R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down

Author Topic: Supersize  (Read 11399 times)

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: Supersize
« Reply #75 on: March 30, 2010, 06:02:55 PM »

Edvaard wrote on Tue, 30 March 2010 16:54


You would, really? And for what do you in fact need said proof? Just to give such insolent reply as this? ...


Oh please, I expressed doubts about a paper, get over it. I even ran with in the discussion, so keep it on track.


Quote:

Aside from the dishonesty of the first statement (as proven by response to the provided proof), the second sentiment sounds quite in tune with the creationists. They too have "a healthy dose of skepticism" to scientifically conducted experiments performed with well established protocols and peer review of the study and report.

Calling me a liar then projecting some sort of belief system onto me based on that post is an incredible leap and thus far we've risen above such silliness in this thread.

The fact remains that there are indeed a tremendous number of studies that have later been reversed when other tried to reproduce the effect or discovered other actions involved in the process which they had mistakenly attributed to the result.

Despite those doubts, I still say let's move forward with the discussion - what, then, is the answer?
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

Edvaard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
Re: Supersize
« Reply #76 on: March 30, 2010, 06:34:13 PM »


Sorry for being snippy, but it is exasperating to try to stick to the facts when all folks can say is "I don't believe it."

You said you were skeptical of the study, but didn't explain what was about it in particular that raised such doubts, nor why you think that you are a better evaluator of the veracity of such studies than the scientific community who have studied addictions for decades.

As to what can be done about it, it was already pointed out earlier that most schools today have the soda and snack machines on campus, along with the pizza, fries, etc. in the cafeteria. I'm not at all a fan of government dictating our personal choices, but that is the circumstantially unavoidable situation when it comes to the school cafeteria (along with the curriculum). And having the vending machines on campus is a quite conspicuous message of condonement for what they dispense, to say the least.

Do you think perhaps that removing the machines and then displaying some modicum of practicing in the cafeteria what they preach in class regarding healthy diet might be a place to start?


PS

Of course there have been conclusions from scientific studies that were later reversed, but those occasions are rather few and far between, and in most cases conducted by companies in the pharmaceutical sector. But in any event, how would the world progress if we held off on everything, waiting for (for how many years?) further studies to show a reversal? What to do in this situation then?

Logged

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: Supersize
« Reply #77 on: March 30, 2010, 06:52:30 PM »

Edvaard wrote on Tue, 30 March 2010 17:34


As to what can be done about it, it was already pointed out earlier that most schools today have the soda and snack machines on campus, along with the pizza, fries, etc. in the cafeteria. I'm not at all a fan of government dictating our personal choices, but that is the circumstantially unavoidable situation when it comes to the school cafeteria (along with the curriculum). And having the vending machines on campus is a quite conspicuous message of condonement for what they dispense, to say the least.

Do you think perhaps that removing the machines and then displaying some modicum of practicing in the cafeteria what they preach in class regarding healthy diet might be a place to start?


Yah, absolutely - that is a good start. I think the least we should expect from our schools is that they teach our children healthy things, whether in the classroom or cafeteria.

My fear is that doing that, while it's a great start, will be akin to trying to save a sinking ship with a teaspoon.

Maybe I'm cynical about it all, but I'm just exasperated with the concept of trying to get people to make smarter decisions. I just feel that anything we do will have to counteract what they are getting @ home, which will be the same as it currently is.

So yah, that's a good start, and it's surprising that our schools are feeding the kids such crap, now that I think about it...
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

DarinK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410
Re: Supersize
« Reply #78 on: March 30, 2010, 07:36:52 PM »

When healthy food is the easiest to acquire, most people eat healthfully.  People generally take the path of least resistance, which includes following habits (let alone addictions) & not going out of their way to acquire food.  As junk food has become more readily available, and healthy food less so, obesity rates have risen.  This is true everywhere, from the U.S. to Japan (where the areas that once had the highest longevity now have the highest obesity rates amongst the youth).
Some of this has been suggested in this thread already, but if communities can regulate liquor stores going into their areas, they should also be able to regulate junk food outlets, whether fast food or convenience stores.  When farmers' markets, community gardens & other such programs are started in these areas, they generally do incredibly well.  It may take a bit of government involvement to get them going in the first place, but it pays off in the long run.
Other government-related (and therefore, citizen-related) factors are school lunch programs & food available on campus (already covered, but I will say that if the only way to eat junk food on campus was to bring it from home, that would help a lot & not step on anyone's rights), and agricultural subsidies.  If there were no subsidies at all, that would go a long ways towards evening out the marketplace and forcing fast food & junk food prices to reflect their true cost.  If there were subsidies for fruits & vegetables, I'd bet they'd pay for themselves in reduced health care costs.
And if junk food can be addictive, then we should at least acknowledge the difficulties that addicted people have instead of suggesting that it's just a simple choice.  
Good health to you all.
-Darin
Logged

Taproot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 713
Re: Supersize
« Reply #79 on: March 30, 2010, 10:58:16 PM »

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 30 March 2010 16:52


Yah, absolutely - that is a good start. I think the least we should expect from our schools is that they teach our children healthy things, whether in the classroom or cafeteria.

My fear is that doing that, while it's a great start, will be akin to trying to save a sinking ship with a teaspoon.

Maybe I'm cynical about it all, but I'm just exasperated with the concept of trying to get people to make smarter decisions. I just feel that anything we do will have to counteract what they are getting @ home, which will be the same as it currently is.


I agree that it's a shame what's served in the schools, but as you stated and being the spouse of a teacher, that's only the tip of the iceberg. It is un-freaking-real, what I have to listen to, regarding this issue and the way some are taught at home. I promise you, it's not just poor, uneducated people either. On a broader scale, it's widespread, systemic and frightening.
Logged
Jeffrey Reed
Taproot Audio Design
Oxford, Mississippi
www.taprootaudiodesign.com
www.myspace.com/taprootaudio

"That boy's so dumb, he thinks the Mexican border pays rent!" -Foghorn Leghorn

PookyNMR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
Re: Supersize
« Reply #80 on: March 31, 2010, 01:06:12 AM »

DarinK wrote on Tue, 30 March 2010 17:36

When healthy food is the easiest to acquire, most people eat healthfully.


I think the convenience factor is a major part in the equation.  

I think many people do know a little better than what they're doing (but still somewhat uneducated in finer points of nutrition).  But the fact is with our fast paced lifestyles, you're looking for quick and cheap.  And that's fast food.  

Let's face it - it takes quite a bit of time to chop up fresh vegetables and to make healthy meals.  A person needs to be committed and adapt their lifestyle around healthy eating.  Or else it is as you say, the path of least resistance (fast and cheap) wins.

Logged
Nathan Rousu

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: Supersize
« Reply #81 on: March 31, 2010, 06:30:03 AM »

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 06:06

 
I think many people do know a little better than what they're doing (but still somewhat uneducated in finer points of nutrition).  But the fact is with our fast paced lifestyles, you're looking for quick and cheap.  And that's fast food.


Which is why actually teaching people to cook can help. Compared to an equivalently elaborate meal (rather than a three course meal with ocmplex dishes), fast food is not actually that fast or that cheap. I'm not a great cook, but I can whip up an omelette in less time than it takes me to cue ar McDonalds, Or grilling a piece of chicken takes a few minutes. But until you build up a little experience, and confidence, cooking is rather daunting, and IS slow.
Logged

Samc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1393
Re: Supersize
« Reply #82 on: March 31, 2010, 10:56:08 AM »

The film and 'experiment' (if you can call it that were stupid and meaningless) Nobody, and I mean Nobody eats like that.  He was gorging himself to commit near suicide for the film. His actions were irresponsible at best.

It doesn't matter what you consume, if you eat/drink like that you're killing yourself this has nothing to do with fast food not being good for you.

Who the heck stuffs themselves with food until they vomit on a regular basis?

Brad, if you haven't seen it already don't waste your time, it's everything you said it would be......  
Logged
Sam Clayton

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: Supersize
« Reply #83 on: March 31, 2010, 11:08:41 AM »

Samc wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 07:56


Who the heck stuffs themselves with food until they vomit on a regular basis?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulimia_nervosa

PookyNMR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
Re: Supersize
« Reply #84 on: March 31, 2010, 11:30:14 AM »

Samc wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 08:56

The film and 'experiment' (if you can call it that were stupid and meaningless) Nobody, and I mean Nobody eats like that.  He was gorging himself to commit near suicide for the film. His actions were irresponsible at best.


Nobody eats exactly like that.  But, stats are that the average American family eats out 3 times a week.

I know people who eat out (usually some sort of fast food) every single day for lunch.

I agree it was near suicidal.  Which should concern us all that eating nothing but fast food (McDonalds) could kill you in about a month.

Logged
Nathan Rousu

Taproot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 713
Re: Supersize
« Reply #85 on: March 31, 2010, 12:49:24 PM »

I filleted 78 White Bass that I caught yesterday. I'm looking for healthy ways to prepare them, but I don't intend to eat all 78 at once. That would be unhealthy.  Smile

"Too much fun, ain't no fun at all."- C.J. Chenier

Logged
Jeffrey Reed
Taproot Audio Design
Oxford, Mississippi
www.taprootaudiodesign.com
www.myspace.com/taprootaudio

"That boy's so dumb, he thinks the Mexican border pays rent!" -Foghorn Leghorn

Samc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1393
Re: Supersize
« Reply #86 on: March 31, 2010, 01:56:22 PM »

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 16:30

Samc wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 08:56

The film and 'experiment' (if you can call it that were stupid and meaningless) Nobody, and I mean Nobody eats like that.  He was gorging himself to commit near suicide for the film. His actions were irresponsible at best.


Nobody eats exactly like that.  But, stats are that the average American family eats out 3 times a week.

I know people who eat out (usually some sort of fast food) every single day for lunch.

I agree it was near suicidal.  Which should concern us all that eating nothing but fast food (McDonalds) could kill you in about a month.

As much as I don't like them, McDonalds was not the problem here, stuffing yourself (with any thing) to the point of vomiting three times a day will kill you!

In the film they did feature a guy who ate at McDonalds every day, for years, and he was not in danger of dropping dead like the sensation seeking host.
Logged
Sam Clayton

Samc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1393
Re: Supersize
« Reply #87 on: March 31, 2010, 01:59:37 PM »

Jay Kadis wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 16:08

Samc wrote on Wed, 31 March 2010 07:56


Who the heck stuffs themselves with food until they vomit on a regular basis?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulimia_nervosa

Yeah, people with mental problems, and even they don't eat like this guy did every meal of everyday.
Logged
Sam Clayton

Edvaard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
Re: Supersize
« Reply #88 on: March 31, 2010, 06:37:10 PM »


When I was in my late teens to late 20's I could and often did eat at least as much as the fellow in the movie, usually not calorie-wise but certainly volume-wise. This included some short spells of lots of fast food within whatever usual routine of omnivorous or vegetarian fare. At the time, I weighed from 125 to 130 lbs. (57-59 kg), max. I never threw up because most of the time the food was anywhere from half-decent to pretty good. At thanksgiving I could eat two very full plates and then a third 'normal' plate.

But even with such capacity as I possessed at the time, had I attempted three meals per day on a fast food menu, I'm sure that even I would have tossed the meal on occasion. So then, the amount eaten certainly was a factor in the filmmaker's bodily rejection of the food, but I assure you the 'quality' of the food, such as it was, was at least as great the reason for the rejection. Additionally, had he eaten the same volume of rice, beans, and stir fry vegetables, either with out or with (good) meat in it, he would not have had any liver problems.

As to the overwrought nature of the escapade (and I certainly agree with others' assessment of that), well, that's just part and parcel of today's media, especially rhetorical theatre, where presenters feel the need to shout as loudly as possible, exaggerate, contort, be in our face, hammer us over the head, and impale upon us whatever point they feel it so important that the audience get. I don't understand this approach at all as a way to try to convince anybody of anything, but then I don't 'get' about 98% of anything in today's films or the media or on the television anyway, so just add it to the list.



BTW, when I stayed at the completely vegetarian regime for over 12 years, I got myself up to a whopping 155 lbs. (from the prior ~128) and been there or near it ever since, though I now sometimes eat meat that friends cook when invited to dinner.

I suspect the difference there was that before, I just ate 'whatever,' didn't cook very well, so not that often, sometimes just as happy having half a leftover ham sandwich followed by two or three large bowls of some cold cereal w/ milk, and two large pieces of toast with about a quarter stick of butter between the both of them for the evening meal. If I was still hungry, I might make a large cheese sandwich or open up and heat a store-bought can of chili (yuk, I know). Choice, huh? But the more vegetarian I ate, the better I got at cooking, to the point where my girlfriends preferred that I do most of the cooking. Anyway, just eating better food, which for me meant something that I or another person made in the kitchen (because I learned how to cook well), got my body to the weight it should have been and I had noticeably more energy. And nearly identical diet regime has gotten acquaintances who were somewhat overweight (including one of aforementioned girlfriends) down to a weight more natural to them.

I think that the greatest benefit of cooking aside from it being fresher is that you pay more attention to the ingredients, being that you look at and handle them, thereby somewhat automatically improving the quality of those ingredients. Less additives, food coloring, 'stabilizers,' etc. That useful adage, "what's good for shelf life is usually not good for human life" is often to mind here.  

It can be a bit tedious chopping vegetables, but I make enough salad for two meal sized servings, tabouli ( I put tom-ay-to in the tabouli, but to-mah-to in the tabbouleh ) enough for 3 days, the bean or veggie casseroles for 3 days, brown rice always in the fridge, etc. Between that and the bananas, pears, broccoli to shovel hommus with, et. al., I can go three days with just a couple of re-heats being the only actual cooking. If making one chicken breast, you can make two, dice some to put in a stir fry or casserole later.

The more experience you get, the more ways you find how to reduce average cooking time per meal, and the leftovers are still twice as fresh as what you could get elsewhere.




 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.081 seconds with 19 queries.