Academic arguments over causes of obesity
Two prominent academics in nutrition have voiced differing views to Australian audiences on the causes of the current upsurge in obesity.
The World is Fat
Dr Barry Popkins, author of the controversial but critically acclaimed book The World is Fat has been interviewed on various ABC channels.
According to Dr. Popkins, one of the biggest contributors to the sharp rise in calorie intake has been the number of snacks and meals people eat per day, rather than serve size.
The other contributing factor was the sharp increase in the consumption of sweet soft drinks and fruit juices.
Over the past 30 years, the study found, Americans have gone from consuming 3.8 snacks and meals per day to 4.9, on average — a 29% increase.
Unintended consequences of the ‘war’ on obesity
Meanwhile, Dr Samantha Thomas, speaking at the Annual Castan Centre for Human Rights Law Conference in Melbourne, said the war on obesity was failing because “society put too much emphasis on personal responsibility.”
“Obesity rates are still increasing because we put all the responsibility on the individual, but are completely reluctant to tackle the corporations that are part of the cause 1 the junk food companies, the soft drink companies, even the town planners who design new suburbs with no backyards or playgrounds,” Dr Thomas as saying.
Dr Thomas, a senior research fellow at the Monash University School of Marketing, said more should be done to prevent obesity, rather than simply telling people to lose weight.
“It is easy to say ‘I do the right thing, why don’t they?’, but for some people, for a variety of reasons, it is very hard to make the right decisions. We really need to create a healthy environment to help people do that,” she said.
FoodLegal is running a Symposium on food health claim issues. For more information and registration details, click here.
These views are not opposed. people eat more snacks because of the fact they are so heavily marketed. Cut the marketing and consumption would decrease. After all, marketing/advertising are done to increase sales.
My suggestions for this:
don’t allow advertising for foods that are energy dense/nutrient poor (which includes most packaged snack foods) when children are most likely to be watching TV;
cut the ads shown in internet sites/game for kids;
stop product placement
and disallow tax deductions for advertising.
Reliable nutrition information obviously is critical in the fight against obesity, diabetes – “diabesity” – and related maladies, together the biggest public-health issue in the world.
Disturbingly, the contribution of excess sugar consumption to obesity has been exonerated by high-profile but over-confident local scientists with strong links to the sugar industry and other sugar sellers. No surprises there I guess, but what’s interesting is that this paper with its spectacularly false conclusion actually got published in a supposedly peer-reviewed science journal.
Happily, two eminent scientists (including Dr Rosemary Stanton) have confirmed my observation that the authors’ negligent conclusion – “an inverse relationship” between sugar consumption and obesity, the Australian Paradox! – belies the readily available facts.
Further, I have issued a A$40,000 “Australian Paradox” challenge to test if anyone can prove what the authors are claiming is true. After six weeks, my cash is still sitting there waiting for someone from the University of Sydney – or anyone from elsewhere – to pick it up. Why not have a lash at it yourself (via #12 on the website in the next link)?
The dispute is a purely empirical matter – not a matter of “science” – and four of the authors’ own valid sugar charts point up not down! It’s all documented at http://www.australianparadox.com/ and http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html#ixzz20FXohd4R .
It’s amazing to me as an economist that this sort of rubbish could get published in a real science journal. In this case, the journal doesn’t seem to have any real quality control.
The situation is complicated by one of the authors also wearing the hat of “Guest Editor” for the relevant “Special Issue” of the journal. Shouldn’t “Quality Control” at least initially be agnostic about whether or not any paper is published?
As I said, reliable nutrition information obviously is critical in the fight against diabesity. So I’m arguing near and far for the deeply flawed paper’s retraction by the authors, the journal and/or the University of Sydney. Please have a look at my analysis. If you think the case is a strong one, please encourage others to push the University towards correction or retraction.
Nothing has happened since that SMH piece in March except the authors have pretended their paper is fine. It isn’t. And it’s simply unreasonable for the University of Sydney scientists to allow their spectacularly false conclusion – “an inverse relationship” between sugar consumption and obesity! – flowing from negligent data analysis teamed-up with an incompetent peer-review process to sit uncorrected in a science journal, misinforming scientists and nutritionists across the world via the Internet many months after the real facts have become clear.
Given the unreasonable delay in correcting the scientific record already, one of the questions reasonable people now are asking is when does an inadvertent series of major errors and a spectacular-but-false conclusion in a high-profile scientific paper deliberately left uncorrected become a scientific hoax? Any thoughts, anyone?
Many people knows the importance of the healthy food practice only after they are subjected to some kind of disease. Right food in right quantity is the best medicine to prevent many disease and stay healthy.