|
On June 04 2014 09:55 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 09:07 screamingpalm wrote:On June 04 2014 08:44 LSB wrote:
That's a horrible study.
Poverty is not a good indicator for overeating. In fact healthy food is far more expensive than cheap food. I can go to harolds chicken and get half a chicken (fried) and fries for $3.16, while buying healthy is more expensive (unless you decide to cook for yourself).
Likewise just working out doesn't mean you are not going to overeat. If you eat 5000 calories, no matter how tough your job is you will go fat Yes, I would say quality is far more important of a factor than quantity... not all calories are created equal etc. That lines up with my own experiences when travelling between the US and Italy- where I ate at least 3 times more in quantity and lost weight compared to living in the US. Then you get into policy making and politics and subsidies for GMO corn and monoculture etc. In the example presented though, these people were getting by on scraps of food (and no KFC), directly challenging one of the popular caricatures that people seem to enjoy venting their hate upon. All calories ARE created equal.
... did you forget your /sarcasm tag?
|
So far I haven't heard any good argument against stigmatizing fat people.
There's of course no need to be condescending while doing it.
|
On June 04 2014 10:09 urboss wrote:
So far I haven't heard any good argument against stigmatizing fat people.
There's of course no need to be condescending while doing it.
Because we should treat other people with respect, no matter if they're fat or whatever?
|
Northern Ireland26223 Posts
Just treat fat people like smokers, ez.
|
Treat them the same as mass murdering gaming nerds.
|
On June 04 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 10:09 urboss wrote:
So far I haven't heard any good argument against stigmatizing fat people.
There's of course no need to be condescending while doing it. Because we should treat other people with respect, no matter if they're fat or whatever?
There's no need to be disrespectful while stigmatizing fat people.
The stigmatization can be done in the form of laws that favor people who live a healthy life.
|
On June 04 2014 10:22 urboss wrote:
There's no need to be disrespectful while stigmatizing fat people.
The stigmatization can be done in the form of laws that favor people who live a healthy life.
This would surely lead to class warfare, quality of diet is often dependent on income. I would say incentives such as a focus on universal, preventive heath care, subsidizing healthier staples of food and the way it is produced rather than corn etc. But there are huge obstacles in the way, at least here in the US.
|
On June 04 2014 10:43 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 10:22 urboss wrote:
There's no need to be disrespectful while stigmatizing fat people.
The stigmatization can be done in the form of laws that favor people who live a healthy life.
This would surely lead to class warfare, quality of diet is often dependent on income. I would say incentives such as a focus on universal, preventive heath care, subsidizing healthier staples of food and the way it is produced rather than corn etc. But there are huge obstacles in the way, at least here in the US.
Quality of diet is actually a lot more dependent on how lazy you are. Cooking a healthy meal is no more expensive than going to rotten Ronnie's or eating that shit from the frozen section.
|
On June 04 2014 10:56 Zorkmid wrote:
Quality of diet is actually a lot more dependent on how lazy you are. Cooking a healthy meal is no more expensive than going to rotten Ronnie's or eating that shit from the frozen section.
Probably the lesser of two evils, but it's practically all corn, frozen or cooked yourself. Probably more dependent on taking multi-vitamins and such. Also, going out to eat at restaurants can net you higher quality food than you can find at the supermarket. I went to culinary school, but lost the passion- the food here is just generally terrible compared with Europe.
|
Maybe we are all genetically prone to over eat? If you think about it, maybe the scarcity of food in the early days of mankind has caused us to continually want to eat because we were afraid we may not get the chance to if we wait.
Maybe fast food appeals to some part of our nature that tells us we need to eat quickly. Back in the cave man days when we were out hunting wooly mammoths or whatever, its not like you could just find a table in a park and calmly enjoy you're meal, you had to be quick and vigilant in case you were being hunted yourself.
No one ever gets bored of eating, no matter how often you do it, we always look forward to eating even though we've all done it thousands of times, that seems weird to me.
Also, almost every social occasion or tradition in every culture contains food of some kind, so we relate food with being social, with being safe and provided for, the term "comfort food" comes to mind. For me that is spaghetti, i could eat it everyday, and have eaten it for many days in a row before.
|
No one ever gets bored of eating, no matter how often you do it, we always look forward to eating even though we've all done it thousands of times, that seems weird to me.
Because we get hungry because our body needs energy to survive...??
|
On June 05 2014 02:51 sorrowptoss wrote:Show nested quote +No one ever gets bored of eating, no matter how often you do it, we always look forward to eating even though we've all done it thousands of times, that seems weird to me. Because we get hungry because our body needs energy to survive...??
I know about that guy but I don't look forward to eating at all. It stifles my productivity and I know that in 24 hrs, I will have to take a huge load of shit which will spend about any from 10 minutes to 20 minutes to get rid of.
At the moment, the food I eat might have temporary enjoyment but I know that I WILL have to pay the price at a later time. Its just a matter of being smart with your diet. If you ain't smart about it, then you will die sooner.
|
On June 04 2014 11:08 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 10:56 Zorkmid wrote:
Quality of diet is actually a lot more dependent on how lazy you are. Cooking a healthy meal is no more expensive than going to rotten Ronnie's or eating that shit from the frozen section. Probably the lesser of two evils, but it's practically all corn, frozen or cooked yourself. Probably more dependent on taking multi-vitamins and such. Also, going out to eat at restaurants can net you higher quality food than you can find at the supermarket. I went to culinary school, but lost the passion- the food here is just generally terrible compared with Europe.
Restaurants serve the same exact things that you can get at the supermarket.
|
On June 05 2014 04:58 Zorkmid wrote:
Restaurants serve the same exact things that you can get at the supermarket.
Then you must have really awesome supermarkets where you live or poor restaurants. :D Most of the product that I worked with when I was training to be a chef were things you would never even be able to find at a grocery store. And the things you could were nowhere near the same quality/grade... you'd need to go to a specialty store or butcher etc to find something even comparable. And of course many of the things I enjoyed in Sicily aren't even available at all in the US. A heavy cream called panna (or pana- however it's spelled, not that Frankenstein of a monstrosity called Alfredo- which isn't even Italian I don't believe) and ricotta made from sheep's milk. I worked at an "organic" produce/citrus factory over there, all product aged and ripened 100% naturally, not heat pasteurized like FL oranges. To be able to eat the quality of food that I was accustomed to having on a daily basis in Sicily would cost you at least around 100-150 bucks a plate here in the US at a swanky restaurant.
But I think what makes me laugh the most is lazy Americans pointing fingers at other lazy Americans because they go through the massive effort to one-stop shop to pick up their dog food and actually cook it and feel like that puts them up on some moral high horse. Just hilarious.
|
The problem is that we have an excess of food and a very sedentary lifestyle. We drive everywhere and a lot of our entertainment consists of sitting around staring at screens. Heck, a lot of well paying jobs consist of sitting around staring at screens. That kind of lifestyle does not require a great deal of energy to sustain.
Food consumption has gone up while daily caloric requirements have gone down. Obesity is the result.
Fixing it won't be easy, but making obese people feel bad about themselves is certainly not the right way to go about it.
|
Another problem is that a lot of people think exercise compensates a nutritionally poor diet. It doesn't, not even close. It's perfectly possible and common for a slim and seemingly fit person to have dreadful LDL-cholesterol and blood pressure levels.
|
On June 04 2014 14:46 daylu wrote:
Maybe we are all genetically prone to over eat? If you think about it, maybe the scarcity of food in the early days of mankind has caused us to continually want to eat because we were afraid we may not get the chance to if we wait.
There's genes, and there's culture/environment. I've lived and travelled both in the US and Europe - portion sizes in the EU are smaller than US counterparts (even in the same global branded chain restaurants) to begin with, the sourcing of food and food processing is vastly different etc.
Also even within a country, your friends/colleagues also influence how/what/when you eat.
On June 04 2014 11:08 screamingpalm wrote:
Probably the lesser of two evils, but it's practically all corn, frozen or cooked yourself. Probably more dependent on taking multi-vitamins and such. Also, going out to eat at restaurants can net you higher quality food than you can find at the supermarket. I went to culinary school, but lost the passion- the food here is just generally terrible compared with Europe.
Yes and no. Maybe they source better ingredients (and even that's debatable if you are talking a fast food place) but the preparation (added salt in particular) in a restaurant, even a swanky one, can make or break the nutrition of a meal.
Here's an example illustrates the point:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2013/05/13/calorie-counts-small-boston-restaurants-higher-than-area-fast-food-chains-tufts-study-finds/cxpnaUrv6OAUyD9m25fo8L/story.html
|
Its really scary to think that there are that many people in the world that are obese..
Oh well atleast if a zombie apocolypsed happened i wouldnt have to run for that long
|
Not sure if serious...
“They make fast food look like health food.”
Anyways, the article seems to rely on a basis of all calories being equal (which I'm not convinced of). It is a very complicated and confusing issue, one that I've tried reading up on as a hobby- and still feel like I don't understand it all. With all of the conflicting information and studies done by "experts" who may or may not be trying to sell a particular diet or product, I can only go by my own anecdotal experiences. While I would stop short of calling eating at a restaurant "healthy", at least I know I can find decent quality ingredients etc (I've never noticed much difference in the way I cooked while working at a restaurant from cooking at home aside from the quality of product being used). :D
|
Hmm some of those Middle Eastern/North African countries must have huge servings, although this is not surprising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
