Obesity

This is such a complex and individual issue. Everyone reacts to food differently and everyone reacts differently to the same exact foods at different points in their lives. It is easy to say to someone go exercise and eat less but for some people it really isn't that simple.

Think of a bad habit you have - anything - and try quitting it and making it last. It is extremely difficult to do. I bite my nails. I've tried quitting but I never can for more than a few weeks. I don't even realize I'm doing it half the time. I couldn't imagine if food had this sort of unconscious hold on me (even though it kind of does).

I do agree that change can (and will) happen over time just as it has with cigarettes but it is going to take a long long time and there is no quick fix - companies should take it upon themselves to inform people of what they are putting in their bodies (or at least make the information obvious on the package without playing games like "servings" or whatever) but that won't happen if it will eat into profits.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']This would be disastrous for any retailer that focuses on an urban market. Suburb stores won't even flinch. Without derailing the thread too much, I'll just speak as a person who has worked for many retailers and is currently working for one. The most painless mechanical solution, by leaps and bounds, is going to be simply blocking crap food via the POS system.

There would be a rocky transition period and I've got no good ideas on how to educate the populace how to transition to a better diet but the actual POS system that is in place already works pretty well.[/quote]

Well, I think it would only be disastrous for the grocery stores in the poor part of cities. There are plenty of grocery stores in the pricier parts of cities that would have no problems. So it's not only the suburbs that wouldn't flinch. It would really probably only kill the grocer's in the ghetto--and maybe they could just be recruited to run these new stores?

But anyway, I do agree that that idea is extremely far fetched, and I do agree that the POS is most practical way to do something like that.

It would be bumpy with lots of people irate about having their shopping options limited. But hey, junk foods, soda etc. are luxuries, not necessities, and thus should be bought with one's own money--and done without if you're broke!

I disagree with dohdough that we have any obligation to make the poor's lives less miserable by paying for some bare level of luxuries like soda, chips etc.--especially not when it worsens public health.

Give them the bare essentials to survive, and make them pay for any luxuries like everyone else. That should be added incentive to look for a better job, or take on an extra part time job etc.

Again, I'm just not a sympathetic person. I support welfare as we shouldn't have people starving or living in the streets in a prosperous nation like the US. But I only support giving the necessities and access to programs to help them better their lives. Not providing luxuries and feeding them to obesity.



[quote name='camoor']Great idea but then you'll get the rabid freemarketeers coming to the defense of poor little ol' Mickey Dee being forced to own up to the crap they are serving every day.[/quote]

Tough shit. It's just another form of consumer protection that's needed to protect consumers from predatory corporations.
 
[quote name='camoor']Great idea but then you'll get the rabid freemarketeers coming to the defense of poor little ol' Mickey Dee being forced to own up to the crap they are serving every day.
[/QUOTE]

Which is exactly the argument they made when New York forced them to place the nutrition information on the menus. Its a silly argument in my opinion because yes the government is placing a requirement on the free market BUT its still allowing people to make free choices with where they spend their money and on what. If the simple fact that it's a requirement being placed on the market is the reason for the protestation then do those same people oppose health inspections and licensing of the restaurants?
 
[quote name='camoor']How many oreo cookies do you think would get rung up as "Celery"? I wouldn't want to be the cashier person who tells the foodstamp lady that she can't have her cheese doodles :lol:[/QUOTE]

Oh man, I the stories I could tell...
 
[quote name='camoor']How many oreo cookies do you think would get rung up as "Celery"? I wouldn't want to be the cashier person who tells the foodstamp lady that she can't have her cheese doodles :lol:[/QUOTE]

Yeah it would have to start with a HUGE public service announcement about it that was all over the news, brochures given out with food stamps for months etc. that detailed the new rules and what food stamps could be used for.

They'd have to do all they can to make sure people know of it in advance and know it's a new law and not to take it out on cashiers etc. But therein lies the problems, the politicians from these areas would never support such laws as they'd get killed by their constituents.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You missed his point on that one.[/quote]
No, I get his point. He was taking punches at me because I said "people of color" in one post and he pitched a fit eventhough "low income and minorities" were specifically mentioned in the article of the OP.

He was saying food stamps could just be changed and only be good for specific items (like coupons are) not that people should use coupons.

i.e. based on your family size you'd get coupons for X lbs of apples, X lbs of meat, X gallons of milk and so on, rather than a certain monetary value of food stamps.

It's more or less what I was suggesting before--give some vouchers only good for certain types of products as at least part of the food stamp allotment to ensure those healthy items are being purchased and hopefully cut down a bit on junk food. Though it sounds he wants to go more extreme and only give out item specific vouchers.
Click to expand...
A few posters here seem to be using the term "foodstamps" as if they were still actual pieces of paper and using that to frame solutions. This is no longer the case so "solutions" that use that framework are completely flawed. People now use EBT(Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards, so any solutions should at least be based on EBT framework as opposed to welfare queen type bullshit.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Why not? Giving out food stamps is already basically a socialist idea. Why not go further and limit where they can be used so we can make sure they're used on foods that aren't worsening public health?

And I did at least say they should be private stores (regulated by the FDA) rather than a government ran store! :D

Hell if I wanted to really get socialist I'd say scrap food stamps and just have people on welfare pick up free food weekly from government food distribution centers! :D[/QUOTE]
I've got no problem with it, but these days if you mention the government getting involved in anything you're seen as a witch and people come to burn you.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah it would have to start with a HUGE public service announcement about it that was all over the news, brochures given out with food stamps for months etc. that detailed the new rules and what food stamps could be used for.

They'd have to do all they can to make sure people know of it in advance and know it's a new law and not to take it out on cashiers etc. But therein lies the problems, the politicians from these areas would never support such laws as they'd get killed by their constituents.[/QUOTE]

You ever see Osmosis Jones? The mayor in charge of the brain actually campaigns on the promise of more cheese doodles :lol:
 
[quote name='dohdough']
A few posters here seem to be using the term "foodstamps" as if they were still actual pieces of paper and using that to frame solutions. This is no longer the case so "solutions" that use that framework are completely flawed. People now use EBT(Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards, so any solutions should at least be based on EBT framework as opposed to welfare queen type bullshit.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with that. No reason we can't go back to printed vouchers if that ends up being the easiest solution.

It's probably easiest to just stick with the EBT system and just block a lot more products from being bought with it in the POS system. That's clearly the most efficient way to do it.

Paper vouchers just have the benefit of clearly stating to the recipient what they can be used on. Where as with an EBT system there'd have to be a huge information campaign to educate recipients on what they can and can't buy.

But either system will be nearly impossible to implement as even the liberal politicians from these urban areas will oppose them as their constituents would kill them if they supported legislation limiting what they could use their benefits for.
 
[quote name='dohdough']A few posters here seem to be using the term "foodstamps" as if they were still actual pieces of paper and using that to frame solutions. This is no longer the case so "solutions" that use that framework are completely flawed. People now use EBT(Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards, so any solutions should at least be based on EBT framework as opposed to welfare queen type bullshit.[/QUOTE]

WIC as of five years ago (I believe my sister was still on WIC then) still used paper. You'd get one giant coupon that granted you a number of food stuffs. Not specific items, just specific quantity/sizes (Up to 2 gallons milk, 1 dozen eggs, etc.). If there was an item you could've gotten on that coupon but didn't get, you permanently lose it once you use up that coupon. I believe the coupon could be scanned, and the local super market was able to determine which items were acceptable under WIC and which weren't.

Point being, it was a system that said you can only get X quantities of certain items, non of which were junk food. If it works now, seems like food stamps could work under a similar procedure.
 
[quote name='camoor']Great idea but then you'll get the rabid freemarketeers coming to the defense of poor little ol' Mickey Dee being forced to own up to the crap they are serving every day.[/QUOTE]
What haven't they told you? McDonalds already has nutritional facts posted, not only online and on a wall within the restaurant, but they also are on the back of all the products you buy and on the serving tray behind the promotional front. This is the way for all McDonalds.

How did this thread turn from overall obesity to poor people getting food stamps and what they should be limited to...

Fact: Poor people aren't really any factor to overall obesity epidemic in the US. Most people on food stamps walk everywhere (i.e. form of exercise) and they don't have a ton of money so they can't indulge in food, even if they wanted to. This was at least the case with the poor people in Miami when I lived/work there; I worked in a field where I saw them all the time.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Good post. And that certainly sounds reasonable. Require fat content to be posted in a warning label on the front of products.

Hell, maybe foods over a certain calories from fat threshold, sugar threshold etc. should get some kind of Surgeon General's warning that they are unhealthy and may lead to heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes etc.
[/QUOTE]

What would you say to those who do atkins? Fat content is good in their eyes, but carbs and sugars are bad. They have their studies to show their diet is about as health as others. Human ingestion is too varied to properly put a finger on what is healthy and as a result any steps the government takes will be more or less shots in the dark that could lead to harm or help. If you believe in low carb look at what the food pyramid and their reliance upon wheats and cereals did to the nation in only a few decades.
 
People get fat because they eat too much and don't exercise.

That being said, here's some other random thoughs.

They tried doing the no food stamps (EBT) for soda and junk food in Oregon. Half the Oregon liberals wanted it to 'protect' the poor people from bad eating choices, the other half didnt want it because it was a 'punishment' on the poor.

It's also amusing watching TV and hearing PSAs on the radio. You'll hear one from the local food bank telling you about Hungry Children needing food, and then another from Lets Move or Michelle Obama telling kids to get out and play and be active more. Sometiems these PSAs come right after another.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I disagree with that. No reason we can't go back to printed vouchers if that ends up being the easiest solution.

It's probably easiest to just stick with the EBT system and just block a lot more products from being bought with it in the POS system. That's clearly the most efficient way to do it.

Paper vouchers just have the benefit of clearly stating to the recipient what they can be used on. Where as with an EBT system there'd have to be a huge information campaign to educate recipients on what they can and can't buy.

But either system will be nearly impossible to implement as even the liberal politicians from these urban areas will oppose them as their constituents would kill them if they supported legislation limiting what they could use their benefits for.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that a massive information campaign would be bad as a tool for educating those that could benefit from more information on healthy foods, food pyramid or whatever it's called now.

I believe that NY wanted to change it's policy so that you couldn't buy soda and some other crap with EBT. You'd be surprised at how many would support it. Not that I would of course, I'm no neo-liberal.;)

Another thing to consider is that those snack foods are Very profitable. I wouldn't worry so much about the "liberals" as multinational food conglomerates pushing it down. Which, to be honest, surprises me that the NY thing got so much traction.

Other than that, do you really think that the government should be in the business of telling some of its citizens what they can and can't eat after it's been approved by the USDA?

And seriously, when was the last time outcry from an urban neighborhood got any results anyway?

[quote name='Salamando3000']WIC as of five years ago (I believe my sister was still on WIC then) still used paper. You'd get one giant coupon that granted you a number of food stuffs. Not specific items, just specific quantity/sizes (Up to 2 gallons milk, 1 dozen eggs, etc.). If there was an item you could've gotten on that coupon but didn't get, you permanently lose it once you use up that coupon. I believe the coupon could be scanned, and the local super market was able to determine which items were acceptable under WIC and which weren't.

Point being, it was a system that said you can only get X quantities of certain items, non of which were junk food. If it works now, seems like food stamps could work under a similar procedure.[/QUOTE]
WIC is different from EBT food allowances. WIC is specifically for, well, Women, Infants, and Children(upto 5 years of age). The ability to eat wider ranges of food also occurs as one gets older.

Another problem that occurs is that the ability to identify food allergies had thankfully increased, so the "one-size fits all coupon" approach isn't really applicable anymore, or maybe it just never was. Hence, a child with food allergies could be at a signifigant disadvantage nutrition-wise during an important developmental period of it's life. I'm not saying that allergies can't be accounted for, just that it becomes increasingly complex as issues start compounding eachother.
 
[quote name='dohdough']The US was built on racism dickhead. Just because you can't deal with that fact that racism still exists in a widesread way doesn't mean it doesn't still exist.[/quote]
You know what's fun about you? You're stark raving mad and riling you up for the fun of it is like a deep satisfying poop.


Look, you privileged little shit. NOT EVERYONE HAS A WINDOWSILL BIG ENOUGH FOR A POT. NOT EVERYONE HAS A WINDOW THAT GETS SUNLIGHT OR BIG ENOUGH TO HANG A POT. HELL, NOT EVERYONE IS ALLOWED TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS A POT TO BE HUNG.
Click to expand...
Porn joke aside, we've all got 13"... Can't build something to hold that? Aerogarden. Damn thing pays for itself in less than 18 months. You can put your weed in it too. Beans will grow in a small pot/bucket with indirect sunlight. They'll be weird yellow things but will still be nutritious. Hell, you can grow a potato bushel in a closet if you're really intent on doing so.


Hey look everyone! A privileged dreck that doesn't realize how privileged he is! COLOR me surprised! I doubt that you know my "ethnicity" and even if you did, you'd do it only to serve your point that I am either white, in which case I would have white guilt, or I am black, in which I would just be using the "race card" because only white/black people have an opinion on race.:roll:


NOT EVERYONE HAS A fuckING DECK.
Click to expand...
So when the wolves are chasing you, are you aware that they aren't real and it's all in your head or is it more like so real in your mind that you swear you can smell them.
I'll just pull some MLK on you and say that I'm juding you based on the content of your character. You can assume that I'm assuming your race all you want, I just think you're an asshole no matter what.

You missed the point on the deck. I can grow my green beans with absolutely 0 effort. In fact, I throw butts in the same bucket and these damn things keep growing despite my negative effort at the bucket. This has been going on for 3 years, even under 5ft of snow last winter as I never moved the thing.


NOT EVERYONE GETS THE SUNDAY ADS SO WHERE THE fuck ARE THE PEOPLE GOING TO GET THE COUPONS.
Click to expand...

Swing and a miss Charlie. The people who get the WIC/EBT cards get them from somewhere. What if somewhere sent the coupon thingies out instead of the cards? No big deal to make a minor change there. Also, that'd basically be a guaranteed sale so you'd have manufacturers lining up to get on that list. Now here's the tricky part, the people that create the list have to have a spine and show up to say these are the rules and regulations of what gets on the list. Good stuff, healthy stuff, no wonderbread (wink wink nudge nudge), no doritos, etc... This actually ends up being holisticly better for everyone because it would cost too much to create healthy versions of the same product. Take your capitalism theory and go from there, it's better to produce the item that is a guaranteed sale essentially. But, that gives white folks a leg up since they'd end up with the same products so feel free to automatically reject progress because it isn't for your preferred subsect of humanity.

Something about noveau victory gardens
Click to expand...
Say wha? I'm talking about growing some potted fruits or veggies in your domicile, not planting a grove of orange trees on the interstate... This can be done, with great ease and will benefit everyone.

Yes we've moved away from being an agragarian society but why should that prevent people from sticking seeds into some dirt in a bucket and watering it every few days? It isn't that hard.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Fact: Poor people aren't really any factor to overall obesity epidemic in the US. Most people on food stamps walk everywhere (i.e. form of exercise) and they don't have a ton of money so they can't indulge in food, even if they wanted to. This was at least the case with the poor people in Miami when I lived/work there; I worked in a field where I saw them all the time.[/QUOTE]

Not true. Obesity rates are far higher in the lower classes than in the middle or upper classes.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']What would you say to those who do atkins? Fat content is good in their eyes, but carbs and sugars are bad. They have their studies to show their diet is about as health as others. Human ingestion is too varied to properly put a finger on what is healthy and as a result any steps the government takes will be more or less shots in the dark that could lead to harm or help. If you believe in low carb look at what the food pyramid and their reliance upon wheats and cereals did to the nation in only a few decades.[/QUOTE]

I'd tell them it's a bad diet and may cause them to lose weight but be harmful to their overall health vs. just eating a proper amount of calories and limiting fats and simple carbs (and other unhealthy things like sugar, salt and various foods that increase cholestorol and so on).
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Other than that, do you really think that the government should be in the business of telling some of its citizens what they can and can't eat after it's been approved by the USDA? [/QUOTE]

When it's being paid for with public funds, yes. It's not telling them what they can't eat. It's telling them what foods they can buy with their foodstamps/debit cards. They can eat whatever the hell they want if they pay for it with their own money.

But we shouldn't be buying people soda, cheese puffs and ice cream and further hurting public health in the process.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'd tell them it's a bad diet and may cause them to lose weight but be harmful to their overall health vs. just eating a proper amount of calories and limiting fats and simple carbs (and other unhealthy things like sugar, salt and various foods that increase cholestorol and so on).[/QUOTE]
Why? Current studies are showing that those on low carb diets, atkins, are actually healthier than calorie restive diets. True long terms studies are not done yet, but a few two year studies looking at their effects and testing them against other diets have shown that they have a bigger impact on reducing metabolic disease than any other diet available. Plus most of the "bad" fats are mostly made of good fats, unless they are fortified with nitrates, which is a whole different ballgame all together.

[quote name='eldergamer']People get fat because they eat too much and don't exercise.[/QUOTE]
No, people get fat because they are hungry and eat. Exercise is an extraneous factor to the first problem.
 
[quote name='dohdough']WIC is different from EBT food allowances. WIC is specifically for, well, Women, Infants, and Children(upto 5 years of age). The ability to eat wider ranges of food also occurs as one gets older.

Another problem that occurs is that the ability to identify food allergies had thankfully increased, so the "one-size fits all coupon" approach isn't really applicable anymore, or maybe it just never was. Hence, a child with food allergies could be at a signifigant disadvantage nutrition-wise during an important developmental period of it's life. I'm not saying that allergies can't be accounted for, just that it becomes increasingly complex as issues start compounding eachother.[/QUOTE]

My point was mostly that the infrastructure already exists for a "you can buy only these items" type of program. The WIC program itself isn't a one-size fits all thing...depending on the family situation (number of children, is mother breast feeding or not), the amount of care can vary.

Using just the EBT system, I wouldn't disagree with only allowing foodstamps to be used on non-taxable food stuff. IIRC, taxable food stuff primarily includes confections, soda, and items purchased at restaurants. There's still some non-taxable junk food, but it'd be better than nothing, and it seems like it'd be an easy thing to implement. Although it still wouldn't solve the problem that fast food is just so much more convenient.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']No, people get fat because they are hungry and eat. Exercise is an extraneous factor to the first problem.[/QUOTE]

I think some people eat even when they aren't hungry. But yes.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Why? Current studies are showing that those on low carb diets, atkins, are actually healthier than calorie restive diets. True long terms studies are not done yet, but a few two year studies looking at their effects and testing them against other diets have shown that they have a bigger impact on reducing metabolic disease than any other diet available. Plus most of the "bad" fats are mostly made of good fats, unless they are fortified with nitrates, which is a whole different ballgame all together. [/quote]

Because no crash diet is every going to be truly healthy vs. just eating a proper amount of calories and eating a properly balanced diet with the right amount of lean proteins, complex carbohydrates and fats.

That's the only type of diet (proper calories for the person's metabolism etc. and a balanced diet) that any diets like atkin's should be compared to.

The goal shouldn't be just to lose weight, the goal is to lose weight (and ideally to live that way from childhood on so you never get fat in the first place) and be as healthy as possible by eating a properly balanced diet. The body needs proteins, carbohydrates and fats in a certain proportion. No diet that goes to heavy or too light on any of those is a good thing.

No, people get fat because they are hungry and eat. Exercise is an extraneous factor to the first problem.
Click to expand...

Well the problem is eating too much and eating the wrong things as calories aren't equal (i.e. simple carbs get stored as fat easier than complex carbs etc.). :D

But yes, diet is key. Excercise can help as it burns calories--and should be done for other health reasons like strengthening the heart, lowering blood pressure and stress etc.--but diet is key to maintaining a healthy weight.

Of course, exercising can help offset eating some unhealthy stuff. I'll freely admit I work out reasonably regularly in large part so I can keep looking decent while still drinking some beer on the weekend and eating the occasional pizza etc.! :D
 
[quote name='nasum']Say wha? I'm talking about growing some potted fruits or veggies in your domicile, not planting a grove of orange trees on the interstate... This can be done, with great ease and will benefit everyone.

Yes we've moved away from being an agragarian society but why should that prevent people from sticking seeds into some dirt in a bucket and watering it every few days? It isn't that hard.[/QUOTE]

I can see I used too many two-syllable words so I'll dumb it down for you.

Do you really think this is the solution to obesity in America? Grow your own veggies and fruit and watch the pounds melt away or fuck you you lazy fat fuck? Forgive me for not jumping on the windowsill greenbeans platform.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But yes, diet is key. Excercise can help as it burns calories--and should be done for other health reasons like strengthening the heart, lowering blood pressure and stress etc.--but diet is key to maintaining a healthy weight.

Of course, exercising can help offset eating some unhealthy stuff. I'll freely admit I work out reasonably regularly in large part so I can keep looking decent while still drinking some beer on the weekend and eating the occasional pizza etc.! :D[/QUOTE]

Yes but exercise offsets food much much less then most people think. People think that exercise is some magic bullet. It's key to building muscle and helps keep you healthy, but the fried foods and sugary sweets are what's getting everybody fat.
 
[quote name='camoor']I can see I used too many two-syllable words so I'll dumb it down for you.

Do you really think this is the solution to obesity in America? Grow your own veggies and fruit and watch the pounds melt away or fuck you you lazy fat fuck? Forgive me for not jumping on the windowsill greenbeans platform.[/QUOTE]

Solution no, but when moving in a positive direction it seems the US needs baby steps and this is certainly one. Of course sweeping negative change pretty much just takes a tax rate cut and a Patriot Act which occurs in the span of what, 2 years to undo any progress and good that we had since the early 90's?

It's cheap (economic barriers to healthy food), it's easy (god knows we love our simple and stupid round these parts), it's healthy (hard to argue against that) and it's actually quite fun and satisfying to grow something yourself and eat it.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yes but exercise offsets food much much less then most people think. People think that exercise is some magic bullet. It's key to building muscle and helps keep you healthy, but the fried foods and sugary sweets are what's getting everybody fat.[/QUOTE]

Agree 100%. There is no magic bullet.

Getting enough exercise is just one of many pieces to living a healthy life.

Also, many people thing cardio is best for losing weight, and it's not necessarily true. Strength training is very important and having more lean muscle increases your metabolism as you burn more calories at rest to maintain muscle.

The rule of thumb nutritionists and personal trainers use is that every 10lbs of lean muscle burns 500 calories a day to maintain. Thus if you can put on 10lbs of muscle (not an easy task though) you can burn an extra 3,500 calories as week just from having that muscle--on top of any calories your burning from the strength training and any cardio you do etc.

But yes, even given that--as I said above--diet is the biggest part of not betting fat and putting on lean muscle. Exercise can't do much for body weight and composition if you don't have the proper diet paired with it.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yes but exercise offsets food much much less then most people think. People think that exercise is some magic bullet. It's key to building muscle and helps keep you healthy, but the fried foods and sugary sweets are what's getting everybody fat.[/QUOTE]


I think all of us are showing our misunderstandings in terms of nutrition/exercise, but building muscle isn't the goal for many people when working out. It's a result of general physical activity, but for shedding weight, it's always a two part game. You need to burn more calories than you take in. You can lose weight by eating less and not exercising, you can lose weight by increasing your exercise and maintaining an unhealthy diet, as long as there is still a calorie deficiency. From a cardiovascular standpoint, excercise is especially critical. Then don't get me started on the morons that still think you can spot burn fat.

Regarding Atkins, South Beach, and other non-sense nutritionally deficient programs, they are for selling books and tapes. OMG P90X made me loose so much weight!! Why, because you started doing mild cardio and resistence training? No shit. You exercised. None of those things are miracle solutions. Your body needs carbs for energy stores. That's why people days before very intense workouts, especially for running, will actually carb load, then protein post workout. Nutritional variety, and fruits, veggies, meat, dairy, and grains are a healthy diet. Not 40lbs of beef jerky a week, while you swear at a loaf of bread.

Edit: dmaul nailed it in his lean muscle mass comments.
 
[quote name='camoor']I think some people eat even when they aren't hungry. But yes.[/QUOTE]

Or even more importantly, keep eating well after they're full.

Portion control is a major problem as well. In the US we get much bigger portions of things than you get in most other countries I've been to.

Thus people are used to eating not just until full, but until stuffed--and thus don't feel mentally satisfied unless they overeat.
 
[quote name='nasum']You know what's fun about you? You're stark raving mad and riling you up for the fun of it is like a deep satisfying poop.[/QUOTE]
Spare me your faux puppet master routine. To coin a term used by my "boy" Tim Wise, the white denial runs pretty deep in you.

Porn joke aside, we've all got 13"... Can't build something to hold that? Aerogarden. Damn thing pays for itself in less than 18 months. You can put your weed in it too. Beans will grow in a small pot/bucket with indirect sunlight. They'll be weird yellow things but will still be nutritious. Hell, you can grow a potato bushel in a closet if you're really intent on doing so.
Click to expand...
fuck me. MOST POOR PEOPLE DON'T OWN THEIR OWN HOMES MUCHLESS HAVE MUCH SPACE. Tell me how the fuck a bushel of beans growing in a closet will sustainibly feed more than one person for any extended period of time?

So when the wolves are chasing you, are you aware that they aren't real and it's all in your head or is it more like so real in your mind that you swear you can smell them.
Click to expand...
When you can explain the disparity between whites and people of color with similar education and income levels by disproving decades of research, get back to me. Are you gong to tell me that sexism doesn't exist either? I guess women just imagine that they get paid 30% LESS THAN MEN ON AVERAGE.

I'll just pull some MLK on you and say that I'm juding you based on the content of your character. You can assume that I'm assuming your race all you want, I just think you're an asshole no matter what.
Click to expand...
I love it when white supremacists bring that line up and don't realize how out of context it is.

Here's the full speech:
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.​

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."​

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.​

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.​

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.​

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.​

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
We cannot walk alone.​

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.​

We cannot turn back.​

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. ​

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.
And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.​

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."​

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.​

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.​

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. ​

I have a dream today!​

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.​

I have a dream today!​

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."​

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.
With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.​


And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:
My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. ​


Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride, ​

From every mountainside, let freedom ring! ​





​
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.​


Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. ​

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.​







​
But not only that:
Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.​


Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.​

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.​








​
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!​

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!​

You missed the point on the deck. I can grow my green beans with absolutely 0 effort. In fact, I throw butts in the same bucket and these damn things keep growing despite my negative effort at the bucket. This has been going on for 3 years, even under 5ft of snow last winter as I never moved the thing.
Click to expand...
MOST POOR PEOPLE DON'T HAVE DECKS.

Swing and a miss Charlie. The people who get the WIC/EBT cards get them from somewhere. What if somewhere sent the coupon thingies out instead of the cards? No big deal to make a minor change there. Also, that'd basically be a guaranteed sale so you'd have manufacturers lining up to get on that list. Now here's the tricky part, the people that create the list have to have a spine and show up to say these are the rules and regulations of what gets on the list. Good stuff, healthy stuff, no wonderbread (wink wink nudge nudge), no doritos, etc... This actually ends up being holisticly better for everyone because it would cost too much to create healthy versions of the same product. Take your capitalism theory and go from there, it's better to produce the item that is a guaranteed sale essentially. But, that gives white folks a leg up since they'd end up with the same products so feel free to automatically reject progress because it isn't for your preferred subsect of humanity.
Click to expand...
Simply mailing coupons is NOT a simple solution. If there was such a huge bitch-fest to get people to fill out their census forms, it'll be an even bigger shitstorm if any money is spent on more subsidies for "welfare queens."

Even IF it was politically attenable, access to fresh foods is STILL constricted even in urban areas.

Also, everyone needs to eat so I could't give 2 shits whether or not middle-class whites eat healthier junk food as a response from junk food conglomerates to shovel their food into poorer mouths. The problem I have is with advertising directed at kids. Just because I use race as a theoretical framework doesn't mean that it's the only framework I use. If you paid attention to my posts in this thread instead of having a "gotcha moment," you would've seen that. But most importantly, if you read the article, that post in question WAS on topic.
 
[quote name='camoor']I think some people eat even when they aren't hungry. But yes.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dmaul1114']Or even more importantly, keep eating well after they're full.

Portion control is a major problem as well. In the US we get much bigger portions of things than you get in most other countries I've been to.

Thus people are used to eating not just until full, but until stuffed--and thus don't feel mentally satisfied unless they overeat.[/QUOTE]
Kinda like when kids are young, parents will tell their kids to clean their plates because other kids are starving in China, Africa, where ever, which is interesting because if there's so much excess food over here, wouldn't it be a better idea to spread more food around so that there are fewer starving kids? But no, it's our duty as Americans to become gluttons instead. American Exceptionalism...Gotta love it!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The rule of thumb nutritionists and personal trainers use is that every 10lbs of lean muscle burns 500 calories a day to maintain. Thus if you can put on 10lbs of muscle (not an easy task though) you can burn an extra 3,500 calories as week just from having that muscle--on top of any calories your burning from the strength training and any cardio you do etc.[/QUOTE]

I read some weighlifting blog where this fit guy theorized that all of his muscle, while at rest, would in actuality burn no more then the equivelent of half-an-oreo daily. I can hunt it down if anyone is really interested.

[quote name='berzirk']Regarding Atkins, South Beach, and other non-sense nutritionally deficient programs, they are for selling books and tapes. OMG P90X made me loose so much weight!! Why, because you started doing mild cardio and resistence training? No shit. You exercised.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't put P90X in with those programs. Like you said it's not a quick-fix diet - more of an extreme exercise program that actually works (in building muscle).

Listen I like eating organic foods and doing EA Active Sports 2. But I'm not going to pretend everyone has the time/money for that.

I don't know what the magic bullet is but the obesity epdemic has to be the most ridiculous epidemic in history. What are you going to tell your grandkids. 'O billy I lived through the obesity epidemic and it was awful. We were up to our elbows in pizza and icecream, once I ate so much I didn't see my pecker for weeks.'
 
[quote name='camoor']I read some weighlifting blog where this fit guy theorized that all of his muscle, while at rest, would in actuality burn no more then the equivelent of half-an-oreo daily. I can hunt it down if anyone is really interested. [/quote]
Please do. I'm extremely curious to see how he came up with that. I weigh about 160 and require about 1700-1800 cals to maintain my body weight. Is the guy talking about half an oreo's worth of calories in excess to that? Or maybe completely at rest?

I wouldn't put P90X in with those programs. Like you said it's not a quick-fix diet - more of an extreme exercise program that actually works (in building muscle).

Listen I like eating organic foods and doing EA Active Sports 2. But I'm not going to pretend everyone has the time/money for that.
Click to expand...
Yeah P90X and Insanity are VERY intense. You actually need a decent level of fitness before you can really begin the programs. When I saw the workouts, I was like F that! I'll stick to my 100 push-ups and Wii Sports Resort.

I don't know what the magic bullet is but the obesity epdemic has to be the most ridiculous epidemic in history. What are you going to tell your grandkids. 'O billy I lived through the obesity epidemic and it was awful. We were up to our elbows in pizza and icecream, once I ate so much I didn't see my pecker for weeks.'
Click to expand...
I literally LOL'd at that.:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
[quote name='camoor']I read some weighlifting blog where this fit guy theorized that all of his muscle, while at rest, would in actuality burn no more then the equivelent of half-an-oreo daily. I can hunt it down if anyone is really interested.
[/QUOTE]

Meh, the 500 calories per 10lbs of muscle is a pretty much agreed upon estimate among nutritionists etc. that I've talked to, so I'll take their word for it. That muscle burns fat to maintain at rest is scientific fact--and why people will start to lose muscle if they don't eat more than they burn at rest.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']Why would you want even more people living longer? We already face overpopulation. Let them kill themselves.[/QUOTE]

If I didn't have to pay more in health care premiums etc. because of it, I'd be fine with it.

Move to an insurance systems like we discussed earlier in the thread where we get discounts in our health insurance premiums for being at a healthy weight, not smoking, not visting the doctor often outside of annual physicals etc., then people can eat themselves to poor health and shorter lives to their hearts content (as long as the buy two seats on the plane if they can't fit into one!).
 
[quote name='dohdough']Kinda like when kids are young, parents will tell their kids to clean their plates because other kids are starving in China, Africa, where ever, which is interesting because if there's so much excess food over here, wouldn't it be a better idea to spread more food around so that there are fewer starving kids? But no, it's our duty as Americans to become gluttons instead. American Exceptionalism...Gotta love it![/QUOTE]

Children in many countries are taught this, there's nothing strictly American about it. It's as innocent as teaching a child the value of resources and labor. In Japan it's not just a family thing, as in elementary school you must always finish your food at lunch as well.

Scraping the extra food off your plate into Africa doesn't exactly work. And while the reasoning of parents for having kids finish their foods can be a bit shortsighted, it's miles better than painting the world so simply as "yeah sweety, that extra food would feed a starving child."

The Japanese are indeed gluttons though -- somehow they remain super skinny.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']Children in many countries are taught this, there's nothing strictly American about it. It's as innocent as teaching a child the value of resources and labor. In Japan it's not just a family thing, as in elementary school you must always finish your food at lunch as well.[/quote]Now that is interesting, but I have to question the lesson that should be learned in that scenario.

Scraping the extra food off your plate into Africa doesn't exactly work. And while the reasoning of parents for having kids finish their foods can be a bit shortsighted, it's miles better than painting the world so simply as "yeah sweety, that extra food would feed a starving child."
Click to expand...
Right, but I'm not suggesting shipping leftovers to a starving population. Hell, the lesson should be to ration better next time instead of over-eating. It could also be taught that there are other people out there that don't have the same privileges. But that's just my opinion.

The Japanese are indeed gluttons though -- somehow they remain super skinny.
Click to expand...
They might eat a lot of rice and pickled veggies, but their main proteins aren't the serving sizes of what we have in the US. You could say the same about most Asians in Asia though. Not to say that there aren't fat Asians of course.
 
[quote name='dohdough'] They might eat a lot of rice and pickled veggies, but their main proteins aren't the serving sizes of what we have in the US. You could say the same about most Asians in Asia though. Not to say that there aren't fat Asians of course.[/QUOTE]

windows7-whopper-burger.jpg
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Right, but I'm not suggesting shipping leftovers to a starving population. Hell, the lesson should be to ration better next time instead of over-eating. It could also be taught that there are other people out there that don't have the same privileges. But that's just my opinion.[/quote]

Well, you have to keep in mind that a lot of times a kids complaints of "I'm full" or just whining as they don't like the food (veggies etc.) or want to leave and go back to playing.

I've seen it happen with my nieces and nephews...they whine and cry about being full and end up being let go when their portions weren't that big in the first place, they just didn't want the veggies or meat etc. Then an hour later they're whining about being hungry.

As for the other point, isn't saying "You should be happy to have a plate of veggies to each as their are kids starving elsewhere" telling them that there are others less fortunate than them? :D


[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']
windows7-whopper-burger.jpg
[/QUOTE]

Well, it doesn't really count when you use a western fast food chain as an example! :D

I can't speak to Japan, but I just spent 3 weeks in Taiwan (my g/f is from Taiwan) and the food portions there (at local restaurants) where much smaller.

That said, they eat a ton throughout the day and I had problems being hungry for meals after breakfast as we were constantly eating!

Yet most people there are thin. But it's mostly rice and vegetables with some chicken and pork etc. in the standard meals so I guess the calories and fat or low.

Or they just stay thin as it's so fucking hot and humid there! :D

I'm sure there's something genetic involved as well.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I think all of us are showing our misunderstandings in terms of nutrition/exercise, but building muscle isn't the goal for many people when working out. It's a result of general physical activity, but for shedding weight, it's always a two part game. You need to burn more calories than you take in. You can lose weight by eating less and not exercising, you can lose weight by increasing your exercise and maintaining an unhealthy diet, as long as there is still a calorie deficiency. From a cardiovascular standpoint, excercise is especially critical. Then don't get me started on the morons that still think you can spot burn fat.

Regarding Atkins, South Beach, and other non-sense nutritionally deficient programs, they are for selling books and tapes. OMG P90X made me loose so much weight!! Why, because you started doing mild cardio and resistence training? No shit. You exercised. None of those things are miracle solutions. Your body needs carbs for energy stores. That's why people days before very intense workouts, especially for running, will actually carb load, then protein post workout. Nutritional variety, and fruits, veggies, meat, dairy, and grains are a healthy diet. Not 40lbs of beef jerky a week, while you swear at a loaf of bread.

Edit: dmaul nailed it in his lean muscle mass comments.[/QUOTE]
I am inclined to mostly agree, although I would like to add that while these non-sense books are for profit SB, Atkins, and Dukan, do spur people to lose weight better than hard facts ever have. They may start one these diets but most people do in fact build healthier lifestyles when they go on these diets, so they have their place.

The general idea I am trying to float across to dmaul is not one of complete disagreement but more of one of standards. Our understanding of nutrition is better than it was before, however things like breads have been shown to be correlated with weight gain, to start mandating certain foods to people is a slippery slope. Yes cursory things like no chips/soda/candy/usual suspects may be fine but things such as not allowing people on programs to buy meats with high contents of saturated fat is just stupid considering nutritionist are still arguing if it is healthy or not, which new studies are starting to show it may not be as bad as once thought. I guess I am annoyed that he is trying to argue from a position that there are "right" ways to eat, when the field of nutrition isn't cogent enough on keystone foods to make that judgement without hurting people.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, you have to keep in mind that a lot of times a kids complaints of "I'm full" or just whining as they don't like the food (veggies etc.) or want to leave and go back to playing.

I've seen it happen with my nieces and nephews...they whine and cry about being full and end up being let go when their portions weren't that big in the first place, they just didn't want the veggies or meat etc. Then an hour later they're whining about being hungry.

As for the other point, isn't saying "You should be happy to have a plate of veggies to each as their are kids starving elsewhere" telling them that there are others less fortunate than them? :D




Well, it doesn't really count when you use a western fast food chain as an example! :D

I can't speak to Japan, but I just spent 3 weeks in Taiwan (my g/f is from Taiwan) and the food portions there (at local restaurants) where much smaller.

That said, they eat a ton throughout the day and I had problems being hungry for meals after breakfast as we were constantly eating!

Yet most people there are thin. But it's mostly rice and vegetables with some chicken and pork etc. in the standard meals so I guess the calories and fat or low.

Or they just stay thin as it's so fucking hot and humid there! :D

I'm sure there's something genetic involved as well.[/QUOTE]Portions are smaller and the types of foods they eat are different like you said. While I was in India as you can imagine, I didn't eat any read meat for nearly 3 weeks. Even at McDonald's the "Maharajah Mac" was grilled chicken. The only porkI ever saw was the supposed pork pepperoni on some pizza. That said, being from the south I love pork BBQ, but even I know that shit is bad for me and is why I don't eat it that often. While I was on that trip and eating mostly chicken and vegetables (some days not even that) I lost enough weight that my pants wouldn't stay up without a belt.

And related to that, another reason people in the U.S. are fat is air conditioning. Because let me tell you, when it's 120F outside and you're sweating your ass off, you don't feel like eating, you don't even have an appetite. And while it isn't that hot in most places in the U.S., even 90 something is hot enough to kill your appetite. Think about the rise of obesity and the prevelance of air conditioning in the last century.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']
I guess I am annoyed that he is trying to argue from a position that there are "right" ways to eat, when the field of nutrition isn't cogent enough on keystone foods to make that judgement without hurting people.[/QUOTE]

I agree science on nutrition is always advancing and their isn't a set "right way" to eat.

But we'll just have to agree to disagree. From everything I've read, the vast majority of people who do those gimmick diets like Atkins lose weight initially, but since the diet sucks they can't stick to it and gain it back.

The people that lose weight and keep it off are the ones who commit to really changing a lifestyle and not doing some gimmick diet. That means learning to eat proper portions and amounts of calories per day, limiting high fat foods and simple carbs and sugars and exercising regularly.

From my friends who are nutritionists, there are far more studies supporting those kind of diets than any of these gimmick diets like Atkins. The body needs proteins, carbohydrates and fats, so any diet that mostly eliminates any of those is going to be flawed. The key is finding the right balance of those things and avoiding saturated fats, fried foods and simple carbs/sugars as much as possible.

But that's just my take on it based on the research I've seen and heard about from friends who do that kind of research for a living. So people are free to disagree of course. I'll never respect or recommend gimmick diets vs. just eating clean (avoid fats and sugars) in proper portions and working out personally--unless research changes dramatically over time.

From what my friends tell mehere is a huge body of research supporting what I'm suggesting, vs. only a handful of supportive studies of the gimmick diets--with many more finding no or negative effects. Unless that balance flips, I'll stick with my informed opinion.

And it's certain not going to hurt anyone. No one will be hurt from a diet of lean proteins, complex carbs (whole grains) and limiting fats (particularly saturated fats)--food allergies aside of course. They're much more likely to be harmed by something like Adkins which severely cuts carbs which is a crucial nutrient for energy and maintaining the body. Similarly for diets that go heavier on carbs and cut proteins as that's needed to maintain muscle mass.

A balanced diet is key. The balance that's ideal varies from person but it should be a balance of lean protein, complex carbs and healthy fats period--just what the specific ratio is can vary from person to person.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Or even more importantly, keep eating well after they're full.

Portion control is a major problem as well. In the US we get much bigger portions of things than you get in most other countries I've been to.

Thus people are used to eating not just until full, but until stuffed--and thus don't feel mentally satisfied unless they overeat.[/QUOTE]

As for you, yes we eat more, but how the fuck do you know all fat people eat until after they are full. Hell I was once fat and lost about 100 pounds, but I never ate till I was over full. Portion control as you say is a function of hunger itself. Some foods satiate it better, like meats (fats and carbs from what I understand increase hunger), tackle the problem of basic hunger in fat people and the problem will self correct. However I would like to offer question. Most people that are vegetarians do not get complex proteins that they need in adequate amounts, as such they have unhealthy diets. Are you as comfortable regulating their diets are you are with those of the obese? Quite honestly unless you are you are essentially not arguing for helping people with their diets but getting rid of fatties for social reasons, this includes helping yourself and saving you tax dollars in not having to pay other peoples insurance. Both cause problems in the heath community, both produce problems that cost people lots of money to fix and both are problems of control, as you believe. However I would like to point out that vegetarians choose their lifestyle based on personal choices, such as animal cruelty and other reasons that are socially based, the same goes for all eating habits, including the disgusting ones corn dog casserole, but what is your reason for believing that your social inclinations are enough to over ride peoples culture and personal choices, for obese people as much as under fed vegetarians.

[quote name='dmaul1114']I agree science on nutrition is always advancing and their isn't a set "right way" to eat.

But we'll just have to agree to disagree. From everything I've read, the vast majority of people who do those gimmick diets like Atkins lose weight initially, but since the diet sucks they can't stick to it and gain it back.

The people that lose weight and keep it off are the ones who commit to really changing a lifestyle and not doing some gimmick diet. That means learning to eat proper portions and amounts of calories per day, limiting high fat foods and simple carbs and sugars and exercising regularly.

From my friends who are nutritionists, there are far more studies supporting those kind of diets than any of these gimmick diets like Atkins. The body needs proteins, carbohydrates and fats, so any diet that mostly eliminates any of those is going to be flawed. The key is finding the right balance of those things and avoiding saturated fats, fried foods and simple carbs/sugars as much as possible.

But that's just my take on it based on the research I've seen and heard about from friends who do that kind of research for a living. So people are free to disagree of course. I'll never respect or recommend gimmick diets vs. just eating clean (avoid fats and sugars) in proper portions and working out personally--unless research changes dramatically over time.

From what my friends tell mehere is a huge body of research supporting what I'm suggesting, vs. only a handful of supportive studies of the gimmick diets--with many more finding no or negative effects. Unless that balance flips, I'll stick with my informed opinion.[/QUOTE]

Meh. Both sides have decent arguments and growing literature to support both, and from people I talked to who also work in the field the goal for most people should be to lose weight and worry about healthy lifestyles when they are not breaking chairs. So disagreements on how to view the issue I guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I tried a pseudo Atkins diet once years ago. Really just cut back on the carbs, little to no soda, much less bread and pasta, more lean meats and fibrous vegetables, lost a lot of weight until I lost the will to stick with it. I just enjoy stuff like breads and sodas too much.
 
[quote name='cindersphere'] However I would like to offer question. Most people that are vegetarians do not get complex proteins that they need in adequate amounts, as such they have unhealthy diets. Are you as comfortable regulating their diets are you are with those of the obese?
[/quote]

Everyone should be eating a healthy, balanced diet. If someone is going to go vegetarian, then they need to learn how to get the proteins they need from sources other than meats.

On that front, access to a nutritionist with the same copays we have for seeing our regular doctor should be something medical insurance companies are required to provide. We need a lot more focus on that type of preventive healthcare. Seeing a nutritionist is something that can benefit everyone, not just the obese and vegetarians and other people with dietary restrictions.

Quite honestly unless you are you are essentially not arguing for helping people with their diets but getting rid of fatties for social reasons.
Click to expand...

But yes, I am more arguing about reducing obesity for social reasons. It skyrocketing at a ridiculous rate as the data in the article in the OP show. There are clear health benefits tied to obesity--indeed there are few other preventable correlates of health problems of this scale (smoking, promiscuity, alcoholism/drug use are a few others I can think off off the top of my head and obesity is more prevalent that some of those now that it's around 30%).

Thus reducing rates of obesity is one of the most obvious public health targets to improve health outcomes and reduce health care costs nationwide.

And there are other social/personal benefits such as fewer obese people rudely trying to squeeze into one airplane seat etc. :D
 
[quote name='cindersphere']
...from people I talked to who also work in the field the goal for most people should be to lose weight and worry about healthy lifestyles when they are not breaking chairs. So disagreements on how to view the issue I guess.[/QUOTE]

My point is they go hand in hand. If there's not a true commitment made to changing to a healthy lifestyle, then any weight loss will be temporary and they'll quickly fall off the wagon and go back to breaking chairs.

But yeah, better to just agree to disagree as it doesn't seem like either of us will change our minds.
 
You know what's kinda funny? Not that we're biologically predisposed to want certain foods, but how we're socialized, or you could even use the word programmed, to want certain ones. It's almost as if marketing firms used psychology and sociology to manipulate us into behaving the way the want or something!;)
 
[quote name='dohdough']You know what's kinda funny? Not that we're biologically predisposed to want certain foods, but how we're socialized, or you could even use the word programmed, to want certain ones. It's almost as if marketing firms used psychology and sociology to manipulate us into behaving the way the want or something!;)[/QUOTE]

That's definitely a huge part of it.

Pay attention to TV ads for foods and drinks and see how many are for truly healthy foods, vs. how many are for fast food, ice cream, candy, alcohol, non-diet soda etc. :D

And even a lot of the "healthy" stuff advertised ends up being lies like the Arby's Marketfresh sandwiches talked about earlier, or sit down places like sitdown chains that have "healthy" options under certain calories, but still have too much fat, sodium etc. despite being lower calorie.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Everyone should be eating a healthy, balanced diet. If someone is going to go vegetarian, then they need to learn how to get the proteins they need from sources other than meats.

On that front, access to a nutritionist with the same copays we have for seeing our regular doctor should be something medical insurance companies are required to provide. We need a lot more focus on that type of preventive healthcare. Seeing a nutritionist is something that can benefit everyone, not just the obese and vegetarians and other people with dietary restrictions.



But yes, I am more arguing about reducing obesity for social reasons. It skyrocketing at a ridiculous rate as the data in the article in the OP show. There are clear health benefits tied to obesity--indeed there are few other preventable correlates of health problems of this scale (smoking, promiscuity, alcoholism/drug use are a few others I can think off off the top of my head and obesity is more prevalent that some of those now that it's around 30%).

Thus reducing rates of obesity is one of the most obvious public health targets to improve health outcomes and reduce health care costs nationwide.

And there are other social/personal benefits such as fewer obese people rudely trying to squeeze into one airplane seat etc. :D[/QUOTE]

So then what would you say to African American, the ones that immigrate, who come from a culture where being fat is good? Hell, what do you tell people who think being fat is a status symbol that are born here? Sorry your culture is crap, get in line with the real american way?

[quote name='dmaul1114']My point is they go hand in hand. If there's not a true commitment made to changing to a healthy lifestyle, then any weight loss will be temporary and they'll quickly fall off the wagon and go back to breaking chairs.

But yeah, better to just agree to disagree as it doesn't seem like either of us will change our minds.[/QUOTE]

Two separate issues, unhealthy but skinny eaters still have these problems. You are only advocating stopping the fatties from eating these foods though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top