• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Obesity among US adults reaches all-time high, 40% of adults and 19% of kids

What do they believe that the sugar lobby has drilled into them?

I think people believe(d) low fat items (like yogurts) were healthier than the full fat ones. But the low fat often had more sugar.

Similarly people believe fruit juice is healthy (fruit can be fine, but you do want the fiber which the juice doesn't have, plus a glass of orange juice can be like 3-5 oranges and eating that many oranges would satiate muuuuuuch better).

People also believe(d) that Vitamin Water was healthy. Coca Cola even went to court over it.
 
People don't even need a sugar lobby to confuse them. It's confusing enough with corporate messaging and capitalist bullshit. This is from Salt Sugar Fat:

UIF6vuw.jpg
The food industry is insidious. I can't wait until people figure out they're on the same level as cigarette companies used to be. They take your money and then they kill you with their products and false promises, it's all the same. Addictions to processed food are going to be way harder for people to see through than smoking, though.
 

Beardz

Member
Are you sure you're not the one believing dated myths? The bolded is egg industry bullshit. They have to justify their continued existence.

https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/04/28/egg-consumption-and-ldl-cholesterol-size/

https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/are-eggs-risky-for-heart-health

Since then, however, research has shown that most of the cholesterol in our body is made by our liver-it doesn't come from cholesterol we eat. The liver is stimulated to make cholesterol primarily by saturated fat and trans fat in our diet, not dietary cholesterol. But a large egg contains little saturated fat-about 1.5 grams (g).
 
What do they believe that the sugar lobby has drilled into them?

For example, that fat is the cause heart disease: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

And things like needing sugar for the body to function which is not true because the body can produce it's own ATPs from food like a potato. In fact the fructose in sugar is an awful source of energy despite being a carbohydrate because it goes through a different metabolic process called Fructolysis which produces blood triglycerides (a real cause of heart disease)
 

slit

Member
I think people believe(d) low fat items (like yogurts) were healthier than the full fat ones. But the low fat often had more sugar.

Similarly people believe fruit juice is healthy (fruit can be fine, but you do want the fiber which the juice doesn't have, plus a glass of orange juice can be like 3-5 oranges and eating that many oranges would satiate muuuuuuch better).

People also believe(d) that Vitamin Water was healthy. Coca Cola even went to court over it.

That's fair but they still cancel each other our when you consider the meat lobby does it's best to counteract those falsehoods. In fact that is one of the problems. We have diehard factions fighting each other like fanboys on one thing or another and the message gets totally scrambled. I just find it funny that some will claim that excess sugar being bad for you is some kind of new idea and that people are running around thinking that eating as much sugar as you want will make you healthy. People are making bad dietary choices in a lot of ways.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Veganism isn't crazy.

Animal agriculture is destroying the environment, much faster than if most people dropped meat to even just once a week.

Going vegan is the most significant thing an individual human can do to combat climate change.

I won't say that veganism is inherently crazy. I can totally respect the moral quandaries that lead to adopting the diet even if I don't agree. I do think it attracts a lot of crazies/fanatics, though.

The industries are killing us, animals, and the planet for capitalist motives.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock's_Long_Shadow

http://who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

I see a lot of people in this thread and many others mistaking sugar as the primary problem... how much sugar is anyone really eating these days? Bottled water sells more now. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bottled-water-sales-outpace-soda-for-the-first-time/

Current industry practices are shitty, for sure. I think there is plenty of room for improvement that doesn't completely eliminate the foods from our diets.

On the point of killing animals, just to be clear, you would prefer that livestock animals never existed in the first place, right? Because that is their likely fate if humans stop breeding and eating them.
 

Jasup

Member
Next time you go shopping, look at the labels and see how much sugar anything has.


Hi, first of all I agree that the abundance of sugar in our diet is certainly not good and it should be cut dramatically. However I do not agree with the approach that there's only one culprit behind the epidemic.

I say this because, when we're talking about overall health, diet is just one factor in the bigger picture. When we're talking about population health the affecting factors are much more varied as pictured in the picture below:
2017-10-18_02h10_02hcubg.png

(screenshot from: http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/our-approach)

Now it is true that the picture above is about overall health factors that affect the community and not focused on obesity. If we look a bit deeper into the methodology we find things like:
Dependence on driving leads to 40,000 traffic-related deaths annually and exposes us to air pollution, which has been linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular disease, pre-term births, and premature death. It also contributes to physical inactivity and obesity—each additional hour spent in a car per day is associated with a 6% increase in the likelihood of obesity, whereas each added kilometer walked per day is associated with a nearly 5% reduction in obesity risk
(Source for the quote: http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/our-approach/health-factors/housing-transit)

This is not to take anything away from the argument that we should limit the prevalence of sugar. But if we were to focus on just one or two things, we miss a whole lot of other contributing factors to obesity. The approach we should have is multifaceted, which tackles various factors at different levels of society.

I know it's nice to have a clear enemy, it makes things simple. But it's very much the same kind of populist rhetoric used by well known populist politicians - they point out a problem and target the culprit. But when we're talking about people things just are a bit more complex.


btw. the website I'm quoting from is "County Health Rankings & Roadmaps". WHO uses the same methodology in its research, so it's quite credible and they have their sources well in check.
 
On the point of killing animals, just to be clear, you would prefer that livestock animals never existed in the first place, right? Because that is their likely fate if humans stop breeding and eating them.
Why was this the first question you wanted to ask when you sniffed vegan talk? Really.

We've already lost thousands of species to rainforest destruction for new room to raise livestock as well as the monocropped soy, grain, and corn we unnaturally feed them, but your question doesn't seem concerned with this at all.

Do you sincerely value the hypothetical continued life of 10,000 year old genetically modified oxen in general over the continued atrocities and environmental destruction of animal agriculture so far? You aren't engaging with the real issues.

land_mammals_2x.png
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Why was this the first question you wanted to ask when you sniffed vegan talk? Really.

We've already lost thousands of species to rainforest destruction for new room to raise livestock as well as the monocropped soy, grain, and corn we unnaturally feed them, but your question doesn't seem concerned with this at all.

Do you sincerely value the hypothetical continued life of 10,000 year old genetically modified oxen in general over the continued atrocities and environmental destruction of animal agriculture so far?

You're not teaching me anything new here, nor am I arguing that our current system is sustainable in the long-term. I'm just clarifying your moral position when it comes to animal suffering and, if I'm reading your response correctly, it seems to mirror many vegans I have met in that no existence at all is preferable to an existence with suffering. It's really not a position I can agree with at all personally.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I hope you ask better questions of those vegans about animal agriculture after you talk to them about this weird hypothetical.

How is it hypothetical when the the clearest goal of veganism is to get people to stop killing and eating animals?

Nice strawman-attacking image and repositioning of a regularly asked question as "a cliche."
 
How is it hypothetical when the the clearest goal of veganism is to get people to stop killing and eating animals?

Nice strawman-attacking image and repositioning of a regularly asked question as "a cliche."
It is a cliche (someone making that detailed image should have told you that), and you don't seem to genuinely care about the topic of animal agriculture or even just cows at all. You started this whole tangent by asking if what I was talking about was "vegan craziness." Ask better questions.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
It is a cliche (someone making that detailed image should have told you that), and you don't seem to genuinely care about the topic of animal agriculture or even just cows at all. You started this whole tangent by asking if what I was talking about was "vegan craziness." Ask better questions.

You are not the arbitrary decider of what constitutes a quality question, so maybe get off the high horse? It's up to you, of course, if you want to come across as an arrogant holier-than-thou crusader.

It's a question regularly posed to vegans because many people are skeptical of the ethical concerns that many vegans claim to have. Taking an argument to its extreme conclusion is often a good way to see if it's a good argument or not. If the logical end result of "stop breeding and eating livestock in order to prevent their suffering" is "livestock go extinct" I personally can't get on board with that being the preferable scenario. That's just me, though!
 
You are not the arbitrary decider of what constitutes a quality question, so maybe get off the high horse? It's up to you, of course, if you want to come across as an arrogant holier-than-thou crusader.

It's a question regularly posed to vegans because many people are skeptical of the ethical concerns that many vegans claim to have. Taking an argument to its extreme conclusion is often a good way to see if it's a good argument or not. If the end result result of logical end result of "reduce livestock suffering" is "livestock go extinct" I personally can't get on board with that being the preferable scenario. That's just me, though!
Who are you to be "skeptical" of my ethics, dude asking me to get off my high horse?

Do you have an additional question about animal agriculture as it relates to this topic at all?
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Do you have an additional question about animal agriculture as it relates to this topic at all? Who are you to be "skeptical" of my ethics, dude asking me to get off my high horse?

An additional question? I never asked you any questions about animal agriculture in the first place, nor do I intend do. What are you talking about?

I asked a pointed question about your concern in regards to the killing of animals. If you don't feel it's relevant then you can always choose to not respond, but I don't see why you brought up animal killing in a discussion about human obesity if you're so concerned with keeping things on topic.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
The food industry is insidious. I can't wait until people figure out they're on the same level as cigarette companies used to be. They take your money and then they kill you with their products and false promises, it's all the same. Addictions to processed food are going to be way harder for people to see through than smoking, though.
OK, the food industry does have a lot of bullshit, but absurdly hyperbolic claims like this do not help your cause. Comparing food, something we all need and that we all eat in varying qualities and quantities, with an inherently harmful recreational drug, is insanity.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
The low-carb marketing has worked, people are still asking what eating meat has to do with obesity.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/health/ghana-kfc-obesity.html

This was a great article in the NYT a few weeks ago about KFC opening in Ghana, as well as them now dealing with all of our usual American health problems.

What low-carb marketing? Which industry do you think is pushing that one?

And seriously making the claim that the rise of KFC and fast food restaurants leading to increased obesity means meat (chicken even?!) is the issue? It's like you're just willfully ignoring the pictures in the article of people eating plates of fried potatoes and deep-fried breaded chicken while washing it down with soda and sugary beverages.

It's absolutely not the meat that's making them fat.
 

HariKari

Member
This is false.

The purpose of carbohydrates is cheap, easily converted energy for your body. Unless you're extremely active, you don't need a huge intake. Your body doesn't need any carbs, so it's the easiest macro to trim. Protein and fat are far more important while also satiating more.

This is false.

Sugar isn't addictive? The body is designed to seek out sugar and fat. The obesity problem has nothing to do with most common, cheap foods having extra/artificial sugar added?

You're not helping him but spreading this Low Carb-movement bullshit that has been going around for ages now.

There's nothing 'bullshit' about low carb. It has been studied for decades. "Ages" as you say. Teaching people to be mindful of their carb intake tends to eliminate the worst foods that modern society commonly consumes.
 
OK, the food industry does have a lot of bullshit, but absurdly hyperbolic claims like this do not help your cause. Comparing food, something we all need and that we all eat in varying qualities and quantities, with an inherently harmful recreational drug, is insanity.
Have you read Salt Sugar Fat by Michael Moss, Pulitzer Prize winner for his investigative research into the food industry? Marion Nestle also does a lot of phenomenal writing about the food industry at https://www.foodpolitics.com/. It only seems like "insanity" until you pull off the cover and see all the same strategies and marketing in service of addiction and money.

I buy my food in the produce and bulk section, which is actually all any of us "need." I skip all the processed food and animal products, because I would absolutely call them as harmful as recreational drugs. The book The Cheese Trap highlights how even cheese functions the same on our brain as drugs. They're low level addictions. Ask people to go vegan for even a single day and watch their reactions to the idea. Some people can't go a single night without what they consider "real food" in order for them to finally relax, which reminds me of plenty of alcoholics and potheads I know. And just like how those addictions can ruin lives, note we're in a thread about obesity reaching 40% and climbing.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
This 'bullshit' made me stop slowly killing myself and lose 70 pounds in nine months.

According to some in this thread, you're just buying into some made up marketing and not really improving your health... or something.
 

Laiza

Member
Have you read Salt Sugar Fat by Michael Moss, Pulitzer Prize winner for his investigative research into the food industry? Marion Nestle also does a lot of phenomenal writing about the food industry at https://www.foodpolitics.com/. It only seems like "insanity" until you pull off the cover and see all the same strategies and marketing in service of addiction and money.

I buy my food in the produce and bulk section, which is actually all any of us "need." I skip all the processed food and animal products, because I would absolutely call them as harmful as recreational drugs. The book The Cheese Trap highlights how even cheese functions the same on our brain as drugs. They're low level addictions. Ask people to go vegan for even a single day and watch their reactions to the idea. Some people can't go a single night without what they consider "real food" in order for them to finally relax, which reminds me of plenty of alcoholics and potheads I know. And just like how those addictions can ruin lives, note we're in a thread about obesity reaching 40% and climbing.
While I can't disagree with your reasoning with regards to classifying the behavior as an "addiction" of sorts...

I'm just shaking my head because I can't help but see it as a bizarre false equivalency to apply the same logic as recreational drug use to food. The fact is, we are obligate omnivores, and as much as you might try to, a vegan diet absolutely cannot supply all the nutrients a human body needs to function optimally. Dropping meat consumption would indeed do a lot of people a lot of good, but dropping it entirely really does warrant the kind of reaction where people look at you like you're crazy - because it is crazy.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that simply dropping simple sugars would do a lot more good to most people than dropping meat or dairy products ever will.
 
While I can't disagree with your reasoning with regards to classifying the behavior as an "addiction" of sorts...

I'm just shaking my head because I can't help but see it as a bizarre false equivalency to apply the same logic as recreational drug use to food. The fact is, we are obligate omnivores, and as much as you might try to, a vegan diet absolutely cannot supply all the nutrients a human body needs to function optimally. Dropping meat consumption would indeed do a lot of people a lot of good, but dropping it entirely really does warrant the kind of reaction where people look at you like you're crazy - because it is crazy.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that simply dropping simple sugars would do a lot more good to most people than dropping meat or dairy products ever will.
Zzzz. When were you vegan, and what was your blood work like? Source something for this madness.

There are literally millions of thriving vegans around the world. They've won Mr Universe, done five triathlons in a single week, and won Strongest Man in the World. They've also lived well into their 100s. Vegans stay alive and thrive. Witness them before saying silly shit like this. What nutrients are they missing?

Or just read Proteinaholic by Dr Garth Davis.
 
As long as we're here talking about sugar, I literally eat fruit and refined carbs all day, and I'm in the best shape of my life regardless of my exercise routine. Bananas, homemade muffins, smoothies, pasta, etc. Just wanted to post something anecdotal to counter the low-carb talk up there, as well as this idea sugar is the main culprit.

From my own diet experiences, I think dairy is a huge problem for us in terms of general energy level, joint pain, bad cardio, extra fat we can't get rid of, etc. Cutting that out alone does so much. I never had the discipline to quit it, but once I did, I noticed all of those problems going away within a week. Not so coincidentally, it's in all processed foods, and everyone loves cheese.

Eat until not hungry.

Exercise.

Limit snacking to, like, a 10th of what you are doing now.

BAM! YOU HEALTHY.
This, essentially.

I agree with some advice in this thread that just getting MyFitnessPal and being honest with it will get you to realize a lot of shit about your nutrition real fast.
 
The dated myth is that eggs are in any way bad for your health. That is ridiculous. They are like the most complete perfect food out there.

Liu Kang literally said that meat, egg, and dairy industry throw propaganda and seems like you and other members took it hook line and sinker. Dr. Greger uses provides information from multiple sources to come to a logical conclusion. IF you can refrute the cholesterol link you're gonna need more than a Harvard study

While I am sure that the sugar industry demonized fat, to sell their product, I do remeber that a Dr. back in the 70s spoke to Congress on making legislature towards a food pyramid that advocated for no animal products and refined sugar but alas that couldn't happen...
 
While I can't disagree with your reasoning with regards to classifying the behavior as an "addiction" of sorts...

I'm just shaking my head because I can't help but see it as a bizarre false equivalency to apply the same logic as recreational drug use to food. The fact is, we are obligate omnivores, and as much as you might try to, a vegan diet absolutely cannot supply all the nutrients a human body needs to function optimally. Dropping meat consumption would indeed do a lot of people a lot of good, but dropping it entirely really does warrant the kind of reaction where people look at you like you're crazy - because it is crazy.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that simply dropping simple sugars would do a lot more good to most people than dropping meat or dairy products ever will.

The only thing animal products give you is tons of saturated fat, cholesterol, heart disease, and diabetes. There is literally nothing in meat or dairy that you can't get from plants. And it's better to get it at the base level as it's more efficient and shocker...healthier for you. But then you'll say "what about muh B12, Vit D, and Omega 3." Well all that shit is fortified into animal products anyway, so the only difference is you fortify yourself.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Liu Kang literally said that meat, egg, and dairy industry throw propaganda and seems like you and other members took it hook line and sinker. Dr. Greger uses provides information from multiple sources to come to a logical conclusion. IF you can refrute the cholesterol link you're gonna need more than a Harvard study

While I am sure that the sugar industry demonized fat, to sell their product, I do remeber that a Dr. back in the 70s spoke to Congress on making legislature towards a food pyramid that advocated for no animal products and refined sugar but alas that couldn't happen...

Oh, man. Liu Kang said it?! And by quoting an article from a site called NutritionFacts.org? FACTS! I mean, it's right in the URL. It must be correct! Not only that, but the article was written by a guy who is proud of having been on the Dr. Oz Show?! There can be no greater authority!

Vegan hero Dr. Greger's writing is of course completely objective and free of any kind of bias, agenda, or industry influence. Contradicting studies must have been corrupted by Big Meat, Big Egg, and Big Dairy. It's the only answer.

The only thing animal products give you is tons of saturated fat, cholesterol, heart disease, and diabetes.

Complete and utter bullshit. There is no clear evidence of animals products and saturated fat increasing insulin resistance or giving you a higher likelihood of getting diabetes. It is a completely ridiculous proposition. I'm not even going to get into the heart disease claim...

Since people like posting links to their favorite argument-supporting content, here you go:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.jp/2010/02/saturated-fat-and-insulin-sensitivity.html
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/511359/Dairy-diet-can-beat-diabetes-says-new-study
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/60/10/2441.short
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v35/n6/full/ijo2010209a.html?foxtrotcallback=true
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20938439

There is no doubt that the mixture of high-fat and high-carb is disastrous for health (especially in people who are mostly inactive), but to say that fat and animal products have a uniquely negative affect on insulin resistance in isolation of carbohydrate consumption? Absurd.
 
A person's mentality about food play's a huge role.

My girlfriend's mother is obese and is trying to lose weight. However, she'll start planning what to eat for breakfast and lunch at 8pm the night before. That tells me that food is constantly on her mind, whether or not she's controlling her portions.

Whereas I don't think I have EVER thought of food as anything but immediate sustenance. It's not exciting to me, I don't plan days or activities around food. For someone like my girlfriend's mother, the food IS the activity. It's a dangerous mentality to have, in my opinion.

My mother is like this :(

Constantly thinking about food....
 

.J.

Banned
I won't say that veganism is inherently crazy. I can totally respect the moral quandaries that lead to adopting the diet even if I don't agree. I do think it attracts a lot of crazies/fanatics, though.



Current industry practices are shitty, for sure. I think there is plenty of room for improvement that doesn't completely eliminate the foods from our diets.

On the point of killing animals, just to be clear, you would prefer that livestock animals never existed in the first place, right? Because that is their likely fate if humans stop breeding and eating them.

So does video gaming, but here we all are on GAF. So does something like the Occupy movement or the very concept of social justice, but I’m not going to turn conservative over it.

The presence of unskilled, rude people does not inherently devalue something.


And on your livestock question, that is such a broken chicken/egg thing to bring up. Of course we’d rather those animals not exist in terms of wishing they hadn’t been INTENTIONALLY BRED to drive meat consumption. I’m literally not even sure what you’re getting at here.
 

Laiza

Member
Zzzz. When were you vegan, and what was your blood work like? Source something for this madness.

There are literally millions of thriving vegans around the world. They've won Mr Universe, done five triathlons in a single week, and won Strongest Man in the World. They've also lived well into their 100s. Vegans stay alive and thrive. Witness them before saying silly shit like this. What nutrients are they missing?

Or just read Proteinaholic by Dr Garth Davis.
I mean, you can point at the healthiest examples all you want to, but that doesn't erase the existence of stories of individuals going through absolutely terrible experiences when trying to go for a vegan diet, like this one (with a particularly heart-wrenching example of a seriously toxic fan base) or this one, or this one or, y'know, there's literally hundreds of these stories, so take your pick.

Vitamin b12 deficiency is a particularly recurring refrain in the research as well, something you're not going to rectify without the use of supplements, and of course the primary source of b12 vitamins is from animal products (which, yes, is a consequence of the bacteria that generates b12 vitamins living on animals and not plants). Granted, with modern technology this is less of a concern, but the mere fact that we've sourced at least one nutrient primarily from animal products makes me wonder what else we could be missing when talking about nutrition with omnivorous diets vs vegan diets.

But really, the most damning thing about veganism is simply the fact that the vast majority of the population does not participate in it and, even when participating it in it, eventually returns to an omnivorous diet. It's an ideal that, unfortunately, the significant majority of the population cannot sustain. It's ultimately a fruitless effort when less than 2% of the population can even put priority to vegetables over animal products, much less exclude animal products from their lives entirely.

I think it would be a far more productive track for everyone involved to push for lab-grown meat over trying to espouse the health benefits of a vegan diet. Most people simply are not interested. Period. They're not going to go vegan for moral reasons, nor for health reasons, nor for personal reasons. They just won't bother at all. The mere fact that we're even having to have this discussion says enough. If it were feasible we'd already be doing it, frankly.

Even just getting people to control their sugar intake (and again, the sugar is a significant portion of the problem) would be a significant challenge without cutting meat out of their diets. I say we start with that, and then if you really, really must push this lifestyle on others, maybe do it after we've controlled excessive added sugars to an appreciable degree so that we're not so distracted by the fact that 40% of the population is obese.
 
This is false.



This is false.

You're not helping him but spreading this Low Carb-movement bullshit that has been going around for ages now.

There is a big difference between Low Carb High Fat than just simply Low Carb alone. Low Carb alone is miserable, and you are just making it harder to be active let alone lose weight. If you lower your carb intake and raise fat, and control protein levels, you can actively alter the way your body can respond to food. Removing carbs as a fuel source meant reduced hunger cravings for me, and when I was hungry the tiniest amount of a fat food would leave me satiated. It also meant I had less high and low moments during the day. To me, it is a more balanced way of eating and stops the day feeling like a rollercoaster

For me I found it was much easier to eat a LCHF dietary intake and to control calories at the same time. If I went High Carb, or simply Low Carb, or any other combo, there is some point I would get hungry and over consume calories for that day.

I also had a blood test recently to check the effect on my body, and every single thing was down (or up in the cases where it should be), which made me feel even better.

I feel happy about eating this way for the rest of my life, and not just as a diet, as my body responds better to it.
 

MarkusRJR

Member
A person's mentality about food play's a huge role.

My girlfriend's mother is obese and is trying to lose weight. However, she'll start planning what to eat for breakfast and lunch at 8pm the night before. That tells me that food is constantly on her mind, whether or not she's controlling her portions.

Whereas I don't think I have EVER thought of food as anything but immediate sustenance. It's not exciting to me, I don't plan days or activities around food. For someone like my girlfriend's mother, the food IS the activity. It's a dangerous mentality to have, in my opinion.
I dunno, that's a big leap to assume that because she tracks what she eat she's being crippled by food.

I've always had issues overeating when I just grab food when I'm hungry. Eating food isn't always on my mind but rather I just tend to over-portion or not keep track of what I eat. I started planning meals for each week in advance a few months ago and I've lost a good amount of weight and am healthier than I've been in years. I'm eating healthier foods and I know I'm getting the proper amount of calories to lose weight at a healthy rate. Using an app like MFP reminds me how healthy/unhealthy some foods are and help me keep track of what I put in my body.

Eating isn't my "activity" for each day in the same way that someone who keeps track of their workouts doesn't only work out that day.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
So does video gaming, but here we all are on GAF. So does something like the Occupy movement or the very concept of social justice, but I’m not going to turn conservative over it.

The presence of unskilled, rude people does not inherently devalue something.

Nor did I make any of these claims. We're in agreement here.

And on your livestock question, that is such a broken chicken/egg thing to bring up. Of course we’d rather those animals not exist in terms of wishing they hadn’t been INTENTIONALLY BRED to drive meat consumption. I’m literally not even sure what you’re getting at here.

I would argue that actively pursuing actions that would inevitably lead to extinction is very different from wishing that things never happened in the first place.
 
This is false.



This is false.

You're not helping him but spreading this Low Carb-movement bullshit that has been going around for ages now.

Refined sugar gets processed very fast and causes a big spike in your blood sugar levels. This spike also comes down fast, which many people interpret as "I am hungry".
 

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
I dunno, that's a big leap to assume that because she tracks what she eat she's being crippled by food.

I've always had issues overeating when I just grab food when I'm hungry. Eating food isn't always on my mind but rather I just tend to over-portion or not keep track of what I eat. I started planning meals for each week in advance a few months ago and I've lost a good amount of weight and am healthier than I've been in years. I'm eating healthier foods and I know I'm getting the proper amount of calories to lose weight at a healthy rate. Using an app like MFP reminds me how healthy/unhealthy some foods are and help me keep track of what I put in my body.

Eating isn't my "activity" for each day in the same way that someone who keeps track of their workouts doesn't only work out that day.
I have to plan my meals far ahead of time because I eat a metric ton of food. My average dinner looks like a food challenge.
 

jackal27

Banned
My wife and I have been trying to get healthier and it is so freaking hard in the US. Cities aren't walking friendly, our food has all kinds of awful stuff in it, and EVERYTHING is packed with sugar.

I lost several pounds just from spending a few weeks in France and I ate more than I eat back home! We've been making a lot of progress, but man it feels like we have to work twice as hard here. Switching to eating clean has helped a lot, but man is it difficult in the US.
 

KonradLaw

Member
While I can't disagree with your reasoning with regards to classifying the behavior as an "addiction" of sorts...

Everything can become addiction. People have problem comparing it to tabacco because it function as a drug. But you can also be a sex addict for example.

Bassicaly if you know something is bad for you and you still can't stop yourself from doing it then you're addicted.

Obesity problem won't go away untill it's treated as a symptom of addiction. If you're obese statistically it's pretty much impossible to loose weight for good. By that I mean that the people who manage it and not bounce back in 5 years span are so rare they're pretty much don't affect statistics in any significant way. And it's not surprising, because people don't treat it as addiction. They think that after loosing their weight they can return to normal eating and will be able to control themselves. This is like getting your "one year sober" chip from alcoholics anonymous and thinking "Awesome, I'm cured, let's go for a beer to celebrate".
If you're obese then sorry, you will have to control yourself for the rest of your life the same way alcoholic does. A single cheat day won't have as disastrous effects as a drink for alcoholic, but you will never be able to eat the way thin people do.
 
it's all about what you do all day long and what your body needs.
when I do construction works or go lumbering I have an insane calories intake a day.
We normally eat a huge pieces of extremly fatty bacon with tons of bread plus 4-5litres of water everyday then.
speck3.jpg


almost no sugar though (maybe a chocolate bar here and there). no sodas too.
sweet stuff makes me crumpy and tired.
 
it's all about what you do all day long and what your body needs.
when I do construction works or go lumbering I have an insane calories intake a day.
We normally eat a huge pieces of extremly fatty bacon with tons of bread plus 4-5litres of water everyday then.
speck3.jpg


almost no sugar though (maybe a chocolate bar here and there). no sodas too.
sweet stuff makes me crumpy and tired.

Dat beautiful bacon!
 
Top Bottom