Is sugar toxic? - 60 minutes

Nutrition
81

[quote]facko wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]facko wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
What is a “macronutrient” in your opinion, facko? Is a steak a piece of protein? How about fish? What about a bowlful of hair? They all contain a substantial amount of protein, are they equivalent? What you are missing is that there really isn’t a clear cut definition of “macros and micros”, they are an illusion. As a pharmacist I have been in charge in the past of managing patients on total parenteral nutrition. We develop a formula based on all the patient’s particular “macro and micro” needs according to our best understanding of science. You know what happens? These patients stay horribly sick, their quality of life is terrible, and their life expectancy after they begin TPN therapy is very abbreviated.

Food is infinitely complex and unique mixture of both “macro, micro” and currently scientifically UNKNOWN substances. Use caution when you are categorizing and simplifying components of nutrition…it isn’t nearly as simple as tweedle dee and tweedle dum over on their websites say that it is. Their “no bullshit” schtick has, in a funny way, become a marketing act and hence “bullshit” in its own right. [/quote]

It is my understanding that Macros and Micros are certainly “real”…not illusions. Where as a calorie is kind of an illusion because it’s a man made concept created in order to explain a natural phenomena such as energy provided by the above said macros. No a plateful of hair is not the same as a piece of steak… who is debating that? Amino acid profile obviously does matter. Plus…noone without certain psychological conditions is going to sit down to a nice big bowl of hair for dinner tonight. Steak tastes better…

You truly believe that I think human physiology, nutrition, and the whole notion of food/food energy is simple? There’s not much simple about it…maybe in the simplified words and approaches we use to quantify physique or health effects of certain things consumed in substantial amounts or not consumed enough etc. But, the actual process taking place…that’s mind boggling and incredibly intricate.

My argument to you is that there are many things that can be considered addictive…I never even claimed to disagree with your assessment of whether or not sugar exhibits similar pharmacological effects as opiates perhaps. I just disagree with trying to govern peoples choices to be addicted or not. I really do. I extend that sentiment to recreational drugs as well. That is when things become a moral issue and moral ideology is what we are discussing at that point, assuming I concede the notion that sugar is an addictive drug akin to opiates or other narcotics. Use and abuse.

I choose to use sugar for the pleasure I derive from it at that point in time and I do genuinely make sure to keep tabs on my consumption. It makes up a very small portion of my overall dietary intake. I don’t expect to nor claim to understand the vast intricacies of nutrition…neither in terms of physique enhancement NOR in terms of maximizing health. Few, if any, have that level of grasp on the subject that they have definitive answers for the subject.

Others are arguing the idea that counting macros is really only necessary when you DO want to fit “junk” in your diet due to the pseudo nature of such food and the fact that such food can be so energy dense for such few bites. Therefore, setting up an environment that may cater towards over consumption of energy needs. This is bullshit to me as well. There are MANY days where I include ZERO “junk” foods. Just meat, a plethora of green vegetables and certain tuberous starches. Guess what…I can eat that food for hours and not get full…just as I could eat boxes of poptarts and not get full. You discuss the notion that ancestors ate when they were hungry and stopped when they were full…I’m assuming their propensity to get fuller, quicker…was higher than someone in our modern age consuming processed/highly concentrated food sources. Yet, what does someone like me do…if I can just as easily consume 500g of carbs from potatoes and broccoli as I can from poptarts? Not full in either circumstance. If I went entirely by satiety…You’d be watching my fat ass on TLC talking about how difficult it is for me to roll over in bed to get up in the morning.

Therefore…the best I can do is count macros…and keep track of micros…AND make sure the majority of the said intake is by way of whole food sources. I don’t start when I’m hungry…and I don’t stop when I’m full…I start when I can…and I stop when I hit the numbers.

And you are very correct in your assessment…that is a lifestyle far removed from any sane individual in our society. [/quote]

I know that I, for one, have never legislated any behavior. My discussion on this subject is entirely based on the scientific principles being debated. I do not give a damn if you or anyone else chooses to eat sugar. Have fun.

The construct of a “macronutrient” or a “micronutrient” is indeed an illusion. These terms and categories were invented by people attempting to categorize food constituents. If you look into it deeper however, this is impossible due to the extreme variability of food. Just as my example on TPN states, a perfectly constructed food source (TPN) according to our current medical knowledge is inadequate. This food source contains ALL of the macros and micros that we currently believe are necessary for life. More times than not the patient gets sick and fails to thrive after a period of time. Macros and micros are illusions because they fail to categorize what they seek to categorize, food, which is uncategorizable. You once asked me if you could exist on protein powder as the sole protein source for a period of time. You think of protein as the only necessity that you get from protein food sources. By your logic, a simple substitution of laboratory-prepared protein will replace the chicken or steak. But it cannot. Food really is unquantifiable. Take 10 apples from 10 orchards and you will have 10 wildly different amounts of macros and micros. Which is the correct one? 10 Grass fed beeves and CAFO beeves…same thing. Which do you choose? The proteins are different, fats are different, and each have wildly different minerals and vitamin content. How then can you look up a number in a book that says “ground beef- x protein, y fat, z carbs” ? Its an illusion to allow people to try and quantify and put in scientific terms something that is really too complex for that type of analysis.
[/quote]

The thing is…I value your words a great deal. And, I agree with basically everything you have said above.

My question then is: How do we quantify macros even in terms of bodybuilding? If there is that much variability…how is it that counting and calculating macros etc works in achieving physique goals. I.e. …100g of potato to me is roughly 20g of carbs…That’s how I choose to quantify it and I go by that. And it works for me…when I cut my carbs or increase my carbs based upon the above guidelines for potatoes and various other foods…I get physique effects.[/quote]

Ala PN method:

men 2 palm sizes meat source per meal
1/2 plate veggies
some oils/nuts/seeds

include some starch after a workout

You’d be surprised how far focusing just on the basics would get many people

I’m only answering your question, is that optimal for someone looking to step on stage? Prolly not

82

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]facko wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]facko wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
What is a “macronutrient” in your opinion, facko? Is a steak a piece of protein? How about fish? What about a bowlful of hair? They all contain a substantial amount of protein, are they equivalent? What you are missing is that there really isn’t a clear cut definition of “macros and micros”, they are an illusion. As a pharmacist I have been in charge in the past of managing patients on total parenteral nutrition. We develop a formula based on all the patient’s particular “macro and micro” needs according to our best understanding of science. You know what happens? These patients stay horribly sick, their quality of life is terrible, and their life expectancy after they begin TPN therapy is very abbreviated.

Food is infinitely complex and unique mixture of both “macro, micro” and currently scientifically UNKNOWN substances. Use caution when you are categorizing and simplifying components of nutrition…it isn’t nearly as simple as tweedle dee and tweedle dum over on their websites say that it is. Their “no bullshit” schtick has, in a funny way, become a marketing act and hence “bullshit” in its own right. [/quote]

It is my understanding that Macros and Micros are certainly “real”…not illusions. Where as a calorie is kind of an illusion because it’s a man made concept created in order to explain a natural phenomena such as energy provided by the above said macros. No a plateful of hair is not the same as a piece of steak… who is debating that? Amino acid profile obviously does matter. Plus…noone without certain psychological conditions is going to sit down to a nice big bowl of hair for dinner tonight. Steak tastes better…

You truly believe that I think human physiology, nutrition, and the whole notion of food/food energy is simple? There’s not much simple about it…maybe in the simplified words and approaches we use to quantify physique or health effects of certain things consumed in substantial amounts or not consumed enough etc. But, the actual process taking place…that’s mind boggling and incredibly intricate.

My argument to you is that there are many things that can be considered addictive…I never even claimed to disagree with your assessment of whether or not sugar exhibits similar pharmacological effects as opiates perhaps. I just disagree with trying to govern peoples choices to be addicted or not. I really do. I extend that sentiment to recreational drugs as well. That is when things become a moral issue and moral ideology is what we are discussing at that point, assuming I concede the notion that sugar is an addictive drug akin to opiates or other narcotics. Use and abuse.

I choose to use sugar for the pleasure I derive from it at that point in time and I do genuinely make sure to keep tabs on my consumption. It makes up a very small portion of my overall dietary intake. I don’t expect to nor claim to understand the vast intricacies of nutrition…neither in terms of physique enhancement NOR in terms of maximizing health. Few, if any, have that level of grasp on the subject that they have definitive answers for the subject.

Others are arguing the idea that counting macros is really only necessary when you DO want to fit “junk” in your diet due to the pseudo nature of such food and the fact that such food can be so energy dense for such few bites. Therefore, setting up an environment that may cater towards over consumption of energy needs. This is bullshit to me as well. There are MANY days where I include ZERO “junk” foods. Just meat, a plethora of green vegetables and certain tuberous starches. Guess what…I can eat that food for hours and not get full…just as I could eat boxes of poptarts and not get full. You discuss the notion that ancestors ate when they were hungry and stopped when they were full…I’m assuming their propensity to get fuller, quicker…was higher than someone in our modern age consuming processed/highly concentrated food sources. Yet, what does someone like me do…if I can just as easily consume 500g of carbs from potatoes and broccoli as I can from poptarts? Not full in either circumstance. If I went entirely by satiety…You’d be watching my fat ass on TLC talking about how difficult it is for me to roll over in bed to get up in the morning.

Therefore…the best I can do is count macros…and keep track of micros…AND make sure the majority of the said intake is by way of whole food sources. I don’t start when I’m hungry…and I don’t stop when I’m full…I start when I can…and I stop when I hit the numbers.

And you are very correct in your assessment…that is a lifestyle far removed from any sane individual in our society. [/quote]

I know that I, for one, have never legislated any behavior. My discussion on this subject is entirely based on the scientific principles being debated. I do not give a damn if you or anyone else chooses to eat sugar. Have fun.

The construct of a “macronutrient” or a “micronutrient” is indeed an illusion. These terms and categories were invented by people attempting to categorize food constituents. If you look into it deeper however, this is impossible due to the extreme variability of food. Just as my example on TPN states, a perfectly constructed food source (TPN) according to our current medical knowledge is inadequate. This food source contains ALL of the macros and micros that we currently believe are necessary for life. More times than not the patient gets sick and fails to thrive after a period of time. Macros and micros are illusions because they fail to categorize what they seek to categorize, food, which is uncategorizable. You once asked me if you could exist on protein powder as the sole protein source for a period of time. You think of protein as the only necessity that you get from protein food sources. By your logic, a simple substitution of laboratory-prepared protein will replace the chicken or steak. But it cannot. Food really is unquantifiable. Take 10 apples from 10 orchards and you will have 10 wildly different amounts of macros and micros. Which is the correct one? 10 Grass fed beeves and CAFO beeves…same thing. Which do you choose? The proteins are different, fats are different, and each have wildly different minerals and vitamin content. How then can you look up a number in a book that says “ground beef- x protein, y fat, z carbs” ? Its an illusion to allow people to try and quantify and put in scientific terms something that is really too complex for that type of analysis.
[/quote]

The thing is…I value your words a great deal. And, I agree with basically everything you have said above.

My question then is: How do we quantify macros even in terms of bodybuilding? If there is that much variability…how is it that counting and calculating macros etc works in achieving physique goals. I.e. …100g of potato to me is roughly 20g of carbs…That’s how I choose to quantify it and I go by that. And it works for me…when I cut my carbs or increase my carbs based upon the above guidelines for potatoes and various other foods…I get physique effects.[/quote]

Ala PN method:

men 2 palm sizes meat source per meal
1/2 plate veggies
some oils/nuts/seeds

include some starch after a workout

You’d be surprised how far focusing just on the basics would get many people

I’m only answering your question, is that optimal for someone looking to step on stage? Prolly not[/quote]

This isn’t my question. My question is…when looking up macros for said foods…they should a quantifiable number. IF they are as off as MODOK is saying…how do certain reductions/increases in carbs, proteins, fats based off those numbers create relatively expected physique changes.

I do plan on stepping on stage eventually…

83

Modok, so what I’m getting from your posts is quality food over specific macronutrients?

84

[quote]gkeeper24 wrote:
Modok, so what I’m getting from your posts is quality food over specific macronutrients?[/quote]

Good thing that only works for people with enough money. Said quality food is not cheap and will ruin someone who has to live on a budget very fast.

85

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gkeeper24 wrote:
Modok, so what I’m getting from your posts is quality food over specific macronutrients?[/quote]

Good thing that only works for people with enough money. Said quality food is not cheap and will ruin someone who has to live on a budget very fast.[/quote]

Yup, which just leads to more expense down the road. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Quality food isn’t cheap, nor is Type 2 diabetes or heart disease

86

just to add fuel to the debate, an excerpt from a book I am currently reading:

“Polysaccharides are even more helpful to the body and unhelpful for calorie counters. Glycogen and starch have the formula C6/H10/O5. This has a molecular mass (decimal places ignored again) of 162 g/mol. The body adds 18 g/mol with water and ends up with C6/H12/O6, which has a mass of 180 g/mol. This time we started off with 162 units of, say, starch and we ended up with 180 units of glucose and we therefore added 11% in mass. In this scenario, we started with 100 grams of starch and 400 calories and we ended up with 444 calories. Hopefully even the most ardent calorie counters are starting to doubt the wisdom of basing their meals on starchy foods and/or counting calories.”

87

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gkeeper24 wrote:
Modok, so what I’m getting from your posts is quality food over specific macronutrients?[/quote]

Good thing that only works for people with enough money. Said quality food is not cheap and will ruin someone who has to live on a budget very fast.[/quote]

That is simply not true across the board. Granted, if you go to Whole Foods and fill up your cart then yes its very expensive. Buying food from local co-ops, farmers, and farmer’s markets is extremely reasonable. 500 lbs of grass fed beef can go for 2.50-5.00 a pound at most, including all the t-bone, ribeye, and sirloin. Sure, you pay for it up front, but try buying that much equivalent food and equivalnet cuts (8-10 months of food) at the store and compare. Tenderloin is 15-20 bucks a pound. Ribeye isn’t much cheaper, etc.

I eat much cheaper than my neighbors or mom and dad, I guarantee it.
[/quote]

I know this but still many people do not have that kind of money laying around. That is the problem. Also there needs to be access to local co-ops and farmers markets to take advantage of those. Those are not everywhere. I am just pointing out that not everyone, i speaking for myself here, has a large budget for food. I will only have 160 a month for food when med school starts. That does not buy a lot of the good stuff. And my budget is actually decent compared a good portion of the poor americans.

88

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gkeeper24 wrote:
Modok, so what I’m getting from your posts is quality food over specific macronutrients?[/quote]

Good thing that only works for people with enough money. Said quality food is not cheap and will ruin someone who has to live on a budget very fast.[/quote]

That is simply not true across the board. Granted, if you go to Whole Foods and fill up your cart then yes its very expensive. Buying food from local co-ops, farmers, and farmer’s markets is extremely reasonable. 500 lbs of grass fed beef can go for 2.50-5.00 a pound at most, including all the t-bone, ribeye, and sirloin. Sure, you pay for it up front, but try buying that much equivalent food and equivalnet cuts (8-10 months of food) at the store and compare. Tenderloin is 15-20 bucks a pound. Ribeye isn’t much cheaper, etc.

I eat much cheaper than my neighbors or mom and dad, I guarantee it.
[/quote]

I know this but still many people do not have that kind of money laying around. That is the problem. Also there needs to be access to local co-ops and farmers markets to take advantage of those. Those are not everywhere. I am just pointing out that not everyone, i speaking for myself here, has a large budget for food. I will only have 160 a month for food when med school starts. That does not buy a lot of the good stuff. And my budget is actually decent compared a good portion of the poor americans.[/quote]

$40/wk? Eating healthy is not hard for $40/wk… eating to gain weight and be healthy would be :wink:

We spend $120/wk for 2 adults with 98% of that being all organic, grass-fed, at a local organic market (no co-op, not a farmer’s market).

89

Sorry man i eat a lot more than you. Right now my food bill is over 200 and that is getting most stuff from costco

90

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Sorry man i eat a lot more than you. Right now my food bill is over 200 and that is getting most stuff from costco[/quote]

exactly, quantity vs quality when you get older perhaps you’ll see what I’m talking about :wink:

91

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gkeeper24 wrote:
Modok, so what I’m getting from your posts is quality food over specific macronutrients?[/quote]

Good thing that only works for people with enough money. Said quality food is not cheap and will ruin someone who has to live on a budget very fast.[/quote]

That is simply not true across the board. Granted, if you go to Whole Foods and fill up your cart then yes its very expensive. Buying food from local co-ops, farmers, and farmer’s markets is extremely reasonable. 500 lbs of grass fed beef can go for 2.50-5.00 a pound at most, including all the t-bone, ribeye, and sirloin. Sure, you pay for it up front, but try buying that much equivalent food and equivalnet cuts (8-10 months of food) at the store and compare. Tenderloin is 15-20 bucks a pound. Ribeye isn’t much cheaper, etc.

I eat much cheaper than my neighbors or mom and dad, I guarantee it.
[/quote]

I know this but still many people do not have that kind of money laying around. That is the problem. Also there needs to be access to local co-ops and farmers markets to take advantage of those. Those are not everywhere. I am just pointing out that not everyone, i speaking for myself here, has a large budget for food. I will only have 160 a month for food when med school starts. That does not buy a lot of the good stuff. And my budget is actually decent compared a good portion of the poor americans.[/quote]

The poor americans you are talking about spend 160 bucks a month on Cocoa Pebbles, Snickers, Coke and Taco Bell alone. If people stop buying that garbage there is plenty of money for real food. Plus at many farms food stamps are accepted. Granted, sometimes you may need to eat rice and canned mackerel in school if you want to have money to go to the movies or something but thats a priority call we all had to make in school at times.

And I can rarely see a case where there isn’t access to local farmers and co-ops. The two I use here in TN both have weekly drop offs that go from East TN, across the state to Memphis and down through Birmingham, Atlanta, and into the Florida panhandle to deliver to the urbanites. It really comes down to effort. The vast majority of folks won’t put forth the effort to source the good stuff, and will instead buy the highly subsidized (and therefore “cheaper”) food at the grocery. Thats their priority.
[/quote]

exactly, people will find the time and money for that which they value. That said, I realize there are special cases (a family member being one of them)… but for the vast majority of working Americans, healthy food is possible. But, I guess when they’re dropping $250 month on cable, internet, and latest cell-phone that can eat into a good food budget

92

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gkeeper24 wrote:
Modok, so what I’m getting from your posts is quality food over specific macronutrients?[/quote]

Good thing that only works for people with enough money. Said quality food is not cheap and will ruin someone who has to live on a budget very fast.[/quote]

That is simply not true across the board. Granted, if you go to Whole Foods and fill up your cart then yes its very expensive. Buying food from local co-ops, farmers, and farmer’s markets is extremely reasonable. 500 lbs of grass fed beef can go for 2.50-5.00 a pound at most, including all the t-bone, ribeye, and sirloin. Sure, you pay for it up front, but try buying that much equivalent food and equivalnet cuts (8-10 months of food) at the store and compare. Tenderloin is 15-20 bucks a pound. Ribeye isn’t much cheaper, etc.

I eat much cheaper than my neighbors or mom and dad, I guarantee it.
[/quote]

I know this but still many people do not have that kind of money laying around. That is the problem. Also there needs to be access to local co-ops and farmers markets to take advantage of those. Those are not everywhere. I am just pointing out that not everyone, i speaking for myself here, has a large budget for food. I will only have 160 a month for food when med school starts. That does not buy a lot of the good stuff. And my budget is actually decent compared a good portion of the poor americans.[/quote]

The poor americans you are talking about spend 160 bucks a month on Cocoa Pebbles, Snickers, Coke and Taco Bell alone. If people stop buying that garbage there is plenty of money for real food. Plus at many farms food stamps are accepted. Granted, sometimes you may need to eat rice and canned mackerel in school if you want to have money to go to the movies or something but thats a priority call we all had to make in school at times.

And I can rarely see a case where there isn’t access to local farmers and co-ops. The two I use here in TN both have weekly drop offs that go from East TN, across the state to Memphis and down through Birmingham, Atlanta, and into the Florida panhandle to deliver to the urbanites. It really comes down to effort. The vast majority of folks won’t put forth the effort to source the good stuff, and will instead buy the highly subsidized (and therefore “cheaper”) food at the grocery. Thats their priority.
[/quote]

So you are saying that a large family can pay for enough food for 2 partents and 2 kids and have them consuming enough calories from grass fed beef/ free range birds/ organic fruits and veggies. You are saying those products will not cost more than getting the same amount of calories from the crappy food they choose to buy. I am not saying this is more healthy but honestly its way cheaper to get those calories from the crap food and until that changes i dont see many even being able to make those changes ( not saying they would if the food was identical in price)

Also i do not spend any money on going out. All my money is for food/rent/gym membership and tution. And i already eat mainly rice/oatmeal/ and cheap meat (not grass fed as that costs substantially more and i do not have the bank account or space to store a half beef or quarter beef) You have an established career and a good income and can afford to drive around to farmers markets and pay a bit more in gas and for the food and have more space to store it than a lot of people. I do agree that even when costs are identical many will not make the right choices anyways.

93

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Sorry man i eat a lot more than you. Right now my food bill is over 200 and that is getting most stuff from costco[/quote]

exactly, quantity vs quality when you get older perhaps you’ll see what I’m talking about ;)[/quote]

Or maybe i am just slightly more active than you? But sure I can see where its possible to consume less calories just because the food is more quality and still gain mass? Not really sorry calories are still the governing factor in gaining weight.

Obviously something that is grass fed or organic will have a better micronutrient profile but it doesnt add calories. It will give a slightly different hormonal profile which will contention some to body composition but the largest determining factor is still calories. Please show me somone who was trying to gain weight and cut calories back while keeping activity the same and the only thing that changes was quality of food and weight gain continued.

94

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gkeeper24 wrote:
Modok, so what I’m getting from your posts is quality food over specific macronutrients?[/quote]

Good thing that only works for people with enough money. Said quality food is not cheap and will ruin someone who has to live on a budget very fast.[/quote]

That is simply not true across the board. Granted, if you go to Whole Foods and fill up your cart then yes its very expensive. Buying food from local co-ops, farmers, and farmer’s markets is extremely reasonable. 500 lbs of grass fed beef can go for 2.50-5.00 a pound at most, including all the t-bone, ribeye, and sirloin. Sure, you pay for it up front, but try buying that much equivalent food and equivalnet cuts (8-10 months of food) at the store and compare. Tenderloin is 15-20 bucks a pound. Ribeye isn’t much cheaper, etc.

I eat much cheaper than my neighbors or mom and dad, I guarantee it.
[/quote]

I know this but still many people do not have that kind of money laying around. That is the problem. Also there needs to be access to local co-ops and farmers markets to take advantage of those. Those are not everywhere. I am just pointing out that not everyone, i speaking for myself here, has a large budget for food. I will only have 160 a month for food when med school starts. That does not buy a lot of the good stuff. And my budget is actually decent compared a good portion of the poor americans.[/quote]

The poor americans you are talking about spend 160 bucks a month on Cocoa Pebbles, Snickers, Coke and Taco Bell alone. If people stop buying that garbage there is plenty of money for real food. Plus at many farms food stamps are accepted. Granted, sometimes you may need to eat rice and canned mackerel in school if you want to have money to go to the movies or something but thats a priority call we all had to make in school at times.

And I can rarely see a case where there isn’t access to local farmers and co-ops. The two I use here in TN both have weekly drop offs that go from East TN, across the state to Memphis and down through Birmingham, Atlanta, and into the Florida panhandle to deliver to the urbanites. It really comes down to effort. The vast majority of folks won’t put forth the effort to source the good stuff, and will instead buy the highly subsidized (and therefore “cheaper”) food at the grocery. Thats their priority.
[/quote]

exactly, people will find the time and money for that which they value. That said, I realize there are special cases (a family member being one of them)… but for the vast majority of working Americans, healthy food is possible. But, I guess when they’re dropping $250 month on cable, internet, and latest cell-phone that can eat into a good food budget[/quote]

I see this all the time in my profession. I own and operate two restaurants, and I appreciate the clientele I have, but at the same time I know that I am capitalizing off of their priorities. It is not hard to cook, and it is not hard to cook good healthy food, but people just don’t put the effort into it.

I have always felt that one of the problems with most people is they have never taken the time to learn how to prepare food, and to make it taste good. Its much easier, and it takes a whole lot less effort to either have it prepared for you or to be able to just open up a can.

And on another note, I would think it would be just plain common sense that a calorie is not a calorie. I do not have the scientific background to argue these points, but I have seen thousands of cuts of beef, pork and chicken, and you can take the same animal and depending on its diet have a completely different texture, taste and smell. The same goes for wine, take the same grape grow it in a completely different region and it will produce a vastly different product.

And in the end we really are no different than the grape or the cow haha, we are living creatures that live by the same rules as them.

95

[quote]Malaka79 wrote:

And in the end we really are no different than the grape or the cow haha, we are living creatures that live by the same rules as them.
[/quote]

I like this statment.

Edit: probably shouldnt have deleted the relevant part of the post the statment seems weird now

96

[quote]MODOK wrote:
This gives me an idea for an article. Maybe I can do an actual analysis of the hypothesis that eating quality food is more expensive than eating conventional food. It shouldn’t take much more than a little homework for me at the grocery store and online. It should be interesting at a minimum. [/quote]

I’m doing something similar as a side project for one of my nutrition courses.

It’s a family of four (couple and two children [6-8 and 9-11 years]) on the USDA “thrifty” meal plan ($138.20/week) vs. the same family on a “liberal” budget ($273.40/week).

Using estimated “maintenance” calories from the USDA website, the idea is to see what the differences will be in diet between the two groups.

I think the class consensus was that the “thrifty” family won’t be able to hit their requirements without going over budget unless they resort to multiple fast food meals.

If those bastards only knew that I eat 4,500+ calories per day on a $40/week budget… if I’m feeling ambitious I’ll see if I can’t get the poor family on some organic/grass fed just to make it interesting.

97

I did a price comparison at two grocery stores.

#1- local organic market
#2- Giant food

Identical products except organic/pastured vs conventional

organic market $97, Giant food $67

now, most people opt for chicken breast and maybe leaner cuts of beef. Perhaps going for drumsticks and 80/20 would bring the comparisons closer.
also, instead of all organic produce maybe pick the ones that are more heavily sprayed.

So, at most on identical items we have a $30/wk difference (I tried to construct weekly menu for one person, some things would last longer than a week though)… And by making some small changes, perhaps it could be as little as $20/wk more expensive.

Now, at some point, I want to compare that to the SAD grocery cart.

98

and to take it a step further, now we’re at $20 difference, cut back on portions a little and I’d bet you’d be darn near close.

99

[quote]MODOK wrote:
I would like to know how many people actually watched the video in the OP. It seems like we’ve strayed pretty far off course.[/quote]

raises hand. Set the DVR for it.

100

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
This gives me an idea for an article. Maybe I can do an actual analysis of the hypothesis that eating quality food is more expensive than eating conventional food. It shouldn’t take much more than a little homework for me at the grocery store and online. It should be interesting at a minimum. [/quote]

I’m doing something similar as a side project for one of my nutrition courses.

It’s a family of four (couple and two children [6-8 and 9-11 years]) on the USDA “thrifty” meal plan ($138.20/week) vs. the same family on a “liberal” budget ($273.40/week).

Using estimated “maintenance” calories from the USDA website, the idea is to see what the differences will be in diet between the two groups.

I think the class consensus was that the “thrifty” family won’t be able to hit their requirements without going over budget unless they resort to multiple fast food meals.

If those bastards only knew that I eat 4,500+ calories per day on a $40/week budget… if I’m feeling ambitious I’ll see if I can’t get the poor family on some organic/grass fed just to make it interesting.[/quote]

You mind PMing me what kind of food you eat/macros/ and where you buy you got time?