PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
I'm assuming you're pretty happy, because something something local government, right?
The F$$d P$lice are C$ming
- Thread starter the iron horse
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
How do you think the obesity problem among children (and adults) in the U.S should be addressed?
By demonizing certain foods and banning so called bad foods from schools?
Or by telling all of us we need to get off the TV couch, get away from our video games and computers and get physically active?
Those are not the only two options.
Canadiens1131
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,363
Why do you only list the two extremes of the situation?
For a Libertarian, that is very Republican of you.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
By both eating healthier and being more active. What you see as demonizing foods I see as an emphasis on health.
I live in a state with required physical education ever year from first grade through twelfth. I think it's a good thing. And I don't have a problem with school districts choosing to sell healthier food to those who don't bring in their own lunches.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
With a true understanding of health.
Not like this:
That's not exactly fair to IH. He's not advocating ignoring children's health issues or doing nothing. He simply believes that promoting exercise and staying active is enough. Now, you and I (and others) may feel that isn't a sufficient solution, but... maybe that can be articulated better than with overly reductive pictures.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
My reason for posting that pic is due to his constant ignoring of facts and his lying and/or not understanding the issue. Most people know you can't eat ANYTHING you want as long as you get off the couch, his painting of this either or scenario is completely false, and for the hundred time the federal government hasn't banned any milk. Yet no matter what IH continues with that message. So I don't think that's fair to anyone in here that tries to engage with him. It's beyond disagreeing it's twisting and ignoring.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Seems to me I recall you're okay with demonizing high fructose corn syrup.
The real consistency in your position is not on the side of common-sense health but on the side of a romanticized notion of a halcyon past you'd like to see our country return to.
That's not entirely a criticism per se. . .I find it kind of fascinating honestly
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
ABC News
By MIKAELA CONLEY
July 12, 2011
Stop the presses, Michelle Obama might have eaten a hamburger.
The blogosphere erupted with criticism almost immediately after the Washington Post reported Monday that the first lady sat down at a newly opened Shake Shack in Washington D.C., where she ordered a ShackBurger, fries, a chocolate shake and a Diet Coke. According to the popular burger joint's website, that's a 1,556-calorie meal.
Many critiqued the first lady's public display of Shake Shack love as she continues to advocate for her Let's Move! campaign, an initiative to eliminate childhood obesity.
But even as the first lady-turned-health-advocate chowed down on a meal that contains almost an entire day's recommended calorie intake, most nutrition experts are telling people to relax.
"[This is an] unfortunate invasion of privacy for Mrs. Obama," said Alice Lichtenstein, professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts School of Medicine in Boston. "She has kept her weight constant and engages in regular physical activity. An occasional indulgence is fine. For many people, that is what helps them keep on track most of the time."
Most experts agreed with Lichtenstein, while saying that the first lady's lunch is being unnecessarily scrutinized.
"While the goal for healthy eating is to limit choices like fries and shakes, occasional treats won't hurt. The problem is that many Americans do this more than occasionally," said Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis. "It is good to see that even someone as committed to health as the first lady knows that healthy eating is about balance not perfection."
One meal does not make up a dietary pattern, said Dr. David Katz, founder of the Yale Prevention Center.
"She ordered it, but we don't know how much she ate," he said. "Perhaps she did what is often advised under such circumstances; eat half, and wrap up the rest."
Dr. Randall Zusman, director of hypertension at Massachusetts General Hospital, said, "The problem for many persons is that their baseline diets and lifestyles are unhealthy; the norm for them is unhealthy and in that setting, a 1,500-cal lunch is only a small part of a much larger problem."
The first Lady told ABC News' Robin Roberts last year, "I love burgers and fries, you know? And I love ice cream and cake. So do most kids. We're not talking about a lifestyle that excludes all that. That's the fun of being a kid. That's the fun of being a human."
Not to say that all medical experts were completely without their concerns.
"There are immediate adverse effects independent of weight," noted Dr. Peter McCullough, consultant cardiologist and chief academic and scientific officer at St. John Providence Health System, Providence Park Heart Institute, Warren, Mich., while citing the immediate cardiovascular implications of the meal.
And Leslie Bonci, director of sports nutrition at University of Pittsburgh Medical, advised via email: "Shake OR fries OR burger, not all 3 at once!"
But Katz of the Yale Prevention Center had advice for those who sought to make an example of the first lady's lunch.
"I invite only those whose diets are housed with no walls of glass to hurl a burger in the first lady's direction on the basis of this one lunch," Katz said.
By MIKAELA CONLEY
July 12, 2011
Stop the presses, Michelle Obama might have eaten a hamburger.
The blogosphere erupted with criticism almost immediately after the Washington Post reported Monday that the first lady sat down at a newly opened Shake Shack in Washington D.C., where she ordered a ShackBurger, fries, a chocolate shake and a Diet Coke. According to the popular burger joint's website, that's a 1,556-calorie meal.
Many critiqued the first lady's public display of Shake Shack love as she continues to advocate for her Let's Move! campaign, an initiative to eliminate childhood obesity.
But even as the first lady-turned-health-advocate chowed down on a meal that contains almost an entire day's recommended calorie intake, most nutrition experts are telling people to relax.
"[This is an] unfortunate invasion of privacy for Mrs. Obama," said Alice Lichtenstein, professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts School of Medicine in Boston. "She has kept her weight constant and engages in regular physical activity. An occasional indulgence is fine. For many people, that is what helps them keep on track most of the time."
Most experts agreed with Lichtenstein, while saying that the first lady's lunch is being unnecessarily scrutinized.
"While the goal for healthy eating is to limit choices like fries and shakes, occasional treats won't hurt. The problem is that many Americans do this more than occasionally," said Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis. "It is good to see that even someone as committed to health as the first lady knows that healthy eating is about balance not perfection."
One meal does not make up a dietary pattern, said Dr. David Katz, founder of the Yale Prevention Center.
"She ordered it, but we don't know how much she ate," he said. "Perhaps she did what is often advised under such circumstances; eat half, and wrap up the rest."
Dr. Randall Zusman, director of hypertension at Massachusetts General Hospital, said, "The problem for many persons is that their baseline diets and lifestyles are unhealthy; the norm for them is unhealthy and in that setting, a 1,500-cal lunch is only a small part of a much larger problem."
The first Lady told ABC News' Robin Roberts last year, "I love burgers and fries, you know? And I love ice cream and cake. So do most kids. We're not talking about a lifestyle that excludes all that. That's the fun of being a kid. That's the fun of being a human."
Not to say that all medical experts were completely without their concerns.
"There are immediate adverse effects independent of weight," noted Dr. Peter McCullough, consultant cardiologist and chief academic and scientific officer at St. John Providence Health System, Providence Park Heart Institute, Warren, Mich., while citing the immediate cardiovascular implications of the meal.
And Leslie Bonci, director of sports nutrition at University of Pittsburgh Medical, advised via email: "Shake OR fries OR burger, not all 3 at once!"
But Katz of the Yale Prevention Center had advice for those who sought to make an example of the first lady's lunch.
"I invite only those whose diets are housed with no walls of glass to hurl a burger in the first lady's direction on the basis of this one lunch," Katz said.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
These people just expose who they really are when they jump on non stories like this.
what's next, jamie oliver has a big mac?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
yahoo.com
SEATTLE (AP) — A healthy diet is expensive and could make it difficult for Americans to meet new U.S. nutritional guidelines, according to a study published Thursday that says the government should do more to help consumers eat healthier.
An update of what used to be known as a food pyramid in 2010 had called on Americans to eat more foods containing potassium, dietary fiber, vitamin D and calcium. But if they did that, the journal Health Affairs said, they would add hundreds more dollars to their annual grocery bill.
Inexpensive ways to add these nutrients to a person's diet include potatoes and beans for potassium and dietary fiber. But the study found introducing more potassium in a diet is likely to add $380 per year to the average consumer's food costs, said lead researcher Pablo Monsivais, an assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and the School of Public Health at the University of Washington.
"We know more than ever about the science of nutrition, and yet we have not yet been able to move the needle on healthful eating," he said. The government should provide help for meeting the nutritional guidelines in an affordable way.
He criticized some of the marketing for a healthy diet — for example, the image of a plate of salmon, leafy greens and maybe some rice pilaf — and said a meal like that is not affordable for many Americans.
Food-assistance programs are helping people make healthier choices by providing coupons to buy fruits and vegetables, Monsivais said, but some also put stumbling blocks in front of the poor.
He mentioned, as an example, a Washington state policy making it difficult to buy potatoes with food assistance coupons for women with children, even though potatoes are one of the least expensive ways to add potassium to a diet.
The study was based on a random telephone survey of about 2,000 adults in King County, Wash., followed by a printed questionnaire that was returned by about 1,300 people. They note what food they ate, which was analyzed for nutrient content and estimated cost.
People who spend the most on food tend to get the closest to meeting the federal guidelines for potassium, dietary fiber, vitamin D and calcium, the study found. Those who spend the least have the lowest intakes of the four recommended nutrients and the highest consumption of saturated fat and added sugar.
Hilary Seligman, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said Monsivais' research is an interesting addition to the debate about healthy eating and food insecurity, her area of expertise.
A lot of people assume the poor eat cheap food because it tastes good, but they would make better choices if they could afford to, said Seligman, who was not involved in the Health Affairs study.
"Almost 15 percent of households in America say they don't have enough money to eat the way they want to eat," Seligman said. Recent estimates show 49 million Americans make food decisions based on cost, she added.
"Right now, a huge chunk of America just isn't able to adhere to these guidelines," she said.
But Monsivais may have oversimplified the problem, according to another professor who does research in this area. Parke Wilde, associated professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, said it's not expensive to get all the nutrients a body needs to meet the federal guidelines.
What is expensive, in Wilde's opinion, are the choices Americans make while getting those nutrients.
He said diets get more and more expensive depending on how many rules a person applies to himself, such as eating organic or seeking local sources for food or eating vegetables out of season.
"The longer your list gets, the more expensive your list will be," he said.
Seligman said her list can get longer than Wilde's, but not everything is a choice. Adding to the cost of buying healthful food could be how far away from home a person needs to travel to get to a grocery store that sells a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables.
The government also affects food prices through the subsidies offered to farmers growing certain crops, she added.
SEATTLE (AP) — A healthy diet is expensive and could make it difficult for Americans to meet new U.S. nutritional guidelines, according to a study published Thursday that says the government should do more to help consumers eat healthier.
An update of what used to be known as a food pyramid in 2010 had called on Americans to eat more foods containing potassium, dietary fiber, vitamin D and calcium. But if they did that, the journal Health Affairs said, they would add hundreds more dollars to their annual grocery bill.
Inexpensive ways to add these nutrients to a person's diet include potatoes and beans for potassium and dietary fiber. But the study found introducing more potassium in a diet is likely to add $380 per year to the average consumer's food costs, said lead researcher Pablo Monsivais, an assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and the School of Public Health at the University of Washington.
"We know more than ever about the science of nutrition, and yet we have not yet been able to move the needle on healthful eating," he said. The government should provide help for meeting the nutritional guidelines in an affordable way.
He criticized some of the marketing for a healthy diet — for example, the image of a plate of salmon, leafy greens and maybe some rice pilaf — and said a meal like that is not affordable for many Americans.
Food-assistance programs are helping people make healthier choices by providing coupons to buy fruits and vegetables, Monsivais said, but some also put stumbling blocks in front of the poor.
He mentioned, as an example, a Washington state policy making it difficult to buy potatoes with food assistance coupons for women with children, even though potatoes are one of the least expensive ways to add potassium to a diet.
The study was based on a random telephone survey of about 2,000 adults in King County, Wash., followed by a printed questionnaire that was returned by about 1,300 people. They note what food they ate, which was analyzed for nutrient content and estimated cost.
People who spend the most on food tend to get the closest to meeting the federal guidelines for potassium, dietary fiber, vitamin D and calcium, the study found. Those who spend the least have the lowest intakes of the four recommended nutrients and the highest consumption of saturated fat and added sugar.
Hilary Seligman, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said Monsivais' research is an interesting addition to the debate about healthy eating and food insecurity, her area of expertise.
A lot of people assume the poor eat cheap food because it tastes good, but they would make better choices if they could afford to, said Seligman, who was not involved in the Health Affairs study.
"Almost 15 percent of households in America say they don't have enough money to eat the way they want to eat," Seligman said. Recent estimates show 49 million Americans make food decisions based on cost, she added.
"Right now, a huge chunk of America just isn't able to adhere to these guidelines," she said.
But Monsivais may have oversimplified the problem, according to another professor who does research in this area. Parke Wilde, associated professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, said it's not expensive to get all the nutrients a body needs to meet the federal guidelines.
What is expensive, in Wilde's opinion, are the choices Americans make while getting those nutrients.
He said diets get more and more expensive depending on how many rules a person applies to himself, such as eating organic or seeking local sources for food or eating vegetables out of season.
"The longer your list gets, the more expensive your list will be," he said.
Seligman said her list can get longer than Wilde's, but not everything is a choice. Adding to the cost of buying healthful food could be how far away from home a person needs to travel to get to a grocery store that sells a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables.
The government also affects food prices through the subsidies offered to farmers growing certain crops, she added.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
'Maggie Goes on a Diet' Author Paul Kramer Defends Teen Dieting Book - ABC News
By JESSICA HOPPER and JANE E. ALLEN, ABC News Medical Unit
Aug. 23, 2011
Author Paul Kramer defended his controversial children's book "Maggie Goes on a Diet" by saying a book about a dieting teenage girl helps kids make healthy choices.
"My intentions were just to write a story to entice and to have children feel better about themselves, discover a new way of eating, learn to do exercise, try to emulate Maggie and learn from Maggie's experience," Kramer told "Good Morning America" today. "Children are pretty smart ... and they will make a good choice if you give them that opportunity."
Kramer's book won't be released until October, but it's already generated controversy. Negative comments from worried parents and weight-loss experts about the book's weight-loss message have flooded the Internet.
One person wrote, "Terrible reflection on our society, boycott the book. ... This is awful."
The book starts with an overweight Maggie who is teased and made fun of at school, and seeks comfort in food. It ends with a fit, healthy Maggie who is the school's soccer star. The thinner, more popular Maggie is more self-confident and has a more positive self-image.
"Maggie is accepting that kids are mean and kids can be mean and she has decided to do something about it, to take things in her own hands, try to change her own life, try to make herself healthy by exercising. She does want to look better. She does want to feel better and she does not want to be teased," Kramer said.
The picture book targets young readers. Barnes & Noble's website says the book is for readers 6 to 12 years old; Amazon's site says ages 4 to 8.
Kramer knows that using the word "diet" in the book's title can be risky.
"If I entitled the book 'Maggie Eats Healthy,' somebody in a bookstore ... is really not going to identify with someone who has been overweight, who has health problems," Kramer said. "Diet is a kind of a misconstrued word, and it has many, many meanings."
Kramer, a New York native, has made a second career in Hawaii writing children's books he self-publishes through Aloha Publishing,
Maggie's weight-loss journey is just one of several self-published children's books in which the author tackles what he calls "the issues that kids face today."
He wrote about bullying in the 2010's "Bullies Beware!" and tried to help kids deal with bed-wetting and divorce in "Do Not Dread Wetting the Bed" and "Divorce Stinks!" -- both due out this fall. The books are written in rhyme and meant to be read by parents alongside their kids.
Logan Levkoff, a relationship expert and author of "Third Base Ain't What it Used to Be," said that the "Maggie Goes on a Diet" does do good by sparking a conversation with children.
"The only upside to this book is that it gives us an opportunity to talk about how bad our priorities are and give us the opportunity to change them and to say to our kids, this is now who I want you to be," Levkoff said.
Weight-Loss Experts Challenge "Maggie Goes on a Diet"
Weight-loss experts say that the storybook plotline doesn't reflect what happens in real children's lives. Joanne Ikeda is the co-founding director of the University of California at Berkeley's Center on Weight and Health.
Highlighting imperfections in a boy's or girl's body "does not empower a child to adopt good eating habits," Ikeda said.
In real life, dieting down to a smaller clothing size doesn't guarantee living happily ever after.
"Body dissatisfaction is a major risk for eating disorders in children all the way up through adulthood," she said.
Experts Say 'Maggie Goes on a Diet' Sends Dangerous Message to Kids
Furthermore, role models like Maggie can perpetuate the idea that "if you don't look like Cinderella, you're a failure," Ikeda said. "I wouldn't want a child to read this ... because they might, in fact, try to do this and fail. What is that going to do to their self-esteem?"
Ikeda spoke to ABCNews.com without seeing the book.
She described Kramer's response to the public health perils of pediatric obesity as "well-intentioned but very misguided. It reminds me of the old saying 'fools rush in where angels fear to tread.' It's unfortunate that he didn't consult with people experienced in treating pediatric overweight."
Nutritionists and pediatricians today encourage overweight youngsters to eat a good, balanced diet and exercise regularly, rather than become caught up in weight-loss plans.
The idea that a child of 6 to 10 might read a book about dieting and try to emulate the main character runs counter to the policies of mainstream plans like Weight Watchers. Weight Watchers excludes from its weekly meetings any children under the age of 10, and only admits those 10 to 16 "with a doctor's note identifying the weight goal for the child."
Youngsters must be at least 13 to participate in Weight Watchers' newer online program.
For boys and girls who haven't yet passed through puberty, cutting calories poses "the danger of stunting growth and height," Ikeda said. "As a consequence, most responsible health professionals would not recommend dieting, even for overweight children. There's usually the strategy of trying to help children grow into their weight."
Pediatric obesity literature contains cases "where children restricted their calorie intake because they were so afraid of becoming fat that they actually slowed down their growth curve," she said. In addition, some researchers have reported that dieting among teenage girls "leads to greater risk of overweight than among girls who don't diet during their teenage years."
In her own study of women carrying around hundreds of extra pounds, Ikeda found that the heaviest among them "had actually started dieting before they were 13."
Extreme weight fluctuations from years of yo-yo dieting can be downright dangerous, Ikeda said, and "contribute to increased risk of obesity, coronary heart disease and hypertension."
Kramer argues that people are judging a book by its cover instead of waiting to read the book when it comes out.
By JESSICA HOPPER and JANE E. ALLEN, ABC News Medical Unit
Aug. 23, 2011
Author Paul Kramer defended his controversial children's book "Maggie Goes on a Diet" by saying a book about a dieting teenage girl helps kids make healthy choices.
"My intentions were just to write a story to entice and to have children feel better about themselves, discover a new way of eating, learn to do exercise, try to emulate Maggie and learn from Maggie's experience," Kramer told "Good Morning America" today. "Children are pretty smart ... and they will make a good choice if you give them that opportunity."
Kramer's book won't be released until October, but it's already generated controversy. Negative comments from worried parents and weight-loss experts about the book's weight-loss message have flooded the Internet.
One person wrote, "Terrible reflection on our society, boycott the book. ... This is awful."
The book starts with an overweight Maggie who is teased and made fun of at school, and seeks comfort in food. It ends with a fit, healthy Maggie who is the school's soccer star. The thinner, more popular Maggie is more self-confident and has a more positive self-image.
"Maggie is accepting that kids are mean and kids can be mean and she has decided to do something about it, to take things in her own hands, try to change her own life, try to make herself healthy by exercising. She does want to look better. She does want to feel better and she does not want to be teased," Kramer said.
The picture book targets young readers. Barnes & Noble's website says the book is for readers 6 to 12 years old; Amazon's site says ages 4 to 8.
Kramer knows that using the word "diet" in the book's title can be risky.
"If I entitled the book 'Maggie Eats Healthy,' somebody in a bookstore ... is really not going to identify with someone who has been overweight, who has health problems," Kramer said. "Diet is a kind of a misconstrued word, and it has many, many meanings."
Kramer, a New York native, has made a second career in Hawaii writing children's books he self-publishes through Aloha Publishing,
Maggie's weight-loss journey is just one of several self-published children's books in which the author tackles what he calls "the issues that kids face today."
He wrote about bullying in the 2010's "Bullies Beware!" and tried to help kids deal with bed-wetting and divorce in "Do Not Dread Wetting the Bed" and "Divorce Stinks!" -- both due out this fall. The books are written in rhyme and meant to be read by parents alongside their kids.
Logan Levkoff, a relationship expert and author of "Third Base Ain't What it Used to Be," said that the "Maggie Goes on a Diet" does do good by sparking a conversation with children.
"The only upside to this book is that it gives us an opportunity to talk about how bad our priorities are and give us the opportunity to change them and to say to our kids, this is now who I want you to be," Levkoff said.
Weight-Loss Experts Challenge "Maggie Goes on a Diet"
Weight-loss experts say that the storybook plotline doesn't reflect what happens in real children's lives. Joanne Ikeda is the co-founding director of the University of California at Berkeley's Center on Weight and Health.
Highlighting imperfections in a boy's or girl's body "does not empower a child to adopt good eating habits," Ikeda said.
In real life, dieting down to a smaller clothing size doesn't guarantee living happily ever after.
"Body dissatisfaction is a major risk for eating disorders in children all the way up through adulthood," she said.
Experts Say 'Maggie Goes on a Diet' Sends Dangerous Message to Kids
Furthermore, role models like Maggie can perpetuate the idea that "if you don't look like Cinderella, you're a failure," Ikeda said. "I wouldn't want a child to read this ... because they might, in fact, try to do this and fail. What is that going to do to their self-esteem?"
Ikeda spoke to ABCNews.com without seeing the book.
She described Kramer's response to the public health perils of pediatric obesity as "well-intentioned but very misguided. It reminds me of the old saying 'fools rush in where angels fear to tread.' It's unfortunate that he didn't consult with people experienced in treating pediatric overweight."
Nutritionists and pediatricians today encourage overweight youngsters to eat a good, balanced diet and exercise regularly, rather than become caught up in weight-loss plans.
The idea that a child of 6 to 10 might read a book about dieting and try to emulate the main character runs counter to the policies of mainstream plans like Weight Watchers. Weight Watchers excludes from its weekly meetings any children under the age of 10, and only admits those 10 to 16 "with a doctor's note identifying the weight goal for the child."
Youngsters must be at least 13 to participate in Weight Watchers' newer online program.
For boys and girls who haven't yet passed through puberty, cutting calories poses "the danger of stunting growth and height," Ikeda said. "As a consequence, most responsible health professionals would not recommend dieting, even for overweight children. There's usually the strategy of trying to help children grow into their weight."
Pediatric obesity literature contains cases "where children restricted their calorie intake because they were so afraid of becoming fat that they actually slowed down their growth curve," she said. In addition, some researchers have reported that dieting among teenage girls "leads to greater risk of overweight than among girls who don't diet during their teenage years."
In her own study of women carrying around hundreds of extra pounds, Ikeda found that the heaviest among them "had actually started dieting before they were 13."
Extreme weight fluctuations from years of yo-yo dieting can be downright dangerous, Ikeda said, and "contribute to increased risk of obesity, coronary heart disease and hypertension."
Kramer argues that people are judging a book by its cover instead of waiting to read the book when it comes out.
Hmm. I think if a parent who is pressuring their child to lose weight and then reads this book to them, then I think this book is a bad idea. I believe it all comes down to the parents. If the parents are making their kid's weight an issue, it would register more with the child than some book.
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
From the link:
"CCF was set up in 1995 by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, with $600,000 from the Philip Morris tobacco company."
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
My point exactly. CCF is a lobbyist propaganda group run by corporate interests.
Canadiens1131
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,363
More ammo for the f00d p0li$e (alternate title: your kids are fucking fat and will get diabetes from downing sugar water all day)
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Sometimes I do wish it was easier to condition people to just practice moderation, rather than conditioning them to view certain foods as if they were poisons.
Canadiens1131
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,363
Exactly. Everything in moderation. You ask, "why do the French eat all this fatty food and not get overweight?" They eat longer meals, smaller portions, and eat in moderation. (well, except for the vino)
Unfortunately it seems like so many fail to heed this warning.
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
It's the main point in this issue!
Well said in both posts.
"Moderation in all things." ~Saint Paul
i like that the story comes from atlanta.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I saw on the news last night that peanut butter is good for you, has a good type of fat that has to do with good cell growth, etc. 
I just wish it didn't have to be in moderation.
I haven't had soda in years-well maybe one or two ginger ales a year
I just wish it didn't have to be in moderation.I haven't had soda in years-well maybe one or two ginger ales a year
if you have a couple dark chocolate reeses peanut butter cups then you get double duty. 
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I saw on the news last night that peanut butter is good for you, has a good type of fat that has to do with good cell growth, etc.
I haven't had soda in years-well maybe one or two ginger ales a year
Ginger Ale is my favorite soda. I buy an organic ginger soda.
Not every day, but I do enjoy one ocassionally without guilt.
Also love peanut butter
The Food Police
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
I love PB&J too. That's my lunch more often than not (on whole grain toast), and I'm a grown-ass adult.
Iron Horse, your attitudes toward food and physical activity seem very sensible. If only everyone could think that way. But they don't, obviously. So what would your attitude/solution toward those who don't be? Leave them on their own and let them wallow in their own poor-nutrition worlds and suffer the inherent diseases? Should the government attempt to inform about poor choices? Should they regulate? Where is your personal line?
Iron Horse, your attitudes toward food and physical activity seem very sensible. If only everyone could think that way. But they don't, obviously. So what would your attitude/solution toward those who don't be? Leave them on their own and let them wallow in their own poor-nutrition worlds and suffer the inherent diseases? Should the government attempt to inform about poor choices? Should they regulate? Where is your personal line?
Canadiens1131
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,363
No man is an island.
Overweight and obese people put a tremendous stress on the healthcare system in the United States, whether Iron Horse decides to make his own sensible individual choices or not. These people cost him, and every taxpayer money.
I wonder why many conservatives seem to have this fallacy of a view that every family lives on a large parcel of land with a home they earned through the American dream and the personal freedom and space to not ever affect any other individual in society negatively.
It's the "plantation", 19th century view of society and in this day and age it's ludicrous.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
