The conspiracy to make (and keep us) fat...
Replies
-
I love how conversations like this always turn into an issue of mutual exclusivity. I didn't see the original post say anything about not being personally responsible for ones own weight or health. Just because the original poster believes that companies add **** to their food to make it more enticing, doesn't necessitate that she believes that is the sole reason why people are overweight. It can't be that the original poster understands that corporations are out to make money, thus making their product as appealing as possible, no matter what the consequence, AND believes in personal responsibility, and that people do in fact have the ability to make choices about their own health and bodies? Why is this an either/or proposition? I don't think the original poster phrased it in a way that suggested mutual exclusivity (even if that was her intention), so why are so many people here responding as if she did? All of you pro McDonald's, I eat ice cream every day, blah blah blah people, good for you, you can suffer whatever consequence may or may not come from that later, but what, exactly, does that have to do with acknowledging the fact that companies use additives in their food with the specific purpose of making their food more addictive? ...the two ideas aren't in opposition.
^^^^^^yep
double yep. :flowerforyou:0 -
Must have seen the book Salt Sugar fat.
#1 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER From a Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative reporter at The New York Times comes the explosive story of the rise of the processed food industry and its link to the emerging obesity epidemic. Michael Moss reveals how companies use salt, sugar, and fat to addict us and, more important, how we can fight back.0 -
you realize of course that liberalism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, yes?
Nope. Liberalism is opposite conservatism. Both assume moderate government power, but allocate the power differently.
The opposite of fascism would be anarchism, they're on a completely different spectrum from liberal/conservative and are more related to the amount of power invested in hierarchy.0 -
you realize of course that liberalism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, yes?
Nope. Liberalism is opposite conservatism. Both assume moderate government power, but allocate the power differently.
The opposite of fascism would be anarchism, they're on a completely different spectrum from liberal/conservative and are more related to the amount of power invested in hierarchy.
well ok if you want to get technical. but if you were putting ALL of them on one line it would go (simplifying a bit obviously):
facism::conservativism::liberalism::socialism::anarchism
my only point was that facism is closer to conservatism than liberalism.0 -
you realize of course that liberalism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, yes?
Nope. Liberalism is opposite conservatism. Both assume moderate government power, but allocate the power differently.
The opposite of fascism would be anarchism, they're on a completely different spectrum from liberal/conservative and are more related to the amount of power invested in hierarchy.
well ok if you want to get technical. but if you were putting ALL of them on one line it would go (simplifying a bit obviously):
facism::conservativism::liberalism::socialism::anarchism
my only point was that facism is closer to conservatism than liberalism.
lol, no!
You can be a liberal fascist, or a conservative anarchist but you can't be a conservative liberal or a fascist anarchist.
Wow, could we derail the thread anymore?
0 -
WTF! I come back and were talking about facism! LOL do you people have jobs?
OK here's my list of fastest to slowest animal.
Cheetah:Ostrich:Horse:Bear:Human:Sloth:Slime Mold0 -
I'm an anarchist, I don't believe in "jobs."0
-
well ok if you want to get technical. but if you were putting ALL of them on one line it would go (simplifying a bit obviously):
facism::conservativism::liberalism::socialism::anarchism
my only point was that facism is closer to conservatism than liberalism.
The anarchist is right - this is amazingly wrong.0 -
Many of us have heard of the "Bliss factor". I believe it. In fact, I eat foods that are delicious and make me feel great due to high sugar and fat content. However, I take responsibility for the things I eat, and don't go hog wild and blame it on the industry. It's hard to fight it when there are high calorie foods everywhere that you just want to keep eating. But in the end, it's up to the person whether or not they'll do what the industries want.
^ This.
You can look at this two ways, IMO.
1. It's a conspiracy and "food corporations" are in cahoots with the pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and hospitals to get us sick and wring money from us.
or
2. We, as consumers, demand cheap, tasty, fattening food and the market is willing to provide it for us.
I think option #2 is much more likely.
you'd be wrong...#1 is the right answer. I know, because I work for a pharmaceuticals company. Nothing they love than sick people living longer....and the younger they get sick, so very much the better.
they want us to all live a long time with at least one chronic malady that requires pharmaceutical treatment to control. 'tis the way of capitalism.
It has *nothing* to do with capitalism. It's the regulations imposed by the progressives that gave us the mega-corporations where smaller businesses are unable to compete in an open market. These mega-corporations are chosen by government to be "the anointed ones" and protected through the regulatory process (check the board of the FDA, for starters). It is the use of force that created the current U.S. food & drug market, not freedom or capitalism.
Quite true, Wendy. The coercive Nanny State is a product of "neo-liberalism" which is anything but new and certainly not liberal in the original meaning of the word, as favoring the common man. I give you the original meaning of the term "liberal": "Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."
Our current brand of "neo-liberalism" is ill-disguised fascism. Here is Mussolini's favorite definition of fascism: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
you realize of course that liberalism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, yes?
Well, actually Coach, I was a political science major in university---yes I do know the difference between classical liberalism (I supplied a definition) and fascism.
Both socialism and mercantilism (what the world is presently embracing) go in the direction of rigid control and totalitarianism (thus we get the monstrosity of communism on one hand and fascism on the other---but they are basically "sisters under the skin" because both seek to put vast measures of control into place). Nobel prize-winning, economist Paul Samuelson observed, before he died, that China has been following a mercantilist course since it emerged as a trading powerhouse. The formerly liberal (in the classic sense as in Adam Smith "laissez-faire" capitalism) nations of the Western democracies have gotten dragged in that direction because their workers have been forced to try to compete with the trade juggernaut represented by China and other emerging nations. All of the economic strides made by the laborers are now in danger of being reversed as the wealth of the West has been drained into the coffers of the international finance/oil/multi-national corporations elite oligarchies as they have exploited laborers in China and other emerging nations---at the expense of labor in the Western democracies. (For the record, mercantilists despise labor movements and would dismantle all unions and the victories they have won over the last century.)
In the past, there were different types of mercantilism but one thing that ALL mercantilists agreed upon was the need for economic oppression of the laboring classes---farmers and laborers were to be kept "firmly in their places" at the "margins of subsistence". Adam Smith's, "The Wealth of Nations" was a major attack on the tenets of mercantilism. Smith was a devout Christian and considered mercantilism to be immoral. Too much power has been handed to the international merchants of the multi-national corporations and that, in itself, will inevitably lead toward fascism--if it is not turned around. Mercantilists always seek to enrich themselves and their trading groups at the expense of ordinary citizens. And they are always able and willing to buy influence in government to effect policies that will further enrich them.0 -
I can't believe that people don't think that these food companies want to make us fat! Of course they do!
Fat people need more calories. You make their stomach bigger, you can move more product and make more money.
It's in their best interest for everyone to have a very large stomach.
I don't think you understand how stomachs or metabolism work...0 -
I can't believe that people don't think that these food companies want to make us fat! Of course they do!
Fat people need more calories. You make their stomach bigger, you can move more product and make more money.
It's in their best interest for everyone to have a very large stomach.
I don't think you understand how stomachs or metabolism work...
Oh for crap's sake! It's an expression, "large stomach." It just means "eats a lot," "has a big appetite."
Most people don't burn 1000+ calories a day in exercise, most people who overeat are overweight.
Did you get my point or were you completely distracted by my use of the word stomach?
0 -
It's sad that so many Americans believe a free market produces the best product/lowest price when in reality what it produces is the most profitable products.0
-
0 -
It's sad that so many Americans believe a free market produces the best product/lowest price when in reality what it produces is the most profitable products.
I believe it...but then I also consider myself an educated consumer who makes reasonably optimal choices in the products I buy.0 -
*tap dances* Tah dah!0
-
It's sad that so many Americans believe a free market produces the best product/lowest price when in reality what it produces is the most profitable products.
I believe it...but then I also consider myself an educated consumer who makes reasonably optimal choices in the products I buy.
Reasonably optimal?! Oxymoron, optimal being the highest possible degree.
In for Big Pharma scaremongering and possible mentions of African Killer Bees and Hitler. (done and done)0 -
I can't believe that people don't think that these food companies want to make us fat! Of course they do!
Fat people need more calories. You make their stomach bigger, you can move more product and make more money.
It's in their best interest for everyone to have a very large stomach.
I don't think you understand how stomachs or metabolism work...
Oh for crap's sake! It's an expression, "large stomach." It just means "eats a lot," "has a big appetite."
Most people don't burn 1000+ calories a day in exercise, most people who overeat are overweight.
Did you get my point or were you completely distracted by my use of the word stomach?
I haven't heard that expression before. I thought you literally meant eating a large volume of food would permanently increase the size of the stomach.0 -
I read "It Starts With Food" and it made sense to me. I started eating "Paleo" over a month ago, and feel better for it and love the choice and how delicious my food is. I've always loved cooking, have my own herb garden, and for me, eating (mostly organic) protein and lots of veggies with healthy fruits/nuts/oils has made me feel so much better than eating "reduced fat/fat free/low calorie" food. I'm not craving sugar, dairy or grains, my hair and skin looks and feels healthier, and it really is sustainable. That's what I'm doing...it's working for me and I'm not stuffing myself. It may not be for everyone, but the less I buy into the "diet" stuff, the processed stuff and the GMO crap the better off I am.0
-
It's sad that so many Americans believe a free market produces the best product/lowest price when in reality what it produces is the most profitable products.
I believe it...but then I also consider myself an educated consumer who makes reasonably optimal choices in the products I buy.
Reasonably optimal?! Oxymoron, optimal being the highest possible degree.
In for Big Pharma scaremongering and possible mentions of African Killer Bees and Hitler. (done and done)
It was unqualified at first, but realized how presumptuous it sounded that I would always make the optimal choice, so I qualified it to mean something close to optimal, but not always absolutely optimal.
Sorry that you considered my post suboptimal.0 -
I haven't heard that expression before. I thought you literally meant eating a large volume of food would permanently increase the size of the stomach.
LOL
No, that's not what I meant!
I just mean that the more people overeat, the fatter they get, the more food they will consume (their calorie needs become larger). I'm sure that the industry uses this to their advantage, if you "trick" people into overeating ( even at a cost like supersizing meals for 10 cents) you will eventually have more business because those people's calorie needs (and food consumption) will grow.
The fact of the matter is that they have a vested interest in the fatness of the average American.0 -
um, hi! I was just talking about this at work; after losing close to 80 lbs, i went to walmart for some new clothes. (something cheap since i am continuing to lose, lol) anyways, noticed that i fit size 8-10, when 5 years ago at this weight i was a 12-14. i think clothing sizes have changed to make people feel better, but i think maybe people don't realize, (or want to realize) they are getting bigger. Society is really against losing weight...i dont usually buy into conspiracy theories, but weight management is a billion dollar business, just saying.
I totally get what you're saying.... 30 yrs ago I sewed my own wedding dress, a perfect size 12 Vogue, not one adjustment and I weighed 135 lbs. How is it when I weighed 175 a month ago I could still fit in a 12??? Who is the garment industry trying to fool?0 -
It's sad that so many Americans believe a free market produces the best product/lowest price when in reality what it produces is the most profitable products.
I believe it...but then I also consider myself an educated consumer who makes reasonably optimal choices in the products I buy.
Reasonably optimal?! Oxymoron, optimal being the highest possible degree.
In for Big Pharma scaremongering and possible mentions of African Killer Bees and Hitler. (done and done)
It was unqualified at first, but realized how presumptuous it sounded that I would always make the optimal choice, so I qualified it to mean something close to optimal, but not always absolutely optimal.
Sorry that you considered my post suboptimal.
Not so! I consider your post and your optimal food choices to be superlative and really most impressive. *Flower for you* *You're so pretty* *other such niceties*0 -
It's sad that so many Americans believe a free market produces the best product/lowest price when in reality what it produces is the most profitable products.
I believe it...but then I also consider myself an educated consumer who makes reasonably optimal choices in the products I buy.
Reasonably optimal?! Oxymoron, optimal being the highest possible degree.
In for Big Pharma scaremongering and possible mentions of African Killer Bees and Hitler. (done and done)
It was unqualified at first, but realized how presumptuous it sounded that I would always make the optimal choice, so I qualified it to mean something close to optimal, but not always absolutely optimal.
Sorry that you considered my post suboptimal.
Not so! I consider your post and your optimal food choices to be superlative and really most impressive. *Flower for you* *You're so pretty* *other such niceties*
In that case, I retract all of the really awful, terrible things that I thought (but never actually typed or said aloud) about you a few minutes ago.
:flowerforyou:
PS: And it's true, I feel pretty...oh so pretty.0 -
you realize of course that liberalism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, yes?
Nope. Liberalism is opposite conservatism. Both assume moderate government power, but allocate the power differently.
The opposite of fascism would be anarchism, they're on a completely different spectrum from liberal/conservative and are more related to the amount of power invested in hierarchy.
well ok if you want to get technical. but if you were putting ALL of them on one line it would go (simplifying a bit obviously):
facism::conservativism::liberalism::socialism::anarchism
my only point was that facism is closer to conservatism than liberalism.
lol, no!
You can be a liberal fascist, or a conservative anarchist but you can't be a conservative liberal or a fascist anarchist.
Wow, could we derail the thread anymore?
It was well worth it though, the über-quoter turned silent haha.0 -
Food Matters is also a great movie. I am all for organic fresh food, but still ok to eat most any food anywhere in moderation.0
-
edited because I don't know jack **** about this stuffyou realize of course that liberalism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, yes?
Nope. Liberalism is opposite conservatism. Both assume moderate government power, but allocate the power differently.
The opposite of fascism would be anarchism, they're on a completely different spectrum from liberal/conservative and are more related to the amount of power invested in hierarchy.
well ok if you want to get technical. but if you were putting ALL of them on one line it would go (simplifying a bit obviously):
facism::conservativism::liberalism::socialism::anarchism
my only point was that facism is closer to conservatism than liberalism.
lol, no!
You can be a liberal fascist, or a conservative anarchist but you can't be a conservative liberal or a fascist anarchist.
Wow, could we derail the thread anymore?0 -
you realize of course that liberalism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, yes?
Nope. Liberalism is opposite conservatism. Both assume moderate government power, but allocate the power differently.
The opposite of fascism would be anarchism, they're on a completely different spectrum from liberal/conservative and are more related to the amount of power invested in hierarchy.
well ok if you want to get technical. but if you were putting ALL of them on one line it would go (simplifying a bit obviously):
facism::conservativism::liberalism::socialism::anarchism
my only point was that facism is closer to conservatism than liberalism.
lol, no!
You can be a liberal fascist, or a conservative anarchist but you can't be a conservative liberal or a fascist anarchist.
Wow, could we derail the thread anymore?
It was well worth it though, the über-quoter turned silent haha.
yes! more people to quote!
i SOMETIMES have things to do. this was one of those times. :happy:0 -
you realize of course that liberalism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, yes?
Nope. Liberalism is opposite conservatism. Both assume moderate government power, but allocate the power differently.
The opposite of fascism would be anarchism, they're on a completely different spectrum from liberal/conservative and are more related to the amount of power invested in hierarchy.
well ok if you want to get technical. but if you were putting ALL of them on one line it would go (simplifying a bit obviously):
facism::conservativism::liberalism::socialism::anarchism
my only point was that facism is closer to conservatism than liberalism.
lol, no!
You can be a liberal fascist, or a conservative anarchist but you can't be a conservative liberal or a fascist anarchist.
Wow, could we derail the thread anymore?
edited because i don't know jack **** about this stuff.
double edit... very confused how this last string of posting went down... whatever.0 -
edited because i don't know jack **** about this stuff.
Never stopped you before.0 -
I find this thread very interesting, some brought out some thought provoking points. I believe in personal responsibility, we need to accept that we make the choice and have to live with the consequences.
However, having said that, many food corporations have no vested interest in providing healthy, tasty, cheap food. I've noticed that if you want healthy, than its expensive. If you want cheaply priced, its not healthy at all.
For example, someone mentioned Kraft Foods. I recently saw a report where the boxed mac and cheese is purposely focused to children, so that when busy moms are grocery shopping, their kids will see the box and want it. Not necessarily the greatest evil, but its the ingredients that the FDA allows in this product, the artificial dyes that can cause harm and damage, especially to young children. In the UK, the same Kraft boxed mac and cheese cannot put the artificial dyes, they use more natural ingredients, such as beta carotene and paprika, to give the color.
The only reason they stopped putting in the product there in the UK is because the consumer demanded it. Otherwise, they would have continued with the harmful yellow dyes. I use this as an example of how these companies bottom line is always going to be money, not what's best for you. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/artificial-food-dye-kraft-macaroni-and-cheese_n_2837205.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57573286/food-bloggers-start-petition-to-drop-yellow-dyes-from-kraft-mac-cheese/
That's why I try to stay away from boxed foods like this, if I want mac and cheese, I make it myself. But at the same time, I recognize that there are busy moms who at times need the boxed one because its easy,convenient, and cheaper. I feel they should have the healthier choices available to them.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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