The Food Nazis are at it again. I saw several times on the news how they now want to force restaurants to display nutritional and content information and/or reduce portion size.
Ok, that’s fine. I don’t care about that. What disgusts me is that these gastronomic Goerings toss around the statistic that 64% of Americans are overweight. Where did they get that statistic? The news folks didn’t once challenge it. They just glibly accepted it as a given.
But I challenge it. I’m very skeptical. Here’s why: The company I work for hires some health screening outfit each year to evaluate us. One of the things they measure is each person’s percentage of body fat. Doing a little arithmetic I discovered that, according to the weight charts they use, I would still be overweight even if I had zero percent body fat. (I’m not making this up.) (I’m also not making up the fact that, if a person actually had zero percent body fat, he or she would be in the final stages of starvation, or a supermodel.)
Is this the type of chart the Food Nazis used to get this 64% statistic? Or did they use that ridiculous Body Mass Index which shows that guys like Tom Cruse and Arnold Schwarzenegger are overweight?
[ June 04, 2006, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Samuel Bush ]
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
. . . or did they get that number for their pet reptile?
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Well, all I can say is that if restaurants reduce portion size, they very well better reduce their prices as well. I don't know about high-end restaurants, because I can't afford to eat in those places, but in chains like Denny's, it has been my experience that as their prices have risen, portion sizes have diminished. In addition, while a soup or salad course previously came with the price of a dinner in most such restaurants, they now must be ordered separately at an added cost.
But, yeah, I think you're right about the Food Nazis. Same with the weight loss industry. Used to be, the folks in their ads were really starting out as large people. In my area, there is now an ad in which a woman moans that before she started on the program being advertised that she was...horrors...a size 10, but that now she was down to an acceptable size 3. Give me a break.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think it would be wonderful if full-service restaurant chains had to give average nutritional information for all their products--like fast food places already do.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
I bet they use BMI. Which is ridiculous. I hate BMI. I have a friend who is in the "obese" catagory if you go by those weight-height charts they have. This summer she's swimming the English Channel. Obese? No, she's just *ripped*.
That said, I'd be very happy if all restaurants offered nutrition information. I'm diabetic, so I'm matching carbs-insulin, and usually in restaurants I'm just guessing. It would be nice to know for sure how much cornstarch is in the sauce or whatever.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Oh, absolutely, I would be happy if restaurants were required to provide complete and easy-to-read nutritional information on their food choices. My mother is on a low-sodium, low-cholestorol diet. It makes it very difficult for her to order in restaurants in the absence of such information. She eats lots of salads and baked potatoes, with dressings and fixings on the side so that she can control her portions.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I'd be psyched to see restaurants displaying health information (or even having it available for request).
I don't think the statistic is wrong, though. I'd say that of the people I see in public, 2/3 being overweight sounds about right.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
I guess it could be accurate, depeding on how you define 'overweight'. Certainly a lot of people are have overweight BMIs, but aren't actually overweight in the sense of having excess fat. And how much excess fat is necessary before being considered overweight, not just on a meaningless and rather arbitrary chart, but, you know, so it matters? And does this take into account the fact that some people's healthy weights are higher than others? If you have to starve yourself in order to keep from putting/keeping on that 5lbs, maybe your body is telling you something: It likes that 5lbs!
I'm all incoherent and rambly...but I think you get my point.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
You could be right, erosomniac. But I still challenge the statistic. I still would like to know how they arrived at that number. Maybe it’s valid. Maybe it’s not.
As I look around at the people with which I work I figure about one third or fewer are overweight. Your evidence is anecdotal and so is mine. But then what do we consider “overweight.” Has somebody set the standard so ridiculously low that few people can measure up. (Or measure “down” in this case.)
It reminds me of something the endocrinologist I’m seeing said. About the time she was satisfied with my blood pressure record, she said that some outfit (AMA or CDC or whatever - I forget which) had just lowered the standard. So that now a whole bunch of people who were just fine last week now find themselves with high blood pressure.
What’s with this crap, anyway? Is there so kind of plot to panic the public into allowing our legislators grab a little bit more control over us, and, I might add, a little bit more tax money? Or is there something even more sinister involved. Like, involving the insurance companies or something?
(A few years ago Arizona passed into law a new tax on tobacco. I was outspoken against it despite the fact that I don’t smoke and my church is vehemently against the use of tobacco. I said, “You just watch. If we let them get away with this new tax, the next thing you know they will try to put an extra tax on Twinkies because of the extra fat content in some junk food.” I got ridiculed for what I said. But a couple of weeks after the tax passed, the person who ridiculed me apologized because they had just heard on the news that some state had tried to slap an extra tax on any food containing above a certain level of fat.)
I do agree, though, that it is a good idea for restaurants to have nutritional and content information easily available. That’s just good sense.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Well, judging from the Printer's Row Book fair, I would go with 64% as well. But why is that even a bad thing?
I'm overweight. I'm not a bad person and I don't care enough to diet. Why should the government dictate how restaurants (private businesses) serve their foods because people like me have 5 extra pounds on them? I gurantee you that I am not fat because I go to too many restaurants, and, more importantly, I feel healthy and have great blood pressure and other statistics.
This all makes me boiling mad--it completely marginalizes people with bad genes like me and is just another example of people (often liberals, but it takes all kinds) believing they have the right to dictate how people should live their lives according to their personal standards of well-being.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I agree with you completely, Kristen.
I think it is partly the diet industry's attempt to make more money, and I think it is partly the general atmosphere of "let's make as many people as afraid as we can" that seems to pervade US society today. I mean, it isn't just the weight issue; not a day goes by that either the national or my local news broadcasts have at least two or three new stories of things that "pose a risk" to me or that they tell me I should be afraid of. Every single day. That adds up to a lot of things to which the media tells me that my appropriate response should be fear.
Even though I am overweight I, like you Kristen, am at least partly at the mercy of my genes, my metabolism, and my food allergies (which make it so that there are some healthy things that I would love to be able to eat but just am not able to). I do watch what I eat, but it doesn't seem to do much good.
I'm just really tired of being treated as morally, spiritually, and intellectually defective because I am fat. And I had a revelation the other day. I'm sick and tired of watching every morsel of food I put in my mouth. And I do watch. If it isn't that I'm making sure I don't eat anything that is going to bother my allergies or that is going to do bad things to my hiatal hernia and give me gas or heartburn, I'm worried that what I'm eating has too much fat or too much sodium, or too much of something somebody has deemed that I shouldn't have. I'm just sick of it.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Yeah I know... I'm 6'2, very broad, and I'm supposed to weigh 210.
I'm aiming for about 230... The chart is messed up (I think it was a height/weight chart)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'd rather they keep the portion sizes. I eat half my meal, then bring the rest home for the next day's lunch. It makes eating out pretty reasonable on the budget.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
"Are you afraid yet? They want you to be It will keep you coming back You are a loyal customer Are you afraid yet? You should be"
--Five Iron Frenzy
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I believe those numbers come from the BMI number for 'overweight', which is unbelievably inaccurate. I do believe that there is a scary number of overweight people in this country, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Food Nazis? Gastronomic Goerings?
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Ok, how about Health Himmlers? Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Can we cross borders? How 'bout 'Sustenance Stalins'?
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Have any of you had your percentage of body fat measured? If you have, then do some simple arithmetic to figure what you would weight if you had zero body fat. Then compare that weight to any weight chart or the BMI. I’m curious to know if you would still be “overweight.”
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Yes Princess, that works for me. Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Well, I hadn't intended for this tread to get into other questionable statistics beyond the weight thing. I was just mad at the news coverage last weekend. But what the hey, here is another one.
I've heard highway safety folks glibly say that there are x number of highway deaths attributable to people falling asleep at the wheel. I don't remember the exact number they quoted. I do remember that the number was not questioned by the interviewer nor were they asked how they arrived at the number, nor were they asked how the blazes they determined any given guy was asleep at the wheel since he was found dead and couldn't be asked.
I'm pretty sure that there are deaths caused by this. I'm also pretty sure that there are some crashes that authorities can be absolutely sure that that was the cause because of survivors' testimonies. What I question is: Do authorities automatically lump into the Asleep-At-The-Wheel category even wreaks which they don't really know what was the cause - the ones where all they really know for sure is that they have a dead body and an overturned car?
Because, I've never heard them say there were x number of deaths due to Getting-Run-Off The-Road-By-A-Drunk-Idiot or x number of deaths due to Dodging-A-Deer-And-Hitting-The-Soft-Shoulder-Of-The-Road-Instead-And-Flipping-Their-Car-Because-They-Were-Driving-75 Mph-At-Night-On-A-Road-Notorious-For-Being-Loaded-With-Large-Ruminantes.
I can think of other scenarios that would cause a person to run off of the road but the two above are ones that hit really close to home with me. Several years ago at night I was run off the road by a drunk. (I assume he was drunk because, as I looked back and watched him drive away up the highway, he was weaving all over the place. Maybe he was just tired. I also assume he was a guy but I don't know that for sure either.)
All I know for sure was that I was fortunate enough to have had a wide turnout into a dirt road handy just as the guy swerved into my lane. A few yards earlier and I would have hit the soft shoulder (and I do mean soft - as in loose sand) or a few yards further on I would have been on a narrow bridge with nowhere to escape. I also know that there were no other vehicles on that stretch of highway when this happened nor did any come along for quite a while afterwards. And that drunk idiot wasn't about to stop and go back to see if I was alright let alone let anyone know that he may have just killed someone. Hence, no witnesses.
Fortunately, I didn't wreak. But I could have. And it's a safe bet that, if I had died, the authorities would have assumed that I fell asleep at the wheel since I work shift work, I was on my way home after a 12 hour shift, and shift workers are notoriously tired a lot of the time, anyway.
As for the deer scenario, I haven't hit one yet but I've come close a couple of times. Any of the highways on which I travel up into Utah could be called Venison Alley. Thousands, maybe even dozens, of the critters come out at night to play on the highways. And I'm not talking about those scrawny little white tail deer they have in other parts of the country. I'm talking about those big hulking mule deer. Oh, and let's not forget the Elk, which are about the size of a bus. There's a bunch of them too. And there are a lot of places along there at night when you meet no other vehicles for many miles. Hence no witnesses as to why you ran off the road.
So my question is, how many deaths are blamed on Asleep-At-The-Wheel but were really caused by something else? I've yet to hear any authority say one way or the other. Do they even have a We-Just-Don't-Know-The-Cause category?
Sam
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it's biased by your region. I felt lower in weight when I lived in Nebraska than I do now that I live on the East Coast.
However, I do agree that it would be nice if the news would point people to the fine print of a study so they can decide what they think for themselves.
Also one should only be paying attention to BMI to decide if one is overweight. My doctor uses my body type to decide if she thinks I'm a healthy weight. I think most studies should be considering that. *shrug*
Also the reason the government cares is because of the increased health problems associated with extreme obesity. They don't care about those 5 extra pounds from your ideal weight. They care about those 20+ lbs that will cause you lots of health problems.
It's one thing if you're genetically disposed. However, of late it seems that a lot of studies have shown that Americans eat poorly, and exercise too little.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
It's really quite easy to tell if you are overweight or not. Buy a $10 pair of body fat calipers to go with your bathroom scale. You gather fat from your abdominal area, pull it away from the muscle, squeeze it together, then use the calipers to measure (usually in millimeters) They include charts for male and female, broken up by age brackets, that convert the measurement to body fat percentage. Then you take your body weight, multiply it by the percentage, and you know how many pounds of fat you're carrying. You also know your lean body mass (how much your weight is without fat). The goal would be to find an ideal body fat % that you would like to be at (like 10-12% or so for a guy, 15-20% for a girl). By adding that percentage to your weight, you could then find out what your ideal weight should be.
For example: I'm 6'3, 201 lbs. My BF % this week is 14.2% 201*.142=28.5 pounds of fat. 201-28.5=172 lbs lean body mass. If my goal is 10% body fat, then X is my desired weight. X*90%=172. X=191. So 191 pounds is my desired weight. In dieting I need to lose 10 lbs. The maximum healthy weightloss is 2 lbs per week (any more and I'm burning muscle, which is lean body mass). Any more and it's actually detrimental to my goals. So I will eat 500 calories a day below my maintenance level, and burn 500 calories at the gym per day with a combination of cardio and weight lifting. 1 pound of fat=3000 calories. 2 pounds per week=6000 calories per week calorie deficit. 5 days at gym=2500, 7 days eating 500 below maintanence=3500. Total=6000 calories. Additinally, the weight lifting will grow my muscles, speeding my metabolism up. I'll eat 6 small meals a day, eating about 40% of my calories from complex carbohydrates, 40% lean protein, and 20% good fats.
The problem is.....how many people know to do that??? With all the emphasis on health recently, I still bet 95% of people who diet do not do this. I'm still frustrated when I go to a restaraunt and don't know what they put in their food. But honestly is it going to help? Without context to put it in, the information will be useless.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
My BMI says I'm normal. If I was 0% fat, I'd still be normal, not underweight, acording to the BMI.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The BMI may not be perfect, but it is usable. That is, it is a tool using equipment and/or information that is readily accessible to most of the people for whom the discussion is relevant.
Of course, it is neither the most sensitive nor specific of tools for assessing physical fitness. I'm interested, though, in what readily accessible tool anyone would suggest to use in absence of the BMI.
Granted, it's worth noting the limitations of the tool when it is cited. Often this is done, but often the mass media does not include that part of the story.
-------------
Edited to add: "fat calipers" are not reliable in untrained hands. Whether it's the fudge factor or pudge factor, there is considerable interoperator variability. Unlike, say, a scale -- which, although fudgable, is less so.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I like the portion sizes because it means Teres and I can split a meal and eat more cheaply while still being satisfactorily fed.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
I'm 24.7% in my BMI, which puts me at the highest end of acceptable. But, I am unquestionably overweight if you saw me as absolutely none of that is muscle and much is gathered in my stomach.
My original point is not only are those statistics nebulous and not precise, they don't say a THING about how healthy your body is. Blood pressure, cholestrerol levels, stress test, etc are much better ways of gauging disorders which could result from excess weight. Especially when you take into account that certain races and ethnicities have different body shapes.
Of course being fat, bonified huge, is not good for health, but having a little extra weight? And not fitting the standards for one's height--really, why should the government expand itself to police that aspect of our culture?
Why not do something USEFUL like regulate the meals at public elementary schools and junior highs (which are under their jurisdiction). I remember as a kid, it was pizza, burgers, nuggets, or baked potatos with cheese. For that reason, I brought my own lunch (and still am overweight...can't forget those genes).
EDIT: It's too bad they don't regulate portion sizes the other way. I just went for Italian at this new modernist place and my friend ordered a duck concoction which was simply 4 slices and my boyfriend's filet of beef was a whopping 6 slices.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kristen: Blood pressure, cholestrerol levels, stress test, etc are much better ways of gauging disorders which could result from excess weight. Especially when you take into account that certain races and ethnicities have different body shapes.
They are indeed most useful. Unfortunately, most people do not know their baseline blood pressure levels or cholesterol levels, and they are certainly more difficult to track over time.
The reason the BMI is used for population comparison data is that 1) it is widely usable and 2) it does give a useful indication of trends. I understand and sympathize with the complaint that there are situations for which it is misleading or just plain not ideal -- however, in a broad-based tracking context, it is useful for population standards, and it has indeed been established as such.
But sure, it's important to keep in mind the limitations, too.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: It reminds me of something the endocrinologist I’m seeing said. About the time she was satisfied with my blood pressure record, she said that some outfit (AMA or CDC or whatever - I forget which) had just lowered the standard. So that now a whole bunch of people who were just fine last week now find themselves with high blood pressure.
What’s with this crap, anyway? Is there so kind of plot to panic the public into allowing our legislators grab a little bit more control over us, and, I might add, a little bit more tax money? Or is there something even more sinister involved. Like, involving the insurance companies or something?
New data came out regarding health outcomes at various strata of measurement. At about the same time, the lab value cutoffs for diagnosis of diabetes mellitus also were updated.
It was pretty directly related to more precise and reliable data coming out from large-scale trials. I can find links if anyone is interested.
(Of course, skepticism about such things is healthy, and I wouldn't want to discourage it. Just that I think there is good reason in this case for the change.)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Bao, the US Army has a larger acceptable body fat ration than that, even at the youngest age bracket (which is the toughest standard).
A 10% body fat ratio for most men is very low. When I swam, most of the award winning swim team I was on averaged about that and we were in top shape.
For anyone other than professional athletes, 10% is OUTSTANDING. I averaged about 260-280 points (out of 300) on my PT tests while in the Army and my lowest percentage was about 15%, straight out of AIT and Basic Training. ( I can't run....I lumber. I would get 92 of 100 on the push ups, 96 of 100 in sit-ups, and barely pass the run with about 60-70 points. )
I always had to be tape tested though, every PT test, because according to their charts my highest weight was suppose to be 156 lbs for my heights. I never got below 158, so they always had to tape test me to make sure I wasn't overweight.
When I wore my medium tee shirts you could count my ribs through it. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I played ball (both college and high school) with guys who ranged from 5 to 30% bodyfat. Receivers and DBs usually were below 10%, and several linemen were between 20 and 30%. The lowest mine ever was was about 12%.
When I was looking at going into the Navy, the did to me what they did to Kwea, because I was overweight according to the chart but within normal range according to the tape. Something about the ratio between your chest and waist measurements.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
See, according to BMI, I'm underweight. Which means that when I tell people that I want to "get in shape," they accuse me of being anorexic and generally bitch me out.
I don't look Skeletor in the least. When I weighed 117 lbs, I was approaching Skeletor, but I'm six feet tall. A lot of those charts become less accurate as you reach the outer extremes of height for each gender.
-pH
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Bao, the US Army has a larger acceptable body fat ration than that, even at the youngest age bracket (which is the toughest standard).
A 10% body fat ratio for most men is very low. When I swam, most of the award winning swim team I was on averaged about that and we were in top shape.
You're right that it's very low. I did qualify that as ideal though- not merely acceptable or 'average.' One thing I did not explain was the age bracket. I should have stated that that would be ideal for the 18-30 year range. I think that for a young man in great physical shape, 10-12% is very reasonable. Male body builders will be around 4%. (BTW, 0% BF is impossible, estimates are that 3% is about as low as you can go). I'm not saying 15% is unhealthy or anything like that. I just used 10% in my example because that's my goal.
CT- I think BMI isn't very good because there is such a large variation of body types. To me it's more dangerous than a scale because it gives people the illusion that they are informed. According to the BMI on the gov't site, I am overweight at 6'3, 201 lbs. I'm in great shape, go to the gym 5 days a week, and have between 14-15% body fat. I will have to go down to about 13% BF just to be in the 'normal' range. And here Kwea is telling me that is a really low number.
Body fat calipers are accurate within 1% of advanced underwater measurements. They do have to be used correctly and are easier to fudge, as you said, but if people can learn to send an email, you'd think they could learn to do a proper BF measurement.
I understand you're approach, and to be honest, I don't know what the solution is. From what I understand of what you are saying, you'd like things as simple as possible so that people are pretty clear on what they need to do, but it can be ambiguous where they stand. My BF % is more complicated to understand (since it requires repeated measurements and some math), but it's pretty clear at the end of the day where you're at. Maybe the solution lies somewhere in the middle, I don't know.
Also, the health problems are not just exclusively releated to obesity (although it is the most easily pointed at). Every single person that works with my wife eats a candy bar and pop for lunch. Even though some of them are young and blessed with quicker metabolisms so they don't put on the weight that others do, you know that can't be healthy. I wonder what kind of health problems occur down the road. I don't have a problem whatsoever with the government taxing junk foods as long as the revenue goes where it's supposed to. In fact, it'd be cool if the junk/fast foods were taxed more to subsidize healthy foods. But most people probably wouldn't like that idea I imagine.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
It all just makes me wonder if people will look at our generation and think junk food/diabetes hellooo...
Just like we look back a generation and think smoking/heart & lung disease, duh
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
The FDA is corrupt. Bottom line.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
quote: The BMI may not be perfect, but it is usable. That is, it is a tool . . .
Yeah, about like using a screwdriver to hammer in a nail.
For private use or between a person and his doctor, he's welcome to use whatever works for him. The problem I have with faulty tools and false statistics is that the government should not be allowed to use them to make policy decisions.
Of course the insurance companies are going to always use whatever numbers they can get away with that allow them to charge you the most money and pay you the least. But whether it's government or insurance it's still decisions based on a lie. And that's just wrong.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
If the candy bar and soda is the only "junk food" they have that day, it may not necessarily be unhealthy.
I like junk food. So I try to make healthy junk food. I love quesadillas, so I make them on wheat tortillas with tuna and nonfat cheese and eat them with light sour cream. But I am lacking in willpower, so I often end up at Micky D's.
Random question, I walk a lot. Like, I try to walk a few miles a day, when I'm not in hibernation like I was this weekend. Ankle weights, y/n? Or would those be really hard on my knees?
-pH
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
I've heard that ankle weights are hard on knees, yeah. I have bad knees already so I never cared to experiment. I think the article I read suggested carrying two full water bottles, for weight and hydration.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
quote: I don't have a problem whatsoever with the government taxing junk foods as long as the revenue goes where it's supposed to.
What's the chance of that happening?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Princess Leah: I've heard that ankle weights are hard on knees, yeah. I have bad knees already so I never cared to experiment. I think the article I read suggested carrying two full water bottles, for weight and hydration.
But I need my hands. I mostly walk to and from things. Like to class and back (2 miles) and to the store and back (more than 2 miles). So I have to be able to carry things other than water bottles. Though the backpack does add weight.
-pH
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
If you want to walk with weight, get a backpack or a fanny pack.
I don't think ankle weights are a good idea; I think they've been proven to be hard on your knees.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I would think wrist weights would have similar benefits as carrying water bottles, and presumably no worse effects.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Oh, I thought you were talking, like, "Now I Shall Go For A Walk And That Shall Be My Excercise". Well, I can only speak for myself here, but I wouldn't add more weight (especially on ankles) if you've got a backpack as well. Especially if the backpack is full of awkward and unbalanced things like crackers on one side and soup cans on the other. If you want to make it more of a workout...eh...walk faster?
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
There was something in the paper here the other day about going away from BMI to measure if you are overweight. It was something to do with measuring the stomach, and measuring the ration to stomach and hips, if I remember correctly. Let me see if I can find the article.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
I found an article that may be it, but I can't read it without paying first.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: If the candy bar and soda is the only "junk food" they have that day, it may not necessarily be unhealthy.
I like junk food. So I try to make healthy junk food. I love quesadillas, so I make them on wheat tortillas with tuna and nonfat cheese and eat them with light sour cream. But I am lacking in willpower, so I often end up at Micky D's.
-pH
Unfortunately, it's what they eat for lunch, and again on their two breaks. 3 candy bars and 48 oz of soda on one 8 hour shift. Heaven knows what they eat at home. You're body just can't do proper maintanence by eating almost straight high fructose corn syrup.
That's just it though pH. Those quesadillas aren't junk food. You're getting complex carbohydrates in the tortilla, lots of protein from the tuna and cheese, and omega-3 fatty acids from the tuna. I eat stuff like that all the time for my 'diet.' I get the impression that when people think diet they think eating salad until they can't take it anymore and break. It's just about making healthy choices everyday.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by MidnightBlue: There was something in the paper here the other day about going away from BMI to measure if you are overweight. It was something to do with measuring the stomach, and measuring the ration to stomach and hips, if I remember correctly. Let me see if I can find the article.
They are possibly using the armed forces data. There are measurements you can take that will give you an estimate of your BF%. However, from what I understand the data was empirically obtained, mostly from a sample of young men. I've heard that it isn't necessarily very accurate for women and older men.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Edited to add: "fat calipers" are not reliable in untrained hands. Whether it's the fudge factor or pudge factor, there is considerable interoperator variability. Unlike, say, a scale -- which, although fudgable, is less so.
Have you seen the "Accu-Measure Personal Body-Fat Tester" calipers? They're very easy to use and can be used for self-testing. There's a little clicking thing that let's you know when you've reached the correct amount of pressure.
I agree that there are some repeatability (and definately reproducibility) issues. However, I take 3 measurements at the same spot, and they are all within 1 mm of each other. At least it would give people an idea. It really doesn't matter if you're 40 or 45% body fat- it does put to rest the mental argument "I'm just big boned" in a way that I don't think BMI will ever do.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Do those scales that are supposed to tell you your body fat percentage work? I don't see how they would work...
It's a local newspaper, so the site doesn't have any logins listed.
Edit: Also, an account doesn't get you access to old articles. The account costs nothing, access to individual archived articles does.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Do those scales that are supposed to tell you your body fat percentage work? I don't see how they would work...
As I understand it, they work by shooting an electrical current (a very faint one, relax) through your body and measuring the return time. As body fat will affect the time, they certainly could work. Whether they do, and how accurate they are, I really have no idea.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Count me a food Nazi.
First of all, calling in the inaccuracy of statistics is a cheap shot: Americans are by and large overweight. Who cares what the number is, it's a big problem. And given the rate of what used to be called "adult onset diabetes" in children, it's more than just an incovenience.
quote: Beverages – biggest & best: 7-Eleven was the first retailer to introduce self-serve fountain drinks. When the 32-ounce Big Gulp was introduced in 1980, it was the biggest cup on the market. In 1988, 7-Eleven introduced the giant 64-ounce Double Gulp®, the biggest soft drink on the market.
Thus brags 7-11. That's over 1 cup of sugar in one drink.
Now I don't begrudge anyone a large soda if that's what they want. You want to buy a 2 liter bottle and drink the whole thing, that's ok by me, but marketing a drink that big as if it's reasonable to consume that much is just not acceptable.
As to food, Burger King now markets a triple whopper that has 1230 calories by itself. 740 calories from fat. You want soda and fries with that? King sized, no less. That's 2220 calories in one meal, and 1040 calories from fat.
This kind of escalation has nothing to do with offering the customer what they want, it has to do with manipulating the customer into thinking they want more.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Because, I've never heard them say there were x number of deaths due to Getting-Run-Off The-Road-By-A-Drunk-Idiot or x number of deaths due to Dodging-A-Deer-And-Hitting-The-Soft-Shoulder-Of-The-Road-Instead-And-Flipping-Their-Car-Because-They-Were-Driving-75 Mph-At-Night-On-A-Road-Notorious-For-Being-Loaded-With-Large-Ruminantes.
quote:
According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2004, 16,694 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one almost every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 39 percent of the 42,636 total traffic fatalities.
quote:WASHINGTON - Cars and motorcycles crash into deer more than 4,000 times a day, and it's taking an increasingly deadly toll - on people.
Last year a record 210 motorists were killed in collisions with animals, mostly deer. That was 40 more than the previous year and more than twice the number in 1993, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Funny, I hear these statistics all the time.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
You're making me hungry.
But you are right to sound a warning about the amount of sugar in pop, and the risks of diabetes, and the fat content of triple whoppers, etc. These are things folks need to consider.
But I don't think it is a cheap shot to require someone to prove their statistics. Especially when they want me to change my behavior based on those statistics.
My whole life everyone has always require that I tell the truth. I don't see why I can't require that of others.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
The question wasn't how many people get hit by deer, it's how many flip their cars over and die in their efforts to not get hit by deer.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Of course, when someone hits a deer the cause of the wreak is obvious. What I'm talking about are cases where the cause is unknown. I'm asking if they have a category that says, "cause unknown."
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ok, I get it. Swerving to avoid a deer might look like falling asleep at the wheel in the absence of other evidence. Reminds me of a lawyer joke:
"What's the difference between a dead skunk lying in the middle of the road, and a dead lawyer lying in the middle of the road?"
"There are skid marks in front of the skunk."
I'm sure there is a "cause unknown" category. But I'd bet it's a pretty small number, by virtue of the fact that when someone dies there's going to be an investigation. They look for those skid marks.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:But I don't think it is a cheap shot to require someone to prove their statistics. Especially when they want me to change my behavior based on those statistics.
Two things:
First, they're not asking you to change your behavior, they're asking restaurants to change their behavior.
Second, the fact that most Americans are overweight isn't in dispute. Demanding verification of a statistic that is supported by common knowledge (even if the statistic is off by a few percentage points) is a cheap shot. It's also called a red herring.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I mostly walk to and from things. Like to class and back (2 miles) and to the store and back (more than 2 miles). So I have to be able to carry things other than water bottles. Though the backpack does add weight.