Americans No Longer the Fattest

Discussion in 'Health & Fitness' started by El Diablo, Jul 9, 2013.

  1. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,683
    I would also attribute it to workplace stress due to hire and fire policies of employers, and the longer hours imposed on workers. It has become heroic to say that I worked till 9 pm and then ate at a fast food place on the way home. Not to mention that the policies of the companies makes it necessary for both spouses to work. There should be heavy penalties for companies which lay off people.
     
    #51
  2. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,895
    I am not advocating Lustiq's point of view. His statements sound extreme to me too. My point is the Mayo Clinic's point of view is in no way a consensus on diabetes. If you want to find out why he said that - look up his research.

    Your problem is you think Doctors have figured out all the stuff - when in fact they have not. It's just like in the 1970s when we were told to eat hydrogenated fats instead of saturated ones.

    I dunno if you live near the Mayo Clinic or what - but its not like when they declare something its no longer a problem.
     
    #52
  3. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,113
    Not really. It just seems like common sense that there would be a number of factors that increase the risk of type2 diabetes. And a number of factors that contribute to obesity.

    I do believe that diet is the number 1 controllable factor that contributes to diabetes and obesity. I also think it is strongly linked to the consistent consumption of too many calories. And I see how people eat and understand that these extra calories mainly consist of sugar and processed food. Meaning, a large percentage of these extra calories are "junk carbs" (and a fair portion are "bad fat" as well).

    Our sedentary lifestyle plays "some" role in the obesity epidemic, but I think it plays a "significant" role in other health related concerns.

    As far as listening to doctors, when the world was eating low fat everything is about the only time I was ever actually reading food labels (to ensure my dairy products contained the highest fat content on the shelf). I actually didn't care too much about if low fat was healthy or not, but I knew low fat tasted awful.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2013
    #53
  4. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    The low fat message was based on medical evidence with regard to heart disease mainly and that still remains vaild.

    The problem with fats is one of type and quantity.

    The food industry expanded this into a huge weight loss food explosion that ramped up levels of salt and sugar in foods.

    They systematically miseducated the consumer for profit and created an explosion in disease.
     
    #54
  5. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,895
    Common sense has changed alot in the last several hundred years. <g> Surely you are familiar with William Banting..

    Back in the 1800s it was common sense to..

    Long story short - this man lost alot of weight with this diet. He ate what could be termed a Paleo style diet. He explains that he was far more active then almost any other man of his time - as he was an undertaker - but he was obese until the dietary change.

    Later in the 1960s and 1970s we were told to avoid all fats and animal products and exercise. And as I pointed out before we have been exercising more and growing fatter. Common sense as it turns out is pretty uncommon in the world of obesity and diabetes.
     
    #55
  6. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,212
    Location:
    Somewhere under the weather ;)
    Guy
    I am not disagreeing with you. I am just pointing out that there is a huge shift for most people in lifestyle. Yes, we do have heavy manual labour for all the construction work, and there are some rickshaw pullers too. But by and large, a sedantary life has taken over.

    Changing gears and washing dishes hardly counts for exercise :D

    There's even an increase in piles and other such issues. You could attribute it to people sitting all day, or to junk food and constipation. I don't know. I was not disagreeing on causes, just on how the life-style is over here.
     
    #56
  7. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,113
    Legend of Borg knows what I mean by common sense.

    I don't think we are exercising more.

    I also think we are simply eating too many calories (and worse yet, these calories are coming from poor dietary food choices).

    I find Guy's examples of "exercise" odd too. For me, exercise is something that raises your heartrate for a period of time (something that most manual labor you cite isn't really very effective at doing).

    I find myself broadly agreeing with Dr. Katz, who appears to take a "common sense" view of health, nutrition, and personal responsibility:

    http://www.davidkatzmd.com/admin/archives/Obesity be Dammed.Katz.Fall-06.pdf

    http://www.davidkatzmd.com/articles.aspx

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/sugar-health-evil-toxic_b_850032.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/holistic-nutrition_b_842627.html
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2013
    #57
  8. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,113
    Are you trying to tell me that "The Food Industry" managed to convince "The Consumer" that weight loss could be accomplished by "ramping up levels of salt and sugar in foods"?

    Do you think that "The Consumers" eating habits are driven more by these types of beliefs or more by taste and convenience?

    It is easy to blame "The Food Industry". "They" make eating unhealthy convenient and cheap. But lets be honest. "The Consumer" still has plenty of healthy choices. And I think "The Consumer" understands very well that "ramped up levels of sugar and salt (and fat)" isn't healthy. "The Food Industry" is simply providing the types of food that sells / earns a profit.

    From an idealistic perspective, I'm not interested in "The Food Industry" acting paternalistically. I'm more interested in "The Consumer" taking personal responsibility.

    But as a practical matter, obesity and the resulting health problems is costing society billions. So maybe governmental paternalism wouldn't be so bad in this case.
     
    #58
  9. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,895
    This is empty dogma. Why? Some people maintain a very good 'energy' balance with very little exercise and very little effort. Others exercise a great deal and still 'lose' the battle.

    What's far more likely (and has been proven) is that the human body adjusts its caloric intake based on work done. So if you do more physical labor - you eat more.

    Shockingly - if you sweat more - you drink more.

    Your body adapts. This is why countries that are exercising about the same as they did before are getting fatter.

    So rather then worrying about exercising more - we need to be concerned with figuring out why people have a postive calorie balance. Some people consistently take in more calories then they need. And what lustiq is saying is that sugar throws off our internal 'balance.'
     
    #59
  10. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    You obviously don't read your own recommended reading:


    For example, we cannot expect a hard- working single parent earning minimal wage in a city neighborhood to have the same potential to manage her weight through “personal responsibility” as a high-ly educated, well paid suburbanite.149,150,151 The playing field of opportunity is not level, and that calls for policy interventions. Many reasonable approaches have been espoused.





     
    #60
  11. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,683
    Tobacco industry tried to say the same thing, portraying smokers as free rebels and claiming it is all about personal choice. Today, no one will take those claims to be true.

    Soda makers are fighting school districts which want to remove them from the machines.

    A day might come when a fast food chain serving mainly big portions of fried stuff will be looked at as criminals.
     
    #61
  12. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,895
    Heh. You mean Long John Silvers - they fry everything in bad fat - trans fats. I mean hello - we have actually concluded that stuff is REALLY bad for you.

    That place is like a heartattack on plate. Frying is already bad because it damages the oil and creates carcenogic oxidants. But throw in trans fats.. holy cow.

    If the supersize guy had done long john silvers he would be dead.
     
    #62
  13. WildVolley

    WildVolley Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,899
    The supersize me guy (Spurlock) was a fraud. He refuses to release his food logs because he had to be eating a lot more food than shown in the movie to get the dramatic weight gain. Following his own rules at the beginning of the movie, he wouldn't be eating the 5000+ calories a day he lets slip during a doctor visit in the movie.

    The movie Fat Head sort of repeats Spurlock's experiment by showing a guy only eating fast food for a month. However, this guy loses weight and improves his overall health by not drinking soft-drinks with sugar and cutting out the carbs. The other interesting thing is that the Fat Head maker questions people on the street about calories at fast food restaurants and the average person often overestimates the amount they are consuming.
     
    #63
  14. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,113
    ^^ Big deal. He exercised portion control.

    "Twinkie Diet" guy ate mostly carbs and sugar and lost weight and improved his health.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    Both "experiments" are pretty stupid by the way, but they do share one thing in common. Portion control.

    I'm going to do a documentary on exercise and show how, if I run 50+ miles per week and don't eat more than I burn, I'll lose weight, improve health, etc. I think I'll eat Skittles, Twizzlers, and bacon just to gain more attention.
     
    #64
  15. WildVolley

    WildVolley Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,899
    It's only a "big deal" because it demonstrated that Spurlock's movie was a fraud - which is why Spurlock still won't release his food logs. Spurlock's movie probably wouldn't have had the same impact if people realized it was a hoax and Spurlock was doubling up on the meals he claimed made him sick.

    Spurlock could have done the exact same thing on a "vegan" diet which he claims he was eating before. Eat more than twice the amount and stop exercising and you'll probably put on weight.
     
    #65
  16. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,113
    These "documentaries" are engineered to "prove" the authors point and entertain.......or in other words to make money.

    "Fat Head" isn't exactly a marvel of unbised journalism and the scientific method.
     
    #66
  17. WildVolley

    WildVolley Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,899
    In comparison to "Super-Size Me!" it is!

    At least the Fat Head maker shows you what he's eating and how he's exercising, unlike Spurlock, and he put all his food logs online.

    Of course it isn't unbiased, but what Spurlock did is outright fraud. Spurlock likely hoped that he'd get fatter and when he realized he wasn't gaining enough weight, started stuffing himself.

    Wouldn't most people call it a fraud if I did the same thing about Vegan food? Suppose I started eating Vegan but also massively increased my calories to over 5,000 a day and stopped exercising. I could end up bloated at the end of a month with bad health effects and then make a documentary about how eating Vegan makes you fat and sick. That's equivalent to what Spurlock did.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2013
    #67
  18. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,113
    Geez, next thing you'll be telling me is that you were shocked to find Michael Moore had bias in his "documentaries".

    The only shock and outrage is that you seem shocked and outraged. These are all entertainment pieces. Just another contribution to the seemingly infinite supply of "gerede" (idle talk).
     
    #68
  19. WildVolley

    WildVolley Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,899
    I'm very cynical, so I'm not sure I get your point. For example, my rule of thumb is that everything the government tells me is a lie.

    On this very thread, we perhaps had a poster who took that documentary seriously (can't really tell as it is just mentioned in passing).

    Is it really wrong to point out a fraud when you see it? I don't think so.
     
    #69
  20. OKUSA

    OKUSA Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,220
    Location:
    TN
    There's no such thing as a real scientific study on the best nutrition for someone because there's too many variables to account for. Everyone's metabolism is different because of different magnitudes of metabolic enzymes produced by each individual
     
    #70
  21. MikeHitsHard93

    MikeHitsHard93 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,454
    Location:
    Michigan
    Grow up and think about what you're saying before you post it. I'm not dumb, not am I fat. Dear lord
     
    #71
  22. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,895
    A few twinkies don't have that many calories. If you eat almost nothing your body will be forced to use its own fat and you will lose weight. Duh.

    Now if the diet was eat as many twinkies as you feel like and nothing else.. And he lost weight - that would be something special.
     
    #72
  23. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,895
    Really? Interesting - don't get me wrong you could eat decent at McDonalds if you worked at it - skipped all the potato stuff - don't drink any sugar soda etc.

    But it's amazingly easy to knock out 2000 calories plus and not feel full. All those refined carbohydrates and sugars get quickly absorbed by the body and have very little impact of how full you feel.
     
    #73
  24. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,113
    So it sounds like sugar (carbs) in moderation are OK?

    I'm assuming that your argument is that, "in the real world", people just don't use moderation because sugar, carbs are addictive and we simply eat more than we need?

    But there is nothing inherently evil about a sugar/carb calorie as opposed to a protein or fat calorie? Or am I not understanding what you are saying above?
     
    #74
  25. WildVolley

    WildVolley Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,899
    Yeah, Spurlock's results don't add up with what he claimed to be doing. His doctor tells him in the movie that he's been eating OVER 5,000 calories a day. The Fat Head guy goes through the calorie count of the 3 different meals and shows that according Spurlock's rules (3 meals a day and he could only Supersize if asked - he was asked 9 times) he wouldn't have been able to eat that many calories. So it seems either he was eating a lot of food outside of McDonald's or he was adding extra milkshakes, or he was eating two meals at a sitting rather than Supersizing.

    I don't think that McDonald's food is particularly good for you, but it won't balloon you up like happened with Spurlock unless you really consume a particularly large amount or you don't need many calories to maintain your body weight. But then you could do that with any sort of food. Perhaps the McDonald's stuff was actually much better tasting than the Vegan stuff he was eating prior to making the movie?

    I'm not a believer in the simple calorie theory, as simply eating food doesn't determine whether it will be burned (used for energy), partially digested, used to rebuild body tissue, or stored as fat. I'm a guy who tends to naturally stay within a ten pound range no matter how I eat. Obviously I'm naturally adjusting to my exercise and consumption levels without effort.

    The question is why other people don't do the same thing? Did I just get lucky with my genetics? Is it because I've always enjoyed being active so I never slowed down my metabolism? Is it because I've traditionally been a slow eater so I feel satiated rather than overeating? I don't really know.
     
    #75
  26. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,895
    You are not the first person to make this astute observation. That's the idea behind 'energy balance'. Most people find that they eat as little or as much as they need to maintain their weight.

    Some people however continually miss the mark and are eating more then the need. You need only be off by a few hundred calories a day and you will end up very fat if you always miss the wrong way.

    It's those people that we need to figure out why they are having so much trouble. I think they are eating too much of the wrong kind of food..

    BTW its pretty easy to prove the simple calorie theory is not correct because you can point to how the body chemically extracts energy from various macro nutrients via different chemical pathways and how one pathway is more or less efficent then another. Its not even open for debate. The whole burning thing is a nutrionists oversimplication. We don't burn anything..
     
    #76
  27. Avles

    Avles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Peak of Good Living
    #77
  28. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    Given that government keeps telling us the market works and government does not, you must necessarily believe everything the government tells you.

    And Spurlock is not the government in case you were wondering,



     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2013
    #78
  29. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    Yes, well, the media is full of what Heidegger called Gerede, but Moore and Spurlock are indeed a more intelligent version of it than what passes for commentary in the mainstream media.



     
    #79
  30. Avles

    Avles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Peak of Good Living
    Personal responsibility is all well and good, but over and over again we've seen dietary habits dramatically change at the national level in response to economic and cultural shifts-- so there's something more at work here than a bunch of individual choices.

    Mexicans haven't become less personally responsible over the last decade or so-- they're just in a different cultural and economic environment with different food choices available to them and have responded accordingly.

    I think food culture is too complex and too enmeshed with the social and economic environment to be reduced to terms of personal responsibility or its lack.

    If paternalism means government acting to promote a social and economic environment that encourages people to make healthy choices for themselves, for their children and for society, I say bring on the government paternalism (as long as it is precisely targeted and is based on sound science).
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2013
    #80
  31. WildVolley

    WildVolley Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,899
    The government does? Since when?:confused:

    Yeah, I get that Spurlock isn't the government; I just pointed out he's a fraud. Do you understand what a "rule of thumb" is?
     
    #81
  32. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,113
    I'm not willing to let people abdicate responsibility that easily. My wife and I cook our dinner 5-6 times per week on average (or more). People think we're "weird". But we have developed our little culture where we enjoy cooking our own food and enjoy being around like minded people that enjoy spending time to eat. When we go out to eat, we look for good food and a pleasant dining experience (often lasting most of the evening), not just the cheapest, most convenient trough of food we can find. And by the way, our food budget allows for this indulgence because we eat in the vast majority of the time.

    Sure, most people eat out and see a meal as something to get out of the way as quickly and conveniently as possible.

    By the way, as you suggest, 30 years ago, it wasn't uncommon for the majority of families to prepare meals. Yes, our society has changed. But, we are ultimately still responsible for the choices we make, and we bear the consequences.

    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society ~ Krishnamurti

    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Jerry Garcia
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2013
    #82
  33. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,895
    The government is too corrupted by special interests to make healthy choices for them to even consider giving people good advice.

    If we decide that say canola oil, soy and wheat is not actually good for you - could the government actually come out and say that? Hell no. How many farmers would that put out of work? Wheat? Our country is practically founded on the stuff.

    Politicians are all about keeping the donation streams going. More money can undo just about any policy wrong with savy advertising..'

    And its not just the big farming interests - various small interest groups want us eating different things and are hell bent on manipulating science to get what they want. Whether its smaller farming interests like diary or vegan hippies in SF. There are so many interest groups that want to control your life. Actually being healthy doesn't even get a chance to rate as far as the government is concerned. Anything they say is just watered down mumbo jumbo. Hey eat brown rice instead of white? Oh Brown rice has arsenic in it. Nevermind think of the fiber.. Hahah.

    It's sad that so many well meaning people think government is a solution to our problems. We would be so much better off reigning government into essential services (things that you cannot expect private enterprise to do - like the military) instead of believing they can fix problems like nutrition. They cannot. They will not. It's just a waste of money.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2013
    #83
  34. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    Government has been doing this since the late seventies.

    Spurlock is dramatising a problem, so he's got a 'license' to do so and is not a fraud.

    There is scientific evidence but it's not so much fun.




     
    #84
  35. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    This problem is widespread, but the way you describe it is reasonably specific to America.

    And the reality is the solution is 'to take back government' rather than give in to special interests.

    Limiting government will limit what people can do to reform government, but not what corporations can do to you by using government.

    How is limiting government, for example, going to make a corporation pay tax for the military?



     
    #85
  36. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,436
    getting fat is bad.

    you get fat by consuming more calories than you burn.
    -sugar contains calories
    -other carbs contain calories
    -fat contains calories
    -even protein contains calories

    most people who get fat eat too much from all those things. there is a theory that carbs inhibit the fat burning by inducing insulin, but overall it is mostly about the total calories intake.

    fat people eat too much fat and carbs and on top of that often don't move enough (although there are sometimes also genetic or illness reasons-some eat terribly and stay thin).
     
    #86
  37. Avles

    Avles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Peak of Good Living
    This is overly simplistic. Yes government is beholden to special interests and often acts counterproductively. That doesn't mean government is inherently incapable of giving good advice, or taking positive action with regard to public health. It can and it does. Here's an example:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_to_Sleep

    If you want I could find you dozens of other examples.

    I think this dogma is reductionist and out of touch with reality. All governments are imperfect and ours is often infuriatingly so. But the reasonable response to that is to hold government accountable and try to improve it, not just to say "government bad, go away government."
     
    #87
  38. WildVolley

    WildVolley Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,899
    I think that some on this thread have completely oversimplified the reason that people are fat to "the govt." Now govt has played a role, because despite what Bartelby believes, we essentially have a totalitarian govt in the US that interferes in all areas of life. In most states, if you want to eat organic and buy from a local farmer, you will run afoul of a number of laws that are designed to defend big agribusiness from competition. I just don't understand how stacking up even more regulation will help this problem?

    Also, the people are fat because they eat to much camp, isn't really adding much to the debate. The interesting question is why so many people eat too much. I'm in the camp that thinks that big increases in sugar and simple carb consumption is probably the major player, but I'm not sure that good data exists to test it. I don't think "McDonalds" has much at all to do with the increase in obesity in the US. It isn't like McDonalds is some newfangled restaurant that hasn't been available to the American public for decades.
     
    #88
  39. Avles

    Avles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Peak of Good Living
    Cmon, if we actually had a totalitarian government you wouldn't be blithely posting stuff like this on the internet. Hyperbole like this just clouds the issue.

    "Regulation" isn't some sort of homogenous substance like water... there are good regulations and bad regulations, effective regulations and misguided ones. Regulations can promote competition as well as stifling it, right? So I think it's more useful to talk about what may and may not help than to tar all regulation with the same brush.

    Likewise rules of thumb like "everything the government tells you is a lie" seem useless and inaccurate. Do you think the govt is lying when it tells you to put your baby to sleep on his back? When it tells you to buckle your seatbelt? To get your child vaccinated for pertussis? Do you think the CDC website is just a tissue of lies? I don't.

    From what I can see the majority of the information provided by the government is reasonably accurate and reliable. There's some certainly governmental misinformation and unreliable information too-- but figuring out what to believe and not to believe requires thought and reflection rather than simplistic axioms like "government is a liar."

    I don't think the goverment can make us a nation of healthy eaters. That doesn't mean it can't play a role in promoting healthy behavior (and the existence of counterproductive government actions doesn't invalidate the positive ones).

    Agreed, McD's is at most a symptom rather than a cause IMO.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2013
    #89
  40. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,895
    Edward Snowden. IRS.

    I agree its simplistic. The government can take steps to cure 'obvious' ills - that no one can look beyond. But to expect them to take control nutrition - a subject that there is WIDESPREAD DISAGREEMENT ON and is subject to HUGE special interest is just folly.

    How do we know? Some of us have been alive for a while now. When I was a kid I was TOLD via the food pyramid to eat 6 - 11 servings of wheat and starch per day. Now most people even the r2473 warped by the 70s type agree this is bad advice.

    We were also TOLD to stop eating butter and to eat hydrogenated fats. These were the two most notable government pushes when I was kid - and both turn out to be wrong.

    The newest one - the high carb/low fat diet seems equally bad. Because you know it turns out you need fat to live - and carbs not so much.

    But hey if you want to believe that the government can "fix' nutrition. Be my guest...just make sure YOU fund it by writing in the extra tax money on your return. I want my tax dollars spent elsewhere - or better yet not at all. I don't understand why well meaning people can't see that the government sucks at so many things. There are things we NEED the government to do. Let's let them do that - and leave the rest alone. Sometimes helping does actually hurt.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2013
    #90
  41. WildVolley

    WildVolley Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,899
    I don't want to go too far afield, but by totalitarian I'm differentiating between limited government and a govt which asserts to the right in theory to control everything, even if it isn't attempting to control everything at the moment.


    I guess we'll just disagree. The fact that the CDC or the government is advocating something makes me less likely to believe it. And that even holds with vaccinations and telling me to wear seatbelts. I might still get vaccinations and buckle my seatbelt, but I'm certainly more suspicious of both when I learn they're being advocated by govt.

    The low-fat craze that was pushed by Congress in absence of scientific evidence is the sort of thing that makes me believe that science and state should be separated to as great of an extent as possible.



    I doubt that recent efforts to promote healthy eating have had much effect. Even at the school level where the government has the most influence over what is provided to children in school lunches, I don't think they've been very successful.

    In general, I believe most Americans know what is promoted as healthy eating, but most aren't following that advice. Likewise, I believe that most Americans probably think that fast food like McDonalds is actually worse for them than existing evidence suggests (due partially to popular frauds such as Supersize Me). All the people know who are big fans of that movie never eat at McDonalds anyway and seem to believe that if you eat there a few times you'd probably die due to clogged arteries. :shock:
     
    #91
  42. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,683
    Yes, of course in your comfortable situation when government agencies all over the world are monitoring diseases and protecting you, it is so much easy to criticize them because they are the "government." Who do you expect to do that instead? A couple of maverick scientists carrying a few test tubes all over the world with no infrastructure? Or a guy writing an Internet blog?
     
    #92
  43. WildVolley

    WildVolley Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,899
    LOL!

    Thank goodness that due to government there is no more disease!

    Actually, sureshs, health care is a rather large industry with a lot of different players, many of them private non-profits and for-profits. If you know anything about the history of disease fighting, while government has often been involved, it is far from the only player. Really rich capitalists have also played a big role.

    People would still care about disease even if the CDC didn't exist. This certainly doesn't prove that the CDC is harmful, but your impassioned appeal isn't exactly convincing either.
     
    #93
  44. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,113
    The topic seems of interest to you? Why not at least read it?

    http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm

    In the end, I think most of us would agree that the obesity / health epidemic isn't really a question of available information. Its more a question of having the discipline to live a healthy lifestyle. And no amount of information or government regulation is going to help. It really is up to the individual / family.

    By the way Guy, have you ever seen the Asian diet pyramid? 5-7 servings of grains.

    http://ladieslotto.blogspot.com/2008/09/japanese-food-pyramid.html

    Ever check out the obesity percentages in Japan? About 3% I believe.

    And unlike American, I bet a fair percentage of Japanese actually follow somewhat close the the guidelines set forth. Something to think about.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2013
    #94
  45. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    The reality is that democratic governments have been concerned with regulating behaviour since they were created.

    And every sector of society clamours for governmental regulation to suit their various interests, especially corporations who whine about the free market.

    (The Koch brothers made their fortune selling Stalin's oil, by the way).

    But in this case, governmental dietary guidelines are usually an advisory informational service based on the current best evidence, hopefully uncorrupted by "special interests".
     
    #95
  46. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    From the document above:


    Key Recommendations �

    Reduce daily sodium intake to less than 2,300 milligrams (mg) and further reduce intake to 1,500 mg among persons who are 51 and older and those of any age who are African American or have hypertension, diabetes,
    or chronic kidney disease. The 1,500 mg recommendation applies to about half of the U.S. population, including children, and the majority of adults.

    Consume less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fatty acids by replacing them with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids.

    Consume less than 300 mg per day of dietary cholesterol.

    Keep trans fatty acid consumption as low as possible, especially by limiting foods that contain synthetic sources of trans fats, such as partially hydrogenated oils, and by limiting other solid fats.
    Reduce the intake of calories from solid fats and added sugars.

    Limit the consumption of foods that contain refined grains, especially refined grain foods that contain solid fats, added sugars, and sodium.

    If alcohol is consumed, it should be consumed in moderation—up to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men—and only by adults of legal drinking age.
     
    #96
  47. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    Key Recommendations

    Individuals should meet the following recommendations as part of a healthy eating pattern and while staying within their calorie needs.

    Increase vegetable and fruit intake.

    Eat a variety of vegetables, especially dark- green and red and orange vegetables and beans and peas.

    Consume at least half of all grains as whole grains. Increase whole-grain intake by replacing refined grains with whole grains.

    Increase intake of fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products, such as milk, yogurt, cheese, or fortified soy beverages.58
    Choose a variety of protein foods, which include seafood, lean meat and poultry, eggs, beans and peas, soy products, and unsalted nuts and seeds.

    Increase the amount and variety of seafood consumed by choosing seafood in place of some meat and poultry.

    Replace protein foods that are higher in solid fats with choices that are lower in solid fats and calories and/or are sources of oils.

    Use oils to replace solid fats where possible.

    Choose foods that provide more potassium, dietary fiber, calcium, and vitamin D, which are nutrients of concern in American diets. These foods include vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and milk and milk products.
     
    #97
  48. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,895
    You like these pithy little sayings where you echo the status quo. No I dont think most people would agree that it comes down to discipline.In fact its entirely probable (I'd argue almost a certainty) that the collective discipline of mankind HAS NOT CHANGED and yet we are fatter then ever. You just love the idea that people are 'weaker' and 'lazier' then the used to be (based on what i don't know) and thus they are fatter.

    I don't think humanity has collectively changed one iota - some smart people and some dumb ones - some lazy ones and some motivated ones. But if we examine humanity as a whole its likely to be largely the same. People like you have been beating this drum since the 70s - workout more. Watch what you eat! Then been reading the government recommendations and working out more then ever. And yet they are fatter.

    Here is my view:
    It takes very little discipline to get thin. What it takes is MONEY. Gywen Paltrow had a blurb about her diet in a People magazine I was reading in the eye doctors office. It was recommended by her Doctor.

    Her Doctor said the perfect diet was WILD FISH AND VEGETABLE (like a green kind not corn) - EVERY SINGLE MEAL. I totally buy this. Its low sugar. It has healthy fats. It has lots of fiber and antioxidants. It has lots of protein. It's loaded with nutrition and has no empty calories.

    Problem? Money. Paltrow has a chef cook this stuff up for her. He uses yummy spices, grills etc. So it tastes good. And that fish costs a crap load of money. Have you priced Wild King Salmon lately? Discipline - yeah sure. The discipline to get paid, maybe.

    Getting pack on topic - the reason why countries like Syria and India are getting fat is that why they can now afford starches and sugars they can't afford stuff like wild fish and vegetables as a major calorie source. So they get fat.

    Anyway even if they KNEW that say Paltrow's doctor was right - the government could NEVER SAY SO. Because they can't admit that the rich can eat right while the poor cannot. You don't have to agree but you can see that the government spouting the truth is often problematic for them.

    No let them eat bread. Just tell em its okay if its whole grain. The romans would have done the same thing.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2013
    #98
  49. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    The rich can eat well if they are well educated which they mostly are.

    The poor can eat weil if they are well educated which they mostly aren't.

    Some of the poor used to eat well because they were well educated in traditional modes of eating, but now they are miseducated by food corporations.

    This is why dietary advice from schools and governments is useful.

    Moreover, basic food commodoties have been turned into financial instruments and are rising in price as a consequence, so things will get worse.
     
    #99
  50. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,113
    I think you nailed it.
     

Share This Page