[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
DWEEZIL!!!
where the Hell have you been?!!![/quote]
Not here, obviously.
[quote]actually it’s a vente breve no-foam latte with 2 extra shots, . . . really
[/quote]
God bless you and your strange coffee rituals.
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
Everything is crystal clear until you have kids of your own.
DB
[/quote]
I do, and it’s still pretty crystal. The boy needs to skin his knees every once in a while – it’s part of growing up.
And the helmet thing was allegorical. I race motorcycles, raced bicycles, and well understand the importance of using them.
I still think there is a point at which we are overprotecting our kids today, and I do believe there will be a price to pay for that in the long run. Not sure what it is yet, though, except that I sense their self-sufficiency seems to be suffering already.
You mean to tell me, that people go to Subway, order a footlong meatball sub and thinks it’s healthy? What makes that any different than a Big Mac or Whopper? Other than it’s twice as large?
Besides, Subway is crap. If you have Erberts and Gerberts in your area you need to give that a try. Narmer sans mayo on wheat for me.(Turkey, lettuce, tomato, avacado, and sprouts)
Subway is great for when you accidentally forgot your pre-packed meal.
I grew up in the nineties, but my mom stayed home to raise me. I biked to school. I played a ton of basketball (in houston, where it’s always basketball season). Growing up, I was involved in just about every sport possible at the YMCA. I ran the shit out of kids at recess.
I was also a fat tubby kid.
Which is really weird, because my mom was not only vegetarian, but cooked pretty healthy most of the time.
I can’t really explain this. I think sometimes, shit just happens.
Just to throw my monkeywrench into the ‘what’s wrong with kids these days’ arguments.
I don’t even like subway, but when people start getting all upset about how awful a cheese and grease sandwich with a pepsi is, I kinda want to eat one just to piss them off.
As for the whole kids thing, I was a scrawny kid, as were most kids my age. We ate mostly sweets and drank loads of soda, yet I used to walk a few miles to school and back each day; (this was before all the paedophile gangs used to hunt everywhere). We also used to move about occasionally.
So I’m going to agree and say that activity levels are a whole lot more important than what a child eats.
[quote]Joe D. wrote:
So I’m going to agree and say that activity levels are a whole lot more important than what a child eats.[/quote]
This is true. Every diet sucks if you sit on your ass all day.
If people are too stupid to realize that Subway cookies aren’t good for you, then oh fucking well. That being said, Subway does offer decent choices that won’t screw up a diet, if you’re smart and don’t kid yourself.
I hate all of these “food studies” since you can’t trust them. It’s just like the whole egg/cholesterol research that was funded by cereal companies, well no shit they don’t want you eating eggs for breakfast since they want you to buy “Berry Berry sugar balls” cereal. Hell I feel like I can’t trust any of these assholes.
And yes, I said “berry berry sugar balls.”
[quote]dk44 wrote:
And yes, I said “berry berry sugar balls.” [/quote]
Those sound yummy!
[quote]analog_kid wrote:
dk44 wrote:
And yes, I said “berry berry sugar balls.”
Those sound yummy!
[/quote]
HA! So good that they don’t even have to put a prize in the bottom of the box.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
I hate all of these “food studies” since you can’t trust them. It’s just like the whole egg/cholesterol research that was funded by cereal companies, well no shit they don’t want you eating eggs for breakfast since they want you to buy “Berry Berry sugar balls” cereal. Hell I feel like I can’t trust any of these assholes.[/quote]
I wouldn’t put that at the feet of those studies, though. It makes sense to think that eating something high in cholesterol will cause cholesterol levels to rise, even if it’s not the case.
[quote]spoonce wrote:
js385787 wrote:
Here’s the problem with those of you thinking a fat tax is a good idea. They might be good if everyone was wealthy, but most people (as a percentage) who are obese are of a lower socioeconomic status and cannot afford to eat healthy. They are obese b/c they buy junk food, b/c it is cheap food, and also happens to be calorie dense, which is why they become fat. Think about it, box of kd for dollar something and 2L soda for just over a dollar versus some lean meet, veggies, and whatever else. The basic food commodities cost a lot. Milk where I live is 7.11 per gallon, regular ground beef is 9/kg, if you want skinless bnonless chicken it is 20/kg, a 3lb bag of apples is $5 usually.
If the government does anything, it ought to be subsidizing healthy foods, not putting another tax on junk food. All that is going to do induce undue hardship on those who are already poor.
where the hell do you go food shopping, rodeo drive? it’s very easy to find skinless boneless chicken for less than $5/kg, and ive never seen milk, ground beef or apples cost that much before. im not calling you a liar, but seriously, where do you buy your food?[/quote]
they call it atlantic canada, and no I’m not lying. I actually determined it is cheaper to buy protein powder then to buy milk in terms of protein for price.
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
dk44 wrote:
I hate all of these “food studies” since you can’t trust them. It’s just like the whole egg/cholesterol research that was funded by cereal companies, well no shit they don’t want you eating eggs for breakfast since they want you to buy “Berry Berry sugar balls” cereal. Hell I feel like I can’t trust any of these assholes.
I wouldn’t put that at the feet of those studies, though. It makes sense to think that eating something high in cholesterol will cause cholesterol levels to rise, even if it’s not the case.[/quote]
With all due respect…Wouldn’t the study clear that up? You make it seem like the study was to just make up some bullshit without doing any research. The whole purpose of the study is to not jump to conclusions. I see what you are saying, and somewhat agree, but the “competition” shouldn’t be funding these type of studies since they have a conflict of intrest. Would you believe a study about white people if Al Sharpton funded it? a study about fuel alternatives conducted by Shell?
Do schools still have recess? I thought they had to get rid of it due to budget cuts.
We used to walk or bike to school and get their early so we could run crazy on the playground before class.
Do they let kids play artillery or dodgeball anymore?
Then we would walk home and do our chores and then run outside until dark. I loved it.
I do worry about pedophilia now. To paraphrase SDspeedracer, are there more pedophiles now, or is it that the advanced media and the common use technologies report the crime to a wider audience, and the pedophiles now have a larger network due to that same technology?
Kids should wear helmets but skinned knees build character.
When or if I have children, I want them to be little daredevils, but I also want them to have healthy food and a safe place to run wild.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
With all due respect…Wouldn’t the study clear that up? You make it seem like the study was to just make up some bullshit without doing any research. The whole purpose of the study is to not jump to conclusions. I see what you are saying, and somewhat agree, but the “competition” shouldn’t be funding these type of studies since they have a conflict of intrest. Would you believe a study about white people if Al Sharpton funded it? a study about fuel alternatives conducted by Shell? [/quote]
You don’t owe me respect, so you don’t have to open with all due respect (not saying anything about you, that’s just a pet peeve). My point is that very few people know about these studies, even if they get a little bit of coverage on morning shows and cable news. Eggs have cholesterol. People think eating eggs increases cholesterol. How much of the population started thinking that way because of the studies? A fraction of a fraction of one percent? People knew cholesterol was in eggs, therefore eating eggs increases cholesterol.
If a study came out saying what we know to be true, it would probably be a little bit of coverage, and the vast, overwhelming majority would still feel the same way. You’re assuming these studies have an impact that they do not.
So you don’t eat fruits and vegtables right? If you do, why? How the fuck did you know they were good for you? I assume since you are on this site that you try to take care of yourself, so how can you say these studies are shit? Damn near every article on here dealing with nutrition sites some study. I don’t know about you, but I want these studies to be as unbiased as possible since they concern my health.
Edit: Just because a study doesn’t get lots of pub doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be held up to a high credibility standard.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What the government should do is stop subsidizing corn and then HFCS will not be so cheap and will not be used in everything.[/quote]
Amen. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
So you don’t eat fruits and vegtables right? If you do, why? How the fuck did you know they were good for you? I assume since you are on this site that you try to take care of yourself, so how can you say these studies are shit? Damn near every article on here dealing with nutrition sites some study. I don’t know about you, but I want these studies to be as unbiased as possible since they concern my health.
Edit: Just because a study doesn’t get lots of pub doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be held up to a high credibility standard. [/quote]
The study should be trashed. But it does not impact the general public perception of certain issues. We care, the majority of the population does not. Half the fucking threads on this forum are dedicated to how “stupid” regular people are, plenty of the articles debunk studies the authors dislike.
Everyone knows eggs = cholesterol. Just like everyone knows certain foods = fats. When you eat fats, what do you get? Fat. We know that’s not accurate, but that’s sure as fuck the perception. Thus, the low fat diet. It’s the same way with eggs. The study would’ve changed a few opinions, but issues like nutrition education are much larger than one shitty study that probably got a minute thirty segment on the C block of the Today Show.
I guess we have to agree to disagree. However, everything involving nutrition and medicine is based on “studies” so IMO they are pretty fucking important. I still don’t see why you discredit these studies just because the majority of people don’t believe/follow them. What about smoking, doctors used to openly claim that smoking shows no link to cancer, I guess we should have left it at that…
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
Everyone knows eggs = cholesterol. Just like everyone knows certain foods = fats. When you eat fats, what do you get? Fat. We know that’s not accurate, but that’s sure as fuck the perception. Thus, the low fat diet. It’s the same way with eggs. The study would’ve changed a few opinions, but issues like nutrition education are much larger than one shitty study that probably got a minute thirty segment on the C block of the Today Show.[/quote]
That’s because for the most part it’s all about portion control. Sadly most morons don’t hear that part.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
I guess we have to agree to disagree. However, everything involving nutrition and medicine is based on “studies” so IMO they are pretty fucking important. I still don’t see why you discredit these studies just because the majority of people don’t believe/follow them. What about smoking, doctors used to openly claim that smoking shows no link to cancer, I guess we should have left it at that…[/quote]
I think people that are actually within academia are aware that it is a shitty study, especially if we are aware it’s a shitty study. My whole point is that it’s like a fly in a hurricane. It’s one bad study, people are confused enough (or worse, ignorant and confident that they’re knowledgeable) as it is that if they heard it they would’ve gone “oh” and moved on making little to no changes in their life. I don’t disagree with you that it’s a bad study, and that should’ve been publicized, but you’re really worrying about the small things here.