The men who made us fat
Replies
-
Its all lies. The only one that MADE you fat is YOU0
-
Its all lies. The only one that MADE you fat is YOU
Why do people keep saying this? OP asked two questions about food labels.0 -
very interesesting and true...
There are more factors that play into the obesity factor in America than willingness to accept responsibility for one's own decisions. We have a culture that chooses quantity over quality. It is easier to be thin in a country that makes good collective decisions, and makes you feel accountable to someone besides yourself. I lived in Italy for 5 years, and easily lost weight and kept it off. As soon as I returned to America the pounds just flew back on. There are many reasons for this, and one is that I am less active. However, I also feel that I became less accountable to myself because I was not expected to follow certain culinary/dietary rules. In Italy you used to be hard pressed to find clothes larger than a 10 in women's (this is changing). People eat together a lot more, and make healthier choices. I think that you tend to overeat less if you are with others as well. People generally go home to eat lunch during the workday, which I believe promotes healthier eating. Eating out is more of a treat than a habit. Overeating is not a daily event, and typically if you have one large meal, you make sure that the next one is smaller. I know that people are going to get ticked off about this comment, but they also make many healthier choices, and do not treat fast food and sodas as diet staples. Their sugar consumption is tiny compared to ours--our size small ice cream from DQ would be a size large there. These are all things that we could do in America, but I think that we've fallen into a vicious cycle. My husband works 12-13 hour days, and sometimes barely has time to choke down lunch. I think that the stressful lifestyle that we have adapted produces cortisol, and makes us crave less healthy foods. There are lots of other things that I could mention, or hypothesize about, but I don't want to make this into a dissertation.Unfortunately there is this pesky thing called REALITY. And she's a *****.
Reality is that you're never going to solve obesity until you force people to acknowledge that it is the result of poor lifestyle choices. It's not genetics. It's not the food supply. It is straight up lack of willingness to accept responsibility for your own decisions. The only sustainable way to "fix" obesity from a societal standpoint is to stop telling people that someone else is to blame for it.
You're talking about a fantasy land of unicorns and rainbows where we solve obesity by holding hands and singing songs while we dance around a campfire.
I believe in personal responsibility. Today, with the internet, it is much easier to become and stay informed. When I was younger this was not as true. There is a saying in Italian "Volere e' potere" (to want is to do) but sometimes it is difficult to even know where to start, and we can have many misconceptions that we hold as facts that ultimately derail us. We all need to take a hard look at what we eat, and try to make the best decisions for ourselves. And while the Colonel is not stuffing chicken down our throats, it would be nice if society made health a priority as well, instead of just screaming about the obesity epidemic.
just read about the insulin response aiding us to crave, and eat fatty carbs...best book i ever read...worth reading it as she is a professor in food and nutrition, and also had soo many health/ food related problems....so she has been ther and done that..made so much more sense than most diet book i have read.....
zoe harcombe if you are interested in having a look
Yep .... and the studies about foods wrapped or stored in plastic! .... The corn syrup thing was just the topic of the first of a three part documentary I was watching. Why so many got hung up on the sugar bit is quite a mystery to me. I totally agree ... sooo many factors playing a part in todays obesity epidemic that it's a mistake to look at only one tiny aspect of it on it's own. Each and every one who has commented on this thread has got a point. I don't see a right or wrong here, but it's obvious that there are those who actually look at the whole picture and those who can only focus on tiny pieces of it. Once upon a time the entire population believed the earth is flat!!!
About time we put those pieces together and see how our choices have been hijacked and manipulated and get the woolly cap off our eyes ... just saying (and if this sounds random .. Just got back from a long bike ride) 0 -
most of the epigenetic effects currently under study involve the mothers not the fathers, but there is new and intriguing evidence that fathers can pass information to their offspring as well. A British study found that men who started smoking at puberty had sons who were signifcantly fatter than normal by the age of 9. Scientists believe these epigenetic markers were passed on by the Y chromosome. Ancestral environment. Don't forget your grandparents. 0
-
MEN who made us fat?? Now we are sexist as well!? What about those corporate WOMEN? geez! That must be hy i'm fat!0
-
Nothing like absolving yourself of personal responsibility!
Meh personal responsibility doesn't solve every problem. These things are drugs just like crack or pot and should be illegal just like them.0 -
Yes of course if you are eating an extra 1000 calories you are going to gain some weight,
But my point is if you cant naturally regulate your caloric intake, something is wrong. And if it's HFCS that is screwing up your natural mechanisms to regulate your food then that is a contributing factor to making you fat.
Not everyone who is thin actively tries to be thin and 'accounts' for their calories. They manage adjust their intake later without even thinking about it. So what is the different between them and the people that get fat? Why can some people naturally regulate caloric intake and therefore their body weight and others overeat and get fat?[/]
Thats the real question that needs to be answered
What does that even mean? Seriously.
Some people are just naturally thin. They don't have to count calories or regulate their food intake. They manage to regulate their body weight without trying AT ALL.
So, why (or how?), are some people overriding this natural caloric regulator?
I'm going with their parents forced them to learn self control
So, you are saying you don't know?
Maybe we should find out for sure instead of throwing out a random guess
Or maybe you shouldn't concoct some random theory?0 -
Yes of course if you are eating an extra 1000 calories you are going to gain some weight,
But my point is if you cant naturally regulate your caloric intake, something is wrong. And if it's HFCS that is screwing up your natural mechanisms to regulate your food then that is a contributing factor to making you fat.
Not everyone who is thin actively tries to be thin and 'accounts' for their calories. They manage adjust their intake later without even thinking about it. So what is the different between them and the people that get fat? Why can some people naturally regulate caloric intake and therefore their body weight and others overeat and get fat?[/]
Thats the real question that needs to be answered
What does that even mean? Seriously.
Some people are just naturally thin. They don't have to count calories or regulate their food intake. They manage to regulate their body weight without trying AT ALL.
So, why (or how?), are some people overriding this natural caloric regulator?
I'm going with their parents forced them to learn self control
So, you are saying you don't know?
Maybe we should find out for sure instead of throwing out a random guess
Or maybe you shouldn't concoct some random theory?
Let them concoct their theories.
Those of us who have made changes for the better can enjoy being fit and healthy and comfortable in the knowledge that we know exactly what it took to get there.
If people want to listen, cool. If not, and instead want to blame "society" or sugar or HFCS, also cool. It doesn't affect my life.
Fortunately though, many people read these threads, and don't post, but do read and actually "listen" to what several of us have written.0 -
Yes of course if you are eating an extra 1000 calories you are going to gain some weight,
But my point is if you cant naturally regulate your caloric intake, something is wrong. And if it's HFCS that is screwing up your natural mechanisms to regulate your food then that is a contributing factor to making you fat.
Not everyone who is thin actively tries to be thin and 'accounts' for their calories. They manage adjust their intake later without even thinking about it. So what is the different between them and the people that get fat? Why can some people naturally regulate caloric intake and therefore their body weight and others overeat and get fat?[/]
Thats the real question that needs to be answered
What does that even mean? Seriously.
Some people are just naturally thin. They don't have to count calories or regulate their food intake. They manage to regulate their body weight without trying AT ALL.
So, why (or how?), are some people overriding this natural caloric regulator?
I'm going with their parents forced them to learn self control
So, you are saying you don't know?
Maybe we should find out for sure instead of throwing out a random guess
Or maybe you shouldn't concoct some random theory?
I'm merely asking a question. I don't have any theories. I was using HFCS as an example (check use of the word if) to explain the question because the person I was replying to was also talking about HFCS.0 -
Nothing like absolving yourself of personal responsibility!
hahahaha.
Unfortunately the only person I have to blame for making me fat is me. Some people are so lucky! >.>
And I'm also one of those cray cray people that believes that sugar doesn't make someone fat but that overeating does. But I guess I'm just a special snowflake like that
THIS THIS A MILLION TIMES THIS.0 -
Yes of course if you are eating an extra 1000 calories you are going to gain some weight,
But my point is if you cant naturally regulate your caloric intake, something is wrong. And if it's HFCS that is screwing up your natural mechanisms to regulate your food then that is a contributing factor to making you fat.
Not everyone who is thin actively tries to be thin and 'accounts' for their calories. They manage adjust their intake later without even thinking about it. So what is the different between them and the people that get fat? Why can some people naturally regulate caloric intake and therefore their body weight and others overeat and get fat?[/]
Thats the real question that needs to be answered
What does that even mean? Seriously.
Some people are just naturally thin. They don't have to count calories or regulate their food intake. They manage to regulate their body weight without trying AT ALL.
So, why (or how?), are some people overriding this natural caloric regulator?
I'm going with their parents forced them to learn self control
So, you are saying you don't know?
Maybe we should find out for sure instead of throwing out a random guess
Or maybe you shouldn't concoct some random theory?
Let them concoct their theories.
Those of us who have made changes for the better can enjoy being fit and healthy and comfortable in the knowledge that we know exactly what it took to get there.
If people want to listen, cool. If not, and instead want to blame "society" or sugar or HFCS, also cool. It doesn't affect my life.
Fortunately though, many people read these threads, and don't post, but do read and actually "listen" to what several of us have written.
I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?
So when I moved to the USA as a fourth grader, and went from a fit kid to a fat kid, was that just personal responsibility? My parents' fault for not knowing "healthy school lunch" meant "massive calorie fest daily at noon"?
I've transformed my body because I wanted it bad. But I'm not so enamored of my own efforts that I am too busy patting myself on the back and feeling superior to take a look around me as I travel the world, so I notice public policy seems to have an effect on the health of overall populations.
Ponder for a second how painless a 5% improvement of BMI due to public policy would be in a population of 300 million, relative to the intrusiveness or lost freedom of such a tiny change. And before the haters go off about BMI not being a good measure, let me just remind everyone that it is a very good metric when studying large populations, as useless as it is for individuals.
Still baffled how some of you can be so sharp, yet fail to notice groups of people don't operate using the same rules as individuals. I'm wondering if the nature of MFP maybe pre-selects those more likely to hold this kind of belief, by virtue of attracting those who have taken control of their fate.
On a personal note, I feel kinda weird on this thread, because ten years ago it was me arguing the individual is everything, and similarly outnumbered by what I called "collectivists". Funny how things change.0 -
I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?
Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.0 -
I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?
Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.
Yeah, but beach iron seems particularly astute so asking him to clarify makes sense. Is that ok with you, repetition police?0 -
I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?
Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.
Yeah, but beach iron seems particularly astute so asking him to clarify makes sense. Is that ok with you, repetition police?
Hehe, adding the edit drew me back! You're right there are two simultaneous arguments going on that don't have to be in opposition. Your 8 pages of effort, valiant though it has been, hasn't made a dent in this dynamic. It seems a little goofy to pretend to continue to strive for understanding. But obviously you don't need my approval to carry on 0 -
Excited to read this later. So very excited.0
-
I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?
Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.
Yeah, but beach iron seems particularly astute so asking him to clarify makes sense. Is that ok with you, repetition police?
Hehe, adding the edit drew me back! You're right there are two simultaneous arguments going on that don't have to be in opposition. Your 8 pages of effort, valiant though it has been, hasn't made a dent in this dynamic. It seems a little goofy to pretend to continue to strive for understanding. But obviously you don't need my approval to carry on
Ha! I'm a stubborn SOB but, but this kind of dialogue has shaped my views over time.
I don't feel bad about it because I'm not holding anyone her against their will, and most replies have been respectful in their disagreement. Not being able to dictate to others what they should think is no reason to avoid dialogue.0 -
I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?
Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.
Yeah, but beach iron seems particularly astute so asking him to clarify makes sense. Is that ok with you, repetition police?
Hehe, adding the edit drew me back! You're right there are two simultaneous arguments going on that don't have to be in opposition. Your 8 pages of effort, valiant though it has been, hasn't made a dent in this dynamic. It seems a little goofy to pretend to continue to strive for understanding. But obviously you don't need my approval to carry on
I'm honestly baffled as to any point in this thread. Seriously. Is there a solution for anyone on MFP in all of this? And I mean specifically. I've read that society is at fault, that if we disagree we are all just yelling "commie," etc. It doesn't add up to a cogent argument that I can argue with or agree with or take some of and discard the rest. Help me here. Seriously. What is the point?
I will also say that we can talk public policy until we're all blue in the face, and rather smug with our nobel intentions, but it won't make a bit of difference to anyone here. It also ends up confusing things for individuals because it draws attention away from what they can control (their own behavior) and onto something that they cannot (public policy).
Would the U.S. be a thinner nation if we completely did away with fast food and chinese and pizza delivery? I think its possible if not probable.
Is that going to happen? No.
Do I want it to happen? No.
Can I live in a society with fast food, and chinese and pizza delivery and still be in great shape? Of course. Heck, I can even eat it regularly if I want it, and I do.
I choose to focus on what I have control over, and pretty much the only things that I have control over are my own behavior and my own attitude.
Therefore, I read labels, I count calories, I balance my macros, I exercise, and I point out to others that they can do the same. It's not particularly ambitious in terms of recreating society, I realize, but it does work.0 -
I'm honestly baffled as to any point in this thread. Seriously. Is there a solution for anyone on MFP in all of this? And I mean specifically.
We can talk public policy until we're all blue in the face, and rather smug with our nobel intentions, but it won't make a bit of difference to anyone here. It also ends up confusing things for individuals because it draws attention away from what they can control (their own behavior) and onto something that they cannot (public policy).
Would the U.S. be a thinner nation if we completely did away with fast food and chinese and pizza delivery? I think its possible if not probable.
Is that going to happen? No.
Do I want it to happen? No.
Can I live in a society with fast food, and chinese and pizza delivery and still be in great shape? Of course. Heck, I can even eat it regularly if I want it, and I do.
I choose to focus on what I have control over, and pretty much the only things that I have control over are my own behavior and my own attitude.
Therefore, I read labels, I count calories, I balance my macros, I exercise, and I point out to others that they can do the same. It's not particularly ambitious in terms of recreating society, I realize, but it does work.
The OP asked two questions. Half the answers in this thread have been complete knee jerk reactions to the thread title.
The way this could have gone:
Yeah, I look at food labels. It's a good idea.
I was also surprised to learn <insert any food here> had added sugar, but I <like it, avoid it, fit it in my macros>.
The way it went:
Men don't make me fat! I make me fat! I didn't read your questions and I don't care, because I just wanted to say that!0 -
I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?
Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.
Yeah, but beach iron seems particularly astute so asking him to clarify makes sense. Is that ok with you, repetition police?
Hehe, adding the edit drew me back! You're right there are two simultaneous arguments going on that don't have to be in opposition. Your 8 pages of effort, valiant though it has been, hasn't made a dent in this dynamic. It seems a little goofy to pretend to continue to strive for understanding. But obviously you don't need my approval to carry on
I'm honestly baffled as to any point in this thread. Seriously. Is there a solution for anyone on MFP in all of this? And I mean specifically.
We can talk public policy until we're all blue in the face, and rather smug with our nobel intentions, but it won't make a bit of difference to anyone here. It also ends up confusing things for individuals because it draws attention away from what they can control (their own behavior) and onto something that they cannot (public policy).
Would the U.S. be a thinner nation if we completely did away with fast food and chinese and pizza delivery? I think its possible if not probable.
Is that going to happen? No.
Do I want it to happen? No.
Can I live in a society with fast food, and chinese and pizza delivery and still be in great shape? Of course. Heck, I can even eat it regularly if I want it, and I do.
I choose to focus on what I have control over, and pretty much the only things that I have control over are my own behavior and my own attitude.
Therefore, I read labels, I count calories, I balance my macros, I exercise, and I point out to others that they can do the same. It's not particularly ambitious in terms of recreating society, I realize, but it does work.
So... If it doesn't transform you, personally and completely, it doesn't matter?
Seems like there are two subjects worth discussing, one addressing the individual, and the other addressing groups. Banning Chinese food and pizza? That would be stupid. But what about not letting interested parties like cargill effectively write the farm bill?
Nope, public policy is not going to help you transform your body. But it IS going to indirectly affect your quality of life unless you live in isolation.0 -
I'm honestly baffled as to any point in this thread. Seriously. Is there a solution for anyone on MFP in all of this? And I mean specifically.
We can talk public policy until we're all blue in the face, and rather smug with our nobel intentions, but it won't make a bit of difference to anyone here. It also ends up confusing things for individuals because it draws attention away from what they can control (their own behavior) and onto something that they cannot (public policy).
Would the U.S. be a thinner nation if we completely did away with fast food and chinese and pizza delivery? I think its possible if not probable.
Is that going to happen? No.
Do I want it to happen? No.
Can I live in a society with fast food, and chinese and pizza delivery and still be in great shape? Of course. Heck, I can even eat it regularly if I want it, and I do.
I choose to focus on what I have control over, and pretty much the only things that I have control over are my own behavior and my own attitude.
Therefore, I read labels, I count calories, I balance my macros, I exercise, and I point out to others that they can do the same. It's not particularly ambitious in terms of recreating society, I realize, but it does work.
The OP asked two questions. Half the answers in this thread have been complete knee jerk reactions to the thread title.
The way this could have gone:
Yeah, I look at food labels. It's a good idea.
I was also surprised to learn <insert any food here> had added sugar, but I <like it, avoid it, fit it in my macros>.
The way it went:
Men don't make me fat! I make me fat! I didn't read your questions and I don't care, because I just wanted to say that!
I didn't read those questions as anything more than rhetorical. Besides, pcastgner's large number of posts on public policy, fascism, communism, etc. made very sure this thread wasn't about answering those questions. I guess that's how "discussions" work though.0 -
I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?
Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.
Yeah, but beach iron seems particularly astute so asking him to clarify makes sense. Is that ok with you, repetition police?
Hehe, adding the edit drew me back! You're right there are two simultaneous arguments going on that don't have to be in opposition. Your 8 pages of effort, valiant though it has been, hasn't made a dent in this dynamic. It seems a little goofy to pretend to continue to strive for understanding. But obviously you don't need my approval to carry on
I'm honestly baffled as to any point in this thread. Seriously. Is there a solution for anyone on MFP in all of this? And I mean specifically.
We can talk public policy until we're all blue in the face, and rather smug with our nobel intentions, but it won't make a bit of difference to anyone here. It also ends up confusing things for individuals because it draws attention away from what they can control (their own behavior) and onto something that they cannot (public policy).
Would the U.S. be a thinner nation if we completely did away with fast food and chinese and pizza delivery? I think its possible if not probable.
Is that going to happen? No.
Do I want it to happen? No.
Can I live in a society with fast food, and chinese and pizza delivery and still be in great shape? Of course. Heck, I can even eat it regularly if I want it, and I do.
I choose to focus on what I have control over, and pretty much the only things that I have control over are my own behavior and my own attitude.
Therefore, I read labels, I count calories, I balance my macros, I exercise, and I point out to others that they can do the same. It's not particularly ambitious in terms of recreating society, I realize, but it does work.
So... If it doesn't transform you, personally and completely, it doesn't matter?
Seems like there are two subjects worth discussing, one addressing the individual, and the other addressing groups. Banning Chinese food and pizza? That would be stupid. But what about not letting interested parties like cargill effectively write the farm bill?
Nope, public policy is not going to help you transform your body. But it IS going to indirectly affect your quality of life unless you live in isolation.
Again, do you have a point? Something specific? A proposal?
What specifically about farm bill do you want to change? Legislation is often quite complicated and it is the result of many interest groups with conflicting agendas finding a compromise. It is never pretty. I certainly have objections to U.S. farm policy.0 -
I didn't read those questions as anything more than rhetorical. Besides, pcastgner's large number of posts on public policy, fascism, communism, etc. made very sure this thread wasn't about answering those questions. I guess that's how "discussions" work though.
Pcast's entry was brought on by a polarizing post not addressing the questions posed by the OP. Pretty direct path and easy to see.
However, there's only one thing worth discussing in any depth with these topics - and that's social policy. Personal responsibility is extremely easy and obvious. It's what we all do - it's the point of this app/website. Duh, read labels. Duh, put calories into machine. Hurp durp. Presenting it as an opposing viewpoint is bizarre, as Pcast has repeatedly mentioned, because the entire community here is on board with taking control of our intake.0 -
I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?
Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.
Yeah, but beach iron seems particularly astute so asking him to clarify makes sense. Is that ok with you, repetition police?
Hehe, adding the edit drew me back! You're right there are two simultaneous arguments going on that don't have to be in opposition. Your 8 pages of effort, valiant though it has been, hasn't made a dent in this dynamic. It seems a little goofy to pretend to continue to strive for understanding. But obviously you don't need my approval to carry on
I'm honestly baffled as to any point in this thread. Seriously. Is there a solution for anyone on MFP in all of this? And I mean specifically.
We can talk public policy until we're all blue in the face, and rather smug with our nobel intentions, but it won't make a bit of difference to anyone here. It also ends up confusing things for individuals because it draws attention away from what they can control (their own behavior) and onto something that they cannot (public policy).
Would the U.S. be a thinner nation if we completely did away with fast food and chinese and pizza delivery? I think its possible if not probable.
Is that going to happen? No.
Do I want it to happen? No.
Can I live in a society with fast food, and chinese and pizza delivery and still be in great shape? Of course. Heck, I can even eat it regularly if I want it, and I do.
I choose to focus on what I have control over, and pretty much the only things that I have control over are my own behavior and my own attitude.
Therefore, I read labels, I count calories, I balance my macros, I exercise, and I point out to others that they can do the same. It's not particularly ambitious in terms of recreating society, I realize, but it does work.
So... If it doesn't transform you, personally and completely, it doesn't matter?
Seems like there are two subjects worth discussing, one addressing the individual, and the other addressing groups. Banning Chinese food and pizza? That would be stupid. But what about not letting interested parties like cargill effectively write the farm bill?
Nope, public policy is not going to help you transform your body. But it IS going to indirectly affect your quality of life unless you live in isolation.
Again, do you have a point? Something specific? A proposal?
What specifically about farm bill do you want to change? Legislation is often quite complicated and it is the result of many interest groups with conflicting agendas finding a compromise. It is never pretty. I certainly have objections to U.S. farm policy.
I do I do!
Start with requiring any legislator involved to divest him or herself of any investments that could be affected by how the rules are written.
Follow that up with taking a fresh look at where ag subsidies go, with a preference for spec crops while still ensuring enough staples to secure the food supply.
Use public investment to address food deserts, using statistical evidence to find them.
Investing heavily in research aimed at learning how populations respond to various practices to see what works and what doesn't (counterweight to all the research going into finding ways to trigger overeating)
That's a start.0 -
I didn't read those questions as anything more than rhetorical. Besides, pcastgner's large number of posts on public policy, fascism, communism, etc. made very sure this thread wasn't about answering those questions. I guess that's how "discussions" work though.
Pcast's entry was brought on by a polarizing post not addressing the questions posed by the OP. Pretty direct path and easy to see.
However, there's only one thing worth discussing in any depth with these topics - and that's social policy. Personal responsibility is extremely easy and obvious. It's what we all do - it's the point of this app/website. Duh, read labels. Duh, put calories into machine. Hurp durp. Presenting it as an opposing viewpoint is bizarre, as Pcast has repeatedly mentioned, because the entire community here is on board with taking control of our intake.
Wait. Didn't you say earlier that this thread was only about those two questions in the OP?
But now there's something more you want to discuss, social policy, and since that interests you that is legitimate?
The questions were rhetorical devices to elicit a debate on social policy. The debate started and the ad hominems and straw man arguments ensued.
And now you appear to be angry.
And frankly, I still haven't seen any cogent arguments as to what to do with social policy. I have seen a number of additional rhetorical questions though.0 -
I didn't read those questions as anything more than rhetorical. Besides, pcastgner's large number of posts on public policy, fascism, communism, etc. made very sure this thread wasn't about answering those questions. I guess that's how "discussions" work though.
Pcast's entry was brought on by a polarizing post not addressing the questions posed by the OP. Pretty direct path and easy to see.
However, there's only one thing worth discussing in any depth with these topics - and that's social policy. Personal responsibility is extremely easy and obvious. It's what we all do - it's the point of this app/website. Duh, read labels. Duh, put calories into machine. Hurp durp. Presenting it as an opposing viewpoint is bizarre, as Pcast has repeatedly mentioned, because the entire community here is on board with taking control of our intake.
Wait. Didn't you say earlier that this thread was only about those two questions in the OP?
But now there's something more you want to discuss, social policy, and since that interests you that is legitimate?
The questions were rhetorical devices to elicit a debate on social policy. The debate started and the ad hominems and straw man arguments ensued.
And now you appear to be angry.
And frankly, I still haven't seen any cogent arguments as to what to do with social policy. I have seen a number of additional rhetorical questions though.
Wait... What? Angry?
Isn't anger usually indicated by some sort of emotionally charged rhetoric? Oh, you cheeky monkey! You are trying to change the subject! I see what you did there 0 -
I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?
Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.
Yeah, but beach iron seems particularly astute so asking him to clarify makes sense. Is that ok with you, repetition police?
Hehe, adding the edit drew me back! You're right there are two simultaneous arguments going on that don't have to be in opposition. Your 8 pages of effort, valiant though it has been, hasn't made a dent in this dynamic. It seems a little goofy to pretend to continue to strive for understanding. But obviously you don't need my approval to carry on
I'm honestly baffled as to any point in this thread. Seriously. Is there a solution for anyone on MFP in all of this? And I mean specifically.
We can talk public policy until we're all blue in the face, and rather smug with our nobel intentions, but it won't make a bit of difference to anyone here. It also ends up confusing things for individuals because it draws attention away from what they can control (their own behavior) and onto something that they cannot (public policy).
Would the U.S. be a thinner nation if we completely did away with fast food and chinese and pizza delivery? I think its possible if not probable.
Is that going to happen? No.
Do I want it to happen? No.
Can I live in a society with fast food, and chinese and pizza delivery and still be in great shape? Of course. Heck, I can even eat it regularly if I want it, and I do.
I choose to focus on what I have control over, and pretty much the only things that I have control over are my own behavior and my own attitude.
Therefore, I read labels, I count calories, I balance my macros, I exercise, and I point out to others that they can do the same. It's not particularly ambitious in terms of recreating society, I realize, but it does work.
So... If it doesn't transform you, personally and completely, it doesn't matter?
Seems like there are two subjects worth discussing, one addressing the individual, and the other addressing groups. Banning Chinese food and pizza? That would be stupid. But what about not letting interested parties like cargill effectively write the farm bill?
Nope, public policy is not going to help you transform your body. But it IS going to indirectly affect your quality of life unless you live in isolation.
Again, do you have a point? Something specific? A proposal?
What specifically about farm bill do you want to change? Legislation is often quite complicated and it is the result of many interest groups with conflicting agendas finding a compromise. It is never pretty. I certainly have objections to U.S. farm policy.
I do I do!
Start with requiring any legislator involved to divest him or herself of any investments that could be affected by how the rules are written.
Follow that up with taking a fresh look at where ag subsidies go, with a preference for spec crops while still ensuring enough staples to secure the food supply.
Use public investment to address food deserts, using statistical evidence to find them.
Investing heavily in research aimed at learning how populations respond to various practices to see what works and what doesn't (counterweight to all the research going into finding ways to trigger overeating)
That's a start.
Okay.
Some questions.
How would you define "investments that could be affected by how the rules are written?" I mean this in all seriousness as if you are familiar with laws on this point, they can be extremely complex. Would the legislator be allowed to invest in only mutual funds, or example, that invested in a large portfolio of stocks representative of some market index? The S&P 500 as a specific example.
As for the fresh look at subsidies, let's take that look. Which crops are worth subsidizing and which are not? Perhaps, as an alternative, we should do away with subsidies for specific crops altogether, as that is how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place?
There's already a good deal of research on human behavior. Do you have a background in this? My background is in philosophy, business and law, so I'm somewhat limited to those unless I play out of my pay grade, which I do on occasion.
And just as one suggestion of my own, why don't we take what we do know, that eating less and moving more works for the individual, and focus on policies that will better educate the public about this? Perhaps if we tell them that they can change their own lives for the better enough times, they may actually come to believe it? Just my own 2 cents.0 -
I didn't read those questions as anything more than rhetorical. Besides, pcastgner's large number of posts on public policy, fascism, communism, etc. made very sure this thread wasn't about answering those questions. I guess that's how "discussions" work though.
Pcast's entry was brought on by a polarizing post not addressing the questions posed by the OP. Pretty direct path and easy to see.
However, there's only one thing worth discussing in any depth with these topics - and that's social policy. Personal responsibility is extremely easy and obvious. It's what we all do - it's the point of this app/website. Duh, read labels. Duh, put calories into machine. Hurp durp. Presenting it as an opposing viewpoint is bizarre, as Pcast has repeatedly mentioned, because the entire community here is on board with taking control of our intake.
Wait. Didn't you say earlier that this thread was only about those two questions in the OP?
But now there's something more you want to discuss, social policy, and since that interests you that is legitimate?
The questions were rhetorical devices to elicit a debate on social policy. The debate started and the ad hominems and straw man arguments ensued.
And now you appear to be angry.
And frankly, I still haven't seen any cogent arguments as to what to do with social policy. I have seen a number of additional rhetorical questions though.
Wait... What? Angry?
Isn't anger usually indicated by some sort of emotionally charged rhetoric? Oh, you cheeky monkey! You are trying to change the subject! I see what you did there
Actually, I'm not attempting to change the subject at all. I'm attempting to elicit a response with a a clear argument. The poster I was responding to seemed to be arguing that the only legitimate response to the OP was to answer the two clearly rhetorical questions that she asked. Then he wished to discuss social policy and used the term "duh" repeatedly in his response to me, which if I remember my elementary school experience correctly, is generally used as a personal attack on the recipient as a challenge to their intelligence. So yes. It hit me as a somewhat angry response. Rather than reporting it as such though, I made further inquiries.0 -
Wait. Didn't you say earlier that this thread was only about those two questions in the OP?
Nope, I said the OP was asking two questions, and half the responses were knee jerk directed entirely at the title of the thread.But now there's something more you want to discuss, social policy, and since that interests you that is legitimate?
I don't have a particular desire to discuss social policy, but it's the only subject that can actually be discussed with any depth on these topics. Personal responsibility is the baseline assumption for everyone using this website/app. It's less worth discussing than the topic of SEC superiority in Tuscaloosa - even though a lot of folks here and there love to talk and agree amongst themselves about the topic. It doesn't go anywhere.The questions were rhetorical devices to elicit a debate on social policy. The debate started and the ad hominems and straw man arguments ensued.
Well, you can take the questions to social policy, or just answer them - foods that you were surprised had added sugar is pretty straightforward and on-topic for this forum. But yeah, there was half a page of people arguing against a strawman almost immediately. Which brought the "these aren't opposing viewpoints" and off to the races.
I don't think I am. I don't even know what I'd be angry about?And now you appear to be angry.And frankly, I still haven't seen any cogent arguments as to what to do with social policy. I have seen a number of additional rhetorical questions though.
I assume you wrote this while Pcast was writing his actual social policy suggestions. And by the time I finish this, maybe you'll be on those. I think there's a fairly widespread agreement that guaranteeing corn (or solar energy, or whatever) profits with taxpayer money is pretty questionable. Shrugs.0 -
I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?
Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.
Yeah, but beach iron seems particularly astute so asking him to clarify makes sense. Is that ok with you, repetition police?
Hehe, adding the edit drew me back! You're right there are two simultaneous arguments going on that don't have to be in opposition. Your 8 pages of effort, valiant though it has been, hasn't made a dent in this dynamic. It seems a little goofy to pretend to continue to strive for understanding. But obviously you don't need my approval to carry on
I'm honestly baffled as to any point in this thread. Seriously. Is there a solution for anyone on MFP in all of this? And I mean specifically.
We can talk public policy until we're all blue in the face, and rather smug with our nobel intentions, but it won't make a bit of difference to anyone here. It also ends up confusing things for individuals because it draws attention away from what they can control (their own behavior) and onto something that they cannot (public policy).
Would the U.S. be a thinner nation if we completely did away with fast food and chinese and pizza delivery? I think its possible if not probable.
Is that going to happen? No.
Do I want it to happen? No.
Can I live in a society with fast food, and chinese and pizza delivery and still be in great shape? Of course. Heck, I can even eat it regularly if I want it, and I do.
I choose to focus on what I have control over, and pretty much the only things that I have control over are my own behavior and my own attitude.
Therefore, I read labels, I count calories, I balance my macros, I exercise, and I point out to others that they can do the same. It's not particularly ambitious in terms of recreating society, I realize, but it does work.
So... If it doesn't transform you, personally and completely, it doesn't matter?
Seems like there are two subjects worth discussing, one addressing the individual, and the other addressing groups. Banning Chinese food and pizza? That would be stupid. But what about not letting interested parties like cargill effectively write the farm bill?
Nope, public policy is not going to help you transform your body. But it IS going to indirectly affect your quality of life unless you live in isolation.
Again, do you have a point? Something specific? A proposal?
What specifically about farm bill do you want to change? Legislation is often quite complicated and it is the result of many interest groups with conflicting agendas finding a compromise. It is never pretty. I certainly have objections to U.S. farm policy.
I do I do!
Start with requiring any legislator involved to divest him or herself of any investments that could be affected by how the rules are written.
Follow that up with taking a fresh look at where ag subsidies go, with a preference for spec crops while still ensuring enough staples to secure the food supply.
Use public investment to address food deserts, using statistical evidence to find them.
Investing heavily in research aimed at learning how populations respond to various practices to see what works and what doesn't (counterweight to all the research going into finding ways to trigger overeating)
That's a start.
Okay.
Some questions.
How would you define "investments that could be affected by how the rules are written?" I mean this in all seriousness as if you are familiar with laws on this point, they can be extremely complex. Would the legislator be allowed to invest in only mutual funds, or example, that invested in a large portfolio of stocks representative of some market index? The S&P 500 as a specific example.
As for the fresh look at subsidies, let's take that look. Which crops are worth subsidizing and which are not? Perhaps, as an alternative, we should do away with subsidies for specific crops altogether, as that is how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place?
There's already a good deal of research on human behavior. Do you have a background in this? My background is in philosophy, business and law, so I'm somewhat limited to those unless I play out of my pay grade, which I do on occasion.
And just as one suggestion of my own, why don't we take what we do know, that eating less and moving more works for the individual, and focus on policies that will better educate the public about this? Perhaps if we tell them that they can change their own lives for the better enough times, they may actually come to believe it? Just my own 2 cents.
We are all amateurs here, no worries about your background or mine.
For divestment, we already do this when it comes to judges ruling on cases. Since your background is in law I don't need to explain that. Just extend the same ethic to legislators. And put the burden of proving their investments are not with interested parties on the legislators. I would contend that if legislators were not allowed to personally profit from decisions ostensibly in the public interest, a great many of them would simply quit and make room for people actually interested in the public good.
I see you added education to the list, which I can agree with, AS AN ADDITION. It's not an alternative and we aren't faced with the dilemma of choosing one or the other.
I see you really, really want groups to functions in ways that are predicted by your perception of individual behavior, but this is neither rational nor evident. It just doesn't happen. Further, I would contend that most humans have a pretty skewed view of just how rational they are, achieved by forgetting all the irrational things we do while constructing a personal narrative that focuses on our individuality. Rational choice theory is very seductive, but there is a slight problem: humans are not rational by nature.0 -
I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?
Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.
Yeah, but beach iron seems particularly astute so asking him to clarify makes sense. Is that ok with you, repetition police?
Hehe, adding the edit drew me back! You're right there are two simultaneous arguments going on that don't have to be in opposition. Your 8 pages of effort, valiant though it has been, hasn't made a dent in this dynamic. It seems a little goofy to pretend to continue to strive for understanding. But obviously you don't need my approval to carry on
I'm honestly baffled as to any point in this thread. Seriously. Is there a solution for anyone on MFP in all of this? And I mean specifically.
We can talk public policy until we're all blue in the face, and rather smug with our nobel intentions, but it won't make a bit of difference to anyone here. It also ends up confusing things for individuals because it draws attention away from what they can control (their own behavior) and onto something that they cannot (public policy).
Would the U.S. be a thinner nation if we completely did away with fast food and chinese and pizza delivery? I think its possible if not probable.
Is that going to happen? No.
Do I want it to happen? No.
Can I live in a society with fast food, and chinese and pizza delivery and still be in great shape? Of course. Heck, I can even eat it regularly if I want it, and I do.
I choose to focus on what I have control over, and pretty much the only things that I have control over are my own behavior and my own attitude.
Therefore, I read labels, I count calories, I balance my macros, I exercise, and I point out to others that they can do the same. It's not particularly ambitious in terms of recreating society, I realize, but it does work.
So... If it doesn't transform you, personally and completely, it doesn't matter?
Seems like there are two subjects worth discussing, one addressing the individual, and the other addressing groups. Banning Chinese food and pizza? That would be stupid. But what about not letting interested parties like cargill effectively write the farm bill?
Nope, public policy is not going to help you transform your body. But it IS going to indirectly affect your quality of life unless you live in isolation.
Again, do you have a point? Something specific? A proposal?
What specifically about farm bill do you want to change? Legislation is often quite complicated and it is the result of many interest groups with conflicting agendas finding a compromise. It is never pretty. I certainly have objections to U.S. farm policy.
I do I do!
Start with requiring any legislator involved to divest him or herself of any investments that could be affected by how the rules are written.
Follow that up with taking a fresh look at where ag subsidies go, with a preference for spec crops while still ensuring enough staples to secure the food supply.
Use public investment to address food deserts, using statistical evidence to find them.
Investing heavily in research aimed at learning how populations respond to various practices to see what works and what doesn't (counterweight to all the research going into finding ways to trigger overeating)
That's a start.
Okay.
Some questions.
How would you define "investments that could be affected by how the rules are written?" I mean this in all seriousness as if you are familiar with laws on this point, they can be extremely complex. Would the legislator be allowed to invest in only mutual funds, or example, that invested in a large portfolio of stocks representative of some market index? The S&P 500 as a specific example.
As for the fresh look at subsidies, let's take that look. Which crops are worth subsidizing and which are not? Perhaps, as an alternative, we should do away with subsidies for specific crops altogether, as that is how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place?
There's already a good deal of research on human behavior. Do you have a background in this? My background is in philosophy, business and law, so I'm somewhat limited to those unless I play out of my pay grade, which I do on occasion.
And just as one suggestion of my own, why don't we take what we do know, that eating less and moving more works for the individual, and focus on policies that will better educate the public about this? Perhaps if we tell them that they can change their own lives for the better enough times, they may actually come to believe it? Just my own 2 cents.
We are all amateurs here, no worries about your background or mine.
For divestment, we already do this when it comes to judges ruling on cases. Since your background is in law I don't need to explain that. Just extend the same ethic to legislators. And put the burden of proving their investments are not with interested parties on the legislators. I would contend that if legislators were not allowed to personally profit from decisions ostensibly in the public interest, a great many of them would simply quit and make room for people actually interested in the public good.
I see you added education to the list, which I can agree with, AS AN ADDITION. It's not an alternative and we aren't faced with the dilemma of choosing one or the other.
I see you really, really want groups to functions in ways that are predicted by your perception of individual behavior, but this is neither rational nor evident. It just doesn't happen. Further, I would contend that most humans have a pretty skewed view of just how rational they are, achieved by forgetting all the irrational things we do while constructing a personal narrative that focuses on our individuality. Rational choice theory is very seductive, but there is a slight problem: humans are not rational by nature.
May I politely suggest that in the future you save the pages of posts referencing Stalinism, communism, etc. and start with something like this? I don't agree with everything you have written here, and I honestly don't have a personal interest in debating it for the reasons I stated earlier, but it does move the discussion forward. It also gives someone else the opportunity to now enter and debate with you regarding your points.
There are also a couple of debating groups on MFP that provide a better forum for social policy debates. You may find joining one of these helpful as you can wade into controversial issues there without the mods shutting it down.
Best of luck and enjoy!
edit: typo0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions