I\’ve never really quite believed Cuban health statistics. Who would believe the output of a communist dictatorship in an rea where they claim that they\’re world leaders?
But put that aside for a moment over this latest study.
The hard times experienced by the people of Cuba in the early 1990s – when food was short and petrol almost unobtainable owing to the tightening of the US embargo and loss of Russian support – led to falling rates of heart disease and diabetes, say doctors.
Researchers studied the so-called \”special period\” between 1991 and 1995, when people resorted to donkeys to transport loads and the government imported 1.5m bicycles from China, to see whether eating less, walking, cycling and manual labour made a difference to the health of the population as a whole.
Deaths from diabetes and heart problems fell as the diet reduced and the exercise rose: then as the economy improved they rebounded. We know what\’s coming next, don\’t we?
In a commentary supporting the call for government action, Walter C Willett, professor and chair department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, says the study offers \”powerful evidence that a reduction in overweight and obesity would have major population-wide benefits. To achieve this is perhaps the major public health and societal challenge of the century. Medical treatment of people at high risk for disease will have limited impact on mortality rates if the primary causes of disease are not dealt with, and reviews agree that solutions will require multi-sectoral approaches.\”
Potential strategies include \”educational efforts, redesign of built environments to promote physical activity, changes in food systems, restrictions on aggressive promotion of unhealthy drinks and foods to children, and economic strategies such as taxation.\”
Yup, you got it. They\’re preparing to starve us all in order to make us healthier.
The original information is interesting and useful: but that twat seems to have forgotten that we get to decide our path from cradle to grave, not them deciding it for us.
Looking at the actual paper though I found something much more interesting:
We used the following categories for body mass index: underweight (<18.5), normal weight (18.5-<25), overweight (25-<30), and obesity (?30). All participants in the four surveys signed the informed consent. The ethics committee of the University of Medical Sciences, Cienfuegos, approved protocols.
OK, they used the standard BMI categories.
Most cohort studies have suggested a “U” shaped association between body mass index and mortality, with the lowest point in the index range of 24 to 29.
It is obesity (and more so, morbid obesity) that kills, not being overwieght. sure, we know this already: just interesting to see the two points being made in hte same paper.
The idea that we all have to starve ourselves like jockeys to get under 25 is simply wrong. Even with or without that we get to decide part, it\’s still wrong.