God the people on this board are fat. I want to marry either a cook or a nurse. Preferably I'll marry both.
So fucking clueless. The ramblings of self-important douche. If it was so "simple" it wouldn't be the worldwide crisis it is.
Well to be fair most don't stay active. I really stayed active until I hit about 26 and then got a desk job. Still active in the summer (playing basketball, football, etc) but much less active in the winter (unless I make it to the gym). If I went to the gym 5 days a week instead of 2 I am sure I would take off the pounds much easier. I know there are cases were people need much more than physical activity and eating right to lose . A lot of people could benefit by the broad spectrum that MZ is spouting off on though.
It seems to me the food we get is bigger servings, more calories, maybe added chemicals that make food harder to process right. In the 1970s, it seems like people were pretty thin. Something's changed that's affecting an awful lot of people. It's rather evident.
I quit drinking soda between my sophomore and junior years of HS. I was pretty thin as it was, but I dropped 12 pounds or so very quickly. Soda is one of the worst things you can do. I've had friends quit soda and drop 20-30 pounds over a couple of months. If you can drop weight that quickly just by cutting soda from your diet, it tells me soda is a very bad thing.
12 ounces of Coca Cola has the same amount of calories as a cup of orange juice. Just doesn't have any nutritional value aside from all that sugar. I stopped drinking soda with sugar a long time ago. Sugar free actually tastes better these days and is 0 calories.
Most of the people I know that drink soda drink soda multiple times per day (as opposed to OJ, which is typically just a morning thing). It's like they're either all-in or all-out on soda. So, that's a lot of calories with no nutritional value. So if you cut soda, you cut a lot of calories out of your daily diet. As for sugar-free soda.... it's my occasional guilty pleasure. I try to avoid even that, though. Some people say you still gain weight from diet sodas, but I've never bothered to research this and whether or not it's factual.
Definitely. First, the food industry. Here's a great article in the NYT about the way the food industry has gotten more and more clever at making us eat shittier and shittier food. I don't blame them, really. They are just trying to maximize profits. Anyway, FTA: Second, the FDA. On one hand they are supposed to support American agrabusiness (which is mostly high carb product-based) and on the other they are supposed to promote good eating. So you get bullshit like the food pyramid, which calls for you to eat a ridiculous amount of bread and pasta and crackers, and doesn't put nearly the emphasis on vegetables, fruits and nuts. Third, the anti-fat campaign. Lastly, we had a major push in the late 1970's to go away from fat. In the 80's everything became low-fat. Turns out that in order to make food taste good without adding fat you have to add a lot of carbohydrates. But carbs don't make you as full, so you tend to eat more. So we might think that three cups of rice is perfectly healthy. Nevermind that it has 720 calories, which is the equivalent of 18 strips of bacon. Add it all up and we're much, much fatter than we've ever been before.
You have to go cold turkey on soda, that's what i did and i very rarely drink it anymore. It's addicting, and just stopping actually makes you feel better when you have broken that addiction. I was drinking 3 or more cans a day.
"Yup. Those tens of millions (hundreds of millions?) of Americans suck. When you see them as you go to your local grocery store/bowling alley/baseball game, don't you just want to punch them in the face for being lazy and stupid?" --mook I think your own words apply pretty well to your sentiment. I think if someone wishes to overeat or be in poor health, it's their choice. It's not our job to nanny state them into wellness. People are smart enough to take care of themselves, or not take care of themselves, whatever the case.
Well, I think they're breeding animals for different food traits. I know, for example, that pork is now considered a lean meat while it was not considered lean back then. They're obviously breeding and feeding chickens for bigger white meat portions.
Hey, now! lol Yeah, I was thinking about my other post when I wrote that. Hypocrisy duly noted. Americans let us all down. Dickheads. Personally, I think the personal responsibility drumbeat makes some sense. I didn't lose weight because of a federal regulation. I don't have a reasonably cushy job because of regulation either. I think a few people out there could really use a punch in the face. But I also see that a lot of things suck for people like my brothers, several of my friends, one of my in-laws, and throwing up my hands and relying on personal responsibility and the magic of the free market just isn't going to solve them. Meh, we both think the other is wrong, and we're both too hard headed. Not much point in continuing this. So it goes.
True. But the overall levels of protein and fat in the American diet really have actually declined in the last 30 years. It's the carbs that are the big difference. You don't find carbs in chicken and pork. http://healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-has-caused-rise-in-obesity.html
It is true that lower fat intake is better for your heart. There's no reason to increase carb intake though. In fact, you're replacing one of the predictors (high cholesterol) for heart disease/stroke with another (obesity).
If people were active and exercised more, it likely wouldn't be the issue it is. But I don't know too many people who exercise often who are fat, and I don't know too many fat people who exercise at all. Hmmmm. I agree with Mick. I don't eat like complete shit, not out of a specific diet, I just don't like it. I eat relatively healthy generally, but I also tend to eat whatever the hell I want, as much as I want, when I want. I also run 15 or more miles per week. I'm sure I'd get fat if I stopped running. Someone mentioned what changed in our country, I think a lot of it has to do with the dynamic of the home, and how we tend to have way more two working parent households nowadays. You have two people working, coming home tired, and it seems that the choices of what to eat get lazier. This is quick to heat up. This is something we can scarf down in front of the TV, etc. Obviously not the only culprit. But it doesn't help.
Certainly there's a real-world reason to replace fat with carbs. If you manufacture processed foods or even just cook from scratch, and fat has a bad rap, what are your other options for making tasty food? Protein, which is expensive and doesn't taste as good. Carbs, which are cheap and tasty and can sit on shelves for months. Aaaaaaaand....that's about it. The problem is the consensus was, "You should cut fat." So we just replaced the fat with carbs. We should have said, "You should cut calories. Keep the ratio of fat/carb/protein the same. If you cut something, cut the carbs." Also, it's not necessarily true that lower fat intake is better for your heart. Certainly hydrogenated fat is bad for the ticker. But other types of fat are perfectly fine. Our bodies evolved around the very idea of eating fat.
I assume this is a typo? Hydrogenated fats are terrible for you. Absolutely terrible. So less hydrogenated fats would be good for the ticker. I eat a lot of cashews, mixed nuts, etc. Unsalted. I find these to be a good snack. My doctor encourages it - says that people hear the word "fat" and they freak out. He says avoid certain fats, avoid certain carbs, etc. But people lump all fats together, all carbs together, etc. It's actually pretty interesting researching balanced diets and what should and shouldn't be in. Truly figuring out a balanced diet is difficult, but when you do, it's somewhat shocking how much you can eat and not gain weight, with minimal exercise. Which is further proof that the unbalanced diets and other crap we eat, IMO, are the big cause for people being fat.
