|
Obdicut posted:Mostly campaigns to increase physical activity, make cities and other communities more walkable, and try to edge out the spurious and lovely nutritional information that obsesses over 'carbs' or 'balanced meals' and make sure people understand that, while some foods might have ancillary risks, their overall concern should be on calories. There is a possibility of regulation of portion size, of packaging food, even for home, in serving suggestions. Stricter regulations on vending machines would also help, but again, constitutionally it's a bit of a hard sell. It might be a worthwhile tradeoff but it does strike me as ironic that one of the best ways to reduce caloric intake would entail more packaging, presumably increasing the amount of garbage created by the food industry. Not necessarily a counter argument against your suggestion but if we're discussing national level strategies then it seems like a concern. quote:I've made it super clear but here it is again in plain language: the vast majority of Americans do not have a nutritional deficiency, so these approaches are not complimentary. most people need no action at all, or would benefit only sightly, from a more 'balanced' diet, except to the extent that that would reduce their calories. If someone were to continue eating their 'unbalanced', 'processed' food, but eat less of it--which is entirely possible to do, and much easier to get real human beings to do than to actually switch food types--they will have superior health outcomes. Can you suggest how an interested layman would independently verify this claim? If I understand you correctly here, you're saying that we have no reason to think that eating 100 grams of chicken breast (aprox 165 calories, based on a quick and dirty google search) would be more satiating than drinking a single serving of Pepsi Cola (aprox 150 calories)? quote:I didn't say it would be bad. It'd be great--to control the amount of calories they get. other than that, the reason to conflate it is, again, because obesity is orders of magnitude a bigger. And again, you continue to pretend we have solid science on the nuances of nutrition: we don't. So again, if I understand you correctly, you feel that nutritional science is at a point where we simply cannot draw any conclusions at all about the value, of say, getting enough protein in your diet? If your a parent with a six year old kid you'd say that literally the only thing a parent should concern themselves with is how many calories little Timmy gets per day? quote:No, for the reasons I've stated clearly. it is nowhere, at all, in any way, even close to the same level of problem. This is like saying in our efforts to reduce help C prevalence in gay men we should also focus on tinea cruris at the same time. No, because it's trivial compared to the larger problem and winds up complicating the issue. The analogy you've set up makes no sense because, from the beginning, this has been a broadly ranging conversation about diet and nutrition, not a narrowly cast argument specifically about obesity. You came into the conversation and asserted -- without anyone actually disagreeing -- that obesity is by far the largest public health problem related with diet. That's fair enough, but to claim that all other conversations about public diet are therefore a distraction from dealing with obesity simply doesn't follow. As for your assertion here, that talking about anything other than obesity "winds up complicating the issue", I simply don't agree with this analysis, maybe you could more explicitly lay out your reasoning for why you think this is the case? I don't see how these issues contradict or confuse each other. As I said above, most of this seems to lead to the same basic conclusion, which is that we need to think about ways to empower people to have more conscious thinking about and control over what they eat. It seems we don't agree on how to achieve that goal but from what I can tell we both agree that this would be a good step? quote:The above section on packaging would actually be the best, both in terms of food waste and in nutrition. Widely available prepared food in a realistic serving size would be awesome for public health. But again, it's hard to envision how we get there constitutionally--making them part of WIC-payable items and restricting calorie-dense foods from WIC might be good but if the meals get associated with poverty in our hosed-up culture that'd breed resistance. Well, this is stepping back and taking even more of a big picture view but I feel like most issues regarding over eating and nutrition in general are very hard to separate form the so called "social determinants of health". We can debate individual strategies or even government programs for nutrition, and I think there's some value in those debates, but ultimately we're pitching what are essentially individualist strategies for a social problem (or, more accurately, several over lapping problems). And as you suggest here, the degree of government intervention that would be necessary to directly regulate portion sizes is far too paternalistic and intrusive to be conceivable in the USA.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Can someone summarize the nutrition talk/food waste connection? Or is it just a derail? Either way is cool, just don't quite understand the rationale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It might be a worthwhile tradeoff but it does strike me as ironic that one of the best ways to reduce caloric intake would entail more packaging, presumably increasing the amount of garbage created by the food industry. Not necessarily a counter argument against your suggestion but if we're discussing national level strategies then it seems like a concern. An absolutely trivial problem that can be solved by making packaging that is low-impact or biodegradable. quote:[Can you suggest how an interested layman would independently verify this claim? I'm not making any specific claims like that. i'm making the general claim that there is not a relationship between the calorie source--protein, fat, carb--and satiety, as shown by the study that I linked. I also linked to the pop explanation. What more could you want? quote:So again, if I understand you correctly, you feel that nutritional science is at a point where we simply cannot draw any conclusions at all about the value, of say, getting enough protein in your diet? If your a parent with a six year old kid you'd say that literally the only thing a parent should concern themselves with is how many calories little Timmy gets per day? No, you need 'enough', but there is a very large tolerance for what is enough. If I was a parent with a six year old kid I'd want him to follow healthy eating patterns, so yeah, by far the most important thing would be teaching him not to snack, to limit his portion size, and to pay attention to calorie intake and output. If you're envisioning a stupid edge case 'you only feed him tater tots' diet, then again, the tolerances are extremely wide for what is 'enough', and I don't mean something that would actually be a deficiency. Reaching 'enough' protein, fat, and carbohydrates is relatively trivial and most random diets in the US beat that bar handily. quote:The analogy you've set up makes no sense because, from the beginning, this has been a broadly ranging conversation about diet and nutrition, not a narrowly cast argument specifically about obesity. From the very beginning, I have been saying that A) your claims about nutrition are mostly bullshit and B) by far the most important consideration in nutrition is calories, alone. The reason this is important for food waste--remember, the actual topic of the thread, not your derail--is that it is much easier to reduce food waste of prepared foods than it is of end-use cooked food. That you have repeatedly tried to hijack it to talk about your malformed ideas about nutrition has been bad from the start. quote:I don't see how these issues contradict or confuse each other. As I said above, most of this seems to lead to the same basic conclusion, which is that we need to think about ways to empower people to have more conscious thinking about and control over what they eat. It seems we don't agree on how to achieve that goal but from what I can tell we both agree that this would be a good step? The issues contradict each other because when you are communicating to the public, you can only say so much, only teach so much. Attempting to shovel in your half-baked ideas about nutritional balance and fresh food at the same time as calorie reduction will necessarily result in a reduction of how effective the calorie information is. They are not synergistic topics. You think they are, for some reason, but they're not. The public has been absolutely saturated with "Don't eat fat! DOn't eat carbs! Don't eat red meat! Don't eat preserved meat! Don't eat eggs! Do eat eggs! Do eat fat! Omega 3! " and it contributes to the public's misinformation about the way, way, way overarching importance of calorie restriction beyond any little noodling around with the composition of the diet. quote:Well, this is stepping back and taking even more of a big picture view but I feel like most issues regarding over eating and nutrition in general are very hard to separate form the so called "social determinants of health". We can debate individual strategies or even government programs for nutrition, and I think there's some value in those debates, but ultimately we're pitching what are essentially individualist strategies for a social problem (or, more accurately, several over lapping problems). And as you suggest here, the degree of government intervention that would be necessary to directly regulate portion sizes is far too paternalistic and intrusive to be conceivable in the USA. I don't know what you mean when you say they're hard to separate; in public health, we control for SES all the time, one of the main things we always study is if something is a true effect or being mediated or moderated by SES. You also keep talking about 'nutrition', but again, I don't give much of a poo poo about 'nutrition' except for the overwhelming nutritional problem in the US: excess calories. They don't have to be individualistic solutions. But I would like, before we do anything else, to correct the lovely ideas about nutrition that abound so that individuals who want, and are spending the energy to, have a good diet can actually do that an understand that if they make a healthy, balanced meal of sephardic potatoes and ramps with grilled peppers but eat substantially more calories than they will expend in energy, that is far more unhealthy than eating the appropriate amount of calories from 'processed food'. And beyond that, we can still move to shift the culture so that we can get the public health interventions that we need. Companies have actually been doing well with this because they want more healthy workforces, but a lot more could be done to get them to get rid of vending machines, make portion controlled, calorie controlled food available if they have food on site. There's lots of incentive stuff that isn't coercive paternalism; the Sunstein nudge. pugnax posted:Can someone summarize the nutrition talk/food waste connection? Or is it just a derail? Either way is cool, just don't quite understand the rationale. Helsing really wants to talk about nutrition and the importance of home cooking and the like, while claiming that there's something inherently bad in 'prepared foods'--which is a useless category anyway. If we define 'prepared foods' as either foods with preservatives/preserved through method, or foods of the grab-and-go kind at supermarkets, the unfrozen kind you throw in the microwave, or stuff like the 'turkey burger' from Freshdirect, then prepared foods are one of the best ways to find against food waste in the preparation-to-eating pipeline. So, Helsings portrayal of 'prepared food' as inherently unhealthy and promotion of 'fresh' food as somehow better nutritionally is a stumbling block in trying to reduce food waste. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Apr 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Will have to type up a proper reply to your latest post later, as I am on my way out right now.pugnax posted:Can someone summarize the nutrition talk/food waste connection? Or is it just a derail? Either way is cool, just don't quite understand the rationale. Part of it is that a bunch of us are stubborn goons who can't abide the thought of letting a perfectly good argument die. Part of it is the argument that there's arguably an overlap between portion sizes / food packaging, nutrition, and food waste. The other thing is that the original focus of the thread was mostly solved in the first couple pages. Wateroverfire's original intent for the thread really didn't amount to much more than "maybe we should lay off corporations and focus more on talking about how wasteful the poors are." It was pretty quickly pointed out that while household account for more food waste then corporations, corporations are a much easier target for government regulation. The debate then kind fizzled out, except for when wateroverfire briefly reappeared to imply that maybe the reason poors suffer from food insecurity is because they're not willing to purchase bulk sacks of rice. So basically this nutrition debate is halfway between a derail and a natural evolution of the topic, and it's mostly filling in the void left by the fact that nobody other than wateroverfire has expressed much interest in supporting the position that we should regulate consumers rather than corporations or that the main conversation about public nutrition should be asking why poor people don't subsist off bulk purchases of rice and multivtamin tablets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
pugnax posted:Can someone summarize the nutrition talk/food waste connection? Or is it just a derail? Either way is cool, just don't quite understand the rationale. Food waste is not really that big of a deal, or at least there's not much to do without targeting individual people. Thus, the topic turned to how else food can be improved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
I'd ask how many Goons would be willing to live off rice, beans and vitamin pills but I fear that quite a lot already are (leaves more spare cash for custom furry art commissions and resin statuettes of Dragonball Z characters.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Food waste is not really that big of a deal, or at least there's not much to do without targeting individual people. Thus, the topic turned to how else food can be improved. It's a much bigger deal outside the US, but if we figure out how to reduce it here, we can export that knowledge. We need all our systems to be sustainable and reducing food waste would help agricultural sustainability, but so would, like, not growing oranges in the desert.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Cool thanks - good old goony debates are great, just wanted to get a sense of the kernel without digging through a ton of stuff if it was just a straight topic shift, which is perfectly natural. Sort of reminds me of the ultra-gmo arguments, eg if big ag could produce a rice with a full protein and vitamin schedule, should it? And what would be the implications? (Don't answer that, or if you do, probably start a new thread.) There is some interesting news about food waste - Connecticut is falling short of goals for their organics diversion programs, and that doesn't bode well for other US states pursuing similar strategies, like CA. I'll grab a link and write some thoughts when I get to a real computer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It's a much bigger deal outside the US, but if we figure out how to reduce it here, we can export that knowledge. We need all our systems to be sustainable and reducing food waste would help agricultural sustainability, but so would, like, not growing oranges in the desert. It's mostly a solved issue in developed nations. The solutions are going to be "act more like developed nations". In that respect, it's similar to (eg) the education debate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Food waste is not really that big of a deal, or at least there's not much to do without targeting individual people. Thus, the topic turned to how else food can be improved. Depends on your perspective - organic waste accounts for as much of a third of landfilled municipal waste, which is sort of a big deal if waste reduction/circular economy/ghg mitigation are high priorities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's mostly a solved issue in developed nations. The solutions are going to be "act more like developed nations". In that respect, it's similar to (eg) the education debate. What pugnax said. It's not a hunger problem here, but it is still a sustainability and waste problem. Especially because even organic poo poo doesn't degrade if it's packed in too tightly, and it's a simple waste of the energy used to create it instead of recapturing that for another purpose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
pugnax posted:Depends on your perspective - organic waste accounts for as much of a third of landfilled municipal waste, which is sort of a big deal if waste reduction/circular economy/ghg mitigation are high priorities. Can't organic waste just be composted?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Can't organic waste just be composted? Yes, but it's not--so that's one proposed solution to the problem, in the link far above by the NGO guy, it was the main solution by one metric at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Can't organic waste just be composted? Absolutely, given the right C:N ratio and proper conditions. But the logistics and infrastructure required to compost (or digest) municipal and commercial food waste only exists in a small fraction of US communities. Setting up the logistics and infrastructure, not to mention the required education and outreach required to minimize contamination, and then successfully moving the finished compost in a healthy marketplace is a highly complex and difficult row to hoe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
So I'm gonna address the last thing first, for reasons that should be obvious, because it's something people will have to keep in mind when reading and evaluating his statements.Obdicut posted:Helsing really wants to talk about nutrition and the importance of home cooking and the like, while claiming that there's something inherently bad in 'prepared foods'--which is a useless category anyway. If we define 'prepared foods' as either foods with preservatives/preserved through method, or foods of the grab-and-go kind at supermarkets, the unfrozen kind you throw in the microwave, or stuff like the 'turkey burger' from Freshdirect, then prepared foods are one of the best ways to find against food waste in the preparation-to-eating pipeline. So, Helsings portrayal of 'prepared food' as inherently unhealthy and promotion of 'fresh' food as somehow better nutritionally is a stumbling block in trying to reduce food waste. The trouble with what you've written here is it shows that you're either stupid or dishonest. Either the multiple explicit clarifications I've made that I don't think processed food is inherently unhealthy and don't think fresh food is inherently healthy have already been forgotten, or else you're so invested in this argument you cannot participate without resorting to dishonesty. This is actually a bit of theme in the way you debate. Quite a few of your replies to me are based on lecturing me about things I never said or trying to subtly shift the argument onto grounds that you're more comfortable with. As an example, this is something I posted in the thread weeks ago: Helsing posted:If you want to make intelligent and specific criticisms of those guidelines then I will hear you out with an open mind. What I find so remarkable about this thread is that they seem to be reenacting previous arguments they got into with no concern for the actual content of what I'm saying, leading to people repeatedly making counter arguments against the straw man claim that home cooked or fresh meals are inherently healthier, or people freaking out because "junk food" is a colloquialism rather than a technical term. Obdicut posted:An absolutely trivial problem that can be solved by making packaging that is low-impact or biodegradable. Yeah, that's not actually a trivial problem in the real world. Surely you are aware that recycling and packaging are not solved issues. quote:I'm not making any specific claims like that. i'm making the general claim that there is not a relationship between the calorie source--protein, fat, carb--and satiety, as shown by the study that I linked. I also linked to the pop explanation. What more could you want? See, again you're avoiding the question I actually asked and trying to change the subject. You posted a study showing that four different types of diet had similar impacts on weight loss over a two year period, and that these diets didn't produce noticable differences in satiety. But none of that was ever really in contention. The specific claim I asked you was whether a pop drink and a piece of meat with the same calorie count would, in your opinion, be likely to be equally satiating? The study you posted showed looked at several healthy diets, each with a different percentage of fats vs. proteins vs carbs, all had the same efficacy for weight loss and lead to similar reports of satiation. That actually has very little bearing on what we're talking about here. I never claimed "you must eat this exact combination of carbs, proteins and fats to be satiated!" Basically I argued that some foods are less satiating than others despite having similar calorie levels. Do you actually disagree with that? The study you posted certainly doesn't contradict it. quote:No, you need 'enough', but there is a very large tolerance for what is enough. If I was a parent with a six year old kid I'd want him to follow healthy eating patterns, so yeah, by far the most important thing would be teaching him not to snack, to limit his portion size, and to pay attention to calorie intake and output. If you're envisioning a stupid edge case 'you only feed him tater tots' diet, then again, the tolerances are extremely wide for what is 'enough', and I don't mean something that would actually be a deficiency. Reaching 'enough' protein, fat, and carbohydrates is relatively trivial and most random diets in the US beat that bar handily. Ok, shifting gears slightly so I can actually get a better sense of what you think: why did Americans suddenly get so fat? What changes lead to an increase in the number of calories they consumed? quote:From the very beginning, I have been saying that A) your claims about nutrition are mostly bullshit and B) by far the most important consideration in nutrition is calories, alone. The reason this is important for food waste--remember, the actual topic of the thread, not your derail--is that it is much easier to reduce food waste of prepared foods than it is of end-use cooked food. As I pointed out above, your sense of what my "claims about nutrition are" mostly seems to be a gigantic straw man. quote:The issues contradict each other because when you are communicating to the public, you can only say so much, only teach so much. Attempting to shovel in your half-baked ideas about nutritional balance and fresh food at the same time as calorie reduction will necessarily result in a reduction of how effective the calorie information is. They are not synergistic topics. You think they are, for some reason, but they're not. The public has been absolutely saturated with "Don't eat fat! DOn't eat carbs! Don't eat red meat! Don't eat preserved meat! Don't eat eggs! Do eat eggs! Do eat fat! Omega 3! " and it contributes to the public's misinformation about the way, way, way overarching importance of calorie restriction beyond any little noodling around with the composition of the diet. You cited the Harvard School of Public Health as a good authority on public health. I actually also cited the Harvard School of Public Health in this very thread. They seem to believe that it's worthwhile to release public information on the risk of preservatives in processed meats and why this means the public should avoid eating too much processed meat. So, in your opinion, I guess the Harvard School of Public Health is being massively irresponsible here by 1) falsley claiming processed meats are linked with heart disease (I take you that you feel this claim cannot be made? please clarify, ideally with a simple yes or not) and even worse they are giving dieting advice and information that isn't just about calorie counting! Look, if you have strong opinions and want to argue for them forcefully then go ahead. But would you stop this pathetic attempt to act like anyone who disagrees with anything you say is on the fringe? I just (re)posted a video from the same source that you've been using, making exactly the kinds of claims that you seem to think it's wrong for health authorities to make. You're acting as though you're speaking authoritatively and representing some kind of nutritional consensus but every piece of verifiable and concrete information suggests the opposite. And in addition to this you're so dishonest in how you characterize my own arguments that it should give anyone reading this pause -- how much can someone trust you to present an accurate picture of the medical consensus on nutrition or diet when you're repeatedly accusing me of saying things I never said? quote:I don't know what you mean when you say they're hard to separate; in public health, we control for SES all the time, one of the main things we always study is if something is a true effect or being mediated or moderated by SES. You also keep talking about 'nutrition', but again, I don't give much of a poo poo about 'nutrition' except for the overwhelming nutritional problem in the US: excess calories. That's great but this really just seems to be your position. Can you point out some health authorities who share your views? Because people working at institutions that you're comfortable citing are actually doing the exact opposite of what you apparently think they should be doing. quote:They don't have to be individualistic solutions. But I would like, before we do anything else, to correct the lovely ideas about nutrition that abound so that individuals who want, and are spending the energy to, have a good diet can actually do that an understand that if they make a healthy, balanced meal of sephardic potatoes and ramps with grilled peppers but eat substantially more calories than they will expend in energy, that is far more unhealthy than eating the appropriate amount of calories from 'processed food'. The vast majority of actual public health authorities who communicate with the public seem to believe that they can somehow communicate what you just said while also warning people about stuff like the high levels of sodium often found in processed foods. I'm sorry that your opinions are so far outside what appears to be the mainstream consensus among public health people. Perhaps you should write to Harvard and let them know about your concerns. quote:And beyond that, we can still move to shift the culture so that we can get the public health interventions that we need. Companies have actually been doing well with this because they want more healthy workforces, but a lot more could be done to get them to get rid of vending machines, make portion controlled, calorie controlled food available if they have food on site. There's lots of incentive stuff that isn't coercive paternalism; the Sunstein nudge. What you're describing sounds like dropping a cup of water on a forest fire. The culture of over eating and other health problems goes a lot deeper than the availability of vending machines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Helsing posted:... I'm not going to line-by-line this deluge, but basically: your nutrition poo poo has been wildly inconsistent, that's not a problem of mine, but one of yours. It's not me 'strawmanning' you, it's you being incoherent. You were told by people who otherwise respect you that you were wrong and you ploughed on regardless. Eating processed meats correlates with some negative health outcomes. Correlates. Whether there is a causal link, or whether there is a mediator, is not claimed. I didn't use the Harvard pub site as a source, I used the actual paper as a source and the pub site to help you be comfortable with it. In addition, it is really obvious that someone can cite something from a source and disagree with other things from that source; you need to evaluate the actual argument not just the source. This bit in particular: quote:. You're acting as though you're speaking authoritatively and representing some kind of nutritional consensus but every piece of verifiable and concrete information suggests the opposite. Nope, I'm saying there is no nutritional consensus other than the very basic, and by far the biggest and best established consensus with the huge, overwhelming health footprint is that excess calories lead to obesity. There is also a good amount of research showing high-glycemic index foods--pasta and white rice, for example--are especially bad, because it's not just 'calories' it's 'calories over time'. So, foods that are high calorie and highly digestible, like pasta and rice, are the worst, but high calorie foods like fatty red meat and nuts are still quite bad to overconsume too. What you are doing is mostly mistake strategy--try to get people to lower calorie consumption by getting them to eat more vegetables--for theory. The theory isn't that the vegetables themselves are 'good' food, it's that they are relatively low calorie so it's really hard to physically eat enough to get fat on. That's why they place a lot of stress on avoiding pasta and rice, and replacing it with whole-grain versions. Harvard is the most aggressive, by far, of public health programs in still heavily investing in the very particular risks of foods. Other places are far more conservative about that. What Harvard and they agree on absolutely is that not eating more calories than you expend is the most important aspect of diet. There is not, as you seem to think, a consensus that sodium causes negative health outcomes, as shown below. quote:What you're describing sounds like dropping a cup of water on a forest fire. The culture of over eating and other health problems goes a lot deeper than the availability of vending machines. The problem is cultural, a culture of snacking and a culture of over-large portions, and of 'extra' meals'. Reversing that is going to be enormously difficult and requires first for people to understand that foods may be 'healthier' than others but that calories consumed is the actual measurement you care about. A great way to not do it is lecture people about home cooking though, we know that poo poo doesn't work at all. To demonstrate some of the contention in what many people think is confirmed nutrition science: About half of published papers find salt linked to bad health outcomes. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/science-salt-polarized-study-finds And if you look at Mailman's topics page, 'nutrition' isn't anywhere: Only food policy and obesity. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/topics That is because the huge public health problem is obesity--not nutrition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
 The deluge continues, because I'm a huge nerd, and also because it's hard for me to resist pointing out what a slimy and dishonest post that was. Obdicut posted:I'm not going to line-by-line this deluge, but basically: your nutrition poo poo has been wildly inconsistent, that's not a problem of mine, but one of yours. It's not me 'strawmanning' you, it's you being incoherent. I've been consistent about the fact that there's nothing inherently unhealthy about processed food. I've made that point so many times in so many different posts that it would have been impossible to miss, assuming the accuracy of your statements mattered to you. You made a mistake, plan and simple. There is no realistic way to deny that.And when I called you out on the fact that you just attributed an argument to me that I have very clearly and explicitly not been making, rather than acknowledge your error you're doubling down on it. quote:You were told by people who otherwise respect you that you were wrong and you ploughed on regardless. This would seem to be a difference between us. I actually enjoy debates as a way to exchange information or as a way to force oneself into organizing your thoughts in a compelling and coherent manner. To my mind, being told I'm wrong and continuing to debate the topic is not "ploughing on", it's a way to test the proposition and to gain a better sense of what is or isn't correct. Your posts here are so joyless and tinged with bitterness that it's like you feel its a huge burden on you to have to come here and post. If you're tired of the argument I certainly wouldn't blame you for no longer posting in a thread that I think most people lost interest in weeks ago. quote:Eating processed meats correlates with some negative health outcomes. Correlates. Whether there is a causal link, or whether there is a mediator, is not claimed. This isn't controversial. This is like your repeated invocation of how obesity is the biggest health problem. It's a point no one disagrees with, but you keep bringing it up as though to imply that it's the cause of our argument, which is either very disingenuous or very sloppy. Here's what I said: "[according to Harvard] processed meats are linked with heart disease ". That is literally just another way of saying that there's an apparent correlation. Given that you clearly speak English you have no excuse for not understand this. It's very hard to focus on the points we actually disagree on when you debate so carelessly. It's exactly like I said weeks ago: you debate as though you're sure you already know what I believe, even though it's pretty clear that your sense of my own position is riddled with errors. quote:I didn't use the Harvard pub site as a source, I used the actual paper as a source and the pub site to help you be comfortable with it. In addition, it is really obvious that someone can cite something from a source and disagree with other things from that source; you need to evaluate the actual argument not just the source. Again, this is essentially you taking a point I made and restating it back to me as though it is something I disagree with. Also I like how you were careful to slip in "white" rice, very subtle  quote:What you are doing is mostly mistake strategy--try to get people to lower calorie consumption by getting them to eat more vegetables--for theory. The theory isn't that the vegetables themselves are 'good' food, it's that they are relatively low calorie so it's really hard to physically eat enough to get fat on. That's why they place a lot of stress on avoiding pasta and rice, and replacing it with whole-grain versions. Harvard is the most aggressive, by far, of public health programs in still heavily investing in the very particular risks of foods. Other places are far more conservative about that. What Harvard and they agree on absolutely is that not eating more calories than you expend is the most important aspect of diet. There is not, as you seem to think, a consensus that sodium causes negative health outcomes, as shown below. The dichotomy you're making between theory and strategy makes no sense in this context. But again, almost everything you're saying here was covered many pages back. You're so eager to come in and lecture on a subject you think you know well that you make no effort to understand what's actually being debated and what is not. quote:The problem is cultural, a culture of snacking and a culture of over-large portions, and of 'extra' meals'. Reversing that is going to be enormously difficult and requires first for people to understand that foods may be 'healthier' than others but that calories consumed is the actual measurement you care about. A great way to not do it is lecture people about home cooking though, we know that poo poo doesn't work at all. I bolded this because of everything we're debating at this point this might be the one question of genuine interest, and the one place where there might still be something interesting or worthwhile to say. The cultural shift you're suggesting would be required seems like a massive one, way beyond removing vending machines or changing portion sizes. I would link over eating to stress, much of which spills over from the crappy work situations or general lack of resources that afflicts much of the population right now. Like I said above, the social determinants of health play a huge role here and, in my opinion, need to be a vital part of any discussion about healthy eating. My second point I'll momentarily hold in reserve because first I want to ask you to clarify what exactly you mean when you claim that "we know that poo poo [home cooking] doesn't work at all". If you ignore literally everything else I've written here I'm curious for you to actually explain your reasoning and exactly how you feel confident declaring that you "know" this. quote:To demonstrate some of the contention in what many people think is confirmed nutrition science: Once again, stop taking points no one disagrees with and then stating them as though they are the real argument. It's pathetic. Let's debate the things that are actually contentious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 20:40
|
|