Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Fast food and obesity
Replies
-
You'll find that the chemicals in diet coke are generally more harmful than sugar which comes from a natural plant.
...explain2 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »
Although it's not what you were saying here, I suspect he might be contextualizing what you said in other more explicitly unkind statements you have made about Americans and their culture, including on threads have have been deleted.
It is similar to Americans who callously make fun of English people's teeth, even though we have our fair share of teeth problems here: it's the pot calling the kettle black, and it is unkind.
America is certainly a land of extremes, on both ends of the spectrum. Perhaps when the British are brought over to observe grossly overweight people and their special beds and winches, they could also go to South Beach in Miami or Muscle Beach in Venice and do some observations there as well.
5 -
You've assumed I'm in the USA in order to make a disparaging comment about American obesity levels, which, as Carlos pointed out, are not that different from those in the U.K.
not to the extreme levels of what you have.
However we have an "Obesity crisis" (still incomparable to you)...
And I'm in Canada, so...
5 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
[...snorts the non-South Beach kind of coke through nose when sees that gif...]1 -
yep. thats definitely an assumption but did you read the entire post?
It was a lead on from an ASSUMPTION made by your American brothers/sisters which as usual is almost always ignored.
One trend Ive noticed with some of you is that you tend to start on a person responding in defense and completely dissect and misinterpret sections as opposed to reading as a whole and understanding what that person maybe implying.
My post was overall positive, how did it become so negative? Because you found a FACT disturbing? That's beyond ridiculous.
I acknowledged a growing problem within my Country. You could've responded to that post with examples of how your country is trying to tackle the problem you have since you are pretty much on top of the charts. That would have been more educating but instead you are arguing over something so menial. Yeah 4% difference, yet that still doesn't deny that you have a higher risk/problem and considering your population size is greater, I suppose it comes across more saturated to some.
Getting defensive is silly and that is what you are doing.
PS - The charts, I remember. There are other charts too and you are still among the top 3. Boohoo. deal with it.
I want to discuss more about what each country is doing to stop this growing problem and not have to listen to a bunch of crybabies whinging and throwing their toys out.
You were asked if the UK didn't have any morbidly obese people and you answered that it doesn't "to the extreme" that the US does which is saying that the UK doesn't have anyone as fat as the fattest Americans which is ridiculous.
That's not a lead on from an assumption. It's an ignorant answer to a direct question.
You then directly said that (while the UK has a growing problem) the obesity rates between the two countries is incomparable which is simply wrong and implies a gross misunderstanding of America (amplified by your continued assertions that America is just so fat).
I'm not saying that there isn't an obesity problem in the US. There is. Plain and simple. Isn't hard for me to admit it and it doesn't hurt my feelings. I don't care.
It's the negative attitude toward America that you continue to demonstrate that is offensive. Implying that our obesity problem dwarfs your own or that our culture is somehow inferior to your own (because clearly being fat slobs is an American thing) is just ignorant because neither is true.
And if you want to have a discussion about what different countries are doing to combat obesity, start your own thread because that's not what this one is about.9 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »
Although it's not what you were saying here, I suspect he might be contextualizing what you said in other more explicitly unkind statements you have made about Americans and their culture, including on threads have have been deleted.
It is similar to Americans who callously make fun of English people's teeth, even though we have our fair share of teeth problems here: it's the pot calling the kettle black, and it is unkind.
America is certainly a land of extremes, on both ends of the spectrum. Perhaps when the British are brought over to observe grossly overweight people and their special beds and winches, they could also go to South Beach in Miami or Muscle Beach in Venice and do some observations there as well.
Bingo0 -
You'll find that the chemicals in diet coke are generally more harmful than sugar which comes from a natural plant.
Diet Coke tastes like somebody put gasoline in it.
2 -
yep. thats definitely an assumption but did you read the entire post?
It was a lead on from an ASSUMPTION made by your American brothers/sisters which as usual is almost always ignored.
One trend Ive noticed with some of you is that you tend to start on a person responding in defense and completely dissect and misinterpret sections as opposed to reading as a whole and understanding what that person maybe implying.
My post was overall positive, how did it become so negative? Because you found a FACT disturbing? That's beyond ridiculous.
It might be helpful to reread his post, if you genuinely misunderstood it to this degree.
He obviously did not object to the FACTS presented, but disagreed (correctly) with your characterization of them and presented his reasons.You could've responded to that post with examples of how your country is trying to tackle the problem you have since you are pretty much on top of the charts.
This has been in other threads (that I know you were in), but was not the subject of the post.
One question is what the government can actually do to address obesity. I think it's an interesting question, so am always open to that discussion.
And yes, we in the US are making efforts to provide nutritionally balanced and reasonable food to kids in public schools and to educate them. You don't actually seem interested in that -- you seem more attached, for whatever reason, to your notion (perhaps fueled by some media, as I know there's a lot of cherry-picking in what I've seen in UK media related to the issue) that the US is force-feeding school kids McD's and that people in the US eat McD's daily, probably for multiple meals, because we are confused and think french fries + ketchup is the equivalent of 2 servings of vegetables (6 if you supersize it!).
In fact, people know french fries are high cal and not a good replacement for green vegetables in the diet, there are efforts (in my own city, for example) to make vegetables and fruit and healthful foods more available to poor people, to make sure that the meals provided in the public schools (for free) are nutritious, as well as otherwise suitable for their purpose, and have soda bans (and quite a high tax on soda and prepared foods, I'm not sure why we don't seem to count as having a soda tax). I know there is education in schools, as well as discussions of nutrition and healthy eating for parents at public schools. And yet obesity is still a problem in my city, like other American cities, and it is one that is quite concentrated in certain subgroups vs. others (including but not limited to income differences).
I don't think the problem is caused by the gov't, of course, but that doesn't mean I'm averse to other efforts by the gov't to fix it. I don't see a good solution, though, better than the kinds of things that are being tried (education, encouraging regular dr visits and dr's addressing the issue, stuff like that. Mostly I think a lot of it needs to be individual, and is about us as humans adjusting to the food environment that now exists (and is in many ways beneficial -- having food available, including easy access to vegetables in January, is not a bad thing, and neither is choice and the huge variety available even compared to when I was a kid -- but that comes with added temptations and risks too).I want to discuss more about what each country is doing to stop this growing problem and not have to listen to a bunch of crybabies whinging and throwing their toys out.
So start a thread, rather than insulting people for pointing out when you make an inaccurate statement.
No matter how much you repeat it, it's still not true that anyone here is in denial about the fact that the US has a high obesity and overweight rate.5 -
PennWalker wrote: »
But taste has nothing to do with whether or not something is harmful to the body - I to am waiting for an explanation of the 'harmful' nature of the chemicals in diet coke...0 -
You're assuming what I am insinuating by picking up a few words and throwing them out of context.
Your problem.
When I'm explaining something to a group of 10 and 1 misunderstands, it is likely on them. When 8 misunderstand, it is my communication that needs to be evaluated.8 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »
When I'm explaining something to a group of 10 and 1 misunderstands, it is likely on them. When 8 misunderstand, it it my communication that needs to be evaluated.
Thing is, I don't think anyone misunderstood her.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
Thing is, I don't think anyone misunderstood her.
But that is her claim, that people are twisting her words and/or misunderstanding and/or taking things out of context. When communication breaks down, it is often helpful to evaluate communication style and if the message you intend to send is actually conveyed through wording. Particularly online, where tone isn't obvious.3 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »
But that is her claim, that people are twisting her words and/or misunderstanding and/or taking things out of context. When communication breaks down, it is often helpful to evaluate communication style and if the message you intend to send is actually conveyed through wording. Particularly online, where tone isn't obvious.
Yup.0 -
But taste has nothing to do with whether or not something is harmful to the body - I to am waiting for an explanation of the 'harmful' nature of the chemicals in diet coke...
I would respectfully disagree that taste has nothing to do with whether something is harmful to the body. Taste, like pain, is a natural way our body sends a message that something is not right. People override both by cultural conditioning but the basic body message is there.
Somebody else can take on the chemicals research.1 -
PennWalker wrote: »
I would respectfully disagree that taste has nothing to do with whether something is harmful to the body. Taste, like pain, is a natural way our body sends a message that something is not right. People override both by cultural conditioning but the basic body message is there.
Somebody else can take on the chemicals research.
How are personal taste preferences at all an indicator of how harmful something is to the body? I think Diet Coke tastes delicious. So does that mean it's harmful to you but not to me?
My husband thinks shrimp are delicious but he is allergic and his throat closes up when he consumes them... wouldn't you think, by your logic, that he should have some early indicator that these could be problematic for him?8 -
PennWalker wrote: »
I would respectfully disagree that taste has nothing to do with whether something is harmful to the body. Taste, like pain, is a natural way our body sends a message that something is not right. People override both by cultural conditioning but the basic body message is there.
Somebody else can take on the chemicals research.
The "chemical research" has already been done. Aspartame (the most common of the artificial sweetners used in sodas) is safe. Taste is not an indicator of health I am sorry. I don't like the taste of brussel sprouts, that doesn't make them deadly. If no one like the taste of diet coke then it wouldn't be a successful product. Your belief otherwise doesn't affect reality. Feel free to not drink diet coke if you don't like the taste, but don't make public claims that it is unsafe based soley on the fact that you don't like its taste...that is rather absurd.9 -
PennWalker wrote: »
I would respectfully disagree that taste has nothing to do with whether something is harmful to the body. Taste, like pain, is a natural way our body sends a message that something is not right. People override both by cultural conditioning but the basic body message is there.
While I agree that this is correct in a broad sense, taste makes only a gross distinction: It's sometimes an inaccurate guide.
For example, bitterness is claimed to be a key evolutionary taste guide to food safety, but double IPA is very healthy. Oops, I meant flax seed. And bitter melon.Somebody else can take on the chemicals research.5 -
PennWalker wrote: »
I would respectfully disagree that taste has nothing to do with whether something is harmful to the body. Taste, like pain, is a natural way our body sends a message that something is not right. People override both by cultural conditioning but the basic body message is there.
Somebody else can take on the chemicals research.
Taste may be true in some cases, it is not however a universal constant. 2 examples - ethylene glycol (anti-freeze) is toxic, but it is also incredibly sweet so people and animals will drink it and die as a result. Second example - axle grease - tastes salty to some animals, so if you were to leave an open bucket in a field with cows, they will lick it clean in a day (I have personal experience of this) - this is, by-the-way, really bad for the cows.
eta because spelling...4 -
Taste may be true in some cases, it is not however a universal constant. 2 examples - etylene glycol (anti-freeze) is toxic, but it is also incredibly sweet so people and animals will drink it and die as a result. Second example - axle grease - tastes salty to some animals, so if you were to leave an open bucket in a field with cows, they will lick it clean in a day (I have personal experience of this) - this is, by-the-way, really bad for the cows.
ethylene glycol (sorry, chemical grammar nazi)2 -
PennWalker wrote: »
I would respectfully disagree that taste has nothing to do with whether something is harmful to the body. Taste, like pain, is a natural way our body sends a message that something is not right. People override both by cultural conditioning but the basic body message is there.
Somebody else can take on the chemicals research.
Taste is a very personal and subjective interpretation. What tastes awful to you may taste just fine to someone else. And just because you don't like the taste of something, doesn't also mean it's harmful in any way.
I don't like the taste of green pea soup. To *me* it tastes really nasty. It's a personal distinction and has nothing to do with the soup being harmful to the body because obviously it's not. It just tastes like death in a bowl.
2 -
PennWalker wrote: »
I would respectfully disagree that taste has nothing to do with whether something is harmful to the body. Taste, like pain, is a natural way our body sends a message that something is not right. People override both by cultural conditioning but the basic body message is there.
Somebody else can take on the chemicals research.
My children agree with you, as they are convinced they are being poisoned by most vegetables. Alas, if only this childish sentiment were actually true--it would be helpful in preventing all kinds of poisonings, from mushrooms to antifreeze to botulism.6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
How are personal taste preferences at all an indicator of how harmful something is to the body? I think Diet Coke tastes delicious. So does that mean it's harmful to you but not to me?
My husband thinks shrimp are delicious but he is allergic and his throat closes up when he consumes them... wouldn't you think, by your logic, that he should have some early indicator that these could be problematic for him?
Brussel Sprouts must be poison to most kids.4 -
It's official. Kale is poison.11
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »It's official. Kale is poison.
Fortunately on the 8th day, God created Oreos...10 -
Gah chemistry rant:
In terms of hydrocarbons
meth- (one carbon)
eth- (two carbons)
prop- (three carbons)
If its a simple hydrocarbon (single bonded carbons saturated with hydrogen then the suffix is just -ane.
So methane, ethane, propane.
If it has an OH on one end then its an alcohol so the suffix is -ol is used to replace the e
Methanol, ethanol, propanol
If not all the connections to carbons are to hydrogens then its called an unsaturated hydrocarbon which ends in -ylene
ethylene, methylene, propylene
If both ends have an -OH then technically it is a -diol so like ethane-1,2-diol where the numbers denote which carbons the -OH is on. That can get long though so it has been abbreviated into being a glycol with the suffix changes to -ylene and the word glycol is attached.
Methylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol.
If you make a chain of them then it gets the prefix poly and sense you are connecting them together at least one of the bonds isn't to hydrogen so its a -ylene.
As an example, polypropylene...a chain of unstaturated propane molecules....basically what your athletic wear is most likely made out of. Or polyethylene...the most commonly used plastic.
You'd think that if you knew the properties of a given molecule that a chain of them or a small change to them would make something with similar properties but really things can change quite a lot.
Ethane (component of natural gas, used for heating), ethanol (alcohol used for drinking), ethylene glycol (antifreeze), polyethylene (plastic). Basically small modifications to the same molecule.
Okay, sorry for that.11 -
You'll find that the chemicals in diet coke are generally more harmful than sugar which comes from a natural plant.
*sigh*0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Gah chemistry rant:
In terms of hydrocarbons
meth- (one carbon)
eth- (two carbons)
prop- (three carbons)
If its a simple hydrocarbon (single bonded carbons saturated with hydrogen then the suffix is just -ane.
So methane, ethane, propane.
If it has an OH on one end then its an alcohol so the suffix is -ol is used to replace the e
Methanol, ethanol, propanol
If not all the connections to carbons are to hydrogens then its called an unsaturated hydrocarbon which ends in -ylene
ethylene, methylene, propylene
If both ends have an -OH then technically it is a -diol so like ethane-1,2-diol where the numbers denote which carbons the -OH is on. That can get long though so it has been abbreviated into being a glycol with the suffix changes to -ylene and the word glycol is attached.
Methylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol.
If you make a chain of them then it gets the prefix poly and sense you are connecting them together at least one of the bonds isn't to hydrogen so its a -ylene.
As an example, polypropylene...a chain of unstaturated propane molecules....basically what your athletic wear is most likely made out of. Or polyethylene...the most commonly used plastic.
You'd think that if you knew the properties of a given molecule that a chain of them or a small change to them would make something with similar properties but really things can change quite a lot.
Ethane (component of natural gas, used for heating), ethanol (alcohol used for drinking), ethylene glycol (antifreeze), polyethylene (plastic). Basically small modifications to the same molecule.
Okay, sorry for that.
Time for a C2H5OH.
(Sorry my phone doesn't do subscripts).
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
The ignorance and offensiveness of the bolded is just astounding.
Yes, our numbers are worse but they are in no way incomparable. America has an obesity problem just like most of the industrialized world but we're not a population made up exclusively of obese slobs like you continue to insinuate.
ETA: maybe you forgot this graphic from earlier in the thread
Just to break that down for you, overweight/obesity rates in the US vs UK are:
Men - 70.9% to 66.6%
Women - 61.9% to 57.2%
That's close enough that you'd not notice any difference between the two populations by living among them. You basically have to do a census in order to pick up on that small of a difference.
The most alarming thing about that chart is that only two countries strikingly stand out from the rest and it's the ones at the bottom, not at the top.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Reminds me of that old-hat chemistry joke.
Just make sure you keep that second carbon in there.9 -
While I agree that this is correct in a broad sense, taste makes only a gross distinction: It's sometimes an inaccurate guide.
For example, bitterness is claimed to be a key evolutionary taste guide to food safety, but double IPA is very healthy. Oops, I meant flax seed. And bitter melon.
OMG!! IPA, FTW!!1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions