An Apple a Day Really Does Keep the Doctor Away
*An apple a day In the chemically grown environment will bring the doctor
into play!
*An organic apple a day will keep the doctor away!
I agree that an apple a day keeps the doctor away but only if the apple is
organic. Apples are consistently named as one of the most pesticide-contaminated
fruits and vegetables because they are more popular than most the other fruits
and vegetables. Choosing organic apples can therefore make a big difference
...
Even if the study referred to in this article shows that apples made a
difference (maybe the apples were organic?), but I don't think so because then
the journalist would have made a point out of it, we don't know how eating a lot
of non-organic apples will affect the body over time. Preservatives, residues
from pesticides, fungicides, synthetic growth and breeding hormones are harmful
for our body and may damage our liver and even cause Cancer. Not to mention what
all these substances do to Mother Earth.
My advise! - Eat apples and all other fruits and vegetables but try to pick
organic products when possible. Your body and Mother Earth will thank you - and
your kids too!
Happy Natural Life!
Read the article LOS ANGELES TIMES/Eating apples every day really IS good for your health, scientists say
<>
Modern apples are a far cry from anything "natural" that has ever existed, so
first let's let go of the myth that somehow they're good because they're
"natural". Apples don't breed true, so every apple you've ever gotten in the
supermarket is thanks to grafting and cloning of trees -> something that has
only existed for a short while of human existence.
Second, the real problem with chronic disease isn't a dearth of apples, it's
an excess of carbohydrate. Apples don't help all that much (fructose heading
straight to your liver for processing), although if you're at least not eating
dried apples, it's mostly water so it's not too bad for you. Apple juice, on
the other hand, is a boatload of bad for you.
So if you care about your health, and want to avoid bad cholesterol, obesity,
diabetes and other chronic diseases, avoid foods that will spike your insulin
levels by raising your blood sugar.
Stop eating carbohydrates. It's simple.
Read the article LOS ANGELES TIMES/Eating apples every day really IS good for your health, scientists say
<>
It is said it is because an apple has a relatively low GI. The sugar is released and absorbed reasonably slowly as it is contained within fibre of the fruit. That, with the naturally filling effect of the fibre content, would appear to stave off undue pangs of hunger, leading to a reduction in snack eating from the sugar lows normally associated with refined sugar intake, and so promote some weight loss in that way.
A number of other studies are in agreement that the apple consumption has a wide range of beneficial health effects. It is unlikely that anyone is capable of eating enough raw apple to make the amount of sugar ingested enough to offset the other benefits of consuming the fruit.
In terms of alcoholic drinks, cider is probably the healthiest of all to consume in moderate quantities as a tonic.
Read the article TELEGRAPH/Apple a day does keep the doctor away
<>
It shouldn't be surprising that apples, if not a miracle food, at least form part of a healthy diet. The saying comes from centuries of observation.
Since healthism/health fascism/health obsession and neurosis began about ten years ago, nothing has been added to what we already knew. In many ways things have got worse. For several years I stopped eating eggs and took high dose vitamin E capsules.
Your grandmother's summary: don't smoke, don't drink too much, eat some of everything and get a good night's sleep and plenty of fresh air and exercise, needs no modification.
Read the article TELEGRAPH/Apple a day does keep the doctor away
School's Ban on Homemade Lunches Gets Parents Simmering
I think that making this mandatory is simply insane! Perhaps they should
think about educating parents and students instead of just passing out food like
an assembly line. When children learn what a healthy lunch consists of they are
creating positive eating behaviors. My 2nd grader enjoys preparing her healthy
lunch and understands that she must choose healthy items such as fruit, yogurt
and veggies.
I feel like schools that do this are ones where parents do not know how to
advocate for themselves and they think that since it's a school, they must know
what they are doing. You would not see this happen in any affluent school
districts. Many of these parents are immigrants and do not understand that they
have a voice in these matters.
I say let parents have a choice and teach
children about healthy eating habits. Making it mandatory is a way for the
school to get reimbursed, it is not about providing healthy options for
childrens. And if you think otherwise, just spend one week in the cafeteria and
see for yourself what they are serving!
I am a principal and would never propose such an idea to my school. I find
it insulting and I think that they should evaluate their practice. They should
take time and observe what is going on in the cafeteria and see for themselves
if the food they are mandating is actually being eaten.
Read the articleCHICAGO TRIBUNE/Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home
<>
First, to be upront, I started skimming after "Principal Elsa Carmona said
her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food
choices."
See, I dont think its the EDUCATORS role to force kids to eat what they think
they should. IF they want to HAVE 1200 of their own children, have at it. They
should stick to educating, including nutrition. nd they should have more Phys.
Ed.
But please stay out of my personal private parenting decisions. One meal
where my kids has a coke or chips does not make me a failure as a parent. I do
not need, nor do I want, the school district taking over yet another one of my
parental duties.
Perhaps this principal can call me at 8:30 every night to enforce 'proper
bedtime'?
Ridiculous.
Read the article CHICAGO TRIBUNE/Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home
<>
I can see both sides of this. I work in a really great school, with fairly
low poverty, where many of the kids bring healthy lunches from home every day.
However, I have worked in very high poverty schools before, where (just like the
principal noted) many children's lunches are a 2-liter of grape soda and a bag
of flaming hot cheetos.
The junk foods definitely have a negative impact on student behavior and
their ability to learn. The kids are irritable and hungry by the late
afternoon, after crashing from the lunch-time junk binge.
However, I don't think that banning food from home is the answer. The food
the schools serve, while more nutritious than chips and pop, isn't that great
itself.
IMO schools should stop offering those "entree" hot lunches and switch to
simple, healthy, cold foods. A choice of cereals with milk or yogurt, and a
banana. String cheese. Carrot sticks. If they must serve something hot, how
about oatmeal? They don't need meat for lunch (certainly not the "mystery meat"
that they currently get). Doing away with hot lunch would be so much cheaper,
too.
If we could honestly offer a very healthy lunch, I wouldn't have a problem
banning junk food from the cafeteria.
Read the articleCHICAGO TRIBUNE/Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home
<>
Many people outside of the education system don't quite understand the
hierarchy of needs and how much it impacts how well a child learns.
If you
are hungry, and I mean hungry, all you can focus on is your hunger. The need for
food, shelter, and security supercedes all other needs (like learning).
While
a school cannot provide for these needs outside of its campus, it can inside.
Most schools offer security and shelter. A good school can be a safe haven for
students whose lives aren't so great at home.
Providing free lunch to
students in need (yes you have to qualify, you aren't just asked if you want to
be in the program) greatly enhances a student's success in the classroom. When
they are not thinking about their stomach grumbling, they can focus on the
learning.
Us taxpayers picking up the tab is also ensuring a better
future for many children who don't come from families that have the resources to
provide for that better future. Better futures for more people result in a
better society.
I'll pay a few more dollars a year for that outcome.
Read the article DAILY BEAST/Chicago school bans homemade lunch
<>
Sadly, parents know as little about proper nutrition as their kids. Relying on
parents to teach their children how to eat properly is a joke since most parents
are themselves overweight with poor eating habits. I had a neighbor
recently--young single mother--who was thrilled if she could get her 3 year-old
to eat a McD's Happy Meal.
She thought she was being a responsible mother by
getting her child to eat something, anything. And in her mind a Happy Meal was a
nutritious meal--not junk food. Amazing. Should schools be enforcing proper
eating habits? Should schools be enforcing proper learning habits? That's what
schools do.
Read the article NPR/In
One Chicago School, A Mom-Made Lunch Is Not Allowed
<>
As a Dad who sends in homemade lunches 3x a week for my son, I'll agree with
this police WHEN they show me that pasta, jumbo hot dogs, "meat" tacos (who
knows what's in that) and the other stuff they serve at our school cafeteria
actually are healthy for MY kid. I see the comment about 'marshmellow fluff
sandwiches' and I agree with that... so crack down on those parents.
My son
loves quinoa and cheese with a fruit for lunch.... clearly better than a bowl
full of pasta and 'red sauce'. At my daughter's preschool they insist on healthy
lunches and forbid even a cookie at lunch... OK fine. Why can't they have that
kind of system for the fluffernutter sandwich parents who don't send in good
lunches. This is a case of a few bad apples spoiling the bunch.
Read the article NPR/In
One Chicago School, A Mom-Made Lunch Is Not Allowed
<>
Obesity levels of children are 3 times what they were in the 1970s, why not try
to help out wherever we can? Instead of bashing schools, why not work to have
healthy options in the school, educate parents about good food for children and
get involved. These are not "government" schools...(by the way, if you vote YOU
are government) but YOUR schools with YOUR neighborhood children. Unhealthy
children in society implies the whole community is held accountable.
School meal
programs in public schools are primarily a separate account that has to "break
even", they do not make profits. Meals are subsidized by the government for
those who cannot afford this (based on family income).
The school lunch program
was started by Truman in 1946 when potential soldiers were ineligible during the
draft because of child malnutrition. Now, we have the reverse concern and this
is still a national security issue.
Instead of bashing school lunch, try voting
for increased funding for the schools and work with the schools to make
healthier choices available such as better vending machines choices, snacks that
do not compete with the healthy choices, establishing school gardens, vote to
fully fund Farm to School programs, have recess before lunch, etc.
Read the article NPR/In
One Chicago School, A Mom-Made Lunch Is Not Allowed
Is Hard Work Driving You to an Early Grave?
Hard work won't kill you - but stressful work does. My research has shown that people who ' wheel & deal ' -- especially the unscrupulous ones-- are more likely die early of a stroke, heart attack or diabetes.
Physiologically it fits. Stress puts up " Fight or Flight" hormones- namely Adrenaline and Cortisol. These hormones in combination increases blood pressure and Blood sugar. Arteries have the same basic structure as a brake hose in a car- has three layers.- an inner smooth non-stick layer,a middle layer which is flexible and supportive and an outer reinforced layer which give sit strength. Both carry viscous fluid at high pressure. They both bend and stretch. The higher the pressure within, the more likely the lining in the wall will crack.
High blood pressure is one of the main causes of arterial injury and plaque formation leading to stroke and heart attacks. It's all due to fluid dynamics -- and chemical changes that occur as a result of forces acting on the arterial walls every time it bends. This is the reason why arteries in the heart are more likely to get damaged than, say, an artery in the thigh. Arteries in the heart bend with every heartbeat- on the average about 76 times a minute.
Read the article DAILY TELEGRAPH/
Hard work won't kill you? Well it might actually
<>
As a founder member & past president of the International Brotherhood of Chronologically Challenged Drudgery Adverse Individuals (AKA the lazy old gits club) I have been telling people this for years. To see my worst fears now supported by scientific study will further encourage my efforts to avoid work on the grounds of Health & Safety.
As my grandad told me "Hard work kills big horses, so what chance have we got".
Read the article DAILY TELEGRAPH/
Hard work won't kill you? Well it might actually
<>
I hope young people are reading this. Recent college grads, kids still in college, those of you in high school. Think about what you truly need in life. You don't need much. You don't need to sell your soul to a corporation.
I think about my friends who have graduated recently..the "lucky ones" who have "landed" real jobs. They are miserable..working 60 hour weeks, I see them they look like ghosts, zombies. And the sick part is that they think they're fortunate to hold such positions.
You have 5 basic needs in this society: food, water, shelter, clothing, and fuel. If you're paying for anything extra (I suppose we can include anything medical to my list..and mild entertainment) while working one of these life destroying jobs, they get rid of the extra!!
Then lose the 8-7 job! NOTHING IS WORTH LIVING YOUR LIVES LIKE THIS. Live in a smaller place. Drive a cheaper car (or none at all if you can). Like Ran Prieur said, observe reality and adjust. It's your lives people, if you don't control them, corporations will..and you just might not agree with their idea of "work-life balance."
Read the article CNN/
Long hours at work may boost heart-attack risk
<>
Yes there is a balance that should be maintained and much of the onus falls on the company to make sure the resources are available.
But I hate to say it, looking at it from a perspective of someone who IS working long days, my stress is because our recent college grads have NO sense of accountablity, work environment skills, let alone basic computer skills or common sense (odd right? They can twitter and facebook all day long, but ask them to do some basic excel work, or why a pie chart does not add to 100% and they start to cry that they tried their best).
These kids NEED to be working a little bit harder to earn their paychecks....as a company, we ARE trying to spread the stress but the "new kids" just aren't stepping up to the plate. We value work-life balance at our company, but we are cleaning up after these kids who feel entitled to rise to the top and get large paychecks, medical benefits, paid time off, etc.
So in theory, we are trying to get the human resources in place, but the humans that we are bringing in, well, just still think the workplace is an extension of college
Read the article CNN/
Long hours at work may boost heart-attack risk
<>
Explain that to corporate America of whom is trying to wage war on their own workers with longer hours, lower pay, fewer employees and temporary assignments. All the while they are posting record numbers in executive pay.
I am so waiting for Americans to start standing up for themselves and say enough is enough. Make your own products, manage your own budget, take care of your own administrative work. See how long you last without the American worker.
You are already seeing the effects of a lack of consumers because of executive greed and a failure to understand that for each employed American is another consumer spending on needs, each comfortably paid employee creates a consumer spending on wants not just needs. As long as 9 percent of America contols the wealth 94 percent of America can't spend and consume the very products execs produce.
Did you know common sense says that the more consumers there are the more money you make. I sometimes wonder if top level executives remember much of what they learned in college or if there is really a reason for college by their demonstration of a failure to recognize the causes of previous resessions and depressions. All were do to a lack of consumers and greed.
Secondly poor working conditions created an environment that did not produce. It was a period called the 1800's and early 1900's. Where we learned the effects of low wages and poor working conditions. In return the people started to create Unions to protect workers rights, wages and equal treatment. These unions had limited power and could only advocate so our government started to create regulations to ensure the quality of American life.
If we all paid attention in college we would all be aware of this. Unfortunately we obviously have not since places like Wisconsin and Ohio are waging war against the same issues people like Martin Luther King, John F Kennedy died fighting for. You ever wonder why these people died fighting for you and me to have what we have today
Read the article CNN/
Long hours at work may boost heart-attack risk
<>
"A study of 7,095 British civil service workers revealed that those who toiled 11 or more hours per day had a 67 percent higher risk of coronary heart disease than their 9-to-5 officemates." - As a Brit who on occasion has to deal with the civil service over here I'd like to know where they found these civil servants that work 11 or more hours a day. I'm surprised they could find any who work more than a couple of hours a day.
Read the article ABC/
Like High Cholesterol, Overtime Work Boosts Heart Disease
<>
It's not the type of work, it's the management culture.
I worked in the same department with the same managers doing the same job for 4 years.
2 years under a UK employer
2 years under a USA employer after a takeover.
The first 2 years were wonderful, a job for life, the second 2 years were a nightmare.
Employer 1 treated employees as an asset, employer 2 treated employees as a cost.
Read the article BBC/Have Your say/Working Long hours" raises heart attack risk"
Are Artificial Food Dyes a Real Problem for Kids?
Not sure what the big surprise and hype is all of a sudden here, or why it's news all of a sudden now.
They were saying this back in the 80's-90's when I was raising my truly ADHD youngster. We tried elimination diets, allergy diets, everything...he was perhaps sensitive to certain things (anything with red dye made him throw up; learned to avoid that. Anything with yellow dye #5 caused Mom to have anaphylactic shock allergic reaction...) But basically, none of that affected his brother or sister, who were not ADHD.
We generally try to avoid things with additives, just because it's healthier, and because of my allergies, but ADHD son struggled all his life, regardless of what he ate, and now at 24 working and on his own, lives on Mt. Dew, which is full of dye.
People who blame ADHD on parenting are idiots - sorry - if you've never parented a truly ADHD child, you really don't know. My kids all got plenty of attention, outside play time, no smoking, drinking or drugs in the home, were raised in a home where education and culture was important, and were also taken to Sunday School and church every Sunday. Only one child had ADHD/learning disabilities/psych issues; the other two are fine - complete polar opposites.
Read the article NPR/
FDA Probes Link Between Food Dyes, Kids' Behavior
<>
There is good evidence going back many years that indicates quite clearly that food additives are detrimental to everyone, especially CHILDREN.
This should not be controversial, and those "experts" who are paid to cast doubt on good science and plain common sense should be horsewhipped in the town square for the harm they have done to our society by deliberately confusing people about what is and is not harmful in our food, our air, our water, and our environment.
NPR has assisted them in past articles.
These tactics are straight from the tobacco industry's strategies that for decades prevented people from understanding the harm they were doing themselves with tobacco products, and there is no ethical or moral justification for the negatively traditional "let's wait and see and do more tests" approach, which is only employed for corporate profits to continue.
Corporations that produce "foodlike products" have no conscience, and will destroy your children's health for profit just as they will gladly sell you addictive poison in many forms (cigarettes, alcohol, processed food, gasoline, television) for short term profit regardless of outcome.
Americans have been infantilized by advertising-time to grow up and take responsibility.
Read the article NPR/
FDA Probes Link Between Food Dyes, Kids' Behavior
<>
I'm surprised by the unintelligent and uninformed responses dealing with ADHD. My 9-year-old deals with this disorder every day of his life. While he's not sliding down banisters, he struggles to maintain his attention on even the most mundane of tasks - getting dressed, a short quiz, playing a game. I don't know whether food dyes make a huge difference in this - he's never had those psychedelic cereals, we limit candy, and even TV is just a weekend treat.
To me, it's neurological and the evidence that it's genetic is really strong to me - I can now recognize a lot of his behavior in his dad. But, if dyes contribute to the genetic component (which is most likely) and if these dyes are all just marketing, we need to do something. Europe has been been successful in regulating this kind of thing, but mention that here and all you hear is that we're becoming socialists. We need to stop letting corporations rule our country and put people - especially children's health - first.
I challenge anyone who doesn't believe in ADHD to spend a week (full time, day and night) with a child who has been diagnosed, then tell me what your thoughts are. I expect more compassion and reason from NPR listeners.
Read the article NPR/
FDA Probes Link Between Food Dyes, Kids' Behavior
<>
Oh, lord. Not this crap again. A kid - not a bastion of good judgement, but an adept at imagination - acts like a kid and he's labeled ADHD. And if he's ADHD, there has to be a smoking gun somewhere to account for it.
These food dyes have been around for decades. Many used today were used when my parents were children. They were fine, I am fine, but today's kids are labeled as dysfunctional. Maybe, just maybe, there is nothing wrong with kids. Maybe it's the adults who have lost touch with reality. One thing is certain: we are doing a terrible job as parents and mentors to our kids. We jump on the latest half baked touchy-feely idea and refuse to instill discipline, a healthy self-awareness and regard for others. Then, when the kids behave as they are allowed to behave, instead of questioning our methods, we put them on medications.
I feel so bad for kids today. Most of them never have the experience that I had: being a kid. They are poked and prodded and examined and structured and coddled and analyzed to the point of distraction. It's no wonder they are growing up into dysfunctional adults who cannot cope and must be handled with kid gloves.
Read the article NPR/
FDA Probes Link Between Food Dyes, Kids' Behavior
<>
My now 9 year old son was almost diagnosed with Autism, among other things. His behavior was off the charts and he was even placed in behavioral preschool.
We saw every specialist under the sun to help him. After several years and tears, I discovered his one and only true issue was Red Dye #40. Not one doc ever suggested this! He was immediately a new child. Red Food Dye is in medications (including antibiotics), toothpaste, and even items that are not red. Read every label.
My son is an intelligent, wonderful child who learns easily and is doing fantastic in school and has many friends. The Red dye caused him to loose all control of himself and his emotions. Some kids react to yellow as well, but he does not. If your child is acting out and you have tried everything, do a google search about red dye #40 and behavior issues and you will be alarmed. I have taught my child how to be proactive and ask questions about what he eats, no one wants to feel out of control
Read the article CNN/FDA weighs food dye, hyperactivity link
Holy Rolls! Study Suggests Link Between Churchgoers and Obesity
Most people are going to use this article to either claim that the elitists are church bashing again or they're going to go the other way and say that church goers are fat rednecks.
I think, no matter what the intent of the researchers or the writer of this article, churches should take more time asserting more emphasis on taking care of the body.
I have often said that churches should sponsor "safe" walks for senior women, but they could also do more things like "safe" walks for stay at home moms...or Saturday bike-rides for youth or whatever.
Churches should get pro-active about getting their congregations up and moving. It would add to the dynamics of the church and make it more fun for people and be a very positive thing.
Churches get too stuck in the minutia of the church calendar.
Read the article MSNBC/Praise the lard? Religion linked to obesity in young adults
<>
I believe that bashing religion is tasteless, even though I’m not religious myself, and I hate generalizing a group of people, but here’s my take on this.
Getting lean and staying lean takes a lot of time and effort, it’s not easy for the average Joe. I spend at least 8 hours a week in the gym lifting and doing cardio. I know how many grams of Protein, Carbs, and Fat that goes into my body. I control what and the amount of food I eat. It’s completely in my control. But this also takes a lot of work and time. It’s easy to eat unhealthy. It’s hard to eat “clean”. I have very little free time left in my life for anything else.
My point is, living this lifestyle (it’s not a diet, it’s a way of life), takes time. The average person is already strapped for extra free time in their hectic modern day schedules.
Being actively engaged in church and church functions I believe also takes time (although I am not religious, I grew up in a religious family so I know from first hand experience). These two activities, living a healthy and active lifestyle, and being actively engaged in church, are competing for the little free time that most people have in their lives.
Thus, most religious people (and once again, I hate to stereotype) will probably choose serving god over exercise if forced to choose.
Read the article MSNBC/Praise the lard? Religion linked to obesity in young adults
<>
The body is the temple of the soul. I don't remember where I first heard that, but it was drummed into me by my Latin teacher in high school.
He was extremely abstemious in school, eating lunch at this desk, which always consisted of a piece of cheese and a piece of fruit and sometimes a roll of some sort. He kept his classroom open so that we could eat there if we wished and discuss Latin, ancient history, philosophy.
I've not always been a thin person, a serious sin in Santa Monica! But, I was always athletic and busy and it wasn't until, oh, about 30 years ago, that I realized that body types like mine were not the body types revered at the beach.
I still adhere to the tenets learned in my Latin class, am devoted to Thetis, Goddess of waves. You don't eat that much when you are surfing!
Read the article MSNBC/Praise the lard? Religion linked to obesity in young adults
<>
In the early church, most of people barely had enough food for sustenance, so the communal "breaking of bread" was common. I think the application of the breaking of bread with overabundance of food may be the cause for this type of conclusion.
Churches may just need to be more restrictive or frugal with the amount of food they prepare for these "breaking of bread" fellowships.
Read the article TIME/Why going to church can make you fat
<>
This study specifically targets middle-aged, church-going adults. Tell me who this can be if it isn't parents... Almost every person I know in the mommy / daddy years is carrying too much weight primarily because they spend too much time doing kid functions. Get two kids going, and you'll likely have dance class, gymnastics, baseball, and soccer all going at the same time. Now add church and both parents working, and heading to the gym is a real challenge.
A lot of church is about family, and the church provides a lot of kid activities like basketball and football. It also tries to keep people married (not sure of success vs outside church). Isolate for the differences in single vs. married with children vs. divorced across the sample populations, and I doubt you will see a difference.
When I was single, I worked out like a mad man to get women. Priorities are different while kids are at home. If I were divorced or the kids were out of the house, things would be different pretty quickly. Case in point; my brother's kids just moved out last year, and he found himself with "free time". He started cycling again, and dropped 40 pounds. He has kept it off, and is really lean now.
Read the article TIME/Why going to church can make you fat
<>
It's clear to me that whomever wrote this article has never taken any courses on world religions, or has limited their view to one specific Protestant sect out of the 26,000 or so that are out there. In most religions, it's taught that overeating is sinful.
Historically, gluttony is known as one of the 7 deadly sins. In several religions such as Eastern Orthodox, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and others, people fast/abstain from foods at certain assigned times of the year.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair the infamous atheist who took prayer out of the public schools was obese. So are other less famous atheists. Personally, I'm tired of the anti-obese persons/anti-religious people bias the media loves to cater to
Read the article MSNBC/Praise the lard? Religion linked to obesity in young adults
<>
I happen to be a sociologist myself. As well as 235 lbs and proud of every ounce! I have not gone to church in years. This headline, as well as equating obesity with gluttony is irresponsible!
Gluttony and sloth is a stereotype that has NO place in the debate. I think the theory that stigmatized people turn to religion has some credence! Since MSM, whose sole purpose nowadays is to create more customers for its sponsors harps about obesity nonstop even when there are far more important issues.
But it could also be that religious people are smart enough to realize that this body is only a shell we borrow, and there is no point in making some arbitrary weight standard a priority. After all, for those who are not naturally thin, they must devote considerable time and money into conforming. It sure is not a matter of walking a few minutes and passing up dessert.
The irony is that Marx though religion is the opium of the people. They become so distracted with heaven, they don't pay attention to the quality of life in the here and now. But for a secular society, it is weight obsession that is the modern opium! They get so absorbed in their Thinderella fantasies, they think diminishing themselves will solve all their problems!
Which is exactly why MSM uses weight stories to distract them when more important things are going on!
Read the article CHICAGO TRIBUNE/Can church make you fat?
READ MORE COMMENTS: MARCH 2011
