- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
- Messages
- 5,939
- Reaction score
- 2,795
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Simplicity in this case is merely a sign of unwillingness to face up to the complexity of the issue.Didn't claim to any credentials. Just know that all the fat folks walking around don't have medical conditions. They just plain old eat fatty foods. The way to cure that "problem" is to stop eating fatty foods. I guess that is confusing because it is such a simple solution. But there are times when simplicity is really the way to go.
It's a long overdue reform of a crippled and increasingly dysfunctional system, a reform that includes new taxes, new tax credits, and new subsidies, but which is a priori deficit-neutral, thereby not adding to net taxes or to the net need for taxes.
So even with a luxury of time that most people simply don't have available, you are able to prepare perhaps 5% (?) of the sometimes fattening anyway foods that you eat from scratch using all these wholesome natural ingredients? That's all well and good, but it doesn't really get you off the train.
Hmmm. Avoidance by some of self-criticism implied under reality-based thinking, then.
Take a look around. This recently invented obesity meme is a fraud. The whole world is getting fatter, and a principal reason for that is the spread of the "western diet", characterized as it is by the highly refined, nutrient-hollow, oversalted, fat- and calorie-laden foodstuffs produced and promoted by a giant, for-profit, agribusiness industry. Consumers can only buy what is available on the shelves, and that ain't what it used to be.
As for drugs, the ones that do by far the most damage are the ones mis-prescribed and mal-administered by an out of control, for-profit health care system. Drugs of choice -- including anabolic steroids, by the way -- do no harm at all in comparison.
Part of the job of the propagandists hired by the people who make all the profits from these profit-driven systems is to come up with phony reasons to blame the people being hurt by them for their own injuries. Rapists used to try that sort of blame-the-victim thing back in the day, but we don't let them get way with that anymore. Some people need to make the same kind of progress in a few other areas.
Actually, I can purchase salads in plastic tubs and bags that zip open and are ready to eat in far less time than it takes to nuke a frozen burrito, but I'm not sure why this would make a difference either way. What we are talking about is an effect that cuts across populations. Virtually all of them. Obesity as presently defined and measured is increasing everywhere. The problem isn't that Bob eats burritos and is a fat slob. There have always been fat slobs. The actual problem is global and systemic -- not local and individual.My point was that junk food is easier than healhy food. preparing a salad takes more time than nuking a burrito.
Yes, I think I understood that. I was pointing out the frequent use of "blame-the-victim" as an excusification by those who simply don't want to face up to the consequences of their own responsibilities. They'd rather just blame Bob.Not sure what that bit about avoidance was, perhaps you misunderstood me. I was merely pointing out that blaming the victim is/was/will always be used I was not advocating the tactic
Actually, I can purchase salads in plastic tubs and bags that zip open and are ready to eat in far less time than it takes to nuke a frozen burrito, but I'm not sure why this would make a difference either way. What we are talking about is an effect that cuts across populations. Virtually all of them. Obesity as presently defined and measured is increasing everywhere. The problem isn't that Bob eats burritos and is a fat slob. There have always been fat slobs. The actual problem is global and systemic -- not local and individual.
Yes, I think I understood that. I was pointing out the frequent use of "blame-the-victim" as an excusification by those who simply don't want to face up to the consequences of their own responsibilities. They'd rather just blame Bob.
When was "the past" that you refer to?Somebody else here already said the healthy foods are on the shelves, and they are right. There is actually more healthy food available than in the past, not less like you claim.
The preference for calorie-dense fat and sugar is a genetic legacy left over from our days of living in continuing peril of literally starving to death. Most of us don't face such environmental pressures anymore, but we are stuck with the legacy nonetheless and manufacturers of foodstuffs take every advantage of that. I'm sure you feel that your "self control" somehow makes you a superior person, but it does nothing to resolve the problem. You weren't obese to start out with and you still aren't. Others were obese to start out with and they still are. Actually addressing the problem will require more than your simply preaching to people that they should be more like you.But people crave fat and sugar so that's what they eat. Nobody wants to feel like they are 'deprived.' Like self-control is deprivation.
You think it's education? Which foods do you suspect there are widespread misunderstandings and misconceptions over that could be cleared up simply through better education?You are right about the western diet. But who wants to educate himself on what's healthy and what isn't? Most people don't care enough to do that, so they get fatter, by choice, and their kids have poor role models in the diet area, so the cycle continues.
What's wrong with meat-based diets? Do you believe that eating meat is the cause of obesity? Do you realize that many of the most successful WEIGHT LOSS regimens are based on high-protein/low-carbohydrate diets that include tons of meat?Anyway, people who eat unhealthy food and too much of it are not victims. Lots of people who were brought up on the meat-based diet have learned healthier ways to eat, and chose to go in a different direction. The information is out there for anybody who cares to read it.
When was "the past" that you refer to?
Consumers can only buy what is available on the shelves, and that ain't what it used to be.
The preference for calorie-dense fat and sugar is a genetic legacy left over from our days of living in continuing peril of literally starving to death. Most of us don't face such environmental pressures anymore, but we are stuck with the legacy nonetheless and manufacturers of foodstuffs take every advantage of that. I'm sure you feel that your "self control" somehow makes you a superior person, but it does nothing to resolve the problem. You weren't obese to start out with and you still aren't. Others were obese to start out with and they still are. Actually addressing the problem will require more than your simply preaching to people that they should be more like you.
You think it's education? Which foods do you suspect there are widespread misunderstandings and misconceptions over that could be cleared up simply through better education?
What's wrong with meat-based diets? Do you believe that eating meat is the cause of obesity? Do you realize that many of the most successful WEIGHT LOSS regimens are based on high-protein/low-carbohydrate diets that include tons of meat?
Well, they haven't really invented any new fruits or vegetables over the past 20-30 years. It's pretty much the same choices as always. Marketing of them has changed to a degree as the local/home-grown/all-natural niche has come into being, but produce in general is still more than merely dominated by commodity-grade crops. As to availability, the home practice of "putting up" fresh fruits and veggies in season so as to have them available out of season goes back a very long way, and the year-round availability of quality frozen foods goes back to days when freezer compartments first became common in refrigerators. And of course the produce aisle accounts for just one section of a typical supermarket and of a typical American diet. Whatever good can be said about it, the quality of a cucumber has not increased sufficiently to offset the changes noted earlier in the sorts of industrial food that line the shelves of all those other aisles and make up the bulk of people's diets. Then there is the matter of meals away from home. Have those been increasing or decreasing and why, and of what are they typically comprised?1. You stated that there was less healthy foods avaiable to people, I was merely pointing out it isn't access but ease of use the main problem. There is far far more choice in fresh produce than there was 20-30 years ago and most produce is now available year round as opposed to just being seasonal as before.
You're simply generalizing from your particular personal habits and experiences, things that aren't material to the systemic, population-level situation with obesity at all. In my home for instance, there aren't any burritos, and those salads are one meal for one person. And they last at least a week in the fridge. And when we want some, we have no problem at all in finding summer or winter squash suitable for one meal for 1-2 persons. But all these granular detail simply vanish when you are talking about North or South Americans as a whole, or Europeans, or Asians, or Africans, or Oceanians, and that's the level that this particular blame-the-victim diversionary discussion arises at.I use those salads as well and a 1 minute for a burrito is just as fast as a premade salad salad, But the burrito will remain pretty much forever in the freezer the salad has to be consumed shortly after purchase. Same is true for pretty much all fruits/veggies if you buy fresh. If you are only 1-2 people eating unless you want squash for 3-4 days straight chances are you won't buy one often and it will take longer to cook than the burrito. same with the salads, they are good for 4 people usually or 2people 2 nights in a row. As most people shop 1X/week it is easier to avoid them or have them 2x a weeek only.
Easy on the hyperbole. Even if you simply accept that a six-foot male is overweight at 184 pounds and obese at 221, being either overweight or obese in current terms is not associated with significant increases in health risks, certainly nothing that would approach a "we are killing ourselves" level, and just as certainly not a level that would make them relevant in any discussion of the necessity for health care reform. These problems are associated with the severely obese (258-294 pounds) and particularly the morbidly obese (295 pounds and up), as those names might suggest. Don't confuse the data for one group with the people in quite a different group and certainly not with people in general no matter where they live.All this to repeat it isn't access to good food that is the problem, it is the ease of junk food and our cultural habits that are killing us.
Interesting, but about when was it that you personally had in mind as being "the past" when claiming that There is actually more healthy food available than in the past? And since I'll be asking next in any case, what are these foods you believe are more healthy, and what leads you to believe that they are now more available?Was referring to your time line:
If ALL you ate were meat, cheese, and chicken, you would not gain weight. Obviously, whatever works for you is fine for you, but this would be a tad out in left field as advice for others.What the hell are you talking about? I was raised on the meat/entree based diet, or typical western diet, that we've been talking about. I gain weight very easily. But, I educated myself on what's healthy and what isn't, and I avoid weight gain by avoiding meat/dairy/chicken for the most part.
Yes, I am well aware of it, and ketosis is not an illness but a chemical state. Ketogenesis is the process of converting stored body fat to ketones that are then burned for energy rather than the carbohydrate-based glucose that would otherwise be available in the bloodstream if one were not on a low-carbohydrate diet. Short of liposuction, there simply is no better means of reducing stored body fat than ketogenesis, so yes, it is a very good solution to a weight problem.We can start with your education. Some of those diets you refer to work by causing ketosis, an illness. Do you know that? Do you think that's a good solution for a weight problem?
Yes, I would guess that I am quite a bit more conversant on this topic than what you seem to think. You will of course not get the same quality of protein from a vegan or vegetarian diet, and to allow your body to build the bank of complete proteins that it requires to maintain health, you will need to eat a range of veggie protein sources throughout the day. Veggie diets typically do provide plenty of fiber, vitamin C, and unsaturated fats, but the more strict the vegetarian limits become, the more you will have to worry about getting sufficient calcium, vitamins D and B-12, omega-3's, iron, and zinc. Supplements to reinforce those are often a good idea, but given all that, there is certainly no requirement that one must "eat meat or die".Also, meat/dairy, etc is not required in the diet at all for a person to be healthy. You do know that, right?
Well, they haven't really invented any new fruits or vegetables over the past 20-30 years. It's pretty much the same choices as always. Marketing of them has changed to a degree as the local/home-grown/all-natural niche has come into being, but produce in general is still more than merely dominated by commodity-grade crops. As to availability, the home practice of "putting up" fresh fruits and veggies in season so as to have them available out of season goes back a very long way, and the year-round availability of quality frozen foods goes back to days when freezer compartments first became common in refrigerators. And of course the produce aisle accounts for just one section of a typical supermarket and of a typical American diet. Whatever good can be said about it, the quality of a cucumber has not increased sufficiently to offset the changes noted earlier in the sorts of industrial food that line the shelves of all those other aisles and make up the bulk of people's diets. Then there is the matter of meals away from home. Have those been increasing or decreasing and why, and of what are they typically comprised?
You're simply generalizing from your particular personal habits and experiences, things that aren't material to the systemic, population-level situation with obesity at all. In my home for instance, there aren't any burritos, and those salads are one meal for one person. And they last at least a week in the fridge. And when we want some, we have no problem at all in finding summer or winter squash suitable for one meal for 1-2 persons. But all these granular detail simply vanish when you are talking about North or South Americans as a whole, or Europeans, or Asians, or Africans, or Oceanians, and that's the level that this particular blame-the-victim diversionary discussion arises at.
Easy on the hyperbole. Even if you simply accept that a six-foot male is overweight at 184 pounds and obese at 221, being either overweight or obese in current terms is not associated with significant increases in health risks, certainly nothing that would approach a "we are killing ourselves" level, and just as certainly not a level that would make them relevant in any discussion of the necessity for health care reform. These problems are associated with the severely obese (258-294 pounds) and particularly the morbidly obese (295 pounds and up), as those names might suggest. Don't confuse the data for one group with the people in quite a different group and certainly not with people in general no matter where they live.
That's wonderful, but you are still focused on perhaps overstated claims about the availability and healthfulness of produce. The original post was not limited in this way and contemplated the entire range of increasingly hollow calories found in the rest of the grocery store as well as in the rest of the food chain. The "western diet" after all is made up of more than just what is sometimes called rabbit food.No they haven't invented new fruits but they are importing ones that they never imported before and others are available year round when they were seasonal.
What I said was this...The whole world is getting fatter, and a principal reason for that is the spread of the "western diet", characterized as it is by the highly refined, nutrient-hollow, oversalted, fat- and calorie-laden foodstuffs produced and promoted by a giant, for-profit, agribusiness industry. Consumers can only buy what is available on the shelves, and that ain't what it used to be. Some seem to have embroidered their own personal spin for that, one not attributable to the original author.I think you are missing the point, you said there was less available than before, when there is more.
That's wonderful, but you are still focused on perhaps overstated claims about the availability and healthfulness of produce. The original post was not limited in this way and contemplated the entire range of increasingly hollow calories found in the rest of the grocery store as well as in the rest of the food chain. The "western diet" after all is made up of more than just what is sometimes called rabbit food.
What I said was this...The whole world is getting fatter, and a principal reason for that is the spread of the "western diet", characterized as it is by the highly refined, nutrient-hollow, oversalted, fat- and calorie-laden foodstuffs produced and promoted by a giant, for-profit, agribusiness industry. Consumers can only buy what is available on the shelves, and that ain't what it used to be. Some seem to have embroidered their own personal spin for that, one not attributable to the original author.
Interesting, but about when was it that you personally had in mind as being "the past" when claiming that There is actually more healthy food available than in the past? And since I'll be asking next in any case, what are these foods you believe are more healthy, and what leads you to believe that they are now more available?
If ALL you ate were meat, cheese, and chicken, you would not gain weight. Obviously, whatever works for you is fine for you, but this would be a tad out in left field as advice for others.
Yes, I am well aware of it, and ketosis is not an illness but a chemical state. Ketogenesis is the process of converting stored body fat to ketones that are then burned for energy rather than the carbohydrate-based glucose that would otherwise be available in the bloodstream if one were not on a low-carbohydrate diet. Short of liposuction, there simply is no better means of reducing stored body fat than ketogenesis, so yes, it is a very good solution to a weight problem.
Yes, I would guess that I am quite a bit more conversant on this topic than what you seem to think. You will of course not get the same quality of protein from a vegan or vegetarian diet, and to allow your body to build the bank of complete proteins that it requires to maintain health, you will need to eat a range of veggie protein sources throughout the day. Veggie diets typically do provide plenty of fiber, vitamin C, and unsaturated fats, but the more strict the vegetarian limits become, the more you will have to worry about getting sufficient calcium, vitamins D and B-12, omega-3's, iron, and zinc. Supplements to reinforce those are often a good idea, but given all that, there is certainly no requirement that one must "eat meat or die".
Quag is competent to post on Quag's behalf. Not yours. That would be your job, but in this case at least, you don't want it.Quag already answered most of this.
I guess you can just ignore all those tainted spinach, lettuce, peanut, and salad bar scares. Otherwise, your 50-50 data are not so good. Cancers plus suicides took more lives than heart disease in 2010 with quite a lot of other causes left over. Eating more fruits and vegetables will indeed lower one's risk of developing heart disease regardless of what else one eats. It won't however reduce your chances of dying from other causes. Semi-vegetarians who eat fish and dairy products but meat less than once a week do not fare quite as well as fanatics, but signifcantly better than regular meat-eaters.I'll just respond to the last paragraph where you mention something about getting sufficient nutrients from a vegetarian diet. The odds are that an American today has about a 50/50 chance of dying of heart disease. I don't know of massive numbers of vegetarians dying due to the food they eat, or even becoming sick from it.
Spoken like a true fanatic.Not only is it unnecessary to include meat/dairy/chicken/fish in the diet, but the average American would live longer and be a lot healthier without it.
Atkins is dead and most of his one-time empire with him. But his dietary plan relied on ketogenesis only during the initial weight loss period. On reaching a healthy target wieght, he advised adjustment to a maintenance diet something like what was later popularized as the Mediterranean Diet.One other thing, you're right about ketosis, its a condition, not really a disease. I think of it as an illness, though, because it occurs during starvation. Course, the Atkins people and others have managed to make a lot of money off of it, because they call it a diet.
Sometimes I don't know who is dumber... the average American or the average tree stump.
In other words, you're a white liberal Democrat.
Actually, he's not white...
What would be evil about someone deciding to change citizenship? I don't understand what the raging is about? Hating everyone who isn't an American citizen?
If a person wants to change citizenship, it's no big deal. I don't see ANY reason that person should be treated an different than any other non-American.
Quag is competent to post on Quag's behalf. Not yours. That would be your job, but in this case at least, you don't want it.
I guess you can just ignore all those tainted spinach, lettuce, peanut, and salad bar scares. Otherwise, your 50-50 data are not so good. Cancers plus suicides took more lives than heart disease in 2010 with quite a lot of other causes left over. Eating more fruits and vegetables will indeed lower one's risk of developing heart disease regardless of what else one eats. It won't however reduce your chances of dying from other causes. Semi-vegetarians who eat fish and dairy products but meat less than once a week do not fare quite as well as fanatics, but signifcantly better than regular meat-eaters.
Spoken like a true fanatic.
Atkins is dead and most of his one-time empire with him. But his dietary plan relied on ketogenesis only during the initial weight loss period. On reaching a healthy target wieght, he advised adjustment to a maintenance diet something like what was later popularized as the Mediterranean Diet.
Hmmm. E Coli and salmonella are bacteria, aflatoxin is a fungal product, and all of them make you pretty sick no matter how they have come to contaminate a bunch of veggies.Tainted salad? And spinach? You do know what those foods are tainted with, right? Animal stuff.
I'm not at all trying to discourage vegetables or vegetarians in any degree. I do discourage some of the claims that come from those who have adopted vegetarianism as a religion, along of course with what certainly seems like all of the obesity-related nonsense that the right-wing has managed to manufacture of late in trying to gin up phony opposition to health care reform. In any case, I have people here who could rightfully claim to be close family members who are strict vegetarians. I might become one myself if scrapple, sausage, and meatballs are reclassified as vegetables. In the meantime, it would certainly be a good idea for most people to consciously include more fruits and vegetables (fresh or not) in their diets. It would also be a good idea to reduce and even eliminate such vegetable products as palm, coconut, and other tropical oils. Maybe cookies and bags full of corn and potato chips as well, but one step at a time, and don't expect miracles. Population-based data tend to focus on the small number of people (sometimes less than one in a hundred) who exhibit a particular effect. They tend to ignore the oftentimes much larger number of people who don't. If we accept both that the odds of dying from ischaemic heart disease are 47% and the separately reported notion that vegetarians reduce their risk of that by 24%, then about one in nine people will avoid dying from heart disease through diet, while the other eight either die from heart disease or don't just as they would have in any case. And who would want to gamble a lifetime of scrapple-eating on a 9-to-1 longshot?I can't be a proper fanatic on diet. I travel too much, am usually away from home six days a week. This makes it extremely hard for me to eat exactly like I want to. But the facts are the facts. A vegetarian diet is much healthier than the western diet. That's the simple truth.
They weren't mine. They were the published CDC data for causes of death during 2010 that anyone could find online. According to their work, heart disease was the most common cause of death that year, but more people succumbed to the combination of cancer and suicide with many other causes still left on the shelf. Those are the facts. If there isn't a way for them to fit into your worldview, the problem isn't with the facts.My data on heart disease death is backed by this AHA article. I will believe their data over yours any day:
Hmmm. E Coli and salmonella are bacteria, aflatoxin is a fungal product, and all of them make you pretty sick no matter how they have come to contaminate a bunch of veggies.
I'm not at all trying to discourage vegetables or vegetarians in any degree. I do discourage some of the claims that come from those who have adopted vegetarianism as a religion, along of course with what certainly seems like all of the obesity-related nonsense that the right-wing has managed to manufacture of late in trying to gin up phony opposition to health care reform. In any case, I have people here who could rightfully claim to be close family members who are strict vegetarians. I might become one myself if scrapple, sausage, and meatballs are reclassified as vegetables. In the meantime, it would certainly be a good idea for most people to consciously include more fruits and vegetables (fresh or not) in their diets. It would also be a good idea to reduce and even eliminate such vegetable products as palm, coconut, and other tropical oils. Maybe cookies and bags full of corn and potato chips as well, but one step at a time, and don't expect miracles. Population-based data tend to focus on the small number of people (sometimes less than one in a hundred) who exhibit a particular effect. They tend to ignore the oftentimes much larger number of people who don't. If we accept both that the odds of dying from ischaemic heart disease are 47% and the separately reported notion that vegetarians reduce their risk of that by 24%, then about one in nine people will avoid dying from heart disease through diet, while the other eight either die from heart disease or don't just as they would have in any case. And who would want to gamble a lifetime of scrapple-eating on a 9-to-1 longshot?
They weren't mine. They were the published CDC data for causes of death during 2010 that anyone could find online. According to their work, heart disease was the most common cause of death that year, but more people succumbed to the combination of cancer and suicide with many other causes still left on the shelf. Those are the facts. If there isn't a way for them to fit into your worldview, the problem isn't with the facts.
Well, I'm well informed enough to know that this particular claim appears (in exact, word-for-word, "echo chamber"-like fashion) in devoted vegetarian and animal rights cookbooks, blogs, and websites all over the internet. Would you happen to have a link to an actual World Health Organization website where the claim is made?You seem pretty well informed, so you must know that there are more benefits to a vegetarian diet than reduced heart disease:
The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries. When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?