Guvment Diet

[Alan B]

Why do we seem to be concentrating on fats and not carbohydrates as the culprit for the rise in obesity?

I suppose it's the popular misconception that eating 'fat' makes you fat - like beget's like - dating from the fifties, I believe.

Whereas it is carbohydrates that now seem to be the cause, particularly added sugars which manufacturers appear to add to almost any manufactured food product.

It is the governments job to insist that food manufacturers declare the nutrition in their products, the rest is down to education, education, education.

[Forty Two]

Why do we seem to be concentrating on fats and not carbohydrates as the culprit for the rise in obesity?

I'm not. I just pointed out the data you were referring to. The only carbs mentioned in the bit you were referring to were "sugars" and those were 0 for both. So, why was the Church's chicken worse?

I suppose it's the popular misconception that eating 'fat' makes you fat - like beget's like - dating from the fifties, I believe.

I suppose it is a misconception among some people; however, it's not a misconception I hold or have expressed. Weight gain is significantly associated with calories consumed vs. calories burned or discharged. Fat has 9 calories per gram, proteins and carbs have 4 calories per gram. So, the reason fats get some attention is that they are a very efficient way to get calories. I.e., it's far more caloric to eat a kilo of fat than a kilo of carbs or protein.

Whereas it is carbohydrates that now seem to be the cause, particularly added sugars which manufacturers appear to add to almost any manufactured food product.

Well, looking at the data you referred to concerning Church's chicken vs. Perdue supermarket chicken, the sugars are the same - 0. If you care to make some other specific comparisons, let's look at it.

It is the governments job to insist that food manufacturers declare the nutrition in their products, the rest is down to education, education, education.

That is, of course, a different issue than banning. And, whatever one thinks of the nutrition labels, they are present and provide plenty of information for people to know what they're getting.

[laklak]

I don't need the government to tell me that eating McShit is bad for me, or that buying fresh vegetables, fruits, and meats is better than buying pre-packaged processed shite. This is because I'm not a fucking imbecile. Now, I fully understand that a significant percentage, perhaps even a supermajority, of the general population are, indeed, imbeciles. Or idiots, or lower-functioning, or intellectually challenged, whatever. My question is why are we telling them what to eat? Let them die, it strengthens the herd.

[Alan B]

I'm not. I just pointed out the data you were referring to. The only carbs mentioned in the bit you were referring to were "sugars" and those were 0 for both. So, why was the Church's chicken worse?

I was making a general observation and not referring to your two examples. The fact that those examples contain zero sugars is irrelevant. I made no comment on the 'qualities' of either item.

Food manufacturers still con the public with 'Light' products meaning 'Low Fat' while adding sugar to compensate for the taste difference.

[laklak]

Yes, they do. It fools the imbeciles.

[Forty Two]

I'm not. I just pointed out the data you were referring to. The only carbs mentioned in the bit you were referring to were "sugars" and those were 0 for both. So, why was the Church's chicken worse?

I was making a general observation and not referring to your two examples. The fact that those examples contain zero sugars is irrelevant. I made no comment on the 'qualities' of either item.

Well, then where did you get the idea that I had the misconception you accused me of having?

Food manufacturers still con the public with 'Light' products meaning 'Low Fat' while adding sugar to compensate for the taste difference.

Maybe, but that's not an issue with the comparison of fast food. Some people may want low fat, and they may not have the same concern about sugars. Others who have concerns about sugar can have sugar free product. Those who have concerns about sugar substitutes can buy still other products.

It's like the Star Bellied Sneetches from Dr. Seuss. For years we've heard how bad sugar is, and they were putting sugar substitutes in to save us from sugar. Now, since folks have soured, no pun intended, on the sugar substitutes and those are now declared to be worse than sugar, you're getting marketers selling products as containing "real, pure sugar" - well, especially adding the word "cane" to it, because, of course, real, pure CANE sugar is now supposed to be good for us. It's natural, not some manufactured substitute, lol.

Ban it all!

[laklak]

Lol yeah, witness Coke Life with Real sugar!

[Alan B]

Well, then where did you get the idea that I had the misconception you accused me of having?

I did not make any accusation of a misconception by you. I just provided more accurate figures from the linked site.

From your post:

Here's a Perdue chicken leg nutrition -- http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calori ... zI3Mw.html 3 ounces, about 200 calories

Here is Church's Chicken Leg - http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calori ... 2NzA0.html 3 ounces about 200 calories.

From my post:

Per 100 grams.
Perdue
262kcal., Fat 21.4%, Sat. Fat 7.1%, CHO 0%, Sugars 0%, Fibre 0%, Protein 15.5%, Salt Equiv. 1.31%
Church's
216kcal., Fat 11.8%, Sat. Fat 2.9%, CHO 5%, Sugars 0%, Fibre 0%, Protein 19.6%, Salt Equiv. 1.37%

I couldn't care whether one of the above items is 'better' than the other.

I am not interested in 'Fast Foods' (I rarely eat them), but in nutrition generally.

[Hermit]

That's right. It's banned altogether! In short, we want our government to save us from consuming those products.

If by "we" you mean "some people, including you" then yes. Other people may not be so willing to ask the government to save them from themselves.

Hey, the bit you cut out - you know, where I wrote that government's policies of making the sale of tobacco and alcohol to minors illegal - did you not notice it, or are you just being a mendacious debater now, or do you think that too is above the government's pay grade?

And if we decide that all Dunkin Donut shops have to be in big white buildings labelled "Food That Is Bad for You" and packaged in plain brown wrappers, I'd be in favour of that too.

I'm not all that surprised that you would favor that. However, it's a rather oppressive and tyrannical thing to do to people, isn't it?

About as tyrannical and oppressive as requiring the cigarette manufacturer to put a big "Smoking Kills" warning on every packet of smokes, or print warnings on the labels of bottles containing alcohol regarding the dangers to foetuses and road users.

A rational application of the "stop what's bad for them" government policy would likely include the de-glorification of casinos, right?

Yes. Unfortunately governments, at least in Australia, are dragging the chain on this because they get a huge cut of the proceeds.

Now to meat. Though I am not a vegetarian, I'd approve of butchers wrapping the steak I buy in a package which reminds me that ten trees have been chopped down, or whatever, in order for me to be able to eat it.

That sounds like a personal problem for you. You might seek therapy. You think you should be made to feel guilty for buying and eating meat, and that should be legislated, and that's a proper role for the government?

You hear the sound wrongly and where do you get the idea from that I want to drag guilt into the matter?

Yes, we are already compelled by law to do things to save us. However, that doesn't mean that anything the government does to save us should be viewed as equally appropriate.

We are agreed on that. Our disagreement lies in where to draw the line.

...at least there [the government is] not trying to social engineer, but rather stop person A from poisoning person B, which I find to be a rather relevant distinction.

How many drunks dying from cirrhosis of the liver don't leave a family behind? How many of them don't damage the property and lives of others when they have a road accident? Is it only those who die of emphysema or lung cancer who suffer as a result? I guess you don't like that 17th century crypto-Marxist, John Donne.

• No man is an island,
  Entire of itself,
  Every man is a piece of the continent,
  A part of the main.
  If a clod be washed away by the sea,
  Europe is the less.
  As well as if a promontory were.

Before you bring up the usual canards about banning cars because thousands of people die driving them, or dangerous hobbies like road racing for similar reasons, try to predict my reply.

[mistermack]

The biggest misconception I ever had about dieting and weight loss, is that it's just about calories in, and calories out.
I know that's technically true, but if you just look at the energy burned, say in a five mile walk, and work out how many calories that used up, it's totally misleading.

Exercise, like walking, running, jogging or whatever, does far more than just burning bare calories. It increases your metabolic rate significantly, so that if you exercise regularly, you are burning far more calories when you are resting, as well as during the exercise.

I have no idea if this has ever been measured scientifically, but from personal experience, it becomes crystal clear. If I take even moderate exercise on a regular basis, I can eat pretty much what I like, and still lose weight, or stay steady if that's what I want.
But if I stop the exercise, the weight starts piling back on.

I've argued against this in the past, till I actually tried it, and I just can't deny the results.

It just needs to be done every day. It doesn't have to be drastic.

[Forty Two]

Lol yeah, witness Coke Life with Real sugar!

....so much healthier for you. It's all-natural. Organic. Non-GMO. Free-range sugar.

[Forty Two]

That's right. It's banned altogether! In short, we want our government to save us from consuming those products.

If by "we" you mean "some people, including you" then yes. Other people may not be so willing to ask the government to save them from themselves.

Hey, the bit you cut out - you know, where I wrote that government's policies of making the sale of tobacco and alcohol to minors illegal - did you not notice it, or are you just being a mendacious debater now, or do you think that too is above the government's pay grade?

I didn't cut any portion out. The bit about smoking and miners was in the post I responded to here. Fuck off with your "mendacious debater" bullshit --
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1705611

Setting a minimum age for a product is much different than a government agency deciding where products are to be displayed in a store. But, since you asked, yes. I'm against minimum ages for things, generally speaking. Many civilized countries have low or non-existent smoking and drinking ages. They do just fine. The government need not meddle. Denmark and Belgium, for example, have no "smoking age." They do have an age to "purchase" (18 and 16 respectively).

There is a rationale that makes sense behind a minimum age for things like driving and perhaps some adult substances or movies. But, that's characteristically different than telling people they have to stock the Doritos on the bottom shelf, and only sell chewing tobacco from behind the counter.

And if we decide that all Dunkin Donut shops have to be in big white buildings labelled "Food That Is Bad for You" and packaged in plain brown wrappers, I'd be in favour of that too.

I'm not all that surprised that you would favor that. However, it's a rather oppressive and tyrannical thing to do to people, isn't it?

About as tyrannical and oppressive as requiring the cigarette manufacturer to put a big "Smoking Kills" warning on every packet of smokes, or print warnings on the labels of bottles containing alcohol regarding the dangers to foetuses and road users.

Well, if you can't see the difference, then I can't help you. You'd probably think it was reasonable to have the government mandate warnings on packages of bacon that that bacon kills because it contains carcinogens and causes artery clogging.

But, you do make my point about it being a wedge - you're exactly the person who concludes that any regulation of food or substances is fine because we regulate tobacco and alcohol. That's precisely the slippery slope I've been talking about. It never stays in the small region these "for your own protection" laws are sold to us as being limited to. There is always somebody else who'd just love to protect us some more.

A rational application of the "stop what's bad for them" government policy would likely include the de-glorification of casinos, right?

Yes. Unfortunately governments, at least in Australia, are dragging the chain on this because they get a huge cut of the proceeds.

Get rid of everything!

Cigars! Gone!

Marijuana! Gone!

Heck - let's just have the government tell us what we can and can't eat, drink and inhale, and tell us how far we can run, and what sports we can play, because the government is an expert on safety and it's for our own good.

Now to meat. Though I am not a vegetarian, I'd approve of butchers wrapping the steak I buy in a package which reminds me that ten trees have been chopped down, or whatever, in order for me to be able to eat it.

That sounds like a personal problem for you. You might seek therapy. You think you should be made to feel guilty for buying and eating meat, and that should be legislated, and that's a proper role for the government?

You hear the sound wrongly and where do you get the idea from that I want to drag guilt into the matter?

What other reason is there to "remind" you that ten trees have been chopped down for you to be able to eat it? To honor and praise the trees?

Yes, we are already compelled by law to do things to save us. However, that doesn't mean that anything the government does to save us should be viewed as equally appropriate.

We are agreed on that. Our disagreement lies in where to draw the line.

It doesn't sound like you have a line.

...at least there [the government is] not trying to social engineer, but rather stop person A from poisoning person B, which I find to be a rather relevant distinction.

How many drunks dying from cirrhosis of the liver don't leave a family behind? How many of them don't damage the property and lives of others when they have a road accident? Is it only those who die of emphysema or lung cancer who suffer as a result? I guess you don't like that 17th century crypto-Marxist, John Donne.

It's not your business or mine what someone else does with their personal lives. Stop drunks from driving, sure. But what, other than banning alcohol, are you going to do to stop people drinking themselves into cirrhosis? Send them to reeducation camps?

• No man is an island,
  Entire of itself,
  Every man is a piece of the continent,
  A part of the main.
  If a clod be washed away by the sea,
  Europe is the less.
  As well as if a promontory were.

Before you bring up the usual canards about banning cars because thousands of people die driving them, or dangerous hobbies like road racing for similar reasons, try to predict my reply.

Fuck off.

[pErvinalia]

Why do we seem to be concentrating on fats and not carbohydrates as the culprit for the rise in obesity?

I suppose it's the popular misconception that eating 'fat' makes you fat - like beget's like - dating from the fifties, I believe.

Whereas it is carbohydrates that now seem to be the cause, particularly added sugars which manufacturers appear to add to almost any manufactured food product.

It is the governments job to insist that food manufacturers declare the nutrition in their products, the rest is down to education, education, education.

It's not just about obesity. Saturated animal fats are particularly nasty for things like the various heart and artery diseases.

[pErvinalia]

It is the governments job to insist that food manufacturers declare the nutrition in their products, the rest is down to education, education, education.

That is, of course, a different issue than banning.

Who, other than you and the Dutch guy who hates everything, is talking about banning?

And, whatever one thinks of the nutrition labels, they are present and provide plenty of information for people to know what they're getting.

Except you objected to Hermit's proposal for the addition of informative labels on meat.

[pErvinalia]

A rational application of the "stop what's bad for them" government policy would likely include the de-glorification of casinos, right?

Yes. Unfortunately governments, at least in Australia, are dragging the chain on this because they get a huge cut of the proceeds.

Get rid of everything!

Cigars! Gone!

Marijuana! Gone!

Heck - let's just have the government tell us what we can and can't eat, drink and inhale, and tell us how far we can run, and what sports we can play, because the government is an expert on safety and it's for our own good.

Yet more hyperbole. You just can't help yourself, can you? No one is talking about banning casinos. Your own term was "de-glorification".

Now to meat. Though I am not a vegetarian, I'd approve of butchers wrapping the steak I buy in a package which reminds me that ten trees have been chopped down, or whatever, in order for me to be able to eat it.

That sounds like a personal problem for you. You might seek therapy. You think you should be made to feel guilty for buying and eating meat, and that should be legislated, and that's a proper role for the government?

You hear the sound wrongly and where do you get the idea from that I want to drag guilt into the matter?

What other reason is there to "remind" you that ten trees have been chopped down for you to be able to eat it? To honor and praise the trees?

To inform the consumer. As I said, you free market types are supposed to be for the free flow of information. But I guess this is like the "free speech" argument. All for free speech that you lot like, but when it's some muslim woman saying something offensive to white males, it's out the window with the free speech rhetoric.