FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » I agree with this guy. (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: I agree with this guy.
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephan:
I am tired of the hate on fast food restaurants. I know I consume more calories at most sit down restaurants, especially the chain ones, and the healthy options at fast food places are a lot cheaper than elsewhere.

Skip the cheese, skip any size but a small fry.

Yep. I, too, eat way fewer calories at fast food joints. The worst, to me, are not the chain sit-down restaurants, it's the very nice, unique sit-down restaurants. They tend to be pretty calorie dense.

I think most people underestimate how many calories are in non-fast food, so for anyone who cares about calories at all, fast food is actually probably safer than a nice restaurant.

Edit: Ambyr, thanks for the link. I didn't know McDonald's had free wifi in most locations. How cool! Good for them.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I didn't know McDonald's had free wifi in most locations. How cool! Good for them.

They have it all over the world too. It was a lifesaver in when we were in France and were trying to get in contact with some friends over Facebook after our initial plans fell through. We just walked to the nearest McDonald's.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephan:
I am tired of the hate on fast food restaurants. I know I consume more calories at most sit down restaurants, especially the chain ones, and the healthy options at fast food places are a lot cheaper than elsewhere.

Skip the cheese, skip any size but a small fry.

I should clarify - I mean fried foods, grease soaked burgers, huge oil drums of coke. McDonalds, for example, actually has a lot of pretty healthy options. I get the grilled chicken club there, the oatmeal and fruit is good too, and their side salads (which I've taken to eating instead of fries) are tasty as well, even with the lowfat dressing. The price for said healthy options is comparable to the price for the big macs, quarter pounders, angus burgers, etc, but is much, much better for you. I actually had a fried with an incredibly demanding job (he could only really eat fast food because he had no time to make food) who developed "the McDonalds diet" and lost 25 pound on it.

The problem is, these people either willingly or unknowingly choose the extremely unhealthy options instead. Perhaps it's not understanding nutrition?

As far as sit down restaurants go: how many people eat at sit down restaurants once or twice a day? For me it's once every week, max. They're too pricy and take too long for me to eat out every night.

As far as running: definitely shoes! I always had knee and foot pain until I did some research and found the right pair of shoes. Work on your form, too - try going slow and focus on always pushing up on the ball of your foot instead of heel-toeing, for example. And focus on pushing forward instead of up - it saves a lot of wear and tear on your knees. Eventually it'll become your natural running form.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, it's willingly. I almost NEVER go to Mickey D's. Because, ew. But if I go, I'm getting the good stuff. What I try to do is get fries OR a burger. Not both, because then I'll feel like garbage after, because of the grease. But if I'm there, I'm there for the junk dammit. Do you know what a burger joint SMELLS like from the outside. Om nom nom.

Also, their apples are terrible. No skin, chemically taste. I wanted to get a happy meal with both sides (apples go really good with fries you know). I've had old apples that were less nasty.

The no time excuse is bull. If you have time to go to Micky Day's, you have time to go the grocery store. Grocery stores usually sell sandwiches, sushi and prepared foods at the deli section among other things you can shove in your face as soon as you pay the cashier and find a fork (or not-- sushi's a finger food). A lot of grocery stores have buffets with chicken wings and salad ingredients that go beyond the basics.

Also, there are lots of super lazy things you can buy that require no cooking, but are pretty healthy. Hummus. Baby carrots and Pita bread to dip in it. Berries Yogurt (buy a qt container and eat out of it until it's done). Dry cereal. Seeds/nuts (or trail mix).

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fattest guy I know mostly eats "healthy" foods like the ones that are being described here.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tend to think the no-time, coupled with a poor understanding of nutrition beyond maybe 'calories are bad', with a side helping of 'cooking is hard' together go a lot further than people realize. Not just 'cooking is hard' but 'I can't cook', for many people.

I mean, I know as a skill to learn it will be easier for some people than others, absolutely. And some people will be able to take to experimentation and quickly learning a new recipe or technique quite easily while for others it will be a time-consuming or even difficult process. But for most Americans, in my experience, the food we like as an everyday affair, there's almost none of it that is actually difficult or very time consuming to cook if one simply approaches it as a new thing to do without letting any headgames get in on it.

But realistically, if someone is brought up all their formative years, setting aside all this stuff about being really critical of them for it, how *likely* is it that they will radically shift away from the eating habits they were raised with?

For example, in my family both my mother and father and three out of my four grandparents were somewhere on the scale of good or even really outstanding cooks, over a wide array of foods and techniques, too. But...knowledgeable about nutrition or much interested in pre-planning meals, even in very general ways? Ranging from not so much to not at all. Which is reflected well on all levels in my sister and I.

But I don't think I've seen very many morbidly obese people who had parents who were diligent and skillful about those things, though truth is it's hard to tell.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think people overestimate how important it is to cook your own meals. If you like cooking, great, go for it.

But it's not necessary for your health, it's not magically way more cost-effective, and it's definitely not a necessary step in order to keep from being fat.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But realistically, if someone is brought up all their formative years, setting aside all this stuff about being really critical of them for it, how *likely* is it that they will radically shift away from the eating habits they were raised with?"

My girlfriend's mother has been eating junk food all her life. She'd have at least one soda every day, usually two. She'd regularly consume chips, cookies, bacon, etc.

Her cholesterol was high and she's overweight, so at the suggestion of my girlfriend she decided to try being vegan, or at least vegetarian, for health reasons. She's not 100 percent, but she's managed to completely cut out soda (not that it isn't vegan), chips (same), obviously bacon, and for the most part cookies. She switched her breakfast from eggs and a bagel with cream cheese every day to steel cut oatmeal with fruit and nuts.

She initially lodged all the usual complains about time, money, and effort, but we just gave her the right recipes and forced her to try them out. She's been successfully doing this for two months and feels much healthier. She's excited to go back to the doctor to get her cholesterol checked again.

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Black Pearl
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for The Black Pearl   Email The Black Pearl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Exercise is immoral because it makes you hungrier.

I'm all for health and fitness, and I think it has a great impact of your quality of life and whatever, but obesity has nothing to do with character.

It has as much to do with what you eat as it does with how much you eat. And exercise, body type, metabolism, health issues that can make it hard to exercise (asthma). Wow, they're eating a lot of the cheapest and most plentiful food ingredient in the world, and they're given them because companies want their money.

Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by umberhulk:
Exercise is immoral because it makes you hungrier.

Well I've never heard exercise being called immoral. I'm actually somewhat surprised at some of the negative views regarding exercise. No wonder we have a problem with obesity.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Black Pearl
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for The Black Pearl   Email The Black Pearl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:
I think about all the things I do for physical recreation - hiking, mountain climbing, playing football, running on the beach, snorkeling, dancing, skating, camping, biking...
You know what all that list says to me?

Pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain...

Because I'm overweight and out-of-shape, all that stuff hurts. And it hurts way before any pay-off. Then it hurts the next day and the day after, and the day after. Even if I don't injure myself in the process. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but any worthwhile exertion screws my equilibrium for days.

So I passively choose to remain sedentary. I don't like it; it's aggravating and frustrating; and I can't do everything I want to do. But the barriers to changing it seem insurmountable and life (for a little while) goes on.

You have to not take it too hard, too fast. That's the secret. I'm doing couch to 5k (okay, I just finished week 1), but the instructions say, even if you can do more, DON'T. Because you aren't used to the exercise, you will be dead the next day and then you will just give up. The key to distance running is to run as SLOW as possible so you can sustain the fact that you are running. Also stretching. And proper shoes.
Also, the best exercise, with the least ammount of pain or chance of injury is swimming. Burns the lungs, works the entire body, heartrate, definitely makes you tired and stiff, but there won't be much blunt force being exerted on your body.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Black Pearl
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for The Black Pearl   Email The Black Pearl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:
Originally posted by umberhulk:
Exercise is immoral because it makes you hungrier.

Well I've never heard exercise being called immoral. I'm actually somewhat surprised at some of the negative views regarding exercise. No wonder we have a problem with obesity.
We spend so much money on torn acls and broken bones man. I'm telling you its ****ed up. Can you believe those extreme sports???
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Exercise is immoral because it makes you hungrier."

A few of us in the department had a conversation about this last semester. We ended up agreeing that exercising in excess is unethical for this reason. So body builders, for example. Still not sure about it, but maybe.

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah when I read Umberhulk's post I thought it was a sarcastic dig at Jon's "being fat is immoral because of the environment" thing.

I guess he was serious though? [Dont Know]

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm still not sure whether he's being sarcastic (I assumed he was), but I've so far mostly agreed with him. So, um, yeah. How about them Broncos?
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JonHecht:
"Exercise is immoral because it makes you hungrier."

A few of us in the department had a conversation about this last semester. We ended up agreeing that exercising in excess is unethical for this reason. So body builders, for example. Still not sure about it, but maybe.

In the same vein, anorexia is no less disgusting or unsafe than obesity.

Common sense is needed regarding these matters, as it usually is in most areas of life.

the things that keep me on the straight and narrow regarding diet are:

1. cravings for unhealthy foods are largely a result of socialization. Why should I show loyalty to a society that has sickened me? No thanks, I'll just eat a diet that works instead. Society needs to change. Until then, I'll eat my way.

2. I look and feel a lot better when I eat correctly. I recover from injuries faster, have more energy, have healthier joints, etc.. It's really nice to be able to DO things when I want to, instead of being too out-of-shape, tired, sore, or whatever.

3. It's an interesting experiment, to see exactly what particular foods will do for my health, negative or positive. Of course, this involves the occasional eating of less-than-perfect foods sometimes. However, I attend enough social occasions that I can use those as my opportunities to experiment.

4. I fear the degenerative diseases that come with aging, especially the heart disease and strokes that run in my family. I've already had a few minor strokes, and I don't want to have any big ones.

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
But I don't think I've seen very many morbidly obese people who had parents who were diligent and skillful about those things, though truth is it's hard to tell.

You need to get out more.

I use some pre-prepped ingredients, but cook (or have my kids cook) every night. My parents did the same. I use brown rice and quinoa, low-fat meats (and not much of them), tofu, and all sorts of "healthy" things. We rarely eat out, and even more rarely eat fast-food-type stuff. My kids are all healthy weights.

I am not, and essentially have never been as an adult. (I was until I hit puberty, which I understand is a common pattern for those descended of good Russian peasant stock. Well, my great-grands did all come from Russia, but I'm not sure about the peasant part. [Wink] ) Without going into much detail about my health in what is not only essentially a public place, but as of late a very hostile one, I also think the distinction that several have made between people who are overweight for medical reasons and those who are not is utter crap.

First of all, to a large degree metabolism is inborn. It changes as we age, and we can successfully adjust it to a slight degree. But for many people -- skinny or fat -- their body has less to do with any choices they have made, and more to do with simple genetics. Studies have shown that in families with high incidence of type 2 diabetes, even the non-diabetic members have stronger physiological cravings for carbs and sugar than the average population, as well as a higher tendency to store such calories as fat.

But setting that aside, for most people who have long-term weight issues, the reason why they originally gained the weight becomes almost immaterial. The weight itself triggers or worsens medical issues that make getting any weight off that much harder. (PCOS, pre-diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc.) And the body resists quick weight loss, which is almost always followed by regaining all the weight lost and then some.

And for our new troll, who'd like to send me to a labor camp for the summer, I have only this to say: I assume you'll be providing the lost income from the two jobs I work, and taking care of my three teenagers?

[Razz]

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
But I don't think I've seen very many morbidly obese people who had parents who were diligent and skillful about those things, though truth is it's hard to tell.

You need to get out more.

I use some pre-prepped ingredients, but cook (or have my kids cook) every night. My parents did the same. I use brown rice and quinoa, low-fat meats (and not much of them), tofu, and all sorts of "healthy" things. We rarely eat out, and even more rarely eat fast-food-type stuff. My kids are all healthy weights.

I am not, and essentially have never been as an adult. (I was until I hit puberty, which I understand is a common pattern for those descended of good Russian peasant stock. Well, my great-grands did all come from Russia, but I'm not sure about the peasant part. [Wink] ) Without going into much detail about my health in what is not only essentially a public place, but as of late a very hostile one, I also think the distinction that several have made between people who are overweight for medical reasons and those who are not is utter crap.

First of all, to a large degree metabolism is inborn. It changes as we age, and we can successfully adjust it to a slight degree. But for many people -- skinny or fat -- their body has less to do with any choices they have made, and more to do with simple genetics. Studies have shown that in families with high incidence of type 2 diabetes, even the non-diabetic members have stronger physiological cravings for carbs and sugar than the average population, as well as a higher tendency to store such calories as fat.

But setting that aside, for most people who have long-term weight issues, the reason why they originally gained the weight becomes almost immaterial. The weight itself triggers or worsens medical issues that make getting any weight off that much harder. (PCOS, pre-diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc.) And the body resists quick weight loss, which is almost always followed by regaining all the weight lost and then some.


[Razz]

Your standard for "healthy eating" is so far away from a species-appropriate diet for humans that it's impossible to have a discussion on the matter.

Just because your culture gives you a pass on a particular food, serving size, or preparation method does not mean that you are meeting any kind of objective standard of healthy eating.

I know it's difficult for some people to lose weight, especially women approaching middle age who've had several children. However, weight isn't really the issue here. Some people really are just much beefier than others, and there's only so much that can be done. HOWEVER....

such people are really more rare than SOME people like to assume.

The fact is, my grandparents are all of healthy/normal weight. Many of their children have weight problems. I myself tend to gain weight easily when eating something along the lines of a "normal" (whatever that means) American diet. However, eating the way I currently do, and you know what it is, I actually struggle to keep weight ON. The only kind of weight I can really even gain is muscle weight, from working out. However, that's entirely dependent on what I choose to eat.

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Black Pearl
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for The Black Pearl   Email The Black Pearl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, the first line was sarcastic, and the Broncos lost.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the interest of perhaps averting thread meltdown, I'd just like to clarify that I wasn't suggesting it was impossible or even necessarily very unlikely for anyone to drift away, either in gaining or losing, from their childhood examples. Just that I thought that perhaps that was one of the more relevant factors.

Now, that said, I also agree that we seem to be learning a lot about how our bodies react to just about everything they ingest or are exposed to every year, so I wholeheartedly agree with you there. I also think public perception of obesity as some sort of deep, shameful moral flaw will probably begin to fade quickly once there is some sort of treatment for it that is effective for groups (that is, this medication or regimen or combination is prescribed and then the success rate for random obese patients is, once they've been given it, high), as opposed to murky discussions of willpower.

Because I don't think I've met many people at all who, if their health or moral failings were as visible as obesity, wouldn't look pretty dinged up.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I tend to think the no-time, coupled with a poor understanding of nutrition beyond maybe 'calories are bad', with a side helping of 'cooking is hard' together go a lot further than people realize. Not just 'cooking is hard' but 'I can't cook', for many people.

I mean, I know as a skill to learn it will be easier for some people than others, absolutely. And some people will be able to take to experimentation and quickly learning a new recipe or technique quite easily while for others it will be a time-consuming or even difficult process. But for most Americans, in my experience, the food we like as an everyday affair, there's almost none of it that is actually difficult or very time consuming to cook if one simply approaches it as a new thing to do without letting any headgames get in on it.

But realistically, if someone is brought up all their formative years, setting aside all this stuff about being really critical of them for it, how *likely* is it that they will radically shift away from the eating habits they were raised with?

For example, in my family both my mother and father and three out of my four grandparents were somewhere on the scale of good or even really outstanding cooks, over a wide array of foods and techniques, too. But...knowledgeable about nutrition or much interested in pre-planning meals, even in very general ways? Ranging from not so much to not at all. Which is reflected well on all levels in my sister and I.

But I don't think I've seen very many morbidly obese people who had parents who were diligent and skillful about those things, though truth is it's hard to tell.

I think you're raising some fairly valid points. Socialization is definitely the primary factor in both food preference and food choice.
Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is steven still into that raw butter oil diet that gives his skeleton a healthy sheen?

Jon, I feel like you've upped the demands of morality rather too far. My views on this sort of issue are pretty close to those of my grad school buddy Mark Budolfson:

http://www.budolfson.com/papers/BudolfsonCollectiveSelfDefeat.pdf

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Is steven still into that raw butter oil diet that gives his skeleton a healthy sheen?

Jon, I feel like you've upped the demands of morality rather too far. My views on this sort of issue are pretty close to those of my grad school buddy Mark Budolfson:

http://www.budolfson.com/papers/BudolfsonCollectiveSelfDefeat.pdf

The fact is, collective self-defeat notwithstanding, plenty of cultures eat relatively healthy diets, even today. Not perfectly healthy by Raw Paleolithic diet standards, but still pretty good.

Grains/starches, and the refining thereof, are the biggest problem with societal-level bad eating. (I include liquors refined from grains in this) Overcooking and excessive numbers of ingredients are a second/smaller problem.

And yes, I'm still a raw foodist, or at least around 98% raw. What of it? I look 8-10 years younger than my age, have plenty of energy, recover quickly, etc. etc.. None of that was true when I ate a junkier diet. Granted, I take my dietary purity to extremes that don't really have much immediate bearing on my health, but SOMEbody's got to do the experimenting. Certainly we have more than enough people in the "eat crap and feel crappy" control group.

And you know what? Somebody really DOES have to do the experimenting. There are a number of useful bits of dietary knowledge that simply cannot be found from looking at peer-reviewed studies, because those areas are not well-explored yet. The only other options are anthropological studies of traditional diets, and aggregated anecdotal data from nutrition message boards and other such sources.

For instance, I've corresponded with a dentist who has studied the link between dental plaque formation and vitamin D. I knew that vitamin D reduced my dental plaque years ago, and even posted about it here. He only recently finished his study and presented his paper. My "useless" anecdotal data preceded his study by years. My message board posts (on my nutrition forum) were the only reasonable way, other than personal experimentation, that someone could have run across that information.

As well, I find that clams (but not oysters) tend to strengthen and heal my fingernails and toenails. I have no idea what in them does that, but it definitely works for me. (I suspect it involves a trace mineral that influences sulfur metabolism) I can strip the inner coating off ethernet cables with my thumbnail now, but no WAY can I do that if I'm not eating clams regularly.

What peer-reviewed study can you find that in? What if you just had weak and/or fungus-damaged nails, and wanted to heal them? I, or someone doing the same kind of dietary experimentation as me, would be the only source for that information.

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Black Pearl
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for The Black Pearl   Email The Black Pearl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it's unethical because if three million obese people suddenly say they're never eating McDonalds again, they don't take three million pounds of big macs and send them to the people that need them. When demand decreases they decrease production and supply. They never extract, purify, or combine the nourishing raw materials from the environment; those raw materials, or the chemical matter needed to make them, just stay sparsed and intermingled among the rest of the non-nourishing raw materials, bacteria, and chemical compounds, and they're never gathered up until there's money to be made. They don't steal them from the hands of starving children. They're eating habits have negligible consequence.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I only have time right now to skim over the paper, but I'm not inclined to disagree. Well... I agree that "morality and all other interesting forms of normativity are sometimes dramatically directly collectively self-defeating" but not with the implication "that many influential normative theories are either false", just that they "at least donít have the consequences that their adherents take them to have."

I deny that ought implies can and happen to think that it's perfectly OK to have contradictory moral demands. Not just as a result of this, however, I think that there are innumerable moral demands that we have that we do not meet. It sucks, yeah, but that's just the way it is. Most of the demands stem from just extending the idea harming others, directly or indirectly, is immoral.

I'm not prepared to defend this view, he says sketchily.


Edit: Umberhulk, we're using up non-renewable resources (I specifically mentioned phosphorus earlier) and I think that we have duties to future generations.

Edit2: There's a reason I don't talk about my views on ethics often. I come off very harsh. I usually end up just saying I'm a moral skeptic, since I am when push comes to shove. And it gets me off the hook easier.

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by umberhulk:
I don't think it's unethical because if three million obese people suddenly say they're never eating McDonalds again, they don't take three million pounds of big macs and send them to the people that need them. When demand decreases they decrease production and supply. They never extract, purify, or combine the nourishing raw materials from the environment; those raw materials, or the chemical matter needed to make them, just stay sparsed and intermingled among the rest of the non-nourishing raw materials, bacteria, and chemical compounds, and they're never gathered up until there's money to be made. They don't steal them from the hands of starving children. They're eating habits have no negligible consequence.

Reduced demand equals reduced cost. Food, especially dried/dry foods like grains, coffee, nuts, etc. are a worldwide commodity. Remember how the ethanol and biodiesel push a few years ago drove up worldwide grain prices? Yep. Not that I care, I'm just pointing that out.
Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Keeping up on this thread, I've mostly been agreeing with the viewpoint that genetics is the largest factor controlling obesity. But then something dawned on me that threw that theory into a tailspin.

If genes are the largest determinant for weight, then we would expect to see similar proportions of obesity among most cross-sections of the the population. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

I have spent most of my life around academia. Honestly, I cannot think of a single morbidly obese or very obese professor here at USU (as well as other schools I have visited). Literally, there is not a single obese professor among the entire faculty of 30 or so in our department. There are a couple of plump professors that would qualify as overweight, but not obese.

Does anyone know many obese professors? Am I just sheltered? Maybe there really are a lot more obese professors out there and I just haven't been lucky enough to meet them? ...or is it possible that certain professions tend to correlate with lower weight?

And, perhaps there are other professions with highly different rates of obesity than the general population (excluding image-based work like models, movie stars, etc)?

Maybe genetics don't contribute to as much to obesity as we think?

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Your standard for "healthy eating" is so far away from a species-appropriate diet for humans that it's impossible to have a discussion on the matter.

Just because your culture gives you a pass on a particular food, serving size, or preparation method does not mean that you are meeting any kind of objective standard of healthy eating.

You actually have no idea what my standards are are for healthy eating. Certainly not as regards serving sizes or preparation methods -- none of which I mentioned here, nor recall ever having discussed with you or in your presence. As for the reference to my "culture", I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Are you trying to insult Jews, academics, or maybe Jewish academics? Americans of Russian descent? [Roll Eyes]

Rakeesh, if you used less hyperbole, it would be easier to discuss such issues as educating parents regarding kid nutrition (which I do happen to think is important). When you insist on using hyperbole, it comes across as "if you can't blame the fat guy, blame his parents".

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anthonie:
Does anyone know many obese professors?

Point of clarification: how many is "many"?

Also, big flaw in your theory: overweight people are less likely to be hired and promoted. So any field with more supply than demand is likely to have fewer overweight people than a field with more balance between the two. Academia, for instance, is highly competitive.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm trying and not successfully to see where I engaged in hyperbole. I mean, even the statement you (appeared to?) have the most issue with was qualified and ambiguous. When I said I didn't think I had seem very many, I meant just that, not as a statement of 'this almost never happens'-though that is the construction of a lot of hyperbole, so I can see why you'd read it that way.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Anthonie:
Does anyone know many obese professors?

Point of clarification: how many is "many"?

I guess "many" would be a proportion similar to rates of obesity in the U.S. Here in Utah I believe it's about 20%.

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Also, big flaw in your theory: overweight people are less likely to be hired and promoted. So any field with more supply than demand is likely to have fewer overweight people than a field with more balance between the two. Academia, for instance, is highly competitive.

Very good point. Maybe that explains why I can't think of a single obese professor I know at my university.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tittles:
If a guy smokes two packs a day, he's an idiot who deserves to be ridiculed. If he single handedly makes McDonald stockholders wealthy though, he's just a poor soul who needs our understanding.

Gotcha.

Cute.

If a guy smokes two packs a day, he's an idiot that has a choice to do so.

Not everyone that is obese is overweight by choice. While there are those that overeat, there are many medical conditions that can lead to obesity.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Is steven still into that raw butter oil diet that gives his skeleton a healthy sheen?

What was that called again, the whatever diet ideas that he was into?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swampjedi
Member
Member # 7374

 - posted      Profile for Swampjedi   Email Swampjedi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Grains/starches, and the refining thereof, are the biggest problem with societal-level bad eating. (I include liquors refined from grains in this) Overcooking and excessive numbers of ingredients are a second/smaller problem.

I know that this has been true for me. My weight trends seem to be directly tied to how much refined grain I'm eating.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, 66% of Americans are overweight. Everyone seems to be arguing that obese people are obese because of medical conditions or genetics and it's not because of anything that is under control. What percentage of people are obese due to medical conditions? How many would not have those medical conditions that make it hard to lose weight if they hadn't let themselves get obese?

I agree that shaming is not really helpful or moral, but it seems to me like everyone here is enabling. Giving excuses for why they or someone they know is fat. "It's not your fault there is nothing you can do about it".

I was always under the impression that the number of people with medical conditions that makes them obese was a minority. But apparently from what I see here that is not the case. Everyone who is overweight is overweight due to elements that are beyond their control?

Are we sure we're not enabling people here?

Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I used obese and overweight as synonyms which isn't highly accurate and possible confusing. My mistake. I looked up some stats and 36% of Americans are obese and 33% are overweight (but not obese). This is based on BMI which we know has its own problems associated with it.

In fact last year according to BMI I was overweight before I started exercising again and lost 15 lbs. I didn't look overweight at all though.

Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:

And you know what? Somebody really DOES have to do the experimenting. There are a number of useful bits of dietary knowledge that simply cannot be found from looking at peer-reviewed studies, because those areas are not well-explored yet. The only other options are anthropological studies of traditional diets, and aggregated anecdotal data from nutrition message boards and other such sources.

I would say that there are many bits of dietary knowledge that no one knows yet, and would be extremely hard to study. Your one-man "controlled" studies certainly aren't going to result in knowledge.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How on Earth do you read this thread and conclude that everyone is arguing it's genetic and outside individual control?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by Tittles:
If a guy smokes two packs a day, he's an idiot who deserves to be ridiculed. If he single handedly makes McDonald stockholders wealthy though, he's just a poor soul who needs our understanding.

Gotcha.

Cute.

If a guy smokes two packs a day, he's an idiot that has a choice to do so.

Not everyone that is obese is overweight by choice. While there are those that overeat, there are many medical conditions that can lead to obesity.

So an addicted smoker can just up and stop smoking no problem? I believe addiction qualifies as a medical condition too, and while it was his choice to start smoking I don't see why stopping smoking is any easier than losing weight.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JonHecht:
I only have time right now to skim over the paper, but I'm not inclined to disagree. Well... I agree that "morality and all other interesting forms of normativity are sometimes dramatically directly collectively self-defeating" but not with the implication "that many influential normative theories are either false", just that they "at least donít have the consequences that their adherents take them to have."

I deny that ought implies can and happen to think that it's perfectly OK to have contradictory moral demands. Not just as a result of this, however, I think that there are innumerable moral demands that we have that we do not meet. It sucks, yeah, but that's just the way it is. Most of the demands stem from just extending the idea harming others, directly or indirectly, is immoral.

I'm not prepared to defend this view, he says sketchily.

I'm a little unclear about where you're coming from here. Do you think the individual in Budolfson's stampeding case is obligated to stop stampeding?

That seems analogous to the question of whether overweight people are morally obligated to lose weight. (If we assume you're right about the coming food shortages.)

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that the person has conflicting duties, one to stop stampeding and one, from self-preservation, to not stop. This is fine. Well, it sucks, but it's fine. I think it just might be that we mean different things when we say 'ought'. I take it that many people believe that through conceptual analysis we see that if we have conflicting oughts, one or neither triumphs. I think that both hold, and at least one simply cannot be satisfied.

This may explain why I always feel guilty.

There's an interesting case from Joel Feinberg's Moral Limits of the Criminal Law trilogy, I think from the one on paternalism though I'm not sure, which I think runs parallel to Budolfson's case, but in the opposite direction.

I'm hoping that I remember this correctly, but I think he gives the example of a garrison being defended. If any soldier abandons the defense, nothing bad will happen to her comrades. The garrison will hold. Once a certain threshold of AWOLers is passed, the comrades will die and the garrison will fall. Feinberg argues from this that all the soldiers therefore have a duty to remain at their stations. I suspect there's a way to try to use this as a response to the stampeding case. If not, oh well. My point in bringing up the Feinberg case is just that a lot of what goes on in these group cases is determined by your starting point (whether an action is ongoing, just begun, not yet started, etc.), which is a matter of moral luck. As far as moral luck is concerned, I'm just going to say that it's really unfortunate when we are struck by bad moral luck, but you have to play with the cards you're dealt.

In conclusion: there are genuine moral dilemmas. This is really too bad. Even when there are no moral dilemmas in play, we are constantly failing to meet our moral obligations (there's a whole lit distinguishing obligations, duties, oughts, demands, etc. I'm not.). On the flip side, perhaps the reason I believe the second sentence of this paragraph is not because I am harsh, but because I am very optimistic about what humanity is capable of.

Edit: On second thought, there's probably no way to use Feinberg's example as a response to the stampede. The stampeding case is just really effective.

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Your standard for "healthy eating" is so far away from a species-appropriate diet for humans that it's impossible to have a discussion on the matter.

Just because your culture gives you a pass on a particular food, serving size, or preparation method does not mean that you are meeting any kind of objective standard of healthy eating.

You actually have no idea what my standards are are for healthy eating. Certainly not as regards serving sizes or preparation methods -- none of which I mentioned here, nor recall ever having discussed with you or in your presence. As for the reference to my "culture", I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Are you trying to insult Jews, academics, or maybe Jewish academics? Americans of Russian descent? [Roll Eyes]


As far as your culture goes, I was referring to American culture. There's nothing Jewish about quinoa.

Rivka, the very fact that you mention quinoa as some kind of healthy food is proof positive that you don't even understand good food choices. Quinoa is a filler food, has to be cooked to be edible, and is not a particularly species-appropriate food. Humans were meat, fruit, and (later on) fish/shellfish eaters, largely, prior to the Neolithic period. Throw a few nuts and tubers in there, and you have a rough approximation of a species-appropriate diet for humans.

As far as portion size, the fact that you haven't even criticized the increase in American portion sizes over the last 30 years says a lot.

As far as preparation methods...if you really want to go point-by-point on the pros and cons of raw versus various cooking methods, fine, we can. I'm not going down that path without an invitation, though.

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Is steven still into that raw butter oil diet that gives his skeleton a healthy sheen?

What was that called again, the whatever diet ideas that he was into?
He mentioned it earlier in the thread. He's into the raw food Paleolithic diet.

That's the Luddite diet based on the idea that the problem with food today is that it got mucked up with technology and science and progress and if we could just go back to nature then everything would be okay. Average lifespan of 30 ahoy!

I'm assuming Steven isn't doing the severely limited, malnutrition-prone starve-and-gorge diet most hunter gatherers actually lived, though. Just the modern hippy interpretation of the Paleolithic diet.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:

And you know what? Somebody really DOES have to do the experimenting. There are a number of useful bits of dietary knowledge that simply cannot be found from looking at peer-reviewed studies, because those areas are not well-explored yet. The only other options are anthropological studies of traditional diets, and aggregated anecdotal data from nutrition message boards and other such sources.

I would say that there are many bits of dietary knowledge that no one knows yet, and would be extremely hard to study. Your one-man "controlled" studies certainly aren't going to result in knowledge.
One-man? Hardly. Certainly I'm the only person I know of who claims that clams can sometimes strengthen nails, but I know several dozen people on my message board who experiment with diet constantly, and test each others' results to see if they are reproducible. We're not doing controlled double-blind studies, but if you need controlled double-blind studies to tell you to avoid junk food, then you've got bigger problems than I can help you solve. WAY bigger.
Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As far as portion size, the fact that you haven't even criticized the increase in American portion sizes over the last 30 years says a lot.
I was not aware you could say a lot by not saying anything.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Is steven still into that raw butter oil diet that gives his skeleton a healthy sheen?

What was that called again, the whatever diet ideas that he was into?
He mentioned it earlier in the thread. He's into the raw food Paleolithic diet.

That's the Luddite diet based on the idea that the problem with food today is that it got mucked up with technology and science and progress and if we could just go back to nature then everything would be okay. Average lifespan of 30 ahoy!

I'm assuming Steven isn't doing the severely limited, malnutrition-prone starve-and-gorge diet most hunter gatherers actually lived, though. Just the modern hippy interpretation of the Paleolithic diet.

You're quite wrong. I've practiced intermittent fasting for many years. I try to confine all my eating to between noon and 6 pm, and have often, for months at a time, been able to confine all of it to between noon and 3 pm.


And if you call Raw Paleo dieters "hippies" again, I'm going to fall out of my tree laughing at you. Most raw paleo folks are big libertarians, many of them love to hunt, and nearly all of them are rabidly pro-gun. I'm actually the closest thing to a "hippie" that we have among the moderators on my board, and I'm an outlier. I'm actually the lone anti-gun voice on my forum, and I usually just shut up and let them bash Obama and worship Ron Paul to their hearts' content.

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
As far as portion size, the fact that you haven't even criticized the increase in American portion sizes over the last 30 years says a lot.
I was not aware you could say a lot by not saying anything.
Rivka and I are both old enough to remember the rather sudden increase in portion size in restaurants in the mid-80s. You're not. It was very noticeable, though.

But you're right, I was reaching a bit there.

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Itsame
Member
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On third thought, I want to say that obesity conjoined with food shortages is more analogous to the garrison threshold case than to the stampeding case. Sure, if one or two people change their habits, it's not a big deal, but there is a threshold. Here the resulting duty is for people to change their habits.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Is steven still into that raw butter oil diet that gives his skeleton a healthy sheen?

What was that called again, the whatever diet ideas that he was into?
He mentioned it earlier in the thread. He's into the raw food Paleolithic diet.

That's the Luddite diet based on the idea that the problem with food today is that it got mucked up with technology and science and progress and if we could just go back to nature then everything would be okay. Average lifespan of 30 ahoy!

I'm assuming Steven isn't doing the severely limited, malnutrition-prone starve-and-gorge diet most hunter gatherers actually lived, though. Just the modern hippy interpretation of the Paleolithic diet.

You're quite wrong. I've practiced intermittent fasting for many years. I try to confine all my eating to between noon and 6 pm, and have often, for months at a time, been able to confine all of it to between noon and 3 pm.


And if you call Raw Paleo dieters "hippies" again, I'm going to fall out of my tree laughing at you. Most raw paleo folks are big libertarians, many of them love to hunt, and nearly all of them are rabidly pro-gun. I'm actually the closest thing to a "hippie" that we have among the moderators on my board, and I'm an outlier. I'm actually the lone anti-gun voice on my forum, and I usually just shut up and let them bash Obama and worship Ron Paul to their hearts' content.

Yeah there are lots of Ron Paul worshipping, whackadoodle libertarian hippies. I know one very well. Into natural medicine and homeopathy and she's not quite doing the raw food thing but she's close. She convinced herself she had a gluten intolerance, too. Shrug.

Being a hippy isn't really mutually exclusive with beig a libertarian. Only major difference is a communist hippy wants to make you be a hippy too, whereas a libertarian hippy will just scoff and look down his nose at you for not being one.

Still silly, though. Also looks like I stand corrected, Steven does starve and gorge! Just like a hunter gatherer.

I assume you also restrict your diet to one region, since globalization of food sources is also a result of evil technological progress. Which region of the world did you decide to pretend you're in?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
One-man? Hardly. Certainly I'm the only person I know of who claims that clams can sometimes strengthen nails, but I know several dozen people on my message board who experiment with diet constantly, and test each others' results to see if they are reproducible. We're not doing controlled double-blind studies, but if you need controlled double-blind studies to tell you to avoid junk food, then you've got bigger problems than I can help you solve. WAY bigger.

I don't need them to tell me to avoid junk food. I do need them to tell me to seek out clams as a means of strengthening my nails.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Codeô is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2