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 3)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: I agree with this guy.
steven
Member
Member # 8099

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

I agree that there's no clear line between the more nature-loving libertarians and the more nature-loving hippies, but I still think you were painting with a broad brush. I also think you don't really understand the movement or the kinds of people in it. Close to half of the people on my forum were seriously ill and desperately seeking a cure when they found Raw Paleo. Some of that group do happen to be libertarians anyway, but most are just regular folk.

As far as restricting my diet to a specific region, I don't. I'm in it for health reasons, not some kind of locavore puritanical reasons. Most of what I eat is wild-caught seafood, high-quality (high-Brix) fruit, and a little raw grassfed cream, some nuts, and a little honey. When I can get good-quality never-frozen grassfed meat or wild game, I eat that.

I do prefer to get my fruit directly from the tree/vine when I can, though. Sometimes I notice that I get a health boost from fresh-off-the-tree fruit that doesn't happen with grocery-store fruit. It's hit or miss, though. I think a lot depends on soil quality.

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 
quote:
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.
Jesus, you're going to get diabetes.
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:
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.
Then you simply won't be strengthening your nails with clams, then. Noone is going to do a study on that.

But seriously, if you had weak nails, would you really not eat a dozen clams a day for a few days to see if it worked for you? It's not like it takes months. I have honestly seen results after eating 5 dozen small clams in one day.

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 
So the clams go straight to the nails in a matter of days?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  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:
Originally posted by steven:
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.

Do you even know how old I am? Also, it hardly matters what the heck changes in portion sizes happened in what time frame, I grew up in another country, and in Asia I am positive portion sizes are much smaller than they are in the US, and have been a very long time.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For BMI, my brother who has very low body fat, is a fireman and works out regularly and has an extremely contrpulled diet(at his birthday party, we got strawberries not cake which adobe of the sugary fruits was a treat for him) is by BMI obese. I was working with a personal trainer and he figured out my ideal weight based on percent body fat and it would be still overweight (Which made me feel better because when I was young and active in sports I could never get below that weight). So, BMI listings of overweight seem a bit off to me.

One problem I see in the whole raw food diet is it doesn't factor in evolution. For example, lactose tolerance is something humans evolve recently. But it is now something that is part of us so why shouldn't we drink it? I think grain tolerance also has evolved. We evolve to fit our environment.

Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  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 scholarette:


One problem I see in the whole raw food diet is it doesn't factor in evolution. For example, lactose tolerance is something humans evolve recently. But it is now something that is part of us so why shouldn't we drink it? I think grain tolerance also has evolved. We evolve to fit our environment.

Most humans are not, in fact, lactose-tolerant. East Asians, Native Americans, and most Africans (except for the Masai and a few other groups) have no history of dairy consumption. Even among Europeans lactose tolerance is not universal. I'm about 95% European by ancestry, but I can't get away with drinking fresh milk or cream. I can eat cheese, sour cream, etc., though.

As far as grains go, there are plenty of human groups that either

1. have never eaten grains, or not in large amounts (like the Inuit, Australian Aborigines, Pacific islanders, etc.)

2. only started eating grains very recently, evolutionarily-speaking, like the Native Americans of North America

Celiac disease is quite common, that's not in question. If we were anything LIKE fully adapted to grains, there'd be basically no such thing as celiac disease. That's obvious.

I think a case can be made for rice, since it is far more digestible than most grains, especially wheat. However, I think people are generally better off making grains, even rice, a fairly small portion of their total calories.

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:
Originally posted by steven:
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.

Do you even know how old I am? Also, it hardly matters what the heck changes in portion sizes happened in what time frame, I grew up in another country, and in Asia I am positive portion sizes are much smaller than they are in the US, and have been a very long time.
I know where you grew up. I didn't mention it because you're not even old enough to easily remember eating out in the US prior to the mid-80s, even if you had lived here.

As far as portion size goes, people have gotten a LOT fatter in the US in the last 25 years, and that change in restaurant portion size has a great deal to do with it. It deserves mention.

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 
I was overweight once, perhaps obese (around 210 for my 5'11" frame), due to a medical "condition". Actually, due to a *medicine*. I went on an an antidepressant, and presto! I gained 65 pounds in eight months. I had never been overweight before. Then I went off the meds, and presto, back to 145 within less than six months.

A good friend of mine started an anti-psychotic drug that he will take for life. He went from around 150 to 270 pounds.

A lot of folks in the U.S. take antidepressants and other meds. I wonder what portion of the U.S. could be overweight due to side effects of medication?

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

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


Celiac disease is quite common, that's not in question. If we were anything LIKE fully adapted to grains, there'd be basically no such thing as celiac disease. That's obvious.

Would there be nut allergies if we were fully adapted to eating nuts?
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 Anthonie:
I was overweight once, perhaps obese (around 210 for my 5'11" frame), due to a medical "condition". Actually, due to a *medicine*. I went on an an antidepressant, and presto! I gained 65 pounds in eight months. I had never been overweight before. Then I went off the meds, and presto, back to 145 within less than six months.

A good friend of mine started an anti-psychotic drug that he will take for life. He went from around 150 to 270 pounds.

A lot of folks in the U.S. take antidepressants and other meds. I wonder what portion of the U.S. could be overweight due to side effects of medication?

That's not a bad point. It's not a universal side effect, but I definitely have heard a number of friends mention it, and I know it shows up in studies.
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 Destineer:
quote:


Celiac disease is quite common, that's not in question. If we were anything LIKE fully adapted to grains, there'd be basically no such thing as celiac disease. That's obvious.

Would there be nut allergies if we were fully adapted to eating nuts?
I personally don't recommend nuts to most people. I certainly don't eat them more than once a week, on average, and probably less than that, and usually just a handful at a time.

I know of a lot of vegans who definitely have some health issues from eating large amounts of nut butters. They're not all that digestible.

As far as being perfectly adapted to a food, there's no one food that every human can eat without problems. Red meat comes the closest, but not even that is 100%. A great deal of choosing a good diet, especially in the beginning, involves experimentation.

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 
If the goal is to get thin (not get healthy, get thin) then the raw food diet makes tons of sense.

For example, it makes you very, very aware of what you are eating. This reduces unintentional overeating. This is one of the main benefits of any particularly stupid and bizarre diet.

Raw food also has the advantage of being generally worse and harder to digest, so you burn more calories processing it than you normally would. For actual hunter gatherers, living on the edge of famine, this was a huge drawback.

But for people living in luxury caused by progress (and then spitting on that progress, and blaming progress for all their ills) it's a huge upside. It essentially makes all of your food a little bit more like celery.

The invention of fire was a great boon to actual hunter-gatherers. Fire functioned as a sort of exterior stomach, predigesting the food somewhat so that it could be more easily eaten and processed.

So yeah, I have no trouble believing people get thin on this diet. That's not unique. People can get thin on any diet.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My genetic history is lactose tolerant and I don't have celiac disease. So why shouldn't I eat what I have evolved to eat? Lactose tolerance actually evolved independently in several groups. It was a huge boon to mankind, granting an immediate evolutionary advantage. So, just because not all mankind has this advantage, why shouldn't I make use of it?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm Swedish, Irish, Scottish, Welch and Russian...all of which is basically viking. I have a huge tolerance for milk, I can drink it 24/7 and never have a single problem. Love the stuff. (of course I don't for the sugar and fat content)

Thanks for settling cows so long ago ancestors, you rock!

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 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:
If the goal is to get thin (not get healthy, get thin) then the raw food diet makes tons of sense.

For example, it makes you very, very aware of what you are eating. This reduces unintentional overeating. This is one of the main benefits of any particularly stupid and bizarre diet.

Raw food also has the advantage of being generally worse and harder to digest, so you burn more calories processing it than you normally would. For actual hunter gatherers, living on the edge of famine, this was a huge drawback.

But for people living in luxury caused by progress (and then spitting on that progress, and blaming progress for all their ills) it's a huge upside. It essentially makes all of your food a little bit more like celery.

The invention of fire was a great boon to actual hunter-gatherers. Fire functioned as a sort of exterior stomach, predigesting the food somewhat so that it could be more easily eaten and processed.

So yeah, I have no trouble believing people get thin on this diet. That's not unique. People can get thin on any diet.

Cooking also produces advanced glycatino end-products and heterocyclic amines. Those don't serve any nutritional purpose, I guarantee you that.

Heavier cooking also damages water-soluble vitamins like vitamins C and B-complex. That also serves no nutritional purpose.

Finally, cooking reduces the digestibility of meat protein. Many bodybuilders have noted this, and Arnold Schwarzenegger has even pointed out that he had to eat a lot more meat while in the Austrian army to maintain his bulk, because they cooked it heavily.

But if you prefer your junk food, by all means, eat the shit. I didn't start the thread, don't much care what people eat, and that's that. At least you know there are other options available, and that's about all I can ask for.

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 scholarette:
My genetic history is lactose tolerant and I don't have celiac disease. So why shouldn't I eat what I have evolved to eat? Lactose tolerance actually evolved independently in several groups. It was a huge boon to mankind, granting an immediate evolutionary advantage. So, just because not all mankind has this advantage, why shouldn't I make use of it?

If you'd like to subsist on nothing but white bread and Velveeta for the rest of your life, that's your prerogative.
Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow steven, that is unwarrantedly hostile. scholarette is simply asking questions and making reasonable statements. If you would like to answer them, then by all means, but this kind of snappy, assumptive answer is nothing but fighting I can't imagine you will get anything but appropriate hostility in return.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 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 Stone_Wolf_:
Wow steven, that is unwarrantedly hostile. scholarette is simply asking questions and making reasonable statements. If you would like to answer them, then by all means, but this kind of snappy, assumptive answer is nothing but fighting I can't imagine you will get anything but appropriate hostility in return.

You misunderstand. I don't expect people to follow a specific diet. On the contrary, I encourage people to eat exactly the diet they like. However, I do offer alternatives, should they find themselves in a pickle, health-wise.

As far as hostility goes, I meet mostly hostility, avoidance, and/or laughter when I discuss nutrition, whether online or in real life. That's not something you'd understand, but believe me, being a raw foodist in the US today is like being a Buddhist in Spain in the 1500s. That's OK, I accept it. Socialization and addiction together are a powerful force. I don't expect open arms.

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 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 
The funny thing is, I actually think it's an interesting topic on several levels (nutritional, anthropological, industrial), but man, Steven, it seems that even in only mildly contentious, relatively short conversations it's not long before you start being a major schmuck about the matter. Which results in two conflicting desires-the desire to discuss something interesting, and the desire to avoid navigating an aggravating, obnoxious conversation partner.

Maybe consider hitting a reset button?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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:
Rivka and I are both old enough to remember the rather sudden increase in portion size in restaurants in the mid-80s.

Speak for yourself, bub.

I didn't go to restaurants enough when I was 10 to notice anything about portion sizes. [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 Rakeesh:
The funny thing is, I actually think it's an interesting topic on several levels (nutritional, anthropological, industrial), but man, Steven, it seems that even in only mildly contentious, relatively short conversations it's not long before you start being a major schmuck about the matter. Which results in two conflicting desires-the desire to discuss something interesting, and the desire to avoid navigating an aggravating, obnoxious conversation partner.

Maybe consider hitting a reset button?

I'm not about to set some kind of standard of civility, only to have some jerk with a score to settle from the LAST time we went through this (TomD, Scopatz, Primal Curve, etc.) come strolling and trolling in. I would need assurances that such would not happen...and nobody's even controlling Dan Frank or Destineer.

Wrong or not, I'm not about to forgive and forget. Not without assurances, and you can't offer those. [Smile]

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 rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Rivka and I are both old enough to remember the rather sudden increase in portion size in restaurants in the mid-80s.

Speak for yourself, bub.

I didn't go to restaurants enough when I was 10 to notice anything about portion sizes. [Razz]

Fair enough. I remember complaints (from when I was about 7 or 8) from parental units about small portion sizes in restaurants. I went about 4 years, ages 11 to 14, too busy to go to non-fast-food restaurants. I remember being shocked by the large portion sizes when I started going back to non-fast-food places.
Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
I'm about 95% European by ancestry, but I can't get away with drinking fresh milk or cream.

Even unpasturized milk? My wife is lactose intolerant, but we've found that she can digest raw milk without any trouble at all. I was pretty surprised by that, honestly.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Steven, who are you even kidding by imagining *yourself* in a position to decide about forgiving and forgetting? How's about climbing down off that cross you nailed yourself to and just moseying about with the rest of us?

You put yourself in the position of being ridiculed for unusual beliefs by your method of expressing them and your entry to the community. Or you could continue to play the victim, which is almost certainly what you'll do anyway.

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 Jake:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
I'm about 95% European by ancestry, but I can't get away with drinking fresh milk or cream.

Even unpasturized milk? My wife is lactose intolerant, but we've found that she can digest raw milk without any trouble at all. I was pretty surprised by that, honestly.
It's hit or miss. If it's at room temp, and I sip it slowly, maybe it's OK. Otherwise, ish.

I've seen all kinds of reactions to raw dairy, everything from "it healed me miraculously!" to "it made my teeth almost fall out!". Even grassfed raw dairy, thoroughly fermented, causes problems for a few people.

I don't think it's just lactose intolerance for some of those folks. Either way, though, it's something that each individual has to test out themselves.

I personally do pretty well on raw grassfed sour cream. If I eat too much, it can cause a little acid reflux, but that's about it. Cheese (I think it's because of the extremely high calcium to magnesium ratio) causes me joint problems, as well as constipation, so I go easy on cheese, and I take a magnesium pill when I eat it.

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 Rakeesh:
Steven, who are you even kidding by imagining *yourself* in a position to decide about forgiving and forgetting? How's about climbing down off that cross you nailed yourself to and just moseying about with the rest of us?

You put yourself in the position of being ridiculed for unusual beliefs by your method of expressing them and your entry to the community. Or you could continue to play the victim, which is almost certainly what you'll do anyway.

So Destineer gets to make cracks about butter oil, while I'm supposed to take the high road? Not to be a 3-year-old, but...he started it. And you've not said a word to him. In fact, no one has. That's OK, but don't expect me to treat everyone like they're valued customers.

It's like this. Imagine you work in a store, and an entire busload of people walk in at the same time. A few are openly rude, some are polite, and most are just average. However, they're all wanting your help and attention NOW. Throw a couple of rude hecklers in there, who just want to make your day harder, and...yeah, some frustration may show.

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 steven:
I would need assurances that such would not happen...and nobody's even controlling Dan Frank or Destineer.

Why would we need controlling? Because we're criticizing your terrible diet? I don't think either of us are being hostile, man. You've absolutely got the right to eat whatever you want to eat. I'm not trying to stop you.

You're confusing criticism with hostility.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am old enough to remember, and Steven has a point about portion size changes.

When McDonalds introduced the quarter-pounder they named it that to emphasize that it was a whole 4 oz of meat, which was considerably bigger than a standard hamburger. A regular sized soft drink was 8oz.

A standard dinner plate has also increased in size in the last 20 years, and there's been plenty of research that shows people eat more off of larger plates, so even cooking at home doesn't escape portion distortion.

I suspect that increased portion size has more to do with the epidemic of obesity in America than what people are eating. Occasional fast food, if it's a 3 oz hamburger, 2 oz of fries, and 8 oz of soda is not a big deal. If it's a half-pound burger, 5.5 oz fries, and 32 oz of soda (refillable!) then, yeah, it's a problem.

Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  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 dkw:
I suspect that increased portion size has more to do with the epidemic of obesity in America than what people are eating. Occasional fast food, if it's a 3 oz hamburger, 2 oz of fries, and 8 oz of soda is not a big deal. If it's a half-pound burger, 5.5 oz fries, and 32 oz of soda (refillable!) then, yeah, it's a problem.

Yeah, I agree completely. This is the main issue. Overeating in general.

But I also think it's sort of backwards to blame the increased portion size. Increased portion size in restaurants and on plates came about because people wanted bigger portions. That's the thing that I think sometimes gets lost. People wanted to eat more food, so they did. There's no clandestine portion size mafia that increased things against the will of the people. And there's no compulsion on people to eat the greater portion sizes.

Well. Correction: There's no compulsion on adults to eat the greater portion sizes. Children often do get coerced into doing just that, and I think that manipulation screws them up and is a big cause of people continuing to eat too much into adulthood. But as adults, we have the option to take responsibility for our lives and stop overeating. Large portion sizes or not.

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 
OK, I did use a sarcastic tone about the butter oil thing. But he literally does eat a raw diet because the tribes who ate it had nicely developed skeletons. He's cited this as one of his reasons many times. (I distinctly recall pointing out to him back in the day that his eating habits weren't going to do anything to his full-grown adult skeleton.)

There is very little truly rigorous nutrition science in the world, and the science that Steven cites to back up his diet is about as rigorous as young-earth creationism. If you like eating that stuff, eat it, but don't pretend you have scientific evidence that it's the right thing to eat. What you have is a bunch of probably placebo-induced anecdotes that, as some of your own points about food would suggest, wouldn't generalize to other people even if they were true in your case because different bodies tend to respond to the same food in different ways.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  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 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.

Huh. I think I prefer Budolfson's solution: you individually are not obligated to stop, but the crowd collectively is obligated to stop.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The soldiers on the wall case is quite different, because in that case you can be at least somewhat confident that your fellow soldiers will stay on the wall.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's useful to point out the crucial differences between self directed and self evaluated experimentation with diet and controlled studies, but in fairness to steven he was suggesting that people should experiment on their own to find out what works for them.

On the other hand he implicitly rejected any such experiments that don't lead to similar conclusions, so...

I just ate a large packet of "fruit snacks" that were mainly corn syrup. I have not noticed any effects so far other than increased humility and an urge to listen to Beck.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 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 scifibum:

I just ate a large packet of "fruit snacks" that were mainly corn syrup.

Gah, don't even get me started on the BS myths around high fructose corn syrup.
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
The soldiers on the wall case is quite different, because in that case you can be at least somewhat confident that your fellow soldiers will stay on the wall.

Here's where my quirky views make this work. I already deny ought implies can, which means I'm allowed to--and do--say that epistemic states don't play a role in duties.

As for collective obligations, they provide nice solutions, but to make them work you usually end up having to do some weird metaphysics that I'm not comfortable with. I know there are attempts to avoid a commitment to collective agency but I haven't been satisfied with what I've read from that lit.

Edit: I really need to figure out how to use commas. Or at least be consistent about it.

Edit2: I'm reading this again and now I'm wondering what you mean when you say "because in that case you can be at least somewhat confident that your fellow soldiers will stay on the wall." Are the AWOLers confident that the fellow soldiers will stay when they flee or when they remain? If it is when they flee, then this should act against Feinberg's initial conclusion. If it is when they stay, then why should their confidence be different in the fleeing scenario, and we're back to the previous case.


Edit3: I figured I should clarify that I think epistemic states matter for moral responsibility.

[ February 01, 2013, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: JonHecht ]

Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 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 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.
No there was some guy in specific he is (was?) way into who made a bunch of bogus claims about diet.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dr. Price
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 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 
Ah. Price is often cited by the raw-food folks and the Paleo folks, so I'll still stand by what I said. But yeah, I didn't specifically know he cited Price, he hasn't done that in this thread.
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:
OK, I did use a sarcastic tone about the butter oil thing. But he literally does eat a raw diet because the tribes who ate it had nicely developed skeletons. He's cited this as one of his reasons many times. (I distinctly recall pointing out to him back in the day that his eating habits weren't going to do anything to his full-grown adult skeleton.)

There is very little truly rigorous nutrition science in the world, and the science that Steven cites to back up his diet is about as rigorous as young-earth creationism. If you like eating that stuff, eat it, but don't pretend you have scientific evidence that it's the right thing to eat. What you have is a bunch of probably placebo-induced anecdotes that, as some of your own points about food would suggest, wouldn't generalize to other people even if they were true in your case because different bodies tend to respond to the same food in different ways.

I never said changing my diet would change my adult skeleton. that's not why I eat it. I eat it because it works really, really well for me.

And you're right, there's basically no rigorous science on nutrition. That's because the number of variables is so high, and the monetary profit to be gained from such science is zero. You can't patent or sell anything that you learn from such research, except maybe access to research papers, and research papers on nutrition won't make anyone wealthy.

Just because there's no rigorous science doesn't mean that you can't use current cultures, anthropological evidence, and some of the existing studies to rough out a basic approach to good diet. That's like saying that, because you don't have a perfect understanding of your spouse, that you shouldn't interact with them. You have to eat. Why not try to do it right?

But you'd rather use the lack of good studies as an excuse to derail the thread, rather than actually investigate the issue as thoroughly as it can be with the available evidence, wouldn't you? And why is that?

Yes, I'm accusing you of arguing in bad faith. Just to be clear. Yes, I'm questioning your motives. Just to be clear. [Smile]

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 Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
I suspect that increased portion size has more to do with the epidemic of obesity in America than what people are eating. Occasional fast food, if it's a 3 oz hamburger, 2 oz of fries, and 8 oz of soda is not a big deal. If it's a half-pound burger, 5.5 oz fries, and 32 oz of soda (refillable!) then, yeah, it's a problem.

Yeah, I agree completely. This is the main issue. Overeating in general.

But I also think it's sort of backwards to blame the increased portion size. Increased portion size in restaurants and on plates came about because people wanted bigger portions. That's the thing that I think sometimes gets lost. People wanted to eat more food, so they did. There's no clandestine portion size mafia that increased things against the will of the people. And there's no compulsion on people to eat the greater portion sizes.

Well. Correction: There's no compulsion on adults to eat the greater portion sizes. Children often do get coerced into doing just that, and I think that manipulation screws them up and is a big cause of people continuing to eat too much into adulthood. But as adults, we have the option to take responsibility for our lives and stop overeating. Large portion sizes or not.

Self-discipline plays a role, but I've found two things that really seem to help people avoid excessive overeating.

1. Eating food in as unprocessed/uncooked a state as possible. You have said that it automatically tastes worse, but that's not necessarily true. Try some wild strawberries sometime, or a ripe mamey sapote. They taste amazing raw. The reality is that, with an unprocessed, raw food, your body has a natural instinctive 'stop' that tells you when you've had enough. This stop is even apparent with cooked and processed foods sometimes, but it's not nearly as strong, usually.

2. Eating one food at a time. Like I said above, your body has an instinctive 'stop' that tells you when you've had enough. Mixing foods weakens this instinct. I personally usually just eat one food at a time, until I'm tired of it, then switch to the next food. I might eat 5 or 6 foods at one meal this way, and it definitely reduces the total amount that I eat.

For instance at lunch, I might have 4 or 5 large scallops, followed by 4 or 5 ounces of 1 type of fish, followed by 3 or 4 ounces of another type of fish, followed by an avocado. All of that's raw, with no condiments, except maybe a little salt sometimes, since my diet includes very little sodium.

Eating this way, one food at a time, is also better for digestion, in my experience. It doesn't matter much when you're mixing flesh foods, but for fruits it can help, for those of us with weaker digestion.

Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 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 
quote:
But I also think it's sort of backwards to blame the increased portion size. Increased portion size in restaurants and on plates came about because people wanted bigger portions. That's the thing that I think sometimes gets lost. People wanted to eat more food, so they did. There's no clandestine portion size mafia that increased things against the will of the people. And there's no compulsion on people to eat the greater portion sizes.
This is certainly true, but it is also true that out in the real world beyond abstract respect for the sanctity of human choice, if you put a plate of food in front of a person they will simply eat more if the plate is larger and the portions *appear* to be about the same size, based on proportions.

What a big part of it comes down to, I think, is how accurate it is to label a choice made in ignorance and even a choice made ignorant of there *being* a choice truly, freely made? I believe you have mentioned working in restaurants before, yes? If so, set aside the (solid, worthwhile) argument that people should be knowledgeable about nutrition for a moment and in your experience consider how many actually were, and perhaps you'll see where I'm coming from in terms of choices made in ignorance.

Heck, compare the time spent teaching children in school about actual physical fitness and good nutrition to time spent mastering or adequately-ing the standardized test.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The reality is that, with an unprocessed, raw food, your body has a natural instinctive 'stop' that tells you when you've had enough.
what institutes is this according to
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
People wanted to eat more food, so they did. There's no clandestine portion size mafia that increased things against the will of the people. And there's no compulsion on people to eat the greater portion sizes.

I suspect the vast majority of people didn't notice. It's not that they chose to eat more food, it's that they moved out of their parents house, bought a box of dinnerware at Target, and didn't notice "Hey, these plates are bigger than the ones I grew up eating on. I'd better adjust my idea of what a normal serving looks like when I'm dishing up my food."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Steven, I'm not going to get into one of these Hatrack arguments about who's "arguing in bad/good faith." I'm glad to see that you're making way more sense about these issues than you did back in the day when you would just parrot that Price guy. Perhaps I shouldn't tar you with the same brush as your earlier self.

quote:
But you'd rather use the lack of good studies as an excuse to derail the thread, rather than actually investigate the issue as thoroughly as it can be with the available evidence, wouldn't you? And why is that?
Some would say that if the available evidence is all pretty sucky, there's not much point investigating the issue, beyond figuring out what kinds of food we know everyone should avoid.

It's even (perhaps arguably) not well understood whether being overweight is actually dangerous. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/our-imaginary-weight-problem.html So giving people a bunch of crap for being overweight (the topic of this thread) might also be premature.

For my part, my only gripe about obesity in America is that I'm still on the market and I find overweight girls unattractive.

quote:
Just because there's no rigorous science doesn't mean that you can't use current cultures, anthropological evidence, and some of the existing studies to rough out a basic approach to good diet.
If you think anthropological studies are the way to go, I'm surprised you don't just take the moral of the China Study and go vegan or semi-vegan. As studies like that go, it seems like about the most rigorous one there is.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rawrain
Member
Member # 12414

 - posted      Profile for Rawrain   Email Rawrain         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would agree with this entirely, but there's a problem with this shaming, and that there is people.

I can see many circumstance, some people really do need more shaming, others need less, but the personality of the person(s) in question is ever the most important part.

For some the shaming would provide a source of motivation to change ones ways in order to escape the shaming. - Like a drill sergeant-

And for the rest, I would say these are the people with low self-esteem, are more inclined to fall into a pit of despair that would result in them hurting/killing themselves and/or hurting/killing others.

- I would go on to say, if you're going to try this you should at least know the person well enough to know if they can handle a bit-o-shame, and remember that a person that weighs 100lbs more than you even if they're weaker do have a strength advantage over you (and most would acknowledge that)
-Ex. I attempt to push a refrigerator, despite my strength being adequate enough to move it, no matter how hard I push it stays still.
-Ex. So a 300lbs man leans against the fridge and it simply pushes away.

I face this one all the time trying to move a ~400lbs salad display case at work to clean behind it, despite being on wheels, I cannot gain enough traction even with slip resistant shoes to move it ~.~

Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010  |  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 Rawrain:


I can see many circumstance, some people really do need more shaming, others need less, but the personality of the person(s) in question is ever the most important part.


This was my thought. Human psychology is complex stuff.
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 Rakeesh:


Heck, compare the time spent teaching children in school about actual physical fitness and good nutrition to time spent mastering or adequately-ing the standardized test.

Yep. In a society where people eat a good diet, it's no big deal. In our society, however, it's a huge deal....and we get it wrong. We talk about grains as the MOST important food, when in fact many people are gluten-sensitive, and grains, in general, are a major FATTENING food. Grains are used to fatten cows and pigs prior to slaughter.

Do we really want to feed ourselves a pre-slaughter diet?

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 Destineer:
Steven, I'm not going to get into one of these Hatrack arguments about who's "arguing in bad/good faith." I'm glad to see that you're making way more sense about these issues than you did back in the day when you would just parrot that Price guy. Perhaps I shouldn't tar you with the same brush as your earlier self.

quote:
But you'd rather use the lack of good studies as an excuse to derail the thread, rather than actually investigate the issue as thoroughly as it can be with the available evidence, wouldn't you? And why is that?
Some would say that if the available evidence is all pretty sucky, there's not much point investigating the issue, beyond figuring out what kinds of food we know everyone should avoid.

It's even (perhaps arguably) not well understood whether being overweight is actually dangerous. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/our-imaginary-weight-problem.html So giving people a bunch of crap for being overweight (the topic of this thread) might also be premature.

For my part, my only gripe about obesity in America is that I'm still on the market and I find overweight girls unattractive.

quote:
Just because there's no rigorous science doesn't mean that you can't use current cultures, anthropological evidence, and some of the existing studies to rough out a basic approach to good diet.
If you think anthropological studies are the way to go, I'm surprised you don't just take the moral of the China Study and go vegan or semi-vegan. As studies like that go, it seems like about the most rigorous one there is.

The China study is of a Neolithic society. Humans developed their eating habits and adaptations long prior to the Neolithic. There are still some Paleo human groups around, like the Inuit, who still eat their traditional diet in more remote areas.

Vegan diets don't include enough of the brain-healthy fats that come with high-quality animal products. Most traditional tribes prize specific animal products, especially certain fatty seafoods (like fish eggs and specific organs) for their health benefits.

Another reason seafoods are so healthy is because all the minerals wash into the ocean and build up over time, guaranteeing that the mineral content of the food, both trace minerals and macro-minerals, is sufficient. Many soils are of poor quality, and the animals living off the plants grown in those soils will not compare well with seafoods, in terms of their nutritional content.

Moderation is important, though.

My main problem with mostly-vegan diets is that people are usually eating grains to replace their animal foods.

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 Samprimary:
quote:
The reality is that, with an unprocessed, raw food, your body has a natural instinctive 'stop' that tells you when you've had enough.
what institutes is this according to
Try it yourself. Take some food that is fairly tasty in its raw form, and then try eating it raw versus eating it heavily cooked, with spices and condiments.
Posts: 3285 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 Code™ 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