Obese America - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15030228
215 lb at age 75? I highly doubt that you have more muscle than fat, unless you are in the gym every day, or 6'6". :lol:
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15030455
Godstud wrote:215 lb at age 75? I highly doubt that you have more muscle than fat, unless you are in the gym every day, or 6'6". :lol:

No, I don't go to the gym everyday any more. But I do have a weight bench, barbells, and dumbbells at home, but only use them 1 or 2 times a week now just to keep from getting too weak. The 215 lbs is my weight at the doctors office with my shoes, clothes, four key chains with nail clippers, and tape measure. I have a handkerchief and comb in one back pocket and my big fat billfold in the other. So I probably weigh closer to 210 lbs naked. I am only 5'11". When I came in the Army, I weighed only 165 lbs and was very skinny. I ran track in high school, but never worked out with weights like the football players back then. I didn't start weight training at the post gyms until I had been in the Army nearly 2 years.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15030457
So, in other words, you are about 40 lb overweight. Your claim of more muscle than fat is highly doubtful given your age, height and weight. You're about as non fat, as Obese Donald is. :lol:
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15030462
Godstud wrote:So, in other words, you are about 40 lb overweight. Your claim of more muscle than fat is highly doubtful given your age, height and weight. You're about as non fat, as Obese Donald is. :lol:

Well, it is just an educated guess, since I am pretty sure I am stronger than most people my age and I look like I still have some muscles, especially in my legs.
By Sivad
#15030465
How a gang of babbitts created the obesity epidemic and continue to perpetuate it:



In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition scientists get it so wrong for so long?

If, as seems increasingly likely, the nutritional advice on which we have relied for 40 years was profoundly flawed, this is not a mistake that can be laid at the door of corporate ogres. Nor can it be passed off as innocuous scientific error. What happened to John Yudkin belies that interpretation. It suggests instead that this is something the scientists did to themselves – and, consequently, to us.

We tend to think of heretics as contrarians, individuals with a compulsion to flout conventional wisdom. But sometimes a heretic is simply a mainstream thinker who stays facing the same way while everyone around him turns 180 degrees. When, in 1957, John Yudkin first floated his hypothesis that sugar was a hazard to public health, it was taken seriously, as was its proponent. By the time Yudkin retired, 14 years later, both theory and author had been marginalised and derided. Only now is Yudkin’s work being returned, posthumously, to the scientific mainstream.I

These sharp fluctuations in Yudkin’s stock have had little to do with the scientific method, and a lot to do with the unscientific way in which the field of nutrition has conducted itself over the years. This story, which has begun to emerge in the past decade, has been brought to public attention largely by sceptical outsiders rather than eminent nutritionists. In her painstakingly researched book, The Big Fat Surprise, the journalist Nina Teicholz traces the history of the proposition that saturated fats cause heart disease, and reveals the remarkable extent to which its progress from controversial theory to accepted truth was driven, not by new evidence, but by the influence of a few powerful personalities, one in particular.

Teicholz’s book also describes how an establishment of senior nutrition scientists, at once insecure about its medical authority and vigilant for threats to it, consistently exaggerated the case for low-fat diets, while turning its guns on those who offered evidence or argument to the contrary. John Yudkin was only its first and most eminent victim.

[...]

To understand how we arrived at this point, we need to go back almost to the beginning of modern nutrition science. On 23 September, 1955, US President Dwight Eisenhower suffered a heart attack. Rather than pretend it hadn’t happened, Eisenhower insisted on making details of his illness public. The next day, his chief physician, Dr Paul Dudley White, gave a press conference at which he instructed Americans on how to avoid heart disease: stop smoking, and cut down on fat and cholesterol. In a follow-up article, White cited the research of a nutritionist at the University of Minnesota, Ancel Keys.

Heart disease, which had been a relative rarity in the 1920s, was now felling middle-aged men at a frightening rate, and Americans were casting around for cause and cure. Ancel Keys provided an answer: the “diet-heart hypothesis” (for simplicity’s sake, I am calling it the “fat hypothesis”). This is the idea, now familiar, that an excess of saturated fats in the diet, from red meat, cheese, butter, and eggs, raises cholesterol, which congeals on the inside of coronary arteries, causing them to harden and narrow, until the flow of blood is staunched and the heart seizes up.

Ancel Keys was brilliant, charismatic, and combative. A friendly colleague at the University of Minnesota described him as, “direct to the point of bluntness, critical to the point of skewering”; others were less charitable. He exuded conviction at a time when confidence was most welcome. The president, the physician and the scientist formed a reassuring chain of male authority, and the notion that fatty foods were unhealthy started to take hold with doctors, and the public. (Eisenhower himself cut saturated fats and cholesterol from his diet altogether, right up until his death, in 1969, from heart disease.)

Many scientists, especially British ones, remained sceptical. The most prominent doubter was John Yudkin, then the UK’s leading nutritionist. When Yudkin looked at the data on heart disease, he was struck by its correlation with the consumption of sugar, not fat. He carried out a series of laboratory experiments on animals and humans, and observed, as others had before him, that sugar is processed in the liver, where it turns to fat, before entering the bloodstream.

He noted, too, that while humans have always been carnivorous, carbohydrates only became a major component of their diet 10,000 years ago, with the advent of mass agriculture. Sugar – a pure carbohydrate, with all fibre and nutrition stripped out – has been part of western diets for just 300 years; in evolutionary terms, it is as if we have, just this second, taken our first dose of it. Saturated fats, by contrast, are so intimately bound up with our evolution that they are abundantly present in breast milk. To Yudkin’s thinking, it seemed more likely to be the recent innovation, rather than the prehistoric staple, making us sick.

Ancel Keys was intensely aware that Yudkin’s sugar hypothesis posed an alternative to his own. If Yudkin published a paper, Keys would excoriate it, and him. He called Yudkin’s theory “a mountain of nonsense”, and accused him of issuing “propaganda” for the meat and dairy industries. “Yudkin and his commercial backers are not deterred by the facts,” he said. “They continue to sing the same discredited tune.” Yudkin never responded in kind. He was a mild-mannered man, unskilled in the art of political combat.

That made him vulnerable to attack, and not just from Keys. The British Sugar Bureau dismissed Yudkin’s claims about sugar as “emotional assertions”; the World Sugar Research Organisation called his book “science fiction”. In his prose, Yudkin is fastidiously precise and undemonstrative, as he was in person. Only occasionally does he hint at how it must have felt to have his life’s work besmirched, as when he asks the reader, “Can you wonder that one sometimes becomes quite despondent about whether it is worthwhile trying to do scientific research in matters of health?”

Throughout the 1960s, Keys accumulated institutional power. He secured places for himself and his allies on the boards of the most influential bodies in American healthcare, including the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. From these strongholds, they directed funds to like-minded researchers, and issued authoritative advice to the nation. “People should know the facts,” Keys told Time magazine. “Then if they want to eat themselves to death, let them.”

This apparent certainty was unwarranted: even some supporters of the fat hypothesis admitted that the evidence for it was still inconclusive. But Keys held a trump card. From 1958 to 1964, he and his fellow researchers gathered data on the diets, lifestyles and health of 12,770 middle-aged men, in Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, Finland, Netherlands, Japan and the United States. The Seven Countries Study was finally published as a 211-page monograph in 1970. It showed a correlation between intake of saturated fats and deaths from heart disease, just as Keys had predicted. The scientific debate swung decisively behind the fat hypothesis.

Keys was the original big data guy (a contemporary remarked: “Every time you question this man Keys, he says, ‘I’ve got 5,000 cases. How many do you have?’). Despite its monumental stature, however, the Seven Countries Study, which was the basis for a cascade of subsequent papers by its original authors, was a rickety construction. There was no objective basis for the countries chosen by Keys, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he picked only those he suspected would support his hypothesis. After all, it is quite something to choose seven nations in Europe and leave out France and what was then West Germany, but then, Keys already knew that the French and Germans had relatively low rates of heart disease, despite living on a diet rich in saturated fats.

The study’s biggest limitation was inherent to its method. Epidemiological research involves the collection of data on people’s behaviour and health, and a search for patterns. Originally developed to study infection, Keys and his successors adapted it to the study of chronic diseases, which, unlike most infections, take decades to develop, and are entangled with hundreds of dietary and lifestyle factors, effectively impossible to separate.

To reliably identify causes, as opposed to correlations, a higher standard of evidence is required: the controlled trial. In its simplest form: recruit a group of subjects, and assign half of them a diet for, say, 15 years. At the end of the trial, assess the health of those in the intervention group, versus the control group. This method is also problematic: it is virtually impossible to closely supervise the diets of large groups of people. But a properly conducted trial is the only way to conclude with any confidence that X is responsible for Y.

Although Keys had shown a correlation between heart disease and saturated fat, he had not excluded the possibility that heart disease was being caused by something else. Years later, the Seven Countries study’s lead Italian researcher, Alessandro Menotti, went back to the data, and found that the food that correlated most closely with deaths from heart disease was not saturated fat, but sugar.

By then it was too late. The Seven Countries study had become canonical, and the fat hypothesis was enshrined in official advice. The congressional committee responsible for the original Dietary Guidelines was chaired by Senator George McGovern. It took most of its evidence from America’s nutritional elite: men from a handful of prestigious universities, most of whom knew or worked with each other, all of whom agreed that fat was the problem – an assumption that McGovern and his fellow senators never seriously questioned. Only occasionally were they asked to reconsider. In 1973, John Yudkin was called from London to testify before the committee, and presented his alternative theory of heart disease.

A bemused McGovern asked Yudkin if he was really suggesting that a high fat intake was not a problem, and that cholesterol presented no danger.

“I believe both those things,” replied Yudkin.

“That is exactly the opposite of what my doctor told me,” said McGovern.


A 2015 paper titled Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?, a team of scholars at the National Bureau of Economic Research sought an empirical basis for a remark made by the physicist Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

The researchers identified more than 12,000 “elite” scientists from different fields. The criteria for elite status included funding, number of publications, and whether they were members of the National Academies of Science or the Institute of Medicine. Searching obituaries, the team found 452 who had died before retirement. They then looked to see what happened to the fields from which these celebrated scientists had unexpectedly departed, by analysing publishing patterns.

What they found confirmed the truth of Planck’s maxim. Junior researchers who had worked closely with the elite scientists, authoring papers with them, published less. At the same time, there was a marked increase in papers by newcomers to the field, who were less likely to cite the work of the deceased eminence. The articles by these newcomers were substantive and influential, attracting a high number of citations. They moved the whole field along.

A scientist is part of what the Polish philosopher of science Ludwik Fleck called a “thought collective”: a group of people exchanging ideas in a mutually comprehensible idiom. The group, suggested Fleck, inevitably develops a mind of its own, as the individuals in it converge on a way of communicating, thinking and feeling.

This makes scientific inquiry prone to the eternal rules of human social life: deference to the charismatic, herding towards majority opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with admitting to error. Of course, such tendencies are precisely what the scientific method was invented to correct for, and over the long run, it does a good job of it. In the long run, however, we’re all dead, quite possibly sooner than we would be if we hadn’t been following a diet based on poor advice.


The nutritional establishment wasn’t greatly discomfited by the absence of definitive proof, but by 1993 it found that it couldn’t evade another criticism: while a low-fat diet had been recommended to women, it had never been tested on them (a fact that is astonishing only if you are not a nutrition scientist). The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute decided to go all in, commissioning the largest controlled trial of diets ever undertaken. As well as addressing the other half of the population, the Women’s Health Initiative was expected to obliterate any lingering doubts about the ill-effects of fat.

It did nothing of the sort. At the end of the trial, it was found that women on the low-fat diet were no less likely than the control group to contract cancer or heart disease. This caused much consternation. The study’s principal researcher, unwilling to accept the implications of his own findings, remarked: “We are scratching our heads over some of these results.” A consensus quickly formed that the study – meticulously planned, lavishly funded, overseen by impressively credentialed researchers – must have been so flawed as to be meaningless. The field moved on, or rather did not.

In 2008, researchers from Oxford University undertook a Europe-wide study of the causes of heart disease. Its data shows an inverse correlation between saturated fat and heart disease, across the continent. France, the country with the highest intake of saturated fat, has the lowest rate of heart disease; Ukraine, the country with the lowest intake of saturated fat, has the highest. When the British obesity researcher Zoë Harcombe performed an analysis of the data on cholesterol levels for 192 countries around the world, she found that lower cholesterol correlated with higher rates of death from heart disease.

In the last 10 years, a theory that had somehow held up unsupported for nearly half a century has been rejected by several comprehensive evidence reviews, even as it staggers on, zombie-like, in our dietary guidelines and medical advice.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, in a 2008 analysis of all studies of the low-fat diet, found “no probable or convincing evidence” that a high level of dietary fat causes heart disease or cancer. Another landmark review, published in 2010, in the American Society for Nutrition, and authored by, among others, Ronald Krauss, a highly respected researcher and physician at the University of California, stated “there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD [coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease]”.

Many nutritionists refused to accept these conclusions. The journal that published Krauss’s review, wary of outrage among its readers, prefaced it with a rebuttal by a former right-hand man of Ancel Keys, which implied that since Krauss’s findings contradicted every national and international dietary recommendation, they must be flawed. The circular logic is symptomatic of a field with an unusually high propensity for ignoring evidence that does not fit its conventional wisdom.



Gary Taubes is a physicist by background. “In physics,” he told me, “You look for the anomalous result. Then you have something to explain. In nutrition, the game is to confirm what you and your predecessors have always believed.” As one nutritionist explained to Nina Teicholz, with delicate understatement: “Scientists believe that saturated fat is bad for you, and there is a good deal of reluctance toward accepting evidence to the contrary.”

John Yudkin’s scientific reputation had been all but sunk. He found himself uninvited from international conferences on nutrition. Research journals refused his papers. He was talked about by fellow scientists as an eccentric, a lone obsessive. Eventually, he became a scare story. Sheldon Reiser, one of the few researchers to continue working on the effects of refined carbohydrates and sugar through the 1970s, told Gary Taubes in 2011: “Yudkin was so discredited. He was ridiculed in a way. And anybody else who said something bad about sucrose [sugar], they’d say, ‘He’s just like Yudkin.’”

The 2015 edition of the US Dietary Guidelines (they are revised every five years) makes no reference to any of this new research, because the scientists who advised the committee – the most eminent and well-connected nutritionists in the country – neglected to include a discussion of it in their report. It is a gaping omission, inexplicable in scientific terms, but entirely explicable in terms of the politics of nutrition science. If you are seeking to protect your authority, why draw attention to evidence that seems to contradict the assertions on which that authority is founded? Allow a thread like that to be pulled, and a great unravelling might begin.

It may already have done. Last December, the scientists responsible for the report received a humiliating rebuke from Congress, which passed a measure proposing a review of the way the advice informing the guidelines is compiled. It referred to “questions … about the scientific integrity of the process”. The scientists reacted angrily, accusing the politicians of being in thrall to the meat and dairy industries (given how many of the scientists depend on research funding from food and pharmaceutical companies, this might be characterised as audacious).

Some scientists agree with the politicians. David McCarron, a research associate at the Department of Nutrition at the University of California-Davis, told the Washington Post: “There’s a lot of stuff in the guidelines that was right 40 years ago but that has been disproved. Unfortunately, sometimes, the scientific community doesn’t like to backtrack.” Steven Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, was blunter, calling the new guidelines “an evidence-free zone”.

The congressional review has come about partly because of Nina Teicholz. Since her book was published, in 2014, Teicholz has become an advocate for better dietary guidelines. She is on the board of the Nutrition Coalition, a body funded by the philanthropists John and Laura Arnold, the stated purpose of which is to help ensure that nutrition policy is grounded in good science.

In September last year she wrote an article for the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal), which makes the case for the inadequacy of the scientific advice that underpins the Dietary Guidelines. The response of the nutrition establishment was ferocious: 173 scientists – some of whom were on the advisory panel, and many of whose work had been critiqued in Teicholz’s book – signed a letter to the BMJ, demanding it retract the piece.

Publishing a rejoinder to an article is one thing; requesting its erasure is another, conventionally reserved for cases involving fraudulent data. As a consultant oncologist for the NHS, Santhanam Sundar, pointed out in a response to the letter on the BMJ website: “Scientific discussion helps to advance science. Calls for retraction, particularly from those in eminent positions, are unscientific and frankly disturbing.”

The letter lists “11 errors”, which on close reading turn out to range from the trivial to the entirely specious. I spoke to several of the scientists who signed the letter. They were happy to condemn the article in general terms, but when I asked them to name just one of the supposed errors in it, not one of them was able to. One admitted he had not read it. Another told me she had signed the letter because the BMJ should not have published an article that was not peer reviewed (it was peer reviewed). Meir Stampfer, a Harvard epidemiologist, asserted that Teicholz’s work is “riddled with errors”, while declining to discuss them with me.

Reticent as they were to discuss the substance of the piece, the scientists were noticeably keener to comment on its author. I was frequently and insistently reminded that Teicholz is a journalist, and not a scientist, and that she had a book to sell, as if this settled the argument. David Katz, of Yale, one of the members of the advisory panel, and an indefatigable defender of the orthodoxies, told me that Teicholz’s work “reeks of conflict of interest” without specifying what those conflicts were. (Dr Katz is the author of four diet books.)

Dr Katz does not pretend that his field has been right on everything – he admitted to changing his own mind, for example, on dietary cholesterol. But he returned again and again to the subject of Teicholz’s character. “Nina is shockingly unprofessional … I have been in rooms filled with the who’s who of nutrition and I have never seen such unanimous revulsion as when Miss Teicholz’s name comes up. She is an animal unlike anything I’ve ever seen before.” Despite requests, he cited no examples of her unprofessional behaviour. (The vitriol poured over Teicholz is rarely dispensed to Gary Taubes, though they make fundamentally similar arguments.)

In March this year, Teicholz was invited to participate in a panel discussion on nutrition science at the National Food Policy conference, in Washington DC, only to be promptly disinvited, after her fellow panelists made it clear that they would not share a platform with her. The organisers replaced her with the CEO of the Alliance for Potato Research and Education.


One of the scientists who called for the retraction of Nina Teicholz’s BMJ article, who requested that our conversation be off the record, complained that the rise of social media has created a “problem of authority” for nutrition science. “Any voice, however mad, can gain ground,” he told me.

It is a familiar complaint. By opening the gates of publishing to all, the internet has flattened hierarchies everywhere they exist. We no longer live in a world in which elites of accredited experts are able to dominate conversations about complex or contested matters. Politicians cannot rely on the aura of office to persuade, newspapers struggle to assert the superior integrity of their stories. It is not clear that this change is, overall, a boon for the public realm. But in areas where experts have a track record of getting it wrong, it is hard to see how it could be worse. If ever there was a case that an information democracy, even a very messy one, is preferable to an information oligarchy, then the history of nutrition advice is it.

In the past, we only had two sources of nutritional authority: our doctor and government officials. It was a system that worked well as long as the doctors and officials were informed by good science. But what happens if that cannot be relied on?

The nutritional establishment has proved itself, over the years, skilled at ad hominem takedowns, but it is harder for them to do to Robert Lustig or Nina Teicholz what they once did to John Yudkin. Harder, too, to deflect or smother the charge that the promotion of low-fat diets was a 40-year fad, with disastrous outcomes, conceived of, authorised, and policed by nutritionists.

Professor John Yudkin retired from his post at Queen Elizabeth College in 1971, to write Pure, White and Deadly. The college reneged on a promise to allow him to continue to use its research facilities. It had hired a fully committed supporter of the fat hypothesis to replace him, and it was no longer deemed politic to have a prominent opponent of it on the premises. The man who had built the college’s nutrition department from scratch was forced to ask a solicitor to intervene. Eventually, a small room in a separate building was found for Yudkin.

When I asked Lustig why he was the first researcher in years to focus on the dangers of sugar, he answered: “John Yudkin. They took him down so severely – so severely – that nobody wanted to attempt it on their own.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ohn-yudkin
Last edited by Sivad on 29 Aug 2019 10:04, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15030466
Everyone knows sugar and overeating Carbohydrates are the causes of obesity. This has nothing to do with your idiotic assertions of "babbitry", which is infantile, at best. When I was growing up in the 70s it was known that it was the cause, and yet humans, being what they are, continue to eat them.
By SolarCross
#15030475
^ an nice example of babbitry in itself by @Godstud after @Sivad's very interesting post.

It is a pity pofo does not have a down vote feature like Reddit.
By Atlantis
#15030539
Here is how the US looks from this side of the big pond. A blog by Jacques Attali, adviser to president Macron:

Why is the American Superpower suicidal?

We can only be fascinated to see the development in the United States, alongside the mirage of Silicon Valley, a pattern of suicidal behavior that seem to condemn the world's greatest power to decline: galloping obesity, immoderate use of drugs, unlimited freedom to shoot each other in all public places.
Let us recall the facts:

- Obesity: Today, 40% of the American population is considered obese, including 18.5% of Americans under the age of 18, compared to only 14% twenty years ago. Obesity contributes significantly to the increase in type II diabetes, heart attacks and certain types of cancer. Obesity costs about $200 billion a year in health care costs. It only increases. Sugar is the main weapon.

- Drugs: The country consumes 80% of the world's opiate production, and an estimated three million American citizens are dependent. And it is increasing: Whereas in 2000, there was one heroin user per thousand inhabitants, today there are more than two per thousand. Many of these drugs are legally administered as painkillers. According to the United States National Institute on Drug Abuse, overdoses killed 64,000 people in 2016, almost a quarter more than in 2015, mainly due to opioids, used as painkillers, and responsible for 21,000 deaths in 2016, compared with 3,000 in 2013, a sevenfold increase in three years. There are also new uses of heroin and new drugs, such as fentanyl, a synthetic narcotic 50 times more powerful than heroin.

- Weapons: 30% of Americans own a firearm; and in many states a 12-year-old child can legally buy one. 32,000 people died by firearm in 2015, including more than 20,000 registered as suicides. Already 18 attacks have taken place in a school since the beginning of the year.

And as these data overlap, tens of millions of obese Americans and drug users own a weapon.

Who can't see the risks? Why does the US Administration continue to fail to react? Because that would be to challenge considerable interests, structuring the political and economic system of the United States: The sugar, drug and arms industries are among the most powerful in the country. They corrupt politicians through donations and the minds of citizens through advertising campaigns. And President Trump, who thinks that everything was better before, is not at all prepared to change that. On the contrary, it will accentuate it by liberalizing their uses.

America slowly commits suicide. A part of the country, in any case, no longer loves itself, no longer prepares its future and is entirely oriented towards immediate enjoyment; of which the death drive is the main one.

That America is dangerous for itself and the world: When you are suicidal, you don't care if you drag others into death. And one can imagine that such a drive could lead the country into mad military adventures. As it is already dragging the planet towards another suicide, by refusing to act on the control of greenhouse gases.

Yet young Americans are beginning to react. They march in great numbers against politicians corrupted by the NRA. They consume less and less sugar. And they are moving away from drugs: only 5% of them now admit to using them, compared to 10% in 2002.

Let us hope in this youth and do what we can to help them. It is also our future.

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator


These are some of the symptoms resulting from the unlimited greed enshrined in the American way of life and the US exceptionalism that drives the country towards a destructive quest for global hegemony.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15030852
Atlantis wrote:Here is how the US looks from this side of the big pond. A blog by Jacques Attali, adviser to president Macron:

These are some of the symptoms resulting from the unlimited greed enshrined in the American way of life and the US exceptionalism that drives the country towards a destructive quest for global hegemony.

President Trump is making a strong effort to move away from globalism of previous administrations with his "America First" program that includes building the wall to help secure the border to stop illegal drug trafficking. Our President has done a tremendous job for our economy, which is essential in improving the health and security of our nation.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15030853
Globalism is the future of Capitalism, and even Capitalists know this, which is why corporations and companies have embraced it.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15030861
Godstud wrote:Globalism is the future of Capitalism, and even Capitalists know this, which is why corporations and companies have embraced it.

Certainly, all corporations and companies embrace "free market" capitalism in an economic form of globalism, which we don't have at the present time. However, I was mainly referring to political, social, and military globalism. In that sense, President Trump refers to himself as a Nationalist rather than a Globalist.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15030874
:lol: Sure, but when it came to business he was just fine going to the Russians.

[KS mod edit: Rule 2]
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15031097
Godstud wrote::lol: Sure, but when it came to business he was just fine going to the Russians. :lol:

I believe that most of the Russians are good people.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15031100
@Hindsite, it's globalism, and even Trump engages in it. You can pretend he's a nationalist, but his history does not support this.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15031111
Godstud wrote:@Hindsite, it's globalism, and even Trump engages in it. You can pretend he's a nationalist, but his history does not support this.

President Trump said he was a nationalist and he acts like a nationalist, so that is good enough for me.
Praise the Lord.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15031181
Hindsite wrote:President Trump said he was a nationalist and he acts like a nationalist, so that is good enough for me.
Praise the Lord.

Donald Trump is an American nationalist. Anyone who claims he is not is absurd.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15031890
In 2011, 6.4 percent of the Army, 9 percent of the Air Force and 2.3 percent of the Marine Corps was obese, according to Defense Department health data. In less than a decade, the rates in those branches have more than doubled — and in the Navy, obesity has risen sixfold.

Chow halls across the military now have color-coded labels. The Marine Corps version is called “Fueled to fight.” While troops can eat what they want, healthy foods, including fruits, vegetables and whole grains, get a green label for “engage at will.” Fatty junk foods get a red label for “check fire.” Foods that should only be consumed occasionally are labeled yellow for “well-aimed shots.”
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15031921
jimjam wrote:In 2011, 6.4 percent of the Army, 9 percent of the Air Force and 2.3 percent of the Marine Corps was obese, according to Defense Department health data. In less than a decade, the rates in those branches have more than doubled — and in the Navy, obesity has risen sixfold.

Chow halls across the military now have color-coded labels. The Marine Corps version is called “Fueled to fight.” While troops can eat what they want, healthy foods, including fruits, vegetables and whole grains, get a green label for “engage at will.” Fatty junk foods get a red label for “check fire.” Foods that should only be consumed occasionally are labeled yellow for “well-aimed shots.”

I retired from the Army in 1984 and several years before that someone in charge with nothing better to do, no wars to fight, started this weigh-in thing and threaten discharge from service if unable to meet the height and weight standard during a set period of time. However, it was determined that some of these men were the body builder type and the extra weight was muscle.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15032065
Get Carbs and sugars out of your diet and you'll lose that weight, as well.

Stuff like potatoes and especially corn, are great to include in your diet if you want to be morbidly obese.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

I served, incidentally As did I, in the British […]

Election 2020

You literally justified not counting votes because[…]

Okay, and I have a small request -- could you inc[…]

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/13219872[…]