Comment 67544

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted August 06, 2011 at 09:40:38 in reply to Comment 67541

...but neither you nor kevlahan has made the proper connection between human obesity and proper nutrition.

Not true. Not true at all.

I've spent an inordinate amount of time over the past two decades actively involved in this subject. Both from an empirical, first-hand vantage point, to being a personal trainer, to keeping a constant eye on what's going on in general. I'm fully aware of the various levels of concern there are regarding nutrition, from the factor of ease-of-availability-of-calories (forty years ago it wasn't convenient to ingest 1,500 calories; today, you can take a box out of the freezer and within ten minutes, you can consume two-thirds of the average daily requirements...and yes, I'm being sloppy with my caloric requirements for the sake of expediency), to the notion of empty calories to the insulin factor to additives to chemicals, yadda, yadda, apathy-towards-information yadda. (Even down to the water we drink...which I believe is connected to your RM reference.)

But I maintain that in the formula involving 'nutrition/activity', the latter is beyond question the one that's never really properly addressed...unless it's addressed by the fitness/supplement/diet industrial complex by way of Madison Avenue. Mostly because people have come to refuse to acknowledge the responsibility they have for their bodies.

There's a reason that John Locke's quote has remained in circulation for over four centuries (albeit in its truncated form):

"A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else."

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Site Tools

Feeds