These are two seemingly separate and distinct issues but when you stop and think about them, they have a lot in common.
A recent article in the NY Times discussed the idea of placing taxes on sugary beverages in an effort to curb obesity. While it is true that increased sugar consumption is by far the fastest and quite frankly, the only way to become obese, what's next? A fat tax? An exercise too little tax?
To reduce their circumferential measures, people need to be educated, not taxed.
The proposition of a tax to curb obesity is just our governments way of saying "You Americans are too weak of will and stupid to control yourselves, and we're too lazy and dumb to educate you so, we'll just tax you and profit by it instead." So what else is new.
Lightbulb: What about a reward system rather than one of punishment? EX: If you keep your body weight within 20 pounds of your optimal body composition, you get an income tax reduction. And who cares HOW you do it? You can eat very healthfully and still have a Snickers bar, a can of ginger ale and be no worse for the wear but heavenforfend! Not that I advocate eating this sort of fare, but hey – healthy is healthy. I enjoy my wine and I'm very healthy. Why can't someone enjoy a can of soda without being shaken down?
Here again we see the government looking for their lost keys where the light is better. The cure for obesity, diabetes and perhaps for most cancers and autoimmune disorders is to eat as we would before the advent of agriculture.
Animals in the wild do not get cancer. (Note added September 22nd 2009: What I mean to say by this is it is my opinion that animals in the wild that have no contact with man do not suffer from cancers. Some animals do get cancers in the wild, but it is suspected and theorized that these cancers are caused by environmental pollutants caused by man. Some are caused by viruses but these are rare.) They do not become obese, diabetic, asthmatic or arthritic. Only when humans invite them into their lives or influence their lives and habitats do these ills descend upon them. No, no - it's not because they don't live long enough in the wild to experience these problems. Young humans get cancer, fat and arthritic too.
By cracky, it's what we feed our pets and what we feed ourselves that may very well be THE cause of most of our ills and certainly increases them. We feed our animals and ourselves foods that would never be eaten in our natural habitats. Dog and cat foods are laden with carbohydrates (and other fillers) - a macronutrient that is entirely unnecessary in their diet (or ours for that matter). Carnivores, like us, do not need carbohydrates in any amount to survive and survive quite well, yet it is what the government food pyramid stresses as the main nutrient for humans and what is boasted in most if not all pet foods. I saw a dog food commercial the other day that said: "Now, with carrots and even oatmea!" Oatmeal – for a dog?
From the Dietary Reference Intake which is "a series of reports on the dietary reference values for the intake of nutrients by Americans and Canadians. They include details on the application of statistically valid methods and reviews the roles that macronutrients play in traditional deficiency diseases as well as chronic diseases." DRI's page 275:
"The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed."
There you have it sportsfans. We need zero carbohydrates in our diet yet carbohydratesmake up over 70% of the govenment food pyramid. Will someone please explain this to me?
Cancer, obesity, diabetes and arthritis do not float in the sky, land on and infect us. You can't breathe them in, get them from an insect or contract them from others. These ills are, for the most part, self inflicted. They arise from what we do and don't eat. FE: Cancer feeds on sugar. We've known this for decades. Carbohydrates are sugars. Remove the sugars and you remove the potential cause of and certainly the food for cancers. Yes my friends, it may very well be that simple. Sounds crazy, right? But why – why does it sound crazy? Stop and think about this for just a moment. Do animals in the wild get cancer? Become obese or diabetic? What do all of of these maladies have in common? The ingestion of excess sugar.
I believe that our society has no idea how brainwahsed and dumbed up and down we have become by clever marketing and advertising. Even Dr. Oz is telling people to eat oatmeal and shun meat. Would you put oatmeal into your dogs food bowl? Heck no. So then why are you putting it into yours – or your childs? Most answer that we are humans and dogs are dogs and thus we have different digestive systems. This is not exactly true.
Let's not tax sugary foods Mr. Obama (not that you're 100% for it). Let's instead educate people how dangerous sugar is in all its forms and put an end to the ills caused by this macronutrient once and for all. I am calling for a 3 month moratorium on sugar and grain based carbohydrates. Rather than all join hands and walk for the cure, let's instead join minds and eat for it.
After reading your artical on the fitness gram test administerd by the NYC schools it was interesting to hear someone elses point of view. Currently we have been administering the test in our school system for eight years. Many of the concerns you point out have also been debated here through the years. My biggest concerns as an educator are accuracy of the results along with consistency with how the test is given from school to school.
At best I see it as an instrument to help student understand personal resposibility for their own health and fitness.
In the 2010-11 school year Georgia will begin requiring a fitness assesment on all students 1st thru 12th grade. Do you have recommendations for a better test instrument that can be given in a timely and effective manner?
My reply: