Author Topic: A solution to western nations health problems  (Read 3890 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sparnage

A solution to western nations health problems
« on: March 16, 2007, 06:37:22 AM »
Obviously not a solution to all of them, but I don't exaggerate on many. The best part is it's so simple, all you need is the right information. Non westerners here can likely learn from it also.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?ex=1174190400&en=e077e9d8d28214b0&ei=5070

A lot of it surprised me to the point of being a little disturbed.

I don't expect many people to get through it all but if you have any weight, diet or health problems in general, this is for you.

Offline Aazealh

  • 髑髏の騎士
  • Administrator
  • Of Terror
  • *****
  • Posts: 18676
  • Karma: 694
  • Gender: Male
  • そうはいかぬ
Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2007, 04:30:41 PM »
Quote
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

Well thanks for that totally unobvious piece of advice. Eating a majority of various vegetables and fruits is good for health, unlike eating only roasted meat, french fries (with loads of sauce!) and candy bars? Fresh food is better than processed one? Mineral water better than soda? What a groundbreaking essay.

Anyway, could you please quote and highlight the relevant and amazing parts? I'm sorry but I don't feel like reading 10 pages of stuff I've known since elementary school to find them.

Offline Ramen4ever

Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2007, 09:03:24 PM »
I skimmed over it.
My thoughts on the essay:It was sorta like when one of your friends sees a movie that came out FIVE years ago and cant stop talking about it. Thinking you haven't seen it yet, they begin to share their ideas without being asked to. The best part is when you've even seen the sequel that they are unaware of.
Congratulations, Welcome to the present.

I found the part about the “French paradox” amusing. and the part about "Eat more like the French"
Something we should know about Aaz? :carcus:

P.S. The essay could of been at best below average, 3-5 years ago.

Offline Aazealh

  • 髑髏の騎士
  • Administrator
  • Of Terror
  • *****
  • Posts: 18676
  • Karma: 694
  • Gender: Male
  • そうはいかぬ
Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2007, 09:28:29 PM »
I found the part about the “French paradox” amusing. and the part about "Eat more like the French"
Something we should know about Aaz? :carcus:

Well the French paradox is not so true anymore. People are fattening here like everywhere else, just slowlier. Of course there's a huge movement to prevent it, everybody takes it very seriously. Soon every candy and such will have a message on it telling people that they should eat fruits and vegetables to stay in good health, etc. Same for commercials. It's like the "SMOKING KILLS" messages on cigs.

I can't say I really feel concerned by all of this, but you know, in the USA the food industry isn't helping. They have genetically modified food all over the place, the cattle eats the worst shit ever and lives in ridiculous conditions, etc. Add to that the sodas, which play a huge role in making people obese, then candy. And the fact fruits and vegetables are quite expensive compared to cheap, unhealthy food. I remember going to the UK through some obligatory penpal school program, and I swear these guys were drinking more Coke than I've ever seen. One can after another, no downtime. And fast, too. And they were fat. When you drink 2 litres of soda a day, don't expect to be healthy. Even if it's a light version with less sugar and fat.

Of course this is all obvious, so I hope that's not what guy's saying in his essay (a relatively pretentious appellation here).

Offline Ramen4ever

Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2007, 01:54:08 AM »
I couldn't find any mention of Genetically modified foods in the essay. I'm Glad you mentioned it. I don't touch the stuff myself, I mean, I heard what the farmers said on discovery channel (not my primary source of info don't worry.) "The worms and bugs wont touch the stuff." - they know better.
Heck if you put out GM seeds the birds will just leave them, they rather starve.

***Only read from here down if your interested in health.***

On a side note the guy didn't mention alkaline and acidic foods. They have a very big influence on a persons health. He did not mention anything about the 2-3 L of water a person has to consume to keep their body hydrated and prevent their kidneys and liver from overworking. He also did not go into detail about why people can get colon cancer. People are full of shit.. Literally. If there full of shit, their also full of parasites. He didn't even mention that over 2.3 billion people have hookworms or tapeworms and other parasites.
*** only go to this site if you have a strong stomach. It may be disturbing. Once their feel free to look around the picture gallery. http://www.drnatura.com/  I'm not saying buy their product, but it is true fiber, unshelled brown rice, and a lot of other foods clean that stuff out. Unfortunately that doesn't eliminate the problem. How did you get them in the first place?
Back to the essay, There is no mentioning about geopathic stress.
OK I'm done for now.
Final note: Eating more veges and fruits, less sugar, less bad fats (there are good fats- olive oil,grapeseed oil) is a start, nothing more. The essay is written on rather old material, and doesn't cover even quarter of the issues that people should be aware of.

Offline Ben

Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2007, 04:20:17 AM »
Aaz, I would simply say to you, don't forget about Beer.  Myself, I was 6'4 and 220, in great shape in high school.  But, I was playing football and running track as well.  The second I got to college, the beer starting adding pounds, even though the amount I drank was exactly the same.  Surely, some of you are familiar with the "freshman 15", and I suppose it's not coincidental that I am now 237 lbs and forced to switch to Lite Beer (I've always eaten healthy, no soda or junk food, just beer).  I'd say our vigorous consumption of alcohol is a relatively big part as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I spent a summer abroad in Paris, and Parisians seem to drink much healthier alcohol, first off, and binge drinking was not as prevalent.  I mean, you would have a glass of wine, but the majority of college students I met weren't wasted 90% of the time.  The next summer in Ireland, on the other hand...

Offline Sparnage

Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2007, 06:40:40 AM »
Well thanks for that totally unobvious piece of advice. Eating a majority of various vegetables and fruits is good for health, unlike eating only roasted meat, french fries (with loads of sauce!) and candy bars? Fresh food is better than processed one? Mineral water better than soda? What a groundbreaking essay.

Anyway, could you please quote and highlight the relevant and amazing parts? I'm sorry but I don't feel like reading 10 pages of stuff I've known since elementary school to find them.

If it was so obvious there wouldn't be so many health issues.
We have been told low fat foods and other processed garbage, are good for us because of the nutrients in the product and such.

I find these sorts of topics based around health and diet interesting and I came across things I didn't know. I'll quote some points I found interesting if you can't be bothered reading it all, but it probably won't be as good.

BTW I'm sure many people don't care to read it and that's fine. But if I need to say it, anyone who isn't interested in reading, don't bother. I don't care if you find it boring or not. I find Anna Nicole Smith Boring but you don't hear me complaining. :puck:

Quote
It was in the 1980s that food began disappearing from the American supermarket, gradually to be replaced by “nutrients,” which are not the same thing. Where once the familiar names of recognizable comestibles — things like eggs or breakfast cereal or cookies — claimed pride of place on the brightly colored packages crowding the aisles, now new terms like “fiber” and “cholesterol” and “saturated fat” rose to large-type prominence. More important than mere foods, the presence or absence of these invisible substances was now generally believed to confer health benefits on their eaters. Foods by comparison were coarse, old-fashioned and decidedly unscientific things — who could say what was in them, really? But nutrients — those chemical compounds and minerals in foods that nutritionists have deemed important to health — gleamed with the promise of scientific certainty; eat more of the right ones, fewer of the wrong, and you would live longer and avoid chronic diseases.

At the end of the 19th century, British doctors were puzzled by the fact that Chinese laborers in the Malay states were dying of a disease called beriberi, which didn’t seem to afflict Tamils or native Malays. The mystery was solved when someone pointed out that the Chinese ate “polished,” or white, rice, while the others ate rice that hadn’t been mechanically milled. A few years later, Casimir Funk, a Polish chemist, discovered the “essential nutrient” in rice husks that protected against beriberi and called it a “vitamine,” the first micronutrient. Vitamins brought a kind of glamour to the science of nutrition, and though certain sectors of the population began to eat by its expert lights, it really wasn’t until late in the 20th century that nutrients managed to push food aside in the popular imagination of what it means to eat.

No single event marked the shift from eating food to eating nutrients, though in retrospect a little-noticed political dust-up in Washington in 1977 seems to have helped propel American food culture down this dimly lighted path. Responding to an alarming increase in chronic diseases linked to diet — including heart disease, cancer and diabetes — a Senate Select Committee on Nutrition, headed by George McGovern, held hearings on the problem and prepared what by all rights should have been an uncontroversial document called “Dietary Goals for the United States.” The committee learned that while rates of coronary heart disease had soared in America since World War II, other cultures that consumed traditional diets based largely on plants had strikingly low rates of chronic disease. Epidemiologists also had observed that in America during the war years, when meat and dairy products were strictly rationed, the rate of heart disease temporarily plummeted.

Naïvely putting two and two together, the committee drafted a straightforward set of dietary guidelines calling on Americans to cut down on red meat and dairy products. Within weeks a firestorm, emanating from the red-meat and dairy industries, engulfed the committee, and Senator McGovern (who had a great many cattle ranchers among his South Dakota constituents) was forced to beat a retreat. The committee’s recommendations were hastily rewritten. Plain talk about food — the committee had advised Americans to actually “reduce consumption of meat” — was replaced by artful compromise: “Choose meats, poultry and fish that will reduce saturated-fat intake.”

A subtle change in emphasis, you might say, but a world of difference just the same. First, the stark message to “eat less” of a particular food has been deep-sixed; don’t look for it ever again in any official U.S. dietary pronouncement. Second, notice how distinctions between entities as different as fish and beef and chicken have collapsed; those three venerable foods, each representing an entirely different taxonomic class, are now lumped together as delivery systems for a single nutrient. Notice too how the new language exonerates the foods themselves; now the culprit is an obscure, invisible, tasteless — and politically unconnected — substance that may or may not lurk in them called “saturated fat.”

Most nutritional science involves studying one nutrient at a time, an approach that even nutritionists who do it will tell you is deeply flawed. “The problem with nutrient-by-nutrient nutrition science,” points out Marion Nestle, the New York University nutritionist, “is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of food, the food out of the context of diet and the diet out of the context of lifestyle.”
 
If nutritional scientists know this, why do they do it anyway? Because a nutrient bias is built into the way science is done: scientists need individual variables they can isolate. Yet even the simplest food is a hopelessly complex thing to study, a virtual wilderness of chemical compounds, many of which exist in complex and dynamic relation to one another, and all of which together are in the process of changing from one state to another. So if you’re a nutritional scientist, you do the only thing you can do, given the tools at your disposal: break the thing down into its component parts and study those one by one, even if that means ignoring complex interactions and contexts, as well as the fact that the whole may be more than, or just different from, the sum of its parts. This is what we mean by reductionist science.
 
Also, people don’t eat nutrients, they eat foods, and foods can behave very differently than the nutrients they contain. Researchers have long believed, based on epidemiological comparisons of different populations, that a diet high in fruits and vegetables confers some protection against cancer. So naturally they ask, What nutrients in those plant foods are responsible for that effect? One hypothesis is that the antioxidants in fresh produce — compounds like beta carotene, lycopene, vitamin E, etc. — are the X factor. It makes good sense: these molecules (which plants produce to protect themselves from the highly reactive oxygen atoms produced in photosynthesis) vanquish the free radicals in our bodies, which can damage DNA and initiate cancers. At least that’s how it seems to work in the test tube. Yet as soon as you remove these useful molecules from the context of the whole foods they’re found in, as we’ve done in creating antioxidant supplements, they don’t work at all. Indeed, in the case of beta carotene ingested as a supplement, scientists have discovered that it actually increases the risk of certain cancers. Big oops.
 
Indeed, to look at the chemical composition of any common food plant is to realize just how much complexity lurks within it. Here’s a list of just the antioxidants that have been identified in garden-variety thyme:
4-Terpineol, alanine, anethole, apigenin, ascorbic acid, beta carotene, caffeic acid, camphene, carvacrol, chlorogenic acid, chrysoeriol, eriodictyol, eugenol, ferulic acid, gallic acid, gamma-terpinene isochlorogenic acid, isoeugenol, isothymonin, kaempferol, labiatic acid, lauric acid, linalyl acetate, luteolin, methionine, myrcene, myristic acid, naringenin, oleanolic acid, p-coumoric acid, p-hydroxy-benzoic acid, palmitic acid, rosmarinic acid, selenium, tannin, thymol, tryptophan, ursolic acid, vanillic acid.
 
It might be useful, in the midst of our deepening confusion about nutrition, to review what we do know about diet and health. What we know is that people who eat the way we do in America today suffer much higher rates of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity than people eating more traditional diets. (Four of the 10 leading killers in America are linked to diet.) Further, we know that simply by moving to America, people from nations with low rates of these “diseases of affluence” will quickly acquire them. Nutritionism by and large takes the Western diet as a given, seeking to moderate its most deleterious effects by isolating the bad nutrients in it — things like fat, sugar, salt — and encouraging the public and the food industry to limit them. But after several decades of nutrient-based health advice, rates of cancer and heart disease in the U.S. have declined only slightly (mortality from heart disease is down since the ’50s, but this is mainly because of improved treatment), and rates of obesity and diabetes have soared.
No one likes to admit that his or her best efforts at understanding and solving a problem have actually made the problem worse, but that’s exactly what has happened in the case of nutritionism. Scientists operating with the best of intentions, using the best tools at their disposal, have taught us to look at food in a way that has diminished our pleasure in eating it while doing little or nothing to improve our health
 
Health depends on knowing how to read these biological signals: this smells spoiled; this looks ripe; that’s one good-looking cow. This is easier to do when a creature has long experience of a food, and much harder when a food has been designed expressly to deceive its senses — with artificial flavors, say, or synthetic sweeteners.
 
Simplification has occurred at the level of species diversity, too. The astounding variety of foods on offer in the modern supermarket obscures the fact that the actual number of species in the modern diet is shrinking. For reasons of economics, the food industry prefers to tease its myriad processed offerings from a tiny group of plant species, corn and soybeans chief among them. Today, a mere four crops account for two-thirds of the calories humans eat. When you consider that humankind has historically consumed some 80,000 edible species, and that 3,000 of these have been in widespread use, this represents a radical simplification of the food web. Why should this matter? Because humans are omnivores, requiring somewhere between 50 and 100 different chemical compounds and elements to be healthy. It’s hard to believe that we can get everything we need from a diet consisting largely of processed corn, soybeans, wheat and rice.
 
The sheer novelty and glamour of the Western diet, with its 17,000 new food products introduced every year, and the marketing muscle used to sell these products, has overwhelmed the force of tradition and left us where we now find ourselves: relying on science and journalism and marketing to help us decide questions about what to eat. Nutritionism, which arose to help us better deal with the problems of the Western diet, has largely been co-opted by it, used by the industry to sell more food and to undermine the authority of traditional ways of eating. You would not have read this far into this article if your food culture were intact and healthy; you would simply eat the way your parents and grandparents and great-grandparents taught you to eat. The question is, Are we better off with these new authorities than we were with the traditional authorities they supplanted? The answer by now should be clear.
 
It might be argued that, at this point in history, we should simply accept that fast food is our food culture. Over time, people will get used to eating this way and our health will improve. But for natural selection to help populations adapt to the Western diet, we’d have to be prepared to let those whom it sickens die. That’s not what we’re doing. Rather, we’re turning to the health-care industry to help us “adapt.” Medicine is learning how to keep alive the people whom the Western diet is making sick. It’s gotten good at extending the lives of people with heart disease, and now it’s working on obesity and diabetes. Capitalism is itself marvelously adaptive, able to turn the problems it creates into lucrative business opportunities: diet pills, heart-bypass operations, insulin pumps, bariatric surgery. But while fast food may be good business for the health-care industry, surely the cost to society — estimated at more than $200 billion a year in diet-related health-care costs — is unsustainable.


Congratulations, Welcome to the present.

Yeah no shit, why do you think I put this up. Nice to know everyone knows this, but I guess people like having various rangers of health problems that have popped up in the last several decades. I honestly have no idea to how you'd argue otherwise. Most people aren't intentionally hurting themselves in what they choose to eat or do (aside addictive products I suppose).
« Last Edit: March 17, 2007, 06:48:38 AM by Sparnage »

Offline Aazealh

  • 髑髏の騎士
  • Administrator
  • Of Terror
  • *****
  • Posts: 18676
  • Karma: 694
  • Gender: Male
  • そうはいかぬ
Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2007, 10:51:11 AM »
I couldn't find any mention of Genetically modified foods in the essay. I'm Glad you mentioned it. I don't touch the stuff myself, I mean, I heard what the farmers said on discovery channel (not my primary source of info don't worry.) "The worms and bugs wont touch the stuff." - they know better.
Heck if you put out GM seeds the birds will just leave them, they rather starve.

Hahaha wait a second here, we modify them purposedly so that birds and worms don't touch them (as well as diseases), that doesn't mean they're toxic. I mean that's one of the primary goals... However, studies tend to show there's a good chance of them bringing about problems. Tests on rats have highlighted kidney problems and other similar problems. It's really a pity that big conglomerates are pushing them on farmers everywhere. That's the kind of stuff that make you go "what a world we live in..."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I spent a summer abroad in Paris, and Parisians seem to drink much healthier alcohol, first off, and binge drinking was not as prevalent.  I mean, you would have a glass of wine, but the majority of college students I met weren't wasted 90% of the time.  The next summer in Ireland, on the other hand...

Well, I guess consuming wine over cheap beer (no offense but US beer in general...) may not be as bad for health. I can't really tell, honestly, because it's not like there's no alcohol problem over here, like in most places. One thing I wonder is whether light beer is better for health than regular one. Logically, light beer should only have less alcohol in it, not less fats or sugar? Or am I mistaken? It really depends on what companies mean by "light." Also, drinking light beer vs standard one might encourage people to drink more of it. It's something I've noticed myself. 3 beers each evening? Seems to be a lot to me as far as "health" goes, even if it's light.

As for Ireland, there's an alcohol problem in the UK in general. People drink far too much there, and it's not healthy, festive drinking either. Kids drink their alcopops (illegal here) at 14 and students spend their evening in bars drinking strong alcohols because it's cheaper than doing anything else.

If it was so obvious there wouldn't be so many health issues.
We have been told low fat foods and other processed garbage, are good for us because of the nutrients in the product and such.

There are health problems in spite of people knowing because people are lazy, poor, and don't care about health if that means not eating their favorite food (burgers, hotdogs, burritos, etc) everyday at every meal. And maybe you were told ready-to-eat microwaved food was good, but I sure wasn't. Again, seems to be a matter of common sense to me. Yet I do eat frozen burgers at home. I don't buy meat at the butcher's shop that's a 2 minutes walk away from my house.

Most people aren't intentionally hurting themselves in what they choose to eat or do (aside addictive products I suppose).

Well actually I think they passively do. Seriously, do people somewhere think candy bars, soda and fast food make for a healthy meal? They just don't care enough to eat better, or are too poor to afford it. At least that's how I see things.

Anyway, that part you quoted strikes me as simplifying things a little. You can't complain that people don't eat food as diversified as 300 years go when you know how the food industry works today. Things aren't that easy, you have to be realist. People don't starve anymore when there's a bad crop nowadays even though the population grows more and more everywhere, and that's for a reason.

Also, food isn't the only variable for diseases. There's pollution, stress (related to the lifestyle), and a variety of other factors. In any case, don't be so defensive about that article, the discussion is interesting, let's pursue it.

Offline Vampire_Hunter_Bob

  • SK.net Sergeant at Arms
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 4300
  • Karma: 10
  • Gender: Male
Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2007, 11:26:18 AM »
Well actually I think they passively do. Seriously, do people somewhere think candy bars, soda and fast food make for a healthy meal? They just don't care enough to eat better, or are too poor to afford it. At least that's how I see things.

I know a whole lot better. I dropped 20 pounds in a month and an additional 10 the following month from cutting out all soda and candy [i would also eat a big breakfest but ate salads for lunch and dinner]. I actually managed to keep my weight down untill I joined the army. Mostly because the fucking cooks at my dinning hall are always closed on the weekends and there's no way for me to prepare food in my room. So I have to go about ordering pizza and other fast food crap.

I don't even want to know what they put in the water up here in New York because it tastes like i'm drinking steel, but magicly I filter it out with a britta and it tastes fresh. Go figure  :puck:

Offline Kalie Ma

Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2007, 02:12:39 PM »
I know a whole lot better. I dropped 20 pounds in a month and an additional 10 the following month from cutting out all soda and candy [i would also eat a big breakfest but ate salads for lunch and dinner].
Hmm but cutting back on sodas would be taking away the only thing I have to live for these days!

This report doesn't seem too revolutionary. Eat good, organic, natural foods. Seems like common sense to me. It's not like people 1000 years ago were walking around obese hunting and gathering.

On a side note, how long were Native Americans allegedly in North America prior to them being "discovered" by Spanish settlers?

PS: cool forum.

Offline Vampire_Hunter_Bob

  • SK.net Sergeant at Arms
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 4300
  • Karma: 10
  • Gender: Male
Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2007, 03:43:09 PM »
On a side note, how long were Native Americans allegedly in North America prior to them being "discovered" by Spanish settlers?

Off topic not side note.

Also I'd cut out on soda honestly. I don't like any drinks you get withdraws from. [I actually went through withdraws from not drinking soda, but when I quite smoking i don't???]

Offline Ben

Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2007, 06:49:03 PM »
Aaz, Light Beer is actually a misleading term.  Some just have reduced alcohol amounts, some have reduced calories, and some have both.  You just have to read the labels.  Typically, they have about 1/3 less calories, or at least the ones that I drink do.

Offline pippin22

  • Secretary of Misinformation
  • Of the Interstice
  • **
  • Posts: 185
  • Karma: 1
  • Gender: Male
Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2007, 09:13:37 PM »
I hate soda.  Milk is the best, everyone should drink more milk.

Offline Tzur

Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2007, 03:52:45 AM »
I live on soda and alot of processed food and I've maintained a steady weight for nearly a year now. Aside from walking and the little bit of lifting I do at work, I can't really say I get much exercise.

I hate milk, BTW. I don't think I've had a glass of milk in about 12 years.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2007, 04:19:37 AM by SpectralSorrows »

Offline Sparnage

Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2007, 08:37:03 AM »
There are health problems in spite of people knowing because people are lazy, poor, and don't care about health if that means not eating their favorite food (burgers, hotdogs, burritos, etc) everyday at every meal. And maybe you were told ready-to-eat microwaved food was good, but I sure wasn't. Again, seems to be a matter of common sense to me. Yet I do eat frozen burgers at home. I don't buy meat at the butcher's shop that's a 2 minutes walk away from my house.

There are certainly the obvious crap we know not to eat much of. A lot of what he is talking about is related to foods we do trust. White bread advertising it's added omega 3 and extra vitamines expecting to nourish our bodies in an unnatural manner. Meats (and other products advertising the low fat in comparison to similar products) lacking in fat and therefore still acceptable.

Kellogg's breakfast bars I think were even mentioned as dodge along with something I hadn't heard of called Go-gurt, which appears to be this fun version of yogurt or something. These products claim to be beneficial to peoples health and advertise their nutritional information because it sounds good despite still being just processed garbage.

Unfortunately not many of the less obvious things to watch out for were stated.

Quote
Well actually I think they passively do. Seriously, do people somewhere think candy bars, soda and fast food make for a healthy meal? They just don't care enough to eat better, or are too poor to afford it. At least that's how I see things.

I don't know. I always presumed regular eaters of these things simply don't care enough to make an effort.

Quote
Anyway, that part you quoted strikes me as simplifying things a little. You can't complain that people don't eat food as diversified as 300 years go when you know how the food industry works today. Things aren't that easy, you have to be realist. People don't starve anymore when there's a bad crop nowadays even though the population grows more and more everywhere, and that's for a reason.

No doubt, and in either case I don't want to come across as sanctimonious on the matter. I still eat junk food and chocolate and such, but now that I'm getting older I'm trying to make more of an effort with what and how much I indulge on for a better quality of life.


Quote
Also, food isn't the only variable for diseases. There's pollution, stress (related to the lifestyle), and a variety of other factors.

Yeah, along with people's lack of physical activity these days causing health problems. I might be mistaken, but what we eat is meant to be the biggest factor in a humans well being.


I know a whole lot better. I dropped 20 pounds in a month and an additional 10 the following month from cutting out all soda and candy [i would also eat a big breakfest but ate salads for lunch and dinner]. I actually managed to keep my weight down until I joined the army. Mostly because the fucking cooks at my dinning hall are always closed on the weekends and there's no way for me to prepare food in my room. So I have to go about ordering pizza and other fast food crap.


Do you find that you don't have to watch your diet as much when you're training all the time, or is it always a factor? In any case I've found when I eat crap while I'm training it doesn't feel half as good, like I'm a little groggy and maybe a even a little sick.


I live on soda and alot of processed food and I've maintained a steady weight for nearly a year now. Aside from walking and the little bit of lifting I do at work, I can't really say I get much exercise.
 

That's like me, I never had to worry about my weight. Rest assured even if your metabolism wasn't guaranteed to slow down, you don't need to be obese to end up with health issues.

Offline Aazealh

  • 髑髏の騎士
  • Administrator
  • Of Terror
  • *****
  • Posts: 18676
  • Karma: 694
  • Gender: Male
  • そうはいかぬ
Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2007, 09:35:49 AM »
Kellogg's breakfast bars I think were even mentioned as dodge along with something I hadn't heard of called Go-gurt, which appears to be this fun version of yogurt or something. These products claim to be beneficial to peoples health and advertise their nutritional information because it sounds good despite still being just processed garbage.

Well, they do have some nutritional value, they're just not enough to keep someone in good health. If I'm not mistaken over here they always specify that you need to eat their stuff along with vegetables and fruits and whatnot to keep a balanced diet. They're never like "you can eat my magic bars at every meal and be healthy."

I don't know. I always presumed regular eaters of these things simply don't care enough to make an effort.

Isn't that exactly what I said? :SK:

That's like me, I never had to worry about my weight. Rest assured even if your metabolism wasn't guaranteed to slow down, you don't need to be obese to end up with health issues.

That's very true. It's funny that some people think as long as they don't gain weight they're fine with eating anything. You can be slim yet have your heart clogged with shit.

Offline Vampire_Hunter_Bob

  • SK.net Sergeant at Arms
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 4300
  • Karma: 10
  • Gender: Male
Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2007, 11:38:42 AM »
Do you find that you don't have to watch your diet as much when you're training all the time, or is it always a factor? In any case I've found when I eat crap while I'm training it doesn't feel half as good, like I'm a little groggy and maybe a even a little sick.

I burned what I ate during the day from PT in the morning and going to the gym at night. The minute I stopped training from my back injury and it's been really obvious as to how fattening the food the army serves is because I started putting on weight. Well I didn't feel like crap when I ate crap, but when I had a hard training session [6 mile run] I'd have a loss of apetit.

Offline Master of the Obvious

  • Of the World
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Karma: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • Not a llama or your momma!
Re: A solution to western nations health problems
« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2007, 06:13:22 PM »
Stating the obvious is the theme of the month though here.  I guess just more proof that the attention span and memory of your average person is embarassingly short.  This week the following items made the front page of the nytimes.com and Cnn.com:

There may be a link between drinking lots of sugary soft drinks and diabetes.

Chinese restaurant food and take out is high in Sodium.

Anna Nicole Smith Died of a drug overdose.

Professional Wrestlers have been taking steroids.

I have to assume that these statements of the obvious have to be pointed at an oblivious mass, otherwise how can they justify wasting the print space.  Anyhow, yeah, don't drink anit-freeze either, it's not good for you.