Physiology hasn't caught up to how we live. There was a time in human history that people who tend to retain body fat would have been at an advantage survival wise. When you don't know when your next meal is coming, hanging onto that body fat would be a good thing, but we don't live as hunter gatherers anymore. Our bodies still function as if we are however, and that is a problem when all the work you have to do for food is order it off a menu.
Obesity
- Thread starter dmaul1114
- Start date
[quote name='cindersphere']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]
We're just talking about educating people about what's healthy and what's not. People are always free to eat whatever they want of course.
Ideally, from a public health and health care cost standpoint, we want as many people as possible choosing to live healthy lifestyles and take care of themselves by eating decent, exercising, having safe sex, not using drugs, drinking in moderation if at all, not smoking etc.
So efforts to get people to eat healthy and exercise are not different than campaigns promoting safe sex or campaigns against smoking etc., so I don't see the controversy people. It's just an effort to educate people and get as many as possible to be healthier. People are free to ignore it.
I never said that. EVERYONE should be encouraged to eat a healthy balanced diet, with unhealthy foods like burgers and fries etc. being rare treats rather than a staple of their diet.
Being fat is just one negative side effect of a bad diet. Those who have high metabolisms and can eat crappy and stay relatively thin will still be more likely to have health problems related to cholestorol, high blood pressure etc. as you note.
My message is that EVERYONE should strive to lead a healthy lifestyle and eat a reasonably balanced died and get at least some exercise on a regular basis.
It's not limited to people who are already fat, as the ultimate goal is to get people to live healthy lifestyles from the start and reduce the number of people who become fat in the first place.
We're just talking about educating people about what's healthy and what's not. People are always free to eat whatever they want of course.
Ideally, from a public health and health care cost standpoint, we want as many people as possible choosing to live healthy lifestyles and take care of themselves by eating decent, exercising, having safe sex, not using drugs, drinking in moderation if at all, not smoking etc.
So efforts to get people to eat healthy and exercise are not different than campaigns promoting safe sex or campaigns against smoking etc., so I don't see the controversy people. It's just an effort to educate people and get as many as possible to be healthier. People are free to ignore it.
I never said that. EVERYONE should be encouraged to eat a healthy balanced diet, with unhealthy foods like burgers and fries etc. being rare treats rather than a staple of their diet.
Being fat is just one negative side effect of a bad diet. Those who have high metabolisms and can eat crappy and stay relatively thin will still be more likely to have health problems related to cholestorol, high blood pressure etc. as you note.
My message is that EVERYONE should strive to lead a healthy lifestyle and eat a reasonably balanced died and get at least some exercise on a regular basis.
It's not limited to people who are already fat, as the ultimate goal is to get people to live healthy lifestyles from the start and reduce the number of people who become fat in the first place.
[quote name='Clak']Physiology hasn't caught up to how we live. There was a time in human history that people who tend to retain body fat would have been at an advantage survival wise. When you don't know when your next meal is coming, hanging onto that body fat would be a good thing, but we don't live as hunter gatherers anymore. Our bodies still function as if we are however, and that is a problem when all the work you have to do for food is order it off a menu.[/QUOTE]
True, but I think we're pretty far past that.
The bigger problem on that front is that blue collar, manual labor jobs have declined and sedentary deskjobs have risen dramatically in the American economy.
Along with free time becoming more and more sedentary with the advent of things like TV, computers/internet, video games etc. that have society doing less physically active things in their free time as well.
But standard diets haven't changed to adapt to the fact that society as whole is much less active than in past generations and thus burning many fewer calories per day.
True, but I think we're pretty far past that.
The bigger problem on that front is that blue collar, manual labor jobs have declined and sedentary deskjobs have risen dramatically in the American economy.
Along with free time becoming more and more sedentary with the advent of things like TV, computers/internet, video games etc. that have society doing less physically active things in their free time as well.
But standard diets haven't changed to adapt to the fact that society as whole is much less active than in past generations and thus burning many fewer calories per day.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Cinder, no one is trying to tell someone to redefine their culture or personal beliefs. Just if you want to be healthier, then expect to take the proper steps. That's all that's being done here -- health advice. I'm sure if someone told dmaul that they enjoy being overweight, that it's part of their culture, their personal choices, they find it attractive, or that they need to be hefty so they can sumo -- he's not going to tell them they're wrong. It's just if you want to be healthy, there's really only a limited number of ways of achieving that (in the form of exercise and an improved diet).
And I think slim people with high cholesterol and such are much rarer. It happens, but with those cases I'd hardly call those people looking fit at all. It's like a skinny person with a belly that's obviously carrying sugary junk. It's just as bad as being overweight IMO, especially because every person I've met with that kind of body type thinks they are magically healthy merely because their stomach is smaller.
Really I'm curious about the metabolism thing. I hear it's a myth half the time, and then that it's the sole reason people can stay skinny. People always said that about me and I believed it (because I did like my pop and icecream, heh), but when I started counting my calories I realized I ate about a 1/3rd as much as everyone else.
today, as an example:
Breakfast - black coffee and a waffle
Lunch - couple tacos, ice tea w/sugar
Dinner - freezer bought fries, corn, fried chicken, ice tea w/sugar
maybe a handful of cheezits in between and a yogurt. i'll probably have a bowl of cereal and some fruit before i go to bed.
definitely satisfied, definitely not full, definitely too lazy to make more food. weighed the same for the past 6 years (amongst working out 3-4 days a week).
And I think slim people with high cholesterol and such are much rarer. It happens, but with those cases I'd hardly call those people looking fit at all. It's like a skinny person with a belly that's obviously carrying sugary junk. It's just as bad as being overweight IMO, especially because every person I've met with that kind of body type thinks they are magically healthy merely because their stomach is smaller.
Really I'm curious about the metabolism thing. I hear it's a myth half the time, and then that it's the sole reason people can stay skinny. People always said that about me and I believed it (because I did like my pop and icecream, heh), but when I started counting my calories I realized I ate about a 1/3rd as much as everyone else.
today, as an example:
Breakfast - black coffee and a waffle
Lunch - couple tacos, ice tea w/sugar
Dinner - freezer bought fries, corn, fried chicken, ice tea w/sugar
maybe a handful of cheezits in between and a yogurt. i'll probably have a bowl of cereal and some fruit before i go to bed.
definitely satisfied, definitely not full, definitely too lazy to make more food. weighed the same for the past 6 years (amongst working out 3-4 days a week).
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='panzerfaust']
Really I'm curious about the metabolism thing. I hear it's a myth half the time, and then that it's the sole reason people can stay skinny. People always said that about me and I believed it (because I did like my pop and icecream, heh), but when I started counting my calories I realized I ate about a 1/3rd as much as everyone else.[/QUOTE]
Metabolism definitely matters. People can eat the same diets and one person can stay around a healthy weight and the other person will start adding fat--assuming equal amounts of exercise etc.
So yeah, it does suck that some people have to watch what they eat more closely than others. And I'm one of the lucky ones there as I stay pretty slim (5'9, 155lbs currently) and I don't always eat the best as I love beer, eat too many TV dinners, have a burger a few times a month etc and have nothing to show for it other than an inch or so of flab around the mid section that appeared in my late 20s.
My parents are a good example. They eat a pretty crappy diet--lots of friend foods etc. My mom drinks a lot of soda (though she did switch to diet the past couple of years) and eats a lot of junk. My dad drinks a good bit (probably 3 beers a day or so) and doesn't eat as much junk, but still usually has at least chips or ice cream as a snack in the evening.
My mom has got pretty fat after she hit 40 or so (she's late 50s now), where as my dad has stayed thin other than having a bit of a belly and still only ways 145 (thin he's 5'8"). Granted that's not all metabolism as my mom's very sedentary and my dad still does tons of yard work etc.
Rambling point being people do have different metabolisms and that does affect how easy they gain or lose weight. But it's not as big a factor as diet and level of physical activity.
Really I'm curious about the metabolism thing. I hear it's a myth half the time, and then that it's the sole reason people can stay skinny. People always said that about me and I believed it (because I did like my pop and icecream, heh), but when I started counting my calories I realized I ate about a 1/3rd as much as everyone else.[/QUOTE]
Metabolism definitely matters. People can eat the same diets and one person can stay around a healthy weight and the other person will start adding fat--assuming equal amounts of exercise etc.
So yeah, it does suck that some people have to watch what they eat more closely than others. And I'm one of the lucky ones there as I stay pretty slim (5'9, 155lbs currently) and I don't always eat the best as I love beer, eat too many TV dinners, have a burger a few times a month etc and have nothing to show for it other than an inch or so of flab around the mid section that appeared in my late 20s.
My parents are a good example. They eat a pretty crappy diet--lots of friend foods etc. My mom drinks a lot of soda (though she did switch to diet the past couple of years) and eats a lot of junk. My dad drinks a good bit (probably 3 beers a day or so) and doesn't eat as much junk, but still usually has at least chips or ice cream as a snack in the evening.
My mom has got pretty fat after she hit 40 or so (she's late 50s now), where as my dad has stayed thin other than having a bit of a belly and still only ways 145 (thin he's 5'8"). Granted that's not all metabolism as my mom's very sedentary and my dad still does tons of yard work etc.
Rambling point being people do have different metabolisms and that does affect how easy they gain or lose weight. But it's not as big a factor as diet and level of physical activity.
[quote name='dmaul1114']True, but I think we're pretty far past that.
The bigger problem on that front is that blue collar, manual labor jobs have declined and sedentary deskjobs have risen dramatically in the American economy.
Along with free time becoming more and more sedentary with the advent of things like TV, computers/internet, video games etc. that have society doing less physically active things in their free time as well.
But standard diets haven't changed to adapt to the fact that society as whole is much less active than in past generations and thus burning many fewer calories per day.[/QUOTE]That's my point, genetics plays a role, and we still crave high fat foods to an extent, because those foods would have sustained us the best. Basically what was once an advantage is now a disadvantage. With our modern lifestyles we don't need to eat those high fat foods anymore, but we still crave them to an extent because we're designed to. Like I said, our physiology is stuck in the past basically. Eating those foods is fine when you're burning serious calories to obtain it, but not when all you have to do is order off a menu.
The bigger problem on that front is that blue collar, manual labor jobs have declined and sedentary deskjobs have risen dramatically in the American economy.
Along with free time becoming more and more sedentary with the advent of things like TV, computers/internet, video games etc. that have society doing less physically active things in their free time as well.
But standard diets haven't changed to adapt to the fact that society as whole is much less active than in past generations and thus burning many fewer calories per day.[/QUOTE]That's my point, genetics plays a role, and we still crave high fat foods to an extent, because those foods would have sustained us the best. Basically what was once an advantage is now a disadvantage. With our modern lifestyles we don't need to eat those high fat foods anymore, but we still crave them to an extent because we're designed to. Like I said, our physiology is stuck in the past basically. Eating those foods is fine when you're burning serious calories to obtain it, but not when all you have to do is order off a menu.
[quote name='Clak']That's my point, genetics plays a role, and we still crave high fat foods to an extent, because those foods would have sustained us the best. Basically what was once an advantage is now a disadvantage. With our modern lifestyles we don't need to eat those high fat foods anymore, but we still crave them to an extent because we're designed to. Like I said, our physiology is stuck in the past basically. Eating those foods is fine when you're burning serious calories to obtain it, but not when all you have to do is order off a menu.[/QUOTE]
My point was that I think we're far enough past the hunting gathering stage where humans had to fatten up to survive the winters that I don't really buy the genetic craving for high fat food argument anymore.
I think it's just a mental craving as those foods tend to taste damn good. And obesity is skyrocketing as people keep eating those things even thought they're much less active than their parents or grand parents or great grandparents were--thus they get fatter than their ancestors as they spend more time on their behinds.
And of course there's just the easy availability of cheap, processed foods that really exploded from the mid 20th century on--so diets have gotten worse as well as people getting more sedentary.
My point was that I think we're far enough past the hunting gathering stage where humans had to fatten up to survive the winters that I don't really buy the genetic craving for high fat food argument anymore.
I think it's just a mental craving as those foods tend to taste damn good. And obesity is skyrocketing as people keep eating those things even thought they're much less active than their parents or grand parents or great grandparents were--thus they get fatter than their ancestors as they spend more time on their behinds.
And of course there's just the easy availability of cheap, processed foods that really exploded from the mid 20th century on--so diets have gotten worse as well as people getting more sedentary.
The whole metabolism thing being faster or slower is mostly a diet myth for the general public based mostly on their misinterpretation of what a metabolism is and how things are metabolized. Now there are physiological disorders that may cause you to metabolize things differently, like lymph node issues or side-effects from medication that can make someone fat, but most of the time, skinny people are far more active and eat less than they think and fatter people eat more and are less active than they may think.
Let's take Michael Phelps for example. When training, he has a 30,000 calorie diet and he looks like a bean pole. One could say that he has a "fast" metabolism, but that would be an incorrect assumption. The correct interpretation is that the metabolic process is constantly running due to his heavy physical activity. So knowing how hormonal balance is also important, one can tailor their diet and fitness regimen to be more condusive to maintaining a more constant metabolic process. This is why certain higher intensities of exercise and smaller meals spread out through the day work to prolong a heighten period of metabolic activity as opposed to just having a "fast" or "slow" metabolism, which to me, is akin to saying that all tall people are good at basketball.
Let's take Michael Phelps for example. When training, he has a 30,000 calorie diet and he looks like a bean pole. One could say that he has a "fast" metabolism, but that would be an incorrect assumption. The correct interpretation is that the metabolic process is constantly running due to his heavy physical activity. So knowing how hormonal balance is also important, one can tailor their diet and fitness regimen to be more condusive to maintaining a more constant metabolic process. This is why certain higher intensities of exercise and smaller meals spread out through the day work to prolong a heighten period of metabolic activity as opposed to just having a "fast" or "slow" metabolism, which to me, is akin to saying that all tall people are good at basketball.
[quote name='dmaul1114']My point was that I think we're far enough past the hunting gathering stage where humans had to fatten up to survive the winters that I don't really buy the genetic craving for high fat food argument anymore.
I think it's just a mental craving as those foods tend to taste damn good. And obesity is skyrocketing as people keep eating those things even thought they're much less active than their parents or grand parents or great grandparents were--thus they get fatter than their ancestors as they spend more time on their behinds.
And of course there's just the easy availability of cheap, processed foods that really exploded from the mid 20th century on--so diets have gotten worse as well as people getting more sedentary.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with the whole "mental" aspect of craving. The reward centers of the brain activate whether it's through social conditioning or chemical reactions that have evolved to occur as a survival mechanism. There's a reason why certain foods taste/smell "good/bad." I don't think handwaving our biology is something that can be done just because we can create things that make our biological urges less extreme. Hell, if we can't even stop trying to multiply, what makes you think we can stop craving high calorie foods? It's a constant battle like addiction.
I think it's just a mental craving as those foods tend to taste damn good. And obesity is skyrocketing as people keep eating those things even thought they're much less active than their parents or grand parents or great grandparents were--thus they get fatter than their ancestors as they spend more time on their behinds.
And of course there's just the easy availability of cheap, processed foods that really exploded from the mid 20th century on--so diets have gotten worse as well as people getting more sedentary.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with the whole "mental" aspect of craving. The reward centers of the brain activate whether it's through social conditioning or chemical reactions that have evolved to occur as a survival mechanism. There's a reason why certain foods taste/smell "good/bad." I don't think handwaving our biology is something that can be done just because we can create things that make our biological urges less extreme. Hell, if we can't even stop trying to multiply, what makes you think we can stop craving high calorie foods? It's a constant battle like addiction.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='panzerfaust']Cinder, no one is trying to tell someone to redefine their culture or personal beliefs. Just if you want to be healthier, then expect to take the proper steps. That's all that's being done here -- health advice. I'm sure if someone told dmaul that they enjoy being overweight, that it's part of their culture, their personal choices, they find it attractive, or that they need to be hefty so they can sumo -- he's not going to tell them they're wrong. It's just if you want to be healthy, there's really only a limited number of ways of achieving that (in the form of exercise and an improved diet).
And I think slim people with high cholesterol and such are much rarer. It happens, but with those cases I'd hardly call those people looking fit at all. It's like a skinny person with a belly that's obviously carrying sugary junk. It's just as bad as being overweight IMO, especially because every person I've met with that kind of body type thinks they are magically healthy merely because their stomach is smaller.
Really I'm curious about the metabolism thing. I hear it's a myth half the time, and then that it's the sole reason people can stay skinny. People always said that about me and I believed it (because I did like my pop and icecream, heh), but when I started counting my calories I realized I ate about a 1/3rd as much as everyone else.
today, as an example:
Breakfast - black coffee and a waffle
Lunch - couple tacos, ice tea w/sugar
Dinner - freezer bought fries, corn, fried chicken, ice tea w/sugar
maybe a handful of cheezits in between and a yogurt. i'll probably have a bowl of cereal and some fruit before i go to bed.
definitely satisfied, definitely not full, definitely too lazy to make more food. weighed the same for the past 6 years (amongst working out 3-4 days a week).[/QUOTE]
Except he thinks anybody taking govt funding should be forced to live healthy according to a very narrow definition of what healthy living is. But meh, whatever I am used to people thinking they own another person because they accept govt aid.
And I think slim people with high cholesterol and such are much rarer. It happens, but with those cases I'd hardly call those people looking fit at all. It's like a skinny person with a belly that's obviously carrying sugary junk. It's just as bad as being overweight IMO, especially because every person I've met with that kind of body type thinks they are magically healthy merely because their stomach is smaller.
Really I'm curious about the metabolism thing. I hear it's a myth half the time, and then that it's the sole reason people can stay skinny. People always said that about me and I believed it (because I did like my pop and icecream, heh), but when I started counting my calories I realized I ate about a 1/3rd as much as everyone else.
today, as an example:
Breakfast - black coffee and a waffle
Lunch - couple tacos, ice tea w/sugar
Dinner - freezer bought fries, corn, fried chicken, ice tea w/sugar
maybe a handful of cheezits in between and a yogurt. i'll probably have a bowl of cereal and some fruit before i go to bed.
definitely satisfied, definitely not full, definitely too lazy to make more food. weighed the same for the past 6 years (amongst working out 3-4 days a week).[/QUOTE]
Except he thinks anybody taking govt funding should be forced to live healthy according to a very narrow definition of what healthy living is. But meh, whatever I am used to people thinking they own another person because they accept govt aid.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='panzerfaust']Cinder, no one is trying to tell someone to redefine their culture or personal beliefs. Just if you want to be healthier, then expect to take the proper steps. That's all that's being done here -- health advice. I'm sure if someone told dmaul that they enjoy being overweight, that it's part of their culture, their personal choices, they find it attractive, or that they need to be hefty so they can sumo -- he's not going to tell them they're wrong. It's just if you want to be healthy, there's really only a limited number of ways of achieving that (in the form of exercise and an improved diet).
And I think slim people with high cholesterol and such are much rarer. It happens, but with those cases I'd hardly call those people looking fit at all. It's like a skinny person with a belly that's obviously carrying sugary junk. It's just as bad as being overweight IMO, especially because every person I've met with that kind of body type thinks they are magically healthy merely because their stomach is smaller.
Really I'm curious about the metabolism thing. I hear it's a myth half the time, and then that it's the sole reason people can stay skinny. People always said that about me and I believed it (because I did like my pop and icecream, heh), but when I started counting my calories I realized I ate about a 1/3rd as much as everyone else.
today, as an example:
Breakfast - black coffee and a waffle
Lunch - couple tacos, ice tea w/sugar
Dinner - freezer bought fries, corn, fried chicken, ice tea w/sugar
maybe a handful of cheezits in between and a yogurt. i'll probably have a bowl of cereal and some fruit before i go to bed.
definitely satisfied, definitely not full, definitely too lazy to make more food. weighed the same for the past 6 years (amongst working out 3-4 days a week).[/QUOTE]
Meh, just reacted to his mixing of issues more than anything. As you mentioned Sumo's are actually more healthy than many skinny people. Yet we only track health in fat people, or rather that is the only time it matters to most people.
And I think slim people with high cholesterol and such are much rarer. It happens, but with those cases I'd hardly call those people looking fit at all. It's like a skinny person with a belly that's obviously carrying sugary junk. It's just as bad as being overweight IMO, especially because every person I've met with that kind of body type thinks they are magically healthy merely because their stomach is smaller.
Really I'm curious about the metabolism thing. I hear it's a myth half the time, and then that it's the sole reason people can stay skinny. People always said that about me and I believed it (because I did like my pop and icecream, heh), but when I started counting my calories I realized I ate about a 1/3rd as much as everyone else.
today, as an example:
Breakfast - black coffee and a waffle
Lunch - couple tacos, ice tea w/sugar
Dinner - freezer bought fries, corn, fried chicken, ice tea w/sugar
maybe a handful of cheezits in between and a yogurt. i'll probably have a bowl of cereal and some fruit before i go to bed.
definitely satisfied, definitely not full, definitely too lazy to make more food. weighed the same for the past 6 years (amongst working out 3-4 days a week).[/QUOTE]
Meh, just reacted to his mixing of issues more than anything. As you mentioned Sumo's are actually more healthy than many skinny people. Yet we only track health in fat people, or rather that is the only time it matters to most people.
The typo in the topic title really bugs me. I came in here all prepared to launch into a diatribe about obscenity.
That said, I thought the suggestion that poor people could solve their food budget problems by starting victory gardens in their backyards (or closets, as the case may be) was about the funniest thing I read all day. Thanks for that.
That said, I thought the suggestion that poor people could solve their food budget problems by starting victory gardens in their backyards (or closets, as the case may be) was about the funniest thing I read all day. Thanks for that.
[quote name='dohdough']Considering your abhorence for paying for the current state of things from the last part of your post, wtf makes you think that you'd be ok with paying for a program that would maintain your suggestion from the first part of your post? Hell, wouldn't that administration cost MORE?[/QUOTE]
You should really pay more attention in this thread. We've already discussed how poor eating habits cost the government more when they have to then pay for health care on top of the poor diet. Thus, logically, it would cost less combined, even if one aspect costs more to maintain.
[quote name='dmaul1114']You're not looking at it the right way.
You have a budget of $X a month for food. A head of lettuce is $1 out of that.
Someone on food stamps has a budget of $X income and $X worth of food stamps each month to feed themselves. A head of lettuce is $1 out of that.
In either case it's a $1 out of each of your monthly food budgets--the fact that part of their budget is food stamps doesn't change that. Every item they buy is still part of the budget spent that thus can't be spent on other food items.[/quote]
Perhaps. But giving a discount on a head of lettuce is going to to do one of two things.
Either the head of lettuce is now $1.25. but $1 on food stamps - raising the price for those who are paying their own money, but still taking the same $1 out of the budget of those on food stamps (because the store isn't going to eat the discount) or,
A $0.75 of food stamps becomes worth $1 when used towards a head of lettuce. Which is simply increasing the food stamps budget (because the store is still going to want to be reimbursed their $1). I think this program would be overly complicated and would be better replaced by...
This.
[quote name='RedvsBlue']These restaurants have to be up front about their nutrition information. If someone wants to eat unhealthy when they have all the information, that's their choice to make I suppose but they should at least be given the tools to know what is healthy and what isn't healthy.[/QUOTE]
Ugh... While it sounds good in theory, the hell this would be for small mom-and-pop eateries would be painful. Instead of serving delicious, homemade coconut pie from Grandma's recipe, these places will switch to even more pre-processed, preserved foods so they don't have to worry about attempting to figure nutritional information and getting some crazy fine or lawsuit because they miscalculated by 5%...
[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.[/quote]
Yup - pretty much how it all still works. Great program and I'd wholly support a WIC-type replacement for the current Food Stamps-type programs we have now.
You should really pay more attention in this thread. We've already discussed how poor eating habits cost the government more when they have to then pay for health care on top of the poor diet. Thus, logically, it would cost less combined, even if one aspect costs more to maintain.
[quote name='dmaul1114']You're not looking at it the right way.
You have a budget of $X a month for food. A head of lettuce is $1 out of that.
Someone on food stamps has a budget of $X income and $X worth of food stamps each month to feed themselves. A head of lettuce is $1 out of that.
In either case it's a $1 out of each of your monthly food budgets--the fact that part of their budget is food stamps doesn't change that. Every item they buy is still part of the budget spent that thus can't be spent on other food items.[/quote]
Perhaps. But giving a discount on a head of lettuce is going to to do one of two things.
Either the head of lettuce is now $1.25. but $1 on food stamps - raising the price for those who are paying their own money, but still taking the same $1 out of the budget of those on food stamps (because the store isn't going to eat the discount) or,
A $0.75 of food stamps becomes worth $1 when used towards a head of lettuce. Which is simply increasing the food stamps budget (because the store is still going to want to be reimbursed their $1). I think this program would be overly complicated and would be better replaced by...
This.
[quote name='RedvsBlue']These restaurants have to be up front about their nutrition information. If someone wants to eat unhealthy when they have all the information, that's their choice to make I suppose but they should at least be given the tools to know what is healthy and what isn't healthy.[/QUOTE]
Ugh... While it sounds good in theory, the hell this would be for small mom-and-pop eateries would be painful. Instead of serving delicious, homemade coconut pie from Grandma's recipe, these places will switch to even more pre-processed, preserved foods so they don't have to worry about attempting to figure nutritional information and getting some crazy fine or lawsuit because they miscalculated by 5%...
[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.[/quote]
Yup - pretty much how it all still works. Great program and I'd wholly support a WIC-type replacement for the current Food Stamps-type programs we have now.
lordopus99
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']The whole metabolism thing being faster or slower is mostly a diet myth for the general public based mostly on their misinterpretation of what a metabolism is and how things are metabolized. Now there are physiological disorders that may cause you to metabolize things differently, like lymph node issues or side-effects from medication that can make someone fat, but most of the time, skinny people are far more active and eat less than they think and fatter people eat more and are less active than they may think.
Let's take Michael Phelps for example. When training, he has a 30,000 calorie diet and he looks like a bean pole. One could say that he has a "fast" metabolism, but that would be an incorrect assumption. The correct interpretation is that the metabolic process is constantly running due to his heavy physical activity. So knowing how hormonal balance is also important, one can tailor their diet and fitness regimen to be more condusive to maintaining a more constant metabolic process. This is why certain higher intensities of exercise and smaller meals spread out through the day work to prolong a heighten period of metabolic activity as opposed to just having a "fast" or "slow" metabolism, which to me, is akin to saying that all tall people are good at basketball.[/QUOTE]
My best friend and his mother growing up did no more exercise than I did. In fact, I did more as I played Basketball. He ate like a train and when we use to play video games together he would down that much more soda than I would. I gained weight, he was below weight. The difference... his genes as it relates to his metabolism.
Michael Phelps is far from a typical person. First off, most exercise plans come nowhere close to the high intensity work he does 6 hours per day, each day of the week. I wouldn't chalk to a fast or slow metabolism since he isn't resting. Basis of weight loss: Calories in, Calories out. Phelps kills those calories in his workout.
Let's take Michael Phelps for example. When training, he has a 30,000 calorie diet and he looks like a bean pole. One could say that he has a "fast" metabolism, but that would be an incorrect assumption. The correct interpretation is that the metabolic process is constantly running due to his heavy physical activity. So knowing how hormonal balance is also important, one can tailor their diet and fitness regimen to be more condusive to maintaining a more constant metabolic process. This is why certain higher intensities of exercise and smaller meals spread out through the day work to prolong a heighten period of metabolic activity as opposed to just having a "fast" or "slow" metabolism, which to me, is akin to saying that all tall people are good at basketball.[/QUOTE]
My best friend and his mother growing up did no more exercise than I did. In fact, I did more as I played Basketball. He ate like a train and when we use to play video games together he would down that much more soda than I would. I gained weight, he was below weight. The difference... his genes as it relates to his metabolism.
Michael Phelps is far from a typical person. First off, most exercise plans come nowhere close to the high intensity work he does 6 hours per day, each day of the week. I wouldn't chalk to a fast or slow metabolism since he isn't resting. Basis of weight loss: Calories in, Calories out. Phelps kills those calories in his workout.
There is a mental aspect to eating. Some people constantly go "oh I would love [insert food] here" and then they go get one. If there wasn't a mental aspect, everyone would be eating healthy no matter what. Also, there is another side to mental as well. Alot of people turn to food when a tragic event occurs for comfort.
Dude, the issue isn't people being able or unable to afford a deck. The issue at hand is that it is easy to do, even if you try barely take care of the plant. If the same bucket was on my kitchen counter, the result would likely be similar.
The whole thing about feeding yourself sustainably with one windowsill planter is true. However, that isn't the point. The point is you now have a couple of strawberries as a snack. The natural sugar gives you the mental satisfaction for your sweet craving, the lower caloric intake (vs ice cream or soda or candy or whatever) is helpful and best of all the cost is next to nothing.
It isn't about farming in your living room for
sake you moron. It's about taking a step in the direction of better holistic health. Now that the first step has been made, the next step could be more adventurous. Rooftop gardens in giant complexes? Now you can get into heavier plants (your gourd family and please don't take it the wrong way but watermelon and other fruits that weigh more than a few pounds...) and it will also lower building costs for the super since the sun heat/energy will be soaked up as opposed to beating down on the roof.
Does this solve everything? No. What it does is creates an enviroment, on a macro and micro level of society, where self sufficiency is in place on a small scale for the food issue. Maybe now we have kids wanting to eat grapes or oranges with their natural sugars as opposed to cookies and candy with their processed sugars and HFCS. Down the road instead of some giant "eat healthy you dumbshit" ad campaign, the norm will be to eat healthy and a treat will be just that.
Small steps leading towards a better world. I'm such an asshole!
The whole thing about feeding yourself sustainably with one windowsill planter is true. However, that isn't the point. The point is you now have a couple of strawberries as a snack. The natural sugar gives you the mental satisfaction for your sweet craving, the lower caloric intake (vs ice cream or soda or candy or whatever) is helpful and best of all the cost is next to nothing.
It isn't about farming in your living room for
sake you moron. It's about taking a step in the direction of better holistic health. Now that the first step has been made, the next step could be more adventurous. Rooftop gardens in giant complexes? Now you can get into heavier plants (your gourd family and please don't take it the wrong way but watermelon and other fruits that weigh more than a few pounds...) and it will also lower building costs for the super since the sun heat/energy will be soaked up as opposed to beating down on the roof.Does this solve everything? No. What it does is creates an enviroment, on a macro and micro level of society, where self sufficiency is in place on a small scale for the food issue. Maybe now we have kids wanting to eat grapes or oranges with their natural sugars as opposed to cookies and candy with their processed sugars and HFCS. Down the road instead of some giant "eat healthy you dumbshit" ad campaign, the norm will be to eat healthy and a treat will be just that.
Small steps leading towards a better world. I'm such an asshole!
[quote name='dohdough'] Hell, if we can't even stop trying to multiply, what makes you think we can stop craving high calorie foods? It's a constant battle like addiction.[/QUOTE]
Well, hell, I've never wanted kids, and there are foods I used to crave like deep fried foods etc. that I don't crave at all and haven't for years. Once I got into to staying in shape and learned more about nutrition, greasy high fat foods became pretty repulsive to me.
So I do think cravings can change.
But I'm not saying it's easy to change them. For me tt didn't/hasn't happened for everything as I do still crave beer and ice cream and some salty snacks like chips or peanuts etc (try to stick with almonds there). Was never much into chocolate and candy in general.
As for metabolism, you're right and wrong there. There are genetic factors that affect base metabolism levels--and not just things like thyroid problems etc. Some people naturally have more lean muscle mass etc. and have higher base metabolisms.
But you're 100% right that metabolism can be affected through exercise and diet. Again, every 10lbs of lean muscle= roughly 500 calories more burned per day at rest to maintain and not lose any muscle mass. And you're right that eating 5 or 6 smaller meals throughout the day than 3 big ones helps as well. The body can only make use of so many calories at one meal. So if you eat too much at once more of it is likely to get stored as fat as there's only so much that can get used for energy and maintaining current body weight.
A lot of people complain about not having time for that many meals--but it doesn't really mean adding to more full meals to your day. But eating smaller portions at breakfast, lunch and dinner and having 2 or 3 healthy snacks in between is enough to make a big difference in diet as it's easier to both not over eat and no be miserable by being hungry between meals. But of course what you are eating is still key as breaking up unhealthy meals into smaller doses (or eating too many total calories) isn't really going to do you any good.
But in any case, other than for people with disorders like thyroid problems etc., metabolism shouldn't be a crutch to fall back on and whine about not being able to lose weight. Yeah, they may be like Lord Opus and be annoyed that their friends don't put on weight eating even less healthy than them---and sure it sucks to be in that situation. But you can still lose weight--if you really want to--if you eat a proper diet and get some exercise. It may take more care in what you eat and more exercise than those of us who were lucky and naturally have higher metabolisms. But you'll get there eventually once you get the diet and exercise balance figured out.
Well, hell, I've never wanted kids, and there are foods I used to crave like deep fried foods etc. that I don't crave at all and haven't for years. Once I got into to staying in shape and learned more about nutrition, greasy high fat foods became pretty repulsive to me.
So I do think cravings can change.But I'm not saying it's easy to change them. For me tt didn't/hasn't happened for everything as I do still crave beer and ice cream and some salty snacks like chips or peanuts etc (try to stick with almonds there). Was never much into chocolate and candy in general.
As for metabolism, you're right and wrong there. There are genetic factors that affect base metabolism levels--and not just things like thyroid problems etc. Some people naturally have more lean muscle mass etc. and have higher base metabolisms.
But you're 100% right that metabolism can be affected through exercise and diet. Again, every 10lbs of lean muscle= roughly 500 calories more burned per day at rest to maintain and not lose any muscle mass. And you're right that eating 5 or 6 smaller meals throughout the day than 3 big ones helps as well. The body can only make use of so many calories at one meal. So if you eat too much at once more of it is likely to get stored as fat as there's only so much that can get used for energy and maintaining current body weight.
A lot of people complain about not having time for that many meals--but it doesn't really mean adding to more full meals to your day. But eating smaller portions at breakfast, lunch and dinner and having 2 or 3 healthy snacks in between is enough to make a big difference in diet as it's easier to both not over eat and no be miserable by being hungry between meals. But of course what you are eating is still key as breaking up unhealthy meals into smaller doses (or eating too many total calories) isn't really going to do you any good.
But in any case, other than for people with disorders like thyroid problems etc., metabolism shouldn't be a crutch to fall back on and whine about not being able to lose weight. Yeah, they may be like Lord Opus and be annoyed that their friends don't put on weight eating even less healthy than them---and sure it sucks to be in that situation. But you can still lose weight--if you really want to--if you eat a proper diet and get some exercise. It may take more care in what you eat and more exercise than those of us who were lucky and naturally have higher metabolisms. But you'll get there eventually once you get the diet and exercise balance figured out.
Last edited by a moderator:
[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.
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]
That's a great point. Culturally in the middle east and China it is a very big insult to not eat all of the food they put in front of you on the table, whether it's a restaurant or someone's home. In the middle east, the nice thing is that I've never had a meal that was unfinished, that was thrown out. They literally walk out the door and feed it to animals, or they'll put the dishes out on the sidewalk, hungry/poor people will finish the food, and nicely stack the dishes by the person's door.
As a parent with two young kids, it drives me absolutely insane to see how much food we throw away after they've gummed at it for 15 minutes and decided they didn't like it. At least the breads and things I'll throw in the backyard for birds/animals, but rice, noodles, meat, etc. Not crazy about the critters I'd attract if I start dumping that in the lawn.
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]
That's a great point. Culturally in the middle east and China it is a very big insult to not eat all of the food they put in front of you on the table, whether it's a restaurant or someone's home. In the middle east, the nice thing is that I've never had a meal that was unfinished, that was thrown out. They literally walk out the door and feed it to animals, or they'll put the dishes out on the sidewalk, hungry/poor people will finish the food, and nicely stack the dishes by the person's door.
As a parent with two young kids, it drives me absolutely insane to see how much food we throw away after they've gummed at it for 15 minutes and decided they didn't like it. At least the breads and things I'll throw in the backyard for birds/animals, but rice, noodles, meat, etc. Not crazy about the critters I'd attract if I start dumping that in the lawn.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
not to be off topic, but you should start composting that other excess food.
[quote name='perdition(troy']not to be off topic, but you should start composting that other excess food.[/QUOTE]
I've thought about it, but there's not a great spot in our yard for composting, and the stench in the summer would be a deterrant for me. I used to mulch yard clippings and debris growing up, but my parents place had a better spot to do that. Good suggestion though, completely agree. Composting is usually great.
I've thought about it, but there's not a great spot in our yard for composting, and the stench in the summer would be a deterrant for me. I used to mulch yard clippings and debris growing up, but my parents place had a better spot to do that. Good suggestion though, completely agree. Composting is usually great.
FTFA:
Dr. Mary Currier, Mississippi's state health officer, says her state has struggled to drop its No. 1 status and it has been challenging because much of the state is poor and rural.
"We live in an area of the country where eating is one of the things we do, and we eat a lot of fried foods," she said. "Trying to change that culture is pretty difficult."
--------------------------------
Wow, so people eat a lot of junk and get fat?
C'mon you live in a rural area, that means farms, how can you say that there isn't access to better food? For's sake IT'S RIGHT THERE! Damn you Lincoln, there is a reason why certain states should be allowed to secede from the Union...
Dr. Mary Currier, Mississippi's state health officer, says her state has struggled to drop its No. 1 status and it has been challenging because much of the state is poor and rural.
"We live in an area of the country where eating is one of the things we do, and we eat a lot of fried foods," she said. "Trying to change that culture is pretty difficult."
--------------------------------
Wow, so people eat a lot of junk and get fat?
C'mon you live in a rural area, that means farms, how can you say that there isn't access to better food? For
's sake IT'S RIGHT THERE! Damn you Lincoln, there is a reason why certain states should be allowed to secede from the Union...She didn't say there wasn't access to better foods. Just that there's a culture of eating and in the south it's heavily focused on fried foods, barbeque etc.
I can vouch for that, living in the south now after being in the north east prior to that. There are barbeque restaurants all over the place and things like fried green tomatoes on the menu everywhere, and many fewer health food restaurants etc.
And she's right that changing that kind of culture is a huge obstacle to public health and getting states like Mississippi to improve obesity rates rather than getting worse every year and staying at the top. Hence the topic of this thread. What can be done to break that kind of culture and get a larger percentage of people to take better care of themselves? Especially in the areas that are worst off on these measures?
I can vouch for that, living in the south now after being in the north east prior to that. There are barbeque restaurants all over the place and things like fried green tomatoes on the menu everywhere, and many fewer health food restaurants etc.
And she's right that changing that kind of culture is a huge obstacle to public health and getting states like Mississippi to improve obesity rates rather than getting worse every year and staying at the top. Hence the topic of this thread. What can be done to break that kind of culture and get a larger percentage of people to take better care of themselves? Especially in the areas that are worst off on these measures?
[quote name='62t']But it is not just culture, is it? Like the article said things has gotten a lot worst since 1995.[/QUOTE]
Oh of course it's not only culture in that sense. It's also lifestyles becoming more sedentary etc. and a host of other things.
But breaking the cultural attraction to unhealthy foods and lack of care about being healthy is a huge obstacle to get people to want to make a lifestyle change.
Oh of course it's not only culture in that sense. It's also lifestyles becoming more sedentary etc. and a host of other things.
But breaking the cultural attraction to unhealthy foods and lack of care about being healthy is a huge obstacle to get people to want to make a lifestyle change.
[quote name='dmaul1114']My point was that I think we're far enough past the hunting gathering stage where humans had to fatten up to survive the winters that I don't really buy the genetic craving for high fat food argument anymore.
I think it's just a mental craving as those foods tend to taste damn good. And obesity is skyrocketing as people keep eating those things even thought they're much less active than their parents or grand parents or great grandparents were--thus they get fatter than their ancestors as they spend more time on their behinds.
And of course there's just the easy availability of cheap, processed foods that really exploded from the mid 20th century on--so diets have gotten worse as well as people getting more sedentary.[/QUOTE]But why do you think those foods taste so damn good? It isn't coincidence that all of that tastes better to us then something like spinach for example. We evolved to crave and enjoy those foods, and we haven't really stopped. With enough willpower you can control it, but it's still there. We aren't as far removed from our more primitive ancestors as you think.
tldr: What doh said.:lol:
I think it's just a mental craving as those foods tend to taste damn good. And obesity is skyrocketing as people keep eating those things even thought they're much less active than their parents or grand parents or great grandparents were--thus they get fatter than their ancestors as they spend more time on their behinds.
And of course there's just the easy availability of cheap, processed foods that really exploded from the mid 20th century on--so diets have gotten worse as well as people getting more sedentary.[/QUOTE]But why do you think those foods taste so damn good? It isn't coincidence that all of that tastes better to us then something like spinach for example. We evolved to crave and enjoy those foods, and we haven't really stopped. With enough willpower you can control it, but it's still there. We aren't as far removed from our more primitive ancestors as you think.
tldr: What doh said.:lol:
bordjon
CAGiversary!
my wife's parents are both morbidly obese, well-off conservatives here in AL (just some demographic info there) and it isn't a pretty sight... My wife is very aware of their health problems and determined to not head down that path. I don't see them being able to ever make the lifestyle change necessary even though they know they need to. They eat out 2-3 meals A DAY. Lots of food at the house (a bit of hording). Stress eating appears to be a big problem for her mom. We've racked our brains for years for a solution and she's discussed the problem on various occasions with them but we have basically given up unfortunately... For many - they have to have the desire and will power - her mother has worked in health care her whole life and knows plenty about the dangers of obesity and how to change (healthy eating and exercise) but she doesn't have the will power to make the change. They don't have a support system that would support and facilitate the change either(we live 1.5 hrs away.)
My wife just got a discount our insurance at work because we don't smoke - maybe they need to do this across the board with obesity as well - make the obese pay huge premiums - money talks sometimes.
My wife just got a discount our insurance at work because we don't smoke - maybe they need to do this across the board with obesity as well - make the obese pay huge premiums - money talks sometimes.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']But why do you think those foods taste so damn good? It isn't coincidence that all of that tastes better to us then something like spinach for example. We evolved to crave and enjoy those foods, and we haven't really stopped. With enough willpower you can control it, but it's still there. We aren't as far removed from our more primitive ancestors as you think.
tldr: What doh said.:lol:[/QUOTE]
I dunno. I don't eat much refined sugar and on the occasion that I do eat a piece of store-bought cake the amount of sugar in it actually hurts my teeth.
I think some people are stuck in a cycle of craving fat, sugary and generally unhealthy foods, they are literally addicted to a high-caloric lifestyle. If you could break the cycle then these people would have a chance at becoming more healthy but I imagine it's hard to argue with a brain that's crashing because you didn't have your daily dose of XL coke and big macs, especially when you live in an enviornment that's as food toxic as modern America.
tldr: What doh said.:lol:[/QUOTE]
I dunno. I don't eat much refined sugar and on the occasion that I do eat a piece of store-bought cake the amount of sugar in it actually hurts my teeth.
I think some people are stuck in a cycle of craving fat, sugary and generally unhealthy foods, they are literally addicted to a high-caloric lifestyle. If you could break the cycle then these people would have a chance at becoming more healthy but I imagine it's hard to argue with a brain that's crashing because you didn't have your daily dose of XL coke and big macs, especially when you live in an enviornment that's as food toxic as modern America.
Digital Phoenix
Banned
Make fun of them for being the fat pigs they are until they stop being so fat. But that will probably just force them to binge eat.
Have you guys ever noticed that it's obligatory for every fat person to be funny because they have nothing else going for them?
Have you guys ever noticed that it's obligatory for every fat person to be funny because they have nothing else going for them?
[quote name='camoor']I dunno. I don't eat much refined sugar and on the occasion that I do eat a piece of store-bought cake the amount of sugar in it actually hurts my teeth.
I think some people are stuck in a cycle of craving fat, sugary and generally unhealthy foods, they are literally addicted to a high-caloric lifestyle. If you could break the cycle then these people would have a chance at becoming more healthy but I imagine it's hard to argue with a brain that's crashing because you didn't have your daily dose of XL coke and big macs, especially when you live in an enviornment that's as food toxic as modern America.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, as I said earlier I don't much crave sweets or fatty fried foods myself. I do crave salty things like chips and peanuts sometimes, and just try to solve that with some less unhealthy options like wasabi peas or wasabi and soy sauce Blue Diamond almonds etc. Or reduced fat cheez its.
One can still have some unhealthy food, but those should be "cheat" meals here and there while eating healthy most of the time. And one can at least reduce harm from some bad snacks by going for reduced fat versions etc.
Carrots and hummus are my go to snack lately.
I think some people are stuck in a cycle of craving fat, sugary and generally unhealthy foods, they are literally addicted to a high-caloric lifestyle. If you could break the cycle then these people would have a chance at becoming more healthy but I imagine it's hard to argue with a brain that's crashing because you didn't have your daily dose of XL coke and big macs, especially when you live in an enviornment that's as food toxic as modern America.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, as I said earlier I don't much crave sweets or fatty fried foods myself. I do crave salty things like chips and peanuts sometimes, and just try to solve that with some less unhealthy options like wasabi peas or wasabi and soy sauce Blue Diamond almonds etc. Or reduced fat cheez its.
One can still have some unhealthy food, but those should be "cheat" meals here and there while eating healthy most of the time. And one can at least reduce harm from some bad snacks by going for reduced fat versions etc.
Carrots and hummus are my go to snack lately.
I crave sugar after meals. I definitely have a sweet tooth and if I'm not careful, one piece of candy can easily turn into much more. Halloween is dangerous for me - I can get derailed from my workout routine if I am not careful. Luckily, I crave being thin and in shape more than I crave sugar though so I do what it takes. I definitely think it is an addiction for a lot of people though and a hard habit to break.
[quote name='Digital Phoenix']Have you guys ever noticed that it's obligatory for every fat person to be funny because they have nothing else going for them?[/QUOTE]
You must be one skinny...
If you don't think Spinach tastes good, you're doing it wrong. If raw just wash it, let it dry, and put some light vinegarette on there and all is well. When cooked a dash of salt will bring out so many of the subtleties. It's ridiculously good stuff and has more nutritional value than your regular iceberg lettuce and probably more than romaine as well. Get it on your next Subway instead of lettuce and learn the magic.
You must be one skinny
...If you don't think Spinach tastes good, you're doing it wrong. If raw just wash it, let it dry, and put some light vinegarette on there and all is well. When cooked a dash of salt will bring out so many of the subtleties. It's ridiculously good stuff and has more nutritional value than your regular iceberg lettuce and probably more than romaine as well. Get it on your next Subway instead of lettuce and learn the magic.
[quote name='camoor']I dunno. I don't eat much refined sugar and on the occasion that I do eat a piece of store-bought cake the amount of sugar in it actually hurts my teeth.
I think some people are stuck in a cycle of craving fat, sugary and generally unhealthy foods, they are literally addicted to a high-caloric lifestyle. If you could break the cycle then these people would have a chance at becoming more healthy but I imagine it's hard to argue with a brain that's crashing because you didn't have your daily dose of XL coke and big macs, especially when you live in an enviornment that's as food toxic as modern America.[/QUOTE]
Well obviously everyone is different, I just want to make it clear that while civilization can evolve relatively quickly, we don't. Like I said, we're basically flipped upside down from what we've evolved for. Craving high calories food like fatty meats once helped our ancestors to survive, now it gives some of us heart disease. And of course not all of us crave that stuff, I don't most of the time either.
Honestly those with high metabolisms and low body fat would have starved to death before people more agrarian and started settling down without having to always hunt and forage for food. I'm not using any of this as an excuse, it's just that the problem of obesity is a complicated one and goes back much further than most people think.
I think some people are stuck in a cycle of craving fat, sugary and generally unhealthy foods, they are literally addicted to a high-caloric lifestyle. If you could break the cycle then these people would have a chance at becoming more healthy but I imagine it's hard to argue with a brain that's crashing because you didn't have your daily dose of XL coke and big macs, especially when you live in an enviornment that's as food toxic as modern America.[/QUOTE]
Well obviously everyone is different, I just want to make it clear that while civilization can evolve relatively quickly, we don't. Like I said, we're basically flipped upside down from what we've evolved for. Craving high calories food like fatty meats once helped our ancestors to survive, now it gives some of us heart disease. And of course not all of us crave that stuff, I don't most of the time either.
Honestly those with high metabolisms and low body fat would have starved to death before people more agrarian and started settling down without having to always hunt and forage for food. I'm not using any of this as an excuse, it's just that the problem of obesity is a complicated one and goes back much further than most people think.
[quote name='Clak']
Honestly those with high metabolisms and low body fat would have starved to death before people more agrarian and started settling down without having to always hunt and forage for food. I'm not using any of this as an excuse, it's just that the problem of obesity is a complicated one and goes back much further than most people think.[/QUOTE]
I do agree that's true to some extent, but it's not a major cause of the current epidemic.
Look at the article I linked and see how much obesity has increased since the mid 1990s until today. You can't explain the increase over that period through genetic cravings that date back to human's origins as hunters and gatherers etc. as that's a very long term change.
There's some shorter term change in society that's caused obesity rates to skyrocket over the last 20 years in particular.
Honestly those with high metabolisms and low body fat would have starved to death before people more agrarian and started settling down without having to always hunt and forage for food. I'm not using any of this as an excuse, it's just that the problem of obesity is a complicated one and goes back much further than most people think.[/QUOTE]
I do agree that's true to some extent, but it's not a major cause of the current epidemic.
Look at the article I linked and see how much obesity has increased since the mid 1990s until today. You can't explain the increase over that period through genetic cravings that date back to human's origins as hunters and gatherers etc. as that's a very long term change.
There's some shorter term change in society that's caused obesity rates to skyrocket over the last 20 years in particular.
Well yeah, we're more sedentary than ever, we have easier access to foods which are bad for us. That's my point though, we're living in the world we are, with cravings designed for a time when we had to work for our food. So the easier it is to get that food, the more our own bodies are basically damming us. Look at the Amish for example, they don't eat what most people would consider extremely healthy foods. I doubt they worry about using healthier cooking oil (or not any at all) and the sort, but you don't see a lot of fat Amish people because they have to work a lot harder than most of us.
Basically what I'm saying is that we don't live in the way our bodies evolved to. So that means we can't eat the way we once would have, yet our tastes haven't really changed much. See the problem I'm talking about?
Basically what I'm saying is that we don't live in the way our bodies evolved to. So that means we can't eat the way we once would have, yet our tastes haven't really changed much. See the problem I'm talking about?
lordopus99
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Just stating...
McDonalds founded in 1955
Burger King founded in 1953
Wendys founded in 1969
Taco Bell founded in 1962
KFC founded in 1930
Carl Jr/Hardees founded in 1941
the "EPIDEMIC" ( :lol: ) started in 1990... Fast food can't be the scapegoat as they had been doing for 30+ years prior.
Sugar Drinks
Coca-Cola introduced 1886
Pepsi introduced 1898
Mountain Dew introduced 1948
Sprite introduced 1961
Sweet Tea a staple in Southern homes at the turn of the 1900s.
Again, can't be a scapegoat to the current "EPIDEMIC" ( :lol: ).
The only difference is the portion size. The rest is completely unrelated to the food as it was dated prior to the "EPIDEMIC" ( :lol: )
McDonalds founded in 1955
Burger King founded in 1953
Wendys founded in 1969
Taco Bell founded in 1962
KFC founded in 1930
Carl Jr/Hardees founded in 1941
the "EPIDEMIC" ( :lol: ) started in 1990... Fast food can't be the scapegoat as they had been doing for 30+ years prior.
Sugar Drinks
Coca-Cola introduced 1886
Pepsi introduced 1898
Mountain Dew introduced 1948
Sprite introduced 1961
Sweet Tea a staple in Southern homes at the turn of the 1900s.
Again, can't be a scapegoat to the current "EPIDEMIC" ( :lol: ).
The only difference is the portion size. The rest is completely unrelated to the food as it was dated prior to the "EPIDEMIC" ( :lol: )
[quote name='bordjon']My wife just got a discount our insurance at work because we don't smoke - maybe they need to do this across the board with obesity as well - make the obese pay huge premiums - money talks sometimes.[/QUOTE]
I think if anything was going to get my dad to be serious about losing weight, it'd be hitting him in his wallet.
[quote name='lordopus99']The only difference is the portion size. The rest is completely unrelated to the food as it was dated prior to the "EPIDEMIC" ( :lol: )[/QUOTE]
When it started isn't an entirely accurate way of measuring this. Sure, McDonald's started in 1955, but how long was it before they became a national chain with a restaurant within walking distance of nearly every neighborhood? Just because obesity didn't become a problem in the 1950's doesn't mean fast food hasn't played a part.
I think if anything was going to get my dad to be serious about losing weight, it'd be hitting him in his wallet.
[quote name='lordopus99']The only difference is the portion size. The rest is completely unrelated to the food as it was dated prior to the "EPIDEMIC" ( :lol: )[/QUOTE]
When it started isn't an entirely accurate way of measuring this. Sure, McDonald's started in 1955, but how long was it before they became a national chain with a restaurant within walking distance of nearly every neighborhood? Just because obesity didn't become a problem in the 1950's doesn't mean fast food hasn't played a part.
[quote name='Clak']Basically what I'm saying is that we don't live in the way our bodies evolved to. So that means we can't eat the way we once would have, yet our tastes haven't really changed much. See the problem I'm talking about?[/QUOTE]
I do.
But in any case, the biggest part of the problem is the bulk of people are just useless and lack willpower to do what it takes to live positive and productive lives. Be it eating healthy and exercising or working hard and having a successful career or whatever.
People today are just lazy and just want to do whatever they want (and eat/drink whatever they want) and lack the willpower and work ethic needed to lead healthy and/or successful lives.
We can ramble on about genetics, proliferation of fast food, switching from sugar to HFCS in nearly everything etc. being culprits. But at the end of the day everyone can choose to eat healthier than they currently are (I'm not saying eat perfect diets and become gym rats, just that everyone can easily make small improvements at the least) and get more exercise they they currently are, most just don't give a shit.
I do.
But in any case, the biggest part of the problem is the bulk of people are just useless and lack willpower to do what it takes to live positive and productive lives. Be it eating healthy and exercising or working hard and having a successful career or whatever.
People today are just lazy and just want to do whatever they want (and eat/drink whatever they want) and lack the willpower and work ethic needed to lead healthy and/or successful lives.
We can ramble on about genetics, proliferation of fast food, switching from sugar to HFCS in nearly everything etc. being culprits. But at the end of the day everyone can choose to eat healthier than they currently are (I'm not saying eat perfect diets and become gym rats, just that everyone can easily make small improvements at the least) and get more exercise they they currently are, most just don't give a shit.
[quote name='dmaul1114']I do.
But in any case, the biggest part of the problem is the bulk of people are just useless and lack willpower to do what it takes to live positive and productive lives. Be it eating healthy and exercising or working hard and having a successful career or whatever.
People today are just lazy and just want to do whatever they want (and eat/drink whatever they want) and lack the willpower and work ethic needed to lead healthy and/or successful lives.
We can ramble on about genetics, proliferation of fast food, switching from sugar to HFCS in nearly everything etc. being culprits. But at the end of the day everyone can choose to eat healthier than they currently are (I'm not saying eat perfect diets and become gym rats, just that everyone can easily make small improvements at the least) and get more exercise they they currently are, most just don't give a shit.[/QUOTE]
The thing is, you're both right. Our bodies haven't evolved past the point of being able to metabolize the excess calories of our adjusting diets into something other than fat and we don't all have the ability to out-think our addictions. I'm as huge a believer in nuture over nature as anyone, but when you have the sciences of psychology, sociology, and biology(in the form of marketing) working to overcome that part of your brain to say "no," it isn't quite as easy as simply having the willpower.
But in any case, the biggest part of the problem is the bulk of people are just useless and lack willpower to do what it takes to live positive and productive lives. Be it eating healthy and exercising or working hard and having a successful career or whatever.
People today are just lazy and just want to do whatever they want (and eat/drink whatever they want) and lack the willpower and work ethic needed to lead healthy and/or successful lives.
We can ramble on about genetics, proliferation of fast food, switching from sugar to HFCS in nearly everything etc. being culprits. But at the end of the day everyone can choose to eat healthier than they currently are (I'm not saying eat perfect diets and become gym rats, just that everyone can easily make small improvements at the least) and get more exercise they they currently are, most just don't give a shit.[/QUOTE]
The thing is, you're both right. Our bodies haven't evolved past the point of being able to metabolize the excess calories of our adjusting diets into something other than fat and we don't all have the ability to out-think our addictions. I'm as huge a believer in nuture over nature as anyone, but when you have the sciences of psychology, sociology, and biology(in the form of marketing) working to overcome that part of your brain to say "no," it isn't quite as easy as simply having the willpower.
And the thing is, you'd have to be a hermit living in a cave to escape all the advertising we're bombarded with on a daily basis. I've been trying to eat better lately, and slowly am, although my problem is a lack of motivation to exercise. I don't really think I have that bad a diet, but I'm just not one to go out and run like some are. I don't want to join a gym because I don't trust myself enough to make use of it, and exercising outside in 80-90 degree heat and the sun just sucks.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
it is tough to get started, since the reward and satisfaction doesn't come all that quickly -- it's not like all in-shape people are on top of other aspects in their life that require motivation.
get a bomb playlist to listen to, stop drinking pop (except dr.pepper because it's irresistible), and runnnnnnnnnnn. embrace the heat. having some sort of role model to push you through it is also helpful (can be fictional). if i get lazy i watch some bruce lee videos which generally get me in the mood to resume working out.
get a bomb playlist to listen to, stop drinking pop (except dr.pepper because it's irresistible), and runnnnnnnnnnn. embrace the heat. having some sort of role model to push you through it is also helpful (can be fictional). if i get lazy i watch some bruce lee videos which generally get me in the mood to resume working out.
sdclippers
CAGiversary!
Eh sounds like too much work. I'll just play some video games.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']I do.
But in any case, the biggest part of the problem is the bulk of people are just useless and lack willpower to do what it takes to live positive and productive lives. Be it eating healthy and exercising or working hard and having a successful career or whatever.
People today are just lazy and just want to do whatever they want (and eat/drink whatever they want) and lack the willpower and work ethic needed to lead healthy and/or successful lives.
We can ramble on about genetics, proliferation of fast food, switching from sugar to HFCS in nearly everything etc. being culprits. But at the end of the day everyone can choose to eat healthier than they currently are (I'm not saying eat perfect diets and become gym rats, just that everyone can easily make small improvements at the least) and get more exercise they they currently are, most just don't give a shit.[/QUOTE]
I'm coming to the conclusion that people are the same in any time. It's not that people born into the Wild West were tough hombres who would never get morbidly obese, it's that they had no opportunity to sit around in an air-conditioned McDonalds all day and ask folks if they wanted fries with that.
I also think much of fast food is to blame. It is not nutritional - it's more of a trick on your salivary and digestive system then an actual meal.
This clip says it better then I ever could:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlIaown6Wpw&feature=related
But in any case, the biggest part of the problem is the bulk of people are just useless and lack willpower to do what it takes to live positive and productive lives. Be it eating healthy and exercising or working hard and having a successful career or whatever.
People today are just lazy and just want to do whatever they want (and eat/drink whatever they want) and lack the willpower and work ethic needed to lead healthy and/or successful lives.
We can ramble on about genetics, proliferation of fast food, switching from sugar to HFCS in nearly everything etc. being culprits. But at the end of the day everyone can choose to eat healthier than they currently are (I'm not saying eat perfect diets and become gym rats, just that everyone can easily make small improvements at the least) and get more exercise they they currently are, most just don't give a shit.[/QUOTE]
I'm coming to the conclusion that people are the same in any time. It's not that people born into the Wild West were tough hombres who would never get morbidly obese, it's that they had no opportunity to sit around in an air-conditioned McDonalds all day and ask folks if they wanted fries with that.
I also think much of fast food is to blame. It is not nutritional - it's more of a trick on your salivary and digestive system then an actual meal.
This clip says it better then I ever could:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlIaown6Wpw&feature=related
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']And the thing is, you'd have to be a hermit living in a cave to escape all the advertising we're bombarded with on a daily basis. I've been trying to eat better lately, and slowly am, although my problem is a lack of motivation to exercise. I don't really think I have that bad a diet, but I'm just not one to go out and run like some are. I don't want to join a gym because I don't trust myself enough to make use of it, and exercising outside in 80-90 degree heat and the sun just sucks.[/QUOTE]
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
i have the occasional McChicken after a workout. protein bomb for $1? sure
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='panzerfaust']i have the occasional McChicken after a workout. protein bomb for $1? sure[/QUOTE]
Diet affects your weight way way more then exercise. Just letting you know.
Diet affects your weight way way more then exercise. Just letting you know.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Diet affects your weight way way more then exercise. Just letting you know.[/QUOTE]
i'm trying to gain weight, so i definitely know this
i'm trying to gain weight, so i definitely know this
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']....maybe I'll just buy some weights.[/QUOTE]
Yeah if you have the room. Otherwise weights are a pain in the ass to store.
Resistance bands may not win you any cool points, but they're hella portable and you can get strong using them.
[/QUOTE]Yeah if you have the room. Otherwise weights are a pain in the ass to store.
Resistance bands may not win you any cool points, but they're hella portable and you can get strong using them.
[quote name='Clak']Yeah I've thought about getting some ankle weights just to wear around for the resistance. Some simple hand weights for the arms. Not talking some big set, I don't have the room for that or the wii fitness games.[/QUOTE]
Allow me to introduce you to: http://hundredpushups.com/
I started on week 3 cause I could do 35 and kinda half assed it for another 3 weeks, but have been doing the workout every other day(which is what you're supposed to do). Now I'm starting week 6 and I can do 60+ straight. The great thing is that you'll notice progress every week in terms of strength and build too.
Because of the muscles used for push ups, I recommend supplementing them with curls and lateral pulls. You can do those with bands as well.
Allow me to introduce you to: http://hundredpushups.com/
I started on week 3 cause I could do 35 and kinda half assed it for another 3 weeks, but have been doing the workout every other day(which is what you're supposed to do). Now I'm starting week 6 and I can do 60+ straight. The great thing is that you'll notice progress every week in terms of strength and build too.
Because of the muscles used for push ups, I recommend supplementing them with curls and lateral pulls. You can do those with bands as well.
bread's done