Health & Wellness, Health care reform, Obesity, Pharmacuetical, Politics | Comments Off
Tuesday, September 4th, 2012
You may have read, and heard, recently about the latest study out comparing organic to non-organic foods. The bottom line is that the researchers who conducted the study have concluded that there is virtually no difference in the nutrient content of the organic foods as compared with non-organic, or conventional foods.
That finding may (or may not) be true, but it’s not the point. There is a big difference between “nutrient” content and “nutritional” content and that is what we need to look at – the bigger picture!
Nutrition is the interaction of the food and the organism. To have good nutrition means much more than just taking a vitamin pill and feeling like you’re getting all your RDA’s of nutrients. Organic food has nutritional benefits over non-organic food simply because of what they don’t do to it! Besides the common use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers in conventional farming and ranching, a much more ominous practice is the liberal use of antibiotics to grow fatter animals faster. These antibiotics are not limited to the animal – they enter into the system of anyone who ingests the meat from that animal. As Michael Pollan points out so perfectly, “You are what you eat eats.” Think about that one.
I recently read an article that came across my radar about the epidemic of obesity in children. (If you would like to read it please go to; http://news.discovery.com/human/children-drug-antibiotic-obese-fat-weight-120821.html or Google “obesity in children + antibiotics” and you’ll get a number of articles on the subject.) This particular study was making the link between antibiotic use and the rising number of overweight children. The author summed it up by saying:
- Antibiotics kill good bacteria as well as bad, and some of the good bacteria could help keep us lean.
- Exposure to antibiotics before six months was related to heavier children later in life.
- The study was inspired by farmers, who have known for some time that using antibiotics produce heavier cows.
It’s that last bullet point that really got me….
But, back to the original study. The Stanford researchers who were compelled to release their findings on the lack of evidence that organic foods are more beneficial than non-organic foods also stated that the differences they did find involved “pesticides and antibiotics.” In fact, the research team found “a notable difference with antibiotic-resistant germs, a public health concern because they are harder to treat if they cause food poisoning.”
Further, the study also stated that “specialists long have said that organic or not, the chances of bacterial contamination of food are the same, and Monday’s analysis agreed. But when bacteria did lurk in chicken or pork, germs in the non-organic meats had a 33 percent higher risk of being resistant to multiple antibiotics, the researchers reported Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. “
And, that finding comes amid debate over feeding animals antibiotics, not because they’re sick but to fatten them up!
Interesting. So, the conventional practice of feeding animals antibiotics to quickly fatten them up (I always thought they were given because of gut inflammation from eating the wrong diets) – not only contributes to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance but to obesity in humans as well. A pretty big “nutritional” issue.
However, having your food marked as “organic” is not always a guarantee of quality either. There is a lot of elasticity these days in the terms organic, natural, free-range and grass-fed. Unfortunately, there will always be producers that will stretch the limits of certification requirements. On the other hand, there are several conventional producers who have stopped using growth-hormones, antibiotics and other dangerous practices by choice –not by law – due to consumer demand and, hopefully, in response to the mounting evidence that these practices are truly not good for us.
By the way – The USDA certifies products as organic if they are produced without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers, or routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones. Non-organic foods have “allowable” or so-called “safe levels” of these substances. But the question is – if someone offered you a glass of water and sprinkled in just a pinch of pesticide – a safe amount – would you drink it? Would you feed it to your child?
Tags: antibiotics, conventional, Diet, Food, GAPS, Health, Nutrition, Obesity, organic, organic food
Posted in Diet, Food, GAPS, General, Health, Health News Headlines, Healthy diet, Healthy lifestyle, Nature Cures, Nutrition, Obesity | Comments Off
Monday, July 16th, 2012
A recent review of the reasons for children being admitted to emergency rooms found that admissions for high blood pressure doubled between 1997 and 2006. Hypertension accounted for almost 25,000 admissions to the emergency room for pediatric patients in 2006. This is tragic enough, but add to this the finding that up to 30% of kids diagnosed with hypertension already have signs of damage in their blood vessels caused by the condition.
The experts, of course, offer their sage advice regarding this issue. Dr. Joshua Samuels, writing in the journal Hypertension, states the conventional case clearly: “Now is the time to invest in early detection, prevention, and treatment of elevated BP in children.” He goes on to write that there is “an array of pharmacological interventions with pediatric dosing, safety, and often even labeling. If the current study tells us anything, it is that we cannot afford to wait.”
What is most telling is that Dr. Samuels – as well as the authors of the study – believes that the main cause for the increase is the rising tide of obesity in the pediatric population. So the mystery is this: if these doctors believe they know what is causing the increase, and they are working in a profession called “health care,” why are their treatment recommendations not focused on treating the cause of the hypertension? To advocate for the use of medications is simply to accept the inevitability of obesity in kids, and to medically manage the resulting diseases.
The real tragedy is that, as a society, we have come to accept these after-the-fact drug-based proposals, and even to refer to them as “health care.” They aren’t. To medicate children with high blood pressure is to ignore its preventable and treatable underlying causes. That our medical system doesn’t focus there says nothing about the challenge of managing pediatric hypertension. It says volumes, though, about the unwavering commitment of our medical system to profit-generating disease management rather than life-enhancing care for health.
Tags: children's health, high blood pressure, hypertension, Obesity
Posted in Alternative medicine, Articles by our Doctors, Children, Conventional medicine, General, Health & Wellness, Health care reform, Medications | Comments Off
Wednesday, July 28th, 2010
Tuesday, July 27th, 2010
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010
Tags: Biliopancreatic diversion surgery, blindness, eye development, Eye disease, gastric bypass, newborns, Obesity, pregnancy, vitamin deficiency, Weight loss
Posted in Health News Headlines | Comments Off
Saturday, July 10th, 2010
Wednesday, July 7th, 2010
Monday, June 28th, 2010
Friday, June 25th, 2010
Friday, June 25th, 2010
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010
A study of over 3,300 prostate cancer patients found a direct correlation between patient weight and size of tumor.
Tuesday, May 25th, 2010
Thursday, May 13th, 2010
Monday, May 10th, 2010