Overweight seniors, dial down your worry. Possible solutions for fatsos are in sight. But you certainly won’t like one of them. The number of overweight American seniors has doubled in the past 25 years. Obesity is well known.
First, you soon may be able to lose weight by taking a pill. Yes, a pill. Too many people seem to believe that taking a pill is always the answer.
A federal advisory panel to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given a green light to a drug called Qnexa. (Don’t even try to pronounce it.) The panel’s strong approval means the FDA will undoubtedly follow suit. A prescription for the drug may be available for those obese folks who have diabetes, high blood pressure or other medical problems connected with their excess weight, as well as those who just eat too much.
The action at FDA raised hopes that pharmaceutical companies have finally found a pill to help people shed unwanted pounds. Weight-loss drugs, however, have had their share of setbacks over the years. “Fen-phen” was pulled off the market in 1997 because of heart problems. “Accomplia” was rejected by the FDA when the drug was connected with suicidal thoughts. Last year, “Contrave” was blocked until more trials could be made to determine heart risk.
Meanwhile, a group of scientists from the University of California at San Francisco published a paper in the journal Nature that called for a truly drastic approach. They contended that sugar is toxic, addictive and should be regulated by law. Sugar certainly can contribute to a tubby body if eaten or drunk in excess. But a law to ban it?
Scott Dailey, a writer in California, pictures a world with unlawful sugar that would bring startling changes. For instance, he suggests: Eight-year-olds will be hustling adults outside convenience stores to buy them a package of banned Milk Duds. Or this scene: “Excuse me, sir, could you buy me an orange crush?”
“Sorry, kid, I could go to jail for that.”
Kids will start stealing just to get a fix. Candy bootleggers may thrive.
The University of California scientists maintain that sugar is so entrenched in the food culture here and in other countries that getting people to lay off the sweet stuff will require much more than simple anti-sugar educational campaigns. It will require brute force to remove sugar from so many processed foods we consume daily. This, according to Dr. Robert Lustig, an endocrinologist at UCSF.
“Everybody talks about personal responsibility, and that won’t work here, as it won’t for any addictive substance. There are things that have to be done at a government level,” says Lustig.
Lustig has written extensively about sugar driving up rates of such chronic illnesses as heart disease and diabetes. Lustig and his co-authors in the study say that sugar is the cause of metabolic problems that lead to these diseases.
Americans consume, either by eating or drinking, the equivalent of 22 teaspoons of sugar on average each day. The sweet stuff sneaks into our diets through cereals, and processed foods. Sugars are identified on labels by terms such as sucrose, glucose, fructose, maltose, corn syrup and honey.
The drastic remedy proposed by the UCLA scientists is for the FDA to remove sugar from the list of foods regarded as “safe.”
Naturally, the food and beverage industries scoff at the idea that sugar is the main villain behind higher rates of obesity or increases in heart disease or diabetes.
Lustig says he realizes heavy resistance will greet his proposal for mandatory removal of most sugar from America’s diet.
“Everybody yells, ‘Nanny state; this guy’s trying to control our food,’” Lustig complains. “But it’s already being controlled” by the food and beverage industries. “I’m actually trying to undo the nanny state.”
Sweets lovers will undoubtedly tell Lustig: “Stuff it. I’ll have a double dip of chocolate ice cream, thank you. Just try to throw me in the slammer for that.”
Tait Trussell is an old guy and fourth-generation professional journalist who writes extensively about aging issues among a myriad of diverse topics.