A) The tax-money/health care issue is pointless. As long as fatty foods are legal people should be free to indulge regardless of the costs to the health care system.
Or are you going to go after high-risk activities like skiing next?
(It’s funny. noted author F. Paul Wilson as a joke wrote a story (“The Lipid-Legger” or somesuch) back in the late '70s about the same screwball ideas that are being proposed. The reason given by the character was that (paraphrased) “if the government is paying for your health care, the government has a right to keep you in shape”
And your comment to Sua about using a lawsuit to “provoke people to take a look at their health…etc” is even more proof that we have no common ground. Wasting taxpayer’s money to preach your own brand of extremism at people is not something I’m willing to support.
And onto point 2, I’ll repeat for a third time, slowly
I. don’t. mind. TEACHING. the. facts. about. nutrition. (such as they are. Tell me: you gonna teach nutrition in a way that would please the Atkins-ites? Vegans? Breathitarians? How are you going to reconcile these disparate views?)
But regardless, I have a huge problem with the propagandizing and politicizing that you’re talking about. I don’t want my kid to be preached at and browbeaten by someone shreiking about how “take a look at their health”.
And, with all due respect, I find your ideas obscene*. I would strenuously object if you (from the ideas you’re presenting) were my kid’s nutrition teacher.
Fenris
*To be blunt, get yer nose th’ hell out of my dinnerplate. Politically speaking, of course.
Here’s a poor CNN article, which talks about the aformentioned NYT Magazine article.
The gist of the article, which is based on opinions of three medical researchers from Harvard, is that Atkins’ diet is crap. But, he might have been “on to something” in not being as fat-phobic as others. The article goes on to differentiate between good fats and bad fats, and says that the fats suggested by Atkins are bad fats. They give examples of sources for goof fats are fish, olive oil, and nuts. Then,is does something similar with good carbs and bad carbs.
All in all, it really only uses Atkins name, and his bunk theories, as a springboard to raise a little awareness about fats.
Also, to find a study about low-carb diets would completely go against much bigger, more conclusive studies which show that whole grains are vital to a healthy diet.
I sincerely hope that you trust the ADA and the AICR more than Dr. Atkins, who has never published a paper in a medical journal.
I forgot why we’re even talking about the Atkins diets. Why are we?
You were waiting for that for a long time, weren’t you? I was referring to the Plaintiffs in the case. I’m not the one who brought race into the debate, though. That’s all you, bud.
People listen to lawsuits. Lawsuits and movies. That’s why it has magical power. All of the good non-profit organizations, auch as the AICR, American Heart Association, American Medical Association, National Cancer Institute, etc. have very, very low advertising budgets. They have the facts that people should hear, but are hopelessly silenced by all of the huge, ungodly amounts of money that fast food places spend on the “your way right away” “got milk?” “happy meal beanie babies” “run for the border” campaigns. With a lawsuit, though, you can’t really hide behind your advertising. It’s the one time when a company really has to fess up. That’s why I’m so geeked about this lawsuit.
I just can’t wait for a film adaption of Sinclair’s The Jungle to eventually be made. People will react to that, as it’s a movie.
Best,
Nonsense. Just look above and in this thread. Do you see “heightened awareness” with respect to the dangers of McDonald’s coffee? No, you see people who view that lawsuit as trivial and wasteful, regardless of any merit the suit had. This case would be even worse, as the plaintiffs have no case.
Sua, sorry for the long hiatus. I agree with you that The Independent, which is a pretty darn good newspaper, included some fuzzy thinking in that article.
OTOH, I’ve been to supermarkets in the rural parts of Tennessee. While it’s true that you could eat a healthy diet if you were hell-bent on doing so, it’s also true that (at least back in the early 90s), there was no fresh fish, the supply of fresh veg was very limited (with few green veg and lots of starchy veg such as potato), and pork was about 80% of the fresh meat on offer.
I’ll also vouch for dalmuti’s point that in the poorest urban areas there are not many supermarkets.
OTOH, I don’t think the problem is wholly or even largely supply-oriented (in the sense of no healthy options available). Frustratingly the JAMA article doesn’t really provide nuanced demographic information, so I’m just speculating here, but…
I think that people, esp. younger people, are just eating more and eating more of what they shouldn’t be eating: fattening, processed foods, sugary drinks. I think it’s a cultural thing. And I think the culture is reinforced by lots of advertising to kids on fastfoods (and Lunchable-type meals as someone said above), soda, candy, etc. in conjunction with the presence of such things in schools. Like everything else in our world, these foods are brands and kids are turned on by the supposed coolness of consuming them. Doubtless it’s also not hard to learn to love the taste of fried food, potato chips, and endless chug-a-lugs of Coke or Mountain Dew.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: fast food should get out of the schools, basic facts about diet, nutrition and exercise should get in.
Fenris, I continue to hold that what I’m proposing isn’t propaganda; and for the most part I don’t think dalmuti’s ideas are either. No one is talking about “preach[ing] at” “browbeat[ing]” or “shreiking” at your children (when the dear little Fenritos come into being) or anyone else’s. (Where the heck did you go to school, btw? A cross between boot camp, convent and penitentiary?)
As I said several posts ago, there’s no difference between teaching the importance of diet and exercise in Phys Ed class, and teaching the importance of reading in English class.
Sua although there are debates about Atkins and so forth, that doesn’t mean that basic facts can’t be taught. Presumably the US Surgeon General and the AMA, for example, have a set of facts on nutrition that they uphold; that’s what should be taught.
If nothing else, kids can learn about what calories are and that if they eat more than 2,000 of them/day they’re likely to get really big really fast. D’accord?
But dalmuti… well, I hate to be dense, but… umm… if people don’t listen to lawsuits about the evils of smoking, why in the world do you think they’ll listen to lawsuits about the evils of fast food? Without having some justification in there, that last paragraph of yours is, well, tripe.
This is wrong. Think about your objections to this court case. “I should not be responsible for other people’s bad dietary decisions.” Why does it apply for the court case, but not for health care for people who eat like crap and have a heart attack?
You seem to be really blinded, and automatically assume that you’re perspective is the one that is shared by everyone, and isundoubtedly correct. “Wasting” is obviously a matter of opinion. You would rather have cheap fast food than live in a country of healthy, educated people. Fine. We have no common ground.
USDA and FDA’s already done that for us, with the whole “food pyramid” thing. It doesn’t really matter if it caters to everyone, since it had the government’s seal of approval, right? They spent all the money to come up with the supposedly-balanced theory. So, we might has well teach it.
Well, I have a huge problem with your apathy towards other people. I also feel sorry for your theoretical children, and the dietary habits they will develop as a result of your lack of your nutritional knowledge and stubborness.
Just because you don’t want to open your eyes and face the facts, don’t try to dissuade others from doing it.
-TGD
dalmuti, in this case I don’t think the lawsuit is creating the right kind of publicity. For the simple reason that the premise of the lawsuit makes the individuals in question seem too much like victims.
“The results suggest that a short-term ketogenic diet does not have a deleterious effect on CVD risk profile and may improve the lipid disorders characteristic of atherogenic dyslipidemia. “ The American Journal of Medicine
“CONCLUSION: In this study of healthy, overweight individuals, a very-low-carbohydrate diet with nutritional supplementation led to weight loss of 0.6 kg per week. This dietary approach was efficacious for weight loss while significantly improving total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL and total cholesterol/HDL ratio.”
I’ve got lots more if you want them too.
BTW, I’m not advocating any particular diet at the moment. I just think it is a bit foolish to be hostile to an idea if you do not have all the information.
Finch, apples and oranges. Hot coffee is so, so unimportant when we’re talking about the nutritional education of children.
G8rguy, it’s mot about “listening” to the lawsuit. It’s more hearing about the lawsuit, putting yourself in the other person’s shoes, and taking a good look at your own life. Or your children’s.
Mandelstam, I agree. It’s not the best publicity one oculd hope for, but it is publicity nonetheless. Though the plaintiffs do come across as victims, conversation will almost undoubtedly go in the direction of fast food’s effects on children, who are the real victims, in my opinion.
Also, what other ways are there to stir up publicity? There are countless NGOs and activists out there doing trying to do so, unsucessfully. The e. coli cases get covered in the news, but we never hear (on prine time news) about the other perverse things fast food companies do. It all gets drown out by all the advertisments.
We’re talking about the damn lawsuit here! If you’ll recall, you’re the one who brought up the idea that this lawsuit will somehow enlighten the ignorant masses about the horrors of fast food. I disagree, for history tells us otherwise: people don’t listen to lawsuits, and even if they do, all they will “hear” from this one that you are so stoked about is that a) the plaintiffs are dodging responsibility for their own health and trying to make a quick buck by doing so, b) our justice system is being tied up by frivolous lawsuits by people doing just that.
So, let me ask you something: who is responsible for what you eat?
slaps forehead in frustration That’s not the point at all, dalmuti! Your claim is that
The implication here is that lawsuits have some effect on the way that people behave. But manifestly this is not so! Whether the coffee suit was important or not, it was a lawsuit, and no one listened to it. The tobacco lawsuits were certainly important, and if Sua is accurate, no one listened to them. Using lawsuits to promote a political agenda is irresponsible and it doesn’t even work.
I don’t presume to speak for Fenris, but…
In my case, at least, it applies to both. I am not responsible for your dietary choices; you are not responsible for mine. Period, end of story, and as Fenris said, keep your nose off my dinner plate.
In general, I have to point out that you would be far far better served by putting on your logic cap before posting. You feel strongly about these issues and no doubt offer a valuable perspective, but non-sequiters, even a lot of non-sequiters, do not an argument make. Also, when other people disagree with you, it’s not due to a moral failing, it’s not due to a lack of education, it’s not due to irresponsibility, and it’s not due to idiocy. I would humbly suggest that you consider not automatically imputing disagreement with your positions to any of the above.
Keyword in the conclusion “short-term ketogenic diet.” Also, the experiment was carried out on “Normal-Weight Men” and makes no mention about other problems the subjects might have encountered with indigestion, constipation, hemorrhoids, etc. It doesn’t talk about whether or not the subjects gained weight. It doesn’t say if they were eating burgers and fries with butter (bad fats) or organic olive oil-fried falafil with tahini (good fats).
And of course, this one study in no way negates or weakens the other studies done by more reputable associations and schools.
**
These two links are for two different reports on the same study. Of course the study’s comclusion is going to say "Further controlled research is warranted.”
The reason is obvious, when you look at the bottom of the page and see that it says "This study was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Atkins Center for Complementary Medicine, New York, New York."
I’m sure we can also find studies funded by Phillip Morris that conclued smoking is actually benefitial to your health, as well.
Point me in the direction of an impartial study by an reputable institution, about using a keogenic diet as a healthy, long term, weight loss regime.
Okay, now this is a pet peeve of mine. It is wholly inadequate to dismiss a study solely on the basis of where the funding came from. I see this a lot even on these boards where people ought to know better. People somehow conclude “oh, but bad evil people with a bias gave money to these scientists to do their research, so obviously the science is garbage.” Bullshit. The default presumption should be that the science is right and those who wish to discount it should have to show how it’s wrong, not vice versa, especially when the science has been written up in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.
All scientists get money from somewhere. It’s how we make a living and it’s how we are able to do our research. Not all scientists are intellectually dishonest; the vast majority are anything but. To suppose that study X is wrong because it was funded by a group you oppose while study Y is not because it wasn’t is, well, kind of foolish.
Because they’re free to “eat like crap and have a heart attack”. What part of “freedom” confuses you?
See, a consequence of free speech is that you risk people saying things you don’t like. A consequence of other types of freedom are that OTHERS do things you, personally, don’t like, even if it costs the government money.
I don’t enjoy paying money for police to protect a Nazi rally, but I’d lobby for the police to continue to do so 'cause by protecting their free speech I’m protecting mine.
You didn’t anwer my point about whether other high-risk activities like skiing should be banned as they up the costs of heath care too. I wonder why?
And if I try to take your silly either-or argument seriously (we can EITHER have freedom to eat what we want OR we can have the Food Gestapo poking around making certain you stay in shape lest you use more than your fair share of heath care.) I don’t believe the choices you’re setting ub, but IF I accept it, really, since I have pretty strong libertarian leanings (tho’ I’m not a member of the party), I’m just fine with getting rid of much of what government supported health care we DO have…IF it’s a choice between freedom OR health care.
**
**
Bzzzzzt
Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. Try again.
**
**
But wait. Weren’t you complaining back on page two about how the Mysterious Meat Council had somehow manipulated the whole process via orbital mind-control lasers? Why should we teach it simply because money was spent? Especially if it advances the agenda of The Malevolent Meat Mob?
You’re playing right into their hands!
**
Bzzzzt
Ad hominim. Try again.
I’m not apathetic. I love and respect my fellow man enough to NOT assume that he’s a moron. You, on the other hand seem to feel that only your enlightened vision will lead the poor ignorant sheep of humanity to a new light.
**
**
Hey, pal, you’re the one who’ll theoretically go on a rampage as a result of your do-gooderness being frustrated at every turn by freedom loving individuals.
I weep openly for your theoretical grandmother who you will one day murder. You’ll (theoretically) bludgeon her to death with a frozen TV dinner so you can steal the gold fillings from her teeth to fund yet another patented Dalmuti[sup]tm[/sup] Public Service Message! I assume you’ll kill your hypothetical cousin for her fillings too at the same time! And what you did to your theoretical kitten! How will you live with yourself if you theoretically stomp on it’s head like that! You monster!
But most of all, I feel sorry for your hypothetical daughter when you (theoretically) drive her to a crack-house WITHOUT putting her in a car seat (theoretcially, you’ll say “Child restraints are for saps!”), then leaves her in the car in 110[sup]o[/sup] weather for hours while you go (theoretically) on a coke-and-liquor binge! And then, when you find out she survives, you shake HER to death as a result of one of your patented (theoretical) alcoholic rages! And you have the nerve to talk to ME about how I treat MY theoretical children?
Y’know, making up horrors that the other might someday commit then griping about them and all, but I’m not sure it’s advancing your point. Want to try again?
