The conspiracy to make (and keep us) fat...

edited because i don't know jack **** about this stuff.

double edit... very confused how this last string of posting went down... whatever.

Never stopped you before.

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.

You know, I have a conspiracy theory about organic foods. Slap a label on anything that says "organic" and certain folks will gladly shell out as much money as you ask - no questions asked. Organic foodies are totes brainwashed.

QFT

Also, when the FDA changed the rules on what can be labelled as "organic," the "anointed" Kraft Foods was leading the lobby charge. They recognized a great marketing campaign when they saw it and used the force of government to get in the game.

I thought there were no conspiracies? or did that only apply to processed foods? conspiracies a-plenty when it comes to organic food!

lol

No conspiracies? Visit Washington DC sometime or view C-SPAN. I'm just saying that you are looking at the wrong place for the root cause.



ETA:The widest conspiracy yet (imo) is the demonization and subsequent prohibition of the cannabis plant.

where am I looking if not the gov't and its ties with big food corps like monsanto? please enlighten me.

Ok, you didn't carefully read what I wrote. The U.S. government is to blame for the mess we are in regarding food and health. The corporations exist because of government. They thrive because of the regulatory/bureaucratic process. Monsanto specifically is protected in legislation, especially quite recently, to the detriment of U.S. farmers and consumers.

Basically, I view the FDA/USDA/DEA as being run similiarly to cartels. I say the government deserves the brunt of the blame because they have the power to use force. Private companies do not have such power. They simply try to earn a profit no matter the market conditions.

so... we agree about all this.

you said I'm looking for conspiracy in the wrong places... but we agree... I'm really confused.

I may regret jumping in on such a silly point, but a definition of "To conspire" is "Events or circumstances that seem to be working together to bring about a particular result." It may be all in how you read it, but to me, circumstances or events implies that it doesn't have to be intentional, as in the nefarious meaning of conspiracy. I read OP's post as nothing more than a realization about how her body processes in combination with the way food manufacturers attempt to appeal to her body processes make her more likely to eat too much. I thought she was saying, "Now that I know what the food manufacturers know about my body, I can make better choices for myself to maintain personal responsibility."

As so many have said, it's true that food companies are in big business and are out to make a profit. What better way to do that than to appeal to the parts of us that will respond to that? OP didn't say that they are evil and should be banned. She said she's better informed to not be a mindless consumer at the mercy of her instincts and the food companies. She can take personal responsibility.

You need to talk to alot more ppl on here because there are some stellar bods and ppl I have talked to that can consume more than per serving rec intake on these foods and are absol healthy as ever and fit. I know I can eat what I want when I want and as much as I want but not now because I am so fat from not counter balancing the intake of food with exercise. STOP blaming others for lack of self control and laziness of indidviduals. YOU do not have to eat the manufactureres foods you choose to!

Nothing here disagrees with anything I have said.

Food manufacturers spend billions of dollars figuring out how to get you to eat waaaaay more food than you would otherwise. Because that makes them more money.

There are going to be loads of people who don't respond to the bliss point. There are also going to be people who have a lot self control and never fall victim to it. There are people who can smoke a cigarette every once in a while and then not think about. It is still a good idea to remind people of how addictive nicotine is.

If you are struggling to lose weight, it can only help to understand the bliss point and supernormal stimuli and how you are up against some very powerfully motivating forces when you buy a bag of potato chips. You will have an easier time losing weight if you avoid the sorts of foods that are designed to manipulate you.

That is all.

That damn bag of potato chips! So harmful and yet so innocent looking.

"The researchers parsed the data by the caloric content of the foods being eaten, and found the top contributors to weight gain included red meat and processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages and potatoes, including mashed and French fries. But the largest weight-inducing food was the potato chip. The coating of salt, the fat content that rewards the brain with instant feelings of pleasure, the sugar that exists not as an additive but in the starch of the potato itself — all of this combines to make it the perfect addictive food."

"The increased use of potato chips and other Lay’s products as a part of the regular fare served by restaurants and sandwich bars should be encouraged in a concentrated way. A string of examples: potato chips with soup, with fruit or vegetable juice appetizers; potato chips served as a vegetable on the main dish; potato chips with salad; potato chips with egg dishes for breakfast; potato chips with sandwich orders."

The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food (per OP)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all

Speaking of side-orders, I have a theory about perceived self-control. It's about how far your personal experience has moved towards your personal expectation, say your goal weight. The farther you have yet to go, the more you tend to emphasize personal responsibility, not unlike the fuel needed for a rocket to take off. The closer you are to reaching your expectation (or not, maybe it's just a matter of time), the more likely you are willing to accept factors beyond your control, such as food addiction, Dopamine and that willpower is a finite resource. The traveled road makes you humble. But that's just me. You can take it or leave it.

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.

Fat people do not need more calories then their skinnier counter parts. Sure they burn more calories just by moving, but they have massive fat stores in which to draw from.

haha yes, you're right. liberal and conservative can be modifiers, but if we plug the political structure of the american landscape into the overall continuum of political ideologies, american conservatism is more closely related to facism than american liberalism.

but no, we absolutely could NOT derail this any further. haha

American conservatism's political focus is minimal government involvement.

Fascist governments are totalitarian.

While social conservatives might share some similarities with fascists (most notably, nationalism, ethnocentrism and xenophobia), they are waaaaaayy different, man.

I could also draw similarities between fascism and american liberalism, such as giving the government regulatory power and moving away from free enterprise and leaning towards marxist socialism.

It's really just useless to try to compare fascism to either one of America's major political philosophies. It's like saying a banana is more like a candy bar than it is like a mango. The banana and mango are fruits and share very few similarities with a candy bar except perhaps sugar content in which respect they would be the same.

Firstly, this is untrue. The larger you are, the more tissue you have to maintain, the larger your BMR is going to be. Even overweight people who ARE trying to loose weight need to eat more calories than someone of a healthy weight.

Scientifically you can release up to 22cal/lb of BF you have on your body without sacrificing lean body weight.

Someone with 50lbs of bf can eat at 1100 calorie deifict and not worry much, someone with 20lbs can really only eat at a 440 calorie deficit.

Using 14 x bw as a simple maintenance calorie calculation:

185 with 50lbs of bf can get away with 1490 cals a day
155 with 20lbs of bf must eat 1730 cals a day to prevent lean tissue loss.

So who has to eat more?

However if adequate protein is used most of this can be negated.

The average American overeats and is overweight, and yes the food industry prefers it that way because the more people eat, the more money they make.

My point was that yes, the food industry wants us to be fat, and that's why.

i'd even go so far as to argue that the reason kids like mac and cheese in the first place is that they're conditioned by society to do so.

typical kids menu:

Pizza
Chicken Nuggets
Mac+Cheese
Spaghetti
PB+J
Hamburger
French Fries


and we wonder why they get fat?

If we as a society made a concerted effort to feed our kids real food, then guess what? That's the kind of food they'd enjoy! Unfortunately, the system is rigged against that effort.

Kids are hard-wired for high-energy foods for good reason, and it's not because of our society. It's fairly universal.

Unless you've done some research on feeding children whole foods, you might not know this, but kids who eat high-fiber diets are at a high risk for malnutrition. They have very small stomachs, very distractable brains, and very high energy needs. If they consistently fill up on lower-calorie higher fiber foods, its likely that they won't meet their nutrition requirements. Also consider that their micronutrient needs are much lower than adults because they have significant stores from in-utero and breastfeeding.

Most kids get enough refined grains, full fat dairy, and fats in their diet that you don't really hear about this problem until you do some research into feeding kids a whole-food diet (which is possible to do if their diets include dairy, eggs and full-fat meats, but if you're vegan you need to feed them refined grains and oils to make sure they meet their nutrient requirements. It's not advisable to be a whole food vegan child).

It's not America's fault that the kid's menu is full of high-energy, low-fiber foods. The difference is that American high energy foods are also loaded with salt, refined sugars, synthetic fats, dyes and flavors and THOSE make a difference in how they regulate their food intake. It's easy to make pb&j, spaghetti, french fries, etc without that stuff, though, so I wouldn't discount that menu out of hand.

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.

What child doesn't love mac n' cheese? But there are healthy (and easy) ways to make it for them. I boil Ezekiel pasta or brown rice pasta, drain it and add a generous amount of organic butter and cream. And then I stir in a goodly amount of a nice quality of freshly grated imported Parmesan (you don't need more than a quarter cup because real Parmesan is highly flavorful). Then watch them devour it and run it off all afternoon.

i'd even go so far as to argue that the reason kids like mac and cheese in the first place is that they're conditioned by society to do so.

typical kids menu:

Pizza
Chicken Nuggets
Mac+Cheese
Spaghetti
PB+J
Hamburger
French Fries


and we wonder why they get fat?

If we as a society made a concerted effort to feed our kids real food, then guess what? That's the kind of food they'd enjoy! Unfortunately, the system is rigged against that effort.

i'd even go so far as to argue that the reason kids like mac and cheese in the first place is that they're conditioned by society to do so.

typical kids menu:

Pizza
Chicken Nuggets
Mac+Cheese
Spaghetti
PB+J
Hamburger
French Fries


and we wonder why they get fat?

If we as a society made a concerted effort to feed our kids real food, then guess what? That's the kind of food they'd enjoy! Unfortunately, the system is rigged against that effort.

Kids are hard-wired for high-energy foods for good reason, and it's not because of our society. It's fairly universal.

Unless you've done some research on feeding children whole foods, you might not know this, but kids who eat high-fiber diets are at a high risk for malnutrition. They have very small stomachs, very distractable brains, and very high energy needs. If they consistently fill up on lower-calorie higher fiber foods, its likely that they won't meet their nutrition requirements. Also consider that their micronutrient needs are much lower than adults because they have significant stores from in-utero and breastfeeding.

Most kids get enough refined grains, full fat dairy, and fats in their diet that you don't really hear about this problem until you do some research into feeding kids a whole-food diet (which is possible to do if their diets include dairy, eggs and full-fat meats, but if you're vegan you need to feed them refined grains and oils to make sure they meet their nutrient requirements. It's not advisable to be a whole food vegan child).

It's not America's fault that the kid's menu is full of high-energy, low-fiber foods. The difference is that American high energy foods are also loaded with salt, refined sugars, synthetic fats, dyes and flavors and THOSE make a difference in how they regulate their food intake. It's easy to make pb&j, spaghetti, french fries, etc without that stuff, though, so I wouldn't discount that menu out of hand.

i'd even go so far as to argue that the reason kids like mac and cheese in the first place is that they're conditioned by society to do so.

typical kids menu:

Pizza
Chicken Nuggets
Mac+Cheese
Spaghetti
PB+J
Hamburger
French Fries


and we wonder why they get fat?

If we as a society made a concerted effort to feed our kids real food, then guess what? That's the kind of food they'd enjoy! Unfortunately, the system is rigged against that effort.

Kids are hard-wired for high-energy foods for good reason, and it's not because of our society. It's fairly universal.

Unless you've done some research on feeding children whole foods, you might not know this, but kids who eat high-fiber diets are at a high risk for malnutrition. They have very small stomachs, very distractable brains, and very high energy needs. If they consistently fill up on lower-calorie higher fiber foods, its likely that they won't meet their nutrition requirements. Also consider that their micronutrient needs are much lower than adults because they have significant stores from in-utero and breastfeeding.

Most kids get enough refined grains, full fat dairy, and fats in their diet that you don't really hear about this problem until you do some research into feeding kids a whole-food diet (which is possible to do if their diets include dairy, eggs and full-fat meats, but if you're vegan you need to feed them refined grains and oils to make sure they meet their nutrient requirements. It's not advisable to be a whole food vegan child).

It's not America's fault that the kid's menu is full of high-energy, low-fiber foods. The difference is that American high energy foods are also loaded with salt, refined sugars, synthetic fats, dyes and flavors and THOSE make a difference in how they regulate their food intake. It's easy to make pb&j, spaghetti, french fries, etc without that stuff, though, so I wouldn't discount that menu out of hand.

Yep---they absolutely need FAT in their diets, but they should be high-quality fats, not the junky fats full of toxins from fast food restaurants.