MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
No toys for Timmy? Geez-pot was voted down in CA too. I guess the hippies and flower power folks were too busy getting stoned to get out to the polls.
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
A stor
Refugee
Good point Finance Guy.
People my age drank whole milk as children, had real butter on their toast and then played outside. None of my friends or I were obese. Actually, we were quite skinny. Obesity at that time, was extremely rare for children and was more often due to medical problems, than lifestyle.
P.S. Iron Horse, I don't find your threads or post offensive. I enjoy reading everyone's point of view. It helps me to learn more about these topics.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I've loved whole milk since I was a kid. I can't stomach skim milk or any other kinds of milk, the taste is just too gross for me. So now I drink Hood Simply Smart Fat Free that tastes like 2%. It's delicious-0 fat grams and 90 calories/serving. I have two glasses a day.
A stor
Refugee
No toys for Timmy? Geez-pot was voted down in CA too. I guess the hippies and flower power folks were too busy getting stoned to get out to the polls.
I'd rather have a glass of whole milk than weed! Seriously, I would.
A stor
Refugee
I don't eat pork, but once in while I do love a cheeseburger made at home. I get the leanest ground beef and use water instead of added oils to cook it. I have to eat proteins. So it is the turkey version for ham, bacon and sausage.
I take my nephew once a week usually.. the toys are pretty bad ass actually.
This one talks and shoots an acorn off his chest.
And this one shoots the dude off the animal (no idea what it is.. my nephew knows all their names)
Then we got Halloween buckets last week with stickers.
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
Cute, Sicy
fortunately enough this decision lines up perfectly with mcdonalds new marketing campaign.
kramwest1
has a
Quorn vegetarian stuff is quite good. It's not Tofu; it's protein from egg whites and fungus (mushrooms). I like their fake turkey loaf a lot. It doesn't look terribly appetizing, but whatever.
Quorn's fake chicken strips are good, too. I like them on salads.
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
I try to stay away from a lot of the fake meat stuff. I hear too much processed soy isnt good for you and that seems to be what most are made of. Plus, they're so god damn expensive. I'll see if my grocery store carries the stuff you mentioned, Kramwest
kramwest1
has a
That's why I like it, also because I don't want Soy man-boobs.
It's in an orange-ish package, and I think comes from the U.K.
Believe it or not, locally, Target has the best prices on Quorn stuff.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
By Elisa Zied, R.D.
msnbc.com contributor
updated 11/4/2010
COMMENTARY
The McDonald's Happy Meal is bummed.
The decision of San Francisco city officials Tuesday to crack down on restaurant meals that include free toys unless they meet particular nutritional guidelines is -- depending on whom you ask -- either taking away a parents' right to choose what to feed their children, as some msnbc.com readers have commented, or a gift to frazzled parents up against a massive marketing machine.
What it most likely isn't, however, is a solution to the childhood obesity epidemic.
In an effort to curb the swelling rates of kids who are overweight or obese, the city's Board of Supervisors voted in favor of a law that would require any meals that package a free toy to include fruits and vegetables and contain no more than 600 calories or 35 percent of its calories from fat (about 210 calories or 23 grams of fat). The meals would also have to contain a beverage that's not loaded with sugar or fat.
The board will revisit and vote again on the law Tuesday, Nov. 9. If passed, the law, expected to go into effect on Dec. 1, 2011, is intended to promote healthy eating habits among kids.
"This is a tremendous victory for our children's health," Supervisor Eric Mar, chief sponsor of the legislation, told the San Francisco Chronicle.
A typical McDonald's Happy Meal can contain up to a whopping 26 grams of fat and between 400 to 580 calories — about half the calories an average 4 or 5 year old should consume in an entire day.
At a time when an estimated 17 percent of young people aged 2-19 years are obese and about an equal number are overweight, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the restriction on the popular Happy Meal is a worthy effort.
A typical Happy Meal, with its plastic "Shrek" toys or other action figures, includes either a hamburger or chicken McNuggets, small french fries and a soda, low-fat chocolate milk or apple juice, all to the tune of about 400 calories to 580 calories and up to a whopping 26 grams of fat. For a typical, sedentary 4-5 year-old that's about half of the average 1,200 daily calories needed and about 39 percent of calories needed by a typical 9-year-old.
That's fine if the child is eating a Happy Meal only for special occasions, not every day. But studies have shown that fast food makes up a substantial portion of kids’ calorie intake, and research suggests that children and adolescents who consume fast food tend to consume more total calories, fat, and sodium and have less healthful diets than those who do not.
McDonald's expressed disappointment in the ordinance. "Parents tell us it's their right and responsibility — not the government's — to make their own decisions and to choose what’s right for their children," McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said in a statement.
Sure, parents can, and do, have a say about what their kids eat, but it's increasingly tough for them to ignore all the temptations out there. Kids are bombarded with food marketing: in 2006 about $870 billion was spent on advertising meals to the under 12 set, the prime target for Happy Meals, according to a 2008 Federal Trade Commission report.
It's doubtful that the Happy Meal measure will do much to reverse the tide of overweight children. There are many causes of childhood obesity, including genetic and lifestyle ones. Decreased physical activity, too many sugary beverages and increased overall calorie intake are factors.
In fact, ostracizing fatty meals that come with plastic promotional toys could have the unintended consequence of making the product even more appealing to kids, says Chicago-based nutritionist and msnbc.com contributor Janet Helm, R.D., who writes a blog called Nutrition Unplugged.
"It's the forbidden fruit syndrome," Helm says. "In the end, what have we taught families about how to make more nutritious choices? I believe in balance, not avoidance."
On the other hand, if kids are told they can have the toy if they choose lower-calorie options, they may, in fact, do that. Only time, and real-world studies, will tell.
Another potential positive outcome could be the extra push for restaurants to offer more healthful menu options for kids.
"What about a grilled chicken sandwich instead of fried nuggets?" asks New York nutritionist and Bonnie Taub-Dix, author of “Read it Before You Eat It.” "There's no grilled chicken sandwich for kids at McDonalds. And what about a fish sandwich that's not breaded and fried with breading that's thicker than the fish?"
msnbc.com contributor
updated 11/4/2010
COMMENTARY
The McDonald's Happy Meal is bummed.
The decision of San Francisco city officials Tuesday to crack down on restaurant meals that include free toys unless they meet particular nutritional guidelines is -- depending on whom you ask -- either taking away a parents' right to choose what to feed their children, as some msnbc.com readers have commented, or a gift to frazzled parents up against a massive marketing machine.
What it most likely isn't, however, is a solution to the childhood obesity epidemic.
In an effort to curb the swelling rates of kids who are overweight or obese, the city's Board of Supervisors voted in favor of a law that would require any meals that package a free toy to include fruits and vegetables and contain no more than 600 calories or 35 percent of its calories from fat (about 210 calories or 23 grams of fat). The meals would also have to contain a beverage that's not loaded with sugar or fat.
The board will revisit and vote again on the law Tuesday, Nov. 9. If passed, the law, expected to go into effect on Dec. 1, 2011, is intended to promote healthy eating habits among kids.
"This is a tremendous victory for our children's health," Supervisor Eric Mar, chief sponsor of the legislation, told the San Francisco Chronicle.
A typical McDonald's Happy Meal can contain up to a whopping 26 grams of fat and between 400 to 580 calories — about half the calories an average 4 or 5 year old should consume in an entire day.
At a time when an estimated 17 percent of young people aged 2-19 years are obese and about an equal number are overweight, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the restriction on the popular Happy Meal is a worthy effort.
A typical Happy Meal, with its plastic "Shrek" toys or other action figures, includes either a hamburger or chicken McNuggets, small french fries and a soda, low-fat chocolate milk or apple juice, all to the tune of about 400 calories to 580 calories and up to a whopping 26 grams of fat. For a typical, sedentary 4-5 year-old that's about half of the average 1,200 daily calories needed and about 39 percent of calories needed by a typical 9-year-old.
That's fine if the child is eating a Happy Meal only for special occasions, not every day. But studies have shown that fast food makes up a substantial portion of kids’ calorie intake, and research suggests that children and adolescents who consume fast food tend to consume more total calories, fat, and sodium and have less healthful diets than those who do not.
McDonald's expressed disappointment in the ordinance. "Parents tell us it's their right and responsibility — not the government's — to make their own decisions and to choose what’s right for their children," McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said in a statement.
Sure, parents can, and do, have a say about what their kids eat, but it's increasingly tough for them to ignore all the temptations out there. Kids are bombarded with food marketing: in 2006 about $870 billion was spent on advertising meals to the under 12 set, the prime target for Happy Meals, according to a 2008 Federal Trade Commission report.
It's doubtful that the Happy Meal measure will do much to reverse the tide of overweight children. There are many causes of childhood obesity, including genetic and lifestyle ones. Decreased physical activity, too many sugary beverages and increased overall calorie intake are factors.
In fact, ostracizing fatty meals that come with plastic promotional toys could have the unintended consequence of making the product even more appealing to kids, says Chicago-based nutritionist and msnbc.com contributor Janet Helm, R.D., who writes a blog called Nutrition Unplugged.
"It's the forbidden fruit syndrome," Helm says. "In the end, what have we taught families about how to make more nutritious choices? I believe in balance, not avoidance."
On the other hand, if kids are told they can have the toy if they choose lower-calorie options, they may, in fact, do that. Only time, and real-world studies, will tell.
Another potential positive outcome could be the extra push for restaurants to offer more healthful menu options for kids.
"What about a grilled chicken sandwich instead of fried nuggets?" asks New York nutritionist and Bonnie Taub-Dix, author of “Read it Before You Eat It.” "There's no grilled chicken sandwich for kids at McDonalds. And what about a fish sandwich that's not breaded and fried with breading that's thicker than the fish?"
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
...I like breaded fish...
No one's saying it, but through their actions that's pretty much what they're doing.
You are right that certain lifestyles make it harder to have proper home meals, but at the very least I should think you'd be able to have the ability to have stuff around for families to throw together a quick, healthy sandwich and grab a banana or apple or something if that's all they have time for.
You have to eat. You don't have to smoke. I don't disagree that there is crap being put into fast food, or food in many other places, that shouldn't be there and we should certainly take those "ingredients" out of the food, but I still think being shocked that a fast food place isn't the healthiest option and expecting them to suddenly start putting in fruit and veggies and such and be a world of healthdom is strange-I guess I've just always assumed that was kind of a "No duh".
And there's lots of crap that's marketed to kids that shouldn't be. That's why the responsibility lies with the parents in steering their kids away from such things. It may be "tough" to resist the temptations, but it can be done. Besides, okay, so we take away the marketing to kids. It's still being marketed to adults. The best solution is to just not eat there. If they want to remain a viable business, once they see they're losing money they may be willing to change on their own. Or they'll just fold altogether. That said, if it's not McDonald's that will push unhealthy eating habits on your kids, it's something else. You got rid of the problem at one restaurant, but you haven't solved the problem altogether, period. Start teaching your kids healthy habits at home.
And not to mention, people react to things differently, too. Some people live unhealthy lives and still have a nice long lifespan. Some people live healthy lifestyles and still get cancer and die young. Of course, you're generally more likely to live longer if you take care of yourself, but there's always exceptions to the rule.
I've never seen the movie, but if that is indeed the premise, then, um, yeah, kinda have to agree with that. Again, "no duh".
Angela
No one's saying it, but through their actions that's pretty much what they're doing.
You are right that certain lifestyles make it harder to have proper home meals, but at the very least I should think you'd be able to have the ability to have stuff around for families to throw together a quick, healthy sandwich and grab a banana or apple or something if that's all they have time for.
You have to eat. You don't have to smoke. I don't disagree that there is crap being put into fast food, or food in many other places, that shouldn't be there and we should certainly take those "ingredients" out of the food, but I still think being shocked that a fast food place isn't the healthiest option and expecting them to suddenly start putting in fruit and veggies and such and be a world of healthdom is strange-I guess I've just always assumed that was kind of a "No duh".
And there's lots of crap that's marketed to kids that shouldn't be. That's why the responsibility lies with the parents in steering their kids away from such things. It may be "tough" to resist the temptations, but it can be done. Besides, okay, so we take away the marketing to kids. It's still being marketed to adults. The best solution is to just not eat there. If they want to remain a viable business, once they see they're losing money they may be willing to change on their own. Or they'll just fold altogether. That said, if it's not McDonald's that will push unhealthy eating habits on your kids, it's something else. You got rid of the problem at one restaurant, but you haven't solved the problem altogether, period. Start teaching your kids healthy habits at home.
And not to mention, people react to things differently, too. Some people live unhealthy lives and still have a nice long lifespan. Some people live healthy lifestyles and still get cancer and die young. Of course, you're generally more likely to live longer if you take care of yourself, but there's always exceptions to the rule.
I've never seen the movie, but if that is indeed the premise, then, um, yeah, kinda have to agree with that. Again, "no duh".
Angela
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Why does having to eat make it ok to market poison to kids?
But they're already making options with fruit instead of fries, or veggie instead of fries. This law is saying that those that reach certain nutritional expectations CAN have the toy.
At the end of the day, no one's freedom of choice has been violated. End of story.
...
cobl04
45:33
they're way better than oursI take my nephew once a week usually.. the toys are pretty bad ass actually.
This one talks and shoots an acorn off his chest.
And this one shoots the dude off the animal (no idea what it is.. my nephew knows all their names)
Then we got Halloween buckets last week with stickers.
no need to add
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
I had a feeling that might be confusing thinking back on it, sorry
. I just meant that even if food is bad, it's still food, and it's still necessary to eat something. Again, you'll get no argument from me that fast food places should do away with the crap that does get put into meat and such and keep it natural and "clean", but the stuff you eat from McDonald's probably isn't any better or worse than half the other crap that we ingest into our bodies day in and day out, intentionally or otherwise. The marketing stuff is dumb, though, yes. But I think marketing unhealthy things is bad regardless of whether you're targeting children or adults. Until the day comes when practices like that are made illegal, which I don't see happening anytime soon, in the meantime the best thing we can do is just resist the marketing as much as possible and encourage others to avoid it as well.
And all I'm saying is I don't understand why we're expecting a fast food place to suddenly provide fruit or vegetables. It just always seemed bizarre to me that people are suddenly having this revelation that a place that serves greasy, quickly made food is not the healthiest option. This is news?
As for the toy thing, I really don't care about that aspect of it all. I have no opinion one way or another on that.
Oh, absolutely. Please don't misunderstand, I'm certainly not sitting here believing this is some horrid conspiracy by the government or anything, 'cause it really isn't and to think otherwise is quite funny. I just think some personal responsibility is in order, is all. So long as a product is legal, regardless of how good or bad it is, people are going to sell it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. And you can put all the healthy food in you want, you can change the menus all you wish, but the obesity problem will still exist in other forms, and we have to solve it across the board.
Angela
kramwest1
has a
oh, well since you put it that way...
Seriously, when you get down to it, think of the clinical description of almost anything you eat. Gross.
Mmmm, this is the meaty, tissue-y, stringy packet of vitamins that is rotting to provide the medium for the seeds to repropagate.
(^any fruit)
A stor
Refugee
I just became a vegaterian. 
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
I love the Quorn grounds. Great in dishes where you would use ground beef or turkey such as chili, spaghetti sauce, soups, etc.
kramwest1
has a
I haven't tried their ground meat substitute yet. I will.
I've used Morningstar Farm's and Smart Food's though--both pretty good. I love it in spaghetti sauce.
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
I've got a friend on facebook (who I'm quickly coming to despise) that constantly spams with vegetarian propaganda. His latest go to argument is that humans are truly herbivores and when we eat meat, we're going against what nature intends. I really want to punch him in his face
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
^ I don't know if there's any scientific discipline--maybe even academic discipline, period--more bastardized than nutrition by people who think they're experts, based on having read one book by some underqualified expert or another zealously promoting his preferred way of eating--vegan, Paleo, raw, Atkins, whatever. I like browsing cooking blogs and forums occasionally, but I avoid their "nutrition" subforums like the plague (unless I'm looking for lols), because they're full of people who couldn't manage a basic explanation of how bruises form or toenails grow, pontificating about how those devious Food Police have been lying all along about ____ being bad for you, as proven by this 1949 study on Pipsqueak Islanders by Dr. Nobody--they ate it all the time yet had the BEST serum albumin, mean corpuscular volume, and glycated hemoglobin levels he'd ever seen, blah blah blah. They'll have boatloads of factoids memorized, and can spit them up on cue when they spot the right trigger words, but you can tell they don't actually understand anything they're saying, and it'd be total deer-in-the-headlights time if an actual nutritionist joined the discussion and asked them to elaborate on something.
Last edited:
iron yuppie
ONE love, blood, life
I understand that vegetarians can be a self-righteous bunch, as I've been one for quite some time. But I also cannot tell you how many times I've heard the same type of "natural" argument used against me - and without provocation, I might add - as in "it is biologically natural for humans to eat meat." The irony there is that, unless those people are eating meat from a local farm, there is probably nothing "natural" about what they are consuming.
My point here, I suppose, is that meat-eaters can be just as defensive and self-righteous about their diet as can vegetarians. Trust me, I've seen it more times than I care to relate.
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
No doubt. I actually hate telling people I'm vegetarian because it's tiring to have to tell them why. Either that or "oh, you're one of them". I guess the difference being that the self righteous vegetarians are actively trying to convert people, while the self righteous meat eaters are more reactionary.
My problem with my facebook friend's point isn't his use of the 'natural' arguement, but rather his blatant use of misinformation and outright lying to try and convert people. when you have to lie to support your cause, you've sort of lost your way
My problem with my facebook friend's point isn't his use of the 'natural' arguement, but rather his blatant use of misinformation and outright lying to try and convert people. when you have to lie to support your cause, you've sort of lost your way
iron yuppie
ONE love, blood, life
You raise a great point about the proselytizing. It's strictly unnecessary on both sides. I don't try to convert anybody, nor do I talk about my reasons unless I am directly asked. Even then, I usually dodge the question for the same reasons that you mentioned.
I do have one story worth sharing about people inquiring about my reasons. I met a girl at a restaurant, and she offered me a chicken wing. I refused, and she asked me why. When I told her that I was a vegetarian, she responded with the following: "Doesn't it say in the Bible that God put animals here for us to use?"
It was the worst first impression of my entire life.
I do have one story worth sharing about people inquiring about my reasons. I met a girl at a restaurant, and she offered me a chicken wing. I refused, and she asked me why. When I told her that I was a vegetarian, she responded with the following: "Doesn't it say in the Bible that God put animals here for us to use?"
It was the worst first impression of my entire life.
kramwest1
has a
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
hahaha
No matter how hot that girl was, I would no longer be able to look at her the same way
No matter how hot that girl was, I would no longer be able to look at her the same way
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Sounds like the best way to handle it. Vegetarian or meat-eater, I do not care, whatever tastes good to you. Just respect each other's choices. Oh, no 
. I'm sorry!Angela
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Thanks to Finance Guy and to you for your comments.
And if I may kindly say, to all comments on this thread.
A Stor, to me you nailed the issue with your comment about back in day.
I teach in the same public middle that I attended as a student years ago.
Like you said, back then we were drinking whole milk, butter on our toast, drinking small cokes(sweetened with cane sugar) and walking to school, riding bicycles to school, and playing outside.
I remember only a few kids who were obese. We were skinny.
Today, many of my student are obese. I would guess that almost half of them are overweight.
What do they tell me they do after school?
They are either watching TV or online.
Often until very late in the evening.
When I drive through the neighborhood today, it's rare to see kids outside playing.
What are they eating at school?
My best description is no salt, low-fat, mechanically processed junk food.
For example: low-fat chocolate milk sweetened with high fructose corn syrup.
Lunch is only 28 minutes long and student who choose to eat outside must remain seated. No outside basketball games, no running on the track field, no physical activity.
The elementary schools, in our district, have recess time down to ten or fifteen minutes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
