Well, the idea behind a subsidy would be you’d tax the Doritos and use it to pay the farmers (or somewhere in the disturbition channel) for cheaper grapes at the grocery store. Its economically complicated and often (and possibly not now) a good idea (you need, IMO, overriding urgency to jimmy the free market, and I don’t think our obesity epidemic is there - yet - but it isn’t like I’ve run a federally funded study to decide), but the farmers - in theory - wouldn’t see cheaper prices.
Myself, I’m smoking my way to a fantastic body. 
Science changes, because it builds on the existing knowledge. Nutritional science changes by throwing out previous facts as untrue and replacing it with new “correct” facts. I do not trust the discipline the way I trust Physics or Chemistry. If you learn something new in Physics, you’re not suddenly going to prove that Newton was all wrong. One thing that has been consistent in fitness/nutrition is to watch your caloric intake and exercise regularly, so that’s what I’m sticking with.
Those factors don’t need to be controlled for, those factors are likely part of the problem.
I’d make that a personal question, why am I eating more and exercising less? We all have different lives, if you’re going to apply my smug concept, you have to look at yourself and decide how to make that change in your life. Our lifestyles got us into this, if you don’t change that lifestyle, you’re not going to get out. Too many details, and people will think that following X and Y will get them thin, when they really need to focus on changing themselves and their habits.
BTW, at $6 a pack, liposuction might turn out cheaper than trying to smoke the weight off.
Liposuction is $6 a pack now? How big of a pack?
Nutritional science is in a very early stage of being a science. A bit like paleontology of the Victorian era, they had a good idea of what fossils were, but often reconstructed skeletons with bones in the wrong places. Hense there are often radical changes in understanding within nutritional science that seem to be opposite to previous theories.
Can you list what some of these are?
I think it’s healthy to have some skepticism, of course, but not all of the science is junk. That broccoli is healthier than cheese doodles is something I am prepared to accept.
Of course. But if we, as a society, are gaining weight faster than ever, then we, as a society, are doing something wrong. It would be foolish to believe that we are all, by merest coincidence, being irresponsible. So I ask you again, what went wrong on the national level?
The website http://www.hussmanfitness.com/ (sorry,I think I posted the old addy in my previous post), has an excellent calculation for doing just that. It involves knowing your bodyfat percentage and your lean body mass. I’m not sure which page it’s on, they’ve changed the site around some, but it’s a a fairly easy calculation. It takes into consideration your gender, age and current level of fitness.
Breaking a plateau can often involve ADDING calories. It may be simple to “eat less and exercise more” but to get it to actually WORK to lose fat and keep muscle is anything but simple for many folks.
This isn’t to say that some people can’t just cut a few donuts out of their diets and run a few miles a week and drop weight like crazy without even thinking about it. But like a fellow dieter/exerciser friend of mine says “there are 6 billion people in the world, to state that one way of losing weight will work for every person and every body is just dumb”.
And as I always say, start with the heart (no, not the muscle that moves blood, your soul, psyche etc), and fix what’s causing the need to self-medicate with food first.
I don’t think anyone would dispute its simplicity, what people dispute is that telling an obese person this little morsal of information (as if they don’t know) is at all USEFUL.
Again, if it were merely a matter of the information needing to be shared with those who are are obese, no one would be obese. Therefore, this little saying can be as simple as it wants to be, but it jamming it down people’s throats (along with being as rude as someone attempting to force cake on a determined dieter), does NOT work.
There is more to it than that. Much more.
See, straight away it’s all about the portion size again. Where will it ever end?
Bullshit.
Mantra, mantra, rah rah rah! And everyone else is an idiot.
You achieved the ancient dream of hungry, overworked humanity: Cheap plentiful food without needing to do a lot of manual labour to get it. Why are people eating more and exercising less? Because they can.
It’d be really depressing to think that the only way to get people to eat less and exercise more would be to deprive them of alternatives, though. More depressing than shoving the responsibility off on the pharmaceutical companies and demanding to know why they haven’t fixed the problem yet? You choose.
I don’t think the pharmaceutical companies have the responsibility to “fix the problem.” I’m sure they want to, just as they want to come up with solutions for birth control and erectile dysfunction and hirsutism and hair loss and cancer and heart disease. They want to solve it, and I think they are the best hope we have of solving it.
I like people, but I don’t think people as a whole are capable of controlling their appetites long-term. Some people are better at it than others, of course. But as a group, I don’t think humans have that sort of power over their bodies, to deny hunger.
I’ll buy that.
And since we’re dealing with this problem for the first time in our long history, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that we need new coping strategies.
Eat less and exercise more is not the same as calories in must be less than calories out. For people starting a diet, exercising more will burn more calories and the calories burned when you are “at rest” will remain stable - in practice your body over the length of a diet and/or exercise program, deprived of calories, will slow down and therefore, if you figured you were burning 500 calories on that step workout early in your diet, you may only burn 450 after three months. Plus, as you weigh less, you burn less moving your body around.
Calories in is easy to figure. Calories out is a highly individual thing that changes for the individual as they diet.
However, even the largest person will lose weight over a long time if they are put in a famine situation where the calories in is so miniscule as to not support them. That, however, isn’t going to be good for your body.
Okay dokay smarty pants (pppthhhtbt!). If it’s so “simple” why are 60% of Americans overweight, with 35% of us morbidly obese overweight? As many in this thread have already said, it’s NOT that people don’t know carrots trump twinkies!
The infamous Pop Tart vs. a seemingly “better” choice; not much difference:
Poptart:
Calories 190
Total Fat 3g
Sat Fat 1g
Chol 0
Sodium 201 mg
Carbs 40g
Sugars 21g
Protein 2g
Vit A 10%
Iron 10%
YoCrunch lowfat yogurt w/granola packet
Calories 210
Total Fat 2g
Sat Fat 1g
Chol 5mg
Sodium 75mg
Carbs 41g
Sugars 29g
Vit A 6%
Calcium 15%
Vit C 2%
One of us done been whooshed, but I’m not sure which.
The key is moderation. If you only eat 1 of either for breakfast each day, you’re fine. I not-so-humbly submit that there is really no need to read those nutrition labels. Just don’t pork out on whatever it is, and you’ll be fine. Eating a whole box of pop tarts = not so good for you, and EVERYONE KNOWS IT. no advanced degree required.
I suspect that the extra calories in the yogurt come from the granola. Most of the yogurt I eat isn’t that high in calories.
Also, Pop Tarts don’t seem to have any calcium, nor do they have the “live and active cultures”, or good bacteria, that you find in yogurt. (Enlighten me-what exactly do the “live and active cultures” do for you again?)
Besides creep me out??