New data: Over 20% obesity in every single state in the U.S.
Options
Replies
-
As my high school economics teacher used to say, "If you let a man sit under a tree and eat bananas all day, that's what he'll do."
Most people eat what they want when they want to with no regard for the number of calories they are consuming. In today's food environment, this virtually guarantees you will be eating a caloric surplus.
I don't think there is any systemic solution to this problem so long as delicious plentiful food is available. You can educate people until you are blue in the face. People are going to do what is easy, and that means that even if they know the benefits of exercise and eating properly they will "sit under the tree and eat bananas (big macs) all day." People don't worry about their health until they have a health problem. And by then, it is virtually impossible to fix a weight problem.
This is going to have to be solved by medical science, and, given the massive financial reward for doing so, it probably will be. One day, a safe and effective appetite suppressant mechanism will be invented. One day, a safe and effective means of regulating body fat stores will be invented.0 -
melodicraven wrote: »
Though since I'm a fan of science, if there's a study studying whether air pollution causes excess fat to get stored (maybe due to stress/cortisol in prepubescents?) I think that would not be an unworthwhile study to try to fund.
Exactly!
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. I would love to see more questions like this asked. We don't just move through our environments without it affecting us in different subtle ways. It's all interconnected.
There are also studies showing air pollution may affect insulin. And insulin levels in turn can definitely affect satiety.0 -
The former isn't very interesting to me. The latter would be very much so.maillemaker wrote: »This is going to have to be solved by medical science, and, given the massive financial reward for doing so, it probably will be. One day, a safe and effective appetite suppressant mechanism will be invented. One day, a safe and effective means of regulating body fat stores will be invented.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.0 -
Ghosts? Only silly people believe in ghosts or the laws of thermodynamics applying to a human body. Duh.
Nope. If the food's not there, starvation mode will protect people from starving to death during famine. Duh.
Relative privations and false dichotomy. If someone punches me in the face, it still is upsetting even if it beats getting kicked in the groin.ninagray000 wrote: »thanks for posting this, but man, how depressing.
It's depressing that people are unhappy with their appearances due to excess weight and also depressing that people get increased risk of heart attack, stroke, cancer, and diabetes due to carrying excess weight.
Then again, you gotta die of something and despite this, life expectancy in the Western world is at an all time high.
We've got an over abundance of cheap, available food unlike any other time in human history. So, naturally, people are eating too much of it and getting fatter.
That's better than what we've historically lived through (forever) as a human race. Chronic food shortages, forced periods of fasting for lack of food, crop failures with no immediate alternative food sources, livestock die offs with no immediate alternative food sources, death from starvation, etc.
This is a new era of extended abundance and availability of delicious food. We haven't adjusted to it, physically or mentally.
I still think it's better than the alternative.
Sorry about your groin troubles. But I stand by my dichotomy. Folks can choose to moderate what how much they eat in times of abundance, even if it's difficult. If the food's not there, it's not there and that's that. That's human history, smartypants.
Yeah, tell that to the ghosts of millions of folks who've died from starvation over the past 5 thousand years or so. Duh.
Never mind then smartypants. Tell their ancestors. And don't forget to explain the laws of thermodynamics while you're at it. You know, just in case they don't believe in them.
Are you guys rivals in an office softball league or something?0 -
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
0 -
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
0 -
Nope, this is more like who's on first.rjmudlax13 wrote: »
Ghosts? Only silly people believe in ghosts or the laws of thermodynamics applying to a human body. Duh.
Nope. If the food's not there, starvation mode will protect people from starving to death during famine. Duh.
Relative privations and false dichotomy. If someone punches me in the face, it still is upsetting even if it beats getting kicked in the groin.ninagray000 wrote: »thanks for posting this, but man, how depressing.
It's depressing that people are unhappy with their appearances due to excess weight and also depressing that people get increased risk of heart attack, stroke, cancer, and diabetes due to carrying excess weight.
Then again, you gotta die of something and despite this, life expectancy in the Western world is at an all time high.
We've got an over abundance of cheap, available food unlike any other time in human history. So, naturally, people are eating too much of it and getting fatter.
That's better than what we've historically lived through (forever) as a human race. Chronic food shortages, forced periods of fasting for lack of food, crop failures with no immediate alternative food sources, livestock die offs with no immediate alternative food sources, death from starvation, etc.
This is a new era of extended abundance and availability of delicious food. We haven't adjusted to it, physically or mentally.
I still think it's better than the alternative.
Sorry about your groin troubles. But I stand by my dichotomy. Folks can choose to moderate what how much they eat in times of abundance, even if it's difficult. If the food's not there, it's not there and that's that. That's human history, smartypants.
Yeah, tell that to the ghosts of millions of folks who've died from starvation over the past 5 thousand years or so. Duh.
Never mind then smartypants. Tell their ancestors. And don't forget to explain the laws of thermodynamics while you're at it. You know, just in case they don't believe in them.
Are you guys rivals in an office softball league or something?
At least I don't think I was tossing out anything too screwy or making a curve.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
0 -
duna_pruna wrote: »The problem is they are basing this assessment on BMI. There was a study in Britain recently that found BMI overestimates male body fat content and underestimates females. We really need to go to a waist the height ratio or similar. My own BMI is surprisingly high. 64" tall medium frame and I weigh 135lbs. But I'm at 23% body fat. Very reasonable for a 49 year old and I wear a size 4.
I do agree that just using BMI to assess the health of an individual is wrong (and this is especially bs when insurance companies us it). However, it is useful when assessing large populations because it is much easier to get large and accurate BMI data sets than it is to get large and accurate bf% data sets. Also, it is a safe assumption that the high muscle end of the bell curve would average out the low muscle end. Saying that, my hypothesis is that if bf% is used in a study the obesity rates would be much higher!0 -
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
0 -
At 11:22 it was, "Not more government." At 11:26, "It is more government." Your position is very confusing, though evolving at an admirable rate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
At 11:22 it was, "Not more government." At 11:26, "It is more government." Your position is very confusing, though evolving at an admirable rate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
We can stop the oil, drug, and vice wars. That is less government. We can ban junkfood advertising to kids. Net result: Still less government overall.
0 -
I'm going to miss this topic if it gets closed for politics.
Sigh.0 -
Quite the conundrum. MyFitnessPal forums are for discussing weight loss, and health involving diet. Affecting weight and health at a macro level is the field of politics to one extent or another, but politics aren't for general forum discussion in MyFitnessPal forums.0 -
Your proposed ban is still more government than in the absence of that ban. Regardless, the idea that banning advertising to kids is going to affect meaningfully obesity rates while jabbing yet another knife in the back of the First Amendment seems pretty flawed to me. And a poor "end justifies the means" decision even if it would work.DeguelloTex wrote: »
At 11:22 it was, "Not more government." At 11:26, "It is more government." Your position is very confusing, though evolving at an admirable rate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
We can stop the oil, drug, and vice wars. That is less government. We can ban junkfood advertising to kids. Net result: Still less government overall.
0 -
Quite the conundrum. MyFitnessPal forums are for discussing weight loss, and health involving diet. Affecting weight and health at a macro level is the field of politics to one extent or another, but politics aren't for general forum discussion in MyFitnessPal forums.
I know, I'll behave in this thread from now on. There are other forums for that.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions