How Michelle Obama’s Anti-Fat Bigotry Will Kill America’s Kids


Probably the worst (non abusive, non criminal) thing you can do to a child is to constantly harass them as being fat.  I have been there, done that, and still have the scars to last a life-time.  The bottom line is that you are not good enough – for anything.  Those lessons are very, very difficult to unlearn.  The Pink Flamingo did not realize what was going on inside my mind until a few years ago.

Paul Campos wrote:

“…In America today the medical and public health establishment has managed to transform what has traditionally been considered a vice—physical vanity—into that most sacred of secular virtues: the pursuit of “health.” In the context of the war on fat it has done so by systematically distorting the available evidence regarding the relationship between weight and health, by severely exaggerating the risks associated with that evidence, and by pretending that an extremely complex subject is actually quite simple….”

Like I said, the lessons of childhood are very difficult to unlearn.  What Michelle Obama’s battle against childhood obesity is doing to an entire generation of innocent kids, (MOST of whom will grow out of their weight problems – if every one will leave them the heck alone – and not subject them to yo-you dieting) is literally deadly.  She is needlessly destroying children.  Tomorrow’s post will show there is NO life expectancy difference between a person who is over-weight and one who is thin.  The real difference is fat bigots like Michelle Obama don’t like to look at us.

“...There is a special shame that only fat children know. Taught at an early age that they were unacceptable by societal standards, it wasn’t a hard lesson to learn. No, the lessons were all around  from the moment they became larger than *average*.  There was no place to escape it…family, school and friends all provided pressure about the “problem.”…”

The alleged science that Michelle Obama and the Obama Administration are using to base their draconian ideas of what a person should eat, and what they should weigh, and the disease connection are as flaky and fake as that of Global Warming.  The problem is, though, that there is such a tremendous bigotry against anyone not being a perfect emaciated anorexic, that no none dares admit the science is as junk as global warming.

“…Then there is the case of the US report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2004, which proclaimed that obesity was causing 400,000 deaths a year. This immediately sparked calls for massive government intervention. However, the authors of Diet Nation note how the report was prepared, not by the CDC’s top experts on the subject, but by the CDC’s director and other researchers attached to her office. After what appears to have been considerable internal criticism of the report, another group of CDC researchers reviewed it, and their review eventually found its way into the public domain under a Freedom of Information request. This second report suggested that a more accurate figure for excess obesity deaths was about 25,000 – 94 per cent lower than the original estimate. Strikingly, the original report was produced under pressure to ‘get the right result’ because a range of groups had an interest in reaching the highest possible figure…”

It is all about the BMI – and Junk Science…. did you know…

Media Hall

You know the blather that people like The Pink Flamingo will bankrupt the health care system?  Umm… if those of us who are not thin are alleged to be dying sooner than those who are perfectly thin, why are we going to bankrupt the system?  We’ll already be dead!

Spiked - online

What percent of the American people are overweight? If you read WebMD, the world is coming to an end.

“…That was a small but measurable increase from 62.2% the previous year. The survey finds that 36.6% of Americans are overweight and 26.5% obese….”

Their stats…

“…Of people with diabetes, 21.1% were obese, 9.8% overweight, 5% normal weight, and 4.2% underweight…”

This is only 40.2% of those who are diabetics.  In other words, 60% of those who are diabetic are basically a normal weight, and only 30% are overweight.  You are twice as likely to be a diabetic if you are a regular weight, if you use the skewed stats.

Now, check the CDC’s numbers for 2011.

“…Diabetes affects 8.3% of all Americans and 11.3% of adults age 20 and older. Some 27% of people with diabetes – 7 million Americans – do not know they have the disease. In 2010, 1.9 million Americans were first diagnosed with diabetes….”

If a third of Americans are overweight, and 8.3% of all Americans are diabetics, then only…. The Pink Flamingo is far too dyslexic to figure this one out – but it sure looks like a heck of a lot of Junk Science is being used by Michelle Obama and her minions to persecute a third of the American people!

If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you will learn why there are now 79 million “prediabetes” in the country – it’s about a change in junk science.


Maybe that’s the real problem.  There is a possibility that “overweight” people live longer – that’s why they want to get rid of us.

Try this one:

Dr. Weil

There is another reason.  Thin women get wrinkles.  Overweight women like The Pink Flamingo don’t.  It’s a weight thing.  Also – women my size do not get osteoporosis. Thin women do.  We are now sitting on a massive ticking health time bomb that is going to destroy the lives of millions of women – thanks to demands that the anti-fat bigots of the world are making.

“…The myth of dieting is a subject that Luik and his colleagues are keen to return to in another book. Having looked at 28 separate papers on the long-term effects of dieting, Luik tells me that 24 show no benefit to losing weight. Even where a benefit is found, it’s small. ‘Here’s an example. One study concluded that if you were successful in losing 50 pounds and keeping it off for the rest of your life, you would have a longevity increase in the order of 11 hours.’…”

Thin women die of osteoporosis.  It is like bone cancer, just as painful.  My mother is suffering from it.  Her mother died from it.

Michelle Obama is a bigot – when it comes to weight.  Trust me, I know.  I have been overweight since I was a little kid.  I have been on a diet my entire life.

Now most anti-fat bigots won’t believe that.  I’ve had some vile and cruel comments when I write about this topic.  The other day I read a comment at the Daily Caller about the new requirements for food packaging and marketing for kids.  Evidently people like me are a drain on society and have no right to exist.  Someone suggested that people like me be given a card that tells just what food I can and cannot eat and purchase.

There would be no hamburgers, fries, fried food, soda, ice cream, cake, cookies, etc.  Well, I’m basically a vegetarian.  I may eat one burger a year.  I don’t eat chicken.  I don’t eat eggs.  I don’t eat any form of seafood.  I no longer eat fried foot out because of the “healthy” oils like sunflower.  I’m terribly allergic to sunflower products and can’t take the chance.  Soda is a waste of calories and time.  I don’t eat ice cream because I am allergic to eggs and chicken.  That also eliminates all those goodies like cake, cookies, etc.  So, before you go making some nasty remark shut up already yet.  I eat so damn healthy it’s disgusting.

We have a major problem with weight in this country.  We have a problem with bigotry against women who are overweight.  The latest studies show that an overweight woman will often opt not to go to college.  If she does have a good job, the thinner woman will make more than she does.

It’s the bigotry, stupid.

It is the bigotry that states that a large person is more likely to have heart problems than a thin one.  Go look at my mother.  She’s been borderline anorexic all her life.  She has a serious cardiac problem that will eventually go into congestive heart failure.

There is a huge bigotry when it comes to the medical profession, women, and weight.  I had to have a massive temper tantrum to get my mother a life-saving pacemaker.  It was only when I confronted her physician with the information that women were far less likely to receive a life-saving pacemaker than a man was, that she was given one.  A few years later we had a dear friend lose her battle with the same disease my mother has – because they did not give her a pacemaker.

Women who are overweight do not go to doctors until they are chronically ill.  When they go, they are more likely to be insulted and treated like an idiot because they need to diet, rather than receive proper medical treatment.  I went for an eye exam and was told I needed to lose weight!

It is also the fact that the standards for calling someone a diabetic have changed.  The same changes have occurred for someone with high blood pressure.  More people are being treated for “pre” conditions that may or may not develop than have these conditions. It is a big money maker for the drug companies.

Michelle Obama is pushing meat, fish, and veggies.  The veggies are nice, BUT, unless a person can afford to purchase steroid and hormone free meat and poultry, it is going to backfire.  She is promoting a version of the current diet vogue, the Caveman Diet.

The USDA is now saying a child should only have 1 cup of potatoes a week.  Who the hell decided this?

Nutritional Data Shelf
Nutritional Data Shelf

Kids should have whole grains instead of potatoes.  This is the nutritional info for a slice of whole grain bread.  There is NO nutritional value in a slice of whole grain bread.  A baked potato is superfood.

Nutritional Data Shelf

This is the nutrition from a single serving of fresh OJ.  Again, a child is better off with a baked potato and again we see that Michelle Obama is a fool.

Nutritional Data Shelf

Children should not have starchy foods like corn.  Never mind the nutritional value.

Nutritional Data Shelf

Brown rice = good.  Potato = bad.  Michelle Obama = fool.

Nutritional Data Shelf

Peas should be limited to once a week.  I detest peas.  But – the nutritional value is obvious.

Nutritional Data Shelf

The USDA says that children need to be fed differently  in schools.

“…Among the requirements for school meals outlined in the proposed rule:

•Decrease the amount of starchy vegetables, such as potatoes, corn and green peas, to one cup a week.

•Reduce sodium in meals over the next 10 years. A high school lunch now has about 1,600 milligrams of sodium. Through incremental changes, that amount should be lowered over the next decade to 740 milligrams or less of sodium for grades through 9 through 12; 710 milligrams or less for grades 6 through 8; 640 milligrams or less for kindergarten through fifth grades.

•Establish calorie maximums and minimums for the first time. For lunch: 550 to 650 calories for kindergarten through fifth grade; 600 to 700 for grades 6 through 8; 750 to 850 for grades 9 through 12.

•Serve only unflavored 1% milk or fat-free flavored or unflavored milk. Currently, schools can serve milk of any fat content.

•Increase the fruits and vegetables kids are offered. The new rule requires that a serving of fruit be offered daily at breakfast and lunch and that two servings of vegetables be offered daily at lunch.

Over the course of a week, there must be a serving of each of the following: green leafy vegetables, orange vegetables (carrots, sweet potatoes, summer squash), beans, starchy and other vegetables. This is to make sure that children are exposed to a variety of vegetables.

• Increase whole grains substantially. Currently, there is no requirement regarding whole grains, but the proposed rules require that half of grains served must be whole grains.

•Minimize trans fat by using products where the nutrition label says zero grams of trans fat per serving.

Vilsack says the government is not trying to “dictate” what people eat but is trying to help parents make sure their youngsters “are as healthy, happy, productive and as successful as God intended them to be.”

Implementing the new meal standards is part of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 13.

The proposed rule applies to school breakfast and lunch but not to what’s sold in vending machines and school stores. Those will be addressed later in a separate rule.

Cleaning up the “school nutrition environment” would make a big difference to kids’ diets — and teach them good eating habits that could affect them the rest of their lives, says Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest and an advocate of healthier school meals. “Kids learn by doing, and so serving a healthy meal is such an important part of their education.”

Wootan says the challenge now is for school food-service personnel to make these changes, which will cost more. “They need technical assistance, support, model recipes, model product specifications. They need to know how to make a healthier chicken nugget or healthier pizza.

“There are schools already serving healthy foods that kids really like. The problem is that not enough schools know how to do it.”…”

Michelle Obama does not approve of “fat” in food.  The claim is it causes more heart disease.  The problem here is the science that is uses is highly suspect.

“…Keys believed that dietary fat was causing heart disease in Americans back in the 1950s, and he soon got others to jump on the bandwagon.

Even the American Heart Association, which concluded in 1957 that “the evidence that dietary fat correlates with heart disease does not stand up to critical examination,” changed its position in 1960.

Why? Because Keys was on the committee issuing a new report that a low-fat diet was advised for people at risk of heart disease. Sadly, the theory continued to be accepted as nutritional wisdom, even though clinical trials found no connection.

There are, however, some studies that have found a link between fat and heart disease, and they are often used by saturated fat opponents to “prove” their case.

The problem lies in the fact that most of these studies make no effort to differentiate between saturated fat and trans fat. I believe this is the missing link.

If researchers were to more carefully evaluate the risks of heart disease by measuring the levels of trans and saturated fat, I believe they would find a completely different story.

Trans fat is known to increase your LDL levels, or “bad” cholesterol, while lowering your levels of HDL, known as “good” cholesterol, which is the complete opposite of what you need in order to maintain good heart health. It can also cause major clogging of arteries, type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems.

On the other hand, your body needs some amount of saturated fat to stay healthy. It is virtually impossible to achieve a nutritionally adequate diet that has no saturated fat. What you don’t need, however, are trans fats.

Further, there are some people who do well with a low-saturated-fat diet — the one-third who are carb nutritional types.  Even then, however, some animal fats are necessary and healthy, and two-thirds of people actually require moderate- to high-saturated-fat diets to thrive….”

Kids are to have more fresh fruit like apples.  Never mind a baked potato is far more nutritious.

Nutritional Data

They can have a cup of grapes – no nutritional value there!

Nutritional Data

Celery is one of my favorite foods.  But – look at the nutritional values.

Nutrition Data

What if the stats the CDC uses are wrong?  On a purely consumer based set of stats – well…

“….Now word comes from experts within the CDC that excess weight is about one-fifteenth as dangerous as previously thought, and has a lower death toll than diseases like septicemia and nephritis. Each death is of course tragic. But has anyone heard of the septicemia “epidemic” or the nephritis “tsunami”?

It turns out that the 70 million Americans who are technically “overweight” have no increased mortality risk. The real problems occur only among the small percentage of Americans with a Body Mass Index of 35 or more. To put that in perspective, “fat actress” Kirstie Alley and “fat adult actress” Anna Nicole Smith both had a BMI of 31 — before they lost weight.

Shortly after the 400,000 study was published, Science magazine reported on a storm within CDC’s headquarters. Many top researchers warned a political agenda to exaggerate the risk of obesity had trumped scientific concerns. Debate was suppressed, and at least one agency expert said he feared speaking out would cost him his job.

An internal investigation was launched soon thereafter. The CDC buried a summary of its findings on their website, and requests for the full report have gone unfulfilled. But the overview does acknowledge, “the fundamental scientific problem centers around the limitations in both the data and the methodology.”

In January the CDC disclosed that a small mathematical error had artificially raised their 400,000 estimate by 35,000 deaths. Some admission. If NASA operated this way, Neal Armstrong would be landing on Pluto about now.

What’s the difference between the original 400,000 statistic and the updated 26,000 figure? Primarily, it’s that the new study uses more recent data. The 400,000 number took data from as long ago as 1948 and didn’t adjust for improved medical care. Those who were able to complete high-school math and noted this problem months ago can claim some measure of vindication.

Unbelievably, the CDC had the more recent data readily available on its own computers. The CDC collects that data. Why didn’t they use it? No one is saying.

Now a CDC scientist who co-authored the original 400,000 deaths estimate admits the new number is “a step forward.” Yet the agency’s official position is that it will take no position. The CDC proclaims the science is too new, debates about methodology “detract from the real issue,” and we shouldn’t focus so much on obesity deaths anyway. Funny. It didn’t have any of these quibbles when it announced the 400,000 number and said obesity would soon become the number one cause of preventable death….”


I love carrots!

Nutrition Data

Fat free milk

Nutrition Data

Whole Milk has more of the essential fatty acids a child needs for their brains to properly develop.  It makes sense the Dems would want to keep kids dumb.

Nutrition Shelf

The Pink Flamingo gets Dr. Mercola’s natural heath and dietary tips on a daily basis.  There is a recent commentary on the new government guidelines for healthy eating.  In short – there is NOTHING healthy about it.  In short – the Obama Administration is run by a bunch of fools who know nothing about good health, only about Michelle Obama’s anti-fat bigotry.

“…Where is the Fat?

You may notice that fats are practically invisible on the new plate icon. In fact, except for a small portion of dairy, which is advised to be fat-free or low-fat, they are missing entirely. There is no mention of the importance of dietary fats, even the “politically correct” ones like the monounsaturated fats in olive oil and nuts, such as pecans (canola oil is also in this category, but I advise avoiding it and using olive oil instead). Of course, one of the most important of the healthy fats is animal-based omega-3, which is also absent from the plate.

Deficiency in this essential fat can cause or contribute to very serious health problems, both mental and physical, and may be a significant underlying factor of up to 96,000 premature deaths each year. For more information about omega-3’s and the best sources of this fat, please review this previous article.

Not surprisingly, the U.S. government still has not acknowledged all of the data showing that saturated fat is actually an incredibly healthy, nourishing and all natural fat that humans have been thriving on for generations.

Saturated fats provide the building blocks for your cell membranes and a variety of hormones and hormone like substances that are essential to your health, and saturated fats from animal and vegetable sources (such as meat, dairy, certain oils, and tropical plants like coconut) provide a concentrated source of energy in your diet.

When you eat fats as part of your meal, they slow down absorption so that you can go longer without feeling hungry.

In addition, they act as carriers for important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. Dietary fats are also needed for the conversion of carotene to vitamin A, for mineral absorption, and for a host of other biological processes. To get these healthy saturated fats in your diet, you need to eat animal foods like butter and other full-fat raw dairy products and eggs, but these foods are still demonized by the establishment.

Trans Fats Not Mentioned

There is also no mention to avoid the true killer fat, trans fat, which is found in processed and fried foods, such as French fries and fried chicken, doughnuts, cookies, pastries and crackers. This is the most consumed type of fat in the United States, despite the fact that there is no safe level of trans fat consumption, according to a report from the Institute of Medicine.

Trans fat raises LDL (bad cholesterol) levels, and lowers HDL (good cholesterol) levels, which of course is the complete opposite of what you need in order to maintain good heart health!

In fact, trans fats — as opposed to saturated fats — have been linked repeatedly to heart disease. They can also cause major clogging of your arteries, type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems – but they were not even addressed at all.

Low-Fat Pasteurized Dairy is Not a Healthy Choice

Another faulty recommendation made by the new Food Plate is to eat fat-free or low-fat dairy. Again, the saturated fats in full-fat organic raw dairy are actually good for you, and this has been proven by numerous studies.  For instance, research shows that consuming full-fat dairy may help reduce your risk of:

Diabetes: Palmitoleic acid, which occurs naturally in full-fat dairy products and meat, protects against insulin resistance and diabetes. One study found people who consumed full-fat dairy had higher levels of trans-palmitoleate in their blood, and this translated to a two-thirds lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to people with lower levels.
Cancer: Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a type of fat found naturally in cow’s milk, significantly lowers the risk of cancer. In one study, those who ate at least four servings of high-fat dairy foods each day had a 41 percent lower risk of bowel cancer than those who ate less than one. Each increment of two servings of dairy products equaled a 13 percent reduction in a woman’s colon cancer risk.
Weight: Women who ate at least one serving of full-fat dairy a day gained 30 percent less weight over a nine-year period than women who ate only low-fat (or no) dairy products.
Heart Disease: People who ate the most full-fat dairy were less likely to die from cardiovascular disease, according to a 16-year study of Australian adults.
The type of dairy recommended by the U.S. government may as well not even be on your plate, as not only is it lacking in healthy fat, but also it is pasteurized. I do not recommend consuming pasteurized dairy products of any kind. When I discuss dairy being healthy, I am referring to the organic, unprocessed raw varieties.

Pasteurizing milk significantly diminishes its biological value and destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamins, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamin B12 and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria, and actually promotes pathogens.

Organically raised, grass-fed raw milk, on the other hand, naturally contains hundreds of healthy, “good” bacteria, including lactobacillus and acidophilus. There are also several coliform families of bacteria. It’s important to realize that there are over 230 different kinds of E. coli, and only two or three of them are actually pathogenic and will cause you to get sick.

The rest are actually beneficial for your gut.

Raw milk also contains vitamins, which are virtually eliminated by the pasteurization process of commercial milk. But it’s the presence of beneficial bacteria that make raw milk such an outstanding food source to promote the growth of healthy bacteria in your intestine, which in turn has a significant, beneficial impact on your overall immune function.

Another Issue: Too Many Fruits

The new Food Plate advises Americans to “make half your plate fruits and vegetables.” This is a step in the right direction, but to truly be healthy most people will need to limit their fruit consumption — it should not be nearly equal to your veggie consumption, as the Food Plate suggests.

While it’s true that fruits contain beneficial vitamins and other antioxidants, they also contain fructose.  Fructose is the number one source of calories for Americans with most consuming 500% more than their ancestors did a mere century ago. Until they are able to lower fructose levels to 1900 levels than fruit needs to be avoided and only vegetables consumed for carbohydrates.

Please remember that over three-quarters of the population has insulin resistance. How do you know if you have insulin resistance?  If you have any of the following conditions it is a safe bet you have it:

High blood pressure
High Cholesterol


There is a problem with the changing definitions used for “overweight” “diabetic” and “obese”.

“…Changing Definitions
Paul Ernsberger, PhD

In 1997 and 1998, the powers that be changed the levels of what constituted a diseased state in several major categories: diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and being “overweight.”


Under the old definition, a fasting blood test that showed a glucose level of 140 (mg per dl) was necessary for a diagnosis of diabetes. But in 1997, the American Diabetes Association and the WHO Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus lowered that level to 126 mg/dl. Where 11.7 million people had been defined as diabetic under the old definition, this change resulted in a fourteen percent increase in the number of people with diabetes. One million, seven hundred thousand people got diabetes overnight.

A new disease category was invented when impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance were renamed “pre-diabetes.” Prediabetes was defined as having a fasting blood glucose level between 110 and 126 mg/dl. In 2003, the blood glucose level that defined the condition was lowered to 100 mg/dl, which used to be considered normal. Although the fine print admits that not all those with prediabetes will develop diabetes, and that many with impaired fasting glucose actually have normal blood glucose most of the time, the use of the “pre” strongly suggests that the condition is a “pre” cursor to the actual disease.

The definition of diabetes has evolved over time. For most of history, diabetes was diagnosed when sugar was present in the urine. Ancient and medieval physicians made their diagnosis by tasting their patients’ urine. Thankfully, these days are past. Testing for urine sugar is still done as part of a routine urinalysis, and diabetes is still diagnosed this way. Blood sugar has to reach 300 mg/dl or higher before significant amounts spill out of the blood and into the urine (an exception would be if kidney disease were present). In a normal person, blood sugar never gets this high, even after a meal. The development of reliable chemical tests for blood sugar after World War II allowed more sensitive tests. It became common to carry out glucose tolerance tests, where blood samples would be taken before and after the patient drank glucose syrup. This is still done to test for gestational diabetes during pregnancy, but testing fasting blood sugar has been found to be just as reliable.

How dangerous is it to have mild diabetes (fasting blood sugar of 126 to 140)? It’s not clear. A massive study called The Pooling Project put together data from many studies, including Framingham and Tecumseh, and found that mild elevations of blood sugar did not increase the risk of heart attacks.1 However, the argument was made that many people with mild diabetes go on to develop full blown diabetes, and on that basis the guidelines were changed. The evidence that “prediabetes” is harmful is very tenuous, and again the main argument is that people with prediabetes should be watched closely.


The old definition of hypertension (high blood pressure) was 160 over 100 (mm Hg, systolic over diastolic). That was changed in 1997 by the US Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The new definition was 140/90, and as a result, thirteen and a half million people, or an additional 35%, were added to the roughly thirty-nine million that had hypertension. Here too a new disease category was invented: those with blood pressure from 120/80 to 130/89, or forty-five million people, were defined as “prehypertensive.”

How dangerous is mild hypertension? The evidence for harm is fairly strong, because the risk of stroke especially but also heart failure and heart attack rises linearly as blood pressure rises, all the way down to a level of around 110/75. There are also randomized clinical trials showing that treating hypertension to a target level of 140/90 saves lives. There is some evidence that people with prehypertension are at increased risk, but the benefit of drug treatment is not clear for this group.


The old definition of high cholesterol was 240 mg/dl total cholesterol. The US Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study of 1998 resulted in lowering the acceptable level to 200 mg/dl. This was by far the greatest increase in those defined as in need of treatment. Whereas before, forty-nine and a half million people had cholesterol levels that required medical intervention, this change in definition resulted in an 86% increase in those defined as having high cholesterol. Forty-two and a half million people were added to the ranks of those with hypercholesterolemia.

How dangerous is mild hypercholesterolemia? The evidence is quite strong, because the risk of heart attack rises very steeply with rising cholesterol levels above a level of 180 or so. There are now randomized clinical trials showing that treatment with statins and other cholesterol lowering drugs to a target of 200 mg/dl saves lives. Data are starting to accumulate that even more aggressive treatment with statins can save lives, so look for target levels to drop again –perhaps to 180 –in the next few years.


It was the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health) that changed the definition of overweight and obesity. Before the change, those with a BMI (kg/m2) of 27 or more were considered “overweight.” That was changed to 25 in 1998, and an additional 30.5 million people in the US became overweight with the stroke of a pen. This represented a 43% increase.

How dangerous is “overweight”? Most studies agree that so-called “overweight” is actually beneficial to longevity and that relative risks do not even begin to appear until a BMI of 30, and then rise only slowly.2  Even a recent study purporting to show dangers of “overweight” actually showed decreased mortality in this group.3

There is no randomized clinical trial data showing that treatment of “overweight” saves lives. On the contrary, there are many reports showing that weight loss increases the risk of death.4

What has been the impact of these changing standards? In the case of diabetes, there have been positive effects in terms of slowing the progression of diabetes and reducing its lifelong risks. Beginning treatment earlier in the course of the disease should prevent complications, and new and better treatments for diabetes have appeared at the same time that definitions have expanded. On the other hand, many people who would never have gone on to develop dangerous levels of blood sugar have been treated unnecessarily and subjected to the stress and stigma of being labeled diabetic.

Setting lower target and diagnosis levels for blood pressure has probably had a major positive impact. These benefits have accrued because at the same time that stricter standards were set, more effective medications with fewer side effects have been developed to lower blood pressures. On the other hand, it is not clear that the designation of prehypertension will have a positive influence on health, and may promote excessive worry and health concern.

Cholesterol standards have been lowered in conjunction with a great deal of high quality data from controlled clinical trials showing true life saving benefits of lowering cholesterol to the new standard. One downside is that more people will be exposed to risks of liver and muscle damage from statin drugs, but it seems clear that the benefit of preventing heart attacks in a large number of people outweighs the risk of liver and muscle side effects.

Body weight norms have been lowered with no real justifying data. There are absolutely no data from treatment trials to back up these weight standards. Decisions about target levels for body weight cannot be based on data about health, since these are lacking. It seems certain that impact of lower body weight standards on health is negative.

Americans redefined as diseased as of 1998:
High Cholesterol—42,500,000

Media Hall

Diane Medved wrote:

“…Obesity in children–and adults–is a far more complex phenomenon than well-meaning agencies and pundits are willing to admit.  And because its causes are not yet understood, creating innumerable boards and bureaucracies to irradicate it (and make food deserts bloom) have failed. To be sure, some money must go toward innovative medical research to tease out the true sources of obesity–and whether the future generation is as doomed by it as alarmists insist.

I suspect that genetics and environmental influences (A virus, like the Adenovirus 36? An “obeso-genic” substance or situation that, like carcinogens, throws cells out of whack?) will prove contributors to the problem, and that unfair stereotypes that suggest all fat people are ignorant, have no self-control and need patronizing interventions will be squashed like the unsold tomatoes at Super 24 in Delridge, Washington…”

If you really want to cure childhood obesity, then prevent people with a genetic predisposition for weight gain from having children.  It’s that simple.  The Pink Flamingo will be the first to admit that I am not perfect when it comes to food consumption.  I have a weakness for cheese and onion enchiladas covered in salsa (no sour cream allowed).  When you think about it, that’s a couple of corn tortillas, a half cup of cheese, some onions, and about a half cup of salsa.  It’s a heck of a lot better for you than a grilled chicken boob that has been injected with antibiotics and growth hormone.  Just the thought of eating that makes me want to throw up.

This said, of my four grandparents, only one was not overweight.  My grand-father Reidhead was barely 60 when he died.  My “Obese” grandfather Froehlich was 95.  My “Obese” grandmother Reidhead was 89.  My overweight grandmother Froehlich was 90.

It’s called genetics.

One final family tale about diets and I give up for the weekend.  My grandmother Froehlich (Nana) was always on a diet.  Back in the days of Metrecal (a diet drink) Nana was forever doing the chocolate drink.  When they came out with the chocolate milk-shake flavor, she decided she would diet for a week.  It was summer.  She was up in North Carolina at her summer house.  My grandfather was in Florida at the time.

Well, Nana, always a fan of thick, chocolate shakes (don’t ask about the stash of Wendy’s Frosties she had in her freezer in later years) decided the diet drink did not taste like a chocolate shake.  So, religiously, three times a day, she would have her Metrecal chocolate diet shake – with two scoops of chocolate ice cream.

She gained 5 pounds in a week!

(But – a good time was had by all).