Government and our eating habits

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

But therein lies the difference. People trust the government, and the government screwed them over with their diet recommendations.

What?!?!? The government recommends 8 to 12 servings of fruits and vegetables every day. How many people get that? The reason people are obese is NOT because people trusted the Canadian Food Guide and followed it to the letter.

If blaming the government makes you feel better, go for it. But you are deluding yourself. As a formerly obese person, I can tell you right now the reason I was fat was because I absolutely IGNORED the Canadian Food Guide and ate pizza nuggets on Monday, Pizza Pops on Tuesday, Pizza burgers on Wednesday, Pizza subs on Thursday and Pizza Hut Pizza on Friday. And not because the government told me to do so. I lost the weight on a low-carb, NO-MEAT diet and feel better than ever.

And don't tell me that big business is being held accountable for their actions more than the government. That's crap. How many articles in these journals cover the corporate responsibility to provide healthy food choices. Low-salt organic prepared soups like Health Valley cost $4.99 for a single serving, while Campbells slaps a "low sodium" sticker on a can that provides 40% of your daily sodium on a "Health Smart" soup and where is that being discussed in the media?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

The biggest screwup by the government is subsidizing the corn industry, which basically subsidizes 'big food', or processed food.

Agreed, but you forgot about high-fructose corn syrup, which is also overabundant because of corn subsidies.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

And so long as those plants are mostly fruits and vegetables rather than carbs, I'm doing just fine thank you very much.

Where do you think we get most of our carbs?

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by Azure

Anyone who has taken about an hour of their life to look into how carbs react in your body would realize that a carb heavy recommendation for a society that becomes less and less active every year would only result in one thing. A lot of fat people.

So what's your excuse?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

What?!?!? The government recommends 8 to 12 servings of fruits and vegetables every day. How many people get that? The reason people are obese is NOT because people trusted the Canadian Food Guide and followed it to the letter.

If blaming the government makes you feel better, go for it. But you are deluding yourself. As a formerly obese person, I can tell you right now the reason I was fat was because I absolutely IGNORED the Canadian Food Guide and ate pizza nuggets on Monday, Pizza Pops on Tuesday, Pizza burgers on Wednesday, Pizza subs on Thursday and Pizza Hut Pizza on Friday. And not because the government told me to do so. I lost the weight on a low-carb, NO-MEAT diet and feel better than ever.

So, try to help me understand here. You say if you HAD followed the Food Guide, you would have remained a healthy NON obese person, and yet when it came to loosing weight you ignored just about everything the food guide said, and to THIS day remain a vegan(IIRC), which goes directly against the government sanctioned food guide.

Strange.

8-12 servings of fruit per day don't make you a healthy person. You need protein and fat as well, and unless you're crazy, no sane person is going to build a diet around 8-12 servings per day.

Fact is the government recommended more carbs for over 30 years. Bad carbs? No difference. White bread over whole wheat bread? No difference. And on top of that they subsidized the corn industry and helped push transfats into the market. Corn industry resulted in going away from natural sugar sources, like cane sugar, and towards unnatural sources like HFCS. What else did it do? Micheal Pollan answers that question.

Cheap corn, the dubious legacy of Earl Butz, is truly the building block of the ''fast-food nation.'' Cheap corn, transformed into high-fructose corn syrup, is what allowed Coca-Cola to move from the svelte 8-ounce bottle of soda ubiquitous in the 70's to the chubby 20-ounce bottle of today. Cheap corn, transformed into cheap beef, is what allowed McDonald's to supersize its burgers and still sell many of them for no more than a dollar. Cheap corn gave us a whole raft of new highly processed foods, including the world-beating chicken nugget, which, if you study its ingredients, you discover is really a most ingenious transubstantiation of corn, from the cornfed chicken it contains to the bulking and binding agents that hold it together.

There is an understandable reluctance to let Big Food off the hook. Yet by devising ever more ingenious ways to induce us to consume the surplus calories our farmers are producing, the food industry is only playing by a set of rules written by our government. (And maintained, it is true, with the industry's political muscle.) The political challenge now is to rewrite those rules, to develop a new set of agricultural policies that don't subsidize overproduction -- and overeating. For unless we somehow deal with the mountain of cheap grain that makes the Happy Meal and the Double Stuf Oreo such ''bargains,'' the calories are guaranteed to keep coming.

From a great article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/12/ma...l?pagewanted=1

And don't tell me that big business is being held accountable for their actions more than the government. That's crap. How many articles in these journals cover the corporate responsibility to provide healthy food choices. Low-salt organic prepared soups like Health Valley cost $4.99 for a single serving, while Campbells slaps a "low sodium" sticker on a can that provides 40% of your daily sodium on a "Health Smart" soup and where is that being discussed in the media?

Public demand is forcing big food companies to rethink their marketing strategy, and to think more about offering organic foods, some of which are a ploy.

I never said they're being held as accountable as they should be. I'm saying I agree with what Pollan is saying. Food companies, and farmers, all play by the rules that were written by the government.

And until that gets changed you're still going to have a problem with obesity.

[Vulcan]

I blame both big business and the government and it's not only our diets that are being screwed up.

The farm subsidies are wreaking havoc all over the world.

The Mexican illegal alien problem can be linked back to farm subsidies.

This interventionism does not only hurt the small American farmer, but it also causes problems in other countries. For example, in Mexico huge amounts of subsidized American corn, which is extremely cheap compared to domestically grown Mexican corn, has flooded the Mexican market.
This has caused Mexican farmers to no longer be competitive with prices, since they are not lucky enough to receive huge amounts of government money to make it. This has caused large populations of Mexican farmers to go broke and have to look to immigration to America to feed themselves and their families.

http://libreamerica.wordpress.com/20...rican-farmers/

The same thing is happening in Africa where you can buy a subsidized chicken from France cheaper than you can buy one from a local farmer.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by macker

We currently have a trillion dollar per year industry that feeds us processed food that destroys our health and a trillion dollar per year industry that treats the symptoms of eating processed food rather than the cause. Many politicians are overweight and eat on the run....Eventually the health care costs will force change....

In modern societies, food and variety has never been as cheap or as plentiful as it is today relative to the ability of the common man to pay.

We gorge ourselves because we can.

And we are no longer the physical labour-oriented, agrarian society we used to be. We are generally sloths as well. It used to be in England that gentlemen deliberately went for a portlier look as it was an indication of status, wealth and the fact he didn't have to labour.

Meanwhile, our lifespans have never been longer. We are not suffering from this alleged processed food. Not really.

Any one of us could be a healthy weight, well-exercised and fit if we chose to be.

In the USA, there is an epidemic of people who choose the alternative because it's available to them. And they have the right to choose.

Cowperson

[Sr. Mints]

I'm a fan of low carbing. I dont know--or care?--if others should be on them, but I like to tell people my story.

I've been taking insulin since I was four. When I was around 20, after having a hard time controlling my blood sugar levels and really just freaked out by all of the potential complications caused by diabetes waiting for me, I went almost completely carb free.

No fruit, no bread products, no cereal. Maybe not completely crab free--a piece of fruit once in a while, but not often. It took me a while to 'get off carbs', but things fall into place.

When I told my endocrinologist I was going carb free to he wasn't really sure that was good idea. I can't remember the reasons why he thought that, but I told him it was what I was doing and I thought the benefits outweighed living til I was 60.

Fast forward...I am almost 30, last A1C was 5.5%, cholesterol levels are very good; I am in good shape, walk to work and home every day. I eat no more than 50 grams of carbs in a day: lots of chicken, eggs, fish and vegetables. Lesser amounts of beef, nuts, cheese, and oatmeal. The occasional glass of milk, even the odd bit of ice cream or fruit or something. I would guess I eat between 15 and 50 grams of carbs a day.

Now, I don't know what's missing from my diet or what might go wrong with me in the future from eating the way I do (hey, I'm not a wikipedian, I don't know everything) but I feel great right now.

[Street Pharmacist]

As a health professional and with access to information on a lot of various weight loss programs I can tell you it comes down to this:

-What you eat specifically (High carb vs. low carb, High Glycemic/Low Glycemic, Atkins, etc.) has an effect, though much less than people focus on.
-How much you eat is ALWAYS the determining factor.

Fact is, our bodies do have a natural built in "calorie-counter", which is why most high calorie foods are so appealing to our base intincts/dopamine related reward centre. Take a look at the diet of those who lose weight on any diet and I will show you that they took in less calories than their previous diet. The government and health establishment have never suggested the 1500 calorie meals that are abundant today. People are always looking for the next trick to lose weight, but no matter how you package it, calories in vs. calories out is what obesity is and will always be about. If we want to discuss health impacts of diet, than we must look at "what" we eat, as well as how much.

Totally aside, I fail to see how organic foods are better for the environment or our health...

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

In modern societies, food and variety has never been as cheap or as plentiful as it is today relative to the ability of the common man to pay.

We gorge ourselves because we can.

And we are no longer the physical labour-oriented, agrarian society we used to be. We are generally sloths as well. It used to be in England that gentlemen deliberately went for a portlier look as it was an indication of status, wealth and the fact he didn't have to labour.

Meanwhile, our lifespans have never been longer. We are not suffering from this alleged processed food. Not really.

Any one of us could be a healthy weight, well-exercised and fit if we chose to be.

In the USA, there is an epidemic of people who choose the alternative because it's available to them. And they have the right to choose.

Cowperson

Not entirely true. Our generation (Xer's or Y's can't remember specifically) will be the first generation in a very many to live shorter lives than our parents. Obesity is catching up with our lifespans.

[Reggie Dunlop]

The scientic journal Nature has devoted a special issue to this very subject this week.

[mikey_the_redneck]

I am worried about the food we eat....because I don't trust government or corporate entities deciding the safety of what I have to eat.

With more and more GMO's coming into our produce, nearly ALL our food will have been poisoned by corporations one way or another. They don't even have to label the produce as being a GMO so you don't even know what you're gettting.

It is disgusting...

Collectively, we have to educate people and steer the market toward organic foods in order to get rid of this processed crap.

All those artificial sweeteners, GMO corn syrup, MSG and preservatives etc. is killing us.....

..and this includes water as well. I don't think we need fluoride in our water. Some studies suggest it contributes to low fertility and cancer.


and BTW I always thought the Japanese ate a healthy well balanced diet.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

As a health professional and with access to information on a lot of various weight loss programs I can tell you it comes down to this:

-What you eat specifically (High carb vs. low carb, High Glycemic/Low Glycemic, Atkins, etc.) has an effect, though much less than people focus on.
-How much you eat is ALWAYS the determining factor.

Fact is, our bodies do have a natural built in "calorie-counter", which is why most high calorie foods are so appealing to our base intincts/dopamine related reward centre. Take a look at the diet of those who lose weight on any diet and I will show you that they took in less calories than their previous diet. The government and health establishment have never suggested the 1500 calorie meals that are abundant today. People are always looking for the next trick to lose weight, but no matter how you package it, calories in vs. calories out is what obesity is and will always be about. If we want to discuss health impacts of diet, than we must look at "what" we eat, as well as how much.

Obviously, less calories will often mean you won't be obese, but does it mean you're healthy? If you eat 1,500 calories of junk food every single day, you're still going to lack the essential vitamins/minerals/fats that your body needs everyday.

The reason low carb works is because you actually end up cutting out a lot of junk food, fast food, etc, etc, all which happen to be VERY high in calories as well.

Totally aside, I fail to see how organic foods are better for the environment or our health...

Seriously?

Ever been to a feedlot? Ever seen a massive laying hen operation? Ever actually looked into the 'unnatural' environment those animals are in before they get slaughtered?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a cow that can run free on the range and eat foods that they were MEANT to eat is going to have a healthier cut of beef than a cow that is crammed into a feedlot pen, doped up on antibiotics and growth hormone, and put through a slaughterhouse that would make most people puke.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

Ever been to a feedlot? Ever seen a massive laying hen operation? Ever actually looked into the 'unnatural' environment those animals are in before they get slaughtered?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a cow that can run free on the range and eat foods that they were MEANT to eat is going to have a healthier cut of beef than a cow that is crammed into a feedlot pen, doped up on antibiotics and growth hormone, and put through a slaughterhouse that would make most people puke.

My biggest concern with organics and free range is essentially you are increasing the foot print in takes to produce meat. Meat is one of the most enviromentally destructive and wasteful processes taking 5 to 9 times more energy to produce than plant matter.

So in terms of world carrying capacity the best choice would be veggie but I love meat too much but after that the slaughterhouse model can produce more meat per unit of input energy and be cheaper and more affordable than the organic counterpart.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GGG

My biggest concern with organics and free range is essentially you are increasing the foot print in takes to produce meat. Meat is one of the most enviromentally destructive and wasteful processes taking 5 to 9 times more energy to produce than plant matter.

So in terms of world carrying capacity the best choice would be veggie but I love meat too much but after that the slaughterhouse model can produce more meat per unit of input energy and be cheaper and more affordable than the organic counterpart.

There is a difference between eating a free-range beef steak twice a week vs. a factory-farmed one 5 days a week.

Mention not eating meat for dinner once or twice a week to an albertan, and you get some pretty hilarious looks.

[macker]

Meanwhile, our lifespans have never been longer. We are not suffering from this alleged processed food. Not really.

Any one of us could be a healthy weight, well-exercised and fit if we chose to be.

In the USA, there is an epidemic of people who choose the alternative because it's available to them. And they have the right to choose.

Cowperson[/QUOTE]



Globe and Mail March 28, 2007 pointed out that todays children will be the first generation to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. You are right people are choosing to be obese and it is costing Canadians over 1.6 Billion per year in direct health care costs. Obesity in children has tripled in the past 20 years. Yes any one of us can make this choice but part of the problem is the legacy of this thinking. Suffering comes in the form of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cancer, breathing issues etc.etc. No different than smoking which peaked in the 60's-70's at about 42% and then dropped to 20% by 2006. People choose to want to live longer...or not...

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

Obviously, less calories will often mean you won't be obese, but does it mean you're healthy? If you eat 1,500 calories of junk food every single day, you're still going to lack the essential vitamins/minerals/fats that your body needs everyday.

The reason low carb works is because you actually end up cutting out a lot of junk food, fast food, etc, etc, all which happen to be VERY high in calories as well.



Seriously?

Ever been to a feedlot? Ever seen a massive laying hen operation? Ever actually looked into the 'unnatural' environment those animals are in before they get slaughtered?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a cow that can run free on the range and eat foods that they were MEANT to eat is going to have a healthier cut of beef than a cow that is crammed into a feedlot pen, doped up on antibiotics and growth hormone, and put through a slaughterhouse that would make most people puke.

1) I pointed out that obesity is related to portion sizes, but health of diet is a different subject. Right there in my post.

2) Though I am certain I am not a rocket scientist, I am certain that we can't agree what cows were "meant" to eat. By evolutionary design, that could mean the cow was "meant" to eat whatever makes them most viable, which would actually include those antibiotics you complain about. If you mean by intelligent design, then I'll leave that for you to decipher for me.

Not to point to this post exclusively, but people need to give their head a shake about this whole "It's natural, therefore it's better" garbage. For instance:
-Tornados are natural. They kill.
-Poisonous berries are natural. They kill.
-Most antibiotics are synthetic. They have saved millions of lives
-The insulins we use now are synthetic. Millions of people would drop dead if we didn't have them


When choosing produce that is good for the environment, should we not then choose the produce that limits it's impact the most rather than simply go for something with a natural sounding name like "organic"? Genetically modified tomatoes that leave a small footprint vs. massive gardens to produce the same seems to me like it's maybe not the organic which is best. Eating only organic because you believe it's better for you or the environment is maybe a little naive. As with everything, the true answer for what is best likely lies in the middle. Time to think for ourselves maybe

[Shazam]

Won't bother getting into the organic quagmire, but in regards to what cows eat, they'll eat pretty well anything. They're pretty stupid, so they'll even eat things like larkspur and die.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GGG

My biggest concern with organics and free range is essentially you are increasing the foot print in takes to produce meat. Meat is one of the most enviromentally destructive and wasteful processes taking 5 to 9 times more energy to produce than plant matter.

So in terms of world carrying capacity the best choice would be veggie but I love meat too much but after that the slaughterhouse model can produce more meat per unit of input energy and be cheaper and more affordable than the organic counterpart.

Yep, and it's not just meat. Fruits, vegetables, pretty much anything that can be grown/processed organically leaves a much larger environmental footprint. The cost of going organic is also considerably higher, and due to the nature of the operation provides less food.

If the whole world switched to organic foods we would very quickly have a major worlwide crisis due to massive food shortages.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Eating only organic because you believe it's better for you or the environment is maybe a little naive. As with everything, the true answer for what is best likely lies in the middle. Time to think for ourselves maybe

Okay, but I don't have time to research every danged product on the shelves. Given the choice between organic or not I generally go organic (unless the price tag says "bend over" on it), figuring all things being equal choosing organically produced food will be the better choice 9 times out of 10.