@T3hPwnisher I’m not as familiar with Norton’s rebuttals, but I can guess.
Israetel had a few gems to prove our standard diet isn’t inherently problematic I found ridiculous.
First, as they all do, he pointed out that it all comes down to caloric balance. Very strawman, as nobody is arguing that it doesn’t. This doesn’t sidestep the point that Frankenfoods disrupt this balance in every way possible: they’re very calorically dense, they’re hyper palatable (circumventing your own intake control processes), and there exists at least some evidence the disruption to your hormonal and microbiome function impacts your caloric expenditure.
He goes on to argue none of these food manufacturers wants you to get fat, sick and die, because that would be bad for business (interestingly, he doesn’t apply the inverse to pharmaceutical giants). Nobody is making an argument about intent: I don’t believe anybody is having a board meeting where the goal is to see a diabetic Timmy and we build a strategy to get there. They want to maximize profit; we all get that - unintentional (and unimportant) consequences can be fat and sick. It’s the exact same as the tobacco industry - nobody wanted to kill your mom as a goal, but clearly accepted that as a side effect to profit.
Next, he tells us there’s no such thing as a “food scientist” making these things addictive. Then he goes on to explain that it’s just a team of folks that keep trying different combinations, having people taste test them, and iterating until they have the product people will buy the most of. I don’t even know the point he was trying to make, because that sounds like… science… with food. And when the goal is to have someone knowingly and compulsively continue a self-destructive behavior we call that… wait for it… addiction.
Finally, and maybe the silliest, he tells us these foods aren’t addictive because (in a single experiment) they found that eating junk food did not acutely light up dopamine receptors in the brain as much as we’d see in a (undisclosed amount) dose of heroine. I don’t even know where to begin with this. First, show me your math - where is this study and is it replicable/ credible. Second, not being as addictive as heroine doesn’t equal not addictive. Third, lighting up a dopamine response center is not the singular marker of addiction. It really doesn’t matter, though: the existence of 600 lbs Americans indicates an addiction. When you compare our ingredients with what thinner countries eat, you’ve got a pretty well-controlled population study.
@aholding88 I totally hear you, but I also have a little empathy. Fat parents feel like hypocrites/ helpless. They see it as a “why should I hold my kids to a standard I won’t meet” rather than as a form of protecting the children. It’s a really tough situation.
@rugby_lifting basically the same point - people have not found a way to lean into personal accountability here. I really do blame government (and medical school) support from food lobbies. These are institutions of trust - it’s very hard for the general public to say “what do you know?” And forge their own path.
Pretty solid chest and shoulders workout yesterday even though I was smoked and it was after work instead of morning. I haven’t done my abs or cardio the last couple days.
-
Slight Decline DB
30/15
45/12
60/10
70/8
80/6
90/4
100/8 - these were solid
65/15ish - very controlled
-
Machine Flye
3 sets ramping up
-
Superset (3 rounds)
- Cable Crossover x 15
- Life Fitness Incline
1.25pps/10
- Superset (3 rounds)
- DB Rear Delt
15/20
- BPA x 20
- Superset (3 rounds)
- Spider Crawls x 4.5