This is topic Obesity is not a Moral Judgement! in forum Politics/Religion/Current Affairs at The Geek Culture Forums!.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000611

Posted by Mr. Geek 2U (Member # 28663) on October 13, 2010, 19:47:
 
Here you go Ms. Rhonwyyn!

I have not been mean to you. I mean no offence! I do not know why you are mean to me. Why? Why? Why?

You axed me to know the facts and read your friend.

I Have my Romex suit on! Here we go.

My good friend who is a geek and a scientist and she has letters after her name for staying in school. P and H and D and M and D. OK? And she is a world expert on Heartery Tacks and Obesity. She talks all over the whole world at science festivals!

She says you are wrong. Obesity is a de-seise. Yes Ma-damsel, you are wrong about factuals. Wrong about me. Tra-La! DE-Dah!

Do not take my words or letters.

OBESITY IS NOT A COSMETIC ISSUE NOR A MORAL JUDGEMENT

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION SAYS OBESITY IS A MAJOR HEALTH PROBLEM

"The non-fatal, but debilitating health problems associated with obesity include respiratory difficulties, chronic musculoskeletal problems, skin problems and infertility. The more life-threatening problems fall into four main areas: CVD problems; conditions associated with insulin resistance such as type 2 diabetes; certain types of cancers, especially the hormonally related and large-bowel cancers; and gallbladder disease."

AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION: THE EFFECTS OF OBESITY ON CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE AND HEALTH ARE MANY

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY: OBESITY TRIPLES THE RISK OF CHRONIC KIDNEY FAILURE

JOURNAL OF ENROCRINOLOGY: OBESITY NOTABLY LINKED TO HYPERTENSION

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: OBESITY PLAYS A ROLE IN PROSTATE CANCER

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF GASTEROENTEROLOGY: OBESITY INCREASES RISK OF COLORECTAL CANCER

I will say those are smart people! Science geeks, boy howdy! Those things sure look like factuals! Made by real scientists!

So what is my place? I stand in the place where I live and face North!

And when I stand right there I am Fiver Niner and 200 pounds I am clinically overweight! Me Too! BMI 26!

200 Pounds! You, can think of that at 800 quarter pounders with cheese! How about that! Tast-ee huh?

And at just a weensy bit overweight I have hypertension, borderline diabetes, a pool-lip removed from my colon, and a cancer prostate removed a year ago.

But I still sing at the alarm clock when I wake up alive! I work to lose my fatty boo-tee! I eat more plants. I eat less animals! Hoo-Ray!

It is cancer month! Fat makes cancer. So I say a big N-O NO! to fat! Yes, indeedy. Boy-O-Boy! That is my place! LIVESTRONG!

So now I say time for you and fat myths. OK? I will chain link the fence to your gurl-frriend:

Cause there is that German-ster myth opry where it ain't over till the fat lady sings Go Valkeries!

So here is the fat lady! Trrraaaaaaaa-LAAAAAAAAAAA!

FAT LADY WALLOWS IN HATRED AND IGNORANCE

Now it's over! No offence!

Have a great day!

Mr. Geek 2U!
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on October 13, 2010, 21:34:
 
Oh look. Facts. Damn you pinko commie liberal. [Wink]

*cough*

I mean, thank you for a fair and balanced treatment of things, and sparing me the effort of using Google or being flamed.

*cough*
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on October 14, 2010, 02:21:
 
Well defended Sir.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on October 14, 2010, 03:29:
 
____ This is one of those topics that is like treading on thin ice, My BMI is 31, I would not have fit in the rescue capsule, I may have the outline of The Woz.

____ However even I sometimes make judgements on appearance, it is not a good trait. Many people have thin skin, it may have been rubbed thin for them, by others, mea culpa.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on October 17, 2010, 20:06:
 
Eh, not trying to be mean (it just comes naturally?), so I'm sorry if I hurt you. I get defensive when people "concern troll" fat people since I am one and I know that there's a whole lot more that goes into it than what the media would have you believe.

I really like Kate Harding's breakdown of things here. She links to Junk Food Science's blog, which critically reviews some of those links posted above. Linda Bacon's "Health At Every Size" (referred to in the fat acceptance community as HAES) is also a good read and way of life.

In short, being fat is not a death sentence. Many of the supposed side effects of this "disease" are the result of the way people treat those who are fat. It's a psychological issue, not a physical one. We need to remove the barriers that prevent fat people from full participation in society: bias, ridicule, expectation of poor health, assumption of ignorance and stupidity, etc. In my experience, those contribute more to poor health than fat does.
 
Posted by zesovietrussian (Member # 1177) on October 18, 2010, 17:16:
 
Some food for thought, and more food for, well, eating. I think Ms Harding is laughing all the way to the bank.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on October 18, 2010, 18:02:
 
Um, not sure what your point is about Donna Simpson, ZSR. However, I happened to stumble across this redux of the "Daily Mail" story tonight, so I thought I'd share: http://corpulent.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/worlds-fattest-woman/
 
Posted by zesovietrussian (Member # 1177) on October 18, 2010, 18:53:
 
Um, that's the woman telling everyone to stop exercising and eating a healthy, balanced diet since it's all useless and ineffective, get as fat as one could possibly want and not worry about it, and yet she looks like she has a better diet and gets more exercise than all of us combined. Just look at those lean, muscular forearms that would make Madonna jealous. Sure, she's might be just a bit more heavy-set than average, but there's absolutely no way in hell she's leading the lifestyle she advocates. Apologies for being rude, but the only fat I can spot in that picture is in places where no guy would object. Not only she's a hypocrite, she's also a cold-blooded killer - laughing all the way to the bank while her gullible readers follow her "great" advices and get themselves closer and closer to a heart attack.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on October 18, 2010, 20:04:
 
I used to ride ambulances and I'm going to offer one of those rare instances when anecdotal evidence actually agrees with statistics: every single cardiac patient I took in was either overweight and/or a smoker. IIRC, they were all over 40 also. The only exception was a skinny man in his 30's who had a very rare type of viral infection and the virus was attacking his heart (sorry, I am drawing a complete blank on the name of the bug, but I distinctly recall myself and the paramedics who took the call looking it up in one of the reference books at the ER because none of us had ever heard of it and we were dying to know how to not get it). The only diabetics I saw who were not noticeably overwieght were the Type Is; I did not see a single Type II diabetic who didn't need to lose a few pounds, but I did meet a few people who were Type II diabetic before they lost a pile of weight. Most of the Type IIs I treated needed an ambulance for reasons unrelated to the diabetes. The Type Is usually needed us because something happened related to their blood sugar.

BTW, while I'm on a roll...you know the Atkins diet? It's a crock and, if you have heart disease or diabetes, it's dangerous. If you do try it, and no one with the know-how is monitoring your ass, around week two you're going to develop an arrhythmia and find yourself talking to an EMT and trying to explain why, even though you know you have a serious medical condition, you made a drastic change in your diet without your doctor's input. I never heard an excuse that actually made a lick of sense.

Edit: Kawasaki disease. That was what the 30-something year-old man with the bad heart had. Usually, it only infects children and it is known to cause heart complications. I told my mom about later because I thought she'd be interested and her reaction was "You saw an adult diagnosed with what?"
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on October 18, 2010, 22:01:
 
Some food for thought... (erm...pun mildly intended)

One unfortunate problem online these days is that sites can encourage people to tune out all other ideas, and simply feed on their own egos and 'bright ideas.' Case in point: The birthers. Such people ignore real facts willfully, or treat them with disdain, as though conspiracy theories. (n.b. Someone expressed this point this better on /. earlier today...'birthers' was an apt example used. However, this serves not to plagiarize, but to summarized assorted things read over the past year.)

In recent times, websites have cropped up that encourage downright unhealthy behavior or criminal activities.

Do you support:
Websites that act as support communities for active anorexics/bulimics, encouraging bad eating habits on the other side of the spectrum?

Websites that enlist and support jihadism?

Websites that encourage suicide...going so far as to provide plans and moral support?

Websites that offer a marketplace for phished credit card information? ("carders")

Online activity that scares / shames a gay student to kill himself?

Online bullying via Facebook, et al., that has lead at least on girl to kill herself?


All of the above would be identified by most as sites/activities that make bad activities seem increasingly acceptable to those who frequent them. On a far lesser scale, it's become a well documented issue that people seek their news from sites that cater to their views, tuning out 'the other side.' (i.e. WSJ readers not reading NYT and vice versa.)

While I'm sure it would be deemed grievously offensive to draw an analogy between the above and fat acceptance [*] sites, is it really that different? A well written blog (disclosure: that's an assumption, I haven't seen it) can win over a great many people, and cause many facts to be swept under the carpet, leaving the new facts to carry more weight, and be told loudly.

[*] (a concept I'd never heard of before, I might add)

At the end of the day, I strongly encourage anyone to ask their doctor about appropriate medical and dietary decisions. Most well qualified doctors can generally state what a 'target weight' should be, and any concerns that may pertain to current conditions, or diet risks/plans.


P.S. I was walking on the High Line last night, clearing my head a little, and a very un-PC thought hit me, especially after seeing this thread. When I saw the /one/ and only /one/ rather large person up there, I immediately thought 'tourist.' If that's not normal, why did it play out that way? Why only one?
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on October 19, 2010, 02:47:
 
I thought kawasaki desease wasthe love of über modern japanese rice brner motorcycles.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on October 19, 2010, 10:05:
 
Most of the health problems associated with being fat are not caused by being fat, but rather by the lifestyle that leads to being fat.

The fact is that it is entirely possible to be fat and healthy, but it's extremely unlikely. Unless you have other health problems (and saying "thyroid" between eating boxes of Twinkies doesn't count), following a lifestyle that gives you good health will cause you to lose any excess weight you might have.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on October 19, 2010, 11:43:
 
____ I am only speaking for myself here, habits I picked up forty years ago are why I have health problems now, I have looked in the mirror I do not like what I see. The old adage of if it tastes good spit it out could be applied to me. I do not crave deserts, I just eat solid stick to your ribs food, until I hurt then I stop. Lack off self control, I eat too damn much.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on October 20, 2010, 17:45:
 
Lost interest when I got to the part where an expression of concern for someones health was described as

quote:
From kateharding.net:
hating entire groups of people because of their appearances


 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on October 20, 2010, 20:00:
 
http://blog.sinthetik.com/it-could-be-worse-you-could-be-fat

There's a guy's take on this subject that y'all might find interesting.
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on October 20, 2010, 21:01:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Most of the health problems associated with being fat are not caused by being fat, but rather by the lifestyle that leads to being fat.

If lifestyle is the problem it sure would be nice if people actually talked about lifestyle instead of assuming they know what's happening when a person is fat. Believe it or not, some fat people exercise and eat well, some skinny people eat crap and sit on the couch all day. The second person is not the healthier of the two. And it's also entirely possible that the person walking down the street at 250 pounds has already lost a bunch of weight and is as skinny as they are going to get.

quote:
Originally posted by zesovietrussian:
m, that's the woman telling everyone to stop exercising and eating a healthy, balanced diet since it's all useless and ineffective, get as fat as one could possibly want and not worry about it, and yet she looks like she has a better diet and gets more exercise than all of us combined

Assuming you're talking about Kate Harding there, I'd suggest you have no idea what you're talking about, or else you completely misunderstand what the word "fat" means. To give myself as an example:

 -

Granted, I'm on the "smaller" side of fat, but that is what your average obese American looks like right there. And IIRC, Harding is right about at the same BMI as me.

Besides which, I don't think there is anyone in the fat acceptance sphere that says you shouldn't eat healthy foods and be active. Just that 1)being healthy is not a moral imperative--and foods do not have moral components 2)you can't tell how "healthy" a person is by looking at them and 3)dieting (especially yo-yo dieting--which is most of it) is self-destructive.
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on October 21, 2010, 02:21:
 
quote:
Originally posted by TMBWITW,PB:
Some skinny people eat crap and sit on the couch all day.

Is this empirical evidence or is there a study that you could point me to that shows this. I know skinny people who eat junk food all the time but every person in this catagory i have met has also had a very active lifestlye, or were growing teenagers.

quote:
Originally posted by TMBWITW,PB:
2)you can't tell how "healthy" a person is by looking at them and

BS,

It is possible to look healthy and be really sick, but if you look unhealthy, I really doubt you are healthy. And if you don't agree with the above statement, then I think your judgement has been corrupted by pop culture in regards to what unhealthy is.

quote:
Originally posted by TMBWITW,PB:
3)dieting (especially yo-yo dieting--which is most of it) is self-destructive.

Yoyo dieting is not healthy , I agree, BUT, Dieting can be compard to quitting something, like smoking, If you fall off the wagon, the most likely way to success is to get back on the wagon and stay there, and not to worry that trying again means you are yoyoing.
 
Posted by zesovietrussian (Member # 1177) on October 21, 2010, 07:32:
 
BMI is completely meaningless, it's the body fat percentage that matters. For certain body types, it's entirely possible to lead a healthy lifestyle and still have a BMI over 30 while having normal body fat percentage and being perfectly healthy. Abnormally high body fat content, on the other hand, is caused by a combination of three things - poor health, lack of exercise, and way too many twinkies.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on October 21, 2010, 08:49:
 
Going by BMI alone, Shawn Crawford is overweight.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on October 21, 2010, 10:03:
 
____ Obesity is not a Moral Judgement! Quite correct, however the Moral Judgement comes in as you look at other people.

DO YOU think that that person is ________ ? Moral Judgement.

The judgement happens in our own heads, Look in the mirror and think about who you have judged today.
 
Posted by zesovietrussian (Member # 1177) on October 21, 2010, 10:19:
 
I think those who take good care of ourselves have every right to judge those who don't, as we're the ones paying for their poor decisions through ever-increasing insurance premiums. Don't want to be judged? Write a little note saying "please don't call an ambulance when I have a heart attack" and carry it with you everywhere so we don't have to pay a part of that $500,000 heart surgery hospital bill when all those twinkies finally catch up with you. I couldn't care less about what anyone does, eats or looks like, but I sure as hell do care when their actions lighten my wallet. There, everyone go ahead and flame me!
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on October 21, 2010, 11:07:
 
There's no need to turn this topic into another stupid flame war. We've all seen more than enough of them to last a lifetime.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on October 21, 2010, 13:20:
 
by the same token, then, i don't want to pay for your knee replacement because you blew it out during a marathon. It's your fault for being athletic, so why should i be expected to pay for you?
 
Posted by Eponine (Member # 548) on October 21, 2010, 15:23:
 
quote:
Originally posted by zesovietrussian:
I think those who take good care of ourselves have every right to judge those who don't,

I'm not going to flame you, but I'm going to disagree with your basic assumptions.

I'm 195 lbs and 5'2"- by the BMI I'm morbidly obese. I also eat a pretty fabulous diet full of fruits, veggies, and meats. I'm actually pretty passionate about good food, but that's another subject entirely. I also have two kids I run around after all day long, so I'm constantly moving, including a daily ~hour long nature walk. More than just diet and exercise, I make sure to get enough sleep, some time to myself, and maintain good relationships with those I live with and am around every day. I avoid cigarettes, coffee, and drugs (both the illegal and prescription kind). I wear my seatbelt. By all standards, I take care of myself. My husband worked with a guy who thought ramen was "real food". This guy ate Hostess snack cakes, and fast food pretty much all the time. He was also really really skinny. Shortly after telling me about this guy, he landed in the hospital. He had to be fed by an IV, and diagnosed with Crohn's Disease. But he was skinny.

Fat/= doesn't take care of themselves. And Skinny/= takes care of themselves.

You can't tell by looking at someone whether they take care of themselves.
 
Posted by zesovietrussian (Member # 1177) on October 21, 2010, 22:25:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
by the same token, then, i don't want to pay for your knee replacement because you blew it out during a marathon. It's your fault for being athletic, so why should i be expected to pay for you?

Nice one, I'll bite (much pun intended.) If I blew out my knee after my doctor repeatedly told me my bones are weak and I shouldn't run but I ran anyways, or I pushed myself way beyond my limits and knew I was going to blow out my knee unless I stopped but instead kept running until my knee gave out, it's all my fault an no one is obligated to pay. If, on the other hand, I simply tripped and fell - well, that's what insurance is for. You see, blowing out one's knee isn't due to being athletic, it's either an accident or result of one's carelessness and stupidity. But then again, heart problems are also nothing but accidents and have nothing to do with being morbidly obese and not doing anything about it - all those scientist are quacks anyways, right? Kate Harding and some random junk food science blog say so, how can they possibly be wrong? [Wink]
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on October 22, 2010, 03:47:
 
____ Not all Heart problems are caused by the Knife and Fork.

____ patent+ductus Usually newborns but some escape detection until later in life.

____ aortic arch defects, may not show up in life until a child reaches High School sports ie BasketBall

____ aneurysm, again may appear in totally healthy individuals, whom just passed their Flight Physical, good friend just had his Physical got home sat down never got up Bmi 23
 
Posted by Tom- geeking around (Member # 2876) on October 22, 2010, 06:12:
 
Oooohhh dear...

I'd be pleased if I could add some of my input on this matter.
To give you an insight on my history and views, let me start off by saying I'm 6-foot something tall and weigh 150 pounds. Not obese by any stretch of the imagination. I also support the idea of Fat-Acceptance.

But my lifestyle sucks. I don't do any sports. I watch tv or sit in front of the computer a lot. My diet mostly sucks (unless my gf cooks) - it consists of processed foods and fastfood mostly. None of those are particularly rich in vitamins. All of them are rich in fat.

But my 260 pound 5-foot 2-inch girlfriend used to be fitter than me. She simply does more sports than I do. I'd realize when we take the stairs or go hiking. Oh, I forgot to mention: my gf is 17 years older than I am too.

What I am trying to say is:

Don't judge people just because they're fat. They've gone through hell in school because they were bullied - just because they were fat.

Being obese certainly DOES increase your chances of heart attacks, higher chance of having problems with your hip/knee joints - no point in denying that.
BUT bing fit and fat isn't a contradiction per se. It's about the lifestyle that makes the difference - not just your body weight.. Let alone your BMI.

But the most important part is: Big people can be great people too. Give them a chance. My best best relationship ever has been with a big woman.

People come in all colors and sizes - big and small.

So long!
Tom
 
Posted by zesovietrussian (Member # 1177) on October 22, 2010, 07:46:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom- geeking around:

Being obese certainly DOES increase your chances of heart attacks, higher chance of having problems with your hip/knee joints - no point in denying that.
BUT bing fit and fat isn't a contradiction per se. It's about the lifestyle that makes the difference - not just your body weight.. Let alone your BMI.

Tom

Thank you. That's what I (and the OP) were trying to say all along, yet we keep getting flamed by a certain Kate Harding admirer who's probably going to flame you as well now [Wink]
 
Posted by yorik (Member # 2364) on October 25, 2010, 15:01:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom- geeking around:

Being obese certainly DOES increase your chances of heart attacks, higher chance of having problems with your hip/knee joints - no point in denying that.
BUT bing fit and fat isn't a contradiction per se. It's about the lifestyle that makes the difference - not just your body weight.. Let alone your BMI.

I would argue for a subtle change to your post: being obese is ASSOCIATED with heart attacks, etc. I believe that obesity is part of a cluster of symptoms of a bigger problem, generally called Metabolic Syndrome. Address that and you address the heart attacks and obesity at the same time. And other diseases too.

BTW, did you ever see those Erectile Dysfunction ads on TV? "My doctor told me my blood pressure / cholesterol / diabetes could be causing my ED" Those issues are also part of the same cluster of symptoms associated with Metabolic Syndrome.

Just changing your diet will improve your overall health, but the problem of mobilizing the fat for reduction is a surprisingly non-intuitive process. Eat less-exercise more is an incredibly simplistic interpretation for a complex hormonally controlled, homeostatic system.

As an aside, I did the Atkins Diet under supervision of my physician. Triglycerides, cholesterol and blood pressure all dropped significantly while on the diet. Low-carb diets are pretty much the new standard of health nowadays for fighting Metabolic Syndrome. Some people just aren't up to speed on that fact yet. Atkins itself is somewhat passe, having been supplanted by what some call "Paleo"-style diets, but still low-carb.

And yes, I am morbidly obese (I need to lose a whole person to get back to college weight) and I've done a lot of research and self-experimentation. Obviously I'm still not an expert through experience yet. [Smile]
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on October 26, 2010, 01:37:
 
metabolic syndrome doesn't seem to be anything more than the observation that overweight people have alot of health problems. In other words, it is not the cause, (the unhealthy lifestyle is), it is the sum of observations and not a specific desease.

Also, it is great that Adkin's diet is working for you, but many studies have shown the effect is simply due to the calorie restricting nature of cutting carbs out of your diet. But I would only go on a diet that is well balanced (but still calorie restricting).
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on October 26, 2010, 05:16:
 
Beside, Atkins's own diet didn't kept him thin. The Atkins diets messes up your metabolism, so the moment you get off of it, you're done.

Extra info: it's the organ-fat that it the most damning for the heart. The fat that attaches to the internal organs. The peripheral fat is not as bad. So one may seem thin but be at risk for heart attacks (because organ fat doesn't show on the outside), while another has a few too many curves, but not be at such risk. Everyone is different. And I have read a study (which is worth what a study can be worth) that for obese people to lose 10% of their weight, even if it doesn't take them out of obesity range, seriously prevents their risks of cardiac, diabetes and other obesity-associated diseases.

So, the only constant is: exercise. Well, a balanced diet doesn't hurt either. Keep your organs in good woking order, and suddenly your weight is not as much a problem. (I want to start playing DDR again!)

For your info; I am obese. BMI around 34. My breakfast is a slice of bread with peanut butter, and juice (real juice, no sugar added). Dinner is (on week days) low salt frozen meal, veggie juice and unsweetened apple+fruit sauce. Supper is whatever I have on hand, not always best, but with veggie juice, and that's where dessert kills me. Well, and when having snacks around the computer, it's hard not to eat them; but I usually have non-buttery pop-corn. I run up stairs almost everyday going at work, and I have ballroom dance classes once a week. I don't smoke, I very rarely drink, and never get drunk. So I may not be the best, but I am not a scare either. (And the moment I have a home, I will start the Wii Fit and DDR again, believe me! It's my downstairs neighbor who's preventing me from losing weight! [crazy] )
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on October 26, 2010, 11:32:
 
There have been some good points made all around, so rather than try to address everyone I'm just going to say what I have to say, all right?

Number one, dieting with weight-loss as your only goal isn't helpful, but changing your life to be more active and improve the foods you eat is--even if you don't lose weight. This shouldn't be earth-shattering news, but there are studies to back it up.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar06/health0306.htm

And whatever weight is lost during a diet tends to be temporary:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748

Probably because your metabolism compensates:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199503093321001

AND dieting itself it turns out might be harmful:

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v34/n6/full/ijo201041a.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/54635.php

It turns out that weight might not even be the most useful tool for measuring health anyway:

http://www.physorg.com/news168538390.html

Not to mention that there are many other factors contributing to population obesity statistics. For one, there is a stigma associated with being fat that means your life is more stressed in general, and even medical professionals treat you differently:

http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/sum03/stigma.html

Obesity also correlates pretty well with poverty, which means you have to take into account how much good food and activity is even available to people. You have urban food deserts, lots of single-parent households where time available is much more of a factor than for two-parent, middle class households. You have underfunded schools where PE classes get cut and neighborhoods that may not have parks or other green spaces or safe areas to move around in (and I don't even necessarily mean crime--it could just be an area with lots of busy streets). You have people with retail jobs or other unskilled jobs where they don't have a refrigerator available to them at work even if they wanted to bring a bag lunch and only half an hour off to eat something in the middle of the shift.

And then there's our entire food system which is set up to subsidize empty calories with high-fructose corn syrup instead of fresh, unprocessed foods.

This is so much more complicated than just "put down the Twinkies" people.

Edit: Also, What does underweight/normal/overweight/obese actually look like?
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on October 26, 2010, 16:33:
 
that last picture link is pretty interesting.

I had alot of trouble gessing if they were normal , overweight or obese. ( I easily guesed the underweights)

What surprised me is the Obese pictures. some , in my my, perfectly normal looking girls were obese (ca 30) and others that looked fat, had the same BMI.

I really wonder if they have they have the real BMI's from the times thi photos were taken.
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on October 26, 2010, 17:10:
 
I'm not surprised at the variation. Steen showed a good example earlier of how BMI by itself tells you very little. Yet that is how whether someone is overweight or not is determined.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on October 26, 2010, 17:16:
 
Ashitaka wrote:
What surprised me is the Obese pictures. some , in my my, perfectly normal looking girls were obese (ca 30) and others that looked fat, had the same BMI.

If you go back and look at the ones that looked perfectly normal but were classed as obese, I would bet that you'll find every one of them has big boobs. BMI doesn't take cup size into account, so well-endowed women are generally classified as overweight. If BMI was accurate, giving a skinny woman breast implants would increase her chances of developing heart disease and high blood pressure [crazy]
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on October 26, 2010, 17:27:
 
I do have to take some issue with that. For someone my height (5'4") the difference between a BMI of 25 (borderline "overweight") and 30 (borderline "obese") is about 30 pounds. For some people with G cups and large band sizes they might have 30 pounds in their breasts alone, but probably not any of the women in those photos who are borderline. In other words, even if you don't think they look obese, they would still be overweight, not "normal".
 
Posted by Mr. Geek 2U (Member # 28663) on October 26, 2010, 17:46:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Eh, not trying to be mean (it just comes naturally?), so I'm sorry if I hurt you. I get defensive when people "concern troll" fat people since I am one and I know that there's a whole lot more that goes into it than what the media would have you believe.

I really like Kate Harding's breakdown of things here.

Well, well, well Mrs. Rhonwyyn. Well, well, indeedy! and in needy!

Can we say co-depends-dant? Sure we can! Wet your pannies and blame others for your acts I and II and III!

You did not hurt me! No sireee Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice. No!

An you know why? You know, you know you know?

It is because I own my feelings and you don't! Tra-la! I have the yes and deedy right here in my heart. That is a fact Jack and Jill!

I suh-speck and ex-peck you do not own your fweewings. No offence! You may be thik of flesh, but you are thin of skin!

Your widdle fweelings are owned by mean people. And by Kate of Hate! Tonya's sister! Hit my knee with a stik! Ha! Ha!

You mite as well sold your fweewings for a pocket full of mumbles, such are promises. You here only what you want to here!

And you are MEAN! Just like you say. It comes Mr. Naturally!

Now I tell you what. I have a scale. It does not measure fat, no-siree! No-mammary! It measures peoples hearts. Fat is so low it does not matter. But MEAN? Boy Howdy! Mean is diff- R- Rent. MEAN IS #1 BAD! But smells like #2! Ha! Ha! Ha! Funny joke.

I saw wisdom on a old Toy-iota car. Save the Wails! Can't hug a chile with New-Kew-Lur arms! Co-X-ist! and one about mean people!

Do you know that? Do you? Do you know what MEAN peoples do?

It does not say fat peoples, or skin peoples, or all sorta colors peoples or diff-R-Rent God peoples or No Gods peoples. No-per!

It says MEAN PEOPLE SUCK! That might be OK if you have a snake bite and for poison. But udder-wise SUCK is bad!

Soorrrr-eeeeeee! No offence!

Now I see your pic-shure and you are pretty! Yes! And you are young! Yes! And you have a fine husband who loves you! Yes!

That is a lot! That is lots and lots more than many people! Yes!

But with all that grace about you? You choose to be MEAN.

Very Sad!

I mite say Lite-N Up! But you mite say that is about Fat People.

So I won't. You know what I say? You know, you know?

Have a great day!

Mr. Geek 2U!
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on October 26, 2010, 18:33:
 
Mr. Geek 2U:
Stop trolling before you get your dumb ass banned again.

Yeah... I know exactly who you are.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on October 26, 2010, 18:34:
 
Whups. Double post.
 
Posted by Mr. Geek 2U (Member # 28663) on October 26, 2010, 18:42:
 
Mr. Steen!

Hello!

I do not know why you say that! No!

I have not been mean to you! Do not flame me please!

And please do not use potty words!

I think your mind is playing tricks on you!

Have a great day!

Mr. Geek 2U!
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on October 27, 2010, 05:04:
 
____ There are several people he could be, but I think that unless said person got a new comp. and new ISP. Snaggy would know if it was some one he had banned, so whom are you thinking.
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on October 27, 2010, 07:41:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Ashitaka wrote:
What surprised me is the Obese pictures. some , in my my, perfectly normal looking girls were obese (ca 30) and others that looked fat, had the same BMI.

If you go back and look at the ones that looked perfectly normal but were classed as obese, I would bet that you'll find every one of them has big boobs. BMI doesn't take cup size into account, so well-endowed women are generally classified as overweight. If BMI was accurate, giving a skinny woman breast implants would increase her chances of developing heart disease and high blood pressure [crazy]

I'll add another possibility for the difference: BMI doesn't make a difference between fat-weight and muscle-weight. Some of the "normal-looking but overweight/obese BMI" gals (and guys, too!) might be active, and have some lean muscles hidden under a layer of fat. Or even just lean muscles, for the very muscle-heavy. (I would guess many body-builders rank as obese.)

So that girl who is obese but just climbed a mountain? She probably has some solid legs!
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on October 27, 2010, 08:46:
 
____ Stereo, you bring up a very valid point. I ran track in high school & college, I also rode sprint bikes. From the hips down those obese testing machines (really just an ohmmeter) show little or no fat. Get above the Iliac crests and now we are talking serious (Dunlops), does any one need a set of duals.
 
Posted by spungo (Member # 1089) on October 27, 2010, 09:27:
 
Yeah -- and BMI doesn't take into account other parts of my body that might be very large... like me ears!
 
Posted by yorik (Member # 2364) on October 27, 2010, 11:20:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stereo:
[QB] Beside, Atkins's own diet didn't kept him thin.

What are you trying to point out by that link? It says nothing about him being overweight. There was a brief consternation about him being overweight at death, but he died of complications from a head injury, with the supposed weight being a result of organ failure and fluid retention.

quote:
The Atkins diets messes up your metabolism, so the moment you get off of it, you're done.
There is no evidence of that at all. It's a common myth. BTW, which version of the Atkins diet are you referring to? It has three phases, and the one that is most criticized is the most temporary of the phases, lasting no more than 2 weeks. The third phase is a lifestyle phase that you never need to stop. Most people who criticize the diet, including dieticians, have never even read the book.

I suggest checking out www.bodyrecomposition.com for lots of science based articles on the subject of training or diet. Especially look for the series on "Training the Obese." Make no mistake though; this site is for people who are serious about changing their body, include professional figure athletes. (Which are different from weightlifters.) Who knows more about nutrition and exercise: a pudgey dietician or somebody who gets on stage to compete professionally for their good looks? I'll go with the competitor.

Another site worth looking at is called www.precisionnutrition.com, which is more for the every man.

quote:
My breakfast is a slice of bread with peanut butter, and juice (real juice, no sugar added).Dinner is (on week days) low salt frozen meal, veggie juice and unsweetened apple+fruit sauce.
Try ditching the bread altogether. And don't eat carbs with fats like peanut butter. When provided with both carbs and fats at the same time, you can expect the carbs to be processed first, the fats (with higher calories) tend to go directly to storage.

As for juice, you might think you're drinking good stuff, but all that fruit juice is separated from the fiber, which would normally help to moderate absorbtion. It's still mostly sugar, even if it comes from a fruit. Think about this: how many fruits would you need to eat to get that much juice? If I squeeze an orange, I'll get an ounce or two or juice, but no flesh. That glass of juice is the sugar equivalent of 4-8 oranges without the fiber based flesh.

And where's your protein? It's not evil. Eat more of it, even if you get it from beans like a vegan.

Of course, I don't expect you to listen to anybody but whom you want to, least of all me, since I'm still working on my own weight.
 
Posted by yorik (Member # 2364) on October 27, 2010, 11:29:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ashitaka:
metabolic syndrome doesn't seem to be anything more than the observation that overweight people have alot of health problems.

Actually metabolic syndrome is shorthand for "insulin resistance with hyperinsulinemia;" an adaptation of the body to long term higher than normal blood sugar. (Yes, a lifestyle / diet issue, perhaps hereditary also.) Since the cells resist absorbing glucose after being inundated with it for so long, the result is an excessive expression of insulin by the pancreas to bring blood sugar down. Insulin triggers fat storage also, resulting in obesity. High blood sugar also forms too many Advanced Glycation End-products (like malformed proteins) which wreak havoc in the body, hence all the other ills.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on October 27, 2010, 11:45:
 
quote:
Originally posted by yorik:
It has three phases, and the one that is most criticized is the most temporary of the phases, lasting no more than 2 weeks.

Interestingly enough, 2 weeks in was usually when I saw people who were calling 911 because they were on the Atkins diet and their hearts were doing weird things to them. All of these people had health issues that have since been tagged as metabolic syndrome (you didn't hear that term much in the early 2000's), all of them were making drastic dietary changes, none of them had bothered to consult a doctor.

You yourself have stated you're dieting with a doctor watching, so, while I reserve judgment on the Atkins diet, I applaud your being sensible about it.
[thumbsup]

As for me, I hang out near the overweight cut-off for the BMI. Some of it's flab, some of it's muscle. My body seems to have a set weight point it likes to be and if I go under or over I'm cold all the time so mostly I just try to stay warm. Which reminds me. I've been cold all the time lately. I should probably get on a scale and figure out which direction I need to go.
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on October 27, 2010, 13:43:
 
quote:
Originally posted by yorik:
quote:
Originally posted by Stereo:
Beside, Atkins's own diet didn't kept him thin.

What are you trying to point out by that link?
I exactly selected this link because the article seemed objective by presenting both points of view. And it ends saying that even if the "obese" ranking was from water retention while in hospital, he still had to be overweight before his fall. And that was my point: his diet didn't kept him thin.

I'll be skipping a lot of things that are not really worth discussing because I am not a dietetician nor a doctor, and neither are you (I believe), and one can have a study prove just about any point if the subjects are carefully selected. No need to start a link war.

quote:
Originally posted by yorik:
And where's your protein? It's not evil. Eat more of it, even if you get it from beans like a vegan.

Err... that's what the peanut butter is. (I used to take dark chocolate spread before, but stopped because I had the bad habit of dipping back into the pot. I lost about 200 grams a week for 4 or 5 weeks, then my metabolism adjusted.) Other than that I like my proteins from fish/seafood, cheese, the poultry in my frozen meals, and the occasional red meat.

Overall, my uneducated opinion sides with an Occam's Razor explanation: (calories in) - (calories burned) = (calories stored/unstored). If anything makes that equation wrong, then something is messing up the metabolism. (For example, diabetes makes sugars unable to be metabolized; so "calories in" becomes "calories [not from sugar] in" in the equation.)

Now, perhaps Atkin's diet doesn't mess up the metabolism in a bad way, but still, it must. Anyone has an independant long-term study of Atkins-dieters? (And I mean over decades.)
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on October 27, 2010, 14:23:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
all of them were making drastic dietary changes

Not just dangerous, but the most common cause of failure when people try to lose weight. If you go from a 3-burgers-a-day habit to lettuce and celery sticks, you're likely to fall off the wagon pretty soon, it's just too big a change for most people.

I think my current approach is more likely to succeed. Identify the 'worst' thing you're doing, and replace it with something 'better' **that you enjoy** (for me it was replacing a KFC lunch with fresh fruit). Try that for a couple of weeks, if you're not getting results, identify the worst thing you're doing...
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on October 27, 2010, 16:41:
 
yorik wrote:
Who knows more about nutrition and exercise: a pudgey dietician or somebody who gets on stage to compete professionally for their good looks?

The pudgy dietitian.

The bodybuilder will know little beyond how to eat and take care of a body that's being strenuously exercised for several hours every day. The diet they follow would quickly make anyone else incredibly fat (and that's assuming they aren't treating steroids like one of the primary food groups).

Self control != knowledge.
 
Posted by yorik (Member # 2364) on October 28, 2010, 13:55:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
The bodybuilder will know little beyond how to eat and take care of a body that's being strenuously exercised for several hours every day.

That actually makes them sound pretty darn smart to me.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on October 28, 2010, 15:13:
 
Steroid abuse is not a sign of intelligence, but virtually all competitive bodybuilders do it. The ones who don't simply can't build the muscle mass needed to compete with the ones who do.

(yes yes, testing blah blah... some steroids are undetectable after as little as a week of abstention, which makes testing pointless)
 
Posted by yorik (Member # 2364) on October 28, 2010, 17:57:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Steroid abuse is not a sign of intelligence, but virtually all competitive bodybuilders do it. The ones who don't simply can't build the muscle mass needed to compete with the ones who do.

(yes yes, testing blah blah... some steroids are undetectable after as little as a week of abstention, which makes testing pointless)

blah, blah, blah...The really fit people use anabolic steroids...blah...blah...blah...That's why I can't look like them...blah...blah...Might as well eat this Twinkie...chew...chew...chew...
 
Posted by zesovietrussian (Member # 1177) on October 28, 2010, 19:53:
 
What makes absolutely no sense to me is the fact that people have absolutely no problem plonking down $8 for a super-size double crapburger combo at McDonalds, but they would never go to a restaurant serving real food, even if the said restaurant has good, healthy lunch options for well under $8. There's plenty of good restaurants next to my place of work with sub-$8 lunch specials, yet they're usually half-empty while McD and Wendys always have a line out the door. Even higher-end places where one would normally leave $30+ for dinner, not including drinks, are doing $10 lunch specials and they're still empty most of the time. Whiskey tango foxtrot people???
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on October 28, 2010, 21:45:
 
quote:
Originally posted by zesovietrussian:
What makes absolutely no sense to me is the fact that people have absolutely no problem plonking down $8 for a super-size double crapburger combo at McDonalds, but they would never go to a restaurant serving real food, even if the said restaurant has good, healthy lunch options for well under $8. There's plenty of good restaurants next to my place of work with sub-$8 lunch specials, yet they're usually half-empty while McD and Wendys always have a line out the door. Even higher-end places where one would normally leave $30+ for dinner, not including drinks, are doing $10 lunch specials and they're still empty most of the time. Whiskey tango foxtrot people???

Actually, the really criminal bit is the $1 menu thing.

Those burgers are the real artery clogging specials...and the price point tricks people into turning it into a 'cheap habit.'† The $8 burger is an 'upgrade.' :/ I still remember some times in college when I had to politely nudge/prod a bunch of friends into a very reasonable, but nice, Chinese restaurant to find something at least a grade above McDonalds, as there was no way I was treating the latter as 'dinner.' I'm sure we spent a few dollars more, but it was certainly worth it to me. [Smile]

&dagger Of course, a black Hefty bag is /really/ a cheap habit. [groan]
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on October 28, 2010, 22:05:
 
Yeah, but can you get into that restaurant and out again with food in under two minutes? That's the real draw of "fast food" places. That, and the $1 menu, where you feel like you're not wasting money for something to tide you over until you can go home and cook a balanced meal.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on October 28, 2010, 22:06:
 
Also, wanted to post this link: http://www.bigfatfacts.com/

Thought you might enjoy chewing on the analysis posted there.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on October 29, 2010, 06:11:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Yeah, but can you get into that restaurant and out again with food in under two minutes? That's the real draw of "fast food" places. That, and the $1 menu, where you feel like you're not wasting money for something to tide you over until you can go home and cook a balanced meal.

...except that last step just keeps getting pushed off when the 'fast' option exists.

Few people really need 'food' that quickly. Just because you /can/ do something, doesn't mean you /should/.
 
Posted by zesovietrussian (Member # 1177) on October 29, 2010, 07:12:
 
I did not see too many people getting the $1 menu items, it was mostly the $8 supersize, superfat combos. Funny thing is, there's a cheap sushi restaurant right next door where one can get an infinitely healthier lunch combo (6 pieces nigiri and an avocado roll) for $7 and a slightly more expensive one with $10 combos (4 pieces nigiri, soup, salad and main entree - more than enough food even if one happens to be really hungry.) There's also two Indian restaurants nearby offering lunch buffet for those who don't want to wait - $7 at mid-range one and $10 at higher-end one. A great Thai restaurant - once again, $8 or less. For those craving something less healthy, there's Uno's with their $6.99 lunch combo. All of the above healthier AND sometimes quicker than McD, since you don't have to stand in a huge line, yet I have never seen them more than half-full during lunch. Instead, everyone is spending their hard-earned money on oily burnt potatoes, ground-up skin and cartilage and high-fructose corn syrup. And then they wonder why they're so fat...

Rhonwyyn: before directing everyone to Kate "fat nazi" Harding, I strongly suggest you re-read your own blog. According to your favorite fat nazi, all the issues you've been having are not obesity-related and just came out of the blue, correct? Also, why would anybody need their food in "under two minutes?" Last time I checked, lunch break was between 45 minutes and one hour, which is plenty of time to sit down and eat.
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on October 29, 2010, 07:35:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Also, wanted to post this link: http://www.bigfatfacts.com/

Thought you might enjoy chewing on the analysis posted there.

I like this page, she is being very scientific, she makes claims that can be tested and then proposes evidence to back up her claims. I don’t have tim to go into all her claims but lets do the first one.

bold is my response, Conclusion, The papers referenced do not contain the information the author says they do!! or to put it anouthre way, the page contains bold faced lies as evidence


THE CLAIM: U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona stated that "Obesity is a greater threat than terrorism."
William L. Weis, a management professor at Seattle University, says that the obesity industries, including commercial weight-loss programs, weight-loss drug purveyors and bariatric surgery centers, will likely top $315 billion this year, nearly 3 percent of the overall U.S. economy.

they forgot to mention that the 315 billion includes all money spent at fast fod restaurants ( Washington post Jan 22 , 2006) , 315 bil is 2% not 3% of the 14.5 trillion GDP


The government, politicians, media, journalists, scientists, universities, medical establishment, sociologists and social commentators, claim that obesity is an epidemic, a plague, a crisis, an outrage, a catastrophe, a time bomb responsible for killing 400,000 overfed Americans every year, while ringing up over a $100-billion in health care costs.

I won’t fight this but there is no ref.


THE TRUTH: We are experiencing mass moral outrage over fat. Nearly all the warnings about obesity are based on statistical conjecture made by those with the most to gain from the claims. Lets see if specifically this statement is backed up below. ( FYI, it is not)


Weight is not a barometer of wellness. More Americans die every year from weighing too little than from weighing too much. An estimated 25,000 people die from obesity. Moderately overweight people live longer than those at normal weight. (Flegal, et. al.) (See reference notes at bottom of report)

the abstract from the quoted paper states, and I quote: “obesity (BMI 30) was associated with 111,909 excess deaths (95% confidence interval )” ( year 2000) Oh and from the conclusion: “obesity, particularly higher levels of obesity, were associated with increased mortality relative to the normal weight category “


The researchers who estimated that obesity is costing us more than $100 billion a year in medical costs came up with this figure by calculating ALL expenses associated with treating type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, hypertension, gallbladder disease, and cancer. They ASSUME that if we get heart disease or breast cancer, it is because we're fat.

YOU DON’T SAY WHO THIS RESEARCHER IS!


Organizations like the International Obesity Task Force (which authored many of the World Health Organization's obesity reports) and the American Obesity Association (which actively campaigns to have obesity officially designated as a disease) are largely funded by pharmaceutical and weight loss companies. Nearly every prominent obesity "expert" has received financial support from the $50-billion weight loss industry.

where is the proof the Obesity task force is largely funded by pharma?


The "obesity epidemic" is worth billions to the pharmaceutical, diet, weight loss, media, and government agencies fueling it.

References?

• For pharmaceutical companies the obesity epidemic justifies the release of new drugs and inflates stock prices.

I’ll give you that.

• For weight loss companies and surgeons performing bariatric surgery, the "obesity epidemic" funds their fees paid by health insurance providers and Medicare.

You could also truthfully state that doctors that treat children with cancer are also funded by fees paid by health insurance providers and Medicare


• For women's magazines the "obesity epidemic" fattens ad revenue and readership with false and misleading weight loss propaganda.

WTF

• For government agencies the "obesity epidemic" inflates budgets and programs allegedly aimed at preventing people from getting fatter. The Bush administration has earmarked millions of federal dollars for anti-obesity initiatives.

WTF
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on October 29, 2010, 11:37:
 
Boring day at work is boring. Fact checking isn't much better, but it passes the time.

The government, politicians, media, journalists, scientists, universities, medical establishment, sociologists and social commentators, claim that obesity is an epidemic, a plague, a crisis, an outrage, a catastrophe, a time bomb responsible for killing 400,000 overfed Americans every year, while ringing up over a $100-billion in health care costs.

I won’t fight this but there is no ref.


http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/10/1238
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-jama-study-challenges-cdcs-400000-obesity-deaths-figure-54349482.html

The 400k figure still gets quoted a lot, despite having been shown to be flawed. Not that 112k deaths from obesity is much more acceptable.

Weight is not a barometer of wellness. More Americans die every year from weighing too little than from weighing too much. An estimated 25,000 people die from obesity. Moderately overweight people live longer than those at normal weight. (Flegal, et. al.) (See reference notes at bottom of report)

the abstract from the quoted paper states, and I quote: “obesity (BMI 30) was associated with 111,909 excess deaths (95% confidence interval )” ( year 2000) Oh and from the conclusion: “obesity, particularly higher levels of obesity, were associated with increased mortality relative to the normal weight category “


http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/15/1861
"Overweight was not associated with excess mortality"

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020171
Deliberate weight loss in overweight individuals without known co-morbidities may be hazardous in the long term. The health effects of weight loss are complex, possibly composed of oppositely acting processes, and need more research.

These two bits don't entirely support what the Big Fat Facts page says, but they do support at least some elements of it and they refute the idea that being overweight will cause you to die early. The reality is that people who are overweight, but not obese, should make sure they get enough exercise and sleep and stop worrying about their weight.

The researchers who estimated that obesity is costing us more than $100 billion a year in medical costs came up with this figure by calculating ALL expenses associated with treating type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, hypertension, gallbladder disease, and cancer. They ASSUME that if we get heart disease or breast cancer, it is because we're fat.

YOU DON’T SAY WHO THIS RESEARCHER IS!


http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct10/ObesityCosts.html
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w3.219v1/DC1
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html

I can't find a $100 billion figure, but here's a $168 billion figure and a $78 billion figure. The methodology larger figure sounds pretty suspect, though (using the weight of relatives, not subjects, statistically adjusting reported weight because people lie about their weight and a variety of other dubious sounding techniques). Of course there's also a $27 billion figure in there too. You'll probably be just as accurate if you pick a random number between 27 and 168 and use that for how many billions are spent on medical costs due to obesity.

The second $78 billion figure study mentions "the association between obesity and many chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, several types of cancer (endometrial, postmenopausal breast, kidney, and colon), musculoskeletal disorders, sleep apnea, and gallbladder disease" which is almost certainly where the above comment came from. The study did not identify individual health problems, however, and compared the total medical expenses by obese people to the total medical expenses by people of normal weight (or at least I think that's what it says... the methodology language is pretty opaque).

where is the proof the Obesity task force is largely funded by pharma?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/04/health/main3904243.shtml?source=RSSattr=Health_3904243
"According to the task force's most recent available annual report, more than 70 percent of their funding came from Abbott Laboratories and F. Hoffman La-Roche"

This one is hard to verify. I can't find the yearly report, but a variety of reasonably neutral news agencies mention the funding by drug companies so I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

The "obesity epidemic" is worth billions to the pharmaceutical, diet, weight loss, media, and government agencies fueling it.

References?


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS107630+21-Apr-2008+PRN20080421
"Research suggest that between $33 billion and $55 billion is spent annually on weight loss products and services"

This is now too boring to research further.

kthxbai
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on October 29, 2010, 11:54:
 
The statement they were trying to defend was :
quote:
Nearly all the warnings about obesity are based on statistical conjecture made by those with the most to gain from the claims.
Both quotes from the one paper referenced are correct, which means, that a BMI > 30 is associated with an increased mortality over pepole with a BMI 18 - 25, but not with ecsessive mortality.

THe fact is the increased mortality is not statistical conjecture, and even if it was, I don't think that the authors were those with the most to gain.

I reject thier defence and therfore their conjecture.
 
Posted by Serenak (Member # 2950) on October 29, 2010, 14:19:
 
OK people I been a reading this thread... and I getting bored so out of nowhere here is my totally unscientific and unsupported by fsck all but my one paltry experience...

Being REALLY BIG is bad for you - your body systems weren't built to handle 300lbs+ in excess weight, and I don't think ANYONE is going to argue against that...

Being REALLY SKINNY is not good for you either - your body has mechanisms to try and keep you going in dire starvation events.... but it will do you long term damage.

Being a "bit over the optimum" - well that is most of us in the western world whether we think so or not - our primal ancestors were built to live like greyhounds - unless you are totally "ripped" and live on 1500-2000 calories a day I suspect your weight is above "optimum"
Where a bit heavy turns into "too heavy" is open to debate... but I suspect a happy "bit too podgy" is at no worse risks than a depressed "bang on target"

Fast food isn't the work of the devil... as long as you don't expect to live on it of course...

Disclaimer - I am 5'4" and weigh about 140lbs and try to eat fairly healthy - but if I want steak, or fatty chinese or indian, or a King Coronary burger/Kentucy Fried Coronary I bloody well have one (ok so that is probably once every 2 months or so...)

HUGE disclaimer... I also drink alcohol - probably too much (my Dr would definitely say I exceed the "healthy guidelines" and then by some) and I smoke - oh yes the demon weed... hand rolling not the chemical filled sticks... but I doubt in the long run it makes a lot of difference.

One of these things will kill me I am sure - eventually - and something will kill us all in the end, sure as eggs is eggs...

Being totally flippant for a moment - know what happens if you give up smokes, booze and unhealthy lifestyle habits? You don't live to 100+ It just bloody feels like it!

OK - seriously now, being huge will kill you (sooner rather than later), being super skinny will shorten your life by over stressing your body, smoking will kill you (possibly later rather than sooner... but you never can tell - it is a roulette wheel), drinking "too much" will kill you too (what exactly is too much of course is again debatable)... Being miserable and depressed will quite likely a) ruin your life, b) possibly lead to a number of self destructive behaviours that may or may not include any of the above vices... c) can lead to suicide...

Prescription - try and enjoy life as best you can - avoid excess if you can within reason, but don't get depressed if you can't manage to fit the "perfect" template - happy people normally live longer than those who spend their lives worrying about everything.

Now I prepare for the flaming - pour a good glass of Shiraz, and roll a cigarette... and am happy in my life as best I can be... (anonymous donations of £10K+ always welcomed [Wink] )

[Razz]
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on October 29, 2010, 14:36:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Serenak:
Prescription - try and enjoy life as best you can - avoid excess if you can within reason, but don't get depressed if you can't manage to fit the "perfect" template - happy people normally live longer than those who spend their lives worrying about everything.

Amen.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on October 29, 2010, 14:43:
 
quote:
Originally posted by zesovietrussian:

Rhonwyyn: before directing everyone to Kate "fat nazi" Harding, I strongly suggest you re-read your own blog. According to your favorite fat nazi, all the issues you've been having are not obesity-related and just came out of the blue, correct? Also, why would anybody need their food in "under two minutes?" Last time I checked, lunch break was between 45 minutes and one hour, which is plenty of time to sit down and eat.

Um, I have a blog? I used to write at two sites, but as far as I know, they were discontinued over a year (and maybe two years by now) ago. I've never had any health issues related to being fat, with the exception of having a breast reduction. However, I HAVE had plenty of problems with stupid people thinking I should be dead by now (which is why other people my size and I have adopted the term "death fat") and that I shouldn't exercise in public until I lose weight, etc. Like I said, stupid stuff.

And you must be part of the privileged upper class to have a long lunch break. My husband has no break, and I have just 30 minutes, but only if I'm not on the road for assignments, at which point I only have time to eat while driving. So enjoy your life of skinny luxury. We fat people have to work for a living. [Razz]
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on October 29, 2010, 14:52:
 
Serenak wrote:
Fast food isn't the work of the devil

What about devil's food cake? Huh? Didn't think of that, did ya? Where's your god now? Eating angel's food cake?

God I'm bored.

And Ozzy Ozzbourne is part Neandertal:
"I was curious," he wrote in his column. "Given the swimming pools of booze I've guzzled over the years—not to mention all of the cocaine, morphine, sleeping pills, cough syrup, LSD, Rohypnol…you name it—there's really no plausible medical reason why I should still be alive."
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on October 29, 2010, 15:34:
 
Um, am I the only person here who doesn't buy lunch more than, like, once every three months? I hate the lines. I hate spending the money. I hate the time spent just leaving my building to seek out the food. And I really, really, totally and completely hate the mystery: when I buy food someone prepared for me, I don't know jack shit about how it was prepared and what's in it. I can't make any conscious choices about what I'm eating if I didn't make the meal. I ate something loaded with milk and cheese for lunch today, but I knew it was loaded with milk and cheese because I put the milk and cheese there. When I buy something, I lose that level of control.

Usually, I eat dinner leftovers. There's a microwave available to me, as well as a fridge. However, that hasn't always been the case for me and isn't always the case for everyone else...which is why an infamous Earl gave mankind the Sandwich. Sandwiches are wonderful. You don't necessarily need to refrigerate them, nor do you need to reheat it. Same with carrot sticks and apples and so on. You can eat them wherever, whenever. At your desk. In your car. At your workbench (not that that's necessarily safe). And because you made it, you know what happened to it.

Also, if you're lacking a fridge but really just have to keep your lunch cold, invest in one of those insulated bags and a cold pack. Or put it on your Christmas or birthday list.

I learned that cold pack trick in elementary school, by the way. Seriously. This is pretty basic stuff.

I'm not sure what the official lunch policy at my job is. I just eat it when I feel like it. I've gotten more relaxed about lunch since becoming a post-doc. When I was a grad student I'd take about ten minutes. Now it's usually 30-45 and I spend part of that time just vegetating and gossiping.
 
Posted by zesovietrussian (Member # 1177) on October 29, 2010, 15:37:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by zesovietrussian:

Rhonwyyn: before directing everyone to Kate "fat nazi" Harding, I strongly suggest you re-read your own blog. According to your favorite fat nazi, all the issues you've been having are not obesity-related and just came out of the blue, correct? Also, why would anybody need their food in "under two minutes?" Last time I checked, lunch break was between 45 minutes and one hour, which is plenty of time to sit down and eat.

Um, I have a blog? I used to write at two sites, but as far as I know, they were discontinued over a year (and maybe two years by now) ago. I've never had any health issues related to being fat, with the exception of having a breast reduction. However, I HAVE had plenty of problems with stupid people thinking I should be dead by now (which is why other people my size and I have adopted the term "death fat") and that I shouldn't exercise in public until I lose weight, etc. Like I said, stupid stuff.

And you must be part of the privileged upper class to have a long lunch break. My husband has no break, and I have just 30 minutes, but only if I'm not on the road for assignments, at which point I only have time to eat while driving. So enjoy your life of skinny luxury. We fat people have to work for a living. [Razz]

I don't know where you two work, but isn't there a law mandating 15 minute breaks per every 2 hours worked? We're 9 to 5 with one hour lunch, and that is fairly standard in the industry. Oh wait, what industry? I forgot, I'm skinny privileged upper class and therefore I don't work, I must be making things up. Excuse me while I step out into my 100 acre backyard and water my money trees with some Dom Perignon [Smile]

PS: Constantly falling asleep at work isn't obesity-related? Joint pain and extreme fatigue after any kind of strenuous physical activity isn't obesity-related? Inability to ride a bike up "even a slightest incline" isn't obesity-related? I wish I was making those up, but I'm just quoting your blog. Should I go on?
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on October 29, 2010, 15:55:
 
amen ZSR, breaks are mandatory, unless they work less than six hours per 24 hour time period.

I don't know the rules if you are a salaried worker, but I think you have to be able to take a break.

I did have a job though where I was not allowed to leave the premises per contract, but there was good reason. In this case I just brought my lunch and ate on the clock ( if I can't leave the premises, I am on my boss's time) this was in IN, USA,
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on October 29, 2010, 18:02:
 
yup, do the packed lunch thing with sandwich or leftovers, but you can't preplan for everything.

Why are fast food places plentiful on the turnpike? 'cause people just want to get in, refuel, and get on their way. There's nothing wrong with doing it once in a blue moon.

Re: lunch breaks. They aren't mandatory in our state. My husband works at a sit-down restaurant where he pylls 8 to 10-hour shifts, with the only breaks for quick bathroom use. So even packing a meal wouldn't do him any good. (and please don't insult our intelligence by insisting he should eat a balanced meal during a bathroom break. We might be working class, but we do have SOME standards!)
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on October 29, 2010, 19:15:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Re: lunch breaks. They aren't mandatory in our state.

**speechless**
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on October 29, 2010, 20:08:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Re: lunch breaks. They aren't mandatory in our state.

**speechless**
Yeah, I was pretty shocked when I learned about that three years ago. If you're under 18, you have to take a 30-minute break for every five hours you work, but that does not apply once you reach the age of majority.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on October 29, 2010, 20:44:
 
The Famous Druid wrote:
**speechless**

Fewer than half the states have any law that requires employers to give employees a lunch break. Of the states that do, most don't extend the break requirements to all types of employees.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/meal.htm

It's just one more example of the invisible hand of the free market providing UFIA to the people.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on October 29, 2010, 21:46:
 
WTF?!?! That's appalling!

$DEITY bless our blue state. (I would /love/ to see an argument about how bad the gov't intrusion is for granting us this. [Wink] )

/me has an hour lunch, and doesn't work a damn minute of it.

I LOVE NEW YORK! [hearts]
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on October 30, 2010, 15:51:
 
Maybe we should lighten up a bit?

The Swallows say it better than I could.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on October 30, 2010, 16:47:
 
Eek! Calli, that made me blush. However/wherever did you find that?!
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on October 30, 2010, 17:24:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
Maybe we should lighten up a bit?

Calli, I'm flabergasted to see you trying to turn a serious discussion into another punfest.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on October 31, 2010, 14:12:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Eek! Calli, that made me blush. However/wherever did you find that?!

It's a classic song. I first heard Maria Muldaur's version on her album "Waitress in a Donut Shop" (excellent album btw), but quite a few others have recorded it.

Mind you Rhonnie, I have absolutely no idea what they are singing about, what do you think it means? [Big Grin] [devil wand]
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on November 01, 2010, 00:16:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Eek! Calli, that made me blush. However/wherever did you find that?!

It's a classic song. I first heard Maria Muldaur's version on her album "Waitress in a Donut Shop" (excellent album btw), but quite a few others have recorded it.

Mind you Rhonnie, I have absolutely no idea what they are singing about, what do you think it means? [Big Grin] [devil wand]

Sounds like a bebop version of baby got back to me.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 01, 2010, 01:24:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ashitaka:
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Eek! Calli, that made me blush. However/wherever did you find that?!

It's a classic song. I first heard Maria Muldaur's version on her album "Waitress in a Donut Shop" (excellent album btw), but quite a few others have recorded it.

Mind you Rhonnie, I have absolutely no idea what they are singing about, what do you think it means? [Big Grin] [devil wand]

Sounds like a bebop version of baby got back to me.
It's what I have always thought about you Ash, you just don't know your doowop from your bebop. [Wink]
 
Posted by zesovietrussian (Member # 1177) on November 01, 2010, 09:12:
 
This is an issue that weighs heavily on the vast majority of the US population, we can't be so light-hearted about it [Razz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhfLfJCqrqI

On a slightly more serios note:
Rhonwyyn, would you please confirm or deny the issues I have listed in my previous post were in fact obesity-related? Have they magically disappeared as soon as you stopped paying attention to the voice of reason and filled your head with Kate Harding's hateful drivel? Are you now able to go for weeks without any sleep, outrun Usain Bolt and out-cycle Lance Armstrong? Was it all due to "stupid people" telling you "stupid things?" Is it commonplace in the FA community to ignore any inconvenient truth and always scream "fat hate" whenever anyone brings up facts and ideas that don't go along with what Ms Harding says?

Also, why in the world is your husband working at a restaurant, doesn't he have a master's degree in education? And why are you still at your job if you hate it so much? Don't get jealous and hateful and call someone "upper class" when they happen to have one hour breaks instead of your half-hour. Instead sit down, edit your resume, fire it off to companies that do offer one hour breaks and salary you're looking for, and away you go. This is America, the land of opportunity. No one is stopping you but yourself.
 
Posted by zesovietrussian (Member # 1177) on November 09, 2010, 11:38:
 
One final question - while there's plenty of allegedly healthy members in their mid-20s to early 30s on most FA boards, I haven't seen that many in their 40s or older. How so? Did they all suddenly get bored and quit, or could it be that reality (and "death fat") has finally caught up to them?
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 09, 2010, 15:43:
 
Look around. Their are fat people over 40 all over the damn country.

That was the lamest troll yet in this topic.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on November 09, 2010, 16:52:
 
____ I did not see your or ZSRs post until after I was out and about. I observed many people today. I did not record keep I just observed. some were very skinny, some were not, many were between the extremes, I think we notice the extremes more often, so without taking concrete records how do we know what the pulse of society is.
 
Posted by zesovietrussian (Member # 1177) on November 09, 2010, 17:12:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Look around. Their are fat people over 40 all over the damn country.

That was the lamest troll yet in this topic.

Of course there are - riding their electric carts around Walmart, unable to walk after their joints finally succumb to arthritis, or waiting in line at the pharmacy so they can get the meds that would keep them alive, NOT sitting at their computer and spewing their delusional BS on some fat acceptance blong trying to convince the world that being 250 pounds overweight is perfectly healthy and there's no need for healthy diet or exercise. And they will most likely live to a ripe old age just like the rest of us, thanks to modern medicine that can truly work wonders. Problem is, those "wonders" come at a very steep price, and everyone ends up bearing the cost.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 09, 2010, 18:06:
 
Blah blah blah

All you're doing is repeating the same things that have already been said. You aren't presenting any new information or viewpoints. In fact, it seems like you're just throwing around insults to try piss people off.

Want to show you care? Figure out a way to make healthy food cheaper. Go to any fast food place and you can get a burger for $1 while a salad costs $5 or more. When burgers cost $5 and a salad costs $1, you'll see people start eating healthier and not before.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on November 09, 2010, 18:33:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Figure out a way to make healthy food cheaper. Go to any fast food place and you can get a burger for $1 while a salad costs $5 or more. When burgers cost $5 and a salad costs $1, you'll see people start eating healthier and not before.

I'd like to see that in my lifetime. [Smile]
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 09, 2010, 19:07:
 
Since that's worth a discussion...

Why are the salads $5 and the burgers $1 anyway?
 
Posted by zesovietrussian (Member # 1177) on November 09, 2010, 20:03:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Blah blah blah

All you're doing is repeating the same things that have already been said. You aren't presenting any new information or viewpoints. In fact, it seems like you're just throwing around insults to try piss people off.

Want to show you care? Figure out a way to make healthy food cheaper. Go to any fast food place and you can get a burger for $1 while a salad costs $5 or more. When burgers cost $5 and a salad costs $1, you'll see people start eating healthier and not before.

Ask and you shall receive. Combine that with this and a cup of ice water, and you have a somewhat healthy meal for $2. Of course, most will opt for X, Y and Z instead and then wonder why they're fat. Also, membership at this place only costs $10 a month - spend a few hours there every week instead of reading 4487548754876 fat acceptance blogs, and you can eat all the burgers in the world and still be in great shape. Still blah blah blah, Mr Troll Hunter?
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on November 09, 2010, 21:46:
 
Now why don't I hear ads for those items on the radio?
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on November 10, 2010, 00:23:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Since that's worth a discussion...

Why are the salads $5 and the burgers $1 anyway?

Doesn't matter , weight maintenance or loss is simply a calorie restriction game.

twinkie diet

summary, nutrition prof. eats only junk food and loses 27 lbs. 'cause he went from consuming 2600 kcal a day to 1800 kcal a day.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on November 10, 2010, 02:32:
 
____ Xan, did your statement ever wake me up, why is the burger joint salad so expensive? They already have the Lettuce, Tomato, and Cheese in the cooler. Salads have a longer shelf life than burger & fries. If it is to be a meat salad they have that in stock also for their chicken sandwitches, that packet of dressing does not cost fifty cents. They have to run the coolers anyway to store the fresh stock. Burger joints are ripping us off on Salads I can not believe that volume on burger sales is enough to offset cooking price.

____ This does not even come into the economy of scale. It is just plane ripoff .
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 10, 2010, 13:41:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ashitaka:
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Since that's worth a discussion...

Why are the salads $5 and the burgers $1 anyway?

Doesn't matter , weight maintenance or loss is simply a calorie restriction game.

twinkie diet

summary, nutrition prof. eats only junk food and loses 27 lbs. 'cause he went from consuming 2600 kcal a day to 1800 kcal a day.

It's not just about weight-loss or weight-maintenance, though. The obesity issues in this country arise from the fact that for one reason or another, people are eating too much and one of the reasons for that is, for whatever reason, people are choosing foods that aren't triggering their satiation signal, or they're missing the signal, or they've simply decoupled eating and stopping eating from actually being hungry and then not hungry (that said, I've had pet guinea pigs who comfort ate so it's not as if emotion-tummy crosstalk is exclusively human).

I don't eat a lot of fast food. When I do, it's vegetarian, so I've got a choice between Subway, burrito joints, and divey Chinese places. The last time I was in a McD's or Burger King, it was for a "milkshake" (I don't know WTF those actually are, but my husband and I drink 'em on road trips just because we can). The last time I was in a Wendy's, I was trying to buy a baked potato but they didn't have any, so, in a nutshell, the last time I actually had a meal at one of these places, it was six years ago. kreziserb and I went to Burger King because...I don't know why. Anyway, I had a veggie burger (if BK doesn't have them now, they had them then) and kreziserb had a Whopper. We both had fries.

I was hungrier when I finished than when I started. It was fscking amazing. I've never managed to consume that many calories and feel like I've gone negative. kreziserb wasn't faring much better. We wanted another meal, but knew we shouldn't, and we put eating at Burger King on our list of "things we'll never do again". As a biochemist, I was actually kind of scared because I know that, with the amount of calories I put in, and the amount of calories bundled into fat in that food, the stop signal should have tripped, but it didn't and that meant that there was something really weird going on. And ever since I've been wondering if that's not the root of it - people buy this crap because it's cheap, and then eat too much of it because something about that food isn't hitting their biochemical buttons.
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on November 10, 2010, 14:02:
 
quote:
Originally posted by zesovietrussian:
Ask and you shall receive.

Look at the picture. Then look again. It's enlarged. That side salad is not even worth one portion of vegetables. I don't know for you, but I'd still end up with a $5 meal.

Give me a Subway-style sandwich, and it will be a more balanced meal, more filling and even more important: tastier. Because it is an important psychological side of eating: sensorial satisfaction.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 10, 2010, 16:20:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
The last time I was in a McD's or Burger King, it was for a "milkshake" (I don't know WTF those actually are, but my husband and I drink 'em on road trips just because we can).

Pretty much what you'd expect in a shake: milk, ice cream, flavor, sugar (in Oz, High Fructose Corn Syrup in Merkinistan). Oh, and if you get the big cup, more than twice the calories of a Big Mac.

quote:
Anyway, I had a veggie burger (if BK doesn't have them now, they had them then) and kreziserb had a Whopper. We both had fries.

I was hungrier when I finished than when I started. It was fscking amazing. I've never managed to consume that many calories and feel like I've gone negative.

That would be the HFCS, too much of it interferes with the "I'm full" signal. Nasty.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 10, 2010, 16:40:
 
Stereo wrote:
Look at the picture. Then look again. It's enlarged. That side salad is not even worth one portion of vegetables.

I'm going to elaborate on this on this.

First, here's the picture that McDonald's shows you:
 -

The ad says this is made of "premium mixed greens" and what they show would be considered premium quality since there's no iceberg evident and you can clearly see spinach, arugula, radicchio, red oak lettuce and what looks like either frisée or curly endive (I can't identify it).

But that's just an advertisement.

This is what you get:
 -

Notice that, unlike the ad which features a salad with no iceberg lettuce showing, this is basically a bowl of iceberg with a single spinach leaf, a single piece of radicchio and a single piece of red oak showing. We do get two cherry tomatoes and some glimpses of orange that hint at carrots.

Notice also that it's not a whole lot larger than the tuna can that I put there for size comparison. I should have taken the photo at an angle, too, so you could see that the stuff is level with the top of the bowl, not overflowing like the advertisement picture.

And this is what's in that bowl:
 -

Left to right-ish from the top left have tomatoes, carrots, radicchio, red oak, spinach, iceberg and pieces of the stem of the iceberg lettuce that nobody would eat.

What you see is:
< 2 grams of carrot
< 2 grams of raddichio
< 2 grams of red oak
2 grams of spinach
12 grams of tomato
70 grams of iceberg lettuce (including the stem... 60 without).

Of this dubious bounty, half of one of the tomatoes was mushy and starting to go bad. About 1/4 of the lettuce was wilted and turning brown (but hadn't gone slimy yet, so it was probably safe to eat). You can't see it easily in the picture, but the "shaved carrots" are paper thin and have brown spots on some of the edges.

So... yes, you can buy a salad for $1, but it's going to be almost entirely iceberg lettuce and about 1/4 of it is starting to rot.


And just to wrap this up... here's the ingredients list from the website:
"Iceberg lettuce, romaine lettuce, spring mix (may contain baby red romaine, baby green romaine, baby red leaf, baby green leaf, baby red Swiss chard, baby red oak, baby green oak, lolla rosa, tango, tatsoi, arugula, mizuna, radicchio, frisee), carrots. Grape tomatoes. CURRENTLY, OUR SALADS DO NOT CONTAIN SPINACH."

So that spinach in the upper right corner? Probably some e-coli tainted shit that will kill me later.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 10, 2010, 17:07:
 
The portion size of McSalads might be small, but they make up for it by drenching them in high-calorie salad dressing. Some of those salads have more calories than a cheeseburger.

Btw - Grumpy: almost every advertising picture of ice cream is actually mashed potato.
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on November 10, 2010, 17:13:
 
____ I am on board with Stereo on Subway. The Turkey&Cheese foot long with extra meat but only put half on the sandwitch, give us three of those slices to give the dog for being good on the road trip. Fixings Lettuce, Tomato, Cucumber, and Black Olives. Now the MrsMoMan wants dressing on her end, I want salt and pepper. This one sandwitch will hold us both off for four or more hours. So we each end up eating one half and we are both satisfied, whats not to like, by the way their Honey Oat Wheat is really good.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 10, 2010, 17:39:
 
The Famous Druid wrote:
Btw - Grumpy: almost every advertising picture of ice cream is actually mashed potato.

Not true! (at least not often)

Mashed potatoes don't really have the right texture and sheen, so they never look quite right. Ice cream advertisements typically feature tasty looking scoops of vegetable shortening mixed with powdered sugar. YUM!

There are also photographers that use frosting mixed with powdered sugar (which, if you know what frosting is, isn't far from shortening mixed with sugar).
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 10, 2010, 19:42:
 
Subway was a frickin' lifesaver on family road trips. In fact, any sub shop was a lifesaver. There's nothing else out there for a vegetarian, especially if you're west of the Appalachians and east of the Cascades.

Edit: Well, there's a couple other options for vegetarians on the road: a sketchy Chinese place or a suspicious Mexican one. Or any diner that serves breakfast around the clock. However, all of these establishments require you to sit down, except for maybe the suspicious Mexican places, but when I was road-tripping with my family, first, my dad hates Mexican food (it's the cilantro) and second, everything about family road-trips was timed to the gas tank. Need to pee? Well you gotta hold it. Hungry? You gotta wait...and then the meal itself needs to be something that can be ordered, received, and paid for in roughly the time it takes to pump the gas.

I married a man who takes a completely polar opposite approach. Seriously. I suddenly discovered that road trips can actually be comfortable and fun. It was eye-opening, I tell ya.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 10, 2010, 20:31:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
The Famous Druid wrote:
Btw - Grumpy: almost every advertising picture of ice cream is actually mashed potato.

Not true! (at least not often)

Mashed potatoes don't really have the right texture and sheen, so they never look quite right. Ice cream advertisements typically feature tasty looking scoops of vegetable shortening mixed with powdered sugar. YUM!

There are also photographers that use frosting mixed with powdered sugar (which, if you know what frosting is, isn't far from shortening mixed with sugar).

Wow, Americans even make their fake food overly sweet.

My sister used to work in advertising, her first photo shoot was for ice cream, she told me all about it in tedious detail, it was mashed potato. This aussie show about advertising also mentioned the mashed potato trick in a recent episode.
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on November 11, 2010, 00:35:
 
Grumpy_________I am not convinced that is spinach. I know there is a green that looks alot like spinach but is not.many specias of swiss chard ( and there are many!) look alot like spinach at the beginning.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on November 11, 2010, 05:28:
 
I ate the spinach leaves and other non-gross bits of the salad, so I know it was spinach from the taste.

The most recent outbreak of E. Coli in spinach was back in September and it's over, so I'm fairly sure the notice was related to that and they haven't gotten around to updating the website.
 
Posted by Ugh, MightyClub (Member # 3112) on November 12, 2010, 10:11:
 
Grumpy, I for one appreciate your sacrifice of one U.S. Dollar and your very health to research this side salad issue. The fact is, dollar menus are just a way to get people in the door. You aren't going to make any sort of real meal out of those menus -- not in terms of resulting fullness and definitely not in terms of nutritional quality.
 


© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0