If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   More than 10% of the adults in New York City have diabetes. If only there was some kind of ban on large, sugary drinks   (nypost.com) divider line 163
    More: Sad, New York City, American Diabetes Association, amputations, soft drinks, deaths  
•       •       •

2080 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2013 at 12:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



163 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-25 01:14:28 PM

CygnusDarius: No, subby. That's not 'murican.


Subby's Mike Bloomberg?
 
2013-04-25 01:14:33 PM

lordargent: Water is free.


Do you know what fish do in that water? DO YOU!?
 
2013-04-25 01:15:58 PM

FarkedOver: I do like the whiskey. A nice old fashioned after a long day of work always calms the nerves.


Gotten into Manhattans lately. Straight up so they give it to you in a martini looking glass and some dude sees you drinking red shiat out of a martini glass and he's all "Nice cosmo, pussy" and you pound your bourbon down turn to him and say "thanks. Wanna go watch Sex in the City?"
 
2013-04-25 01:18:16 PM

lohphat: Stone Meadow: Medical economists are divided on this issue, noting that healthy lifestyles spread costs over more years, but end up costing about the same as unhealthy lifestyles that result in early deaths.

What's the boundary of costs?

Poor lifestyle choices are often passed on by example to the next generation -- smoking a notable example of government making it harder to smoke and thus seems to have impacted new smokers taking up the habit. Part of government's role is keeping its citizens healthy -- and thus productive -- vs. a burden.

I'm all for government making it harder to be stupid.


I pretty much agree with you here, but the devil is in the details. After all, nobody needs to smoke and everybody needs to eat. The coercion to healthier lifestyles will have to be indirect or people will rebel against their elected officials.

GoldSpider: Stone Meadow: Medical economists are divided on this issue, noting that healthy lifestyles spread costs over more years, but end up costing about the same as unhealthy lifestyles that result in early deaths.

Yes but the healthy person is able to work and contribute to GDP, whereas the "disabled" Rascal-bound fatty is contributing nothing.


Yes, but even then the economics are far from clear.
 
2013-04-25 01:19:27 PM

FarkedOver: A nice old fashioned after a long day of work always calms the nerves.


And three of them on a Friday night puts a shiatty week completely out of your mind.  Not that I do that every single Friday or anything.

skullkrusher: Gotten into Manhattans lately. Straight up so they give it to you in a martini looking glass and some dude sees you drinking red shiat out of a martini glass and he's all "Nice cosmo, pussy" and you pound your bourbon down turn to him and say "thanks. Wanna go watch Sex in the City?"


I don't wanna sound like a queer or nothin', but you've very quickly become a favorite of mine in the NYC category.
 
2013-04-25 01:20:13 PM

Stone Meadow: The_Time_Master: Hows that low fat / high carb diet working for you, tubby?

THIS. Back several years ago when I became concerned about my weight approaching clinical obesity, I went on a low-fat, high-carb diet for about 8 months. Result? I couldn't get "full" so ended up eating too much and my BMI ballooned up over 30 into obese territory.

So I switched gears after reading Garry Taubs' book Why We Get Fat and What to do About It, and changed to a low-carb, high-fat diet. Result? I've lost over 40 lbs and am back in the normal weight zone; my blood chemistry is back to normal, and I feel great. I started riding my bike 10 miles to work several times a week and am fitter than any time in the past two decades.

Downsides? I get drunk very easily now, so avoid hard liquor and even most wine. Now days I restrict my drinking to very light beers, which is a bit of a pita for a northern California wine lover.


Oh man, the thing about getting drunk too easily on that type of diet is so true. I have to remind myself to alternate beer/wine and water or I get so slanted.
 
2013-04-25 01:20:53 PM

puppetmaster745: FarkedOver: If only people were given a living wage and could afford to make healthier decisions.  That would be nice.

If only that increased "living wage" didn't increase the prices of everything you buy, including healthy food. Also, note that there are no fat middle-class or rich people.


If only you could give examples of minimum wage increases causing an increase in inflation.
 
2013-04-25 01:21:38 PM

Yanks_RSJ: I don't wanna sound like a queer or nothin', but you've very quickly become a favorite of mine in the NYC category.


oh you're not gay. I am just en-farking-chanting
 
2013-04-25 01:22:10 PM
FarkedOver:
It's fair to point out as well that as wages have been kept artificially low productivity has more than doubled since that time period as well.

...except those productivity gains have all happened in non-minimum wage jobs. Most of the somewhat-above-minimum jobs are the same way.

No, the guy sweeping the floors at your local grocery store is not twice as productive as he was thirty years ago.

The guys at the distribution center - the ones who run the computers and maintain the automated inventory systems - are the ones who make things more efficient. Some of them are doing five to ten times as a much productive "work" as they were just 20 years ago.

Minimum and low wage workers are doing the same old jobs - at the same old productivity - as they were decades ago. With the exception (partly) of cashiers, who had a huge increase when barcodes came in. Of course, running a register used to require some skill, so the people who used to do that are the ones who are now managing the dozen or so drones who swipe your purchases across a scanner.

You need to remember that very, very few people make minimum wage nowadays. Five percent or so of the workforce. That same five percent are doing pretty much the same things that the bottom five percent were doing back in the 1950s. That bottom twenty percent or so, who are still being about as productive as their grandfathers in the same job? If we make them a lot more productive, half of them are going to be out of jobs - they're only going to be qualified for the jobs that are being done by half as many people.
 
2013-04-25 01:26:21 PM
OBESITY EPIDEMIC!
Run for the hills!
 
2013-04-25 01:29:13 PM
GoldSpider:
I started getting into trouble in my late 20s not by adhering too closely to the model, but by sitting on my ass in front of a computer screen and eating way too much frozen processed food and snacks.

Actually, by eating all of those "processed snacks," you were adhering more closely to the model - higher amounts of carbohydrates. You were conditioned by years of eating that sort of thing to think it was the right way to go. When you hit your late 20s, you were out of your teenage high-metabolism years, so it had a greater effect (along with the inactivity).

Like I said above: the original food pyramid - the one that caused the damage - was heavily structured towards carbs, with very little meat and protein and fats.

Also: "frozen processed food" isn't a bad thing. "Frozen processed food with too much carbs and calories and added sugar because it tastes bland due to the lack of fats and other good stuff" is. You can get good-quality frozen food, you just need to pay attention.
 
2013-04-25 01:38:48 PM

cirby: odinsposse:
You actually think that our problem is the people too rigorously followed nutritional guidelines? Are you high?

No, it's not because of " rigorously followed nutritional guidelines" by the common people - it's because most people took the government's advice as something "scientific," and a lot of societal and regulatory changes followed. Like pushing people away from fats and protein and towards carbohydrates. Government-sponsored messages telling us to eat less meat and more bread to start, then additional, smaller changes along the way.


That really isn't true either. If you look at the diet trends since the 1970's we didn't cut back on meat or fat. In fact they both increased along with consumption of everything else. The idea that American's obesity crisis is because of an adherence to diet recommendations is ludicrous. We aren't doing what the FDA, or any health organization, is saying we should do.
 
2013-04-25 01:39:45 PM

keypusher: brap: If it came from a source with even a smidgen of journalistic integrity I would be scandalized and outraged but as it stands my bullshiate detector is doing backflips.

This "I won't believe it because it's in _____" thing is getting old.  FTA:

The figures are grim: The Health Department said the most recent numbers for 2011 showed nearly 650,000 adult New Yorkers said they had the disease - an increase of about 200,000 since 2002.
The 10.5 percent figure was the first time the rate has hit double digits. It was just 4.2 percent from 1993 to 1995, and 9.3 percent in 2010.
"What's most alarming is that more than 200,000 New Yorkers are walking around with this serious disease and don't even know they're at risk for blindness, amputations, or even worse - premature death," said Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley. "We must work to end this crisis."

Do you believe it now?


Well, since 650,000 is not even ten percent of the population of New York City, let's just say I'm still a little incredulous.
 
2013-04-25 01:41:43 PM

Dharma Bumstead: OBESITY EPIDEMIC!
Run for the hills!


We're "running" as fast as we can...

www.travel-golf.org

Okay, on second thought...

i.qkme.me
 
2013-04-25 01:47:12 PM

Dharma Bumstead: OBESITY EPIDEMIC!
Run Roll for the hills!


FTFY
 
2013-04-25 01:48:51 PM

brap: keypusher: brap: If it came from a source with even a smidgen of journalistic integrity I would be scandalized and outraged but as it stands my bullshiate detector is doing backflips.

This "I won't believe it because it's in _____" thing is getting old.  FTA:

The figures are grim: The Health Department said the most recent numbers for 2011 showed nearly 650,000 adult New Yorkers said they had the disease - an increase of about 200,000 since 2002.
The 10.5 percent figure was the first time the rate has hit double digits. It was just 4.2 percent from 1993 to 1995, and 9.3 percent in 2010.
"What's most alarming is that more than 200,000 New Yorkers are walking around with this serious disease and don't even know they're at risk for blindness, amputations, or even worse - premature death," said Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley. "We must work to end this crisis."

Do you believe it now?

Well, since 650,000 is not even ten percent of the population of New York City, let's just say I'm still a little incredulous.


You're right.  Dammit!  I guess they are only counting adults?
 
2013-04-25 01:49:12 PM

Stone Meadow: Dharma Bumstead: OBESITY EPIDEMIC!
Run for the hills!

We're "running" as fast as we can...

[www.travel-golf.org image 425x389]

Okay, on second thought...

[i.qkme.me image 604x453]


I was @ Disneyland last weekend and had my 90 year old grandma in a wheelchair in the handicapped line. We were the only one with a wheelchair. All the rest were obese and thus "handicapped". The park is OK with this I guess.

Our country is doomed.
 
2013-04-25 01:50:45 PM
Just cutting out sugar won't do much to help diabetes. ALL carbs convert to glucose in the body (exception being fiber). I'll admit I was ignorant on that until I was diagnosed with "pre"-diabetes about a year ago. At first thought I'd just have to give up sweets. Quickly realized that things like oatmeal would spike my blood sugar higher than anything else. Switched to a low carb diet and have dropped my weight from 210 to about 165, and as long as I stick to it, my blood sugar stays in check.
 
2013-04-25 02:02:41 PM

GoldSpider: What would such a ban accomplish, subby?


It would not accomplish anything.  I was hanging out with a fat friend the other day, and he brought along two bottles of Dr. Pepper and two Big Turks.  I looked at him and he said, "they were two for one!".  I continued to look at home, and he looked a little dejected and said, "OK, they were regular price".

A ban on large sizes will simply result in people buying two smaller ones.
 
2013-04-25 02:03:37 PM

Dragonflew: continued to look at home


WTF... "continued to look at him"
 
2013-04-25 02:25:46 PM

draa: puppetmaster745: FarkedOver: If only people were given a living wage and could afford to make healthier decisions. That would be nice.

If only that increased "living wage" didn't increase the prices of everything you buy,


So that's what you choose to go with? Ok. It's almost as if you think prices haven't increased as it is.

As food prices increase and wages don"t(like since the late 80's) more and more people have to rely on shiatter and shiatter nutrional choices. It may not be the cause of obesity but it sure as hell doesn't help. That handy infographic from soup tells the story. And it's no coincidence that it follows the decrease in real wages either.

As far as seeing fat rich people, at least they can afford to be fat where the rest of us just die from lack of proper healthcare because were too farking poor to afford it.


The minimum wage in 1990 was $3.80 / hr. Using the Consumer Price Index, that $3.80 / hr in 1990 equated to $6.57 worth of buying power in 2011. In 2011, the minimum wage was $7.25. $5.15 / hr in 2006 had the purchasing power of $5.72 in 2011, again, the minimum wage was $7.25 in 2011. The purchasing power of the minimum wage has of course fluctuated over time, but it is currently what it was in the mid 80's.

People today are just making shiatty decisions about what they eat. They aren't being forced to by economic factors that are out of their control.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCP I. aspx?reloaded=true

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html
 
2013-04-25 02:40:05 PM
I have a solution to our growing obesity epidemic: no medical care, medications, or emergency response services for the severely obese (BMI over 35 ~ 6.6% of US adults).  If you are not severely obese, but your illness is weight related, you get no prescription medication until you have reached a normal BMI.

Severely obese children under the age of 12 will be exempt from new regulations, but their parents will be force fed 5 lbs of lard and 5lbs of sugar once a week until their children are a normal weight.

Diabetes rates will go down as the severely obese die or lose weight.
 
2013-04-25 02:40:32 PM

koder: Protip: it's not sugar; it's sugar combined with caffeine.

It doesn't matter where you get the caffeine from, either:  your morning coffee is sufficient for ~8 hours.  From there, any spikes or drops in blood sugar will be felt more intensely, with cell metabolisms chaotically responding to the disequilibrium.

The reason why caffeine is Evil in that it operates on cAMP, but most importantly it <i>directly</i> does so on <i>every cell in the body</i>, including pancreatic, hepatic, and, of course, neural. With distributed effect, it makes them all think they're needed immediately and must all increase their metabolisms.

In stark (and perhaps poetic) contrast, the original stimulant, cocaine, would have been much better for everyone, as a whole. Since it'spredominantly centrally-acting, you avoid much of the problem of screwing with your entire body's metabolic chemistry and instead subject it to the equivalent of prolonged fight-or-flight state.  The same applies for other, well-known stimulants like amphetamines and ritalin.  The practical upshot is that your body knows how to deal with this state and is specifically sensitive to it:  certain cells increase their metabolism, while others don't or reduce theirs.  You'd still have a sweet tooth, but it'd actually fade off correctly in response to increased blood sugar.

Naturally it'd still be bad for you to be in a prolonged stimulated state, but at least it'd be more... ermm... natural.  Well, at least it'd get you through the day without too much of a risk of losing a limb or your eyesight to neuropathy.

/fwiw
//I know... I know... tl;dr, but w/e...


Actually, I would love to read more. Do you have any links with more info on this?

/seriously
 
2013-04-25 02:46:05 PM

tarhammer: On the large soft drinks and choice and society? I'm fine with people who want to make their own choices about what to eat and whether to have health insurance or not, as long as they're equally fervent in their acceptance of the consequences. That means that if you drink 3 big gulps a day and develop a handful of illnesses from that like diabetes or high blood pressure, your insurance company doesn't have to pay for your coverage on those areas because the illness is willfully self inflicted. They should also be able to routinely charge you more because your lifestyle choices mean you're less healthy, and that is your decision and your fault. If you have no health care because you want that choice and you get sick and have no money to pay? You stay home and accept the consequences of your choice.


So like this fatty fat fat next door went into kidney failure, and he starts howling in pain.  Fatty fat fat wasn't smart and superior like me, he ate junk food, and now he's dying, and I'm trying to watch the game, and he's all like, "AAAAHHHHH GOD IT HURTS, HELP ME PLEASE," so I just went over there and closed his windows and nailed his door shut, but every now and then I can still hear him screaming, and it just pisses me off.  I'm trying to watch the game.  Those people make me want to vomit.
 
2013-04-25 02:47:29 PM
odinsposse:
That really isn't true either. If you look at the diet trends since the 1970's we didn't cut back on meat or fat. In fact they both increased along with consumption of everything else. The idea that American's obesity crisis is because of an adherence to diet recommendations is ludicrous. We aren't doing what the FDA, or any health organization, is saying we should do.

...except that's not exactly what your link says.

Basically, it says that the number of pounds of meat, eggs, and nuts available for consumption increased - not that the actual calorie consumption increased. A lot of that came from eggs, which are used in... bread and other high-carb foods.

Almost all of the actual meat production and consumption increase over the last three decades has been chicken and turkey (lower-fat meats). We're eating almost 22% less beef, and about the same amount of pork. Meat consumption has increased due to increased chicken consumption. Even using the "meat and eggs and nuts" part from your link, consumption of those categories hasn't gone up enough to make the huge difference in obesity.

Judged as pounds, we're eating more meat - but judged as calories (chicken versus a normal non-lean cut of meat) we're eating the same - or less. Moderately fatty meat has about twice the calories of broiled chicken.

On the other hand, bread consumption (and carbohydrate calories) has increased by FORTY-ONE PERCENT. Which tracks magnificently with the weight gain of the US population. Add to this the 19% increase in sugar and sweetener consumption (to make the carbs taste better), and you get - fat people.
 
2013-04-25 03:02:52 PM

Daniels: GoldSpider: Daniels: How does one define "access to a real grocery store?" Is it having to take a bus to one? Is it there not being an enormous grocery store with a nationally recognized name nearby?

It's a combination of factors, several of which you hit upon.

In many urban areas, the only food store within walking distance is the local bodega.  Large grocery stores simply are not around.  And sure, you can take a bus to one, but then you're dealing with the bus schedules, as well as limited by the amount of groceries you can carry home.  These and many other factors, I'm sure, contributed to limited access.

How heavy is a bag of vegetables on the subway?  Or the bus?   Nobody in urban areas buys a carload of groceries at a time and everyone shops in limited amounts.


Here's a test to see if you live in a food desert:

If you are willing to travel for poon, by any means necessary, further than the nearest grocery store with a produce section, you don't live in a food desert.
 
2013-04-25 03:02:57 PM

lohphat: ManateeGag: no one has a gun to your head when you select the 64 oz. UBER-GULP!   Adults should be able to make their own choices, instead of having the gubment tell them what choices to make.

The problem is the rest of us have to pay for their healthcare costs via higher premiums. They don't feel the impact, we do.


No you don't. What's that old phrase? I'd rather see 100 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to jail? I'm 6'3" @134lbs. I drink the large drinks and my numbers are perfect. So go ahead, ruin my meals because some fat ass can't make a healthy decision for himself. That sounds American.
 
2013-04-25 03:08:57 PM

WTFDYW: Ohhhhhhhh, nice. Another one of those "I have to be at the gym in 26 minutes, but before I leave I must tell you how to live your life" threads.

/f*ck off


you sound fat.
 
2013-04-25 03:12:59 PM

soup:  And damn him for trying to do anything at all within his power to try to help.


See that's exactly the problem. American's always want politicians to "DO" something. And for some sick reason politicians thing that means banning something. It's lazy.

And yes. Mayors and Governors do have an impact on Federal matters. Instead of firing off the ban-hammer motivate your constituents to bug their congressmen and reps. Imagine if Bloomberg spent some of the money he's wasted trying to ban soda to expose the corn lobby for what it is, to call the FDA to task for not doing its job to expose the tricks corn syrup plays on the pancreas and metabolism, how it contributes to obesity because it doesn't satisfy the bodies actual desire for genuine sugar.

But that would involve actual risk. That would involve courage and research and fact checking. That would expose an economic Juggernaut as big as the banks, and oil companies. So it's easier to just ban something. It looks like you care, like you're trying to help and if anyone complains? Well you can just reply : "You sound fat!"
 
2013-04-25 03:13:46 PM

cirby: Almost all of the actual meat production and consumption increase over the last three decades has been chicken and turkey (lower-fat meats). We're eating almost 22% less beef, and about the same amount of pork. Meat consumption has increased due to increased chicken consumption. Even using the "meat and eggs and nuts" part from your link, consumption of those categories hasn't gone up enough to make the huge difference in obesity.


That's true but it also means we're eating a deal more protein, not less.

On the other hand, bread consumption (and carbohydrate calories) has increased by FORTY-ONE PERCENT. Which tracks magnificently with the weight gain of the US population. Add to this the 19% increase in sugar and sweetener consumption (to make the carbs taste better), and you get - fat people

It also says added fat consumption increased 62%. That doesn't include fat that may be included in meat or dairy products. That is more than enough calories to also make a significant contribution to weight gain and show that people aren't following any kind of low fat philosophy.
 
2013-04-25 03:15:31 PM
Just found out I have type 2.  My doctor asked me about soda, gave it up 5 years ago...excersize?  Weights in the morning, walk about 2 - 3 miles a day.  Eat a lot of sugar?  Nope.  His final answer, well some people just get it.

Really??  Some people just get it?  Thanks man.  By the way, 5'11", 42 and 180.  So not a weight deal either.
 
2013-04-25 03:19:16 PM

FarkedOver: Making it more affordable for healthy choices isn't a bad thing.  The government doing PSA commercials on the benefits of healthy living and the detriments of living off the dollar menu at your local fast food place.  It's a problem.  It costs money to solve these problems.  Yes, tax money.


I agree with most of your post, but given that a good part of any healthy diet is *moderation*, the dollar menu can be surprisingly healthy given that it actually has portion sizes more suited to human consumption in a single meal.

IE you can end up with more calories eating a salad from subway than getting a $5 value meal from Burger King with a small cheeseburger, small fries, and small drink.  Basically a kid's meal without the toy.
 
2013-04-25 03:22:46 PM

cirby: odinsposse:
That really isn't true either. If you look at the diet trends since the 1970's we didn't cut back on meat or fat. In fact they both increased along with consumption of everything else. The idea that American's obesity crisis is because of an adherence to diet recommendations is ludicrous. We aren't doing what the FDA, or any health organization, is saying we should do.

...except that's not exactly what your link says.

Basically, it says that the number of pounds of meat, eggs, and nuts available for consumption increased - not that the actual calorie consumption increased. A lot of that came from eggs, which are used in... bread and other high-carb foods.

Almost all of the actual meat production and consumption increase over the last three decades has been chicken and turkey (lower-fat meats). We're eating almost 22% less beef, and about the same amount of pork. Meat consumption has increased due to increased chicken consumption. Even using the "meat and eggs and nuts" part from your link, consumption of those categories hasn't gone up enough to make the huge difference in obesity.

Judged as pounds, we're eating more meat - but judged as calories (chicken versus a normal non-lean cut of meat) we're eating the same - or less. Moderately fatty meat has about twice the calories of broiled chicken.

On the other hand, bread consumption (and carbohydrate calories) has increased by FORTY-ONE PERCENT. Which tracks magnificently with the weight gain of the US population. Add to this the 19% increase in sugar and sweetener consumption (to make the carbs taste better), and you get - fat people.


Meh. You don't think it could just be that people have been increasingly more sedentary and eat more calories? If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

I dislike the carb hate, but I'm a runner and I've been over 170 lbs. What do I know?
 
2013-04-25 03:27:36 PM

cartersdad: Just found out I have type 2.  My doctor asked me about soda, gave it up 5 years ago...excersize?  Weights in the morning, walk about 2 - 3 miles a day.  Eat a lot of sugar?  Nope.  His final answer, well some people just get it.

Really??  Some people just get it?  Thanks man.  By the way, 5'11", 42 and 180.  So not a weight deal either.


Google is your friend, but the short answer is that there is a genetic component that increases one's susceptibility to developing insulin resistance. In all cases, tho, true Type II is ALWAYS the result of a cycle of eating carbs that stimulates insulin production leading to insulin resistance. Find a doc who specializes in curing Type II...not just treating it.
 
2013-04-25 03:28:12 PM

Jument: Meh. You don't think it could just be that people have been increasingly more sedentary and eat more calories? If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

I dislike the carb hate, but I'm a runner and I've

never been over 170 lbs. What do I know?

Oops. I accidentally the word.
 
2013-04-25 03:31:43 PM
odinsposse:
That's true but it also means we're eating a deal more protein, not less.

Protein and fat is the issue, not just protein. Protein alone won't make you feel full - but protein combined with fats does.

It also says added fat consumption increased 62%.

Added fats and oils.

Vegetable oils, for the most part. We've reduced animal fats by a large margin. It should be "oils with a little bit of fats".

Most of the increase in vegetable oil consumption has come from... making all of those carbohydrates and other low-taste food palatable. Salad oils, cooking oil for potato chips and fries, et cetera. Low-satiety foods that induce you to eat too many calories.

Of course, following "the guidelines" means cutting out even more saturated fats - but as we're finding out, unsaturated fats are not better (and might actually be worse, especially in the volumes we use). People who go on high-protein and moderate animal fats diets do very well.

By the way... one of the things that came out of the 1980s food faddism by the government was pushing the food producers to use transfats instead of other fats. Yeah, those transfats. The ones that Bloomberg hates now.
 
2013-04-25 03:39:46 PM

soup: [i.imgur.com image 497x288]

Can you guess what the percentages are in reference to?


Could be poverty, obesity, or illiteracy. The south has a corner on all of those markets.
 
2013-04-25 03:42:19 PM

puppetmaster745: FarkedOver: If only people were given a living wage and could afford to make healthier decisions.  That would be nice.

If only that increased "living wage" didn't increase the prices of everything you buy, including healthy food. Also, note that there are no fat middle-class or rich people.


Ooh. let's collapse the economy. Inflation might happen if we don't!

The poor are probably working two jobs or can't afford the health club, unlike the non-poor.  Ignored.
 
2013-04-25 03:47:41 PM

Kibbler: The way that a substanital part of the US population is plunging gleefully into morbid obesity and all of the awful diseases obesity carries with it, at a time when the baby boomer generation is nearing retirement, I think it's inevitable that our hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, will become essentially suicide parlors, even if we try to cover it up with euphemisms.  It's either that or we keep 30 million people barely alive at a cost of $30,000 a month per person, and their only reason to remain alive will be to see what kind of bacon double cheeseburger is on the menu for lunch.

It's not going to be a pleasant future.


lh5.ggpht.com

Ach, sagen Sie mehr, mein Herr!

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_iY608hR6ZTw/TaGqTVrOFhI/AAAAAAAAH5I/qHDO8cuTpJ E/ image%5B18%5D.png?imgmax=800
 
2013-04-25 03:49:31 PM

FarkedOver: ManateeGag: no one has a gun to your head when you select the 64 oz. UBER-GULP!   Adults should be able to make their own choices, instead of having the gubment tell them what choices to make.

No, but the government has a vested interest in keeping it citizens healthy for a variety of reasons.  But don't let me tell you that, just go ahead and see what the joint chiefs have to say about it.


Those gooks aren't going to kill themselves?
 
2013-04-25 03:59:04 PM
If only there was a photo of a diabetic person rampaging with bows and arrows while on horseback
 
2013-04-25 03:59:29 PM

cirby: Vegetable oils, for the most part. We've reduced animal fats by a large margin. It should be "oils with a little bit of fats".


Nope. Animal fat consumption has gone up too. We're eating leaner meat but more of it and it results in an increased consumption. I swear I had a graph that showed a breakdown of the different kinds fat consumption for this period for that but I can't find it now. This is the best I can do. From the USDA this graph at least shows we're eating slightly more animal fat than we were in the 70's.

www.indiana.edu
 
2013-04-25 04:10:46 PM
odisnposse:
Nope. Animal fat consumption has gone up too. We're eating leaner meat but more of it and it results in an increased consumption.

Sorry, but your own link says different.

Page 19. Added animal fat consumption down 19 percent between 1970 and 2005. That chart alone shows a drop from 14 pounds to under 12 pounds - which calls into serious question the chart you just posted (it's too low).

With the lower fats in chicken (the big increase in meat consumption), we're not eating more animal fats in the food itself, and combined with the fairly stable amount of meat-based calories, you have to look elsewhere. You know, like at the thing that increased the most over the last few decades - carbohydrates of all kinds (bread and potatoes and sugar).

One thing, though: the chart you posted showing the drop in animal fat consumption does track very nicely with the increase in heart disease in the US over the last century (and the increase in unsaturated fats).
 
2013-04-25 04:19:51 PM

BolshyGreatYarblocks: puppetmaster745: FarkedOver: If only people were given a living wage and could afford to make healthier decisions.  That would be nice.

If only that increased "living wage" didn't increase the prices of everything you buy, including healthy food. Also, note that there are no fat middle-class or rich people.

Ooh. let's collapse the economy. Inflation might happen if we don't!

The poor are probably working two jobs or can't afford the health club, unlike the non-poor.  Ignored.


Huh?
 
2013-04-25 04:33:48 PM

cirby: odisnposse:
Nope. Animal fat consumption has gone up too. We're eating leaner meat but more of it and it results in an increased consumption.

Sorry, but your own link says different.


That's still added fats, butter and lard and the like. I thought we were talking fat from meat consumption. Fair enough then.

With the lower fats in chicken (the big increase in meat consumption), we're not eating more animal fats in the food itself, and combined with the fairly stable amount of meat-based calories, you have to look elsewhere. You know, like at the thing that increased the most over the last few decades - carbohydrates of all kinds (bread and potatoes and sugar).

Except it isn't stable. It's increasing just like everything else. Fat consumption is up. Protein consumption is up. Carbohydrate consumption is up.

One thing, though: the chart you posted showing the drop in animal fat consumption does track very nicely with the increase in heart disease in the US over the last century (and the increase in unsaturated fats).

I don't think it maps. Heart disease, iirc, exploded in the 40's predating the drop in animal fat consumption.
 
2013-04-25 05:11:27 PM
Di beetus beetus
ts3.mm.bing.net
 
2013-04-25 05:23:13 PM

Kibbler: It's not going to be a pleasant future.


It will be if you're skinny!
 
2013-04-25 05:26:31 PM

odinsposse: cirby: Vegetable oils, for the most part. We've reduced animal fats by a large margin. It should be "oils with a little bit of fats".

Nope. Animal fat consumption has gone up too. We're eating leaner meat but more of it and it results in an increased consumption. I swear I had a graph that showed a breakdown of the different kinds fat consumption for this period for that but I can't find it now. This is the best I can do. From the USDA this graph at least shows we're eating slightly more animal fat than we were in the 70's.

[www.indiana.edu image 450x320]


So what happened in the 40s through the 70s?  My mom says she first ate margarine during WWII, because of rationing -- she hated it.  But is margarine, crisco, etc. what that chart reflects?
 
2013-04-25 05:34:42 PM

GoldSpider: puppetmaster745: The small Walmart community stores would be great for inner-city food deserts, but that would be bad because Walmart.

That's a much bigger problem than the availability of sugary drinks, but don't try to tell Bloomberg there are problems in his city that can't be solved with the banhammer.


I lived in Bed Stuy NY and was in walking distance of three grocery stores selling fresh produce, in addition to the little produce carts the city subsidizes. I challenge the notion that food deserts are common, and if they are, they are due to the palate of the locals, not a giant conspiracy by multinationals to kill Americans with their forks.
 
2013-04-25 05:37:20 PM

Stone Meadow: lohphat: ManateeGag: no one has a gun to your head when you select the 64 oz. UBER-GULP!   Adults should be able to make their own choices, instead of having the gubment tell them what choices to make.

The problem is the rest of us have to pay for their healthcare costs via higher premiums. They don't feel the impact, we do.

Medical economists are divided on this issue, noting that healthy lifestyles spread costs over more years, but end up costing about the same as unhealthy lifestyles that result in early deaths.


Do they take into account lost productivity?
 
Displayed 50 of 163 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report