http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN07651650

WASHINGTON, Jan 8 (Reuters) - France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.

If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.

For spending the biggest chunk of our GDP on health care, this is what we get?

I agree that our health care system leaves much to be desired, but you have to take the conclusions of these "studies" with a grain of salt:In establishing their rankings, the researchers considered deaths before age 75 from numerous causes, including heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, diabetes, certain bacterial infections and complications of common surgical procedures.Yeah, I'm not surprised we have more heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, simply because we have the most fat people.

But obesity isn't the type of thing a health care system can fix.

I agree that our health care system leaves much to be desired, but you have to take the conclusions of these "studies" with a grain of salt:Yeah, I'm not surprised we have more heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, simply because we have the most fat people.

But obesity isn't the type of thing a health care system can fix.
All statistics should be taken with "a grain of salt". But one wonders why we have "the most fat people". What is different in the USA that we have more obese people?

But looking at other statistics, including infant mortality, the USA still ranks worst of the industrial nations, even though we spend far more per capita on health care.

All statistics should be taken with "a grain of salt". But one wonders why we have "the most fat people". What is different in the USA that we have more obese people?Because Americans eat more and exercise less?But looking at other statistics, including infant mortality, the USA still ranks worst of the industrial nations, even though we spend far more per capita on health care.Partly because of how infant is defined, which has nothing to do with health care.

If we just let all those defective fetuses die we'd go way up in the rankings.

Because Americans eat more and exercise less?
We'd probably get more exercise if we weren't working longer hours in order to make more money in order to buy more useless crap that we don't need. Americans, generally speaking, overvalue the hell out of amassing material wealth (and flaunting it). Collectively, our values don't stray too far from those espoused by the average rap video.

Because Americans eat more and exercise less?

Congratulations on a perfect non-answer.

WHY do Americans eat more and exercise less?

Also, maybe it is also what we eat as well as how much?

WHY do Americans eat more and exercise less?Because Americans want instant gratification, and there are plenty of greedy companies who are more than willing to feed that mentality.

It is ironic though, that the leaner and fitter our ideal media image becomes, the fatter and more unhealthy our public becomes.

We'd probably get more exercise if we weren't working longer hours in order to make more money in order to buy more useless crap that we don't need.The welfare case rednecks in the South kind of disprove that hypothesis.

And of course thin people exercise more and eat less. They're such paragons of virtue.

There was something I was talking to Cristina Scabbia, or was it Maus or Criz, can't remember way to drunk that night, about. I was asking about why so much vegetables in Italian diet and relations to beef to poultry as well. The answer I got, was beef and pork were very expensive in Italy. Bear that in mind. I wish I had a fancy little chart, I had seen one on it. But, the US spends more money towards beef and pork products, with oils, nuts, and corn subsidies coming up next, then fruits and veggies. It is recommended in higher doses of veggies for diets. What does beef and pork do? They are proteins. What do proteins do to the body? They increase muscle mass, body mass stuff like that. Health effects and things like that? Higher cholestrol, yada yada.

Besides the lack of exercise, there is a direct relation to that chart if I can ever find it.

WHY do Americans eat more and exercise less?Here's a perfect example (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/business/17soda.html?partner=rss&emc=rss) from today's news.

A junk food tax, starting with sugary drinks is an easy, logical, and effective means of fighting obesity and paying for the consequences.

But the junk food industry owns Congress, so they practically dismiss the idea. The industry would rather keep super-sizing everything to keep up with the super-sizing of American waistlines and appetites. Worse than that, we heavily subsidize the main ingredient they use, encouraging them to make more.

And of course thin people exercise more and eat less. They're such paragons of virtue.Actually, I exercise more and eat more. I just don't eat the garbage that most Americans do.

Actually, I exercise more and eat more. I just don't eat the garbage that most Americans do.
Right! So why do you keep repeating that phrase "eat less, exercise more" when you know already know it's more about what you eat.

Right! So why do you keep repeating that phrase "eat less, exercise more" when you know already know it's more about what you eat.It isn't.

If you take in more food energy than you expend, you're going to get fat. Period. If I ate my current diet and instead of exercising I sat on my ass all day like the typical American, I'd gain a pound of fat per week.

Americans need to get off their fat asses and start doing something for a change, and reduce their portion sizes to sensible amounts.

Those that refuse to should be taxed to pay for the consequences of their irresponsibility.

And industries that condone that irresponsible behavior should be held accountable, as they are just as bad as, or worse than, the tobacco companies.

Would you like to do an experiment? Keep eating the same number of calories but really load up on the sugar, carbs, especially grains and drink a bunch of HFCS too, lets say for a month. Then report back. Hopefully you won't be one of the few this won't work on, but chances are you'll be singing another tune. Be sure to get a comprehensive blood panel before and after too. That'll make it all that much more fun.

Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html)

I have no doubt exercise, when done well and in moderation, will make/keep you healthy but it doesn't make most people thin.

Keep eating the same number of calories but really load up on the sugar, carbs, especially grains and drink a bunch of HFCS too, lets say for a month. Then report back.Oh please, not the Atkins propaganda again. If you haven't figured it out already, it's just another diet scam and I don't want to waste more time debating it.

I eat 50% carbs, 20% protein, 30% fat, pretty similar what the average American would eat in terms of macronutrients.

The main difference is that my activity level and metabolic rate are both much higher than those of the average American, and that is directly related to fitness and exercise.

Sure, if I ate the processed garbage Americans eat, I would be a lot less healthy, have no energy, have diabetes, be impotent, or what not, but I would not be significantly fatter.Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html)My point exactly. Americans are so fat and lazy that they would rather write up articles to make excuses as to why they shouldn't exercise, than to actually do the exercise.

The TRUTH is, I have never met a serious athlete who was fat. And athletes eat quite a lot. A serious bodybuilder can easily eat 4,000+ calories a day and a serious endurance athlete can easily eat much more. Michael Phelps eats 12,000 calories a day (http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/13/the-michael-phelps-diet-dont-try-it-at-home/) and he hovers around what, 6-8% body fat?

Your article, which relies on surveys, is useless, because fat people lie all the time on surveys. This is so well known that I once saw a study designed to estimate just how much fat people lie on surveys. Statistics such as ownership of exercise equipment and gym membership (also used in your flawed article) are equally useless, because fat people buy them to make themselves feel better and then never use them, opting for a box of Krispy Kreme instead.

I speak from experience, not meaningless surveys. In addition to all of the other health benefits, regular intense exercise and increased muscle mass through weight training both make it MUCH easier to maintain a particular weight while not holding back on your diet.

And incidentally, a healthy vegetarian diet makes it even easier.

Also, maybe it is also what we eat as well as how much?

There is plenty of crap there too; fried crap, fatty crap, processed crap, etc. The entrees in European restaurants aren't tiny either. In Europe or America, normal size people shouldn't be eating full entrees at most restaurants in the first place.

Europeans also spend a higher % of their income on food. They simply value it differently (keep in mind, most European countries have higher agri subsidies than we do too.) Europeans also consumed more wine/beer than Americans.

However, the big difference is in soft drinks. Americans consume far more soft drinks than anyone else (over twice as much per capita than most European countries.)

As far as exercise there goes, I'm pretty sure that the average European walks more in a given day than the average American. But it's not like when you go a European city you see a gym on every corner or people exercising outside everywhere. In fact, when I was in Europe, I was surprised at the lack of gyms I saw.

The problem with people who believe that a simple equation works for accounting for human metabolism is that they don't understand the variables are dependent. If you change one variable, say calories-in, then calories-out will change along with it. If you increase calories-out, then calories-in will increase too. That's why so many people go work out for an hour and then promptly undo it all by eating more afterwards.

The problem with people who believe that a simple equation works for accounting for human metabolism is that they don't understand the variables are dependent. If you change one variable, say calories-in, then calories-out will change along with it. If you increase calories-out, then calories-in will increase too. That's why so many people go work out for an hour and then promptly undo it all by eating more afterwards.Why don't you try speaking to people with real world experience instead of believing the nonsense you read in your Atkins blogs?

Because I have never met, or seen for that matter, a fat athlete. And I exercise a lot (and see many others who do), and I am not fat either.

If your theory were correct, then 2/3 of athletes would be fat too, just like 2/3 of Americans. They're not. Because your theory is wrong, and your data is built on LIES entered on surveys by fat people who are ashamed of how pathetic they are.

The reality is, they don't work out for an hour and then eat more to compensate. They simply buy the gym membership, skip the actual workout, and then eat more to compensate.

Seriously, how many fat athletes do you know? The only fat people I have ever seen doing any serious physical activity are the rare handful who actually say enough is enough and try to change their lives for the better. And those people either end up quitting and returning to their fat ways, or end up as thin people.

That is the truth, and the reality, that you never read about, because the whole notion of hard work and perseverance is anti-American, something that just seems wrong to Americans because it doesn't involve swallowing a magic pill.

Why don't you try speaking to people with real world experience instead of believing the nonsense you read in your Atkins blogs?

Because I have never met, or seen for that matter, a fat athlete. And I exercise a lot (and see many others who do), and I am not fat either.

If your theory were correct, then 2/3 of athletes would be fat too, just like 2/3 of Americans. They're not. Because your theory is wrong, and your data is built on LIES entered on surveys by fat people who are ashamed of how pathetic they are.


If you had read the article, you would have seen that it said that: yes, excersise will burn more calories. The problem is that people who burn more calories will instinctively try to compensate for that by eating more. It takes a lot of self discipline to overcome that instinct.
And guess? Athletes are not your average human being. They are athletes precisely -because- they have a bigger drive and more self discipline. By looking only at athletes you select your sample and your statistics become meaningless (for anything other than athletes).


And B: What is it with the shrilly aggressive tone of your posts lately?


Eri

And B: What is it with the shrilly aggressive tone of your posts lately?
Lately?!?!

Before every post, Tuda bludgeons a kitten, pushes an old lady down a flight of stairs, and makes a bar of soap from the rendered fat of an obese person he ran over earlier in the day with his high fuel economy car.

...and that's on a day when he's feeling magnanimous.

If you had read the article, you would have seen that it said that:If you had read my post, you would have seen why that article is nonsense.

But if you like, you can keep on believing lies on surveys filled out by guilty fat people. Perhaps it will make you feel better too.The problem is that people who burn more calories will instinctively try to compensate for that by eating more.The net effect will be caloric deficit.And guess? Athletes are not your average human being. They are athletes precisely -because- they have a bigger drive and more self discipline. By looking only at athletes you select your sample and your statistics become meaningless (for anything other than athletes).I don't just mean pro athletes. I mean recreational ones, regular people like me who have no unusual genetic predisposition to athletics but do it as a hobby.

They maintain a healthy weight, often without even thinking much about their diet, and don't overcompensate for their exercise with excess food intake.

aybe it's because they actually DO the exercise, unlike the fat people who eat the box of Krispy Kreme and drink the two liter Coke and then claim on the survey they ate a green salad and ran a half marathon that morning.

Tell me, how many people do you know, whom you have personally seen do regular intense endurance exercise (real exercise - not exercise that involves an hour of putting on make up and tights just to lift your knees up and down a few times at the local boutique gym), and who are fat?

Believe your eyes, not the surveys.

Sumo wrestlers?
(Ok, I've never personally met a sumo wrestler, but you can't tell me they're not athletes.)

Sumo wrestlers?Sumo wrestlers are not endurance athletes.

You know exactly what I mean: anyone who does a sport requiring a sustained level of intense activity using major muscle groups.

The average America consumed far more calories in the 1700s and early 1800s than today. As time went on, the intensity of labor continued to decline and people consumed fewer and fewer calories. The labor side of that equation continued, but around the 1950s or 60s, Americans started to consume more calories.

Even though our current caloric intake is nothing like it was in the 1700s, we consume far more unneeded calories today compared to back then.

Before every post, Tuda bludgeons a kitten, pushes an old lady down a flight of stairs, and makes a bar of soap from the rendered fat of an obese person he ran over earlier in the day with his high fuel economy car.What? I wouldn't harm the kitten.

Quote"Sumo wrestlers"

some of those guys and girls are pretty stacked muscle wise. and yes they do take quite a bit of sustained strain on occasion, particularly tournaments. american football players have lots of fatties. they also tend to be pretty obese, even muscle wise. they also die at younger ages not neccessarily from the physical abuse they suffered from playing football. but, from their sheer size and eating habits. futbol players in latin america, britain, italy usually die at young ages, but, to unruly fans so......

What? I wouldn't harm the kitten.
What if it were an obese, evangelical kitten, living on the dole and pregnant with a litter of 8 more kittens?

Here's an interesting Op-ed from Michael Pollan, author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma": Big food versus Big insurance (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=1&em)

What about the jobless tomcat strutting around the neighborhood neglecting his fatherly duties, not paying kitten support and getting other kitties knocked up thus forcing the rest of us to support his irresponsible ways with health care for those kittens, welfare for kitties?

What about the jobless tomcat strutting around the neighborhood neglecting his fatherly duties, not paying kitten support and getting other kitties knocked up thus forcing the rest of us to support his irresponsible ways with health care for those kittens, welfare for kitties?
Ok, now you're sterotyping cats! I think you're just a mammalist.

Nah, a stereotype would have been, if, I included that the tomcat was a tabby, calico, persian, whatever. Not all tomcats do such behavior though, some of them are loving devoted fathers, some of them mark your carpet as their territory.

Sumo wrestlers?
(Ok, I've never personally met a sumo wrestler, but you can't tell me they're not athletes.)
ore importantly, don't try telling them they're not athletes.

What is it with the shrilly aggressive tone of your posts lately?




Lately?

Where have you been?

Would you like to do an experiment? Keep eating the same number of calories but really load up on the sugar, carbs, especially grains and drink a bunch of HFCS too, lets say for a month. Then report back. Hopefully you won't be one of the few this won't work on, but chances are you'll be singing another tune. Be sure to get a comprehensive blood panel before and after too. That'll make it all that much more fun.

Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html)

I have no doubt exercise, when done well and in moderation, will make/keep you healthy but it doesn't make most people thin.
I have read and reread this post several times.

I still don't understand your point. Nobody drinks high fructose corn syrup. They dilute it before they drink it, with water as intended.

If one consumed only sugars, that person would develop all manners of problems. Additionally, your body does not recognize the difference between HFCS or any other carbohydrate. It would be converted to glucose by the body just like lactose, maltose, fructose, or any other carb(besides dietary fiber).

Your body will also convert excess sugars(glucose) and carbs to body fat. It will not convert to protein(muscle mass).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwashiorkor

I'm sure that Tuda knows all of this.
He is also correct in that you will get thinner if you burn more calories than you take in, that means exercise.

How could it be any different?

Sugar is sugar. Your body can't tell if 100 calories of sugar come from an apple or strawberry, or 100 calories of concentrated corn syrup. We use corn because it it is high in sugar, and easier to grow in bulk, than say sugar cane. We have HFCS because it is concentrated to make delivery costs cheaper, and mixed with water later locally. Because shipping water costs lots of money, when the water is already there where it is going to arrive.

Your body is going to treat the 100 calories of sugar from apple juice, the exact same way that it treats the 100 calories from a HFCS Coke. Your body can't tell the difference.

If you have bought a can of frozen 100% apple or orange juice, you are doing the exact same thing. Except you would call it HFAS, or HFOS. You already have the water where you are going to drink it, why do you need to ship it, and pay for that shipping, with the rest of what you are drinking?

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN07651650



For spending the biggest chunk of our GDP on health care, this is what we get?

Have I mentioned that I have a friend who gave birth to a 15/16 week old gestation boy?

He was named.
Had a birth certificate.
He had a death certificate.
And he had a funeral. Has a gravestone.

What would be a miscarriage in other countries, is a birth in ours.

You need to show me that other countries do this before you can compare life expectancy numbers.

You need to show me that other countries do this before you can compare life expectancy numbers.Or you can just look at life expectancy by age (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html) statistics, to filter out infant deaths.

I may be reading that chart wrong, but I'm pretty sure that it does not filter out what you think it filters out.

Calendar year 1850, for example.

A male born in 1830 is expected to live 40.1 more years(to 60.1) in 1850. But only 38, if born in 1850.

The expectation of life at a specified age is the average number of years that members of a hypothetical group of people of the same age would continue to live if they were subject throughout the remainder of their lives to the same mortality rate.
These are hypothetical numbers. Calculated with a mortality rate, given at the given year.

If mortality rate includes early mortality numbers(say from extreme preemees and drug babies), then that rate is skewed. And the numbers for the whole chart are flawed.

This flawed calculation explains this anomaly.

Which says that at birth in 2004 a male has a life expectancy of 75.7, but if he is 80, he has a life expectancy of 89.1. That discrepancy is because of faulty math.

Infant mortality appears to be significantly in your numbers. Not filtered out by them.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005131.html
Same Mortality Rates per year which are used in the calculations. I can't find the equations that they used, if you can, post them please.

Correct me if I am incorrect here.

A male born in 1830 is expected to live 40.1 more years(to 60.1) in 1850. But only 38, if born in 1850.I don't see where you're getting 1830, it starts at 1850.Which says that at birth in 2004 a male has a life expectancy of 75.7, but if he is 80, he has a life expectancy of 89.1. That discrepancy is because of faulty math.Well, I haven't researched the sources on that particular chart, but generally, the longer you live, the longer you're likely to live.

So if your life expectancy at 10 is 40 (=50 total), your life expectancy at 40 will be a number greater than 10 (>50 total), all other things being equal.

That is the whole point of these statistics, to filter out early deaths. Unfortunately they are hard to come by.

I don't see where you're getting 1830, it starts at 1850..
A 20 year old in 1850 was born in 1830.

That is the whole point of these statistics, to filter out early deaths. Unfortunately they are hard to come by.
You can see from the very first data point, in 1850, year 0.

Infant mortality is clearly factored in.

Otherwise would the baby only live to 38, and the 20 year old lives to 60 something?

It is not filtered out.
The equations are not provided. Only the rate per 1000 population is provided. I am unable to decipher how the numbers were derived. Other than that they are obviously faulty and flawed.

The year 1850 line clearly shows that flaw immediately.
It is counter intuitive, even without knowing the equations, that a baby born in 1830 has a life expectancy of 60 in 1850.
But a baby born in 1850 only has a life expectancy of 38 in 1850.

A 20 year old in 1850 was born in 1830.But someone born in 1830 wouldn't have the 1850 figure + 20 years life expectancy. It would be less, because the longer you live, the more likely it is you will live longer.

In other words, someone born in year X with a life expectancy of Y, and who has thus far lived Z years, would NOT have a life expectancy of Y+Z in year X+Z, because X and Y are independent variables.

And yes, the first column (zero) is the same as life expectancy from birth, which would include infant mortality. That's why you have to look at the other columns.

That's why you have to look at the other columns.

I don't want to.

The chart uses a standardized death rate. In all columns, for all numbers.

It says so. I posted the link to the rate chart they used. The link is at the bottom of the page you linked.

I think you can agree now that that rate includes infant mortality. Otherwise you could not get the 1850 anomaly, evident so obviously.

When you get to the present, the death rate decreases, which includes a decreasing infant mortality rate as well, making the differences less pronounced.

They are still included. Unless for some years, it is included, but others it is not. Which makes the whole chart, and all of its so called data, even less scientific.

Male life expectancy at age 65 for various countries (http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Health_Letter/2006/July/male_life_expectancy_at_65_in_selected_countries)

America still sucks, just not as badly as the life expectancy at birth statistics might suggest.

Male life expectancy at age 65 for various countries (http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Health_Letter/2006/July/male_life_expectancy_at_65_in_selected_countries)

America still sucks, just not as badly as the life expectancy at birth statistics might suggest.
The numbers used to calculate those life expectancies include infant mortality numbers.

Everyone knows that more actual American baby boys die in infancy(especially extreme preemies) than girls. Real numbers, not calculated.

But those real numbers factor in, in all male age life expectancy numbers unless specified that they are excluded.

Are you drawing loops on purpose, or because you don't know better?

The numbers you keep posting are a CALCULATED number based on a CALCULATED rate which has infant mortality data CALCULATED into it.

But obesity isn't the type of thing a health care system can fix. Compare the general obesity of the 12th country and the first!

The numbers used to calculate those life expectancies include infant mortality numbers.I don't know where you're getting this from.

The numbers from the U.S. are directly from the CDC, which calculates them based on real death certificates tabulated by age and age distributions.

The CDC also collects detailed data on linked birth/death certificates and the way it affects infant mortality, including detailed breakdowns by sex, race, gestation period, and so on (look here (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/linked.htm)).

It's not as though you're the first person to think this up.

These differences may relate in part to differences in risk factors for infant mortality such as preterm and low birthweight delivery, socioeconomic status, access to medical care, etc. However, many of the racial and ethnic differences in infant mortality remain unexplained.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.htm


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09_fig3.gif


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/infantmort99-04_table.pdf

This is a chart of pre term births. And pre term infant mortality.
Broken down by race and year.

Look at the Mexican numbers and compare those with Whites and Blacks.
They are lower than Whites. 1.76 vs 1.82
And much lower than Blacks. 1.76 vs 6.29

You are going to have find some really good economic numbers to show me that the average socio economic status, or access to health care is substantially different between Mexicans and American Blacks.

Almost half of the total Black infant mortality number is pre term infant mortality.

13.6 versus 6.29.

That pdf link can be traced here
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/infantmort99-04/infantmort99-04.htm

You are going to have find some really good economic numbers to show me that the average socio economic status, or access to health care is substantially different between Mexicans and American Blacks.Never heard of La Clinica de la Raza? I'm surprised. It's not the only facility of its type around here.

I've never seen a black clinic around here, and even if there were one, I'd like to see statistics regarding attendance.

And if you compare, say, the Mission District (Hispanic) to Bayview (black), you'll see a stark difference in how each race lives. For starters, Mexican adults are generally employed and generally don't do drugs other than alcohol. And they like to see doctors.

I'd walk in any part of the Mission during the day, even the gang corridors, but I'd think twice about going to Bayview at any hour.

Mission district isn't anything like it used to be. I had a friend who lived there before they tore the projects down. But even then, it was on the cusp of getting gentrified.

Mission district isn't anything like it used to be. I had a friend who lived there before they tore the projects down. But even then, it was on the cusp of getting gentrified.Nothing is like it used to be. Even Bayview and the Tenderloin are much better than they were (as the housing market spiraled upwards, blacks left in droves).

That's besides the point.

The point is:
I'd walk in any part of the Mission during the day, even the gang corridors, but I'd think twice about going to Bayview at any hour.
You probably wouldn't have said that a few years back. The Mission District isn't the scary place it used to be.

You probably wouldn't have said that a few years back. The Mission District isn't the scary place it used to be.Yes I would have. I have seen all of these neighborhoods transform for 20 years.

I live here, remember?