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.
What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Replies
-
FireOpalCO wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »What is the benefit of mostly empty buses and trains?
If employers are benefiting, send them the bill.
I just find it laughable that people complain about the 50-100 miles I might ride my bike over the course of a week, all 240# of me and my bike, suggesting that the 50k miles per year the four 1.5-2 ton vehicles in my household drive, burning motor fuels doesn't pay enough for the riding I do during the summer.
Not to mention the various taxes for tags, maintenance and repair items, as well as the taxes paid when the vehicles were purchased, and so on.
And as I said, even a cyclist that doesn't own a car will pay motor fuel taxes that are rolled into the prices of the goods and services he buys.FireOpalCO wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
In my locale, fares pay about 20% of the costs to run the system. The other 80% is paid by taxpayers. I don't think 80% of them use the buses and light rail.
But they do benefit from the reduced traffic congestion from other people using lightrail and buses. Plus the draw to potential employers considering setting up shop in that city/state.
Where do you live that trains and buses are mostly empty? During rush hour I drive past the park-n-ride and there are lines of people waiting to get on the bus (when I road it for work I had to stand and sometimes wait for the next one). I see the light rail and it’s also full. The only time I’ve ridden light rail and it was empty was on the weekend.
Our problem here is our light rail doesn’t cover enough territory and there are entire commuter areas that don’t get service. I wish I could take a train to work.
Don't know about @tbright1965 but in my smaller city of about 150,000 the 60 passenger buses drive around with 5 or fewer people. The only route that seems to have fuller buses is a shuttle around the university campus (the students have to buy an unlimited bus pass in their fees). The routes are fairly limited and don't go near nicer neighborhoods. It's not like a big city where affluent individuals use public transit.
The campus shuttle seems like a travesty to me. I went to this university and there was no shuttle when I attended (except for handicapped students) and the school had the same physical layout (i.e, no large expansion of sq area). Guess what, the students waiting for the bus and playing on their phones are heavier then when we were walking to class.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »What is the benefit of mostly empty buses and trains?
If employers are benefiting, send them the bill.
I just find it laughable that people complain about the 50-100 miles I might ride my bike over the course of a week, all 240# of me and my bike, suggesting that the 50k miles per year the four 1.5-2 ton vehicles in my household drive, burning motor fuels doesn't pay enough for the riding I do during the summer.
Not to mention the various taxes for tags, maintenance and repair items, as well as the taxes paid when the vehicles were purchased, and so on.
And as I said, even a cyclist that doesn't own a car will pay motor fuel taxes that are rolled into the prices of the goods and services he buys.FireOpalCO wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
In my locale, fares pay about 20% of the costs to run the system. The other 80% is paid by taxpayers. I don't think 80% of them use the buses and light rail.
But they do benefit from the reduced traffic congestion from other people using lightrail and buses. Plus the draw to potential employers considering setting up shop in that city/state.
Where do you live that trains and buses are mostly empty? During rush hour I drive past the park-n-ride and there are lines of people waiting to get on the bus (when I road it for work I had to stand and sometimes wait for the next one). I see the light rail and it’s also full. The only time I’ve ridden light rail and it was empty was on the weekend.
Our problem here is our light rail doesn’t cover enough territory and there are entire commuter areas that don’t get service. I wish I could take a train to work.
Don't know about @tbright1965 but in my smaller city of about 150,000 the 60 passenger buses drive around with 5 or fewer people. The only route that seems to have fuller buses is a shuttle around the university campus (the students have to buy an unlimited bus pass in their fees). The routes are fairly limited and don't go near nicer neighborhoods. It's not like a big city where affluent individuals use public transit.
The campus shuttle seems like a travesty to me. I went to this university and there was no shuttle when I attended (except for handicapped students) and the school had the same physical layout (i.e, no large expansion of sq area). Guess what, the students waiting for the bus and playing on their phones are heavier then when we were walking to class.
The only busses in my city that aren't ridden extensively are ones that are in areas that have always been upper-middle and upper class with regards to SES (as opposed to the ones that are currently primarily upper-middle/upper class but got that way via gentrification). The public transportation company has responded to this by cutting lines in these areas or cutting the number of busses that serve those lines.
Daily ridership across the tri-county area that the public transportation system serves apparently averages 310,000 and includes high school and college students (and some middle school students) across buses, light rail, and commuter rail. A few of the colleges/universities have shuttles, but they aren't the sort of shuttles you're referring to. You can't easily walk between the locations that the shuttles go to (would entail hours of walking and in some cases the walking wouldn't be safe due to the lack of sidewalks/shoulders).
There are a few busses that I ride on a regular basis that don't have a lot of people, but that's primarily an issue of when I take the bus vs the actual route. Part of it is what area of the route I get on and off in. I can pretty easily predict how busy the streetcar I take will be based on where it's at.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You use the road when you're on your bike, and taxes on motor fuels support the building and maintenance of roads. Why should other people have to pay higher gas taxes to pay for your use of the roads?
Are we sure motor fuel taxes cover the costs of the roads?
Do other taxes also go into the fund?
Don't I pay the motor fuel taxes of the trucks that deliver food and bicycles to the stores where I shop?
It is highly unlikely a cyclist doesn't pay taxes and hasn't paid the motor fuels taxes passed on in the costs of shipping goods and services to his home or the stores where he shops.
Yes, but everybody pays those. It doesn't make up for the taxes you don't pay to say you pay these other taxes that everyone else pays.
Are you saying that I don't pay tax, or that everybody pays tax? This is confusing.
I'm saying everybody (which includes you) pay the taxes that you say you pay (pass through on goods shipped by road, taxes on motor fuel they actually buy), but you use the road for an additional purpose beyond those related to the taxes you pay.
I'll try again. Say there is a lake at a dam that the public is allowed to use for various purposes, most of which have a fee or permit price attached to them (fishing, boating, etc.). Let's say you have purchased a day-permit for fishing in the past. Now you want to go and just hike on the trails around the lake and someone suggests you should be paid to do that because of the public benefits that accrue from your getting cardio exercise (which is where this subthread started). Someone says you're already being allowed to get in to the parkland and use it for free for the hiking, because there's no specific fee just to walk on the land, which is overseen and maintained by some kind of staff. You say that because you paid the one-day fishing permit, you've somehow already paid for any operational costs imposed by your hiking, and implicitly support the idea that you should be paid for hiking. But the fishing permit covered the costs related to fishing (e.g., restocking the lake). It doesn't cover costs related to your hiking (someone to do head counts on people in and out, look for stragglers at the end of the day, locate lost or injured hikers, rope off trails that have become dangerous due to erosion, etc.)
2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'll try again. Say there is a lake at a dam that the public is allowed to use for various purposes, most of which have a fee or permit price attached to them (fishing, boating, etc.). Let's say you have purchased a day-permit for fishing in the past. Now you want to go and just hike on the trails around the lake and someone suggests you should be paid to do that because of the public benefits that accrue from your getting cardio exercise (which is where this subthread started). Someone says you're already being allowed to get in to the parkland and use it for free for the hiking, because there's no specific fee just to walk on the land, which is overseen and maintained by some kind of staff. You say that because you paid the one-day fishing permit, you've somehow already paid for any operational costs imposed by your hiking, and implicitly support the idea that you should be paid for hiking. But the fishing permit covered the costs related to fishing (e.g., restocking the lake). It doesn't cover costs related to your hiking (someone to do head counts on people in and out, look for stragglers at the end of the day, locate lost or injured hikers, rope off trails that have become dangerous due to erosion, etc.)
Does the lake receive no tax funded maintenance money - it totally is able to be run by the user fees for the various activities?1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Farmers markets in the hood where people could use their food vouchers instead of those "you buy, we fry" places. These unhealthy places are classified as "Convenience stores" by government and so they accept food subsidy cards (foodstamps). People then pay $1 to have the food fried for them on site, so it's really a fast-food restaurant.
How are you going to get producers to go to the hood when in most cases it is further from their farm than other parts of an urban area where they could sell their products. Plus a higher level (real or percieved) of danger.
In the city closest to where I live, there is a "mobile farmer's market" that is set up like a bunch of food trucks. They buy "ugly" produce (stuff with blemishes or misshapen but still good) and surplus/extra food directly from farmers for free or dirt cheap, then drive around selling it in the city. You get 50% off if you're using an EBT card (food stamps) so it's especially helpful for those in need. More cities should implement the same!5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'll try again. Say there is a lake at a dam that the public is allowed to use for various purposes, most of which have a fee or permit price attached to them (fishing, boating, etc.). Let's say you have purchased a day-permit for fishing in the past. Now you want to go and just hike on the trails around the lake and someone suggests you should be paid to do that because of the public benefits that accrue from your getting cardio exercise (which is where this subthread started). Someone says you're already being allowed to get in to the parkland and use it for free for the hiking, because there's no specific fee just to walk on the land, which is overseen and maintained by some kind of staff. You say that because you paid the one-day fishing permit, you've somehow already paid for any operational costs imposed by your hiking, and implicitly support the idea that you should be paid for hiking. But the fishing permit covered the costs related to fishing (e.g., restocking the lake). It doesn't cover costs related to your hiking (someone to do head counts on people in and out, look for stragglers at the end of the day, locate lost or injured hikers, rope off trails that have become dangerous due to erosion, etc.)
Does the lake receive no tax funded maintenance money - it totally is able to be run by the user fees for the various activities?
How is that relevant? If X% of costs are funded by user fees x1, x2, and x3, and someone says they should get an incentive payment for some fourth use that is already being subsidized by the other user fees and whatever general use taxes are allocated to it, how does the fact that they are paying taxes the same as everyone else and paying whatever user fees they incur like everybody else somehow eradicate the fact that the use they want to get an incentive payment for is already being subsidized?2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'll try again. Say there is a lake at a dam that the public is allowed to use for various purposes, most of which have a fee or permit price attached to them (fishing, boating, etc.). Let's say you have purchased a day-permit for fishing in the past. Now you want to go and just hike on the trails around the lake and someone suggests you should be paid to do that because of the public benefits that accrue from your getting cardio exercise (which is where this subthread started). Someone says you're already being allowed to get in to the parkland and use it for free for the hiking, because there's no specific fee just to walk on the land, which is overseen and maintained by some kind of staff. You say that because you paid the one-day fishing permit, you've somehow already paid for any operational costs imposed by your hiking, and implicitly support the idea that you should be paid for hiking. But the fishing permit covered the costs related to fishing (e.g., restocking the lake). It doesn't cover costs related to your hiking (someone to do head counts on people in and out, look for stragglers at the end of the day, locate lost or injured hikers, rope off trails that have become dangerous due to erosion, etc.)
Does the lake receive no tax funded maintenance money - it totally is able to be run by the user fees for the various activities?
How is that relevant? If X% of costs are funded by user fees x1, x2, and x3, and someone says they should get an incentive payment for some fourth use that is already being subsidized by the other user fees and whatever general use taxes are allocated to it, how does the fact that they are paying taxes the same as everyone else and paying whatever user fees they incur like everybody else somehow eradicate the fact that the use they want to get an incentive payment for is already being subsidized?
Agreed for being paid to be hiking. As relevant to this sub-thread.
Just thought you had a good example regarding what appears to be other sub-thread regarding the walker being charged at all. For the aspect of some of the uses being covered by general tax payer $ for which walker already paid in directly or indirectly through taxes - just not direct payment to the park owner (gov't?).1 -
Speaking of calorie disclosure, there is NO POINT in putting 'nutritional values per 100g' information on a snack pack that is clearly not 100g, and not telling me how big the snack pack is, I'm looking at you Starbucks.
(You can find the information on the website, but why not on the pack?!)
Ultimately, though, I don't think there's much you can do to legislate people's choices. You can only legislate to make some choices easier, or to make the choices more informed.
I see that in European products (which I get in snack subscription boxes) all the time. I don't find it useful either. I even saw it on a spice jar being sold on Amazon once. People were oohing and aahing over the 100% of vitamin C in some red pepper flakes and I'm like "do you know how many jars you would have to eat to get all that vitamin C?"1 -
This content has been removed.
-
FinntheVeggie wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Farmers markets in the hood where people could use their food vouchers instead of those "you buy, we fry" places. These unhealthy places are classified as "Convenience stores" by government and so they accept food subsidy cards (foodstamps). People then pay $1 to have the food fried for them on site, so it's really a fast-food restaurant.
How are you going to get producers to go to the hood when in most cases it is further from their farm than other parts of an urban area where they could sell their products. Plus a higher level (real or percieved) of danger.
In the city closest to where I live, there is a "mobile farmer's market" that is set up like a bunch of food trucks. They buy "ugly" produce (stuff with blemishes or misshapen but still good) and surplus/extra food directly from farmers for free or dirt cheap, then drive around selling it in the city. You get 50% off if you're using an EBT card (food stamps) so it's especially helpful for those in need. More cities should implement the same!
Nice. Because Whole Foods Amazon Prime delivery is expensive and not accessible to everyone. I love the idea of a mobile farmers market. Growing up low-income, I remember my mother used to buy half-off ugly produce and day-old bread. Now I think how smart she was. Once I had a sleep-over and my friends threw away uneaten peaches in the trash. Next morning they were cut up in our oatmeal. Lol. Waste not want not.5 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Farmers markets in the hood where people could use their food vouchers instead of those "you buy, we fry" places. These unhealthy places are classified as "Convenience stores" by government and so they accept food subsidy cards (foodstamps). People then pay $1 to have the food fried for them on site, so it's really a fast-food restaurant.
How are you going to get producers to go to the hood when in most cases it is further from their farm than other parts of an urban area where they could sell their products. Plus a higher level (real or percieved) of danger.
Where I live (mid-Michigan) farm trucks come from the urban areas out to other areas to sell produce to outlying communities, from urban farms in Detroit and Flint. In part, this is a side effect of the depopulation of those urban areas with the decline of the auto industry (as well as other population-reducing pressures that create cheap urban land, or cheap buildings available for indoor food culture).
Not a huge force yet, but growing . . . and little backwards from what you're perceiving, eh?
Good stuff they grow, too.
2 -
UK based and relevant to me would be elimination of multi-portion snacks, and a complete revision of the working hours of the week for fewer hours . So much of the year is spent going to work in the dark, coming home in the dark so to be able to fit exercise in (naturally active time, not "going to the gym" exercise) you have to either have an active job or use your lunch time. Plenty of people work longer hours than I do, but I find 7.5hours stuck at a desk really frustrating.1
-
UK based and relevant to me would be elimination of multi-portion snacks, and a complete revision of the working hours of the week for fewer hours . So much of the year is spent going to work in the dark, coming home in the dark so to be able to fit exercise in (naturally active time, not "going to the gym" exercise) you have to either have an active job or use your lunch time. Plenty of people work longer hours than I do, but I find 7.5hours stuck at a desk really frustrating.
Just curious do you expect less pay for less work? If that's the case, at least in the US you can get part time work.4 -
I LOVE restaurants that include calorie counts on their menus. More need to provide that info.2
-
The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.9
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
...other way around...4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
I disagree. If people followed the Dietary Guidelines for Americans the overweight/obesity level would be significantly lower.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/3 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
I disagree. If people followed the Dietary Guidelines for Americans the overweight/obesity level would be significantly lower.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/
And since people don't follow the guidelines, the government efforts have largely been ineffective.
In some ways, the guidelines have been flawed as we had a generation or so where people were convinced fat was the enemy. The federal government played a part in this.
I'm not about to put on my tin foil hat and blame big government. However, I do believe they can be lead around by the most effective lobby, and that doesn't always work out well for the American people.
Funny how we have more information than ever, at our fingertips, but most of us don't use it.8 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
I disagree. If people followed the Dietary Guidelines for Americans the overweight/obesity level would be significantly lower.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/
The problem is, 'people' do not follow any reasonable guidelines these days, they follow 'Instagram influencers'.... My question at this point would be, do they lack education on health issues, or do they lack education in general, to take advise from some online sensation...?3 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
I disagree. If people followed the Dietary Guidelines for Americans the overweight/obesity level would be significantly lower.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/
The problem is, 'people' do not follow any reasonable guidelines these days, they follow 'Instagram influencers'.... My question at this point would be, do they lack education on health issues, or do they lack education in general, to take advise from some online sensation...?
Critical thinking in general, and desiring an "easy" way to get info.
How many people re-ask something to get an answer from who knows who, rather than a simple search that then requires a tad bit of work to confirm source is good.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
...other way around...
People do not follow government guidelines very well but the for profit manufacturing side will even when guidelines are medically unproven. People eat what is in front of them just like I did as a child eating from the garden and pasture field. There were no leftovers to have to put away after most meals.
We know today obesity is more a factor of what kind of calories we feed the body than how many calories we eat because the total calorie count has on average stayed the same. I still eat 2000-3000 calories daily staying away from processed foods containing added sugars and or any form of any grains.
I just got back from the huge annual insurance claims event PLRB and did not gain or loss a pound of weight unlike when eating my old WOE (Way of Eating) that I left Oct 2014 at the age of 63. In the past I always gained more than just water weight.14 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
...other way around...
People do not follow government guidelines very well but the for profit manufacturing side will even when guidelines are medically unproven. People eat what is in front of them just like I did as a child eating from the garden and pasture field. There were no leftovers to have to put away after most meals.
We know today obesity is more a factor of what kind of calories we feed the body than how many calories we eat because the total calorie count has on average stayed the same. I still eat 2000-3000 calories daily staying away from processed foods containing added sugars and or any form of any grains.
I just got back from the huge annual insurance claims event PLRB and did not gain or loss a pound of weight unlike when eating my old WOE (Way of Eating) that I left Oct 2014 at the age of 63. In the past I always gained more than just water weight.
Food isn't magically appearing in front of us. Adults either purchase their own food or have it purchased by a spouse or partner. We are responsible for the food we're choosing and it's clear from data that many Americans are *not* following the dietary guidelines provided by the government.
We do not "know" that obesity is more of a factor of the "kind of calories" we're eating.6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
...other way around...
People do not follow government guidelines very well but the for profit manufacturing side will even when guidelines are medically unproven. People eat what is in front of them just like I did as a child eating from the garden and pasture field. There were no leftovers to have to put away after most meals.
We know today obesity is more a factor of what kind of calories we feed the body than how many calories we eat because the total calorie count has on average stayed the same. I still eat 2000-3000 calories daily staying away from processed foods containing added sugars and or any form of any grains.
I just got back from the huge annual insurance claims event PLRB and did not gain or loss a pound of weight unlike when eating my old WOE (Way of Eating) that I left Oct 2014 at the age of 63. In the past I always gained more than just water weight.
I would be exceptionally surprised if any part of the bolded sentence were true.8 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
I disagree. If people followed the Dietary Guidelines for Americans the overweight/obesity level would be significantly lower.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/
The problem is, 'people' do not follow any reasonable guidelines these days, they follow 'Instagram influencers'.... My question at this point would be, do they lack education on health issues, or do they lack education in general, to take advise from some online sensation...?
I don't know what it is that causes people to follow some online guru. Sadly, I think plenty of educated people who should be able to vet sources do it too.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
...other way around...
People do not follow government guidelines very well but the for profit manufacturing side will even when guidelines are medically unproven.
The guidelines are basically eat more veg and fruit and switch from white to whole grains and consume added sugar and added fat in limited amounts.
The for-profit side puts out stuff that's popular. Tons of paleo and keto things these days and things marketed as "no sugar!", not any more nutritious in many cases than the old "low fat!" snacks (which no one legitimately thought were health food when they were cookies and such).People eat what is in front of them just like I did as a child eating from the garden and pasture field.
Hmm. What's "in front of me" is what I choose to cook or otherwise to put in front of me.There were no leftovers to have to put away after most meals.
We had leftovers eating mostly whole foods when I was a kid. I intentionally create meals where there will be leftovers now, as they are helpful for bringing lunch.We know today obesity is more a factor of what kind of calories we feed the body than how many calories we eat because the total calorie count has on average stayed the same.
No, we do not know this. The credible studies demonstrate that calories have increased a lot (including from fat!). There are NO credible studies that show that calories don't dictate weight loss, maintenance, or gain. All studies controlled for calories demonstrate that calories ARE the factor.
What you choose to eat, in a non controlled environment, probably determines how likely you are to overeat. If someone ate like the guidelines, they'd (on average) be less likely to overeat than if they ate some other ways that are common in the US currently. Indeed, you have frequently explained how you used to eat, and it was nothing like the guidelines.I still eat 2000-3000 calories daily staying away from processed foods containing added sugars and or any form of any grains.
You have frequently mentioned eating processed foods, not that there's anything wrong with that.
You don't track your calories, do you?
Many men eat 2000-3000 cal a day and maintain, as I believe you have said you are doing.I just got back from the huge annual insurance claims event PLRB and did not gain or loss a pound of weight unlike when eating my old WOE (Way of Eating) that I left Oct 2014 at the age of 63. In the past I always gained more than just water weight.
Rather obviously your current dietary restrictions -- which I agree seem to work for you -- made a lot of the foods you typically would have eaten off-limits. The same is true if one is doing W30 or 100% plant-based or logging and decides not to make an exception for the special event. None of that goes to the worth of the guidelines being discussed or to the effect of calories.9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
...other way around...
People do not follow government guidelines very well but the for profit manufacturing side will even when guidelines are medically unproven.
The guidelines are basically eat more veg and fruit and switch from white to whole grains and consume added sugar and added fat in limited amounts.
The for-profit side puts out stuff that's popular. Tons of paleo and keto things these days and things marketed as "no sugar!", not any more nutritious in many cases than the old "low fat!" snacks (which no one legitimately thought were health food when they were cookies and such).People eat what is in front of them just like I did as a child eating from the garden and pasture field.
Hmm. What's "in front of me" is what I choose to cook or otherwise to put in front of me.There were no leftovers to have to put away after most meals.
We had leftovers eating mostly whole foods when I was a kid. I intentionally create meals where there will be leftovers now, as they are helpful for bringing lunch.We know today obesity is more a factor of what kind of calories we feed the body than how many calories we eat because the total calorie count has on average stayed the same.
No, we do not know this. The credible studies demonstrate that calories have increased a lot (including from fat!). There are NO credible studies that show that calories don't dictate weight loss, maintenance, or gain. All studies controlled for calories demonstrate that calories ARE the factor.
What you choose to eat, in a non controlled environment, probably determines how likely you are to overeat. If someone ate like the guidelines, they'd (on average) be less likely to overeat than if they ate some other ways that are common in the US currently. Indeed, you have frequently explained how you used to eat, and it was nothing like the guidelines.I still eat 2000-3000 calories daily staying away from processed foods containing added sugars and or any form of any grains.
You have frequently mentioned eating processed foods, not that there's anything wrong with that.
You don't track your calories, do you?
Many men eat 2000-3000 cal a day and maintain, as I believe you have said you are doing.I just got back from the huge annual insurance claims event PLRB and did not gain or loss a pound of weight unlike when eating my old WOE (Way of Eating) that I left Oct 2014 at the age of 63. In the past I always gained more than just water weight.
Rather obviously your current dietary restrictions -- which I agree seem to work for you -- made a lot of the foods you typically would have eaten off-limits. The same is true if one is doing W30 or 100% plant-based or logging and decides not to make an exception for the special event. None of that goes to the worth of the guidelines being discussed or to the effect of calories.
While cause and effects can be hard to define at least we can agree that since the event of government eating guidelines in the USA have been established that obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc have become worse.10 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
...other way around...
People do not follow government guidelines very well but the for profit manufacturing side will even when guidelines are medically unproven.
The guidelines are basically eat more veg and fruit and switch from white to whole grains and consume added sugar and added fat in limited amounts.
The for-profit side puts out stuff that's popular. Tons of paleo and keto things these days and things marketed as "no sugar!", not any more nutritious in many cases than the old "low fat!" snacks (which no one legitimately thought were health food when they were cookies and such).People eat what is in front of them just like I did as a child eating from the garden and pasture field.
Hmm. What's "in front of me" is what I choose to cook or otherwise to put in front of me.There were no leftovers to have to put away after most meals.
We had leftovers eating mostly whole foods when I was a kid. I intentionally create meals where there will be leftovers now, as they are helpful for bringing lunch.We know today obesity is more a factor of what kind of calories we feed the body than how many calories we eat because the total calorie count has on average stayed the same.
No, we do not know this. The credible studies demonstrate that calories have increased a lot (including from fat!). There are NO credible studies that show that calories don't dictate weight loss, maintenance, or gain. All studies controlled for calories demonstrate that calories ARE the factor.
What you choose to eat, in a non controlled environment, probably determines how likely you are to overeat. If someone ate like the guidelines, they'd (on average) be less likely to overeat than if they ate some other ways that are common in the US currently. Indeed, you have frequently explained how you used to eat, and it was nothing like the guidelines.I still eat 2000-3000 calories daily staying away from processed foods containing added sugars and or any form of any grains.
You have frequently mentioned eating processed foods, not that there's anything wrong with that.
You don't track your calories, do you?
Many men eat 2000-3000 cal a day and maintain, as I believe you have said you are doing.I just got back from the huge annual insurance claims event PLRB and did not gain or loss a pound of weight unlike when eating my old WOE (Way of Eating) that I left Oct 2014 at the age of 63. In the past I always gained more than just water weight.
Rather obviously your current dietary restrictions -- which I agree seem to work for you -- made a lot of the foods you typically would have eaten off-limits. The same is true if one is doing W30 or 100% plant-based or logging and decides not to make an exception for the special event. None of that goes to the worth of the guidelines being discussed or to the effect of calories.
While cause and effects can be hard to define at least we can agree that since the event of government eating guidelines in the USA have been established that obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc have become worse.
All-site cancer incidence and mortality have been declining in the US, generally since some point in the 1990s, depending on what trend you're looking at. Speculated to be related to reduced smoking, I believe. (Perhaps the government had something to do with that decline?
).
https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2015/browse_csr.php?sectionSEL=2&pageSEL=sect_02_table.01
7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
...other way around...
People do not follow government guidelines very well but the for profit manufacturing side will even when guidelines are medically unproven.
The guidelines are basically eat more veg and fruit and switch from white to whole grains and consume added sugar and added fat in limited amounts.
The for-profit side puts out stuff that's popular. Tons of paleo and keto things these days and things marketed as "no sugar!", not any more nutritious in many cases than the old "low fat!" snacks (which no one legitimately thought were health food when they were cookies and such).People eat what is in front of them just like I did as a child eating from the garden and pasture field.
Hmm. What's "in front of me" is what I choose to cook or otherwise to put in front of me.There were no leftovers to have to put away after most meals.
We had leftovers eating mostly whole foods when I was a kid. I intentionally create meals where there will be leftovers now, as they are helpful for bringing lunch.We know today obesity is more a factor of what kind of calories we feed the body than how many calories we eat because the total calorie count has on average stayed the same.
No, we do not know this. The credible studies demonstrate that calories have increased a lot (including from fat!). There are NO credible studies that show that calories don't dictate weight loss, maintenance, or gain. All studies controlled for calories demonstrate that calories ARE the factor.
What you choose to eat, in a non controlled environment, probably determines how likely you are to overeat. If someone ate like the guidelines, they'd (on average) be less likely to overeat than if they ate some other ways that are common in the US currently. Indeed, you have frequently explained how you used to eat, and it was nothing like the guidelines.I still eat 2000-3000 calories daily staying away from processed foods containing added sugars and or any form of any grains.
You have frequently mentioned eating processed foods, not that there's anything wrong with that.
You don't track your calories, do you?
Many men eat 2000-3000 cal a day and maintain, as I believe you have said you are doing.I just got back from the huge annual insurance claims event PLRB and did not gain or loss a pound of weight unlike when eating my old WOE (Way of Eating) that I left Oct 2014 at the age of 63. In the past I always gained more than just water weight.
Rather obviously your current dietary restrictions -- which I agree seem to work for you -- made a lot of the foods you typically would have eaten off-limits. The same is true if one is doing W30 or 100% plant-based or logging and decides not to make an exception for the special event. None of that goes to the worth of the guidelines being discussed or to the effect of calories.
While cause and effects can be hard to define at least we can agree that since the event of government eating guidelines in the USA have been established that obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc have become worse.
No, we cannot.5 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »The more the USA government has gotten involved on telling people how the eat the fatter people have become it seems to me.
...other way around...
People do not follow government guidelines very well but the for profit manufacturing side will even when guidelines are medically unproven.
The guidelines are basically eat more veg and fruit and switch from white to whole grains and consume added sugar and added fat in limited amounts.
The for-profit side puts out stuff that's popular. Tons of paleo and keto things these days and things marketed as "no sugar!", not any more nutritious in many cases than the old "low fat!" snacks (which no one legitimately thought were health food when they were cookies and such).People eat what is in front of them just like I did as a child eating from the garden and pasture field.
Hmm. What's "in front of me" is what I choose to cook or otherwise to put in front of me.There were no leftovers to have to put away after most meals.
We had leftovers eating mostly whole foods when I was a kid. I intentionally create meals where there will be leftovers now, as they are helpful for bringing lunch.We know today obesity is more a factor of what kind of calories we feed the body than how many calories we eat because the total calorie count has on average stayed the same.
No, we do not know this. The credible studies demonstrate that calories have increased a lot (including from fat!). There are NO credible studies that show that calories don't dictate weight loss, maintenance, or gain. All studies controlled for calories demonstrate that calories ARE the factor.
What you choose to eat, in a non controlled environment, probably determines how likely you are to overeat. If someone ate like the guidelines, they'd (on average) be less likely to overeat than if they ate some other ways that are common in the US currently. Indeed, you have frequently explained how you used to eat, and it was nothing like the guidelines.I still eat 2000-3000 calories daily staying away from processed foods containing added sugars and or any form of any grains.
You have frequently mentioned eating processed foods, not that there's anything wrong with that.
You don't track your calories, do you?
Many men eat 2000-3000 cal a day and maintain, as I believe you have said you are doing.I just got back from the huge annual insurance claims event PLRB and did not gain or loss a pound of weight unlike when eating my old WOE (Way of Eating) that I left Oct 2014 at the age of 63. In the past I always gained more than just water weight.
Rather obviously your current dietary restrictions -- which I agree seem to work for you -- made a lot of the foods you typically would have eaten off-limits. The same is true if one is doing W30 or 100% plant-based or logging and decides not to make an exception for the special event. None of that goes to the worth of the guidelines being discussed or to the effect of calories.
While cause and effects can be hard to define at least we can agree that since the event of government eating guidelines in the USA have been established that obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc have become worse.
No, we cannot.
Ok scratch the cancer then we can all agree there are higher rates of obesity and diabetes then 50 years ago in the USA.6 -
People also have more access to food of all kinds and live longer. Trying to pretend it's related to the dietary guidelines is silly. The dietary guidelines say eat more veg and fruit, and the populations that live the least long and get T2D and are obese are indirectly correlated with those who eat the most veg and fruit.9
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions