You know, as much skepticism as I have for some of Taube’s conclusions, I did think the article was a pretty good read.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
“Eat food, not too much, mostly meat.” [/quote]
Fixed that for you (and Pollan.)
I started training in 1986 @ 160lbs. I have ran, jumped, rode, swam, and lifted since. I have won amauture natural bodybuilding contests, local strongman, and powelifting meets from the local to national level. I’ve have tried every diet protocol from see-food to fasting. Throughout all those years the thing that made the greatest impact on my training, health, and overall feeling of well-being was the reduction/ellimination of starches and management of carbohydrates in my diet.
I go about 195-200 lean(there is a video in my profile from last spring) and run my weight up to 220+ in the winter. When I go to cut/diet I can increase my fat grams up to 150/day(I diet on about 3,200 cal/day) and if my protein and carbs are right the fat melts off my body…if I let the carbs get away from me all progress stops, even when the calories are reduced to compensate.
I’ve never read anything by Taubes, and perhaps I am the exception-not the rule, but there is no doubt that calories from carbohydrates (starches and processed)effect my body in ways that are different than equal calories of protein or fat do.
Something I found, gonna take a listen…
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:educating people what macronutrient that they are taking in which is causing their bodies to preferentially store calories as fat, and preventing it from burning the fat?
[/quote]
Here we go. Something good.
So you believe that given isocaloric intakes of carbohydrates vs. fat, the carbohydrate group will result in a greater net storage of bodyfat?
That’s metabolic advantage, and it’s horseshit.[/quote]
You did something in the previous post that kinda messed it up, Strong. I can’t read it, or rather can’t see your responses.
Insulin up-regulates LPL in adipocytes. This happens whether or not there is a million calories to store or one. Insulin doesn’t know, its just a stupid hormone. If its in the bloodstream at a certain level (x), its giving a certain level of activity (y) on its target receptors. It also down-regulates HSL IN the adipocytes. The only difference between a hyper and hypo-caloric diet if you hold the insulin constant is the amount of substrate available. A hypo-caloric diet will usually be able to overcome HSL inhibition by insulin eventually, allowing weight loss. A hyper-caloric diet will, unless the person is extremely fortunate genetically, will not be able to overcome insulin’s effect on HSL.
Of course, referring to the sugar discussion we had a few days ago, your above scenario entirely depends upon the nature of the carbohydrates and fat, in the scenario as well as what the “isocaloric level” is.
If they are eating 100 kcal, 1000, 3000 and the nature of the carbohydrate makes a difference. The higher the substrate consumption, the larger the insulin response, then ABSOLUTELY it makes a difference. Insulin drives all of this. Thats the whole point of the discussion to begin with. If you’ve got 1000 cal of carbohydrate vs 1000 cal of fat, you think the physiological effects (body weight, blood lipid levels, etc.) will be identical??? I don’t see how you can say that its horseshit? My ears and eyes are wide open and I’m always open to learning something new.[/quote]
Modok,
Is this idea that you mention (the amounts of carbohydrate being consumed driving insulin levels up in general) have something to do with glycemic load?
At my gym, I heard some old bodybuilder talk about how me eating carrots is what is keeping me from leaning out further, and he brought up the glycemix index. I mention to him that according to the GI, I would have to eat 7 huge carrots in one sitting, and nothing else, to get the full effects of what he was claiming (which was a more than ideal rise in insulin levels).
I know I am bat-shit crazy at times, but my question is, who is MORE bat-shit crazy? Me or the old man?
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:educating people what macronutrient that they are taking in which is causing their bodies to preferentially store calories as fat, and preventing it from burning the fat?
[/quote]
Here we go. Something good.
So you believe that given isocaloric intakes of carbohydrates vs. fat, the carbohydrate group will result in a greater net storage of bodyfat?
That’s metabolic advantage, and it’s horseshit.[/quote]
You did something in the previous post that kinda messed it up, Strong. I can’t read it, or rather can’t see your responses.
Insulin up-regulates LPL in adipocytes. This happens whether or not there is a million calories to store or one. Insulin doesn’t know, its just a stupid hormone. If its in the bloodstream at a certain level (x), its giving a certain level of activity (y) on its target receptors. It also down-regulates HSL IN the adipocytes. The only difference between a hyper and hypo-caloric diet if you hold the insulin constant is the amount of substrate available. A hypo-caloric diet will usually be able to overcome HSL inhibition by insulin eventually, allowing weight loss. A hyper-caloric diet will, unless the person is extremely fortunate genetically, will not be able to overcome insulin’s effect on HSL.
Of course, referring to the sugar discussion we had a few days ago, your above scenario entirely depends upon the nature of the carbohydrates and fat, in the scenario as well as what the “isocaloric level” is.
If they are eating 100 kcal, 1000, 3000 and the nature of the carbohydrate makes a difference. The higher the substrate consumption, the larger the insulin response, then ABSOLUTELY it makes a difference. Insulin drives all of this. Thats the whole point of the discussion to begin with. If you’ve got 1000 cal of carbohydrate vs 1000 cal of fat, you think the physiological effects (body weight, blood lipid levels, etc.) will be identical??? I don’t see how you can say that its horseshit? My ears and eyes are wide open and I’m always open to learning something new.[/quote]
So you believe that a 1000 calorie surplus of fat is going to result in a lesser amount of fat storage than a 1000 calorie surplus of carbohydrate?
The focus on insulin is misguided. Fat, like other nutrients, can be stored in the absence of insulin. ASP levels will elevate in response to increased cholymicron concentration brought on by the consumption of fat, without an elevation in insulin. ASP also downregulates hormone sensitive lipase. Likewise, fatty acid oxidation can occur in the presence of carbohydrates and insulin IF overall caloric need outpaces caloric input. It’s not like consuming carbohydrates (on a hypocaloric diet) shuts off post-absorptive fat oxidation.
If your premise was correct (fat storage is impossible in the absence of insulin), then it would be impossible for untreated type 1 diabetics to get fat.
A funny thing happens when the research compares low vs. moderate carbohydrate intakes while controlling calories and protein intake: nothing.
Johnston CS et. al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2006) 83: 1055-1061
well if you eat more dietary fat, then you have to burn more fat…So, I don’t understand why a high fat diet is more advantageous
I’m not really concerned that insulin blunts fat burning as a high carb diet is invariably a low fat diet as well…so, there is only a limited amount of fat that can be stored anyway…
you would have to prove that a low carb hypercaloric diets leads to more cals being used for protein synthesis or some kind of adaptative energy expenditure…otherwise, i don’t understand how a high fat diet leads to less fat gain then a high carb diet…
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]D Public wrote:
I’m not really concerned that insulin blunts fat burning as a high carb diet is invariably a low fat diet as well…so, there is only a limited amount of fat that can be stored anyway…
[/quote]
You can’t be serious.
[/quote]
You look at things in detail…I look at things in terms of cumulative effect…I care about fat balance at the end of the day…
the fact that you don’t want to look at studies is ridiculous…you rather make conclusions based on your textbook knowledge of how the body works…
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:educating people what macronutrient that they are taking in which is causing their bodies to preferentially store calories as fat, and preventing it from burning the fat?
[/quote]
Here we go. Something good.
So you believe that given isocaloric intakes of carbohydrates vs. fat, the carbohydrate group will result in a greater net storage of bodyfat?
That’s metabolic advantage, and it’s horseshit.[/quote]
You did something in the previous post that kinda messed it up, Strong. I can’t read it, or rather can’t see your responses.
Insulin up-regulates LPL in adipocytes. This happens whether or not there is a million calories to store or one. Insulin doesn’t know, its just a stupid hormone. If its in the bloodstream at a certain level (x), its giving a certain level of activity (y) on its target receptors. It also down-regulates HSL IN the adipocytes. The only difference between a hyper and hypo-caloric diet if you hold the insulin constant is the amount of substrate available. A hypo-caloric diet will usually be able to overcome HSL inhibition by insulin eventually, allowing weight loss. A hyper-caloric diet will, unless the person is extremely fortunate genetically, will not be able to overcome insulin’s effect on HSL.
Of course, referring to the sugar discussion we had a few days ago, your above scenario entirely depends upon the nature of the carbohydrates and fat, in the scenario as well as what the “isocaloric level” is.
If they are eating 100 kcal, 1000, 3000 and the nature of the carbohydrate makes a difference. The higher the substrate consumption, the larger the insulin response, then ABSOLUTELY it makes a difference. Insulin drives all of this. Thats the whole point of the discussion to begin with. If you’ve got 1000 cal of carbohydrate vs 1000 cal of fat, you think the physiological effects (body weight, blood lipid levels, etc.) will be identical??? I don’t see how you can say that its horseshit? My ears and eyes are wide open and I’m always open to learning something new.[/quote]
So you believe that a 1000 calorie surplus of fat is going to result in a lesser amount of fat storage than a 1000 calorie surplus of carbohydrate?
The focus on insulin is misguided. Fat, like other nutrients, can be stored in the absence of insulin. ASP levels will elevate in response to increased cholymicron concentration brought on by the consumption of fat, without an elevation in insulin. ASP also downregulates hormone sensitive lipase. Likewise, fatty acid oxidation can occur in the presence of carbohydrates and insulin IF overall caloric need outpaces caloric input. It’s not like consuming carbohydrates (on a hypocaloric diet) shuts off post-absorptive fat oxidation.
If your premise was correct (fat storage is impossible in the absence of insulin), then it would be impossible for untreated type 1 diabetics to get fat.
A funny thing happens when the research compares low vs. moderate carbohydrate intakes while controlling calories and protein intake: nothing.
Johnston CS et. al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2006) 83: 1055-1061[/quote]
Come on…where did I say that fat storage is IMPOSSIBLE in the absence of insulin? LOL Thats gotta be a joke. You are going to have to read my posts if we are going to chat. Seriously, where did you get that? Thats silly. I’ve never even adressed that.
And I asked you nicely- no fucking studies. 
I also don’t need a primer on lipid metabolism, but thanks for offering. ASP is a hormone that is most certainly affected by insulin and visa versa. They are inextricably linked, as are most systems in the body whether it is talked about or not.
But let me ask you this- how many people do you think in our society have this problem that you are bringing up? NONE. Well, maybe you would have an audience among the obese in an Inuit tribe but lets stick with the general US population and its diet. Its an academic argument to say “but I can show that you store bodyfat without insulin”. Everyone is going to have BOTH hormones unless you shove lard down someone’s throat.
You are attempting to make a theoretical argument when I’m talking about a practical problem. People eat WAY too much carbohydrate in this country, leading to metabolic syndrome, hyperinsulinemia, heart attack, obesity, etc. This is irrefutable. You aren’t addressing those points at all. You are only talking about storage of bodyfat and you point seems to be "you lose weight on a deficit, you gain it on a surplus, doesn’t matter what the macronutrient breakdown. " No shit.(As an aside its also been shown time and time again, both on the bodybuilding stage and in real life, that your point of a calorie is a calorie is completely false when it comes to body composition.) Some limited folks are able to get by with hormonal indiscretions caused by the food they choose to eat, a lot of people are not. Its genetics, plain and simple. And as a practical matter, for our general population, insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome caused exclusively by excessive carbohydrate consumption are public health crises. Do you disagree with that? I mean I’m fine with the “in vitro scientific theoretical” argument you are having if you want to have it, but are you saying that metabolic syndrome, which is caused specifically by carbohydrate consumption, isn’t on of the biggest preventable health problems in our society?
[/quote]
This was a very good post.
Now I don’t have the same physiological knowledge that you two guys do, however, I do know that most of the things you are arguing/discussing vary greatly between individuals. I know through real life experience that we all respond differently to certain macronutrients.
Also, being a Type 1 Diabetic, I can say that pretty much everything that we eat elicits an insulin response. I also know that I feel better and tend to look better when carbs are lower, insulin levels lower, and fat a bit higher. At the end of the day, I don’t really see what you two are arguing about. You both agree that excess calories will promote adipose tissue uptake and synthesis right? From here, I wonder what each macronutrient does when the body is in this hyper-caloric state. For instance, carbs break down to glucose. Protein will probably get broken down into glucose as well. Fats are a little trickier as they can also be converted to glucose but they also have other metabolic pathways. Can you guys maybe elaborate a little bit on the other metabolic pathways that fat can take besides conversion to glucose? Ive been taught that due to it’s chemical similarity to fat cells, fatty acids from our diet are much more easily converted to adipose. I guess I’m just wondering a little bit more about fat metabolism.
[quote]heavylifter36 wrote:
Can you guys maybe elaborate a little bit on the other metabolic pathways that fat can take besides conversion to glucose? Ive been taught that due to it’s chemical similarity to fat cells, fatty acids from our diet are much more easily converted to adipose[/quote] Yes, that’s my question too…
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Modok,
Is this idea that you mention (the amounts of carbohydrate being consumed driving insulin levels up in general) have something to do with glycemic load?
At my gym, I heard some old bodybuilder talk about how me eating carrots is what is keeping me from leaning out further, and he brought up the glycemix index. I mention to him that according to the GI, I would have to eat 7 huge carrots in one sitting, and nothing else, to get the full effects of what he was claiming (which was a more than ideal rise in insulin levels).
I know I am bat-shit crazy at times, but my question is, who is MORE bat-shit crazy? Me or the old man?[/quote]
MODOK is a lot smarter than me, but I’ll answer:
You are correct, because we’re talking about density function.
If I told you I have a job for you that paid $500/hr, would you take it? Or would you (smartly) ask, “Well, how many hours a month would I be working?” If I said, “Just 4 hours!” Would you be impressed with that monthly salary?
If you told you I drove down to LA and I hit 160 mph, wouldn’t you want to know for HOW LONG I drove that fast?
I’m not trying to educate you, I’m using analogy to basically agree with your point on GL vs. GI. I think people who obsess over GI but don’t know about GL are the ones who don’t understand density (pun?).
[quote]MODOK wrote:
You misunderstand. I have a PhD in Pharmacology and am a clinical researcher and adjunct faculty member at a well-known academic institution in the south. I have been the contributing author on primary literature and served on the peer review board for the American Journal of Pharmacology and the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. I see studies just about every single day of my life in the “real world”. The last thing on the damn earth I want to do in my free time when I’m trying to unwind with my little hobby here is start talking primary literature. You can run a million miles with a study and never move a foot in an argument. Believe me, I’ve been there. I’ve also never been in a debate of that magnitude and have anyone who is involved in the debate say “You’ve changed my mind. Thank you.” So I prefer to keep things light, off the cuff, and theoretical. Its far more interesting to hear what people think than to see what they can drag up out of the dark waters on OVID.
By the way… you might want to check into that whole “carbs always stay carbs in the body after ingestion” thing.
[/quote]
that is understandable…however, i still feel there are very relevant studies to this discussion, and I’m going to post them anyway…
As far as carbs not turning to fat, fructose does readilly convert to fat if liver glycogen is full. However, fructose has no has no insulin response(so, it’s not inhibiting fatty acid oxidation). Regardless, I don’t think sugar should be someone’s primary carb source, and i agree that soda consumption is a problem.
i was talking about glucose which does not convert to significant amounts of fat under normal circumstances…this study is showing a conversion of 5-10g a day despite eating near 700g of carbs…
also intresting to note is that the group overfed 50% fat and the group overfed 50% carbs resulted in similar weight gained…
I’m not trying to convince anyone that they should eat high carb…I do think some people will legitimately do better on a low carb diet, but i’m not one of them…and, I know there are others like me out there who do better on higher carbs…
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[/quote]
This was a very good post.[/quote]
Thanks Cap. I know you’ve got some opinions on the matter :).
[/quote]
I do. My main opinion is that the ONLY study that matters is looking outside your window. Americans keep getting more and more obese - thats the fact of the matter.
Studies might show that you can eat McDonalds everyday and be fine if you limit your calories - doesn’t mean shit when the vast majority of peole who eat McDonalds wont.
Studies show that if dextrose was in everything, it would be getting all the bad press sucrose/HFCS does - means nothing, dextrose isn’t in everything.
A person can live in a landscape of shit food and make healthy choices - most wont. Change the landscape.
“But people could eat too much healthy food and get fat!” - means nothing because people dont do that. Why didnt this happen back BEFORE sugar was in everything? In the 50s-60s, America as a nation wasnt starving - yet there was no epidemic of obesity. Did people ‘suddenly’ lose their self control? Nope - the food landscape changed. It got worse, sugar got in everything, and people got fatter.
The main problem in america is that all our food is shit. Yet so many people here jump to defend the shit food, insist that every american needs to develop the willpower of a jedi, and the problem keeps getting worse. Lets just cut the shit- most people wont “watch what they eat”. Raise food standards, and things would get better.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]tolismann wrote:
[quote]heavylifter36 wrote:
Can you guys maybe elaborate a little bit on the other metabolic pathways that fat can take besides conversion to glucose? Ive been taught that due to it’s chemical similarity to fat cells, fatty acids from our diet are much more easily converted to adipose[/quote] Yes, that’s my question too…
[/quote]
Are you meaning fat converted into energy or glucose converted into fat, or fat and glucose stored as adipose? I need a little clarification on the question :).[/quote]
Not sure if it’s heavylifter36’s question, but it’s mine and related. Maybe if it was rephrased as “After fats are taken up into systemic circulation, aside from being stored in adipocytes, what else can happen to them?”
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Come on…where did I say that fat storage is IMPOSSIBLE in the absence of insulin? LOL Thats gotta be a joke. You are going to have to read my posts if we are going to chat. Seriously, where did you get that? Thats silly. I’ve never even adressed that.
And I asked you nicely- no fucking studies.
I also don’t need a primer on lipid metabolism, but thanks for offering. ASP is a hormone that is most certainly affected by insulin and visa versa. They are inextricably linked, as are most systems in the body whether it is talked about or not.
But let me ask you this- how many people do you think in our society have this problem that you are bringing up? NONE. Well, maybe you would have an audience among the obese in an Inuit tribe but lets stick with the general US population and its diet. Its an academic argument to say “but I can show that you store bodyfat without insulin”. Everyone is going to have BOTH hormones unless you shove lard down someone’s throat.
You are attempting to make a theoretical argument when I’m talking about a practical problem. People eat WAY too much carbohydrate in this country, leading to metabolic syndrome, hyperinsulinemia, heart attack, obesity, etc. This is irrefutable. You aren’t addressing those points at all. You are only talking about storage of bodyfat and you point seems to be "you lose weight on a deficit, you gain it on a surplus, doesn’t matter what the macronutrient breakdown. " No shit.(As an aside its also been shown time and time again, both on the bodybuilding stage and in real life, that your point of a calorie is a calorie is completely false when it comes to body composition.) Some limited folks are able to get by with hormonal indiscretions caused by the food they choose to eat, a lot of people are not. Its genetics, plain and simple. And as a practical matter, for our general population, insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome caused exclusively by excessive carbohydrate consumption are public health crises. Do you disagree with that? I mean I’m fine with the “in vitro scientific theoretical” argument you are having if you want to have it, but are you saying that metabolic syndrome, which is caused specifically by carbohydrate consumption, isn’t on of the biggest preventable health problems in our society?
[/quote]
First of all, I’m not arguing that “a calorie is just a calorie” in the sense that one could achieve the same results on a diet consisting entirely of pizza hut and twinkies as they would on a typical bodybuilding diet. That’s a misrepresentation of what I’m saying at best. Of fucking course different macronutrients have different effects on the body, especially with regards to protein. If you had read the study I posted, I even addressed this by posting data that indicates that diets of equal calorie and protein intake, with the remainder of caloric intake made up of either carbohydrate or by fat resulted in statistically similar levels of body weight and fat mass.
On to this:
“what macronutrient that they are taking in which is causing their bodies to preferentially store calories as fat, and preventing it from burning the fat”
Either this quote is implying that carbohydrates drive fat storage in a deficit, or that it is possible to lose fat in a surplus. It is true that carbohydrates are utilized preferentially over fats, but this is irrelevant to net fat loss assuming adequate protein intake and equal caloric intakes.
Granted that ASP and insulin are linked, but the fact that ASP will elevate after fat loading without a net increase in insulin concentration is contradictory to the implication that carbohydrate reduction/elimination is the ONLY intervention necessary for weight loss. If every piece of bread, cupcake, and bag of chips were replaced tomorrow with bacon, sausage, and avocados, then people would still be fat a year from now because they would still be overeating based on taste and convenience.
I will agree with you that people in this country consume far too many carbohydrates, but that is only accurate in the context of the rest of the American diet: people consume far too much carbohydrate, calories, and fat. The average American consumes 100g of fat per day, the fact that some are trying to construe the SAD as “low fat” is absurd to me when the AVERAGE fat intake equates to anywhere from 30-50% of the average American’s caloric needs. I disagree that carbohydrate intake is exclusively to blame for metabolic syndrome in Americans. Excessive caloric intake (a significant portion of which is carbohydrate) is exclusively to blame. Simple reduction/elimination of carbohydrate intake is not adequate nor is it practical. As a matter of practicality, an increased focus on lean protein (which doesn’t mean fat free, but 20% fat content or better), dietary fiber, and reduced caloric intake would be far more realistic than asking every fat American to stop eating bread, pasta, rice, and potatoes entirely.
From a practical standpoint, there is not much that can be done to address the obesity disease state in America until people suck it up and understand that caloric intake is ultimately the most important factor in weight loss and that it must be monitored. Metabolic syndrome is inevitably a disease of the overweight and the NUMBER ONE treatment for metabolic syndrome is weight loss. The focus on carbohydrates as the sole cause of metabolic syndrome is misguided as the disease shows far less prevalence in those with healthy body weights, even in the presence of relatively large carbohydrate consumption. While it does occasionally affect those with healthy body weights, these tend to be outliers and there is some evidence for genetic mitochondrial abnormalities being the cause of this.
Can someone please explain what happens to dietary fats once they are ingested? How are they converted to adipose tissue?, and what else can they be used for?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
every american needs to develop the willpower of a jedi, and the problem keeps getting worse. Lets just cut the shit- most people wont “watch what they eat”. Raise food standards, and things would get better.[/quote]
It takes the willpower of a Jedi not to order the cheese fries and molten cake at Chilis? Willpower of a Jedi to pack a sandwich and piece of fruit instead of having habitual dollar menu blackouts on your lunch break?
Does purposefully eliminating carbohydrate intake somehow not count as “watching what you eat”?
You know what happens when you raise food standards like you’re talking about? Prices go up, people who were having trouble affording food already get hungrier, public food programs (soup kitchens, school lunches) go belly up. Sounds like a winning idea. I’m sure you watched Jaime Oliver’s show and you know all about how it’s possible to spend less on wholesome organic ingredients but the reality is that analysis of his “food revolution” in Huntington, WV shows higher food and labor costs as a result of the changes he implemented.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
From a practical standpoint, there is not much that can be done to address the obesity disease state in America until people suck it up and understand that caloric intake is ultimately the most important factor in weight loss and that it must be monitored.
[/quote]
I disagree. You argued that the convenience and cheapness of shit food are primary causes of obesity.
Make shit food more expensive and less convenient. People will eat less shit food, and lose weight.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
every american needs to develop the willpower of a jedi, and the problem keeps getting worse. Lets just cut the shit- most people wont “watch what they eat”. Raise food standards, and things would get better.[/quote]
It takes the willpower of a Jedi not to order the cheese fries and molten cake at Chilis? Willpower of a Jedi to pack a sandwich and piece of fruit instead of having habitual dollar menu blackouts on your lunch break?
Does purposefully eliminating carbohydrate intake somehow not count as “watching what you eat”?
You know what happens when you raise food standards like you’re talking about? Prices go up, people who were having trouble affording food already get hungrier, public food programs (soup kitchens, school lunches) go belly up. Sounds like a winning idea. I’m sure you watched Jaime Oliver’s show and you know all about how it’s possible to spend less on wholesome organic ingredients but the reality is that analysis of his “food revolution” in Huntington, WV shows higher food and labor costs as a result of the changes he implemented.[/quote]
Yup. Keep shit food everywhere and cheap as dirt - can’t imagine that obesity problems will continue the way they have.
Yes, it takes a lot of willpower to resist cheap, tempting, unhealthy food backed with a multi-billion dollar advertising market designed to make it more appealing. Yes, it takes a lot of willpower to “only shop around the outside of the supermarket”, ignoring the majority of the things they sell. Yes, it takes a lot of willpower to choose from one of 4 or 5 things on a menu everytime you go out to eat. It takes a lot of willpower to stop eating when you’re still hungry and can easily afford more food - and can think of excuses like “its wrong to waste food” and “I can supersize for 15 cents, its a better deal!”
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
every american needs to develop the willpower of a jedi, and the problem keeps getting worse. Lets just cut the shit- most people wont “watch what they eat”. Raise food standards, and things would get better.[/quote]
It takes the willpower of a Jedi not to order the cheese fries and molten cake at Chilis? Willpower of a Jedi to pack a sandwich and piece of fruit instead of having habitual dollar menu blackouts on your lunch break?
Does purposefully eliminating carbohydrate intake somehow not count as “watching what you eat”?
You know what happens when you raise food standards like you’re talking about? Prices go up, people who were having trouble affording food already get hungrier, public food programs (soup kitchens, school lunches) go belly up. Sounds like a winning idea. I’m sure you watched Jaime Oliver’s show and you know all about how it’s possible to spend less on wholesome organic ingredients but the reality is that analysis of his “food revolution” in Huntington, WV shows higher food and labor costs as a result of the changes he implemented.[/quote]
Yup. Keep shit food everywhere and cheap as dirt - can’t imagine that obesity problems will continue the way they have.
Yes, it takes a lot of willpower to resist cheap, tempting, unhealthy food backed with a multi-billion dollar advertising market designed to make it more appealing. Yes, it takes a lot of willpower to “only shop around the outside of the supermarket”, ignoring the majority of the things they sell. Yes, it takes a lot of willpower to choose from one of 4 or 5 things on a menu everytime you go out to eat. It takes a lot of willpower to stop eating when you’re still hungry and can easily afford more food - and can think of excuses like “its wrong to waste food” and “I can supersize for 15 cents, its a better deal!”
[/quote]
So starving the poor solves the obesity epidemic? Good to know.
11.2% of Americans either suffer from food shortages or are in imminent danger of facing hunger. Included in this are 13 million children. I’m sure it’s very nice to just pretend that these sorts of things aren’t happening, but in my area, there is a very real issue with children coming to school on Monday mornings having not eaten all weekend because their parents simply cannot afford food. You can argue about laziness and the welfare state or whatever, but your asinine idea to simply raise food costs does nothing to address that situation. Not to mention, as price increases, demand decreases, meaning that many of the 16.5 million US citizens working in the food industry lose their jobs. You’re effectively undercutting 10% of our gross domestic product by inflating food prices, effectively increasing the numbers I posted above. History has proven that, as food becomes less accessible, society deteriorates.