Mr. Wookums posted:Everyone knows you're a child though. Please, make your insults logically consistent with the syllogisms put forward so far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't like coffee and like curry, seems like your simplistic worldview is a house of cards. Do you like coffee with sugar and it's just the bitterness of black coffee that puts you off, or do you just not like the taste of coffee? Not liking a flavour is fine, and completely different from saying "ewww, it's too strong! Better have my Mountain Dew-flavoured wings now!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:12
|
|
PT6A posted:Do you like coffee with sugar and it's just the bitterness of black coffee that puts you off, or do you just not like the taste of coffee? I don't enjoy coffee period, but I'm afraid that I feel compelled to say "ewww, it's too strong! Better have my Mountain Dew-flavoured wings now!" just because of how breathtaking your nationalistic snobbery is.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Also it's pretty rich for a Canadian to act like only Americans use a lot of sugar. Canadians and Australians use nearly as much sugar per capita.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't enjoy coffee period, but I'm afraid that I feel compelled to say "ewww, it's too strong! Better have my Mountain Dew-flavoured wings now!" just because of how breathtaking your nationalistic snobbery is. My "nationalistic snobbery"? What the gently caress are you even talking about? My point with the coffee is that, if you liked coffee with milk and sugar but did not like black coffee, it's because you've trained your palate to expect a lot of sweetness. This is a big problem all over the developed world, for sure; it's not a uniquely American problem by any means, which is why we see increasing levels of obesity in most developed nations. If you don't like coffee period then you just don't like coffee. That's fair; there's things I don't like either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Also it's pretty rich for a Canadian to act like only Americans use a lot of sugar. Canadians and Australians use nearly as much sugar per capita. Yes, I know, and we're seeing people becoming obese at high rates as a result.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Everyone is focusing way too much on coffee when the point is about how the American pallate is trained to love the foods that are least healthy. Because saying JUST EAT LESS sounds great but maybe it's ok to look at why that's hard for people. Having to pour extra calories in thing to make them palatable, such as but not exclusive to coffee, is in fact a thing people do that contributes to their weight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:27
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Everyone is focusing way too much on coffee when the point is about how the American pallate is trained to love the foods that are least healthy. Because saying JUST EAT LESS sounds great but maybe it's ok to look at why that's hard for people. Having to pour extra calories in thing to make them palatable, such as but not exclusive to coffee, is in fact a thing people do that contributes to their weight. No, the point is that "added sugar" is responsible for the obesity crisis, or possibly just sugar in general. The whole "the American palate" thing reeks of bullshit, as though other countries don't like sweets.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Cole posted:You're right, advertising dumb foods.. We have a new sauce for our existing food that is on par calorically with the present sauce is a little bit different from, say, the Heart Attack Grill and it's defiance, gently caress you health advice!, based advertising. This spokesman is dead, age 29, in case your were wondering.  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/blair-river-575-pound-spokesman-heart-attack-grill-arizona-dead-29-article-1.116746 posted:On the restaurant's website, River appears in a commercial that brags that if you're over 350 pounds, you eat for free. A sign in front of the building says, “Caution: This establishment is bad for your health,” and the restaurant's motto is “taste worth dying for.” edit: here's the menu, for the curious: 
Toph Bei Fong fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Everyone is focusing way too much on coffee when the point is about how the American pallate is trained to love the foods that are least healthy. Because saying JUST EAT LESS sounds great but maybe it's ok to look at why that's hard for people. Having to pour extra calories in thing to make them palatable, such as but not exclusive to coffee, is in fact a thing people do that contributes to their weight. What foods are least healthy and what's the actual nutrition science backing for that judgement? In reality the problem is simply that Americans, and frankly most first world residents, are cramming their faces full of way too much food, period. And again, coffee in basic preparation is an acquired taste. Other things people eat have nothing to do with that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
I'm kinda surprised the eat fewer calories crowd has such a beef with this. Cutting out sugary drinks in favour of diet soft drinks, black coffee, or just water is a great way to shave off tons of calories. If someone has a caramel macchiato and a can of coke for each lunch and dinner, switching to black coffee and diet coke would shave off about 508 calories. That's a small meal! It's even easier than eating less, it's just eating simpler.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
fishmech posted:In reality the problem is simply that Americans, and frankly most first world residents, are cramming their faces full of way too much food, period. You're a hundred percent correct about this. The "lovely palate" issue, which I shouldn't say is an American-only phenomenon by any means, is an explanation for why so many first-worlders are cramming their faces with far too much food.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You're a hundred percent correct about this. The "lovely palate" issue, which I shouldn't say is an American-only phenomenon by any means, is an explanation for why so many first-worlders are cramming their faces with far too much food. It isn't an explanation though. The primary cause is food in general being cheap, which is the commonality across multiple countries with obesity issues regardless of dominant flavoring styles. And again, sugar usage per capita has been dropping for nearly 16 years straight, in America, and has returned to about the level it was in the early 80s. And will probably drop to the 60s/70s level by 2020 given the trajectory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:I'm kinda surprised the eat fewer calories crowd has such a beef with this. Cutting out sugary drinks in favour of diet soft drinks, black coffee, or just water is a great way to shave off tons of calories. If someone has a caramel macchiato and a can of coke for each lunch and dinner, switching to black coffee and diet coke would shave off about 508 calories. That's a small meal! It's even easier than eating less, it's just eating simpler.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:It's not that this specifically is a bad idea, this, on its own, is a good thing to do. The problem is that people broadly don't seem to understand what are good substitutes or how effective those substitutes are. "Eat exactly what you do now, but half as much" is basically impossible to misinterpret, even if people will just refuse to do it. I don't think advising obese people to eat less is really that novel an idea, and yet here we are. How many people does it take to refuse to do it before we try something else? e: Also the simplistic half truth does nothing but promote cynicism in the system. We should give people the facts, even if they're hard to understand. To do otherwise is paternalistic and condescending. SlipUp fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:I don't think advising obese people to eat less is really that novel an idea, and yet here we are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:Advising people not to drink Coke isn't a novel idea either, yet Coke still exists. I'm in favor of education, it's just current advice needs to match the existing education of your audience. Even the dumb need options. Even if I were to accept the low education as barrier to pertinent information the solution should be better education, not dumber information. Are you content with the status quo? I mean if you're into personal responsibility I am too but I still think ethically we have an obligation to provide the facts and enact changes that could make it even easier. Especially if we're promoting personal responsibility. To promote personal responsibility and hinder it with half truths and convenient misinformation totally undermines the personal responsibility aspect of it. There's a large gulf between failing on your own and failing with help imo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Even the dumb need options. Even if I were to accept the low education as barrier to pertinent information the solution should be better education, not dumber information. quote:Are you content with the status quo? There's things I think we should do and other things I think we shouldn't (like train people to enjoy specific bitter foods), but thinking that one thing isn't an effective thing to do right now doesn't imply anything about how I feel about the status quo. I've also not advocated for half truths or misinformation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:Right dumb people need options, and currently their option is "eat less food", because society has totally failed to educate them in a way that they can usefully employ other strategies. Separate from what their current options are, we can talk about education, though our education attempts have historically been really bad/objectively wrong. One option isn't options, and you deny any other option because people are badly informed so we should continue to badly inform them, but you don't advocate half truths. If you want to talk education Foods class and Gym should be mandatory, and gym should be reformed from loving around playing games to actually learning the impact of physical activity on your body.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:One option isn't options, and you deny any other option because people are badly informed so we should continue to badly inform them, but you don't advocate half truths.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:No, the point is that "added sugar" is responsible for the obesity crisis, or possibly just sugar in general. The whole "the American palate" thing reeks of bullshit, as though other countries don't like sweets. How many other countries pay their citizens billions of dollars to turn all their crops into sugar? Do other countries provide agricultural subsidies on the same level as American corn?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:07
|
|
Effectronica posted:No, the point is that "added sugar" is responsible for the obesity crisis, or possibly just sugar in general. The whole "the American palate" thing reeks of bullshit, as though other countries don't like sweets. No HootTheOwl posted:How many other countries pay their citizens billions of dollars to turn all their crops into sugar? Do other countries provide agricultural subsidies on the same level as American corn? Don't Discendo Vox posted:Sugar is, under most circumstances, sugar. Arguments (including, sadly, a fair amount of research) involving one kind of sugar being better than another is mostly the result of a decades-long conflict between two commercial entities, which I'll just call Big Corn and Big Cane. Cane Sugar tries to claim that HFCS is worse and that cane sugar is better because it's natural. This is not supported by scientific evidence. Big Corn says that it's the same as other sugars. For most material purposes, they appear to be right but are both a)equally slimy with their PR campaigns and b) are having a much harder time dealing with the fearmongering that Cane proxies have generated.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:I don't think advising obese people to eat less is really that novel an idea, and yet here we are. The actual facts are that it doesn't seem to matter what exact foods you eat, so long as you don't end up woefully lacking in any of the macronutrient classes, and as long as your consumption of minerals and vitamins averages out to at least the recommended daily value over the course of months. You just need to be eating less than the average person currently does. HootTheOwl posted:How many other countries pay their citizens billions of dollars to turn all their crops into sugar? Do other countries provide agricultural subsidies on the same level as American corn? Do you really not get that the only reason there's so much use of sugar from corn in the US is because we artificially raised the price of sugar in general through the tariffs and taxes of the 70s? Without those we'd be eating just about the same amount of sugar, and it would primarily come from imported cane, which would be significantly cheaper than HFCS is now. HFCS is only cheap enough to use, because the price of cane and other such sugar crops are over double the the typical global cost in the US. And most corn subsidies function to raise the price of corn, because that's what actually benefits farmers. Even with everything there, HFCS price tends to fluctuate between 10% cheaper and 10% more expensive than cane and oher refined sugar, for equivalent amounts of each product. If we tore down the silly tariffs created in the 70s with the intent of growing the US sugar beet crop, which turned out to be unable to meet demands, then most American sugar use would go right back to being cane sugar imported from overseas as it was before the mid-70s. fishmech fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Again, the taxation/subsidies discussion is a sidetrack from the Cane/Corn conflict that's infecting the general nutrition discourse. They're identical. They don't matter. "added sugar" isn't different from any other caloric source.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Right. All I was saying was our tendency towards overly sweet or fatty things, especially given the rise of sweeteners in 'low fast' foods, is going to contribute to the general problem of Americans eating too many calories. Acting like palates aren't a thing is absurd. Just look at Hershey's chocolate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 20:59
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Right. All I was saying was our tendency towards overly sweet or fatty things, especially given the rise of sweeteners in 'low fast' foods, is going to contribute to the general problem of Americans eating too many calories. Acting like palates aren't a thing is absurd. Just look at Hershey's chocolate. Do you have evidence for this "palate training" thing?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Do you have evidence for this "palate training" thing? No, I never said a word about palate training. I don't know why you put it in quotes. Edit- oh further up. I was just using his phrasing. If you are going to pretend palates and acquired tastes aren't a thing I'm not going to engage you at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Do you have a evidentiary basis or a causal explanation for how palates and "acquired tastes" function, or how they influence obesity rates? vvvv Yeah, the limits of the specific study aside, appetite or preference functions existing isn't surprising, it's any specific form of 2. that's really giving me trouble. It carries the stench of the casually assumed causal relationship. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Do you have a evidentiary basis or a causal explanation for how palates and "acquired tastes" function, or how they influence obesity rates? While not what you're looking for, the first sentence of the synopsis seems to indicate that research exists for your 1). 2) is obviously conjecture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Right. All I was saying was our tendency towards overly sweet or fatty things, especially given the rise of sweeteners in 'low fast' foods, is going to contribute to the general problem of Americans eating too many calories. Acting like palates aren't a thing is absurd. Just look at Hershey's chocolate. Hershey's chocolate isn't any less healthy then the chocolate they have in England or whatever, it just tastes different. For that matter a lot of Americans consider English sweets and chocolates to be too sweet or too intense. Also the whole high sugar low fat thing reached its peak in 1998 and 1999 and their prominence has been declining fairly consistently since then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
twodot posted:I've never suggested that we continue to badly inform people, I'm saying what strategies are available in the presence of badly informed people. If you want to write alt fiction about strategies we could use after we've solved certain problems, that's fine, but it should be prefaced with the counterfactuals you're exploring. I never agreed that people are badly educated. I also believe that simultaneously believing that people are poorly educated enough to not be worth providing all the relevant information enough is hypocritical when taken together with a personal responsibility stance. Ultimately you are taking the responsibility away from them by attempting to manipulate them. People know how to not be fat. Even fat people "know" how not to be fat. The issue is clearly not education. We don't need to dumb things down for people. Maybe we're ready for the next class. fishmech posted:The actual facts are that it doesn't seem to matter what exact foods you eat, so long as you don't end up woefully lacking in any of the macronutrient classes, and as long as your consumption of minerals and vitamins averages out to at least the recommended daily value over the course of months. You just need to be eating less than the average person currently does. There are more facts than that though. Also, don't zero calorie drink substitutes count as eating less?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Hershey's chocolate isn't any less healthy then the chocolate they have in England or whatever, it just tastes different. For that matter a lot of Americans consider English sweets and chocolates to be too sweet or too intense. I wasn't talking about Hershey's and obesity, but Hershey's and palate. Discendo Vox posted:Do you have a evidentiary basis or a causal explanation for how palates and "acquired tastes" function, or how they influence obesity rates? Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:There are more facts than that though. There aren't more facts that are relevant to the mass population. Yes if you have diabetes then avoiding sugar is important and if you have certain organ problems you may be advised to be more careful with proteins or fats, but your doctor should be able to cover such things. They also taste like rear end to a lot of people or they simply don't like it. If someone says they'd rather have full cal sodas and eat less solid food then hey, whatever. It's not like zero calorie drinks are some new thing ever, people have consumed them a lot for decades now. Nevvy Z posted:I wasn't talking about Hershey's and obesity, but Hershey's and palate. What about that though? What was the point supposed to be? You realize there's tons of Americans that dislike Hershey's too, even though they eat the same other foods as people who do like it? Nevvy Z posted:Why do you think people drink so much soda instead of water? I'm not saying it's a direct causal relationship because there is no single cause. Americans are overstimulated by a lot of their foods and healthier foods are 'boring' as a result. "Healthier foods" is a thing that has no scientific basis, but rather a Puritanesque semi-religious basis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:
Yeah there is no way to determine if one source of calories is better for you than another at all ever. Why are you even posting in this thread? You live in a very different reality from the rest of us, you should post on that world's food thread. fishmech posted:And again, coffee in basic preparation is an acquired taste. Other things people eat have nothing to do with that. People can acquire a taste for coffee, but not a taste for other things, say food overloaded with sugars and saturated fats. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Yeah there is no way to determine if one source of calories is better for you than another at all ever. Why are you even posting in this thread? You live in a very different reality from the rest of us, you should post on that world's food thread. This is literally true: the only thing that matters is that you don't eat too many calories, and you don't manage to somehow eat no protein at all, or no fat at all or no carbohydrates at all. And that you manage to average out to the recommended daily values of trace nutrients like vitamins and minerals over the course of months. There is no scientific evidence that any particular diet is better for this in someone who does not already have other diseases that require specific dietary restrictions. Whether you eat sweet or fatty things has literally nothing to do with what your tastes are for coffee. Some of the biggest sugarhounds I know strictly take black coffee.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Why do you think people drink so much soda instead of water? I'm not saying it's a direct causal relationship because there is no single cause. Americans are overstimulated by a lot of their foods and healthier foods are 'boring' as a result. I would speculate that caffeine has a good bit to do with this. Look at the rise of energy drinks. Interestingly there seems to be a higher proportion of low/no calorie options than of conventional sodas - at least in terms of choices, I have no idea about sales.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Injecting heroin is also not bad for your health until you're dying of injecting heroin. Eating diets high in saturated fat, salt and sugar for your whole life trains you to keep eating that diet even once you get diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure. It's really hard to get people to radically shift their diets, so it's best to have a good one from the start. Saying what you eat doesn't matter until you get a severe health issue is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There aren't more facts that are relevant to the mass population. Yes if you have diabetes then avoiding sugar is important and if you have certain organ problems you may be advised to be more careful with proteins or fats, but your doctor should be able to cover such things. We disagree on what facts are relevant. I do not support the reductionist trimming of what should be presented to people. At best it's condescending.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Injecting heroin is also not bad for your health until you're dying of injecting heroin. Salt has little to no impact on the vast majority of people, according to recent research. It doesn't actually cause high blood pressure, it can merely aggravate it in people who already have it from another source, and have certain conditions (the vast majority of people simply piss it out about as soon as it comes in). And you don't seem up on health since you think we're talking about diseases caused by eating, of which there are practically none. You for example can't have a lot of potassium if your kidneys are having issues, but you don't get kidney troubles from eating a lot of potassium. If you get diabetes you gotta watch your sugar, but overeating induced diabetes appears to come up just as often in people who ate a relatively low amount of sugar while overeating on fats and protein. The fact remains that unless you have specific health conditions, you can eat pretty much any diet you want so long as you achieve at least the minimum recommended amounts of macro and micro nutrients averaged out over months. Yes this means you can eat grease covered pizza and drink Coca Cola by the gallon, so long as the portions are kept within a proper for your height and weight and activity level limit. SlipUp posted:We disagree on what facts are relevant. I do not support the reductionist trimming of what should be presented to people. At best it's condescending. What's condescending is your insistence on putting out the extraneous bullshit. All that needs to be said is "eat less then you do now" - nothing else is really backed by the facts. No particular diets are any better than any others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:02 |
|
SlipUp posted:We disagree on what facts are relevant. I do not support the reductionist trimming of what should be presented to people. At best it's condescending. The problem is the promotion and application of these features where they aren't relevant. "Reductionist trimming" is the best policy because industry and other bad actors use extraneous statements to induce health halo effects in the consumerbase. People read "fat-free" and "no added sugar" on FoP and think that means it's a diet food. Industry knows this and exploits it. Health gurus and pop sci speakers exploit this confusion and increase it, sometimes with interest group funding. Food purists and anti-industry pressure groups distort research findings. fishmech posted:Salt has little to no impact on the vast majority of people, according to recent research. It doesn't actually cause high blood pressure, it can merely aggravate it in people who already have it from another source, and have certain conditions (the vast majority of people simply piss it out about as soon as it comes in). I think the jury's still out on this- there's still a fair amount of conflicting data in the (often poorly conducted) research literature. Industry funding probably isn't helping the situation.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 22:18
|
|