Obesity

[quote name='Clak']Did you guys know that HOAs can actually foreclose on a home? That's with no involvement from any bank or anything, they can foreclose if fees go unpaid. Also keep in mind that if they feel the need, HOAs can tack on extra fees to pay for various things, and it could be thousands depending on the project.[/QUOTE]
They can also put you in jail for letting your lawn die.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']This coming from the guy calling pretty much everyone "conforming Nazis"... nice comment bro, it really shows your age :roll:[/QUOTE]

No.

I said if you want to live in a neighborhood with a "board of conformity nazis". Similar to the way people flippantly use the term "grammar nazi". The only person I would seriously call a nazi would be someone who was actually a nazi.

At the end of the day I honestly don't care that much about cities vs HOAs. I just think America has a problem when in the midst of a recession, inability to pay debts, looming energy issues, and obesity health crisis, we allow folks to prosecute those who tend nice neat GREEN gardens in their front yard. For all the lip service paid to the green economy, people don't understand it too well.

But you're not going to understand any of this, are you? Please don't rehash HOAs giving fines for safety violations or health hazards. We've been over this, we really really have. If you have to reply then surprise me. Please.
 
I don't know why anyone would want to live in a neighborhood with a HOA. My yard is a mix of grass and weeds, and I don't care to be anal over my lawn like my neighbors. It's not worth my time, nor is it a good use of water imo.
 
[quote name='camoor']I guess I feel that if you want to live in a community that has a board of conformity Nazis then you should have the option, but there should also be a place for people who want to just do what they want with their property, within reason. It's gotta be safe, it can't violate health codes, and it's got to be neat, but beyond that why is it anyone's business but your own.[/QUOTE]

I like this.
 
I do like some of the ways that people get back at their HOAs though, some people get incredibly creative. usually makes for a funny story at least.
 
[quote name='camoor']At the end of the day I honestly don't care that much about cities vs HOAs. I just think America has a problem when in the midst of a recession, inability to pay debts, looming energy issues, and obesity health crisis, we allow folks to prosecute those who tend nice neat GREEN gardens in their front yard. For all the lip service paid to the green economy, people don't understand it too well. [/QUOTE]

Since I haven't posted on this exact issue...

Look at the picture. She killed the grass not only where she put her garden, she also let the grass near the street go dead. Beyond that, how she did her garden is a complete eye sore. Giant ass boxes in the front yard; some practically on the neighbor's line. Let's get real. She most likely got about 3 notices to tear it down, probably was even fined by her HOA prior to them having her arrested. She had plenty of opportunity to stay out of jail. Plain and simple: If she was so against it, either up and move or move it to your backyard. I don't feel sorry for the ignorant.

[quote name='perdition(troy']I don't know why anyone would want to live in a neighborhood with a HOA[/quote]
I don't know why someone wouldn't. With HOAs normally comes nice amenties i.e. a pool, playground, nice entrance, in case of townhome maintenance. Most HOAs are very reasonable. They basically go like this...
- front lawn/side lawn - keep up, no eye sores, no tacky decorations
- back lawn - no kennels, potentially sheds and these are the type of fencing we prefer you choose
- no illegal activity
- no mult families in house
- let us know when you do major construction
That's about it. It's not like Apartments and Condos don't have similiar stuff.
 
My house = my property, I don't need to have my neighbors tell me what to do with it.

If I want to throw a shed up in my backyard, I'm going to throw a shed up. If I want to put a fence up, I'll put my choice of fence up. If I wanted someone to stand over my shoulder and tell me what to do all the time, I'd move back in with my parents or rent.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']My house = my property, I don't need to have my neighbors tell me what to do with it.

If I want to throw a shed up in my backyard, I'm going to throw a shed up. If I want to put a fence up, I'll put my choice of fence up. If I wanted someone to stand over my shoulder and tell me what to do all the time, I'd move back in with my parents or rent.[/QUOTE]

So you are totally cool with someone posting a real picture of a giant penis in the yard across the street from you?
 
[quote name='lordopus99']So you are totally cool with someone posting a real picture of a giant penis in the yard across the street from you?[/QUOTE]

When you say "real picture of a giant penis", do you mean a normal picture featuring a penis of above-average size, or an enlarged photo featuring an average-sized penis?
 
Right, but having your own active volcano display in the front yard isn't safe and shouldn't be there. There's a certain element of public safety that needs to be considered. However, painting your house lime green should be fine if you so desire.

That Bell Curve book:
Interesting graph on the wiki page showing mothers with IQs less than 75 tend to have illegitimate children. I see that and it's like that family tree they were showing in Idiocracy where the smart and well to do couple waited until they were financially ready for children (though sadly incapable at that time) while the dumb people had multiple generations by that time.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']
Either way, I was more or less trying to allude to the assumption that you were more or less ascribing the entire thing to people changing their habits. IDK I feel as if a big part of those that say it is simple are overlooking the fact that eating habits can form from both things like laziness and learned habits from parents/friends but that a sizable percentage may be attributed to other things.
[/quote]

Like I've said, all that stuff affects eating habits one currently has and can make it more difficulty to change. The playing field is never level. But that said, it's still up to the individual to make a decision to get healthy and start eating better and getting some exercise etc.

Environmental factors matter, but at the end of the day humans possess agency and can choose to change. But of course that's always easier than some than others for various reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that everyone can decide to change.

Other than kids, eating better and getting exercise is something we have control over, and thus is changeable. And it's not something that necessarily costs more as lots of unhealthy foods people are eating like chips and ice cream and pizza etc. cost as much, or more than thins like fruits and vegetables.

Last time I checked most obese people (2/3 if I remember right) were below the poverty line, and at this level there are many things that, as you said, play into it.
Click to expand...

It's no where near that high anymore. Obesity rates have grown faster in the middle and upper classes than in the lower class in recent years so that gap has shrunk. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head though.

IDK, most of time I just attribute people who generally take the "it's all self control" route as people who generally are willing to turn a blind eye to shit normally.
Click to expand...

Well, if you read my other post (the 2nd wall of text :p) you'll see I don't hold that view. But rather just think self control is a part of explaining crime or obesity. All this other stuff matters for sure though, and should be taken into account in terms of societal responses that aim to reduce crime rates or obesity rates.

But at the end of the day, when dealing with one individual's case of obesity (or criminality) it's really up to them to decide to change and have the willpower to stick to it. You can't change someone who doesn't want to change.

And for obesity, everyone can decide to eat healthier and get some exercise. Everyone can spend the $3 they were spending on a bag of chips and buy a bag of baby carrots or a few apples etc. Everyone can by whole wheat bread instead of white bread. Everyone can decide to go for a walk more often, to take the stairs instead of the elevator etc.

You don't have to eat a perfect diet full of pricey meats, salmon etc. and have a gym membership to beat obesity. You just have to eat reasonably and get some exercise. That will make a big improvement in someone who's eating terribly and seldom getting any exercise beyond walking to and from the car currently.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Since I haven't posted on this exact issue...

Look at the picture. She killed the grass not only where she put her garden, she also let the grass near the street go dead. Beyond that, how she did her garden is a complete eye sore. Giant ass boxes in the front yard; some practically on the neighbor's line. Let's get real. She most likely got about 3 notices to tear it down, probably was even fined by her HOA prior to them having her arrested. She had plenty of opportunity to stay out of jail. Plain and simple: If she was so against it, either up and move or move it to your backyard. I don't feel sorry for the ignorant.


I don't know why someone wouldn't. With HOAs normally comes nice amenties i.e. a pool, playground, nice entrance, in case of townhome maintenance. Most HOAs are very reasonable. They basically go like this...
- front lawn/side lawn - keep up, no eye sores, no tacky decorations
- back lawn - no kennels, potentially sheds and these are the type of fencing we prefer you choose
- no illegal activity
- no mult families in house
- let us know when you do major construction
That's about it. It's not like Apartments and Condos don't have similiar stuff.[/QUOTE]

I don't think she was part of a HOA, that's part of the problem. I don't have issues with HOA's, since you knowingly buy into that, but the city regs are ridiculous. I would have a problem with a "group" telling me what I can and can't do with my property if I owned the place, I think if you rent, then it's a totally different story.
 
Dude, we're talking about HOAs now, get with it.:lol:

Seriously, how does this shit always happen...
 
[quote name='Clak']Did you guys know that HOAs can actually foreclose on a home? That's with no involvement from any bank or anything, they can foreclose if fees go unpaid. Also keep in mind that if they feel the need, HOAs can tack on extra fees to pay for various things, and it could be thousands depending on the project.[/QUOTE]

Yep.

I have no problem with it personally. You know what you're signing up for if you choose to live in those places. And if you can't pay your debts, of course they can come after your property.

The extra fees are usually for repairs to public things like the pools etc. (or roofs etc. if it's a condo place) and owners can go to HOA meetings and lobby for or against them etc.

[quote name='perdition(troy']I don't know why anyone would want to live in a neighborhood with a HOA. My yard is a mix of grass and weeds, and I don't care to be anal over my lawn like my neighbors. It's not worth my time, nor is it a good use of water imo.[/QUOTE]

I do mostly agree with that. I'm a condo dweller (though I'm renting one rather than owning one currently) and don't mind the HOA and fees in Condos as I like not having a yard or exterior of a home to worry about maintaining.

But if I have a house and have to screw with the yard and outside myself, I really wouldn't want to deal with an HOA and restrictions in that case. So if I every decide to buy a house rather than a condo I'd want one where I owned the land and didn't have an HOA to deal with.

Not sure I'll bother though as I don't need the space of a house since I don't want kids, and I wouldn't save much on condo fees since I'd be paying someone to do the yardwork and any needed repairs anyway as I don't fuck with that kind of stuff myself anymore.

Plus I just like living in a nice part of the city where I can walk to tons of bars and restaurants and art galleries etc. and you generally can't live in a house and have that anyway.

[quote name='lordopus99']
I don't know why someone wouldn't. With HOAs normally comes nice amenties i.e. a pool, playground, nice entrance, in case of townhome maintenance. Most HOAs are very reasonable. They basically go like this...
- front lawn/side lawn - keep up, no eye sores, no tacky decorations
- back lawn - no kennels, potentially sheds and these are the type of fencing we prefer you choose
- no illegal activity
- no mult families in house
- let us know when you do major construction
That's about it. It's not like Apartments and Condos don't have similiar stuff.[/QUOTE]


Well the public amenities are nice if people care about having a pool, play ground etc. I don't use any of that kind of stuff so I don't like paying for it.

The rest of the stuff you're just being overly optimistic. There's plenty of crime in developments that have HOAs, plenty of houses with multiple families etc. There's only so much they can do to detect and enforce that stuff.

And besides that, even in a non-HOA area residents can call the cops for all that kind of stuff. Even the stuff like kennels etc., if there aren't municipal codes against them, the barking probably would violate noise ordinances and you could get the police to deal with it that way.

Eyesores etc., I don't care about. There will be county/city ordinances against anything that's dilapidated to the point of danger, obscene (see below) etc.

[quote name='lordopus99']So you are totally cool with someone posting a real picture of a giant penis in the yard across the street from you?[/QUOTE]

City/county ordinances would cover obscene displays like that most likely. So no need for an HOA to prevent that kind of stuff.
 
[quote name='docvinh']I don't think she was part of a HOA, that's part of the problem. I don't have issues with HOA's, since you knowingly buy into that, but the city regs are ridiculous. I would have a problem with a "group" telling me what I can and can't do with my property if I owned the place, I think if you rent, then it's a totally different story.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, in this case it was a city ordinances which is where the objections came from.

HOAs only came up as several of us said we were ok with these kind of restrictions as people knowingly buy into HOA communities and can more easily work to change policies there than they can local laws etc.
 
The problem is that restaurants can offer healthy kids meals all they want, but the kids don't want them and parents don't want to deal with the kids being naughty. It's a bi-product of our ever growing lazy society.
 
Of course. But at least the options will be there for parents who do force their kids to eat healthy. Not much you can do on that front at a lot of restaurants now as kids meals tend to just be things like burgers and chicken fingers.
 
saw this on google news today. figured its an interesting topic.

Should Parents Lose Custody of Extremely Obese Kids?
Parents, in some cases, should lose custody of their severely obese children, argued Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity expert at Children's Hospital Boston, in an opinion piece that ran in the Journal of the American Medical Association Wednesday.

"State intervention may serve the best interests of many children with life-threatening obesity, comprising the only realistic way to control harmful behaviors," Ludwig said in the editorial, which he co-wrote with Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health.
Click to expand...
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/parents-lose-custody-obesity-children/story?id=14062898

i know at the beginning of the thread i said that you can't force people to eat healthy, they should be able to choose what they want, even if its terrible for you. i still stand by that. but things get murky here.

i mean, obviously an adult should be able to eat what they choose. but when does a parents meal choice for a child cross the line into negligence? i dont know.
 
Yeah, that's a very tough issue. Parents should be responsible for their kids health for sure.

We're ok with taking kids away from parents who neglect them by not feeding them enough and leading to malnourishment.

Is it really that different to do the same for those who neglect them by feeding them only unhealthy foods and letting them become morbidly obese?

I guess a clear difference is one can die from malnourishment, where as any ill effects of obesity are generally not going to kill a child but rather mostly cause health problems later in life.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The rest of the stuff you're just being overly optimistic. There's plenty of crime in developments that have HOAs, plenty of houses with multiple families etc. There's only so much they can do to detect and enforce that stuff.[/quote]
Never said there wasn't. Crime is everywhere. The last condo I ever rented (in a nice condo building in Miami) I was displaced for 3 days because a Meth Lab blew up and flooded floors. You just do the best you can with research and hope to evade it. My neighborhood up to this point from its start has had zero criminal acts in it.

As for multiple families, it depends on how active your HOA is. A multiple family within my neighborhood already got forced out during the 3 years I live in my home/neighborhood. It isn't hard to spot them and I wasn't the one who reported them.

Eyesores etc., I don't care about. There will be county/city ordinances against anything that's dilapidated to the point of danger, obscene (see below) etc.
Click to expand...
Where do you draw the line of obscene that a city/county handles?
the Status of David or of Madonna?
flying a Confederate flag?
a poster of a dog taking a dump?
 
[quote name='lordopus99']
Where do you draw the line of obscene that a city/county handles?
the Status of David or of Madonna?
flying a Confederate flag?
a poster of a dog taking a dump?[/QUOTE]

Obscenity laws are generally limited to things like swear words, nudity/sex, and graphic violence--things legally defined as obscene.

There will always be some gray areas that are tricky and just have to be dealt with on a case by case basis in each jurisdiction.

But on private property it should never include things like a confederate flag or nativity scene etc. as those aren't obscene (by the legal definition) even if they may offend some people.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']My neighborhood up to this point from its start has had zero criminal acts in it, that I know of.[/QUOTE]
fix.d
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Obscenity laws are generally limited to things like swear words, nudity/sex, and graphic violence--things legally defined as obscene.[/QUOTE]

Only sex is within the legal definition of obscenity.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Only sex is within the legal definition of obscenity.[/QUOTE]

True, in terms of how the supreme court interprets it currently in terms of what can be outright banned period (i.e. censorship).

But I've not seen them strike down things like signs with profanity in them being banned form public display by local municipal codes either, so I guess local governments still have more lee way on that. Same with certain words etc. not being allowed on broadcast TV still.

Point being there's a broader definition of obscenity than just the legal standard for censorship when you get to the local level, public airwave regulations etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']True, in terms of how the supreme court interprets it currently in terms of what can be outright banned period (i.e. censorship).

But I've not seen them strike down things like signs with profanity in them being banned form public display by local municipal codes either, so I guess local governments still have more lee way on that. Same with certain words etc. not being allowed on broadcast TV still.

Point being there's a broader definition of obscenity than just the legal standard for censorship when you get to the local level, public airwave regulations etc.[/QUOTE]

Indecency and obscenity are (legally) not the same thing. But enough derailing.

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i know at the beginning of the thread i said that you can't force people to eat healthy, they should be able to choose what they want, even if its terrible for you. i still stand by that. but things get murky here.

i mean, obviously an adult should be able to eat what they choose. but when does a parents meal choice for a child cross the line into negligence? i dont know.[/QUOTE]

It probably does cross the line, but they're going to need something more extreme than negligence to start taking people's kids away. Foster care systems are overburdened/don't work as-is, and that's even assuming kids are going to somehow get the services they need to improve their diet while subsisting as wards of the state.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Indecency and obscenity are (legally) not the same thing. But enough derailing.[/quote]

Good catch. I meant public decency laws, but used the wrong term by saying obscenity.

As I've said many times, I'm a criminologist, not a lawyer! :D
 
Yeah, there's no excuse for any public school meals to be unhealthy.

The entire goal of those programs should be to make sure kids are getting at least 1 (2 for those who get breakfast too) healthy meals on week days.

My high school had one food line that rotated everyday--but all kinds of unhealthy stuff like french fries, burgers etc. And another line that was some kind of pizza every day.

Just ridiculous. Kids are getting fat enough from the crap their parents feed them. No reason for the school system to be adding to the cause!
 
[quote name='Clak']I had some hilarious post typed up in the vain of some redneck teabagger complaining about the government telling their kids what they can and can't eat it in school, but frankly, good for Massachusetts.[/QUOTE]
You should've posted it. I always enjoy a good teabagging story...LOLZ:lol:

Funny anecdote: In my hs, we had the usual frozen crap that they probably serve in most urban schools, but whenever they made fresh food, they always ran out. The irony!
 
One tiny step in the right direction.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/mcdonalds-alters-happy-meals-shrinks-fries/?hp

McDonalds is changing the Happy Meal by more than halving the portion of fries and adding apple slices. Parents can also request veggies in place of the fries. Default drink will be 1% milk or fat free chocolate milk rather than soda as well.

Small step for sure, but little things like that can add up. Just finding ways to make terribly unhealthy meals a tiny bit less unhealthy is at least a small positive!n Especially when it's food marketed to kids.
 
The factors leading to obesity in America...

- Sugar
- HFCS
- Simple carb consumption
- Lack of money to buy healthy foods
- Lack of time to cook healthy foods
- Unhealthy foods last longer
- Unhealthy foods are cheaper
- Gyms are expensive
- Lack of motivation to stick with an exercise program
- Lack of time to stick with an exercise program
- Eating high calorie things after the gym (because you just burned calories, right??)
- Dishabituation leads to overeating
- Skipping breakfast
- Low protein choices
- CORN IS IN EVERYTHING

I think that covers everything.

It's a seriously difficult issue to tackle. From a behavioral standpoint, it seems near impossible. I always laugh when people say, "If such and such change is made, things would be better!" :lol:
 
[quote name='seanr1221']The factors leading to obesity in America...
...
- Lack of money to buy healthy foods
- Lack of time to cook healthy foods
[/QUOTE]
That's been mentioned multiple times in this thread, but I'm not buyin' it. A couple of sandwiches on whole wheat bread with some fruit on the side is cheaper and faster than driving to the nearest fast food joint.

That's just one example. I hate cooking, so I keep things as simple as possible. While some of the things I eat aren't ideal, they're all cheaper, faster, and healthier than fast food.
 
I also disagree with the "gyms are expensive" theory. It doesn't take having a gym to get fit, you can definitely get exercise anywhere, anytime. I think most people just don't care.
 
[quote name='seanr1221']The factors leading to obesity in America...

- Sugar
- HFCS
- Simple carb consumption
- Lack of money to buy healthy foods
- Lack of time to cook healthy foods
- Unhealthy foods last longer
- Unhealthy foods are cheaper
- Gyms are expensive
- Lack of motivation to stick with an exercise program
- Lack of time to stick with an exercise program
- Eating high calorie things after the gym (because you just burned calories, right??)
- Dishabituation leads to overeating
- Skipping breakfast
- Low protein choices
- CORN IS IN EVERYTHING

I think that covers everything.

It's a seriously difficult issue to tackle. From a behavioral standpoint, it seems near impossible. I always laugh when people say, "If such and such change is made, things would be better!" :lol:[/QUOTE]

It's not impossible. Reigning in fast food corporations would be a start. Of course, try that and you're likely to get Palin swooping in on her broom with her army of evil flying monkies.
 
[quote name='Allnatural']That's been mentioned multiple times in this thread, but I'm not buyin' it. A couple of sandwiches on whole wheat bread with some fruit on the side is cheaper and faster than driving to the nearest fast food joint.

That's just one example. I hate cooking, so I keep things as simple as possible. While some of the things I eat aren't ideal, they're all cheaper, faster, and healthier than fast food.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. We're not talking eating the type of diet Mr. Universe eats.

It doesn't cost more to stop eating so much fast food and tv dinners, and go with more healthy options. All that processed food is pretty pricey, and fast food isn't all that cheap either unless you're eating from the dollar menu.

Veggies are pretty cheap, especially frozen veggies. Fruit isn't all that expensive (can get enough apples for one person for a week for around the cost of a bag of name brand chips). Go with a healthier cereal in the morning instead of a sugar loaded one. Switch to whole wheat bread, etc. etc.

Plenty of stuff one can do to eat healthier that doesn't cost more or take more time to prepare.

[quote name='perdition(troy']I also disagree with the "gyms are expensive" theory. It doesn't take having a gym to get fit, you can definitely get exercise anywhere, anytime. I think most people just don't care.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Anyone can go outside and go for a walk or jog. Anyone can do bodyweight exercises in their home.

And besides, obesity rates aren't that much higher in the lower class than in the middle and upper classes anymore. There's plenty of fat people who have plenty of money for a gym membership and eating what ever type of healthy diet they want.

People just don't care, or have long since given up on it etc.. And that's fine, it's their choice. The question from a public health stand point is how to get more people to start caring so we can stem the rising obesity epidemic and all the costs to the health care system that it will incur.

[quote name='perdition(troy']It's not the fast food corporations fault that people are stuffing their faces.[/QUOTE]

It is ultimately up to people to decide to eat better and get more exercise.

But restaurants have added to the harm they do by increasing portions to absurd sizes, marketing unhealthy meals to kids by including toys in kids meals etc. So they can at least choose to help some by getting rid of super size combos, tweaking the kids meal like McDonalds has etc. so they at least do less harm to people who choose to eat there.

I don't support laws forcing them to change. I'm just happy to see a move toward eating healthier starting to have some impacts in getting some of them to make some small changes on their own.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='perdition(troy']It's not the fast food corporations fault that people are stuffing their faces.[/QUOTE]

BINGO!

The fast food companies are guilty of making a product that lots of people enjoy. They're not selling crack to schoolkids here, they're selling a fucking cheeseburger. If you don't have the will power to pass on a cheeseburger, then don't bitch about being fat.

dmaul is dead on. No matter where you live, one can assume there is ground. The ground works great for push ups, situps, lunges. Even if you live in the worst neighborhood in the country, there are even ways to get a solid cardio workout from within your home.

This is such a basic concept that when you see some blob trying to sue a company because the food was too delicious and they didn't know when to stop eating, I think that person needs to be hooked up to a lard hose and fed til explosion.

Personal accountability and will power. If you have none, there are consequences. Your bad choices shouldn't have to impact my more responsible ones.

Edit: Camoor, so are you saying everything that irresponsible people do excessively should be regulated by the government? My God. So we need to start regulating everyone who makes juices and soda (high in sugars and calories), every donut shop needs regulation, if you make frozen food that is high in fat, then you need to be regulated. Where on earth would you draw the line, and what would these regulations be? That's insane. That's not some fringe right-wing hot topic. That's completely and totally impossible, irrational, and unintelligent.

Second edit: And what about fancy restaurants. You don't think they have incredibly unhealthy dishes? You could consume 5x the calories you would get from a Happy Meal if you had a 5 course, fancy, $80/plate, French dinner.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']It's not the fast food corporations fault that people are stuffing their faces.[/QUOTE]

Ultimately it isn't directly their fault because personal choice is what puts that burger in Joe's mouth BUT the fast food corporations are damn deceptive in their sales and marketing. Would people still order a super sized combo #1 with coke at McDonalds if they knew it was 1,350 which is roughly 67.5% of the recommended daily caloric intake in one mean? Not only that but it doesn't help when they load their burgers up with MSG and other "flavor enhancers" then hide behind a 100% beef label.

Prepared and packaged food products are required to carry nutritional information on the label, why shouldn't restaurants be required to as well?

Its deceptive for the simple fact that otherwise their profits would tumble. Is it as deceptive as the cigarette companies of the 1950s? Not quite, but it sure is in the same ballpark. The dramatic rise in obesity and fast food availability can't be a mere coincidence.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Ultimately it isn't directly their fault because personal choice is what puts that burger in Joe's mouth BUT the fast food corporations are damn deceptive in their sales and marketing. Would people still order a super sized combo #1 with coke at McDonalds if they knew it was 1,350 which is roughly 67.5% of the recommended daily caloric intake in one mean? Not only that but it doesn't help when they load their burgers up with MSG and other "flavor enhancers" then hide behind a 100% beef label.[/QUOTE]

I personally think the answer is yes. I'm not sure who in the world thinks McDonalds is healthy food, just as I don't think anyone believe smoking isn't harmful. In fact, I think in most states McD's is required to list health information. It's certainly available for all who ask.

To me, the more dubious and sneaky calorie bombs are the fruit smoothies and Starbucks novelty drinks. Those things can have more calories than a large meal, but instead, we point to fast food as the cause for obesity in America.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I personally think the answer is yes. I'm not sure who in the world thinks McDonalds is healthy food, just as I don't think anyone believe smoking isn't harmful. In fact, I think in most states McD's is required to list health information. It's certainly available for all who ask.

To me, the more dubious and sneaky calorie bombs are the fruit smoothies and Starbucks novelty drinks. Those things can have more calories than a large meal, but instead, we point to fast food as the cause for obesity in America.[/QUOTE]

They're mostly required to provide the information in some capacity whether it's internet, pamphlets, etc. Very, very few require the caloric information to be printed on the menu alongside the food. I'm also not saying that most people don't realize McDonalds isn't a healthy choice but most people don't realize it's that unhealthy for them.

Your second point is excellent. I, in using McDonalds as an example, in no way wanted to imply they were the only place to be guilty of deception in marketing of their products. You mention Starbucks which has some downright atrocious calorie counts. What about somewhere like Jamba Juice? Tell me they aren't trying to pass themselves off as a healthy choice when in reality they literally have a drink that has over 750 calories for a fucking medium (Peanue Butter Moo'd)! That's more than a regular burger and fries at McDonalds.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'] Would people still order a super sized combo #1 with coke at McDonalds if they knew it was 1,350 which is roughly 67.5% of the recommended daily caloric intake in one mean?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, and they do.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Yes, and they do.[/QUOTE]

A better question would then be, how many would still order it if they had the full information? Not nearly as many.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Personal accountability and will power. If you have none, there are consequences. Your bad choices shouldn't have to impact my more responsible ones.

Edit: Camoor, so are you saying everything that irresponsible people do excessively should be regulated by the government? My God. So we need to start regulating everyone who makes juices and soda (high in sugars and calories), every donut shop needs regulation, if you make frozen food that is high in fat, then you need to be regulated. Where on earth would you draw the line, and what would these regulations be? That's insane. That's not some fringe right-wing hot topic. That's completely and totally impossible, irrational, and unintelligent.

Second edit: And what about fancy restaurants. You don't think they have incredibly unhealthy dishes? You could consume 5x the calories you would get from a Happy Meal if you had a 5 course, fancy, $80/plate, French dinner.[/QUOTE]

Personal accountability - your bullshit answer for everything.

Do you think people of the past had more personal accountability and that's why they didn't get fat? People are no different now then they were then, we just live in a food toxic society today.

And I wasn't saying we stop at fast food joints. Regulate them all!

Anyway I think information is power. There is no excuse for not putting all people on a level playing field as far as what they are eating in terms of calories, fat, etc. From that possible (check) rational (check) and intelligent (check) perspective, having calories on menus is actually the first step in a democratic, scientific, progressive approach to tackling the explosion in obesity.

I will go there too - I think white refined sugar is alot more dangerous and addictive then most people think and for all intents and purposes it should be considered a drug ala caffeine or nicotine and I'm not a big drug regulation guy. Sugar is not natural (it's refined from sugar cane) and in large quantities it causes health ailments such as obesity and diabetes. Food producers force it into everything - Americans from a century ago ate a third of the sugar that the average American does today (IE our levels of sugar consumption are wildly unhealthy) I can't tell you how hard it is to find products like peanut butter without added sugar. Ridiculous.
 
[quote name='camoor']Personal accountability - your bullshit answer for everything.

Do you think people of the past had more personal accountability and that's why they didn't get fat? People are no different now then they were then, we just live in a food toxic society today.

And I wasn't saying we stop at fast food joints. Regulate them all!

Anyway I think information is power. There is no excuse for not putting all people on a level playing field as far as what they are eating in terms of calories, fat, etc. From that possible (check) rational (check) and intelligent (check) perspective, having calories on menus is actually the first step in a democratic, scientific, progressive approach to tackling the explosion in obesity.

I will go there too - I think white refined sugar is alot more dangerous and addictive then most people think and for all intents and purposes it should be considered a drug ala caffeine or nicotine and I'm not a big drug regulation guy. Sugar is not natural (it's refined from sugar cane) and in large quantities it causes health ailments such as obesity and diabetes. Food producers force it into everything - Americans from a century ago ate a third of the sugar that the average American does today (IE our levels of sugar consumption are wildly unhealthy) I can't tell you how hard it is to find products like peanut butter without added sugar. Ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

If your answer is to regulate everything, then big surprise, we have massive philosophical differences. For example, how do you put everyone on a level playing field? Everyone can only serve a sandwich that is X calories, anything greater and the company pays a "making me fat tax"? It's totally impractical. If you have a vision for it, I'd love to read it. You think calories on menus (which some states already require) is the answer? You're still assuming people don't know how bad fast food and fried crap is. You can only handhold so much. If a fattie is eyeing a cheesburger from McD's at 480 calories or a bowl of salad for 180 you think that's all they need to elect to go for the salad? That's either naive, or you have too much faith in people's will power.

And yes, I do think personal accountability has decreased over time, as have things like respect for elders, children born out of wedlock, and higher divorce rates. I don't need the Cleavers, I'd settle for Married with Children.

I work with youth a ton, both for pay and as a volunteer. I've seen this trend first hand. They mess up, it's always somebody else's fault.

Or in the scope of this thread: "I'm fat! Godammit McDonald's, you did this to me!" My response, "Bullshit. Your dumbass inability to eat less or eat healthier did it to you.
 
[quote name='camoor']I can't tell you how hard it is to find products like peanut butter without added sugar. Ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Krema ftw! Best PB in the fucking world.
 
[quote name='berzirk']If your answer is to regulate everything, then big surprise, we have massive philosophical differences. For example, how do you put everyone on a level playing field? Everyone can only serve a sandwich that is X calories, anything greater and the company pays a "making me fat tax"? It's totally impractical. If you have a vision for it, I'd love to read it.[/QUOTE]

Stop the strawman arguements and debate me like a man.

[quote name='berzirk']You think calories on menus (which some states already require) is the answer? You're still assuming people don't know how bad fast food and fried crap is. You can only handhold so much. If a fattie is eyeing a cheesburger from McD's at 480 calories or a bowl of salad for 180 you think that's all they need to elect to go for the salad? That's either naive, or you have too much faith in people's will power.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I do have faith in the will of the American people, it's sad to see that you don't. If the American consumer is not decieved, if he is given the information about what is actually in the food he is being served, I think he can do a better job at making healthy diet choices. Will it be perfect? No I don't think so. But it will be better. And that's a good thing.

Did you know they're putting wood in fast food now? Shouldn't we know at least know about this stuff?

[quote name='berzirk']And yes, I do think personal accountability has decreased over time, as have things like respect for elders, children born out of wedlock, and higher divorce rates. I don't need the Cleavers, I'd settle for Married with Children.

I work with youth a ton, both for pay and as a volunteer. I've seen this trend first hand. They mess up, it's always somebody else's fault.

Or in the scope of this thread: "I'm fat! Godammit McDonald's, you did this to me!" My response, "Bullshit. Your dumbass inability to eat less or eat healthier did it to you.[/QUOTE]

Who gives a shit what you think. It's just bitching that won't solve anything.

[quote name='Allnatural']Krema ftw! Best PB in the fucking world.[/QUOTE]

I found some stuff called Fifty 50 - no added sugar and it tastes like real peanuts. The point is - it's ridiculous the amount of candy that grocery stores market as food.
 
[quote name='camoor']Stop the strawman arguements and debate me like a man.



Yeah I do have faith in the will of the American people, it's sad to see that you don't. If the American consumer is not decieved, if he is given the information about what is actually in the food he is being served, I think he can do a better job at making healthy diet choices. Will it be perfect? No I don't think so. But it will be better. And that's a good thing.

Did you know they're putting wood in fast food now? Shouldn't we know at least know about this stuff?



Who gives a shit what you think. It's just bitching that won't solve anything.



I found some stuff called Fifty 50 - no added sugar and it tastes like real peanuts. The point is - it's ridiculous the amount of candy that grocery stores market as food.[/QUOTE]

Debate you like a man? Haa haa. WTF dude. When are we going to start comparing eDick size?

And "who gives a shit what (I) think, it's just bitching that won't solve anything"?? I don't care. I'm stating my opinions in a vs. section of a videogame forum. I didn't realize this was such serious business. Christ almighty. If you don't like my response to your clearly more important opinions, then don't reply to me or ignore me.

Edit: Wait...I just saw where you literally wrote: Do you think people of the past had more personal accountability and that's why they didn't get fat? People are no different now then they were then, we just live in a food toxic society today.

Apparently you yourself are the one claiming to want to know my thoughts on the matter. I was merely responding to your direct question, then you went on your -fuck you- rant. Weird.

To respond to the one part that seems to have anything to do with the discussion-yes, I completely and totally lack confidence in a majority of consumers, particularly the fat ones, to make sensible decisions about their food consumption. Shy of clinical medical conditions/side effects to medication, there is no excuse to be fat. The information is at all of our disposal on how to live a healthier lifestyle. Do you honestly believe most people who are fat just don't get how it's happening? I may have little confidence in their decision making, but you would appear to have little confidence in their intelligence.

One more edit: Are you defensive cause maybe you're a stout dude? It's possible that our current body types are what guide our opinions on the issue. I've always been rather slim. Started to get a bit of a gut in my late 20's but now I exercise more and eat better than I ever did, and feel and look decent to good. I'm not trying to say you're a fattie, I just wonder if our body types are what put us on opposing sides here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top