|
Health at any size is a fallacy, absent something like nanobots that are constantly in ya taking care of the natural consequences of being extremely thin or extremely fat. Or replacing certain organs with robot/artificial parts, in the nearer term.
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
Also as near as I can figure, the "health at any weight" slogan and related stuff started out as meaning "even if it's really hard for you to get to an ideal weight, you can still do other things to be as healthy as possible considering your weight". It's just that over time, dull witted people took the wrong meaning from it, that you can be equally as healthy at stick thin anorexic or 700 pound tubby as at a normal weight. And that's simply not true, unless the healthy weight person has numerous diseases and organ problems at least!  You get too skinny or fat, and you start having a hard ceiling on how good your health can actually be.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:
To be fair it is extremely true that for any given person most diets don't work (because most diets have no rational basis to them, and they essentially rely on the hopes that their particular combination of food swill lower the amount of total food you eat to get the result). endlessmonotony posted:We have no evidence eating less works for losing weight. This isn't true in the least. Check out Nazi German concentration camps, and hell, most areas suffering from long term food shortages during and after wars. Minimal food = losing weight.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Is this choosing to eat less or not being able to eat? Are you trying to make some sort of dumb dichotomy where choosing to eat less doesn't work but being forced to eat the same amount less does? Because that sounds pretty bullshit, op.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:It's not a dumb dichotomy - one is where the person themselves chooses how much to eat, and one's where someone else does. Tons of people do have that ability, and this is a HUGE loving backpedal from your initial argument: endlessmonotony posted:We have no evidence eating less works for losing weight. Hell, this is almost in direct contradiction of this post you made just up the page.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:"Almost in direct contradiction" meaning "completely consistent". Nope and nope. You argued there is no evidence that reduced consumption leads to reduced weight. There is assloads of evidence that it does stretching back to the beginnings of history. Your attempt to go "uh I actually meant that some people don't bother to actually eat less" is not the argument you made, it's a ridiculous backpedal that directly contradicts your original argument. Tesseraction posted:One thing that doesn't help is the use of HFCS in basically anything edible in America. HFCS usage in particular and sweetener use in general has been in a continuous decline since 1998/1999 in America.  It originally rose because of the "low fat" fad, since sugar's a great way to maintain good taste when you drop fat. fishmech fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:But fast enough to reverse a bulbous trend? Fast enough that if the overweight epidemic was truly caused by it, we should be seeing significant reductions after 16 years. Since we haven't seen that, the cause is likely just that we all like to stuff too much food in our mouths which, let's face it, is what evolutionary development incentivized us to do for millennia.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:I argued eating less does not work for losing weight, Which is 100% false and untrue. What don't you get? Tesseraction posted:Hm, maybe, but that graph in the OP seems to suggest the rate of obesity rose more sharply between 1990 and 2000 than between 2000 and 2010, although I could be wrong on this. Hard to really say against a single, teensy, graph. Yeah, but if sugars were the true cause, then we should see a decline since 2000 instead of slower growth. Neo_Crimson posted:I think the HAES movement was originally started as a campaign against the pretty hosed up beauty standards in Western Society, but then spun off into normalizing and apologizing for some pretty blatantly unhealthy behaviors. Using the language of privilege politics as a rhetorical bludgeon. It's that, but it was also about encouraging people to try to be as healthy as possible even if they can't get up from very underweight or down from very overweight. I.e.: not "you are already healthy at every size" but "you can become healthier than you are now at any size, and you should really try".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I know, but I recall there being a problem with HFCS being used as a makeweight in cheap foods. Not living in America I can't check your ingredients labels as readily as England's so I could well be talking about a historical, not current, issue. HFCS is solely used en masse due to the sugar tariffs that more than double the price of regular refined sugars in the US versus in Canada, Mexico, the UK, or the global market in general. Without the sugar tariffs being implemented in the 70s (you can see when they took effect in my graph of caloric sweeteners), HFCS would be restricted to niche uses, since it's "naturally" a good deal more expensive to produce and buy than regular refined sugars are. Specifically it can be excellent for "moister" baked goods and a few other niches, but if the sugar tariffs were repealed tomorrow morning, the use of it would be down something like 90% over the next couple years. So in alternate reality America where the tariffs never happened, the graph probably looks about the same except it's refined sugars that spikes and then slowly declines. Heck, it's basically what the Canadians and Australians have done.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Soft drinks are totally devoid of nutrition besides their sugar content, and a lot of people have them with every meal. It's not like shoving minerals and vitamins and trace metals into them would help though, nor sticking fiber or protein in - this is why talk about "empty calories" or "devoid of nutrition" is meaningless. It doesn't matter how full or empty the calories are, if you consume a lot you're going to get fat barring certain strange metabolic conditions not present in well over 90% of the human population.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:True that excess calories leads to weight gain, it's important that people don't accidentally give themselves nutrient deficiencies because they cut down on beans but didn't stop drinking sugar water. Actual vitamin and mineral deficiencies are quite rare in America. Many vitamins and minerals are themselves useful for preservation or other things, or are just plain cheap, so they get sprinkled into nigh on everything. Typically when we see Americans who have vitamin and mineral deficiencies, its cases of extreme poverty where they can't afford and thus don't buy sodas to begin with or people adopting strange dietary restrictions from some fad or another. Separate from all of that too, many deficiencies require chronic lack of the given item in your food to manifest, if you manage to get a small amount once a year then you'll be ok. Sure, it's best to get as much of them in small bits each day just for consistency's sake. Also no that's wrong. It's just as bad to drink 500 calories alongside a meal even if it has fiber as well, and some of the calories are protein. Neo_Crimson posted:Chipotle is probably the best place to eat if your lifting, and even then it's far from perfect (absolutely shittons of salt). For the vast majority of the population, excess salt just means you'll need to piss more often. fishmech fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I feel like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. If there really was a liquid that had nutritional content as a regular meal, I wouldn't argue that people should be drinking it in addition to their usual food. Look, just take milkshakes for example. They exist, they've actually got a decent amount of protein in them - a 20 ounce serving contains 19 grams of protein, 39% of the RDA for a 2000 calorie diet. It even has 4 grams of fiber, which is is 16% of your RDA. They've also got a goodly amount of vitamins and minerals They're even served by nearly all the same places people are getting soda with their meals. But they're still 702 calories for those 20 ounces, and it's a real bad idea to drink them on a daily basis with a meal a day. (For comparison, a 20 ounce Coca-Cola is only 215 calories). Slim Jim Pickens posted:The drink that gives the same nutrtional benefits as real food is a myth, and there's no point in arguing about myths. You're gonna need to unpack what you think is "real food" and "nutritional benefits". FYI, we've had liquid meals that doctors consider to be wholly suitable for long term living for decades on end, Ensure and other such products. Soylent is bullshit, but only because it manages to cost more than them, be less safe (hello cadminum and lead!), taste worse, and cause horrible farts.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Do you agree that if broad segments of the population were educated in what exactly their nutritional needs actually were, people could be able to make better informed opinions of what they should or should not eat on a regular basis? No they really wouldn't, because poo poo is still mondo complicated, and beyond a lot of people's capabilities. And people already know that eating a fuckton of food in general, or of soda or juice or candy or mayonaise is bad and not good. They still do it regardless. We're not really at a crisis of knowledge so much as a crisis of being willing and sometimes able to do something about the knowledge. So it's a weasel term you're using that means nothing. Ok. Ensure and others like it are actually very cheap for all your nutrition, even though most people wouldn't enjoy having them as their only food. And all the products you'll see on shore shelves by the Ensure are medically/dietwise identical, it doesn't require work to sift through the similar products - they're just the same stuff various hospitals need to use packaged for the consumer market.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:It is nowhere near your parallels to addiction because of the lack of fatal withdrawal/overdose. Nonsense, if you stop eating you die and if you eat way too much way too fast you can cause organ bursting that also leads to death.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Not surprising that this thread took an extreme left turn into pop-science flailing, but I think it's worth focusing on the fact that despite the problem being obvious and the solution being obvious, the obvious solution seems not to work at all. It's true that statistically very few obese people keep the weight off long-term, and it's true that the proportion of people who are statistically obese keeps climbing. What can be done about that? Free lipo under a national healthcare system on a regular basis
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:: The only way to really tackle the obesity crisis is through regulation of poo poo food through certain financial incentives or other measures, so at the end of the day a true humane (i.e. not letting people die in the streets) solution is going to cost money, it just really depends on whether you want prevention or cure, the latter of which only after extensive suffering of people affected. Which may be the goal, given how the belief that addiction and other such vices are moral failings for which people should be punished is still very much prevalent, despite much evidence to the contrary. There is no coherent and legally or medically supportable definition of "poo poo food", is the problem with just trying to ban or regulate "poo poo food".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:The current initiatives to show added sugar will help people ID them. New York City has had some success with regulation. Added sugar is effectively meaningless. It gets really easy to argue that a given product's sugar content is "integral" or whatever you want to call sugar that isn't "added". Arglebargle III posted:This isn't much of an obstacle. People don't support policies because they're scientific. Let's not derail the thread to prove a point on a minor technical issue though Fishmech. It's a pretty big obstacle because food companies would have all the money and reason in the world to sue over attempted regulations, and could probably win handily. Doesn't matter what the public supports, it's what lawyers could bite into. It's easy to do things like ban intentionally adding something like lead into foods, and require that industrial contamination in the food preparation doesn't add more than x amount per million. It's a whole nother thing to work out "ok well we can't ban any basic nutrients, and we don't actually have a good idea for what should be a limit broadly applicable across foods". fishmech fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Nov 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Once you establish a causal link between terrible food and public health detriment it would probably be a slam dunk, assuming various governmental panels to insure the safety of food actually do their drat job and don't bow to lobbying pressure. First, define terrible food in a consistent way. DeusExMachinima posted:Probably nothing short of banning foods that fit the fast food profile would solve this problem. Let obesity fairies eat their beautiful selves into premature death if they want it so badly. They don't care about themselves so who am I to argue? What's the fast food profile? What meaningfully distinguishes it from the same dish made at home or at a different kind of restaurant?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Here's a simple example of why defining "bad foods" is hard: Let's just say, we will ban full calorie soda. Simple right? But if we're going to be consistent on that, say, drinks with a bunch of sugar and calories, well, that bans a lot of the most popular sorts of coffee people actually drink, milk, most juices without sugar added in from the natural juice, and nearly all of them with, energy drinks, a whole bunch of alcoholic drinks. Well, people are liable to riot if you ban that much stuff. And if you say "ok, well we'll tweak that so they have to have vitamins and minerals" then poo poo, the soda companies are just going to add the legal minimum into their drinks, hell, that'll only add 1 cent per 20 ounce bottle!You'll probably get those changes from other drinks to qualify, and hell, some of those energy drinks out there already have a goodly grip of vitamins and minerals.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Have we considered the infrastructure angle? For me to get ice cream would require traveling to Jeni's 1.5 miles away by bike, bus, or car. Car is right out because gently caress parking in the central west end. By bike you're guaranteed to burn at least 3 miles worth of calories even after you stuff your face. Have you considered that people are probably not gonna want to bike (and deal with things like theft or carrying locks) precisely because it's a lot more effort, especially for people who are really fat? Like ok, whatever, you like to bike, but I don't think it's a reasonable solution for the mass populace, especially since a city building a great bike infrastructure is also probably going to build a good transit infrastructure, and transit lets you be almost as lazy as in a car, and you still get climate control stuff going on. And this is just a guess but I feel like the sort of people willing to bike on a workdaily basis are more likely to already do other healthy things, and therefore less likely to be fat to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Fishmech's primary objections are in part: people don't wanna and they'll riot ohnoes. To which the obvious answer is gently caress them. What are fatties going to do anyway? Whine at you and sit on you? Invest in riot gear futures I guess. Banning transfats alone would save more lives yearly than literally any other law we have. No, guy who can't read. My objection is primarily that the only coherent and thus legally defensible (in the sense that food industry lawyers couldn't easily bring suit and win against them in court) are either too broad to be practical, or too extremely narrow to have any meaningful effect on the problem. Also no, trans fats barely even kill anyone, and they're already massively decreased without being "banned" - but there's absolutely no other common food ingredient that poses measurable direct harm and is also still widely used! You can't ban fats, you can't ban sugars or carbohydrates in general, you can't ban protein, you can't ban salt, etc. DeusExMachinima posted:Every law requires sacrifices on the part of people who were never going to harm society. What's your point? Do you even understand the depths of what you're asking to be sacrificed? I shouldn't bother to ask really, because you're apparently still dull enough to think there's an easy systematic set of definitions to be put out that would only ban things you don't like, without comprehending that those would probably ban a ton of unrelated things.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Do you want millions in the first world alone to die annually or not? If I'm not accurately describing the characteristics of McDonald's food I can accept that. I have no doubt very educated people with alphabet soup after their names van find a place and pre-approval process to draw that line. McDonald's food is objectively ok to eat, and you need to get over that. poo poo the portion sizes ain't even a problem either. It's impossible to draw "that line" because there is absolutely no food that's particularly bad for the general public in excess to a greater ratio than other foods are. This fact is why pretty much any diet plan with any combinations of disallowed food and particularly encouraged foods can work for weight loss, since ultimately they all rely on you simply paying more attention to what you eat and eating less. The problem is how much food is eaten, and it remains with all food. With the exception of things that don't even do anything for you nutrition wise like crunching on something that's 99.9% indigestible or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:
This isn't true. It's still the 12 ounce can. Maybe you choose to buy 20 ounce bottles instead, but the thing they sell the most of that's single-person (i.e. not 2+ liter bottles) is still the cans, as it's been since cans really became practical in the 70s. As a separate issue, the replaceable cap on the bottles means that at least some people will slowly drink it over an extended time instead of drinking a can you can't reclose rather quickly and then thinking "i'll have another". When McDonald's was first founded, it focused single serving sizes purely as a function of: "if we do it this way we minimize costs and can serve people faster". Additionally they didn't stick to just one size very long, from the start people complained about wanting more drink/fries/whatever so hell, larger containers it was. I can go look back at photos of my grandparents and my dad's older siblings when fast food places started being a thing in the 50s, and on the table or whatever in front of tem it wasn't uncommon to see them have two of the only drink size and multiples of the fries per person. Incidentally this is the same reason the ban on large drink sizes in NYC was actually dumb: nothing stopping a store from selling multiple of the largest legal size for the same price they sold the equivalent volume in a single cup, and every fast food place has tons of those cardboard molded things for holding multiple cups. MaxxBot posted:Completely cutting out all unhealthy food is not how most fit, healthy people stay fit and healthy anyways so you'd be completely screwing over basically everyone other than the most hardcore and needlessly spergy dieters. I liked to ridicule the D&Ders taking the "ban cars" position as unrealistic but this proposal is probably even less realistic than that. Again: there's no real workable definition for unhealthy food. There's just eating unhealthy amounts of all foods in total. DeusExMachinima posted:Regulate caloric intake in McDonalds servings then. I guess you could buy tons of meals then but that'd cost more so it's effectively a sin tac then. What do you want to "regulate"? All the common portion sizes there are just fine so long as you don't eat that much three times a day. Yes, even the largest "meals". When's this going to get through to you? Let me be frank: you seem to understand nothing of what's going on here. You're just doing the typical "i kinda guess at knowing food" thing of WELL I SAW FAT PEOPLE EAT AT MCDONALDS THEREFORE ITS EVIL.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Cole posted:How come South Korea, a very Americanized country that has everything we have here (including the same addicting sugar items, fast food, etc), doesn't have a problem like we do with obesity? They're quickly getting one, especially as all their borderline starving (due to a broken social safety net for seniors) old folks die off,and aren't holding down ratios anymore. Meanwhile the Canadians, Australians, Mexicans and others all are nearly as much of a problem as the us or worse.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Cole posted:I guess I was seeing things then. Or not seeing things, however you want to frame it. When the majority of people remain a healthy weight or lower, you're going to notice them more often then the fat, out of true proportion. I also ask that you keep in mind that South Korea only became the sort of rich country where getting fat becomes easy quite recently. Like since the late 80s at earliest. And it takes quite some time for people to go from normal weight to "overweight but you'd really only notice it if they're naked" to full on "that person should probably book two airline seats".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Cole posted:We are talking about obesity. If you can tell me how to not look obese while dressed, that would be amazing. Yeah but you don't go 0 to obese, you spend a lot of time in the "just overweight" zone. Currently, that's a lot of South Korea and they're going to start tipping over into a whole lotta obese around soon. Yes, in general. Food is cheap and plentiful, and on top of that there's a lot of money , so our problem becomes majorly obesity with chronic starvation being very rare. Some might say "just make food expensive" but anything big enough to really cut down on the average person's eating is going to drive millions into starvation. And well, it's easier to fix fat then to fix having a hosed up body for the rest of your life via starvation for even a relatively short time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Cycling is great when you're fat man. It's such an efficient way to get around that its literally the friendliest fat gently caress activity there is. Much easier on the joints and the heart (unless you're climbing 10%+ grade hills all day every day) And yet most fat people don't enjoy doing it. Sucrose posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a lot of the epidemic down to poor education? You can buy several meals worth of staple foods like beans or rice for the same price as a meal at McDonalds. Barring that, if obese people simply bought less food, but spent more of their money on the more expensive nutritious food, they'd still be better off health-wise. Someone who is obese is getting more than enough calories, if they cut down on the pure calories and made sure that they're getting sufficient protein and vitamins, then they wouldn't be in any danger of malnutrition due to inability to buy food. The root of the problem doesn't seem to be poverty, it seems to be lack of education and the fact that unhealthy processed food tastes really good, so people eat it and become obese. And if you just eat beans and rice for weeks on end you're going to get fat, dude. Also, again, malnutrition is vanishingly rare except among the extremely poor - and the extremely poor ain't buying fast food because it's way too expensive for them. And "processing" has jack poo poo to do with anything. You're just repeating tired old My First Health Class level junk. The problem is solely people eating too much. sweek0 posted:. Serving kids pizza, burgers and fries (or giving them the option at least) is a pretty terrible idea. No it isn't. They're all perfectly fine foods. SgCloud posted:
No, vegetable and fruit prices in DC are fairly low just like the rest of the cities close enough to the coasts. They only really get expensive in low populated areas far away from anything. Maybe he just insisted on shopping at froofy high-end stores, who have a bad habit of pushing "organic" produce to no benefit other than the bottom line, since they're more expensive for no gain to you. fishmech fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:As an occasional meal, sure. As a regular school lunch option which is currently the case (the part that you cut out when you quoted me), no. No, they are quite fine as a regular meal too. There is nothing about them that's actually objectionable. By objective nutritional content there's nothing wrong with them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:Alright, this is from the Huffington Post on typical school meals. No issue here, then? Yes, there's nothing wrong with that dude! Here's something you need to understand: fresh veggies instead of what, frozen, aren't going to make you less fat. sweek0 posted:Sorry, I'll stop respond to fishmech posts now. Oh I see, you just want to whine about how degenerate America is and act like having unappetizing looking lunch makes people fat. Good to know you don't care about the reality of food at all!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:I have absolutely no issue with frozen food. Frozen fish and vegetables tend to contain more nutrition than their fresh counterparts. Well you were just trying to act like the fresh vegetables in the korean lunch was supposedly a point in its favor versus the presumably non-"fresh" potatoes and peas in the american lunch.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:I never mentioned freshness? The description of the Korean meal has that word on it, that's all. It's a comparison of the nutritional values of those school lunches. Where's the comparison? All I saw in your post is a list of ingredients, and you using it to try to imply therefore the American one is bad. When there's nothing objectively wrong in either meal.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Realistically the quickest way to cut down on people needing to work multiple jobs is probably to bump up the minimum wage a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Are people really getting fat because they're going to the store and buying tons of junk food and soda, though? Or are they getting fat because, gently caress it, it's a lot easier to hit McDonald's on the way home than anything else. They're getting fat because they do all of the things and then also eat what they perceive as "healthy" food as well. PT6A posted:Are people really going to a proper grocery store, bypassing all the delicious healthy food and shovelling pure poo poo into their cart? I thought the obesity crisis was much more about people consistently eating fast food and the sort of frozen garbage you can pick up at the corner store because they're lazy. Maybe I'm just naive. You are being naive there. You gotta be in a bit of an upper income bracket, or to have unusually cheap living expenses otherwise, to actually be able to afford that stuff on a regular basis in amounts that are gonna get you fat. Like the dollar frozen food things that everyone can afford, there's not all that much food in them! Like they're usually around 300-500 calories in 'em. No, the crisis is about the fact that people simply eat a lot of food. Tons of the obese people out there only eat supposedly "bad foods" or fast food on rare occasions, but since they're eating just so much in general it doesn't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Cole posted:Never mind, misunderstood the point. Well for instance salad is pretty non-filling too. And a ton of people think it's ok to dump dressing all over it anyway because salad is healthy, right? And the dressing doesn't make it much more filling at all, but oh boy them calories. To be blunt, the proper amount of food to eat to stay a healthy weight doesn't seem that filling to begin with, especially if you eat it spread across multiple meals. Humans just don't need all that much food.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Cole posted:Because terrible food is way more plentiful than it was a century ago and physical activity has overall gone down with the rise of the internet and video games. Not terrible food, simply food in general. This is the thing to get: there was tons of "terrible" food that people were eating back a century ago. In fact a lot of the food we eat today ain't much different from what people were eating in 1915 - though sometimes what you eat on a regular basis might have only been a common dish in a wholly different part of the world! Ddraig posted:Even going to specialist health shops doesn't really help matters, as even though these are places where you're more likely able to buy these in bulk, prices tend to be way more expensive than others. "Health" shops are just a scam, plain and simple. Same goes for anything marked organic really. Seperately: Ddraig posted:To get a comparable amount of the much more healthy brown rice it would cost much, much more, with prices ranging anywhere from £2 to £4 a kilo Brown rice is only marginally "better" then white rice, and much of the difference can be made up simply not eating just rice. The extra vitamins and minerals don't do anything to help you lose weight, and the roughly 12% less calories per gram (assuming typical preparation of the plan rice) tends to get balanced out by people eating more of either the brown rice itself, or of other foods. Ervin K posted:The term "healthy food" really" makes no sense. Plenty of obese people prepare their own food out of healthy ingredients, it's the recipe and the amount they eat that's the problem. I'm certain that the people who are fat because they don't have the time to eat anything but fast-food make up a small portion of the obese population, and even then just eating less will solve a big part of the problem. Honestly it's really just the amount. The recipe only really steps in due to the fact that there'll be more food for the "bad" sort of recipe.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Cole posted:Other than changing how food is advertised, packaged and priced I don't think there is much of an answer other than willpower. The only part of that that can really work is price... but price changes significant enough to really change behavior have very high risks of causing starvation and driving people to steal to survive. And you can stop and think about things like how soda prices have grown a bit faster than inflation for single person sodas - eg a 20 ounce bottle of coke in a vending machine back in 1995 cost $1 usually, these days the same 20 ounce bottle in a vending machine often costs $2. But the value of $1 in 1995 money is only $1.56 in today's money. fishmech fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Stanos posted:$1.25 to $1.50 in St. Louis but eh. I'd imagine you probably didn't have to pay the full $1 we had in the machines where I lived back 20 years ago then too. We had a great cooking class in my high school and most of the students took it. But uh, there's pretty much no difference in prevalence of being fat among those who took the class versus those who didn't. Both judging from facebook and from the 5 year reunion. Don't really expect to see change at the 10 year reunion next year either. Honestly though, again, most people already know they should be eating less, they just don't get around to executing on that. Yeah many of them take an exercise fad or a particular diet fad (and as an aside, "going gluten free" as a diet fad is the worst for this at the moment) as their excuse to not actually cut down, but people who ignore them also don't cut down.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Honestly even just listing amounts of calories and and all that such doesn't help much. After all, that's been radically improved by making that stuff on all the food at the stores since the 90s mandated nutrition facts labels, but it only tells you for a "2000 calorie diet" based on a certain model person and yadda yadda. Maybe we could do with an effort to get everyone worked up by doctors on a regular basis to determine what balances of stuff each given person needs, so they know that this burger is about 12% of Carl's daily needs but 40% of Sally's, or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Solenna posted:
That's simple, being cheap, easy, and calorie dense doesn't inherently mean you're going to gorge yourself on it - and aside from all that it's necessary to have that around.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Not necessarily urbanizing, just adding sidewalks and logical places for people to get from point A to point B without a car. Things are so bad around my workplace that when I briefly was without a car I had to walk on the loving street with cars to get around. It doesn't matter how many sidewalks and bike lanes you lay if you still need to go a long ways. Hell there's a lot of places where the suburbs are full of sidewalks and with hard road shoulders wide enough to be considered bike infrastructure under some standards: people still drive a ton in them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 20:27
|
|