HEALTHY FIGURES FROM BUSINESS Surrey Newspapers (June 2004) THE POWER OF PROTEIN : THE L.A. SHAPE DIET (May 2004) STUDY ADDS WEIGHT TO HEALTH CONCERNS - Sheffield Telegraph (January 30th 2004) THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME - The Economist (December 11th 2003) GRAVE BRITAIN - News of the World (October 19th 2003)
	HEALTHY FIGURES FROM BUSINESS
	top
	THE POWER OF PROTEIN: THE L.A. SHAPE DIET
		Achieve your best shape! Change your shape for life - with a new breakthrough personalised protein prescription that has worked for thousands of people! Want to know what the next big thing to come out of L.A. is..... The L.A. Shape Diet has been written by Dr. David Heber who is the Director of the UCLA Center for Human Nutrition. The L.A. Shape Diet is about the shape of your body and how you feel more lean and fit than ever before Herbalife products can help you gain the right amount of protein in your daily diet. This is the foundation for the L.A. Shape Diet. You too can get fantastic results and change your shape for life! Herbalife products come with a 30 day money back guarantee and personalised support to get you the results that you want - so what have you got to lose?
	Dr. Heber maintains that everyone is born with a particular shape -- and this shape makes a huge difference in how you should approach weight loss. He teaches the difference between the shape you can change and the shape you cannot, and how to do this with the right amount of dietary protein. In a world of dietary fads and "one size fits all" pseudo-miracle diets, The L.A. Shape Diet is the most effective, easy-to-follow, scientifically sound dietary plan you'll find. The L.A. Shape Diet book has just published in the USA and is available on www.amazon.com top
	THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
	December 11th 2003 (The Economist)
	The world is too fat. Too bad When the world was a simpler place, the rich were fat, the poor were thin, and right-thinking people worried about how to feed the hungry. Now, in much of the world, the rich are thin, the poor are fat, and right-thinking people are worrying about obesity. Evolution is mostly to blame. It has designed mankind to cope with deprivation, not plenty. People are perfectly tuned to store energy in good years to see them through lean ones. But when bad times never come, they are stuck with that energy, stored around their expanding bellies. Thanks to rising agricultural productivity, lean years are rarer all over the globe. Modern-day Malthusians, who used to draw graphs proving that the world was shortly going to run out of food, have gone rather quiet lately. According to the UN, the number of people short of food fell from 920m in 1980 to 799m 20 years later, even though the world's population increased by 1.6 billion over the period. This is mostly a cause for celebration. Mankind has won what was, for most of his time on this planet, his biggest battle: to ensure that he and his offspring had enough to eat. But every silver lining has a cloud, and the consequence of prosperity is a new plague that brings with it a host of interesting policy dilemmas. As a scourge of the modern world, obesity has an image problem. It is easier to associate with Father Christmas than with the four horses of the apocalypse. But it has a good claim to lumber along beside them for it is the world's biggest public-health issue today--the main cause of heart disease, which kills more people these days than AIDS, malaria, war; the principal risk factor in diabetes; heavily implicated in cancer and other diseases. Since the World Health Organisation labelled obesity an "epidemic" in 2000, reports on its fearful consequences have come thick and fast. Will public-health warnings, combined with media pressure, persuade people to get thinner, just as they finally put them off tobacco? Possibly. In the rich world, sales of healthier foods are booming (see survey[1]) and new figures suggest that over the past year Americans got very slightly thinner for the first time in recorded history. But even if Americans are losing a few ounces, it will be many years before the country solves the health problems caused by half a century's dining to excess. And, everywhere else in the world, people are still piling on the pounds. That's why there is now a consensus among doctors that governments should do something to stop them. DIET BY FIAT? There's nothing radical about the idea that governments should intervene in the food business. They've been at it since 1202, when King John of England first banned the adulteration of bread. Governments and people seem to agree that ensuring the safety and stability of the food supply is part of the state's job. But obesity is a more complicated issue than food safety. It is not about ensuring that people don't get poisoned: it is about changing their behaviour. Should governments be trying to do anything about it at all? There is a bad reason for doing something, and a couple of good ones. The bad reason is that governments should help citizens look after themselves. People, the argument goes, are misled by their genes, which are constantly trying to pack away a few more calories just in case of a famine around the corner. Governments should help guide them towards better eating habits. But that argument is weaker in the case of food than it is for tobacco--nicotine is addictive, chocolate is not--and no better than it is in any other area where people have a choice of being sensible or silly. People are constantly torn by the battle between their better and worse selves. It's up to them, not governments, to decide who should win. GET THEM YOUNG A better argument for intervention is that dietary habits are established early in childhood. Once people get fat, it is hard for them to get thin; once they are used to breakfasting on chips and Coke, that's hard to change. The state, which has some responsibility for moulding minors, should try to ensure that its small citizens aren't mainlining sugar at primary school. Britain's government is gesturing towards tough restrictions on advertising junk food to children. That seems unlikely to have much effect. Sweden already bans advertising to children, and its young people are as porky as those in comparable countries. Other moves, such as banning junk food from schools, might work better. In some countries, such as America, soft-drinks companies bribe schools to let them install vending machines. That should stop. A second plausible argument for intervention is that thin people subsidise fat people through health care. If everybody is forced to carry the weight of the seriously fat, then everybody has an interest in seeing them slim down. That should not be a problem in insurance-financed health-care systems, such as America's. Insurance companies should be able to charge fat people more, because they cost more. But group health insurance schemes, which cover most Americans, are forbidden, by law, to discriminate against fat people. The health secretary, Tommy Thompson, is trying to wiggle his way around this prohibition to allow health companies to give discounts to people on fitness programmes. He should not have to: rules that prevent insurance companies charging fat people what they really cost should go. That leaves the question of what should happen in a state-financed health system. Why not tax fattening food--sweets, snacks and take-aways? That might discourage consumption of unhealthy food and recoup some of the costs of obesity. It might; but it would also constitute too great an intrusion on liberty for the gain in equity and efficiency it might (or might not) represent. Society has a legitimate interest in fat, because fat and thin people both pay for it. But it also has a legitimate interest in not having the government stick its nose too far into the private sphere. If people want to eat their way to grossness and an early grave, let them. top
	GRAVE BRITAIN
	October 19th 2003 (News Of The World)
	BRITAIN'S couch potatoes are plunging the nation into a health crisis which will lead to hundreds of thousands of children dying BEFORE their parents. The lifestyle of millions who take little or no exercise and eat fat-soaked food is leading to an explosion in heart disease, cancers, diabetes, brittle bones and mental illness. The nightmare is predicted in a disturbing snapshot of the nation's ill health being prepared by the Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson (bottom right). He will issue stern warnings about what he sees as the root of the problem—soaring levels of obesity, especially in youngsters. The combined effects of being fat and a lack of exercise means the average life expectancy in Britain could FALL for the first time in 100 years. Obesity is set to overtake smoking as the biggest cause of disease and premature death. A FIFTH of men and a QUARTER of women in Britain are already obese and nearly 24 million people are overweight. And the number of people with morbid obesity—those more than 100lbs overweight—has increased by half in the last seven years to around 17 in every 1,000 people. Last year 8.5 per cent of six-year-olds and 15 per cent of 15-year-olds were clinically obese. That figure is expected to double over the next decade. It means THREE QUARTERS of us will suffer from the effect of excess weight within the next 15 years. A Department of Health official said: "The increase in obesity threatens to reverse gains in longevity made in the last 100 years and in some cases could result in parents outliving children." The average life expectancy in Britain is 81 for men and 84 for women. But new evidence suggests those figures will drop by by NINE YEARS if unhealthy lifestyles continue. Thousands more overweight, inactive Brits can expect to die long before retirement. Only 16 per cent of men and five per cent of women take part in regular physical activity. But couch potato lifestyles are even more prevalent in youngsters. A fifth of those aged four to 18 spend five hours a day sitting down, excluding the time they spend at school. A shocking HALF of girls and 38 per cent of boys do not walk continuously for more than 10 minutes a day. The average walk to school is just 10 minutes, but the number of kids being driven has increased FOUR-FOLD since the 1970s. Sir Liam has warned the government we could end up like the US, where a third of adults are obese and 300,000 die each year through being overweight. But Britain's couch potato lifestyle already costs us £2.5billion a year and contributes to 54,000 premature deaths. Sir Liam's report, out in the New Year, will claim up to a third of heart disease and some cancers are directly linked to bad diet and lack of exercise. At present almost 10,000 die of bowel cancer each year in the UK, but that could DOUBLE. And medical advances in tackling heart disease—the UK's single biggest killer, claiming more than 100,000 lives a year—will be wiped out unless people live more healthily. A huge increase in diabetes is also blamed on bad lifestyle. Three-quarters of adults with Type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese. And kids are now showing symptoms of the disease that once only appeared in middle age. Our couch potato culture is also having a devastating effect on the nation's mental health. Youngsters who fail to socialise and spend hours watching TV and playing video games are at higher risk of suffering from severe stress as adults. One senior minister describes the report as a wake-up call that will "force the government to take action". But, as any doctor will tell you, don't lie around on a couch waiting for that. By Keith Gladdis top