Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I haven't eaten candy or chips in probably over a decade. Stop projecting simply because I disagree with you. Would you like a list of my daily diet to see if it conforms your exacting standards?
then why dont you like meat poultry veggies fruit or other healthy stuff when its done up all nice?
why do you keep argueing with me when I am trying to debunk the "healthy food tastes bad" myth
easysauce wrote:
if people cannot figure out that eating carrots/veggies/fruit is healthy, and that potatoe chips, burgers, junk food, and 99% of stuff they serve "at places where they dont have fruits/veggies" will make them fat, then that is on THEM
None of the places you mention are the ONLY spots available, anyone with a lick of common sense knows that every single super market has veggies and fruits that you can buy instead of big macs or whatever other junk food is around. There are also wonderfull technologies like canning and refrigeration that bring healthy food to the most remote places on earth.
I am going to assume *a bunch of stuff*
Oh i read it, and its bunk clap trap fake science, because the distance these deserts are, are completely undefined, with some of the deserts including houses where a market is nearby, but is slightly more expensive then some market in some other area. paying 1-5% more on healthy food is still cheaper then junk food, even at stores where healthy food is available the largest single food group bought is junk food.
. Not to mention the first definition of it is this:
A food desert is a geographic area where affordable and nutritious food is difficult to obtain, particularly for those without access to an automobile.[1] Food deserts usually exist in rural areas and low-income communities. Some research links them to diet-related health problems in affected populations.[2] Food deserts are sometimes associated with supermarket shortages and food security. The concept is controversial, and not universally accepted
the rest of wiki didnt exactly extoil the virtues of this theory as it lacks any scientific method or definition
ÈIn general, there is no specific agreed-upon definition for the term.[6] An initial definition counts the type and quality of foods available for purchase and the neighborhood residents being impoverished and unable to buy such foods.[5][7][8] A second definition takes into account "access, or the degree to which individuals live within close proximity to a large supermarket or supercenter", which offers "consumers a wider array of food choices at relatively lower costs."[6] Such a definition weights "the number, type and size of food stores available to residents."[8] One study counted food deserts as "urban areas with 10 or fewer (grocery) stores and no stores with more than 20 employees."[9] The existence of multiple definitions which can even change by country and the uncertainty over the exact measures by which a food desert can be recognized have fueled controversy over the existence of food deserts.[8]È
Acting like having to take a bus, or pay slightly more, to pick up food puts you in a health desert is the bogey man to blame for obesity is a stretch, even if I accept the premise that living a mile or two from a super market makes it an unattainable resource for anyone without a car.
actually... thats probably the whole problem right there... anything more then a mile away most people consider a batan death march, so will never ever travel it when you can buy cheetos next door.
walking,
its also free,
people should try it as a thing they do to lots of far away places instead of from the door of the house to the door of the car and then some other buildings door.
there two of Dr Easysauces guaranteed weight loss gems in on thread, FOR FREE thank you.
(the other one is water, also free, and now new and improved with 0 calories and that same water taste. water, its got what humans crave!)
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/07/22 02:08:28
Soladrin wrote: Hah, I often skip breakfast and only eat dinner.
Still recently started gaining weight though.
This is most likely due to your body having entered starvation mode... One way to look at it, is like a bear getting ready for hibernation... The body doesn't know when the next bit of sustenance is coming, so it stores as much as it can as fat reserves in case that later meal doesn't come.
Soladrin wrote: Hah, I often skip breakfast and only eat dinner.
Still recently started gaining weight though.
This is most likely due to your body having entered starvation mode... One way to look at it, is like a bear getting ready for hibernation... The body doesn't know when the next bit of sustenance is coming, so it stores as much as it can as fat reserves in case that later meal doesn't come.
Which is why it is better to eat 6 small meals instead of 3 large ones. This ensures your metabolism stays at a high rate throughout the entire day.
2014/07/22 03:12:00
Subject: Re:The rise of obesity in the United States
cincydooley wrote: How much more "quality nutritional information" do you want? Everything sold in the US is required to have it on the packaging.
People aren't robots who read all available data and rationally determine if the negative utility in long term health consequences are worth the positive utility in immediate flavour and feeling of satisfaction. Instead we buy based on a whole range of subconscious thoughts based largely around brand and advertising. They didn't get a man dressed in monkey suit to pretend to play a Phil Collins song because they thought it would help people realise that the taste of chocolate is worth the long term weight gain.
This is why simple things, like a canteen having a green backing for healthy options and a red backing for unhealthy ones directly led to an improvement in the health of food options. Simple cues that don't even have literal information make a big difference.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
For a very long time a small bottle of soda has the nutritional information on it, but only for a small portion of the actual soda. So when you read the info it doesn't look so bad, but you have to realize that the information pretended that you are going to drink that bottle over 2.5 individual settings. They did that knowing that many people will drink a small bottle in one setting and not drink 40% for lunch, 40% for dinner, and 20% at bedtime. But splitting it up that way made the numbers look better if you don't really know what they mean.
I think that is fixed now, but it's a good example of how nutritional data can be manipulated.
2014/07/22 04:52:59
Subject: Re:The rise of obesity in the United States
Another part of the problem is that the nutritional info is rendered useless when the FDA publishes horrible health guidelines. Yes, please, eat massive quantities of grains and you won't get obese, high blood pressure, or cancer! Meanwhile all fats are still demonized.
Yeah, I knew the 40/40/20 was part of the joke. It's an annoying one because I see that number thrown around everywhere.
The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy
They used to sell the 20oz bottle of soda and have the nutritional information for 1 serving on the bottle. So when you look at it the numbers would not look that horrible, but you would have to realize that the numbers are for 8oz and not 20oz. I don't think that the majority of people would take their 20oz bottle and drink 8oz for lunch, 8oz for dinner, and maybe 4oz for breakfast (or 40%,40%,20%).
People might nurse the bottle for a while, but they are going to drink the whole botte. So you have the information printed on the bottle for 1 serving, but it's not the serving that most people would drink with a bottle like that. So the numbers are useless unless you do the math and multiply it by 2.5, and that is if you even know to do that. Candy bars often had the same problem.
I think the companies agreed to put more realistic serving sizes on things like cans/small bottles/candy bars to avoid additional government regulation, but don't quote me on that as a fact. It's just something that I think I remember happening a while ago.
2014/07/22 05:11:10
Subject: Re:The rise of obesity in the United States
Talking about the old serving sizes of a 20oz bottle of coke vs what people actually drink, and why nutritional labels were very misleading because of that.
2014/07/22 05:23:58
Subject: Re:The rise of obesity in the United States
That's my point. The thighs are tastier and cheaper. I think this fixation on chicken breasts stems from the 80's bodybuilding scene when everyone was on that zero fat diet.
Chicken thighs and peas everyday and it is delicious!
The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy
2014/07/22 06:01:13
Subject: Re:The rise of obesity in the United States
trexmeyer wrote: That's my point. The thighs are tastier and cheaper. I think this fixation on chicken breasts stems from the 80's bodybuilding scene when everyone was on that zero fat diet.
Chicken thighs and peas everyday and it is delicious!
Don't you get bored of eating the same thing everyday or do you prep them differently so you don't get sick of it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/22 06:29:01
2014/07/22 06:29:39
Subject: Re:The rise of obesity in the United States
Fair enough I just know for myself I would lose my desire to eat a dish if I was eating it everyday, but if it works for you, you enjoy it and it seems fairly healthy then more power to you.
When I was fat and DYEL I decided to go low carb and dropped 60lbs in about 3-4 months (it was freakishly fast) eating the following:
Meal 1: Apple with Peanut Butter
Meal 2-5: Chicken and Broccoli
Occasionally I would eat a half pound burger (4-5 times a week) from some fast food place. That was 90% of my food. When I get focused I can eat boring as hell. Lucky me.
The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy
SilverMK2 wrote: I would just like to point out that BMI is an indicator of being unhealthily over (or under) weight, not the be all and end all...
Yeah, i am into weightlifting and according the BMI i am overweight, while those hi tech medical scales that somehow measures fat/muscle density content says i am OK.
Fafnir wrote: There's a reason why there are people who's entire job revolves around convincing people to make bad decisions.
Absolutely. The claim that people should just rationally assess the best options for themselves is pretty much negated by the existence of the advertising industry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: I would just like to point out that BMI is an indicator of being unhealthily over (or under) weight, not the be all and end all...
BMI is a decent measure for overall population health. That is, when it comes to measuring say, all the men in the city of Perth, then taking average height and weight and plotting them against BMI allows you to conclude that overall they're a bit fat. Because across a population all the individual variation - broad shoulders, high muscle content, light frame etc get nullified.
But as a measure of individual health BMI is pretty much useless. You can tell more just by looking at someone. In fact, I think in lots of cases doctors just use BMI because it gives an objective, medical covering to the process of just looking at the person and seeing they've got an issue with weight.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/07/22 08:54:00
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: BMI is a decent measure for overall population health. That is, when it comes to measuring say, all the men in the city of Perth, then taking average height and weight and plotting them against BMI allows you to conclude that overall they're a bit fat. Because across a population all the individual variation - broad shoulders, high muscle content, light frame etc get nullified.
But as a measure of individual health BMI is pretty much useless. You can tell more just by looking at someone. In fact, I think in lots of cases doctors just use BMI because it gives an objective, medical covering to the process of just looking at the person and seeing they've got an issue with weight.
Indeed, though BMI is often listed as a reason not to perform surgery; again it is used as an indicator for general health given the statistical likelihood of the patient not reacting well under anaesthetic and/or obtaining a good outcome from the surgery and/or the surgery being too difficult to perform due to excess fat/weight.
In this case, BMI is very much applied to the individual because it is an indicator of health based on knowledge of the population.
I'd say it's still pretty useless because we have people sitting at 25% bodyfat or more that are a "healthy" weight and are told by doctors that they are healthy, but are still at a risk for diabetes or cardiovascular problems.
The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy
2014/07/22 09:21:40
Subject: Re:The rise of obesity in the United States
trexmeyer wrote: I'd say it's still pretty useless because we have people sitting at 25% bodyfat or more that are a "healthy" weight and are told by doctors that they are healthy, but are still at a risk for diabetes or cardiovascular problems.
Again, it is an indication of health. One of many that should be considered when assessing someone.
change the way you eat your food, and plan it out a bit
I dropped basically all of this from my diet
biscuits, savoury and sweet
potato chips, and basically anything that thats marketed as a type of chip
ice cream, most dairy stuff so all your yoghurt and fancy cheese, i mainly just eat your regulard plain block of real cheese
soft drinks, cordial, milk etc, i only do diet drinks, but im mostly just a water guy now
seriously once you stop eating alot of this crap, you save alot of money and you eat less as well. Not because your starving yourself but after a couple of weeks you lose the craving to eat it.
also to make it easier on yourself when learning how to cook, forget the notion that you need a meal with 10 different ingredients, one of my favourite meal is one chicken breast no skin, stirfried in sweet chilli sauce with mixed vegeatables on brown rice, takes like 10 minutes to make and tastes great
