Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

2096 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2013 at 12:08 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-04-25 12:09:45 PM  
No, subby. That's not 'murican.
 
2013-04-25 12:09:50 PM  
Smug must cause diabeetus, too.
 
2013-04-25 12:11:26 PM  
Is that 10% per capita or per pound?
 
2013-04-25 12:11:42 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-25 12:11:51 PM  
What would such a ban accomplish, subby?
 
2013-04-25 12:12:02 PM  
If only people had to be responsible for their own actions... we don't want that though, then the Democratic party would cease to exist.

Step 1:  Drink lots of soda
Step 2:  Get diabeetus
Step 3:  ???
Step 4:  profit (free health care omgggg jackpot)
 
2013-04-25 12:12:16 PM  
We should round up these fatties and force them into camps and force them to exercise while at the same time reducing their calorie intake, Type 2 diabetes has been shown to respond very well to weight loss. Maybe we should call them Freedom through exercise camps.
 
2013-04-25 12:13:10 PM  
cdn.theatlanticwire.com
 
2013-04-25 12:14:28 PM  
I can't even imagine that if it's true....10% is a fairly significant percentage. I've only ever met one diabeetus person ever, and I live in Scotland (aka The Sick Man of Europe) so I should know.
 
2013-04-25 12:14:47 PM  
Of course, to make a difference, we're going to have to ban most other carbohydrates and sugars too.

And go after the folks who told us we needed to eat more of them.

Which will be convenient, since they're pretty much the same people who told us we need to cut back on sugar now.
 
2013-04-25 12:15:26 PM  
If only people were given a living wage and could afford to make healthier decisions.  That would be nice.
 
2013-04-25 12:16:25 PM  

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


There are plenty of valid, reasonable arguments about the availability of affordable, healthy options for inner-city residents.

This is not one of them.
 
2013-04-25 12:18:25 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: We should round up these fatties and force them into camps and force them to exercise while at the same time reducing their calorie intake, Type 2 diabetes has been shown to respond very well to weight loss. Maybe we should call them Freedom through exercise camps.


Übung macht frei?
 
2013-04-25 12:19:20 PM  
I love getting a seat on the subway and then a sweaty fat person gets on and I don't give them my seat.
 
2013-04-25 12:19:38 PM  
This is news?  According the the American Diabetes Association, 11.3% of the American population 20 yrs and older have diabetes.  Sounds like New York is the norm.
 
2013-04-25 12:20:08 PM  

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


lol
 
2013-04-25 12:20:15 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: We should round up these fatties and force them into camps and force them to exercise while at the same time reducing their calorie intake, Type 2 diabetes has been shown to respond very well to weight loss. Maybe we should call them Freedom through exercise camps.


Your newsletter. I'd like to subscribe.
 
2013-04-25 12:20:43 PM  
i.imgur.com

Can you guess what the percentages are in reference to?
 
2013-04-25 12:22:11 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 12:22:23 PM  
Or... we could pressure our politicians to stand up to the Corn lobby, who thanks to government subsidies for planting corn (because it was going to make us less energy dependent) shove a diabeetus inciting product into just about every processed food sold in the country.

1) Remove subidies
2) See less corn syrup in processed food
3) See price of processed food rise
4) See healthier options now equally affordable
5) See diabeetus rates drop over time

No wait, that would take money from politician pockets and be less visible stunt legislation for "Oh look at me I'm fighting fatties!" politicians.
 
2013-04-25 12:22:52 PM  

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

Can you guess what the percentages are in reference to?


BCS appearances?
 
2013-04-25 12:23:49 PM  

Phineas: If only people had to be responsible for their own actions... we don't want that though, then the Democratic party would cease to exist.


Like tea-tards protesting to "Keep government hands off my Medicare"?
 
2013-04-25 12:23:50 PM  

Lord_Dubu: fighting fatties


Accidental band name?
 
2013-04-25 12:23:59 PM  

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

There are plenty of valid, reasonable arguments about the availability of affordable, healthy options for inner-city residents.

This is not one of them.


The small Walmart community stores would be great for inner-city food deserts, but that would be bad because Walmart.
 
2013-04-25 12:24:24 PM  

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

lol


Don't laugh at me! You know I'm serious :)
 
2013-04-25 12:24:25 PM  

lohphat: Like tea-tards protesting to "Keep government hands off my Medicare"?


Fix old no new.
 
2013-04-25 12:24:45 PM  

magic_patch: I can't even imagine that if it's true....10% is a fairly significant percentage. I've only ever met one diabeetus person ever, and I live in Scotland (aka The Sick Man of Europe) so I should know.


Unless you're making them sew stars on their lapels (hey, there' s an idea for Bloomie!), how would you know? Diabetics don't typically announce their status to every random stranger they meet.
 
2013-04-25 12:25:25 PM  

bangmaid: Slaves2Darkness: We should round up these fatties and force them into camps and force them to exercise while at the same time reducing their calorie intake, Type 2 diabetes has been shown to respond very well to weight loss. Maybe we should call them Freedom through exercise camps.

Your newsletter. I'd like to subscribe.


He doesn't have a newsletter, but he wrote an interesting book while he was in prison.
 
2013-04-25 12:25:45 PM  

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

lol

Don't laugh at me! You know I'm serious :)


I know! That's what's so adorbs! Totes farking adorbs. And presh too
 
2013-04-25 12:26:23 PM  
soup:
Can you guess what the percentages are in reference to?

Obesity, obviously.

However, another way to describe it is "what happens when you follow the early-1980s government-designed food pyramid, AKA nutritional pseudoscience."

Of course, those obesity percentages are measured with BMI - which is another weight-oriented pseudoscience that the government still uses.

/we're fat in the US - just fat in a different way than most think
//and the best way to not be fat is to ignore the government's old advice
 
2013-04-25 12:26:49 PM  

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


You mean if they had to buy groceries with their OWN money?
 
2013-04-25 12:26:52 PM  

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.


i34.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-25 12:27:46 PM  
Why does soda exist?
What purpose does it serve?
 
2013-04-25 12:28:18 PM  

cirby: soup:
Can you guess what the percentages are in reference to?

Obesity, obviously.

However, another way to describe it is "what happens when you follow the early-1980s government-designed food pyramid, AKA nutritional pseudoscience."


You actually think that our problem is the people too rigorously followed nutritional guidelines? Are you high?
 
2013-04-25 12:28:34 PM  

Lord_Dubu: Or... we could pressure our politicians to stand up to the Corn lobby, who thanks to government subsidies for planting corn (because it was going to make us less energy dependent) shove a diabeetus inciting product into just about every processed food sold in the country.

1) Remove subidies
2) See less corn syrup in processed food
3) See price of processed food rise
4) See healthier options now equally affordable
5) See diabeetus rates drop over time

No wait, that would take money from politician pockets and be less visible stunt legislation for "Oh look at me I'm fighting fatties!" politicians.


Yeah because the mayor of NYC has the power to introduce federal legislation. And damn him for trying to do anything at all within his power to try to help.

I agree that only banning certain sized sugary beverages is dumb, though. Maybe a tax on those drinks would be a better alternative, but the soft drink companies fight that tooth and nail.
 
2013-04-25 12:28:38 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 12:29:23 PM  

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

lol

Don't laugh at me! You know I'm serious :)

I know! That's what's so adorbs! Totes farking adorbs. And presh too


That is only one of the actions I would take it if were Chairman of the People's Republic of the United States.
 
2013-04-25 12:29:52 PM  

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

You mean if they had to buy groceries with their OWN money?


Isn't South Carolina's governor trying to start a "only used for healthy foods" mandate for their state foodstamp/SNAP recipients? I don't recall where I heard or saw that. May be BS.
 
2013-04-25 12:29:56 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-25 12:32:56 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-25 12:34:41 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 12:35:23 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 12:35:49 PM  
Hows that low fat / high carb diet working for you, tubby?
 
2013-04-25 12:37:07 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-25 12:37:14 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.


so no Big Gulps for the poors, extra large slushies with double the syrup for the rest of us! Woooooooooooo!
 
2013-04-25 12:38:00 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.


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.
 
2013-04-25 12:38:13 PM  

Lord_Dubu: 2) See less corn syrup in processed food


I've started to see more products that make of point of mentioning that they contain no HFCS.  Salad dressings, ketchup, bread.  They usually don't cost much more, if any at all, versus their counterparts.

So, if there is a growing market for people trying to avoid HFCS, let's hope this is reflected in product cost and availability.
 
2013-04-25 12:38:53 PM  

lohphat: 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.


I'd wager that people with diabetes, like smokers, pay a higher insurance premium.
 
2013-04-25 12:40:22 PM  

FarkedOver: No, but the government has a vested interest in keeping it citizens healthy for a variety of reasons.


So.... start regulating personal diet and exercise habits?
 
2013-04-25 12:40:48 PM  

Loose_Stool: Why does soda exist?
What purpose does it serve?


The tv says to drink it when I am thirsty on a hot day or, you know, just hanging around with my friends and being spontaneous!
 
2013-04-25 12:42:29 PM  

GoldSpider: lohphat: 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.

I'd wager that people with diabetes, like smokers, pay a higher insurance premium.


not anymore....
 
2013-04-25 12:42:43 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: We should round up these fatties and force them into camps and force them to exercise while at the same time reducing their calorie intake, Type 2 diabetes has been shown to respond very well to weight loss. Maybe we should call them Freedom through exercise camps.


or we could call them: Arbeit lässt Sie verlieren
 
2013-04-25 12:42:52 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: No, but the government has a vested interest in keeping it citizens healthy for a variety of reasons.

So.... start regulating personal diet and exercise habits?


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.
 
2013-04-25 12:43:05 PM  
Ah yes, it's the "What the fark do I care about fatties, just let fatties eat themselves to death, they can just die in the street and their bloated corpses will eventually wither away, people should be free to make their own choices and not be brainwashed by hearing the same messages over and over again about what they should and shouldn't do, I'm lovin' it" thread.
 
2013-04-25 12:43:15 PM  

skullkrusher: GoldSpider: I'd wager that people with diabetes, like smokers, pay a higher insurance premium.

not anymore....


Thanks 0bama!
 
2013-04-25 12:45:05 PM  

Kibbler: Ah yes, it's the "What the fark do I care about fatties, just let fatties eat themselves to death, they can just die in the street and their bloated corpses will eventually wither away, people should be free to make their own choices and not be brainwashed by hearing the same messages over and over again about what they should and shouldn't do, I'm lovin' it" thread.


I haven't had fast food in years. I think the last time I was actually even in a McDonald's was over 2 years ago when the wifey was preggo and had a craving for a McFlurry. I hear the same commercials. Some brains are more easily washed than others it would seem
 
2013-04-25 12:45:33 PM  

GoldSpider: What would such a ban accomplish, subby?


Lower health care costs for non-fatasses?
 
2013-04-25 12:46:39 PM  

FarkedOver: Making it more affordable for healthy choices isn't a bad thing.


We already have that; it's called SNAP.  The problem isn't that there isn't money for people to buy healthier food, it's that many urban areas do not have access to a real grocery store.  That's a problem that can't be solved simply by giving people more money.

FarkedOver: The government doing PSA commercials on... the detriments of living off the dollar menu at your local fast food place.


Which would require politicians to get their hands out of the fast food companies' pockets.  Again, good luck with that.
 
2013-04-25 12:46:43 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 12:47:44 PM  

Free Radical: Lower health care costs for non-fatasses?


Except banning unhealthy sugary drinks served in large containers doesn't do anything to make it harder for people to get unhealthy sugary drinks.
 
2013-04-25 12:48:24 PM  

GoldSpider: Which would require politicians to get their hands out of the fast food companies' pockets. Again, good luck with that.


I know it's tough and a pipe dream, but that's why I am a socialist :P I believe in overthrowing the capitalist system.
 
2013-04-25 12:48:43 PM  
I know someone with diabetes who is on a bunch of medication. His doctor told him he could get off the meds if he improved his diet. He declined, because the meds work just fine and he can eat anything he wants and keep being obese.
 
2013-04-25 12:49:06 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 12:49:29 PM  

odinsposse: cirby: soup:
Can you guess what the percentages are in reference to?

Obesity, obviously.

However, another way to describe it is "what happens when you follow the early-1980s government-designed food pyramid, AKA nutritional pseudoscience."

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


So much THIS.
 
2013-04-25 12:49:35 PM  

skullkrusher: Kibbler: Ah yes, it's the "What the fark do I care about fatties, just let fatties eat themselves to death, they can just die in the street and their bloated corpses will eventually wither away, people should be free to make their own choices and not be brainwashed by hearing the same messages over and over again about what they should and shouldn't do, I'm lovin' it" thread.

I haven't had fast food in years. I think the last time I was actually even in a McDonald's was over 2 years ago when the wifey was preggo and had a craving for a McFlurry. I hear the same commercials. Some brains are more easily washed than others it would seem


So you don't immediately run out and do whatever your TV tells you?  Interesting.
 
2013-04-25 12:49:46 PM  

GoldSpider: lohphat: 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.

I'd wager that people with diabetes, like smokers, pay a higher insurance premium.


And diabetic amputees often end up on disability, which I pay for.

/Dad's diabetic and had been ignoring doctors and degrading for 20 years
 
2013-04-25 12:51:19 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 12:51:24 PM  

FarkedOver: I know it's tough and a pipe dream


To your credit, at least you acknowledge this.
 
2013-04-25 12:51:48 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: Making it more affordable for healthy choices isn't a bad thing.

We already have that; it's called SNAP.  The problem isn't that there isn't money for people to buy healthier food, it's that many urban areas do not have access to a real grocery store.  That's a problem that can't be solved simply by giving people more money.



I always hear this argument, and it's never well defined.  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?
 
2013-04-25 12:52:16 PM  
In California, the percentage of employers who had health insurance or benefits for their workers went from 73% to 60% over the last ten years. And deductibles have gone up as well. But let the fat people keep being fat, it has no consequences for anyone else but themselves.
 
2013-04-25 12:52:30 PM  

GoldSpider: Free Radical: Lower health care costs for non-fatasses?

Except banning unhealthy sugary drinks served in large containers doesn't do anything to make it harder for people to get unhealthy sugary drinks.


drinking a vat of Kool-Aid a day, still ok in Bloomberg's Apple.
 
2013-04-25 12:52:38 PM  

Stone Meadow: 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.


Same here.  I lost 30 lbs. and now I get buzzed after two moderately-strong beers.
 
2013-04-25 12:53:06 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: skullkrusher: Kibbler: Ah yes, it's the "What the fark do I care about fatties, just let fatties eat themselves to death, they can just die in the street and their bloated corpses will eventually wither away, people should be free to make their own choices and not be brainwashed by hearing the same messages over and over again about what they should and shouldn't do, I'm lovin' it" thread.

I haven't had fast food in years. I think the last time I was actually even in a McDonald's was over 2 years ago when the wifey was preggo and had a craving for a McFlurry. I hear the same commercials. Some brains are more easily washed than others it would seem

So you don't immediately run out and do whatever your TV tells you?  Interesting.


it takes a monumental effort not to fall prey to their subliminal messages about how I'm lovin' it but no, that shiat is nasty
 
2013-04-25 12:54:27 PM  

soup: Lord_Dubu: Or... we could pressure our politicians to stand up to the Corn lobby, who thanks to government subsidies for planting corn (because it was going to make us less energy dependent) shove a diabeetus inciting product into just about every processed food sold in the country.

1) Remove subidies
2) See less corn syrup in processed food
3) See price of processed food rise
4) See healthier options now equally affordable
5) See diabeetus rates drop over time

No wait, that would take money from politician pockets and be less visible stunt legislation for "Oh look at me I'm fighting fatties!" politicians.

Yeah because the mayor of NYC has the power to introduce federal legislation. And damn him for trying to do anything at all within his power to try to help.

I agree that only banning certain sized sugary beverages is dumb, though. Maybe a tax on those drinks would be a better alternative, but the soft drink companies fight that tooth and nail.


I'm not a big fan of using the tax code to drive us towards desired behavior like cattle. I know personal responsibility is lacking in this country, but taxing something because it's frowned upon goes against the freedom we should be enjoying as Americans. Unfortunately, the more healthcare costs are put on the taxpayer, the more it will be used as a justification for controlling any behavior that affects our health -- ie everything we do.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."
― P.J. O'Rourke

Of course, this is in the context of not depriving anyone else of life, liberty, or property.
 
2013-04-25 12:55:02 PM  

skullkrusher: it takes a monumental effort not to fall prey to their subliminal messages about how I'm lovin' it but no, that shiat is nasty


I admire your restraint.  Many a night I find myself sitting in my apartment, then a Taco Bell commercial comes on and before it's even over my shoes are on and I'm trying to find my wallet to satisfy the craving I didn't know I had until TV made me aware of it.
 
2013-04-25 12:55:08 PM  
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...
 
2013-04-25 12:55:31 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: I know it's tough and a pipe dream

To your credit, at least you acknowledge this.


"A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution." -- Lenin

It will happen when it happens.
 
2013-04-25 12:56:21 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 12:58:41 PM  

Daniels: I always hear this argument, and it's never well defined. 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?


Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

Here, "access" is defined as "you're able to successfully get there on a regular basis, and buy things" - if either one isn't true, you don't have access.
 
2013-04-25 01:00:00 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.


This.

Also:
BRAWNDO!

People are less educated and motivated to be healthy than ever in the past, and things that aren't good for you are more widely available, often cheaper.

Factor in that people like comfort and tasty things(and can find solace in such things when depressed), it's inevitable.
A lot of that depression is a societal problem in a world full of status symbols and competition and class jealousy/pompousity.

And evolution...We're wired to eat what we can and when we can, to seek that comfort or that high.  Some people can no more choose to live a super healthy life than others can choose to not be gay.
 
2013-04-25 01:00:36 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,


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.
 
2013-04-25 01:01:57 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-25 01:02:07 PM  

cirby: Of course, to make a difference, we're going to have to ban most other carbohydrates and sugars too.

And go after the folks who told us we needed to eat more of them.

Which will be convenient, since they're pretty much the same people who told us we need to cut back on sugar now.


Having gained 80lbs eating "the food pyramid" and losing 95 eating "exactly what my doctor said not to eat", I'm going to chime in a little.  The direction all along has been to get away from expensive meat with low profit margins and lots of hassle to cheap GMO grains and starches, which are highly profitable and very little hassle to grow and harvest.

Here are some goodies to tide all y'all along...

  - Fat is bad for you?  Nobody ever proved that.  Ansel Keys removed 17 of the data sets he had from 23 countries to 'prove' saturated fat causes heart disease.  The other 17 countries disagreed with that conclusion, and the correlation was stronger for heart disease and carb consumption than for fat consumption.
 - Salt is bad for you?  Nobody ever proved that either.  Many long running studies showed no correlation.  Intersalt threw out 40% of its data where people ate salt and were healthy, claiming they must be lying.  Well, someone is lying...
 - Red meat and processed meats like bacon bad for you?  The only problem with those studies is the subjects already had heart disease, smoked more, drank more and exercised less along with their red meat eating habits.  In studies where healthy people with good quality gut flora eat meat, they experience no ill effects.
 - Sugar is the #1 legal cash crop in the world.
 - Foods heavy in wheat, corn, soy, sugar, canola and soybean oil are extremely prevalent, cheap to make, and very profitable.  Also tasty.

Skip the carbs and sugar, eat your meat and fat like our grandparents and great grandparents did, whole fruits and veg, leave the grains and roots at the store.  Exercise a little.  Don't smoke.  Lose weight.  I ate my way into and out of diabetes and high blood pressure.

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.

I am constantly amused by people who like to live in the wonderful society we all have together, but decide they want to step outside of it to make their 'choices', but when the consequences come around, they're very interested in having society bail them out.  The guy yelling about socialism quite quickly shows up to the emergency room for his broken leg without any money to pay, and relies on everyone else who goes to that hospital to pay for his bills.  That latter part IS socialism.

So yes, if people feel that they need a soda large enough to drop depth charges into or to test a small outboard motor in, and they want to blow up to 300lbs and develop diabetes and high blood pressure and have strokes and heart attacks...good on you!  Make your choice.  Then stay home when you feel the heart attack coming on, because the insurance company shouldn't pay for your stupid choices, and the hospital and its other patients shouldn't either.  When people are too stupid to make good decisions, or deliberately make bad ones because they're all about being 'merican, someone has to reign them back into societal acceptance.  Your mortgage company requires you to have home insurance on your house.  Your car company requires you to have insurance on your car to go with your loan.  Most states require you to wear a seatbelt when you drive.  These things are in place because large numbers of people would choose to make a bad decision when they are unable to bail themselves out when the inevitable disaster comes along, and they would choose to make a bad choice if left to their own devices.  Yet other people and other organizations then have to foot the bill.

When you have significant cognitive dissonance in societal public health issues, someone has to act as the responsible parent.
 
2013-04-25 01:02:42 PM  
Get fat, die, fark you. Your free to do so. We'll render your fat ass into soap for the poor.
Something something rules something profit
 
2013-04-25 01:02:58 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: skullkrusher: it takes a monumental effort not to fall prey to their subliminal messages about how I'm lovin' it but no, that shiat is nasty

I admire your restraint.  Many a night I find myself sitting in my apartment, then a Taco Bell commercial comes on and before it's even over my shoes are on and I'm trying to find my wallet to satisfy the craving I didn't know I had until TV made me aware of it.


to be fair, beer commercials do that to me but that's because I'm a lush, not because the commercial has any real impact and I'm not buying the shiat they're advertising anyhoo
 
2013-04-25 01:03:02 PM  

draa: As food prices increase and wages don"t


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.

People are being paid less and forced to work more just to maintain an existence.
 
2013-04-25 01:05:32 PM  

skullkrusher: because I'm a lush


Another reason to like you.  Dammit you make hating you a chore!

I don't drink beer though.  I drink vodka, comrade.
 
2013-04-25 01:06:09 PM  
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
 
2013-04-25 01:06:26 PM  

FarkedOver: I don't drink beer though. I drink vodka, comrade.


Real Farkers drink Vodak.
 
2013-04-25 01:06:34 PM  
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.

A lot of that is enforced in schools - which have a disproportionate effect. They definitely took the food pyramid as gospel - there were posters on the walls touting this silliness. Of course, that "lots of grains, lots of vegetables, some fruit, and very little meat" ended up as "eat bread and potatoes because they're cheap, add a side of stewed carrots, toss in one serving of sweet applesauce, and garnish it with a little meat, because meat is bad for you."

In other words, a pile of carbohydrates that don't make you feel full so you eat too much of it. Don't look at the "new" food pyramid charts, which have finally started to hedge a bit. Look at the old ones.

Then, of course, we have the myriad legal and regulatory additions, most of which pushed people down the "poor people get fat" road - and which were based off of the official wisdom of the food pyramid, which was completely wrong. Farming subsidies, et bloody cetera.

I remember when they started pushing the food pyramid. It has - in a very obvious way - changed how people eat. If you're looking for someone who's out of touch, look at the people who lived through it and never noticed. Try a mirror.
 
2013-04-25 01:07:26 PM  

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: because I'm a lush

Another reason to like you.  Dammit you make hating you a chore!

I don't drink beer though.  I drink vodka, comrade.


beer and whiskey varieties mainly meself but I do have a fondness for black spiced rum as well.
 
2013-04-25 01:09:06 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: I don't drink beer though. I drink vodka, comrade.

Real Farkers drink Vodak.


I'm not a real farker.  Look at me, I'm a no good liter. I am stuck here drinking vodka until I one day decide to go back to TF

skullkrusher: FarkedOver: skullkrusher: because I'm a lush

Another reason to like you.  Dammit you make hating you a chore!

I don't drink beer though.  I drink vodka, comrade.

beer and whiskey varieties mainly meself but I do have a fondness for black spiced rum as well.


I do like the whiskey.  A nice old fashioned after a long day of work always calms the nerves.
 
2013-04-25 01:10:30 PM  

cirby: I remember when they started pushing the food pyramid. It has - in a very obvious way - changed how people eat. If you're looking for someone who's out of touch, look at the people who lived through it and never noticed. Try a mirror.


Somehow I survived the food pyramid, which was in place through most of my primary school years.  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.
 
2013-04-25 01:10:35 PM  
FarkedOver: If only people were given a living wage and could afford to make healthier decisions.

Water is free.

And tea is cheap.

The real problem is, some people have no willpower, and no amount of taxing or banning is going to change that.

// used to drink six cans of dew per day, on average.
 
2013-04-25 01:11:41 PM  

lordargent: FarkedOver: If only people were given a living wage and could afford to make healthier decisions.

Water is free.

And tea is cheap.

The real problem is, some people have no willpower, and no amount of taxing or banning is going to change that.

// used to drink six cans of dew per day, on average.


You expect me to drink tap water!? You're a farking barbarian!
 
2013-04-25 01:12:11 PM  

FarkedOver: People are being paid less and forced to work more just to maintain an existence.


Yeah, I harp on that all the time. Low wages are one of my pet peeves and it pisses me off when people make excuses for low wages and why they should be kept low. And it's usually people that are making good money themselves.
 
2013-04-25 01:12:14 PM  

FarkedOver: I'm not a real farker. Look at me, I'm a no good liter. I am stuck here drinking vodka until I one day decide to go back to TF


You and me both; I'm only "enlightened" for another week or so, off of the sympathy of a generous Farker in a Caturday thread.
 
2013-04-25 01:12:45 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...


100% bullshiat, too.  At least about caffeine.  Can't speak to the other stuff.
 
2013-04-25 01:13:33 PM  

lordargent: Water is free.


Water?  Like... from the toilet?
 
2013-04-25 01:13:41 PM  

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: I'm not a real farker. Look at me, I'm a no good liter. I am stuck here drinking vodka until I one day decide to go back to TF

You and me both; I'm only "enlightened" for another week or so, off of the sympathy of a generous Farker in a Caturday thread.


I'm sure the TF discussion threads are too highbrow for me any how.....
 
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?
 
2013-04-25 05:41:31 PM  

LiberalEastCoastElitist: 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.


Nah, it not the food palate that creates the inner-city food desert.  It is the lack of desire on the part of many people in the inner-city to pay for the things that they remove from the store shelves.  Shop lifting and robberies pretty much removed every grocery store and 7-11 from the city where I used to live.
 
2013-04-25 05:46:37 PM  

keypusher: 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?


Possibly. I was thinking it was fat derived from meat, which was also rationed during WWII. I could be wrong though. The description is kind of vague.
 
2013-04-25 05:53:08 PM  

tarhammer:FarkedOver: draa: As food prices increase and wages don"t

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.

People are being paid less and forced to work more just to maintain an existence.


Actually, if you look at the total compensation package, what is happening is the increases in productivity are being swallowed up by increased health insurance premiums. I held a part time union job once where 1/3 of my compensation was in the form of blue cross/blue shield health insurance. It's very nice insurance with very low deductibles and prescription coverage, but almost a complete waste of money for a 20-something. I think it was $700/month.
 
2013-04-25 06:03:23 PM  

LiberalEastCoastElitist: 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.


Yeah... this is kinda my point, too.  I hear this stuff about food deserts constantly but even the crappiest parts of NYC seem to have some kind of small grocery store with a produce section within a quarter-mile.  It seems more like trying to make excuses for the fact that bad for you food is cheaper and more delicious than good for you food.
 
2013-04-25 06:13:06 PM  

odinsposse: keypusher: 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?

Possibly. I was thinking it was fat derived from meat, which was also rationed during WWII. I could be wrong though. The description is kind of vague.


Sorry, I didn't say that very well.   What I meant was, "why did American consumption of animal fat fall so sharply from the 40s through the 70s?  Was it because people stopped using butter and lard and switched to margarine and Crisco?"
 
2013-04-25 07:06:19 PM  
Problem with the news spreading these "obesity epidemic" stories and linking them to diabetes is part of their misunderstanding about how people get it.  If you're obese, your risk for type 2 is higher, but if you have someone in your family who is diabetic or you're a member of certain minority groups your risk gets even higher.  But there are thin people out there who have type 2 diabetes, and not every obese person will develop the illness.

With that said, I was just recently diagnosed with Type 2 a couple of weeks ago.  I kind of ignored the warning signs (my mother is also type 2, I had gestational diabetes when I was pregnant with my son five years ago,and I do fall into the "overweight" category), but now I'm taking the news as an opportunity to improve my health.  I've already started changing my eating habits, and according to the scale have lost 8 pounds so far.  I told my doctor that I didn't want to mess with this -- I saw what it did to my late brother in law, who died of a heart attack and wasn't diagnosed until after he was in the hospital.  I personally think that the government nutrition guidelines are a crock -- it heavily emphasizes foods that have a lot of carbs as the biggest portion of the pyramid, and it's leading to more people getting the disease because they can't handle the carb overload.
 
2013-04-25 07:10:23 PM  
keypusher:
Sorry, I didn't say that very well. What I meant was, "why did American consumption of animal fat fall so sharply from the 40s through the 70s? Was it because people stopped using butter and lard and switched to margarine and Crisco?"

Pretty much that.

Margarine was a cheap butter substitute, and once people got used to it, they kept using it because of the price advantage (and longer storage times, too).

In the 1950s, when the early (supposed) link between saturated fats and heart disease was first suggested, a lot of margarine makers started pushing margarine as a "healthy" substitute for butter. These margarines had a large amount of transfats in their makeup due to the processes used. This continued until the 1990s, when the connection between transfats and heart disease was nailed down. Up till that point, some nutritionists actually suggested trans-fats were good for you, since they didn't have much known effect on the human body at the time, and would represent less calories from fat.

Remember that some trans-fats are actually good for you - the ones naturally found in (you guessed it) animal sources.

One of the surest ways to cut coronary heart disease (after losing weight and getting exercise) is to eliminate trans-fats from the diet. By using animal fats, for the most part.
 
2013-04-25 08:12:54 PM  

soup: Yeah because the mayor of NYC has the power to introduce federal legislation.


NYC does have a congressional delegation. Maybe they could make themselves known for something other than
corruption and tweeting pictures of their junk.

FarkedOver: the government has a vested interest in keeping it citizens healthy for a variety of reasons.


They sure have a funny way of showing it.

The government's actions point more toward having a vested interest in the accumulation of power by keeping people dependent on them and by cultivating mutually beneficial relationships with big business - and what more wonderful way to do that is by fattening up poor people on big-box subsidized processed crap, sending them off to diabeetusland, where they can have their condition 'managed' (cured? oh HELL no) by a pharmaceutical company until they're old enough for Medicare at which point an additional set of big businesses get to wet their beaks.

"Military" isn't the only word that fits before "-industrial complex."
 
2013-04-25 08:54:48 PM  

PseUdononymous Savagery: Di beetus beetus
[ts3.mm.bing.net image 282x182]


s16.postimg.org
Wilford Brimley cat does not approve.
 
2013-04-25 09:49:20 PM  
Damn, these fat jokes got serious.
 
2013-04-25 09:57:02 PM  
Ironically, a lot of that diabetes might have a root cause in their gut bacteria.  One genus, especially, called enterobacter produces a toxin that strongly contributes to weight gain.  Typically people have 30-40 dominant types bacteria in their gut, but people who are morbidly obese have flora that is almost 1/3rd enterobacter.

Likewise, irritated MAST cells can contribute strongly to weight gain.

Other bacteria, and Archaea, are also extremely important to the equation.  While radical, medically supervised, very low calorie diets for a month or two may be able to halt or reverse early onset diabetes, at least temporarily, there are a bunch of other contributing factors, such as ability to absorb nutrients, metabolism, and yet, what types of food are consumed and how digestible they are.
 
2013-04-25 11:26:00 PM  
FarkedOver

If only people were given a living wage and could afford to make healthier decisions.

Where the fark do you live that has water more expensive than soda?

For fark sake start taking responsibility and stop blaming others.
 
2013-04-26 01:38:43 AM  
This New Yorker here keeps gradually gaining weight and I'm the heaviest I've ever been --  202 pounds and 5 foot 4. Was down to 170 pounds a year and a half ago after recuperating from a serious illness. Wanted to get down further to below 150 pounds, but instead gained 30 pounds plus.  Don't want to look at myself in mirror. Clothes are all tight. Have more difficulty with steps.  The culprit for me is life style and habits have worsened.  Spend increasing amount of time on computer/internet/sitting.  Make breakfast and lunch. But rarely cook anymore which I used to do regularly,  and eat dinners out now mostly.  Snack too much. I rarely exercise. My dog is extremely elderly and can not go on long walks anymore.  I've never had diabetes; but I'm way overdue for an appointment with my internist. Need check up and blood tests.  Ran out of lipitor for high cholesterol.  Need to spend less time on computer, begin exercise, cook dinners.  I don't want to look like that morbidly obese woman in the Post picture.
 
Displayed 163 of 163 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report