|
OneEightHundred posted:It's not really an addiction in the same way as a drug addiction. While there are some extreme compulsive cases, most bad diets have some extremely calorie-dense items that can be easily eliminated, can reduce portion sizes, or both. Eliminating Cheetos from a diet is not the same type of problem as, say, quitting smoking. The problem is that, unlike drug addictions, fixing a bad diet requires modifying it rather than eliminating it, and most people view food healthiness in terms of extreme and inaccurate generalizations rather than accurately figuring out where their calories are coming from. I agree with that last sentence, but I think the line you're drawing here is kind of arbitrary. True, a behavioral addiction is different than a substance addiction, but your use of the word "easily" is weird here. I hate to appeal to intuition, but if it were so easy not to eat like poo poo all the time nobody would do it. Therefore it must not be easy. I guess your post feels a bit like telling a sex or gambling addict they can "easily" resist their impulses. I'm coming at this from a long history with substance use (and really bad, comorbid overeating, some of which still persists). For a non-addict, it's the easiest thing in the world to stay non-addicted. Even as a recovering addict, now that I have some years of sobriety under my belt, I find myself wondering why other addicts can't just do what I did. But the fact is that getting off drugs felt totally impossible to me for many years. I maintain that the psychological basis of overeating is almost always neglected in these conversations, though I'm not sure why. Perhaps because to look at overeating as a compulsion or addiction would make people less culpable for their actions? Canine Blues Arooo posted:How effective would set a of economic policies be? Setting aside the really uncomfortable social and psychological elements of your proposal, extra fees for obese people would be about the most regressive tax imaginable. Call me crazy, but I think formally identifying, singling out, and penalizing a group disproportionately composed of poor people and minorities may have negative social and psychological impacts. Leviathan Song posted:First off most people will give you terrible advice about diet and exercise. [...] Beyond that every chucklefuck who has heard the phrase "calories in minus calories out" thinks that's the be all and end all of diet advice. It's more a goal than a method. It's like telling someone that you build a house by nailing boards together or that you run a marathon by continuing to run for a while. It's not untrue but it's also useless. When you've been raised from childhood to adulthood with terrible food habits you need a much more detailed understanding of what you're doing wrong. A lot of people are surprised to find that fruit juice contains calories. That's the level of nutritional education I grew up with. This is a good and true post.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
"The obesity epidemic" is a bad term, too, because there's also an increasing percentage of overweight people. While there's probably more to the obesity portion than the decline in cooking knowledge, it does seem to explain a lot of the overall increase in weight, as people become dependent on trusting prepared or prepackaged food for portion sizes. Of course, reversing this decline runs into other major problems, which is why one of the few efforts that successfully tackled obesity consisted of a Finnish (IIRC) effort which brought in nutritionists and doctors to work with a couple small towns and completely reorient the way people lived. Not only is this not practical, I believe it would face too much pushback from large companies to even enter public discourse.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
fishmech posted: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". Added sugars: FDA is proposing including the percent daily value (%DV) for added sugars on the Nutrition Facts label of packaged foods, giving consumers additional information for added sugars similar to information they have seen for decades with respect to nutrients such as sodium and certain fats. The percent daily value indicates how much a nutrient in a serving of food contributes to a daily diet and would help consumers make informed choices for themselves and their families. The percent daily value would be based on the recommendation that the daily intake of calories from added sugars not exceed 10 percent of total calories.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
It's not even clear that "home cooking" would save the day anyway. In Mexico a lot of their foods are fatty and calorically dense but because they're (at least historically) very active you don't notice that much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:42
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:I forgot the full context and latched onto that phrase, my bad: The main issue is that this is going to get latched onto as "added sugar is bad", just like with carbohydrates, fat, sodium, etc. It also might not decrease sugar intake as people go to fruit juices and so on.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:44
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not even clear that "home cooking" would save the day anyway. In Mexico a lot of their foods are fatty and calorically dense but because they're (at least historically) very active you don't notice that much. Mexico also has an increasing obesity epidemic.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Mexico also has an increasing obesity epidemic. Hence historically. In both cases the issue isn't "people forgetting their food culture in favor of capitalism" or whatever, it's them not being as active as they were in the past.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The main issue is that this is going to get latched onto as "added sugar is bad", just like with carbohydrates, fat, sodium, etc. It also might not decrease sugar intake as people go to fruit juices and so on. /e- and for those who need to care it is likely bad anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:47
|
|
computer parts posted:Hence historically. In both cases the issue isn't "people forgetting their food culture in favor of capitalism" or whatever, it's them not being as active as they were in the past. The obesity epidemic in the USA trails the shift to a more sedentary society by decades, though. It's a contributing factor for sure, but it's hard to see it as decisive.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
twodot posted:Can you explain what added sugars actually mean? Like is the caramel on a caramel apple added or part of the product? I see their explanation in the Q&A, but I don't think it answers the question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Hence historically. In both cases the issue isn't "people forgetting their food culture in favor of capitalism" or whatever, it's them not being as active as they were in the past. The diet of a lot of people in Mexico has gone under a huge amount of change in the last few decades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:06
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
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. Yeah, dude, only fatsos drink beer.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
So this thread seems to be saying that coincidentally a bunch of people all over the world really let themselves go, and they need to get healthy. But it's their business and not anyone else's, because health and welfare are personal issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Yeah, dude, only fatsos drink beer. Every law requires sacrifices on the part of people who were never going to harm society. What's your point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
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:Every law requires sacrifices on the part of people who were never going to harm society. What's your point? I see you're a prissy, teetotaling-without-being-an-alcoholic sort, so I fear you're too stupid to understand the point, which is that your dismissal "oh we'll just kill them all and Science will sort them out", apart from being monstrous and evil, is also based on ignorance as to the actual scope involved.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not even clear that "home cooking" would save the day anyway. In Mexico a lot of their foods are fatty and calorically dense but because they're (at least historically) very active you don't notice that much. France is the other often-cited example of a food culture with high amounts of fat and calories. There's a growing obesity problem in France, but it's nowhere near as bad as it is in North America or the UK. (It's still pretty bad.) France also, of course, has a strong public transportation infrastructure and walkable cities. If you look at the places where they have First World levels of access to food but a high level of walkability, urban density, and public transportation there are significantly lower rates of overweight and obese people. The global rate of overweight people is shockingly high (2007). I can't imagine it's gotten any better in the 8 years since, though a few countries are actually leveling off instead of experiencing increases. There's some more data here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Brannock posted:
Hooooooly poo poo, look at Saudi Arabia, fully half of its adult female population is obese.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
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. This is a really lovely attitude in the face of multiple people who are trying to post productively. Leviathan Song posted:After that there were a ton of people who tried to sabotage me. I've had people point and laugh in the gym. I've had people throw drinks and scream at me about my weight while I'm out for a run. Those people aren't nearly as bad as the ones who recite, "one _____ can't possibly matter." There were times I'd have that conversation 5 or 6 times per week where someone would take personal offense to the fact that I'm not eating what they deem to be enough. It's emotionally exhausting to have to work with someone who insists that you need to eat their pancakes because you're diet is a fad. See that, Deus? You're no different than the rear end in a top hat pointing and laughing and sabotaging someone trying to become more fit. Who gives a gently caress about tumblr when folks like you are here making the problem worse?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Hooooooly poo poo, look at Saudi Arabia, fully half of its adult female population is obese. I mean, so would you if you could eat stuff like this all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
nerdz posted:I'm not even that overweight (around 30% body fat) but one thing that really worked for me was, instead of counting calories, looking at the numbers on my weight and fat percentage, I started looking at my lifting and running PRs. It really worked for me when I started thinking "wouldn't it be nice if I could squat twice my body weight/run a marathon" instead of "wouldn't it be nice if my belly was a few inches smaller". I feel good and know I'm healthy since I'm moving towards these goals, regardless of appearance and that eventually comes as a consequence. I really wish we could push healthy behavior more than appearance. I think this is crucial. When I started to view fat reduction not as an end in itself, but rather a byproduct of general health and fitness, my goals and my attitude changed a lot. I found forms of exercise and activity that I enjoy doing for their own sake, and suddenly what I eat and I think our culture has a problem of viewing how much fat you have as the meaning of fitness, rather than as one among many correlates, while mobility and flexibility are often ignored. When I was a kid, the martial arts school I went to was run by a guy who had a huge gut, but could still move quickly and with power, and do a lot of impressive things. Not to say he wasn't at higher risk of heart problems down the line than he could be, but there are plenty of people with his body fat % or lower who are a lot worse off. But lol if anyone thinks they're completely independent, or even only weakly connected. sweek0 posted:As someone who does both running and weightlifting, I would say that running is probably considered more fun by most people. I think so anyway. And in the end the best exercise is the one that you'll stick with and all that. Hmm, I wonder what it is about being someone who runs a lot that might lead you to that impression. I think it's the most boring thing in the universe besides just sitting or standing. Any aerobic sport, I think, would be better for retention for most people. The only trouble is finding a way to do it regularly. But then of course, there's the "I'm just not good at sports" mentality, which I imagine is just as infectious/prevalent as the "I'm just not a math person" poo poo. Anyway, I just wish there were One Weird Trick to get people to try just eating mostly vegetables all the time, like as a majority of their calories. poo poo fills you up. Oh, that reminds me, the Voxcast has an episode that's germane to this thread. I haven't listened to it yet, so we can all listen together!  Meanwhile... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9PqefBGdxc khwarezm posted:Hooooooly poo poo, look at Saudi Arabia, fully half of its adult female population is obese. Heh, it's not like they need to work on their beach bodies. Anyway, I'll finish this post by weighing in on calories in, calories out. It's a perfectly valuable thing if we were eating calories. What we are eating, however, is food, and there is more energy involved in using/passing in some food than others. I'm not trying to hawk 'negative calories' or whatever, but it very much is the case that simple sugars dissolved in liquid take less time and energy to result in lots of ATP than do the fibers, proteins, and assorted micronutrients in a broccoli floret. Just in case anyone was still trumpeting that little red herring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What's the fast food profile? What meaningfully distinguishes it from the same dish made at home or at a different kind of restaurant? Oh and that calorie count printed on the front of the packaging in a way that's highly visible thing that a bunch of companies have started doing needs to be mandatory. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:The main thing that would help is just requiring restaurants to list the calorie counts of items. The studies on restaurant calorie labeling haven't found it to do much of anything: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123618/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3719868/
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not even clear that "home cooking" would save the day anyway. In Mexico a lot of their foods are fatty and calorically dense but because they're (at least historically) very active you don't notice that much. Likewise, many of the processed foods people keep complaining about have been around decades before the obesity epidemic became a thing. fishmech posted: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. When I was a kid, the typical single-serving package for soda was the 12oz can. Now it's the 20oz bottle. Plus, the portion sizes recommended by experts are way smaller than what has become accepted as a normal meal by mainstream America. I remember hearing that what McDonalds now calls a"small" fries and drinks was the only size when they were first founded. That's probably a much bigger factor than most (if not all) of the other things people have blamed for making people fat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Every law requires sacrifices on the part of people who were never going to harm society. What's your point? 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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
It's impractical to diet like that and why most diets fail anyway. I've seen it multiple times at work. Someone says 'dang sitting at a desk all day is making me put on pounds, time to get fit', goes on a complete health nut binge for a couple weeks then one day they crack and balloon right back learning nothing in the process. It's okay to eat a donut or a candy bar once in a while or eat an unhealthy meal as long as it isn't every day. It's why weight watchers works to an extent, it's simple portion control. Sure you can have that big mac but then you've nearly totaled out your points for the day so is it worth it when you can have something more filling like some grilled chicken and have points for a bigger dinner or a snack?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
fishmech posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I'm a fattie struggling to lose weight - a lot of loving weight - and anyone arguing in favor of banning things is out of their goddamned minds, because prohibition never works. It also fails to address a lot of First World attitudes that lead to obesity. I don't like junkfood. Period. I don't like chips and obscene sweets and gallons of obscene sweets, fast food, and soda. I got fat on home cooking because my family is dirt poor and very much comes from thrift/hoarder culture. I live in the country and I'm very active for my size, but I still got fat because of the attitudes of people around me. Because we were so poor, we bought in bulk. Buying in bulk meant that my mom and grandma would pressure me into seconds and thirds so we didn't waste food. It meant that the fridge was, and is, overflowing with frozen and decaying food that no one will ever eat and I'm forbidden from cleaning out because - and this is an argument that stops all logic in its tracks - "what if the world ends tomorrow and we NEED that food?!" It's been better when I moved out on my own and when I moved back here to care for my grandma, because I can control the shopping. I don't look at we'll save a few cents by buying more. I look at what the family can sensibly eat without mountains of leftovers and is somewhat healthy. I buy smart and it's a strategy that's resulted in me losing almost fifty pounds. Unfortunately, I gained a lot of that back, because my aunt came to help out after my grandpa died and took the shopping reigns from me. I got yelled at for buying "expensive" bags of shredded low fat cheese that were only a few cents more than the Great Value bags which are obscenely large. Most of them go unused and I got dirty looks for not drowning everything I prepared myself with the poo poo. It's easy to go "OMG BAN THE TRANSFATS AND GET SOME WILLPOWER" but it honestly wouldn't do poo poo for anyone in situations like mine, which is a lot more common than people realize. And going to the gym or walks in town are nightmarish, because people can and do mock you for trying to lose weight. It's really goddamned isolating. I don't like being morbidly obese and I want to change that, but it's drat near impossible when the world wants you to stay shuttered in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 05:09
|
|
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? South Korean obesity and overweight rates are climbing, as a matter of fact.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:South Korean obesity and overweight rates are climbing, as a matter of fact. It may be climbing, but it is a fraction of what it is here. I spent eight months there in 2012 and can't count on one hand the number of Koreans I saw that would be considered fat by American standards. Why?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 05:15
|
|
Cole posted:It may be climbing, but it is a fraction of what it is here. I spent eight months there in 2012 and can't count on one hand the number of Koreans I saw that would be considered fat by American standards. Nope. South Korea has an obesity+overweight rate of 35-40%, the U.S. has one of 60-65%. A noticeable gap, but not a huge one.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
Calories don't count when you vomit them up from eating kimchi and drinking cheap soju.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 05:18
|
|